Tweet
This is an interesting question, one which I find to be much closer than most here. I'm going to use the U.S.-Native American experience as my comparison, as it's the one with which I'm most familiar.
First of all, I think that there are some similarities between the Holocaust and the U.S.' treatment of Indians. Others have rightly pointed out that the Holocaust was killing for killing's sake, an attempted extermination of a people. People should not overlook the fact that such thinking was present in the U.S. Remember General Sheridan's mantra "The only good Indian is a dead Indian"? Many Americans believed that the Indians were lower forms of life, and that slaughtering them would make civilization better off. There were dozens of Indian massacres in the U.S. in which Indian men, women, and children were killed off just because they were Indians. I've read firsthand accounts of pioneers & settlers killing Indians for sport. Even peaceful Indians were slaughtered. Then there were the direct efforts to slaughter the Indians' food sources, the efforts Small pox blankets, etc. All in all, extermination, while not the primary goal of most Americans or the U.S. government, it certainly was contemplated by many and was advocated (and practiced) by some.
There are a few crucial differences. First of all, many of the biological theories of racism that underpinned Nazi ideology were only in their infancy as the U.S.-Indian wars drew to a close. There was a general sense of the superiority of the whites, but it hasn't been refined to a "science" justifying why the Indians should all be destroyed. Thus, it was a harder sell to the average person. Secondly, the U.S. of the time lacked the mass politics, mass communications, and industrial infrastructure that was present in Nazi Germany. Those who advocated exterminating the Indians couldn't have as great of an popular impact as the Nazis could 60 years later. Third, the European hatred for Jews had a much older basis than did the White hatred for Indians, which created a more fertile ground for extermination.
The U.S. extermination efforts weren't as intense as the Nazi extermination efforts. Nor did they recieve as much official support as the Nazi efforts. They were still present. If we have to compare the two, then it looks as though the Holocaust was worse. However, things may have been different if the Indian wars took place in the 1930s, a time when the prevailing pseudo-scientific and political culture fostered an atmosphere in which genocide was a viable option, and a technologically advanced industrial base to make the genocide easier.
The more interesting parallel is between the U.S.' treatment of the Indians while fulfilling its Manifest Destiny and the Nazis' plans for the Slavs after the war. I really don't see a difference between the two, other than the fact that the Slavs were more "civilized" than the Indians. The U.S. believed itself to be culturally superior to the Natives, and believed that it was entitled to the Natives' land. They took every bit of land that they wanted, then forced the Indians into reservations built on land that the U.S. didn't want. When the U.S. wanted the land on which the reservations were built, they simply relocated the Indians to a new reservation. This was justified because the people of the U.S. were superior to the Indians in every way.
The Nazis were planning to do the same things to the Slavs using the same justifications. The Slavs lived on lands that the Germans wanted, and they felt entitled to that land because they believef that German race and culture was superior to that of the Slavs. After the war, most Slavs would be relocated to reservations on the other side of the Urals. If the Nazis would have discovered resources on the Slavs' reservations, then they would have taken that land and moved them elsewhere. The Germans believed that they were justified in doing this this because the Germans were better than the Slavs in every way.
I guess that was just a long winded way to say "The Holocaust was worse, but the U.S. treatment of the Indians was, by modern standards, pretty damn bad."
First of all, I think that there are some similarities between the Holocaust and the U.S.' treatment of Indians. Others have rightly pointed out that the Holocaust was killing for killing's sake, an attempted extermination of a people. People should not overlook the fact that such thinking was present in the U.S. Remember General Sheridan's mantra "The only good Indian is a dead Indian"? Many Americans believed that the Indians were lower forms of life, and that slaughtering them would make civilization better off. There were dozens of Indian massacres in the U.S. in which Indian men, women, and children were killed off just because they were Indians. I've read firsthand accounts of pioneers & settlers killing Indians for sport. Even peaceful Indians were slaughtered. Then there were the direct efforts to slaughter the Indians' food sources, the efforts Small pox blankets, etc. All in all, extermination, while not the primary goal of most Americans or the U.S. government, it certainly was contemplated by many and was advocated (and practiced) by some.
There are a few crucial differences. First of all, many of the biological theories of racism that underpinned Nazi ideology were only in their infancy as the U.S.-Indian wars drew to a close. There was a general sense of the superiority of the whites, but it hasn't been refined to a "science" justifying why the Indians should all be destroyed. Thus, it was a harder sell to the average person. Secondly, the U.S. of the time lacked the mass politics, mass communications, and industrial infrastructure that was present in Nazi Germany. Those who advocated exterminating the Indians couldn't have as great of an popular impact as the Nazis could 60 years later. Third, the European hatred for Jews had a much older basis than did the White hatred for Indians, which created a more fertile ground for extermination.
The U.S. extermination efforts weren't as intense as the Nazi extermination efforts. Nor did they recieve as much official support as the Nazi efforts. They were still present. If we have to compare the two, then it looks as though the Holocaust was worse. However, things may have been different if the Indian wars took place in the 1930s, a time when the prevailing pseudo-scientific and political culture fostered an atmosphere in which genocide was a viable option, and a technologically advanced industrial base to make the genocide easier.
The more interesting parallel is between the U.S.' treatment of the Indians while fulfilling its Manifest Destiny and the Nazis' plans for the Slavs after the war. I really don't see a difference between the two, other than the fact that the Slavs were more "civilized" than the Indians. The U.S. believed itself to be culturally superior to the Natives, and believed that it was entitled to the Natives' land. They took every bit of land that they wanted, then forced the Indians into reservations built on land that the U.S. didn't want. When the U.S. wanted the land on which the reservations were built, they simply relocated the Indians to a new reservation. This was justified because the people of the U.S. were superior to the Indians in every way.
The Nazis were planning to do the same things to the Slavs using the same justifications. The Slavs lived on lands that the Germans wanted, and they felt entitled to that land because they believef that German race and culture was superior to that of the Slavs. After the war, most Slavs would be relocated to reservations on the other side of the Urals. If the Nazis would have discovered resources on the Slavs' reservations, then they would have taken that land and moved them elsewhere. The Germans believed that they were justified in doing this this because the Germans were better than the Slavs in every way.
I guess that was just a long winded way to say "The Holocaust was worse, but the U.S. treatment of the Indians was, by modern standards, pretty damn bad."
Comment