Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
twoguard wrote:... what real difference does the truth make? Makes Nazism acceptable?
Are you joking? The truth matters because knowing the facts matters.
Why should anyone accept having lies crammed down their throat and then have their taxes used for profit by the liars?
Why should someone's children be forced to hear absurd ghoulish lies?
Why should anyone accept that people were imprisoned and executed for acts that they did not commit?
Does it make NS more acceptable? I don't know, don't care. Of course there is the NS with the laughable '6m & gas chambers' and there's the NS without the laughable '6m & gas chambers'.
Let the chips fall where they may, ultimately truth is it's own reward.
Want to debate the '6m & gas chambers'? Bring it.
and the luxuries the Jews get from the holocau$t
They don't just get "luxuries".
They get complete immunity for their crimes in Palestine.
They've got world's most powerfull nation to fight illegal wars of
aggression* for them.
And now they are trying to provoke WW3 by attacking Iran.
Do you think that all of this would have been possible without the
intellectual terror and the collective guilt they imposed on us through
the holocaust hoax?
And if someone is using revisionism to exhonerate the Nazis, I wouldn't
care less. Only the facts count.
* People got hung for this in Nuremberg.
twoguard wrote:Besides people being more aware and the luxuries the Jews get from the holocau$t, what real difference does the truth make? Makes Nazism acceptable?
If you strip the lies from the Nazis, ... well - then they are the good guys.
Just compare them with democracies (e.g. USA killed 20 M natives and robbed their land; had 15 M slaves while some tens of million were murdered before they reached the ramp in Neuf Orleans)
Or with the monarchies (e.g. UK conquered the world and killed more than 600.000 civilians during strategic bombings)
Or with communism (e.g. USSR, killed about 66 M own people, 10 M Ukrainians 1930/31)
So right: without lies absolutely acceptable.
twoguard wrote:[...] Makes Nazism acceptable?
Of course not, unless you believe in totalitarian single party government, unscientific racism and censorship, rather than freedom of political organisation and individual liberty. You should not confuse political ideology with the quest for historical truth. And, by the way, the fact that Hitler and his bunch are innocent of the crazy «Holocaust» charges doesn't mean they're not entitled to a nice place of their own in the 20th century gallery of world-class war criminals, much like Stalin, Churchill, Truman or Roosevelt (among others).
Let's stay on topic. I've deleted some posts, sorry.
I believe any possible implications of "Holocaust" revisionism to our own times, including the perception of Hitler's politics and the German NSDAP role in the abysmal history of the past century, should not be irrelevant topics to this forum. I have no problem at all with the very simple fact that some revisionist posters are Hitler & NSDAP fans, while some others -- myself included -- are utterly opposed to political dictatorship, or rule-by-savior, or whatever one may prefer to call that sort of thing. Our only hope is to learn with the past. Certainly, having natural enemies at each other's figurative throats through the exchange of ideas and civil discourse should be much better than this embarrassing practice of silencing one side - or both -- of the obvious political rift...
The same tends to happen when the religious angles of the "Holocaust" get compared with the absurdities of instituted religions. I think the enlargement of the usual discussions on the nuts and bolts of revisionism to its implications on the political and religious spheres would not only enrich this forum, but might even contribute to build some bridges to reasonable people of independent or contrarian mind-frames, such as militant atheists, pacifists, antiwar libertarians, ethical reformers etc., many of them active in ways similarly skeptical vis-à-vis the received pseudo-wisdom, but ignorant of, or unconcerned with, the "Holocaust" mythology and its paradoxical influence on the current perception of war as a justifiable activity.
But, of course, you'll do as you wish. I saw two posts you deleted (none of them mine) and I think they were quite reasonable and entitled to replies (short ones, alas, because right now my time is limited). I sympathize with the moderator's burden and I know his role is an important one, but so is the trouble posters in good-will (not including the idiotic name-callers, of course) go to in order to contribute their views. Therefore, if you don't like my short answer to the deleted posts I quote below, feel free to delete it, as I will feel free to stop posting, because, to be frank, and until some major development happens, there is not much remaining to be said on the "nuts and bolts topics" without falling in a sort of tedious monologue.
No problem or hard feelings either way. Thanks.
Reply to the (quoted) post by Heydrich:
You are accusing Hitler as being a world-class war criminal. I know that is off topic, but you brought it up. Do you have any proof for your accusations ?
Sure. In my book, unleashing war through an armed attack on a foreign country is a war crime, maybe the worst of all from a responsible government viewpoint, since it functions as the real prime mover for the usual succession of man-made disasters. He did it repeatedly (as indeed his Allied world-class criminal counterparts did too), say on Poland and Yugoslavia, among others. No more is needed. If my expression "world-class" is what you object to, I'll readily change it to "continent-class." I hope you'll agree.
By the way, you may think this is not relevant at all, but I remind you that Hitler had no objection to war for national aggrandizement. Quite visible in his attitude to the mother of all European warlike catastrophes, the Great War of 1914-18, a true key to understand the moral misery of the 20th century.
I hope you do not call the Nuremberg kangaroo trial as proof for anything, as for instance the Germans were convicted there for the Katyn massacre, which in fact has been committed by the Russians.
The Nuremberg IMT was indeed a kangaroo court, but you're wrong on any "Katyn convictions." During the IMT trials, the Allies did hide the true responsibility for the massacres under the rug, but the only convictions (of innocent men, of course) were by Soviet courts, before the IMT had even been convened.
There are no war crimes Hitler or the Wehrmacht can be accused of,
If you really believe that sort of absolutist claim, I don't think anything I may say will ever convince you of the contrary, so I'll let my case rest on the self-evident absurdity of your making.
Reply to the (quoted) post by Matt:
I would imagine Winston Churchill was guilty of more war crimes than the Germans were.
I absolutely agree. Here are some more propositions I would also agree with:
"Adolf Hitler was guilty of more war crimes than the British were."
"Winston Churchill was guilty of more war crimes than Adolf Hitler was."
"As a matter of fact, 'the British' as a whole and 'the Germans' as a whole were not guilty of any war crimes; the individuals who committed them were; and so was, if you really dig abstractions, the Zeitgeist created in large measure by a few individuals of varied backgrounds and nationalities with enormous power on their hands."
Interesting pastime, this game of "More," but does it really lead anywhere?...
The TRUTH changes everything. John 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
Nobody in Germany is free. Folk in the USA are under intimidation. The dark cloud floats overhead everywhere.
There are only two choices; freedom... or not', and TRUTH is the necessary part.
Tit 1:14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.
“[…]but I remind you that Hitler had no objection to war for national aggrandizement[…]”
Wrong. It is true that Hitler talked of Lebensraum, trying to avoid the consequences of another murderous British blockade, but one needs to start at the beginning.
At Versailles, the Allies agreed to disarm, Art. 19 of the “Peace Treaty of Versailles” states, in part:
“The Members of the League recognise that the maintenance of peace requires the reduction of national armaments to the lowest point consistent with national safety and the enforcement by common action of international obligations[…]”
Germany's army consisted of 100 000 lightly armed troops, all other nations had retained their arms and added to the arsenal. I have most of the numbers, i.e., what all was aimed at Germany on troops and weaponry following WWI. Hitler offered, on May 17. 1933, to further disarm, in fact disarm totally if the others did likewise. This offer was repeated a number of times, but the Allies, having no intentions to disarm, quite the contrary, kept stalling. We have no way of knowing what would have happened if the Allies would have disarmed. Hitler finally did what any statesman, responsible for the security of his country and aware of the weapons aimed at his country, would have done and ordered on March 16. 1935 that Germany should re-arm. March 1935!!!
The Versailles Diktat was concocted to insure that what had been attempted in WWI, solving “The German Problem”, could eventually be achieved. George F. Kennan, in his “Russia and the West under Lenin and Stalin” mentions “The German Problem” several times in the first 10 pages. This “German Problem” arose, in the view of Albion but not only, when Bismarck succeeded in uniting Germany. During WWI Germans were bedeviled in an effort to shame them into place. That strategy worked, for a while, but the compliant Weimar Republik was not suited for solving once and for all “The German Problem”. Finally, Hitler emerged and he stepped into the carefully laid trap. Following WWII, all sorts of lies about German atrocities were spread, again, and this so-called Holocaust invented. All in an effort to make the Germans believe that Hitler was a criminal and thus, solve “The German Problem” by making German accept their "guilt". And so far it has worked to perfection, Germans get upset when someone suggest that their ancestors were not the worst criminals, ever. Poland?? Please, Mr. Marques!!!
You obviously do not know the preliminary events leading to Hitler's self defence actions towards Poland. I'll just name a few, because when my posts are deleted again, it's not worth my time and effort:
- In August of 1939 Poland battle ships attacked civilian Lufthansa passenger planes on their way from Danzig to the Reich at several occasions.
- The German minority living in Poland was harassed, brutaly oppressed and stripped of any civil right in the years up to 1939, culminating in bloody and deadly progroms against the Germans.
- Poland mobilized his army before the Germans did and talked about capturing Berlin within 3 days.
- Poland openly talked about war against Germany in the spring of 1939, way before Hitler even mentioned the word war.
If you know the German language, I suggest you read "1939 - Der Krieg, der viele Väter hatte . Der lange Anlauf zum Zweiten Weltkrieg"
written by Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 5 guests