Holocaust Education Children Discern Its Unfairness Zehavit Gross

As the Witnesses Fall Silent: 21st Century Holocaust Education in Curriculum, Policy and Practice, by Zehavit Gross (Editor), E. Doyle Stevick (Editor). 2015

Holocaust Mis-Education: Holocaust Supremacism Imposed Internationally. Even Children Realize Its Unfairness. The Attempted Trivialization of Communist Crimes

This book, perhaps without intending to, has a lot of revealing information. Thus:

FROM THE MOUTHS OF BABES: CHILDREN REALIZE AND ARTICULATE THE FUNDAMENTAL UNFAIRNESS OF HOLOCAUST EDUCATION

In her paper on the (presumed) relevance of Holocaust education to human rights education, Monique Eckmann writes, “Teachers also find it difficult to answer questions such as, ‘Why are you always speaking about Jews?’ and ‘Why not speak about Rwanda, about slavery, or about the Roma?’ Or, in post-Soviet countries they might ask, ‘Why not speak about the Gulag’?” (p. 55).

Excellent questions! These kids have a better grasp of the situation than do many adults. Call it victimhood competition. Call it competing narratives. There is one and only one remedy: The end of Holocaust Supremacism and the dawning of Genocide Recognition Equality.

HOLOCAUST EDUCATION IS IMPOSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH TOP-DOWN INTERNATIONAL DIRECTIVES

With reference to Lithuania, Christine C. Beresniova writes, “Dovile Budryte (2005) suggests that many local populations accepted European pressure to engage in Holocaust education because it was necessary for EU and NATO accession; thus, their ‘acceptance’ of these policies did not significantly influence the way they viewed the Holocaust. Lithuanians generally countenanced the policies on Holocaust education to achieve political ends, but few actually internalized the Holocaust as a nationally relevant event. Researchers have discovered a similar lack of interest in Holocaust history in post-Soviet states.” (p. 396).

Beresniova then repeats the usual complaints about the locals’ treatment of the Holocaust as one of “’multiple’ tragedies”. Her remark alludes to the standard Holocaust supremacist narrative on the peerless nature of the Holocaust.

We thus see, once again, the fact that the European Union is a major promoter and enforcer of Holocaust supremacism. This may be yet another reason for Polexit.

HOLOCAUST EDUCATION IS NOT ENOUGH: THE ORTHODOXY OF HOLOCAUST SUPREMACISM MUST ALSO BE ENFORCED

International pressure, in the promotion of the standard Judeocentric narrative on the presumed specialness of the Holocaust, is no one-time fluke. With special reference to Estonia, E. Doyle Stevick makes these revealing comments:

“This inclusive way of referring to the Holocaust using broader terms, like ‘genocide’ or ‘crimes against humanity’ implicitly rejects the INTERNATIONAL CONTENTION that the HOLOCAUST WAS UNIQUE, and Estonian officials have use it consistently in their discourse since that time.” (p. 288; Emphasis added).

AN ATTEMPT TO CONTROL THE NARRATIVE: THE HOLOCAUSTIAN INQUISITION AGAINST THE DANGEROUS HERESY OF THE FULL-FLEDGED RECOGNITION OF COMMUNIST CRIMES

The suppression of knowledge of the tens of millions of victims of Communism (e. g, Stalin=Hitler, Red=Brown and double genocide), as well as that of the extensive Jewish complicity in these crimes (Zydokomuna), has taken on hysterical proportions. It has even been disguised by the “war is peace” Orwellian phraseology of “defending history”. And no wonder: The truth about Communist crimes is a major threat to Holocaust supremacism.

E. Doyle Stevick writes, “Critics and scholars, including Shafir (2002), Katz (2009a, 2009b, 2010) and Zuroff (2005, 2009, 2010) have dissected and condemned attempts to imply that the suffering of Baltic peoples can be equated with the Holocaust or that the regimes were equally terrible in what they variously call the double-genocide theory, the Red-Brown movement, the comparative trivialization of the Holocaust, and Holocaust obfuscation. The Holocaust in the Baltics website () has become a hub for the opposition to this movement.” (p. 294).

Those who control the language control the narrative. Note the new elements of Holocaustspeak: “comparative trivialization of the Holocaust” and, even better, “Holocaust obfuscation”. All that fancy lingo in a rather desperate attempt to ignore or downplay the mass murder done by Communists!

The Orwellian “comparative trivialization” phrase is also used when Holocaust supremacism is taken to the extremes of Holocaustianity or outright Holocaust idolatry. This is done by Thomas Misco, who writes, “As a result of comparison, the UNIQUENESS and SANCTITY of the Holocaust is diminished and sometimes dismissed. In the case of Latvia, comparative trivialization minimized the Holocaust in light of the Gulag, often by insisting that the Gulag, often by insisting that the Gulag claimed more victims (Shafir 2003). Due to the UNIQUENESS of the Holocaust, in terms of ideology, universality, and totality, comparisons can work to ‘negate the SINGULARITY of the Holocaust’ and claim that Jews indulge in a ‘monopolization of suffering’” (Shafir 2003, p. 7. Emphasis added).

That’s just it.

HOLOCAUST EDUCATION AND THE PROMOTION OF INGRATITUDE TO THE DEATH-DEFYING POLISH RESCUERS OF JEWS

Magdalena H. Gross repeats all the canned Polonophobic memes that accuse Poland of one thing or another. She objects to Polish students talking about the Polish rescue of Jews because it was “not a common practice.” (p. 149). How could it?

HOLOCAUST SUPREMACISM AND THE TRIVIALIZATION OF THE POLOKAUST

Magdalena Gross then belittles Polish suffering. I love the way she puts it:

“Jews were marked for death. Poles, while they were treated brutally and often died as a result of brutal treatment, were not marked for systematic elimination.” (p. 147).

And this nowadays passes for education! Tell the 3-5 million Poles [including half of Poland’s intelligentsia], murdered in the unambiguously-genocidal Polocaust [read Rafal Lemkin], that they died because of some vague “brutal treatment”. Talk about trivialization and obfuscation!

Tell the murdered Poles that their deaths are not all that important because, according to ruling Holocaust orthodoxy, an inferred total genocide is decreed to be more significant than “only” a partial genocide. Besides, the canned talking point defending Holocaust supremacism, the “Jews were targeted for total annihilation”, this time repeated as fact by Magdalena Gross, is false. Nazi rhetoric notwithstanding, the Nazis left many Jews alive that they easily could have killed. Furthermore, some Jews were released, from Nazi-held Europe, for bribes, and some German Jews were redefined as non-Jews (made into Honorary Aryans) and elevated to high positions in the Third Reich.

Magdalena Gross then brings up the “Poles were both an oppressed and oppressor group” spiel. (pp. 152-153). How nice to see the equation of molehills and mountains—the equation of war-related garden-variety wrongs Poles did to Jews with the systematic Nazi German genocide of 3-5 million Poles. Then again, that is what Holocaust education is all about.

WILL THE REAL REASON FOR HOLOCAUST EDUCATION PLEASE STAND UP

The following comments by Monique Eckmann are revealing:

“The EWG (2014) developed guidelines/recommendations on why to teach about the Holocaust, what to teach about the Holocaust, and how to teach about the Holocaust. It appears clear—and other studies show similar results—that the most difficult part is articulating WHY to teach about the Holocaust.” (p. 55; Emphasis is Eckmann’s).

Why should this be so? Could it because it is difficult to convincingly disguise the real reason for Holocaust education, which is for the benefit of the Jews?

Ironically, the standard reasons given for Holocaust education—fighting intolerance and racism—actually are part of the problem. The preeminence of the Holocaust over the genocides of all other peoples is ITSELF a form of intolerance, and the implication that the genocide of one particular people is more important than the genocides of all other peoples, is ITSELF a form of racism.

Will we ever learn?