Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/25785648.2021.2014672
A. Rosenfeld
ABSTRACT Intense debates are underway about what constitutes antisemitism, who has the right to define it, how extreme anti-Israel animus should figure in to such discussions, and even whether the term antisemitism should designate hostility to Jews alone or be broadened to include other “Semites.” Yehuda Bauer has made seminal contributions to these debates, including on the preferred spelling of the term: with a hyphen, as in “anti-Semitism,” or without, as in “antisemitism.” This article pays tribute to Professor Bauer for his critical interventions on these matters, which go well beyond orthographic niceties and can illuminate the essence of Jew-hatred itself. As an extension of these concerns, the article raises similar questions about the best way to spell the term that designates eliminationist opposition to Zionism and Israel: with a hyphen, as in “anti-Zionism,” or without, as in “antizionism.”
{"title":"Are Those Who Hate Jews “Anti-Semites” or “Antisemites”? A Tribute to Yehuda Bauer","authors":"A. Rosenfeld","doi":"10.1080/25785648.2021.2014672","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/25785648.2021.2014672","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Intense debates are underway about what constitutes antisemitism, who has the right to define it, how extreme anti-Israel animus should figure in to such discussions, and even whether the term antisemitism should designate hostility to Jews alone or be broadened to include other “Semites.” Yehuda Bauer has made seminal contributions to these debates, including on the preferred spelling of the term: with a hyphen, as in “anti-Semitism,” or without, as in “antisemitism.” This article pays tribute to Professor Bauer for his critical interventions on these matters, which go well beyond orthographic niceties and can illuminate the essence of Jew-hatred itself. As an extension of these concerns, the article raises similar questions about the best way to spell the term that designates eliminationist opposition to Zionism and Israel: with a hyphen, as in “anti-Zionism,” or without, as in “antizionism.”","PeriodicalId":422357,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Holocaust Research","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122034538","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/25785648.2022.2026092
Michal Aharony
This special issue of The Journal of Holocaust Research is dedicated to the internationally renowned Israeli Holocaust historian Yehuda Bauer. It gathers articles by Bauer’s students and colleagues who have interacted with him for decades in honor of his 95 birthday. This special issue builds on a summer workshop held at Yad Vashem in July 2021 to recognize and celebrate Bauer. The symposium, with the participation of authors of this special issue and Bauer himself, was jointly organized by Yad Vashem and the WeissLivnat International Center for Holocaust Research and Education at the University of Haifa. It is a most difficult task to summarize Bauer’s long and distinguished career in one volume. The following contributions nonetheless attempt to touch upon some of the most essential themes related to Professor Bauer’s academic work and research corpus. In what follows are personal reflections on Bauer, commentaries regarding his achievements and contributions, and theoretical and historiographical analyses inspired by his work. Yehuda Bauer was born on 6 April 1926 in Prague, Czechoslovakia. In 1939, he immigrated to Palestine with his parents. Upon completing high school in Haifa, he joined the Palmach. He later attended Cardiff University in Wales on a British scholarship, interrupting his studies to fight in Israel’s 1948 War of Independence, after which he completed his degree. Bauer returned to Israel to join Kibbutz Shoval in the Negev, of which he was a member for some 40 years. He began his graduate studies in history at the Hebrew University and received his doctorate in 1960. The following year, Bauer began to teach at the Institute for Contemporary Jewry at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, becoming the director of the Holocaust Studies Division at the institute in 1968. In 1982, he served as the founding director of the Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Anti-Semitism (SICSA) at the institute. In addition to educating and mentoring generations of students at the Hebrew University, Bauer has been an integral part of the educational and research institutions at Yad Vashem since the 1960s. Together with his close friend and colleague Yisrael Gutman, in 1993 Bauer initiated the establishment of the International Institute for
{"title":"A Special Issue of The Journal of Holocaust Research in Honor of Yehuda Bauer on His 95th Birthday: Introduction","authors":"Michal Aharony","doi":"10.1080/25785648.2022.2026092","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/25785648.2022.2026092","url":null,"abstract":"This special issue of The Journal of Holocaust Research is dedicated to the internationally renowned Israeli Holocaust historian Yehuda Bauer. It gathers articles by Bauer’s students and colleagues who have interacted with him for decades in honor of his 95 birthday. This special issue builds on a summer workshop held at Yad Vashem in July 2021 to recognize and celebrate Bauer. The symposium, with the participation of authors of this special issue and Bauer himself, was jointly organized by Yad Vashem and the WeissLivnat International Center for Holocaust Research and Education at the University of Haifa. It is a most difficult task to summarize Bauer’s long and distinguished career in one volume. The following contributions nonetheless attempt to touch upon some of the most essential themes related to Professor Bauer’s academic work and research corpus. In what follows are personal reflections on Bauer, commentaries regarding his achievements and contributions, and theoretical and historiographical analyses inspired by his work. Yehuda Bauer was born on 6 April 1926 in Prague, Czechoslovakia. In 1939, he immigrated to Palestine with his parents. Upon completing high school in Haifa, he joined the Palmach. He later attended Cardiff University in Wales on a British scholarship, interrupting his studies to fight in Israel’s 1948 War of Independence, after which he completed his degree. Bauer returned to Israel to join Kibbutz Shoval in the Negev, of which he was a member for some 40 years. He began his graduate studies in history at the Hebrew University and received his doctorate in 1960. The following year, Bauer began to teach at the Institute for Contemporary Jewry at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, becoming the director of the Holocaust Studies Division at the institute in 1968. In 1982, he served as the founding director of the Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Anti-Semitism (SICSA) at the institute. In addition to educating and mentoring generations of students at the Hebrew University, Bauer has been an integral part of the educational and research institutions at Yad Vashem since the 1960s. Together with his close friend and colleague Yisrael Gutman, in 1993 Bauer initiated the establishment of the International Institute for","PeriodicalId":422357,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Holocaust Research","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133843008","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/25785648.2021.2019450
Robert Rozett
ABSTRACT The question of what was known in Hungary about the Holocaust has been a mainstay of research on that chapter since the time of the Kasztner libel trial in the mid-1950s. New studies on various aspects of the subject and new sources that have become available make it worthwhile to revisit it. It is now clear that news about the Nazi persecution of Jews reached Hungary soon after it began and continued to arrive in the period preceding the German occupation in spring 1944. This included information about the massacre of Hungarian Jews at Kam'yanets-Podilskyy in 1941 and Jews in Novi Sad in the Hungarian occupation zone in Serbia in 1942. From the second half of 1941 through the occupation, Hungarian soldiers and Hungarian Jewish labor servicemen learned about mass murder of Jews and brought news back to Hungary. The destruction of Jews was discussed in the Hungarian Jewish press. The activists of the Budapest Relief and Rescue Committee, led by Kasztner and Otto Komoly, were also a conduit for information. Very specific information, including about Auschwitz, reached Hungary in January 1944 when the Hashomer Hatsair leader from Będzin, Chajka Klinger, who had escaped to Hungary, gave her testimony. Around that time, Zionist youth movement emissaries were sent from Budapest to the provinces and, after encountering Klinger's message, passed it on. Despite the availability of much information, as Yehuda Bauer explained many years ago in an article, there is a gap between information and knowledge. To a large extent this gap regarding the events of the Holocaust, which a great many Hungarian Jews did not bridge, derived from the unprecedented nature of the Holocaust.
自20世纪50年代中期卡斯特纳诽谤案审判以来，匈牙利对大屠杀的了解一直是该章节研究的主要内容。关于这个主题的各个方面的新研究和新的来源使得它值得重新审视。现在很清楚，纳粹迫害犹太人的消息在开始后不久就传到了匈牙利，并在1944年春天德国占领匈牙利之前的一段时间里继续传到匈牙利。其中包括1941年在卡姆亚涅茨-波迪尔斯基屠杀匈牙利犹太人和1942年在塞尔维亚匈牙利占领区诺维萨德屠杀犹太人的资料。从1941年下半年到占领期间，匈牙利士兵和匈牙利犹太劳工了解到犹太人被大规模屠杀的消息，并将消息带回匈牙利。匈牙利的犹太媒体讨论了对犹太人的灭绝。由卡斯特纳和奥托·科莫利领导的布达佩斯救援委员会(Budapest Relief and Rescue Committee)的积极分子也是传递信息的渠道。1944年1月，逃到匈牙利的Będzin Hashomer Hatsair领导人查伊卡·克林格(Chajka Klinger)作证时，包括奥斯维辛集中营在内的非常具体的信息传到了匈牙利。大约在那个时候，犹太复国主义青年运动的使者从布达佩斯被派往各省，在遇到克林格的信息后，将其传递出去。正如Yehuda Bauer多年前在一篇文章中所解释的那样，尽管有很多信息可用，但信息和知识之间存在差距。在很大程度上，关于大屠杀事件的这种差距是由于大屠杀的空前性质造成的，许多匈牙利犹太人没有弥合这种差距。
{"title":"Information About the Holocaust in Hungary Before the German Occupation, Revisited","authors":"Robert Rozett","doi":"10.1080/25785648.2021.2019450","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/25785648.2021.2019450","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The question of what was known in Hungary about the Holocaust has been a mainstay of research on that chapter since the time of the Kasztner libel trial in the mid-1950s. New studies on various aspects of the subject and new sources that have become available make it worthwhile to revisit it. It is now clear that news about the Nazi persecution of Jews reached Hungary soon after it began and continued to arrive in the period preceding the German occupation in spring 1944. This included information about the massacre of Hungarian Jews at Kam'yanets-Podilskyy in 1941 and Jews in Novi Sad in the Hungarian occupation zone in Serbia in 1942. From the second half of 1941 through the occupation, Hungarian soldiers and Hungarian Jewish labor servicemen learned about mass murder of Jews and brought news back to Hungary. The destruction of Jews was discussed in the Hungarian Jewish press. The activists of the Budapest Relief and Rescue Committee, led by Kasztner and Otto Komoly, were also a conduit for information. Very specific information, including about Auschwitz, reached Hungary in January 1944 when the Hashomer Hatsair leader from Będzin, Chajka Klinger, who had escaped to Hungary, gave her testimony. Around that time, Zionist youth movement emissaries were sent from Budapest to the provinces and, after encountering Klinger's message, passed it on. Despite the availability of much information, as Yehuda Bauer explained many years ago in an article, there is a gap between information and knowledge. To a large extent this gap regarding the events of the Holocaust, which a great many Hungarian Jews did not bridge, derived from the unprecedented nature of the Holocaust.","PeriodicalId":422357,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Holocaust Research","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127904928","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/25785648.2021.2008945
David Silberklang
ABSTRACT Yehuda Bauer has been the world's teacher of the Holocaust and has influenced the study of the Holocaust perhaps more than anyone else in the last 50 years. Bauer has significantly affected the author's own professional work, probably more than any other teacher. In addition to Bauer being a scholarly and teaching role model, the author was exposed to and learned much about the world of journal editing from him while serving as the assistant editor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies under Bauer's editorship, which subsequently helped open a long career as the editor of Yad Vashem Studies. This article reflects on two aspects of Yehuda Bauer's work and their influence on the author as scholar and teacher: looking at the Holocaust at eye level, without tinted lenses, mystification, or ideological prejudice as much as that is possible; taking the Jewish eyewitnesses to events seriously. Finally, the article discusses Bauer's clear-eyed and objective approach to the Holocaust through the subject of the Allies' responses to the Holocaust, a topic the author first encountered academically in one of Bauer's seminars more than 40 years ago. Bauer has addressed questions regarding what Allied leaders knew about the Holocaust, what they did to try to stop it, the role of American Jewry, why the Allies did not bomb Auschwitz, and more in what is arguably the most balanced, ideology-free analysis by any scholar. We should all learn from this approach to the subject.
{"title":"Looking at the Holocaust at Eye Level: Some Lessons from the Quintessential Scholar and Teacher","authors":"David Silberklang","doi":"10.1080/25785648.2021.2008945","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/25785648.2021.2008945","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Yehuda Bauer has been the world's teacher of the Holocaust and has influenced the study of the Holocaust perhaps more than anyone else in the last 50 years. Bauer has significantly affected the author's own professional work, probably more than any other teacher. In addition to Bauer being a scholarly and teaching role model, the author was exposed to and learned much about the world of journal editing from him while serving as the assistant editor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies under Bauer's editorship, which subsequently helped open a long career as the editor of Yad Vashem Studies. This article reflects on two aspects of Yehuda Bauer's work and their influence on the author as scholar and teacher: looking at the Holocaust at eye level, without tinted lenses, mystification, or ideological prejudice as much as that is possible; taking the Jewish eyewitnesses to events seriously. Finally, the article discusses Bauer's clear-eyed and objective approach to the Holocaust through the subject of the Allies' responses to the Holocaust, a topic the author first encountered academically in one of Bauer's seminars more than 40 years ago. Bauer has addressed questions regarding what Allied leaders knew about the Holocaust, what they did to try to stop it, the role of American Jewry, why the Allies did not bomb Auschwitz, and more in what is arguably the most balanced, ideology-free analysis by any scholar. We should all learn from this approach to the subject.","PeriodicalId":422357,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Holocaust Research","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128462147","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/25785648.2021.2016210
D. Michman
ABSTRACT Yehuda Bauer is well known for his public leadership in Holocaust and genocide studies. This article, however, sheds light on another aspect of Bauer's historiography: most of his research studies—that is, those for which he dove into primary archival research and that are focused on more concrete historical topics, rather than general overviews, and have an extensive scholarly apparatus—deal with Jewish history only and, more precisely, with some very clear topics within it. They surround the Holocaust as an event but tackle a much deeper issue: the uniqueness of the Jewish people as a historical phenomenon, explored through the prism of the Shoah. Six clusters of studies, which are inter-related and often intertwine and overlap, can be discerned in this oeuvre: (1) his studies on the Brichah movement; (2) his trilogy on the history of the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee; (3) his ongoing polemic regarding the American Jewish community's commitment to and investment in rescue activities of European Jewry and its (in)ability to influence US administration policies; (4) his studies on the behavior of Jewish leadership under Nazi rule; (5) his studies on the negotiations between Jewish groups and individuals and the Nazis on rescue during the Shoah; and (6) his studies of the phenomenon of Jewish communal organization and its modes of functioning, even during the last days of the Eastern European shtetlach. To these topics a seventh topic that bothered Bauer—which is quite astonishing in view of his firm stance in favor of Jewish secularism—is examined: religious Jewry and the possibility of faith in God after the Holocaust. Thus, it is claimed here, Bauer remained “on speaking terms” with God, but that his stance is mehutzaf (“contrary”)—the term he uses to describe a basic characteristic of the Jews in general.
{"title":"Solidarity, Hope, and Wrestling with God: The Perspective of the Will for Life of the Jewish People in Modern Times as a Major Theme in Yehuda Bauer’s Historiography","authors":"D. Michman","doi":"10.1080/25785648.2021.2016210","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/25785648.2021.2016210","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Yehuda Bauer is well known for his public leadership in Holocaust and genocide studies. This article, however, sheds light on another aspect of Bauer's historiography: most of his research studies—that is, those for which he dove into primary archival research and that are focused on more concrete historical topics, rather than general overviews, and have an extensive scholarly apparatus—deal with Jewish history only and, more precisely, with some very clear topics within it. They surround the Holocaust as an event but tackle a much deeper issue: the uniqueness of the Jewish people as a historical phenomenon, explored through the prism of the Shoah. Six clusters of studies, which are inter-related and often intertwine and overlap, can be discerned in this oeuvre: (1) his studies on the Brichah movement; (2) his trilogy on the history of the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee; (3) his ongoing polemic regarding the American Jewish community's commitment to and investment in rescue activities of European Jewry and its (in)ability to influence US administration policies; (4) his studies on the behavior of Jewish leadership under Nazi rule; (5) his studies on the negotiations between Jewish groups and individuals and the Nazis on rescue during the Shoah; and (6) his studies of the phenomenon of Jewish communal organization and its modes of functioning, even during the last days of the Eastern European shtetlach. To these topics a seventh topic that bothered Bauer—which is quite astonishing in view of his firm stance in favor of Jewish secularism—is examined: religious Jewry and the possibility of faith in God after the Holocaust. Thus, it is claimed here, Bauer remained “on speaking terms” with God, but that his stance is mehutzaf (“contrary”)—the term he uses to describe a basic characteristic of the Jews in general.","PeriodicalId":422357,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Holocaust Research","volume":"114 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122691972","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/25785648.2021.2023849
M. Berenbaum
ABSTRACT Beginning with well-deserved personal praise for Professor Yehuda Bauer celebrating his 95th birthday, this article then examines Bauer's brief but important work Could the US Government Have Rescued European Jewry?, in which he challenges the preferred narrative of American and Israeli Jews: that American Jews were silent, ineffective, divided, timid, self-absorbed, weak, and incapable of bringing a Judeo-centric request to the American political establishment and did not effectively come the aid of their European brethren; that American Jew had the power to do something significant, if only they had tried to use it; and that the American government was antisemitic or, at best, unconcerned about Jews. The article then examines Bauer's contentions regarding the US government's and American Jews' capabilities, interest, and responsibility in saving European Jews. Bauer's consideration is divided into four periods: from 1933 until the Reich's November Pogroms in 1938; from Kristallnacht until the onset of the war in September 1939; from the war until the beginnings of the systematic murder of the Jews, which coincided with the German invasion of the Soviet Union on 22 June 1941; and finally during the period of the mass murder, which only ended at the war's end on 8 May 1945. Bauer reconsiders the controversial issue of the bombing of Auschwitz, which he examines from the perspective of the Yishuv in Palestine and the British and American bombing capabilities and wartime priorities as well as the effectiveness of aerial bombardment. The paper also considers Elie Wiesel's challenging of multiple US presidents regarding the decision not to bomb and questions Wiesel's depiction of his discussion with President Jimmy Carter on this issue. Ultimately Bauer's conclusion is that US was not powerful or well-positioned enough to save European Jews, and the Jewish community in the United States did not have the power to impose its will even if it had tried.
{"title":"Yehuda Bauer’s Assessment of the US Government and American Jewry During the Holocaust: An Analysis","authors":"M. Berenbaum","doi":"10.1080/25785648.2021.2023849","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/25785648.2021.2023849","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Beginning with well-deserved personal praise for Professor Yehuda Bauer celebrating his 95th birthday, this article then examines Bauer's brief but important work Could the US Government Have Rescued European Jewry?, in which he challenges the preferred narrative of American and Israeli Jews: that American Jews were silent, ineffective, divided, timid, self-absorbed, weak, and incapable of bringing a Judeo-centric request to the American political establishment and did not effectively come the aid of their European brethren; that American Jew had the power to do something significant, if only they had tried to use it; and that the American government was antisemitic or, at best, unconcerned about Jews. The article then examines Bauer's contentions regarding the US government's and American Jews' capabilities, interest, and responsibility in saving European Jews. Bauer's consideration is divided into four periods: from 1933 until the Reich's November Pogroms in 1938; from Kristallnacht until the onset of the war in September 1939; from the war until the beginnings of the systematic murder of the Jews, which coincided with the German invasion of the Soviet Union on 22 June 1941; and finally during the period of the mass murder, which only ended at the war's end on 8 May 1945. Bauer reconsiders the controversial issue of the bombing of Auschwitz, which he examines from the perspective of the Yishuv in Palestine and the British and American bombing capabilities and wartime priorities as well as the effectiveness of aerial bombardment. The paper also considers Elie Wiesel's challenging of multiple US presidents regarding the decision not to bomb and questions Wiesel's depiction of his discussion with President Jimmy Carter on this issue. Ultimately Bauer's conclusion is that US was not powerful or well-positioned enough to save European Jews, and the Jewish community in the United States did not have the power to impose its will even if it had tried.","PeriodicalId":422357,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Holocaust Research","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127876650","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/25785648.2021.2020473
D. Porat, M. Weitzman
ABSTRACT Professor Yehuda Bauer is a world-renowned scholar of the Holocaust, antisemitism, and genocide. Nevertheless, his activities and impact in public policy have become a major focus of his efforts, particularly in recent years. This article examines Bauer's impact on perhaps the most prominent of these efforts: that of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). The IHRA has become a major factor in international Holocaust remembrance and in combating antisemitism. Drawing on conversations with Bauer and close colleagues from academia and diplomacy in IHRA, as well as their personal experience, with one of the authors being a longstanding student and colleague (Porat) and the other being involved with IHRA since its inception 20 years ago (Weitzman), the authors describe Bauer's role as the “founding father” of the IHRA, how the organization began, the specific and unique nature of the IHRA, and Bauer's role in two of the IHRA's most important achievements: the Working Definition of Holocaust Denial and Distortion and the Working Definition of Antisemitism. We also briefly discuss some of the issues and challenges that the IHRA has experienced as part of its growth from the original five members to its current configuration of 35 countries and Bauer's assessment of where the IHRA stands now and its possible future.
{"title":"Yehuda Bauer and the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA)","authors":"D. Porat, M. Weitzman","doi":"10.1080/25785648.2021.2020473","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/25785648.2021.2020473","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Professor Yehuda Bauer is a world-renowned scholar of the Holocaust, antisemitism, and genocide. Nevertheless, his activities and impact in public policy have become a major focus of his efforts, particularly in recent years. This article examines Bauer's impact on perhaps the most prominent of these efforts: that of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). The IHRA has become a major factor in international Holocaust remembrance and in combating antisemitism. Drawing on conversations with Bauer and close colleagues from academia and diplomacy in IHRA, as well as their personal experience, with one of the authors being a longstanding student and colleague (Porat) and the other being involved with IHRA since its inception 20 years ago (Weitzman), the authors describe Bauer's role as the “founding father” of the IHRA, how the organization began, the specific and unique nature of the IHRA, and Bauer's role in two of the IHRA's most important achievements: the Working Definition of Holocaust Denial and Distortion and the Working Definition of Antisemitism. We also briefly discuss some of the issues and challenges that the IHRA has experienced as part of its growth from the original five members to its current configuration of 35 countries and Bauer's assessment of where the IHRA stands now and its possible future.","PeriodicalId":422357,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Holocaust Research","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132378737","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-02DOI: 10.1080/25785648.2021.1984141
E. Spicer
ABSTRACT Extensive focus has been given to the development of a post-Holocaust genre of poetry, often by those who are not survivors of the Shoah. This article notes the distinction between Holocaust poetry (poems on the theme of the Holocaust) and poetry that is authored by Holocaust survivors and their families, a nuance that often goes unrecognized in the wider literature. This article foregrounds the importance of poetry as not just a testimonial device in these contexts, but a way to align the past with the present and to create a sense of wholeness and completion to an individual survivor’s life while reflecting on challenges to that cohesion. This article utilizes poetry authored by survivors and their spouses from survivor association journals in the UK such as the ‘45 Aid Society and Association of Jewish Refugees to explore the value of personal reflection manifested in creative poetic expressions.
{"title":"‘I Searched for Words’: Holocaust Survivor Poetry in Postwar Association Journals","authors":"E. Spicer","doi":"10.1080/25785648.2021.1984141","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/25785648.2021.1984141","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Extensive focus has been given to the development of a post-Holocaust genre of poetry, often by those who are not survivors of the Shoah. This article notes the distinction between Holocaust poetry (poems on the theme of the Holocaust) and poetry that is authored by Holocaust survivors and their families, a nuance that often goes unrecognized in the wider literature. This article foregrounds the importance of poetry as not just a testimonial device in these contexts, but a way to align the past with the present and to create a sense of wholeness and completion to an individual survivor’s life while reflecting on challenges to that cohesion. This article utilizes poetry authored by survivors and their spouses from survivor association journals in the UK such as the ‘45 Aid Society and Association of Jewish Refugees to explore the value of personal reflection manifested in creative poetic expressions.","PeriodicalId":422357,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Holocaust Research","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115766713","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-02DOI: 10.1080/25785648.2021.1994764
D. Michman
ABSTRACT In current public discourse as well as in scholarly research, two terms are used for the Nazi anti-Jewish campaign (1933–1945): ‘The Shoah’ in Hebrew and ‘the Holocaust’ in most of the other languages. These two terms are not the terms that the persecuted and the survivors themselves used during the period itself and in the first post-1945 years. Why than are the leading terms that we use today not the terms of the survivors? Moreover: when did these terms, that were not coined specifically to indicate this event but are words that originate in the vocabulary of Biblical Hebrew and ancient Greek, become the dominant ones, and what were the circumstances and developments that caused them to be embraced and entrenched? Additionally, what does it mean that these terms do not really explain what happened in the historical event (and are understood only if one has earlier knowledge about it), while the only new term that was specifically coined for this event – Judeocide – has actually been pushed aside? These questions are analyzed in this article from the perspectives of the history of terminology and of the analysis of intellectual and popular discourse which is influenced by fundamental events, migration, the media, and political interventions. Analysis from these perspectives shows that philosophical discussions and debates, some of them stormy, on these terms and the legitimacy of using them, which can be found in scholarly literature in various disciplines and in opinion journalism, entirely miss(ed) the actual development, and are therefore of no real importance.
{"title":"Why Is the Shoah Called ‘the Shoah’ or ‘the Holocaust’? On the History of the Terminology for the Nazi Anti-Jewish Campaign","authors":"D. Michman","doi":"10.1080/25785648.2021.1994764","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/25785648.2021.1994764","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In current public discourse as well as in scholarly research, two terms are used for the Nazi anti-Jewish campaign (1933–1945): ‘The Shoah’ in Hebrew and ‘the Holocaust’ in most of the other languages. These two terms are not the terms that the persecuted and the survivors themselves used during the period itself and in the first post-1945 years. Why than are the leading terms that we use today not the terms of the survivors? Moreover: when did these terms, that were not coined specifically to indicate this event but are words that originate in the vocabulary of Biblical Hebrew and ancient Greek, become the dominant ones, and what were the circumstances and developments that caused them to be embraced and entrenched? Additionally, what does it mean that these terms do not really explain what happened in the historical event (and are understood only if one has earlier knowledge about it), while the only new term that was specifically coined for this event – Judeocide – has actually been pushed aside? These questions are analyzed in this article from the perspectives of the history of terminology and of the analysis of intellectual and popular discourse which is influenced by fundamental events, migration, the media, and political interventions. Analysis from these perspectives shows that philosophical discussions and debates, some of them stormy, on these terms and the legitimacy of using them, which can be found in scholarly literature in various disciplines and in opinion journalism, entirely miss(ed) the actual development, and are therefore of no real importance.","PeriodicalId":422357,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Holocaust Research","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116884523","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-02DOI: 10.1080/25785648.2021.1991752
Ella Falldorf
ABSTRACT The scholarly discussion of artworks created by inmates of Nazi concentration camps has viewed them either as evidence for spiritual resistance or as documentary historical illustrations, thus only rarely examining them using the methods of art history. In contrast, this essay approaches them as artworks, which exceed documentation and cannot be reduced to narratives of resistance. They are analyzed as subjective and symbolic interpretations of the camp experiences. I focus on the recurring figure of a single camp inmate holding a work instrument in artworks produced in the Buchenwald concentration camp. In Buchenwald most artworks were done by political prisoners with a socialist background as well as a rather privileged position in the inmates’ hierarchy. Thus, one might expect them to pre-empt the anti-fascist postwar iconography. But although they used socialist artistic traditions, a closer analysis reveals a striking diversity and ambivalence of artistic expressions. Do these depictions of the inmate as worker express resistance? If yes, why would the figure of the worker be chosen for that role? How do the audience and purpose of the artwork influence the articulated interpretation of the camp and forced labor? In answering these questions, I compare six artworks, place them in relation to iconographic predecessors, and situate the images in debates about artistic traditions.
{"title":"The Many Faces of the Inmate as a Worker: Artworks of Political Prisoners in the Buchenwald Concentration Camp","authors":"Ella Falldorf","doi":"10.1080/25785648.2021.1991752","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/25785648.2021.1991752","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The scholarly discussion of artworks created by inmates of Nazi concentration camps has viewed them either as evidence for spiritual resistance or as documentary historical illustrations, thus only rarely examining them using the methods of art history. In contrast, this essay approaches them as artworks, which exceed documentation and cannot be reduced to narratives of resistance. They are analyzed as subjective and symbolic interpretations of the camp experiences. I focus on the recurring figure of a single camp inmate holding a work instrument in artworks produced in the Buchenwald concentration camp. In Buchenwald most artworks were done by political prisoners with a socialist background as well as a rather privileged position in the inmates’ hierarchy. Thus, one might expect them to pre-empt the anti-fascist postwar iconography. But although they used socialist artistic traditions, a closer analysis reveals a striking diversity and ambivalence of artistic expressions. Do these depictions of the inmate as worker express resistance? If yes, why would the figure of the worker be chosen for that role? How do the audience and purpose of the artwork influence the articulated interpretation of the camp and forced labor? In answering these questions, I compare six artworks, place them in relation to iconographic predecessors, and situate the images in debates about artistic traditions.","PeriodicalId":422357,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Holocaust Research","volume":"41 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126988467","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：