I think the point is that shallow references and use of Nazi images in ad hominem attacks does does not contribute meaningfully to any discussion. If you want to use the Holocaust to draw a comparison, it should have substance. Without substance, anyone can make shallow comparisons.
I think the point is to make it not ok to call powers practicing racism and genocide out for being nazi-like.
The Auschwitz museum would probably not have complained about death camp analogies when the comparison was an actual genocide. But that was very far from the case.
I understand the museum's position. However IMHO they missed an important teaching moment. The holocaust was very much a political event, and to treat it otherwise is to excuse the broad public support that political movement had, and the widespread public participation involved. Yes, the use in mass political* advertising can trivialize the crime by repetitive imagery, and I presume this is the origin of the stance…
I think the point is that shallow references and use of Nazi images in ad hominem attacks does does not contribute meaningfully to any discussion. If you want to use the Holocaust to draw a comparison, it should have substance. Without substance, anyone can make shallow comparisons.
I understand the museum's position. However IMHO they missed an important teaching moment. The holocaust was very much a political event, and to treat it otherwise is to excuse the broad public support that political movement had, and the widespread public participation involved. Yes, the use in mass political* advertising can trivialize the crime by repetitive imagery, and I presume this is the origin of the stance…
Comparing your political opponents with Nazis is a very violent form of public discourse that should be reserved for actual perpetrators of mass atrocities. If people actually believe it, then it makes physical violence against your opponents seem acceptable or even desirable ("punch a Nazi"). Basically, when you're saying someone is a Nazi then it means you want to treat them like the Nazis were treated after WW2. T…
Additionally, comparisons are always statements of similarity, and this is a symmetric relation. If someone says group X is similar to the Nazis, then that, in all likelihood, makes X look worse and the Nazis look better. After all, the person is saying the Nazis were similar in badness to group X, and X might not be very bad.
The nazi desire to exterminate all Jews was known. Jews were killed in the streets of towns. Some even involved mass killings. Towns bragged about being Jew free. Ignorance does not fly. Yes there was some uncertainty of what happened at the camps. But it was well known even at the time that nazi’s camps meant death.
Actually, there was only ever a mention of a final solution. No real understanding of what that meant. This resulted in allied forces, who had spies throughout the Third Reich, being completely shocked by the camps when they found them. The fact, Allied Forces who were better informed than the average German Ciziten had no idea what was happening is a major sign that they didn't know. Furthermore, if you read any of…
> Furthermore, if you read any of the books written by Germans who lived through that time they'll often say they didn't know what was happening and in one book about a kid who went through the ranks of the Hitler youth, I believe he thought they were fine in the camps and thought people just moved away.
From what I've read, the Holocaust was a pretty open secret in Germany. Wikipedia [1] cites studies suggesting that 30-50% of German adults during WWII were aware of the Holocaust, and I'm inclined to believe the higher estimates (especially if you include people who could reasonably suspect that extermination was going on but didn't want to think too hard on it lest they realize their own moral culpability).
I think the point is to make it not ok to call powers practicing racism and genocide out for being nazi-like.
The Auschwitz museum would probably not have complained about death camp analogies when the comparison was an actual genocide. But that was very far from the case.
Are we expecting the auschwitz museum to universally and perfectly predict and oppose fomenting genocides? Is that a role they're willing and competent to perform for us? Is that where we want that responsibility to solely reside?
The title here is in line with HN guidelines but does a disservice to the actual article as it suggests the criticism is far more abstract than it actually is. It rises in direct response to specific use by Polish political actors.
I understand the museum's position. However IMHO they missed an important teaching moment. The holocaust was very much a political event, and to treat it otherwise is to excuse the broad public support that political movement had, and the widespread public participation involved. Yes, the use in mass political* advertising can trivialize the crime by repetitive imagery, and I presume this is the origin of the stance…
Comparing your political opponents with Nazis is a very violent form of public discourse that should be reserved for actual perpetrators of mass atrocities. If people actually believe it, then it makes physical violence against your opponents seem acceptable or even desirable ("punch a Nazi"). Basically, when you're saying someone is a Nazi then it means you want to treat them like the Nazis were treated after WW2. T…
> should be reserved for actual perpetrators of mass atrocities.
Ideally, we would prevent such people from perpetrating such atrocities in the first place. The Nazis were Nazis before they killed millions, and they said they would do it before they did.
When people, especially politicians, come out and say, "we must eliminate [demographic group]," we need to believe them and understand that genocide is their goal.
The nazi desire to exterminate all Jews was known. Jews were killed in the streets of towns. Some even involved mass killings. Towns bragged about being Jew free. Ignorance does not fly. Yes there was some uncertainty of what happened at the camps. But it was well known even at the time that nazi’s camps meant death.
Actually, there was only ever a mention of a final solution. No real understanding of what that meant. This resulted in allied forces, who had spies throughout the Third Reich, being completely shocked by the camps when they found them. The fact, Allied Forces who were better informed than the average German Ciziten had no idea what was happening is a major sign that they didn't know. Furthermore, if you read any of…
> Furthermore, the majority of victims of the holocaust weren't Jewish
The Holocaust is defined in the first sentence as "the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of six million Jewish men, women and children by the Nazi regime and its collaborators."
I don't think you really meant to claim that "majority of victims of the holocaust weren't Jewish".
I understand the museum's position. However IMHO they missed an important teaching moment. The holocaust was very much a political event, and to treat it otherwise is to excuse the broad public support that political movement had, and the widespread public participation involved. Yes, the use in mass political* advertising can trivialize the crime by repetitive imagery, and I presume this is the origin of the stance…
Comparing your political opponents with Nazis is a very violent form of public discourse that should be reserved for actual perpetrators of mass atrocities. If people actually believe it, then it makes physical violence against your opponents seem acceptable or even desirable ("punch a Nazi"). Basically, when you're saying someone is a Nazi then it means you want to treat them like the Nazis were treated after WW2. T…
I am pretty sure the people who are making this comparison have the intent of not allowing them to perpetrate mass atrocities. Reserving the comparison only for the successful genocides is maybe rhetorically ideal but missing the point a bit.
The title here is in line with HN guidelines but does a disservice to the actual article as it suggests the criticism is far more abstract than it actually is. It rises in direct response to specific use by Polish political actors.
The one and only reason for the title is the length limit.