Speaking of the Devil....

originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: veteranhumanbeing

jmdewey60: It was not what ended WW I, it was something the English came up with after the war ended, that was meant to punish the Germans, so it was not something that was generally agreed upon, but an offensive document imposed onto the Germans without any input by them.

VHB: The SS was Hitler's private army; under Heinrick Himmler's command

jmdewey60: That is an inaccurate and purposely biased way of looking at it to give a sinister look to it that is the intention of describing it in that way, to create an air if illegitimacy to it and "The Final Solution" (exterminating perceived enemies of the state) was a governmental policy.So it has been said by some, but it does not make it so. There is no documentary evidence of any such official policy. . . very fertile lands to cultivate . Which the Germans had already been cultivating, when it was part of Germany.

You mean after Germany and the Soviets invaded? Poland was always Poland.

jmdewey60: "Death camp" is a pejorative term made up to demonize what was going on. There is no evidence that camps were there for the purpose of killing people. It really makes no sense if you think about it, to build towns for the purpose of killing one person at a time over years, where if you just wanted a lot of dead people, you would just kill them where they are found, rather than transporting them and housing and feeding them for long periods of time

They DID transport the soon to be murdered victims 100s of miles. They did not house and feed per say; prisoners were barracked and used as slave labor (not fed until they were too weak to work and died of starvation). You don't kill potential slave labor, AND you want them to bring all of their valuables with them, all of the suitcases you could carry (to be sorted later) at super organized depots; like Bergen Belzen, Triblinka, Sobibor, Auschwitz, Chelmno just to name a few favorites. What do you think funded the War Machine, gold, silver, gems, money confiscated at the camps (there were only 2000 *a conservative number* of them scattered around many in Poland). The railroad system was already in place, one just built a camp near whatever labor was needed, to build more concentration camps (ironically), grow food, make the uniforms and boots, do the logging, build weaponry, work in the existing factories, mine the quarries, take on the public works projects building bridges, roads, creating bunkers, operating the grain mills (wherever manpower was needed as German males enlisted in the army or SS and were not available). Where were all the German men? They were fighting on different fronts. Slave labor was needed to fill in for those that were active duty within the German forces. Come ON. Think numbers, at the end of the war 12 year olds and old men were trying to fill dead soldiers shoes.

jmdewey60: What we are really talking about is the legitimate German government, that never had a plan for "world domination" but that was something that was just made up after the fact to justify the European invasion by England.

Of course the Nazi's wanted world domination and were in league with the Stalin. England did not invade Europe, America LIBERATED IT from Nazi rule with minor help of the England, Canada, Poland, France and of all last minute turncoat nations, Russia (guess they saw the tide had turned). I recommend you go to 'Sovietstory.com' and take a look at this information.

edit on 25-1-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Hitler and Stalin were allies before the the start of WW2

Wrong, it was a non-aggression pact, which means an agreement not to go to war with each other.

The agreement was to attack Poland on two fronts east and west and divide the spoils,

That is only a supposition made after the fact, that there was ever such a plan.

and Hitler took that idea form to another level of "racial cleansing"

Feel free to insert your evidence of there being such a plan.

originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: veteranhumanbeing

VHB They did not house and feed per say;
You don't kill potential slave labor

jmdewey60: Hmm, earlier, you were saying they were death camps.
If you expect anyone to live long enough to do any work, then you feed and house them.

They had 1000s incoming per day. Some were murdered immediately as unfit. Those that worked, lasted 6 weeks if that long.

jmdewey60 :Auschwitz especially was like a luxury resort. They could make millions today if they converted it to condos.

Oh the trickery, above the gates of these camps were the words *in English*"To Work Will Make You Free". A luxury resort would NOT IMPLORE YOU TO WORK (for WHOM) to make YOU free (seems it should be more like a RESORT holiday luxurious, south of France maybe, no not there its occupied by the Nazis). Today Auschwitz is a memorial to those that died in the holocaust there, a museum; (no condos built over or surrounding area) as might disturb the MASS GRAVES.

jmdewey60: When the Germans realized that they were not going to be able to hold Auschwitz against the invading Russians, they decided to evacuate before they showed up. They told the residents of Auschwitz that they could either leave with the German soldiers, or stay there to be "liberated" by the Russians. The vast majority of them chose to go to Germany with their guards.

The 'residents' of Auschwitz (the vast majority) chose to go to Germany with their 'guards'?!! Where in Germany would they go ITS BEEN BOMBED to smithereens (it is now occupied by allied forces). Why not let the 'prisoners' loose, fend for themselves unless you are suggesting they had a Stockholm Syndrome moment and needed their captors. There was no vast majority that could even walk; what were left WERE ALL STARVING TO DEATH. At least let the Polish prisoners go back to their own farms (they were in Poland you realize). The SS guards ran like cowards in the face of the incoming MORAL majority, that which describes the righteous and just. You really need to read the Constitution of the United States of America.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

I actually know they did not have a standing army.

Well, that is wrong and probably comes from fictional depictions of the situation.

By 1939 Poland had a large army, with 283,000 on active duty, in 37 infantry divisions, 11 cavalry brigades, and two armored brigades, plus artillery units. Another 700,000 men served in the reserves.
wikipedia

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Why not let the 'prisoners' loose, fend for themselves

The guards leaving for Germany would effectively be "letting them loose".

unless you are suggesting they had a Stockholm Syndrome moment

I'm not suggesting it, but apparently you are.
What I am suggesting is that the residents had it pretty nice under the Germans, a lot better than they could expect from the Russians who did not have a record for humanitarianism.

(no condos built over or surrounding area) as might disturb the MASS GRAVES.

That is another myth. The whole area was searched with ground penetrating radar and all they found was the grave of the commander's pet dog.

in the face of the incoming MORAL majority,

The same people who you were describing in your earlier post as guilty of atrocities and invading Poland to start with?

originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Hitler and Stalin were allies before the the start of WW2

Wrong, it was a non-aggression pact, which means an agreement not to go to war with each other.

The agreement was to attack Poland on two fronts east and west and divide the spoils,

That is only a supposition made after the fact, that there was ever such a plan.

and Hitler took that idea form to another level of "racial cleansing"

Feel free to insert your evidence of there being such a plan.

A non aggression pact signed between those two (for the rest of the world paying attention) MEANS THEY ARE ACTUALLY ALLIES. The fact that Germany and Russia attacked Poland at the same time on two fronts was an accidental COINCIDENCE, and then got together to happily to draw up a contract that divided the country right down the middle. What do you suppose happened to the millions of people that lived in Poland? OH they were taken to the German resort town of Auschwitz in south west Poland, of all places!! pop.39,600 before the German's decimated it; (the towns original name in Polish was Oswiecim). Thank you Germans for erasing a town.

originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: vethumanbeing

I actually know they did not have a standing army.

Well, that is wrong and probably comes from fictional depictions of the situation.

By 1939 Poland had a large army, with 283,000 on active duty, in 37 infantry divisions, 11 cavalry brigades, and two armored brigades, plus artillery units. Another 700,000 men served in the reserves.
wikipedia

I love Wikipedia (and you tell me I need to stop watching television). Poland had nothing compared to the German and Soviet war machine armies. A bugger on ones little finger; maybe. A large army is not 300,000 active cavalry; riding horses *they are not tanks*; and 700,000 foot soldier reservists armed with pitchforks, WWI era muskets and swords fighting the combined forces of just a few LOTS OF MILLIONS (6) more Soviets and Germans (that have been secretly weaponizing or arming themselves since 1933)? Truly a fair fight (do not understand why Poland lost a two pronged offensive on the east and west fronts).

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Poland had nothing compared to the German and Soviet armies.

OK, if you want to make groups of nations to compare, then you could say the same thing about Germany as what you are saying about Poland, if you figure in all the armies arrayed against them.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

got together to happily to draw up a contract that divided the country right down the middle.

Do you have a copy of this supposed document?
It is speculated that there were "secret agreements".

This is basically how the history of the war is told, that there were all these schemes but there was never any way to document it, but you just have to think that there were, somewhere, like hidden or something.

originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Why not let the 'prisoners' loose, fend for themselves

The guards leaving for Germany would effectively be "letting them loose".

unless you are suggesting they had a Stockholm Syndrome moment

I'm not suggesting it, but apparently you are.
What I am suggesting is that the residents had it pretty nice under the Germans, a lot better than they could expect from the Russians who did not have a record for humanitarianism.

(no condos built over or surrounding area) as might disturb the MASS GRAVES.

That is another myth. The whole area was searched with ground penetrating radar and all they found was the grave of the commander's pet dog.

in the face of the incoming MORAL majority,

The same people who you were describing in your earlier post as guilty of atrocities and invading Poland to start with?

Let me make this perfectly clear, the United States of America never invaded Poland.

originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: vethumanbeing

got together to happily to draw up a contract that divided the country right down the middle.

Do you have a copy of this supposed document?
It is speculated that there were "secret agreements".

This is basically how the history of the war is told, that there were all these schemes but there was never any way to document it, but you just have to think that there were, somewhere, like hidden or something.

Go to Sovietstory.com; its all there.

originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Poland had nothing compared to the German and Soviet armies.

OK, if you want to make groups of nations to compare, then you could say the same thing about Germany as what you are saying about Poland, if you figure in all the armies arrayed against them.

Poland was neutral and did not have a 'world domination complex' so in saying was not 'paranoid' that 'someone' might see the subterfuge scheming behind the CORRECT political face presented to the world. Poland realized after the fact that Russia and Germany wanted its rich natural resources (did not need its people unless as slave labor). As far as religious belief concerns went, they were either classified as Gypsies, Catholics or Jewish (all under both regimes were expendable as classified non-desirables--or worthless (and so justified the murdering of).

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Poland was neutral and did not have a 'world domination complex' so in saying was not 'paranoid' that 'someone' might see the subterfuge scheming behind the CORRECT political face presented to the world.

This sounds like maybe good propaganda but ignores what was really happening.
"Poland" was not anything that mattered, since democracy had been suspended in favor of an authoritarian dictatorship, so by definition, would have been "paranoid", plus it fell into the usual pattern where the dictator was willing to make alliances to be propped up in power by having tons of military aid that (as I mentioned in an earlier post) put them into debt where they became effectively puppets to the allies.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: vethumanbeing

This so sad, (your point of view) as Poland did not have a standing army at all; they were trying to live their lives simply and honestly. I guess their God failed to inform them; "you are about to be invaded by Fascist Nazis that will murder your" RUN FOR YOUR LIVES. They would probably have responded in this way "NO WAY; why a human do such a thing to another fellow human?". Gods response "They are not human, they are monsters".

Where are you getting this? Have you ever thought about doing some study into actual history rather than going with TV contrived pseudo-history?
Do you actually believe that Poland did not have an army?

What is depicted is actual Polish men on horseback with sabers charging German tanks.

Seriously?
And you think that Poland did not have any tanks of their own?
I would suggest pulling yourself away from the TV long enough to do some study in actual books.

I actually know they did not have a standing army.

Are you suggesting that the Polish sub that torpedoed a ship full of Nazi troops among the skerries here a day before the Weserübung invasion 9th April 1940-- that they were part of some other standing force than the Polish one? You are partly right actually, for by 1940 when this happened, the Polish navy ran under British flag, but saying Poland did not have an army during the invasion of Poland 1st September 1939 is utter bollocks. I suggest you buy some updated book about World War Two.

The Nazis orchestrated a false-flag "attack" where fake Polish soldiers attempted an attack on Germany, upon which the Nazis invaded Poland in a seemingly defensive manoeuvre, which it was not of course, but it bought the Nazis time. The event was all but friendly or defensive, though the Polish call it "The 1939 Defence War" the Nazi code name was «Fall Weiss». It was indeed violent and the «Polenfeldzug» was the first time the Blitzkrieg tactics were used.

Had say, England or Soviet reacted as they should've, the war would have ended there in Poland and Hitler would have been an easy target and Germany would be back to square one, for the soldiers lacked ammunition and vital supplies, but because of this false flag manoeuvre, Germany managed to buy time and produce enough ammunition to stand off any real enemy attacks.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

The Nazis orchestrated a false-flag "attack" where fake Polish soldiers attempted an attack on Germany, upon which the Nazis invaded Poland in a seemingly defensive manoeuvre, which it was not of course, but it bought the Nazis time.

That is based on an affidavit allowed as evidence by the judge in charge of the Nuremberg tribunal, by a German who claimed to had been a soldier who posed as a Pole in the Gleiwitz incident.
It was uncorroborated and the person never appeared to give testimony or be cross-examined.
They never allowed any investigation of the incident, or the admission of any evidence that the attack actually happened.
It was necessary to take away the German's defense against the accusation of causing the war because it was considered by the people in charge of the trial that a conviction was predetermined to have to happen for political purposes for the sake of the countries involved, who had just destroyed an entire country.

a reply to: jmdewey60

Are you suggesting that the German Army had planned to be invaded by Poland? For there were indeed plans, elaborate ones, and as far as I know, much of the written material has survived to this day. I guess the occupation of Austria and Czechoslovakia were the result of Germany rightfully defending itself too? Shiny golden bollocks!

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

I applaud your response here, even though I think we stand on opposite sides of that goat fence when it comes to religion, etc. Hypocrisy was most rightly the greatest sin that Jesus railed against, and the people he hung out with were 'sinners', such as prostitutes & the despised Inland Revenue/IRS types, as opposed to the 'righteous' religious leaders.

Which kind of leaves us in a quandary. It seems that anyone who would dare to speak truth about the divine better have their house fully in order before making the attempt - otherwise, the ladies of the red light district are indeed closer to Heaven than they.

I actually find your derisive, yet balanced, approach to revealing the hypocrisy of religion very refreshing. One thing I would like to note is that whilst you admit that the origins of the Jovian myths are very ancient, you seem to hold the view that prior to 6000 years ago, there was no civilisation, and all those cultures that sprang up with tales of the same gods, in many locations around the world, were simply dreaming up the same dude/s/esses from their collective imagination. How can you say that with a straight face? I would think it is clear that even if it was purely 'astral' (I personally think there were elements of physical reality involved in addition) - these ancient cultures were meeting, and being instructed by, certain beings with defined characteristics, trades & symbolism associated with them.

PS - thanks for the timely reminder re: the throne of Pergamum. I find it useful at this time, in a related assessment of certain other things. Naturally, I no longer believe in coincidence.

PPS - your avatar is awesome btw.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

I guess the occupation of Austria and Czechoslovakia were the result of Germany rightfully defending itself too?

Germany did not "occupy" Austria.
They were invited in by popular demand.

originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Poland was neutral and did not have a 'world domination complex' so in saying was not 'paranoid' that 'someone' might see the subterfuge scheming behind the CORRECT political face presented to the world.

This sounds like maybe good propaganda but ignores what was really happening.
"Poland" was not anything that mattered, since democracy had been suspended in favor of an authoritarian dictatorship, so by definition, would have been "paranoid", plus it fell into the usual pattern where the dictator was willing to make alliances to be propped up in power by having tons of military aid that (as I mentioned in an earlier post) put them into debt where they became effectively puppets to the allies.

Poland had a culture that was comprised of "seerers", gypsies, Catholics and Jews; not anything that mattered? To what/whom ENTITY thinks it actually can wield that judgement call to END THE LIVES of those that have inhabited that safe harmonious place for many years; remove them through MURDEROUS ACTS. Fascist dictators that seek to kill others in order to take those occupied lands are not humanitarians (they are not friends). Poland was a victim, not even in play on the international scene (and you somehow make them out to be scapegoats of others?). I am obliged to ask; who are your favorite Fascist rulers and or communistic totalitarian dictators in 'living history' (they are the same) its happening now in Europe; making pacts.