The most famous forms of Holocaust denial and revisionism tend to focus on Jews, casting doubt, for example, on how many were exterminated in the camps. But denying the impact the Nazis had on the other groups they targeted, including queer and trans people, disabled people and Romani people, is still Holocaust denial. Maybe someone should tell J.K. Rowling.

  • Lath@kbin.earth
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    8 months ago

    Yes, it should be done gradually.
    What did the former slaves in the US have after they were freed? Nothing.
    Food, clothing, housing are burdens we can’t afford even now. Did you expect them to magically appear out of thin air once the slaves were freed?

    You want everything to be done now, on the spot, a fair and just world for everyone. How nice of you. But do you have the resources? The infrastructure? The personnel?
    You think that everyone will without a doubt respect everyone and everything without enough basic necessities to go around?

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      Weird, that wasn’t an issue for freeing Holocaust victims.

      Or should the closing of Treblinka been cautious and casual?

      • Lath@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        8 months ago

        But there were issues. The starving ones who were fed too much and too fast died, while because the train tracks and roads leading to these camps were destroyed, logistics was slow in giving them the help they needed.
        So freedom wasn’t as instant as you’d like to believe.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          8 months ago

          There is a gulf between instant and gradual. You advocated for the latter. The latter means only killing fewer Jews.

          • Lath@kbin.earth
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            8 months ago

            When death is unavoidable, the goal is to minimize the number of deaths. Taking into account the situation before, during and after can help create the better results.

            If we just free someone without taking into account whether they’ll be able to live afterwards is just patting ourselves on the back. Sure we can say we did the right thing, but without making certain they at least have a starting point, we might just be condemning them to desperation or crime.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  “In general”

                  “preferred”

                  Still sounds like “kill fewer and fewer Jews until the killing can stop.”

                  • Lath@kbin.earth
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    Actually, by in general, I was thinking about people who live their lives in constant suffering and would like to have the option of a peaceful release.
                    Euthanasia is still taking a life, and I would prefer an alternative to that.

                    Was writing “in general” not enough to go beyond this particular instance?

        • gedaliyah@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          No, the freedom was instant. There may have been logistical issues with medical treatment of the now free people. In all my conversations with Holocaust survivors, I have never heard one say that they were not free after the camp was liberated. That is just a nonsense take.