Your email is not valid
Recipient's email is not valid
Submit Close

Your email has been sent.

Click here to send another

Vanishing Act

A new Holocaust history focuses on the life—and death—of the Polish shtetl

Print Email
A Jewish family poses in front of their grains stall in the Drohobycz marketplace c. 1921 (United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, courtesy of Paul (Leopold) Lustig)

In the opening pages of his masterful new study, The Death of the Shtetl, the Israeli historian Yehuda Bauer has harsh things to say about the way American Jews remember their ancestors. “In the nineteen-forties and after World War II,” Bauer writes, “unrealistic, saccharine nostalgia took over remembrance of the shtetl, as manifested in the well-known musical Fiddler on the Roof…. In this sickeningly sweet, made-up world of Eastern Jewry, all Jews were deeply religious, naïve, and clever, and the shtetl was a place where goodness and ethical uprightness ruled despite the difficult conditions.” The American Jew might respond, in his defense, that this sort of romanticizing of the Old Country is common to all American immigrant groups—the Irish tend to remember Ireland and the Italians Italy in much the same condescendingly idealized way as the Jews remember Eastern Europe. We might add that, unlike other immigrant groups, American Jews can have no living link with their ancestors’ world; there are no old homes to visit or distant cousins to meet (or if there are, they are in Israel or the United States by now). Finally, the way in which the old Jewish world was destroyed, in the Holocaust, means that there is a powerful temptation to seek refuge in affectionate legends or pious martyrology—anything rather than face the hard truth that the Jews of Eastern Europe were ordinary people, who lived difficult lives until they died unimaginable deaths.

But the truth is the historian’s business, and a historian of the Holocaust, like Bauer, is used to imagining the unimaginable. “Real events that happened in real time can, with a great deal of effort, be reconstructed,” Bauer writes in his preface. “The events happened to real people, whose stories must be heard and analyzed.” That is Bauer’s goal in this short book, which keeps a narrow focus on one under-researched aspect of the Holocaust: the experience of the shtetls of eastern Poland between 1939, when they were occupied by the Soviet Union, and 1944, when the Red Army returned to find the shtetls completely destroyed. It may sound odd of Bauer to claim that not enough is known about this subject, since there seems to be no end to the writing of books about the Holocaust. But the question that interests him, he makes clear, is not the motives and actions of the Germans, or the mechanics of the Holocaust. “We know that the Jews were murdered—for that we do not need more research,” he writes. What we do need to learn, rather, is “how the Jews lived before they were murdered, [and] what were their reactions in the face of the sudden, unexpected, and, for them, inexplicable assault on their lives by a power whose policies they did not and could not understand.”

The Death of the Shtetl does not claim to be a complete answer to those questions. One of its strengths is Bauer’s readiness to admit when he is baffled—by lack of evidence, or by the impossibility of finding patterns in the evidence. The methodological problems in writing the history of the shtetlach at the end of their existence are, of course, enormous. Almost all of the Jews who had lived in shtetls—which Bauer helpfully defines as not villages but towns, with Jewish populations ranging from 1,000 to 15,000—were killed during the World War II, mostly in 1941 and 1942. Contemporary written documents are almost nonexistent. There were thousands of survivors, and very many of them recorded their testimonies; but their stories are, by definition, exceptions, not the rule. In addition, Bauer points out, survivors were usually “people with a middle-class background and not … the vast majority of the poorer members of the Jewish population,” for the simple reason that “people with more property or wealth” were at an advantage “when they tried to find hiding places in the forests or with peasants who wanted to be paid for the food they supplied.”

In the face of these obstacles, Bauer limits his focus to one region of Jewish Eastern Europe: the marches, or kresy, of eastern Poland. Of prewar Poland’s 3.3 million Jews, 1.3 million lived in the kresy, 60 percent of whom lived in shtetlach. Bauer’s chosen region contained no large cities, so the experience of the Jews of Warsaw and Vilna, with their urban ghettos, is not part of his book. Even more significant, the kresy were the part of Poland that bordered on the Soviet Union, and the region had an extremely troubled geopolitical history. Before World War I, the area had been divided between the Austro-Hungarian and Russian Empires; when the empires disappeared and the region was fought over in a series of murderous invasions and civil wars, as Soviet Russia, Ukraine, and Poland each tried to assert control.

The Death of the Shtetl

By the 1920s, the area had been incorporated into Poland, but the residual nationalist hatreds were intense. In the kresy, Poles were in a minority, struggling with Belorussians and Ukrainians to define the region’s culture and allegiances. What all these groups had in common was anti-Semitism, both the traditional kind based on religious, cultural, and economic conflicts, and a new nationalist and racist kind that drew inspiration from Nazi Germany. By the 1930s, the life of Jews in the shtetlach was already a different universe from Fiddler on the Roof: they were living in what Bauer calls a “failed state,” suffering from the global fallout of the Great Depression, and deeply worried about the future.” There was no easy way to escape the shtetl,” Bauer writes, “and almost everyone wanted to escape.” One result was that shtetl life became intensely politicized, with Zionists urging emigration to Palestine and socialists urging revolution. But Palestine, under British rule, was closed to Jews, and the Polish socialist parties held their Jewish comrades at arm’s length.

This prolonged crisis came to a dramatic end in September 1939, when the Germans and the Soviets, according to a secret agreement, divided Poland between them. Where the Germans took control, as in Warsaw, killing and ghettoization of Jews began immediately, though the Holocaust itself was still to come. But the kresy fell to the Soviet sphere, and there the situation was more complex—and in some ways, Bauer writes, more troubling. The Communists were hostile in principle to Jewish communal life, and immediately broke up the shtetl’s Jewish institutions. But Soviets were also opposed, in theory and at this point usually in practice, to anti-Semitism, and they brought access to a new culture and what looked like a new economic model.

Most important, the Jews often welcomed the Soviets as protectors against Germany and against their Ukrainian and Belorussian neighbors. Some shtetlach built triumphal arches to greet the Red Army, and in the town of Baranowicze “people kissed the soldiers’ dirty boots.” More surprising is that the Jews acquiesced in the Sovietization of their lives: Hebrew schools and yeshivas were closed, holidays were no longer observed, Bibles and prayer books were banned, and “most synagogues became clubs, cinemas, storage places, and the like.” Significantly, however, many Jews continued to keep kosher, since they could do so at home, in private.

“So a rich ethnic and religious tradition, which had developed into a distinct culture over many centuries, collapsed like a house of cards within a few weeks,” Bauer writes. “Can totalitarian regimes eradicate cultures that easily? This is a frightening and worrying thought.” He offers a few explanations of why the Soviets were so successful in erasing Jewish life in the shtetl—the economic situation, the threat of Nazism, the promise of an end to anti-Semitism—but he concludes, here as elsewhere, that “I am not at all satisfied with my own explanations. I am deeply worried as a Jew by the ease with which Jewish culture was destroyed by a totalitarian regime with both attractions and existential threats.”

What would have happened to the shtetl in the long term, under Soviet rule, is impossible to know. In June 1941, Germany invaded the Soviet Union, and cultural threats were replaced by physical destruction. As promised, Bauer devotes little space to the killing of the shtetls’ Jews, simply noting that, in most places, the Jews were rounded up and shot in a series of major “actions” between summer 1941 and late 1942. The murders were carried out by a combination of German and local—Polish, Ukrainian or Belorussian—units, and the hostility of the surrounding population meant that it was virtually impossible for the Jews to resist or flee. There was simply no place to go.

Anyone who has wondered why—in a question much asked after the war, above all by Jews—the Jews of the shtetlach did not “fight back” need only read Bauer’s account of what happened in Tuczyn, on September 24, 1942. When German and Ukrainian soldiers surrounded the town, the head of the Judenrat called a meeting and advised the Jews to burn the ghetto and run for the nearby forest. Most did so—many Jews, including the rabbi, chose to jump into the flames—and some 2,000 people managed to run away. In the following days, most of the women and children were caught by the Ukrainians and killed with axes and pitchforks. Others starved, or returned to Tuczyn to look for food and were killed there. Sixty men tried to form a fighting unit but couldn’t find any partisans in the area. At the end of the war, Bauer says, 20 survivors emerged from the forest: 1 percent of the original escapees. In Poland in 1942, resistance was as futile as passivity.

That only began to change in 1943, as the Germans were beaten back by the resurgent Red Army. The Soviets managed to establish effective partisan units in the forests and marshes of the kresy, and while many of these were themselves brutally anti-Semitic, they offered at least a shred of hope for the few thousand Jews who had managed to survive until then. Bauer devotes fascinating chapters to the partisans—including the famous Bielski group, featured in the recent movie Defiance—and to the few heroic neighbors, many of them pious Christians, who helped and hid Jews. He sheds much light on the dark subject of the Judenräte, the Jewish Councils that tried to run the shtetlach and ghettos under Nazi rule, showing that their leaders included both villains and heroes.

But in the end, Bauer comes to the conclusion, unsettling for the historian and for readers of history, that these stories do not show any kind of pattern or lead to any conclusion. One shtetl collapsed in despair while another, superficially no different, found the strength to practice what Bauer calls Amidah or “standing up”—cultural resistance and self-help. Some Judenrat leaders were thieves and collaborators, while others helped organize resistance, and still others committed suicide rather than hand over Jews to be killed. Some Ukrainians hid and fed Jews, at great risk to themselves and their families, while others informed on hidden Jews or killed them for their possessions. In the face of such randomness, Bauer writes, “I believe that we have to take recourse to explanations that may sound unusual coming from a professional historian[:] character, chance, and luck.” Which may be another way of saying that, while we can record the death of the shtetl, we can never really understand it.

Print Email

Daily rate: $2
Monthly rate: $18
Yearly rate: $180

Tablet is committed to bringing you the best, smartest, most enlightening and entertaining reporting and writing on Jewish life, all free of charge. We take pride in our community of readers, and are thrilled that you choose to engage with us in a way that is both thoughtful and thought-provoking. But the Internet, for all of its wonders, poses challenges to civilized and constructive discussion, allowing vocal—and, often, anonymous—minorities to drag it down with invective (and worse). Starting today, then, we are asking people who'd like to post comments on the site to pay a nominal fee—less a paywall than a gesture of your own commitment to the cause of great conversation. All proceeds go to helping us bring you the ambitious journalism that brought you here in the first place.

Readers can still interact with us free of charge via Facebook, Twitter, and our other social media channels, or write to us at Each week, we’ll select the best letters and publish them in a new letters to the editor feature on the Scroll.

We hope this new largely symbolic measure will help us create a more pleasant and cultivated environment for all of our readers, and, as always, we thank you deeply for your support.

This book sounds fascinating. I think Bauer hits it spot on with his nuanced view of the complexities of Shtetl life.

Louis Greenspan says:

An important addition to Yehudah Bauer’s studies of the Holocaust. While I strongly endorse a critique of the “deidl deidl,Fiddler on the Roof, culture of nostalgia image of the shtetl that is so pervasive today, I don’t know how this can be accomplished by a focus on tne years 1939-1944. The shtetl must have been in trouble long before. LG

Annette Smith says:

Yes. Of course the shtetls were in trouble long before. Why else did my family and so many others come to the U.S. and Canada in the early 1900s? My father painted a picture of shtetl life that was far from glorious!

Re this sentence from the article: “We might add that, unlike other immigrant groups, American Jews can have no living link with their ancestors’ world; there are no old homes to visit or distant cousins to meet (or if there are, they are in Israel or the United States by now).”

As a genealogist, I find this statement of “fact” to be ignorant of what is happening right now in the field, and it is in the same vein as the myth that “our names were changed at Ellis Island.” Not one documented case has ever been found of that happening.

Jewish genealogists around the world refute that sentence in the article very easily. Many have traveled to their ancestral shtetls, some have found their ancestors’ old homes, many others take that same opportunity to contact other descendants of that shtetl and together organize and fund cemetery restoration and preservation projects.

Jewish genealogists around the world continue to find distant cousins across Europe, South America, Israel and North America. Those who are interested only need to learn how to go about doing this. Numerous such “finds” are documented in the media every year.

Laeh-Maggie Garfield says:

How is it you make no mention of the million Jews who were taken to Siberia, Uzbekistan, Kazakstan, Krygystan and other Soviet held nations in Central Asia, by train, to work for the Soviets.
November 1940 on a Friday they came. You could take 7 kilos with you. If you did not want to go you were shot.
The Jews had to be returned at the end of the war. And, the Soviets brought them back in boxcars.
Read Peter Lande. Yes, not all returned. But, as one of my cousins told me ” we went in 12 and 11 came out.” That was extraordinary. Another cousin and her husband survived in the Ukraine where they needed his technical skills. Their children did not survive.
USHMM has a few books on the transport. The Nazi’s did not get the Jews of Galicia who lived within 2 km of a railroad. Stalin had made a pact with the Polish Government in exile.

esthermiriam says:

Despite the literal truth of the genealogist’s comments, Bauer’s is the more meaningful report:

unlike other immigrant groups before and since, for almost all who came from that world there has long been no home to return to, to visit, to retire to, to take pleasure in: if the old home still stands, others live in it; if family graves are undesecrated, they are not tended… and the return is only to a museum.

This scar on the psyche is real, whatever genealogies may be created or missing relations found somewhere.

The above is the Florida Holocaust Museum site that tells the Bielski Brothers story ‘the story of the largest armed rescue of Jews by Jews during World War II’, on which the Defiance movie is based (

Belarus has a museum about what the Bielskis did which is researched and done without any Jewish involvement. The website has some english in it. The second address is about Zus Bielski’s fighting unit.

Litvak says:

“In the face of these obstacles, Bauer limits his focus to one region of Jewish Eastern Europe: the marches, or kresy, of eastern Poland. Of prewar Poland’s 3.3 million Jews, 1.3 million lived in the kresy…”

I think that should be marshes, not marches!

Litvak says:

I just did some research with google and discovered that kresy is a Polish term, meaning outskirts or borderlands. Not marshes. So while some of the kresy may have been marshland it was not totally marshes. The term marshes sounds more like the Pinsker blotteh and the like. Bielski Brothers or Bielski Partisans

levinas says:

While it was an extraordinary achievement to compile a partisan detachment from the getto fugitive, there are not only bright sides but still also shades lying on the biographies of Bielski brothers. This hollywood movie is just what it is… hollywood movie.

Bielski never took part in direct fights against Germans. They’ve had too many children, woman en elderly, to be able to fight. Their sole purpose was to survive, to be dangerous enough for the Germans not to be pursued.

This very survival was however a very though goal to achieve! They area was very poor, robbed by Germans and by Soviets. Bielski’s had to search for food and rob Polish or Bielarusian villages. Those ‘economic actions” were so bothering locals that they’ve started to organize self-defense. One of such villages was NALIBOKI.

As an act of reprisal Soviets and Jews from Bielski detachment had killed 130 peasants and wiped the village completely.

So the only fights Bielski’s were involved in, were fights against local s, “food expeditions”, and, as in case of Naliboki, punitive expeditions.

Yakov Bielski says:

According to the order # 001 from January 3, 1944 major-general Vasili Chernyshev separated the Bielski detachment into a fighting and a family detachments. An armed group of about 100 people formed a separate detachment named after Ordzonikidze. The detachment operated as part of the brigade named after Kirov under captain Lyashenko – a commander, Vasili Kiyan – a commissar, Podkovzin – chief of staff. In fact Zus (Sigizmund) Bielski exercised command of the detachment. The detachment grew in number up to 163 people by July 1944

The Bielski boys were not involved in tha Naliboki killings. Furthermore they never killed anyone who didn’t earn it.

I’m not sure the place you’re getting your info, however great topic. I needs to spend some time finding out more or understanding more. Thank you for wonderful info I used to be searching for this info for my mission.

Thanks a bunch for sharing this with all of us you really know what you are talking about! Bookmarked. Please also visit my website =). We could have a link exchange arrangement between us!


Your comment may be no longer than 2,000 characters, approximately 400 words. HTML tags are not permitted, nor are more than two URLs per comment. We reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments.

Thank You!

Thank you for subscribing to the Tablet Magazine Daily Digest.
Please tell us about you.

Vanishing Act

A new Holocaust history focuses on the life—and death—of the Polish shtetl

More on Tablet:

Obama: Denying Israel’s Right to Exist as a Jewish Homeland is Anti-Semitic

By Yair Rosenberg — The president draws a line in the sand in his latest interview