posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 05:12 PM
First off, the word "Jewish" is properly capitalized. Please show at least that little bit of respect.
Second, numbers aside, were the atrocities known to have happened any worse if they were done on just 600 instead of the estimated 6 million? There
were groups of people, chosen for several reasons, who were deprived of their worldly goods, transported in cattle cars to camps which did not have
any amenities as showers or toilets, tattooted like cattle, housed in cramped quarters which spread disease, given little food, and worked to death.
How can this not be seen as a crime against humanity, if even to just 60 people?
What would be the price paid by someone for doing such a thing today to just 6 people?
Or even only one?
Supposed they only shaved heads at one camp. That makes it okay? And removing their clothes for prison garb to control disease only works if the
clothing given was kept clean. These camps had laundries? The same would apply to bedding, and sewage. Were clean conditions met at these camps?
If even 10 people died as a result of a "disinfectant", why was it okay to continue using it? If disease was a problem, where were the medical
staff to combat it? These camps had hospitals? What is considered to be a healthy weight, and which camps supplied enough of a healthy diet to
maintain that weight?
How many mass graves were dug? No one really knows that. How many tons of cremains were disposed of? How many people were needed to produce those
And most telling for me, why take the children? Did the camps have schools, health care, good diet, etc for children? Were children enemies of the
state for anything other than their heritage?
When do you think that makes any of it less horrible?