If history is 'written by the winners'...

To want to deport European Jews out of Europe?

Clearly not - not any more than the same European Jews had a right to decant so many natives from their homes, in what they now call Israel.

I am merely stating a historical fact that Zionist elites did do deals with Nazi's, and that one of those deals was that Jews were to be relocated to the region they are in now. This is what the political idealogy of Zionism is about - a Jewish state, in that region.

This idea of a Jewish state was really only popularised among Zionists, not Jews at large.

Zionists knew that it would take something of epic proportions to tilt the deck in their favour, so that they finally got their political dream - said Jewish state.

I am not asserting that the victims of Nazi Germany were to blame!

I am asserting that their deaths suited perhaps not merely the Nazi's, but the Zionists who had the Jewish state in mind, since the large the number of Jews that perished, the better it was for them to present their case for a 'Jewish homeland'.

If one Jew had died in Nazi Germany, their dream of Israel (was going to be called 'Zion'), would never have happened.

So, yes, I do believe that influential Zionists placed the blockers on working class Jews getting out of Europe, for the sole purpose of leaving them to a regime they knew would incarcirate them.

Theodor Herzl (1860-1904), the founder of modern Zionism, recognized that anti-Semitism would further his cause, the creation of a separate state for Jews. To solve the Jewish Question, he maintained "we must, above all, make it an international political issue. Herzl wrote that Zionism offered the world a welcome "final solution of the Jewish question."In his "Diaries", page 19, Herzl stated "Anti-Semites will become our surest friends, anti-Semitic countries our allies."

The fundamental aim of the Zionist movement has been not to save Jewish lives but to create a "Jewish state" in Palestine

On December 7, 1938, Ben Gurion, declared "If I knew it was possible to save all the children in Germany by taking them to England, and only half of the children by taking them to Eretz Israel, I would choose the second solution"

It follows that for the Zionist state to achieve its goal of a Jewish world ghetto anti-Semitism must be promoted and encouraged, and as we have seen, by acts of violence if necessary.

Prime Minister Sharon has stated that anti-Semitism is on the rise and that the only hope for the safety of Jews is to move to Israel under the protection of the Zionist state. "The best solution to anti-Semitism is immigration to Israel. It is the only place on Earth where Jews can live as Jews," he said.

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/antisemitism/nazisupport.cfm

 

Very well. You attribute blame and guilt to all sides and all nations.
Jefferson is a hero of mine. He refused to see the horrors of the French Revolution for likely the same reason I perhaps gloss over some of the German atrocities. I can admit as much.

As I said in the beginning of this thread, The Third Reich inspires me. It was, in my view, about to bring a new golden age to Europe which it sorely needed. The time of the Germans had come and I applaud that. It had a grand vision for the future and it needed to crack a few eggs along the way.

What I am arguing against, I suppose, is this absurd and widely held belief that the Germans were demonic and the Allies were the angels, saving the world from the armies of darkness.

 

Is this the figure of 4.2 million? I don't know. I pursued this subject years ago. I remember what opinions I arrived at but not the sources that lead me to them.

 

Actually the number of non-combatants killed by Nazi Germany is most likely over 20 million. Of which 6 or so million were Jews.

Irony, I have provided you with a book that provides war diaries of German commanders who detail the numbers of dead and places of artocities committed. And that's just the Wehrmacht and doesn't include SS Death Squads, which the book also confirms existed.

"The Werhmacht" by Wolfram Wette.

You have provided no examples to the contrary and your story has numerous holes in it, just like your previous discussion on the Danzig corridor showed holes in your understanding in another thread.

In Mein Kampf, Hitler states: "...it [Nazi philosophy] by no means believes in an equality of races, but along with their difference it recognizes their higher or lesser value and feels itself obligated to promote the victory of the better and stronger, and demand the subordination of the inferior and weaker in accordance with the eternal will that dominates this universe."

Extermination came later when the Nazi's had exhausted all other avenues (deportation, slave labour, etc)

The atrocities pre war in the Soviet Union had very little to do with Germans. So you don't like Communism, that's fine - that doesn't justify the persecution wholesale of a segment of population because of a paticular political ideology you do not like.

I find it interesting you haven't brought up the Treaty of Versaille, it is more important to the persecution of the German people post-WWI than any communists or Jews.

I've repeatedly stated I don't give them a pass, if you would like to discuss Soviet atrocities then we can do that and I'll admit all of them. Firebombing of Dresden and Hamburg? We can discuss them as well. Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we can discuss them as well. Those are not relevant to the discussion of the Holocaust though.

Where did I state that Germans were trying to "Conquor the world" or "exterminate everyone who didn't have blond hair" anyone with any actual knowledge of the subject knows both of those statements are not true.

But to say you were only invading Soviet Russia to get rid of Stalin is no less true, it was a land grab because of ill-feelings about the loss of Poland and Studenland post-WWI under the guise of "defending the west".

The British and French went to war with a power -who had attempted to expand itself militarily less than 3 decades earlier costing millions of lives- who agressively invaded soverign countries that they were bound by treaties to defend.

If what you claimed was true, Germany would not have had a treaty for the division of Poland with Soviet Russia and would have just continued rolling east instead of consolidating their positions and invading France Belguim and the Netherlands (which were neutral countries).

 

I think I understand the point you're trying to make now. You're saying that Zionists (a small portion of Jews) are no better than Nazi-Germany in regards to the Holocaust because they have adopted it as a weapon in order to achieve their goals?

I do understand where you're coming from if that's the case, I'm not sure I can agree Re: Holocaust because at that paticular time the Zionists were not doing the same thing as Nazi's. Yes it is debatable that the current situation in Gaza is very (VERY) similar, but I just don't agree with your blanket statement to that fact when we're discussing the Holocaust.

But thank you for clarifying your point further, I was misunderstanding you earlier and for that I apologize.

 

In the Soviet Union { 1,100,ooo } and Poland { 3,000,ooo } alone.
But I don't trust rounded off numbers.Hungary had 569,000.
And Bulgaria ... O. That's right Zero.
Care of the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust.

 

My "story" is that millions of Jews were not gassed to death in factories of genocide. I don't think that has holes in it. I in fact thought we were in agreement. As for Danzig, I admitted I was wrong. I too readily accepted it and I am not proud to say such. I did so because of the Bromberg massacres, the oppression of ethnic Germans and the general sentiments of the Poles at the time. I should have looked deeper into the issue before citing it as an undeniable provocation. I am not unreasonable and will admit when I am wrong.

That is Hitler's ideology on life, based on what he would argue to be natural law, the oldest and undeniable canon of the universe, etc. That isn't why the Jewish people were feared and detained and ultimately killed.
They were targeted because it was widely believed that the Jewish people were trying to enslave Western civilization through subversion and communist regimes. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, etc.

All of Europe and all of Germany knew what was happening in the Soviet Union. They did not want it happening to them. The Jewish people were frighteningly over represented within Communist parties all over the continent and were inciting people to overthrow the governments.
You can argue morality all day but you cannot deny the motives behind German actions. They believed they were waging an insurrection against Jewish global power, a great monumental struggle against the puppet masters of the world, whether you think those beliefs are baseless or not.

Because the Treaty of Versailles is more commonly understood than these other issues and I so I don't feel a need to. Most reasonable people understand and will admit the implications of it.

If you don't give the Allies a pass than we have no cause to argue.
I mistook you for the usual delusional WWII propagandists. There's a one in a thousand chance that's not what I'd have gotten.

The Soviet Union was what it was and we've covered that. It also had a stated aim of global revolution and openly embraced expansionist policy.
Any and every German nationalist understood Germany could not be able to co-exist with such a state on its borders and time was against it. The longer the invasion was delayed, the more it would favor the Soviet military. If Germany had not invaded and adopted a defensive policy they would not have been able to hold back the Soviet army. The only decision that could have been made was to attack while the advantage was Germany's.

The newly acquired land was a benefit of this decision having to be made but it had to be made none the less.

I really don't think the British can claim a moral high ground on anything, especially not when it comes to invading sovereign countries.

The British were... typically British. The Germans were the anti-thesis to what it is to be British in all imaginable ways and the British simply did not want to see a Germany rise to dominate Europe, whether that ascension came through military means or even influence in other ways. I'll go so far as to say many of them were simply Germanphobes. There policy was one meant to arbitrarily keep the Germans down so that this could never happen through a constant state of encirclement and threat of multiple front wars.
Yes, they had treaties based on mutual defense and they were made for exactly the reasons I just said.

How long does anyone seriously expect this to last or to be put up with?
The Germans saw their chance to escape this and they took it. I can hardly blame them. I doubt Hitler thought the West would be so stupid as to throw Europe into a massive war just to keep Danzig from falling back into the German Reich which is where it belonged anyway.

The British foreign policy of the day was as stupid a foreign policy as I can imagine. Ultimately I can't help but look at them as simple jealous and bitter over the fact that the sun had finally started to set on their Empire.

Here you are wrong. Hitler said himself, to paraphrase, "If I cannot achieve peace with the West to crush the Soviet Union, I will first invade the West and then turn with all my might against Russia."

Hitler did not want war with the West. He tried to get them to see reason. He offered the British much more than their current military situation deserved. He offered this peace again and again and again. When it was clear the English would not allow it he took them up on their declaration and won. He signed the non aggression pact with the Soviets solely to avoid a two front war. If the Western allies would not allow for peace he had to take each front individually and so he lead Stalin to believe they could co-exist only to secure his western flank with the sole intention of eventually attacking the Soviet Union. Everything was done with that ultimate goal.

As for the rest of Europe, these nations would have been used as a staging ground for the Allies to attack Germany with whether they gave the Allies permission for it or not. I don't think anyone can honestly say America and the British would not have violated their sovereignty to get a foothold on Europe had Germany not taken them. Once it was obvious they were going to be involved in a World War they treated it like one.

 

That's fine, don't sweat it - but nice of you to say.

The first three lines is precisely what I am saying.

But I am just some guy on the internet.

How about the word of an actual man who did spend ten months in A'witz?

A Jewish man, as it happens.

I would imagine you would concur that such a man would be well placed to make comment on persecution, and inhumane treatment, right?

And that anyone that attacked this man, for speaking, would be as low as a cockroach, yes?

Okay then, let us first find the man.

'One of the last remaining Auschwitz survivors has launched a blistering attack on Israel over its occupation of Palestine as he began a lecture tour of Scotland.

Dr Hajo Meyer, 86, who survived 10 months in the Nazi death camp, spoke out as his 10-day tour of the UK and Ireland - taking in three Scottish venues - got under way.

Speaking as his tour got under way, Dr Meyer said there were parallels between the treatment of Jews by Germans in the Second World War and the current treatment of Palestinians by Israelis.

He said: "The Israelis tried to dehumanise the Palestinians, just like the Nazis tried to dehumanise me. Nobody should dehumanise any other and those who try to dehumanise another are not human.

"It may be that Israel is not the most cruel country in the world ... but one thing I know for sure is that Israel is the world champion in pretending to be civilised and cultured."

Dr Meyer was born in 1924 in Bielefeld, Germany. He was not allowed to attend school there after November 1938. He then fled to the Netherlands, alone. In 1944, after a year in the underground, he was caught by the Gestapo and survived 10 months at Auschwitz concentration camp in Poland.

Dr Meyer also insisted the definition of "anti-Semitic" had now changed, saying: "Formerly an anti-Semite was somebody who hated Jews because they were Jews and had a Jewish soul. But nowadays an anti-Semite is somebody who is hated by Jews."


Now, that's the man, that's what he feels and said, and, like I remarked, I feel he is better placed than anyone on this forum to say that.

Who would attack such a man?

Why the Zionists of course.

And of the all things they called this JEWISH man, this Jewish man, once of A'wtiz?

An 'anti semite'...

His comments sparked a furious reaction from hardline Jewish lobby groups, with Dr Meyer branded an "anti-Semite"

http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=9707


There.

Doesn't that give you a insight into what Zionism is, and how low it goes?


Jack

 

Your story is that millions of Jews, Political Opponents, Gypsies and other 'undesireables' were murdered by ....... ? Once again I ask, Does it matter how they did it?

All Nazi party members swore an Oath (which is taken quite seriously in German/Prussian circles, far more than most other countries) to protect Hitler and his ideas, so Hitlers ideology is important. The fact that there was already anti-semite ideas in the country wasn't relevant to the comment I was replying to. Jews were blamed for the loss of WWI, largely because they owned the businesses that eventually ran out of food as well as largely refused to fight while continuing to make a profit off of the war. Don't bring the Protocols of the Elders of Zion into this, as you will be hard pressed to find any evidence that the average German knew what that was in the first place.

Right, they fought the Nazi's first though because the Nazi's were no better than the Soviets and were agressive first. Also, I guess we should condemn all Germans as Nazi's because they were frightenly over represented within Nazi parties at the time. I understand where you're going with this, but it still doesn't justify anything if it was wrong in the first place. You've just done that with the Jews.

I've brought up a lot of facts in this discussion I thought were commonly understood, but apparently are not. The Treaty of Versailles is THE reason for WWII in my opinion, had it not been so slanted against Germany Hitler would have never stood a chance of getting into government and he would have been killed or put in jail like happened during his Beer Hall Putsch.

Oh come on, 1/1000 chance? That's a rediculous statement that you did not have to make and does nothing but devalue your position.

If Germany had adopted a defensive position it is likely that British French American troops would have been fighting beside them against agressive communism if it had happened (See: The Cold War). It was their agressive land grabbing attitude that got them in trouble in the first place. What does taking Poland have to do with fighting communism?

The newly acquired land was the goal of the decision, the fact that the communists were the ones you were fighting just made the decision easier. It did not HAVE to be made, see my previous point.

They can in that situation, it would have been easier for them to just give up Poland (they really didn't care, there is evidence of this) and not get in a fight with the Germans and let them deport or exterminate any 'undesireables' in the area, but they honored their treaty and fought to defend the soverign nation. Their actions outside of this do not have any impact on the honor of the defence of Poland. The Nazi's immediately began rounding up 'undesirables' from the region, so the arguement that it was merely to establish a 'buffer' between them and the Soviet union is mute as well, it was a land grab to secure Germanys food and raw resource needs for the forthcoming war.

You are always the first one to argue context, well I'm going to use that here. Britain had just fought against Germany 20 years prior and saw a country that violated the treaty they signed at the end (even if it was entirely unbalanced) and began to start the same agressive land grabbing policies that they had fought to stop. Yes they wanted to keep Germany down specifically so that there was not another repeat of WWI.
That's why those mutual defence treaties were established, you are correct but it does not support your point.

Yes Hitler underestimated the British and French governments resolve, but he should have seen it coming after Studenland, where he PROMISED it was the last agressive land grabbing initiative he would take. He broke that promise and a whole world suffered the consequences.

I agree, Chamberlain should have told Hitler to shove it when he asked for Studenland returned. It probably would have avoided the whole war.

Why did he want to crush the Soviet Union? He wanted land that he believed was Germany's manifest destiny to have.

No he didn't want war with the west, because up until 1937, he would have lost. If the West had stood strong over Studenland, he would have been humiliated and forced to back down, the British and the French would have rolled Germany then. If it wasn't for the Blitzkrieg and the avoidance of the Maginoit line through the Ardennes (previously thought militarily impassible with tanks) Germany likely still would have lost. It wasn't Hitlers cunning and stratagy that got him into an advantagous position, it was poor Generalmanship on the parts of the British and French and outstanding Generalmanship on the parts of the Germans (the reason the war was lost for the Nazi's is because Hitler eventually had all these good Generals killed).

 

He offered peace before the war? If you're not at war you can't offer peace, that's just a threat. If he really thought that the West wouldn't intervene in Poland, why would he have to sign a non-agression pact with the Soviets? You're contradicting yourself here.

Not true, which is why the Maginoit line avoided placing defences on those regions, and all of the Wests plans for defence against Germany prior to 1939 involved very little troop buildup on those borders. You're making assumptions here once again that you cannot prove.
I don't think you can honestly say that America (who stayed out of the war for 3 years because their sovereignty was not violated, so that's an EXTREMELY bad example) nor the British, who came into the war specifically because of a violation of sovereignty (and would look very hypocritical and silly if they did that) would have done that. Provide me some evidence and I'll believe your assertions. The British and the French's surprise at the invasion of Poland and the lack of response contradicts your last statement that the war was obviously coming, if it was then British and French troops would have been in position to retaliate as soon as Poland was invaded (and would have completely overran the Nazi's western defences, which were very feeble at the time) and not still have been getting into position months later when France was invaded.

 

I'm well aware of what Zionism is, and the dangers it presents.

Thank you.

 

Hi,

I know that was a question to the other member, however, for me, yes - for historical accuracy it does and would matter. It must matter, otherwise it would not have been repeated as irrefutable historical fact, for so long. Therefore, IF it is wrong, and I emphasise GREATLY if, then it would matter, of course.

 

Good.

Then you are in agreement with me, now that you have taken the time to read what I write, rather than what you think I write.

Thanks

Jack

 

My misunderstanding stemmed from your extensive use of hyperbole to outline an idea that took me 3 lines to summarize. Perhaps if you had been clearer I wouldn't have had to have made an effort to find out what I thought you had written.

 

Okay.

So it is my fault that you were not able to read the words that I did write, and it is my fault that you made claims about me that were wrong.

Yeah.

That'll do.

 

I think that the Gas Chambers are an irrefutable fact. I think there were ovens to burn the bodies and I think over 5 million people (not just Jews) passed through the gates of concentration camps never to come out. We can argue over how many of those 5+ million were gassed, how many were shot, how many were starved. But I don't think we can argue over the fact that it happened.

I was asking him if it mattered and giving him the option to have a different method of execution to see if he thought it was wrong, or if he would admit it happened at all.

 

I already apologized for misunderstanding you, I was just explaining why I misunderstood you. You can stop with the Ad Hominom now.

 

The big problem with claiming that the Americans didn't find gas chambers is that all the extermination camps were in areas that the Soviets over ran. There were no death camps in Western Europe or in Germany.

 

Oh please...don't play that card, Roy, huh?

Or at least reserve it for when it is real.

Look, let's get on with the chat, huh?

 

The "chat" was over when I apologized and agreed with your position largely. You're continuing on when it's needless.

 

While in Eastern Europe?

The Germans chose to manufacture them outwith Germany.

The US thought this was a great idea, and years later, copied it with Gitmo.

But of course, that is different, I mean, the people there are 'terrorists', right?

 

Well, where is the evidence for that? Here we have evidence for the death camps:

There's certainly more evidence for it than, say, Plato, yet I see no reason to doubt the existence of Plato. Falsifying all the evidence would be a staggering feat.

I'm at a loss to see any similarity whatsoever between the classical liberalism for which Jefferson is admired and the authoritarianism of Nazi Germany.

Classical liberalism is humanistic and upholds the equal and universal human dignity of all people, whereas Nazism divides people into groups according to their perceived ethnic background.

Classical liberalism envisions an ideal of all men living in harmony, whereas Nazism perceives mankind to be in inherent conflict.

Classical liberalism believes in the natural rights of individuals, whereas Nazism wants everyone under the absolute authority of a state-based collective ruled by a fuhrer.

Classical liberalism believes in limited, accountable, decentralized government, civil liberties, and free markets; Nazism advocates that exact opposite.

Fascism wasn't the West's salvation from communism. It was another massive error and a symptom of the same statist, collectivist disease that produced communism. The cure is a liberal humanism that upholds without compromise the natural rights of man.

 

Easy, they used Sonderkommandos (Spelling?), those chosen from a batch of newly arrived prisoners and told that they would live it easy if they ran everything in the extermination camp except for the application of gas.

Gassing was chosen as the Germans had an opt out policy for murdering people and many were choosing this. Himmler was becoming very concerned at the state of the mental health of his troops who were carrying out the killings. This was a problem when you want to kill a large number of people. By introducing gas (as slower method than mass shootings) the opt out rate went right down because those applying the gas didn't get to watch those that they killed die.

 

The real problem for the deniers is that the Germans convicted themselves at their trials. They didn't deny that they killed the Jews, and others, they were proud of it and bragged about it in court and as a defence said that they Allies had no right to try them.

 

Yes.

I said that before.

It is all about depersonalising it, as much as possible.

That plus the principles that were behind the Milligram experiment.