3 ms·

> Why were the death camps in Poland and not Germany? Bergen-Belsen, Buchenwald, Dachau, Oranienburg, Ravensbrück, Sachsenhausen... You can argue about the se

> Why were the death camps in Poland and not Germany? Bergen-Belsen, Buchenwald, Dachau, Oranienburg, Ravensbrück, Sachsenhausen... You can argue about the semantics (i.e., death camps versus concentration camps), but massive executions happened in both, and some of these were established throughout Germany almost immediately after the regime change in 1933. That said, see the points below about Holocaust.

that_guy_iain 3y ago
> You can argue about the semantics (i.e., death camps versus concentration camps), Hundreds of thousands of deaths is semantics? That is a disgusting point of view. I wanted to ignore this entire conversation because there is no postive side to it. But quite simply it is disgusting to minimise the horrors that happened at camps like Auschwitz by comparing it with camps such as Dachau and it really highlights the fact that the opinions that oppose the opinion of the Auschwitz museum as held by people who are fundamentally deatched from what actually happening and having the correct perspective.
- jruohonen 3y ago
  Read my comment again: it was a reply to your false claim that there weren't camps in Germany.
  - that_guy_iain 3y ago
    I didn't claim there were no camps in Germany, I said there were no death camps - camps built to kill people, camps equipped for mass killing. Your response was to mention other camps and to say the difference between them is semantics when the difference between them is literally hundreds of thousands of deaths.
    - jruohonen 3y ago
      I think it is still semantics, and particularly semantics invented by the regime itself, which had a whole vocabulary for camps. But by no means am I trying to downplay the atrocities that happened in the extermination camps, including Auschwitz-Birkenau where I've also been. The examples were given to you to refute your mission about Germans not knowing what was happening; political opponents, Jews, criminals, minorities, and others were interred already in the 1930s.
      - that_guy_iain 3y ago
        You can argue the semantics with Auschwitz - http://70.auschwitz.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=85&Itemid=173&lang=en http://70.auschwitz.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=ar...
        jruohonen 3y ago
        That was a good link, but it doesn't still undermine the fact you are on a mission.
maratc 3y ago
> You can argue about the semantics (i.e., death camps versus concentration camps) Saying that the difference between death camps versus concentration camps is "semantics" is extremely problematic point of view. This is like arguing that the difference between an electric car and an electric chair is "semantics", since both "use electricity". It completely misses the intent. The Khmer Rouge, for example, murdered about two million of their own population, from 1975 to 1979, with 60% of them by direct execution, over a vast territory — places known today as "killing fields" (mass graves which today are a morbid place of remembrance). Compare that to Treblinka, where the Nazis managed to murder about one million, in about one year, and all that in an area of two football fields — while leaving almost no traces. So, the Nazis were about 4 times more "effective" with regards to rate, thousands of times more "effective" with regards to area, and indefinitely more "effective" with regards to not leaving traces. This is because Treblinka was built by using the Nazi industrial complex, as a modern factory, but instead of producing as much stuff as possible in the most effective way, they have planned and built it to murder (and burn) as many people as possible in the most effective way. The intent is what differentiates the concentration camps (basically, a prison, and a very terrible one!) and the extermination camp (basically, industrial complex for killing people).

that_guy_iain 3y ago

> You can argue about the semantics (i.e., death camps versus concentration camps), Hundreds of thousands of deaths is semantics? That is a disgusting point of view. I wanted to ignore this entire conversation because there is no postive side to it. But quite simply it is disgusting to minimise the horrors that happened at camps like Auschwitz by comparing it with camps such as Dachau and it really highlights the fact that the opinions that oppose the opinion of the Auschwitz museum as held by people who are fundamentally deatched from what actually happening and having the correct perspective.

jruohonen 3y ago
Read my comment again: it was a reply to your false claim that there weren't camps in Germany.
- that_guy_iain 3y ago
  I didn't claim there were no camps in Germany, I said there were no death camps - camps built to kill people, camps equipped for mass killing. Your response was to mention other camps and to say the difference between them is semantics when the difference between them is literally hundreds of thousands of deaths.
  - jruohonen 3y ago
    I think it is still semantics, and particularly semantics invented by the regime itself, which had a whole vocabulary for camps. But by no means am I trying to downplay the atrocities that happened in the extermination camps, including Auschwitz-Birkenau where I've also been. The examples were given to you to refute your mission about Germans not knowing what was happening; political opponents, Jews, criminals, minorities, and others were interred already in the 1930s.
    - that_guy_iain 3y ago
      You can argue the semantics with Auschwitz - http://70.auschwitz.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=85&Itemid=173&lang=en http://70.auschwitz.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=ar...
      - jruohonen 3y ago
        That was a good link, but it doesn't still undermine the fact you are on a mission.

maratc 3y ago

> You can argue about the semantics (i.e., death camps versus concentration camps) Saying that the difference between death camps versus concentration camps is "semantics" is extremely problematic point of view. This is like arguing that the difference between an electric car and an electric chair is "semantics", since both "use electricity". It completely misses the intent. The Khmer Rouge, for example, murdered about two million of their own population, from 1975 to 1979, with 60% of them by direct execution, over a vast territory — places known today as "killing fields" (mass graves which today are a morbid place of remembrance). Compare that to Treblinka, where the Nazis managed to murder about one million, in about one year, and all that in an area of two football fields — while leaving almost no traces. So, the Nazis were about 4 times more "effective" with regards to rate, thousands of times more "effective" with regards to area, and indefinitely more "effective" with regards to not leaving traces. This is because Treblinka was built by using the Nazi industrial complex, as a modern factory, but instead of producing as much stuff as possible in the most effective way, they have planned and built it to murder (and burn) as many people as possible in the most effective way. The intent is what differentiates the concentration camps (basically, a prison, and a very terrible one!) and the extermination camp (basically, industrial complex for killing people).