You made the (inverse) claim, not me. I merely questioned its veracity. You don't get to accuse your opponent of motte-and-bailey when they object to a very specific claim of yours (and explicitly do nothing but).
Also not interested in your whataboutism. Let me rephrase: there was (at least) one plan to round up and kill all the Jews (or as many as possible given external constraints) within the European territories under German control. This is ethnic cleansing AKA genocide. I don't care to what degree this does or does not line up with "mainstream history".
I also believe that Allied fire bombing was a war crime, but that is irrelevant to our discussion. Were there plans to round up and kill all Germans or Japanese within the territory controlled by an Allied power? Then that, also, is a genocidal plan. Not that it would be relevant to the central claim under investigation here.
one plan to round up and kill all the Jews (or as many as possible given external constraints) within the European territories under German control. [...] ethnic cleansing AKA genocide
A minor nitpick. Ethnic cleansing traditionally means removing an ethnicity from an area, backed by threat of violence. By this definition, the Paris Peace Treaties signatories engaged in genocide by repatriating ethnic germans from Eastern Europe to Germany after WW2.
I'm not a fan of attempts to expand the definition of genocide, as it eventually waters down to "bad thing I don't approve of". (In the most extreme, I've heard HAES activists say Michelle Obama was engaging in an anti-fat genocide with her MyPlate program.) I'd prefer genocide just mean "an intentional attempt to prevent a category of people from leaving descendants, thus genetically eradicating them".
Interesting. I was under the impression ethnic cleansing referred to systematic killing (within a certain area). I do agree with your definition of genocide, which fits the plan detailled in the Wannsee conference protocols to a T.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
You made the (inverse) claim, not me. I merely questioned its veracity. You don't get to accuse your opponent of motte-and-bailey when they object to a very specific claim of yours (and explicitly do nothing but).
Also not interested in your whataboutism. Let me rephrase: there was (at least) one plan to round up and kill all the Jews (or as many as possible given external constraints) within the European territories under German control. This is ethnic cleansing AKA genocide. I don't care to what degree this does or does not line up with "mainstream history".
I also believe that Allied fire bombing was a war crime, but that is irrelevant to our discussion. Were there plans to round up and kill all Germans or Japanese within the territory controlled by an Allied power? Then that, also, is a genocidal plan. Not that it would be relevant to the central claim under investigation here.
A minor nitpick. Ethnic cleansing traditionally means removing an ethnicity from an area, backed by threat of violence. By this definition, the Paris Peace Treaties signatories engaged in genocide by repatriating ethnic germans from Eastern Europe to Germany after WW2.
I'm not a fan of attempts to expand the definition of genocide, as it eventually waters down to "bad thing I don't approve of". (In the most extreme, I've heard HAES activists say Michelle Obama was engaging in an anti-fat genocide with her MyPlate program.) I'd prefer genocide just mean "an intentional attempt to prevent a category of people from leaving descendants, thus genetically eradicating them".
Interesting. I was under the impression ethnic cleansing referred to systematic killing (within a certain area). I do agree with your definition of genocide, which fits the plan detailled in the Wannsee conference protocols to a T.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link