Active RNS subscribers and members can view this content at the RNS Archives website.

(RNS) Cavalier Nazi comparisons disrespect the actual victims of the Nazis by suggesting that any perceived wrong is like the Holocaust. It's not.

9 Comments

  1. Deacon John M. Bresnahan

    I have visited the Holocaust Museum. And it is heart wrenching to see some of the information and exhibits. But there is a debate going on among some interested in history-including Jews- about strategy to make sure horrors like what the Jewish people endured never happens again.
    The question is–is it counterproductive to always point to the unquestioned uniqueness of the Holocaust. For,as one victim of the Armenian Massacres and attempted genocide in Turkey told me: “Don’t our piles of murdered count”.
    One particular professional and very successful Armenian-American writer got so exasperated with no one wanting to publish his book on the Armenian Massacres (while the market was full of Holocaust books) that he lost sympathy for what happened to the Jewish people–even saying “What is this chauvinism of suffering that won’t recognize other’s suffering..”
    Another aspect debated is the issue of whether the use of Holocaust analogies is simply “casual” by some or is it an affirmation of the unique horror of the Holocaust. For by becoming the common example for:” Nothing could be worse” it will unfortunately be loosely used in a manner upsetting to some..

    • Other evils are also evil. But they are different evils. And the differences matter. The Armenian example, like most others, was understandable as a power struggle. The Turks wanted something and the Armenians were in the way. Preventing other such episodes means using the lessons offered by understanding what happened. The Nazi Holocaust has *some* similarities to Armenia, Rwanda, the Balkans, etc etc too many etc. They all involve the dehumanization of the enemy, the Other, in ways that allow the abuses to happen.

      But in every other example I can think of, the attackers could imagine a clear benefit as their primary goal: Land, resources, political power. The Holocaust is simply opaque to that kind of reasoning. The primary goal of the Holocaust was the Holocaust. Whatever mercenary gain fell out as the Jews were slaughtered was secondary gain from the Nazi perspective.

      Had the Journal used a metaphor that referenced Stalin or Mao or the French Revolution, it might still have been absurd as to the merits of the argument. But it would not have failed nearly so utterly as comparison.

      The author’s frustration might be more about the fickle marketplace than how relative evils are understood. Jews and Judaism and the fate of Europe are more woven into American identity than anything to do with Armenia. The US did not wage a war to defeat the enemies of Armenia. The market, the interest, in the Holocaust is simply going to be greater here.

  2. When someone dies their very essence leaves this earth forever. What does it matter one person or 6,000,000 persons? I’m not too sure that I totally disagree with the article. Anyone targeted for abuse and/or death for no reason other than a belief, their skin color or because of what they own fall into the same category. They will die because of a government sanctioned policy to rid the general population of their type. One person so targeted is one person too many. What happened to the Jews and the Armenians may differ as to the reason but the ultimate evil was visited upon a group of people who did not deserve to die. The article draws a perceived parallel to the Jews murdered in the Holocaust and the wealthy. Keep in mind, Hitler outlined exactly where he stood on the “Jewish question” in Mein Kampf. He was always anti-semetic and that bias would not have had an outlet but for his ascension to power in Germany. Even at that he needed to have laws enacted to prosecute the pogram against the Jews. I believe Tom Perkins, in his article, is doing nothing more than pointing out a parallel to what began as a set of laws that discriminated against the Jews and eventually led to the murder of 6,000,000 plus unfortunate people. Though I really do not see the wealthy as targets in the same manner as the Jews or Armenians or Russians I do see a trend to force those with wealth to share that wealth with those who are less fortunate. I must state that I am solid middle class, neither wealthy or lacking but I must take exception to penalizing anyone because their success lead to wealth. Not another Holocaust but then the Holocaust didn’t begin in earnest until the first Jew was murdered. The groundwork had been laid for that first Jew and as I see this article, Perkins is simply stating that we are progressing by laying the groundwork for eventual targetting of the wealthy in America.

  3. Alas. Hatred of the Jew. The permanent infidel.

    “And as for these enemies of mine who didn’t want me to be their king–bring them in and EXECUTE THEM right here in front of me.'” (Luke 19:27 )

    “Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” -Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

    Religion itself is the problem.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 characters available

Comments with many links may be automatically held for moderation.