Jews and Germans

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
?????

This is such a weird statement to me.

Genocide and mass murder have been repeated over and over again. You don't even have to go outside the middle of the 20th century to find crimes as bad as teh Holocaust. Stalin's policy murder 20 to 60 million people. During WWII, the Japanese murdered at least 5 million civilians and estimates have ranged as high as 30 million civilians.

You don't need to imagine other cultures doing it. You just need to read history.

I'm second-guessing the PP, but a difference between the Holocaust and acts of genocide seems that the Holocaust's explicit objective was to kill and eradicate all Jews (and gypsies and homesexuals etc.) the Nazi slayers could get hold of. Stalin mass-murdered, but mainly as a means for preserving political power. The Japanese murdered, but mainly as a means to enforce military occupation. Slave traders murdered, but mostly as a means for providing the Americas with cheap labor. The US army murdered Native Americans, but mostly as a means to occupy their land.

In case of the Holocaust, mass-murder was not a means but an end in itself.

This doesn't at all lessen the suffering of other victims of genocide, but implies that in this aspect, the Holcoaust is unique.

[Anonymous]

I was wondering why this thread went on for 22 pages. I can't believe we're still having this argument about who suffered more throughout history.

Guys, stop it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was wondering why this thread went on for 22 pages. I can't believe we're still having this argument about who suffered more throughout history.

Guys, stop it!

Why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was wondering why this thread went on for 22 pages. I can't believe we're still having this argument about who suffered more throughout history.

Guys, stop it!

Why?

Nobody wins the Oppression Olympics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
?????

This is such a weird statement to me.

Genocide and mass murder have been repeated over and over again. You don't even have to go outside the middle of the 20th century to find crimes as bad as teh Holocaust. Stalin's policy murder 20 to 60 million people. During WWII, the Japanese murdered at least 5 million civilians and estimates have ranged as high as 30 million civilians.

You don't need to imagine other cultures doing it. You just need to read history.

I'm second-guessing the PP, but a difference between the Holocaust and acts of genocide seems that the Holocaust's explicit objective was to kill and eradicate all Jews (and gypsies and homesexuals etc.) the Nazi slayers could get hold of. Stalin mass-murdered, but mainly as a means for preserving political power. The Japanese murdered, but mainly as a means to enforce military occupation. Slave traders murdered, but mostly as a means for providing the Americas with cheap labor. The US army murdered Native Americans, but mostly as a means to occupy their land.

In case of the Holocaust, mass-murder was not a means but an end in itself.

This doesn't at all lessen the suffering of other victims of genocide, but implies that in this aspect, the Holcoaust is unique.

Nazis murdered Jews and Poles and Gypsies and others in an effort to purify the race. They were furthering eugenic social policies, which they believed to be based in science.

In the US, we fostered eugenic social policy in less violent ways -- forced sterilization, outlawing mixed race marriages, and funding Planned Parenthood. Many scientists and policy people were very upset about how far ahead of us Germany was getting in fostering eugenics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I'm second-guessing the PP, but a difference between the Holocaust and acts of genocide seems that the Holocaust's explicit objective was to kill and eradicate all Jews (and gypsies and homesexuals etc.) the Nazi slayers could get hold of. Stalin mass-murdered, but mainly as a means for preserving political power. The Japanese murdered, but mainly as a means to enforce military occupation. Slave traders murdered, but mostly as a means for providing the Americas with cheap labor. The US army murdered Native Americans, but mostly as a means to occupy their land.

In case of the Holocaust, mass-murder was not a means but an end in itself.

This doesn't at all lessen the suffering of other victims of genocide, but implies that in this aspect, the Holcoaust is unique.

I do not get what you are trying to say
Gulag was mass murder, so were the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs, as was the invention of agent orange
Stalin did not need to mass murder in order to preserve political power. One could say Hitler mass murdered in order to preserve political power
The US army murdered the Native Americans to gain their land?? How is that not the same

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

One could say Hitler mass murdered in order to preserve political power

I don't think that's correct. The Eastern European jews were hardly a threat to Hitler's power.

Hitler killed them because that's what he wanted to do. No further motif enters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm second-guessing the PP, but a difference between the Holocaust and acts of genocide seems that the Holocaust's explicit objective was to kill and eradicate all Jews (and gypsies and homesexuals etc.) the Nazi slayers could get hold of. Stalin mass-murdered, but mainly as a means for preserving political power. The Japanese murdered, but mainly as a means to enforce military occupation. Slave traders murdered, but mostly as a means for providing the Americas with cheap labor. The US army murdered Native Americans, but mostly as a means to occupy their land.

In case of the Holocaust, mass-murder was not a means but an end in itself.

This doesn't at all lessen the suffering of other victims of genocide, but implies that in this aspect, the Holcoaust is unique.

I do not get what you are trying to say
Gulag was mass murder, so were the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs, as was the invention of agent orange
Stalin did not need to mass murder in order to preserve political power. One could say Hitler mass murdered in order to preserve political power
The US army murdered the Native Americans to gain their land?? How is that not the same

Because gulags were meant to punish political prisoners, the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Agent Orange were tools of war, not intending to eradicate specific groups of people, and the US Army was working (horrifically) to further US interests. The Nazis killed specific groups of people in order to kill specific groups of people. There were political prisoners who were killed in the Holocaust, but the Holocaust was conducted with the very specific aim of wiping Jewish people and the Roma and other "undesirables."

[Anonymous]

Jews and German are among the most successful people in the history of mankind, and, at least as regards stereotypes, they seem to share some traits: diligence, industriousness, a love for books and culture. On the negative side maybe a certain arrogance.

It's strange.

[Anonymous]

I'm a Jew I do not dislike Germans but still do not forget what some Germans and others did to my peoples and the other peoples who suffered at their hands. But what happened in the past I do not hold against those in the present.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
?????

This is such a weird statement to me.

Genocide and mass murder have been repeated over and over again. You don't even have to go outside the middle of the 20th century to find crimes as bad as teh Holocaust. Stalin's policy murder 20 to 60 million people. During WWII, the Japanese murdered at least 5 million civilians and estimates have ranged as high as 30 million civilians.

You don't need to imagine other cultures doing it. You just need to read history.

I'm second-guessing the PP, but a difference between the Holocaust and acts of genocide seems that the Holocaust's explicit objective was to kill and eradicate all Jews (and gypsies and homesexuals etc.) the Nazi slayers could get hold of. Stalin mass-murdered, but mainly as a means for preserving political power. The Japanese murdered, but mainly as a means to enforce military occupation. Slave traders murdered, but mostly as a means for providing the Americas with cheap labor. The US army murdered Native Americans, but mostly as a means to occupy their land.

In case of the Holocaust, mass-murder was not a means but an end in itself.

This doesn't at all lessen the suffering of other victims of genocide, but implies that in this aspect, the Holcoaust is unique.

It's not unique. Your self righteousness about it is nauseating. It was a tragedy, awful and disgusting. But not unique amongst the history of genocides this world has experienced. The "we are the chosen ones " attitude seems to have gotten out of control.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
?????

This is such a weird statement to me.

Genocide and mass murder have been repeated over and over again. You don't even have to go outside the middle of the 20th century to find crimes as bad as teh Holocaust. Stalin's policy murder 20 to 60 million people. During WWII, the Japanese murdered at least 5 million civilians and estimates have ranged as high as 30 million civilians.

You don't need to imagine other cultures doing it. You just need to read history.

I'm second-guessing the PP, but a difference between the Holocaust and acts of genocide seems that the Holocaust's explicit objective was to kill and eradicate all Jews (and gypsies and homesexuals etc.) the Nazi slayers could get hold of. Stalin mass-murdered, but mainly as a means for preserving political power. The Japanese murdered, but mainly as a means to enforce military occupation. Slave traders murdered, but mostly as a means for providing the Americas with cheap labor. The US army murdered Native Americans, but mostly as a means to occupy their land.

In case of the Holocaust, mass-murder was not a means but an end in itself.

This doesn't at all lessen the suffering of other victims of genocide, but implies that in this aspect, the Holcoaust is unique.

It's not unique. Your self righteousness about it is nauseating. It was a tragedy, awful and disgusting. But not unique amongst the history of genocides this world has experienced. The "we are the chosen ones " attitude seems to have gotten out of control.

"Self-righteousness"??

Apart from that, the poster come up with a quite detailed reasoning why the holocaust is, in one aspect, unique. It would be more appropriate if you address his/her point than resorting to ad hominem attacks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
?????

This is such a weird statement to me.

Genocide and mass murder have been repeated over and over again. You don't even have to go outside the middle of the 20th century to find crimes as bad as teh Holocaust. Stalin's policy murder 20 to 60 million people. During WWII, the Japanese murdered at least 5 million civilians and estimates have ranged as high as 30 million civilians.

You don't need to imagine other cultures doing it. You just need to read history.

I'm second-guessing the PP, but a difference between the Holocaust and acts of genocide seems that the Holocaust's explicit objective was to kill and eradicate all Jews (and gypsies and homesexuals etc.) the Nazi slayers could get hold of. Stalin mass-murdered, but mainly as a means for preserving political power. The Japanese murdered, but mainly as a means to enforce military occupation. Slave traders murdered, but mostly as a means for providing the Americas with cheap labor. The US army murdered Native Americans, but mostly as a means to occupy their land.

In case of the Holocaust, mass-murder was not a means but an end in itself.

This doesn't at all lessen the suffering of other victims of genocide, but implies that in this aspect, the Holcoaust is unique.

Rwanda?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

One could say Hitler mass murdered in order to preserve political power

I don't think that's correct. The Eastern European jews were hardly a threat to Hitler's power.

Hitler killed them because that's what he wanted to do. No further motif enters.

Besides his hatred of the Jewish race, he did see the Eastern Jews as communists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always find it interesting that folks can have a reasonable discussion about the Holocaust, yet get super defensive and combative when slavery is the topic.

That is because it happened over there. This slavery thing is too personal.
In Europe, they are quick to criticize American racism, but never discuss the Holocaust.