NationStates Jolt Archive

Basically there are two details. Either Adolf Hitler INITIATED WWII (By attacking Poland and later the USSR) simply to round up "racial inferiors" and use the war as cover for the mass killings. Or perhaps Hitler went into war to gain territory, and realized that he could round up the "undesireables" much easier. What do you think?

Basically there are two details. Either Adolf Hitler INITIATED WWII (By attacking Poland and later the USSR) simply to round up "racial inferiors" and use the war as cover for the mass killings. Or perhaps Hitler went into war to gain territory, and realized that he could round up the "undesireables" much easier. What do you think?
Both the holocaust and invasions were about restoring glory to Germany. One was not directly related to the other.

Basically there are two details. Either Adolf Hitler INITIATED WWII (By attacking Poland and later the USSR) simply to round up "racial inferiors" and use the war as cover for the mass killings. Or perhaps Hitler went into war to gain territory, and realized that he could round up the "undesireables" much easier. What do you think?I think neither is the case, since Hitler wanted to further the Germanic race. This included culling what he considered "sub-humans" and gathering "living space" for the Germans. Both were intended from beginning on.

I don't know, I know one thing, if he hadn't have invaded Russia, we'd all be speaking either German, Japanese, Italian, or Russian right now.

I don't know, I know one thing, if he hadn't have invaded Russia, we'd all be speaking either German, Japanese, Italian, or Russian right now.

or klingon (most likely incorrect spelling), i think hitler would of been a trek fan

I don't know, I know one thing, if he hadn't have invaded Russia, we'd all be speaking either German, Japanese, Italian, or Russian right now.
I'd believe it if you hadn't have said Italian, they couldn't even beat the Greeks!

World War II was not intended till at least '44
Hitler expected Britain and France to hand over Poland as had been done with Czechoslovakia, Austria*, Ruhr and Rhineland etc etc

it wasn't a cover for the extermination of the Subhumans but an ends to a means(Or however that goess).

Besides maybe all the Jews would have been sent to Madagacar if things had gone better in 41.
Who knows?

I'd believe it if you hadn't have said Italian, they couldn't even beat the Greeks!

World War II was not intended till at least '44
Hitler expected Britain and France to hand over Poland as had been done with Czechoslovakia, Austria*, Ruhr and Rhineland etc etc

it wasn't a cover for the extermination of the Subhumans but an ends to a means(Or however that goess).

Besides maybe all the Jews would have been sent to Madagacar if things had gone better in 41.
Who knows?Incorrect. World War II was meant for earlier, when the Allies were even less prepared. We have Mussolini and Göring to thank for organizing a peace that bought the British time to churn out enough fighter planes to barely win the Battle of Britain. The odds were much more in favor of the Nazis in 1938. Hitler was spoiling for war when he went for Czechoslovakia.

Incorrect. World War II was meant for earlier, when the Allies were even less prepared. We have Mussolini and Göring to thank for organizing a peace that bought the British time to churn out enough fighter planes to barely win the Battle of Britain. The odds were much more in favor of the Nazis in 1938. Hitler was spoiling for war when he went for Czechoslovakia.
But didn't Hitler promise the Kriegsmarine 'no war til '44'?-heh it rhymes
The numbers of Fighters didn't decide the Battle of Britain it was the number of Fighters and Airstrips the Germans decided not to destroy that mattered.

But didn't Hitler promise the Kriegsmarine 'no war til '44'?-heh it rhymes
The numbers of Fighters didn't decide the Battle of Britain it was the number of Fighters and Airstrips the Germans decided not to destroy that mattered.Did he? Do you have a source for that? I'd be interested to read about that.
The stuff I've been reading and seeing though indicates that Mussolini got bitch-slapped by Hitler after he patted himself on the back for the Munich conference and Göring all but fell from Hitler's grace for his part in the conference.
Now imagine what the Battle for Britain would have been like if the British had even less planes. From the British I've talked to, there were plenty of last ditch efforts to avoid showing the Germans how close to collapse the RAF really was.

Did he? Do you have a source for that? I'd be interested to read about that.
The stuff I've been reading and seeing though indicates that Mussolini got bitch-slapped by Hitler after he patted himself on the back for the Munich conference and Göring all but fell from Hitler's grace for his part in the conference.
Now imagine what the Battle for Britain would have been like if the British had even less planes. From the British I've talked to, there were plenty of last ditch efforts to avoid showing the Germans how close to collapse the RAF really was.
I think i got it form the 'Secrets of World War Two' series and i don't have a link or any evidence but i might be able to find some.

That is interesting to see because from what i have read if the Ruhr gamble hadn't have come off and France had done something about it 'Hitler' would have been fleeing with his tail between his legs.-or so i have been told.

No doubt it(Battle of Britain) would have been over,Germany unfortunatly(For them) was indecisive on what exactly where their targets in Britain and when the RAF was at breaking point they were given a reprieve and turned the whole thing around.

I am glad to see no body went for the third option!

I am glad to see no body went for the third option!I'm sad anybody went for any of them. They're all misguided, though some more than the other.

I am glad to see no body went for the third option!

Since that historian fella was incarcerated in Austria for Holocaust denial I have questioned many things about the Holocaust. I haven't looked into it with any detail yet but I was taught this way: Hitler > WW2 > WW2 victory for allies and hitlers death. History is written by the victors and, without making any claims, dead Hitler is a useful scapegoat. I just think it is worth questioning everything I am taught or told these days.

Since that historian fella was incarcerated in Austria for Holocaust denial I have questioned many things about the Holocaust. I haven't looked into it with any detail yet but I was taught this way: Hitler > WW2 > WW2 victory for allies and hitlers death. History is written by the victors and, without making any claims, dead Hitler is a useful scapegoat. I just think it is worth questioning everything I am taught or told these days.
A good attitude to have. :) History should never be taken for granted.

Denying the Holocaust is a waste of time and an exercise in futility though.

Denying the Holocaust is a waste of time and an exercise in futility though.

Especially since the paper-shredder hadn't been invented. The Nazis's kept very detailed records.

Especially since the paper-shredder hadn't been invented. The Nazis's kept very detailed records.
Indeed. I do not think someone should be incarcerated for denying the Holocaust with regard to freedom of speech, but that doesn't make the thesis any more averable.

Especially since the paper-shredder hadn't been invented. The Nazis's kept very detailed records.

Did they? That's a genuine question. Is there any serious question about their authenticity? I am just wondering why the deniers are denying and their evidence for it.

Did they? That's a genuine question. Is there any serious question about their authenticity? I am just wondering why the deniers are denying and their evidence for it.
Sometimes they are Neo-nazis, other times they are trying to make a thesis and defend it. And in other cases, they are just out of their minds. Historical revisionism is a good thing, but only where it improves the quality of History as a discipline. Luckily, there are many Historians out there who will quickly attack poorly substantiated positions and arguments. You would have to read their works (or at least check Wikipedia) to see what the basis for them are. This is usually weak (or even flawed) factual evidence.

Did they? That's a genuine question. Is there any serious question about their authenticity? I am just wondering why the deniers are denying and their evidence for it.The deniers are denying the evidence because it fits their little picture of the world. I've seen a person claim that Hitler was a jew, only Christians were really killed in concentration camps, and Hitler made sure only jews were in concentration camps so that they'd be safe from the allied bombing while the Christians got hit, all in the same letter.
They're denying it because they don't want it to be true and value "evidence" that someone comes up with more than what we have.

Most of the anti-holocaust evidence relies upon manipulating statistics. For instance, they point out that for two million people to have been sent to such-and-such camp in 194X means that XXX many people must have passed through WXY train station - far beyond it's capacity!

The problem is that if you look closely at the problem the difficulties evaporate. Either WXY station could actually have handled that capacity, or there were alternate routes that could also have been used.

they also like to point out that the chains of evidence after the camps were liberated are spotty - which is actually true. The Allied troops that liberated the camps were more interested in keeping people alive than in documenting the evidence.

they also like to point out that the chains of evidence after the camps were liberated are spotty - which is actually true. The Allied troops that liberated the camps were more interested in keeping people alive than in documenting the evidence.
Which is why evidence needs to be constantly examined. I do not agree with Holocaust deniers, anymore than I agree with those who view History as something static and inalterable

The deniers are denying the evidence because it fits their little picture of the world. I've seen a person claim that Hitler was a jew, only Christians were really killed in concentration camps, and Hitler made sure only jews were in concentration camps so that they'd be safe from the allied bombing while the Christians got hit, all in the same letter.
They're denying it because they don't want it to be true and value "evidence" that someone comes up with more than what we have.
Which would bring into question their status as authentic Historians, at least in this regard.

Especially since the paper-shredder hadn't been invented. The Nazis's kept very detailed records.or.. since fire had not been invented. :D

Its a subject I'll look into when I get a chance. We do accept a lot of what we are told to be truthful and in the majority of cases they are. It is always worth questioning these facts should any question of their veracity be made and sometimes you may uncover 1 or 2 things you didn't previously know.

Its a subject I'll look into when I get a chance. We do accept a lot of what we are told to be truthful and in the majority of cases they are. It is always worth questioning these facts should any question of their veracity be made and sometimes you may uncover 1 or 2 things you didn't previously know.
Precisely. :)

or.. since fire had not been invented. :D
So the Reichstag Fire was what? :p Flames from Hell coming to claim the "Communist Pigs"?

or.. since fire had not been invented. :D

You can't just burn secret documents. You'd feel far too guilty. That's why the paper shredder was invented. It's so incredibly satisfying to use that any guilt you have is drowned out by the neat little humming and desire to shred more documents.

So I can safely say WWII was not meant to hide th holocaust?

And also, Holocaust deniers are a REAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLY small minority people.

Hmm...no it wasn't used as cover. Despite his inaction, didn't FDR actually know about the shit that Hitler was pulling before Hitler invaded Poland?

Incorrect. World War II was meant for earlier, when the Allies were even less prepared. We have Mussolini and Göring to thank for organizing a peace that bought the British time to churn out enough fighter planes to barely win the Battle of Britain. The odds were much more in favor of the Nazis in 1938. Hitler was spoiling for war when he went for Czechoslovakia.

Hitler started a five year plan to ready the army for all out war. He started it in 1936.

Hmm...no it wasn't used as cover. Despite his inaction, didn't FDR actually know about the shit that Hitler was pulling before Hitler invaded Poland?

As I understand it FDR and the Allies knew of the death camps but did nothing because it wouldn't help the war effort to save those people from hideous deaths.

Also, the nazis were known as simply brutal people. This could have been a massive form of repression to FDR.

As I understand it FDR and the Allies knew of the death camps but did nothing because it wouldn't help the war effort to save those people from hideous deaths.

Indeed. The Bermuda Conference was a singular failure that did absolutely nothing to help those in the camps or other oppressed or jailed victims. Most of the nations were half-hearted about the matter of the holocaust. Many either did not believe the reports or believed them to be exaggerated, or as you said believed bombing said camps and other facilities were a waste of limited military resources.

1. Bombing said camps would have easily killed the victims, who were either dead or weak from starvation and abuse.

2. It is believed that the allies felt that defeating the axis powers would help the concentration camp victims more than liberating them one at a time, thereby risking the other victims being executed by the nazis to help destroy evidence.

3. The holocaust denials come from:
a. Neo-nazism. The holocaust would paint a dark picture on their hero and god(Hitler)
b. Ignorance. Mahny of the holocaust denial claims come from questionable scientific research. For instance, some deniers ILLEGALLY tried to test the aushwitz(I know I spelled it wrong) bricks to see if the gas chambers really existed. They tested the gas chambers and used the de-licing rooms as controls. Since the de-licing rooms used the same gasses(in lower, more controlled quantities), the whole thing was null and void. A better control would have been the barracks, where traces would have been extremely minimal, if they existed in the barracks at all.
c. They don't want to accept the fact that something that bad really did happen. At least they aren't as bad as the WWII deniers. How can you deny something like that when you have veterans of it and physical proof?

I found this site (www.holocaust-history.org) to help inform you guys about the subject. Yes, the internet isn't always reliable. However, every try to download solid books or veterans? Damn hard.

It couldn’t possibly have been for cover. The world’s leaders knew about Hitler’s actions against the Jews and any regular person could have figured out things weren’t peachy over there for them by reading his damn book or talking to someone else who did.

The exterminations were stepped up during the war because sane minds knew that Germany did not stand a chance and wanted as pure a Germany as possible after they lost.
I don't know, I know one thing, if he hadn't have invaded Russia, we'd all be speaking either German, Japanese, Italian, or Russian right now.
Are you kidding?

First of all, a conquest of North America by any of those countries would have been impossible.

Second, Russia could have defeated the Nazis on their own, while also weakening themselves more so than what actually occurred. If FDR had not cut off oil to the Japanese and the US had never become involved in the war, the world may actually have turned out to be a far nicer place.

It was both.

Hitler's second book was never to be published cause it layed all his cards on the table.

Hitler wanted to conquer the world.

It couldn’t possibly have been for cover. The world’s leaders knew about Hitler’s actions against the Jews and any regular person could have figured out things weren’t peachy over there for them by reading his damn book or talking to someone else who did.

The exterminations were stepped up during the war because sane minds knew that Germany did not stand a chance and wanted as pure a Germany as possible after they lost.

Are you kidding?

First of all, a conquest of North America by any of those countries would have been impossible.

Second, Russia could have defeated the Nazis on their own, while also weakening themselves more so than what actually occurred. If FDR had not cut off oil to the Japanese and the US had never become involved in the war, the world may actually have turned out to be a far nicer place.

Without European Jewry, Communism, anti-National Socialists, Gypsies, Slavs, Gays, cripples, retards.

Is that your idea of nice?

It was both.

Hitler's second book was never to be published cause it layed all his cards on the table.

Hitler wanted to conquer the world.

He did want to conquer the world (The Amerika Bomber, for example, is evidence for that), although I think the two went hand in hand. He wanted to conquer the world, and the war gave him ample opportunity to rid himself of his hated enemies and anyone else he didn't like. Don't forget the holocaust didn't officially start until after the Wansee Conference, although obviously events had occured before then.

Basically there are two details. Either Adolf Hitler INITIATED WWII (By attacking Poland and later the USSR) simply to round up "racial inferiors" and use the war as cover for the mass killings. Or perhaps Hitler went into war to gain territory, and realized that he could round up the "undesireables" much easier. What do you think?
What do I think? I think history has the answer to this.

Hitler initiated war for a variety of purposes, not the least of which was to unify the German people and regain what had been lost after WWI. The holocaust was part scapegoating, part retribution for percieved wrongs, part just sheer madness.

It couldn’t possibly have been for cover. The world’s leaders knew about Hitler’s actions against the Jews and any regular person could have figured out things weren’t peachy over there for them by reading his damn book or talking to someone else who did.

The exterminations were stepped up during the war because sane minds knew that Germany did not stand a chance and wanted as pure a Germany as possible after they lost.

Are you kidding?

First of all, a conquest of North America by any of those countries would have been impossible.

Second, Russia could have defeated the Nazis on their own, while also weakening themselves more so than what actually occurred. If FDR had not cut off oil to the Japanese and the US had never become involved in the war, the world may actually have turned out to be a far nicer place.

Despite your belief Undelia, you are actually wrong. If either Russia or Nazi Germany had conquered Europe, the US would have followed only a few decades later, if that. The development of the Nazi A-Bomb, or the Russian taking of that project, would have guaranteed a nuclear war by the 1960's, especially combined with Nazi rocket science and advanced weapons like the Amerika Bomber and the V1 and V2. It would not have made political and strategic sense to not invade the US.

I'm not doubting it would have taken many years of conventional warfare, or a few months of nuclear and conventional warfare, but the US would either have been conquered or crippled. In the Presence of Mine Enemies by Harry Turtledove gives a good idea of what would have happened.

Well, Hitler wanted to get rid of the Jews (basically anyone whom the Nazis felt like putting in that category, really), the Gypsies, the homosexuals, the left, and anyone else he or other Nazis didn't like by whatever means possible. Initially, the Nazis tried to drive them out of Germany (pre-war) by violence and threats of violence, but once killing the Jews became an option (that it was no longer possible to simply try to get the Jews to leave and take all of their possessions, or to house them in ghettoes and watch them die slowly), the Nazis took that route. The Nazis had already begun killing the mentally handicapped as part of a euthanasia programme, so it was a short step in thought from killing the weak to killing the defenceless. The Wannsee Conference merely was the formalisation and structuring of a pre-existing policy of ethnic cleansing, to use an apt anachronism.

WWII wasn't so much a cover for the Holocaust but was intended as the prelude to a much greater holocaust that was to come had the Nazis won the war. Evidence for that is in how much resources the Party was willing to throw behind the effort to murder the Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, etc. even when that hindered the war effort. WWII offered the means to fulfil Hitler's darkest fantasies.

Correct.

If you read both of his books you'll see how he was planning to destroy America also. He ADMIRED America and hated it.

Correct.

If you read both of his books you'll see how he was planning to destroy America also. He ADMIRED America and hated it.

Just like Britain. Although the man was ready to conquer any country, admired or not. He would have taken the US on in the late 50's, early sixties. Well, him or his successor. Nukes on Washington and New York, and/or an invasion through Mexico, maybe buying Mexican support by promising them Texas and other territories.

www.holocaust-history.com
http://history1900s.about.com/library/holocaust/blholocaust.htm
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/holocaust/timeline.html

Here's some sites to give us some more info.

Just like Britain. Although the man was ready to conquer any country, admired or not. He would have taken the US on in the late 50's, early sixties. Well, him or his successor. Nukes on Washington and New York, and/or an invasion through Mexico, maybe buying Mexican support by promising them Texas and other territories.

Correct. If it wasn't for Japan, Hitler may have won.

He admired the Americans because they left their countries of origin to go to a new world and make a new start, at first seen as cowards, but he realized they were taking their lives and risking it all in a new land with no family and no way to go back for the poor. America had all the courageous inventors and daring people in his eyes and was a most dangerous enemy.

Remember the Rape of Nanking! Remember the Batan Death March! Japan was just as bad if not worse than the nazis.

Remember the Rape of Nanking! Remember the Batan Death March! Japan was just as bad if not worse than the nazis.

Japan was bad...but not on the scale of Germany. Or Russia.

I am glad to see no body went for the third option!
Anybody who does is a moron because any self respecting Nazi would'nt lie about their achievments no matter how failed they ended up being.
Note i didn't vote because the poll is stupid.

Without European Jewry, Communism, anti-National Socialists, Gypsies, Slavs, Gays, cripples, retards.

Is that your idea of nice?[/QUOTE]
Nice for me, not nice for a bunch of people I don’t know nor care about.
Despite your belief Undelia, you are actually wrong. If either Russia or Nazi Germany had conquered Europe, the US would have followed only a few decades later, if that. The development of the Nazi A-Bomb, or the Russian taking of that project, would have guaranteed a nuclear war by the 1960's, especially combined with Nazi rocket science and advanced weapons like the Amerika Bomber and the V1 and V2.
Mutually assured destruction has kept major war from breaking out in the last sixty years. I see no reason why this would not apply to this particular scenario.
It would not have made political and strategic sense to not invade the US.
Not if we made it worth their while. If we hadn't cut off oil supplies, Japan would have had no beef with us and if not for FDR's violations of neutrality, neighter would the Nazis. Hilter was actually quite fond of a number of Americans. The Nazis didn't invade Switzerland because they knew it was actually more benificial as a neutral power. We could have been the same and avoided 400,000 deaths of Americans and countless Japanese.
I'm not doubting it would have taken many years of conventional warfare, or a few months of nuclear and conventional warfare, but the US would either have been conquered or crippled.
Thing is, no one would want the US after the measures needed to conquer it would be implemented. An invasion wouldn't be worth it and nuclear weapons would only result in their own cities being bombed.