Was the holocaust by Germans in Poland the worse genocide in history?

Wow very little casualties during slavery? Slavery is probably humanity's greatest crime. Do you know what it took to carry these slaves back to america (and other countries)? they had to go there and start numerous wars with african tribes where entire populations were decimated by fighting and disease..then they had to endure the middle passage where they were crammed into ships and piled on top of each other, causing mass deaths from disease(imagine being piled up in a room barely big enough to hold everyone while being pissed, shat and vomited on by healthy and diseased people alike..) slaves would be drowned at sea if there werent enough food to keep them alive or other reasons. Slaves also comitted mass suicides to escape their fate.

"When we found ourselves at last taken away, death was more preferable than life, and a plan was concerted amongst us, that we might burn and blow up the ship, and to perish all together in the flames."

If the goal of slavery was not slavery itself but to actually bring africans back to america and give them all 40 acres and a mule a woman and a sac of money, it would still be humanity's greatest crime, just because of the wars it took to capture them and the middle passage, which was a holocaust on the seas..

I don't need to prove that I think the holocaust was horrible but it's sickening how my own country uses that as a yardstick for evil when the extermination of native americans and mass murder/enslavement of blacks is just as bad.

One last point. Comparing Mao to Hitler is not as fitting as comparing hitler to say, Hirohito of Japan. Until I read a real book on the subject I can't speak with confidence, but I keep seeing wild figures on the internet that during WWII Japan killed between 10-30 million Chinese (although these figures might include all casualties from Japan's conquest of asian countries.) Why is Hirohito not demonized? Maybe because western leaders remained allied with him well after WWII and publicly honored him when he finally died of natural causes. (I think sparing the emperor was a condition of japanese surrender in WWII) DISGUSTING.

The biggest genocides, pogroms,the Holocaust, from the Middle Ages up until now has been perpetrated not by Jews, not by Muslims but by people claiming they were Christians.

What the Christian world and especially Europe has done in the name of God is beyond words.

What kind of question is that ?
How would you compare one atrocity with another?
What would you look at ? numbers ? grimness of the crime?quality of the victims ? intentions of perpetrators ? what ?
OP you are simpleminded mac!


A fact that you you are talking rubbish in a nice way doesn't change the fact that you have an empty space between your eras !

Any preceding posters or future posters need read and reread Ironside's statement above.
Anything else is pointless as he has ended this thread.
round of applause to Ironside.

And applause for the best play on words.

I say f*ck all extremists,warmongers, and blind followers of any ideology.Racists,radicals,suicide bombers,terrorists,religious fanatics and all idiots who think human life is worth sacrifying foe some ideology.F*ck them all.

Crow here are some more Serb ''work camps'',yes your people had it too...

open.ac.uk/socialsciences/semlin/en/holocaust-in-serbia.php

The Holocaust differed from the Balkans genocide insofar as it was one-sided. Too much mud slinging is done in the Balkans. This always stood out for me and needs to be heeded, Mr Djoković listen and learn!! I really don't mind which ethnic group he affiliates himself with as he is first and foremost a Yugoslav in my eyes.

@seanus. i admire your patience you have with those nutttheads trying to explain sth. they either dont have the capacity or are that biased that there is no chance for the information you offer to get through.

@kroatenjunge aka black-sth: yout obsession with serbs is really astonishing, but having in mind that you come from ustasha/fascho background your choices were limited.

of course in ww2 were collaborators in srb, like in ALL other countries which were besetzt by the nazis.
there is one difference. in now srb were 2 streams, chetniks and partizans whereas cro was, how much, 99% behind adolf? how would you explain your need to be more evil, more brutal than the nazis. its always the same. the id1ot/copy wants to be more "perfect" than the original.

pls tell the people here about jasenovac. you slaughtered 700.000 jews, serbs, roma etc.. dont just point the finger. you have more dreck am stecken than you would want to. liar.

@harry: with your limited intelligence and not existing knowledge you are not at all in the position to have an opinion about the balkans. just be quiet. its always the same with those gesichtslosen trittbrettfahrern like you. someone farts and you are there...

btw, how was the ban? ;)

Thanks, sascha. I appreciate it! There comes a time when you have to turn the page. I take people as I find them. However, I do see where they are coming from in that anger is inevitable. This is why I believe, as a collective, that we need to ascertain the root causes of trouble/division and weed out those heinous leaders who kickstart such wars and hate campaigns. We need to use our own assassins ;) ;) ;)

In the general sense that slavery was acceptable by most civilizations as something 'normal' then yes.


The slave trade was going on for centuries prior to the western powers getting involved in it. Muslims are responsible for more slavery than anyone else and indeed they continue to deal in slavery in two countries in Africa to this day.


African tribes were enslaving each other for hundreds if not thousands of years before the wooden western ships ever got involved. As you know, slavery was a traditional part of African society with many states and kingdoms in Africa. Many African chieftains captured slaves, interned them in slave forts and sold them to Europeans. Africans who enslaved other Africans were more than half the problem because without them the Europeans,Muslims and others could not get their slave quotas filled.


Once again, this crime was terrible, and a holocaust unto itself, but to place it as "humanity's greatest crime" omits all the other slave institutions that have existed, not to mention the suffering during the world's major wars.

Additionally, some countries were never involved in the slave trade; Poland for instance.
___________________________________________

The word holocaust has been so successfully marketed that many people assume that it automatically implies the Jewish suffering and horror only. Often one hears, "the Holocaust" and immediately it connotes the tragic Jewish deaths. The word however should retain its broader meaning and value.

So far, this entire thread misses the point. No holocaust should be measured in terms of which was 'worse', i.e. 'THE worst'. It isn't some sort of bloody contest, for *****sake!!! This is the real problem. People turn singular tragedy into a sort of game "Whose suffering is greater?". Certainly, no single group owns a monopoly on mass suffering, not the Jews under Hitler, not the Chinese at Nanking, not the Armenians by the Turks, etc.... Genocide is universal.

The ramifications though are slightly different. Hitler for example wanted to exterminate the Jews as a whole 'race', not excluding 'good'/'bad', even finally 'Mischlinge ersten Grades' (three-quarter Jews) were not Aryan enough for the Nazis. They ALL had to go....no matter what, no exception, no mercy. The Nazis thought much the same way about Sinti-Roma as well as homosexuals, that this was something within them that couldn't be expunged. Hitler though seemed to channel the relentless energy of his and his cohorts into the 'Jewish Problem' in a way unique, even for him. Only the Jew was singled out all over the occupied Reich with signs like JUDENTUM IST VERBRECHERTUM. For no other hated group was quite the same systematic venom and sadism, reserved over so long and with such devastating consequences.

Stalin after all DID grant his 'favorite' Jews the option of life or death. The had merely to obey his bidding without question. Eternal slavery, yes, but, they remained alive (if one can call that living). Mao vented his spleen almost exclusively on the landowners and Pol Pot indiscriminantly on anyone who happened to displease him.

Nope, I think my post on page one regarding the Empire destroying Alderan with the Death Star summed the absurdity up,but,hey ho....


Rubbish, "they" just went there and bought the slaves that one tribe had taken from another,as they had done for centuries and as they continue to do to this day.

The Tutus and their neighbors though, unlike say the ethnic cleansings of Milosevic, did not spread to the conquest of adjoining communities, as far as I understood the situation; it remained an inner tribal problem. The spread came when other groups joined in the same sort of horrible melee, but it was not at the behest of ONE tribal leader over and across one single continent.

Sadly, our own US government carried out a policy of extermination of Native Americans, both through attrition as well as out-and-out, wholesale slaughter!! First, they were confined to reservations, "Anglo-Saxonized", when possible, with Christian, i.e. Biblical first names and therefore robbed of their rich cultural heritage. Then they were dirven off of their land, e.g. the Dawes Act, which expropriated plots of territory on which Native American tribes had existed for centuries. Later, many tribes were systematically killed off by neighboring white men and this went on for years.

The only substantive difference in practice between this and the "Shoah"/Holocaust was that presumably, if a Native American were to leave the reservation and seek a livelihood elsewhere within the United States, they wouldn't have been rounded up and sent to a common area to be annihilated.

African-American slaves too were known to escape to "free" states (as of the Dread Scott Decision, as I recall) and, while Massachussetts, I believe, among others was obligated to "return" the slave to their master, they were not slated for extermination solely because they were African-American.

doesnt that look a little bit like a konzentrationslager? i dont mean vernichtungslager, jut to make that clear.


and at the end also they learned that there are actually no free states, right?


exactly. the thing is only how the word and its meaning is portrait these days and in a way abused for political reasons.
secondly if some parties (e.g. balkans) are involved it is imo a must to be objective and tell about both sides...

Just let us not pretend that we were there during WWII. The man who pretends to know rather than humbly admits he doesn't is doing himself and others a disservice. Never have I seen so much rubbish written when reading books about the Holocaust.

Southern, they sometimes fought alongside each other. Sometimes against. The messiness of war!

under the current policy the ex yu is situated it is hardly possible, because the strings which worked during the ww2 and the war in the 90s are still very much alive and those are the ones making the calls. i cannot see their honest interest to calm the situation. they insist too much on the differences rather than on similarities.

with that policy the conflict will always linger.

I don't really know their current leadership tbh. I don't imagine them to be overly antagonistic.

maybe i didnt make it too clear. those alliances formed in ww2 and war in the 90s between eu/nato and ex yu countries are still visible. in total the differences on the balkans are for the eu/nato much better than to show similarities.

intersts from the more powerful sides are clear. the old fraktionen just go in hand with that. its failry easy then to deamonize one or two, against any logic. wouldnt you agree??

True but they got what they wanted. Inadvertently, the Zionists have too. Where poor Jewish families were cruelly made to suffer, those Zionist dogs were cashing in on their bereavement.

To begin with, There's a definition for genocide - Killing your own people is awful yet it's not a genocide.
The Holocaust however was one of the biggest genocides in population (if not the biggest) - but it's more about the percentage - Hitler decided to kill all the 11 million Jews in Europe and he's done pretty well - considering he killed 6 millions.(54.5%)

It was of course very brutal - I won't bring here pictures since I can't look at this horror (People were so thin that when they get a proper meal, from the Americans,Russians,British soldiers after defeating Germany they died because it was too big for them). There is no other story of such an obsessive ethic hatred (Not even the blacks in America or the Jews of Europe in the middle ages). When Hitler was confronting a decision whether to use trains to send some more Jews to the death camps or to send some supply to his soldiers - he chose to send the Jews, he taught in German schools the race theory(According to it: Aryans:Germans, French, British, Dutchs,Belgians and Nordic people are the best, then the Slavs:Russian,Polish,Ukranian and Eastern Europe's nations and finally the Gypsies and Semite: Jews, Arabs - and the worst among them are the Jews).

In this aspects and in many other this was the worst genocide known in History.

wow. thank you teacher. here is what wiki says...

/wiki/Genocide

QUOTE

"Genocide is defined as "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group",[1] though what constitutes enough of a "part" to qualify as genocide has been subject to much debate by legal scholars.[2] While a precise definition varies among genocide scholars, a legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG).."


sorry, it wasnt. just taken by the numbers there are far bigger ones. the jew holocaust was that brutal or impressive whatever, because of its systematical approach.

the middle ages where the time when the rcc promoted hate against everything what is not complying. remember the crusades f.e.?


this we all know, but tnx.


f.e., how manz native indians were killed in usa? how many people died in ruwanda? more examples???

Southern, there has been many research done on subject of attitude change.

there are in essence two possible ways:

1. To address the informationally deprived attitude via arguments, confront them, strength, number and frequency of the arguments are relevant

2. To use peripheral ways, heuristics, like credibility of the source, length of the argument, role of the expert

The problem of those who study how to change people's attitudes is that usually in experiments they don't get any change.
It is very difficult.

Media experts know that and first impression often is the last impression.

There is a rule that says there is a principle of sufficiency, meaning that people have different thresholds when it comes to how much information they need to form the attitude.

People will use the central way, under 1. when they have sufficient cognitive abilities and interest(time).

Integrative complexity as cognitive style is plus. Those who like cognitive simplicity are easily detectable and any effort is a waste of time, black and white worlds, and with those who have need to fully grasp the complexity, they don't usually need anyone's assistance, they look for information themselves.

Or as one of the researchers on the subject after long time working on it concluded in his article:

' When did you last time witness a discussion that ended with the some change? '

Additionally, people will try anything to protect existing attitudes even if reality doesn't reflect them. Nobody likes to be wrong, or to feel fooled.

Why do you intervene?Are you the devil's advocate?But since you enter the Balkan area you will dance in our rhythms.

''Outside the court the debate raged over the rights and wrongs of a mighty media organisation using its vast resources to silence criticism and "destroy" - in Hume's words - a tiny independent magazine.

But inside court 14, the judge, Mr Justice Morland, insisted in the pre-trial hearing that this was not to be a debate about the "journalism of attachment" or the rights or wrongs of British libel law, but a look at the facts.

ITN put forward all seven of the award-winning team which visited the camps, and the ITN executives who sent them there. But LM's subpoenaed star witnesses, including BBC foreign affairs editor John Simpson, found their evidence ruled out as hearsay, leaving just Hume and Deichmann because, Hume explained, LM "could not afford to bring witnesses across London let alone from Bosnia".

In the end it was Idriz Merdzanic, a Bosnian Muslim doctor interned at Trnopolje, who was the star witness. He had appeared in the original ITN broadcasts and his terrified eyes spoke volumes.

The testimony of this slight, dignified figure in the witness box, given through an interpreter, made clear what previous and current war crimes tribunals at the Hague have already heard, that Trnopolje was a camp where Muslims were undoubtedly imprisoned, and that many were beaten, tortured, raped and killed by their Serb guards.

ITN insisted that it would not back down without an apology from LM. Legal action was, according to ITN chief executive Stewart Purvis, "the only way of nailing the lie once and for all".''

Why so much effort to destroy just a small magazine?And why did they manage to bring just one witness to testify who happened to be Bosnian muslim as well?(the other side simply lacked any resources to achieve covering expenses for trips from Bosnia and staying in Hague).

Let's see the truth about the barbed wire how they manipulated the photos to show the outside of the wire as a concentration camp.

youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Yg9ZQP6CGZU
youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_eOjxauzsn8

We talk about graves here.

Not to destroy one small magazine: instead to nail a foul lie. ITN clearly thought it worth spending their own money to nail the lie, everybody knew that LM magazine didn't have anything like enough resources to cover even a fraction of the costs that ITN would incur as a result of bringing the action. But the truth has great value, it needs to be defended against scum who attempt to pervert it.

That is what I was talking about in my previous post. He is defending what he heard about on TV, although bright enough, using pseudo explanations like the one in the quote.

The price to admit he is wrong is high one, credibility of the sources he trusts is disappearing.

You can post 10 000 clips. Nobody wants to admit that he was treated as an idiot.

Edward Bernays, the men who manipulated via media US and than rest of the world, whose CV is brilliant, the inventor of the syntagm public relations, to chang the word propaganda, that was not popular because of Germans, to denote the same thing, regarded and treated people as stupid masses. Very successfully. For those more interested in that theme BBC's movie the century of the self is my recommendation.

I fear that we all are idiots. More or less.

Barney

I am tired Barney of reading and watching that all, that picture with the man behind bars as fas as I know was taken from the other side of the fence. it was in our media constantly. It is not fake, but it is saying something else, not what was happening on terrain at the moment.

There were prisoners, but for details, ask the more relevant source, Southern.

But few days ago I watched something Hague gave to process to Bosniaks, one clear Muslim war crime that will although clear and resulted in death of 100 to 200 19 year old soldiers retreiveing from Tuzla barracks where they HAD to be serving the regular military in 1992. were killed.

Nobody will ever be guilty for thier deaths, and many more.

@harry
are you stiil on the mind level of an ape? seanus gave you some links to watch, but it seems that with your capacities which are actually zero there is no way to communicate about a topic called genocide.

you with your ill minded view are the best candidate for the thread i opened hypocrisy. counting all the victims of your glorious commenwealth crusades would exeed the limit of this forum.

i would suggest to the mods/admin to be a little bit more restrictive if someone like harry is repeatedly ethnically and personally offending pf members. i personally would see him suspended or gone for good, banned permenantly.


you dont know a sh1t about my country, you inselaffe.
journalists came in after the kzs were captured by the allies. before that nazis made propaganda movies, but certainly not about f.e. auschwitz.


he hasnt one or if, rudimentory


you really can differentiate. hahahaha...another superficial dude with no clue.

how about those victims or you call them 'damage' of your glorious army attacking iraq for stealing their oil, harry?

watch this movie and tell me who is wrong in this debate and of course why
youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6Qi50Mun4RA

No, it is entirely real. The lie that the man looked that way because of childhood illness has been nailed as a lie. Among his other 'souvenirs' from his time with the Serbs were six broken ribs, a broken jaw, all his teeth being kicked out or falling out owing to malnutrition; a broken nose; a fractured skull and more than 100 scars from stabs, cuts and burns.


Whatever. Post as many clips as you want: I will take the word of the man who was there (and his doctor) over the word of a self-appointed expert who refuses to repeat his claims in a place where he knows he will be sued for telling his lies.


I appear to know rather more than you do: you don't even know that the Nazis were running concentration camps for seven years before Auschwitz openned. I said that the Nazis did allow journalists to visit their early concentration camps: you really so ignorant that you want to claim Auschwitz was an early camp?

astonishing what similarity. as we know by the support of the nazi germany the ustasha were the biggest slaughters in ww2 and built a slaughtering camp called jasenovac. a bloody genocide on more than 700.000 people.

blacky, does it make you proud to see you flag again, small ustasha???



you dont know a sh1t as i said about germany and the nazi time. that what you call your knowledge is suiting your weltanschauung. quite poor one, like you.

really strange, how pf allows that much hate and blindly accusations of one single person.

as i said/proposed, i would send you to pf exile...forever.

Count the insults in my posts. Then count the ones in yours. None in mine and plenty in yours. But do feel free to keep calling for me to be banned: it's the only way you can stop me from pointing out your lies.

you are really sick man. the rant 'serbian scum' i can put in the search engine and then guess what? thats what i would call your 'trade rant.'

no wonder with your attitude that many of your countryman go on distance to you....i really feel sorry for you, but after all, your just from uk. ;)