Defense Mechanisms

As we watched interviews with former Nazi co-conspirators I noticed that they use multiple defense mechanisms when asked about their role in the Holocaust. Specifically, individuals are able to talk about what happened, but when asked to specifically explain their role in the Holocaust they do not answer the questions. Rather, these individuals use defense mechanisms. A Defense mechanism is an unconscious process, that protects an individual from unacceptable or painful ideas or impulses.

The most well-known defense mechanism is denial. When in denial one blocks external events from their awareness. Simply, a person refuses to experience the situation. An example in our current society is when a smoker refuses to admit that smoking is bad for their health.

Another defense mechanism is projection. Projection is when one attributes their unacceptable felling, motives, and thoughts to another person. This can be utilized when you hate someone but you know that hatred is unacceptable. To get around this one projects their hatred on another person by believing that they hate you.

Repression is another defense mechanism. Repression is employed to keep disturbing or threatening thoughts from becoming conscious. Repression is obvious in certain situations. For example, when a child who has been abused by a parent has no memory of the events but has troubling forming relationships.

The most commonly used defense mechanism by former SS officers and Nazi co-conspirators is rationalization. Rationalization is when one offers self-justifying explanations of the real more threatening reasons for one’s actions. This is best displayed in an interview with a former SS Staff Sergeant, Karl Frenzel. Frenzel was a notoriously brutal commander at the Sobibor death camp and has been charged with personally murdering 42 jews. In an interview Frenzel said, “ I was then convinced of its necessity.” and that he was serving his homeland. In addition to dissociation (the mental process of disconnecting from one's thoughts, feelings, memories or sense of identity) Frenzel has convinced himself that he did not commit such heinous crimes because he was a bad person. Rather, he committed such atrocities because he was acting on behalf of the states. Frenzel’s cocktail of rationalization, dissociation, and diffusion of responsibility is a great example of how former SS officers justify such crimes.