How many holocausts?

The "holocaust" most are familar with is the the holocaust perpetrated on the Jews during WW2. Six million Jewish souls were, according to most historians systematicly killed. There were of course other "holocausts" the world has pretty much forgotten like the over 100000 killed with the nuclear bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Heroshima.
We should also never forget the Russian holocaust where millions died under the dictatorship of Stalin. other holocausts would be Serbia, Rowanda and others. Also many, many Palestinians have been killed in an effort to rid the land of them.

The term "holocaust" seems to have become a word to denote only the crime perpetrated against the Jews when, in my opinion, it should cover all the genocidal crimes against humanity. I believe we should have a Holocaust Remembrance Day where ALL the holocausts would be remembered at the same time. Highlighting these atrocities, condemning them and vowing never to allow a holocaust to happen again will, perhaps, cause those in power to think before going down that road.
A "holocaust" has nothing to do with being Jewish but everything to do with being human.



[edit on 30-8-2010 by gem_man]

[edit on 30-8-2010 by gem_man]

edited to acknowledge and recognize edit to statistics previously offered by gem_man in opening post.

thank you gem_man for making that correction.

Within the first two to four months of the bombings, the acute effects killed 90,000–166,000 people in Hiroshima and 60,000–80,000 in Nagasaki,[5] with roughly half of the deaths in each city occurring on the first day.
source:en.wikipedia.org...

The real mortality of the atomic bombs that were dropped on Japan will never be known. The destruction and overwhelming chaos made orderly counting impossible. It is not unlikely that the estimates of killed and wounded in Hiroshima (150,000) and Nagasaki (75,000) are over conservative.
source: www.aasc.ucla.edu...

[edit on 30-8-2010 by Esoteric Teacher]

[edit on 30-8-2010 by Esoteric Teacher]

reply to post by gem_man

Some scholars maintain that the definition of the Holocaust should also include the Nazis' systematic murder of millions of people in other groups, including ethnic Poles, Romani, Soviet civilians, Soviet prisoners of war, people with disabilities, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, and other political and religious opponents.[6] By this definition, the total number of Holocaust victims would be between 11 million and 17 million people.[7]

en.wikipedia.org...

Yes, they have definetly taken over the definition of holocaust...

Also note, estimates are that between 5m & 11m other people died..

So I've always found it odd that all they want us to remember are the jewish deaths..

All that were killed deserve to be remembered..

reply to post by gem_man


Hmm so dropping the bomb was a holocaust? I wonder how many would have died if we had not dropped the bomb and invaded Japan? Do you know how many died in the fire bombing of Tokyo during WW2? You should look it up.


I think this thread is about one thing and that is propaganda. Why not just make a point without wrapping it up in crap?

If you kind of know of human history, You will know that there were many many holocausts.

Billions of People in the past was killed for one reason or another.

But I with the Jew holocaust started by the Germans... It was killing to exterminate a whole group. Cleansing out certain group. You see, things like this has happend in the past many many times... But not in the year of 1940's which is only like 60 years ago...

[edit on 30-8-2010 by saabacura]

So I guess we need to think like Kant.

We need to determine the intentions of their action.

With the nuke in Japan, I think the intention was to stop war/force the Japanese to give up...??? (I may be wrong about the intention)

With the holocaust, the intention was to wipe clean.

You see... different intentions were behind these two separate invents.

reply to post by Subjective Truth

Many people would argue that it wasn't necessary because there were other ways of ending the war, but from the U.S. point of view, there wasn't another way. They couldn't handle an uprising from the people who paid taxes for this bomb to be built if they didn't use it.

wiki.answers.com...

Actually I've heard from oldtimers that it wasn't neccesary..

reply to post by gem_man


With all due respect, I don't think you are entirely informed. For one, the holocaust is meant to describe the act of mass genocide against the Jews in WWII.

from the Greek ὁλόκαυστος [holókaustos]: hólos, "whole" and kaustós, "burnt" en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by NeutronAvenger


I think the word "holocaust" was around before 1940..

Adding a "the" infront and expecting that to change the definition is wierd.

reply to post by CynicalM


You are correct. However, no record of the word can be attributed to any other mass genocide.

The word "holocaust" does indeed have religious origins. In ancient times, when there was a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, the priests of the Temple would offer animal sacrifices to God. Some sacrifices would provide the priests with meat for their own consumption, while others would be wholly consumed and only ashes would be left.

The latter type of sacrifices were called, in Greek, holokauston, which means, "wholly burned." In Hebrew, the word for this type of sacrifice was 'olah. However, when the Roman Empire adopted Christianity as the state religion and translated the Hebrew Bible or Old Testament into Latin, they borrowed the term holokauston from Greek and rendered 'olah as holocaustum. The English term derives from the Latin word.

www.holocaust-history.org...

Sources? OK. Heres and order signed by Stalin to kill 27000
www.youtube.com...

From 1917 to Stalin's death in 1953, the Soviet Union, worshipped by leftists around the world as the acme of human political accomplishment, shot, tortured, beat, froze or starved to death at least 40 million of its people. Some Russian historians claim the true figure is even higher. In an ugly spasm of deja-vu, Russian troops slaughtered 80,000 Chechen civilians over the past two years.

reformed-theology.org...

Here is a list that shows much
Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50) 49-78,000,000
Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39) 23,000,000 (the purges plus Ukraine's famine)
Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945) 12,000,000 (concentration camps and civilians WWII)
Leopold II of Belgium (Congo, 1886-1908) 8,000,000
Hideki Tojo (Japan, 1941-44) 5,000,000 (civilians in WWII)
Ismail Enver (Turkey, 1915-20) 1,200,000 Armenians (1915) + 350,000 Greek Pontians and 480,000 Anatolian Greeks (1916-22) + 500,000 Assyrians (1915-20)
Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79) 1,700,000
Kim Il Sung (North Korea, 1948-94) 1.6 million (purges and concentration camps)
Menghistu (Ethiopia, 1975-78) 1,500,000
Yakwww.scaruffi.com... Gowon (Biafra, 1967-1970) 1,000,000
I was actually looking at Mao's death totals during the "cultural revolution" and trying to decide whether or not to include it and not only got the country confused but the numbers too. I am editing my post to correct my mistake. I appreciate you bringing it to my attention.

Originally posted by CynicalM
reply to post by Subjective Truth

 

Many people would argue that it wasn't necessary because there were other ways of ending the war, but from the U.S. point of view, there wasn't another way. They couldn't handle an uprising from the people who paid taxes for this bomb to be built if they didn't use it.

wiki.answers.com...

Actually I've heard from oldtimers that it wasn't neccesary..

No offense but really you have heard form old timers. I dont buy it I think you are lying to make your point. Were these old timers vets? Were they Marines?



Think about how many Japanese and American marines would have died in a invasion. It is in the Millions. And just for the record I have talked to Marines from WW2 and they were very happy to not have to invade Japan.



Also if you are using Wiki for you facts you might want to get your head examined because it is filled with sand.



[edit on 30-8-2010 by Subjective Truth]

reply to post by gem_man


You said in your opening post that the two atomic bomb that struck Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed 30 Million, but I fail to understand your source.

Hiroshima

Official Japanese figures at the time put the death toll at 118,661 civilians. But later estimates suggest the final toll was about 140,000, of Hiroshima's 350,000 population, including military personnel and those who died later from radiation. Many have also suffered long-term sickness and disability.

Nagasaki

Three days later, the United States launched a second, bigger atomic bomb against the city of Nagasaki. The device known as "Fat man", after Winston Churchill, weighed nearly 4,050 kg (nearly 9,000lb).

Nearly 74,000 were killed and a similar number injured.

Both extracts from: news.bbc.co.uk...

I calculate an estimate of 214,00, far from the 30 Million descibed in your opening post.

reply to post by Subjective Truth


Personally I have my opinion..

If you dont like it or disagree then dont just do the same as you accuse me of..Show some proof..Links..
If you bothered to read the link in my post you would have read that some suggested up to 1,000,000 US troops may have died had the war continued..Of course thats BS as you pointed out Wiki is crap,

BTW, there are hundreds of links regarding the bombs not being neccesary.

Ohh, and I've been a member of the RSL here for over 30 years if that answers your other question..

[edit on 30-8-2010 by CynicalM]

Originally posted by CynicalM
reply to post by Subjective Truth

 

Personally I have my opinion..

If you dont like it or disagree then dont just do the same as you accuse me of..Show some proof..Links..
If you bothered to read the link in my post you would have read that some suggested up to 1,000,000 US troops may have died had the war continued..Of course thats BS as you pointed out Wiki is crap,

BTW, there are hundreds of links regarding the bombs not being neccesary.

Who do you think answers Wiki questions? And just like I figured you dodged the question I asked were the old timers who told you it was not necessary vets? Please give some detail.



And also answer how many Japanese do you think would have died if we had invaded the island?

reply to post by Subjective Truth

Ohh, and I've been a member of the RSL here for over 30 years if that answers your other question..

I did edit my post to add the above, sorry you missed it..

As for the Japanese soldiers and US marines.
Atleast they are paid to fight..

Sorry, but I feel dropping bombs and killing a few hundred thousand men,women and children, not to mention the decades to follow of contamination, is not what war should be....

Originally posted by CynicalM
reply to post by Subjective Truth

 

Ohh, and I've been a member of the RSL here for over 30 years if that answers your other question..

I did edit my post to add the above, sorry you missed it..

As for the Japanese soldiers and US marines.
Atleast they are paid to fight..

Sorry, but I feel dropping bombs and killing a few hundred thousand men,women and children, not to mention the decades to follow of contamination, is not what war should be....

I actually agree with you. But we have to look at this using ww2 glasses. If you get my drift, times were not the same as today.




We had lost many men and women and the thought of another 5 years was unbearable to many. It would have been a blood bath.



A good thing to look at is what the Japanese did to the Chinese during this time period it is eye opening. Brutality at it's worst.


[edit on 30-8-2010 by Subjective Truth]

reply to post by Subjective Truth

A good thing to look at is what the Japanese did to the Chinese during this time period it is eye opening. Brutality at it's worst.

Mate I know, i've spent half my time working in Asia lately, mainly Malaysia. It was the same there..Cruel, cruel race the Japs were..

But I have honestly spoken to many vets and most thought it wasn't needed. Granted, most were Aussie vets. Maybe they had a different view. Who knows?

Originally posted by CynicalM
reply to post by Subjective Truth

 

A good thing to look at is what the Japanese did to the Chinese during this time period it is eye opening. Brutality at it's worst.

Mate I know, i've spent half my time working in Asia lately, mainly Malaysia. It was the same there..Cruel, cruel race the Japs were..

But I have honestly spoken to many vets and most thought it wasn't needed. Granted, most were Aussie vets. Maybe they had a different view. Who knows?

They did indeed have a different view. The pacific was won with the blood of American Marines. Just look at the numbers of dead and wounded. The bomb was celebrated at the time. But time and political correctness have a way of changing history to suit the needs of a agenda.



A really good program is HBO's the pacific. If you watch it let me know what you think I would appreciate it.

[edit on 30-8-2010 by Subjective Truth]

reply to post by Subjective Truth


Hmm, not sure I agree it was AL the US marines..

There were a lot of good Aussies that fought and way too many didn't return..The Aussies were fighting the Japs on many fronts...

Darwin was bombed, they even got mini subs into Sydney harbour..

I'll check out that doco..My son probably has it