If you mean extermination camps, they knew. They were also part of occupied, conquered and heavily terrorized lands. They occasionally did something, terrorist attack against Germans here and there, usually retaliated against by killing a lot of random citizens. Usually motivated by plight of own people.

Extermination camps were located in Poland - German plans involved moving away and killing all Polish, so that they can be replaced by Germans. Germans seen Jews as primary danger to be exterminated fast, Slavic as secondary lower value being to be exterminated slowly in time. Polish army lost the war. And random villagers were not in position to do anything about the highly violent occupying army.

(And yes, Jews were at danger of being denounced by anti semitic locals too. Turned out one could be subject of racial oppression and being oppressor himself).

Overwhelming majority of people concluding that shooting protesters to back or head is a bad thing does not imply lack of nuance or low quality of the discussion. Overwhelming majority of people concluding that political repressions and fear based government are bad thing does not not imply lack of nuance or low quality of the discussion either.

The both sides and truth in the middle knee jerk is does not represent nuance or meaningful discussion. It frequently muddles nuances, creates false equivalences and makes the discussion loose the substance.

Is the author living in completely different alternative reality then I do?

> The average ancient historian led troops, tutored a prince, governed a province, advised a king, made a fortune, fell from favor, was exiled, and buried 7 of their 10 children. The average modern historian passed a few tests then wrote a book on their laptop next to their cat.

Who are all those ancient historians author talks about? Isnt actually studying history better background for writing about history then "making a fortune, being politician and having many dead kids"?

But obviously what you wont find in the books of these super high level people ... is experience majority of the people who lived earth never had. Nor even had option to have. Frequently because of their lives suffered greatly by actions of these great conquerors.

So tldr, Mary Beard is bad at being historian, because she studied history. Also, because she credits feminism for her own understanding of what it is being a woman. Also, because she is estimated to have liberal opinions on climate change, democracy and religion. In the world where everyone is having the same opinions on those ... we will ignore the fact that fascism is currently not just on the rise, but literally winning the institutions.

Also, it is not useful answer at all, it is an uncooperative answer. Whoever is asking about the responsible person is trying to work. They have legitimate question about who they should contact about X, sending them to someone who does not work there is less then useless.

Several options, pretty much all of them involve being actually cooperative rather then intentionally unhelpful. If Bill was part of some other team, point to that team or its leader.

If he was in your team, you or leader can ask about what the person wants and move from there. Maybe you can actually answer the question. Maybe the proper reaction involves raising jira ticket. Maybe the answer is "we are probably not going to do that anymore". It all depends on what the person who came with the question wants.

> But it doesn't change that Bill was the person who was responsible, and now is gone.

The other people are still there. And the team IS responsible for X. And without doubt, they are fully responsible for helping figure out who should be contacted now and what should be done.

That is normal part of work after any reorganization.

I have seen it many times that when Bill leaves, the thing he was responsible for doesn't get picked up by anyone.

It doesn't necessarily even mean that the organization is "abnormal". Perhaps the reason Bill was let go was because X was not considered business-critical any more.

I LITERALLY offered the "we are probably not going to do that anymore" option. In your situation, you can scratch the probably away. That answer is still actually helpful unlike the original answer.

First concentration camps were create right after the election 1933 and the gas chambers were not invented yet. They were used against political opposition first, minor criminals second and only then Jews/homosexuals/etc. The regime had to consolidate power and invent the gas chambers first. The deportations, general violence, arrests on made up excuses, exclusion of jews and opposition from public life happened at the beginning.

Trumps rhetoric against Somalis in particular has strong echoes. So does the strategy of arresting and beating people on ethnic membership only.

> Nazis were systemic against a religion

Kinda yes kinda no. Religion was competitor against power ... but klerofascism was a thing. The pope was kinda neutral. And then you have places like Slovakia where catholic church priests were not just facilitating holocaust, but literally leading it. Religion was fairly frequently anti-semitic itself.

> Trumps rhetoric against Somalis in particular has strong echoes

From what I just read about (just discovered this whole ordeal originates from a special status Somalis enjoyed in the US), I don't find anything wrong with what was said at the beginning. That's government policy at work. Indeed, the situation worsened ending with Trump openly talking about revenge against the Somalis, which is just nuts. Unless I missed more details, it's not an actual parallel as the Jews were scapegoats for the whole economic ruin of Germany after WWI (ruin caused by France and others).

> Religion was fairly frequently anti-semitic itself.

About religion, we need to look at the big picture of Europe, and realize that anti-semitism and eugenism was trendy among intellectuals of the time and basically the hot thing for think tanks. The tracking of Jews, handicapped, etc was only possible because people were kinda enclined to follow it. And more horribly so, parts of the catholic church.

This is why I wrote a religion, not religion. They were helped by the rules of Judaism that makes the religion and race the same set of people.

At any rate, I do have a better picture now of what is happening and what is colloquially called "concentration camps" by Americans in this context, thanks!

In case you missed the rhetoric, illegal immigrants as a whole are being blamed for economic ruin.

Immigrants including Somali are blamed for economic situation, lack of housing, meat price. And just like Jews back then, they are accused of being the source of criminality, rape, child abuse. And as before, by actually criminal government (Literally Trump accused people attacked by ICE of that raping kids. Go figure.) I genuinely believe it is OK to not closely follow what Trump, Vance and Miller write and say. But, if you don't, maybe you should not make confident assumptions about their rhetoric.

> ruin caused by France and others

Common here. You are switching one scapegoat for another.

> This is why I wrote a religion, not religion. They were helped by the rules of Judaism that makes the religion and race the same set of people.

The racial component of nazi ideology came from Germans themselves, they perceived it as science. They thought they are being scientific men. In fact, quite a few atheistic Jews were shocked to find they are the hated Jews themselves. German jews were frequently atheistic, integrated, married Germans a lot and considered themselves Germans. Race theory was not inspired by Judaism and was not helped by Judaism. You are kind of blaming the victim here.

> At any rate, I do have a better picture now of what is happening and what is colloquially called "concentration camps" by Americans in this context, thanks!

European historians, writers, politicians, journalists use concentration camp like I did. YOU did confused it with extermination camp. It was you who simply did not knew the term is not limited to the single digit number of nazi extermination camp, that nazi had many more concentration camps and that the term was routinely used for non german concentration camps too.

That is free speech. And the violence you see is direct consequence of a culture that tuts tuts "this is rude" when someone says "these right wing people are fascists" rather then look at what those right wing people openly talk about.

What is not legal is point guns at journalists, beat people who record you on the phones and shoot people in the back because they had phone in hand and you are frustrated. What is not legal is to throw pepper spray at people who are no threat. One gotta love the "they mass produce whistles" as a grave accusation while ICE men literally openly threaten to kill people who are no threat. Or kill them and then are proud of their murdering colleagues.

> I'm not mistaken in my understanding that Tim Walz is a Democrat, am I? The one making public speeches falsely claiming that ICE aren't LEO and encouraging "peaceful protest"

Yes, he had good speeches.

> without mentioning anything about obstruction of justice or resisting arrest?

Lol, heavily armed cowards jump at observer, 8 on one, there is no resistance and then they call it resisting arrest.

> For that matter, exactly what do you mean by "abolishing ICE"? Should it not be replaced? Should immigration law not be enforced? Should the USA allow everyone to reside within its borders who wishes to do so, with no barriers to entry?

ICE is basically a violent gang with impossible to reform culture. You dont hire gangmembers to do law enforcement. It needs to be abolished and people in it need to be banned from working in law enforcement.

Highlight something in my comment that you believe is untrue, and I'll be happy to prove it.

> Second, noise is not an obstruction. It is ok and legal to produce whistles.

I did not argue to the contrary. I argued that noise makes it harder for officers to do their lawful duty, because that lawful duty involves verbal communication.

> because they had phone in hand and you are frustrated.

That is not why they were shot.

> while ICE men literally openly threaten to kill people who are no threat.

Please show me where you think this has happened. The only threat to kill people I have heard came from a Florida sheriff, who specifically said that this would happen to people who "throw a brick, a firebomb, or point a gun at one of our deputies".

> and then are proud of their murdering colleagues.

Please show me where you think this has happened.

> heavily armed cowards jump at observer, 8 on one, there is no resistance and then they call it resisting arrest.

They are ordinarily armed, he was not an "observer" (as demonstrated by the fact that he was in the middle of the street and a car had to swerve to avoid him), there were not 8 of them, and there was very visible and prolonged resistance.

You do not appear to understand what "no resistance" looks like. When you are on the ground and under arrest, "no resistance" looks like not attempting to get up, and attempting to put your hands behind your back so that handcuffs can be applied. There is video of a protester in Texas doing this; no further harm came to him. This is not particular to ICE or to federal vs. state law enforcement, and not new. This is just how arrests work, and how they have worked, in the US, Canada and other places.