While it seems like the common stance in American culture (to which I belong) is that the Nazi Evil and the Holocaust positively were uniquely evil and should be distinguished against other crimes against humanity.
However, I am willing to take the position that this might be American propaganda that focuses the American populace on the Nazis, blinding them to the other atrocities that have occurred in the modern age. Some of this might be because many US History classes end their curriculums at the end of WWII, and so modern history after that isn’t really taught. That lasting impression could explain cultural permanence.
I do tend to agree with you though. I think the Nazis were evil and did evil shit, but after reflecting on it, it is possible to think of today’s Zionists and “modern Nazis”, as one might towards other authoritarian, totalitarian regimes.
If you look at the entire span of all cultures and all history, I think there’s tons of random examples of essentially one form or another of religious or ideological thinking that caused massive atrocities. Genghis Khan comes to mind as someone responsible for millions of deaths through, as the author of your first link puts it, a kind of “mouth with a bottomless pit” mentality of devouring everything. Hitler is distinguished in part by the mechanization of his efforts, but that is true of every imperialist genocide of the 20th and 21st centuries. The people he killed in open genocide don’t even scratch a tenth of the total killed by both sides in that same war - which really begs the question, what is the distinction between war and genocide? Combatants vs. non-combatants? If someone is talked into fighting, does their life suddenly stop having any value? Is it less a crime in ethical terms, not legal terms, to kill an average soldier? It gets justified by saying the other side of a conflict had some devastatingly evil ideology, but is killing someone actually the best way to deal with them having evil ideas? I’m more inclined to take the stance uh, I think Steinbeck said, “All war is a symptom of man’s failure as a thinking animal.” The deepest evil is the people leading us to slaughter each other, not the people we’re slaughtering.
https://utopiaordystopia.com/2015/12/31/was-nazi-evil-unique/
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1cd9yqf/do_you_believe_that_the_nazis_were_uniquely_evil/
While it seems like the common stance in American culture (to which I belong) is that the Nazi Evil and the Holocaust positively were uniquely evil and should be distinguished against other crimes against humanity.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_uniqueness_debate
However, I am willing to take the position that this might be American propaganda that focuses the American populace on the Nazis, blinding them to the other atrocities that have occurred in the modern age. Some of this might be because many US History classes end their curriculums at the end of WWII, and so modern history after that isn’t really taught. That lasting impression could explain cultural permanence.
I do tend to agree with you though. I think the Nazis were evil and did evil shit, but after reflecting on it, it is possible to think of today’s Zionists and “modern Nazis”, as one might towards other authoritarian, totalitarian regimes.
So yeah. You’re right
If you look at the entire span of all cultures and all history, I think there’s tons of random examples of essentially one form or another of religious or ideological thinking that caused massive atrocities. Genghis Khan comes to mind as someone responsible for millions of deaths through, as the author of your first link puts it, a kind of “mouth with a bottomless pit” mentality of devouring everything. Hitler is distinguished in part by the mechanization of his efforts, but that is true of every imperialist genocide of the 20th and 21st centuries. The people he killed in open genocide don’t even scratch a tenth of the total killed by both sides in that same war - which really begs the question, what is the distinction between war and genocide? Combatants vs. non-combatants? If someone is talked into fighting, does their life suddenly stop having any value? Is it less a crime in ethical terms, not legal terms, to kill an average soldier? It gets justified by saying the other side of a conflict had some devastatingly evil ideology, but is killing someone actually the best way to deal with them having evil ideas? I’m more inclined to take the stance uh, I think Steinbeck said, “All war is a symptom of man’s failure as a thinking animal.” The deepest evil is the people leading us to slaughter each other, not the people we’re slaughtering.