1. And... we're back. You'll notice that all of your images are back as well, as are our beloved emoticons, including the infamous :foo: We have also worked with our server folks and developers to fix the issues that were slowing down the site.

    There is still work to be done - the images in existing sigs are not yet linked, for example, and we are working on a way to get the images to load faster - which will improve the performance of the site, especially on the pages with a ton of images, and we will continue to work diligently on that and keep you updated.


    Fok on behalf of the entire Styleforum team
    Dismiss Notice

How we remember Shoa and other atrocities

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by romafan, Oct 4, 2012.

  1. globetrotter

    globetrotter Senior member

    Sep 28, 2004
    greater chicago

    I used to say "no, really we don't" but they didn't believe me. now I just wink...
  2. Teger

    Teger Senior member

    Mar 14, 2008
    Richmond, VA
    No Holocaust museum focuses solely on the Holocaust, so...
  3. in stitches

    in stitches Senior member Moderator

    Oct 10, 2010
    Charm City

    i am pretty sure the "yad v'shem" museum in israel is strictly holocaust related, at least the last time i was there it was, and i do not see that changing. i also think that is a very good thing. i understand the various needs for holocaust museums in the states to become more inclusive. whether or not i agree with it, i do understand it. however, i think that it is important that there be at least on place, that is solely dedicated to the memory of the holocaust. it would be nice if there was one in the states as well.

    does anyone know what the museum in DC houses in this regard?
  4. jpeirpont

    jpeirpont Senior member

    Jan 7, 2004
    Very interesting thread. GT and FLMM great perspective to this topic.
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2012
  5. FLMountainMan

    FLMountainMan Senior member

    Aug 18, 2006
    McAnally Flats

    Didn't have time to address this before, but I disagree. I.e. "No, Teger is wrong" (Looks like this thread is going in the right direction again). I'm not sure where you're getting this from, I think you may be applying a general truth for certain countries and time frames to all non-Crusade wars and all the Crusades. I also think you're not accounting for the very long period of time over which the Crusades occurred. Finally, I think you're disregarding that most wars, the Crusades included, had a mix of both ideological and territorial motivations.

    Wars contemporaneous to the Crusades include:
    1066–1088 Norman conquest of England - one battle in this had a 92% fatality rate, not noted as particularly exceptional by contemporary historians.
    1109 Battle of Głogów - the beseigers chained children hostages to their seige engines as they advanced towards the city
    1223–1241 Mongol invasion of Europe - hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of civilians murdered.
    1223–1480 Tatar raids in Russia - ditto.
    1296–1357 Wars of Scottish Independence - very high fatality rates, antisemites in blue facepaint having their genitals cut off.
    1326–1332 Polish–Teutonic War
    1337–1453 Hundred Years' War - admittedly, the standard of conduct you describe is very apt here. Mostly a territorial war (at its root), relatively low fatality rates
    1340–1392 Galicia–Volhynia Wars
    1340–1396 Bulgarian–Ottoman Wars - entire provinces of Bulgaria were depopulated. Heavy religious component.
    1366–1526 Ottoman–Hungarian Wars - massive slaughters. 14,000 Hungarian dead in one battle alone.

    I'd do more, but I'm not all that concerned about this issue.

Share This Page

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by