Hacker News Reader

Comment by adamnemecek | Hacker News Reader

This will be very controversial but lately I've been wondering why is it that Germany's atrocities are still talked about however similar atrocities committed by the Allies are ignored.

Let's take Britains rule in India, particularly the Bengal famine of 1943 that killed 2-3 million people (as it happened around the same time as concentration camps).

https://yourstory.com/2014/08/bengal-famine-genocide/

Let's not even get into Belgium rule in Congo.

Is this just a "History is Written By the Victors”? I'm not trying to vindicate Hitler, but what's up with this?

View on HN

Whataboutism aside, a big difference is EIC or Churchill did not try to depopulate Bengal or target it’s native population.

In Germany, the Jewish population was blamed for the countries problems and their extermination was a stated objective of the government’s policy. Concentration camps, gas chambers - they even extended this to other countries: Belgium, France, Poland, Russia

Famines are caused by environmental issues, a monsoon affects crops or bad policy like Mao in China or Kim in NK

> Whataboutism aside,

Nice use of a meme word. My point was that you need to look at history in context.

> a big difference is EIC or Churchill did not try to depopulate Bengal or target it’s native population.

This is disputed https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/not-his-fines...

> Famines are caused by environmental issues, a monsoon affects crops or bad policy like Mao in China or Kim in NK

Famines can be manufactured which I believe the Bengali famine was. Holodomor was planned https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

> Famines are caused by environmental issues, a monsoon affects crops or bad policy like Mao in China or Kim in NK

Maybe — but at the same time tonnes of grains — which should have been sent to provide relief to the affected — were being sent to British troops fighting all over the world.

Maybe the global reach of WWII? The examples you mention involved a few nations at most.

The Nazis established a massive, systemic and vicious program for the complete annihilation of any "enemy" of the aryan race, and by "enemy" we are talking about innocent jews, Romani and many more (although, the complete annihilation of the jewish people was it's main target). You may know this as the "Final Solution". I'm not aware of any event in modern human history that resembles the scale, the intent, the execution level and the pure evil that makes the final solution program.

This does not mean that other atrocities done by any other group of people (including the "allies") are not horrific and should not be condemned or remembered. But, the final solution should always be remembered as an extreme, unique and singular event in modern human history.

> I'm not aware of any event in modern human history that resembles the scale, the intent, the execution level and the pure evil that makes the final solution program.

Again, there's for example the Bengali famine.

> But, the final solution should always be remembered as an extreme, unique and singular event in modern human history.

If you consider singular events maybe. Other countries did it slower and over longer periods and there were multiple events. Idk if efficacy really makes a moral difference to me.

If you consider modern history maybe. However the problem with this formulation is that modern history generally starts around WW2 so in some sense, holocaust was the last event of this colonial style of thinking.

> I'm not aware of any event in modern human history that resembles the scale, the intent, the execution level and the pure evil that makes the final solution program.

Read the history of Indian subcontinent from around 1000 AD to 1947 AD. Events of the same magnitude as the holocast (or worse) happend again and again. Read about the ‘conquests’ of the likes of Mahmood Ghaznavi, Muhammad of Ghor, Taimur the Lame, Ahmad Shah Durrani, Nader Shah, Mughals and countless others. Read about the atrocities committed by them to the people they conquered and tell me that the Nazi holocast was a singular event.

> Read the history of Indian subcontinent from around 1000 AD to 1947 AD.

Can you recommend any books?

You can start with Wikipedia[1]. I’ve read more then a few books over the years — I’ll find some for you.

[1] I know Wikipedia is not the best source, but it should give you some idea of what I am talking about. Here are some links:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_campaign_of_Ahmad_Sha...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nader_Shah%27s_invasion_of_t...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmud_of_Ghazni#Ghaznavid_c...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus

I was aware of some of this but will check it out further.

Here is a book about something that happened as recently as 1971 — https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blood_Telegram:_Nixon,_K...

Looks like something I should know about. Bought the book.

And here is something that happened in the “Modern” world — circa 1971. May not be at the same scale as the Nazi Holocast, but no less horrifying.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blood_Telegram:_Nixon,_K...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archer_Blood#The_Blood_teleg...

Bengal famine is just one example. Read about the history of the Indian subcontinent from around 1000 AD to 1947 AD.

I'm well aware. I picked that one because it was literally happening at the same time as holocaust.

I think part of it is Jewish organizations have done a great job investing in historians and museums to do the work.

Someone in another thread mentioned a lack of museums about the American holocaust. That stuck in my head. Now I’m thinking about how we fund historians and museums to teach that timeline better.

What does the American holocaust refer to? EDIT: if it’s the initial European conquest and genocide, perhaps the lack of photographic / contemporary documentation makes a museum more difficult?

Yeah, that's what it refers to. I agree that the lack of contemporary documentation might be a major factor.

I'll start by answering the part of your questions about other atrocities. I believe it's as simple as: the Holocaust happened in Europe, which is where most of the developed world was looking at the time. Also, the West had managed to convince itself that it had outgrown atrocities, only to see them appear in its courtyard.

Now, as to why we are still talking about it, I believe it's a pretty good thing.

This does not mean that we should not also talk about other atrocities. Definitely, they should be taught and discussed and shown.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com