Inappropriate Comparisons Trivialize the Holocaust

Now that 69 years have passed since the liberation of Auschwitz, the danger is that an overuse of words — and inapt comparisons — will contribute to a lessening of the true impact and meaning of the Holocaust. It must be our commitment to remember and to constantly speak out against those who would trivialize, distort or deny the Holocaust and to inoculate the public against trivialization through education.

A timely reminder that enforcing democratically passed laws against criminals is not NAZISM, and comparing it as such is deeply offensive and does great damage to the memory of the holocaust. 

Especially if it comes from folks of the Jewish faith.

Especially.

A timely reminder that enforcing democratically passed laws against criminals is not NAZISM

But shooting an American in the head because they dared challenge the Gestapo's authority and tried to get away is.

I'm genuinely curious. Do you actually believe that? Do you expect others to? When you leave out things like her driving her SUV at an LEO do you feel any shame, at all?

Do you really imagine you are as oppressed as those who suffered under the Nazis? 

When you leave out things like her driving her SUV at an LEO do you feel any shame, at all?

I've seen the video from every angle now and she was trying to avoid him, not ram him. All this bullshit self-defense garbage is just defensive bullshit trying to defend the overly aggressive new Trump police force that is starting to look a lot like the Gestapo.

Do you really imagine you are as oppressed as those who suffered under the Nazis?

Clearly, we're not at the level of the 1939 Nazi regime, but we're looking a lot like the 1933 Nazi regime. This administration has pushed us toward authoritarianism and Americans getting shot in the head for resisting is just the beginning. Should true patriots who see where this is going sit on their hands and do nothing while the regime is growing its power and destroying Democratic norms just because the Gestapo hasn't started gassing the undocumented immigrants yet? The Nazi's made being a Jew in Germany illegal, so they started aggressively rounding up all the illegals and sending them to concentration camps. We're already halfway there with this disgusting rightwing conservative Christian regime in power. Do we really have to wait till hundreds more die before we reject this vile Christo-fascist ideology?

Trivializing The Holocaust grows and IMO will never disappear just as antisemitism will never disappear.  Latent if not patent Jew-hatred is inherited, passed from generation to generation.  Removal by the Mayor of New York of part of the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism is a step in the wrong direction, a step towards guaranteeing its continuation.  

There has been very little condemnation on this site of Mandamis antisemitism. Thank you for stepping up.

Note: This response was collaboratively drafted by myself and ChatGPT, a language model developed by OpenAI, synthesizing historical context and argumentation.

The Holocaust is all too real and still too close in history. I know of no one personally who wishes to deny the lasting imprint of the horrors wrought upon the Jewish people, and upon many other groups, by the Nazi regime.

Understanding how the Holocaust came about, the reasons, the whys, and the hows, is one of the most important tasks of historical study, precisely so that we come nowhere close to echoing even the early stages of those truly horrific events. From the article:

It must be our commitment to remember, to speak out against those who trivialize, distort, or deny the Holocaust, and to inoculate the public against trivialization through education. (Emphasis mine)

Think about that for a bit.

Let it sit in your mind and slosh around for a moment.

I think it is safe to say that killing millions of people is a very bad thing to do. That is what the Holocaust did.

But I also think the reason this article was posted is more perfidious than the stated claim. Indeed, the poster all but admits the intent in his opening comment:

“A timely reminder that enforcing democratically passed laws against criminals is not NAZISM, and comparing it as such is deeply offensive and does great damage to the memory of the Holocaust.” (Also, this article was originally published in 2014.)

I think the article is being used here to cut off any discussion of the precursors of the Holocaust, and to shut down any mention of authoritarian or fascistic tactics by treating that discussion as inherently offensive. Why? Because there are ways in which the current administration is behaving in ways that mirror tactics historically used by authoritarian, fascist, and totalitarian regimes, and invoking the Holocaust in this way becomes a tool to quash scrutiny through a giant whataboutism.

At this point, the disagreement is not really about history. It is about argumentation. When warnings about Holocaust trivialization are used to shut down discussion of democratic erosion, due process, or the suspension of rights, that is not historical care. It is rhetorical deflection. You do not have to accuse anyone of Nazism to examine whether authoritarian methods are being normalized. Refusing that distinction avoids the argument rather than engaging it.

Invoking the Holocaust here functions less as a safeguard for historical memory and more as a shield against moral scrutiny. By declaring any comparison, or even discussion of precursors, off limits, the argument forecloses debate about the erosion of rights, the normalization of collective punishment, and the expansion of state power beyond ordinary constraints. These are not uniquely Nazi phenomena. They are recurring features of authoritarian, fascist, and totalitarian regimes across modern history, studied precisely because they precede the worst outcomes rather than follow them.

Events in history are unique in some respects and similar in others. I urge everyone to examine their own assumptions and commitments when reading any article, to compare its claims logically against the available facts, and to hold those claims up to the light of day, especially if one finds oneself inclined to accept what the article asserts without question.

The danger is not that someone is saying, “This is exactly the Holocaust.” The danger is that appeals to the Holocaust are being used to exempt present-day actions from ethical evaluation entirely. “The law is the law” has been a recurring justification in regimes later recognized as unjust, and democratic passage does not automatically confer moral legitimacy.

As my research and editorial assistant put it:

If “never again” is to mean anything substantive, it cannot be reduced to a prohibition on comparison. It must include the ability to examine patterns of dehumanization, the erosion of due process, and the use of state force against targeted groups wherever they appear. Otherwise, Holocaust memory becomes not a warning, but a tool for deflection, and that is precisely how moral vigilance is lost, not preserved.

Let's just have a chat gpt off....

A key problem with this line of argument is that the ”precursors of the Holocaust is so elastic that, without strict limits, it becomes analytically meaningless.

Many of the traits usually cited as “authoritarian precursors”—centralization of power, emergency rhetoric, attacks on elites, moral panics, nationalism, executive overreach, media criticism, politicized courts, even bureaucratic expansion—are not unique to fascist or totalitarian regimes. They appear, in varying combinations, in democracies during wars, economic crises, pandemics, social upheavals, and periods of polarization. If the threshold for comparison is simply “this resembles something an authoritarian regime once did,” then virtually any government action can be cast as a warning sign.

That vagueness is what makes the comparison rhetorically powerful but conceptually weak. When “precursors” are defined loosely, the claim becomes unfalsifiable: any counterexample can be dismissed as “early-stage,” and any disagreement can be framed as willful blindness to history. At that point, the argument stops being a tool for careful scrutiny and starts functioning as a moral shortcut—invoking the Holocaust not to clarify risks, but to elevate ordinary political disputes into existential ones.

This is precisely why many scholars argue for extreme caution with Nazi or Holocaust analogies. It’s not about shutting down discussion of authoritarian tendencies; it’s about insisting on specificity. Without that level of precision, “fascistic tactics” becomes a catch-all label that can be applied to almost any administration someone strongly opposes.

Ironically, this overuse can undermine genuine vigilance. If everything is framed as a precursor to fascism, then nothing stands out as truly exceptional or dangerous. Historical analogies are most useful when they narrow our thinking—highlighting concrete, distinctive patterns—not when they stretch so far that history becomes a mirror for whatever we already believe.

"Historical analogies are most useful when they narrow our thinking—highlighting concrete, distinctive patterns..."

Patterns like demanding people show proof of citizenship, detaining them without legal recourse, having a leader who threatens conquering neighbouring nations....i.e. METHODS USED.  

AND, in fact I never mentioned The Holocaust in my comment that you criiticized, accusing me of trivializing The Holocaust.  The Gestapo was not specifically devoted to carrying out The Holocaust.

PATTERNS, Sean, PATTERNS, as you posted.

demanding people show proof of citizenship

So you are saying that any country that legally requires you to carry proof of residency can be equated to Nazi Germany?  Americans, are not, of course, legally required to carry any documents. But a number of countries do. You agree that any country that does is NAZI like? 

 detaining them without legal recourse

What are you talking about? Even illegals have habeus corpus rights and due process protections that the Trump admin has been following. These issues are constantly being  litigated in the courts. 

having a leader who threatens conquering neighbouring nations.

Again, is that somehow unique to Nazi Germany? I seem to recall a small island nation being constantly threatened by its larger neighbor. Is that proof of Nazism or an incipient holocuast?

The Gestapo was not specifically devoted to carrying out The Holocaust.

Lol. PAy atteniton "This is precisely why many scholars argue for extreme caution with Nazi or Holocaust analogies. It’s not about shutting down discussion of authoritarian tendencies; it’s about insisting on specificity. Without that level of precision, “fascistic tactics” becomes a catch-all label that can be applied to almost any administration someone strongly opposes." 

You called the police in Wisconsin the Gestapo. Own it. 

So you are saying that any country that legally requires you to carry proof of residency can be equated to Nazi Germany? 

As Buzz said, it's showing a pattern that this administration and apparently many MAGAites are following which looks a lot like the early 1930's Germany which saw the rise of extreme nationalism and the justification for wiping out the 'undesirables' among them, which at the time included targeting Jews, non-Christians, dissidents, gays, disabled and those trying to protect them or hide them. They used citizenship stops demanding proof of citizenship at any time for any reason to root out those they labeled "illegals".

Today rightwing religious conservatives are targeting undocumented immigrants and the gays, liberals, dissidents, Jews and non-Christians who are trying to demand they be treated humanely. And now these MAGAites are using the same tactic of demanding proof of citizenship at any time for any reason to try and root out those they have labeled "illegals".

If you can't see the similarity, it's clear what perspective you're viewing it from.

I'd say you are doing exactly what the ADL warned against, but's it even worse you are making things up to try and force these comparisons.

Sad.  

I'll not bother paying any attention to your usual personal taunt, but I recently watched the movie "Across the Universe", a great movie in its use of Beatles songs.  In it there is a thanksgiving dinner family argument about "What are you going to do, do, do.  It's always do, do, do."  Jude, a young British guest at the dinner is asked what he thinks, and he says: "It's not WHAT you do, it's HOW YOU DO IT."

It's not WHAT you do, it's HOW YOU DO IT.

And by the way, don't bother twisting what I do say with your "So you are saysing...." interpretaions. 

"It's not WHAT you do, it's HOW YOU DO IT."

Indeed. I don't want tens of millions of undocumented immigrants in our country, especially those who are committing crimes other than being here without papers. But I would welcome tens of millions more immigrants legally. Problem solved. Oh, wait, sorry, that only solves the problem with them being labeled "illegal", but it doesn't solve the problem with them not being white rightwing conservative Christians which is what this whole issue is really about. Scared whiny bitter bigots freaking the fuck out about losing some fantasy 'white culture'. It has nothing to do with 'the law' or them being here 'without papers', it's about fearful little shit stains that both social and physical evolution have left behind, and these are their last gasps for relevance. They're circling their wagons around a fantasy, a fiction that never actually existed. These white conservative Christians warped memory of life on easy street in the 1950's after WWII is pure fucking fiction since it completely ignores the millions of other Americans on whose backs they were standing and necks they were kneeling, the black, Latino, Asian and lgtbq Americans who had to fight for the right to just sit where they wanted on a bus or walk down the same side of the street as their fellow white Americans. That's the "Great" that these MAGAites want to take us back to, when white conservative Christians were large and in charge and everyone else was a second-class citizen and better be thankful for even that.

You just reminded me of my first taste of the "back of the bus" rule, more than 7 decades ago during my first time in Miami.  I got on a bus and went and sat down at the back of the bus, which had always been my favourite place to sit on a bus (back home in Canada).  The bus driver turned around and demanded that I come up front or he would not start the bus.  I didn't want to go, and then the "nice" citizens up front started to yell at me so I got scared and went and sat up front.  That was just afer my first experiece of seeing a water fountain in a department store with a sign above it "WHITES ONLY"  Those incidents were a couple of my first experiences of "WELCOME TO AMERICA".  Now I'm seeing a return to what America really is - I kind of imagine the Statue of Liberty being turned around to face the city instead of the ocean. 

Well if that's the way you wish to play... Note: This response was collaboratively drafted by myself and ChatGPT, a language model developed by OpenAI, synthesizing historical context and argumentation.

Sean, your response sounds rigorous, but it hinges on a mischaracterization of what is being argued.

I am not claiming that any instance of centralized power, emergency rhetoric, nationalism, or institutional conflict automatically constitutes a “precursor to the Holocaust.” In fact, I have explicitly rejected that kind of elastic, slogan-level comparison. The concern is not resemblance in isolation, but patterns, accumulation, and directionality.

Yes, many of the traits you list appear in democracies during crises. That is precisely why historians do not analyze them atomistically. The question is not “has this ever happened in a democracy?” but rather how often, how persistently, in what combinations, against which groups, and with what constraints removed or weakened over time. This is standard comparative historical method, not rhetorical license.

Your argument implies that unless a trait is unique to fascism, it is analytically useless as a warning sign. That standard would render most historical analysis impossible. Economic collapse, scapegoating, legal exceptionalism, propaganda, and bureaucratic normalization of coercion were not unique to Nazi Germany either. What made them dangerous was their convergence and escalation, not their novelty.

You also suggest that concern about precursors becomes unfalsifiable. That would be true if the claim were “anything bad equals fascism.” It is not true when the claim is framed narrowly and testably, for example:
– Are rights being suspended in durable rather than temporary ways?
– Are targeted groups defined by identity rather than conduct?
– Is due process narrowed rather than merely delayed?
– Are oversight mechanisms weakened rather than stressed?
– Is exceptional rhetoric becoming normalized rather than sunsetted?

Those are falsifiable questions. They admit counterevidence. They can be wrong.

What you call a “moral shortcut” is actually a refusal to wait until outcomes are catastrophic before scrutiny is allowed. No one is elevating ordinary policy disputes into existential ones by default. The existential stakes arise only if power continues moving in a particular direction without correction.

Finally, I agree with your insistence on specificity. That is exactly what I have argued for. What I reject is using the Holocaust as a conversational tripwire, where invoking the need for “extreme caution” becomes a way to avoid evaluating present actions at all. Caution is not silence, and precision is not prohibition.

Historical analogies do narrow our thinking when they are used correctly. They identify concrete mechanisms and institutional failures before they harden into irreversible outcomes. If we forbid that analysis on the grounds that democracies sometimes exhibit similar traits under stress, then “never again” becomes a retrospective slogan rather than a prospective discipline. At that point, it no longer serves as a warning or a guardrail. It becomes a recognition offered only after the fact. In effect, “never again” would mean “we will acknowledge the mistake once the damage is already done.” That is not prevention. That is regret.

And now the question that cannot be avoided: how far along this path are we willing to go?

Having distinguished clearly between the Holocaust itself and the methods used to reach it, and having recognized that those methods involve the weakening or dismantling of constitutional constraints, we are left with a problem that cannot be solved by historical taboo or rhetorical caution alone. If certain practices demonstrably erode democratic functioning and replace it with increasingly autocratic forms of governance, then at what point do we say, “this is too far”?

Is it when rights are suspended only temporarily?
When due process is narrowed but not eliminated?
When entire classes of people are treated as presumptively suspect rather than as individuals?
When oversight exists in theory but not in practice?

If the answer is “only after the worst outcomes are unmistakable,” then we have already conceded the argument. A democracy that waits for catastrophe before recognizing danger has abandoned the very idea of prevention. The purpose of studying historical methods is not to assign labels, but to decide where lines must be drawn before they are crossed, not afterward.

included targeting Jews, non-Christians, dissidents, gays, disabled and those trying to protect them or hide them

IIRC, as rascists the Nazi's targeted members of any race they considered to be an "inferior" race--which also included Slavs.  So they also went after (Non-Jewish) Poles.

In addition, another targeted group was the "Roma" (also called "The Gypsies").

Thank you for posting that, Thomas.  I was accused of trivializing The Holocaust for indicating that the methods used by ICE resembled those of the Gestapo, exaggerating it by calling America Gestapoland in order to make a strong point of the dangerous direction it is heading towards.  The threats by the PotUS to take neighbouring lands by force adds to that point.  I am one of the last persons on this site who would trivialize The Holocaust.  I'll bet hardly anyone else here has witnessed the horrors displayed by Yad Vashem.  

You are most welcome, Buzz.

ChatGPT is very good at generating text or "Talking" if you will. I am very good at thinking (when I do ). The trick is to get it to type what I want it to and do so in a voice similar to my own. Still, the, the exact verbiage is not always mine, no matter how close it my be to the concept that I have in my brain, so I give credit where credit is due. Thus, it is my "research/editorial assistant".

this sums is the entirety of the situation as well anything,I’ve seen.

ICE is doing what should be very mundane work of deporting people who aren't allowed to be in the country anymore, by law. Just as they have for years.

However, a bunch of lunatics, encouraged by the media and reckless democrat officials, have decided that basic immigration enforcement is 'literally fascism' and declared war, turning routine enforcement activity into dangerous civil war cosplay. And people are getting hurt because of it.

The federal government has every right to enforce immigration law, in every jurisdiction of the country. The legal fiction of the 'sanctuary city' is completely irrelevant. Municipalities don't get to set their own immigration policy, and they don't get to obstruct federal law enforcement. And they certainly don't get to foment and deploy an army of dangerous foot soldiers to physically attack federal agents, for no other reason than a political disagreement over immigration law.

It's actually insane that this even needs to be said.

These people are coming dangerously close to committing insurrection, and the consequences of that will be monumental. This is not the fight they want, and everyone with even half a brain should be urging these Democrats to seriously back off immediately.

If Democrats believe our immigration laws are wrong, we have an election coming up in November and they can run on an explicit platform of repealing these laws, ending immigration enforcement, and re-opening the border. But they won't, because they know that platform is a loser outside of a very few very far-left districts. So they'll continue to pretend that routine immigration enforcement is actually a replay of 1939 Germany, and continue to send mentally unwell liberal women and antifa activists out to risk injury and legal peril in order to win a few news cycles.

x