NationStates Jolt Archive

In this thread, I am not attempting to deny that what the Nazis did was wrong (regardless of "wrong vs. right" arguments) nor am I promoting any mass conspiracy to exaggerate how extreme the Jewish Holocaust was (regardless of if this is true or not). I don't care either way towards Jewish people or put my faith in any anti-semetic concepts. I am merely questioning the act of calling the Jewish Holocaust that took place during and before WWII in Nazi Germany "the" Holocaust.

1. The American Heritage Dictionary defines a holocaust roughly as great destruction resulting in the "extensive loss of life, especially by fire," "a massive slaughter" and also, I'm assuming because of how history has portrayed it (hence exaggeration, as inappropriate as a word this is, I cannot think of a better one at this time) "the genocide of European Jews and others by the Nazis [...]."
There is a third definition but it is not necessary to state (sacrificial).

2. In regard to the first two definitions, there has been more than one holocaust, and in labeling one holocaust as "the" holocaust, the others have been defamed and played down in the public spectrum.

3. Some may have (and probably have) been more extreme in death tolls, as in high school I was told by numerous individuals, including my history teacher, that Stalin executed more 'innocent' (non-combat) civilians than the Nazi regime. I didn't search for any statistics at this time so if I'm wrong, please excuse me.

Perhaps you have seen this before; I searched back and did not find much in this forum aside from the Iranian president's comment and a denial of the holocaust. If there is more, I apologize for making a clone.
Thoughts?

In this thread, I am not attempting to deny that what the Nazis did was wrong (regardless of "wrong vs. right" arguments) nor am I promoting any mass conspiracy to exaggerate how extreme the Jewish Holocaust was (regardless of if this is true or not). I don't care either way towards Jewish people or put my faith in any anti-semetic concepts. I am merely questioning the act of calling the Jewish Holocaust that took place during and before WWII in Nazi Germany "the" Holocaust.

1. The American Heritage Dictionary defines a holocaust roughly as great destruction resulting in the "extensive loss of life, especially by fire," "a massive slaughter" and also, I'm assuming because of how history has portrayed it (hence exaggeration, as inappropriate as a word this is, I cannot think of a better one at this time) "the genocide of European Jews and others by the Nazis [...]."
There is a third definition but it is not necessary to state (sacrificial).

2. In regard to the first two definitions, there has been more than one holocaust, and in labeling one holocaust as "the" holocaust, the others have been defamed and played down in the public spectrum.

3. Some may have (and probably have) been more extreme in death tolls, as in high school I was told by numerous individuals, including my history teacher, that Stalin executed more 'innocent' (non-combat) civilians than the Nazi regime. I didn't search for any statistics at this time so if I'm wrong, please excuse me.



they were right stalin executed between 30 and 50 million least according to my Marxist history lecturer. hell Chairman Mao had 80 million killed

In this thread, I am not attempting to deny that what the Nazis did was wrong (regardless of "wrong vs. right" arguments) nor am I promoting any mass conspiracy to exaggerate how extreme the Jewish Holocaust was (regardless of if this is true or not). I don't care either way towards Jewish people or put my faith in any anti-semetic concepts. I am merely questioning the act of calling the Jewish Holocaust that took place during and before WWII in Nazi Germany "the" Holocaust.

1. The American Heritage Dictionary defines a holocaust roughly as great destruction resulting in the "extensive loss of life, especially by fire," "a massive slaughter" and also, I'm assuming because of how history has portrayed it (hence exaggeration, as inappropriate as a word this is, I cannot think of a better one at this time) "the genocide of European Jews and others by the Nazis [...]."
There is a third definition but it is not necessary to state (sacrificial).

2. In regard to the first two definitions, there has been more than one holocaust, and in labeling one holocaust as "the" holocaust, the others have been defamed and played down in the public spectrum.

3. Some may have (and probably have) been more extreme in death tolls, as in high school I was told by numerous individuals, including my history teacher, that Stalin executed more 'innocent' (non-combat) civilians than the Nazi regime. I didn't search for any statistics at this time so if I'm wrong, please excuse me.

Perhaps you have seen this before; I searched back and did not find much in this forum aside from the Iranian president's comment and a denial of the holocaust. If there is more, I apologize for making a clone.
Thoughts?

For one... rather then looking for Holocaust, you should be looking for the word Genocide, which would better encompass the discussion your trying to make. If you look at this term you will see this is a systematic process used to eliminate some specific group of people usually on ratial or religious basis'. In Stalins case, yes... many many more people were murderd, HOWEVER, it is unclear that they were killed in an effort to purge the society of any one group, rather they were killed simply on a basis of Stalins paranioa and insanity (killing of political dissidents etc.)

So im not sure I would so readily catagorize what occured in the Soviet Union as genocide

The Turks massacred between 800,000 and 2 million Armenians in the "Armenian Holocaust".

Honestly, do you think many people actually object to calling it the holocaust singular? IIRC, holocaust was first used to the describe the holocaust. So even though today we might call genocide a holocaust, the original application was only for one event.

So im not sure I would so readily catagorize what occured in the Soviet Union as genocide
A lot of the killing was due to politics, but they also commited genocide against specific ethnic groups (for example, shipping off most of the Chechens to Siberia). Today, the definition of genocide usually encompasses political mass killings as well, so it can go either way.

Not sure what your point is. (to OP)

The Turks massacred between 800,000 and 2 million Armenians in the "Armenian Holocaust".

Again, I belive there are some issues with labeling that a genocide aswell.. however, a better example would be Sudan today, where the UN still has not identified it as a genocide

Hitler-6 million Jews
Stalin-10 million Russians
USA7+ million Native Americans

Victors write history.

For one... rather then looking for Holocaust, you should be looking for the word Genocide, [...] If you look at this term you will see this is a systematic process used to eliminate some specific group of people usually on ratial or religious basis'. In Stalins case, yes... many many more people were murderd, HOWEVER, it is unclear that they were killed in an effort to purge the society of any one group, rather they were killed simply on a basis of Stalins paranioa and insanity (killing of political dissidents etc.)[...]

From what I can tell, a holocaust does not necessarily have to be genocidal, however it would probably help make an argument against calling the Jewish Holocaust "the" Holocaust.

EDIT: Good point Fleckenstein. The United States constantly fought / ferrried Native Americans around the continent. I personally look at this more as a war against Native Americans, constantly taking over the continent of North America and pushing out "savages" (specifically USA) however it is definitely prejudiced and calculated on many levels.

Honestly, do you think many people actually object to calling it the holocaust singular? IIRC, holocaust, which is a german word, was first used to the describe the holocaust. So even though today we might call genocide a holocaust, the original application was only for one event.

i think youll find its actually greek


The word holocaust originally derived from the Greek word holokauston, meaning "a completely (holos) burnt (kaustos) sacrificial offering" to a god. Since the late 19th century, 'holocaust' has primarily been used to refer to disasters or catastrophes. By the late 1970s, however, the conventional meaning of the word became the Nazi genocide. The term is also used by many in a narrower sense, to refer specifically to the unprecedented destruction of European Jewry in particular.

The biblical word Shoa (שואה), also spelled Shoah and Sho'ah, meaning "calamity" in Hebrew, became the standard Hebrew term for the Holocaust as early as the early 1940s.[1] Shoa is preferred by many Jews and a growing number of others for a number of reasons, including the potentially theologically offensive nature of the original meaning of the word holocaust

From what I can tell, a holocaust does not necessarily have to be genocidal, however it would probably help make an argument against calling the Jewish Holocaust "the" Holocaust.
But it wasn't just a holocaust of Jews. The exact totals are unknown but as many as 26 million people has been the estimate for people killed by Nazis in both death camps and extermination measures.

Calling it "the Jewish Holocaust" would be misleading.

they were right stalin executed between 30 and 50 million least according to my Marxist history lecturer. hell Chairman Mao had 80 million killed
I take it you were home-schooled.

But it wasn't just a holocaust of Jews. The exact totals are unknown but as many as 26 million people has been the estimate for people killed by Nazis in both death camps and extermination measures.

Calling it "the Jewish Holocaust" would be misleading.


thats abit over the top. where did you get that one thats more than double the number most estimates quote

I take it you were home-schooled.


the words Marxist History Lecturer, missed you i guess

none of them really scream home schooling now do they

thats abit over the top. where did you get that one thats more than double the number most estimates quote
I don't remember, but Wikipedia cites the same number so it came from somewhere... "Estimates place the total number of Holocaust victims at up to 26 million people, although the number 9 to 11 million is usually held as more reliable."

Perhaps television.

-snip-
My bad, sort of muddled today. However, I contest you on the "shoa" thing. It is used in hebrew, I know, but at least among reform jews (in my experience being one) the word holocaust is still almost always used. Personally, I'm not offended by it really...

My bad, sort of muddled today. However, I contest you on the "shoa" thing. It is used in hebrew, I know, but at least among reform jews (in my experience being one) the word holocaust is still almost always used. Personally, I'm not offended by it really...


contest with me you cannot, i copy and pasted from wiki ;)

Referring to Nazi genocide against the Jews and other 'unclean' peoples as 'the Holocaust' is probably no different than a world war vet referring to the war they fought in as 'the War'.

Genocide over past 100 years
number of incidents / nation / number of deaths

x1 Nambia: 75,000
x1 Turkey: 1,500,000
x1 Germany: 11,400,000
x1 Japan: 10,000,000
x1 U.S.S.R: 20,000,000
x1 India: 1,000,000
x3 China: 30,000,000
x3 Sudan: 2,850,000
x1 Algeria: 30,000
x1 Chile: 10,000
x2 Rwanda: 1,020,000
x2 Zaire: 14,000
x1 South Vietnam: 500,000
x2 Indonesia: 1,200,000
x2 Iraq: 240,000
x1 Nigeria: 2,000,000
x1 Equitorial Guinea: 50,000
x2 Pakistan: 3,010,000
x2 Uganda: 900,000
x1 Philipines: 60,000
x3 Burundi: 210,000
x1 Cambodia: 1,700,000
x2 Angola: 600,000
x1 Argentina: 20,000
x1 Ethiopia: 10,000
x1 Burma: 5,000
x1 Afghanistan: 1,800,000
x1 Guatemala: 200,000
x1 El Salvador: 60,000
x1 Syria: 30,000
x1 Iran: 20,000
x1 Somalia: 50,000
x1 Sri Lanka: 30,000
x1 Bosnia: 225,000
x1 Yugoslavia: 10,000

Genocide over past 100 years

number of incidents / nation / number of deaths

x1 Germany: 11,400,000

what about Germany's genocide of the african tribe whose name escapes me just now

in the late years of the second reich

Apparently that tribe was not good enough for Barbara Harff, Strassler Family Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies at Clark University, which is where the numbers come from.

Or, maybe it was before 1900.

Apparently that tribe was not good enough for Barbara Harff, Strassler Family Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies at Clark University, which is where the numbers come from.

Or, maybe it was before 1900.


cant quite remember the date it was around then though :rolleyes: no matter

The figure I found for Stalin was around 30 million by the end of WWII and it's rumored that there were many more millions killed.

Stalin definatly killed more than 20,000,000 people, but these are the deaths that can be proved. Like a minimum, in some cases.

what about Germany's genocide of the african tribe whose name escapes me just now

in the late years of the second reich

That would be the Herero. Don't remember how many died from it.

Apparently that tribe was not good enough for Barbara Harff, Strassler Family Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies at Clark University, which is where the numbers come from.interesting..

numbers come from the Strassler Family...

Apparently that tribe was not good enough for Barbara Harff, Strassler Family Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies at Clark University, which is where the numbers come from.

Or, maybe it was before 1900.


Now now don't make a generalization. You don't know why it wasn't added.....

Now now don't make a generalization. You don't know why it wasn't added.....I dont know.. But as we speak... I am wondering is the Strassler Family is not Jewish.

Well the comments of the Iranian President only shows he is a pig.

My great-uncle liberated a couple of the camps and what he saw messed him up for the rest of his life.

interesting..

numbers come from the Strassler Family...

And you mean what?

The Center was named for the guy that helped set it up and the PhD program at Clark.

Google is your friend.....

I dont know.. But as we speak... I am wondering is the Strassler Family is not Jewish.

David Strassler is and why is that an issue?

And you mean what?
..post #29.. its rigth in front of your eyes... in english.

I dont know.. But as we speak... I am wondering is the Strassler Family is not Jewish.

1. The American Heritage Dictionary defines a holocaust roughly as great destruction resulting in the "extensive loss of life, especially by fire," "a massive slaughter" and also, I'm assuming because of how history has portrayed it (hence exaggeration, as inappropriate as a word this is, I cannot think of a better one at this time) "the genocide of European Jews and others by the Nazis [...]."
There is a third definition but it is not necessary to state (sacrificial).Now, if you looked it up in a dictionary that was printed before WWII, you would probably only find the third definition, if you found the word holocaust at all.
Before what we refer to as the Holocaust occured, the definition was of a burnt sacrificial offering. The dictionary doesn't associate the genocide committed by the Nazis with the word for a massive slaughter by fire, it's the other way around.

post #29.. its rigth in front of your eyes... in english.

And did you notice the post just above this one? ;)

David Strassler is and why is that an issue?I prefer unbiased sources...

The Palestineans say thousands of families were murdered in Jenine... The Jews say "only minimum collateral"..

I say "i don't know"... you both look biased.

Its the same for these University Holocaust "research".. they claim most victims were Jewish..
I say "Maybe.. maybe not".

specially when the Strauss family raised 106 million for the said University.. Just before the said "Research"...

yeah, but the whole thing abot 'the' holocaust was that the majority of the jews were burned. hence the name. clever eh?

yeah, but the whole thing abot 'the' holocaust was that the majority of the jews were burned. hence the name. clever eh?


by werent killed that way

so not so clever seeing as holocaust can mean death BY fire

... number so it came from somewhere...

Perhaps television.for million of Americans... Hollywood and TV are the main History Teachers.. about the holocaust.. and about some other "well know facts"..

I prefer unbiased sources...

The Palestineans say thousands of families were murdered in Jenine... The Jews say "only minimum collateral"..

I say "i don't know"... you both look biased.

Its the same for these University Holocaust "research".. they claim most victims were Jewish..
I say "Maybe.. maybe not".Yeah right.
Considering that although there are a multitude of other social groups that got sent to concentration camps, none of them had to wear yellow Stars of David in public, none of them were specifically mentioned in the Nurnberg Race Laws as the Jews were, and none of them had someone stand in front of their shop with a sign saying "Kauft nicht beim [Mitglied einer Minderheit]".
The Jews got singled out a lot harsher than anyone else and quite assuredly bore the brunt of Nazi persecution.

My bad, sort of muddled today. However, I contest you on the "shoa" thing. It is used in hebrew, I know, but at least among reform jews (in my experience being one) the word holocaust is still almost always used. Personally, I'm not offended by it really...
Hartford area, sho'ah has taken much stronger hold...not because of the offence of "holocaust", but because it is a more accurate term. Also, the memorial in boston has both names engraved across from eachother.

In The Republic of Marc Janson the "The" Holocaust is defined as the jewish holocaust. All massive man slaughters are defined by the people_holocaust.

Note Oceandrive3 didn't add: Many of those stories also come from people who were there and witnessed the horrors of WWII and the Holocaust.

Also, why do you assume any body funded by a Jewish family will be baised? And no, Jews do not regard palestinians as "minimum collateral"! Many of us wholeheartedly believe the only path to peace in the middle east is non-agression from BOTH parties, and few jews blindly support the state of Israel. If we see them doing something wrong, we complain about it.

for million of Americans... Hollywood and TV are the main History Teachers.. about the holocaust.. and about some other "well know facts"..Then come to Europe and look at the historical sites yourself.

Yeah right.
Considering that although there are a multitude of other social groups that got sent to concentration camps, none of them had to wear yellow Stars of David in public, none of them were specifically mentioned in the Nurnberg Race Laws as the Jews were, and none of them had someone stand in front of their shop with a sign saying "Kauft nicht beim [Mitglied einer Minderheit]".
The Jews got singled out a lot harsher than anyone else and quite assuredly bore the brunt of Nazi persecution.Maybe.. maybe not

I saw the same yellow stars you are talking about... and the Sign at the shops... and Yes It was a Hollywood movie...

Does not mean it did not happen... but

You have yet to answer 2 questions:
What was the total number 6, 11, 23 million?
and
What was the Percentage of Jews 20, 40, 90% ?

I wonder why so many are obsessed with the numbers. Are the deaths of six million any less heartbreaking then the deaths of 10?

I prefer unbiased sources...

The Palestineans say thousands of families were murdered in Jenine... The Jews say "only minimum collateral"..

I say "i don't know"... you both look biased.

Its the same for these University Holocaust "research".. they claim most victims were Jewish..
I say "Maybe.. maybe not".

specially when the Strauss family raised 106 million for the said University.. Just before the said "Research"...

Hmmm?

You should prove the bias rather then assume it.

Then come to Europe and look at the historical sites yourself.sure.. I will go and check it out..
BTW...I am assuming you missed when I posted this:


http://christianparty.net/holocaust4.gifhttp://christianparty.net/holocaust5.gif
Above left: This was the plaque on display at the Auschwitz camp until 1989: note the "4 million" victims. Above right: This is the plaque currently on display at Auschwitz (2002) - note the suddenly reduced number of victims to 1.5 million - a casual reduction in the number of deaths by 2.5 million which never appeared in the American "free press"

http://christianparty.net/holocaust.htm

for million of Americans... Hollywood and TV are the main History Teachers.. about the holocaust.. and about some other "well know facts"..

Wow the history channel lies? :eek:

Maybe.. maybe notNot really.
I saw the same yellow stars you are talking about... and the Sign at the shops... and Yes It was a Hollywood movie...Obviously not. I see the stars behind glass showcases or on the shirts of Holocaust survivors wearing their uniforms on a memorial march. The memories of seeing the signs stem from propaganda pictures the Nazis took to demonstrate how they were "cleaning up".
Does not mean it did not happen... but Does mean it did happen.
You have yet to answer 2 questions:
What was the total number 6, 11, 23 million?
and
What was the Percentage of Jews 20, 40, 90% ?http://www.shoa.de/opferzahlen_holocaust.htmlYou'll need to click the X to stop the next page from loading.

sure.. I will go and check it out..
BTW...I am assuming you missed when I posted this:


http://christianparty.net/holocaust4.gifhttp://christianparty.net/holocaust5.gif
Above left: This was the plaque on display at the Auschwitz camp until 1989: note the "4 million" victims. Above right: This is the plaque currently on display at Auschwitz (2002) - note the suddenly reduced number of victims to 1.5 million - a casual reduction in the number of deaths by 2.5 million which never appeared in the American "free press"

http://christianparty.net/holocaust.htm
Now, I suggest you not base your "research" on websites that have "Holocaust Hoax" as their title...
Note that I don't rely on the "American free press" for my background knowledge on the Holocaust.

Note that I don't rely on the "American free press" for my background knowledge on the Holocaust.good for you.
Now, I suggest you not base your "research" on websites that have "Holocaust Hoax" as their title...do you mean to say the Photos are photo-shoped?

You suggested me to visit your historical sites...

My turn... I suggest you bring a Digital Camera ;)

Oh joy, another zionist-controlled government and/or press and/or world conspiracy theorist.:rolleyes: You still haven't told me why the numbers are so vital to you. 6 million deaths is no better than 10.

sure.. I will go and check it out..
BTW...I am assuming you missed when I posted this:


http://christianparty.net/holocaust4.gifhttp://christianparty.net/holocaust5.gif
Above left: This was the plaque on display at the Auschwitz camp until 1989: note the "4 million" victims. Above right: This is the plaque currently on display at Auschwitz (2002) - note the suddenly reduced number of victims to 1.5 million - a casual reduction in the number of deaths by 2.5 million which never appeared in the American "free press"

http://christianparty.net/holocaust.htm
That website is comedy gold.
I'm rather inclined to doubt the site, with its claims that most americans believe that 9/11 was caused by the Jews, and that 90% of Americans believe we should exile blacks to Liberia, etc.

do you mean to say the Photos are photo-shoped?

You suggested me to visit your historical sites...

My turn... I suggest you bring a Digital Camera ;)Now let's take a good look at the site you linked to (http://christianparty.net/holocaust.htm):
Take five minutes to complete the Poll on Exiling Blacks (http://christianparty.net/pollblacks.htm)
Whines from a holohoaxster (http://christianparty.net/holohoaxster.htm)
If you'd taken about 30 seconds more to read the FACTS, you would have known that there WAS a holocaust, and that 264 million Christians (http://christianparty.net/wwii.htm) are MISSING because of that holocaust.
If that book was written by a jew, then there isn't a single "fact" in it which can be trusted. One thing that jew would have missed, of course, is that it WAS my CHRISTIAN German ancestors who constituted the vast majority of those who were crammed into concentration camps, those thrown into mass graves, the innocent civilians in cities like Dresden and Hamburg which were firebombed out of human memory, and who were otherwise victims of jews like Hitler, Mengele, and his other Nazi thugs (http://christianparty.net/nazi.htm).
Looks more like a White Supremacist site than a reliable source to me.

Laerod, I totally agree.

Looks more like a White Supremacist site than a reliable source to me.

Damn! Serves me right for not clicking the link!

Hmmm so Ocean are you that hitlerjurgened guy we had? What about CommunistMississippi?

It appears this website knows all about by beliefs on the 1st amendment as a modern jew.:rolleyes:
Yes, this is precisely the point. Christians wrote "free exercise of religion" to establish free exercise of religion for Christians to practice Christianity, but modern jews want to impose their amoral, despicable, destructive "principles" on Christians. What Christians view as pro-Christian you jews view as nothing but "anti-semitic". Your suggestion that our Forefathers were "anti-semitic" is reason alone for exiling you.
If you believe this, NS is not the place for you. If you believe this BS Oceanview3, give it up and crawl back to stormfront...

It appears this website knows all about by beliefs on the 1st amendment as a modern jew.:rolleyes:

If you believe this, NS is not the place for you. If you believe this BS Oceanview3, give it up and crawl back to stormfront...

For the hell of it; I sent the museum people at the camp a note asking for clarification of the "christian" sites claims of the plaques.

It will be interesting to see their response.

Hmmm I wonder if Ocean would belive it? ;)

Looks more like a White Supremacist site than a reliable source to me.So...

Did the White supremasist Web master photo-shoped the Pictire...

I am only asking one question.

Are the pictures Fake?

Hmmm I wonder if Ocean would belive it? ;)Maybe...

Oh joy, another zionist-controlled government and/or press and/or world conspiracy theorist.:rolleyes: You still haven't told me why the numbers are so vital to you. 6 million deaths is no better than 10.

I'm back from wherever I was and I have something to say about this.

It's wrong to think that Jewish people are to blame for all historical inaccuracy. I am not saying that their biggest goal in life is just that (historical accuracy), and I am sure that some have exaggerated at one point or another (but not all). Any concepts of an entirely Jewish conspiracy theory is ludacris. I am sure that one of these 'wicked', 'conspiring' Jews would have confessed (and that is not including "anonymous," so-called Jew-written anti-semetic books).

I wonder why so many are obsessed with the numbers. Are the deaths of six million any less heartbreaking then the deaths of 10?

No less heartbreaking, perhaps, depending on how you see it. However, if people are more aware of the deaths of the six million people, yes. It is important, because the historical significance is distorted. Stalin's regime has executed far more people than Hitler's regime comparing nearly every figure I've seen, and not all of Hitler's were specifically Jewish. The Nazi Holocaust (if that's appropriate to call it) may not have been necessarily anti-Jew but anti-anything that didn't fit in with the Nazi ideal world. Jews, from what I can tell, however, were more heavily targeted than anyone else, and were probably more than 50% of the death count. The percentage would be helpful to know in figuring the Jews as a targeted group.

Regardless, I think it is pretty obvious why people know of the Nazi Holocaust and not much of anything of the USSR's. Nazi Germany was invaded and defeated, so they were caught in the act. The USSR was not. I would like to know, however, what the statistics of people whom died in China and Japan were in reference to. I would take guesses, but they might be wrong. Then again, the figure of "genocide" in China is larger, and thusly, people should be more aware of it, if not equally.

Regardless, I think it is pretty obvious why people know of the Nazi Holocaust and not much of anything of the USSR's. Nazi Germany was invaded and defeated, so they were caught in the act.
I'm going to get involved, even though I didn't mean to.

I think the principal reason for why the Holocaust is remembered in the way it is is the way in which it happened.

Keep these two things in mind:
- Germany was probably the most advanced country in the world at the start of the century. It had a lot of culture, people were positively proud of being part of this. Philosophy, music, science and all the rest of it were huge.
- Germany was one of the more multicultural societies in Europe. There never really was a single German people, nor was there a single German culture.

And yet, all of a sudden, out of total irrationality, for no reasoning at all was a single group of people singled out in such a way. Whether it be Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot - they all used some sort of rational way of thinking to impose from above their genocides.

In Germany it wasn't like that: It was a sudden spasm, either supported or tolerated by millions (not necessarily the mass killing, but certainly the segregation etc that led up to it) that culminated in an industrial way of killing.
It wasn't just shooting people - it was putting them on trains, giving them numbers, saving them in databases, selecting them for forced labour and killing them in the cheapest, most effective way possible...followed by the industrial processing of their dead bodies.

That this could happen in a country like Germany probably shocked most Germans when the war was over. That it could happen at all was that shocked the others. Because ultimately, there was nothing special about Hitler, or about Germany...it could have happened in any other place if history had gone a little bit differently.

The numbers are ultimately not all that important. The way these numbers came to be is the really horrifying issue.

So...

Did the White supremasist Web master photo-shoped the Pictire...I don't know. Maybe they did, maybe they were real. Please remember that Auschwitz is in Poland, and that was ruled by a dictatorial communist regime bent on blaming even the massacre at Katyn on the Germans at the time the first stone was probably placed.
And remember that that site calls Hitler a Jew, claims he herded Jews into concentration camps to save them from the bombs dropped on German cities, claims that most of the people in the camps were German anyway, and quotes Hitler and Ahmadinejad as though they were credible sources. It contradicts itself often enough.
I am only asking one question.Big mistake. Looking at that site, a lot of other questions should be coming to mind.

So...

Did the White supremasist Web master photo-shoped the Pictire...

I am only asking one question.

Are the pictures Fake?

Actually, Auschwitz and Auschwitz Birkenhau were two separate camps, one being a drop off point on the way to the other. I know, because I met a man who went to Auschwitz-Birkenhau and stated he was lucky not to be sent to Auschwitz. Just thought I'd add that.

Above left: This was the plaque on display at the Auschwitz camp until 1989: note the "4 million" victims. Above right: This is the plaque currently on display at Auschwitz (2002) - note the suddenly reduced number of victims to 1.5 million - a casual reduction in the number of deaths by 2.5 million which never appeared in the American "free press" Umm, it's actually quite simple. There is no conspiracy. The earlier plaque said "4 Million People Suffered and Died" ie all suffered and some died. This was probably seen as partially unclear so a new plaque was put up which made the actual number of deaths much clearer.

I'm going to address multiple posts on this thread without quoting because their names aren't worth mentioning.:D

Referring to "the war" means WWII. It involved almost the entire world in modern warfare and introduced the atom bomb. Hitler actually used his resources for the final solution instead of fighting harder when he started to lose, just think about that for a second. Stalin sent soldiers into battle with the nazis without rifles and instead told them to wait until someone falls in battle. It does not discredit any other wars it is just what most people think of.

Referring to "the holocaust" refers to Hitler's final solution. This is not because the jews made it that way it is because ALL of the allies who invaded Germany (obviously not each person but the forces in general) found concentration camps or at least some evidence of the atrocities that were being committed. The word has come to represent this, not only in Israel or the allies but in the offending countries as well. That is the reason it is so widespread.

I have been to a concentration outside Berlin in Oranienburg, Sachsenhausen. This one is tiny compared to some of the more famed camp but what I realized while there was that there were hundreds of concentration camps. I saw a map there of them mapped out on Germany alone (nevermind Poland) and almost the whole country was covered in dots.

And yes they all wore stars/triangles. They were different colors depending on your offense ex. POW, homosexual, jew, gypsy, political prisoner. They even had different symbols for combinations of different offences. At this particular camps Russians were a large part and they have videos of the people of Oranienburg recalling how they were petrified that the Russians would annihilate all of them when they found out what was being done to their POWs at the camp. (many of them at least claimed they did not realize there were gas chambers and ovens there)

Yes, the USA killed millions of Native Americans, what is your point. I learned about that in my American history class. "The holocaust" came into use after just to refer to the horrors of the Nazis in WWII.

Yes, Stalin killed even more people but once again what is your point? No one managed to invade Russia and witness the atrocities like the allies did in Germany. Also, to my knowledge Stalin was an opportunistic killer who killed his people when they presented a threat. He did annihilate ethnic groups but this was to further his political machine whereas Hitler actually sacrificed his government and people so he could maximize the deaths from the final solution. (by diverting resources to the camps instead of front lines when the tide started to turn)

The point I'm making? "The holocaust" as it is now used was defined by WWII and the actions of the Nazi party so yes it is 100% justified to use it. "The war" refers to WWII to all of Europe and probably asia and japan as well. For us it is probably Iraq because, unlike them, our cities were still standing when WWII was over.

IIRC, holocaust, which is a german word,

Sorry, but I thought "holocaust" came from "holos caustos" (sp?) and is greek?

Honestly, do you think many people actually object to calling it the holocaust singular? IIRC, holocaust, which is a german word, was first used to the describe the holocaust. So even though today we might call genocide a holocaust, the original application was only for one event.
Its a greek word, from olokautoma, meaning something along the lines of complete burning.

Big mistake. Looking at that site, a lot of other questions should be coming to mind.even if the Webmaster was Whit-supremacist... or Pinko-Communist ... or Bushist.. or Nazi... or Zionist.. or Fascist.. or.. Moist.. or -insert favorite hated group here- ..

The Digital camera taking the picture has zero Bias (unless you are going to say that the Japanese camera-makers are inplanting special moded Chips)

sure.. I will go and check it out..
BTW...I am assuming you missed when I posted this:


http://christianparty.net/holocaust4.gifhttp://christianparty.net/holocaust5.gif

So...

Did the White supremasist Web master photo-shoped the Pictire...

I am only asking one question.

Are the pictures Fake?



No the pictures are not photoshoped but Auschwitz Birkenhau was only 1/3rd of Auschwitz.

http://www.auschwitz-muzeum.oswiecim.pl/html/eng/start/index.php

Over the following years, the camp was expanded and consisted of three main parts: Auschwitz I, Auschwitz II-Birkenau, and Auschwitz III-Monowitz. It also had over 40 sub-camps

Actually, Auschwitz and Auschwitz Birkenhau were two separate camps, one being a drop off point on the way to the other. I know, because I met a man who went to Auschwitz-Birkenhau and stated he was lucky not to be sent to Auschwitz. Just thought I'd add that.So basically what you are saying is that... these pictures where taken at different Camps....

You are saying that the "4 Million" plate is still there...and has not banished...
is that what you are saying?

I shouldn't have done that...

Reading this thread, refreshing horrible pictures in my mind, listening to "Brothers in Arms" while reading this ...

I feel like crying now :(

No the pictures are not photoshoped but Auschwitz Birkenhau was only 1/3rd of Auschwitz. same question for you..

Your timing is remarkable :D

"Brothers in Arms" while reading this ...

I feel like crying now :(PersonalCryiness, FYI

http://img.gamespot.com/gamespot/images/2003/all/boxshots2/926940_63610.jpg

it got 8.7 @ Gamespot... awesome.

PersonalCryiness, FYI

http://img.gamespot.com/gamespot/images/2003/all/boxshots2/926940_63610.jpg

it got 8.7 @ Gamespot... awesome.


:(

So basically what you are saying is that... these pictures where taken at different Camps....

You are saying that the "4 Million" plate is still there...and has not banished...
is that what you are saying?

I'm saying that 1.5 million being about a third of 4 million considering these are estimates is pretty sound. The plaques, I will admitt I have no idea because I haven't been there. I'm just suggesting that if what your saying is true it would have got some coverage somewhere outside white-supremisist sites. I'd have to go there to be absolutly sure but I think the reason I made seems reasonable

:(YEAH.. I get a lot of that from you.

YEAH.. I get a lot of that from you.

Did you expect to get a :) in such a thread?

... I'm just suggesting that if what your saying is true it would have got some coverage somewhere .. Somewhere... like the "American Free Press" :rolleyes:

Pictures and Video do not Lie... I do not care if they come from Stalin or..Hitler... from Al-Jazeera.. from a Marine's Cell.. or from a LA or NO amateur camera..

Pictures do not Lie. ...Your only scape to that Fact... is to say the Pictures are Photoshoped...

Did you expect to get a :) in such a thread?i just got it from you.

Merry Christmas
:fluffle:

I like how suddenly, us Germans are the evil people. It's the first thing all American children learn about Germany, that we're all Nazis. Nevermind the fact that there are hundreds of different German tribes, nevermind the fact that MY family was vehemently ANTI-Nazi. Somehow, I'M evil.

Despite the fact that the Russians managed to do this, they're still the angels of the world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

I like how suddenly, us Germans are the evil people. It's the first thing all American children learn about Germany, that we're all Nazis. Nevermind the fact that there are hundreds of different German tribes, nevermind the fact that MY family was vehemently ANTI-Nazi. Somehow, I'M evil.

Despite the fact that the Russians managed to do this, they're still the angels of the world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
Indeed, I agree with you here. Its not just the Germans, but white people as a whole who have been stigmatised. One cannot express pride in his or her identity anymore, because doing so makes him or her a white supremacist. Being South African, I have learnt this first hand. Everyone who I meet thinks I must be racist, as I am an Afrikaaner. The Holocaust was terrible, yes. Its over now though and its time it passed into the history books. The world must move on. Thank God for revisionist history as well. It helps deconstruct myths surrounding these events.

I like how suddenly, us Germans are the evil people. It's the first thing all American children learn about Germany, that we're all Nazis. Nevermind the fact that there are hundreds of different German tribes, nevermind the fact that MY family was vehemently ANTI-Nazi. Somehow, I'M evil.

Despite the fact that the Russians managed to do this, they're still the angels of the world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HolodomorI can respect you saying "Get lost, I am not guilty of any of this... and I am proud to be German."

But saying "The Commies are more Guilty"... simply makes you look like a Crybaby.

3. Some may have (and probably have) been more extreme in death tolls, as in high school I was told by numerous individuals, including my history teacher, that Stalin executed more 'innocent' (non-combat) civilians than the Nazi regime. I didn't search for any statistics at this time so if I'm wrong, please excuse me.
Ha! If I had a penny for every time I heard that, i'd have 1p!

I can respect you saying "I am not guilty of any of this."

But saying "The Commies are more Guilty"... simply makes you look like a Crybaby.
He is merely illustrating a point that eludes many who are eager to blame Germany for all the world's ills. Likewise, few recognise how much death Turkey brought about in the days of the Ottoman Empire.

I like how suddenly, us Germans are the evil people. It's the first thing all American children learn about Germany, that we're all Nazis. Nevermind the fact that there are hundreds of different German tribes, nevermind the fact that MY family was vehemently ANTI-Nazi. Somehow, I'M evil.

Despite the fact that the Russians managed to do this, they're still the angels of the world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

I know how you feel. I'm not even German (i have german origin) and when we did our family trees in class for an autobiography project, everyone started calling me a Nazi. And I've never even met my German family! Also, when we had German exchange students at the school, heaps of the kids teased them about being Nazis and killing Jews etc. Including several who failed history. Badly. I mean, these kids didn't even know when WWII started and finished or anything. Yet here they were teasing these poor kids because they could. And the staff just wrung their hands and said, "well, theres nothing we can do really..." Wankers.

i just got it from you.

You're too clever for me! :eek: :D


Merry Christmas
:fluffle:

And a Happy New Year
:fluffle:

Somewhere... like the "American Free Press" :rolleyes:

Pictures and Video do not Lie... I do not care if they come from Stalin or..Hitler... from Al-Jazeera.. from a Marine's Cell.. or from a LA or NO amateur camera..

Pictures do not Lie. ...Your only scape to that Fact... is to say the Pictures are Photoshoped...

or that they are both there representing different things and that someone has put them there together to decieve people. Now obviously a white-supremisist site would have no motivation to do this now would they?:rolleyes:

I like how suddenly, us Germans are the evil people.
If people say that, refute them. It's what I do - and I can make people look pretty stupid pretty quick.
But you for yourself need to remember the Holocaust, not because you're German, but because you're human. There is no point in pointing at others and yelling "They did it too!", because that is not what it is all about.

Come to terms with it yourself, but don't complain, because that just besmudges the memory of those that died on all sides and for all reasons.

I can respect you saying "I am not guilty of any of this... and I am proud to be German."

But saying "The Commies are more Guilty"... simply makes you look like a Crybaby.

I'm also half Ukrainian. So you don't mind the Soviets killing 10 millions of us?

If people say that, refute them. It's what I do - and I can make people look pretty stupid pretty quick.
But you for yourself need to remember the Holocaust, not because you're German, but because you're human. There is no point in pointing at others and yelling "They did it too!", because that is not what it is all about.

Come to terms with it yourself, but don't complain, because that just besmudges the memory of those that died on all sides and for all reasons.
What you say is valid, yet in a more general context it still leaves me in awe how some get away with committing such atrocities, whereas Germany is blamed for committing " the most heinous crimes ever to taint humanity." Please. If they want to make such assertions, let them at least examine the actions of other nations.

I like how suddenly, us Germans are the evil people. It's the first thing all American children learn about Germany, that we're all Nazis. Nevermind the fact that there are hundreds of different German tribes, nevermind the fact that MY family was vehemently ANTI-Nazi. Somehow, I'M evil.

Despite the fact that the Russians managed to do this, they're still the angels of the world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor


Some are indeed stupid enough to think all Germans are evil fascist Nazi-assholes.
But don't be paranoid because of that. Everbody has to face discrimination by some stupid narrow-minded people up to a certain degree. Don't be touchy. Ignore them!

...Now obviously a white-supremisist site would have no motivation to do this now would they?:rolleyes:of course they have bad motivations... (when there is War all sides have bad motivations)

They have attracted my attention to the Pictures.. that when your jewish side lose..

My mind was able to easily dismiss the "words" of the that web site... But it is difficult for me to dismiss the pictures.

I'm also half Ukrainian. So you don't mind the Soviets killing 10 millions of us?read my post again... if you need a translator.. I recoment Babel fish.

2. In regard to the first two definitions, there has been more than one holocaust, and in labeling one holocaust as "the" holocaust, the others have been defamed and played down in the public spectrum.
I think you are correct that "the" Holocaust (especially capitalised) is almost always used to refer to Hitler and WWII. I agree with you that calling it "the" Holocaust isn't entirely logical, as some may interpret this as "there's been only one". Everyone who's heard of it should know it isn't. The Holocaust, referring to WWII, is "just" a fairly recent, historically important, and well-documented event. For these reasons it serves as the most vivid example of state-controlled genocide to generations of people.

3. Some may have (and probably have) been more extreme in death tolls, as in high school I was told by numerous individuals, including my history teacher, that Stalin executed more 'innocent' (non-combat) civilians than the Nazi regime.
I don't know if you're right (although I'd be surprised if you weren't). There is a lot of disagreement on exact figures (even if expressed in millions). I'm not sure if your claim can be verified. If so, and you turn out to be right, are you suggesting we call the newly found genocide "the" Holocaust? I think this will happen by itself, once a few centuries have passed, and people don't recollect the actual events. In any case I don't agree with you that holocausts any other than "the big one" are considered any less horrid just because they don't get capitalised and prefixed with a definite article.

And of course the word Holocaust isn't German. Ironically enough, it's derived from a Hebrew stem meaning "(sacrifice) which goes up in smoke". The word was adopted by Greek as meaning "something completely burnt", via Latin, via Old French, via Middle English, where it meant "burnt offering". I think other languages have adopted the word from either Latin or Old French prior to "the" Holocaust. The word 'holocaust' was already used in reference to nazi practices around 1940, but afaik the term "the Holocaust" was not introduced until somewhere in the 1950s.

And of course, holding modern-day Germany responsible for anything that happened during the nazi regime is uncalled for as well as insulting to Germans.

What you say is valid, yet in a more general context it still leaves me in awe how some get away with committing such atrocities, whereas Germany is blamed for committing " the most heinous crimes ever to taint humanity." Please. If they want to make such assertions, let them at least examine the actions of other nations.
I still think that it is the most heinous crime ever committed. Not because of the number of people killed - but because of the way in which it happened, and the place in which it happened.
Russia, China, Cambodia and all those other places were third world countries. That doesn't make the deaths there any less terrible - but it puts the decision to kill so many into a completely different context from supposedly civilised 1933 Germany.

Check post #63 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10141348&postcount=63).

I still say the only solution is to abolish Germany entirely. Return to post-Napoleonic borders.

What the hell does Germany mean anyway? Allied People-y. That's great.

I still think that it is the most heinous crime ever committed. Not because of the number of people killed - but because of the way in which it happened, and the place in which it happened.
Russia, China, Cambodia and all those other places were third world countries. That doesn't make the deaths there any less terrible - but it puts the decision to kill so many into a completely different context from supposedly civilised 1933 Germany.

Check post #63 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10141348&postcount=63).
Oh I beg to differ...Russia and China were both civilised, and although the former was going through economic crisis, it was hardly a 3rd world country (that would be like calling Louis XVI's France a 3rd world nation). Merely because they were oppressive doesn't deprive them of this qualification. The Ottoman Empire, likewise, committed many atrocities. Russia and Turkey both had their fair share of mass murders.

I still say the only solution is to abolish Germany entirely.
We're on our way. Remember the EU?

I still say the only solution is to abolish Germany entirely. Return to post-Napoleonic borders.



:D :D

What about reinstalling the Holy Roman Empire?

We're on our way. Remember the EU?
Too true :p

:D :D

What about reinstalling the Holy Roman Empire?
Tee-hee :D I would love that. The EU is going to be something much grander though.

Keep in mind that the word Holocaust can be used for any time that large numbers of people are killed with genocide being the purpose. The word "Holocaust" was chosen specifically because of its Greek meaning "a burnt offering to a god". Since so many of the killed were also burnt by the Nazis this word is an appropriate title.

Shoa is also a word used to describe this period in history.

We're on our way. Remember the EU?

Yeah, so we can all speak Arabic after turkey floods us with muslims. Yippee.

Oh I beg to differ...Russia and China were both civilised, and although the former was going through economic crisis, it was hardly a 3rd world country.
At the times, they were. In a few cities in Russia you might have found "First World" conditions...but outside you'd find nothing.

At any rate, neither of these nations can be compared to Germany and its vision of itself as a civilised, cultured nation with a leading role in the world.

And in no other place was murder industrialised in the way it was in Germany.

The first sentence of the German constitution says "The dignity of man is inviolable." That says it all.

Yeah, so we can all speak Arabic after turkey floods us with muslims. Yippee.
The Turks speak Turkish, my friend.

Yeah, so we can all speak Arabic after turkey floods us with muslims. Yippee.
IF Turkey gets in. Which it won't.

Tee-hee :D I would love that. The EU is going to be something much grander though.

Hmmmmm.....
The Holy Roman Empire was ruled by the Habsburger in Vienna.
The EU presidency moves to the Austrian govt. in Vienna on January 1st.

:D

Watch out, we'll be back! :D

And this is the same Germany who released a terrorist who murdered a US Navy diver? Uh-huh.

The Turks speak Turkish, my friend.


:eek:

At the times, they were. In a few cities in Russia you might have found "First World" conditions...but outside you'd find nothing.

At any rate, neither of these nations can be compared to Germany and its vision of itself as a civilised, cultured nation with a leading role in the world.

And in no other place was murder industrialised in the way it was in Germany.

The first sentence of the German constitution says "The dignity of man is inviolable." That says it all.
That hardly exonerates either nation. Russia always deemed itself to be culturarly superior to other nations, and arguably it was attempting to install a political system where freedom of the individual was central. It failed. Miserably.

Muslim Empires up to the 1920's committed genocide against the Jews, after the 20's I guess the world just didn't want to accept it anymore. (Armenian Genocide, Spain, Syria,Iran,Iraq,Saudi Arabia,ect.)

What the Soviet Union did couldn't be considered genocide, just mass murder. (In most cases, Stalin did practice genocide against those in Siberia which would not modernize.)

Calling what Nazi Germany did THE Holocaust, is suggestive that that one was the only one to happen, when in reality it was not.

The Turks speak Turkish, my friend.

It's a border state. They'll be letting muslims in from the ME by the truckload.

Yeah, so we can all speak Arabic after turkey floods us with muslims. Yippee.That is wrong in more that one way...

Hmmmmm.....
The Holy Roman Empire was ruled by the Habsburger in Vienna.
The EU presidency moves to the Austrian govt. in Vienna on January 1st.

:D

Watch out, we'll be back! :D
Bigger, and in this case, better :p

The first sentence of the German constitution says "The dignity of man is inviolable." That says it all.

Sexism! :mad:
Where is Alice Schwarzer when you need her?

And this is the same Germany who released a terrorist who murdered a US Navy diver? Uh-huh.
He sat his time, he tried to get out, it was granted, he left. Simple.

Everything else is hype. And besides, his three companions were never even caught.

Bigger, and in this case, better :p

:fluffle:
Free Champagne for all on January 1st! :D

Muslim Empires up to the 1920's committed genocide against the Jews, after the 20's I guess the world just didn't want to accept it anymore. (Armenian Genocide, Spain, Syria,Iran,Iraq,Saudi Arabia,ect.)

What the Soviet Union did couldn't be considered genocide, just mass murder. (In most cases, Stalin did practice genocide against those in Siberia which would not modernize.)

Calling what Nazi Germany did THE Holocaust, is suggestive that that one was the only one to happen, when in reality it was not.
What I can't understand is how is genocide a heinous crime against humanity, whereas mass murder is of lesser importance. What an utter load of rubbish. Mass murder is definitely a crime against humanity, something of which many nations are more guilty of than Germany. Genocide is just targetted mass murder. Lets not lighten the burden of mass murder.

That hardly exonerates either nation. Russia always deemed itself to be culturarly superior to other nations, and arguably it was attempting to install a political system where freedom of the individual was central. It failed. Miserably.

Of course they did. There's only one system in the world where freedom of the individual is above all else. Anarchy.

Of course they did. There's only one system in the world where freedom of the individual is above all else. Anarchy.
Which is practically non-feasible.

He sat his time, he tried to get out, it was granted, he left. Simple.

Everything else is hype. And besides, his three companions were never even caught.

That's not very convincing. He's obviously just going to fight in Iraq now.

What I can't understand is how is genocide a heinous crime against humanity, whereas mass murder is of lesser importance. What an utter load of rubbish. Mass murder is definitely a crime against humanity, something of which many nations are more guilty of than Germany. Genocide is just targetted mass murder. Lets not lighten the burden of mass murder.

Didn't mean to make it seem less of a crime, I was simply dismissing it as genocide. ITs still a horrible crime against humanity, but in this argument of what is or isn't genocide, what happened in the Soviet Union couldn't be considered genocide.

Which is practically non-feasible.

It's actually the most feasible system. All the government has to do is nothing.

But it'll never happen. Or should happen, for that matter.

Didn't mean to make it seem less of a crime, I was simply dismissing it as genocide. ITs still a horrible crime against humanity, but in this argument of what is or isn't genocide, what happened in the Soviet Union couldn't be considered genocide.

I'm pretty sure killing Ukrainians and Ukrainians only is genocide.

Didn't mean to make it seem less of a crime, I was simply dismissing it as genocide. ITs still a horrible crime against humanity, but in this argument of what is or isn't genocide, what happened in the Soviet Union couldn't be considered genocide.
I wasn't targetting my statement at your post, but rather at qualifying the Holocaust as the most heinous crime against humanity, when clearly, worse things did happen (and still do).

It's actually the most feasible system. All the government has to do is nothing.

But it'll never happen. Or should happen, for that matter.
So what when X decides to kill Y for the sake of it, as there are no laws to prevent X from doing so? How is this respecting one's freedoms?

That hardly exonerates either nation.
Of course not - but it puts the decision to kill so many people into a completely different context.

Fact of the matter is that Germany was as modern a state as there was, and Russia was not.
The Holocaust is the proof that society, technology, law and order and all the rest of it is just a thin fassade over irrational human nature, which can come out at any point in time.
No other genocide was quite the same.

To be honest, I have been confronted with various types of prejudice myself. In Germany, I dared to criticise Anne Frank in an 8th grade essay for yelling and throwing fits while in hiding - and the entire neighbourhood thought I was a Nazi (and therefore my parents had to be too). We never quite got rid of that stigma.
When I came here, I have been confronted with this so often I lost count.

But never, at no point, have I ever resorted to shifting the focus on some other country's past. The Holocaust is different, and it did happen and it was a crime, regardless of its environment.

Anarchy isn't feasible, it can't happen for a long sustained amount of time. Short amount of times like what we saw in New Orleans yes, but if you had given that situation a month or two you would have seen a gang (or group of people) gain dominance in the city. Whoever has the most guns or the most supporters will always gain control and set up a government of some sort. And with Anarchy you wouldn't be able to buy anything (Because currency is a function of the government), you couldn't build much. Life would be extremely difficult under anarchy because there would be no uniform system of doing anything. You couldn't ship food out and millions maybe hundreds of millions would die of starvation.

So what when X decides to kill Y for the sake of it, as there are no laws to prevent X from doing so? How is this respecting one's freedoms?

You're confusing rights and freedoms. Y had the right to live, not the freedom to live.

My mind was able to easily dismiss the "words" of the that web site... But it is difficult for me to dismiss the pictures.
Pictures can be so easily changed and manipulated. Today more than ever. I would be very careful about what I really trust.

Pictures have always been manipulated to help political agendas. One of the most well known examples can be found here:
Falsification of history - Stalin & Trotzki (http://www.tc.umn.edu/~hick0088/classes/csci_2101/false.html)

I take it you were home-schooled. Thats are the figures quoted by my social studies teacher...

Yeah, so we can all speak Arabic after turkey floods us with muslims. Yippee.
That sounds like an exclamation of terror to me. Are you that afraid? As far as your reasoning goes on "flooding" :rolleyes: "us" :rolleyes: with "muslims" :rolleyes:, you'd have to be all for Turkey joining the EU. Political and economic integration, open market, free traffic, less need to emigrate for employment, or "economic motives", whichever your train of thought seems to prefer... Catch my drift? :)

Turkish isn't even an Arabic language, by the way. It's not even using an Arabic script.

I'm pretty sure killing Ukrainians and Ukrainians only is genocide.

But they didn't just kill Ukranians. While a certain number of those killed, their murders could be chalked up to genocide, the entire number of (50+ mill) couldn't be chalked up to genocide.

Of course not - but it puts the decision to kill so many people into a completely different context.
But never, at no point, have I ever resorted to shifting the focus on some other country's past. The Holocaust is different, and it did happen and it was a crime, regardless of its environment.
I am just attacking its qualification as the most heinous crime ever perpetrated against humanity, with which I disagree.

I know what you mean btw, expressing any opinion that deviates from the norm can get you branded a Nazi or racist, especially if you're from a country with such a past.

I can't wait for some other country to pull off a huge genocide, so us Germans aren't the most evil beings in the history of the universe anymore.

You're confusing rights and freedoms. Y had the right to live, not the freedom to live.
Yet with absolute freedom, aren't rights oppressed?

I can't wait for some other country to pull off a huge genocide, so us Germans aren't the most evil beings in the history of the universe anymore.
Other countries have already done so. They just haven't been blamed for it.

That's not very convincing. He's obviously just going to fight in Iraq now.
And why is that anyone's problem but his own? He did the crime, he did the time.
Now he can do whatever he pleases, until he gets caught again. Since when do we judge people on what they might do? Oh, yes, that's right...since 9/11...

I'm pretty sure killing Ukrainians and Ukrainians only is genocide.
From your link:
Some researchers state that while the term Ukrainian Genocide is often used in application to the event, technically, the use of the term 'genocide' is inapplicable. They argue that since the Holodomor did not affect urban areas within Ukraine, and was limited to rural areas of Ukraine, it is not plausible to argue that the government tried to destroy the Ukrainian people as such. It has been suggested that the Holodomor be classified not as genocide, but as democide.

I can't wait for some other country to pull off a huge genocide, so us Germans aren't the most evil beings in the history of the universe anymore.

Thats probably one of the most selfish things I've heard. Please German people are only seen like that by backward fools who are stuck in the past.

I can't wait for some other country to pull off a huge genocide, so us Germans aren't the most evil beings in the history of the universe anymore.


Well if your looking just at beings as a group of people, if people opened their eyes they would see that muslims as a group of people slaughter thousands, maybe millions of christians every year. (Ethnic cleansing in Rowanda and other African nations ,while it was original maybe "tribal" it quickly becomes religious)They also enslave christians and target them specifically for removal from their countries by slaughter.

(Indonesia, Muslim militia's recently proclaimed those area's "Free of Christianity", They killed around 10,000)

Now while specific instances may not be as large a single episode (such as Nazi Germany's Holocaust), when they are added together their much larger then what Nazi Germany did.

Somewhere... like the "American Free Press" :rolleyes:

Pictures and Video do not Lie... I do not care if they come from Stalin or..Hitler... from Al-Jazeera.. from a Marine's Cell.. or from a LA or NO amateur camera..

Pictures do not Lie. ...Your only scape to that Fact... is to say the Pictures are Photoshoped...


They just told you that Auschwitz-Birkinau is a different place and is about 1/3 the size and thus the numbers on the plaques make sense. Although this makes sense you go on to say:

My mind was able to easily dismiss the "words" of the that web site... But it is difficult for me to dismiss the pictures.

But how do you know where the "four million" plaque is from? The picture does not name any particular place in it. You must have read a caption yes? Also I do think that picture looks strangely fake anyways. But even if it isn't you are claiming you only judge the pictures and yet you are clearly making judgement from what the webpage says as well.

Why don't you look up what your saying on a different webpage? You can probably get pictures of all the plaques if you want to.

Your arguments are really piss poor. Why don't you take a step back and pull your head out of your ass.

As to this:

I like how suddenly, us Germans are the evil people. It's the first thing all American children learn about Germany, that we're all Nazis. Nevermind the fact that there are hundreds of different German tribes, nevermind the fact that MY family was vehemently ANTI-Nazi. Somehow, I'M evil.

Despite the fact that the Russians managed to do this, they're still the angels of the world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor


You are a German and not an American so what the fuck are you talking about? I actually grew up here and we actually never got to WWII in any history class I ever took through the end of highschool. They focus on American history (native americans and their annihilation, revolution, war of 1812, slavery, civil war, reconstruction) and then we did a little with WWI, Rockefeller and Carnegie as I recall. Any bias formed towards the Germans stems directly from the fact that we also lost soldiers and relatives in that war. We know what happened and we know it is in the past, any further predjudice stemming from it is the sad reality that there is predjudice everywhere.

As for Russians? We went through the cold war with them, not Germany, ever heard of the Red Scare in the 50s? They didn't get away with anything if anything China and Russia are the two countries that modern America still learns to consider commies and human rights violators. For right or wrong.

I study German in University and will fullfill a minor in German for my Bachelors degree in Germany next fall semester. The Nazis are something Germany will always have as tarnish on it's history. It really hasn't been that long and to expect that no one will remember or harbor bad feelings is foolishness but there is no general predjudice toward Germany in America. Definately not more than to many other places and to even insinuate that Americans learn that Germans are evil in school is absolute reckless ignorance.

I am just attacking its qualification as the most heinous crime ever perpetrated against humanity, with which I disagree.
So you don't think the industrialisation of killing made it any worse than any other mass murder, or genocide?

I can't wait for some other country to pull off a huge genocide, so us Germans aren't the most evil beings in the history of the universe anymore.
Now you're pitying yourself. We're not the most evil beings in history, and you know it - and so does the majority of the population on this planet.
Germany chose itself to deal with the Holocaust, after the people were confronted with it. Moreso than any other country, it was Germans who gave it the image it has today.
And I'd rather have that, than still be denying it, as pretty much every other country guilty of such things does.

So you don't think the industrialisation of killing made it any worse than any other mass murder, or genocide.
No, I do not. Death is death, regardless of how it is wrought. The material consequences of genocide do not differ by the methods used. Industrialised or not, a genocide is still mass murder. Just a different means to the same end.

From your link:

Oh yes, I forgot. If the Germans didn't do it, it doesn't matter. You must be a big fan of Walter Duranty.

I can't wait for some other country to pull off a huge genocide, so us Germans aren't the most evil beings in the history of the universe anymore.


You're looking forward to people murdering millions just to feel better being German? :mad:

Now you're pitying yourself. We're not the most evil beings in history, and you know it - and so does the majority of the population on this planet.
Germany chose itself to deal with the Holocaust, after the people were confronted with it. Moreso than any other country, it was Germans who gave it the image it has today.
And I'd rather have that, than still be denying it, as pretty much every other country guilty of such things does.

Of course I'm bloody pitying myself. Germany shouldn't even exist. The term "German" is a false one. The nation known as Germany is an artificial state. But somehow, the Allies managed to stick us all together and create a culture of guilt over our heads, permanently crippling all the ethnicities forced to live in this "nation".

Of course I'm bloody pitying myself. Germany should even exist. The term "German" is a false one. The nation known as Germany is an artificial state. But somehow, the Allies managed to stick us all together and create a culture of guilt over our heads, permanently crippling all the ethnicities forced to live in this "nation".
How is Germany not a nation? :rolleyes:

Oh yes, I forgot. If the Germans didn't do it, it doesn't matter. You must be a big fan of Walter Duranty.
Quit being a troll, now. You're distorting everyone's comments to feel insulted. No-one's blaming today's Germany for the Holocaust. And it doesn't make other occurrences of genocide less serious. For instance, you might be pleased to hear that Turkey is being investigated by the EU for genocide against kurds in the beginning of the 20th century.

No, I do not. Death is death, regardless of how it is wrought. The material consequences of genocide do not differ by the methods used. Industrialised or not, a genocide is still mass murder. Just a different means to the same end.

I'm sorry there is something much more sinister in a systematic and mechanical killing machine than in sporratic and frenzied killings that end in more deaths. Also, a detailed and organized plan stating exactly what is going on and how it is to be done most efficiently conveys an evil beyond words. I simply don't agree.

Of course I'm bloody pitying myself. Germany shouldn't even exist. The term "German" is a false one. The nation known as Germany is an artificial state. But somehow, the Allies managed to stick us all together and create a culture of guilt over our heads, permanently crippling all the ethnicities forced to live in this "nation".

Everbody hates us.
Everybody thinks we're guilty.
The Allies are everywhere.
HIDE!

:rolleyes:

You're looking forward to people murdering millions just to feel better being German? :mad:

Well, it's eventually going to happen anyway. Might as well look forward to it. Although since it will probably happen TO Europe, I'll even get to play the victim card.

Well, it's eventually going to happen anyway. Might as well look forward to it. Although since it will probably happen TO Europe, I'll even get to play the victim card.

Instead of looking forward to it, we could try to keep the world from going through that again.

To the OP:

Let me explain something to you that you're apparently not understanding. Please, don't get into a debate of numbers with me; it's a matter of the English language. You've produced definitions of two different words, and tried to pass them off as one. The lower-case "holocaust" originally meant "a great, consuming fire." It still means that. Capitalized, "Holocaust" refers to a specific historical event. It has also been used to describe other events, such as "the Armenian Holocaust," but its capitalized definition is unchanged. This is not because of any sense of priority; when it was coined, the Holocaust was seen as a unique event, and it is irrelevant whether or not you agree it is such.

There's nothing to do with numbers here. It's the English language, guy. If you don't like it, pick a different one.

How is Germany not a nation? :rolleyes:

There's no such thing as German people. Just like there's not just Native Americans, there's hundreds of different peoples. They even had to engineer a common language to make Germanic people seem to be one.

I'm sorry there is something much more sinister in a systematic and mechanical killing machine than in sporratic and frenzied killings that end in more deaths. Also, a detailed and organized plan stating exactly what is going on and how it is to be done most efficiently conveys an evil beyond words. I simply don't agree.
You may disagree, no one forces you to agree with me. I simply will not see industrialised genocide as being more severe than any other form of genocide or mass murder. Ultimately, they both result in death and in viewing humans as less than human. Same principles, same results. Planned or not, there is no difference.

There's no such thing as German people. Just like there's not just Native Americans, there's hundreds of different peoples. They even had to engineer a common language to make Germanic people seem to be one.


His right, but if he is from the Prussia region, it would have been his people that forced all the other Germanic people together into one common Greater Germany. (The "Native Americans" are just kinda like the "First American's" because they weren't born here, they migrated just like the Anglo-Saxons)

Instead of looking forward to it, we could try to keep the world from going through that again.

And let us be the devils of history for all eternity? No thank you. We'll let someone else have the title, THEN we can talk about stopping future occurences.

There's no such thing as German people. Just like there's not just Native Americans, there's hundreds of different peoples. They even had to engineer a common language to make Germanic people seem to be one.
You would argue then that Dutch, Afrikaans, Swedish, Norwegian, Danish and German do not stem from the same linguistic root?

His right, but if he is from the Prussia region, it would have been his people that forced all the other Germanic people together into one common Greater Germany. (The "Native Americans" are just kinda like the "First American's" because they weren't born here, they migrated just like the Anglo-Saxons)

Actually, I'm Alemannic. When I made this account, Prussia seemed cool.

And let us be the devils of history for all eternity?
Unless you're a big fan of Mr. Hitler's regime, no-one is blaming you for the Holocaust. You have a strange desire to feel insulted. Now cut it out.

Oh yes, I forgot. If the Germans didn't do it, it doesn't matter. You must be a big fan of Walter Duranty.
*Looks up who Duranty is*
No, not at all. I was just clearing up the confusion on whether the Holodomor was a genocide or a mass murder.
Personally, I hate all sorts of murders, whether mass or not, and whether ethnically motivated or not.
Nonetheless, maybe because of my personal attachment to it, or for some other reason (any other murder you either kill someone face-to-face, or you ignore them until you are dead - in the Holocaust, it was worse than either of those), I consider the Holocaust the worst single crime in history.
It may not objectively be, but it is to me, for the reasons I mentioned.

I can't help you if you feel comfortable in the role of the victim. I can do no more than tell you my reasons, and ask you to try and stay objective.

No, I do not. Death is death, regardless of how it is wrought. The material consequences of genocide do not differ by the methods used. Industrialised or not, a genocide is still mass murder. Just a different means to the same end.
Again:
You can shoot someone - that means you look them in the eye, you use a bullet, you actively end someone's life.

Or you can let someone starve to death - that means you at least leave them the dignity to die for themselves, it means that they may not be humans to you, but they're not really less. They just don't exist to you.

But if you industrialise the killing, if you start giving humans numbers, putting them on these trains, calculating how long they survive hard labour, how many raw materials can still be gained from their dead bodies - then that is lower. They are not only not human to you, nor are they thin air: They are raw materials. Numbers, statistics...a resource to be exploited. And at the same time you have timetables and exact plans on how many lives you must extinguish at any given point in time.
I feel that that is the worst way to kill someone, and the most abominable thing humans have ever come up with.

You would argue then that Dutch, Afrikaans, Swedish, Norwegian, Danish and German do not stem from the same linguistic root?

Germanic was the best word I could find. I meant the "German" Germanics.

You would argue then that Dutch, Afrikaans, Swedish, Norwegian, Danish and German do not stem from the same linguistic root?


Why do you think the Holy Roman Empire split into so many different kingdoms? Now they did for the most part become Austria and Germany the two largest Germanic states, but theres no real basis for one Greater Germany. Greater Germany became real in the 1870's when Prussia tested its might by invading France. (Think African countries, many different Tribes make up one "country", they speak the same language but don't want to be one big country.

There's no such thing as German people. Just like there's not just Native Americans, there's hundreds of different peoples. They even had to engineer a common language to make Germanic people seem to be one.
How does that make Germany not a nation? Isn't the US a nation?
And the common German language was hardly engineered.

... sporratic and frenzied killings that end in more deaths...when you have more than 100000 killed.. you cannot longer call it "sporadic"..

Actually, I'm Alemannic. When I made this account, Prussia seemed cool.

Prussia not so cool anymore?:p

Of course I'm bloody pitying myself. Germany shouldn't even exist. The term "German" is a false one. The nation known as Germany is an artificial state. But somehow, the Allies managed to stick us all together and create a culture of guilt over our heads, permanently crippling all the ethnicities forced to live in this "nation".

You are pathetically baiting everyone to keep arguing with you. So this is my last post in response to you.

-The Allies didn't even manage to group you all together or maybe you forgot the wall? My guess is you are too young to have lived through it and remember.

-As some people have mentioned modern Germany has stepped forward and accepted responsibility for its past as well as showing a will to move forward. I was surprised by the openess of the monuments and museums in Germany and the emphasis on educating not only their own people but everyone who visits about what happened so that it never happens again.

-Will it happen again on the same scale? I dunno maybe, China and India are both coming into their own and will soon be full on competitors for oil with the USA and the EU. The Iran-Israel and pakistan situation is obviously something to watch as well as the rise of Islamic extremism all over the globe. The point is to hedge off any genocidal world wars that might arrise from such situations by accepting and learning from the past mistakes of humanity.

What I can say with absolute certainty is if there is another mass-murder on the scale of WWII you will not be happy to play the "victim card".

Germanic was the best word I could find. I meant the "German" Germanics.
Ah I see. Then you mean it as in an excuse to unify Germany (like saying Prussia and Bavaria are both German), a different meaning to the word germanic when applied to all the peoples of germanic origin and languages of this nature. Fair enough.

How does that make Germany not a nation? Isn't the US a nation?
And the common German language was hardly engineered.

Not literally. But it's an illegitimate nation.

How does that make Germany not a nation? Isn't the US a nation?
And the common German language was hardly engineered.


Just a side note. All languages were enginered when dictionaries came out. Dictionaries set common spellings and such for languages therefore altering them from their original states and "engineering" them. :)

Actually, I'm Alemannic. When I made this account, Prussia seemed cool.
Where do you live? It's kinda important to me, so I can understand your point.

Because this idea that some sort of "Allies" created Germany so they would have someone to blame things on is completely new to me.
And so is the idea that people would desperately be looking for some sort of ancient tribe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alemanni) in order to feel more worthy themselves.
By Allemannic, you must mean a simple local dialect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alemannic_German#Characteristics). In which case I'm an ancient Hamburgian! :rolleyes:

Why do you think the Holy Roman Empire split into so many different kingdoms? Now they did for the most part become Austria and Germany the two largest Germanic states, but theres no real basis for one Greater Germany. Greater Germany became real in the 1870's when Prussia tested its might by invading France. (Think African countries, many different Tribes make up one "country", they speak the same language but don't want to be one big country.
This is different to using the word germanic to describe those of germanic origin though (scandinavians, dutch, germans, austrians etc). Anyway, this has already been clarified.

And the common German language was hardly engineered.


There's a common German language? :eek:

Where do you live? It's kinda important to me, so I can understand your point.

Because this idea that some sort of "Allies" created Germany so they would have someone to blame things on is completely new to me.
And so is the idea that people would desperately be looking for some sort of ancient tribe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alemanni) in order to feel more worthy themselves.
By Allemannic, you must mean a simple local dialect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alemannic_German#Characteristics). In which case I'm an ancient Hamburgian! :rolleyes:

The only spot I can see his argument that the allies created Germany would be the reuniting East and West Germany, but otherwise I think he was refering to the 19th century.

Not literally. But it's an illegitimate nation.
:confused: how can a nation be illegitimate :confused:
Was it born out of wedlock?

Where do you live? It's kinda important to me, so I can understand your point.

Because this idea that some sort of "Allies" created Germany so they would have someone to blame things on is completely new to me.
And so is the idea that people would desperately be looking for some sort of ancient tribe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alemanni) in order to feel more worthy themselves.
By Allemannic, you must mean a simple local dialect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alemannic_German#Characteristics). In which case I'm an ancient Hamburgian! :rolleyes:

I live in Australia. My father emigrated after the war, my mother in the 70s.

Ah I see. Then you mean it as in an excuse to unify Germany (like saying Prussia and Bavaria are both German), a different meaning to the word germanic when applied to all the peoples of germanic origin and languages of this nature. Fair enough.

You know what I mean. The Germanics who everybody calls "German".

Not literally. But it's an illegitimate nation.
Can you point out when it was engineered and by whom?

You know what I mean. The Germanics who everybody calls "German".

I never got why they called it Germany, why didn't the just call it Prussia? I mean it was Prussia that drove the unification effort.

The only spot I can see his argument that the allies created Germany would be the reuniting East and West Germany, but otherwise I think he was refering to the 19th century.

I mean how the Allies INSISTED on keeping the country together (or in two halves, as it were) after the war. They should have pulled out immediately and let the country go to chaos. It would have sorted itself out as hundreds of small warlord states soon enough.

You know what I mean. The Germanics who everybody calls "German".
Simply use the words Greater Germany then, as this is what you intended to say. Germanics is used to describe the entire grouping of peoples.

I live in Australia. My father emigrated after the war, my mother in the 70s.


Oooooh, that makes so much more sense. Not only do you talk out of your ass but you make generalizations about a place you don't actually live in.

I mean how the Allies INSISTED on keeping the country together (or in two halves, as it were) after the war. They should have pulled out immediately and let the country go to chaos. It would have sorted itself out as hundreds of small warlord states soon enough.

Because the Soviets would have invaded and it would have given the Soviet Union a strong foothold into central/western Europe.

Can you point out when it was engineered and by whom?

What, the nation? It was engineered by Bismarck's Prussia.

I mean how the Allies INSISTED on keeping the country together (or in two halves, as it were) after the war. They should have pulled out immediately and let the country go to chaos. It would have sorted itself out as hundreds of small warlord states soon enough.

So, whats your deal, bro? Are you retarded, looking for an arguement, or just plan uninformed?

The term "Allies" changes after the war it goes from USSR, US, and UK being the Allies, to US UK and "The West" as the Allies and the USSR as "The East".

I mean how the Allies INSISTED on keeping the country together (or in two halves, as it were) after the war. They should have pulled out immediately and let the country go to chaos. It would have sorted itself out as hundreds of small warlord states soon enough.
What gave you the impression that it was going to go to chaos?

So, whats your deal, bro? Are you retarded, looking for an arguement, or just plan uninformed?

B.

when you have more than 100000 killed.. you cannot longer call it "sporadic"..


spo·rad·ic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sp-rdk, spô-) also spo·rad·i·cal (--kl)
adj.
1. Occurring at irregular intervals; having no pattern or order in time.


Hmm, nope under the first definition of the word it is actually exactly what I was aiming for. I don't see any quantitative value in there at all.

What gave you the impression that it was going to go to chaos?

After WWI, that's what happened, and Germany wasn't even invaded. Logically, it should have been a million times worse after WWII.

What, the nation? It was engineered by Bismarck's Prussia.
So why keep bringing up the Allies?

Because the Soviets would have invaded and it would have given the Soviet Union a strong foothold into central/western Europe.

Oh, so you Americans needed Germany to take the fall for you, huh? If we had never come up with the fascist period then Europe would have been conquered by the Soviets? Hmm, but you never tell your kids THAT in school.

B.

Ah, ok. Well then heres a little tip, argue something more logical, maybe? Aviod from topics such as, Germany isnt a real country, it was engineered by the west, Germans arent a real group of people, or my personal favorite so far, how you want another holocaust to happen so that your will be relieved of your burdern of being ze evil Germans.

So why keep bringing up the Allies?

Because although Bismarck put it together, the Allies KEPT it together. Despite the fact that the German experiment had obviously failed, and continues to fail.

I never got why they called it Germany, why didn't the just call it Prussia? I mean it was Prussia that drove the unification effort.

While Prussia was the driving force in the North of Germany the southern states voluntarily joined the Reich, this status was confirmed especially in Bavaria in the fact that Bayern kept its flag, postal service and its own army!!..there would be no way that the Catholic south would have accepted a greater Prussia.

Oh, so you Americans needed Germany to take the fall for you, huh? If we had never come up with the fascist period then Europe would have been conquered by the Soviets? Hmm, but you never tell your kids THAT in school.

First of all, what the hell do you mean "we", your an Aussie....:rolleyes:

Second of all the USSR was around before Nazi Germany.....so I think one of us might be missing something here....:rolleyes:

Hitler-6 million Jews
Stalin-10 million Russians
USA7+ million Native Americans

Victors write history.
If you want to do Imperial-era massacres, your forgetting a few.
Gosh, like the SPANISH, maybe?
The US only almost wiped out one civilization, the Spanish cleared out two and the remains of another (the Aztec and Incans, and the remains of the Mayan civilization), and THAT was just in South America.
The British werent exactly sparkly clean themselves.
Hell, most European nations have SOME kind of ethnic/racially based massacre/war/genocide on their hands. Y'see, back in the 15-1800's (and about fourty years into the 1900's) we had this thing called an 'age of Imperialism' where people took over other countries and often tried to impose their culture or exploit the natives in not-very-nice ways, y'see, people werent what you would call 'culturaly sensitive' back then, meaning they basically went to the cheif, emperor, king, or whatever and said 'Look, adopt or religion, culture and customs or we kill you, oh, and you have smallpox now, sorry.', at which point they would take anything of value, leave a few guards and head off to the next island.
You know the British Museum? Yeah, the one with all those statues and things in it.
Yes, the one with several thosand important artifacts, a few dozen of which were legitimatly obtained.

End Rant :P

While Prussia was the driving force in the North of Germany the southern states voluntarily joined the Reich, this status was confirmed especially in Bavaria in the fact that Bayern kept its flag, postal service and its own army!!..there would be no way that the Catholic south would have accepted a greater Prussia.
Even if Prussia was the greater state :p

I beleive the reason as to why it was called "The holocaust" was because it was part of the second 'world' war, in which many nations were involved.
The gennocide which takes place in other countries, such as with Stalin, Mao etc are within the boarders of that country. Whereas it was only during the second war that the Nazi's decided to resort to the "final solution" roughly june 1942, in which the "undesirables" were killed. Not just jews.

Also, all of the nations of the world may not have been involved within the second world war, but they were part of the aftermath of the first world war, in which Germany signed the Treaty of Versailles, which it broke, many times over, and also the genever convention which it also broke (as it was a country that had signed it.)

If you want to do Imperial-era massacres, your forgetting a few.
Gosh, like the SPANISH, maybe?
The US only almost wiped out one civilization, the Spanish cleared out two and the remains of another (the Aztec and Incans, and the remains of the Mayan civilization), and THAT was just in South America.
The British werent exactly sparkly clean themselves.
Hell, most European nations have SOME kind of ethnic/racially based massacre/war/genocide on their hands. Y'see, back in the 15-1800's (and about fourty years into the 1900's) we had this thing called an 'age of Imperialism' where people took over other countries and often tried to impose their culture or exploit the natives in not-very-nice ways, y'see, people werent what you would call 'culturaly sensitive' back then, meaning they basically went to the cheif, emperor, king, or whatever and said 'Look, adopt or religion, culture and customs or we kill you, oh, and you have smallpox now, sorry.', at which point they would take anything of value, leave a few guards and head off to the next island.
You know the British Museum? Yeah, the one with all those statues and things in it.
Yes, the one with several thosand important artifacts, a few dozen of which were legitimatly obtained.

End Rant :P
You forgot Turkey and a host of other nations.

Even if Prussia was the greater state :p

Yeah, Prussia could kick Bavaria's ass any day.

After WWI, that's what happened, and Germany wasn't even invaded. Logically, it should have been a million times worse after WWII.
Logically, it would be a million times worse after WWII if the German people had revolted, like they did in 1918, before the end of WWI. They didn't revolt, and there was no chaos. There was no chance of the "logical" chaos that you refer to.

Because although Bismarck put it together, the Allies KEPT it together. Despite the fact that the German experiment had obviously failed, and continues to fail.
Wow, you have a complete misunderstanding of history. Time to invest in an encyclopedia.

Wow, you have a complete misunderstanding of history. Time to invest in an encyclopedia.
I wish he could show how it failed :p Imperial Germany, at least before WW 1, was anything but a failure.

You forgot Turkey and a host of other nations.
I was focusing on Europe, I tend to do it sometimes :P
But yes, MOST nations have some sort of massacre or general unpleasantness based on race, religion, nationality, etc. If somebody can find a nation with a spotless record that wasnt created in the last hundred years and has a population of more than 10,000, and isnt surrounded by a larger state or two, then you move there.

Yeah, Prussia could kick Bavaria's ass any day.
And Bavaria knew it :p

I was focusing on Europe, I tend to do it sometimes :P
But yes, MOST nations have some sort of massacre or general unpleasantness based on race, religion, nationality, etc. If somebody can find a nation with a spotless record that wasnt created in the last hundred years and has a population of more than 10,000, and isnt surrounded by a larger state or two, then you move there.

hmmm.....Iceland? how about Finland? What about Portugal?

I wish he could show how it failed :p Imperial Germany, at least before WW 1, was anything but a failure.

Nothing happened between 1871 and 1914. But in WWI they proved that the entire nation was hopeless.

and also the genever convention which it also broke (as it was a country that had signed it.)The Geneva convention was broken by both sides...

I spell Honesty with a capital H

I was focusing on Europe, I tend to do it sometimes :P
But yes, MOST nations have some sort of massacre or general unpleasantness based on race, religion, nationality, etc. If somebody can find a nation with a spotless record that wasnt created in the last hundred years and has a population of more than 10,000, and isnt surrounded by a larger state or two, then you move there.
The difference being that many of Turkey's massacres and genocides took place recently. Much like those committed by Nazi Germany or the USSR or any other nation with similar records in the previous century. In such cases, its worth examining the actions of these other nations.

Nothing happened between 1871 and 1914. But in WWI they proved that the entire nation was hopeless.
Nonsense. It merely bit off more than it could chew. Taking on four superpowers at once was daft (the UK, France, Russia and the USA?).

Nothing happened between 1871 and 1914. But in WWI they proved that the entire nation was hopeless.
How did they prove that?

Nothing happened between 1871 and 1914. But in WWI they proved that the entire nation was hopeless.

Alright, thats enough. I'm strapping the daddy pants on and telling you to pipe down. Enough blabbering, its getting old. This is the way I look at it, your either very uninformed, or just a complete annoying jerk. In both cases, stop.

Nothing happened between 1871 and 1914. But in WWI they proved that the entire nation was hopeless.
In 1918, the German people replaced the German Empire with the Weimar Republic through revolution. This was not an example of Germany falling apart; the war had already been going for four years, and would be over in one. Please, invest in an encyclopedia, and do some reading! :headbang:

The Geneva convention was broken by both sides...

I spell Honesty with a capital H

Yes, it was broken by both sides. But the Allies won. And there's no one to punish the victors of battle, no matter what crimes they have comitted.
Otherwise war itself would be a crime, would it not?

Yes, it was broken by both sides. But the Allies won. And there's no one to punish the victors of battle, no matter what crimes they have comitted.
Otherwise war itself would be a crime, would it not?

Unless the victors inflicted punishment on themselves, which they did not.

Because although Bismarck put it together, the Allies KEPT it together. Despite the fact that the German experiment had obviously failed, and continues to fail.

Are we talking about the same Germany?

The Germany I know has a very high living standard, a good economy, many well educated people, a democratic government, many freedoms and rights for its people. The Germans I know are living in peace and prosperity.

So how exactly did Germany fail?

Unless the victors inflicted punishment on themselves, which they did not.

Why would they do that though?
They won the war, which is undoubtedly what they set out to do, and any western centre or right government would not punish themselves. Even if they broke their own laws, as they would claim it to be justifiable.

Not only that, but after war, they wouldnt be concenred with moralistic issues, but would be much more concerned with restoring the economy, after it being crippled by war, which in the case of the 'second world war', it did.

hmmm.....Iceland? how about Finland? What about Portugal?
Iceland was owned by Denmark until recently (granted home rule in 1904), Finland was part of Sweden and occasionaly Russia until 1917, that and it has a record with Slavs and Swedes (Finns didnt like them and took the oppurtunity to 'put the boot in' when they got it, although this was rare simply because theyre sort of like the Poland of Northern Europe up until the 40's, and PORTUGAL was the second largest colonizer after Spain for some time.

Are we talking about the same Germany?

The Germany I know has a very high living standard, a good economy, many well educated people, a democratic government, many freedoms and rights for its people. The Germans I know are living in peace and prosperity.

So how exactly did Germany fail?

Are you talking about Weimar Germany, or pre 1914 germany?

Because Weimar Germany, as hopeful as it was, and although makeing way to many radical social awakenings, widened the gap between the rich and the poor, leaveing the poor in even more poverty than before.

Why would they do that though?
They won the war, which is undoubtedly what they set out to do, and any western centre or right government would not punish themselves. Even if they broke their own laws, as they would claim it to be justifiable.

Not only that, but after war, they wouldnt be concenred with moralistic issues, but would be much more concerned with restoring the economy, after it being crippled by war, which in the case of the 'second world war', it did.
I never said otherwise. I just merely implied the possibility of such a thing happening, however remote it may seem (and probably is).

Are you talking about Weimar Germany, or pre 1914 germany?

Because Weimar Germany, as hopeful as it was, and although makeing way to many radical social awakenings, widened the gap between the rich and the poor, leaveing the poor in even more poverty than before.

Was talking about Germany post 1945 :)

Are you talking about Weimar Germany, or pre 1914 germany?

Because Weimar Germany, as hopeful as it was, and although makeing way to many radical social awakenings, widened the gap between the rich and the poor, leaveing the poor in even more poverty than before.
I think he is referring to the 2nd Reich and modern Germany, more specifically the second. The Weimar Republic was a failed experiment of democracy, not of German unity.

I never said otherwise. I just merely implied the possibility of such a thing happening, however remote it may seem (and probably is).

Well I agree with you. In an ideal situation (If war were unavoidable, even in passifism <sp?>) then all sides would answer for "crimes against humanity" as it were.

Then again, in an ideal situation, there would be no war, nor a need for war.

Iceland was owned by Denmark until recently (granted home rule in 1904), Finland was part of Sweden and occasionaly Russia until 1917, that and it has a record with Slavs and Swedes (Finns didnt like them and took the oppurtunity to 'put the boot in' when they got it, although this was rare simply because theyre sort of like the Poland of Northern Europe up until the 40's, and PORTUGAL was the second largest colonizer after Spain for some time.

I never knew that Iceland was owned by Denmark. I always thought that Denmark owned Greenland, but even so, Denmark has a fairly clean record. I mean, they even helped Jews get out of Germany back in the Nazi days.
Finland was sort of taken by Russia and Sweden, but that did not mean that Finland itself commited any of the crimes that Russia did. As for Portugal, well, I know that they were a huge colonizer, but I have never heard of them actually slaughtering natives of the places they colonized, unlike the Spanish.

Even if Prussia was the greater state :p

maybe true but Bayern is still around, wheres Preussen now!

Well I agree with you. In an ideal situation (If war were unavoidable, even in passifism <sp?>) then all sides would answer for "crimes against humanity" as it were.

Then again, in an ideal situation, there would be no war, nor a need for war.
Pacifism. :) There is no such thing as an ideal world, sadly.

maybe true but Bayern is still around, wheres Preussen now!
Meh details! :p I was referring to the Second Reich.

Are we talking about the same Germany?

The Germany I know has a very high living standard, a good economy, many well educated people, a democratic government, many freedoms and rights for its people. The Germans I know are living in peace and prosperity.

So how exactly did Germany fail?

It's a coward nation. People call France cowardly, but at least they have a real army.

Meh details! :p I was referring to the Second Reich.

And wheres the second reich!!

maybe true but Bayern is still around, wheres Preussen now!

Well theres some in Brandenburg, theres a little around Danzig, there still Prussias capital, Berlin, but most importantly, Prussia is still around in the viens of the people whos families lived in Prussia.

It's a coward nation. People call France cowardly, but at least they have a real army.

Pretty good at throwing out shite comments, have you recieved an education of any sorts??

And wheres the second reich!!
Forever alive! In textbooks and people's memories :p Still, the argument revolved around why wasn't Germany named Prussia, so it was specific to the Second Reich ;)

It's a coward nation. People call France cowardly, but at least they have a real army.

And they havnt used it well since the good old days of Bonaparte....

And, the only reason Germany isnt allowed a real army, is because they used it too well and almost beat us. Same goes with Japan, so are you gonna tell us that Japan isnt a real country?

Was talking about Germany post 1945 :)

Ohh, I see.
No no, post 1945 (Western) Germany did better than we did here, despite it's reperations (we did have our own though, which are still unpaied) it was able to end rationing before the UK, and also implament a stable national welfare system and did rather well from both a social and economic sense (in relative terms.) My knownledge of the East isnt that good, but after it's re-unification in 1989, Germany has continued to do well economicaly speaking, haveing one of the top 6 world economies i beleive.

In my opinion, the only downfall to speak of about Modern Germany, is that it's part of the capitalist centre right western society that we exist in today.

It's a coward nation. People call France cowardly, but at least they have a real army.
What's a real army (as opposed to an 'army'), and how would it turn a 'coward nation' into <whatever it is you seem to envision>? By using it? To do what?

And they havnt used it well since the good old days of Bonaparte....

And, the only reason Germany isnt allowed a real army, is because they used it too well and almost beat us. Same goes with Japan, so are you gonna tell us that Japan isnt a real country?
Too true :p What if the next nation to commit such atrocities is neither of those two, but rather some entirely separate nation? Gee, I can see why depriving either nation of a real army will prevent any other nation from repeating their crimes in the future :rolleyes:

Well, i have not read through the thread and do not know if any one brought this up, but I am anyway. There are many renaissances, but only is the renaissance starting in Italy and spreading to the rest of Europe is called The Renaissance. Also, there are many civil wars, in many nations other than the united states, and atleast only in the united states, on the confederate vs the union is called The Civil War.
I would say it is THE holocaust because it was the first genocide and killings to this degree the world has seen. and of another people, it was the germans killing jews etc not russians killing russians etc.

It's a coward nation. People call France cowardly, but at least they have a real army.

Congratulations Kievan-Prussia!
For your posts in this thread (not just this post) I award you Nowoland's "Troll of the Year"-Award for a maximum amount of trollish posts in a minimum of time in the same thread.

You are also shortlisted for the Ignoramus-Award, rewarded for posting without having a clue.

:D

Ohh, I see.
No no, post 1945 (Western) Germany did better than we did here, despite it's reperations (we did have our own though, which are still unpaied) it was able to end rationing before the UK, and also implament a stable national welfare system and did rather well from both a social and economic sense (in relative terms.) My knownledge of the East isnt that good, but after it's re-unification in 1989, Germany has continued to do well economicaly speaking, haveing one of the top 6 world economies i beleive.

In my opinion, the only downfall to speak of about Modern Germany, is that it's part of the capitalist centre right western society that we exist in today.

Germany is actually the 3rd biggest economy in the world, Japan being the 2nd and and stripes and stars being the 1st.

Ha! Centre right!? Man, I think Germany and most European states could do with becoming a little MORE socially/economically conservative, I dont think Germany is right at all, maybe centre left.

Well, i have not read through the thread and do not know if any one brought this up, but I am anyway. There are many renaissances, but only is the renaissance starting in Italy and spreading to the rest of Europe is called The Renaissance. Also, there are many civil wars, in many nations other than the united states, and atleast only in the united states, on the confederate vs the union is called The Civil War.
I would say it is THE holocaust because it was the first genocide and killings to this degree the world has seen. and of another people, it was the germans killing jews etc not russians killing russians etc.


Just to make a point.... You can be a German jew.
Which the "Nazi's" did relocate to wherever.... (Not all germans were Nazis)

Well theres some in Brandenburg, theres a little around Danzig, there still Prussias capital, Berlin, but most importantly, Prussia is still around in the viens of the people whos families lived in Prussia.

Yes there is Brandenburg and Berlin but neither are actually Prussia, theres is nothing around Danzig as it is now very much polish and is called G'dansk and in fact the traditional prussian capital was Koenigsberg not Berlin, now called Kaliningrad and very much a russian city.

As for Prussian blood i think you will find that the Brandenburgers are exactly that Bradenburgers (with origins in the older Ascanian colonies), Prussian blood as such would refer to the Germans (with varying admixtures of Slavic blood) leaving in what was Silesia, West and East Prussia and to the now extinct baltic people who left there name to the most eastern of the German nations, many of whom fled to the devided germany after the war and were scattered across both post war German republics, in comparison Bayern has retained its populace,territory,dialect and culture.

I am in Berlin at the moment and there is now way you could describe it as a 'Prussian' city, not anymore.

And, the only reason Germany isnt allowed a real army,
That is no longer true. Germany simply doesn't need a bigger army (what for anyway) nor does it want one. In fact Rumsfeld was quite angry that the new German minister for defence refused to increase the military budget.

I would say it is THE holocaust because it was the first genocide and killings to this degree the world has seen. and of another people, it was the germans killing jews etc not russians killing russians etc.
Turkey was at it before Germany even thought of it :p

Germany is actually the 3rd biggest economy in the world, Japan being the 2nd and and stripes and stars being the 1st.

Ha! Centre right!? Man, I think Germany and most European states could do with becoming a little MORE socially/economically conservative, I dont think Germany is right at all, maybe centre left.

You are kidding me if you think that Germany is left of centre.... Really...

And do you honestly think that people benefit from counteries actualy being conservative? With their ignoring of people who are unemployed, or less well off, and only representing the rich land owners....

Turkey was at it before Germany even thought of it :p
thats true, i remember reading a speech by Hitler were he used the Armenia genocide as an example of what you can get away with.

Too true :p What if the next nation to commit such atrocities is neither of those two, but rather some entirely separate nation? Gee, I can see why depriving either nation of a real army will prevent any other nation from repeating their crimes in the future :rolleyes:

Well, I could understand the restrictions until they made an effort to westernize and change their countries around, but yeah, they have done that. I mean I think Japan should be allowed to have their army back. They are one of our greatest allies, have totally changed their country 180 degrees since WWII, and are forever a different people. I beleive its the same with Germany and the Germans, although admittidly, I do beleive that Japan changed more than Germany did. However, I beleive that Germany has seen the the error in its ways, has truley changed, and should not be treated like a criminal out on parole. On second note I would just like to say, I would like to see Germany stop being such a pussy. They are so afraid of their conservative past that they dont want to do anything that they think might reflect on it, even if it doesnt.

You are kidding me if you think that Germany is left of centre.... Really...

And do you honestly think that people benefit from counteries actualy being conservative? With their ignoring of people who are unemployed, or less well off, and only representing the rich land owners....

The second part is just left wing bullshit, but to "And do you honestly think that people benefit from counteries actualy being conservative?" I will say, uh, YEAH.