Gingrich: US faces potential second Holocaust

This is not a rap on you, but I really have to say that every time some idiot (and I'm talking about Gingrich here) yaps on about a second Holocaust it steams me in a big way because the one that did happen was beyond horrible. I really don't like it bandied about as if it's someone's go-to strategy or some insanity like that, or like it's just another analogy to be made. It's not.

It is an enormous leap to go from a few thousand dead in a senseless war to shoving people into gas chambers and ovens and committing genocide. The two don't even begin to equate. About the closest that things that have since come to it are "ethnic cleansing" in Serbia and the horrors perpetuated in Rwanda on both Hutus and Tutsis.

I am no fan of Bush but tossing these terms and these analogies around like just so many hackysacks cheapens what really happened in Europe in the 30s and 40s. Surely one can be angry at the government or feel that they have ulterior motives without tossing in Godwin's Law (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law ) as just so much hyperbole. Truly there are better and more believable ways of making a point, without needlessly distressing people who know folks who actually lived through it.

The holocuast of WWII was beyond horrible all right, but I think Newt (who I'm no fan of) uses the term generically and, no offense meant of any kind, the word is not owned.

I also think that if terrorists decided to slaughter millions with suitcase bombs biological weapons and then the inevitable cleansing and torture that would follow..... well, I think holocaust would be a fair description.

I love you.

Oh my, this is so sudden, blatham.

Oh, I make no pretensions to owning the word, and of course I understand that it can be used to describe the slaughter of millions. That is, certainly, what the term means. Our history has, unfortunately, more than one example of this kind of wholesale disregard for persons/attempt to wipe out entire populations. But let's not go to that immediately in our arguments, our analogies and our go-to's. If he's capable of X, then he's capable of .... Well, no. Not exactly. Not necessarily. It's almost in the realm of, if a vacuum cleaner can pick up a piece of lint, surely it can pick up the entire city of Newark, lock, stock and barrel. The analogy is so extreme as to be laughable, except when it's Godwin's Law we are talking about an analogy that invokes horror. It's used to get a cheap angry reaction out of people and not to really prove any sort of a point. I don't know if I'm explaining this well. I'm not saying that no one can ever, ever talk about Germany in the 30s and 40s or that they can't use the word holocaust to describe other actions. What I am saying is that the use of the extreme, continually and over time, wears down its meaning for people. It removes it so far from what it really is that people forget that it was as terrible as it was.

Hell, when I was President of my sorority, I made a decision that a girl did not like. That girl called me a Hitler. She and I are both Jewish, this was 1982. My crime? I decided to use different favors for a rush party than the ones she wanted us to use. If she wanted to be angry at me, of course she was entitled to her emotions, even if she was overreacting. But to call me Hitler? It goes beyond absurd, into, I dunno, a topsy turvy world of weirdness. I swear this is a true story and it is 25 years later and I still shake my head over it.

jes

Clearly, that example doesn't qualify as "Hitlerian". I think it would have far more appropriate for her to suggest it was "Barbara Bushian". A far far lower echelon of evilitude.

You do explain yourself well, and I tip my hat to your thinking on this.

Living here in Manhattan is such a wonderful treat. The history, the ethnic mix, the sense of "neighborhood" which the ethnic enclaves fostered and which are still deeply present make this place a really rich environment to interact with folks. I actually sweep the sidewalk outside our shop far more often than necessary, simply as it provides opportunity to get to know and talk with neighbors. I've spent a good bit of time gardening the trees out on the street, putting permanent lights in them, and renovating the outside of our building (one of perhaps six or ten woodframe structures left in Manhattan) and have become (to quote Nichols and May) "much beloved in the neighborhood".

It really wasn't until living here that I came to understand the influence of the jewish heritage on this city. Of course, there's also the Irish, the Italians, the Chinese and on and on. But two cultural groups have, I think, been so influential in this city that it is impossible to imagine the place had these two groups not been here. That's your culture along with the African heritage but jewish culture most of all, I think. Forget business...take just the arts alone, from vaudeville through tin pan alley and popular music, the stage, the novel, academia...it doesn't matter where you look, jewish culture has been foundational in this place and from here has moved out to color America in these incredibly positive and enriching ways. I feel utterly at home here.

I already have the nose. Do you think I ought to convert?

I dunno, how does matzoh affect your internals?

is the american holocaust he's refering to the genocide commited against the native americans?

if not, what holocaust has america endured already

Actually, all these reports about Gingrich are sourced in a report by the Jerusalem Post, published on January 24, pages 1 ...



... and 19 [the latter with the Gingrich quotes]:






(online only against fee from the JP-archive)

In short, the genocide that Gingrich spoke of, and contained in an Israli newspaper, refers to the threat posed by a nuclear Iran. Even on nuclear strike on Tel Viv would result in millions of Israli dead.

Iran is reportedly increasing the pace of its nuclear weapons development. Iran already has missile capability of striking any point in Southwest Asia, and will have intercontinental range missiles in a few years ... maybe less, but personally I doubt it. Iranian leaders have been explicit in their intention to wipe Israel from the face of the earth, and their hatred for the United States is nearly as great. How many would die if an Iranian, or DPRK, nuclear device exploded in Seattle, San Francisco, L.A., New York, or London? They are frantically working to improve their capability to carry out their intention of destroying Israel and the United States as important objectives in their overall goal of making their own brand of Islam universal.

No. He wasn't speaking of a "genocide" but of a "second Holocaust".

Probably as many as if a Russian, Chinese, Pakistani, Indian, British, French or American nuclear device exploded in Tehran, Pyongyang, Damascus or Ashgabat.

Well, maybe not Ashgabat.

But since more people live in Ashgabat than in Tel Aviv ... ...

Alright, I mis-spoke. Substitute "holocaust" for "genocide" and my point remains the same. Iran has been as explicit in its intentions as Hitler was in "Mein Kampf". They have no more intention of becoming a peaceful member of the world community than Germany and Russia had of honoring their pact to divide Poland and remain friends. The lack of serious consequences after the DPRK nuclear fizzle has encouraged Iran to persist in its madness. Iran is actively working to achieve its published ends by supporting and arming the terrorists in Iraq, by developing nuclear weapons, and the long range missiles to deliver those weapons far beyond Southwest Asia.

I wonder how you would define "a peaceful member of the world community", Asherman. Seriously.

I honestly thought you to be more educated about the Holocaust.

But, well, Americans ...

And I'm curious of how you come to believe that the DPRK and Iran should be regarded the same way we think of Japan, France, Italy, Mexico, Canada, Holland, and the United States. Iran and the DPRK have made their mark on the world not by joining in it, but by threats and intimidation. Both are insular because their ruling regimes are too fragile to survive openess and economic competition with the rest of the world. These are both dangerous outlaw nations.

By not joining in to what, Asherman? What kind of threats and intimidation do you mean, specifically?

Walter, why are you making such a big deal about differentiating between the holocaust and genocide. Both are applicable for the actions taken by Nazi Germany. Perhaps you would explain why there is such an important difference between the two terms as regard to the Nazi effort to cleanse the world of "undesirables".

See jespah's post (and look up the definition of "Holocaust" in some serious sources).