Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Holocaust and Historiographical Issues

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by chegitz guevara
    Originally posted by Ben Kenobi




    Cambodia:

    1. Complete eradication of certain individuals. (by education)


    You aren't educated by birth. It's something you chose to have. You don't (often) choose to be a Jew or a Roma. Furthermore, they did not try and kill off intellectuals in other countries.

    2. Organised by the state, eg systematic.


    The widely believed two million deaths mark was a flip comment made by a French journalist in the 1970s, who was in no position to know. It has since come to be accepted as gospel. AFAIK, the only attempt to try and find out how many people died under KR rule was by the CIA, who estimated that about 40,000 were died in the killing fields. The organized killing was actually very small.

    Assuming the CIA was wrong, most of the deaths came from starvation. The starvation was caused by people by lowered productivity, which occured when the US bombed the bejeezuz out of Cambodia in the early 1970s and Cambodea went from an grain exporting country to a grain importing one. This led to the instability which enabled the KR to topple Lon Nol (Sihanok having been overthrown by LN). Factor in the complete stupidity of cutting yourself off from the outside world and you have a great recipe for famine.

    3. Efficient, you still cannot find doctors today of a certain age.


    Not efficient. They determined who was or was not an intellectual by looking at their hands or if they had eye glasses.
    The lowest estimates that I've seen indicate that about a million were killed. You can't just choose the ones who were murdered out of hand, because between the panic that that caused and the starvation of people under direct government control the numbers increase dramatically as you say. By comparison U.S. Indian policy was nearly faultless.

    As for Sianhouk's regime, the reason Lon Nol and a lot of others wanted to overthrow him is that he allowed the NVA to take over the Eastern third of his country. Not only did this directly impact the economy negatively, but it brought about a belated reaction from the Americans and South Vietnamese as well. Sianhouk was also allowing his ports to supply NVA forces directly, from Pnom Pen to the Parrot's Beak area by truck. This was the last straw for the U.S. Sianhouk was a scumbag and it is a shame that he managed to survive so many years after he destroyed his own country by trying to be slick.
    Last edited by Sikander; October 16, 2003, 04:56.
    He's got the Midas touch.
    But he touched it too much!
    Hey Goldmember, Hey Goldmember!

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by MrFun
      I would appreciate more thoughts from my last post . . .
      So would I.

      He's got the Midas touch.
      But he touched it too much!
      Hey Goldmember, Hey Goldmember!

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by MrFun
        Ok -- thanks for your thoughts.

        But I also thought about something else . . . .

        To what extent did a number of Jews felt that they could only survive by helping administer the ghettos and concentration camps of Nazi Germany? Such as the kapos, for instance.
        They were only deluding themselves by thinking they were indispenable in the eyes of the SS and other staff.
        Many weren't deluding themselves at all. A fair percentage of the camp survivors worked for the camps, and it is from many of them that we learned the grisly details of how the camps worked. For a good book on this subject (a personal narrative rather than a study) I suggest "This Way for the Gas Ladies and Gentlemen", by Tadeusz Borowski.

        Here's a link to a very short biography of the author:

        He's got the Midas touch.
        But he touched it too much!
        Hey Goldmember, Hey Goldmember!

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by TCO
          No. He is trying to get them to THINK. And to examine the ways in which history can be slanted and/or used for political purposes. I have been after Fun's cherry azz to take historiography for a while.
          If I'm posting here then Counterglow must be down.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Timexwatch
            Just an observation....

            Has anyone noticed that the term "Holocaust" used to mean specifically mean the Nazi Holocaust perpetrated against Jews, Gays, Political Dissenters and other groups is now being used by everyone under the sun to describe situations of much smaller magnitude? I'm beginning to think that other terms, like Shoah, should be used in order to specifically differentiate the Nazi Holocaust from other "holocausts". In attempting to put it in context, it seems to have been people have lost their perspective.
            There are other reasons to not use the word holocaust. Holocaust is a greek word, used in translations of the bible, meaning a sacrifice that is completely destroyed. The use of a word for sacrifice in this context is troubling. The Hebrew "shoah" means simply "disaster".
            "A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Heresson


              It was not out of context. Were the Germans one of the most civiolised nations, it is a matter of discussion.
              But since XIX century, they were in much part heavily nationalistic, and that their hatred turned to Jews may be some suprise, but their general behaviour doesn't have to be completely suprising
              they may have been nationalistic (notably towards Poles ) but this does not mean they inclined towards mass murder. Even Daniel Goldhagen, who claims (in his controversial "Ordinary Germans" ) that "exterminationist antisemitism" was part of pre-Nazi German culture, essentially discusses the situation during the 1920's, NOT pre-1914.
              "A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by MrFun
                good point . . . .
                No it isn't. Holocaust means firestorm, not genocide. The word Holocaust is applied specifically to the Nazi genocide because of the ovens.
                Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Caligastia
                  The holocaust is probably over-hyped in America because some of the powerful media outlets here are controlled by jews.
                  Well that's spoiled my sunny good mood. How exactly do you "overhype" the systematic murder of 6 million innocent people?
                  The genesis of the "evil Finn" concept- Evil, evil Finland

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    By comparison U.S. Indian policy was nearly faultless.
                    Similar actions, similar attitude, just different numbers.

                    You could have signed treaties rather than killing them wholesale. Most of Canada did that except for my own home province.
                    Scouse Git (2) La Fayette Adam Smith Solomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
                    "Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
                    2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp


                      Well that's spoiled my sunny good mood. How exactly do you "overhype" the systematic murder of 6 million innocent people?
                      10 to 11 million, Laz. Don't forget the non-Jews who died in the Holocaust.
                      Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Cambodia and ethnic genocide

                        From the report the UN group of experts



                        "35. Finally, scholars and Governments have offered differing totals for the number of Cambodians killed by the Khmer Rouge. Scholars have separately arrived at figures of 1.5 million and nearly 1.7 million.4 There was a sharp disparity among victim groups. One study posits close to a 100 per cent death rate for rural and urban ethnic Vietnamese, 25 per cent for urban and rural Khmer "new people", and 15 per cent for rural Khmer "base people".5 Overall, the various estimates point to a death rate of approximately 20 per cent of the April 1975 population of 7.3 to 7.9 million people. Historians of Cambodia have rejected the figure of 2 to 3 million that has often been used by the Governments in Cambodia since 1979, as well as in some popular accounts.'"



                        Note well: "One study posits close to a 100 per cent death rate for rural and urban ethnic Vietnamese,"
                        "A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Azazel


                          Is it because we're whiter?
                          Arafat is probably the whitest guy I've ever seen.
                          CSPA

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            cambodia: principle cause of death

                            From the report of the UN group of experts


                            "The misery caused by the methods used by the Khmer Rouge in implementing its policy of transforming the Cambodian economy constituted the single largest source of deaths during the Khmer Rouge period. Starvation, disease and physical exhaustion, caused by overwork and inadequate food, medicine and sanitation, killed hundreds of thousands. According to witness reports, the Khmer Rouge overseers also routinely killed many thousands who refused or could no longer work, often murdering their family members as well."
                            "A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Caligastia

                              quote:
                              Originally posted by lord of the mark


                              It was probably even more true in the 1950's, when said outlets tended to ignore the holocaust.


                              Really? I wonder why that was? Perhaps victim status wasn't as desirable back then as it is now.
                              Israel didn't get as much criticism for their treatment of the Palestinians back then either.



                              Critics: "Hey that was a bit too brutal"
                              Israel: "6 million"
                              Critics: "Oh. Carry on."

                              OK I'm exaggerating here but I think there's some truth to it.
                              CSPA

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Gangerolf


                                Israel didn't get as much criticism for their treatment of the Palestinians back then either.



                                Critics: "Hey that was a bit too brutal"
                                Israel: "6 million"
                                Critics: "Oh. Carry on."

                                OK I'm exaggerating here but I think there's some truth to it.
                                BS. First, this started, IIUC, in the early '60s, before the occupation of the west bank and Gaza. Secondly, to the extent 1967 got Jews thinking more about the holocaust, it was the danger to ISRAEL in 1967, when it was feared (inaccurately as it turned out) that Israel could lose and a new holocaust happen.

                                Israeli actions wrt to the Pals are justified (or not) by the actions of the Pals, not by the events of 1939-45 (though those do underscore the need for Israeli security) Certainly no Israeli govt prior to 1977 (when Begin was elected) used anything even resembling the above rhetorical strategy. And even Begin, though very aware of the Holocaust and often using it in his rhetoric, never AFAIK justified an admitted brutality that way. What you have stated is not merely an exaggeration, but, AFAIK, a slander.
                                "A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X