Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ucla-cs.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!cepu!ucla-cs!reiher From: reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: "Imperialism", Hitler, Holocausts, and misleading argument style Message-ID: <5605@ucla-cs.ARPA> Date: Tue, 21-May-85 18:19:28 EDT Article-I.D.: ucla-cs.5605 Posted: Tue May 21 18:19:28 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 25-May-85 08:41:31 EDT References: <3706@alice.UUCP> Reply-To: reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP (Peter Reiher) Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Lines: 61 Summary: In article <3706@alice.UUCP> jj@alice.UUCP writes: > >The writer goes on to say that "human history has NEVER witnessed >this kind of barbarism in its entire past history." a statement >that (given my own ancestry) makes me wonder if the writer's >ever read Afghani, Irish, Scot, Australian, African, Indian (as in India), >or Amerind history. (That's just what comes to mind off the top of >my head. I'm sure there's a lot more that I know about, but the >point is depressingly well made.) > ... >The second is the lack of perspective >evident in the comments about barbarism. The Nazi Germany >treatment of the Jewish regretably has many equals in history, >albiet most on a lesser scale because of the lesser populations >involved. I agree with the major point made in the (deleted) text of this article. Equating the social forces which caused the Holocaust with the "inevitable results of imperialism" is nutnews. I do want to say a little about the parallel instances of genocide listed, though. One aspect of the Germans' attempted genocide of the Jews which has always struck me as near unique is that, unlike the other instances mentioned above and almost all others I've seen, the Germans' actions were against their best interests. In these other cases, peoples are killed because you want their land, mostly, and there is a positive material benefit in killing them. (Leaving aside the moral costs, which makes such actions more costly in the long run.) One powerful group wanted to steal something from a less powerful group, so they did it in the most straightforward way: the just took what they wanted and killed anyone who objected or might object. Now the Germans did expropriate the property of the Jews they killed, but that wasn't the point of their actions. Since many of the smartest and most valuable members of German society were Jews, and since this was known to all, killing these people, particularly when in the middle of a desperate war, was decidely not in the German self-interest. (Just as one facet, German Jews naturally tended to be rather touchy about people questioning their patriotism, so they could probably have been counted on to enlist in the German army in large numbers, if permitted. By killing them, instead, the German's probably lost several hundred thousand prospective soldiers, leaving aside the massive resources necessary to run the concentration camps and the loss of scientists, doctors, and intellectuals.) Here was a case in which the primary motivation behind the genocide was racial hatred rather than greed. In the other cases mentioned, racial hatred was used as more of an excuse for indulging in greed. Of course, dead is dead. The Irish killed by the English, the Armenians by the Turks, are every bit as dead as the Jews killed by the Germans, regardless of motives. Still, I find it less difficult to comprehend, and thus less frightening, when murder is spurred by avarice rather than pure, unmotivated hatred. The only real parallel I see to the German genocide of the Jews is the Cambodian self-genocide. Again, the killings demonstrably and predictably damaged the destroyers, rather than rewarding them. Again, an ideology was the motivation. Ideologies can be dangerous things. -- Peter Reiher reiher@ucla-cs.arpa soon to be reiher@LOCUS.UCLA.EDA {...ihnp4,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!reiher