Echoes of History

David Thornton

David Thornton is a freelance writer and professional pilot who has also lived in Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. He is a graduate of the University of Georgia and Emmanuel College. He is Christian conservative/libertarian who was fortunate enough to have seen Ronald Reagan in person during his formative years. A former contributor to The Resurgent, David now writes for the Racket News with fellow Resurgent alum, Steve Berman, and his personal blog, CaptainKudzu. He currently lives with his wife and daughter near Columbus, Georgia. His son is serving in the US Air Force. You can find him on Twitter @CaptainKudzu and Facebook.

Related Post Roulette

18 Responses

  1. Kazzy says:

    “ The analogy here between savage murders and kidnappings from three weeks ago and 80 years ago bears more than a passing resemblance.”

    Please… make this analogy. 6M dead at the hands of a powerful government waging war on its neighbors is analogous to a terrorist organization breaking through fences with bulldozers and killing fewer people than the government of the people it attacked killed in recent years how exactly?Report

    • Mike Schilling in reply to Kazzy says:

      We don’t know how many people have been killed in Gaza. The figures you hear in the news all come from government organizations in Gaza, that is, Hamas. The same people that accused Israel of killing 500 people blowing up a hospital whose parking lot was hit by a Palestinian-fired rocket but wasn’t blown up and where not nearly that many people died.Report

      • Kazzy in reply to Mike Schilling says:

        Even still…
        As abhorrent as Hamas’ actions were, comparing them to the Nazi government and war machine that conquered much of Europe and likely would have exterminated European Jews (and other groups) absent a massive war fought by super powers on multiple fronts… it just doesn’t work.

        Their goals and target may be the same but 10/7 was not the Holocaust. Calling it such is a disservice to the millions and millions who died during the Holocaust and in trying to stop it.Report

      • Kazzy in reply to Mike Schilling says:

        Comment in mod.Report

  2. DavidTC says:

    As Israel gets accused of implementing fascist policies, it’s ironic to remember that the actual Na.zis (as opposed to figurative ones) were instrumental in fomenting the current strife between Jews and Arabs.

    This is not true. Strife between Jews and Arabs in Mandatory Palestine started after the Balfour Declaration in 1917 (Erm, once Mandatory Palestine existed in 1920. Whatever.), where Britain pledged to create an explicitly Jewish state in an area where Jews were very much a minority, which would have either required some sort of minority-run government or ethnic cleansing to work. (Spoiler, it ended up being the second.) And the Arab population knew that, the entire area was in a war almost from that point onward.

    The Na.zis had basically nothing to do with it, except with their eventual behavior against the Jews being the justification for the world acceding (somewhat) to their requests. The actual conflict in that area started way before that.

    And it’s exceptionally weird how you mention Haj Amin al-Husseini and his ‘enemy of my enemy is my friend’ approach to the Na.zis (His exact words), but failed to have noticed he had literally been arrested in _1920_ by the British by inciting violent rioting in Jerusalem against Jews and Jewish property, in protest of the Balfour Declaration! I’m rather sure that didn’t have anything to do with Na.zis, as the Na.zi party would literally not even be founded until a few months later.

    Just so there’s no confusion about what I’m saying, I want to make clear that Haj Amin al-Husseini was not a good person. He was rather antisemitic. And violent. I am not here to praise him in any manner. My objection here is the timeline, as all this was well before the Na.zis.

    In fact, you can find a lot of examples of antisemitic stuff from that time…as I think I have mentioned here before, this time period, between WWI and WWII, is exactly the point when, due to the Arab-Jew conflict starting, antisemitism became extremely prevalent among Muslim Arab in that area, imported from Europe and local Christians.

    Before, especially in that area (The Ottoman Empire), there had been…very little antisemitism, and what amount had existed had mostly come from local Christians. It’s not until WWI that (Due to Jews, some Arab but mostly not, openly trying to seize governance of part of Palestine) that any sort of general anti-Jewish sentiment arose among the Muslim Arab population, and, luckily for everyone (wait, no, not lucky), the Christians had _centuries_ of things to say about Jews that the Muslim Arab world imported full force, and were fully up to speed in a decade or so.

    But having said all that, I will point out that while a lot of the stuff said and done was very bad…there actually is a reason for it, the aforementioned plan of ‘We are going to carve out a piece of where you live and hand it to the Jews.’, which managed to get Arab Muslims pissed off at the Jews…and also very much the British too! It wasn’t Na.zis coming in. And there was quite a lot violence in the other direction, along with a lot of slander there, also.Report

  3. Damon says:

    I happened to come across Schlender’s list on tv a few days ago. What I found curious was the compliance of the jews to being rounded up and many being shot. I think it was a scene where they were moving jews to the ghettos. I remember one scene where 5 people were put into a line, one behind each other. A german soldier shot into the line killing 3 of the 5. The other two stood were they were as another soldier pulled out a pistol and, took aim, and shot each in the head. The last guy stood and watched they guy in front of him killed and just stood there waiting.

    W
    T
    F?
    People knew what was happening and they still stood by…

    No running, no mobbing the germans, nothing.Report

    • InMD in reply to Damon says:

      The Hollywood-ification of the Holocaust has become a bit misleading in that regard. For one thing there was resistance in some places. But for the most part the Holocaust looked like being unexpectedly dragged out of your home at 2AM after the lines changed on the eastern front without necessarily knowing what was going on, being marched at gunpoint into the woods with (and sometimes by) your neighbors, and abruptly machine gunned. There were no survivors from those kinds of episodes nor were people necessarily on notice about what was going to happen in the way hindsight now makes obvious. However there were some survivors from the camps, and the ghettos, and for that somewhat arbitrary reason the Elie Wiesel type experience is the one that gets remembered, along with the experience of the Jews in Germany and occupied western Europe, where there simply weren’t that many to begin with prior the war. You also have the complicating factor of the sites of the most serious and representative atrocities ending up on the other side of the iron curtain, where Westerners couldn’t learn about them and where the politics of what happened were very different, due to being in Soviet or Soviet allied communist states.

      Which isn’t to say that experience shouldn’t be remembered too, just that Steven Spielberg is only going to show you a very specific, and small piece of things. There was a book that came out around 15 years ago by Timothy Snyder called Bloodlands that somewhat controversially dug into this, and used a lot of information from the Russian sources that only became available in the late 90s. It’s very worth reading.Report

      • LeeEsq in reply to InMD says:

        The death camps get a lot of attention because they were where the Jews of Western Europe* tended to get sent to die and because they allow for big ideological pontification against things ranging from government to industrialization or whatever else. Most Jews killed during the Holocaust were killed with mobile death squads or in massacres more like the Rwanda genocide.

        *This is important because the Jews of Western Europe were more much more acculturated than the Jews of Eastern Europe. Ann Frank is a teenage girl just like you while Dvora Frumkin kept glatt kosher and never saw a movie or listened to the radio. The much more religious and traditional Jewish communities in Eastern Europe come across as much less identifiable for Western audiences. It is also why a lot of attention is paid to the plight of German Jews under the Nazis while the Jews or Romania, Poland, and elsewhere in Eastern Europe are something of an afterthought despite them wanting to escape before 1939 as well.Report

        • mina in reply to LeeEsq says:

          adding to the comments above, there are WW2 movies that depict Jews who ran (Pianist), hid (The Invisibles) & fought back…to the extent they could (Defiance). I’m just naming a few off the top of my head. Schindler’s List is just one POV.Report

          • LeeEsq in reply to mina says:

            Stanley Kubrick remarked on seeing Schindler’s List was that “the Holocaust is about the six million Jews that died not the few thousand that lived.” The problem with Kubrick’s approach is that nearly no audience has the emotional strength to go through two to two and half ours of sheer depression. Some sort of emotional payoff is needed.Report

            • Chip Daniels in reply to LeeEsq says:

              What makes these sorts of films difficult also is the scarcity of heroes.

              For every Schindler there are millions of others all across Europe and the Americas who turned their eyes and pretended not to see, both at the individual and institutional level.

              Which is particularly difficult for us Americans in the post-war generations to grasp. The Allied victory seems predestined and inevitable, so when presented with new evils its easy for us to just sort of assume that someone somewhere will do something.Report

              • LeeEsq in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Many people even doubt Schindler’s heroism and argue he was just a war profiteer that managed to do good by sheer accident of his greed for cheap labor. And yeah, the Allied victory was basically predestined even though it could have been a much longer and bloodier war. There was no way the Axis powers could have taken on the demographic and industrial might of the four most populous political entities in the world. These being the USA, the USSR, the Republic of China, and the British Empire.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to LeeEsq says:

                I think some sort of WWI style armistice with terms allowing the Reich to retain control of much of Europe was a very real possibility, had just a few cards played out differently.

                The bigger point is that as we’ve seen in Rwanda, Indonesia, and China, large scale atrocities can and do happen while the world dithers passively. Sometimes the bad guys do win.Report

              • LeeEsq in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Sometimes the bad guy wins because the good guys sweeping in makes things worse. Like trying to invade the PRC to prevent Mao’s mad sociological experiments would not have worked. Same with stopping the current PRC genocide against the Uyghurs.Report

        • Damon in reply to LeeEsq says:

          “Most Jews killed during the Holocaust were killed with mobile death squads or in massacres more like the Rwanda genocide.”

          Yeah, about that Rwandan genocide….”Hotel Rwanda” was excellent, if only for the reason that you see one of the main bad guys talking about people as “cockroaches”. Every time I read or hear someone basically devaluing another persons life by referring to them as something similar I’m reminded about how close to the edge we as a race are to another event like that. It always starts with dehumanization….Report

      • Pinky in reply to InMD says:

        I’ve heard Andrew Klavan go off on how disappointing it is that the definitive Hollywood film about the Holocaust is about the kind-hearted German who looks out for Jews.

        A bit off-subject, but I love the movie Swing Kids.Report

        • InMD in reply to Pinky says:

          I don’t want to totally denigrate any particular movie. I’m more just saying that the larger documented history doesn’t lend itself to these kinds of films, even if there are stories in the horror worth telling. To Lee’s point the bulk of the killing was done by SS units using firearms. Gas was introduced in part due to the inefficiency but also because the murderous work was so awful it was having a well documented deleterious impact on the morale of the units carrying it out. There is no nice way to put that in a movie.

          Mina mentioned Defiance, which I think is a pretty good movie and takes a slightly different tone than the usual depictions but IIRC it was controversial in Poland because the Soviet aligned militia that on the one hand protected some Jews is also alleged to have been involved in massacres against ethnic Poles.Report

          • Pinky in reply to InMD says:

            I don’t know which/whose comment I’m replying to, but whatever.

            The concentration camp is usually going to be the strongest choice for such a visual medium as film. They were immense – which also helps to prevent people from discounting the magnitude of the Holocaust. They were “efficient” in a 20th-Century sort of way, and state-approved. They used people as slaves, which is imagery that’s always going to resonate with Americans. Additionally, we’re not far removed from the generation that experienced the shock of the discovery of what the Nazis had been doing, and it was pictures of concentration camps that caused that shock.Report