According to the victims of the Nakba, S.A.M.'s bad breath is a result of her diet of human babies.
History of the Holocaust
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
- Status
According to the victims of the Nakba, S.A.M.'s bad breath is a result of her diet of human babies.
Quite possible. However its not relevant to this discussion.
Your interpretation of their testimony is bullshit.SAM said:
No. Rethink your assumptions.SAM said:
You aren't paying attention - they weren't a mere "subset" of that 66 million, they were in a new and unusual category of genocide. The efforts against them and the circumstances of their persecution were unique - still are. Other people can see this easily. And your failure to perceive clear and relevant differences, lumping all those dead into one "genocide" pile (along with the dead in Iraq and other completely different categories), is more than a little unsavoury itself, especially when you then use it to disparage "the Jews", and assign "the Jews" various moral flaws and cultural defects of character. The particular kind of ulterior motive or social conditioning that implies is regrettably familiar to any Westerner. It's nasty stuff.SAM said:
I referred to the Germans. If you want to deal with the issue raised, now's the time.SAM said:
Tell that to my father, who was in that war, and be prepared to have it back in a hurry.SAM said:
Okay, why don't you try it?
Here are testimonies from several different camps:
http://fcit.usf.edu/holocaust/gallery/11548.htm
http://mondoweiss.net/2009/01/jewish-resistance-fighters-also-iced-collaborators.html#hide
http://www.israelversusjudaism.org/holocaust/chapter-10.cfm
"Lumping all those dead into one genocide pile"
Some genocides being more special than others? More deserving of recognition? Or others being less deserving? Whats with the exceptionalism?
As someone who comes from a country where the colonials starved people as a matter of policy, its puzzling why one or the other genocide is more "valuable".
Why does it matter? Whats the reason for recognising one genocide over others? What is the lesson to be learned from considering the death of 6 million as more deserving of recognition than all those 60 million not worth a second look? What makes those 60 million people less relevant to you?
No thanks not interested in family stories. I prefer to go by the treatment of refugees instead.
Last edited:
i would take the bullet
there comes a time in life when you will not bend on your principles. this is one of them. if i do rape my daughter, i do not expect absolution from anyone
what if you force me to kill my daughter at gunpoint? her life for mine? is that not a better analogy of what the judenrat were actually trading their survival for? the death of other jews?
in a future holocaust would you consider this an honorable alternative? sending your jewish neighbors to the gas chamber so you can survive?
i would be ashamed
obviously not you
/spits
Which you haven't commented on so far... But again: the point of pointing out that there were collaborators - few enough, really - with the Nazis is - what? That Jews were actually bad because collaborators existed? What should one then say about Iraq or Afghanistan, by way of parallel?
Yes.
Homosexuals:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,555665,00.html
http://www.ilga-europe.org/europe/p..._victims_of_nazi_regime_in_berlin_27_may_2008
"Gypsies"
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=6495834
Elaborate
You asked whether or not any other group-specific memorials existed. They do. Which argument would you like to make?
No. That's not it.SAM said:
Well, it's not that difficult. Think a minute. Hints: high tech engineered killing facilities and disposal ovens. Fellow members of the very society, diffused throughout it. Economic cost, crippling of important national efforts. Western industrialized country killing its own, not enemies or "natives". Actual genocide, not mass murder of the rebellious or the like.SAM said:
The interest being that of Western industrialized countries, the relevance direct.
Find another such. Name it.
Try what? Just don't do it.SAM said:
Precision weaponry? Collateral damages? We don't do body counts?
Is that the lesson from the holocaust?
Exactly
So whats the lesson then?
What are people learning from exceptionalising the death of 6 million from 60 million nondescript nobodies?
thanks for echoing jewish anti-polonism. I suggest you get your facts straight before you start shitting on people.
yes they were. the jews weren't a special case merely one group of many. yes they were the only large group geared up for but evidence suggests that wasn't because they were the only ones but because the nazis weren't able to get the infrastructure for their other targets in place.
That depends, on how you define brutal
What separates a victim from an attention seeker?
still tho, shit is complicated. take gens for example.......
utterly utterly unenviable position
/weeps
“It is true that our hands are smeared with the blood of our brethren, but we had to accept this horrible task. We are innocent before history. We shall be on the alert to preserve the remnants. Who can tell whether victims will not be demanded here [in Vilna] as they were demanded there [in Oszmiana]? We shall give only the sick and the old. We shall not give the children; they are our future…The Jewish police took no part [in the aktion] in Kiemieliszki and Bystrzyca, so all were slaughtered [there]… After five million have been slaughtered, it is our duty to save the strong and the young and not let sentiment overcome us… We all want to live to leave the ghetto. Today, as we work, it may be that not many of the Jews fully comprehend the danger in which we operate. None of us can know how many times every day he could get to Ponary… Today we must just be strong. Those who have faith will say: the Almighty will aid us. Those who have no faith must ask the aid of the spirit of Jewish patriotism and public feeling. To survive it all and to remain, after the ghetto, a human being fit for the great Jewish future… I personally take responsibility for all that has happened. I don't want any discussion. I have called you to explain why a Jew dips his hands in blood, and that in the future, whenever we have to go, we shall go too.”
*Judaism taught that if it was demanded that one Jew be unjustly surrendered to an enemy in order to be put to death otherwise all Jews would be killed, the Jews should all suffer death rather than surrender one of their number. When, in November 1941, more than 1,000 Vilna Jews were killed in an aktion, and a group of rabbis told Gens that he had no right to select Jews and hand them over to the Germans to be killed, Gens' was unrepentant. He later said: “I, Gens, lead you to death, and I, Gens, want to save Jews from death. I, Gens, order hideouts to be blown up, and I, Gens try to get certificates, work and benefits for the ghetto. I render the account of Jewish blood and not the account of Jewish honour… When they ask me for a thousand Jews, I hand them over; for if we Jews will not give them on our own, the Germans will come and take them by force. Then they will take not one thousand, but thousands. With hundreds, I save a thousand. With the thousands that I hand over, I save ten thousand. I will say: I did everything in order to save as many Jews as possible…..to ensure that at least a remnant of Jews survive.”
*Judaism taught that if it was demanded that one Jew be unjustly surrendered to an enemy in order to be put to death otherwise all Jews would be killed, the Jews should all suffer death rather than surrender one of their number. When, in November 1941, more than 1,000 Vilna Jews were killed in an aktion, and a group of rabbis told Gens that he had no right to select Jews and hand them over to the Germans to be killed, Gens' was unrepentant. He later said: “I, Gens, lead you to death, and I, Gens, want to save Jews from death. I, Gens, order hideouts to be blown up, and I, Gens try to get certificates, work and benefits for the ghetto. I render the account of Jewish blood and not the account of Jewish honour… When they ask me for a thousand Jews, I hand them over; for if we Jews will not give them on our own, the Germans will come and take them by force. Then they will take not one thousand, but thousands. With hundreds, I save a thousand. With the thousands that I hand over, I save ten thousand. I will say: I did everything in order to save as many Jews as possible…..to ensure that at least a remnant of Jews survive.”
utterly utterly unenviable position
/weeps
Musichascolors
Registered Member
Mondoweiss is an extremist blog, "IsraelaginstJudaism" sounds like a ridiculous website.
Do you have any support for what you say that comes from legitimate sources?
Do you have any support for what you say that comes from legitimate sources?
Gens understood better than most what the future held. He told a young partisan in the Vilna ghetto: “The ghetto is a world alone, a special world. The ghetto is a death chamber which holds men, women and little children. The death sentence has already been pronounced but not yet carried out, and the final date is not known.” But he also attempted to vindicate himself before the bar of history, declaring: “I will say: I did everything in order to save as many Jews as possible…to usher them to freedom. To ensure that at least a remnant of Jews survive, I myself had to lead Jews to death; and in order to have people emerge with a clean conscience, I had to befoul myself and act without conscience.”
It was a questionable philosophy. As Samuel Esterowicz wrote: “I came to the conclusion (as did many others) that Gens was a man stripped of any moral standards long before his treacherous role became obvious to most of us… In defence of Gens' shameful deeds one often hears the argument that if not he but the Germans had carried out the aktionen, it would have been worse. I ask: worse for whom? Certainly not for the many thousands who Gens and the police acting on his orders sent to their deaths. In this case worse off could be only those who, by pushing others to their deaths, had hoped to save their own lives, a hope in which they turned out to be cruelly wrong… Faced with the demand of the Germans to furnish them with victims, without hesitation Gens seized the right given to nobody - to decide who of us should stay alive and who should die and then to deliver the victims to the executioners.”
Not all shared this view. Grisha Shur wrote in his diary after Gens' death: “… If Gens had supporters and opponents – there were no longer two opinions, nor any who hated him… Virtually all understood that the ghetto had lost… a man of wide vision and great understanding of historical moments…” And Chaim Lazar, a leading member of the FPO, wrote: “The hearts of the Jews mourn the tragedy of Gens…. All that he did during his tenure as chief of the ghetto was for his people… Everyone knows that Gens had many opportunities to save himself… but he renounced his personal safety to devote himself to the ghetto. He believed in his ability, and was convinced to the last moment that he would be able to save the remnants [of the ghetto].”
Perhaps Yitzhak Arad delivered the most charitable verdict on Gens. “In the prevailing conditions,” he wrote, “the policy laid down by Jacob Gens was the only one that afforded hope and some prospect of survival. But even this failed, and the fact that the ghetto was productive did not spare it from liquidation.”
It was a questionable philosophy. As Samuel Esterowicz wrote: “I came to the conclusion (as did many others) that Gens was a man stripped of any moral standards long before his treacherous role became obvious to most of us… In defence of Gens' shameful deeds one often hears the argument that if not he but the Germans had carried out the aktionen, it would have been worse. I ask: worse for whom? Certainly not for the many thousands who Gens and the police acting on his orders sent to their deaths. In this case worse off could be only those who, by pushing others to their deaths, had hoped to save their own lives, a hope in which they turned out to be cruelly wrong… Faced with the demand of the Germans to furnish them with victims, without hesitation Gens seized the right given to nobody - to decide who of us should stay alive and who should die and then to deliver the victims to the executioners.”
Not all shared this view. Grisha Shur wrote in his diary after Gens' death: “… If Gens had supporters and opponents – there were no longer two opinions, nor any who hated him… Virtually all understood that the ghetto had lost… a man of wide vision and great understanding of historical moments…” And Chaim Lazar, a leading member of the FPO, wrote: “The hearts of the Jews mourn the tragedy of Gens…. All that he did during his tenure as chief of the ghetto was for his people… Everyone knows that Gens had many opportunities to save himself… but he renounced his personal safety to devote himself to the ghetto. He believed in his ability, and was convinced to the last moment that he would be able to save the remnants [of the ghetto].”
Perhaps Yitzhak Arad delivered the most charitable verdict on Gens. “In the prevailing conditions,” he wrote, “the policy laid down by Jacob Gens was the only one that afforded hope and some prospect of survival. But even this failed, and the fact that the ghetto was productive did not spare it from liquidation.”
If Phil Weiss is an extremist, Gandhi was a terrorist.
- Status