The free commuter newspaper (which is pretty sloppily edited) contained a picture caption this morning:
“Adolph Eichmann was hanged today in 1962 for his role in the the Nazi Holocaust.”
That turn of phrase struck me as odd. NAZI Holocaust?
I mean, there was a holocaust of the Nazi population, performed jointly by the Red Army and Ike’s boys. But Eichmann didn’t have much role in it, that I know of. He was busy perpetrating a holocaust of the Jews.
So I got to wondering. I know that in the lingo of WWII and in the Jewish experience, it’s simply “THE Holocaust”. But if one needs to add an adjective, would it be “Jewish Holocaust” or “Nazi Holocaust” or even “German Holocaust”?
So I was off to Google for some web-page stats:
Nazi Holocaust: 406,000
Jewish Holocaust: 418,000
German Holocaust: 70,300
Interesting. Nazi- and Jewish-Holocaust use is essentially tied.
Does the term Nazi Holocaust strike any Dopers as a) odd, b) misleading, since the Nazis weren’t the ones getting hurt; or c) to be giving the Nazis too much notoriety/“credit”?
Does anyone actually use that term?
I’m just soliciting opinions and blather. If you want to talk about a “Nazi Holocaust”, as in a bunch of Nazis getting killed, well, nothing quite says “entertainment” like watching or reading about a bunch of Nazis getting what’s coming to them. ;j
That’s your problem right there – the newspaper is to editing as Arby’s is to haute cuisine. They didn’t even get the guy’s name right – it’s Adolf, not Adolph.
This would be the the Metro, you’re talking about, right?
In a related note, it’s more than a bit offensive, in this day and age, to encounter the hallowed BBC (tv) reporting on the Pope’s visit and have them say that ‘about six million people died’.
Try doubling that. Try taking everyone that was targeted into account.
Maybe it should be more like “the holocaust perpetrated by the Nazis.” This will 1) eliminate any doubt as to who were the murderers vs. the murdered, 2) avoid implying that only members of one group were killed, and 3) maybe even avoid consigning other holocausts to the back-burner of history (such as the one perpetrated by Stalin).
It’s a little odd any way you put it, really, there’s only one “the Holocaust.” If you have to use a modifier at all, I think Nazis’ is best, but do they really need to remind people what event they’re talking about?
Another thought: I think it would have been best to say “Nazi war criminal [or whatever] Adolf Eichmann was hanged today in 1962 for his role in the Holocaust.”
Is this true, well in speaking terms ‘the holocaust’ means the nazi/jewish Holocaust, but it is actually the worst in human history?
I know worst is subjective, but I think we can make some sense of it, perhaps the most killed in such a event or highest percentage of a subgroup exterminated in a population.
OK, I’m an idiot. Now I think I understand what they meant by “today in 1962.” This was some sort of On This Date In History column, wasn’t it? In that case, I would have phrased it something like “was hanged on this date in 1962.”
It might be the worst genocide by some statistical measures. It’s not “the Holocaust” because it’s ‘the worst,’ it’s because the term means something like ‘destruction by fire,’ which has a unique meaning because of the crematoria the Nazis used to dispose of bodies.
But Eichmann didn’t have much role in it, that I know of. He was busy perpetrating a holocaust of the Jews.