Jews and Germans

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you were a regular German citizen who survived the war, would you be eager or even willing to admit that you had serious suspicions about what was happening to the Jews and did nothing to help? Or would it be easier for you to say that you'd heard certain rumors that you entirely discredited?

Let's think about this in current terms. If you are a regular Israeli or American Jew, are you eager or even willing to admit what is happening to the Palestinians? Are you not similarly guilty by omission?

[Anonymous]

I think it's dangerous to believe that there is something special about Germans that makes them more evil than the rest of us. Do you think spaniards are more evil because they participated in the slave trade? How about white Americans? How about the Japanese and their aggression in WWII? Or how about the US, dropping a bomb on Hiroshima? No one has a monopoly on evil. We are all capable of it. And unless you are dedicating yourself to saving people from genocide wherever it is occurring TODAY, you are partially culpable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

All true. I am not claiming that the near-annilihation of native Indians would not be a crime, far from it. I am only claiming that it is different from the "final solution" and the holocaust.

how?
if you are dead, you are dead
What about the gulag, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, agent orange, internment camps, murderous drones, Rwanda?
Is there a holy of holies that defies all other evils

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it's dangerous to believe that there is something special about Germans that makes them more evil than the rest of us. Do you think spaniards are more evil because they participated in the slave trade? How about white Americans? How about the Japanese and their aggression in WWII? Or how about the US, dropping a bomb on Hiroshima? No one has a monopoly on evil. We are all capable of it. And unless you are dedicating yourself to saving people from genocide wherever it is occurring TODAY, you are partially culpable.

+1.

[Anonymous]

Rather than argue about who did what and who today has responsibility for which past acts, my position is that so many people either took part in or accepted the commission of atrocities that I feel it is possible that any one of us might do the same in the same circumstances. On the other hand, there have always been some who acted heroically to defy such actions, allowing each of us to hope that we would be among those rather than the first mentioned groups.

But I think that anyone who has not been in a similar situation, but assumes s/he would risk life and family to save others is naive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Today, many Germans reject any guilt/responsibility because they were not alive when this happened but I don't take that position.

I find this odd. How can one feel guilty or assume responsibility for something one has not done nor facilitated?

Another German here (born in the 70s, with parents born after WWII). I agree, but there is a line to walk for Germans. I don't feel guilty or responsible for the Holocaust, but I do think that Germany and Germans have a special responsibility to remember it, and also have a particular responsibility towards the Jews and Israel. I do feel that I should not be personally resented for something neither I nor my parents were involved in, but the topic is certainly deeply uncomfortable. I don't know any Germans who aren't deeply disturbed by our country's history, and nobody I know would reject this type of responsibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The Nazis put half of their effort into the coverup, and for the most part, they were successful with that. I am of the opinion that the war was fought to provide the screen and get access to the Jews. Secondary gains like land, gold, and slave labor from all non Germans were less important.
Please pardon the typos.

No way! Nooo, Hitler had that much animosity towards Jews that that was the real reason for the war? War is usually about resources. And if you get rid of people you think are your enemies then all the better. Not the other way around, right?

interesting point of view. Are wars fought because of natural resources of the need to annihilate the perceived enemy?

Americans annihilated the natives. That was a holocaust too

Most natives died because of disease agents carried by European settlers against which they had no immunity. This is different from exterminating people on purpose.

This isn't wrong, but it isn't the full story. Andrew Jackson followed that up with a policy of Indian Removal in order to have more Southern land to put under cotton. (Using slaves, of course. Indian Removal is a two-fer in the atrocity column.) We'd call it ethnic cleansing now.

We also deliberately starved people who were left (which leads to the Sioux uprising in MN) and tried to kill people via strategies such as smallpox blankets. At Wounded Knee, we deliberately massacre women, children and old people.

All true. I am not claiming that the near-annilihation of native Indians would not be a crime, far from it. I am only claiming that it is different from the "final solution" and the holocaust.

How so? How is it different?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you were a regular German citizen who survived the war, would you be eager or even willing to admit that you had serious suspicions about what was happening to the Jews and did nothing to help? Or would it be easier for you to say that you'd heard certain rumors that you entirely discredited?

Let's think about this in current terms. If you are a regular Israeli or American Jew, are you eager or even willing to admit what is happening to the Palestinians? Are you not similarly guilty by omission?

This wouldn't actually be comparable, even if you limited to Israeli Jews, which you didn't. (Note that American Jews are Americans.)

However, there are some parts of German society that are quite grateful for the Israeli Jews vis a vis the Palestinians, because then every time the Holocaust comes up, they can say, "Oh yeah? Well, what about what the Jews are doing to the Palestinians?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Rather than argue about who did what and who today has responsibility for which past acts, my position is that so many people either took part in or accepted the commission of atrocities that I feel it is possible that any one of us might do the same in the same circumstances. On the other hand, there have always been some who acted heroically to defy such actions, allowing each of us to hope that we would be among those rather than the first mentioned groups.

But I think that anyone who has not been in a similar situation, but assumes s/he would risk life and family to save others is naive.

Currently, Israel has a problem with its Egyptian border. The people are fleeing atrocities and the border guards send them back knowing they will likely be killed

[Anonymous]

Jewish leaders constantly replay the holocaust for the purpose of keeping Jews segregated, angry, afraid and united. More than 40 million people died in WW II. The atrocities of that war are too numerous to count. 11 million innocent civilians were murdered during the Holocaust, but it's the 5.8 million Jews who are remembered and memorialized the most.

The Holocaust has become a perfectly marketed battle cry similar to Remember the Alamo or Remember the Maine. It's all unfortunate, but if Jews did not self-segregate they would not be quite so united. Many Jews fall victim to Holocaust demagoguery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

All true. I am not claiming that the near-annilihation of native Indians would not be a crime, far from it. I am only claiming that it is different from the "final solution" and the holocaust.

How so? How is it different?

One is carefully planned and diligently executed mass-murder. The other is not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

All true. I am not claiming that the near-annilihation of native Indians would not be a crime, far from it. I am only claiming that it is different from the "final solution" and the holocaust.

How so? How is it different?

One is carefully planned and diligently executed mass-murder. The other is not.

How do you know that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

All true. I am not claiming that the near-annilihation of native Indians would not be a crime, far from it. I am only claiming that it is different from the "final solution" and the holocaust.

How so? How is it different?

One is carefully planned and diligently executed mass-murder. The other is not.

How do you know that?

There was no a Wannsee conference where the mass execution of all native Americans was decided, together with a plan on how to achieve this. There were no killing camps where all native Americans were shipped and then gassed. The near-annilihation of native Americans played out over centuries, the holocaust witin 3 years.

Calling a crime a crime is one thing. Considering all crimes the same and of the same moral dimension is another.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

All true. I am not claiming that the near-annilihation of native Indians would not be a crime, far from it. I am only claiming that it is different from the "final solution" and the holocaust.

How so? How is it different?

One is carefully planned and diligently executed mass-murder. The other is not.

How do you know that?

There was no a Wannsee conference where the mass execution of all native Americans was decided, together with a plan on how to achieve this. There were no killing camps where all native Americans were shipped and then gassed. The near-annilihation of native Americans played out over centuries, the holocaust witin 3 years.

Calling a crime a crime is one thing. Considering all crimes the same and of the same moral dimension is another.

In actuality, you don't know if meetings were had in the planning of exterminating the natives. Jews are plentiful in today's society, while natives are a blip. I'm sure they'd consider your disregard for the suffering of their ancestors no big deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

All true. I am not claiming that the near-annilihation of native Indians would not be a crime, far from it. I am only claiming that it is different from the "final solution" and the holocaust.

How so? How is it different?

One is carefully planned and diligently executed mass-murder. The other is not.

How do you know that?

There was no a Wannsee conference where the mass execution of all native Americans was decided, together with a plan on how to achieve this. There were no killing camps where all native Americans were shipped and then gassed. The near-annilihation of native Americans played out over centuries, the holocaust witin 3 years.

Calling a crime a crime is one thing. Considering all crimes the same and of the same moral dimension is another.

agree, But Hitler got his ideas about killing Jews from the way the US handled the Native Americans. He wrote that the S. Americans did not clear the land of the undesireable natives before building a country, hence their economic failures. On the other hand, the N. Americans (US, Canada) did a sweep before building a nation, hence the success.
He tought that Europe needed to do a cleaning too.