US Top Dem Speechwriter Says Young Jews’ Empathy for Gaza Shows Holocaust Education Has Backfired

Article (Archive)

A speechwriter for prominent Democrats including former President Barack Obama and presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and John Kerry faced widespread outrage this week after video emerged of her blaming Holocaust education for young Jews’ empathy for Palestinians in Gaza and revulsion at Israel’s genocidal war there.

Earlier this week, Sarah Hurwitz—who was also a senior speechwriter for former First Lady Michelle Obama and other Democrats—spoke at the opening plenary of this year’s Jewish Federations of North America general assembly in Washington, DC. The event featured speakers including Free Press staff writer Olivia Reingold, who implicitly attempted to absolve Israel from blame for the Gaza famine by noting that 12 of the at least 463 Palestinians who starved to death had preexisting health conditions.

“There have been huge shifts in America on how people think about Jews and Israel, and I think that is especially true of young people,” Hurwitz said during the panel discussion, noting the rise of social media as a primary source of news and information.

“Today, we have social media,” she added “Its algorithms are shaped by billions of people worldwide who don’t really love Jews.”

https://twitter.com/hasanthehun/status/1990879756871467225

Hurwitz continued:

It’s also this increasingly post-literate media. Less and less text, more and more videos, so you have TikTok just smashing our young peoples’ brains all day long with video of carnage in Gaza. And this is why so many of us can’t have a sane conversation with younger Jews, because anything we try to say to them, they are hearing it through this wall of carnage. So I wanna give data and information and facts and arguments and they are just seeing in their minds carnage, and I sound obscene.

“I think, unfortunately, the very smart... bet we made on Holocaust education to serve as antisemitism education, in this new media environment, I think that is beginning to break down a little bit, because Holocaust education is absolutely essential,” Hurwitz asserted.

“But I think it may be confusing some of our young people about antisemitism, because they learn about big, strong Nazis hurting weak, emaciated Jews,” she added, “...so when on TikTok all day long they see powerful Israelis hurting weak, skinny Palestinians, it’s not surprising that they think, ‘Oh, I know, the lesson of the Holocaust is you fight Israel, you fight the big powerful people hurting the weak people.’”

Reaction to Hurwitz’ remarks ranged from incredulity to anger.

“I am almost literally speechless,” American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee nation legal director Jenin Younes said on X. “She’s decrying the fact that kids’ takeaway from Holocaust education has been that we must protect helpless people from powerful people killing them. The real lesson from the Holocaust, it seems, is that Israel must be able to commit genocide if it wants to.”

https://twitter.com/Alonso_GD/status/1991086101231018116

Argentinian economist Maia Mindel also took to X, writing that it is “extremely grim that a substantial number of very influential people seem to think that the lesson from the Holocaust isn’t ‘mass murder of civilians based on their ancestry so your nation can take their land is wrong’ but rather, ‘Fuck you, got mine.’”

Jewish Currents editor-at-large Peter Beinart wrote on X that “the level of condescension” in Hurwitz’s commentary “is quite remarkable.”

Writer Bryce Greene lamented: “We’re at the point where Israels supporters are now claiming that the Holocaust was not bad because it was the powerful attacking the weak.”

“No, that would be the wrong lesson from the Holocaust,” he added. “According to them it was only bad because Jews were the victims. Real sick shit.”

Independent journalist Ahmed Eldin said on X that “Zionism is so morally bankrupt it sees empathy as a design flaw.”

Eldin wrote Wednesday on his Substack that “Hurwitz didn’t slip up—she said the quiet part out loud and exposed the Zionist project for exactly what it is.”

“She even admitted that, amidst the carnage, she sounds ‘obscene,’” he noted. “That admission, said almost accidentally, is the closest thing to honesty her worldview will allow: The problem is not the violence of Zionism itself, but the visibility of it. Zionism, as she inadvertently revealed, depends not on morality but on opacity. The ideology requires not less brutality, but simply fewer witnesses.”

Moving on to Holocaust education, Eldin wrote:

According to Hurwitz, Holocaust curricula have “backfired” because they taught young people that “you fight the big powerful people hurting the weak people.” In her telling, this universal ethical principle—this most basic moral intuition—is the problem.

The implication is staggering: the “correct” lesson of the Holocaust, she seems to believe, is not “never again for anyone,” but “never question Israel.” What outrages her is not the suffering of Palestinians but the possibility that young people are recognizing it as suffering.

“A world that is witnessing and seeing Palestinians as human is a world in which Zionism cannot function,” Eldin concluded. “A world that sees the violence cannot romanticize the ideology producing it. Once people witness the truth, the mythology cannot be resuscitated and the propaganda cannot be rehabilitated.”

“Israel may be able to flatten Gaza’s buildings, but it cannot rebuild the ignorance it once relied upon,” he added. “The truth is already out, the narrative collapse well underway, the mask irretrievably gone.”

 

[Disdainer of the Plebs]

“Today, we have social media,” she added “Its algorithms are shaped by billions of people worldwide who don’t really love Jews.”

I wonder why people would think such a thing? I guess the world will never know…

 

[FieldPiece]

1st semester? Holocaust. 2nd semester? Nigger rights.

Gee I can't imagine why people don't want to labor under unlivable conditions because some big nosed shekel hoarders maybe died 80 years ago. Hey don't ask why England, France, and the rest of Europe didn't take them in! It was called the FINAL solution because it was the first option obviously.

 

[>IMPLYING]

if everyone felt "sorry" for Israel then why did the UN put an arms embargo

I was mainly getting vexed at the sentiment expressed by the person in the article. It's the same as another example mentioned in this thread of African Americans using slavery to justify a sense of obligations from others on how they should act/feel. The main issue with the holocaust isn't that it's necessarily Jew-centric, it's that the mere fact it happened in turn justified pre-emptive action on expressing any sort of criticality towards opposing groups/cultures/ethnicities even if the criticisms are not intrinsic.

I've defended Jews a shit-ton before and I will always argue in favour of plausibility over complexity when it comes to the involvement of Jews anywhere (Rothchilds are a major example) but the window from the end of WW2, peak of Jewish sympathy, and the birth of the Israeli state are arguable but clearly contentious given you disagree. What I said was: Israel exists because people felt sorry for them,

My main points of argument are:
The British White Paper restricted Jewish immigration into Mandatory Palestine saw an exception on the behest of the USA post-WW2, allowing in 100k Jewish refugees from Europe into the area when prior the paper decided 76k over a period of 5 years at which point any further immigration would be determined by the Arab majority. (1939-44 I.E. past the window of free Jewish settlement into the area)

One of the main tactics of the Jewish insurgency was to provoke the British enough to cause them to respond with repressive measures and thereby provoke controversy. This would mean, in a sense, weaponing public sentiment for the Jews in order to hasten their own freedom. This signifies that it was at least considered "a tactic".

The partition plan by the UN was vastly more favourable to the Jews than the prior partition plans proffered by the British Peel Commission, even though they both arrived at similar conclusions justifying partition:

(The Woodhead Commission offers up several other partitions but ultimately rejects them outright because there isn't a way of doing partition that doesn't fuck over both sides or primarily fuck the Arabs. The Jews favoured an independent state, regardless of size, for legitimacy and rejected the idea of no self-determination whatsoever, making the partition plan offered by the UN much more favourable than any conjured up by the British. You probably already know this. Thereafter was the London Conference, both rejected a single state, so the British threw up their hands and deferred to the League of Nations/UN, at which point a minor war broke out with Germany that would no doubt only last a few months SO LONG AS FRENCH FUCKING PUSH!)

For what reason would you include visitations to places were Holocaust survivors were being held if not to provoke sympathy? Whilst America wouldn't invest greater involvement in the region until later, Truman, being a shabbos goy, certainly gives personal incentive to care about Jewish plight. Though Truman's sympathy might've been stretched to breaking point after a certain point.


The reason I'm making this argument is actually novel from a meta point of view. It's not from a position of antisemitism, it is a rare instance of British patriotism vs Israeli patriotism because I think this warrants some salt.


Which'd more or less justify the lack of British support. There ain't no way they're putting the whole British Army on there as though the entire UK army was fighting against these paramilitaries in 1944, they're including the British army just so it's not 30k+ paramilitaries vs 4k policemen and maybe a few hundred or few thousand garrison troops at best.

Regarding that arms embargo: it was placed on both parties in the conflict. Which, considering the Jewish side had a buttload of trained if not armed paramilitaries (such as Haganah and Palmach (partially armed + trained by the British), irgun, Lehi. and wherever the Jewish Brigade went) with a far more organised command structure and underground arms manufacturing vs irregulars and hastily put together counter-groups that paled in comparison to the Jews, I'd say the embargo was pretty negligible all things considered. And the "British Arab Legion" wasn't supposed to fight, just to play devil's advocate for something bearing the name "British". It was also basically just the army of Jordan. The actual "British" part was superficial. It's kind of like the Union flag/Jack remaining on the flags of Australia and New Zealand.



Still, to end on a note of (maybe) solidarity and show I do not hate Israel: We were robbed

 

[Dumbledore's Onlyfans]

I always love this line of thinking because it doesn't survive contact with reality, if everyone felt "sorry" for Israel then why did the UN put an arms embargo on the region and why did the entire West excluding the French refuse to assist Israel? The British Arab Legion led the war against the new Israeli state. Until 1956 the only Western country willing to sell arms to Israel was France and the US wouldn't get involved until 1961.

Jewish education does suck though, especially for American Jews who don't know Judaism except for bagels.

The real answer is that neither the US nor the UK wanted to admit a shitload of Jews as refugees, so they gave them a hunk of historically Jewish desert and said, "Here, go build your own thing, and also, fuck off, we're full."

 

[>IMPLYING]

The real answer is that neither the US nor the UK wanted to admit a shitload of Jews as refugees, so they gave them a hunk of historically Jewish desert and said, "Here, go build your own thing, and also, fuck off, we're full."

Evian Conference, 1938.
That's pretty much the correct assessment.


They also pointed out the issue with importing huge numbers of non-natives into a nation so it's not like the problems we have today with such a phenomena couldn't have been predicted.

There is one asterisk though: some of the Zionists thought it'd be better to redirect them towards Mandatory Palestine (which hadn't seen a hard limit on Jewish immigration yet).


The Australian delegation to the conference makes the most succinct yet potent repudiation of mass importing foreigners for any reason.

 

[Catch The Rainbow]

Evian Conference, 1938.
That's pretty much the correct assessment.
View attachment 8213515

They also pointed out the issue with importing huge numbers of non-natives into a nation so it's not like the problems we have today with such a phenomena couldn't have been predicted.
View attachment 8213521
There is one asterisk though: some of the Zionists thought it'd be better to redirect them towards Mandatory Palestine (which hadn't seen a hard limit on Jewish immigration yet).
View attachment 8213531

The Australian delegation to the conference makes the most succinct yet potent repudiation of mass importing foreigners for any reason.
View attachment 8213529

Did you miss the part where it said ultimately doomed? Nothing happened in the end.

exception on the behest of the USA post-WW2, allowing in 100k Jewish refugees from Europe

The quoted segment states that the white paper policy effectively stayed in effect, the British didn't follow through.

One of the main tactics of the Jewish insurgency was to provoke the British

This is true but irrelevant

The partition plan by the UN was vastly more favourable to the Jews

It favored the Arabs as the Jewish partition was mostly desert and coast with little arable land. Access to Jerusalem would be limited as well.

Regarding that arms embargo: it was placed on both parties in the conflict. Which, considering the Jewish side had a buttload of trained if not armed paramilitaries (such as Haganah and Palmach (partially armed + trained by the British), irgun, Lehi. and wherever the Jewish Brigade went) with a far more organised command structure and underground arms manufacturing vs irregulars and hastily put together counter-groups that paled in comparison to the Jews,

The opposite is true. The Arab side was mostly already established armies that had a better supply of arms. The embargo barely affected the Arab armies as they were already built up and the militias could arm themselves from the armies. The Jewish side weren't able to manufacture more than basic small arms and they couldn't make enough quickly enough. They needed foreign arms badly and the Czech arms deal was crucial, Ben Gurion said that without the arms deal the Israelis wouldn't have had a chance.

And the "British Arab Legion" wasn't supposed to fight, just to play devil's advocate for something bearing the name "British". It was also basically just the army of Jordan. The actual "British" part was superficial. It's kind of like the Union flag/Jack remaining on the flags of Australia and New Zealand.

Glubb Pasha had British support. It wasn't overt due to political optics concerns but the British did support the Arab Legion and instructed him to only fight in areas such as the West Bank because they did not want to be seen as invading Jewish territory. There was a line where the Arab Legion could not enter. Other Arab armies did not have such a line.

Still, to end on a note of (maybe) solidarity and show I do not hate Israel:

No one is accusing you of hating Israel. We're just discussing historical fact.

 

[>IMPLYING]

Did you miss the part where it said ultimately doomed? Nothing happened in the end.

It was correct in the sense that none of the participants in a major way accepted a substantial number of jews, which in concurrent with the poster saying they were "fucked off to the one bit of land they used to own". Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic agreed to take a bunch. Wonder how they're regarded in terms of international relations in the present.

The quoted segment states that the white paper policy effectively stayed in effect, the British didn't follow through.

It's badly worded. It makes it seem like this happened:
"Let in 100k Jews and get rid of white paper." -> "Yes." *Doesn't agree to let in 100k Jews, keeps up White Paper* -> *Arabs now want to kill all European Jews in Mandatory Palestine* - the actual reaction of the Arabs makes zero sense, and that's despite knowing their bizarre, routine sudden inclination to kill IRL.
It's actually: "Let in 100k Jews and stop white paper." -> "Yes." *Agrees to let in 100k Jews, doesn't stop white paper* -> *Arabs now want to kill all European Jews in Mandatory Palestine*

What's bizarre is the insertion from a new source when the source sandwiching it speaks of the same event.



Here's Moris elaborating:


With the establishment of the Anglo-American committee in November of 1945, the British agreed to allow in the 100k Jews at a rate of 1500 a month.

This is over the heads of the Arabs who were supposed to dictate the immigration rate of Jews into Palestine/Israel after 1944 - which had been essentially reduced to 0, with only illegals managing to sneak in.
So, yes, they allowed in the 100k just at a trickle of 1500 a month. The word "effectively" is doing a lot of the lifting. Two things can be true:
(1) The White paper remained
(2) The 100k Jews were consented entry.

The White Paper was to only allow in a limited number of jews total.

And the reissuance of these certificates is just a minor statement on the Wikipedia page and proffers no elaboration as to why.


1500 x 29 = 43500 of the 100k Jews permitted entry by the British prior the British leaving.

Funny thing I saw searching for "White Paper"
Churchill at the start of the war of WW2:

Churchill after WW2:

This is true but irrelevant

Provoke the British -> invite repression -> elicit sympathy.

It favored the Arabs as the Jewish partition was mostly desert and coast with little arable land. Access to Jerusalem would be limited as well.

Not according this.

They pretty much gave all the high quality, irrigated land to the Jews and shafted the Arabs. Not that I feel particularly sorry for them but I don't see how you can look at this and disagree they got sodomised lmao. Jerusalem is the consolation I guess but it's no Mecca. Look at that bullshit in the North lel. This wasn't even divisions of control within a single state.

The Peel Commission by comparison might've gave the Jews much less land than the Arabs but it was sort of equalised by the Jews getting the highest quality land
It's also the best partition because the UK gets to basically keep Jerusalem as well as a ugly-ass corridor to the ocean.

The opposite is true. The Arab side was mostly already established armies that had a better supply of arms. The embargo barely affected the Arab armies as they were already built up and the militias could arm themselves from the armies. The Jewish side weren't able to manufacture more than basic small arms and they couldn't make enough quickly enough. They needed foreign arms badly and the Czech arms deal was crucial, Ben Gurion said that without the arms deal the Israelis wouldn't have had a chance.

I think that point was too mired by hindsight rather than any at-the-time assessment of the situation, so that's an L on my part, so my bad.
There was an assessment at the start of the 1948 war that the Arabs would prevail. The source I use offers the following.

Hindsight makes the Israeli/Jew side overwhelming, but then-current assessments + Czech arm shipment factored. They also possessed an actual airforce. They probably would've won without the Czech shipment but that's speculative.

There's also a section on the volunteers. The Arabs received 8k volunteers, the Israeli 4k, but the latter were of far higher quality. This has nothing to do with anything it just contains a decent anecdote

Glubb Pasha had British support. It wasn't overt due to political optics concerns but the British did support the Arab Legion and instructed him to only fight in areas such as the West Bank because they did not want to be seen as invading Jewish territory. There was a line where the Arab Legion could not enter. Other Arab armies did not have such a line.

There appeared to be a lot if insubordination.

Occasionally there's a distinction made between "Jordan's Arab Legion" but it's vague when is which.

Maybe this is an example of the British Arab Legion whilst the insubordinate elements were the the Arabs? They were still acting as though the UN partition was in place transporting them specifically to the Jew-controlled part of Jerusalem.



It sounds to me like the occupation of the West Bank was because the Jordanians/Arab Legion's aim was to uphold the partition borders, whereas the other Arabs sought to push out/kill the Jews entirely whereas Zionist aims by this point were the whole of Israel. It explains why the most "elite" army on the Arab side barely took part in the shitshow. I think the king of Jordan felt obliged to join and the fact this mirrors Jordan in future wars makes them out to be the most sensible of Israel's neighbours.



Here's a funny section on the absolute state of the Egyptian army.

No one is accusing you of hating Israel. We're just discussing historical fact.

In poetry there's more than one interpretation of the same collection of verses.
How one interprets the lines can be down to one's mood or inclination. Two people can see the same presentation of facts and data but arrive at different conclusions based on their individual assessment.

 

[⠠⠠⠅⠑⠋⠋⠁⠇⠎ ⠠⠠⠊⠎ ⠠⠠⠁ ⠠⠠⠋⠁⠛]

The real answer is that neither the US nor the UK wanted to admit a shitload of Jews as refugees, so they gave them a hunk of historically Jewish desert and said, "Here, go build your own thing, and also, fuck off, we're full."

That's retarded. There never were any 'jewish refugees'. Just parasites looking to steal more.

When Walter Rothschild wrote the Balfour declaration for Arthur Balfour in 1917 in exchange for- as the top representative of organgized jewry in the UK- getting the US to enter the war against Germany, was that because there would be 'refugees' in 1945?

 

[Rei is Shit.]

"antisemitism is like anti-black racism, powerfully white people against powerless black people"

DONT FORGET ABOUT SLAVERY WHITE PEOPLE BAD

 

[GamerGateSurvivor]

Old Jews: We should educate people about the Holocaust to show them that genocide is terrible.

Young Jews: What’s happening in Gaza is a genocide and it’s terrible.

Old Jews: Noooooooo not like that!

 

[HodgePodgeRogerDodger]

Historically the Holocaust really isn’t even that shocking even if you 1000% agree with the popular narrative. Throughout history you had purges where roving bands would go door to door, village to village, and town to town liquidating people. The British did the work camp shit to the Boer where they purposely killed them off by limiting supplies and what not. If you like ancient history than you’ve probably heard the cycle of one king over exaggerating how bad he was so his enemies and random raiders would be terrified than like a generation later some star-eyed kid becomes a conqueror who took those stories seriously and orders his men to do worse.

Mandatory Holocaust sections are bad because you dedicate more time to that than other parts of history. National history and a brief idea of the laws of your country should be a higher focus.

 

[The Nothingness]

The event featured speakers including Free Press staff writer Olivia Reingold, who implicitly attempted to absolve Israel from blame for the Gaza famine by noting that 12 of the at least 463 Palestinians who starved to death had preexisting health conditions.

How jewy of her

 

[Super-Chevy454]

Historically the Holocaust really isn’t even that shocking even if you 1000% agree with the popular narrative. Throughout history you had purges where roving bands would go door to door, village to village, and town to town liquidating people. The British did the work camp shit to the Boer where they purposely killed them off by limiting supplies and what not. If you like ancient history than you’ve probably heard the cycle of one king over exaggerating how bad he was so his enemies and random raiders would be terrified than like a generation later some star-eyed kid becomes a conqueror who took those stories seriously and orders his men to do worse.

Mandatory Holocaust sections are bad because you dedicate more time to that than other parts of history. National history and a brief idea of the laws of your country should be a higher focus.

And further back in time, who knows how horrible the atrocities done by Genghis Khan, Hannibal, Alexander the Great, Napoleon, etc....have done and left in the dust of history?

 

[Yamaha YM2612]

Israel did the holocaust cunts

 

[Catch The Rainbow]

*Arabs now want to kill all European Jews in Mandatory Palestine*

already happened, see 1928 hebron massacre

They pretty much gave all the high quality, irrigated land to the Jews and shafted the Arabs.

my L

Jerusalem is the consolation I guess but it's no Mecca

4 holy cities in Judaism.

Jerusalem (most)
Hebron
Tsfat
Tiberias

This would leave Jews with only 2 holy cities, both of which were less important than the main top 2

. They also possessed an actual airforce. They probably would've won without the Czech shipment but that's speculative.

The airforce primarily came from the Czechs

It sounds to me like the occupation of the West Bank was because the Jordanians/Arab Legion's aim was to uphold the partition borders, whereas the other Arabs sought to push out/kill the Jews entirely whereas Zionist aims by this point were the whole of Israel. It explains why the most "elite" army on the Arab side barely took part in the shitshow.

this is what i was saying

Glubb Pasha's goal was to conquer land for the Jordanian state, not to destroy Israel. The British supported this.

quoting from 1948 and After: Israel and the Palestinians by Benny morris

 

[Catch The Rainbow]

British Arab Legion" wasn't supposed to fight, just to play devil's advocate for something bearing the name "British". It was also basically just the army of Jordan. The actual "British" part was superficial. It's kind of like the Union flag/Jack remaining on the flags of Australia and New Zealand.

Tracked down a source I vaguely remembered, Colonel Richard Meinertzhagen's diary. He was a British intelligence officer stationed in Mandatory Palestine.

He wrote regarding the Arab Legion and Glubb:

 

[BoomerSperg1922]

>tell your golems Whites are evil and must be destroyed
>your golems have an IQ below room temperature
>you have pale skin

oh no how could this happen who could have seen this coming.

 

[Frostnipped Todger]

The Australian delegation to the conference makes the most succinct yet potent repudiation of mass importing foreigners for any reason.

It's sad that my country used to be so based, and is now so pathetic.

But OT, holocaust education only really works on the young.

I managed to miss it in school (we moved a lot), and by the time I'd learned about the holocaust (even if you take it as reported, idk), I'd learned about the Great Leap Forward, and the Gulag system. While it's probably in the top 10 worst things to ever happen, it's not the worst.
Cruelty wasn't invented in 1930s Germany, so you don't get some magical 'get out of holocaust free' card because some people 80 years ago had a bad time.

 

[>IMPLYING]

It's sad that my country used to be so based, and is now so pathetic.

But OT, holocaust education only really works on the young.

I managed to miss it in school (we moved a lot), and by the time I'd learned about the holocaust (even if you take it as reported, idk), I'd learned about the Great Leap Forward, and the Gulag system. While it's probably in the top 10 worst things to ever happen, it's not the worst.
Cruelty wasn't invented in 1930s Germany, so you don't get some magical 'get out of holocaust free' card because some people 80 years ago had a bad time.

I think it also helps that for a long time most of the horrible stuff and events were largely confined to the past, so having this mass slaughter of people based on something they couldn't help or decide on and for no apparent reason is probably a thing we can at least empathise with on some level. From the 50s-90s you'd be hard pressed to find a domestic event that was on a similar level of horrific and as relatively fresh, but then with the advent of the internet, proliferation of video cameras, amateur journalism, people can't evoke as much care for this past event that happened to people/persons they didn't know when the present day feels like shit and horrible crap is reported on and happening to my own people. Asking me to personally care about the Holocaust is like asking me to care about Napoleon Bonaparte reinstituting slavery in Haiti, Asking anyone to care about people who had died versus those who are dying is folly. Even in Israel. I imagine in terms of emotional intensity, any Israeli under the age of 30 is probably going to care more about October 7 2024 versus the Holocaust, even if they acknowledge the latter as more significant.

I think the Holocaust being reduced to a generic mass killing of people and then comparing it to other, not infrequent historical occurrences is also doing a lot to lessen its impact. Things get simplified over time, especially ideas and concepts, when the intent is to spread them around. What the Nazis did, what the Turks did, the Russians, etcetera, didn't have a specific term until after WW2. "Genocide" was coined by Raphael Lemkin to describe it, whereas the word "Holocaust" was used to describe what we now call "Genocide". True story. So in retrospect even the name is special just to try and emphasise its uniqueness (even when it's not)

Politically, fewer people caring as much about the Holocaust also reduces the impact of libelling someone as a Nazi. Without it, it just becomes a generic pejorative. "Commie" lacks impact because most people are ignorant of and so don't associate the ideology with shit like the Cambodian genocide, Great Leap Forward, Holodomor, etcetera. If the conations of being a Nazi or Fascist draw a blank for most people, then it becomes an impotent weapon in politics.

Most people nowadays are vaguely aware of "Hitler = bad" or "Nazi = bad" but if you ask, "Why?" I think it's a coin toss on whether they'll be able to even mention the Holocaust, most just mention "war" and that's a pretty universally agreed sentiment, but at the same time most countries have initiated or participated as the aggressor in wars so the actual tier list of awful Hitler will be at is probably lower in the minds of many people than a child murderer or rapist just reported on in the local news.

I don't think it no longer being general knowledge is going to result in a repeat of it, but the actual political value and use of it in discourse will lose potency and other arguments will need to fill the void in lieu of citing it. Otherwise trying to reinforce it when there's a newsworthy comparison to draw attention to will result in young people drawing connotations between the two, like the Dem mentions in the article.

"We need infinity refugees."
"Why?"
"Holocaust."
"That doesn't answer my question."
"...Huguenots?"

One conspiracy I could proffer is that the death count of a specific group has to be emphasised or else it becomes a generic slaughter/mass killing like the numerous other historical events thereby reducing its significance. Genocides are infamous because of their specific intent (Turkey denies its specific genocides in part because it'd make idolising the Ottoman-era or Islamism less viable given under those systems many innocents were killed) so if the holocaust becomes less of a genocide and more of a broad-spectrum massacre, it becomes... boring? A Generic historical mass killing.

The death camp toll of the holocaust is 3 million. At one point in time the number of Jews specifically was 2.7 million (the toll of those in death camps specifically), which would be a pretty decent signifier of it being a jew-targeted genocide since they are 90% of the total killed. Over time the death count of people in the Holocaust has risen, because they also began to include those killed from outside of the camps (which can't really all be accounted for, especially since the mass graves purported to contain the bodies are not allowed to be disturbed and could contain anyone theoretically) and those who died from disease and starvation in concentration camps (about 1 million). In the face of competing genocides and mass killings, 4 million isn't a lot. Then you include those purported to have died outside the camps, prisoner executions, people who were on a census but are now missing, etcetera. The Holocaust death count is now purported to be 13 million (I remember it being 11 million years ago) and the jews make up less than half that. It makes it seem like the Jews weren't target number 1 on the agenda doesn't it? Just one of many victims in an indiscriminate mass slaughter. Typical history stuff. Mao told some people to kill crows and that's 15 million dead right there.

This doesn't even claim it didn't happen or that Jews weren't killed in massive numbers. It's just that their genocide in particular got flanderised.

Another theory on why the death toll might appear so high (it's double than what we can reliably prove) 3other theory is that some of the reported deaths is due to the absence of a specific Jew or Jew family on the census is where there was one prior. A lot of old civil wars in China had death counts in the 10s of millions because they calculated deaths based on the lack of people where there were some prior. This same methodology was applied to a bunch of nations after WW2 with some not taking a census until the 50s with most (understandably) not taking one during the 40s. Missing Jews were assumed dead. Meanwhile, the number of Jews given official recognition to live in Palestine by the end of WW2 was 250,000, but the number of llegals who landed on the shores of Palestine in 1945 alone was around 79k.

I'm willing to bet the official number of genocided Jews is actually lower than thought, not because of intentional lying, but because we lost track of them and the census collection data was shit. If one Jew reported as a Jew in '31, but then changed their answer in '48 for understandable reasons, there's now one fewer Jew in Denmark.

I've solved the Holocaust.

 

[No-Eyed Square Guy]

To be fair, there is no better piece of Judaism than the bagel.

1. the music of Alban Berg
2. Sarah Silverman before you saw her naked
3. bagel