Talk:Red Holocaust

(Igny (talk) 16:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC))Reply

Talk:Red Holocaust

Suggested structure

Latest comment: 16 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion
  • Lede (this version is good enough for lead)
  • Etymology (self explanatory)
  • History of usage
  • Criticism of usage

(Igny (talk) 16:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC))Reply

While I don't object to having an article on the terms Communist Holocaust, Red Holocaust and Communist Genocide (it should be one article), I think it's strange that you start an article on this while voting to delete an identical (but longer and better sourced) article and while that discussion is ongoing. I have no intention of revert-warring over this, though - User:Altenmann was the one who reverted your most recent edits. Virgil Lasis (talk) 07:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I know that and actually I am fine with Altenmann's version of the disambig. "Refer to mass killings under Communist regimes", that is what certainly POV here. The terms are not defined to be "mass killings..." (Igny (talk) 13:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC))Reply
Where is your source for the alleged quote? What the disambiguation page actually says is "sometimes referred to as the Red Holocaust", a neutral fact corroborated by the literature that is also cited (i.e. books on the Red Holocaust with that title). Altenmann's edits were negationist edits to remove any mention of the primary meaning of the term. "Mass killings under Communist regimes" happens to be the (unfortunate) title of the article on this topic at this moment, apparently other people don't agree with your view that mass killings under communist regimes and the Red Holocaust are not the same. Virgil Lasis (talk) 13:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

The suggested structure is fine of course, and similar to what I had in mind when I created Communist Holocaust. Virgil Lasis (talk) 08:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Some comments on the proposed content:

  • "are politically and emotionally charged terms" is a POV statement. We don't need to use weasel words to label the terms in the lead section. We could include claims that the terms are politically and emotionally charged in the criticism section (sources are needed).
  • While we certainly should discuss the comparison with the Jewish Holocaust, describing the terms primarily as "used to draw parallel" to the Jewish Holocaust is also POV. The word Holocaust has been used since the 16th century and entered usage as a synonym for genocide as a name of the Armenian Genocide in the early 20th century. The word Holocaust is used by many, particularly by those who use the term Red Holocaust, and other very established terms like Armenian Holocaust (the first genocide described as a holocaust), Cambodian Holocaust, American Holocaust or American Indian Holocaust, African Holocaust, nuclear holocaust etc., as a generic term for genocide (loosely defined) or mass catastrophe, and hence not necessarily used to "draw parallel" to any particular genocide, whether it be the Armenian or the Jewish one. Those who use holocaust as a generic term don't reserve the term for any particular genocide. The use of the word holocaust as a generic term for a genocide or mass catastrophe is, although not accepted by everyone, quite established and has been so for a century. The term "The Holocaust" is a neologism of the late 1970s or early 1980s, and the attempt to deny that other genocides (even the first genocide described as a holocaust) are holocausts is rejected by many scholars (for instance, by Norman Finkelstein, who also rejects the notion that one particular genocide can be described as "the" Holocaust). The German Wikipedia has an article on the term Holocaust: de:Holocaust (Begriff).

I include the original content of Communist Holocaust (written by me) below for reference. Note that this was not a finished article, as it was redirected to Mass killings under Communist regimes fairly quickly. As for the lead section, I would keep the neutral description "are terms" instead of "politically and emotionally charged terms". I would revise the rest of it to take into account the ambiguity as far as the number of victims is concerned and possibly use a different word than murder as well. The lead section should include a link to the main article on Mass killings under Communist regimes and the article should focus on the terms and their usage.

The Communist Holocaust or Red Holocaust are terms referring to the murder of around 100 million people by communist regimes around the world in the 20th century, particularly by the Soviet Union.

The term Communist Holocaust is used by the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, established by a US Act of Congress in 1993 which explitly referred to the Communist Holocaust[1][2][3], whereas the term Red Holocaust is used by several scholars[4] [5]. Professor Steven Rosefielde argues that the communist "crimes against humanity constitute a Red Holocaust that exceeds the combined carnage of the French Reign of Terror, Ha Shoah, Showa Japan's Asian holocaust, and all combat deaths in World War I and II"[4].

The The Dith Pran Holocaust Awareness Project uses the term Holocaust or Cambodian Holocaust when referring to the communist genocide in Cambodia in the 1970s. The related term Holodomor refers to the murder of around ten million Ukrainians by the regime of Joseph Stalin in the 1930s.

In the Black Book of Communism, Stéphane Courtois argues that Communism and Nazism are slightly different totalitarian systems, and reaches the conclusion that Communist regimes have killed approximately 100 million people. He also argues that Nazi Germany's methods of mass extermination were adopted from Soviet methods.[6]

Virgil Lasis (talk) 12:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Re: "The Communist Holocaust or Red Holocaust are terms referring to the murder of around 100 million people by communist regimes around the world in the 20th century, particularly by the Soviet Union." I definitely recommend you to read more on the subject. This demonstrate either your utter ignorance or strong bias. It is impossible to speak about 100 million allegedly killed in "Communist Holocaust" as about established fact. Moreover, your "particularly by the Soviet Union" is either OR or FRINGE. Overwhelming majority of scholars agree that much more people were killed in China than in the USSR. Serious scholars believe that non-military population losses in the USSR didn't exceeded 20 million, and many of them (including the Black Book, a Werth's chapter, the best part of the book, btw) give even lower numbers. Note, this number is not the number of those who was killed but died prematurely from all causes or had been never born. In connection to that, the number of 100 million should be quoted of some scholars' opinion, not as established fact.

Going back to the Black Book, the Courtois' introduction, according to scholars' opinion, is probably weakest and the most flawed part of the book, so it deserves no serious mention.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ^ Rauch, Jonathan (December 2003). "The Forgotten Millions". The Atlantic. Retrieved November 4, 2009.
  2. ^ http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=108-h20040928-34
  3. ^ http://www.victimsofcommunism.org/history_communism.php
  4. ^ a b Rosefielde, Steven (2009). Red Holocaust. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-77757-5. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  5. ^ Möller, Horst (1999). Der rote Holocaust und die Deutschen. Die Debatte um das 'Schwarzbuch des Kommunismus'. Piper Verlag. ISBN 978-3492041195. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  6. ^ Courtois, Stéphane, ed. (1999). The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression. Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-07608-7. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.