Valuing Genocide

[PanzerJaeger]

I posted about this quite some time ago and I couldnt find the thread so heres a new one.

Genocide has been a characteristic of human nature for as long as history has been recorded. Ethnic cleansing has been common during wartime and other national emergencies in cultures and nations throughout the world. Why does the German genocide of Jews and others get so much attention?

Several nations committed genocides during and directly after the Second World War, those of the USSR and Communist China being far more costly in lives than that of Germany. Im not sure about the numbers on Japan. Looking back further in history, it is easy to identify many of the world's nations as culprits in game of ethnic cleansing. The Spanish in South America, the Turks in Armenia, and even the USA are all responsible for the planned destruction of other ethnic groups. The colonialism imposed on much of the world by Britain and France is not innocent of genocidal tendencies either, although certainly not to the extent seen in the 20th century. In fact, some of the first recorded episodes of genocide were committed by the Jews in the Old Testament.

So why does Germany get such a bad rap when other nations seem to be able to sweep such unpleasantries under the rug? I have some theories but I will wait to see the responses before I share them.

Also, I want to say now that I am not trying to be an apologist for Nazi Germany or the Holocaust. The deliberate and organized killing of the Jews and other minorities perpetrated by the Nazis was unjustifiable and simply evil. I am simply trying to understand why the German holocaust seems to be far more remembered than any others, even one's far larger.

[ShadeHonestus]

I am simply trying to understand why the German holocaust seems to be far more remembered than any others, even one's far larger.

The answer is obvious in the U.S. there was a democrat in power at the time. If it had been otherwise we would have just been projecting W.A.S.P. Imperialism to mainland Europe. The German's army would be portrayed as glorious misunderstood freedom fighters pushed into that position by Allied global economic power. Not to mention that despite making remarks about the jews in his book, Hitler would be wearing a member's only jacket and given only harsh language by the U.N.

[edit]
Personally I would have entitled the topic "assessing genocide" instead of "valuing genocide" as at first glance it appears unsavory in its purpose.

[Strike For The South]

The jewish lobby in America. I dunno. Its still new? The Americans played a large part in liberataing the jews? Not many Americans care about dark skinned muslims killing off dark skinned christinas in some obscure backwater part of the wrold however many Americans still have a connection with Germany (IIRC 50 million on the last census put "German only" as there ethnicity) and Jewish people (Allot of powerful people have been jewish you cant deny that, esp in the entertaniment buisness, how many Armenians can you name?) All in all I find it funny people get so attached to being "German" Every time wurstfest happens I get nuaseted when all these white trash country bumpkins stop being Americans and put on leederhoosen try to stuff nine inches down there thorat and run around speaking broken German. Your family came over in 1850 get a job. I swear between this and Fiesta Im surprised I havent burned the city donw.

[rory_20_uk]

Hitler was defeated and was dead. One can always villify someone in that situation.

The USSR and China were and are still powers who we need to be nice to, so we don't bring up facts that might upset them.

[Watchman]

I am simply trying to understand why the German holocaust seems to be far more remembered than any others, even one's far larger.

Probably because they basically took certain key concepts of modern civilization - bureaucracy, logistics, science etc. - and turned them into a well-oiled machine that killed people pretty much according to fairly precise timetables and quotas. Assembly-line mass murder, organized and planned and honed as a factory complex would be, and with a good part of the people involved in it tacitly ignoring what exactly the numbers in the papers and plans and tables actually meant.

Compared to that for example the Soviets' crude and haphazard death-by-neglect-or-bullet-in-the-head stuff just... seems so amateurish. Kid's play. Schoolyard bully meanness. It lacks the oppressive, chilling soullesness that the Holocaust downright radiates.

It's also partially a question of time invested. I doubt if there are many appalling massacres that can rival the sheer volume per unit of time measured the Germans achieved.

And it all was done to defenceless civilians whose only crime was to exist, complete with flatly gratuitious acts of ritualized dehumanization.

Kinda hard to match in sheer creepiness.

[Strike For The South]

QFT there were efficent

[ShadeHonestus]

The surviving film footage and documents help with the holocaust's standing. I'm sure that had we footage of medieval England telling jews to stand there in the tidal flats and wait for boats to come pick them up (of course they meant that high tide was on the way to drown them) we would find it equally creepy. The acts themselves are morally equal in each instance despite efficiency. But as stated, things like efficiency lead people to perceptions of being more cold blooded etc.

[Lemur]

Genocide has been a characteristic of human nature for as long as history has been recorded.

Very true. When I'm trying to explain this to people who have no grasp of history, I call it the "Kill the men, rape the women and take the sheep" style of warfare. Probably the oldest way to wage war.

Why does the German genocide of Jews and others get so much attention?

Lots of reasons, some of which have been touched on already. I'll lay out a few of them:

• It was the first truly industrial genocide.
• The holocaust was conducted on an educated, literate, productive part of society (the Jews), as well as an educated, artistic, creative part of society (the gays).
• It was filmed, and the films were preserved.
• The Nazis had an uncanny sense of theatrics, which made everything they did more memorable.
• The Nazis had excellent fashion sense, which made everything they did more memorable.
• Since Germany lost the war, there was no strong push to hide/deny the crime. (Try mentioning the Rape of Nanking to a Japanese person, or the Armenian genocide to a Turk, and you'll see what I mean.)
• Unlike those killed/tortured by the Japanese, the majority of Nazi victims were white. To Westerners, this matters.
• The Nazis conducted their genocide with Germanic efficiency, which makes it more memorable. Death factories had never been seen before, and they kinda made an impression.

I could go on, but there's not much point. The Nazis became the poster boys for genocide, and whether or not that's fair, that's how it is. They ruined genocide and eugenics for everyone.

[Pannonian]

Personally I would have entitled the topic "assessing genocide" instead of "valuing genocide" as at first glance it appears unsavory in its purpose.

Considering PJ opened a thread a while back stating the case for Fascism in today's world, and considering I've seen him advocate the extermination of all Muslims, I'd have thought the current thread title is quite accurate to its intention. It's just another attempt to rehabilitate the Nazis, saying they couldn't have been that bad if we are more alike to them than we'd admit. Of course, it takes quite some twists of rhetoric, not to mention logic, to make them so supposedly akin to us.

[Faust|]

I'm thinking the German genocide stands out because of its direct link to the ideology of the party in power. I believe other genocides were ultimately, well, more "practical" matters.

Some of it is undeniably because the Germans were the enemy of "#1". The U.S. also seems to adopt ideologies only in times of war (which is followed by relative ideological vacuum), so the Germans of that period have the honor of being colored to some extent, still to this day, in the light of the 1940's U.S. mindset.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Very true. When I'm trying to explain this to people who have no grasp of history, I call it the "Kill the men, rape the women and take the sheep" style of warfare...

It should be noted that the last two components of the trio above have been subject to a "mix and match" effect.

Lots of reasons, some of which have been touched on already. I'll lay out a few of them:

• It was the first truly industrial genocide.
• The holocaust was conducted on an educated, literate, productive part of society (the Jews), as well as an educated, artistic, creative part of society (the gays).

...

I'd add, sadly that is was also conducted BY an educated, literate, productive part of society...further heightening the horrific quality of an already evil act. This was not a kultur barely stepping past tribalism and still caught in the throes of "vendetta" and the like.

[KafirChobee]

...
I could go on, but there's not much point. The Nazis became the poster boys for genocide, and whether or not that's fair, that's how it is. They ruined genocide and eugenics for everyone.

LOL .... first time anyone made me laugh during a discussion on mass murder.

The arguement that the Nazis weren't so bad because the Japs killed more people? Don't off-hand have any statistics on the Jap attrocities in China (etc), but as Lemur pointed out - they didn't build murder factories, or keep exacting records of their murders.

Justifying genocide? Please, don't.

[ShadeHonestus]

...as well as an educated, artistic, creative part of society (the gays).

Given the homesexual roots of the Nazi party and dubious sexual orientation of Hitler himself does it not make this a gay on gay hate crime?

[JimBob]

I have to agree its the planning and machine like nature of it. Read Viktor Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning for some description of the camps. Dehumanizing was a science there. There were steps, it all made sense. Nanking was an explosion of revenge instinct from overworked soldiers. It was senseless and insane, random and pointless. It was emotional, so we can grasp it better. Everyone's lost control, not to that degree, but few of us have sat around planning how to damage someone.

[Lemur]

Given the homesexual roots of the Nazi party and dubious sexual orientation of Hitler himself does it not make this a gay on gay hate crime?

I didn't even mention the gypsies, Russians, Poles, etc. The Nazis were a busy bunch.

As for the "homosexual roots" of Nazism, you'll have to clarify, 'cause all I was aware of was Rohm and the Brownshirts. And they got put paid in the night of the long knives. If I remember correctly, homosexuality was one of the justifications given for offing Rohm.

Hitler's sexuality? We're wandering far afield, and I'll leave such speculation to the legions of under-employed historians and conspiracy theorists.

[ShadeHonestus]

Hitler's sexuality? We're wandering far afield, and I'll leave such speculation to the legions of under-employed historians and conspiracy theorists.

Well he was arrested for being a male prostitute and there is considerable consideration given (albeit speculation based on a number of loose facts) that his liquidation of the the brownshirts was for the purpose of clearing his sexual history. I usually don't swim in this kind of speculative excrement however I am leaning toward believing this, everything considered.

[naut]

killed people pretty much according to fairly precise timetables and quotas.

Pretty much hit the nail on the head.

Stalin was more brutal, his quota of purging 28% of the bureaucracy in all regions and then later removing the head of the NKVD, Yagoda, because they were 4 years behind their quota of killing people is along the same line as "The Final Solution".

The only difference with Stalin's "Great Purges" and "the Terror", where he killed more than 20 million people (going on Historian Robert Conquest's estimates which modern historians now claim are an underestimate), and Hitler's genocide of 11 million people, (6 million Jews and 5 million ethnic minorities) is that Stalin was more indiscriminate. The fact that Hitler viciously pursued the murder of Jews and then the huge publicity the Holocaust received after the war really gave it the status it has now.

[econ21]

For me, it's the racial element of the Holocaust that marks it out from the red terrors of the twentieth century. Genocide is the killing of a population group defined in terms of nationality, religion or ethnicity. Most of the red terrors (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot) did not target such groups per se (perhaps Stalin's repression of Ukraine excepted). They targeted opponents (real or imagined) or social classes. Compared to other genocides proper, the Holocaust was just writ much larger and done with terrible efficiency by one of the supposedly most cultured and advanced nations on earth.

I'm not saying it is worse to target a group defined in terms of ethnicity than one defined in terms of social class or political affiliation. However, it is different. The Holocaust stands out because it is a clear example of the poisonous nature of racism. The lessons of Stalin or Mao are different and perhaps less simple (that revolutions devour their own children; that absolute power corrupts absolutely etc).

[LeftEyeNine]

Why does the German genocide of Jews and others get so much attention?

...

So why does Germany get such a bad rap when other nations seem to be able to sweep such unpleasantries under the rug?

[imagining PJ is a brand new challenger in Backroom]
Welcome !

Speaking of the first genocide which was made by Jews as in mentioned in Old Testament sounds reeeeeeasonable while the history falls unable trying to trace back on events happened only several centuries ago, let alone how you'd be able to convince people to some "historical" fact in a book which is found nonsense as a holy one to follow the discipline of, by large numbers.

Simply Germany would have covered it well if they had been able to make it as winners out of the war, assuming they were able to control most of the Europe, if not the whole. And that war concerned the whole world. The stage was alight indeed.

Also whom they had massacred were the Jews, excelled at commerce, which eventually turns them out to have deciding/effective ranks in the society they are living with. The wit for commerce comes from an analytic and quick thinking ability provided with good diplomatic skills. And same skills work out well for political areas as well. So Jews, yes, sticked their pain into our eyes more than it should have been. I'm simply bored of seeing a new Oscar'red-from-production Steven Spielberg movie about the Holocaust every year. Enough. Actually I'm avoiding anyone's art if one has the surname ending with "-berg". Obvious he has Jewish roots suffered the Holocaust, and as much obvious that I'll see something about Holocaust again. I can see their pain but it just irritates when you "taste" too much of something no matter what.
[/imagining PJ is a brand new challenger in Backroom]

or there's another option:

Germans suck at being perfect evils (if you'd be happy with that).

[English assassin]

Considering PJ opened a thread a while back stating the case for Fascism in today's world, and considering I've seen him advocate the extermination of all Muslims, I'd have thought the current thread title is quite accurate to its intention. It's just another attempt to rehabilitate the Nazis, saying they couldn't have been that bad if we are more alike to them than we'd admit. Of course, it takes quite some twists of rhetoric, not to mention logic, to make them so supposedly akin to us.

I can think of a specific answer to that, but I will keep it to myself.

In addition to the points made in posts above, which seem to me to be most of the answer, I would add one other observation. In a sense, the Nazis were indeed like us. For a civilised western European nation to carry out the holocaust is particularly shocking. (Yes, that comment is, I suppose, culturally imperialist or something. So sue me.) Obviously the Germans have the misfortune that we know for a fact that there was something in German culture c.1930-45 that made the holocaust possible, whereas for the rest of us its speculative, but that should not let the rest of us off the hook. They were still forcibly sterilizing people in Sweden in the 70's for heavens sake. The US was in effect an apartheid state. (My father in law was turned away from a hospital in the US in the early 60's because it was "whites only".) And so on. So there is a nasty "there but for the grace of god" element to it.

Also, although I do not buy into the "its horrible because they lost" point, there is a dreadful sense that they could have got away with it. The Nazi/racial ideology sort of makes sense, internally to itself anyway, if you know nothing better than the axioms it puts forward. No doubt that explains its perennial popularity, most recently in jihadi form. Had the war ended in 1941, had a new generation of children been raised in the party with no knowledge of liberal Germany, who knows? Holocaust day might have had a whole other meaning.

(It occurs to me that had the war ended in 1941 the holocaust as it actually happened may have taken some other form. as i am sure that form would have been almost equally unpleaseant it doesn't detract from the point, which is in any case more of a Monastery debate than the backroom).

[Vladimir]

Well the word "genocide" was invented to describe the Holocaust. Therefore it's only natural to equate the two.

And has been said, the Germans lost, and that counts for a lot.

[Odin]

I am coming in late to this discussion and dont have much to add to what has been said. I do however have a very unique perspective, my mother in law is german. She fled in 45 when the Russians invaded and she made her way toward the americans and by family connection in holland she got out and to the states.

She was 15 at the time of her departure and we have talked at length about Germany in the prewar and war era. The one piece that has been absent from the discussion that i see is the overwhelming guilt of the german people.

To give you the gist of her feelings, and most of us do understand this premise, hitler brought a fiercely nationalistic people back to nationalism. They all believed in him, truly, they bought in hook line and sinker. Now her story is that for her, she was told that the Jews were undesirables attempting to corrupt the new German nation (yadda yadda).

You see they had no reason not to believe Hitler, and then once at war and realizing the state they were in they were forced to believe him as there was little individuals could do, save risking thier own necks. Her brother was apart of the hitler youth, they regularly monitored thier town for jews and thier goings on.

She carries great shame over it, and she believes that the genocide in germany is most prevelant due to the true nature of the peoples shame and remorse. You see, she as a german dosent hide from it, dosent rebuttal the arguments and dosent attempt to gloss it over with time and conditions on the ground.

This attitude which she claims is now part of the German national identity contributes to the ability to keep the discussion alive. Again this is my two cents from a secondary source, but i feel its a valid point to make, that the peoples involved in this genocide arent expending thier energy attempting to justify it.

[Spino]

Well the word "genocide" was invented to describe the Holocaust. Therefore it's only natural to equate the two.

And has been said, the Germans lost, and that counts for a lot.

In fairness the word was also coined in light of the Armenian genocide which preceded the Holocaust, at the time those were two of the biggest ethnic bloodlettings in modern history.

The massive scale of murder set against the greatest war in world history is probably the contributing factor as to why the Holocaust gets the most attention. A great tragedy set within the confines of a compelling drama is, I daresay, the kind of human theater few people can forget. Humanity in general loves bookmarking examples of extreme brilliance and brutality for posterity. And as Lemur pointed out, the details of the Holocaust were well documented by those who initiated it, this is simply unprecedented in the history of human conflict.

On a politically incorrect note the fact that Hollyweird, the center of gravity for the English speaking entertainment industry, was founded by and to this day run in large part by Jews allows for a periodic recycling of Holocaust themed projects. Obviously to the average Jewish-American this topic hits close to home so its easy to see why they would be more inclined to give it coverage. While this has a unfortunate tendency to push similar acts out of the spotlight a periodic reminder of what happened and the lessons learned is not necessarily a bad thing. But scapegoating Hollyweird also comes across as a weak excuse for sloth, there is nothing keeping European or independent filmmakers from giving the Armenian genocide the coverage it deserves.

[Major Robert Dump]

The japanese rape on Nnaking and similar atrocities against China were far, far worse than the holocaust against the jews, in my opinion, but god forbid i say that in a college classroom or I'd get expelled. I'd rather be gassed than gang raped and turned into a sex slave but i guess thats not the PC way of looking at things now is it?

[Vladimir]

The japanese rape on Nnaking and similar atrocities against China were far, far worse than the holocaust against the jews, in my opinion, but god forbid i say that in a college classroom or I'd get expelled. I'd rather be gassed than gang raped and turned into a sex slave but i guess thats not the PC way of looking at things now is it?

You should have said that in my Chineese history class. You would have a lot of nodding heads. The lack of documentation (and the location) make it less understood (or cared about) but it was brutal.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Humanity's capability for inhumanity is, sadly, all too constantly reaffirmed.



Some folks have even argued that Dhaugazvili's [sic?] mass murders were less evil (or at least less "genocidal") since he didn't single out any one group but was an "equal opportunity" butcher. While likely correct, at least in a denotative sense, I really don't find that particularly comforting.

[Spino]

Humanity's capability for inhumanity is, sadly, all too constantly reaffirmed.



Some folks have even argued that Dhaugazvili's [sic?] mass murders were less evil (or at least less "genocidal") since he didn't single out any one group but was an "equal opportunity" butcher. While likely correct, at least in a denotative sense, I really don't find that particularly comforting.

You mean Stalin? Stalin may have been an equal opportunity butcher but at least with Hitler you knew where you stood. Stalin's acute paranoia inspired massive purges were based on hunches drawn from the more 'imaginative' parts of his sociopathic mind. Stalin changed his views as to which individuals and/or groups who were loyal with alarming irregularity. What began as a deliberate and calculating tactic meant to keep his enemies (real or imagined) off balance early in his rise to power wound up becoming a veritable murder lottery. Stalin eventually did single out ethnic groups as his witness by his wild claims of a 'Jewish doctors' plot just prior to his death.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Genocide has been the probably least effective way of waging war throughout history, always resulting in more or less genocide or assimilation of the aggressor once he has finally been defeated. To be a ruthless conqueror makes it a necessity for neighbors who value their lives to form strong alliances against you. I can't think of a single genocidal civilization which hasn't been genocided back, ruthlessly assimilated or otherwise got more back of their own medicine than they gave in the first place. Even when they get clementia when defeated, they've lost so many healthy soldiers from fighting hordes of enemies, that they can't prevent their women from being taken by those who finally defeated them. Genocide removes the fools from populations: namely, those fools who think they'll gain anything from carrying out genocide. The guilty suffer more than the victims.

Example, ww2:
Allied side casualties: 50M, divided over populations of around 1,500M persons = 3%
Axis side casualties: 12M, divided over populations of around 150M persons = 8%
Because of uncertainties in the figures I've biased them towards the opposite of the point I'm making. Still, they support my point very clearly: if you as leader think you'll help your country by genocide you're wrong, and if you as voter are considering to support a genocidal maniac leader, think again.

The sad thing is how skilled genocidal maniacs are at hiding what they're doing, and hiding their itentions when they are to be elected, so that even non-fools end up giving them the crucial early support they need to succeed in their undertakings.

[Ser Clegane]

I can't think of a single genocidal civilization which hasn't been genocided back, ruthlessly assimilated or otherwise got more back of their own medicine than they gave in the first place.

Hmm ... Japan in WW2?

I do not think that you can argue that they have been "genocided back" for what they did in China. Of course they also suffered tremendous losses among their own population, but would you say that this would not have happened without Nanking?

[Rodion Romanovich]

Nagasaki and Hiroshima - the A-bombs continued to cause problems with newborn babies for decades. Technically dropped by the US, but the US were allied to China. If the Japanese hadn't done Nanjing and similar, it's very likely the US policy to Japan wouldn't have been nearly as strict as it were, probably meaning Japan would never have deemed it necessary to attack Pearl Harbor to secure their oil supply, and the US may not have been drawn into war with Japan. Also would Australia, NZ and various others even have considered going to war with a Japan that hadn't carried out Nanjing, and therefore wasn't perceived a nearly as big threat as the Japan that DID carry out Nanjing?

Now technically one could say the A-bomb drops were atrocies in themselves, which they were, like the Dresden bombings, but they are predictable responses which one can expect after genociding, and then refusing to surrender, and not necessarily atrocities when put in their context according to some. Anything but clementia after surrender is however an atrocity even in the context IMO, since it sends dangerous signals.

Wars are determined by who puts the most effort into it, and has the most resources. If you genocide while on offense, you send a quite clear signal to all people that unless they ally with your enemies they're likely to get ruthlessly murdered for no reason too. The neutrals have little choice but to join the alliance against the at that time genocidal faction. Thus they get more resources, put in more effort, and have a stronger fighting morale. People are however less scared by guerillas who fight with ugly tricks in self-defense, but have shown to be peaceful before they were invaded, and as a result a conqueror seldom gets much more support for suppressing a guerilla fighting his unprovoked attack. One could believe with this that victory is inversely proportional to cruelty, but unfortunately that isn't true. Defeat is unfortunately often delayed, and in cases where the offense was minor, neutrals may never deem it necessary to crush the aggressor. In major atrocies, genocides and unprovoked conquests however, this pattern seems unbroken.

If leaders carry out genocides purely because they believe there's gain in it, hopefully such simple proofs of how self-destructive it is could prevent a lot of genocides. Most likely nobody who supported a genocide was thinking about a future when they had lost more than their victims.