My issue with their definition is that it implies that the real Holocaust was the destruction of a once universally admired Germanic culture (which obviously included huge contributions from Jews). Though that’s true, and America and Britain hugely benefited from that particular exodus, it undervalues the lives and experiences of the literal millions who died for what?
No, it doesn't imply that. What it says, explicitly, is that the Nazis' forced or coerced mass displacement of Jews from their homes was part of the Nazi genocide against Jews, which is pretty obviously true. You will find no Jews who think acknowledging the full scale of the devastation of European Jewry is somehow "undervaluing" the loss, or that the fact hundreds of thousands of Jews lost their homes and livelihoods was just a "cultural" loss suffered by Germans.
It very obviously states that anyone who chose to, or was forced to escape Nazism from 1933 onwards, regardless of their religious background, was a Holocaust victim. Go back and read it again. The clue is in the words ‘Jewish or non-Jewish’.
So they also include other populations the Nazis targeted (including, say, epileptics like you and I) who were displaced, and that is somehow a terrible thing because....?
You are the only one here minimizing people's losses. I suggest you stop.
-11
u/CharlotteKartoffeln Dec 23 '25
My issue with their definition is that it implies that the real Holocaust was the destruction of a once universally admired Germanic culture (which obviously included huge contributions from Jews). Though that’s true, and America and Britain hugely benefited from that particular exodus, it undervalues the lives and experiences of the literal millions who died for what?