Who are you calling Nazi?
Avoiding a Divisive Term That Harms Jewish Communities
In the realm of political discourse, the use of powerful terms can shape narratives and influence public opinion. One particular term, "Nazi," carries grave historical weight and conjures up memories of one of humanity's darkest chapters. However, in contemporary society, its usage has become increasingly pervasive as an accusation or insult hurled from both the political left and right. Even more alarming is the strategic and political usage of ‘denazification’ as Russia’s pretext for the invasion of Ukraine. The term is an appealing rhetorical heavy-hitter to delegitimize opponents, but this misappropriation harms not only Jewish communities but also the understanding of historical events.
Editorial credit: Feng Yu / Shutterstock.com
The term "Nazi" is inextricably linked to Adolf Hitler's Nazi Party and the atrocities committed during the Holocaust. The Nazi regime systematically persecuted and murdered six million Jews, alongside millions of other innocent victims. Motivated by an extremist ideology of race science, Aryan supremacy and enacted by a totalitarian fascist regime, the harm Nazism caused stands today as an unparalleled tragedy in the history of Europe. Given this context, the casual use of "Nazi" as an insult or political tool undermines the gravity of history and belittles the suffering endured by those affected.
On the political left, the accusation of someone being a "Nazi" is often levelled to condemn perceived authoritarianism, racism, or discrimination. Think of punitive law and order rhetoric, or nativist politicians that demean and stereotype immigrants, often non-western Muslim immigrants. While it is crucial to address and combat these issues, it is essential to recognize the potential harm that arises from equating political opponents with Nazis. The overuse dilutes the significance of the term, hindering our collective ability to effectively combat clear-cut instances of fascism, racism, or xenophobia. On top of that, the comparison is – even given the weight of the issues – by most counts an exaggeration. No matter how egregious and xenophobic such policy may be, it does not level up to the precision, cruelty and scale of the genocide caused by the Nazis. This type of usage therefor sparks antagonism and polarization that is out of place in parliamentary democracy.
Conversely, the political right has not been immune to employing "Nazi" as a weapon in political rhetoric. Typically, this group takes aim at initiatives and individuals seeking to balance majority versus minority freedoms. We see this constantly today in the attempt to delineate the sacredness of individual freedom of speech against the minority right not to be discriminated against. It remains an ongoing discussion about what kind of discrimination is one step too far and the appropriate reaction to it (legal sanctions, or public disapproval?), but any who advocates for contentiousness in what we say can be branded as "Nazis" by their detractors. A more recent phenomenon is the use of the term in the context of Covid-19, where measures taken to preserve the collective well-being, but simultaneously restricted personal liberties were branded as ‘Nazi’. In both cases, people who feel their liberties are threatened claim a kind of victimhood and see policy as totalitarian. But this victimhood is not of equal weight to that of the Jewish people and thereby discounts the Jewish experience. Also, it focusses specifically on totalitarianism, thereby divorcing the term from its defining feature: the eugenic Aryan supremacy that targeted an already stigmatized ethnic and religious minority.
Finally, the most recent worrying use of the term occurred last year. In the Russian narrative, the term "denazification" has been invoked to justify military actions in Ukraine. By equating Ukrainian nationalist sentiments with Nazism, the Russian government attempts to delegitimize Ukraine's aspirations for independence and self-determination. It must be said that in Ukraine (not unlike in other European countries) there are people with Nazi sympathies, with the Azov battalion as the starkest example. Nevertheless, experts such as Andreas Umland from the Stockholm Center for Eastern European Studies (SCEEUS) and Ulrich Schmid, professor for Russian culture and society at the University of St. Gallen in Switzerland point out that such right-wing sympathies are marginal even when compared to other countries. In 2019, radical right-wing parties won a mere 2.15% of the vote. Besides from being false, Putin’s claim may appear incoherent to a Western audience. Part of the reason why is because the Russian interpretation of their ‘Great Patriotic War’ against the Nazis places emphasis on the suffering and sacrifices of the Soviet people. The Russian conception of Nazism leans more towards a genocide targeting the Russian identity than the Jewish identity. This again divorces the term from its defining feature. It is therefore no wonder that ‘denazification’ sparked outrage in the Jewish community, condemning the exploitation of history for a narrative meant to drum up public support and legitimize the invasion.
The consequences of using "Nazi" as an insult extend far beyond the realm of political discourse. For Jewish people, this casual appropriation of a term associated with genocide can be deeply hurtful and traumatic. Survivors and descendants of Holocaust victims are forced to confront painful memories when they witness the term's misuse. It perpetuates a climate where anti-Semitism can fester, as Jewish individuals feel marginalized, and their history trivialized. The misuse of "Nazi" in the context of the Ukrainian conflict also has similar far-reaching consequences for Jewish communities worldwide. Misappropriating the term for political goals also poses a risk of historical revisionism. By inaccurately equating political opponents with Nazis, the above cases risk blurring what Nazism really was and discount its meaning. Consequently, the term has lost power when it’s used righteously to point out Nazism. Given that these sympathies are still around, we all need to carefully think about when its use is appropriate. The last thing we want is that this overuse erodes our understanding of past events - that it becomes a political buzzword like ‘communist’. Because the victims of the Nazi regime are still around, and Nazism still jeopardizes the wellbeing of Jewish people today. We can resist falling victim to false equivalences and instead be conscientious in our language. Recognizing the distinct historical context in which the term "Nazi" emerged also allows us to critically evaluate its misuse and the potential harm it inflicts on affected communities. Rather than allowing the misappropriation of "Nazi" to further inflame tensions, it is imperative to engage in open, respectful discussions that address the complex issues at hand.
