So basically what you're saying is that all cultures and countries kill huge swaths of people mercilessly. You'd be right... history dictates that the human race not only has the highest intelligence of any species (demonstrated mostly by our ability to develop new technologies). but we also use said techniques to find new ways to kill more people. It's unfortunately the modus operandi of our species, and we need to find a way to stop it.

OR are you saying that it's ok for Germans to kill millions by varying methods, but for Americans to kill many by fire is strictly out of sorts? In this case, you're either anti-american, have a severe aversion to fire, or are pro-nazi. God help you if you're the last one.

You say propaganda and lies are ugly things, but these are only side effects of war. War is what is ugly. It doesn't matter who's doing it, it always will end up bad. This is an ever pressing topic though, and at some point merges into a theological discussion. You need to defend your country, yet propagating violence only further extends the problem. Is peace and pacifism the right path?

Maybe yes, maybe no.

I am not 100% sure there is an argument here or not.
Yes, propaganda can be evil, and it is practiced by every nation and corporation.
Yes, holocaust means destroyed completely in fire.
Yes all sides in war are in the business of killing the other side.
Yes all sides in war produce propaganda to make the other side the evil enemy, and their own side's force the saviors and liberators of the downtrodden.
And whoever "wins" writes the history books with a bias to say that it was a good thing they won otherwise things would be worse.

I hope that the proper definition of a word, used to describe the killing of 20 million people, rather than simply "consumed by fire" is not intended to detract from their deaths. I hope the post does not intend to say that, propaganda made the killing of 20 million people seem worse than it actually was.

The horrors committed by all sides in a war are only selectively advertised to keep the people thinking they are the good guys.

I will agree that atrocities are committed on all sides, and propaganda, or more accurately lack of information, makes one side seem more noble than the other.

In most cases wars are fought for non-noble reasons -- resources, position, power. Putting a stop to the Nazis was a noble and necessary fight. Why the world decided to rally against the Nazis, but not rally to stop the genocide in Rwanda, or Darfur is another question.

So, propaganda is the reason you are seemingly confounded by the difference between the dictionary definition of the word holocaust, and the Holocaust?

Let me help, because I certainly wouldn't want anyone to be confused. First, you'll note the capital "H". That makes the word a proper noun, and subsequently means that the word refers to a specific event, or in this case, a specific chain of events.

After doing some rudimentary research (as anyone should do when attempting to speak intelligently on a given subject) I have found that a mere Wikipedia search of the proper noun yields a section of information regarding the possible reason for the disconnect. Specifically, I direct your attention to the portion of the entry regarding the etymology of the word. (Sorry, I know definitions seem to be tough, and you may have overlooked this one earlier. Etymology, roughly defined, means "origin of the word or usage of a term".)

After reading all of this, and taking into account my general knowledge of the events involved, I wouldn't attribute the word's use to propaganda. I consider it the modification of a term in order to encompass the depth and breadth of a specific genocide. I believe definitions can become cultural as well as literal. Propaganda implies someone is spinning events to make things seem positive or favorable. Any single bombing event may be seen as a tragedy, or as an unpleasant necessity based on the appropriate use of propaganda. In t... (show all)

his case, however, I think there is no favor to be gained any way you color the systematic killing of between eleven and seventeen million people. Humanity did grant it a proper noun for the history books, however.

Antagonist; Every success full culture, race or religion has killed large numbers of people. Failure to kill means you are gone. War is a biological necessity to control or redistribute excess population because humans have no effective predators. Getting rid of war would be impossible without complete control of every last humans reproductive options.

I'm anti-hypocrisy and stupidity, they seriously hinder my and societies chances of survival. Being fat lazy and stupid makes you an easy target.

Pacifist make great slaves and war is only ugly if you have been brainwashed into believing peace is possible. In any biological based environment it's kill or be killed. Try talking mosquito's, lions or sharks into playing nice.

agentrnge-great post. No I'm implying that the Jews miss used the word to make it seem that they where treated worse than others, They where not, the Germans murdered Slav's and other peoples with the same disregard.

The world did not rally to stop the mass murder of Jews and others. The British empire rallied all it's far flung colonies and Allies to prevent the destruction of that empire. It was a want to be empire against an established empire. A fight to see who got to exploit the third world.

Anonymous -Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.

The Germans targeted multiple ethnic, racial and national groups so does ... (show all)

that mean the Slav's and Gypsy's where victims of a Holocaust to or does the term only apply to Jews as is reported everywhere. Or does it mean the Germans are not guilty of genocide, they where just a bunch of common mass murders?

If my use of the word genocide is the only basis for your rebuttal, you missed my point. You seem to love textbook definitions, and are unwilling to take into account the human emotion that sometimes lends to them. That emotion forms what I referred to as a "cultural definiton". I am sorry your view is so narrow, it is obviously what has confused you. Take care.