0
   

The brutality by NAZI German against USSR prisoners of

 
 
Marat phil
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Apr, 2010 07:37 am
@Alan McDougall,
Hitler's plan:

1. The union with British Empire (German nord-europ race)
2. War in Southern Europe (Mediterranean race)
3. War in Eastern Europe (Slavic race)
4. Deportation (kill) Jews and gipsies.
5. Blockade (USA) & Ruin American economy
6. Revival of institute antique slavery (The Western Slavs - slaves)
7. Deportation (kill) of Eastern Slavs (Russian)
8. Colonisation of the Eastern Europe
9. Growth german population on planet

Short history "New Rome Empire"
Analogy: liked dream of modern USA - "New Roman Republic"

Germany's destiny - New Rome Empire
Russia's destiny - New Israel (70 y. A.D)
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Apr, 2010 08:10 am
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall;150100 wrote:
xris he would have mass murdered the Arabs as subhuman, just like he wanted to do with all the Slavic peoples, if any man deserves the adjective EVIL it was Hitler. OK he did not actually murder the Jews and others he considered subhuman, but it was his evil intention and idea to do so

Was Hitler insane or was he just intrinsically evil?


Hitler, and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem were buddy-buddy. What do you mean he did not murder Jews? He intended to, and he did. All the Jews he could get his hands on. Arabs are not Slavs. Hitler considered them Aryans.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Apr, 2010 09:41 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;156046 wrote:
Hitler, and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem were buddy-buddy. What do you mean he did not murder Jews? He intended to, and he did. All the Jews he could get his hands on. Arabs are not Slavs. Hitler considered them Aryans.

It is tough to tell about the Jews because where they have been they have married; but I read in one of Will Durants volumes that the Jews, who came through the land of the Aryans, Iran, got their high bridged noses from them...The Jews of Israel are far more European than Semetic, but it may have been, that while Hitler tried to kill off the Genes of the Jews, that his effeect was to kill off a portion of their culture..
Khethil
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Apr, 2010 09:51 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;149549 wrote:
"Genocide" is defined as the intentional attempt to destroy an entire people simply because they are the people they are. So far, thank goodness, there has been only one case of genocide in history.


There are a number of definitions that conflict or agree on subtle and no-so-subtle points. I've checked the dictionaries, a number of scholarly definitions and the Geneva conventions 'formal' definition. The differences I've found could include or exclude quite a number of historical events.

For no particular reason other than clarity on your statement: To which definition and which one case are you referring?

Thanks Ken
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Apr, 2010 09:51 am
@Fido,
Fido;156069 wrote:
It is tough to tell about the Jews .


Tell what about the Jews?
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Apr, 2010 10:21 am
@Khethil,
Khethil;156072 wrote:
For no particular reason other than clarity on your statement: To which definition and which one case are you referring?

Not sure if it's what Ken meant - but there's not one Tasmanian Aboriginal left in a pure blood sense, and that's the only complete genocide I think history has recorded (modern history, anyway).
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Apr, 2010 10:57 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;156073 wrote:
Tell what about the Jews?

They are a nation; it is true, but much more of a culture than a genetic group... They occupied the same space, at the same time as the Aryans, So, they may have been closely related, or even married into the Aryans at one point, and the genetic proof would be hard to produce, just because, culturally they have shared Genes with the Aryans into quite recent times...One of my books around here is called Myth of the Jewish Race... They are not a race distinct from Europeans in the least... Their slaves they soon made a part of their communities, and they bred with them and soon married them...It is all mixed up, so their unity is not genetic; but cultural...
0 Replies
 
Khethil
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Apr, 2010 12:44 pm
@Dave Allen,
Dave Allen;156087 wrote:
Not sure if it's what Ken meant - but there's not one Tasmanian Aboriginal left in a pure blood sense, and that's the only complete genocide I think history has recorded (modern history, anyway).


Yea, that's what I"m guessing though I'm sure he'll answer if he feels the urge.

But where that's the case, I'm not sure for genocide to happen all elements of the victim classification must be gone. Now, if I were to see "was a genocidal completed", to me, is distinctly different than saying, "Genocide was perpetrated against <yada>". A number of definitions (including the one adopted by the U.N. general assembly) include the attempt to destroy "in whole or in part". The action speaks to the motive and intent so much more than was it complete and absolute in its success.

If, for example, I look at the millions destroyed in the Americas by disease, slavery and murder in the late 16th/early 17th centuries, that's likely to qualify (as well as the actions taken pursuant to various policies by a number of states , as well as the Gov't, in the 18th and 19th centuries which explicitly encouraged the wiping out of the natives as a race). It wasn't complete, but I'd certainly call it "genocidal" because it fits the goal of extinguishing a race of people because of who or what they are (or are perceived to be).

It's an emotionally-loaded term that is much tossed about to inflame; which I suppose is inevitable. Even so, we probably ought to be clear on how its being defined in any exchange.

Thanks
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Apr, 2010 01:59 pm
@Khethil,
Khethil;156072 wrote:
There are a number of definitions that conflict or agree on subtle and no-so-subtle points. I've checked the dictionaries, a number of scholarly definitions and the Geneva conventions 'formal' definition. The differences I've found could include or exclude quite a number of historical events.

For no particular reason other than clarity on your statement: To which definition and which one case are you referring?

Thanks Ken


"as the intentional attempt to destroy an entire people simply because they are the people they are"

The Holocaust.
0 Replies
 
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Apr, 2010 09:04 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;156046 wrote:
Hitler, and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem were buddy-buddy. What do you mean he did not murder Jews? He intended to, and he did. All the Jews he could get his hands on. Arabs are not Slavs. Hitler considered them Aryans.


I meant that he did not kill Jews with his own hands he got his evil cronies to do the despicable acts of murder for him
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2010 08:45 am
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall;156192 wrote:
I meant that he did not kill Jews with his own hands he got his evil cronies to do the despicable acts of murder for him
May I ask my you constantly whine in multiple threads about the same thing?

Why are you so obsessed with that 1 thing in history? There has been many masscars.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2010 01:24 pm
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;157542 wrote:
May I ask my you constantly whine in multiple threads about the same thing?

Why are you so obsessed with that 1 thing in history? There has been many masscars.


But only one Holocaust.
Deckard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2010 02:32 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;149549 wrote:
"Genocide" is defined as the intentional attempt to destroy an entire people simply because they are the people they are. So far, thank goodness, there has been only one case of genocide in history.


Rwandan genocide. Aremenian genocide. Perhaps others.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2010 02:59 pm
@Deckard,
Deckard;157623 wrote:
Rwandan genocide. Aremenian genocide. Perhaps others.


Neither of these was genocide in that there was no other motive than to destroy a race of people. The only other case is perhaps the genocide of the gypsies.
Deckard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2010 04:14 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;157629 wrote:
Neither of these was genocide in that there was no other motive than to destroy a race of people. The only other case is perhaps the genocide of the gypsies.

I believe the Rwandan and Armenian genocide fits that requirement. I think the slaughter of Native American tribes qualifies as well as a few of the battles described in the Old Testament.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2010 04:19 pm
@Deckard,
Deckard;157658 wrote:
I believe the Rwandan and Armenian genocide fits that requirement. I think the slaughter of Native American tribes qualifies as well as a few of the battles described in the Old Testament.


I know you do. But I don't know enough of the Rewanda to make a definitive judgment. But in the case of Armenia, the Armenians were helping the enemies of the Turks, so there was a motive other than race. I don't think that the motive against American Indians was race. It was that the American Indians were in the way of expansion by non-Indians in the Western territories.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2010 04:29 pm
@Alan McDougall,
Gypsies are Arians, and yes, there was a concerted effort at times to wipe out many whole peoples...It was applied to the Irish as well as the Indians; that nits make lice... As Menalaus said: kill them even to the babies in their mother's wombs...There are a lot of people who make an appearance on the stage of history in conflict with some other, and then they were erased, gone forever...But only the Jews suffered genocide... Right..
Marat phil
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2010 05:14 pm
@Fido,
Violin-fox the song text

And on-over water the fog is spread
cool down car
Again in long journey since morning is going to
Chapiteau circus


Shy on fields from sights it is buried
Breaks door
Our restless love
Wounded animal

Scratch of wheel of pool and dirt of roads
Scratch of wheel of pool and dirt of roads

Hundred thousand years to us run fifty-fifty
To me and you
Everything that malicious ravens haven't pecked
In our destiny

Hundred thousand years to us to wait for the charioteer
And with hail - "OUT!"
With heart of the rich man, with load the beggar
To flop in dirt

To mix bottom and let pursue
Grief and gloom
Only one and it is necessary to remember life
Nearby ravine

And on-over water the fog is spread
cool down car
Again in long journey since morning is going to
Chapiteau circus

YouTube - ????????? ????? ? ????? ?????? (???????-????)
0 Replies
 
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2010 05:43 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;157609 wrote:
But only one Holocaust.
That doesn't change anything, less expalins anything. I just never see him want to discuss some specifics about the affair, just wanna "show the world what terrible misdeeds them Nazi's has commited", which is fair enough in itself, but gets boring after a while, when there are nothing to dicuss.

How did USA get founded? Millions of indians died, get slaughtered. Uh and how did the remaining indians get treated? Screwed over endless of times, how was it at Little Big Horn?
Deckard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2010 07:14 pm
@Fido,
kennethamy;157662 wrote:
I know you do. But I don't know enough of the Rewanda to make a definitive judgment. But in the case of Armenia, the Armenians were helping the enemies of the Turks, so there was a motive other than race. I don't think that the motive against American Indians was race. It was that the American Indians were in the way of expansion by non-Indians in the Western territories.


The Nazis did it on a scale that had never been seen before but I don't think there is anything unique about the attempt to wipe out another people.

There was a lot of propaganda about how the Jews were secretly taking over the world which isn't all that different from the rumors that the Armenians were helping the Turks. I don't recognize any important distinction there.

There was an "us or them" mentality among the anti-Semites that Europe wasn't big enough for both the Aryan and the Jew and that's not very different from the Native Americans being slaughtered and forced onto reservations (with strong parallels to being forced into the ghettos). There are parallels between the Trail of Tears and the Jews being run first out of Germany then out Poland then out France. And if we were to speak of numbers dead well the Jews were slaughtered at a faster rate due to more efficient methods but the Native Americans have the higher final body count. I don't recognize any important distinction there.

Theories of "race" were developed and expanded and given a more scientific appearance in the 19th and early 20th century but really that's just the old prejudice/hatred/fear/ of the Other in a new lab coat. So I don't really recognize any important distinction there either.

Genocide is genocide no matter who does it and no matter who its done to.

Words like "Holocaust" and certainly "the Shoah" have heavy religious connotations and I hesitate to apply them to any genocide unless I understand the religious system of beliefs and dogmas that those words grew out of. But then words like "diaspora" and "pilgrimage" have taken on less religious, more general meanings over the centuries so perhaps someday "holocaust" will too as it already has in the case of "nuclear holocaust".
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 01/31/2023 at 08:14:02