Teachers drop the Holocaust to avoid offending Muslims

[Slainte]

No you're complicit in the Holocaust because you signed the Munich Agreement(or Betrayal as it is widely known). The biggest appeasement move of the 20th century.

But you're completely missing my point, America didn't sign Munich. It didn't do a god damn thing.

At least we asked Hitler to stop. America couldn't have cared less.

At that point America was a rising and feared power, had you thrown your weight behind us in 38 Hitler may have backed down. You just didn't care about what happened outside your own borders.

 

[Hatuey]

But you're completely missing my point, America didn't sign Munich.

Enemy appeasing wouldn't have gone very well with the people in that time.

It didn't do a god damn thing.

Actually we did. Came to Europe's rescue. Had we not. You'd be speaking German today. Thanks.

At least we asked Hitler to stop.

No you asked him to not invade you in exchange for handing the Chechs on a silver platter.

America couldn't have cared less.

About what? European treaties and betrayals? Of course we were bothered by this.

At that point America was a rising and feared power, had you thrown your weight behind us in 38 Hitler may have backed down.

What are you talking about? I know you're not trying to make up excuses for having signed the agreement that allowed Hitler to do as he pleased are you? :rofl

You just didn't care about what happened outside your own borders.

Hitler only bothered you once he had declared war on you.

Not true. Ever heard of the Lend-Lease? We were shipping weapons, food and equipment long before being attacked by the Japs. Hitler and the Japs were an issue to us. We'd forfeited our neutrality when Roosevelt approved the Lend-Lease.

 

[Slainte]

This seems hopeless.

Your original point was that by not opposing Hitler in the 30's the UK is thus directly complicit in the Holocaust. That's what appeasement is, not opposing Hitler while he gained in power. If you're saying anyone who didn't oppose Hitler as his powers increased is thus "directly complicit" in the Holocaust. Then guess what bud, the US is complicit as ****.

The US didn't care what was happening on mainland Europe, neither did the UK. That's the whole point, we didn't want a war for the people in the Sudeten and neither did the US, most Americas probably didn't even know what the Sudeten was.

 

[Hatuey]

This seems hopeless.

It really does.

Your original point was that by not opposing Hitler in the 30's the UK is thus directly complicit in the Holocaust. That's what appeasement is, not opposing Hitler while he gained in power. If you're saying anyone who didn't oppose Hitler as his powers increased is thus "directly complicit" in the Holocaust. Then guess what bud, the US is complicit as ****.

But thats not what I'm saying. I'm saying you're complicit to Hitler because you signed the Munich Betrayal and handed the Czechs over to him.

The US didn't care what was happening on mainland Europe, neither did the UK. That's the whole point, we didn't want a war for the people in the Sudetenland and neither did the US, most Americas probably didn't even know what the Sudetenland was.

You didn't want war for your country. You didn't give two shits about all the Czechs Hitlers men slaughtered. Big difference.

 

[PeteEU]

This seems hopeless.

Your original point was that by not opposing Hitler in the 30's the UK is thus directly complicit in the Holocaust. That's what appeasement is, not opposing Hitler while he gained in power. If you're saying anyone who didn't oppose Hitler as his powers increased is thus "directly complicit" in the Holocaust. Then guess what bud, the US is complicit as ****.

The US didn't care what was happening on mainland Europe, neither did the UK. That's the whole point, we didn't want a war for the people in the Sudeten and neither did the US, most Americas probably didn't even know what the Sudeten was.

Yea give up, debating WW2 with Americans is like banging your head against the wall. Seems they dont want to hear a balanced fair view of the what happened under WW2.

 

[Slainte]

]
But thats not what I'm saying. I'm saying you're complicit to Hitler because you signed the Munich Betrayal and handed the Czechs over to him.

Right we signed Munich basically saying we'll let you have the Sudeten, but be a good boy in future.

America didn't even care that he had taken Sudeten, they didn't say he could have it. They didn't say he couldn't. They didn't say anything!

By default if you're saying doing nothing (which is what Munich represented) to stop Hitlers rise makes you complicit in the Holocaust, then of course America is complicit.

]You didn't want war for your country. You didn't give two shits about all the Czechs Hitlers men slaughtered. Big difference.

WTF! Neither did you! That's the whole point. We didn't care about the Sudeten which was majority German anyways and you probably didn't know it existed.

If European appeasement makes us complicit in the holocaust so to does American isolationism make you guys complicit.

 

[GarzaUK]

I was taught the Holocaust in school extensively. Wrote quite a few essays about it too. Watched Schlinder's List in class and everything.

If this school has done this, they should be disciplined, pure and simple. Of course some people are over reacting to this, as people do with terms like Londonistan etc.

On a different note, anyone notice the anti-UK sentiment in these forums recently? Pictures of Chamberlain, appeasement etc. Never seen that in my two and a half years here. Ah well.

As for the Munich Agreement..... hindsight is a wonderful thing.

 

[Ikari]

The US couldn't have prevented the Holocaust...unless we engaged in one of those "pre-emptive" strike sorts of things. But even under FDR, the government was slightly more constrained back then than it is now.

Also, we shouldn't really care so much about other countries. We have our own things to deal with, and while trade and such is good and should remain, we need to be slightly more isolationist and keep our noses out of other people's business.

 

[Gardener]

On a different note, anyone notice the anti-UK sentiment in these forums recently? Pictures of Chamberlain, appeasement etc. Never seen that in my two and a half years here. Ah well.

I have noticed.


I have also noticed the sharp rise in anti-American sentiment due to the influx of European posters.

Where we probably differ is that I see both and consider cause and effect, while you see only one and think it unfair.

As far as the pictures of Chamberlain,and words such as appeasement, how else can one view this complete lack of concern shown by British posters here as anything but indicating appeasement? People deny the validity of the story because it doesn't show the proper leftist slant. They discount it for other reasons. They indulge in apologia and obfuscation and try any trick in their book to avoid commenting on the actual issue -- that teachers are intentionally masking the truth in order to assuage the feelings of those whose racist hatred runs so strong that teaching the truth would enflame them. You cannot bring yourselves to comment on this because you have been conditioned so thoroughly to view Muslims as inviolate. If their hatred burns so savagely that they would deny the suffering of others, that is not your concern.Your only concern is the voicing of your officially sanctioned views.

If that isn't appeasement then nothing can possibly qualify as appeasing. You are tolerating the extremely intolerant, and not only tolerating but actively enabling them. Instead of whining about the big, bad Americans who do not share your p.c. rhetoric, maybe you should be asking yourself why you are enabling these people? How does the supoprt of viscious hatred and extreme intolerance contribute to the perpetuation of a free and open society? It's a question you folks haven't yet figured out because you are more concerned with appearance than you are values you purport to uphold. You may value tolerance, but you aren't thinking clearly about what that means. To show tolerance, one allows that which does no harm. When one allows that which DOES cause harm, one is not being tolerant, but merely foolish.

 

[jamesrage]

On a different note, anyone notice the anti-UK sentiment in these forums recently? Pictures of Chamberlain, appeasement etc. Never seen that in my two and a half years here. Ah well.

As for the Munich Agreement..... hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Chamberlain and the Munich Agreement will always be synonymous with appeasement. It is not a expression of anti-UK sentiment to acknowledge that fact.

 

[jamesrage]

The US couldn't have prevented the Holocaust...unless we engaged in one of those "pre-emptive" strike sorts of things.

Which is something peace-retards do not like.

Also, we shouldn't really care so much about other countries. We have our own things to deal with, and while trade and such is good and should remain, we need to be slightly more isolationist and keep our noses out of other people's business.

On the surface that sounds like a good idea.However minding our own business is what lead to the extra casualties in WWII.Stomping a mudhole in Hitler's *** in the beginning would have prevented 48-58 million deaths.

 

[Ikari]

Which is something peace-retards do not like.

Well there has to be good reason for going to war. "Pre-emptive" strikes are things government can horribly abuse.

On the surface that sounds like a good idea.However minding our own business is what lead to the extra casualties in WWII.Stomping a mudhole in Hitler's *** in the beginning would have prevented 48-58 million deaths.

hindsight is wonderful. So how early would we go in? When Hitler was elected? When UK gave into demands? Or when they invaded Poland? When do we use pre-emptive strikes, and how are the justified?

 

[jamesrage]

hindsight is wonderful. So how early would we go in? When Hitler was elected? When UK gave into demands? Or when they invaded Poland? When do we use pre-emptive strikes, and how are the justified?

Any one of these times when Hitler violated the Treaty of Versailles would have been good.
Treaty of Versailles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
# n March 1936, Hitler violated the Treaty by reoccupying the demilitarized zone in the Rhineland.
# In March 1938, Hitler violated the Treaty by annexing Austria in the Anschluss.
# In March 1939, Hitler violated the Treaty by occupying the rest of Czechoslovakia.
# In September 1939, Hitler violated the Treaty by invading Poland thus initiating World War II in Europe.

 

[GarzaUK]

Where we probably differ is that I see both and consider cause and effect, while you see only one and think it unfair.

I don't find it unfair. I find it amusing. By all means, bash away. We can take it.

 

[jamesrage]

Any one of these times when Hitler violated the Treaty of Versailles would have been good.
Treaty of Versailles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
# n March 1936, Hitler violated the Treaty by reoccupying the demilitarized zone in the Rhineland.
# In March 1938, Hitler violated the Treaty by annexing Austria in the Anschluss.
# In March 1939, Hitler violated the Treaty by occupying the rest of Czechoslovakia.
# In September 1939, Hitler violated the Treaty by invading Poland thus initiating World War II in Europe.

This is probably the first time that something could have done about Hitler.

Treaty of Versailles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In March 1935, Adolf Hitler violated the Treaty of Versailles by reintroducing conscription in Germany and rebuilding the armed forces. This included a new Navy (Kriegsmarine), the first full armoured divisions (Panzerwaffe) and an Air Force (Luftwaffe). For the first time since the war, Germany's armed forces were as strong as those of France.