ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » History, Literature, and the Arts
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags "Hellstorm" , war crimes , World War II history

Reply
Old 24th June 2016, 03:59 PM   #201
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,870
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
That is as may be, but the effects were different. Stalin ran a slave empire, so his camps were sustainable on a long term basis. Hitler's extermination camps were intended to eliminate entire populations within a year or so, and then shut down. The effects of the difference are significant. It has been pointed out to me that many inmates of Stalin's camps were saved by being released into the Army. But I observe that no Jews were saved from Nazi extermination camps that way.

Hitler's regime in Poland, the General Government, was little more than an extermination machine, intended in the end to be cleansed of all its inhabitants except Germans. It was therefore ephemeral. The Stalinist regime in Poland was rational enough to be surprisingly durable, because Stalin kept it in being in order to exploit it. It's the phenomenon noted in the past in respect of slavery in the USA and elsewhere. It may make economic sense to keep slaves alive, because their labour is valuable. But of course when the supply of slaves is abundant enough, little attention need be paid to them because they can be cheaply replaced. Stalin adopted both strategies, as and when they suited his purposes, on a basis of pure expediency. He was entirely without scruples of any kind.

Yes, both men were so evil, that making personal distinctions of judgement between them is a pointless exercise. But their respective regimes, though both tyrannies, were not the same, and it is important to understand the reason for the differences.
To me it seems that the crimes of Stalin have been reasonably common througjtout history, on somewhat smaller scales. Hitler's were something new.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2016, 09:20 PM   #202
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,194
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
You're just as dead if you're run over by a bus. Dead is dead; but that doesn't stop people from discussing differences in the types of crimes committed by different murderers.
Well, if anyone had run millions of people over with a bus, I'd still consider him a monster. Is all I'm saying.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2016, 09:32 PM   #203
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,194
Originally Posted by lobosrul View Post
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. Mass murder for the purpose of genocide is worse than "just" mass murder IMO, by a shade. As an analogy I'd rather step in puke than bloody puke. To add: that is looking at it from a historical view. If someone murdered my entire family I wouldn't care much about what their motives were.
Maybe, but even there things get kinda muddy. As things usually do, when trying to figure out the motives of long dead people.

As written by his own hand, Hitler DIDN'T really consider Jews to be a biological race. In fact, it reads like he was seriously struggling to independently discover the concept of "culture" or rather, "sub-culture".

Basically Hitler was no athropologist

Mind you, the mass murder of other groups, like the Roma or the Slavs in Poland, THOSE were aimed at what he considered a race all right. But the Jews? Nah, he actually was of the firm opinion that there's no real biological difference between the Jews and the rest of the gang.

So while Hitler DID indulge in a bit o' genocide, as far as the Jews were concerned he genuinely had no intention of clearing out a set of GENES from the pool. He wanted to destroy a CULTURE, a GROUP that he didn't like.

In that sense, well, Stalin was not that far off. His groups were just more diverse, but essentially he didn't like their (sub)culture. And he didn't feel a need to mis-name it as a race.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2016, 09:42 PM   #204
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,194
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
To me it seems that the crimes of Stalin have been reasonably common througjtout history, on somewhat smaller scales. Hitler's were something new.
To be honest, I think... not really. It's more like we glorify them when some ancient king did them. Which really is what Hitler and his propaganda did too. He just learned from the worst of those that still were (and disturbingly still ARE) taught in schools as great emperors and conquerors.

E.g., Genghis Khan is still the frikken national hero of Mongolia, and at the very least not taught in schools as a mass-murdering monster in the rest of the world. Well, Hitler or at least his propaganda had a major admiration boner about his mass-murdering whole populations and building large piles of their skulls, if they didn't instantly surrender, or even looked funny in his direction.

It's more like the rest of the western world had decided, "whelp, we don't do that kind of crap any more." While a bunch of wannabe dictators still disagreed about the "not any more" part.

Now I'm not saying that that's any excuse for Hitler. More like, well, I'd like to stop telling people that kings who kept the peace and strengthened the economy were weak kings, and that guys who killed millions are national heroes. I'd rather call the latter monsters too.

But at any rate, I'm just saying that very few things are THAT new.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2016, 03:51 AM   #205
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,476
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
So while Hitler DID indulge in a bit o' genocide, as far as the Jews were concerned he genuinely had no intention of clearing out a set of GENES from the pool. He wanted to destroy a CULTURE, a GROUP that he didn't like.
That is simply not true. Hitler banned abortion for "Aryans" but in the case of an of a pregnant "Aryan" woman where the father was Jewish, abortion was encouraged. Additionally
The two-volume book Foundations of Human Hereditary Teaching and Racial Hygiene (1920–21) by Eugen Fischer, Erwin Baur, and Fritz Lenz, used pseudoscientific studies to conclude that the Germans were superior to the Jews intellectually and physically, and recommended eugenics as a solution. Madison Grant's work The Passing of the Great Race (1916) advocated Nordicism and proposed using a eugenic program to preserve the Nordic race. After reading the book, Hitler called it "my Bible".
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2016, 04:46 AM   #206
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,194
Actually, here's a quote from 1945, from a letter to Bormann penned by the man himself, Hitler, "We use the term Jewish race as a matter of convenience, for in reality and from the genetic point of view there is no such thing as the Jewish race. There does, however, exist a community, to which, in fact, the term can be applied and the existence of which is admitted by the Jews themselves. It is the spiritually homogeneous group, to membership of which all Jews throughout the world deliberately adhere, regardless of their whereabouts and of their country of domicile; and it to this group of human beings to which we give the title Jewish race."

In the interest of completeness, though, in some of his much earlier writings (e.g., his first letter on the matter from 1919), he insists that it IS a matter of race not religion.

He also seems just confused about WTH it is at times.

Hence my conjecture that he was struggling to basically invent the notion of "culture".
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 25th June 2016 at 04:49 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2016, 05:20 AM   #207
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,870
Hitler definitely seems to have deviated in his views from the racial theories and propaganda put forward by Himmler and his favoured pseudoscientists.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2016, 05:45 AM   #208
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,476
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Actually, here's a quote from 1945, from a letter to Bormann penned by the man himself, Hitler <respectful snip>
...
He also seems just confused about WTH it is at times.
By 1945 Hitler was "just confused" about many things. I'd pay more attention to his 1919 statement, as well as to the actions of his regime before the war turned against him.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2016, 07:21 AM   #209
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,194
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
Hitler definitely seems to have deviated in his views from the racial theories and propaganda put forward by Himmler and his favoured pseudoscientists.
Well, you have to realize that Hitler actually called Himmler out once about his obsession with the nordic race. And yeah, when HITLER calls you out for being too fanatic about racism, THAT has to be an achievement.

But, yeah, you'd think that the Nazis would have one doctrine that everyone has to agree to, kinda like the commies had dialectic materialism and all, but really that wasn't the case. Himmler was MAJORLY fanatic about the whole race and nordic heritage thing, apparently even much more so than Hitler, and so were most of the guys he promoted. Other people were a lot less into that kinda thing.

You can't judge everyone as if they were clones of Himmler, basically. Other people had their own personalized kind of crazy, and Hitler had his own.

(As a side-note, Himmler and his SS still piss me right off for giving Norse stuff a bad name. I really don't think the vikings were racist. No matter if you were white, black, brown, hell, even if you were a fellow germanic, they'd still try to rob you blind and take slaves )
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 25th June 2016 at 07:32 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2016, 07:27 AM   #210
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,908
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
THIS.
It is important to understand the different motives for mass murder that Stalin and Hitler had,but killing millions for political reasons is just as evil as killing millions because they are members of an racial or religious group.
What about killing millions for economic reasons?
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2016, 07:39 AM   #211
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,870
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Well, you have to realize that Hitler actually called Himmler out once about his obsession with the nordic race. And yeah, when HITLER calls you out for being too fanatic about racism, THAT has to be an achievement.

But, yeah, you'd think that the Nazis would have one doctrine that everyone has to agree to, kinda like the commies had dialectic materialism and all, but really that wasn't the case. Himmler was MAJORLY fanatic about the whole race and nordic heritage thing, apparently even much more so than Hitler, and so were most of the guys he promoted. Other people were a lot less into that kinda thing.

You can't judge everyone as if they were clones of Himmler, basically. Other people had their own personalized kind of crazy, and Hitler had his own.

(As a side-note, Himmler and his SS still piss me right off for giving Norse stuff a bad name. I really don't think the vikings were racist. No matter if you were white, black, brown, hell, even if you were a fellow germanic, they'd still try to rob you blind and take slaves )
Certainly the unification of a people under a strong leader seems to have been the focus of Hitler's ideology - the strength of the nation being reflected in the strength of the leadership and unification towards a common goal. He considered the Soviet union the most dangerous enemy of the Germany because of their Weltanschauung and Stalin's strong leadership.

I don't get the impression that Hitler's distaste for Jews came from him viewing them as "inferior stock" as much as them being parasitic and conspiratorial. I do think the conspiratorial aspect is sometimes understated - he thought the Jews ran most of the world outside of the Axis, and that eradicating the Jews was just as important to the war effort as military victories.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2016, 08:46 AM   #212
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,476
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
... He considered the Soviet union the most dangerous enemy of the Germany because of their Weltanschauung and Stalin's strong leadership.
We would mislead ourselves about Hitler's assessment of the USSR if we fail to consider this, from Hitler's broadcast to the German people following his invasion.
Never did the German people harbor hostile feeling against the peoples of Russia. However, for over ten years Jewish Bolshevist rulers had been endeavoring from Moscow to set not only Germany but all Europe aflame. At no time ever did Germany attempt to carry her National Socialist Weltanschauung into Russia, but on the contrary Jewish Bolshevist rulers in Moscow unswervingly endeavored to foist their domination upon us and other European peoples, not only by ideological means but above all with military force.
Quoted here.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2016, 09:24 AM   #213
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,194
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
I don't get the impression that Hitler's distaste for Jews came from him viewing them as "inferior stock" as much as them being parasitic and conspiratorial. I do think the conspiratorial aspect is sometimes understated - he thought the Jews ran most of the world outside of the Axis, and that eradicating the Jews was just as important to the war effort as military victories.
Very much so, indeed. No disagreement there. But it doesn't have to be a RACE for that view to be consistent (if still crazy), is all I'm saying.

A major libel against the Jews was always that they're basically just loyal to their group, and disloyal the country they're in. It's not even new. It dates AT LEAST all the way back to the Roman Empire, at the very least Hadrian's time.

And it's certainly been a very prominent libel in the 20'th century. Stalin overtly had exactly that view, for example: that they're loyal to Israel (when it existed) and the Jewish group, and if it came to choose, they'd be disloyal to the USSR. Zelea Codreanu of Romanian Legionaries fame viewed them as outritght colonizing Romania, AGAINST the orthodox Romanians. And the German Nazis, well, I probably don't need to write much about THEIR anti-semitic Propaganda. ETC.

Just about the only ones who didn't have an anti-semitic libel were the Japanese. Those took the German propaganda to its logical conclusion: if those are so good at taking over banking and economy, damn, they must be good at economics. We need to import some

I wish I was kidding, but it's literally what the Japanese did: imported a boat-load of Jews and expected them to build an economic super-power at the ass-end of China. Needless to say, they kinda ended up about as economically successful as, well, just about any other group of people who barely escaped with the shirts on their backs and got colonized at the far end of nowhere, where the train falls off the map

But I digress.

Basically what I'm saying is that the anti-semitic libel was always about the GROUP's actions, rather than just religion. People may have hated them for the religion part, no doubt, but the justification and excuse for persecuting them was always for fictive supposed actions of the Jewish CULTURE against the country they're in. Even when it was dressed in religious justification (e.g., the blood libel used in the expulsions of Jews in the middle ages), the rationalization and justification was about the fictive actions of the GROUP and CULTURE.

Hitler or anyone else holding such views, well, it doesn't HAVE to be about genetics. Or not only. Is all I'm saying. Well, mostly.

ETA: And what I'm also saying is that other people who got a hate-boner for some group or another, and their supposed disloyalty to the country they were in, e.g., Stalin's USSR... well, it does differ in the details and all, but it's not fundamentally different. Some people didn't have the race or religion card to fall back on, but ultimately the justification was the same: us vs them. They're only loyal to themselves, and disloyal to us.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 25th June 2016 at 09:29 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2016, 04:17 PM   #214
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,870
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Very much so, indeed. No disagreement there. But it doesn't have to be a RACE for that view to be consistent (if still crazy), is all I'm saying.

A major libel against the Jews was always that they're basically just loyal to their group, and disloyal the country they're in. It's not even new. It dates AT LEAST all the way back to the Roman Empire, at the very least Hadrian's time.

And it's certainly been a very prominent libel in the 20'th century. Stalin overtly had exactly that view, for example: that they're loyal to Israel (when it existed) and the Jewish group, and if it came to choose, they'd be disloyal to the USSR. Zelea Codreanu of Romanian Legionaries fame viewed them as outritght colonizing Romania, AGAINST the orthodox Romanians. And the German Nazis, well, I probably don't need to write much about THEIR anti-semitic Propaganda. ETC.

Just about the only ones who didn't have an anti-semitic libel were the Japanese. Those took the German propaganda to its logical conclusion: if those are so good at taking over banking and economy, damn, they must be good at economics. We need to import some

I wish I was kidding, but it's literally what the Japanese did: imported a boat-load of Jews and expected them to build an economic super-power at the ass-end of China. Needless to say, they kinda ended up about as economically successful as, well, just about any other group of people who barely escaped with the shirts on their backs and got colonized at the far end of nowhere, where the train falls off the map

But I digress.

Basically what I'm saying is that the anti-semitic libel was always about the GROUP's actions, rather than just religion. People may have hated them for the religion part, no doubt, but the justification and excuse for persecuting them was always for fictive supposed actions of the Jewish CULTURE against the country they're in. Even when it was dressed in religious justification (e.g., the blood libel used in the expulsions of Jews in the middle ages), the rationalization and justification was about the fictive actions of the GROUP and CULTURE.

Hitler or anyone else holding such views, well, it doesn't HAVE to be about genetics. Or not only. Is all I'm saying. Well, mostly.

ETA: And what I'm also saying is that other people who got a hate-boner for some group or another, and their supposed disloyalty to the country they were in, e.g., Stalin's USSR... well, it does differ in the details and all, but it's not fundamentally different. Some people didn't have the race or religion card to fall back on, but ultimately the justification was the same: us vs them. They're only loyal to themselves, and disloyal to us.
Yeah, I tend to agree. I think some confusion stems from many translating "Volk" as "race" rather than "people".
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2016, 02:16 AM   #215
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,194
Yeah, now that you mention it, and having read some of his writings, I think his whole "völkisch" thing (e.g., in Mein Kampf) would probably be more accurately described as "ethnic" rather than "racial". He seems to be obsessing more about ethnicity than genetics.

Bearing in mind that, as I was saying, he seems very confused at times. It's really a hash of ethnic and racial concepts, that really don't belong together. And it's a crazy hash that really makes no sense if you know anything about either anthropology or genetics. So technically it's not 100% "ethnic" either, or at least not in the sense that anyone else would understand it. It's just Adolf's personal mix of crazy, really.

And it probably doesn't help that the rest of his own party, (including, as you correctly noted, the SS) is even more rabidly racist than Adolf ever was. Which, as I was saying... being so racist that Hitler calls you out on it, that has got to be some kind of messed-up achievement.

And to be fair, he doesn't seem to put much effort in setting them straight either. I mean, he does write such letters to for example Bormann, who was rabidly into mass murder, but thats about it. He doesn't tell Bormann, who was his personal secretary, in addition to being quite prominent in the SS, to set the SS straight about it or anything.

I guess as long as they were still mass-murdering Jews and Slavs like he wanted them to, Hitler couldn't care much less about exactly what personal kind of crazy keeps them going.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 27th June 2016 at 02:18 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2016, 02:23 AM   #216
Desert Fox
Philosopher
 
Desert Fox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 6,147
Originally Posted by Corsair 115 View Post
Bringing up Dresden (and, apparently, being unaware of other events) has frequently been used before by the OPer as a means of illustrating the supposed evilness of the Allies. That's what I was remarking on.
David Irving brings that up I know. Seems to be one of the favorite go to items for the Pro-Nazi movement.
__________________
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."
- - - -Bertrand Russell
Desert Fox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2016, 02:32 AM   #217
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,455
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Yeah, now that you mention it, and having read some of his writings, I think his whole "völkisch" thing (e.g., in Mein Kampf) would probably be more accurately described as "ethnic" rather than "racial". He seems to be obsessing more about ethnicity than genetics.
Well, the knowledge of genetics was still rather limited at the time. I simply don't think the Nazis made a distinction.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2016, 04:08 AM   #218
Desert Fox
Philosopher
 
Desert Fox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 6,147
Originally Posted by timhau View Post
How much difference would it have made on the Eastern front if the Nazis hadn't been both inhuman and stupid? If they had been even halfway decent in their treatment of the local populace, I assume they would have saved a lot of trouble and manpower that had to be kept back for peacekeeping duties and making sure supply lines stay open.
The problem is that they invaded because of ideology. That ideology was why they mistreated the local populace.
__________________
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."
- - - -Bertrand Russell
Desert Fox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2016, 06:23 AM   #219
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,194
The problem is even deeper. The problem is that they had dug themselves into a hole.

Even before the war, Germany had built a malnutrition problem, thanks to Hitler's limiting imports of anything that didn't go into a tank or airplane or such. Food included. Germany had a serious protein intake defficit, and the fat intake wasn't very balanced either.

In Germany, both life expectancy at birth had been going down AND child mortality had been slowly going up in the '30s, thanks to that malnutrition. And you can't just blame it on the depression, because in the exact same period the exact opposite was happening in the surrounding countries.

It also didn't help that the war effort, far from revigorating German economy as it's sometimes hyped, was actually starting to stall it. Hjalmar Schacht's revigorating the economy was what made the massive rearmament possible, not the other way around. At some point, the choice became whether to direct the imports into industrial growth and into producing stuff you can EXPORT to pay for more stuff, or keep building more planes and tanks. Schacht and a few other economists presented basically exactly this choice to Hitler. Hitler decided that he wanted a war, even if it stalls the economy.

Which brings us back to those food imports. Even if you decided to buy food, what would you pay for it with, when the exports are stalling?

And it's not like you couldn't buy food from other countries at the time. Denmark had been perfectly happy to export beef to Germany all the way until Hitler throttled it. And in the east, Stalin was exporting all the food he could rob the Ukrainians of, at increasingly low prices, to pay for his industrialization. But what would you export to pay for it, while directing production into the army instead of exports? Stalin would have happily taken some machine tools in exchange for his crops, but, yeah, then you'd have to produce more machine tools and less tanks.

At any rate, Germany had dug itself into a malnutrition hole. And they knew it. It was discussed at the top more than once. For example since I mentioned Bormann, yeah, the failing health of the German people was a major concern of his.

Now what? You can only go so far with starving Germany to have a war, so that's not an option past some point. So now what? Well, you can stop it with the war delusions. Or you can kill (by starvation or otherwise) a bunch of Poles and Ukrainians to feed the Germans with the crops you free up that way.

You can guess (or read some history if you're Mondial) which sounded like a right choice to the bellicose loonie-gang at the top...
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 27th June 2016 at 06:33 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2016, 06:23 AM   #220
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,455
Originally Posted by Desert Fox View Post
The problem is that they invaded because of ideology. That ideology was why they mistreated the local populace.
Perhaps more precisely, they justified their invasion through ideology. They needed land and ressources, and they felt they had a right to take it because of the inferiority of the inhabitants. And this also justified their threatment of those people.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2016, 08:38 AM   #221
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,194
Just to make it clear, that's another thing that pisses me off about the neo-nazi loonies. (Besides giving my ancestors' gods a bad name. *shakes fist*)

They're willing to believe that persecuting other races or ethnic groups was solving (and will solve) some economic problem, but the problem wasn't inflicted by those ethnic groups, it was inflicted by the Nazis. At the same time when Nazi Germany was printing drivel brochures about how you can't find meat because Jews buy it all, actually the shortage was created by the Nazis to pay for their hawkish military dreams.

It wasn't Jewish butchers, it wasn't Jewish bankers, etc, that created that problem. It was the guy with the short stache and his loonie gang.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2016, 06:26 PM   #222
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,630
Yes the economic aspect of the Nazis and Fascists in Italy are not well understood.
Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2016, 01:27 AM   #223
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,870
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Just to make it clear, that's another thing that pisses me off about the neo-nazi loonies. (Besides giving my ancestors' gods a bad name. *shakes fist*)

They're willing to believe that persecuting other races or ethnic groups was solving (and will solve) some economic problem, but the problem wasn't inflicted by those ethnic groups, it was inflicted by the Nazis. At the same time when Nazi Germany was printing drivel brochures about how you can't find meat because Jews buy it all, actually the shortage was created by the Nazis to pay for their hawkish military dreams.

It wasn't Jewish butchers, it wasn't Jewish bankers, etc, that created that problem. It was the guy with the short stache and his loonie gang.
Were Jews in Germany even that well represented in stereotypically Jewish jobs like lawyers, doctors, physicists, bankers, etc? I've sometimes gotten the impression that this was more of an Eastrrn European thing, and that German and Austrian Jews were more likely to be taiilors and craftsmen.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2016, 07:01 AM   #224
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,476
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
Were Jews in Germany even that well represented in stereotypically Jewish jobs like lawyers, doctors, physicists, bankers, etc? I've sometimes gotten the impression that this was more of an Eastrrn European thing, and that German and Austrian Jews were more likely to be taiilors and craftsmen.
The great majority of Jews in pre-war Poland and Belarus were of very modest means, and often petty traders or artisans. In some of the Western Russian cities the majority of the urban population was Jewish, so that many or most Jews were industrial workers. At the beginning of the history of the Communist Party, when it was part of the Social Democratic Labour Party, one of the organisations affiliated to that party was the General Jewish Labour Bund, a Jewish working-class socialist political party.

Last edited by Craig B; 4th July 2016 at 07:02 AM.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2016, 12:08 AM   #225
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,194
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
Were Jews in Germany even that well represented in stereotypically Jewish jobs like lawyers, doctors, physicists, bankers, etc? I've sometimes gotten the impression that this was more of an Eastrrn European thing, and that German and Austrian Jews were more likely to be taiilors and craftsmen.
Well, I think the best back-of-napkin kinda indicator is how much money they got per capita out of confiscating the stuff of their victims, and it's nowhere near indicating that they were super-rich or anything. IIRC, but I don't have the numbers right now, it's under a thousand marks average, so a few thousand dollars in today's money.

This obviously excludes stuff like artwork and stuff that the nazis just stashed away, so it didn't go into the money to finance the war effort or anything, which skews the numbers. But that's probably something like tens of millions compared to billions, so, you know, somewhere in the single digit percent margin of error.

The average Jew doesn't seem like he was anywhere near rich to me.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2016, 10:11 AM   #226
This Guy
Master Poster
 
This Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,140
It amazes me how folks, like the OP, can deny the Holocaust and try to paint Germany/Hitler as the victim of WW2. I happen to be re-reading the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer, and ran across the video given by the OP along with a couple other apologetic videos on youtube while looking for Online documentaries on the subject. Comparing their descriptions of events to the well documented descriptions given in the book is like comparing day to night. I know there is some scholarly criticisms of the book, but I'm not aware of any disputes about the factual claims and it's references (I welcome enlightenment if I've missed something!).

Just one episode that shows the Nazi feelings and early treatment of the Jews is the "Week of the broken glass" in chapter 13 of the book. It gives strong evidence that "Kristallnacht" was, of course, a Nazi instigated event, and the details I think are very telling. Reinhard Heydrich ( Number Two man, after Himmler, in the S.S., who ran the Security Service (S.D.) and the Gestapo)under instructions from Dr. Goebbels:

"At 1:20 A.M. on November 10 he flashed an urgent teletype message to all
headquarters and stations of the state police and the S.D. instructing them to
get together with party and S.S. leaders ”to discuss the organization of the
demonstrations.”
a. Only such measures should be taken which do not involve danger
to German life or property. (For instance synagogues are to be
burned down only when there is no danger of fire to the surroundings.) [parentheses in original]
b. Business and private apartments of Jews may be destroyed but
not looted. . . .
d. . . 2. The demonstrations which are going to take place should
not be hindered by the police . . .
5. As many Jews, especially rich ones, are to be arrested as can
be accommodated in the existing prisons . . . Upon their arrest, the
appropriate concentration camps should be contacted immediately,
in order to confine them in these camps as soon as possible."

I won't list all the details of that night, but the treatment of those directly responsible for the murder and rape of Jews that night is IMHO insightful.

"The ultimate number of murders of Jews that night is believed to have been several times the preliminary figure. Heydrich himself a day after his preliminary report gave the number of Jewish shops looted as 7,500. There were also some cases of rape, which Major Buch’s party court, judging by its own report, considered worse than murder, since they violated the Nuremberg racial laws which forbade sexual intercourse between Gentiles and Jews. Such offenders were expelled from the party and turned over to the civil courts. Party members who simply murdered Jews ”cannot be punished,” Major Buch argued, since they had merely carried out orders. On that point he was quite blunt. ”The public, down to the last man,” he wrote, ”realizes that political drives like those of November 9 were organized and directed by the party, whether this is admitted or not.”

Note 5 for chapter 13 list the documents that support this claim. The same note also describes the reference for the discussion between Goering and a representative of the insurance firms at risk for the twenty five million marks (about $6,125,000) damage/claims, in which Goering decided the companies would pay the full amount to the Jews, but the payment would be taken by the State, and part given back to the insurance companies. This returned part described by Georing as "profit" for them. For some reason the insurance representative didn't see it that way.

At one point in this discussion about the cost of the pogrom this exchange took place:

"”This cannot continue!” exclaimed Goering, who, among other things, was the czar of the German economy. ”We won’t be able to last, with all this. Impossible!” And turning to Heydrich, he shouted, ”I wish you had killed two hundred Jews instead of destroying so many valuables!”∗ ”Thirty-five were killed,” Heydrich answered, in self-defense."

The * is from the book and it's footnote is:

∗When asked during cross-examination by Mr. Justice Jackson at Nuremberg whether he had actually said this, Goering replied, ”Yes, this was said in a moment of bad temper and excitement . . . It was not meant seriously.”

And for those that aren't aware, the whole pogrom was in response to: "On November 7, a seventeen-year-old German Jewish refugee by the name of Herschel Grynszpan shot and mortally wounded the third secretary of the German Embassy in Paris, Ernst vom Rath."

When you consider Hitler's double crossing and back stabbing in his dealings with Britain, France, Austria and Czechoslovakia before the invasion of Poland, it's hard to imagine how anyone can try to blame WW2 on anyone other than Hitler (though there is good reason to blame the appeasement toward Hitler in those take overs. If Britain and France had opposed Hitler early on WW2 might have been avoided). And all of this is just a drop in the bucket of the facts that all point to the same thing - Hitler and his Nazi cohorts were responsible for the war and they did horrific things. That doesn't mean the German people deserved all that happened to them (Dresden, Soviet atrocities....) though of course they were complicit to some extent. But as has been said by others, War is hell. Hitler had to be stopped. Perhaps it could have been done differently, but what was done did work.

I'm inclined to think the deniers/Nazi apologist are much like the young earth creationist. They have their opinions and no fact will alter them. I do think discussions like these are good though. If the claims are left unanswered those that have not looked into the issues could be mislead to believe the misinformation being spread. I think having factual responses near the (shall I be polite and say "questionable claims"...naaa) BS is a good thing.

As for the comments about Stalin, yea, he was an SOB. Estimates for deaths caused by him range from 10 million to as high as 50 or 60 million. Was he better or worse than Hitler? I don't know. How can you compare such extreme actions and pick a "best" one? WW2 I believe claimed some 60 million lives all told. Pot, meet kettle.

Sorry for the size of this post, but I think the details are important, and it could have been MUCH longer.

Off topic: Haven't posted in a good while. I peek in every now and then. Good to see some familiar names still around! Hi all!
__________________
I'm lost. I've gone to find me. If I should return before I get back, please ask me to wait!
This Guy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2016, 06:29 AM   #227
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,908
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
The great majority of Jews in pre-war Poland and Belarus were of very modest means, and often petty traders or artisans. In some of the Western Russian cities the majority of the urban population was Jewish, so that many or most Jews were industrial workers. At the beginning of the history of the Communist Party, when it was part of the Social Democratic Labour Party, one of the organisations affiliated to that party was the General Jewish Labour Bund, a Jewish working-class socialist political party.
Yes, let's not forget that this idea of Jews being wealthy and influential was just a racist image perpetuated by the Nazis, it had nothing to do with reality. Jews in Eastern Europe and Russia have a long and rich history of resistance, including being at the forefront in the Russian revolution(s).

Daloy politsey!
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin

Last edited by caveman1917; 25th July 2016 at 06:55 AM.
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2016, 08:06 AM   #228
Ian Osborne
JREF Kid
Tagger
 
Ian Osborne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 7,734
Originally Posted by This Guy View Post
I'm inclined to think the deniers/Nazi apologist are much like the young earth creationist.
I've often thought that. Both groups of people start with their conclusion and look for evidence that fits it, discarding anything that doesn't fit. Both have an agenda that has nothing to do with the subject they claim to be speaking on, that is, the creationist is promoting religion rather than studying biology, and the holocaust denier is a nazi apologist, not a historian. Both hijack the language of the serious academic to give themselves a respectability they don't deserve too. Remember that next time you hear the term 'historical revisionist'.
__________________
"Faith without doubt leads to moral arrogance, the eternal pratfall of the religiously convinced" - Joe Klein, Time magazine

"The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan
Ian Osborne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2016, 05:26 PM   #229
Mondial
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 345
Originally Posted by This Guy View Post
It amazes me how folks, like the OP, can deny the Holocaust and try to paint Germany/Hitler as the victim of WW2. I happen to be re-reading the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer, and ran across the video given by the OP along with a couple other apologetic videos on youtube while looking for Online documentaries on the subject.
If you bothered to read my original post I stated that both sides committed war crimes and atrocities. Everything you accuse the Axis of doing the Allies did the same. Mass murder, bombing of civilians, submarine attacks, looting etc.
www.hellstormdocumentary.com
You peddle out the PC version of WW2 which includes the nazi invasion of Poland on September 1 1939. You aren't even honest enough to admit that 2 nations invaded Poland in 1939. The Soviet Union also invaded on September 17 1939 and Poland was divided by Germany and the USSR. So if you are going to blame Hitler then Stalin should also receive equal blame -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland
The entire democratic world entered into an alliance with the dictator Stalin while condemning Hitler for being a dictator. It had nothing to do with the outbreak of the soviet-nazi war on June 22 1941 as Roosevelt had previously praised Stalin and communism and in June 1940 Churchill asked Stalin to join the war on the British side. Stalin killed millions of people before the war even started but Roosevelt and Churchill couldn't care less -
www.ucrdc.org/Film-Harvest_of_Despair.html http://www.thenewamerican.com/cultur...ust-in-ukraine
Roosevelt and Churchill knew about the mass rape of German women and said nothing -
www.exulanten.com/humanloot.html

You mention William L Shirer. For your information he was a journalist and not a historian. He specialises in propaganda and exaggeration. A case in point is his use of the book Hitler Speaks (aka The Voice of Destruction) as genuine when it is full of fake quotes -
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=8451
Mondial is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2016, 05:36 PM   #230
Mondial
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 345
Churchill fits the Nuremberg tribunal definition of a war criminal because he deliberately targeted civilians. He supported the Lindemann Plan whose goal was to kill as many German civilians as possible with saturation bombing even at the expense of military targets -
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/09...hipped-mammon/
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/01/...inst-humanity/
www.heretical.com/miscellx/blitz.html

Churchill's war crimes were not confined to the European theatre. During the Bengal famine in the early 1940's he deliberately refused to send food relief because he didn't like Indians referring to them as a "beastly people". This greatly increased the death toll -
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=8241
Mondial is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2016, 05:57 PM   #231
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 18,283
Hey, Mondial. Welcome back. Are you coming to stick around, or just another post and run this time?

If you're sticking around, I'd like your thoughts on my post from early in the thread.

Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I haven't watched the documentary, but, did you have a point?



Sometimes these things get into a bunch of "who was worse" debates, but can you even compare that sort of thing? I mean, who was worse? Adolf Hitler, Winston Churchill, Jodi Arias? All were responsible for killing of innocent people, so how exactly do we figure out who was worse?

I think motive plays a role in a lot of people's assessment of guilt in such situations. Adolf Hitler was trying to conquer territory and enslave or kill the current inhabitants, eventually freeing that land to become German Lebensraum. It doesn't seem too noble. Churchill was trying to overthrow the guy who was trying to enslave the Poles and exterminate the Jews, and to do so with the smallest possible number of deaths of his own people, even if that meant killing people whose only crime was supporting the German military, or living next to a lot of people who did. It doesn't make Dresden into a humanitarian act, but somehow it seems less despicable than building an extermination camp.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2016, 09:00 PM   #232
This Guy
Master Poster
 
This Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,140
Originally Posted by Mondial View Post
If you bothered to read my original post I stated that both sides committed war crimes and atrocities. Everything you accuse the Axis of doing the Allies did the same. Mass murder, bombing of civilians, submarine attacks, looting etc.
www.hellstormdocumentary.com
You peddle out the PC version of WW2 which includes the nazi invasion of Poland on September 1 1939. You aren't even honest enough to admit that 2 nations invaded Poland in 1939. The Soviet Union also invaded on September 17 1939 and Poland was divided by Germany and the USSR. So if you are going to blame Hitler then Stalin should also receive equal blame -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland
The entire democratic world entered into an alliance with the dictator Stalin while condemning Hitler for being a dictator. It had nothing to do with the outbreak of the soviet-nazi war on June 22 1941 as Roosevelt had previously praised Stalin and communism and in June 1940 Churchill asked Stalin to join the war on the British side. Stalin killed millions of people before the war even started but Roosevelt and Churchill couldn't care less -
www.ucrdc.org/Film-Harvest_of_Despair.html http://www.thenewamerican.com/cultur...ust-in-ukraine
Roosevelt and Churchill knew about the mass rape of German women and said nothing -
www.exulanten.com/humanloot.html

You mention William L Shirer. For your information he was a journalist and not a historian. He specialises in propaganda and exaggeration. A case in point is his use of the book Hitler Speaks (aka The Voice of Destruction) as genuine when it is full of fake quotes -
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=8451
I don't recall mentioning anything about bombing of civilians, submarine attacks or looting (other than the looting done during Kristallnacht). I know the US had a lot of submarine action in the Pacific, but to be honest, I have no knowledge of Atlantic actions by the US submarines. Something for me to check into!

As for mass murder, I only directly discussed the murder of some 35 Jews killed. The point of my post was to show the general attitude of the Nazis. Did the Nazis commit mass murder! Certainly! I don't recall the US, British and Soviet gas chambers though. Perhaps you can give me some references for those? Did the US or British armies murder captured enemies like Sepp Dietrich had his forces do at the Malmedy massacre? I'm not aware of anything like that, again, I welcome enlightenment. I am aware of the relatively low percentage of German POWs returning home from Russian capture, and of course that is a bad thing. When you consider the treatment of Russians by the Germans though, I don't really find it surprising. Per the Wiki, 3.3 million Russian POWs out of 5.7 million died while in custody. German estimates were that 3 million Germans were captured by the Soviets and about 1.1 million of those died in captivity. If those numbers are close to correct it appears that Russian prisoners were more likely to die in German hands, than the reverse. Easy to see why the Russians might have held a grudge. This is not meant in anyway to excuse the Russian atrocities visited on the German civilians (or military for that matter!). And I can't speak on Churchill and Roosevelt's reactions/feelings/actions regarding Russian atrocities. A quick search did not find anything on the subject. I think to assume they were OK with them would be foolish though.

Dresden! The poster child for Ally atrocities. There has long been a lot of debate on it's military value and the number that died there. US intel indicated it was the 7th largest industrial area in Germany, I believe. At least one eye witness report stated it was a military barracks and that there was a very long supply train of arms and munitions set to go east to be used to head off the Russians there. It was a major rail junction for both East/West and North/South travel. I did mention
Quote:
That doesn't mean the German people deserved all that happened to them (Dresden, Soviet atrocities....) though of course they were complicit to some extent. But as has been said by others, War is hell. Hitler had to be stopped. Perhaps it could have been done differently, but what was done did work.
I find it hard to blame anyone other than Hitler and his bunch for WW2, with the caveats that I mentioned in my earlier post regarding appeasement and such. As such, I consider him responsible for those actions that were taken to stop him. Don't start any sh*t and there won't be any sh*t. That being said, I and I believe any reasonable person, wish there was a way to fight a war and only kill enemy combatants. Until we can work that out, civilians will die in war. It sucks. It's bad. I hate it. But it is what it is.

I actually didn't say anything about the invasion of Poland itself, my discussion was of events that proceeded the invasion of Poland -
Quote:
When you consider Hitler's double crossing and back stabbing in his dealings with Britain, France, Austria and Czechoslovakia before the invasion of Poland
I made no comment on the actual invasion. So my honesty (or lack thereof) on that topic is yet to be displayed.

I don't think any of the Allies did anything comparable to the actions instigated and promoted by the Nazis on Kristallnacht. If you know of an example, please enlighten me!

Churchill stated “If Hitler invaded Hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons.” I don't think Churchill or Roosevelt had any love of Stalin. I believe Churchill even had the military draw up plans for a possible invasion of the Soviet Union towards the end of WW2. Though I'm not knowledgeable of the details. The fact is, regardless of how bad Stalin was (and make no mistake, he was horrible. I think I mentioned that before) keeping him in the war (via supplies and anything else done to support his armies/effort) kept a large part of Hitler's forces and supplies tied up in the east, and allowed the US and GB to gather their strength and prepare for their attacks.

Yes, Shirer was a journalist. You can't miss that. He makes that point clear in his book, and I'm on my third reading of it (3rd reading over about a 15 year period. I'm still fascinated by WW2, though my memory isn't always what I wish it was). I'm not familiar with any of his other works. What I am familiar with is the extensive use of footnotes and references in The Rise and Fall. There are some 30 pages of references. Chapter 13 alone (the one I quoted from) has 39 references and 19 footnotes and it's only about 26 pages long. I admit I have not checked all the references! This is why I requested any corrections in my other post. That request still stands. I am not aware of any references to "Hitler Speaks" in the Rise and Fall. Again, please correct me of I'm wrong. He makes a lot of mentions of captured documents (these were the main reason he felt his work could be written when it was, rather than waiting). There was in his words, "Hundreds of thousands of captured Nazi documents were hurriedly assembled at Nuremberg". There was some 485 tons of records of the German Foreign Office, captured by the US First Army. These and much more records of what was done by Germany were available at the end of the war. He gives a much more detailed description of what was available in the foreword of The Rise and Fall. I am not aware of any claims of deceit in his use of references. And again I ask for any details to the contrary. He does reference Mein Kampf, files of the German Foreign Office, Fuehrer Conferences on Naval Affairs, Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression (part of the Nuremberg docs), Trial of the Major War Criminals (Nuremberg docs and testimony), and many other sources. If you have evidence of any bad references used by Shirer in The Rise and Fall, please share! If you could provide a chapter and any other info that would help me find it in my copy, I would be grateful. My copy if from 1990 or later, and I know page numbers and reference numbers don't always match up across different issues.

Thanks for your response to my post! If anything I said comes across as rude or insulting, I'm sorry. I do sometimes come across that way. It is not my intention. I don't claim absolute knowledge (I think that should be clear already) and I do welcome corrections when I am wrong.
__________________
I'm lost. I've gone to find me. If I should return before I get back, please ask me to wait!
This Guy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2016, 05:58 PM   #233
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
 
Corsair 115's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 14,519
Originally Posted by Mondial View Post
... bombing of civilians ...

Those same civilians whose work made possible the German war machine? Yeah, the workplaces, homes, and the civilian and governmental infrastructure got bombed by the Allies. Bombing which, incidentally, played a not inconsequential role in diminishing the German Reich's ability to wage war.
__________________
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve
to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and
one which we intend to win."
Corsair 115 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2016, 06:03 PM   #234
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 29,621
Bombing of civilians is not itself a war crime. There are several important factors that must be taken into account.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2016, 06:14 PM   #235
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
 
Corsair 115's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 14,519
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Bombing of civilians is not itself a war crime. There are several important factors that must be taken into account.

Of course. I have argued such factors numerous times. Folks like Mondial steadfastly ignore them.
__________________
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve
to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and
one which we intend to win."
Corsair 115 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2016, 02:32 AM   #236
Degeneve
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 836
Originally Posted by This Guy View Post
Did the US or British armies murder captured enemies like Sepp Dietrich had his forces do at the Malmedy massacre?
There has been the so-called Dachau massacre, but the circumstances were different. And the holocaust deniers, néo-nazis and far right wing extremist have used this story and have usually spoken about hundreds of Germans killed while there were less than 50.

One also regularly hears about the Chenogne massacre, but there is few documentation on this topic.

About the Malmedy massacre, the unit involved (Kampfgruppe Peiper) did not limit itself to kill Amrican POWs at the Baugnez crossroads, they also killed civilians in the towns of Stavelot and Trois-Ponts the folling days. In fact it is like this unit would have applied on the Western front what they have done as a routine on the Russian front. The same conclusion can also be drawn about the 2nd SS Panzer Division Das Reich and the Oradour-sur-Glane massacre.

Western Allies units or soldiers may have from time to time perpetrated war crimes during the war, but this was rather exceptional. For German Waffen SS it was mere routine.
Degeneve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2016, 02:42 AM   #237
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,476
Originally Posted by Corsair 115 View Post
Those same civilians whose work made possible the German war machine? Yeah, the workplaces, homes, and the civilian and governmental infrastructure got bombed by the Allies. Bombing which, incidentally, played a not inconsequential role in diminishing the German Reich's ability to wage war.
Then you will agree with me in condemning the British Bombing campaign the purpose of which was as follows, according to the chief of Bomber Command
... the aim of the Combined Bomber Offensive...should be unambiguously stated [as] the destruction of German cities, the killing of German workers, and the disruption of civilised life throughout Germany.

... the destruction of houses, public utilities, transport and lives, the creation of a refugee problem on an unprecedented scale, and the breakdown of morale both at home and at the battle fronts by fear of extended and intensified bombing, are accepted and intended aims of our bombing policy. They are not by-products of attempts to hit factories.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2016, 07:04 AM   #238
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,252
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
Then you will agree with me in condemning the British Bombing campaign the purpose of which was as follows, according to the chief of Bomber Command
... the aim of the Combined Bomber Offensive...should be unambiguously stated [as] the destruction of German cities, the killing of German workers, and the disruption of civilised life throughout Germany.

... the destruction of houses, public utilities, transport and lives, the creation of a refugee problem on an unprecedented scale, and the breakdown of morale both at home and at the battle fronts by fear of extended and intensified bombing, are accepted and intended aims of our bombing policy. They are not by-products of attempts to hit factories.
You're right. It would have been more moral for the allies to have suffered maybe 50 percent more casualties and prolonged the war (leading to more german casualties too ).

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good when trying to do the Reich thing.
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2016, 08:30 AM   #239
This Guy
Master Poster
 
This Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,140
Originally Posted by Degeneve View Post
There has been the so-called Dachau massacre, but the circumstances were different. And the holocaust deniers, néo-nazis and far right wing extremist have used this story and have usually spoken about hundreds of Germans killed while there were less than 50.

One also regularly hears about the Chenogne massacre, but there is few documentation on this topic.

About the Malmedy massacre, the unit involved (Kampfgruppe Peiper) did not limit itself to kill Amrican POWs at the Baugnez crossroads, they also killed civilians in the towns of Stavelot and Trois-Ponts the folling days. In fact it is like this unit would have applied on the Western front what they have done as a routine on the Russian front. The same conclusion can also be drawn about the 2nd SS Panzer Division Das Reich and the Oradour-sur-Glane massacre.

Western Allies units or soldiers may have from time to time perpetrated war crimes during the war, but this was rather exceptional. For German Waffen SS it was mere routine.
Thanks for this!

Sounds like there was a bit of retaliation for Malmedy going on for at least some of the US actions. And its easy to say today that it shouldn't have happened. If we were in the situation those folks were in, knowing about Malmedy, I think we might see things differently. Even so these were war crimes.
__________________
I'm lost. I've gone to find me. If I should return before I get back, please ask me to wait!
This Guy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2016, 09:21 AM   #240
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 29,621
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Hence my conjecture that he was struggling to basically invent the notion of "culture".
I'm pretty sure the notion of culture was well established and well understood in Europe by 1945. Hence my conjecture that Hitler was struggling to articulate in coherent, internally-consistent terms what was a private and irrational obsession.

And as others have pointed out, actions speak louder than words. What Hitler may have said from time to time is less informative than the policies he actually had carried out.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » History, Literature, and the Arts

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:50 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.