The Holocaust is not regarded as a conlict because there was no fighting apart from in a few cases. It was murder, not warfare.
It was the slaughter of six almost entirely defenceless million Jews by the Nazis in World War 2. It wasn't a conflict ... It took place during World War 2, which of course was a conflict on a vast scale, but the two are not the same. The Holocaust was a kind of sub-plot during World War 2, but wasn't central to it.
The Holocaust was mass murder (genocide) on a vast scale: it was not a conflict. Adolf Hitler hated the Jews and held them responsible for all Germany's problems and for the outbreak of World War 2 (which he had started). Hitler was gripped by all kinds of bizarre conspiracy theories which claimed that 'the Jews' wanted to achieve world domination and were in competition with Germany for this.
Please see the related questions.
Conflict is that many societies envied or distrusted Jews, and Hitler exploited this animosity, secretly attempting genocide in the guise of subjugating the race. Compromise is that for self-defense, the Allies destroyed Hitler and Nazi Germany, with the result that some Jews were saved. The historic lesson is invoked whenever one societal group attempts to exterminate another.
What do you mean 'what is the problem in the holocaust?' Millions of people were butchered, starved to death, murdered, gassed, hanged, torutred, burned alive for no reason what so ever. Children, millions of them, were sent to their deaths. The problem is that people don't see a problem with murdering, that they have no heart, no compassion, and no humanity.
The Holocaust took place during World War 2 and may have been part of a wider campaign to rid Europe of what the Nazis regarded as 'Jewish Bolshevism'.
the conflict is they fought and the compromise is the war ended. They did fight but why was that??
The Holocaust took place from about 1940 to 1945, the international conflict was the Second World War.
lick a my ballz
US military policy and civilian protests.
The Commerce Compromise addressed the conflict between Northern businessmen and Southern plantation owners over the issue of tariffs.
There was almost no conflict; it was very one-sided. It was full of compromise, mainly on the part of the victims, although you will find a few times that the presecutors had to compromise. Key points for you to look at are: - types of Nazi occupation (how independent were the occudied nations) - differing treatment of 'michling' - Judenrade - Speer's 'economic miracle'
Well, in order to provide an in depth analysis on whether or not there is a real resolution to the holocaust, the simple answer is there really isn't. the conflict is obviously there, millions of Jews were killed. However, the compromise is very vague and that if you are just asking this question to find a concrete History Day project, then pick another one - or else you're screwed. nice try.
The Holocaust was not a conflict. It was nass murder. Please see the related question.
The Holocaust was not a conflict, it was entirely one-sided, but it took place in Europe.
Is U.S. women's rights to vote a conflict or compromise?
there was no real conflict of the Holocaust, it was very one-sided, but it took place in occupied Europe.
boobs
IT IS A CONFLICT AND COMPROMISE BECAUSE THEY SOLD SLAVES FOR SUGR AND SOME PEOPLE DIDNT AGREE WITH THIS.
the conflict is they fought and the compromise is the war ended. They did fight but why was that??
Yes, compromise means that both sides (or all sides) in a conflict give something.
The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise over how slaves would be accounted for when determining population for congressional representation purposes. The conflict was between the Northern and Southern states.
The Holocaust took place from about 1940 to 1945, the international conflict was the Second World War.