Urban Legends & the Holocaust

[thewooz]

@GorillaMan

Am I being covertly accused of anti-semitism in that post?

Creating your own definition of genocide and of holocaust makes your argument unlosable. :rolleyes:

I’m not redefining genocide.

I’m useing it litterally.

Humanity as one species, one gene-pool.

If you say the Jewish people are a “race” unto themselves, you’ve just given Hitler all the leg-room he needs to slip-slide down to the “inferior race” arguement.

My point that we, the non-killers (for now), should see ourselves as one with the victims, and in that, the lines that create justifications for brutality dissappear.

Also, the minimisation of “other’s” suffering as “less than” our own takes on the idotic light it always deserved.

And, no, I wasn’t making an anti-semitic accusaton, merely attempting to pose a defence against such arguements being made toward me. Note the Palastinian reference, and the quotation marks around “chosen people”.
thewooz
p.s. I’m going home from work now, so have a good evening Gorillaguy, and get outside; it’s beautiful where I am, so that’s what I’ll be doing, hope you can do the same.

[kellner]

@thewooz

Only if you believe one human life can ever be inherently worth more than another.

Could you explain that? Does the equality of people in your opinion cause an equality of killings?

Jews are not “dirty scum of the earth” as a Nazi might put it. They are not “genetically inferior”. They are not even genetically seperated. We are one species, one race, and that which we divide ourselves with is of our own creation or perception.

Of course, but this doesn’t change anything about the fact that their killing was special. Please let’s not get into a discussion of the differences between the groups of holocaust victims. However you will have to admit that certain groups were singled out for extermination - the groups as a whole. Usually this is called genocide. The fact that one views this as a distinct phenomenon doesn’t say anything about the values of the victims.
Many millions were killed in WWII, nobody denies that. But that does not mean that there is anything wrong with differentiating between causes. Many died, but were not victims of genocide: I agree that is a gray area as far as the eastern front is concerned, but neither western soldiers nor most western civilians were victims of genocide. In addition to that, the Germans, whether soldier or civilian were certainly not victims of genocide. Do you seriously believe that there is no sense in distinguishing between the death of a concentration camp inmate and the death of an SS-member killed in the liberation? You are free to do so, but please make that clear.
Yes, the war was a tragedy and it cost innocent lives on both sides, but that does not change anything about personal responsiblility. Things happened that were wrong in a unique way. It was certainly not equal to any other war, only bigger.

[Tenar]

@rafik

So how has the idea that the Holocaust was solely the extermination of 6 million Jews become so ingrained in current thinking that even Cecil states it as an historical fact? Why don’t we say “never again” about the Gypsies who are still persecuted in eastern Europe?

@kidchameleon

In a rare bout of cynicism (for me), I’d say it’s because they don’t have as much money nor political clout as the jews, or probably homosexuals for that matter. Just ask the Kurds how it feels.

@scotandrsn

One of the reasons the Holocaust is primarily associated with Jews is because it was comparatively UNsuccessful. Thousands of Jews lived on to tell their tales.

@GorillaMan

Apart from Poland (which had historically been a refuge for persecuted Jews from other countries), the percentages of Jews killed roughly corresponds to the percentage of Gypsies killed overall. I can’t accept for a minute that we only remember the holocaust because of Jews running around shouting about it. Quite simply, Jews form a far larger number of victims than any other grouping.

Getting back to the OP (whose author seems to have wisely wandered away from this thread, and thus been spared an off-the point diatribe by one of our honored guests), I’d say all three of you are close to the mark, but not quite there (though kidchameleon is closest, and I would strongly dispute **scotandrsn’s ** characterization of the extermination of the Jewish populations as “relatively unsuccessful”). I wouldn’t put it in terms of numbers of survivors, or percentages of survivors. I would put it in terms of numbers of survivors who ended up in the U.S., and thus became influential by virtue of their presence in this most vocal, powerful and media saturated society; and the concentration of Jews in Israel, who became influential by virtue of their united voice as a country.

Yes, Catholics were persecuted and slaughtered in the Holocaust. But they are numerous, scattered all over the globe, and their existence **as a people ** was never seriously threatened by the Holocaust. The vast majority of in the world were not personally touched by the Holocaust, so Catholics cannot speak in one voice as Holocaust victims. The same goes for the physically disbled, the mentally ill, the elderly and homosexuals. The Roma suffered terrible losses in the Holocaust, but they remain scattered, as well, although their numbers are obviously in no way comparable to those of the Catholics. Non-Jewish Poles had heavy losses in the Holocaust, but even if no-dope-radio’s statement that only half of the Poles who died in the Holocaust were Jews is correct, the fact remains that there is still a sizeable population of Poles in Poland, while there is absolutely NOT still a sizeable population of Jews in Poland. The surviving Jewish population (Polish and otherwise) basically wound up clustered in Israel and in the US – emphasis on the word clustered.

Clusters are good at drawing attention to their point of view in a way that scattered people are not, and it is only natural that Jewish survivors of the Holocaust would speak primarily of their victimization as Jews, rather than addressing the victimization of all the targeted populations equally. Don’t we all pay more attention to the suffering of of our own families than to the suffering of other people’s? **This does not constitute a value judgment on the worth of others. ** And while I am NOT arguing that “Jews control the media,” I most certainly would argue that the U.S. dominates the world media. I assume that THAT is the reason why references to the Holocaust (at least in the U.S. and in Israel) tend to center on the Jewish genocide.

Hope I’ve made myself clear. If not, my apologies. Also, I’d like to thank you all for giving me a reason to do some googling on the Roma, thus dispelling some of my own ignorance. I had no idea that they were of Indian origin. (I am embarrassed to admit that I had always assumed that they came from Romania! Stupid, stupid, stupid! :smack: )

[scotandrsn]

@Tenar

I would strongly dispute **scotandrsn’s ** characterization of the extermination of the Jewish populations as “relatively unsuccessful”). I wouldn’t put it in terms of numbers of survivors, or percentages of survivors. I would put it in terms of numbers of survivors who ended up in the U.S.

Excellent points, Tenar.

My point of the “lack of success” of the Jewish Genocide was not intended in any way to diminish the impact of the loss of 6 million people, but rather, to attempt to address the points that you put ever so much more eloquently in your own post.

The Jews were already spread over the world by WWII. When refugees of post-war Europe concentrated in the US and Israel, not only did they form a sizeable contingent in their own right, but found numerous fellow jews and non-Jewish sympathizers to help tell their tale.

The Roma? I don’t think there were enough of them left to form what might be termed a “critical mass” of survivors and sympathizers to call attention to their plight, which was the whole point of my post.

[rafik]

As the OP, I totally agree with Tenar. My point was that this an excellent example of how history can be edited by those in a position to do so.

[hibernicus]

@GorillaMan

You really mean to accuse the present government of that region, rather than Milosevic, of genocide? And “still persecuted in eastern Europe” is rather sweeping, if you intended to specifcally talk about the centuries-old conflicts of the Balkans.

I am not aware of any centuries-old conflict in the Balkans. I know this idea was bandied about a lot during the 1990s, mainly as an excuse for international inaction, but there is no historical basis for it. Read Misha Glenny’s book “the Balkans” for an impressively thorough debunking of the notion.

[GorillaMan]

Even if you want to argue that case, then at least there’s a century of conflict?

[hibernicus]

@GorillaMan

Even if you want to argue that case, then at least there’s a century of conflict?

Nope. There’s no connection between the Balkan Wars of the first two decades of this century and the wars of the 1990s. You could argue the case for the Serb-Croat conflict harking back to WWII, and the persecution of the Serbs in Croatia. Certainly the memory of these events made it easy for nationalist politicians and TV to whip up fear and hatred among the Serb population.

[GorillaMan]

So the other wars and conflicts of the past two decades are the result of…ummm…what? People suddenly hating each other for no reason? Please explain…

[John_W.Kennedy]

I suppose the Balkan Wars are more directly related to the ongoing unpleasantness over the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia than to the actual Wars of Yugoslavian Succession as they played out, but to deny any connection between the Greater Serbia movement that started WW1 and the Greater Serbia movement that gave us “ethnic cleansing” seems naïve.

The truth is that the mess in the Balkans can be traced back at least as far as the Emperor Diocletian.

[C_K_Dexter_Haven]

Official Moderator Statement:
Look, we’ve let this go somewhat far afield, and now it’s too much.

This is a forum for comments on Cecil’s column. You want to talk about lampshades from human skin, here’s the place. You want to criticize Cecil’s choice of numbers of deaths, here’s the place.

You want to discuss genocide in general, like in Rwanda or Bosnia, this aint the place. Start up a new thread, probably in Great Debates, about what defines genocide, about the Balkans, about WWI, whatever.

This thread gets back to topic after a lot of winding and twisting.

[TRUE-BRIT]

The Holocaust figures are incorrect. They were made up from Russian and Polish figures, figures whose authors had one eye on reparations and one eye towards claiming compensation at the Peace table. Even so the death figures were ghastly. My own estimates are that 3.6 million Jews died and another 500 000 dissapeared presumed dead. Russian casualities were about 3 million military deaths, and W European total deaths including the Jews was about 10 million. The Roma [Gypsies] deaths cannot be accurately counted because they were mixed in with the Jews and thrown with them into Jewish Ghettos and Camps or shot in ditches. You could argue that only 50 000 Gypsies died, 1944 Barracks 10 Birkenau. 2 Compounds, or 150 000 know one really knows the true figure.

Auschwitz / Birkenau probably accounted for 1.1 m deaths, but in this total there is just 600 / 700 000 Jews. Treblinka probably accounted for 650 000 deaths, 95% Jewish [including the Warsaw, LLodz, Vilna, Kovno ghettos] Belzec and Sorbibor accounted for approximately 600 000, and Chelmno 200 / 300 000. You then had another 7 important concentation camps, and 3000 labour camps to consider. There was just 11 camps, or so, with gas chambers, Auschwitz and Treblinka could kill when needed upto 12 -14 000 per day, but 1/2 this figure was the norm.

The worst camp was Treblinka, then Belzec, then Chelmno. Whilst Mauthausen was bad enough, it horror/s was easily surpassed by Dora, a camp built inside mountain caves. The Holocaust was conducted and claimed to be a racial purge, but its real purpose, its driving life-force, was looting and robbery on an inimaginable scale, it was theft not racially motivated. Forget Hitlers speeches they were a smokescreen. . The Germans paid off their collaborators with stolen loot, with stolen goods, and with rewards of confiscated Jewish property. The rewards were enormous and 1000s benefited. They disguised their robberys and killings as some sort of Holy Crusade, the truth is they were plain old robber barons.

Its worth mentioning that 4 other nations took part in these killings and ransacking of private property. The Poles, the Ukrainians, the Lithuanians all took part with gusto. There was approximately 4 million illegal Jewish deaths, none deserved, the media-industry thats built up since was caused by the Eichman Capture and the various TV mini-documentarys. All Jews acknowledge that 5 million non Jews died. Its not disputed. In some respects the Deniers are fuelling this media-interest. You then have Simon Wiesenthall [a useless old fool] with his so called Holocaust Documentation Centre. This man is discredited in Israel and despised by many - it gives me no pleasure to say this.

At war ends all the leading Nazis were multi-millionaires from this savage looting [Gengis Khan would have been ashamed at their greed] Thousands of once ordinary working class German families were enriched by this unearned treasure. You then had the Swiss Bankers hovering in the background like crows. The only people who went into the war and came out with clean hands was The Jehovahs Witnesses. Those with rarely mentioned blood stained fingers are The French The Catholic Church and the German Prostestant Churches and the ordinary, so called decent Germans, who during this war wouldn’t even throw a crust of dried bread to starving prisoners. If you want some horiffic reading, read about the mass escape from Mauthausen and the round up of the escapees by the local villagers.

TRUE-BRIT. LEEDS ENGLAND.