This was recently posted on another board. I am not attempting to deny the Holocaust, or rewrite history, this is a simple question.
Did the Holocaust deserve a special place in history in such a way as to define its existence by a unigue word?
"As you can see from the way I always put "Holocaust" in inverted commas, I am not at all comfortable with a special word being coined specifically for genocide against the Jews. Genocide is genocide, regardless of the victims and I would be more comfortable not to have to use "Holocaust" at all. Its widespread adoption in English in recent decades seems to coincide conveniently with contemporary Israeli need for Western sympathy. The genocide attempt against the Jews was particularly large, particularly recent and involved previously untried methods, but it was not so historically unique as to merit an exclusive new term."
Holocaust - did the event require its own word?
Re: Holocaust - did the event require its own word?
Most people who argue against the term Holocaust are Holocaust deniers, or Jew haters. In your quoted section, which I am not sure who the author is, you can see this. "conveniently with contemporary Israeli need for Western sympathy. " This is pure and complete nonesense and is part and parcel of the Holocaust denial movement. The term was used long before the state of Israel come into existence.Sam H. wrote:This was recently posted on another board. I am not attempting to deny the Holocaust, or rewrite history, this is a simple question.
Did the Holocaust deserve a special place in history in such a way as to define its existence by a unigue word?
"As you can see from the way I always put "Holocaust" in inverted commas, I am not at all comfortable with a special word being coined specifically for genocide against the Jews. Genocide is genocide, regardless of the victims and I would be more comfortable not to have to use "Holocaust" at all. Its widespread adoption in English in recent decades seems to coincide conveniently with contemporary Israeli need for Western sympathy. The genocide attempt against the Jews was particularly large, particularly recent and involved previously untried methods, but it was not so historically unique as to merit an exclusive new term."
Does what happen to the Jews during WWII in Nazi occupied areas require it's own special term? Let's see. 9/11 stands for the deaths of around 3,000 people. It has it's own special term, yet somehow the deaths of 6,000,000 should be written off as just one of those things that happens? I think not.
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.
Sure, the Mongols killed every single man women and child in Kiev because Kiev resisted. It was considered barbaric in the Dark Ages, and if Kiev surrendered, the people wouldn't have been murdered.
In the Holocaust, no matter what action the Jews took, they were going to be targets of extermination.
Xanthro
-
michael mills
- Member
- Posts: 9000
- Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
- Location: Sydney, Australia
In my opinion, the term "Holocaust" is unnecessary, and in fact has a distorting effect, since it tends to divorce the mass killing of the Jews of Europe from the context in which it occurred and which brought it about, namely the existential conflict between National Socialist Germany and the Communist Soviet Union.
I never use it, and always use an expression such as "the destruction of the Jews of Europe by the German Government during the Second World War", which is an exact and succinct statement of what happened.
It is noteworthy that Hilberg, in his 1960 book "The Destruction of the European Jews", did not find it necessary to use the word "Holocaust", which in fact was not in general use at that date. The title of his book is a quite adequate statement of what it is about.
It is also noteworthy that it has not been considered necessary to coin specific words to encapsulate other instances of large-scale destruction of human life by the German Government. For example, no-one seems to think it necessary to have a special word to describe the mass-death of Soviet POWs in German hands, even though their number was at least double the number of Soviet Jewish civilians killed.
I consider that the word "Holocaust" was coined by the Jewish Establishment for the specific purpose of separating out the historical fact of the death of several million Jews from the context of total war. Thus, that historical fact would be seen, not as the outcome of the interplay of ideology with the dynamics of an extremely destructive war, but rather as a component of a separate Jewish history, portrayed as the climax of a long history of all the nasty things that everybody else has done to the innocent Jews.
It is the existence of the concept of the "Holocaust" as a separate historical phenomenon not related to the context in which it occurred that allows counter-factual statements such as this one by Xanthro:
Having said the above, I must nevertheless admit that the existence of the single bibliographical subject heading "Holocaust" does make it easy to search for book on this topic. The subject heading "Holocaust, Jewish, 1939-1945" has only existed since the late 1970s, so far as I can see, and books on the topic that were catalogued before then appear under a wide variety of subject headings, such as "Jews - persecutions", or "Second World War - war crimes", or "concentration camps" etc.
I never use it, and always use an expression such as "the destruction of the Jews of Europe by the German Government during the Second World War", which is an exact and succinct statement of what happened.
It is noteworthy that Hilberg, in his 1960 book "The Destruction of the European Jews", did not find it necessary to use the word "Holocaust", which in fact was not in general use at that date. The title of his book is a quite adequate statement of what it is about.
It is also noteworthy that it has not been considered necessary to coin specific words to encapsulate other instances of large-scale destruction of human life by the German Government. For example, no-one seems to think it necessary to have a special word to describe the mass-death of Soviet POWs in German hands, even though their number was at least double the number of Soviet Jewish civilians killed.
I consider that the word "Holocaust" was coined by the Jewish Establishment for the specific purpose of separating out the historical fact of the death of several million Jews from the context of total war. Thus, that historical fact would be seen, not as the outcome of the interplay of ideology with the dynamics of an extremely destructive war, but rather as a component of a separate Jewish history, portrayed as the climax of a long history of all the nasty things that everybody else has done to the innocent Jews.
It is the existence of the concept of the "Holocaust" as a separate historical phenomenon not related to the context in which it occurred that allows counter-factual statements such as this one by Xanthro:
The fact is that, before the outbreak of the Second World War, and even for a couple of years into it, there is no hard and unequivocal evidence of an inevitable extermination of the Jews. Thus, the extermination that did take place must be seen as an outcome of the course taken by the war, one of a number of alternative outcomes that could have been realised under different circumstances, eg a quick German victory over the Soviet Union, permitting the subsequent deportation of the European Jews to reservations in the conquered territory far away from German living space.In the Holocaust, no matter what action the Jews took, they were going to be targets of extermination.
Having said the above, I must nevertheless admit that the existence of the single bibliographical subject heading "Holocaust" does make it easy to search for book on this topic. The subject heading "Holocaust, Jewish, 1939-1945" has only existed since the late 1970s, so far as I can see, and books on the topic that were catalogued before then appear under a wide variety of subject headings, such as "Jews - persecutions", or "Second World War - war crimes", or "concentration camps" etc.
Michael,
Thankyou for the interesting reading and your input in this subject.
.......
"I consider that the word "Holocaust" was coined by the Jewish Establishment for the specific purpose of separating out the historical fact of the death of several million Jews from the context of total war. Thus, that historical fact would be seen, not as the outcome of the interplay of ideology with the dynamics of an extremely destructive war, but rather as a component of a separate Jewish history, portrayed as the climax of a long history of all the nasty things that everybody else has done to the innocent Jews.
...........
In that case as you point out in the above, they succeeded quite well
because it does exactly that and an intelligent move on their part.
I suppose there are not theoretical guide lines when writing history from specific view?
Annelie
Thankyou for the interesting reading and your input in this subject.
.......
"I consider that the word "Holocaust" was coined by the Jewish Establishment for the specific purpose of separating out the historical fact of the death of several million Jews from the context of total war. Thus, that historical fact would be seen, not as the outcome of the interplay of ideology with the dynamics of an extremely destructive war, but rather as a component of a separate Jewish history, portrayed as the climax of a long history of all the nasty things that everybody else has done to the innocent Jews.
...........
In that case as you point out in the above, they succeeded quite well
because it does exactly that and an intelligent move on their part.
I suppose there are not theoretical guide lines when writing history from specific view?
Annelie
-
Scott Smith
- Member
- Posts: 5602
- Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
- Location: Arizona
- Contact:
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. If the Gaschambers and the Human Soap did not exist they would be with us always in Spirit.
The popular coinage dates from the 1978 TV show and the concept serves as the most effective Israeli propaganda today, as Israel struggles to get away with displacing the indigenous Palstinian people to settle more foreign Jews into the Holy Land.
You see, without tremendous foreign aid from the United States, Europe, the Jewish Diaspora, and fundamentalist Christians, Israel would not even exist as a viable Nation-State. Rather like St. Augustine, "celibacy forever, but not today," every Jew and Christian strives to have some other Jew go to the Promised Land to live God's Zionist dream. "Next year in Jerusalem! But please Lord, not me." Shoah business keeps us all feeling guilty and in-line. Get out your checkbooks, billionaire Bronfman is collecting the cash! Nothing delivers the goods better than a good sob story. And the Palestinians are just "terrorists," after all.
There was an interesting article I read in an academic journal the other day about Incan Indians from Peru that have been "converted" to Judaism to import into Israel to displace non-Jews, since it is harder to find Jews willing to move to Israel to escape nonexistent anti-Semitism. And it is hard to keep pace with Third World birthrates (e.g., Palestinians). Solution: Import Third World "Jews." I'll have to find that article again and post it.
David Landy, "Inca Israeli-Jews" Recruiting for Israel's Demographic war." Race and Class. Vol. 44:4, April-June, 2003; pp. 1-18. ISSN: 0306-3968.
Without the Holocaust and the omnipresent specter of anti-Semitism, there would be no siege mentality that would compel Jews to find haven in Israel in the first place. Without the "myth of modern Israel" there would be no Middle East conflict--and certainly no American involvement in that snakepit. If you don't get emotional about oil, perhaps a Hollywood melodrama-as-history would move you.
The popular coinage dates from the 1978 TV show and the concept serves as the most effective Israeli propaganda today, as Israel struggles to get away with displacing the indigenous Palstinian people to settle more foreign Jews into the Holy Land.
You see, without tremendous foreign aid from the United States, Europe, the Jewish Diaspora, and fundamentalist Christians, Israel would not even exist as a viable Nation-State. Rather like St. Augustine, "celibacy forever, but not today," every Jew and Christian strives to have some other Jew go to the Promised Land to live God's Zionist dream. "Next year in Jerusalem! But please Lord, not me." Shoah business keeps us all feeling guilty and in-line. Get out your checkbooks, billionaire Bronfman is collecting the cash! Nothing delivers the goods better than a good sob story. And the Palestinians are just "terrorists," after all.
There was an interesting article I read in an academic journal the other day about Incan Indians from Peru that have been "converted" to Judaism to import into Israel to displace non-Jews, since it is harder to find Jews willing to move to Israel to escape nonexistent anti-Semitism. And it is hard to keep pace with Third World birthrates (e.g., Palestinians). Solution: Import Third World "Jews." I'll have to find that article again and post it.
David Landy, "Inca Israeli-Jews" Recruiting for Israel's Demographic war." Race and Class. Vol. 44:4, April-June, 2003; pp. 1-18. ISSN: 0306-3968.
Without the Holocaust and the omnipresent specter of anti-Semitism, there would be no siege mentality that would compel Jews to find haven in Israel in the first place. Without the "myth of modern Israel" there would be no Middle East conflict--and certainly no American involvement in that snakepit. If you don't get emotional about oil, perhaps a Hollywood melodrama-as-history would move you.
Last edited by Scott Smith on 21 Jul 2003, 23:09, edited 1 time in total.
-
ChristopherPerrien
- Member
- Posts: 7051
- Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
- Location: Mississippi
-
Scott Smith
- Member
- Posts: 5602
- Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
- Location: Arizona
- Contact:
-
ChristopherPerrien
- Member
- Posts: 7051
- Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
- Location: Mississippi
Exactly and it makes you wonder, or confirms the poster's "side?" depending on which term a person uses. They can also be used to size up the opposition's point of view, from reaction and feedback.
I use both , generally I reserve "Final Solution" to make more of a impact or to get a/the point across. It does have more impact don't you think?
Honestly either word to me co-notes the same as any other named Historical actrocity or mass death event. i.e.- Trail of Tears, Bataan Death March, Malmedy Massacre, The Somme, Black Death, etc.
I use both , generally I reserve "Final Solution" to make more of a impact or to get a/the point across. It does have more impact don't you think?
Honestly either word to me co-notes the same as any other named Historical actrocity or mass death event. i.e.- Trail of Tears, Bataan Death March, Malmedy Massacre, The Somme, Black Death, etc.
Very simply (and obviously), the term Holocaust is most closely associated with the mass murder of Jews because they are the group who have done the most to "Never Forget" by keeping this terrible episode of recent history in our consciousness, and understandably, by emphasizing the Jewish component of the tragedy.
I like that. In addition I would add "profited by".PolAntek wrote:Very simply (and obviously), the term Holocaust is most closely associated with the mass murder of Jews because they are the group who have done the most to "Never Forget" by keeping this terrible episode of recent history in our consciousness, and understandably, by emphasizing the Jewish component of the tragedy.
But the thirties and fourties were hard for many groups, and using high figures, if the destruction of 6 million Jews is a Holocaust, what is the destruction of 35 million Slavs? or tens of millions of Chinese?
-
British Free Corps
- Member
- Posts: 257
- Joined: 05 May 2003, 23:19
- Location: England, Great Britain
I agree with you there Dan. The fate of the Jews in World War II was not a single, monolithic event in my own view. For example, Ukrainians and Cossacks might very well consider the murder of approximately 4 million of their own kind at the hands of the Soviet Union, a "Holocaust". The same may also be said for the 30 million Chinese who died under the reign of Chairman Mao, or the millions of Armenians who died at the hands of the Turks in the aftermath of the Great War.
In my own view, no historical event is "beyond" research, investigation and re-examination.
Regards,
Matt
In my own view, no historical event is "beyond" research, investigation and re-examination.
Regards,
Matt
I would prefer not to use the term "profited by" when describing the Holocaust (or what ever term you choose to use). There is no profit to be had or recieved by the murder of so many millions.Dan wrote:I like that. In addition I would add "profited by".PolAntek wrote:Very simply (and obviously), the term Holocaust is most closely associated with the mass murder of Jews because they are the group who have done the most to "Never Forget" by keeping this terrible episode of recent history in our consciousness, and understandably, by emphasizing the Jewish component of the tragedy.
But the thirties and fourties were hard for many groups, and using high figures, if the destruction of 6 million Jews is a Holocaust, what is the destruction of 35 million Slavs? or tens of millions of Chinese?
-
ChristopherPerrien
- Member
- Posts: 7051
- Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
- Location: Mississippi
This "bucks for bodies" arguement ANY SIDE! Does nothing for the accuracy of the historical record.
What is of concern to me is that because it seems the media has focused and will continue to focus on the "Holocaust or The Final Solution to the Jewish Problem", that World War II itself will be forgotten in favor
of some bastardized version of history like , The Holocaust was ended when the forces of good tiring of the evilness of the forces of evil redeemed themselves in a war called World War II.
Today most people think, The Civil War was fought to save the slaves , if this media blitz continues for another 100 years most people will think World War II was fought to save the Jews. None of us will be here but you can't tell me this is not a possibilty. History looks like it repeats itself alot and it "does?" because the details get lost, mis-used, and covered-up.
What is of concern to me is that because it seems the media has focused and will continue to focus on the "Holocaust or The Final Solution to the Jewish Problem", that World War II itself will be forgotten in favor
of some bastardized version of history like , The Holocaust was ended when the forces of good tiring of the evilness of the forces of evil redeemed themselves in a war called World War II.
Today most people think, The Civil War was fought to save the slaves , if this media blitz continues for another 100 years most people will think World War II was fought to save the Jews. None of us will be here but you can't tell me this is not a possibilty. History looks like it repeats itself alot and it "does?" because the details get lost, mis-used, and covered-up.
I agree that one should use a descriptive term such as the destruction of the European Jews rather than Holocaust.
Okay. So in future I expect YOU to use the above term, the destruction of the European Jews, instead of Holocaust. Will you?Scott Smith wrote: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.
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
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