Holocaust - did the event require its own word?

[Wulpe]

Never before, and thankfully never since, has a modern State used the mechanisms available to deliberately try and exterminate a group of people living peacefully in its midst. It's mind boggling that people would even try to compare it to other instances of mass murder.

The Holocaust is nothing special in the histoy of mankind, neither in quantity (the number of people killed, see Stalin or Congo) nor in quality (the way people were killed, see Pol Pot, Mao, Native Americans - north and south,...)

I know this sounds rude and heartless, but take it as a fact and not as a political opinion or moral statement.

[Xanthro]

Never before, and thankfully never since, has a modern State used the mechanisms available to deliberately try and exterminate a group of people living peacefully in its midst. It's mind boggling that people would even try to compare it to other instances of mass murder.

The Holocaust is nothing special in the histoy of mankind, neither in quantity (the number of people killed, see Stalin or Congo) nor in quality (the way people were killed, see Pol Pot, Mao, Native Americans - north and south,...)

I know this sounds rude and heartless, but take it as a fact and not as a political opinion or moral statement.

To declare something as a fact, one needs to actually be familiar with the information surrounding the events. It's obvious you are not.

None of the events you listed are even remotely similiar to the Holocaust.

Pol Pot, intellectuals killed in "re-education" camps. Nearly always shot, always tried and found guilty first. Each person was registered, photographed and then killed. While Pol Pot was a madman, and what he considered to be a crime was sick, it wasn't an attempt to exterminate a people.

Mao. Implementing horrible economic decisions that results in the deaths of millions isn't the same as rounding people up, gassing them, then burning the bodies.

Native Americans. The vast majority of these deaths were due to disease to which we had no resistence. While there had been governmental campaigns to destroy our culture and language, there hasn't been a federal campaign to destroy our people.

In no other event in modern history, has the State built an infrastructure solely for the mass murder.

Even Pol Pot didn't. The had killing fields where they executed people, but nothing was built there. They didn't have ministers in charge of transportation, they didn't divide the vicitims according to the ability to work, and suck the labor out of those who were able to provide support.

Next time you decide to provide examples, compare them first, because they need to have something more in common than simply the deaths of people.

Millions of Chinese have died in floods, that's not the equivelent of deciding to murder them.

Xanthro

[Xanthro]

Here's another few questions, based on the original...

Do you consider "The Holocaust" to refer not only to the Jews (which seems to be the main focus), but to all of the political prisoners, POWs, homosexuals, and anyone else forced to endure the horror and terror of the vernichtungslager - death camps?

Of course the Jews were the primary target - Hitler made no pretense about it. But wasn't the total estimate of people killed in the concentration camps closer to 12 or 13 million? So what of those other 6 or 7 million?

Also, I know it's a bit of a stretch, but what under what term would you classify the Nazis' practice of killing their own German citizens who were sick, insane, elderly,etc...?

What the Nazis did won't ever be forgotten, thanks to all the books which have been written, thanks to the National Holocaust Museum (which I visited recently - it's definitely worth the trip to Washington DC), and thanks to those survivors who chose to bear witness to the atrocities (people like Elie Weisel) rather than to remain silent.

It won't be forgotten...and it must not be forgotten.

-Bryan

No, the term doesn't apply to others.

While many others were killed using the same methods, and their deaths are horrible, and some even suffered a greater percentage of populace lost, what is unique about the Holocaust isn't that people were murdered. It's that the State set up infrastructure to carry out these murders.

Without this infrastructure, the others wouldn't have been killed, and the infrastructure wouldn't have been built without the intent of murdering the Jews.

Xanthro

[gokyu]

No, the term doesn't apply to others.

While many others were killed using the same methods, and their deaths are horrible, and some even suffered a greater percentage of populace lost, what is unique about the Holocaust isn't that people were murdered. It's that the State set up infrastructure to carry out these murders.

Without this infrastructure, the others wouldn't have been killed, and the infrastructure wouldn't have been built without the intent of murdering the Jews.

Xanthro

Hmm, I suppose you're correct about that - if the Nazis hadn't wanted to kill the Jews primarily, there wouldn't have been death camps. There were, however, concentration camps (pre-Auschwitz, Chelmno, Sobibor, etc) for the political prisoners after the Nazis came to power in 1933...

This is a really fascinating (and uniquely horrifying) topic of interest to me. How one man could be the genesis of the worst state-sanctioned mass murder...basically in all of history, as far as I know...just amazing.

Just a side note about the "no Holocaust denial" rule - I can't believe this rule needs to exist - people actually deny that this horrible event happened? That is really shocking...and truly sad.

-Bryan

[Wulpe]

Never before, and thankfully never since, has a modern State used the mechanisms available to deliberately try and exterminate a group of people living peacefully in its midst. It's mind boggling that people would even try to compare it to other instances of mass murder.

The Holocaust is nothing special in the histoy of mankind, neither in quantity (the number of people killed, see Stalin or Congo) nor in quality (the way people were killed, see Pol Pot, Mao, Native Americans - north and south,...)

I know this sounds rude and heartless, but take it as a fact and not as a political opinion or moral statement.

To declare something as a fact, one needs to actually be familiar with the information surrounding the events. It's obvious you are not.

None of the events you listed are even remotely similiar to the Holocaust.

Pol Pot, intellectuals killed in "re-education" camps. Nearly always shot, always tried and found guilty first. Each person was registered, photographed and then killed. While Pol Pot was a madman, and what he considered to be a crime was sick, it wasn't an attempt to exterminate a people.

What you didn´t understand is that I don´t care if it´s Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, catholics, Native Americans, intellectuals,... that somebody is killing. They are all humans, being killed for what they are. There is no moral difference if you kill someone because of his ancestors (Hitler), or if you kill him because he wears glasses (Pol Pot).

Why should killing "a people" be worse than killing "homosexuals" or "mentally retarded". Please elaborate.

[Xanthro]

Never before, and thankfully never since, has a modern State used the mechanisms available to deliberately try and exterminate a group of people living peacefully in its midst. It's mind boggling that people would even try to compare it to other instances of mass murder.

The Holocaust is nothing special in the histoy of mankind, neither in quantity (the number of people killed, see Stalin or Congo) nor in quality (the way people were killed, see Pol Pot, Mao, Native Americans - north and south,...)

I know this sounds rude and heartless, but take it as a fact and not as a political opinion or moral statement.

To declare something as a fact, one needs to actually be familiar with the information surrounding the events. It's obvious you are not.

None of the events you listed are even remotely similiar to the Holocaust.

Pol Pot, intellectuals killed in "re-education" camps. Nearly always shot, always tried and found guilty first. Each person was registered, photographed and then killed. While Pol Pot was a madman, and what he considered to be a crime was sick, it wasn't an attempt to exterminate a people.

What you didn´t understand is that I don´t care if it´s Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, catholics, Native Americans, intellectuals,... that somebody is killing. They are all humans, being killed for what they are. There is no moral difference if you kill someone because of his ancestors (Hitler), or if you kill him because he wears glasses (Pol Pot).

Why should killing "a people" be worse than killing "homosexuals" or "mentally retarded". Please elaborate.

The issue isn't whether people were killed, or the reasons they were killed. The question is the methodology and planning that went into the killing.

This simply mirrors common law. Kill someone in a fit of anger, and it's one crime, lay in wait and ambush another, and it's another crime, though both victims are dead.

The amount of planning and work that goes into murder affects the murder. It is considered worse to have time to contemplate what you are doing, and still carry out the hideous act, than to simply kill.

Intent is as important in the commission of a crime as the crime itself.

The fact that the Holocaust happened to Jews doesn't make it worse than if it happened to Native Americans.

What makes it unique is that a State planned, and created an entire methodology and infrastructuce to exterminate a people.

If you only look at the results, the accidently giving someone the flu, and that person dying is as bad as stalking the person, torturing them, and finally killing them. In both cases the person is dead.

Xanthro

[Wulpe]

The issue isn't whether people were killed, or the reasons they were killed. The question is the methodology and planning that went into the killing.

This simply mirrors common law. Kill someone in a fit of anger, and it's one crime, lay in wait and ambush another, and it's another crime, though both victims are dead.

The amount of planning and work that goes into murder affects the murder. It is considered worse to have time to contemplate what you are doing, and still carry out the hideous act, than to simply kill.

Intent is as important in the commission of a crime as the crime itself.

The fact that the Holocaust happened to Jews doesn't make it worse than if it happened to Native Americans.

Agreed

What makes it unique is that a State planned, and created an entire methodology and infrastructuce to exterminate a people.

Pol Pot did the same, but he didn´t have the technical means and expertise of the Nazis. There is no doubt he would have used it. If you want to insist on killing "a people", how about Stalin ?

The Artificial Famine/Genocide in Ukraine 1932-33

Introduction

A Man-Made Famine raged through Ukraine, the ethnic-Ukrainian region of northern Caucasus, and the lower Volga River region in 1932-33. This resulted in the death of between 7 to 10 million people, mainly Ukrainians. This was instigated by Soviet leader Joseph Stalin and his henchman Lazar Kaganovich. The main goal of this artificial famine was to break the spirit of the Ukrainian farmer/peasant and to force them into collectivization. The famine was also used as an effective tool to break the renaissance of Ukrainian culture that was occuring under approval of the communist government in Ukraine. Moscow perceived this as a threat to a Russo-Centric Soviet rule and therefore acted to crush this cultural renaissance in a most brutal manner.

In 1932, the Soviets increased the grain procurement quota for Ukraine by 44%. They were aware that this extraordinarly high quota would result in a grain shortage, therefore resulting in the inability of the Ukrainian peasant to feed themselves. Soviet law was quite clear in that no grain could be given to feed the peasants until the quota was met. Communist party officials with the aid of military trrops and NKVD secret police units were used to move against peasants who may be hiding grain from the Soviet government. Even worse, an internal passport system was implemented to restrict movements of Ukrainian peasants so that they could not travel in search of food. Ukrainian grain was collected and stored in grain elevators that were guarded by military units & NKVD secret police units while Ukrainians were starving in the immediate area. The actions of this Moscow instigated action was a deliberate act of genocide against the Ukrainian peasant.


Source

If you only look at the results, the accidently giving someone the flu, and that person dying is as bad as stalking the person, torturing them, and finally killing them. In both cases the person is dead.

C´mon, that´s just not true, I didn´t only look at the results. I wrote for example "There is no moral difference if you kill someone because of his ancestors (Hitler), or if you kill him because he wears glasses (Pol Pot)." I think this makes very clear that it´s about the same kind of insane behaviour of killing people for reasons that only a sick brain could think of. So it´s a little shabby when I mention and compare Pol Pot killing the literate, and Hitler killing the Jews, to imply I would consider it the same as accidently giving someone the flu.

[Xanthro]

Wulpe,

A huge difference between Killing Fields, which has it's own name, people know what you are talking about when you say Killing Fields, and the Holocaust is that in the Killing Fields the goal wasn't extermination of a people.

At worst it could be argued it was the extermination of thought. People who rejected the thought would be spared. There was no rejecting your Jewishness and sparing your life. Even if you didn't consider yourself a Jew, if the State did you fate was sealed.

You make the argument that Pol Pot WOULD have created the infrastracture if he could have. This is completely subjective. The fact is he didn't.

What he did do is set up an infrastructure to "re-educate" people and as a by product of this process killed millions.

The goal of Pol Pot wasn't the destruction of a people, but the eradication of an ideology.

That is much different that the Holocaust.

BTW, the famine of 1932-1933 wasn't deliberate, in the sense the plan was to kill off millions in the Ukraine. The goal was to form collectives and force the Soviet Union into an industrial base.

I understand many in the West feel it was only an attempt to strave the Ukrainians, but this is incorrect.

The entire Soviet history is full of examples of staying with a bad plan no matter the consquences.

Xanthro

[STALAGl3]

The goal of Pol Pot wasn't the destruction of a people, but the eradication of an ideology.

Xanthro

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but didn't Pol Pot execute all Frenchmen or white people in Cambodia?

[Xanthro]

The goal of Pol Pot wasn't the destruction of a people, but the eradication of an ideology.

Xanthro

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but didn't Pol Pot execute all Frenchmen or white people in Cambodia?

No, Saloth Sar didn't kill all White people in Cambodia, which should include the French.

I don't think he even tried to, since most Westeners fled. Those who didn't do so, where likely treated as intellectuals, who didn't fare well.

Xanthro

[Scott Smith]

I agree that one should use a descriptive term such as the destruction of the European Jews rather than Holocaust.

The word Holocaust is an Orwellian Newspeak word coined to encapsulate anything its users want it to be but nothing really of anything; it is all things to all people but epistemologically meaningless.

Okay. So in future I expect YOU to use the above term, the destruction of the European Jews, instead of Holocaust. Will you?

I use the word for convenience in order to keep the jargon consistent. But I also try to define what I mean by the Big-H when I use the term. Thus, I might spell the word with or without a capital H, or with a trademark symbol depending on my point. I think the word is less Orwellian than "Genocide" and I don't have any objection to the Big-H meaning "the destruction of the European Jews." When one uses the term "Holocaust Denier," however, it begs for a precise definition of whatever is supposedly being denied. I like to use the term "Gruesome Harvest" to describe the postwar ethnic-cleansing of Germans, Ukrainians, Poles, etc. by the Allies.

[Hans]

I agree that one should use a descriptive term such as the destruction of the European Jews rather than Holocaust.

The word Holocaust is an Orwellian Newspeak word coined to encapsulate anything its users want it to be but nothing really of anything; it is all things to all people but epistemologically meaningless.

Okay. So in future I expect YOU to use the above term, the destruction of the European Jews, instead of Holocaust. Will you?

I use the word for convenience in order to keep the jargon consistent.

I rather believe you use the word for your own propagandistic purposes. A fair amount of your arguments would fall apart if you use, say Destruction of the European Jews instead of "Big-H", "Holocaust (TM)" or "Holocaust (big H)".

[Scott Smith]

I agree that one should use a descriptive term such as the destruction of the European Jews rather than Holocaust.

The word Holocaust is an Orwellian Newspeak word coined to encapsulate anything its users want it to be but nothing really of anything; it is all things to all people but epistemologically meaningless.

Okay. So in future I expect YOU to use the above term, the destruction of the European Jews, instead of Holocaust. Will you?

I use the word for convenience in order to keep the jargon consistent.

I rather believe you use the word for your own propagandistic purposes. A fair amount of your arguments would fall apart if you use, say Destruction of the European Jews instead of "Big-H", "Holocaust (TM)" or "Holocaust (big H)".

Well, then we would have to define "destruction" just the same. The Gruesome Harvest, i.e, the ethnic-cleansing of millions of Germans, Ukrainians and Poles, etc., by the Allies after the war is called many things by the perpetrators: the "Final Solution of the Ukrainian Question," the "Elimination" of the Germans, etc., etc. Of course, with the Big-H we have a quasi-religion whose adherents are Jews, Christians, and a certain generation of Germans who testify that an entire people was meant to be eliminated by their personal demons, destroyed, dissolved, etc., by killing them with poison gas. Without the poison gas, see, the whole thing rather starts to resemble wartime ethnic-cleansing, and thus claims no special Victim-status. Brutal, yes, Genocide? Well, define Genocide...

[Skyderick]

Interesting question. I think the term Holocaust came to refer primarily to the extermination of Jews in WWII for a few simple reasons. Firstly, the word genocide was only coined in 1943 (by Raphael Lemkin, and first published in 1944). Holocaust, on the other hand, was a far older word that had already been used in reference to the Armenian Genocide. Secondly, in its Latin form Holocaustum, the term referred originally to the mass burning of Jews in England in 1189.
So the event acquired a contextual (old) name. Whether it requires it today is a different question, and I think the answer is no. The extermination of Jews in WWII falls under the term genocide.

[Paul Lantos]

It is important to point out that the Holocaust does not only refer to the killing of the Jews, but also their enslavement, subjugation, torture, humiliation, etc. This is why much Holocaust historiography is built on survivor experiences.

Peter Longerich uses the term 'judenpolitik' in his book 'Holocaust' to refer to Jewish policy by the Nazis from their rise to power, including both persecutory and exterminatory policy. The term Holocaust, by contrast, seems to refer to the Jewish experience, really from 1939 onwards, the experience of communal destruction. So judenpolitik is one concept, final solution is a concept that falls under judenpolitik (with its own subdivisions), and Holocaust is a different concept.

Does it deserve its own word? Seriously, there is a word for the gurgles your stomach makes (borborigmi) and a word for the trivial manmade periodic table element with atomic weight of 120 that exists for only a fraction of a second (unbinilium) . Anything that can be distinguished can get a name. That's language.

So why shouldn't the sufferers of a massively traumatic and transformative collective experience have a word for it? The two major words for it, shoah and holocaust, both have their shortcomings as 'descriptions', as in shoah (disaster) is too generic and holocaust (consumed by flame) is too specific. But that's not the point, there is some poetry in both words.