What makes the holocaust such a big deal?

Discussion in 'History' started by Roman, Apr 3, 2008.

  1. Roman Banned Banned

    So why are your panties all in a bunch over the US turning away some stupid jews 60 or so years ago?

    Who wanted a bunch of poor, non-english speaking refugees?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Everyone wants them now..
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    They were so mixed into European society that in many cases (tens of thousands) sophisticated identification procedures were necessary to discover them.

    The Turks who killed the Armenians had no problem identifying their victims, the Hutu and Tutsi didn't need geneological records to ferret out their enemy, and so forth. They were killing people of another culture, another way of life, usually another geographical location.

    The Jews in Europe were important constituent parts of the cultures that turned on them. They were there at the founding of a lot of those countries. The parallel in the US would be something like killing all the Presbyterians or Episcopalians.

    Cambodia is the closest I can think of, among the big killings.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Bells Staff Member

    Yes. Again, saying the "G" word would have resulted in the world actually having to react. Hence why the UN did not and could not publically use the word "Genocide" to describe what was happening in Rwanda, because it would have then been forced to do something to try to stop it and the Security Council had many members who were strong arming and refusing to even send a functioning support land vehicle, let alone some soldiers.

    The "yanks" did not have to send anything. They, along with France, Belgium, Russia and several other SC member countries could have simply allowed other countries that wanted to stop it to send the troops and equipment. But they did not. In fact, they did everything they could to prevent any action in Rwanda, refusing the initial request for the number of troops that was seen to be essential if they were to stop the killing. Had Rwanda happened in a European country, I'll put it this way, we would not be discussing the genocide of over 800,000 to a couple of million people (initial genocide estimate as well as the deaths that continued in the refugee camps at the hands of the genocidaires who were by that point, under French protection). Had Rwanda happened in Europe, it would not have happened at all because every single country would have been rushing to provide all that was necessary. Rwanda is in Africa and the UN staff there got nothing... zip.. fuck all.

    Are you serious? Do you tell yourself that because it provides you with some comfort?

    The US had enough money to remove their own people and others from other countries, regardless of the distance. As you say though, Rwanda had "no oil", so at the end of the day, who cares if a couple of millions of Africans die.

    Yes they did Geoff. Very much so.

    "Oh well"?

    That is all you can say, "Oh well"? Is your memory failing you in your old age Geoff? You forget that the UN weapons inspectors stated quite openly that there was absolutely no evidence of WMD's in Iraq?

    Of course. Who really gives a shit, eh Geoff?

    It became "humanitarian" after the US was forced to admit that there were no WMD's in Iraq. After all, they had to scramble to find some form of justification for their invasion. 'Shock and awe' and all failed to do anything except kill innocent civilians. Funny how their "humanitarian" intervention came about so late, eh Geoff? Funny how their "humanitarian" efforts were not seen to be necessary when Saddam was actually using WMD's they provided him with and logistics for in the first place. But that's another story and thread. They were, after all, killing Iranians then so it's all ok, eh Geoff?

    Of course dear.

    At the end of the day, Rwanda is proof of just how little we have learnt since WWII and the fate of the Jews and others at the hands of the Nazis. That is why it is so relevant to us today.
  8. John99 Banned Banned

    Bells, anything the U.S (especially the U.S) or any nation was to do in African countries peoploe like you will sooner or later find a way to demonise them. You remember that 'whitey' invented aids with the medication they gave out? Then you have the religiofascists to deal with. Any help is met with resistance, al,ost all the time and then we have the yahoos in the west to deal with (not gonna mention any names). Same shit, no ,atter what and nothing changes. I dont think you realize that its your fault.
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2008
  9. Bells Staff Member


    What is my fault John?

    John, do you know or understand the events in and about Rwanda? Yes? No? Do you understand the West's actions, or lack of, about Rwanda and the reasons behind it? Do you understand how and why it is relevant to us as a society? Do you know why there have been so many books and studies completed as a result? Yes? No?
  10. John99 Banned Banned

    Bells. What would you like to be done? You want to go there with a flower in one hand and a suitcase full of cash in the other. What will that do? Who's hands will the money end up in? oh, yeah. Just wait for the shoulder fired rockets and the AK47s. Good plan.

    And as far a Iraq, well Saddam bragged about his weapons and what he was going to do with them. Do You want me to find the transcripts to the same speeches over and over or are you just playing with me?

    The point is this: WHAT IS HAPPENING THERE NOW? where is the support for these people? Certainly not from you, seems like the whole world left them out to dry. So go ahead criticize, hope for the failure in Iraq and nothing changes. Back to square one. See how that works? No. I didnt think so.
  11. Bells Staff Member

    With Rwanda? All too late now, isn't it John?

    For a start, they could have removed the Rwandan member who was sitting on the SC at the time, and therefore privy to all discussions, documents and reports coming out from UN staff in Rwanda. A member, who I might add, was also a member of the interim Government who was committing the genocide in the first place. That might have been a start, don't you think?

    They didn't need your cash or your flowers John. What they needed was a few extra ground forces and not have the members of the UNSC trying to consistently stymie all aid and intervention efforts to stop the killings and help them. That is what they needed. They got nothing. As I said, the US did not have to become personally involved. But it also did not have to try to kill all resolutions that would have allowed a few thousand forces (again, between 5,000 and 8,000 forces) and aid to get in there and stop the killing. But they did stop it and all you can come up with is sarcastically asking if you should have gone in there with money and flowers?

    You are living proof of just how little we learnt from the genocide committed by the Nazi's and proves just how relevant Rwanda is to us today.

    There was also strong evidence that he had no WMD's and that his speeches was just posturing.

    Where is the support for them John? Oh, I guess it is getting lost in the fact that the West is taking political sides in Iraq. The support is there for the people, but the public in the West have withdrawn support for our Governments that sent us into war on false pretenses. I don't hope for failure in Iraq. Far from it. I do, however, hope that one day we will be able to take our heads out of our collective arses and actually do something right for a change. So far, we have failed miserably on all fronts.
  12. John99 Banned Banned

    Ok Bells. Thats all 'they' had to do, that would solve everything. What happens when they leave? When your kids turn 17-18 send them out to fight in Rwanda, send them there with a gun on their shoulders because they will need one and people can criticize them and what they have to do. I have the feeling that that is NOT going to happen though.

    Just posturing? Dont make me laugh.
  13. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    It's easy to say that in retrospect, Bells. In fact all they needed to do was jam the radio stations. But all the troops in the world cannot alter what is in your mind. Ethnic tension has a way of breaking out no matter what we do. Where was the UN? We didn't learn anything from the Nazis, nor is there anything to learn. Humans are violent.

    The root cause of the violence in Rawanda was crop failure, combined with the diminishing amount of cropland for young people to farm, leaving them angry and jobless, dependent on their family for support.
  14. Bells Staff Member

    Yes, it is easy to say that in retrospect.

    A request was made for their radio stations to be jammed, to stop the propaganda. That was refused as well. Apparently the US could not financially afford to fly the planes required to jam the airwaves that was sending out the propaganda for a week or so to help calm the situation a bit.

    Alter my mind? I have studied the events of Rwanda in detail. There were a tonne of things we could have done to stop and/or prevent the genocide. We did nothing at all, instead we stymied the efforts of the UN forces stationed there who were begging for help. Where else have we seen the leader of a UN force turn to the media for help, when the UN body refused to give him any indication that it would help to stop the killings? How desperate would Dallaire have had to get to have to get the media involved because the body he represented turned their backs on him and the troops who were there and the Rwandan people? There is a part in his book where he describes the intense feeling of hatred and despair, to the point where he had to physically remove his side-arm lest he shoot and murder the leaders of the RGF. They were the "devil" he shook hands with.

    The genocide in Rwanda was the culmination of extremism on both sides. The Hutu's final solution could have been stopped before it even began. That it was not is telling of our own failures and the UN's failures to do what it was originally designed to do.

    The war is over in Rwanda John. The survivors now struggle on a daily basis, scarred physically and emotionally. I have a cousin who is married to a Frenchman who was stationed there for work reasons for over a year, 2 years ago. She described the situation there as "disheartening". She became involved in a volunteer education center for survivors and their children. We give to them quite regularly.

    But yes John, that was all they had to do and it would have been nipped in the bud. The following paper was written by Gregory H. Stanton, and it was presented as a briefing paper to the US State Department. It deals with genocide and the stages that usually precede it and it gives a brief detail of how it can be prevented and stopped. The actual brief can also be accessed here. It was based on his studies of the events leading up to and during, as well as after, the genocide in Rwanda and other countries, like Cambodia.
  15. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    OK, I'll check that out sometime.

    Yes, I is! No, I is not!

    That's not the same as sending lots of soldiers in. Now, if they blocked others that's a different story, of course.

    You appear to have misread my point. I was characterizing the position of American citizens vis-a-vis public will. Please wipe the froth off your screen and look a little closer.

    Again, this is my impression of public attitude. I might add that your trite attack is not going to earn you any points with anyone.

    Again, I am describing the willpower of the American people here, Bells. I'm not sure that I agree with your assessment of shock and awe, however; I believe the issue of civilian deaths is still being hotly debated (among the contributors to the Lancet, for instance).

    Now you are back to your usual rigor of attributing to me positions which I do not hold. I was referring specifically to the issue of the present war and public support as a finite resource. If you are going to continue in this old vein, I see no need to continue discussing with you. You are a one-woman show, shadow-boxing your own myopic rage.


    Last edited: Apr 10, 2008
  16. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    A whole bunch of those "stupid Jews" designed and built the US's atomic bomb for them.
  17. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Is that a point in their favour?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  18. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    james i do have to agree with sam on this one. The A bomb was a war crime and wether everyone who was invovled in its construction was directly responcable for how it was used it shouldnt be a matter of pride but rather shame that they helped in its construction.

    No different from how the german civilans probably felt about alowing the nazi's to gain power i would imagin
  19. Avatar smoking revolver Valued Senior Member

    From another perspective, it's because of nuclear weapons that we had a cold war instead of WW3.
  20. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Avatar maybe a WW3 would have killed less people than the cold war did.
    However that just a concideration because who knows what would have happened.

    I do know that millions of civilans died in the blasts and as a result of them (not to mention the birth defects they caused), and that makes it a war crime. It was delibratly targeted at civilans and no one should feel proud of that
  21. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    First of all, you're off by an order of magnitude on the number of deaths:
    Secondly, can you imagine how bloody an invasion of Japan would have been? They'd have fought until we'd killed damned near every one of them. Not to mention the fact that the Soviets might have then had time to get in on the deal and we'd have ended up with a partitioned Japan like Germany.

    The awesome power of the nuclear bombs allowed even the Japanese to surrender with honor and ended up saving lives. And if they hadn't been used in Japan they'd have been used some other time.

    Perhaps the Cuban missle crisis might have led to an all out nuclear war if we hadn't had the example of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to show how horrible those weapons are.
  22. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    I've never understood the American desire to bomb people into submission.
  23. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    better the states than the nazis

Share This Page