@High Seas,
Quote:Hold it right there, Setanta, nobody accused you of anything . . .
Oh? Really? As you have noted,
in your post #3551445,
You wrote:. . . 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.
Now, you did have the decency to offer an apology in advance if you were wrong, which is why i did not respond angrily at the time, other than to note that i resented the charge. But you are not in a position to claim that no one accused me of anything.
Quote:. . . 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.
I did read that post before responding, which is why, as i've noted, that i did not respond in anger. However, i have no expectation of whether or not you will read my posts. If you comment here, you do so by choice, and not in fulfilment of any explicit or implicit expectation of mine. When you respond to someone's post in a thread, it helps if you make an effort to completely understand the context in which the post is made. That often involves (and i say usually involves) reading the inaugural post, to understand thoroughly the context of that post. On the basis of the inaugural post of this thread, my response is a correct and specific answer to the question embodied in that post.
At such time as either you or Thomas, or anyone else for that matter, can demonstrate that any government in history established an organized and efficient program of genocide, which was perpetrated in invaded territories (which is the reason for my use of the term "extraterritorial") on "third parties" other than the majority population of the invaded territory, for racist reason, then i will be happy to acknowledge as much, and to say that i was wrong.
As it stands right now, this being LP's question:
Quote:Country A (Germany) attacks country B (Poland), but concentrates not only on subduing country B, but also on massacres against a (large) minority C living quite peacefully in country B.
Offered in the context of the thread title, "I'm looking for a situation in history similar to the Holocaust," my response is an unequivocal "No." Given that he specified "the Holocaust," then any historical situation for which someone could allege similarity would have to be a racially based genocide, and a government-sponsored, organized and efficient genocide.
So, situations such as the annual Frankish invasion of Saxon homelands to slaughter the Saxons do not qualify becaues the Saxons were slaughtered for being pagans, and not for being Saxons. After 804, when the Saxons finally surrendered to the superior military force of the Franks, and accepted Christianity, the annual slaughter ended. At no time in the process was the purpose of the Franks to accomplish racial genocide. I have acknowledged that the most similar situation was the slaughter of Armenians by the Turks--and have pointed out that the Turks, leaving aside the legendary incompetence of the Young Turk government, did not carry out such an attempt at genocide in the territory of any other nation which they had invaded.
Here is the first post by Thomas in this thread:
Quote:literarypoland wrote:I'm looking for a situation in history similar to the Holocaust
Please define "similar to".
That was a reasonable enough request on his part, but LP had already specified the terms very carefully in his first post.
This is his second post in this thread:
Quote: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.
Certainly in a general sense, there is good reason to group the NSDAP's final solution with other such mass murders. But that is not an answer to the specific question which LP asked. When i attempted to point out to him the distinction (which was not a whim of mine, but which arose from the specific question which LP asked), he asked why that were a problem, to which i responded, and then,
in his post #3552677:
he wrote: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.
I will not comment on his employment of a stereotype of the Germans, and the rather silly inference that Germany has a history of well-functioning governments.
Now, perhaps you are unmoved by immigrants who eagerly sought to live in the United States then making such a disgusting characterization of Americans as to suggests that they are so empty-headed and callous that they would make a game show or a fast food franchise out of an organized genocide, but to me it is disgusting. If Thomas really has such a low opinion of Americans and the United States, then i do wonder why he was so intent on living here. I rather suspect, however, that he doesn't find Americans and the United States as contemptible as that remark suggests. Either that, or he moved here for masochistic reasons. Which applies is a matter of indifference to me.