Why don't people care about the Russian holocaust?

The claims of the body count are well, quite off.

Apart from that:
1. Russia did not loose.
And, more importantly, the Red won their revolutionary war, inspite of everyone and his mother intervening on behalf of the whites (Royalists). The whites werent any nicer than the reds anyway.
Sadly, on this world, the winner can get away with nearly everything, provided he wins.


Do you wonder why noone cares a lot about the American genocide on the native Indians either?
The Greek genocide on the persians?
The Mongolian Genocide on well, just about anybody?
The Russian/Muscovitan Genocide on the Crimea Tatars?
The Frankish genocide on the Saxons? Heck, Charlemange is usually considered a hero.

That "American genocide on indians" is pure BS.

Wrong.


Native Americans are still here.

True...some of them. Other tribes were completely eradicated


White European settlers just wanted them out of the way.

What a pleasant way of saying they wanted to steal their land and killed them to do so.


There was no war nor wars to exterminate them.

Completely wrong.

You'd have to go way out of your way not reading any REAL American history to arrive at that insane conclusion.

There were wars to subjugate and dispossess them.

Yes, there were those, too. They often lead to the inevitable genocide that was obviously going to happen to them, too.

It's just another retelling of the history of mankind's migration to cover the globe. In context with the day and time that it happened, it was the way the strong dealt with the weak.

Yes, that's true.

Wars over land and genocides that follow are quite common in the human experience.

We were in fact not as bad as some nations/races/societies that in fact DID wage wars of genocide.

We were in fact very bad, Gunny. We were worse, for example than Gheghis Khan because Gheghis's empire actually TRIED to keep as many people alive as possible precisely because his was a war of conquest where the PEOPLE were PART of the booty.

Like the one that's been given lip service for the past few years in Sudan. Or Rwanda. Those are recent events happening under today's standard. Judging people in the past by today's standard merely presents a dishonest account of history.

I don't get the reference but as to the European genocide of the Amerinidian people?

It was often contrived specifically to wipe out entire tribes.

Not all the time, not in every case, but in more cases than NOT, the point was to remove the people from their land and let them starve or die of disease.

And of course in some cases, like infecting blanlets with small pox, the point of that exercise was precisely GENOCIDE.
 
, for example than Gheghis Khan because Gheghis's empire actually TRIED to keep as many people alive as possible precisely because his was a war of conquest where the PEOPLE were PART of the booty.

You were ok until this part.

No dice, standard mongol practise was kill in the most grusome manner possible anyone who resisted.

The Mongols activily used terror as a weapon and loved to have nice massacres to frighten people, just as they loved to kill every living thing in area that resisted.
 
It's very simple to answer.

One ethnic/political/religious group in America controls the media.

So their preceived genocide/holocaust takes center stage in our society.

*yawn*

I really wish you would stop using Ike as an avatar. You are defaming one of the greatest men in U S history.

i really wish you'd take a flying fuck at a rolling donut.

post pix, please.
 
The claims of the body count are well, quite off.

Apart from that:
1. Russia did not loose.
And, more importantly, the Red won their revolutionary war, inspite of everyone and his mother intervening on behalf of the whites (Royalists). The whites werent any nicer than the reds anyway.
Sadly, on this world, the winner can get away with nearly everything, provided he wins.


Do you wonder why noone cares a lot about the American genocide on the native Indians either?
The Greek genocide on the persians?
The Mongolian Genocide on well, just about anybody?
The Russian/Muscovitan Genocide on the Crimea Tatars?
The Frankish genocide on the Saxons? Heck, Charlemange is usually considered a hero.

That "American genocide on indians" is pure BS.

Wrong.




True...some of them. Other tribes were completely eradicated




What a pleasant way of saying they wanted to steal their land and killed them to do so.




Completely wrong.

You'd have to go way out of your way not reading any REAL American history to arrive at that insane conclusion.



Yes, there were those, too. They often lead to the inevitable genocide that was obviously going to happen to them, too.



Yes, that's true.

Wars over land and genocides that follow are quite common in the human experience.



We were in fact very bad, Gunny. We were worse, for example than Gheghis Khan because Gheghis's empire actually TRIED to keep as many people alive as possible precisely because his was a war of conquest where the PEOPLE were PART of the booty.

Like the one that's been given lip service for the past few years in Sudan. Or Rwanda. Those are recent events happening under today's standard. Judging people in the past by today's standard merely presents a dishonest account of history.

I don't get the reference but as to the European genocide of the Amerinidian people?

It was often contrived specifically to wipe out entire tribes.

Not all the time, not in every case, but in more cases than NOT, the point was to remove the people from their land and let them starve or die of disease.

And of course in some cases, like infecting blanlets with small pox, the point of that exercise was precisely GENOCIDE.

Feeling contrarian today, are we? Your wordsmithing aside, thanks for saying you disagree then saying pretty-much the same things I stated.

Blankets were not purposefully infected with smallpox. Genocide requires a willful act. Ignorance and stupidity are not willful acts. Just like some of the people around here, it can't be helped sometimes.

The US as a nation, and its citizens as a people did NOT contrive to wipe out tribes of indians. That's pure revisionism and BS. Some INDIVIDUALS may have, but that is NOT the same thing.

The US as a nation, and its citizens as a people DID contrive to take what they wanted and felt was rightfully theirs regardless who it dispossessed and/or what happened to them when they were dispossessed. Callous? Yeah. Thoughtless? Yeah. Apathetic? yeah. Genocide? Not.

And again, you are attempting to judge what people did then by today's standard. An American male from the 1800s would look at you and/or any other bleeding heart in disgust, as if you were from Mars. They lived in a different time under a different set of rules and beliefs.

And let's not forget the poor, downtrodden red man. There was NOTHING downtrodden about a war party of Coman-tse outside your lone farmhouse astride their ponies in full battle regalia. Quite the opposite. Indians lived to make war. A young male was nobody until he had bested worthy adversaries in battle. They considered us the weak ones and looked on us with contempt. We hanged horse thieves. A horse thief to an indian meant a he was good provider. We considered attack from ambush cowardly. Indians thought it was just common sense to kill an enemy by the most efficient means while not exposing oneself.

It was a clash of cultures, as I said, and the strongest culture won. Not because we were better individual warriors but because the indians could not compete with our numbers.

It played out no different here than anywhere else in the world. Easy to sit and judge hiding behind the protections of an society those who came before us who lived in a world where only the strong survived.

Do make note that none of the above states that I believe by today's standards the indian was treated justly by the US government or its people. I'm just not going to condemn them for playing by the rules of the day.
 
We care. Other than making people aware of what happened, what else is there to be done? This "holocaust" was awful, but it was a larger version of the type of bloodshed spawned by the French revolution to Cambodia under Pol Pot. Despots and bloodthirsty ideologues. We should remember that things like this are the result of mass conformism and moral cowardice. Just plain human nature. And that won't change anytime soon.
 
Genocide by the provisions of the convention of the United Nations in Dec. 1948 is defined as:
"any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, and includes five types of criminal actions: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

Lyman Legters
"The American Genocide"
Policy Studies Journal, vol. 16, no. 4, summer 1988


Reference kindly provided by Loretta K. Carroll - Thank you, Loretta.


"...Let me remind you only of the witch-hunts of the middle ages, the horrors of the French revolution, or the genocide of the American Indians... in such periods there are always only a very few who do not succumb. But when it is all over, everyone, horrified, asks `for heaven's sake, how could I?' "

Albert Speer, Hitler's minister of war production, writing from prison in 1953.

"Hitler's concept of concentration camps as well as the practicality of genocide owed much, so he claimed, to his studies of English and United States history. He admired the camps for Boer prisoners in South Africa and for the Indians in the wild west; and often praised to his inner circle the efficiency of America's extermination - by starvation and uneven combat - of the red savages who could not be tamed by captivity." P. 202, "Adolph Hitler" by John Toland

Thanks to my Friend Peter for finding and sharing the above two quotes.
The Genocide of the American Indians
 
In the Russian Revolution, 40million people (or 100million, depending on the source you believe) were slaughtered. Why does the media and government place more importance on the deaths of millions of one particular people from WWII?
If we're going to make comparisons, many times as many Christians were killed in the communist uprising, for example. So why does no one care?
Who's building monuments to their memory?
Who's paying reparations to their families?

That's been a question in my mind since I learned about it in History class.


I'd like to see a link, from a credible and authoritative source that shows Stalin executed 100 million people.

Stalin was bad enough, without having to make up lies to buttress a rightwing talking point.

I seriously doubt 100 million people died in the gulags or in the purges.

I DO believe that 100 million people died violent or horrible deaths under stalin, if you include the casualities incurred by WW2, and starvation from the collectivist agricultural disaster.


As for your question more broadly, I don't think people call it a holocaust, becase I don't think it meets the definition of a holocaust, which has a very specific definition.
 
In the Russian Revolution, 40million people (or 100million, depending on the source you believe) were slaughtered. Why does the media and government place more importance on the deaths of millions of one particular people from WWII?
If we're going to make comparisons, many times as many Christians were killed in the communist uprising, for example. So why does no one care?
Who's building monuments to their memory?
Who's paying reparations to their families?

That's been a question in my mind since I learned about it in History class.


I'd like to see a link, from a credible and authoritative source that shows Stalin executed 100 million people.

Stalin was bad enough, without having to make up lies to buttress a rightwing talking point.

I seriously doubt 100 million people died in the gulags or in the purges.

I DO believe that 100 million people died violent or horrible deaths under stalin, if you include the casualities incurred by WW2, and starvation from the collectivist agricultural disaster.


As for your question more broadly, I don't think people call it a holocaust, becase I don't think it meets the definition of a holocaust, which has a very specific definition.



I see rightwiners toss around this 100 million number, but never see them provide credible substantation. Why do wingnuts do that? My guess is that they want to minimize what hitler did, by pretending stalin was orders of magnitude worse.

Stalin was a piece of shit. I have realtives in my family that dissapeared in the gulag. But, its disingenuous to just make numbers up out of whole cloth, in a effort to probably minimize what hitler did to the jews and others.

I seriously doubt you'll ever return to the thread to provide credible sources for your claim. But the sources cited on wiki say 14 million people were sent to the labor camps from 1929 to 1952, and of these maybe one to two million died.

Without a doubt, when you include the purges, Stalin was directly responsible for the deaths of several million.

What i don't get, is why you need to make up numbers that have zero basis in fact, to claim stalin executed 100 million. Stalin was shit. Hitler was shit. But you should stick to facts and real numbers. instead of making shit up
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top