We’re talking about The Holocaust. If the Holocaust includes non-Jews then the number of murders is ~11 million, if it doesn’t, then the number is ~6 million. Whether or not the murder of non-Jews should be considered part of the Holocaust is in dispute.
Wow. Wrong. WWII is inarguably the single greatest event (great in the sense of huge and influential, not in the sense of awesome) in human history. The German’s attempted genocide of the Jews is arguably the single greatest aspect of that event. To minimize it as a footnote is to exhibit the kind of ignorance of history that, well, that breeds holocaust denial.
(my bolding)
As much as I detest Holocaust denial or shrugging-of, the statement is wrong. The war wasn’t fought for killing Jews or to stop it. Politically speaking (only about WW II) nothing would’ve changed if the Holocaust hadn’t happened. The greatest event is D-Day or maybe the atom bombs.
I haven’t even been arguing that point one way or the other.
One aspect that distinguishes the Jewish (and Romani) Shoah from other kinds of atrocities of that period is that the Nazis sent Jewish children – including infants – to the gas chambers. In general, they didn’t do that with other ethnic groups.
Nope. Wrong. Wow.
Doubt it. There are wars that changed the course of history. WW-II mostly hastened development already in progress.
Soviet deaths were more than four times the number of Jewish casualties. Why do you attempt to minimize those millions of innocent Soviet civilians?
And yet, you have just minimized the murder of all those other people.
Even if we include the killings in Asia that started before WW-II and had little to do with Nazism, then WW-II was not the worst loss of human life and especially if we consider in relation to population size. In the 20th century it probably ranked in third place. Tamerlane’s almost nihilistic massacres murdered many millions. But some consider the murder done by Djengis Khan to be the worst – in terms of raw numbers - in history. Which is rather impressive considering the weapons. Although the murders in Rwanda, done mostly with knives, was more “effective” than those perpetrated by the Nazis – and absolutely fits under the arbitrary category of being a people that is attempted exterminated. So does the Armenian Holocaust which was also rather low tech. And some believe the Muslim invasion of India cost in the region of 80million deaths – 4 times WW-II. The mass killings by the Red Khmers I believe are the worst in history in relation to population size. The murder done by Mao’s communists killed up to 80million. Soviet communists killed around 2-3 times those killed in WW-II. Although debated, many Ukrainians consider Stalin’s murders in Ukraine to be a genocide, fully on par with the Holocaust. The Black Death killed around half of the whole population of Europe. There were whole regions which were left practically uninhabited. Hundreds of tribes that once peopled the Americas exists no more. Mostly because of unintended consequences of new sicknesses. But dead is dead. And I fail to see the importance of weather the dead have a recognised nation. Ukraine was not a nation when Stalin killed them, now it is a nation. Does that mean their death is suddenly less important? And of course, for the man about to be killed there is little difference if he holds a passport or not. Human life is not given worth by not being the dominant people of a country.
Bullshit, Holocaust denial is willful ignorance most often in the service of a far more disgusting agenda and it deserves to be called out as such.
Your equivalence to the moon landing denials is laughable.
I agree with Rune, but only to an extent: The Holocaust sits so heavily in our history because it was committed by “people like us” from the perspective of most North American and European history textbook authors. As long as that is the case, it will have a position in history books that is disproportionate to the percentage of the human race it killed off. It will be remembered long after the two World Wars have merged, historiographically, into a single period, much like the Hundred Years’ War was created after the fact out of many smaller conflicts divided by periods of peace.
I also think that the term “Holocaust” should be as inclusive as possible, and that we should reserve the Hebrew word Shoah for the specifically Jewish experience within the Holocaust.
Thanks for this, for clarifying how much I can improve my quality of life by not wasting any more time on you. And for reminding me that just because someone can type that doesn’t mean they have anything worth saying. You’ve saved me a lot of stress.
While I welcome debate on my second point, which again I noted was arguable–the centrality of the intended genocide–there’s simply no question that WWII is the single greatest event in the history of human civilization. Anyone who starts out denying that has nothing of value to contribute to any discussion on the subject.
[nitpick] “Shoah” is generic, as one newspaper (NY Times?) recently learned when they mistranslated an Israeli comment about a shoah as a “holocaust”. Ha Shoah refers to the Jewish experience during the Holocaust, though. [/nitpick]
Thnk yu.
I guess ‘ha’ is a definite article in Hebrew?
[quote=“lissener, post:62, topic:511733”]
Wow. Wrong. WWII is inarguably the single greatest event (great in the sense of huge and influential, not in the sense of awesome) in human history./QUOTE]
It is not inarguable. I could make a case for others, from the black death to the communist revolution. In retrospect, WWII was not quite as great or important as the so-called Greatest Generation would have it. I’m not denying that the Holocaust is a big reason to elevate the war to top status, but I’m not convinced of its influence in the long view. There have been other big wars, and other genocides. There doubtless will be again, more’s the pity.
Wow. Do you practice being a smug bastard in front of the mirror or something? We’ve pointed out how it can be argued - you can’t declare yourself right by fiat, that only works in the Vatican. Ass.
Truth be told I’m really not sure. You’d need to ask one of our resident Hebrew language speakers, what little I learned by in middle and high school has mostly left me by now. I’ve also quite possibly written it wrong, as I’ve seen it as Ha-Shoah, Hashoah, Ha Shoah, etc…
But yeah, the two together refer to The Holocaust, shoah on its own translates to, roughly (I think) “disaster” or “calamity”.
[quote=“MrDibble, post:72, topic:511733”]
There’s no single event (I can’t believe I’m even stooping to argue this) that has had as huge a contemporary impact–while it was happening–globally, ever, in human civilization. Nothing comes close. That’s not even counting the HUGE paradigm shift that happened in the global civilization as a direct result of WWII; in every conceivable field: technological, sociological, politcal–ever, on such a global scale, in the history of human civilization.
None of the other events you suggest even come in a close second as far as global and historical impact.
Inarguable.
Lynch mobs who leap to conclusions because someone dares to ask questions about a taboo topic are the mark of the beast. I would find the behaviour shown by you to be ironically funny if it weren’t so appalling, given the context.
The Nazis attempted to wipe out an entire group of people based on stereotyping, and ruthlessly vilified anyone who questioned them.
Some guy posts what is on its face an open minded enquiry about something he says he’s seen, and it’s hard to pick out the calm factual responses from amongst the tide of hatred heaped upon him based on leaps to conclusions about his beliefs and motivations. Then a stupid prick like you has to show what an idiot you are by posting an OP based almost entirely based on assumptions and lies, vilifying the guy ruthlessly.
It would be relieving to believe that the Nazis were some sort of evil anomaly and that their style of thought and behaviour are not something you and I would be capable of. If you want to see the refutation of that belief, go read the words human_extinction has actually written, then come back and read your OP objectively. If you’re capable.
So long as you ignore all the people arguing it, sure.
Me, I’d go with the Black Plague.
Funny thing is, this isn’t even my original thought. It’s a given in WWII scholarship: I’m simply quoting, everyone from John Keegan to Stephen Ambrose to Ken Burns.
Think about it: a single event that includes everything from the Holocaust to the Bomb to the division of most of the world between the U.S. and the USSR–to more parochial fallout like the GI Bill and women in the workplace and the first rumblings of the civil rights movement–to jet engine technology, radar–the planet has never undergone such an overall bottom to top change, from before an event to after an event (speaking in terms of human civilization, not Big Bangs or Cambrian Extinctions). Black plague? Not even close. Nowhere near the global impact, nowhere near the technological and sociological impact.
It’s “arguable” only in the sense that there’s always someone somewhere willing to bang on a keyboard until everyone else has put the cat out and gone to bed.
“In other news, Falklands Island War Scholars declare Falklands Islands War as greatest event in human history.”
Wow, that was easy. Didn’t have to actually consider any of the substance; just, boom! Ad hominem dismissal! “I don’t have to engage the actual substance of the subject; I can just say it’s not valid because of who said it!”
You must be very, very smart.