To the best of my knowledge the Italians were never interred. Many Italian POW’s were allowed to come to the US as workers. I thought they were the only POW’s that were allowed to do this. Many stayed after the war, usually by marrying.
I think my Mom had a Cousin or Second cousin that married an Italian POW whose family was from the same town as the Girls father.
I never really thought about this much and now I feel the desire to learn more about it.
Off to Google, but if anyone has a good suggestion for learning more, I would love to see it.
Holocaust deniers do not question that it happened merely the numbers that were killed, particularly jews. This is because the russians admitted that they inflated the numbers at Auswitz for political purposes. Due to record fragmentation the real number will never be known but some indicators but the death tole at three and a half million. This is however very hotly debated among historians. The only thing which is certain is that the real number is probably lower than the current five million, but the true death toll is unknowable.
Since at least WWI, most nations have interned “enemy foriegn nationals”. Since these are supposedly loyal to the nation of whch they are a citizen- and there’s a war on- this seems to be a rather sensible idea. Often, such internees are exchanged, especially if they are part of the Diplomatic corps. How they are interned has varied radically, from prisons to simple “house arrest”. Thus, the USA interning Axis citizens (or the Brits interning them, or the Axis interning our dudes) was normal and a legal part of International law.
What made the USA wrong was that we also “interned” USA citizens of japanese nationality. IMHO- for purely racist reasons, as we didn’t intern Americans of German ancestry (without some evidence of their disloyalty, anyway). This was morally wrong, and of doubtful legality.
Later on in WWII, the USA gave Italian POW’s very wide liberties. But POWs are not “interned”.
Neutral nations also interned belligerant nation’s military if they happened to stumble across the border. They made a pretty good film of the Irish WWII internment camp.
I’ve never heard that the Russians inflated the numbers at Auswitz. Can you provide a citation for this? Can you also provide a citation where this issue is shown to be hotly debated?
The numbers of people detained or interned were divided pretty nearly in half between Europeans (including Germans, Italians, Bulgarians, and a few other nationalities from countries allied to Hitler) and Japanese.
The significant difference in the situations were that the Europeans were generally actual citizens of the foreign countries who were detained by the FBI, questioned, and then either interned or released. Among the Japanese, the round-up was based on ethnic identity and included citizens as well as aliens with no hope of release until the war ended. In addition, the Europeans tended to have been placed in camps in the Eastern U.S. in locations not too dissimilar to their home countries, while the Japanese were placed in camps on the high plains and semi-desert regions unlike anything they were used to.
The 5.85 million/11 milllion numbers were determined following the war by comparisons of known or believed populations of Jews (and other identifiable groups) before and after the war, with a serious effort made to locate people who might still have been alive, but stuck in displacement camps. The numbers from Auschwitz (which were never part of the estimate of overall deaths) came from Nazi papers inside the camps, not from Russians.
There are genuine debates regarding how many Eastern Europeans died because they were Eastern Europeans sandwiched between the Reich and the U.S.S.R. (and among those who see a plot to absolve Stalin of his part in the massacres, there is some fairly high passion), but there is no serious debate among scholars over the overall number of deaths.
Discussions of the numbers who died at various camps are rather technical in nature and are not reckoned as part of the analysis of how many people overall died.
To clarify the issue of determing the numbers who died vs the numbers who died at various camps:
The total death estimate was based on the numbers of people who appeared to have been lost to Europe between 1939 and 1945. It was not based on going out and counting known murders at various locations.
So, if we know that some village had 5,000 before the war, lost 57 citizens who died as soldiers, lost 132 people to starvation, and lost 22 people to old age while gaining 48 babies and they then had 3,900 people following the war, the death toll for extermination was reckoned at 937 people. If 150 were shot in a field behind the town and the rest were shipped to Auschwitz, they still lost 937 people. If 500 were shot behind the town and only 437 were shipped to Auschwitz, they still lost 937 people, so counting deaths at the camps has never been reckoned a good method to track down the extent of the Holocaust.
Nope. Disputing numbers isn’t holocaust denial. Numbers have been disputed and argued about many times, and it’s not a major issue.
However, holocaust deniers do use lower figures because it’s more convenient to support their point : that the holocaust didnt happen. They do not deny that a large number of Jews died in concentration camps, but that it was intended. For instance they deny that the German government ordered to exterminate the Jews or they deny the existence of gas chambers.
For them, Jews were most certainly poorly treated, but not that much worse than many other internees, and died in large number not because there was a deliberate attempt to exterminate them but because the living conditions in concentration camps were extremely poor : not much food, cold, diseases, etc… And that itself wasn’t really deliberate, but rather the result of a state of war, with a lot of shortages, and approvisionning Jews interned in concentration camps being a very low piority.
Of course, it’s much easier to defend this position if you dispute the number of deaths first. But doing so is merely an element of an argumentation intended to prove that there never has been an attempt to exterminate the Jews.
To help fight my ignorance but isn’t there overwhelming evidence the German government’s involvement in the extermination? Communiques from Minsters and that sort of thing? How can anyone in their right mind explain that away?
Help me with my ignorance, but isn’t there overwhelming evidence the German government’s involvement in the extermination? Communiques from Minsters and that sort of thing? How can anyone in their right mind explain that away?
Although I’m Jewish, I tend to agree with the assessments here. It happened in Western Europe, which fancied itself more cultured and evolved than the rest of the world (surprise!), at the hands of a country that was supposedly liberal and evolved, and under the noses of a bunch of other countries that were supposedly liberal and evolved.
Teaches ya.
I think that contrast sticks out. I think that the huge amount of evidence sticks out. I think that as Jews, we wonder why we didn’t fight back and that sticks out. We have abundant evidence everywhere that it was a holocaust perpetrated amongst ordinary houses, fields, cities, and all the other stuff that we associate with civilization. When we think of it happening in Rwanda, or China, or Siberia, or whatever, we don’t think of it happening to us. But when it happens in Warsaw…
Denying any genocide is bad. It denigrates the memory of those who died. It makes us less human. Every time someone is killed for no other reason than they are who they are, all of us are a little less flower and a little more clay. One day we wake up to find that we’re just clay puppets in a meaningless world.
My rabbi taught me to call it Shoach (disaster) rather than Holocaust. “Holocaust” means “entirely burnt up” and has roots similar to “sacrifice.” That’s too touch for me.
Many Shoach survivors deal with it their guilt and anger by turning fury on anyone who denies that it happened. I don’t blame them, but I don’t have the same anger. We have the evidence; anyone who thinks differently is blinded.
But anyone who willingly leads others to believe differently is perpetrating evil on unsuspecting people.
Note that some Arab extremists choose to deny the Shoach as a way of saying that Israel has no “right” to exist. Some Arab governments go along with this for fear that saying anything will just lead to more extremism. I’m still pretty certain that all Arab governments have reconciled themselves to Israel in some form. The Iranian extremists (who aren’t Arabs) haven’t reconciled, and the Arabs are increasingly fed up with them. After all, the Iranians don’t give a fig about the Arabs or the Palestinians; it’s all Islamic extremist rhetoric.
Because two guys attacked the Nazis who were going to shoot a group of people with knives. After they killed the guys with knives, the Germans killed the others with axes.
My nephew confronted a Survivor at a swiming pool in Ct. He asked her, “Why did you write on yourself?” WTF do you do?
Actually, there are extremely few evidences that such orders were ever given. The nazis didn’t leave tracks. Yes, there are orders about the deportation of Jews, but an order stating “Please, exteminate a couple millions of them”? No way.
Even the use of gas chamber as such is dificult to prove. Revisionists state they were really showers, that the Zyklon B was used to disinfect clothes, this sort of things… To give an example, at the beginning of the 90s (IIRC), a german historian who had tracked down documents like records from companies producing chemicals, published a book that was widely aclaimed because it was, as weird as it might seem, one of the first work that brought a convincing documental proof of gasings.
But really, there isn’t any need fo such evidences because, you know, there are witnesses. Plenty of them. Revisionists dimiss these testimonies because, say, it’s only hearsay (I’m not joking) : you see, not many people survived who actually had seen the gas chamber operating. The others only heard that there were gas chamber. They were malnourished and worked to death, sure. But, well, it was the war, Russian or German prisonners didn’t have it better, people died “en masse” from typhus and other diseases, etc… (A revisionnist worth its salt won’t tell you it’s all a Jewish conspiracy, don’t underestimate them).
** Carnivorousplant ** mentions numbers and records. First, a lot of these records were destroyed. Do you believe people in charge of camps wee complete idiots and didn’t notice they were soon going to be on the bad side of a losing war?
Now, I happen to have at home a copy of such a record. Let’s see : hmmm… Name, place of birth, date of internment in the camp. End of the story. What did you expect? What can you prove with that?
Now, I also happen to have a written testimony. But, maybe I wrote it myself? Or maybe the person exagerated, or didn’t remember well? Let’s look at it closely. Hey! The facts are obviously wrong. The Jews mentionned couldn’t possibly be people deported following the insurrection of the Warsaw ghetto contrarily to the witness statement/assumption. His testimony is obviously unreliable, he probably has been influenced by latter informations, or made up the whole thing, or whatnot. In any case the following statement about them being executed upon arrival can be safely ignored.
I agree with your overall assessment. We don’t have a ton of evidence, but we do have a lot. We at least have real photographic evidence of the end result of the death camps. No matter what else a revisionist argues, we have the evidence that the camps existed and that we found hundreds of people and thousands of bodies. Now, the revisionists would argue that it was all manufactured propaganda, and that’s the weakest part of their whole schtick.
This evidence is a lot more than we’re gonna have for Rwanda, Armenia, China, etc. The Japanese claim that a lot of the people they “executed” in Nanking were partisans in civilian clothing. We have very little evidence for that whole thing. What’s worse, the Japanese still dance around that whole thing. For the life of me, I don’t know why the Chinese put up with it.
interesting discussion… i have been reading holocaust texts and accounts for the past few years and have visited Terezin outside Prague…
one thing that has always interested me, as a psychologist, is the mind-set of the individual making the “selection” (which sounds better in German)… did they consider their subjects and the implications of their acts (interesting read, btw)? I have similar thoughts on the individuals who make a subjective “selection” of the veracity or validity of historical documentation of the holocaust…
You’re probably thinking of Jean-Claude Pressac’s Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers (1989), the text of which is now available online.
Oy. Yet another book to read. I’m not sure I could deal with it. But thank you for posting this reply, nonetheless. The topic has to be explored. We should be willing to call these acts “evil” and then search ourselves for the same impulse. To explain them away or dismiss them as something we’re incapable of; that would be wrong as well.
I have assumed that the “selectors” got themselves into a mental state in which the “selection” was no longer human. It was then easy for them to cooly judge which “objects” lived, and which died.
But, I’m no psychologist. I’ve never faced killing another human. Soldiers do it; how do they get to that point? What do they sense afterwards? Do they have
any lessons for the rest of us?
Phungi, I think that if you ever get any insight, then maybe you’ll have to write a book. I’d read it.