Imperial War Museum rejects criticism of ‘nonsense’ description of Nazi race laws
An exhibit in the museum's Holocaust galleries states that 'a person was defined as Jewish based on how many observant Jewish grandparents they had'
The Imperial War Museum has raised controversy over its refusal to change an information board relating to Nazi treatment of Jews, despite critiques from prominent historians, one of whom described the museum’s language as “nonsense”.
The museum’s Holocaust galleries, which opened in 2021, contain an exhibit talking about the Nazi-era Nuremberg laws and their definition of who was Jewish and who was a mischling – mixed race. It states that “a person was defined as Jewish based on how many observant Jewish grandparents they had”.
A retired American academic told the Guardian that she had noticed this when she went to the Imperial War Museum to observe the Holocaust galleries. She correctly pointed out that the Nazis were intent on eradicating all Jews, regardless of their level of religious practice.
The Imperial War Museum responded by declining to change the relevant information in its exhibit, telling the academic that “we stand by the curatorial choices that we have made and that our expert advisers have reviewed.”
It added: “It is inevitable that, in a history as complex and sensitive as the Holocaust, questions of interpretation and nuance will be raised by audiences from time to time and we always thoroughly investigate any concerns and issues raised. In the light of concerns and misunderstanding that have been brought to our attention, we are considering whether some further clarification should be added to the caption in consultation with external advisors, in line with our normal processes.”
The Guardian approached both Christopher Browning and Timothy Snyder for comment. Browning, an expert witness in the 2000 Irving trial, told the paper: “The issue was not whether the grandparent was observant but whether his or her birth had been registered with the Jewish community. The grandparent could later even have converted to Christianity but if the grandparent had been registered as Jewish at birth, that for the Nazis was the deciding factor.”
Timothy Snyder, whose books Black Earth and Bloodlands focused on Nazi crimes, went further, saying: “It did not matter whether the grandparents were observant … No one was saved from persecution, as the wording incorrectly implies, by having grandparents who were not observant.”
“As worded, the suggestion is that ‘bad Jews’, ie those with a secular (or even Reform) background, might have been spared from the persecutions that preceded the Holocaust, whereas ‘good Jews’, those with religious (or Orthodox) backgrounds, were the victims. This is nonsense.”
Dr Robin Douglas, a fellow of the London Centre for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism, described the IWM’s caption as having “misinterpret[ed ]this requirement as meaning that the grandparent had to have been a piously observant Jew in adult life, whereas what it really meant is that the grandparent had to have been entered into Jewish religious records when they were born.
“The fact that the Nazis ultimately fell back on a religiously-determined criterion of Jewishness exposes the emptiness of their supposedly scientific ideas.”