Rosenbaum Chapter 17

This chapter is almost like a who's who when it comes to genocides. The atrocities that occurred during the Holocaust are not indigenous to just that event. The main point I took out of this chapter and furthermore, the book, was that there are similarities in all of these events. There are also differences in these events. The argument from many saying that the Holocaust is put on a pedestal is worth a listen. However, in everyone of the instances we studied, IN MY OPINION, as insignificant as it is... none of these other genocides went to the extreme to end a complete race of people like the Holocaust. All are morbid, all deserve to treated as real tragedies.

My question:

I was left wondering... are there, and if so how many, atrocities we don't know about that are similar to the Holocaust?

Rosenbaum Chapter 16

Wulf Kansteiner breaks down the history of the Holocaust in Chapter 16. After the end of World War II, it talks about the different phases of the Holocaust. the first group of scholars had difficulty staying separated from Third Reich thought and persuasion, meaning that they stayed away from mentioning the "Final Solution" in their works. The next wave of scholars looked the definition of Nazism, and what the objective was. It was the third wave that looked into the role of Hitler, and in my opinion, that is thew first group to put the event in its proper place.  the final group showed a more traditional history chain of the Holocaust.

My question:

What are the reasons to study such an act, other than to remember who caused it, and who they affected during this or any similar event?

Rosenbaum Chapter 10

The chapter show the difference in how certain events during the second World War were carried out. The story shows that two doctors, one German and one Japanese, were involved with carrying out orders during the war. We learn of Dr. Yuasa of Japan sitting in a Chinese prison. He is given a letter written from a parent. The letter is asking that the doctor get the maximum sentence for the atrocities caused to her. the doctor felt he had repented for all his sins, but after reading the letter, he wanted to trade places with the boy.

The story then shifts to a German Doctor carrying out his assignments at Auschwitz. Renee Firestone had a sister there, and wanted to confront the man responsible for her death. He was someone that was vague in his responses, and robotic in his emotion. He gives the feeling that the job had to be done, and showed no remorse for his actions.

My question:

How can two people with such similar duties, have such a conflicting feeling on their rolls so many years later?

Rosenbaum Chapter 6

The chapter was focused on the comparison of the Atlantic Slave Trade against The Holocaust. The comparisons that I thought of right away were the Middle Passage and the loading of the train cars in Europe. One of the other similarities was when a slave was branded with a hot iron, showing ownership, similar to the tattooing of the Jews in Europe... both taking identity from a person, and turning them into property.  The main differences that I saw was that the slaves were able to develop a culture, have families, and were an important part of society.  Though captive, I can almost see that there was definitely saw a purpose to keeping them alive for the South. They were a vital part of the economy.  It was the goal of the Germans to eliminate every Jew on the map without regard. 


My Question:

Can you be a part of something so long, that if an opportunity arises to be "free", would some say no?

Rosenbaum Intro, 4, 7, 14

Intro: Rosenbaum introduces his book by explaining to the reader that there has been a lot of new research, studies, and comparisons made using the Holocaust. He goes on to say that the word genocide is really synonymous with the Holocaust and most people think of it as the most important "genocide." An interesting approach to a subject that has stayed the same for the most part in the last fifty or so years.

4: Steven Katz bounces around between a few different large scale killings to try and give the reader some type of context, I believe. He talks about something that I have thought as well and that is that the Holocaust isn't unique because of the numbers of killings. The uniqueness comes from the how the killings were thought out and performed.


7: In this chapter Robert Melson writes about something I was waiting to read about. I knew there had to be at least a few genocides long before the holocaust that I had never heard about and that's what I learned after reading this chapter. He writes about an Armenian genocide that was trying to establish the same type of hegemony race that was superior to all the rest. This essay was one of my favorites to read because it just shows that even though when we think genocide we probably all say Holocaust or Rwanda, but there are so many more that I'm sure we've never heard or read about for various reasons. This is why, to me, the Holocaust is not unique in the sense of a genocide. I believe its only uniques lies in the way the killings were done, Auschwitz/Dachau, etc.


14: In the last chapter of this weeks reading we get to read more about the comparisons between the Holocaust and Rwanda. If there were a list as to the worst genocides in history I would put these two number one and two. The problem between comparing these two genocides lies in the outcome and not so much what led to each event. This seems to be the problem in most comparisons between the Holocaust and other mass killings, its really difficult to compare events like these because of the huge differences between time, reasons, religious and cultural implications, all of that. To me, the only way to compare things like these genocides is only by the numbers as compared to the total population. Other than that it is hard to draw parallels besides maybe race.

Chapter 17 Uniqueness as Denial: The Politics as Genocide Scholarship

This chapter deals with the intentional denial of the Jewish Holocaust and the background of those that deny it. While denial of the Holocaust isn't widespread it is a serious enough issue for many countries to ban it. In Germany, the German law states that "denial of the Holocaust" is punishable by up to five years in jail. denial of the holocaust is a result of antisemitism, but it goes further than this.

Chapter 16 The Rise and Fall of Metaphor: German Historians and the Uniqueness of the Holocaust

This chapter discusses the historiography of the Holocaust, it explains how it consists of 4 different periods in its study and writing. It's not until the 1980's that Holocaust studies really expanded into the field of economic studies it is today. The author of this article lists the four sections as post-war silence, historical sobriety,  flight into theory, and flight into exceptionality.

Chapter 10 The Holocaust and the Japanese Atrocities

This chapter introduces the similarities and differences of the Holocaust and the Japanese atrocities by retelling the stories of two doctors who had failed to uphold their Hippocratic oaths. In a way these two men had more in common than one would normally think. They had different reactions to the realization of what they had done. The chapter also explains the abundance of sources on the Holocaust and the comparative lack of sources on the Japanese atrocities. While the German war crimes were known internationally, the Japanese were never prosecuted in the same way and this prevented Japanese society from publicly recognizing what they had done. Iris Chang, the author of the Rape of Nanking discusses how many Japanese were quick to find "errors" with her work and sought to discredit her and her categorization of what happened in China as a genocide.

Chapter 17

In this chapter we see a comparison between other genocide and the holocaust. In doing so I began to notice how touchy this essay actually was. On one side you have Katz whom is making it seem that the holocaust is incomparable to any other event in the world. On the other side you have Stannard whom makes valid points based on statistics and facts to argue that it is a comparable event. I found this very very interesting in the out look of these historians. It makes one wonder where to draw the line between offending other people.

Chapter 16

In this chapter we see a historical out look on the holocaust in a few different phases. the first being a look at the "final solution" which was strictly for the court system. The second was a look at the nazis as a whole and their thoughts it questioned what they actually were. The third focused mainly on Hitler and his goals . The last group focused again on the "Final solution" but from an outside point of view. This shows that the actual history has evolved and certain situations and points of view have come forward on moral topics and politics.

Rosenbaum Chapter 17

Antisemitism still exists today in Germany and in other parts of the world.  In the past and still today people try to suggest the number of deaths related to the Holocaust have been greatly exaggerated and Hitler was not personally responsible for Holocaust.  However, the U.S. government refused to acknowledge the mass slaughter of the Native American population as a genocide.  The U.S. Senate once threatened to cut off funding to the Smithsonian for even suggesting it was a genocide.  The American Press denied it also.  Similarly, It is illegal to talk about the genocide of Armenians in Turkey today.  Such denial is not limited to these genocides alone.  To think such hateful sentiment is state sponsored is sickening.

What atrocities have been intentionally concealed by governments?

Why were they concealed and why did people tolerate these lies?

Rosenbaum Chapter 16

German historiography and German historians views about the Holocaust have evolved since 1945.  In the aftermath of WWII and the Holocaust, German historians needed to take a step back to obtain an objective and "honest" viewpoint of what happened, how it happened, and why did it happen?  From the end of WWII to 1957 very little was produced by German historians in regards to the "Final solution."  However, the next decade German historians produced several works devoted to and addressing the Holocaust.  The 1970's and 1980's saw very little in regards to the Holocaust by German historians.  Recently,  the study of Holocaust has once again become a hot topic of study.

What was behind these trends of study?

Are there political and ideological reasons behind the study of the Holocaust?

Chapter 10

In this essay we see a comparison of two doctors during the rape of nanking and the holocaust the doctors being Dr. Yuassa of Japan and Dr. Munch of Germany. In both cases these doctors performed experiments against the people whom their armies were fighting against, China and the Jews. Now the difference between the two doctors was that Munch had no emotion or sorrow for the part that he had taken at the death camp the he conducted his work at. Yuassa on the other hand felt great sorrow and remorse for his actions that he took against the people he "worked" on.  In this we see a different type of emotion between two events and people whom played a major role in them.

Rosenbaum Chapter 10

During WWII the Japanese used Chinese people as human guinea pigs to test biological weapons. These tests were performed by scientist such as Dr. Yuasa who served under General Shiro Ishii.  Similarly, the Nazis performed such tests on Jews in concentration camps.  These tests were performed by people like Dr. Munch who was stationed at Auschwitz.  The Rape of Nanking by the Japanese Army killed between 260,000 to over 300,000 Chinese according to Iris Chang.  The Holocaust killed over 6 million people.  Both atrocities were both racial, however, the Holocaust is unique because of the amount of casualties.

Did the Japanese want to annihilate the Chinese?

Were the tests performed by the Japanese and Nazis similar in purpose?

Rosenbaum Chapter 6

Chapter 6 gives a comparative analysis between the Atlantic Slave Trade and the Holocaust.  Some historians argue that because of the mass degradation, dispersion, and death there are parallels between them.  Therefore, Historians compare the victimization of the two peoples.  Drescher refers to the Atlantic Slave system.  This system was based on established slave systems in the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean.  Race was a major factor in the Atlantic Slave Trade and the Holocaust.  Both catastrophes were similar as far as human suffering, however, vastly different.

In what ways were they similar?


What made them so different?

Chapter 6

In this chapter Drecher's essay talks about the Atlantic slave trade in comparison to the Holocaust itself. In doing so speaking about these events I noticed that the difference between the two events were the reasoning behind them and the specific time frames that each event took. When looking at the holocaust  I noticed that in comparison to the slave trade the holocaust was quick and main goal was to eliminate the jewish population. on the other hand when looking at the Atlantic slave trade, this event was taken over a long period of time and focussed on using the slaves to work not kill them, difference being the value of life and death. In this we then begin to think of what constitutes a actual "genocide".

Rosenbaum Chapters

6: Chapter six has to do with a comparative look at the Holocaust and the Slave Trade, both huge atrocities. The biggest difference between the two events were that the Slave Trade lasted for years and years and was located all over the world. On the contrary, the Holocaust was held to a few years and only one place (when I say few years I don't do so insensitively). And, like Brooke mentioned, the desired outcome was completely different. During the Holocaust the hope was to kill as many Jews as possible. Whereas the Slave Trade was solely based upon keeping as many of these people alive as possible, a very interesting idea.

10: "The Holocaust and Japanese Atrocities" essay talks about two doctors during WWII and what they did. Both doctors had their hands in killings during the war and both had very different reactions to the crimes they committed. Dr. Munch felt no remorse to what he did during the Holocaust whereas Dr. Yuasa showed a lot of remorse and regret.

16: The next essay, "The Rise and Fall of Metaphor: German Historians and the Uniqueness of the Holocaust," gives us a historiography. There were many different groups that studied the Holocaust and they all did so for different reasons. The first group conducted research on the Holocaust very soon after it had ended and did so for the legal system and the courts. Next group of scholars looked closely at Nazi's themselves and their beliefs. Third group of scholars looked more into Hitler and the final group began to write more narrative history. To me, this seems like a good way to bring the holocaust to a wider audience and helps the subject to be introduced to a younger group of kids through stories.

17: The final essay we had to read has to with the victims themselves. Stannard argues that many scholars have actually de-victimized the other groups that were involved in the Holocaust by making it seem like it was only the Jewish people being killed. Jews make up the largest group of those to die and if you asked most kids or adults who suffered most from the Holocaust they will all say the Jews but there were so many other groups of people that were affected. 

Is the Holocaust Unique? Chapter 17

In chapter 17, David Stannard explains genocide in terms of politics and how scholars study and view different genocides. Stannard points out that several politicians in the U.S. boycotted the Smithsonian museum after they wanted to do an exhibition on the removal of the Native Americans. What stuck out for me was Christopher Hitchens who advocated for the removal and killing of the Native Americans and used social Darwinism to explain the African slave trade. Stannard also talks about Holocaust scholars and how many of them interpret the Holocaust and how they somewhat categorized it. He mentions Deborah Lipstadt and her views on Holocaust deniers. Her strong views on Holocaust deniers Stannard writes is her way and her way only. He writes about the debates between historians about genocides of the Armenians, Native Americans, and Gypsies and how Holocaust scholars view these genocides in comparison with the Jewish Holocaust. Stannard points out the number of Jews who died of disease during the Holocaust and he also points out the death of the Native people who also died from diseases. He says that many scholars points out that these disease deaths should not be called "genocidal". These scholars argue about if Jews and Native Americans were not exposed to these horrible conditions, they would not have died. At the end, Stannard makes the point that the Holocaust was unique as was the Armenian, Bosnian, and Cambodian genocide. Although, he did say that his main argument on why the Holocaust was unique was that the Nazis set out to destroy every Jew that they could find. Genocides are horrible and sometimes to compare them might seem vulgar and not right. But we have to look at past events and see the similarities and differences and ultimately pray that genocides come to an end.

Do Holocaust scholars have the right to dismiss other genocides?

Should historians even compare genocides to each other?

Rosenbaum Chapter 17

In David E. Stannard's essay entitled, "Uniqueness of Denial: The Politics of Genocide Scholarship," Stannard argues that scholars such as Steven Katz ad Yehuda Bauer, have placed a uniqueness on the Holocaust, particularly that of Jewish uniqueness, and in effect have de-victimized other groups involved in genocide. Stannard uses four examples in which scholars try to base the uniqueness argument: death statistics, cause of death, dehumanization, and intent. Scholars have argued that each of these examples is unique to the Jewish Holocaust when in fact, as Stannard points out, each one of the examples or proof of uniqueness was quite similar to other genocides, particularly the removal of Native Americans. With this proof at hand, Stannard asserts that scholars such as Katz and Bauer, in their denial of other genocides, are actually racist.

Side Note: I particularly liked this essay because you could really see the authors emotions in this piece of work. You could tell that when he wrote this he was quite pissed about how scholars have been de-vitimizing other groups that have undergone similar circumstances.

Rosenbaum Chapter 16

In Wulf Kansteiner's essay, "The Rise and Fall of Metaphor: German Historians and the Uniqueness of the Holocaust," Kasteiner presents the reader with a historiography of German scholarship about the Holocaust. Beginning with the end of WWII, there are four phases of German Holocaust scholarship. The first group of scholars in the 1950's -1960's did their research not for public consumption, but for the courts information on the "development of the Final Solution." (p. 276) The second group in the 1970's, looked at the theories of Nazism and heavily debated Nazism as a type of facism. The third group, which arrived in the later 1980's, began to look deeper into the role that Hitler played, Nazi policies, and the moral responsibility of the Final Solution. The final group which appeared in the later 1980's as well and continued through the 1990's, typically wrote in the narrative form about "regional studies of the origins of the Final Solution." (p. 284)

Rosenbaum Chapter 10

In Kinue Tokudome's essay entitled, "The Holocaust and Japanese Atrocities," Tokudome presents the reader with the reactions of two doctors that both were involved in human experimentation during World War II. Dr. Yuasa, a Japanese doctor, was working for the Japanese Imperial Army in China and was involved in the deaths of humans during the Rape of Nanking. As he watches a documentary about a German doctor, Dr. Munch, who had been accused of the same crimes as he, there is a great contrast in the emotion that each felt for what they had done. Dr. Munch showed absolutely no remorse when confronted about his actions in Auschwitz, while Dr Yuasa had shown deep remorse for his. This essays shows not only the individual experience and emotions behind two extremely horrific events, but it also shows the mentality of the individuals involved in them.

Rosenbaum Chapter 6

In Seymour Drescher's essay entitled, "The Atlantic Slave Trade and the Holocaust: A Comparative Analysis," Drescher compares and contrasts two of the largest events in history, Atlantic slave trade and the Holocaust to show that each event was unique. One example of how the two events differed was the motives and time frame behind each of the events. The Atlantic slave trade was "long-term and incremental,"(p.105), involved many nations, and was based on economic and political motives in which the slaves were only valuable if alive. The Holocaust occurred over a short period of years, only occurred on one continent, and though the motives were also politically based, Jews were only valuable if dead.
Drescher also touches on the transportation of both groups, again with the transporting of slaves being over a longer period of time than the transport of the Jews, however both inhumane. Once transport was complete, Drescher believes that the slaves were in a much better situation than that of the Jews. Both groups would be forced into labor.
However, unlike the Holocaust, the Atlantic slave trade was not racially motivated. According to Drescher, the only people that were not allowed to be enslaved were of European descent. The Holocaust, was racially based and including the capture, forced labor, and death of those of Jewish descent.

Chapter 6 The Atlantic Slave Trade and the Holocaust

Chapter 6, titled, "The Atlantic Slave Trade and the Holocaust: A Comparative Analysis" by Seymour Drescher explores the similarities and differences between the slave trade going on from the 1500's through 1800's and the Holocaust in Europe. His first difference which he points out is the difference in timeframe of these two periods. Next he looks at the economic value that accompanied both of the systems of slavery and the Holocaust and the economic gain that was present from the enslavement of Africans.While the economic incentive was the principle draw for peoples involvement in the slave trade, there was no financial gain from the killing of Jews in the Holocaust. The Holocaust was confined to 4 years. Most obviously, the point of transportation came down to value, the Jews being transported were worthless to the Germans, so the transportation of these people was not given priority; with the slaves however, the safe transport was essential.

Is the Holocaust Unique? Chapter 16

Wulf Kansteiner in chapter 16 explains German historians studies of the Holocaust since the end of the war. Kansteiner writes about the four phases of Holocaust studies in Germany and the first phase made little or no mention of the "Final Solution". He also mentions the problems that many historians had, both young and old, trying to detach themselves from the Third Reich. What is interesting to read about is the German historians doing research to redeem themselves and essentially their country in their research. After much silence in the 1950's and early 1960's, studies took shape after the Eichmann and  Auschwitz trials of the 60's. German historians wanted to study the Holocaust give their country their integrity back. It was really the young students who broke away from the Nazi past. It was after the student movement when historians began to reconsider the Third Reich and their place in history. For me and it is mention in the chapter, to really understand the Holocaust, you have to look at the death squads, the euthanasia program to the everyday lives of the German people. Kansteiner mentions the historian debate that gripped the historical sphere back in the 1980's. Since then and historians have been granted access to archives, historians can dive deeper into Holocaust studies and come to grip with the past.

Is it good for history and historians to have a "younger" more modern way to look at the past or take the old, conventional way?

Can historians have an impact with their studies and how they can help a nation recover or understand the past wrongs they committed?  

Is the Holocaust Unique chapter 10

Kinue Tokudome in chapter 10 looks at Japanese atrocities during World War Two and the Holocaust. Tokudome starts off with Iris Chang's book The Rape of Nanking and the controversy that followed. Many historians disagreed with Chang's opinion that the episode in Nanking was a genocide and many scholars argued that the Japanese did not want to exterminate the Chinese. I found it interesting when Iris Chang gave speeches about Nanking at the Holocaust Museum, she mentions that not one Jewish and non-Jewish people. I wonder if Jewish people feel a certain connection with the Chinese? It should be noted that after the death of Emperor Hirohito, Japanese historians started to write about Japanese war crimes. It should be also be noted that before Hirohito's death, not much was written in both English and Japanese about war crimes committed by the Japanese. The chapter includes a section on Unit 731, Japanese biological warfare department. At the end, Tokudome asks if historians should compare the Japanese war crimes and the Holocaust. But he does mention Unit 731 experimented on twelve time the amount tested by Nazi doctors. I also read somewhere else that the former head of Unit 731 was given asylum in the U.S. after the war.

Should Unit 731 and Nazi experiments be compared?

The Japanese have long debated the Rape of Nanking. Should they finally admit their fault and should it be compared to Turkish denial of the Armenian Genocide?

Is the Holocaust Unique Chapter 6

Seymour Drescher in chapter 6 writes about the European slave trade and the Holocaust. He writes that many scholars write about the slave trade and the Holocaust together because of the total destruction and denigration that those two races went through. Seymour points out some differences between the two. In studying American slavery, scholars look at centuries of enslaved people while Holocaust scholars look at years. Seymour mentions what ties the two together is the initial enslavement of the Africans and the Jews. Seymour also writes about the transit that the enslaved Africans and Jews took on their way to their fate and how similar each were. I think one of the main differences between the two and what Seymour points out in the chapter is really how and when they died. Most of the slaves that perished died within weeks of being enslaved. For the Jews, they were killed right on the spot. I found the section on racism interesting because at first, race played a little role in the enslavement of Africans while as we know race played a huge role in Nazi extermination. For me, slavery and the Holocaust should be considered separately. Although both devasting and sad, they both have unique qualities that should be considered their own.

Although the Nazis used Jews for forced labor, should we consider force labor in the same way as African Slavery?

Should slavery be considered a genocide when the mindset at the time was not exterminate the African race, but use them for profit?

Rosenbaum Chapter 14

Rosenbaum compares the Rwandan Genocide to the Holocaust.  The genocide was aimed against the Tutsi minority population in Rwanda by the Hutu majority.  Initially, ancient tribal hatred between the Tutsi and the Hutu was given as the reason for the genocide, but upon further investigation the origin can be found in colonial Rwanda when the Tutsi achieved a better socio-economic standing compared to the Hutu.  The European colonial powers deemed the Tutsi to be the superior "Hamite" race and the Hutu to be from the lowly "Bantu".  This created hatred between the two groups.  Population wise the Tutsi were the minority as were the Jewish people in Nazi Germany.

Was the Rwandan Genocide both socio-economic and racial in nature?

What influence did European Colonial powers have in Rwanda?

Rosenbaum Chapter 7

In this chapter, Rosenbaum argues that the Armenian Genocide was the precursor and prototype for future genocides.  The Ottoman Empire's extermination of the Armenian population in Anatolia was two-fold.  It was both religious and racial.  The Ottomans claimed it to be Jihad against the Armenian Christian infidels.  Similarly, Hitler and Nazi Germany declared war on the Jewish people and their religion.  Each of these atrocities had racial and religious overtones.  Later, genocides in Nigeria, Yugoslavia, Sri Lanka and Bosnia would share similar characteristics.

Were the genocides of the 20th century both religious and racial in nature?

Why did they happen?

Rosenbaum Chapter 4

Rosebaum compares several genocides including the devastation of the Native American population, The Famine in Ukraine, and the Armenian Genocide.  Rosenbaum  discusses the devastation of the Native Americans from their initial contact with Europeans to the intentional slaughter by the United States military.  The Famine in Ukraine an episode in History that I was personally unaware of.  According to Rosenbaum, Stalin in an effort to Sovietize the Ukrainian population sought to annihilate    Ukrainian Nationalism.  The Ottoman Empire, a Islamic theocracy, tried to exterminate the Christian Armenian population in Anatolia and the surrounding area.  Rosenbaum concludes that none of these genocides were the Holocaust.

What beliefs and ideologies drove these genocides?

Were these genocides political, racial, or religious?

Rosenbaum Introduction

Historians have long debated about the global impact of the horrors of the Holocaust.  Some historians approach the Holocaust as an isolated event and some relate it to other bloody genocides of the 20th century.  Rosenbaum relates the genocides in Cambodia, Sudan, Burma and the Ottoman Empire.  Historians also have much debate over the ideologies, reasons, and perpetrators of these atrocities.

Should these atrocities be looked at as isolated events or as a pattern throughout the 20th century?

Do you believe that these tragedies are connected by similar policies?

Chapter 14: The Promise and Limits of Comparison: The Holocaust and 1994 Genocide in Rwanda

In this chapter, Scott Straus introduces the 1994 Genocide in Rwanda. Straus decides to compare the Holocaust and the Rwanda Genocide explaining that "for both Jews and Tutsis were targeted as victims because, and only because, they had the misfortune to be born Jews or Tutsis." He also explains that every case of Genocide has unique dimensions, and that comparing genocides is an important, but difficult, endeavor that deserves critical attention.

Chapter 7 The Armenian Genocide as Precursor and Prototype of the 20th Century Genocide

In this chapter Robert F. Melson introduces us to the Armenian Genocide which was the first total genocide of the 20th century and has served as prototype for genocides that followed. Melson explains, concerning the Armenian Genocide, that between 1915 and the armistice in 1918, 1 million people; out of a population of 2 million were killed. Later, a half-million more Armenians perished as Turkey tried to free itself of foreign occupation and to expel minorities. Both the Holocaust and Armenian Genocide had for goal to destroy in whole an ethno-religious community of ancient provenance. They also differ in multiple ways, the killers of the Armenians relied mostly on massacre and starvation rather than the death camps. The Jews were also despised, feared and hated in most parts of Europe in a way the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire were not.

Holocaust 14

In this chapter we see the comparison to the genocide in Germany to the one in Rwanda. Straus tries to compare #'s in people to show the comparison but in a way almost shows the audience how much more death was cause in the holocaust. He tries to compare similar aspects of each event but shows how much of an issue it can potentially cause.

Holocaust 7

In this chapter it states that the Armenian genocide was the first of its kind and was almost the spark of genocide int he world as we know it.  Now in comparison with the holocaust this was based on one society or culture of people having a supreme power over the other which in case we know that the holocaust was to eliminate the Jewish people. These genocides were managed in different ways but had the same idea fueling them.

Holocaust 4

In this chapter the holocaust is compared to two other events that involved mass casualties. The first being the native americans when Colombus came to America which mainly focused on the fact that the Natives immune systems could not fight of the diseases that the men brought over from the other side of the world. It eventually then spoke about how the US wanted to move the Natives on to specific lands known as reservations. The second event it was compared to was the famine in Ukraine in which Stalin wanted to limit thier national power which eventually lead to the deaths from starvation of many many people.

Chapter 4 The Uniqueness of the Holocaust: The Historical Dimension

In this chapter, Steven T. Katz explains that his argument that the holocaust is unique is justified with the argument that "never before has a state set out, as a mater of intentional principle and actualized policy, to annihilate physically every man, woman, and child belonging to a specific people." The genocide of the Native Americans was almost without exception caused by microbes, not militia: "Disease unaided, disease per se, along with the internal social and communal dislocations it created, was the primary, unavoidable, and ubiquitous agency of death among North American Indians between 1492 and 1900." Concerning the famine in Ukraine, what makes the Ukrainian case nongenocidal, and different from the Holocaust at the same time, is the fact that the majority of Ukrainian children survived, but most specifically, were permitted to survive. Another plausible reason is the fact that the famine was neither intended nor man-made. Concerning the Armenian Tragedy because Armenians had the possibility of Armenian Christian conversion to Islam as a way of avoiding deportation and worse, the Armenian Tragedy differs from the Holocaust as well. 

Holocaust intro

In the introduction to his book Alan Rosenbaum poses many different questions and or thoughts about the events that took place during the holocaust. Why did this happen? Is it comparable to other genocides? I came to notice that he spoke about the evil that happened during this time? I pose the question of asking if this was just another case of a type of warfare? I also wonder what the reasoning behind it was.  

Introduction to the Third Edition Rosenbaum

Alan S. Rosenbaum in Introduction to the Third Edition introduces the idea that Ben Kiernan's claim for the significant uniqueness of the Holocaust may gradually but perceptibly be shifting, due to the increasing number of Holocaust and genocide studies who have been merging in various programs in universities, institutions, organizations, books and many other domains. The occurrence and study of other genocides help understand the different dimensions of the Holocaust and bring it in the context of a broader genocide studies investigation. The African genocidal conflict in Darfur, Sudan, is mentioned as well as the boycotting of the opening ceremonies of the Olympics in China.

Holocaust Chapter 14

Straus compares the Rwandan genocide to the one in Germany.  he shows the similarities and differences between the two events with a historiographical approach.  75% of the Tutsi people were murdered in 1994, while 6,000,000 Jews were persecuted during World War II.  Though camparing the  different genocides has its strongpoints, it can be misleading at times.

My question:

Does a genocide happen where strong governments are in place?


Is the willingness to stop such an act worth more than economic sanction or something similair?

Holoaust Chapter 7

This chapter talks about the Armenian genocide just before World War I.  It has many of the same traits of the German led genocide during the second World War.  For years, the Armenian people were considered an inferior brand of people, much like the Germans considered the Jews.  Melson says it is the blueprint for all the genocides that have followed it.  Racism drove the Jewish Holocaust, blaming the whole race for the death of God's only son.  The Armenian people were also allowed to convert to the Muslim religion.


Question:

Was the treatment of the Armenian people known while World War I was going on, and if so, was anyone fighting the fix that wrong?

Holocaust Chapter 4

It tells tht the Holocaust was the undisputed champion of ethnic cleansings, and give information to make that case.  They give examples of the Native Americans that were slaughter starting with the arrival of Columbus.  But a major reason for the extreme deaths for the Indians was illness that was new to them, and thier body could not fight them off.  The Ukarinaian famine of the 1930's was said to be a political statement by Stalin, claiming that the Ukarine government was a free state before, threatening communism.  The Holocaust according to Himmler said, "all Jews must die."


My question:

Jewish people in World War II were killed because of the fact they were Jewish... but because the other examples were not a "total genocide", are we not splitting hairs?

Holocaust Introduction

The intro speaks of many forms of genocide, with the Holocaust being the most extreme.  The intro tells how the recent studies of genocide helps people understand the Holocaust better, as it slips further and further down the timeline.  It also focuses on the forums used to to object to obvious autrocities... example given is China, and the Olympic stage in 2008.  The true criminal was the Sudanese government, but China was indirectly connected.  That doesn't make China the criminal in Darfur.

Questions:

When an ethnic cleansing is happening, why are politics allowed to get in the way of stopping it?


Though the Islamic Republic of Iran denies the Holocaust happened, they threaten a second... Doesn't that statement incrimminate themselves?

The Promise and Limits of Comparison: The Holocaust and the 1994 Genocide in Rwanda Chapter 14

The Rwandan Genocide which resulted in the death of nearly 75 percent of the Tutsi population has been compared to the Holocaust. Scott Straus points out that the crimes were deliberate and coordinated. Straus points out different historians views on both the Holocaust and the Rwandan genocide. He mentions since the 1994 genocide, studies have linked the two genocides and historians have compared them. I think that is interesting and which I think that links the two together is after the genocide in 1994, the United Nations put together a tribunal to prosecute senior Rwandan officials. This is similar to the tribunal in Nuremberg after the War. Also interesting to point out that back in the 1950's, many Rwandan's wanted to deport the Tutsi population somewhere else, something the Nazi thought of in regards to the Madagascar plan. Since 1994, the Rwandan genocide and the Holocaust has been linked together.

When studying genocides, should historians look at the social and political climate?

Should historians link different genocides together or should each be considered separate and different? 

   

The Armenian Genocide as Prescursor and Prototype of Twentieth-Century Genocide Chapter 7

Robert Melson writes about how the Armenian Genocide was the prototype of all genocides that followed it. Melson writes that Armenians, always considered inferior to many Ottomans, were the blunt of many of Ottomans persecution because many Armenians became wealthy and better educated. He writes when Pan-Turkism lifted off, the minorities in trouble. By 1915, Armenians who were in the army were killed or worked to death. Later on the Armenians were deported and the massacre began. Melson points out the similarities between the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust. One similarly that stands out that both were ethno-religious minorities and at the time experiencing growth and prosperity. He also wrote about the differences and one was that the Turks massacred the Armenians rather than death camps. Also in the chapter, Melson writes about the Nigerian genocides and Bosnian genocides and how the Armenian Genocide compares to each. The Armenian Genocide was perhaps the first major genocide in history and Melson shows how much history is still shaped by it.

Genocide is a rather new term. Should historians go farther back to study ancient example of genocides?

The Holocaust is unique in terms of historical and social importance. Should historians look at all genocides as being a unique phenomenon or influence in some way by the Holocaust?  

The Uniqueness of the Holocaust: The Historical Dimension chapter 4

Steven Katz in his introduction to chapter 4 expresses his opinion that the Holocaust is the most unique genocide in history. He mentions the Armenian Genocide and the treatment of Gypsies during the World War 2, but Katz points out that the Nazi government wanted to exterminate every man, woman and child. Katz writes about the Native Americans and their treatment since the time of Columbus. He makes it clear that most Native Americans were killed by disease, not intentionally. One paragraph says that during a period of 115 years, only 3.7 percent of the population of Native Americans were killed intentionally. He writes about the different Native American policies and the eventual Indian Reservations. In the third part of the chapter, Katz writes about the Ukrainian Famine in the early 1930's. He makes the point that Stalin tried to kill Ukrainian nationalism and that different genocidal leaders tried the same tactic. He mentions the peasantry in Ukraine and how Stalin dominated them and how the food storage decimated the peasants. In his part on the Armenian Genocide, he points out the nationalistic part of the genocide and Turkish response. A quote that stands out that I think represent all genocide studies is "enemies by definition".

Should historians look at Indian removal differently with the stats pointed out in chapter 4?

Although Germany has laws about wearing Nazi symbols and ideology, should Turkey finally admit the Armenian Genocide and take responsibility?   

Is the Holocaust Unique? Introudction to the Third Edition

Alan Rosenbaum in his introduction for the third edition points out the shifting focus and studies in Holocaust and genocide studies.  He points out how genocide scholars look at the social climate and how that affects genocide. Rosenbaum mentions the word genocide, coined by Raphael Lemkin, was used to describe how the Holocaust was unique. He goes into detail about the prosecution of Nazi war criminals after the end of World War Two and how the different committees whose main job was prosecute Nazis helped influence future laws against war criminals. A major part of his introduction is his description of China's relationship with Sudan, a government that itself have seen genocide in Darfur. Rosenbaum describes how many luminaries were upset with the Chinese government and their involvement with Sudan. Rosenbaum connects the different genocides and points out that the Holocaust is still unique?

If a government is accuse of war crimes or genocide, should the U.S. or any country continue to do business with them?

The Holocaust is the most important genocide in terms of history and impact on the world. Should we look at other earlier genocides such as the Armenian Genocide?

Holocaust Chapter 7

In his essay author Robert Melson opens by stating that the Armenian genocide was the first genocide and served as the prototype for subsequnt genocides in the twentieth century.  He describes the Armenian genocide and then compares it to the Holocaust, the Nigerian and Bosnian genocides.  Both the Armenians and the Jews were low-status religious minorities that became increasingly assertive.  Both genocides followed a revolution.  The Holocaust was different in that it was driven by racism and antisemitism.  While the Armenians were located in one geographic area, the Jews were dispersed.  Conversion was not an option for Jews, but it was for Armenians.  Jews were considered killers of the son of God, and it was feared that they were conspiring.  The death camps used in the Holocaust differed from Armenian massacre and starvation.

Rosenbaum Chapter 14

In Scott Straus's essay, "The Promise and Limits of Comparison: The Holocaust and the 1994 Genocide in Rwanda," Straus offers a historiographical approach to compare and contrast the parallels of the Rwanda genocide and the Holocaust. Using multiple sources, Straus sets out to show comparing two cases of genocide will not only deliver similar parallels, but also varying results which can be problematic. A solution to this would be to "compare genocide cases to non-genocide cases." (255)

Rosenbaum Chapter 7

In Robert F. Melson's essay, "The Armenian Genocide as Precursor and Prototype of Twentieth-Century Genocide," Melson argues the first total genocide was that of the Armenians and that in fact it was the basis for all future genocides, including the Holocaust. Melson compares the Armenian genocide to a third world genocide in Nigeria in which both states "attempted to establish the hegemony of a leading ethnic group over other ethnic segments of society." (131) As is also the case in Yugoslavia and the Holocaust. However, Melson does agree that there are differences between the Armenian genocide and the Holocaust. In particular, the use of death camps by the Nazis.

Rosenbaum Chapter 4

In Steven T. Katz essay, "The Uniqueness of the Holocaust: The Historical Dimension," Katz compares and contrasts the Holocaust to the exploitation of the Native Americans, the famine in the Ukraine, and the Armenian tragedy to show that the Holocaust is in fact a unique instance of genocide. Katz argues that the Holocaust is unique not because of the amount of victims, but because "a state set out, as a matter of intentional principle and actualized policy, to annihilate physically every man, woman, and child belonging to a specific group," (55) the Jewish.

In the case of the Native Americans, the majority of those that died were killed by disease. The intentions of the US government was not to physically eliminate Native American but to at first, eliminate the culture. When attempts at this failed, the Native Americans were forcibly moved to reservations.

In the case of the famine in the Ukraine, in an attempt to eliminate Ukrainian nationalism, Stalin exported grain which was in limited supply to exploit the Ukrainians, not to physically eliminate them. The same can be said for the Armenian tragedy. The intent was not to physically eliminate Armenian people, but to eliminate their politics and religion.

Rosenbaum Intro

In his Introduction to the Third Edition, editor Alan S. Rosenbaum makes the reader aware that the research and study of the Holocaust and other genocide events is forever changing and that new interpretations have been introduced. Rosenbaum notes that each event of genocide, a term coined specifically to describe the "significant uniqueness" of the Holocaust, is more often than not, compared and contrasted to the events leading up to, including and concluding the Holocaust.

Holocaust Chapter 4

Author Steven Katz gets right to the point; the Holocaust is unique because its intention was the complete annihilation of a specific group.  Compared to Native American Indians, Katz states that the main cause of their loss of population was from disease that the Europeans introduced that the Indians had no immunity to.  Compared to the famine in Ukraine which was about political independence,  not the elimination of Ukranian biological stock.  And finally as compared to the Armenian tragedy which was the result of extreme Turkish nationalism and wasn't just targeting Armenians.

Is the Holocaust Unique? Intro

In the intro to this book of essays about the Holocaust, editor Alan Rosenbaum explains that the Holocaust has so many different opinions that it has yet to find its proper place in history.  Should the holocaust be categorized as unique or is it just another genocide?  How is the Holocaust best remembered?  And is it the worst case of genocide?  Rosenbaum poses many questions in this intro ending with "how do we respond to evil?".  The purpose of the essays in the book is to promote clarity and understanding.