51–60 of 80 posts
Also, this was in Polish. I imagine if you don't speak Polish, a lot will be lost in translation.
Context and subtext both get largely lost in attempts to explain what went down in some other language to people who weren't there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Auschwitz museum would probably not have complained about death camp analogies when the comparison was an actual genocide. But that was very far from the case.
Are we expecting the auschwitz museum to universally and perfectly predict and oppose fomenting genocides? Is that a role they're willing and competent to perform for us? Is that where we want that responsibility to solely reside?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
who decides what is substance?
What I meant by substance is that there is some effort to actually explain a comparison and thought. Not just a statement of fact or reference. Essentially making a case. What I mean is different than accuracy. You could write an essay or book comparing something to Nazism, and be right or wrong, but at least you're making a case. If you're just claiming a comparison without presenting a case, you can also be right o…
I understand the museum's position. However IMHO they missed an important teaching moment. The holocaust was very much a political event, and to treat it otherwise is to excuse the broad public support that political movement had, and the widespread public participation involved. Yes, the use in mass political* advertising can trivialize the crime by repetitive imagery, and I presume this is the origin of the stance…
I think the point is that shallow references and use of Nazi images in ad hominem attacks does does not contribute meaningfully to any discussion. If you want to use the Holocaust to draw a comparison, it should have substance. Without substance, anyone can make shallow comparisons.
I didn't say the museum should not have objected. I feel they could have used the episode for greater value/understanding.
I understand the museum's position. However IMHO they missed an important teaching moment. The holocaust was very much a political event, and to treat it otherwise is to excuse the broad public support that political movement had, and the widespread public participation involved. Yes, the use in mass political* advertising can trivialize the crime by repetitive imagery, and I presume this is the origin of the stance…
> The holocaust was very much a political event, and to treat it otherwise is to excuse the broad public support that political movement had, and the widespread public participation involved. Was it a political event tho? It wasn't something the Nazis were openly announcing they were doing. Sending them to camps was one thing, pretty much every country ended up creating camps to keep people during that time. If they…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I meant by substance is that there is some effort to actually explain a comparison and thought. Not just a statement of fact or reference. Essentially making a case. What I mean is different than accuracy. You could write an essay or book comparing something to Nazism, and be right or wrong, but at least you're making a case. If you're just claiming a comparison without presenting a case, you can also be right o…
ic, makes sense. unfortunately political ads are just that. Even if they wanted to, people don't like being bothered with explanations
It simply pollutes the discourse and makes it more difficult to actually learn valuable lessons from the Holocaust
I understand the museum's position. However IMHO they missed an important teaching moment. The holocaust was very much a political event, and to treat it otherwise is to excuse the broad public support that political movement had, and the widespread public participation involved. Yes, the use in mass political* advertising can trivialize the crime by repetitive imagery, and I presume this is the origin of the stance…
> The holocaust was very much a political event, and to treat it otherwise is to excuse the broad public support that political movement had, and the widespread public participation involved. Was it a political event tho? It wasn't something the Nazis were openly announcing they were doing. Sending them to camps was one thing, pretty much every country ended up creating camps to keep people during that time. If they…
Haven't read this book but Kershaw's European history which is great.
"Kershaw concluded that the majority of Bavarians were either antisemitic or more commonly simply did not care about what was happening to the Jews.[11] Kershaw also concluded that there was a fundamental difference between the antisemitism of the majority of ordinary people, who disliked Jews and were much coloured by traditional Catholic prejudices, and the ideological and far more radical völkische antisemitism of the Nazi Party, who hated Jews" (Wikipedia)
https://books.google.de/books/about/Hitler_the_Germans_and_t...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Furthermore, if you read any of the books written by Germans who lived through that time they'll often say they didn't know what was happening and in one book about a kid who went through the ranks of the Hitler youth, I believe he thought they were fine in the camps and thought people just moved away. From what I've read, the Holocaust was a pretty open secret in Germany. Wikipedia [1] cites studies suggesting tha…
What have you been reading? And an open secret pretty much means it wasn't public policy or politics. And higher estimates don't really make sense, why were the allied forces in the dark? Why were the death camps in Poland and not Germany? People who were living nearby, I will never be convinced they didn't know. But expecting someone in Fankfurt am Main to know about the mass executions happening in small towns in P…
Former Nazi Germany concentration camps are located on Poland's current territory. When they were built however, the land was occupied by German Nazi Reich.
Death camps were built in Germany, then-ruled by a meth addict coprophile.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Look at the victim counts in the document titled "DOCUMENTING NUMBERS OF VICTIMS OF THE HOLOCAUST AND NAZI PERSECUTION". If you wish to argue with with them over it, feel free.
Holocaust is one thing, Nazi persecution is another thing. Persecutions are a terrible thing — and Nazi persecution especially so — but it (and others) just fall short on the scale of atrocities, when being compared to the Holocaust. Either you don't understand what exactly the Holocaust is, or you're spreading a modern version of Holocaust denial, where by "modern version" I mean not "this didn't happen" but "this d…
I would say it's more likely you don't understand. The Nazis committed genocide againist multiple groups at the exact same time using the same people, same locations, and same methods. To say the horrors committed on 8 million plus people fall short of the same horrors comitted to 6 million just because of their race is fundamentally racist. However, the reason you have the opinion you have is almost certainly related to the cold war, where those 8 million people plus became victims of the enemy of the west and the west focused on the 6 million Jews. Also, the overall rise of power included far more antisentism than anything else. It's understandable why you think the way you do, however, it's not acceptable to not educate yourself when given valid sources.
There is a reason Auschwitz came out with the statement. And they'll also tell you of all the other people other than Jews that died at Auschwitz. They know their history.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Comparing your political opponents with Nazis is a very violent form of public discourse that should be reserved for actual perpetrators of mass atrocities. If people actually believe it, then it makes physical violence against your opponents seem acceptable or even desirable ("punch a Nazi"). Basically, when you're saying someone is a Nazi then it means you want to treat them like the Nazis were treated after WW2. T…
> should be reserved for actual perpetrators of mass atrocities. Ideally, we would prevent such people from perpetrating such atrocities in the first place. The Nazis were Nazis before they killed millions, and they said they would do it before they did. When people, especially politicians, come out and say, "we must eliminate [demographic group]," we need to believe them and understand that genocide is their goal.