I'm neutral towards him, actually. I respect him as a writer, but not as a person. He strikes me as the kind of person who would do anything for rewards and fame.
And again, no one here is denying that what happened to the native americans was genocide.
Has a resolution been passed that explicitly recognizes and labels it as genocide?
No? I see.
Your country can't even apply its own standards to itself. What gives it the right to judge other countries?
So? This isn't a court of law in the American justice system. Different standards apply.
Considering this is a US resolution that is being passed, I don't think so.
No one is trying to bring Turkey to justice. People are trying to get them to admit it happened. They refuse to. This is the problem.
It's like if the German government was denying the Holocaust had occurred. Or rather, that they were saying it wasn't intentional. The Jews they were holding just happened to slip and fall into ovens.
Considering it wasn't Turkey that committed the crime, it is not our responsibility to admit anything. You're trying to make it like Turkey is the criminal and people are trying to make it admit that it committed a crime.
Also, an interesting paragraph form Wikipedia:
In his book American Holocaust, David Stannard argues that the destruction of the aboriginal peoples of the Americas, in a "string of genocide campaigns" by Europeans and their descendants, was the most massive act of genocide in the history of the world. While no mainstream historian denies that death and suffering were unjustly inflicted by a number of Europeans upon a great many American natives, most scholars of the subject maintain that genocide, which is a crime of intent, was not the intent of European colonization. Historian Stafford Poole wrote: "There are other terms to describe what happened in the Western Hemisphere, but genocide is not one of them. It is a good propaganda term in an age where slogans and shouting have replaced reflection and learning, but to use it in this context is to cheapen both the word itself and the appalling experiences of the Jews and Armenians, to mention but two of the major victims of this century.
Oh, there has been conflict, of course. You just don't hear about it from CNN. Last year there was a case... a bunch of American soldiers arrive at a Turkish military base camp in Northern Iraq where they are greeted with open arms and treated as allies and guests. As greetings and smiles are being exchanged, the American officer issues a command, the American soldiers point their guns at the Turkish soldiers, take them captive, put them behind the bars in the base prison, then torture the Turkish commander to try to get him to admit to being a terrorist or some such. After a while it becomes apparent that the guy is no terrorist, and the American officer says, "well, we were told by intelligence that you guys were terrorists disguising as Turkish soldiers". And then they leave.
It was not a Turkish military base camp; it was an office building in a Kurdish city.
The Americans were not greeted with open arms; they raided the building.
The Turkish troops were not supposed to be in Iraq at all. They were operating unannounced well behind the American lines.
They soldiers were aware that they were going to arrest Turkish special forces; they had information that they were planning to assasinate a Kurdish official.
Just to play devil's advocate, while dealing with Darfur may be tougher, it also will have an actual effect.
The Armenian genocide should indeedbe recognized as such, but even if it officially is, that doesn't change at all what happened, where as by using the effort and resources going in to the Aremian thing in order to help Darfur instead, we actually CAN change the outcome of what happens.
If you don't mind my asking, where did you go to school, and how long ago was this?
Also, which camps did you visit?
I'm from Israel, and there's this tradition for the last (oh) twenty years in the better-off schools. Usually in 12th grade. So, about 3.5-4 years ago.
We were in both of the Auschwitz camps, Majdanek, Treblinka and the Krakow camp. Also in the Krakow, Lodz and Warsaw ghettos. Also a couple of mass-grave sites, but I don't recall the names. I may have forgot some, but I'm pretty sure I didn't mention anything we didn't visit.
EDIT: ege - to respond to one of your points: saying Turkey has nothing to do with the Ottoman Empire is much like saying that the Third Reich isn't the Federal Republic of Germany. True, but besides the point.
In his book American Holocaust, David Stannard argues that the destruction of the aboriginal peoples of the Americas, in a "string of genocide campaigns" by Europeans and their descendants, was the most massive act of genocide in the history of the world. While no mainstream historian denies that death and suffering were unjustly inflicted by a number of Europeans upon a great many American natives, most scholars of the subject maintain that genocide, which is a crime of intent, was not the intent of European colonization. Historian Stafford Poole wrote: "There are other terms to describe what happened in the Western Hemisphere, but genocide is not one of them. It is a good propaganda term in an age where slogans and shouting have replaced reflection and learning, but to use it in this context is to cheapen both the word itself and the appalling experiences of the Jews and Armenians, to mention but two of the major victims of this century.
Quote revealing in many aspects.
While I have ZERO qualms about calling it a genocide, if you DO look atthe technical meaning of the word, it honestly is questionable whether or nto it fits, because of the lack of intent, AND the lack of organization. Much of this happened before Americawas an entity, and was perpetrated by a variety of different groups. I guess you could simple blame the Europeans as a whole, but you still have the intent issue to deal with.
But, as I said, I'm fine refering to it as a genocide, and I would ALSO say that the treatment of American Indians AFTER thefounding of America was ALSO abhorrant, even if the outright killing of them was not quite as frequent or blatant.
In his book American Holocaust, David Stannard argues that the destruction of the aboriginal peoples of the Americas, in a "string of genocide campaigns" by Europeans and their descendants, was the most massive act of genocide in the history of the world. While no mainstream historian denies that death and suffering were unjustly inflicted by a number of Europeans upon a great many American natives, most scholars of the subject maintain that genocide, which is a crime of intent, was not the intent of European colonization. Historian Stafford Poole wrote: "There are other terms to describe what happened in the Western Hemisphere, but genocide is not one of them. It is a good propaganda term in an age where slogans and shouting have replaced reflection and learning, but to use it in this context is to cheapen both the word itself and the appalling experiences of the Jews and Armenians, to mention but two of the major victims of this century.
Quote revealing in many aspects.
While I have ZERO qualms about calling it a genocide, if you DO look atthe technical meaning of the word, it honestly is questionable whether or nto it fits, because of the lack of intent, AND the lack of organization. Much of this happened before Americawas an entity, and was perpetrated by a variety of different groups. I guess you could simple blame the Europeans as a whole, but you still have the intent issue to deal with.
But, as I said, I'm fine refering to it as a genocide, and I would ALSO say that the treatment of American Indians AFTER thefounding of America was ALSO abhorrant, even if the outright killing of them was not quite as frequent or blatant.
I think Poole can go suck an egg.
It may not be organized, but the intent was more outstanding, in my eyes. I mean, sending them diseased blankets? Bwa?
What I am trying to demonstrate that the word "genocide" cannot be used to encompass all sorts of ethnic cleansing. That is why the international community needs to come together and make distinctions between its different kinds, rather than distributing the label like candy.
If you don't mind my asking, where did you go to school, and how long ago was this?
Also, which camps did you visit?
I'm from Israel, and there's this tradition for the last (oh) twenty years in the better-off schools. Usually in 12th grade. So, about 3.5-4 years ago.
We were in both of the Auschwitz camps, Majdanek, Treblinka and the Krakow camp. Also in the Krakow, Lodz and Warsaw ghettos. Also a couple of mass-grave sites, but I don't recall the names. I may have forgot some, but I'm pretty sure I didn't mention anything we didn't visit.
Ah.
I went to an American Jewish Day School, which more or less copies that same Israeli tradition, andthen follows it by three months in Israel (usuallyhalf touring and half on kibbutz, although myyear was JUST after 9/11, so we onlydid one month touring, and two on kibbutz.)
By the way, there are actually at least four Auschwitz camps, if not five (I lose track).
I fully relate to your experience, though. Getting off the bus at Majdanek, a friend of mine slipped and fell on the ice. As hestood up he exclaimed "This is the greatestinjustice to ever befall a Jew on this soil!"
We got in trouble for not being "solemn" enough at Auschwitz II (we weren't being disruptive, we were just smiling, which was deemed improper.)
We created, for our ownamusement, a fictional character of "Klaus, the bumbling Nazi" and made up stories about him acidentally letting the Jews escape, or gassing other Germany officers, and such. Bythe time we left, I'm pretty sure we even had a theme song for him.
It's hard to take it all entirelyseriously, though, when you get to Auschwitz, and see that it has a gift shop.
I have to say, though, that I'm jealous of you getting to go to Treblinka. That is where my great-uncle and great-grandfather, among others of my family, were killed, and I really wanted to see it.
Also, why should Europe or America admit it's genocidal past before Turkey? Is there a line?
Although Europe and America do admit that colonialism was evil. No one's expecting Turkey to pass a law saying the Genocide happens. It's just very dick-like to say it didn't.
I don't think being solemn at such a place as Auschwitz ever helped anybody.
And by both camps I mean the two big ones. The other 1-3 were "satellite camps", whatever that means. Don't remember a gift shop, though.
And Treblinka was truly awesome, in the most serious sense. Definitely the most profound experience I've had in Poland. You know how it's sometimes hard to believe that such evil happened in such quantities right in the middle of beautiful forests? Well Treblinka's forest was even more beautiful than usual, and we reached it at dusk and the entire sky was blood-red, and those stone monuments were casting huge, long shadows. And the path into the camp itself is "paved" with these stone slabs to represent the railroad that used to go into the camp, so going up that path and than reaching that clearing was a tremendous experience in of itself.
BTW: At which kibbutz were you? I'm a kibbutznik myself.
Has a resolution been passed that explicitly recognizes and labels it as genocide?
No? I see.
Your country can't even apply its own standards to itself. What gives it the right to judge other countries?
I am not my government. I am the one saying that they both need to admit what they did. I think both committed genocide. More so, one government being a douche doesn't mean other governments should be. Stop acting as if it somehow does and stop denying what the Ottoman Turks did. Everyone understands that the current government is not the Ottoman Turks. No one here has said otherwise. No one here gives a shit what the Armenians think. We've all given credible evidence that the Ottoman Turks targeted a specific group of people, took everything they owned, used some for forced labor, killed others, and marched the rest out into the desert with nothing. What the fuck do you call that? A nature walk gone terribly awry? Did they think Armenians could live off of sand?
Considering it wasn't Turkey that committed the crime, it is not our responsibility to admit anything. You're trying to make it like Turkey is the criminal and people are trying to make it admit that it committed a crime.
It's not your government's responsibility to tell the truth? No one here is criminalizing Turkey. Get that through your head. NO ONE HERE IS CRIMINALIZING TURKEY. They are saying they need to admit what happened while an entirely different group of people were in charge. And before your fingers even touch the type writer yes, so does the American government. Everyone here is aware of that too. It doesn't lessen Turkeys responsibilty to accept the truth.
In his book American Holocaust, David Stannard argues that the destruction of the aboriginal peoples of the Americas, in a "string of genocide campaigns" by Europeans and their descendants, was the most massive act of genocide in the history of the world. While no mainstream historian denies that death and suffering were unjustly inflicted by a number of Europeans upon a great many American natives, most scholars of the subject maintain that genocide, which is a crime of intent, was not the intent of European colonization. Historian Stafford Poole wrote: "There are other terms to describe what happened in the Western Hemisphere, but genocide is not one of them. It is a good propaganda term in an age where slogans and shouting have replaced reflection and learning, but to use it in this context is to cheapen both the word itself and the appalling experiences of the Jews and Armenians, to mention but two of the major victims of this century.
Quote revealing in many aspects.
While I have ZERO qualms about calling it a genocide, if you DO look atthe technical meaning of the word, it honestly is questionable whether or nto it fits, because of the lack of intent, AND the lack of organization. Much of this happened before Americawas an entity, and was perpetrated by a variety of different groups. I guess you could simple blame the Europeans as a whole, but you still have the intent issue to deal with.
But, as I said, I'm fine refering to it as a genocide, and I would ALSO say that the treatment of American Indians AFTER thefounding of America was ALSO abhorrant, even if the outright killing of them was not quite as frequent or blatant.
I think Poole can go suck an egg.
I'm reminded of a segment of a letter Jefferson wrote to WIlliam Henry Harrison:
But this letter being unofficial, and private, I may with safety give you a more extensive view of our policy respecting the Indians, that you may better comprehend the parts dealt out to you in detail through the official channel, and observing the system of which they make a part, conduct yourself in unison with it in cases where you are obliged to act without instruction. [The] system is to live in perpetual peace with the Indians, to cultivate an affectionate attachment from them, by every thing just & liberal which we can [offer?] them within the bounds of reason, and by giving them effectual protection against wrongs from our own people. The decrease of game rendering their subsistence by hunting insufficient, we wish to draw them to agriculture, to spinning and weaving. The latter branches they take up with great readiness, because they fall to the women, who gain by quitting the labours of the field [for] these which are exercised within doors. When they withdraw themselves to the culture of a small piece of land, they will perceive how useless to them are their extensive forests, and will be willing to pare them off from time to time in exchange for necessaries for their farms & families. To promote this disposition to exchange lands which they have to spare and we want for necessaries, which have to spare and they want, we shall push our trading houses, and be glad to see the good and influential individuals among them run in debt, because we observe that when these debts get beyond what the individuals can pay, they become willing to lop them off by a cession of lands. At our trading houses too we mean to sell so low as merely to repay cost and charges so as neither to lessen or enlarge our capital. This is what private traders cannot do, for they must gain; they will consequently retire from the competition, and we shall thus get clear of this pest without giving offence or umbrage to the Indians. In this way our settlements will gradually circumscribe and approach the Indians, and they will in time either incorporate with us as citizens of the United States or remove beyond the Missisipi. The former is certainly the termination of their history most happy for themselves. But in the whole course of this, it is essential to cultivate their love. As to their fear, we presume that our strength and their weakness is now so visible that they must see we have only to shut our hand to crush them, and that all our liberalities to them proceed from motives of pure humanity only. Should any tribe be fool-hardy enough to take up the hatchet at any time, the seizing the whole country of that tribe and driving them across the Missisipi, as the only condition of peace, would be an example to others, and a furtherance of our final consolidation.
I don't think being solemn at such a place as Auschwitz ever helped anybody.
And by both camps I mean the two big ones. The other 1-3 were "satellite camps", whatever that means. Don't remember a gift shop, though.
And Treblinka was truly awesome, in the most serious sense. Definitely the most profound experience I've had in Poland. You know how it's sometimes hard to believe that such evil happened in such quantities right in the middle of beautiful forests? Well Treblinka's forest was even more beautiful than usual, and we reached it at dusk and the entire sky was blood-red, and those stone monuments were casting huge, long shadows. And the path into the camp itself is "paved" with these stone slabs to represent the railroad that used to go into the camp, so going up that path and than reaching that clearing was a tremendous experience in of itself.
BTW: At which kibbutz were you? I'm a kibbutznik myself.
Yeah, Auchwitz I has a gift shop in the front information building. I mean, it HAS been converted into a museum, and ALL thatthey sell are books on the Holocaust and memorial candles, so it is not out of place, but just to think that the place where the monster Mengele once did research now has a gift shop, it is a strange juxtiposition.
Theday we went to Auschwitz I was a gorgeous day, as well. The skywas bright blue, and every. Since it was originally russian barracks, meaning it had large brick buildings, it almost looked more like a college campus than a death camp. It was all a very strange experience. You go to the site of a massacre, and wrap yourself in a foreign flag (for you it is your home flag, but still) and then look at rooms full of shoes and human hair. I wonder if this is how they really wantedto be remembered.
Not that I wish I hadn't gone. I don't thinkI will ever return to Poland, but I think I am better for having been there. Some sort of closer on a thing that happened fourty years before I was born, but affected my whole life.
And I was on Tirat Tzvi, in the Beit Shean valley. Some of my classmates were at Sde Eliahu, down the road, and others were at one which I cannot remember the name of, down south, which specialized in milk production. I was to say it started with a T.
Except for the firstweek, when I worked preparing the pool for the summer, and one day spent pruning date trees, I worked in the meat factory my whole time there. I am not quite so sure how popular Tirat Tzvi meat is over there.
Oh, there has been conflict, of course. You just don't hear about it from CNN. Last year there was a case... a bunch of American soldiers arrive at a Turkish military base camp in Northern Iraq where they are greeted with open arms and treated as allies and guests. As greetings and smiles are being exchanged, the American officer issues a command, the American soldiers point their guns at the Turkish soldiers, take them captive, put them behind the bars in the base prison, then torture the Turkish commander to try to get him to admit to being a terrorist or some such. After a while it becomes apparent that the guy is no terrorist, and the American officer says, "well, we were told by intelligence that you guys were terrorists disguising as Turkish soldiers". And then they leave.
It was not a Turkish military base camp; it was an office building in a Kurdish city.
The Americans were not greeted with open arms; they raided the building.
The Turkish troops were not supposed to be in Iraq at all. They were operating unannounced well behind the American lines.
They soldiers were aware that they were going to arrest Turkish special forces; they had information that they were planning to assasinate a Kurdish official.
That's not what I'm talking about.
No, you're talking about a movie that came out last year; I'm talking about the factual event that the movie was loosely based on.
Knuckle Dragger on
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
The milk kibbutz wouldn't be Yotvata, would it?
Yeah, I was a few kilometers north of you, I think. Shaar haGolan. A couple of kilometers south of the southern tip of the Kinneret. Right next to Afiqim and Dganya, if that tells you anything.
No offense, by the way, but Tirat Tzvi's meat sucks.
Considering it wasn't Turkey that committed the crime, it is not our responsibility to admit anything. You're trying to make it like Turkey is the criminal and people are trying to make it admit that it committed a crime.
It's not your government's responsibility to tell the truth? No one here is criminalizing Turkey. Get that through your head. NO ONE HERE IS CRIMINALIZING TURKEY. They are saying they need to admit what happened while an entirely different group of people were in charge. And before your fingers even touch the type writer yes, so does the American government. Everyone here is aware of that too. It doesn't lessen Turkeys responsibilty to accept the truth.
I believe the key term that should be introduced into the conversation at this point is "Successor State".
Knuckle Dragger on
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
Has a resolution been passed that explicitly recognizes and labels it as genocide?
No? I see.
Your country can't even apply its own standards to itself. What gives it the right to judge other countries?
I am not my government. I am the one saying that they both need to admit what they did. I think both committed genocide. More so, one government being a douche doesn't mean other governments should be. Stop acting as if it somehow does and stop denying what the Ottoman Turks did. Everyone understands that the current government is not the Ottoman Turks. No one here has said otherwise. No one here gives a shit what the Armenians think. We've all given credible evidence that the Ottoman Turks targeted a specific group of people, took everything they owned, used some for forced labor, killed others, and marched the rest out into the desert with nothing. What the fuck do you call that? A nature walk gone terribly awry? Did they think Armenians could live off of sand?
Considering it wasn't Turkey that committed the crime, it is not our responsibility to admit anything. You're trying to make it like Turkey is the criminal and people are trying to make it admit that it committed a crime.
It's not your government's responsibility to tell the truth? No one here is criminalizing Turkey. Get that through your head. NO ONE HERE IS CRIMINALIZING TURKEY. They are saying they need to admit what happened while an entirely different group of people were in charge. And before your fingers even touch the type writer yes, so does the American government. Everyone here is aware of that too. It doesn't lessen Turkeys responsibilty to accept the truth.
First thing: chill out. I have no intention of making this debate a hostile one.
Now, to address each of your points.
I am not my government. I am the one saying that they both need to admit what they did.
I don't care about you. It is your government that is passing the resolution, not you personally.
Stop acting as if it somehow does and stop denying what the Ottoman Turks did.
Like I said - many times by now - I am not denying what happened. I already said the Ottoman Turks committed horrendous atrocities.
What I am denying is that it was genocide. It is a lot different in a lot of aspects, like I patiently explained, and it is certainly - in my eyes at least - not on the same degree as the Holocaust.
We've all given credible evidence...
Your "credible evidence" consists of wikipedia entries and news articles, and books written by half-Armenians or men who would sell their soul for a Nobel Prize.
It's not your government's responsibility to tell the truth?
There is no truth, and even if there is, it is a very one-sided one that has been established via extremely biased sources. But hey, who cares, right? After all, the Ottoman Empire is no longer around to make a defense of their case.
The fact is, poor record-keeping practices of the era as well as the chaotic atmosphere of the war make it very hard for an objective truth-seeker to conclusively decide the true extent of the atrocities the Ottoman Turks committed. Hell, I've done my research, man. There are eye-witness accounts on both sides of the story. One person says Armenian children were packed into their Mezzanine and killed with toxic gas, another person says reports of the atrocities have been grossly exaggerated, possibly due to the intensity of the chaos and the association of the eye-witness to the victims. Which one are you going to believe? Or, perhaps more importantly, are you more inclined to believe one side over the other, and why?
Oh, there has been conflict, of course. You just don't hear about it from CNN. Last year there was a case... a bunch of American soldiers arrive at a Turkish military base camp in Northern Iraq where they are greeted with open arms and treated as allies and guests. As greetings and smiles are being exchanged, the American officer issues a command, the American soldiers point their guns at the Turkish soldiers, take them captive, put them behind the bars in the base prison, then torture the Turkish commander to try to get him to admit to being a terrorist or some such. After a while it becomes apparent that the guy is no terrorist, and the American officer says, "well, we were told by intelligence that you guys were terrorists disguising as Turkish soldiers". And then they leave.
It was not a Turkish military base camp; it was an office building in a Kurdish city.
The Americans were not greeted with open arms; they raided the building.
The Turkish troops were not supposed to be in Iraq at all. They were operating unannounced well behind the American lines.
They soldiers were aware that they were going to arrest Turkish special forces; they had information that they were planning to assasinate a Kurdish official.
That's not what I'm talking about.
No, you're talking about a movie that came out last year; I'm talking about the factual event that the movie was loosely based on.
The milk kibbutz wouldn't be Yotvata, would it?
Yeah, I was a few kilometers north of you, I think. Shaar haGolan. A couple of kilometers south of the southern tip of the Kinneret. Right next to Afiqim and Dganya, if that tells you anything.
No offense, by the way, but Tirat Tzvi's meat sucks.
No, but Yotvata was their primary competitionin the market, I believe.
There were lots of American immigrants there, I thinksomehow affiliated with Young Judaea.
And yeah, I can picture roughly where that is. I probably know Israeli geography better than American Georgraphy (admittedly, there is a bit less to know ).
As for the quality of the meat, I was in packaging, not processing, so I take no offense, butI will tell you that their meat definitelytaste better right off the conveyer belt. The one time I bought their meat in a store it honestly couldn't compare to the snacks we had at work.
There's a reason why I broke-down the article and bolded what I felt were salient points.
-How is it just to hold someone responsible for the sins of their fathers? That leads to a never ending cycle of guilt, anger, violence, and stupid blood feuds that have screwed-up the world as a whole.
The Turks who did this and the Ottoman goverment that perpetuated it are all dead and gone.
The ones who are denying it are alive and well and dictating Turkey policy.
-How does this demonstrate a serious desire to halt genocide? Voting on something that happened 90 years ago by an Empire that no longer exists by people who are no longer alive while doing.....nothing about genocide you yoursef claim is ongoing?
It's an empty, useless, feel-good, symbolic gesture.
Yes, confirming that genocide can and does happen, and that it can't be whitewashed from history by wishful thinking and threats should FEEL GOOD.
-We already *did* something about this and declared it as such by helping the Armenians while waging war on those who perpetuated the genocide, the Ottoman Empire, OUR ENEMIES, during WW1.
We helped the Armenian's, did we? Really? At what point did the U.S. have anything to do with Turkey one way or another during WW1? Yeah, they were our enemies, but the only ones who should "feel good" about their actions in Turkey should be the Australians. They're practically the only ones who fucking did anything, and that was basically just being sacrificed by the British.
-Finally, this is so indicitive as to what Congress has degenerated into as of late. Wasting time on petty measures that accomplish nothing while there are serious, life-threatening, and economy ruining problems (Social Security going bankrupt, the Forever War in Iraq, nuclear proliferation, the "thuggification" and "skankification" of our children) that are way more important that scolding other nations for their past sins.
Yeah, you know what, this is what congress wastes their time on now. you know why? Because when they try to do something real, like, I don't know... provide health care for Children, it gets vetoed and the fucking Pubs are too partisan to help overturn the fucking thing. So yeah, now congress has resorted to trying to pass shit they think they can get done, if you want to blame anyone, blame the monkey in the Oval Office.
It's actually arrogant to do so, in a way. We've made plenty of moronic decisions ourselves, let's worry more about fixing those!
EDIT: And by fixing a problem, I mean fixing it; not creating more bloated, wasteful, government programs that make the problem worse, but done anyway to make people feel less guilty.
Yes, the U.S. has made a number of moronic decisions... but allowing countries to get away with mislabeling and mischaracterising the slaughter of millions of people is morally reprehensible.[/QUOTE]
This whole health care thing is interesting as well.
I really hate how some people drag kids into their press conferences basically saying that if you don't support further intrusion of the government into health care or, for that matter, further involvement in the Iraq war, or a particular nominee that OMG, YOU HATE CHILDREN!!!
Psycho-chicks and crappy boyfriends use guilt to manipulate people; it shouldn't be used by public officials. Kids need to be off-limits for that sort of abuse.
Or when kids "ask questions" that have been fed to them by parents/teachers too cowardly to ask themselves or too manipulative that they use kids to avoid critiscisim of bad policies and ideas.
Anyhow, with Armenia, if you take the position that this is appropriate and a good idea, be ready for when the PLO or Iran says something about "wiping Israel off the map" again if you want to look consistant.
How about a resolution against Palestinian parents dressing up their kids like suicide bombers? How nagging and intrusive should "momma America" get and at what point will it do more harm than good?
Is it even our place to do so anyways? Are we taking the "World Police" thing too far, even if the intentions may be good, which I admit may be the case with some who support this resolution?
to be fair, this is NOT AT ALL like Americatelling Palestinians to stop dressing their kids up as terrorists
This is a non-binding resolution condeming an action that took place close to a century ago. It does not require, or even suggest, that anyone take or refrain from any particular action.
Like I said - many times by now - I am not denying what happened. I already said the Ottoman Turks committed horrendous atrocities.
What I am denying is that it was genocide. It is a lot different in a lot of aspects, like I patiently explained, and it is certainly - in my eyes at least - not on the same degree as the Holocaust.
Not all genocides were the holocaust. A genocide is the targeting of a group of people and killing them.
...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and/or] Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
You don't have to round up every single Armenian and put all of them into death camps for it to be a genocide. It could be exactly as I described. Gathering all the people, taking all their property, killing some, forcing others to work, and moving the rest into an area they are not likely to survive. I'll ask again: What did the Ottomans think was going to happen when they marched them into the middle of nowhere with no supplies?
We've all given credible evidence...
Your "credible evidence" consists of wikipedia entries and news articles, and books written by half-Armenians or men who would sell their soul for a Nobel Prize.
Sadly for you we don't let race be the basis of credibility for historians here. I still haven't seen all these reliable cites you've posted in other threads. You'd think you could just pull them up no problem.
The fact is, poor record-keeping practices of the era as well as the chaotic atmosphere of the war make it very hard for an objective truth-seeker to conclusively decide the true extent of the atrocities the Ottoman Turks committed. Hell, I've done my research, man. There are eye-witness accounts on both sides of the story. One person says Armenian children were packed into their Mezzanine and killed with toxic gas, another person says reports of the atrocities have been grossly exaggerated, possibly due to the intensity of the chaos and the association of the eye-witness to the victims. Which one are you going to believe? Or, perhaps more importantly, are you more inclined to believe one side over the other, and why?
I have no doubt that plent of facts were exaggerated. But even by Turkish estimates the Ottomans killed off 300,000. How can that not be considered genocide?
ege, I could pull out basically the same examples and arguments in reference to the Jewish Holocaust.
Not to mention the silly comment about sources being "biased" and people who would "sell their soul for a Nobel Prize". They are biased because they do not agree with you?
Also, is it the accepted opinion in Turkey that the Ottoman Empire committed horrible atrocities? Because I'm not getting that vibe at all.
ege, I could pull out basically the same examples and arguments in reference to the Jewish Holocaust.
Not to mention the silly comment about sources being "biased" and people who would "sell their soul for a Nobel Prize". They are biased because they do not agree with you?
Also, is it the accepted opinion in Turkey that the Ottoman Empire committed horrible atrocities? Because I'm not getting that vibe at all.
The more I read about this, honestly, the less it looks like that. At least the Russians, for instance, have fessed-up for what Stalin did.
I came across this:
and the more I read about what the USA did during WW I, the more about what Woodrow Wilson did to try to help the Armenians, the prouder I am for what we did.
Listen, I'm sick of Iraq also, but the timing of all this just looks to convenient and politically motivated. And how ugly/widespread can this get? Have we denounced Mao's murders yet? Some of the people involved are still alive, after all.
Instead of these half-measures, why not do something like we did back then today? Instead of trying to be all smug, let's do something crazy like, for instance, doing something real about how many people die annually because of filthy water?
I'd rather we dig wells and filter ponds than the meddling crap we do now, frankly.
Oh, there has been conflict, of course. You just don't hear about it from CNN. Last year there was a case... a bunch of American soldiers arrive at a Turkish military base camp in Northern Iraq where they are greeted with open arms and treated as allies and guests. As greetings and smiles are being exchanged, the American officer issues a command, the American soldiers point their guns at the Turkish soldiers, take them captive, put them behind the bars in the base prison, then torture the Turkish commander to try to get him to admit to being a terrorist or some such. After a while it becomes apparent that the guy is no terrorist, and the American officer says, "well, we were told by intelligence that you guys were terrorists disguising as Turkish soldiers". And then they leave.
It was not a Turkish military base camp; it was an office building in a Kurdish city.
The Americans were not greeted with open arms; they raided the building.
The Turkish troops were not supposed to be in Iraq at all. They were operating unannounced well behind the American lines.
They soldiers were aware that they were going to arrest Turkish special forces; they had information that they were planning to assasinate a Kurdish official.
That's not what I'm talking about.
No, you're talking about a movie that came out last year; I'm talking about the factual event that the movie was loosely based on.
O_o
I am utterly confused now.
What you were describing sounds very much like the beginning of Valley of the Wolves Iraq. In it, a Turkish officer writes his brother about how he and his men greeted some American soldiers to their headquarters (references were made to drinking tea with them, not sure if it is meant literally, if it is a Turkish idiom of some form). When the soldiers are taken hostage, the Americans accuse them of being terrorists because they are not wearing uniforms. They are then captured and abused/tortured by their American captors.
Knuckle Dragger on
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
I don't think being solemn at such a place as Auschwitz ever helped anybody.
And by both camps I mean the two big ones. The other 1-3 were "satellite camps", whatever that means. Don't remember a gift shop, though.
And Treblinka was truly awesome, in the most serious sense. Definitely the most profound experience I've had in Poland. You know how it's sometimes hard to believe that such evil happened in such quantities right in the middle of beautiful forests? Well Treblinka's forest was even more beautiful than usual, and we reached it at dusk and the entire sky was blood-red, and those stone monuments were casting huge, long shadows. And the path into the camp itself is "paved" with these stone slabs to represent the railroad that used to go into the camp, so going up that path and than reaching that clearing was a tremendous experience in of itself.
BTW: At which kibbutz were you? I'm a kibbutznik myself.
Yeah, Auchwitz I has a gift shop in the front information building. I mean, it HAS been converted into a museum, and ALL thatthey sell are books on the Holocaust and memorial candles, so it is not out of place, but just to think that the place where the monster Mengele once did research now has a gift shop, it is a strange juxtiposition.
It's like the perfect sign of the victory of capitalism.
We'll crush you, and then replace you with gift shops that sell crappy souvenirs.
I don't think being solemn at such a place as Auschwitz ever helped anybody.
And by both camps I mean the two big ones. The other 1-3 were "satellite camps", whatever that means. Don't remember a gift shop, though.
And Treblinka was truly awesome, in the most serious sense. Definitely the most profound experience I've had in Poland. You know how it's sometimes hard to believe that such evil happened in such quantities right in the middle of beautiful forests? Well Treblinka's forest was even more beautiful than usual, and we reached it at dusk and the entire sky was blood-red, and those stone monuments were casting huge, long shadows. And the path into the camp itself is "paved" with these stone slabs to represent the railroad that used to go into the camp, so going up that path and than reaching that clearing was a tremendous experience in of itself.
BTW: At which kibbutz were you? I'm a kibbutznik myself.
Yeah, Auchwitz I has a gift shop in the front information building. I mean, it HAS been converted into a museum, and ALL thatthey sell are books on the Holocaust and memorial candles, so it is not out of place, but just to think that the place where the monster Mengele once did research now has a gift shop, it is a strange juxtiposition.
It's like the perfect sign of the victory of capitalism.
We'll crush you, and then replace you with gift shops that sell crappy souvenirs.
Memorial candals are hardly a souvenir.
But yeah, it is seriously a shocking sight to behold. It isn't upsetting, just strange to an extreme.
I don't think being solemn at such a place as Auschwitz ever helped anybody.
And by both camps I mean the two big ones. The other 1-3 were "satellite camps", whatever that means. Don't remember a gift shop, though.
And Treblinka was truly awesome, in the most serious sense. Definitely the most profound experience I've had in Poland. You know how it's sometimes hard to believe that such evil happened in such quantities right in the middle of beautiful forests? Well Treblinka's forest was even more beautiful than usual, and we reached it at dusk and the entire sky was blood-red, and those stone monuments were casting huge, long shadows. And the path into the camp itself is "paved" with these stone slabs to represent the railroad that used to go into the camp, so going up that path and than reaching that clearing was a tremendous experience in of itself.
BTW: At which kibbutz were you? I'm a kibbutznik myself.
Yeah, Auchwitz I has a gift shop in the front information building. I mean, it HAS been converted into a museum, and ALL thatthey sell are books on the Holocaust and memorial candles, so it is not out of place, but just to think that the place where the monster Mengele once did research now has a gift shop, it is a strange juxtiposition.
It's like the perfect sign of the victory of capitalism.
We'll crush you, and then replace you with gift shops that sell crappy souvenirs.
Memorial candals are hardly a souvenir.
But yeah, it is seriously a shocking sight to behold. It isn't upsetting, just strange to an extreme.
No tacky souvenirs? Like .... (alright, I'm just not gonna go there)
I'm at once releved, surprised and .... strangely disappointed. Although, I guess most of the people going to see these things actually lost family/friends.
Like I said before, it is just memorial candles and books.
they may have also had disposable lighters, for the candles. they didn't say anything on them, though.
It helps to put some thingsinto perspective. When we sit in history class, or go to a museum, and hear about massacres and tragedies of the past, we feel disconnected, and it seems okay. Getting a glimpse at how the future will treat what is considered to be one of the most shameful moments of the human race, it gives you pause.
America disrespects the death of people all the time. America's been shitting on Russians for the past 52 years. Christopher Columbus is considered a hero. But this time America's gone too far!
America disrespects the death of people all the time. America's been shitting on Russians for the past 52 years. Christopher Columbus is considered a hero. But this time America's gone too far!
I don't know why, but I REALLY like this post, and probably for all of the wrong reasons.
I do have to say, though, that the cold war was mutual.
Well, when the Cold War started America was untouched. Russia suffered 50 times more casualties then Americans. To top it all off America hired Nazi aid to fight in the Cold War.
It sort of evened out by the 60's.
Russian sacrifice (during WW2) is competely downplayed. It's no doubt that they were target of genocide as much as the Jews, but there's hardly any mention of them. I wonder if it's even considered genocide.
Well, when the Cold War started America was untouched. Russia suffered 50 times more casualties then Americans. To top it all off America hired Nazi aid to fight in the Cold War.
I wouldn't be surprised if Russia also got some Nazi scientists to use.
Russian sacrifice (during WW2) is competely downplayed. It's no doubt that they were target of genocide as much as the Jews, but there's hardly any mention of them. I wonder if it's even considered genocide.
No, if you pretty much ready any history books they usually clearly state that Russia had a huge amount of casualties in WW2 compared to everyone else. This had a lot to do with the military being under equipped and under trained, and the tactics they employed. I doubt it's considered genocide, because killing soldiers during a war is what's to be expected, really.
Russian sacrifice (during WW2) is competely downplayed. It's no doubt that they were target of genocide as much as the Jews, but there's hardly any mention of them. I wonder if it's even considered genocide.
No, if you pretty much ready any history books they usually clearly state that Russia had a huge amount of casualties in WW2 compared to everyone else. This had a lot to do with the military being under equipped and under trained, and the tactics they employed. I doubt it's considered genocide, because killing soldiers during a war is what's to be expected, really.
Unless you consider the fact that the Nazis made a policy of teaching German citizens that Slavs were sub-human, to a greater extent than Jews, and that millions of the Soviet soldiers killed were killed in death camps or in forced labour.
Russian sacrifice (during WW2) is competely downplayed. It's no doubt that they were target of genocide as much as the Jews, but there's hardly any mention of them. I wonder if it's even considered genocide.
No, if you pretty much ready any history books they usually clearly state that Russia had a huge amount of casualties in WW2 compared to everyone else. This had a lot to do with the military being under equipped and under trained, and the tactics they employed. I doubt it's considered genocide, because killing soldiers during a war is what's to be expected, really.
Unless you consider the fact that the Nazis made a policy of teaching German citizens that Slavs were sub-human, to a greater extent than Jews, and that millions of the Soviet soldiers killed were killed in death camps or in forced labour.
Didn't know about the death camps, which is definitely genocidal behavior, and I really have no doubt if they had conquered Russia they would have started a genocide there on a mass scale too. I was thinking more of the "Russian sacrifice during WW2" part of what he said, and was thinking more of the military side of the sacrifice.
So, I guess it was either a genocide, or they were working towards one.
Didn't know about the death camps, which is definitely genocidal behavior, and I really have no doubt if they had conquered Russia they would have started a genocide there on a mass scale too. I was thinking more of the "Russian sacrifice during WW2" part of what he said, and was thinking more of the military side of the sacrifice.
So, I guess it was either a genocide, or they were working towards one.
The estimates of numbers of Soviet POWs killed by the Germans range from two to six million. No telling how many civilians were murdered by the "Wehrmacht" (Oh, irony.).
Didn't know about the death camps, which is definitely genocidal behavior, and I really have no doubt if they had conquered Russia they would have started a genocide there on a mass scale too. I was thinking more of the "Russian sacrifice during WW2" part of what he said, and was thinking more of the military side of the sacrifice.
So, I guess it was either a genocide, or they were working towards one.
The estimates of numbers of Soviet POWs killed by the Germans range from two to six million. No telling how many civilians were murdered by the "Wehrmacht" (Oh, irony.).
Well, from what I understand, killing civilians was kind of the norm for WW2, for all sides concerned. It really doesn't excuse the behavior, and given the numbers you gave me, definitely a genocide.
Posts
I'm neutral towards him, actually. I respect him as a writer, but not as a person. He strikes me as the kind of person who would do anything for rewards and fame.
Has a resolution been passed that explicitly recognizes and labels it as genocide?
No? I see.
Your country can't even apply its own standards to itself. What gives it the right to judge other countries?
Considering this is a US resolution that is being passed, I don't think so.
Considering it wasn't Turkey that committed the crime, it is not our responsibility to admit anything. You're trying to make it like Turkey is the criminal and people are trying to make it admit that it committed a crime.
Also, an interesting paragraph form Wikipedia:
Quote revealing in many aspects.
That's not what I'm talking about.
All True.
I'm from Israel, and there's this tradition for the last (oh) twenty years in the better-off schools. Usually in 12th grade. So, about 3.5-4 years ago.
We were in both of the Auschwitz camps, Majdanek, Treblinka and the Krakow camp. Also in the Krakow, Lodz and Warsaw ghettos. Also a couple of mass-grave sites, but I don't recall the names. I may have forgot some, but I'm pretty sure I didn't mention anything we didn't visit.
EDIT: ege - to respond to one of your points: saying Turkey has nothing to do with the Ottoman Empire is much like saying that the Third Reich isn't the Federal Republic of Germany. True, but besides the point.
While I have ZERO qualms about calling it a genocide, if you DO look atthe technical meaning of the word, it honestly is questionable whether or nto it fits, because of the lack of intent, AND the lack of organization. Much of this happened before Americawas an entity, and was perpetrated by a variety of different groups. I guess you could simple blame the Europeans as a whole, but you still have the intent issue to deal with.
But, as I said, I'm fine refering to it as a genocide, and I would ALSO say that the treatment of American Indians AFTER thefounding of America was ALSO abhorrant, even if the outright killing of them was not quite as frequent or blatant.
I think Poole can go suck an egg.
It may not be organized, but the intent was more outstanding, in my eyes. I mean, sending them diseased blankets? Bwa?
What I am trying to demonstrate that the word "genocide" cannot be used to encompass all sorts of ethnic cleansing. That is why the international community needs to come together and make distinctions between its different kinds, rather than distributing the label like candy.
Ah.
I went to an American Jewish Day School, which more or less copies that same Israeli tradition, andthen follows it by three months in Israel (usuallyhalf touring and half on kibbutz, although myyear was JUST after 9/11, so we onlydid one month touring, and two on kibbutz.)
By the way, there are actually at least four Auschwitz camps, if not five (I lose track).
I fully relate to your experience, though. Getting off the bus at Majdanek, a friend of mine slipped and fell on the ice. As hestood up he exclaimed "This is the greatestinjustice to ever befall a Jew on this soil!"
We got in trouble for not being "solemn" enough at Auschwitz II (we weren't being disruptive, we were just smiling, which was deemed improper.)
We created, for our ownamusement, a fictional character of "Klaus, the bumbling Nazi" and made up stories about him acidentally letting the Jews escape, or gassing other Germany officers, and such. Bythe time we left, I'm pretty sure we even had a theme song for him.
It's hard to take it all entirelyseriously, though, when you get to Auschwitz, and see that it has a gift shop.
I have to say, though, that I'm jealous of you getting to go to Treblinka. That is where my great-uncle and great-grandfather, among others of my family, were killed, and I really wanted to see it.
Also, why should Europe or America admit it's genocidal past before Turkey? Is there a line?
Although Europe and America do admit that colonialism was evil. No one's expecting Turkey to pass a law saying the Genocide happens. It's just very dick-like to say it didn't.
And by both camps I mean the two big ones. The other 1-3 were "satellite camps", whatever that means. Don't remember a gift shop, though.
And Treblinka was truly awesome, in the most serious sense. Definitely the most profound experience I've had in Poland. You know how it's sometimes hard to believe that such evil happened in such quantities right in the middle of beautiful forests? Well Treblinka's forest was even more beautiful than usual, and we reached it at dusk and the entire sky was blood-red, and those stone monuments were casting huge, long shadows. And the path into the camp itself is "paved" with these stone slabs to represent the railroad that used to go into the camp, so going up that path and than reaching that clearing was a tremendous experience in of itself.
BTW: At which kibbutz were you? I'm a kibbutznik myself.
It's not your government's responsibility to tell the truth? No one here is criminalizing Turkey. Get that through your head. NO ONE HERE IS CRIMINALIZING TURKEY. They are saying they need to admit what happened while an entirely different group of people were in charge. And before your fingers even touch the type writer yes, so does the American government. Everyone here is aware of that too. It doesn't lessen Turkeys responsibilty to accept the truth.
I'm reminded of a segment of a letter Jefferson wrote to WIlliam Henry Harrison:
Yeah, Auchwitz I has a gift shop in the front information building. I mean, it HAS been converted into a museum, and ALL thatthey sell are books on the Holocaust and memorial candles, so it is not out of place, but just to think that the place where the monster Mengele once did research now has a gift shop, it is a strange juxtiposition.
Theday we went to Auschwitz I was a gorgeous day, as well. The skywas bright blue, and every. Since it was originally russian barracks, meaning it had large brick buildings, it almost looked more like a college campus than a death camp. It was all a very strange experience. You go to the site of a massacre, and wrap yourself in a foreign flag (for you it is your home flag, but still) and then look at rooms full of shoes and human hair. I wonder if this is how they really wantedto be remembered.
Not that I wish I hadn't gone. I don't thinkI will ever return to Poland, but I think I am better for having been there. Some sort of closer on a thing that happened fourty years before I was born, but affected my whole life.
And I was on Tirat Tzvi, in the Beit Shean valley. Some of my classmates were at Sde Eliahu, down the road, and others were at one which I cannot remember the name of, down south, which specialized in milk production. I was to say it started with a T.
Except for the firstweek, when I worked preparing the pool for the summer, and one day spent pruning date trees, I worked in the meat factory my whole time there. I am not quite so sure how popular Tirat Tzvi meat is over there.
No, you're talking about a movie that came out last year; I'm talking about the factual event that the movie was loosely based on.
- John Stuart Mill
Yeah, I was a few kilometers north of you, I think. Shaar haGolan. A couple of kilometers south of the southern tip of the Kinneret. Right next to Afiqim and Dganya, if that tells you anything.
No offense, by the way, but Tirat Tzvi's meat sucks.
- John Stuart Mill
First thing: chill out. I have no intention of making this debate a hostile one.
Now, to address each of your points.
I don't care about you. It is your government that is passing the resolution, not you personally.
Like I said - many times by now - I am not denying what happened. I already said the Ottoman Turks committed horrendous atrocities.
What I am denying is that it was genocide. It is a lot different in a lot of aspects, like I patiently explained, and it is certainly - in my eyes at least - not on the same degree as the Holocaust.
O_o
I am utterly confused now.
No, but Yotvata was their primary competitionin the market, I believe.
There were lots of American immigrants there, I thinksomehow affiliated with Young Judaea.
And yeah, I can picture roughly where that is. I probably know Israeli geography better than American Georgraphy (admittedly, there is a bit less to know
As for the quality of the meat, I was in packaging, not processing, so I take no offense, butI will tell you that their meat definitelytaste better right off the conveyer belt. The one time I bought their meat in a store it honestly couldn't compare to the snacks we had at work.
This whole health care thing is interesting as well.
I really hate how some people drag kids into their press conferences basically saying that if you don't support further intrusion of the government into health care or, for that matter, further involvement in the Iraq war, or a particular nominee that OMG, YOU HATE CHILDREN!!!
Psycho-chicks and crappy boyfriends use guilt to manipulate people; it shouldn't be used by public officials. Kids need to be off-limits for that sort of abuse.
Or when kids "ask questions" that have been fed to them by parents/teachers too cowardly to ask themselves or too manipulative that they use kids to avoid critiscisim of bad policies and ideas.
Anyhow, with Armenia, if you take the position that this is appropriate and a good idea, be ready for when the PLO or Iran says something about "wiping Israel off the map" again if you want to look consistant.
How about a resolution against Palestinian parents dressing up their kids like suicide bombers? How nagging and intrusive should "momma America" get and at what point will it do more harm than good?
Is it even our place to do so anyways? Are we taking the "World Police" thing too far, even if the intentions may be good, which I admit may be the case with some who support this resolution?
Margaret Thatcher
This is a non-binding resolution condeming an action that took place close to a century ago. It does not require, or even suggest, that anyone take or refrain from any particular action.
Sadly for you we don't let race be the basis of credibility for historians here. I still haven't seen all these reliable cites you've posted in other threads. You'd think you could just pull them up no problem.
I have no doubt that plent of facts were exaggerated. But even by Turkish estimates the Ottomans killed off 300,000. How can that not be considered genocide?
Not to mention the silly comment about sources being "biased" and people who would "sell their soul for a Nobel Prize". They are biased because they do not agree with you?
Also, is it the accepted opinion in Turkey that the Ottoman Empire committed horrible atrocities? Because I'm not getting that vibe at all.
The more I read about this, honestly, the less it looks like that. At least the Russians, for instance, have fessed-up for what Stalin did.
I came across this:
and the more I read about what the USA did during WW I, the more about what Woodrow Wilson did to try to help the Armenians, the prouder I am for what we did.
Listen, I'm sick of Iraq also, but the timing of all this just looks to convenient and politically motivated. And how ugly/widespread can this get? Have we denounced Mao's murders yet? Some of the people involved are still alive, after all.
Instead of these half-measures, why not do something like we did back then today? Instead of trying to be all smug, let's do something crazy like, for instance, doing something real about how many people die annually because of filthy water?
I'd rather we dig wells and filter ponds than the meddling crap we do now, frankly.
Margaret Thatcher
- John Stuart Mill
It's like the perfect sign of the victory of capitalism.
We'll crush you, and then replace you with gift shops that sell crappy souvenirs.
Memorial candals are hardly a souvenir.
But yeah, it is seriously a shocking sight to behold. It isn't upsetting, just strange to an extreme.
No tacky souvenirs? Like .... (alright, I'm just not gonna go there)
I'm at once releved, surprised and .... strangely disappointed. Although, I guess most of the people going to see these things actually lost family/friends.
they may have also had disposable lighters, for the candles. they didn't say anything on them, though.
It helps to put some thingsinto perspective. When we sit in history class, or go to a museum, and hear about massacres and tragedies of the past, we feel disconnected, and it seems okay. Getting a glimpse at how the future will treat what is considered to be one of the most shameful moments of the human race, it gives you pause.
I don't know why, but I REALLY like this post, and probably for all of the wrong reasons.
I do have to say, though, that the cold war was mutual.
Not to get on another subject or anything, but no.
...
It sort of evened out by the 60's.
Russian sacrifice (during WW2) is competely downplayed. It's no doubt that they were target of genocide as much as the Jews, but there's hardly any mention of them. I wonder if it's even considered genocide.
I wouldn't be surprised if Russia also got some Nazi scientists to use.
No, if you pretty much ready any history books they usually clearly state that Russia had a huge amount of casualties in WW2 compared to everyone else. This had a lot to do with the military being under equipped and under trained, and the tactics they employed. I doubt it's considered genocide, because killing soldiers during a war is what's to be expected, really.
Unless you consider the fact that the Nazis made a policy of teaching German citizens that Slavs were sub-human, to a greater extent than Jews, and that millions of the Soviet soldiers killed were killed in death camps or in forced labour.
Didn't know about the death camps, which is definitely genocidal behavior, and I really have no doubt if they had conquered Russia they would have started a genocide there on a mass scale too. I was thinking more of the "Russian sacrifice during WW2" part of what he said, and was thinking more of the military side of the sacrifice.
So, I guess it was either a genocide, or they were working towards one.
The estimates of numbers of Soviet POWs killed by the Germans range from two to six million. No telling how many civilians were murdered by the "Wehrmacht" (Oh, irony.).
Well, from what I understand, killing civilians was kind of the norm for WW2, for all sides concerned. It really doesn't excuse the behavior, and given the numbers you gave me, definitely a genocide.