Discussions
How does one survive a Nazi concentration camp?
Posted by Albran • 6/29/08 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
What made some men and women of millions killed in Nazi concentration camps survive?
I came across a truly remarkable and amazing autobiography of a French resistance leader who lost his eyesight completely by the age of eight. He was captured in 1944 due to betrayal and sent to Buchenwald.
What he learned, how he thought and acted under the most brutal conditions teaches us how to life, for it is not likely that there are circumstances less challenging than his. Especially he teaches us how to be happy and grow in any condition. What a gift.
www.squidoo.com/developmentoftrust#module10014186
User Comments
-
One must be determined to make it.-
I am sure that is part of it. But not enough to survive without damage. Jacques Lusseyran, whose book I read, said that after one particular experience there were no more bad memories for him. He really found a freedom that could not be touched by the acts of the SS and the whole camp system. That to me is what makes him so remarkable.
-
But what of those who were determined to survive who did not? -
I think the opposite might be true. I think an attachment to a particular outcome might be exactly the thing that would break a person in those circumstances. -
One must be determined, and stay determined. But one also would find that his strength is wanting if seen only in oneself. Therefore, one would have to draw on other resources.
@ Ian? What about them? How quick is one in changing his mind. It only takes a second and thought. Once fear creeps in, anything can happen. Jacques Lusseyran seemed to have found a way to not let this happen.
@ Tiffany: I like what you said.
-
-
My mom said, she just blotted everything out.-
I will send her good vibes. What a horrible nightmare. Hug her for me, do.
-
That speaks of an amazing power of mind, too. Did she focus her attention on something else in particular?
-
Your mother is a Holocaust survivor? My grandparents got out of Lithuania when things started getting bad in the 30s. -
My grandfather said the same exact thing... -
Both of my parents were in the concentration camps. Everyone else in my family was killed. Neither talked about their experiences much. I think my younger brother spoke a bit about it with my mother. My father never said anything. He was in Auschwitz. Both have passed away, but I am sure they hear your good wishes Teresa. Thank you.
Rich -
I am really sorry for all that, Rich. Thanks for letting us know.
I am German.
-
-
Dear Albran. I like your blog and I have bookmark your blog. I will read it later. You r doing a great job, keep it up!-
Thanks Achuna. Just sharing what I have been given.
-
-
You might want to read this - it was Incredible.
Man's Search for Meaning by Viktor E. Frankl-
But some of that was made up, especially the pornographic bits.
-
Thanks, Benny. Good reminder. Frankl and many others help us remember that we have to look for meaning beyond the physical realm of death and destruction.
-
Sometimes there is no meaning.
-
-
Did you see "Life is Beautiful"? I just about couldn't handle it during the scene when the father tells his kid that they are playing a game. Because I knew what they were facing...it just made me breakdown.
Go rent the movie!-
I did not like that movie. Made it all seem a bit too trivial, though most people I've met don't share my opinion.
-
Thanks, Alex. I saw that movie. I liked it. It has a good spirit.
Regarding too trivial, Mark, I think that impression might come from the fact that here a father tries to help his little son keep his spirit and stay positive. For once you loose that you won't survive a concentration camp. -
Primo Levi describes devolving into a quasi animal with no hope but still with a raw instinct to stay alive, nothing more. His example contradicts your assumption. I'd need to see a lot more testimony before I would be willing to pass judgement on what is or is not necessary.
You might also want to add blind luck as one possibility for some people.
Edited to add: I see from your Squidoo page that none of this matters. You're talking about religion. You even have a section on "Trust in Jesus Christ". Is that what the Jews needed? Ugh. Why did I even respond to this thread? -
That's true, Mark. Blind luck, being at the right place at the right time etc. But then, are there really accidents?
Regressing to an animal-like state, however, doesn't sound like an offer I would like to take. -
It's arrogant to assume that you would know what choices you would have and how you personally (both your mind and body) would react.
-
"Edited to add: I see from your Squidoo page that none of this matters. You're talking about religion. You even have a section on "Trust in Jesus Christ". Is that what the Jews needed? Ugh. Why did I even respond to this thread?"
Wow, Mark. What is that all about? Jesus was Jewish, too, wasn't he? In my mind Jesus is a symbol and idea I can completely trust. He teaches me how to trust. My Squidoo page is about trust, and Jacques Lusseyran is an extraordinary example of trust. His story is inspiring, whether one is religious or not. Jacques Lusseyran definitely wasn't one of those you should have a problem with. -
Right (well maybe, because I didn't see any sources), but you are trying to enlist millions of Holocaust victims in your cause. Jews, Christians, agnostics, atheists, homosexuals, Roma, Sinti, and so on, but mainly Jews, whereby "Jew" was defined by Hitler in terms of "blood" and had absolutely nothing to do with the victims beliefs.
It's wrong what you're doing here. Very wrong. -
a.) Normally I like Roberto Benigni-- but "Life is Beautiful" was a real artistic failure on his part.
b.) Jesus of Nazareth may have been a Jew, but the Church that elevated him to Christ was the same Church that taught contempt and hatred for the Jews. Without Christianity, there would have been no antisemitism, and without antisemitism, no Shoah. Please refrain from Christianizing the Shoah as to do so shows an intense disrespect for those who were murdered.
c.) Given the history of Christian depredations against Jewry, a number of Christian theologians consider that the only thing Christians should be doing regarding the Shoah is pennance. Proslytizing is just another attempt to destroy the Jews. -
Hi Ian.
First, Jesus of Nazareth was seen as the Christ by people who were close to him and had experiences not of this world. Many of those were living in Palestine back then and, I guess, were Jews. The "church" which "elevated" him to Christ thereby made him nearly invisible by grossly distorting or missing what he taught, but that is what establishments are about.
Without Christianity, there would have been no antisemitism, and without antisemitism, no Shoah? I don't know what a historian would say about that. To me it is a pretty meaningless statement.
Christianizing the Shoah? I am talking about one man, he was French, not Jewish, who was sent to Buchenwald for political reasons. As a prisoner of the Nazis he shared many conditions with the Jewish people who were murdered in concentration camps. Using him as inspiration does not mean the same as christianizing the Shoah.
Proslytizing is just another attempt to destroy the Jews? Wow, this is nuts. -
"Without Christianity, there would have been no antisemitism, and without antisemitism, no Shoah? I don't know what a historian would say about that. To me it is a pretty meaningless statement."
1.) The theology that claims Jesus of Nazareth is the culmination of Jewish prophecy about the messiah uses a particular interpretation of the Tanakh to make its case. Anyone who read the Tanakh and did not see Jesus as the prophecized Messiah (that is, Jews) was declared to be damned.
2.) The Gospels are filled with contempt for the Pharisees (the forerunners of Rabbinical Judaism.) This labeled both the rabbis and their Jewish congregations as "enemies of Jesus."
3.) One Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire, religious bigotry became enforced by law.
4.) Most of the anti-Jewish segregation, persecution, and violence in European history was supported by the clergy and the theologians.
5.) Most of the anti-Jewish laws promoted by the Nazi party in their first years in power were merely revivals of anti-Jewish laws that had existed previously with Church support-- indeed most of these laws were supported by the major Churches. It's only when deportations and killings began that we see Bishops beginning to oppose these persecutions.
"Christianizing the Shoah? I am talking about one man, he was French, not Jewish, who was sent to Buchenwald for political reasons. "
1.) Buchenwald was a slave labor camp-- and as hellish as it was, it was not the worst place to which one could have been sent. Majdanek and Auchwitz-Birkeneau were even worse places-- as they were death camps-- you were sent to those places for one reason and one reason only: to be murdered.
2.) By asking the question "How does one survive a Nazi concentration camp?" and answering "trust in Jesus Christ," you are in fact Christianizing the Holocaust because you make the death of so many millions-- half of Europe's Jews a matter of their not "trusting in Jesus Christ."
"Proselytizing is just another attempt to destroy the Jews? Wow, this is nuts."
But isn't that what proselytizing to the Jews has always been? An attempt to destroy the Jewish religion and replace it with Christianity? After all, if Jews, despite reading the Tanakh, don't see Jesus as their messiah, doesn't that cause some anxiety that the Jews might be right? It certainly caused enough anxiety that the Church spent centuries supporting persecutions, forced conversions, burnt books, burt temples, and burt people. -
Ian, when I mentioned "a passion and love for life and truth" I was talking about Jacques Lusseyran. It hasn't been beaten in his case. There is a possibility that he found something that helped him through while others with similar attitudes did not find (or avail themselves of?) the help they needed.
There also is a possibility that he was passionate about life to a degree many of his fellow human beings did not share. There seems to be no hatred or unforgiveness in him towards his pursuers. Maybe he did not allow himself to get distracted by thoughts of revenge and hatred himself. -
"There also is a possibility that [Jacques Lusseyran] was passionate about life to a degree many of his fellow human beings did not share."
There is also a certainty that despite whatever passion Jacques Lusseyran may have had for life (or Jesus) that bullets, vivisection, random brutality, starvation, and over-work, (since those are the ways that people commonly died at Buchenwald) could have killed him just as easily as they would have killed the most jaded of nihilists, (or the most devout of Jews.) -
"Without Christianity, there would have been no antisemitism, and without antisemitism, no Shoah? I don't know what a historian would say about that. To me it is a pretty meaningless statement."
What I meant with this was that the statement of antisemitism being inherently Christian and linked only to Christinity is not true. In that sense it is completely meaningless.
What you say about the history of Christian churches in regard to Jewish people and feelings or actions of hatred and persecution against them I find missing my intentions or point. I am in no way denying any atrocities committed by so-called Christians towards Jewish people. But I do say, that these acts are not supported by the teachings of Christ, but are in fact anti-Christ who said what you do to anyone you do to me. I am not accepting the idea of equating Church and Christianity. The expression of Christians up to this point may be very poor compared to the teachings of Jesus, but that does not diminish the teachings of Jesus, nor make him an "anti-semit".
Ian: "By asking the question 'How does one survive a Nazi concentration camp?' and answering 'trust in Jesus Christ,' you are in fact Christianizing the Holocaust because you make the death of so many millions-- half of Europe's Jews a matter of their not 'trusting in Jesus Christ.'
I did not answer "trust in Jesus Christ" in regard to my question starting this discussion. Please be careful.
Regarding proselytizing I can only say, that whatever one beliefs, is entirely his own choice. You can hardly say that it is possible to destroy an idea, and any belief basically is an idea. Being a Christian to me is not about being right or wrong, neither about proselytizing. It is about accepting God as my source of reality and no other. In that everyone is my brother whom I can only love if I want to know my source. Anything but love would be my denial of my source, and deny me reality. In that sense it doesn't even have anything to do with Jesus or a messiah. But certainly Jesus demonstrated the effects of what that acceptance holds for me. Also, as I see it, in Jesus' acceptance was mine and everyone else's. In that sense, any human being, be he Jew or not, holding out this acceptance is denying truth and missing the mark, for there can only be one truth which is not conceptual but an experience. Counteracting denial of truth with other than love and forgiveness is the same error and equally destructive. -
Christianity is the greatest diseminator of anti-Judaic sentiment and anti-Judaic theology. The Gospels contain clearly anti-Judaic passages that serve no purpose but to cast the rabbis and the Jews as villains. Whatever, Jesus' message might have been, and however much it may have been twisted, the twisting had begun centuries prior to the Council of Nicea.
Even Islamic antisemitism is derived from Christian antisemitism.
"Jesus' acceptance was mine and everyone else's. In that sense, any human being, be he Jew or not, holding out this acceptance is denying truth and missing the mark, for there can only be one truth which is not conceptual but an experience."
Now if I am understanding you correctly, you seem to be saying that the truth that must be accepted is Jesus-- which if one does not accept one is "missing the mark" (sinning)-- this is a standard Christian theological claim. The problem is that Jews didn't accept Jesus and they are the ones who were the primary target for a genocide that was committed mostly by Christians. -
Ian, you are misconstructing my statements, and also, I would think, the Gospel. As I see it, for I don't know what you are talking about when you say Christianity, I do not subscribe to the notions you present here, when Jesus confronted people of traditional Jewish faith, Pharisees etc. he did not address them in terms of race or in fact in terms of any collective construct. All teachings of Christ pertain only to individuals. Therefore, to say that Christianity is anti-Judaic or disseminates anti-Judaic sentiments is not correct. Anyone who does express anti-Judaic sentiments does not express the teachings of Christ. I am saying the truth that must be accepted is your truth. There can only be one truth. Jesus is a thought in your mind, a reflection of what you are.
If Christians committed any act of cruelty against anyone, it is because they were missing the mark. Jesus would address them in the same manner as he did address the people in his time. It has nothing to do with a particular concept or belief or biological property. All concepts are false.
Jesus for whatever reason happened to be in that particular region where he was teaching. That was a mere coincidence, I guess. To say his teaching is anti-Judaic is wrong, and fundamentally ego-centric. His teaching was to offer a new way to see. Only a new way to see would give way for the changes he saw as inevitable. No one can be forced to accept what he does not want. Any attempt at doing so is meaningless, and entirely against the idea of Jesus Christ.
-
-
The best historiographical overview of the Holocaust for my money is Michael Marrus, _The Holocaust in History_
As far as memoirs go, I find Primo Levi's _Survival at Auschwitz_ useful, though you might want to see a somewhat different take on it with Eli Wiesel, _Night_.
And here's a page I've got of links to online sources: homepage.mac.com/markstoneman/nazi%20germany%20and%20the%20holocaust.html-
I loved to read Primo Levi. Thanks for the other hints.
I am taken by Jacques Lusseyran, because he shows, and does it so beautifully, that we aren't the victim under any circumstances. We are free, and cannot be beaten except by our own beliefs. -
That is bull, unless you don't think staying alive matters. But I can see from your Squidoo page that this is all about your usual proselytizing for God and Jesus Christ. Using Holocaust victims for that purpose is despicable.
-
I find it hugely ironic that the fundamental Christians are so pro Jewish now, given the history between Christians and Jews. You have to wonder if the state of the empire is the cause of this rapprochement. -
Is what you find despicable the fact that there is someone who doesn't share your belief in an outside force pitted against you, but by maintaining a constant dependence on God's help can stay alive and joyful and help others regardless of circumstances?
If it works, then it should deserve at least your respect. -
I couldn't care less about your beliefs. But I do care about your misusing people's memories in order to proselytize. You'll find that "using and abusing history" is already a category on my history blog.
-
"Is what you find despicable the fact that there is someone who doesn't share your belief in an outside force pitted against you, but by maintaining a constant dependence on God's help can stay alive and joyful and help others regardless of circumstances?"
Mark, I am not talking about myself here. I am talking about Jacques Lusseyran who knows it from his own experience. He found a way to be in peace and help others in the most sordid condition.
I am using Jacques Lusseyran as example for inspiration. He did not describe something which would have saved many, or which the Holocaust victims should have applied, and neither do I. It is something that saved his life, and it showed him beyond doubt, that he is free, and that there is nothing that exceeds your power of choice where you put your mind on. As you might remember, there can be no compromise. You either think of death, or life, no matter to what system of belief you adhere. And that is your choice alone. And you make it every minute.
Jacques Lusseyran went beyond any religion to a dircet experience that makes any concept or belief look like nothing, for it is meaningless and irrelevant to the experience. -
You cannot generalize from one man's experience about all the victims of the Second World War. Your attempt to use your faith to generalize about Holocaust victims is particularly disturbing. Against my better judgement, I'll give you a link to some points about historical thinking written by a theologian who understands the difference between theology and history: courseweb.stthomas.edu/gwschlabach/sense.htm Maybe you'll read and think about them sometime. But you'll have to discuss them with someone less disgusted with you at the moment than I am.
-
I can generalize in that sense, that what works for one has to work for all, if it is true, whether one does apply it or not. But definitely not everyone at a particular point in time is ready to maintain a discipline of thought as Jacques Lusseyran did. I probably would not. But then there is always help. I claim you will not find easily someone with a passion and love for life and truth as Jacques Lusseyran demonstrated. That is what could be beaten by the Nazis.
I don't have to let anything dictate my choices. If I do, that is my choice. If I make an exception for of all those who did not survive the Holocaust, I am betraying them, and denying their power of mind. They, for whatever reason must have chosen what they went through, as blasphemous that may sound to you or anyone. But cause and effect cannot be reversed.
Maybe you are reading a moral evaluation or judgment on my part upon all the men and women and children who did not survive. That is not so. -
I wrote: "That is what could be beaten by the Nazis."
There is missing a negation. I should have written: "That is what could not be beaten by the Nazis." -
aningeniousname:
"I find it hugely ironic that the fundamental[ist] Christians are so pro Jewish now"
Actually, the irony is that most of them are not.
a.) They only "support the Jews" in the sense that they want Israel to fight in an apocalyptic war with the Muslims in which both sides are destroyed, so that the rapture can happen and the Jews who persisted in not accepting Jesus are humiliated to see that they are wrong.
See this documentary: video.stumbleupon.com/?p=tnd1eytp1a
b.) They still support an establishment of a Christian theocracy in the United States which would be harmful to Jewish-Americans.
Albran:
"a passion and love for life and truth [....] could not be beaten by the Nazis."
It was, millions of times, with bullets, carbon monoxide, zyklon-B, deliberate starvation, beatings, torture, and vivisection. -
Mark, I hate to enter into this discussion because I can see that the blindness that seems to overtake you whenever you talk to someone who you think might once have hinted at having a Christian belief is in full swing, but I feel compelled to point out that there are a number of circumstances in which and reasons for which even non-Christians might not think that staying alive was necessary to be free or to triumph. Many people throughout history have been happy to die for a cause, or to protect someone else, or merely for the sake of honor, and have done so without feeling in the least bit victimized or defeated.
-
Ian, even it it had been beaten just once, I would opt for that story. Does that do disrespect to all the others that have been apparently beaten? I don't think so. Your statement seems to put greater value on the possibility of being beaten by a denial of life. Why?
-
"Your statement seems to put greater value on the possibility of being beaten by a denial of life. Why?"
No. I was merely listing being beaten, or bludgeoned as a means by which one could be killed in a camp.
-
-
Primo Levis's "If this is a man" is the best I have ever read, it steers away from the sensational accounts of the whole thing and drives home the total day to day mundane horror of the Auschwitz.
-
Has anyone read "Night" by Elie Wiesel? I read it in high school, so maybe many others did as well. -
Mark: "It's arrogant to assume that you would know what choices you would have and how you personally (both your mind and body) would react."
I have to protest, Mark. I did not make that assumption that I would know how I would react. I only expressed a preference. Of course, I won't know how I will decide in any given situation. However, the choice of how I interpret things is always mine. And everything in my experience would have to come from how I interpret things.-
Your choice is always yours? Do you know how the machinery of the Holocaust worked? The only way your sentence can possibly make sense is in a theological one, where you assume that your mind and will can be unaffected by torture, hunger, fear, disease, overwork, mourning, terror, and the constantly grinding day-to-day effects of dehumanization, should you be so lucky as to survive that long. I stand by my statement.
-
Are you really disputing my choice of how I interpret things, Mark?
Mark: "Do you know who the machinery of the Holocaust worked?"
Well, I don't know it from my own experience. But Jacques Lusseyran demonstrated that through God's help he could not be broken. He may not have suffered as severely as others, but he was in the hands of the Gestapo and SS since 19th of July 1943 till Buchenwald was freed. His experience and insight into the nature of our existence is relevant to me. Why anyone would not want to use the help offered, I don't have to understand.
Jacques wrote:
"The lord took pity on the poor mortal who was so helpless before him. It is true I was quite unable to help myself. All of us are incapable of helping ourselves. Now I knew it, and knew that it was true of the SS among the first. That was something to make one smile.
But there was one thing left which I could do: not refuse God's help, the breath he was blowing upon me. That was the one battle to fight, hard and wonderful all at once: not to let my body be taken by fear. For fear kills, and joy maintains life." (Jacques Lusseyran, And There Was Light, Chapter XV) -
Interpreting the lives of real people in the past is not a matter of personal "choice." But your choice of words here and above has made your intent crystal clear.
-
The spirit need not be tied to the theological, Mark. -
You know, this is not isolated either. There was a German soldier captured by the Russians and sent to a mine in Siberia. with little life left in him, he escaped and walked out of Siberia. Siberia! It took a couple of years to do so.
He counted every 1,000 steps and then started again. And he echos many of the same spiritual messages as the survivor of the death camps. -
They made that into a movie in West Germany in the 1950s.
-
"Interpreting the lives of real people in the past is not a matter of personal 'choice.'"
Mark, I have not a clue what you are saying here.
-
-
It was so long ago, and i don't remember his name, but I saw a survivor speak once. I think he has written a (more than a?) book.
Anyhow the thing I took away from that talk was that he redefined freedom for me. He spoke in terms of his survival being owed to the fact that while interned he was free. The guards in that camp had certain liberties that he did not, but he (much to the contrast of they) was free.
[edit]
The guy I recall must be the guy Albran is speaking of. Powerful stuff.
[/edit] -
I'm trying to imagine a world where the history teacher has to accept any answer from any student because that student believes it to be true. No need for primary and secondary sources. They just look inward and then offer up an answer and I must pat them on the back and give them an "A", especially if they bring out the ultimate logic: "Are you really disputing my choice of how I interpret things"? Oh, and if they cite God, I will forgo the footnote requirement. And if they claim a belief in Jesus Christ is relevant to the question of survival for millions of non-Christians, I will thank them for pointing out my errors and ask for further reading, meditation, and prayer advice. Sure. I should probably log out now.
-
I admit, Mark, I should have formulated my discussion entry "How does one survive a Nazi concentration camp?" differently. It is misleading in the sense that it is suggesting that there is only one way to survive. I just wanted to have you on board.
My apology. -
I think this is one of those instances we talked about the other day.
I think you are looking for more than there is to be had here.
Fact is some people did survive by blind luck, some survived through pure rage and hatred.
But of all the people I've read about who have survived these kinds of things through many wars and from many faiths (and non faiths) the spirit seems to me to be a common factor. That includes a Pilot in Viet Nam who played ten thousand rounds of golf while interned. Nothing religious, but deeply spiritual. -
I think I did use a primary source, though, Mark.
I still feel like you throw me into the same pot with fundamentalist Christians. What would justify you making that kind of generalization? -
@Dane: There are some topics where one must set higher standards for oneself. The Holocaust is one of those topics. I'm concerned by what I took to be glib religious responses that were meant to be valid for millions of victims whose experience was very different from the man mentioned in the original post. I took this thread as an attempt to appropriate the memories of millions of people in an effort to spread his version of faith. Since many of those millions were Jewish, the link to his brand of Christian teachings bothered me. I will continue to call people on such efforts, if I perceive them. I also don't think I'm asking too much of people if I suggest that one cannot know how one would have responded in these situations.
Edited to add: Please also observe how what sparked my response were his own words in response to accounts about Jewish victims and survivors, not his original post up top. This conflation of the two really bothered me, because it entailed bringing Christianity into a story about millions of non-Christian victims, and that is highly problematic. -
Well, I have a habit of not visiting Lenses, and I remained true to yhat habit here too.
But whatever Albran's agenda, the survivor he is speaking of is something to look at. And while he does speak in terms of his faith (the survivor, not Albran) there are spiritual lessons to take away whatever your faith (or non faith) that can serve well in life with or without great adversity.
And going way off topic here, one thing I've wondered, that you may be able to shed light on is this.
Why is the Holocaust the Holocaust? Taking nothing away from it, yes it was an atrocity, but Hitler is only #3. Stalin and Mao both out did him. -
Your question is a can of worms that I don't want to touch. It brings up fruitless, yet emotionally charged questions about "uniqueness". The term also has theological implications that bother me, which I suppose is what you're getting at. I don't like mixing theology and history, but I can take it better from survivors than from others, setting aside the obvious fact that many non-Jews also became corpses and ashes in the Nazi killing factories.
If forced to compare the Nazi murder of Jews to what Stalin did, I can at least point to who the perceived enemy was and why. Only the Nazis decided to eliminate a "race," along with other "undesirable" elements. Also, the Nazi's effort was systematic and industrialized.
But I have never felt good about these comparison games. I just make sure students understand who the victims were and why, and how the killing occurred and why. That's about the best I can do. -
Dane:
"Why is the Holocaust the Holocaust?"
Up until the 1970s, "holocaust" (note lower-case) was a generic term for any mass-slaughter. The first major book length scholarly study of the genocide of Jews by Germany, Raul Hilburg's "The Destruction of the European Jews" does not eve mention the word until page 178.
Thanks to the television movie "Holocaust" the name was popularized. Before that, it was generally called "The Final Solution" or the "Nazi Genocide."
Jews generally dislike the term "Holocaust" because it literally means "sacrifice [to a god] by fire" which is simply blasphemy-- although Church officials have been known to burn Jews alive. Jews generally prefer to call it "Ha Shoah" (The Catastrophy) or "Churban Europa" (The European Destruction-- "Churban" without the modifier usually refers to the destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans and the slaughter that came with it.)
What makes the mass killings perpetrated by Germany and its allies unique despite the fact that the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China actually killed a larger number of people is because:
a.) Germany and its allies were incredibly efficient, and systematic in the mass killings in a way the communists simply never were-- requiring decades more work.
b.) In the case of Germany, the killing was actually an aim of government policy, while for the communists, the killings were a means to an end.
c.) In the case of Germany and allies, the actual aim was the complete genocide of entire races, cultures, and religions.
This is not a claim that one was worse that the others-- just why they are different. -
Thanks for that explanation Ian, I'm not sure about Mao at all, but people of religious faith, and Jews in particular were also a favorite target for Stalin, weren't they? Though the element of actual genocide doesn't seem to have been as big a part of it to be sure.
I appreciate the words you defined. I think there might be an element of what I had suspected in there too. With Stalin and Mao, they took their actions alone within their own borders, while with Hitler for a time it seemed the world at large colluded in the act, even if only by standing aside. -
Stalin's mass murders are best understood as a continuation of the mass murders committed under Lenin's leadership (something the Trotskyites don't like to mention)-- they were an attempt to destroy all internal opposition to the communist party-- then they were to destroy all internal opposition to the current leaders of the communist party.
This was largely also the practice of the People's Republic under Mao.
That the Soviet Union persecuted Jews wasn't particular to Stalin. Russia (like much of Europe) has a long history of antisemitism, Stalin just worked with the cultural values he inherited. On top of that communism, like most totalitarian ideologies, tends to see "difference" as something to be destroyed.
The point is that Stalin, Mao, Lenin killed more because it was a way of achieveing their goals of consolidating and holding on to power-- they all committed democide. There is some question as to whether they set out to destroy a specific identifiable people (i.e. ethnic, religious, or languistic community) which is how one defines genocide.
-
-
I just noticed a comment by Albran up top that he is "German." I hope this does not mean he has lived his life in the Federal Republic of Germany. If he has, then his responses become even more insensitive, to put it as politely as I possibly can.
-
I was born in Bavaria.
-
-
Mark: "Right (well maybe, because I didn't see any sources), but you are trying to enlist millions of Holocaust victims in your cause. Jews, Christians, agnostics, atheists, homosexuals, Roma, Sinti, and so on, but mainly Jews, whereby "Jew" was defined by Hitler in terms of "blood" and had absolutely nothing to do with the victims beliefs.
It's wrong what you're doing here. Very wrong."
I don't see how I enlist millions of Holocaust victims into my case other than pointing out that any survival of the Nazi terror is remarkable. I said this in regard to Jacques Lusseyran, and I start to think you haven't even read the quotes I presented of him. That would not be a nice thing of an historian, would it?
I also don't see the sudden exclusive relevance of Jewish victims here. Maybe I am blind, or are you reading something into my statements I did not say, and also not imply. If Jacques Lusseyran would have been Jewish, I would still feel like making the same statement. I also am sure there were Jewish people with similar experiences like Jacques Lusseyran. These experiences are not restricted to people of a particular faith. That would go completely against the nature of the source of these experiences.
I also find it very strange that you feel you have to discuss all but the experience of Jacques Lusseyran. That is the really disappointing aspect of this whole discussion to me.-
You're the one who brought your theology into the fray, Albran.
-
-
Any survival in the system of einsatzgruppen, ghettos, concentration camps, slave labor camps, and death camps, was unlikely, and a miracle-- there was no logic to it, no simple answer. I addressed this in a poem I wrote called "Numbers" that appeared in the anthology "I Refused to Die" edited by Susan Davidson:
ianthal.blogspot.com/2007/05/may-17th-i-refused-to-die-reading-at.html
The poem was reprinted online here:
spoonfuljournal.blogspot.com/2006/12/poem-by-ian-thal.html -
The Roma refer to this time as the "Porajmos" (devouring) Both my father and grandmother survived, but neither gave detail as to how. Only what to look for in it's return. -
While the guidelines don't specifically speak to religious threads, the BC community went through a period where threads promoting the virtues of a particular faith became rather prevalent.
During that period of time, most religious threads turned mean spirited. I have carefully read through this thread and there is an underlying motive here that does not fit within the category posted, seems misleading, and does not fit within the community consensus about religious threads.
Add Your Comment
This discussion has been locked.
