• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Chris Matthews claims Hitler and US did not use WMD in WWII [W:99]

You should reread your post. You contradict yourself within the first 5 sentences :lol:

What newspaper was Mussolini the editor of between 1912 and 1914?

What was the name of the newspaper that Mussolini founded in 1914?

Fascists were anti communists because they were a different brand of Socialism like Coke and Pepsi are different brands of soda.

Both are competing for the same customers.

They also seem to be confusing the term 'liberalism' now with what it meant then.

'Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State".

This is big government and more government control is what all Fascists, Socialists, Nazis, Communists and today's 'Liberals' want. They always try to deny their past.
 
That's just plain silly. How does him using chemical weapons in 1988 show he had chemical weapons in 2003? Of course citing his use of chemical weapons was offered as a justification for invading Iraq and not as evidence that he was in possession of them, as you "recall."

Despite your questionable recollection, the intimation was actually that if he would use chemical weapons on his own people, he would reserve no compunction with using them on us.

And it was an oft repeated justification for the invasion. But then again, that was Republicans supporting a Republican president; so who really expects any consistency from them now that we have a Democrat president?

Using chemical weapons was just one of the reason for invading Iraq, an example of just who Saddam Hussein was.. In this case it is the only reason.
 
There are a long list of reasons why Assad is a threat to our allies and our interests as well. It's easy to draw a straight line from Assad to Hezbollah who regularly threaten Israel.

It's not often the Left is concerned with Israel's interest and this is a welcome change of attitude. We'll watch for the further outrage if more Israeli innocents are murdered by Islamic terrorists.
 
That's just plain silly. How does him using chemical weapons in 1988 show he had chemical weapons in 2003? Of course citing his use of chemical weapons was offered as a justification for invading Iraq and not as evidence that he was in possession of them, as you "recall."

Despite your questionable recollection, the intimation was actually that if he would use chemical weapons on his own people, he would reserve no compunction with using them on us.

And it was an oft repeated justification for the invasion. But then again, that was Republicans supporting a Republican president; so who really expects any consistency from them now that we have a Democrat president?

No, the bi-partisan approval of war in Iraq was because both GOPs and Dems believed Iraq had WMDs because of intelligence from the CIA....

At least some body should definitely verify that WMDs were used in Syria..... if not, same mistake. And if same mistake occurs, would Yerbuti blame the GOP again?

So, maybe waiting is a good thing.... At least some body can absolutely verify that WMDs were used, so some other bodies don't go off 'half cocked'.
 
Last edited:
except of course that white phosphor is not seen as a chemical weapon by the treaties concerning chemical weapons. If anything it falls under the heading of conventional weapons. The reason that "Willie Pete" is not seen as a chemical weapon is because it is not used because of it's poisonous properties but because of it's incendiary properties and is used for that purpose.

Flamethrowers are also not chemical weapons. They use chemical fuels to make flames, not kill with poisonous or toxic properties.

Haber might have been the go to guy for chemical weapons but they have not used them during the second world war. Both the Germans and the US/Allies had chemical weapons but when you do not use them that is not an issue IMHO.

Zyklon B was invented in the beginning of the 1920's and not for the use against the Jews, that was it being misused by the nazi's.

Mustard gas was used by Germany against both Poland and Russia during WWII.
 
Mustard gas was used by Germany against both Poland and Russia during WWII.

this is the only thing I can find on this issue:

What combat uses there were in the European theater seem to have been (for the most part) errors. In 1939, Polish troops used chemical training mines containing diluted mustard agent to mine a bridge near Jaslo, injuring 14 German soldiers. It is unclear whether this was a mistake or an attempt at retaliation for the reported use of chemical bombs by the Germans in Warsaw (on September 3, 1939, a number of sulfur mustard-containing bombs were dropped on a Warsaw suburb - the Germans aknowledged this in 1942, indicating it was accidental). The Germans may also have used mustard gas-containing munitions on a few occasions in the Crimea and elsewhere in Poland, but these appear to have either been genuine mistakes or instances of low-level commanders acting without authority.

1 accidental drop of sulfur mustard containing bombs in 1939 and a "may have use" but they were either genuine mistakes or instances of local soldiers acting without authorization of the government or their superiors.


1 confirmed (probably accidental) drop of a few bombs with sulfur mustard and maybe's.

Still is not fundamentally changes that Matthews told the truth but he could have said that there one or two incidents that might have had chemical weapons discharge.
 
this is the only thing I can find on this issue:



1 accidental drop of sulfur mustard containing bombs in 1939 and a "may have use" but they were either genuine mistakes or instances of local soldiers acting without authorization of the government or their superiors.


1 confirmed (probably accidental) drop of a few bombs with sulfur mustard and maybe's.

Still is not fundamentally changes that Matthews told the truth but he could have said that there one or two incidents that might have had chemical weapons discharge.

Matthews didn't tell the truth. I already established this previously within this thread.

Not only are you defending Chris Matthews, you're also defending Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. Nice job.
 
Matthews didn't tell the truth. I already established this previously within this thread.

Not only are you defending Chris Matthews, you're also defending Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. Nice job.

Sure, saying something was done by accident or by underlings is defending Hitler and the Nazi's :lamo :lol: :lamo

You crack me up with your weird and ludicrous claims and accusations.

And I am sorry, but these few incidents that might have happened did not change the premise of Matthews statement and claims that they Germany and the US did not engage in chemical warfare.

And you established absolutely nothing, the only thing you have is a very vocal opinion.
 
Sure, saying something was done by accident or by underlings is defending Hitler and the Nazi's :lamo :lol: :lamo

You crack me up with your weird and ludicrous claims and accusations.

And I am sorry, but these few incidents that might have happened did not change the premise of Matthews statement and claims that they Germany and the US did not engage in chemical warfare.

And you established absolutely nothing, the only thing you have is a very vocal opinion.

Who said it was by accident

At least 6 million Jews were killed with lethal chemical weapons during WW2

The real question that needs to be asked is why are you making a complete fool out of yourself to defend Chris Matthews and Adolf Hitler

You giving Adolf Hitler the benefit of the doubt is probably a forum first :lol:
 
Who said it was by accident

Well, the story I posted kinda said/stated that, that it was likely accidental.

At least 6 million Jews were killed with lethal chemical weapons during WW2

And again with the 6 million Jews who you attribute to having died from "chemical weapons" (which still is utter and total :bs), here is a little history lesson, proving that a lot of them did not die of chemical weapons.

Chelmno: gassings by means of carbon monoxide from motor exhaust gas took place. Altogether more than 150,000 Jews as well as 5000 gypsies have hereby been killed.

Belzec: six large gas chambers by means of carbonmonoxide from motor exhaust gas altogether killed about 600,000 Jews

Sobibor: at least 200,000 Jews have been murdered in Sobibor through carbon monoxide gas.

Treblinka: altogether 700,000 Jews were killed here by carbon monoxide.

Majdanek: In the beginning the killings in these were done by means of carbon monoxide, soon however one was using Zyklon B (a highly poisonous insecticide made from cyan hydrogen). Up until the dissolution of the camp in March 1944 about 50,000 Jews have been gassed.

Auschwitz-Birkenau: From January 1942 on in five gas chambers and from the end of June 1943 in four additional large gassing-rooms gassings with Zyklon B have been undertaken. Up until November 1944 more than one million Jews and at least 4,000 gypsies have been murdered by gas.

Mauthausen (upper Austria): From fall 1941 on one gas chamber existed which was operated with Zyklon B. In addition, gassings with carbon monoxide took place through gas vans which were driven between Mauthausen and it's side-camp Gusen. Altogether more than 4000 have been killed here through gas.

Neuengamme from fall of 1942 on gassings with Zyklon B were undertaken here in a "Bunker" prepared for that, about 450 victims.

Sachsenhausen received mid March 1943 a gas chamber which was operated with Zyklon B. Several thousand people fell victim to the gassings, a more specific number cannot be determined.

Natzweiler : From August 1943 to August 1944 a gas chamber existed here in which between 120 and 200 people were killed through Zyklon B

Stutthof had from June 1944 on one gas chamber in which more than 1000 were killed by Zyklon B.

Ravensbruck : Here still in January 1945 a gas chamber was established; the number of the people killed in it was at least 2,300.

About 1,650,000 were gassed with Carbon Monoxide
About 1,200,000 were gassed with Zyklon B

These numbers are extrapolated on the basis of above information regarding the "gassing victims of the Nazi's". If it was unclear how many died from Zyklon B or carbon monoxide, I counted all of them on the side of Zyklon B. But still, your assertion that 6 million Jewish people were killed with chemical weapons is just total baloney.

In fact, several thousands were shot with guns and a very high percentage of the Jewish victims of the Nazi's have lost their lives through indirect extermination actions such as the method "destruction through work," bad treatment, under nourishment, epidemics, exhaustion during forced transportations etc.

The real question that needs to be asked is why are you making a complete fool out of yourself to defend Chris Matthews and Adolf Hitler

I would guess that it is not me who is making a complete fool of myself. I do not keep writing the same debunked lies at the address of Matthews or who tries to distort historical facts.

You giving Adolf Hitler the benefit of the doubt is probably a forum first :lol:

Well, if the evidence is not there (however that hurts to say) anyone gets the benefit of the doubt. I would even give you the benefit of the doubt if not for the fact that your claims have been proven to be bogus.
 
Well, the story I posted kinda said/stated that, that it was likely accidental.And again with the 6 million Jews who you attribute to having died from "chemical weapons" (which still is utter and total :bs), here is a little history lesson, proving that a lot of them did not die of chemical weapons.

A lot of them did not die from chemical weapons? That would mean a lot of them did die from chemical weapons!

Accidents? What an incredible claim!

Bronson is right.
 
A lot of them did not die from chemical weapons? That would mean a lot of them did die from chemical weapons!

Accidents? What an incredible claim!

Bronson is right.

Well, again the word twisting starts.

Of the more than 6 million jews a lot of them died from other things than chemical weapons. That is still an insanely high number but it is in no way the 6 million that Bronson claimed.

And "possible" accidental is based on the report that I found online (from a reputable website) Blister Agent: HD and that is what I reported.

Bronson couldn't be more wrong if he tried. He is wrong by stating that 6 million Jews died from chemical weapons use for 2 reasons. One there were no chemical weapons used to kill them and secondly only approximately 1.2 million died of poisonous gasses and that is a far cry from 6 million.
 
Well, again the word twisting starts.

Of the more than 6 million jews a lot of them died from other things than chemical weapons. That is still an insanely high number but it is in no way the 6 million that Bronson claimed.

And "possible" accidental is based on the report that I found online (from a reputable website) Blister Agent: HD and that is what I reported.

Bronson couldn't be more wrong if he tried. He is wrong by stating that 6 million Jews died from chemical weapons use for 2 reasons. One there were no chemical weapons used to kill them and secondly only approximately 1.2 million died of poisonous gasses and that is a far cry from 6 million.

Did you or did you not say "A lot of them did not die from chemical weapons?"|

That clearly means that some of them did, thereby proving Christ Mathews wrong.

But i am not going to get involved with a low life like yourself who wants to debate the holocaust, how many Jews were murdered and how this most grievous crime was committed.
 
Talk about preventing another hijack of the thread to personally hijack the thread....
 
So what was the atomic bomb then? Did we drop two Trojan horses over Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and when they hit the ground they broke apart and a bunch of little midget soldiers came out to shoot everything?

I'm no chemist, but I think the damage caused by atomic bombs has something remotely to do with a chemical reaction. Feel free to play science teacher and prove me wrong if you'd like.


This is silly. Chemical weapons are not the same as a chemical reaction and you know this. Neither the Geneva Convention or the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) were about chemical reactions. Otherwise all weapons would be off limits except swords and spears and arrows. I guess a catapilt would be okay too. In other words if you try to extend the term chemical weapon to include all chemical reactions then anything with gun powder would be verboten
 
Hitler used gas to to exterminate the Jewish people, he didn't use it as a terror weapon like Saddam Hussein did against the Kurds.

Are you kidding me? It is OK to gas groups of civilians so long as you round them up first?
 
Are you kidding me? It is OK to gas groups of civilians so long as you round them up first?
I don't think anyone thinks it's okay. The fight is over when is gas a weapon and when is it a method of execution, and when is a WMD used for terror. The gas in this case was used to kill the Jews, not send them fleeing for the hills.
 
Did you or did you not say "A lot of them did not die from chemical weapons?"|

That clearly means that some of them did, thereby proving Christ Mathews wrong.

But i am not going to get involved with a low life like yourself who wants to debate the holocaust, how many Jews were murdered and how this most grievous crime was committed.

And is that no true? 4.8 or more million did not die from chemical weapons, how is that anything but accurate?

Yes, because 60 years after the holocaust we are not allowed to discuss how Hitler murdered the Jewish citizens of Europe in his hate filled insane extermination campaign.

The numbers I got about the extermination and the statement:

The difference between the total of the victims of the gassings cited in the above mentioned composition and the number of victims of the operation groups and the total of roughly 6 million victims of the Nazi persecution of the Jews results from the fact that a very high percentage of the victims have lost their lives through indirect extermination actions such as the method "destruction through work," bad treatment, under nourishment, epidemics, exhaustion during forced transportations etc.

in which it states: a high percentage of the victims lost their lives though other causes is from the Jewish Virtual Library

Background & Overview of Gassing Victims | Jewish Virtual Library

And you :censored dare to call someone a low life? I could respond to that in kind but I am not going to do that because I actually have a proper moral compass.

As a student of the second world war I also studied the horrors of the Holocaust but that does not mean we should never discuss the horrible fact of what the Germans put the Jewish people through. In fact by discussing it people can really find out what the nazi animals did not the completely innocent and great Jewish people of Europe.

And no, Bronson is wrong, murdering someone with gas is not the same as using chemical weapons.
 
Are you kidding me? It is OK to gas groups of civilians so long as you round them up first?
No, are you kidding me? It's never okay to gas groups of people in the heat of battle or as a weapon of terror. And that's exactly what Chris Mattews was talking about. If anyone thinks Chris Matthews doesn't know Hitler gassed the Jews, they have a srew loose is the brain. What Hitler did was demented murder.
 
Are you kidding me? It is OK to gas groups of civilians so long as you round them up first?
Of course it's not ok, but then, that is not what Matthews was talking about when he said Hitler didn't use chemical weapons.
 
No, are you kidding me? It's never okay to gas groups of people in the heat of battle or as a weapon of terror. And that's exactly what Chris Mattews was talking about. If anyone thinks Chris Matthews doesn't know Hitler gassed the Jews, they have a srew loose is the brain. What Hitler did was demented murder.

What words would you use to describe young Assad's techniques? I guess "demented murder on a much smaller scale" doesn't quite cut it?
 
No, are you kidding me? It's never okay to gas groups of people in the heat of battle or as a weapon of terror. And that's exactly what Chris Mattews was talking about. If anyone thinks Chris Matthews doesn't know Hitler gassed the Jews, they have a srew loose is the brain. What Hitler did was demented murder.
Totally agree. Is it OK to gas as long as the gas is revealed?
 
Kerry and Reid, two of the dimmest of many DimLib bulbs seem to understand Hitler used WMD. They burn about a watt brighter than Matthews... which means they have 2 watts.

Today from the Senate Floor:

Millions and millions of civilians and prisoners of war were murdered by poison gas in Nazi death camps. Treblinka, Auschwitz. Never again, swore the world. Never again would we permit the use of these poisonous weapons of war.

Harry Reid Compares U.S. Involvement In Syria To Its Involvement In Nazi Germany
 
Kerry and Reid, two of the dimmest of many DimLib bulbs seem to understand Hitler used WMD. They burn about a watt brighter than Matthews... which means they have 2 watts.

Today from the Senate Floor:
John Kerry and Harry Reid are both politicians, they're not historians. Their job is to convince other politicians to support President Obama's plan to strike Syria. It's not to give a totally accurate picture of history.
 
Back
Top Bottom