OBJECTION!
Hitler's genocide targeted mostly the jews (with the gypsies homosexuals, etc)
Whereas Mao and Stalin's killings were political killings.
Hitler's killing almost entirely focused on other countries whereas Mao and Stalin killed mostly their own countryman.
But yeah I see where your coming from as their kill count was higher
Stalin did institute pogroms to exterminate Jews as well. But when it comes to Hitler, it's the short amount of time, coupled with the systematic executions, that really makes it stand out. The banal, bureaucratic nature of the Holocaust makes it unique.
Does the holocaust really make it unique?
Leaving out the starving, dying, and murders, camps aren't a completely unique idea--we even had our own around the same time for the Japanese /specifically/
There have been many, many things in history worse than Hitler, or even Stalin or Mao. The thing is, Hitler and Stalin are the most recent, making far more prominent what they did. Another thing that makes Hitler scarier was the meticulous, almost automated execution of his targets. Because this was when modern technology was just advancing, it has a far greater impact on us than atrocities committed in the middle ages with weapons we rarely see.
7Reply
deleted
· 8 years ago
European settlers killed the most people (100 million native americans)
Y'know people say Hitler was a bad guy but he did kill Hitler. I mean I know the Holocaust and shit wasn't good but at least he killed the dude responsible.
Stalin didn't target Jews in the same was as Hitler, but he killed plenty. To the objection about who was killed, I don't see how "killing innocents" is worse because it targets a religion (like Hitler) vs. social groups, ethnicities or political views (like Stalin).
The US didn't have starvation camps to kill the Japanese in WW2. The Japanese immigrants & their 1st generation American children were put somewhere far from the cost because people were worried about their loyalty. It turns out that was wrong, but WW2 was a lot closer of a victory than it seems in hindsight. So, who could take the chance? I admit that it turns out to have been a mistake, but it's asinine to bring this up in a discussion of genocide and mass murder.
Pol Pot killed two million of his people...in a country that started out with a population of five million! Some were killed because they had glasses, which implies they were educated, for which it follows that they would be against Pol Pot's programs.
Hitler's genocide targeted mostly the jews (with the gypsies homosexuals, etc)
Whereas Mao and Stalin's killings were political killings.
Hitler's killing almost entirely focused on other countries whereas Mao and Stalin killed mostly their own countryman.
But yeah I see where your coming from as their kill count was higher
Leaving out the starving, dying, and murders, camps aren't a completely unique idea--we even had our own around the same time for the Japanese /specifically/
https://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/dlu96/new_si_unit_one_hitler/
New SI Unit: One Hitler.
The US didn't have starvation camps to kill the Japanese in WW2. The Japanese immigrants & their 1st generation American children were put somewhere far from the cost because people were worried about their loyalty. It turns out that was wrong, but WW2 was a lot closer of a victory than it seems in hindsight. So, who could take the chance? I admit that it turns out to have been a mistake, but it's asinine to bring this up in a discussion of genocide and mass murder.
Pol Pot killed two million of his people...in a country that started out with a population of five million! Some were killed because they had glasses, which implies they were educated, for which it follows that they would be against Pol Pot's programs.