The Difference
update: I didn’t think I’d need to explicitly say this, but yes, there is a third difference simply in the scale, severity, and intent of the Holocaust.
One reader asks a good question: how is publicizing photos of the Abu Ghraib abuse different to (for example) pictures of Holocaust victims in the Auschwitz museum?
There are two important differences:
- the involvement of the surviving victims in selecting the material
- the purpose for which the pictures were taken
While the Nazis had various motivations for taking the pictures they took, most of the memorable pictures of the Holocaust we’ve seen were taken by Russian and Allied personnel after the liberation of the camps.
In the case of the Abu Ghraib photographs, however, the taking of the photographs and the threat of their release to friends, neighbors, and family was an intrinsic part of the torture. The acts chosen for photography were often specifically calculated to be socially devastating for the victims.
It’s ironic that while the torturers did not carry through on their threat, the ACLU has apparently dedicated itself to finishing the job.
There is really only one question that matters:
Would the victims want these photographs released to the public?
It’s not clear to me that very many people care about that question, and that’s what I’m upset about.