How would you define the term "Holocaust" ?

[kawaika]

I'm curious to know how you would define the term "Holocaust." Would you say that only Jews were victims of the Holocaust or would include others, such as homosexuals, Gypsies (Roma and Sinti), Slavs, and Blacks?

Was just reading some articles on JSTOR and it seems as though there is a battle over the definition of this term.

Here is one article you can look at if you're interested:

Yehuda Bauer and Sybil Milton. “Correspondence: Gypsies and the Holocaust.” The History Teacher, Vol. 25, No. 5. (August, 1992), pp. 513-521.

I think Milton owned Bauer, and I have to include others (mentioned above) as victims of the Holocaust.

[The Curtmudgeon]

I'm curious to know how you would define the term "Holocaust." Would you say that only Jews were victims of the Holocaust or would include others, such as homosexuals, Gypsies (Roma and Sinti), Slavs, and Blacks?

I'm going to modify your question, but with no sarcastic intent at all. Then I'll explain what I mean.

I'm curious to know how you would define the term "American." Would you say that only citizens of the USA are Americans or would include others, such as Canadians, Mexicans and Venezuelans?

To me, "Holocaust" is a multi-function term just like American. In some contexts, usually obvious, "American" means "citizen of the United States of America"; in some contexts, usually obvious, "Holocaust" applies to the systematic slaughter of European Jewry by the Nazis. But in other contexts, "American" can and does mean "citizen of any country in North, Central or South America"; and in other contexts, "Holocaust" can and does apply to the systematic slaughter of many cultures or groups due solely to their group identity by the Nazis. (Of course, I'm obviously ignoring other definitions of little-h "holocaust" as a general term.)

I don't see the need for Holocaust to be restrictively defined as either "just Jews" or "all Nazi-persecuted groups", only for a need to be clear in which context we are using it when we use it. Absent any clues to the contrary, I usually assume the Jews-only use, just like I usually assume the USA-only use of "American" unless there are contextual clues otherwise. But if someone were to say, "My grandfather was a Gypsy who died in the Holocaust" I understand what they mean and do not think that they need correction.

The (just one man's opinion, of course) Curtmudgeon

[Justin Thyme]

I think part of it just just semantics.

The Holocaust itself is usually referring to the Nazi extermination plans, which while the majority of the victims were Jews, also included non-Jewish Poles, Roma, disabled, as well as other groups.

As is often mentioned, the Jews were far from the only victims. But numerically, they made up the vast majority. I have recently done some looking into the numbers. Give or take, 6 million Jews were killed. In 2004, there were only about 14 million Jews world wide. Given typical population growth, I'm guessing that 6 million probably equated to about 85-90% of the Jews in the German occupied territories of WWII, and maybe 60-70% of the world wide population. Although I've seen various reports of the number of Jews killed, I have not been able to explicitly get estimated world populations numbers for 1940 through up to about 1955. So those percentages are just guestimates from what I could learn.

Not sure, percentage wise, how badly hit other victims were.

[Storico]

Kawaika -- since you haven't been here in over a month I'm not sure if you'll see this or not, but what the others said about the context of the word 'Holocaust' are excellent points. What I would like to add, though, is this:

I don't think it's just semantics. It seems to be convenient to apply the word to Jewish people unless some other reference is specifically made, true, but it's also a lot harder to talk about percentages and stats in reference to anyone else touched by the Holocaust. As historians, we look back over it "after the fact" and say "about 6 million Jews were killed" (which I find ironic, seeing as Hitler's Mein Kampf revealed enough of his planning for it to have been prevented, had anyone in an allied country read it and took it seriously). But we can't address people like the Slavs, or the homosexuals, or the blacks, or the gypies, because in addition to being what they were they also went by various other roles and definitions. A person identifying as 'Slav' might also identify with a certain religion, or a socio-economic status, or something like that. A person identifying as homosexual certainly would never have filled out a national census which asked their sexual orientation before and after the war.

I wish there were better ways to define WHO the Holocaust touched, and HOW, and what happened to them and their families afterwards.. but the jury's still out on a lot of that. It might be for a long, long time, unless we find documents the Nazi party kept under wraps. A lot of their material was intentionally burned or destroyed following the war, and more than one of their records offices was bombed. It's a frustrating thing for people who just want to look at the records -- sometimes, they exist no longer. (And the German army was known for keeping meticulous records. After the war, Allied officers uncovered the blueprints for some of the gas-chambers. With the designers' names still written on the page.)

[Tladatsi]

The word from the LXX and is "holokauston", an blood sacrifice offered to God which is completely burnt. It is a translation of the Hebrew word "shoah". Most sacrifices were not completely consumed by the flames but rather eaten as a meal and shared with priests. The shoah was offered completely to God and not eaten.

After WW II this term was applied to the genocide of the Jews by the Nazi's. It did not apply to the Gypsies, Slavs, Homosexuals and others in the death camps. Sometimes now it is applied more broadly to other episodes of genocide and mass murder.

I personally do not use the term. First, I think it is really feel uncomfortable using the term of sacrifice (shoah) to genocide, as if it were some offering to God. Second, I think it mystifies Nazi genocide in a way that in counter-productive. The discussion become about words with capital letters, Good vs. Evil, etc. (Sorry, a bit of editorializing there).


I'm curious to know how you would define the term "Holocaust." Would you say that only Jews were victims of the Holocaust or would include others, such as homosexuals, Gypsies (Roma and Sinti), Slavs, and Blacks?

Was just reading some articles on JSTOR and it seems as though there is a battle over the definition of this term.

Here is one article you can look at if you're interested:

Yehuda Bauer and Sybil Milton. “Correspondence: Gypsies and the Holocaust.” The History Teacher, Vol. 25, No. 5. (August, 1992), pp. 513-521.

I think Milton owned Bauer, and I have to include others (mentioned above) as victims of the Holocaust.

[Sevivon1913]

The word from the LXX and is "holokauston", an blood sacrifice offered to God which is completely burnt. It is a translation of the Hebrew word "shoah". Most sacrifices were not completely consumed by the flames but rather eaten as a meal and shared with priests. The shoah was offered completely to God and not eaten.

After WW II this term was applied to the genocide of the Jews by the Nazi's. It did not apply to the Gypsies, Slavs, Homosexuals and others in the death camps. Sometimes now it is applied more broadly to other episodes of genocide and mass murder.

I personally do not use the term. First, I think it is really feel uncomfortable using the term of sacrifice (shoah) to genocide, as if it were some offering to God. Second, I think it mystifies Nazi genocide in a way that in counter-productive. The discussion become about words with capital letters, Good vs. Evil, etc. (Sorry, a bit of editorializing there).
The Shoah was a sin offering to God.

"But he was wounded through our transgressions, he was bruised through our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and [we believed that] with his stripes we were healed." - Isaiah 53:5

[Tladatsi]

The Shoah was a sin offering to God.

"But he was wounded through our transgressions, he was bruised through our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and [we believed that] with his stripes we were healed." - Isaiah 53:5

Yes, exactly my point. Did six million Jews (untold numbers of goyim) die as a sacrifice for someone else's sins? Where they offered up life a heifer or sheep to be slaughtered on an alter? It is exactly the wrong image.

[Jagg]

Hi,

in my simple word and my understanding, holocaust is genocide.
genocide because it is systematic killing of people, i think they call it holocaust because its like a holified genocide.
i hope you get what i mean.

[jesusfreak]

Yea it is interesting on how most people when they heir about the Holocaust they think of the mass killing of the Jewish people. But it is just like the first post. Hitler planed on killing just about everyone. Black, Christian, Jewish.... and the list goes on and on and on. Hitler mainly planed on killing everyone that didn't have Blond hair and Blue eyes and their head wasn't special dementions and they didn't belive in the supirior arian race that Hitler belived in, also I just laugh at all the people that are pro nazi's and wear the swasticas and all that crap and I just think to myself. If they were true pro nazi's and hitler would have made it to todays times just about everyone pro nazi would be dead because they didn't meet what hitler thought of the superior race

[Tladatsi]

Hitler originally planned on killing no one. The battle cry of German Jew haters was Juden Raus - Jews get out. Hitler simply wanted to expel all Jews, Gypsies, etc. He jailed his "Aryan" opponents (trade unionists, socialists, communists, etc.). This he did, Nazi persecution forced hundreds of thousands of Jews out of Germany. Later as they conquered eastern Europe, many non-German Jews were likewise oppressed and killed but not as part of any systematic effort. The "Final Solution" was only proposed at the Wannsee Conference when it became apparent that Germany was going to rule lands with far too many Jews to be dealt with in this piece-meal approach. In fact, Adolf Eichmann had proposed (before the Wannsee Conference) to deport all European Jews to Madagascar using the Royal Navy once the UK surrendered. Genocide was not the first or even second plan but a much later thought. In any event, people were not targeted based on physical appearance (Herr Schicklgruber was short and had dark and eyes) but on political gain.

Yea it is interesting on how most people when they heir about the Holocaust they think of the mass killing of the Jewish people. But it is just like the first post. Hitler planed on killing just about everyone. Black, Christian, Jewish.... and the list goes on and on and on. Hitler mainly planed on killing everyone that didn't have Blond hair and Blue eyes and their head wasn't special dementions and they didn't belive in the supirior arian race that Hitler belived in, also I just laugh at all the people that are pro nazi's and wear the swasticas and all that crap and I just think to myself. If they were true pro nazi's and hitler would have made it to todays times just about everyone pro nazi would be dead because they didn't meet what hitler thought of the superior race

[jesusfreak]

Hitler originally planned on killing no one. The battle cry of German Jew haters was Juden Raus - Jews get out. Hitler simply wanted to expel all Jews, Gypsies, etc. He jailed his "Aryan" opponents (trade unionists, socialists, communists, etc.). This he did, Nazi persecution forced hundreds of thousands of Jews out of Germany. Later as they conquered eastern Europe, many non-German Jews were likewise oppressed and killed but not as part of any systematic effort. The "Final Solution" was only proposed at the Wannsee Conference when it became apparent that Germany was going to rule lands with far too many Jews to be dealt with in this piece-meal approach. In fact, Adolf Eichmann had proposed (before the Wannsee Conference) to deport all European Jews to Madagascar using the Royal Navy once the UK surrendered. Genocide was not the first or even second plan but a much later thought. In any event, people were not targeted based on physical appearance (Herr Schicklgruber was short and had dark and eyes) but on political gain.

That is very true I forgot all about that. It was Joseph Goebbels. Hitlers minister of propaganda that came up with the final salution and was the one that came up with the idea of death camps. Thanks for correcting me. He was the true master mind of it all.

[hmcsnipe]

well, believe it or not, it's Pope Pius XII who financed and encouraged Hitler's Third Reich and Holocaust stuff... The Vatican had it's long history of Jew-hatred since the Crusades.. You can read "The Secret History of the Jesuits" by Edmond Paris & "The Vatican Holocaust" by Avro Manhattan... everything's been planned centuries ago.. Hitler himself is a Jew-blooded Austrian, a devout servant to the Pope...

[Alucard]

well, believe it or not, it's Pope Pius XII who financed and encouraged Hitler's Third Reich and Holocaust stuff... The Vatican had it's long history of Jew-hatred since the Crusades.. You can read "The Secret History of the Jesuits" by Edmond Paris & "The Vatican Holocaust" by Avro Manhattan... everything's been planned centuries ago.. Hitler himself is a Jew-blooded Austrian, a devout servant to the Pope...

tagging this for later lulz

[KingsGambit]

But... but... it has to be true, because I saw it somewhere in a Jack Chick tract!

[Rushing Jaws]

I'm curious to know how you would define the term "Holocaust." Would you say that only Jews were victims of the Holocaust or would include others, such as homosexuals, Gypsies (Roma and Sinti), Slavs, and Blacks?

Was just reading some articles on JSTOR and it seems as though there is a battle over the definition of this term.

Here is one article you can look at if you're interested:

Yehuda Bauer and Sybil Milton. “Correspondence: Gypsies and the Holocaust.” The History Teacher, Vol. 25, No. 5. (August, 1992), pp. 513-521.

I think Milton owned Bauer, and I have to include others (mentioned above) as victims of the Holocaust.## I prefer to call it the Shoah - "holocaust" already means "burnt offering", so it seems a shame to use a word that has a recognised sense as a term used in discussions of sacrifice.

Question: what are the historical facts ? If only Jews suffered - then reserve the name of the genocide for them.

As a non-Jew, one is doubtless overlooking a lot; but, that said, I don't see how any single group can as it were lay claim to an event as though it owned it, when others suffered as well. The vast majority were Jews - but is that a reason to ignore the thousands who were not ? How can a shared experience of suffering, humiliation, torture & death suffered by members of diverse groups be "privatised" by any of them ?

This page defines the word Shoah, & does mention only Jews:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Shoah (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Shoah)