Spicer claims Hitler never used chemical weapons

Easy enough mistake to make.
When someone talks about chemical weapons I automatically think of battlefield type weapons. Mustard gas, phosgene and nerve agents delivered by air or artillery.

Im willing to bet that most other people do too.

The death camps really stand apart in their own, uniquely horrifying category.

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
So do you or the Frank Center have proof that Hitler did use chemical bombs against german targets?

The Nazis refrained for the most part in the battlefield. There is one notable exception: The Battle of Kerch. Look it up.

Then of course there is the fact that the Nazis killed millions of people in concentration camps in gas chambers, some of which could accommodate up to 2,000 people. They used various gases, most commonly hydrogen cyanide (Zyklon B) but also carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide.

I guess it doesn't count if you round people up into a room and kill them with chemical weapons? Or are you denying the Holocaust? (can't help but notice the Anne Frank Center jab)

What a pathetic strawman argument.

Spicer NEVER denied the holocaust.

AND I NEVER DENIED THE HOLOCAUST.

I did not "take a jab" at anyone. I asked for proof to supoort their claims.

The batlle of kerch was in Crimea not Germany.

a reply to: Deny Arrogance

You are splitting hairs here in a desperate attempt to defend Spicer's idiotic remark. Hitler DID use gas against his people in the gas chambers and he DID deploy gas in tactical situations. Just because the situation in Syria isn't a one-to-one comparison between Hitler and Assad doesn't mean that Spicer's words are in any way truthful.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm sure he just misspoke.

Right?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You are the one splittiing hairs by conflating gas chambers with chemical munitions.

a reply to: NthOther

It's possible. Let's see if he apologizes or doubles down on the stupidity.

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You are the one splittiing hairs by conflating gas chambers with chemical munitions.

So deployment of gas in a gas chamber makes it NOT a chemical weapon then?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

He already did that. He "clarified" it by saying Hitler didn't use chemical weapons against his own people like Assad did.

Spicer is wrong, The Nazis used chemical weapons on the eastern front, albeit in fairly small instances. Generally they refrained from using them due to fear of retaliation.

It would be inaccurate to call the death camps an instance of chemical warfare. I don't think it is reasonable to call the systematic attempt to exterminate all Jews, Russians, Gays, Gypsies, Disabled etc. warfare, It's much worse, it's genocide.

Although i'm not sure the point Spicer is trying to make, he just seems like a babbling mental case. Most unfit for his current position.

a reply to: TinySickTears

It is a historical fact that Hitler didn't use chemical weapons.

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You are the one splittiing hairs by conflating gas chambers with chemical munitions.

So at what point is a chemical weapon no longer a chemical weapon? When not in a gaseous state? Because technically, insecticides are indeed chemicals.

Chemical 'weapons' .. as in bombs, rockets or munitions. Built for the military.

Obviously he didn't think through the entire situation. Civilian chemicals were adapted as weapons outside the theatre of war.

They need to change to a written format if the press doesn't understand what an off the cuff remark entails.

a reply to: Shamrock6

I was more referring to now that this gaffe has blown up in his face. I'm expecting a walk-back soon is what I'm getting at.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: TinySickTears

It is a historical fact that Hitler didn't use chemical weapons.

can you fill me in.
i am eager to learn

Good grief. Will you Democrats ever stop inflating everything? We all know what you are doing and you may even believe the garbage you think. But most people do not. Most people see what you are doing and wonder why you do it.

Anyway, we all know (those of us that are able to reason) that Spicer's statement shouldn't have been misunderstood. He meant to state that Assad is a bad man by saying he was WORSE than Hitler because he gassed his own people. Did Hitler gas his own people? Well he did, but not willy nilly. He hid the action from his own society and the rest of the world (or did he?).

Seriously, just please stop. Just stop pretending your not a messenger of the DNC. Because for those of you who are making this claim, that is all I can reasonably assess from your words.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I know, but he already did that. There was a follow up question later in the presser and that's when he tried to clarify what he meant. His point, once they let him stumble his way through an explanation, is that Assad targeted his own people in a manner that "not even" Hitler did.

Spicer just said it in a borderline retarded way.

I can see the point he was trying to make, but I can also see how it could be seized on and misinterpreted. I wouldn't be surprised to see it brought up again and it'll get addressed, again, after he's had time to formulate his idea into a less retarded statement.

originally posted by: TinySickTears

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: TinySickTears

It is a historical fact that Hitler didn't use chemical weapons.

can you fill me in.
i am eager to learn

Although many senior military officers encouraged Hitler to deploy their powerful new chemical weapon, he waffled, likely for two reasons. First, as a victim of gas poisoning during World War I, Hitler recoiled from using chemical poisons on troops—though he had no qualms about deploying poisons on concentration-camp prisoners. Second, German military intelligence was unsure whether the Allies had also discovered nerve agents since some of the foundational research had been done in England. Any Allied retaliation on German civilians could have been catastrophic. President Franklin D. Roosevelt said in June 1943 that “any use of gas by any Axis power will immediately be followed by the fullest possible retaliation upon munitions centers, seaports, and other military installations through the whole extent of the territory of such Axis country.”

Brief History of Chemical Warfare

In accordance with The Geneva Protocol of 1925, Nazi Germany refrained from the tactical use of chemical and biological weapons in war, possibly due to the personal experiences of Adolf Hitler as a sergeant in the Kaiser's army where he was gassed by British troops in 1918.[33]

Wikipedia: Chemical Warfare

During the war, Germany stockpiled tabun, sarin, and soman but refrained from their use on the battlefield. In total, Germany produced about 78,000 tons of chemical weapons.[4] By 1945 the nation produced about 12,000 tons of tabun and 1,000 pounds (450 kg) of sarin.[4] Delivery systems for the nerve agents included 105 mm and 150 mm artillery shells, a 250 kg bomb and a 150 mm rocket.[4] Even when the Soviets neared Berlin, Adolf Hitler was persuaded not to use tabun as the final trump card. The use of tabun was opposed by Hitler's Minister of Armaments, Albert Speer, who, in 1943, brought IG Farben's nerve agent expert Otto Ambros to report to Hitler. He informed Hitler that the Allies had stopped publication of research into organophosphates (a type of organic compound that encompasses nerve agents) at the beginning of the war, that the essential nature of nerve gases had been published as early as the turn of the century, and that he believed that Allies could not have failed to produce agents like tabun. This was not in fact the case, but Hitler accepted Ambros's deduction, and Germany's tabun arsenal remained unused.

Wikipedia: Germany and Weapons of Mass Destruction

originally posted by: Fools
Well he did, but not willy nilly.

glad we cleared that up.
cause if he did it willy nilly it would be another level of terrible

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

must not be all the facts.
its already been covered though
thx

a reply to: Fools
I'm not convinced Assad did it in the first place, but for the sake of argument, let's compare.

Calculated, organized executions versus willy nilly. Yes, because THAT is the defining methodology between evil and a little less evil