Holocaust Supremacism Debate Rosenbaum

Is the Holocaust Unique?: Perspectives on Comparative Genocide, by Alan S. Rosenbaum (Editor). 2008

Very Chauvinistic Question. Answer: No

This work directly deals with the issues surrounding Holocaust preeminence and Holocaust supremacism–the elevation of the Jews’ Holocaust over the genocides of all other peoples

HOLOCAUST SUPREMACISM AKIN TO CONSPIRACY THEORIES

The question posed by this book is well summarized by David E. Stannard: “Within the conventional range of explanations for the Holocaust, from the so-called intentionalist perspective (which views the unfolding of events in Nazi Germany as directed and controlled by a powerful, single-minded, and consistent core of ideologues) to the so-called functionalist interpretation (in which decisions of the Reich are seen as largely improvisational and even chaotic, in response to changing circumstances), the claim that Jews and only Jews have ever been singled out for total extermination emanates from the extreme intentionalist position. This is the way of thinking that also undergirds most conspiracy theories on a variety of topics.” (p. 267).

DECADES AFTER THE SHOAH, JEWS “DISCOVERED” THAT IT WAS SPECIAL

The development of Holocaust-uniqueness notions long postdate WWII: “In the late 1970s and early 1980s the Holocaust became a cornerstone of American Jewish identity and was enlisted for a whole range of Jewish and non-Jewish political objectives. As a result, the idea of the Holocaust’s uniqueness was embraced by the Jewish community…” (Wulf Kansteiner, p. 231).

HOLOCAUST SUPREMACISM AND THE CENSORSHIP OF NONCONFORMISTS

Furthermore, “…there is a disquieting pattern of claims of the `incomparable uniqueness’ of the Holocaust and a good deal of political power used in many places in academia, museums, and communities to back up these claims by pushing down and out nonadherents.” (Israel W. Charny, p. x).

IS AN (INFERRED) TOTAL GENOCIDE ONE IOTA MORE SIGNIFICANT THAN “ONLY” A PARTIAL ONE?

Ian Hancock, a defender of the view that Gypsies had also been targeted by the Nazis for complete extermination (pp. 73-74), alleges that: “The director of one Holocaust center referred to me as a troublemaker; another writer on the Holocaust called my discussion of the Romani case in the Jewish context `loathsome'” (pp. 85-86). Interestingly, Vahakn N. Dadrian argues that the Turks did plan to exterminate all of the Armenians (p. 141), including those living beyond the borders of Turkey (p. 159).

DO JEWS AND JEWS ALONE OWN THE TERM HOLOCAUST?

Jewish scholars Israel W. Charny and Arno J. Mayer are quoted as opposing the uniqueness of the genocide of Jews (p. 274). Alan S. Rosenbaum (p. 2) is willing to accept a non-Judeocentric definition of the Holocaust, in which all victims of the Nazis (including Poles, specifically named by him) are embraced by this term. So does Richard J. Goldstone, who also seems to have anticipated what later became known as the Holocaust Industry: “Substantial reparations have been paid…Claims continue to be recognized…The victims of no other genocide have received this kind of acknowledgement. Neither have the Roma or the other non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust.” (p. 41).

DEMYTHOLOGIZING THE WANNSEE PROTOCOL

Both Hancock (pp. 81-82) and Stannard (pp. 268-269) challenge common wisdom relevant to the Wannsee Protocol. They point out that the language of Wannsee is nonexplicit and is subject to interpretation. They reject the claim that this was a decision-making meeting (as opposed to a policy-coordinating one) or one which tacitly called for the physical extermination of all Jews on Planet Earth, much less one that was the last word on Nazi genocidal plans. Clearly, the fact that Gypsies (or Poles, for that matter) were evidently not mentioned at Wannsee is not proof that these peoples were to be spared. (In fact, none of the authors in this book mentions the fact that the Nazis repeatedly spoke of the eventual extermination of Poles in various other contexts).

IS AN “INDUSTRIAL GENOCIDE” ONE IOTA MORE SIGNIFICANT THAN A NON-“INDUSTRIAL GENOCIDE”?

There is some discussion on what has become known as “industrial genocide” relative to the destruction of the Jews (and, to a lesser extent, Gypsies). What is not mentioned is the fact that some of the 3-5 million Polish gentiles, murdered in what I call the Polokaust, also died in “death factories”. Some 200,000 Poles were gassed and cremated in the little-known death camp of KL Warschau, and tens of thousands of non-Jewish Poles met the same fate in such exterminations centers as Treblinka and Birkenau.

MAINTAINING THE “ALL JEWS WERE TARGETED FOR EXTERMINATION” MYTH IN THE FACE OF CONTRARY EVIDENCE

Several authors (pp. 71-72, 75, 142, 253) elaborate on the fact that many Jews were either spared by the Nazis, or at least failed to be killed by them. Israel W. Charny (pp. xii, xiii) objects to the survival of many Jews in Nazi Germany as a valid argument against Holocaust uniqueness. He calls it post hoc fallacious reasoning. But how then are we to identify the non-uniqueness of Jewish deaths when we see it! And wouldn’t the uniqueness of the Holocaust (Judeocentric definition) be much more convincing had the Nazis indeed exterminated virtually all Jews within reach of Nazi Germany?

In any case, it is obvious that arguments about the survival of targeted peoples are used inconsistently in this volume. Steven T. Katz, a strong proponent of the uniqueness of the Holocaust, uses the large numbers of Armenians surviving the Turkish genocide (p. 65) as evidence against a Turkish intent to exterminate all Armenians. And, ignoring all physical reality (the fact, for example, that the Germans lacked the manpower to exterminate tens of millions of Poles during the war itself), Katz actually believes that more than 15 percent of the Polish population would have been done away with had the Nazis actually intended genocide against them. (p. 60). Ironic to Katz’ ignorance, Hans Frank actually complained that he was not given sufficient manpower to do exactly that!

CONTRARY TO HOLOCAUST UNIQUENESS CLAIMS, THE NAZIS WERE WILLING TO SPARE JEWS IF THE PRICE WAS RIGHT

Stannard (pp. 270-271) points out that Nazis were always willing to trade Jews for money or other goods, and refutes the argument that this was only a temporary expedient pending German world conquest and ensuing destruction of the world’s Jews: “In short, the supposed Nazi pseudo-religious mania for pursuing and murdering every Jew on earth, thus distinguishing Jews as the victims to end all victims who had ever lived, melted rapidly away (to the largely imaginary extent that it ever truly existed) once defeat was apparent and the possibility occurred to Nazi leaders that living Jews might be more valuable to them than dead ones.” (p. 271).