Posted on 01/25/2010 7:53:17 PM PST by smokingfrog
A leading Polish Catholic bishop caused a stir on Monday when he was quoted as saying that Jews had "expropriated" the Holocaust as a "propaganda weapon".
The comments by Bishop Tadeusz Pieronek, a former head of the Polish bishops' conference, prompted concern among Jewish leaders in both Poland and Italy after they were published on the conservative Italian Catholic website www.pontifex.roma.
Pieronek later went on Polish television to say his comments had been manipulated and he denied one phrase in which he was quoted as saying "the Holocaust as such is a Jewish invention".
He also said that he did not "authorise" the publication of the interview, which was still on the website on Monday evening.
"It is undeniable that the greatest number of dead in concentration camps were Jews but there are also Polish gypsies, Italians and Catholics on the list," he was quoted as saying.
On Wednesday some countries will mark International Holocaust Remembrance Day on the 65th anniversary of the liberation of the Nazi death camp at Auschwitz.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Polish President Lech Kaczynski and ministers from many European countries are due to attend commemorative events at Auschwitz on Wednesday.
"It is not right to expropriate that tragedy for propaganda," Pieronek was quoted as saying, adding that memorial days should be held for the "victims of communism, for Catholics, for persecuted Christians and so on."
He continued: "But they, the Jews, enjoy good press because they have powerful financial means behind them, enormous power and the unconditional backing of the United States and this favors a certain arrogance that I find unbearable."
(Excerpt) Read more at haaretz.com ...
If the examples are so plentiful you should have NO problem citing a few. That you can't only reinforces the vacuousness of your argument.
If the examples are so plentiful you should have NO problem citing a few. That you can’t only reinforces the vacuousness of your argument.
______________________
Tell me, NL, if I were to cite two or three examples, would you hear them? Would you give them due consideration? Could you even admit that you MIGHT be wrong (or the Roman Church might be wrong) in this or that particular circumstance?
If I read you wrong, please, forgive me. I don’t, however, get the sense that you believe the Catholic church has ever done anything exploitative in it’s dealings and ministries. And that’s fine — I just don’t want to waste your time — or mine.
Of course I would give them proper thought and consideration. I am not contending that the Catholic Church is now and has always been a reflection of the infinite perfection of God. It is an intuition made up of imperfect individuals.
Would you also consider that the Church has not always received fair treatment at the hands of non-Catholics and historians and would you agree that the Church has made a continual practice of trying to improve itself?
I’d like to see some examples from patriot preacher too.
Actually, no, you don't. You have a very superficial knowledge of it, based mainly on popular culture. You're also anti-Semitic, but that's another issue.
"What many eastern Europeans resent is the idea that the non-Jews are forgotten while today’s Jews promote Holocaust awareness - meaning really the suffering of Jews in the Holocaust."
Only eastern European anti-Semites harbor this resentment. Those who aren't blinded by bias, and who learn a little about the issue soon learn that even old books on the Holocaust, such as "The Destruction of the European Jews" by Raul Hilberg (1961) mentions other groups -- especially "Poles", "Slavs", and "Gypsies" -- many times.
"For obvious reasons homosexuals and Gypsies would have less reason or ability to do all of those things. Homosexuals would not want to expose themselves as such. Gypsies were dirt poor and scattered throughout Eastern Europe and never ended up with either a large immigration to the US or a newly founded Gypsy homeland."
You've been asleep for the past 30 years. In all major cities in the U.S., as well as in Europe, there are gay parades, gay clubs, gay travel agencies, gay movie theaters, "gay pride" days, openly gay actors, openly gay political candidates, etc. Gays, in general, also have a well deserved reputation for being well educated and literate. They LOVE to expose themselves. But in any case, your general argument, vis-a-vis gays, is ridiculous: if, as you apparently believe, gays don't want to tell the story of gay-suffering from Nazi atrocities to the public at large for fear of outing themselves and risking social ostracism and discrimination, then they certainly won't appreciate having the story told for them, about them, by a third-party such as straight Jews…why would they accept the risk of being outed by Jews as their story of suffering is told to the public, but not accept the same risk from outing themselves? Your argument is silly and makes no sense.
Regarding Gypsies: The Nazis had no certain knowledge of where the Gypsies came from, but they did generally believe that Gypsies were "blood relatives" of the Jews. All the more reason to exterminate them.
"CAN learn it. Most people don’t know it."
Most Americans don't know English grammar or trigonometry. So what. Nothing stands in the way of their learning anything except their own laziness or just plain lack of interest. You're lazy too, as I'll show at the end of this post. If this obvious state of affairs bugs you, you should spend less time bitching about what "the Jews" ought to be doing to right yet another wrong that you accuse them of, and more time teaching the poor benighted public what you believe they ought to know about the Holocaust.
"I know they CAN learn it with effort, but they don’t already KNOW it even though they are all but guaranteed to KNOW six million Jews died. "
Nonsense. Many were never even taught that. As many pundits pointed out, part of the significance of "Schindler's List" was that it introduced the whole idea of the "Six Million" to many Americans who really had no idea about anything regarding WWII or the Holocaust.
"Your choice of “can” instead of “know” proves my point. Even you have admitted that they don’t know it already. "
Wrong. I never "admitted" that they, in fact, did NOT know this. I made NO assumptions. I merely said that the information is out there; there's no censorship; and they are free to learn it, study it, criticize it, etc. on their own.
"Everyone already knows about the six million Jewish dead."
Except for those who do not.
"What? You think the 5 million non-Jews killed were all gays and Gypsies? "
I also never said that. You mentioned groups that had special significance for the Nazis as being sought out for extermination. Jews, Slavs, Poles, homosexuals, Gypsies.
"Are you insane?"
Why else would I waste precious time replying to an ignorant nitwit like you?
"Also, most of us learned about the 6 million Jews from TV, school textbooks, an endless series of films, etc. "
That's odd. That's where I first learned that Gypsies, homosexuals, communists, and the incurably ill had been slated for extermination: TV, school textbooks, and an endless series of films, etc. I guess you had lousy teachers. Sorry.
"“It is not right to expropriate that tragedy for propaganda,” Pieronek was quoted as saying, adding that memorial days should be held for the “victims of communism, for Catholics, for persecuted Christians and so on.”"
The bishop sounds almost as anti-Semitic as you. For a Jewish filmmaker, e.g., to tell a tragedy from a POINT OF VIEW, in which there is a focus on one major group -- the Jews -- with peripheral mention of the suffering of other groups, is not "expropriating" the tragedy. The good bishop probably just has a tin ear for storytelling. He confuses "telling a story from a point of view" with "reciting a dry chronicle of facts." I'm sure there's a place for the latter…it just happens NOT to be in a movie theatre.
"He continued: “But they, the Jews, enjoy good press because they have powerful financial means behind them, enormous power and the unconditional backing of the United States and this favors a certain arrogance that I find unbearable.”
You seem to be actually leaning toward those points - except instead of “powerful financial means behind them” you say “organization”."
Ah, the old "Jewish Financial conspiracy" bullshit. Tell me, uh, Vlad, do you and the bishop also believe in the old "blood libel" accusation against Jews? Do you believe that Jews sacrifice Christian babies in order to drink their blood over Passover? Just wondering. You and the bishop sound more and more like garden variety kooks.
"Why EXACTLY are you fixated on homosexuals and Gypsies? "
Why EXACTLY are you and that moronic bishop fixated on Jews?
"I mentioned them perhaps …"
You did not merely "mention" them.
"but the bishops said much more. You are deliberately reducing the 5 million to gays and Gypsies (and to a lesser extent Slavs, and Freemasons)."
Seems to me the bishop has said pretty much what you have said, and both of you have said very little. Summary: Jews "expropriated" the Holocaust by focusing on Jewish suffering, with only peripheral mentions of other groups singled out for extermination. Since the Jews are rich, powerful, and get everything they want from the even richer and more powerful United States, it behooves Jews NOT to tell the story of the Holocaust from a uniquely Jewish perspective (because such insistence on this perspective "annoys" east Europeans and Polish bishops who, for some reason, cannot or will not tell the story of the Holocaust from a perspective that they prefer), but to recite as a dry chronicle, every single group -- indeed, every individual -- who died from Nazi atrocities." That about sums up your position and the bishop's.
"Uh, no. There can be no doubt that the Einsatzgruppen killed some Jews in Poland, perhaps 500,000 by mid-1941, "
Um, "SOME Jews in Poland" = half a million?
By the end of the war, about 3 million Polish Jews had been killed (by Einsatzgruppen and extermination camps), plus another million Jews shipped to Poland from Greece, France, etc.
Einsatzgruppen wreaked havoc and terror on the road to the USSR during Barbarossa: The Baltic States, the "buffer territories", and Polish territory. Split-offs of Einsatzgruppen, called Einsatzkommandos -- specifically Einsatzkommandos C and D -- made much territory Judenfrei in Hungary and Romania -- as I said earlier, "Eastern Europe", and not just the USSR.
"but the mass killings of Jews by the Einsatzgruppen were mostly used in the USSR to slaughter Jews. In Poland they were as much used to kill Poles as Jews and the Poles did not help them accomplish this to any great extent. "
Your history is weak. See above. Einsatzgruppen were dispatched specifically to clear out Jews from territory. True, that didn't stop them from having fun with clearing out "Partisans", communists, and others. However, it is indisputable that the Einsatzgruppen were created specifically for the destruction of Jews. You're simply inventing facts if you claim that Jews were just "one of many" groups singled out by these killing units. Inventing facts…or in denial.
"The Poles, in fact, except for small acts of informing on Jews, participated in the Holocaust less than other Eastern European peoples such as the Ukrainians, Lithuanians, some Russians, etc."
Good, so you admit that Poles were complicit in the Holocaust (the bit about the Ukrainians and Lithuanians was meant as mere distraction from the point at issue: Polish complicity.)
"I’ve seen the documentary. I saw it in the 1980s. And it changes nothing I’ve said. In fact nothing I have said disagrees with the documentary."
You haven't openly disagreed with the documentary; you've merely left out many facts that the film brings up…such as Polish complicity with the mobile killing units.
"Who ever suggested that there were homosexual villages? Who? Show me where I suggested that? Is that what the bishop said? "
Talk about a tin ear! I was making a point: the SCALE of Nazi aggression against Jews was far larger than Nazi aggression against Gypsies and gays precisely because there were whole villages of Jews who were massacred; whereas there were NOT whole villages of homosexuals; THEREFORE, you cannot compare the fate of homosexuals during WWII with the fate of the Jews. Nazis weren't interested in exterminating "homosexual culture" because there was no such thing as a uniquely "homosexual culture"; whereas there certainly was such a thing as "Jewish culture" and the Nazis were certainly interested in exterminating it. It's stupid to say that these are commensurate.
"I mentioned that we sometimes hear about homosexual and Gypsy victims. They made up only a small portion of the 5 million victims who were not Jewish. "
And that, of course, is the significance. The 5 million you speak of were heterogeneous: gays, Gypsies, communists, partisans, Freemasons, liberals, etc. The other 6 million were homogeneous: all Jews. That rather proves that the Nazis considered the first group as generic "political enemies" (with the possible exception of the Gypsies, whom they considered to be related biologically to Jews); while they considered the second group to be a much greater biological, evolutionary, or some sort of "metaphysical" threat to the German people, and even to civilization as such. Jews were accused of destroying the German "Volk's" very relationship to "the German soil." "Streicher of course focused on Jews more than Gypsies, but he certainly degraded Gypsies often enough."
As I pointed out above, many Nazis considered them to be biologically related.
"Both Gypsies and homosexuals were looked down upon already by most people in society. There was already anti-semitic sentiment in Germany but not enough to allow the killing of huge numbers of people." There was already anti-gay and anti-Gypsy sentiment in Germany, but not enough to allow the killing of huge numbers of people. If a mass-distributed feature film was necessary to help incite murderous rage against Jews, we would expect something similar for these other groups, too. Odd that we don't find it. Odd that you overlook that fact.
"That’s why the Nazis had to produce their propaganda against the Jews to excite such hatred and loathing. That was not necessary against the Gypsies and homosexuals because they were already thought of as outsiders or sick." You don't know what you're talking about. Gays had huge acceptance by intellectuals and urban dwellers as part of the counter-culture movement in the 1920s. Many of the intellectuals and artists were themselves homosexual…in fact, some later renounced their homosexuality (or put it back in the closet) and embraced Nazism later on.
"And none of those points you just made changes what I said or even comes close to refuting it. I said: “5,000,000 non-Jews died in the Holocaust and almost no one knows it.” All you’re doing is proving it bu going on and on about Nazi moves against Jews."
I'm saying that you're full of shit and have ZERO proof that "almost no one knows it" except for the ravings of a typical anti-Semitic Polish bishop. Big deal.
"The truth is that there were 5 million people - of all backgrounds - who were murdered in the Holocaust by the Nazis that have largely been forgotten by the world while we all know about the 6 million Jews." I have seen no evidence that these heterogeneous 5 million have been "forgotten by the world" -- after all, you seem to know all about them, so somehow you and the bishop escaped the fate of ignorance that you claim the rest of the world has suffers under -- except for an arbitrary assertion by you and a silly old anti-Semitic bishop. Do you have any proof? Does he? We're waiting.
"I’m sorry but that’s another idiotic statement. What Gypsy film makers? "
Well, that's precisely the question, now, isn't it? Since there are no Gypsy "intellectuals"; no Gypsy filmmakers; no Gypsy Nobel Laureates in literature; no Gypsy historians; no Gypsy "talk radio personalities"; no Gypsy ANYONE who can chronicle the story of the Gypsies, especially about a moment in history when their very biological existence was jeopardized, why is it the responsibility of Jews -- who do have intellectuals and filmmakers and writers and historians and many storytellers transmitting cultural continuity to future generations -- to be neutral in regard to their own story during the Holocaust, and to chronicle fully the story of the Gypsies…and the gays…and the communists…and the Catholics…and the Freemasons…?
You know what? What you and the bishop in Poland really want is simply for the Jews to shut up and tell NO story about the Holocaust -- after all, if you don't like the story the Jews tell about themselves and the Nazis you can always shut the TV off, shut the radio off, and not see the latest Spielberg Holocaust movie. You're OK with gays and Gypsies for precisely that reason: they're silent about their own historical sufferings. "How many are in Hollywood? Seriously, can you name more than a few? Can you name any? "
Sure.
1. http://www.pacwashmetrodiv.org/projects/nazipers/ Nazi Persecution of Polish Christians (working title) - a two-hour documentary film-in-progress
2. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_11_123/ai_n16462618/ Theologians and Nazis
3. http://www.myspace.com/nygypsyfilmfestival New York Roma/Gypsy Human Rights Film Festival
4. http://www.preventgenocide.org/edu/pastgenocides/nazi/parajmos/resources/ Various books and other resources on Nazi persecution of Gypsies
5. http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-nazi-persecution-of-the-gypsies-by-guenter-lewy.jsp The Nazi Persecution of the Gypsies (book)
Etc. etc. Lots more out there on the Web, even after a quick search on Google. All you have to do is get up off your duff and do some research. I found 5 resources in two minutes; in two hours, I can find fifty. Perhaps, Vlad, your ignorance of these resources is caused by that same laziness that apparently causes the vast majority of people (so you claim) to be ignorant of those 5,000,000 non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust.
What do you think?
You wrote:
““Actually, no, you don’t.”
Yeah, actually I do.
“You have a very superficial knowledge of it, based mainly on popular culture.”
No, actually I’ve done quite a bit of research and have relied very little on “popular culture”.
“You’re also anti-Semitic, but that’s another issue.”
I’m not anti-semitic and your absolute failure to present any examples of such anti-semitism is telling.
“Only eastern European anti-Semites harbor this resentment.”
No. 1) I mentioned nothing about anti-semitism nor can you prove it in any way. 2) I have heard people in the West – not anti-semites either – express this same idea.
“Those who aren’t blinded by bias, and who learn a little about the issue soon learn that even old books on the Holocaust, such as “The Destruction of the European Jews” by Raul Hilberg (1961) mentions other groups — especially “Poles”, “Slavs”, and “Gypsies” — many times.”
That’s not the issue. You seem to think a mentioning of the other groups is the same thing as fully speaking out for the 5 million dead. It is not. There are books far older than Hilberg’s that “mention” other groups. Mentioning them is not the issue. Explaining their story fully is.
“You’ve been asleep for the past 30 years.”
No, but clearly you have been.
“In all major cities in the U.S., as well as in Europe, there are gay parades, gay clubs, gay travel agencies, gay movie theaters, “gay pride” days, openly gay actors, openly gay political candidates, etc. Gays, in general, also have a well deserved reputation for being well educated and literate. They LOVE to expose themselves. But in any case, your general argument, vis-a-vis gays, is ridiculous: if, as you apparently believe, gays don’t want to tell the story of gay-suffering from Nazi atrocities to the public at large for fear of outing themselves and risking social ostracism and discrimination, then they certainly won’t appreciate having the story told for them, about them, by a third-party such as straight Jews…why would they accept the risk of being outed by Jews as their story of suffering is told to the public, but not accept the same risk from outing themselves? Your argument is silly and makes no sense. “
No, you’re the one not making sense. First you blather on and on about millions of homosexuals being murdered in villages – as if anyone claimed that – and now you are insisting that the reason why there is no major production of gay films about the Holocaust is…what? Well, you apparently have no actual explanation. You blather on about a gay film empire and still can’t explain why there are few to no films about the suffering of homosexuals at the hands of Nazis. My explanation is the only reasonable one.
“Regarding Gypsies: The Nazis had no certain knowledge of where the Gypsies came from, but they did generally believe that Gypsies were “blood relatives” of the Jews. All the more reason to exterminate them.”
My point was that they were loathed like the Jews, but perhaps not to the same degree: You’re helping prove that. What a remarkable change from your last email where you did so much to dismiss their suffering by what you wrote.
“Most Americans don’t know English grammar or trigonometry. So what. Nothing stands in the way of their learning anything except their own laziness or just plain lack of interest.”
No. The point is that our culture is saturated with images and stories of Jews in the Holocaust. That is not the case concerning the 5 million non-Jews.
“You’re lazy too, as I’ll show at the end of this post.”
No, actually you won’t. You lazily accused me of anti-semitism and then failed to offer any proof (there is none). That’s lazy. You’re lazy.
“If this obvious state of affairs bugs you, you should spend less time bitching about what “the Jews” ought to be doing to right yet another wrong that you accuse them of, and more time teaching the poor benighted public what you believe they ought to know about the Holocaust.”
There you go making things up again. First, you accuse me of anti-semitism. Now you imply that that I am “bitching about what “the Jews” ought” when I am doing no such thing. This is not about what the Jews ought to do. I do not in any way blame Jews for the world’s lack of information regarding the 5 million. The success of Jews in creating awareness about the 6 million murdered Jews has nothing in itself to do with the 5 million non-Jews being forgotten.
“Nonsense. Many were never even taught that. As many pundits pointed out, part of the significance of “Schindler’s List” was that it introduced the whole idea of the “Six Million” to many Americans who really had no idea about anything regarding WWII or the Holocaust.”
Nonsense. Look in many kids’ textbooks. 6 million Jews murdered. That has been standard for decades. And before there was Schindler’s List there were other movies, books, and so on.
“Wrong. I never “admitted” that they, in fact, did NOT know this. I made NO assumptions.”
Yes, you did. Your own word choice makes that clear. The very fact that you talk about the laziness of people (hence, they don’t know about the 5 million) shows that you KNOW they don’t KNOW.
“I merely said that the information is out there; there’s no censorship; and they are free to learn it, study it, criticize it, etc. on their own.”
It’s out there, but it isn’t nearly as common as info about Jewish deaths. It is remarkably sparse in fact.
“Except for those who do not.”
And how many more will not know about the 5 million? Many, many more. Do you deny that?
“I also never said that. You mentioned groups that had special significance for the Nazis as being sought out for extermination. Jews, Slavs, Poles, homosexuals, Gypsies.”
You said the following: “The idea that SS Einsatzgruppen murdered millions of homosexuals in homosexual villages and towns across Eastern Europe in an attempt to erase a long-standing homosexual culture intertwined with the evolution of western civilization is ludicrous.”
No one made ever made any such claim about millions murdered in homosexual villages. No one. Yet you implied that someone did. You’re not an honest man and you can’t be taken seriously when you make up things out of thin air.
“Why else would I waste precious time replying to an ignorant nitwit like you?”
Implying that people said things they never said would show who the real “ignorant nitwit” is and it’s not me.
“That’s odd. That’s where I first learned that Gypsies, homosexuals, communists, and the incurably ill had been slated for extermination: TV, school textbooks, and an endless series of films, etc. I guess you had lousy teachers. Sorry.”
No, I had great teachers. Please note I never claimed that I did not know about the five million. There you go again just making things up because you can’t argue the facts. You repeatedly just invent things. How pathetic.
“The bishop sounds almost as anti-Semitic as you.”
That would mean not at all. I’m not anti-semitic. The proof of that fact is your utter failure to post any evidence of that.
“For a Jewish filmmaker, e.g., to tell a tragedy from a POINT OF VIEW, in which there is a focus on one major group — the Jews — with peripheral mention of the suffering of other groups, is not “expropriating” the tragedy.”
I don’t believe that either I or the bishop said it was. Again, you are just implying something that no one has said.
“The good bishop probably just has a tin ear for storytelling. He confuses “telling a story from a point of view” with “reciting a dry chronicle of facts.” I’m sure there’s a place for the latter…it just happens NOT to be in a movie theatre.”
I don’t think that is what he is saying or even implying. You probably know that too. Rather than deal with what he said all you can do is insult him. How pathetic on your part.
“Ah, the old “Jewish Financial conspiracy” bullshit. Tell me, uh, Vlad, do you and the bishop also believe in the old “blood libel” accusation against Jews?”
No, but once again we see that you can’t actually deal with what is posted.
“Do you believe that Jews sacrifice Christian babies in order to drink their blood over Passover?”
Nope. But once again we see you can’t deal with what is actually posted. Rather than deal with anything in the article as it is written you simply lash out with silly and completely false accusations of anti-semitism. Again, can you offer any evidence whatsoever – any at all – that I am now or have ever been anti-semitic? No. You would utterly fail in such an effort. But accusing me of anti-semitism is much easier for a lazy person like you than actually trying deal with what is posted.
“Just wondering. You and the bishop sound more and more like garden variety kooks.”
You’re sounding like chicken-little shouting anti-semitism at anyone who dares to disagree with your odd views.
“Why EXACTLY are you and that moronic bishop fixated on Jews?”
I’m not. Nor do you have any proof that I am. Again, you’re implying something that isn’t there. Why can’t you debate what is actually posted rather than make things up?
“You did not merely “mention” them.”
Yes, actually I mentioned and little more in the beginning. It is you who took off with that and suddenly created fantasies like people supposedly saying there were millions of homosexuals murdered in homosexual villages. That’s how desperate you are.
“Seems to me the bishop has said pretty much what you have said, and both of you have said very little. Summary: Jews “expropriated” the Holocaust by focusing on Jewish suffering, with only peripheral mentions of other groups singled out for extermination. Since the Jews are rich, powerful, and get everything they want from the even richer and more powerful United States, it behooves Jews NOT to tell the story of the Holocaust from a uniquely Jewish perspective (because such insistence on this perspective “annoys” east Europeans and Polish bishops who, for some reason, cannot or will not tell the story of the Holocaust from a perspective that they prefer), but to recite as a dry chronicle, every single group — indeed, every individual — who died from Nazi atrocities.” That about sums up your position and the bishop’s.”
My point is that we don’t hear about the other 5 million victims. You have done nothing to show that that is untrue.
“Um, “SOME Jews in Poland” = half a million?”
Yes, SOME. The reason why is that it is disputed as to how many, how, when and whether or not it was part of the program that would be euphemistically called the Final Solution. Remember Wannsee would not take place until January 1942. Thus 500,000 compared to the total Jewish population of Poland is SOME. If you want to say MANY, that’s fine with me. My point is that the Einzatzgruppen killed only some Polish Jews compared to the vast number who were murdered post 1941 in extermination camps.
“By the end of the war, about 3 million Polish Jews had been killed (by Einsatzgruppen and extermination camps), plus another million Jews shipped to Poland from Greece, France, etc.”
The vast majority were not killed by Einzatzgruppen. Those specially fielded units murderd mostly in the USSR. The vast number of those Polish Jews who were murdered post 1941 were murdered in extermination camps.
“Einsatzgruppen wreaked havoc and terror on the road to the USSR during Barbarossa: The Baltic States, the “buffer territories”, and Polish territory. Split-offs of Einsatzgruppen, called Einsatzkommandos — specifically Einsatzkommandos C and D — made much territory Judenfrei in Hungary and Romania — as I said earlier, “Eastern Europe”, and not just the USSR.”
No, not just the USSR – but mostly the USSR. This is a simple fact. Anyone who has ever studied the Holocaust knows the Einzatzgruppen travelled more widely, murdered more often and did so more publicly in the USSR than anywhere else.
“Your history is weak.”
No, actually it’s quite strong.
“See above. Einsatzgruppen were dispatched specifically to clear out Jews from territory.”
I never said otherwise.
“True, that didn’t stop them from having fun with clearing out “Partisans”, communists, and others. However, it is indisputable that the Einsatzgruppen were created specifically for the destruction of Jews.”
Again, I never said otherwise. You are apparently, yet again, implying something has been said that was never said by me. I suggest you actually focus on what is posted rather than continue to make things up.
“You’re simply inventing facts if you claim that Jews were just “one of many” groups singled out by these killing units. Inventing facts…or in denial.”
I never said or even implied that Jews were one of many groups singled out by the Einzatzgruppen. In fact the only one who ever said such a thing was you: “The idea that SS Einsatzgruppen murdered millions of homosexuals in homosexual villages…”
Now, can you show me where I EVER said the Einzatzgruppen singled out Jews as “just “one of many” groups singled out”? Can you show me that? No, you can’t and I don’t even know why I am bothering to ask you to prove that I ever said it. You’re simply not interested in being honest and repeatedly make things up because you can’t debate what is actually posted.
“Good, so you admit that Poles were complicit in the Holocaust (the bit about the Ukrainians and Lithuanians was meant as mere distraction from the point at issue: Polish complicity.)”
I have always admitted that some Poles were complicit. Many people in many nations aided in the Holocaust – including Jews (but I am sure it was out of fear for their own lives). Also, it is not a mere distraction to mention the greater number of instances of complicity of Ukrainians and Lithuanians. There were no SS units of Poles in the camps. But there were SS units made up entirely of ethnic Ukrainians. The Poles were marked for slavery by the Nazis. That is not how the Lithuanians and Ukrainians were considered by the Nazis.
“You haven’t openly disagreed with the documentary; you’ve merely left out many facts that the film brings up…such as Polish complicity with the mobile killing units. “
Nope. If you could reason at all – and that is gravely in doubt at this moment – you would realize that you just wrote to me: “Good, so you admit that Poles were complicit in the Holocaust” and then turn around and say, “you’ve merely left out many facts that the film brings up…such as Polish complicity” without making yourself look like a moron. Nothing in the opening post was about any documentary film. You brought one up. I saw it more than two decades ago. You never made any specific claim about the documentary in regard to Polish complicity. Now you imply I some how have failed because I apparently didn’t read your mind to know that you wanted me to mention “Polish complicity with the mobile killing units” in regard to the documentary. I’m sorry, but you’re making yourself look like a fool. If you want to discuss a certain issue I suggest you actually bring it up rather than imagine that you did. Also, how on earth is Polish complicity or even a particular documentary from 25 years ago in any way part of this discussion when the opening post is so drastically different? If you think you think the documentary is important to this discussion I suggest you make a case as to why it is.
“Talk about a tin ear! I was making a point:”
The point that you were making is that you make things up out of thin air and imply that people actually said those things. You’ve done this repeatedly.
“ the SCALE of Nazi aggression against Jews was far larger than Nazi aggression against Gypsies and gays precisely because there were whole villages of Jews who were massacred;”
And AGAIN, who said OTHERWISE? No one. I never denied that the Nazi aggression against Jews was “far larger” than against Gypsies or homosexuals. So the point you were supposedly making – as you now claim – was pointless.
“whereas there were NOT whole villages of homosexuals; THEREFORE, you cannot compare the fate of homosexuals during WWII with the fate of the Jews.”
And again, who’s doing that? Not me. I wrote, in post #2, this: “We only hear about the Jews, sometimes about Gypsies and homosexuals and that’s about it.” Please note, what I posted in no way equated the amount of aggression directed against the three different groups. I said WE SOMETIMES HEAR ABOUT GYPSIES AND HOMOSEXUALS. That is in no way a comment about the amount of aggression directed against anyone. Yet you have yet again claimed something that I never did. You want from the mentioning to the ludicrous idea that I was supposedly talking about millions of homosexuals in homosexual villages being murdered. Someone cannot possibly make such an incredible leap from a simple comment, “We…hear …sometimes about Gypsies and homosexuals” to millions of homosexuals being murdered in homosexual villages unless you want to deliberately distort someone’s comments.
“Nazis weren’t interested in exterminating “homosexual culture” because there was no such thing as a uniquely “homosexual culture”;”
And again, who’s claiming otherwise? You keep making things up.
“whereas there certainly was such a thing as “Jewish culture” and the Nazis were certainly interested in exterminating it. It’s stupid to say that these are commensurate.”
It would be – and you’re the only one even coming close to suggesting it. I never said any such thing.
I posted: “I mentioned that we sometimes hear about homosexual and Gypsy victims. They made up only a small portion of the 5 million victims who were not Jewish. “
You responded with: “And that, of course, is the significance.”
Whoa! You are tacitly admitting that you saw (twice at least) that I mentioned we SOMETIMES HEAR ABOUT HOMOSEXUAL AND GYPSY VICTIMS? If you knew that was all I was saying then why did you present what I said as if I were claiming the aggression directed against Jews, Gypsies and homosexuals was “commensurate.” That’s thoroughly dishonest of you. Why do you keep making things up? Can’t you debate honestly?
“The 5 million you speak of were heterogeneous: gays, Gypsies, communists, partisans, Freemasons, liberals, etc. The other 6 million were homogeneous: all Jews. That rather proves that the Nazis considered the first group as generic “political enemies” (with the possible exception of the Gypsies, whom they considered to be related biologically to Jews); while they considered the second group to be a much greater biological, evolutionary, or some sort of “metaphysical” threat to the German people, and even to civilization as such. Jews were accused of destroying the German “Volk’s” very relationship to “the German soil.” “Streicher of course focused on Jews more than Gypsies, but he certainly degraded Gypsies often enough.” “
And none of that goes against anything I said.
“As I pointed out above, many Nazis considered them to be biologically related.”
Yes, but you originally wrote: “Julius Streicher made a special point of attacking Jews in “Der Sturmer”, not Gypsies or homosexuals.” In reality he also attacked Gypsies. I’m sure he attacked Jews more, but you made it sound almost as if he did not attack Gypsies. You were wrong.
“I’m saying that you’re full of shit and have ZERO proof that “almost no one knows it” except forthe ravings of a typical anti-Semitic Polish bishop. Big deal.”
If that is what you’re saying, then you have utterly failed in building any sort of argument to that effect. Also, is “typical anti-Semitic Polish bishop” like Obama’s typical white woman comment in regard to his grandmother? I think you are revealing more about your own prejudices than about any the bishop may have.
“Well, that’s precisely the question, now, isn’t it? Since there are no Gypsy “intellectuals”; no Gypsy filmmakers; no Gypsy Nobel Laureates in literature; no Gypsy historians; no Gypsy “talk radio personalities”; no Gypsy ANYONE who can chronicle the story of the Gypsies, especially about a moment in history when their very biological existence was jeopardized, why is it the responsibility of Jews — who do have intellectuals and filmmakers and writers and historians and many storytellers transmitting cultural continuity to future generations — to be neutral in regard to their own story during the Holocaust, and to chronicle fully the story of the Gypsies…and the gays…and the communists…and the Catholics…and the Freemasons…?”
Did I claim it was the responsibility of Jews to tell non-Jewish stories? Please show me where I said that. This is yet another example of you going on and on about something that I never claimed. You can’t debate what is actually posted so you just make things up.
“You know what? What you and the bishop in Poland really want is simply for the Jews to shut up and tell NO story about the Holocaust — after all, if you don’t like the story the Jews tell about themselves and the Nazis you can always shut the TV off, shut the radio off, and not see the latest Spielberg Holocaust movie.”
I don’t have a problem with Jews talking about the Holocaust. What I lament is the fact that there is so little said about non-Jews in the Holocaust.
“You’re OK with gays and Gypsies for precisely that reason: they’re silent about their own historical sufferings.”
No. They are not silent. They just don’t get much airplay or books or movies made about them. That’s the difference. Also, the same can be said for Russians, Catholics, priests, Poles and many others who are largely ignored as victims in the Holocaust.
“Sure.”
Okay, so you’re going to mention the Gypsy film makers in Hollywood? After all that’s what you said “Sure” to. I wrote: “What Gypsy film makers? How many are in Hollywood? Seriously, can you name more than a few? Can you name any?”
So, let’s see what you posted about Gypsy film makers:
“1. http://www.pacwashmetrodiv.org/projects/nazipers/ Nazi Persecution of Polish Christians (working title) - a two-hour documentary film-in-progress”
That’s apparently not being made by Gypsy film makers. You failed. I wrote: “What Gypsy film makers? How many are in Hollywood? Seriously, can you name more than a few? Can you name any?” Also, is that film even done? After all it was begging for funding in 2003.
“2. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_11_123/ai_n16462618/ Theologians and Nazis”
Also, not made by Gypsy film makers. You failed again. I wrote: “What Gypsy film makers? How many are in Hollywood? Seriously, can you name more than a few? Can you name any?” And this is old ground of course. Anyone could read Doris Bergen’s, Twisted Cross: The German Christian Movement in the Third Reich and learn about it to some extent.
“3. http://www.myspace.com/nygypsyfilmfestival New York Roma/Gypsy Human Rights Film Festival”
Wonderful! Some films that do tell something of the rest of the story. That’s great. Now, which of the films was made by Gypsy film makers? I wrote: “What Gypsy film makers? How many are in Hollywood? Seriously, can you name more than a few? Can you name any?” By the way, how many of those films were shown in the popular media? When will there be a Hollywood film?
“4. http://www.preventgenocide.org/edu/pastgenocides/nazi/parajmos/resources/ Various books and other resources on Nazi persecution of Gypsies “
Yes, but which of them was made by Gypsy film makers? That’s what you were going to provide. I wrote: “What Gypsy film makers? How many are in Hollywood? Seriously, can you name more than a few? Can you name any?” And you’ve read how many of those books by the way? How many were best sellers? Gee, did Oprah interview any of the authors?
“5. http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-nazi-persecution-of-the-gypsies-by-guenter-lewy.jsp The Nazi Persecution of the Gypsies (book)”
And again, which of them was made by Gypsy film makers? That’s what you were going to provide. I wrote: “What Gypsy film makers? How many are in Hollywood? Seriously, can you name more than a few? Can you name any?” And you’ve read how many of those books by the way? How many were best sellers? How many are touted in our culture? How many are read in schools?
“Etc. etc. Lots more out there on the Web, even after a quick search on Google. All you have to do is get up off your duff and do some research.”
No, I think you’re the one who needs to do research: “What Gypsy film makers? How many are in Hollywood? Seriously, can you name more than a few? Can you name any?”
You haven’t answered those questions yet.
“ I found 5 resources in two minutes; in two hours, I can find fifty.”
Actually you apparently found none. I wrote: “What Gypsy film makers? How many are in Hollywood? Seriously, can you name more than a few? Can you name any?”
So, what Gypsy film makers, there bud? You found a TINY handful of Gypsy documentaries. Some may have been made by Gypsies. Usually Gypsies do not have names “George Case” or “Michael Stewart.” Is Alexandra Isles a Gypsy? I have no idea. Are you claiming she is? Is Michelle Kelso a Gypsy? Do you know. I asked for “Gypsy film makers.” I asked, “ How many are in Hollywood?” I asked, “Seriously, can you name more than a few? Can you name any?” And apparently you can’t. Thanks for proving my point.
“Perhaps, Vlad, your ignorance of these resources is caused by that same laziness that apparently causes the vast majority of people (so you claim) to be ignorant of those 5,000,000 non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust. What do you think?”
I think you make things up when you have no argument – as I showed you do repeatedly. I think you deliberately distort what people have written when you have no argument – as I showed you do repeatedly. I think you falsely accuse people of anti-semitism when you have no argument and as you failed to show any evidence for repeatedly. And I think you failed to provide the name of a single Gypsy film maker when I asked for “Gypsy film makers? How many are in Hollywood? Seriously, can you name more than a few? Can you name any?”
Now, I suggest you actually start providing evidence of what you claim. If you believe I am anti-semitic, I suggest you post evidence of that. Can you provide any? Or will you fail as miserably as you did in providing a list of names of Gypsy film makers in Hollywood?
What do you think about your repeated failures?
That is a tired old ploy used by those who have otherwise lost the argument against those who believe that the Jews were no better and no worse than any other group in any situation.
Would you also consider that the Church has not always received fair treatment at the hands of non-Catholics and historians...
______________
Actually, yes, I would agree that in many cases, the criticism of the Catholic Church has been motivated by a misunderstanding of the historic circumstances and other factors. Not always by any stretch, but many times...
**************
would you agree that the Church has made a continual practice of trying to improve itself?
_______________
I don’t know about “continual.” I would say they have been inconsistent in trying to improve themselves, and that their motives in “purifying” themselves have sometimes been for purposes of self agrandizemwnt and power — but that’s absolutely NOT always been the case. :-)
History is a complex thing — as is the Church (which may be a part of the problem). But I am not one who just condemns the Roman Church because it’s the in thing to do. I think we could come to some places where we agree, or at least agree to disagree agreeably.
Too many here on FR spend a great deal of time and vitriol attacking the Church as it was in the 15th century, without the benefit of understanding the 15th century context and fail to see the institution as it is today. As men are corruptible so are institutions comprised of men.
Issues of dogma aside, many of the reforms called for in the Reformation were justifiable and the Church has properly addressed them. Judged on the entire body of its work since inception the Church has been the single greatest facilitator of good in the history of man. Certainly, if you consider only the last 400 years the Church's performance with respect to its role of teaching and nurturing has been very good and continually improving.
Issues of dogma aside, many of the reforms called for in the Reformation were justifiable and the Church has properly addressed them. Judged on the entire body of its work since inception the Church has been the single greatest facilitator of good in the history of man. Certainly, if you consider only the last 400 years the Church’s performance with respect to its role of teaching and nurturing has been very good and continually improving.
Perhaps if issues of dogma are laid aside, I can see that the Roman Catholic Church has made general and steady improvement... :-) IF dogma is laid aside! lol Sorry, I am a Protestant — Gotta leave a caveat! Blessings...
The German documentation doesn't mention the "mentally retarded problem", or any other "problem" but it does mention the Jewish problem. All the other deaths were incidental to the slaughter of the Jews.
You wrote:
“No flame but just a statement. The 5 million other peoples who died during the holocaust were not all of one race, ethnic identity or whatever you want to call it.”
True.
“Yes, it was terrible that the Germans killed about 11 to 12 million people(over and above the war related casualties), but it doesn’t lessen the fact that 6 million of those 12 were all JEWS who were specifically targeted for extermination and if the war had dragged on longer even more would have died.”
I agree.
“The German documentation doesn’t mention the “mentally retarded problem”, or any other “problem” but it does mention the Jewish problem.”
Actually the Germans did discuss and enact a plan to deal with the “mentally retarded”. This was BEFORE the Holocaust. The Nazis referred to all of the various “mental deficients” and “mentally retarded” people as “useless eaters”: http://www.regent.edu/acad/schedu/uselesseaters/
“All the other deaths were incidental to the slaughter of the Jews.”
No, not incidental. It was all one program. The slaughter of Jews was the central desired goal, but the other deaths cannot be simply summed up as incidental.
Deny, deny, deny.
I am denying or acknowledging nothing. I actually know holocaust survivors one of whom (now deceased) was a Polish Catholic priest who was near death in Auschwitz when liberated. His testimony was proof that the holocaust was 8 million individual tragedies.
That's a very safe position to be in.
I actually know holocaust survivors one of whom (now deceased) was a Polish Catholic priest who was near death in Auschwitz when liberated. His testimony was proof that the holocaust was 8 million individual tragedies.
Right, but it wasn't only individual tragedies; it was also a cultural and national tragedy for "a people", not just "individuals." It wasn't merely a tragedy for individuals named Chaim and Jan; it was also a tragedy for Jews and Poles. You inadvertently acknowledged that yourself -- despite your claim not to admit or acknowledge anything -- by quickly pointing out that your acquaintance was not an individual with an individual name -- "Karel", for example -- but "a Polish Catholic priest". So you, too, are not blind to the reality of groups and how they were affected by the Holocaust, though for some weird reason, you believe that's it's some sort of virtue that Jews be blind.
Well said my friend...
No, my position is that each and every individual that suffered or perished was a unique tragedy. What I deny is a special victim status for any individual or group that survived. My friends name was Stephan.
By definition, that would be true. Since each individual is unique, each individual's experiences (including suffering) would be unique. It's true, but only as a truism.
What I deny is a special victim status for any individual or group that survived.
Sorry, but you've just contradicted yourself. If an individual's experience is "unique" then it's SPECIAL, i.e., non-comparable to another individual's unique experiences...that's what "unique" means. If an individual claims to have been a victim of Nazism, then -- by your own lights -- he is claiming unique, special victim status, completely different from that of any other individual's suffering. This is also true; but it in no way implies or suggests that someone else doesn't have an individual, unique, special victim status. The fact that "A" claims special victim status at the hands of Nazism in no way means that "B" doesn't have such status, too. Apparently, what you and Stephan and the Polish bishop are complaining about is that if "A" is commercially more successful at getting his special victim status published and made into feature films, that fact is unfair to "B"; morally, "A" ought to be telling both his own story and "B's" story, or "A" should simply shut up.
Your position is not only self-contradictory but silly. If an individual or group cannot claim special victim status because there were other victims too, then it means that even an individual ought not tell his own story through a personal autobiography or publishing of a personal diary...for that would be claiming "special individual victim status." According to you, such a person should either tell the story of suffering from the viewpoint of everyone -- all individual and all groups -- or simply shut up and tell no one's story.
The historical fact of the matter is this: we owe much of our current knowledge of the Holocaust -- the gritty details of how the local police departments, train dispatchers, etc. were brought into the ambit of the Nazi extermination program against all "inferior races" -- from Jewish writers and filmmakers on the subject; not from you, Stephan, or Polish bishops, who have generally kept silent on the subject. If it were left up to you, we'd know nothing about what happened.
You are both full of it and full of yourself. I am neither diminishing or elevating any individuals or groups as being anything other than victims. Your primary source gives you but a singular perspective which has drown out any other discussion and cast a forgiving shadow on the atrocities committed by the fellow communist of many of those same writers and filmmakers.
What "primary source" would that be? You mean Jews? Jewish writers, Jewish historians, Jewish diarists, Jewish filmmakers? At least one important "primary source" is a non-Jewish Pole: Jan Karski.
gives you but a singular perspective which has drown out any other discussion
So the fact that Raul Hilberg wrote "The Destruction of the East European Jews" and the fact that Spielberg directed "Schindler's List" somehow prevented -- "drowned out" -- someone else from writing a successful book about the the plight of non-Jews or someone else from directing a movie about non-jews suffering in the Holocaust? I get it.
and cast a forgiving shadow on the atrocities committed by the fellow communist of many of those same writers and filmmakers.
Ah, now I see. You're upset that so many communists have been Jews and simultaneously upset that no Jewish writer or Jewish filmmaker (to your knowledge) has publicized the atrocities of the communists during (and after) WWII. So what really irks you is not the fact that Jews have tended to concentrate on the plight of other Jews under Nazism; you are vexed by the fact that Jews have not highlighted the plight of non-Jews (as well as other Jews) under communism. Jews have cherry-picked their tyrannies, so to speak: they criticize Hitler but say nothing about Stalin.
Why didn't you say so! Lots of people are bothered by that omission -- including some notable Jewish intellectuals (such as Milton Friedman). Still, some Jews have written memorable criticisms of communism: Arthur Koestler ("Darkness at Noon"); Sir Karl Popper ("The Open Society and Its Enemies"); and heck, we may as well include feisty Ayn Rand (pretty much everything she wrote and published was a criticism of communism, fascism, and all other forms of collectivism); and let us not forget the great economist Ludwig von Mises (both of whose parents were Jewish, and who had received a traditional Jewish education in his youth before he abandoned Judaism and became almost wholly a secularist) -- everything he wrote was a criticism, direct or indirect, of socialism, communism, and fascism.
However, you continue to contradict yourself. You posted earlier that ONLY individual suffering exists; not group suffering. Ergo, there can be no legitimate stories of "Jewish suffering" or "Gypsy suffering" or "X-group suffering" because only stories of individual tragedy exist and are worthy of being recorded. Now, is this constraint that you've imposed on narratives to be observed by those who might tell stories about suffering under communism?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.