Jews and Germans

[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.

Bangladeshi genocide?

[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.

All mass murder can be called a 'not a means but an end in itself'
all atrocities are different in some way and therefore unique
I would not discount someones suffering based on that, or call someone elses suffering more superior. Interesting how some subjects are still taboo. Like the slave trade, Brittish concentration camps, gulag (somewhat discussed, not a lot), atomic bomb

[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.

All mass murder can be called a 'not a means but an end in itself'

I don't think that's accurate.

Stalin, e.g., didn't hate his opponents -he was afraid of them as threats to his power, and thus killed whoever could be a perceived threat.

By contrast, the Eastern European Jewry wasn't a threat to the Nazi's power, niehter real nor perceived.

[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.

All mass murder can be called a 'not a means but an end in itself'
all atrocities are different in some way and therefore unique
I would not discount someones suffering based on that, or call someone elses suffering more superior. Interesting how some subjects are still taboo. Like the slave trade, Brittish concentration camps, gulag (somewhat discussed, not a lot), atomic bomb

Follow up: how is the slave trade or the atomic bomb a "taboo"?

[Anonymous]

If the US has lost the war, dropping the atom bombs might have been considered crimes against humanity right up there with the Holocaust instead of something that was needed to end the war.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the US has lost the war, dropping the atom bombs might have been considered crimes against humanity right up there with the Holocaust instead of something that was needed to end the war.

I think the Nagasaki bomb is widely considered a war crime, as Horishima would likley have been enough to make Japan surrender and end the war. There is no taboo in spelling this out.

I can't see how a similar argument could be made for the holocuast though ('necessary to end the war').

[Anonymous]

If the Holocaust was so unique, we should not have a national holocaust museum on the mall. Energy would be better-spent remembering hundreds of millions of people who have perished in mass murders over the past hundred years. If the Holocaust is truly that unique, by that logic we don't need a partially federally funded museum (for atrocities on foreign shores) to teach us how not to do this again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the Holocaust was so unique, we should not have a national holocaust museum on the mall. Energy would be better-spent remembering hundreds of millions of people who have perished in mass murders over the past hundred years. If the Holocaust is truly that unique, by that logic we don't need a partially federally funded museum (for atrocities on foreign shores) to teach us how not to do this again.

I think you have a point, but you also take the previous posters' points to unintended extremes. He or she pointed out that the Holocaust is unique in one aspect - that its main purpose was murder per se, rather than being murder to serve other purposes. The Holocaust is not unique as an act of genocide.

[Anonymous]

Purpose to murder rather than being murdered to serve other purposes?
Surely that is debatable

[Anonymous]

Look, the Tutsi genocide was murder for no other reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the Holocaust was so unique, we should not have a national holocaust museum on the mall. Energy would be better-spent remembering hundreds of millions of people who have perished in mass murders over the past hundred years. If the Holocaust is truly that unique, by that logic we don't need a partially federally funded museum (for atrocities on foreign shores) to teach us how not to do this again.

I think you have a point, but you also take the previous posters' points to unintended extremes. He or she pointed out that the Holocaust is unique in one aspect - that its main purpose was murder per se, rather than being murder to serve other purposes. The Holocaust is not unique as an act of genocide.

People will go to great lengths to make themselves feel superior, ahem "unique".

The slaughter of masses of people is the slaughter of masses of people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the Holocaust was so unique, we should not have a national holocaust museum on the mall. Energy would be better-spent remembering hundreds of millions of people who have perished in mass murders over the past hundred years. If the Holocaust is truly that unique, by that logic we don't need a partially federally funded museum (for atrocities on foreign shores) to teach us how not to do this again.

I think you have a point, but you also take the previous posters' points to unintended extremes. He or she pointed out that the Holocaust is unique in one aspect - that its main purpose was murder per se, rather than being murder to serve other purposes. The Holocaust is not unique as an act of genocide.

People will go to great lengths to make themselves feel superior, ahem "unique".

The slaughter of masses of people is the slaughter of masses of people.

If there is an implicient allegation in this, I came up with the hypothesis (in this thread), and I am not Jewish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Look, the Tutsi genocide was murder for no other reason.

Didn't this evolve from a civil war situation, with a long-standing for rivalry for power between Hutu and Tutsi?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, the Tutsi genocide was murder for no other reason.

Didn't this evolve from a civil war situation, with a long-standing for rivalry for power between Hutu and Tutsi?

It also happened some where in Eastern Europe in the late eighties early nineties??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, the Tutsi genocide was murder for no other reason.

Didn't this evolve from a civil war situation, with a long-standing for rivalry for power between Hutu and Tutsi?

The Hutus wanted the Tutsi dead because they were Tutsi.
Hitler wanted the Jews dead because they were Jews.
There was a "civil war" in Hitlers mind between the Jews and Gentiles that was long standing. He accused them of toppling governments and bankrupting countries in a treasonous fashion. He accused them of a power struggle to take over Europe.