19
   

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

 
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jan, 2009 11:22 am
@Thomas,
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?
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jan, 2009 11:23 am
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

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.



So, why so much blood lust in killing Jews in Jerusalem when the Crusaders arrived? Do we just blame them for having low S.A.T. scores?
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jan, 2009 11:33 am
@Thomas,
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 Romans who then slaughtered the Iceni did it as a function of long-established state policy, but not necessarily because they were Iceni. Members of the Iceni tribe who stayed home were not hunted down to be killed. But the scale was only horrendous in proportion to the population of Britannia. As a function of the overall population of Europe, it was not a very notable slaughter.

The Franks slaughtered Saxons because they were "pagan," not because they were Saxons. The Saxons slaughtered Franks in return as an act of revenge. Certainly the Franks can be said to have been acting on a state policy, but any Saxon who converted was no longer a target. Jews and Gypsies could not stop being Jews and Gypsies, and could not stop being the targets of the NSDAP.

The Cathars were slaughtered because of their "heresy." They could escape that fate by recanting the allegedly heretical belief. Jews and Gypsies in the 1940s could not recant being Jews and Gypsies.

The question was about "the holocaust," which, even though there have been many holocausts in history, has come to refer to the actions of the NSDAP in the 1940s. Literary Poland, before wandering off into a cloud cuckoo land of telecommunications, made it clear that that was the event to which he referred. Therefore, the question is whether or not there were ever an event in history similar to the holocaust. I have said that no, there has not been. I might be willing to modify that to the extent of returning to an earlier remark of mine about how similar elephants and mice are.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jan, 2009 11:34 am
@gungasnake,
This is, of course, pure bullshit.
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jan, 2009 04:27 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
This is, of course, pure bullshit.


Did you expect less from ole Gunga?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jan, 2009 04:30 pm
I find it hilarious that in Gunga Dim and Zippy, you have two bullshit artists of equivalent credulity, yet who take polar opposite positions on politics and especially on Israel. You could only get them together in a September 11th conspiracy convention.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  3  
Reply Tue 27 Jan, 2009 04:45 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
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.

This distinction sucks. Organized programs and well-functioning government are just how we do things in Germany. Just as, if Americans ever were to organize a genocide, they would organize it as a game show, or some kind of reality TV series, or maybe a burger franchise, or something.
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jan, 2009 05:12 pm
@Thomas,
Even with the (arbitrary, imho) constraints imposed by Setanta, at least two more genocides meet his specs in the 20th century alone: Armenians (by Turks) and Tutsi (by Hutu). Here's a description of the latter:

Quote:
"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."

http://www.international.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=11069

But I'm with Thomas, the "distinction" is tenuous at best, and we should include the gulag, Cambodia, and other such cases throughout history.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jan, 2009 05:45 pm
@Foofie,
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.....
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jan, 2009 06:44 pm
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

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.....



The short answer might be medieval Eurotrash acting like medieval Eurotrash.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jan, 2009 08:03 pm
@Foofie,
Nobody could argue with that.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jan, 2009 06:51 am
Thomas and High Seas are free to think what they like. If either of them bothered to read the initial post, however, they would have seen that Literary Poland's question centers on a genocide program which was carried out in foreign countries (which was, that is, extraterritorial) and which was not the rationale for the invasion. Specifically, of course, LP is referring the invasion of Poland, which was not, of course, carried out in order to further the "final solution," given that there was no concept yet of a final solution. The Germans did not invade Poland in order to further genocide, and genocide which took place in Poland, as in the Soviet Union, and any other territory invaded and occupied by the Germans, was a consequence of the opportunity which the invasion offered, but was not the reason for the invasion.

On the basis of an extraterritorial program following in the wake of invading armies, the Armenian genocide and the Rwanda genocide simply don't qualify. I have no reason to apologize for answering the specific question of this thread, and answering it correctly. As it happens, i would consider the slaughter of the Armenians to come closest to what the NSDAP's final solution intended, and it was, of course, given tacit countenance by the government of the Turks at that time. However, no one familiar with the Young Turk government would ever wantonly accuse them of organized efficiency in anything they did, and the scale of the attempt did not approach what the final solution accomplished--and of course, neither the slaughter of the Armenians nor the NSDAP final solution accomplished their goals. Also, of course, the incompetence of the Young Turk government assured that attempted genocide was not taking place in the wake of victorious invading armies; nor is there any evidence that that had ever been a goal of the Young Turks.

Once again, read the initial post--i have answered the question in the original post.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jan, 2009 07:03 am
By the way, Thomas, you can kiss my ass with your nasty remarks about Americans. The phrase "nurtured a viper in one's bosom" comes to mind. I was answering a question, which is what we are supposed to do here. As a consequence, i have HS claiming that i whitewash mass murders and you making hateful characterizations of Americans. I'd say the both of you lack a sense of proportion, and both of you disgust me.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jan, 2009 07:10 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
I'd say the both of you lack a sense of proportion, and both of you disgust me.

I see. Anything else that's new?
High Seas
 
  3  
Reply Wed 28 Jan, 2009 07:19 am
@Setanta,
Hold it right there, Setanta, nobody accused you of anything - you expect me to read your posts, and I do, and so therefore do not think it excessive to expect that you read my posts before commenting on them. Here is exactly what I said on the previous page:

"You served in Vietnam, for which all of us alive then who didn't serve are grateful, and it's incredible to me that you would whitewash mass murders of such orders of magnitude by specious legalistic arguments - or at least so I understood what you say, and apologize in advance if I'm mistaken. "

That's verbatim, as in cut-and-paste. I said it was "incredible" and I conditioned and hedged it every which way - nobody could construe it as an accusation. Nor do I see where Thomas might have accused you of anything.
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jan, 2009 07:23 am
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:

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?


Foofie - by your criterion, "an organized {enter-name-of-target-here} hunt", both the Armenians and the Tutsis qualify - as do possibly others, but those 2 I'm sure about. Please see if you can explain it to Setanta.
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jan, 2009 07:43 am
@literarypoland,
literarypoland wrote:

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.


The borders of Poland have changed so enormously through the many centuries of Polish history that posting a map without a date corresponding to the events described is entirely pointless. You have to locate a contemporaneous map before you can make any demographic judgement!
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jan, 2009 08:19 am
@Thomas,
I have 'setanta' on ignore; you might want to consider doing likewise.
literarypoland
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jan, 2009 08:50 am
@Foofie,
A diary of a Holocaust victim - a Jewish girl from Rybnik - was discovered and published recently in Poland, and a Jewish historian said that the girl was educated because she wrote in Polish (not in yiddish).
0 Replies
 
literarypoland
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jan, 2009 08:57 am
@Foofie,
Jewish music - it's like world music, ethnic music, some may be interested, but it's not the mainstream, you don't hear Jewish music on the radio. On the other hand some of the top mainstream female singers are thought to be Jewish.
Generally, there's a feeling here that Jews are more cosmopolitan, international - which didn't help them much during the war.
The greatest Jewish star is the former opposition figure Michnik, who leads the most popular daily of the transformation, "Gazeta Wyborcza" - a guru for students, clerks, teachers. For Poles.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/20/2022 at 04:19:59