Is the Holocaust Unique?: Perspectives on Comparative Genocide

The question posed by this book is well summarized by David E. Stannard: "Within the conventional range of explanations for the Holocaust, from the so-called intentionalist perspective (which views the unfolding of events in Nazi Germany as directed and controlled by a powerful, single-minded, and consistent core of ideologues) to the so-called functionalist interpretation (in which decisions of the Reich are seen as largely improvisational and even chaotic, in response to changing circumstances), the claim that Jews and only Jews have ever been singled out for total extermination emanates from the extreme intentionalist position. This is the way of thinking that also undergirds most conspiracy theories on a variety of topics." (p. 267). The development of Holocaust-uniqueness notions long postdate WWII: "In the late 1970s and early 1980s the Holocaust became a cornerstone of American Jewish identity and was enlisted for a whole range of Jewish and non-Jewish political objectives. As a result, the idea of the Holocaust's uniqueness was embraced by the Jewish community..." (Wulf Kansteiner, p. 231). Furthermore, "...there is a disquieting pattern of claims of the `incomparable uniqueness' of the Holocaust and a good deal of political power used in many places in academia, museums, and communities to back up these claims by pushing down and out nonadherents." (Israel W. Charny, p. x). As an example, Ian Hancock, a defender of the view that Gypsies had also been targeted by the Nazis for complete extermination (pp. 73-74), alleges that: "The director of one Holocaust center referred to me as a troublemaker; another writer on the Holocaust called my discussion of the Romani case in the Jewish context `loathsome'" (pp. 85-86). Interestingly, Vahakn N. Dadrian argues that the Turks did plan to exterminate all of the Armenians (p. 141), including those living beyond the borders of Turkey (p. 159). Jewish scholars Israel W. Charny and Arno J. Mayer are quoted as opposing the uniqueness of the genocide of Jews (p. 274). Alan S. Rosenbaum (p. 2) is willing to accept a non-Judeocentric definition of the Holocaust, in which all victims of the Nazis (including Poles, specifically named by him) are embraced by this term. So does Richard J. Goldstone, who also seems to have anticipated what later became known as the Holocaust Industry: "Substantial reparations have been paid...Claims continue to be recognized...The victims of no other genocide have received this kind of acknowledgement. Neither have the Roma or the other non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust." (p. 41). Both Hancock (pp. 81-82) and Stannard (pp. 268-269) challenge common wisdom relevant to the Wannsee Protocol. They point out that the language of Wannsee is nonexplicit and is subject to interpretation. They reject the claim that this was a decision-making meeting (as opposed to a policy-coordinating one) or one which tacitly called for the physical extermination of all Jews on Planet Eart

"Is the Holocaust unique" is a controversial book, first published in 1995. This is the second edition, but the book is presumably as controversial as ever. "Is the Holocaust unique" is an anthology edited by Alan Rosenbaum with a foreword by Israel Charny. It contains contributions from both opponents and proponents of the idea that the Holocaust is unique. However, the opponents predominate. In effect, then, the book argues that the Holocaust wasn't unique, but one in a series of gruesome genocides in history. The most important contribution to this book is David E. Stannards spirited article "The Politics of Genocide Scholarship". Stannard points out that every argument of the proponents of Holocaust uniqueness is either inherently contradictory, or applies equally well to other genocides. Those who believe that the Holocaust was unique, claim that its the only instance in history when an entire people was intentionally targeted for extermination for purely ideological reasons, despite not being a military or political threat, with the support of a centralized state apparatus and high-tech killing facilities. Stannard points out that there are many extermination orders directed against specific American Indian nations, that Gypsies were targeted by the Third Reich for ideological reasons, that Jews occasionally did constitute a threat to Nazism, and that some Jews were exempted from being killed, showing that the Nazi evil was pragmatic rather than metaphysically cosmic. Other recommended contributions include "Responses to the Porrajmos: The Romani Holocaust" by Ian Hancock, "Stalinist Terror and the Question of Genocide" by Barbara B. Green, and "The Holocaust and the Japanese Atrocities" by Kinue Tokudome. When I first read this book, I regarded it as really bad. At the time, I was toying with the idea that the Holocaust was indeed unique. Re-reading some of the contributions a few months later, I changed my mind completely. Of course the Holocaust isn't unique. Unfortunately! World history is a scandalous chronicle of wars and genocides. The Holocaust was indeed "unique" in some ways, but so was every other genocide in their way. Yet, they are all genocides, all holocausts if you wish, and any attempt to claim that the Jewish Holocaust was unique in some fundamental, qualitative sense is untenable. It can only be based on some kind of religious reasoning: if the Jews are indeed God's chosen people, then their sufferings through out history simply must be of a different order than the suffering of Gentiles. The idea that the Holocaust was unique is often coupled with the claim that it was incomprehensible. This makes it impossible to analyze the Holocaust by regular methods of historical research, and hence once again makes a purely religious explanation necessary. But even that is often found wanting. After all, why would a good God permit the Holocaust? I know that anti-Semites often take advantage of the non-unique character of th

This is a fine collection taken as a whole, but the standout essay is certainly David Stannard's "Uniqueness as Denial." Indeed, it is one of the finest and bravest essays I have ever read, although absolutely merciless in its polemic against "uniqueness" theories.

To any person who has the ability of thinking in a more or less logical fashion, the statement that the Nazi holocaust of the Jews was "unique" is simply absurd. The politically motivated proponents of this concept not only confuse "unique" with "different", but also do so for morally suspicious reasons. This book reflects the current state of the debate; especially important is the essay by David E. Stannard ("Uniqueness as Denial: The Politics of Genocide Scholarship") in which he totally demolishes all pro-uniqueness arguments, and the foreword by Israel S. Charny where he discusses various data-doctoring attempts by the writers presented in the volume. All in all, "Is the Holocaust Unique?" should be required reading in any Holocaust studies curriculum.

This is a very interesting book that discusses matters that are usually overlooked in discussions of the Holocaust. It gives a good introduction and comparison of other historical events that involved the elimination of thousands of people and that are sometimes ignored in mainstream discussions about genocide. Topics include the killings of the Gypsies, Armenians, Ukrainians and Native Americans.