Approximately 18 million people died in the concentration camps.
Where do you get this figure from?
The number of people killed at the death camps has been estimated as follows:
Auschwitz-Birkenau: about 1,100,000
Treblinka: at least 700,000
Bełżec: about 434,500
Sobibór: about 167,000
Chełmno: about 152,000
Majdanek: 78,000
These numbers total just under 2,700,000 people.
Source: Wikipedia
The Nuremberg trials, held after the war, puts the figure at around 3 million total deaths in the concentration camps, as far as I recall, of which roughly half were caused by overwork and disease, and the other half by gassing. A further 1.5 million people were murdered outside concentration camps. Clearly, a lot more people died in the war as a whole, but I have never heard the figure of 18 million for concentration camps alone.
Solzhenitsyn, on the other hand, estimates the number killed by Stalin at around 250 million. He is probably overestimating on this, but even if he is doubling the actual figure, it is still vastly more than the total deaths from the second world war.
The difference is, of course, both Stalin and Mao killed their own people, and nobody could stop them. Hitler killed those from other nations.
As for using the term 'final solution' for anything other than WWII Nazi policies, I think that is a mistake; it can lead only to misunderstanding.
Last edited by Catherineanne; 7th November 2009 at 12:48 PM.
Hmmm.... I can't say I agree the Nazi attempt to eradicate the Jews is suggestive of some common human desire or cohesive struggle towards enlightenment...
Perhaps not. But there is an extant idea that if only all states were rational, and enlightened, and simply saw things the way any reasonable individual might, in short, the way we do, then all human differences would be resolved, peace would reign, and Nirvana realised on earth. The Nazis thought this end would be best achieved by the implementation of a fascist state, the Soviets through a communist state, and various Moslems today through an Islamic theocracy.
However sceptical you may be about Nazis, the fact is that it is a common thread all through history that we have looked for an ideal, utopian state, and this is not a hope to which I am immune. Indeed, it could be argued that social progress depends on such a hope. The problem is, it is easily hijacked by demagogues who preach a 'quick-fix', and proceed to implement a 'utopia' that extends only as far as themselves and those in their immediate proximity - their families, and those necessary to their security.
Originally Posted by Subdood
Unsure how Christ's second coming has anything to do with this though; I hope you're not suggesting a connection between that and Mr. Berlin's skeptical posit about cohesive struggle towards enlightenment?
It is simply that the second coming is meant to usher in this much to be desired utopia. But if human differences cannot be reconciled, if human interests are inevitably divergent, as Berlin thinks, then we Christians are hoping for something impossible. That is not a rational position to take.
I am not, essentially, making a point, more hoping to provoke a discussion. I appreciate this is an emotive topic, but I hope you will read my posts with my intention in mind.
Best wishes, 2ndRateMind.
__________________ Philosophy is questions that may never be answered: Religion is answers that may never be questioned.
Anon, quoted in 'Breaking the Spell', by Daniel Dennet.
Last edited by 2ndRateMind; 7th November 2009 at 02:07 PM.
I got my information from the book Jews, God and History, which was published in the 1960's. The Nazis killed Russian prisoners-of-war, clerics who opposed their policies, Poles, gypsies, blacks (Hitler had a hatred of them that almost matched his hatred of Jews), the families of political dissidents, homosexuals, JW's, monks, nuns, prostitutes, resistance fighters, those who helped the Jews escape Europe, politicians of other countries who refused to cooperate with their Nazi masters, as well as Jews. The ferocity of Hitler was so apparent by 1937 that Pope Pius XI wrote the encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge as a warning to the Christians of Europe.
As for the list of death camps, you have left out Sachsenhausen, Ravensbruck, Dachau, and many other camps. There were over 100 concentration camps in all, some much larger than others.
Adolph Eichmann was the architect of the 'final solution'. I remember his trial in Israel. He never denied that 6 million Jews had died as a direct result of his work. His defense was, "I was only obeying orders." But when the prosecutor brought up specific instances where he had exceeded his orders, Eichmann would not deny the happenings. Instead, once he was convicted and sentenced to death by hanging, he boasted, "When they hang me, watch my feet. They will be dancing on the graves of 6 million Jews."
This is one of the most absurd things I've ever read. Hitler didn't kill his own people??? You have GOT to be kidding
Clearly, your reading skills leave something to be desired. I did not say Hitler did not kill his own people.
Here is what I actually said. Have another go:
The difference is, of course, both Stalin and Mao killed their own people, and nobody could stop them. Hitler killed those from other nations.
If you check in your history books, you will find that the nations of the world were relatively powerless, as long as Hitler remained within his own territory, or territory for which he had some kind of claim, however tenuous. When he stepped into territory which was CLEARLY not his own, the nations of the world, starting with my own, were able to step in and begin the very slow and very costly (in terms of human life) process of defeating him.
The lesson from history, in all three cases is, a tyrant abusing his own people - such as, for instance, Robert Mugabe - is pretty well free to do whatever he likes. Not because we want these abuses to continue, but because we do not have the world police to stop them. Even Saddam Hussein was left to do as he liked, until he made the mistake of invading Kuwait. And Colonel Gaddafi has been around long enough to go from complete pariah to respected world leader, God only knows how. And lets not even begin to consider China, and what it gets up to.
The lesson for world leaders is, if you want to get away with murder, in this world at least, stay at home.
I got my information from the book Jews, God and History, which was published in the 1960's. The Nazis killed Russian prisoners-of-war, clerics who opposed their policies, Poles, gypsies, blacks (Hitler had a hatred of them that almost matched his hatred of Jews), the families of political dissidents, homosexuals, JW's, monks, nuns, prostitutes, resistance fighters, those who helped the Jews escape Europe, politicians of other countries who refused to cooperate with their Nazi masters, as well as Jews. The ferocity of Hitler was so apparent by 1937 that Pope Pius XI wrote the encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge as a warning to the Christians of Europe.
As for the list of death camps, you have left out Sachsenhausen, Ravensbruck, Dachau, and many other camps. There were over 100 concentration camps in all, some much larger than others.
Adolph Eichmann was the architect of the 'final solution'. I remember his trial in Israel. He never denied that 6 million Jews had died as a direct result of his work. His defense was, "I was only obeying orders." But when the prosecutor brought up specific instances where he had exceeded his orders, Eichmann would not deny the happenings. Instead, once he was convicted and sentenced to death by hanging, he boasted, "When they hang me, watch my feet. They will be dancing on the graves of 6 million Jews."
All of that is fair enough, but still does not say where the '18 million deaths in concentration camps' allegation comes from.
Don't get me wrong; I am not a holocaust denier. But I have a great respect for history, and if the figure is 7 million, then we ought not to say 17. It is as much a disservice to those who were murdered to exaggerate the figures, as it is to underplay them.
What matters is to find out what is true, and stick to it; only by believing in the truth, and not being afraid of it, can we honour those who died because of the most grotesque, most evil lie in history.
Last edited by Catherineanne; 8th November 2009 at 07:14 AM.
Clearly, your reading skills leave something to be desired. I did not say Hitler did not kill his own people.
Here is what I actually said. Have another go:
The difference is, of course, both Stalin and Mao killed their own people, and nobody could stop them. Hitler killed those from other nations.
I would suggest reading skills aren't the issue here, but grammar and sentence construction. When a sentence juxtaposes by way of contrast two examples of people killing their own people with one who "killed those from other nations" - that construct does indeed communicate properly the intention of saying the one who killed from other nations did not [in contrast] kill their own people.
Originally Posted by Catherineanne
If you check in your history books, you will find that the nations of the world were relatively powerless, as long as Hitler remained within his own territory, or territory for which he had some kind of claim, however tenuous. When he stepped into territory which was CLEARLY not his own, the nations of the world, starting with my own, were able to step in and begin the very slow and very costly (in terms of human life) process of defeating him.
The lesson from history, in all three cases is, a tyrant abusing his own people - such as, for instance, Robert Mugabe - is pretty well free to do whatever he likes. Not because we want these abuses to continue, but because we do not have the world police to stop them. Even Saddam Hussein was left to do as he liked, until he made the mistake of invading Kuwait. And Colonel Gaddafi has been around long enough to go from complete pariah to respected world leader, God only knows how. And lets not even begin to consider China, and what it gets up to.
The lesson for world leaders is, if you want to get away with murder, in this world at least, stay at home.
Ok, now this, in contrast to your first statement, explains what you intended to say there. I won't apologize for reading that sentence as I did, but I will apologize for not knowing what you were really saying and for coming down as hard on you as I did.
Your point that brutal dictators enjoy greater success at home rather than when taking their murderous rampages to foreign soils is I think a fair claim - at least until such a time as the world takes notice of what's happening in such a country and decides to do something about it - which is usually a function of the degree or level of atrocities a particular dictator commits against their own people and knowledge of same to the outside world. Some, to be sure, go on for years, decades, even centuries with their dictatorial abuses because they never rise to a level of outrage for other countries to take action. Others, the abuses being so outrageous, find themselves under almost immediate scrutiny and action. And to further agree with your assertion, I would also say that when nations do decide to take such action, it's historically rare to do so overtly per se, but that such actions are usually either subversive ("rebel support," covert ops, etc.) or political (sanctions, etc.) in nature rather than outright declarations of "war," say.
__________________ Psalm 57:11 Be exalted, O God, above the heavens! Let your glory be over all the earth!
Perhaps not. But there is an extant idea that if only all states were rational, and enlightened, and simply saw things the way any reasonable individual might, in short, the way we do, then all human differences would be resolved, peace would reign, and Nirvana realised on earth. The Nazis thought this end would be best achieved by the implementation of a fascist state, the Soviets through a communist state, and various Moslems today through an Islamic theocracy.
Hmm.. well, perhaps this is true - and continues today with the various other forms of statism - marxism, socialism, liberalism, etc. Can't say I disagree either that we all possess the notion that if everyone believed as "I" do we'd all be happier and peaceable - at least the "I" would feel that way for sure.
Originally Posted by 2ndRateMind
However sceptical you may be about Nazis, the fact is that it is a common thread all through history that we have looked for an ideal, utopian state, and this is not a hope to which I am immune. Indeed, it could be argued that social progress depends on such a hope. The problem is, it is easily hijacked by demagogues who preach a 'quick-fix', and proceed to implement a 'utopia' that extends only as far as themselves and those in their immediate proximity - their families, and those necessary to their security.
My skepticism of the nazis was more a skepticism that their attempt to eradicate Jewry was somehow indicative of part of their desire for an ideal - that it was instead (in my mind) more out of fear and hatred.
Having said that, I think I understand what you were saying now, that their eradication was more an attempt to "purify" the German ranks - and that with a view towards some Wagnerian view of a purely Aryan utopia.
I probably should concede the point - the "fear and hatred" towards the Jews was, I admit, largely a manufactured thing, a decade or so of propaganda against them by the nazi state, a mechanism to "purify" for themselves an Aryan populace devoid of Jews.
Originally Posted by 2ndRateMind
It is simply that the second coming is meant to usher in this much to be desired utopia. But if human differences cannot be reconciled, if human interests are inevitably divergent, as Berlin thinks, then we Christians are hoping for something impossible. That is not a rational position to take.
Ah.. ok, I agree as well - it is indeed an irrational stance to believe the second coming is an impossible hope, given it is a function of "inevitably divergent" human interests. The second coming is going to happen, regardless how inevitably divergent our interests may be.
I've not read any of Berlin's works, but it sounds as if he believes the second coming of Christ is merely a Christian variant of "utopia" and therefore just as impossible to achieve as any of the various statist visions. If so, then it presumes the bible is not the word of God and the Christian world view just another in a long line of diverse human world views.
Originally Posted by 2ndRateMind
I am not, essentially, making a point, more hoping to provoke a discussion. I appreciate this is an emotive topic, but I hope you will read my posts with my intention in mind.
Best wishes, 2ndRateMind.
NP
__________________ Psalm 57:11 Be exalted, O God, above the heavens! Let your glory be over all the earth!
The writer, historian, thinker and philosopher (and also Jewish) Isaiah Berlin uses this phrase, redolent of Nazi policies to eradicate Jews, to describe the idea that there is, at some stage in humanity's struggle towards enlightenment, the possibility that all human interests and projects may ultimately be reconciled into a single, harmonious whole. Berlin is pessimistic in this matter. He thinks it can't be done.
Do you have an opinion? And where does this leave the 'Second Coming'?
The Second Coming is the Christian vision of the Final Solution. It inherently admits that humanity cannot of its own accord return to the Edenic state. It must be a divine action.
Also, it must also involve a great destructive force in order to "reduce" humankind to a degree of diversity that can be reconciled. Although there are some hints that perhaps this destruction can instead be mitigated as a change of nature (e.g. the lion and lamb lay down together).
Basically, this antinomy between human and divine action is one of the cornerstones of Christianity -- something Augustin of Hippo realized over fifteen hundred years ago. Whether it is a healthy way of conceiving of reality is another question entirely...
__________________
...Do not let me hear
Of the wisdom of old men, but rather of their folly,
Their fear of fear and frenzy, their fear of possession, Of belonging to another, or to others, or to God. The only wisdom we can hope to acquire Is the wisdom of humility: humility is endless.
Linear Mode
