Get PJ Media on your Apple

The Rosett Report

Her Ladyship Marks Holocaust without Mentioning Jews

January 31st, 2014 - 12:38 am

You remember Baroness Catherine Ashton, the European Union’s high representative for foreign affairs and security policy? She’s the one who just can’t stop smiling at Iran’s foreign minister, Javad Zarif. Here they are in Geneva together last October, beaming at each other as they prepare for Iran nuclear talks (from which Tehran’s rulers emerged celebrating the surrender to Iran of world powers and claiming they had an “inalienable right” to enrich uranium).

This week a friend sends news of Ashton’s latest performance. It seems that on Monday Her Ladyship issued a statement marking Holocaust Remembrance Day, in which she managed to make no mention whatsoever of the Jews. As the Jerusalem Post reports, in an editorial headlined “Ashton’s Lapse,” ¬†Ashton referred to the Jews who died — six million of them murdered by the Nazis quite specifically because they were Jews — as “victims” and “fellow citizens.” But not as Jews. The Jerusalem Post calls this a “mind-boggling omission,” quite likely pleasing to the likes of the Islamic Republic of Iran, but a watering-down of history.

Quite right. Here’s Ashton’s statement, all 121 words of it — a tribute to generic victims of yesteryear, sanitized of any reference that might offend anti-Semites by reminding the world of the mass atrocities committed in the name of their particular brand of bigotry. It’s hard to know whether Ashton did this deliberately, or is simply such an inept and banal functionary that by sheer accident she ends up sounding like a sly anti-Semite. Either way, is this really the face the EU wishes to present to the world? How horrifying.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Only Jews were sought out and murdered simply because of their ethnicity. The only arguable exception to this statement is the killing of the Gypsies. Of course, all sorts of other people were killed for all sorts of different reasons, and there were some very tentative plans for the murder of Poles and Russians on a very wide scale. But such plans were never implemented, and might not have been implemented even if Germany had won. Without diminishing the suffering of either group, to describe the Russians and the Poles as victims of the Nazis in exactly the same way as the Jews were victims, suggesting as it does that the Jews were hardly singled out from the masses of Slavs among whom they lived, or that the singling out of the Jews is insignificant, is a falsification in the way of Holocaust denial.
38 weeks ago
38 weeks ago Link To Comment
Baroness Catherine Ashton speech reminds me of Isaac Asimov's novel "Foundation".

There is a part where the diplomats talk for great lengths of time, but say precisely nothing.

Baroness Catherine Ashton is a zero.
38 weeks ago
38 weeks ago Link To Comment
I've never been quite sure with Ashton whether she is displaying malice, or simply sauropod-sized stupidity. She rose without a trace, apart from having apparently been something in the nuclear disarmament rabble in the eighties. It's probably safe to say that nobody had ever noticed her before she was plucked from obscurity and given her current job and I suspect she was chosen because others felt she wouldn't get in the way of their empire-building in Brussels. She is a walking advertisement for why the eu needs to come crashing to the ground, so it's hardly surprising she gets on with John Kerry.
38 weeks ago
38 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (39)
All Comments   (39)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
The reason Ashton got her position was a trade off between a German Right winger in finance and so the Left wanted a left winger in this position as quid pro quo. Talent or knowledge or experience had nothing to do with it.

This how the EU operates and why it needs to be disbanded.
38 weeks ago
38 weeks ago Link To Comment
I think it was actually a French "right-winger" and, in the eu, nothing is more than very marginally right-wing. It's all about eu power, eu control and corporatism.
38 weeks ago
38 weeks ago Link To Comment
I deplore titles like "baroness", "count", etc. They smack of royalty and and privilege and have no place in my world view. America fought a revolution against such self aggrandizing inbred poseurs and fools.
38 weeks ago
38 weeks ago Link To Comment
Well, I have a problem with American ignoramuses, too, as it happens, and I've met plenty of them, although I don't think I've met you. Ashton is a life peeress, which means that her stupidity may well be inherited, but certainly doesn't derive from some other peer of the realm.

Get rid of your Kerry (married into billions), your toxic Kennedy clan, your Clintons and your Bush family, with their assumption that they are entitled to power, before criticizing Britain. At least we're having a debate over here. Your Republic is stone dead.
38 weeks ago
38 weeks ago Link To Comment
Israel could deem that she is an unperson. But given the overtly cowardice and fawning that Israeli MKs exhibit towards EU MPs, even more so than to Canadian MPs and to American Rs or Ds, I doubt they wil do it. MK Netanyahu will say that it will hurt the Israeli economy, reduce income taxes, thereby reducing govt budget to finance his 5 star hotels in Paris for him, MK Livni ( perma pleader for peace) and MK Lapid.
38 weeks ago
38 weeks ago Link To Comment
I can only hope that this career piece of bureaucrap; i.e., a proud European, becomes the hunted. Assuming that current Muslim birthrates continue, it will happen.

Another issue is Kiev. I can only hope that Kiev comes to Brussels.
38 weeks ago
38 weeks ago Link To Comment
Baroness opens her mouth and a sound comes out.
Nobody knows what the sound is about.
With reality the Baroness will never engage,
But making those sounds gets her a big EU wage.
38 weeks ago
38 weeks ago Link To Comment
The Nazis exterminated roughly another six million besides the Jews, but it was the Jews who were the main target for annihilation. It was the Jews they really wanted to wipe out completely.

For a high EU official to issue a statement on Holocaust Remembrance Day and fail to mention Jews almost has to be deliberate.
38 weeks ago
38 weeks ago Link To Comment
A key problem in this discussion is the meaning of the term "The Holocaust".

To my way of thinking, it should refer to ALL of their atrocities against all of the groups the Nazis hated. I've been to Dachau and know that they singled out many different groups, including Jews, homosexuals, the severely disabled, Communists, gypsies and Jehovah's witnesses. But I have personally had Jews tell me that, while they acknowledge the suffering inflicted on other groups, they reserve the term "The Holocaust" for the suffering inflicted on their fellow Jews.

Perhaps that's why so many movies and miniseries about World War II give you the idea that the Jews were virtually the only people that suffered at the hands of the Nazis. I daresay that if you asked the average man on the street to identify the victims of the Nazis, they would cite the Jews and then stop.

If Ashton's remarks were phrased the way they were to acknowledge that the Nazis unleashed their horrors on many groups besides the Jews, then I think they were appropriate. If they were phrased that way to avoid acknowledging the suffering of the Jews, they were worthy of the criticism she is getting.
38 weeks ago
38 weeks ago Link To Comment
Very even-handed of you. Keep in mind that the percentage of Slavs murdered was tiny compared to the total Slavic population of Eastern Europe. The percentage of Jews slaughtered, who were the primary target, relentlessly pursued even as the Russians and Western allies closed in on the German heartland, was quite high.
38 weeks ago
38 weeks ago Link To Comment
"I have personally had Jews tell me that, while they acknowledge the suffering inflicted on other groups, they reserve the term 'The Holocaust' for the suffering inflicted on their fellow Jews."
---------------------------------------
I'm not a Jew myself but count me among those who believe the word should indeed be reserved for the Final Solution of the Jewish Question.
We can commemorate the Holodomor that Stalin specifically inflicted on Ukrainians even if we know there were millions of other victims of his tyranny. We can specifically commemorate the Armenian genocide even if there were many other targets of the Turkish purges.

I certainly agree that the full slate of 20th century crimes and victims needs to be better known. But this me-too!!! business, where every victim group demands attention and no SPECIFIC atrocity can be acknowledged, has a way of watering down everything.
38 weeks ago
38 weeks ago Link To Comment
You're correct, during the war 'cattle' trains had the highest priority, even over troop transport. Clearly, the Jews were the main target.
38 weeks ago
38 weeks ago Link To Comment
This is not an isolated example of what I call incremental Historical revision. Last summer I purchased a Time-Life Magazine about the 150th anniversary of the battle for Gettysburg. The tome chronicled troop movements, battle and the reaction to Lincoln's address. But nowhere between the covers could you find the Gettysburg address itself!!!

I can provide other example of subtle and not so subtle revisions, but you get my point.
38 weeks ago
38 weeks ago Link To Comment
Baroness Catherine Ashton speech reminds me of Isaac Asimov's novel "Foundation".

There is a part where the diplomats talk for great lengths of time, but say precisely nothing.

Baroness Catherine Ashton is a zero.
38 weeks ago
38 weeks ago Link To Comment
"There is a part where the diplomats talk for great lengths of time, but say precisely nothing."

Darlin' that is diplomacy in a nutshell. If talk is your thing, you're destined for a brilliant career in State. If you're more the action type, you want to be in DoD. I used to tell young people who said they wanted to go into the Peace Corps or State, "Join the military and do what State only THINKS they do."
38 weeks ago
38 weeks ago Link To Comment
Well, someone once defined a "diplomat" as "a man [diplomats were always men then] sent abroad, to lie on behalf of his country".

Ashton doesn't speak, mendaciously, truthfully, or otherwise, for anyone's country. She speaks for a non-existent "united states of europe", or, more exactly, for the Brussels nomenklatura - nobody else.
38 weeks ago
38 weeks ago Link To Comment
She said nothing on this occasion, but, unfortunately, she had plenty to say to the Iranians.
38 weeks ago
38 weeks ago Link To Comment
In times of yore nobles could be stripped of their rank for treason or cowardice on the field of battle.

Courtrooms and other places have been described as the field of battle.

Baroness Ashton is in the public arena and she has shown great cowardice. She ought to have her title stripped from her.
38 weeks ago
38 weeks ago Link To Comment
Elie Weisel supposedly said "while not all victims were Jews, all Jews were victims." Having said that, what is the numerical breakdown of other groups also targeted and murdered? Is there a reason to lament all, or, if one mentions Jews, Slavs, Poles, etc. does that amount to the same thing? I can't read this woman's mind, but shouldn't all be mentioned? Perhaps in proportion, but all?
38 weeks ago
38 weeks ago Link To Comment
One of the difficulties here is that the numbers of those killed are in some dispute. I'm not talking only about Holocaust deniers here. Do some googling and try to find out how many people were killed by the Nazis or by Stalin or Mao or various other notorious individuals. You'll see that even historians who acknowledge the great crimes against humanity are at considerable odds with respect to how many were killed by the various perpetrators of genocide.

While a variety of sources state that six million Jews were killed by the Nazis, other numbers are advanced by various reputable sources. For instance, I remember seeing the number 3 million in a reference book I found at the library; the source was a US Army survey done shortly after the war ended. So even the six million number for the Jews is not unchallenged. When it comes to the number of non-Jewish victims, the numbers are considerably more in dispute. Steven Spielberg acknowledged 5 million non-Jewish victims in Schindler's List but other sources claim as many as 20 million non-Jewish victims. Who is right? I certainly don't know. In fact, I'm not sure we'll ever know.

I think Ashton would have done better to list all the groups that the Nazis singled out. I don't think she could have listed them in proportion since there is no general agreement on what the actual numbers are but they should all have been acknowledged. Then no group could have been upset that their sacrifice was ignored by not being explicitly stated.
38 weeks ago
38 weeks ago Link To Comment
As for the Holocaust of the Jews, the numbers are well established. Between 5.1-6.0 million Jews were killed or died as a result of intentional actions by the Germans and their collaborators. The most accurate figure is around 5.8 million. This number includes Jewish soldiers who died while serving in the Soviet and Polish armies (around 200,000).

The only area where there is some dispute is within the Soviet Union. But even here the dispute is over a few hundred thousand at most. This mainly involved the westward flight of several hundred thousand Jews in the Soviet republics (Ukraine and Belarus) overrun by the Germans and the fate of 300,000 Polish Jews deported to Siberia and Asian republics in 1940. For the rest of Europe: Poland, Rumanian, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, etc.
the numbers are well documented and there is no dispute among serious people.
As for non-Jews, many millions perished, mainly in the Soviet Union due to the war- some from intentional punitive killings by the Germans, but much more from starvation, exposure to the elements, bombardment of cities and from disease due to the breakdown of civil services during the war.

Only the Jews were specifically targeted for "genocide" complete elimination.
38 weeks ago
38 weeks ago Link To Comment
To me the difference between 3 or 6 million or whether they were targeted 2 years in advance or more casually targeted and only 3 months before they were murdered is meaningless. It's monstrous, and the academic differences are probably lost on the dead.
38 weeks ago
38 weeks ago Link To Comment
If you haven't read it already, you could try "Bloodlands", by Timothy Snyder. As the name suggests, it is a gruesome read. Snyder is quite convinced that genocide of the whole populations of Poland, Belarus and Ukraine were a primary target of the nazis, but one that quickly proved impossible for the nazis to achieve, so they fell back on implementing the Holocaust.

Through most of the autumn of 1944, the Germans were systematically massacring the population of Warsaw (most Jews of Warsaw had already been murdered in the Ghetto, or at Treblinka) and levelling the city to the ground. Hitler had recently given orders for the destruction of Paris, too, but the commander there, von Choltitz, refused to comply. At Warsaw, SS general Bach-Zelewski didn't let his apparent Polish ancestry affect his feelings towards the Poles. It's no great surprise that Bach-Zelewski had previously been intimately involved in the Holocaust.

Odd that von Choltitz and Bach-Zelewski both had such obviously Slav names, in the service of unrestrained German nationalism.
38 weeks ago
38 weeks ago Link To Comment
One thing's for sure: the Nazis were fervent experts at killing a lot of different groups for a lot of different reasons in a lot of different ways. 6 million dead in Poland alone, half Jewish. What in the world was wrong with those people and how long had such ethnic resentments against so many different people been brewing? All these years later, it still boggles the mind how casually they murdered. It was an explosion of hatred unleashed.
38 weeks ago
38 weeks ago Link To Comment
Agreed.

But antisemitism was not an invention of the Germans, conceived with the rise of Hitler. The Jews have been persecuted pretty much as long as their have been Jews. Did you know that the practice of having Jews wear identifying badges on their clothing, which we see in all portrayals of WW II, was actually first done in England in 1218? But I don't mean this to be a treatise on antisemitism so I'll stop there....
38 weeks ago
38 weeks ago Link To Comment
My understanding is that Jews (and Christians) were forced to wear distinctive clothing in Alexandria, Egypt at different times dating from early on in the Muslim occupation of the city.
38 weeks ago
38 weeks ago Link To Comment
Great book, Bloodlands! Solid recommendation.
38 weeks ago
38 weeks ago Link To Comment
Only Jews were sought out and murdered simply because of their ethnicity. The only arguable exception to this statement is the killing of the Gypsies. Of course, all sorts of other people were killed for all sorts of different reasons, and there were some very tentative plans for the murder of Poles and Russians on a very wide scale. But such plans were never implemented, and might not have been implemented even if Germany had won. Without diminishing the suffering of either group, to describe the Russians and the Poles as victims of the Nazis in exactly the same way as the Jews were victims, suggesting as it does that the Jews were hardly singled out from the masses of Slavs among whom they lived, or that the singling out of the Jews is insignificant, is a falsification in the way of Holocaust denial.
38 weeks ago
38 weeks ago Link To Comment
but were gypsies registered and tattooed???
38 weeks ago
38 weeks ago Link To Comment
It should also be mentioned that people could fall afoul of the Nazis for multiple reasons simultaneously.

The Nazis showed little hesitation in murdering either Jews or Communists. Imagine the plight of Jewish Communists. Or homosexual Jewish Communists....
38 weeks ago
38 weeks ago Link To Comment
The Roma and Sinti populations (Gypsies) were the only real analog to the Jews. That is, ethnic, and you couldn't "stop" being what you were and keep your head down. Gays, for example, are not easily identifiable, and if someone accused you of having a homosexual lifestyle at some previous point you could blame it on "degeneracy prior to coming to a proper orientation due to your study of Mien Kampf" or some equal idiocy designed to satisfy the Nazis.

You could not stop being a Jew or Gypsy in the eyes of the Nazi party and state. Other ethnicities were oppressed and even scheduled for enslavement, but not for total extermination. It's a small distinction no doubt, but not a distinction without a difference.
38 weeks ago
38 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Only Jews were sought out and murdered simply because of their ethnicity."

I think your filter is too small if you're only counting those ethnicities the Germans could actually feasibly exterminate. To show any success, they had to go after necessarily small weakly-organized groups like blacks, homosexuals, intellectuals, gypsies, religious leaders, etc. If they had gotten their way, they would have exterminated Poles too. The absence of the technological means to actually do it in 1937-45 doesn't lessen the intent.

http://www.holocaustforgotten.com/Newsletter.htm
38 weeks ago
38 weeks ago Link To Comment
If you could read her mind, you would probably find that a lot of the pages are blank.
38 weeks ago
38 weeks ago Link To Comment
Ever buy a book and get home with it and find that the pages are misprinted, or out of order, or whole sections are missing?
38 weeks ago
38 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All