Well, that was certainly interesting, if not very enlightening or uplifting, when it comes to on-line discussion.
I see that some blogs are continuing to mischaracterize my post as saying that Buchenwald was “not as bad” as Auschwitz. First, I didn’t say that. My point was never about whether one camp was “better” or “worse” than another. They obviously were all horrific, in different ways, and there’s no sensible or universal way to make such an assessment. As some commenters have pointed out, it’s perhaps better to be gassed immediately than worked to death (on the other hand, in Buchenwald, you had a much better chance of survival).
My point was, and remains, despite all the idiotic straw men (like the above) and insults, that Auschwitz was more notorious, to the point that it almost came to be an icon of the Holocaust. While Buchenwald was certainly one of the more well-known camps, I’d be willing to bet that many more people know the word Auschwitz and what it represents than they do Buchenwald. And among those people is, apparently, Barack Obama. Auschwitz is like Holocaust 101, which it would appear to be as far as Senator Obama ever got in his education on the subject.
Do you actually have the texts of the speech so we can settle this?
We have video of him this weekend in a Q&A saying that his uncle liberated Auschwitz. This is easily googlable (I suspect it’s on Youtube). We have his Iraq speech (quoted above) from 2002 in which he said: “He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka.”
Neither of these instances is in dispute. All that is in dispute is how to interpret them.
“People have made outrageous and insane comments about me, calling me a Nazi apologist and Holocaust denier, and I have justly pointed out that they are idiots.”
They have drawn conclusions from out of context quotes and preconceptions of the right wing, just as you insist on continuing to maintain an absurd focus on single words and phrases and that you find “revealing.”
As for the merits:
“Regardless of the amount of “camaraderie and fellowship,” this was George Patton’s Army, that had no love for the Soviets or the Soviet Union (he wanted to keep the tanks rolling all the way to Moscow), even if they could get on well with individual Soviet soldiers. The notion that they would refer to them as “fellow troops” is ludicrous.”
Did Patton write Obama’s speech? Did he choose the word fellow? If not, why does it matter whether Patton viewed communists as his fellows? The speech was written by Obama, and it is his meaning that you are obsessing over. If he meant “fellow” to evoke a sense of larger human fellowship (which, afterall, was a big part of the goal of that passage in the speech), your argument falls apart. But rather than acknowledge that possibility, you dismiss it with irrelevant evidence.
Did Patton write Obama’s speech? Did he choose the word fellow? If not, why does it matter whether Patton viewed communists as his fellows? The speech was written by Obama, and it is his meaning that you are obsessing over.
OK, so now your theory is that Obama was not relaying his grandfather’s words (and no, I really don’t believe that his grandfather would have called the Soviets his “fellow troops” for reasons already stated), but Obama himself is calling troops that he knows to be Soviet troops fellow troops to his grandfather?
Ummmm…OK. Could be, I guess.
I think that it flunks Occam’s Razor. But if true, it’s an interesting insight into Obama’s thinking in itself. And actually a much worse one than simply being ignorant about the war.
Of course, another problem with your theory (it’s making me laugh, really) is that it takes away any excuse he had for saying that his uncle liberated Auschwitz, if he knew that Auschwitz was liberated by the Soviets.
Either these are war stories passed down to a naive Barack and relayed, or he has historical knowledge of the liberation of Poland. You have to choose one or the other, but you’re not allowed both.
You’re really tying yourself up in logical knots here, with your single-minded defense of Obama.
My goal here isn’t defending Obama. It’s point out your obsession with gleaning deep insight from trivial events, and your hypocritical insistance that you not be held to the same standard.
“[I]f true, it’s an interesting insight into Obama’s thinking in itself.”
Oooh. An interesting insight. Pray, tell us more. Do you find it revealing? Is Obama, apparently, a commie symp? Spin it out for us, don’t hold us in suspense.
“Either these are war stories passed down to a naive Barack and relayed, or he has historical knowledge of the liberation of Poland. You have to choose one or the other, but you’re not allowed both.”
How about this: when speaking off the cuff on Monday, he mistakenly misrecalled a European place name. And his grandfather actually did hear stories about the first troops to enter Auschwitz.
“Either these are war stories passed down to a naive Barack and relayed, or he has historical knowledge of the liberation of Poland.”
Um, no. Your choices are poor “either/or” examples. The stories could very well have been passed down to him by family members who said Auschwitz–because that’s the one they remembered–when they meant Buchenwald.
I’m not sure why you’re still arguing and not simply apologizing for the fact that your ideology ran away with your brain?
Also, you keep saying “Occam’s Razor” over and over again, but you don’t seem to know what that actually means, because the “simplest solution” to this whole kerfuffle is that Obama misspoke and you’re a douchebag.
My goal here isn’t defending Obama.
No, not, of course not. [rolling eyes]
How about this: when speaking off the cuff on Monday, he mistakenly misrecalled a European place name. And his grandfather actually did hear stories about the first troops to enter Auschwitz.
As I said, that seems exceedingly unlikely, for reasons already stated.
See, the difference between me and Obama is that a) I’m not running for president, and b) all of the moonbats in the belfry that is the leftist blogosphere have been over here grilling and insulting me on this issue for the past couple days with over two hundred comments, and at this point anyone who continues to think that I’m a Holocaust denier or Nazi apologist has to be a serious whack job. If we had the opportunity to similarly ask Obama a few questions, perhaps this could be clarified, but to date, no one has ever asked him what he meant in that 2002 speech, so all we can do is speculate. I continue to think your theory nonsensical, again for reasons already stated.
The stories could very well have been passed down to him by family members who said Auschwitz–because that’s the one they remembered–when they meant Buchenwald.
And if he relayed them uncritically in speeches, it means that he does not know where Auschwitz is, or who liberated it. As I said, either he knows his history, or he doesn’t. If he knew it, he would have questioned the family to clarify the issue, but he wouldn’t go out and make a fool of himself on the stump. Which is exactly what he did.
And you can call me all the nasty names that you want, but it doesn’t change that cruel reality. Which obviously frustrates the hell out of you, and your childish response is to call me names.
I don’t think you’re a Holocaust Denier.
I think you’re echoing their arguments for reasons very different from a desire to deny the Holocaust; because it’s convenient for you to do so in your jihad against Barack Obama, and because you’ve argued yourself into a corner and your stubborn pride refuses to allow to exit gracefully.
I see your argument has now degenerated to “Barack Obama doesn’t know as much about World War Two as I do.” You’re right, he doesn’t. You or I would never make that mistake, Rand.
But so what? Most people don’t know as much about World War Two as I do. Do you really think you would clinging to this lame argument if you hadn’t decided you were going to hammer Senator Obama over this “gaffe,” and saw all of your initial reasons for doing so evaporate?
“[T]hat seems exceedingly unlikely, for reasons already stated.”
What were those reasons again? Oh yeah, it fails Occam’s Razor and it provides you with an “interesting insight.”
I’m still waiting on the “interesting insight.” But I will briefly address Occam’s Razor. You see, Occam’s Razor doesn’t work very well when you cherry pick data points to fit a preexisting conclusion. But you already knew that, didn’t you?
As for the difference between you and Obama:
“a) I’m not running for president”
Now we are getting somewhere. I understand that you think different rules of logic apply to presidential candidates than to you; that’s pretty obvious. Some might take the more traditional view that bad reasoning is bad reasoning, even if that reasoning advances a particular political viewpoint.
“b) all of the moonbats in the belfry that is the leftist blogosphere have been over here grilling and insulting me on this issue for the past couple days with over two hundred comments”
Ah. And I suppose there has been no feeding frenzy over Obama’s remarks? It’s just been calmly reasoned contemplation, perfectly proportional with the alleged offense, which was put immediately to rest by Obama clairification.
I think you’re echoing their arguments for reasons very different from a desire to deny the Holocaust
I’m not echoing their arguments at all.
And I suppose there has been no feeding frenzy over Obama’s remarks?
Not with any interaction with Obama. As I said, no one has even asked him what he meant in his Iraq speech.
“[N]o one has even asked him what he meant in his Iraq speech.”
In other words, you have no clue what he meant, so you feel free to interpret in the way that fits your preexisting frame.
Let us find more single words we can obsess over! Leave no non-issue unexplored! It would be irresponsible not to speculate!
In other words, you have no clue what he meant, so you feel free to interpret in the way that fits your preexisting frame.
No [laughing], I think I have a very good clue what he meant. His words provide it. He had no idea where Auschwitz was, or who liberated it. Any other interpretation is quite strained.
As I said, either he knows his history, or he doesn’t. If he knew it, he would have questioned the family to clarify the issue, but he wouldn’t go out and make a fool of himself on the stump. Which is exactly what he did.
He did not make a fool of himself on the stump. He made a truly minor and insignificant mistake.
Which you, Rand, have blown all out of proportion. At great length. What an interesting and entertaining waste of time! I’d say you have made a noticeably bigger gaffe than Obama.
He has made major gaffes. Just not this one.
Yours,
Wince
“I think I have a very good clue what he meant.”
Take me through that reasoning again, Rand. Does it have something to do with this:
“I’m assuming that he’s referring to US troops here, and not their Soviet allies”
Perhaps you should assume a bit less and try to expand your dataset beyond single sentances.
Take me through that reasoning again, Rand. Does it have something to do with this:
“I’m assuming that he’s referring to US troops here, and not their Soviet allies”
Of course, as would most people listening to that speech, who weren’t grasping for straws. I have to work with the available data so, as in much of life, assumptions are unavoidable.
Very few Americans would think that “fellow troops” meant Soviet troops. If Obama thought that they would, he’s quite politically tone deaf. Of course, there is actually quite a bit of evidence for that proposition, so perhaps I should rethink my position, but either way, the speech doesn’t reflect well on Obama with most of the electorate, if someone were to point out the gaffe.
I’m still going to kindly interpret it as historical ignorance of the location and liberators of Auschwitz, given that he is an American politician.
Let me step in and remind Rand’s critics that they are engeging in both anti-semetic and anti-semantic activities in this thread.
Oh, I see. We’re back to the “interesting insight.”
The available data, by the way, is hundreds or thousands of pages of writing and speeches. That’s the dataset that you need to look to if you want to draw broad conclusions about Obama’s historical literacy and knowledge.
If your only concern is whether he had carefully compared and vetted his grandfather’s stories against the historical record, I suppose the dataset would be somewhat smaller. But that isn’t your only concern. You aren’t obsessing over these incidents because you think it is crucially important to know whether he had really thought through and considered the implications of his grandfather’s stories. No, you concluded that this gaffe is important “because it reveals a profound ignorance of history and/or geography.”
If you want to reach that conclusion, Rand, you need to review a lot more than the world “fellow.”
I’m still going to kindly interpret it as historical ignorance of the location and liberators of Auschwitz, given that he is an American politician.
There we go! That’s not blown out of proportion. Instead of concluding Obama was making a fool of himself, the conclusion is he’s just ignorant in the same way most American politicians are.
It’s been an awful lot of drama and effort to reach that conclusion.
Yours,
Wince
The available data, by the way, is hundreds or thousands of pages of writing and speeches. That’s the dataset that you need to look to if you want to draw broad conclusions about Obama’s historical literacy and knowledge.
Now you’re the one making assumptions. You assume, without basis, that my assumption arose from a vacuum, with no other data than these two incidents, rather than the totality of the Obama campaign so far…
Instead of concluding Obama was making a fool of himself, the conclusion is he’s just ignorant in the same way most American politicians are.
Wince, you misinterpreted my remark (because it was probably clumsily worded). I wasn’t saying he was ignorant about Auschwitz because he was an American politician (that, as you point out, goes almost without saying). I was saying that it was unlikely that he thought (or at least said) that Soviet troops were his grandfather’s “fellow troops” because he is an American politician.
Hmmm…unless, of course, he’s a leftist American politician. With a political tin ear. So maybe Leo is right.
I think it would be quite entertaining to hear him attempt to explain that section of the speech, six years later.
Really Rand? Because someone reading over your blog enteries recently might get the idea that you were obsessively focused on this issue. I’m just sayin’.
…someone reading over your blog enteries recently might get the idea that you were obsessively focused on this issue. I’m just sayin’.
That could only be a statement made by someone who hasn’t been paying much attention to my “blog entries.” Most of them have been about space, and the International Space Development Conference. If you mean blog entries related to Obama (including comments) consider that it’s because I’ve been having to waste a lot of time fending off idiotic charges from the nutroots that I’m a Holocaust denier and a Hitler sympathizer.
It’s almost (but so far, not quite) enough to make one want to give up blogging.
I’m not echoing their arguments at all.
As a matter of fact, you are. You are claiming that what went on in Buchenwald was not the industrial slaughter of the Nazi murder-state, but merely “the horrors of war.”
That is precisely the argument that such people as Mel Gibson and his father make. “Jewish people died. Russian people died. German people died. It’s the horror of war.”
This is where you find yourself. How proud you must be.
I was saying that it was unlikely that he thought (or at least said) that Soviet troops were his grandfather’s “fellow troops” because he is an American politician.
Hmmm…unless, of course, he’s a leftist American politician. With a political tin ear.
It’s still unlikely, considering the known language barrier. Although Obama is quite left, and his political ears, if cast in The Wizard of Oz as the Tin Woodsman, would not be playing against type.
If you mean blog entries related to Obama (including comments) consider that it’s because I’ve been having to waste a lot of time fending off idiotic charges from the nutroots that I’m a Holocaust denier and a Hitler sympathizer.
It’s almost (but so far, not quite) enough to make one want to give up blogging.
It’s entertaining, though. Like boxing. I can see why boxers might get tired of people trying to hit them in the head.
Yours,
Wince
That is precisely the argument that such people as Mel Gibson and his father make. “Jewish people died. Russian people died. German people died. It’s the horror of war.”
Yes, if one totally ignores the fact, in my post, in which I acknowledge that Auschwitz-Birkenau was an industrial extermination camp. Which (what a shock!) you do.
By the way, Wince (and Nod), if you want to use the <em></em> tag, you have to do it on every paragraph.
joe from Lowell,
You have a dramatic underappreciation for the horrors of war. One might reasonably at this point label you a ‘horrors of war’ denier. Democides like the Holocaust are basically warfare by a government against their own unarmed and unorganized citizens. Part of “Never again” should be understanding that the Holocaust was not even close to unique. Not only can we not effectively prevent the next Holocaust unless we understand this, we’ve missed preventing several since 1945. The Killing Fields. The Cultural Revolution. Rwanda. North Korea. Iraq under Hussien. Burma. Dafur.
And really, why don’t you care about the 10 million who died in WWI? Or the other 54 million who died in WWII? How about the 10 million who have died in the Congo Wars in the past 15 years? Do you have any idea how horrible the horrors of war are?
Try to get the start of a clue, dude.
Yours,
Wince
Wince, if you want to make the claim that the Holocaust wasn’t even close to unique, and list then various atrocities to make your case, I suggest making it clear that you reject a narrow definition of genocide. (You can read all about the travails of defining genocide on the web.)
Joe from Lowell wrote:
“I think you’re echoing their arguments for reasons very different from a desire to deny the Holocaust…”
I think there must be some confusion in that and similar statements/comments as to what neo-nazis, white supremacists, and some other anti-Semite hard left socialists (particularly in Germany itself) argue. To my knowledge their argument in relation to the camps (if they even acknowledge their existence at all) usually is that they were all slave labor camps and more or less insignificant.
What Rand, others and I are pointing out is the opposite: they weren’t all slave labor camps, they weren’t all identical in their purpose or implementation, and none of them were in any way insignificant nor were all the slave labor and extermination that went on outside the camps all across Europe in any way insignificant either (as an example there are graveyards dedicated to the mostly eastern European victims of slave labor in just about every part of Norway, growing in frequency and size as one goes north).
At least in Europe the simple fact that there were different kinds of camps is uncontroversial (never heard anyone take any offense at it) and taken as self-evident facts.
Two more comments.
Mike Puckett is right.
Rand I hope you don’t let any of this shut you down or shut you up; you are right and they are horribly wrong and probably don’t even realize what they’ve ended up saying/arguing or what would ultimately follow from their arguments if taken to their logical conclusions. One can only hope at least some of them will realize as time passes.
Robert,
I don’t reject a narrow definition of genocide. I just don’t find genocide to be as useful a category as democide. I’m not sure why anyone would want to claim that killing a quarter of all Cambodians in order to remake them in some adsurd image of so called natural man is to be any less discouraged than trying to kill all the Jews in order to serve some twisted Aryan fantasy. Each of the dead Cambodians was as unique a human as any of the dead Jews.
Yours,
Wince
Other than your first sentence, I’d say that’s exactly what someone who rejects a narrow definition of genocide would say. I think it is a perfectly moral position to take – your last sentence about the uniqueness of each individual is undeniable. The difference you ask about is akin to the difference between killing a very large number of individual animals versus making a species go extinct. When an extinction occurs, the universe loses a pattern that goes beyond any one individual. For people, for a successful genocide, what gets lost is a living culture, which includes many aspects of life which books and artifacts can’t completely record and preserve. You might find that insignificant next to the horror of killing even one human being, but from a political perspective, if you are trying to prevent governments from becoming too powerful, it might be worth considering genocide as a distinct crime with distinct punishments.
Wince, I just realized I misread your comment. If I could edit my already posted comment, I would. I’ll stop and think about what you wrote.
So, what if I reworked your paragraph in a reductio ad aburdum (except, perhaps it isn’t absurd at all): “I just don’t find democide to be as useful as category as “killing an innocent person”. I’m not sure why anyone would want to claim that killing one innocent person in order to prop up a repressive regime is to be any less discouraged than trying to kill a quarter of all Cambodians…. Each individual person is as unique a human as any of the dead Cambodians.”
Maybe categories like “genocide” and “democide” have uses that go beyond discouraging those in power. For example, they can be a way for those who live on to describe the magnitude of the loss.