The Holocaust.

An interesting question came up today when I was debating with my global perspectives teacher. I was questioning him about how if someone was to find an island, and mark it as their own country. Then they would have their own government and people. They would make their own laws and do whatever, and stay out of every other countries business. But what would happen If the leader of the country was too murder everyone for a crime they all commited. It was here my teacher said that the united nations would have to put a stop to your crimes against humanity. and I said "well its my own country, and everyone agreed to my laws. It's acceptable" and then he said "So was the Holocaust acceptable in your eyes?"

So what do you guys think? We all know the Holocaust was TERRIBLE. It was indeed a crime against humanity, but was it technically acceptable? I don't know if I'm stepping on any toes here, and I am DEFINITELY not siding with Hitler. But what do u all think?

I think you have done a good job in asking the question. There is law, but law is not an end to it's self. What I mean is; there is a greater right in this world. Those people on the outside can stop you because, this kind of thing, in the past, has not stopped at the border of one country, but has gone over borders and killed many people of other nations. The right to self preservation and to live is a higher right than law.

No, to any rational mind the Holocaust is as far away from acceptable as you can possibly get.

Originally posted by BackFire
No, to any rational mind the Holocaust is as far away from acceptable as you can possibly get.

What do you mean?

A. Talking about the Holocaust.
B. The Holocaust it's self.

If you say A: I disagree. We need to talk about it and never forget it.
If you say B: I agree with you. We should insure it never happens again.

What? Talking about it is fine, of course.

It's occurance however, was not.

Government is supposed to be for the good of the people, when the ruler is not just, he is not fit to rule.

But whos to say how somebody should be ruled?

Originally posted by TheQuincy
But whos to say how somebody should be ruled?

We.

You should've counterd your teacher's response with "So what makes the UN any better then America?"

If it's true that when crimes that hanus are commited the United Nations has a right to police the world, why doesn't The United STATES have that right? We're just as powerful as the U.N. all on our lonesome..

The question loops back on itself. It suggests that the global community has no right to interfere with the decisions of a democractically elected Government, no matter how evil they are.

It forgets that the only thing that gives a democratically elected Government any moral right to be so left alone is not some universal force, but the consensus of that very same international community. It is only because people of the world tend to approve of democracy that such Governments are approved. That same community disapproves of genocide, hence intervention is warranted.

So aside from the morality of it- which is obvious- a genocide is wrong and should be stopped- the sheer practicality is that you have no grounds to claim that because you are elected you should not be stopped by others, because your form of Government is not the end of the equation.

Nothing magic about democracy other than the way people view it. Go beyond the pale in another manner, and the same potential penalties apply.

The reason the US doesn't have the right is simple- it was agreed after WWII that no country should have the right to unilateral action in global affairs.

Hitler made up his own rules, and his own laws from his from his perception that the Jews were evil...He used great propaganda...And with Hitler there were no more elections....So...can people vote this guy out the next time around?

Originally posted by TheQuincy
But whos to say how somebody should be ruled?

The people..

Originally posted by Spelljammer
You should've counterd your teacher's response with "So what makes the UN any better then America?"

If it's true that when crimes that hanus are commited the United Nations has a right to police the world, why doesn't The United STATES have that right? We're just as powerful as the U.N. all on our lonesome..

that isn't exactly the greatest rebuttle spell. And lets not get egotisticle, i know if i wasn't from the United states, and I was from any other nation or country, i'd hate the u.s.

An imposition of law is not the same as an agreed acceptance of law; therein lies the difference.

If it's true that when crimes that hanus are commited the United Nations has a right to police the world, why doesn't The United STATES have that right? We're just as powerful as the U.N. all on our lonesome..

Surely the holocaust was simply the mentality on which the US was founded (taking land from the mongoloid inhabitants) taken to its logical extension (start eliminating ethnic competition)?

well........yeah.......

I'm personally sick of everybody referring to the German's genocide against Hebrews as THE holocaust..........when the Europeans began their genocide against the Natives of the Americas hundres of years earlier and resulted in much more death and destruction. What happened in Germany was child's play compared to what happened in the Americas.

Then again........I guess it is looked at as being so important because some Europeans were being killed and not millions upon millions of savages.

when the Europeans began their genocide against the Natives of the Americas hundres of years earlier and resulted in much more death and destruction.

Survival of the fittest and exercise of power is a natural thing without which nothing would have existed - eat or be eaten is the law of nature - it can't be evil or bad, because everything functions according to that.

Originally posted by Wonderer
Survival of the fittest and exercise of power is a natural thing without which nothing would have existed - eat or be eaten is the law of nature - it can't be evil or bad, because everything functions according to that.

What happend was wrong, very very wrong. Yes, good stuff happend ultimately, but then again SOMETHING good has to happen out of everything. But that doesn't change the fact that is was terribly evil. Last time I checked animals don't commit mass genocide to survive..

Killing one or more makes no difference. Who told you it's bad to kill?