The Holocaust

[chriso_cd 0]

if you read my last topic on hiroshima and the atomic bomb, this is similar.... as it turns out, the feed back from topics greatly contributes to discussion in my honors history and literature class, so i decided to give it another go around with a similar topic in the same time period-- the holocaust. after reading the book "night" by Elile Wiesel, we had a discussion as to atrocities such as this and some opinions on the topic...... so, once again, heres the facts:Elile Wisel said once that anyone who witnesses an atrocity or act of inhumanity, and does nothing to stop it, is just as guilty as the person committing the act. I agree with this statement in some ways. It can be considered just as bad if you don?t stop whats going on, it just depends on certain factors. These factors and opinions depend on whether an act is viewed as right or wrong. First, it depends on what sort of atrocity is committed and the viewpoint of the observer. What defines right or wrong? Different people have different ideas, in the case of the Holocaust; the Nazis believed that what they were doing was right. They believed that they were doing humanity a favor of ridding them of the Jewish people. Right to the Nazis was defined by what they believed in, which in turn, was defined by what Hitler said. On the other hand, this seemed completely wrong to everyone else in the world because of how they thought of things such as murder, genocide, and equality. Furthermore, what defines an atrocious act? Again, it depends on the viewpoint of the individual people. Their religion, culture, upbringing, and surroundings all contribute to their opinions of right, wrong, good and bad. From this, I conclude that as long as you have the ability to stop something atrocious, it is wrong to do nothing about it. It should be reiterated though that it is an opinion, and opinions are unique to the individual. Thus far, if the observer doesn?t view an atrocity as an atrocity, then it would be completely normal not to react. As you can see, it is wrong to do nothing to stop a horrible act, but it also depends on your opinion of the actions taking place, and how right and wrong are defined to you and others around you. As a last thought, compare this to a human swatting a fly. We don?t see anything wrong with killing a fly. Because it seems so small and unimportant we don?t seen anything wrong with killing it, but what about the fly? Is it wrong to him?

[kasm 0]

if you read my last topic on hiroshima and the atomic bomb, this is similar.... as it turns out, the feed back from topics greatly contributes to discussion in my honors history and literature class, so i decided to give it another go around with a similar topic in the same time period-- the holocaust.

.......

As you can see, it is wrong to do nothing to stop a horrible act, but it also depends on your opinion of the actions taking place, and how right and wrong are defined to you and others around you. As a last thought, compare this to a human swatting a fly. We don?t see anything wrong with killing a fly. Because it seems so small and unimportant we don?t seen anything wrong with killing it, but what about the fly? Is it wrong to him?

1. You are right but in fact no body can stop the horrible acts by crazy people but at least to condemn them at least blame them and get them to trial or punish them and don't find execuse to them

 

2. No body could stop Hitler. So it is not realistic to blame anybody for not stop the Holcust. All Europe were under occupation. so who blame the church to not stand against Hitrler is not just. If church could do anything then it stopped Hitler from occupying Poland and France as an example.

 

3. Nobody could stop the crazy Roman to use the atomic bomb.I wrote 3 years ago when the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have marked the 60th anniversary of its destruction by the world's first atomic bomb. And I questioning why no war crime allegation has raised against Truman who said:

After we found the bomb, we have to use it..

Nobody was charged for this crime. Some were defending this crime. Read that in 60 Years-atomic Bombings Of Hiroshima And Nagasaki.

 

4. Nobody tried the Arab who invade all north Africa and Spain and destroyed many nations there but sometimes they claim that they enforced them to true religion . The old Egyptian knowledge which was in the Library of Alexandria was lost in big fire .

 

5. Nobody tried the Arab and then Turkey to destroyed Constantinople and change its name and convert Agia Sofia church to become mosque.

 

6. Nobody tried what did Turkey to the Armenian, Greek , Bulgarian, the Serb and other people of Balkan

[Janissary 0]

...if the observer doesn’t view an atrocity as an atrocity...

that means he/she in favor with the person doing atrocity and equally evil.

 

5. Nobody tried the Arab and then Turkey to destroyed Constantinople and change its name and convert Agia Sofia church to become mosque.

 

6. Nobody tried what did Turkey to the Armenian, Greek , Bulgarian, the Serb and other people of Balkan

I believe you are not well informed about 6th. Yes, Turks invaded those lands. But I think you can look at the history as before and after the invention of nationalism/freedom. Just look at who were fighting for the ruling of Anatolia. The Turks came from middle Asia, Romans came from middle Europe. What about the inhabitants of the Anatolians? You can find many other examples, two forces are fighting for a land that not theirs to begin with.

 

All nations who found the idea of nationalism invaded the other people who lacks the nationalism. You can say that was wrong, maybe you are right. But then this would be a sin for mankind. I really believe the Turks treated their lands better than other empires of that era.

 

My proof for that is many African countires who enslaved by French and British talk in their language but lands of Turks dont speak Turkish today. And my personal opinion (some Turks may disagree) the OttomanEmpire treated Europen lands better, spent more resources on it than its homeland, the Anatolia.

 

I can say many more things about the issue but Im already talked too much off topic. Forgive me chriso_cd

 

7. Nobody tried what did Greeks to the Turks during 1963-1974 in Cyprus and during 1919 in Izmir, Armenians did to Turks during 1915, or the Christians to Muslims during crusades.

Edited June 13, 2008 by Janissary (see edit history)

[Erdemir 0]

5. Nobody tried the Arab and then Turkey to destroyed Constantinople and change its name and convert Agia Sofia church to become mosque.

Did Turkey destroy Constantinople? Turkey improved and developed Istanbul instead. You want proof: Population of Constantinople in 1450s was 35,000-40,000.

After conquest of Constantinople, the population of Istanbul was more than 1.500.000 only in a few years. Does this show you a destroying operation? This shows a developing and improving to us.

6. Nobody tried what did Turkey to the Armenian, Greek , Bulgarian, the Serb and other people of Balkan [/b]

About: Armenians, Greek, Bulgarian, Serbs.

Can you tell me kasm, what is their religion? Yes, Christianity. Can't Ottomans convert them into Islam. Yes Ottomans can do it by force, but Ottomans didn't forced anyone. Ottomans let everyone to live their own religion. Can you tell me what did Ottomans do over these nations? Let me say, Ottomans gave them their rights, bring the justice. I don't know where you are reading those things like that!

 

//Edit:

And my personal opinion (some Turks may disagree) the OttomanEmpire treated Europen lands better, spent more resources on it than its homeland, the Anatolia.

By the way I agree with this. Edited June 18, 2008 by Erdemir (see edit history)