Valuing Genocide

[JR-]

i don't consider Hitler's genocide against the jews/gypsies/gays/communists to be worse than any other, quite the opposite, i consider what stalin did to be worse directly in proportion to the increased body-count.

my guess at why it is perceived to be terrible beyond all else:
> it was so targeted. yes, i'm sure others were just as targeted, but this was in an age of film and perpetrated by our mortal enemies.
> it was so mechanical and automated as a process. this makes it seem all the more inhuman for its german 'efficiency'.
> agreed with Watchman below. the germans were supposed to be a civilised and thoroughly modern nation, and certainly not a bunch of hairy arsed natives running around with panga's.
> jewish efficiency. i have always admired the effectiveness of jewish culture, their immense ability to be capable to whatever degree is necessary to achieve their aims. there is little doubt in my mind that at least part of the explanation for the persistence of the horror as perceived by people now is the result of jewish lobbying, both formal and informal, which has kept the holocaust at the forefront of the public mind.*









* in no way do i consider this improper or a bad thing. jewish culture (by which i mean the people), had suffered a terrible ravaging once again, more terrible than any that had gone before, but now they had the chance to create a sovereign nation where this fate could not be imposed upon them again. however this new nation was created, unwanted and despised, in the midst of what would become a clash of civilizations, from a rag-tag bunch of disparate refugees, weak and few in number. they needed every advantage they could get, and courted every ally they could by whatever means could be achieved to bring advantage to what is a totally improbable success story. i would have done the same.