Hitler started after us, the rest were just gravy, so I guess one could blame us for it. Folks usually do. 
Which I didn’t actually state. Stop putting words in my mouth.
There are plenty of posts in this thread dealing with Jews and Jews only. I was continuing that. As I have said, if you wish to extend it to non Jewish people then it is piss easy to do. I’d have no issue with that.
Oh, I agree. But I was responding to the poster that stated a definition for a holocaust survivor as “any” person in danger from the Nazis and that the Nazis wanted to kill. That would include any American, UK, or other allied armed forces serving in the European theater. The poster also claimed that a non-Jewish (non gypsy, non the other groups) woman who survived the blitz in London would also fall under that term.
I would think that first, a person would have to be a member of the targeted group to be considered a HS. Second, service in the armed forces should be a disqualifier as well. Third, incidental danger from being a civilian of a targeted attack unrelated to being a member of a targeted group shouldn’t count. So just because a homosexual Jewish man survived the blitz in London, he shouldn’t count either.
Oh, absolutely, and he should be ashamed to claim it.
We’re Jews.
We always feel ashamed and guilty.
I thought that was Catholics. 
Yes, but at least we Catholics can confess and start over.
And you can post on Shabbes, too!
Oh, damn.
Count me again as having a more restrictive understanding. I always have perceived the word “Holocaust” as specifically refering to Jews, specifically excluding other victims of Nazism.
To me, the “Holocaust”, with his obvious religious meaning, is an event of Jewish history which happened to take place during WWII Nazi era, not the other way around (a Nazi crime which happened to mostly target Jews). I had assumed it was the general and accepted understanding.
You’re right in that “the Holocaust” does refer specifically to the Nazi genocide of Jews. Unfortunately, there aren’t well-known terms that refer to the other groups (including millions of Slavs) murdered by the Nazis.
Perhaps we should use “Shoa” or “Holocaust” for the six million and “holocaust” for everybody else.
That’s so.
But next time you’re enjoying a nice pot roast Shabbat dinner, think of all those RC’s dining on frozen fish fingers…
I hear “Holocaust” used to mean the whole thing all the time. Honestly, it’s better that way. When different groups were rounded up in much the same way, abused under mostly the same laws, and sent to all the same camps to die in all the same ways, it doesn’t make any sense to use different words to describe what happened to the different groups. The ghettos, death camps, etc., were all one single event — it’s better to have one word to describe the whole thing.
You’ve obviously never attended a parish fish fry during Lent.
I don’t disagree with your reasoning. What I meant was that using “Holocaust” to mean the Nazi policy to commit genocide against Jews is the more technically correct usage. I don’t know what the most common understanding of the word among the general population would be, though.
:eek:
Maybe, but this word shouldn’t be “Holocaust” since it was originally coined to refer to the genocide of Jews. Maybe its meaning has become more inclusive nowodays, I couldn’t tell, but until I’m shown that it is indeed the case, I’ll keep using it in its restrictive sense only. I find confusing to use it otherwise.
So what happens to the Roma, Polish, etc., victims of Nazi efforts at genocide? They just get ignored and not counted because one victim group insists they’re the only ones who should be counted?
Perhaps not the Polish but the Roma certainly seem to fit. I think what makes the holocaust special, what makes it different than the survivors of the rape of Nanking or the several attempted genocides in Africa or ethnic cleansing that happens from time to time all over the world, is that this was the attempted genocide of a people that other larger groups of people have been trying to exterminate for a long time, I don’t see how the Roma don’t fit that criteria. Or maybe there is something special about the Holocaust that differentiates it from other genocides and war atrocities other than the long view historical context.
I’m just having trouble seeing the logic of looking at an attempted genocide of multiple groups by the same offender and deciding that only one target group gets to be called survivors of that attempted genocide. Honoring all victim groups should not be seen as diminishing the respect due to the primary victim group, and it certainly seems demeaning to me to say “only this group counts and gets to be honored as survivors, the rest don’t matter and don’t deserve to be remembered as survivors”.
Please note that so far as I am aware, I do not have any personal tie to ANY Holocaust target group, so really do not have a personal stake in this, other than an interest in fairness to ALL target groups.