|
|||
That Other HolocaustTrackback PingsTrackBack URL for this entry: Comments
Great commentary. This is the reason that Democrats in the USA will be left in the cold come 2006 & 8. G-d willing, The left wing element will lose March 28 in Israel. Kadima is still trying to give away parts of Israel to appease Hamas. Olmert is a misguided, cowardly gangster. Neither he or Sharon pay any attention to the directive of the parliament. Gaza was a disaster and giving away the Shomron would be a sin. Vote Likud on March 28. Save our heritage. Posted by: Ed D on January 29, 2006 01:20 PM
The atrocities committed by Lenin, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot should never be lost sight of and should always be thrown in the faces of those who believe in communism’s kissing cousin, left wing ideology and advocate such left wing views. Genocide however is the act of one ethnic group, motivated by racist hatred only of the another, to destroy that other ethnic group. By the numbers the communist atrocities under Stalin and Mao were substantially greater than those Jews murdered by Hitler, however those atrocities were not racially motivated and were not genocidal in nature. The deaths of about 1 million Armenians at the hands of the Turks just after the turn of the 20th century is sometimes errantly referred to as a genocide. Hatred of Christian Armenians may well have motivated the atrocity to be carried to the lengths it was, but it was a real fear of Armenians allying with Russia that led to the Turks to take the action they did to prevent the feared threat from the Armenians from being realized, whether that fear was warranted or not. None of these tragic events in history can ever to rise to the same level of evil in the annals of history and in the minds of humanity as Hitler’s murder of 6 million Jews which was a true racist inspired genocidal atrocity for they were hated by Hitler and other anti-Semites for only existing. Just 4 years after the end of WWII with the Germans, Arabs moved solely by their racist Jew hatred began its first failed genocidal effort and thereafter tried 3 more times. Only the Jews have been the victims of genocide. Only the Jews have been victims of 2000 years of persecution, the only reason being that they exist. For the longest time it was Christian anti-Semitism at work. More recently Muslim anti-Semitism has taken the most aggressive lead. With Israel’s statehood Muslims have asserted that they are not anti-Semitic and just anti-Zionist or anti-Israel. Few can honestly make that claim for the rhetoric of the vast majority of Muslims throughout the world, expressed by their leaders and through various media sources and by imams in their mosques, are filled with only Jew hatred and nothing more. Already the phrase “Never Again” is fading from memory and significance. In our time, real fears are rising in Jewish minds that the Arabs and Muslims of the Middle East are once again coming ever closer to the day when they will again mount yet another genocidal campaign against Israel and the rest of the world will not care enough about Israel or the Jews to do anything about it. If the singular meaning of the Holocaust and genocide of the Jews is conflated with other atrocities societies commit on other societies, whatever lesson the world may have learned by the Holocaust and the genocide of the Jews will be forever lost and first Israel and then the rest of the world’s Jews once again will be vulnerable to being erased from the world by the growing forces of Jew hatred. It is therefore critically important that no one be allowed to get away with describing as genocide, the evil atrocities some nations perpetrate on their own people or their neighbors for political, economic or strategic military reasons, whether those reasons are warranted or not. As horrendous as those atrocities are, they do not rise nearly to the level of evil of racially motivated genocide. Cross posted at netwmd.com Posted by: Bill Narvey on January 29, 2006 03:00 PM
Take the Russian communist atrocities. These were in fact racially/ethnically motivated. During the reign of the Soviets, which was basically a Russian-dominated endeavor, with help from plenty of indigenous collaborators, the motivation was precisely ethnic cleansing (Ukraine, Estonia, etc.). After the mass slaughters, intensive Russification was carried out in the Soviet “republics.” Selective murders were carried by the KGB and NGVD for 50 years to quell indigenous cultural expression. For example, the Latvian and Estonian nations were pushed to the brink of extinction through policies of forced language learning, outlawing of cultural/religious practices, and by encouraging huge numbers of Russians to emigrate to the “republics.” If not for these peoples’ tenacity, and a little help from Reagan, ex-pats, etc., the attempted genocide would have been completed. Genocide. Period. There are many other examples I could cite. Posted by: Publisher on January 29, 2006 05:33 PM
Sorry. That was "NKVD." Posted by: Publisher on January 29, 2006 06:22 PM
I stand corrected, except when it comes to Russians committing genocide under Stalin, one has to wonder whether it was a racially motivated atrocity or the reasons derived from Stalin's paranoid and sadistic insanities. The caution I gave however against blurring the line between the genocidal Holocaust against the Jews and other atrocities, even those that might fit the definition of genocide, is still appropriate. Posted by: Bill Narvey on January 29, 2006 08:36 PM
I've spent a great deal of time in the Soviet Union, and then in the independent states (incl. Russia), after the collapse. There is no question as to whether Stalin was "paranoid and sadistic." But so where many of the Roman emperors. That didn't keep hangers-on from profiting from the madness. The Soviet Union was a Russian empire, with help from some local (e.g., Moldavian, Polish, Azerbaijani accomplices). All the occupied republics had resources which Russians either needed or wanted. As Orwell said, "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others." The commissars got personal dachas, pocketed local tax revenues, and exercised unlimited power. It was good being at the top. Before the Soviets, the czars ruled most of the later-labeled "republics." The "greater Russia" concept, that Russia was a master race that deserved to rule the inferior satellites, was simply carried on by Soviet czars. Go to Lithuania. Go to Turkmenistan. Ask the locals about how the Russians ruled them, czar or commissar alike. Ask the people there how they view Russian domination. And Putin, ex-KGB, is now doing the same things, trying to interfere with Ukrainian elections, holding nations hostage using natural gas supplies, etc. And the Russian neo-imperialists are still talking of a "greater Russia." The Russian rulers mistreated the satellites for power and greed. Their master plan was to fill nations like Estonia up with Russians until there was nothing left but Russians. The satellites were inferiors (and were resented for their economic successes), just as the Nazis considered the Jews, gays, gypsies. Remember that Hitler had the same plan for countries like Lithuania. He planned to work the populaces to death, and then fill the nations with German settlers. It was racist, plain and simple. Posted by: publisher on January 30, 2006 08:52 AM
An extremely good analysis by Bill Narvey above. Just to reiterate, although we have had brutal dictatorial regimes who have eliminated their political opponents in the hundreds and thousands - nothing quite can compare to the totality in which the Nazi's sought to eliminate the Jews of Europe between 1941-45 in a systematic, industrialised manner sparing no-one and nearly succeeding. They eliminated 90% of the Jews in the areas under occupation, and most countries became juden-rein. Women & children were in particular targetted for extermination so the Jews could not reproduce, and that is what we mean by genocide. I know figures are bandied about in relation to executions by various communist regimes that are not really documented. I don't wish to belittle another countries tragedy - but you cannot really call it genocide or a holocaust since their populations quite simply were not wiped out in anyway that remotely resembles the nazi holocaust of the Jews. Posted by: Leonard on January 30, 2006 06:10 PM
Bill Narvey said, "...as Hitler's murder of 6 million Jews..." I keep seeing this number over and over again, yet if you look at the original plaque at Auschwitz, it said: "Four Million People Suffered And Died Here At The Hands Of The Nazi Murderers Between The Years 1940 And 1945." The new plaque at Auschwitz now says: "Forever Let This Place Be A Cry Of Despair And A Warning To Humanity Where The Nazis Murdered About One And A Half Million Men, Women And Children, Mainly Jews From Various Countries Of Europe. Auschwitz - Birkenau 1940-1945." So the number should be (6 million less 2.5 million = 3.5 million). Therefore my question is why aren't people saying "...as Hitler's murder of 3.5 million Jews..." but instead keep using the 6 million number? Additionally, noted historian Raul Hilberg stated at the Canadian Trial of Ernst Zundel that he believed the number killed at Auschwitz was about 1,000,000 and probably less. If this is true, and he is a reputable historian when it come to the holocaust, my question is: Germany has been paying reparations to Israel and to Jewish holocaust individuals (if my memory serves me correct, the amount to date is about $80 billion), and the current number of holocaust deaths is 3.5 million and will probably be further reduced as new research is conducted, when can we expect to see a refund on the overpayment of reparations to Germany? I've been reading about the holocaust for about the last 5 years and have many questions that I can't find answers for. Can you suggest a good source regarding questions about the holocaust or where one could send questions to, regarding the holocaust, and where the site will respond with factual answers and not name calling. Phil Posted by: phil enggate on January 31, 2006 12:18 PM
phil - have you ever heard the saying that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Auschwitz was only one of six extermination centres - there was also Treblinka, Belzec,Maidjanek, Sobibor & Chelmno. In addition to that there were handreds of concentration camps such as Belsen, Dachau, Ravensbrouk,Mauthhausoen, Stuthoff etc etc Then there were the mass Killings of entire populations in Russia,Ukraine, & the Baltics carried out in the open by the Einzatsgruppen such as Babi Yar near Kiev. Auschwitz was the biggest killing centre that claimed between 1.2 - 1.4 million jews. For someone who claims that they have been reading up on the holocaust over the last five years so are remarkably illinformed - its strikes me that you've probably been reading neo-nazi holocaust denial sites of revisionists such as Irving or Zundel judging from your comments. You also seem to have a particular interest in the compensation aspect. All those sources have been discredited but its your choice if you feel you want to connect with those disreputable elements. It probably speaks volumes about your extremist views rather than the historic reality of events which sadly are well documented not least by the perpetrators. Posted by: Leonard on January 31, 2006 03:07 PM
Leonard - Since you know all there is to know about the holocaust (obviously you're a strong believer that it happened) and I believe there are two sides to every story and will read both sides to get a balanced opinion, you quoted "...All those sources have been discredited..." Please, give me those sources so that I can go to that source and read about it. Otherwise, talk is cheap and proof is in the puddin honey!! Also, all the killing that took place, wherever the killings occurred, equalled 6 million including Auschwitz. This has been the story for years. So now you are saying that the number of deaths at Auschwitz are lower than oringally stated in the total death count but that the total is still the same?? I'm no mathameticain, but how is this possible? Posted by: phil enggate on January 31, 2006 04:29 PM
Phil - its not every day I get to communicate with a holocaust denier - but then again its not exactly a privilege. Frstly the holocaust is still within living memory of many survivors of the horrors of the camps - there are countless testimonies - just visist any library or bookshop, or go into Yad Vashem website. There are numerous historians who have researched the subject. Martin Gilbert has produced both a detailed atlas and book documenting the holocaust.Then you have the various war crimes trials such as Nurembourg, the Frankfurt trials in the 1960s, and the Eichmann trial. If you live near Washington visit the Holocaust museum there or look up its website. I happened to lose two grandparents in Auschwitz. Auschwitz was the biggest killing centre but it only really went into full killing mode in 1943/44. It also supplied slave labour force for a large number of industrial plants in the vicinity that was run by the SS. There were four major camps at Auschwitz & Birkenau was the one where mass murder was carried out in four main gas chambers. It reached its peak between May 15th to mid July 44 when over 430,000 Hungarian Jews were murdered in under two months. This is well documented in a book called "The Last Days" published by Cassell & Co & is based on eyewitness testimony. At the Wansee Conference Hedrich planned the elimination of the Jews of Europe & listed the Jewish populations of each country that was to be targetted. There were even censuses which assisted the Nazi's in making their calculations. In 1935 there were close to Three & half million Jews in Poland. Today there are fewer than 7000. Look at the Stroop Report by Nazi General responsible for destroying the Warsaw Ghetto which contained over half million Jews. At the end of his report he declares in German "The Jews are No more". You've seen the films of american & british sevicemen liberating the various concentration camps and the tens of thousand of corpses that were discovered in Belsen,Buchenwald (Pres Eisenhower visited in person), Nordhausen etc etc. Well there were hundreds of these camps. Yes Auschwitz was the biggest & continued the mass killings after the other Reinhardt camps were closed down at the end of 1943. It is estimated that over 1.1 million Jews were killed in 1941,& 2.7 million in 1942 alone. The murder continued unabated right up until the last day of the War with the death marches, of which my father survived aged 14. The figure of six million murdered Jews comes from the Nazi's who documented the slaughter & then tried to cover it up. The true figure was probably closer to 7 million. Posted by: Leonard on January 31, 2006 06:52 PM
Every time I bring up the Holocaust, this happens. Some of the people want it to be the archetype of a people's suffering. Some want to deny it. Some want to straddle the line... "Well, it was awful, but if not for Germany's WWI reparations, Hitler would've never came to power." Stalin systematically eliminated Crimea's Tartars. Hitler killed the Jews, gays, and gypsies. Saddam gassed the Kurds. The Teutonic Knights exterminated every last living Prussian (the Baltic people; before Germans ever lived there). American settlers fed diseased cattle to Native Americans. Five years after Cortez’ arrival in Mexico, 70% of the indigenous peoples were dead… What are we to do, create a chart ranking peoples' suffering: "mine was worse than yours?" These were all horrors. Calling one a genocide while not allowing another to call it a Holocaust is just sophistry. Denial is just historic ignorance. Posted by: publisher on February 2, 2006 07:45 AM Post a comment |
That Other Holocaust
By Andrew L. Jaffee, netwmd.com
In the common parlance of the average man, the word "genocide" is rarely associated with communism (i.e., the Soviet Union or Peoples' Republic of China). Historically speaking, many know of Hitler's deeds; fewer might have heard about the Turkish slaughter of approximately 1 million Armenians circa 1915 - 1917, an incident now also termed a "genocide;" but how many know about -- or dare speak of -- Soviet atrocities which claimed at least 16 to 50 million lives? During Mao's reconstruction of China in his own twisted image, he killed between 16 and 30 million. Surely these were "holocausts," but are rarely referred to as such. How many box-office hits have reminded us of Hitler's slaughter of 6 million Jews, but where are the high-profile tales of communist atrocities? Alright, the Killing Fields had a few minutes of mention, documenting Pol Pot's systematic murder of 2 million Cambodian civilians, but can you think of any others?
Communist war crimes are rarely the subject of conversation at cocktail parties, especially among the Left. Why? The answer lies in the worn-out dogma that still prevails amongst those who can afford to be sympathetic to Castro, the Islamists, et. al. -- anything that represents "opposition" to the supposed colonialist aspirations of America, all driven by "capitalist greed."
Since the "liberals" feel guilty about living their comfortable lives, and cannot stand to bear the sight of the poor, they lash out in all sorts of strange ways at the society in which they live so comfortably. After all, communism promises an egalitarian utopia, in which all are (forced to be) equal. It sounds so much more palatable than the dog-eat-dog system which requires hard work and competition, but which the "liberals," like the Kennedys or George Soros have profited so handsomely from.
At a small diner on Wednesday with some of my "liberal" friends, the subject of India came up. One of them commented, "I've heard that India is getting very westernized," as if that was a bad thing. I kept my mouth shut, but wanted so much to remind her that India is a democracy, no one is forcing anything on the people there, and that Indians themselves have learned the hard way, have given up on their experiment with socialism, and have turned to capitalism of their own accord, because it is a system that works.
Admitting to communist atrocities would be too much of a challenge to leftist wishful thinking (and hypocrisy and just plain historic ignorance). But all hope of reversing the crimson tide of historical revisionism is not lost.
The University of Chicago, not exactly a bastion of capitalism, acknowledged Mao's murderous rampages at the prodding of Youqin Wang, Senior Lecturer of Chinese Language in East Asian Languages & Civilizations. The History Channel has started airing documentaries which bring Stalin's exterminations to light. Just issued by Euro-Reporters.com is a "Council of Europe report on Crimes of communism (I)." And the BBC just yesterday published an article about plans for commemorating the 1956 Hungarian revolution against Soviet rule, in which Russian troops killed 3,000 innocents.
Even some of my liberal friends have made mention of books they have read recently, which educated them as to communism's atrocities.
Words like "Auschwitz" and "fascist" are now intrinsic parts of common parlance, as they should be. But incidents like the Soviet deportation/extermination of 250,000 Lithuanians, or the Katyn Massacre, are just footnotes, barely small blips on the mainstream radar.
Some (leftists) may read this article and think, "Oh, he's just one of those fascist apologists." To which I would answer: "I lost family to both Hitler and Stalin. Why always the continued reminders of Hitler's genocide, yet you apologize for Iranian President Ahmadinejad's calls for the extermination of all Jews, and his plans to host a conference proving that the Holocaust was a myth."
As Ian Anderson (Jethro Tull) would say, "The story's too damn real, but in the present tense." How soon is now? When will there be mass acknowledgement of the other Holocausts? When will Steven Spielberg make a movie about Soviet atrocities?
Cross-posted at IsraPundit and netwmd.com
Posted by Andrew Jaffee at January 29, 2006 10:22 AM