Holocaust and Historiographical Issues

[Ben Kenobi]

LoTM:

From Dr. King's Letter from a Birmingham Jail

We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws.

http://almaz.com/nobel/peace/MLK-jail.html

1. The Nazi holocaust is unique, because it was out of historical charecter. It was commited by one of the most advanced, civilized peoples on the planet - and against a minority that was largely accepted prior to the 1930's. It is therefore that much more shocking, and raises different issues about human nature and history than other genocides.

Unique? Well, then I have an argument and a comparison. What about the Soviet Union in the 20th Century under Stalin? Was this not a civilised country of advanced peoples?

Secondly, why should it matter if the nation is civilised or not? Should we not equally condemn genocide if performed in Cambodia or Rwanda?

The Turks for example, apparently saw murder of the Armenians as fulfilling strategic goals - its hard to imagine the Turks perpertating it to the point that it would have endangered their state. Ditto for Tutsis in Rwanda, Kurds in Iraq, etc.

So the Turks were justified in killing the Armenians for 'strategic reasons'?

That's pretty feeble. I'm sure the Nazis saw the Jews as threatening the 'strategic interests' of the state.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
LoTM:

From Dr. King's Letter from a Birmingham Jail

We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws.

http://almaz.com/nobel/peace/MLK-jail.html

What MLK said is quite correct, In the context of justifying civil disobedience of the law, he noted that the Nazi holocaust was "legal". This does not imply that it was the same as the civil rights situation in other respects, and Im quite sure Dr. King did not mean to imply that it was.

Unique? Well, then I have an argument and a comparison. What about the Soviet Union in the 20th Century under Stalin? Was this not a civilised country of advanced peoples?

A difficult case. Id make 2 points. 1. No russia was not quite as advanced as Germany. It had been an authoritarian state with limited human rights and widespread persecution of minorities (especially Jews) upto 1914. Germany, OTOH, was nation of laws and essentially equal treatment for citizens pre-1914. In addition to being the scientific and cultural leader of europe in a way that Russia was not. The case of Germany thus threatens notions of progress, of the beneficial effects of culture, etc in ways that Russia does not. 2. For all the horrors of stalinism, there is no case I know of where he attempted to exterminate a group defined by birth to the last individidual the way the Nazis did. This is not to say Stalin was "less bad" then Hitler - just that the Nazi genocide was a unique kind of genocide.

Secondly, why should it matter if the nation is civilised or not? Should we not equally condemn genocide if performed in Cambodia or Rwanda?

Of course we should. The question is not who we should condemn - the question is how to address the historical, philisophical and yes theological questions raised by genocide. At one time there was an attempt at theodicy based on notions of historical progress - Yeah, bad stuff happens, but humans are moving to higher levels of civilation, and this is part of God's providence. The Nazi holocaust thus presented problems for both certain religious viewpoints,and certain secular viewpoints, that other genocides dont raise. To put it more simply - i can look at Rwanda and say "well its just those backward people - people like ME would never do such a thing" (not that would be a nice reaction, but its concievable) Its much harder to look at the Nazi holocaust that way.

So the Turks were justified in killing the Armenians for 'strategic reasons'?

That's pretty feeble. I'm sure the Nazis saw the Jews as threatening the 'strategic interests' of the state.

Of course the genocide against the Armenians was not justified. Im only stating that the Nazi holocaust reached a different level of horror, and not just because of numbers. (for a discussion of the holocaust and Nazi strategic interests I would again suggest "To mend the world" -sorry if this is sounding repetive, but Fackenheim really does address head on most of the points raised in this thread)

[Japher]

@Cali... unfortunately there is a lot to what you say that is correct.

I think the thing with the holocost in Germany was that Hitler used the hatred for the jews as leverage not only to take over the country, but half a continent as well. Also, most of the civilian germans claim to have had no idea that it was going on (yeah right)...

Compared to other genocidal acts I don't think it weighs any heavier, and that despite the hype of it by Jews in the media or with deep pockets from which to build monuments and movies too, is more tragic in the sense that it was used as a successful vehicle to power in recent times... effecting more lives than just those of the persecuted and the persecuters.

Just the idea that one can govern power through hate, and transplant that hate into those who follow to such a state that they can take over a whole continent! Then, in the wake of that powers destruction to still have groups that idolize such power and perpetuate the hate in such numbers...

The Holocost, IMO, is not only about the needless murders of countless inocents but also about an end to the innocence of democracy and western "civilization" as we once knew it.

[Ned]

It seems to me that the teacher is trying to de-emphasize the Holocost. Why?

[Ned]

Question, is a non Israeli Jew safe in an Arab country? If not, are not the Arabs as quilty as the Nazi's of race hatred?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned
Question, is a non Israeli Jew safe in an Arab country? If not, are not the Arabs as quilty as the Nazi's of race hatred?

Safe is relative. A non-Israeli jew wont be subject to state implemented murder in any arab country i can think of. Even in Saudi he'll be shown the door, not murdered. Ergo, the answer to your question is no.

[Ned]

Also, I agree that the enslavement and discrimination against blacks in this country was very much like the Holocost.

[Chemical Ollie]

In Sweden a new anti-genocide agency has recently been founded, with a task to educate and inform. Now the left-wing party has protested because the agency is also talking about Stalin's victims. Nuts, heh?

[Japher]

Also, I agree that the enslavement and discrimination against blacks in this country was very much like the Holocost.

Now that's something to think about. At this juncture I would have to disagree insofarasmuch Nazi Germany's only use for jews was foder where as we used slaves for more than just target practice.

[Snotty]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

1. The Nazi holocaust is unique, because it was out of historical charecter. It was commited by one of the most advanced, civilized peoples on the planet - and against a minority that was largely accepted prior to the 1930's. It is therefore that much more shocking, and raises different issues about human nature and history than other genocides.

AFAIK Jews were not widely accepted pre-1930. Anti semetism has been widespread for many centuries, at least. Shylock in the merchant of venice was an example of how people at the time felt Jews were selfish and greedy.

~1907 the zionist congress was formed to find an area for the jewish state as widespread persecution. Jews were considered second rate citizens in most countries.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Snotty


AFAIK Jews were not widely accepted pre-1930. Anti semetism has been widespread for many centuries, at least. Shylock in the merchant of venice was an example of how people at the time felt Jews were selfish and greedy.

~1907 the zionist congress was formed to find an area for the jewish state as widespread persecution. Jews were considered second rate citizens in most countries.

Jews in Germany had full legal rights, the same as all other citizens. Now Germany (like other western countries) wasnt open to unlimited numbers of Jews from Russia, and so a state was called for as a haven. But it was not expected at the time that German Jews would need such a haven themselves.

[Az]

the same people that think that black people are inferior are also the ones to claim that the holocaust is "overhyped by jews in the media".

Coinsidence?

I don't think so.

[Snotty]

LoTM I must have misunderstood your comment above, and your bolt from the blue one. You seemed to imply that it was a suprise the jews were targeted. I find it no more suprising than targeting the other disliked minoritys.

[Caligastia]

Actually, I'm on the jew's side in most things - like Israel v Pals for example.

[Ben Kenobi]

LoTM:

To put it more simply - i can look at Rwanda and say "well its just those backward people - people like ME would never do such a thing" (not that would be a nice reaction, but its concievable) Its much harder to look at the Nazi holocaust that way.

I think you need to read more of Joseph Conrad if you think you can make such blithe distinctions between 'civilised' nations and uncivilised ones.

"And this also," said Marlow suddenly, "has been one of
the dark places of the earth."

Heart of Darkness

but humans are moving to higher levels of civilisation, and this is part of God's providence.

How then do you interpret the Tower of Babel? Progress is not intrisically good in itself. In fact, I doubt that through our own means we can improve people at all.

2. For all the horrors of stalinism, there is no case I know of where he attempted to exterminate a group defined by birth to the last individidual the way the Nazis did.

Define 'Group' and we can proceed.