Maybe, but having been in a camp is a completely different thing.
My mother was in Bergen-Belsen. My father was in hiding in the Budapest ghetto. I have always considered both of them Holocaust survivors, but obviously their experiences were different.
It’s fairly simple, and the ‘controversy’ here is baffling. If you survived the concentration/death camps, you are a concentration/death camp survivor. If you were a group targeted by the Nazis for extermination, and in a zone in which the Nazis had control and/or were rounding up members of your group, you’re a holocaust survivor. (So, no, Brits don’t count :rolleyes::smack: )
This is so absurdly simple.
Had they met before the Shoah?
No, they were children at the time of Holocaust. (Well, my dad was a young teenager.) They met quite a few years later. In a refugee camp in Austria in 1956, after the Hungarian uprising against the Communists.
Thanks, suranyi.
Estimates of the number of remaining survivors vary greatly and depend in part on how one defines a survivor. The Museum honors as survivors any persons, Jewish or non-Jewish, who were displaced, persecuted, or discriminated against due to the racial, religious, ethnic, and political policies of the Nazis and their allies between 1933 and 1945. In addition to former inmates of concentration camps, ghettos, and prisons, this definition includes, among others, people who were refugees or were in hiding.
http://www.ushmm.org/remembrance/registry/faq/
This seems reasonable to me; I don’t see why “holocaust survivor” should be limited to those who were actually incarcerated in the camps.
I understand there is considerable controversy as to how many Holocaust survivors there are today–not just because of definitions but because some stats don’t include people in certain areas, e.g. North Africa.
I don’t think the comment by the man whose grandfather came to the US in 1925 was an insult, rather just someone confused about what the term “Holocaust” means as commonly used. I have–amazingly to me–met quite a few people who do not know this.
Huck,
Very good, Sir.
Any non-Jewish American WWII vet is/was a “holocaust survivor”? I never understood the term to be that broad. I don’t have Jewish ancestry and both of my grandfathers served in WWII.
If I am accused of antisemitism, can I declare indignantly that I am descended from TWO holocaust survivors?
It seems to strain the meaning of the word if additional clarification is required.
Because they, you know, actually survived the camps. The others escaped the holocaust.
Not to say the escapees didn’t suffer, certainly those in hiding, but it certainly is different from actually having been to a camp.
I don’t see why it is baffling. Unless there’s some mandatory definition carved out in some marble tablet somewhere, people are going to interpret differently the words “holocaust survivor”. I wouldn’t have thought it would include an hypothetically never arrested Anne Frank, for instance, let alone a woman who lived in London during the blitz. Some people apparently do, however.
So, for the sake of clarity, it seems obvious that one needs to be more precise than just saying “holocaust survivor” if what you want to convey is important.
Plus, you Americans use way too often the word “survivor” and seem to put way too much value in it, as if it were a badge of honour or synonymous to “hero”. Surviving cancer or domestic violence or a chihuahua attack doesn’t make anyone special even though it might be a defining experience for the person.
I believe that there is an objective, common sense, bright line delineation here, yes. That’s part of what I find so darned baffling. That is, I think it is fairly uncontroversial to note that WWII and the Holocaust were two events which partially overlapped chronologically and in scope, but were still distinct.
World War II was the military, nation-on-nation activities that were carried out by the Axis powers. The Holocaust was the organized, systematic, methodical annihilation of numerous groups such as the Polish intelligencia, the Rom, homosexuals, Jews, an so on. The concentration and death camps
were two of the methods by which the Nazis carried out the Holocaust, but they were not the only ones, as the Einsatzgruppen evince.
In order to properly say someone survived something, they must have been exposed to it. That’s fairly tautological. I cannot be said to survive cancer if my grandmother gets cancer. I can not be said to be a survivor of the tank battles during the first Gulf War.
As such, there are concentration camp survivors and death camp survivors, both of whom would also be Holocaust survivors. There are Holocaust survivors, that is, anybody who was both a member of a group targeted by the Nazis for extermination, and in territory controlled by the Nazis. Those who were exposed to the war and lived would, likewise, be survivors of the war, but not necessarily the Holocaust. So Brits in areas that were hit by the Germans and who lived, well, they survived WWII. People living in Iowa who never got closer to combat than donating scrap metal? Not WWII survivors.
Interesting, we clearly have a different definition of what the term “the Holocaust” means.
To me it’s the total Nazi (and allied) program to oppress, torture and kill Jews (and members of other disfavored groups). So if you had to hide, flee or live in the ghetto, etc. you were a victim of the Holocaust and you survived it.
I have no basis for this definition except general reading and growing up in a neighborhood where there were many Holocaust survivors, yet I think it’s a common one.
In your view, does “the Holocaust” mean only the death camps?
Rabbi Telushkin gives no definition of Holocaust Survivor in his book, Jewish Literacy.
He seems to indicate that it means any Jew or person persecuted by the Hitler regime living under the Nazi’s influence.
Which mirrored Polanski’s own experience. So again, I’d say he counts.
While vets definetly don’t count, many non-Jews were included in the Holocaust. The six-million figure is Jews alone. While they were the main targets, other groups were included such as the Romani, homosexuals, the disabled, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc. They had a whole color system like the yellow star. (You’ve heard of homosexuals wearing pink stars?)
The total was around 17 million people killed.
OK, I’m convinced. I’m going to retreat from my earlier comment.
Indeed the Holocaust is more than just the death camps.
In my parts, the term ‘Holocaust survivor’ is rather new, we used to speak of ‘people who were in the camps’ and ‘people that were in hiding’.
As Clairobscur noted, the special status of ‘survivor’ is not busied that much.
There was no global term.
Still, going with FinnAgain, applying the term survivor to someone who just wasn’t there or got out in time, is wrong. I consider it taking a free ride on the sympathy train and it denigrates what happened to those that were there.
Any Jewish person that lived (as opposed to being temporarily relocated to, like in the case of a Jewish US Soldier) in a Nazi controlled area during the time that the Holocaust was in action.
This covers those in camps and those in hiding, but not those that escaped before the Nazis arrived.
What about the other groups targeted for extermination (Roma, Poles, etc.)? Do they not count?
I thought the thread was about Jews. If not then I think you might be able to work out how I’d amend the definition. It isn’t difficult.
I’m pretty sure most other posters in this thread agreed that other victims of Nazi persecution count too, not just Jewish ones. You’re the only person I’ve seen explicitly state that those non-Jewish victims don’t count.