[The_CEO]

(07-16-2015 10:06 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

(07-16-2015 09:56 PM)The_CEO Wrote:  

Why speak in code? Come out and say what you really think.

As far as "Not forgiving"? This was one dude who worked at a camp and was brought to trial and convicted based on evidence. Not lynched by a vengeful mob.

All Germans are not blamed or held accountable. Germany and Israel are allies and get along well. Many Israelis have even moved back to Germany lately.

I don't know the circumstances of this case but a lot of prosecutions are done for deterrent effect.

You may have also heard of the Nuremberg Trials. Eichman was a notorious bureaucrat and the architect of The Final Solutions. His "just following orders" defense didn't hold up and he was hanged.

You might want to try reading through the entire thread before insinuating I'm holding some secret insidious views. I've written what I think throughout this thread. Now, what's your angle?

As for Israel and Germany being friends..is this how you treat a friend?

Quote:

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-de...m-1.662962

Israeli diplomat in Berlin: Maintaining German guilt about Holocaust helps Israel

In off-the-record comment to journalists, embassy spokeswoman Adi Farjon said Israel had no interest in full normalization of relations with Germany.

A spokeswoman for the Israeli embassy in Berlin recently told Israeli journalists it was in the country’s interest to maintain German guilt about the Holocaust, and that it isn’t seeking full normalization of relations between the governments.

Futhermore, your deterrent effect comment makes no sense at all and there's a world of difference between this guy and Eichmann.

All I was saying is that they often prosecute people for deterrent effect.

And with crimes against humanity the courts like to set an example that justice catches up with you eventually.

[porscheguy]

(07-16-2015 10:15 PM)The_CEO Wrote:  

All I was saying is that they often prosecute people for deterrent effect.

Deter what exactly? By your logic, murder should never happen in the state of Texas. Texas executes more murderers than the rest of the US combined. And yet every day, it seems they add another person to death row.

(07-16-2015 10:15 PM)The_CEO Wrote:  

And with crimes against humanity the courts like to set an example that justice catches up with you eventually.

If that's the case, can we expect to see criminal charges against those who have forcibly removed Palestinians from their homes to make way for new "settlements"? Forced relocation/internal displacement is considered a crime against humanity and a known precursor of genocide. Palestinians are entitled to justice too aren't they?

This guy never attempted to run or hide after the war. That tells me than the reason he was never charged previously is because most courts would have laughed at the prosecutors. So they waited until now
knowing current attitudes would be perfectly willing to hang this guy out to dry. In other words they've passed judgement on him based on standards of 2015 for his actions in 1943. This ought to be a case study example in the SJW instruction manual.

[Socrates]

(07-16-2015 06:31 PM)Goldin Boy Wrote:  

This man picked a side in the war, he picked wrong and now he's at the mercy of the winners.

He picked a side? He was BORN on a side. That's how patriotism works. The only thing that matter is which imaginary lines you were born behind. How exactly would he go about picking a different side? I guess he could have been a conscientious objector and been hauled off to jail. A few people actually did that, but most fell into line with patriotism, because that is what people do in this world. Most put country before God and family. Or at least make them equal.

Seems to me a lot of people are being disingenuous about how righteous they would be in this man's situation. In the good old USA, if you don't "support the troops" you are vilified. What if the troops are doing things you don't agree with? Shut up and get out of our country if you don't like it! Commie!! And that sentiment shoots through the roof during actual an actual war. I recall right after 9/11 patriotism was off the charts. It has since died down but a country can get whipped into a fervor VERY quickly. And people are not allowed to disagree with the mainstream narrative of USA! USA! USA!

What if you don't agree with war at all, or killing? Where is the line drawn between civilian casualties? What makes one death any more or less undeserved than another?

[The_CEO]

(07-17-2015 08:57 AM)Socrates Wrote:  

(07-16-2015 06:31 PM)Goldin Boy Wrote:  

This man picked a side in the war, he picked wrong and now he's at the mercy of the winners.

He picked a side? He was BORN on a side. That's how patriotism works. The only thing that matter is which imaginary lines you were born behind. How exactly would he go about picking a different side? I guess he could have been a conscientious objector and been hauled off to jail. A few people actually did that, but most fell into line with patriotism, because that is what people do in this world. Most put country before God and family. Or at least make them equal.

Seems to me a lot of people are being disingenuous about how righteous they would be in this man's situation. In the good old USA, if you don't "support the troops" you are vilified. What if the troops are doing things you don't agree with? Shut up and get out of our country if you don't like it! Commie!! And that sentiment shoots through the roof during actual an actual war. I recall right after 9/11 patriotism was off the charts. It has since died down but a country can get whipped into a fervor VERY quickly. And people are not allowed to disagree with the mainstream narrative of USA! USA! USA!

What if you don't agree with war at all, or killing? Where is the line drawn between civilian casualties? What makes one death any more or less undeserved than another?

That's a really good point. What you are talking about is called "Moral Luck" in Philosophy. There have been entire books written about this.
But then you have people who do exercise choice, like the helicopter pilot in the Mi Lai massacre who intervened at his own risk.

[Goldin Boy]

Ok then:

Quote:

He picked a side? He was BORN on a side.

Many men in the US are raised to be betas and treat with with "respect" just for showing up. American pop culture embeds beta idea in our men from the cradle to the grave. This doesn't get them laid much. Some men see what they're taught doesn't work and learn game and get pussy. People have agency and can make their own decisions. This is just a permutation of the "he was just following orders" argument.

Quote:

That's how patriotism works. The only thing that matter is which imaginary lines you were born behind. How exactly would he go about picking a different side?

Are you insinuating that free-will was something that people invented after 1945? He could've defected or left the country. Not attractive or easy options but they are options none the less which he didn't exercise.

People in the US dodged the draft because they didn't agree ideologically with the Vietnam War. Not saying he had to be like Oskar Schindler but you're just using mental gymnastics to rationalize why you feel this trial is repugnant. But you answered your poor rhetorical question in the next sentence:

Quote:

I guess he could have been a conscientious objector and been hauled off to jail. A few people actually did that, but most fell into line with patriotism, because that is what people do in this world. Most put country before God and family. Or at least make them equal.

Correct! He made a choice, the easy choice the one that 98% of people make. He couldn't see the future in the 1930's, he bet on his country, he lost, and he now he owes the house. Again the losers have no say in their punishment and should expect no mercy.

Your namesake would be rolling his grave if he could've read this argument.

[Benoit]

(07-17-2015 10:22 AM)Goldin Boy Wrote:  

Correct! He made a choice, the easy choice the one that 98% of people make. He couldn't see the future in the 1930's, he bet on his country, he lost, and he now he owes the house. Again the losers have no say in their punishment and should expect no mercy.

When they go after that 98% equally it's about justice.

When they single out individuals it's about fear.

[Sherman]

Common law doesn't require people to be perfect human beings. In fact, common law doesn't even require people to be moral. For example, you can still just walk away if you see someone drowning. You don't have a positive duty to do anything. It may be immoral, but it is not illegal.

This man is being punished for following all the laws in his country at that time. He is just a bookkeeper. Getting a low level job and keeping your head down isn't a crime. In the Nuremberg trials, the top decision makers were tried under the theory that they were the decision makers and thus couldn't claim as a defense that they were just doing their duty. They didn't go after low level people because at that time there was still some respect for law. Personally, I think supporting the Iraq war was a worse moral act than what he did.

Furthermore, he is being punished for "laws" not in force at the time he committed the act. Men who go along with this may find themselves being tried for crimes against humanity in the future for an insult they made to a feminist on twitter 2 years ago. Or maybe you work in a meat factory and 5 years from now Vegans will take over and try you for crimes against Animals. Legal principles are being degraded. Even the US Constitution prohibits passing ex post facto laws.

The elites are destroying everything that makes us human beings and that has made life bearable for people in the past - our religion, our laws, and even our sexual identity. What is worse than this? Maybe they need to bring out the "Nazi" boggie man to deflect us from their evil acts. It is a propaganda device that is being used against us.

[Medic42]

(07-16-2015 09:47 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

"Moral high ground" and 'might makes right' are incompatible concepts, but few people want to acknowledge that because it's politically inconvenient and extremely dangerous.

The truth of the matter is that no one in that war was innocent. Dresden, the betrayal of the Cossacks, the Soviets raping millions of German women, the invasion of Poland, the Katyn massacre, numerous battlefield murders on all sides, the Holocaust, Einsatzgruppen, etc. etc.

The only reason they're hunting down old men who were minor cogs in that system who couldn't do anything to stop what was going on and putting them on trial is because a country that currently behaves in similar ways to the regime that oppressed and killed some of their ancestors benefits from keeping the guilt-trip going. They admit as much when they think the microphones are off and they're surrounded by friends.

Funnily enough, it'd probably be taboo and possibly criminal to even mention that in parts of Europe.

Anyway, this is purely 'might makes right' at work and political revenge encouraged by a people that one poster in this thread previously mentioned never forgets and never forgives.

Compare this behavior with the attitude of reconciliation the West German government had toward East German functionaries. They wanted to leave the past behind and move on. Only a few have been prosecuted when many more probably should've been.

What the Nazis did during the holocaust was reprehensible but, the reality is that it wasn't just the Russians committing atrocities in the allied army. Any chance we plan to punish any of the American soldiers and marines guilty of war rape and the abuse/torture of POW's?

Quote:


It has been claimed that some U.S. military personnel raped Okinawan women during the Battle of Okinawa in 1945.[22]

Based on several years of research, Okinawan historian Oshiro Masayasu (former director of the Okinawa Prefectural Historical Archives) writes:
Soon after the U.S. Marines landed, all the women of a village on Motobu Peninsula fell into the hands of American soldiers. At the time, there were only women, children, and old people in the village, as all the young men had been mobilized for the war. Soon after landing, the Marines "mopped up" the entire village, but found no signs of Japanese forces. Taking advantage of the situation, they started "hunting for women" in broad daylight, and women who were hiding in the village or nearby air raid shelters were dragged out one after another.[23]
According to interviews carried out by the New York Times and published by them in 2000, multiple elderly people from an Okinawan village confessed that after the United States had won the Battle of Okinawa, three armed marines kept coming to the village every week to force the villagers to gather all the local women, who were then carried off into the hills and raped. The article goes deeper into the matter and claims that the villagers' tale - true or not - is part of a 'dark, long-kept secret' the unraveling of which 'refocused attention on what historians say is one of the most widely ignored crimes of the war': "the widespread rape of Okinawan women by American servicemen."[24] Although Japanese reports of rape were largely ignored at the time, academic estimates have been that as many as 10,000 Okinawan women may have been raped. It has been claimed that the rape was so prevalent that most Okinawans over age 65 around the year 2000 either knew or had heard of a woman who was raped in the aftermath of the war.[25]

Professor of East Asian Studies and expert on Okinawa, Steve Rabson, said: "I have read many accounts of such rapes in Okinawan newspapers and books, but few people know about them or are willing to talk about them."[25] He notes that plenty of old local books, diaries, articles and other documents refer to rapes by American soldiers of various races and backgrounds. An explanation given for why the US military has no record of any rapes is that few Okinawan women reported abuse, mostly out of fear and embarrassment. According to an Okinawan police spokesman: "Victimized women feel too ashamed to make it public."[25] Those who did report them are believed by historians to have been ignored by the US military police. Many people wondered why it never came to light after the inevitable American-Japanese babies the many women must have given birth to. In interviews, historians and Okinawan elders said that some of those Okinawan women who were raped and did not commit suicide did give birth to biracial children, but that many of them were immediately killed or left behind out of shame, disgust or fearful trauma. More often, however, rape victims underwent crude abortions with the help of village midwives. A large scale effort to determine the possible extent of these crimes has never been conducted. Over five decades after the war had ended, in the late 90's, the women who were believed to have been raped still overwhelmingly refused to give public statements, instead speaking through relatives and a number of historians and scholars.[25]

There is substantial evidence that the US had at least some knowledge of what was going on. Samuel Saxton, a retired captain, explained that the American veterans and witnesses may have intentionally kept the rape a secret, largely out of shame: "It would be unfair for the public to get the impression that we were all a bunch of rapists after we worked so hard to serve our country."[25] Military officials formally denied the mass rapes, and all surviving related veterans refused the New York Times' request for an interview. Masaie Ishihara, a sociology professor, supports this: "There is a lot of historical amnesia out there, many people don't want to acknowledge what really happened."[25] Author George Feifer noted in his book Tennozan: The Battle of Okinawa and the Atomic Bomb, that by 1946 there had been fewer than 10 reported cases of rape in Okinawa. He explained it was: "partly because of shame and disgrace, partly because Americans were victors and occupiers. In all there were probably thousands of incidents, but the victims' silence kept rape another dirty secret of the campaign."[26]

Some other authors have noted that Japanese civilians "were often surprised at the comparatively humane treatment they received from the American enemy."[27][28] According to Islands of Discontent: Okinawan Responses to Japanese and American Power by Mark Selden, the Americans "did not pursue a policy of torture, rape, and murder of civilians as Japanese military officials had warned."[29]

There were also 1,336 reported rapes during the first 10 days of the occupation of Kanagawa prefecture after the Japanese surrender.[22]

...

The "Canicattì massacre" involved the killing of Italian civilians by Lieutenant Colonel George Herbert McCaffrey. A confidential inquiry was made, but McCaffrey was never charged with an offense relating to the massacre. He died in 1954. This fact remained virtually unknown in the U.S. until 2005, when Joseph S. Salemi of New York University, whose father witnessed it, reported it.[30]

In the "Biscari massacre", which consisted of two instances of mass murder, U.S. troops of the 45th Infantry Division killed roughly 75 prisoners of war, most of whom were Italian.[31][32]


...

Near the French village of Audouville-la-Hubert, 30 German Wehrmacht prisoners were massacred by U.S. paratroopers.[34]

In the aftermath of the 1944 Malmedy massacre, in which 80 American POWs were murdered by their German captors, a written order from Headquarters of the 328th U.S. Army Infantry Regiment, dated 21 December 1944, stated: "No SS troops or paratroopers will be taken prisoner but [rather they] will be shot on sight."[35] Major-General Raymond Hufft (U.S. Army) gave instructions to his troops not to take prisoners when they crossed the Rhine in 1945. "After the war, when he reflected on the war crimes he authorized, he admitted, 'if the Germans had won, I would have been on trial at Nuremberg instead of them.'"[36] Stephen Ambrose related: "I've interviewed well over 1000 combat veterans. Only one of them said he shot a prisoner... Perhaps as many as one-third of the veterans...however, related incidents in which they saw other GIs shooting unarmed German prisoners who had their hands up."[37]

"Operation Teardrop" involved eight surviving captured crewmen from the sunken German submarine U-546 being tortured by U.S. military personnel. Historian Philip K. Lundeberg has written that the beating and torture of U-546's survivors was a singular atrocity motivated by the interrogators' need to quickly get information on what the U.S. believed were potential missile attacks on the continental U.S. by German submarines.[38]

The "Dachau massacre" involved the killing of German prisoners of war and surrendering SS soldiers at the Dachau concentration camp.[39]

Among the American WWII veterans who did admit to having committed war crimes was former Mafia hitman Frank Sheeran. In interviews with his biographer Charles Brandt, Sheeran recalled his war service with the Thunderbird Division as the time when he first developed a callousness to the taking of human life. By his own admission, Sheeran participated in numerous massacres and summary executions of German POWs, acts which violated the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 and the 1929 Geneva Convention on POWs. In his interviews with Brandt, Sheeran divided such massacres into four different categories.
1. Revenge killings in the heat of battle. Sheeran told Brandt that, when a German soldier had just killed his close friends and then tried to surrender, he would often "send him to hell, too." He described often witnessing similar behavior by fellow GIs.[40]2. Orders from unit commanders during a mission. When describing his first murder for organized crime, Sheeran recalled: “It was just like when an officer would tell you to take a couple of German prisoners back behind the line and for you to ‘hurry back’. You did what you had to do.”[41]3. The Dachau massacre and other reprisal killings of concentration camp guards and trustee inmates.[42]4. Calculated attempts to dehumanize and degrade German POWs. While Sheeran's unit was climbing the Harz Mountains, they came upon a Wehrmacht mule train carrying food and drink up the mountainside. The female cooks were first allowed to leave unmolested, then Sheeran and his fellow GI's "ate what we wanted and soiled the rest with our waste." Then the Wehrmacht mule drivers were given shovels and ordered to "dig their own shallow graves." Sheeran later joked that they did so without complaint, likely hoping that he and his buddies would change their minds. But the mule drivers were shot and buried in the holes they had dug. Sheeran explained that by then, "I had no hesitation in doing what I had to do."[43]
Rape[edit]

Main articles: Rape during the liberation of France and Rape during the occupation of Germany

Secret wartime files made public only in 2006 reveal that American GIs committed 400 sexual offenses in Europe, including 126 rapes in England, between 1942 and 1945.[44] A study by Robert J. Lilly estimates that a total of 14,000 civilian women in England, France and Germany were raped by American GIs during World War II.[45][46] It is estimated that there were around 3,500 rapes by American servicemen in France between June 1944 and the end of the war and one historian has claimed that sexual violence against women in liberated France was common.[47]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta...rld_War_II

[Geomann180]

(07-17-2015 10:22 AM)Goldin Boy Wrote:  

Ok then:

Quote:

He picked a side? He was BORN on a side.

Many men in the US are raised to be betas and treat with with "respect" just for showing up. American pop culture embeds beta idea in our men from the cradle to the grave. This doesn't get them laid much. Some men see what they're taught doesn't work and learn game and get pussy. People have agency and can make their own decisions. This is just a permutation of the "he was just following orders" argument.

No one gets shot for being a beta.

G

[Barron]

Always fun to see dudes get riled up when their reality bubbles get challenged.
The anger and vitriol in this thread over questioning the gas chambers is mind boggling.
If those who question the Auschwitz holocaust are really so stupid then your reaction should be one of ...
But instead guys on here are acting like their girl just got swooped from under their noses whenever it gets mentioned.

And just to stoke the fire, I'll reference Captainstabbin's post.
Notice which way he looks @3:40 when asked whose job it was to remove the bodies from the gas chambers:

[Teedub]

^ I see the irony of defending holocaust denial, on a thread about a participant who outed himself in order to fight against it, is obviously lost on you.

[Barron]

(07-22-2015 01:37 AM)Teedub Wrote:  

^ I see the irony of defending holocaust denial, on a thread about a participant who outed himself in order to fight against it, is obviously lost on you.

If you're going to dismiss what someone says at least do it directly. This overused line of "the humor is lost on you" is a cop out

[Teedub]

(07-22-2015 01:47 AM)NomadofEU Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 01:37 AM)Teedub Wrote:  

^ I see the irony of defending holocaust denial, on a thread about a participantwho outed himself in order to fight against it, is obviously lost on you.

If you're going to dismiss what someone says at least do it directly. This overused line of "the humor is lost on you" is a cop out

As soon as I used the word "participant", therein lied my argument. He was there. He, in his own words saw the gas chambers and crematoria. He was in the aforementioned Auschwitz documentary by Lawrence Rees where he openly discusses taking all the money from murdered Jews (and others) and sending it back to Berlin in boxes. Not before skimming a bit off for himself.

You think he'd incriminate himself over something that wasn't true? As I said earlier, if you want to question specific numbers go ahead. But likewise, as I also said - denying it happened at all is clearly not true and indicative of a wider worldview/agenda. And I didn't say the humour was lost, I said the irony - which, in the context of my usage, is a big difference.

[Barron]

I just realized I was arguing with a guy that made this comment:

Quote:

Whilst I answered your question for you...just a quick heads up: It isn't good practice here to start calling out other more established members when you have such a low post/rep count yourself.

You also registered here only a month before me yet have an alarmingly higher number of posts. So when questioning someone's worldview, mine happens to be that of skepticism, and since you felt compelled to give a newer member some advice here's some for you:
travel more, approach more, hit the gym more, do whatever it takes to spend less time online and perhaps your worldview will undergo a transformation.

[Teedub]

(07-22-2015 02:55 AM)NomadofEU Wrote:  

I just realized I was arguing with a guy that made this comment:

Quote:

Whilst I answered your question for you...just a quick heads up: It isn't good practice here to start calling out other more established members when you have such a low post/rep count yourself.

You also registered here only a month before me yet have an alarmingly higher number of posts. So when questioning someone's worldview, mine happens to be that of skepticism, and since you felt compelled to give a newer member some advice here's some for you:
travel more, approach more, hit the gym more, do whatever it takes to spend less time online and perhaps your worldview will undergo a transformation.

So instead of attempting to counter my points about the topic in question, you went for me personally in a slightly snarky manner. Nice. Since you're suggesting I'm some kind of loser, maybe you could run that by some of the guys I met at the London event, that includes the proprietor of this forum. But I do spend too much time online, I'll give you that.

Moreover, my post count/rep point comment is merely a repetition of the forum rules. New guys who regularly argue with more established members often get banned quickly, so it's good advice, no?

[Barron]

(07-22-2015 03:29 AM)Teedub Wrote:  

So instead of attempting to counter my points about the topic in question, you went for me personally in a slightly snarky manner.

Oh you mean I should have just dismissed you the way you originally dismissed me?

extracube's comment was a single question:

Quote:

Is it just me or are a lot od RVF forum members getting all social justicy?

Apparently this falls under 'regularly arguing with more established members'. He was only giving his perspective, I believe that is still allowed per the forum rules.

[Teedub]

(07-22-2015 03:43 AM)NomadofEU Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 03:29 AM)Teedub Wrote:  

So instead of attempting to counter my points about the topic in question, you went for me personally in a slightly snarky manner.

Oh you mean I should have just dismissed you the way you originally dismissed me?

extracube's comment was a single question:

Quote:

Is it just me or are a lot od RVF forum members getting all social justicy?

Apparently this falls under 'regularly arguing with more established members'. He was only giving his perspective, I believe that is still allowed per the forum rules.

1) I didn't dismiss you, though I may have been a bit short. As I said here, my use of the word "participant", which I emphasised should have been enough for you to go on. In my follow up post, I expanded on this. So, you still haven't attempted to counter my points intellectually, instead telling me fallaciously to "travel more, approach more, hit the gym more" - Ignoring the fact that I spent most of 2014 in Eastern Europe for pretty much the sole purpose of your second "tip". Gym, you're right on that one.

2) Extracube did indeed only ask one question, but questioning whether members of this forum of all others are getting SJWy certainly qualifies as somewhat "guns blazing" (see point 5). So whilst I don't know if his subsequent posts here are of that nature, it was a simple and hopefully beneficial heads up.

Note that I've been courteous and even defensive in my rebuttals, not personal or snarky. Be beta on the forum.

[Phoenix]

Teedub's comment was fair. It succinctly pointed out an obvious contradiction - posting holocaust denial stuff in a thread about a guy who described his experience participating in it and who was jailed for it.

It really boggles the mind. Next people will be saying "the killing fields" never happened, and that all the bits of bone in the ground were "just planted there by capitalists to tarnish the good name of communism".

[captndonk]

There are witnesses for all kinds of stuff like Aliens, nessy, yeti. Do I have to believe these witnesses?
Also there is a large history of false confessions in court.

[iknowexactly]

(07-15-2015 11:16 AM)Teedub Wrote:  

As Wastelander pointed out, the only reason this guy as at a trial is because he outed himself to fight against holocaust deniers.
....

Also, there is evidence that he requested a transfer to the Russian front line because he was so disturbed by the events at Auschwitz. It was turned down.

He's admitted moral guilt for the holocaust, but he's done good by using his eye-witness evidence to educate others. I think giving him a jail sentence at that age is silly - better to have him talk in schools or something.

Totally agree. I am against all forms of racism and religious bigotry, and think the Jewish Holocaust was a huge stain on humanity's history.

However, this guy was a young true believer in what a bunch of assholes had fed him, it was not alleged he participated in the actual murder of Jews, but only in collecting the money of the victims.

US Customs officials collect money from people all the time when they think those people have the money illegally etc. To my knowledge they are never prosecuted if the money is collected for an illegal reason, as was the case at Auschwitz where the money was collected as part of the persecution and murder of these people.

In addition, he has helped as a witness against the deniers.

I hope the sentence will be suspended, it is inhumane.

[Teedub]

(07-22-2015 05:43 AM)captndonk Wrote:  

There are witnesses for all kinds of stuff like Aliens, nessy, yeti. Do I have to believe these witnesses?
Also there is a large history of false confessions in court.

If you're honestly trying to compare Nessy sightings to the Holocaust - an event that has been studied at length, has thousands of first-hand reports, revealed classified documents between leading Nazis (Himmler, Heydrich and others involved in that side of the Nazi party), Speer's later admission he attended the Posen speech, accounts from survivors, from Russian soldiers who liberated the camps etc - then you're either trolling or serously clutching at straws.

Quote:

Speer wrote: "There is no doubt - I was present as Himmler announced on October 6 1943 that all Jews would be killed". He continued: "Who would believe me that I suppressed this, that it would have been easier to have written all of this in my memoirs?"

[iknowexactly]

(07-22-2015 01:07 AM)NomadofEU Wrote:  

Always fun to see dudes get riled up when their reality bubbles get challenged.
The anger and vitriol in this thread over questioning the gas chambers is mind boggling.

Yeah, it definitely gets me riled that people ended up like this FOR NO REASON except they had a different religious-ethnic group. The fact that you say you find anything about this subject "fun" sounds very strange to me.

There are some people are so dumb they show they're DETERMINED beyond doubt to ignore mountains of evidence. Or they want someone to hate very badly.

Thanks to the founders of the USA for realizing the wisdom of separation of church and state.

[big poppa]

I don't think you can deny that the holocaust happened. It surely did, but to what extent? Following the War they claimed 4 million Jews were killed. Later this turned into 6 million. Don't question the numbers or you'll be tarnished as a denier. The amount of shit Jewish leaders are able to get away with is unbelievable.. But oh.. "The Holocaust!"

Meanwhile I would doubt if 3% of high-schoolers know anything about the Great Chinese Famine in which 20 million starved, or even who Pol Pot is and what he did in Cambodia. None of that matters, lets talk more about Nazi Germany and the plight of the Jews.

[captndonk]

I wrote this to make clear, that the argument given by Pheonix is not valid. As far as i know there is no disagreement wheter lots of innocent people were killed by the nazis.

[iknowexactly]

(07-22-2015 06:22 AM)big poppa Wrote:  

I don't think you can deny that the holocaust happened. It surely did, but to what extent? Following the War they claimed 4 million Jews were killed. Later this turned into 6 million. Don't question the numbers or you'll be tarnished as a denier. The amount of shit Jewish leaders are able to get away with is unbelievable.. But oh.. "The Holocaust!"

Meanwhile I would doubt if 3% of high-schoolers know anything about the Great Chinese Famine in which 20 million starved, or even who Pol Pot is and what he did in Cambodia. None of that matters, lets talk more about Nazi Germany and the plight of the Jews.

Good point, all power-mad assholes who start pointing out a large group of people that need to be killed -- need to be put in insane institutions or something. Special institutions for maniacs. The problem is they get too far and are too powerful to easily stop before their mass murderer proclivities become clear.