I’m a german citizen and i feel obliged to educate you on this topic. I still see the remnants and aftermath of the second world war every single day, living in this history rich country.
The holocaust was ordered in the last few years of the second world war, since it was good knowledge that germany would be loosing amongst german officers. That means approximately 6 mio. People have been killed in around 3.5 years (Yes of course people also died earlier on, but let’s keep it easy). Or equal to: 40.000 people Per Day. So imagine your stadium, gone, every 24 hours. For around 3.5 years.
But thats not it. Those people got tortured, they got used for horrific “scientific” experiments, there were surgery’s held on those people without any kind of painkiller (excuse me English is not my first language).
They were treated less than animals. They had to work in the factories for Hitlers war effort and did horrific jobs, often times loosing limbs. They were extremely malnutritioned, dehydrated, and kept awake forcefully by beeing dumped full of drugs like cocaine and crack. Many times, actually most of the times, they died from exhaustion. If anything was out of the ordinary or they seemed unfit for work, they got used for experiments and if they survived that, killed.
They sometimes stayed for years in those camps.
But the crazy thing about this is. It depends on how you count. In the second world war there were around 12-18mio. Deaths. So depending on who you ask, and what counts for you as a holocaust, for example being forcefully drafted into a military as say a 14 year old and told to run into machine gun fire, you could be closer to around 2 stadiums, per day.
Yes. A stadium full is mass murder, but its not a holocaust. And statements like these will make you hard to believe for many people. I know what you are trying to say. Its a lot a a lot a lot a lot of people. Yes. But if you compare it to the holocaust, thats something whole different.
Additionally, the nazis built infrastructure (trains, KZs, …) just to kill Jews. They optimized it to maximize the amount of Jews to bring into KZs, they built the infamous gas showers and gas chambers to be able to kill more people more efficiently.
They industrialized genocide.
While there were many cruel mass murders, this industrialization thing makes it unique so far.
Yes they have industrialized it. But you seem to have some pedantic definition of industrialized mass murder that somehow only applies to Jews. Got it. ;)
“Additionally, the Zionists built infrastructure (separation walls, checkpoints, expanding settlements) just to kill Palestinians. They optimized it to maximize the amount of Palestinians to bring into Gaza (an open air prison) or overcrowded Israeli jails, they built the infamous AI targeting systems and have gotten the biggest imprecise missiles they could find to be able to kill more people more efficiently. On top of that, they completely cut off supplies and destroyed all universities and many hospitlas water facilities in the open air prison they crowded Palestinians too”.
Remember, most of Gaza are refugees from other parts of Palestine who were already to Gaza. Gaza is Israel’s current genocide infrastructure just like concentration camps were the genocide infrastructure built to kill Jews in Europe.
I had a relationship with a German some years ago. I was told that there was some kind of collective punishment (my words) still going on because of WW2. That Germany still felt responsible, and pushed that responsibility onto the next generation, a generation with no relation to WW2 other than being born in Germany.
Why can’t the older generation let the next generation move on without inheriting their burden?
This is an agenda pushed by the right. They don’t understand the difference between guilt / responsibility for what happened and responsibility to not let it happen again.
We are not guilty nor responsible for what happened during WW2, but we are responsible to not let it ever happen again.
It is not “pushed onto us”. Its important to remember what happend in order to tell the signs and stop it from happening ever again. The narrative of “We are not responsible for it anymore and shouldn’t feel any guilt” is a narrative mostly used by german right-wing conservatists trying to erase this part of our history out of the books and education.
Because everything doable has to be done to prevent something like this from happening ever again. Feeling some guilt is a small price to pay.
Sincerely, a German
Does it though? Seems like it produces a weird emotional response and lots of hot air. Guilt doesn’t seem healthy nor useful nor effective in stoping future genocides.
Otherwise we would have seen a better response from the German government who should have felt guilty enough about the holocaust to prevent one from happening in Gaza. Instead, they pledge support to Israel. Cool. Very “guilty” indeed.
Yes it does. It creates awareness for antisemitism and fascism. It makes you feel responsible for political changes as an individual, which is important for a functioning democracy.
A Nazi party is currently on the rise here, they’re called AfD. Obviously, it doesn’t work for those people, but it can’t be expected to work for everyone. There have been mass protests against that party though (I’m talking multiple millions of people all across Germany were protesting) under the motto “Nie wieder ist jetzt” (Never again is now). I think that shows how the knowledge about the Holocaust mobilizes people to act against right wing extremists.
I’m not happy with the official reactions of the German government to Israel. You need to understand, however, that after Germany tried to eradicate Jews, we’ve made it a priority to defend their right for a safe home. I agree that they currently abuse this right in many ways. There has certainly also been criticism among German highly ranked politicians of Israel’s actions, albeit probably not enough. You need to understand though that antisemitism is still rooted in German society, and it is important not to fuel it. That’s a fine line to walk on there. I agree that it’s probably not handled optimally currently, but it’s also not as easy as you make it out to be.
It is fueling it because criticism of Israeli politics is constantly mixed with antisemitic narratives. That’s the fault of antisemites of course, but the problem is there and cannot be denied. As I said, I don’t agree with how it’s handled, but it needs to be acknowledged that it’s a hard problem to solve. Believe me, I wish all this was easier. I wish I could protest Israels actions without being seen as an antisemite but I can’t because of the dynamics of the public discourse which is driven by extremists of all sides. The discourse here has been poisoned by antisemites, racists and islamophobes to an extent where expressing a nuanced and/or pure-hearted opinion on the matter is almost impossible.
My ancestor who died on the nazi operating table upon receiving unimaginable treatment would be very angry we are letting the genocide happen and using this kind of arguments to delay our response
The common people also don’t get listened to, lmao.
Nobody I’ve talked to in the 8-9 months since this all went off are cheering for Israel. Every person I’ve discussed with thinks the whole thing is a mess that should end asap.
Stop conflating right wing news pundits with common folk.
While I do agree with you on a general level, I think this is largely a discussion about how different cultures and languages use the word holocaust.
In Germany, the word Holocaust has a connotation that particularly emphasizes the exceptional nature of the event in comparison to everything that has happened before and since.
This connotation is not necessarily present in other societies, where the meaning is closer to the Greek root ‘holókaustos’ - ‘completely burnt, destroyed’ and this results in the difference between the Holocaust and a holocaust in English.
It is therefore understandable that the term holocaust is used in other languages for what is happening.
Is it helpful though? Here’s my - slightly different - take of why using the word is not necessarily wrong… but unhelpful.
I myself prefer the term “genocide” in the Israeli-Palestinian context, especially because the term holocaust in close proximity to Judaism is extremely loaded and in this context has connotations that are less about Israel’s terrible crimes and more about the somewhat conspiratorial accusation of ‘victims becoming perpetrators’ against Jews as a whole, which resonates with antisemitism and understandably gives rise to accusations of antisemitism to the point of completely losing focus of the important part of the discussion:
The state of Israel is committing extended, organized and deliberate genocide against Palestinians, out of hatred of and revenge against Hamas. This hatred and revenge against Hamas is justified. Targeting innocent Palestinians is not.
One can call this a holocaust, but this choice of word is more likely to derail the discussion and serve an entirely different agenda than the one that tries to achieve some end of the murders in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank.
The term was coined during WW2, and it means a mass slaughter of people.
We refer to the WW2 event as the Holocaust, the name of the historical event that invented the word.
There is a difference between the two, and trying to argue that this is not technically comparable to what happened in WW2 because not enough people died yet is a terrible thing to do.
If your ancestors that witnessed what happened during the war were witnessing what is happening today, do you think they would scoff at Palestinians because they don’t have 6 millions deaths yet or would they make the parallel between what happened then and now.
I appreciate your history course, but the kind of discourse you and many other have dilutes the word because you couldn’t be bothered to open a dictionary and look up the meaning of a word. You go around instead , lecturing people saying “akschually…” and spouting the same talking points from the IDF propaganda.
The term itself comes out of the Greek language, around 400 BC. It does not mean mass slaughter or genocide, it means the burning of animals.
In no terms it means anything near mass slaughter. The term though got a different meaning after the second world war, since we called the events holocaust. So, “” akschually"" referring to what happens in Palestine as a holocaust is factually wrong, since the de facto meaning of the word is a religious sacrifice of animals. In modern times the word is only used to refer to the german actions against Jewish people from 1936 to 1945.
Indicating what happens in Palestine is a holocaust is therefore only a comparison between germany 1936 and 1945 to Palestine.
Yes, it may be a genocide, it may be a mass murder/slaughter, BUT it does not even come close to what happened in germany. Therefore it downplays of the events in germany, which is not a good thing.
So, if you want a post it note
A Holocaust is a mass slaughter/genocide
But a mass slaughter/genocide is not a Holocaust.
By the way, my grandparents are still alive and first hand witnesses to what happened here, when the war ended they were 14 and 16 years old. And I have not heard them referring to what happens in Palestine as a Holocaust, neither do I expect them reacting nicely when someone would.
Holocaust has been used and was understood at least since 1189 to describe the burning of Jews. See my comment
Edit: this is btw. not to detract from your point. The word holocaust as the deliberate burning of people was mostly used for burning jews, but also witch-burnings and similar events. Even the great fire of London was called a holocaust.
In pre-WWII parlance, calling what happens in Gaza a holocaust would absolutely be appropriate. Post WWII its usage is just… not helpful and has bad connotations that detract from what is important in the discussion.
The term is greek in origin and referred to burn offering “holókaustos” - “completely/wholely burned”, it was used in this way throughout the middle ages for fire-progroms against Jews (*) and later (1515) to decry the witch-burnings as “the new fire sacrifices” (“nova holocausta”).
* “Eodem coronationis die, circa illam sollemnitatis horam qua Filius immolabatur Patri, incceptum est in civitate Londoniae immolare Judaeos patri suo diabolo ; tantaque fuit hujus Celebris mora mysterii, ut vix altera die compleri potuerit holocaustum” - “On the same day of the coronation, about that solemn hour when the Son was sacrificed to the Father, it was begun in the city of London to sacrifice the Jews to their father the devil; and so great was the delay of this famous mystery, that the next day the holocaust could scarcely have been completed” source
Edit: This is btw. describing the events of the coronation of Richard the Lionheart 1189 CE.
I downvoted just because of your opening sentence. The closing part t seems like pedantic bullshit. The holocaust is not exceptional. It’s not any more or less special than any genocide.
If it was the same severity Gaza wouldn’t be existing anymore since its whole population would be dead since around 5 months. Yes, its a mass murder. But yes, you can also distinguish between mass murder and a mass murder on an industrial scale. If you can’t distinguish, I have a few history books for you.
Hello.
I’m a german citizen and i feel obliged to educate you on this topic. I still see the remnants and aftermath of the second world war every single day, living in this history rich country.
The holocaust was ordered in the last few years of the second world war, since it was good knowledge that germany would be loosing amongst german officers. That means approximately 6 mio. People have been killed in around 3.5 years (Yes of course people also died earlier on, but let’s keep it easy). Or equal to: 40.000 people Per Day. So imagine your stadium, gone, every 24 hours. For around 3.5 years.
But thats not it. Those people got tortured, they got used for horrific “scientific” experiments, there were surgery’s held on those people without any kind of painkiller (excuse me English is not my first language).
They were treated less than animals. They had to work in the factories for Hitlers war effort and did horrific jobs, often times loosing limbs. They were extremely malnutritioned, dehydrated, and kept awake forcefully by beeing dumped full of drugs like cocaine and crack. Many times, actually most of the times, they died from exhaustion. If anything was out of the ordinary or they seemed unfit for work, they got used for experiments and if they survived that, killed.
They sometimes stayed for years in those camps.
But the crazy thing about this is. It depends on how you count. In the second world war there were around 12-18mio. Deaths. So depending on who you ask, and what counts for you as a holocaust, for example being forcefully drafted into a military as say a 14 year old and told to run into machine gun fire, you could be closer to around 2 stadiums, per day.
Yes. A stadium full is mass murder, but its not a holocaust. And statements like these will make you hard to believe for many people. I know what you are trying to say. Its a lot a a lot a lot a lot of people. Yes. But if you compare it to the holocaust, thats something whole different.
This.
Additionally, the nazis built infrastructure (trains, KZs, …) just to kill Jews. They optimized it to maximize the amount of Jews to bring into KZs, they built the infamous gas showers and gas chambers to be able to kill more people more efficiently.
They industrialized genocide.
While there were many cruel mass murders, this industrialization thing makes it unique so far.
Greetings from a fellow German.
Israel has literally done this though.
By all means, it’s a Palestinian holocaust.
They have built infrastructure explicitly for murdering gazans at an industrial pace?
They shipped in gazans from around Europe? Wow I hadn’t heard any of this. Is Goebbels involved, too?
Yes they have industrialized it. But you seem to have some pedantic definition of industrialized mass murder that somehow only applies to Jews. Got it. ;)
Lol you’re calling me pedantic while splitting hairs over what “THE HOLOCAUST” could mean. Check the post your commenting under.
Please touch grass.
https://lemmy.world/comment/11800560
I touch grass on a daily basis actually
“Additionally, the Zionists built infrastructure (separation walls, checkpoints, expanding settlements) just to kill Palestinians. They optimized it to maximize the amount of Palestinians to bring into Gaza (an open air prison) or overcrowded Israeli jails, they built the infamous AI targeting systems and have gotten the biggest imprecise missiles they could find to be able to kill more people more efficiently. On top of that, they completely cut off supplies and destroyed all universities and many hospitlas water facilities in the open air prison they crowded Palestinians too”.
I had a relationship with a German some years ago. I was told that there was some kind of collective punishment (my words) still going on because of WW2. That Germany still felt responsible, and pushed that responsibility onto the next generation, a generation with no relation to WW2 other than being born in Germany.
Why can’t the older generation let the next generation move on without inheriting their burden?
This is an agenda pushed by the right. They don’t understand the difference between guilt / responsibility for what happened and responsibility to not let it happen again.
We are not guilty nor responsible for what happened during WW2, but we are responsible to not let it ever happen again.
It is not “pushed onto us”. Its important to remember what happend in order to tell the signs and stop it from happening ever again. The narrative of “We are not responsible for it anymore and shouldn’t feel any guilt” is a narrative mostly used by german right-wing conservatists trying to erase this part of our history out of the books and education.
Because everything doable has to be done to prevent something like this from happening ever again. Feeling some guilt is a small price to pay. Sincerely, a German
deleted by creator
Does it though? Seems like it produces a weird emotional response and lots of hot air. Guilt doesn’t seem healthy nor useful nor effective in stoping future genocides.
Otherwise we would have seen a better response from the German government who should have felt guilty enough about the holocaust to prevent one from happening in Gaza. Instead, they pledge support to Israel. Cool. Very “guilty” indeed.
Yes it does. It creates awareness for antisemitism and fascism. It makes you feel responsible for political changes as an individual, which is important for a functioning democracy.
A Nazi party is currently on the rise here, they’re called AfD. Obviously, it doesn’t work for those people, but it can’t be expected to work for everyone. There have been mass protests against that party though (I’m talking multiple millions of people all across Germany were protesting) under the motto “Nie wieder ist jetzt” (Never again is now). I think that shows how the knowledge about the Holocaust mobilizes people to act against right wing extremists.
I’m not happy with the official reactions of the German government to Israel. You need to understand, however, that after Germany tried to eradicate Jews, we’ve made it a priority to defend their right for a safe home. I agree that they currently abuse this right in many ways. There has certainly also been criticism among German highly ranked politicians of Israel’s actions, albeit probably not enough. You need to understand though that antisemitism is still rooted in German society, and it is important not to fuel it. That’s a fine line to walk on there. I agree that it’s probably not handled optimally currently, but it’s also not as easy as you make it out to be.
Maybe in the way you define it, it does, but not in the way I see I being used.
How would I be feeling anti-Semitism? I think not funding a genocide and taking. a strong human rights stance is easy and doable.
It is fueling it because criticism of Israeli politics is constantly mixed with antisemitic narratives. That’s the fault of antisemites of course, but the problem is there and cannot be denied. As I said, I don’t agree with how it’s handled, but it needs to be acknowledged that it’s a hard problem to solve. Believe me, I wish all this was easier. I wish I could protest Israels actions without being seen as an antisemite but I can’t because of the dynamics of the public discourse which is driven by extremists of all sides. The discourse here has been poisoned by antisemites, racists and islamophobes to an extent where expressing a nuanced and/or pure-hearted opinion on the matter is almost impossible.
How is it hard to take a stand against a genocide after Germany itself made one happen?
My ancestor who died on the nazi operating table upon receiving unimaginable treatment would be very angry we are letting the genocide happen and using this kind of arguments to delay our response
True, and I never said otherwise.
If you think world leaders are taking policy notes from the bottom of a comment chain on Lemmy, you’re gonna have a bad time.
They don’t, but if the common people could at least stop repeating the IDF mouth piece, it would do wonders.
The common people also don’t get listened to, lmao.
Nobody I’ve talked to in the 8-9 months since this all went off are cheering for Israel. Every person I’ve discussed with thinks the whole thing is a mess that should end asap.
Stop conflating right wing news pundits with common folk.
While I do agree with you on a general level, I think this is largely a discussion about how different cultures and languages use the word holocaust.
In Germany, the word Holocaust has a connotation that particularly emphasizes the exceptional nature of the event in comparison to everything that has happened before and since.
This connotation is not necessarily present in other societies, where the meaning is closer to the Greek root ‘holókaustos’ - ‘completely burnt, destroyed’ and this results in the difference between the Holocaust and a holocaust in English.
It is therefore understandable that the term holocaust is used in other languages for what is happening.
Is it helpful though? Here’s my - slightly different - take of why using the word is not necessarily wrong… but unhelpful.
I myself prefer the term “genocide” in the Israeli-Palestinian context, especially because the term holocaust in close proximity to Judaism is extremely loaded and in this context has connotations that are less about Israel’s terrible crimes and more about the somewhat conspiratorial accusation of ‘victims becoming perpetrators’ against Jews as a whole, which resonates with antisemitism and understandably gives rise to accusations of antisemitism to the point of completely losing focus of the important part of the discussion:
The state of Israel is committing extended, organized and deliberate genocide against Palestinians, out of hatred of and revenge against Hamas. This hatred and revenge against Hamas is justified. Targeting innocent Palestinians is not.
One can call this a holocaust, but this choice of word is more likely to derail the discussion and serve an entirely different agenda than the one that tries to achieve some end of the murders in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank.
The term was coined during WW2, and it means a mass slaughter of people.
We refer to the WW2 event as the Holocaust, the name of the historical event that invented the word.
There is a difference between the two, and trying to argue that this is not technically comparable to what happened in WW2 because not enough people died yet is a terrible thing to do.
If your ancestors that witnessed what happened during the war were witnessing what is happening today, do you think they would scoff at Palestinians because they don’t have 6 millions deaths yet or would they make the parallel between what happened then and now.
I appreciate your history course, but the kind of discourse you and many other have dilutes the word because you couldn’t be bothered to open a dictionary and look up the meaning of a word. You go around instead , lecturing people saying “akschually…” and spouting the same talking points from the IDF propaganda.
If you want a post it note for next time.
The Holocaust (event) : what happened during WW2
a holocaust (name): the mass murder of people
The term itself comes out of the Greek language, around 400 BC. It does not mean mass slaughter or genocide, it means the burning of animals.
In no terms it means anything near mass slaughter. The term though got a different meaning after the second world war, since we called the events holocaust. So, “” akschually"" referring to what happens in Palestine as a holocaust is factually wrong, since the de facto meaning of the word is a religious sacrifice of animals. In modern times the word is only used to refer to the german actions against Jewish people from 1936 to 1945.
Indicating what happens in Palestine is a holocaust is therefore only a comparison between germany 1936 and 1945 to Palestine.
Yes, it may be a genocide, it may be a mass murder/slaughter, BUT it does not even come close to what happened in germany. Therefore it downplays of the events in germany, which is not a good thing.
So, if you want a post it note
A Holocaust is a mass slaughter/genocide
But a mass slaughter/genocide is not a Holocaust.
By the way, my grandparents are still alive and first hand witnesses to what happened here, when the war ended they were 14 and 16 years old. And I have not heard them referring to what happens in Palestine as a Holocaust, neither do I expect them reacting nicely when someone would.
And tbh, wtf are we even fighting about.
Holocaust has been used and was understood at least since 1189 to describe the burning of Jews. See my comment
Edit: this is btw. not to detract from your point. The word holocaust as the deliberate burning of people was mostly used for burning jews, but also witch-burnings and similar events. Even the great fire of London was called a holocaust.
In pre-WWII parlance, calling what happens in Gaza a holocaust would absolutely be appropriate. Post WWII its usage is just… not helpful and has bad connotations that detract from what is important in the discussion.
The term is greek in origin and referred to burn offering “holókaustos” - “completely/wholely burned”, it was used in this way throughout the middle ages for fire-progroms against Jews (*) and later (1515) to decry the witch-burnings as “the new fire sacrifices” (“nova holocausta”).
* “Eodem coronationis die, circa illam sollemnitatis horam qua Filius immolabatur Patri, incceptum est in civitate Londoniae immolare Judaeos patri suo diabolo ; tantaque fuit hujus Celebris mora mysterii, ut vix altera die compleri potuerit holocaustum” - “On the same day of the coronation, about that solemn hour when the Son was sacrificed to the Father, it was begun in the city of London to sacrifice the Jews to their father the devil; and so great was the delay of this famous mystery, that the next day the holocaust could scarcely have been completed” source
Edit: This is btw. describing the events of the coronation of Richard the Lionheart 1189 CE.
I downvoted just because of your opening sentence. The closing part t seems like pedantic bullshit. The holocaust is not exceptional. It’s not any more or less special than any genocide.
If it was the same severity Gaza wouldn’t be existing anymore since its whole population would be dead since around 5 months. Yes, its a mass murder. But yes, you can also distinguish between mass murder and a mass murder on an industrial scale. If you can’t distinguish, I have a few history books for you.
Severity has no bearing on the definition of a holocaust. Mass murder is mass murder, you know, the definition of a holocaust.
I’d say 40k death and still growing is pretty much an industrial scale. That and the razing of Palestine right now. It doesn’t happen with rocks.
Lol sure go ahead and educate me you very smart German 😉