- Joined
- Sep 10, 2010
- Messages
- 38,198
- Reaction score
- 15,841
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
There are two schools of thought on this matter: one focuses on the man, one on the "tides of history".
One theory says it is the man, the dictator, the Hitler, who makes Nazi Germany (or whatever regime/nation) what it is.
Another theory says that when the tides of history, the forces of collective will, economic conditions, political trends, and so on, come together in such a manner, that some suitable leader will step forward to claim the mantle and ride the tide to conquest... the details might vary, but there would be war and atrocity all the same.
I'm not sure I entirely buy either argument... but if you assassinate one dictator, there's a very good chance that someone in his top-tier of advisors will simply step into his shoes and very likely continue similar policies for similar reasons.
In this sense, assassination is much less decisive than winning a war. Once you win a war the whole nation is no longer capable of fighting against you anymore... no one will be stepping into anyone's shoes with the same problems and resources inclining him to act the same.
Before I ask (I think Bhodisattva has been waiting too) for your evidence - can you clarify what you mean by "these facilities?"
I will repeat that Auschwitz was not the only camp where jews and others were killed and that nobody has tried saying 12 million died there. Please clarify exactly what you are asserting if that was not what you were disagreeing.
auschwitz and treblinka were the "death camps". i already mentioned treblinka, too. and someone on this thread DID mention 12 million.
If the chronology of this thread is to be believed - you were the one who mentioned aushwitz and treblinka here in response to Viktyr Korimir who simply mentioned that he would have let the Nazi's kill more than 6 million jews.
I think in response to you, Bodisattva mentioned the 12 million dead but he did not say it was 12 million jews.
Does your post thus mean you acknowledge you either went down a red herring track of your own making or were you being disengenuous all along?
Did Nazi Germany pose any kind of a threat to the US?
Japan attacked us and Germany declared war against us.
no, it acknowledges that i meant what i said. there is no way physically possible that millions of people were killed in those camps
in a 3 year period with the limited space and resources of those facilities.
That is a pretty awful thing to say Viktyr. There is no "just like" either: the world knew about the Hutus but it was wrangling and procrastination in the UN which stopped any action to prevent the slaughter.
We wouldn't have waited for the UN's permission if intervention had suited our purposes.
You can say what you will about my motivations, but at least they're honest. I don't use false humanitarianism to justify my imperialistic agenda.
no, it acknowledges that i meant what i said. there is no way physically possible that millions of people were killed in those camps
in a 3 year period with the limited space and resources of those facilities.
ohhhhhh...i see. you are wanting me to provide you with a link regarding the matter that you can then deem as "racist".
well, let's go beyond that a bit. auschwitz was divided into multiple sections. auschwitz II was where those held for extermination
were placed.
this is how big auschwitz was in it's entirety..............
all 3 sections of it.
the entire structure is no larger than a small town hospital. cut that structure into a 1/3, and you have the capacity to
dispose of how many people in a 3 year period? you're saying 12 million. so i'm to believe that these tiny establishments could
effectively dispose completely of 300,000 people a month? not even the NYC morgue could do that $h!t. not the NYC, chicago,
and los angeles morgues COMBINED could handle that number. are you ill in your mind?
Originally Posted by lewstherin
auschwitz and treblinka were the "death camps". i already mentioned treblinka, too. and someone on this thread DID mention 12 million.
no, it acknowledges that i meant what i said. there is no way physically possible that millions of people were killed in those camps
in a 3 year period with the limited space and resources of those facilities.
I honestly don't buy the numbers that have been released either. I don't have any proof, but I can't figure how they could manage it.
Conversely, if such an atrocity happens here, should we expect no help, and it's just the way of things that our lives end because of it?
Conversely, if such an atrocity happens here, should we expect no help, and it's just the way of things that our lives end because of it?
Conversely, if such an atrocity happens here, should we expect no help, and it's just the way of things that our lives end because of it?
Read the historians, check some history watch some interviews however this semi-denial / negotiation of numbers is distracting from the thread
The British and French were allies, which is the only reason we interceded. Frankly, I think we were on the wrong side in WW2.
Do you wonder if your opinion would change if your own family members had been directly affected 'over there'?
Conversely, if such an atrocity happens here, should we expect no help, and it's just the way of things that our lives end because of it?
This is so ludicrous.
Look.
Trains with cattle cars... you can put 10,000 people on a train this way, no problem. If they're unarmed and they've been told they're being "relocated", one platoon of soldiers will suffice for security.
Get them off the train, divide them into smaller manageable groups, and send them walking down seperate confined paths. Load 100 at a time into a mass shower facility. Gas them dead. Drag the bodies out, scoop them with a dozer and dump them in a trench to be burned, while other people clean out the "shower room". In a couple of hours the "shower room" could be ready for another "load".
Ten large shower rooms and related facilities, and you could exterminate perhaps 10,000 people in a day at one camp. 10,000 x 365 = 3.65 million. Maybe not quite that many, there would be bottlenecks from time to time, but one camp could certainly kill more than a million a year.
The first camps were in operation for at least two years, and IIRC there were six of them by the war's end. I find the Holocaust offical numbers quite believeable.
-- Frankly, I think we were on the wrong side in WW2.
I don't believe in sitting passively awaiting fate.
If you have reasonable suspicion that TPTB in a rising totalitarian state aren't fond of "your kind" (whatever that might be), your best bet is to get out early.... as some European Jews and others did.
Failing that, be prepared to run, hide, and/or fight. Those who tried to do these things had a better survival ratio than those who meekly boarded the cattle cars...
I see nothing wrong with doubting estimates that don't appear to add up. I'm not here to prove anything just to say I can't figure out how their estimates could actually be real.
If events were unfolding in a foreign land exactly as they unfolded in Nazi Germany, what would you recommend?
Nope. If I'd lost family in the Holocaust, I'd want revenge against the people responsible.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?