"They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Discussions
VFX
BANNED
Posts: 1050
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 1:36 am

Re: "They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Post by VFX » Tue Sep 11, 2018 11:58 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote: How unclever can a Nazi wannabe be?
No idea where you get that Nazi thing from. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27688
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: "They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Tue Sep 11, 2018 2:36 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
VFX wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:Someone needs to learn how commas work in English.
There were none, please try and be more coherent instead of your normal babbling. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Idiot, meet commas:
In this spirit, the definition should enable us to compare and differentiate/include actions, in our context, like the “Holocaust,” the Nazis’ actions against the Roma, Nazi actions in Poland, Dresden and Hamburg, the Vertreibungen, pogroms and other ethnic massacres in the “shatter zone” - but also such mass atrocities as the decimation of American Indians, Turkey’s operations against the Armenians, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Holodomor, the case of the Palestinians, the former Yugoslavia in the ‘90s. Rohingya, mass killings by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, ISIL depredations against Christians, “white genocide,” and other cases in which genocide has been alleged.
Maybe at Rodoh lying and even doctoring people’s posts are acceptable; here you’ve just further exposed your emptiness, dishonesty, and lack of arguments.
Which raises an interesting question, maybe, depending. This thread is focused on alternative definitions of genocide. Does VFX have any thoughts on what constitutes genocide and what kinds of acts qualify?

Above is a partial list, in series form, of the kinds of actions which have been described by some as genocides and which any useful definition of genocide must enable us to understand:

the "Holocaust"
the Nazis’ actions against the Roma
Nazi actions in Poland
Dresden and Hamburg
the Vertreibungen
pogroms and other ethnic massacres in the “shatter zone”
the decimation of American Indians
Turkey’s operations against the Armenians
Hiroshima and Nagasaki
the Holodomor
the case of the Palestinians
the former Yugoslavia in the ‘90s
Rohingya
mass killings by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia
ISIL depredations against Christians
"white genocide"

The question isn't to give a yes/no on the above actions but to keep in mind that we're after a definition of genocide that can help us compare and differentiate various historical events and actions.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

montgomery
BANNED
Posts: 953
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 4:30 pm

Re: "They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Post by montgomery » Tue Sep 11, 2018 5:26 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
VFX wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:Someone needs to learn how commas work in English.
There were none, please try and be more coherent instead of your normal babbling. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Idiot, meet commas:
In this spirit, the definition should enable us to compare and differentiate/include actions, in our context, like the “Holocaust,” the Nazis’ actions against the Roma, Nazi actions in Poland, Dresden and Hamburg, the Vertreibungen, pogroms and other ethnic massacres in the “shatter zone” - but also such mass atrocities as the decimation of American Indians, Turkey’s operations against the Armenians, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Holodomor, the case of the Palestinians, the former Yugoslavia in the ‘90s. Rohingya, mass killings by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, ISIL depredations against Christians, “white genocide,” and other cases in which genocide has been alleged.
Maybe at Rodoh lying and even doctoring people’s posts are acceptable; here you’ve just further exposed your emptiness, dishonesty, and lack of arguments.
Which raises an interesting question, maybe, depending. This thread is focused on alternative definitions of genocide. Does VFX have any thoughts on what constitutes genocide and what kinds of acts qualify?

Above is a partial list, in series form, of the kinds of actions which have been described by some as genocides and which any useful definition of genocide must enable us to understand:

the "Holocaust"
the Nazis’ actions against the Roma
Nazi actions in Poland
Dresden and Hamburg
the Vertreibungen
pogroms and other ethnic massacres in the “shatter zone”
the decimation of American Indians
Turkey’s operations against the Armenians
Hiroshima and Nagasaki
the Holodomor
the case of the Palestinians
the former Yugoslavia in the ‘90s
Rohingya
mass killings by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia
ISIL depredations against Christians
"white genocide"

The question isn't to give a yes/no on the above actions but to keep in mind that we're after a definition of genocide that can help us compare and differentiate various historical events and actions.
The Vietnam war must surely qualify. You've being biased by not including more of America's huge crimes against humanity, when you include Dresden and Hamburg as comparisons.

Could America's continuous war against communism (political) be considered a genocide? Even though the victims haven't always been communists, the intent was always to wipe communism from the face of the earth.

For a comparison, how about Ahmadinejad's statement of pushing the apartheid regime into the sea. Would that qualify as an attempt at genocide?

I'm hearing you as being much more politically motivated than being concerned about genocides and attempts at genocide.

"Attempts" at genocide being the important factor here. Actual successful attempts at genocide being much more elusive.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27688
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: "They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Wed Sep 12, 2018 10:44 am

No reply to what I asked. VFX too busy firing off lame replies hither and yon, montgomery grinding his own political ax instead - and, curiously, trying to list every test case that interests him instead of discussing how to define genocide.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

VFX
BANNED
Posts: 1050
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 1:36 am

Re: "They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Post by VFX » Wed Sep 12, 2018 7:29 pm

Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious or national group. The term was coined in 1944 by Raphael Lemkin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history

However, I suspect you are asking what counts as a genocide. I obviously go with the legal definition within article II of the Genocide Convention.


The definition of the crime of genocide as contained in Article II of the Genocide Convention.
Article II

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:

Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
The Genocide Convention establishes in Article I that the crime of genocide may take place in the context of an armed conflict, international or non-international, but also in the context of a peaceful situation. The latter is less common but still possible. The same article establishes the obligation of the contracting parties to prevent and to punish the crime of genocide.

The popular understanding of what constitutes genocide tends to be broader than the content of the norm under international law. Article II of the Genocide Convention contains a narrow definition of the crime of genocide, which includes two main elements:

A mental element: the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such"; and
A physical element, which includes the following five acts, enumerated exhaustively:
Killing members of the group
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
United Nations Genocide

To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27688
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: "They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Wed Sep 12, 2018 8:02 pm

VFX wrote:Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious or national group. The term was coined in 1944 by Raphael Lemkin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history

However, I suspect you are asking what counts as a genocide. I obviously go with the legal definition within article II of the Genocide Convention.


The definition of the crime of genocide as contained in Article II of the Genocide Convention.
Article II

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:

Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
The Genocide Convention establishes in Article I that the crime of genocide may take place in the context of an armed conflict, international or non-international, but also in the context of a peaceful situation. The latter is less common but still possible. The same article establishes the obligation of the contracting parties to prevent and to punish the crime of genocide.

The popular understanding of what constitutes genocide tends to be broader than the content of the norm under international law. Article II of the Genocide Convention contains a narrow definition of the crime of genocide, which includes two main elements:

A mental element: the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such"; and
A physical element, which includes the following five acts, enumerated exhaustively:
Killing members of the group
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
United Nations Genocide

To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators
Perhaps, since this thread began with a challenge to the definition you give, you should read the thread.

I raised questions earlier in the thread about how to understand intent, whether genocidal actions must be systematic, sustained, and aimed at destruction of the group as a whole, the role of states, the part played by mass murder, and the “in whole or in part” aspect. I criticized the UN definition as overly broad and inclusive. And I added thoughts from a number of scholars, including Levine and Mann; this exercise had me beginning to think of a spectrum or continuum of extermination, destruction, and cleansing actions.

Simply repeating what is being challenged, and what we began the thread with, is hardly a way to deal with the challenge. You've contributed nothing.

And, no, I was not "asking what counts as a genocide"; I was, as I wrote, "after a definition of genocide that can help us compare and differentiate various historical events and actions."
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

VFX
BANNED
Posts: 1050
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 1:36 am

Re: "They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Post by VFX » Wed Sep 12, 2018 8:08 pm

I gave you the definition of genocide as per the United Nations. You should use that one.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27688
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: "They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Wed Sep 12, 2018 8:20 pm

I raised problems with it. Are you unable to deal with the problems in that definition? This thread is about the problems in the UN definition. Why are you bothering to post in a discussion you don't even want to have?
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27688
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: "They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Fri Sep 14, 2018 5:39 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:Not sure where to put this ... so here: "White House expected to warn of sanctions, other penalties if international court moves against Americans":
The United States will threaten Monday to punish individuals that cooperate with the International Criminal Court in a potential investigation of U.S. wartime actions in Afghanistan, according to people familiar with the decision.
So under the America First doctrine, the US will bully those who complain to the ICC about, or cooperate with ICC investigations of, potential war crimes committed by Americans in Afghanistan. This is as close to a claim of immunity for war crimes as a government can get - and in the US case it is based on US power, not legitimacy of the ICC, justice, or law.
a broader look at Bolton's declarations: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ica-policy
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27688
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: "They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Fri Sep 14, 2018 12:32 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
VFX wrote:Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious or national group. The term was coined in 1944 by Raphael Lemkin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history

However, I suspect you are asking what counts as a genocide. I obviously go with the legal definition within article II of the Genocide Convention.


The definition of the crime of genocide as contained in Article II of the Genocide Convention.
Article II

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:

Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
The Genocide Convention establishes in Article I that the crime of genocide may take place in the context of an armed conflict, international or non-international, but also in the context of a peaceful situation. The latter is less common but still possible. The same article establishes the obligation of the contracting parties to prevent and to punish the crime of genocide.

The popular understanding of what constitutes genocide tends to be broader than the content of the norm under international law. Article II of the Genocide Convention contains a narrow definition of the crime of genocide, which includes two main elements:

A mental element: the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such"; and
A physical element, which includes the following five acts, enumerated exhaustively:
Killing members of the group
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
United Nations Genocide

To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators
Perhaps, since this thread began with a challenge to the definition you give, you should read the thread.

I raised questions earlier in the thread about how to understand intent, whether genocidal actions must be systematic, sustained, and aimed at destruction of the group as a whole, the role of states, the part played by mass murder, and the “in whole or in part” aspect. I criticized the UN definition as overly broad and inclusive. And I added thoughts from a number of scholars, including Levine and Mann; this exercise had me beginning to think of a spectrum or continuum of extermination, destruction, and cleansing actions.

Simply repeating what is being challenged, and what we began the thread with, is hardly a way to deal with the challenge. You've contributed nothing.

And, no, I was not "asking what counts as a genocide"; I was, as I wrote, "after a definition of genocide that can help us compare and differentiate various historical events and actions."
By the way, as should be obvious, the Third Reich's destruction of European Jews is, under the definition above, a genocide - it involved the intentional destruction of a group (European Jews) by means of murder, bodily harm, inflicting of conditions meant to cause the physical destruction of a group, imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group. It was intended to destroy the group in while or in part. After all Raphael Lemkin developed his early definition of genocide in a book called Axis Rule in Occupied Europe.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

VFX
BANNED
Posts: 1050
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 1:36 am

Re: "They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Post by VFX » Sun Sep 16, 2018 7:56 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote: By the way, as should be obvious, the Third Reich's destruction of European Jews is, under the definition above, a genocide - it involved the intentional destruction of a group (European Jews) by means of murder, bodily harm, inflicting of conditions meant to cause the physical destruction of a group, imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group. It was intended to destroy the group in while or in part. After all Raphael Lemkin developed his early definition of genocide in a book called Axis Rule in Occupied Europe.
So at a whim you think you can change the public perception of the holocaust from mass gassing, Einsatzgruppen to mere inconvenience of deportation so that people elsewhere can fulfill those basic human needs. The fact is that Jews, then and now were unwanted guests who were kicked out. They made their own beds so at the end of the day had to lie in it, even if it was a lice and flea infested place in a lager.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27688
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: "They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sun Sep 16, 2018 8:06 am

VFX wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote: By the way, as should be obvious, the Third Reich's destruction of European Jews is, under the definition above, a genocide - it involved the intentional destruction of a group (European Jews) by means of murder, bodily harm, inflicting of conditions meant to cause the physical destruction of a group, imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group. It was intended to destroy the group in while or in part. After all Raphael Lemkin developed his early definition of genocide in a book called Axis Rule in Occupied Europe.
So at a whim you think you can change the public perception of the holocaust from mass gassing, Einsatzgruppen to mere inconvenience of deportation
What on earth are you talking about? I've posted elsewhere, in threads you've been active in, about the death tolls, and nothing I wrote here contradicts those posts. In fact, here I wrote that the German Jewish policy eventually "involved the intentional destruction of a group (European Jews) by means of murder, bodily harm, inflicting of conditions meant to cause the physical destruction of a group, imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group. It was intended to destroy the group ..."

How do you manage to derive from that "at a whim you think you can change the public perception of the holocaust from mass gassing, Einsatzgruppen to mere inconvenience of deportation"? Indeed, Jews were deported in a variety of contexts - the largest of these being to camps or other sites where they were murdered.

I am beginning to think that the Hauptschule you attend doesn't teach reading comprehension.
VFX wrote:The fact is that Jews, then and now were unwanted guests who were kicked out. They made their own beds so at the end of the day had to lie in it, even if it was a lice and flea infested place in a lager.
In places from which Jews were expelled (in their millions to their deaths) during WWII Jews had lived for many 100s of years, undergone emancipation, become citizens, and formed part of the society. Regardless, the intentional destruction of a group, including by mass murder, has nothing to do with fevered and paranoid perceptions you or others harbor: if Jews were "guests," as you believe, their destruction as a group is still genocide.

What does this mean, referring to the European Jews, who are targeted by Germany's genocidal action - "They made their own beds" - pray tell. I mean, I do like it when you guys finally come out and justify and cheerlead the genocide, which is what a lot of you want in any event. You sound like you've been reading too much been-there and Scott Smith, frankly, you certainly have learned dishonest tactics from people like them.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: "They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Sep 16, 2018 3:50 pm

VFX wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote: By the way, as should be obvious, the Third Reich's destruction of European Jews is, under the definition above, a genocide - it involved the intentional destruction of a group (European Jews) by means of murder, bodily harm, inflicting of conditions meant to cause the physical destruction of a group, imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group. It was intended to destroy the group in while or in part. After all Raphael Lemkin developed his early definition of genocide in a book called Axis Rule in Occupied Europe.
So at a whim you think you can change the public perception of the holocaust from mass gassing, Einsatzgruppen to mere inconvenience of deportation so that people elsewhere can fulfill those basic human needs. The fact is that Jews, then and now were unwanted guests who were kicked out. They made their own beds so at the end of the day had to lie in it, even if it was a lice and flea infested place in a lager.
VFX: where do you get "deportation" from that? AFAIK....there wasn't even any deportation except to the nearest extermination camps? Are you remembering some other conversation?

I was going to move on to the "guest" aspect of your post but checking for the quote, I see Stat Mech has covered all points better than I could. so, I'll just second, and leave.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28664
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Location: sometimes

Re: "They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Post by scrmbldggs » Sun Sep 16, 2018 5:04 pm

>> "VFX: where do you get "deportation" from that?"

Typical denier move. Next up: The AR death factories were transit camps. (Don't believe it? Hey, they took all those hospital and other records with them, that's why so much can't be found. Including the transited guests and their descendants.)
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28664
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Location: sometimes

Re: "They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Post by scrmbldggs » Sun Sep 16, 2018 5:16 pm

Oh wait, these days deniers are no longer "revisionists". These days they just wanna shout "Not true!", drop some insults niceties and take their ball and run away.
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27688
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: "They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Thu Oct 04, 2018 4:57 pm

Dovid Katz, who writes on the situation in Lithuania and the 2008 Prague Declaration and who began the Defending History website, has described Holocaust obfuscation and the concept of "double genocide" as crucial elements of Eastern European Holocaust revisionism and weapons of the nationalist right in the Baltic countries and other places (Katz highlights Ukraine). A crucial aspect of Katz's argument is that Holocaust obfuscation redefines genocide to minimize and obfuscate the Holocaust. As an indication of the present danger in this thinking, Katz cites (and Defending History has detailed cases of this) how in the Baltic states "criminaliz[e] criticism of Nazi collaborators" so long as they were also anti-communists and viewed as national heroes in resisting Soviet predations (e.g., the LAF in Lithuania, which is memorialized as a heroic nationalist group, despite its involvement in mass executions of Jews in 1941).

Pertinent to this thread, and the OP, Katz writes, "truth to tell, the standard UN definition ... itself opened potential floodgates for the future" with its broad scope and checklist approach identifying "any of the following acts" as genocide. Katz views the problematic definition as arising from Lemkin's 1943-1944 work in which, after defining genocide as "the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group," he becomes "increasingly casual" in how he describes genocide.

To bring us closer to the present, Katz quotes from a 1992 Lithuanian law which codifies Soviet genocide on the basis of torture and deportation of Lithuanians and of occupation and annexation of the country. Surveying similar legislation in Latvia and Estonia, Katz concludes that in these countries genocide is equated to harsh and violent actions against political groups, groups sharing common beliefs, or a social class. For example, Estonia includes as actions defined as genocide depriving people of their political rights or civil liberties. One thrust of the equation of such actions with genocide is that acts of political and cultural destruction, e.g., russification, without "physical and biological" destruction, are defined as genocide. And in this way, "odious crimes" (Katz's phrase) of the Soviets against segments of the populations of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia are equated to and mixed with - creating a "false symmetry" (Weiss-Wendt) - the Nazi attempt to destroy the Jewish communities and people in those countries. A second thrust is an "inversion" of roles, in which "patriotic" perpetrators of the Jewish genocide are elevated to the status of national heroes criticism of whom is criminalized.

Katz quotes a Lithuanian writer Leonidas Donskis on "the inflation of genocide" in which Donskis warns against the "devaluation" of the concept through inclusion of other, heinous actions and even atrocities that are not part of
the annihilation en bloc of a people or of a race irrespective of class divisions, dominant ideology and social and cultural differences. . . . Genocide is annihilation without pre-selection. . . .You are guilty at birth, and this fatal error of having been born - this original sin - can be corrected only by your extermination.
Again, to realize that these issues are not theoretical, we have only to think about the cases Katz discusses:

- noted scholar Yitzhak Arad, criminally investigated for participation (implied) in the genocide of the Lithuanian people for his actions as a partisan resisting the Nazis and their collaborators
- Rachel Margolis (who had rediscovered and published Sakowicz's Ponary diary and, full disclosure, helped me with research issues into the Holocaust in Lithuania) and Fania Yocheles Bransovsky, both of The Green House in Vilnius, criminally investigated for their roles as partisans
- Joseph Melamed (survivor of Kaunas ghetto), criminally investigated for defamation of Lithuanian "patriotic" supposedly by publishing lists of potential Holocaust perpetrators
- Evaldas Balčiūnas, a writer who appealed to Lithuania to "stop glorifying Holocaust murderers, perpetrators, and collaborators," subject to a series of harassing legal charges

Interestingly, Katz is highly critical of Israel, whose foreign policy calculations downplay criticism of Holocaust obfuscation in return for, in his opinion, reliable pro-Israel votes in the EU, UN, etc from obfuscating states. Israel failed to support three of its citizens, Arad, Margolis, and Melamed, when they came under attack in Lithuania for their activities, both wartime and current.

source: Dovid Katz, "The Baltic Movement to Obfuscate the Holocaust," in Kay & Sahel, Mass Violence in Nazi-Occupied Europe, pp 219-261; more full disclosure - Katz also helped me with research questions; he's written widely on Holocaust obfuscation and double genocide - I highly recommend the Defending History website (http://defendinghistory.com/) for materials on issues raised above as well as Litvak history
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27688
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: "They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Wed Nov 07, 2018 11:30 pm

If I knew this about Lemkin I’d forgotten it: in 1933 Lemkin participated in the Fifth International Conference for the Unification of Penal Law in Madrid. He sought to gain recognition of two international crimes, in his proposal:

- barbarity: “oppressive and destructive actions directed against individuals as members of a national, religious, or racial group”
- vandalism: “the destruction of work of art and culture”

According to Finder & Prusin Lemkin would later “join the proposed crimes of ‘barbarity’ and ‘vandalism’ under the heading of ‘genocide’” in Axis Rule in Occupied Europe in 1944.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27688
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: "They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:40 pm

Rob Bishop (R-Utah), the ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee, on genocidal plans in the US, against westerners:
For many people who live in the West, but also in urban and rural areas, the ideas behind the Green New Deal are tantamount to genocide. That may be an overstatement, but not by a whole lot. The genesis of this concept is really coming from easterners who live in an urban setting and have no view of what it’s like in the rest of America. When you judge distance not in miles but in subway stops, you realize there is something that needs to be discussed with this particular process.
People from the east who ride subways are planning the extermination of horse-riders and pickup drivers. That is no exaggeration.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has No Life
Posts: 12673
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am
Custom Title: Lost in Translation
Location: Safely stored in my own mind

Re: "They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Post by Jeffk 1970 » Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:47 pm

Hey, Mike Pence says that Democrats want to commit infanticide. It’s all part of the larger plan.
Question for Groening by a reporter:
“Mr. Groening, what do you say to those who still deny the Holocaust?”

Groening:
“Nothing. They are hopelessly lost.”


Harvard Crimson (on why it refused to run an add by Bradley Smith):
“(It is) vicious propaganda based on utter BS that has been discredited time and time again.”

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27688
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: "They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Fri Mar 15, 2019 12:43 pm

Rob Bishop was asked by AXIOS yesterday if by using the term genocide he meant to imply that the Green New Deal aimed at the mass murder of a national or ethnic group. He responded:
Bishop: I’m an ethnic. I’m a westerner.

Axios: And you think the Green New Deal is going to kill you?

Bishop: If you actually implement everything they want to. Killing would be positive if you implement everything the Green New Deal actually wants to. . . .
White westerner laments action to prevent mass death and catastrophe from climate change as calculated to cause mass murder of supposed "western ethnics," in the very region where white settlers ethnically cleansed native inhabitants to create lebensraum for American newcomers.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has No Life
Posts: 12673
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am
Custom Title: Lost in Translation
Location: Safely stored in my own mind

Re: "They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Post by Jeffk 1970 » Fri Mar 15, 2019 1:57 pm

Wow, genocide and infanticide....really doubling down on this.
Question for Groening by a reporter:
“Mr. Groening, what do you say to those who still deny the Holocaust?”

Groening:
“Nothing. They are hopelessly lost.”


Harvard Crimson (on why it refused to run an add by Bradley Smith):
“(It is) vicious propaganda based on utter BS that has been discredited time and time again.”

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27688
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: "They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Fri Jun 21, 2019 7:07 pm

Two interesting documents in PMJ1, each lying somewhere on "the spectrum."

Like fumigating lice Already in late February 1933 the CV-Zeitlung, newspaper of the Central Association of German Jews, noted the violent fantasies of the Nazis, writing that "The Völkischer Beobachter calls us 'bed bugs' and demands our extermination." The editors of PMJ footnotes this remark to VB 12/13 February 1933 where KL likened foreign Jews in Germany to a lice infestation and recommended the "fiercest fumigation of the infected space." (p 89)

Biological optimism vs realism Dr Rudolf Becker, writing on behalf of a working group including various Third Reich officials and others charged with drafting legislation "for the regulation of the status of the Jews" in Germany, sent to Hess a draft with an introduction that explained the rationale of the proposal. According to Becker, the national revolution provided an opportunity
to cleanse the German people and free it from an alien power, which has openly and secretly ruled it in its own house in ways that constituted an existential threat. . . .
In this vein, the introductory note advocated
the decisive and long-term general cleansing of the hundredfold camouflaged Jewish powers and influences . . . to force out both professed and surreptitious Jewry from all positions of authority overnight and throughout the entire spectrum of national character (spheres of culture), German administration (public and legal spheres), and the German economy (especially finance and the control of German land). . . .

Becker further argued that Germans, good-natured and guileless, had a "disinclination towards harsh violence" - and thus were taken advantage of, by, for example, "eastern Jewry." But what was required, said Becker, was "the healthy surgical cut": in fact, despite what the German people might "digest mentally and spiritually right now," "it is biological optimism to thin that one can do away with foreign entities without violence."

(The working group's proposals, which did not include organized violent measures, were precursors of many future enactments but were not accepted; Hess passed the draft legislation and Becker's introduction along to Streicher. pp 138-140)
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27688
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: "They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sat Jun 22, 2019 12:10 pm

In a similar vein, one tapped richly by Alon Confino's studies, we have Mr Streicher's publication Der Stürmer. Fritz Rosenfelder, a young Jew from Stuttgart, a strong German nationalist, took his own life in April 1933 leaving behind a note explaining his action - he felt unable to live when seen in Germany as a traitor to the country and cause he loved; he wanted to "shake up my Christian friends." Der Stürmer no. 30 for July 1933 commented on the tragedy with a front-page story, headlined "The Dead Jew" and captioned, "Fritz Rosenfelder is sensible and hangs himself." (PMJ1, p 160)
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27688
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: "They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sat Jun 22, 2019 1:19 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Fri Jun 21, 2019 7:07 pm

Biological optimism vs realism Dr Rudolf Becker, writing on behalf of a working group including various Third Reich officials and others charged with drafting legislation "for the regulation of the status of the Jews" in German
The early months after the seizure of power saw competing ideas for how the Nazis should solve the Jewish question; some themes debated by Nazi leaders during these months would lead to laws and actions during the mid-thirties; others would never be fully dealt with or would show up in new forms and contexts in future years. For instance, the draft legislation formulated by Dr Becker's working group in early April 1933 (above) envisioned, as a step in cleansing, an association of German Jews, legally established, controlled by a Jewish Council under the direction of and accountable to a People's Warden, answerable to the Reich Chancellor. The Warden would not be beholden to the Jews of Germany but be a political officer of the Reich with police powers over the Jews.

In May 1933 Dr Achim Gercke, a Nazi race specialist, published an article in Naitonalsozialistisch Monatshefte critical of Becker's proposals and arguing against allowing the Jews any legal status whatsoever in Germany. Gercke wrote that, as "a foreign race," Jews shouldn't be protected in any way and that plans to "consolidate" the German Jews into an association only would help them "gain a legal foothold in Germany for all eternity": "If they are permitted forever to freeload off their host peoples, the Jews will remain a constant source of trouble." Also, such proposals would define the German Jews as a national minority, subject to international law, an approach that was "political madness."

Gercke made general proposals for "a cleansing process" that would involve the expulsion of the Jews from Germany ("detach the Jews from Germany"; "We have to build our state without the Jews"); he suggested one avenue: "adopt[ion of] the Zionists' plans" and "international agreement for the creation of a homeland for the Jews." This would enable, he said, "the removal of this source of unrest that is always the wellspring of Bolshevism." In the meantime, using a "methodical approach," the Germans should make the Jews "stateless strangers [unable] to obtain any legislative, juridical permanency" in Germany.

Four assumptions Gercke spelled out were 1) that the context for solving the Jewish question was the seizure of power and "retaliation against Judah's declaration of war" on Germany, 2) that Jews would always light "the destructive flame of Bolshevism" in Germany, 3) that it was "premature these days in every respect," whilst "enlightenment" of the German people on the Jewish question and race continued, to "devise and present for public debate" a definitive solution to the Jewish question, and 4) that, "In summary, it is only planned departure, migration" in some form - "controlled by the state" - that would protect the German people from the Jews.

(PMJ1, pp 185-187)
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27688
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: "They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Fri Jun 28, 2019 12:29 pm

This item is rather odd. It comes from a 1940 essay written by Margot Littauer recalling her time, before emigrating to Palestine, as a Jewish student in German schools during the Third Reich.

One day a student asked Littauer's teacher about inclusion of Jewish students in an assignment relating to the national day of labor; the following day the teacher held a class discussion about the inclusion of the Jewish girls in such assignments; according to Littauer, the discussion touched on Nazi celebrations and their potential debasement by Jews, German images of Jews, German Jews during the Middle Ages, and "usury."

Towards the end of the discussion, most of the non-Jewish class members having been antagonistic toward their Jewish classmates, "one girl" concluded, according to Littauer's essay, "So, then, there's nothing left for the Jews but to turn on the gas."

After this remark the teacher summarized: "I am thus in favour of opposing the Jews dispassionately and removing them from among us. They are indeed foreign to us, and they obstruct our nationhood."

Littauer's rueful comment on the discussion and status of Jews in Germany in the 1930s: "We probably should be grateful to [our teacher] for being so accommodating, for wanting, unlike many others, to oppose us merely 'dispassionately.'"

PMJ1, pp 383-385
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27688
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: "They might have left some babies cryin' on the ground": what is genocide?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Wed Aug 07, 2019 10:51 pm

related . . . a concise definition of racism I recently read:
racism is an exclusionary practice: it is the distinction between friend and enemy based on a strict biological determinism that, taken to extremes, separates this who get to survive from those who must perish - among both the living and the seat. The biological transmission of racial traits precludes any casual dalliance outside the kinship group, any genealogical digression, and demands extreme vigilance and severe patrilineal discipline.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .