Holocaust and Historiographical Issues

[MrFun]

Last night in my Historiography course, we had interesting discussion on the various scholarly issues in regards to studying the Holocaust of Nazi Germany.

Some questions that I think are interesting:

Is there a risk in overemphasizing the Holocaust to the extent that our view of that time period is distorted?

How can we avoid quantifying human tragedies such as genocide, massacre, and so forth? For instance, just because there are genocides before and after the Holocaust that are on a much smaller scale, does not mean that they are less horrendous or tragic.
Isn't it unfair to use the Holocaust as some kind of benchmark when comparing seemingly lesser genocides -- after all, they ALL involve the loss of many, many innocent human lives.

Has the Holocaust always received much more memorializing and scholarly studies because this was a genocide that happened within Europe instead of Africa, Asia, Latin America, or other parts of the world? Who has good memory of the horrendous genocides committed in the name of colonialism up to mid-twentieth century??

While understanding that the Jews lost 6 million of their kind in the Holocaust and the other 6 million consisted of all the other various victimized groups, aren't we still neglecting to consider the other victimized groups of the Holocaust that included homosexuals, Gypsies, mentally/physically disabled, political dissents, and so forth?

Have too many people involved in the Nazi regime been given too light of punishment? Have too many even been let go, without any punishment? Where is the justice that these perpetrators escape justice, while Holocaust survivors have to suffer their own personal memories for the rest of their lives?


I'm sure there are other interesting questions that deserve to be asked, that I cannot think of at the moment. But what are other people's thoughts on these issues/questions and do you have any questions/issues that you might have thought of?

[Gangerolf]

The holocaust was so "industrial" and well organised. And performed by a supposedly civilised nation. I think that's what's so scary about it. It wasn't just random raping and pillaging.

[Caligastia]

The holocaust is probably over-hyped in America because some of the powerful media outlets here are controlled by jews.

[Timexwatch]

Originally posted by Caligastia
The holocaust is probably over-hyped in America because some of the powerful media outlets here are controlled by jews.

Everyone make sure you put on your flame-retardant suits, because it's going to get awful hot in here...

[Ben Kenobi]

How can we avoid quantifying human tragedies such as genocide, massacre, and so forth? For instance, just because there are genocides before and after the Holocaust that are on a much smaller scale, does not mean that they are less horrendous or tragic.
Isn't it unfair to use the Holocaust as some kind of benchmark when comparing seemingly lesser genocides -- after all, they ALL involve the loss of many, many innocent human lives.

Dr. King compared the situation in the US for American Blacks to the Holocaust, so what do you think about his comparison?

What about comparisons with much greater losses of lives than the Holocaust, is it still a fair comparison?

I don't think the numbers matter so much as the reason. All forms of genocide ought to be condemned, as they are a fundamental rejection of human worth and dignity.

[lord of the mark]

1. other genocides are important and should be studied and commemorated.

2. Victims of the Nazis other than Jews should be studied and commemorated.

I note that the US holocaust museum in DC covers all victims of the Nazi holocaust, not just Jews. It also had programs that look at other genocides.

That said i would add the following points.

1. The Nazi holocaust is unique, because it was out of historical charecter. It was commited by one of the most advanced, civilized peoples on the planet - and against a minority that was largely accepted prior to the 1930's. It is therefore that much more shocking, and raises different issues about human nature and history than other genocides.

2. The Nazi extermination of the Jews was different both from other genocides, and from other Nazi mass murders. In two ways - the Nazis apparently intended to murder ALL Jews they could get their hands on, from anyplace. And they placed the the murder of the Jews above the survival of their own regime or their country's victory in war, to the point where they used valuable rail transport to move jews to murder camps when such transport was needed to support the military. The Turks for example, apparently saw murder of the Armenians as fulfilling strategic goals - its hard to imagine the Turks perpertating it to the point that it would have endangered their state. Ditto for Tutsis in Rwanda, Kurds in Iraq, etc.

The Jews are unique among victims. Many Nazi victims were murdered for actions or beliefs - dissident, communists, etc rather than the fact of their existence. Slavs were murdered for the fact of their existence, but it seems the Nazi goal was to reduce their numbers, and enslave the rest, not to eliminate them from the globe. The gypsies apparently were all marked for death - but for the most part the Nazis only exterminated Gypsies in areas of direct German rule. WRT Jews, they pressured their satellites and allies to turn over Jews, so that no area they could reach was safe for Jews. They combed Europe for any surviving Jew with an obsessive quality.

The turks murdered Armenians in armenia, but not ones under turkish rule in other parts of the Ottoman empire. Similarly the genocidaires in Rwanda seemed to have been unconcerned about the survival of Tutsis in Congo, etc.

For a fuller discussion of these issues, I suggest "To mend the world" by the recently deceased Emil Fakenheim.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Dr. King compared the situation in the US for American Blacks to the Holocaust, so what do you think about his comparison?

.

citation please. Much depends on context and exactly what he said.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Timexwatch




Everyone make sure you put on your flame-retardant suits, because it's going to get awful hot in here...

Why? It's an undeniable fact that some powerful media outlets in America are in the hands of jewish people. That they feel strongly about the holocaust is understandable.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Dr. King compared the situation in the US for American Blacks to the Holocaust, so what do you think about his comparison?

What about comparisons with much greater losses of lives than the Holocaust, is it still a fair comparison?

I don't think the numbers matter so much as the reason. All forms of genocide ought to be condemned, as they are a fundamental rejection of human worth and dignity.

by the wayben, you might find fackenheim interesting for a number of things he says about theology, the nature of faith after the holocaust, and what the holocaust means for beleiving christians. I cant recommend "to mend the world" too highly.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Caligastia


Why? It's an undeniable fact that some powerful media outlets in America are in the hands of jewish people. That they feel strongly about the holocaust is understandable.

It was probably even more true in the 1950's, when said outlets tended to ignore the holocaust.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


It was probably even more true in the 1950's, when said outlets tended to ignore the holocaust.

Really? I wonder why that was? Perhaps victim status wasn't as desirable back then as it is now.

[lord of the mark]

Re: Holocaust and Historiographical Issues

Originally posted by MrFun
Who has good memory of the horrendous genocides committed in the name of colonialism up to mid-twentieth century??

Probably the largest and most dramatic one was that commited in the Congo Free State toward the end of the 19th century. Far too little studied or memorialized if you ask me.

But again - thats the ending of an old story of European colonialism and white racism, which in turn fit into older stories of murder, enslavement and pillage throughout history - while beyond the pale of its time, it was still "in character" to some degree. Not as much of a bolt from the blue as the Nazi holocaust.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Caligastia


Really? I wonder why that was? Perhaps victim status wasn't as desirable back then as it is now.

Victim status isnt desirable. I can assure you all the holocaust survivors i know would rather not have been victims.


In the 1960's comparisons to the holocaust became common in the context of discussions of nuclear war, civil rights, etc. This tended to thrust the Nazi holocaust back onto the scene. Basically the media followed, they didnt lead.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



Victim status isnt desirable. I can assure you all the holocaust survivors i know would rather not have been victims.

I mean a perceived victim status, not an actual one. A perceived victim status of a group.

In the 1960's comparisons to the holocaust became common in the context of discussions of nuclear war, civil rights, etc. This tended to thrust the Nazi holocaust back onto the scene. Basically the media followed, they didnt lead.

Interesting. I suppose it's just become a symbol of suffering due to common usage.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Caligastia


I mean a perceived victim status, not an actual one. A perceived victim status of a group.



Interesting. I suppose it's just become a symbol of suffering due to common usage.

Id rather not discuss this line of thought further. I would also recommend Fackenheim's "To mend the world" to you.