Carmelite Convent Auschwitz Huener

Auschwitz, Poland, and the Politics of Commemoration, 1945–1979, by Jonathan Huener. 2003

Holocaust Supremacism and Auschwitz: Why the Auschwitz Carmelite Convent Controversy

Much of this book simply repeats the usual memes found in countless other books on Poles and Jews. For instance, there is the mystification of the Holocaust conducted by Jan Blonski and Michael Steinlauf, which partakes of Holocaustianity. There is the almost-lament, yet again, of Poles thinking themselves the Jesus Christ of Nations, as if this was some kind of disease from which Poles must be cured so that they will finally do the right thing and fall down in obeisance to Jewish ways of thinking.

There is also the meme that there was no Polish Quisling because the Germans did not want one. They most certainly did.

TWO POLONOPHOBIC MYTHS: “HIDING JEWISH DEATHS” AND THE “4-MILLION AUSCHWITZ DEAD” FIGURE

The long-quoted almost-threefold-inflated 4 million-victim figure was said to be a deliberate postwar invention, designed for the “polonization”, “dejudaization”, or “internationalization” of Auschwitz. In contrast, Jonathan Huener points out that accusations of manipulated figures, for Auschwitz deaths, have no basis in fact. (p. 44). In fact, Huener shows that the 4 million figure was developed by Soviet investigators shortly after the “liberation” of Poland. Moreover, it was held not only by Poles but also by Jews.

THE BOGUS ISSUE (“HIDING JEWISH DEATHS”) AND THE REAL ISSUE (ENFORCING HOLOCAUST SUPREMACISM)

Author Jonathan Huener lays out the situation at hand, “Neither the State Museum nor the Polish government ever explicitly denied that the vast majority of victims at Auschwitz were Jews. But this fact was not emphasized; nor did it designate Auschwitz in any distinctive way. Simply put, Jews were usually included among the so-called ‘martyrs’ of Auschwitz and regarded as citizens of Poland, the Netherlands, France, Hungary, Greece, or any of the many other countries under Nazi occupation. One has to grant that the destruction of Europe’s Jews was not yet, in the first postwar years, the DISTINCT CATEGORY OF HISTORICAL ANALYSIS or broad, public commemoration that it is today. But the fact remains that for decades Polish postwar culture did not treat the Shoah as the salient characteristic of Auschwitz, but relegated it instead to the status of yet another example of German barbarism. Jews were to be remembered for their suffering and death, but they were neither represented as the overwhelming majority of victims at the site nor given PROPER EMPHASIS in the larger memorialization undertaken there.” (p. 29; Emphasis added to loaded Holocaust-supremacism-promoting phrases).

So the “Poles tried to hide Jewish deaths” and the “Poles ignored Jewish deaths” accusations are clearly bogus. The real issue, all along, had been quite something else: Poland not obediently falling in line behind the Jews-are-special mentality that manifests itself as Holocaust supremacy. In addition, Poles—how terrible of them—had failed to acquiesce before the Jewish ways of thinking that reject Auschwitz as a place of martyrdom. Victimhood competition is alive and well.

“HIDING JEWISH DEATHS”: FOCUSING ON THE REAL ISSUE BEHIND AUSCHWITZ-RELATED ACCUSATIONS AGAINST POLAND

It all comes down to this unvarnished truth, “Although the mass extermination of Jews was not denied in the public presentation of Auschwitz in the early postwar years, Jewish genocide was seldom upheld as a UNIQUE PHENOMENON.” (p. 53. Emphasis added.)

And why should it be? Contrary to mythology, the Holocaust was not unique. And even if it was, it would not deserve its Holocaustianity status.

Just because Jews, as a group, suffered more than Poles, as a group, is no valid reason for demanding special attention, at Auschwitz and elsewhere. Quadriplegics suffer more from paralysis than paraplegics, but no one suggests that quadriplegics are thereby entitled to special privileges, least of all from paraplegics.

Finally, if there is to be a meritocracy of genocides at all, who decides what the criterion for the meritocracy will be? For example, consider the fact, brought out by Huener (p. 19), that Soviet POWs are unique, as Auschwitz inmates, in having not a single known survivor. So, if any Auschwitz victim-group is entitled to special recognition and special rights, it would be the Ukrainians and Byelorussians, and not the Jews, who did have some survivors.

THE POLOKAUST: WHAT ABOUT ALL THE POLES MURDERED BY THE NAZIS?

Author Huener exhibits ambivalence about Polish deaths at the hands of the Germans. On one hand, he recognizes the fact that the Poles were likely to share the fate of the Jews, had Nazi Germany won the war (pp. 53-55). At the same time, he tries to minimize the fact of 3 million Polish dead. (p. 44). He is clearly incorrect.

POLES AND JEWS DIVIDED OVER AUSCHWITZ: THE ONLY LASTING REMEDY

Few people know this (surprise), but here have been dozens of genocides in recent history, consuming the lives of over 100 million people in the 20th century alone. [See, and read my review, of DEATH BY GOVERNMENT, by Rummel]. So let us conclude by recognizing the preeminent status of the Holocaust as an affront to human rights. Surely it is as racist to think that a Poles’ genocide is unworthy of the same solicitousness as a Jews’ genocide, as it is to think that a black man is unworthy of the same civil rights as a white man. Could Holocaust Supremacism be formally condemned for what it is–a form of racism–under international law?

This would be broad-based. It would encompass anyone saying or implying that his or her peoples’ genocide is: 1) A unique wrong (e. g, “the greatest crime in history”); 2) Qualitatively different from all other genocides; 3) At the pinnacle of some imagined hierarchy of genocides; 4) Of greater historical significance or moral gravity than any other genocide; or 5) In any way worthy of more attention than any other genocide.

Genocide-Recognition Equality now!