Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Nazi Concentration Camps

frogwoman said:
we're gonna have to make a new version of godwin's laws at this rate ... :eek: :)

Godwin's Law:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

Frogwoman's Corollary to Godwin's Law:

And as an online discussion that starts with the Nazis grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving the State of Israel approaches one.

Laptop's Lemma to Frogwoman's Corollary to Godwin's Law:

You can't invoke the Nazis as justification for your appalling behaviour without certain comparisons being drawn. No, really, you can't.
 
laptop said:
Godwin's Law:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

Frogwoman's Corollary to Godwin's Law:

And as an online discussion that starts with the Nazis grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving the State of Israel approaches one.

Laptop's Lemma to Frogwoman's Corollary to Godwin's Law:

You can't invoke the Nazis as justification for your appalling behaviour without certain comparisons being drawn. No, really, you can't.

who says it has to be people who oppose zionism/israel making the comparisons or bringing into the discussion?

i didn't mean comparisons ... i meant israel just being mentioned, it can be in any way at all.
 
ymu said:
This might explain why you have so much trouble googling for credibility Johnny. If you'd done the search, as you claim, you will know that "spit" and "spat" are hit a lot in words like "despite" and "spate" and that the hits are dominated by Israel's more recent mistreatment of the Holocaust survivors..

Depends on the engine you use.:)
 
rachamim18 said:
Thing is, not many care. Most are tired of hearing about and it just does not get through to them. It happened only 62 years ago, within a single life span and yet people only faintly care to hear about it. This shows how it could have happaned and why it will certainly happen yet again.

My parents tried to save some Jews, and had at one point three hiding in their house. By the end of the War they had only managed to save one, and my own life has been coloured by my parent's memories and traumas dating from those years.
 
ymu said:
Zionationalists spat at survivors in the street for having been so weak as to allow themselves to become victims.

Goebels would have been proud of that bit of pure propagandic predudice. :rolleyes:
 
ymu said:
Fuck off you racist bigot.
i wasn't trying to be racist or facetious....just giving you my experience from growing up in a mainly jewish and upper middle class area. lots of superficiality and lust for money and power was going on along with the exclusion of other groups...
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
She's got no links for it, either; I wonder if it's just hogwash.
The specific reference is in a book, Johnny as I've already said. And your excellent search engine no doubt pulled up a large number of references to the Holocaust survivors claiming that Israel was spitting on the graves of the victims of the Shoah; not that you'd be so honest as to admit it.

I've said I will post the quote and full reference when I can, but in the meantime, here's a useful interview with an author who used Israeli government archives to research the treatment of Holocaust survivors by Israel.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=8021


Spannos: I understand that the Zionists at times even resorted to using violent methods against Jews in DP camps for the purposes of conscription. What did this look like?
Grodzinsky: Yes, violent methods were used when necessary. I was shocked to find eviction orders issues to draft deserters, fines, other punishments, and in some instances, even physical beating. Most important, to my mind, is not the violence itself but the coercion, And the irony: The very movement that was created to bring deliverance to the Jews now took possession of Jewish national identity, and in its name expropriated the rights of the people, so that its own needs could be served. Thus, while the establishment of the state was predicated on a conflict with the Arabs over territory, it also led to a conflict with Jews over people. Much has been written on the former, less on the latter. My book is an attempt to fill this gap by focusing a critical lens on the actions of the pre-state Zionist movement. As I was writing it, I tried to give a voice to simple, ordinary Jews, whose suffering as they were ground by the mills of big ideas is rarely discussed. I sought to emphasize the fate of regular individuals, whose life stories form a rich web of alternative Jewish paths.
 
ymu said:
The specific reference is in a book, Johnny as I've already said. And your excellent search engine no doubt pulled up a large number of references to the Holocaust survivors claiming that Israel was spitting on the graves of the victims of the Shoah; not that you'd be so honest as to admit it.

I've said I will post the quote and full reference when I can, but in the meantime, here's a useful interview with an author who used Israeli government archives to research the treatment of Holocaust survivors by Israel.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=8021


Spannos: I understand that the Zionists at times even resorted to using violent methods against Jews in DP camps for the purposes of conscription. What did this look like?
Grodzinsky: Yes, violent methods were used when necessary. I was shocked to find eviction orders issues to draft deserters, fines, other punishments, and in some instances, even physical beating. Most important, to my mind, is not the violence itself but the coercion, And the irony: The very movement that was created to bring deliverance to the Jews now took possession of Jewish national identity, and in its name expropriated the rights of the people, so that its own needs could be served. Thus, while the establishment of the state was predicated on a conflict with the Arabs over territory, it also led to a conflict with Jews over people. Much has been written on the former, less on the latter. My book is an attempt to fill this gap by focusing a critical lens on the actions of the pre-state Zionist movement. As I was writing it, I tried to give a voice to simple, ordinary Jews, whose suffering as they were ground by the mills of big ideas is rarely discussed. I sought to emphasize the fate of regular individuals, whose life stories form a rich web of alternative Jewish paths.

Your original comment was that zionists were spitting on camp survivors, because the camp survivors had been weak in being caught etc. Nothing that you've put up here supports that contention. In fact, Grodzinsky seems to indicate that the zionists saw the survivors remaining in Europe as valuable and necessary additions to Israel.

Grodzinsky: Indeed, the drive to bring Jewish DPs to Palestine reached its peak in 1948, when the end of the British Mandate over Palestine, and the subsequent declaration of statehood, led to a full-scale war. Serious manpower shortages led the Israelis to look for volunteers for the IDF in the DP camps. Survivors were reluctant: “We have already smelled fire,” said many “let others smell it now.” The failure to recruit volunteers led to a forced conscription, officially enacted on April 11th, 1948. It brought 7,800 new draftees to Palestine, a significant addition to the fighting army. I recognize that the thought of a Zionist forced conscription in the U.S. controlled zone of Germany sounds insane. Yet it actually happened, as massive documentation I discovered in the Jewish DP archives in New York and Tel Aviv indicates: The American military government quite generously let the DPs run their camps as almost fully autonomous localities; Zionist survivors, together with envoys from Palestine, organized and took control of these camps early on, as I detail in the book. When the time came, they could exercise this control, sending holocaust survivors to fight in a land they had never seen, whose language they did not speak, and most importantly, for a cause they did not necessarily support.
 
dessiato said:
Sorry but this thread really disturbs me, my family were refugees from Nazi persecution. My Aunt Kath remembered her grandmother being shot for being Jewish, Aunt Martha remembered being terrified during Kristal Nacht and managing to escape to the UK. Herman remembered the trains going to the camps. They are all dead now, but the horrors they witnessed and escaped from were impossible to forget.

Threads like this sometimes seem to forget that there are some who still remember and continue to live with these nightmares.

I am sure, this being U75, that there is no explicit intention to glorify these horrors.

My Grandad went through some hellish things in WW2, but the one I never got the full details on was the liberation by his unit of a death camp. Now that generation is nearly gone it's up to those of us who have second hand knowledge to keep saying what happened - I'll be telling my kid, born 60 years after the event, what I heard. An earlier poster said 'it's bound to happen again'. Only if we forget.
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
Your original comment was that zionists were spitting on camp survivors, because the camp survivors had been weak in being caught etc. Nothing that you've put up here supports that contention. In fact, Grodzinsky seems to indicate that the zionists saw the survivors remaining in Europe as valuable and necessary additions to Israel.


... Astonishing. What were these guys like as soldiers? Apart from 'victorious', obviously....
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
Your original comment was that zionists were spitting on camp survivors, because the camp survivors had been weak in being caught etc. Nothing that you've put up here supports that contention. In fact, Grodzinsky seems to indicate that the zionists saw the survivors remaining in Europe as valuable and necessary additions to Israel.
Hmm. He actually said at the start of that link that they were only valued if they wanted to go to Palestine; he explicitly says the rest were viewed as weak and worthless. Plans to rescue people from the years of continued incarceration in Displaced Persons camps were scuppered by Zionists determined that all would end up in Palestine; pretty obscene IMO. Those that did go to Palestine and then refused to fight for the establishment of Israel were conscripted by force, both within Palestine and within Europe whilst they were still in the Displaced Persons camps.

You can cling to the idea that the Zionists were the benevolent saviours of World Jewry if you like, but it's incredibly naive and an increasing majority of World Jewry disagree with you.
 
chainsaw cat said:
My Grandad went through some hellish things in WW2, but the one I never got the full details on was the liberation by his unit of a death camp. Now that generation is nearly gone it's up to those of us who have second hand knowledge to keep saying what happened - I'll be telling my kid, born 60 years after the event, what I heard. An earlier poster said 'it's bound to happen again'. Only if we forget.

Exactly. That's why I fight so hard against the young revisionists on this board.
 
ymu said:
Hmm. He actually said at the start of that link that they were only valued if they wanted to go to Palestine; he explicitly says the rest were viewed as weak and worthless. .

But you said the zionists were spitting on them in israel. If they weren't in palestine, they might deplore them, but they couldn't spit on them.
 
ymu said:
You can cling to the idea that the Zionists were the benevolent saviours of World Jewry if you like, but it's incredibly naive and an increasing majority of World Jewry disagree with you.

I didn't say that either. I just said that I didn't believe you when you said that zionists in israel spat on Holocaust survivors because they'd been weak.

Nothing you've shown me has changed my opinion.
 
You seem to want proof that it was government policy. You don't think a militarised movement which was cruel enough to leave Jews in European camps rather than let them go anywhere other than Israel, and then forced survivors to fight another war might contain individuals who would spit on those who they viewed as weak? That's quite a case of cognitive dissonance you have there; Israel would be so proud.

As I said, I'll check it when I have a chance (so don't bother dissembling aboiut it again), but there's a fair few articles on the net that are restricted access and I can't spare the cash. I assume you bought them as your search would have picked them up. Any chance you could send me copies?
 
ymu said:
You know that "ethnic cleansing" is just the term used for genocide in polite society, right?
Not so.


Try this:
The official United Nations definition of ethnic cleansing is "rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove from a given area persons of another ethnic or religious group"[4]

However, ethnic cleansing rarely aims at complete ethnic homogeneity. The common practice is the removal of stigmatized ethnic groups, and thus can be defined as "the forcible removal of an ethnically defined population from a given territory", occupying the middle part of a somewhat fuzzy continuum between non-violet pressured ethnic emigration and genocide.

The key difference might be mass murder vs. mass enforced emigration.
 
Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment
of the Crime of Genocide

Adopted by Resolution 260 (III) A of the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948.

Article 1
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

Article 2
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

* (a) Killing members of the group;
* (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
* (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
* (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
* (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html


Kinda tough not to find Israel guilty, no?
 
Yeah ... really huge difference there. :rolleyes:

What is the difference between genocide and ethnic cleansing?
Someone has just asked me what is the difference between genocide and ethnic cleansing. Good question. I found it difficult to articulate a short answer. The following excerpt from Encyclopaedia Britannica says some critics see little difference between genocide and ethnic cleansing:

More: http://sudanwatch.blogspot.com/2006/04/what-is-difference-between-genocide.html
 
You're citing someone's blog - we don't know who or their credentials - saying "some critics" - we don't know who or what their credentials are - "see little difference", and that's persuasive, iyo?

I’m sure reading Urbanites are pretty convinced by that.

Can I encourage you to read again the UN definition of ‘ethnic cleansing’ in post #56.

Fwiw, this is my last post on this absurdly simple distinction.
 
Back
Top Bottom