I'm looking for a situation in history similar to the Holocaust

Setanta wrote:

You make the same error as those who list other genocides which were not extra-territorial, nor organized as an agency of government;

See, this illustrates nicely why I asked about the "similar to". To me, none of your distinctions here makes any important difference, because they don't make any practical difference to the victims. Accordingly, I don't think it's an error to group the Holocaust with the Gulag and other instances of genocide.

Quote:

Would any of the Crusades meet the criteria of the original question of the post?

The answer is no; the crusaders were an entirely justifiable defensive reaction to the slammite takeover of what had been a peaceful Christian world.

This is, of course, pure bullshit.

It's not a problem . . . it's a matter of there being a valid distinction. The Iceni slaughtered Romanized Britons because they had "Romanized," and they slaughtered Romans because they were Romans. But they weren't doing it systematically, as a part of an organized program of an established, functioning government.

"The genocide was a highly organized, complex operation using all the machinery of the state. The military, local civilian administration, and the political parties acted in concert. They all had separate roles to play within the genocide. The military, the national police state, in fact directed most of the major operations. They would use the local administrators to register people they wanted to kill. They knew where the Tutsis lived. They knew where the Hutu opposition lived." Dufka said that the local administrators directed the effort to drive Tutsis from their homes into churches, schools, and community centers where the Hutu militias attacked. The military provided the militias with logistics and tactics, to drive Tutsis into a closed area for the slaughter.... Also of course, the organizers threatened and killed administrators who resisted. If they did not go along, militiamen would execute them."

....The Crusades were wars, so it would be a mistake to characterize them as nothing but piety and good intentions. Like all warfare, the violence was brutal (although not as brutal as modern wars). There were mishaps, blunders, and crimes. These are usually well-remembered today. During the early days of the First Crusade in 1095, a ragtag band of Crusaders led by Count Emicho of Leiningen made its way down the Rhine, robbing and murdering all the Jews they could find. Without success, the local bishops attempted to stop the carnage. In the eyes of these warriors, the Jews, like the Muslims, were the enemies of Christ. Plundering and killing them, then, was no vice. Indeed, they believed it was a righteous deed, since the Jews' money could be used to fund the Crusade to Jerusalem. But they were wrong, and the Church strongly condemned the anti-Jewish attacks.

Fifty years later, when the Second Crusade was gearing up, St. Bernard frequently preached that the Jews were not to be persecuted:

Ask anyone who knows the Sacred Scriptures what he finds foretold of the Jews in the Psalm. "Not for their destruction do I pray," it says. The Jews are for us the living words of Scripture, for they remind us always of what our Lord suffered.... Under Christian princes they endure a hard captivity, but "they only wait for the time of their deliverance."

Nevertheless, a fellow Cistercian monk named Radulf stirred up people against the Rhineland Jews, despite numerous letters from Bernard demanding that he stop. At last Bernard was forced to travel to Germany himself, where he caught up with Radulf, sent him back to his convent, and ended the massacres.

It is often said that the roots of the Holocaust can be seen in these medieval pogroms. That may be. But if so, those roots are far deeper and more widespread than the Crusades. Jews perished during the Crusades, but the purpose of the Crusades was not to kill Jews. Quite the contrary: Popes, bishops, and preachers made it clear that the Jews of Europe were to be left unmolested. In a modern war, we call tragic deaths like these "collateral damage." Even with smart technologies, the United States has killed far more innocents in our wars than the Crusaders ever could. But no one would seriously argue that the purpose of American wars is to kill women and children.....

http://oldarchive.godspy.com/issues/Real-History-of-Crusades-by-Thomas-Madden.cfm.html

Very long article...

Quote:

....The Crusades were wars, so it would be a mistake to characterize them as nothing but piety and good intentions. Like all warfare, the violence was brutal (although not as brutal as modern wars). There were mishaps, blunders, and crimes. These are usually well-remembered today. During the early days of the First Crusade in 1095, a ragtag band of Crusaders led by Count Emicho of Leiningen made its way down the Rhine, robbing and murdering all the Jews they could find. Without success, the local bishops attempted to stop the carnage. In the eyes of these warriors, the Jews, like the Muslims, were the enemies of Christ. Plundering and killing them, then, was no vice. Indeed, they believed it was a righteous deed, since the Jews' money could be used to fund the Crusade to Jerusalem. But they were wrong, and the Church strongly condemned the anti-Jewish attacks.

Fifty years later, when the Second Crusade was gearing up, St. Bernard frequently preached that the Jews were not to be persecuted:

Ask anyone who knows the Sacred Scriptures what he finds foretold of the Jews in the Psalm. "Not for their destruction do I pray," it says. The Jews are for us the living words of Scripture, for they remind us always of what our Lord suffered.... Under Christian princes they endure a hard captivity, but "they only wait for the time of their deliverance."

Nevertheless, a fellow Cistercian monk named Radulf stirred up people against the Rhineland Jews, despite numerous letters from Bernard demanding that he stop. At last Bernard was forced to travel to Germany himself, where he caught up with Radulf, sent him back to his convent, and ended the massacres.

It is often said that the roots of the Holocaust can be seen in these medieval pogroms. That may be. But if so, those roots are far deeper and more widespread than the Crusades. Jews perished during the Crusades, but the purpose of the Crusades was not to kill Jews. Quite the contrary: Popes, bishops, and preachers made it clear that the Jews of Europe were to be left unmolested. In a modern war, we call tragic deaths like these "collateral damage." Even with smart technologies, the United States has killed far more innocents in our wars than the Crusaders ever could. But no one would seriously argue that the purpose of American wars is to kill women and children.....

I'd say the both of you lack a sense of proportion, and both of you disgust me.

Thomas wrote:

Setanta wrote:

You make the same error as those who list other genocides which were not extra-territorial, nor organized as an agency of government;

See, this illustrates nicely why I asked about the "similar to". To me, none of your distinctions here makes any important difference, because they don't make any practical difference to the victims. Accordingly, I don't think it's an error to group the Holocaust with the Gulag and other instances of genocide.

Perhaps, it is just a matter of reframing the wording. Let us stop calling the "Holocaust" the Holocaust or The Final Solution, both being somewhat euphemistic to the actual events which were an organized Jew Hunt. See? Were the other examples of genocide done with such predatory organization? That might be what is being left out of the discussion?

http://www.economist.com/images/20051029/CEU913.gif

This map (from another thread here) shows that exactly in the south-east the concentration of Polish conservative Catholics is the greatest.