Selling the Holocaust: From Auschwitz to Schindler, How ... (ISBN 0415925819)

The Gradual Development of the Holocaust "Myth":
Cole traces the development of popularization of the Holocaust in the US, Israel, and in other parts of the world. He uses the term "myth" not to question the fact of 5-6 million murdered Jews in any way, but to point out the gradual emergence of the Holocaust in much contemporary thinking. Cole (p. 6) quotes Yaffa Eliach on the fact that "there is no business like Shoah business." In common with other writers (e. g., Novick, Finkelstein), Cole points out that there was little special attention paid to the WWII extermination of Jews, by either Jews or gentiles, in the first years after the war: "While the Holocaust was perpetrated in Europe during 1941-45, it was not really until the early 1960s that anything like widespread awareness of the `Holocaust' began to emerge."(p. 7). Also: "During the 1940s and 1950s, throughout Israeli society, there was an effective silence about the Holocaust."(pp. 51-52). Finally, "After 1961 the Holocaust ceased to be a taboo, and instead assumed an increasingly central--if contested--position in Israeli society and politics."(p. 63). Cole concludes: "There is little question that in the 1970s and 1980s the `Holocaust' assumed a critical role in self-definition as Jewish." (p. 13). In fact, he also shows that the Holocaust had become a substitute for Jewish tradition, for self-identity as Jews, among many assimilated American Jews (pp. 118-119). By the 1990's, the Holocaust had assumed nothing short of staggering dimensions on the American scene: "...in the United States there are more than one hundred Holocaust museums and research centres, suggesting that the `founding of Holocaust museums' is `a particularly American phenomenon.'"(p. 147). Cole devotes a moderate amount of attention to the Auschwitz Carmelite convent controversy. For a long time, Christian symbols in Jewish places of death had not aroused Jewish antagonism at all (p. 103). He also points out the fact that, ironically, Auschwitz itself had assumed a prominent place in Jewish Holocaust consciousness only gradually: "From being a site of Warsaw bloc memory of fascist atrocity, `Auschwitz' became recognized not simply as a site of the mass gassing of Jews, but the site of Jewish memory of the `Holocaust'. Yet alongside this `Jewish Holocaustisation' of Auschwitz, a process of `Catholising' Auschwitz started to take place, in particular centered on the Polish-Catholic martyr Father Maximilian Kolbe."(pp. 102-103). Cole continues: "What was being contested during the controversy was less ownership and use of the physical fabric of the camp, and more ownership and use of the `brandname''Auschwitz'."(p. 105). Cole (p. 108) then recounts Cardinal Glemp's suggested compromise solution: Oswiecim-Auschwitz, where mostly Poles died, would be central to Poles and Christians, while Brzezinka-Birkenau, where mostly Jews died, would be central to Jews. However, most Jews rejected this compromise solution on the grounds that it would impinge upon the symbolic status of Auschwitz. What is unclear in all of this is how the fact that 90% of the victims of the entire Auschwitz complex were Jews is supposed to entitle them to dictate to everyone else how and how not the site of the Auschwitz complex is to be memorialized. It is easy to see that all the talk about the Jewish victims of Auschwitz being forgotten, or about Auschwitz becoming "Christianized", are simply smokescreens. The real reason clearly is Jewish intolerance against the sufferings of non-Jews being associated, even indirectly, with the sufferings of Jews. As further proof of this, note Cole's citation of Israeli philosopher Adi Ophir on the latter's statements concerning the Holocaust becoming a religion of sorts that supplants the Ten Commandments: "...Holocaust religion offers new commandments:'Thou shalt have no other Holocaust', `Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image or likeness", Thou shalt not take the name in vain'. .."(p. 143). No wonder that there was so much Jewish opposition to the Carmelite convent at Auschwitz! Its very presence dared juxtapose the Polish Holocaust with that the Jewish Holocaust, thereby violating the first and third of these new commandments! Cole describes Holocaust education in contemporary Israel as follows: "Not only do they have `Holocaust' lessons at school--where `since the early 1980s, questions on the Holocaust have accounted for 20 per cent of the overall score in the high school diploma examination in history'--but as mentioned earlier they all visit Yad Vashem, and an increasing number visit the death camps in Europe."(p. 141). In view of this intense education, the ignorance of Israeli students who visit Poland is unbelievable (unless, of course, it is intentional). Cole does not mention the fact that visiting Israeli students hold to grotesque Polonophobic errors, even to the point of believing that Poles killed more Jews than the Germans, and asking, in all seriousness, about the size of pensions "those Polish guards at Auschwitz" are receiving. What kind of education are these young Israelis truly getting?

Disappointing.:
Having read and seen more than my fair share of Holocaust-related books and films, I was hoping for some provocative, or at least thought-provoking, analysis here. Instead, I was treated to a superficial and incomplete overview. From start to finish, Cole's contention is that in literary and cinematographic works the Holocaust has been packaged to supply consumers with a "happy ending", and that in endeavours such as museums the full horror is deliberately (although the reader is left in some doubt as to how consciously) blanked out or softened. In fact, many survivors have pointed out that the full horror can never be known, as even their own experience could only be partial. Another fact is that all the first-hand accounts, however gruesome, have been given by survivors, which does tend to leave an impression of the Holocaust as something which could be (and in fact was) survived, if only by a minority. It is a pity that Cole did not take a closer look at the abundant literature describing the damage wreaked on survivors and their families, for instance Art Spiegelman's depiction of his parents, Lily Brett's of her mother, or Charlotte Delbo's wrenching account of the individual lives of her fellow deportees before, during and after their imprisonment in Auschwitz. There are also occurrences of sloppy thinking. For instance, Cole has accomplished the tour de force of simultaneously criticising the early presentation of Anne Frank for "stripping her of her sexuality" and drawing a veil over her appalling death. Actually, that early presentation was almost exclusively based on the first published version of the Diary, which made no secret of Anne's romance with Peter (sexual enough to cause her parents serious concern), and surely it is not common for diarists to record their own demise, least of all in a death camp? Finally, there are a number of careless errors not acceptable in a scholarly work. The recurrent misspelling of "Birkeneau" is especially irritating in view of Cole's credentials, "the girl in the red coat" of "Schindler's List", whom Cole dismisses as a "myth" incorporated by Spielberg into his film, does in fact appear in Keneally's book under the name "Red Genia", and the Jews in the "Train of Life" do not escape to freedom - the last scene shows the narrator in prisoner's garb, possibly German, possibly Soviet, behind barbed wire, leaving it unclear whether the train story was a fantasy or whether the Gulag ultimately caught up with the escaped Jews. In a word, disappointing.

Man's Search for Meaning?:
I appreciated Cole's ability to trace the evolution of Holocaust representation over the years and his comparison of how different cultures portray it. I also agree that the media generally fails to convey the desperation and hopelessness inherent in The Holocaust. The Holocaust should not be remembered only as an inspiring story of courage and survival- we must remember the terror, despair, hopelessness, and depravity. Maybe the public consumers are not interested or prepared for the graphic details or a protagonist whose death seems as meaningless as it is vicious. Perhaps the public consumers are not ready for a Nazi protagonist who has more in common with the reader/viewer than his victim. If Holocaust literature and media are not able to break this barrior, the meaning of this tragedy will indeed be lost. However, I am disappointed in Cole's criticism of U.S., Israeli, and European efforts to make meaning of The Holocaust. Is it surprising, or even wrong, that an Israeli museum/memorial would emphasize Jewish resistance and heroism during The Holocaust? Is it surprising that the U.S. museum would focus on Jews as victims and American soldiers as liberators? While everyone must be careful in how they portray and memorialize The Holocaust, the search for meaning must be a part of such an endeavor. One must explore why the Nazis acted as they did. One must consider why many Jews did not resist and some even betrayed those who did. One must acknowledge the courage of Jews who resisted and Allied soldiers who liberated the camps. I encourage anyone who reads this book to also read Viktor Frankl's MAN'S SEARCH FOR MEANING.

Disappointing, frustrating, and poorly titled and marketed:
I approached this book w reasonably high expectations. i thank tim cole for the effort and i got some value out of this book But I found the book to be weakly argued and inconsistent. I felt a bit ripped off by the title, the book jacket and the back blurb by michael lerner, whom i respect. the book was really about the evolving ways that israel and the US (and to a lesser extent europe) interpret the holocaust through the decades, as driven by their own new national needs and circumstances. so -- we are not mostly talking in this book so much about 'sale' and exploitation (as implied by the title and book jacket description, which focuses highly on $$$) of the holocaust... ...but rather about evolving interpretations as 'recallers' change their perspectives as new societal needs arise -- and they change their interpretive thrusts of the holocaust to meet changing contemporary needs thus, for me, the title didnt match the book. i was especially frustrated by the author's repeated expressed longing for holocaust museums to focus more heavily on the magnitude and terribleness unfathomability of the killing - and the massive despair grimness and unknowabiliity of the act -- and not just to look for 'redemptive' or 'heroic' twists on the event. he is unhappy that museum builders focus too heavily on the holocaust's 'redemptive' value, and ok, he makes that point well enough and then he talks about he and his wife visiting a holocaust museum and coming away disappointed because there was not enough 'horror.' but then when horror IS displayed in a museum, he seems critical and dismissive, and seems to ridicule it. it is odd how his seeming desires seem unfulfillable. after reading this book, while seeking to keep an open mind, i can't imagine a holocaust museum that would ever satisfy tim cole. cole also harps annoyingly on a single sentence at yad vashem (his 'although-also' sentence/cite) and repeats it about ten times afterwards. he builds way too much out of this single sentence, even understanding the single sentence is meant to be emblematic of an attitude. but he endows it with too much meaning -- and that sentence just cant keep sustaining the weight of his thesis again and again and again. seems like a weak and imbalanced argument from an academic. the lerner blurb is a big sore point. it says the book points to the need to take action to prevent another holocaust (he cites the pressing need to "transform the conditions that make equally horrible suffering a likely recurrence."). but to my great chagrin, nowhere at all in the book does cole spend any time offering this kind of advice. or i missed it but i dont think i did. very disappointing. i felt misled by the lerner quote and misled by the jacket blurb. the lerner quote does not gibe w the book content, and i am sadly left to ask whether lerner had actually read the book first (i deeply hope so) the thrust of the book's content is worthwhile: that history can often be bent to the evolving needs of succeeding generations. fair enough, and a good point for us all to remember. this precise same point is directly discussed, for example, in 'these honored dead,' tom desjardin's take on the manipulation of gettysburg history. but i assert that that isnt really a book about 'selling' history. it is more substantially about 'reinterpreting' history. so i was disappointed, annoyed and frustrated by the book. it had some good content and some eye-opening analysis, and from time to time, he makes his point fairly well. but its title and marketing message were a tease that didnt accurately reflect its content. the book is called 'the selling of...' yet the content spends little time focused on the 'selling.' i hope i am wrong, but i felt maybe a publisher told tim cole that he better give it this particular title so more people like me would read it and more people would buy it. ...which leads me to an unhappy conclusion: i feel i have been a little exploited by 'the selling of...' this book to me.

outstanding:
An important work. It really takes a fascinating, unique perspective on history and provides a provocative view on the true nature of many people's fascination with the Holocaust.