By neglecting acts of resistance, whether it is by way of violence or non-violence, one is given a false impression of Jewish reaction to the Holocaust.
Writing in a similar tone, Yehuda Bauer's opinion of Jewish resistance during the Holocaust, as seen through her essay "Forms of Jewish Resistance," is that Jews put up resistance whenever possible. Two forms of resistance characterize the Jewish situation: violent and non-violent (Bauer 35). Violent resistant took place at many ghettos, forests, and communities, but only as a last resort. Knowing they were incredible underdogs when compared to the Nazis, violence was a last line of defense (36). Also, not many Jews had access to arms; even if the will to fight was present, the lack of resources held back the Jews. Fighting meant giving up loved ones to actively pursue a violent organization. The alternative form of non-violent resistance became the prominent way of standing up for themselves, and this form of resistance was enacted in several ways. Evasion, theft, education, and underground publications are successful methods Bauer says the Jews fought against the Nazis without the use of arms.
On the other side of the debate, Hilberg formed his opinion of Jewish resistance during the Holocaust based upon his theory of human response. When confronted by force, humans reacted in five ways, of which only violent action is considered resistance (Hilberg 662). Each of the five forms of response are analyzed with respect to Jews in the Holocaust and all come away with the conclusion that the Jews did not actively resist the Nazi power. Hilberg's thesis, therefore, is a strong statement claiming Jews put up little resistance. A major factor that contributed to their lack of action is historical consistency behavior; that is, following the persecuted patterns of their ancestry. The biggest contributor to their lack of violent resistance is the Jews" unlearned art of resistance as passed through the generations (667).