The Dachau Massacre. The Slaughter of Nazis in Death Camps During WW2.

page: 19
55
<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 07:40 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 07:42 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 07:44 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 07:45 PM
link   
If they hadn't have been gunned down on the spot, they likely would have been hung later on for war crimes.

Just saves some paperwork, and the cost of a trial.

If I were an Allied unit commander and my troops came across Dachau and found the people in charge, I'm not sure I would have stopped them from doing this.



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 07:47 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheToastmanCometh
reply to post by daaskapital
 


Welcome.

In Germany, I don't know if they still do it, but they don't teach about the Nazi's in the schools there because it was a dark part of their history.

Yet America teaches us about slavery and the Massacre of the Natives like it's no big deal.

History is important- no matter what the subject matter is or who did them, that's what these people need to get through their heads.


History is very important, all the better to learn history to avoid repeating it.

The horrors produced by the Nazis should be taught in German schools. In school in England, we learned of many of the horrible things done in British history.

So far as people saying this was an American bashing thread, the Americans claim to be the height of morality but were allies with the Russians during this same period. The Russians killed 20 million of their own people, compared to 6 million the Nazis killed.



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by salainen

You say we should learn from history, yet you don't really care about this particular massacre... You don't think it was a massacre because they were monsters, but what if not all of them were monsters. If the Americans didn't really check the people, and just lined them up and shot them, who knows how many innocent people died.



Actually, I said I found it hard to care about the guards. That does not mean I don't care about what happened. I also never said it was or wasn't a massacre. I stated that in my biased opinion that it wasn't a witch hunt and in my opinion, the guards were monsters. None of this means I can't potential learn something from it.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by babybunnies

Originally posted by TheToastmanCometh
reply to post by daaskapital
 


Welcome.

In Germany, I don't know if they still do it, but they don't teach about the Nazi's in the schools there because it was a dark part of their history.

Yet America teaches us about slavery and the Massacre of the Natives like it's no big deal.

History is important- no matter what the subject matter is or who did them, that's what these people need to get through their heads.


History is very important, all the better to learn history to avoid repeating it.

The horrors produced by the Nazis should be taught in German schools. In school in England, we learned of many of the horrible things done in British history.

So far as people saying this was an American bashing thread, the Americans claim to be the height of morality but were allies with the Russians during this same period. The Russians killed 20 million of their own people, compared to 6 million the Nazis killed.


Is that we you see, that that we avoid repeating history?

What I see is that governments are becoming smarter about hiding and disguising their atrocities. We now have "kinder, gentler" means to remove people's freedom.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by lynn112
Actually, I said I found it hard to care about the guards. That does not mean I don't care about what happened. I also never said it was or wasn't a massacre. I stated that in my biased opinion that it wasn't a witch hunt and in my opinion, the guards were monsters. None of this means I can't potential learn something from it.




Ok, I misunderstood you.



Originally posted by babybunnies
If they hadn't have been gunned down on the spot, they likely would have been hung later on for war crimes.

Just saves some paperwork, and the cost of a trial.

If I were an Allied unit commander and my troops came across Dachau and found the people in charge, I'm not sure I would have stopped them from doing this.


Doesn't necessarily mean its right. What if a chopper in Afganistan sees a group of people they believe to be terrorists, with machine guns, and then gun them down on the spot... If you were the pilot you may have done the same, its a war, and no doubt terrorists have done terrible things in Afganistan, and Al-qaeda was responsible for 9/11 like the Nazis were responsible for the Holocaust.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by 007Polytoks
 


You are defending Nazis out of pure hatred for Zionist. It has clouded your judgement...



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by dogstar23
 


I believe the push back from this post is from the extreme anti American sentiment that runs rampant on ATS. Our soldiers killed POW's, so has every army that has ever been assembled.Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers has Americans killing POW's. Thats the price we pay for war, it brings out the worst in people.

The Holocaust deniers however are blind, ignorant, and pushing agendas out of pure hatred for Zionists. Its not just about Jews, its about the completely numb approach that the Third Reich took towards human life.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 01:35 PM
link   
I think in every conflict we find atrocities by individuals. As it is said, war is hell, and brings out the worst in some people. Though I agree this happened, I basically file it along with 10,000s of other cases we see in just about EVERY situation where humans fight.

With that said, when these situations become Government sanctioned then we move to a completely higher level of atrocities.

Things like the camps in the first place, and Japans mass killings in China are great examples of Government sanctioned acts that were directly targeted only towards civilians.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 04:43 PM
link   
So some poor camp guards who just took over got shot to peices because the camp was full of thousands of dead prisoners.

Sucks to be them.

Bottom line is dont be on the losing side if your team mass murdered millions of citizens.

Morons who cant tell the difference between this act and the organized killing of millions of citizens are the same morons who equate the accidental deaths of Iraqis to the holocaust. Your moral relativism is trite and flat out retarded. I dont hold anything against the german soldiers who killed captured Allied soldiers just like I dont fault these GIs from blasting these Soldaten. You take up arms and put on the uniform its a kill or be killed situation and sometimes it sucks to be you if you are captured.
Completely different situation from the mass killings of citizens on an industrial scale.
If they ever find a train track to a death camp in Iraq ran by the US and Brition then I will shed a tear for Iraq and be even more pissed off at the US government until then...Sucks to be them.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 09:43 PM
link   
The bad thing about war is it legalizes murder.
There are many stories of unarmed Nazi's being killed, but how many did they kill before they died.

One such story I recall was the allied troops had a huge amount of German POW's they were marching to a location were they were being held. There was an SS officer who kept trying to rally his troops to rebel against their
guards, the allied officers repeatedly warned him to stop, and he refused to listen, finally after ignoring them too many times, and seeing that it was starting to provoke some the POW's. They got nervous and made a snap decision and executed him right there and then, the rest of the march was very peaceful.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Where is your proof of this claim that the hoods are only applied when they spit?


Does spitting justify stripping some one naked, and putting them in abusive positions?



Especially considering lots of these people were NOT even convicted of a crime yet!

There is also many documented cases of torture by hitting the genitals of the subject.


I do believe that the majority of prison systems non-military are also inhuman, especially when they are dealing with non violent offenders. When you have an industry that makes profit off the incarceration of people, you are going to have a huge incentive for them to find new ways of throwing people in jail. Anyways, the jail systems are rarely an efficient method of changing the criminal mind, and most of the time they serve to harden the criminal.

You call this "non inhuman torture"?




So you are stating you think its humane to strip a bunch of men naked, and force them into a "Babylonian triangle"? To physically abuse a person, who once again, had no true trial to determine their guilt?



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by JDmOKI
 


Where is your proof these people had anything to do with the NSDAP?

You do understand that conscription was in effect in Germany (especially at the end of the war), and that a huge portion of the population were NOT card holding NSDAP members? How do you know these weren't locals who had just been FORCED by the SS to become guards of this camp in lue of the retreat West?

I not once defended Nazis, and if you read my posts, you would find I was actually ousting "Nazi's", ON BOTH SIDES. Fascism is not based on nationality, and I clearly outlined how the "American" corporations, and financial institutions were complicit in the funding, and facilitation of the "Nazi" war machine. If anything, I am much more clear in my judgment then most, for I do not see each side as a separate entity, since BOTH served the same purpose. To instate financial, and governmental globalization, and to change the minds of the average person.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


I know the English loan was paid off but I can't say the same for the other countries that loaned of the US

Anglo-American loan

Naturally the damage in the old world was immensly more than anything ever seen before and a lot of financial aid and dedication was needed to get those lands back up to scratch.

I also believe my point still stands that it was in the US best interest to make sure Europe was rebuilt, I have personally worked with (American) log cutters that most likely ended up in England because of those deals set out, everything loaned came back one way or another.

Also with WW2 a lot of the worlds food supply as well as resources and products were in serious demand, the US economy was the biggest holder of these comodities with plenty to spare.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is:

1 Yes the USA supplied Europe (at interest)
2 It was strategic more than aid
3 The USA did not rebuild Europe but rather gave all the tools so Europe can do it themselves.

I personally see no problem with what the US done infact it was quite a gesture to make, all the loans were 2% too I believe. You supplied everything we needed and gave aid when needed but you did not rebuild Europe as far as I ever knew.


As to not be too far off topic

Starvation was a massive problem through-out Europe maybe this is why war prisoners died on such a large scale after the war for instance; rationing was still done in the UK till 1952-53.... maybe prisoners were last on the list for food. But if food was genuinely stopped from getting to prisoners of war when it was clearly for them then that is just wrong.

Look up the rights of passage that the red cross had in WW2

Never let judgement get in the way of our humanity



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by 007Polytoks
 


I obviously don't have proof that these people were NSDAP. If you wear the uniform of the losing army you are...a member of that army. Guilty by association. I'm not defending the allied troops in this particular incident. I'm just saying that pointing out allied crimes is a little redundant considering the the times.

Not all Germans were evil SS members, I'm not naive. I just think the purpose of this thread is to push anti-Americanism. or maybe I'm on the defense from past posts from other individuals.

My grandfather fought in this awful war.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by daaskapital
 


it is an open and uncontested point that Eisenhower intentionally withheld food from hi German prisoners and so intentionally killed all 1,000,000. so much for fighting and winning fair



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by gingerlee
reply to post by daaskapital
 


it is an open and uncontested point that Eisenhower intentionally withheld food from hi German prisoners and so intentionally killed all 1,000,000. so much for fighting and winning fair


No, it is not an open and uncontested fact. I take it that you're referring to the book "Other Losses", which makes this claim? That book has been extensively criticised and the claims debunked.





new topics
top topics
 
55
<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in

join