Invading other forums. Is there ever a good reason?

[Bouncelot]

So you agree that he was responsible for the biggest genocide in history.

I really don't know. You would have to narrow down the parameters to disclude combat & war deaths.

How about I narrow down the parameters to those deliberately killed because of their ethnic or racial group (or perceived ethnic or racial group, if you'd prefer). I think that by that measure, which is the usual way to look at genocide, it's difficult to argue that Hitler wasn't responsible for the biggest genocide in history.

Your lack of response suggests you've conceded I was right there.

That was a typo. Hitler wanted America to remain isolated. That is why the U-Boat captains had specific orders not to engage American supply ships. When Japan attacked, Hitler gave the order to go ahead. As a result of this he probably thought conflict was inevitable anyway.

That's stil the US going to war with Hitler as a result of Pearl Harbour.

Are you saying that Hitler might not have been a racist? If so, how do you reconcile that claim with the vile racist rhetoric that he spouted in Mein Kampf, in a very large proportion of his speeches, and which came out of every organ of Nazi propaganda?

Scientifically speaking, Hitler could be classified as an etnnoculturist, and an ethnocentrist.

Do you or do you not admit that Hitler was a racist? Surely that's not a difficult question. If you're not sure, go find and read a copy of Mein Kampf.

[Ultimate Weapon]

How about I narrow down the parameters to those deliberately killed because of their ethnic or racial group (or perceived ethnic or racial group, if you'd prefer). I think that by that measure, which is the usual way to look at genocide, it's difficult to argue that Hitler wasn't responsible for the biggest genocide in history.

Would you exclude the Japanese killing 20 million CHinese because they thought they were "subhuman?"

That's stil the US going to war with Hitler as a result of Pearl Harbour.

And what is the point exactly?

Do you or do you not admit that Hitler was a racist? Surely that's not a difficult question. If you're not sure, go find and read a copy of Mein Kampf.

I've read Mein Kampf 10 years ago. Though it is hard to come by an unbiased translation. If you define ethnocentrism as racism than by your definition he is a racist.

[wideload]

If we are only talking about the Jewish victims then yes. But all the other groups combined would be mass murder.

wow, i dont know where to start with this. Basically your saying because he commited genocide on several groups at once (while purposely sparing others) it does not count as genocide. maybe mass genocide would be a better term.

[Ultimate Weapon]

If we are only talking about the Jewish victims then yes. But all the other groups combined would be mass murder.

wow, i dont know where to start with this. Basically your saying because he commited genocide on several groups at once (while purposely sparing others) it does not count as genocide. maybe mass genocide would be a better term.

There is no plural for genocide.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=genocide

[sprunkner]

I've had enough.

It's obvious that UW follows a belief system that is willing to downgrade other human beings.

[Ultimate Weapon]

I've had enough.

It's obvious that UW follows a belief system that is willing to downgrade other human beings.

Provide evidence please? I have merely used a scientific approach to the topic.

[Jetfire]

I've had enough.

It's obvious that UW follows a belief system that is willing to downgrade other human beings.

Provide evidence please? I have merely used a scientific approach to the topic.

No you haven't. Science is the study of the world. You have deflected fact after fact deflected discussion elsewhere rather than back up your points with credible sources and used pedantics rather than make any serious points that back up any of your previous statements.

[BB Shockwave]

Speechless. This topic alone is like American History X in a couple of pages. It's really frightening stuff. I don't know what to make of it at all.

You know if we visit that topic link, we'll be on the FBI's list from now on...

(thinks)

But I'm sure we already are, so what the heck....

[Ultimate Weapon]

I've had enough.

It's obvious that UW follows a belief system that is willing to downgrade other human beings.

Provide evidence please? I have merely used a scientific approach to the topic.

No you haven't. Science is the study of the world. You have deflected fact after fact deflected discussion elsewhere rather than back up your points with credible sources and used pedantics rather than make any serious points that back up any of your previous statements.

So?
I have a right to my opinion and I have a right to believe it is correct for me. Others may not see it that way but too bad! It's called the First Amendment! Besides I've posted enough! You only want to hear what you think is right.

[Professor Smooth]

So?
I have a right to my opinion and I have a right to believe it is correct for me. Others may not see it that way but too bad! It's called the First Amendment! Besides I've posted enough! You only want to hear what you think is right.

You're right. You have a right to your own opinion. But we also have a right to disagree with you and call you on being some kind of racist bigot. Which, of course, you're completely within your rights to be.

[Ultimate Weapon]

So?
I have a right to my opinion and I have a right to believe it is correct for me. Others may not see it that way but too bad! It's called the First Amendment! Besides I've posted enough! You only want to hear what you think is right.

You're right. You have a right to your own opinion. But we also have a right to disagree with you and call you on being some kind of racist bigot. Which, of course, you're completely within your rights to be.

If thats what you believe then fine! Go right ahead! I'm not gonna stop you from thinking that.

[Jetfire]

If thats what you believe then fine! Go right ahead! I'm not gonna stop you from thinking that.

Well you've done nothing to make anyone think otherwise.

"I'm not a racist. just because I believe people should be seperated on the basis of race and should not share cultures or integrate. Also mass murders made on the basis of race is not genocide because a few others got caught and killed as well and becasue it's happened elsewhere and it's really not a big thing because the allies f##ked up afterwards.
Don't forget, the the Nazi's were just misunderstood. I read it in some anti-semetic material so it must be true."

[Ultimate Weapon]

So do you enjoy copying and pasting quotes together to strength your cause? In other words I never said anything in the fashion you have posted

[Jetfire]

So do you enjoy copying and pasting quotes together to strength your cause? In other words I never said anything in the fashion you have posted

Missed the point entirely I think you just highlighted how really utterly ignorant or stupid you are. Something up there isn't ticking with the right time.

[Ultimate Weapon]

So do you enjoy copying and pasting quotes together to strength your cause? In other words I never said anything in the fashion you have posted

Missed the point entirely I think you just highlighted how really utterly ignorant or stupid you are. Something up there isn't ticking with the right time.

Well why not just come out and say it? Instead of posting in double talk. I thought you were a christian! And that you should not pass judgement on your fellow man. We have a difference of opinion and we should leave it at that.

[Best First]

Well why not just come out and say it? Instead of posting in double talk. I thought you were a christian! And that you should not pass judgement on your fellow man. We have a difference of opinion and we should leave it at that.

Why should we leave it at that?

I think your attempts to use 'science' (if i call rcaims something else i can then claim its not as bad!)to disguise your prejedice and your embaressing attempts at historical revisionism are exactly the kind of things history suggest we should not 'leave at that'.

You claim to have contributed to a debate but all i see are clear attempts to muddy the waters of well established discourse in the name of defending the indefensible.

Naturally to study the past one needs to adopt an air of objectivity but that does not mean that one detaches morality or judgement from the conclusions that are drawn. If we do no more than observe what has happened without learning from the mistakes we have made we will never evolve as a race. Hitler was a c*nt. It is important to understand why he was a c*nt and why so many people chose to follow a c*nt but that does not alter the fact that he was one or admonish him of responsibility for his actions.

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, and part of that is not letting people like you poisen genuine discourse with meaningless red herrings and irrelevant attempts at revisionism.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

I agree,
I tried very hard to understand where you might have been comming from with your line of thinking UW, but it just doesnt add up in any way shape or form.

If your playing devils advocate then you might need to check your sources a lil harder.

[sprunkner]

What more can I say? You appear to have been deluded by a worldview that has ceased to work-- that which says the other tribes of humanity are inferior to my tribe, whether because of religious or cultural reasons, and thus it is okay to kill them.

[Ultimate Weapon]

Why should we leave it at that?

Because I don't see any positive outcome with this continuing.

I think your attempts to use 'science' (if i call rcaims something else i can then claim its not as bad!)to disguise your prejedice and your embaressing attempts at historical revisionism are exactly the kind of things history suggest we should not 'leave at that'.

My sources are just as valid as yours. I usually look at history and say that probably most of it happened and most of it didn't or is exaggerated.

You claim to have contributed to a debate but all i see are clear attempts to muddy the waters of well established discourse in the name of defending the indefensible.

I didn't know we were having a debate. I merely made some suggestions and you guys flipped out!

Naturally to study the past one needs to adopt an air of objectivity but that does not mean that one detaches morality or judgement from the conclusions that are drawn. If we do no more than observe what has happened without learning from the mistakes we have made we will never evolve as a race. Hitler was a c*nt. It is important to understand why he was a c*nt and why so many people chose to follow a c*nt but that does not alter the fact that he was one or admonish him of responsibility for his actions.

Yes and I made that point that Germany suffered because of it's government.

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, and part of that is not letting people like you poisen genuine discourse with meaningless red herrings and irrelevant attempts at revisionism.

Fine have it your way.

[Best First]

I usually look at history and say that probably most of it happened and most of it didn't or is exaggerated.

uh-huh.

Christ.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

and in this case,

the Nazis, and the Finnal Soloution + the ammount of jewish ppl executed in an act of genocide only equaled by Pol-Pot is an exageration.

On the flip side, the allies killed just as many Germens in POW camps, but this isnt an exageration...

hmm...

[Bouncelot]

My sources are just as valid as yours. I usually look at history and say that probably most of it happened and most of it didn't or is exaggerated.

Most means more than half. So you're saying that more than 50% of history happened, and that more than 50% of it didn't happen. I take it that maths isn't your strong suit.

I didn't know we were having a debate. I merely made some suggestions and you guys flipped out!

You say something, somebody else says you're wrong and gives reasons. How does that not count as a debate?

[Ultimate Weapon]

and in this case,

the Nazis, and the Finnal Soloution + the ammount of jewish ppl executed in an act of genocide only equaled by Pol-Pot is an exageration.

People died yes. I'm just not sure how many nor by hwat means. Nobody counted all of the bodies in WW2. And some people are just missing all together!

On the flip side, the allies killed just as many Germens in POW camps, but this isnt an exageration...

hmm...

Not true at all. But there is some truth to it. I'm just not sure on all of the facts. Again 50/50.

Most means more than half. So you're saying that more than 50% of history happened, and that more than 50% of it didn't happen. I take it that maths isn't your strong suit.

It depends on the number of eyewitnesses as oppossed to the official word by the media and government.

You say something, somebody else says you're wrong and gives reasons. How does that not count as a debate?

Because this is a discussion forum. And usually debates devolve into flames etc...

[Impactor returns 2.0]

Your just picking and choosing what you want to belive.

Its like, no i cant show you 6 million Jewish dead, so it cant be true.

and then

on some website, you read the allies killed millons of Germens POW's, and yet you belive that.

Whats more disconcerning is that you tend to side with Nazi ideals.

[Ultimate Weapon]

Your just picking and choosing what you want to belive.

Its like, no i cant show you 6 million Jewish dead, so it cant be true.

and then

on some website, you read the allies killed millons of Germens POW's, and yet you belive that.

Whats more disconcerning is that you tend to side with Nazi ideals.

James Bacque is a noble historian. And yes i realize that his book Other Losses was met with critical adversaries. Even another book was released that punched holes through his arguements. BUt it does not explain away what really happened. And people found it informative and plausible given the reviews I have read. Don't worry my copies are in the mail!

[Bouncelot]

and in this case,

the Nazis, and the Finnal Soloution + the ammount of jewish ppl executed in an act of genocide only equaled by Pol-Pot is an exageration.

People died yes. I'm just not sure how many nor by hwat means. Nobody counted all of the bodies in WW2. And some people are just missing all together!

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.

On the flip side, the allies killed just as many Germens in POW camps, but this isnt an exageration...

hmm...

Not true at all. But there is some truth to it. I'm just not sure on all of the facts. Again 50/50.

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.

Most means more than half. So you're saying that more than 50% of history happened, and that more than 50% of it didn't happen. I take it that maths isn't your strong suit.

It depends on the number of eyewitnesses as oppossed to the official word by the media and government.

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.

You say something, somebody else says you're wrong and gives reasons. How does that not count as a debate?

Because this is a discussion forum. And usually debates devolve into flames etc...

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.

[Ultimate Weapon]

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.

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.

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.


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."

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.

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.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

as easily as you dismiss the evidence of others x1000 I dissmiss that.

[Professor Smooth]

as easily as you dismiss the evidence of others x1000 I dissmiss that.

Seems to be an effective method of argument.

[Best First]

[
Not true at all. But there is some truth to it.

Total facial Le Fluer!

seeing as you like throwing definitions about, here is debate:

To consider something; deliberate.
To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
To engage in a formal discussion or argument. See synonyms at discuss.
Obsolete. To fight or quarrel.
v.tr.
To deliberate on; consider.
To dispute or argue about.
To discuss or argue (a question, for example) formally.
Obsolete. To fight or argue for or over.
n.
A discussion involving opposing points; an argument.
Deliberation; consideration: passed the motion with little debate.
A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.
Obsolete. Conflict; strife.

see?

as for Bacques...

my understanding is he started out as a writer of fiction yes? No previous academic record yes? hmm...