Bombings and War Crimes Questions

All aspects including lead-in to hostilities and results.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
TruthSeeker7
Member
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2020 12:04 am

Re: Bombings and War Crimes Questions

Postby TruthSeeker7 » 2 weeks 3 days ago (Tue Nov 10, 2020 7:47 pm)

I see, is there any way to get your hands on the white book that is needed? I wonder how David Irving got his hands on it.

User avatar
HMSendeavour
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 488
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Bombings and War Crimes Questions

Postby HMSendeavour » 2 weeks 3 days ago (Wed Nov 11, 2020 2:08 am)

TruthSeeker7 wrote:I see, is there any way to get your hands on the white book that is needed? I wonder how David Irving got his hands on it.


Because David Irving has been a World War 2 historian for 57 years and spent many decades inside archives around the world. That's how he got his hands on it. This is also why he is reliable because he primarily uses these first hand sources that he finds before anyone else. See:

The Remarkable Historiography of David Irving
https://www.unz.com/announcement/the-remarkable-historiography-of-david-irving/ Archive: https://archive.vn/3GMlu

Although he is much less reliable on the Holocaust. But this isn't appropriate discussion for this topic, and has been discussed elsewhere on the forum extensively.

The other problem is that we do not even know which white book is the one that contains the document. And do not be mistaken, the white book might not even contain a facsimile of the leaflet itself, more than likely it will contain the orders for the leaflets rather than the leaflet itself. It's possible that none survived the war. All we know now, is that the information on the leaflet is contained in a German white book.
Now what does it mean for the independent expert witness Van Pelt? In his eyes he had two possibilities. Either to confirm the Holocaust story, or to go insane. - Germar Rudolf, 13th IHR Conference

TruthSeeker7
Member
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2020 12:04 am

Re: Bombings and War Crimes Questions

Postby TruthSeeker7 » 2 weeks 2 days ago (Thu Nov 12, 2020 2:52 pm)

Thank you everyone for the thorough answers. I understand much better now.

TruthSeeker7
Member
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2020 12:04 am

Re: Bombings and War Crimes Questions

Postby TruthSeeker7 » 2 weeks 1 day ago (Thu Nov 12, 2020 8:09 pm)

Hello! I came across this clown on Youtube claiming to justify the Allied bombings.

https://youtu.be/voF7KCOm6eY

Along with many other ludicrous reasonings, apparently German pilots were given orders to bomb civilian districts in Warsaw, specifically Jewish neighborhoods. I know much of what he says is wrong, but being new to this could someone give me some reassurance that this guy is completely wrong.

User avatar
HMSendeavour
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 488
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Bombings and War Crimes Questions

Postby HMSendeavour » 2 weeks 1 day ago (Thu Nov 12, 2020 9:13 pm)

TruthSeeker7 wrote:Hello! I came across this clown on Youtube claiming to justify the Allied bombings.

https://youtu.be/voF7KCOm6eY

Along with many other ludicrous reasonings, apparently German pilots were given orders to bomb civilian districts in Warsaw, specifically Jewish neighborhoods. I know much of what he says is wrong, but being new to this could someone give me some reassurance that this guy is completely wrong.


I am not going to watch a 50 minute youtube video by Kraut and Tea on an issue he knows nothing about. He doesn't cite any sources in the description, and I will not be wasting my time going through the video to see if he cites any. To which I doubt.

Any arguments he makes are not original, and solely made for the purpose of delegitimizing the atrocities committed by the Allies by emphasising alleged German atrocities. Some people make the reverse argument also, which is also incorrect. If one side, or both sides, commit acts which can be legitimately seen as immoral then they must both be condemned. This isn't what occurs though, because both sides see themselves as justified for their own reasons.

All the reasons the British invented have been thoroughly shown to be nothing but baseless. There was no military justification, there are only half-witted "moral" justifications that amount to "Nazis bad, Allies good, we can do whatever want and get away with it".

If you want to know if they were justified, you'd be better off reading books that deal with the subject, Hitchen's book is easily available, you can do the research yourself and see if what claims Kraut asserts is true. Otherwise it's nonsense.

In any case, I gather from this that there's a theme of "kill and be killed" which is used to justify the Allied Bombings. See the videos pinned comment:

Stupid Comment.PNG


Kraut himself pinned this comment and liked this comment. Meaning, he believes what this person is saying and shows us how utterly uninformed he truly is about the Second World War. Germany had no intention to "kill" anyone in Britain, Germany was not the one to declare the war in 1939, you will recall that it was the British and French who did this.

In any case, Hitchens, as I have quoted in this thread already, has smothered this disingenuous argument. Read my previous posts carefully.

If "destroying and enemy who intends to kill you is an act of moral courage" then it was Hitler and Germany who had the most moral courage. In war, it is always about killing or being killed, so if Kraut wanted to justify the Allied bombing on this basis, I guess he could do that by saying the Allied leaders were falsely informed of Hitler's intentions, but that still wouldn't work because it was also the Americans who participated in these atrocities. Would anyone seriously claim that from 1942-1945 Germany posed a threat to the United States? Nonsense. Under the same logic used by Kraut and this commenter, Hitler is no more justified or equally as justified in his bombing campaign than the British were, thus the various bombings hypocrites like Kraut would deride have to be considered justified also.

The missing piece in all of this, is what exactly was the sin Hitler committed? He invaded dismantled Czechoslovakia? So did the Poles and Hungarians. He invaded Poland? So did the Soviets (twice). He attacked the Soviet Union? Who cares? What threat is that to Britain and America? Do we suddenly give a damn about Stalin and the USSR?

The only sin Hitler committed is that of the alleged Holocaust. Which to people like Kraut justified all the terror and horror of Allied atrocities. But the Holocaust is bogus too. So what exactly about Hitler and Germany forces scum like Kraut, and other self-proclaimed "objective" moral agents to dismantle any real objective criteria on morality that is applied to everyone fairly? Why do the Allies not deserve to be judged by the same standards that they criticize the Nazis? Or the other way. Why do the Nazis not deserve to be judged by the same standards as everyone else, but instead, unfairly?

If Germany had done to Paris, London, and Washington what the Allies did to Dresden, Hamburg and various other cities. These same people would find a way to justify the Genocide of the German people as appropriate "retribution" for these bombings. The punishment is out of proportion. And in fact, framing your war atrocities as "punishment" as if it were moral to obliterate entire cities and exterminate 600,000 civilians that had no military capabilities is absurd.

There are many books which try to make claims that it's justified to bomb civilians to surrender. If this is the case, and it fits some military purpose, and we accept this precedent then it is justified to do anywhere. Perhaps the Allied moralists ought to think about whether this logically jives with their assertion that it was "immoral" to bomb civilians. There is no argument that justifies the bombing of the German people to surrender, and not the Polish people - or rather, the residents of Warsaw. And as we know, Hitler went to every length he could in order to save their lives before he authorized the bombing of Warsaw. It is the fault of the Poles that their civilians died. Not the Germans. And like everyone else, Kraut uses the example of Warsaw...When he clearly knows nothing beyond what he read on some wikipedia page.

Hitchens said it best "two wrongs don't make a right".

In fact, anyone who seeks to absolve themselves of the same wrong they criticise others for, has no right to point out the shortcomings of others and dish out lectures on morality.

For more information on the disingenuousness of Kraut (the author of the video), see these links.





Ironically, Kraut suffers from the Dunning Kruger effect on pretty much everything.




Now what does it mean for the independent expert witness Van Pelt? In his eyes he had two possibilities. Either to confirm the Holocaust story, or to go insane. - Germar Rudolf, 13th IHR Conference

User avatar
Kretschmer
Member
Member
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2020 8:21 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

Re: Bombings and War Crimes Questions

Postby Kretschmer » 2 weeks 1 day ago (Thu Nov 12, 2020 11:15 pm)

To this day, I still have no idea as to why anyone would subscribe to the hypocritical and idiotic arguments of Kraut and Tea, and it's honestly a pleasant surprise that someone else on this Forum has already destroyed his "objective" liberal moral basis for me at the perfect opportunity. I vividly remember on Reddit several months ago when one of his supposedly "enlightened" followers argued against Fascism using one of his videos in the post, to which I responded and debunked every single one of his misinformed (and oftentimes utterly nonsensical) points.

But back on topic, it pains me to no end whenever Allied shills and court historians use Germany's strategic bombings as a moral justification to incinerate hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. Even if the Luftwaffe had acted criminally in its actions, to say that the latter was a "rightful" or "just" punishment for the former "crime" would be roughly equivalent to throwing a man into an iron maiden for petty theft. Yet again, this band of pseudo-intellectuals found all over YouTube are allied with the same clique that hand out prison sentences to 95+ year-old book keepers, so expecting any sense of rule of law or ideological restraint is unfortunately a pointless endeavor when dealing with them and their followers.
"In all of mankind's conflicts involving deaths by chemical warfare, pesticides were the ideal weapon of choice" - said no chemist or historian ever. :lol:

User avatar
HMSendeavour
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 488
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Bombings and War Crimes Questions

Postby HMSendeavour » 2 weeks 1 day ago (Fri Nov 13, 2020 6:48 am)

Kretschmer wrote:I vividly remember on Reddit several months ago when one of his supposedly "enlightened" followers argued against Fascism using one of his videos in the post, to which I responded and debunked every single one of his misinformed (and oftentimes utterly nonsensical) points.


I'd be curious to see that response. But I'm afraid I'd get a headache if I spent any time listening to what Communist Apologist subhuman redditors have to say on literally anything.

If you ever get into debates with people, just challenge them to come onto the forum. I've done this multiple times, and only once over a year ago has one of these cowards accepted. I would like to see Kraut seethe trying to prove the veracity of the Holocaust. His utter failure and further self abasement would be funny to experience. The "objective" Liberal façade would fall away and give rise to just another sorry Jew that wishes harm on anyone who is pro-white.

The only argument against "Fascism" these people have are historical examples which say relatively little about Fascism/National Socialism as a worldview, because fundamentally National Socialism isn't about taking specific actions, it's about values and truth. How National Socialists go about building the worldview under temporal conditions is subject to time, place, and circumstances. Our circumstances today are not what the circumstances were in Germany or Italy; therefore our fundamental characteristics as National Socialists/Fascists today and the actions we take would be fundamentally different. Nobody I know is planning to invade the non-existent Soviet Union for Lebensraum that I'm aware of. So therefore, especially in the case of my country, saying "the Nazis invaded X and Y countries!" means nothing to me. My goals aren't going to be the same as those of the past, nor can they possibly be the same. I cannot walk the same path as the Germans did in the 1930s/40s. So what's the relevance? You cannot indict any modern National Socialist on wanting to do these things.

The Communists are a different story entirely. Communism, unlike Fascism, operates on a purely materialistic economic basis that in practise is dictated by emulating the historical blue-print left by its propagators in the past. It doesn't value truth, or anything perennial and spiritual. It is the pursuit of money over blood, and the only way that money can be prioritised is if human beings are forced to submit themselves to Capital. Whether it be Capitalism or Communism, it's all the same. They believe they can mould man into an efficient economic machine. This requires terror and coercion that is the same wherever it goes. Kraut is subservient to this idea, although it would be the Capitalist model as opposed to the Communist one. In both cases they rely not on eternal truths but Liberalism that stunts the growth of any natural proclivity found among human beings.

It would therefore be most fitting to refute Communism based on its past behaviour because the actions Communist have to take to reach "utopia" are always subject to the same conditions. Their aims are intended to apply globally and they have a very consistent doctrine - not a worldview - to adhere to. The only new circumstances Communists have to contend with today, as opposed to the past, is what social unrest they can benefit from before provoking a violent revolution.

You'll be hard pressed to find Kraut defaming the Soviets, for that would only mean he cannot bash the Nazis for having attempted to crush them. Quite a predicament in the ideology of a "Libertarian".

Kretschmer wrote:But back on topic, it pains me to no end whenever Allied shills and court historians use Germany's strategic bombings as a moral justification to incinerate hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. Even if the Luftwaffe had acted criminally in its actions, to say that the latter was a "rightful" or "just" punishment for the former "crime" would be roughly equivalent to throwing a man into an iron maiden for petty theft. Yet again, this band of pseudo-intellectuals found all over YouTube are allied with the same clique that hand out prison sentences to 95+ year-old book keepers, so expecting any sense of rule of law or ideological restraint is unfortunately a pointless endeavor when dealing with them and their followers.


You're entirely correct. These same people would be the first to tell us how the "right side of history" was to side with the Soviet Union. They seem to forget, or willingly avoid the inconvenient fact that they were Allied with that country in their "victory" over the Germans.
Now what does it mean for the independent expert witness Van Pelt? In his eyes he had two possibilities. Either to confirm the Holocaust story, or to go insane. - Germar Rudolf, 13th IHR Conference

User avatar
Kretschmer
Member
Member
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2020 8:21 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

Re: Bombings and War Crimes Questions

Postby Kretschmer » 2 weeks 20 hours ago (Fri Nov 13, 2020 6:06 pm)

HMSendeavour wrote:

I'd be curious to see that response. But I'm afraid I'd get a headache if I spent any time listening to what Communist Apologist subhuman redditors have to say on literally anything.


Though it would take me quite some time to rummage through my comments on Reddit, easily the most laughable argument that was presented by the author of the post using Kraut's video was that the Blackshirts (MVSN) and similar groups were "faceless organizations" for not permitting internal subversion within their ranks. Imagine if a construction team had an employee who refused to meet the expectations set by his job description by not working for the pettiest of reasons, was fired, and then called the rest of the company "faceless" for not tolerating his behavior.

Apparently, by Kraut's absurd logical reasoning, (or lack thereof) that construction team was indeed "faceless." The entire purpose of the MVSN was to secure the interests of the National Fascist Party and the Italian nation with a security force comprising dedicated Fascists. Opening the gates to those who sought to act against the organs of the State and the governing PNF would have contradicted its very job description and negated its existential value. The poster of the video in the midst of his debate with me also made the blatantly incorrect claims that all Fascist / National Socialist states were "rabidly militaristic" and "needed a scapegoat" to keep the ruling party's societal image sustainable.

HMSendeavour also wrote:

If you ever get into debates with people, just challenge them to come onto the forum.


I have yet to invite anyone on the Forum, but I have on several occasions posted links to the CODOH Library during my debates. Even within the very few Subreddits which still permit the continued existence of Holocaust revisionism, it's not uncommon to be called a cave dweller, or just about any other pejorative in the English language, for that matter. Regardless, I still do debate, as my opponents are sometimes open-minded enough to concede to at least a few of the arguments which I make.

I don't even bother with the Subreddits dedicated to WWII, as almost all of them are anti-German / pro-American / pro-Soviet / pro-Churchill propaganda platforms whose members typically espouse the exact same twisted sense of "justice" and "peace" found on Kraut's channel. Even in today's conflicts that we in America are being implored to participate in by both media and politicians on a daily basis, Liberals perceive more and bigger bombs as holding equivalency to more so-called "freedom" and "democracy." Some just never change, I suppose.
"In all of mankind's conflicts involving deaths by chemical warfare, pesticides were the ideal weapon of choice" - said no chemist or historian ever. :lol:

User avatar
HMSendeavour
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 488
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Bombings and War Crimes Questions

Postby HMSendeavour » 2 weeks 13 hours ago (Sat Nov 14, 2020 1:37 am)

Kretschmer wrote:easily the most laughable argument that was presented by the author of the post using Kraut's video was that the Blackshirts (MVSN) and similar groups were "faceless organizations" for not permitting internal subversion within their ranks. Imagine if a construction team had an employee who refused to meet the expectations set by his job description by not working for the pettiest of reasons, was fired, and then called the rest of the company "faceless" for not tolerating his behavior.

Apparently, by Kraut's absurd logical reasoning, (or lack thereof) that construction team was indeed "faceless." The entire purpose of the MVSN was to secure the interests of the National Fascist Party and the Italian nation with a security force comprising dedicated Fascists. Opening the gates to those who sought to act against the organs of the State and the governing PNF would have contradicted its very job description and negated its existential value. The poster of the video in the midst of his debate with me also made the blatantly incorrect claims that all Fascist / National Socialist states were "rabidly militaristic" and "needed a scapegoat" to keep the ruling party's societal image sustainable.


Very well said, you're right. These people like to make arguments that only apply to people they dislike, but would never apply to themselves. Usually standards they'd never adopt and aren't illustrative of why you'd actually not like something for what it is rather than the reality, what it does or what it is doing. Basically just critiquing poor execution of an idea rather than the idea itself. It's a bad critique.

And anyway, there is no fundamental principle that requires any organisation be "faceless", nor is it a unique characterisation of something as Fascist or otherwise. You could make the critique of that specific nations system, but I wouldn't see the point in that. Like you illustrated, it makes no sense. I hardly see why being "faceless" is even a bad thing. You can hide among the crowd, prove your humility, avoid targeted persecution and be considered to be among equals. Not in the liberal sense, but in that the Fascist among his brothers is accepted for what he brings to the Fascist struggle in the hierarchy all Fascists respect and acknowledge.
Now what does it mean for the independent expert witness Van Pelt? In his eyes he had two possibilities. Either to confirm the Holocaust story, or to go insane. - Germar Rudolf, 13th IHR Conference


Return to “WWII Europe / Atlantic Theater Revisionist Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests