Abstract: Der Bundesverband der Recherche- und Informationsstellen Antisemitismus e. V. (Bundesverband RIAS) ist der Dachverband zivilgesellschaftlicher Meldestellen für antisemitische Vorfälle in Deutschland. Er verfolgt das Ziel, bundesweit eine einheitliche zivilgesellschaftliche Dokumentation antisemitischer Vorfälle ober- und unterhalb der Strafbarkeitsgrenze zu gewährleisten, die in jährlichen Berichten systematisch ausgewertet und der Öffentlichkeit zugänglich gemacht werden. Neben den Meldungen von Betroffenen und Zeug*innen, dem Versammlungs- und Pressemonitoring sind auch polizeilich erfasste Straftaten Teil der Datengrundlagen, wenn diese zugänglich gemacht werden. In den vergangenen Jahren gab es allerdings keinen flächendeckenden systematischen Abgleich mit den polizeilichen Statistiken zu antisemitischen Straftaten. Der Kriminalpolizeiliche Meldedienst Politisch Motivierte Kriminalität (KPMD-PMK), in den neben den klassischen Staatsschutzdelikten auch Hasskriminalität beziehungsweise antisemitische Straftaten eingehen, ist seit Beginn Gegenstand der Arbeit des Bundesverbandes RIAS, etwa in den vom Bundesverband RIAS durchgeführten Problembeschreibungen zu Antisemitismus in mehreren Bundesländern (vgl. RIAS-BK 2018; Bundesverband RIAS, 2019, 2020, 2021a, 2021b, 2022; SABRA 2020). Das durch das BMI geförderte Projekt Austausch von Polizei und Zivilgesellschaft zu Antisemitismus (APZAS) wurde ins Leben gerufen, um einerseits den Austausch zwischen regionalen Antisemitismus-Meldestellen und den Polizeistellen zu initiieren und zu begleiten sowie andererseits die Erfassungspraxis in den föderal arbeitenden Landeskriminalämtern aus zivilgesellschaftlicher Perspektive zu untersuchen und dabei insbesondere den zugrunde liegenden antisemitismusbegriff nachzuvollziehen. Dafür wurden 2023 zwölf leitfadengestützte Interviews mit Expert*innen (vgl. Helfferich, 2019) aus den Bereichen Zivilgesellschaft, Wissenschaft, Justiz, der polizeilichen Hochschullehre sowie Vertreter*innen unterschiedlicher Landeskriminalämter geführt. Die Interviews wurden im Anschluss inhaltsanalytisch ausgewertet (vgl. Kuckartz, 2012; Schreier, 2012). Ausgewählte Ergebnisse werden in diesem Beitrag diskutiert. Bevor wir uns der Kritik der Extremismus-Konzeption widmen, werden zunächst das Antisemitismusverständnis des KPMD-PMK sowie Perspektiven von Betroffenen untersucht.
Abstract: Die deutsche Gesellschaft steht angesichts globaler und regionaler Entwicklungen der letzten Jahrzehnte vor vielfältigen gesellschaftspolitischen Herausforderungen. Verschärfte Konflikte, Rassismus, Diskriminierung sowie die Verbreitung von Falschinformationen und Verschwörungsmythen prägen das gesellschaftliche Klima. Rassistische,
antisemitische, rechtsextreme und autoritäre Einstellungen sind tief in Teilen der Gesellschaft verwurzelt und manifestieren sich zunehmend sichtbarer und gewaltbereiter (Decker et al., 2022; Zick et al., 2023; Institut
für angewandte Familien-, Kindheits- und Jugendforschung e. V., 2023a; 2023b). Die Erkenntnisse dieser Studien verdeutlichen die Dringlichkeit, die Verbreitung extremistischer Einstellungen, insbesondere unter jungen
Menschen, genauer zu erforschen. In diesem Beitrag werden die Ergebnisse einer bundesweiten OnlineBefragung zu antisemitischen Einstellungen junger Menschen in Deutschland zwischen 16 und 27 Jahren vorgestellt. Die Befragung wurde in drei Phasen durchgeführt: In der ersten Phase wurden antisemitische (n = 1 593, Erhebungszeitraum: November 2022), in der zweiten Phase antimuslimische (n = 1 625, Erhebungszeitraum: September 2023) und in der
dritten Phase rechtsextreme Einstellungen (n = 1 313, Erhebungszeitraum: Dezember 2023) junger Menschen erforscht. Bei der Ziehung der Stichprobe wurde auf das Online-Access-Panel GapFish zurückgegriffen. Die
ausgewählten Ergebnisse in diesem Beitrag beziehen sich auf die erste und dritte Phase (antisemitische und rechtsextreme Einstellungen junger Menschen in Deutschland)
Abstract: Transnistria, meaning “beyond the Dniester”, was an artificial geographic term created during the Second World War, referring to a region in the Ukraine that was situated between the Dniester River on the west and the Bug River on the east, also extending southward to the Black Sea. During October and November 1941, thousands of terrorized Jews, mostly without food and water, were deported on foot or by wagon to Transnistria. Depending on whose numbers one uses, between 120,000 and 180,000 Jews were deported to Transnistria from Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina. Of this group, only 50,000 would survive the war.
For years, the fate of the Jews in Transnistria was not emphasized in Holocaust remembrance, education, or commemoration. The reasons for this were manifold. They included problems of documentation; attitudes of Eastern European governments until the transition of the 1990s; priorities of major Holocaust memorial organizations until that transition; activities, primarily internally focused, of the survivor organizations from Bukovina, Bessarabia, and Transnistria; and, finally, the dynamics among Jewish survivors from Romania as they reassembled their lives in the first postwar decades. All this contributed to Transnistria becoming “the forgotten Holocaust”.
As the last Jewish survivors of the Transnistrian ghettos and camps reached their eighth and ninth decades at the beginning of the 21st century, various political, social, educational, and demographic factors coalesced, changing pre-existing dynamics regarding the memory of Transnistria. In this chapter, I focus on these factors, showing how and why this “forgotten Holocaust” is slowly being remembered again.
Abstract: Public engagement with the Holocaust in Romania has developed slowly and unevenly, shaped by decades of political constraint and institutional silence. Until 1989, restricted archival access and an antifascist ideological framework marginalized the specificity of Jewish persecution, subsuming it under a generalized narrative of “victims of fascism”. A substantive public acknowledgment of Romania’s responsibility emerged only in 2004, with the adoption of the Final Report of the International Commission on the Holocaust in Romania. This belated recognition profoundly influenced the spatial articulation of memory in Bucharest.
The chapter examines the fragmented mnemonic landscape of the city through a theoretical distinction between imprints and places. Imprints are material interventions – monuments, plaques, museums – that inscribe historical facts into public space. While essential for visibility and moral acknowledgment, they operate largely as static markers. Places, by contrast, are urban sites whose latent memory is reactivated through collective engagement. Rather than merely preserving the past, they generate memory through interaction, interpretation, and embodied experience.
Through case studies – including Giurgiului Cemetery, the Bucharest Holocaust Memorial (2009), and the Memorial to the Martyrs of the Bucharest Pogrom (2016) – the chapter traces the transition from enclosed, community-bound remembrance to civic visibility. It then analyzes the pedagogical project PLACES (2021), developed with architecture students, which reconstructed the prewar addresses of the 125 pogrom victims and reinscribed them into the contemporary city through mapping, archival research, and digital interfaces.
By shifting attention from sites of death to spaces of everyday life, PLACES exemplifies a performative model of remembrance grounded in secondary witnessing. The study argues that, in the absence of living testimony, urban space itself becomes a medium of memory – capable not only of conserving history but of ethically reactivating it within the present.
Abstract: The chapter uses an autoethnographic method to analyse the displacement experiences of its authors, who come from different ethnic backgrounds, mother tongues, geographies and histories in Turkey. The fact that the paths of the authors, as living representations of Turkey’s ethnic, linguistic and cultural diversity, crossed in exile in Germany is also the history of the silencing of ethnic, religious and political minorities. The authors uncover the interconnectedness of those individual stories that are inherent in the larger historical narrative of the country. Thus, they offer us an analysis of the experiences of exile in Germany, through three intertwined autoethnographies of Jewish, Kurdish and anarchist academic exiles.
Abstract: The Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum received two million visitors in 2019, making it the most heavily visited museum in Poland. This entry situates tourism at Auschwitz within the broader context of Holocaust tourism by providing an historical account of the phenomenon. It begins with those visitors to the camp before 1945 who were not tourists (Nazi officials, local suppliers, engineers), drawing attention to tourism’s ethical ambiguity. Since the museum’s 1947 opening, tourists have encountered a site undergoing continual development, its exhibition spaces and its messaging evolving from the Stalinist era through the Cold War to the present period. This chapter considers how shifts in the site’s memory politics, especially regarding the representation of different victim groups, have led to unresolved tensions that still surface during the tour. It then considers some present-day challenges to the legitimacy of tourism at Auschwitz, such as visitor behaviour or the difficulties in providing an appropriate, authentic, and informative experience to large crowds. Finally, the chapter reviews different scholarly approaches to Holocaust tourism, such as dark tourism theory and empirical visitor research, before concluding with questions for future research into Auschwitz tourism.
Abstract: The chapter addresses the key problem of Polish collective memory of Auschwitz, that is, how Poles perceive the former camp, in a wider context of Polish memory of World War II, Nazi camps, and the Holocaust. It presents and discusses results of surveys representative of Poland’s population, particularly two designed by the authors and conducted in 2020. The surveys show that the war is the major theme of Polish collective memory, and Nazi camps in general and Auschwitz in particular belong to top Polish lieux de mémoire. Auschwitz evokes in Poles mostly general and universalist associations with destruction, murder, crematoria, gas chambers, and death. The Holocaust is spontaneously associated with Auschwitz only rarely. On the other hand, the camp is the most frequently associated site of the destruction of Jews. The Polish collective memory of Auschwitz hinges upon a poor awareness of the number, nationality, and countries of origin of the camp’s victims. However, Poles are aware of the major historical functions of the camp and share different symbolic meanings of it. Some survey results suggest that a cosmopolitan Holocaust memory focusing on Auschwitz developed among Poles while others indicate that the Polish memory of Auschwitz has nationalist characteristics.
Abstract: The past is never past, wrote William Faulkner. The great American writer had in mind his native Mississippi, but he might as well have written those words about Poland. Indeed, among history-conscious Poles, the findings of historians have had far-reaching social and political consequences that transcend the esoteric discussions of scholars. This was corroborated in recent times by the emergence of a discourse in Poland over what some have called polityka historyczna (Geschichtspolitik, or history policy), which focuses on the question of whether historians who write of the less glorious episodes in Polish history are actually acting against the interests of the nation. Many Polish historians, including the best-known scholars among them, have protested against this suggestion, which poses a clear danger to the fidelity of their discipline. The dissolution of the Communist regime in Poland at the end of the 1980s made possible the deconstruction of every aspect of contemporary history. The process of reconstruction, begun in earnest, proved to be complex and painful. This was particularly the case when dealing with the bitterest chapters in the millennial story of Polish-Jewish relations, which were, and continue to be, the subject of popular and intellectual discussion as well as serious scholarly research. Out of this process emerged a new understanding of history, one that renders much of the earlier canon on the topic virtually obsolete. It had, in fact, been under way for some years even before the collapse of Communism – especially in the pages of Poland’s extraordinarily vibrant underground press and also, to an impressive extent given the prevailing censorship, in those of Poland’s legally operated independent Catholic press. Polish émigré journals were also regularly smuggled into Poland and had significant influence. Nevertheless, it was only with the collapse of the old regime and the birth of Poland’s Third Republic that this activity could be carried out without interference and Poland could finally undergo its own Vergangenheitsbewältigung (coming to terms with the past). This chapter discusses the evolution of Poland’s confrontation with the destruction of Polish Jewry.
Abstract: The study, preservation and dissemination of the synagogues of Greece has been a 30-year project initiated by the author in 1993. It included a journey to cities throughout Greece, documenting synagogues—some in use, others abandoned or in ruins—engaging in surveys and interviews. The project focused on people, architecture, the urban context and local history. Over the years, the work evolved to give a form and a voice to invisible buildings and places once vibrant with Jewish life. Through digital tools, books, exhibitions and in-situ journeys, the author aims to make this invisible architectural and historic evidence visible again, and accessible to a wider audience. This chapter addresses the question “How lost synagogues become visible again?” The author unfolds a methodology that combines low and high tech, and examples of restoration and dissemination projects, spanning three-decades until today. The survey and study of the synagogues of Greece that began between 1993 and 1999 is still in progress. Architectural restorations were completed between 2016 and 2023, while numerous exhibitions, presentations and publications has made his work accessible to a wider audience since 1997.
Abstract: Our point of departure being that free speech by all sides must be protected and that pro-Palestinian speech is not antisemitic by definition, this chapter examines the extent to which Greek political parties’ critique of Israeli policies diachronically might implicitly or explicitly contribute to the dissemination of antisemitic mythopoesis. Moving beyond the conventional focus on far-right rhetoric, this analysis explores how antisemitic tropes are reproduced within the discourses of mainstream political actors, including the conservative party New Democracy and the socialist PASOK. Particular emphasis is placed on the Greek left, a heterogeneous political formation encompassing a broad spectrum of ideologies that ostensibly uphold human rights and progressive values. The presence of discriminatory discourse within such frameworks reveals the deep entrenchment of antisemitic attitudes in Greek society, where they function as a form of ideological common sense. By examining periods such as the Greek debt crisis and the War in Gaza starting in 2023, we argue that this latent antisemitism tends to resurface during periods of socio-political crisis and permeates the entire political spectrum, challenging assumptions about its marginality or exclusivity to far right politics and rhetoric. At this point, and in light of the turbulent historical moment we are witnessing—marked by an ongoing humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip, the endless suffering of the Palestinean people and the widespread instability throughout the Middle East—we deem it necessary to clarify that it is not our intention to intervene in the broader debate surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In contrast, our objective is to examine the phenomenon of antisemitism through a historical, cultural, and political lens, with a specific focus on how public opinion is shaped with regard to Greek Jewish citizens—and Jews more broadly—within the discourse articulated by Greek political actors. We would like to explicitly state that antisemitism, in this context, is not to be understood solely as a contemporary political manifestation, but as a multidimensional and diachronic phenomenon. With reference to the events of October 7th and their aftermath, we align ourselves with the position articulated by Gabor Maté, who, discussing the trauma and Palestinian suffering, emphatically stated that: “Any colonial power does precisely what Israel is doing and has been doing. (…) So, there is nothing specifically ‘Jewish’ about this. It also goes along with the colonial trajectory
Abstract: The recent Israeli onslaught on Gaza has sparked bitter arguments on United Kingdom (UK) university campuses. These conflicts have intertwined with wider disputes over politics, cultural identity, freedom of speech, and also empathy. Both sides routinely accuse their opponents of a lack of empathy with the victims of violence with whom they themselves identify. This chapter sets these arguments, in relation to empathy with suffering in particular, in historical context, extending back to the 1930s. The memory of the Holocaust, and the rise since the 1990s, in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, of a form of empathy-focused Holocaust education, has fed into the politicization and weaponization of empathy in the context of the Middle East conflict. The chapter closes with four practical suggestions, which might help to unblock these unproductive, acrimonious, and emotionally charged disputes on British campuses.
Abstract: In 2009, the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum took the experimental initiative of creating a Facebook page; since then, it has established accounts on other social media platforms, such as Instagram and Twitter, and is now followed by more than one million users across these networks. This chapter investigates the ways in which the Museum utilises social media, particularly with regard to its authority as an institution and site of Holocaust education and remembrance. On one hand, the Museum has fostered an online virtual community where Auschwitz victims are commemorated, the ethics of remembrance are discussed, and users’ feedback is sought and acknowledged. On the other hand, the institution uses social media to fact-check and criticise certain representations of Auschwitz, suggesting only those explicitly approved by the Museum are acceptable. This demonstrates a wider Museum dichotomy between retaining traditional, didactic practices and establishing contemporary, participatory ones.
Abstract: In this chapter, we investigate how four Italian and five German Holocaust memorials and museums, as well as three major internationally relevant Holocaust organizations, employed Facebook for Holocaust remembrance purposes during the period of pandemic lockdown. A comparison was made of the quantity and variety of activity on their Facebook pages during the months of April and May 2020, as compared with the same time span in 2019 and 2021. Although the study revealed major changes and adjustments in Holocaust institutions’ Facebook activities, both in terms of volume and type of content and regarding interaction strategies, the results show that the COVID-19 lockdown did not appear to trigger a radical change in Holocaust remembrance institutions’ use of social media. Despite the changes found in many Holocaust remembrance practices on Facebook and their growing use of digital media, the memorials and museums considered in this study appear to adopt a conservative stance in terms of the topics and themes addressed via social media and a general little change in the framework of commemoration policies. Also, despite a drive toward internationalization, as demonstrated by the Holocaust institutions’ increased use of English, there still appears to be a certain tension between local and global memories of the Holocaust.
Abstract: The severe restrictions on public life following the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic affected Holocaust memorials and museums worldwide, especially in Europe, Israel, and the United States. These measures posed significant challenges to contemporary forms of Holocaust commemoration, which were based on collaborative practices of remembering, particularly related to the experience of presence at the memorial sites. In our chapter, we ask in which ways the pandemic had an accelerating effect on global Holocaust memory by tracing, analyzing, and identifying the institutionalized use of online platforms and digital formats on social media. We present results from an online survey conducted with 32 key institutions in the field of Holocaust commemoration in the Spring and Summer of 2020 and discuss them in the context of various forms of digital activities initiated by Holocaust memorials and museums in response to the pandemic. For that purpose, we have created a comprehensive database of 45 digital projects, which were released in the first months of the pandemic, and conducted a multimodal analysis of selected projects. We identified a significant increase in social media use and digital tools, in particular video formats, helping institutions to communicate virtually with potential audiences. Memorials utilized various social media features like live streams, stories, and hashtags to implement elements of participatory memory culture that offer users the possibility to participate in new collaborative forms of mediated commemoration. In doing so, they helped to establish like-minded and co-creative commemoration communities.
Abstract: In our chapter, we investigate how the Covid-19 restrictions affected the translation of in-person commemorative ceremonies into online-only events. Whilst the majority of existing research has a relatively small scale, we have turned to the larger scope of social media data to examine wider online memory culture. To do so, we conduct comparative analysis of Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram data from institutions organising commemorative events for the liberation of Neuengamme, the massacre at Srebrenica, and the liberation of Beau Bassin together with non-institutional posts using the hashtags from these institutions. Through this analysis, we aim to answer our main research questions: how do the online discourses by institutions and the wider public compare in relation to posts using shared hashtags during major commemoration periods during Covid-19 lockdowns? To what extent did the move to remote engagement during the pandemic reconfigure the so-called bifurcation of memory culture, between institutional and popular memory discourse (Hoskins, 2014) in any way that might suggest that the lockdowns evidence a change in commemoration practices? Our findings demonstrate that despite the major anniversaries marked in 2020, related memory institutions had little impact on social media, and their commemorative approaches in these spheres were not transformed by the pandemic.
Abstract: Antisemitische Stereotype sind heute in allen politischen und gesellschaftlichen Kreisen virulent, sie sind in hohem Maße integrativer Bestandteil rechtsextremer Ideologie, finden sich im globalisierungskritischen und im linken Umfeld und sind auch in der Mitte der Gesellschaft längst kein Tabu mehr. Seit Beginn der Zweiten Intifada im Herbst 2000, als sich erneut zeigte, welchen Mobilisierungseffekt die Radikalisierung des Nahostkonflikts auf antisemitische Einstellungen und Aktionen hat, zeigt sich, dass antisemitische Stereotype und Propaganda in verschiedenen europäischen Ländern auch unter Migranten und deren Nachkommen virulent sind, die aus der arabischen Welt, aus Nordafrika oder der Türkei stammen. Wobei diese antisemitischen Vorurteilsstrukturen kaum Anknüpfungspunkte an etwaige Traditionen im Islam aufweisen, sondern vielmehr Ergebnis einer von europäischen Vordenkern des Antisemitismus in die muslimische Welt getragenen Topoi sind, die dort inzwischen einen zentralen Stellenwert einnehmen und sich insbesondere in einer antizionistischen Variante gegen Israel, aber ebenso gegen Juden überhaupt richten (vgl. zum Antisemitismus in der arabischen Welt Tibi 2003). Entgegen verbreiteter Vorstellungen – nach denen Araber als Semiten keine antisemitischen Vorurteile hegen könnten – schließt der Begriff „Antisemitismus“ auch Judenfeindschaft von Arabern ein. Der Begriff Antisemitismus, der gegen Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts entstand, meint ausschließlich die Feindschaft gegen Juden und ist ein Konstrukt der Agitatoren seiner Entstehungszeit.
Abstract: Die Problematik des politisch-islamischen Antisemitismus (PIA) hat in den letzten Jahren zunehmend Aufmerksamkeit erfahren. In diesem Kapitel gehen wir der oftmals wenig berücksichtigten Frage nach, wie Jüdinnen:Juden die aktuelle Bedrohungslage erleben und ausdeuten. Dies untersuchen wir aus Perspektive einer phänomenologisch orientierten Wissenssoziologie mittels eines Mixed-Methods-Ansatzes. Unsere Studie umfasst die Analyse von 21 problemzentrierten Interviews mit Jüdinnen:Juden sowie die Auswertung eines Online-Surveys mit 295 jüdischen Befragten. Die Interviewanalyse ergab, dass das Erleben von PIA strukturidentisch zu anderen Antisemitismusformen verläuft. Die alltägliche Konfrontation führt zum Erleben dreier Begrenzungen: Im Vorfeld der möglichen Konfrontation ist es problematisch, dass diese nicht immer vollumfänglich antizipiert werden kann. Kommt es zur Konfrontation, sind selbstgewählte Alltagsrelevanzen eingegrenzt. Im weiteren Konfrontationsverlauf kann sich zudem die eigene Handlungsfähigkeit als begrenzt erweisen. Die Auswertung der quantitativen Daten kann hieran anknüpfend zeigen, dass viele Befragte von Begegnungen mit PIA berichten, den sie vor allem durch Aussagen, Sprache und Kontext der Täter:innen identifizieren. 29 % der Befragten gaben an, in den letzten zehn Jahren PIA in Form von Beleidigung, Vandalismus oder physischer Gewalt erlebt zu haben. Bezüglich der Bedrohungs- und Problemwahrnehmung unterscheiden sie deutlich zwischen „Muslimen“ und „radikalen Muslimen“ und sehen PIA als großes gesellschaftliches Problem an, das ihre Sicherheit und alltägliche Lebenswelt beeinflusst.
