Bush: We should have bombed Auschwitz

[Wilber]

Sounds as if the Poles were "targeted for a 'final solution'" too. I don't see the difference between their deaths and the Jewish deaths.

Probably only their place on the priority list. Poland did lose about 20% of its population during WWII, more than any other country.

[Rue]

I really don't see the difference. The objective was to eliminate anyone that the Nazis felt were "sub-human" and regardless of how specific groups were targeted, the end result for all was going to be death. Therein lies the similarity. Yet people still like to draw distinctions, and I think it's this fact that makes some people a little cynical about the whole issue.

You now prove with the above comment your intent is not just to call Bush an idiot but now engage in the age old couched antti-semitic taunt that the holocaust is not unique to Jews.

I would urge everyone at this point to simply ignore you.

Your specific words "that makes somne people a little cynical about the whole issue" refers simply to you and your agenda which is to deny the holocaust's specific application to Jews and try downplay that significance by trying to suggest if one talks of the holocaust and its specific extermination of Jews this necessarily ignores non Jews.

You Sir and I state this as bluntly as I can, have zero credibility on this issue. To deny the holocaust had specific and unique application to Jews is odious enough but to try exploit this to try turn people against Jews and suggest Jews are unfair if they try point out how it is unqiue to us is nasty.

No one has denied Romanos, gypsies, gays, communists, Jehova's Witnesses, 7th Day Adventists, the mentally ill, the disabled, trade unions and Lutherans and Catholics were killed in the holocaust-but you Sir now engage in this attempt to suggest if Jews point out this is unique to us because it deliberately targetted us for extermination it is unfair to these other groups is absolute and utter bull shit.

The fact you now turn this post into this topic shows what your true intentions were. It was never to just call Bush an idiot-it was to try argue the holocaust is not unique to Jews and deals with the extermination of Jews in many countries. The killing of the other peoples was not done in as many countries and to such a volume and you know it. But that isn't the point is it. Taunting is the point.

Edited January 21, 2008 by Rue

[kengs333]

The lack of follow-up.

What kind of answer is that? Do you actually differentiate between the suffering and pain that people experienced while they were being victimized by the Nazi regime based on ethnicity?

[Rue]

What kind of answer is that? Do you actually differentiate between the suffering and pain that people experienced while they were being victimized by the Nazi regime based on ethnicity?

Your question is deceitful. His comment did not differentiate between the suffering and pain of any of the victims and for you to suggest he did shows the agenda you are now trying to pursue.

It also shows your agenda is to try pit one group against another to try suggest the effect of the holocaust on Jews was not unique to Jews and you can advance that arguement by saying others suffered.

You bait on cue and now you have your platform-who do Jews think they are trying to suggest the holocaust has specific significance to them that differs from the experience it has to others-because Keng in his infinite wisdom deems suffering and pain all the same and to be lumped into one category so he doesn't have to listen to Jews or feel guilty about what happened to them right Keng?

Nothing special happened to the Jews that didn't happen to anyone else right Keng? Lets nto make such a big deal about it right Keng? It makes people cynical right Keng?

[Rue]

I wish to make clear that what Keng now does is engage in a classic example of holocaust denial.

Holocaust denial has two components. One is to try deny the number of Jews that died in the holocaust or question whether the holocaust happened. The other component of holocaust denial is to trivialize its consequences, i.e., to suggest its not unique to Jews and its not unique in terms of slaughters and since people other then Jews died in the holocaust and have died in other genocides or slaughters, its not unique to Jews and people should resent Jews for trying to say it is.

The above proposition is often expressed as per the words of Keng are the classic words of someone writing to the Stormfront (Nazi) web site and stating;

“One thing that really bothers me is when people make a big deal out of the Holocaust, and the fact that what happened to the Jews was a Uinque thing only applying to the Jews. Like noone else in the world at the time suffered except for the Jews.” A further classic example of how the argument that the holocaust is not special to Jews is advanced by people with an agenda to in fact trivialize the holocaust can be seen at; http://christianparty.net/holocaust.htm and is I would suggest the frame of reference Keng uses and many people claiming to be Christian fundamentalists use and its important this be flushed out and not couched in the pretense of an alleged historical debate. Its not. It is in my opinion hate mongering and its designed to baiting people's feelings and memories.

But let us deal with this issue which Keng has introduced and that is since the Nazis did not kill Jews only it should not be considered unique to Jews. No Jew has ever asked that the suffering of others in the holocaust be ignored. In response to another poster in another line of posts on this same topic, I specifically provided her with a plethora of holocaust memorial sites by Jews which makes it clear as a central precept of Jews remembering the holocaust Jews remember ALL peoples who died in the holocaust and the fact Jews explain why it is unique to Jews does not mean they suggest non Jews did not suffer.

Every crime against humanity deserves condemnation but Jews do not need to compete in some morbid contest with Keng or anyone else as to who suffered the most in history or during the holocaust just as it was ludicrous for Keng to try smeer the memory of US soldiers by trying to engage their contributions in World War Two against Canadian soldiers in some contest as to whose contribution was better.

The uniqueness to Jews of the holocaust comes from specific historic characteristics not subjective feelings or moral superiority as Keng engages in. It is based on the fact that Nazis marshaled the machinery of their state to target millions of Jews, i.e., 6 million. Yes 5 million non Jews died in the holocaust but that does not change the other fact, that it specifically targetted one people more then any other. The holocaust killed many but it is distinct and unique to what happened to Jews precisely because it involved a destruction process which specifically targeted for death and the hunting down and killing of Jews from across Europe including any European with one Jewish grandparent.

Of course not all victims were Jews and no it does not mean if you say the holocaust had a unique effect on Jews it means others did not die. But here is the distinction (and it comes from a remark by Eli Weisel) not all victims were Jews, but all Jews were victims.

Therein lies the uniqueness which Keng tries to trivialize. In the Nazi holocaust there was most certainly a specific ideological and concerted state policy and apparatus to single out Jews simply because they were Jews. This is why the Nazis had specific songs about Jews but not Poles or Romanoes or 7th Day Adventists or Gays or Communists or Jehova’s Witnesses, or the mentally ill or disabled. It doesn’t mean the others who died suffered less, but it does mean in the case of Jews there was a complex. systematic and deliberate targeting of Jews that was not carried out with the other groups. It's why Nazis would sing a song like;”Wenn sas Judenblut bom Messer spritzt dan gehts nochmal so gut!” (when Hew-blood spurts from the dagger, then things will go twice as well) or why the Nazi newspaper Der Stumer had as its slogan, “The Jews are our misfortune”.

This is why in genocide studies, Steven Katz, in his work, The Holocaust in Historical Context, Vol. 1 has advanced the position that the Jewish Holocaust was “phenomenologically unique as a holocaust and to Jews by virtue of the fact that never before has a state set out, as a matter of intentional principle and actualized policy, to annihilate physically every man, woman, and child belonging to a specific people, i.e., the Jews of Europe. The fact is the Jews of Europe were a unique target of the Nazis and the fact that others died does not change that fact nor should it be used by the Kengs of the world to try manipulate you into denigrating what that means to Jews or to those Jews want to undersrand how the holocaust effected and will always effect us.

Yes it can be stated that tt was only in the case of the Jews that there was a determination to seek out every man, woman and child across Weurope.

The death camps that Keng and others would have you believe killed non Jews and therefore is not special to Jews is odious because it is historic fact that while others may have died there, these camps were specifically created in contemplation of exterminating Jews. These factories were constructed and managed with the sole purpose of killing trainload after trainload of Jews. Others were thrown in, but the major group, the specific group targeted was Jews. These camps would not have existed had there been no need to kill Jews. Once they were, it then and only then made it easier for Nazis to add to the list of victims and that is the point. Others died precisely because it became easier to kill them by being able to kill millions of Jews.

More to the point when the Kengs of the world try engage you in odious contests as to who suffered more and suggest it is acceptable to be cynical about Jews who think the holocaust has special meaning please remember the groups he tries to use to manipulate you against Jews were not singled out for open-air, public massacres of tens of thousands of people on a daily basis throughout Eastern Europe. No their suffering was no less worse, but historically it came about in a different context and Keng depends on your ignorance of history to gloss over the context to not understand why it is different.

Think of the logical conclusion to Keng’s argument and that is since 55 million people died in World War Two, we should not examine how the holocaust was unique to Jews since is just 6 million of 55 milion.

Why? Does this mean we forget what happened to the Romanos? Does these mean we forget the Jews who died; Aushwitz-over 1.25 million, Chelmo-200,000, Sobibor-260,000, Belzec-500,000, Treblinka-800.000, Majdanek-130,000?

This attempt to suggest Poles died in the holocaust so the holocaust is not unique to Jews is also absolutely misleading. Of 6 million Poles who died, 3 million of them were Jews. Non Jewish Poles died because of war, not specifically because the Nazis had a state policy to exterminately. They were killed indiscriminately not because of their specific ethnicity or simply because they were Poles. Had these Poles been Nazi sympathizers they would not have been killed. Jews on the other hand whether sympathetic or not to the Nazis would die.

The uniqueness of genocides is it kills not because of what you believe but because of what you are assumed to be by virtue of your race or ethnicity. A Lutheran who dies in the holocaust dies because he chose to confront the Nazis not necessarily because he was a Lutheran. Many Lutherans found Nazism quite compatible with their beliefs. 7th Day Adventists died not because of who they were but because of what they believed. Jews simply were killed because they were Jews. Both suffered equally but the context of the criteria for killing them is NOT and was NEVER the same.

Interestingly the only other ethnic group specifically exterminated and treated just like Jews but not specifically mentioned in state policy, was the Romano people and their treatment is always remembered by Jews and is as unique to them as it is to Jews. They were exterminated simply because of their ethnicity. This does not make the holocaust any less unique to Jews or Romanos.

All I ask is that when you discuss and remember history, you understand that when people try trivialize historic events and their distinct meaning to the victimized groups, there may be an agenda attached to make it easier to deny the event and denigrate the memory of the victims.

In this case Keng’s efforts to denigrade the memory of Jews is no different then what he did with US soldiers and it trivializes the uniqueness of the holocaust’s effect on other groups by turning them into his tool to use as a manipulative weapon to trivialize others.

If Keng genuinely cared about these other groups-he would never use their memory to denigrate the holocaust and its significance to Jews nor would he try incite people into using their memory to resent Jews, or as he says be cynical towards them when they point out it is unique to Jews because it wiped out one third of our population in the world and it is unique in terms of genocides because of its focus on one specific people.

The genocide of aboriginals, the genocide of Armamians, Rwandans, Cambodians and now people in Darfur, etc., they all have specific and unique meaning to the ethnic groups that were targeted for genocide and no there is no less meaning simply because there are many genocides. Each is unique. To use one to trivialize another is what manipulative hate mongers like to do.

[jbg]

I wish to make clear that what Keng now does is engage in a classic example of holocaust denial.

Absolutely. While I would defend to my death Keng's right to mouth stupidity I would insist to the death he's wrong. And I wouldn't go to an HRC either even though he's clearly a Jew hater.

[kengs333]

Absolutely. While I would defend to my death Keng's right to mouth stupidity I would insist to the death he's wrong. And I wouldn't go to an HRC either even though he's clearly a Jew hater.

Actually, I would actually like to have a response to my questions. I won't even acknowledge that defamitory statements that both of you have made; there is nothing in what I've written that suggests that is the case. Sadly, though, what both of you have done is the typical tactic used in trying to end any debate or criticism about Jews or Israel. Neither are above reproach, as is the case for every other group of people or any other country on this planet. Discussing the merits of bombing Auschwitz, drawing attention to the suffering of all victims of the holocaust is not "denying" anything--it's a clear indication that the person making the claims knows that it happened. How it can be twisted into being a "denial" of the events is beyond me. I hate to say it, but that line of argumentation isn't going to win you many friends, so I don't know why you'd even want to go there.

[Rue]

Sadly, though, what both of you have done is the typical tactic used in trying to end any debate or criticism about Jews or Israel. I hate to say it, but that line of argumentation isn't going to win you many friends, so I don't know why you'd even want to go there.

Keng your comments above summarize the point I was making and that is you have an agenda , "criticism about Jews or Israel". If that was your agenda which it now appears is from what you say, JBG or I or anyone else have the right to challenge you on that and we have. My comments suggested you had an agenda other then discussing historic facts and you have stated it above "criticism about Jews or Israel".

To me this is not about making friends Keng. When I defend a position it is not to be popular, its to express something I genuinely believe and I attempt to do so taking the time to provide something other then my subjective feelings as the basis for my statenments.

It is in my personal opinion inappropriate for you to use the holocaust and your beliefs as to its merits or significance to criticize Jews or Israel. To use any people's collective genocide or suffering to argue what happened to them is not unique or morally signigicant necessarily incites resentment against the people who suffered.

I am relieved in a way you responded with words that makes it clear what your agenda was and continues to be.

Edited January 22, 2008 by Rue

[jbg]

Actually, I would actually like to have a response to my questions.

Perhaps my rhetoric was a bit strong and I'm sorry for both sets of name calling. That being said, the Jews were the only group targeted for annihilation. Hitler established museums for Jewish artifacts, to show an extinct culture and people. A Torah (scroll containing first five books of OT) from a Prague, Czechoslovakia synagogue wound up in this musem.

That scroll is now located at my synagogue, so it has lived, though Hitler wished the artifact would have lived without its people to give it life. In the end, the Jews and their friends are the Jews' only advocates. We cannot carry the water for all those Hitler wished would move aside to give the German people Lebenstraum. That is too much of a burden.

[Guest American Woman]

me: Sounds as if the Poles were "targeted for a 'final solution'" too. I don't see the difference between their deaths and the Jewish deaths.

Of course not all victims were Jews and no it does not mean if you say the holocaust had a unique effect on Jews it means others did not die. But here is the distinction (and it comes from a remark by Eli Weisel) not all victims were Jews, but all Jews were victims.

That clarifies it in my mind.

[Wilber]

Anyone watch this last night? Very interesting and covered a lot of the questions presented on this thread.

Auschwitz the Forgotten Evidence

[Wilber]

One more try