Poland faces up to the horror of its role in the Holocaust

[Scott Smith]

Besides, it is a tempest in a teacup unless "Genocide" only applies to Jews. Murder of German "collaborators" is certainly mass-murder, but hey they are only collaborators of Germany or ethnic-Germans, right...

Well, a mass murder of some Germans in some countries would not be genocide. But hey, someone desperate to minimize the attempted genocide of Jews might make such an argument in some misguided attempt at a false moral equivalency.

Right. Genocide all depends on whose ox is being gored, as I have repeatedly said.

[Charles Bunch]

Notice the mental inability to make rather simple distinctions. The Jews of Jedwabne were accused of collaboration because they were Jews, not because they were collaborators.

And were the Germans killed by the Czechs individually interviewed before being killed? No, the were killed by the Czechs because they were German.[/quote]

You really can't follow a simple conversation, can you.

Mills claimed the Jews of Jedwabne were killed because they were collaborators, just as the French and others in Europe were killed for the same reason.

But the Jews of Jedwabne were killed because they were Jews, not because they were collaborators.

The Germans killed at the end of the war, and immediately after, were not killed for collaboration, but for revenge, and a mindless desire of some nations to rid themselves of a population which they viewed as being one of the causes of the war.

[Charles Bunch]

Smith

Besides, it is a tempest in a teacup unless "Genocide" only applies to Jews. Murder of German "collaborators" is certainly mass-murder, but hey they are only collaborators of Germany or ethnic-Germans, right...

Bunch

Well, a mass murder of some Germans in some countries would not be genocide. But hey, someone desperate to minimize the attempted genocide of Jews might make such an argument in some misguided attempt at a false moral equivalency.

Smith

Right. Genocide all depends on whose ox is being gored, as I have repeatedly said.

No, genocide depends on meeting the definition of the word.

How typical that a denier of the Holocaust denies the attempted genocide of Europe's Jews, while wanting to erroneously claim the term for the murder of Gemans!

Guess that tells us much about your motivations, eh Smith!

[Scott Smith]

Right. Genocide all depends on whose ox is being gored, as I have repeatedly said.

No, genocide depends on meeting the definition of the word.

How typical that a denier of the Holocaust denies the attempted genocide of Europe's Jews, while wanting to erroneously claim the term for the murder of Gemans!

Guess that tells us much about your motivations, eh Smith!

I eschew the word "Genocide," as Chuck well-knows, because it is nothing more than a relativistic and opportunistic battleaxe. Besides, the world doesn't revolve around Victims, and "history written in terms of victimology" is bound to be proprietary, ungenerous, vain, and illiberal.

But it is instructive nonetheless that Chuck doesn't think those killed at Dresden because they were Germans, or the two-million (more or less) killed in the Gruesome Harvest after the war because they were Germans, to be victims of Genocide.

Yes, it all depends on whose ox is being gored.

[Dan]

Mills claimed the Jews of Jedwabne were killed because they were collaborators, just as the French and others in Europe were killed for the same reason.

Are you sure he didn't say anything about perception?

[Roberto]

Right. Genocide all depends on whose ox is being gored, as I have repeatedly said.

No, genocide depends on meeting the definition of the word.

How typical that a denier of the Holocaust denies the attempted genocide of Europe's Jews, while wanting to erroneously claim the term for the murder of Gemans!

Guess that tells us much about your motivations, eh Smith!

I eschew the word "Genocide," as Chuck well-knows, because it is nothing more than a relativistic and opportunistic battleaxe. Besides, the world doesn't revolve around Victims, and "history written in terms of victimology" is bound to be proprietary, ungenerous, vain, and illiberal.

But it is instructive nonetheless that Chuck doesn't think those killed at Dresden because they were Germans, or the two-million (more or less) killed in the Gruesome Harvest after the war because they were Germans, to be victims of Genocide.

Yes, it all depends on whose ox is being gored.

The term "genocide" is defined as follows in the Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, adopted by Resolution 260 (III) A of the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948:

Article 2
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html

Let's now do the following exercise:

1. Mr. Smith, Charles Bunch and the most senior legal expert on this forum, Mr. Walter Kaschner, each send me a private message stating which of the three events (the Nazi mass murder of 5 to 6 million Jews, the bombing of Dresden on 13/14 February 1945 and the murderous expulsion of ethnic Germans from Czechoslovakia, Poland and other countries of Eastern Europe after World War II) they consider to comply with the requirements of this definition, and which they consider not to comply with these requirements, explaining in detail the reasons for their assessment in each case.

2. Upon receipt of all three messages, I will simultaneously copy them onto the forum for our readers to compare.

Needless to say, I will not reveal to any of the inquired fellow posters what any other of them has written.

[viriato]

My answer is simple. Every example presented by Roberto is itself a case of genocide.

[Scott Smith]

My answer is also simple since what the United Nations, which is not a sovereign body, says is irrelevant if/when sovereign nations disagree.

I avoid using the prestidigitatious term Genocide--but we can also add the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki since Allied surrender terms were unconditional. Same with the Hamburg firebombing. They were killed because they were Jerries and Japs.

Of course, it all depends on whose side you are on, doesn't it! Nuking Japs probably warmed the cockles of the heart for those who had suffered in Japanese POW camps. And I'm sure that charbroiling Hamburgers after the Unconditional Surrender demand quickened the already keen sensibilities of those who had survived the Blitz.



CLICK!

[Charles Bunch]

Right. Genocide all depends on whose ox is being gored, as I have repeatedly said.

No, genocide depends on meeting the definition of the word.

How typical that a denier of the Holocaust denies the attempted genocide of Europe's Jews, while wanting to erroneously claim the term for the murder of Gemans!

Guess that tells us much about your motivations, eh Smith!

I eschew the word "Genocide," as Chuck well-knows, because it is nothing more than a relativistic and opportunistic battleaxe. Besides, the world doesn't revolve around Victims, and "history written in terms of victimology" is bound to be proprietary, ungenerous, vain, and illiberal.

Of course Smith doesn't eschew the word. He just claimed, in one of his typical whines, that it was a term applied to Jews only!

As for the term, it is not merely a "relativistic and opportunistic battleaxe". It is a specific term with a specific meaning. Smith prefers to throw out some of his usual meaningless verbiage in the hopes some poor fools will be convinced by it.

As for "victims", Smith apparently believes the world does not revolve around them only when they are Jews, but not when they are German.

But more seriously, what intelligent human being would attempt to minimize the attemped genocide of 9 million members of a specific religious/ethnic group, 6 million of whom were murdered, from a dozen or more European countries, captured as a result of a massive bureaucratic endeavor which identified, captured, concentrated and transported them at great expense to the Eastern Europe, as "victomology"!

When Mr. Smith uses this term he means to imply that the people involved are making an undeserved claim. No one with half a brain would accuse European Jews of the WWII period as making a specious claim to being a victim of Nazi genocide. But Mr. Smith, being a denier of the Holocaust, wants to pretend that just a few Jews died for reasons no different than what caused the death of Germans.

But it is instructive nonetheless that Chuck doesn't think those killed at Dresden because they were Germans, or the two-million (more or less) killed in the Gruesome Harvest after the war because they were Germans, to be victims of Genocide.

Now let's look at this statement!

Mr. Smith accuses me of declaring Germans killed at Dresden and other locales were not victims of genocide merely because they were Germans. Does he offer any evidence to support such a claim? Does he offer an argument based on what "genocide" means? Does he explain why, absent such a definition, a murder of a number of people should be defined as a "genocide?

Of course he doesn't!

To do so would force Mr. Smith to think. It would force him to define his terms, and justify why the fate of citizens of the aggressor nation in a war they instigated is the same as the fate of people who, merely because they were Jews, were rounded up from nations all over Europe, for reasons having nothing to do with the war, and sent to mass killing installations where they were murdered - men, women, and children.

Yes, it all depends on whose ox is being gored.

Apparently for Mr. Smith it does, since he wants to pretend that the killing of Germans is equivalent to the attempted genocide of Jews from all over Europe.

[Charles Bunch]

Mills claimed the Jews of Jedwabne were killed because they were collaborators, just as the French and others in Europe were killed for the same reason.

Are you sure he didn't say anything about perception?

And that makes what difference![/quote]

[Charles Bunch]

My answer is also simple since what the United Nations, which is not a sovereign body, says is irrelevant if/when sovereign nations disagree.

It is Mr. Smith's statement is irrelevant.

Mr. Smith is running from the issue.

The term genocide has a meaning.

He has implied in his posts that the killing of Germans in WWII was as deserving of meeting this definition as the murder of Europe's Jews.

Now Mr. Smith can continue to run from the issue, for rather obvious reasons, or he can offer an alternative definition for "genocide", along with an argument why this definition is more appropriate than the generally accepted one!

[Scott Smith]

My answer is also simple since what the United Nations, which is not a sovereign body, says is irrelevant if/when sovereign nations disagree.

It is Mr. Smith's statement is irrelevant.

No, the UN is irrelevant.

Mr. Smith is running from the issue.

The term genocide has a meaning.

He has implied in his posts that the killing of Germans in WWII was as deserving of meeting this definition as the murder of Europe's Jews.

Now Mr. Smith can continue to run from the issue, for rather obvious reasons, or he can offer an alternative definition for "genocide", along with an argument why this definition is more appropriate than the generally accepted one!

No, I don't try to use a Genocide Theory-of-History. This is no less a distortion as Marxism, and viewing history exclusively in terms of class-warfare.

Jews view History exclusively through their tribal-lens, but that is not my history nor my problem. This worldview predated the Nazis and supercedes them; just look at the frequency of the usage of the word Genocide regarding terrorism or the present conflict in the Middle East in Zionist or Israeli publications.

My point is that the word Genocide is too subjective to have any real meaning.

The term was coined by a Polish refugee, Raphael Lemkin, J.D. (1900-1959) in his 1944 book, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe. Let's just say that in his bag of political locutions Dr. Lemkin was not Catholic or Armenian. Those who use the terminology are going to do so in partisan and self-serving ways. Isn't "Never Again!" the slogan of the Likud?

"Genocide" will apply to the Jews but not to the the Famine Irish or even the Famine Ukrainians, let alone the Krauts and Japs. It will apply to American Indians and Blacks, or even Armenians and Poles, only insofar that compelling atrocity-capital can be derived somehow from it.

As already noted, in this Orwellian world, some Victims are "more equal than others."


Raphael Lemkin...

[Charles Bunch]

My answer is also simple since what the United Nations, which is not a sovereign body, says is irrelevant if/when sovereign nations disagree.

It is Mr. Smith's statement is irrelevant.

No, the UN is irrelevant.

What is irrelevant is Smith's raising of the issue of sovereignty!!

The term "genocide" has a known meaning. Mr. Smith tries to obfuscate his incorrect appropriation of the term with his usual irrelevancies, tossed out as a rather transparent attempt to recover from an obvious error.

Mr. Smith is running from the issue.

The term genocide has a meaning.

He has implied in his posts that the killing of Germans in WWII was as deserving of meeting this definition as the murder of Europe's Jews.

Now Mr. Smith can continue to run from the issue, for rather obvious reasons, or he can offer an alternative definition for "genocide", along with an argument why this definition is more appropriate than the generally accepted one!

No, I don't try to use a Genocide Theory-of-History. This is no less a distortion as Marxism, and viewing history exclusively in terms of class-warfare.

There is no such thing as genocide theory of history.

There are, however, attempted acts of genocide.

Poor Mr. Smith continues running, dropping as he goes along any buzz word he can think of, failing to notice how embarrassing it is for him!

Jews view History exclusively through their tribal-lens, but that is not my history nor my problem.

An inherently ignorant and bigoted view revealing Mr. Smith's antisemitism.

Mr. Smith offers this comment even though it has nothing to do with the topic from which he is running. In other words it is completely gratuitous. Let's enjoy Mr. Smiths candid views of Jews and their worldview!

This worldview predated the Nazis and supercedes them; just look at the frequency of the usage of the word Genocide regarding terrorism or the present conflict in the Middle East in Zionist or Israeli publications.

I see no such frequency of usage in any of these places.

Odd that Mr. Smith should complain about the term's usage, since he argued it should be applied to murdered Germans!

My point is that the word Genocide is too subjective to have any real meaning.

The meaning of the word is not at all subjective. Like all words, it has an objective meaning which is accepted.

The term was coined by a Polish refugee, Raphael Lemkin, J.D. (1900-1959) in his 1944 book, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe. Let's just say that in his bag of political locutions Dr. Lemkin was not Catholic or Armenian. Those who use the terminology are going to do so in partisan and self-serving ways. Isn't "Never Again!" the slogan of the Likud?

The background of the person coining the word is irrelevant. Only a Jew hater would claim that a word with an accepted definition is somehow less objective than any other word for which there is a meaning.

Making such a claim clearly reflects more on the thinking of the person saying such things, than on the word.

"Genocide" will apply to the Jews but not to the the Famine Irish or even the Famine Ukrainians, let alone the Krauts and Japs.

Genocide will apply when the definition of the term is met.

Note that Mr. Smith still runs from making an argument for why the Irish, Ukrainians, Germans or Japanese have been the victim of an attempted genocide!

Mr. Smith's problem is that the occasion for the coining of the term genocide involves the attempted extermination of Europe's Jews by Nazi Germany, the perpetrator for which he is an open apologist, and the victim which he reviles.

Of course, that is Mr. Smith's problem.

People not afflicted by such mind bending loyalties will know that a word has a meaning, whether Mr. Smith wishes to believe so or not.

[Scott Smith]

My answer is also simple since what the United Nations, which is not a sovereign body, says is irrelevant if/when sovereign nations disagree.

It is Mr. Smith's statement is irrelevant.

No, the UN is irrelevant.

What is irrelevant is Smith's raising of the issue of sovereignty!!

Sorry, but sovereign nations can tell the UN to go to hell, Chuck. That is simple fact because the UN has no independent enforcement power. Any of the superpowers making the UN Security Council can especially do so as no sovereign nation is powerful enough to stop them short of world war. And of course, each member of the Security Council has veto powers, which was a deliberate concession in the UN Charter itself to the de facto sovereignty of those nations. This is pretty basic stuff, Chuck.

So basically the UN is today a forum for small nations to whine collectively and for big nations like the U.S. to avoid the appearance of unilateralism. Bush the First got "permission" for the first war with Iraq from the UN before asking Congress for an authorization of military force--but he really wasn't getting UN permission because sovereign nations don't need permission to make war. And besides, UN approval helped solidify Bush's political position in Congress.

The term "genocide" has a known meaning. Mr. Smith tries to obfuscate his incorrect appropriation of the term with his usual irrelevancies, tossed out as a rather transparent attempt to recover from an obvious error.

No, Genocide is a meaningless term created by a lawyer attempting to adjudicate anti-German propaganda.

The term genocide has a meaning.

He has implied in his posts that the killing of Germans in WWII was as deserving of meeting this definition as the murder of Europe's Jews.

I don't think it was the nebulous Genocide but the commonly-accepted definition of Genocide is the simple mass-murder of noncombatants--which happened to millions of Germans and Japanese and many others, including the Jews.

Of course, we all know that Genocide has little meaning apart from Nazi victims, as Lemkin intended, as if the Soviets killing millions for Class instead of Race was any better.

Today Internationalist politcos try to get mileage out of the term Genocide because it helps justify Interventionism without seeming like Imperialism. But this is a rather morally-convenient crusade most of the time.

No, I don't try to use a Genocide Theory-of-History. This is no less a distortion as Marxism, and viewing history exclusively in terms of class-warfare.

There is no such thing as genocide theory of history.

History can be written from many different viewpoints, Chuckoo. Seeing every act of war darkly through a "Genocide lens" means using a Genocide theory-of-history. WWII could also be written in terms of Great Men, Feminism, Class Struggle, Nationalism, Imperialism, Militarism, etc.

There are, however, attempted acts of genocide.

Perhaps Chuck should enlighten us troglodytes with what an "attempted act of Genocide is." Surely something paranoid and quasi-religious! A new form of paganism, perhaps, like flying-saucer abduction cults?

Oh, Satan's minions will always try (and fail) to kill the Elect of God, right?

Poor Mr. Smith continues running, dropping as he goes along any buzz word he can think of, failing to notice how embarrassing it is for him!

Cuckoo Chuckoo, muttering in the mirror.

Smith really doesn't relish humiliating him so.
:roll:

Jews view History exclusively through their tribal-lens, but that is not my history nor my problem.

An inherently ignorant and bigoted view revealing Mr. Smith's antisemitism.

Now the gloves are off and Chuck has finally revealed he thinks me anti-Semitic, the last refuge of the scoundrel stumped by plain argument.

Mr. Smith offers this comment even though it has nothing to do with the topic from which he is running. In other words it is completely gratuitous. Let's enjoy Mr. Smiths candid views of Jews and their worldview!

All it takes is a simple browsing of Jewish periodicals to see this and it is important to understand Lemkin's mentality in any case.

This worldview predated the Nazis and supercedes them; just look at the frequency of the usage of the word Genocide regarding terrorism or the present conflict in the Middle East in Zionist or Israeli publications.

I see no such frequency of usage in any of these places.

You must either be naïve, blind, or lying. No matter.

Odd that Mr. Smith should complain about the term's usage, since he argued it should be applied to murdered Germans!

No, I didn't. I said if it can be applied to Jews then it can be applied to Germans and Japanese, who were killed because they were Germans and Japanese, i.e., because they were the enemy noncombatants.

Also, I dispute the notion that the Jews were killed just because they were Jews. The Germans did not kill Anne Frank or Elie Wiesel, for example. I especially object to the notion that the Germans "attempted" to kill all the Jews because they were Jews; if that is the case they must have really been Nazi bunglers. But the Third Reich wasn't Hogan's Heroes where Colonel Klink is the smartest one of the lot.

My point is that the word Genocide is too subjective to have any real meaning.

The meaning of the word is not at all subjective. Like all words, it has an objective meaning which is accepted.

No, because it is not merely mass-murder but planned-annihilation.

This means that we can call Americanization "Genocide" if we want to use Genocide as a club. And the word basically has no other use but as a CLUB.

We call Germanization Genocide because the Germans lost the war and we can hit them with whatever clubs we want. The Germans will even hit themselves with the same club just to prove that they are still alive.

If it is objected that Germans were mass-murdered as well by Allied bombers and fighters or by explulsions after the war that killed millions, then this is okay because Hitler didn't do it; the Nazis didn't plan it, so it wasn't Genocide.

Or, maybe the Nazis did this after all because they invented the war, a modern version of the Versailles War-Guilt clause. We can even have Bart Simpson t-shirts printed with the slogan "Hitler did it!"

Yeah, Hitler did everything, from nuclear winter to AIDS.

Yet no proof of such planning to mass-murder the Jews exists. The Wannsee document, while a cruel wartime expulsion policy, is no more planned Genocide than the Potsdam agreement handing German populations over to the tender mercies of their enemies for slaughter and expulsion and (no doubt accidental) death. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.

The term was coined by a Polish refugee, Raphael Lemkin, J.D. (1900-1959) in his 1944 book, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe. Let's just say that in his bag of political locutions Dr. Lemkin was not Catholic or Armenian. Those who use the terminology are going to do so in partisan and self-serving ways. Isn't "Never Again!" the slogan of the Likud?

The background of the person coining the word is irrelevant. Only a Jew hater would claim that a word with an accepted definition is somehow less objective than any other word for which there is a meaning.

Lemkin was a squirrely lawyer propagandist--a pettifogger of Hate. He shares this trait with many of his coreligionists. But they are certainly not alone! Jews are not the only practicioners of the Holo-Cult, and the exploitative and blasphemous Holocaust Industry is not populated exclusively by Jews, as Norman Finkelstein and many other anti-Zionist Jews have demonstrated.

People not afflicted by such mind bending loyalties will know that a word has a meaning, whether Mr. Smith wishes to believe so or not.

The word has no legal meaning except as agreed upon by sovereign governments, so it has no force except as propaganda. If it is meant to generically mean mass-murder of noncombatants, then only a hypocrite would say that this was not also done to Germans and Japanese.

We know Chuck is not a hypocrite, don't we...

Never Again, Never Again, Never Again. Two-legs baaad, four-legs goood.

[Charles Bunch]

My answer is also simple since what the United Nations, which is not a sovereign body, says is irrelevant if/when sovereign nations disagree.

It is Mr. Smith's statement is irrelevant.

No, the UN is irrelevant.

What is irrelevant is Smith's raising of the issue of sovereignty!!

Sorry, but sovereign nations can tell the UN to go to hell, Chuck.

Which is irrelevant, since the definition of the word genocide doesn't depend on the UN.

So Mr. Smith's running off at the mouth about the UN can be seen as just another diversion from an ignorant remark by him.

The term "genocide" has a known meaning. Mr. Smith tries to obfuscate his incorrect appropriation of the term with his usual irrelevancies, tossed out as a rather transparent attempt to recover from an obvious error.

No, Genocide is a meaningless term created by a lawyer attempting to adjudicate anti-German propaganda.

No, genocide is a specific term with an accepted meaning. Mr. Smith's persmission to have such a word is not needed.

The term genocide has a meaning.
He has implied in his posts that the killing of Germans in WWII was as deserving of meeting this definition as the murder of Europe's Jews.

I don't think it was the nebulous Genocide but the commonly-accepted definition of Genocide is the simple mass-murder of noncombatants--which happened to millions of Germans and Japanese and many others, including the Jews.

No definition of genocide focuses on non-combantants.

Of course, we all know that Genocide has little meaning apart from Nazi victims, as Lemkin intended, as if the Soviets killing millions for Class instead of Race was any better.

What we know is that as yet no similar attempt at annihilation has occurred. It is the very fact that Nazi crimes exist at the very outer extreme of any continuum of mass murder that most upsets Mr. Smith, who will subject himself to any degree of intellectual embarrassment to minimize the crimes of Nazi Germany.

No, I don't try to use a Genocide Theory-of-History. This is no less a distortion as Marxism, and viewing history exclusively in terms of class-warfare.

There is no such thing as genocide theory of history.

History can be written from many different viewpoints, Chuckoo.

Writing from a viewpoint is not a theory of history Mr. Smith. Go back to school.

There are, however, attempted acts of genocide.

Perhaps Chuck should enlighten us troglodytes with what an "attempted act of Genocide is." Surely something paranoid and quasi-religious! A new form of paganism, perhaps, like flying-saucer abduction cults?

To intend to destroy a given group does not mean one is successful.

Poor Mr. Smith continues running, dropping as he goes along any buzz word he can think of, failing to notice how embarrassing it is for him!

Cuckoo Chuckoo, muttering in the mirror.

And yet Mr. Smith will not tell us why the killing of Germans during WWII merits the description of genocide in the same way as the murder of 6 million Jews.
Smith really doesn't relish humiliating him so.

Jews view History exclusively through their tribal-lens, but that is not my history nor my problem.

An inherently ignorant and bigoted view revealing Mr. Smith's antisemitism.

Now the gloves are off and Chuck has finally revealed he thinks me anti-Semitic, the last refuge of the scoundrel stumped by plain argument

.

Mr. Smith might describe ascribing a theory to a whole group in utter ignorance as making an argument. I think rational people will see it as mindless stereotyping of a group for nefarious reasons.

It is Mr. Smith who took his gloves off, and unplugged his brain.

Mr. Smith offers this comment even though it has nothing to do with the topic from which he is running. In other words it is completely gratuitous. Let's enjoy Mr. Smiths candid views of Jews and their worldview!

All it takes is a simple browsing of Jewish periodicals to see this and it is important to understand Lemkin's mentality in any case.

Ah, so a simple browsing of some periodicals justifies the idiotic assertion that there is a Jewish view of history. Did Streicher publish such a periodical?

This worldview predated the Nazis and supercedes them; just look at the frequency of the usage of the word Genocide regarding terrorism or the present conflict in the Middle East in Zionist or Israeli publications.

I see no such frequency of usage in any of these places.

You must either be naïve, blind, or lying. No matter.

And you must think people gullible to the extreme to accept such nonsense from someone with your history.

Odd that Mr. Smith should complain about the term's usage, since he argued it should be applied to murdered Germans!

No, I didn't. I said if it can be applied to Jews then it can be applied to Germans and Japanese, who were killed because they were Germans and Japanese, i.e., because they were the enemy noncombatants.

Mr. Smith confirms my point, while trying to deny it!

Neither of the reasons Smith offers for including Germans and Japanese (I'm glad to see he's not calling them "Japs" anymore) has anything to do with genocide.

Also, I dispute the notion that the Jews were killed just because they were Jews. The Germans did not kill Anne Frank or Elie Wiesel, for example.

Pointing out that not all Jews were killed, says nothing about the reasons for killing.

I especially object to the notion that the Germans "attempted" to kill all the Jews because they were Jews; if that is the case they must have really been Nazi bunglers.

Another embarrassing non sequitur! Mr. Smith can "object", or even "especially object" all he wants. But if he's incapable of putting forth a coherent, logical argument, it really doesn't matter.

The fact that the Nazis didn't succeed in killing all Jews doesn't say anthing about their intentions.

Even Mr. Smith ought to be able to understand such simple distinctions.

My point is that the word Genocide is too subjective to have any real meaning.

The meaning of the word is not at all subjective. Like all words, it has an objective meaning which is accepted.

No, because it is not merely mass-murder but planned-annihilation.

Why does noting that the meaning is different than mass murder indicate it does not have an objective meaning?

It doesn't, of course. Mr. Smith's real objection is now apparent. He will make any ridiculous argument he can think of rather than accept an objective definition which does not allow him to claim that the killing of people during a war is the same as genocide.

Yet no proof of such planning to mass-murder the Jews exists.

Utter nonsense!

The Wannsee document, while a cruel wartime expulsion policy, is no more planned Genocide than the Potsdam agreement handing German populations over to the tender mercies of their enemies for slaughter and expulsion and (no doubt accidental) death. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.

Accept that what Mr. Smith says about the Wannsee document is not true.
Mr. Smith is invited to start threads on both plans for the annihilation of Jews and the Wannsee conference, thus offering him the opportunity to show us his immense learning on these subjects!

The term was coined by a Polish refugee, Raphael Lemkin, J.D. (1900-1959) in his 1944 book, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe. Let's just say that in his bag of political locutions Dr. Lemkin was not Catholic or Armenian. Those who use the terminology are going to do so in partisan and self-serving ways. Isn't "Never Again!" the slogan of the Likud?

The background of the person coining the word is irrelevant. Only a Jew hater would claim that a word with an accepted definition is somehow less objective than any other word for which there is a meaning.

Lemkin was a squirrely lawyer propagandist--a pettifogger of Hate.

He was! Why don't you enlighten us on this, my emerging Jew hater!

He shares this trait with many of his coreligionists

.

That's it, let it out. You know you want to tell us what you really think of Jews. Just how many Jews are propagandists and pettifoggers? As many as share that same world view you were talking about?

But they are certainly not alone! Jews are not the only practicioners of the Holo-Cult, and the exploitative and blasphemous Holocaust Industry is not populated exclusively by Jews, as Norman Finkelstein and many other anti-Zionist Jews have demonstrated.

Smith is an equal opportunity spittle spewer!

People not afflicted by such mind bending loyalties will know that a word has a meaning, whether Mr. Smith wishes to believe so or not.

The word has no legal meaning except as agreed upon by sovereign governments, so it has no force except as propaganda.

Whether it has a specific legal meaning is another irrelevancy.

It is a word with a known meaning.

If it is meant to generically mean mass-murder of noncombatants

,

Smith argues with his own definition of the word genocide.

then only a hypocrite would say that this was not also done to Germans and Japanese.

So if Smith were allowed to define words in his own way, people who embarrass him would be hypocrites!

We know Chuck is not a hypocrite, don't we...

What we know is that Smith is mightily embarrassed!