0
   

The brutality by NAZI German against USSR prisoners of

 
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2010 08:13 pm
@Deckard,
Deckard;157707 wrote:
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.

.


But that was not the motivation of the Holocaust. The motivation of the Holocaust was simply the destruction of World Jewery. In fact, the Armenians were not helping the Turks, they were helping the enemies of the Turks by expediting the flow of ammunition and other war material to them, and feeding spying on the Turks, and giving information to the Russians. The Armenians did that because they were also waging a rebellion against the Ottoman Empire to establish an independent Armenia. The motivation of Turkey was not simply the destruction of Armenians, but partly to stop the Armenians from giving aid and comfort to Turkey's enemies, and partly to avenge themselves against the Armenians for aiding Turkey's enemies. This, of course, is completely different from the Holocaust. The Jews of Germany were one of the most loyal and assimilated of all the alien population in Germany, if not the most. They had fought loyally for Germany in World War I, and were awarded many medals for valor. The destruction of the German Jews (and the Jews in the rest of Europe) was exclusively motivated by racism. This never happened before, nor (so far as I know) since.

i should not have to add that I am not, of course, excusing what the Turk did to the Armenians. But in these days of political correctness, I suppose I had better do so.
Deckard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2010 09:43 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;157721 wrote:
But that was not the motivation of the Holocaust. The motivation of the Holocaust was simply the destruction of World Jewery. In fact, the Armenians were not helping the Turks, they were helping the enemies of the Turks by expediting the flow of ammunition and other war material to them, and feeding spying on the Turks, and giving information to the Russians. The Armenians did that because they were also waging a rebellion against the Ottoman Empire to establish an independent Armenia. The motivation of Turkey was not simply the destruction of Armenians, but partly to stop the Armenians from giving aid and comfort to Turkey's enemies, and partly to avenge themselves against the Armenians for aiding Turkey's enemies. This, of course, is completely different from the Holocaust. The Jews of Germany were one of the most loyal and assimilated of all the alien population in Germany, if not the most. They had fought loyally for Germany in World War I, and were awarded many medals for valor. The destruction of the German Jews (and the Jews in the rest of Europe) was exclusively motivated by racism. This never happened before, nor (so far as I know) since.

i should not have to add that I am not, of course, excusing what the Turk did to the Armenians. But in these days of political correctness, I suppose I had better do so.


What about tracts like the Protocols of Zion. Hogwash of course but I am sure many Nazis believed the Jews were really conspiring against the goyum and seeking to corrupt them.

Jews have been mistrusted for centuries. Perhaps it's really more a case of a bad reputation that stuck. Yes this is racism but so was believing that Native Americans were savages and not quite human and that's really a the same kind of myth.

The Jewish genocide is unique but all genocides are unique in some way.

The Jewish have considered themselves a people set apart and sacred but so have many other peoples. The Jews seem to be a special case though. Unique in how long they have insisted on maintaining their set-apartness even to the point of making there suffering separate and sacred. I don't think this is necessary and a bit daft.

I have compassion and recognize the tragedy of the holocaust and I am outraged by it. But this feeling, this degree of outrage is not remarkably different from the feelings I have associated with slavery and the Native American genocide. The distinctions between these tragedies are trivial and ultimately do more to maintain the divisions between peoples than to foster a peace that will prevent future tragedies.

So I disagree. The Jewish Holocaust is not the only genocide in history.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2010 09:51 pm
@Deckard,
Deckard;157759 wrote:
What about tracts like the Protocols of Zion. Hogwash of course but I am sure many Nazis believed the Jews were really conspiring against the goyum and seeking to corrupt them.



But the Armenians did do something. The Jews didn't. And the Protocols were caused by racism. They were not the cause of racism. You are mixing up the cause with the effect. "The fallacy of false cause".
Deckard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2010 09:53 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;157763 wrote:
But the Armenians did do something. The Jews didn't. And the Protocols were caused by racism. They were not the cause of racism. You are mixing up the cause with the effect. "The fallacy of false cause".


What did the Native Americans do?
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2010 10:00 pm
@Deckard,
Deckard;157765 wrote:
What did the Native Americans do?


Impeded white expansion. I already pointed that out. Racism was not the motive. Impeding white expansionism was.
Deckard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2010 10:12 pm
@kennethamy,
The Nazis saw the Jews as impeding their expansion...the Jewish Problem impeded the expansion of Nazi power and Nazi philosophy hence The Final Solution. Germany didn't have anywhere to expand to so it turned in on itself and found the Other within and proceeded to remove them to make more room for the Aryan people expand and prosper. While at the same time expanding outward by invading neighboring countries. Jews impeded the purity of the German people. The pursuit of this purity at the cost of the Jews is really not so different from the expansion of the Europeans into America at the cost of the Native Americans.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2010 10:31 pm
@Deckard,
Deckard;157772 wrote:
The Nazis saw the Jews as impeding their expansion...the Jewish Problem impeded the expansion of Nazi power and Nazi philosophy hence The Final Solution. Germany didn't have anywhere to expand to so it turned in on itself and found the Other within and proceeded to remove them to make more room for the Aryan people expand and prosper. While at the same time expanding outward by invading neighboring countries. Jews impeded the purity of the German people. The pursuit of this purity at the cost of the Jews is really not so different from the expansion of the Europeans into America at the cost of the Native Americans.


They thought that the Jews of Europe were impeding their expansion? Where did you find that information? In fact, as I pointed out, the German Jews were, up to the Nazi era, enthusiastic supporters of German political goals. I hope you are not just arguing for the sake of argument. Notice, to say that the Jews "impeded" the purity of the German people is already to inject racism into the motives. It is not exactly PC to think that the Holocaust was unique. But all the evidence is that it was.
Deckard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2010 11:14 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;157780 wrote:
They thought that the Jews of Europe were impeding their expansion? Where did you find that information? In fact, as I pointed out, the German Jews were, up to the Nazi era, enthusiastic supporters of German political goals. I hope you are not just arguing for the sake of argument. Notice, to say that the Jews "impeded" the purity of the German people is already to inject racism into the motives. It is not exactly PC to think that the Holocaust was unique. But all the evidence is that it was.

I think my last comment made sense. The nation had imperialistic tendencies and ambitions and yet had no barbarians races to conquer so it focused in on the a population that wasn't quite fully integrated into German culture and called them outsiders. They found territory that could be conquered and natives to slaughter within their own borders. What I'm saying actually makes a lot of sense...as a theory or at least an hypothesis as to why the Nazis included antisemitism in their political platform and propaganda - and how this can be compared to the slaughter of the Native Americans by the Europeans.

To me the distinction you are focusing on...these "other reasons" is a little like saying that the enslavement of Africans in the U.S. was not racially based enough to be called "racist" because there were economic reasons for this slavery. And that's just hogwash. For similar reasons I will use the word "genocide" for the various other racially based mass killings that have taken place in history. As those massacres weren't racially based enough to be called genocides? Really? Hogwash. The systematically slaughter of a particular people, race or tribe and that is called genocide regardless of what other motivating factors there may be...if the deciding factor as to who lives and who dies is racial then it is genocide.

No I am not just arguing to argue. I care about this stuff.

But why do you think the Jewish genocide happened? What caused the Nazis and all those little Germans that just followed orders to turn on the Jews? Just a whim? Bad science? Bad philosophy?
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 03:25 am
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;157687 wrote:
Screwed over endless of times, how was it at Little Big Horn?

Not sure Little Big Horn's a good example of Native Americans being screwed over. The Native Americans triumphed at Little Big Horn.

Not that I don't get your general gist - I don't think the Holocaust was the world's only genocide either - I think the genocide of the Tasmanians is modern history's only complete genocide, and genocides in Rwanda are certainly deserving of the name.

But Little Big Horn was a victory for the Native Americans nevertheless.
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 03:59 am
@Dave Allen,
Dave Allen;157852 wrote:
Not sure Little Big Horn's a good example of Native Americans being screwed over. The Native Americans triumphed at Little Big Horn.

Not that I don't get your general gist - I don't think the Holocaust was the world's only genocide either - I think the genocide of the Tasmanians is modern history's only complete genocide, and genocides in Rwanda are certainly deserving of the name.

But Little Big Horn was a victory for the Native Americans nevertheless.
In warfare it was a victory, politically a total screwover.
0 Replies
 
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 04:17 am
@Alan McDougall,
Maybe - but selling beads isn't genocide either and the Native Americans didn't have to buy the beads after LBH (though it's understandable why they did so considering the firepower ranged against them).

To be clear - I'm not suggesting they weren't terribly exploited, but I don't see how that squares with the discussion as a gestalt. Conning people is deplorable, conning them at gunpoint more so, and sticking them in the zyklon b showers more so still.
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 05:58 am
@Deckard,
Deckard;157814 wrote:
The systematically slaughter of a particular people, race or tribe and that is called genocide regardless of what other motivating factors there may be...if the deciding factor as to who lives and who dies is racial then it is genocide.



But why do you think the Jewish genocide happened? What caused the Nazis and all those little Germans that just followed orders to turn on the Jews? Just a whim? Bad science? Bad philosophy?


Yes, that is what I have been arguing, and that is what makes the Holocaust so unique.

About that other question, that is something that people have been talking about for the last 80 odd years. I don't know the answer.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 06:05 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;157763 wrote:
But the Armenians did do something. The Jews didn't. And the Protocols were caused by racism. They were not the cause of racism. You are mixing up the cause with the effect. "The fallacy of false cause".

Are you kidding me Ken, that you would convict all the Armenians who did not have even their own government; men, women and children for the actions of a few??? You know the Jews could be convicted by the same standard which is unfair, and totally criminal....
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 07:37 am
@Fido,
Fido;157890 wrote:
Are you kidding me Ken, that you would convict all the Armenians who did not have even their own government; men, women and children for the actions of a few??? You know the Jews could be convicted by the same standard which is unfair, and totally criminal....


Strawman.............
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 07:50 am
@Alan McDougall,
Not really, he's suggesting the Armenians were scapegoated because of the putative actions of a few Armenians.

Which does compare (in terms of cause and effect if not scale) with the Jewish Holocaust.

Seems to me that insisting on the uniqueness of the Jewish genocide on the grounds that they were killed for being who they were is wrong. In terms of scale it was massive, and in terms of the industrial process behind it the most chillingly robotic, but even you say you "don't know" about the tit-for-tat genocides committed by the Tutsis and Hutus in Rwanda, and your insistence that there was a justification of sorts for the persecution of Armenians seems ridiculous, really.

Unless you actually do think it was justified.

In which case Fido's query is fair enough.

Either arms smuggling was a weak justification for wholesale slaughter or it wasn't.

If it was, it compares to the weak justifications for wholesale slaughter of the Jews, even if those justifications were rooted in myth rather than reality.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 07:53 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;157929 wrote:
Strawman.............

It does not matter who the victims are or what the justification, because the thing, the killing of human beings, and not strawmen, is a crime, and an immorality, and an injustice...
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 07:59 am
@Dave Allen,
Dave Allen;157935 wrote:


Seems to me that insisting on the uniqueness of the Jewish genocide on the grounds that they were killed for being who they were is wrong..


How is it wrong if it is true? Why would the insistence on the truth of a proposition be wrong? Racism was uniquely the motive for the attempt at the extermination of the Jews. It was not the motive for the attempt to kill the Armenians, nor American Indians, and so on. Is that true or not is the issue.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 08:01 am
@Dave Allen,
Dave Allen;157935 wrote:
Not really, he's suggesting the Armenians were scapegoated because of the putative actions of a few Armenians.

Which does compare (in terms of cause and effect if not scale) with the Jewish Holocaust.

Seems to me that insisting on the uniqueness of the Jewish genocide on the grounds that they were killed for being who they were is wrong. In terms of scale it was massive, and in terms of the industrial process behind it the most chillingly robotic, but even you say you "don't know" about the tit-for-tat genocides committed by the Tutsis and Hutus in Rwanda, and your insistence that there was a justification of sorts for the persecution of Armenians seems ridiculous, really.

Unless you actually do think it was justified.

In which case Fido's query is fair enough.

Either arms smuggling was a weak justification for wholesale slaughter or it wasn't.

If it was, it compares to the weak justifications for wholesale slaughter of the Jews, even if those justifications were rooted in myth rather than reality.

Hitler commented at one point on the Armenian genocide, and said the world does not care... We can grasp the death of one, if it is our own or one near and dear... As Stalin was supposed to have said: the death's of ten thousand is a statistic... No one can get their mind around all the suffering and loss of so many lives, so much humanity... In the very counting of them we miss the point that numbers fail in the abstraction of the human condition, of moral reality... The small amount of time we spend remembering such events, the lives, the lost dreams, the living history, the humanity is worth all the numbers in the world strung end on end...Never again is not only a warning from the Jews to the rest of humanity, but should be humanities promise to itself... If in peace we demand justice, then there will not be war, and in war there will not be atrocities... Demand peace, and work for justice...
0 Replies
 
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 08:14 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;157940 wrote:
How is it wrong if it is true? Why would the insistence on the truth of a proposition be wrong? Racism was uniquely the motive for the attempt at the extermination of the Jews. It was not the motive for the attempt to kill the Armenians, nor American Indians, and so on. Is that true or not is the issue.
Yes it is.

I think racism certainly was the case in the Armenian genocide, people were abused as a folk on the basis of some very weak justification.

The American Indians I would tentatively agree with you - they were exploited awfully, and I think racism certainly played a part - but I think it stops short of genocide (for admittedly somewhat arbitrary reasons). The selling of smallpox infected blankets was a genocidal act though, I think.

Tutsis and Hutus, I can't see how it was anything but prejudice based on perceptions of what they meant "as a people", likewise with the destruction of the Tasmanians. They were regarded as Untermenshen or poisonous people by those who massacred them just as vehemently as the Nazis regarded the Jews or the Gypsies.

Unless "they are very technologically naive" is a justification for slaughter.

All these people were subjected to massacres, or wholly wiped out in the case of the Tasmanians, because they were perceived to be "the other".
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 08:19 am
@Dave Allen,
Dave Allen;157947 wrote:
Yes it is.

I think racism certainly was the case in the Armenian genocide, people were abused as a folk on the basis of some very weak justification.

The American Indians I would tentatively agree with you - they were exploited awfully, and I think racism certainly played a part - but I think it stops short of genocide (for admittedly somewhat arbitrary reasons). The selling of smallpox infected blankets was a genocidal act though, I think.

Tutsis and Hutus, I can't see how it was anything but prejudice based on perceptions of what they meant "as a people", likewise with the destruction of the Tasmanians. They were regarded as Untermenshen or poisonous people by those who massacred them just as vehemently as the Nazis regarded the Jews or the Gypsies.

Unless "they are very technologically naive" is a justification for slaughter.

All these people were subjected to massacres, or wholly wiped out in the case of the Tasmanians, because they were perceived to be "the other".


Well, this is all a question of fact. I am satisfied, on the basis of my reading, that the Holocaust was unique because the motive was entirely racist. Do you think that in the case of the Armenians or the others, racism was the complete motive or not?
 

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 0.03 seconds on 01/30/2023 at 09:08:41