EVIL

[Loburt]

at any rate Mazzy clarified that he does not intend to say that Americans, Brits, etc are EQUALLY so what you're doing by responding to that is essentially flogging a straw man.

the interesting question for those who place the blame squarely on the German people---what would YOU have done, had you been there? i'm sure you'd have all been heroes, and stopped all this holocaust nonsense.

Talk about a straw man.

oh really. do explain how. this should be interesting.

If, as I pointed out, you read the exchange that this started from, no one aside from Steevolution is attempting to crucify the German people.

has it occurred to you that i read the whole thread? or that if i'd disagreed with what you said in response to Yoi i would have said so? or maybe you didn't notice the "exchange that this started from" ended in JANUARY???? or that steevolution's post is WHAT GOT THE THREAD GOING AGAIN??? apparently not.

This was a response to someone claiming that they are totally blameless and were the victims of a humanitarian crime perpetrated by the US on the same order as humanitarian crimes committed by Germany.

ummmm AGAIN: check the post dates, and read the thread if you haven't already: seems to me one might be fairly well justified in considering from steevolution's post onward a new 'exchange.'

When you see those pictures of lynchings in the Deep South from the 1920s and 30s with the whole town gathered around and smiling and celebrating, do you think only the guy holding the rope was guilty?

of course not. and in what way did i say or imply that?

Yeah it's easy to blame when you're sitting behind a computer 60 or 70 years later. And it's also easy to whitewash it all from the same vantage point.

if that is a general statement, i'd agree.

hmmmmmm was i defending anyone? no. if you are implying a subtext that a) i didn't intend, as i read it, isn't there at all in the post, then feel free to put whatever words in my mouth you wish, if it makes you happy.

Zeus, you are the TF king of putting words in people's mouths. So you have no right to whine like a big baby, even though you're so good at it. Especially, when you read carefully, no one put any words in your mouth. But go ahead. Play the victim.

And if you think I"m ever going waste my time picking apart every clause of every sentence in your quote box bullshit, you can guess again.

[CiaranM]

If you feel that the German knew, you should feel the same way about the American, the French, the British the Russian and the Italians. They all had access to about the same amount of information.

one tiny little minor point .... all of those fought against the nazis in WW2 (yes even the italians .... eventually), helping beat the nazis and bringing the war and holocaust to an end !!! just in case anybody had forgot !!!

there was also a vigourous debate about whether or not to bomb the camps, but they were never bombed !!

one other tiny little point: i'm not sure about the french, italians or russians but the US and Britain definitely turned away jewish refugees. as far as i know, this was before the war, and thus before the systematic genocide. still...

and they weren't that keen on most of them after the war !!!

[CiaranM]

...

he didn't clarify anything .... he claimed that he hadn't blamed them

as read it, in his clarification / recession / whatever, he claimed he didn't blame them equally not that they were free of blame.

assuming that is what he is/was saying, i'd tend to agree. the US, Britain et al ARE worthy of some blame. possibly people didn't want to believe it, but it WAS in the news, at least until the actual war started. and the US, for example, had strict quotas on refugees.

well my reading of his post is that he is implying (maybe even stating) that the American, the French, the British the Russian and the Italians were complict in the holocaust .... i don't agree !!

as i read (the second) post USA, USSR et al were not complicit so much as a) they knew about it and therefore are as worthy of blame as (for example) the modern US/Britain etc are in, say, Rwanda, where they also did nothing.

and as for flogging straw men ... sorry for stepping on ur turf !!!

that was so witty you needed exclamation points? impressive.

not sure i get ur point here Zeus ... r u saying USA, USSR et al were doing nothing to stop the holocaust ??

my understanding is .... that although jews (and other "undesireables") were being rounded up in concentration camps started in 1933/34 and this increased from 1938/39 onwards. the systematic killing (the final solution) didn't begin until 1942 !! obviously at this stage WW2 was in full swing !!

however it is widely believed that the allies did not become aware of the full extent of what was taking place in these camps until early 1944. as i said previously there was a vigourous debate on whether or not to bomd the camps, but it was decided not too for 2 main reasons (well 2 that i can find).

1. it was felt the bombers being used were not accurate enough to guarantee a successful destruction of the camps.

2. it would divert resources from the ground campaign and a quicker defeat of germany would mean an end to the death camps.

so although we may not agree with what the allies did, they were trying to win the war and end the holocaust !!

btw ... sorry if my use of puncuation affects ur sensibilites !!

[Mazzy]

As for the specific facts of both of my posts, I stick by them, I spent a lot of time studying that particular period of contemporary history and would be glad to back up my facts with credible sources if needed. For exemple, there were only 5 (or 6 depending on the sources) extermination camps: Auschwitz, Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibor, Majdanek and Treblinka, all of them were located in Poland. There were only concentration camps in Germany. The images you saw are likely from Bergen-Belsen or Mathausen, both were extremely hard concentration camps, but not extermination camps.

You are correct in that Bergen-Belsen and Mauthausen are classified as concentration camps and not as extermination camps. The only difference seems to be that in former people were worked to death, or near death before being killed, while in the latter they were just killed. That's kind of splitting hairs, isn't it?

Nonetheless, Mauthausen had gas chambers, and by some accounts 180,000 people died there. Some put the figure at 36,000. At Bergen-Belsen, thousands of corpses were piled high when Allied troops entered. Something like 50,000 prisoners died there during the final months of the war.

I'm not enjoying this as you are, and see no need for round two. The points have been made.

Agreed, I was actually attempting to be sarcastic when I said that I was enjoying this. Internet forums are not exactly the best place to have this sort of discussion.

As for the difference between extermination camps and concentration ones, I'd say it was a huge one if you were an inmate.

In most extermination camps the vast majority of people (say 80 to 95% depending on the camp) were gassed upon arrival, the rest usually died within the next 6 months. In concentration camps you at least stood a chance. The reason for the high death rate in concentration camps is that at the end of the war, inmate were evacuated from polish death camps toward german concentration one's to remain within german territory. Consequently some concentration camps became overcrowded and this resulted in starvation and epidemy (in Belsen for exemple).

I'm definitely not saying that concentration camps were akin to a health spa. They were dangerous, grim and deadly place where death was a daily reality.

But, given a choice, anybody with a bit of common sense would have prefered ending up there than in Auschwitz, for exemple. So more than splitting hairs, in my book.

[Stramash]

make your mind up Loburt - first of all I am anti Israeli and now I support anti-muslims!!! Maybe I just hate everyone lol!! :twisted:

I was speaking of why he is a national hero to Romanians.

Please find a reason for that aside from what I've stated. Please detail the good things he did for his country and people aside from slaughtering Muslim invaders.

You hate everyone? Well, speak for yourself. I haven't put any words in your mouth, although you are pretty good at putting them in mine.

think the 'lol' in my comment shows that I was perhaps not being as serious as you loburt!! Does the emphasis have to be on the slaughtering of MUSLIM invaders?? Was it not just that it was invaders and the reliogion they practiced was immaterial?? Not putting words in your mouth M8. Just friendly banter. Hope you can see that!! :twisted:

[sushi_romance]

As for the specific facts of both of my posts, I stick by them, I spent a lot of time studying that particular period of contemporary history and would be glad to back up my facts with credible sources if needed. For exemple, there were only 5 (or 6 depending on the sources) extermination camps: Auschwitz, Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibor, Majdanek and Treblinka, all of them were located in Poland. There were only concentration camps in Germany. The images you saw are likely from Bergen-Belsen or Mathausen, both were extremely hard concentration camps, but not extermination camps.

You are correct in that Bergen-Belsen and Mauthausen are classified as concentration camps and not as extermination camps. The only difference seems to be that in former people were worked to death, or near death before being killed, while in the latter they were just killed. That's kind of splitting hairs, isn't it?

Nonetheless, Mauthausen had gas chambers, and by some accounts 180,000 people died there. Some put the figure at 36,000. At Bergen-Belsen, thousands of corpses were piled high when Allied troops entered. Something like 50,000 prisoners died there during the final months of the war.

I'm not enjoying this as you are, and see no need for round two. The points have been made.

Agreed, I was actually attempting to be sarcastic when I said that I was enjoying this. Internet forums are not exactly the best place to have this sort of discussion.

As for the difference between extermination camps and concentration ones, I'd say it was a huge one if you were an inmate.

In most extermination camps the vast majority of people (say 80 to 95% depending on the camp) were gassed upon arrival, the rest usually died within the next 6 months. In concentration camps you at least stood a chance. The reason for the high death rate in concentration camps is that at the end of the war, inmate were evacuated from polish death camps toward german concentration one's to remain within german territory. Consequently some concentration camps became overcrowded and this resulted in starvation and epidemy (in Belsen for exemple).

I'm definitely not saying that concentration camps were akin to a health spa. They were dangerous, grim and deadly place where death was a daily reality.

But, given a choice, anybody with a bit of common sense would have prefered ending up there than in Auschwitz, for exemple. So more than splitting hairs, in my book.

How long till somebody pops in to lecture us that Auschwitz was a holiday camp compared to Birkenau...

I just read another comment by Primo Levi. He said he wasn't a real witness of the place, because he actually survived.

[Mazzy]

As for the specific facts of both of my posts, I stick by them, I spent a lot of time studying that particular period of contemporary history and would be glad to back up my facts with credible sources if needed. For exemple, there were only 5 (or 6 depending on the sources) extermination camps: Auschwitz, Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibor, Majdanek and Treblinka, all of them were located in Poland. There were only concentration camps in Germany. The images you saw are likely from Bergen-Belsen or Mathausen, both were extremely hard concentration camps, but not extermination camps.

You are correct in that Bergen-Belsen and Mauthausen are classified as concentration camps and not as extermination camps. The only difference seems to be that in former people were worked to death, or near death before being killed, while in the latter they were just killed. That's kind of splitting hairs, isn't it?

Nonetheless, Mauthausen had gas chambers, and by some accounts 180,000 people died there. Some put the figure at 36,000. At Bergen-Belsen, thousands of corpses were piled high when Allied troops entered. Something like 50,000 prisoners died there during the final months of the war.

I'm not enjoying this as you are, and see no need for round two. The points have been made.

Agreed, I was actually attempting to be sarcastic when I said that I was enjoying this. Internet forums are not exactly the best place to have this sort of discussion.

As for the difference between extermination camps and concentration ones, I'd say it was a huge one if you were an inmate.

In most extermination camps the vast majority of people (say 80 to 95% depending on the camp) were gassed upon arrival, the rest usually died within the next 6 months. In concentration camps you at least stood a chance. The reason for the high death rate in concentration camps is that at the end of the war, inmate were evacuated from polish death camps toward german concentration one's to remain within german territory. Consequently some concentration camps became overcrowded and this resulted in starvation and epidemy (in Belsen for exemple).

I'm definitely not saying that concentration camps were akin to a health spa. They were dangerous, grim and deadly place where death was a daily reality.

But, given a choice, anybody with a bit of common sense would have prefered ending up there than in Auschwitz, for exemple. So more than splitting hairs, in my book.

How long till somebody pops in to lecture us that Auschwitz was a holiday camp compared to Birkenau...

I just read another comment by Primo Levi. He said he wasn't a real witness of the place, because he actually survived.

And, apart from informing us that you've read Primo Levi, your point is? :?

[zeusbheld]

not sure i get ur point here Zeus ... r u saying USA, USSR et al were doing nothing to stop the holocaust ??

my understanding is .... that although jews (and other "undesireables") were being rounded up in concentration camps started in 1933/34 and this increased from 1938/39 onwards. the systematic killing (the final solution) didn't begin until 1942 !! obviously at this stage WW2 was in full swing !!

correct, to my knowledge. however, the allies all had very strict quotas and were well aware of what was going on. i'm not saying they are complicit but guilty in the same way as, say, i'd be if i stand by and watch an old lady get mugged. now, maybe i'm sure the thugs can kick my ass and that's the real reason i don't get involved. maybe it's even unconscious. but the arguments as i understand them that it was an internal affair of a sovereign nation. in other words, it's between the thugs and the old lady.

however it is widely believed that the allies did not become aware of the full extent of what was taking place in these camps until early 1944. as i said previously there was a vigourous debate on whether or not to bomd the camps, but it was decided not too for 2 main reasons (well 2 that i can find).

some truth in that they weren't aware of the full extent, but the refugee quotas were a real thing, and started BEFORE the war. surely it was bad enough to do something about already, with forced relocations, taking property, etc.

1. it was felt the bombers being used were not accurate enough to guarantee a successful destruction of the camps.

2. it would divert resources from the ground campaign and a quicker defeat of germany would mean an end to the death camps.

which were sound reasons. it's questionable even today whether they'd be accurate enough with the bombing to do any good, (or maybe just kill prisoners).

so although we may not agree with what the allies did, they were trying to win the war and end the holocaust !!

point was, there's plenty of evidence that they weren't motivated by the persecution of the jews to get involved in the war. otherwise maybe, just maybe, they'd have been willing to take in political refugees. Britain had GREAT reasons for fighting the Nazis--theyd' have been invaded if they didn't. the US got fully involved only when Pearl Harbor was attacked. while clearly once the full extent of the Holocaust was understood it became a major concern, i think it's pretty obvious that the various allied powers got involved out of a need to protect their national interest, NOT to end the persecution of the Jews (and later the holocaust). from what i've seen (contemporary newspapers, etc) the holocaust wasn't even in their rhetoric.

[zeusbheld]

Zeus, you are the TF king of putting words in people's mouths. So you have no right to whine like a big baby, even though you're so good at it. Especially, when you read carefully, no one put any words in your mouth. But go ahead. Play the victim.

let me see if i got this: YOU, of all people, are whining and sulking because you perceive ME as whining and sulking, and this is based on... what? a post you didn't even bother to read, apparently.

surely somewhere in your vast journalistic training they covered conditional sentences?

or are you indeed accusing me of trying to whitewash the Holocaust? if that's what you're saying, show you can stand up to pee and stand by it. that was another conditional. whether i accused you of *anything* depends on what you are actually saying... get it yet?

And if you think I"m ever going waste my time picking apart every clause of every sentence in your quote box bullshit, you can guess again.

you dont' have to 'waste your time' 'picking apart every clause of every sentence' but it's usual and customary to actually READ a post before you respond with a petty, pissy personal attack. fair enough if that's how you want to play, i'll play too... if i'm the king of the TF big babies, surely your'e the queen, or perhaps the princess, little miss Loburt.

[PeeMarc]

[steevolution]

hey, i'm learnin a lot. for instance i didn't know that there were "only" 210,000 Jews from Germany and Austria killed (out of 240,000 total population). also that historians have made careers out of debating the question "are the German people responsible for the Holocaust?" (look up the term "sonderweg".)

Well, most of us Germans have come to grips with it. Since those things were committed by my forefathers and I was born over 20 years after the end of the war they have nothing to do with me. If you believe young Germans should constantly hang their heads in shame because of things done before their lifetime, then you are sadly mistaken.

Learning and understanding the lessons from our past - yes

feeling perpetual guilt and shame - no

Even more simplistic (and wrong) is your assertion that Fascism is somehow in our 'national character'. If you believe this then you might as well believe that all Muslims have a 'terrorism' gene. :roll:

At the time of Mussolini, Hitler and Franco gaining power most European countries had some fascist movements. It was a time of social upheaval. It was those economic and social conflicts and the inability of democratic governments to deal with these that lead to the rise of fascism. Nationality does not come into it.

Even today there are fascist organisations in most European countries (and I'm sure there will be some in the US as well). Most of them are on the fringe but some of them have quite a popular support. Given the right circumstances; world recession, high unemployment, distrust in political processes; it could happen again...anywhere!

well that's the debate, isn't it? could it happen anywhere?

Zeus says it has to do with things innate in human nature. well i'd agree, except that those things innate in human nature, simple things like a distrust of those unknown and not like yourself, those things have to be taken out of context, magnified, intensified, perverted, lit and fanned into flame, blown up and then turned into a blowtorch to burn people.

there were a lot of willing instruments. had to be. killing six million Jews and as many others as Ciarin so rightly pointed out is one hell of a logistical undertaking (and it's ok Ciarin, we all kno yor keyboard has three exclamation keys, all of em sticky!!!). just assuring us that it could be done by making the Jews kill each other, well i'm not buying it Mazzy. where do you get that info from? i WOULD be interested to know how many people actually had to participate.

sure the Germans could argue they were mesmerized, but like with hypnosis nobody does anything against their will.

Lucy Dawidowicz had this to say about "This Wicked Man Hitler":

"Despite the recent outpouring of popular and scholarly books on Hitler, no work has yet been produced that satisfactorily explains Hitler's obsessive ideas about the Jews, the readiness of the German people to accept these ideas, and Hitler's ability to harness an enormous apparatus of men, institutions, and facilities just in order to murder the Jews.

Hitler has proved to be an elusive and unrewarding subject for conventional biography because the explanations for the baffling mystique he exercised, for the power he came to wield, and for his unspeakable accomplishments are not to be found in the facts of a banal life, but in the ideas and feelings that created the symbiosis between him and the German people. Their mutuality and inter-dependence thrived, as Hitler first expressed and later gratified the Germans' most arrogant and abominable ambitions. He relieved their deepest fears and anxieties and, near the end, disburdened them both of guilt and responsibility for the wickedness they had given him warrant to commit.

and she quoted J.P. Stern, who as "an English literary scholar and a refugee from Germany, perceived that the biographical approach was likely to trivialize rather than to illuminate this particular man":

'If sociological interpretations lose sight of the man behind the trends, it is the common failing of biographies that they abstract a man from his world - a procedure that is particularly misleading in the case of one whose every public word and every public act expressed for almost the whole of his career the fears and aspirations of his contemporaries.'

so Hobbs, yeah there's little bits of Fascism and racism everywhere, but they've been turned into a national passion/obsession in very few places, and never with the same result as in Nazi Germany.

the Japanese were indeed as racist/fascist. and that made them as dangerous.

are they still? is there something in the national characters, the beliefs the people of these countries share that makes them so?

i'd argue that being raised with a belief that you are innately superior to other humans (racial superiority), that you are a special, chosen country, better than the rest (national superiority), that these are dangerous, perverse ideas (usually aided and abetted by some religious gobbledygook),and that these are the ideas that allow evil to thrive on a world scale.

racial and national superiority was pushed hard in pre-war Germany and Japan. they've been pushing it hard in post 9/11 America. and the Shrub's born-again Christian confidence that he has got the strait-from-the-mouth-of-God answer to everything is how America got it's *** in the wringer that is Iraq.

ps you may not know that more Americans trace their ancestry back to Germany than anywhere else.