Nazi Concentration Camps

[ViolentPanda]

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.

Sure you don't mean "concentration camp"? The only designated "death camps" (Sobibor, Treblinka etc) were all in Poland, and were all bulldozed and the sites "remediated" in '43-44.

 

[Spion]

Exactly. That's why I fight so hard against the young revisionists on this board.

Yeah, like you're some fighter for historical truth You're so one-eyed, Johnny

 

[ViolentPanda]

Yeah, like you're some fighter for historical truth You're so one-eyed, Johnny

Nah. he's got both eyes open.

They're glued firmly to a script, that's the problem.

He also doesn't seem to grasp the concept of revisionism as applied to history, that utilising new and verifiable sources of information and including them with what we already know isn't "revisionism", but that arguing against current understandings for which there is verifiable evidence (a la Irving) when you have no supported evidence to support your contention is revisionism.

 

[ymu]

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.

You read it then?

In 1992, in reference to the hostilities in Yugoslavia, the UN General Assembly declared ethnic cleansing to be "a form of genocide," and in the following year the Security Council, citing widespread and flagrant violations of international humanitarian law within the territory of the former Yugoslavia, established a tribunal to investigate allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity, including ethnic cleansing. In its examination of the capture of the town of Kozarac by Bosnian Serbs, the ICTY described the ethnic cleansing that took place there as the process of rounding up and driving "out of the area on foot the entire non-Serb population." In a subsequent case, the tribunal recognized similarities between acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing, noting that both involve the targeting of individuals because of their membership in an ethnic group. The significant difference between the two remains, however: whereas ethnic cleansing aims to force the flight of a particular group, genocide targets the group for physical destruction.

The establishment of the ICC reinforced the links between ethnic cleansing and other offenses such as genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. In its finalized text on the elements of the crimes in the court's jurisdiction, the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court made clear that ethnic cleansing could constitute all three offenses within the ICC's jurisdiction. Genocide, for example, was defined as an act that may include the systematic expulsion of individuals from their homes; the threat of force or coercion to effect the transfer of a targeted group of persons was recognized as an element of crimes against humanity; and the "unlawful deportation and transfer," as well as the displacement, of civilians were recognized as elements of war crimes.

Yeah, big difference.

The term ethnic cleansing is a direct translation of a serbian euphemism; only came into use in 1990. I guess we could say Israel was genocidal for the first 43 years and into ethnic cleansing once Milosevic made it trendy.

 

[JoePolitix]

Why must every thread about the Holocaust turn into an anti-Israel affair?

 

[goldenecitrone]

Why must every thread about the Holocaust turn into an anti-Israel affair?

Because Adolf Hitler exterminated 6 million Palestinians in the gas chambers and gave the Jews their homeland.

 

[JoePolitix]

I don't understand your point.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Nah. he's got both eyes open.

They're glued firmly to a script, that's the problem..

Which one?

 

[ymu]

Because Adolf Hitler exterminated 6 million Palestinians in the gas chambers and gave the Jews their homeland.

Aye. Irony wrapped up in irony with a splash of bitter irony to taste.

 

[ymu]

.

 

[London_Calling]

You read it then?

I considered the credibility of your citation. It doesn't have any.

In any event, the point is trite.

 

[ymu]

I considered the credibility of your citation. It doesn't have any.

In any event, the point is trite.

It's a useful short summary providing some rather powerful cites. You could always check the cites if you think they made up the quotes. But you don't seem to dispute the actual facts, so I guess there's no need.

 

[Urbanblues]

Israel prefers to refer its expulsion of Palestinians from their homeland, the Nakba, as a ‘transfer’, a euphemism for ethnic cleansing.

‘The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine’ by Ilan Pappe gives a comprehensive account of the 1948 ethnic cleansing of Israel; along with a detailed history of the preparations to this crime against humanity.

 

[ymu]

Not to mention Benny Morris who proved what the Zionists did and then said they should have finished the job to avoid all this current hassle with "Palestinians".

 

[Detroit City]

Israel prefers to refer its expulsion of Palestinians from their homeland, the Nakba, as a ‘transfer’, a euphemism for ethnic cleansing.

wasn't Hitler just "transferring" all the Jews to concentration camp settlements by way of train?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

wasn't Hitler just "transferring" all the Jews to concentration camp settlements by way of train?

But the end of the train trip for jews was a gas chamber; for the Palestinians, a refugee camp.

 

[Detroit City]

But the end of the train trip for jews was a gas chamber; for the Palestinians, a refugee camp.

what's the difference?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

what's the difference?

In the one case, you're living in a tent. In the other, you're dead.

 

[ymu]

what's the difference?

There's a huge difference. Israel has not implemented a Final Solution yet (as the Nazis did in 1942). They talk of a "solution", involving mass transfer and seem quite happy to impose a murderous blockade on Gaza, which has long been one vast prison camp for a million Palestinians.

Parties that support the essentially Nazi idea of deporting all Palestinians from the country, have been part of our Knesset and our 'legitimate' political map since 1984. Recent opinion polls show that 35% of the Jewish public now supports this 'solution', as it is sometimes called. Leaders, Rabbis, and just plain folk feel free to call openly in the mass media to eradicate Palestinian cities with or without their tenants. Last weekend, Gen. (res.) Effi Eitam, fresh out of the military and all ready to take the leadership of the religious public and become a deputy or alternative to Netanyahu, received a flattering cover story on Haaretz supplement. He unfolded his chilling ideology, calling to expel those Palestinians who don't want to remain in the Galilee and West Bank as serfs, to Jordan, and from Gaza to Sinai. And he said this: why should us, the country poorest in land resources, bear the burden of solving the Palestinian problem? Well I don't know about you, but I remember some of the Nazi rhetoric in that dark period between the Kristallnacht of 1938 and the beginning of the war, when Jews were expelled from Germany but could find no safe haven anywhere else. When I see a retired IDF general and rising political star use the exact same Nazi rhetoric on Israel's most 'liberal' newspaper, without any criticism by his interviewer or the editors - my hair just stands on my head in horror.

http://www.seruv.org.il/MoreArticles/English/AssafOronEng_1.htm

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

There's a huge difference. Israel has not implemented a Final Solution yet

You're fucked in the head.

 

[ymu]

You're fucked in the head.

Yes Johnny. Now try reading stuff to fill that head of yours.

Parties that support the essentially Nazi idea of deporting all Palestinians from the country, have been part of our Knesset and our 'legitimate' political map since 1984. Recent opinion polls show that 35% of the Jewish public now supports this 'solution', as it is sometimes called.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Israel has not implemented a Final Solution yet

"Final Solution", capitalized, has a very specific meaning in our culture.

 

[TomUS]

Why must every thread about the Holocaust turn into an anti-Israel affair?

Because anti-israel is an obsession with many on the extreme right & left. For the extreme left Israel symbolizes the opression of 3rd world people by the West. That's why they are in a constant state of outrage over it while saying comparatively little about say, Darfur where the Arab gov. has exterminated 200,000-400,000 blacks in a few short years.

 

[JoePolitix]

Tom - to be honest I think that Israel is a terribly oppressive state and its treatment of the Palestinians does bare resemblance to some of the crimes of European fascism.

However I also think it's a little insensative to derail a thread about the Holocaust into another Israel denouncing fest - there's plently of oportunity for that on the many Middle East threads!

I don't like the implied logic of it - it would be like jumping on a thread about the ethnic cleansing of Bosnian Muslims by asking "what have the Iranians learnt in the aftermath"? or something.

 

[ymu]

I think the main reason there are endless threads about Israel and not Darfur is that noone turns up to defend The Sudanese government or the Janjiwid.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Because anti-israel is an obsession with many on the extreme right & left. For the extreme left Israel symbolizes the opression of 3rd world people by the West. That's why they are in a constant state of outrage over it while saying comparatively little about say, Darfur where the Arab gov. has exterminated 200,000-400,000 blacks in a few short years.

Its ok. A few Black Africans here and there don't matter.

 

[camouflage]

Because anti-israel is an obsession with many on the extreme right & left. For the extreme left Israel symbolizes the opression of 3rd world people by the West. That's why they are in a constant state of outrage over it while saying comparatively little about say, Darfur where the Arab gov. has exterminated 200,000-400,000 blacks in a few short years.

You do realise that all Sudanese are black right? The situation in Darfur despite what the Western media are saying, is a full-on water-war, typical of what we can expect of the Sahel region now as water re-distributes north and south and desertification continues. But all that's another story.

I think Isreal sucks because it's a Western colonialist state that is oppresing the Palestinians in the worst traditions of Manifest Destinyish type thinking, the place was Aparthied South Africa's closest ally ffs, apart from the US, and closely followed by Britain of course. But I also think Isreal should be accepted by the Arab states surrounding it, it defended itself succesfully three times in a row aginst attempted anihilation, and there was indeed some pretty nasty anti-jewish propaganda going on against the jewish people in that part of the world those first three wars.

I understand that Isreal and the Arab states could have made peace by now, proposals were made and remain on offer, but certain interests need the belligerence to continue, it serves their interests to have Isreal as an attack dog and armaments consumer. In addition to that, it's not exactly consistant to have a nation that fashions itself as a democracy AND an ethnostate at the same time, it's abit like a BNP British state seeing itself as a democracy even though it has a ten-percent black and Asian population. Contents will not really be what it sez on the tin. Not sayin the Isreali jews are like nazi's (some of them are apparently) just that there is an inconsistency there.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I think the main reason there are endless threads about Israel and not Darfur is that noone turns up to defend The Sudanese government or the Janjiwid.

There was a woman that did.


Also, as the poster mentioned, the janjaweed have killed a quarter million africans in the past couple of years. Big difference from the israelis/palestinians.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Its ok. A few Black Africans here and there don't matter.

Turn the janjaweed loose in the palestinian territories, and there wouldn't be any more dispute in a few years.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

You do realise that all Sudanese are black right? .

You're right: I guess it's ok then!

I remember a teacher talking about the genocide against the Ibo in Nigeria, years ago. He couldn't understand what the problem was, because all the parties to the dispute were black.

I wanted to say, 'but the Germans, Jews, and British, etc: they're all white: what was the problem?