Be proud of the Holocaust--you did it, America!

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10085
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 2 years ago (Wed Oct 03, 2007 4:01 pm)

Wahrheit wrote:
As opposed to the racial policy of incarcerating Japanese-Americans? In fact, even Japanese immigrants living in South America were seized and sent to US concentration camps.
As opposed to the racial policy of incarcerating German-Americans?
As opposed to the racial policy of incarcerating Italian-Americans?
As opposed to the communist policy of exterminating and incarcerating Christians?


Hannover, there is only "as opposed to" in moral equivalency and bleeding-heart relativism. Frankly, that is not the point of this discussion.

I never tried to paint the Wallies as 'the good guys', for they certainly have there share of backage; yet one must admit that the Germans do as well. Is the German backage actually what believers promote? Of course not, but a reasonable standard of wrongness equally applies to all.

Frankly, who is Wahrheit to determine what "the point of this discussion" is? It was Fritz Berg who initiated the thread, I suggest Wahrheit read his post.

Like Bradley Smith, Wahrheit implies that there are those think the Germans did nothing wrong. I know of no such people. In all wars there are wrongs, in fact, war is wrong. Germany's wrongs were small potatoes when compared to the Allies' and were reactive in nature.

There is no 'reasonable standard of wrongness equally applied'. That is the point that I make. My use of "as opposed to" simply highlights the blatant double standard and the enormous scope of the Allied atrocities.

The Germans' behavior was much less brutal and destructive than that of the Allies, there is no proof to the contrary ... very simple.

Remember, Germany's Rudolf Hess, on a peace mission to England, was held in solitary confinement for the rest of his life.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

Wahrheit
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 237
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 1:42 pm

Postby Wahrheit » 1 decade 2 years ago (Wed Oct 03, 2007 4:38 pm)

Frankly, who is Wahrheit to determine what "the point of this discussion" is?


As a participant in the discussion, and as an audience member following the path of the discussion, it was my observation.


It was Fritz Berg who initiated the thread, I suggest Wahrheit read his post.


I have. I have also read every other post in the thread. Your response to my post was the first in the discussion to morally equate the Nazis, and the Americans.

Prior to that, the Wallies were being slammed as the "true criminals", allowing for the belief that there are supposedly some 'fake' criminals. No equivoations were mentioned until your post, and your "as opposed to"s.

From FPB's original post:

"Be Proud of the Holocaust--you did it, America! It was your handiwork. Don't blame the Germans. Don't give them credit they don't really deserve. "

[..]

"The real horrors were you're doing after such heroic efforts and enormous sacrifice. Be proud of your true greatness."

[..]

"The Nazis and Germans didn't gas or shoot Anne Frank; they didn't deliberately starve her or cause her to get sick. But Americans did."

(which we have yet to see evidence of, by the way)

[..]

"General Dwight D. EISENHOWER had even forced thousands of German civilians to walk past the dead as if they were somehow responsible. He should have looked at himself in the mirror, instead. Belsen was his handiwork. Such horrors were also the handiwork of all of America's and Britain's leaders, from the highest to the lowest."

[..]

"The real horrors of the so-called holocaust, in pictures that everyone should look at, were America's own doing. Don't be shy, don't deny--take pride in your achievement America! You did it!"

[..]

"They continue to blame the Germans, especially those “fiendish” Nazis, for what they themselves had caused."

[..]

"They themselves were the true fiends and criminals. But they won the war."


Yet there was nothing fake over what the Nazis REALLY did, through persecution, deportation, etc..

In all wars there are wrongs, in fact, war is wrong. Germany's wrongs were small potatoes when compared to the Allies' and were reactive in nature.


Who started the war after all?

There is no 'reasonable standard of wrongness equally applied'. That is the point that I make. My use of "as opposed to" simply highlights the blatant double standard and the enormous scope of the Allied atrocities.


Ah, but there is. I believe, and several others do as well, that an equal standard applies to all nations, and could careless that there are others less inclined to such an honest view of history paint such distortions.

When I find them, I engage them in debate and shred their positions, but the blind hardly ever regain sight.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10085
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 2 years ago (Wed Oct 03, 2007 5:08 pm)

Your response to my post was the first in the discussion to morally equate the Nazis, and the Americans.

Wrong, I equated nothing. The ALLIES were worse.
Who started the war after all?

Certainly not the Germans.
Yet there was nothing fake over what the Nazis REALLY did, through persecution, deportation, etc..

There was nothing fake about the deportations, persecutions, and genocidal mass murder by the Allies.
I believe, and several others do as well, that an equal standard applies to all nations, and could careless that there are others less inclined to such an honest view of history paint such distortions.

In theory it may apply to all, but heretofore it has not been applied equally to the Germans. The ridiculous 'holocaust' tales prove that.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

MrNobody
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 424
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 7:54 am

Postby MrNobody » 1 decade 2 years ago (Wed Oct 03, 2007 5:42 pm)

Barrington James wrote:I don't think it is totally fair to blame the Americans for the horrors of terror bombing or for the war. Terror bombing was just a natural extension of war in general and air war in particular. It was originally thought by many to be a much better alternative and life saver than trench warfare which had killed millions in WW1. Almost every major country in the word had planned for it.


The Germans never "planned" for Strategic Bombing.

let's take a step back here a moment & shed ourselves of some unfounded guilt & lay it squarely where it belongs.

That guilt belongs to three men & three men only, Churchill, Arthur Harris & Frederick Lindemann (a Jew)

Lindemann because he conceived of Strategic or "Carpet" Bombing against Civilians & the Economy.
Churchill because he approved of the plan.
Harris because he implemented it with great gusto, btw, he was also known as "Butcher Harris".

To understand how this came about, we actually once again have to go back to the root causes of WWII, that being WWI.

Strategic Bombing
During WWI the German Air Force conducted a total of just 84 raids against England, no single raid contained more than 30 Aircraft at any one time & Operational losses for Aircraft amounted to 75%

60 + Zeppelin Airships were lost
61 Gotha G Bombers were lost
2 Zeppelin-Staaken Bombers were lost

A total of 650,000 Kg of Bombs were dropped inflicting 950 deaths & 2000 + injured.
To the Germans considering the Aircraft & specialized crews lost compared to the actual Material Damage aimed at the Munition plants & Production Facilities which was minuscule or non existent, to the degree that German Military Planers never again considered "Strategic Bombing" of major Population centers

It did however have a powerful Psychological effect on the British and resulted in the diversion of 12 Fighter Squadrons (including at least 2 crack units) some 5,000 Artillery pieces & 30,000 men for Home Defence.

It must be noted that Arthur Harris In 1915 joined the Royal Flying Corps, serving on the home front and in France during 1917 later returning to England to command No. 44 Squadron on Home Defence duties and was later awarded the Air Force Cross.

To summarize, to the Germans, Strategic Bombing was a complete write-off, to Harris at least the bombing may have had a profound influence on his thinking 20 years later.

Tactical Bombing or "Close Air Support"

Where the Germans found Great Strength in Bombing was in support of Ground Forces.
The close support aircraft had by the end of WW I evolved into a well organized force with a set of highly sophisticated tactics. In preparation for the great spring offensive in 1918 the German OHL (High Command/General Staff) worked out a detailed set of orders for the employment of the reorganized Schlastas (Battle Squadrons),
To summarize the main points concerning the role of a Schlasta.

1.The Schlastas are to attack in as large number as possible and harass enemy troops in their trenches as well attacking artillery and basically anything that moved in the the enemy's rear areas. In short create as much chaos as possible. Escort and air to air combat were secondary roles.
2.A Schlasta was to consist of 6 aircraft that could be grouped into larger Schlacht Gruppen. Normal reconnaissance units should never be employed in the Schlasta role.
3.Due to the close support aircraft's close proximity to the action, crews are to be debriefed after every flight to make sure no potentially important intelligence about the situation on the ground as it unfolds goes unused.
4.Different Schlastas are given very specific roles to play during an operation. Some are to be placed under the control of the front-line division making the attack and are called in as necessary. Others sweep the enemy's rear areas while yet others are held in reserve.
5.In case of retreat the Schlastas role is to act as a rear guard and make massed attacks on the pursuing enemy with the aim of breaking up his formations.
6.The Schlasta is seen as a very valuable resource and they should only be used en mass at the decisive point of contact for maximum effect.

The Schlastas were first employed in numbers during the battle of Cambarai in November 1917 and were instrumental in turning what would otherwise have been a heavy defeat for the British into a full blown catastrophe. The result of the German counterattack at Cambarai served to demonstrate the validity of the new infiltration-tactics involving the close cooperation of massed formations of close support aircraft with the infantry spearheaded by highly mobile elite Stosstruppen (shock troops). Another important result of the victory at Cambarai was the capture of over 50 British tanks most of which were later salvaged and used to equip several German tank units. The Schlastas also played an important role in the 1918 spring Offensive where they cooperated with the Stosstruppen and finally succeeded breaking the deadlock on the Western Front.

German medium bombers, working mostly at night after early 1917, caused great damage with attacks on installations, equipment, supply depots and supply lines as well as Allied troop concentrations. On a few occasions German medium bombers even played a decisive role in obtaining victories for ground troops.
The AEG G.IV was perhaps the most influential Bomber for later German doctrinal thinking, Some AEG G.IV the crews are known to have flown up to seven combat missions a night on the Italian front. When the war ended in November 1918, the Allies were astonished to find that only 320 AEG G. IV aircraft existed. By flying five or more missions a night, the Allies were led the believe that the German bomber force was much larger than it actually was.


Such was the profound impact that it had on the Allies that the AEG G.IV was singled out by name for surrender in the treaty of Versailles.

Had the first world war gone on into 1919 new German tank divisions equipped with LK II - III light tanks and possibly medium assault tanks would have been in action by the spring and summer of 1919. These divisions would have gone into action alongside the Stosstruppen supported by large concentrations of close support aircraft and tactical bombers in a manner not unlike what was described in the theories of Fuller and Lidell-Hart. During the last year of the war the Germans had held experimental exercises that among other things were intended to investigate how the tanks and close support aircraft could best be integrated into the infiltration tactics used by the Stosstruppen. These experiences were one of the factors that influenced the organization and tactics of the WW II German air force. They made it an indispensable element in the so called Blitzkrieg tactics, building on the writings of Lidell-Hart and Fuller as well as WW I German tactical developments. The WW II German Luftwaffe evolved into a purely tactical force of close support aircraft and tactical bombers designed for the support of the Army. The origins of this obsession with close air support and tactical bombing at the expense of strategic bombing lies partly in the experiences made during WW I.

It's a fact that all German Bombers of WWII were over engineered to withstand Dive Bombing at a 35 degree angle, making them "precision Bombers" although not in the same class as the "JU 87 Stuka" & why Germany never had a Bomber Comparable to the American B17 or the British Avro Lancaster

Sorry this was so long winded, however it's never just that simple.

BradleySmith
Member
Member
Posts: 70
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:55 am
Location: Baja, Mexico
Contact:

Postby BradleySmith » 1 decade 2 years ago (Thu Oct 04, 2007 12:03 am)

Wahrheit suggests that Anne Frank died as a direct result of German racial policies. What could be simpler?

As an American, I consider it my role to critique American, not German, behavior, to argue that Americans should be held to the same high moral standards to which we hold Germans, and I argue against the idea of the "unique monstrosity" of the Germans.

At the same time I agree with Wahrheit: the primary cause of Anne F's death was the racial policies of the German administration.

It may be, it certainly is, that thousands of German girls and ladies named Anne were killed by the U.S. and their Allies during the war. A number of Revisionists who can accept this as a simple fact find it difficult to say, simply, that Anne F. died, along with thousands of other folk, as a direct result of German racial policies.

We're all in this together. Germans are no less human that Americans, but they are no more human. I understand that the Anne F. story is exploited by all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons. Nevertheless, that's not her fault, she was innocent of all wrong doing, and she died as one direct result of German racial policies. Being able to say so easily and publicly helps create an enviornment in which revisionist arguments are seen as objective, rather than self-righteous or defensive.

Faurisson speaks of this constantly. Revisionism is not a political movement, but a routine examination of historical facts. To argue that German racial policies were not primarily responsible for Anne F's death, and that of many others, is "denial" in its crudest form. This is a rather subjective argument, but I believe it is an important one, as its "sensibility" informs much of what we debate among ourselves, and what we would want to debate in public but have not yet found a way to do it.

It's not "their" fault. It's our responsibility. If it isn't, what are we doing?

User avatar
Kiwichap
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 739
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 11:54 pm
Location: New Zealand

Postby Kiwichap » 1 decade 2 years ago (Thu Oct 04, 2007 1:55 am)

I don't buy the argument that Anne Frank died bcause of German racial policy. Eli Wiesel did not die, the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of so-called holo survivors did not die from German racial policy. They all survived, and from what I see, they are doing pretty damn well for themselves, while living off extortion from Germany and just about everywhere else.

Anne Frank died because of the war, like millions of others. Specifically, she was in the wrong place at the wrong time, in a country just having suffered defeat. It would not have mattered where she was in the country. She may have been sipping tea in a Dresden cafe.

If she did not belong to a group who were antagonistc to German policy, who were actively working against the German people, robbing them blind, exactly the way they are doing now in the USA and elsewhere, she would never have been in the camps in the first place. Even after the International Jewish Declaration of War in 1933, till 1939, the Germans did nothing to the Jews of note. Most of the stories we hear have a Zionist Hollywood fictional ring about them I reckon. Its a bit rich thinking those in the camps suffered worse than those not. From what I have learned, the camps were a pretty good and safe place to be if one wanted to wait out the war. Ask the hundreds of thousands of holo survivors.

I think the Zionists had more to do with Anne Franks death than anybody else. They had their greasy fingers all over the war, before, during and after. In Germany, Russia, Britain and the USA, the Zionists were there, stirring the pot. They are on record stating if Jews died during their machinations to gain Palestine, so be it, they could care less.

We need to keep our eye on the bigger picture, which is still unfolding.
There was no holocaust.

Tit 1:14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

Wahrheit
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 237
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 1:42 pm

Postby Wahrheit » 1 decade 2 years ago (Thu Oct 04, 2007 10:32 am)

BradleySmith wrote:At the same time I agree with Wahrheit: the primary cause of Anne F's death was the racial policies of the German administration.

It may be, it certainly is, that thousands of German girls and ladies named Anne were killed by the U.S. and their Allies during the war. A number of Revisionists who can accept this as a simple fact find it difficult to say, simply, that Anne F. died, along with thousands of other folk, as a direct result of German racial policies.

We're all in this together. Germans are no less human that Americans, but they are no more human. I understand that the Anne F. story is exploited by all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons. Nevertheless, that's not her fault, she was innocent of all wrong doing, and she died as one direct result of German racial policies. Being able to say so easily and publicly helps create an enviornment in which revisionist arguments are seen as objective, rather than self-righteous or defensive.

Faurisson speaks of this constantly. Revisionism is not a political movement, but a routine examination of historical facts. To argue that German racial policies were not primarily responsible for Anne F's death, and that of many others, is "denial" in its crudest form. This is a rather subjective argument, but I believe it is an important one, as its "sensibility" informs much of what we debate among ourselves, and what we would want to debate in public but have not yet found a way to do it.

It's not "their" fault. It's our responsibility. If it isn't, what are we doing?


Thank you Bradley. You more clearly and eloquently express the point that I was trying to make.


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 4 guests