Invading other forums. Is there ever a good reason?

[Bouncelot]

But the figures we've been quoting are the nearest you're ever gonna get to a correct estimate of how many people died in the various events we've been talking about.

Ok then I say 9 million Germans died betweeb 1944-1950 as a result of the Potsdam treaty and Morgenthau plan. Since thats the closest were going to get.

And you have what authority on the subject? That's right, none at all. The figures everyone except you have been quoting are those accepted by at least 99% of reputable historians as being more-or-less correct in the same way that it is correct to say that one third of the World's population today is at least nominally Christian. You can't be absolutely certain of the figure, but it's more-or-less correct.

I thought we'd already established that the harsh Morgenthau plan never got implemented. And as for Potsdam, sorry but do you have any evidence that the agreement at Potsdam caused any deaths that wouldn't have happened otherwise? Certainly there was no deliberate plan to kill any Germans except those tried and convicted of war crimes.

There is NO WAY the allies killed as many POWs as the Nazis killed Jews. For one thing, the allies weren't setting up POW camps to kill people, whilst the Nazis did set up concentration camps to kill millions of people.

My book just came in the mail! Coincidence? I think not.

"TOTAL OF DEATHS
Expellees (1945-50) 2,100,000 Minimum 6,000,000 Maximum
Prisoners (1941-50) 1,500,000 Minimum 2,000,000 Maximum
Residents (1946-50) 5,700,000 Minimum 5,700,000 Maximum
...
NOTE:
The prisoners' minimum deaths is an unrealistically cautious estimate based on the notion that somehow, no one died who had not been counted missing by Dr Bitter and subsequent surveyors. Those counted as missing numbered 1.4 million military, to whom are here added 66,000 dead paramilitary in the USSR.

The deaths above are...beyond those actually reported, but almost all of the victims died after Oct...1946. Of course there were many deaths...from August 1945, when the Potsdam policies took full effect, up to the time of the first census in October 1946.

Please explain where these figures came from, and also why you attribute these deaths to the policies and actions of the allied occupation forces.

Between the imposition of the Potsdam Agreements in August 1945, and the first census...probably about 1,950,000 German non-expelled civilians died, but only about 1,100,000 deaths were reported. This means that about 800,000 more Germans died and were not reported by the Allies between August 1945 and October 1946.

And how many of these deaths were caused by the Allies? With the holocaust, the victims were deliberately killed by the SS. At the worst, the allies caused some deaths inadvertently. Perhaps there were some deliberate deaths in the Soviet-occupied territories, but nothing to compare with the Nazis' slaughter.

It is not possible from the figures available to determine how many civilians died in the Soviet zone and how many in the Western zones."

So you admit that it's possible that any deliberately caused deaths that may have occured were entirely the fault of the Soviets, and hence nothing to do with any agreements between the allies.

No it doesn't You said that most of history happened AND that most of it didn't happen. That means that you're saying that some of history both happened and didn't happen. It's a contradiction.

I'm saying we don't have the full story. Not every government document is readily available. but thanks to the collapse of the Soviet Union James Bacque was able to access KGB files. I guess we will have to wait for the collapse of America before her files are given up.

Well, obviously we don't have the full story about events - to record everything about a major event would be impossible, even if the info is all available. I don't see how this makes a difference to anything.

You were saying that you didn't think it was a debate. How does it being on a discussion forum affect that. How does the fact that some debates devolve into flames affect this being a debate? Your arguments appear to be illogical.

Debates are setup to be a question and answer forum. This is a topic discussion not an answer and question forum.

Question and answer is question and answer. Debates are discussions in which you have at least two distinct sides, each arguing that their side is substantially correct, and the other side is substantially wrong. Could I suggest that you invest in a dictionary?

[Impactor returns 2.0]

personaly speaking I just see it that clearly the Final Soloution = mass genocide, and if the Allies did kill anyone on mass, it was via war, and ppl generally being pissed off.

it wasnt a 'Finnal Soloution' by any means.

[Ultimate Weapon]

as for Bacques...

my understanding is he started out as a writer of fiction yes?

What does that have to do with anything he has written or his investigative work! It would be unwise to discredit the author without hard evidence. Of which you seem to be lacking substantially.

No previous academic record yes? hmm...

"James Bacque flew to Moscow to work in the new openly KGB archives. The first English-speaking writer to gain access to these files, he found new proof of the mass deaths of prisoners. He is also the first writer to publish recently declassified information from the renowned Hoover Institution in California. Some other important American papers were specially declassified for this book."

"James Bacque is a former book editor and reporter...It was in 1986, while researching a book on Raoul Laporterie, a French Resistance hero, that he stumbled on evidence al Allied death camps. Other Losses...was the product of that discovery. Crimes and Mercies,...is his third work of non-fiction."

[Impactor returns 2.0]

there are lots of files to say that its bollox tho.

What I find more amazing is that ex nazi and Germen pow camp commanders talk openly about what they did.

yet out of the millions of allied service men and women involved in WW2 no one saw these allied death camps.

funny that

also, KGB records from WW2 are mainly bollox as russia couldnt get 10 miles down the road from stalingrad - and hence are based on pretty **** sources.

and thats why J.B work isnt viable

Hey I got another good book, "The Da Vinci Code" ...

[Ultimate Weapon]

And you have what authority on the subject? That's right, none at all. The figures everyone except you have been quoting are those accepted by at least 99% of reputable historians as being more-or-less correct in the same way that it is correct to say that one third of the World's population today is at least nominally Christian. You can't be absolutely certain of the figure, but it's more-or-less correct.

Because I actually went out and studied the subject like anybody else would when dealing with a previously unknown subject. Also I have been reading books about the war and I just got my James Bacque book. SO I would say that ta least puts me ahead of the game were you are concerned.

I thought we'd already established that the harsh Morgenthau plan never got implemented. And as for Potsdam, sorry but do you have any evidence that the agreement at Potsdam caused any deaths that wouldn't have happened otherwise? Certainly there was no deliberate plan to kill any Germans except those tried and convicted of war crimes.

Morgenthau did not just magically go away! He was Secretary of the Treasury! He had convinced FDR enough to siggn the act, and Churchill. He would continue to support his ideas of starvation and death.

The Potsdam Conference in the summer of 1945, approved by all the world leaders present, including STalin, Truman, and Churchill, were to transfer millions of Germans from Poland. The Book Terrible Revenge: Ethnic Cleansing of Eastern European Germans Goes more into detail about what happened.

There is NO WAY the allies killed as many POWs as the Nazis killed Jews. For one thing, the allies weren't setting up POW camps to kill people, whilst the Nazis did set up concentration camps to kill millions of people.

No they were not set up to kill people, nor were they set up to provide sufficient food, water or shelter, for months.

Please explain where these figures came from, and also why you attribute these deaths to the policies and actions of the allied occupation forces.

The Adenauer Government determined in a survey that at least 1.4 million Germans did not make it home from Allied POW camps. And 2.1 million people are admitted by the West Germans and the Allies to have died during the expulsions. Notable authorities including the 1st Chancellor of West Germany, have written that at least sixmillion among the expellees only, died.

And how many of these deaths were caused by the Allies? With the holocaust, the victims were deliberately killed by the SS. At the worst, the allies caused some deaths inadvertently. Perhaps there were some deliberate deaths in the Soviet-occupied territories, but nothing to compare with the Nazis' slaughter.

Herbert Hoover was astonished to find how little UNRRA was doing to feed civilians. Only 20 percent of the world's famine area was being served west of the Iron Curtain.

So you admit that it's possible that any deliberately caused deaths that may have occured were entirely the fault of the Soviets, and hence nothing to do with any agreements between the allies.

The Potsdam agreement forced the Germans out of their homes, much like the Jews were forced to leave theirs.

Well, obviously we don't have the full story about events - to record everything about a major event would be impossible, even if the info is all available. I don't see how this makes a differnce at all?

So you enjoy history being one sided?

[Impactor returns 2.0]

Well for everyone staring in dis-belife look at what I said.

[Best First]

as for Bacques...

my understanding is he started out as a writer of fiction yes?

What does that have to do with anything he has written or his investigative work! It would be unwise to discredit the author without hard evidence. Of which you seem to be lacking substantially.

Which is the exact point. Someone who evidences no previous historical espertise makes some fairly fantastical cliams based on newly available evidence. The only way to refute him is to:

a) essentially go out and look at the evidence and write yoru arguements based on your own exrapoloations from the evidence, which obviulsy most people are not in a position to do 9altho looking at some of his minimums and maximums i would suiggest it would not be at all difficult for people to come to very different conculusions to that of the ONE BOOK you keep referring to. You keep talking about history and study and having evidence like you are some master of the art but any good historian would draw on multiple sources and viewpoints to draw picture rather than parrot one guy which is all you are doing. Big pat on the back for you.

or b) ask some fairly simple questions based on what we know already. So here is the main one - where are all the bodies? Why would Germany be and remain comlpicit in this alledged consipiracy?

From what i have seen and read around the internet Bacque mainly enjoys prominance in a tired fringe debate betwen anti-semitic fundamentalistsand pro-semetic fundamentalists. Both sides come across as obsessive morons (hmm...) with little to contribute to real historical debate, hence why Bacque seems to be little engaged by mainstream historical discourse.

Sorry to interupt your little Bacque wankfest there...

[Brendocon]

It would be unwise to discredit the author without hard evidence. Of which you seem to be lacking substantially.

Says the person whose main arguments are generally based around "you're wrong because I don't believe you, and it's down to you to disprove my opinion that your referred sources are wrong."

You keep talking about history and study and having evidence like you are some master of the art but any good historian would draw on multiple sources and viewpoints to draw picture rather than parrot one guy which is all you are doing.

Not only that, but any historian can immediately draw a line between primary and secondary evidence. No historian would ever base an entire argument solely on one source, which itself is "based on newly available evidence" - any reference which makes that claim should automatically be regarded as secondary at best.

Whilst it's true that Bacques' general stance being at odds to the majority concensus doesn't automatically make him wrong, to use that notion as the justification for regarding him above all others is ludicrous beyond the telling of it.

Simplify it?

"... well, it's different..."
"So you're saying he's wrong?"
"Not necessarily, but we have to bear in mind that..."
"So he's not wrong? Yes! Haha, he's right... I'll disregard all conflicting reports. Go me!"

Yes?

[Best First]

totally.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

How did the KGB get such evidence when the Russians couldnt move off thier own doorstep?

Why has Germeny never spoken about this?

Why has an allied member never spoken of this when ex Nazi POW camp commanders do?

How come historians from every single country on the earth have never noticed this or found seen or heard about this?

the list gos on...

[Best First]

The notion that there were Allied atrocities is entirely with merit, however the suggested scale and organisation implied by Baques seems far more questionable when challenged with some fairly simple questions.

[Ultimate Weapon]

Which is the exact point. Someone who evidences no previous historical espertise makes some fairly fantastical cliams based on newly available evidence. The only way to refute him is to:

a) essentially go out and look at the evidence and write yoru arguements based on your own exrapoloations from the evidence, which obviulsy most people are not in a position to do 9altho looking at some of his minimums and maximums i would suiggest it would not be at all difficult for people to come to very different conculusions to that of the ONE BOOK you keep referring to. You keep talking about history and study and having evidence like you are some master of the art but any good historian would draw on multiple sources and viewpoints to draw picture rather than parrot one guy which is all you are doing. Big pat on the back for you.

Bacque is not my only historical source. I just finished a book called The Last Days of the Third Reich. Which uses sources direct from the field of combat by compiling letters and diary entiries. So I have more than one source. Bacque just happens to be one of the most prominent of the others.

or b) ask some fairly simple questions based on what we know already. So here is the main one - where are all the bodies? Why would Germany be and remain comlpicit in this alledged consipiracy?

Germany was the loser. They really did not have a say in the matter as they had no government. So the only ones keeping the records would have been the census bureaus. Most of the bodies are not allowed to be dug up. In Jugoslavia German POW's were shot in the back one after the other into a large pit. The human gases inside the bodies made the earth heave and tanks had to continously drive over the mound until it had dissapated.

From what i have seen and read around the internet Bacque mainly enjoys prominance in a tired fringe debate betwen anti-semitic fundamentalistsand pro-semetic fundamentalists. Both sides come across as obsessive morons (hmm...) with little to contribute to real historical debate, hence why Bacque seems to be little engaged by mainstream historical discourse.

Well the reviews at Amazon have been all positive. So I don't know what source you are looking at.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

and Amazons reviews are from ppl who buy the product, and generally that means ppl like you?

Amazon is like the god of critque review? - no.

point is, 10000 + historians have covered WW2, and covered it from all sides.

So unless u can find me more to disprove them, ill go in favour of what they say.

[Ultimate Weapon]

How did the KGB get such evidence when the Russians couldnt move off thier own doorstep?

The Russian historian Dmitri Volkogonov wrote in his book, Lenin: 'Lenin was not moved to halt the crime against men and women aged between fourteen and seventeen, and merelt wrote "For the archives" on the document, thus establishing the tradition no matter how cruel or immoral an act, that it would be recorded abd stored in the archive for a history that would never be written so long as the regime lasted.

Why has Germeny never spoken about this?

Chancellor Adenauer himself wrote in his memoirs that six milion of the 15 million expelled from the Eastern Provines died. And the West German Government under Adenauer in 1950 determined that 1.4 million POW's never returned home. These deaths appear to have resulted from the semi-starvation food rations that were all that were available to the German population at that time.

Why has an allied member never spoken of this when ex Nazi POW camp commanders do?

Ambassador Murphy, who was a diplomatic representative of the US government attached to the American military governmeny in Germany from 1945 onwards, witnessed the the vengeance inflicted on Germany. Under JCS 1067, the chief American directive on occupation policy pursuant to the purpoartedly abandoned Morgenthau plan. Murphy wrote in 1947 that 'owing to the present high death rate in Germany', the population would shrink by two million over the next two years. Evidenced by the two censusses of 1946 and 1950.

How come historians from every single country on the earth have never noticed this or found seen or heard about this?

Professional historians probably do know. The question is why have they not written about it?

[Ultimate Weapon]

and Amazons reviews are from ppl who buy the product, and generally that means ppl like you?

Amazon is like the god of critque review? - no.

point is, 10000 + historians have covered WW2, and covered it from all sides.

So unless u can find me more to disprove them, ill go in favour of what they say.

Yes but the events I have been talking about take place after WW2. Most historians end their books on May 31st 1945. BUt I would be glad to list more books you should read. I don;t know what good it will do you though.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

The Russian historian Dmitri Volkogonov wrote in his book, Lenin: 'Lenin was not moved to halt the crime against men and women aged between fourteen and seventeen, and merelt wrote "For the archives" on the document, thus establishing the tradition no matter how cruel or immoral an act, that it would be recorded abd stored in the archive for a history that would never be written so long as the regime lasted.

Doesnt really answer anything, the KJB barely existed in WW2, and russians could barely move out of russia.
So i cant really go accept that.

Chancellor Adenauer himself wrote in his memoirs that six milion of the 15 million expelled from the Eastern Provines died. And the West German Government under Adenauer in 1950 determined that 1.4 million POW's never returned home. These deaths appear to have resulted from the semi-starvation food rations that were all that were available to the German population at that time.

So 1.4 million POW's died of starvation?
hmm, logically think about this, when most soilders in the allied forces had a hard time getting food, its not hard to realise that germen POW's died aswell.

now the bottom line to all of this, is that this due to WAR condtions
NOT
the Finnal solouton
and act of genocide.

Hence why this is bollox.

Ambassador Murphy, who was a diplomatic representative of the US government attached to the American military governmeny in Germany from 1945 onwards, witnessed the the vengeance inflicted on Germany. Under JCS 1067, the chief American directive on occupation policy pursuant to the purpoartedly abandoned Morgenthau plan. Murphy wrote in 1947 that 'owing to the present high death rate in Germany', the population would shrink by two million over the next two years. Evidenced by the two censusses of 1946 and 1950.

err just had a War, so, its probably a pretty acurate description? - duh

Professional historians probably do know. The question is why have they not written about it?

Because the whole world is in mass-consiparcy?

No, ill tell you what.

One lil theory that cannot be proven, lets be clear here, cannot beproven, is being tied in with '''''evidence''' , a term use in the broardest of fasions,

Yeah Germens died in Camps, because we couldnt feed em, im sure, and it was alot, lots of POW's from every side died in camps.

but the point is

It was the Finnal ******* Soloution that the Nazi party laid on the Jews, and next the blacks, and disabled ppl and gay ppl etc...


What ****s me off more then anything is the point to this, any moron can see and understand what I just said, so whats the point?
I see it as some strange way of trying to make the 'Nazis' not look bad.

So im gonna be frank with you

Are you a Neo Nazi?
Do you dislike races unlike your own, Ie, Jewish ppl, blakc ppl
Do you dislike gay ppl, think its wrong etc?

Bottom line, Germens died in POW camps, because we looked after em badley. yeah, proably beat a few to death and executed them.

but it wasnt the finnal soloution.

oh, theres lots of germens on the net via google search who think what J.B has to say is frankly crap aswell...

[Impactor returns 2.0]

and Amazons reviews are from ppl who buy the product, and generally that means ppl like you?

Amazon is like the god of critque review? - no.

point is, 10000 + historians have covered WW2, and covered it from all sides.

So unless u can find me more to disprove them, ill go in favour of what they say.

Yes but the events I have been talking about take place after WW2. Most historians end their books on May 31st 1945. BUt I would be glad to list more books you should read. I don;t know what good it will do you though.

No you told me that ppl on AMazon said it was good hence, you think because ppl on AMazon say its good, IT MUST BE GOOD.

now, clearly amazons, 'book rato-meter' is ****.

and as for most historians end thier books on may 31st... etc...


sorry would you like to quantify that with accurate figures and names please?

No you cant, so dont talk crap.

[Ultimate Weapon]

Doesnt really answer anything, the KJB barely existed in WW2, and russians could barely move out of russia.
So i cant really go accept that.

Neither did the CIA. Does that mean there are no documents that contain WW2 material in their files? And do you think Russians could not move out of Russian? The iron curtain was well beyond the borders of Russia.

So 1.4 million POW's died of starvation?
hmm, logically think about this, when most soilders in the allied forces had a hard time getting food, its not hard to realise that germen POW's died aswell.

In Japan Macartur said give me bread Washington not bullets. I'm making the point that Germany was targeted because of hatred, which is definetly within reason because the world had come to balme it for the world wars. It is not illogical to think that these actions were carried out to permanently cripple the nation so a 3rd world war would not start. That is definetly within reason! The moral question is the issue.

now the bottom line to all of this, is that this due to WAR condtions
NOT
the Finnal solouton
and act of genocide.

Hence why this is bollox.

I'm not sure I follow you. But I think you are trying to say that this was because of the war and not the holocaust. Right? But I think most of the determination for revenge came from the concetration camps, and how Hitler had treated the occupied territories.

err just had a War, so, its probably a pretty acurate description? - duh

But it seems that relief and aid was available but was not given to the POW camps.

Because the whole world is in mass-consiparcy?

No, ill tell you what.

One lil theory that cannot be proven, lets be clear here, cannot beproven, is being tied in with '''''evidence''' , a term use in the broardest of fasions,

Yeah Germens died in Camps, because we couldnt feed em, im sure, and it was alot, lots of POW's from every side died in camps.

but the point is

It was the Finnal ******* Soloution that the Nazi party laid on the Jews, and next the blacks, and disabled ppl and gay ppl etc...


What ****s me off more then anything is the point to this, any moron can see and understand what I just said, so whats the point?
I see it as some strange way of trying to make the 'Nazis' not look bad.

Well I'm sorry you feel that way. It is a terrible tragedy to be forced out of your homeland, whether Jew or German. And it should not be an issue of Nazi sympathy!

Are you a Neo Nazi?

You can label me that if it makes you feel more comfortable to pin down my ideas, into one central definition. But I do not worship the swastika, or salute Hitler in the morning if that is what you are after. I think Hitler ****** up royally even when the world gave him a chance in the 30's.

Do you dislike races unlike your own, Ie, Jewish ppl, blakc ppl

I respect culture and nationality, and see no wrong in trying to preserve ones own heritage and language from the influence of other nations. I celebrate nationality and I respect Israel as a state for Jewish people.

Do you dislike gay ppl, think its wrong etc?

Why would I? Being gay in America in some states is a matter of legislation, like Georgia.

Bottom line, Germens died in POW camps, because we looked after em badley. yeah, proably beat a few to death and executed them.

but it wasnt the finnal soloution.

Final Solution is Goverment policy just like JCS 1067. But clearly the motives were different. However the outcomes were far from pleasant.

oh, theres lots of germens on the net via google search who think what J.B has to say is frankly crap aswell...

Yes I know. I have talked to some Germans about the subject. Most of them have never even considered the possibility. But if you would have told a Jew about the gas chambers in Auschwitz they would not have believed you either, in 1944.

[Ultimate Weapon]

No you told me that ppl on AMazon said it was good hence, you think because ppl on AMazon say its good, IT MUST BE GOOD.

I'm just saying the reviews are positive from what I have read.

and as for most historians end thier books on may 31st... etc...


sorry would you like to quantify that with accurate figures and names please?

No you cant, so dont talk crap.

I just finished a book on the 3rd Reich. While it did contain many atrocities of rape and death, it did end on May 31st, 1945.

[Ultimate Weapon]

Here is a good review of Other Losses that sets the record straight.

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/b/bac ... e-001.html

[Bouncelot]

In Japan Macartur said give me bread Washington not bullets. I'm making the point that Germany was targeted because of hatred, which is definetly within reason because the world had come to balme it for the world wars. It is not illogical to think that these actions were carried out to permanently cripple the nation so a 3rd world war would not start. That is definetly within reason! The moral question is the issue.

The Allies were NOT out to cripple Germany. They'd tried that approach back in 1918, and realised that it had actually helped caused WW2. The US poured shedloads of money into Europe to help it reebuild after the war (it was called the Marshall Plan, read up on it), and Germany got its fair share of that money. While I've not had much background on the expulsions, I have studied the post-war reconstruction, and allied plans for what to do after the war - and they didn't include trying to cripple Germany to prevent another war.

I'm not sure I follow you. But I think you are trying to say that this was because of the war and not the holocaust. Right? But I think most of the determination for revenge came from the concetration camps, and how Hitler had treated the occupied territories.

What revenge? Yes, there were probably some attempts at revenge from Soviet soldiers (the war on the Eastern front was very nasty), but not officially sanctioned ones. You are attributing revenge motives to what is, essentially, a failure of humanitarian aid. You need to remember that most of the aid agencies we have today that can leap into a crisis situation and start providing humanitarian aid within a couple of days at most either didn't exist or were in their infancy. The capacity to feed people in crisis situations with not enough local food supplies just didn't exist in the 40s. It wasn't deliberate policy.

But it seems that relief and aid was available but was not given to the POW camps

You get this information from where? How much aid and relief do you think was available? Who do you think had the capacity to distribute it to everyone? Which POW camps are you referring to? US/British/Soviet ones? An entire continent was still reeling from the effects of the war. There were very few aid agencies, and those were small and inexperienced. Much of Europe's fertile land hadn't been properly farmed thanks to the war - this was particularly the case in the USSR, where everything had been destroyed i the early stages of the war to slow the Nazi advance. It is inconceivable that aid could have reached everybody who needed it.

Well I'm sorry you feel that way. It is a terrible tragedy to be forced out of your homeland, whether Jew or German. And it should not be an issue of Nazi sympathy!

You're the one using it as a reason to say that the holocaust wasn't so bad.

[Best First]

"Mr. Bacque is wrong on every major charge and nearly all his minor ones"

so you agree with the review?

[Ultimate Weapon]

What revenge? Yes, there were probably some attempts at revenge from Soviet soldiers (the war on the Eastern front was very nasty), but not officially sanctioned ones. You are attributing revenge motives to what is, essentially, a failure of humanitarian aid. You need to remember that most of the aid agencies we have today that can leap into a crisis situation and start providing humanitarian aid within a couple of days at most either didn't exist or were in their infancy. The capacity to feed people in crisis situations with not enough local food supplies just didn't exist in the 40s. It wasn't deliberate policy.

Read up on Tito's Jugoslavian government at the time. They marched their German prisoners 50KM per day around the perimeter of the country, it was a 2,000 KM trek. Soon dysentry, and starvation, reduced the march to 20 km per day. The partisans guards were changed so as not to tire themselves from beating the prisoners, so they that would not tire when they had their way with the German girls. The total number who dies on the hunger march or as prisoners will never be known.

And then there is Churchill, who sent the Cossacks and others back into Russia. Knowing full well that they were going to die. He is a despicable murderer.

You get this information from where? How much aid and relief do you think was available? Who do you think had the capacity to distribute it to everyone? Which POW camps are you referring to? US/British/Soviet ones? An entire continent was still reeling from the effects of the war. There were very few aid agencies, and those were small and inexperienced. Much of Europe's fertile land hadn't been properly farmed thanks to the war - this was particularly the case in the USSR, where everything had been destroyed i the early stages of the war to slow the Nazi advance. It is inconceivable that aid could have reached everybody who needed it.

US army camp at Sinzig, on the Rhine near Remagen. Millions of prisoners were herded into open fields without sufficient food water or shelter.

You're the one using it as a reason to say that the holocaust wasn't so bad.

That is just my personal opinion on the matter. I don't think it deserve any special attention except for those involved, and historical reference. And I enjoyed Schindler's List emmensly. I just don;t see what good it does anybody to build museums about death and murder. Who the hell would want to see that? We should celebrate the arts and science. And don't come back at me saying we need to remember the tragedy so it won't happen again BS! Because guess what we all remember it! And it hasn't changed a damn thing!

[Best First]

You're the one using it as a reason to say that the holocaust wasn't so bad.

That is just my personal opinion on the matter.

how is that an excuse?

I don't think it deserve any special attention except for those involved, and historical reference.

you specialise in writing meaningless sentances don't you? How do you define involved? How am i not involved by, say, my empthathy for those who suffered and died. How am i not involved when strands of the ideology that led to the event still exist today and thus shape the world i live in?

I just don;t see what good it does anybody to build museums about death and murder. Who the hell would want to see that?

People who want to learn abou the mistakes we have made as a race so we can evolve our ideas and philosophies and create a better future?

Also you have spent half this topic banging on about a book that is about the allies causing death and commiting murder that you paid for, read and now parrot at every opportunity. Who the hell would want to read about that? Oh, you. But you don't think people should care about that sort of thing unless they were directly involved. Hmm, you appear to be spewing self contradictory ****.

We should celebrate the arts and science.

we do. They aren't mutually exclusive.

Also if people shouldn't care about our failuers as a race unlesthey were directly involved why should they care about our successes? Its the ostrich approach to history!

And don't come back at me saying we need to remember the tragedy so it won't happen again BS! Because guess what we all remember it! And it hasn't changed a damn thing!

Its not BS. Learning about the holocaust certainly chaged my perecptions about what humanity is capable of and how dangerous ceratin ideas and concepts can be. The holocaust also added significantly to teh stigmatism attached to racism, ceratinly in the West, giving extra momentum to race relations as people saw more readily where racism can ultimatly lead.

Also by saying learning about it hasn't chnaged athing you appear to have appointed yourself spokesperson for everyone on the planet - how do you know, at an individual level, whether learning about his has changed how people think and act? You don't.

Your arguement is becaue we are still making mistakes we shouldn't learn about our mistakes. That's BS son.

[Ultimate Weapon]

how is that an excuse?

Not saying it is.

you specialise in writing meaningless sentances don't you? How do you define involved? How am i not involved by, say, my empthathy for those who suffered and died. How am i not involved when strands of the ideology that led to the event still exist today and thus shape the world i live in?

Maybe you should learn more tolerance. People have a right to their thoughts and beliefs, no matter how extreme they may seem to you. Your just going to have to learn to live with it.

People who want to learn abou the mistakes we have made as a race so we can evolve our ideas and philosophies and create a better future?

Well if that is what you believe then I have no objection. But in reality we should all learn to live with war, even though you may not like it it will happen.

Also you have spent half this topic banging on about a book that is about the allies causing death and commiting murder that you paid for, read and now parrot at every opportunity. Who the hell would want to read about that? Oh, you. But you don't think people should care about that sort of thing unless they were directly involved. Hmm, you appear to be spewing self contradictory ****.

Ok I see your point. I even watched Schindler's List twice this past weekend. But to actually build a monument to human destruction is crazy. Why not have the inquistion museum? Or the slave trade museum? Or the Museum for the dead who built the wall of CHina? Or people dipped in boiling oil? Or every death that has ever happened ever! It's pointless!

Also if people shouldn't care about our failuers as a race unlesthey were directly involved why should they care about our successes? Its the ostrich approach to history!

Success can affect all of humanity, just like invention. Unfortunately our society only rewards the individual instead of the community or state.

Its not BS. Learning about the holocaust certainly chaged my perecptions about what humanity is capable of and how dangerous ceratin ideas and concepts can be. The holocaust also added significantly to teh stigmatism attached to racism, ceratinly in the West, giving extra momentum to race relations as people saw more readily where racism can ultimatly lead.

Thats fine but building a museum, I just don't understand it.

Also by saying learning about it hasn't chnaged athing you appear to have appointed yourself spokesperson for everyone on the planet - how do you know, at an individual level, whether learning about his has changed how people think and act? You don't.

Ok I used a broad generalization that wars will continue no matter the horrors or how high the body count. I could become an expert on the holocaust and still kill a million people. And it's a safe bet that wars will always happen no matter how many museums you put up.

Your arguement is becaue we are still making mistakes we shouldn't learn about our mistakes. That's BS son.

I would not have read the books I did if I thought that. I'm saying that if you think that reading books, or going to museums is going to change the dynamic of human aggression, then you got another thing coming.

[Darth Aux]

Ultimate Weapon wrote:
In Japan Macartur said give me bread Washington not bullets. I'm making the point that Germany was targeted because of hatred, which is definetly within reason because the world had come to balme it for the world wars. It is not illogical to think that these actions were carried out to permanently cripple the nation so a 3rd world war would not start. That is definetly within reason! The moral question is the issue.

WTF???

Germany has such a stable economy now and has done for quite sometime. Why? Because the Allies helped to rebuild it. Even before getting Britain itself rebuilt.

1) Does that sound like they were trying to cripple Germany?? NO!

2) Does that mean they were trying to cripple the evil Nazi movement of Hitler? YES!

3) Want "PROOF" try Google, it was on the BBC, who's Historians I have far more trust in than thou.

Ultimate Weapon wrote:

Maybe you should learn more tolerance. People have a right to their thoughts and beliefs

Listen to your own advice if you're gonna use that excuse. Personaly, I'll tell you straight you're full of sh**

[Best First]

how is that an excuse?

Not saying it is.

well its good that we have cleared that up...FFS.

you specialise in writing meaningless sentances don't you? How do you define involved? How am i not involved by, say, my empthathy for those who suffered and died. How am i not involved when strands of the ideology that led to the event still exist today and thus shape the world i live in?

Maybe you should learn more tolerance. People have a right to their thoughts and beliefs, no matter how extreme they may seem to you. Your just going to have to learn to live with it.

Mmm, not addessing the point i note. concession accepted. As for being more tolerant... i don't have to live with ****. You have a rgiht to you ropinion, you don't have the right for me to respect it - and if i think your philosophy has a negative efect on the world i'll damn well point out the gaping holes in it (not hard in this case). I should learn to be more tolerant to allow Nazism to persist, winning arguement there as usual.

]

People who want to learn abou the mistakes we have made as a race so we can evolve our ideas and philosophies and create a better future?

Well if that is what you believe then I have no objection. But in reality we should all learn to live with war, even though you may not like it it will happen.

"well i can't argue your point in any coherent manner, but this is true because i say so"

Your lack of aspiration for a better world marks you as a waste of oxygen.

Your inability to debate with any coherence is just amusing.

Also you have spent half this topic banging on about a book that is about the allies causing death and commiting murder that you paid for, read and now parrot at every opportunity. Who the hell would want to read about that? Oh, you. But you don't think people should care about that sort of thing unless they were directly involved. Hmm, you appear to be spewing self contradictory ****.

Ok I see your point. I even watched Schindler's List twice this past weekend. But to actually build a monument to human destruction is crazy.[/quote]

"Ok i see your point but its crazy"

How is building a 'monument' (dubious choice of words) any different from watching a film on the same subject? Again you contradict yourself and again you fail to address the point.

Museums are not neccessarily tributes to what has gone before, they can equally act as warnings or simply records, as with any historical tool. Obviously.

Why singl eout museums? There is no logic to your arguement.

Why not have the inquistion museum? Or the slave trade museum? Or the Museum for the dead who built the wall of CHina? Or people dipped in boiling oil? Or every death that has ever happened ever! It's pointless!

I see. So you take the contention that we can learn from our mistakes beyond all logical boundries and then say its pointless. Well obvioulsy if you take it too far its pointless, but nowhere do i advocate that, so you appear to be argueing with nothing.

Anything that records the more obvious mistakes that humanity has made is not pointless however, as it gives those of us who are willing (so that excludes defeatists like yourself) the opportunity to learn.

Also if people shouldn't care about our failuers as a race unles they were directly involved why should they care about our successes? Its the ostrich approach to history!

Success can affect all of humanity, just like invention. Unfortunately our society only rewards the individual instead of the community or state.

At no point do i say that success cannot inspire, however so to can failure. How many successes are built off going back and trying again based on what we now know from our failures?

Not sure what your warbling on about with regard to the state - ever heard of taxes?

Its not BS. Learning about the holocaust certainly chaged my perecptions about what humanity is capable of and how dangerous ceratin ideas and concepts can be. The holocaust also added significantly to teh stigmatism attached to racism, ceratinly in the West, giving extra momentum to race relations as people saw more readily where racism can ultimatly lead.

Thats fine but building a museum, I just don't understand it.

er... because a museum is a tool that faciliates learning? How can you not understand that? You are a bit special aren't you?

Also by saying learning about it hasn't chnaged athing you appear to have appointed yourself spokesperson for everyone on the planet - how do you know, at an individual level, whether learning about his has changed how people think and act? You don't.

Ok I used a broad generalization that wars will continue no matter the horrors or how high the body count. [/quote]

no you used the braod generalisatin that it has chnaged nothing. You were wrong. well done.

I could become an expert on the holocaust and still kill a million people.

i'm not sure i would credit you with teh ability to do either, but that statement in no way contradicts the notion that learning about past mistakes can have a positive influence - can we please dispense with the absurd irrelevances?

And it's a safe bet that wars will always happen no matter how many museums you put up.

Once again, nowhere do i say museums stop wars. Musuems are a repositary of evidence and past learning nothing more. However making that information available opens up opportunities to improve ourselves both as individyuals and as a race. Of course it woudl seem some people are not brave enough to hope for something better and would rather pander to the worst elements of humanity as it is a 'safe bet'. Compelling argument, as ever.

Your arguement is becaue we are still making mistakes we shouldn't learn about our mistakes. That's BS son.

I would not have read the books I did if I thought that. I'm saying that if you think that reading books, or going to museums is going to change the dynamic of human aggression, then you got another thing coming.

"i think we can learn from our mistakes but learning about them will change nothing"

uh-huh. come back when you can change the dynamic of not contradicting yourself withing the space of a paragraph.

Bored now.

[Ultimate Weapon]

I should learn to be more tolerant to allow Nazism to persist, winning arguement there as usual.

Being intolerant will not make it go away. If nazi's do what they do then it;s up to the law to prohibit there activity as they deem it harmful to the public. Which in most cases they haven't. But anti-semitism is looked down upon and is not allowed under most cases. Even MLK had a hard time getting the irght to march in 1962.

Your lack of aspiration for a better world marks you as a waste of oxygen.

My aspiration is different than yours. The world has never contained a utopia. I see National Socialism as one that contains a common goal for the people.

At no point do i say that success cannot inspire, however so to can failure. How many successes are built off going back and trying again based on what we now know from our failures?

That just makes us more efficient killers

Once again, nowhere do i say museums stop wars. Musuems are a repositary of evidence and past learning nothing more. However making that information available opens up opportunities to improve ourselves both as individyuals and as a race. Of course it woudl seem some people are not brave enough to hope for something better and would rather pander to the worst elements of humanity as it is a 'safe bet'. Compelling argument, as ever.

How will that improve anything? What are you trying to improve anyway? Shouldn't the society be improved not the individual? Unless you believe that of teh course of a million years we will get better at controlling rage, I see no reason to believe you. I'm just as capable of killing a man with or without the knowledge.

"i think we can learn from our mistakes but learning about them will change nothing"

uh-huh. come back when you can change the dynamic of not contradicting yourself withing the space of a paragraph.

Bored now.

Who said anything about learning from our mistakes? We can learn about them, but that will not stop them from continuing. Since every situation and scenario is different to that particular moment in time.

[Best First]

Your lack of aspiration for a better world marks you as a waste of oxygen.

My aspiration is different than yours. The world has never contained a utopia. I see National Socialism as one that contains a common goal for the people.

Th-Th-That's all folks!

Seriously, there's good people who could really use that air buddy, give it up already.

[Darth Aux]

Best First Wrote:

Bored now.

Me too