David Irving

[borderpolice]

(though you're right about Armenia- 'who remembers the armenians' was of course Hitler's line)

i wonder if i am the only one who notices the obvious fact that hitler did remember the armenian incident?

 

[infinite thought]

and the total lack of resistance on the side of the victims.

Sobibor, October 14, 1943 means nothing to you then?

these reasons were partially appropriate (in case of stalinists) and partially utterly bogus (jews, gypsis)

wtf are you saying here?

more in the efficiency with which the mass killing was carried out (though immediatly trumped by the nuclear bombs)

well, of course there was Zyklon B and the gas chambers, but there was also a lot of not-very technical and plain brutal killing going too. Driving 'gas-vans' around with the exhaust pipe directed into the back through a hose did for many (particularly those with mental illnesses), and 'simple' shooting and beating to death was the sorry fate of thousands.

It's a mistake to think that technology trumped or somehow frames in a peculiarly modern way the more crucial fact of sheer Nazi murderousness. It's something Lanzmann's Shoah film makes clear.

 

[borderpolice]

Sobibor, October 14, 1943 means nothing to you then?

compared with the reaction of e.g the soviets or the western allies there was no significant resistance. sure there were individual acts, but that's ineffective against army based large scale violence. this is all the more surprising, as the targeted groups, unlike in the stalinist case were not effectivly randomly chosen, very much on the contrary, they formed very clearcut groups. but they were spacially fairly distributed.

wtf are you saying here?

i might have expressed myself carelessly, sorry. what i meant is this: I'm saying that waging war against a dreadful dictator like stalin (or hitler) -- unlike in case of the racial war -- is justified. whether the specifics of these wars represent the best possible course of action is a differrnt matter. the race stuff was utterly bogus, though at the time racism was endmic and (partially) had scientific credibility, as a result of colonial exploitation as the result of the rewriting of biology in terms of evolution.

well, of course there was Zyklon B and the gas chambers, but there was also a lot of not-very technical and plain brutal killing going too. Driving 'gas-vans' around with the exhaust pipe directed into the back through a hose did for many (particularly those with mental illnesses), and 'simple' shooting and beating to death was the sorry fate of thousands.

well, but apart from technical details these things are hardly novel, as even the tiniest understanding of the history of humanity makes clear. gas as a means of killing was for example very popular on all sides of the first WW (here's a web reference) , the first fully industrialised war, hence industrialised killing. it goes back much further, the chinese used it way back. murdering disabled is as old as humanity, the nazis made it more efficient, a state policy rather than leaving it to individuals.

It's a mistake to think that technology trumped or somehow frames in a peculiarly modern way the more crucial fact of sheer Nazi murderousness. It's something Lanzmann's Shoah film makes clear.

i disagree with this.

 

[infinite thought]

i disagree with this.

You disagree that that's what Lanzmann's film shows, or you disagree that Nazi violence took other forms other than the 'technological'?

 

[borderpolice]

You disagree that that's what Lanzmann's film shows, or you disagree that Nazi violence took other forms other than the 'technological'?

the latter.

 

[infinite thought]

Raul Hilberg estimates that over 800,000 died from "Ghettoization and general privation;" and 1,400,000 who were killed in "Open-air shootings" during the Holocaust (according to this write up) - the point the Lanzmann film makes (and his Sobibor documentary) is to do with the absolute bureaucratisation of the Holocaust, which obviously included massive technological elements, but wasn't totally over-determined by them - blaming 'technology' pure and simple sometimes seems to me a way of not blaming the people who used it.

With regard to bureaucracy, the Sobibor rebellion could only have taken place because the guards were so organised and punctual - those in the camp took advantage of the timetables in order to murder their captors.

 

[zhao]

what, exactly are you trying to say here?

just pointing out that the suffering of one people carries more weight/is better remembered/represented/seems more significant/etc., than the suffering of other people. for various economic/political reasons.

 

[droid]

Raul Hilberg estimates that over 800,000 died from "Ghettoization and general privation;" and 1,400,000 who were killed in "Open-air shootings" during the Holocaust (according to this write up) - the point the Lanzmann film makes (and his Sobibor documentary) is to do with the absolute bureaucratisation of the Holocaust, which obviously included massive technological elements, but wasn't totally over-determined by them - blaming 'technology' pure and simple sometimes seems to me a way of not blaming the people who used it.

With regard to bureaucracy, the Sobibor rebellion could only have taken place because the guards were so organised and punctual - those in the camp took advantage of the timetables in order to murder their captors.

What struck me about Edwin Blacks' 'IBM and the Holocaust' was this exact quality - the astounding bureauctic organisation of the Nazi genocide illustrated by the reams of punch cards, statistics and censuses...

 

[borderpolice]

the absolute bureaucratisation of the Holocaust, which obviously included massive technological elements, but wasn't totally over-determined by them - blaming 'technology' pure and simple sometimes seems to me a way of not blaming the people who used it.

wasnt that exactly one of my points? however, every modern army's functioning is dependent on a supporting bureaucracy. in any case, large scale efficient bureaucracies are themselves dependent on efficient means of communication.

 

[borderpolice]

What struck me about Edwin Blacks' 'IBM and the Holocaust' was this exact quality - the astounding bureauctic organisation of the Nazi genocide illustrated by the reams of punch cards, statistics and censuses...

of course the other sides in this war had similar bureaucracies -- project manhattan would surely not have come about without a veritable organisational machine. the rapid and ubiquitous exchange of personel at all levels between armies, state and industrial bureaucracies (example: the case of robert mac namara, US defense minister in JBL's admin, former General Motors executive and bomber pilot) illustrates that nicely.

the fact of the matter is simply this: every modern army is a bureacratic industrial killing machine. to say otherwise is denial.

 

[bassnation]

this is an awful argument, its like atrocity top trumps or something.

 

[bassnation]

the fact of the matter is simply this: every modern army is a bureacratic industrial killing machine. to say otherwise is denial.

so in your eyes the nazis did nothing out of the ordinairy and all sides are pretty much equivalent?

please tell me that i've misunderstood your argument.

 

[Buick6]

while the Holocaust is as popular as Seinfeld.

..But not more popular than Jesus, actually I"ll leave that to the Beatles..Of course, some of your best friends ARE Jewish, aren't they?

 

[droid]

Of course, some of your best friends ARE Jewish, aren't they?

You could be 100% right or 100% wrong - but why the fuck should anyone take your accusations of anti-semitism seriously?

You cry wolf at every opportunity and it completely devalues any serious political opinions you might have (If you're capable of anything other than snide asides that is).

Surely youd be more comfortable playing with Little Green Footballs?

 

[matt b]

...If you're capable of anything other than snide asides that is...

buick6's comments aren't even THAT good

 

[bassnation]

You could be 100% right or 100% wrong - but why the fuck should anyone take your accusations of anti-semitism seriously?

hes even assuming that no-one here is jewish or has jewish ancestors - thats a massive and risky assumption in itself.

even then not all jews agree with zionism.

its a complicated picture and its best not to sling mud unless you can back it up.

 

[borderpolice]

so in your eyes the nazis did nothing out of the ordinairy and all sides are pretty much equivalent?

please tell me that i've misunderstood your argument.

your question tells me you have not understood my argument.

but by and large such questions don't lead anywhere useful.

 

[bassnation]

your question tells me you have not understood my argument.

but by and large such questions don't lead anywhere useful.

fair enough, i accept your point.

 

[droid]

the fact of the matter is simply this: every modern army is a bureacratic industrial killing machine. to say otherwise is denial.

What about crap armies? Or the episodes in the Gulf Wars when 'allied' men and machines were sent into Iraq without even a decent map?

I see your point, but its not really relevant. Most armies dont pursue campaigns of genocide against civilian populations. Even the war crimes committed by the allies in WW2 dont come near that category, and the US's postwar campaigns of terror in South-East Asia, Latin America and elsewhere, terrible as they were, did not have the genocide of entire ethnic groups as its primary motivation - rather the victims were irrelevant 'unpeople' - considered to be utterly disposable commodities at best.

Its not really much of a distinction I agree - but nonetheless, thats the definition...

Genocide is actualy a very technical term for a very specific crime - and intention is a major part of it. Check out the article 2 of the UN convention:

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: a) Killing members of the group; b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

 

[Slothrop]

Rewinding a bit...

the reason why everyone thinks of Auschwitz when they think of the horrors of the 20th century is not because it was the most terrible, but because the Jews are the most vocal about what happened to them. the Armenians, Chinese, etc, etc, suffered FAR worse fates, and were slaughtered in FAR greater numbers than during the Holocaust, and people rarely mention these incidences.

Sidestepping the 'my genocide was worse than your genocide' arguments for a bit, there are quite a number of other reasons that the holocaust is the most remembered atrocity of the 20th century.

First up, it's one of not many that was ended by a large scale war on the people perpetrating it. This means that the holocaust will be involved in discussions of WWII, and since WWII pretty much set the stage for the last fifty years of history, this means that it comes up a lot. Particulalry since the horrors of the holocaust can be used to justify WWII.

It's also one of not many that was revealed while in full flow, to a world that had become more aware that killing large numbers of people is a bad thing. The shock of Stalin's killings was lessened by the time it took the west to realize that they'd happened, and the Herero genocide only came into perspective as more of the world came to understand that killing Africans is no more acceptable than killing Europeans.

Finally, pretty much everyone everywhere has a stronger reaction to things that happen 'closer' to them, either in terms of time, space, or cultural similarity. This is normally held up as an example of white european / american self obsession, but it seems to be a pretty natural feature of people - I'm more shocked if someone gets mugged in my area of my town than by someone getting shot somewhere else in the country. And more recent things are obviously fresher in the memory. So it's quite natural that the genocide that western europeans remember most is one that happened comparatively recently in a western european country.

I'm not trying to diminish the holocaust or any other mass murder here - they're all terrible. I'm just suggesting a few reasons that we might remember one and all but forget the others.