The holocaust..

[hbarcat]

That is sadly true.
In places like the US, people are overwhelmingly not raised on hate so we're repulsed by the notion of mass hate. Unfortunately, in the process we often fail to acknowledge places where people really are.
When a population is indoctrinated with real hate (political, ethnic, racial or religious), genocide can be instigated.

IMO, antisemitism worldwide is growing at an alarming rate and I see many similarities between now and pre WWII. Here in the U.S. we are not immune and I see growing hatred toward Jews coming from a not insignificant minority among Christians, Muslims and other religions and even from atheists who want to single out and scapegoat Jews as being somehow "worse" than the followers of other religions.

It's true most people aren't raised "to hate" but when there is an undercurrent of "dislike" toward a group, then it becomes a possibility that when those who do actively hate start to carry out their plans of extermination, it's a lot easier to stand by and just watch it happen.

I think it's a sad historical note that the United States wasn't concerned enough about the atrocities being committed by the Nazis to actually do something about it until we were forced to take sides by the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor.

 

[hbarcat]

I am hopeful that we will see less ethnic cleansing in the 21. century than in the 20. century, but it is impossible to say.

I'm trying to think of a century that didn't have ethnic cleansing, and lots of it. History books describe this as happening somewhere during any given generation from the beginning of recorded history up to our present generation.

I don't know what any hope of the 21st century having less genocide would rationally be based on.

 

[Norwegianwood]

IMO, antisemitism worldwide is growing at an alarming rate and I see many similarities between now and pre WWII.

Antisemitism is still widespread, especially among muslims, but I think the situation is in few ways comparable to the inter-war years. By that time antisemitism was deeply entrenched many societies, it was an integral part of nation-building in European countries. But it took a totalitarian system to execute Holocaust. Today we have neither the same kind of antisemitism, nor the totalitarian state.

 

[mvw356]

regarding the israeli palestinian conflict, some of you guys should reread the definition of genocide. a wall with some barbed wire has got nothing to do with genocide or the holocaust.

props to norwegianwood for being the first one to differentiate between holocaust and genocide. they are not the same thing. the holocaust is genocide, but not every genocide is a holocaust (actaully there is only one). walking through a country with a kalashnikov and killing anything that moves or you don't like is not the same as building up an industrialized system to exterminate people. industrialized mass murder is not going to happen again, at least i hope so. 'genocide' takes place as we speak and will continue to take place.

 

[Norwegianwood]

I'm trying to think of a century that didn't have ethnic cleansing, and lots of it. History books describe this as happening somewhere during any given generation from the beginning of recorded history up to our present generation.

I don't know what any hope of the 21st century having less genocide would rationally be based on.

Well, that's the beauty of hope, isn't it?

But let's try anyway: I think it's plausible to believe that the 21st century will have less genocide than the 20th, not that there will be no genocide. That is not a very optimistic prediction, is it?

 

[vene-nemesis]

regarding the israeli palestinian conflict, some of you guys should reread the definition of genocide. a wall with some barbed wire has got nothing to do with genocide or the holocaust.

props to norwegianwood for being the first one to differentiate between holocaust and genocide. they are not the same thing. the holocaust is genocide, but not every genocide is a holocaust (actaully there is only one). walking through a country with a kalashnikov and killing anything that moves or you don't like is not the same as building up an industrialized system to exterminate people. industrialized mass murder is not going to happen again, at least i hope so. 'genocide' takes place as we speak and will continue to take place.

Thats just semantics... in the end both examples mean killing ppl you dont like for absolutely no other reason than nonsensical hatred.

 

[hbarcat]

Well, that's the beauty of hope, isn't it?

But let's try anyway: I think it's plausible to believe that the 21st century will have less genocide than the 20th, not that there will be no genocide. That is not a very optimistic prediction, is it?

Fair enough. If I had to lay odds I would say there is about a 50% chance that there will be less genocide in the 21st century than during the 20th.

 

[hbarcat]

props to norwegianwood for being the first one to differentiate between holocaust and genocide. they are not the same thing. the holocaust is genocide, but not every genocide is a holocaust (actaully there is only one). walking through a country with a kalashnikov and killing anything that moves or you don't like is not the same as building up an industrialized system to exterminate people. industrialized mass murder is not going to happen again, at least i hope so. 'genocide' takes place as we speak and will continue to take place.

Good point.

I would pose this hypothetical question: If the government from a single country made an announcement that it wanted to exterminate the Jews because it believed they simply didn't deserve to live, and this government then launched nuclear missiles that succeeded in killing every single person in Israel, can we justifiably refer to this as a 2nd holocaust?

 

[hbarcat]

Antisemitism is still widespread, especially among muslims, but I think the situation is in few ways comparable to the inter-war years. By that time antisemitism was deeply entrenched many societies, it was an integral part of nation-building in European countries. But it took a totalitarian system to execute Holocaust. Today we have neither the same kind of antisemitism, nor the totalitarian state.

Neither did Germany until after 1933. Hitler was appointed to his post rather than elected and only gained power through the death of President Paul von Hindenburg. The Nazi program of Gleichschaltung ("bringing into line") followed and the once healthy German democracy was replaced rather quickly with a dictatorship.

The sequence of events that allowed the holocaust to happen was convoluted and anything but inevitable. I would guess that if you asked anyone in Germany in 1930 if they thought that millions of German citizens as well as millions in other countries would be rounded up and exterminated they would have said it was impossible. Yet it happened.

 

[Norwegianwood]

Neither did Germany until after 1933.

Well, I don't entirely agree. I would say that modern antisemitism developed during the late 19. and early 20. century, and was by 1933 already deeply entrenched in German society. This antisemitism was a necessary precondition for holocaust. It was not sufficient, because as I said it took a totalitarian state to execute it. While it is not impossible (but imho implausible), that pre-war-like antisemitism will flourish in Europe anytime soon, it is very unlikely that a state capable to execute a holocaust will come about. In this sense, the current situation in Europe is not comparable to the inter-war years. The European Union is not the Weimar Republic.

The sequence of events that allowed the holocaust to happen was convoluted and anything but inevitable.

I certainly agree to this. Take Poland, a country where rabid antisemitism was even more widespread than Germany. But it was never a country in which a holocaust could be organized. Both antisemitism and totalitarianism was necessary conditions to holocaust.

 

[Norwegianwood]

Thats just semantics... in the end both examples mean killing ppl you dont like for absolutely no other reason than nonsensical hatred.

In the end you are probably right. What counts is the amount of suffering - and the number of people dead.

But to me there's something particularly chilling about holocaust. It is such a gruesome evidence of human capacity. Chopping people up with machetes is so animalish. True - humans are animals, but we are also somehow rational animals. And I think holocaust is just that - the work of a rational animal. It freaks me out.

 

[hbarcat]

Well, I don't entirely agree. I would say that modern antisemitism developed during the late 19. and early 20. century, and was by 1933 already deeply entrenched in German society. This antisemitism was a necessary precondition for holocaust. It was not sufficient, because as I said it took a totalitarian state to execute it. While it is not impossible (but imho implausible), that pre-war-like antisemitism will flourish in Europe anytime soon, it is very unlikely that a state capable to execute a holocaust will come about. In this sense, the current situation in Europe is not comparable to the inter-war years. The European Union is not the Weimar Republic.

Good points, and I think your take on this is probably more applicable to the OP than what I posted.

But to me there's something particularly chilling about holocaust. It is such a gruesome evidence of human capacity. Chopping people up with machetes is so animal like. True - humans are animals, but we are also somehow rational animals. And I think holocaust is just that - a work of the rational animal. It freaks me out.

That's pretty insightful, IMO. I think few would neither appreciate nor care about the distinction between the genocide of one tribe of people slaughtering another tribe with machetes or one socio-economic group rounding up another group and putting them on trains so they can be efficiently gassed to death. But I believe the difference is important to our understanding of the human animal.

 

[Korladis]

That's the thing about the holocaust. It wasn't a crime of animal passion on a more massive scale. It was coldly executed with efficiency, resources and systems for slaughter carefully calculated.

It was calmly planned, by the side of the human mind that we think of as more reasonable. These top Nazis literally just sat around at a table, quite calm and not inflamed with anger or anything, and plotted out the systematic annihilation of a people. It's mind-boggling.

 

[kserg]

Whilst we can't discuss the details, suffice to say that, IMO, that is a very ignorant comment which could only be made by someone who doesn't really know much about the actual situation in the area or is so biased they simply don't care.

+1


To answer the original question of if it could happen now, the extermination camps.

When i TAed a class on holocaust few years ago, the teach at one point took out a photos of kids and adults in concentration camps and started to talk about them. After a while she asked the people in class where they think those pictures where taken... Everyone started to name the camps; Auschwitz II (Birkenau), Chełmno, Bełżec, Treblinka... basically all major camps were listed she then told them that location was Kosovo. That's 10 years ago.

I consider what's going on in the Chechnya by Russia to be something we should all worry about.

It's not on the same level, we are not seeing 12-14 million of people systematically murdered, but even if it is small numbers, it's horrible nevertheless.

 

[kserg]

That's the thing about the holocaust. It wasn't a crime of animal passion on a more massive scale. It was coldly executed with efficiency, resources and systems for slaughter carefully calculated.

Efficiency is not a good word to use there. If anything it was not efficient at all which is more scary because they kept on trying and trying and trying.

Concentration camps were a big lose of money for Germany, they've attacked other countries to get the money for the war machine and concentration/death camp efforts.

They did not have an efficient plan to kill off so many people. First death chambers were literally trucks with pipes going into the back cabin with people inside. It was slow and expensive. They have evolved their methods of killing but even in the end it was not efficient.
If you take a look at the development of camps, they were trying new methods of extermination the people all the time. None of them worked to what they expected. Most of machinery would brake down, they wasted so much money and effort on this nonsense, i personally believe this is a one of the reasons they lost the war.

 

[mvw356]

Good point.

I would pose this hypothetical question: If the government from a single country made an announcement that it wanted to exterminate the Jews because it believed they simply didn't deserve to live, and this government then launched nuclear missiles that succeeded in killing every single person in Israel, can we justifiably refer to this as a 2nd holocaust?

hard to say. i'm not particularly fond of these definitions of holocaust or genocide and i can't answer the hypothetical example you gave me. i would tend to call it genocide or mass murder, not holocaust because there is no industrialized mechanism behind it.

 

[mvw356]

Efficiency is not a good word to use there. If anything it was not efficient at all which is more scary because they kept on trying and trying and trying.

Concentration camps were a big lose of money for Germany, they've attacked other countries to get the money for the war machine and concentration/death camp efforts.

They did not have an efficient plan to kill off so many people. First death chambers were literally trucks with pipes going into the back cabin with people inside. It was slow and expensive. They have evolved their methods of killing but even in the end it was not efficient.
If you take a look at the development of camps, they were trying new methods of extermination the people all the time. None of them worked to what they expected. Most of machinery would brake down, they wasted so much money and effort on this nonsense, i personally believe this is a one of the reasons they lost the war.

huh? they killed millions in a very short period of time in an 'orderly fashion'. eficient is certainly a word i would use.

the nazis made money by killing the jews, and lot's of it.

 

[vene-nemesis]

huh? they killed millions in a very short period of time in an 'orderly fashion'. eficient is certainly a word i would use.

the nazis made money by killing the jews, and lot's of it.

I dont know if nazis did make a lot of money out of killing jews, but they were used as work force to build tanks and other war machinery before they were sent to the death chambers.

 

[Korladis]

Efficiency is not a good word to use there. If anything it was not efficient at all which is more scary because they kept on trying and trying and trying.

Concentration camps were a big lose of money for Germany, they've attacked other countries to get the money for the war machine and concentration/death camp efforts.

They did not have an efficient plan to kill off so many people. First death chambers were literally trucks with pipes going into the back cabin with people inside. It was slow and expensive. They have evolved their methods of killing but even in the end it was not efficient.
If you take a look at the development of camps, they were trying new methods of extermination the people all the time. None of them worked to what they expected. Most of machinery would brake down, they wasted so much money and effort on this nonsense, i personally believe this is a one of the reasons they lost the war.

But it was not a mindless, Id-driven slaughter. Of course there were bumps in their road, the obliteration of millions in a highly organized manner was a relatively new industry (in the highly organized bit, that is, humans have been destroying each other for petty reasons since the dawn of our species).

And of course, as another pointed out, they used them as slave labor. You can save a lot of money by not paying or caring at all for your workers.

They literally sat down at a table and had a conference over what to do with the Jews. And there, they decided, calmly, to murder them all.

 

[D.Don]

I just saw the movie The boy in the srtiped Pajamas, and after listening to slayer's Angel of Death and reading more about it i got really into learning more about what happened, sadly i regret some of it, there are a lot of stories that talk about solidarity and courage and stuff like that but there are many others that are heart breaking..

Anyway the point of this thread is, is there any chance of something like the holocaust happen again this day and age?

Discuss..

1994, Rwanda, 800 000-1000 000 people killed is the most obvious one, read more here about more disasters of this kind:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing#In_early_modern_history


D.Don