Berlin to mark Nazis' gay victims

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
User avatar
R.M. Schultz
Member
Posts: 3062
Joined: 05 Feb 2003 03:44
Location: Chicago

Post by R.M. Schultz » 16 Dec 2003 04:24

Penn44 wrote:Criminals would fall under the "asocial" catagory of concentration camp prisoner. Yes, they, too should have a memorial. …
I think not. I think there is a hierarchy to moral violation. Genocide is probably worst, because the victims are completely blameless. Next would come democide which, though also constituting a moral atrocity, at least allows the victims a means of escape by changing their "demos." Last would come the gratuitous punishment of those actually guilty.

Jews, Gipsies, Slavs are the most sympathetic victims of the Holocaust because they in no way chose their fate. Communists, Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals, vagrants all could have chosen a different path in life, and thus haven't quite the same moral standing though they ares still to be numbered among the innocent. Thieves and other bona fide criminals, being deserving of some punishment, and thus the offence against them is a quantitative matter of harshness, not a qualitative matter of innocence.

I would confine the use of the term "Holocaust" to the innocent victims of Nazism and, though I certainly wouldn't object to a memorial for the over-punished, I do not favor it either.

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002 00:58
Location: Mississippi

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 16 Dec 2003 04:29

Yes, what you said made sense, but probably not in the manner that you intended.
It made perfect sense, if you bothered to read some expert opinion on how mass murderers or serial killers look at their crimes. Suggest you read some John Douglas.

It made perfect sense in the realm of mob or crowd psycology, if you bother to read Gustave LeBon.

So stick all your morale relativism insults , and come back with some expert analysis or some factual information on your own on how an entire country might end up murdering millions, rather than such a flowery reply as "you're a hick from mississippi".

User avatar
Penn44
Banned
Posts: 4214
Joined: 26 Jun 2003 06:25
Location: US

Post by Penn44 » 16 Dec 2003 04:51

R.M. Schultz wrote: I think there is a hierarchy to moral violation. Genocide is probably worst, because the victims are completely blameless. Next would come democide which, though also constituting a moral atrocity, at least allows the victims a means of escape by changing their "demos." Last would come the gratuitous punishment of those actually guilty..

Jews, Gipsies, Slavs are the most sympathetic victims of the Holocaust because they in no way chose their fate. Communists, Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals, vagrants all could have chosen a different path in life, and thus haven't quite the same moral standing though they ares still to be numbered among the innocent. Thieves and other bona fide criminals, being deserving of some punishment, and thus the offence against them is a quantitative matter of harshness, not a qualitative matter of innocence.

I would confine the use of the term "Holocaust" to the innocent victims of Nazism and, though I certainly wouldn't object to a memorial for the over-punished, I do not favor it either.
I dsagree with you. A victim is a victim is a victim. I agree with you regarding the uniqueness of the Jewish position within the Holocaust, that they were the victims of Genocide. But on the other matters, I differ from you. If I was a Nazi (perish the thought) and I shot a Jewish person in the head and I shot a communist in the head, I would have shot both for different ideological reasons which constitutes that I shot one for a genocidal reason and one for a demicidal reason. But from the victims perspective, both are dead with bullets in the head. From my perspective, I also have a bloody mess to clean up. I look at the problem from the victim's perspective and the end result. Whereas I believe the Nazi did not have a right to shot either one of the given victims, the question of whether or not they had some form of choice in their deaths is irrelevant. I know you did not intend this, but your argument boils down to a "blame the victim" argument.

Hierarchy of guilt???? What were the communists, Jehovah Witnesses, homosexuals, etc., guilty of?

You are looking at these groups from the Nazi perspective, and applying Nazi "morality" to these groups which I reject out of hand. Unknowingly and unintentionally, you are in a sense validating Nazi morality. Screw the Nazis and their "morality." All the above groups are sympathetic because they are all innocent.

Apply a civilized standard of morality to these groups and their victim status appears.

.

User avatar
Penn44
Banned
Posts: 4214
Joined: 26 Jun 2003 06:25
Location: US

Post by Penn44 » 16 Dec 2003 05:00

ChristopherPerrien wrote: It made perfect sense, if you bothered to read some expert opinion on how mass murderers or serial killers look at their crimes. Suggest you read some John Douglas.".

It made perfect sense in the realm of mob or crowd psycology, if you bother to read Gustave LeBon.
You were discussing "shame," and not criminology or social psychology. I assume the above authors are criminal experts or sociologists, and not moral philosophers or theologians.
ChristopherPerrien wrote: So stick all your morale relativism insults , and come back with some expert analysis or some factual information on your own on how an entire country might end up murdering millions, rather than such a flowery reply as "you're a hick from mississippi".
Where in the world did you get that I said to you, "you're a hick from mississippi"? I NEVER said that.

.

User avatar
R.M. Schultz
Member
Posts: 3062
Joined: 05 Feb 2003 03:44
Location: Chicago

Post by R.M. Schultz » 16 Dec 2003 05:08

Penn44 wrote:Hierarchy of guilt????
Do you dismiss the idea of a hierarchy of guilt altogether, or merely my application of the priciple?

User avatar
Penn44
Banned
Posts: 4214
Joined: 26 Jun 2003 06:25
Location: US

Post by Penn44 » 16 Dec 2003 05:20

R.M. Schultz wrote:
Penn44 wrote:Hierarchy of guilt????
Do you dismiss the idea of a hierarchy of guilt altogether, or merely my application of the priciple?
I have trouble with applying the concept of "guilt" to these victims. No problem of course you applying it to the perpetrators, and there can be degrees of guilt for those in that catagory.

.

Witch-King of Angmar
Member
Posts: 915
Joined: 28 Feb 2003 20:40
Location: Europe

Post by Witch-King of Angmar » 16 Dec 2003 08:33

Penn44 wrote:Hierarchy of guilt???? What were the communists, Jehovah Witnesses, homosexuals, etc., guilty of?

You are looking at these groups from the Nazi perspective, and applying Nazi "morality" to these groups which I reject out of hand. Unknowingly and unintentionally, you are in a sense validating Nazi morality. Screw the Nazis and their "morality." All the above groups are sympathetic because they are all innocent.
Including Communists?

~The Witch-King of Angmar

User avatar
Penn44
Banned
Posts: 4214
Joined: 26 Jun 2003 06:25
Location: US

Post by Penn44 » 16 Dec 2003 08:36

Witch-King of Angmar wrote:
Including Communists?

~The Witch-King of Angmar
Explain to me why being a member of the communist party is a crime.


.

User avatar
R.M. Schultz
Member
Posts: 3062
Joined: 05 Feb 2003 03:44
Location: Chicago

Post by R.M. Schultz » 16 Dec 2003 09:07

Penn44 wrote:I have trouble with applying the concept of "guilt" to these victims. No problem of course you applying it to the perpetrators, and there can be degrees of guilt for those in that catagory.
That is exactly my meaning. Degrees of guilt apply to the perpetrators, not the victims.

If we are to say the death of a petty thief in a concentration camp has the same moral weight as that of a Jew, then we are saying that the concentration camp guards are no more guilty than the guards of a Georgia chain-gang. Clearly, the draconian punishment of a man who is guilty (albeit of a petty crime) is not the same moral offence as the same punishment given to someone who is wholly innocent.
Penn44 wrote:Explain to me why being a member of the communist party is a crime.
I don't think it is, but being a communist is an act of volition and is thus subject to a moral judgement. If all communists were potential traitors merely waiting for an opportunity to act (as the red-baiters would have us believe), then a government would be justified in acting against them. As a National Bolshevik, trade unionist, and Catholic I would have been opposed to the Nazi regime and (I hope) have opposed it with my last breath. Had the Nazi regime packed me off to a concentration camp they would have been justified, but only to the extent of the legitimacy of their regime!

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8988
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by michael mills » 16 Dec 2003 12:56

Explain to me why being a member of the communist party is a crime.

In the United States and Australia today, it is a criminal offence to be a member of certain proscribed organisations, branded as "terroristic" by the Governments of those two countries.

The reason why those organisations have been proscribed is that they have committed acts of "terroristic" violence. Mere membership in those organisations is enough to attract a hefty prison sentence (20 years or more); one does not need to have committed any acts of violence oneself.

The Communist Party was responsible for the commission of acts of violence on a grand scale, and was responsible for the deaths of scores of millions of innocent people, infinitely more than the proscribed organisations mentioned above.

If it is a crime to belong to a "terrorist" organisation, then logically it should be a crime to belong to the Communist Party, which has been responsible for more terrorism than any other organisation in modern history.

By the way, I do not think that mere membership of the Communist Party or of so-called terrorist organisations should be in itself a crime.

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002 00:58
Location: Mississippi

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 16 Dec 2003 17:47

Degrees of guilt apply to the perpetrators, not the victims.

If we are to say the death of a petty thief in a concentration camp has the same moral weight as that of a Jew,
I love this sort of "double speak". So exactlty how to you determine "degree of guilt".

By the "moral weight " of the death of the victim!!!!!?????

So how many thieves or homosexuals does it take to equal one Jew, in this "moral weight" ? 4 ?, 10.000? How many Poles equal one Jew? Gypsies? Obviously to make such defintitive "moral judgement" you have some master ratio list. Let us see it. I wnat to know exactly how much more important race is than "sexual preference" How far can you split this wild "hate crime" hair?

I am sure a few people who died in concentration camps were gay Jewish thieves. So would killing one of these people be 2 1/2 times as bad?

User avatar
Lucius Felix Silla
Member
Posts: 176
Joined: 01 Aug 2003 17:46
Location: North Italy

Post by Lucius Felix Silla » 16 Dec 2003 18:21

But...exactly, how many homosexuals have been killed by NS?
Is really existed a Homosexual Holocaust (not a persecution against homosexuals or presumed, which is historically proved) ?

Best Regards
LFS

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002 00:58
Location: Mississippi

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 16 Dec 2003 18:25

Jews 5.6 - 6.25 m, Soviet pow 3m, Catholics(Polish) 3m, Serbs 700k, Gypies222k-250k, anti-nazi germans 80k, handicapped germans 70k, homosexual 12k, Jehova Witness 2.5k.

These figures are from "The Holocaust Chronicle",Publications Internation, LTD.2002 764pp, An excellelent book on the subject. Bought it at Waldenbooks on sale $19.99. note:excellent pictures 1000's

User avatar
Lucius Felix Silla
Member
Posts: 176
Joined: 01 Aug 2003 17:46
Location: North Italy

Post by Lucius Felix Silla » 16 Dec 2003 19:17

Sources and proofs for this statement, which - i must presume is highly conjectural?

Best Regards
LFS

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002 00:58
Location: Mississippi

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 16 Dec 2003 19:49

I cited the source, if I remember it has about fifty pages of bibliography and named researchers, You can of course browse around this forum, there is proof to be had. Ask Schultz he seems to be our expert on gays
or gay nazis in the Third Reich, he could point you toward many sources I'm sure.

Me I am not so much a "proof" nut, I won't go digging though German archives. Give me a reasonable book and/or show me some pictures with guys wearing "pink triangles" and some pictures of dead in the same place, fine with me. I believe a figure of 12,000. Actually I would think it would be more given how many homosexuals there was in a country the size of Nazi Germany with its police state morality and the homophobia at the time.

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”