Dude, this whole argument is built on historical nonsense. WWII and the Holocaust are not the same type of event. WWI and WWII are global wars, involving multiple nations, fought for political, territorial, and ideological reasons. They are part of a chronological sequence, which is why WWI was called the Great War until WWII happened, a…
Dude, this whole argument is built on historical nonsense. WWII and the Holocaust are not the same type of event. WWI and WWII are global wars, involving multiple nations, fought for political, territorial, and ideological reasons. They are part of a chronological sequence, which is why WWI was called the Great War until WWII happened, and the need to distinguish them arose. That’s why the names evolved.
The Holocaust, on the other hand, was not a war, not a movement, not part of a sequence—it was an enclosed, specific event. A state-organized, industrialized genocide targeting Jews, along with Romani, disabled people, and other groups. It wasn’t just "mass killing"; it was an entire bureaucratic machine built for extermination. That’s why it stands as a unique historical event, not just another example of mass violence.
If historical naming conventions worked the way you're implying, then we’d have "The Armenian Holocaust," "The Rwandan Holocaust," or "The Ukrainian Holocaust." But we don’t. Because history doesn’t work that way.
Now, you’re asking what’s worse than Gaza. Sudan. There are reports of women making death pacts to avoid being raped and executed. Tigray, Myanmar, North Korea—all still committing mass atrocities. South Sudan—famine is being used as a weapon. Then we have the Uyghurs in China, subjected to genocide on a much grander scale—forced labor, sterilization, mass internment, and organ harvesting. This isn’t speculation—it’s documented. An entire ethnic group is being systemically erased, their bodies quite literally used for profit.
Yet, somehow, none of these dominate headlines like Gaza. The idea that this is the worst ongoing humanitarian crisis is factually false.
Then there’s the argument that discussing something means personal investment. No. Understanding an event, analyzing it, and calling out factual errors has nothing to do with emotional involvement. Facts don’t require emotional weight to be correct. If something is historically inaccurate, it’s inaccurate. That’s it.
If Israel’s actions need to be condemned, use the right terminology. Call it genocide, ethnic cleansing, mass expulsion—terms that fit. But forcing the term "Holocaust" into the discussion is a blatant distortion of history. If the goal is to highlight Gaza’s suffering, historical accuracy would do a better job than sensationalism.
Dude, this whole argument is built on historical nonsense. WWII and the Holocaust are not the same type of event. WWI and WWII are global wars, involving multiple nations, fought for political, territorial, and ideological reasons. They are part of a chronological sequence, which is why WWI was called the Great War until WWII happened, and the need to distinguish them arose. That’s why the names evolved.
The Holocaust, on the other hand, was not a war, not a movement, not part of a sequence—it was an enclosed, specific event. A state-organized, industrialized genocide targeting Jews, along with Romani, disabled people, and other groups. It wasn’t just "mass killing"; it was an entire bureaucratic machine built for extermination. That’s why it stands as a unique historical event, not just another example of mass violence.
If historical naming conventions worked the way you're implying, then we’d have "The Armenian Holocaust," "The Rwandan Holocaust," or "The Ukrainian Holocaust." But we don’t. Because history doesn’t work that way.
Now, you’re asking what’s worse than Gaza. Sudan. There are reports of women making death pacts to avoid being raped and executed. Tigray, Myanmar, North Korea—all still committing mass atrocities. South Sudan—famine is being used as a weapon. Then we have the Uyghurs in China, subjected to genocide on a much grander scale—forced labor, sterilization, mass internment, and organ harvesting. This isn’t speculation—it’s documented. An entire ethnic group is being systemically erased, their bodies quite literally used for profit.
Yet, somehow, none of these dominate headlines like Gaza. The idea that this is the worst ongoing humanitarian crisis is factually false.
Then there’s the argument that discussing something means personal investment. No. Understanding an event, analyzing it, and calling out factual errors has nothing to do with emotional involvement. Facts don’t require emotional weight to be correct. If something is historically inaccurate, it’s inaccurate. That’s it.
If Israel’s actions need to be condemned, use the right terminology. Call it genocide, ethnic cleansing, mass expulsion—terms that fit. But forcing the term "Holocaust" into the discussion is a blatant distortion of history. If the goal is to highlight Gaza’s suffering, historical accuracy would do a better job than sensationalism.
It sounds like you've explained this to yourself to your complete satisfaction.
Have a very nice day.