Topics: Antisemitism, Main Topic: Antisemitism, Law, Policy, European Union, Antisemitism: Education against, Holocaust Commemoration, Holocaust Education, Hate crime, Jewish Heritage, Jewish Culture
Abstract: The pro-Gaza demonstrations that marked the summer of 2014 were trailed by a concern over the intensity of anti-Semitism among European Muslims and accusations of ‘double standards’ with regard to anti-Muslim racism. In the Netherlands, the debate featured a nexus between the Holocaust, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, freedom of speech and the limits of tolerance, which beckons a closer analysis. I argue that it indicates the place of the Holocaust in the European imaginary as one of a haunting, which is marked by a structure of dis/avowal. Prescriptive multicultural tolerance, which builds on Europe’s debt to the Holocaust and represents the culturalized response to racial inequalities, reiterates this structure of dis/avowal. It ensures that its normative framework of identity politics and equivalences, and the Holocaust, Jews and anti-Semitism which occupy a seminal place within it, supplies the dominant (and in the case of anti-Semitism, displaced) terms for the contestation of (disavowed) racialized structures of inequality. The dominance of the framework of identity politics as a channel for minority populations to express a sense of marginalization and disaffection with mainstream politics, however, risks culturalizing both the origins and the solutions to that marginalization. Especially when that sense of marginalization is filtered and expressed through the contestation of the primacy of the Holocaust memory, it enables the state, which embeds Jews retrogressively in the European project, to externalize racialized minorities on the basis of presumed cultural incompatibilities (including anti-Semitism, now externalized from the memory of Europe proper and attributed uniquely to the Other); to erase its historical and contemporary racisms; and to subject minority populations to disciplinary securitization. Moreover, it contributes to the obfuscation of the political, social and economic dynamics through which neo-liberal capitalism effects the hollowing out of the social contract and the resultant fragmentation of society (which the state then can attribute to ‘deficient’ minority cultures and values).
Abstract: Bohemia and Moravia, today part of the Czech Republic, was the first territory with a majority of non-German speakers occupied by Hitler’s Third Reich on the eve of the World War II. Tens of thousands of Jewish inhabitants in the so called Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia soon felt the tragic consequences of Nazi racial politics. Not all Czechs, however, remained passive bystanders during the genocide. After the destruction of Czechoslovakia in 1938-39, Slovakia became a formally independent but fully subordinate satellite of Germany. Despite the fact it was not occupied until 1944, Slovakia paid Germany to deport its own Jewish citizens to extermination camps.
About 270,000 out of the 360,000 Czech and Slovak casualties of World War II were victims of the Holocaust. Despite these statistics, the Holocaust vanished almost entirely from post-war Czechoslovak, and later Czech and Slovak, historical cultures. The communist dictatorship carried the main responsibility for this disappearance, yet the situation has not changed much since the fall of the communist regime. The main questions of this study are how and why the Holocaust was excluded from the Czech and Slovak history.
Abstract: In October 2021, Imperial War Museums (IWM) opened its new Holocaust Galleries in its London branch, replacing its first Holocaust Exhibition (from 2000) that had become a landmark in British Holocaust memory. Because of its comprehensive nature and intricate scenography, the new Holocaust Galleries are at the centre of almost all recent major narrative, political, and ethical debates about Holocaust representation in museums. The book provides an ideal global case-study understanding the possibilities and limitations of re-presenting trauma and violence in museums today and whether Holocaust exhibitions can promote democratic, civic, or human rights values, making it an important resource for museum practitioners, public history educators, and university researchers alike, interested in Historical, Museum, Memory, Holocaust, Genocide, or Cultural Studies. The volume brings together texts written by museum practitioners and academic scholars. It is divided in three parts: a long essay by James Bulgin, Head of Content for the new Holocaust Galleries, about the genesis and implementation of the exhibition, supplemented with briefer essays by educators and community members involved in the development of the exhibition, an extensive interview by Stephan Jaeger with IWM researchers James Bulgin and Suzanne Bardgett, and an extensive part with six critical essays by university scholars analysing the new Holocaust Galleries from numerous theoretical angles.
Abstract: In Italy, after the victory of Giorgia Meloni’s post-fascist party, “Fratelli d’Italia,” several studies began to discuss whether or not the country has come to terms with the memory of fascism, its role as an inspirer of Nazism, and the collaboration with Nazi Germany in the Holocaust. Especially the latter, scholarly literature pointed out, has failed to receive the attention it deserves. This article argues that this is particularly true with regard to public history, the way historical information and events are interpreted and presented to the general public, and focuses on public museums exhibiting the Holocaust and resistance. Evidence for this article comes from two in-depth case studies regarding the oldest yet unaltered Liberation Museum in Rome and the Museum-Monument to Racial and Political Deportees in the Nazi Lagers in Carpi. The article contends that within these museums, the narration of resistance prevails, whilst evidence of Italy’s past collaborationism remains hidden and unexhibited. In essence, these museums emphasise national heroism and sidestep Italian accountability in the Holocaust.
Abstract: La culture mémorielle de l’Europe de l’Est a subi une transformation radicale après l’effondrement du communisme, du fait de l’« américanisation » de la Shoah, c’est-à-dire, pour reprendre les termes de Winfried Fluck, spécialiste de la culture allemande, un processus de démocratisation consistant à éradiquer toute complexité afin de rendre accessibles à un vaste public des événements complexes. De nouveaux musées ont été créés pour réécrire l’histoire de la Seconde Guerre mondiale d’un point de vue anticommuniste. Le langage utilisé ne correspondait ni à la culture mémorielle nationale, ni à la conceptualisation religieuse de la Shoah, ni au contexte linguistique et culturel de la vie dans l’Allemagne nazie avant et pendant le conflit. Divers auteurs ont analysé le phénomène des pays européens qui n’opposèrent aucune résistance à l’hégémonie de l’Allemagne nazie et de son programme politique. Ceux-ci s’accordent à dire que l’analyse devrait dépasser le clivage bourreaux-spectateurs-victimes.Il existe une contradiction flagrante entre la terminologie employée par la muséologie antifasciste avant 1989 et celle qui est en cours dans les nouveaux musées construits dans les années 2000. L’idée d’une coexistence avec l’Allemagne nazie est une question idéologique et politique majeure, notamment, aujourd’hui, avec la mise en relief illibérale de zones d’ombre précédemment ignorées dans le discours muséologique. Le présent article soutient que le terme « collaboration » n’est pas un bon critère de mesure des phénomènes qui ont fait l’objet de travaux récents…
Abstract: Although digitization has become a word that is almost synonymous with democratization and citizen participation, many museums and other cultural heritage institutions have found it difficult to live up to this political vision of inclusivity and access for all. In Sweden, political ambitions to digitize the cultural heritage sector are high. Yet, institutions still struggle to reconcile their previous practices with new technologies and ethical guidelines for collecting and curating material. In this article we identify, analyse, and try to find resolutions for the current gap that exists between cultural heritage practice and government policy on digitization, open access, and research ethics. By examining two Swedish examples of Holocaust collections that have not been digitized because of internal policies of secrecy and confidentiality, we attempt to demonstrate how discourses about vulnerability affect the ways in which certain archival practices resist policies of accessibility and ethical research. In order to unpack the discourses on vulnerability, Carol Bacchi’s post-structural approach to policy analysis has been used together with Judith Butler’s theories on vulnerability and resistance. In addition to understanding how cultural heritage institutions in Sweden have protected some of their collections and how this has obstructed efforts to make these collections more accessible, we also offer some suggestions on how these issues can be resolved by reimagining digitization as transformation.
Abstract: Проаналізовано значення поняття «культура історичної пам’яті», розглянуто історію її формування у Західній Європі, особливості ландшафту пам’яті у Східній Європі та Україні, визначено ключові питання історичної політики України, які мають потенціал перешкодити європейській інтеграції України. Внаслідок проведеного дослідження встановлено, що Україна належить до східноєвропейського регіону історичної пам’яті, якому притаманні етатизм, єдність та героїчність, віктимність, сек’юритизація. На шляху до європейської інтеграції перед Україною поставатимуть проблеми піднесення ролі Голокосту в історичній пам’яті та визнання часткової відповідальності за злочини колаборантів, обмеження регулювання з боку держави історичної сфери, українсько-польських історичних конфліктів. Водночас може відбуватися дифузія західноєвропейської та східноєвропейської моделей пам’яті.
Abstract: This volume considers the uses and misuses of the memory of assistance given to Jews during the Holocaust, deliberated in local, national, and transnational contexts. History of this aid has drawn the attention of scholars and the general public alike. Stories of heroic citizens who hid and rescued Jewish men, women, and children have been adapted into books, films, plays, public commemorations, and museum exhibitions. Yet, emphasis on the uplifting narratives often obscures the history of violence and complicity with Nazi policies of persecution and mass murder. Each of the ten essays in this interdisciplinary collection is dedicated to a different country: Belarus, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, North Macedonia, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, and Ukraine. The case studies provide new insights into what has emerged as one of the most prominent and visible trends in recent Holocaust memory and memory politics. While many of the essays focus on recent developments, they also shed light on the evolution of this phenomenon since 1945.
Abstract: Significance
Commemoration initiatives seek to increase the public visibility of past atrocities and the fates of victims. This is counter to the objectives of revisionist actors to downplay or deny atrocities. Memorials for victims might complicate such attempts and reduce support for revisionist actors. The current research examines whether, on the level of local neighborhoods, exposure to memorials for victims of NS persecution can reduce support for a far-right, revisionist party. We find that, in Berlin, Germany, the placement of small, local “stumbling stones” commemorating victims and survivors of NS persecution, is associated with a substantial decrease in the local far-right vote share in the following election. Our study suggests that local, victim-focused memorials can reduce far-right support.
Abstract
Does public remembrance of past atrocities lead to decreased support for far-right parties today? Initiatives commemorating past atrocities aim to make visible the victims and crimes committed against them. This runs counter to revisionist actors who attempt to downplay or deny atrocities and victims. Memorials for victims might complicate such attempts and reduce support for revisionist actors. Yet, little empirical evidence exists on whether that happens. In this study, we examine whether exposure to local memorials that commemorate victims of atrocities reduces support for a revisionist far-right party. Our empirical case is the Stolpersteine (“stumbling stones”) memorial in Berlin, Germany. It commemorates victims and survivors of Nazi persecution in front of their last freely chosen place of residence. We employ time-series cross-sectional analyses and a discontinuity design using a panel dataset that matches the location and date of placement of new Stolpersteine with the election results from seven elections (2013 to 2021) at the level of polling station areas. We find that, on average, the presence of Stolpersteine is associated with a 0.96%-point decrease in the far-right vote share in the following election. Our study suggests that local memorials that make past atrocities visible have implications for political behavior in the present.
Topics: Antisemitism, Main Topic: Antisemitism, Law, Policy, European Union, Antisemitism: Education against, Holocaust Commemoration, Holocaust Education, Hate crime, Jewish Heritage, Jewish Culture
Topics: Antisemitism, Main Topic: Antisemitism, Law, Policy, European Union, Antisemitism: Education against, Holocaust Commemoration, Holocaust Education, Hate crime, Jewish Heritage, Jewish Culture
Abstract: La memoria del Holocausto y los crímeLa memoria del Holocausto y los crímenes del nazismo comienza a tomar forma como fenómeno cultural en España desde, al menos, finales de la década de los setenta y se articula como objeto político a comienzos del presente siglo. Desde el año 2000 han proliferado una serie de políticas memoriales, fundamentalmente educativas y conmemorativas, del genocidio de los judíos europeos en España, así como políticas públicas de memoria e iniciativas del movimiento memorialista en recuerdo de los republicanos españoles deportados. Esta consolidación del recuerdo de dos eventos históricos, distinguibles analíticamente – el Holocausto de los judíos europeos y el encarcelamiento en campos de concentración nazi del exilio republicano español – pero solapados en el tiempo pasado y amalgamados en muchas de las expresiones memoriales del presente, como fuente de políticas públicas de memoria, recurso en conflictos por la interpretación común del pasado, y fundamento de producción de identidades nacionales, étnicas, ideológicas y activistas es el sustrato material que ha motivado la realización de la presente tesis...
Abstract: La presenza della memoria della Shoah nel discorso pubblico italiano si è profondamente modificata negli ultimi decenni, innanzitutto a partire da uno sviluppo storiografico iniziato nel 1988, cinquantesimo anniversario delle leggi razziali del fascismo. Più tardi, nel 2001, è stato introdotto per legge il Giorno della memoria (27 gennaio), data che ha prodotto un riconoscimento ufficiale nel calendario civile italiano degli eventi della Shoah, ma anche una ritualizzazione e sovrapproduzione del ricordo. Paradossalmente, inoltre, la legge italiana istitutiva del 27 gennaio non contiene la parola “fascismo”. È in seguito prevalsa nel discorso pubblico la commemorazione costante dei “Giusti”, cioè dei salvatori degli ebrei, a discapito del ricordo degli italiani che arrestarono gli ebrei nel 1943-1945, collaborando con i tedeschi alla loro deportazione. La più recente fase della “postmemoria” lascia intravedere un possibile superamento della monumentalizzazione, ad esempio attraverso la posa delle “pietre di inciampo” nelle città italiane ed europee, che ricordano le singole vittime nei luoghi del loro arresto. Fioriscono inoltre narrazioni, che intrecciano storia e letteratura, prodotte da una terza generazione anche non ebraica. Ma la memoria degli eventi della Shoah, per essere “autentica”, deve continuare a nutrirsi sia di racconto che di storia.
Abstract: Holocaust heritage across Europe is held to high standards of conservation, management, interpretation, and use, due to the belief that all such sites should be retained as or turned into places of memorialization as their primary function. This paper proposes that a pragmatic approach instead be taken towards Holocaust heritage in the twenty-first century and beyond. In acknowledgement that heritage practitioners today are not safeguarding this as a “found” heritage resource in 1945, but in the present day, it is argued that it is inevitable and perhaps unavoidable to make pragmatic decisions which take into account changes to such sites over the last 80 years. Site managers and other stakeholders are not in a position to make decisions based on a clean slate, devoid of post-war events and uses. Drawing on case studies from Serbia and Czechia, and adopting a three-pronged model of “heritage pragmatics,” this paper argues that our choices today should reflect and acknowledge past uses and aim towards more pragmatic solutions, letting go of idealistic aspirations more suitable for sites without a long history of reuse.
Abstract: The Holocaust is the Philoktetes wound tormenting every European country occupied by Hitler’s armies between 1939 and 1945. Paradoxically, it may be the Germans who feel this pain the least, as they have nowhere left to escape the curse of their role as perpetrators. This article presents the results of research on the memory of the events in Hungary, the last theatre of Hitler’s European campaign against the Jews. The researchers returned to the sites of the drama that unfolded in the summer of 1944, searching for traces of the vanished Jewish life in both the physical and social-psychological spaces, where the void created by the destruction of the Jews is filled with fear, distrust, confusion, silence, and cognitive dissonance. Based on the research findings, it can be stated that 80 years after the Holocaust, in Hungarian villages, small towns, and Budapest, both within and outside the current national borders, today, in Macbeth’s words, “nothing is, but what is not”.
Abstract: ‘Het was prachtig zoals de wielen van de wagons in het begin in Nederland rolden …’ aldus een trotse Adolf Eichmann, het organisatorische meesterbrein achter de deportaties van de joden uit de door nazi-Duitsland bezette gebieden naar de vernietigingskampen, enkele jaren na de oorlog. Hij had alle reden tevreden te zijn. In geen enkel ander West-Europees land werd zo’n groot deel van de joodse bevolking weggevoerd en vermoord, en dat had ook te maken met de medewerking van veel Nederlandse instanties. Een harde en pijnlijke waarheid, die velen in Nederland aanvankelijk niet onder ogen wilden zien. In dit boek worden geschetst hoe Nederland met de herinnering aan de Jodenvervolging is omgegaan, vanaf de eerste jaren na de bevrijding tot aan de opening van het Nationaal Holocaust Museum in 2024. Opvallend daarbij is dat de nazistische vervolging in Nederland al in de jaren zestig een belangrijke plaats kreeg in de nationale herinneringscultuur, vooral dankzij het Eichmann-proces en het werk van Jacques Presser. Het nationalistische beeld van de oorlog als een periode van ‘onderdrukking en verzet’, waarin de Jodenvervolging in de eerste plaats werd gezien als een illustratie van de Duitse terreur tegen het Nederlandse volk, bleek niet langer houdbaar. Vanaf de jaren negentig zou Nederland steeds meer onder invloed raken van de internationale herinneringscultuur die zich vormde rond het begrip ‘Holocaust’, een term die aanvankelijk buiten de VS geheel onbekend was. Dat proces laat zich goed aflezen aan het taalgebruik en de herdenkingsrituelen, maar ook aan monumenten, musea, media, film en literatuur. Rond de Holocaust ontstond een soort ‘burgerlijke religie’, die niet alleen politiek wordt beleden, in Europa, de VS en andere delen van de wereld, maar ook diep geworteld is in de cultuur en samenleving, te beginnen in Nederland. Nederland en de herinnering aan de Jodenvervolging biedt een diepgravend overzicht van de omgang met de herinneringen aan de meest pijnlijke en ingrijpende episode uit de moderne Nederlandse geschiedenis. Frank van Vree is em. hoogleraar Geschiedenis van Oorlog, Geweld en Herinnering aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam. Eerder was hij directeur van het NIOD en decaan van de Faculteit Geesteswetenschappen van de UvA. Hij publiceerde een groot aantal studies op het terrein van de moderne geschiedenis en historische cultuur.
