I said even approaches a tacit implication that any groups are “erased from reality”.
What I did point out is that in the context of accusations of a global Jewish conspiracy, one can address the actual accusations rather than bringing up German homosexuals, which while factually accurate are contextually irrelevant to claims of a global Jewish conspiracy.
How in fuck will it stop being part of living memory? And if you would be so kind as to P.M. me maybee you could tell me how to get this Jesus guy the fuck out of here.
Do you understand what the concept of “living memory” means?
The contention that the Holocaust was a peculiarly Jewish event (with perhaps an occasional non-Jewish victim as well) is far from as incontrovertible thesis as you suppose. And while I don’t think anyone here will deny that there was a very real and murderous anti-Semitic dimension to the Holocaust, or that there is such a thing as the Jewish experience of the Holocuast, your apparent claim that this particular experience of the Holocaust as being the most authentic or most meaningful is, in my opinion, an unsupportable position.
Yes.Perhaps you do not.
Did I fuck you up with the Jesus snark? Sorry. Still some folks claim that Jesus is alive and well and talk to him every day.
Macmillan Dictionary defines living memory as “during the time that anyone still alive can remember.” Maybe you have some super-dictionary that has the real meaning, but I think the commonly accepted definition of the phrase refers to the memories of people who are still alive. In other words, Holocaust survivors. There will be a time when no Holocaust survivors remain. Just like there will be a time when no World War II veterans remain.
Oh, I get it now. Thank you. so now that the last survivor of the Titanic has perished it never happened?
No, apparently you don’t. Nobody said anything about it never happening, just that when it fades from living memory, it will be that much easier for those who don’t believe it (or claim not to) to make that claim, because there will only be inanimate reminders, and noone to say, “Yes, I was there, I saw it, it happened to me.”
Records and artifacts are easier to dismiss or explain away.
Oh, now I get it.
I’m not saying that the Holocaust was unique, as in inexplicable. My point is to refute the idea that the Holocaust gets too much notice today, and the idea that the amount of notice a tragic event gets should be directly proportional to body count.
Historical tragedies can be put in categories. To understand how and why an event in one of those categories occurred, you only need to study the category as a whole. When I say that the Holocaust is unique, I’m saying that it doesn’t fit neatly into one of those categories. Therefor, specific notice has to be given to it to understand it, and to prevent it’s recurrence.
GD rules.
If he was in the pit, I would had told him to stick his dick in a can of Zyklon-B… For delousing purposes, that is.
As he never came back with the source of where he came with the idea that many experts claimed that the gas was used mostly for delousing, I have to say that my suspicions gained just by seeing his user name were correct. He was not just being a “devil’s advocate”
Except they aren’t. Any credible history, at all, will include a figure of roughly 11 million. That isn’t in dispute. What also isn’t in dispute was that Hitler rose to power by fomenting hatred of Jews, cemented his power by using Germany’s hatred of Jews, directed that power via an organized and deliberately targeted campaign of extermination against the Jews and did all of this in full transparency while stating that Germany’s real enemies were the Jews.
The drive of certain people to make the Holocaust ‘just something that happened to a bunch of people, some of whom happened to be Jews’ is… weird. It was about the Jews from day one, and while other groups were certainly targeted for opposition to Nazi policy or Nazi (racial) ideology, ignoring that the Holocaust was about the Jews is nonsensical.
What? No. It’s definitely in dispute. Whether or not the murder of non-Jews, should be include under the term Holocaust has been debated for years. I don’t even think the 11 million count is even in the majority.
On the other hand, the idea that excluding non-Jews from the term is “rewriting history”, is also false. It referred specifically to the Jewish genocide before it became a blanket term for all the Nazis’ mass killings.
This is true.
I used it because it was the lowest commonly-cited figure.
Agreed. I wouldn’t use the expression. Probably “A little twee” or something would be more appropriate.
…and before that Churchill used it for the Armenian Genocide, and it was used to refer to WWI in toto, et-bloody-cetera. So that point is irrelevant - Jews don’t own the term, never have. Use “Shoah” or “Endlösung” or whatever if you want to get specific as to the Jewish-only aspects of the Holocaust.
By the “11 million count” I meant including non-Jews in the Holocaust.
I should be more clear. I mean “the Holocaust”, with a capital H, and the word “the” in front of it.
I understand what you meant, but there is a problem with using the first-in-time method, isn’t there? Some of these groups were denigrated among the liberators as well. The 1940’s in Western Europe and America wasn’t exactly a high-water mark for the rights of racial, ethnic, or sexual minorities or the disabled. It was only in 1942 that Skinner v. Oklahoma began to abate the compulsory sterilization of the mentally handicapped that won Supreme Court approval in Buck v. Bell. The Allies are said to have re-imprisoned gay men, as Paragraph 175 was in their sight A-OK, and sentences thereunder did not need to be commuted.
Thus, to say “The Holocaust” originally was used to refer specifically to Nazi atrocities against Jews–while an accurate statement–surely doesn’t account for the fact that our own prejudices were definitely still at play.
Quite, Human Extinction was obviously a fascist troll who should have been banned 1.5 seconds after posting.
Do you mean “in dispute” much like it is “in dispute” whether or not we landed on the moon? If you claim that the rough estimate of 11-to-twelve million people butchered by the Nazis is in serious dispute (not, “It was 10.78!” “No, it was 11.42!”), please provide a cite from a reputable historian.
If, on the other hand, you mean that some (or many) non-historians tend to understand that it was an effort to exterminate the Jews that ended up including others, as well, then that’s light years different from the 11 million figure being in dispute. And even then, I’m not aware of anybody, at all, who has argued that there should only be the six million counted and that anybody else butchered by the Nazis simply doesn’t count and shouldn’t be counted. That sounds like a massive strawman and I’d like a cite for that if anybody is claiming it.
Notice what I was responding to, a claim that “Holocaust history” was being rewritten. But it isn’t. It’s not. Except by Deniers. Any reputable historian who looks at the death counts will note what they were. Historians are not, regardless of the strange views of some in this thread, engaged in covering up the deaths of gentiles in any way, shape, or form.
History has not been ‘rewritten’. Any accurate and reputable historian who conducts an analysis of the period will mention all the deaths.
Which you admit is up for debate…
In which case, I’d just shrug and say “words change, get over it” - especially when there are non-ambiguous terms that do refer to the specifically Jewish part of the whole sad affair.