A thought to ponder on now that was brought up 57 years ago.

[cptstennes]

You must put the German industrial killing in historical context. It was a new idea and was the product, I think, of the intersection of at least three factors, two new and one old. First, the new factor was the rise of the modern industrialized, totalitarian state. Second, the trauma of WWI. These were new. Third, was the hatred of the other, as old as mankind.
As to the first factor, dictators popped up all over after WWI. Russia, Germany, Japan (tho they did not have a single leader) as well as the less terrible states such as Italy, Greece, the Balkan states, and, latterly, Spain. They had new means at their disposal for terror and killing.
Stalin started his mass killings in 1937. Japan, in its invasion and occupation of China killed millions (vide the Rape of Nanking) But it was Germany that introduced the connection between 20th industry and killing as mass production. So the motive, terror as an enforcement tool and the means, first shooting, then killing vans and finally death factories. This was new.
Second, the killing fields of WWI inured the participants to the idea of death on a scale unheard of. And the so many of the Nazi leaders had been front fighters, notably Hitler, that death and the idea of mass slaughter became, more or less, ordinary and a way to dispose of perceived problems.
The third factor is old, the idea of the other as enemy and, in the case of the Jews, e.g., as an enemy of the blood who must be wiped out root and branch.
The last instance of this, on a mass scale, was the Rwanda massacres, produced in the old-fashioned way, with knives and clubs but which still caused hundreds of thousands of deaths.
So, the Germans were unique in their industrialized killings and unusual, but not unique, in killing masses outside their home territory on the basis of race.
All this is a bad thing but not limited to the Germans. Why the Germans were condemned for their behavior and the Communists, e.g., have not been is interesting. The
Communists had a constituency among American, British, French and other intellectuals. The fascists did not. That is meant to be condemnatory of those intellectuals, of course, but it is instructive.
There is a new factor which works against mass killings, and that is the spread of mass communications. It is impossible to kill large numbers without world outrage. Mass communications, in the thirties and forties were in their infancy. Now, a bus crash in Bangladesh is news. So, hurrah for technology.
Those are my thoughts and good luck to you, F.

[Roberto]

There is a new factor which works against mass killings, and that is the spread of mass communications. It is impossible to kill large numbers without world outrage. Mass communications, in the thirties and forties were in their infancy. Now, a bus crash in Bangladesh is news. So, hurrah for technology.

Mass communications didn't cause a world outrage in regard to Rwanda, at least not in time to prevent the murder of hundreds of thousands. So the efficiency of technology in this respect seems to be somewhat reduced.

Notwithstanding this comment, a very well organized and insightful post.
It's comforting to read something with quality at the end of an afternoon of wading through "Revisionist" propaganda nonsense.

[cptstennes]

Quite right, but Rwanda is on the edge of the world and there are war crimes tribunals which have convicted even in that case. Now I note Gujarat. That was shut off. Very fast. Due to the fact that it was reported. Muslims kill Hindus on train. Hindus burn Muslims. Shut down immediately. On the orders of a Sikh general. So, I hear. You might want to think of the Milosovic trial. You can't away with genocide anymore. That is why we, the Americans are so careful now. In a way, if you do not have the technology to kill exactly the bad guys and only the bad guys, you can't wage war. Western civilization triumphs again, Regards, F.

[Victor´s Justice?]

Unfortunately, just another example of American imperialist doctrine...Rwanda is on the "edge of the world" because it didn´t hurt major American interests or assets; funnily, the analogy applies to the World Cup (called in Time Magazine as the "Rest of the World Cup", by a lousy article wrote by some enlightened moron named Mr. Stein), as most Americans unfortunately think Senegal as represented by a band of dancing whackos, or Brazil as having its capital city by the Amazon River. Afghanistan is not the case, of course, because CNN did a good job there.

Such double standards are and always will be the main root for conflicts in this world, while George "Genius" Bush´s country remains the main military power around.

No one is able to ask why US are so hated throughout the world...why not bomb some tall buildings in other countries? Because most of them do not apply sheer arrogancy to their foreign policies, preferring to take care of their own problems.

US are not legitimated to decide on other nations´ futures, and that´s what they love to do, be it in Palestine, Iraq, Venezuela, Haiti or other handicapped territories...

This may sound off-topic, but applicable to the case in question.

[Scott Smith]

No one is able to ask why US are so hated throughout the world...why not bomb some tall buildings in other countries? Because most of them do not apply sheer arrogancy to their foreign policies, preferring to take care of their own problems.

I do! But then again, I just shine shoes.

Best Regards,
Scott

[Birgitte Heuschkel]

But then again, I just shine shoes.

This may be dead off topic but now I've seen this reference to Scott as a shoe-shine boy in several places -- anyone care to let me in on the joke?

[Scott Smith]

But then again, I just shine shoes.

This may be dead off topic but now I've seen this reference to Scott as a shoe-shine boy in several places -- anyone care to let me in on the joke?

That I work as a shoe-shine boy for the Ministry of Truth is an apt metaphor for what I do. And one day, with Roberto as my witness, I shall be a shoe-shine MAN.