
On Disbelieving Atrocities (1944) - anonymouzz
https://pastebin.com/zpk4LP1s?
======
ufmace
The trouble with this - I can sympathize with the frustration of watching
atrocities happening in your homeland and not being able to get people in
another country far away to care. But I can also sympathize with the ordinary
people in these countries far away wanting to live their lives and not wallow
in every tragedy that happens around the world.

Because there's quite a lot of things happening all the time, even now, that
at least the people involved would consider terrible atrocities. Have you even
read about what the Burmese have been doing to the Rohingya? How about the new
Chinese "Re-Education Camps" for Muslims there? Or what ISIS-associated
factions are doing in Syria?

~~~
benwerd
Yes to all, and I think it’s our responsibility as democratic citizens to be
aware of them. What’s the point of having the right to vote and having people
represent us if we’re not aware of what they should be dealing with wrt
foreign policy, say? If everyone buries their head in the sand or only
considers domestic issues, we don’t really have democracy. It becomes a
charade that helps us feel reassured that we have freedom. Real freedom, and
real democracy, come from an educated and aware populace. We can’t and
shouldn’t look away from atrocities at home or abroad. It’s a global world,
and we need to be able to direct the politicians who work for us.

~~~
balfirevic
That just seems to be redefining the word "democracy" so that it produces the
outcomes you desire. I don't think that's helpful. It is important to realize
that democratic process and following the will of people can result in bad and
unjust outcomes.

~~~
PavlovsCat
Insofar those unjust outcomes undermine democracy itself, they're opposed to
democracy. Notice how changed "democracy" to "democratic process", and how
saying "democracy can result in bad and unjust outcomes" would have raised the
question, as opposed to what, exactly?

As opposed to non-democracies, or to citizens who don't care about atrocities
elsewhere? Those also "can lead to bad outcomes", and when you have something
on both sides of the equation it's usually helpful to ignore it, and focus on
the bits that aren't on both sides -- instead of ignoring anything _but_ what
is on both sides.

> As citizens, we must prevent wrongdoing because the world in which we all
> live, wrong-doer, wrong sufferer and spectator, is at stake.

\-- Hannah Arendt

~~~
balfirevic
> Notice how changed "democracy" to "democratic process"

Fine: It is important to realize that democracy and following the will of
people can result in bad and unjust outcomes.

There, doesn't make a difference.

> and how saying "democracy can result in bad and unjust outcomes" would have
> raised the question, as opposed to what, exactly [...]

I haven't got a slightest idea what you're saying. You don't have to sell me
on democracy, I'm already sold. You also don't have to sell me on caring about
people elsewhere, I'm sold there too.

But you shouldn't define democracy to simply exclude outcomes you deem
unethical as that is simply useless for discussion.

~~~
PavlovsCat
The responsibility as democratic citizens to be aware of atrocities elsewhere,
because the polticians we elect deal with foreign countries in which they take
place, isn't cherry picking a definition. That's directly related to what
democracy _is_. They also said

> Real freedom, and real democracy, come from an educated and aware populace

Would you disagree with that? If not, would you agree that part of being
educated and aware is being not myopic and navel gazing, and caring about
genocide elsewhere? If so, what are you even arguing?

If not, how can one be educated and aware, yet so shortsighted and selfish? Do
you know an example of a person you would consider educated and aware, who
shrugs off atrocities elsewhere?

> But you shouldn't define democracy to simply exclude outcomes you deem
> unethical

Who did though? Someone said "real democracy" and you don't even ask them what
they mean with that. While I don't know what they meant with "real democracy",
if I had used those words in that context, I would have meant that you can't
really have values such as free speech, freedom of assembly, right to due
process -- in spirit, in daily practice, in the socialization and character of
people, not just on paper -- and then just turn them off when people outside
of your jurisdiction get brutalized, and not care at all. It's like I would
say "a real feminist" doesn't just care about their own jurisdiction, but also
about the plight of women in third world countries, and so on.

With democracy especially, this kind of half-assedness then comes back to bite
us, too. I don't want to derail, but I'll just say "arms exports, allies who
are kind of assholes, or in turn allied with assholes, refugee crisis".... not
to mention global warming and the projected hundreds of millions of refugees
that warming oceans could, probably will lead to. Caring about that stuff and
about democracy elsewhere does benefit me, too, "in a globalized world". Just
like helping another person can help me in my own life, since that life takes
place in a world wherein that other person lives as well.

> If I am not for myself who is for me? And being for my own self, what am
> 'I'? And if not now, when?

\-- Hillel the Elder

That guy probably didn't have "democracy" in mind, but still. If I believe in
democratic ideals, human rights, and all that, I might be cool with, say, a
monarchy that's not a tyranny, if people elsewhere want that, fine... but I
MUST be against people just being murdered. I certainly must be against my own
government being in bed with murderers. Otherwise, I'm not a "real" democrat,
I'm not "really" for the human rights I myself enjoy, but just paying lip
service.

~~~
peterashford
I have nothing great to add, other than I found that post excellent and
meritorious. I wish more people felt and thought like you do

------
sitkack
I believe in spiral nebulae, can see them in a telescope and express their
distance in figures; but they have a lower degree of reality for me than the
inkpot on my table. Distance in space and time degrades intensity of
awareness. So does magnitude. Seventeen is a figure which I know intimately
like a friend; fifty billions is just a sound. A dog run over by a car upsets
our emotional balance and digestion; three million Jews killed in Poland cause
but a moderate uneasiness. Statistics don't bleed; it is the detail which
counts. We are unable to embrace the total process with our awareness; we can
only focus on little lumps of reality.

------
wybiral
As sentient animals emerging from nature I think the ability to look away from
atrocity understandable. It permeates nature to its core. Predation, disease,
decay, and death are everywhere outside of our human distraction bubble.

What's more interesting to me than the ability to look away is that we've
developed a sense of urgency to change that. Not just for ourselves, but for
other humans and animals around us. In general, as a species, we've moved
significantly in the right direction towards reducing the atrocity.

------
johnny313
>> _Our awareness seems to shrink in direct ratio as communications expand;
the world is open to us as never before, and we walk about as prisoners, each
in his private portable cage._

This seems to be an evergreen phenomenon. The world today is more open and
connected than it was in 1944, but with that openness has come an much greater
capacity to live in a walled garden of our own making.

------
fractallyte
This is the key quote: "For as long as there are people on the road and
victims in the thicket, divided by dream barriers, this will remain a phoney
civilisation."

Of course, people throw up their hands in helplessness. Or, for some, there is
helpless guilt. But it needn't be so. It was Adelle Davis who once wrote: "It
is part of my creed — of my religion if you like — that when you have the
ability to help your fellow man, that ability ceases to be merely an ability
and becomes a responsibility."

------
anonymouzz
At first nobody believed because there really was no concrete evidence. This
was changed by Witold Pilecki:

> _During World War II, Pilecki volunteered for a Polish resistance operation
> that involved being imprisoned in the Auschwitz concentration camp in order
> to gather intelligence and later escape. While in the camp, he organized a
> resistance movement and informed the Western Allies of Nazi Germany 's
> Auschwitz atrocities as early as 1941. He escaped from the camp in 1943
> after nearly 2½ years of imprisonment._

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witold_Pilecki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witold_Pilecki)

By 1944 the evidence was massive, yet Arthur Koestler still needed to write
this piece.

~~~
maxxxxx
Pilecki was one tough dude. I always thought he got in, looked around and
quickly left. But his biography describes how he participated in camp life for
more than 2 years like other prisoners and with the same risk to his life.

This guy was a true hero.

~~~
anonymouzz
(this is based on chats with guides in Auschwitz)

Apparently survival inside the camp for this long was only possible if you
knew how to climb the hierarchy, and Pilecki did it well. For example - on the
day he (and a few of his friends) fled they were assigned to a job in a
bakery. A job in a bakery is one of the best jobs you could possibly get
there, as you can steal enough food to not die of starvation.

~~~
maxxxxx
True. He was very smart and built up a network that kept him alive.

------
m0zg
Sometimes "atrocities" should be disbelieved, though.

Consider the most recent Syrian "nerve gas attacks". Politicians said they
were "sure", launched airstrikes, pulled the remaining diplomats from the
region. Then the only actually trustworthy body, OPCW, released the report in
which it said, I quote: "no organophosphorus nerve agents or their degradation
products were detected" (don't believe me? Google the exact quote). If sarin
were actually used, those degradation products would be at detectable levels
for many years.

Chlorine residue _was_ found, but the position of the bodies on the scene is
inconsistent with chlorine poisoning, suggesting that the bodies might have
been moved to suggest they died of a nerve agent (i.e. fell to the ground
where they stood, rather than ran to the windows gasping for air). The
delivery mechanism is also unclear, there are undamaged chlorine cylinders
found at the scene, suggesting that it wasn't launched from a distance.

So we've been blatantly lied to by politicians and the press yet again in
order to manufacture consent. This was mostly ignored by the public. This is
not the first time this has been done, either. See e.g. Iraq "WMDs", and the
current darling of the liberal establishment, Robert Mueller, deliberately
lying to Congress: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTDO-
kuOGTQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTDO-kuOGTQ). I say "deliberately"
because no "evidence" could have been presented to him, because none existed.

------
intralizee
Atrocities happen because the systems encompassing us are not perfect.
Problems arise because we humans decide to live under the imperfect systems;
vastly different by where on earth you happen to be. Metaphorically it's like
when you travel, you're navigating into a new realm and where the game rules
are completely rewritten for whatever the outcome will be and with whatever
consequences. My intuition thinks this is a problem. The differences keep the
world beautiful but separate us fundamentally in how things are handled.

I've been a victim of of a situation, that would not have happened if I had
not been where I was and had been in a different country. I know it was an
atrocity and in 100 years I could easily see people not believing it had
happened & even today I've seen doubts.

Individuals are prone to question every possible situation with vastly
different personal ideas. It's how great things come about. Disbelieving is
also a result for some individuals and maybe it's dangerous but it's part of
the equation. My assumption is energy should be focused towards making the
systems around the globe more similar with trying to keep culture intact.
Although the world may be safer for everyone without culture and just one
nationality.

Lastly I think we have people disbelieving atrocities because compassion is
piss poor compared to what we're capable of. People will focus only on
themselves when the systems don't care about societies health (depending on
where you live) and results in people being delusional or disbelieving what's
in fact reality.

------
emmelaich
From another great writer of the human condition ...

Musée des Beaux Arts W.H.Auden

    
    
      About suffering they were never wrong,
      The Old Masters; how well, they understood
      Its human position; how it takes place
      While someone else is eating or opening a window or just walking dully 
      along; ....
    

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mus%C3%A9e_des_Beaux_Arts_(poe...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mus%C3%A9e_des_Beaux_Arts_\(poem\))

------
ArtWomb
Crystal clear writing. With cogent argumentation. This is how you persuade.
Parallels with contemporary climate deniers is stunning.

~~~
cgriswald
> Parallels with contemporary climate deniers is stunning.

You're right. I agree with you.

But–and I say this with all respect and no judgment–I think the insight here
is not to point at one's perceived opponents and say, "Yes! This describes my
experience with them perfectly!"; but to ask oneself who are the screamers in
ones own life who get one's own glossy-eyed stare.

It is very difficult and often impossible to pop someone else's bubble, so we
should all work hard on popping our own.

As for the average climate denier[0], I won't defend them, but I'll say this:
They're wrong about the climate, but they're screaming about _something_.

[0]By which I mean those who are sincere and not well-funded, financially
motivated deceivers.

Edit: Formatting.

~~~
mannykannot
> It is very difficult and often impossible to pop someone else's bubble, so
> we should all work hard on popping our own.

Huh? they won't listen to reason, so I should do what, exactly?

~~~
PavlovsCat
I don't know, maybe pretend e.g. the Nazis were convinced of the errors of
their ways -- rather than defeated first militarily, and then shamed socially.

I'd say, "what you should do" is to organize with others and _enforce_
boundaries on those who are in the "bubble" of not giving a (meaningful) fuck
of continued organized existence of the human race. Deal with the mote in your
own eye, just to shut Jesus up, and then get to work on the speck of dust in
the eye of your neighbour. Turns out size doesn't matter, but what it blocks
the view of, and that's one hell of a speck of dust.

The mote probably never meant shit in comparison but do it anyway, get rid of
attack surface for people who are looking for excuses to not confront anyone
in earnest. As if just knowing about Auschwitz was possible in a vacuum,
without making oneself an enemy of the Nazis. They are obedient now, they will
fall in line when you achieve critical mass with people who are worth their
salt. So completely forget them until they do better, if they ever do. Don't
put more stock in them than they themselves did. Focus on those who are not
just a drain of resources, but that pollinate and challenge you in a way that
leaves you and them better.

And notice the irony of you being downvoted without reply, instead of that
downvoter instead criticizing something about themselves. You're supposed to
not "think you're better than others", or consider your concerns more
important than theirs -- but people will absolutely consider themselves better
than you for allegedly not considering themselves better as others. But that's
not for them to realize, I guess.

~~~
mmirate
> I'd say, "what you should do" is to organize with others and enforce
> boundaries on those who are in the "bubble" of not giving a (meaningful)
> fuck of continued organized existence of the human race.

Dumb question here: why should I give a fuck about literally _anything_ that
happens after I die?

~~~
eseehausen
Because people (or even projects) you love may outlive you? It can provide
immediate visceral satisfaction to try to help boost them even if you won't
see the benefits. Children are a good example of this, but there are many
others (legacies, societies, proteges, lovers).

------
YeGoblynQueenne
>> On Disbelieving Atrocities

>> Arthur Koestler (Jan. 1944)

I wondered if the author is _the_ Arthur Koestler, but Wikipedia tells me he
was born in 1905, so if I read the following sentence correctly (i.e. meaning
that the writer is 62 at the time of writing, in 1944), then the piece was
written by another author of the same name, because the best-known Arthur
Koestler was 39 in 1944:

>> "I know" that, the average statistical age being about 65, I may reasonably
expect to live no more than another 2.7 years, (...)

And yet, a cursory search on the internet suggests the well-known Arthur
Koestler was, indeed the writer of the piece. What gives?

~~~
cfmcdonald
I believe the . is a typo, and it's 27 years. That also lines up with the date
he gives for his death, in 1970.

~~~
hjek
Probably an OCR glitch even, as the text has some OCR cliches in it:

> and regard these as black-and-white altematives.

Related:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18374359](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18374359)

------
PavlovsCat
> These limitations of awareness account for the limitations of enlightenment
> by propaganda. People go to cinemas, they see films of Nazi tortures, of
> mass-shootings, of underground conspiracy and self-sacrifice. They sigh,
> they shake their heads, some have a good cry. But they do not connect it
> with the realities of their normal plane of existence.

translated from Hannah Arendt in "Elemente und Ursprünge totaler Herrschaft":

> _The movies which the Allies showed in Germany and other countries after the
> war was over, have proven that the characteristic of insanity and irreality
> of the photographed events withstands all mere reportage. For the unbiased
> viewer they are about as convincing as the photographs of mysterious
> substances in spiritist seances. Common sense reacts to the atrocities of
> Buchenwald or Auschwitz with the plausible argument: "What crimes have these
> people committed, that this was done to them?" Or, in Germany and Austria
> during the food shortages, the overpopulation and the general hatred: "Too
> bad not more were murdered!" Or everywhere with head shaking, suspicious of
> a particularly ineffective trick of propaganda._

> _Although the propaganda of truth doesn 't convince the normal "square"
> citizen because of its monstrosity, it has a much more dangerous effect on
> those who from their own fantasies know that they would be capable of doing
> such a thing, and who are simply happy to believe in the reality of the
> shown events. Suddenly it turns out that what human fantasy for millenia had
> declared to be beyond human competence can be produced after all. Hell and
> limbo, and even an inkling of their eternal duration, can be built, by
> letting humans die forever, with the most modern methods of destruction and
> healing. What these types, of whom there are more in any big city than we
> are willing to believe, realize when they watch these movies or read those
> articles, is that the power of man is greater than they dared to admit, and
> that hellish fantasies can be realized without the sky falling down, or the
> ground opening up._

Seeing how the book was originally written in English I'm sure the original is
much better (but sadly I don't have it in English, yet). I hope it's at least
somewhat understandable, but I still want to include the German from which I
translated for completeness:

> _Die Filme, die die Allierten nach Kriegsende in Deutschland und im Ausland
> liefen ließen, haben nur zu deutlich erwiesen, daß der Irrsinns- und
> Irrealitätscharakter der photographierten Begebenheiten aller reinen
> Reportage standhält. Für den unbefangenen Zuschauer kommt ihnen etwas soviel
> Überzeugungskraft zu wie den Photographien mysteriöser Substanzen in
> spiritistischen Sitzungen. Der gesunde Menschenverstand reagierte auf die
> Greuel von Buchenwald oder Auschwitz mit dem plausiblen Argument: "Was
> müssen die Leute nur angestellt haben, daß dies mit ihnen geschah?" Oder, in
> Deutschland und Österreich inmitten der Hungersnot, der Überbevölkerung und
> des allgemeinen Hasses: "Wie schade, dass man nicht mehr Juden vergast hat!"
> Oder überall mit dem Kopfschütteln des Mißtrauens genen einen besonders
> unwirksamen Propagandatrick._

> _Wenn die Propaganda der Wahrheit ihrer Ungeheuerlichkeit wegen den noch
> normalen Spießbürger nicht überzeugt, so hat sie eine desto gefährlichere
> Wirkung auf diejenigen, welche aus ihren eigenen Phantasiemöglichkeiten
> wissen, daß sie so etwas tun könnten, und aus diesem Grunde nur zu froh
> sind, an die Realität des Gezeigten zu glauben. Urplötzlich stellt sich
> heraus, daß, was die menschliche Phantasie seit Jahrtausenden in ein Reich
> jenseits menschlicher Kompetenz verbannt hat hatte, tatsächlich herstellbar
> ist. Hölle und Fegefeuer und selbst ein Abglanz ihrer ewigen Dauer können
> errichtet werden, indem man Menschen mit den modernsten Mitteln der
> Destruktion und der Heilkunst unendlich lange sterben läßt. Was diesen
> Typen, von denen es in jeder Großstadt sehr viel mehr gibt, als wir gerne
> wahrhaben möchten, beim Anblick dieser Filme oder beim Lesen jener
> Reportagen aufgeht, ist, daß die Macht des Menschen größer ist, als sie sich
> einzugestehen wagten, und daß man höllische Phantasien realisieren kann,
> ohne daß der Himmel einstürzt und die Erde sich auftut._

another bit from the article:

> I think one should imitate this example. Two minutes of this kind of
> exercise per day, with closed eyes, after reading the morning paper, are at
> present more necessary to us than physical jerks and breathing the Yogi way.
> It might even be a substitute for going to church. For as long as there are
> people on the road and victims in the thicket, divided by dream barriers,
> this will remain a phoney civilisation.

Yes! I can't say anything other than "yes", really. Or "this, so much this".

> _Either we all live in a decent world, or nobody does._

\-- George Orwell

~~~
sitkack
Thanks

