NationStates Jolt Archive

After getting into a heated debate in Should the US defend Israel, I decided to make a whole new topic in here just for the holocaust debate.

Is the Holocaust real(like normal people believe) or is it some evil alien conspiracy by the evil demon people living in the center of the earth(or quite frankly, do you deny the Holocaust for any reason?)

I would like to see the proof by Holocaust revisionists that the holocaust did not happen

I already prooved that the holocaust DID exist with pictures of documents containing information about gas chambers. Not to mention the pictures of hundreds of dead bodies, witness accounts, and among other things.

I already prooved that the holocaust DID exist with pictures of documents containing information about gas chambers. Not to mention the pictures of hundreds of dead bodies, witness accounts, and among other things.
Arguing with Holocaust revisionists is like arguing with a brick wall. Nothing ever gets done :headbang:

Holocaust. It happened. I'm not in denial. Get used to the fact.

Arguing with Holocaust revisionists is like arguing with a brick wall. Nothing ever gets done :headbang:

And this is different from every-day life how? :p

Anyone who selects the 2nd or 3rd choices needs to see me face to face so I can deck their anti-semitic ass.

The Jewish population is still short of pre-Holocaust levels because of what those German Nazi fuckers did. The Polish, Russian, Dutch and French weren't much better. Only Sweden and Denmark are 100% clean in my opinion. They took every effort to save their Jewish populations. The rest of Europe can rot in hell for their role in the Holocaust. Even Britain is guilty for issuing the White Paper condemning millions to death.

If you are wondering why I harbor such hate, it has to do with the fact members of my family were there. Fuck Germany. I refuse to forgive that nation. The German people were very much responsible for the Holocaust. They would accept money from Jews as payment for harboring them, and as soon as they were paid they would turn them over to the SS for another payment.

It's as likely as my own conception.

Is that likely? I don't know. Possibly.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/20/AR2006022000151_pf.html

You can start with this asshat.

I've been to Auschwitz. You can see the gas chambers yourself. Either you're fucking blind, or you deliberately are delighted that the Holocaust happened, and you want to conceal the crime.

VIENNA, Austria -- Right-wing British historian David Irving was sentenced to three years in prison Monday after admitting to an Austrian court that he denied the Holocaust _ a crime in the country where Hitler was born.

Irving, who pleaded guilty and then insisted during his one-day trial that he now acknowledged the Nazis' World War II slaughter of 6 million Jews, had faced up to 10 years behind bars. Before the verdict, Irving conceded he had erred in contending there were no gas chambers at the Auschwitz concentration camp.

"I made a mistake when I said there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz," Irving testified, at one point expressing sorrow "for all the innocent people who died during the Second World War."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/20/AR2006022000151_pf.html

You can start with this asshat.

I've been to Auschwitz. You can see the gas chambers yourself. Either you're fucking blind, or you deliberately are delighted that the Holocaust happened, and you want to conceal the crime.
You hit the nail on the head. I wonder which group the majority of the Muslims in the Middle East fit into. (I guess the former)

This seems hostile to anyone who question anything about any part of "the holocuast" Is true its against the law to question it in parts of Europe.

You can start with this asshat.

I've been to Auschwitz. You can see the gas chambers yourself. Either you're fucking blind, or you deliberately are delighted that the Holocaust happened, and you want to conceal the crime.
Hey, here's a bright idea for all the Holocaust deniers. If they're so vocal and damn adamant about their f***ing belief let's send the whole lot of them to Germany and Austria where they can mouth off about how it never happened*

*And then get busted by the police

I admit I dislike Israel, but that doesn't really have anything to do with the topic here..

I was shocked when I heard the amount of teenagers that don't believe in the Holocaust or believe it's been exaggerated. How can people forget so soon? Especially in central Europe.. I mean, my home country lost a total of six jews in the holocaust, so it hardly touched us, but still we don't think it's been exaggerated or anything.

Yes, it did happen. Yes, it was one of the most horrible things in the history of mankind. Yes, you must tell your children about it.

Which one?

Anyone who selects the 2nd or 3rd choices needs to see me face to face so I can deck their anti-semitic ass.

The Jewish population is still short of pre-Holocaust levels because of what those German Nazi fuckers did. The Polish, Russian, Dutch and French weren't much better. Only Sweden and Denmark are 100% clean in my opinion. They took every effort to save their Jewish populations. The rest of Europe can rot in hell for their role in the Holocaust. Even Britain is guilty for issuing the White Paper condemning millions to death.

If you are wondering why I harbor such hate, it has to do with the fact members of my family were there. Fuck Germany. I refuse to forgive that nation. The German people were very much responsible for the Holocaust. They would accept money from Jews as payment for harboring them, and as soon as they were paid they would turn them over to the SS for another payment.

I'm German, and you can't harbour hate against Germans.

It was the "Nazis" who did it, not the Germans. Nazism is a belief, not a race. There were french nazis, british nazis, canadian nazis, russian nazis, romanian nazis, and so on.

And my family was part of it as well, though they were on the opposite side(they were drafted I believe, the ones alive today show no hatred whatsoever to the Jewish people, and if you read my Should the US defend Israel topic, you will see that I vividly defend the Jewish people with all my might. Please look at it)

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=469586

Firstly: I am not a Holocaust denier. At all. I believe 5.6 million Jews, in total about 11 million people, died. However, I don't think you're presenting a very good case.

Is the Holocaust real(like normal people believe) or is it some evil alien conspiracy by the evil demon people living in the center of the earth(or quite frankly, do you deny the Holocaust for any reason?)
Completely ridiculous misrepresentation. 'normal people'? Come on.

I already prooved that the holocaust DID exist with pictures of documents containing information about gas chambers. Not to mention the pictures of hundreds of dead bodies, witness accounts, and among other things.
No you didn't. You presented evidence that the Holocaust occurred. You cannot 'prove' a historical event happened, especially without any kind of definition of 'prove' means.

For the record, I don't debate deniers. Nor did Lipstadt: she feels it implies they're worthy of debating, which they are not. I would agree with that point. Don't glorify their ridiculous assumptions with the oxygen of publicity.

Denying the Holocaust ranks with maintaining the existence of a flat earth in absurdity and ignorance, and far oversteps such insane delusions in terms of moral repugnance.

I admit I dislike Israel, but that doesn't really have anything to do with the topic here..

I was shocked when I heard the amount of teenagers that don't believe in the Holocaust or believe it's been exaggerated. How can people forget so soon? Especially in central Europe.. I mean, my home country lost a total of six jews in the holocaust, so it hardly touched us, but still we don't think it's been exaggerated or anything.

Yes, it did happen. Yes, it was one of the most horrible things in the history of mankind. Yes, you must tell your children about it.
They deny it because they harbor anti-semitic feelings. Anti-semitism isn't dead in Europe, it's just in hiding like it was in early 20th century Germany and Napoleonic France. It came back to France with the framing of Dreyfus and the ensuing riots, and we all know how it came back with Germany. It will come back again in Europe. And people wonder why I hate Germany and any other nation that's citizens aided the Nazis.

Which one?
Well, some people don't count the Irish Famine, which was deliberate.

They deny it because they harbor anti-semitic feelings. Anti-semitism isn't dead in Europe, it's just in hiding like it was in early 20th century Germany and Napoleonic France. It came back to France with the framing of Dreyfus and the ensuing riots, and we all know how it came back with Germany. It will come back again in Europe. And people wonder why I hate Germany and any other nation that's citizens aided the Nazis.

Do you hate the United States?

I'm German, and you can't harbour hate against Germans.

It was the "Nazis" who did it, not the Germans. Nazism is a belief, not a race. There were french nazis, british nazis, canadian nazis, russian nazis, romanian nazis, and so on.

And my family was part of it as well, though they were on the opposite side(they were drafted I believe, the ones alive today show no hatred whatsoever to the Jewish people, and if you read my Should the US defend Israel topic, you will see that I vividly defend the Jewish people with all my might. Please look at it)

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=469586
The fact is the vast majority of Germans in WWII supported the Holocaust or at the very least allowed it to happen. THey are just as guilty as the SS officers who committed the murder. Read "Hitler's Willing Executioners" to see how the German people helped. THey won't teach you that in your history class.

I believe it was over-exagerated.

Starvation, over-working and diseases where the main causes of death.
Not gigantic industrial killingmachines.

I've been to aushwitz. The gas-chamber there is a reconstruction made by the russians. It has some clear faults like, no sealed doors and such.
The russians also had theories that the nazis murdered by electricity thru an electrified floor in a room.

I believe that enemies of the german state where treated poorly and that many suffered and died.


If everything said is true, then why is even questioning it a crime in many countries?
Why have historians themselves revisioned things like number of dead and what camps where murder camps.


IDF:
Why is Sweden so good? We let germany march thru our country.
The jewish-passes was not even a Nazi invention, it was a Swedish one.

No, they didn't really land on the moon.

Oops, sorry, wrong cliche.

Well, some people don't count the Irish Famine, which was deliberate.
Well, I was thinking more of the massacre of the Jews in London at the coronation of King Richard I in 1189, which was the 'original' Holocaust. Richard of Devizes even coined the word "holocaust" to describe it.

The fact is the vast majority of Germans in WWII supported the Holocaust or at the very least allowed it to happen. THey are just as guilty as the SS officers who committed the murder. Read "Hitler's Willing Executioners" to see how the German people helped. THey won't teach you that in your history class.
Do you think Mỹ Lai is indicative of ingrained anti-Asiatism in America, then? That the massacres of the Peninsula war showed the British were inherently anti-Spanish? Goldhagen's book is good, and I agree with some of his analysis, but I feel he takes it too far, and I certainly think it's ridiculous to smear all Germans for the Holocaust.

IDF i feel your response to the holocaust is exactly the kind of response that triggers things like the holocaust, for you to say that all germans deserve to rot in hell or whatever thats like saying exactly the same thing as saying all jews should not be forgiven for whatever theyve committed.

its a very narrow view you had, and dont forget its not the current generation that committed the holocaust but it was the previous generation, i feel it was about time the holocaust was dropped and not have it baught up every year.

so many people only take on a tiny perspective on history,they get taught the text book holocaust and not anyhting else, only the inners of war are aloud to write history, and many neglect the losers side, i bet hardly a single person on NS would even dare read mien kampf, despite it holds many of the core reasons for the nazi parties actions!

give the germans a break!

The fact is the vast majority of Germans in WWII supported the Holocaust or at the very least allowed it to happen. THey are just as guilty as the SS officers who committed the murder. Read "Hitler's Willing Executioners" to see how the German people helped. THey won't teach you that in your history class.

Only 30% or so voted for Hitler, and considering it was a time in history which was difficult for all people(depression) - people were looking for a quick way out.

And do you think every single German supported Hitler? Because that is just ridicolous, and you harbouring hate for no specific reason is just as bad as racism. Most Germans who did not support Hitler ACTUALLY warned the British beforehand that Hitler was up to something(and no one listened).

Plus all those who did not follow Hitler were executed or taken away to political prisons. You are forgetting that not just jews died in Concentration camps. Many Germans died in there as well because they were gay, or christian, or a socialist.

Is the Holocaust real (like normal people believe) or is it some evil alien conspiracy by the evil demon people living in the center of the earth (or quite frankly, do you deny the Holocaust for any reason?)
I suspect a better question might be, "do you believe, based on the available evidence, that the Holocaust was a real event?" To which question no thinking, marginally rational individual can respond in the negative. Especially after a visit to the Holocaust Museum (http://www.ushmm.org/) in Washington, DC. ( Some great articles about genocide all over the world on this site too, such as Darfur and Sudan ). Near the end of our visit a few years ago, both my wife and I were in tears.

Anyone who denies the fact of the Holocaust has some agenda ( whether hidden or not ) they want to push.

While attempting to be as informed as possible, I went to a website for a Holocaust denial group.

Their evidence is complete bullshit.

Thier major claim is that even though "6 million jews died, it couldn't have happened because the jew population went up."

Of course it could. Other places make up the defecit.

The fact is the vast majority of Germans in WWII supported the Holocaust or at the very least allowed it to happen. THey are just as guilty as the SS officers who committed the murder. Read "Hitler's Willing Executioners" to see how the German people helped. THey won't teach you that in your history class.

Geez, IDF, you really jump to conclusions from a single source.

Consider these following counter-arguements:

1. "German people took money to hide jews then turned them over."

- I'm sure there's a statistic for the number that did that, certainly. Maybe they freaked out, maybe they did it on purpose. People are bastards, this applies to everyone.

2. "Germans supported the Nazi Party and the holocaust."

- Today is a different world. Back then a lot of other countries oppressed the Jews. And it wasn't just the Jews. The Slavs got considerable stick too, along with countless others. It might be because modern education is more sophisticated, but people don't tend to take such harsh views these days. And its also kinda hard standing up to a facist government.

3. "The rest of Europe didn't care, except Sweden."

- That's because Sweden tends to be nice to everyone (and I mean that in the kindest way). All the other countries were just being as apathetic of racial discrimination as was typical of the time.

I'm sorry to hear you lost relatives due to this, but to condemn an entire nation for Hitler's dirty work would make you no different from them.

I suspect a better question might be, "do you believe, based on the available evidence, that the Holocaust was a real event?" To which question no thinking, marginally rational individual can respond in the negative. Especially after a visit to the Holocaust Museum (http://www.ushmm.org/) in Washington, DC. ( Some great articles about genocide all over the world on this site too, such as Darfur and Sudan ). Near the end of our visit a few years ago, both my wife and I were in tears.

Anyone who denies the fact of the Holocaust has some agenda ( whether hidden or not ) they want to push.

Of course you where in tears, it's the whole point. It's like watching animal rights pages on the net. It keeps people from questioning things by going straight to their feelings.

So anyone who questions the holocaust is a Nazi?
Is that your opinion or have you been thaught it tru media?

I am of the view that it happened, yet is often exaggerated. Thank God for revisionist historians. I do not sympathise with those who attempt to blow numbers out of proportion and distort History.

somebody stated that socialists were also killed in the holocaust?

wait a minute here wasnt the nazi party socialist? as in the nazi working mens party? as in Adolf Hitlers party?

somebody stated that socialists were also killed in the holocaust?

wait a minute here wasnt the nazi party socialist? as in the nazi working mens party? as in Adolf Hitlers party?

No. Hitler despised Socialism.

So-called "National Socialism" violates several core principles of Socialism, among them:
1. Internationalism
2. Egalitarianism
3. Democracy
4. Class-based politics

somebody stated that socialists were also killed in the holocaust?

wait a minute here wasnt the nazi party socialist? as in the nazi working mens party? as in Adolf Hitlers party?
It was Nationalist Socialist. Essentially, it was ideologically opposed to both Communism and Socialism.

3. "The rest of Europe didn't care, except Sweden."

- That's because Sweden tends to be nice to everyone (and I mean that in the kindest way). All the other countries were just being as apathetic of racial discrimination as was typical of the time.

I'm sorry to hear you lost relatives due to this, but to condemn an entire nation for Hitler's dirty work would make you no different from them.

I agree with you all the way except this.

Sweden was one of the major countries that had racial studies.
We had an entire university doing such studies.
We sterilised people that where considered not capable of rearing children.
Like gypsies(sp?) and handicaped.
We did so up to the 60-70s

Nice and friendly, the socialist state always knowing whats best.
I guess I should be glad this wasn't soviet russia.
With the gulags and the 30-50 million dead that they managed.

somebody stated that socialists were also killed in the holocaust?

wait a minute here wasnt the nazi party socialist? as in the nazi working mens party? as in Adolf Hitlers party?
Herr Hitler hated pretty much everybody who wasn't "white, Aryan and Nazi." He referred to Americans as "mongrels," which he considered an insult. I consider it a high compliment. Mutts iz da best! :D

The Holocaust happened, and millions of innocent people died. The Nazis wanted everyone put in to those camps to die at some point or another, and they made sure that overwork, starvation, or disease would finish off those they did not deliberately execute.

There were no "labor camps", they were all "death camps" because no one was intended to leave them alive, even if they were to work to death as a means to the same end...the Holocaust is one of the most terrible and chilling monuments to evil and the human capacity for hatred in the world's history.

Denying it is reprehensible and below contempt.

I definatly think that the holocost happened.

I suspect a better question might be, "do you believe, based on the available evidence, that the Holocaust was a real event?" To which question no thinking, marginally rational individual can respond in the negative. Especially after a visit to the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC. ( Some great articles about genocide all over the world on this site too, such as Darfur and Sudan ). Near the end of our visit a few years ago, both my wife and I were in tears.

I went to another Holocaust Museum. However, when I went through it I was so full of anger and hatred I couldn't even cry. I hated the Nazis and the Germans who alowed them to get away with it.



Anyone who selects the 2nd or 3rd choices needs to see me face to face so I can deck their anti-semitic ass.

The Jewish population is still short of pre-Holocaust levels because of what those German Nazi fuckers did. The Polish, Russian, Dutch and French weren't much better. Only Sweden and Denmark are 100% clean in my opinion. They took every effort to save their Jewish populations. The rest of Europe can rot in hell for their role in the Holocaust. Even Britain is guilty for issuing the White Paper condemning millions to death.

If you are wondering why I harbor such hate, it has to do with the fact members of my family were there. Fuck Germany. I refuse to forgive that nation. The German people were very much responsible for the Holocaust. They would accept money from Jews as payment for harboring them, and as soon as they were paid they would turn them over to the SS for another payment.



I can understand such harbored hatred (my closest family friends are Jewish), but I agree with many that this is a little bit too far. I knew a German exchange student as a part of a program in my school's german class. I accidently brought up WWII (being completly senseless, and forgot that she was from germany) and she changed some of my opinions. She was ashamed that her ancestors allowed such an act to occur.

I agree with you all the way except this.

Sweden was one of the major countries that had racial studies.
We had an entire university doing such studies.
We sterilised people that where considered not capable of rearing children.
Like gypsies(sp?) and handicaped.
Not that such studies are negative. They may entirely disprove the concept of race, or failing that, they may make important discoveries as to differences between us that can be used in fields such as medicine. Of course, if the aim is to prove racial superiority, that may make them inherently biased. Either way, Science and History must not be stopped.

Well, some people don't count the Irish Famine, which was deliberate.

Uhm - how was it deliberate? Serious question.

From what i've read of the Irish Famine, although you could make a case for saying the famine came about as a result of outsider changes to the agricultural system, you can't compare it to the holocaust. The British have being criticised for not doing enough to relieve the famine, but it wasn't as if they were indifferent and aid was sent. I forget exactly how much - but I remeber it being significant. It's just they didn't view it as a primary priority.

It's not as some IRA sympathisers would like to think, with some evil English scientist in his lab going "Muahahaha! With this new disease, we can cripple our own colony's economy whilst simultaneously wiping out a significant proportion of those bloody bog trotters. I'll call it...blight!"

Herr Hitler hated pretty much everybody who wasn't "white, Aryan and Nazi." He referred to Americans as "mongrels," which he considered an insult. I consider it a high compliment. Mutts iz da best! :D

If I recall correctly he expressed admiration for the excellent job we had done massacring Native Americans and oppressing Blacks.

Later, after the United States took a stronger stance against him, his admiration turned to hatred.

I agree with you all the way except this.

Sweden was one of the major countries that had racial studies.
We had an entire university doing such studies.
We sterilised people that where considered not capable of rearing children.
Like gypsies(sp?) and handicaped.
We did so up to the 60-70s

Nice and friendly, the socialist state always knowing whats best.
I guess I should be glad this wasn't soviet russia.
With the gulags and the 30-50 million dead that they managed.

Well, yeah, when I say friendly, I'm talking on an international level...

somebody stated that socialists were also killed in the holocaust?

wait a minute here wasnt the nazi party socialist? as in the nazi working mens party? as in Adolf Hitlers party?

Socialism and National Socialism are way different.

On the political compass, socialism would be around 1 to 5 points left, and 1 to 5 points down. (So economically, Socialism is 1 - 5 points left, and socially they are 1-5 points down)

National socialism(economically speaking) was in the center. Socially they were 10 points up!(10 is the maximum)

So that's quite a gap between the two.

Nice and friendly, the socialist state always knowing whats best.
I guess I should be glad this wasn't soviet russia.
With the gulags and the 30-50 million dead that they managed.
Stalin made a record on that.

Stalin made a record on that.

Not as bad as communist China, where over 60 million have died.

there is no doubt that the holocaust happened, and that 6 million or more jews and others were killed by teh nazi's during ww2, but it was 60 years ago and not even the worst act of genocide in that era, stalin killed more russians in gulag's, yet people who survived don't seem to complain as much as the jews.
its seems like they are trying to get maximum sympathy and excuses for anything because they lost a family member in the holocaust, which despite many peoples apparant belief does NOT more deserving of anything than anyone else, including sympathy.

The Jewish population is still short of pre-Holocaust levels because of what those German Nazi fuckers did. The Polish, Russian, Dutch and French weren't much better.

Sorry, but this is just bullshit. I mean, the statement that Poles didn't do what they could to save Jewes. Maybe because that in the first days od WW II Poland stopped existing? Because Germans and Russians attacked from both sides? Poles were the third, after Jewes and Romes, population that suffered most casualties due to holocaust and WW in overall. Learn some more history, maybe this will stop you from writing such rubbish.
Preventing the talk about "polish death camps"- these were just built by the nazis on the teritories that previously belonged to Poland.

Sorry for all that, but it just boils my blood when I read such crap. Yes, I'm polish :)

Cheers

Not as bad as communist China, where over 60 million have died.
Well, proportionally Stalin killed more of his compatriots :p

Anyone who selects the 2nd or 3rd choices needs to see me face to face so I can deck their anti-semitic ass.

The Jewish population is still short of pre-Holocaust levels because of what those German Nazi fuckers did. The Polish, Russian, Dutch and French weren't much better. Only Sweden and Denmark are 100% clean in my opinion. They took every effort to save their Jewish populations. The rest of Europe can rot in hell for their role in the Holocaust. Even Britain is guilty for issuing the White Paper condemning millions to death.

If you are wondering why I harbor such hate, it has to do with the fact members of my family were there. Fuck Germany. I refuse to forgive that nation. The German people were very much responsible for the Holocaust. They would accept money from Jews as payment for harboring them, and as soon as they were paid they would turn them over to the SS for another payment.

While I agree that all Nazi's are F###ing bastards, and are all going to Hell, I must remind you that there was a small resistance group who tried to do what ever they could to stop the Nazi's, most didn't survive

Not all Germans where Nazi's, my family had the balls to try and sabotage the Nazi war effort

Ladies and Gentlemen,
I feel the need to say that this should be an issue that can be easily be resolved. I have personally met with survivors of the holocaust, had a close friend that had family that survived it, read numerous accounts both of the event itself and the aftermath, have studied for the last 15 years on the Second World War and everything that occured during it, and submitted 3 research papers on it. The Holocaust happened. It Happened, It was beyond the ability for most people to imagine, and must be remembered. Ask the people who say it didn't why. I can not think of a valid reason to deny this simple piece of History.

Not that such studies are negative. They may entirely disprove the concept of race, or failing that, they may make important discoveries as to differences between us that can be used in fields such as medicine. Of course, if the aim is to prove racial superiority, that may make them inherently biased. Either way, Science and History must not be stopped.

How nice. In Sweden you would be considered a racist.
We have made a 180. Now all people are the same and there are no diferences. Even hinting the obvious is considered wrong and racist.

The old studies where of the kind that sought after what was the purest and best human breed.

Personaly I say that Science and History must never be stoped and the truth can always be questioned. Only the lies fall apart...

Uhm - how was it deliberate? Serious question.

From what i've read of the Irish Famine, although you could make a case for saying the famine came about as a result of outsider changes to the agricultural system, you can't compare it to the holocaust. The British have being criticised for not doing enough to relieve the famine, but it wasn't as if they were indifferent and aid was sent. I forget exactly how much - but I remeber it being significant. It's just they didn't view it as a primary priority.

It's not as some IRA sympathisers would like to think, with some evil English scientist in his lab going "Muahahaha! With this new disease, we can cripple our own colony's economy whilst simultaneously wiping out a significant proportion of those bloody bog trotters. I'll call it...blight!"

The Irish famine happened because the potato crop failed and the brits took all of the other food sources from ireland. During the famine Ireland produced more than enough food to feed its people but England liked their steaks so the irish got none. Ireland at that time had 8 million people now they don't even have 4 million. Around 2 to 3 million irish people were starved by the british during the famine. People did send food to them though, no nation is completely heartless, but on the whole the english were then as most americans are now towards africa, they think its bad over there and i'll give them a few cents but i'm not changing my life too much for them.

comment on the Aryan race thing,is there any concrete evidence to support the claim that Hitler was in the process of creating the Aryan race? i havent found any yet, you see propaganda with pictures of the Aryan race , or the perfect family but theres no evidence! (or at leats i havent found any)

seeing that if the aryan race is blonde haired blue eyed 6'2" or more and well built, then why were most of his high ranking officers not fitting this description?

comment on the Aryan race thing,is there any concrete evidence to support the claim that Hitler was in the process of creating the Aryan race? i havent found any yet, you see propaganda with pictures of the Aryan race , or the perfect family but theres no evidence! (or at leats i havent found any)

seeing that if the aryan race is blonde haired blue eyed 6'2" or more and well built, then why were most of his high ranking officers not fitting this description?
There is a mistake in the term Aryan. It was a name referring to an indo-european group. It was later confused with the German word Ehre, meaning Noble. There is no connexion between Aryanism and the Germanic ethnic group, the latter which Hitler viewed as "Aryan."

While I agree that all Nazi's are F###ing bastards, and are all going to Hell, I must remind you that there was a small resistance group who tried to do what ever they could to stop the Nazi's, most didn't survive

Not all Germans where Nazi's, my family had the balls to try and sabotage the Nazi war effort

Your family was very brave then. I admire that.

comment on the Aryan race thing,is there any concrete evidence to support the claim that Hitler was in the process of creating the Aryan race? i havent found any yet, you see propaganda with pictures of the Aryan race , or the perfect family but theres no evidence! (or at leats i havent found any?

There were the experiments in eugenics; I suppose you could look in to that given the Nazi experiments' goal was to breed a Superman as well as find a way to remove racial and ethnic impurities from the German people.

I deny it. Even if they did kill jews, the Holocaust is nothing but an exaggeration.

I deny it. Even if they did kill jews, the Holocaust is nothing but an exaggeration.
It is hugely exaggerated indeed, although it did happen.

I deny it. Even if they did kill jews, the Holocaust is nothing but an exaggeration.

Of course they killed jews. They where the bleeding enemy.
The question is, how many did they kill and did they just let them starve to death or did they have gigantic killing machines that required manpower better needed in the field?

I suspect a better question might be, "do you believe, based on the available evidence, that the Holocaust was a real event?" To which question no thinking, marginally rational individual can respond in the negative. Especially after a visit to the Holocaust Museum (http://www.ushmm.org/) in Washington, DC. ( Some great articles about genocide all over the world on this site too, such as Darfur and Sudan ). Near the end of our visit a few years ago, both my wife and I were in tears.

Anyone who denies the fact of the Holocaust has some agenda ( whether hidden or not ) they want to push.

I almost got sick after I walked into the box car, how can people do that to each other, and then the shoes got to me, and I couldn't stay in there any more, it made me sick.

The best part was where they showed Jesse Owens Pwning the so called master race. It was even worse having read Maus.

The Irish famine happened because the potato crop failed and the brits took all of the other food sources from ireland. During the famine Ireland produced more than enough food to feed its people but England liked their steaks so the irish got none. Ireland at that time had 8 million people now they don't even have 4 million. Around 2 to 3 million irish people were starved by the british during the famine. People did send food to them though, no nation is completely heartless, but on the whole the english were then as most americans are now towards africa, they think its bad over there and i'll give them a few cents but i'm not changing my life too much for them.

Exactly - I'll concede that Britain wasn't exactly noble in their handling of the famine, but calling it a 'deliberate holocaust' is far too extreme. If you want to call that a holocaust, then every rich nation that has unfair trading practices with the third world are also committing a 'deliberate holocaust'.

comment on the Aryan race thing,is there any concrete evidence to support the claim that Hitler was in the process of creating the Aryan race? i havent found any yet, you see propaganda with pictures of the Aryan race , or the perfect family but theres no evidence! (or at leats i havent found any)

seeing that if the aryan race is blonde haired blue eyed 6'2" or more and well built, then why were most of his high ranking officers not fitting this description?

Read the book "Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis" and you'll see find it.

If I recall correctly he expressed admiration for the excellent job we had done massacring Native Americans and oppressing Blacks.

Later, after the United States took a stronger stance against him, his admiration turned to hatred.
I wouldn't be at all surprised, but it's a fact that he thought Americans were a "mongrel race." Heh!

on the subject of race...

it's biological fiction. That's already been established.

You can't just ignore it though because it still exists as a social and cultural concept, but biologically speaking the only race is the human race.

http://www.bioethics.umn.edu/afrgen/html/Themythofrace.html

I deny it. Even if they did kill jews, the Holocaust is nothing but an exaggeration.
:upyours: I lost family to those Nazi asshats

(I would like to apologize for my vulgar action to all those who are not Swilatia, who shall be joining Hitler in Hell for gay sex after he dies)

on the subject of race...

it's biological fiction. That's already been established.

You can't just ignore it though because it still exists as a social and cultural concept, but biologically speaking the only race is the human race.

http://www.bioethics.umn.edu/afrgen/html/Themythofrace.html
Research should continue either way on human genetic structure. People who are afraid that it may be bent for the purpose of eugenics need to desist getting in its way.

Exactly - I'll concede that Britain wasn't exactly noble in their handling of the famine, but calling it a 'deliberate holocaust' is far too extreme. If you want to call that a holocaust, then every rich nation that has unfair trading practices with the third world are also committing a 'deliberate holocaust'.

They are.

They are.
:rolleyes: They are not.

I lost family to those Nazi asshats

(I would like to apologize for my vulgar action to all those who are not Swilatia, who shall be joining Hitler in Hell for gay sex after he dies)

He has the right to think that, but he won't get along with the rest of the world. Just ignore the stupidity.

Can i ask what, in everyboys opinion or finding was the aim of the holocaust?
becuase if it was in purification of race as well as removing the jews fomr the german community to stop the depression, then was it not a damn good attempt on the nazi behalf, i sympathize with the nazis, and Adolf Hitler for one reason, nobody has ever tried so hard to change the face of his country/ the world.

Despite saying that in most public places will get you arrested for anti-semitism but hey they should arest people for anti-nazism if you cant believe what you want to beleive!

He has the right to think that, but he won't get along with the rest of the world. Just ignore the stupidity.
Please, he has a point. Many historians have proven how overblown the figures for the Holocaust are.

:upyours: I lost family to those Nazi asshats

(I would like to apologize for my vulgar action to all those who are not Swilatia, who shall be joining Hitler in Hell for gay sex after he dies)
And it is so fucked up that the denier is from Poland...

I wouldn't be at all surprised, but it's a fact that he thought Americans were a "mongrel race." Heh!

Yes, he did. As you point out, we should take pride in the label.

I've always wondered how Holocaust deniers address the number codes branded in to the arms of Holocaust survivors, especially when the victims came from so many different groups and religions.

Can i ask what, in everyboys opinion or finding was the aim of the holocaust?
becuase if it was in purification of race as well as removing the jews fomr the german community to stop the depression, then was it not a damn good attempt on the nazi behalf, i sympathize with the nazis, and Adolf Hitler for one reason, nobody has ever tried so hard to change the face of his country/ the world.

Despite saying that in most public places will get you arrested for anti-semitism but hey they should arest people for anti-nazism if you cant believe what you want to beleive!
You are entitled to any belief you like. Personally, I find the Holocaust to be atrocious, especially in its methodology. Yet equally, I find what Stalin did to be far worse. Either way, Nazism is a form of fascism. The only form of state I support is Monarchy. Otherwise, anarcho-capitalism. So naturally I find the entire idea of Nazism idiotic.

Only Sweden and Denmark are 100% clean in my opinion.

Sorry mate but I know Sweden helped fund the Nazi's. Read "The Visit" some time. It's about the role Sweden played in WW2. They didn't directly support the holocaust but their business deals and the acceptance of the populace helped pay for 11 million deaths.

You are entitled to any belief you like. Personally, I find the Holocaust to be atrocious, especially in its methodology. Yet equally, I find what Stalin did to be far worse.

True, Stalin was much worst. Plus he was in power for much longer. Russia's POW camps were much worst than German POW camps. Though even worst were the Japanese POW camps.

Please, he has a point. Many historians have proven how overblown the figures for the Holocaust are.

It's not that I don't think that people who say the Holocaust is overblown are stupid, Swilatia said that it didn't happen. That is stupid. If many historians have proven that the numbers are overexaggerated (and that it was still a terrible act of injustice in the process), than that is fact and is just fine.

Please, he has a point. Many historians have proven how overblown the figures for the Holocaust are.
If anything, the estimation are too low.
A thing I pointed out is that Romania killed 200,000 Jews and some tens of thousands of Gypsies, out of its own initiative, and it turns out that few people were aware of that.
In 1941, Romanian officers would go from village to village in Bessarabia, and ask: "Who here is a communist, and who is a Jew?" Then, people rounded up would be executed.
There's also the deportations in Transnistria, the pogroms, the neglect...

If anything, the estimation are too low.
A thing I pointed out is that Romania killed 200,000 Jews and some tens of thousands of Gypsies, out of its own initiative, and it turns out that few people were aware of that.
In 1941, Romanian officers would go from village to village in Bessarabia, and ask: "Who here is a communist, and who is a Jew?" Then, people rounded up would be executed.
There's also the deportations in Transnistria, the pogroms, the neglect...
Some believe so. Many historians though have constantly deflated the figures of the dead.

You are entitled to any belief you like. Personally, I find the Holocaust to be atrocious, especially in its methodology. Yet equally, I find what Stalin did to be far worse. Either way, Nazism is a form of fascism. The only form of state I support is Monarchy. Otherwise, anarcho-capitalism. So naturally I find the entire idea of Nazism idiotic.

I find them both to be equally atrocious, but I find the Holocaust more disturbing, because it showed the power of human hatred. Stalin's murders were caused by powerlust and disregard for human life, while Hitler's murders were motivated by pure, unrestricted racial hatred...it's that hatred that makes the Holocaust more disturbing, if not necessarily worse, to me.

Disturnn, why are you obessessed with the Holocaust? Sure, it was a dark period in human history, but it happened sixty years ago. Time to let go. There have been plently of other genocides in human history, some far worse than this one.

It's not that I don't think that people who say the Holocaust is overblown are stupid, Swilatia said that it didn't happen. That is stupid. If many historians have proven that the numbers are overexaggerated (and that it was still a terrible act of injustice in the process), than that is fact and is just fine.
I read the words he wrote. The effect was it's exaggerated. I am not going to nitpick.

I've always wondered how Holocaust deniers address the number codes branded in to the arms of Holocaust survivors, especially when the victims came from so many different groups and religions.

Since they where considered slaves they needed an easy way if identification.
Turn the question around. If the only reason for the branding was to kill them, why even take the time and the money to do so and not just kill them straight out?

By the way, don't argue with Holocaust revisionists, intelligent design advocates, or anyone who tries to assert something that is contrary to fact, harmful, and difficult to prove. These people will never be convinced by what you say, as they'll always come up with something stupid to defend, and just by debating them you lend their argument legitimacy and give them a platform to espouse their views. Only exceptions in my opinion are if they're corrupting others and you need to set them straight or if they're just ignorant and don't know any better.

I find them both to be equally atrocious, but I find the Holocaust more disturbing, because it showed the power of human hatred. Stalin's murders were caused by powerlust and disregard for human life, while Hitler's murders were motivated by pure, unrestricted racial hatred...it's that hatred that makes the Holocaust more disturbing, if not necessarily worse, to me.
They both show to me that the modern State is far too powerful.

I find them both to be equally atrocious, but I find the Holocaust more disturbing, because it showed the power of human hatred. Stalin's murders were caused by powerlust and disregard for human life, while Hitler's murders were motivated by pure, unrestricted racial hatred...it's that hatred that makes the Holocaust more disturbing, if not necessarily worse, to me.

It's one thing to move through towns and villages, rounding up people and shooting them - it is haphazard work, and does put a mental strain on most of the men doing the work (einsatzgruppen).

But...

The concentration camps were an attempt to industrialize the killing.

That's what I found horrific. Semi-clinical, mindlessly industrial killing.

By the way, don't argue with Holocaust revisionists.
Why not? History needs to constantly be revised. It is prone to subjective interpretation. Therefore it needs to be cleared up all the time. To do otherwise is to do it injustice.

Since they where considered slaves they needed an easy way if identification.
Turn the question around. If the only reason for the branding was to kill them, why even take the time and the money to do so and not just kill them straight out?

Because you can make more money and get more labor by putting them to works in camps, killing some, and letting the rest die of starvation/disease.

The Holocaust is very likely over-exaggerated. I still want to see concrete proof of this six million number. Also, the Jews do not have a monopoly over the Holocaust, as many of them would have us believe. Homosexuals and political enemies of all stripes were targets as well. And the Gypsies? They lost more per capita population than even the most liberal estimations of Jewish casualties.

Where is the gypsy state? And why is the damned museum in Washington?
The answer to both these questions is simple. Zionist, many from the US, have exploited the holocaust for their own benefit, but they aren’t the only ones. American politicians have also exploited it as a means to paint the American Military as some sort of liberating force.

Because you can make more money and get more labor by putting them to works in camps, killing some, and letting the rest die of starvation/disease.
Economics applied to human existence. What a novel concept.

Disturnn, why are you obessessed with the Holocaust? Sure, it was a dark period in human history, but it happened sixty years ago. Time to let go. There have been plently of other genocides in human history, some far worse than this one.

How am I obsessed? I merely made a topic stating the Holocaust is true, and wondering what others thought on it.

I was defending Judaism in the other topic, this time I am defending the Holocaust.

For those to know
A) I am not Jewish(I'm Protestant)
B) I am German(was anyways, I consider myself Canadian now)

It's one thing to move through towns and villages, rounding up people and shooting them - it is haphazard work, and does put a mental strain on most of the men doing the work (einsatzgruppen).

The concentration camps were an attempt to industrialize the killing.
That's what I found horrific. Semi-clinical, mindlessly industrial killing.

I agree with you. The fact that the Nazi regime actually studied and developed ways to turn their killing in to an industrial "process" is absolutely horrifying.

Where is the gypsy state? And why is the damned museum in Washington?
The answer to both these questions is simple. Zionist, many from the US, have exploited the holocaust for their own benefit, but they aren’t the only ones. American politicians have also exploited it as a means to paint the American Military as some sort of liberating force.
Zionism actually contributed to the Holocaust apparently. As for the USA, I have little sympathy for it in either of the Great Wars.

the Holocaust,the shoah
is history ,is the history of centurys of persecution for which no nation has ever really examined the reasons behind it,except too hate, to hate is easeir taught than to love, but hatred breeds rasicim and it breeds poverty and it breeds regimes who advocate death,and destruction,to advert the failings of thier own beliefs or promises ,, the holocaust isnt just a history lesson its a lesson for mankind who must know the difference from right and wrong faith plays a part in that message,,christans practiced it in the 18th century that began with pogroms,then the 19th century began with genocide the 20 th century has began with the nations who will use religion to further a cause
not one of unity and peaceful cohabit, but one of war and terror,and so it has began slowly,spreading its evil across the globe from demonstrations to out right civil wars,to chechenya to iraq- and now IRAN iran now wants the means to do what hitler failed to do, and iran will do it

I agree with you. The fact that the Nazi regime actually studied and developed ways to turn their killing in to an industrial "process" is absolutely horrifying.


The problem is that there are few evidence of this industrial process.
No paperwork, photographs show everystep of the holocuast except the gasing.
And all gaschambers where destroyed except for the one in Auschwitz that where reconstructed by the russians who also happen to have the most eyewitnesses of death camps.

Okay, I have a significant problem with IDF's argument. While I am Jewish, many of those who joined the Nazi Party were forced to. Going even further, most of the German Army were drafted. A large majority of those who were drafted didn't want to have anything to do with the Nazi Party.

To go one step further, I saw a few pages back that someone wrote that there were no labor camps; that all the camps were death camps. Unfortunately, that's not entirely true. The camps that were called "Labor Camps" were were called that because in some cases, you had those imprisoned on work details to build buildings, fix shoes and other things along those lines. While many were worked to death in these camps, they were essentially there for slave labor and not to be put to death immediately.

While many historians argue that the number of Jews killed was greatly exaggerated, there are written documents as to who was killed. The Nazis were known to keep very accurate records as to prisoner numbers (tattooed on the arm) and death records. Many of these records are not only on display at the US Holocaust Museum in DC, but also at the National Archives in College Park, Maryland. I've seen many of them at the Archives for a school paper I was writing so there is no doubt in my mind that 6.13 million Jews were killed (mostly accurate based on several books I have read by researchers.)

IDF, you really cannot blame all the Germans for the holocaust. When you look at the facts, Stalin actually killed more than the Nazi's did. Since all Germans did NOT support the Nazis, you can't make that argument. If you want an idea as to how the Nazi's came into power, go read "V for Vendetta." While it is a graphic novel and there is a movie coming out, the fact is that most of the ideas are based around the idea of Fascism being in England during the early to late '90s. It's an excellent book and I strongly recommend it.

That's all I'm saying. Just examine your facts before you post something on this issue.

Why not? History needs to constantly be revised. It is prone to subjective interpretation. Therefore it needs to be cleared up all the time. To do otherwise is to do it injustice.
Holocaust deniers aren't legitimate. To argue with them as one would with someone with a real opinion based on factual evidence and not racist, anti-semitic bile is to discredit proper history and proper historians, bringing them down to the level of the bigot. It is fair to say history should be revisited. However, Holocaust deniers simply use false evidence they concocted somewhere in order to justify their own racist beliefs.

Oh, and the word "Gypsy" is a racial slur. The correct term is "Roma."

Since they where considered slaves they needed an easy way if identification.
Turn the question around. If the only reason for the branding was to kill them, why even take the time and the money to do so and not just kill them straight out?


Branding was also a way of demeaning people. And why just kill them? Why not make them serve YOUR own purpose before they died?

It ridiculous that people can actually make an argument against the Holocaust with such proof like numbers branded into prisoners' skin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust

You know what? If you Holocaust deniers are going to deny the occurence of a rather obvious event, I'm going to deny your existance too (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=469865)!

*snip*
And beyond this, the double-pronged tool of the SS/Gestapo and propaganda kept all Germans too afraid too even move.

Do you hate the United States?
No, there haven't been any pogroms in the US as there has been in every European nation. The USA also didn't turn Jews over to SS like people in most European nations did.

Holocaust deniers aren't legitimate. To argue with them as one would with someone with a real opinion based on factual evidence and not racist, anti-semitic bile is to discredit proper history and proper historians, bringing them down to the level of the bigot. It is fair to say history should be revisited. However, Holocaust deniers simply use false evidence they concocted somewhere in order to justify their own racist beliefs.

Oh, and the word "Gypsy" is a racial slur. The correct term is "Roma."
He meant Holocaust revisionists. Not deniers.

No, there haven't been any pogroms in the US as there has been in every European nation. The USA also didn't turn Jews over to SS like people in most European nations did.
The US turned Jewish immigrants back to die in Europe, failed to halt the Holocaust despite detailed knowledge of it, and, due to racists in the State Department, drastically cut down Jewish immigration quotas...

And to all those who say the numbers are exaggerated, come visit the memorial in Boston. There are 6 columns, one million branded numbers engraved into each one.

No, there haven't been any pogroms in the US as there has been in every European nation. The USA also didn't turn Jews over to SS like people in most European nations did.
Read the Plot Against America. It didn't, but it could have.

No, there haven't been any pogroms in the US as there has been in every European nation. The USA also didn't turn Jews over to SS like people in most European nations did.

But US citizens, US corporations, and to some degree the US government all collaborated with the Nazis.

You are being inconsistent.

Okay, I have a significant problem with IDF's argument. While I am Jewish, many of those who joined the Nazi Party were forced to. Going even further, most of the German Army were drafted. A large majority of those who were drafted didn't want to have anything to do with the Nazi Party.

To go one step further, I saw a few pages back that someone wrote that there were no labor camps; that all the camps were death camps. Unfortunately, that's not entirely true. The camps that were called "Labor Camps" were were called that because in some cases, you had those imprisoned on work details to build buildings, fix shoes and other things along those lines. While many were worked to death in these camps, they were essentially there for slave labor and not to be put to death immediately.

While many historians argue that the number of Jews killed was greatly exaggerated, there are written documents as to who was killed. The Nazis were known to keep very accurate records as to prisoner numbers (tattooed on the arm) and death records. Many of these records are not only on display at the US Holocaust Museum in DC, but also at the National Archives in College Park, Maryland. I've seen many of them at the Archives for a school paper I was writing so there is no doubt in my mind that 6.13 million Jews were killed (mostly accurate based on several books I have read by researchers.)

IDF, you really cannot blame all the Germans for the holocaust. When you look at the facts, Stalin actually killed more than the Nazi's did. Since all Germans did NOT support the Nazis, you can't make that argument. If you want an idea as to how the Nazi's came into power, go read "V for Vendetta." While it is a graphic novel and there is a movie coming out, the fact is that most of the ideas are based around the idea of Fascism being in England during the early to late '90s. It's an excellent book and I strongly recommend it.

That's all I'm saying. Just examine your facts before you post something on this issue.

thank you, that was good stuff

some of my family members were drafted, but I know for sure no one "actually wanted" to join Hitler's military

Branding was also a way of demeaning people. And why just kill them? Why not make them serve YOUR own purpose before they died?

It ridiculous that people can actually make an argument against the Holocaust with such proof like numbers branded into prisoners' skin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust

They say that children who got to death camps where killed immediatly.
Yet, Anne Frank died in a death camp after 4 months, by typhoid I beleive.

Why not? History needs to constantly be revised. It is prone to subjective interpretation. Therefore it needs to be cleared up all the time. To do otherwise is to do it injustice.

Agreed. All sorts of new facts on history are being reinterpreted. Several famous historical events and people has been changed within the last few years.

While I agree that all Nazi's are F###ing bastards, and are all going to Hell, I must remind you that there was a small resistance group who tried to do what ever they could to stop the Nazi's, most didn't survive

Not all Germans where Nazi's, my family had the balls to try and sabotage the Nazi war effort
I thank your family for their actions, but as you admitted, it was a SMALL resistance group. WHere were the rest of the Germans? Hitler couldn't do what he did if he didn't have the resources of his nation behind him. The people for the most part did whatever the hell he wanted and through those actions they were responsible for the HOlocaust.

And to all those who say the numbers are exaggerated, come visit the memorial in Boston. There are 6 columns, one million branded numbers engraved into each one.
Why the fuck is there a memorial in Boston? I thought it happened in Europe. That fact that so many of my fellow Americans are fascinated by this event, but then couldn't tell you who Mao or Pol Pot (who the US inderectly created) are, is a sure sign that something is wrong. Somebody is manipulating the information and our exposure to it, and only the Zionists and the American Military have anything to gain from it.

<snip for brevity>

I've been to Auschwitz. You can see the gas chambers yourself. Either you're fucking blind, or you deliberately are delighted that the Holocaust happened, and you want to conceal the crime.

I totally agree. I was there in 1994 (I was 21 at the time), and can say that it has... presence. Walking around it, I could feel that great suffering and evil was perpetuated in that place. It felt like even the air had a weight to it.

For me, however, the ovens were much more disconcerting. I'd seen the photos (in black and white, of course) in school textbooks. Seeing them in color and with people walking around really made me a little sick. I don't even know why.

Agreed. All sorts of new facts on history are being reinterpreted. Several famous historical events and people has been changed within the last few years.
Indeed. It's reached such a level nowadays that people often deliberately suppress historical facts they don't like, whereas they'll bombard opposing theories with everything they can find.

They say that children who got to death camps where killed immediatly.
Yet, Anne Frank died in a death camp after 4 months, by typhoid I beleive.

Upon her capture, she was old enough to work.

I thank your family for their actions, but as you admitted, it was a SMALL resistance group. WHere were the rest of the Germans? Hitler couldn't do what he did if he didn't have the resources of his nation behind him. The people for the most part did whatever the hell he wanted and through those actions they were responsible for the HOlocaust.

Other Germans were executed or taken to prisons for disagreeing with Hitler.

Have you ever heard of the assassination attempt on Hitler? By his own men? The officer who was responsible was killed. Other Germans have moved to Britain and even warned the British PM at the time that Hitler was planning on invading Poland. They were ignored.

Only 30% actually voted for Hitler. Therefore prooving even more that Hitler did NOT have the majority on his side.

A couple of resources:

The Theory and Practive of Hell, by Eugen Kogon an excellent look at the history of the camps and how they evolved into part of the Final Solution

Nuit et brouillard (Night and Fog), France 1955. Excellent documetnary of the death camps, containing captured Nazi footage. If you see it, you will always remember it.

For the person who asked early in this thread, why bother? Because historical revisionism is crap. It usually is a cover for some agenda or other. All modes of political thought have used revisionism, from the late Soviet Union to Nazi Germany itself.

Sorry, but this is just bullshit. I mean, the statement that Poles didn't do what they could to save Jewes. Maybe because that in the first days od WW II Poland stopped existing? Because Germans and Russians attacked from both sides? Poles were the third, after Jewes and Romes, population that suffered most casualties due to holocaust and WW in overall. Learn some more history, maybe this will stop you from writing such rubbish.
Preventing the talk about "polish death camps"- these were just built by the nazis on the teritories that previously belonged to Poland.

Sorry for all that, but it just boils my blood when I read such crap. Yes, I'm polish :)

Cheers
Perhaps it is you who should read the history. The Polish probably rank so high because many of the Jews killed were Polish and thus would be listed as Poles. 3 million of the 6 million Jews killed were killed by the Poles. Don't give me BS saying the Poles didn't hate the Jews. The Jews were in ghettos before the war even started. The Poles regularly partook in pogroms. The situation of the Jews in Poland before WWII wasn't that much different than those of Czarist Russia.

The Poles turned the Jewish population over to the Nazis. The Polish people for the most part were glad the Germans were killing the Jews. Just ask my cousin's grandmother. Her parents and most of her siblings were killed. She said the Poles were just as bad as the Nazis in their role.

You are right that the nation of Poland wasn't in existance, but I said the Poles, not Poland did it. The Polish people existed and they had great hate for the Jews and had been oppressing them for centuries.

I thank your family for their actions, but as you admitted, it was a SMALL resistance group. WHere were the rest of the Germans? Hitler couldn't do what he did if he didn't have the resources of his nation behind him. The people for the most part did whatever the hell he wanted and through those actions they were responsible for the HOlocaust.
Paralysed in fear and constantly monitored and indoctrinated. Do not underestimate the State machine's power under Nazism.

For the person who asked early in this thread, why bother? Because historical revisionism is crap. It usually is a cover for some agenda or other. All modes of political thought have used revisionism, from the late Soviet Union to Nazi Germany itself.
How remarkably ignorant. Victors write History. You know this, don't you? It's for Historians to unravel.

I totally agree. I was there in 1994 (I was 21 at the time), and can say that it has... presence. Walking around it, I could feel that great suffering and evil was perpetuated in that place. It felt like even the air had a weight to it.

For me, however, the ovens were much more disconcerting. I'd seen the photos (in black and white, of course) in school textbooks. Seeing them in color and with people walking around really made me a little sick. I don't even know why.

The thing is, I don't really care who they killed. Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, Socialists, Russian POWs - it doesn't matter - the fact is they industrialized murder on a grand scale, and they were the first to consciously do it.

I don't really have a problem with militaries going at it and killing each other - in large part, that's what militaries expect to happen. But marching civilians - especially children - to certain death is appalling.

Paralysed in fear and constantly monitored and indoctrinated. Do not underestimate the State machine's power under Nazism.
Never underestimate the power of disbelief, either.

Or of groupthink.

Indeed. It's reached such a level nowadays that people often deliberately suppress historical facts they don't like, whereas they'll bombard opposing theories with everything they can find.

I think we both get the idea that I agree with the current statistics of the holocaust. If enough evidence is shown (and proven), I will agree with the new statistics. I try to keep an open mind when it comes to history.

They say that children who got to death camps where killed immediatly.
Yet, Anne Frank died in a death camp after 4 months, by typhoid I beleive.


And? Like they actually did the same thing to every single person a certain age. And like somebody else said a few pages back, they had both death camps and labor camps. Many times people were sent to the labor camps first, and later were transported to actual death camps to be disposed of.

And there's a memorial in Boston because the US is trying to display their sympathy for the event. Or maybe even survivors petitioned for it, I don't know. It shouldn't even matter. I don't think there's anything wrong with this.

I think we both get the idea that I agree with the current statistics of the holocaust. If enough evidence is shown (and proven), I will agree with the new statistics. I try to keep an open mind when it comes to history.
Same here.

Never underestimate the power of disbelief, either.

Or of groupthink.
Not in a nation where the media is controlled entirely by the State, and there is no way of escaping the State's watchful eye. Furthermore, resistance existed, but the NSDAP was excellent in fragmenting it and breaking it apart. It was also ideologically divided.

Paralysed in fear and constantly monitored and indoctrinated. Do not underestimate the State machine's power under Nazism.
Similar situations didn't stop the Russians from overthrowing the Czar. Hitler was well liked by the people. He only got 30% of the vote, but the majority came to love him

Similar situations didn't stop the Russians from overthrowing the Czar. Hitler was well liked by the people. He only got 30% of the vote, but the majority came to love him
You would too the way he was presented by the propagandists (especially Goebbel). The Czar was overthrown for different reasons to Hitler. Nor did the Czar make use of mass-media, like television, or radio. The NSDAP used the latest technology in its efforts.

Not in a nation where the media is controlled entirely by the State, and there is no way of escaping the State's watchful eye. Furthermore, resistance existed, but the NSDAP was excellent in fragmenting it and breaking it apart. It was also ideologically divided.
You would have to balance the possible truth of the stories you hear versus being taken on a trip by the Gestapo.

Most people in such situations are just glad that it's someone else being taken away. If they have the slightest anti-semitic feelings, they aren't even going to question it.

Even if they are not anti-Semitic, few people would risk their lives, their families, or even their reputation to speak up or do something.

We should execute every single person who denies the holocaust happened. Its the only way to save humanity from these bastards who keep rising up every couple decades to try and "cleanse" the human race. Its been happening for thousands of years, and because of people like this, it will happen again, becuase once people forget the lessons learned it will happen again. So, to save humanity, we need to have a Positve Holocaust, meening to send people like that to death camps. :fluffle:

You would have to balance the possible truth of the stories you hear versus being taken on a trip by the Gestapo.

Most people in such situations are just glad that it's someone else being taken away. If they have the slightest anti-semitic feelings, they aren't even going to question it.

Even if they are not anti-Semitic, few people would risk their lives, their families, or even their reputation to speak up or do something.
Exactly. The State had broken all resistance. Turning on it would get you reported, and from there on deported. It was a state of Terror. People do not realise this. Propaganda + Terror = complete coercion.

We should execute every single person who denies the holocaust happened. Its the only way to save humanity from these bastards who keep rising up every couple decades to try and "cleanse" the human race. Its been happening for thousands of years, and because of people like this, it will happen again, becuase once people forget the lessons learned it will happen again. So, to save humanity, we need to have a Positve Holocaust, meening to send people like that to death camps. :fluffle:
I assume this is a joke. Even so, it did not make me laugh.

The thing is, I don't really care who they killed. Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, Socialists, Russian POWs - it doesn't matter - the fact is they industrialized murder on a grand scale, and they were the first to consciously do it.

I don't really have a problem with militaries going at it and killing each other - in large part, that's what militaries expect to happen. But marching civilians - especially children - to certain death is appalling.

Exactly.

You would too the way he was presented by the propagandists (especially Goebbel). The Czar was overthrown for different reasons to Hitler. Nor did the Czar make use of mass-media, like television, or radio. The NSDAP used the latest technology in its efforts.
So based on that, either the Germans were dumb as sheep and will follow anyone who can make an elaborate speech, or they supported the idea or killing Jews. (I think it's a mixture of both)

So based on that, either the Germans were dumb as sheep and will follow anyone who can make an elaborate speech, or they supported the idea or killing Jews. (I think it's a mixture of both)
I think you are ignorant of the extent the NSDAP went to subjugate it's citizenry.

There were degrees of Anti-semitism, yet the NSDAP perfect the use of Terror and propaganda.

You are entitled to any belief you like. Personally, I find the Holocaust to be atrocious, especially in its methodology. Yet equally, I find what Stalin did to be far worse.

Mao Zedong is actually far worse in many ways then Stalin. I wouldn't compare either of them to Hitler because their methods were completely different. Anyways, depending on the source, Mao killed any where from 20 to 70 million people. Most reputable sources list it as 40 million. His "Great Leap Foreward" alone caused around 20 million people to starve to death. His cultural revolution caused thousands to die and millions more to be tortured. Stalin's track record pales in comparison.
However, I still consider Hitler the worst man to live during the past few ceturies. I think creating a system in which Dr. Mengele's experiments went unpunished would alone be worthy of infamy. To deny the evil of what he and many of those under him did is one of the worst things possible. I'd rank it along side murder in that one is acting the same way as those who allowed the halocaust happen in the first place. Actually supporting it is unimaginable. Those who said they said its over exagerated I don't hate. I just think they're stupid. Just outside Aushwitz there's a covered pit containing a huge mound of ashes from abound 10,000 people there. It's not hard to find evidence that millions died and so if you can't obviously thinking is not your strong point.

We should execute every single person who denies the holocaust happened. Its the only way to save humanity from these bastards who keep rising up every couple decades to try and "cleanse" the human race. Its been happening for thousands of years, and because of people like this, it will happen again, becuase once people forget the lessons learned it will happen again. So, to save humanity, we need to have a Positve Holocaust, meening to send people like that to death camps. :fluffle:

Technically, we'd be no better than the Nazis. There is no such thing as a "Positive Holocaust."

So based on that, either the Germans were dumb as sheep and will follow anyone who can make an elaborate speech, or they supported the idea or killing Jews. (I think it's a mixture of both)
If you're living in a country where asking questions like, "where are they taking the Jews, exactly" would get you hung up on a meat hook, you're not going to get too many curious people.

The Wehrmacht was not considered "reliable" enough to run the camps, which is why men were specially recruited for the einsatzgruppen and the SS - men who were politically reliable about the idea of killing Jews.

Not everyone was politically reliable. But many were either happy that someone else was being taken away, or were too scared to say a word.

Many other people were taken away - socialists, Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals, prostitutes, mentally ill people, and anyone labeled as an "undesireable". It wasn't hard to earn the label.

There was always room for more people in the camps, as new vacancies were made every day.

So based on that, either the Germans were dumb as sheep and will follow anyone who can make an elaborate speech, or they supported the idea or killing Jews. (I think it's a mixture of both)


Which isn't true at all. Hitler was an amazing public speaker, even if his views sucked. If you watch clips of speeches he gave, you'll see how hypnotized the audience seemed. They loved him because he was the one to rely on at the time. He was the one who claimed could win back their pride and their good economy. I think it's just a bad mix of extreme emotional and political vulnerability and the fact that there were easy scapegoats around to dump it all on.

Mao Zedong is actually far worse in many ways then Stalin. I wouldn't compare either of them to Hitler because their methods were completely different. Anyways, depending on the source, Mao killed any where from 20 to 70 million people. Most reputable sources list it as 40 million. His "Great Leap Foreward" alone caused around 20 million people to starve to death. His cultural revolution caused thousands to die and millions more to be tortured. Stalin's track record pales in comparison.
Hardly surprising. They were two of a kind.

However, I still consider Hitler the worst man to live during the past few ceturies. I think creating a system in which Dr. Mengele's experiments went unpunished would alone be worthy of infamy. To deny the evil of what he and many of those under him did is one of the worst things possible. I'd rank it along side murder in that one is acting the same way as those who allowed the halocaust happen in the first place. Actually supporting it is unimaginable. Those who said they said its over exagerated I don't hate. I just think they're stupid. Just outside Aushwitz there's a covered pit containing a huge mound of ashes from abound 10,000 people there. It's not hard to find evidence that millions died and so if you can't obviously thinking is not your strong point.
What annoys me is when contrary to evidence people attempt to exaggerate Holocaust figures. That is equally bad as trying to lower the number below what it really is.

Which isn't true at all. Hitler was an amazing public speaker, even if his views sucked. If you watch clips of speeches he gave, you'll see how hypnotized the audience seemed. They loved him because he was the one to rely on at the time. He was the one who claimed could win back their pride and their good economy. I think it's just a bad mix of extreme emotional and political vulnerability and the fact that there were easy scapegoats around to dump it all on.
Add that to the image Goebbels created of him, and the Terror that Himmler ran, and you have the ingredients for a totally passive populace.

Originally Posted by DeliveranceRape
We should execute every single person who denies the holocaust happened. Its the only way to save humanity from these bastards who keep rising up every couple decades to try and "cleanse" the human race. Its been happening for thousands of years, and because of people like this, it will happen again, becuase once people forget the lessons learned it will happen again. So, to save humanity, we need to have a Positve Holocaust, meening to send people like that to death camps.

I assume this is a joke. Even so, it did not make me laugh.

hey, who said anything about being "better" lets be "effective" and save some fucking lives.:fluffle:

Originally Posted by DeliveranceRape
We should execute every single person who denies the holocaust happened. Its the only way to save humanity from these bastards who keep rising up every couple decades to try and "cleanse" the human race. Its been happening for thousands of years, and because of people like this, it will happen again, becuase once people forget the lessons learned it will happen again. So, to save humanity, we need to have a Positve Holocaust, meening to send people like that to death camps.

I assume this is a joke. Even so, it did not make me laugh.

hey, who said anything about being "better" lets be "effective" and save some fucking lives.:fluffle:
And in the process forcefully take many others. I detest this American brand of "freedom."

Hey, they DESERVE to die, cuz if they were in charge, they'd kill us.
The solution is simple. Freedom is isnt free and it takes killing to get freedom, thats the simple and sad truth. Some must die so that others may live, and live in peace and free. otherwise we'd live in a perfect society. But there are always gonna be Hitler's and Stalin's and Hussien's and shit, and eachtime they are killed by humanity anyways. this is just faster.

I think the holocaust is still slightly exaggerated in terms of numbers but it was still a big thing that killed many people.

the terrible thing happening nowadays are:


WWII holocaust is being taught and nothing else what happened to other holocausts does no one care?

many other groups murdered in the holocaust are ignored in fact I have know some people who didn’t know that other minorities were killed

people who question the holocaust suffer violent reactions from the public (as this thread shows) this is highly undemocratic and you see many peaceful open-minded people turn into ignorant brutes upon hearing the word "holocaust"

People who have family who suffered in the holocaust find that it is something to be proud of the odds are every family has suffered persecution in the past sure it is a sad thing that your family had to go through this but it is nothing to boast about

So based on that, either the Germans were dumb as sheep and will follow anyone who can make an elaborate speech, or they supported the idea or killing Jews. (I think it's a mixture of both)

That was stupid of you to say.

If they were dumb as sheep than why has Germany been responsible for so much in Science? Germany has contributed much to the world, probably the best engineering as well

I will make this final, Germans DID NOT support Hitler to the extent of actually liking him and following everything he said. If you look back in History and read in detail, there have assassination attempts on Hitler(by fellow Germans), Germans rescuing Jews from camps, Germans making resistance groups, and Germans WARNING the British beforehand that Germany planned on invading Poland.

30% of Germans voted for him. Hitler was not elected. He was appointed.

Propaganda exposed to children from day 1, daily threats, scare tactics, and "silencing" those who spoke out against Hitler was the reason for obedience.
Not to mention many Germans moved OUT of Germany because of Hitler before WWII.

And consider another thing

Germany is Israel's greatest ally in Europe

I think the holocaust is still slightly exaggerated in terms of numbers but it was still a big thing that killed many people.

the terrible thing happening nowadays are:


WWII holocaust is being taught and nothing else what happened to other holocausts does no one care?

many other groups murdered in the holocaust are ignored in fact I have know some people who didn’t know that other minorities were killed

people who question the holocaust suffer violent reactions from the public (as this thread shows) this is highly undemocratic and you see many peaceful open-minded people turn into ignorant brutes upon hearing the word "holocaust"

People who have family who suffered in the holocaust find that it is something to be proud of the odds are every family has suffered persecution in the past sure it is a sad thing that your family had to go through this but it is nothing to boast about

I agree. Not to mention other genocides are almost completely ommitted.

Hey, they DESERVE to die, cuz if they were in charge, they'd kill us.
The solution is simple. Freedom is isnt free and it takes killing to get freedom, thats the simple and sad truth. Some must die so that others may live, and live in peace and free. otherwise we'd live in a perfect society. But there are always gonna be Hitler's and Stalin's and Hussien's and shit, and eachtime they are killed by humanity anyways. this is just faster.
Wow. Is this how the US spreads its ideas of "freedom" and "democracy" then? "My way or the highway." Yeah. Really effective. :rolleyes:

Wow. Is this how the US spreads its ideas of "freedom" and "democracy" then? "My way or the highway." Yeah. Really effective. :rolleyes:
Well, apparently Austria is that way too...

Well, apparently Austria is that way too...
In what regard?

yeah you Austrians a Germans are the masters of all this Genocide bullshit so you tell me?
Lets not forget who the real enemy is here.
Nazis. Facists. They orginated from those countries.

yeah you Austrians a Germans are the masters of all this Genocide bullshit so you tell me?
Lets not forget who the real enemy is here.
Nazis. Facists. They orginated from those countries.
Alright. Enough. This entire war would never have happened if the USA had not stuck it's ugly head into Europe during WW 1 to spread "freedom" and "democracy" per Wilson. There would have been a balance of powers, no humiliating terms of defeat and no need for a WW 2. Read some books on Counterfactual history.

I don't think it's so much about the numbers of people killed as it is about the way it happened.

Industrialised killing is the worst thing humanity has come up with, and I don't think we'll ever be able to top that.

As for deniers...well, let's just say I'm not a fan of Neonazis.

As for the Germans and anti-semitism, I think there may have been some connection on some level. I don't think most Germans were anti-semites, but the intellectual thrust between German nationalism had unfortunately a lot of anti-semites in it. I don't think there is a required connection between the two, but fact is that many of the writers, composers, pundits and so on where also anti-semitic.

And finally, I'm not sure whether that would've been posted already, but here is a link to a trial Irving had started in the UK and which lists a lot of evidence for why holocaust denial is bullshit.
http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.net/ieindex.html

yeah you Austrians a Germans are the masters of all this Genocide bullshit so you tell me?
Lets not forget who the real enemy is here.
Nazis. Facists. They orginated from those countries.

You are incorrect

It originated from Italy. Italy was the first fascist nation

In what regard?
They put you in jail if you disagree.
Alright. Enough. This entire war would never have happened if the USA had not stuck it's ugly head into Europe during WW 1 to spread "freedom" and "democracy" per Wilson. There would have been a balance of powers, no humiliating terms of defeat and no need for a WW 2. Read some books on Counterfactual history.
Funny thing is, Wilson coined the phrase, "Victory without defeat." Too bad he was a lying asshat who's only real goal was to create a US controlled League of Nations.

Let's start off with me announcing I was born Jewish, but now an atheist. I do support Israel strongly and am a Zionist. Not that that will affect my opinion...

I go with the around 6 million Jews were killed thing. But, I also think the number could be too low or high, but that is very unlikely. The nazi's kept lots of records about who they killed and there is plenty of proof about how many were killed and that the gas chambers did exist. The Red Army did find Prussian Blue on the walls.

They put you in jail if you disagree.
They have a lot to learn still.

Funny thing is, Wilson coined the phrase, "Victory without defeat." Too bad he was a lying asshat who's only real goal was to create a US controlled League of Nations.
Bush and him didn't differ too much I think. They were both ideologically driven.

Denying the Holocaust ranks with maintaining the existence of a flat earth in absurdity and ignorance, and far oversteps such insane delusions in terms of moral repugnance.

I couldn't have put it better meself

Funny thing is, Wilson coined the phrase, "Victory without defeat." Too bad he was a lying asshat who's only real goal was to create a US controlled League of Nations.
I think Lenin beat him to it, and coined the term first.

Alright. Enough. This entire war would never have happened if the USA had not stuck it's ugly head into Europe during WW 1 to spread "freedom" and "democracy" per Wilson. There would have been a balance of powers, no humiliating terms of defeat and no need for a WW 2. Read some books on Counterfactual history.

The humilitating terms of defeat imposed on Germany were the work of France and the UK, (Clemenceau actually wanted to see Germany split into a series of small states) not the US. Additionally Wilson's very noble (if slightly naive) intention to create a series of self-determined states throughout the Balkans impacted very little on the second world war which arose through the failings of great states, not small ones.

And counterfactual history is presumptuous twaddle.

The humilitating terms of defeat imposed on Germany were the work of France and the UK, (Clemenceau actually wanted to see Germany split into a series of small states) not the US. Additionally Wilson's very noble (if slightly naive) intention to create a series of self-determined states throughout the Balkans impacted very little on the second world war which arose through the failings of great states, not small ones.

And counterfactual history is presumptuous twaddle.
Hardly. The US should have stayed out of this altogether.

The humilitating terms of defeat imposed on Germany were the work of France and the UK, (Clemenceau actually wanted to see Germany split into a series of small states) not the US. Additionally Wilson's very noble (if slightly naive) intention to create a series of self-determined states throughout the Balkans impacted very little on the second world war which arose through the failings of great states, not small ones.

And counterfactual history is presumptuous twaddle.


I agree. It was primarily Clemenceau who wanted to "hit Germany hard".

I think Lenin beat him to it, and coined the term first.
Hmm, he pulled out of the "capitalistic" war, didn't he? I suppose that he could have, though he may have meant something differant by it.

I agree. It was primarily Clemenceau who wanted to "hit Germany hard".
The entire situation was a mess. It should have never happened.

Hardly. The US should have stayed out of this altogether.
And until the propagandists got to work, the majority of Americans thought we should stay out as well. If Wilson was supposed to be all about self-determination, why did he lie to his own people?

Hmm, he pulled out of the "capitalistic" war, didn't he? I suppose that he could have, though he may have meant something differant by it.
Not that different. And they paid each other involontary services:
-Wilson had a hard time explaining war for freedom and whatever as long as the Entente included despotic Russia. Sure, the February Revolution was something to help him, but Lenin sealed the coffin on both Tsarism (although not despotism) and the Entente participation
-Lenin gained respite from the pushing and pulling between Powers after the War, and from the unwillingness of the US to back the Whites (I think US forces and Bolsheviks just watched each other in Arkhangelsk and Vladivostok)

Hardly. The US should have stayed out of this altogether.

Aside from the fact that their ships had been targetted for years by Nazi submarines and the fact that they were attacked by an Axis power, the Nazi regime was one of the most fundamentally evil regimes in modern human history, genocide, totalitarianism, imperialist wars. They had a moral duty to intervene and I cannot possibly understand why anyone could argue otherwise.

Aside from the fact that their ships had been targetted for years by Nazi submarines and the fact that they were attacked by an Axis power, the Nazi regime was one of the most fundamentally evil regimes in modern human history, genocide, totalitarianism, imperialist wars. They had a moral duty to intervene and I cannot possibly understand why anyone could argue otherwise.
I meant WW 1.

I meant WW 1.

The Zimmerman Telegram really pushed the US into it. Germany simply should not have asked Mexico to join the Central Powers. There was no reason for it.

The Zimmerman Telegram really pushed the US into it. Germany simply should not have asked Mexico to join the Central Powers. There was no reason for it.
The US needn't have interfered.

I meant WW 1.

Okay, I'm kind've ambivalent on that.

Okay, I'm kind've ambivalent on that.
The thing is had the US stayed out, WW 2 would be highly likely of never occuring altogether, and the Holocaust definitely would have been avoided. It's in the past, so debating it is quite non-sensical at this point.

The Zimmerman Telegram really pushed the US into it. Germany simply should not have asked Mexico to join the Central Powers. There was no reason for it.
USA's committement to the Entente by then far outweighed any bind between Mexico and the Central Powers. And, if the US did not want "conspiracies" against it, then a good idea was not to devastate Mexico every couple of months (they had just done it for the umpteenth time).

people just say that the holocaust didn't happen because they want something to argue about.


:eek: -------------------- -----------------:sniper:

The US needn't have interfered.

The Kaiser needn't have authorized asking the Mexicans to attack the US, either.

USA's committement to the Entente by then far outweighed any bind between Mexico and the Central Powers. And, if the US did not want "conspiracies" against it, then a good idea was not to devastate Mexico every couple of months (they had just done it for the umpteenth time).

The Z Telegram and the sinking of the Lusitania (which *was* carrying contraband, but no one was about to admit that...) was what got the US to shed the isloationist facade and send troops.

I'm confused about the second part. The US had taken half of Mexico and even held Mexico City under Polk... but Pershing chasing Pancho Villa (whom DID attack a US town after all) is hardly the same thing.

I would like to see the proof by Holocaust revisionists that the holocaust did not happen
Primary documents. Or just live with your grandfather who's family was incinerated. He only talked to me about it once. I'm not realy offended by the people who say it didn't happen because I don't see how it couldn't have happened? What's the evidence that it didn't? Where are all the jews who supposedly died?

The Z Telegram and the sinking of the Lusitania was what got the US to shed the isloationist facade and send troops.
"fascade"?

Also whats this about contraband? Id never heard that before.

The Kaiser needn't have authorized asking the Mexicans to attack the US, either.
And this is enough to get involved in a massive war, which was primarily being conducted by the Continent? It could have dealt with Mexico and let the forces on the Continent take care of each other.

"fascade"?

Also whats this about contraband? Id never heard that before.

America wasn't really neutral from 1914-1916... it was selling (mostly to) the British, French and Russians on credit all sorts of war materials and food, but little to the Central Powers, mostly due to the British naval blockade.

Divers found that the Lusitania was carrying munitions, which is a no-no for a supposedly neutral ship.

Sorry, too many changing stories to belive the lies.

http://codoh.com/gcgv/gcgvcole.html

Also whats this about contraband? Id never heard that before.
It was carrying ammunition for the British. People generally suggest that that is the reason it blew up and sunk so fast from just one hit.

The problem is that the Germans most likely didn't know that - they attacked the ship because it was their policy. There were warnings all over the the harbour in New York that everyone was taking the trip at their own risk, nonetheless, the legality of sinking a passenger ship can of course be questioned.

And this is enough to get involved in a massive war, which was primarily being conducted by the Continent? It could have dealt with Mexico and let the forces on the Continent take care of each other.

If your point is indeed that the US should not have been involved, then this is an untenable argument: If the US had "dealt with Mexico", then it's still a in the war and fighting against a Central power!

The Z Telegram and the sinking of the Lusitania (which *was* carrying contraband, but no one was about to admit that...) was what got the US to shed the isloationist facade and send troops.

Well, that is saying: it's not conspiracy when we do it. The sinking of the Lusitania is not a viable reson to go to war, especially if the state who feels like going to war has been backing the Entente. The Germans warned the hell out of Americans to make them stop doing that.
The Z telegram was there because the determination of the US to hold the Entente's hand had made them shit themselves that the US would go to war without them ever being able to pose a threat.

I'm confused about the second part. The US had taken half of Mexico and even held Mexico City under Polk... but Pershing chasing Pancho Villa (whom DID attack a US town after all) is hardly the same thing.

First of all, remember that the Germans were trying to convince the Mexicans that they would recognize the mending of traditional wrongs of the US against them. A non-Revolutionary gvt in Mexico was still hostile enough to the Gringos.
Even Pancho Villa had some sort of explanation for his actions (I'm exaggerating, of course): the Revolution had been at war with the US ever since Marines had made their way in Veracruz (April 1914). What was the Tampico Affair all about?

If your point is indeed that the US should not have been involved, then this is an untenable argument: If the US had "dealt with Mexico", then it's still a in the war and fighting against a Central power!
Despite the costs that this may incur? If it declared neutrality and ended involvement beyond Mexico it's interference would be unnecessary. Mexico was the direct threat, Germany sustaining it or not.

It was carrying ammunition for the British. People generally suggest that that is the reason it blew up and sunk so fast from just one hit.

The problem is that the Germans most likely didn't know that - they attacked the ship because it was their policy. There were warnings all over the the harbour in New York that everyone was taking the trip at their own risk, nonetheless, the legality of sinking a passenger ship can of course be questioned.

That and there were Canadian troops on board.

Despite the costs that this may incur? If it declared neutrality and ended involvement beyond Mexico it's interference would be unnecessary. Mexico was the direct threat, Germany sustaining it or not.

Costs? You have a strange math!
A third power gets a country to go to war with you, thus COSTING you money, and you don't declare war on it?!?
That's the same as your neighbor to the left (Germany) getting your neighbor on the right (Mexico) to always throw his snow into your driveway.
Do you only deal with one neighbor (Mexico), or do you go after the instigator (Germany)? Especially when the guy across the street (Britain) tells you about this and the neighbor doesn't throw the snow anyway?!?

Don't forget, there was ALSO the pledge by Germany to not honor neutral shipping. And them invading neutral Belgium... these things add up.

Costs? You have a strange math!
A third power gets a country to go to war with you, thus COSTING you money, and you don't declare war on it?!?
That's the same as your neighbor to the left (Germany) getting your neighbor on the right (Mexico) to always throw his snow into your driveway.
Do you only deal with one neighbor (Mexico), or do you go after the instigator (Germany)? Especially when the guy across the street (Britain) tells you about this and the neighbor doesn't throw the snow anyway?!?

Don't forget, there was ALSO the pledge by Germany to not honor neutral shipping. And them invading neutral Belgium... these things add up.
I do not have strange math. The total cost of committing to a war far outweighs any costs arising from potential hindrances. It involves a high proporion of the GDP being spent on something that otherwise would not be necessary. Germany was not the US's neighbour in any meaningful sense.

Don't forget, there was ALSO the pledge by Germany to not honor neutral shipping. And them invading neutral Belgium... these things add up.
Pfft. I'm pretty certain the Brits also stopped neutral shipping to Germany.
And the Belgians decided to get invaded. They could've just let them march through and even get paid for any costs incurred. :D

Fact is that the Zimmermann Telegram was something the Germans did just in case, and that the Mexicans rejected it. Wilson had been looking for an excuse for ages, and the Brits (who were moving heaven and earth to put that piece of paper into American hands) delivered it.

But as with WWII, the decision of the US to take a stance had been made long before.

Well my anti-semetic ass chooses both choices 1 and 2. Now you said that you would kick my ass? Well sherk-off I'm sitting down as I type so you can't. First, if your talking about Hitler's Halocaust, you are absolutly correct. I haven't even heard of an Isreali Halocaust so if you want spark a debate on somthing then get the right insperation. And here is my proof that Hitler's Halocaust DID happen:

:( :mp5:
:( :mp5:
:( :mp5:
:( :mp5:

Pfft. I'm pretty certain the Brits also stopped neutral shipping to Germany.
And the Belgians decided to get invaded. They could've just let them march through and even get paid for any costs incurred. :D

Fact is that the Zimmermann Telegram was something the Germans did just in case, and that the Mexicans rejected it. Wilson had been looking for an excuse for ages, and the Brits (who were moving heaven and earth to put that piece of paper into American hands) delivered it.

But as with WWII, the decision of the US to take a stance had been made long before.
Exactly. Whereas I can understand US interference in WW 2, I cannot see it as justifiable in WW 1. In my view, it would've been best if it stayed out and the Continent settled its own affairs.

Well my anti-semetic ass chooses both choices 1 and 2. Now you said that you would kick my ass? Well sherk-off I'm sitting down as I type so you can't. First, if your talking about Hitler's Halocaust, you are absolutly correct. I haven't even heard of an Isreali Halocaust so if you want spark a debate on somthing then get the right insperation. And here is my proof that Hitler's Halocaust DID happen:

:( :mp5:
:( :mp5:
:( :mp5:
:( :mp5:
Your logic is a shining example of reasoning and lucid thinking. Or maybe it's just an example of how utterly idiotic people can be. Who knows.

Well, that is saying: it's not conspiracy when we do it. The sinking of the Lusitania is not a viable reson to go to war, especially if the state who feels like going to war has been backing the Entente.

True, but the Lusitania was not the first ship sunk. It was, however, a passenger liner. That is what got the attention. Losing some merchantmen out in the North Atlantic a few at a time is one thing... this was big and bad in the public's eye.

The Germans warned the hell out of Americans to make them stop doing that.
The Z telegram was there because the determination of the US to hold the Entente's hand had made them shit themselves that the US would go to war without them ever being able to pose a threat.

Yes, they had.
The Z telegram still had a very small chance of success, anyway. I suspect that Kaiser Bill was just being his usual impetuous self.
Ah, had he only gotten invited to Paris before the death of Britain's King Edward VII.

First of all, remember that the Germans were trying to convince the Mexicans that they would recognize the mending of traditional wrongs of the US against them. A non-Revolutionary gvt in Mexico was still hostile enough to the Gringos.

Yep. And the US had no intention of giving back California, Nevada, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico or part of Colorado, either.


Even Pancho Villa had some sort of explanation for his actions (I'm exaggerating, of course): the Revolution had been at war with the US ever since Marines had made their way in Veracruz (April 1914). What was the Tampico Affair all about?

Villa... I think that Pershing's Expedition was not over the top for the events in Columbus, New Mexico...

Tampico was the normal thing that happens when two groups of armed men meet and none of them share a common language. :(

I do not have strange math. The total cost of committing to a war far outweighs any costs arising from potential hindrances. It involves a high proporion of the GDP being spent on something that otherwise would not be necessary. Germany was not the US's neighbour in any meaningful sense.

So if I get someone else to fight you, you will do nothing to me? COOL!!

Your logic is a shining example of reasoning and lucid thinking. Or maybe it's just an example of how utterly idiotic people can be. Who knows.Me::) :mp5: :You :sniper: :My Partner

There have been so many points made here and so much heat surrounding this post that one point hadn't been accurately addressed up until the point I stopped reading (around page 7 or so) and that is the validity/invalidty of so-called revisionist history.

One thing anyone who hears this extremely unfair term is to consider exactly what "revisionism" is a synonym for: denial. Historians are willing to rework their theories - or should - based on whatever new evidence comes to life. That does, and again should, mean that we would be willing to change our current assessment of the Holocaust were new evidence come to light that was relevant (a problematic and at times subjective standard, I know). However, denying an event isn't allowed by any responsible historical standard. To quote an article I read last year (and unfortunately don't have on me currently), "The point of history is not to deny an event, but to evaluate its causes, effects, and the scope of each."

You want to discuss the magnitude of the Holocaust, where responsibility lies, who did what to whom and how, that's all well and good. But, as of this point in the deabte, if you want to deny that such an event happened at all, I will personally hit you. Hard. And in a sensitive spot. If not merely for all the moralistic/responsibility issues concerning flat-out denial, for staining my passion and my major a bad name.

Pfft. I'm pretty certain the Brits also stopped neutral shipping to Germany.

Indeed. I've said as much back in post #179. :)

And the Belgians decided to get invaded. They could've just let them march through and even get paid for any costs incurred. :D

So the choice was to be invaded, or to be invaded. Wow. The US needs to try that trick in the Middle East! :D

Fact is that the Zimmermann Telegram was something the Germans did just in case, and that the Mexicans rejected it. Wilson had been looking for an excuse for ages, and the Brits (who were moving heaven and earth to put that piece of paper into American hands) delivered it.

Yep. And it was hardly heaven and earth... the few undersea cables the Germans had were all cut in 1914. Breaking the code was not *that* hard.

But as with WWII, the decision of the US to take a stance had been made long before.

Very true. I'm only pointing out what gave the US the reasons to go "un-neutral".

Me::) :mp5: :You :sniper: :My Partner

Why is your partner shooting you? :p

Why is your partner shooting you? :p

Because he's Dick Cheney.

So if I get someone else to fight you, you will do nothing to me? COOL!!
If I suppress them I will not endanged my economy any further. War debts are one of the primary reasons governmental systems collapse. So no, not "COOL!"

True, but the Lusitania was not the first ship sunk. It was, however, a passenger liner. That is what got the attention. Losing some merchantmen out in the North Atlantic a few at a time is one thing... this was big and bad in the public's eye.

Sure. And to have avoided such incidents, the US might have thought about stopping furnishing the Entente with vital material (which was especially frustrating for a Germany that had less and less access to basic necessities).

Yes, they had.
The Z telegram still had a very small chance of success, anyway. I suspect that Kaiser Bill was just being his usual impetuous self.
Ah, had he only gotten invited to Paris before the death of Britain's King Edward VII.

It had small chance of success, because the Americans called it a bluff. But what do you do to a poker player who shoos his adversary for not having confirmed his prediction?

Yep. And the US had no intention of giving back California, Nevada, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico or part of Colorado, either.

Ca n'empeche que. If the US would not want questiong, they it shouldn't place itself in a questionable position. Manifest destiny.

Villa... I think that Pershing's Expedition was not over the top for the events in Columbus, New Mexico...

Yes, it was that, in pure terms. Since the retaliation was considerably more brutal.

Tampico was the normal thing that happens when two groups of armed men meet and none of them share a common language. :(

Oh, ok. It's not imperialism when we do it.
The Germans, however, spoke plain English in their warnings. And the US could find translators in time to read the Z Telegram.

Don't get me wrong. I mean, my own country enterd the war for dubious reasons (and on the same side).

So the choice was to be invaded, or to be invaded. Wow. The US needs to try that trick in the Middle East! :D
I don't think it's quite the same thing.

The German government asked Belgium nicely whether they would allow German forces to pass through, and any potential costs incurred would be fully paid for. I think Luxembourg or Liechtenstein actually agreed, but I'm not sure.

Understandably probably, the king told them to bugger off, and so the Germans marched through by force. But there was a choice nonetheless.

Is the Holocaust real(like normal people believe) or is it some evil alien conspiracy by the evil demon people living in the center of the earth(or quite frankly, do you deny the Holocaust for any reason?)



This topic is so totally NOT bias!

Anyone who selects the 2nd or 3rd choices needs to see me face to face so I can deck their anti-semitic ass.

The Jewish population is still short of pre-Holocaust levels because of what those German Nazi fuckers did. The Polish, Russian, Dutch and French weren't much better. Only Sweden and Denmark are 100% clean in my opinion. They took every effort to save their Jewish populations. The rest of Europe can rot in hell for their role in the Holocaust. Even Britain is guilty for issuing the White Paper condemning millions to death.

If you are wondering why I harbor such hate, it has to do with the fact members of my family were there. Fuck Germany. I refuse to forgive that nation. The German people were very much responsible for the Holocaust. They would accept money from Jews as payment for harboring them, and as soon as they were paid they would turn them over to the SS for another payment.

Dude...first of all....Swizterland did alot to help its Jews also, but if you read about Finland during the holocaust, you will be amazed. It stood up for its Jews and refused to deport them to Germany, even when Germany demanded. Look it up.

Anyway I really think you should forgive Germany man. Look, Nazis were Germans, (yes, Hitler was Austrian but shhh) but Germans were/are by no means Nazis. Germans, save the leftist zealots, are good people and should not be held accountable of something that maybe 1% of their grandparents did. To hold a current nation in a light due to its history, is, well, absurd. Then we would still be Indian masacering rebels, the Japanese would still be genocidial fascists, and the Russians would still be homocidial communists. You need to get over it man...In fact, Germans take Nazism and Neo-Nazism way more seriously than Americans do. And I'm pretty sure that in America, we have way more Nazis than Europe does.

Anyway, you need to get over it...Germans are good people, after all, I come from them.

Anyway, you need to get over it...Germans are good people, after all, I come from them.
Agreed. Enough dwelling in the past. I do not adhere to the mentality of forget but don't forgive that some maintain. Instead, one should forgive and remember.

I don't think it's quite the same thing.

The German government asked Belgium nicely whether they would allow German forces to pass through, and any potential costs incurred would be fully paid for. I think Luxembourg or Liechtenstein actually agreed, but I'm not sure.

Understandably probably, the king told them to bugger off, and so the Germans marched through by force. But there was a choice nonetheless.


The US asked nicely if the Iraqis would allow nuclear inspectors, and any visits were to be paid for by the UN.

Understandably, Saddam told them to bugger off. ;)

NB: THIS IS TONGUE IN CHEEK!!

BTW: Liechtenstein was quite safe sitting next to Switzerland... and Luxembourg was a key point in Moltke's battleplans. Sadly, by the time of the war, Moltke was dead and his nephew was simply not his uncle. Much to Kaiser Bill's chagrin.

Industrialised killing is the worst thing humanity has come up with, and I don't think we'll ever be able to top that.

Nuclear weapons give it a run for its money.

Anyway I really think you should forgive Germany man.
Don't bother. There are unteachables on both sides.

Nuclear weapons give it a run for its money.
They might kill a lot of people, but not in that demeaning a way.

Agreed. Enough dwelling in the past. I do not adhere to the mentality of forget but don't forgive that some maintain. Instead, one should forgive and remember.

I beleive the slogan for the whole Jewish Holocaust organization is, "Forgive but never forget." Yet I dont see too much forgiving....my grandma is a perfect example.

An American whos parents come from Vienna, has only reluctantly visted Austria and swears to never set foot in Germany, even at this day and age. I'm working on taking her with my family to Northern and Central Europe this summer...so well see how things turn out.

Oddly enough, we didnt have any family in the holocaust, but its just the principal, I guess.

If I suppress them I will not endanged my economy any further. War debts are one of the primary reasons governmental systems collapse. So no, not "COOL!"

So you're willing to risk me getting ANOTHER person to fight you too? Excellent! :headbang:

Spurious logic. At that point in time, imposing war debts on the loser was the NORM, not the exception.

I beleive the slogan for the whole Jewish Holocaust organization is, "Forgive but never forget." Yet I dont see too much forgiving....my grandma is a perfect example.

An American whos parents come from Vienna, has only reluctantly visted Austria and swears to never set foot in Germany, even at this day and age. I'm working on taking her with my family to Northern and Central Europe this summer...so well see how things turn out.

Oddly enough, we didnt have any family in the holocaust, but its just the principal, I guess.
She is probably old and set in her ways. Work on her until she yields. :p

[Nuclear weapons] might kill a lot of people, but not in that demeaning a way.

'Tis true, but they've finally given us the power to destroy all of humanity.

So you're willing to risk me getting ANOTHER person to fight you too? Excellent! :headbang:

Spurious logic. At that point in time, imposing war debts on the loser was the NORM, not the exception.
So had America lost it would bear the burdens of loss as well. How is that sound economically? And if Germany is too busy fighting off other continental powers, how is it a threat to the US?

This is a paper i did for one of my classes. It's titled "The Common German and the Holocaust". On it you will find the product of my research, on what the role that the common citizenry had with the holocaust. It has a good bibliography for those that doubt it's sources. Read it and form your opinion.

http://rapidshare.de/files/13755956/Common_german_and_the_holocaust.doc.html

She is probably old and set in her ways. Work on her until she yields. :p

Yes thats what I was doing tonight at dinner, trying to convice her to come with us this summer. We were going to fly to Scanadanavia, then fly from Stockholm to Berlin, than take the train all around Germany...dip into Switzerland and Austria, hit Paris...then fly home.

She said she will THINK about it.

Anyway she just left the house in her glistening S430 Mercedes Benz :rolleyes: .......shes such a liberal...lol.

Sure. And to have avoided such incidents, the US might have thought about stopping furnishing the Entente with vital material (which was especially frustrating for a Germany that had less and less access to basic necessities).

Exactly. I'm not condoning one side or the other's acts. I'm just pointing out that the sinking of the ships were another reason the US mobilized.

It had small chance of success, because the Americans called it a bluff. But what do you do to a poker player who shoos his adversary for not having confirmed his prediction?

That, and the Mexicans weren't really in shape to mount a serious campaign anyway. Santa Ana had been pillaging the treasury on and off for years...

Ca n'empeche que. If the US would not want questiong, they it shouldn't place itself in a questionable position. Manifest destiny.

What questionable position? The US took the land by arms. It was only because Polk was a sensible man tht the US didn't try for the whole of Mexico. Cavalier? Yep.

Yes, it was that, in pure terms. Since the retaliation was considerably more brutal.

What? Pershing floundering about the countryside not finding Villa was brutal? It wasn't like when they were hunting down the Irish Brigade during/after the Mexican-American War!

Oh, ok. It's not imperialism when we do it.
The Germans, however, spoke plain English in their warnings. And the US could find translators in time to read the Z Telegram.

Don't get me wrong. I mean, my own country enterd the war for dubious reasons (and on the same side).

Didn't say that. :)

Again, I'm not saying that either side was wrong or right, just that the US used "unlimited submarine warfare/freedom of the seas" as a lever to move away from "non-beligerence".

Not sure what your country is... (?)

Yes thats what I was doing tonight at dinner, trying to convice her to come with us this summer. We were going to fly to Scanadanavia, then fly from Stockholm to Berlin, than take the train all around Germany...dip into Switzerland and Austria, hit Paris...then fly home.

She said she will THINK about it.

Anyway she just left the house in her glistening S430 Mercedes Benz :rolleyes: .......shes such a liberal...lol.
Haha sounds like an awesome trip :) I'm heading off to South Africa this Summer, and then probably Paris for August, though I'm not sure yet.

This is a paper i did for one of my classes.
It's okay, although I would've added the whole IBM Punchcard thing, just for the sake of it (and to outline that, at least according to IBM, it is possible to be so directly involved and still not know).

What I would find interesting is hearing your personal opinion of me. I'm German, as were my parents. My grandparents saw the Nazis. My step-grandfather fought for them and was wounded in Stalingrad.

What does that make me? What does collective responsibility mean for me?

Haha sounds like an awesome trip :) I'm heading off to South Africa this Summer, and then probably Paris for August, though I'm not sure yet.

Sweet, be safe in South Africa.

Seriously, I heard it gets worse by the day. One of my team mate's family is from South Africa, and they were (basically) forced to leave because all of the problems you get for being White there.

It means not to forget. The crimes that your countrymen might have not been committed by you, but you have the same responsability, as a citizen, of regretting, remembering and helping to maintain the memory of it, so such an act is never repeated again.

So had America lost it would bear the burdens of loss as well. How is that sound economically? And if Germany is too busy fighting off other continental powers, how is it a threat to the US?

America really wasn't too worried about the German plan to land troops in Rhode Island, march down route 44 and invade NYC. Especially since they hadn't invaded the UK yet. Even in a seperate peace, the US already had so much credit extended to France, Russia and the UK that it would be highly unlikely that it would have to pay anything in the (unlikely) event of a loss.
At best, the Spring Offensive of 1918 might have ended the war in a negotiated peace, with German gains against France on land and concessions by the UK/US on the sea.

:confused: How many times do I have to point it out? Unrestricted naval warfare on neutral shipping and asking Mexico to attack *ARE HOSTILE ACTIONS*. Both are threats to the US.

Sweet, be safe in South Africa.

Seriously, I heard it gets worse by the day. One of my team mate's family is from South Africa, and they were (basically) forced to leave because all of the problems you get for being White there.
Nah, it's not that bad in the South Coast (where my relatives stay and where I'm going). :p It's still a predominantly wealthy area, and quite safe. Really fun. :) Other areas are bad, but I will be avoiding them. :p

:confused: How many times do I have to point it out? Unrestricted naval warfare on neutral shipping and asking Mexico to attack *ARE HOSTILE ACTIONS*. Both are threats to the US.
Either way, I wish the US interference had not happened. It would have been the best possible way to avoid WW 2 altogether. Can't change History though.

Nah, it's not that bad in the South Coast (where my relatives stay and where I'm going). :p It's still a predominantly wealthy area, and quite safe. Really fun. :) Other areas are bad, but I will be avoiding them. :p

Well good then. I'm really sorry your country has fallen so hard. It just goes to show, though....

<snip> Can't change History though.

Now THAT I agree with! :D

Well good then. I'm really sorry your country has fallen so hard. It just goes to show, though....
It was inevitable I guess. I love it still, but I'm happier in Europe either way. :) It's still fun to visit though. Awesome beaches and really beautiful people.

Either way, I wish the US interference had not happened. It would have been the best possible way to avoid WW 2 altogether. Can't change History though.

I dont think we should have gotten into WWI either.

I honestly think there was nothing wrong with what Germany was doing in the Great war, after all, they were simply taking advantage of war time to gain land....since when is that anything new?

Needless to say they were simply the adversarey in WWI, and not the evil empire they were in WWII.

Now THAT I agree with! :D
Give me time to invent a time machine, and even that will no longer be a potenial point of agreement :)

It means not to forget. The crimes that your countrymen might have not been committed by you, but you have the same responsability, as a citizen, of regretting, remembering and helping to maintain the memory of it, so such an act is never repeated again.
If that's all, then I got the bases covered. :D

Other countries build statues, Germany builds ugly modern art to remember the Holocaust. ;)

I dont think we should have gotten into WWI either.

I honestly think there was nothing wrong with what Germany was doing in the Great war, after all, they were simply taking advantage of war time to gain land....since when is that anything new?

Needless to say they were simply the adversarey in WWI, and not the evil empire they were in WWII.
It was pure, old fashioned imperial warfare in WWI. WW II was a much darker and ideologically rooted war.

Exactly. I'm not condoning one side or the other's acts. I'm just pointing out that the sinking of the ships were another reason the US mobilized.

Agreed.

That, and the Mexicans weren't really in shape to mount a serious campaign anyway. Santa Ana had been pillaging the treasury on and off for years...

Fine.

What questionable position? The US took the land by arms. It was only because Polk was a sensible man tht the US didn't try for the whole of Mexico. Cavalier? Yep.

My point was that the US spent a lot of time making the Mexicans hate them.

What? Pershing floundering about the countryside not finding Villa was brutal? It wasn't like when they were hunting down the Irish Brigade during/after the Mexican-American War!

Well, it was brutal. As brutal as Villa's raid, probably. And, after Tampico and the numerous precedents, Villa thought he could raid the US at his convenience.

Didn't say that. :)

Sorry, I was unnecessarily sarcastic.

Again, I'm not saying that either side was wrong or right, just that the US used "unlimited submarine warfare/freedom of the seas" as a lever to move away from "non-beligerence".

Agreed. Except that German authorities could argue quite well that the US had stopped being non-belligerant in, well, 1914.

Not sure what your country is... (?)

Romania. It had an agreement with the Central Powers prior to that (like Italy). The Entente promised to award it the Romanian-populated territories in a defeated Austria-Hungary. A funny thing was that they promised Romania a border on the Tisza River - which made Romania a competitor of... Serbia (who was fighting the war since day 1).
To make a long story short, my country had a shiload of luck at the end of the War: it was defeated by the Germans in 1917, but somehow managed to doublr its territory by 1919.

If that's all, then I got the bases covered. :D

Other countries build statues, Germany builds ugly modern art to remember the Holocaust. ;)

Yeah what is it with this modern art idea....its so freaking lame.

Not just for your holocaust memorials, but just in general.

Modern art that doesnt represent anything at all ISNT anything at all.

Modern art is totally gay for itself.

Yeah what is it with this modern art idea....its so freaking lame.

Not just for your holocaust memorials, but just in general.

Modern art that doesnt represent anything at all ISNT anything at all.

Modern art is totally gay for itself.
It's highly conceptual. I used to hate it myself, but if you realise what it's all about it actually makes some sense. That said, I think paying thousands, like some do, for a blank canvass is pure stupidity.

I dont think we should have gotten into WWI either.

I honestly think there was nothing wrong with what Germany was doing in the Great war, after all, they were simply taking advantage of war time to gain land....since when is that anything new?

Needless to say they were simply the adversarey in WWI, and not the evil empire they were in WWII.

Actually, gaining territory was not a German war aim in WWI.
Simply, they wanted to knock out France in 6 weeks so that they could turn to face the Russians.
Imagine their horror when the Austrians positioned most of their troops against Serbia and not Russia. :eek:

Oh, sure, their would be the odd concession (Alsace and Lorraine permanently German, maybe push the border a little further east...), but nothing like the "liebensraum" of WW2...

Well, i haven't seen the blank canvas... but i have seen one with 3 dots and a line. 3 DOTS AND A LINE!!! I could've done the same. Give the 100 grand to me!!

It's highly conceptual. I used to hate it myself, but if you realise what it's all about it actually makes some sense. That said, I think paying thousands, like some do, for a blank canvass is pure stupidity.

Lol...well we are gonna disagree here...I'm just not an art type of guy in general, so you could imagine how I feel about modern art.

Lol...well we are gonna disagree here...I'm just not an art type of guy in general, so you could imagine how I feel about modern art.
I also prefer classical art really, and I would not pay for modern art so essentially I agree with you. I can still get the idea behind it though, and in some cases, appreciate it.

It was pure, old fashioned imperial warfare in WWI. WW II was a much darker and ideologically rooted war.

I agree...During WWII, evil did exist on this earth in the face of Nazism.

Whether other people beleive in it or not, I beleive that evil does exist in our world and its our jobs to fight it.

Actually, gaining territory was not a German war aim in WWI.
Simply, they wanted to knock out France in 6 weeks so that they could turn to face the Russians.
Imagine their horror when the Austrians positioned most of their troops against Serbia and not Russia. :eek:

Oh, sure, their would be the odd concession (Alsace and Lorraine permanently German, maybe push the border a little further east...), but nothing like the "liebensraum" of WW2...
Yep, old style imperial warfare. The knock out France in 6 weeks bit made me laugh. Imagine if they had said 6 hours. :p

...but nothing like the "liebensraum" of WW2...
Loving Space? :D

W00T!

Yep, old style imperial warfare. The knock out France in 6 weeks bit made me laugh. Imagine if they had said 6 hours. :p

Nah... 6 hours is against the Italians.
If we're talking post-3rd Republic France, I could believe 6 days. ;)

Actually, gaining territory was not a German war aim in WWI.
Simply, they wanted to knock out France in 6 weeks so that they could turn to face the Russians.
Imagine their horror when the Austrians positioned most of their troops against Serbia and not Russia. :eek:

Oh, sure, their would be the odd concession (Alsace and Lorraine permanently German, maybe push the border a little further east...), but nothing like the "liebensraum" of WW2...

What do you mean, "odd concession"? Alsace and Lorraine were very industrial parts of France that were ripe for the taking...:confused:

Nah... 6 hours is against the Italians.
If we're talking post-3rd Republic France, I could believe 6 days. ;)
I could actually imagine the German generals planning things that way. :p They'd probably give Russia 6 weeks.

What do you mean, "odd concession"? Alsace and Lorraine were very industrial parts of France that were ripe for the taking...:confused:
Note "permanently" in his sentence.

That general area has been the source of troubles since the death of Charlemagne. Originally his empire was split into three parts, but the middle had to be divided between France in the West and Germany in the East at some point.

It had been France, then was taken by Germany in '71. Winning WWI would probably have meant that it would for all time have been written down that the area would remain German.

What do you mean, "odd concession"? Alsace and Lorraine were very industrial parts of France that were ripe for the taking...:confused:

I mean that the map of Europe following a short war by a victorious Central Powers wouldn't be very different from a pre-war one. (Thus "odd concession".)
Even with a CP victory, the balance of power would not have overwhelmingly shifted:
The Ottomans and Austro-Hungarians would remain weak, almost vassal states to Germany.
The British Empire would remain intact, as would a Russia where Lenin never came home and Trotsky was still playing chess at the Cafe Central in Vienna.

Note "permanently" in his sentence.

That general area has been the source of troubles since the death of Charlemagne. Originally his empire was split into three parts, but the middle had to be divided between France in the West and Germany in the East at some point.

It had been France, then was taken by Germany in '71. Winning WWI would probably have meant that it would for all time have been written down that the area would remain German.

Spot on!

The Holocaust never happened and it should never happened again!

I also enjoy molesting children and kicking puppies, all Nazi's do we just stay quiet about it.

"DEATH TO NAZI FUCKS!":sniper:

First of all, I voted for the first choice. However, I was tempted to pick the second choice not because it was over exagerated, but because the Russians lost roughly 30-35 million people.. The Last time I checked, 34million was much larger than 6 million. Of course I'm not saying the halocaust wasn't bad, it was awfull, it's just that the Russians lost so much more. For every Jew that died, 5 Russians died.

Loving Space? :D

W00T!

This is what taking an 8am German class in college gets me, I guess... ;)

The Holocaust never happened and it should never happened again!

I also enjoy molesting children and kicking puppies, all Nazi's do we just stay quiet about it.

"DEATH TO NAZI FUCKS!":sniper:

I will hereby never read anything that you ever post this forum ever again. Ever.

I mean that the map of Europe following a short war by a victorious Central Powers wouldn't be very different from a pre-war one. (Thus "odd concession".)
Even with a CP victory, the balance of power would not have overwhelmingly shifted:
The Ottomans and Austro-Hungarians would remain weak, almost vassal states to Germany.
The British Empire would remain intact, as would a Russia where Lenin never came home and Trotsky was still playing chess at the Cafe Central in Vienna.
And then the Kaiser would invite the Czar to a friendly game of golf. The Czar would score more holes-in-one, Wilhelm would have a fit, and on we go to the next great war, this time to annex Russia. :) Or maybe they would serve burnt crumpets to the British Monarch, and Britain would decide to conquer Germany.