Can you help me sort this out??

[Autumnleaf]

If that's true, then what is the difference between the Holocaust and Darfur? Should we not have intervened with the Nazis?

If you want to go to Darfur and try to stop a war in progress be my guest. Don't get yourself shot. If this were 1942 I'd give you the same advice about Germany. We aren't sure what went on in Germany and we are not sure what is going on in Darfur right now since we are not there. At any one time there are wars raging throughout the world. While some naive people think we can stop them all and pay for it with our blood and treasure I can assure you as the dollar falls the ignorance will be replaced by pragmatic understanding soon enough.

 

[Velo Princesse]

Thank you, everyone... your comments have been quite helpful.

I suggest watching Hotel Rwanda.

I've seen it.

Maybe I should put it this way - On Judgement Day, when God asks why the US didn't intervene, is "we can't police everyone" going to fly?

Clearly not. But, our military is only so big. So... if we can't be in both places, what makes one a more necessary battle than the other? Forgetting oil for a second... If we went into Darfur would we still be wrong because people in Iraq were dying? Was that not the case in Iraq?

[.....]We aren't sure what went on in Germany[.....]

I've decided that I must have misunderstood what you are saying in the above statement. Please explain. Thanks.

 

[Autumnleaf]

Thank you, everyone... your comments have been quite helpful.



I've seen it.



Clearly not. But, our military is only so big. So... if we can't be in both places, what makes one a more necessary battle than the other? Forgetting oil for a second... If we went into Darfur would we still be wrong because people in Iraq were dying? Was that not the case in Iraq?



I've decided that I must have misunderstood what you are saying in the above statement. Please explain. Thanks.

I figured your mind's ability to think critically would break when confronted with that statement. Public education has done a good job drilling what they want you to know happened to the Jews. Strangely there is not mention of the Russian, Chinese, Armenian or Cambodian genocides in the public schools. Public schools aren't even teaching about the genocide of Christians in Sudan which is going on now, but two of my children are learning about Jews and the holocost. One is studying Anne Frank in English and the other is learning about concentration camps in History class. History is being taught in a skewed way. Whoever taught you history...

 

[Velo Princesse]

I figured your mind's ability to think critically would break when confronted with that statement. Public education has done a good job drilling what they want you to know happened to the Jews. Strangely there is not mention of the Russian, Chinese, Armenian or Cambodian genocides in the public schools. Public schools aren't even teaching about the genocide of Christians in Sudan which is going on now, but two of my children are learning about Jews and the holocost. One is studying Anne Frank in English and the other is learning about concentration camps in History class. History is being taught in a skewed way. Whoever taught you history...

My mind's ability to think critically is just fine, thanks. The things that happened to the Jews under Nazi rule are facts. We do know what happened to them as well as to the people who died beside them. To say that we don't know or even ignore things that happened/are happening to other people is one thing, but it can't reasonably be brought to the extent oft implying that we are even the slightest bit unsure about what happened to the Jews during that period.

I assumed that I misunderstood you, not because your point was so amazing that I ceased to be able to function properly, but rather because your statement was just vague enough to allow for misunderstanding but not quite so vague that I couldn't follow your thought. People who actually believe that the Holocaust didn't happen or wasn't "as bad" as we are told are so few and far between that I generally assume the person I am speaking to is not likely one of them.

History is always taught in a skewed way. But, pictures are pictures and survivors were left to share the stories. We know what happened as best as anyone who did not go through it themselves can know. To imply otherwise is... well... kind of strange.

 

[Autumnleaf]

My mind's ability to think critically is just fine, thanks. The things that happened to the Jews under Nazi rule are facts. We do know what happened to them as well as to the people who died beside them. To say that we don't know or even ignore things that happened/are happening to other people is one thing, but it can't reasonably be brought to the extent oft implying that we are even the slightest bit unsure about what happened to the Jews during that period.

In Saudi Arabia children are taught from a young age that America is the great Satan. How could that possibly be false?

I assumed that I misunderstood you, not because your point was so amazing that I ceased to be able to function properly, but rather because your statement was just vague enough to allow for misunderstanding but not quite so vague that I couldn't follow your thought. People who actually believe that the Holocaust didn't happen or wasn't "as bad" as we are told are so few and far between that I generally assume the person I am speaking to is not likely one of them.

WWII: Jews good, Germans bad is too simplified of an explanation for me to believe. If you choose to swallow that line its on you.

History is always taught in a skewed way. But, pictures are pictures and survivors were left to share the stories. We know what happened as best as anyone who did not go through it themselves can know. To imply otherwise is... well... kind of strange.

Millions of German soldiers herded into fields where they were left to starve to death seems kind of strange to me. Letting the Russians pillage and rape in Berlin doesn't seem very nice either. The fire bombing of Dresden couldn't have made for pretty pictures. Who writes, edits, and publishes the history books you've read? Check your sources. I'm sure the Nazi's were bad. I'm equally sure people don't rise up and act like that without some kind of compelling antecedent.

 

[quatona]

WWII: Jews good, Germans bad is too simplified of an explanation for me to believe. If you choose to swallow that line its on you.

(Jews good, Germans bad would be nonsense already for the sole reason that a great many of the Jews in question were Germans.)
Except she didn´t say anything to that effect.
She said the holocaust happened and it was bad.
Whatever Jews and or Germans did to each other beyond, before or after that doesn´t qualify that.

Millions of German soldiers herded into fields where they were left to starve to death seems kind of strange to me. Letting the Russians pillage and rape in Berlin doesn't seem very nice either. The fire bombing of Dresden couldn't have made for pretty pictures. Who writes, edits, and publishes the history books you've read? Check your sources.

And this makes the holocaust less horrible or did justify it exactly how?

I'm sure the Nazi's were bad. I'm equally sure people don't rise up and act like that without some kind of compelling antecedent.

I´m pretty sure myself that people don´t rise up and act like that without some kind of putative justification.

Now, since you were talking about checking historical facts I would be interested in hearing what you consider the "compelling antecedents" for the holocaust. Peddling back and leaving it at "I´m pretty sure there were..." belies the very approach you have postulated.
(All the examples you gave happened were not antecedents of the holocaust, and even if they would have been I would fail to see how e.g. the bombing of Dresden was a "compelling antecedent" for the organized mass killing of millions of Jews, Sinti, Roma, homosexuals, communists, socialists, disabled persons. Quite frankly, the logic of your argument escapes me completely)

 

[StarCannon]

*eyes roll* Can we just leave it that America is not innocent when it comes to genocide-in-parts-of-the-world affairs? Seriously. THe question is not who to blame, but who's doing what to help the problem?

 

[Velo Princesse]

In Saudi Arabia children are taught from a young age that America is the great Satan. How could that possibly be false?



WWII: Jews good, Germans bad is too simplified of an explanation for me to believe. If you choose to swallow that line its on you.



Millions of German soldiers herded into fields where they were left to starve to death seems kind of strange to me. Letting the Russians pillage and rape in Berlin doesn't seem very nice either. The fire bombing of Dresden couldn't have made for pretty pictures. Who writes, edits, and publishes the history books you've read? Check your sources. I'm sure the Nazi's were bad. I'm equally sure people don't rise up and act like that without some kind of compelling antecedent.

As someone who is personally affected and effected by the Holocaust, I need to step out of this conversation. Quantona seems perfectly capable of taking it from here.

I would, however, like to say that I never did and never would say anything negative about the Germans. First of all, my great uncle (who died at a concentration camp) was a German. Secondly, it was the Nazi party that did those things not the German public. Your wide brush shows your ignorances and predjudices. You clearly are using much broader strokes than any reasonable person would in this conversation.

 

[FaithLikeARock]

In Saudi Arabia children are taught from a young age that America is the great Satan. How could that possibly be false?



WWII: Jews good, Germans bad is too simplified of an explanation for me to believe. If you choose to swallow that line its on you.



Millions of German soldiers herded into fields where they were left to starve to death seems kind of strange to me. Letting the Russians pillage and rape in Berlin doesn't seem very nice either. The fire bombing of Dresden couldn't have made for pretty pictures. Who writes, edits, and publishes the history books you've read? Check your sources. I'm sure the Nazi's were bad. I'm equally sure people don't rise up and act like that without some kind of compelling antecedent.

Books don't take sides AutumnLeaf. Over paranoid people do. You're obviously reading it wrong because I never got the idea that the book was even trying to say they were bad. In the most neutral way possible it explained what the Holocaust was. That's it.

 

[keith99]

Books don't take sides AutumnLeaf. Over paranoid people do. You're obviously reading it wrong because I never got the idea that the book was even trying to say they were bad. In the most neutral way possible it explained what the Holocaust was. That's it.

Books DO take sides. Some authors try to stay neutral, none succeed. Something like WW II and all that surrounds it is one of the more difficult things to present a readable neutral stance on. Anyone who thinks books do not take sides is a fool. What a reader needs to determine is just what side the author is taking.

I would say any book that is trying to show the whole picture needs to include something on these issues.

What was the economic situation in Gernamy at the time of Hitlers rise to power?

How were Jews viewed/treated elsewhere at the time?

But these both present a real problem. They need to be presented, but if presented they can easily be taken as excuses for what happened.

 

[FaithLikeARock]

Books DO take sides. Some authors try to stay neutral, none succeed. Something like WW II and all that surrounds it is one of the more difficult things to present a readable neutral stance on. Anyone who thinks books do not take sides is a fool. What a reader needs to determine is just what side the author is taking.

I would say any book that is trying to show the whole picture needs to include something on these issues.

What was the economic situation in Gernamy at the time of Hitlers rise to power?

How were Jews viewed/treated elsewhere at the time?

But these both present a real problem. They need to be presented, but if presented they can easily be taken as excuses for what happened.

Text books have to go through a process. I've never read a bias text book with the exception of my American Government book which actually took a very Republican stance on everything.

My book on World History was not bias however. In fact it actually did put some emphasis on the fact that, while completely insane and obviously racist, Hitler was brilliant charismatically and did bring Germany out of the worst economic slump in it's history. Now if a World History book can shed some light on what few good things Hitler had going, then I have to say it is not bias. It told the truth.

 

[stan1980]

Text books have to go through a process. I've never read a bias text book with the exception of my American Government book which actually took a very Republican stance on everything.

My book on World History was not bias however. In fact it actually did put some emphasis on the fact that, while completely insane and obviously racist, Hitler was brilliant charismatically and did bring Germany out of the worst economic slump in it's history. Now if a World History book can shed some light on what few good things Hitler had going, then I have to say it is not bias. It told the truth.

It's true. Although my German is quite limited, I do quite enjoy watching Hitler's rousing speeches, as weird as that may seem. I imagine if I ever got into politics, I would draw some inspiration from Hitler, although maybe tone it down a touch. Unfortunately, George Galloway has already beaten me to it though.

 

[Autumnleaf]

And this makes the holocaust less horrible or did justify it exactly how?

It would put it into perspective. Everyone believes the first side of the argument they hear without question. That is, until they hear the other person's side of it. The only side taught in the history books about the holocost is the side you were taught and taught to accept without question.

The US invaded two countries and deposed their governments. Then it occupied those countries for 5 years and its ongoing. If you didn't know about terrorism and 911 you might think the US is a bunch of Nazis. Wouldn't you? What if that was all your grandchildren read about this time in history? What would they think?

 

[BigBadWlf]

You left out the fact that the country the United States invaded had no connection to 9/11

 

[Autumnleaf]

You left out the fact that the country the United States invaded had no connection to 9/11

That is debateble but I tend to agree with you.

 

[quatona]

It would put it into perspective. Everyone believes the first side of the argument they hear without question. That is, until they hear the other person's side of it. The only side taught in the history books about the holocost is the side you were taught and taught to accept without question.

No doubt: Incomplete data lead to wrong conclusions.
However, I haven´t asked you to lecture me on most basic and banal phenomena of communcation, and I haven´t asked you to make assumption on the way I (or even everyone) was educated.
I have asked you to give me this information you have that puts the Holocaust in perspective. I´m waiting.
I am asking you to tell me about the other person´s side of the Holocaust that you are referring to without explaining it (along with the information who this "other person" is.). I am waiting (and I must admit I am slowly getting impatient).

The US invaded two countries and deposed their governments. Then it occupied those countries for 5 years and its ongoing. If you didn't know about terrorism and 911 you might think the US is a bunch of Nazis.

1. I don´t like Nazi-comparisons, so I wouldn´t think that.
2. I think, however, that the attack on Iraq was terribly unjust.
3. You failed to give me the information that is necessary to conclude that 9/11 puts the invasion of Iraq in perspective. For example, it would help your case greatly if you could, for starters, show that Iraq was behind 9/11.
3. If applying your own reasoning to your argument: Are you sure you know everything you need to know about the antecedents of 9/11?

Wouldn't you? What if that was all your grandchildren read about this time in history?

As long as even yet today there can not be shown that 9/11 in any way puts the American invasion on Iraq in perspective (and all available data point to the opposite), I think their education regarding this topic would be sufficiently complete.

But back to the Holocaust.
There is no disagreement that incomplete data give an incomplete picture.
The point of discussion is a different one, though:
You claimed there were antededents to the Holocaust that put the Holocaust in perspective.
For examples you listed a couple of things that
a. were not antecedents of the Holocaust (in that they didn´t even happen before it)
b. were performed not by the target groups of the Holocaust.

I am challenging you:
If you have information that the rest of the world doesn´t have - information that puts the Holocaust in perspective (and we are talking about the organized killing of several million private persons here) - go ahead and share this information, so that (after checking your data, your sources, your evidence as well as the validity of your interpretation that these facts require us to change our perspective on the Holocaust) we can give our children and grandchildren a more complete picture. Or, if there is no such information, retract your baseless assertion.

Please don´t forget that I haven´t been reading those American history books that you apparently are referring to, anyways. I have been born in Germany (and always lived here), and my parents were German citizens during the Nazi-regime and the Holocaust. I have been taught from German history books written by Germans. So I am actually quite close to "the other side" you are talking about, and I certainly would welcome any information that puts the wrongdoings of the ancestors of my generation in perspective.
Interestingly none of the plenty of persons from this generation whom I have met (persons who would have had a great interest in putting the Holocaust in perspective - those who voted the Nazis into charge and supported or at least tolerated them, after all) didn´t even make an attempt of doing so.
And the few attempts I have heard of came down to "but Hitler built the Autobahnen" or "but Hitler gave people work" and such - nothing that any person in their right mind would consider "putting the organized killing of millions of persons in perspective".

So: Who is this "other side" and what are the secret data (wiped out from the history books of the world) that put the Holocaust in perspective?

 

[Autumnleaf]

No doubt: Incomplete data lead to wrong conclusions.
However, I haven´t asked you to lecture me on most basic and banal phenomena of communcation, and I haven´t asked you to make assumption on the way I (or even everyone) was educated.
I have asked you to give me this information you have that puts the Holocaust in perspective. I´m waiting.
I am asking you to tell me about the other person´s side of the Holocaust that you are referring to without explaining it (along with the information who this "other person" is.). I am waiting (and I must admit I am slowly getting impatient).

1. I don´t like Nazi-comparisons, so I wouldn´t think that.
2. I think, however, that the attack on Iraq was terribly unjust.
3. You failed to give me the information that is necessary to conclude that 9/11 puts the invasion of Iraq in perspective. For example, it would help your case greatly if you could, for starters, show that Iraq was behind 9/11.
3. If applying your own reasoning to your argument: Are you sure you know everything you need to know about the antecedents of 9/11?
As long as even yet today there can not be shown that 9/11 in any way puts the American invasion on Iraq in perspective (and all available data point to the opposite), I think their education regarding this topic would be sufficiently complete.

But back to the Holocaust.
There is no disagreement that incomplete data give an incomplete picture.
The point of discussion is a different one, though:
You claimed there were antededents to the Holocaust that put the Holocaust in perspective.
For examples you listed a couple of things that
a. were not antecedents of the Holocaust (in that they didn´t even happen before it)
b. were performed not by the target groups of the Holocaust.

I am challenging you:
If you have information that the rest of the world doesn´t have - information that puts the Holocaust in perspective (and we are talking about the organized killing of several million private persons here) - go ahead and share this information, so that (after checking your data, your sources, your evidence as well as the validity of your interpretation that these facts require us to change our perspective on the Holocaust) we can give our children and grandchildren a more complete picture. Or, if there is no such information, retract your baseless assertion.

Please don´t forget that I haven´t been reading those American history books that you apparently are referring to, anyways. I have been born in Germany (and always lived here), and my parents were German citizens during the Nazi-regime and the Holocaust. I have been taught from German history books written by Germans. So I am actually quite close to "the other side" you are talking about, and I certainly would welcome any information that puts the wrongdoings of the ancestors of my generation in perspective.
Interestingly none of the plenty of persons from this generation whom I have met (persons who would have had a great interest in putting the Holocaust in perspective - those who voted the Nazis into charge and supported or at least tolerated them, after all) didn´t even make an attempt of doing so.
And the few attempts I have heard of came down to "but Hitler built the Autobahnen" or "but Hitler gave people work" and such - nothing that any person in their right mind would consider "putting the organized killing of millions of persons in perspective".

So: Who is this "other side" and what are the secret data (wiped out from the history books of the world) that put the Holocaust in perspective?

Hitler and his peers believed the Jews controlled the world central banks and were running the German economy into the ground by manipulating currencies from London. At the same time they believed Jews were inciting civil unrest by bringing in communism to Germany as they had recently in the Russia revolution. What did you learn in your history books about Jewish involvement in the Bolshevik Revolution? What did you find from a google search? Check Jewish sources. Check what the Jewish leaders thought of Germany prior to WWII. Check Jewish sources.

Did you find that Lenin and many of his peers were Jewish and well financed by Western banks?

Did you find the Jewish Nation declared economic war on Germany prior to WWII?

What else did you find?

Two sides to every story.

Fast forward to today. What is the only group of people you can not say anything negative about ever without being called antisemitic and racist? Even in the movies Jewish people are not ever portrayed as the bad guy. Versus how many evil Germans do you suppose Bruce Willis alone has killed in all the Die Hard movies? What is one country conducting a fifty year long occupation of another nation with the UN's blessing? What country is loved by Christians yet if you try to convert Jews there you can be thrown in jail? How about which country has tighter immigration standards than the US and the EU, but has used politics to get the US and EU to relax their standards? We could get into East European women used as sex slaves in brothels but why bother. Jewish people are not squeaky clean perfect and funny like they are always portrayed in every movie they make. There are reasons why they have been kicked out of countries and persecuted. Every country in the Middle East hates Israel and wants them wiped off the map. Do you really think they and the Germans of WWII don't/didn't have reasons for this?

I just probably threw so much at you your mind's circuit breaker will flip. Pick a point which seems outrageous and look it up on your own and call me on it if its wrong.

 

[quatona]

Hitler and his peers believed the Jews controlled the world central banks and were running the German economy into the ground by manipulating currencies from London. At the same time they believed Jews were inciting civil unrest by bringing in communism to Germany as they had recently in the Russia revolution.

I am fully aware that the Nazis thought the Jews were evil.
I am not asking you why the Nazis felt they were justified, but why you think that there were things that put the Holocaust in perspective.

What did you learn in your history books about Jewish involvement in the Bolshevik Revolution? What did you find from a google search? Check Jewish sources. Check what the Jewish leaders thought of Germany prior to WWII. Check Jewish sources.

Did you find that Lenin and many of his peers were Jewish and well financed by Western banks?

Did you find the Jewish Nation declared economic war on Germany prior to WWII?

What else did you find?

Please don´t make a claim and try to support it by questions. You make the claims, you support them.
What you bring up here appears to be a strange mixture of half-truths and conspiration theories. Make an attempt to support them, bring up reliable sources in order to substantiate your claim that they belong in history books.

But, what´s more important (especially in view of the fact that I don´t have the facilities to verify your sources even if you would give them): Even if they are all accurate - I see nothing here that would put the Holocaust in perspective.

Fast forward to today. What is the only group of people you can not say anything negative about ever without being called antisemitic and racist? Even in the movies Jewish people are not ever portrayed as the bad guy. Versus how many evil Germans do you suppose Bruce Willis alone has killed in all the Die Hard movies? What is one country conducting a fifty year long occupation of another nation with the UN's blessing? What country is loved by Christians yet if you try to convert Jews there you can be thrown in jail? How about which country has tighter immigration standards than the US and the EU, but has used politics to get the US and EU to relax their standards? We could get into East European women used as sex slaves in brothels but why bother. Jewish people are not squeaky clean perfect and funny like they are always portrayed in every movie they make. There are reasons why they have been kicked out of countries and persecuted. Every country in the Middle East hates Israel and wants them wiped off the map. Do you really think they and the Germans of WWII don't/didn't have reasons for this?

Pütative reasons? Sure. Never disputed. I haven´t been asking you why the Nazis thought the Holocaust was justified. I am asking you why you think all this "puts the Holocaust in perspective".
I didn´t say that Jews were perfect people, and I don´t see much good coming from the idea that they are above criticism. I have some problems with official Jewish positions (I don´t like the arrogance of their claim to be "god´s chosen people", to begin with.)
However, I fail to see how wrongdoings by Jews or the fact that they are sheltered from criticism or that they are not liked by many or anything in this rant of yours (or all of it together) justifies (or "puts in perspective", as you put it) the idea of killing them all, and an almost successful attempt to do that. I would be interested in your ethical ideas, those ideas in which any of this "puts the Holocaust in perspective".

 

[keith99]

It's true. Although my German is quite limited, I do quite enjoy watching Hitler's rousing speeches, as weird as that may seem. I imagine if I ever got into politics, I would draw some inspiration from Hitler, although maybe tone it down a touch. Unfortunately, George Galloway has already beaten me to it though.

You and FaithLikeARock have given me some hope. Not taht I consider Hitler good in any moral sense, he is responsible for the deaths of many men I admire greatly (Bonhoeffer, Oster, Sack, Cannaris, Von Stauffenburg to start). But many today seem to view him as having horns and a tail, easy to spot and with no 'positive' traits. My fear is that this attitude will be very useful for the next Hitler, as he will not have horns and a tail, will have some good traits and the dangers will not become clear to most until it is too late.

 

[keith99]

I'll try to provide a slightly different perspective on the Holocaust, one that in its own way is pretty depressing.

Hitlers great lies did have some elements of truth. Germany had not lost WW II on the battlefield, but instead at the peace talks. I do not know of any evidence that the Jews bertayed Germany, by Germany was in effect betrayed.

Early forms of the 'Final Solution' was not extermination, but deportation. But it seems other countries did not want the Jews either. I find nothing in the general character of the Jews to support this attitude and to be fair a part of it was not wanting a tidal wave of immigration. But a larger part was general anti semitism. Hitler found he could use this, he did not invent it.

To give some idea of the backbone of others in standing up for the Jews one only needs to look at the U.S. Olympic team. Originally those qualified for the U.S. 4x100 relay in track and filed included 2 Jews. We stood up for the Blacks on the team, but not the Jews. Those 2 stayed home to keep Hitler happy.

The biggest help in persecution is to find a group few or none will stand up for. The Jews were nearly perfect.

Does this make it excusable? In no way, but it leaves few who can honestly look only outward.