#Yehuda Bauer

[trendynewsnow]

Yehuda Bauer: A Pioneering Scholar in Holocaust Studies

Yehuda Bauer: A Scholarly Legacy on the Holocaust Yehuda Bauer, whose family narrowly escaped the clutches of the Nazis by fleeing to Mandatory Palestine from Czechoslovakia in 1939, passed away on Friday at his residence in Jerusalem. He was 98 years old. His daughter, Anat Tsach, confirmed the news of his death. Initially, Dr. Bauer did not set out with the intention of studying the Holocaust;…

[izraelinfo]

„Nincs más népünk, bár eléggé elátkozott”

A holokausztkutató, Prof. Yehuda Bauer, aki ebben a hónapban hunyt el 98 évesen, egy búcsúztatót hagyott hátra, amelyet saját magának írt. „Ha már bele kell születni valamilyen etnikai csoportba, jobb zsidónak születni. Ez egy lenyűgöző, bosszantó, visszataszító, izgalmas, borzalmas, csodálatos nép” – írta. Tudom, hogy nem szokás, hogy egy elhunyt saját magáról mondjon búcsúbeszédet. Általában…

[historicity-was-already-taken]

i have a curiosity question thats niggling in my brain....how did jews outside of europe react to the holocaust while it was happening? thanks! 💖

First of all I want you to know that I answered this BEAUTIFULLY last night while hanging out in my bathrobe after my shower and watching parks & rec, and then tumblr ate it and i was furious.

Jews outside Europe reacted very much the same as Jews within Europe did when they encountered the first rumors of massacres: denial; disbelief; insistence that these are just local pogroms; insistence that "maybe they can pull that off in [Place Name], but it could never happened Here; accusations of fear mongering; "that could never be allowed to happen in our modern, evolved world;" etc.

It wasn't until about 1944, when the accounts that made their way out of Europe via clandestine courier became so consistent and overwhelming, that Jews outside Europe had to begin to accept that it was Happening. But acceptance still doesn't mean "understanding," or "comprehending." And, by 1944, Hitler had already killed the majority of European Jewry.

Now, this is a very general and US-focused response. In the United States, many Jews believed the rumors, and tried to help, usually through either HIAS, or the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee (or simple, the Joint/JDC), but that became much more complex after the US entered the war in Dec 41.

Now, for my "ummmm i think this book speaks to your question" reading list:

The Terrible Secret: Suppression of the Truth about Hitler's "Final Solution" by Walter Laqueur

My Brother's Keeper: a History of the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, 1929-1939 by Yehuda Bauer

Beyond Belief: The American Press And The Coming Of The Holocaust, 1933- 1945 by Deborah Lipstadt

Readers are welcome to chime in with Nuance, more focused book recommendations, etc.

[alphaman99]

Why We Fight.

"It is essential to realize that any group’s ethical, religious and cultural traditions are not fossils or historical curiosities, to be retained or discarded at a whim; they are precious possessions that may spell the difference between choosing life and death. Thus, all men and women have a moral obligation to understand and uphold the positive, life-sustaining values of their particular culture and to transmit them to those who come after them—as well as to respect the different values of their neighbors. There are lessons for survival, whether physical or moral, which only a knowledge of one’s past, one’s traditions and history, can teach." — Yehuda Bauer.

[norainahmadme-blog]

Yehuda Bauer, 98, Scholar Who Saw Jewish Resistance in Holocaust, Dies

A leading historian of antisemitism, he countered the prevailing narrative of Jewish victimhood and later pushed back against efforts to diminish the Holocaust’s significance. Source link

[businesspr]

Yehuda Bauer, 98, Scholar Who Saw Jewish Resistance in Holocaust, Dies

A leading historian of antisemitism, he countered the prevailing narrative of Jewish victimhood and later pushed back against efforts to diminish the Holocaust’s significance. source https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/22/world/middleeast/yehuda-bauer-dead.html

[recentlyheardcom]

Yehuda Bauer, prominent Israeli Holocaust scholar, dies at 98

TEL AVIV, Israel (AP) — Yehuda Bauer, one of Israel’s foremost Holocaust scholars who shaped the way people around the world study and learn about the Holocaust, has died in Jerusalem. He was 98. No specific cause of death was given by the Yad Vashem, Israel’s national Holocaust memorial in Jerusalem, which announced his death Friday evening. Bauer published dozens of books and founded numerous…

[wondermutt20]

"Thou shalt not be a victim, thou shalt not be a perpetrator, but above all, thou shalt not be a bystander."

Yehuda Bauer - Czech-born Historian and Scholar of the Holocaust

[godisafujoshi]

[wepicy]

Holocaust Quote By Yehuda Bauer “Thou shalt not be a victim, thou shalt not be a perpetrator, but, above all, thou shalt not be a bystander.” - Yehuda Bauer

[tankism]

Antisemitism vs Anti-Semitism

Anti-Semitism is often used as a substitute for the word antisemitism. While seemingly normal, using this rendering is actually harmful to the Jewish community and distorts the entire meaning of the word.

The term anti-Semite was invented in Germany in 1879 by Wilhelm Marr in his pamphlet “The Way to Victory of Germanicism over Judaism.” This term was used to refer to the anti Jewish sentiments of the period and give Jewish hatred a more scientific sounding name.

The term Semitic referred to a group of languages originating in the Middle East. Today, these languages are spoken by millions across Western Asia and North Africa. Following this semantic logic, the conjunction of the prefix anti with Semitism indicates antisemitism as referring to all people who speak Semitic languages or to all those classified as Semites. The term has, however, since its inception referred to prejudice against Jews alone.

According to the definition, antisemitism has been accepted and understood to mean hatred against Jews. The Oxford language dictionary defines it as hostility to or prejudice against Jewish people.

Antisemitism is not the hatred of Semitism or Semites. It is the hatred of Jews. Especially since there are some Semites/those who speak Semitic languages that are antisemitic.

In the 1900s, the term Semite provided a class used to categorize humans based on racist pseudoscience. At the same time, journalist Marr was using it to spread anti Jewish campaign. The modern term gained popularity in Germany and Europe incorporating traditional Christian anti Judaism, political, social and economic anti Jewish manifestations that arose during the Enlightenment in Europe, and a pseudoscientific racial theory that culminated in Nazi ideology in the twentieth century. Although the historically new word only came into common usage in the nineteenth century, the term antisemitism is today used to describe and analyze past and present forms of opposition or hatred towards Jews.

By separating the two terms, you are legitimizing this race based pseudoscience. Jewish Holocaust historian Yehuda Bauer says “Anti-Semitism is altogether an absurd construction, since there is no such thing as Semitism to which it might be opposed.” 

At a time of increased violence and rhetoric aimed towards Jews, it is important to use the correct terms when speaking about Jews and antisemitism. The word antisemitism should be read as a unified word. There should be no room for confusion when dealing with antisemitism.

[historicity-was-already-taken]

PLEASE READ AND CONSIDER CAREFULLY BEFORE SELECTING “READ MORE”

This is the testimony of Filip Muller, a Jewish prisoner in Auschwitz assigned to work as a slave laborer in the gas chambers (in the Sonderkommando), as recounted/printed in pages 224-226 of A History of the Holocaust by Yehuda Bauer. I was skimming the first time I read this account, but it burned itself into my brain immediately. It’s never far from my thoughts when I think about what it meant to be a woman in the Holocaust, and what it meant to resist.

Because the below excerpt very frankly discusses the gas/death chambers and people’s behavior inside of them, I have put it all under a cut. 

I can’t appropriately judge how distressing you all may find this, as I long ago had to learn to compartmentalize my emotional responses to this sort of material if I was to get my work done. Please PLEASE proceed with caution and if in doubt, DO NOT READ.

If you choose to proceed, but also kind of don’t want to, I have bolded the specific part of the testimony which made me think “holy shit these women are remarkable beyond words.”

And now, Muller’s testimony:

“Now, when I watched my fellow countrymen walk into the gas chamber, brave, proud and determined, I asked myself what sort of life it would be for me in the unlikely event of my getting out of the camp alive. What would await me if I returned to my native town?...I had never yet contemplated the possibility of taking my own life, but now I was determined to share the fate of my coun­trymen. 

In the great confusion near the door I managed to mingle with the pushing and shoving crowd of people who were being driven into the gas chamber. Quickly I ran to the back and stood behind one of the concrete pillars. I thought that here I would remain undiscovered until the gas chamber was full, when it would be locked. Until then I must try to remain unnoticed. I was overcome by a feeling of indifference: every­thing had become meaningless. Even the thought of a painful death from Zyclon B gas, whose effect I of all people knew only too well, no longer filled me with fear and horror. I faced my fate with composure.

Inside the gas chamber…there was only weeping and sobbing. People, their faces smashed and bleeding, were still streaming through the door, driven by blows and goaded by vicious dogs. Desperate chil­dren who had become separated from their parents in the scramble were rushing around calling for them...The atmosphere in the dimly lit gas chamber was tense and depressing. Death had come menacingly close. It was only minutes away. No memory, no trace of any of us would remain. Once more people embraced. Parents were hugging their children so violently that it almost broke my heart.

Suddenly a few girls, naked and in the full bloom of youth, came up to me. They stood in front of me without a word, gazing at me deep in thought and shaking their heads uncomprehendingly. At last one of them plucked up courage and spoke to me: "We understand that you have chosen to die with us of your own free will, and we have come to tell you that we think your decision pointless: for it helps no one.” She went on: "We must die, but you still have a chance to save your life. You have to return to the camp, and tell every­body about our last hours,” she commanded. "You have to explain to them that they must free themselves from any illusions. They ought to fight, that’s better than dying here helplessly. It’ll be easier for them, since they have no chil­dren. As for you, perhaps you’ll survive this terrible tragedy and then you must tell everybody what happened to you. One more thing,” she went on, "you can do me one last favor: this gold chain around my neck: when I’m dead, take it off and give it to my boyfriend Sasha. He works in the bakery. Re­member me to him. Say ’love from Yana.’ When it’s all over, you’ll find me here.” She pointed at a place next to the con­crete pillar where I was standing. Those were her last words.

I was surprised and strangely moved by her cool and calm detachment in the face of death, and also by her sweetness. Before I could make an answer to her spirited speech, the girls took hold of me and dragged me protesting to the door of the gas chamber. There they gave me a last push which made me land bang in the middle of the group of SS men.

Kurschuss was the first to recognize me and at once set about me with his truncheon. I fell to the floor, stood up and was knocked down by a blow from his fist. As I stood on my feet for the third time or fourth time, Kurschuss yelled at me: "You bloody shit, get it into your stupid head: we decide how long you stay alive and when you die, and not you. Now piss off to the ovens!" Then he socked me viciously in the face so that I reeled against the lift door.

[susieporta]

Non sarai una vittima, non sarai un carnefice, ma soprattutto non sarai uno spettatore.

Yehuda Bauer

[howieabel]

We are here to remember the huge contribution of the men and women from the ranks of the Red Army who fought against Nazi Germany. We remember their courage and resolve, we remember the millions who risked and the many who lost their lives alongside their American, British and French allies as well as all the others, in order to free us all from the National Socialist tyranny. I profess my deep respect for their fight against – as Yehuda Bauer writes – "the worst regime that has ever disgraced this planet". I bow in sorrow before the Ukrainian, Belarusian and Russian victims – before all victims of the former Soviet Union.

Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Anniversary of Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union speech, 18 June 2021

[eretzyisrael]

Letter to U of T President Meric Gertler

Meric Gertler                                                                    June 30, 2021

President

Kelly Hannah-Moffat

Vice President

Human Resources and Equity

University of Toronto

The purpose of this letter is to request appropriate responses to an act of bigotry from a member of the University of Toronto faculty. As explained below, speed of reaction matters. As also elaborated below, the situation is a matter of some gravity.

Before the particular act is addressed, a few general remarks are in order. Prejudicial slurs often occur in the form of a noun and an adjective.  The noun refers to the group under attack.  The adjective asserts a stereotype about the group.

These prejudicial slurs may occur generally.  They may also occur in response to a particular incident which, abstracted from the prejudicial slur, may itself be objectionable.  The problem here is not criticism of the incident but rather the attribution to all members of the target group the blame for an incident for which they are not responsible.

Bigotry can occur against a group in whole or in part.  When it occurs in part, the bigoted would say that there are good members of the group and bad members.  The good are those whose behaviour contradicts the stereotype.  The bad are those who conform to the stereotype.  For the bigoted, what they would characterize as the good are exceptions.

Bigotry often engages in victim inversion.  The bigoted often claim that they are the victims and that their targets are the victimizers.  The bigotry here takes the form of claimed defense against the target group.

The bigoted often uses double entendres, words that have both an innocent meaning and a coded meaning to their bigoted cohort. They use dog whistles, sounds with the intent that only their bigoted cohort will appreciate.

The particular remarks we wish to draw to your attention is a statement of University of Toronto Faculty Association president Terezia Zorić made from the floor after a panel discussion at York University Osgoode Hall, June 15, 2021.  A link to the video of her remarks can be found at the link below at the 1:58:50 mark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiJ8cRpyzW8&t=3163s

The transcript of her remarks, in their entirety, is this:

“Very, very quickly many thanks to the organizers of this wonderful event on the censure [by the Canadian Association of University of Teachers (CAUT) of the University of Toronto] of u of t [the University of Toronto] and all the activists who’ve made it possible for those of us doing institutional work to have some room to maneuver.

I wanted to offer that, as an early leader who defended the folks at the law school and the principles of academic freedom and collegial governance, there was nothing short of unending harassment and psychological warfare where those of us were supportive of the principles at stake at the heart of the censure. [We] experienced horrible backlash by an entitled powerful Zionist minority that felt that any criticisms of Cromwell [the author of a review report] or anyone else could be met with accusations of antisemitism. And it took an enormous amount of work to get us to a point where we could have even have a conversation about what went on why it went on and so on.

Many graduate students with whom I’ve worked ‑ I teach in the Department of Social Justice Education ‑ have complained that any time they want to talk about a boycott [and] divestment [against Israel in support of] Palestine or anything like that, they feel targeted in similar ways. If you don’t think faculty themselves, including those of us in senior positions, can be intimidated by the powerful response you don’t understand what’s at stake and we continue to be in that position.”

The sentence from the quote above which encapsulates the problematic nature of the remarks of Ms. Zorić is this:

“[We] experienced horrible backlash by an entitled powerful Zionist minority that felt that any criticisms of Cromwell or anyone else could be met with accusations of antisemitism.”

To be even more specific, a phrase and an attitude which imbues her remarks throughout, is this: “an entitled powerful Zionist minority”.  This phrase is an antisemitic slur.

The form of her statement is

“We experienced horrible backlash by a group of [insert here a prejudicial slur against the group] who felt that any criticisms of their views could be answered with accusations of prejudice against the group.”

The very form of discourse is an exercise in bigotry.  The form of discourse is ridiculous because, on the one hand, it rejects the accusation of prejudice and, on other hand, manifests it.  The discourse is internally self-contradictory.  It establishes the charge of bigotry against which it claims to defend.  Ms. Zorić, on the one hand, uses an antisemitic stereotype “an entitled powerful Zionist minority” and, on the other hand, defends herself against the charge of antisemitism.

Robert Wistrich, in 2004, then Professor of European and Jewish history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and director of the Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism, described antisemitism as including attributing “to Jews excessive power and influence”.  He observed that “‘anti-Zionist’ attacks on Jewish … targets show that we are talking about a distinction without a difference.”[1]

Martin Luther King stated:

“When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You’re talking antisemitism.”[2]

That is what is going on here.  When Ms. Zorić criticizes “an entitled powerful Zionist minority”, she means “an entitled powerful Jewish minority”.

The antisemitic stereotype Ms. Zorić uses is the classic, the original, antisemitism, the very source of the term.   Antisemitism, literally, means opposition to semitism and semitism according to Wilhelm Marr, who coined the term, was self‑interested Jewish power. Antisemitism was opposition to this fantasized power.  Marr opposed “the Jewish spirit and Jewish consciousness [which] have overpowered the world”[3]. He founded an organization titled – “The League of Anti-Semites”.

Until the defeat of Nazi Germany, antisemites commonly identified as such.  Before the end of World War II, there was a proliferation of self-identified antisemitic organizations – for instance the Anti-Semitic Union of the Diet of Lower Austria or the Universal Anti-Semitic Alliance of Romania.  The Nazis themselves self-identified as antisemitic.

All of these self-identified antisemitic individuals and organizations espoused the very ideology Ms. Zorić telegraphs with the phrase “an entitled powerful Zionist minority”.  As Holocaust scholar Yehuda Bauer observed, the term “antisemitism” has now gone out of fashion, even among antisemites.  Even the most virulent antisemites today do not self-identify as antisemites.  Ms. Zorić fits within this pattern, both asserting antisemitic ideology and denying that it is antisemitism.

Zionism may seem objectively to be an innocent or positive term, a national liberation movement for the Jewish people, a short hand for the existence of Israel as the expression of the right to self-determination of the Jewish people.  Yet, it is used by antisemites as, at least among themselves, an acceptable form of antisemitism.

Ms. Zorić uses a dog whistle or double entendre with the term “Zionist”.  To her, there are good Jews and bad.  The bad are the Zionists.

Ms. Zorić uses victim inversion.  She both attacks Jews (Zionists) and claims that she is the victim of the group she attacks.

Adding to the weight of concern is the fact that Ms. Zorić made her remarks publicly as head of the University of Toronto Faculty Association (UTFA).  She was introduced as representing UTFA.  In her remarks, she referred to herself as the “leader” of UTFA.

By making her remarks in a public forum as president of UTFA, she misrepresents UTFA as itself antisemitic.  Her remarks do not just discredit herself.  They discredit the University Faculty Association.

By doing and saying nothing about these remarks, UTFA and the University put themselves in a compromising position.  Silence speaks.  UTFA and the University need to react.  Silence in the face of these remarks becomes complicity, tacit consent, an authorization to continue these sorts of remarks.

Any human rights violation, unless stopped, spreads.  This is particularly true of bigoted discourse, which spreads easily and quickly if not contradicted.  The reaction to bigoted discourse should be swift.

Both UTFA and the University need publicly to disassociate themselves from the remarks of Ms. Zorić.  UTFA should call on Ms. Zorić to resign her position.

The problem that the remarks of Ms. Zorić present go beyond the University of Toronto.  What makes them even more alarming is that they appear to be a driving force behind the CAUT censure of the University of Toronto.

Ms. Zorić refers to her views as “the principles at stake at the heart of the censure” by CAUT of the University of Toronto.  CAUT needs to reconsider its censure in light of the fact that a driving force behind the movement for censure was antisemitism.

We make these recommendations:

1) Ms. Zorić should resign as president of the University of Toronto Faculty Association.  She holds publicly expressed views which are incompatible with that position.  The Faculty Association should request her resignation.

2) The University of Toronto should disassociate themselves from the remarks of Ms. Zorić. The University should state publicly that her views do not represent the views of the University.

3)  CAUT should reconsider its censure of the University of Toronto in light of the publicly expressed views of Ms. Zorić. The impact that those views may have had on the decision to censure justifies the reconsideration.

Sincerely

David Matas

Senior Honorary Counsel

B’nai Brith Canada

602-225 Vaughan Street Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada R3C 1T7 Tel: 1 204 944 1831 Fax: 1 204 942 1494 E-mail: dmatas@mts.net

Cc: Terezia Zorić

University of Toronto Faculty Association

David Robinson

Canadian Association of University Teachers

   [1]  “Anti‑Zionism and Anti‑semitism” Jewish Political Studies Review 16:3‑4 (Fall 2004) page 27 on JSTOR

https://www.jstor.org/stable/25834602?read‑now=1&seq=2#page_scan_tab_contents  3/4