Conversations like this always make me uncomfortable.
I would point out that while the Nazis certainly killed many "undesirables" their primary target was Jews. The whole concentration camp and extermination program was directed first and foremost at Jews. They used it for others, too, but that was not the primary focus. And these Jews were, at the outset, German citizens who had done nothing illegal, had made no choices at all.
I missed it - what did the Cambodians do that was "illegal" Go to school - BEFORE the Khamer Rouge came to power? Wear glasses? Same question about the Ukranians, Armenians, Kurds, ethnic Chinese citizens of Vietnam, the victims of the "Cultural Revolution", etc.
In fact, unlike other genocides, this one did nothing to improve Germany or the policital standing of its leaders.
Again, you are assuming a uniqueness that isn't so. How did Pol Pot's standing end up? The "Gange of Four" - or for that matter, Stalin?
Stalin killed peasants in the Ukraine and Pol Pot killed anyone with an education out of a calculated political or economic advantage. Hitler killed Jews because he hated them.
I was taught that Jews were used as scapegoats for Germany's economic problems in the Great Depression, and partially blamed for "undermining" Germany in WWI, and blamed for spreading "communism" - and those things sound like attempts at political advantage. It was also my understanding that Jewish money, land, businesses, and belongs were confiscated without compensation - and that sounds like "economic advantage" to me.
This is so even though they were among the most productive in the society, and had been among the most loyal citizens. Many Jews died fighting for Germany in WW1 (my wife had more than one great uncle killed that way). This was the uniqueness of the Holocaust: a modern industrial society at the pinnacle of artistic and scientific achievement turning against its own citizens.
What country were the Ukranians, Chinese, Cambodians, Kurds, Armenians, etc citizens of, if not the one exterminating them?
When we compare Stalin, Pol Pot, etc etc to the Holocaust we lose the meaning of that event and dishonor those who so died.
I must respectfully disagree. When the term "holocaust" is thrown around to describe things like the American incarceration rate of minorities or some such other political posturing, then certainly we demean the word to the point that its meaning is diminished, if not lost. However, to acknowledge that there have indeed been many holocausts, with many different motivations and victims, in no way diminishes the tragedy of the Jewish Holocaust, or dishonors the victims thereof. In the end, dead is dead - what difference the reason? Unless one subscribes to a philosphy that some classes of innocent lives are "worth more" than others, or that one reason for mass murder in the millions can somehow be "more evil" than another, then the blood shed from ALL the innocents implores we the living to remember their loss, and to take action to prevent any similar reoccurence.