Would hitler be as despised if he picked muslims instead of jews for the halocaust?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
@claymore1998: whatever you wish master claymore
@claymore1998: Well thank you Princess Jasmine 0_0
@claymore1998: I shall wait till the end of time
For some odd reason, out of all of the genocides that have occurred in history, the holocaust tends the be the one that stands out and is emphasized as one of the worst and, as bad as it sounds, I honestly don't think it would have stood out as much if it had been another group of people.
@claymore1998: Well thank you Princess Jasmine 0_0
Hehe I love that nick name ^_^
@claymore1998: I shall wait till the end of time
Good. good ^_^
For some odd reason, out of all of the genocides that have occurred in history, the holocaust tends the be the one that stands out and is emphasized as one of the worst and, as bad as it sounds, I honestly don't think it would have stood out as much if it had been another group of people.
I could offer a host of reasons to why the Holocaust (specifically, the Jewish side) is put into splotlight the most but I think they're already known.
Genocide is wrong doesn't matter who its against.
@frozen said:
I could offer a host of reasons to why the Holocaust (specifically, the Jewish side) is put into splotlight the most but I think they're already known.
And why's that?
Genocide is wrong doesn't matter who its against.
LOL at this.
@claymore1998: Of course! no one else i would rather be. :P
@saren: Yeah, I don't get how japan doesn't get half the "flak" as Germany considering what they did in Asia (China in paticular). It always comes up in converstations like "oh, the Germans were so evil" etc. Yet people are completely oblivious to Japans action in WWii. (nlt defending the Nazis here)
Well, the same can be said for the Christian Holocaust in Asia Minor between 1894 and 1923. There is not even that bit of mention to the Christian Holocaust (e.g. the Japanese actions).
Christians were also apart of the non-Jewish Holocaust by Hitler; the non-Jewish Holocaust has gone largely unmentioned. Basically, the only reason that Muslims were not targeted by Hitler was because he was stopped by the allies before he could advance into Muslim controlled territory.
@claymore1998: Of course! no one else i would rather be. :P
Hehe, awesome..
The problem is at the time Hitler was around, there are more Jews than Muslims. There were more Jews, Slavs, Romani, Blacks, Asians, Catholics, Communists, Gays, and Jehovah's Witnesses combined than Muslims all over the world.
It was also easier to scapegoat these people because a lot of them were in Germany since World War I. Meanwhile, to scapegoat Muslims would be to scapegoat the Turkish Republic under Ataturk, which although neutral would probably have joined the war on the Allied side if provoked.
@saren: Totally overrated because Zionists control the media. Either way, history is written by the victors so USA only highlighted the part where they stormed Pearl Harbour and the nukes. This is why most people don't even know more people died in Stalingrad than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined but USA didn't do much emphasising because the Soviets were involved.
@mandarinestro: but russia were the victors aswell
@comicsrulebutdbzdoes2: Yes but USA was considerably the only one who 'won' WW2 because the entire Europe and Asia became impoverished. Aside from that, they did win the Cold War.
@dshipp17: Yeah.
@dshipp17: There were about 10,000 Jehovah's Witnesses too. Most mainstream Christians don't know this because, well, you know.
If Hitler had eased off on the Jews, would 20th century xenophobia instead be defined by what Japan got up to during World War II? Because the highest estimates say Hitler had 6 million Jews, Romani and other such "undesirables" killed, but the highest estimates put the Japanese kill tally at 10 million Chinese, Korean and various other Asian groups. Between that and doing their level best to try and turn China into a giant rape camp, I'm always surprised the Nazis get more (deserved, certainly) flak for World War II than Japan did. Maybe it was the nukes.
The entirety of the European/African theater added up to 21,800,000 to 28,000,000 dead in the Soviet Union alone, about 800,000ish thousand dead from America and the U.K, 1,027,000 to 1,700,000 dead in Yugoslavia, 5,620,000 to 5,820,000 dead in Poland, 7,000,000 to 9,000,000 dead in Germany, 580,000 dead in Hungary, 320,000 to 807,000 dead in Greece, 88,000 dead in Belgium, 550,000 dead in France, 100,000 dead in Ethiopia, 454,600 dead in Italy, 800,000 dead in Romania, 325,000 dead in Czechoslovakia, and I'd keep on going but this is hella depressing and basically thanks to Hitler; pretty much every country in Europe that didn't completely sit out of the war was left a charnelhouse. In total some 46,000,000 people at the highest estimates had died of preventable causes due to the war.
Japan's romp in Asia is responsible for the deaths of up to 10-20 million Chinese, 3=4 million Indonesians, 1.2-2 million across Indochina, 0.5-1 million Filipinos, assorted other Asian groups who add up to about 1 millionish total. 2.6 million to 3.2 million Japanese people also died, several million throughout the British Raj perished, and so on so forth. Up to 41 million died in the Asian theater.
I'd say even without the Gas chambers being a thing, Hitler's Germany would still be remembered as basically the worst thing to happen to Europe thanks to the Wehrmacht and SS's incredible brutality and starvation policies (Germany had a pretty crap agriculture system so they planned on starving most of the rest of Europe to keep themselves fat and happy), its barbaric treatment of POWs in the Eastern Front and cartoonishly villainous methods of dealing with partisans, as well as setting many macabre records for massacres by gunfire.
Japan was by all means, incredibly and unimaginably brutal and sadistic, but whereas Japan made an art out of mass murder, Germany made it into a Science. I think this is ultimately why we find Germany the more abhorrent of the two. It was more than just barbarism, it was taking all the tools of "civilized" and "enlightened" society and turning them towards goals that nobody seriously believed that European people were capable of pursuing. Meanwhile given the racism at the time it was considerably easier to swallow the idea that Japan hit Asia the same way Syphilis hits your genitals.
Sauce for casualties: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties
As for the thread topic, I'd say that this stinks of hilariously transparent Islamophobia. In fact, I'm gonna go ahead and say that
@comicsrulebutdbzdoes2: Anyway killing Muslims does not guarantee the halt of extremism.
There could be other groups of murderers in the 21st Century calling themselves "rebels with a cause." The thing about Radical Islam is it didn't rise on it's own; USA was the one to first arm Mujahideen against Soviets in Afghanistan.
Devil's Advocate: It would be wrong, but we may have saved ourselves a bit of a headache today...
Hitler killing Muslims by the millions would do the exact opposite of stopping radical Islam, you would instead be seeing its rise decades earlier than in our timeline in an even more violent form. The only way you would not leave an incredibly angry Muslim population behind after this (there were Jewish movements who wished to make Germany suffer for the Holocaust and the Allies were seriously entertaining the idea of leaving Germany as a medieval society to punish it, with only the Cold war stopping this idea from being implemented, so I sincerely doubt that Muslims would not entertain ideas of revenge on Germany) is if Hitler made some magical death ray and somehow killed all the muslims.
@vrakmul: cool, you're back
For some odd reason, out of all of the genocides that have occurred in history, the holocaust tends the be the one that stands out and is emphasized as one of the worst and, as bad as it sounds, I honestly don't think it would have stood out as much if it had been another group of people.
@noone301994: You're Reich. But Aryan't you going to post a gif?
The Nazis would have fallen earlier, since Muslims won't sit by and take that sh!t. They'd wage a 'holy' war against the third reich.
....why would you even ask this?
*Inserts Nova's epilepsy bait gif*
Yes, he would have been hated just as much.
But if he existed post 9/11, there's a different story right there.
@norrinboltagonprime21: I feel so bad for laughing.
@norrinboltagonprime21: I feel so bad for laughing.
@norrinboltagonprime21: Whoa, I did Nazi that coming. And I'm probably Göring to Hell Holocausing this...
@norrinboltagonprime21: Whoa, I did Nazi that coming. And I'm probably Göring to Hell Holocausing this...
@sophia89: I think he's talking about Turkey.
I certainly hope so.
This. Plus, he didn't pick on the Jews. He killed 5 million other people that weren't Jewish in the concentration camps. Jews were just the largest minority group in Germany and Austria.
If Hitler was in the United States, African and Native American would've felt his insecurities.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment