History of the Holocaust

info that ignores all other external factors that enabled and were complicit in these crimes
a rather superficial take, ja? for instance, just who were these nazis?

The mufti orchestrated the 1920/1921 anti-Jewish riots in Palestine and the 1929 Arab pogroms that destroyed the ancient Jewish community of Hebron. An early admirer of Hitler, Husseini received Nazi funding—as did Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood—for his 1936-1939 Palestinian revolt, during which his thugs killed hundreds of British soldiers, Jews and also Arabs who rejected his Islamo-Nazi agenda. After participating in a failed fascist coup in Iraq*, he fled to Berlin in 1941 as Hitler's personal guest. In the service of the Third Reich, the mufti recruited thousands of Muslims to the Waffen SS. He intervened with the Nazis to prevent the escape to Palestine of thousands of European Jews, who were sent instead to the death camps. He also conspired with the Nazis to bring the Holocaust to Palestine. Rommel's defeat in El Alamein spoiled these plans (link)​

what of the french? were they nazis?

Pétain and the Vichy regime willfully collaborated with the German occupation to a high degree. The French police and the state Milice (militia) organised raids to capture Jews and others considered "undesirables" by the Germans in both the northern and southern zones. (link)​

ja
lemme bloody all your hands
murderous scum

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Quite possibly. Hard to believe, I know, but the holocaust is just another genocide in India, equivalent to

• The Spanish genocide of the Mayans
• The European genocide of the Native Americans
• The French genocide of the Vendeans
• The American genocide of the Vietnamese
• The French genocide of the Algerians
• The Italian genocide of the Libyans
• The Hutu genocide of the Tutsis
• The Serb genocide of the Bosnians
• The British genocide of the Scots and Irish
• The Greek genocide of the Macedonians, Albanians, Turks and Jews
• The Armenian genocide of the Azerbaicanis
• The Russian genocide of the Crimean Turks and Chechens
• The Chinese genocide of the Uygur Turks and Taiwanese
• The British genocide of the Indians
• The Turkish genocide of the Armenians
• The Australian genocide of the Aboriginals and Tasmanians

etc etc

In India, we have a peripheral awareness that there are a people called Jews, who, like other people in history have had their share of genocides. And thats probaby only in the cities, or in places where Israelis come to uwind after their mandatory military tour. Most Indians >90% probably have no idea what Jews are or that there was a Holocasut, we have plenty of other history occupying us [There aren't enough Jews to warrant attention, its Hindu Muslim Sikh Isa'ai for us]. We don't even pay much, or in fact, any attention to the British genocide of Indians [ever hear about it?]

In the Middle East, in four or five years, I heard about the US and Iraq but nothing about Jews or even about Israel. Even Palestinians I meet talk about Americans more than they talk about Israel

So, it was only after I came to the US that I found out that the Holocaust [with a capital H, which was not even obvious to me before, I always thought of it as "a holocaust"] was more important to the Americans than any other genocide in history, including the one perpetuated on native Americans and that for some reason, this sentiment also echoed through Europeans.

Myself, I never could understand why. I still don't. When I visited the Holocaust Museum in Washington, I expected to see a tribute to victims of other genocides. A mention even, of others who suffered alongside. Nothing. Well how about other victims of WWII? Nothing. Okay, its in Washington DC, how about a brief single image on native Americans? Nada.

Nothing at all about anything but THE HOLOCAUST.

I wasn't sure how to feel about that. It was like going to Berlin to the Genocide museum and finding it was all about how the Americans killed the natives with nary a mention of the Nazis or the Jews.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This does tend to suggest that there is something in the (dare I say it: 'male') human psyche that predisposes them to commit genocide doesn't it?

Perhaps it would be constructive to look at why HUMANS appear thusly inclined.

BTW you missed out the Japanese......and also the propensity of some to commit genocide against their own people. I'm thinking of China, Russia several South Asian and South American states. Christ the list goes on and on.

Then there's the religious and inter religious genocides of one faith vs another and then one faction vs another faction

Christ the list goes on and on and on and on.

Beginning to think humans don't like the other.

Shivers

 

Its truly amazing how you guys are at post # 85 and have failed to answer the original questions >.>

 

Not at all. Note that the answers in themselves are quite completely irrelevant. What we are discussing here is something more important than a body count. Personally if it was just one Jew that was tortured starved and killed, it should be one too many, don't you think so? The intent is more horrific than the capacity. In the list in post #83, does it matter to you what the actual numbers are? Or how it was determined? Or what were the sources? Or...you get my point?

 

i think the most important question is why.
why did hitler find it necessary to exterminate the jews?

sam raises another good question, why is the "holocaust" associated with the jews at the exclusion of almost all others?

 

That wasn't the question.

The question is why do people need to be reminded that there are others?

What makes a genocide forgettable? Why do people need numbers to match? Why is a body count necessary?

What makes magnitude a necessary condition for horror?

 

Failure to absorb the initial lesson. Hate will also do the job.

 

What is "the initial lesson"?

How would you compare this lesson to your claims in the other thread:

Also clarify your argument that the Nazi lists [which do not include the unregistered victims that were the majority] just like the official records for the Iraq war [which show a zero casualty rate in Anbar when it was the scene of horrific massacres] should be sufficient to reach a value that you [or anyone who questions such genocides] can officially live with.

 

If I remember correctly it was the Nazis who very generously kept records of their body count.......

Isn't it the time limited human memory that makes people forget? That and the fact that humans of all persausions are capable of such savagery. Does make you think just prior to fogetting.

 

Actually the Nazi lists are mostly of those who were to be counted, ie the prisoners. The ones who were judiciously eliminated on arrival [like Hana Brady] were not worth the inconvenience of paperwork.

By this we can safely conclude that if "we don't do body counts" there are no genocides.

The future then is conveniently genocide free.

 

?? "Don't commit genocide. It's really, really bad."?

I wouldn't. How exactly are they comparable?

First, the grammar of that sentence is off. Second, that wasn't my argument. Would you like to restate? Anbar was a genocide? As always, if you have a source, I would be happy to review it.

 

What source would you consider satisfactory as evidence of genocide? For any holocaust?

I'm mulling over what I should use here in this thread.

 

I'll assume you have absorbed the "initial lesson", anyway. Could you also deal with the second point?

I would consider reasonable evidence as reasonable evidence. Why do you think I would question all holocausts/genocides?

 

Right, well, while Sam musters her evidence, I am off. I'll be back to troll and cause chaos later on.

 

Give me a concrete example.

In the absence of any official paperwork or body counts, what is reasonable evidence?

Witness testimonies like the ones spidergoat linked to? Claims by family members? Claims by the locals? Denials by the offending party? A paper by Lancet? A survey by Opinion Research Business? People questioning the authenticity of population numbers? Independent reporters? Red Cross figures? UN reports?

What will convince you of the reality of genocide? And more importantly, why do we need to produce numbers at a level that is sufficient to engage your conscience?

Why is your morality not accessible at a level below that which you define as "advantage in the invasion"

IOW, how many Jews would it take before Nazi Germany was beyond the level that qualified as "advantage in the invasion" according to you and "limited incursion" according to some others, hypothetically speaking?

Do you think I need to?

Rather than learning pointless lessons which are easily forgotten [as the popularity of genocide would seem to indicate], wouldn't we be better off asking ourselves why it required a magic number for mass murder to become morally illegitimate?

 

Sam,

You forgot the hindukush genocide of hindus by muslims, which according to some sources, runs into millions! :shrug:

http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/oct/21franc.htm

 

I guess thats because I'm old enough to have read the pre-saffronised history. The one where Kush was derived from the same word that Kashmir is derived from.

Also because I did read the Travels of Ibn Batuta.

 

what is that history. any links? what is the root word?