‘Yolocaust’: Conscious Behaviour at Holocaust Memorials

With our increasing use of smart phones and social media, travel has become as much about taking selfies and ‘checking in’ on Facebook, as what we are actually doing. But amongst the thousands of innocent holiday pictures on Instagram, are images of an inappropriate nature: individuals posing, smiling or even doing yoga, at sites of Holocaust Memorial, as if completely oblivious to their surroundings.

An image of someone juggling at the Berlin Holocaust Memorial is superimposed onto a Nazi Concentration Camp

German-Israeli satirist, Shahak Shapira, has drawn attention to such photographs, taken at Berlin’s Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe, with his recent ‘Yolocaust’ website. He coined the term, amalgamating the acronym ‘YOLO’ – you only live once – and ‘Holocaust’, reflecting the behaviour evident in the photos, their subjects’ treating the site as if it were just another tourist attraction to tick off their list. When the viewer hovers their mouse over one of the twelve distasteful images, found on public social media accounts, the subject is superimposed onto scenes of Nazi death camps. Perhaps this is a somewhat shocking transition, but ultimately it highlights the stark reality of exactly what Peter Eisenman’s 2,711 concrete slabs memorialise. Using the memorial for a photoshoot or juggling performance simply trivialises this.

Indeed, this is not the first time photography at Holocaust sites has sparked outrage. In 2014, American teenager, Breanna Mitchell faced criticism on Twitter after posting a photo of herself captioned ‘Selfie in the Auschwitz Concentration Camp’, with a smiley faced emoji. She’s certainly not alone in posting such thoughtless images; plenty more can easily be found online.

Perhaps such conduct at Holocaust sites and memorials is unsurprising when on websites such as TripAdvisor these places are listed and labelled as ‘things to do’ or ‘attractions’. Memorials and sites connected with the murder and suffering of millions have their significance demeaned to that of a restaurant or theme park. Furthermore, this notion of visiting just to say you have been is reinforced by Stag Weekend companies: lastnightoffreedom.co.uk have previously advertised their Auschwitz Experience Weekend as an opportunity to ‘tick the culture box’ the morning after a bar crawl.

So how exactly should we behave at such sites of murder and its memorial? First and foremost, we must consider our intentions for visiting. Quite simply, if you are going just to say you have been, or because it’s a ‘thing to do’ whilst you’re in a particular city, then just don’t. We must make an active decision to visit such places because we want to remember or learn about the Holocaust. Visit Auschwitz as part of a Stag Weekend in Krakow by all means, but ensure that you’re in an appropriate state to visit the museum, knowing what to expect and your reasons for going there.

When it comes to photography and social media, we must ensure that we think before we snap, and think before we post. We are a generation which experiences much through the lenses of our phones and there is nothing wrong with this, the caveat being that we think about the photo we are taking and what we want to gain from or use that image for. All twelve people who featured on the ‘Yolocaust’ website have now asked to be “undouched”, having their photos removed by emailing undouche.me@yolocaust.de, suggesting  they agree that their images were offensive and inappropriate, something which might have been avoided with some thoughtfulness before posting.

Instead, we can use social media in a more thoughtful way to share our experiences with family and friends. Instead of a selfie, or a silly pose, we can use social media platforms to make a positive impact by sharing the important lessons of the Holocaust we have learned by visiting its museums, memorials and sites. Indeed, these have great contemporary relevance, especially when intolerance, prejudice and scapegoating seem so prevalent today.

Visiting Holocaust sites and memorials can be an incredible valuable experience and one we shouldn’t be afraid of undertaking or sharing, for fear of offending. However, the sensitive nature of the topic means we must be conscious of our behaviour, both during and after our visit. Photographs are fine, but they should be taken with respect and knowledge, not ignorance and selfie sticks.

---

Sources

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-38675835 (Photo)

http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Yolocaust-What-happens-when-you-do-yoga-on-top-of-a-Holocaust-memorial-479063 (Photo)

Holocaust Memorial Day 2017 at Warwick University

For Holocaust Memorial Day 2017, I attended and spoke at an event at the Modern Records Centre at Warwick University. This was an educational exhibition curated by the Centre in collaboration with the University’s Students Union.

Holocaust Memorial Day Exhibition at the Modern Record Centre

Reflecting the 2017 theme of ‘How Can Life Go On?’, the exhibition explored both the Holocaust and subsequent genocides which have taken place since the Second World War, such as Rwanda, Cambodia and Srebrenica. Issues such as how refugee crises relate to such events and the varying attitudes of civilian populations to the displaced were also addressed, something particularly relevant to the contemporary sociohistorical context. Finally, the exhibition highlighted ways in which both fascism and anti-fascist resistance have manifested since the Holocaust, a poignant reminder that oppressive ideologies still very much exist today and must be fought against.

At the launch event which took place on 27th January 2017, Holocaust Memorial Day, I gave a short speech about the theme of Holocaust Memorial Day and its contemporary relevance to introduce the exhibition. In line with the theme ‘How Can Life Go On?’ I spoke about the fact that, for many, liberation was not necessarily an end to suffering and discussed life after genocide. Individual victims and nations coming to terms with the trauma and their past; acute social upheaval resulting in displacement; rebuilding communities which have been destroyed or divided by genocide. I also talked about other strands of the 2017 theme, whether there can ever be justice for genocide, for example, or how life can go on after the Holocaust when there is hatred, denial and trivialisation. Finally, in the light of recent political developments, I mentioned the increasing importance of Holocaust Memorial Day. It is a poignant reminder of exactly where hatred, intolerance and unchecked prejudice can lead and offers some very relevant contemporary lessons.

Following this, an expert from the Modern Records Centre then gave us a short tour of the exhibition, explaining and answering questions about a number of documents and artefacts. This exhibition will remain in the MRC for around a month; it’s definitely worth visiting if you can.

 

“For the survivor death is not the problem. Death was an everyday occurrence. We learned to live with death. The problem is to adjust to life, to living. You must teach us about living” – Elie Wiesel, Author and Holocaust Survivor

HMDT Online Workshop Launch

In my role on the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust’s Youth Champion Board I have helped to develop the Youth Champion workshops to ensure that participants gain a sound understanding of the Holocaust and subsequent genocides and feel as confident about running an HMD activity as possible.

I’m excited to announce that the Youth Champion Workshop has just been launched in an interactive online format. So if you missed this year’s workshops, you can still sign up and participate in the programme here: http://hmd.org.uk/interactive/course/index.php?categoryid=3 

Calais ‘Jungle’: Are comparisons with Nazi Germany justified?

A week after the controversial clearance of the so-called Calais ‘jungle’ began, the final 1,500 refugee children have been moved from the camp this morning. With this demolition, our attention has once again been drawn to the ongoing migrant crisis and yet another comparison to Nazi Germany has been made.

Last week, Clare Moseley, founder of the charity Care4Calais, became the latest addition to the growing list of those who have drawn the comparison between Jewish victims of the Holocaust and twenty-first century refugees. Indeed, her comment that “the way the French people treat the refugees sometimes can feel very much like cattle” seems to suggest that there are parallels between the French government’s treatment of migrants at Calais and the Nazi’s persecution of Jews. But such a comparison serves only to trivialise and offend.

Refugees have been made to sleep in shipping containers

Undeniably, the treatment of migrants and refugees at Calais has been less than ideal with them being made to sleep in shipping containers and randomly allocated beds without consideration of factors such as age, gender or religion. Likewise, regular outbreaks of violence between the French police and the camp’s inhabitants have made the camp an uncomfortable environment.

However, suggestions that the actions of French authorities are in any way equivalent to the Nazis’ systematic persecution and murder of six million Jews are unacceptable. Whilst the treatment of refugees ought to be criticised, such assertions are incredibly inaccurate, trivialise the Holocaust and cause offence to survivors, their families and the Jewish community. Certainly, this is evident in the response from Stephen Pollard, editor of the Jewish Chronicle, that “this comparison demonstrates astonishing ignorance as well as grotesque inhumanity”.

Unfortunately, these comparisons are not uncommon. Recently, singer Lily Allen made reference to Hitler in an article she penned for Vice Magazine. Of course, it’s understandable that she wanted to use a powerful comparison to encourage greater action to support refugees, but her casual reference is a horrific reality which survivors living in Britain today have endured and experienced first-hand.

But whilst direct comparisons between the Refugee Crisis and the Nazi Persecution are clearly inappropriate, the contemporary lessons from the Holocaust are certainly relevant. Survivors who came to Britain on the Kindertransport have repeatedly urged the government to support refugees. Furthermore, the government’s agreement to allow refugee children into Britain, under the recent Dubs Amendment, can be seen partly as a result of persuasion by Alf Dubs, a Kindertransport refugee.

Inaccurate and oversimplified comparisons to the Holocaust, not only in relation to the migrant crisis but also topics such as the US presidential election which has seen numerous comparisons of Trump and Hitler, must be avoided. That is not to condone the actions of the French in Calais, Britain for not doing more in light of the refugee crisis, or Trump’s xenophobic rhetoric, but simply because none of these is on the same level as the Holocaust or Nazi persecution. Suggestions otherwise are inaccurate, short-sighted and offensive.

Lessons From Auschwitz at Hanley Castle High School

My involvement with the Holocaust Educational Trust and my interest in Holocaust education began as a sixth form student at Hanley Castle High School when I took part in  Lessons From Auschwitz and completed my Next Steps project.

This year, Hanley Castle students Chloe Sharman and Richard Waters took part in the project and became ambassadors for the Trust.

Here’s how they reflected on their experiences…

Being a Holocaust Ambassador has been an eye opening experience for us in so many ways. We have learnt about the Holocaust in much more detail and we have been able to expand our knowledge through so many different perspectives. Not only have we learnt about the past and the stories of the victims and perpetrators of the holocaust, but we have also gained an understanding of the importance of standing up against prejudice and discrimination and the need to share this message. Our insight into how the Holocaust is relevant in today’s society has been further extended through this opportunity as a Holocaust Educational Trust Ambassador, as our knowledge and awareness of the past and present has increased. This has made us more determined and confident to stand up for what is right and not remain silent, in a world where issues of prejudice such as homophobia and Islamaphobia are increasingly prevalent.

“We have both been inspired to stand up against discrimination and prejudice”

The Orientation Seminar helped us to grasp two truths that underlie the statistics of the Holocaust: normality and individuality. They were brought home to us by the description of life before the Holocaust and, more importantly, the talk from Holocaust survivor, Susan Pollack. We were not expecting the emotional sledgehammer of her speech. We found it deeply harrowing and emotionally exhausting, at times more demanding than our visit to Auschwitz which followed.

Despite being awake for a full 24 hours, starting and finishing the day at 2:15 AM, the trip to Poland was a once in a lifetime experience. We were overwhelmed when we were told that 20% of the Jew’s deaths happened at Auschwitz. The experience of Auschwitz One, particularly the museum itself, was what we found to be the most emotionally straining. The deepening silence of the group as we moved through the museum; the hair, the suitcases, the prosthetics, the bleak corridors of faces and the pots and pans are all things that still come into our thoughts each day. It was strange to stare out of the windows of Auschwitz One and see the houses, shops and hotels of Oświęcim, where people went about normal lives.

“[We] looked through the fences and there a single bird was singing. A strange juxtaposition of life and horror, yet also a poignant reminder of something the Holocaust survivors that we have heard have spoken of: hope and resilience”

We found Auschwitz Two to be an eerily bleak experience, strangely clinical compared to Auschwitz One. One moment that we have described countless times to classes since was something that epitomises our experience there. We walked with our guide to the extremity of this colossal site of so much suffering and misery, and looked through the fences and there a single bird was singing. A strange juxtaposition of life and horror, yet also a poignant reminder of something the Holocaust survivors that we have heard have spoken of: hope and resilience. We had really come to terms with the immense power that the Nazis had, not just in Germany, but across Europe, and how the ‘Final Solution’ could have been achieved and history could have been changed forever.

Holocaust survivor Joanna Millan speaking to students at Hanley Castle High School

One of the components of our Next Steps project was a speech from Holocaust survivor Joanna Millan. On Wednesday 19th April, she came to Hanley to share her story with a group of Year 9, 10, 11 and Sixth Form Students. Joanna was born Bela Rosenthal in August 1942 in Berlin. At the end of February 1943, Bela’s father was taken from the streets of Berlin and sent to Auschwitz-Birkenau where he was murdered on arrival. Later that year, in June, Bela and her mother were taken from their home and sent to the Terezín (Theresienstadt) Ghetto north of Prague. In 1944, when Bela was 18 months old, her mother contracted tuberculosis due to the conditions in the camp, leaving Bela orphaned and alone in the camp.

We felt that the experience of hearing Joanna’s testimony was a tremendously good one for the school and was very well received across a wide audience. Questions too were interesting, and Joanna stressed to us the importance of telling others about the impact on individuals of the historical Holocaust, but also the immense and continuing danger of hatred, discrimination and prejudice. As history students, the Lessons From Auschwitz project has allowed us to deepen and enhance our view on both, in direct relation to the Holocaust and its relevance on a contemporary level. In this particularly disturbing time, with rhetoric of discrimination and hatred coming from prominent figures in the UK and across the world, the importance of keeping the memory of the Holocaust alive, by sharing stories of the victims, rescuers and perpetrators, only becomes more apparent. We have both been inspired to stand up against discrimination and prejudice through our Lessons from Auschwitz experience.

Berlin’s Holocaust Memorial

A recent trip to Berlin with my University’s History Society saw my second and third visits to the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe. Firstly during a guided tour of Berlin and then in an independent visit, I learnt even more about the memorial than I had on my first trip a year ago. Yet rather than informing my opinion, my recent experiences and newly acquired knowledge have left my view on the memorial undecided, so I thought I’d share some thoughts…

The Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe, Berlin

Indeed, the memorial designed by architect Peter Eisenman has been plagued with controversy from the start, not least due to the €25 million spent on its construction. Whilst criticisms have certainly not been limited, many seem to focus on three main threads: that the memorial fails to represent all those persecuted during the Holocaust; that it is too abstract and therefore reliant on the viewer’s interpretation; that companies which profited through Nazi persecution are now profiting from its memorial.

The first argument, that the memorial is unrepresentative, being dedicated only to Jewish victims, is perhaps the only one I have a firm stance on. Whilst at face value the memorial could be seen as exclusionary, one must not overlook the official definition of the Holocaust – the genocide of Jewish people by the Nazis – which distinguishes their experiences from those of non-Jewish persons. Of course, other groups were also victimised by the Nazi Regime, something which should definitely not be ignored, but ultimately these groups faced persecution, not genocide, therefore it seems that they do not need to be represented by something which memorialises the Holocaust, meaning the genocide of Jews. That is not to condone or dismiss the Nazis’ persecution of other groups but simply to suggest that the experiences of each different group were separate and distinct. Furthermore, separate memorials to other persecuted groups also exist, such as the Memorial to Homosexuals Persecuted Under Nazism, situated nearby in the adjacent Tiergarten. So the dedication of the memorial to Jewish victims is clearly not an issue, however other features of the memorial mean that it remains problematic.

An uneven path through the memorial

The physical architecture and design of the memorial has certainly remained a topic of debate, especially when Peter Eisenman‘s proposal was chosen from hundreds of submissions. The design consists of 2711 concrete slabs, varying in height, arranged in a grid on top of an uneven surface. Yet, besides the underground ‘Place of Information’ which contains the names of over 3 million victims of the Holocaust, nowhere in the 19000m² memorial is there any plaque or inscription to explain what it memorialises. Consequently the memorial has faced criticism for being unclear about what it represents as well as for lacking religious symbolism and therefore not being Jewish enough.

Arguably, however, Eisenman’s design does effectively memorialise the Holocaust, just in a more abstract way. Indeed, walking through the blocks quickly evokes a feeling of disorientation and as you approach the centre, you are suddenly left feeling lost, trapped and panicked. Perhaps this can be seen as a reflection of Jewish people’s experiences during the Holocaust. Or perhaps the fact that a seemingly ordered structure can quickly create such an unsettling environment is a poignant reminder as to how quickly and easily a democratically elected government was able to perpetrate such an awful crime. The anonymity of the memorial can also be seen to make it particularly powerful. Not naming any of the victims the memorial is dedicated to  ensures that it equally remembers those whose names are unknown – families and communities whose entire record of existence was completely destroyed. Indeed, the memorial effectively creates a name for the nameless.

But is the reliance on the visitor’s interpretation problematic? As powerful and effective as the symbolism might be, being too abstract in design could certainly result in the loss of the architect’s intellectual intent. Every time I have visited the memorial I’ve witnessed visitors’ disrespectful behaviour, from jumping across the memorial’s blocks to sitting on them to eat. Perhaps this is evidence that the memorial is not clear enough about what it represents. But then can any memorial really convey a message that every member of the public can understand? Or would any level of lucidity be enough to prevent disrespectful behaviour at the site? Ultimately I remain undecided as to where I stand on the architecture of the memorial. Whilst I personally have found it to be incredibly powerful, I’m not sure how effective a memorial can be when it leaves many visitors disengaged.

Finally, the memorial has also been rather controversial for its anti-graffiti coating. Criticisms are not due to the presence of this protective agent (which I am certain is necessary after the memorial was vandalised with swastikas within the first year of its opening) but due to the company which provided it.  It was revealed that Degussa, the firm which provided the coating, was closely linked to a company which profited greatly from Nazi persecution. It’s now defunct parent company Degesch had produced the Zyklon B gas which was used to poison people in gas chambers. Certainly it raises the question as to whether it is right that a company which profited from the Holocaust is now able to profit from its memorial. Lea Rosh, one of the key campaigners for the memorial, has suggested that the involvement of a business which was complicit in the Nazis’ systematic killing will prevent many Jewish people and descendents of Holocaust victims from visiting.

“One must always forgive. That is the essence of this monument” –  Peter Eisenman

But whilst Degussa’s contribution to the memorial could be seen as insulting, ultimately it is no longer the company it was during the Third Reich. Indeed, Peter Eisenman himself argued that “one must always forgive. That is the essence of this monument”. I’m uncertain as to whether this memorial is the right place to demonstrate such forgiveness though. Whilst I agree that Degussa, who have been open and honest about their past, should be forgiven, and that the business is no longer the same as it was under Degesch, if their involvement will prevent the families of those the memorial is dedicated to from visiting it then should the company have been involved? Perhaps forgiveness didn’t need to include participation in the memorial. I’m not really sure.

Regardless of the memorial’s controversy, however, or any individual’s personal opinion or criticism of it, the fact that there is a dedicated memorial site in such a central location of Berlin is significant in itself. I doubt that any memorial or design can exist without a single criticism, but whether this memorial is liked or not, it is a monument that Germans cannot ignore. The physical acknowledgement and memorial of this part of German history serves as a lasting reminder of where unchecked prejudice and discrimination can lead, and the contemporary relevance of the Holocaust. Certainly, it plays a significant role in ensuring the Holocaust is never forgotten.

---

Sources

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4531669.stm

https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005143

http://www.spiegel.de/international/public-disrespect-berlin-holocaust-memorial-used-as-toilet-a-462801.html

http://www.dw.com/en/degussa-to-continue-work-on-holocaust-memorial/a-1029053

http://whenonearth.net/berlins-awe-inspiring-controversial-memorial-murdered-jews-europe/ (photo)

http://www.photos4travel.com/travel-guides/germany/pictures/memorial-to-the-murdered-jews-of-europe-berlin  (photo)

http://www.deviantart.com/morelikethis/77521688 (photo)

 

Homophobia and the Holocaust

Today marks International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia which provides an opportunity for us to remember those who were persecuted by the Nazis for their sexuality.

The Nazi party victimised homosexuals in their attempt to racially and culturally purify Germany, as they believed that they were too weak and unfit to be soldiers and also unlikely to have children or contribute to the racial struggle for Aryan dominance.

Persecution of homosexuals took place in various forms, ranging from the dissolution of homosexual organisations to imprisonment in concentration camps. Indeed, homosexuals living throughout Nazi occupied Europe faced harassment, arrest, and even castration. Like the anti-Semitic laws in Germany, gay men also faced discriminatory legislation as Paragraph 175 of the criminal code made homosexuality illegal in Germany. Consequently the Nazis arrested over 100,000 homosexual men, over half of whom were imprisoned, with German police having the power to jail indefinitely, without trial, during the Nazi regime. Furthermore, between 5,000 and 15,000 homosexual men were imprisoned in concentration camps, like Auschwitz.

Humiliation was also a part of the persecution they faced. Homosexual prisoners were marked with pink triangular badges, to highlight their sexuality, and were one of the most abused groups within concentration camps. They were subjected to various medical experiments conducted by the Nazis to find a ‘cure’ for homosexuality. Such experiments resulted in illness, mutilation and often death, making them incredibly inhumane.

Whilst it is important that we remember the persecution of homosexuals during the Nazi regime, we must not overlook the fact that homophobia remains a huge problem today, especially in certain parts of the world. Progress has been made, for example with changes to marriage legislation in the USA and Ireland, but events such as the stabbings at a Gay Pride Parade in Jerusalem in 2015 highlight that there is still a long way to go in eliminating homophobic attitudes. Certainly the Nazi persecution of homosexuals during the Holocaust serves as an important reminder as to why such attitudes are so dangerous.

---

Sources

https://www.ushmm.org/information/exhibitions/online-features/special-focus/nazi-persecution-of-homosexuals

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/Homosexuals_and_the_Third_Reich.html

https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005261

Remembering Belsen: 71 Years

Today, 15th April, marks the 71st anniversary of the liberation of the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp by British troops. This time last year, I was honoured to be a part of the Holocaust Educational Trust’s delegation to the commemorative services at Bergen-Belsen and the Bergen-Hohne Army Garrison which marked the 70th anniversary.

Wreaths laid at the 70th anniversary Commemorative Service

But 71 is no less significant than 70. It’s not necessary to have some sort of round or important number for such an anniversary to be noteworthy; what it represents is important regardless of how many years ago it happened.

Sign erected by British troops at Bergen-Belsen

The liberation of Bergen-Belsen by the 11th Armoured Division of the British Army shaped and defined Britain’s relationship with the Holocaust. British people were directly affected by the Holocaust when they arrived at Belsen and faced the sight of unburied bodies, emaciated people and widespread disease. Certainly, when speaking at the Holocaust Educational Trust’s Ambassador Conference last year, Bernard Levy explained that what he saw at the age of just 19 has “strangled [him] for all these years”.

Furthermore, the liberation of Bergen-Belsen is also a poignant reminder that for many, liberation did not necessarily equal freedom. Despite liberation by the British army on 15th April 1945, many of those in the concentration camp still subsequently died as a result of starvation, poor living conditions and prevalent disease. Similarly, following liberation, many of the victims of the camp had neither homes or families to return to and found themselves living in displaced persons camps for many years.

Undoubtedly, the Holocaust is incredibly relevant to society today as it epitomises the very  best and very worst of humanity and offers some very important lessons. Anniversaries such as this one are especially significant as they provide us with an opportunity to reflect on the Holocaust and think about its contemporary relevance.

Stop Comparing Trump to Hitler

Be it feminist pride, SU elections or ‘Brexit’, my Facebook newsfeed has become increasingly politicised lately. But amongst the appeals for my signature on petitions and the criticisms of SU politics, what has struck me most is the countless comparisons between Donald Trump and Adolf Hitler.

Not just limited to social media, such comparisons have also been prevalent in the news recently as politicians and celebrities alike have commented on Trump. Just days ago, Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto blasted Trump’s xenophobic rhetoric and suggested that he is emulating the campaign tactics of Hitler and Mussolini. Similarly, comedian Louis C.K. has drawn the Hitler-Trump comparison, going as far as to say ‘the guy is Hitler. And by that I mean that we are being Germany in the 30s’.

Trump rally in Orlando, Florida on 5th March 2016

In a recent rally in Orlando, Florida, Trump instigated further comparisons to Hitler when he asked his supporters to raise their right hand in a pledge that they would vote for him, a gesture which many have suggested resembled the ‘Heil Hitler’ salute.

When asked about such criticisms, Trump’s response that ‘it’s a terrible comparison’ is perhaps the one thing he is right about. Likening the pair is misleading, unhelpful and incredibly problematic.

Undeniably some parallels can be drawn between the two figures, not least in their racist, bigoted attitudes and scapegoating of particular groups within society. However, such similarities are not enough to warrant the prevalent suggestions that Trump is an American version of Hitler. In fact, such assertions not only oversimplify the subject and ignore the major differences between the figures, they are also ignorant of history and incredibly offensive to those who were victims of (or whose family were victims of) the Nazi persecution. Such poor comparisons simply trivialise the Holocaust.

The misplaced apostrophes are the least problematic thing about this Facebook post

Facebook posts such as this one seemingly convey that Trump and Hitler are identical in everything except the group they target, that if you simply replace the word ‘Jew’ with ‘Muslim’ or ‘Immigrant’ then their rhetoric is indistinguishable. This is simply not the case.

Firstly, there are clear differences in ideology. For Hitler, Jews were perceived as inherently evil and damaging for Germany simply because of their religion and ethnicity. In contrast, Trump’s concerns are with illegal immigrants rather than being focused upon a particular religious or ethnic group. I am not in any way condoning Trump’s proposals on how to deal with such people or his scapegoating of such a group, however his concerns are based on the issue of assimilation, unlike Hitler’s view of Jewish people who were targeted by the Nazi regime regardless of whether or not they embraced German culture.  

Secondly, whilst Trump undoubtedly has a racist and xenophobic attitude, he has not openly called for the annihilation of any particular group, unlike Hitler. As early as 1925, he outlined his anti-Semitic views in Mein Kampf explaining that ‘it is the inexorable Jew who struggles for his domination over the nations. No nation can remove this hand from its throat except by the sword […] Such a process is and remains a bloody one’. Such a  notion of physically fighting the Jews in order to ‘remove’ them was then later reinforced in his 1939 Reichstag speech where he openly called for the ‘annihilation’ of Jews. It is not to say that Trump’s attitude isn’t wrong, but it’s just not on the same level as that of Hitler. 

Another factor which sets Trump and Hitler apart is the use of the SA (Sturmabteilung) the paramilitary organisation associated with the Nazi party. They played a significant role in Hitler’s rise to power, initiating violence, creating fear and terror, and fighting paramilitary organisations of opposing parties. Trump, in contrast, has no such organisation affiliated with him or his campaign, highlighting how tenuous comparisons can be as they ignore major factors such as this one and overlook the differences between 1930s Germany and contemporary US society. 

Certainly, such differences in society mean that Trump is operating within a very different context to that of Hitler. Not only are we living in a world where we have the precedent of the Holocaust having happened, something which can perhaps be seen to make the international community more cautious of something similar occurring again (although there have been and still are genocides which have occurred since), there are also significant constitutional differences. Not only did Proportional Representation enable the representation of more radical parties in the Reichstag, Hitler was also able to take advantage of other weaknesses in the Weimar constitution in order to secure his position and establish a dictatorship. Article 48 could be used by the President to rule by decree and was used shortly after the Reichstag fire to limit freedoms of expression and to implement press censorship. Similarly, the passing of the Enabling Act in 1933 gave Hitler plenary powers and removed his accountability to the Reichstag. For Trump however, the differing structure of the US constitution makes it near impossible for him to create a dictatorship, due to the checks and balances in place. There is no mechanism with which he could suspend the constitution, but rather he would have to amend it, an incredibly difficult task and one which has rarely been achieved. 

Clearly there are many differences between Trump and Hitler, in their ideology, their campaigns and the context of their respective societies. Not only are there many innacuracies with comparisons between the two, but any suggestion that Trump’s actions, policies or rhetoric are in any way equal to that of Hitler trivialises the Holocaust and Nazi persecution. I am not in any way condoning Trump and his racist, xenophobic beliefs, but I’m saying that these are simply not on the same level as Hitler’s. Undoubtedly the lessons of the Holocaust are relevant here and we must ensure that we don’t accept Trump’s claims or propositions, but ultimately this is not a repetition of the Holocaust, the US is not Germany in the 1930s and Donald Trump is not Hitler. Any suggestion otherwise is incredibly offensive to those who suffered under the Nazi regime therefore we really need to stop comparing Trump to Hitler.

---

Sources

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-35753318

http://fusion.net/story/278114/mexican-president-compares-trump-to-hitler-and-mussolini/

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/08/politics/donald-trump-adolf-hitler-comparison-response/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/noah-baron/donald-trump-isnt-hitler_b_8751676.html

http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv2ch14.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/donald-trump/12038640/Who-said-it-Donald-Trump-or-Adolf-Hitler.html

160305172616-donald-trump-asks-audience-to-raise-their-hands-and-pledge-to-vote-00002523-large-169.jpg