User:Ich/sandbox

Historiography of Naming
The events of November 1938 have been given disparate names by the perpetrators, bystanders, victims, and historians. The term Kristallnacht has largely fallen out of use in the German-speaking world, although it remains common elsewhere.

The precise origins of the name Kristallnacht remain unclear. Despite speculation that the term was coined by the Nazis, there is no written use of the term before the end of World War II. Despite this, many people later recalled the term being used at the time, leading historians to conclude the term originated from the general public.

A derived term, Reichskristallnacht, likely originated in the Berlin vernacular as a sardonic coinage, mocking the Nazis' inflationary use of the prefix Reichs-. The term Reichskristallnacht was later adopted and used officially, detached from its origins. For instance, during a 1965 Bundestag debate regarding the statute of limitations for Nazi-era crimes, West German Minister of Justice, Ewald Bucher, used the term "Reichskristallnacht"; in his response, Adolf Arndt – who had been working as a lawyer in Berlin in November 1938 – stated that the events "should not be referred to as the 'so-called Reichskristallnacht'. That was a bloody Berlin joke because people didn't know how else to help themselves at the time."

Following the war, the terms Kristallnacht and Reichskristallnacht became established in West Germany and abroad. In East Germany, the state typically referred to the events as "fascist pogrom night" ("faschistische Pogromnacht").

The term became established in popular and academic use because it succinctly touched on several key aspects:
 * "Reichs-" emphasized the government's participation and incitement of violence,
 * "Kristall-" as an (ironic) euphemism for the destruction of human happiness, life, property and togetherness,
 * "Nacht" as a metaphor for the ensuring political darkness of the Nazi dictatorship and Holocaust.

Naming debate
In German, the term Kristallnacht is seen as problematic for a number of reasons:
 * The term is seen as a euphemism that trivializes anti-Jewish violence.
 * The name avoids any mention of the perpetrators, obscuring that the murders, looting, and arson were officially encouraged by the state.
 * The focus on broken glass emphasizes the material damages and ignores the murders that took place. Heinz Galinski, the former president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, criticized the term in 1978, stating "more than just glass was broken. People were killed."
 * The use of the word "night" obscures the fact that much of the violence was committed in broad daylight, and the violence was not confined to a single night. Many of the 30,000 Jews arrested following Kristallnacht were still imprisoned in concentration camps months later.
 * The term's unclear origins suggest it was likely coined by the German public, and not by the event's victims. Although no evidence has been found to confirm this, "Kristallnacht" is still perceived by many as a Nazi coinage.
 * The term Kristallnacht has celebratory connotations.

In popular use, Kristallnacht has been supplanted by several terms such as Reichspogromnacht, Novemberpogrome, and Novemberterror. This shift has also been met with criticism, as the word Kristallnacht is established in other languages, and divergent vocabulary can add confusion and difficulty when communicating with researchers and people outside of the German-speaking world.

Although Novemberpogrome is today the dominant term, some researchers have also criticized the use of the term "pogrom", as it carries a number of associations with it. Some critics have viewed this as trivializing the events, as the scale of Kristallnacht far outstrips any pogroms in the Russian Empire (cf. Holocaust uniqueness debate). Furthermore, the pogroms in Russia were typically local or regional events of spontaneous, lawless mass-violence against Jews and their property. These massacres were initiated by a local population with at most the tacit approval of the local authorities and police. In contrast, the events of Kristallnacht were not spontaneous; they were centrally organized by the national government and carried out across the country, a connotation which is missing from the word "pogrom".

Although the term "Pogrom" recalls the local and regional massacres of Jews since the Middle Ages, it fails to capture the organized, country-wide character of a state-run programme of dispossession, deportation, and extermination. This framing can be viewed as trivializing the Holocaust.

However, the connotations of the word "Reichspogromnacht" suggest that the violence was only perpetrated by the Nazi government, eliding the willing participants among the general population.

"There will never be an adequate name".

Nazi-era naming
The victims sent to the concentration camps described the events as the "Rath-Aktion" ("Rath Action") or "Mordwoche" ("Murder week"). In his journal, Victor Klemperer wrote about the "Grünspan-Affäre" ("Grynszpan Affair"), while wrote about Bartholomäusnacht ("St. Bartholomew's Day massacre"). Many contemporary witnesses remembered hearing terms in circulation such as Glasnacht ("Glass Night"), "Gläserner Donnerstag" ("Glassy Thursday") and "Kristallnacht" ("Crystal Night"), all of which referred to the shards of glass from the broken windows of Jewish houses and shops. These names only appear to have been used orally, as there are no documented uses of Kristallnacht dating to the period of Nazi rule, and only one example for Reichskristallnacht: on 24 June 1939, the Director of the Reich Ministry of Labour Wilhelm Börger is recorded as having joked in a speech that "So the thing goes down in history as Reichskristallnacht [...], you see, that's humoristically elevated, isn't it." The newspapers of the exiled SPD and the underground KPD called the events "Judenpogrome" ("Jewish Pogroms").

Similar to the events in 1934, perpetrators in the SA and Hitler Youth also spoke of a "Night of the Long Knives". Victims heard this expression in advance as a rumour about an imminent revenge action. The offices of the Nazi regime and the media controlled by the Reich Ministry of Propaganda used propaganda terms such as "Judenaktion", "Novemberaktion", "Vergeltungsaktion" or "Sonderaktion". They called the organised gatherings of the following day "anti-Jewish demonstrations" or "just retaliation rallies".

Postwar Naming
Texts from the early postwar years use a variety of terms, such as "Judennacht" ("Jews' Night"), "Kristallnacht" ("Crystal Night"), "Novemberpogrom" ("November pogrom"), "Novembernacht" ("November night"), "Pogromnacht" ("Pogrom night"), "Tag der (deutschen) Scherbe" ("Day of the (German) Shards"), "Reichsscherbenwoche" ("Reich Shard Week"), Reichskristalltag ("Reich Crystal Day"), "(Reichs-)Kristallwoche" ("(Reich-) Crystal Week"), "Reichstrümmertag" ("Reich Rubble Day"), "Synagogenbrand" ("Synangogues Fire"), "Synagogensturm" ("Synagogues Storm"), "Synagogenstürmernacht" ("Synagogues Storming Night"), and "Verfolgungswoche" ("Persecution Week").



In 1982, the German rock band BAP released the song "Kristallnaach", which identified parallels between the events of the November pogroms and problems of the present day, using it as "a metaphor for all manner of inhumane behaviour". The song has been seen as contributing to the historicization of the events, while oversimplifying the origins of the pogroms.

Present Day
In Germany, the name Kristallnacht is seen as euphemistic. According to writer and critic Ole Löding, the alternatives are also problematic. In his view, Reichspogromnacht, the term preferred in politics and media since the mid-1980s, does not adequately represent the need for further Vergangenheitsbewältigung, but instead create the impression that a full accounting has taken place. Because the change only happened within the German-speaking world, exchanges with researchers in foreign languages are made more difficult.

In German, the undifferentiated use of the prefix Reich- falsely suggests a continuity between the Heiliges Römisches Reich (Holy Roman Empire) and Third Reich. In addition, Wolfgang Benz noted that the prefix Reichs-, which was used extensively by the Nazis, represents "a retrospective reference to the language of the inhuman". In their view, the term Reichspogromnacht is ahistorical and unintentionally derides the victims.

Some more recent historical studies therefore favour the German term Novemberpogrom(e) ("November pogrom(s)"). It is intended to avoid emotional associations and thus promote a factual review of the events. The month and plural indicate the longer duration of the riots and the subsequent imprisonment in concentration camps. It is considered the least problematic term. Nevertheless, Reichskristallnacht continues to be used. The German political scientist observed that on the one hand, it is valuable as an internationally useful term for historians, on the other hand, it cannot be uncritically adopted because of the complex co-meanings. Schmid concluded from this:

''Doch das Wort bleibt auch ein nützlicher sprachlicher Stolperstein. Denn die scheinbar bloß etymologische und semantische Kontroverse führt geradewegs zum Gespräch über die ganze NS-Vergangenheit, den kritischen Umgang mit ihr und das Bemühen um moralische Genauigkeit – auch in der heutigen Benennung politischer Verbrechen.'' But the word also remains a useful linguistic stumbling block. Because the seemingly merely etymological and semantic controversy leads straight to a discussion about the entire Nazi past, the critical approach to it, and the endeavour to be morally accurate – even when naming political crimes today.