Huttenbach originally distributed his two-page missive in person at the Conference, and later reprinted it in his newsletter The Genocide Forum: A Platform For post-Holocaust Commentary, together with an Afterword dated April 15 1997. [...] He states:

II.With the accuracy of hindsight, perhaps, it must be acknowledged that the overwhelmingly primary focus on the tragedy of the Holocaust has inhibited, to a greater or lesser degree, scholarly examination of pre-Holocaust genocides as we have attempted to collect, examine, analyze the literal mountains of evidence, and ponder both the meaning and the implications of this historic event. Two primary factors have led, I believe, to this singular focusing: 1) the aforementioned sheer quantity of available evidence of this most documented genocide in the history of Western Civilization; and 2) the strong, passionate belief in so many scholarly quarters that this Holocaust remains unique in history, and, therefore, somewhat misguidedly, an almost exclusive domain of study. That view has recently begun to be challenged in many quarters, and has led not only to an examination of pre-Holocaust genocides but contemporary ones as well.

Alan S. Rosenbaum, Professor of Philosophy of Cleveland State University, recently published a collection of essays entitled Is the Holocaust Unique? Perspectives on Comparative Genocide, wherein he gathered in one volume eight prominent scholars and allowed them to address this question of uniqueness in their own words. Strong reactions from some of the contributors prior to its publication almost led to the derailment of the book and disassociation with its publication. As was expected, scholars lined up on both sides of the issue in question.

Accompanying the essays, in addition to Rosenbaum's own Introduction (1-9), was the incredibly strong voice of Israel Charny, Executive Director of the Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide in Jerusalem. For Charny, it remains the human equation which is paramount in any discussion of genocide:

While not addressing the uniqueness question directly, both Seymour Drescher of the University of Pittsburgh and Barbara Green of Cleveland State University argue for the primacy of economic motivations resulting in horrendous brutalities in both the African enslaving experience and Stalin's Ukrainian collectivization rather than actual commitments to genocides of subject peoples.

Arguing against the uniqueness of the Holocaust, Ian Hancock of the University of Texas, Austin, explicitly states, "The fact remains, however, that whether Gypsies [sic] and Jews are `races' does not matter; Hitler believed both populations to constitute a racial threat, and race was his justification for their attempted extermination" (47). Continuing in this vein, Armenian scholar Vahakn N. Dadrian, formerly of the State University of New York at Geneseo, writes, "In brief, the phenomenon of the holocaust [sic], contrary to prevailing assumptions, is not a sui generis phenomenon but one bound up with extra-ideological contingencies" (130).

Most disturbing, and most strident, is the essay by David Stannard of the University of Hawaii, Honolulu, who, in presenting the case for the genocide of the Native American peoples, rejects the claim to Holocaust uniqueness as "an exclusive idea" (167), and "an outright denial of the genocidal suffering of others" (194).

The arguments, claims, and counter-claims go on, with scholars continuing to line up on one side or the other. The danger of focusing on this question of uniqueness is both to move it to center stage and potentially inhibit serious equally important examinations of other genocidal acts. Like the debate surrounding the "intentionalist" view of the Holocaust versus the "functionalist" view of the Holocaust, such concerns must not be allowed to deter us from what must, ultimately, be our primary agenda, in Henry Huttenbach's words "to deter genocide in the future." It is, thus, the broader questions associated with all genocides - questions of Where? How? Why? - which must occupy our collective energies. To be sure, questions of definitions and categorizations are the legitimate purview of sound scholarship, but not at the expense of an examination of the events themselves and the possible prevention of genocides yet to be born.

III. Occupying something of a middle ground, Yehuda Bauer, perhaps the dean of Holocaust historians, at the Institute of Contemporary History at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, argues for the uniqueness of the Holocaust while at the same times stressing the legitimacy of defining other acts of mass murdering as genocide. In two relatively recent essays, "Comparison of Genocides" (published in: Problems of Genocide: Proceedings of the International Conference on `Problems of Genocide', April 21-23, 1995, National Academy of Sciences, Yerevan, Republic of Armenia. Cambridge & Toronto: Zoryan Institute for Contemporary Armenian Research and Documentation, 1997) and "Holocaust and Genocide: Some Comparisons" (published in: Lessons and Legacies: The Meaning of the Holocaust In A Changing World. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1991) he explores the relationship between the Holocaust and other genocides.

In his 1997 essay, Bauer prefers the word genocide to describe "the murder of an ethnicity" (216), which, in turn, would encompass the Holocaust, while reserving the term Holocaust for its own unique event, i.e. "the total murder of Jews by the Nazis" (220), primarily for four reasons: 1) "the attempt was intended to be total and global," 2) "the assault on the Jews was purely ideological," 3) "the onslaught on the Jews was a centrally coordinated, governmental, bureaucratic affair," and 4) "Nazi anti-Semitism was not just part of Nazi ideology, but one of its central pillars" (220-222).

In his earlier essay, he boldly ventures to use the specific term "Holocaust" for the destruction of the Jews, but given its explicability, is willing to permit its use outside its own framework:

Holocaust scholar Nora Levin (formerly of Graetz college) in her essay "The Relationship of Genocide to Holocaust Studies," [in: Holocaust Literature: A Handbook of Critical, History, and Literary Writings. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1993, pp. 194-199], strikes a much-needed cautionary note against the overuse and abuse of the word/term genocide to include in its wake all examples of "man's inhumanity to man," with the concomitant danger of the Holocaust receding in our collective unconscious, a possible merging of various distinctiveness, and blurring of the lines.

Franklin H. Littell shifts focus somewhat and concerns himself with the religio-theological questions in attempting to address the meaning of the Holocaust:

I cite these particular scholars, by no means all, to indicate both the complexity of the various issues involved and the expansion of thinking from Holocaust to genocide and back again. Indeed, the study of the Holocaust has led to an increasing awareness in other examples, pre- and post-, of genocidal intent and the carrying out of those intentions, while, in truth and objectively, not diminishing either the focus or study of the Holocaust itself. It has attracted to itself a new generation of scholars, [...] whose concerns are not with the Holocaust but with genocidal plight of others. It has also generated a serious scholarly journal Holocaust and Genocide Studies to which we now direct our attention.

IV.As of this date, April 1998, Holocaust and Genocide Studies has appeared thirty-five times since its inaugural issue of 1986. Presently being published by Oxford University Press in England, in co-operation with the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC, the high academic and scholarly level of its articles and reviews, its primary foci, has been maintained from the very first. [...] Its present Senior Editor-in-Chief is Yehuda Bauer of Hebrew University.

Content-analyzing the entire run of both the article and reviews of Holocaust and Genocide Studies as to whether their primary focus is that of "Holocaust" or "genocide" is most insightful with regard to the orientation of contemporary scholarly endeavors, given the reality that there presently exists no other scholarly endeavor addressing these twin concerns. [Henry Huttenbach has just announced a new publication Journal of Genocide Research with its first issue slated for Spring 1999.] My conclusions are as follows:

Between 1986 and 1997, 208 articles were published: 189 articles dealing primarily with the Holocaust and only 19 or 10% dealing primarily with "other genocides" or non-Holocaust concerns. They include:

1) Genocide - 8;
2) Armenians - 5;
3) Native Americans - 1;
4) Religion and Theology - 1;
5) Ukrainians - 1;
6) Argentina - 1;
7) anti-semitism - 1; and
8) Israel - 1.

Turning to the reviews, the results were comparably similar: Between 1986 and 1997, 246 reviews were published: 208 dealing primarily with the Holocaust and only 38 or 16% with "other genocides" or non-Holocaust concerns. These include:

1) Genocide - 7;
2) Armenians - 5;
3) anti-semitism - 4;
4) Religion and Theology - 4;
5) Cambodia - 4;
6) Israel - 2;
7) Bosnia - 2;
8) "Rightist Politics" - 2;
9) Ukrainians - 1;
10) Evil - 1;
11) Human Rights - 1;
12) Psychoanalysis - 1; and
13) Yiddish Literature - 1.

What this analysis confirms is that which has been suspected all along: That the Holocaust continues to dominate scholarly work in the area of such research and writing, and that the journal itself Holocaust and Genocide Studies, has, realistically, been somewhat misnamed. If it is the continuing intent of the editors and publishers to focus primarily on the Holocaust, with an occasional nod to other areas of genocidal research and writing, then so be it, with a strong suggestion of a name change to something akin to The Journal of Holocaust Studies. If, however, the intent of both editors and publishers is to strive for a reasonable accommodating balance between the Holocaust and other genocidal events, and retain the integrity of the title Holocaust and Genocide Studies, then let us hope, in coming issues, we will see more and more articles and reviews addressing these "other genocides." Such an expanded and more balanced agenda will not diminish the importance of "Holocaust work," but, again, redirect our collective energies to both present-day genocides and future preventative concerns.

V.[...] What has been shown, I believe, is the over-balancing concern with Holocaust work, to the present detriment of Genocide Studies. The following concrete suggestions are therefore offered not in the spirit of condemnation, but, rather, in strengthening not only this relationship between "Holocaust Studies" and "Genocide Studies" but to focus our work in both arenas:

#1: Serious scholarly work on both Holocaust and Genocide cannot only concern itself with the historical evidence of such tragedies but must append to its conclusions significant, practical suggestions which address the realities of the present and the unplanned-for realities of the future. Fifty years from the closure of World War II may, in truth, be too little time to gather in, evaluate, and analyze all the evidence associated with the Holocaust. Likewise, much, much more investigate work must be done with regard to pre-Holocaust and post-Holocaust occasions of genocide. Yet, in both instances, such work necessarily, must no longer remain the purview of the academic communities only. Too much is at stake in both the present day and the future for such work to be confined to the so-called "ivory tower." Scholars must continue to network with those outside the academic world - including activist organizations [...] with the conscious understanding that what is required of all involved are concrete, practical ideas and suggestions to address contemporary humanity's barbarities and tomorrow's genocidal beginnings.

#2: Inside academia, departments of "Holocaust Studies" or clusters of courses within other department [e.g. History, Judaic Studies, etc.] must be consciously expanded to include courses in genocide.

"Holocaust work" is, by definition, both inter-disciplinary and cross-disciplinary. So is "Genocide work." University administrations and faculties must be sensitized to the realities that such course offerings are mandated by our contemporary post-Holocaust work, ideally becoming part of the core offerings of all curricula, in both the humanities and the social sciences.

A new generation of scholars must be trained with both a knowledge of the Holocaust and a commitment of a broader Weltanschauung, focusing not only on the one but on both, and beginning to focus not only on the lessons to be learned but on applications of such learned lessons as well.

#3: We must stop the academic internecine warfare with regard to the question of the uniqueness of the Holocaust in contradistinction to all other practices of genocidal destruction, refocus our thinking, and accept Israel Charny's credo, "I believe that all cases of genocide are similar and different, special and unique, and appropriately subject to comparative analysis."

Recognizing the complexities of the subjects at hand, the material involved, and the analyses required, we do both a serious disservice in misperceiving ourselves as two "armed camps," arguing for the primacy of one over the lesser inferiority of the other, to the detriment of both. Our common agenda must be the prevention of the genocides of the future as the tie which binds us together and simply will not allow us to go our separate ways.

#4: Journals of both Holocaust Studies and Genocide Studies must devote a portion of their publications to continuing to explore the interrelationship between the two. Such explorations will, I believe, lessen the polarization between the two, and result in expanded thinking in both areas. Holocaust is a sub-category of genocide; not the other way around. If Elie Wiesel is correct, "if everything is holocaust, then nothing is the Holocaust," so, too, may it be said that "if everything is genocide, then nothing is Genocide." Definitions and categorization do occupy prominent places on the agendas of academic concerns, but not the dominant places. That must continue to be reserved for the concrete and the practical.

The maturing of Holocaust Studies at this end of the Twentieth Century and the beginning of the Twenty-first Century has spawned this new discipline of Genocide Studies. The concrete, practical benefits which, hopefully, will now ensue from such scholarship have the potential to benefit all humankind. May it yet prove to be so.