Wow.

@ Lord Stark - Sorry if I come across as a bit tetchy about it! You'd be amazed how many Europeans (and Americans for that matter) bang on about the Americans and D-Day while forgetting the very real and equally important (arguably more important) the British Commonwealth made to the whole effort. I should have remembered that most people on here tend to be a tad more educated than that!

"The Shoah (Jewish Holocaust) was terrible, but 80 million people died because of WWII, and those 6 million seem to be the only ones anyone knows about."

Amen to that. Of my grandmother's 6 cousins in Slovakia, only 2 survived the war. Of course, since they weren't Jews, no one gives a crap and there are no monuments or museums where their lives are remembered. But they're just as dead as anyone who went into a gas chamber or was shot by a guard at Auschwitz.

@Don Corleone:

No one "forgets" the 8 million... it's just that the six million Jews, such a big number, all one group... that it nearly wiped out the Yiddish language and all the Jews in Europe... and that it sort of was the culmination of 2,000 years of Anti-Semtism in parts of Europe... it doesn't dimish the 8 million others dying, but the six million Jews killed in the Holocaust...

You can't write fiction like that- that's the kind of horror that's either impossible.. or worse, coldly possible.

80 million died in WWII, and all those deaths were terrible (save for say the Axis leaders dying) but due to the centuries of context, I stand by the sentiment that the Six Million somehow do stand out... and rightfully.

Think about it- even if you want to say they get too much attention (and that's a really hard claim to defend, given the magnitude) isn't it better to give to much attention than to have it get too little and risk that sort of thing happening again?

@Tolstoy:

I must disagree- had Napoleon won at Waterloo, it very well COULD have stuck. Let us not forget Europe was sick of war by this point, that's why they were so anxious for Wellington to just end it once and for all. If Napoleon won, I don't think it's too far-fetched to say that perhaps the European Nations might've just said a hearty "fuck it all" and left Napoleon there in power, as Napoleon couldn't have continued any campaigning for a LONG time after such an enormous battle (even if he wins, he'd lose his massive army, as the armies that day dcimated each other.)

So I think if Naploleon won, he might've had to stop campaigning for a few years, consolidate at home and such, but Europe wouldn't have had the stomach for another full-blown war, and just left it alone... as not only would they not have the stomach for war, but let us not forget- part of the reason Napoleon was a target was because he deposed a monarchy (sort of.) If he came back, and kept his power, European nations wouldn't have had the stomach for a war- but they WOULD have had to perhpas keep an eye on possible Napoleon-imitators at home, if you get my drift...

"I must disagree- had Napoleon won at Waterloo, it very well COULD have stuck. Let us not forget Europe was sick of war by this point"

True enough - they were so sick of war that they would do whatever it would've taken to stop Napoleon, who had been the direct cause of all wars in Europe for the last fifteen years. Remember that the Anglo-Prussian army Napoleon lost to at Waterloo was only half of the grand army that was being mustered by the coalition; Austria and Russia had both mustered armies of something like 150,000 men each to defeat Napoleon that were marching on France at the time of Waterloo. There's no way Nap would've been able to squeeze any more recruits out of a war-weary France to hold off that force. The Hundred Days was one man's defiance of the tsunami of historical forces.

true Corleone, also dont forget that the Nazi s targeted homosexuals and labour union activists as well.

I agree with Tolstoy, Waterloo is an outstanding testement to one mans almost superhuman charisma, but winning there would not have gauranteed Napoleon continued rule. That would have taken persuading the Russian/Austrian army to back off. That is something that perhaps could have been done (a victory at Waterloo would've made them think twice) but not by Napoleon. The man was perhaps the greatest military leader in the history of mankind, but he was no politician. As proved by the monstrous coalition arrayed against him, he just didn't know how to make friends. that said, if he found a way to get that second force to back off, then he might have stuck around.

"it doesn't dimish the 8 million others dying, but the six million Jews killed in the Holocaust..."

Obiwan, I love you man, but I have to ask. Do you really think that my grandmother's four dead cousins mean less than the deaths of three (3) Jews killed in the holocaust?

He's just saying that as a group more jews were killed than any other group. The camps were also for the express purpose of exterminating them. So their deaths are more significant in terms of what they represent to the Jewish race and to the world as a whole.

The campaigns of Belisarius under Justinian are brilliant.

And I've read two books on the fall of Constantinople, though I'm a sucker for last stands.

^^ Especially of empires.

"The camps were also for the express purpose of exterminating them."
This simply isn't true. The camps were as much to exterminate the Catholics, Poles, Soviets, Romani, People with disabilities, Jehovah's witnesses - and homosexuals and labour union activists - as the Jews.

I don't mean to diminish the deaths of 6 million Jews, or to suggest that too much attention is paid to them, only that not enough is payed to all the others who died. I think your average American has no idea that another 5-11 million died in the holocaust.

The Death Camps were the "Final Solution" to a large number of "problem minorities" under the Nazi authority. The fact remains though that the campaign against the Jewish race was a central tenet of the National Socialist platform, the others were afterthoughts that got lumped in with them. The purpose of the camps were to solve the problem presented by the Jews, it was later that they were used for other groups.

That said, I agree that certainly the average American, and probably the average citizen of many other countries, are unaware of the millions who died in the holocaust who are not jewish. The fact that such ignorance exists in modern society is a black mark on all of humanity.

Cyrano's got the interpretation of my statement down... thanks.

No, it doesn't mean any less or any more, but when it's nearly the entire population of one race, and a race that's been being whittled and whittled for centuries byt this point, it just takes on a horrific (and thus, as the morbid beings we are, captivating) connotation.

I think the reasons (and I don't condone it, jsut saying I think this is why) that the others who died in the Holocaust are not remembered as much as the Jews are:

-If we go by Corleone's numbers, that'd make 6 million 12-13 of the Holocaust... so that's the biggest race targeted, thus the figurehead of it (and, again, the whole "2,000 years before and now this nearly wiped them out" point)
-Anne Frank... she IS the undeniable symbol of the Holocaust victims... name one other person who described so... it's through a child's eyes, and it's been her diary, plays, movies, books on her book... the symbol of the Holocaust is a Jew, and a little Jewish girl- that gets people's attention more than labor workers and every other poor soul that died there
-There's just something ABOUT the Jews... I don't mean to sound like an overproud Jew, but come on, they just have a mystique about them, their sufferings are so legendary... the culture's so... inescapable almost, I mean, there's no way to put it into words, at least I'm failing at it, but the Jews just sort of have an aura about them and their history... granted it's not for happy reasons, mostly, but still...
-The Jews WERE a bigger focus, I'd argue, because the Third Reich didn't just kill them. The groups Corleone mentions- they were all exterminated and targetd, but the Jews became Hitler's, Germany's scapegoat. "Jude" armbands, Kristallnacht, destruction of synagouges, of the language (Yiddish was the primary language, and shares a lot of German words, because it grew out of German and Hebrew when the Medevial Jews were there... it was a big language in Germany and that area of the world then, and it was nearly utterly destroyed.)
-It was personal. The other groups were groups Hitler and/or Germans didn't like and/or wanted removed. With the Jews, it was personal; Jews had been in Germany since the Middle Ages, more had come when they fled from Russia... they wre ingrained into German culture to such an extent that they entered the German culture in a way that they hadn't in other countries and that those other races hadn't in Germany. Two of Germany's titans of culture right before (and after) the World Wars, Wagner and Nieetzsche, both had strong views on the Jews. Wagner HATED them, and was VERY Anti-Semetic; Nietzsche, despite what others have erroneously claimed post-WWII (and have now to a large extent backed away from saying), felt the Jews were a good race, and went so far as to call the "the toughest race in Europe" and even hinted that perhaps Germans could learn a thing or two from them. Either way, good or bad, love or hate, the Jews were part of Germany in a way the Soviets never were, Catholics quite weren't, Romani... the Jews were really a part of Germany, and so it somehow stands out more, to see Germans in Kristallnact both killing and protecting Jews. THAT may be the biggest thing of all: with the other groups, it just seemed to be part of the Third Reich; with the Jews, many more people, it seems, KNEW these people, had Jewish co-workers and doctors and neighbors, and so when the Reich decided to kill them, for people it was almost more of a choice- many Germans did hate the Jews, and helped to kill them, and yet there were still those Germans who helped them, hid them away, came to their aid... the Jews were Germans, too, for those people, and so the whole thing took on a personal tone.

It doesn't excuse how people overlook other groups, but it does expalin (and I think adequately and in a way rightly) why Jews have been the large focus when discussing it.

As an aside, and just to give some creedence to what obiwan is saying, google 'Hitler' and 'Archbishop Orsenigo', and have a look at the picture you will find. I don't think you'll find any similiar pictures of Der Fuehrer meeting Jewish clergymen....

@obi & tolstoy: Using a % of the population would probably put your disagreement in perspective if you have it available. Obi is saying a huge chunk was taken out of a small sample. Tolstoy, you're saying a great quantity was taken out of a larger sample. Either way, it's horrible, but only a % of the base will show which events had the greatest (worst) impact.

Clarification historically:
First off, anti-semitism of the nazi variety was originally based on Hitler's conclusion that the Jews had lost Germany the first world war (or the Great War, as it was then called), and morphed into belief in the Aryan race (ironically, Hitler himself didn't fit the physical Aryan stereotype). (Here I start to deviate to opinion) It was perhaps less personal than even Communists, who Hitler hated and fought and bitterly campaigned against in his rise to power, than Jews, with whom Hitler had less of a personal association with. It was not a movement of Germany as a whole; instead it was a German movement initiated by a supremely powerful dictator. He probably did not even have the enthusiastic support of everyone, many were just loyal party members who didn't necessarily buy everything thrown at them.
Second, which Wagner are you talking about? Winifred, Richard, Adolph, Friedelind?
Overall however, I think you could apply the same "they were a part of Germany" argument to the many other groups executed. Perhaps the Jewish killings were remembered more than most because it was the most public, taking them away took place in large groups and even families, lots of attention was given to resistance such as the Warsaw ghetto uprising, and it took place, not simply in Germany, but in practically all nations Hitler's Nazi German regime took over.

Fave battle though is the Battle of Stalingrad. Horribly managed as it drew near winter, total defeat at the height of Nazi power, so many troops thrown in on both sides.

So many battles and so little time. How about Ceasers Battle of Alesia? Most generals would of cut and run at the prospect of being attacked while seiging a city. Winning a siege will being attacked, few can claim such a victury.

The thing about the balloon bombs is true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balloon_bombs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balloon_bombs#Single_lethal_attack

Most WWII buffs know of the ballon attacks. But when you look at huge area of the US west they where no more than pin pricks.

@the.dibster:

To start- I was referring to the great opera composer and terrible person RICHARD Wagner... I can't remember who said it, but I must agree with he who said: "To Wagner the composer I take off my hat; to the man, I put it back on again in disgust."

Who said that I don't know... but if anyone want's to check it, I rmember reading it on Wikipedia...

Anywho...

Sir, you seem to be making a distinction I am not- you seem to be saying (correct if wrong) that HITLER disliked the Communists to the point where it was personal for him, and not so much with the Jews, that they were scapegoats.

While that may be true (debatable, but it has merits) and it likewise is true the German people were no fans of Communists, how can you say that the Jews were not more ingrained in the German society than Communists- the Jews had been around literally centuries more, had linguistic and racial backgrounds there as evidenced by the fact many German citizens did have some Jewish blood...

I'm not saying that for HITLER the Jews were more personal than other Holocaust victims.

I'm saying for the German people as a whole it was more personal, because the Jews in fact WERE Germans, had been there for centuries, had shared pieces of culture (ie Yiddish as a Hebrew-Germanic language), and the simple fact theat most Germans did know and know well Jewish coworkers and doctors and lawyers and neighbors, whereas other groups like the Communists were more of a political thing and thus not the SOCIAL connection the Jews were, and for groups like disabled people... well, they're not intrinsically "German;" there ARE people who were and are disabled and not German the world over.

Communists... Catholics... disabled peoples... all victims of the Holocaust, and all tragic, BUT:

German-Jews- THAT is a particular group that ALL Germans knew and knew intimately...

To use an analogy to hopefully make my point, take American Latinos. THAT is a group of people that we can safely say ALL Americans (and by all I mean for all intents and purposes all... let's not hear about someone holed up in the woods of Montana in a shack who's never seen another person before or something) know and know well.

We all know a Latino. They are something that is both foreign to us (and by that I mean thos who IMMIGRATE here... I'm not saying that they're not American or unwelcome, they are, just that for those that are just immigrated here or first-generation US citizens it's a bit of a mix between their original country and America culture-wise) and distinctly American... there are Mexican-Englishman, I'm sure, and Honduran-Frenchwomen probably, but the American Latino is... I don't want to say it, but I will-

A stereotype. For better or worse, the "American Latino" is a stereotypical figure.

And so is the "German-Jew."

Both stereotypes can be unflattering and even cruel.

But both are still distinct to their culture; the Germans had that image of the Jew just as much as, for better or worse, many Americans have that image of Latinos (and I'm not picking any one image of Latinos here... I'm just saying that the general visual and auditory description eleicited by the word "Latino" is stereotypical, and something we all know.)

All Germans knew a German Jew. We all know an American Latino.

NOW imagine that (let's pick someone NO ONE likes lol) the leader of the WBC Church in Topeka, Kansas comes to power...

Let's call this bastard leader of that horrid and abomidable "church" Frank (apologies to anyone who's name IS Frank.) ;)

So Frank is the dictator of America somehow, and orders that all American Latinos be brutally killed, their businesses destroyed, and the men, women, and children shipped off to camps in Mississippi to be put to forced labor and killed.

Now think of what it'd be like- there ARE people who don't like immigrants in this country, sadly, and there ARE White Supremacists and the KKK and Neo Nazis... members of gangs (of any race) that just want an excuse to hurt people... THEY are going to be all too happy to comply and start the Night of Shattered Glass II.

But what about most Americans? We all know these people... we all know at least one Latino, and likely more... a lot of us probably have Latino friends, coworkers, bosses, the works.

What do you do? This isn't like "Frank" is saying in his Monty-Python voice (oh, great, now I'm mixing the Holocaust and Monty Python... oh wow lol) "Bring out yer dead!" or the weak (still evil) or whatever.

He's asking you to kill your neighbor- an AMERICAN CITIZEN.

Just like Hitler told the people to kill their distintly German neighbors... however much of a minorty they were.

THAT IS PERSONAL, Sir.

OK... that was sort of all over the place, but I hope you guys know what I meant...

Well, all I can say is that Turkey and I (Italy!) have just conquered the continent. I don't know how to find the game number ... Someone tell me, and I'll post it here. :P

That being said, my Dad's Greek, so my sentimental favourite goes to Alexander the Great and his Drive to Turkemenistan. I mean, even the Romans took 100s of years to do what he did in 13. Nuff said ... :P

General George S. Patton. His drive through Western Europe.

has anybody ever heard of the Winter War? It was 1940, between Finland and the USSR. The tactics the Finns used were simply amazing, and it helped them keep their sovereignty. The Soviets had a huge advantage material-wise, but the Finns used the landscape to their advantage. They mined the mountain passes, so that, when the Soviets sent a column of tanks through, the lead tank would be destroyed. The remaining tanks were nearly helpless, since it was difficult to coordinate a column of tanks going backward for miles (the passes were too narrow to turn around). Meanwhile, the Finns, with their skis and submachine guns, killed the suprised infantry riding on the tanks, then destroyed the tanks at their leisure. They destroyed entire columns this way.

@ Obiwan:

Homosexuals were German. Communists were German (There was a german dude named Marx, if I'm not mistaken). I really don't see the difference you're making.

I think that the reason people have made such a separate point of the suffering of the Jews, and not as much over other groups, is the matter of racism vs political persecution vs "moral" persecution.

Basically, the Jewish people are an "ethnia" (I hope that's the right word, I don't use the word race to describe different groups of humans), whereas Homosexuals & Communists are groups defined by "choices". Persecuting the jews is racism, persecuting the Communist is mcarthysm, persecuting the homosexuals, is there a word for it?

The establishment of that time (I mean, post WWII) had no interest in portraying homosexuals and communists as victims of the Nazis, or showing political persecution as a Nazi trait (And therefore, something "the bad guys do"), because they were doing it themselves.

So that's how we're stuck with this notion that the Nazi Party went only after the jews, and that the dead in WWII were the jews, the fallen soldiers, and the collateral damages.

@Don Corleone - "The only deaths on U.S. soil in WWII:"

Not completely true. Don't forget the Battle of Attu. The only land battle of WWII fought on US soil. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Attu

"Most WWII buffs know of the ballon attacks. But when you look at huge area of the US west they where no more than pin pricks"

This is true but because, if I understand correctly, the Japanes thought it wasn't working and didn't pursue it. If it had been in the dry seasons causing massive wildfires and the Japaness had started sending thousands it might have neen more than a pin prick though. That "If" is an interesting thought.