Yom Ha'Shoa
Last year, I wrote about what this Day of Rememberance means to me, and how mad I was that there were many Jews that believed that there shouldn't be a special day to remember the Holocaust. That it should be relocated to Tisha B'Av, because the persecution that we suffered at the hands of the Nazis was no different than any other time we were persecuted in history. (You can read those posts here and here) Basically, my response to them was that if they truly believe that the Holocaust was no different than any other persecution against the Jews in history than they really didn't understand the uniqueness of what the Holocaust was. I'm not about to go through the whole argument again. There's no point, because I'd just end up saying the exact same things I said last year.
What I will say is how much I've learned since then, and how much more I believe the words I said last year. I've read a lot since then. I've read many things I didn't know before. I've read about what the world, especially the United States and Great Britain, didn't do to help the Jews during WWII. I had always, naively now I suppose, thought that FDR and Churchill really couldn't do more than they did to help the Jews. Now, I realize how wrong I was, and how I wish that these facts were taught to us in school. We need to know the whole truth in order to fully grasp the whole scope of what the Holocaust was.
I used to think that Holocaust denial was reserved for the Muslim world, where the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are annual best sellers and skin-head punks in the Neo-Nazi world. How wrong I was about that too. Now-a-days, the most dangerous form of anti-semetism and holocaust denial comes under the cloak of academia and "free speech". There are many in the academic and media world who believe that people who disbute the existence of the Holocaust are just expressing "opposing views" that are simply contrary to the main stream. They call these people the "other side". Some-how and for some reason, only the Jews are subject to another side when it comes to atrocities committed against them. When Deborah Lipstadt was invited to speak on C-Span's book club (in response to her book History on Trial, her trial against Holocaust deniar David Irving), she was told that she was going to be "debating" some-one on the subject on the Holocaust. Very rightly, she refused. She also rightly stated that there is no "debate" on the matter of the Holocaust. There are debates about the details, but there is no debate as to whether the even actually took place and the convergence of evidence that exists to that effect. Neither, is there "another side". As she pointed out, if some-one was invited to speak, during Black History Month or whenever, on the topic of black slavery, would any-one invite or justify another person coming to debate whether black slavery ever took place. HELL NO! You would never hear about it. But, when it comes to the Holocaust, all "sides" are open for debate. Especially, the question of whether it actually happened. More and more, Holocaust denial is not being done in the open. It's being done subtley and by people calling themselves serious academics. Some people, like David Irving, earn respect for their work, so when their true nature is called into questions, other serious and respected scholars defend them. Then, you have anti-semitic and Holocaust denying institutions that write under the guise of scolarly work. Like, the Institute for Historical Review, which sounds so academic, there are many college student cite them as legitimate sources never knowing or being told that they might as well be quoting a Goebbels propoganda report. That's what's makes this form of Holocaust denial so much more threatening than when it's touted by a bunch of skin heads. Nobody takes skin heads seriously, but when remarks are made under the veneer of scholarly work, people stop and wonder if what they're saying actually carries some weight. "I mean, the guy's a professor. Doesn't that mean he knows what he's talking about? Other scholars are saying this guy is a serious historian. What he says must mean something."
The Holocaust is a unique event in time, for the Jews and the whole world. When the Jews were persecuted and murdered in other places by other people, it was done locally and with no intention of spreading to other places. The local government was just "taking care" of their local Jewish problem. However, the Holocaust was the first time in history, that a people were targeted beyond the borders of where teh persecuting government was stationed. Hitler and the Nazis didn't just aim to kill the Jews in Germany and Austria. Their aim was to go out of their to systematically wipe out and eradicate all the Jews in all of Eastern Europe and Beyond. As Professor Lipstadt has reported, new sources are coming out detailing the Nazis' plan, along with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem to carry out the Final Solution in Palestine. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that there were similar plans formulated for Northern Africa and the rest of the Middle East. The Holocaust requires its own special day, because the world and the Jews (especially those who feel it's nothing special and should be part of Tisha B'Av) need to be reminded what happened and can happen again if we don't take care to ensure it never does. The Western World likes to invoke the memory of the Holocaust whenever they want to make a point about another country in trouble, but they don't really mean what they say. There are millions of Black African Christians being purposely starved and relocated in Darfur, Sudan, by Muslims, and no-one's standing up in the UN and screaming for action. Not one country has called for a special emergency Security Council session to handle the problem. No, that priviledge is only reserved for Israel and the Jews. Anti-semetism is on the rise in Europe, and in many countries is reaching record highs since World WarII. That is not a good thing. Why did the Holocaust survivors not feel comfortable talking about their experiences until after the 1967 6 Day War? Because that was the first time since April of 1945 that they felt that the Jews might actually be safe from anhilation. That's when they felt it was safe enough to let the world know what they went through. Israel and its Jews (and non-Jewish citizens) are on the brink of anhilation again. This time at the hands of an Iranian nuclear weapon. The Western World has their collective thumbs up their butts waiting for Iran to get scared enough to stop their Uranium enrichment. Well, if the Jewish State gets "wiped off the map", what does it matter? It's just Jews. THE HOLOCAUST NEEDS TO BE REMEMBERED AND BURNED INTO OUR BRAINS NOW MORE THAN EVER. REMEMBER! BECAUSE THERE ARE FORCES IN THIS WORLD TRYING TO DO IT AGAIN
What I will say is how much I've learned since then, and how much more I believe the words I said last year. I've read a lot since then. I've read many things I didn't know before. I've read about what the world, especially the United States and Great Britain, didn't do to help the Jews during WWII. I had always, naively now I suppose, thought that FDR and Churchill really couldn't do more than they did to help the Jews. Now, I realize how wrong I was, and how I wish that these facts were taught to us in school. We need to know the whole truth in order to fully grasp the whole scope of what the Holocaust was.
I used to think that Holocaust denial was reserved for the Muslim world, where the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are annual best sellers and skin-head punks in the Neo-Nazi world. How wrong I was about that too. Now-a-days, the most dangerous form of anti-semetism and holocaust denial comes under the cloak of academia and "free speech". There are many in the academic and media world who believe that people who disbute the existence of the Holocaust are just expressing "opposing views" that are simply contrary to the main stream. They call these people the "other side". Some-how and for some reason, only the Jews are subject to another side when it comes to atrocities committed against them. When Deborah Lipstadt was invited to speak on C-Span's book club (in response to her book History on Trial, her trial against Holocaust deniar David Irving), she was told that she was going to be "debating" some-one on the subject on the Holocaust. Very rightly, she refused. She also rightly stated that there is no "debate" on the matter of the Holocaust. There are debates about the details, but there is no debate as to whether the even actually took place and the convergence of evidence that exists to that effect. Neither, is there "another side". As she pointed out, if some-one was invited to speak, during Black History Month or whenever, on the topic of black slavery, would any-one invite or justify another person coming to debate whether black slavery ever took place. HELL NO! You would never hear about it. But, when it comes to the Holocaust, all "sides" are open for debate. Especially, the question of whether it actually happened. More and more, Holocaust denial is not being done in the open. It's being done subtley and by people calling themselves serious academics. Some people, like David Irving, earn respect for their work, so when their true nature is called into questions, other serious and respected scholars defend them. Then, you have anti-semitic and Holocaust denying institutions that write under the guise of scolarly work. Like, the Institute for Historical Review, which sounds so academic, there are many college student cite them as legitimate sources never knowing or being told that they might as well be quoting a Goebbels propoganda report. That's what's makes this form of Holocaust denial so much more threatening than when it's touted by a bunch of skin heads. Nobody takes skin heads seriously, but when remarks are made under the veneer of scholarly work, people stop and wonder if what they're saying actually carries some weight. "I mean, the guy's a professor. Doesn't that mean he knows what he's talking about? Other scholars are saying this guy is a serious historian. What he says must mean something."
The Holocaust is a unique event in time, for the Jews and the whole world. When the Jews were persecuted and murdered in other places by other people, it was done locally and with no intention of spreading to other places. The local government was just "taking care" of their local Jewish problem. However, the Holocaust was the first time in history, that a people were targeted beyond the borders of where teh persecuting government was stationed. Hitler and the Nazis didn't just aim to kill the Jews in Germany and Austria. Their aim was to go out of their to systematically wipe out and eradicate all the Jews in all of Eastern Europe and Beyond. As Professor Lipstadt has reported, new sources are coming out detailing the Nazis' plan, along with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem to carry out the Final Solution in Palestine. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that there were similar plans formulated for Northern Africa and the rest of the Middle East. The Holocaust requires its own special day, because the world and the Jews (especially those who feel it's nothing special and should be part of Tisha B'Av) need to be reminded what happened and can happen again if we don't take care to ensure it never does. The Western World likes to invoke the memory of the Holocaust whenever they want to make a point about another country in trouble, but they don't really mean what they say. There are millions of Black African Christians being purposely starved and relocated in Darfur, Sudan, by Muslims, and no-one's standing up in the UN and screaming for action. Not one country has called for a special emergency Security Council session to handle the problem. No, that priviledge is only reserved for Israel and the Jews. Anti-semetism is on the rise in Europe, and in many countries is reaching record highs since World WarII. That is not a good thing. Why did the Holocaust survivors not feel comfortable talking about their experiences until after the 1967 6 Day War? Because that was the first time since April of 1945 that they felt that the Jews might actually be safe from anhilation. That's when they felt it was safe enough to let the world know what they went through. Israel and its Jews (and non-Jewish citizens) are on the brink of anhilation again. This time at the hands of an Iranian nuclear weapon. The Western World has their collective thumbs up their butts waiting for Iran to get scared enough to stop their Uranium enrichment. Well, if the Jewish State gets "wiped off the map", what does it matter? It's just Jews. THE HOLOCAUST NEEDS TO BE REMEMBERED AND BURNED INTO OUR BRAINS NOW MORE THAN EVER. REMEMBER! BECAUSE THERE ARE FORCES IN THIS WORLD TRYING TO DO IT AGAIN
posted by Olah Chadasha @ 4/24/2006 03:06:00 PM
Read Me By E-Mail
8 Comments:
again - tisha b'av works just fine. if we had a day set aside for each and every individual persecution we'd never get any work done
Olah:
Your assertion that Britain and the US could have done more to save Jewish lives is strenuous to say the least. There was a chaotic war going on, Britain was literally fighting for its own survival. We discovered the camps when we found them. Sure, there were reports about something terribly sinister going on in the East, but these reports were simply too much to believe without more evidence. Remember, the "final solution" was carried out largely in secret. They succeeded in keeping the secret until it was discovered. There is nothing sinister about the role of the Brits or Americans re the Holocaust, as you seem to imply.
Many European Jews didn't see the rising storm either: they simply refused to believe that assimilated European Jews would fall victim to what turned out to be the biggest genocide in human history.
As regards Lipstadt, her reaction is understandable but not necessarily wise. Ignoring Holocaust deniers doesn't make them go away, but debating concisely and accurately can easily destroy their arguments.
Irving, for example, is no longer a Holocaust denier.
menachem, again, you don't seem to grasp the uniquness of the Holocaust in the history of the persecution of the Jews. That's why you think Tisha B'Av works fine, and you are still absolutely dead WRONG!
Gert, once again, you really don't know your history, and I suggest you read at least a couple of books by some serious scholars before you make comments like that. Might I suggest Abandonment of the Jews and While Millions Died. Until you know a little bit more about what you're talking about, there's no point in even trying to talk to you. But, I will say this. The British and American governments knew the full details about the Final Solution by early 1944. In fact, Churchill wrote to the RAF planning department urging them to bomb the Auschwitz camps' crematoria or the railways leading to the camps. His fault is that when the RAF turned it down, he didn't urge it anymore. This in fact when the RAF was bombing factories a mere 7 km from the camps. FDR admitted to the Jewish agencies pleading for him to do something about the Jews' plight that he knew more than they could imagine about what was going, and the only way to save the Jews was to win the war as fast as possible. However, as many historians state now, the Nazis were excellerating the deaths of the Jews so quickly that if the Allies didn't do something there WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ANY JEWS LEFT TO SAVE. Most World War II and Holocaust historians agree that the US' and Great Britain's lack of action on the matter of bombing the camp or railways is a moral plight on their record. Please, read something so you know what you're talking about.
Irving is still very much a Holocaust denier. You think he meant it when he said he had learned "new" knowledge that shows him that he was wrong? He's made statements and claims since then that directly contradict this claim.
You seriously need to take some history lessons.
-OC
Olah:
If you're going to try and prove that somehow the allies could have done more to save more Jews you may have a point, you may have not. Nothing in war is perfect but I think very few historians now take the view that the allies somehow sacrificed Jews in order to win the war: resources were scarse and had to be attributed, with the power of hindsight it's easy to point the finger of blame.
The allies weren't to blame for the Holocaust, nor were all Europeans.
Elsewhere you asserted that Britain promised a Jewish homeland, then broke that promise. That's simply not true, unless you understand by that promise the creation of Eretz Israel. The Balfour declaration cannot be interpreted that way. It seems to me you have a lot of issues with the British re Israel, many of which are contentious.
gert, it seems you have inference issues, and you should stop assuming things. You know what happens when you do that, don't you? Please site where I talk about the Balfour Declaration as I don't remember the comment off-hand. As for my contentious claims about British in regards to Israel, please educate me on where I went wrong. We'll see if we can't give you some more history lessons. So far, you haven't been able to successfully refute any of the historical references I used to knock down your arguments. I assume that's because you don't have any argument, so you just fly to some other topics.
I never blamed the Allies for the Holocaust. Again, with the assumptions and putting words into my mouth. I said that there were things that they could have done to help save Jews, and they didn't. Again, you don't seem to really know your history, so it's really pointless to continue on the conversation with you. I also never said that any historians have claimed that the Allies "sacrificed" the Jews for the war. I said that many historians of WWII and the Holocaust state that the proof and the documents show that the Allies could have done more than they did in many different ways, and the fact that they didn't is a moral blight on their war record.
If you continue to twist my words around, say things that I never said, and make stuff up when you don't know the history, there will be no point in even bothering to talk to you. You really don't know what you're talking about. Do you need some more book reccomendations?
-OC
You're right, it's pointless trying to reason with you. You simply dismiss anyone's ideas out of hand, telling them they don't know history or that they are putting words into your mouth.
I can only interpret your words, not take them literally, without context words are meaningless. To you that's probably "moral relativism".
Why would I provide, say a link to the Balfour Declaration here?You'd only dispute the source.
These are you main tactics:
1. tell people they don't know what they're talking about
2. tell people they don't know history
3. tell people they putting words into your mouth
4. dispute their sources
5. tell them your sources are better than theirs.
Have it your way ("my way or the highway"). Olah, Holder of Ultimate Truth.
Best content & valuable as well. Thanks for sharing this content.
Approved Auditor in DAFZA
Approved Auditor in RAKEZ
Approved Auditor in JAFZA
i heard about this blog & get actually whatever i was finding. Nice post love to read this blog
Approved Auditor in DMCC
Virgin Linseed Oil BP
Good luck & keep writing such awesome content.
Best dental clinic in Faridabad
best child dentist in greater Noida
Post a Comment
<< Home