Uniqueness of the Holocaust

Introduction

The uniqueness of the Holocaust is considered a controversial subject by several history scholars, and there are prominent divisions in opinion. The Holocaust (also known as Shoah in the Hebrew) refers to the genocide that befell the European Jewish population during the Nazi regime. Approximately 6 million Jews were systemically murdered by the Adolf Hitler led regime between the year 1941 and 1945.[1] The uniqueness question assesses whether the Holocaust was an unprecedented event that is incomparable to any past event in world history. Some scholars have argued that the Holocaust was indeed an outstanding catastrophe based on its qualities and the scope of atrocities that befell the Jewish people at the time. The proponents of the uniqueness of the Holocaust claim that the event was incomprehensible and thus ought to be taught and remembered.[2] However, other scholars have acknowledged that there have been several inhumane events that happened to different people throughout world history, but arguing that the Holocaust is unique is tantamount to reinforcing Jewish ethnocentrism.[3] The essay is a comprehensive analysis of the uniqueness of the Holocaust debate that evaluates the propositions of the various historical scholars on both sides of the arguments. However, the paper takes a position that the Holocaust was indeed a unique event due to its qualities and the enormity of the suffering that was its result.

Background of the Uniqueness Question

The major arguments that emphasise the uniqueness of the Holocaust point out on its unique attributes. The Holocaust is undoubtedly emotive, and hence the debate regarding it tends to evoke many emotions from various parties. However, the opponents of the uniqueness claims have pointed out several events in world history that were also gruesome and highly inhumane and resulted to much suffering to humanity but have not been apportioned as much attention, or acknowledged as being unique, in comparison with the Holocaust.[4] For instance, there have been other events that resulted to the suffering of humankind such as the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the institutional enslavement of people in the USA, mass murders in Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia, and Cambodia, and the maltreatment of native Americans by the USA government, among others.[5] Thus, the opponents of the uniqueness claims thus regard themselves as approaching the subject with rational thoughts other than being swayed away from objectivity by emotion. However, supporting the idea that the Holocaust is unique is not to admonish the gravity of other systemic atrocities done onto other people throughout history but is meant to emphasise its distinctive qualities that make holocaust an unparalleled and unprecedented event in history.

Get Help With Your Essay

If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
Find out more about our Essay Writing Service

The opponents of the uniqueness of the Holocaust have been accused of intending to trivialise the event, and their claims have been found to have a level of consistency with the Holocaust deniers.[6] The Holocaust denial is a movement of people (which has been currently illegalised in several countries) who claim that the Holocaust was a hoax. Most Holocaust deniers have in the past been linked with anti-Semitism.[7] Some key proponents who supported the position that the Holocaust is unique include Deborah Lipstadt, Steven Katz, and Daniel Goldhagen. On the other hand, the key opponents of the uniqueness claims include Ward Churchill, Norman Finkelstein, and David Stannard.

Why the Holocaust Should Be Considered a Unique Event

Deborah Lipstadt is one of the historical scholars of the Holocaust and presents two major arguments as to why the Holocaust is unlike any other event in the history of mankind. The first reason is that the Holocaust was orchestrated by the state with the sole intention of eliminating an entire racial group (the Jews) regardless of their age, sex, profession, or belief.[8] However, other genocides have differed with the Holocaust in this respect in that most of them were not orchestrated by the state. For instance, the Rwandan genocide was perpetrated by militia, who were not part of the government. The enslavement in the USA was also largely based on private interests of the perpetrators but was not a formalised government program. This was not the case during the Holocaust as the German government led by Adolf Hitler was indeed the aggressor in the genocide. Also, the Nazi regime had made it clear that their objective during the genocide was to wipe out the entire Jewish population in Europe whom they considered as an inferior race.[9] On this basis, there are no other genocides in history that appropriately fit this description given the objective of Adolf Hitler to exterminate all Jews.

Another basis why Deborah Lipstadt considers the Holocaust to be unique is that it was not motivated by any economic or territorial gain as is a characteristic of several other genocides that have occurred in history.[10] Other events such as the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were meant to show America’s might, and the attacks ended when the rivals surrendered. Other genocides such as the Rwandan mass murders were also motivated by the need to wield political power from the perceived rivals.[11] However, this was not the case with the Holocaust whereby the European Jews who were the perceived enemies of the Nazi regime had already surrendered even before they were murdered. The killing of Jews was also not religious persecution but was purely motivated by racial hate from Adolf Hitler. Furthermore, the extermination of Jews by the Nazi regime was not based on the need to wield political or economic power, and neither was it connected to territorial gain as observed in other genocides. The Adolf Hitler led regime had nothing to gain politically or economically out of the killing of a people who had already surrendered and had no threat whatsoever to the Nazi rule. Even though the events happened during the second world war, the Nazi regime was not at war with the Jews but they were attacking people who did not even possess the means to fight back.[12] On this basis, it is correct to consider the Holocaust a unique and unprecedented event in world history.

The Holocaust is also considered unique since it was perpetrated and supported by people who would ordinarily not be expected to be behind such atrocities. Katz noted that the people behind the inhumane event included professionals with PhDs, leading scientists and professors who may be considered part of a civilised society.[13] The concentration camps where the European Jews were incarcerated, the incinerators among other equipment used were designed using quite advanced and sophisticated scientific technologies that show that Germany was at the time an already advanced society. The Germans had technology so advanced such as they could even test the pain levels for the victims during the torture. There is also evidence of scientists such as Dr. Joseph Mengele performing gruesome and bizarre experiments on the victims such as the sewing of twins together to form a Siamese pair and observing their reactions.[14] The picture is indicative that Germany was already a civilised society based on scientific innovations, and as such the barbaric events of the Holocaust would not be expected to emanate from such an advanced and cultured society. The infliction of pain and suffering to a defenceless population to the extent as happened in the Holocaust are indefensible activities that are totally unacceptable to any civilised society.[15] Therefore, events of the Holocaust were a major paradox which also underpins why the Holocaust was a unique event in world history.

Steven Katz noted that the uniqueness of the genocide is based on the fact that the attack against the Jews was not an attack on faith, but an attack of race.[16] Thus, the extent of racial hate that that triggered the atrocities of the magnitude of the holocaust perpetrated by the government is a shock to many in the civilised world. The fact that the event happened during the civilisation period only compounds the incomprehensibility of the event. The level of hatred towards a people regardless of what they believed in was something that is to date unparalleled and something that could not be suspected in the enlightened world. Hitler alongside with his followers severally justified the extermination of Jews on racist basis that his program was to create a superior German-Aryan race through purifying it through the elimination of inferior blood.[17] Several other authors have similarly settled on extreme anti-Semitism being the basis of the Holocaust. A closer examination of the Holocaust reveals that the extermination of Jews by Adolf Hitler was unlike any other genocide that happened against the Jews or any other racial group. The Jews of all ages, sexes, and professions were singled out by the Hitler regime for total annihilation.[18] In the past, the Jews would escape persecution through conversion to Christianity or Islam, or fleeing to their native cities. Thus, there were ways in which the Jews could avoid the persecution and survive various atrocities done to them in history. However, the Holocaust was quite different as Adolf Hitler was committed to having every single Jew singled out and murdered until the entire race was completely destroyed.

However, there has been a bone of contention as to what was the basis of Hitler’s intentions to annihilate the Jewish people that has persisted in the scholarly realm. For instance, Leni Yahil made claims that are contrary to the findings of Steven Katz by arguing that it was the Jewish faith that triggered the atrocities that befell them at the hands of the Nazi Germans.[19] The author claims that if the motivation for Hitler for killing the Jews had been racial hate, the primary targets would have been the Black Africans. Hitler in several instances asserted that even with the hatred for the Jews, no race was inferior to the Black Africans.[20] Thus, it was only logical that if his intention was to eliminate the inferior races from Europe, his first target would have been the Black Africans which he expressed a lot of hate towards. Therefore, this gives much credence to the claims that the motive to exterminate the Jews was religious based. Jews were considered to be stronger in their faith and spirit and thus one element that Hitler feared so much was the indoctrination of the country’s rule with Jewish religious laws.[21] As a result, Hitler saw the Jewish faith as a weakness and as an impediment for Germany in wielding political power. For instance, Hitler dismissed some of the Biblical commandments such as “thou shall not kill” as a Jewish invention when he was questioned by Christian leaders regarding the killing of cripples and the sick.[22] Hitler believed that Germany would be strengthened through the extermination of the weak which would thus create more space for the strong to thrive and even acquire a greater level of strength.[23] Judaism which is the Jewish religion emphasised on the sanctity of life which was something that Hitler stood against and saw as madness. Thus, the claim that Hitler wanted to clean Germany of Judaism is quite plausible given the circumstances which the 6 million Jews were murdered.[24] The killing of the European Jewry was much more of Spiritual warfare which also brings out elements of uniqueness in comparison with other genocides that have been perpetrated in world history.

A common approach used by the proponents that the Holocaust was a unique event is usually through comparative studies between the Holocaust and other inhumane occurrences in history. Daniel Goldhagen assesses the various atrocities perpetrated in various parts of the world and juxtaposes them with the events of the Holocaust. Several opponents of the Holocaust as being a unique event often compare it with other historical injustices to humankind and as such the arguments presented by Goldhagen are intended to answer the claims and single out elements that make the holocaust incomparable. The attack of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is an event of mass killings that are severally cited in comparison with the Holocaust. More than 200,000 were killed or suffered major injuries after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.[25] However, unlike the Holocaust, it was not the intention of the Americans to wipe out the population of the Japanese people that instigated the attack. The attack was a way for the Americans to demonstrate their political might, and the attacks ended with the surrendering of the Japanese government. However, even with the surrendering and the helplessness of the Jews, the attacks and torture continued to befall them.[26] The Hiroshima and Nagasaki attack thus differs from the Holocaust in terms of the objective, and the cessation of the attacks.

The maltreatment of the Native Americans by the USA government which caused a significant decline in their numbers due to deaths resulting from inhumane treatment is also an event used by the opponents of the uniqueness of the Holocaust to draw parallels with the events at Auschwitz.[27] However, even with the heartless and self-serving motives that resulted in the aggression towards the Native Indians, there was no nationalised policy that was created to completely destroy the native population.[28] In this regard, the maltreatment of the native Indians from the USA government differs from the holocaust whereby there were nationalised policies enforced by the Nazi regime to exterminate all Jews. Another element commonly used comparatively with the Holocaust is the enslavement of Africans by the White Americans. However, there are prominent differences between these two events. In so much as the slaves were maltreated and faced aggression from their owners, they were not meant to be murdered as that would defeat their purpose. The enslavement of Africans which was lawful at the time was primarily for the economic benefit of the slave owners. Thus, the enslavement of Africans is unlike the Holocaust in the sense that the Jews were incarcerated for no economic gain, but rather they were murdered purely due to hate and intolerance.

The other tragedy that is considered to have some analogies with the Holocaust is the brutal deportation of Armenians from Turkey from the year 1915 and 1917. The event is considered to have contributed to the deaths of between 550,000 to 800,000 Armenians.[29] However, the Turks were motivated to orchestrate the inhumane events by religious fanaticism and ill notions of nationalism. Turks considered the Armenians to be a threat for their nationalism and thus felt the need to have them removed from Turkey to defuse the threat. However, the process was characterised by extreme violence and inhumane treatment towards the Armenians to the extent of losing over 550,000 lives. However, the deportation and killings towards the Armenians are unlike the holocaust in that the Armenians were not considered to possess biological or satanic threats to the Turks as was the case in the Holocaust.[30] Furthermore, the Armenians who accepted conversion to Islam were spared unlike in the holocaust whereby Jews were murdered indiscriminately.[31] Also, only the Armenians residing in the Turkish Capital of Istanbul were subjected to the inhumane treatment and thus several others who took refuge in other areas survived the genocide. The Holocaust is different in that the Nazis sought out all the Jews in Europe and the victims had no form of escape available to them.[32] The proponents of the uniqueness of the Holocaust, however, emphasise that the comparisons are only meant to point out the differences that make the Holocaust Unique but is not for the purpose of lessening or belittling the suffering of the victims.

Points of View from the Opponents of the Uniqueness of the Holocaust

The opponents of the uniqueness of the holocaust claims have stated that there is absolutely no reason to point to the singularities of the Holocaust as it parallels other inhumane acts and events that have occurred in the world history. In fact, the opponents of the uniqueness claims have acknowledged that the event was barbaric and regrettable, but can only be appropriately lumped together with other cases of systemic inhumanities, in what is collectively known as the “Century of Barbarism”. One of the claims made is that the murder of the 6 million Jews should be observed from wider lenses whereby there were about 11 million killings in total that happened under the Nazi regime.[33] Thus, the singling of the focus towards the atrocities done on the Jews is tantamount to denying the occurrence of other genocides that were equally inhumane, gruesome and barbaric done by Nazis as well as other regimes, as per the arguments presented by the various authors who negate the uniqueness claims. Thus, the support for the uniqueness of the holocaust claims has been severally described as contributing to the reinforcing of the Jewish ethnocentrism. Others have described the focusing on the Holocaust as a “Zionist” tool of attracting sympathy towards the Jews with the aim of attracting “Jewish finance” from the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF).[34]

One of the origins of the uniqueness of the Holocaust question was the Historikerstreit, also known as theHistorians debate, that occurred between the year 1986 and 1987.[35] The debate also led to the beginning of negating that the Holocaust was a unique event. The debate was concerned with elucidating the position of the perpetrator, rather than the position of the victim which dominated the prior holocaust scholarship.[36]  The aims of the debate were to normalise the nation of Germany from the shadow of Auschwitz that dampened its posture from the rest of the world. The debate was thus aimed at making the German nation “normal” again through underpinning the argument that the events of the Holocaust were not exceptional at all.[37] During the Historikerstreit, the German historian and philosopher claimed that the events of the Holocaust were parallel to what he referred to the “Asiatic” genocides thus were perpetrated by the Turks and the Soviets. Also, other inhumane atrocities that occurred in Cambodia and other parts of the world were indicative that Germany was not in a class of its own with regard to genocidal violence. Thus, the normalisation attempts can be seen as a quest of the Germans to shift from the focus of genocidal violence of the historical phase from themselves.

Norman Finkelstein is a notable opponent of the uniqueness of the holocaust claims who base his claims on the fact that the Holocaust has been in the recent years been politicised and weaponised by creating the notion of victimhood of the Jews aimed at extorting money from Europe.[38] Thus, Finkelstein uses the argument that the Holocaust has been in the past utilised as a source of moral capital from the Jewish world through selling the notion of the obligation to help the “needy Holocaust survivors”. Finkelstein makes a bold claim by referring to the Holocaust industry as an “outright extortion racket”.[39] Finkelstein goes ahead to make a daring accusation to the US government as getting involved in reinforcing the rent-seeking activities of the Jewish people using the Holocaust as the basis. He accuses the US as promoting the notion of the uniqueness of the genocide to spearhead its own selfish objective of international bullying which it has profited from for decades.[40] Furthermore, the author claims that the US itself has not been a victim of holocaust extortion, but its contributions to the discourse have only intensified this form of extortion that is based on moral capital of the Jews. The author thus rejects the claims of uniqueness by asserting that the proponents of the uniqueness of the Holocaust are not sympathetic to the suffering of Jews for the genocide, but are simply agents of Jewish aggrandisement.

Ward Churchill is also a notable opponent of the uniqueness of the holocaust claims through asserting that other genocides have been deliberately suppressed in order to make the holocaust appear grander in scope and in the level of inhumanity.[41] Churchill claims that the atrocities committed by the Europeans towards the native Americans between the year 1492 and 1892 could be even of a far greater magnitude, a fact which has been denied. Churchill asserts that more than 100 million native Americans could have been exterminated, which is a truth that has for several years been suppressed by the media and political leaders.[42] Churchill also makes observations that political leaders even went to the extent of justifying the annihilation of native Americans through claiming that the elimination of barbarism which was the characteristic of the Native Americans was a justified course. From these claims, Churchill coined the phrase “American Holocaust denial” to describe the scenario of how the US is working to suppress the truth on the genocide of native Americans. Churchill goes further to claim that the actual holocaust has also been misrepresented through making the emphasis of the Jews fatalities and overshadowing the numbers of other races and ethnicities that also suffered within the Nazi program. Besides the Jews, Churchill makes the emphasis of the number of victims from other racial groupings including the Poles, Slovenes, Gypsies, Ukrainians, Soviets, and Serbs who also suffered major casualty numbers under the Nazi Germans between 1939 and 1945.[43]  On this basis, Churchill refuted the claims that the term genocide should only be applied for the European Jews.[44] The implications of Churchill’s claims are to reinforce his position that the Holocaust is in no way a unique genocide as others have also suffered a similar fate throughout history.

Similar to Churchill, David Stannard uses the basis of the “American Holocaust” to question and negate any assertions that the genocide against the European Jews in Auschwitz was a unique and unprecedented occurrence. Stannard narrates how the Euro-Americans committed numerous atrocities towards the indigenous Indian populations that were the original inhabitants of America. Stannard claims that the actions of the perpetrators resulted in the extermination of approximately 95% of the original inhabitants that occupied the land.[45] Stannard thus concludes by establishing ideological links between the actions of the Euro-Americans towards the native Indian populations, and the genocide at Auschwitz in the hands of the Nazi Germans.[46] However, he notes that there has been a deliberate move of denying that genocide actually happened to the detriment of the Native Indian populations that were the original inhabitants of America.[47] Through suppressing the scope of the genocide that happened in America during the historical phase, the Holocaust of the European Jewry has always been observed as the most gruesome case of inhumanity. As Stannard argues, there are other parallels of the Holocaust that should be acknowledged to be at the same level, if not greater than the Holocaust.

Conclusion

From the analysis of the arguments from both sides of the debate, it is clear that the question at hand is highly divisive and emotive to many. Both camps have compelling accounts of why they believe their arguments should be awarded greater credence. However, from a careful and thorough analysis of the various historical texts which are described above, the paper establishes that the Holocaust was indeed a unique event that is incomparable in many ways with the other inhumane events that have been perpetrated by human beings against fellow humankind. The uniqueness of the genocide is first based on the intention and ideology behind it. The Nazi Germans made it clear that they wanted to exterminate the European Jewry whom they considered to be of inferior blood. Thus, there have been both racial and religious based arguments that have been presented in explaining the Nazi program in Germany. Second, the uniqueness of the genocide is based on its comparative attributes with other inhumane events which include the fact that the Holocaust was not done for any territorial, economic or political gain, but was done purely for the hatred of Jews by the Adolf Hitler led regime. Furthermore, the heinous act was performed by a nation that considered itself civilised and cultured, given the level of scientific innovations that was used in designing the various equipment that was used such as the crematoria. The Holocaust was conducted by professionals, including PhDs which is quite a shocking attribute that such individuals would be complicit in subjecting other human beings to the level of suffering as was the Holocaust. Thus, the Holocaust stands out as a regrettable, unprecedented and unique event in world history.

Bibliography

• Bensoussan, Georges. “The Civic and Political Challenges of Holocaust Education.” Holocaust Education in a Global Context (2014): 172-176.
• Blatman, Daniel. “Holocaust Scholarship: Towards a Post-Uniqueness Era.” Journal of Genocide Research 17, no. 1 (2015): 21-43.
• Blum, Lawrence A. “The Holocaust and Moral Education.” In Philosophical Dimensions of Public Policy, pp. 47-54. Routledge, 2017.
• Churchill, Ward. “A Travesty of a Mockery of a Sham: Colonialism as ‘Self-Determination’in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.” Griffith Law Review 20, no. 3 (2011): 526-556.
• Cohen, Boaz. “Jews, Jewish Studies and Holocaust Historiography.” Writing the Holocaust (2011): 100-115.
• Cole, Tim. Selling the Holocaust: From Auschwitz to Schindler; How History Is Bought, Packaged and Sold. Routledge, 2017.
• Finkelstein, Norman G. Knowing Too Much: Why the American Jewish Romance with Israel is Coming to an End. Or Books, 2012.
• Katz, Steven T. “On the Holocaust and Comparative History.” In Holocaust Scholarship, 84-98. Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2015.
• Katz, Steven T. “The Uniqueness of the Holocaust: The Historical Dimension.” In Is the Holocaust Unique?, 55-74. Routledge, 2018.
• Lipstadt, Deborah E. Holocaust: An American Understanding. Vol. 7. Rutgers University Press, 2016.
• Rensink, Brendan. “Genocide of Native Americans: Historical Facts and Historiographic Debates.” S., Totten, RK Hitchcock,(Eds.), Genocide of Indigenous Peoples: Genocide: A Critical Bibliographic Review 8 (2011): 15-36.
• Rockmore, Tom. “Knowledge, History and the Holocaust.” In Moral philosophy and the Holocaust, 57-74. Routledge, 2017.
• Zangwill, Nick. “Perpetrator Motivation: Some Reflections on the Browning/Goldhagen Debate” In Moral Philosophy and the Holocaust, 89-102. Routledge, 2017.

[1] Steven T. Katz. “The Uniqueness of the Holocaust: The Historical Dimension.” In Is the Holocaust Unique? (Routledge, 2018), pp. 55-74.

[2] Steven T. Katz “On the Holocaust and Comparative History.” In Holocaust Scholarship (Palgrave Macmillan, 2015) pp. 84-98.

[3] Katz. “The Uniqueness of the Holocaust: The Historical Dimension”, 55.

[4] Daniel Blatman,. “Holocaust Scholarship: Towards a Post-Uniqueness Era.” Journal of Genocide Research, 17, no. 1 (2015): 21-43.

[5] Steven T. Katz. “On the Holocaust and Comparative History.” In Holocaust Scholarship (Palgrave Macmillan, 2015) pp. 84-98.

[6] Blatman 22.

[7] Blatman 23.

[8] Deborah E Lipstadt. Holocaust: An American Understanding. Vol. 7. (Rutgers University Press, 2016).

[9] Lipstadt. Holocaust: An American Understanding 67.

[10] Lipstadt. Holocaust: An American Understanding 67.

[11] Lipstadt. Holocaust: An American Understanding 68.

[12] Steven T. Katz. “On the Holocaust and Comparative History.” In Holocaust Scholarship (Palgrave Macmillan, 2015) pp. 84-98

[13] Katz. “On the Holocaust and Comparative History”, 85.

[14]Tom Rockmore. “Knowledge, History and the Holocaust.” In Moral Philosophy and the Holocaust (Routledge, 2017), pp. 57-74.

[15] Deborah E Lipstadt. Holocaust: An American Understanding. Vol. 7. (Rutgers University Press, 2016).

[16] Steven T. Katz. “The Uniqueness of the Holocaust: The Historical Dimension.” In Is the Holocaust Unique? (Routledge, 2018), pp. 55-74.

[17] Steven T. Katz. “On the Holocaust and Comparative History.” In Holocaust Scholarship (Palgrave Macmillan, 2015) pp. 84-98.

[18] Steven T. Katz. “On the Holocaust and Comparative History.”

[19] Boaz Cohen. “Jews, Jewish Studies and Holocaust Historiography.” Writing the Holocaust (2011): 100-115.

[20] Boaz Cohen. “Jews, Jewish Studies and Holocaust Historiography.” Writing the Holocaust (2011): 100-115.

[21] Cohen. “Jews, Jewish Studies and Holocaust Historiography” 109.

[22] Cohen. “Jews, Jewish Studies and Holocaust Historiography” 112.

[23] Steven T. Katz. “The Uniqueness of the Holocaust: The Historical Dimension.” In Is the Holocaust Unique? (Routledge, 2018), pp. 55-74.

[24] Nick Zangwill. “Perpetrator Motivation: Some Reflections on the Browning/Goldhagen Debate.” In Moral Philosophy and the Holocaust (Routledge, 2017), pp. 89-102.

[25] Nick Zangwill. “Perpetrator Motivation: Some Reflections on the Browning/Goldhagen Debate.” In Moral Philosophy and the Holocaust (Routledge, 2017), pp. 89-102.

[26] Zangwill. “Perpetrator Motivation: Some Reflections on the Browning/Goldhagen Debate” 92.

[27] Boaz Cohen. “Jews, Jewish Studies and Holocaust Historiography.” Writing the Holocaust (2011): 100-115..

[28] Nick Zangwill. “Perpetrator Motivation: Some Reflections on the Browning/Goldhagen Debate.” In Moral Philosophy and the Holocaust (Routledge, 2017), pp. 89-102

[29] Tom Rockmore. “Knowledge, History and the Holocaust.” In Moral Philosophy and the Holocaust (Routledge, 2017), pp. 57-74.

[30] Lawrence A Blum “The Holocaust and Moral Education.” In Philosophical Dimensions of Public Policy (Routledge, 2017), pp. 47-54.

[31] Nick Zangwill. “Perpetrator Motivation: Some Reflections on the Browning/Goldhagen Debate.” In Moral Philosophy and the Holocaust (Routledge, 2017), pp. 89-102

[32] Tom Rockmore. “Knowledge, History and the Holocaust.” In Moral Philosophy and the Holocaust, pp. 57-74. Routledge, 2017.

[33] Georges Bensoussan. “The Civic and Political Challenges of Holocaust Education.” Holocaust Education in a Global Context (2014): 172-176.

[34] Lawrence A Blum. “The Holocaust and Moral Education.” In Philosophical Dimensions of Public Policy (Routledge, 2017), 47-54.

[35] Nick Zangwill. “Perpetrator Motivation: Some Reflections on the Browning/Goldhagen Debate.” In Moral Philosophy and the Holocaust (Routledge, 2017), 89-102.

[36] Zangwill. “Perpetrator Motivation: Some Reflections on the Browning/Goldhagen Debate”, 94.

[37] Zangwill. “Perpetrator Motivation: Some Reflections on the Browning/Goldhagen Debate”, 102.

[38] Tim Cole. Selling the Holocaust: From Auschwitz to Schindler; How History is Bought, Packaged and Sold (Routledge, 2017), 123.

[39] Cole. Selling the Holocaust: From Auschwitz to Schindler; How History is Bought, Packaged and Sold, 142.

[40] Norman G. Finkelstein Knowing Too Much: Why the American Jewish Romance with Israel is Coming to an End. (Or Books, 2012).

[41] Ward Churchill. “A Travesty of a Mockery of a Sham: Colonialism as ‘Self-Determination’in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.” Griffith Law Review, vol. 20, no. 3 (2011): 526-556.

[42] Churchill. “A Travesty of a Mockery of a Sham…” 534.

[43] Ward Churchill. “A Travesty of a Mockery of a Sham: Colonialism as ‘Self-Determination’in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.” Griffith Law Review, vol. 20, no. 3 (2011): 526-556.

[44] Churchill. “A Travesty of a Mockery of a Sham…”, 531.

[45] Brendan Rensink. “Genocide of Native Americans: Historical Facts and Historiographic Ddebates.” S., Totten, RK Hitchcock,(Eds.), Genocide of Indigenous Peoples: Genocide: A Critical Bibliographic Review 8 (2011): 15-36.

[46] Rensink. “Genocide of Native Americans…”, 24.

[47] Norman G Finkelstein. Knowing Too Much: Why the American Jewish Romance with Israel is Coming to an End. (Or Books, 2012).