Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Grinch)
    Heh. I don't think anyone is denying the Holocaust happened. Its more a disagreement on the extent to which it happened.

    - I don't think anyone who isn't ignorant or a outright racist would deny that between 5.5 and 6.2 million Jews were murdered under Nazism.

    But that aside, what exactly qualifies the Holocaust as the greatest atrocity in history? You aren't, I take it, familiar with other genocides or dictators? :rolleyes: Or is it that you're too dull to form your own opinions, and you've latched onto something thats been widely focused on?

    What about, for example, Mao? Or Stalin? Or Mugabe? Or Pol Pot?

    The death toll under Mao was in the area of 40-70 million... and that was in peace time, and they were his own people. ***** all over the 'six million' Jews, huh? Even at the highest amount of possible Jews killed, 6 million doesn't hold a candle to the lowest possible number of Chinese killed. 6 million vs 40 million. Hmm, and the Holocaust was worse, you say? Please.

    Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group. Mao was incompetent....and brutal...but he dis not set out to murder 40-70 million. Many died as a result of a famine that was only partly man made. Schram estimated the figure at 40 to 70 million - a figure I did not dispute. But mose deaths were not intentional - but rather a consequence of a blinkered economic policy.



    Stop whining about the Holocaust. It is in no way near the worst atrocity in history, you just look like an ill-informed dullard who enjoys following the flock.

    - I'd hardly put it like that. I should probably neg-rep you but I respect your right to assert your opinion.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-semitic. I'm just bored of hearing people whine about the Holocaust. Find a new subject already. Start complaining about Mao or something. Or about the kid at the end of your street who's currently working on the genocide of the neighbourhood cats.

    - I'm not going to dignify that with a response.
    thanks/..............................
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by E_D_B)
    Your argument is completely absurd. More than 40 million people in China died, but not as part of an organised extermination programme. They died as a result of the Cultural Revolution which went out of control and the famine caused by Mao's absurd agricultural policies. Of course what happened in China was terrible but it was not the same as the Holocaust.
    Please, please, try not to be an idiot. Only half of the death toll was attributed to the famine. How about you learn what you try to talk about, before talking nonsense. Maybe start studying History?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Arminius)
    Why not as part of a war?

    In my view the first world war and perhaps the second world war are worse, because more people died, and to a great extent it was fellow europeans killing each other and no great good came out of either.

    If you want to refer to peace time attocities (i don't know why you make the distinction) Stalin's Persecution of the Peasents killed many millions.

    Oh yes - Europeans killing their fellow Aryans is far worse than Europeans killing Semites


    SARCASM
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Grinch)
    Please, please, try not to be an idiot. Only half of the death toll was attributed to the famine. How about you learn what you try to talk about, before talking nonsense. Maybe start studying History?

    I also mentioned the cultural revolution?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Grinch)
    Maybe start studying History?

    Btw, I'm doing History at Oxford next october. Not that I tell everybody that. Just you.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sulpicia)
    Oh yes - Europeans killing their fellow Aryans is far worse than Europeans killing Semites


    SARCASM
    What? Okay, you lose all credibility. Murder is worse because of race? Wow... wow... wow... there are no words for your idiocy.

    But back to your post just before that...

    (Original post by sulpicia)
    I don't think anyone who isn't ignorant or a outright racist would deny that between 5.5 and 6.2 million Jews were murdered under Nazism.
    The operative part of this sentence was the 'I don't think' part. Anyone who spouts the ridiculous figures as quoted in popular media knows nothing about what really happened.

    (Original post by sulpicia)
    Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group. Mao was incompetent....and brutal...but he dis not set out to murder 40-70 million. Many died as a result of a famine that was only partly man made. Schram estimated the figure at 40 to 70 million - a figure I did not dispute. But mose deaths were not intentional - but rather a consequence of a blinkered economic policy.
    Less than half of the deaths during the timeline were due to the famine. Mao was a brutal leader who sacrificed his people in 'the Great Leap Forward'. Do you have any idea of the atrocities committed under Mao? Go read a book. Seriously.

    (Original post by sulpicia)
    I'm not going to dignify that with a response.
    I don't know why I dignify anything you say with a response, but hey.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by E_D_B)
    Btw, I'm doing History at Oxford next october. Not that I tell everybody that. Just you.
    Maybe you'll come out a little more enlightened in that case? And NEXT October? What, you're how old? Wow, no wonder you don't know anything.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    :rolleyes:

    Even the strongest "Holocaust Deniers" don't deny it happened completely. Most of them just use historical evidence to debate the facts and actual numbers murdered. There's no debate it was a terrible atrocity but I see no problem in wanting to know the truth of the matter. I find it ludicrous that historians have been arrested and inprisoned for publicising their views. In many european countries it's illegal to even suggest it didn't happen exactly as the mainstream view states.

    Although I haven't researched it enough, I think if anyone believes in something it's worth trying to understand how they came to that conclusion. There's no denying it fits in many respects, and motives can be seen: especially within the British wartime propoganda scheme.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I wrote Sarcasm, to let bright sparks like you know that I wasn't entirely sincere.

    (Original post by The Grinch)
    What? Okay, you lose all credibility. Murder is worse because of race? Wow... wow... wow... there are no words for your idiocy.


    I don't know why I dignify anything you say with a response, but hey.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sulpicia)
    I wrote Sarcasm, to let bright sparks like you know that I wasn't entirely sincere.
    See here, clever guy, lets break it down.

    (Original post by sulpicia)
    Oh yes - Europeans killing their fellow Aryans is far worse than Europeans killing Semites


    SARCASM
    The way you've used the 'meme' of 'sarcasm' doesn't relate to the sincerity of the post, rather to the content in one type of murder is worse then the other. If you ****** this up, its your fault for not writing properly.

    Thanks for playing, though.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The holocaust is seen as 'worse' because of when and how it happened. We europeans considered ourselves as the most civilised and respectable in the world, and right under our noses, in modern times, we allowed it to happen. China, russia etc are worse in terms of death toll but to westerners they were distant and the cultures were different and alien. Put it this way - which would stick in your mind more: a double murder 2 streets away or someone being killed in your garden?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Preasure)
    The holocaust is seen as 'worse' because of when and how it happened. We europeans considered ourselves as the most civilised and respectable in the world, and right under our noses, in modern times, we allowed it to happen. China, russia etc are worse in terms of death toll but to westerners they were distant and the cultures were different and alien. Put it this way - which would stick in your mind more: a double murder 2 streets away or someone being killed in your garden?
    Sure, yeah. But by the same token, one could also say:

    You see a woman getting raped in your house. Oh ****.

    The next day, you see fifty babies getting raped in your neighbour's house. Oh ****.

    But the one happening in your house was worse? That is flawed logic. Death is death, the proximity doesn't make it worse. Yeah, it sucks. But to say 6 million dying is worse then a higher number? No, really, it isn't. They're all still dead!

    As an aside: I'm not arguing the perception, I'm arguing the actuality.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renal)
    The ':P' at the end suggests you need to read better...
    Don't patronise me
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Neville 'Facking' Bartos)
    and does the Holocaust refers to the other victims as well, i.e Gypsies, gays, Romas or is it only Jews
    The 6 million or thereabouts figure refers only to Jews; if the other victims of Nazi persecution were included as well, the figure would be around 10 million.

    However, while many other groups were persecuted by the Nazis; gypsies, homosexuals, POWs etc, the term 'holocaust' is usually specifically referring to the persecution of Jews, mainly because of proportions; 78% of all European Jews, (one third of the world's population of Jews) were wiped out, compared with maybe 2%-10% from the other groups. Therefore, as the holocaust literally means 'wiped out' ('holos' - whole, 'caus' - burnt out), this is much more true for Jews than any other group, though this does not of course mean to diminish the tragedy of those deaths.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dougies_Girl)
    Don't patronise me
    You invite it.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Grinch)
    Just before anyone pays any attention to you, maybe you should re-read my post.

    Especially where I said - the Holocaust did happen, but not to the figures so often claimed. Also, where I said the Institute for Historical Review would be a good start. In order to intelligently research and discuss a topic, you need to approach the subject matter from both sides. You realise, therefore, why I mentioned the Institute?

    Not so hot on the old reading comprehension, eh? :rolleyes:
    Yeah, which is rather like saying that a good way to intelligently research the topic of how man landed on the moon is to start by reading conspiracy sites saying that it never happened.

    Anyone who cites the institute for historical review as something with any value is not someone who should be taken seriously.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    Yeah, which is rather like saying that a good way to intelligently research the topic of how man landed on the moon is to start by reading conspiracy sites saying that it never happened.

    Anyone who cites the institute for historical review as something with any value is not someone who should be taken seriously.
    Worst. Comparison. Ever.

    Learn to read and comprehend what you read, then learn to write something intelligent, then finally, learn to formulate the two together into something comprehensible that makes sense and isn't a pathetic attempt to marr points that you have no idea about.

    Nobody is denying the Holocaust. Let me explain it to you a little clearer, since reading comprehension isn't your strong point. What is happening is there is disagreement on the numbers killed during said Holocaust. Now, can you see how the two are different? And hey, if you actually bothered to research the topic to dissertation depth, you'll find there is plenty of good cause and evidence to suggest the popularized numbers are garbage.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Hey, Grinch - your patronising really doesn't work that well.

    The simple fact is that anyone (and I do mean anyone) who cites the Institute for Historical Review as a "good start" for research on the Holocaust cannot be taken seriously. And it makes no difference whether that person is suggesting research into whether the Holocaust happened, or whether he's suggesting research into the numbers or even research into how much Hitler knew. The mere citation of the Institute for Historical Review as a credible source instantly removes any and all credibility from the person making the suggestion. Simple enough for ya?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Grinch)
    Worst. Comparison. Ever.

    Learn to read and comprehend what you read, then learn to write something intelligent, then finally, learn to formulate the two together into something comprehensible that makes sense and isn't a pathetic attempt to marr points that you have no idea about.

    Nobody is denying the Holocaust. Let me explain it to you a little clearer, since reading comprehension isn't your strong point. What is happening is there is disagreement on the numbers killed during said Holocaust. Now, can you see how the two are different? And hey, if you actually bothered to research the topic to dissertation depth, you'll find there is plenty of good cause and evidence to suggest the popularized numbers are garbage.
    The Holocaust is the most extensively researched and documented crime in history. What ground breaking evidence do you have that undoes all of this research, exactly?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    Hey, Grinch - your patronising really doesn't work that well.

    The simple fact is that anyone (and I do mean anyone) who cites the Institute for Historical Review as a "good start" for research on the Holocaust cannot be taken seriously. And it makes no difference whether that person is suggesting research into whether the Holocaust happened, or whether he's suggesting research into the numbers or even research into how much Hitler knew. The mere citation of the Institute for Historical Review as a credible source instantly removes any and all credibility from the person making the suggestion. Simple enough for ya?
    Hey UniOfLife - your brain really doesn't work that well. :rolleyes:

    You are a fool. If I were to use the same stupid as hell reasoning behind your twisted thinking, I could make the claim that anything written by a Jew isn't a credible source for someone researching the Holocaust. But hey, that would be stupid. See where this is going? See the mistake you made?

    The Institute is a fine place to start looking at revisionism. They host plenty of well recognized work from historians, you clown. It is not the only place to look at revisionism, it is a start. Get it? Tool.
 
 
 
Poll
Were you ever put in isolation at school?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.