The Holocaust is Overrated

Reply to yahn goodey

for those that think it was no big deal or over-rated or have a hate on for others it would be justice for such ones to be on the receiving end of the next holocaust which is bound to come associated with a ww3 which i believe is inevitable looking at the situation ongoing in the middle east right now.

You make things sound hilarious sometimes.

In Middle East if WW3 starts not only the Muslims will be on the Receiving End but also the Jews. That’s why it’s better for Jews not to keep flaming things in ME because if something does happen, than the remaining Jews will also become Extinct.

Than instead of teaching about Holocaust, Future kids will be taught about ‘The Extinction Of Jews’.

Ahhh, as always, what begins as a perfectly civilized dialog turns into accusations of racism. I love living in such a free country/world where you can't openly discuss ANYTHING pertaining to a "protected class" of people without be labeled a racist.

I have wondered the sames things about this topic as many others. I asked about it when I was still in school. I was given standard answers.

I think the saddest thing about this entire topic is that US Soldiers were not given a memorial before holocaust victims got one.

kangjia57

You mean....the extinction of Judaism.... the Jewish “people” aren’t a race…..it's a religion…..


[edit on 20-1-2008 by andre18]

Reply to andre18

You mean....the extinction of Judaism.... the Jewish “people” aren’t a race…..it's a religion…..

Bahhh,well as long as everyone got the Idea.

[edit on 20-1-2008 by kangjia57]

Aside from seeming to pick a fight with the title thread and opening comments sounding well- pretty cold in some spots the poster has a point about those of us in the US almost never hearing about the Japanese side of the Axis war crimes coin. I too had read Anne Franks diary and Nightby Elie Weisel by the time I was eleven.

Misrepresented may have been a better term to use than Overrated. Reason one why most in the west hadnt heard of things like Unit 731 among other atrocities is well...all powers involved in the European theatre-or pretty close to all-were involved in the fall of Germany at the end of the war. When so many different powers are involved in and are ON German soil coming across death camp after death camp ghetto after ghetto and so on...the severity and evidence of it was known by graphic accounts by the millions on both sides of the Atlantic.

As far as I know there were NO enemy forces in mainland Japan during the entire war. The ferocity of the battle for the Pacific DOES seem to go untaught and unknown. Most still think that the US just dropped a couple nukes and that was it. No massive multi nation invasion required. Guadalcanal who? Aleutians where?(sp)

I hope Im wrong but just a handful of Japanese were tried at Nuremburg after the war. The elite players in the Japanese genocide machine really did get quite the free pass in exchange for all their scientific records and well the scientists too. That and the Japanese Imperial Navy was the main threat. Although their ground forces had a nasty habit of digging in deeper than most had anticipated and fought under the BUSHIDO code hoping to die in battle.

The Phillipines were horrendous. As were ALL the blood drenched battles on what seems every Pacific island big enough to build at least an observation post on.

Point is the Japanese so impressed the Allies at the end of the war with titanic strides in science made at the expense of the nightmare like deaths of millions of mostly Chinese that well....they got away with it. Just about as totally and completely as the Japanese "scientists" and I use that term veeery loosely...could have ever dreamed of.

It was all to easy to quickly forget for most of the world especially the former Allied powers that the Japanese ruled the Pacific for a good few years before the war until the battle of Midway broke the back of the Imperial fleet.

For the west, Japan and what they did during the war, was on the other side of the world not just the Pacific. At the same time the horror of Nazi occupied Europe was just a few hours across the Atlantic and in the same hemisphere.

Sadly all the victors of the war did was use the Axis as a brain trust to draw from only sentencing the most visible ones.

Thus this to me..is why there seems to be an overrepresentation of the European holocaust and the others that occured and millions that died in say Manchuria and so accross the Pacific are quite sadly forgotten or not even known about here in the former Allied powers.

Ive never been to Auschwitz or Unit 731s death camps and I really dont have the stomach to but visiting the Holocaust Museum here in DC was a shock to the system Ill never forget. But I will admit...it is a HOLOCAUST museum yet I dont remember a thing that even mentioned Japan. More research is needed in this deeply troubling subject.

Saying that the Jewish Holocaust is Overrated is just ignorant. The entire war was a Holocaust. Seemingly to also give others that would carry out genocide all around the world in the decades after the war the blueprints for this insanity.

reply to post by Strapping Young Lad


There were dozens of Japanese military and civilian leaders hung for war crimes after WWII ended.

The Pacific War is covered quite extensively outside of public education circles, whole sections of libraries exist. All the information is out there for the reading.

"holocaust" is not actually a word. You cannot find it in any dictionary... unless it is preceded by 'the'
I that is not evidence of a conspiracy, I don't know what is. Check any and all books, you won't find "holocaust" not anywhere

Originally posted by doctormcauley
"holocaust" is not actually a word. You cannot find it in any dictionary... unless it is preceded by 'the'
I that is not evidence of a conspiracy, I don't know what is. Check any and all books, you won't find "holocaust" not anywhere

Sure it's a word.

It's derived from the greek holokaustos meaning "burned whole." It basically means "Burnt offering" for religious ceremonies. It was adapted by Jewish Zionists and formed into the proper noun Holocaust, usually with such Jew-centric definitions of:

"genocide of European Jews and others" (Encarta)

"The killing of European Jews in WWII" (Merriam-Webster 11th ed)

"the systematic mass slaughter of European Jews in Nazi concentration camps during World War II" (dictionary.com)

"the Holocaust the killing of millions of Jews and others by the Nazis before and during the Second World War" (dictionary.cambridge.org)

Originally posted by benign.psychosis
It was adapted by Jewish Zionists and formed into the proper noun Holocaust, usually with such Jew-centric definitions of:

"genocide of European Jews and others" (Encarta)

"The killing of European Jews in WWII" (Merriam-Webster 11th ed)

"the systematic mass slaughter of European Jews in Nazi concentration camps during World War II" (dictionary.com)

"the Holocaust the killing of millions of Jews and others by the Nazis before and during the Second World War" (dictionary.cambridge.org)

And you accuse me of "cherry-picking"!

If you actually look at any of the dictionary definitions you list above, you will see that the definition of the word "holocaust" is related as follows.

"1. a great or complete devastation or destruction, esp. by fire.
2. a sacrifice completely consumed by fire; burnt offering.
3. (usually initial capital letter) the systematic mass slaughter of European Jews in Nazi concentration camps during World War II (usually prec. by the).
4. any mass slaughter or reckless destruction of life."

(dictionary.com)

As you describe it, the word has been "jewcentrically adapted" to change dictionary definitions as well! What nonsense. Look at the full entries for each of your dictionary definitions, don't just pick out the bit that suits your tenuous hold on reality. "Holocaust" is a very old word. The phrase "the holocaust" is a commonly used term to describe a relatively recent event in the past. Which is why it's listed as such in the dictionary, not as a definition, but as a common useage.

The word "holocaust" has been commonly used in reporting of more recent genocides in the Sudan and elsewhere in Africa. Specifically it relates to suffering by fire. That's why it only relates to certain, specific genocides. There's no "jewcentric" etymological agenda - to suggest as much suggests to me you really ARE clutching at straws.

Have a look here if you want to see it elsewhere:

Chinese holocaust

You may as well suggest there has been an NFL-centric adaptation of the word "bowl": bowl misuse

Give up this sordid campaign. It sounds to me like you weren't taught enough about it at school. Or that you aren't being, if you're still there.

LW

Originally posted by LoneWeasel

And you accuse me of "cherry-picking"!

If you actually look at any of the dictionary definitions you list above, you will see that the definition of the word "holocaust" is related as follows.

...

As you describe it, the word has been "jewcentrically adapted" to change dictionary definitions as well! What nonsense. Look at the full entries for each of your dictionary definitions, don't just pick out the bit that suits your tenuous hold on reality.

You are being absurd, and rather silly to boot.

It is obvious that I was using the word in the context of what happened during WWII, nothing else. As the word applies to WWII, all 4 dictionaries only mention Jews or at most and others.

1. a great or complete devastation or destruction, esp. by fire.
2. a sacrifice completely consumed by fire; burnt offering.
3. (usually initial capital letter) the systematic mass slaughter of European Jews in Nazi concentration camps during World War II (usually prec. by the).
4. any mass slaughter or reckless destruction of life."

If you look at definition 3 and consider it as the definition of the word as it applies to WWII, you are not cherry picking, but using the proper contextual definition.

I'm shocked that you don't understand how to read a dictionary. I would have thought everyone knew how to do this, so here is a link for you describing how you can overcome the hurdle: How to use a dictionary

Think about how this information relates to the word as you encountered it. If there are multiple definitions, decide which one matches your source or context for the word and notice how the different definitions are related to one another.

I really hope that helps. It is a valueable skill to have, and it is a shame that some people lack such basic knowledge.

Have a wonderful day!

BTW, are you a Pseudoskeptic? You seem to be using absurd arguments, strawmen and resorting to subtle ad hominem attacks as a basis to discredit me and paint me in a hypocritical light.

Absurdity:
"Look at the full entries for each of your dictionary definitions, don't just pick out the bit that suits your tenuous hold on reality."

Strawman:
"You may as well suggest there has been an NFL-centric adaptation of the word "bowl": bowl misuse "

Ad Hominem:
"It sounds to me like you weren't taught enough about it at school. Or that you aren't being, if you're still there."

Just an observation. It might be more intellectually honest to refrain from such childish antics.

[edit on 21-1-2008 by benign.psychosis]

Forgive me if this has been mentioned in this discussion(such a long thread) but wouldn't it be sensible to concentrate on the genocide that is occuring right now in Iraq? Between the first gulf war, the years of sanctions and the present war I'd wager thats 3 million or so....and very under rated.

Originally posted by Strapping Young Lad
visiting the Holocaust Museum here in DC was a shock to the system Ill never forget..

I can say the same thing about my visit to Nagasaki and Hiroshima. I spent a month and a half in Japan when I was in high school (summer trip with a couple of friends, one from Tokyo) and the last leg of our trip took us to Hiroshima, Nagasaki and then to Okinawa. This was in the 80's. The Japanese were the nicest people in the world. They all wanted to have us over for dinner, they wanted us to crash at their homes. Everywhere we went the kids asked us to be penpals. It was the most welcoming place I've ever seen. Then we hit Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I was 16 or 17 at the time and I felt guilty, like this was my doing. It was horrific. I felt like people were staring at us, blaming us (they weren't of course). It was horrible to be treated so well and then see what my country did to these people. Then we hit Okinawa and it was supposed to be fun and partying and we really wanted nothing to do with it. The military presence reminded us of the two cities and we couldn't get out of there fast enough.

I've never been to the holocaust museum but I would imagine you get the same feeling of horror, possible more so.

One month ago I visited Yad Vashem...the Holocaust Museum in Jerusalem. The documentation was impeccable as it not only honoured jewish victims but all other nationalities as well. And not only that, they had made an entire street honouring each and every non-jew that had helped in resisting the nazis by hiding and protecting the persecuted.

The visit there was an unforgettable experience and the inclusion of many other nationalities in the documentation proves some of the statements made in this thread way above top ignorant.

Originally posted by benign.psychosis

Psychosis, I speak as I find. You call me childish and then attempt to provoke me by giving me a dictionary useage guide. Come on, what next, are you going to call me names?

For what it's worth my point about schooling and your relation to it was well-founded - a) because the OP here is about over-teaching of holocaust history - sorry, "the holocaust" history, which means it's fair to assume the topic might attract students, and b) because your holocaust is a zionist conspiracy/allies committed the crime theory is based on not a great deal, and therefore comes across as a somewhat childlike argument. Apologies if I offended you.

As to the strawmen argument - I disagree. You are talking about a temporary etymological shift, based on contempary word useage. You suggest this perfectly common phenomenon to have been driven by "Jewcentric adaptation". I call that nonsense, and maintain that my comparison to bowl nomenclature was perfectly reasonable.

You backed your point up by taking common useage definitions and presenting them as if they were the only ones on offer. Which isn't true, so pointing out the discrepancy (again) between reality and your argument seems to me to be far from absurd.

The reason this debate demands levity is because the subject matter is still incredibly sensitive to a great many people. However clever you believe yourself to be, however unjust you believe the "official story" of the holocaust to be, and however stifled you think the debate has become, it is beholden on you to show respect to a subject which still touches so many people today. Mature debate demands carefull presentation of argument. I don't think you do that. I can point to the points you've made on this and related threads if you want, but you'd accuse me of cherry picking, so instead I invite everyone to search the holocaust threads on ATS for the wisdom of Benign Psychosis. See what you think.

Let's not beat about the bush - I have a problem with your style of debate full stop. My problem with you is that you have contended elsewhere that "the holocaust" was not perpetrated by the Nazis, but by the allies. It's a contention that is ill-informed, historically untrue, misleading, and in my view quite dangerous. And there, I think, lies the root of our differences.

LW

Originally posted by LoneWeasel

Psychosis, I speak as I find. You call me childish and then attempt to provoke me by giving me a dictionary useage guide.

If the shoe fits, wear it. There is no need to be embarrased. I'm sorry if you feel that I've called you out, but I was only trying to help you as from your last post it looked quite clear that you were having trouble with the dictionary. Beyond that I never called you childish, I merely pointed at that your particular actions were childish.

As to the strawmen argument - I disagree. You are talking about a temporary etymological shift, based on contempary word useage. You suggest this perfectly common phenomenon to have been driven by "Jewcentric adaptation". I call that nonsense, and maintain that my comparison to bowl nomenclature was perfectly reasonable.

All 4 definitions place emphisis on Jewish deaths, while two of them only mention others. I would suggest that they use "People" or "Persons" instead of only mentioning Jews. I think you understand this, but you are arguing for the sake of it.

You backed your point up by taking common useage definitions and presenting them as if they were the only ones on offer. Which isn't true, so pointing out the discrepancy (again) between reality and your argument seems to me to be far from absurd.

No, you only believe that I presented them as if they were theonly ones to offer. I knew full well that they were not, and so I cited the dictionary that I obtained the definitions from. Different words have different meanings in the context of the situation, and the definitions I supplied where in perfect context to the WWII Holocaust - the general definition of the word not need apply there. A word looked up in the dictionary does not mean every definition listed for every possible context. For some reason, you seem to think this is so, and I supplied you with a link on how to use a dictionary. You claim it was a provocation. You would be correct if the context of that provocation was to learn how to use a dictionary.

Let's not beat about the bush - I have a problem with your style of debate full stop. My problem with you is that you have contended elsewhere that "the holocaust" was not perpetrated by the Nazis, but by the allies. It's a contention that is ill-informed, historically untrue, misleading, and in my view quite dangerous. And there, I think, lies the root of our differences.

It seems the real root of our differences is that you do not believe in personal responsibility nor freedom of speech - except for when you agree with what is being said.

Originally posted by benign.psychosis

It seems the real root of our differences is that you do not believe in personal responsibility nor freedom of speech - except for when you agree with what is being said.

When have I ever denied you the freedom of speech? How could I deny you it? I'm simply contesting the validity of how you use it. I think freedom of speech is very important. I also think it can be dangerous. And I think you demonstrate that fact.

LW

Reply to LoneWeasel

I think freedom of speech is very important. I also think it can be dangerous. And I think you demonstrate that fact.

benign.psychosis has demonstrated clearly how Some people try their best to Wrap up the topic and try bring it to the End without anything coming out of it.

If What is being shown is THE TRUTH than why Restrict people who don’t agree with THE TRUTH?

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by kangjia57
Reply to LoneWeasel
I think freedom of speech is very important. I also think it can be dangerous. And I think you demonstrate that fact.

benign.psychosis has demonstrated clearly how Some people try their best to Wrap up the topic and try bring it to the End without anything coming out of it.

If What is being shown is THE TRUTH than why Restrict people who don’t agree with THE TRUTH?

I'm not quite sure what you're saying, Kanjia. Are you suggesting I'm trying to wrap up the thread? Or are you saying I'm trying to restrict what Psychosis says? Or is it your suggestion that I'm paranoid about a hidden cover up I'm somehow involved in? Because I'm doing none of those things.

What I'm saying is that I think what Psychosis says is dangerously untrue, though I don't question Psychosis's right to say it.

Psychosis's last asssertion was that I didn't support freedom of speech if I didn't agree with what was being said. I'd say a more accurate reading of my feeling is that people can say what they like - but if they want me to believe what they say, they'd be better off supplying hard evidence to back their words up, rather than offering bizarre hypotheses backed up by nothing but smart remarks. And that, on this topic of all topics, I'd be more inclined to give time to their hypotheses if they were delivered ina more respectful tone.

To get back to the OP - which asked if the holocaust was an obsession for those who formulate school curricula - it seems to me based on the posts from the likes of Psychosis that if their is an inappropriately obsessive attitude to the holocaust anywhere in the field, it is with the paranoid zionist conspiracy myth makers, not school text books.

LW

Omg, i know this is a shot in the dark, but is your name Justin? I ask this because in 2002, i was attending a class at Annapolis High school in Dearborn Heights Michigan. I sat next to this kid who loved to debate about everything, and my friend, Justin, use to know how to push his buttons. Justin started an argument about how the holocaust was overrated, and this kid who loved to debate started this huge argument about it, but could not prove Justin wrong. My friend, soon after, ended up moving to Florida and i eventually lost touch with him. If you happen to be him, please reply.