Notices
Results 1 to 50 of 50

Thread: Killing jews?

  1. #1 Killing jews? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    62
    You know, since Hitler hated them so much, why not just convert them into something else instead of killing them like they're nothing or killing them like mindless machines?

    Wouldn't that have been better than senseless killing?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Where is this thread going?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: Killing jews? 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    956
    Quote Originally Posted by Faron
    You know, since Hitler hated them so much, why not just convert them into something else instead of killing them like they're nothing or killing them like mindless machines?

    Wouldn't that have been better than senseless killing?
    You seriously think forcing people to be converted from their own beliefs is a morally acceptable alternative to bloodshed? Well, sure it’s “better than senseless killing” – but that’s not the point. The point is: ethnic cleansing and forced conversion are both crimes against humanity (even if one is considered less serious than the other). All Hitler would be doing would be to commit one crime against humanity rather than another just to placate his irrational hatred of millions of innocent people.

    If Hitler hated them so much that he couldn’t take it any more, why not just go and see a psychiatrist or put himself in a mental institution or something? Wouldn’t the 20th century have turned out much better that way?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    In addition to Jane's comments, remember that Hitler did not hate the Jews simply because of their religion. He considered them (and the Slavs, and the Romanies and the blacks) to be inferior races. That was a primary motivation for him.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    after all, if you turned your scapegoat into something else, you'd have to invent another scapegoat, wouldn't you ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    This is a strange question.

    Of course Hitler should not have killed any people.
    Hitler was evil imo, but people focus too much on a caricature that oversimplifies reality, we good they evil.

    History is distorted, its a story, sometimes the fiction is well crafted and makes sense(like a sci-fi movie with a solid plot), sometimes its not as much plausible or has plot holes showing something's wrong with what theyre telling us. In the case of WW1 and WW2 there are things that dont add up in what we have been told imo.

    One testimony that appears somewhat plausible if only in part, and that uncovers some of the missing pieces of the puzzle is that of Bejamin Freedman;

    In a nutshell, during WW1 when Germany had the upper hand, a deal was struck between zionists(from Germany, GB and the US) and Great Britain to sway the US to join the War in exchage for the Balfour delcaration. After WW1, this would come to haunt jewish people in Germany, as the resentment and segregation started in part due to this(in addition to the scapegoat aspect we all know about), Jews (that is some leaders speaking on behalf of jews) declared a "holy war" against Germany in 1933 which took the form of an economic blockade thath put oil on the fire.

    Another aspect seldom covered in history books in the relationship between some industrialists in the US and the Nazi. Some Corporations loved union-braking workers-do-as-your-told-for-the-homeland Nazi Germany (especially in the wake of the Russian revolution). Examining the White House coup attempt against FDR, Smedley Butler's book 'War is a Racket', his address about intervention and the "American Liberty League" who were fascist but advocating libertarian ideals(this should cause people to pause btw) shows other pieces of the puzzle.

    These two aspects hint that the historical maelstrom of the two great wars was much more complex behind the scene than most people think.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D. Hanuka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    The 10th Kingdom xD
    Posts
    750
    The whole WWI/II and holocaust thing quite confusts and annoys me... I mean... WHY THE **** didnt people orgenise themselves for hitler assianation missions?!
    I mean, its was so ****ing easy to kill ANYONE those days that its funny that hitler wasnt killed within a week of his rising...
    I mean... take for example the jews, how many of them died? 6mil? withing those 6mil how hard its to find a few dozen burly men who can come up with a good strategic plan to kill hiter??
    I mean, all it takes is just a lazyass sniper rifle, good strategy and good timing and also knowing when hitler be in some place... then BANG! - hitler`s f4cking dead and no more suffering for the folks. and with a decent escape plan those assasins could even save their asses.

    Now... who can tell me im wrong? eh?? eh???!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    Hanuka, the idea sounds good initially, and it might appear to be better than doing nothing in a way, but Hitler was wasnt alone.

    If Hitler had been assasinated, there's a chance Jews would have been accused (that an 'actual' jew had did it for real might have been a bonus for the Nazis), and the new Fhurer might be Himler instead of Hitler, thats about a one letter difference. And if Jews had been blamed for killing Hitler, Im not sure how many would have made it out of Germany, if that had occured when jews were already in concentration camps, the new Fuhrer might have decided to kill all prisoners and simply stop feeding them for a week or two, and that would be the end of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Ph.D. Hanuka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    The 10th Kingdom xD
    Posts
    750
    Ok, then they could of tracked (easly) a party/grouping/whatever of the major heads of the nazis where hitler, himler and all the other sob`s would have practipiated and plant a few snipers at range, send a distraction team and an assoult team to kill all those bastids, snipers could of backed them up and also do the killing.
    Even if it was a suicide mission it would of save a lot of lives, and i mean ALOT.
    Besides, once you kill the major heads of the nazis there was a great chance that the nazi republic would die out by the time they will get new leaders.
    Cut the snakes head and the body fails...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    "Cut the snakes head and the body fails..."

    Sometimes this is true. But when the serpent is the manifestation of a systemic situation, sometimes another serpent takes its place. Its like removing the water from a puddle(hole) on a rainy day, if the hole is still there and its about to rain chances are water will accumulate again in the puddle in same location and with the same shape.

    If you kill the Boss of an organized criminal mob, but the systemic/social conditions that made the criminal gang flourish are not adressed, another lieutenant will take his place, and if you kill that entire gang a completely different gang will take their place(mafia, triad, russian mafia).

    But cutting the snakes head definitly works when the situation is right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Ph.D. Hanuka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    The 10th Kingdom xD
    Posts
    750
    Yah, that`s why I`m talking about killing all of the bigones at one shot, this way germany will be left VERY un orgenised without any stupid bastid telling them that they are the best n` shyt.
    I mean, the nazi bigshots had some talent at riding the mob, who else could you find with ideals and skills of hitler/himler and all the other leaders to lead the nazis??
    It takes time, and in the time of war such steps as cutting the serpents head maybe doesnt kill the body but it indeed leaves it puzzeled and without direction. Which only leaves the allied forces to make a simple attack and whoop the nazis off the face of the earth :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    62
    Forgive me if I'm being ignorant, but the jews look white to me (or most of them)....so, it's a bit confusing.

    I agree with you jane, I don't know why nobody recommended him that. Besides, didn't the people used to do the conversion ability long time ago back? In religious wars centuries? So0o0...

    Also, do you think it's possible that hitler cheated through elections?

    I agree with you hanuka, I'd do the same thing, but I think the snipers were crap then. Today it's probably much more silent and have long distance now.

    I also don't like how jews just stood there and waited to die and do nothing. I mean, isn't that weird? I know the nazis were powerful than them, but still.

    Geez, more games need to be released based on today's wars or future wars. I've seen enough.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    62
    One more thing, how come usa and other allies didn't nuke Berlin? Man, they should have....! Nazis would've gave up quick.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Ph.D. Hanuka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    The 10th Kingdom xD
    Posts
    750
    Well, i dunno the protocol reasons of why didnt they nuke berlin but I assume that they have just gotten the nuke technology and didnt quite knew how things should be done and if they even should be done..

    And as for your earlier post i defenelty agree with ya... I mean just standing infront of a rifle waiting to get shot along with your family seems VERY idiotic to me.
    If I was doomed to die I would of at least tryed to take some nazi with me before I die.

    Besides, it`s a well known fact that the nazi soldiers (peons) were stupid spoild sissy brats, one punch and they are on the floor.
    But if you look at the jews they beraley had any flesh/bone left at their bodies so their arm would of probably be broken from that punch...
    tricky situation... tricky situation indeed...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    There's something I dont get, if Hitler and the Nazi war machine wanted to exterminate jews (or any prisoner), why did they use ressources to feed them at all? Had they not feed the prisoners would their horrific objective not be accomplished in 14 days?

    (It doesnt make any sense unless there's something I havent thought about)

    And I guess its easier said when your not in the peoples shoes(its hard to predict how we would "really" react in a dramatic situation), but once its clear they want to kill you, like lining up people in front of a soldier with a rifle, I mean try to kick the soldier in the nuts or something, you'll die but its better that doing nothing. Maybe its so horrible that people cant beleive its true, it doesnt compute? Or they think they will survive if they dont rock the boat, can continue thinking this till the very last second?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Ph.D. Hanuka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    The 10th Kingdom xD
    Posts
    750
    Those who think too much at the moment of truth are doomed to die... thats how things work...
    Good Brother
    ~~~~~~~~~~
    The truths that matter to us the most are often left half-spoken..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo
    There's something I dont get, if Hitler and the Nazi war machine wanted to exterminate jews (or any prisoner), why did they use ressources to feed them at all? Had they not feed the prisoners would their horrific objective not be accomplished in 14 days?

    (It doesnt make any sense unless there's something I havent thought about)

    And I guess its easier said when your not in the peoples shoes(its hard to predict how we would "really" react in a dramatic situation), but once its clear they want to kill you, like lining up people in front of a soldier with a rifle, I mean try to kick the soldier in the nuts or something, you'll die but its better that doing nothing. Maybe its so horrible that people cant beleive its true, it doesnt compute? Or they think they will survive if they dont rock the boat, can continue thinking this till the very last second?
    First of all the Jews were a source of slave labour that was needed to drive the Nazi war machine. Secondly, the "Grand Solution" which was the extermination wasn't initially the plan, it only became the plan later on.

    On the subject of assasination, it was attempted a few times but didn't work. Why no one did it before the war should be obvious since the assasination of Ferdinand was what triggered WWI. The League of Nations did not take an active role in stopping Hitler and made a lot of mistakes along the way.

    To the OP, the theory behind Hitler's slaughter is eugenics, the idea that one group of people is genetically superior to another and thus bad genes should be eliminated. The handicapped, gays, black people, jews, and slavs were concidered inferior races that had to be eliminated to preserve pure Aryan genes. Communist, Polish priests, and Jehovah's Witnesses were considered traitors and had to be eliminated to preserve the German nation. The fact that they believed there was something inherently bad about jews in their genes meant that conversion couldn't fit with their theory, in fact converts were at times readily tracked down and killed.

    To the idea of nuking Berlin, the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes, and the American's only had 3 bombs. The nukes never should have been used in the first place because they were a deliberate attack on civilians and are just as bad as concentration camps. The philosopher Ms. Ascombe used the analogy of boiling one baby to save two soldiers to represent the atrocity of the bombings. The reason why they didn't do it is quite simple, Germans are white and Christian so it would have caused too much bad press.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    956
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    The reason why they didn't do it is quite simple, Germans are white and Christian so it would have caused too much bad press.
    And the Germans didn’t attack Pearl Harbor.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by JaneBennet
    And the Germans didn’t attack Pearl Harbor.
    It had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor, there is a clear seperation between American culture and Japanese that made it very easy for the American propoganda machine to turn the Japanese into monsters. Germans were just too close to Americans. Dropping the nuclear bombs was clearly a war crime.

    A more reasonable argument is that Germany had value as a middle point between the western European powers and the USSR.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    nuking berlin:


    Wasnt the European war pretty much already won by the time the nukes were ready?

    And nuking germany might have been detrimental to Operation PaperClip?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    62
    Maybe, but they could've used operation paperclip before nuking nazis and that would've worked. Like capturing important people first, then nuking in front of hitler's heart.

    Also, I believe hitler did a great damage to german's reputation and I believe it's kind of still damaged. Whenever I hear of germany or if somebody asks me to make a trip there, I think of nazis. :?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    On the subject of assasination, it was attempted a few times but didn't work. Why no one did it before the war should be obvious since the assasination of Ferdinand was what triggered WWI. The League of Nations did not take an active role in stopping Hitler and made a lot of mistakes along the way.
    That's kind of stupid to start a world war over one single person, though.

    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    To the OP, the theory behind Hitler's slaughter is eugenics, the idea that one group of people is genetically superior to another and thus bad genes should be eliminated. The handicapped, gays, black people, jews, and slavs were concidered inferior races that had to be eliminated to preserve pure Aryan genes. Communist, Polish priests, and Jehovah's Witnesses were considered traitors and had to be eliminated to preserve the German nation. The fact that they believed there was something inherently bad about jews in their genes meant that conversion couldn't fit with their theory, in fact converts were at times readily tracked down and killed.
    Yeah, hitler definitely believed in perfection. I see about the conversion now. Thanks.

    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    To the idea of nuking Berlin, the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes, and the American's only had 3 bombs. The nukes never should have been used in the first place because they were a deliberate attack on civilians and are just as bad as concentration camps. The philosopher Ms. Ascombe used the analogy of boiling one baby to save two soldiers to represent the atrocity of the bombings. The reason why they didn't do it is quite simple, Germans are white and Christian so it would have caused too much bad press.
    Yeah, well all kinds of wars are war crimes, i don't think there's any rules involved, whether what's harsh or not. It kind of does make you wonder how much bombs america has now today, though.

    Thanks for the replies.

    EDIT -

    Let me mention another thing - do you think nazis also won too? I mean if it wasn't for them, there would have never been Israel? Nazis wanted to keep jews out of europe, right? So then Israel was established - a place for the jews in middle east? Sorry if I'm wrong or missing something else, thnx.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    266
    The Germans would have never gone for forced conversion at that time, the facsists had a conception of race and knew of genetics, hence eugenics, and the nazi's supported their treatment of the Jews on "scientific grounds" to convert them would be a contradiction to nazi science claiming they were inferior. they was too much distrust at the time too, to just include the jews into the fold
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Ever watch the movie Conspiracy? It is based on transcripts that were discovered of a meeting that happened where the Jew issue was discussed and where gas chambers was "agreed" upon as the way to get rid of them. It also reveals how the Jews were thought of by the German government. Chilling stuff.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo
    There's something I dont get, if Hitler and the Nazi war machine wanted to exterminate jews (or any prisoner), why did they use ressources to feed them at all? Had they not feed the prisoners would their horrific objective not be accomplished in 14 days?

    (It doesnt make any sense unless there's something I havent thought about)

    And I guess its easier said when your not in the peoples shoes(its hard to predict how we would "really" react in a dramatic situation), but once its clear they want to kill you, like lining up people in front of a soldier with a rifle, I mean try to kick the soldier in the nuts or something, you'll die but its better that doing nothing. Maybe its so horrible that people cant beleive its true, it doesnt compute? Or they think they will survive if they dont rock the boat, can continue thinking this till the very last second?
    First of all the Jews were a source of slave labour that was needed to drive the Nazi war machine. Secondly, the "Grand Solution" which was the extermination wasn't initially the plan, it only became the plan later on.
    That, and Germany needed to trim its population in order to bring its economy up to the task of running the war. Especially it needed to be rid of anyone who wasn't going to contribute to the war effort, or even worse: oppose it.


    On the subject of assasination, it was attempted a few times but didn't work. Why no one did it before the war should be obvious since the assasination of Ferdinand was what triggered WWI. The League of Nations did not take an active role in stopping Hitler and made a lot of mistakes along the way.

    To the OP, the theory behind Hitler's slaughter is eugenics, the idea that one group of people is genetically superior to another and thus bad genes should be eliminated. The handicapped, gays, black people, jews, and slavs were concidered inferior races that had to be eliminated to preserve pure Aryan genes. Communist, Polish priests, and Jehovah's Witnesses were considered traitors and had to be eliminated to preserve the German nation. The fact that they believed there was something inherently bad about jews in their genes meant that conversion couldn't fit with their theory, in fact converts were at times readily tracked down and killed.
    I would say that human history is full of times when too many people were having to share too little land. At a time like that, one argument is just as good as another for how to resolve it.

    Or rather, none of them are good, but the brutal reality is that someone has got to go, or there's going to be some starvation. You can't double your food production merely by doubling the number of workers assigned to your nation's farms.

    To the idea of nuking Berlin, the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes, and the American's only had 3 bombs. The nukes never should have been used in the first place because they were a deliberate attack on civilians and are just as bad as concentration camps. The philosopher Ms. Ascombe used the analogy of boiling one baby to save two soldiers to represent the atrocity of the bombings. The reason why they didn't do it is quite simple, Germans are white and Christian so it would have caused too much bad press.
    Firstly, we had an agreement with the Russians to allow them to take Berlin.

    Secondly, we didn't nuke Tokyo either. If we hit any German cities, they would have been smaller ones than Berlin.

    Third, we didn't have to worry about nuclear waste from Japan drifting to any neighboring countries, or at least its neighbors weren't our close allies.

    Fourth (and I'm not sure if we knew it at the time), the Germans never came within a million miles of developing an atom bomb, but the Japanese actually took a pretty credible shot at it. We had to show them that we'd won that particular arms race.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_atomic_program
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    1945:

    APRIL 30: Hitler and his wife commit suicide

    MAY 2: German General Helmuth Weidling, commander of the Berlin Defence Area, unconditionally surrenders the city of Berlin to Soviet General Vasily Chuikov.


    JULY 16: U.S. conducts the Trinity test at Alamogordo, New Mexico, the first test of a nuclear weapon.

    AUGUST 6: Enola Gay drops the first atomic bomb "Little Boy" on Hiroshima.


    We can speculate all we want for the fun of it, but the war was over in Europe by the time the Atomic Bomb was ready.


    As for the Japan Atomic weapon threat argument I dont buy it, Japan was broken, strangled, oil starved, isolated, completely defeated strategically, like someone thats battered, bludgeoned, cuffed and hogtided but refuses to cry uncle, they did not pose a strategic threat but could not be made to surrender(without lots of allied casualties). They were in no position to undergo the massive industrial effort required to develop the bomb.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    By the end of the war Japan didn't even have the aircraft carriers left to bring a bomber within range of the USA to drop a bomb.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    "Unconditional surrender"

    One might think about that, what it means. Wars rarely end on this term. It's an extraordinary demand.

    When your overseas nationals have been herded into concentration camps, and your residential neighborhoods have been firebombed to ruins, and the enemy planes are strafing any old vehicles they catch on a road, would a sane person unconditionally surrender to such an enemy? I'm honestly a bit amazed the Japanese did, especially after the A-bombs. Clearer heads than today's, perhaps?

    "Unconditional surrender" is an excellent demand to prolong "war" that has reduced to one-sided slaughter.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo
    1945:

    APRIL 30: Hitler and his wife commit suicide

    MAY 2: German General Helmuth Weidling, commander of the Berlin Defence Area, unconditionally surrenders the city of Berlin to Soviet General Vasily Chuikov.


    JULY 16: U.S. conducts the Trinity test at Alamogordo, New Mexico, the first test of a nuclear weapon.

    AUGUST 6: Enola Gay drops the first atomic bomb "Little Boy" on Hiroshima.


    We can speculate all we want for the fun of it, but the war was over in Europe by the time the Atomic Bomb was ready.


    As for the Japan Atomic weapon threat argument I dont buy it, Japan was broken, strangled, oil starved, isolated, completely defeated strategically, like someone thats battered, bludgeoned, cuffed and hogtided but refuses to cry uncle, they did not pose a strategic threat but could not be made to surrender(without lots of allied casualties). They were in no position to undergo the massive industrial effort required to develop the bomb.
    The story is that they were building it up in Korea, which they still occupied. You're probably right, and they probably didn't have much of a fighting chance at ever building one.

    On the other hand, who'd have thought they were capable of half the things they actually did?

    Unlike the Nazis, who had spent most of the war believing that it took around 100 tons of uranium to create the chain reaction, it seems like the Japanese might have actually known (maybe from some kind of counter intell?) it was possible to do with less, which meant that they had a theoretical chance at least.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Masters Degree SuperNatendo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nashville, TN USA
    Posts
    505
    The reasons the U.S. didn't get involved in WWII earlier is related to the way people are upset about the U.S. being in Iraq, Our citizens want us to butt out and keep to ourselves. The point of view of U.S. citizens in the beginning of WWII can be seen as noble, isolationist, selfish, peaceful, or cowardly, whichever way you want to bend the argument to your advantage. If we had gone to war in WWII without being attacked, the president would have been hated by the public (Even though in my opinion we should have done something about the holocaust sooner).

    This is where we get the conspiracy theories that Pearl Harbor was ALLOWED to happen and wasn't averted just to get the American people rallied to the cause, which is also where we get the same accusations about 9/11.

    People like to compare the global war on terror to Vietnam, but IMHO it should be compared more to WWII. After all, what is a "Global War" other than a "World War" just being called something else? The only difference I see is that so far it hasn't escalated to outright declarations by established states. We may yet get to that the way Iran and Syria are acting.
    "It's no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense." - Mark Twain
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Freshman Demons are real, ask God's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The world which I rule...
    Posts
    39
    It is very unfortunate that persecution of the Jews appears to be in-built in Europe.

    It goes back centuries: The British, the French, German States, the Vatican, the Russians all committed atrocities against the Jews.

    What the Nazis attempted was nothing new, Hitler's views on the Jews were taken from a smattering of German philosophers from the time of Otto von Bismarck and from his time in Vienna, which was violently anti-semitic.

    One explanation for this rapid antisemitism that i have read is that Christians blamed the Jews for Jesus being put to death. This possibly evolved into such beliefs as racial purity and such over the centuries.
    Fat people are harder to kidnap.

    "Humanity's insignificance pales in comparison to its ego"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    People like to compare the global war on terror to Vietnam, but IMHO it should be compared more to WWII.
    The War on Terror is a scam, 911 was a false flag operation by elements of the CIA/FBI/Pentagon and Mossad. :wink:

    How many people around the world have died from terrorism since 911? Less than those in car accidents in the US in a single year! How many people have died from US Bombs, hundreds of thousands. Its the US/UK/Israel that are killing the most people, those are the real terrorists, and the US even has schools for terrorists called the "School of the Amreicas" and they are supporting terrorists in Iran and in the former USSR republics. Read up on Brezinski, the US is behind islamic extremists to contain the Russians(from the Balkans all the way to Afghanistan) and serve as a replacement for the Cold War as an excuse to squeeze an obscene war profiteering racket from US tax payers and as a front for imperial wars and plundering that used to be done under the cover of the cold war.

    Comparing the fake War on Terror with WW2 where over 20 million people died, where the sky was lit with AA searchlights, squadrons of bombers flying over cities in ruins, with men drafted and conscripted going to the front while women worked in armament factories, is proposterous . One needs to go to a shopping mall, have a slurpy, then go to the movies, and if someone is so uninformed to think 'that is war' then no wonder people beleive the war on terror scam is true and that Al Qaeda and many other Suni islamic terrorists arent the US tools they are.



    that i have read is that Christians blamed the Jews for Jesus being put to death.
    This sounds bogus, to me in any case. The grand father of a polish person I've talked to said that before WW2 a jewish landlord told him (polish grand father) in a degrading way 'we(jews) own the housing(shops,etc?) you(polish) have the streets'. Or something like that, this type of resentment is more plausible than the jesus thing.

    Also, you should know that an international organization of Jews declared a holy war(on behalf of jews) on Germany in 1933 before all the jews were mistreated. The resentment from the boycott caused some germans(nazi) to issue warnings not to shop in jewish stores in retaliation for the boycott and things went downhill afterwards. repercussions of this declaration(boycotts, hardship, etc) is also a more plausible reason for blaming jews than the they killed jesus. Im not saying they were right, but that this is more plausible as a misguided excuse to blame jews.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_...onist_activism

    The Jewish Holy War on Germany and Boycott starting in 1933 as well as the repercutions, despite being documented events, are completely absent from our manipulated history.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    The Jews were landless, but refused to assimilate into the cultures who's land they were living in. They had that "I'm not one of you" kind of air about them, which would tend to make them the prime target whenever economics started to break down.

    In the USA, we're starting to direct some frustration at illegal Mexican immigrants for a very similar reason.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Freshman Demons are real, ask God's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The world which I rule...
    Posts
    39
    I suggested it may be a reason, not it is the reason. And yes, another reason i have read is that people believed Jewish sects looked down on them.
    Fat people are harder to kidnap.

    "Humanity's insignificance pales in comparison to its ego"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Where is this thread going?
    Why don't worry, Pong. We just going march right over and take us a nice long shower before we go frollick in the open fields. Just put your jewelry in the corner, disrobe, and wait for the water to turn on.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    The Jews were landless, but refused to assimilate into the cultures who's land they were living in. They had that "I'm not one of you" kind of air about them, which would tend to make them the prime target whenever economics started to break down.

    In the USA, we're starting to direct some frustration at illegal Mexican immigrants for a very similar reason.
    Hmm, you think it might have been the result of it being illegal in the middle ages for them to live outside of ghettos...

    Edit: Also, the jews of Europe were very much assimilated and patriotic, serving in military and government positions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    There's a difference between assimilating in the way you say and really assimilating. Most of the Polish refugees who came to America in the early 1900's refused to let their children speak anything but English in the home. They wanted them to perfectly Americanize themselves, and today you can only tell their descendants apart from ordinary Americans because they have last names like "Kowalski". They're otherwise impossible to distinguish.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    There's a difference between assimilating in the way you say and really assimilating. Most of the Polish refugees who came to America in the early 1900's refused to let their children speak anything but English in the home. They wanted them to perfectly Americanize themselves, and today you can only tell their descendants apart from ordinary Americans because they have last names like "Kowalski". They're otherwise impossible to distinguish.
    So the only means for the jews to assimilate would have been complete cultural destruction, they either have to forsake their faith (which requires them to learn Hebrew) or they aren't part of the society. Moreover, it isn't true that they didn't assimilate, most jews were not hasidics, most didn't have recognizable accents, most were barely practicing their religion, and it didn't stop the prejudice.

    "On November 1, 1916, the German Military High Command administered the Judenzählung (German for "Jewish Census"). It was designed to confirm allegations of the lack of patriotism among German Jews, but the results of the census disproved the accusations and were not made public. A number of German Jews viewed "the Great War" as an opportunity to prove their commitment to the German homeland."

    It is not a fact that jews do not assimilate, it is just a popular perception.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    It depends on the group, I guess. There are some Jews that forbid their children to marry "outside the faith" and etc... But then again there are also some Christians like that.

    The Jews weren't the first people in history to ever be deprived of their homeland. Most simply assimilated into another society and disappeared once their descendants had become unrecognizable from members of that other society.

    "Cultural destruction" is not that big a deal. I think it's really stupid that people worry about it. One culture isn't any better than another, but having everyone be a member of the same culture makes it a lot easier for a country to function as a single group, which is a much more important concern than keeping a specific set of mannerisms, holidays, or rituals alive.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Around the time of WW2 zionism claimed (and I think succeeded) to represent Jews worldwide. This ideology was dead-set against assimilation.

    "If I knew that it was possible to save all the children of Germany by transporting them to England, and only half by transferring them to the Land of Israel, I would choose the latter, for before us lies not only the numbers of these children but the historical reckoning of the people of Israel." - key promoter of and first Prime Minister of Israel, David Ben-Gurion.

    I believe human nature grows roots wherever it is, and a truly patriotic German Jew does not seem strange to me... yet there is this elephant in the living-room named Israel. Israel demanded roots be cut. It actually required refugees, desperately fleeing and unwanted anyplace but one. To this end, zionists lobbied state leaders like Churchill that Jews be rejected and relocated to an artificial Jewish state, which originally was to be in Africa. Many leaders, and xenophobes generally, liked the way that was going, and wrote the policy into law.

    Indeed, there were precious few countries that would accept Jews in real numbers - Dominican Republic being exceptional. In 1939 a ship out of Hamburg carrying 907 Jewish refugees tried Cuba, then America, then Canada... it was finally bullied homeward by a US gunboat.

    So whether or not common Jews would assimilate is just speculating. The world didn't let them, and their self-promoted leaders discouraged it, for "the end justifies the means."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax

    "Cultural destruction" is not that big a deal. I think it's really stupid that people worry about it. One culture isn't any better than another, but having everyone be a member of the same culture makes it a lot easier for a country to function as a single group, which is a much more important concern than keeping a specific set of mannerisms, holidays, or rituals alive.
    Except you are disregarding basic human freedom, people should have the right to live and act in anyway they choose without harming others. Also, deliberate destruction of a cultural norms, like what was done to natives who were forced into reservation schools, are considered genocide by the UN along with murder of an ethnic group. I don't care if a culture disappears naturally overtime, although I fear homogenization of human thought, but I have a very big problem with forceful destruction of culture. All you are advocating is the marxist philosophy that led to the complete abolishment of religion in the USSR.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    people should have the right to live and act in anyway they choose without harming others
    It don't work so smooth in practice, at the national level. Suppose your state represents a Christian nation, then what happens when a lot of Jews join it? Segregated schools and communities an answer? No, we must sacrifice some of our "living and acting anyway we choose" to get along. This is the central gripe of modern white supremacists... some Francophones too. The sentiment is not new.

    German fascists were concerned with preserving a cherished culture. They could feel defensive; after all they just wanted to protect traditional rights and property.

    Canada's then Prime Minister Mackenzie King: "The admission of refugees perhaps posed a greater menace to Canada in 1938 than did Hitler." He meant Canada the nation. He did protect Canadians. Governments everywhere were likewise protecting their own heritage and demographic i.e. their right to live and act in anyway they choose without harming others.



    Modern parallel:

    "One in five Iraqis have been displaced.
    According to the UN Refugee Agency and the International Organization for Migration in 2007, almost 5 million Iraqis had been displaced by violence in their country, the vast majority of which had fled since 2003. Over 2.4 million vacated their homes for safer areas within Iraq, up to 1.5 million were living in Syria, and over 1 million refugees were inhabiting Jordan, Iran, Egypt, Lebanon, Turkey and Gulf States. Most Iraqis are determined to be resettled to Europe or North America, and few consider return to Iraq an option."

    For the year 2007, United States bowed to international pressure by allowing far more Iraqi refugees than ever before - 1,608 persons to be exact.

    And they say "Saddam was just like Hitler." :wink: WTF are we doing?!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax

    "Cultural destruction" is not that big a deal. I think it's really stupid that people worry about it. One culture isn't any better than another, but having everyone be a member of the same culture makes it a lot easier for a country to function as a single group, which is a much more important concern than keeping a specific set of mannerisms, holidays, or rituals alive.
    Except you are disregarding basic human freedom, people should have the right to live and act in anyway they choose without harming others.
    What if your refusal to assimilate prevents you from contributing to the national good, while allowing you to benefit from it at the same time? The word "parasite" comes to mind. Parasites are harmful creatures, even if most of them are not deadly. And, of course, this accusation is one of the ones the Nazis formally made.


    Also, deliberate destruction of a cultural norms, like what was done to natives who were forced into reservation schools, are considered genocide by the UN along with murder of an ethnic group.
    And then we wonder why the world's so screwed up. We confuse genuine material harm with stuff that just hurts people's feelings (not their bodies, so much, just their feelings). So, we waste all of our resources straining at gnats, and then end up swallowing camels when our resources run out. You can't do everything. You've got to set priorities.


    I don't care if a culture disappears naturally overtime, although I fear homogenization of human thought, but I have a very big problem with forceful destruction of culture.
    Some cultures divide, some unify. Some cultures even tend to unify with other cultures. Homogeneity isn't necessarily the goal.

    But, a culture doesn't have an inherent right to live just because it's a culture, and has people adhering to it. It must represent a non-negative contribution to humanity as a whole in order to deserve life.

    All you are advocating is the marxist philosophy that led to the complete abolishment of religion in the USSR.
    No. There need to exist cultural alternatives, and different levels of available cultural leadership. The thing is that the cultures which exist must consist exclusively of those which are available to everyone. None of them should ever be based on a particular bloodline.

    In the USA, for example, it took WASP culture a very long time to open its doors to assimilating black people, and then a lot of black people decided not to assimilate, and just have their own culture, but that's a mistake, unless the new culture they create is willing to assimilate white people as well.

    If Jewish culture would assimilate non-jewish people into it, I might not object so much to its existence, but it would have to do so freely.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Masters Degree samcdkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    640
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    If Jewish culture would assimilate non-jewish people into it, I might not object so much to its existence, but it would have to do so freely.
    Well said. The EU has commissioned a study comparing the conditions between Israel and South Africa based on the Apartheid Convention. Preliminary findings look very black for Israel.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Masters Degree Numsgil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    708
    Quote Originally Posted by samcdkey
    The EU has commissioned a study comparing the conditions between Israel and South Africa based on the Apartheid Convention. Preliminary findings look very black for Israel.
    Pun intended?
    "A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    The Jews were landless, but refused to assimilate into the cultures who's land they were living in. They had that "I'm not one of you" kind of air about them, which would tend to make them the prime target whenever economics started to break down.

    In the USA, we're starting to direct some frustration at illegal Mexican immigrants for a very similar reason.
    yet failure to assimilate is not reason enought to target a people. Christians do the same thing, are yuo going to kill them next because they follow their own ways?

    Canada's then Prime Minister Mackenzie King: "The admission of refugees perhaps posed a greater menace to Canada in 1938 than did Hitler." He meant Canada the nation. He did protect Canadians. Governments everywhere were likewise protecting their own heritage and demographic i.e. their right to live and act in anyway they choose without harming others.
    Yet canada became one of the biggest acceptors of refugees/immigrants after that. It is one of the biggest melting pots in the world with its diverse group of minorities in cities across the country.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    240
    "To the idea of nuking Berlin, the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes, and the American's only had 3 bombs. The nukes never should have been used in the first place because they were a deliberate attack on civilians and are just as bad as concentration camps. The philosopher Ms. Ascombe used the analogy of boiling one baby to save two soldiers to represent the atrocity of the bombings. The reason why they didn't do it is quite simple, Germans are white and Christian so it would have caused too much bad press."

    Hindsight is 20-20. When the Atomic bombs had finally been developed Japan was cut off from its Chinese empire, suffering fuel shortages, and being bombed daily by American bombers, yet it was not yet broken. From the experiences of American soldiers in Okinawa the Japanese were perfectly prepared to dig into the earth itself and defend the holy mother country from Allied invasion. Its estimated that the American/British invasions of the Japanese home islands would have to be the biggest invasion in the history of man with millions of men, hundreds of ships, and thousands of planes needed to land and subdue the country. Estimates for the kind of casualties that the United States Armed forces could look forward too are nearly 1 million soldiers and anywhere from 10-20 million Japanese, civilians and soldiers alike. The Atomic bombs, along with the Soviet declaration of war, shocked the Japanese nation, particularly the Emperor himself, into a realization that all Japan could look forward to was an intense period of destruction and death if they continued on this suicidal idea of defense. While the dropping of the atomic bombs, like the Allied firebombings of German cities, are seen as atrocious by us today, in the end they forced Japan to come to the realization that it had to choose between total annihilation or surrender. In the end Japan chose surrender.

    On the nature of the Allies decision to fight the war to unconditional surrender of the enemy, while unconditional surrender has never been the norm in the history of warfare, it has been used. The American civil war is another example. The adoption of a policy of unconditional surrender clearly increased the resistance of Germany and Japan, but ask yourself, could the allies seriously accepted anything less? The German invasion of the Soviet Union would devastate nearly a third of that country's infrastructure and lead to the deaths of 20 million people, 2/3rds civilians. The Third Reich treated hte peoples of Eastern and Southern Europe terribly, executing, displacing, and torturing millions, the culmination of their efforts being the Final Solution. Japan was renowned for its horrid treatment of Allied prisoners and the Chinese civilians. An example of the sadism of the Imperial Japanese army during WW2 was their peculiar use of waterboarding. Water boarding, which the United States has used recently and come under a lot of condemnation of the global community for, is the process of tying someone to a board, putting a bag over there face, dropping the board so the persons head is near the ground and dumping water on the face. The effect is similar to drowning and is an effective torture technique. What the Japanese did was fill the stomachs of victims with water then either beat the stomach or jump on the stomach so it would burst from the amount of water in the still living victim. The Rape of Nanking and other atrocities are just examples of the brutal ways of the Japanese military during the 2nd world war.

    Im not to certain about the Japanese nuclear program, but the Japanese did have a large chemical and biological weapons program based somewhere in Manchuria, called unit 731. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731 Give it a look, tis an interesting article.

    As far as Eugenics goes, it was a pseudo scientific belief that, just like humans did with domesticated animals, human beings could breed a superior species of man by selectively breeding prime individuals with eachother. This was not a fringe theory, as many brilliant minds, like Nikola Tesla, believed it was an actual science.

    A notable Nazi officer who was assassinated was Reinhard Heydrich. Assassinated, a reprisal was carried out against the town of Lidice. All the men over 16 were killed, all but 8 of the children and all of the women were sent to the concentration camps. Wherever the Nazis meet resistance in occupied Europe they usually responded with brutal reprisals.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    What makes me laugh is that we probably killed more people when we fire bombed Tokyo than nuking both Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. What the bombing did was show them how few casualties we would take if the war continued. (Assuming we'd actually been in possession of more than 2 bombs, that is)

    They saw that we might lose maybe 15 pilots in the course of inflicting maybe 5 million deaths. So, they could go on fighting if they wanted, but the world would laugh at them for it. (Or cry with them, depending on their level of hostility, I guess).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Masters Degree samcdkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    640
    From the experiences of American soldiers in Okinawa the Japanese were perfectly prepared to dig into the earth itself and defend the holy mother country from Allied invasion.
    And whats wrong with that? Isn't that what any other country would do? Remember, it was the US that used military threat to break Japan's isolationism too.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    240
    And Japan returned the favor. What is hard to realize for some was that this was the Second World War, a conflict of such brutal proportions that any thoughts of fighting a civilized war was out of the question. The Allied powers did some horrible things during the war, of course, but nothing the Allies did, absolutely nothing, compares to the atrocities commited by the Axis powers who were blatant in their aggression and brutality. The Atomic bombs and the Soviet declaration of war shocked the Japanese into surrender instead of fortifying the islands for a war that would kill millions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •