If there had been no gas chambers, that would imply that the nazis had
marched or worked the jewish population to death. Much like the americans of
european origin did with the native americans (maybe more than 6 million ?).
Also the US govt did practically the same with the americans of japanese
origin, and i wonder how many communists were victimized during the red
scare. Times were different and so were ethics...
The nuremberg laws of 1935, deprived all jews of citizenship, and forbade
intermarriage between jews and non jews. Jews were beaten up, driven from
public offices, ruined in private business, and in some cases put to death.
Much like how the USA dealt with its african american population in the
past. (not that much earlier...)
I'm almost sure there were gas chambers, as i believe the human capability
for cruelty in this war, is also proven by the use of nuclear weapons by the
allieds, the unnessecary bombing of german and japanese cities (targeting
the population), at a moment when the war was practically won already, and
by starving the german population (as well as that of countries still
occupied by the nazis) to death in the winter of 1945, by enforcing a
boycot. As well as forcing german people from their home and land in eastern
germany after the war. The german people payed for their mistakes, why
continue to rub their nose in it ?
In my opinion a sceptical and rational analasis of this period, does not
involve choosing sides. In a war the scope of this one, acts of cruelty come
from both sides. Do you think it mattered to the women who lived in the
neutral countries if they were raped by german or allied soldiers ? Are the
allied countries excused for their acts in the past by proving the nazis
commited more horrible crimes against humanity ?
Another point is that if the Nazis hadn't started a war, they would probably
also have gotten away with killing the german jews, without allied
interference, and judgement the scope of which we witnessed after the war.
>From here on i will use the word germans instead of nazis, as they got into
power by popular democratic support, and in many cases represented the will
of the german people. Yes, shocking as it may seem today, many people in
europe were anti-semites back then, (just like many people in the USA were
racists once) not just in germany, and many probably still would be, if it
wasn't for the allieds need for popular justification of their war effort.
(this maybe the only positive thing about the war)
The 'but the germans started the war' argument.
In the eyes of the Germans (and some allied countries), the first world war
had never ended, the French had already occupied german territory once since
the peace. A war or at least a conflict between the former allieds and
germany was inevitable under the conditions imposed by the treaty of
versailles.
The 'but the germans invaded neutral countries' argument.
The allied powers had made it clear to some initially neutral countries that
if they were to stay neutral, they would be invaded by allied forces. The
French had planned to invade the Netherlands if it was to stay neutral,
luckily we didn't so our french allies just initiated the scorched earth
tactic while on the run from the germans. There were to be no more neutral
countries of strategic importance, the allieds didn't want a repetition of
the first war.
In my opinion Adolf Hitler was the worst criminal humanity has known, but he
is followed directly by the leaders of the allied powers of that period. But
i try not to make my ethical judgements interfere with my capabilities to
understand history or humanity.
My own country, the Netherlands has a history of crimes which ranks right up
there with most western powers. The repression in indonesia, the slave trade
form africa to the americas, the repression of catholics, collaboration with
the nazis etc...
The Jewish people in Israel have started to feel the burden of being in the
shoes of the repressor with the intifadah, having to shoot at palestinian
kids throwing rocks and molotov coctails. But long before that they were
citizens of the western states, sharing some of responsability for the
crimes that these states comitted in our eyes today.
Whether the gas chambers existed or not, is a fact which is irellevant, when
one looks at the total sum of monstrocities committed in this war. The
western powers chose to eliminate just anti-semitism and totalitariansim,
but leave militarism and nationalism intact. The gas chambers probably did
exist, and all the horrors probably are true, but is leaving out other major
details not the same as lying ? They are words in a history book, written
next to many other words which could also be viewed as controversial.
Compare any two current history books of two different countries about a
period when they were at war, say 100 years before they were allies or
friends, and note the indescrepancies.
Be thankful that you live in a county where it is allowed to question
history. (in most european countries this specific item is not open for
discussion, and anyone denying the holocaust risks being fined or imprisoned)
Anyone sceptically questioning history in a rational way, should be allowed
to do so, without having to take ethical views of groups or individuals into
account. The choice of this particular piece of histroy, suggests however
that the sceptical questioning of history of the writer, is subject to his
own political goals. Such a shame, if there's one branch of 'science' which
could really use some truly rational thinking, it's history.
To any racists or anti-semites who read this, i know a place for you,
somewhere on one of earths future colonies in space, it's a space of about
50 square km and your neigbours will be such fine people as religious
fundamentalists from various religions, racists of other races, and various
groups of intollerant people in general. You will live there in total
isolation from the rest of humanity and your children and those who have
abandoned their intollerance are free to come back any time.
I know this is not a realistic solution, but i can dream can't i ? ;-)
J. de Lyser
drop out history student.
surreal@glo.be