Nazis left Dutch gays untouched, says historian

The concentration camps were real.

My relatives and their friends who were in them are good enough for me to believe the camps were Real. Treatment? As bad as the photos that were taken of people there after liberation. Food was in short supply and Germans used what they had for their own. Soviets were no better.

What was US/Britain doing? I have no clue.




[edit on 25-12-2009 by shakespear1]

Originally posted by shakespear1

The concentration camps were real.

My relatives and their friends who were in them are good enough for me to believe the camps were Real. Treatment? As bad as the photos that were taken of people there after liberation. Food was in short supply and Germans used what they had for their own. Soviets were no better.

What was US/Britain doing? I have no clue.

[edit on 25-12-2009 by shakespear1]

Are you saying they were just jails that shorted food?
What about the gas chambers that still have fingernails stuck in the walls? Was that just the dirty people trying to get away from soap?! (Hint poison was embedded in the walls.)

The Nazi's split the 'undesirables' and sent to different places. Those with certain traits were sent to be medical experiments (Mengele loved twins for example). Most Jews were sent to death. The Gays and Political enemies were more commonly sent either to death or used as slave labor etc. etc.

Fact is the civilians were intentionally blind to the horrors done by their 'leaders'. From excessive nationalism to outright fear of retribution if they spoke out. Hitler claimed they were doing Gods work, and anyone who dissented wound up in a mass grave somewhere.

I forget who said it but "The most evil acts are made worse when they are done in the name of goodness.". The propaganda machine in Nazi Germany was in full swing, as was the SS conducting witch-hunts.

The Germans are accountable in my opinion simply because they did not unify and rise up against. This in no way excuses other nations.

From Turkey's Armenian "non-genocide". To how the world has regarded a seemingly endless amount of genocidal acts in Africa, and drug it's collective feet when helping the Muslims in the 90's in Czech.

There is far too much human based evil in this world to turn a blind-revisionistic-eye to the events of the past. At this rate humanity will never learn. At this rate it seems the universe would be better served if we all went extinct and the cockroaches took over.

Originally posted by Regenstorm

Every story has 2 or more sides.


[edit on 23-12-2009 by Regenstorm]

That is one side of it:
www.homocaust.org...

Are you saying they were just jails that shorted food?

The people that I know were used as slave labor. They did not WITNESS the division of prisoners. I was not there so I do not know more. They never talked much about their experience and I never asked any more than they told me. I read quite a few books on this period, but that is it.

If you call the camps "extermination camps" fine. The food comment simply tried to convey the fact that there was none in those days in large supplies. It was a War.

The Germans are accountable in my opinion simply because they did not unify and rise up against. This in no way excuses other nations.

Ooooohhh, you sure make things simple. "Rise Up" and change everything.

Walking in the Moccasins of Another

If you can view yourself in a crowd in Berlin in 1939. How you going to turn the crowd around?

See the movie Sophie Scholl


[edit on 25-12-2009 by shakespear1]

reply to post by shakespear1


Hey, I didn't say the rise up thing was easy
I can think of many events where the populace of the U.S. SHOULD have risen up. From the Kent shootings during the vietnam war, to various unjust wars, to events that were corrupt to say the least.

However: This difficulty does not reduce guilt.

Americans are pacified. It seems like the British are as well.

Look at the Iranians in comparison-during the recent electoral riots. Say what you will about the motives of the organizers. Simple fact is they did something to show displeasure.

The government should fear the people and strive to serve them. Not the opposite. When the populace fears the government it sets the stage for atrocity and fascism.

What happened in Germany during WW2 is evidence of the worst case scenario of what can happen in any country. Before Hitler, Germany was one of the most socially liberal places, even by todays standards.

Otherwise: I appreciate the clarification. Subjects like this make it best to be as explicit as possible on what one means lest people jump to conclusions and anger. I try not to be one of those people regardless of the circumstances but yes, I fail from time to time as well.

(edit)
changed "less" in last paragraph to "lest".. *facepalm*

[edit on 25-12-2009 by lordtyp0]

Look at the Iranians in comparison-during the recent electoral riots. Say what you will about the motives of the organizers. Simple fact is they did something to show displeasure.

Yeppp, your right.

Consider this Book.

Book

Originally posted by shakespear1

Look at the Iranians in comparison-during the recent electoral riots. Say what you will about the motives of the organizers. Simple fact is they did something to show displeasure.

Yeppp, your right.

Consider this Book.

Book

For the article-I'm about 3/4 of the way through so far and I agree. Kind of frightening if you compare it to how the U.S. has been over the last 10 or so years.

But I have to ask: Why do they have a Philologist giving 'expert' opinions on the society? A Philologist is a classical literature linguistic specialist.

I should point out though that the French had a fairly successful gorilla resistance... I was going to say "Why was there none in Germany" and it occurred to me that I wasn't sure if there were any. I've barely heard or read any on what underground resistance there might have been.

Originally posted by Regenstorm
reply to post by Foppezao

 

The bombing of Rotterdam was a mistake. The Germans themselves even tried to prevent the bombing as the planes approached by shooting flares up. The pilots however didn't see the flares and that's why Rotterdam was bombed.
You're from the Netherlands so that makes it easy for you to verify this.
Just watch episode one of "de oorlog" on Uitzending Gemist. The Venlo incident, which was the reason for Hitler to invade Holland is ignored in this documentary.

The documentary also brought to light that before the invasion, Holland was just like most other European countries except Germany, still suffering from the financial crisis that occurred in the late 20s. After Hitler successfully invaded Holland, unemployment virtually disappeared and the occupation was an golden era for businesses because of the many orders from Germany. The Germans paid everything, nothing was taken. It was only at the end of the war that Holland was stripped and looted because the Nazis needed all resources for their battle at the east front.

So, why do they learn you that the Nazi occupation only brought misery to the people of Holland?

Well you are right about the flares, General Schimdt tried to prevent the bombing and a squadron from the south even aborted the bombing..But it was not a "mistake" it was planned to make holland surrender or Utrecht The Hague etc. would have been next..I also red about Von Choltitz who prevented a mass-execution in Rotterdam and let civilians escape to a church. So yes not all germans where bad, just like oscar Schindler was a "good Nazi". But if the Germans would have wrote a proper ultimatum in the first place the bombing could have been prevented.
The hunger winter was a direct result from reprisals to the railroad strike, the Germans blocked foodtransport to the west, and yes the whole frontline in the middle of the Netherlands[after operation market garden] prevented food and coal coming from the south, but this is not how civilians should be treated. The worst is that 20.000 people died because of hunger and they all thought victory was imminent because the liberation of the south..

[edit on 25-12-2009 by Foppezao]

reply to post by Foppezao


War is war, in the same episode they also mention that Germany fought the war by the book. (Geneva) The Dutch politicians only thought of themselves, only their small part of Holland was fortified and the rest was literally given to the Germans.
By the way, if Holland had really remained neutral, they were never invaded by Germany.

reply to post by lordtyp0

Why do they have a Philologist giving 'expert' opinions on the society?

I assume you are referring to Milton Mayer. I took a deeper look as to who Milton Mayer was and heck he sounds like a very interesting person. Certainly AHEAD of his Time. Even Today I think he would be ahead of the Majority.

According to Wiki he was a Journalist. The degree matters less as I suspect the degree shows that he was capable of critical thinking.

Milton Mayer

Milton Sanford Mayer (1908-1986), a journalist and educator, was best known for his long-running column in The Progressive magazine, founded by Robert Marion LaFollette, Sr in Madison, Wisconsin.

Career
Mayer, raised a Jew, first gained widespread attention in an October 7, 1939 article in the Saturday Evening Post, entitled "I Think I'll Sit This One Out." He detailed that the approaching war would yield more harm than good because it did not deal with what he saw as the fundamental problem, "the animality in man." When he followed this piece up with one two and a half years later in the same journal called "The Case against the Jew," he opened the flood gates; letters flowed in attacking him as an anti-Semite, even though he believed that Jews had become so assimiliated that they had forsaken the prophetic way. Before a group at a War Resisters League dinner in 1944, he denied being a pacifist, even while admitting that he was a conscientious objector to the present conflict. He opted for a moral revolution, one that was anti-capitalistic because it would be anti-materialist. About this time, he began promoting that moral revolution with his regular monthly column in the Progressive, for which he wrote the rest of his life. His essays often provoked controversy for their insistence that human beings should assume personal responsibility for the world they were creating. Mayer's most influential book was probably They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45, a study of the lives of a group of ordinary Germans under the Third Reich, first published in 1955 by the University of Chicago Press. At various times, he taught at the University of Chicago, the University of Massachusetts, and the University of Louisville, as well as universities abroad. He was also a consultant to the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions.

"The Progressive" is a very interesting magazine. Recommend all check it out.

Progressive



As to this

"Why was there none in Germany" and it occurred to me that I wasn't sure if there were any. I've barely heard or read any on what underground resistance there might have been.

My guess is that Germany at that time, so devastated by the consequences of WWI, didn't have in its mind even a shred of a thought "We are doing the wrong thing". The little that I know about Germans, and I have spent time there working, leads me to believe that the observation that they follow authority nearly blindly is correct. I emphasize the word "nearly". Nothing can be certain in evaluating people. Order is important to them to an extreme point. You will not see this here in Poland.

They got their marching orders and off they went. Everyone at home was happy/supportive (industry booming) , Gestapo doing its efficient best to find "bad apples" and this guaranteed no serious opposition.

UNTIL Reality came back Knocking at their door and reminded them that all is not so Perfect and Easy. Too many enemies and the fact they over played their hand. They were bound to loose.

I suspect that IF they got along with the Russians we would have a VERY VERY different Europe today. Heck, Russian-German relations are BETTER than those between Poland-Russia. Go figure

Originally posted by Regenstorm
One giant happy trip to make world better and peaceful,ha...

Well, your last sentence comes very close to the truth.

I find this sentence very interesting, but unfortunately you did not go on to explain it.

What do you mean by that?
What is your concept of a "better and peaceful" world (with particular attention to Hitler's general plan and ideology)?

And BTW - I ask you to read this very carefully, if you please - my questions are always genuine. They are not rhetorical questions.





[edit on 26-12-2009 by Vanitas]

reply to post by Regenstorm

The bombing of Rotterdam was a mistake. The Germans themselves even tried to prevent the bombing as the planes approached by shooting flares up. The pilots however didn't see the flares and that's why Rotterdam was bombed.

So what were those planes doing above Rotterdam? Are you saying they weren't ordered to bomb Rotterdam to force Holland into capitulation?

A mistake? Bs.

Originally posted by shakespear1
My guess is that Germany at that time, so devastated by the consequences of WWI, didn't have in its mind even a shred of a thought "We are doing the wrong thing". The little that I know about Germans, and I have spent time there working, leads me to believe that the observation that they follow authority nearly blindly is correct. I emphasize the word "nearly". Nothing can be certain in evaluating people. Order is important to them to an extreme point. You will not see this here in Poland.

You have to bear in mind the years of the Weimar Republic, there was open warfare in the streets between the two major ideological factions, as well as internecine conflict within the ranks. The factions that supported Hitler, fought harder and longer and dirtier than anyone else because it was better funded. By the time Hitler came to power all serious opposition outside of the party had been eradicated. With the Roehm Purge all opposition within the party was eradicated. And then, with the establishment of Dachau, prior to Hitler even being appointed Chancellor, all individual and intellectual opposition is removed.

Without opposition the people have no choice. Without leadership there can be no revolution.

I don't understand the OP. If you are not a Nazi or a Nazi sympathizer what are you? Your argument seems to be on the presumption that just because the allies did it that what the Nazis did was okay. I have a different proposal for you. Everyone was bad. World War II was the result of World War I-- in which everyone-- not just the Germans were guilty for. Germany wanted revenge after being mocked by the allies in World War I-- but they still are responsible for what they did. How does that sound? It's not like they didn't put everyone in concentration camps. Hitler used propaganda and the secret police to get everyone against Jews. That is the mark of a fascist dictatorship-- when you have secret police always monitoring other people, making sure they vote the party line, and making sure that they aren't pro-Jew etc. I'm sorry but you're the one that I think needs to open their mind a bit.

[edit on 26-12-2009 by Frankidealist35]

reply to post by Vanitas


The glory of dialogue is that even no apparent answer IS an answer...





[edit on 26-12-2009 by Vanitas]

they where probably killing that many people they hadn't time or got to homosexuals on the list off types of people to kill...

reply to post by Frankidealist35


What I'm trying to say is that many people should look into their mirrors before they prejudge their surroundings. Didn't the early Americans almost wipe out an entire race and what remained wasn't that put in concentration camps under miserable conditions (in comparison to the wealth they "victors" live)?
And after that they imported another race in order to force them to work for them under miserable conditions? And now you Americans are still making a fuzz about a race that was supposedly almost wiped out in a region that most of you tend to see as medieval? What makes that genocide more important for Americans than your own?

As I mentioned before, there are more sides to a story and where two fight, two are to blame. Some members apparently didn't read it.

Regenstorm

There is a point of diminishing returns when arguing a point

Enjoy

reply to post by Regenstorm


That's exactly why I said that everyone was bad back then. I recommend you read a history book that's from a completely unbiased perspective. You'll see that the British started the concentration camps. Eugenics was an okay idea until the Nazis did it. We (the US and its allies) had lots of discrimination-- just we discriminated against blacks back then. Poll taxes. The thing that was bad about WWII is that it brought all this discrimination and it brought it all to the forefront. I know what you're saying-- and how other nations were bad too. It just so happens that Nazi Germany brought all the terrible practices together and they were the ones that really showed the worst of all worlds, with all of those policies and things, and what eugenics can lead to (with the final solution) etc.

I've done a lot of thinking on the subject and that's how I see it. What they did was bad. Yes. It's bad that the allied history was erased. But they were at the forefront of all of it. Everything was exposed basically under the war.

Now. I think you can do worse than the Nazis. Personally I don't like how our education system only focuses on the Nazis, then, it ignores the fact that the our government has secret prisons all over the world-- treats this as a conspiracy. Our education system also ignores the Soviet Union. I didn't learn about the autocracies of the Soviet Union until I took a summer class this year. Before that I had no idea about prison camps or what gulags were. So. You have a point... you just went about it the wrong way-- you were giving the wrong message and you made it seem like you were sympathizing with the Nazis... but you should have just gone about your approach differently. Acting like a Nazi sympathizer won't help people wake up.

[edit on 26-12-2009 by Frankidealist35]

reply to post by Frankidealist35



There is a big difference between sympathizing a system/ideology and sympathizing the people that ruled that system.
I think that many basic ideas from back than have to be reconsidered in our present society.

I have now seen the famous German leader and also something of the great change he has effected. "Whatever one may think of his methods - and they are certainly not those of a parliamentary country, there can be no doubt that he has achieved a marvelous transformation in the spirit of the people, in their attitude towards each other, and in their social and economic outlook. He rightly claimed at Nuremberg that in four years his movement had made a new Germany. It is not the Germany of the first decade that followed the war - broken, dejected and bowed down with a sense of apprehension and impotence. It is now full of hope and confidence, and of a renewed sense of determination to lead its own life without interference from any influence outside its own frontiers. There is for the first time since the war a general sense of security. The people are more cheerful. There is a greater sense of general gaiety of spirit throughout the land. It is a happier Germany. I saw it everywhere, and Englishmen I met during my trip and who knew Germany well were very impressed with the change. One man has accomplished this miracle. He is a born leader of men. A magnetic and dynamic personality with a single-minded purpose, as resolute will and a dauntless heart. He is not merely in name but in fact the national Leader. He has made them safe against potential enemies by whom they were surrounded. He is also securing them against the constant dread of starvation which is one of the most poignant memories of the last years of the War and the first years of the Peace. Over 700,000 died of sheer hunger in those dark years. You can still see the effect in the physique of those who were born into that bleak world.

David Lloyd George, Daily Express, September 17. 1936