Holocaust trivialization is a tool for some ideologically or politically motivated activists to metaphorically compare phenomena they oppose with the industrial- scale extermination of the Jews in World War II by Germans and their allies. Examples of such comparisons include environmental problems, abortion, the slaughter of animals, the use of tobacco, and human rights abuses. None of these, in their basic characteristics, resemble the man-made genocide of the 1940s. In commercial trivialization, imagery or themes from the Holocaust are used for purposes of publicity. Another type of Holocaust trivialization involves making fun of Holocaust victims or survivors.
Those who abuse Holocaust comparisons for their ideological purposes wish to exaggerate the evil nature of a phenomenon they condemn. With the Holocaust symbolizing absolute evil for many, they use it as an instrument for their purposes and thus abuse the centrality of the Holocaust discourse in contemporary society. The perceived evil with which they compare the Holocaust does not and cannot share its major characteristics, such as the systematic demonization, exclusion, torturing, and destruction of specific people in a society, while targeting all belonging to this category.
Trivialization goes beyond hurting the sensitivities of Jews. It abuses the memory of the murdered. It is also an insult to the Righteous Gentiles who risked their lives to save Jews and the millions of soldiers who fought against Germany and its allies. As will be seen, far from all of those who trivialize the Holocaust do so out of anti-Semitic motives, nor do they target Jews specifically.
These distortions and others led Nobel Laureate and Holocaust survivor Eli Wiesel to write as early as 1988:
I cannot use [the word Holocaust] anymore. First, because there are no words, and also because it has become so trivialized that I cannot use it anymore. Whatever mishap occurs now, they call it “holocaust.” I have seen it myself in television in the country in which I live. A commentator describing the defeat of a sports team, somewhere, called it a “holocaust.”1
The trivializing comparisons with the Holocaust are rarely elaborated on. A characteristic of the manipulation is that the desired effect is achieved mainly by the abusive mention of the Holocaust. The manipulation is therefore relatively easy to expose, by pointing out that crucial criminal components of the Holocaust are lacking in what is being compared with it.
Environmentalists are one group among which Holocaust trivializers are found. They often regard global warming as the main contemporary threat to humanity. Ellen Goodman, a Boston Globe columnist, wrote that it is no longer possible to deny global warming. She invoked the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which claimed it was 90 percent certain that global warming was the result of human activity.
From there she moved on: “I would like to say we’re at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.”2
Well-known talk-show host Dennis Prager responded by castigating Goodman’s statement. He first noted that it reflected the fact that most people on the Left see “their ideological adversaries as bad people.” On the other hand, “those on the Right tend to view their adversaries as wrong, perhaps even dangerous, but not usually as bad.”
It might be inconceivable to Goodman, Prager observed, that one could disagree with global warming without evil motives. He further asserted that contemporary liberalism would tend to question the moral authority of Judeo- Christian religions or of any secular conservative authority, but not of “any other authority” such as the United Nations.
Prager also pointed out that “If questioning global warming is on ‘a par’ with questioning the Holocaust, how bad can questioning the Holocaust really be?” It is similarly easy to claim that many people in the world die as a result of poor health, malnourishment, and inappropriate diets. Given today’s societal mood we may well read one day about the “diet Holocaust” or the “hamburger Holocaust.”3
Comparing potential ecological disaster to the Holocaust is not a new phenomenon. On 19 March 1989, the then senator from Tennessee, Al Gore, published an op-ed in the New York Times titled “An Ecological Kristallnacht. Listen.” Gore called upon all humankind to heed the warning: “the evidence is as clear as the sounds of glass shattering in Berlin.”4
In 2007, Gore, by then a Nobel Laureate and former vice-president, continued to use Holocaust imagery for environmental purposes. As part of his advocacy, twice in December 2007 he criticized many world leaders for ignoring the threat of climate change in the same way that former British prime minister Neville Chamberlain and other world leaders had ignored the dangers posed by Hitler. Gore voiced the same sentiments as almost two decades earlier: “Once again world leaders waffle, hoping the danger will dissipate.”
Canadian Green Party leader Elizabeth May justified Gore’s remarks, explaining: “It’s not a literal comparison that says somehow climate change is like Hitler. Climate change is not like Hitler. Hitler is an individual who managed to construct a political party and then, through democratic elections, a nation that was prepared to go along with genocide. This is not like that. But the moral failure of those who stand by — that’s the comparison.”5
A representative of an umbrella organization for Canadian Jewish groups responded that May’s statements supported positions that were “obscene and absolutely unnecessary” for anyone, even Gore.6
Glenn Beck, a television and radio host and author, compared Gore’s campaign against global warming to elements of the Holocaust, saying: “Al Gore’s not going to be rounding up Jews and exterminating them; it is the same tactic however. The goal is different. The goal is globalization. The goal is global carbon tax. The goal is the United Nations running the world.”
The ADL denounced Beck’s remarks and said they were part of “a troubling epidemic on the airwaves, where comparisons to Hitler and the Holocaust are becoming all-too facile.” Foxman asserted: “Glenn Beck’s linkage of Hitler’s plan to round up and exterminate Jews with Al Gore’s efforts to raise awareness of global warming is outrageous, insensitive, and deeply offensive.”7
Opponents of environmental measures sometimes also refer abusively to the Holocaust. In 2004, Andrei Illarionov, an economic adviser to President Putin, recommended that Russia not sign the Kyoto Protocol, which he called a death pact that would “strangle economic growth and economic activity in countries that accept the protocol’s requirements.” He likened the protocol to Auschwitz.8
The Abortion Holocaust
Opposition to abortion has probably mobilized the best-known distorters of Holocaust history. Pope John Paul II, in his 2005 book Memory and Identity, compared abortion to the Holocaust. He wrote that both abortion and the murder of six million Jews were the result of humans under the guise of democracy usurping the “law of God.”9 Then-cardinal Josef Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, claimed at the launching of the Pope’s book that the Pope was not equating abortion with the Holocaust.10
In another incident the Archbishop of Cologne in Germany, Cardinal Joachim Meisner said he considered women who had had an abortion as the equivalent of mass murderers like Hitler, Stalin, and Herod. Meisner also compared abortion with the Holocaust and the abortion pill with Zyklon B, the gas used by the Nazis in the extermination camps.
Condemnation of the cardinal came even from groups that some may have expected to be supportive. The ecumenical movement Initiative Kirche von unten (IKvu) told the press, “Meisner has completely lost his authority as a bishop and has publicly done a great wrong to the Catholic Church and to dialogue between Jews and Christians.”
Paul Spiegel, the then president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, said the cardinal had insulted the millions of victims of the Holocaust. He added that “The Catholic Church does not understand or does not want to understand that there is an enormous difference between mass genocide and what women do with their bodies.” Spiegel also linked the pope’s remarks to the earlier statements by Cardinal Meisner.11
Jim Hughes of the International Right to Life Federation said, “In today’s relativistic times, it seems the only evil which still touches people whose hearts have grown cold are the atrocities of Hitler. The comparison not only fits like a glove, but is necessary to bring people out of their blissfully ignorant slumber.”12
On many other occasions abortion and other phenomena have been compared with genocide and mass murder, rather than specifically with the Holocaust. The Associated Press reported that “Displays of bloody fetuses next to pictures of the collapsing World Trade Center, a black lynching victim hanging from a tree and corpses at a concentration camp were among the disturbing billboards at the University of New Hampshire put up by a national anti-abortion group, the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform.”13 These billboards liken the genocide of the Holocaust to abortion and victims of 9/11 and racism.
In 2007, during the Republican primaries for the upcoming presidential elections, contender Mike Huckabee linked abortion to the Holocaust in a conference hosted by the Family Research Council. He said: “sometimes we talk about why we’re importing so many people in our work force.… It might be for the last 35 years, we have aborted more than a million people who would have been in our work force had we not had the holocaust of liberalized abortion under a flawed Supreme Court ruling in 1973.”14
The Animal Holocaust
One category of Holocaust trivialization that has gained much publicity is comparing the slaughter of animals with the murder of Jews in the Holocaust. It is here that one finds the most detailed and perverse attempts at comparison with the Holocaust. One well-known author who compared Jewish suffering with the promotion of animal rights is the South African-born Nobel Prize winner J. M. Coetzee, who is a vegetarian.
He wrote about the Holocaust:
Of course we cried out in horror when we found out what they had been up to. What a terrible crime to treat human beings like cattle — if we had only known beforehand. But our cry should more accurately have been: What a terrible crime to treat human beings like units in an industrial process. And that cry should have had a postscript: What a terrible crime — come to think of it, a crime against nature — to treat any living being like a unit in an industrial process.15
Much attention was garnered by the exhibition “Holocaust on Your Plate” by the animal rights organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).
The Guardian wrote that the exhibition juxtaposes harrowing images of people in concentrationcamps with disturbing pictures of animals on farms. One photograph showing an emaciated man is next to another of a starving cow. Another shows a pile of naked human beings, next to a shot of a heap of pig carcasses.… Other images compare children behind barbed wire with a picture of pigs looking out from behind bars; crowds of people, with cattle being herded into transports; and people crammed into bunks, with chickens in a battery farm.16
PETA founder and director Ingrid Newkirk said: “People in their own time can look back and they can so readily condemn the atrocities of the past.”17 Additionally, PETA representative Mark Prescott wrote in a released statement: “The very same mind-set that made the Holocaust possible — that we can do anything we want to those we decide are ‘different or inferior’—is what allows us to commit atrocities against animals every single day.” Prescott went on to note that members of his family were murdered in the Holocaust.18
Many attacked the PETA campaign and advertisements. Foxman stated:
The effort by PETA to compare the deliberate systematic murder of millions of Jews to the issue of animal rights is abhorrent. PETA’s effort to seek “approval” for their “Holocaust on Your Plate” campaign is outrageous, offensive and takes chutzpah to new heights.
…Abusive treatment of animals should be opposed, but cannot and must not be compared to the Holocaust. The uniqueness of human life is the moral underpinning for those who resisted the hatred of Nazis and others ready to commit genocide even today.19
Finally Newkirk, on behalf of PETA, apologized, writing:
Our mission is a profoundly human one at its heart, yet we know that we have caused pain. This was never our intention, and we are deeply sorry. We hope that you can understand that although we embarked on the “Holocaust on Your Plate” project with misconceptions about what its impact would be, we always try to act with integrity, with the goal of improving the lives of those who suffer.20
Yet Newkirk had already claimed in 1983 that animals were similar to humans, stating: “A rat is a pig is a boy” and “Six million people died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughterhouses.”21
In response to the “Holocaust on Your Plate” campaign, Roberta Kalechofsky, a vegetarian and animal rights activist for more than twenty years, published the booklet Animal Suffering and the Holocaust: The Problem with Comparisons. She is the founder of Jews for Animal Rights (JAR) and has published numerous articles on the topic of animal suffering from various perspectives. In the booklet she explores this subject relative to that of the Holocaust and remarks:
There is no proof that the flesh of a burning human being is hotter than the flesh of a burning animal. We may think so because the human race has left a record of its suffering, and the animals have not. They have lived their pain, in secret places, with little trace on human consciousness. The human gifts of language and writing — in short, of history — have brought for us greater attention and consciousness of our suffering, while animal suffering is barely accorded knowledge. It is history which separates animal suffering from the Holocaust.22
Nobel Prize-winning author Isaac Bashevis Singer had one of his fictional characters, Herman Gombiner, say in the story “The Letter Writer” that toward animals all humans are Nazis, and for animals every day is Treblinka. Karen Davis, who runs a sanctuary for chickens, makes a lengthy case for comparing animal suffering with the Holocaust. It contains one of the more perverse attacks on the memory of Holocaust victims, while referring to poultry:
The methods of the Holocaust exist today in the form of factory farming where billions of innocent, feeling beings are taken from their families, trucked hundreds of miles through all weather extremes, confined in cramped, filthy conditions, and herded to their deaths. During the Holocaust, hundreds of thousands of men, women and children died from heat exhaustion, dehydration, starvation or from freezing to the sides of cattle cars. Those who arrived at the concentration camps alive were forced into cramped bunkers where they lived on top of other dead victims, covered in their own feces and urine.23
A similar type of Holocaust trivialization is expressed by Charles Patterson, who according to his online biography is a social historian and a graduate of the Yad Vashem Institute for Holocaust Education.24 In his book Eternal Treblinka: Our Treatment of Animals and the Holocaust, he argues that “A holocaust occurs while meat eaters turn the other way, denying that such horrors could possibly exist. Were the German and Polish people who knew the fate of those trucked to Buchenwald and Treblinka any less moral or guilty than those who comprehend the truth about what really happens to farm animals?”25
In essence, the animal rights supporters who trivialize the Holocaust humanize animals to develop their flawed and perverse discourse.
The Nuclear Holocaust
The aforementioned modes of Holocaust trivialization reflect attitudes that have permeated public discourse to some extent. Three other, less frequently mentioned categories are: the use of nuclear bombs, smoking, and alleged transgressions of international human rights laws.
Nuclear bombing is probably the one threat that comes closest in its effects to the Holocaust though still lacking many of its elements. Probably the best-known use of the expression “nuclear holocaust” was President George
- W. Bush’s statement in 2007 that Iran’s nuclear program threatened to put “a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear ”26
The expression “nuclear holocaust” has long been in use. The BBC noted that already in the 1960s government officials at the Scottish office discussed “the somewhat apocalyptic question of how to bury all the dead after a nuclear holocaust, and who would be responsible was at the centre of a flurry of memos and meetings.”27 In 2002, the BBC reported that during American-South Korean military exercises the North Koreans responded that “the drills were preparations to launch a ‘nuclear holocaust’ on the peninsula.”28
Tobacco and Human Rights Comparisons
Another abusive use of the term Holocaust is the “tobacco Holocaust” developed by Michael Rabinoff in his book, Ending the Tobacco Holocaust: How Big Tobacco Affects Our Health, Pocketbook, and Political Freedom, and What We Can Do about It. The author discusses the horrors of tobacco noting that, according to the World Health Organization, one billion people will die from smoking in this century.29
The comparison is abusive because the damages of smoking result largely from voluntary actions that people inflict upon themselves; one immediately sees that a main element of the Holocaust is missing — that it was imposed on the victims by others.
In 2005, Prof. F. Rüter of Amsterdam University said the United States’ treatment of the prisoners in Guantánamo resembled the Nazis’ treatment of those they detained. Needless to say, if that were true many, if not most, of the prisoners would have been dead by the time the Dutch academic made this statement, let alone by now.30
In 2005, U.S. Democratic Senator Richard J. Durbin compared the alleged abuse of prisoners at Guantánamo with techniques used by “the Nazis, the Soviets and Khmer Rouge.” Under strong Republican attack, he apologized in particular to Holocaust victims and U.S. troops.31
There are also more isolated examples of Holocaust trivialization that get media attention because they are made by individuals with public visibility. One such case was when Representative Steve King (R-IA) asserted in 2006 that “illegal immigrants are responsible for the deaths of 25 Americans a day through drug trafficking, drunk driving and sex crimes.”
He added that this was a “slow-motion Holocaust,” and was criticized by the ADL and others. Foxman wrote to King: “Your reference to a ‘slow-motion Holocaust’ demonstrates a profound lack of understanding about the nature and the magnitude of the crimes against humanity undertaken by Hitler and his regime.”32
That same year Maryland lieutenant governor Michael S. Steele equated the science involved in embryonic stem cell research with the Nazi experimentation on Jewish prisoners during the Holocaust. He made this comment after being asked about embryonic stem cell research at a meeting with the Baltimore Jewish Council.33 Steele apologized after he was criticized by the Jewish community and various politicians.34
Sometimes prominent figures trivialize the Holocaust by applying it to a particular situation. One person who made light of the Holocaust and was well aware that he was breaking a taboo was former French Socialist prime minister Michel Rocard. He remarked that he and his followers in the Socialist Party said among themselves that, in the party, they were “like those wearing the yellow star” and “this comparison may be repugnant but it describes the atmosphere well.”35
Holocaust images have crossed into additional realms outside of politics and history such as the fashion world, advertising, and general merchandising. Several examples are notable in both the Western and the Muslim world.
Cafepress.com is an American online marketplace with 2.5 million members offering “unique merchandise across virtually every topic.”36 In 2006, this retailer carried products advertised as “Auschwitz souvenir T-shirts.” One example of these T-shirts included the message: “My grandparents went to Auschwitz…and all I got was this lousy T-shirt.” Across the shirt were the infamous words “Arbeit macht frei” from the entrance gate to Auschwitz. After the ADL contacted Cafepress.com, the offensive items were removed.37
Zara is a Spanish flagship clothing-chain company with over a thousand stores, including branches in Israel. In fall 2006, a handbag with a swastika design was sold in their stores but, after complaints, the company removed it. Esprit, an apparel manufacturer headquartered in Germany, carried jackets with swastikas imprinted on the buttons. The company stated that it was an error of production and recalled the jackets and the catalogs carrying pictures of this product.38
Although both firms withdrew their offensive products, the fact that such incidents occur in major companies reveals modern-day insensitivity toward anti- Semitic imagery. On the other hand, the fact that they were almost forced to recall and realized this also reflects an awareness of how sensitive the issue is in contemporary society.
An Indian furniture dealer used swastikas and the title “NAZI collection” as part of a bedspread design. In reaction, the Indian Jewish community announced that it would file a suit against the company. The company said it had no intention of insensitivity toward Jews, that NAZI stood for “New Arrival Zone for India,” and that the swastika was originally an ancient Hindu symbol that was appropriated by the Nazis. The latter is true, but the company’s overall claim was made ridiculous by their explanation of the word Nazi.39
Nazi symbols and Hitler icons can be found around the world in apparel, restaurants, bars, and as separate items for sale — a global indicator of the phenomenon of Holocaust trivialization for monetary gain. There are too many examples to list them all, including a Nazi chess set for sale in a market in Istanbul,40 a South Korean Nazi-themed bar,41 and swastika-print garments worn in London’s trendy Soho neighborhood.42
Images of the Holocaust have crossed over into marketing and advertising all over the world. An advertisement for Solo Mobile, a wireless division of Bell Canada that was featured in fifty-one locations around Toronto and Vancouver, depicted a woman wearing a series of buttons.43 One of the buttons read: “Belsen was a gas.” It referred to a contentious song by the Sex Pistols about Bergen- Belsen, a German concentration camp. These advertisements first went up at Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, and were removed after the controversial images were brought to the attention of Bell Canada.44
After receiving complaints from the Jewish community, a pizza chain in New Zealand, Hell Pizza, removed billboards of a cartoon-Hitler holding a slice of their pizza and saluting.45 Kirk MacGibbon of the Auckland-based advertising agency said: “[We] thought that people would be able to see a funny side to a guy doing a ‘Sieg Heil’ salute with a piece of pizza in his hand…. If you laugh at something, you take its power away. But there are certain things we are still unable to laugh about.”46
This food company is far from alone. Using Hitler to promote companies and products is a worldwide phenomenon. Conqueror Real Estate, a property firm in Dubai, stood by its national campaign in the United Arab Emirates. The advertisement featured Hitler next to the tagline: “Conqueror, The World Is Yours.” The general manager of the company said: “I’m making business, I don’t have a political opinion. He’s a famous person — bad or good, I don’t care — and I want to attract the attention of readers. And yesterday we had a lot of response. We had complaints, but it was one of the busiest days of the year, too, so it has an effect.”47
The Otto Jespersen Affair
Not all trivializers are repentant when faced with the offense and hurt that their words or actions have stirred up. The Norwegian comedian Otto Jespersen was at the center of a Holocaust-trivializing controversy in Norway.48 On 27 November 2008, he said on TV 2, the country’s largest commercial television station: “I would like to take the opportunity to remember all the billions of fleas and lice that lost their lives in German gas chambers, without having done anything wrong other than settling on persons of Jewish background.”49 Much worse, however, was that the director of the television station defended this expression of “satire” from criticism.50
A week later Jespersen, in his weekly television appearance, gave a “satiric” monologue of mixed anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli remarks. He concluded by wishing the Jews a happy Christmas. But then as an afterthought, he said that this was not proper as the Jews had murdered Jesus. Two years earlier the same comedian had burned pages from the Hebrew Bible in front of a television camera. It was no reason for the Norwegian television company to terminate his employment. Jespersen also explained that he would not burn the Koran, as he wanted to live longer than a week.51
The reaction from Jewish sources, however, was effective. TV2’s attitude toward this anti-Semitic hate speech led an Auschwitz survivor, Imre Hercz, the Jewish community (Det Mosaiske Trossamfund or DMT), and the Norwegian Center against Antisemitism to complain to the Pressens Faglige Utvalg (PFU), a media organization that deals with complaints against journalists and the media. At the end of February 2009, the PFU unanimously decided to condemn Jespersen.52 It was the first time ever that this body took such a decision regarding ostensible satire.
In May 2006, a Dutch court sentenced a twenty-three-year old student to forty hours of community service for making an anti-Jewish video called “Housewitz.” It invited people to a fictitious techno-music festival that was an Auschwitz- themed party. The video included pictures of gas chambers, with captions such as “hot showers, free of charge.” The student made an apology before the court after he was condemned.53
Holocaust trivialization also occurs in art. One much-publicized case concerned German author and film director Rainer Werner Fassbinder’s 1985 play Der Müll, die Stadt und der Tod (Garbage, the Town and Death). Its main character — perhaps modeled on German Jewish communal leader Ignatz Bubis — was a Jewish property speculator about whom one character said, “Had he been gassed, I could sleep more peacefully tonight.” Members of Frankfurt’s Jewish community, including Bubis, occupied the theater’s stage to prevent the performance. Eventually the play was banned in Frankfurt.54
Jewish Trivialization of the Holocaust
Some Jews also trivialize the Holocaust. Problems currently facing the Jewish people cannot be compared to the mass murder of six million. An article by Ohr Samayach, a Jerusalem-based Jewish outreach organization, calls the assimilation of Jews “the holocaust of assimilation.”55 But the voluntary abandonment of Jewish practices and identity is very remote from undergoing an imposed genocide.
Uri Orbach is a well-known Israeli religious journalist who became a member of the Israeli parliament in 2009. He referred to the problem of Jewish intermarriage as the “‘White Holocaust’ or ‘Silent Holocaust,’ the one that annually takes away many thousands of Jews who chose to intermarry.”56 However, mixed marriages are a free choice and part of a process that has nothing of the cruelty of helpless Jews who were murdered because of their identity.
Sarah Silverman, an American Jewish comedian, regularly jokes about the Holocaust. She mentions a Holocaust-survivor grandmother “who went to one of the ‘better’ concentration camps and got a tattoo that read ‘bedazzled.’”57
The above examples demonstrate that trivialization occurs in many and varied situations. They show that, contrary to most other distortions of the Holocaust, the trivializers usually do not target Jews.
Holocaust trivialization very often selects a single element that somewhat resembles a component of the Holocaust as the basis of its abusive comparison. The essence of the distortion is that there are so many cruel elements of the Holocaust with which the compared phenomenon has no similarity.
As Holocaust trivialization is almost always based on a superficial use of comparisons, those who confront the trivializers limit themselves to ad hoc refutations of their claims or demands to stop commercialization and other abuses. In many cases, but not always, this leads to apologies by those responsible.
- Elie Wiesel, “Some Questions That Remain Open,” in Asher Cohen, Joav Gelber, and Charlotte Wardi, , Comprehending the Holocaust (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1988), 13.
- Ellen Goodman, “No Change in Political Climate,” Boston Globe, 9 February 2007
- Dennis Prager, “Global Warming Denial=Holocaust Denial?” FrontPage Magazine, 13 February 2007
- Al Gore, “An Ecological Listen,” New York Times, 19 March 1989.
- “May Points to Gore Remarks in Defending Nazi References,” com, 9 January 2008, viewed 15 January 2009.
- ADL, “ADL Says Glenn Beck’s Outrageous Holocaust Comparison Part of Troubling Epidemic on the Airwaves,” Press Release, 2 May 2007.
- “Kyoto Protocol an ‘International Auschwitz,’” Environmental Data Interactive Exchange, 16 April 2004.
- “Pope Likens Abortion to Holocaust,” BBC News, 22 February
- David Willey, “Pope’s Book Confronts Evil,” BBC News, 23 February
- “Pope Likens Abortion to ”
- “German Cardinal Compares Abortion to German Holocaust,” Catholic Exchange, 21 January 2005.
- “Clash at UNH over Anti-Abortion Billboards,” Foster’s Daily Democrat, 10 April 2007.
- Jennifer Siegel, “Huckabee’s ‘Holocaust’ Analogy Has ADL Angry, Abortion Foes Yawning,” Forward, 31 October 2007.
- M. Coetzee, “Exposing the Beast: Factory Farming Must Be Called to the Slaughterhouse,” Sydney Morning Herald, 21 February 2007.
- David Teather, “‘Holocaust on a Plate’ Angers US Jews,’” The Guardian, 3 March
- Gary Younge, “We’re Stunt We Have to Be,” The Guardian, 24 February 2006.
- “Group Blasts PETA ‘Holocaust’ Project,” com, 28 February 2003.
- ADL, “Holocaust Imagery and Animal Rights,” Press Release, 2 August 2005.
- Ingrid Newkirk, “Apology for a Tasteless Comparison,” com, 5 May 2005, viewed 7 May 2005.
- James Jasper and Dorothy Nelkin, The Animal Rights Crusade (New York: Free Press, 1992), 47.
- Roberta Kalechofsky, Animal Suffering and the Holocaust (Micah Publications, 2003).
- Karen Davis, “A Tale of Two Holocausts,” Animal Liberation Philosophy and Policy Journal, V 2, No. 2 (2204): 1–20.
- Charles Patterson, Eternal Treblinka: Our Treatment of Animals and the Holocaust (New York: Lantern Books, 2002), 127.
- Charles Hurt, “Bush: Beware Iran ‘Nuclear Holocaust,’” New York Post, 29 August 2007.
- “Scotland’s Holocaust Fears,” BBC News, 1 January 2001.
- “N Korea ‘May End’ Nuclear Pact,” BBC News, 22 March 2002.
- Michael Rabinoff, Ending the Tobacco Holocaust (Fulton, CA: Elite Books, 2007).
- “Guantánamo Lijkt op Naziregime,” SP!TS, 10 January [Dutch].
- Shailagh Murray, “Durbin Apologizes for Remarks on Abuse,” Washington Post, 22 June 2005.
- ADL, “Immigrants Targeted: Extremist Rhetoric Moves into the Mainstream,” Press Release, 2007.
- “Cardins Blast Steele for Comparing Stem Cell Research to the Holocaust,” net, 10 February 2006.
- Robert Barnes and Matthew Mosk, “Steele Apologizes for Holocaust Remarks,”Washington Post, 11 February 2006.
- “Michel Rocard règle ses comptes avec le socialisme à la francaise,” Le Monde, 5 October 2005 [French].
- ADL, “Online Retailer Removes Auschwitz T-Shirts after ADL Voices Concern,” Press Release, 4 December 2006.
- “Huch, schon wieder ein Hakenkreuz!” Welt Online, 24 September 2007 [German].
- “Bedspread Line Named ‘Nazi Collection’ Outrages Indian Jews,” com, 1 October 2007, 22 October 2007, www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/09/30/india.nazi. bedspread.ap/.
- Marc Shoffman, “Nazi Chess Sets on Sale,” com/news, 11 October 2007.
- “Israeli Envoy to South Korea Angry over Report of Nazi-Themed Bar,” International Herald Tribune, 8 October 2007.
- “Behind the Seams,” Times Online, 25 October 2006.
- “Controversial Cell Phone Ad Pokes Fun at Holocaust,” ca, 13 September 2007.
- “Bell Pulls ‘Death Camp’ Ads,” com, 15 September 2007.
- Warren Gamble, “Hell Pizza Gives Hitler the Boot,” co.nz, 24 August 2007.
- “Hitler Eating Pizza in Hell Ads Withdrawn,” com.au, 24 August 2007.
- Iain Akerman, “Property Firm Stands by Provocative Hitler Ad,” Brand Republic, 2 October 2007.
- Manfred Gerstenfeld, “Another Year of Anti-Semitism and Anti-Israelism in Norway,”Post-Holocaust and Anti-Semitism, 82, 1 July 2009.
- “Otto Jespersen Reported for Offense against Jews,” Aftenbladet, 29 November 2008.
- “Fellow Comedians Defend Jespersen’s Satire,” Aftenbladet, 1 December 2008.
- Nina Berglund, “Comedian Burns Bible as Cameras Roll,” Aftenposten, 28 March 2006.
- Marie Kleve and Jonas Skybakmoen, “Israel-hetsen til Jespersen var unproblematik,” Dagbladet, 24 February 2009 [Norwegian]; Helge Wekre, “TV 2 fjernet Otto-raljering,” NA24 Arkiv, 26 February 2009. [Norwegian]
- “‘Housewitz’ Director Gets 40 Hours Labor,” Ynetnews, 17 July 2009.
- Joachim Koppner, “Die Geduld Verloren,” Deutsches Allgemeines Sonntagsblatt, 4 December 1998 [German].
- “Ask the Rabbi,” Ohr Somayach International, 17 September 2005, http://ohr.edu/yhiy/ php/2315, viewed 25 March 2008.
- Uri Orbach, “A Tragic Love Story,” Ynetnews, 13 November 2007.
- Kera Bolonik, “Does Sarah Silverman Suck?” com, 9 October 2007.