Is undue emphasis given to the Jews killed in the Holocaust?

[A cowboy always follows his beard]

I just want to randomly crap out my opinion that there's too much of an emphasis on Jews, and that the Holocaust was only for Jews, which it wasn't. Appolgies if I sound like an Anti-Semite.

[memphis]

I just want to randomly crap out my opinion that there's too much of an emphasis on Jews, and that the Holocaust was only for Jews, which it wasn't. Appolgies if I sound like an Anti-Semite.

I agree. And I lost a lot of family in the Holocaust. But we were hardly the only victims. Although it is clear that Hitler had a special place in his heart for the Jewish people.

[Sibboleth]

I just want to randomly crap out my opinion that there's too much of an emphasis on Jews

Why does this bother you?

[A cowboy always follows his beard]

I just want to randomly crap out my opinion that there's too much of an emphasis on Jews

Why does this bother you?

Because it's a disservice to the non-Jews who were gassed/baked/starved/burned/worked to death.

[Sibboleth]

Because it's a disservice to the non-Jews who were gassed/baked/starved/burned/worked to death.

How, exactly, does giving a significant degree of attention to the Jewish victims of Nazism do a 'disservice' to the non-Jewish victims of Nazism? Is there only a finite amount of empathy and outrage in the world, or must it be rationed when Jews are the victims? Of course maybe you're just trolling.

Regardless of any more impassioned arguments, the Holocaust has to be seen as a central event of modern history because it brought to a (sudden, utterly violent and utterly complete) end a way of life that stretched back centuries and because it was the most extreme practical implementation of certain ideologies and theories that had become of central importance to the West during the previous century.

[Gustaf]

I just want to randomly crap out my opinion that there's too much of an emphasis on Jews, and that the Holocaust was only for Jews, which it wasn't. Appolgies if I sound like an Anti-Semite.

Apology not accepted. And you do sound like an anti-semite.

[A cowboy always follows his beard]

Because it's a disservice to the non-Jews who were gassed/baked/starved/burned/worked to death.

How, exactly, does giving a significant degree of attention to the Jewish victims of Nazism do a 'disservice' to the non-Jewish victims of Nazism? Is there only a finite amount of empathy and outrage in the world, or must it be rationed when Jews are the victims? Of course maybe you're just trolling.

Regardless of any more impassioned arguments, the Holocaust has to be seen as a central event of modern history because it brought to a (sudden, utterly violent and utterly complete) end a way of life that stretched back centuries and because it was the most extreme practical implementation of certain ideologies and theories that had become of central importance to the West during the previous century.

People only concentrate on the Jews when they talk about the Holocaust. Many people who were victims in the Holocaust were NOT Jews. They are not acknowledged, because people only concentrate on the Jews, as they had the largest numbers. This is denying the fact that JEWS WERE NOT THE ONLY GROUP OF PEOPLE TO BE IN THE HOLOCAUST.

[Sibboleth]

Ah, the internet equivalent of shouting like a drunk.

[So the Heroes Fall]

This was definitely badly worded, it would've come across as less bad if it was instead something like "Is there an unfair lack of emphasis given to the non-Jews killed in the Holocaust?"

[Smid]

In answer to the original question, no, there is not undue emphasis given to Jews killed in the Holocaust.

Furthermore, I don't think it's any secret that other groups were persecuted under the Nazi regime. If there is a lack of emphasis given to other groups, such as Gypsies, trade unionists and the homosexual community, it is only by people who are ignorant of history.

[realisticidealist]

I'll just say this: I've never heard anyone advocate for the creation of a homosexual state or a gypsy state on the basis of their mass extermination in the Holocaust.

[shua]

I'll just say this: I've never heard anyone advocate for the creation of a homosexual state or a gypsy state on the basis of their mass extermination in the Holocaust.

1. Sexual orientation doesn't lend itself to ethnic nationalism.
2. Roma probably aren't so interested in coalescing in a single area, given the place of nomadic life in their historical identity.

[Californian Tony]

No emphasis on what happened to Jews during the Holocaust can be considered excessive. The level of barbarity that was reached here is impossible to overstate.

If any, the point is that we don't emphasize enough on the other victims of holocaust.

[afleitch]

Personally I don’t think it’s emphasised enough given the extraordinarily degree of anti-semitism rooted in the same lies that continues to exist. However there is a lack of discussion in the public arena about other victims. The Roma’s story has not been written down, or fully understood due to the secretive nature of the Roma in divulging what happened to family members.

For the gays, we have the horrible realisation that what happened during the holocaust in terms of Nazi experimentation; hormone treatment, aversion therapy, castration, electric shock treatment, abuse etc continued after the war in liberal democracies (see Alan Turing) Some of their ‘treatments’ continue to be used the world over including ‘ex gay’ sham groups in the States. Many victims couldn’t speak about their experiences because it was still a criminal offence in Germany after the war.

[Senator Sbane]

I'll just say this: I've never heard anyone advocate for the creation of a homosexual state or a gypsy state on the basis of their mass extermination in the Holocaust.

1. Sexual orientation doesn't lend itself to ethnic nationalism.
2. Roma probably aren't so interested in coalescing in a single area, given the place of nomadic life in their historical identity.

So if the Romani people want a state for themselves in the heart of India, should they get it? The Jews got their state by forcefully taking lands from others, perhaps the Romani should do the same. Of course having the British in control would have been helpful like it was in Palestine. The Romani should have made their move before 1947. Alas, now it's too late.

[Communists For McCain]

No emphasis on what happened to Jews during the Holocaust can be considered excessive. The level of barbarity that was reached here is impossible to overstate.

If any, the point is that we don't emphasize enough on the other victims of holocaust.

I agree with this post 1001%.

I mentioned this probably a thousand times on this board, but I took Holocaust Studies in my Senior year of high school.  The amount of persecution against groups considered "others" even before the Holocaust was insane.  Hell, as early as 1933 and 1934 groups like Homosexuals and Communists and even fellow Nazis were thrown in concentration camps and either exterminated or worked to death.
I would argue that, in light of facts like that, the common perception of the Holocaust existing only between 1938-1945 is false.  And, this sounds controversial, but that some groups, specifically immediate political threats to Hitler, were targeted with more urgency than the Jews.  Why?  Because if those political opponents had lived, people might've wised up to what was going on around them.
But I'm getting sidetracked here.
The biggest problem I see is that not enough of the history is being taught, not too much of it.  The point of the Holocaust isn't to teach people to be uber respectful of Jews because they were persecuted, but that the most horrible of oppressive regimes sneaks up on our asses subtly.  Not because people are stupid and/or naive (they most definitely are), but because government as a force of coercion and propaganda, works best at the process of gradual elimination of political opponents and undesirables.  This is why Adolf Hitler was so successful at implementing a system of war and death over a continent with God knows how many people killed whereas the genius Pol Pot's revolution of insane death killing managed only 2 million or so in a small ass country that alarmed even Vietnam.
Damn it, I really am going off on a tangent now.  I should stop.

Point: Antonio V is right.  Not nearly enough about the totality of the Holocaust is being taught to the youngers.  We should emphasize that if we hope to avoid repeating history.

Could the United States of America be in danger of repeating this unfortunate scenario?

God I hope not.

[dead0man]

Who would we be rounding up and gassing?  Mexicans?  I know you were just spitballing, but the idea that the US could or would mirror what the Nazis did is absurd.

[Communists For McCain]

Who would we be rounding up and gassing?  Mexicans?  I know you were just spitballing, but the idea that the US could or would mirror what the Nazis did is absurd.

It sounds absurd now, but a lot of Germans in 1902 probably thought the possibility of their government killing millions a few decades from then probably thought the same thing.

The point isn't to make an alarmist statement, but that we should take what we have learnt from history and always be alert about what our government is doing.  Because if we get too apathetic, if we get too removed from what is happening, if our senses become to weak..........something horrible can happen.

The fact that millions of Americans are outraged by policies like the Patriot Act and various other violations of privacy makes me feel confident that we have learnt from history and we are alert about what our government is doing.  The recent stall of the SOPA (or whatever the hell it's called) by the pressure of millions of Americans and the internet organizations that thrive off of free speech and commerce makes me feel confident that nothing as bad as the Holocaust could happen here.

I for one wouldn't do what Germany has done in regard to the Holocaust (although it has shown results), but we need to at least need to educate the next generations about the horror of the Holocaust and how complacency of the populace made it possible.  There were a few, very true, Germans who stood up to their government in the time of wrong.  These people died opposing their own national government in the hopes that their examples would live on beyond the grave.

I must say, their examples most definitely have.

[Jacobtm]

Who would we be rounding up and gassing?  Mexicans?  I know you were just spitballing, but the idea that the US could or would mirror what the Nazis did is absurd.

We didn't have to use gas to kill 99% of the Native Americans who were here.

The United States' genocide on Native Americans was far more devastating than the Nazi genocide on Jews. It was just longer ago so it's easier to forget.

[crypto-fascist superhero]

Of course, we have to determine the semantics of the term "Holocaust," which could be as narrow as "Jews killed by Nazi Germany in the concentration camp system" (~3 million, I believe), to as wide as "civilians and POWs killed by Nazi Germany and its European allies during WWII" (~30 million).

Anyways, the reason why Jews get special consideration is first of all because groups like Roma and homosexuals are still societal outcasts, who are (or at least were for a very long time) still looked down upon by most people.  The other factor is that there was no extermination campaign quite as thorough as that waged on the Jews waged on any other ethnic group; there is still a substantial population of Roma in Europe, the small number of "homosexuals" executed or mistreated were mainly political opponents smeared as such, while claims that there was an extermination campaign against "trade unionists" or "socialists" is laughable - to eliminate communists alone would entail killing a quarter of the German population.  Rather, the Nazis persecuted anyone who openly opposed their regime; communists, socialists, trade unionists, monarchists, conservatives, liberals, clergy, Prussian aristocrats...

[Redalgo]

I agree with Antonio, and would add that the most prejudicial folks tend to be equal-opportunity bigots. That is to say, one identifies with and is staunchly loyal to a perceived in-group, whereas anyone who is "other" becomes subject to suspicion and, at least potentially, a target for him or her to aggress against while feeling self-righteous and perhaps completely justified in doing so.

I do not think the crimes perpetrated against Jews during the Holocaust can truly be overstated enough but would like to see the suffering of more groups brought to the public's attention. It is only a bad thing, in my opinion, when people who live today try to invoke the image of atrocities from long ago to rationalize the perpetuation of new injustices. However, that is another matter altogether, really, and is not at all meant as a jab at the majority of folks in any particular group.

[Sibboleth]

This was definitely badly worded, it would've come across as less bad if it was instead something like "Is there an unfair lack of emphasis given to the non-Jews killed in the Holocaust?"

But still not great. A specific word for what happened to European Jewry is clearly needed (as what happened was different and of especially grim importance for the reasons pointed out earlier) and Shoah has never really caught on.

Also, of course, it's an odd argument as it's really only the Roma who are even half-ignored. Most other persecuted groups ('even' those, such as homosexuals, who were never really subject to mass murder) have been given a great deal of attention, especially (when relevant) within their own countries.

And I somehow get the impression that sort of people who get mysteriously irritated at having to see Jews as victims are perhaps less than likely to react well to the idea of seeing Gypsies as victims either...

[Senator Ben]

Shoah has never really caught on.

A pity, as I find it far more lyrical than a word like "holocaust".

[True Federalist]

The other factor is that there was no extermination campaign quite as thorough as that waged on the Jews waged on any other ethnic group; there is still a substantial population of Roma in Europe

That there is still a substantial European population of Roma is mainly because unlike the Jews, the Roma had no other place to go after World War II.  Even if the State of Israel had failed to survive the events of 1948-9, the Jews could still have come to the United States as many did after World War II.  Even after what happened to the Roma, they were still not welcomed to these shores in the years after World War II.

[True Federalist]

Shoah has never really caught on.

A pity, as I find it far more lyrical than a word like "holocaust".

If you must have a lyrical word to describe genocide, how about Porajmos?  While it is difficult to be certain, as pre-War estimates of the Roma population are sketchy, the available evidence indicates that as a percentage of their European population, the Roma suffered at least as much as the Jews, and quite possibly more.