The Holocaust - Unique?

[Invader Zim]

In another thread, now no longer available to view, the question of the holocaust as a unique event in history was briefly discussed. Two themes emerged, on the one hand a group arguing that the holocaust was indeed unique, and the basis for that uniqueness lay primarily in the industrial process that was employed. Others, on the other hand, suggested that the holocaust was not unique noting that various genocides have been committed across the world and further argued that it is 'Eurocentric' to argue otherwise.

Thoughts?

[Andropov]

Every act of genocide is Unique to some extent Zim.
Obviously the manner in which the Holocaust was conducted which was far more industrialised and mechanical, in a way removing some of the human individuality and subjectivity that characterised previous Genocides and indeed Genocides in more recent times.
TBH I personally find the most grotesque genocide that which occured in Rwanda, the fact that about a Million people were butchered by the machete is something quite astounding.
Even the NAZI's realised that Einsatzgruppen which followed on the heels of the Wehrmacht through Eastern Europe hunting and executing Jews primarily through shooting was having a detrimental effect on their moral.
Either way I dont have much time for this debate, much like I said in that previous thread that when you start cock measuring with regaurds to whos genocide is worse or more unique etc it devalues Genocides in which the end result was the same, this hierarchy of victims with regaurds Genocides is kind of grotesque.

[Yehuda Stern]

I think that the fact that the holocaust was very industrial and planned out, more so than any other genocide I know of (save for the Armenian, perhaps). In that sense I think it's unique, though I might be wrong. The question is, what conclusions do we draw from it? Is the conclusion that Israel's acts are justified in any way, that Jews deserve a state no matter what that entails? No. I think the lesson is that acts of unspeakable barbarism are a natural product of imperialist capitalism and that the only way to stop them is by overthrowing it.

[Pogue]

I think that the fact that the holocaust was very industrial and planned out, more so than any other genocide I know of (save for the Armenian, perhaps). In that sense I think it's unique, though I might be wrong. The question is, what conclusions do we draw from it? Is the conclusion that Israel's acts are justified in any way, that Jews deserve a state no matter what that entails? No. I think the lesson is that acts of unspeakable barbarism are a natural product of imperialist capitalism and that the only way to stop them is by overthrowing it.

But it would seem your conclusion sort of ignores the point of the question. On a website full of marxists the question is quite relevant - was the Holocaust, as you said, a natural product of imperialist capitalism, the same way massacres of Indians back during the Raj, of Iraqis, Afghanis and Palestinians today are, or was it something altogether different due to the level of the brutality involved? I don't think anyone would ever write a book on the Holocaust and conclude it was just another 'natural product of capitalist imperialism', I think an error of Marxism is the lack of depth in its analysis, certainly capitalism would fit the reasons, i.e. hatred for Jews was stirred up as an attempt to divert attention away from the real failings of capitalist economics, and the Nazi rise was a response to working class power, but arguably your ignoring alot of other reasons why the Holocaust happened. I'm not saying your wrong I'm just challenging the basis for your conclusion.

[Yehuda Stern]

Pogue,
I've heard such arguments before, and even when not intended, they tend to lead to the sort of "there will always be anti-Semitism" or "Germans are inherently racist" arguments that Marxists seek to avoid because they are wrong and serve Zionism. If you have concrete arguments I'd be interested in hearing them; right now, I think that the strength of the German working class and Germany's imperialist need for land in the East were the main driving forces behind the brutality of Nazism and the holocaust respectively.

[Pogue]

Pogue,
I've heard such arguments before, and even when not intended, they tend to lead to the sort of "there will always be anti-Semitism" or "Germans are inherently racist" arguments that Marxists seek to avoid because they are wrong and serve Zionism. If you have concrete arguments I'd be interested in hearing them; right now, I think that the strength of the German working class and Germany's imperialist need for land in the East were the main driving forces behind the brutality of Nazism and the holocaust respectively.

I don't think there is any stock in saying Germans are inhetently racist or anything like that, but to put it down as some sort of inevitable event would seem to ignore alot of things, such as the nature of Nazi/fascist movements, when and where they come about and how they are opposed. While I would agree they all come form class conflict in one way or another, I think you'd need to go into more detail than arguing genecides just occur because of capitalism imperialism.

[Plagueround]

The holocaust is unique in the way it was carried out as an industrial project. It does not differ in motivation or rhetoric from other genocides. I imagine more genocides would have been carried out in similar methods if public opinion could have been suppressed or swayed to support it.

[black_tambourine]

I don't think anyone would ever write a book on the Holocaust and conclude it was just another 'natural product of capitalist imperialism'

Somebody already did: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/feb2008/book-f08.shtml

[Yehuda Stern]

Pogue, I understand what you're saying, but I'd like to hear what alternative or additional explanation you have in mind.

[Random Precision]

Alex Callinicos has a great essay somewhere that presents a Marxist interpretation of the Holocaust, drawing on the work of left-wing historians who have studied it, and Trotsky's analysis of fascism

His basic thesis is that the Holocaust cannot be explained merely as a case of imperialism gone berserk. For instance the extermination project cost the lives of millions of workers, many of whom were skilled at this or that. This was definitely not in the interest of the German bourgeoisie.

On the other hand the German bourgeoisie was not fully in control of the German state at the time, it was run by the Nazis who cast themselves as revolutionaries (fascism, according to Trotsky, is the counterrevolution in the guise of revolution). The Nazis sought positive goals such as a racial utopia based on the peasants, artisans etc and to remove the power of industry

However they were not able to to carry out most of the positive elements that they sought because of the power of capitalism, so they turned towards the negative goals such as the removal of those not included in their utopia, Jews foremost but also the mentally and physically disabled, homosexuals, Gypsies and so on.

Also it is important to understand the Holocaust as a more gradual event than it is typically presented, as in, the Final Solution emerged out of isolated acts of mass execution and so on that gained momentum at the beginning of the war.

EDIT: Here it is, Plumbing the Depths: Marxism and the Holocaust (http://www.istendency.net/pdf/CallinicosHolocaust.pdf)

[mel]

I mean, obviously we can get out of the way that in a trivial sense every event is "unique" in that its particular set of historical circumstances leading up to it and engulfing it are unique.

I don't think it's really fair to say that the holocaust was unique in any nontrivial sense, however. A lot of people seemed to argue that it was unique in motivation, that the massacre of the Jews (Gypsies, Homosexuals...) during the holocaust was somehow more arbitrary than previous genocides (such as the decimation of the native population in the Americas by Europeans). However, just as there were political motivations for land accrual and political power in that genocide, there were similar motivations behind the genocide in the holocaust.

The only siginificant way in which the holocaust was unique was that it took place on European soil against "white" people, and because of wildly racist and Eurocentric systematic propagandized indoctrination in western capitalist socities, it is given special status, despite ongoing and past genocides on wider scales, which were far more "successful".

[Invader Zim]

Every act of genocide is Unique to some extent Zim.

Either way I dont have much time for this debate, much like I said in that previous thread that when you start cock measuring with regaurds to whos genocide is worse or more unique etc it devalues Genocides in which the end result was the same, this hierarchy of victims with regaurds Genocides is kind of grotesque.
I had hoped the point of the thread would be that through comparison we can gain a better understanding of some the most terrible and destructive events in human history that are perhaps not as widely known as the holocaust, and gain a greater understanding of genocide more generally. I don't think such a discussion would, as you suggest, trivialise genocides and that certainly isn't the aim I had in mind. Reassuringly I don't think that the responces, thus far at least, have degenerated as you feared.

[Sasha]

yes and no, like said before the industrial process of extermination was (till so far, but never say never with humanity) unique.
But dont forget that also thousands and thousands jews and roma got butcherd in eastern europe quite rwanda style. Tho whole town comming together to clubb the neighboors to death.
for me growing up holocaust always equaled auswitch, but when i saw quite recently in the imperial war mesuem in london (color) pictures of these pogroms it hitted way harder.
for some reason the dehumanising from the concentrationcamp victims by the nazi's still works, even if you are jewish yourself and decades later.
yet seeing these pictures of families, the town doctor, the teacher, raped and butchered realy got to me.

[Andropov]

I had hoped the point of the thread would be that through comparison we can gain a better understanding of some the most terrible and destructive events in human history that are perhaps not as widely known as the holocaust, and gain a greater understanding of genocide more generally. I don't think such a discussion would, as you suggest, trivialise genocides and that certainly isn't the aim I had in mind. Reassuringly I don't think that the responces, thus far at least, have degenerated as you feared.
True but we do have the previous thread to go by as a fairly tasteless precedent.

[Ravachol]

The holocaust was unique so far in it's implementation.
At it's core however, it's old fashioned race-hatred no different from any other instance. Certainly it has been one of the most brutal instances so far (together with the Rwanda genocide for example) but industrial scale extermination of Jews is no different from industrial scale extermination of, say, Tutsis.

The level of barbarism and dehumanization was, luckily, so far rather unique though. And, as psycho said, racism and anti-semitism in particular was a common phenomenon in pre-war Europe (and to an extend still is). The holocaust was the cumulation of this and cannot be set apart from it.
But this goes for any genocide. Genocide don't occur at random intervals out of nothing, they are the cumulation of years and sometimes decades of fueling race hatred and small-scale pogroms and incidents. Which is why it's so important to keep combatting these tendencies and incidents, however small they may be in some countries.

[mel]

The level of barbarism and dehumanization was, luckily, so far rather unique though.

Are you kidding me?

[PRC-UTE]

Every act of genocide is Unique to some extent Zim.

Right, like the murder of millions of Africans was historically unique because it occurred on water in the slave ships. as if these sorts of historical details can be substituted for a real analysis.

The Holocaust was unique in a few ways: the huge death toll, of course, and the way Europe reacted to it. There was not a comparable reaction to the complete elimination of Cuba's native population, or to Germany's behaviour only a few decades before WWII in Africa where they killed hundreds of thousands.

I think it's important to reject the capitalist line that the Holocaust was unique because it was the only one aimed at eliminating an entire group of people. The Holocaust developed as a war against the Soviet Union and the legacy of the October Revolution. To Nazis, Jews were indistinguishable from Communists, and the Communists had ended WWI with their uprising and "stabbed the German nation in the back" blahblahblah. The elimination of Jews was accelerated while attacking the SU, and the most extreme there.

Anyway, here's a comment from a former revleft poster Severian:



Well, Left consensus is often wrong, in many countries. In this case, it's certainly wrong on "Israel's right to exist." And on collective German guilt. If the Left is really part of a "consensus" taking part of the responsibility off the German ruling class, by proclaiming the guilt lies with some classless abstraction "German people" based on guilt for passivity, no wonder the ultraright has such success as the only radical opponents of this establishment consensus! (Any time the Left buys into the system, some disaffected people will go with the only remaining radical alternative, the ultraright.)

It's wrong on the singularity of the Holocaust as well.

First, Jews weren't the only people targeted in the Nazi holocaust. Gypsies were also targeted for extermination as a people.

Communists and other political opponents of the regime, handicapped people, homosexuals, and common criminals also died in the death camps.*

Yet some people argue that not only is the Holocaust unique, but the place of Jews in the Holocaust! They have tried to exclude or downplay any mention of other victims.

Not to mention other genocides, like the Armenian genocide, which Elie Weisel and other Holocaust professionals have sought to downplay in the interests of Israel's alliance with Turkey.

That shows the political motive behind this idea of the Holocaust "singularity" promoted by the ruling class, IMO: to bolster support of the Israeli apartheid state, and guilt-trip opposition to it.

Apparently this has worked very well on you, and according to what you say, on the German Left consensus.

In fact, many other peoples in history have been targeted for genocide; some other genocides have been as large. As documented in Late Victorian Holocausts (http://www.anonym.to/?http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/history/0,6121,424896,00.html) for example. Or King Leopold's Ghost. Not to mention the extermination of American Indians, or the hundreds of millions killed in the trans-Atlantic slave trade.

The only thing innovative about the Nazi Holocaust: German imperialism was stymied from overseas expansion by the British navy, and even lost its overseas colonies in WWII. So it sought colonial expansion eastward...and directed all the methods of racism and colonialism against white-skinned peoples, labelling many of them "untermenschen", subhuman, exactly as dark-skinned peoples had been labelled for centuries. Genocide becomes possible in that context.

And the only thing singular about the Holocaust: it's the only capitalist genocide given so much attention and publicity by the ruling class internationally! Normally they prefer to sweep capitalist crimes under the rug, y'know. For a couple decades after WWII, that was true of the Holocaust as well.

Why is the Holocaust such an exception to that rule now, and since the late 60s roughly? To the point where we have the Ford Motor Company, hypocrisy of hypocrisies, sponsoring the first TV broadcast of "Shindler's List!"

Well, it's been argued by Norman Finkelstein among others, that it's precisely in order to use it as an argument in support of Israeli aggression and occupation.

*(BTW, since you mentioned it, concentration camp is an older term which goes back to Spain's repression of Cuba's 2nd war of independence, and does not necessarily have anything to do with Naziism.)

[blake 3:17]

Yeah, I think a very common error is to see the Nazi Holocaust as something purely aimed at Jews is a huge mistake. The disabled were the first to go and huge numbers of oppressed people and political dissidents were killed. Many were Jewish, but that wasn't necessarily why they were killed or imprisoned in the camps.

I did think that it was unique in terms of its industrial organization. Other racist and colonialist slaughters are different and also unique.

One of the great contributions of Finklestein is in challenging Zionists trying to own the Holocaust, and by extension, genocide. Monopolizing suffering? Sorry, too much to go around.

[Sendo]

i mostly get ticked by the "unique" arguments. As if it's more evil in character than anything else in history. It's mostly the liberals saying it, but I need to vent a little. I'd say it's only unique in its effectiveness. But I'm sure there have been small time tyrants as well as complete nobodies with just as much racist and genocidal zeal as the Third Reich. Just because the number is in the millions as opposed to thousands doesn't change the CHARACTER of genocide.

I also tire of the Euro's censorship of Nazis. They act like Nazism and Neo Nazism are so exceptional--that only those groups can reproduce such horror--while ignoring the root causes of fascism, racism, militarism, etc. Plus, state-sponsored shutting up of the Nazis gives them more ammunition for recruitment. The facts should speak through PSAs and education and museums, and anti-fascist groups should be supported; not some "no swastikas in public" ordinances. I think showing the heartlessness of capitalists, for example, IBM (who came up with tattoo codes for Jews marked for death) is FAR more effective in preventing recurrence than banning Third Reich insignia on promo posters for Inglorious Basterds.

[mel]

i mostly get ticked by the "unique" arguments. As if it's more evil in character than anything else in history. It's mostly the liberals saying it, but I need to vent a little. I'd say it's only unique in its effectiveness. But I'm sure there have been small time tyrants as well as complete nobodies with just as much racist and genocidal zeal as the Third Reich. Just because the number is in the millions as opposed to thousands doesn't change the CHARACTER of genocide.

I also tire of the Euro's censorship of Nazis. They act like Nazism and Neo Nazism are so exceptional--that only those groups can reproduce such horror--while ignoring the root causes of fascism, racism, militarism, etc. Plus, state-sponsored shutting up of the Nazis gives them more ammunition for recruitment. The facts should speak through PSAs and education and museums, and anti-fascist groups should be supported; not some "no swastikas in public" ordinances. I think showing the heartlessness of capitalists, for example, IBM (who came up with tattoo codes for Jews marked for death) is FAR more effective in preventing recurrence than banning Third Reich insignia on promo posters for Inglorious Basterds.

The issue with saying it was unique in its effectiveness is that, well, it wasn't particularly effective. In fact, its ineffectiveness is part of the reason that it gets so much more attention. The genocide of the Native Americans was extremely effective, they've been almost entirely eradicated at this point, and it's disgusting that nobody seems to care. It seems that unsuccessful genocides will always get more attention though, since more of the targets will be around when it's all over to draw attention to it.

[Andy Bowden]

Finkelsteins' position on the Nazi Holocaust - that it wasn't unique - is one of the few things I disagree with him on. I would say it was different from the other genocides mentioned not just on the grounds of the industrial planning of the slaughter, but on the justification for it.

There are a whole number of examples of ethnic groups and nationalities who faced extermination and deportation throughout history, and in most cases there is a clear and rational explanation (however appalling it may be) for it happening.

The American Indians were exterminated to pave the way for European settlement. Slaves died in millions crossing the Atlantic so they could be used for forced labour, and it was cheaper to let them die than save them. Ethnic groups have been exterminated or deported to stop them changing the demographics of a state/region.

The annihilation of European Jews doesn't have any of those rational justifications or explanation. They didn't threaten the demography of any state, they didn't own that much land, and contrary to Nazi propaganda they weren't particularly Bolshevik.

They were exterminated because of the irrational belief system of racially obsessed psychotics, which honestly believed a Jewish child in Warsaw was somehow linked with Jewish businessmen in New York, and that defeating the industrialised power of the Soviet Union went hand in hand with mass slaughter of civilians.

It's what makes Nazi Fascism a completely different form of class rule from anything else. A non-Nazi Conservative German Reich would have probably gone to war again to try to restore it's borders and gain an empire in the East, and could have found an army of disaffected minorities to it's banner.

They could have had millions of recruits from minority nations in the Soviet Union rally to their cause but the Nazi's ignored them because they did not fit in with their fantasies of blood and race.

Also making the Nazi Holocaust similar to any other slaughter is what many right-wingers do to justify Mao or Stalin being worse than Hitler - equating deaths from famine exaggerated by political incompetence to a deliberate policy of extermination.

[PRC-UTE]

There are a whole number of examples of ethnic groups and nationalities who faced extermination and deportation throughout history, and in most cases there is a clear and rational explanation (however appalling it may be) for it happening.

The American Indians were exterminated to pave the way for European settlement. Slaves died in millions crossing the Atlantic so they could be used for forced labour, and it was cheaper to let them die than save them. Ethnic groups have been exterminated or deported to stop them changing the demographics of a state/region.

The annihilation of European Jews doesn't have any of those rational justifications or explanation. They didn't threaten the demography of any state, they didn't own that much land, and contrary to Nazi propaganda they weren't particularly Bolshevik.

They were exterminated because of the irrational belief system of racially obsessed psychotics, which honestly believed a Jewish child in Warsaw was somehow linked with Jewish businessmen in New York, and that defeating the industrialised power of the Soviet Union went hand in hand with mass slaughter of civilians.

Sure there was a crazy, irrational ideology at work justifying their terrible crimes. But all conquerors have an insane ideology that the people they're conquering somehow deserve it. One can find numerous pics even on the net of Germans collecting African heads as trophies and for "science" only a few decades before the Holocaust.

Ultimately there was an aim that wasn't so odd by the standards of the time - destroying communism and building empire. I think it's just an accident of history that the Pan-German racial nationalist superpatriotic milieu Hitler ended up in saw communism and Jews as bound up in one conspiracy.



It's what makes Nazi Fascism a completely different form of class rule from anything else. A non-Nazi Conservative German Reich would have probably gone to war again to try to restore it's borders and gain an empire in the East, and could have found an army of disaffected minorities to it's banner.

They could have had millions of recruits from minority nations in the Soviet Union rally to their cause but the Nazi's ignored them because they did not fit in with their fantasies of blood and race.

Well they did recruit minorities who were Slavs and non-white. They also allowed a surprisingly large number of Jews to serve in their armed forces.

It goes back to the functionalist v intenionalist debates, as the two bourgeois schools of thought are called. If there was a policy of wiping out all of the Jews from the start, some of the evidence like private journals, and the attempts by Nazis to first exile the Jews contradicts that. I think the argument that the Holocaust developed as a means of keeping together a very irrational regime, and was also the result of factions competing to out-nationalist one another makes more sense.

As does the fact that oppressing the Jews was a handy excuse to steal everything they had so the Nazis could keep their basketcase, dysfunctional economy going. Not to mention slave labour. The Nazis perfected both of these methods of stealing from Jews. Work someone to death, then pull their gold teeth out before you kill them. Sure it's completely mental, but not in a bourgeois way of extracting as much as you can from the victim.



Also making the Nazi Holocaust similar to any other slaughter is what many right-wingers do to justify Mao or Stalin being worse than Hitler - equating deaths from famine exaggerated by political incompetence to a deliberate policy of extermination.

Agree completely.

[blake 3:17]

There are a whole number of examples of ethnic groups and nationalities who faced extermination and deportation throughout history, and in most cases there is a clear and rational explanation (however appalling it may be) for it happening.

I'm not so sure about that. Colonizations and genocides have usually contained economically rational motives, but have also been the products of irrational hatred for particular peoples. Imposing Western virtue, language, and religion has often been just as big a motivator in the conquests of the Americas, of Asia, of Africa. Missions of 'civilization', whether through imposition or extermination, are just too common.

[NoBordersNoNations]

this is symptomatic of capitalism, and will occur again and again until capitalism is overthrown.

[Devrim]

Either way I dont have much time for this debate, much like I said in that previous thread that when you start cock measuring with regaurds to whos genocide is worse or more unique etc it devalues Genocides in which the end result was the same, this hierarchy of victims with regaurds Genocides is kind of grotesque.

I think that this is an important question. I don't think it is at all about comparing which genocide is worse. That is exactly what those who are saying that the holocaust was unique are doing.


Others, on the other hand, suggested that the holocaust was not unique noting that various genocides have been committed across the world and further argued that it is 'Eurocentric' to argue otherwise.

I argued otherwise. I don't think that I argued it was 'Eurocentric' to think so though. Of course the size and horror of the Nazi holocaust as well as its predominance in the media make it appear to have that unique characteristic.


I think that the fact that the holocaust was very industrial and planned out, more so than any other genocide I know of (save for the Armenian, perhaps). In that sense I think it's unique, though I might be wrong. The question is, what conclusions do we draw from it? Is the conclusion that Israel's acts are justified in any way, that Jews deserve a state no matter what that entails? No. I think the lesson is that acts of unspeakable barbarism are a natural product of imperialist capitalism and that the only way to stop them is by overthrowing it.

In the that sort of sense though we could find unique points about every genocide. Yehuda is right to concentrate on the polical conclusions that we draw.


But it would seem your conclusion sort of ignores the point of the question. On a website full of marxists the question is quite relevant - was the Holocaust, as you said, a natural product of imperialist capitalism, the same way massacres of Indians back during the Raj, of Iraqis, Afghanis and Palestinians today are, or was it something altogether different due to the level of the brutality involved? I don't think anyone would ever write a book on the Holocaust and conclude it was just another 'natural product of capitalist imperialism', I think an error of Marxism is the lack of depth in its analysis, certainly capitalism would fit the reasons, i.e. hatred for Jews was stirred up as an attempt to divert attention away from the real failings of capitalist economics, and the Nazi rise was a response to working class power, but arguably your ignoring alot of other reasons why the Holocaust happened. I'm not saying your wrong I'm just challenging the basis for your conclusion.

But then hatred for ethnic minorities is commonly used within capitalism to 'divert attention away from the real failings' in the Armenian case those of the Turkish state in the First World War. Neither was the rise to power of the Nazi's a response to working class power. The working class had been decisively defeated in Germany ten years before the Nazis came to power.


this is symptomatic of capitalism, and will occur again and again until capitalism is overthrown.

This hits the nail right on the head. The point is that capitalism creates genocide From Armenia to Rwanda we have numerous examples.

Those who argue that it is unique are basically arguing that this isn't something that capitalism does again and again. They also generally tend to be arguing that it was a result of 'fascism' not capitalism, and absolve capitalism of its responsibility.

As Yehuda also pointed out, this argument also plays a major role in the defence of the actions of the Israeli state today.

Devrim

[Pyotr Tchaikovsky]

In my view, it is unique for at least one reason: productive citizens were killed. Other genocides at least had the justification that natives were uncivilized, underdeveloped, were quarreling amongst themselves etc. etc. For the first time, such excuses weren't available when the Jewish people were targeted...they happened to be productive citizens themselves. So targeting them didn't make much sense from a materialist viewpoint.

[9]

In my view, it is unique for at least one reason: productive citizens were killed. Other genocides at least had the justification that natives were uncivilized, underdeveloped, were quarreling amongst themselves etc. etc. For the first time, such excuses weren't available when the Jewish people were targeted...they happened to be productive citizens themselves. So targeting them didn't make much sense from a materialist viewpoint.

Nope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide).
And there are several more where that came from, but whether each of the others falls exactly in with your criteria of "productive citizens who aren't quarreling amongst themselves" is not as clear... Of course, even if the "criteria" you provided for your assertion about the "uniqueness" of the Holocaust were not extremely questionable (and they are) and were exclusive to the Holocaust (and they're not), no two historical events are identical in every detail. So if we were to apply what appears to be your standard of "uniqueness" across the board, we would simply conclude that every genocide is "unique". But the presence of such shallow distinctive features is not a basis to claim one genocide as historically unique in contrast to all others.

You might want to be careful with that sort of language, too; it's awfully close to "the Holocaust was unique because the victims were predominantly white Europeans rather than uncivilized savages".

[Sendo]

The issue with saying it was unique in its effectiveness is that, well, it wasn't particularly effective. In fact, its ineffectiveness is part of the reason that it gets so much more attention. The genocide of the Native Americans was extremely effective, they've been almost entirely eradicated at this point, and it's disgusting that nobody seems to care. It seems that unsuccessful genocides will always get more attention though, since more of the targets will be around when it's all over to draw attention to it.

you're right. As an American I'm all too aware of the near total "extinct" status of Amerindians in much of the USA and to make it worse the ones who remain are treated as unpersons and the history is whitewashed

I mean to comment on its effectiveness in terms of its speed and kills per year (jews et al was 10 million in what? under 5 years?)

[Sendo]

Also making the Nazi Holocaust similar to any other slaughter is what many right-wingers do to justify Mao or Stalin being worse than Hitler - equating deaths from famine exaggerated by political incompetence to a deliberate policy of extermination.

Political incompetence? In the Great Leap there were mistakes as to grain output figures and labor allocation (the backyard furnaces....ugh) BUT the famine was minor by the standards of Chinese history. I'd reclaim those events and not say they were awful because of incompetence but slightly bad because of competence. Without the revolution famine would have struck harder and would keep striking today.

[Dr Mindbender]

To me the reason the holocaust is unique isnt necessarilly the way in which it was carried out, or how many died, but moreover its intentions.

In the thread the OP refers to the holocaust was compared to the slaughter of native Americans. Yes countless native americans died during the European colonisations, but specifically those native settlements that encroached on the European colonies. They were swept away as a matter of callous convienience and to set the precedence of 'who was boss'. The reason the holocaust differs is that there was a specific intention of exterminating every jew in the world, not just those who were unfortunate to get in the way of the nazi machine. The Europeans in America succeeded in their conquest, while living amongst native americans, albeit in secluded reservations. Right up to the point that the war ended, the nazis had no intention of slowing down the extermination. We've no idea how many murders they wouldve got away if they'd won the war, perhaps right up to succeeding in their sick vision of exterminating all judaism.

[Plagueround]

In my view, it is unique for at least one reason: productive citizens were killed. Other genocides at least had the justification that natives were uncivilized, underdeveloped, were quarreling amongst themselves etc. etc. For the first time, such excuses weren't available when the Jewish people were targeted...they happened to be productive citizens themselves. So targeting them didn't make much sense from a materialist viewpoint.

I hope you enjoyed your short time on revleft. You. Dumb. Fuck.

[ls]

I hope you enjoyed your short time on revleft. You. Dumb. Fuck.

Why was NoBordersNoNations banned?

[Plagueround]

Why was NoBordersNoNations banned?

Sockpuppet according to the logs.

[gorillafuck]

I'd say it was unique in how industrialized and planned out it was in comparison to other genocides. Aside from that most of the intricate details of all genocides are far outweighed by the similarities, which is that they are all the systematic killings of certain ethnic/racial groups. They all are equally vile in intentions.

[blake 3:17]

Ernest Mandel has argued it was economically rational.

[Agnapostate]

I'm honestly pleased to find that every point that I'd planned on making has already been posted. :lol:

[ComradeMan]

The Shoah/Holocaust was unique in its magnitude and also in its cruel efficiency, it was the holocaust of the "INDUSTRIAL AGE" the holocaust that was also filmed and documented by a world on the cusp of the communications revolution. A couple of points:-
1. The holocaust was not the first in history and not without precendent in German history- I refer to the South West African wars in present day Namibia and the Herero/Namaqua holocaust which set much of the precedent and even contributed to the ideas of the Nazis, namely Eugen Fischer's racial hygiene- beloved of the failed Austrian painter himself....
2. The holocaust was not just about Jewish people, Jews were perhaps the biggest target but black/mixed race people were, I believe, the first victims, then the disabled, then the Jews, homosexuals, catholics, freemasons, trade unionists etc etc etc.... Let's not forget them.

3. Too much emphasis on the "Shoah" let's people easily forget the other holocausts the Japanese in China, the Rwandan genocides and so on...

Finally, I hate it when people (no one here I am glad to say) turn it into a numbers game.... even one person is too many! 600, 6000, 6,000,0000..... you could not bring but one back so the number is unimportant.

[Dimentio]

In another thread, now no longer available to view, the question of the holocaust as a unique event in history was briefly discussed. Two themes emerged, on the one hand a group arguing that the holocaust was indeed unique, and the basis for that uniqueness lay primarily in the industrial process that was employed. Others, on the other hand, suggested that the holocaust was not unique noting that various genocides have been committed across the world and further argued that it is 'Eurocentric' to argue otherwise.

Thoughts?

The only thing marginally unique with the Holocaust was the attempt to wipe out ethnic groups on behalf of them being ethnic groups. But such attempts have earlier been undertaken in Africa and America. The only difference being that the Holocaust greatly based its solution around first concentrating the groups in death camps and then disposing them.

Having read about the Spanish conquista of the Americas and the motivations for the excess cruelty against the native cultures, as well as lengthy account on King Leopold's rule in the Congo, as well as modern genocides in Europe, Africa and America, I have come to the conclusion that the Holocaust isn't at all unique.

In one aspect, it has become very unique. It has become a sort of "creation myth" for the current ruling ideology of "liberal democracy". The Holocaust is both a real event, and a cultural event depicting "hell" (and "hell" is what is happening if you are walking away from liberal democracy).

Ruling ideologies are often resembling religions. Liberal democracy has its own demonology, where Hitler is the devil and the Holocaust is hell. Nowadays, there are some attempts to also make Stalin the devil.

The problem with this view of history is that it tend to overemphasise the Second World War and put up some kind of false dualism between "collectivism" and "the western civilisation". I have seen historians claim that there is a direct line between Hitler and Osama, on the basis of their "anti-western" ideas, ignoring that national socialism was born out of western ideals of that time, namely social-darwinism, imperialism, racism and colonialism.

The problem is that the Holocaust is used as a fig leaf to show up the "goodness" of the current system and legitimise the Anglo-American world order, while other genocides are happening daily on the basis of what capitalism is doing on a daily basis.

Hitler, national socialism and The Holocaust need to be de-mystified and put in a context of a time when such ideas were running amok. I find the fascination for Hitler within the current society sickening. It is demonology, not history, and it does nothing except shadowing genocides occurring right now and the repressive nature of the current system (as well as European neo-fascism, who are attacking muslims for "wanting to start a second Holocaust").

[ComradeMan]

Dimentio- Not quite the case, have a look at Shark Island and the Herero/Nama genocide, practically everything was in place bar the "ovens".

[Dimentio]

Dimentio- Not quite the case, have a look at Shark Island and the Herero/Nama genocide, practically everything was in place bar the "ovens".

I am a bit uncomfortable with citing the Herero genocide as a major stepping stone. As grim as it was, it has been used as a baseball bat to show off Germans as particularily evil. The Belgians in Congo, the British in Tasmania and the French in Central Africa were equally or even more cruel.

I agree with Bowden that the Nazi leadership was particularily bizarre in its worldview. But I think we should look at the results. A murder is a murder.

[ComradeMan]

I am a bit uncomfortable with citing the Herero genocide as a major stepping stone. As grim as it was, it has been used as a baseball bat to show off Germans as particularily evil. The Belgians in Congo, the British in Tasmania and the French in Central Africa were equally or even more cruel.

I agree with Bowden that the Nazi leadership was particularily bizarre in its worldview. But I think we should look at the results. A murder is a murder.

See this-

http://www.blacklooks.org/2004/08/herero_genocide.html

After 100 years,Germany (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3565938.stm) has made a formal apology to the Herero people of Namibia for the massacre of 65,000 people (http://www.africana.com/articles/daily/index_20021014.asp)
A group of Herero have fiiled a case against Germany and in the US claiming $4 billion in compensation. However despite the formal apology the German government are still refusing to compensate the descendants of those massacred. The Herero people have said they do not want cash but a "mini Marshall Plan" to enable them to get businesses started and scholarships to German universities.
Germany was not a major colonial power and started quite late. Nevertheless it had one of the worst records on the continent.
It was in the sleepy farm town of Okahandja in 1904 that the genocide began.

For 20 years, German settlers moving inland had been stealing land and cattle, raping women, lynching men with impunity and calling them "baboons" to their faces. When the Herero finally hit back, they did so in an attack that killed all the German men in Okahandja – on the orders of their leader, Samuel Maherero, they spared women, children, missionaries and the few English and Afrikaner farmers. When word reached Kaiser Wilhelm II in Berlin, the counterattack was quick, brutal and quickly expanded into slaughter.
The Germans responsded brutally.
Von Trotha pushed the Herero guerrillas and their families north to Waterberg and then attacked from three sides, leaving one exit, the Omaheke Desert. When the Herero fled into it, he poisoned the water holes, erected guard posts along a 150-mile line and bayoneted everyone who crawled out. He then issued the Vernichtungsbefehl, or extermination order: "Within the German borders, every Herero, whether armed or unarmed, with or without cattle, will be shot. I shall not accept any more women or children. I shall drive them back to their people – otherwise I shall order shots to be fired at them…….the remaining Herero were rounded up and sent to labor camps, where they starved or died fo overwork, typhus and smallpox"
Many of the "pseudo-scientific theories" of race were developed at this time by the Germans and later adopted by Hitler. Geneticist Eugene Fischer performed his medical experiements to prove his racists theories and used Herero and mixed race subjects as guinea pigs to prove the dangers of race mixing and the ultimate superiority of the Aryan race.
Compensation for acts of genocide, mass murder, slavery, loss of property and livelihood committed by Governments should not be related to time or to numbers. The Herero were and still are a small in number (about 100,000 today) but historians put the number killed by the Germans as 80% of the population of the time. However there is no international pressure to compensate the Herero people. In fact it is most probable that few in the west have heard of the Herero people or are aware of Germany’s brutal colonial past. Even in their own country of Namibia the Herero’s demands are not supported by the government.

[Dimentio]

Belgium have not yet apologised for the killing of 10 million people in the Congo.

The racist theories were all-pervasive during the late 19th century and the early 20th century. It was so pervasive that even socialists and other progressives sometimes delved in racism. The racism was also directed against the working class, as for example Herbert Spencer claimed that attrition due to poverty was nature's way of disposing those weaker. In you country, a man named Cesare Lombroso took a ruler to determine the value of Italians by measuring the thickness of their pubic hair.

In Sweden, 70 000 people were sterilised until the 1960's because of "racial" or "mental" defects.

Those who claim that there was a specific "German" ideology which pervaded racism are for the better or worse trying to make an "unwesternisation" of Germany to avoid criticisms against other western nations. Most often, such theorists are from Britain or America.

[ComradeMan]

Belgium have not yet apologised for the killing of 10 million people in the Congo.

The racist theories were all-pervasive during the late 19th century and the early 20th century. It was so pervasive that even socialists and other progressives sometimes delved in racism. The racism was also directed against the working class, as for example Herbert Spencer claimed that attrition due to poverty was nature's way of disposing those weaker. In you country, a man named Cesare Lombroso took a ruler to determine the value of Italians by measuring the thickness of their pubic hair.

In Sweden, 70 000 people were sterilised until the 1960's because of "racial" or "mental" defects.

Sick.... !

[El Rojo]

hang on conrades, are we not forgetting that any given event is unique, even me typing a letter on my keyboard i have typed millions of times, because of tiny differences, and the context?

Thus any event in history is entirely unique from all others because they are all a different stage in the overall process of development.

[mel]

hang on conrades, are we not forgetting that any given event is unique, even me typing a letter on my keyboard i have typed millions of times, because of tiny differences, and the context?

Thus any event in history is entirely unique from all others because they are all a different stage in the overall process of development.

In my first post on this thread, I said that events were "trivially unique" in the sense you just described.

Emphasis on "trivially".

[9]

In my first post on this thread, I said that events were "trivially unique" in the sense you just described.

Emphasis on "trivially".

I think that's just it, though. As far as I can tell, all the ways in which the Holocaust was "unique" are really basically trivial in any broader context. What it seems, to me, to come down to - that is, what the most important point of contention here actually is - is whether or not the Holocaust is a natural product of capitalism (as a couple others have pointed out), or if it is instead some freak incident caused by something else entirely. I would regard it as being a natural product of capitalism - and merely one example from a very long and ongoing list of holocausts. And I haven't seen anyone here make a convincing case to the contrary. A couple people have tried. Pogue seemed to indicate that he felt it was unique, but he never made a case for it. RP did the same - with vague references to some Alex Callinicos' essay, but he didn't elaborate nearly enough to even really be able to consider it an argument.
So I'm wondering if anyone who agrees with Pogue and RP - that the Holocaust can't be understood simply as a product of capitalism/imperialism (or even as "a case of imperialism gone berserk" as RP put it) - could explain why it can't be understood as a product of capitalism, and exactly what it is the product of, if not capitalism or "a case of imperialism gone berserk".

[ComradeMan]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/genocide/holocaust_overview_01.shtml#two
Antisemitism, the new racist version of the old Jew-hatred, viewed the Jews as not simply a religious group but as members of a 'Semitic race', which strove to dominate its 'Aryan' rivals. Among the leading ideologues of this theory were a French aristocrat, the Comte Joseph de Gobineau, and an Englishman, Houston Stewart Chamberlain. Antisemitism proved a convenient glue for conspiracy theories - since Jews were involved in all sorts of ventures and political movements, they could be accused of manipulating all of them behind the scenes. Thus Jews were held responsible for Communism and capitalism, liberalism, socialism, moral decline, revolutions, wars, plagues and economic crises. As the Jews had once been demonised in medieval Europe, so the new antisemites (including many Christians) found new, secular ways of demonising them.
The Nazis brought their own strain of radical ruthlessness to these ideas. They glorified war and saw the uncompromising struggle for survival between nations and races as the engine of human progress. They rejected morality as a Jewish idea, which had corrupted and weakened the German people. They maintained that a great nation such as Germany had the right and duty to build an empire based on the subjugation of 'inferior races'. They looked eastwards to Poland and Russia (where, as it happened, the great majority of European Jews lived) for the territorial expansion of their 'living space' (Lebensraum).

[Dimentio]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/genocide/holocaust_overview_01.shtml#two
Antisemitism, the new racist version of the old Jew-hatred, viewed the Jews as not simply a religious group but as members of a 'Semitic race', which strove to dominate its 'Aryan' rivals. Among the leading ideologues of this theory were a French aristocrat, the Comte Joseph de Gobineau, and an Englishman, Houston Stewart Chamberlain. Antisemitism proved a convenient glue for conspiracy theories - since Jews were involved in all sorts of ventures and political movements, they could be accused of manipulating all of them behind the scenes. Thus Jews were held responsible for Communism and capitalism, liberalism, socialism, moral decline, revolutions, wars, plagues and economic crises. As the Jews had once been demonised in medieval Europe, so the new antisemites (including many Christians) found new, secular ways of demonising them.
The Nazis brought their own strain of radical ruthlessness to these ideas. They glorified war and saw the uncompromising struggle for survival between nations and races as the engine of human progress. They rejected morality as a Jewish idea, which had corrupted and weakened the German people. They maintained that a great nation such as Germany had the right and duty to build an empire based on the subjugation of 'inferior races'. They looked eastwards to Poland and Russia (where, as it happened, the great majority of European Jews lived) for the territorial expansion of their 'living space' (Lebensraum).

With all respect, cutting and pasting encyclopedias is the most cowardly way of debating.

While factually correct, this encyclopedia article is making the impression that antisemitism, militarism and imperialism was something unique of Germany of that time. It wasn't. It was ingrained in all imperialist powers. Racism was politically correct during the period of 1871 to 1945 in all European countries.

The only thing marginally unique about national socialism, was that it turned an own ideology out of tendencies which were existing everywhere and across the entire political spectrum of that time.

I would say that the Holocaust wasn't the logical conclusion of capitalism per se, but rather of national socialism, which was an extreme variation of the social darwinist ideology which had been used to legitimise the injustices of capitalism and colonialism during the prior decades.

[ComradeMan]

With all respect, cutting and pasting encyclopedias is the most cowardly way of debating.

I wasn't debating- just adding a quoted source. I meant to highlight the following part:-

Thus Jews were held responsible for Communism and capitalism, liberalism, socialism, moral decline, revolutions, wars, plagues and economic crises. As the Jews had once been demonised in medieval Europe, so the new antisemites (including many Christians) found new, secular ways of demonising them.


While factually correct, this encyclopedia article is making the impression that antisemitism, militarism and imperialism was something unique of Germany of that time.

I see what you mean but Germany was particularly aggressive in the Edwardian period because it considered itself a major European power without the kudos of an empire- if even the pesky little Dutch had an Empire so why not the mighty Kaiser?:D Hence the whole South West African debacle too. You have to accept too that while the -isms you mention were to be found everywhere it was in Germany that they came to the expression they did. Strangely, many Italian jews were initially involved in Mussolini's fascism- an uncomfortable but true fact.

It wasn't. It was ingrained in all imperialist powers. Racism was politically correct during the period of 1871 to 1945 in all European countries.

I think that is too broad a statement to make.

The only thing marginally unique about national socialism, was that it turned an own ideology out of tendencies which were existing everywhere and across the entire political spectrum of that time.

Agreed- Hitler successfully took all the prejudices and fears of all people- from modern art to jews, from communism to modernism etc etc and rolled them into one.

I would say that the Holocaust wasn't the logical conclusion of capitalism per se, but rather of national socialism, which was an extreme variation of the social darwinist ideology which had been used to legitimise the injustices of capitalism and colonialism during the prior decades.

Agreed...

[Dimentio]

I know that fascism in Italy until 1937 could hardly be considered antisemitic at all. That is because fascism and national socialism have different roots.

Fascism has it roots in Italian nationalism (which was remniscent of French nationalism rather than German nationalism), Sorel's syndicalism and in agrarian non-marxist socialist regionalist associations in early 20th century Sicily.

National Socialism has it roots in social darwinism, antisemitic conspiracy theorism and Hitler's impression of Wagner's music. Materially, it had its roots in the Great War veterans returning home to unemployment and social chaos.