Southlake school leader tells teachers to balance Holocaust books with 'opposing' views

MartyF said:

There is a ton of controversy

Click to expand...

I doubt that. At the level of K-12 education, there is no controversy over the facts and history of the Holocaust.

MartyF said:

There is a ton of controversy - so much controversy Israel is paying big money in an attempt the repeal the 1st and stop any discussion over the matter - requiring religious study of the holocaust in U.S. schools.

Once a week for twelve years, students in Texas have to be blasted by the government about what to think about the Holocaust.

Yet, no yearly discussion of slavery? Jim Crow laws? Japanese internment? Hits to close to home?

How about other events like Holodomor? The Killing Fields? The Cultural Revolution? Belgian Congo?

Click to expand...

If you want to argue that we should do a better job of covering other instances of genocide and atrocity rather than hyperfocusing in the Holocaust, that's fine (and I'd generally agree), but disagreeing with how much coverage something gets does not constitute disagreement with the facts - it's not an "alternate viewpoint".

essentialsaltes said:

I doubt that. At the level of K-12 education, there is no controversy over the facts and history of the Holocaust.

Click to expand...

Really?

Why were the Jews targeted?

That opens up a big can of worms right there.

Were the Jews killed under a Capitalist or Socialist regime?

Why did Germany invade eastern Europe?

What did Germany plan to do with Eastern Europe after they conquered it?

Did the Germans plan to kill all Jews everywhere?

Why didn't the Jews flee?

Were the killings of German civilians justified when the allies didn't have to kill the same proportion of civilians when retaking France or Italy?

Is the punishment of the German people as a group for the Holocaust justifiable? Can this justification lead to another Holocaust?

There are only so many times a teacher can tell students to repeat "Seven million Jews dies in the Holocaust" like a mantra.

MartyF said:

Really?

Click to expand...

Since this is supposed to be a list of controversies about the Holocaust, I will answer you questions as such.

MartyF said:

Why were the Jews targeted?

Click to expand...

Short answer: Antisemitism
Long answer: Centuries of antisemitic propaganda particularly the notions that Jews were enemies of Christianity (refused to accept messiah, "Christ killers", etc.) and the writings of German theologian Martin Luther.

MartyF said:

That opens up a big can of worms right there.

Click to expand...

Brain worms?

MartyF said:

Were the Jews killed under a Capitalist or Socialist regime?

Click to expand...

Since we are talking about the Holocaust, they were killed by the fascist Nazi regime where the constructors of concentration camps and manufacturers of poison gasses were private companies -- capitalist. (This is not about the killing spree of the USSR.)

MartyF said:

Why did Germany invade eastern Europe?

Click to expand...

Not about the Holocaust specifically, though it proceeds it. To reclaim lands Hitler thought Germany had a natural right to (lands where Germans live or had lived), provide buffers, use of militarism to maintain control of the population, economic expansion, etc.

MartyF said:

What did Germany plan to do with Eastern Europe after they conquered it?

Click to expand...

Lebensraum. They planned to settle it with Germans.

MartyF said:

Did the Germans plan to kill all Jews everywhere?

Click to expand...

I don't know. The "final solution" plan was formed after the war started. There were lots of Jews well outside the reach of Germany's power, I don't know that Hitler was delusional or hateful enough to wage war to get every one of them.

MartyF said:

Why didn't the Jews flee?

Click to expand...

Many did, particularly before the war from Germany. Many were caught behind the lines once Germany began its war of conquest. Much of the world wasn't exactly welcoming to Jewish refugees, so where would they go?

MartyF said:

Were the killings of German civilians justified when the allies didn't have to kill the same proportion of civilians when retaking France or Italy?

Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with any "controversy" related to the Holocaust.

MartyF said:

Is the punishment of the German people as a group for the Holocaust justifiable? Can this justification lead to another Holocaust?

Click to expand...

What "group punishment"?

MartyF said:

There are only so many times a teacher can tell students to repeat "Seven million Jews dies in the Holocaust" like a mantra.

Click to expand...

I thought it was 6 million.

You haven't really delinated any "controversies" at all related to the Holocaust, let alone those that would be at a K-12 level. What's you deal?

MartyF said:

Why were the Jews targeted?

Click to expand...

MartyF said:

That opens up a big can of worms right there.

Click to expand...

Indeed it does...and produces questions that aren't comfortable for people to answer honestly and frankly.

Mainly because, the modern day arguments (both from the left-leaning factions that support Palestine, and the right-leaning factions that support conspiracy theories about "Zionism") share some overlap with what Hitler said...yet both want to seemingly distance themselves from that kind of negative PR.

MartyF said:

Were the Jews killed under a Capitalist or Socialist regime?

Click to expand...

Socialist

MartyF said:

Why did Germany invade eastern Europe?

Click to expand...

I would assume for the same reason a lot of tyrants seek expansion...to spread their ideology.

MartyF said:

What did Germany plan to do with Eastern Europe after they conquered it?

Did the Germans plan to kill all Jews everywhere?

Click to expand...

If you take his words at face value, to eradicate communism, western capitalism, and remove all sanctions and restrictions placed on Germany at the end of the first world war.

MartyF said:

Were the killings of German civilians justified when the allies didn't have to kill the same proportion of civilians when retaking France or Italy?

Is the punishment of the German people as a group for the Holocaust justifiable? Can this justification lead to another Holocaust?

Click to expand...

Weighing "human lives vs. human lives" is always a risky gambit.

In a perfect world, anyone who's merely a victim of territorial circumstance would never be killed, but real life is more messy than that.

IE: If 100 are lost as collateral damage in the efforts to kill the guy who would've killed tens of thousands of other people was left unchecked, what's the ethical choice?

MartyF said:

Is the punishment of the German people as a group for the Holocaust justifiable? Can this justification lead to another Holocaust?

Click to expand...

No, it is not. And we came very close to having another larger Holocaust before the rubble was cleared. If The Morganthau Plan had been fully implemented it is estimated over 10 million Germans would have died, mainly of starvation or related things. It would also have made WW III rather likely for the same reasons that the peace after WW I led to WW II.

Fortunately, enough allied generals saw this and/or wanted Germany as a buffer against Russia that we got The Marshal Plan instead.

ThatRobGuy said:

Indeed it does...and produces questions that aren't comfortable for people to answer honestly and frankly.

Mainly because, the modern day arguments (both from the left-leaning factions that support Palestine, and the right-leaning factions that support conspiracy theories about "Zionism") share some overlap with what Hitler said...yet both want to seemingly distance themselves from that kind of negative PR.

Socialist

I would assume for the same reason a lot of tyrants seek expansion...to spread their ideology.

If you take his words at face value, to eradicate communism, western capitalism, and remove all sanctions and restrictions placed on Germany at the end of the first world war.

Weighing "human lives vs. human lives" is always a risky gambit.

In a perfect world, anyone who's merely a victim of territorial circumstance would never be killed, but real life is more messy than that.

IE: If 100 are lost as collateral damage in the efforts to kill the guy who would've killed tens of thousands of other people was left unchecked, what's the ethical choice?

Click to expand...

Hmm the national socialists, socialist? From privatising banks to banning unions not exactly. Big govt corporatist, with large 'private' companies supporting the fascist state.

'opposing' views, is the issue. There should be no opposing views in regard to the holocaust. Supplementary views on the other hand.

Goonie said:

Hmm the national socialists, socialist? From privatising banks to banning unions not exactly. Big govt corporatist, with large 'private' companies supporting the fascist state.

Click to expand...

Fascism and left-leaning economic systems aren't mutually exclusive.

ThatRobGuy said:

Fascism and left-leaning economic systems aren't mutually exclusive.

Click to expand...

They're not, but I haven't seen a lot of compelling evidence for the Nazis being socialist (once Hitler took over, at least) outside of it being in their name - and we all know how reliable that is as an indicator.

RocksInMyHead said:

They're not, but I haven't seen a lot of compelling evidence for the Nazis being socialist (once Hitler took over, at least) outside of it being in their name - and we all know how reliable that is as an indicator.

Click to expand...

Economically speaking, they had something of hybrid economy.

And there was some "creative wordplay" happening en masse.

While the rhetoric was "businesses should be in private hands whenever possible", the part that came after that "unless state interference is required for a war effort" ...which "war effort" was the majority of Hitler's tenure.

And while the businesses themselves may have been "private" on paper, they were in "private hands" of people who just so happened to have deep party ties.

Sort of the inverse of the form of corruption that happens in western capitalist states.
Ex: Here in the US, the rich guys pay for the politicians that will their bend to their interests.
Over there it was "we, the state, will select the particular rich guys we want to run these sectors, and they'll do what we say or be replaced by force"

The German hybrid model of the time had a closer resemblance to the Chinese hybrid model we see today, where there are some "private businesses", but the lion's share are led by people who are party members who will do what the party says, else be ousted. Yet, it's not controversial to label China as "socialism".

ThatRobGuy said:

Economically speaking, they had something of hybrid economy.

And there was some "creative wordplay" happening en masse.

While the rhetoric was "businesses should be in private hands whenever possible", the part that came after that "unless state interference is required for a war effort" ...which "war effort" was the majority of Hitler's tenure.

And while the businesses themselves may have been "private" on paper, they were in "private hands" of people who just so happened to have deep party ties.

Click to expand...

This is classic oligarchy like we see in Russia today. The main difference between the two is that Russian oligarchs only obtained their wealth 30 years ago with privatization of the old Soviet state industries, whereas in Germany old companies were allowed to keep their ownership if they were cooperative with the state.

ThatRobGuy said:

Sort of the inverse of the form of corruption that happens in western capitalist states.
Ex: Here in the US, the rich guys pay for the politicians that will their bend to their interests.
Over there it was "we, the state, will select the particular rich guys we want to run these sectors, and they'll do what we say or be replaced by force"

The German hybrid model of the time had a closer resemblance to the Chinese hybrid model we see today, where there are some "private businesses", but the lion's share are led by people who are party members who will do what the party says, else be ousted. Yet, it's not controversial to label China as "socialism".

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what "true communism" is, but the existence of billionaires seems to be not compatible with it. It's hard to think of China as a communist state anymore, more of a one-party dictatorship with supplicant oligarchy.

essentialsaltes said:

There are very fine books on both sides.

Click to expand...

Back in the Nixon administration, one political cartoonist, mocking Nixon's habit of asking extremists of opposing sides to negotiate, showed him gathering Elija Muhammed, KKK members, and the like to "come to a reasonable solution," Nixon missed the point, and liked it so much, he asked the cartoonist to autograph a copy for him.