The Holocaust never happened Subjective/Objective Views on History

Discussion in 'History' started by alexb123, Aug 26, 2005.

  1. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    http://www.holocaust-history.org/questions/numbers.shtml

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    You are aware that not all the European Jews were innocent, German loving citizens? There WERE resistance fighters and insurgencies. The Zionists declared war on Nazi Germany when they realized that dealing with Hitler was too high a price to pay.

    The Nazis used Jews as a convenient enemy to rally support, resistance or escape was the only logical action, especially after the The Nuremberg Laws.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    As far as the methods used to determine Jewish casualties:

    The best accounting that I have personally seen for Holocaust casualties is contained in Raul Hilberg's three-volume The Destruction the European Jews (1961). Hilberg's analysis is unique in that it reconciles the statistics not only by country of origin, but also by concentration camp and by cause of death (noting that roughly half of the deaths in the Holocaust took place outside the concentration camp system and that not all deaths in camps were the result of gassings).

    You should be aware, however, that Hilberg's death-toll estimate (5.1 million) is at the lower end of the range accepted by most Holocaust historians. A precise accounting is virtually impossible, but most estimates are in the 5.8 million range.
    (Andrew Mathis http://www.holocaust-history.org)
    ---------------------------

    Most statistical breakdowns I have seen list the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust. The estimates vary from around 4.1 to 6.0 million, with more recent research supporting an even higher figure. Hilberg's Destruction of the European Jews gives a detailed breakdown of Jewish deaths. It is estimated that another 5-6 million non-Jews (Gypsies, homosexuals, prisoners of war - especially Russians - were killed during the Holocaust period.

    As for the methods, Hilberg (op.cit.) gives a breakdown for Jews.
    (Gordon McFee)
    ----------------------------------

    Historians are able to agree on the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust within about a ten percent margin of error because of the convergence of a large amount of evidence. This evidence includes records on the number of people sent to the larger death camps, which were built and used primarily for Jews; reliable demographic studies of the number of Jews in Europe before and after the war; and progress reports from death camps and from organized killing squads in the conquered territories. There is more variance among estimates of the non-Jewish death toll because there is less data to go on. There is no census data on homosexuals, for example.

    For some discussion of the historical methodology as applied to Auschwitz, See Mark Van Alstine's letter at

    http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/american/usa-today/
    (Richaed C. Graves)
    ---------------------------------

    The estimate of the number of Jews who died in the Holocaust was established by Historians and demographers in the very late 1940s. While 6 million is a shorthand for the estimate (I have seen academic estimates from 4.8 million to 7.5 million), the estimation methodologies used back then have held valid all this time. There have been several subsequent studies all of which have produced findings within the same order of magnitude.
    (Daniel Mittleman)

    EDIT:
    Whoops, Spurious already beat me to it.
     
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2005
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    mountainhare:

    Here are just a couple of quotes from Hitler:

    "Against the Jews I fought open-eyed and in view of the whole world ... I made it plain that they, this parasitic vermin in Europe, will be finally exterminated." (Feb 13, 1945)

    "Above all I charge the leaders of the nation and those under them to scrupulous observance of the laws of race and to merciless opposition to the universal poisoner of all people, International Jewry." (Apr 29, 1945)

    There are hundreds of similar quotes on record from Hitler. But I know you want to split hairs and demand a formal order from Hitler for the extermination of the Jews.

    All that is beside the point, though, and is a deliberate diversionary tactic on your part. Hitler's views on the Jews are unquestionable, as were his intentions. But even if he didn't give the order, you are arguing that the extermination simply did not occur, and the evidence that it did is equally unquestionable.

    In June 1941, Himmler wrote to Rudolf Hoess, the commandant of Auschwitz, informing him that Hitler had ordered the Final Solution of the Jewish Question, and of the role that Hoess would play at Auschwitz. A quote:

    "You have to maintain the strictest silence about this order, even to your superiors. The Jews are the eternal enemies of the German people and must be exterminated. All Jews we can reach now, during the war, are to be exterminated without exception. If we do not succeed in destroying the biological basis of Jewry, some day the Jews will annihilate the German Volk."

    It isn't hard to read your mind. You're a typical example of your ilk.

    You haven't provided any alternative explanation. The fact is that there are thousands of Jews who lost relatives, even their entire families, to the Holocaust. Their families demonstrably are not with them any more. Their children are gone. Their parents are gone. Their spouses are gone. Did all these people voluntarily resettle in some obscure corner of the world, and not tell their loved relatives? You couldn't be so dense as to seriously believe that.

    The documentation is legion. Thousands of historians have independently estimated the numbers of Jews killed by the Nazis. Estimates vary as to exact numbers, but that indicates the honesty of attempts to make estimates, rather than collusion between historians to "set" an arbitrary figure of 6 million. Most scholars put the numbers between 5.1 and 6 million.

    Actual numbers were derived from information specific to each area of origin of the Jews who were killed, by experts in the particular localities. The number of people involved in collecting the statistics are far too many to list, and I am sure you will question all of the individual sources one by one to try to defend your stupid claims.

    Regardless of the existence of documentation, however, you need to explain where all those missing people I mentioned above went.

    A prisoner of war camp is very different to a concentration. Germany was not treating Jews (most of which were its own citizens) as prisoners of war. Prisoners of war have rights. The Jews were systematically exterminated.

    The systematic gassing of 6 million innocent civilians is extra-ordinary. Only a warped mind would believe otherwise. This was mass murder on an unprecented industrial scale.

    Obviously, you have chosen to concentrate on the Jews, because of your racial prejudice. The same cannot be said for historians, who also recognise the killings of the Poles and others. Why is the killing of the Jews so prominent as a historical event? Probably because such a large proportion of the European Jewish population was exterminated.

    The Japanese people in America were not killed by the Americans. Their treatment was entirely different to that of the Jews in Germany and Poland.

    There are former SS officers alive today who have written and talked about the gassing of the Jews at various concentration camps. They are talking to documentary film crews, and are not being tortured.

    You are correct that sometimes eyewitness accounts can be unreliable. But can thousands of separate accounts which all say the same thing all be wrong?

    And what about photographic evidence? There's plenty of that around. There are photos of piles of corpses which had been gassed. There are photos of the crematoria. There are photos of SS troops burning bodies in open pits at Auschwitz.
     
  8. kazakhan Registered Abuser Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    915
    Only a warped mind would believe 6 million innocent civilians were systematicly gassed. As has been pointed out above not all deaths occured in camps and all deaths in the camps were not due to gassing. I have no idea how many people were gassed but any idiot can see it wasn't ALL 6 million of them...
     
  9. River Ape Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,152
    I remain profoundly skeptical of the six million holocaust deaths figure.

    My recollection was that Jewish or Zionist organisations of the 1930s used to claim to represent fourteen or fifteen million people. (Googling "In the name of fifteen million Jews" confirmed my recollection.) I cannot think of any reason why the Daily Express figure of fourteen million for 1933 would be an intentionally biased estimate. Nowhere except in the Wikipedia entry on "Jews" am I aware of a figure as high as 18 million.

    I would accept a figure for a fall of six million in the population of European Jewry between say 1938 and 1948 -- but a substantial part of that would be accounted for by emigration to the United States and Palestine/Israel (also to a few other countries including Canada, South Africa and Argentina).

    I would not want to pick an argument with someone who estimated the holocaust toll at four million rather than three. This being in addition to 250,000(?) combattant deaths. But I cannot see how the mathematics of a six million figure add up.

    Consider again the Yad Vashem database, which I believe currently stands at three million AFTER YEARS OF APPEALS for names. Bear in mind that the Jews are the most urban of the world's peoples. Few lived in small village settlements detached from Jewish organisations, other family members, or general record-keeping. It seems incomprehensible to me that there could be as many names again still unrecorded.

    Now, I know there are those of you who would refer me to apparently reputable research and scholarship, but much may be hidden amidst complexity. So my question is this. Is there something in the BIG PICTURE, so to speak, that I am missing . . . is there some simple fact that I am failing to take into account?
     
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2005
  10. mountainhare Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,287
    Oh look, now the silly retards are ganging up on me. I guess I'm expected to argue on all fronts, right? I'm on the defense. What takes retards two seconds to cut and paste off some Holocaust believer page (which are extremely numerous on the web) takes me much more time to research, ensure the validity of, and if necessary... refute.

    For the sake of my sanity, I'll choose what remarks to address. I don't have an unlimited amount of time and patience.

    Since James R is the only one has who managed to provide something worth discussing, I'm only going to address his comments, for now. Parrots seem to have a nasty history of throwing in red herrings, engaging in the 'shotgun attack', and cutting and pasting links (or if you're lucky, they might show a little creativity, and cut and paste huge wads of text.) We've taught pigs how to manipulate joysticks, but you can't teach retards at sciforums to quote the relevant sections of an article, and discuss it intelligently.

    Ahh, I notice you didn't paste the original German version. Good idea... that's the smartest thing you've done so far in our discussion.

    http://www.radioislam.net/historia/hitler/testam/ger/testa.htm#05

    Holocaust parrots translate "ausrotten" to "to exterminate".

    The problem here, folks, is that "Ausrotten" has several meanings, and the meanings have changed with time. The origin of the word is: "to segregate something from a horde". "Aus" = "ex", "Rotte" means "horde". Today the meaning can also = "exterminate".

    Hitler used 'Ausrotten' in many speeches, and it was quite clear that he didn't mean 'exterminate'.

    http://www.zundelsite.org/english/zgrams/zg2000/zg0003/000321.html
    Yes yes, Hitler hated the European Jews. Who didn't?

    It's not splitting hairs. It's demanded that you support your stance with EVIDENCE (I think I just heard James R flinch when I mentioned the 'e' word!).

    Yes, Hitler hated the Jews. Who didn't? Merely hating someone does not mean that you will/have killed them. If 'hating someone' constituted as evidence that the accused committed a crime, then our jails would be full. 'Hating someone' is a MOTIVE, not evidence. That 'Law 101', folks.

    As to his intentions, I agree that Hitler wanted the Jews out of Germany. However, you can't say that Hitler wanted the Jews killed, IF YOU CAN'T PROVIDE OFFICIAL DOCUMENTATION!

    How could it? The extermination would have had to be planned, and the order would have had to come from the top.

    Source? I'm having difficulty finding the quote, and am wondering where you lifted it from.
    My guess is that the ambigious word 'ausrotten' was used again, but until I see the original German wording, how will I know?

    Also, note how your statement isn't official documentation from Hitler. It's a letter from Himmler to Rudolf Hoess, regarding what a third party said. Do you know what we call that in a court of law, James R? Heresay.

    1. I don't necessarily believe that. I never claimed that ALL Jews disappeared due to deportation and emigration. However, it is interesting to note that Jewish families WERE re-united after the war. The fact that you ignore deportation merely demonstrates your complete ignorance of Nazi policy towards Jews during the 1930's and 1940's.

    2. You ignore all other alternatives to gassing/intentional killing. Death by allied bombing. Death by starvation. Death by disease. Death from old age. Death from body failure.
    The Concentration Camps in 1945 were hell, as was the rest of shattered Germany. Your ilk continually forget that unlike America, Germany was a country that had suffered continuous saturation bombing by the Allies. Transports, supply lines and civilian areas were bombed. And then you expect the Nazis to adequately feed their prisoners, let alone themselves! The debacle in New Orleans gives an example of what Germany may have been like during 1945, when the Allies were bombing the shit out of them. Of course, the Germans were a little more orderly.

    3. You ignore that some killings may have been justified. There WERE Jewish insurgents who did attack and sabotage the Axis. What exactly do American soldiers do to Iraqi insurgents (aka. terrorists)? Oh, they shoot them.

    Once again, where is the official documentation from Hitler? Why can't you just admit that you can't produce any?!

    Prove that 'thousands' of historians have estimated the number of Jews. Sounds like an exaggeration on your behalf. Oh, it's also nice to know that it's only an 'estimate'. By admitting that the 6 million figure is only an estimate, you have further bolstered by credibility. Thanks!

    No source on the methodology. Just a vague 2 sentences on how the 6 million figure was calculated, then a 'well, you can't expect me to know EXACTLY how it was done!'. I don't expect you to know 'exactly' how it was done, I want an example, and an explanation of why the methodology was valid.

    Please, just tell me, did the statisicians count the Jews in German occupied lands before 'the purge', and then count the number of Jews in German lands 'after the purge'? And then did they assume that the Jews missing had been 'exterminated'? Is that how it worked, James R? Just answer that very simple question. If that is not how it worked, explain how that calculated how many Jews had been killed in a province.

    Once again, I don't have to explain anything, as I haven't made a concrete claim on what happened to the 'six million' Jews (In fact, you have yet to demonstrate that there were six million Jews to begin with). You claimed that the 6 million Jews were intentionally elimated, so the burden of proof falls on YOUR shoulders to back up your accusation. You can't turn around and babble: 'Yeah, well, how else can you explain it?!' Are you an atheist, James R? I'm sure you'd be pretty quick to point out the 'burden of proof' fallacy if a theist babbled 'How else can you explain it, if God didn't do it!' when an unexplained event occurred.

    I guess I can't blame you for shifting the burden of proof, since you don't have any evidence to support your conjecture (STILL no official documentation from Hitler). There are alternatives. I don't have to prove those alternatives, and it is pointless for you to attempt to refute the alternatives, since you will have still failed to provide evidence to support your extermination story.

    Wrong again. You're assuming that a concentration camp automatically = abuse, torture, ill-treatment, and other such nonsense.
    A concentration camp is merely where you keep prisoners, insurgents, and suspected trouble-makers, so that they cannot cause trouble. That's why they call it a 'concentration' camp. You concentrate your troublemakers so that you can keep an eye on them.

    Ahh, here we go again, more unsupported conjecture. You have yet to provide evidence, or official documentation, that the Jews WERE 'systematically exterminated'.

    Here you go again, assuming I have a racial prejudice. Pull your head out of your ass and realize that perhaps there are 'alternatives'. Oh wait, I'm talking to a guy who assumes that merely because 6 million Jews 'disappeared', they must have all been innocent civilians who were systematically killed by the Nazis.

    I concentrate on the Jews because they used the Holocaust to wrangle compensation out of Germany, and wrangle Arab land of the British. I concentrate on the Jews because they continually bring up the Holocaust whenever someone questions Israeli policy (You're anti-semite, we suffered in the Holocaust, don't pick on us. WAA WAA WAA!) I concentrate on the Jews, because everyone else does. When someone says 'Holocaust', Western retards tend to automatically think of the Jews, forgetting that Slavs and Communists also suffered under the Nazi regime.

    How many Slavs who suffered during the Holocaust used it as an excuse to wrangle Arab land off the Allies? And remember that the Slavs, especially the Poles, have had their country sliced and diced more times than any other.
    And before you spout drivel about nations such as the Poles already having a land for themselves so that they could be 'safe', remember that it continued to be under Communist control. It was far from 'safe'. The Poles were scared to criticize their communist government, even in private, lest they go 'missing' during the night.

    Provide proof that Japanese people in America were not killed by the Americans . Provide proof that they didn't suffer abuse.

    And notice how these SS officers conveniently claim that while they say the gassings, they didn't participate in the mass murder (oh heavens no!).
    There are also SS officers who claimed that NO gassings occurred. There are Jewish and Slav prisoners who claimed that the gassings didn't occur. Why do you ignore their testimony? Oh wait, it contradicts your narrow-minded views, so you just dismiss it out of hands.

    DING DING! Further enhancing my credibility, further diminishing the credibility of 'eye witnesses' to the gassings. Also, I note that you didn't explain why Jews who had been gassed by the Nazis were allowed to live. Surely if they witnessed the gassings, they must have been being gassed themselves? Or did the Nazis gas their prisoners out on an open field, where every Jew could see?

    In case you can't understand the point I'm making, I'm questioning that fact that any Jews could have witnessed the gassing of other Jews. The Nazis would have done it in a confined room, with no witnesses. Why no witnesses? Because if you were a witness, you'd be dead. The only way to watch someone being gassed is to stand in the same room as them.

    You assume that there are 'thousands' of separate accounts, which all say 'the same thing'. That's another unsupported assumption on your behalf. Once again, there were 'eyewitnesses' who claimed that the Nazis used the bodies of dead Jews to make soap. That fantasy was later debunked. That just demonstrates how reliable 'eye-witnesses' are.

    Piles of corpses and burning bodies is not damning evidence of mass extermination. Ever heard of typhus? What about starvation? Are people dying of starvation in New Orleans, James? Will they be burning piles of bodies there? And if so, are you going to say "OMG, LYKE, THE AMERICAN TROOPS HAVE GAZZED THE BLACKS!"

    It's amazing how retards continue to accuse me of being a 'Neo-Nazi', despite the fact that I'm not a National Socialist, I'm not German, and I'm part Slav. Yeah, I'm not German, but I'm pro Nazi, despite the Nazis hating Slavs. Christ, some people on sciforums are fucking retards without two brain cells to click together.
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2005
  11. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    Well, there is no pleasing you is there...?
     
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    mountainhare:

    Settle down. You're starting to foam at the mouth. I guess you're not used to discussing these things with non-Nazis.

    Did you get this from one of your revisionist web sites? On the contrary, it was quite clear that Hitler meant "exterminate". And he, of course, was not the only person to use "ausrotten" in that sense.

    Did you really think you could rattle off this distraction and throw my argument?

    Hitler clearly wanted them killed. The evidence is ample to support the fact that killings happened on a mass scale. And since nothing could happen on a mass scale in Nazi Germany without Hitler's knowledge and approval, Hitler obviously knew it was happening.

    Why are you going out of your way to excuse Hitler? Is he your hero? Do you think that if you can prove that Hitler didn't give the order, then you have proven that the Holocaust didn't happen?

    In case you haven't noticed, we're not in a court of law here. We (well, only me, really) are looking at this as historians. Hearsay is evidence, even if not admissible in a court of law. Of course, nothing will satisfy you on this, as I predicted in my last post, so I won't labor the point. As I said before, it is a diversionary tactic on your part anyway, to distract from the main question of whether the Holocaust happened or not.

    Prior to the war, many Jews did emigrate from Germany - they could see what was on the cards. Those Jews are not counted in the 5-6 million total. And yes, some Jews survived the concentration camps. Some were even saved by Germans. Some families were reunited after the war. But you're diverting again, aren't you?

    The fact that some Jews survived the Holocaust in no way proves it did not occur. In fact, survivors' testimony is some of the strongest evidence we have for what went on in the camps.

    Not ignored, but irrelevant to what we have been discussing. Oh, and the German concentration camps were obviously not designed to provide enough food or decent living conditions for their prisoners. Starvation of prisoners was built into them almost from the start.

    Do you seriously believe that the majority of those 5-6 million Jews killed were killed justifiably? Yes, I'm sure that in your warped mind, you do.

    Please re-read my previous post, where I carefully explained to you that the very fact that estimates differ tends to confirm the numbers, rather than raise doubt about them.

    I said nothing of the kind. The fact is, the information is out there if you want to look, but you know and I know that I would be wasting my time typing up details of this process for you. You refuse to even consider the obvious black-and-white evidence such as Hitler's statements, so you certainly won't accept the nitty-gritty evidence from small towns in Poland, for example.

    There are organisations devoted to gathering and presenting exactly the kind of evidence you demand. Have you consulted them? Why do you expect me, a poster on a science discussion forum, to do your leg work for you? Educate yourself, if you really have an honest desire to learn.

    Your straw men are tiresome, mountainhare. As I said above, you're foaming at the mouth. And you give yourself away with your obvious rage against your adopted "enemy".

    What kind of twisted reasoning leads you to believe that Arab land rightfully belongs to Britain?

    Personally, I can't recall any Israeli leader using that argument in recent years.

    No, it's just you.

    You sound like you're demanding absolute proof that no Japanese person was harmed in America. But I've never made that claim, so this is just another distractor and straw man. All I have said is that the treatment of Japanese civilian prisoners by the Americans in WWII was, on average, far more humane than the treatment of Jewish civilians by the Nazis. Do you disagree?

    This is true of some, but not all of them. Can you think of why they might make such claims? Come on, brain on. Think.

    I am aware of such claims. The people who make them invariably were not in a position to witness the gassings directly. Many in the camps at the time did not want to believe that innocent people were being gassed. Survivors, by definition, were not themselves gassed, and were not always aware of the gas chambers.

    Try a little bit of research, mountainhare. You make yourself look silly. The Germans used Jewish prisoners to transport bodies from the gas chambers to burial pits, among other tasks. Some of those prisoners survived to tell their stories. So did many of the guards who took part in various stages of the process. And, of course, what was going on at Auschwitz and other camps was general knowledge among the German soldiers who worked there.

    This is correct. I freely admit that the bodies of dead Jews were never used to make soap, as far as the historical record can ascertain. But then, I never claimed they were, did I? Is this another diversionary tactic pulled from one of your favorite web sites?

    So you admit to piles of corpses? 5-6 million? Whose actions led to all those poor people starving, or dying of typhus, according to you? Does your hero, Hitler, bear any responsibility for that, in your view?

    Do you think any of the Jews in concentration camps were killed deliberately by the Germans? If so, why? Were they all trying to escape? Was it all just an unfortunate accident of starvation and disease?

    Or are you going to backpeddle and question the numbers again?

    You're pro-Nazi, but not a neo-Nazi? Please explain for me the subtle distinction you make to justify your bigotry.
     
  13. mountainhare Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,287
    James:
    Condescension disguised as feigned politeness. Wow, I'm impressed. I didn't think you were capable of such tactics. Been studying 'Law 101', as I advised, huh? If I'm foaming at the mouth, it's only because I caught the rabies virus from a certain dog who keeps barking the same old nonsense.

    Oh, and by the way, I notice that you're stereotyping me yet again! I'm definitely not a Nazi, unless you can prove otherwise.

    Yes. So what? You got your drivel from a Holocaust believer site. Are you claiming that my source is biased, whereas yours is not? Careful James, your own bias is starting to show.

    Wrong, James. As I clearly explained, ausrotten had a different meaning in the 1930's and 1940's than it did today. You are aware that the meaning of words change over time, right? For instance, if I said I was a fag back in the 1930's, people would have thought I was an odd cigarette.

    And Hitler used 'ausrotten' in many of his speeches, where it was clear that he didn't mean extermination. I provided examples from reliable sources, but you chose to conveniently ignore them. That's the first clever thing I've seen you do during our whole discussion! The classic old cut and run from a dog who has all bark, no bite.

    Do you really think that you can throw in red herring after red herring? Where is the official documentation from Hitler ordering the gassing of the Jews, which you claimed existed? Why can't you provide it, James? Put up, or shut up.

    You say there is evidence. You don't provide the evidence. Your conjecture is ignored.

    You start with faulty, unproven premises, and then stumble onto a faulty conclusion. Once again, where is the evidence you claim exists?

    Why are you going out of your way to excuse Hitler? Is he your hero? Do you think that if you can prove that Hitler didn't give the order, then you have proven that the Holocaust didn't happen?

    Actually, the fact that hearsay evidence is not admissible in a trial is highly relevant, since we then have to ask why such evidence was allowed in the Nuremburg trials?

    Nevertheless, hearsay evidence is flimsy and inconclusive, as courts all over the world recognize. But then again, your case is so weak, you need whatever drivel you can get, even if it is hearsay evidence.

    Afraid not, kid. You forget that Jews were deported out of German lands during the war.

    Strawman. I never claimed the above.

    Ahh, here we go. I notice that you didn't support your previous claim that there were 'thousands' of eyewitness testimonies, which all corroborated each other. But then again, I've long given up hope of you supporting your absurd claims.

    I'm afraid that it is highly relevant. The 6 million 'missing' Jews could quite easily have constituted of Jews who had died from Allied bombing, starvation, disease, old age, etc.

    You have yet to refute these alternatives. Instead, you wave your hands and bleat 'not relevant!'

    Support this claim or retract it.

    Where did I state that I believed that 6 million Jews had been executed as insurgents? You've engaging in yet another strawman argument, James. I also notice that you haven't refuted my alternative explaination, which is actually more believable than the mass gassing of 6 million Jews.

    You explain, you state, you imply, you conjecture. You've yet to provide an explaination for the methodology, and you have yet to support the absurd notion that 'differing estimates means that 6 million is a precise answer'.

    I'm afraid you did, James. Surely you can read your own posts?

    Perhaps it would be a waste, James. However, the fact still remains that you claimed that the 6 million number was credible. He who asserts must prove.

    Which are far from black and white. Hitler used ambigious language and colourful wording. Meanings change over time. In your simple mind, these things are black and white, when in reality they are grey.
    Nice cop-out, James. You can't support your conjecture, so you bail out by insulting my intelligence. And then you claim that I'm foaming at the mouth!

    Once again, you're attempting to shift the burden of proof. "He who asserts must prove". You claimed that the Nazis intentionally killed 6 million prisoners, hence it is YOUR duty to provide evidence to support your position, not me.

    Once again, put up or shut up.

    It doesn't. I must apologize, I made a typo error. Of = Off. My statement should have read: "I concentrate on the Jews because they used the Holocaust to wrangle compensation out OF Germany, and wrangle Arab land OFF the British."

    Well spotted.

    Perhaps I'm wrong after all. Maybe the problem isn't that you read too much Zionist literature, but that you read too little. If you did read what the ultra-right wing Zionists had to say, you might be repulsed by the emotional blackmail they employ.
    I'm afraid not. Many tend to believe that the Jews were central to the Holocaust, and that the Slavs, blacks and Communists were just 'on the side'.

    Really, James? You never said this in your previous post?
    Looks like you're falsely accusing me of a straw-man fallacy, which is rather dishonest on your behalf. But then again, perhaps you can't read your own posts.

    Claiming that I don't have my brain on, and that I don't think? Who's foaming at the mouth again, James R?

    Perhaps you should ponder why Nazis claim that mass murder occurred. Nazis who ironically never participated in that mass murder (oh how convenient!).

    I guess in James' world, interviews are free. Books are handed out for free. And nobody wants publicity.

    Thanks for further enhancing my credibility my admitting that there ARE Jewish and Slav eyewitnesses who admit that no gassings occurred. Your excuses are ignored. The fact remains that for every eye-witness who claimed there was a gassing, you could most likely find an eye-witness who claimed no gassings occurred. Who is more reliable comes down to personal opinion and bias.

    Careful James, you're foaming at the mouth again.

    1. Did the 'transport' Jews see the gassings, or did they just 'assume' that the Jews had been gassed?

    2. It was rather stupid of the Nazis to allow witnesses to their crimes, no? Rather odd for a group who was clever enough to destroy all official documentation regarding the mass murder of the Jews, and the logistics of gassing them.

    Some prisoners survived to say that no gassing occurred.

    The ones who were at Nuremburg, and had the 'truth' beaten out of them?

    Oh goody, I'm sure you can support that assumption.


    Wrong. The Jewish soap lie is highly relevant, as it questions the reliability of 'eye-witness testimony', which you seem to be relying on to support your Holocaust fantasy. Eye witnesses swore that the Nazis turned dead Jews into soap. That myth was later busted. Why are the eye-witnesses who 'swore' that they saw their fellows being gassed any more reliable than the eye-witnesses who 'swore' they saw Germans turning Jews into soap?

    The Jewish soap lie adds to the credibility of Holocaust diminishers, and harms the credibility of people like James R, who rely on shakey eye-witness testimony.

    Of course. When a group die of disease, you need to burn the corpses, otherwise the disease will spread. That's 'Medicine 101', James.

    No, Hitler bears no responsibility. The camps were in a poor way because Germany was shattered from saturation bombing. Hitler didn't tell the Allies to bomb civilians, transports and concentration camps, did he now?

    I think that a small minority of Jews would have been killed by individual German soldiers, or small groups of soldiers, who had a fierce hatred for the Jews. However, it was not official ppolicy to do so. Atrocities occur during wars, tempers run high, especially when you're being bombed.

    No. You're trying to put words into my mouth. A small proportion of the Jews killed may have been shot escaping.

    No all. But starvation and disease did occur in the concentration camps, and you can't rule them out as an alternative.
    I didn't 'backpeddle', I merely thought it would be proper to mention that I don't accept that 6 million figure anyway, so why would I feel it is necessary to account for 6 million deaths? However, I'm assuming that 6 million did die, just to demonstrate other alternatives apart from intentional mass murder.

    Why do you assume that every missing Jew was intentionally killed from the Nazis? Is it because in your fantasy world, insurgents aren't shot, starvation and disease don't occur, and prisoners don't try to escape?

    Apparently James isn't familiar with sarcasm (or he's just trying to irritate me).

    Adopt a sarcastic, biting tone, James, and then repeat after me:
    How can I be pro-Nazi if I'm not German, and I'm part Slav? Why would a Slav love the Nazis? I'm no huge fan. If I lived back in the 1940's in Poland, I'd be desperate to see the Slav-hating Nazi regime overthrown. However, that doesn't mean that I have to demonize a human entity, and believe the propaganda Zionists love to spew.
     
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2005
  14. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    If you are only what we can prove you to be, you are a...

    ...(drumroll)...

    a nobody...


    Stand up for your own convictions. Be a man.
     
  15. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    That's crazy. You depend on the statement of a murderer in order to prove they are a murderer?

    So, according to you, unless Jeffery Dalmer wrote down his murderous intentions, and had the paper signed and notarized, he didn't really kill and eat anyone?

    So you are not a neo-nazi, but you are pro Nazi? And you call us retards? Someday you will come out of the closet and realize what you are.

    Your semantics about the word ausrotten are typical of holocaust revisionists. It is clear from Mine Kampf, Himmlers speeches, and the actions of the Nazi party and the SS, that they're intentions was to kill as many Jews as possible, men women, and children. But first, if possible, work them to death as slave labor.

    My great aunt who lives in Israel, who still has her concentration camp tattoo visible on her arm, would contradict your weak proposition that the holocaust didn't happen. She was the only survivor of that part of our family that wasn't able to leave Germany.
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2005
  16. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    No one is demonizing the Germans, I had a German girlfriend, I've been to her village twice, one village away from where Wernher Von Braun used to vacation when the difficult task of mass murder and world domination got to be too much for him.
     
  17. Let's simplify this with a few questions. Short, succint answers are appreciated.

    Mountainhare:

    How many Jews do you believe died in prison camps during the Holocaust?
    How many non-Jews do you believe died in prison camps during the Holocaust?
    How many jewish deaths were a direct result of systematic elimination and how many resulted from collateral damage?
    Was Hitler a great man, a monster, or both in your opinion?
    What is your opinion of Jewish people and why?
    What is your opinion on Israel, and do you distinguish between Israeli, Jew, and Zionist?
    What is your opinion on Nazi's and Neo-Nazi's and why?
    Do you have a problem with Native American's getting special treatment from the U.S. goverment 200 years after it tried to wipe them off the continent (albeit in open-direct conflict)?
    Do you have a problem with ethnic cleansing?
     
  18. mountainhare Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,287
    Once again, I'm only addressing one post at a time. sleeper seems to be genuinely interested in what I believe, so I'll address him.

    sleeper555:
    I'll keep my answers short if possible, although your questions are very broad, and beg for a detailed response.

    Not sure. It would be naive to claim that Jews didn't die, but the number keeps changing so often, I can't rightfully say. All I know is that I am skeptical of the '6 million' figure, just like historians were once skeptical of the '6 million' figure. Until I see some decent evidence, and a robust explaination of the methodology, I remain a skeptic. Remaining skeptical is a DEFAULT position when presented with an extraordinary claim. A skeptic does not require evidence, unless he makes an absolute claim.

    No idea, although it is fair to say that non-Jews would have died from malnutrition, disease, old age, Allied bombing, and the odd instance of German cruelty.

    You assume that 'systematic elimination' even occurred. Once again, that is an extraordinary claim, and requires evidence to convince a skeptic.

    I think that depends on perspective and context. When people review the actions and beliefs of Hitler, they look at his actions/beliefs in the context of the 21st century. They also ignore the methods and beliefs held today, which mirror the methods and beliefs of Hitler. Remember that I am not referring to the method of 'mass murder', since I am skeptical that such a thing occured, or that Hitler ordered such a thing.

    In the context of the 1930's, Hitler was merely another dictator in a long line of dictators and monarchs, most of whom used Hitler's methods to enforce beliefs held by many of their followers.

    I can see why the Germans of 1930 sympathized with some of his beliefs, such as 'only Germans in German lands!' (a belief still held today by many Conservatives and Nationals), and "Communism is the bane of the civilized world!" (an ideal which was held by America after WW2).

    As to Hitler having a fanatical hatred of the European Jews, so what? Today, anti-semitism is a horrid thing, and the Jews of the 1940's did not deserve having such intense hatred directed at them. However, back in the early 1900's, the Jews were the most hated nationality in Europe. In fact, Hitler's stance towards the Jews was one of the many reasons why the Nazis were voted into government by the German people. Saying "Boo, Hitler hated the Jews" is just like saying "Boo, Charles Darwin hated the blacks!" That was the norm in their society at that time. I disagree with such views, but you can't condemn such cultures for having them, as we don't know the atmosphere back then. The European Jews had a long history of getting kicked out of country after country, which hints that perhaps there were reasons for them being so hated .

    I also accept that the Germans would have appreciated Hitler when he lowered unemployment to almost 0, and handled the inflation problem magnificently. On the other hand, he ran Germany into the ground by fighting a war on more fronts than he could handle.

    In summary...

    1. Hitler was a monster to the Allies, Slavs and Jews, but a hero to the German people. To me, he is merely another competent dictator who I would rather not have running my country, since he hated Slavs (and I'm part Slav, as I keep saying), and stirred up too much trouble.

    2. Some of Hitler's views are still held by many in the community today. Only Germans in Germany is awfully similiar to 'only Anglo-Saxons and indigenous inhabitants in America'.

    3. Despite sounding 'extreme', I understand why he employed the methods he did (Jews in Concentration Camps). Note that UNDERSTANDING is not the same as APPROVING OF. I understand why Palestinian terrorists attack Israeli civilians, but that does not mean I find terrorism morally correct.

    My opinion is that they are just another nationality/race, like any other.

    It is a state formed via used of emotional black, violence, terrorism and land theft. It is a state which continues to use those methods to beat up the Palestinians, while its ultra-right wing leaders denounce the 'Jewish' persecution by Hitler and others. The hypocrisy makes me choke with laughter.

    Israeli = Someone who is a citizen of the current state of Israel.

    Jew = Anyone with Jewish blood, and/or Jewish belief, and/or whose ancestors practiced Judaism. This include Palestinian Jews, who were living peacefully on Palestine alongside the Palestinian Muslims and Palestinian Christians, before the European Jews came along and caused strife.

    Zionist = An individual who believes that the establishment of a state of Israel on stolen Arab land is justified.

    Just for clarification...

    Palestinian = Anyone whose ancestors have been living in Palestine for as 'long as they can remember'. This includes indigenous inhabitants with Arab, Turkish, Roman, Byzantine, Jewish, or Crusader blood, or a mixture of all those categories. A Palestinian is not necessarily a full Arab, and although many Palestinians do tend to mainly have Arab blood in their bloodlines, there is usually a hint of other races/nationalities. Generally, however, Palestinians tend to have an 'Arab' culture.

    The Nazi's were merely a group with certain political ideals, and the Neo-Nazis are merely a group with certain political ideals. Like all political movements, they have some ideals I sympathize with, and others I do not. Their stance against Communism, and their belief that 'Anglo-Saxons' should remain a majority in 'Anglo-Saxon' countries sound reasonable. Their belief in white superiority is not something I agree with. I would not vote for the Nazis if they were running for an election. I would vote independent.

    Yes. I have no problem with Native American's getting equal treatment, but 'special' treatment is not fair on the other Americans. It seems today that if you are a minority, you can never be racist, or treated as though you are superior. Note that I am not an American...

    'Ethnic cleansing' is a rather broad term.
    Genocide? No.
    Refusing entry of immigrants from countries whose cultures are wildly different from mine? Yes. Such a thing is happening in Britain and America today, due to the unnatural fear of Arabs and Muslims.
     
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    mountainhare:

    You continue to demand detailed proofs of each of the points I have made, yet you appear to have made no attempt at all to examine sources which do not support your own preconcieved biases.

    I do not claim to be an expert on the Holocaust, but I have read widely enough. In your last reply to me, you claimed I got my information from the web. I did not. In fact, most of it was off the top of my head, apart from the specific quotes from Hitler etc. The rest was from books I own.

    I have no intention of replying to you point by point, since that would take much more time and effort than I am willing to expend on you. So, I will just examine one point you made, which is very specific: the use of the word "ausrotten" by Hitler and others.

    You claim the word means, literally "to segregate something from a horde". You claim that, back in the 1930-1940, the word had a different meaning from today's meaning of "to exterminate". According to you, when Hitler used the word, he meant the Jews should be transported out of Germany, and not killed or "exterminated".

    A check of German dictionaries of the period will show you that the common meaning of the word is "exterminate", which hasn't changed in the last 100 years.

    Consider Hitler himself. At a December 1944 conference regarding the Ardennes attack against the Americans, Hitler is recorded as ordering his generals to "aurotten" them, division by division. Did he mean he wanted them transported to other countries?

    What of the word's use by Germans, and Nazis in particular? To take one example, SS Sturmbannfuehrer Rudolph Brandt wrote in a letter during the war about "the ausrottung of tuberculosis as a disease affecting the nation". Did he mean he wanted to transport the disease out of Germany? In another letter, about a year later, Brandt wrote about the "accelerated ausrottung of the Jews in occupied Europe". He used the same word to refer to the Jews as to the disease. Did the word change meaning in the year between the two letters? Or was he referring to transport of both the disease and the Jews? If he was referring to transport, where did he believe the European Jews were being transported to?

    In a speech to a Nazi assembly held on 7 October, 1940, Hans Frank, the head of the occupying government in Poland, said "I could not ausrotten all lice and Jews in only one year." Was he transporting lice out of the country?

    Himmler, in a lecture on Christianity he gave in January 1937, said "I have the conviction that the Roman emperors, who ausrotteten the first Christians, did precisely what we are doing with the communists."

    In case you're wondering, the Romans did not transport Christians out the country. They killed them.

    There is another Himmler speech, which David Irving, a well-known Holocaust denier (I'm sure you've read his stuff), admits exists and is genuine. It was made on 26 January, 1944. Irving, reporting on the speech, admits Himmler spoke plainly about wiping out the Jews - murdering them.

    I guess Hitler was totally unaware of Himmler's actions...
     
  20. windeater Registered Member

    Messages:
    3
    oh bugger. just been writing this whole reply and then my computer collapsed. let me try again though and address some points that for some reason have not been made yet in this discussion.

    if i can just recap the main points made by mountainhare to claim "the holocaust didn't happen" (if i am wrong in any of these points, please feel free to correct me).

    1. the number debate. There is no clear prove that 6 million Jews were purposely exterminated during WW II. Even if there would be clear prove that so many Jews dissappeared from Europe, this is because many resettled, some were killed because they were at war with Hitler, and many died because of disease, malnutrition, allied bombings etcetera.

    2. the concentration camps were ordinary prison camps where inmates were put to work

    3. there is no clear prove that Hitler ordered the extermination of all the Jews.

    4. anti-semitism was very common in those days.

    5. Hitlers cruelty was very common in those days.

    To start with 1. The Numbers
    You are right. There is no clear prove that indeed 6 million Jews were exterminated during WWII. And that prove will most likely never come either. It is the problem with any event that takes lots of casualties, be it man or nature made. The same goes for Stalin's victims, for Cambodja, for the tsunami in Asia last year, for the current earthquake in Pakistan. I doubt you would claim that these events happened either, just because there is no firm prove of the number of casualties involved. As many people have already pointed out, Yad Vashem (www.yadvashem.org) has documented over 3 million Jews who have died during the Shoa. You have yet to comment on this evidence, I wonder why you havent.
    Surely, many Jews died, just like other citizens, because of malnutrition, disease and old age. Allied bombings would be a harder case to make, especially at that scale. You do know of course that both the Western allies and the Red Army did not get to the Europe mainland until June 1944, dont you? By that time, many Jews had already been relocated (or killed). As for immigration, indeed a lot of Jews migrated from Germany before 1939. Most of them, however, went to neighbouring countries that would soon be occupied, like the Netherlands (Anne Frank being the most famous one), France, Poland, etc. Migrating overseas, to America or to Israel, was certainly at that time a most costly matter that a lot of people simply couldnt afford. Which makes your argument that the demographic difference of Jews in Europe in the thirties and after the war a weak one at best.
    Again, you are right that in the beginning the policy of the Nazis was to relocate Jews. They were, in the first year of the war, deported out of German land. However, they weren't deported to Israel, but to the east. Poland, most notably. Where later on most of the concentration camps were located. Which brings us to point

    2. The Concentration Camps.

    Yes, concentration camps for prisoners and forced labour was not uncommon in those days - look at the Soviet Union for instance - and still aren't. You keep focussing on Auschwitz, and argue that it is not something strange to burn corpses of people who have died of disease. Auschwitz was indeed partly a labour camp. Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka and Chelmno, however, were not. These camps were solely designed to kill people, with a total of 1,7 million victims in a course of 4 years, taking the lowest estimations (see http://www.deathcamps.org/reinhard/pic/time-table.jpg). Mass killings on such a huge industrial scale was unprecedented, or you have to give me some proof that it wasn't. I'd be more than interested to read it.

    3. The Proof.

    Is there any proof that Hitler ordered the complete annihilation of Jews? To be honest, I dont have the time and energy to go and look for evidence that would satisfy your need, cause frankly I doubt that is out there (or you're gonna slam me with that "ausrotten" again. For which, btw, you haven't provided us with any evidence yet that indeed it did not mean "to exterminate" in the 1930s and 1940s). Countless speeches and writings, however, do show that Hitler thought of Jews as less than human, as vermin, as pariahs. For the rest we do indeed depend on "hearsay". But not just any hearsay, we got our information of the people closest to Hitler, such as Himmbler and Eichmann. Claiming that a dictator cannot be guilty because there is no direct evidence that he ordered such and such annihilation, is an easy argument used in many genocide cases. It holds no ground, though. Hitler was the head of state, and therefore responsible for any actions that the people under him undertake. There would be no way that "The Final Solution" could be carried out on such a mass scale without Hitler knowing, and if he didnt approve, why didnt he stop it?

    You have of course heard of "The Final Solution of the Jewish Problem"? In the first years of the war, the solution of the Jewish problem was carried out through immigration, evacuation, and sterilization. At the Wannsee Conference, January 22 1942, (see www.ghwk.de and www.deathcamps.org/reinhard) it was concluded that the previous actions were too time- and money consuming, and Aktion Reinhard was started, which led to the creation of the camps. If you want evidence, I suggest you browse around these pages. Lots of original documents too.

    As for antisemitism being very common in those days... surely you cant consider thát a legitimate argument? The majority is always right? I'm not even gonna take that serious.

    If I may ask you a personal question, you keep proudly saying that you're part Slav. May we know where you are actually from?
     
  21. Thank you for the response Mountainhare, I will do my best to address your points.

    Not sure. It would be naive to claim that Jews didn't die, but the number keeps changing so often, I can't rightfully say. All I know is that I am skeptical of the '6 million' figure, just like historians were once skeptical of the '6 million' figure. Until I see some decent evidence, and a robust explaination of the methodology, I remain a skeptic. Remaining skeptical is a DEFAULT position when presented with an extraordinary claim. A skeptic does not require evidence, unless he makes an absolute claim.

    I am no expert, but I am aware of many sources that present robust methodologies. I am also aware that the estimates vary significantly, though even the conservative numbers are above 3,000,000. Have you examined these sources in an effort to see whether or not your skepticism is justified? Does it matter to you whether it was 3,000,000 or 6,000,000 and do you believe that the nature of the variance calls into question the validity of the underlying claim of systematic extermination?

    No idea, although it is fair to say that non-Jews would have died from malnutrition, disease, old age, Allied bombing, and the odd instance of German cruelty

    It is certainly true that many non-jews died. Jews were not the only targets of Nazi facism. I am not aware of any non-jewish civilian estimates, but i am sure they are out there.

    You assume that 'systematic elimination' even occurred. Once again, that is an extraordinary claim, and requires evidence to convince a skeptic.

    It was not my intention to make assumptions, you could have answered 0. I was trying to quantify your skepticism. Do you believe that systematic elimination may have occured? Do you assign a probability to your doubt?

    I can see why the Germans of 1930 sympathized with some of his beliefs, such as 'only Germans in German lands!' (a belief still held today by many Conservatives and Nationals), and "Communism is the bane of the civilized world!" (an ideal which was held by America after WW2).

    Understanding the appeal of ethnic nationalism and believing in its morality are distinct concepts, do you distinguish between the two? The Jews living in Germany were Germans and many had been there for a long time, though they had different ancestry and religious beliefs.

    However, back in the early 1900's, the Jews were the most hated nationality in Europe.

    It strikes me as odd that you refer to Judaism as a nationality.

    That was the norm in their society at that time. I disagree with such views, but you can't condemn such cultures for having them, as we don't know the atmosphere back then.

    Humans are insecure, fallible creatures, and I would agree that societal condemnation is not warranted. However, would you agree that if systematic extermination of any ethnicity occurs under the sponsorship of a government, repercussions should be imposed to penalize this government so as to deter similar events from occuring again in the future? Do you believe that those in charge of the government at such a time should be held responsible, if in fact, atrocities did occur?

    The European Jews had a long history of getting kicked out of country after country, which hints that perhaps there were reasons for them being so hated .

    As per my post on the anti-semitism thread, there were many reasons why the jews were hated, both historical and humanistic. However, I would propose that such hatred springs from the basest of human elements. The German Jews were productive members of society, and it is not as if they terrorized the nation. If their only crimes were introversion, impacting culture, succeeding in business, and interbreeding with "pure" germans, is this enough reason to hate them?

    I also accept that the Germans would have appreciated Hitler when he lowered unemployment to almost 0, and handled the inflation problem magnificently. On the other hand, he ran Germany into the ground by fighting a war on more fronts than he could handle.


    No argument here. As a leader, he was a pretty influential fellow and he did lift Germany out of the doldrums of Post WWI decay. If one chooses to ignore or doubt his genocidal program, he would certainly fall in the same category as a Napoleon, imho.

    Hitler was a monster to the Allies, Slavs and Jews, but a hero to the German people. To me, he is merely another competent dictator who I would rather not have running my country, since he hated Slavs (and I'm part Slav, as I keep saying), and stirred up too much trouble.

    Again, you seem to forget that there were many German Jews that were part of the German people, citizenship, and society... was a hero to them as well? or was he a just a hero to those Germans he favored?

    Some of Hitler's views are still held by many in the community today. Only Germans in Germany is awfully similiar to 'only Anglo-Saxons and indigenous inhabitants in America'.

    Does it matter to you where someone was born, who there parents were, or what religion that practice? Should this be a qualification of citizenship? Do you understand or agree with the beliefs you mention? Does the survival of such beliefs validate their morality?

    Despite sounding 'extreme', I understand why he employed the methods he did (Jews in Concentration Camps).

    Interesting. How do you arrive at this understanding? Were the Jews a threat worthy of internment? What exactly was the threat they imposed? It seems to me that Germany would have stood a much better chance of winning the war if the Jews fought side by side with the non-jews and all for the German cause. Did you mean to say that given Hitlers view of German Jewry, you can understand why he put them in concentration camps?

    Note that UNDERSTANDING is not the same as APPROVING OF. I understand why Palestinian terrorists attack Israeli civilians, but that does not mean I find terrorism morally correct.

    Important distinction. I agree.

    My opinion is that they are just another nationality/race, like any other.

    What nationality or race are jews? I thought judiasm was a religion and heritage made up of a amalgamation of nationalities and races (though with common ancestry). Do you know the roots of your ancestry back 1000+ years? My mother is Jewish but my father is Lutheran. I myself was bought up non-religious, and am agnostic, so I do not practice or believe in the dogma of religion. Would you consider me to be Jewish?

    It is a state formed via used of emotional black, violence, terrorism and land theft. It is a state which continues to use those methods to beat up the Palestinians, while its ultra-right wing leaders denounce the 'Jewish' persecution by Hitler and others. The hypocrisy makes me choke with laughter.

    Land theft? I always thought that the victors of war had rights to divy up the spoils. Should the U.S. give the land back to the native americans? If a mistake was made, imho, it was that efforts to reconstruct German and Japan post WWII that were intended to prevent the repitition of mistakes made after WWI were not applied to the reconstruction of the Middle East. We pretty much left the area to its own devices, with the exception of preferential treatment for Israel.

    Israeli = Someone who is a citizen of the current state of Israel.

    Agreed.

    Jew = Anyone with Jewish blood, and/or Jewish belief, and/or whose ancestors practiced Judaism.

    Agreed

    This include Palestinian Jews, who were living peacefully on Palestine alongside the Palestinian Muslims and Palestinian Christians, before the European Jews came along and caused strife.

    The European Jews came along and caused strife? A good number of Israeli Jews today share Arabic roots. To the best of my recollection, it was not Israel that struck its neighbors first. This is not to say that I agree with treatment of Palestinians.

    Zionist = An individual who believes that the establishment of a state of Israel on stolen Arab land is justified.


    and it is important to note that not all jews are zionists.

    Palestinian = Anyone whose ancestors have been living in Palestine for as 'long as they can remember'. This includes indigenous inhabitants with Arab, Turkish, Roman, Byzantine, Jewish, or Crusader blood, or a mixture of all those categories. A Palestinian is not necessarily a full Arab, and although many Palestinians do tend to mainly have Arab blood in their bloodlines, there is usually a hint of other races/nationalities. Generally, however, Palestinians tend to have an 'Arab' culture.

    Agreed. It is worthwhile noting that although other Arab nations support the Palestinian cause against Israel, they have a very negative view of the Palestinians themselves.

    The Nazi's were merely a group with certain political ideals, and the Neo-Nazis are merely a group with certain political ideals. Like all political movements, they have some ideals I sympathize with, and others I do not. Their stance against Communism, and their belief that 'Anglo-Saxons' should remain a majority in 'Anglo-Saxon' countries sound reasonable. Their belief in white superiority is not something I agree with. I would not vote for the Nazis if they were running for an election. I would vote independent.

    Just for clarification, do you believe Jews qualify as white? Also, is it reasonable to believe that the Anglo-Saxon majority is at risk?

    Yes. I have no problem with Native American's getting equal treatment, but 'special' treatment is not fair on the other Americans. It seems today that if you are a minority, you can never be racist, or treated as though you are superior. Note that I am not an American...

    I would like point out a subtle distinction here. Notwithstanding actual denotations of the words... it is certainly possible for a minority to be prejudiced, but the term racism implies the application of prejudice via a position of power. As such, it is difficult to imagine a minority being racist. Technically however, a racist would be defined as anyone who judges another based on race (race being a loosely defined term itself).

    If a government is a surviving entity, similar to an organization, that transends its constituent citizenship, I have trouble seeing why they shouldn't be made to make amends. It acts a deterrent to repeating the mistakes of the past.

    Refusing entry of immigrants from countries whose cultures are wildly different from mine?


    People from different cultures can often share similar values. What do you believe is the justification of such refusal based on culture alone?

    Yes. Such a thing is happening in Britain and America today, due to the unnatural fear of Arabs and Muslims.

    Given the militancy of islamists I do not believe that such fear is unnatural (though perhaps exaggerated). In fact, I find it hard to reconcile the fact that you believe that German fear of the German Jews was understandable, but U.S. and U.K. desire to protect themselves from foreign Islamic terrorism is not.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 22, 2005
  22. candy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,074
    I believe that as a % of the total world population of a particular ethnic group that the highest impact of WWII civilian casualties was on the gypsy population. Yet most people seem to think of the mass deaths as a soley Jewish loss.

    The mass extermination of a conquered people is not unfortunately unique to the Nazis. History has many examples of massacres. It was however a shock to the 20th century European collective consciousness when it happened in Europe because the European colonial powers had seen themselves as the most civilized of all the people on Earth bringing their superior culture to the barbaric colonials which in some respects they had. European society felt it had evolved beyond beastial behavior. They had seen the horrors of gas warfare and banned it. They now made civilized war with rules for the treatment of POWs. What Europe had not yet comprehended was the Lincolnian concept of a "merciful and charitable" peace treaty. Wilson had tried to convey this idea to the colonial powers with his 14 point plan but could not accomplish his goal. The colonial powers were not as shocked by the idea of mass extermination or the methods used to do it as they were by the fact that it was done by Europeans in Europe. Little is said about the horrors committed by the Japanese in the occupied territories. It has been treated with a sort of intellectual shrugging of the shoulders and an unsaid "Well what else could you expect from those barbarians". Much the same view that is held about today's ongoing genocide in Africa.
     
  23. URI IMU Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    729
    >> Ever heard of typhus? What about starvation? >>

    Hole in one.

    In a world war, food is scarce, and hungry people in detention camps can be a grave danger to the indigenous population......

    when at war solutions to problems can become warped and extreme measures have to be taken sometimes....

    even mass burning of bodies, even culling the sick or even in this case cull and remove the source of infection threat to the wider population.

    Bird flu demonstrates what it takes to defend a species.... it is unfortunate but millions of birds have had to be killed to protect the wider population.

    Extreme circumstances warrant drastic measures if you need to save your own people.


    Freedom lost the second world war..... and now spin is in, and truth is dead.
     

Share This Page