3 ms·
To be fair, the article does make a distinction, saying the other parts weren't part of the holocaust, necessitating a different name for everything else. http
by 6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago
To be fair, the article does make a distinction, saying the other parts weren't part of the holocaust, necessitating a different name for everything else.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust#Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust#Definition
It doesn't deny that other stuff happens, it just defines the holocaust as not including them.
Personally, I never knew the scale of the non-holocaust parts of the holocaust era until reading this today, and I expect it's because of the narrow scope of the term's definition. So I'm sympathetic to konjin's view even though it's just a question of definitions instead of a question of facts.
- selimthegrim 6y agoRoma have their own term for it IIRC
- konjin 6y agoThis is what Nazi apologia looks like in 2021. "We need to use the cast system of the Nazis to classify their genocides. A Jew could never be a citizen of any nation, just like the Nazis said." If you died in a camp you died in a camp. The only reason why this is even an issue today is that it admitting that Slavs were a target in the holocaust would give legitimacy to Poland, Russia and Belarus being western-skeptic, given that they experienced literal genocide within living memory. And that in Europe the systemic racism against Roma is still acceptable and mainstream.