References to WWII

"but I think this was done in an incredibly hateful way that benefits no one."

What a strange comment. Should you NOT be hateful towards the crimes that the Nazis commited?

-------

I agree that the idea that Hitler was under the imperius curse is offensive, because it basically frees him from responsability. But that is not an idea that has ANY sort of support in the books. Neither has the idea that they were allied, even though it's not offensive. However, it's illogical. Remember that Hitler was a muggle. Grindelwald would have the idea that Hitler was his to RULE not cooperate with.

The timing is not strange either. The early 20th century was full of ideas of racial superiourity. Grindelwald was affected by it, and embraced the ideas. Dumbledore was intrigued by the ideas, which is easy to be when you are much smarter than everybody else. But he was intelligent enogh to see reason and drop these ideas. Grindelwald wasn't, and didn't, and seems to have tried to use the events of WWII to strengthen his power, and probably planned to take over and subjugate the muggles when they were at their weakest, after the war. But Dumbledore stopped him.

The only think this is hateful against is racism, in all it's forms. Any other ideas, like that this is "anti-german" or anything like that is pure hallucinations.

I liked that aspect of the books. I dont think it shows German people in a bad light. I think it shows racism and socialism in a bad light..... and I agree that those things are bad.

I thought that the idea that Death Eaters were the Gestapo and the Ministry of Magic like the appeasing European governments was genius. JK was smart to put it in there.

Yes, you´re right. As I´m german, I am very sensitive to all similarities. But I think, JK is far to clever to locate her story all with the Nazi Regime. I don´t want to put the crimes of WWII into perspective, but I think that JK saw the effects of totalitarian regimes altogether. (As you read it I´m very cautious, because the german history is something, for what I always will have a feeling of guilt - what do you think: Is this reasonable for me, as I´m born 1968? We have an old question here...)

As someone who is part Jewish I am going to tell you no. YOU should NOT feel guilty. If YOU dont feel superior to others because of your race or creed, if YOU have not hurt anyone dont feel guilty. Its not your fault. You are not responsible for the sins of your forefathers. Just teach others about the evil's of rasicm and there will not be any fault with you.

I think it's SUPREMELY important that writers like JKR keep this sort of thing in people's minds. It's all too easy not to think about the more unpleasant aspects of humanity We must never, never forget what happened in Germany, it could happen again so easily. The people in Germany were not bad people, they were poor, they were humiliated and they were desperate and Hitler offered them employment, glory and a better life. Then, once he got elected, he slowly, slowly edged away from the 'liberal' policies he'd advocated, slowly, slowly increased his hold on the reigns of power until, before the German people knew it, he was in total control.

I agree completely, as with Aunt Marge's assessment that there is never a "too often." I know that as an American my opinion may seem a little misplaced as I can't pretend that I or any of my relatives were as affected as others in Europe with the events of WWII, but this reminds me of a occurrence that happened when I was middle school. My seventh grade literature class was doing a section on black authors and their writings for Black History Month, some of which included works that made references or parallels to slavery, though nothing was graphic or excessive (at least in my eyes). One girl's mother asked our teacher to stop teaching these writings because they "made her daughter feel bad." I realize I'm prone to be much more sensitive to this because I grew up in the South, but I can't stand but be slightly insulted when someone says something like this. It's understandable to feel uncomfortable; neither of these subjects are pleasant at all, but by ignoring them, pushing them aside in favor of happier things, they get lost in history and ultimately repeated. I have no qualms with JK making parallels to the events of WWII and I certainly don't think she ever ever intended to point out anything as ludicrous as "all Germans are bad." To me, remembering these events, whether in a history class or through literature, is absolutely necessary.

Edit to add: I would like to echo what PrezLeefun just added: No one who treats all people with respect and equality should EVER feel guilty about what happened in the past.

I thought it was good that she had Grindelwald's time coincide with Hitler's, to show that there were parallel things happening in the wizarding world.

Also of particular interest to me was the use of the sign of the Deathly Hallows by the evil wizard, in the same way that Hitler took an ancient and revered symbol (the swastika) and turned it into a symbol of evil. It made me wonder if Jo has studied the history of the swastika pre-1930's.

I don't think the allusion to Hitler trivializes nazism, nor is it a knock on Germans. The connection to Voldemort (who is a modern, English wizard) is meant to show that ideas such as the superiority of "pure blood" have always led to horrors when allowed access to power. I do think in a way Jo is trying to show her young readers that standing by and allowing evil to spread means people you care about will die.

Nobody said it shows all Germans in a bad light, some (including me) just wondered if it's appropriate to include Nazis as 'the' bad reference.

Gregorovitch: Hi wife speaks German; that's why some assume he's German as well although it's no German name.

I dont think she was refer to germany exactly. as we saw it is the wizard world that effects the muggle world so grindlewald was only german to show the link between the two events (WW2 and Grindlewalds rise to power). wehreas the other similarities between what happened in WW2 was just because this war brought so much fear about and JKR needed to show this to the reader

I personally thought Gregorovitch was probably Russian. I also caught the allusion to the swastika - which was an almost universal 'good luck' sign prior to the 1930s. It will take the Germans a long time to outlive the stigma of WWII, just as the U.S. southerners have not yet outlived the stigma of slavery (house elves?), even though there have been no slaves in the U.S. for six or seven generations. It is a lesson that cannot be forgotten, and shouldn't be avoided just because it makes some people uncomfortable.

I was not uncomfortable with it, but I understood the parallel.

I think, actually, that JKR had answered a question prior to the book about Grindelwald and Hitler, and had said something about trouble in the Muggle World usually coinciding with trouble in the Wizarding world (i.e. Grindelwald and Hitler both had their downfall in 1945). So I just assumed that the entire "Wizards are better than Muggles" was intentionally supposed to be similar to the attitudes of people during World War II.

I don't think that it showed Germans in a bad light, and I actually don't think that it showed general socialism in a bad light. I think it showed what happens when power falls into the wrong hands, and when socialism is used in these scenarios. I definitely caught some of the obvious parallels in this message, but I think that the things which happened in DEathly Hallows are inevitable in a war based on power and racism. The government was corrupted; Umbridge actually struck me as the epitome of a Nazi. But I think certain things (the questioning about heritage, for example, or the statue of wizards sitting on the Muggles - both have real-world parallels) are inevitable when you're fighting based on race or prejudice.

I hope that made sense. :)

But she didn't insert bits of the Third Reich into her books! I want to repeat this once more The only valid connection to WWII JKR had to the Potter universe was that Grindelwald had a hand in creating that war. That was the only definite connection.
I don't know how the allusions to the concentration camps, Nuremberg, eugenics, and Hitler escape you, but they are most definitely there to remind us of World War II. I don't know, maybe Rowling thought that throwing in a bunch of comparisons to the Nazis would spare her some tedious work on actual plot and character development.

I have lost a lot of respect for her because of this. I have thought her to be one of the most imaginative writers today. She could have done much better without piggybacking on decades of the tried and true "Nazis are evil" demagogy.

What a strange comment. Should you NOT be hateful towards the crimes that the Nazis commited?
Am I refuting that Nazis, and many other during WWII have committed terrible crimes? No. I simply think dwelling on it is spiteful. In personal life, do we constantly look back on the worst events that had ever happened to us? No, because that is unhealthy and destructive. Why should world history be any different? Yes, it is important to know what happened, learn from our mistakes, blah blah blah, but at the end of the day, constantly dwelling on genocides and exodia and enslavement and other crimes against humanity is only going to generate more hatred.

I don't know how the allusions to the concentration camps, Nuremberg, eugenics, and Hitler escape you, but they are most definitely there to remind us of World War II. I don't know, maybe Rowling thought that throwing in a bunch of comparisons to the Nazis would spare her some tedious work on actual plot and character development.

I have lost a lot of respect for her because of this. I have thought her to be one of the most imaginative writers today. She could have done much better without piggybacking on decades of the tried and true "Nazis are evil" demagogy.

So how do you write a book that relates to matters that took place in the '30s and '40s and NOT address the events of WWII? Would you say Nazis were just misunderstood? The book is written about events in Europe and takes into consideration European history. The type of events in European history are not unique. Concentration camps, ethnic cleansing, eugenics, mindless cruelty etc. have happened all over the world. She could just as easily have referenced Stalin's Soviet Union, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Idi Amin's Uganda, or any number of other places - so much of recent history has been whitewashed to keep from making anyone uncomfortable.
Further, I think a couple of lessons CAN be learned by continually reminding society of what mankind is capable of - we think we are so far above and past the cruelty and barbarity that has plagued our history. But in fact, that potential is always with us. One of the lessons we must, *must* draw from that dark time in our recent history is that if so rational, modern, educated, industrious and honorable people as the Germans can suffer a period of national insanity, it can happen just about anywhere.

I dont see any WWII references. The Death Eaters and Voldemort represents all the evil prejudice people in the world; people who hate and look down upon others just because they are different from them, this includes the Nazis, the KKK, the Jihadists, and much much more.

Our perception of what the DEs are based on is caused by our personal experience, but in the end they are the same. You related them to the Nazis because you are German, just as well as someone will relate them to the KKK because they live in the US.

I don't think it's a coincidence that Dumbledore defeated him in 1945, same year the Germans surrendered in WWII.That's interesting actually - perhaps she was suggesting that wizards were fighting that war the same way muggles were? And that the wizards were actually more pivotal to the war than muggles...

Anyway, I didn't pick up on any anti-german tones in the book. I didn't even realise those names sounded german, I was actually thinking they were closer to russian, like Igor Karkaroff. To be honest, I didn't even pick up on the similarities between the book and the Holocaust either. I was just thinking it makes sense, that it was exactly what Voldemort would do if he had acquired governmental power.

My countrymen were also victims of the Holocaust, and yet I do not share your sentiment.

All right. I respect that. I guess everyone feels differently and has different experiences.


Am I refuting that Nazis, and many other during WWII have committed terrible crimes? No. I simply think dwelling on it is spiteful. In personal life, do we constantly look back on the worst events that had ever happened to us? No, because that is unhealthy and destructive.

It all depends HOW we look back on the past.

If we look back and tell ourselves "This is terrible, we will never change, humanity is evil, there is no point in us even thinking we will be different" - that would be unhealthy and destructive. It would depress us into passivity, and we will be doomed to repeat history.

If we looked at the past and told ourselves, "Look at what we are capable of, we have to make sure this never happens, let me look around me and see if I recognize the signs of this happening today, let me make sure I never become like this" - that is encouraging us into activity.

Also, while I respect that you don't share my sentiment that there is no "too often," I'm also not sure why you find "too often" spiteful. If it caused us to hate people, i.e. focusing on the Holocaust leading people to hate Germans - that would be spiteful. But everyone on this thread keeps on reiterating that Jo did not suggest that, and that they don't think that Germans are bad - just Nazis.

I'm sorry if I sounded patronising or something, that really wasn't my intention
Oh no, I was being quite sincere. I've been trying to make this point for the last X number of pages, but all people keep piping up with is "JKR isn't anti-German you know". She's obviously not anti-German. That wasn't my point (as so many people have missed).

By making strong comparisons with WWII JKR gives people the opportunity to think "Maybe Grindelwald and Hitler worked together? Maybe Hitler was under the Imperius Curse? Maybe he wasn't such a bad guy after all". That, to me, is utterly offensive.

At least you get it.

Oh no, I was being quite sincere. I've been trying to make this point for the last X number of pages, but all people keep piping up with is "JKR isn't anti-German you know". She's obviously not anti-German. That wasn't my point (as so many people have missed).

By making strong comparisons with WWII JKR gives people the opportunity to think "Maybe Grindelwald and Hitler worked together? Maybe Hitler was under the Imperius Curse? Maybe he wasn't such a bad guy after all". That, to me, is utterly offensive.

At least you get it.

Ah yes, I see what you mean now. That is utterly offensive, but there is no evidence to suggest it other than the fact Grindelwald was defeated in 1945.

I didn't feel they were references to WWII but to any evil regime. It reminded me more of 1984. I think it was important to remind people of the horror of those types of governments. Also Gregorovich to me doesn't seem evil. He was just holding the Elder Wand and it was stolen.

No, I think the references were definitely Nazi. In fact, I thought JKR was referring to the Nazis ever since the first time the terms "Mudblood" and "Pureblood" were used. The parallels between those terms and "Aryan" and "Juden" are remarkably blunt.

There are so many more clues, too. To wit:

Nuremburg = Nurmengard
Muggle-born Registry = Yellow mezuzahs bearing the legend "Juden"
Snape and Yaxley raising "their left arms in a kind of salute" (page 2) = "Heil Hitler"
Voldemort was a half-blood and denouncing any who weren't full blood = Hitler was a Jew and a failed artist and denounced Jews and art
Hallows or Horcruxes = Axis vs. Allies
The Order of the Phoenix = The French Resistance and related groups
The arrival of the second group of fighters (centaurs, thestrals, hippogriffs, Hogsmeade residents, etc.) = the Normandy Invasion
Placing Muggle-borns in Azkaban = Concentration camps
Dark Mark = Swastika
Destroying the Horcruxes = breaking the Four-Wheel Enigma code

And I could go on and on...

Gestapo's the secret police, Death Eaters fit more of the role of the SS.

I think you have the right of it there. The Gestapo were the police patrols (like the Snatchers) and the SS were the elite (like the Death Eaters).

Funny - because I felt the opposite! I felt the references to the Nazism just demonstrated how little society has progressed, and what a long way we have to go before genocide is eradicated. This makes the lessons of the time more powerful, not trivialized, in my opinion.

Exactly.
While I never really made the connection at all with German's, socialists, or nazis...we really have to admit that Voldemort is quite literally a magical hitler.

Personally, I found Voldemort FAR more similar to Hitler than Grindelwald.. Grindy didn't (at least not apparently) have the same dislike for "half bloods" taht Voldemort had.
He considered himself superior to Muggles, but wasn't out to KILL them, as Voldemort was....collateral damage, Grindy was fine with, but he wasn't out to KILL them and the halfbloods the way Voldemort was...Voldemort was going for Domination AND "Purification"...Grindy was just going for Domination, as I recall it.

I want it made clear that i find ALL these mindsets DISGUSTING...and i didnt' put all the quotes where i should have because i'm eating dinner while I type this....the attitudes of Grindelwald and Voldemort are reprehensible, vile and moronic...and unfortunately, they STILL persist today. in short....I found Voldemort (THOMAS RIDDLE) To be FAR worse than Grindelwald...who, in the end, may have found some remorse.

I'm not oging to say to Lighten up....but....from where I sit....The "German" in the story was vindicated.
Voldemort, on the other hand.....fully evil.

I saw, quite simply, well-written passages illustrating the destructiveness of power and racism, of man's inhumanity to his fellow man. I have always associated the death eaters with the American KKK, and its Nazi SS predecessors, and Voldemort as Hitler. I actually liked what she did because her books are a timely reminder of easily civilization could regress into that sort of behavior.

I can also imagine that Voldemort looked up to Hitler for his abilities in beaurocratic genocide and perhaps took lessons from him.

I highly doubt that Voldemort would ever look up to a *Muggle* for any reason, even if they did share sentiments and attitudes.

I think it's SUPREMELY important that writers like JKR keep this sort of thing in people's minds. It's all too easy not to think about the more unpleasant aspects of humanity We must never, never forget what happened in Germany, it could happen again so easily.

I disagree, whilst works of fiction are of course, platforms from which to learn and grow, it is the job of teachers, parents, governments etc to "keep this sort of thing in people's minds". Infact, the job is less to keep in mind past events than it is to instill in people a proper sense of wrong and right. A lot of people seem to be getting on their high horses in this thread saying that "Nazism should never happen again" which proves my earlier point that Western's generally know nothing about current events that mirror the horrors of WWII Germany. Sorry, I know this is obviously going slightly off topic.

But she didn't insert bits of the Third Reich into her books! I want to repeat this once more The only valid connection to WWII JKR had to the Potter universe was that Grindelwald had a hand in creating that war. That was the only definite connection.

If you choose to read into the books so literally, you will lose a lot of the underlying messages and themes of the story.

I don't know, maybe Rowling thought that throwing in a bunch of comparisons to the Nazis would spare her some tedious work on actual plot and character development.

My point exactly. My early point indicates this also, JKR took the easy way out.

By making strong comparisons with WWII JKR gives people the opportunity to think "Maybe Grindelwald and Hitler worked together? Maybe Hitler was under the Imperius Curse? Maybe he wasn't such a bad guy after all". That, to me, is utterly offensive.

I see your point and yes that would be offensive but I doubt that many readers will look into the parallels with that much depth. Something made quite obvious by the replies in this thread.

Maybe it's because I'm German, or maybe it's because I'm utterly humourless when it comes to these sorts of allegories.

I couldn't help but feel that the obvious references to National Socialism were a little bit over done. I felt rather uncomfortable whenever another reference came up. Oh and Grindelwald and Gregorovitch just had to be German, didn't they?

How did everyone else feel? Maybe I need to lighten up.

I'm German too - and it didn't bother me a bit. What's more evil than Nazis? Nobody. They didn't invent it, but they certainly perfected a few techniques.

This sort of "ethnic cleansing for the greater good" has a long and ugly history. Racism is always ugly, whether it's cultural or political. I don't have a problem with her alluding that particular case of it.

As an American, I could also be offended by the allusion of Colonial slavery in regards to house-elves. But I won't be. Because it's ugly and people should see how ugly it is.

"For the Greater Good" was carved in the entry way to Nuremgard, the prison that held Grindelwald's opponents, just like "Arbeit Macht Frei" at Auschwitz. Grindelwald had his own concentration camps, it seems.

For me, the references to National Socialism were all too obvious.

When I see the words "National Socialism" - I don't think Nazis. Socialism isn't Nazism. Not sure what is meant by "National Socialism" in Germany.

There were many allusions to Nazism in the book. Yes. I agree. And they were very obvious.

I believe that "Nazi" is either an acronym or shortened version of the German term for the National Socialist Party in Germany during the thirties and forties.

Exactly.
While I never really made the connection at all with German's, socialists, or nazis...we really have to admit that Voldemort is quite literally a magical hitler.

Personally, I found Voldemort FAR more similar to Hitler than Grindelwald.. Grindy didn't (at least not apparently) have the same dislike for "half bloods" taht Voldemort had.
He considered himself superior to Muggles, but wasn't out to KILL them, as Voldemort was....collateral damage, Grindy was fine with, but he wasn't out to KILL them and the halfbloods the way Voldemort was...Voldemort was going for Domination AND "Purification"...Grindy was just going for Domination, as I recall it.

Other than the DH symbol being a possible allusion to the swastika and the fact that he was defeated in the same year as Hitler, (and the Nuremberg thing) there is no evidence to suggest Grindelwald and Hitler were in any way alike. Besides, Grindelwald showed remorse. Also, Grindelwald, as is shown, didn't necessarily want to create a Muggle Holocaust like Voldemort did. He just wanted to prove once and for all that wizards were above Muggles, and forever make Muggles fear wizards.

If it was bothersome, I found it bothersome because it seemed a bit cheap. The Nazi allegory has been done to death (no pun intended). For a writer who is so imaginative in some areas, I found this aspect of the narrative a little lazy, frankly.

So how do you write a book that relates to matters that took place in the '30s and '40s and NOT address the events of WWII?
Oh, I cannot imagine how a fantasy book about wizards and witches in England in the late 1990s can possibly work without referencing Nazi Germany. I don't know, the past six book certainly did a pretty good job, wouldn't you agree?

Would you say Nazis were just misunderstood?
Oh, lovely. I say that I am against the endless platitudes about World War II that work their way into literature and other forms of what could loosely be called art, and so I must be a Nazi sympathizer?

The book is written about events in Europe and takes into consideration European history.
So if I wrote a book about an event in America, it would have to include George Washington, the Alamo, and a bunch of cowboys? This is a children's book about magic. World War II has no place in it, if only for the sake of good story-telling.

The type of events in European history are not unique. Concentration camps, ethnic cleansing, eugenics, mindless cruelty etc. have happened all over the world. She could just as easily have referenced Stalin's Soviet Union, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Idi Amin's Uganda, or any number of other places - so much of recent history has been whitewashed to keep from making anyone uncomfortable.
Yes, sure, but what does that have to do with a wizarding boy named Harry Potter and a Dark Lord who is trying to kill him to ensure his own immortality?

Further, I think a couple of lessons CAN be learned by continually reminding society of what mankind is capable of - we think we are so far above and past the cruelty and barbarity that has plagued our history. But in fact, that potential is always with us. One of the lessons we must, *must* draw from that dark time in our recent history is that if so rational, modern, educated, industrious and honorable people as the Germans can suffer a period of national insanity, it can happen just about anywhere.
Who exactly thinks we are so far above the brutality of the older societies? We all know what mankind is capable of, we all know the crimes people have committed against each other. Your theory, I'm getting, is that if we trumpet these instances of cruelty enough, people will cease to act according to their inherently selfish nature and make the world a peaceful place? I disagree. Better waste your energy on doing something productive and beneficial to the world than just complain about how base and terrible our society is.

I had a good laugh at the German parts where they spoke German. I'm German, too and it was a little uncomfortable to think about the references.

It almost ruined the book for me, really. It's supposed to be a fun type book that people should be able to enjoy freely. I didn't want to let it become to serious, so I didn't link it that way.

If it was bothersome, I found it bothersome because it seemed a bit cheap. The Nazi allegory has been done to death (no pun intended). For a writer who is so imaginative in some areas, I found this aspect of the narrative a little lazy, frankly.

I was a little surprised that the WWII allusions I had thought of in the last six books came to fruition, given how obscure JKR's allusions usually are, to be honest. Seriously, just look up the quotes JKR has at the start of the book, I had never heard of either of their sources...

I didn't even notice it until it was pointed out now. I think it a deliberate drawing of similarities but wasnt intentional on such a level. I think it was just to show that the muggles and wizarding world share similar power struggle troubles.

I didn't even notice it.

Uhhhhm. Wow?

Erm, I'm not German but I actually really liked it ._.

No there were obvious references to WWII and the Nazi regime under Adolf Hitler. Especially the Ministry of Magic stuff. That was uncannily like the Gestapo police under Hitler's command. When Harry, disguised as Runcorn, threatens someone by saying that he'll have his bloodlines checked for Muggle blood, that was exactly what they did during the Holocaust, except they were checking for Jewish blood. This was another very political book, showing what happens under a dictatorship. Voldemort was essentially the Hitler of the Wizarding World, trying to rid the world of blood that he deemed inhuman.

There were so many other references to WWII in this, don't worry, it's not there by accident.

Oh, I cannot imagine how a fantasy book about wizards and witches in England in the late 1990s can possibly work without referencing Nazi Germany. I don't know, the past six book certainly did a pretty good job, wouldn't you agree?

But this book was about Dumbledore as a young man, and the challenges he faced, and the evils he had to battle when he was young. I think having a mirror wizard war for WWII is an excellent perspective. This book was more serious than the others, and it made the fictional, distant deaths more serious by putting them in parallel with real deaths.

Also, while I respect that you don't share my sentiment that there is no "too often," I'm also not sure why you find "too often" spiteful. If it caused us to hate people, i.e. focusing on the Holocaust leading people to hate Germans - that would be spiteful. But everyone on this thread keeps on reiterating that Jo did not suggest that, and that they don't think that Germans are bad - just Nazis.
I agree with your other points (I didn't quote the whole post because I don't want to take up more space than I need to), but I do stand by what I said about "too often" having more adverse effects. Yes, we should know our history and learn from it, but I believe that focusing on it too much is problematic, and I do believe that it creates hatred and divides people. Look at Japan and China. Look at the French and the British. Look at the countries of former Yugoslavia. People of one nation hate the people of another because of what happened generations ago.

Maybe the adverse effect I am talking about is prominent only when you are related to the conflict, either through the ties of blood or geography; I am not sure. But I have witnessed and felt the effects of dwelling on history, and I can assure you that it only perpetuates the problem.

But this book was about Dumbledore as a young man, and the challenges he faced, and the evils he had to battle when he was young. I think having a mirror wizard war for WWII is an excellent perspective.
The Nazi parallels were divided between Grindelwald and Voldemort. Either way, Dumbledore's youth ended more than half a century before WWII.
This book was more serious than the others, and it made the fictional, distant deaths more serious by putting them in parallel with real deaths.
No. It made them cheaper, as it gave the feeling of the author borrowing from other sources so as not to bother with thinking up the characteristics of her villains herself.

Being part German, the references didn't bother me. She set it in a time frame that made sense to me. Being a totalitarian nutcase is not soley a Hitler thing; there have been lots of despots in the history of the world. I harken back to the discussion in HBP where DD is telling Harry about despots; it started a framework for the story of Grindewald. Hilter wasn't the first, nor the last, to think of ethnic cleansing and running the world. That, to me, was the story to take from it. Constant Vigilance!

You do have to lighten up.

I thought it was more closely paralleled to 1984 anyway.

It all seemed very English to me. Coming from a place outside of Europe totally (I live in New Zealand) I'm also 46 and the entire series strikes me a kind of modern take on the sort of english children's stories I grew up with in the 60s. The fight against fascism, the boarding school, the cruel relatives etc etc. Post-war stories in other words. And I can see how someone from Germany could feel uncomfortable.

By making strong comparisons with WWII JKR gives people the opportunity to think "Maybe Grindelwald and Hitler worked together? Maybe Hitler was under the Imperius Curse? Maybe he wasn't such a bad guy after all". That, to me, is utterly offensive.

At least you get it.

So, what you're saying, is that because it's so vague, and because it's not specifically stated either way, that it's offensive to you?

I don't think it's JKR's fault if other people infer things from her work that is simply not there. Yes, there is a paralell between the the nature of Voldemort's regime and the SS, that's obvious. But I don't think that it's even stated, or subtly hinted that Grindelwald imperused Hitler. I don't think it's JKR's fault if you or anyone else comes to that.

I agree with your other points (I didn't quote the whole post because I don't want to take up more space than I need to), but I do stand by what I said about "too often" having more adverse effects. Yes, we should know our history and learn from it, but I believe that focusing on it too much is problematic, and I do believe that it creates hatred and divides people. Look at Japan and China. Look at the French and the British. Look at the countries of former Yugoslavia. People of one nation hate the people of another because of what happened generations ago.

Maybe the adverse effect I am talking about is prominent only when you are related to the conflict, either through the ties of blood or geography; I am not sure. But I have witnessed and felt the effects of dwelling on history, and I can assure you that it only perpetuates the problem.


The Nazi parallels were divided between Grindelwald and Voldemort. Either way, Dumbledore's youth ended more than half a century before WWII.

No. It made them cheaper, as it gave the feeling of the author borrowing from other sources so as not to bother with thinking up the characteristics of her villains herself.

The thing I don't get is why you seem to think that Jo was directly referencing WWII in Deathly Hallows. Like I and others have said, just because Lord Voldermort's reign is similar to what the Nazi's did in WWII does not mean she was using that as inspiration. Similar situations have happened throughout history that mirror what the Nazi's did...albeit not in as large a scale as they, but still it's happened.

To say that DH is directly paralleling WWII would be to say that ANY book that features a fanatic dictator/political group trying to take over a country would parallel WWII.

Like I've said before, do you think V for Vendetta directly referenced WWII? Because in that graphic novel and movie, it showed a fanatic dictator taking over Britain and putting anyone who wasn't heterosexual or Christian in concentration camps. But, if you think that particular book was based off WWII you would be quite wrong. Alan Moore wrote it as a cautionary tale when politicians in Britain were considering quarantining all homosexuals because of the outbreak of AIDS.

You see, just because books that have similar villains or climates in their plot it does not mean it had to be influenced by WWII.

Maybe it's because I'm German, or maybe it's because I'm utterly humourless when it comes to these sorts of allegories.

I couldn't help but feel that the obvious references to National Socialism were a little bit over done. I felt rather uncomfortable whenever another reference came up. Oh and Grindelwald and Gregorovitch just had to be German, didn't they?

How did everyone else feel? Maybe I need to lighten up.

I don't know about Grindelwad, but I think Gregorovitch is a Slavic patronym. At least I know the Russians use them, usually in the place of a middle name. Father's first name, and vitch if you're a guy, and ovna if you're a girl. First name, Gregorovitch, son of Gregory, last name.

Yeah, that part of them finding the Muggle borns was pretty obvious. Although they forgot the stars they used to mark them with. It made me very mad, in a way that reading real history never did, probably cause I knew Dean Thomas, and Tonks, that I got to like Ted Tonks, even though he only showed up once, and it seemed so not right, they were great characters, good people, good friends, they shouldn't have to be in hiding.

And besides, Voldemort was British.

You see, just because books that have similar villains or climates in their plot it does not mean it had to be influenced by WWII.

No one can prove that it wasn't influenced by WWII either.

No one can prove that it wasn't influenced by WWII either.

Exactly. And taking offense to the book because it might have been based upon WWII seems a bit silly.

...Oh and Grindelwald and Gregorovitch just had to be German, didn't they?

How did everyone else feel? Maybe I need to lighten up.

Well, Gregorovitch was not a bad character - he was a gifted wandmaker. I liked that the characters were something other than British (why no Americans?!?! just kidding). And, I didn't realize he was German except I got a clue that he might be when the woman who was inhabiting his former abode spoke German. I thought he hailed from wherever the Bulgarian, Viktor Krum, was from.

As for Grindelwald, I didn't realize he was German either since Victor Krum attended the same school as Grindelwald did. I assumed the Durmstrang was in Bulgaria, or somewhere thereabouts. In the movie, their dress did not strike me as Germanic; I thought they looked kind of Russian or Slavic.

So, to my eyes the German connection did not come across heavy handed. In fact, I kind of missed it (except for the obvious parallel tactics of rounding up and registering muggles which is done with all genocidal governments).

I think that her message about racial cleansing is relevant to our times, not just to mid 20th century Germany. Someone mentioned Darfur. What about Cambodia (Killing Fields, anybody?)? What about Serbia? What about Rwanda? For some reason, our collective conscious seems to reflexively associate genocide to Nazi Germany, as if it's a thing of the past and not relevant to our current times. Not true - it remains a current abomination.

BTW, when I read "for the greater good", I thought of Stalinist Russia since their propoganda was all about the collective good being more important than individual rights.

You see, just because books that have similar villains or climates in their plot it does not mean it had to be influenced by WWII.
And you see, there is a difference between an influence and a reference. I never once said that the wars of the Potter books were predicated on World War II. As for the references - and I am sorry if you feel I am insulting you by saying this - they are painfully obvious.

And you see, there is a difference between an influence and a reference. I never once said that the wars of the Potter books were predicated on World War II. As for the references - and I am sorry if you feel I am insulting you by saying this - they are painfully obvious.

Why do you feel they're so painfully obvious? That's my question. What Lord Voldermort is doing in this book is not unlike what any dictator in power does. He discriminates against one group to gain favor with, what he believes, is the more powerful group.

I stated an entire example about a book that has even more in common with a WWII like scenario, and yet it wasn't meant to reference WWII, just as 1984 wasn't a reference to WWII.

Dictators coming to power and discriminating, and even attempting to kill off certain races or groups of people is a recurring theme in literature, and every time it comes up in a book doesn't mean it's specifically related to WWII.

If this many people felt uncomfortable reading about a parallel to Nazi-ism and genocide.....well then, I think Jo hit her mark.

you SHOULD feel uncomfortable reading about that. It is terrible, sickening stuff! Yet, I think it was very eloquently written in a way that says, "Look what happens when the bad guys take over, don't let it happen!!" We must, must, must learn from the past.

I think she made this parallel because the Holocaust was, easily, THE MOST EVIL TIME IN HISTORY! Everyone agrees with this and can identify the event. She is trying to make the "evil" point crystal clear. Voldemort is the most evil wizard in history....ever!! The only way we can truly feel the fear and pain of these events is to be able to relate it to a real event that will forever scar the history of our human race.

(and to the Germans...no one thinks of Nazi's as Germans, or vice versa. We think of Nazi's as Nazi's. An evil breed of people all their own. It makes me really sad that you carry guilt. You shouldn't! The people who should feel guilty are all rotting in \/ [down there] \/ )

I don't know about Grindelwad, but I think Gregorovitch is a Slavic patronym. At least I know the Russians use them, usually in the place of a middle name. Father's first name, and vitch if you're a guy, and ovna if you're a girl. First name, Gregorovitch, son of Gregory, last name.
The formula would be taking the diminutive of the name. There are also the possessive suffixes - ov (off) and ova, but I don't know why there are two types of derivation, or, if there are still truly patronymical (which I doubt), which one would normally be chosen. I'm guessing it's regional?

So, what you're saying, is that because it's so vague, and because it's not specifically stated either way, that it's offensive to you?
It's not vague at all. If anything it's overstated. I've said before that I thought the comparisons were strong and, occasionally, clunky.

Besides, JKR has said that she intentionally referenced used WWII as a reference, so I'm not sure why this is still be debated:

JKR: I'm going to tell you as much as I told someone earlier who asked me. You know Owen who won the [UK television] competition to interview me? He asked about Grindelwald [pronounced "Grindelvald" HMM…]. He said, “Is it coincidence that he died in 1945,” and I said no. It amuses me to make allusions to things that were happening in the Muggle world, so my feeling would be that while there's a global Muggle war going on, there's also a global wizarding war going on.

It's not vague at all. If anything it's overstated. I've said before that I thought the comparisons were strong and, occasionally, clunky.

Besides, JKR has said that she intentionally referenced used WWII as a reference, so I'm not sure why this is still be debated:


I think the previous poster was asking if you were offended that there was a possibility that Hitler was under the Imperius curse, because Jo never specifically says what Grindelwald's involvement in WWII was.

Why do you feel they're so painfully obvious? That's my question. What Lord Voldermort is doing in this book is not unlike what any dictator in power does. He discriminates against one group to gain favor with, what he believes, is the more powerful group.

I stated an entire example about a book that has even more in common with a WWII like scenario, and yet it wasn't meant to reference WWII, just as 1984 wasn't a reference to WWII.

Dictators coming to power and discriminating, and even attempting to kill off certain races or groups of people is a recurring theme in literature, and every time it comes up in a book doesn't mean it's specifically related to WWII.

I have already made a point that the events that transpired in DH could have been related back to many different regimes or periods in history. However there are themes or instances that are obviously referencing WWII. Similarities with names, organisations have obviously evoked memories of WWII. For instance, whole instance of Nuremgard holds two WWII "references" if you will - the similarity of the name to Nuremberg cannot be debated and the "slogan" above the entrance to the prison is an obvious "reference" to the "slogans" written above the entrance to Auschwitz and other concentration camps. Yes, many regimes like the Nazi's have existed in history, but how many had heavily publicised "slogans" written specifically across entrances to town, prisons or camps etc? Stalin had similar "slogans" but were they widely known to be specifically carved over said entrances?

I don't understand why this is being debated. I am one who said previously that the references to WWII could have been to a number of other things in history or current times; regardless of that, it seems obvious that some things throughout DH have been based on WWII.

I have already made a point that the events that transpired in DH could have been related back to many different regimes or periods in history. However there are themes or instances that are obviously referencing WWII. Similarities with names, organisations have obviously evoked memories of WWII. For instance, whole instance of Nuremgard holds two WWII "references" if you will - the similarity of the name to Nuremberg cannot be debated and the "slogan" above the entrance to the prison is an obvious "reference" to the "slogans" written above the entrance to Auschwitz and other concentration camps. Yes, many regimes like the Nazi's have existed in history, but how many had heavily publicised "slogans" written specifically across entrances to town, prisons or camps etc? Stalin had similar "slogans" but were they widely known to be specifically carved over said entrances?

I don't understand why this is being debated. I am one who said previously that the references to WWII could have been to a number of other things in history or current times; regardless of that, it seems obvious that some things throughout DH have been based on WWII.

I should have made myself clearer. I was debating that LV's reign was based solely on WWII. I never was debating that Grindelwald was connected to WWII, in fact I was one of the people to point it out.

If this many people felt uncomfortable reading about a parallel to Nazi-ism and genocide.....well then, I think Jo hit her mark.

A lot of people who have posted on this topic (I being one) were not uncomfortable about the parallels, but feel that JKR's method of developing the plot, the mood and the characters were unoriginal. By piggybacking on the allusions to WWII, Hitler etc, she has found an easy way out of developing the story herself in a creative, imaginative way.

THE MOST EVIL TIME IN HISTORY!

If they could speak the 27,000,000 victims of Mao would disagree.

I should have made myself clearer. I was debating that LV's reign was based solely on WWII.

That is fair enough then. On that point, I quite agree with you. :)

I was debating that LV's reign was based solely on WWII.
JKR has said many times that Voldemot was based on Hitler.

If they could speak the 27,000,000 victims of Mao would disagree.


I digress...I am not a history major. I will re-phrase: the most evil time in history that most people can easily recognize and remember (figuratively if not literally)

p.s. could you send me a pm with a synopsis of this event? I am astounded I have never heard of it. terrible...

Why do you feel they're so painfully obvious?
We are talking about a series of books that is built, almost entirely, of allusions. This was evident from page one, when we found out the wizard with the white beard was called Albus. Knowing Rowling's predilection for this literary device, how can one read about Grindelwald's prison and not think of a concentration camp? How can one not notice the parallel between Hitler and Voldemort while they are both advocating the supremacy of groups they do not belong to? How can one not compare the systematic eradication of the less-pure to the Holocaust? I feel that Rowling has been very specific with these allusions, and I have no idea why you seem to think that the descriptions fit every single dictatorship that ever existed.

JKR has said many times that Voldemot was based on Hitler.

Yes, that doesn't surprise me, but I would like to know if Hitler was Jo's only inspiration for Voldermort, and if she was basing the way he inflicted his terror solely on WWII. Like others have said, certain parts of the book seem to echo 1984, and it would only stand to reason that JKR would use more then one influence when writer her story.

My whole point was that I didn't think the book was solely a veiled WWII message, and that when writers use a fanatical dictator like villain in their books it doesn't automatically mean that it's based off WWII.

I think that the parallels to WWII were very provoking. It was interesting to be thrust into a time of such complete terror. The scene at the ministry, where Umbridge accuses the Muggleborn woman of having stole a wand was especially poignant. It showed just how unreasonable bigotry can be, and this really got to me. I don't think that JKR can be faulted for bringing WWII into the story line, I actually think it was very intelligent of her. By immersing us in this horrible world along with characters we have grown to love and care about, she keeps us from being able to lapse into a sense of false security and the idea that such a thing is some how only see in history books.

If this many people felt uncomfortable reading about a parallel to Nazi-ism and genocide.....well then, I think Jo hit her mark.
Have you not been reading the comments of these many people? People are sickened by Rowling's cop-out.

I think she made this parallel because the Holocaust was, easily, THE MOST EVIL TIME IN HISTORY! Everyone agrees with this and can identify the event.
Good Lord. Misinformation and ignorance are not things Rowling should have taken advantage of.

We are talking about a series of books that is built, almost entirely, of allusions. This was evident from page one, when we found out the wizard with the white beard was called Albus. Knowing Rowling's predilection for this literary device, how can one read about Grindelwald's prison and not think of a concentration camp? How can one not notice the parallel between Hitler and Voldemort while they are both advocating the supremacy of groups they do not belong to? How can one not compare the systematic eradication of the less-pure to the Holocaust? I feel that Rowling has been very specific with these allusions, and I have no idea why you seem to think that the descriptions fit every single dictatorship that ever existed.

I'm not saying it fits every single dictatorship. Obviously Hitler was an inspiration for Voldermort, but my point was that many writers have villains very similar to the way Voldermort was portrayed, and it doesn't mean they're based solely on WWII.

I know that Jo intended WWII references in her book. I pointed out earlier in this thread that Jo had specifically stated Grindelwald had a hand in WWII.

Now, I don't think Jo intended to have what Voldermort was doing as a message agasint WWII and Nazi's, and I certainly don't think it in any way could be harmful to any group in real life.

Yes, that doesn't surprise me, but I would like to know if Hitler was Jo's only inspiration for Voldermort, and if she was basing the way he inflicted his terror solely on WWII.
Here's what JKR said:

Like Hitler! See! I think it's the case that the biggest bully takes their own defects and they put them on someone else, and they try to destroy them. And that's what he -- Voldemort -- does. That was very conscious -- I wanted to create a villain where you could understand the workings of his mind, not just have a 2-D baddie, dressed up in black, and I wanted to explore that and see where that came from. Harry in Book Four is starting to come to terms with what makes a person turn that way. Because they took wrong choices and he Voldemort took wrong choices from an early age.

Have you not been reading the comments of these many people? People are sickened by Rowling's cop-out.


Good Lord. Misinformation and ignorance are not things Rowling should have taken advantage of.


Ignorance is the key here! No offence to anyone. But this is the point I was trying to make earlier that the reasons for the association with WWII can be attributed (amongst others) to the fact that it is WWII that is generally taught in schools, it is WWII that is repeatedly publicised in Hollywood blockbusters etc. (Slightly OT but notice that when people have spoken of the situation in Rwanda they are quick to pull out Hotel Rwanda as a source? I don't know if it's sad that people are picking up information on history from a film or if it's good that a film is raising awareness about the events.)

Here's what JKR said:

Like Hitler! See! I think it's the case that the biggest bully takes their own defects and they put them on someone else, and they try to destroy them. And that's what he -- Voldemort -- does. That was very conscious -- I wanted to create a villain where you could understand the workings of his mind, not just have a 2-D baddie, dressed up in black, and I wanted to explore that and see where that came from. Harry in Book Four is starting to come to terms with what makes a person turn that way. Because they took wrong choices and he Voldemort took wrong choices from an early age.


That is very interesting. But it didn't really answer my previous question if Hitler was the only inspiration. What I got from her comments was that she wanted to make Voldermort a more real villian, like Hitler. One who has a reason for doing what he's doing.

It's not vague at all. If anything it's overstated. I've said before that I thought the comparisons were strong and, occasionally, clunky.

Besides, JKR has said that she intentionally referenced used WWII as a reference, so I'm not sure why this is still be debated:

Right, I think we're talking about two different things here.

One subject relates to Voldemort's regime acting in a way that's very very similar to Hitler's. Which it is. This I agree with you on. In fact, anyone who doesn't see this comparison simply doesn't have a very good knowledge about the events that took place in WWII because the similarities are numerous and blatant.

Unlike you, however, I did find not this clunky and it remains one of my favorite details of the book.

The other, completely different subject (and the one that I was referring to), is that Grindelwald imperused Hitler and he's not such a bad guy. This is simply not mentioned in the story. You drew that conclusion. Then you realized that others may draw that same conclusion and you became offended that others would think that. Even though you yourself thought of it first. Had you never thought that, you wouldn't be offended that others may as well draw that conclusion.

That conclusion though, is in now way supported by the text. Accept in relationships of time period and language. But that particular conclusion (Imperused Hitler) is not confirmed nore denied. Meaning, it's only there if you look for it. It's like the people who thought Snape was a vampire because of how he's described as "bat like." Those people want to make that connection so they find ways to make it so.

You found a connection that disturbs you, that doesn't mean JKR put it there.

ignorance...perhaps. Yet, you can't expect everyone to know everything about every evil empire in history. It doesn't make someone stupid. Personally, I know a bit more about history than just WWII, and yet the Holocaust will always come to mind first. Whether or not that is due to conditioned learning from school....it doesn't matter, the fact still remains that most people will think of that first.

I was simply pointing out that this is the most easily identified reference, which you seem to think is ignorance.

I didn't realize the argument had moved to whether or not Jo was coping out. I think she was just trying to make a point, and to reach as many people as possible with that point. It is her book, you know. I think she should be able to make analogies as she wishes without us judging the quality of her reference. Who are we to make that judgement?

i enjoyed it, made refference to the book. I like the idea that in our magical little world created; hitler was under the Imperius Curse By Grindelwald.

Offtopic : Some germans dont like the sterotypical view that is made by some movies etc. Because of someone in a past. I feel this was kinda because of the way Scots,like myself, are viewed on Televesion etc. Has Anyone been to Scotland? Do u realise we aint fat ginger men who wear skirts? i mean come on

ignorance...perhaps. Yet, you can't expect everyone to know everything about every evil empire in history. It doesn't make someone stupid. Personally, I know a bit more about history than just WWII, and yet the Holocaust will always come to mind first. Whether or not that is due to conditioned learning from school....it doesn't matter, the fact still remains that most people will think of that first.

I was simply pointing out that this is the most easily identified reference, which you seem to think is ignorance.

I didn't realize the argument had moved to whether or not Jo was coping out. I think she was just trying to make a point, and to reach as many people as possible with that point. It is her book, you know. I think she should be able to make analogies as she wishes without us judging the quality of her reference. Who are we to make that judgement?

I don't think it's ignorance, considering, if you had read all my previous posts you would see that I too indicated that WWII was the most easily identified reference.

And stupid? No, I never summised that about anyone here - young maybe, (bit rich considering I'm only 20) but not stupid. The thing I think is "stupid" for lack of a better word, is people justifying JKR's use of WWII as a (not THE) reference by saying "there is a need to educate readers about the tragedies of WWII so that it doesn't happen again" when it is indeed happening still, as it continued to after WWII.

The argument about her coping out is central to the discussion, atleast for me considering it was that which made me feel "uncomfortable" moreso than the actual allusions.

And as the reader, reviewers, fans and so forth of the series we do have the right to judge her work and the manner in which she has composed it. That's what literary criticism is all about.

A lot of people who have posted on this topic (I being one) were not uncomfortable about the parallels, but feel that JKR's method of developing the plot, the mood and the characters were unoriginal. By piggybacking on the allusions to WWII, Hitler etc, she has found an easy way out of developing the story herself in a creative, imaginative way.

I didn't personally feel that way. I felt that she developed the horror of the regime very well using her own words, and added references to WWII simply reinforced the message.

Truth be told, I'm not even sure how you can talk about genocide and oppression without sounding like you're referencing the Holocaust... or Stalinist Russia, or Pol Pot's Cambodia, or Darfur, etc. Talking about literary ethnic cleansing will sound like real incidents of ethnic cleansing.

I also think that the comparison to the Holocaust was the most stark because the books take place in Britain, which we seem to associate more with Germany in terms of culture and government than we do with Mao or Milosevic or other dictators, and that the style of Voldemort's tryranny was very cold, calculated, and bureaucratic (which I'm sure applied to other regimes, but seem to have become more associated with Nazi Germany).

Yes, that doesn't surprise me, but I would like to know if Hitler was Jo's only inspiration for Voldermort, and if she was basing the way he inflicted his terror solely on WWII. Like others have said, certain parts of the book seem to echo 1984, and it would only stand to reason that JKR would use more then one influence when writer her story.

My whole point was that I didn't think the book was solely a veiled WWII message, and that when writers use a fanatical dictator like villain in their books it doesn't automatically mean that it's based off WWII.

Well, I agree with you that I don't think that Voldemort is not solely based on Hitler, nor do I think that the books are solely meant to be an allegory of WWII. I do think, however, that certain incidents are supposed to remind us of WWII, as well as other terrible periods of ethnic cleansing.

Perhaps part of the reason we all disagree is that we may have a different semantic understanding of the term "reference." Some people may be thinking of it as a comparison, some may think of it as a direct allegory, etc.

I don't think it's ignorance, considering, if you had read all my previous posts you would see that I too indicated that WWII was the most easily identified reference.

And stupid? No, I never summised that about anyone here - young maybe, (bit rich considering I'm only 20) but not stupid. The thing I think is "stupid" for lack of a better word, is people justifying JKR's use of WWII as a (not THE) reference by saying "there is a need to educate readers about the tragedies of WWII so that it doesn't happen again" when it is indeed happening still, as it continued to after WWII.

The argument about her coping out is central to the discussion, atleast for me considering it was that which made me feel "uncomfortable" moreso than the actual allusions.

And as the reader, reviewers, fans and so forth of the series we do have the right to judge her work and the manner in which she has composed it. That's what literary criticism is all about.


ok, I see your point. I misunderstood a little (my own fault though, for not reading every single post). Hopefully though, people will connect the dots and see that what happened in WWII is still happening in some ways today (because I deffinitly agree with you there.) So even if they do 'only' see the Holocaust in Deathy Hallows, they will make the connection? One can only hope.

The other, completely different subject (and the one that I was referring to), is that Grindelwald imperused Hitler and he's not such a bad guy. This is simply not mentioned in the story. You drew that conclusion. Then you realized that others may draw that same conclusion and you became offended that others would think that. Even though you yourself thought of it first. Had you never thought that, you wouldn't be offended that others may as well draw that conclusion.
Whoa, whoa, whoa! I never for a moment said Grindelwald Imperiused Hitler. Wow. Please do not tell me what I thought or how my mind works. I would never talk to another member the way you just spoke to me.

I said was offended that OTHERS reached this conclusion and that MANY people have contemplated the links between Hitler and Grindelwald. I also suggested JKR should not have made the parallels so obvious to allow people to make these conclusions.

And on that note I'm taking a break from this thread.

Maybe it's because I'm German, or maybe it's because I'm utterly humourless when it comes to these sorts of allegories.

How did everyone else feel? Maybe I need to lighten up.

i personally think you need to lighten up, its not as if J.k. was on a personal vendetta against germans....

I think JK brought greater perspective to the HP mythos with the references--one that makes HP all the more relevant and engrossing. The references triggered many moments where my world history-wired brain chimed in with other parallels from Catherine the Great (Jews) to Andrew Jackson (Native Americans) to Somalia (violent tribal conflict), and especially to the atrocities being committed right now in Dafur. It illicited a greater investment in the HP universe and greater consideration of current world events. Even so, I think JK entrenched the plot themes well enough in the HP universe & mythos that it didn't feel as if she was stripmining history/the present in any way that conveyed a huge laspe in her own creativity.

I'm suprised that no one noticed from book 3 and on the veild references to a WW2 type ideal that voldemort had.

I think JK brought greater perspective to the HP mythos with the references--one that makes HP all the more relevant and engrossing.

Definately. I think that what JKR was trying to do was teach us that something like that mustn't happen again, but in a way that I think no Hollywood movie can do. Here, in the books, we see injustices commited against characters we love, and we see our favorite characters fighting this injustice, and it makes it all closer and more important to us.

So.. There is an implied connection between Grindelwald and Hitler. Grindelwald is for the extermination, or at least, extreme segregation of, non-magical people. Hitler is for the extermination and segregation of Jews. Does this imply that all Jews are non-magical? Please don't take this as a troll or flamebait question.

So I have been thinking about all this for a bit, and I found that I now have something else I find difficult...

There is a passage in a Terry Pratchett/discworld book where Vimes reflects about why people like conspiracy theories so much. It sort of goes like: If there is a conspiracy, it is them doing it, not us, so we are still the good guys, and they are the bad guys. But the truly horrifying thing is that most of the time they are us.
To me, one of the things that truly defies the mind about WWII and similar scenarios in history is that so many ordinary people somehow became them.

It doesn't even need to be the extreme of genocide. How many people, as little as 150 years ago, truly believed that women were of inferior intelligence and therefore incapable of advanced academic studies, despite proof of the contrary? (Alternatively, fill in the racial prejudice of your choice.)

This sort of thing is mirrored in the Harry Potter books by people like Ron - who definitely are among the good guys - being dead certain they know all about what house elves want, without ever questioning it, simply because they grew up with it. And lets face it, it is scary to face the thought that a central 'truth' you grew up with might not be true at all.

But when Voldemort rises to power and the pure-blood prejudice becomes government policy, it is quite plain that only the bad guys, them in short, believe in it. All the good guys are perfectly clear that it is all rubbish, or they are imperiused.
I can see why it needs to be like that in a children's book (good vs. evil and making clear what is what), but I can't help thinking that maybe that is too simple. After all, the lines were blurred before in Harry Potter, you know, there are more than just good people and Death Eaters...

But the truly horrifying thing is that most of the time they are us...

when Ron stood in front of the locket with the sword in his hand and the locket screamed: "i've seen your heart and it is mine" - i was truly truly scared that Ron would become one of "them".

OK I've not read the whole thread but here's my 2c worth (or 2p I guess)

The Nazi's do not have the monopoly on evilness - Hilter was not the first nor was he the last twisted megolomanic leader.

One thing that often annoys me in discussions about Hilter is when people say 'well he was a sociopath' 'Oh but he was psycho'. Yes well maybe but he was democratically elected, he had followers, he had people doing his bidding - just like Voldemort. Voldemort was a leader - a figure head but the important thing is the problems with society as a whole - the wizarding world had deeply ingrained prejudices & he exploited them.

Look at Hilter in a historical context - Germany was basically in the poo - they were broke WWI distroyed them as far as inferstructure & economy - they had reperations to pay as well as rebuilding, their currency was worthless. Then along came Hitler - he had ideas for making things better & a ready made scapegoat - prejudice of Jews was already there or else he wouldn't have been able to exploit it.
Leaders are nothing without a following.

The story of Voldemort also rings true with many an evil dictator - Mao, Idi Amin, Islamic extremist terrorist - they create a climate of fear & suspition & play on it.

I personally saw parallels with WWII and the beginnings of the Holocaust, but I honestly don't think anything in the books themselves suggests that the Muggle war and the rise of Grindelwald were actually connected in real time, and I think a few people might agree with me.
To be absolutely frank, the fact remains that Second World War events are the most well-known instances of just how awful the consequences of notions such as blood purity and racial inequality can be, and despite the resolutions passed by the UN and the declarations made by so many countries to the effect that things like this wouldn't be allowed to happen on their watch, they do still happen. The WWII themes have been present right from Book 1, but I honestly don't think that this was overdoing it at all.

and despite the resolutions passed by the UN and the declarations made by so many countries to the effect that things like this wouldn't be allowed to happen on their watch, they do still happen.
For further reference see 'Hotel Rwanda' ethnic cleansing on an huge mangatude

I am actually turned off by where this thread has gone to. People are now accusing Jo of copping out? ***.

We use all sorts of things to talk about important messages. Think of The Boy Who Cried Wolf. The story is about lying.... its a creative way of telling children the downfalls of lying.

Jo made a creative way of telling young people (the target audience) about genocide, prejudice, and ethnic cleasning. That is not a cop-out. Its genius.

Jo also told a number of other things in Harry's Story in a creative way. Why is she being racked over the coals by her readers for it?

I'm not so sure that people are being fair here.

Joanne Rowling had to make us see Grindelwald as a villian. She had little time to do this, just barely one half of a book. I have to assume that she villified him for a decent reason. She had to prove him a villian so Dumbledore's story made sense. You can't just make a villian from nothing. You have to look at his head, his mind, see where he's coming from, because not every leader in the world, every fascist and communist was pure evil. Pure evil is very hard to come by. Everyone is driven by something. As was Gridelwald, as was Voldemort. But Hitler? Hitler had a fairly horrible backstory, though I have no sympathy, and his childhood doesn't echo these characters in any way whatsoever. JKR picked the biggest villian our wolrd has ever, arguably, seen, Hitler, and looked at what made him the way he was. Then she emulated it, though not necessarily him.

I think the name Nuremgard, though obviously coming from Nuremberg, is not a slight on World War 2 and what happened during it at all. it's just a clever take on words. And it supports the notion of Nuremgard as the city of trials and justice, as opposed to the city of rallies during the late 30s and early 40s, which I think is good.

Joanne Rowling had ample time and opportunity to think this through, 17 years to be precise. She has written novels that target every sector of our societies, and involved in that, to a deep extent, is politricks and government. We saw in thte Order of the Phoenix how Fudge turned himself into something rather fascist, something so paranoid that he tried to become a dictator of sorts.

When a society has nowhere to turn to, an extreme leader can offer solace. After the fascism and communism of the 20s, 30s, 40s etc, books were written all over the world that targeted these views and versions of politricks. 1984? Animal Farm? These were genius stories, they made people sit up and listen.

I don't care what anyone says, Joanne Rowling has made a statement, a powerful statement, that the people who resist the power are often the ones who do the best job. That society will survive as long as someone realises fact for what it is. I find it refreshing that she didn't create villians of pure evil, like Sauron, but created something much more fragile with a cunnig mind.

If nothing else, with all her references (and, by the way, this book is not the only one with them), you should not be offended, and you shouldn't say this is a cop out. It's an interesting plotline with some back story that people today, given the enormous success of the stories, can finally see. I like the idea that Harry Potter may just have introduced a whole new generation to something that we've been trying to pinpoint for decades.

I don't see what harm it is to be reminded of it, really.
If our generation is reminded, then maybe we can stop it from happening again.
I think people here need to calm down and take it easy.

If you're going to talk abotu cop outs and THIS book, talk about CS Lewis, George Orwell, Leo Tolstoy, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Philip Pullman, Jane Austen and JRR Tolkien to boot.

I can only speak for myself, but for me this thread is about working out what, if anything, made me feel uncomfortable while reading the book with regard to possible WWII paralells, and especially about working out why it made me feel that way.
I do not feel offendend, nor am I saying anything is a cop out.

Frankly if people are feeling uncomfortable about the WW2 references then I feel the book has achieved something. When happened then has been repeated both before and since those events on varying scales and by various governments and leaders across the world. The more often we are made uncomfortable by the references the better IMO because the risk is always that if people are too comfortable it'll happen again.

Such prejudices can be made to seem reasonable by a charasmatic leader. Hitler was such a man but there have been others before and since. I'll say again that the scary thing isn't that such events can take place but that the people can let them.

I don't feel uncomfortable about the references because it reminds me on what had happened. I'm German, I'm a historian and I live in a town getting rid off aircraft bombs from WK II still almost every month. Also grannies like to talk about the topic quite often. I know very good what happens and didn't forget it. In fact I believe nowadays Germans are still affected by remorse (even if they couldn't have had anything to with it) by not feeling comfortbale to sing their (new) hymn, showing their flag etc. I feel uncomfortable with it being used that often in literature and movies simply as the biggest evil around. I think JK didn't make that 'qualitty' part to bad, but for the 'quantity' it appears I'm still upset. I think it trivializes a serious topic.

There was a major discussion once about in which ways the holocaust actually could be shown in literature and art and whether it is 'allowed' to do so at all. I strongly belive it is. But there are limits when you use it for your own purpose only, what I call use it to show somewhat evil no longer to be beaten. I still don't think JK does that too hard, but I still don' feel comfortable with the use at all. I don't hate it, but I had a 'again-moment' what should happen for such topics.

There are big differences for what reason you feel uncomfortable with things.

I am actually turned off by where this thread has gone to. People are now accusing Jo of copping out? ***.
Yes, strange, isn't it? I mean, why should we hold Rowling to her previous high standards and expect her to deliver original, creative fiction?

We use all sorts of things to talk about important messages. Think of The Boy Who Cried Wolf. The story is about lying.... its a creative way of telling children the downfalls of lying.
The key word being creative, which sadly does not apply to regurgitating the deeds of the Third Reich to convey the iniquity of your villains.

Jo made a creative way of telling young people (the target audience) about genocide, prejudice, and ethnic cleasning. That is not a cop-out. Its genius.
Couldn't she have told young people about genocide, prejudice, and ethnic cleansing without direct references to a specific event.

Jo also told a number of other things in Harry's Story in a creative way. Why is she being racked over the coals by her readers for it?
Rowling's creativity lies in her ability to combine thousands of already existing concepts and weave them into an original story without making it seem derivative - as each of those concepts are infused with her own ideas. The WWII allusions are, on the other hand, nothing but derivative. Reading it, I thought that Rowling strayed from the story of Harry Potter and started talking about World War II, changing the names and slogans very slightly to maintain an illusion of originality. It felt very awkward, forced, and (as another poster already pointed out) lazy.

On the whole issue of discrimination Jo also makes it quite plain that even "good" characters are not necessarily above that sort of behaviour as evidenced by James and Sirius (both children of privilege) making Snape's life a misery from the moment they clapped eyes on him; the Weasleys calm acceptance of the lot of House Elves and Dumbledore's youthful dalliance with Grindelwald.

I haven't read all of this thread, but just thought I'd put down some of my thoughts about this.

Personally, I didn't have a problem. It was very obvious, but had been a clear parallel right through the books, starting with the reference to Grindelwald's defeat in 1945. She has always paralleled wizard and muggle history (for example witch trials of the European middle ages). It makes it more real, like there is this world just a step away.

I feel VM was the one linked to Hitler the most. On trying to explain the war and persecution of muggle borns etc to my son, he got a history lesson that is necessary for all of his generation about the evil of seperativeness and racism/prejudice. I explained that Hitler himself was half Jewish (Jewish mother) but had committed genocide against the Jewish people, just like VM was half blood but would commit genocide against muggle borns, and go after the half bloods next given a chance. This is actually quite a complex reflection on human psychology and the nature of evil.

The references to fascism through dark wizards pure blood obsession have been there from day one, and clearly were always part of the plan. It is just one part of what makes the Harry Potter books so powerful - they combine creating a whole parallel world of complex imagination and escapism, and excellent story-telling, with really powerful and relevant morality tales, both personal and political, that children can only benefit from.

Morality tales and real history have always been put into "fireside stories" throughout human history to teach, guide and warn future generations in a compelling, entertaining and memorable way. It is the origin of all our mythology, legends and fairy stories. JKR has been a fine example of this tradition.

II explained that Hitler himself was half Jewish (Jewish mother) but had committed genocide against the Jewish people, just like VM was half blood but would commit genocide against muggle borns, and go after the half bloods next given a chance.
Hitler's mother was not Jewish.

Maybe it's because I'm German, or maybe it's because I'm utterly humourless when it comes to these sorts of allegories.

I couldn't help but feel that the obvious references to National Socialism were a little bit over done. I felt rather uncomfortable whenever another reference came up. Oh and Grindelwald and Gregorovitch just had to be German, didn't they?

How did everyone else feel? Maybe I need to lighten up.

To answer your question- no.

I'm German too- a large part on both sides. There's also a chunk of Irish there, which is probably why my hackles go up whenever the red-headed Weasleys (and yes, I know they are British) are mentioned as being poor and having too many kids.

Frankly, I found the references unsurprising- The Battle of Britain is a part of her national identity, if you will, and most writers do inject a bit of cultural bias into their work. It's only natural to write what you know- just as the Japanese have a longtime fascination with post-apocalyptic cultures, most Brits are going to drag this up whenever possible. I suppose it would bother me more if I was little more German.

As for Grindelwald and Gregorovitch being German- some naive part of me likes to think that JKR would rather have made them Americans (as we're such loud, uncultured brutes capable of gawd know's what all) but just didn't want to have Harry go that far.

(Pardon me if I sound flip and dismissive, but I have actually given this some thought and wanted to word my answer in a way that wouldn't be too provocative.)

As for Grindelwald and Gregorovitch being German
Gregorovitch is definitely a Slavic name. I have no idea why Rowling connected him to a German-speaking household.

But, there was a world war 2 reference all along, since we found out that Dumbledore fought Grindelwald in 1945.
i knew that jkr must have been basing some of the story on a nazi-ish storyline and she did.
first of all the mudbloods, which were treated like jews in the war, and then when they said that blood-traitors are as bad as mudbloods, i instantly thought back to the war, when people who associated or had associated with jews in the past were also sent to concentration camps, and only the "pure" remained.
also, nuremgard instantly made me think of nuremberg and the trials and i couldnt help thinking how much harry potter is connected with world war 2.

but then again, lord of the rings had a lot of imagery in it, referring to wars, especially as it was written, the bulk of it, during WW2. But because his plot didnt revolve around a race being an issue, and it instead revolved around the ring, then it pretty much went un noticed.

Personally, I thought that the references truly showed Voldemort's true intentions. And everybody upset about the "German" references, it is also quite possible that Grindelwald and/or Gregorovitch aren't German but.....Bulgarian? Remember Gregorovitch made Krum's wand, and Krum is Bulgarian, and Grindelwald went to Durmstrang, which is Krum's school. So isn't it probable that they are both Bulgarian and not German at all? As for the WW2 references, I believe that Rowling is showing us that tyrants, TRUE TYRANTS, always tend to make the same mistakes, and she is trying to give us a scope of the things by connecting them distantly to something that we have all learned about and are horrified by. I am mostly German myself and I completely disagree with what Hitler did, and I also realize that Hitler was NOT the voice of the collective German people. Most Germans followed him near the end for fear of their lives, and the same holds true for Voldy. I feel that the message she is attempting to convey is that if we do not learn from our past mistakes, how can we ever progress toward a brighter future?

but then again, lord of the rings had a lot of imagery in it, referring to wars, especially as it was written, the bulk of it, during WW2. But because his plot didnt revolve around a race being an issue, and it instead revolved around the ring, then it pretty much went un noticed.

Race was an issue.

Did Sauron not try to vanquish the world of men? He drove the elves across the sea to the Grey Havens, and he imprisoned and enslaved hobbits all over Hobbiton.

Race was a further issue in that every race joined to bring about the defeat of this ring.

JK Rowling took it further. She realised and noted that not every race would always be willing to do this.

Besides a load if fuss over nothing Grindelwald is in Switzerland not Germany & they were neutral!

I didn't manage to get through the whole thread,but I think that reading the first and the last page is quite enough...The reference of WW2 was not a way to condemn the Germans,but a way to symbolize how dangerous can people be,whichever race they may belong in...It's not important wherther you're from Germany of Greece if you're a rascist and agree with fascist ideals...The damage you will bring if you are negative with people of a different lineage to the civilization will still be the same.And as for Gregorovich being a German...well I've spent enough years in my life in a slavic country and now in the very end of the Balcans to be well aware of the fact that names that finish with an -ich are slavic...

Also,allow me to note that WW2 in probably the darkest spot in the western world's history.It was a happening of pure evil and as "evil is never quite eradicated",it has to be noted all the time to avoid situations like it once again...After all the nature of people will never change,will it?Now,at the beginning of the 21st century,with all the immigration,rasism should no longer have a place in the dictionary!!!If you look around you,espcially if you live in Europe or the US,you will see many people of a difference heritage than yours...Is it really important that they are darker in the skin, or that their eyes are smaller?Don't they breath,eat,ache and love just like you?

I believe that this is the concept that Jo is trying to subconciously slip in all of our minds...:)


By the way,
lord of the rings had a lot of imagery in it, referring to wars, especially as it was written, the bulk of it, during WW2. But because his plot didnt revolve around a race being an issue, and it instead revolved around the ring, then it pretty much went un noticed.


I saw a documentary film a loooong time ago (that's why I'm not so sure) on Tolkien and the time when he wrote the LotR trilogy...And I thought since then that he wrote it during the WW1,didn't he?

I'm not fixing to read 15 pgs. of this... so I'll basically just answer the question from my point of view.. did the references sit uncomfortably with me.... well... it would have to depend on what you mean uncomfortable.... did I notice the references... yes, I did. I have been aware of them ever since Malfoy called Hermione a mudblood in COS. Do they make me uncomfortable... not really. My family spent the entire duration of WWII either in hiding or helping people escape. I think that the references were obvious and yes, by using this in the plot... I think that it did re-open for many people that the entire idea of what Hilter and the Nazi's did was a gruesome and disgusting thing. Do I like what happened...NO CERTAINLY NOT, but does it make me uncomfortable... no... I noticed yes and I thought that the ref. where something that would most certainly make some uncomfortable. I have spent the better part of my life listening to my grandparents tell stories about WWII and having them tell us at the end of everyone... that we should pray and pray hard that the world learned something so that the atrocities of WWII would not be repeated.

Yes, strange, isn't it? I mean, why should we hold Rowling to her previous high standards and expect her to deliver original, creative fiction?


The key word being creative, which sadly does not apply to regurgitating the deeds of the Third Reich to convey the iniquity of your villains.


Couldn't she have told young people about genocide, prejudice, and ethnic cleansing without direct references to a specific event.


Rowling's creativity lies in her ability to combine thousands of already existing concepts and weave them into an original story without making it seem derivative - as each of those concepts are infused with her own ideas. The WWII allusions are, on the other hand, nothing but derivative. Reading it, I thought that Rowling strayed from the story of Harry Potter and started talking about World War II, changing the names and slogans very slightly to maintain an illusion of originality. It felt very awkward, forced, and (as another poster already pointed out) lazy.

Lets get something straight. There are many instances of enthic cleasing and geneocide. If Jo were an American author the story may have felt more reminicent of the South during slavery or the Native Americans here. If she were and African author it may have been more like apartide. If she were an Indian author it may have been referenced for "The Untouchables".

But Jo is European so she drew from a European history to make her point. But not ONCE did she ever reference WWII directly. That's we as readers got from it. That was our interpretation.

I saw a documentary film a loooong time ago (that's why I'm not so sure) on Tolkien and the time when he wrote the LotR trilogy...And I thought since then that he wrote it during the WW1,didn't he?

Nope. Lord of the RIngs written between 1937 and 1949. I had to go look that up for precision!!
Though Tolkien also furiously said time after time that the story had nothing to do with the war...

I don't know if I believe so much coincidence...

I didn't manage to get through the whole thread,but I think that reading the first and the last page is quite enough...The reference of WW2 was not a way to condemn the Germans,but a way to symbolize how dangerous can people be,whichever race they may belong in...I believe its not the reference to Germany people feel uncomfortable with but exactly with using WWII as symbol for the most evil - again. It's OK fopr the book Deathly Hallows, but what makes some feel uncomfortable is that it is not OK for showing and using and trivilazing the historical time. It's no big deal - just making people feel uncomfortable, not more.

And as for Gregorovich being a German...well I've spent enough years in my life in a slavic country and now in the very end of the Balcans to be well aware of the fact that names that finish with an -ich are slavic...People believe he's German because his wife speaks German in the books. The name is obviously slavic. :)

I don't feel uncomfortable about the references because it reminds me on what had happened. I'm German, I'm a historian and I live in a town getting rid off aircraft bombs from WK II still almost every month. Also grannies like to talk about the topic quite often. I know very good what happens and didn't forget it. In fact I believe nowadays Germans are still affected by remorse (even if they couldn't have had anything to with it) by not feeling comfortbale to sing their (new) hymn, showing their flag etc. I feel uncomfortable with it being used that often in literature and movies simply as the biggest evil around. I think JK didn't make that 'qualitty' part to bad, but for the 'quantity' it appears I'm still upset. I think it trivializes a serious topic.

There was a major discussion once about in which ways the holocaust actually could be shown in literature and art and whether it is 'allowed' to do so at all. I strongly belive it is. But there are limits when you use it for your own purpose only, what I call use it to show somewhat evil no longer to be beaten. I still don't think JK does that too hard, but I still don' feel comfortable with the use at all. I don't hate it, but I had a 'again-moment' what should happen for such topics.

There are big differences for what reason you feel uncomfortable with things.

I think that it is rather unfortunate that the German people still carry around guilt. I also understand that for you, the remnants of the Holocaust are still very present. For most non Europeans, the war is not seen. It didn't occur where we live, we don't have neighbors who have relatives who were taken away in the dead of night, these things just aren't a physical part of our reality. Unless WWII and the Holocaust are rehashed, it is very likely that people who aren't living with the vestiges in their backyards will forget. There are hundreds of websites out there that claim the whole thing was a fabrication by the U.S. government, and many people choose to believe this, because those not living in Europe are so far removed from the horrors that occurred there. Though it is sad, and I dont think it is something that you should live every day of your life feeling guilty over, I also believe that it should be written about over and over again so that no one can every forget what blind hatred and bigotry can lead to, especially for the innocent.

On finding this thread I was pretty hopeful that someone would brought this up with the force I believe it deserves but seeing nothing being discussed about it to the level of my liking I decided that you uncomfortable people needed a wake up call...



(Consider that as I write this that i'm extremely tired, cranky and fairly angry at the level of debate leading up to page 12 of this thread)


First off the NSDAP/NAZIS were an elected democratic party (lets remember they were elected to power and Hitler was permitted under the German President of the day to become chancellor, something that I'm sure the Minister for Magic would have never allowed for Voldemort). Voldemort's rise has much more in common, therefore, with the communist revolution of Russia under the Bolsheviks and Lenin. For just one example we can look to the resulting Russian Civil War that bares far more in similarity to the world of Harry Potter post-Voldemort's undemocratic rise to power and all the resulting problems in Russia thereafter.


This is not to say that Jo is entirely focused in an attack Communism because frequent parallels can obviously be drawn to the McCarthy era of American politics whereby all the dirty pinko reds (sounding a lot like mudblood, no?) were routinely rounded up and placed into camps. McCarthy, would evidently be the mirror of Pius Thicknesse, stirring up hatred, suspicion, and ill feeling within the general public under the complete control of big business so that wherever you looked a secret RED could be looking to steal all your hard earned possessions, all for their dastardly goals of equal redistribution (a lot like the claims that muggleborns were somehow stealing the magic from regular purebloods, isn't it?)


All of what has been previously mentioned in my post does not detract from the truth that there is a certain uncomfortable sensation apparent when reading the book, nor should it take away from the argument that there are close comparisons to be made with Nazi rule and the rule of Voldemort's death eater government, rather it should make the similarities between all the atrocities committed in our century even more apparent. World War II, concentration camps, and what we learned from the employment of extremist politics were all meant to serve as warnings for the rest of time, let alone our century. Somehow we managed to lose sight of that and once again we're seeing prisons being made for those that make us uncomfortable, detainment without trial for those that make us uncomfortable, men and women thrown into camps because their politics might be of a different nature than our own so that we can feel safe in our beds at night.


I say that we should confront the dark truths of our time just as Harry himself is forced to time and time again because the thing of it is, is that Jo isn't talking about one regime in the 1940's over what's happening today or what happened in the heartland of democracy during the 1950's. She's warning us about the overspill from all the terrible things that we've all done in the last century and have against all odds managed to ignore. She's warning us not to let all the darkness from what has come before spill into this new century. Yet almost inevitably the overspill has already occurred, people have ignored the hundreds of warnings made by poets, directors, writers, artists, actors, scientists, and anyone else that's seen what's coming and have resolutely closed their eyes and ears. Thus only opening them again, perhaps, to discuss amongst themselves whether one particular series of books chronicling the fantastic human ability to close our eyes and ears to the sounds and sights of a great train rushing towards us because it is making them uneasy with it's talk of a man and woman sitting on a throne of bones.

PS: I feel compelled to say that I have no allegiance to any of the groups or people that I defend in this post outside of my allegiance to the human race. Niether is this post positioned against the German people who perhaps feel singled out by all the attention that Jo suposedly gives to them in the book (at least the percieved attention), if I had my way the german people wouldn't have to feel quite the level of guilt that others always seem to allot them, rather I would point to the placing of blame as one of the main reasons that World War II began. As it is reasonable to expect most people to know; the reparations, hyper inflation, and loss of pride all served to create a climate in which the foul disease of fascism could spead through Germany with its unstable political system in the lead up to the massive swing towards the NASDAP. The countries who met at versailles aren't half as guilty as they should be for their part in sparking an event which has been giving evil people ideas ever since. The twentieth century was our century, all of us should be guilty and none of us proud.

Ah, I don't feel that way myself, but it is definitely a German thing to still carry around some guild. May become better with the next generation. This was mainly the answer to of why part people, who feel uncomfortable with the Nazi parts in the book, feel like this. It's not because we don't want to get reminded on that time. It's quite presence anyway. Its - for my taste - too presence in literature and especially movies as the only 'evil instance'.

While I strongly believe it shouldn't be forgotten I still think it shouldn't be used everywhere for everywhat - simple as that. It does neither help adequate memory nor letting it stay unforgotten if people just use it for their purposes. I do want the confrontation with history, but neither everywhere (it is overdone I believe) nor used for purposes others as should be intended only.

I realize this discussion has been going for a while, but I wanted to jump in and address Rotsie's original question - references to WWII? Other than Gregorovich the name sounding German, I didn't feel a connection to WWII directly. I think in all, Jo was trying to address the theme of many problems in the world that involve racism, prejudice and other themes. Unfortunately, that theme is not devoted soley to the events of WWII - our world has relived them over and over again. It is happening now in the middle east. Wanting a society to conform to one view is always going to be the problem.

I realize Rotsie, you are German, and it might be difficult to remember the not for long ago past. But I didn't think it was an obvious attack by Jo.

I agree with previous posters. I think JKR's intent may have been just to show that our history is not far behind us as we might think. I believe she was just framing it in a way that she knew.

I skimmed this thread so sorry if this was already mentioned but I don't see it as allegory, I see it as supporting the old adage "Those who forget their history are doomed to repeat it".
Also, the reference to WWII are unavoidable since the younger Albus was active around that time period.

Gregorovitch: Hi wife speaks German; that's why some assume he's German as well although it's no German name.

You think that woman was his wife? I didn't think so - Gregorovitch must be a good deal older, pretty old even. Grindlewald is about as old as Dumbldore, and did steal the elder wand as a young man, from Gregorivitch who was already an acclaimed wand maker. So he's rather a bit older than DD and GG, right? You think such an old man would have a woman with two small children? Maybe they're his great grandchildren or something, but in fact, I thought they had nothing whatsoever to do with him in the first place, showing once again how Voldemort kills people just for being around in the wrong moment, or this case: the house of someone who might have lived here fifty years ago.

I found it extremely interesting that Jo included the various elements associated with war. Something that stood out to me was the big poster of Fudge in the Ministry as well as the reference to "Undesirable Number 1". Those things brought back ideas of 1984 and the notion of Big Brother and were extremely intriguing aspects of the novel.

Well I felt horrible when Krum's school was being described as very dark and the headmaster was an ex Death Eater. I'm from eastern europe like Krum, and it wouldn't be the first time when I saw an eastern eutopean country being portrayed in bad light. However, JKR would have never meant that. It was just something she cam up with. Same was with DH, I'm sure. JKR would never insult someone like that.. we all know it..

Now what we should be mad about is Fudge aka Hitler in the OotP movie. If anyone is like Hitler, it's Voldemort.. not Fudge..

Maybe it's because I'm German, or maybe it's because I'm utterly humourless when it comes to these sorts of allegories.

I couldn't help but feel that the obvious references to National Socialism were a little bit over done. I felt rather uncomfortable whenever another reference came up. Oh and Grindelwald and Gregorovitch just had to be German, didn't they?

How did everyone else feel? Maybe I need to lighten up.

I don't remember the book saying anything about them being German. I remember saying they were from Transylvania, like Krum. Transylvania could mean Bulgaria or something.

The book is about war, a new powerful regime. I guess you could say it mirrored situations that have happened in the real world but I think that made it more realistic.

This has probably already been posted, but did anyone catch the similarity in name between Nuremgard Prison in DH and the NUREMBERG trials after WWII? I felt that was a bit of a rip off..

I don't remember the book saying anything about them being German. I remember saying they were from Transylvania, like Krum. Transylvania could mean Bulgaria or something.
Krum comes from Bulgaria.
Transylvania was never mentioned in the book and it is part of Romania. Furthermore is "Gregorovich" also no typical Transylvanian name and even if they were Romanians, it's very unlikely that they could speak so good German. Transylvanians on the other hand can speak German, but like that that is no typical Transyvanian name, not even a Romanian name.

I actually really liked the Hitler/Voldemort comparisons. Yes, there were some times when I thought it was a bit over-done, and too obvious, but mostly it just made everything more frightening. I think it really helped bring the story home, because you couldn't dismiss it as "just a fantasy that could never happen in real life" once you realize that something very similar did indeed happen, and not so long ago.

For me, there was one moment (I forget exactly when, but I think it was where you first learn about the attempts to "register" all Muggleborns) and I actually said out loud, "OMG, he's Hitler!"

I liked it, I thought it was nicely done, but I can also see how Germans might not be comfortable with it.

People believe he's German because his wife speaks German in the books. The name is obviously slavic. :)


I concur. The name is slavic due to the "vich," which could hint at all sorts of ancestry from Russian, to Bulgarian, to Ukrainian, etc. Also, it's not uncommon for Europeans, really anyone, to be multilingual regardless of their ancestry or their country of origin. I would think that many of the "high and mighty" dark wizards of JK's world would pride themselves on being highly learned of magic and things such as the languages that perhaps the most powerful spells would encompass. Also, it wouldn't be unheard of for a Wizarding family haboring certain notions of superiority to assimilate a language thought to be superior or that contains many of the most powerful spells, or for any Wizard simply to have been raised or learned to speak a language that is more versed in certain magical traditions. Like, if you wanted to deeply study certain Dragons in Eastern European countries and spells to control them, it would be helpful to learn the native tongue of the spell for things like meaning, pronunciation, intonation, etc.

I didn't notice the references at first, but on my second re-read, I noticed, that as early as page 8, the references begin--particularly to the socialist party.

Did anyone else catch that to get through the gate at the Malfoy Manor, they had to raise their left arm? And I picked up on the references, also, early in the series--the Death Eaters are branded with the Dark Mark, much as the victims of the Nazis were branded with serial numbers.

I wasn't neccesarily uncomfortable with the references, but it did certainly make me go back and think over the entire series--think about it. Two wars? An overlord who scares people into following him? A life service? The "greater good"? Cleansing the Wizarding race? How did I miss it before this book?

And the way that the wizarding families consider themselves "ideal" over Muggles...does that sound familar to the "pure" race of the Aryans? I'm not saying that all Wizarding families felt that way--the Weasleys, for instance, but there were obviously several people who felt that way.

I know these ideas have been said over and over, but the fact remains: J.K. Rowling was probably making a political point, which she's so much as said in some interviews.

I like the take on it, honestly but now I definetly have to re-read all the books and look for more similarities.

i have not read all the reply's to this but i will give it a go
personally there is reference to ww2 which i think only goes a reference to hoe severe the fight between good and bad was, a good reference as it fitted in with the harry potter timeline.
i also think that there will be many people out there who have little to no knowledge on ww2 and probably not relaise the comparision unless someone told them
i actually cant see how you would be offened by this as it is part of normal reality to have an evil side associated with that period of history in germany and is now used to give a mental picture of what evil is so it can be understood

I definately see some ties with Nazi ideas in the book. Also they bear a strong resemblance to the KKK. Like with the KKK the members hid the fact that they were DE by wearing the masks. They denied their being a DE in public, much like members of the KKK.

maybe i need to reread the book, but I don't think it ever portrays Gregorovich as being bad, he was just a good wandmaker that has the elder wand stolen from him. Grindelwald was also made to look good when he tells volde that he never had the wand. I think it's kinda turning into the same thing when I black guy dies and everyone says its a racist move. Say for example in transformers, people actually were saying that the movie was racist for killing Jazz. Yes his character portratyed some African-American stereo types but at the same time, how many white people died in that movie? Alot did.

i from northen ireland and there have been some nasty going ons here
in my view it is best to forgive but not forget what the past has shown us

and to let a childrens fantasy novel question our own political and social view i think is a testement to the writing of jk

Lets get something straight. There are many instances of enthic cleasing and geneocide. If Jo were an American author the story may have felt more reminicent of the South during slavery or the Native Americans here. If she were and African author it may have been more like apartide. If she were an Indian author it may have been referenced for "The Untouchables".

But Jo is European so she drew from a European history to make her point. But not ONCE did she ever reference WWII directly. That's we as readers got from it. That was our interpretation.
You're right: not once. A dozen times.

Europe has had its share of wars. Remember the Roman Empire and how it conquered a quarter of the world? They spent most of their time battling, yet I don't see a single allusion to that. Remember the Ottoman rule in Europe? Rowling could have borrowed a lot from them. The janissaries, for example, or the propensity to tax the "unbelievers" more heavily than those who agreed to convert. The Greeks, the Vikings, the Crusades, the Hundred Years' War, WWI, Fascist Italy and Spain... There is so much material to chose from. And yet, you are telling me that Nuremberg, sorry, Nurmengard, purity of blood, a symbol whose true meaning was mutilated by a dictator, Voldemort's less-than-pure parentage, Thicknesse's first name, and the use of German are not specific references to World War II?

Let me also point out that while allusion, in terms of a literary device, is indirect, the object of the alluding is not questionable. So even if you feel that the aforementioned instances of Rowling's WWII derivations are not direct enough, the connection is still there.

If this forum did karma, voldemolt14 you owuld be getting a big batch of it from me, cracking post!

yeah, we can only draw our own conclusions from the book, and add pieces that aren't exactly supposed to be added at times. Nothing states that Gregorovitch is german, or merely a person living in a German area, and I can't remember much to show that Grindelwald was German either. [even if Gregorovitch was...]

I actually assumed he was Bulgarian anyway, because of Krum's admiration of him. I doubt Jo would generalise such that the British [or British Isles] have one wandmaker, and the rest of Europe have another.

You're right: not once. A dozen times.

Europe has had its share of wars. Remember the Roman Empire and how it conquered a quarter of the world? They spent most of their time battling, yet I don't see a single allusion to that. Remember the Ottoman rule in Europe? Rowling could have borrowed a lot from them. The janissaries, for example, or the propensity to tax the "unbelievers" more heavily than those who agreed to convert. The Greeks, the Vikings, the Crusades, the Hundred Years' War, WWI, Fascist Italy and Spain... There is so much material to chose from. And yet, you are telling me that Nuremberg, sorry, Nurmengard, purity of blood, a symbol whose true meaning was mutilated by a dictator, Voldemort's less-than-pure parentage, Thicknesse's first name, and the use of German are not specific references to World War II?

Let me also point out that while allusion, in terms of a literary device, is indirect, the object of the alluding is not questionable. So even if you feel that the aforementioned instances of Rowling's WWII derivations are not direct enough, the connection is still there.


That does not mean she wasn't being creative. I dont like that her creativity is being put under fire. Using WWII indirectly as a tool to tell a story is all fine and well. This should not be about semantics of her historical sources; it should be about the semantics of the great lesson she is trying to teach.

That does not mean she wasn't being creative.
Au contraire, I believe it does.

I dont like that her creativity is being put under fire.
...Okay?

Using WWII indirectly as a tool to tell a story is all fine and well. This should not be about semantics of her historical sources; it should be about the semantics of the great lesson she is trying to teach.
This is a thread about Rowling's references to WWII, not her didactics. Personally, I feel ripped off. I buy fantasy books for their elements of *fantasy* and not the same old spiel about WWII being a tragedy.

Au contraire, I believe it does.


And on that you and I disagree. The best advice a literature teacher ever gave me was "Write what you know." Jo wrote what she knew.

This is a thread about Rowling's references to WWII, not her didactics. Personally, I feel ripped off. I buy fantasy books for their elements of *fantasy* and not the same old spiel about WWII being a tragedy.

As I have tried to say before I think she used WWII to provide edification for the reader. In my opinion that cannot possibly be bad.

I, unlike you dont feel ripped off at all. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. I welcome the reminder right along with the fantasy accompanying it.

And as for your use of "old spiel" you make said history sound like a used car, and Jo like the sleazy car salesman. Its not old spiel...its the plain truth.

Maybe it's because I'm German, or maybe it's because I'm utterly humourless when it comes to these sorts of allegories.

I couldn't help but feel that the obvious references to National Socialism were a little bit over done. I felt rather uncomfortable whenever another reference came up. Oh and Grindelwald and Gregorovitch just had to be German, didn't they?

How did everyone else feel? Maybe I need to lighten up.

I think your being over sensitive, and raising your hand when someone shouts, " Evil " Because you automatically and perhaps prejudgingly believe that everyone else thinks about your country's past, when evil is mentioned.

Kinda, PRE- Defensive.

With a name like, " 'Vitch " I did not think German, but Eastern Euro, and since Grindelwald went to Durmstrang. Also always thought Grindelwald had to do with GRENDEL.

The biggest proof of WWII similarities:

Nurmengard = Nuremberg, ( Where the Nuremberg Military Tribunals happened, justice served ). And the fact that Grindelwald was defeated by a reluctant BRIT in the year 1945, the end of World War II in real life.

The ministry has always to me directly represented the Amereo/British unwillingness to recognize the re-militarized German Goverment, during the 1930s.

And so what if she did mean to parallel World War II, and the fact that the German's invaded, killed, etc, and wished world industrial domination. It's fact.


I do believe that her racial themes may have been influenced by the variety of Britain's Race Relations Acts & laws that she's lived through since one of the firsts, at her birth.

And on that you and I disagree. The best advice a literature teacher ever gave me was "Write what you know." Jo wrote what she knew.
I'm sure Rowling's knowledge of wars is not limited to World War II.

As I have tried to say before I think she used WWII to provide edification for the reader. In my opinion that cannot possibly be bad.
As I recall, what you have tried to do before is deny the connection between the wars in Harry Potter to WWII. And the event is so omnipresent in the media that it is naive to assume people don't already know about it.

I, unlike you dont feel ripped off at all. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. I welcome the reminder right along with the fantasy accompanying it.
Oh yes, I am sure I will forget all of my education unless Rowling summarizes it in her books.

And as for your use of "old spiel" you make said history sound like a used car, and Jo like the sleazy car salesman. Its not old spiel...its the plain truth.
But it is. It is overused. There are plenty of other horrible events to draw from, and the fact that this one is so publicized while the rest are not even known is plainly insulting. Why not talk about the Rape of Nanking? Why not talk about the Roman persecution of Christians? Why not address the ritual clitoridectomy in Aftica? I am not trying to minimize the suffering of the victims of World War II. After all, I belong to a people that lost a million in the Holocaust. But is it not unfair that this particular event gets so much spotlight when world history is so full of atrocities?

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrezLeefun
And on that you and I disagree. The best advice a literature teacher ever gave me was "Write what you know." Jo wrote what she knew.

I'm sure Rowling's knowledge of wars is not limited to World War II.

Well put. Actually, Onyma your whole post is exactly what I was going to write.

Yes, perhaps this thread has gone a bit haywire - to us, the WWII references are obvious and personally, I feel no need to continue the debate that they even exist (people who continue to add posts without reading the entire thread, really shouldn't). I have already stated numerous times, that the references were not offensive in any way. What made me uncomfortable was, like Onyma and several others in this thread, the fact the JKR felt the need to allude to WWII so specifically and directly, made obvious by the fact that we are having this debate.

But it is. It is overused. There are plenty of other horrible events to draw from, and the fact that this one is so publicized while the rest are not even known is plainly insulting. Why not talk about the Rape of Nanking? Why not talk about the Roman persecution of Christians? Why not address the ritual clitoridectomy in Aftica? I am not trying to minimize the suffering of the victims of World War II. After all, I belong to a people that lost a million in the Holocaust. But is it not unfair that this particular event gets so much spotlight when world history is so full of atrocities?

Exactly.

Earlier, someone noted that to question JKR's creativity was to question the creativity of Tolkien, Orwell, Tolstoy and so forth. Wrong. First of all, Orwell's 1984 is set in a real society, Muggles - not magic. (For the purposes of this, I'm not speaking of Animal Farm as I believe 1984 relates more to what is being discussed) Similarly, Tolstoy writes of our world. Tolkien and JKR write fantasy, in which they can create whatever they want - absolutely anything. For the purposes of their genre they are not limited or restricted by our world history, for example. So, Orwell and Tolstoy - writing about the real world, Tolstoy writes about real historical characters in War and Peace, so obviously the real world and it's history is going to be referenced! Tolkien's allusion to war in general can be found in LOTR sure, but is in no way as blatant as JKR's specific allusions in DH.

Well put. Actually, Onyma your whole post is exactly what I was going to write.
Thank you. I don't know if I have responded to you prior, but I have read your posts and I wholeheartedly agree with them.

Thank you. I don't know if I have responded to you prior, but I have read your posts and I wholeheartedly agree with them.

Thanks :)

I'm sure Rowling's knowledge of wars is not limited to World War II.
As am I. Its doesnt make using WWII a bad thing. Harry's story takes place in Europe. So did the majority of of WWII. It is also a more recent war that more people have a common knowlege of. Its simply more plausible and accessible to the general population.

As I recall, what you have tried to do before is deny the connection between the wars in Harry Potter to WWII. And the event is so omnipresent in the media that it is naive to assume people don't already know about it.
I didn't deny the connection. I said there were no direct references.
Oh yes, I am sure I will forget all of my education unless Rowling summarizes it in her books.
I am respectfully disagreeing with you. There is no need to be sardonic in your replys.


But it is. It is overused. There are plenty of other horrible events to draw from, and the fact that this one is so publicized while the rest are not even known is plainly insulting. Why not talk about the Rape of Nanking? Why not talk about the Roman persecution of Christians? Why not address the ritual clitoridectomy in Aftica? I am not trying to minimize the suffering of the victims of World War II. After all, I belong to a people that lost a million in the Holocaust. But is it not unfair that this particular event gets so much spotlight when world history is so full of atrocities?

Rowlings use of it in her books is personal choice. It seems to me you should take that complaint to the media and schools which also and primarialy focus on WWII too much and leave other crimes against humanity at the wayside.

And for record I agree that we should hear about those events as much as we do WWII.

As for continuing to debate with you.... we should agree to disagree specifically on the issue of Jo's use of it in the books.

As am I. Its doesnt make using WWII a bad thing. Harry's story takes place in Europe. So did the majority of of WWII. It is also a more recent war that more people have a common knowlege of. Its simply more plausible and accessible to the general population.
I have no idea what that means. Are other wars not plausible somehow? If so, all the more reason to use them and reinforce the fact that they happened.

I didn't deny the connection. I said there were no direct references.
But what point does that serve? Were you trying to show that an indirect reference automatically means that the author did not want the reader to identify the source she was alluding to? This is what you said in a previous post:
But not ONCE did she ever reference WWII directly. That's we as readers got from it. That was our interpretation.
It was our interpretation because Rowling did reference it, no matter how indirectly. You seem to be implying that connection exists only in our heads, but it's there because Rowling put it there.

As for continuing to debate with you.... we should agree to disagree specifically on the issue of Jo's use of it in the books.
Alright, as you wish.

I was not uncomfortable with the WWII "references." In fact, I thought Jo was giving us a bit of a history lesson and to remind us that these things have already happened in the Muggle world.

World War II references are not new to DH. The comparison has been made between Fudge and Scrimgeour trying to discredit Dumbledore and Prime Ministers Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain trying to discredit Winston Churchill who had been going on about the threat Hitler posed.

At least in the Harry Potter version, the character named Neville did something right.

I thought Gregorovitch was Russian?

reading this thread is making me uncomfortable....which is why I stopped posting. I was rudely shot down for stating my opinion, and it kind of made me feel sick.

I very cautiously say that I think the big picture is being missed. Wether creative or not (although, who are we to make that judgement? Are we the masters of creativity, all knowing? Have we all written best-selling fantasy novels?) the point is that we all made the connection quite easily. I think that was her point. Pure and simple. If you felt uncomfortable, it is because you were supposed to. I don't think it was directed at Germans. The metaphor for WWII was so that the "evil" point could be driven home in a way in which we all understand. Over-done? Maybe. Yet, that fact alone made it certain that she was able to reach everyone with that metaphor. Not everyone is a historian. I consider myself well-educated and I hardly claim to know the details of every conflict some have said would have been more "creative" to allude to.

It would be nice for the conversation to become less....elitist. None of us are experts on writing and creativity. I don't think even Jo herself would claim to be one either. We are hardly in a position to make judgement calls.

Please respect others' opinions and at least attempt to state your point without tearing other people's opinions down. It is so ugly.

I was actually quite taken with the allusions to WWII in DH. With a great percentage of HP readers being too young to really know or understand what happened in WWII, I think that this was a great way to keep the important lessons the world as whole learned at that time alive and remembered.

I'm sure that JKR knows about more wars than just WWII. When some of you people are saying 'why didn't she parallel the story to some other situation' you must remember; it is you who are making the parallels. You could connect this book to a hundred other events in history if you tried, but you connect it to WWII. Is this because of JKR, or is it because WWII sticks in our head more than other incidents.

You see the DE's being racist, and instantly connect to Nazi. There are plenty of other racist groups in the world that they could identify with. What was JKR supposed to do? Make them be muggle lovers? Make them hate muggles that much but leave the muggles alone? No. The DE's would do the same thing that the Nazi's, and any other group like that, would do. They persecuted.

I didn't make any connections to WWII because I wasn't thinking about WWII at the time. It was a great book anyway, can't we just leave it at that and not blame JKR for the parallels that we've made?

Edit: I know I'm gonna get slammed for saying this, but I had to. This whole discussion is making me mad at how petty people can be.

I don't think that she was trying to call anyone out. However, when I was reading, there were I few times I was reminded of 1984 (War is Peace/Freedom is Slavery/Ignorance is Strength) with the slogan "Magic is Might" and with the Ministry of Magic weeding out those witches and wizards it deemed unfit.

I was also reminded of 1984. Also, I don't know if anyone noticed, but in the movie version of OotP there is a huge banner of Fudge in the Ministry that is extrememly Big Brother-ish.

I was also reminded of 1984. Also, I don't know if anyone noticed, but in the movie version of OotP there is a huge banner of Fudge in the Ministry that is extrememly Big Brother-ish.

I did notice that, and it irked me to no end. I mean, sure Fudge was an imbecile, but he was no didctator. It just didn't seem like something he'd do, and I don't think the ignorant masses would've let him get away with something like that even if he wanted to. He was elected, was he not?

I was also reminded of 1984. Also, I don't know if anyone noticed, but in the movie version of OotP there is a huge banner of Fudge in the Ministry that is extrememly Big Brother-ish.

Yes, it also resembles greatly the poster of Stalin that was posted everywhere around the SU when he was in power (which in turn inspired Orwell to create the character of Big Brother.)

The OOTP and DA reminded me greatly of the French and German Resistance. I thought particularly of the French Resistance when the parts with the "Potterwatch" part (reminded me of de Gaulle's Appeal of 19th June in WWII, after France had fallen to the Nazis - Aberforth's statement about the war being essentially lost by the Order at the time Harry came back to Hogwarts reinforced it even more.)

But is it not unfair that this particular event gets so much spotlight when world history is so full of atrocities?[/B]

The fact that this event occured in the fairly recent past and that it still receives so much attention probably makes it an easy thing to parallel for an author trying to make a point. If JKR referred to horrors like the Rape of Nanking or the persecution of the Armenians by Stalin, the allusion would probably be lost upon many of her readers because these events are simply not as well-known as the Holocaust, though they were also horrible times in history. It may be unfair, but if authors are going to start alluding to other atrocities, these events have to become common knowledge first, which can be difficult if they have been downplayed or have fallen into obscurity.

The fact that this event occured in the fairly recent past and that it still receives so much attention probably makes it an easy thing to parallel for an author trying to make a point. If JKR referred to horrors like the Rape of Nanking or the persecution of the Armenians by Stalin, the allusion would probably be lost upon many of her readers because these events are simply not as well-known as the Holocaust, though they were also horrible times in history. It may be unfair, but if authors are going to start alluding to other atrocities, these events have to become common knowledge first, which can be difficult if they have been downplayed or have fallen into obscurity.

The key here, too, is it's a European author writing for an audience that largely knows more about the Holocaust and the Nazi war crimes than the Rape of Nanking and the sometimes even more horrific Japanese war crimes.

It could also be argued, I'm sure, though that the Taboo could remind people of how millions of people were executed by Stalin for as little things as mumbling his name in their sleep. Anyone who said anything even remotely criticising or offensive to Stalin during his dictatorship was executed. In fact, Stalin murdered about four times as many of his people as Hitler did.

What on Earth does the Deathly Hallow symbol [more than one or two simple similarities] have to do with a swastika?
It was a symbol that came to be associated by some (obviously not by the British) as a symbol of the horrors perpetrated by an evil dictator. So how Viktor felt saying the symbol of a man who murdered his grandfather (I believe) as the equivalent of someone walking into a party seeing someone with a Swastika around their neck.
The DH symbol is to the Dark Mark as Grindelwald is to Voldemort, and these two symbols are to the Swastika as those two villains are to Hitler.

I didn't notice the references. Years ago I read an unauthorised book saying grindelwald was a reference to Hitler because of the 1945 connection, after that I read that Jo said that the two were not connected (at least in the sense that they were not the same person), possibly because of that I wasn't looking for similarities and so didn't see them.
I believe that JKR once said. in response to a question about as to whether Voldemort's ascension and Hitler's ascension were at all related, she said that wizarding and muggle events sort of fed into each other. I don't have the exact quote.....Found it! Here it is:
He said, “Is it coincidence that he died in 1945,” and I said no. It amuses me to make allusions to things that were happening in the Muggle world, so my feeling would be that while there's a global Muggle war going on, there's also a global wizarding war going on.
And then...
MA: Do they feed each other, the Muggle and wizarding wars?

JKR: Yeah, I think so. Yeah. Mm.

The references did get on my nerves. I just felt like she was holding a megaphone yelling "YOU GET IT GUYS? ITS LIKE AUSTRIA AFTER HITLER TOOK OVER AND THE PERSECUTIONS OF MUGGLEBORNS IS LIKE THE HOLOCAUST AND VOLDEMORT IS HITLER AND THE DEATH EATERS ARE NAZIS OH MY GOS I'M SO CLEVER!!" I just felt like she should have given her readers more credit. The Ministry of Magic scene was the only one blatant enough to get on my nerves.

Okay, I must have missed something - which surprises me, being German myself. Where did it say they were German?

Before Grigorvitch is killed, a woman trying to protect him is answering Voldemort back in German, stuff like "I don't know" or "he dosen't live here". I'm not very good in the German language, so I couldn't tell you those two phrases in German. And they never said Grindelwald was German at all, but the name sounds German to me, and he was also seen stealing the Elder Wand from Grigovitch, so I'm going to guess he could atleast speak German.

If they could speak the 27,000,000 victims of Mao would disagree.

The exact number of people killed under the regime of Mao Zedong has been greatly disputed, and due to the fact that it happened under his government, and they (for obvious reasons) are not going to release any accurate statistics, it is difficult to use 27,000,000 as certain fact.

That being said, I do agree with you on the idea that the Holocaust was not the "most evil time ever," because I do not believe in there having been an evil time. I am Jewish, and my maternal grandfather's family had come to America, but they returned (leaving, thankfully, those who were my direct ancestors) to Hungary prior to the war (being homesick). They were, with most of the other Hungarian Jews, sent to Auschwitz and gassed. Despite the loss of so many of my relatives, I do not consider the Nazis evil, because (QUITE sadly) their actions do not exactly stand out as unique in the course of human history, or even in the 20th century.

There is a tendency among the media to portray Hitler as evil, in that he absolutely KNEW what he was doing was wrong, but did it anyway. I however believe a different thing, that he was absolutely deranged and BELIEVED he was doing the RIGHT thing...he honestly believed the world would thank him afterwards, for having taken on (in his words) the "International Jewry." The reason I try to portray Hitler as NOT unique, and quite deranged (not as PURE evil) is because the major flaw with portraying Hitler as Satan himself is that if another dictator arises and begins systematic genocide of (pick any race, culture, or creed) say, Aboriginal Australians. Should we then in the world sit aside and not take the threat seriously? Should we say, "Well even though Dictator X's methods are absolutely similar to Hitler, Hitler was pure evil and unique, and so he is nowhere near as bad, and we need not intervene."

There is a Jewish holiday that is called Holocaust Remembrance Day, and it is taught that the reason we must TRULY understand the horrors of what happened are so that it never happens again. But it doesn't mean just so that it never happens to Jewish people again, but so that it doesn't happen to ANY people. The sheer number of genocidal "Holocausts" in the 20th century is MIND BOGGLING. Just to name a few, there was the Armenian Holocaust, the relentless purges of Stalin, the work of Slobodan Milosevic, the killing fields of Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge, and the countless wars of ethnic cleansing in Africa, which the western world seems to (SICKENINGLY) avoid unless the conflicts have anything to do with oil or diamonds. Isn't it absolutely disgusting that when it is ethnic cleansing, the world (or the western world at least) doesn't seem to mind as much if the faces of those that are killed are black, and their killers are the same color? Where is the outrage over the "Wars of Freedom" throughout the African Continent that have left it completely devastated?

The Holocaust was one of the worst episodes of human history, but it was not entirely as unique as people like to believe. The comedian Eddie Izzard makes light of the upsetting fact that Stalin and Pol Pot were allowed to get away with behavior very close to that of Hitler, because they killed their OWN people, and didn't invade nations next door. He is trying to make people laugh, but perhaps his assessment is closer to the mark than anyone would hope or believe. In World War II, Nazi Germany was mainly defeated by the Soviet Union (although one poster in this thread likened the French Resistance to the Order of the Phoenix, and the other combatants as Great Britain and America, completely leaving out the amazing contribution of the Soviets, as it seems is sadly commonplace in the west) which was deemed the lesser of two evils. Afterwards, when the Cold War divided the world into the USA and its NATO allies, and the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact, the USA and the west seemed either unable or unwilling to intercede on behalf of the tormented Soviet populace. Of course, that leads to a debate about whether or not the values we in the west hold to be true are indeed relative, and if we even have the right to enforce our ways upon others. Perhaps I sound too ethnocentric in regards to the west, but I DO believe that killing millions is not relative, it is WRONG no matter where it happens. Even though the Stalin and his Soviet Union were instrumental in the defeat of Hitler (perhaps a greater evil), Stalin was STILL evil and STILL should have been dealt with. The problem was that by the time the west had really recovered enough from WWII enough to even think about fixing the problems in the USSR, there were thousands of powerful Nuclear weapons on both sides, and the world had changed forever.

Who knows if there will ever be accurate totals of the number of Native Americans who were killed during the conquest of the Americas by the Europeans? How many Africans died in the Slave Trade, up until they gained freedom, and then after until even up until TODAY? How many people have Kim Jong Ill and his father killed? What about the theocracies of the Muslim World...how many have vanished for their secular beliefs? Mao Zedong, Stalin, and even Hitler are only a PART of the brutality that humanity has shown itself throughout history; the 20th century only gave new (and TERRIBLE) tools to the killers, making it easier to murder more people than had before been dreamed of. And while the weapons of Mass Destruction have sat unused in their silos, guns and bombs have killed more people than any could even conceive of.

As fun as Harry Potter is, it is just escapist fantasy from the real world. It is FUN to believe in the evil of Voldemort, because it is actually LESS scary to believe in one evil focal point (in fiction the examples are Voldemort, Sauron, or Emperor Palpatine, in the real world there is Hitler, Stalin, and Mao...among SO many others) because there is a hope, even if it is totally vain, to believe that when the focal point is gone, evil will be be gone with it. The Death Eaters died with Voldemort, but the Dark Arts did not. Sauron was defeated, but evil remained. Palpatine was defeated, but the Sith would have their day in the sun again in the future. And in the real world, Hitler was killed only to be followed by Stalin only to be followed by Mao only to be followed by Osama only to be followed by whomever will rise tomorrow. And deadlier far than the rallying points of murder are those who believe in the cause and would die to show their loyalty, those who honestly believe that flying planes into buildings is a noble thing, a worthy cause, and that the passengers in those planes and the humans in the buildings are not innocent civilians, but soldiers in a war they don't even know about.

It is impossible to point to a "Most Evil Time" in the history of man kind, because it seems a part of human nature to kill others. Machiavelli wondered whether it would be better for rulers to be loved or feared, but it seems that fear and hatred are so much easier to gain. It is FAR easier to unite people in fear and hatred than in love. The horrors of the Holocaust were allowed to happen because many good people were silent, and some even believed in the idea. The reason they went along with it is because Hitler (and his brilliant but totally deranged propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels) realized that it is amazingly simple to convince people that ALL their problems in life are caused by an outside, tangible reason. Instead of blaming the economy (because that doesn't give satisfaction to the people), it is far easier to blame people, an entire race, religion, or culture of people; to stand up on a podium and scream: "THEY ARE THE REASON FOR YOUR LOT IN LIFE! ONCE THEY ARE GONE, ALL WILL BE AS IT SHOULD BE!"

The problem with such shouted and ridiculous promises is that if they ever CAN be made true, then the system would just pick another group to ostracize and feed on. Just like the sun will run on a gas until it is gone, then switch to another, a totalitarian regime built on fear and hatred of others will, when those "others" are gone, find NEW people to hate and blame. Hitler found his scapegoat in the Jews, Stalin found his wherever he chose to look, and before the war he often blamed Leon Trotsky and his supporters. Even when Trotsky was banished, and later killed, he was still the perfect scapegoat for Stalin. As his five-year plans went unfinished and unrealized time after time, he always found Trotsky to blame...and during World War II, the obvious culprit were the Nazis and German sympathizers. I'd hate to think how many innocent Russians (maybe guilty only of hatred and fear of Stalin himself) were executed for "aiding the enemy." Such it is on all sides during a war...especially a war like the one between Stalin and Hitler, murderer vs. murderer, liar vs. liar.

I apologize for going on so far in this post, but I just don't feel I was able to get my point across with my earlier entry. The Potter books can be compared to World War II, I am sure, but cannot they be compared really to any regime or group of people who seek to blame others for the problems of their charges? Couldn't Voldemort be seen as an allusion not only to Hitler, but to Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, Saddam Hussein, and countless other dictators, war lords, and brutal kings of the past, present, and even future? We do not know where the next mass murderer will rise, but we know that he or she will, that only is CERTAIN. Where can we look to find good in this world, however, that we can allude to Harry and his friends? Harry Potter is indeed a fantasy series, but perhaps the thing most fantastical and fictional about it, is that Harry and his friends do not have an ulterior motive. They are ENTIRELY good and worthy of being believed in and rooted for. Is there anything left in this world, in reality, that compares to the nobility of a fictional wizard boy with a scar on his head and his truest friends?

I think it was supposed to make us feel uncomfortable.

Discomfort that such a thing could happen at all, and even more discomfort over just how easily things like this DID (and still DO, even today) happen.

I don't think it's meant to be taken personally, Rotsie, as a deliberate focus on Germans. I think with Grindelwald, because of the time period, Jo wanted him associated with WWII with his "greater good" ideas and I think Gregorovitch was German to serve plot events.

As for socialism, it was glaringly obvious and slightly uncomfortable, because of the ideas, not the fact it was reminding people of WWII (well that was the case with me). I think Jo was trying to imprint in literature the horror of the ideas, because Hitler was one of the biggest terrorists of the 20th century, and there's no denying it. I don't think she wants people to forget the lessons learnt (I don't mean the event) and by relaying it in a book for children to read, affecting characters they love, it makes them relate to it much easier. A history lesson in a book.

Definitely.

I was scared stiff at the Muggle-born laws. What about Hermione, and the one guy who fake his family tree and his family and he were killed.

The Muggle-born genocide was creepy. No way is this a children's book.

[QUOTE=rhhgrt;4653914]It was a symbol that came to be associated by some (obviously not by the British) as a symbol of the horrors perpetrated by an evil dictator. So how Viktor felt saying the symbol of a man who murdered his grandfather (I believe) as the equivalent of someone walking into a party seeing someone with a Swastika around their neck.
The DH symbol is to the Dark Mark as Grindelwald is to Voldemort, and these two symbols are to the Swastika as those two villains are to Hitler.


As for the main similarity between the symbol for the Deathly Hallows and the Swastika, it is that the swastika was not originally created by Adolf Hitler for the use of the Nazis. The Swastika has in fact existed for THOUSANDS of years and shows up in Ancient Greek and Ancient Egyptian pottery. The symbol did NOT originally have anything to do with the things that people now associate it. I am not trying to disassociate it from the horrors it has come to represent, and in fact if someone drew one on a wall, I would have a hard time with that person explaining to me that he or she was really just interested in Greek pottery.

I had a friend once who was very into punk music, and decided to shave his head. He was part of a group that was "non-racist skins," but obviously people assumed (due to the shaved heads) that they were in some way trying to honor Neo-Nazi skin heads, and that was actually the OPPOSITE of their intention. In fact, they wanted to take BACK the idea of a shaved head as something positive, because they pointed out that it HAD been taken to mean something positive prior to its association with Neo-Nazis.

All I could say to that friend is that the battle was already lost and there was NO WAY to reclaim the symbol for the right reasons. Shaved heads and swastikas are never again going to mean what they meant before Hitler's association with them, and anyone who fights against the connection both now have to hatred, bigotry, and murder is fighting a losing battle.

The way this goes for the Hallows is that Grindelwald had originally made the sign due to its meaning with the Hallows, BUT after all the horrible things he did both in and out of Durmstrang, the sign no longer just meant to identify people with the quest of the Deathly Hallows. I can perfectly understand Viktor's hatred of the sign, and his "teaching others" what it meant, because the fact is that Viktor undoubtedly lived in a country that had been terribly affected by Grindelwald's actions. All who lived in that country should have known that there was no way to disassociate the sign from him, and in fact some would even (as Viktor said) use the sign as a way to shock people and frighten them, just as the KKK might spray paint a swastika on a house to frighten others.

Luna's father, however, lived in Britain and was so disconnected from Grindelwald's actions that it is no surprise that he had no idea what Krum meant. Sometimes, after terrible actions or just actions different than those normally associated with a sign or a word, the word or sign can never be used again to mean (with certainty) what it once did. To Luna's father, he was wearing the Sign of the Hallows, but to Viktor Krum, who ha passed the sign every day in Durmstrang, Lovegood was supporting a murderer who was only scarcely less horrible than Voldemort, and who in his OWN country may have been more feared than Voldemort was.

Things don't always mean what they originally did, and in the case of the swastika and the sign of the Hallows, it would be absolutely impossible to go to the people who were most affected by the regimes who used the signs to strike terror into others, and to convince them that the sign could mean something positive again. At least in real life, the swastika will never again in the present or future, be understood to mean anything separate from the Nazi regime, and even seeing it on pottery from thousands of years ago brings a shock to the system. The swastika now and forever will belong to evil...it can't ever go back to the way it was.

cannot they be compared really to any regime or group of people who seek to blame others for the problems of their charges?

Some of us have already made this point countless times and then ask why it was that JKR needed to so specifically allude to WWII.

Anyway, I'm over it.

I think there was general theme through out the series speaking against bigotry and racism. It was as large a theme as love and for a 'Children's Book' it's a very good and important lesson to teach. Of course, this lesson will mirror into WWII as that was one of the exreme example of where bigorty and hatred can lead. But you could also tie the lessons she was teaching to slavery, african genocide, islamo-facism, etc... When any one people treats another as less because they where born different it.

The Muggle-born genocide was creepy. No way is this a children's book.

I agree, that seemed incredibly creepy. This would only happen in a Death Eater controlled Ministry. It's really creepy that this reflected real history.

The exact number of people killed under the regime of Mao Zedong has been greatly disputed, and due to the fact that it happened under his government, and they (for obvious reasons) are not going to release any accurate statistics, it is difficult to use 27,000,000 as certain fact.

True, which is why I picked the lowest estimate. Depending on sources that figure rises to 72M (which includes all victims of famine in that period).

The exact number of people killed under the regime of Mao Zedong has been greatly disputed, and due to the fact that it happened under his government, and they (for obvious reasons) are not going to release any accurate statistics, it is difficult to use 27,000,000 as certain fact.

That being said, I do agree with you on the idea that the Holocaust was not the "most evil time ever," because I do not believe in there having been an evil time. I am Jewish, and my maternal grandfather's family had come to America, but they returned (leaving, thankfully, those who were my direct ancestors) to Hungary prior to the war (being homesick). They were, with most of the other Hungarian Jews, sent to Auschwitz and gassed. Despite the loss of so many of my relatives, I do not consider the Nazis evil, because (QUITE sadly) their actions do not exactly stand out as unique in the course of human history, or even in the 20th century.

This is getting dangerously off topic but I cannot help but ask you why you do not consider the Nazis evil. Just because they weren't the only ones who performed a Holocaust doesn't mean such an act isn't one of the most evil things humans do to each other? That's like saying Ted Bundy wasn't evil because he wasn't the only serial killer who ever lived.



I apologize for going on so far in this post, but I just don't feel I was able to get my point across with my earlier entry. The Potter books can be compared to World War II, I am sure, but cannot they be compared really to any regime or group of people who seek to blame others for the problems of their charges? Couldn't Voldemort be seen as an allusion not only to Hitler, but to Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, Saddam Hussein, and countless other dictators, war lords, and brutal kings of the past, present, and even future? We do not know where the next mass murderer will rise, but we know that he or she will, that only is CERTAIN. Where can we look to find good in this world, however, that we can allude to Harry and his friends? Harry Potter is indeed a fantasy series, but perhaps the thing most fantastical and fictional about it, is that Harry and his friends do not have an ulterior motive. They are ENTIRELY good and worthy of being believed in and rooted for. Is there anything left in this world, in reality, that compares to the nobility of a fictional wizard boy with a scar on his head and his truest friends?

I like what you have to say, but because of Grindelwald's defeat in 1945 NOT being a coincidence (even though JKR appears to have just put it in for the sakes of an allusion, so it technically is a coincidence and isn't at the same time) I think it's safe to assume that if JKR is making an allusion with the DH symbol, the Muggle-born Registration, the Muggle bodies carved into desks, the Snatchers, the use of a puppet Minister instead of Voldemort taking the title officially, it's safe to assume that the allusion is Hitler's dictatorship. As I said, it's a series by a European author who, as well-read as she is (and I give her a lot of respect for that), has the primary readership of British and North Americans. As obscure as JKR's mythological and historical references and allusions usually are (I had never heard of St. Godric, Aescylus, William Penn, and many others that I can't name off the top of my head at the moment before reading HP) I don't think she's trying to make this one a mystery.

But your point about Hitler hardly being the only evil dictator to commit genocide still stands. That, I think is the whole point of making such an allusion. History repeats itself, and those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.

WoundedWizard, thank you for an extremely well-written and enlightening post. It is refreshing to see that sort of thing (in this topic) especially since you managed to not attack anyone else or use sarcasm. I really enjoyed reading it.

I think it's really interesting that many of the posts about feeling uncomfortable with the WWII references come from people with German roots. From a different perspective, I felt very uncomfortable with the clear Holocaust allusions as a Jew. My grandfather's entire family was killed by the Nazis, and the obvious parallels to Hitler's Germany hit all too close to home. I was not particularly offended by these references, but I was not at all prepared for such chilling allusions. For example, the muggle registration seemed to be drawn directly from the Jewish registration and labeling that was required by the Nazis that much of my family had to go through. At times I felt as if I was reading a fantasy version of the Holocaust, which was extremely unsettling.

haha. me too.

i've thought that way since... book 4? or 5. when i finally learnt what the whole world war two issue was about.

Glad you could see it too. :)

I think it's really interesting that many of the posts about feeling uncomfortable with the WWII references come from people with German roots. From a different perspective, I felt very uncomfortable with the clear Holocaust allusions as a Jew. My grandfather's entire family was killed by the Nazis, and the obvious parallels to Hitler's Germany hit all too close to home. I was not particularly offended by these references, but I was not at all prepared for such chilling allusions. For example, the muggle registration seemed to be drawn directly from the Jewish registration and labeling that was required by the Nazis that much of my family had to go through. At times I felt as if I was reading a fantasy version of the Holocaust, which was extremely unsettling.

I am in the same boat here, being a Jew and sharing these same thoughts. Yes, some parts were unsettling-but I think that it all goes to show just how similar the wizarding and muggle worlds can be!

Honestly, if it weren't for Grindelwald's name and Voldemort flying over to Germany obviously, everything else makes me think about USA today. This eye for instance sounds like the exact symbol of the Illuminati- which is to be seen on a dollar bill and many other objects.
The anti-Muggle laws are quite like the anti-terrorist laws in the States nowadays. You could do absolutely everything to someone if you accuse him of being a terrorist.
And what about Voldemort taking over the Ministry ? ;) I'd not comment on that, but I think you get the genreal idea.
Also- the constant spying on people, the atmpsphere ot fear and depression...oh, there are a lot of associations, if you come to think of it.
May be Jo wanted to generally warn against a certain regime?

To answer the question posed by the title of this thread: Not at all. I believe the obvious metaphors for Nazism, re: Voldemort were perfectly appropriate.

These sort of questions need to be asked---and answered---again and again and again. Evil is evil. And it will always need to be confronted.

It made me feel sick with the Cattermoles' - that horrible 'I'm going to be physically ill' sick feeling you get when you are forced to face the horrors of the regime. Being branded, unable to defend yourself, being shipped off if you're lucky (can you call it that?) and killed if you're not. Having your family hunted and destroyed.

Regardless of what era in human present or past you want to compare it to, it should make you feel sick and be a little more alarmed when such things happen. We have a bad habit of letting history repeat and fear get the better of us.

And the fact that Grindelwald was defeated by a reluctant BRIT
That one made me laugh. :p


WoundedWizard, thank you for your wonderful, wonderful post. You put words to my feelings far better than I could ever have done.


There is a tendency among the media to portray Hitler as evil, in that he absolutely KNEW what he was doing was wrong, but did it anyway. I however believe a different thing, that he was absolutely deranged and BELIEVED he was doing the RIGHT thing...he honestly believed the world would thank him afterwards, for having taken on (in his words) the "International Jewry." The reason I try to portray Hitler as NOT unique, and quite deranged (not as PURE evil) is because the major flaw with portraying Hitler as Satan himself is that if another dictator arises and begins systematic genocide of (pick any race, culture, or creed) say, Aboriginal Australians. Should we then in the world sit aside and not take the threat seriously? Should we say, "Well even though Dictator X's methods are absolutely similar to Hitler, Hitler was pure evil and unique, and so he is nowhere near as bad, and we need not intervene."
I think JKR made this point really well with Voldemort. He didn't just go and say 'Right, I am going to be an evil person then', he had reasons for doing what he was doing, wrong and misguided as those reasons were. In a way, of course, that is the scariest thing of all, because it means the 'bad guys' are not always easily recognised. Think how charming young Tom Riddle was quite well-liked by those around him, and how, at some point, Harry felt sorry for him because his mother had abandoned him.


As fun as Harry Potter is, it is just escapist fantasy from the real world. It is FUN to believe in the evil of Voldemort, because it is actually LESS scary to believe in one evil focal point (in fiction the examples are Voldemort, Sauron, or Emperor Palpatine, in the real world there is Hitler, Stalin, and Mao...among SO many others) because there is a hope, even if it is totally vain, to believe that when the focal point is gone, evil will be be gone with it. The Death Eaters died with Voldemort, but the Dark Arts did not. Sauron was defeated, but evil remained. Palpatine was defeated, but the Sith would have their day in the sun again in the future. And in the real world, Hitler was killed only to be followed by Stalin only to be followed by Mao only to be followed by Osama only to be followed by whomever will rise tomorrow. And deadlier far than the rallying points of murder are those who believe in the cause and would die to show their loyalty, those who honestly believe that flying planes into buildings is a noble thing, a worthy cause, and that the passengers in those planes and the humans in the buildings are not innocent civilians, but soldiers in a war they don't even know about.
And that is one of my major points of contention with the end of 'Deathly Hallows'. Voldemort is dead, and oops, all the Death Eaters give up. It's just not realistic and trivialises the problem.
This disappointed me because so far in 'Harry Potter' JKR always made it clear that the Wizarding World is flawed, that there are the Crouch'es and Umbridge's who are supposed to be good but aren't, there is prejudice (house-elves etc.) and self-interest (Fudge). One of my failed predictions was that the books would end on a note of 'evil was defeated for now, but keep up that constant vigilance'.

I liked the references. They freshened up the book. :relax:

Maybe it's because I'm German, or maybe it's because I'm utterly humourless when it comes to these sorts of allegories.

I couldn't help but feel that the obvious references to National Socialism were a little bit over done. I felt rather uncomfortable whenever another reference came up. Oh and Grindelwald and Gregorovitch just had to be German, didn't they?

How did everyone else feel? Maybe I need to lighten up.

Hi Rotsiepots,
I tried to read most of the posts here but got lost in the sniping. Although I didn't think they were overdone I can see how Germans could. I think like Harry we all have our own filter that lets some things in and some things not, usually it lets in the things that we are most sensitive about.

One German poster here said they feel guilty about the whole thing even though they weren't even born. I know how they feel. When I was eleven I first learned about slavery, I was at first totally outraged that anyone would be treated that way. Then the guilt set in. I am 13th generation Yankee, none of my ancestors lived South of the Mason Dixon line, there is no chance any of my ancestors ever owned slaves (they were all poor farmers, (yes I have done the research). Yet I feel guilty because other white people did this, and not even white people I can relate much too. I have struggled for a long time with the Doby/Kreatcher/SPEW storyline and am still struggling with it. So that is my filter working.

I'm sure that the children who read the books don't get the references, well maybe the German and Jewish children do, but my 12 year old daughter doesn't. She really just wants to enjoy the books, so if an anti-racism lesson gets slipped in on her, I think that's great.

Also I wanted to say about the series, I thought Jo balanced the evil muggle relatives, who make Harry's life hell in a real way, quite nicely with the evil magical enimies. The Dursleys don't go around murdering anyone but I bet they would if they weren't so petrified.

Oh, I know, I was being facetious about the "why are the evil ones always GERMAN" point. I'm not that humourless.

I was being serious about the references to National Socialism not sitting very well with me, only because I felt like it trivialised what was a very dark time in European and world history.

I don't think the book trivialised it at all- quite the opposite. It is written so we are shocked and disgusted at the treatment of the Muggle-born wizards, and younger people reading those scenes would probably not understand such needless cruelty and might ask their parents, why does this happen? Why are people treated like this for their heritage/race/religion/gender (etc). If it had been written recklessly or dealt with as a minor plot point it may have been trivialised but it continues through the book right until the end and it shows the cruelty and misery that results from such acts. I don't see anything wrong with children learning about Hitler for the first time and thinking, "this is a bit like in Harry Potter, when Voldemort targeted muggle-borns." There's nothing wrong with helping people understand something through a medium they love and trust, like HP.

It's like the criticisms JKR has always got about the death in the books, which always annoys me. Are children innocent, yes. Are they stupid? No. What better way to learn about death and how sudden and cruel it is than in books you love, with characters you love and grew up with. Children who lost family members or loved ones and don't understand why could read HP and begin to understand. I remember, very clearly, what happened when my 8 year old sister read the Philosopher's Stone for the first time. My grandmother had just died and my mother was heartbroken. My sister and I heard her crying about it and saying she wished she could see her mother just one more time. My sister turned to me and said, "She will see her again, she is with her all the time, like Harry's parents." That has always stayed with me.
Sorry for going off topic!

The references did get on my nerves. I just felt like she was holding a megaphone yelling "YOU GET IT GUYS? ITS LIKE AUSTRIA AFTER HITLER TOOK OVER AND THE PERSECUTIONS OF MUGGLEBORNS IS LIKE THE HOLOCAUST AND VOLDEMORT IS HITLER AND THE DEATH EATERS ARE NAZIS OH MY GOS I'M SO CLEVER!!" I just felt like she should have given her readers more credit. The Ministry of Magic scene was the only one blatant enough to get on my nerves.

I don't think Nazism was all that JKR was referencing with the MOM scene - I was strongly reminded of Australia's treatment of refugees, the western world's treatment of suspected terrorists and "enemy non-combatants" and the rest of the global war on terror, which seems to be only achieving a complete stripping of human rights away from us.

Some of us have already made this point countless times and then ask why it was that JKR needed to so specifically allude to WWII.
I think that's the problem here though, I personally feel there were no specific allusions to WW2, only generalised ones toward the horrors represented by any totalitarian regime. Because Jo's story is British it's only natural for the events to have a European centric feel to them and as such strike pretty close to home for some nationalities, especially given the nature of the prejudices and the timing of certain events.

I think now is a very good time to be reminding people that such events can and do still take place and that there is a great deal of hypocracy in many people's and government's reactions too them. All too often a slaughter will go unmentioned because the country and the people concerned are of no intrinsic value to western society and that is something that really sits uncomfortably with me.

P.S. WoundedWizard, that was a superb post a few pages back. Well said.

I personally feel there were no specific allusions to WW2

This point has already been argued, if you go back and read through the thread - Nuremgard, raising left arm in salute, slogans written above entrances - all seem like specific references to WWII to me and to many others here as well (of course, others don't see them but whatever, to each their own).

Also- the constant spying on people, the atmpsphere ot fear and depression...oh, there are a lot of associations, if you come to think of it.
May be Jo wanted to generally warn against a certain regime?

Interesting thought, but I don't think Jo would put political undercurrents into what still is, despite all of the darker material, a book meant for children as well as adults. Certainly, we may be reminded of current events, but I think that's only because they bear resemblance to past events to which she may have been alluding. One of JKR's favorite authors is Jessica Mitford, a muckraker who protested racism in the US, among other things. I could see JKR honoring her hero by trying to teach simialr lessons, but she is not tyring to be a political author. In my opinion, one of the nice things about the series is that, in today's politically charged atmosphere, it's an escape from all the arguments and debates.

This is getting dangerously off topic but I cannot help but ask you why you do not consider the Nazis evil. Just because they weren't the only ones who performed a Holocaust doesn't mean such an act isn't one of the most evil things humans do to each other? That's like saying Ted Bundy wasn't evil because he wasn't the only serial killer who ever lived.

Actually, I end up looking at things usually as being gray as opposed to being black or white. I cannot make a universal statement, such as "All Nazis are evil," because I do not know where to draw the line between a high-ranking Nazi official such as Heinrich Himmler and Reynhard Heydrich, two men who enjoyed their jobs, who took pleasure in the deaths of Jewish people, believing them sub-human and worthy of being exterminated; and a low-ranking official who was only interested in self-preservation and that of his family. Consider, for instance, the difference between Lucius (along with Narcissa and Draco) Malfoy as compared to Bellatrix Lestrange. The Malfoys seem forced into a situation that is in actuality not that different than what Lucius claimed after the first war (sure, he had not actually been under the Imperius Curse, but as we saw clearly in the last book, he did not seem to enjoy his time with Voldemort, and certainly cared FAR more for the survival of his family than he did for the ideals of the Dark Lord), while Bellatrix clearly enjoys every moment of her time as a Death Eater in the employ of Voldemort. She is sadistic, demented, and dangerous, and seems the type of person who even without a Voldemort to increase her scope of evil, would have been a killer or a torturer of both Muggles and Muggle-borns.

Because I know the stories of many Germans both in and out of the army who did not share the ideals of the Nazi regime, I do not doubt that such people existed inside the Nazi party and the SS as well. For instance, despite not being in the SS, the current Pope was a member of the Hitler Youth during the war (membership was compulsory), does that automatically make him evil? I believe that a regular German soldier (who did not believe in their racial policies) wounded in battle (for example, the Battle of Leningrad/St. Petersburg) deserves no less honor than an allied soldier who was wounded and fought as well. Both sides heard propaganda, and a young American who joined up to "Kill Krauts," was no less "evil," than a young German who really had no choice, or who joined up to "Kill Communist Reds." Yes, there IS a difference between who is the aggressor in war, and who fights because they must, but I do not (as a Jewish person who has lost a great many family members to the Holocaust) indict all people who happened to wear the uniform of Nazi Germany.

Going further in terms of seeing gray instead of black and white, take for example the fact that even if one were to try and be religious and say that the MOST important Commandment (and I would agree with this) is Thou Shall Not Kill. It IS possible for a person to have a complete and total view of pacifism, but I do not hold such a view point, because if my life were in jeopardy or those of my loved ones, I would not hold killing someone in self-defense to be wrong if it could not be helped. At the same time, I have family members who currently serve in the US military, and while I do not believe in the war in Iraq, I am still proud of my family members, and understand that if they are ordered to do so, they will have to kill people. So while I'd love to believe that killing is absolutely, universally wrong, I know that it is not true. At war, with others trying to kill you, it becomes prudent to shoot back (as Harry found out when he tried his best NOT to kill, and not even to stun Stan Shunpike). As for a solider right now in Iraq, even if they do not personally believe in the political reasons for the war, if they are ordered to shoot, must they not do so?

I believe Hitler was a terrible human being, and as close to evil as it is possible, but I believe that he is too often portrayed as the Devil Incarnate, and that I don't believe him to be. My definition of absolute evil, without a fleck of gray, is someone who knows without a doubt that what they are doing is wrong and horrible, yet does it anyway, perhaps even with relish. THAT is why I do believe Voldemort is evil, and Hitler, while RIGHT on the brink, was not. Voldemort murdered people directly, and even did so knowing it was wrong, just because it was EASIER than not to. Take the murder of Lily Potter, he could have stunned her and then gone after Harry, or just shoved her aside, but he could not resist killing her. Take the joy he always shows in scenes when he is torturing others, and his laughter as Kreacher screamed for help, burning inside. Voldemort was absolutely evil.

However, I just remembered something that makes me want to revise my opinion on Hitler a bit. He did justify to himself that he was doing the right thing and that the world would thank him; that he had been the only one brave enough to stand up to "International Jewry," and that he had been the great defender of the Pure White (Aryan) Race. And yet, he must have known on some level that the systematic annihilation of a race of people was wrong. Why else for example, would he believe in ABSOLUTE secrecy to the point where he never gave the order HIMSELF for the Holocaust, always making sure that it came from someone else; that there were no documents found on the highest level relating to the Final Solution. Even during the Wannsee Conference, it was considered of the highest priority that each person destroy his records of the meeting, and all traces of it (thankfully, one of the group did not, and the allies recovered the smoking gun...the document that proves the Final Solution was an agreed upon plan to deal with the Jewish Question). He not only delegated the task to the SS, but had it done not by Himmler, but by Heydrich, so as to further distance himself (even in the eyes of some top members of his government).

So while Adolf Hitler certainly thought the Jews should be persecuted and that the world hated them too, he must have felt that it was not entirely RIGHT. He was not planning on losing the war, which means even if the Nazis had won (and ALL the Jews in the terrirory they gained wiped out) there would not exist a trace of evidence about the Holocaust. In fact some authors, writing historical fiction stories about a possible world that would have existed after an Axis victory of World War II, have theorized that there would be a cover-up where almost everyone that had anything to do with the camps would have been killed by the SS. Only a few, even of the highest officials, would have remained who had any idea what happened, and what the official plan was. However, I always say that Hitler (while at LEAST it would seem, partially evil, and certainly deranged and sick) is not PURE evil, because I think of pure evil as the idea of Satan as it applies biblically. Satan always knows without a doubt that his actions are evil, but goes through with them anyway, taking absolute pleasure from them.

Voldemort seems to take a great pleasure from evil actions, though again, did he absolutely consider all he did to be wrong? Hitler did not, although it does not change the fact that Hitler's ACTIONS were undoubtedly evil (although I usually lessen the emphasis on that, due to the fact that I believe the actions of Stalin, Pol Pot, and the others I mentioned to be JUST as evil, even if they may have killed less people, or they were not considered by the world to be on the same level as Hitler).

I am not making excuses for Hitler, and I would NOT have it come off that way. As I have said before, I am Jewish and MANY of my family members were murdered at Auschwitz. I believe Hitler deserved a far worse fate than he wound up with, and that he was a disgusting excuse for a human being. However, at the same time I believe he thought on some level that he was doing the right thing, and not that he was the stereotypical cartoon villain who says, "I AM EVIL! I LOVE TO DO EVIL DEEDS! HA HA HA!" So I do not want to be misunderstood, and although I look at most things as being gray, it is hard to consider the actions of Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot to be so. The main thing I see as gray is the fact that not all their supporters were just as evil as they, and many were forced into compliance for different reasons. Where do we draw the line in history between Hitler, and between a low-ranking member of the SS, or the Nazis, who was in a situation that he could not get out of without risking his life or that of his family.

There are MANY stories of Germans and other Europeans who risked their lives AND the lives of their loved ones during the war to save the lives of others. Perhaps most famously (due to the Academy Award winning movie) was Oskar Schindler, who put his life and that of his wife on the line, and lost all he had in order to save as many people (who happened to be Jews) as he possibly could. However, do we then consider anyone who did not act to be compliant or apathetic? Being frightened into inaction did not (in my opinion) show a weak heart or an immoral human being, I just think that those who DID act and risk it all showed AMAZING courage beyond what was normal. From Schindler to the Scholls to those in Denmark (if I remember the story correctly) who wore the Jewish Star in solidarity with their Jewish countrymen.

The reason I don't throw around the word evil, or indict every human being who was ever a Nazi or who was a member of the German Army or SS. Sure, there were those who worked at the Concentration Camps and must have known what they were doing was wrong, I have nothing positive to say about those people, and consider the high-ranking officers who RAN the camps and proudly gave the orders to be scarcely less evil than Hitler himself. However, I have trouble condemning regular people who were forced into their actions in order to protect their families or themselves. It is very easy to be cynical in a situation such as the one that existed during World War II in Germany, and to say, "I am just one person...what can I possibly do if I stand up, save to be murdered and to have all that I love killed as well?" I cannot condemn every person who did wrong in those situations, even if I DO BRUTALLY condemn the offenses they committed. I do not empathize with the Nazis who committed such terrible atrocities, but I do not necessarily believe them to be universally evil. The Nazi regime was one of the worst to have ever existed on the earth, and it brought about more death (if you include all the deaths that resulted from the War itself, and not just the Holocaust victims, of which I believe there were around 11 million...approximately 6 million Jews, and approximately 5 million others: Gypsies, Poles, and all other prisoners) than any other regime in the history of the planet. If any regime COULD be classified as entirely evil, it would be them...however, despite the evil of Hitler, Himmler, Heydrich, Goebbles, Goering, Menegle, Eichman, and SO many others, there were still some who did not act of their own volition...some for whom the possibility of inaction or rebellion (of which inaction might be tantamount to) would lead to certain death for themselves and their families. Those people were not evil, though their deeds were.

Grindlewald was defeated in 1945. But the point beyond which Hitler's victory was impossible is considered by many (including his own generals) to be in 1940-41.

The uncomfortableness didnt come from the references but from what was actually being done. It made me sick to see those, who no fault of their own being falsely accused and sent to Azkaban, the trumped up charges, the disdain for anything other than "pureblood" and the evil that just oozed out of those situations and those in charge (like Umbridge) - it was truly nauseating. I was also amazed at how quickly many of those who could take advantage of their situation sided with evil with voldemort. And as we see there is no such thing as neutrality in war (and life). The goblins and house elfs and the centaurs all tried to remain nuetral and found themselves and their fate tied to the results of the war.

We are only one or two steps away from letting our prejudices get the best of us. Its through remembering the past that we try to be vigilent in our efforts to keep it from happening - like the saying goes "those who dont study the past are doomed to repeat it."

Maybe Rotsiepots has difficulty because she has been raised in the Post WWII German environment and has been bombared with this material and found it a bit uncomfortable but many of us in America and the UK need to be reminded of the past. Its not an effort to be anti-german or always to make the German people the bad guys but its to remind us of the reality of evil and what happens when we look the other way for too long.

I dont think any offense should be taken. Its a reminder of eternal vigilance...

:relax:

No, I don't think so. The thing that sets the Third Reich Holocaust apart from all others (that I can think of) is its level of bureaucratic organization; this idea that it's allright to persecute and kill people as long as there is written evidence that they belong to the group that has been singled out for this treatment - even if this evidence has to be manufactured first. This was a major feature of the ministry's line in "Hallows", even the marauding Snatcher squads had to check IDs!

Actually that is specific to most genocides, especially in western societies. The blueprint for government organised genocides was set by the Turkish government in 1915 during the Armenian genocide.

Most genocides are commited by governments, as they are the ones that have the power to commit murder on such a mass scale.

I am not learned enough on the ins and outs of WWII to make profound comments, although I too noticed the references.

However, I do not feel it is a bad thing. There will be children out there reading Deathly Hallows who know nothing of WWII until they come to study it at school - and when they do, they will notice the parallel with Harry Potter and maybe just maybe they will understand the horrors and the terror of the time - as they will have been through a 'fictional' war with characters they deem as friends, and they will have an inkling as to what it is was like. The true horrors of WWII may impact upon them a little more through this, than when they 'play' war on their games consoles

The most effective forms of fantasy writing will have echoes of the real world in order to give readers a reference point to grasp what's happening without having to spell it out overtly. The Nazi regime is an archetype in global consciousness for totalitarianism, fascism, and racism, exactly the things for which Voldemort stands. When DH references Nazism, it merely elicits an understanding by we real-world readers of the types of terrible things going on, so that Jo doesn't have to write all about them. As an American of very recent German descent, the WWII references in DH don't bother me at all, and I think they were very effectively used.

Very well said. I would only add that as a Briton whose country was nearly overwhelmed by the Nazis and who engaged in a life and death struggle with them for six years, Rowling would have ample reason to make the association. The British will rightfully never forget. Still, Hitler's actions pale in comparison to those of Josef Stalin. Stalin had more people murdered over the course of his regime than the total number of dead on all sides of WWII.

I think right on JK's official site, she mentioned that she got the idea from historical events and its not the first time she has based something in the series with something from reality. Most names of characters and curses (remember philosopher's stone) actually are based on information found in reality. I think thats what makes Harry Potter so good, its consistensy. The whole blood traitor, mudblood thing was also very evident from the second on and i thought that the fact that that theme erupted in the last book makes sense. What other way of making Voldemort scary than actually making him relevent. I doubt she was trying to say that Germans were bad, I think she was just drawing on a parallel. Personally, I thought it was very accurate and showed that she really does her homework when it comes to writing her books.

I do not know where to draw the line between a high-ranking Nazi official such as Heinrich Himmler and Reynhard Heydrich, two men who enjoyed their jobs, who took pleasure in the deaths of Jewish people, believing them sub-human and worthy of being exterminated; and a low-ranking official who was only interested in self-preservation and that of his family

I see no difference between the man who ordered the extermination and the man only interested in self-preservation that carries it out. If anything, it makes him more evil. A Nazi at any level contributed to the evil.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

How about people worried for the safety of their loved ones?

To stay in the Harry Potter-universe, even Mr. Weasley kept going to work at the Ministry, because it was too hard to hide that large a family and they were scared of retribution if they rebelled openly.

Honestly, if it weren't for Grindelwald's name and Voldemort flying over to Germany obviously, everything else makes me think about USA today. This eye for instance sounds like the exact symbol of the Illuminati- which is to be seen on a dollar bill and many other objects.
The anti-Muggle laws are quite like the anti-terrorist laws in the States nowadays. You could do absolutely everything to someone if you accuse him of being a terrorist.
You know what may be a good idea? Keeping modern day political rants/debates/hot topics out of this thread. This is not the DoIMC.

I couldn't help but feel that the obvious references to National Socialism were a little bit over done. I felt rather uncomfortable whenever another reference came up. Oh and Grindelwald and Gregorovitch just had to be German, didn't they?
That's pretty much how I felt. She was shoving it down our throats, and it became annoying before the book was halfway done.

I don't think Nazism was all that JKR was referencing with the MOM scene - I was strongly reminded of Australia's treatment of refugees, the western world's treatment of suspected terrorists and "enemy non-combatants" and the rest of the global war on terror, which seems to be only achieving a complete stripping of human rights away from us.
Nazism and the things that occurred during the Holocaust have much more global awareness than Australia's treatment of refugees. There's that, and the fact that JKR stated that the Nazi treatment and identification of Jews was very similar to the Death Eater's identification and so on of muggleborns. Plus, the whole "new regime" thing...very WWII. Can we please keep hot button issues out of this?

The one thing I'm wondering for all those who criticized the similarities in Voldermort's rise to power and WWII is, what would you have had Jo done differently?

I mean, what would have had Voldermort not try to register mudbloods and be horrible to them? Would you rather he was nice to them and let them live their lives in perfect harmony?

Honestly, what Voldermort did in this book was a natural progression of his character. I thought that Voldermort was going to be doing things like this once I learned that he had such a hatred against mudbloods and all those "inferior" to him. Honestly, there really wasn't going to be a way for Voldermort to act differently.

Now, the most obvious references to WWII were those things that involved Grindelwald, but if you're mad about that, then you're a little late. Jo said that Grindelwald was connected to WWII years ago, so obviously there's going to be specific references to that when we learn about his past.

It was my perception of the WW II parallel, that in the backstory, Grindelwald doubtless Imperiused a Muggle man (please excuse my spoelling), turned him into Adolf Hitler (note reports of his unusual charisma), and was thus the true reason for all of the atrocities--i.e., he was the true underlying cause. Hitler, whatever his inherent evil, was just a puppet.

It wasn't meant to add additional blame--merely to place responsibilty where it belonged.

Just my perception, anyway.

It was my perception of the WW II parallel, that in the backstory, Grindelwald doubtless Imperiused a Muggle man (please excuse my spoelling), turned him into Adolf Hitler (note reports of his unusual charisma), and was thus the true reason for all of the atrocities--i.e., he was the true underlying cause. Hitler, whatever his inherent evil, was just a puppet.
Ooooh, that's fascinating. Very cool perception. However, just to nitpick, what did Grindelwald have against Jews?

It was my perception of the WW II parallel, that in the backstory, Grindelwald doubtless Imperiused a Muggle man (please excuse my spoelling), turned him into Adolf Hitler (note reports of his unusual charisma), and was thus the true reason for all of the atrocities--i.e., he was the true underlying cause. Hitler, whatever his inherent evil, was just a puppet.

I am fairly certain that that is neither what JKR was implying nor what readers are supposed to take with them from the book!

I do think there is a problem with so many Western literature constantly depicting the ultimate evil as a country or culture that it had been in war with in the recent century. (German, or Russian, or Islamic)
If a book is specifically about an event, let's say WWI written from a western perspective, then it is necessary.
But the fact that even in totally unrelated fantasy literature such as Harry Potter the evil side is shown as such... really, it almost like brainwashing.
Though terrible acts have been done in some regimes, it's not like any country or culture can boast of being ultimate good... all countries with a certain degree of power have done despicable deeds sometime during history.

Nobody thinks that Germans are bad, just the people in the Nazi party were. There are bad people in any society, and anyway, Dumbledore was going to be in on it too, showing the British can be bad too!

My thoughts exactly. :tu:

True. Then again, I don't think that anyone had to have a hearing to prove their blood status, have it stamped on some legal document, or get deported to a camp because of it.

I do not mean to minimize the suffering of people who were black or partially black in the slave states...

Sorry, in reality Free blacks were required to carry a document to prove that they were free, or they were assumed to be "fugitive slaves" and returned south for sale. This was even true in the northern states after the Dred Scott decision. (Although some Northern States were very bad at enforcing the "fugitive slave act")

I think that the "hot button" issues are very much at the heart of Jo's handling of the "purity" statutes, but I see allusions to Stalin, the US treatment of blacks and native americans, as well as the Spanish Inquisition. Intolerance is the reason for much of mankind's inhumanity. When people refuse to step-up and speak against injustice they are condoning the behavior of the oppressors . "Therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee"

Actually, I end up looking at things usually as being gray as opposed to being black or white. <snipped not out of rudeness but for the sake of preserving an easy to read post>

Ah, I understand now. Thank you for that very, very well written post.

You seem very well read on the subject. Do you agree that the fact that Voldemort didn't take the position of Minister directly but used a puppet (just as Hitler made sure his dictatorship was at least legal) is significant to this allusion?

Even though the allusions to WWII are direct and rather specific throughout DH, I do think that JKR was trying to make a point regarding racial and fascist discrimination as a whole. There were references to other historical examples of injustice, including direct a reference to Orwell's 1984, a novel about a predicted dystopian future in which the government controls all aspects of human life, with Umbridge using Madeye's eye to watch over her workers ("Big Brother is watching you").

Of course JKR did not HAVE to use WWII or any of these other references, but it was a brave choice for her to do so. The muggle/halfblood/wizard relationship is one of the main aspects that bring this series out of the realm of children's fiction and into to the level of "serious literature”.

All over the world people have proven again and again that we have not yet taken in the lessons we should have learned after the tragic events of WWII. Especially today with genocide occurring everyday in Darfur, it seems as though we all could use a little reminding of what it is like to be hated (or even hunted) because of the way we look, or the religion we practice, or who are parents were. I'm incredibly grateful that JKR took her far-reaching power as a popular author to pass on the message of love and tolerance and keep alive the memories of all of the people who lost their lives fighting injustice (and those who continue to do so).

The importance and the power of what she has done by including these references is proven by the existence of this message board.

The crimes of Nazism are not going to be forgotten anytime soon, especially not by the British and other Europeans. But, to me, the allegory was a way of emphasizing the danger of any form of "we're the superior race/people" mentalities, so I was not really shocked or angered. Grindelwald and Gregorovitch being German didn't suggest anything though. The symbolism to racism is also obvious.

it didn't sit uncomfortably with me at all. i don't think you had to have any amount of "humor" to read the parts that jkr wrote to mirror WWII. she didn't write it with any amount of wit... i think she used the comparison to make it a little bit more real. and as far as the german names... if she really was using WWII as a comparison, then german names would be obvious. (i'm not trying to be insensitive by the way) i can definitely see how it would bother some, and i'm not saying you're wrong for being bothered.

The point here however, is that it was not allegory at all. If it were allegory, then Rowling would have more explicitly pointed out the parallels. I believe that the model of intolerance, tyranny, and oppression have become another literary and historical archetype, and therefore the symbolism (note, not an allegory) was unavoidable.

The point here however, is that it was not allegory at all. If it were allegory, then Rowling would have more explicitly pointed out the parallels. I believe that the model of intolerance, tyranny, and oppression have become another literary and historical archetype, and therefore the symbolism (note, not an allegory) was unavoidable.

So, so well said :tu:

So, so well said :tu:

I second that.

Boy you could go very very deep here.

How about the Charismatic "teachings" of an individual who will lead the nation by it's nose. Voldemort lead his followers through magic, did Hitler use "magic" in the form of propoganda and disappearance to lead the followers, did Mussolini?

There have been many cults of the individual built up, perhaps the left handed salute to begin with was because the dark mark was on that side? The German associations may have been not just because of the war, but due to the fact that some of the darkest fairy tales have started in that area?

Just my tuppence worth.

The way I see it. No one, not even JK Rowling, is above Godwin's law.

"As time passes, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

I thought the Muggle-born thing was more of a comparison to the Stalinist purges, the McCarthy hearings, and Chinese communist revolution. Hitler didn't bother with hearings. Though that didn't stop me of thinking of the song "Angel of Death" by Slayer

This point has already been argued, if you go back and read through the thread
Excuse me!!! I have read through this thread thank you very much and I don't need to have someone to be condescendingly suggesting that I haven't.

Nuremgard, raising left arm in salute, slogans written above entrances - all seem like specific references to WWII to me and to many others here as well (of course, others don't see them but whatever, to each their own).
Precisely my point. You interpret them as specific references, I do not. As I have said previously I agree that the events have a European centric feel to them, as the primary story is British and set there it's not at all unsurprising that this is the case. However I still feel that the allusions are far more broadly applied than this and can be referenced to many such events both historical and fictional. 1984 and Animal Farm are two classic examples with the former having many more direct allusions than the events of WW2.

The point here however, is that it was not allegory at all. If it were allegory, then Rowling would have more explicitly pointed out the parallels. I believe that the model of intolerance, tyranny, and oppression have become another literary and historical archetype, and therefore the symbolism (note, not an allegory) was unavoidable.
:agree:

The way I see it. No one, not even JK Rowling, is above Godwin's law.

"As time passes, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
Yes and no, we only recognise Godwin's law because of the historical prominence of the Nazi movement, it serves as an easily recognisable example of all that is wrong about any sort of totalitarian regime.

I thought the Muggle-born thing was more of a comparison to the Stalinist purges, the McCarthy hearings, and Chinese communist revolution. Hitler didn't bother with hearings.
:agree: That's how I read it too.

Though that didn't stop me of thinking of the song "Angel of Death" by Slayer
Not a fan so I'm not familiar with it. :cool:

The WWII references didn't bother me, in fact I pretty much expected them since I've always equated Voldy with Hitler and the DEs with the Nazis.

[QUOTE=Deevo;4658944]Excuse me!!! I have read through this thread thank you very much and I don't need to have someone to be condescendingly suggesting that I haven't.

I wasn't being condescending, I don't see how that comment could be interpreted that way, as I was merely pointing out that this discussion had already taken place, earlier in the thread. But of course, you know that, because you've read the whole thread.

Precisely my point. You interpret them as specific references, I do not. As I have said previously I agree that the events have a European centric feel to them, as the primary story is British and set there it's not at all unsurprising that this is the case. However I still feel that the allusions are far more broadly applied than this and can be referenced to many such events both historical and fictional. 1984 and Animal Farm are two classic examples with the former having many more direct allusions than the events of WW2.

And if you had indeed read through the whole thread, you would know that I and others have made this point several times, note - that we've agreed with what you're saying. My initial post stated that the themes throughout DH could be applied to many current day and historical events, not just WWII. The point I'm arguing here is that there are some "references" (for the sake of this discussion - allusions) that seem specific to WWII. JKR has her whole magical world to play with but falls short at naming the prison "Nuremgard" sorry, but many people, not just I, have picked up on the allusion to "Nuremberg". The salute at Malfoy manor - again, they could have entered the property in any manner, but no, it's a salute.

Nobody thinks that Germans are bad, just the people in the Nazi party were. There are bad people in any society, and anyway, Dumbledore was going to be in on it too, showing the British can be bad too! He was almost the wizard Mosely.


I think this point is Key. The book may have had similarities to WWII to some, but in all I don't think the message was "Germans are Bad" even sublimenally. As an American, of southern descent I understand the feeling of being put down when people remember our horrible past. In order to overcome it, it is good to remember that we've changed since our negative times.

reading this thread is making me uncomfortable....which is why I stopped posting. I was rudely shot down for stating my opinion, and it kind of made me feel sick.

I very cautiously say that I think the big picture is being missed. Wether creative or not (although, who are we to make that judgement? Are we the masters of creativity, all knowing? Have we all written best-selling fantasy novels?) the point is that we all made the connection quite easily. I think that was her point. Pure and simple. If you felt uncomfortable, it is because you were supposed to. I don't think it was directed at Germans. The metaphor for WWII was so that the "evil" point could be driven home in a way in which we all understand. Over-done? Maybe. Yet, that fact alone made it certain that she was able to reach everyone with that metaphor. Not everyone is a historian. I consider myself well-educated and I hardly claim to know the details of every conflict some have said would have been more "creative" to allude to.

It would be nice for the conversation to become less....elitist. None of us are experts on writing and creativity. I don't think even Jo herself would claim to be one either. We are hardly in a position to make judgement calls.

Please respect others' opinions and at least attempt to state your point without tearing other people's opinions down. It is so ugly.
You "cautiously" say that we have no right to express our opinion on Rowling's displayed lack of creativity because we are not best-selling authors? I'm simply drowning in your respect.

I'm sure that JKR knows about more wars than just WWII. When some of you people are saying 'why didn't she parallel the story to some other situation' you must remember; it is you who are making the parallels. You could connect this book to a hundred other events in history if you tried, but you connect it to WWII. Is this because of JKR, or is it because WWII sticks in our head more than other incidents.
Ideally, Rowling should not have paralleled the wizarding wars to anything. She should have made up her own plot. But seeing as all her books borrow from other sources, with masterful allusions and the most subtle of references, this particular parallel should have been pulled off with higher proficiency.

As for the reader being the one making the parallel... the connection is there to begin with, and the reader can take it or leave it. You choose whether you want to connect the dots, but the writer put them there for a reason.

The fact that this event occured in the fairly recent past and that it still receives so much attention probably makes it an easy thing to parallel for an author trying to make a point. If JKR referred to horrors like the Rape of Nanking or the persecution of the Armenians by Stalin, the allusion would probably be lost upon many of her readers because these events are simply not as well-known as the Holocaust, though they were also horrible times in history. It may be unfair, but if authors are going to start alluding to other atrocities, these events have to become common knowledge first, which can be difficult if they have been downplayed or have fallen into obscurity.
Which must mean that the author's only purport is to publicize WWII. There was no need to make these allusions. The only one that served the plot was the rounding up of the Muggleborns, but the other four-per-page we could have done without.

Oh no, I was being quite sincere. I've been trying to make this point for the last X number of pages, but all people keep piping up with is "JKR isn't anti-German you know". She's obviously not anti-German. That wasn't my point (as so many people have missed).

By making strong comparisons with WWII JKR gives people the opportunity to think "Maybe Grindelwald and Hitler worked together? Maybe Hitler was under the Imperius Curse? Maybe he wasn't such a bad guy after all". That, to me, is utterly offensive.


I can see how you could think that, but I think she made the wars at the same time to show that the Wizarding world was not superior to the Muggle world. While the Muggle world made the mind set that made WWII possible, the Wizarding World was experiencing the same feelings against Muggleborns, which made their war happen.

I would just like to remind people that this thread is not for debating a particular member's discussion/debating style. If you feel a member is breaking the forum rules, please report their posts.

Making remarks such as "I think your post was rude/unecessary/whatever" are not going to lead to enlightening discussion.

I have deleted posts from this thread and will continue to do so if people can't have a mature discussion.

You know what may be a good idea? Keeping modern day political rants/debates/hot topics out of this thread. This is not the DoIMC.

Why should they not express what they feel are valid observations?

In fact, it's probably more useful and more interesting to examine any current commentary which may, or may not, be in the books. Particularly as Bloomsbury has in the past requested that JKR remain apolitical in interviews etc due to her close friendship with senior members of Labour in Britain.