Jacob Prall
[email protected]

There are certain events in history so heinous that they appeal to the savvy politician as a way to leverage a position in the modern day. Neither side of the political spectrum is guilt-free in this appropriation of others’ misery. In the last week, the world has heard the Holocaust referenced to further conservative and liberal agendas. Not only is it inappropriate, it’s also inaccurate.

Ben Carson made the claim on Oct. 8 that if the Jews had been armed, they could have prevented the Nazis from initiating the Holocaust.  Carson’s proposition is offensive in and of itself. To use the mass murder of millions to justify the atrociously lackluster gun-control laws of the United States is absurd. What he said ignores the hundreds of thousands of partisan Jews fighting in Nazi Germany, heavily armed and laying down their lives in a fight for survival.

It also ignores logic. When one considers that it took the vast majority of the world’s resources and political power backing armies armed with more than just pistols or rifles but machine guns, artillery, tanks, and airplanes to defeat the Nazis (over a period of six years), the idea that a religious minority could have stopped the Nazis should every man, woman, and child have been armed is ridiculous.

Last, his statement ignores history. After the Weimar Republic was put into place following World War I, highly militarized and armed extremist political groups appeared on the scene. One of them was the Nazi party, and its excessive armory allowed the killing off of opposing political parties and the eventual seizing of power in Germany. So in reality, stricter gun laws could have possibly slowed or even prevented the violent takeover and turbulence in Germany post-World War I.

The left (particularly in Europe) has used the Holocaust and the policies enacted at the time regarding fleeing Jewish refugees to support how they believe the current refugee crisis should be handled. The differences are significant, especially when it comes to the reason that they’re fleeing. The closest equivalent would be those persecuted directly under ISIS, but even then, the conditions are extremely different. The image of Jewish refugee ships being returned to Germany during the 1930s and ’40s is a popular one to harp upon, but of course, their plight then is not applicable to the mass migrations happening today.

Interestingly, the recent migrations have created a renewal of bigotry in Europe. In the cities of Europe, repressed and disenfranchised Muslim minorities have garnered a reputation for intimidation and hate against their Jewish neighbors. It’s unsurprising, given the culture shock and lack of assimilation policies aimed at helping those resettling to Europe. Hatred can be comfortable and remind you of home.

All of this is to say that the use of this Holocaust rhetoric is inaccurate. It reminds one of how little politicians (and often their constituents) pay attention to historical and cultural contexts. The acknowledgment of history and the understanding of how horror on a massive scale developed in the past should be used to build a better future, not twisted into a foolish, half-baked attempt to stir support and sympathy from supporters.

There are certain events in history so heinous that they appeal to the savvy politician as a way to leverage a position in the modern day. Neither side of the political spectrum is guilt-free in this appropriation of others’ misery. In the last week, the world has heard the Holocaust referenced to further conservative and liberal agendas. Not only is it inappropriate, it’s also inaccurate.

Ben Carson made the claim on Oct. 8 that if the Jews had been armed, they could have prevented the Nazis from initiating the Holocaust.  Carson’s proposition is offensive in and of itself. To use the mass murder of millions to justify the atrociously lackluster gun-control laws of the United States is absurd. What he said ignores the hundreds of thousands of partisan Jews fighting in Nazi Germany, heavily armed and laying down their lives in a fight for survival.

It also ignores logic. When one considers that it took the vast majority of the world’s resources and political power backing armies armed with more than just pistols or rifles but machine guns, artillery, tanks, and airplanes to defeat the Nazis (over a period of six years), the idea that a religious minority could have stopped the Nazis should every man, woman, and child have been armed is ridiculous.

Last, his statement ignores history. After the Weimar Republic was put into place following World War I, highly militarized and armed extremist political groups appeared on the scene. One of them was the Nazi party, and its excessive armory allowed the killing off of opposing political parties and the eventual seizing of power in Germany. So in reality, stricter gun laws could have possibly slowed or even prevented the violent takeover and turbulence in Germany post-World War I.

The left (particularly in Europe) has used the Holocaust and the policies enacted at the time regarding fleeing Jewish refugees to support how they believe the current refugee crisis should be handled. The differences are significant, especially when it comes to the reason that they’re fleeing. The closest equivalent would be those persecuted directly under ISIS, but even then, the conditions are extremely different. The image of Jewish refugee ships being returned to Germany during the 1930s and ’40s is a popular one to harp upon, but of course, their plight then is not applicable to the mass migrations happening today.

Interestingly, the recent migrations have created a renewal of bigotry in Europe. In the cities of Europe, repressed and disenfranchised Muslim minorities have garnered a reputation for intimidation and hate against their Jewish neighbors. It’s unsurprising, given the culture shock and lack of assimilation policies aimed at helping those resettling to Europe. Hatred can be comfortable and remind you of home.

All of this is to say that the use of this Holocaust rhetoric is inaccurate. It reminds one of how little politicians (and often their constituents) pay attention to historical and cultural contexts. The acknowledgment of history and the understanding of how horror on a massive scale developed in the past should be used to build a better future, not twisted into a foolish, half-baked attempt to stir support and sympathy from supporters.