Figaro: Chirac inaugure aujourd'hui le Mémorial de la Shoah

writes:

It was the first and only time that half of the world's population of
an ethnicity, to the degree of six million, were systematically
slaughtered by industrial means.

Are you sure? Pol Pot and Stalin might argue with you.

I'm not sure what you mean by "industrial means." And whatever that
might mean, are people killed in that way somehow more dead than people
killed in other ways? Are they more valuable because they were killed
in a certain way?

Although the world did and does stand by doing nothing while genocides
take place, they are not to that degree: the systematic, idustrial
slaughter of an entire ethnic group numbering in the millions (with a
target, presumably of over ten million to be slaughtered).

It was more organized than most, although I'm not sure why that would
make it any more or less morally reprehensible than any other genocide.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

"Deep Foiled Malls" wrote in
message ...
On 25 Jan 2005 12:36:31 -0800, wrote:

It was the first and only time that half of the world's population of
an ethnicity, to the degree of six million, were systematically
slaughtered by industrial means.

So you are saying the ETHNICITY is important? Not to me.

You weren't doing the murdering, were you?

They are all
people, and it's all history that cannot be undone. Why should their
ethnicity even be considered important now that virtually all the
Nazis are dead?

And this actually makes a difference to you?
The fact that the original ones are dying off, but their spiritual children
are still with us - this is also unimportant to you, too?

It's just not a factor in this day and age.

Just because you say so??


No other slaughter -- Not the Armenians, the Rwandans, the Cambodians
-- not any -- has met that ghastly criterion.

No. They met other ghastly criterion.

No, they did not - that's the point.

Stop trying to overstate what
happened to the Jews.

Stop trying to whitewash it.


Although the world did and does stand by doing nothing while genocides
take place, they are not to that degree: the systematic, idustrial
slaughter of an entire ethnic group numbering in the millions (with a
target, presumably of over ten million to be slaughtered).

It was a long time ago, forget about it.

Yeah, your post proves that you'd like that.
Too bad; it's not going to happen.
And it's posts like yours that ensure it.

Susan
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Susan Cohen writes:

Well, thatit even HAPPENED for one thing.

There is overwhelming evidence that it did indeed happen, although the
details are sometimes a bit fuzzy.

Not nearly as fuzzy as a disgustinglylarge group of people wish to maintain.

Or have you missed the existence of the entire newsgroup dedicated to
this
lie?

There are some 70,000 newsgroups on USENET, and I haven't reviewed them
all.

How disingenuous of you.

Many of these people are slyer than that: they only lie about the numnber
of
Jews kilkled inthe Holocaust.

The exact number is very difficult to determine,

No, it isn't.
It was determined by the Nazis themselves.
But thanks for providing the very evidence I was discussing.

so there's no way to
prove that anyone is lying or telling the truth.

It is odd, isn't it, that they never lie about the number of any other
group
killed in the Holocaust?

See above.

As to what?
The ONLY numbers that ever get called under any sport of negative scrutiny
are the numbers of Jews.
Now, why is this?

And who said anything different?

Nobody explicitly says it, but it is strongly implied, since most other
victims are routinely ignored.

You are still wrong.

How interesting that it's the first thing of which you think to mention.

It's the emphasis of most discussions about the Holocaust.

Because it was the main thrust of the Holocaust.
For one example - at whom were the Nuremberg Laws aimed?
For another - at whom was Kristallnacht aimed?

The Holocaust is also rather unique in that it has been given a name (it
might even be a registered trademark now--I'm not sure).

Oh, how amusing.

Most mass
murders and genocides never receive a special name.

Because none of them fit the awful criteria of this one.

The only ones who focus on the Jews are the Jew-haters (see my first
statement)

There are a number of groups that focus only on Jewish victims, and they
are not all "Jew-haters."

The ones who lie about the numbers of Jewish dead & do not do so about any
others are certainly Jew-haters.

And no one ever said that, either.

But other massacres are never mentioned,

Again, this is untrue.

either, leaving the impression
that this one was unique or the largest in history.

It *was* unique.

But it certainly was unique, as people other than Jews (because you have
made yourself obvious) have pointed out.

There were some aspects of it that were unique, but that's true of all
mass exterminations.

So, now that you've spent so much time trying to argue against memorializing
the Holocaust, why is it that instead of whining about rthe Jews you don't
just memorialize all the other goups?

Thanks for being a sterling example of exactly what I was discussing.

Susan

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
writes:

It was the first and only time that half of the world's population of
an ethnicity, to the degree of six million, were systematically
slaughtered by industrial means.

Are you sure? Pol Pot and Stalin might argue with you.

I'm not sure what you mean by "industrial means."

Extermination camps.
Gas chambers, ovens - all the specialized works set uo for the sole purpose
of killing people considered sub human.

And whatever that
might mean, are people killed in that way somehow more dead than people
killed in other ways?

Are you under the impression that a strawman will help your case?

Are they more valuable because they were killed
in a certain way?

Obviously you are.
But the answer is that they are just more memorable for it all having been
so especially inhuman.

Although the world did and does stand by doing nothing while genocides
take place, they are not to that degree: the systematic, idustrial
slaughter of an entire ethnic group numbering in the millions (with a
target, presumably of over ten million to be slaughtered).

It was more organized than most, although I'm not sure why that would
make it any more or less morally reprehensible than any other genocide.

This says a lot right here.

Susan

Mxsmanic wrote:

Susan Cohen writes:

Well, thatit even HAPPENED for one thing.

There is overwhelming evidence that it did indeed happen, although the
details are sometimes a bit fuzzy.

This 'fuzziness' is par for the course for almost anything that happened
a while ago- I don't see why you feel the need to insert it here.

[]
Many of these people are slyer than that: they only lie about the numnber of
Jews kilkled inthe Holocaust.

The exact number is very difficult to determine, so there's no way to
prove that anyone is lying or telling the truth.

That's really not on. It's not hard to get a rough idea. If you're
arguing over finer figures, then that's pretty tasteless, and certainly
not germane here.

It is odd, isn't it, that they never lie about the number of any other group
killed in the Holocaust?

See above.

And who said anything different?

Nobody explicitly says it, but it is strongly implied, since most other
victims are routinely ignored.

By whom? Jewish groups have done better than most to reveal the
persecution of 'others.'

How interesting that it's the first thing of which you think to mention.

It's the emphasis of most discussions about the Holocaust.

Jews were the largest single group to be killed. It's perfectly
understandable that they are the emphasis.

The Holocaust is also rather unique in that it has been given a name (it
might even be a registered trademark now--I'm not sure). Most mass
murders and genocides never receive a special name.

That's not the fault of Holocaust survivors, or those who want to
maintain awareness of it.

The only ones who focus on the Jews are the Jew-haters (see my first
statement)

There are a number of groups that focus only on Jewish victims, and they
are not all "Jew-haters."

And no one ever said that, either.

But other massacres are never mentioned, either, leaving the impression
that this one was unique or the largest in history.

You display a real ignorance of Holocaust awareness here.

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

Susan Cohen wrote:

[]
Extermination camps.
Gas chambers, ovens - all the specialized works set uo for the sole purpose
of killing people considered sub human.

There is a series on BBC TV at the moment, which (very persuasively IMO)
makes the case that the industrialisation of the murders was not just
for efficiency, but to remove the personalisation of the murders. Those
in higher powers realised that they would not be able to ask, for
instance, their soldiers to shoot women and children en masse, so the
gas chambers etc. were seen as the best solution. The programme also has
interviews with former guards in the camps who really believe they did
nothing wrong. That is, they had been convinced that the Jews were a
verifiable threat to them, and not only must they kill Jewish adults,
but their children too. IOW, for the preservation of the guards'
children- so that the 'children of the victims' wouldn't hunt them out.
Well, post-war, German children haven't done that badly. Some of them
are probably reading this. However, the interviews with former
campguards does make this non-believer wish that there _was_ a hell.

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

I am top-posting because I have but one comment: You are too kind.
(I am leaving your post intact because it's what my comment is *about*).

Susan

"chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn"
wrote in message
news:1gqz2yp.umaux31qkxj9rN%this_address_is_for_sp ...
Mxsmanic wrote:

Susan Cohen writes:

Well, thatit even HAPPENED for one thing.

There is overwhelming evidence that it did indeed happen, although the
details are sometimes a bit fuzzy.

This 'fuzziness' is par for the course for almost anything that happened
a while ago- I don't see why you feel the need to insert it here.

[]
Many of these people are slyer than that: they only lie about the
numnber of
Jews kilkled inthe Holocaust.

The exact number is very difficult to determine, so there's no way to
prove that anyone is lying or telling the truth.

That's really not on. It's not hard to get a rough idea. If you're
arguing over finer figures, then that's pretty tasteless, and certainly
not germane here.

It is odd, isn't it, that they never lie about the number of any other
group
killed in the Holocaust?

See above.

And who said anything different?

Nobody explicitly says it, but it is strongly implied, since most other
victims are routinely ignored.

By whom? Jewish groups have done better than most to reveal the
persecution of 'others.'

How interesting that it's the first thing of which you think to
mention.

It's the emphasis of most discussions about the Holocaust.

Jews were the largest single group to be killed. It's perfectly
understandable that they are the emphasis.

The Holocaust is also rather unique in that it has been given a name (it
might even be a registered trademark now--I'm not sure). Most mass
murders and genocides never receive a special name.

That's not the fault of Holocaust survivors, or those who want to
maintain awareness of it.

The only ones who focus on the Jews are the Jew-haters (see my first
statement)

There are a number of groups that focus only on Jewish victims, and they
are not all "Jew-haters."

And no one ever said that, either.

But other massacres are never mentioned, either, leaving the impression
that this one was unique or the largest in history.

You display a real ignorance of Holocaust awareness here.

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

"chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn"
wrote in message
news:1gqz3cc.dlic5f1fqdu85N%this_address_is_for_sp ...
Susan Cohen wrote:

[]
Extermination camps.
Gas chambers, ovens - all the specialized works set uo for the sole
purpose
of killing people considered sub human.

There is a series on BBC TV at the moment, which (very persuasively IMO)
makes the case that the industrialisation of the murders was not just
for efficiency, but to remove the personalisation of the murders.

Of course!
The whole system was brilliant: dehumanize the targets in every way
possible.
It also points to "the Final Solution" being in his mind a lot sooner than
everyone thinks/admits, too.

Those
in higher powers realised that they would not be able to ask, for
instance, their soldiers to shoot women and children en masse, so the
gas chambers etc. were seen as the best solution. The programme also has
interviews with former guards in the camps who really believe they did
nothing wrong. That is, they had been convinced that the Jews were a
verifiable threat to them, and not only must they kill Jewish adults,
but their children too. IOW, for the preservation of the guards'
children- so that the 'children of the victims' wouldn't hunt them out.
Well, post-war, German children haven't done that badly. Some of them
are probably reading this.

I always feel so sorry for the children of the monsters as well as the
victims.
How horrible it must be to know that YOUR FATHER was pretty much evil
incarnate.

Susan

However, the interviews with former
campguards does make this non-believer wish that there _was_ a hell.

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

Susan Cohen wrote:

I am top-posting because I have but one comment: You are too kind.

Well, that's kind of you. But, don't top-post again!

Seriously, I don't know what Mixi is on at the moment. (Does one ever?!)
There are plenty of groups distorting the history of the Nazi Holocaust,
and Jews are almost exclusively not among them.

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

Susan Cohen wrote:

"chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn"
wrote in message
[]
There is a series on BBC TV at the moment, which (very persuasively IMO)
makes the case that the industrialisation of the murders was not just
for efficiency, but to remove the personalisation of the murders.

Of course!
The whole system was brilliant: dehumanize the targets in every way
possible.

Sadly, I fear that this happens all the time. In 1996, I remember once
getting in conversation with a Serb waiting for a bus in Delphi- uh, at
3am! He seemed like a really decent bloke, but it didn't take him long
to start spewing bile against Bosnian Muslims. Very sad, and so
predictable.

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk