Holocaust or holocausts?

[JBFRAME at aol.com]

  The Holocaust is the "final solution to the Jewish question" as put forth 
by the idealogues of the Third Reich.  Can it mean anything other than the 
attempted extermination of the Jews in Europe?  Atrocities committed by 
German forces in the Second World War against Allied military personnel (I'm 
thinking here of the Malmedy Massacre of American troops during the Ardennes 
Offensive of the winter of 1944) are not part of the Holocaust.  I would put 
the killing of the Gypsies in that category, however.  The Gypsies & the Jews 
were singled out for death.  This meant that just being a Gypsy or a Jew was, 
in effect, a capital crime.  To a certain extent, the deliberate subjection 
of the Poles & other Slavic people to conditions that would have eventually 
meant their destruction may belong in that category.  I also think the 
"euthanasia" programs carried out against certain categories of 
institutionalized hospital patients (who were treated in some ways worse than 
way we treat "unadoptable" dogs) can be considered as part of the Holocaust. 
    I would not put the killing of French civilians rounded up as hostages 
for the actions of the resistance as part of the Holocaust.  The masscre of 
Lidice in the Czech Republic (in retaliation for the assassination of 
Heydrich) in 1942 is a terrible atrocity, but it is not part of the 
Holocaust.  To say that a death did not take place as part of the Holocaust 
does not diminish its tragedy or lessen the guilt of the perpetrators.
    To use the word holocaust without capitals is to refer to a very hot, 
consuming fire.

                                                                         jbf
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20010715/52ac3953/attachment.html>