It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should Churchill be seen as a warmonger and partial escalator of WW2?

page: 13
11
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 02:40 AM
link   
He wasn't the pm at the time. I'm trying to understand where you are going with this but I'm not grasping it. If Hitler wouldn't have invaded Poland then war wouldn't have been declared on Germany.


And let's leave the moderating to the actual moderators, not the micro mods...:

edit on 15-1-2013 by LoverBoy because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 02:45 AM
link   
reply to post by LoverBoy
 


I would hate to be a mod, I also find thread derailment a waste of time, it is the responsibility of posters to keep it on track and you know how easily it is for a few off track comments to totally ruin a thread, especially on such heated topics, like those that happened about Holocaust denial on ATS recently, pretty sure that's a place best avoided.

So no need for sarky comments of ''micro mods''.

edit on 15-1-2013 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 04:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by ConservativeAwakening
 




Documents the Germans found in Warsaw and later published during the war actually show that Roosevelt was heavily communicating with the Poles and encouraging them to be fierce with Germany PRIOR to Germany's invasion of Poland. Roosevelt was secretly preparing for a European conflict prior to September 1st.


Do you see any problem with what you just said ?

Documents German Found Warsaw Published During War. I do not outrightly dismiss the information but find it highly improbable, Roosevelt had no real pull at the time of the invasion, it would be more reasonable to expect that rhetoric from the UK, but the UK had no illusion in regards to the Poles capability to resist or even their own capability to aid them. We should all respect the vision of the UK to declare war in the circumstances it did, most other nations would have schemed out of acting (and many influential Brits were against it).

The Poles were completely taken by surprise, completely unprepared, they knew the antagonism was constant and some of the rhetoric but they never believed the Germans would act on it. They were more preoccupied with Russia and had prepared for that.


edit on 14-1-2013 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)


you misread and misunderstood, after the Nazis had cleared Warsaw, they inspected the government documents that were left abandoned. In those heaps, they found what we would today call "secret" communications between Roosevelt and the Polish aggressive parts of the government, LONG PRIOR to the outbreak of hostilities. FDR was quite interested in a European conflict, and he sided with the quasi-fascist government of Poland, and encouraged them to stay hard against Germany,

The Poles were NOT taken by surprise on the 1st of September, only the actual attack of Germany was unseen. The Polish government had excessively taunted the German government (while being backed by the UK), Polish militia gangs were coming in and out of the German border and illegally attacking Germans. The Germans did in turn the same. Nowadays nobody will believe this anymore, because the German Gleiwitz falseflag covers the REAL border violations of Poland. Hitler pleaded to the Legue of Nations several times for INTERNATIONAL HELP with the German-Poland border issue, but nobody did anything. Hitler's last fanatic attempt was then his attack (mind you, no war was declared against Poland, the Nazis saw it as an emergency) against the poor Poles.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by ConservativeAwakening
 


That is a great point but you fail to add that the NAZI and Stalin treaty was secret. Stalin sold it to the Western powers as a block movement against Germany.

From wikipedia's Invasion of Poland

Soviet diplomacy claimed that they were "protecting the Ukrainian and Belarusian minorities of eastern Poland since the Polish government had abandoned the country and the Polish state ceased to exist".


To a point I agree that the same obligation should have been applied to Russia but the UK and France was in desperate and mostly unwilling to commit.



well obviously both Hitler and Stalin had several bogus "explanations" for their actions, although Hitler's was based on the actual plight of the Germans in western Poland and the Germans directly at the "false" border after 1918. The Soviets were masters of propaganda. Of course they would bring such a ridiculous claim of "protecting" the Ukrainian and Belorussian people", there is no reason why the UK and France only picked war with Germany but avoided the Soviet Union for doing the exact same thing as Germany. Oh and the Ukrainians would become bitter enemies of the Soviet Union anyway, and while Germany was fighting a practically 4 front war, the Soviets were "stalinizing" the Ukrainian, the Belorussian and west Polish areas.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by FireMoon
Blimey... here's some actual background.

In the early months of the war the RAF were eternally frustrated that, apart from a few raids on coastal ports harbouring German shipping they were restricted to dropping nothing more than propaganda leaflets over Germany. In fact, one member of Parliament actually demanded certain targets be "left alone whatever might happen" as they were fiscally important to several leading British families.

Yes, in places such as the North West frontier of India where there were constant tribal unrest, the British, by dint of seeking to save money in the inter war years, did have a policy whereby. Villages suspected or proven of harbouring relatives would be leafleted and told that. When these same aircraft return it will be to bomb said village.. So yes, one can argue technically that, Britain was the first to institute a policy of bombing civilian targets.

However, if you are looking for pre WW2 precedents for mass civilian bombings, then you need look no further than the 3 main Axis powers.

Italy used poison gas during the Ethiopian campaign, The German Condor Legion bombed Guernica and the Japanese heavily bombed Shanghai during the Chinese war.. Now, whilst it is true to say Guernica was actually of military significance, despite what many history books claim, the fact remains that, it was bombed, in part, as a "lesson" and "experiment" in terrorising civilian populations. The Japanese bombing of Shanghai was 9 parts pure terror and ideologically led, they viewed the Chinese as "inferior" and beneath contempt and 1 part strategic.

The Blitz was actually an unfortunate "accident". A single Heinkel 111''s crew panicked and dropped their bomb load when off course and hit part of London's East End. Churchill ordered a retaliatory raid on Berlin. In actual fact, it caused very little damage, other than to Goering's and the Nazis leader's egos. It was in retaliation for that raid that Hitler ordered the Blitz on British Cities.

It wasn't till late 41 that Britain had the wherewithal to actually mount serious raids on Germany and in the first year less than 1% of bombs actually landed within 5 miles of their intended target. The main British and later American bombing offensives, were as much about appeasing Stalin and making it look like we were actually seriously fighting the Nazis as anything else. It was not until Xmas 1944 that some definitely questionable targets were chosen and bombed, with really, no good reason. That however, was not at Churchill's behest and he wasn't that keen on it however, he bowed to "Bomber" Harris, the RAF's bomber commander and allowed it to continue.

Oh and Hitler did declare war on both Russia and the USA., his reason for doing so on the USA has never fully explained, to this day.





the fact remains that Churchill FIRST bombed Berlin and other German cities 7 times, before Hitler's patience broke and he initiated the Blitz. The bombing of civilian areas in the UK-Germany conflict was done fist by Churchill. And Arthur Bomber Harris should have been declared a war criminal, not even the Nazis or the Soviets were so cruel to bomb entire cities into ash, like Dresden. Dresden had no significance whatsoever, it was a city filled with refugees fleeing from the red army hordes in the east, it was a city that had no tactical importance whatsoever, it only housed civilians (duh), wounded soldiers, both German and other nationalities fleeing from the Soviets, etc...and 25,000 is a disgrace to the thousands and thousands more than were literally turned to ash and forever vanished, so obviously you'll never be able to correctly establish the actual numbers
edit on 15-1-2013 by ConservativeAwakening because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 05:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by theabsolutetruth
Fact: you cannot define Jews of ''Slavic characteristics'' (your quote) even in Nazi defined racial types
Fact: Slavs were not targeted first, Jews were
Fact: Jews were targeted because they were Jewish
Fact: Nazis did not engage in hunting and exterminating some 'Slav Jew' as target before any other of their defined racial types


Go back and read the posts. We are discussing the invasions of Poland and Russia, not domestic policy. Yes the Jews were persecuted financially and socially by the Nuremberg Laws, but they were not murdered, routinely, for being Jewish, until after 1941. I am not being insulting or sarcastic, I am merely attempting to point out your repeated inability to comprehend that very simple point. And something is not fact simply because you believe it to be. You are simply misunderstanding the point and what is being discussed.

I have supplied numerous references...go read the books. The information that you are providing is merely an overview article by Wikipedia and everything that you have posted so far, supports the position that I am making, you just don't seem able to comprehend that.

Had you read Mein Kampf you would understand what I mean by what Hitler meant by 'Slavic characteristics'. If you had read the speeches of Goebbels, you would understand what I meant. It is not about what I think, I am merely stating the attitude and indoctrination of the Nazi attitude to racial types and have repeatedly attempted to communicate that to you. You want me to tell you what Slavic characteristics are...well I am sorry, but I do not think there exists such a thing beyond the twisted imagination of the Nazi racial mentality and I have clearly, and repeatedly stated as much. Read Alfred Rosenberg if you want to know that. Or look at the policy of Lebenstraum...there is plenty of information out there and available in books, and I have given the titles and authors of some of those books...so go do the work if that is what you want to understand because I cannot help you.

So to recap...

The Jews were persecuted in Germany and the occupied territories...but they were not murdered specifically for being Jewish, until after 1941.

During the invasion of Poland, and the occupied territories, euthanasia and racial hygiene units were deployed to murder civilians, some Jews were murdered during those operations, but not specifically because they were Jewish.

Political opponents, intelligensia and other groups were also targeted, again, some of those were Jews, but they again, were not specifically targeted because they were Jewish.

Jews were rounded up and forced to live in ghettos, they had their property confiscated and were not permitted to won businesses etc, but the organised killing of those Jews did not commence until 1941.

Therefore, while Jews were most certainly persecuted, they were not targeted for murder because they were of an 'inferior racial type' based on the perception of what the Nazis saw as the 'degenerate races', unless they fulfilled other defined characteristics. And again, I repeat, what the Nazis considered to be 'degenerate' racial types is very well documented in their literature and speeches of the time...so go look into it, if it is of such great interest to you.

This might help you...

en.wikipedia.org...

fcit.usf.edu...

www.burzum.org...

www.wisegeek.org...

The Jews, as a whole were seen more as enemies of the state. The Slavs were seen as racial inferior. Therefore, those who were perceived to be racially inferior, regardless of religion, were killed, those who were not, but Jewish, were ghettoised. Understand?

I cannot be clearer than that. They are not my views, and I disagree with them strongly. If this point is of such importance to you, go to the horse's mouth...read The Myth of the Twentieth Century. It is all there. But it is not based on any reality that I understand, nor wish to understand so I shall leave that to you.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 05:20 AM
link   
reply to post by ConservativeAwakening
 


Dresden served a very useful purpose - it demonstrated to the German people that they were better off surrendering to the Allies than continuing the fight. I would also say it followed years of conflict - attitudes had hardened and cannot really be assessed with a "Peace Time" mind frame.

I would say this post raises some interesting points but there is some clear misinterpretation going on. For example, why do you think Britain and France didn't want to provoke the Soviet Union? It was recognised to be a sleeping giant and as with all sleeping giants the view was that it is best not to prod too much. Britain, for example, had a very extensive (and successful) espionage operation going on in the Soviet Union since well before the First World War. Britain and France both fought on the side of the "Whites" during the Bolshevik Revolution and had experienced first hand warfare in the Russian climate - it didn't work out too well!

The simple fact remains that if Parliament had listened to Churchill's continuous opinions since the early 20th Century, Britain would have had a very advanced and capable (for the time) military which would have been a major obstacle for Germany to overcome. Churchill, however, was constantly ignored. The military was in a very poor state (in terms of numbers and equipment) and was only a small obstacle for Germany - it allowed them to pursue "Lebensraum" policies. A strong British military (as advocated by Churchill) would have given the Nazi Regime serious pause for thought regarding their expansionism.

As it turned out, when war was declared, Churchill was the only serious option for leader from Parliament. Good thing too, as history shows..........



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 05:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by ConservativeAwakening
 


Dresden served a very useful purpose - it demonstrated to the German people that they were better off surrendering to the Allies than continuing the fight. I would also say it followed years of conflict - attitudes had hardened and cannot really be assessed with a "Peace Time" mind frame.

I would say this post raises some interesting points but there is some clear misinterpretation going on. For example, why do you think Britain and France didn't want to provoke the Soviet Union? It was recognised to be a sleeping giant and as with all sleeping giants the view was that it is best not to prod too much. Britain, for example, had a very extensive (and successful) espionage operation going on in the Soviet Union since well before the First World War. Britain and France both fought on the side of the "Whites" during the Bolshevik Revolution and had experienced first hand warfare in the Russian climate - it didn't work out too well!

The simple fact remains that if Parliament had listened to Churchill's continuous opinions since the early 20th Century, Britain would have had a very advanced and capable (for the time) military which would have been a major obstacle for Germany to overcome. Churchill, however, was constantly ignored. The military was in a very poor state (in terms of numbers and equipment) and was only a small obstacle for Germany - it allowed them to pursue "Lebensraum" policies. A strong British military (as advocated by Churchill) would have given the Nazi Regime serious pause for thought regarding their expansionism.

As it turned out, when war was declared, Churchill was the only serious option for leader from Parliament. Good thing too, as history shows..........


I know that the UK, USA and France did in fact fight a "pseudo-war" in the Bolshevik revolution against the later Soviets! And the war should have been continued, maybe Germany could have been asked to join in defeating the reds and BAM, Germany would have maybe gotten their "stolen" land in the east back, Poland could have been moved a bit to the west, Russia would have been occupied and no ww2. Unfortunately it didn't happen. And Dresden did not serve as the point you're making, it was pure devilish action on the side of the allies. I don't even think the Nazis would have done something like that even in the east. And the Lebensraum idea is nowadays taken out of proportion, back then it meant first of all the reintroduction of stolen German land which was occupied by Poland back into Germany Proper. What people don't realize is that the Lebensraum idea was effected by the poor choice of the WW1 allies to go into nationbuilding in eastern Europe. They set up ww2 practically by doing that, Poland was given German land, Czechoslovakia was given German, Polish and Hungarian land....entire new countries were built in the east, and Hitler wanted to revise that
edit on 15-1-2013 by ConservativeAwakening because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
Polish militia gangs were coming in and out of the German border and illegally attacking Germans. The Germans did in turn the same. Nowadays nobody will believe this anymore,


that is because it is just not true!

because the German Gleiwitz falseflag covers the REAL border violations of Poland. Hitler pleaded to the Legue of Nations several times for INTERNATIONAL HELP with the German-Poland border issue, but nobody did anything.

Sure about that?

A final settlement was reached, after five meetings, in which most of the area was given to Germany, but with the Polish section containing the majority of the region's mineral resources and much of its industry. When this agreement became public in May 1922, bitter resentment was expressed in Germany, but the treaty was still ratified by both countries The settlement produced peace in the area until the beginning of the Second World War


So why did Germany ratify that treaty?


Hitler's last fanatic attempt was then his attack (mind you, no war was declared against Poland, the Nazis saw it as an emergency) against the poor Poles.


So Germany just attacked Poland as the start of their push for Lebensraum.

Lebensraum (help·info) (German for "habitat" or literally "living space") was one of the major genocidal political goals of Adolf Hitler, and an important component of Nazi ideology. It served as the motivation for the expansionist policies of Nazi Germany, aiming to provide extra space for the growth of the German population, for a Greater Germany. In Hitler's book Mein Kampf, he detailed his belief that the German people needed Lebensraum ("living space", i.e. land and raw materials), and that it should be found in Eastern Europe. It was the stated policy of the Nazis to kill, deport, or enslave the Polish, Ukrainian, Russian, and other Slavic populations, whom they considered inferior, and to repopulate the land with Germanic people. Entire populations were to be exterminated by starvation, thus creating an agricultural surplus to feed Germany and allowing their replacement by a German upper class.[1] Other Slavic populations such as the Czech were to be mass sterilized and more slowly replaced by ethnic Germans



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 05:44 AM
link   
you're talking about 1922, I was referring to Hitler's pleas to the League of Nations prior to September 1939. The situation got dismally worse for both Poland and Germany after 1922.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 05:46 AM
link   
reply to post by ConservativeAwakening
 


It wasn't German land though. Germany is a fairly new country - before that it was Prussia, Bavaria, Swabia, etc. Yes they were all Germanic peoples but you cannot really call them a unified nation - they were independent entities. Therefore they had no more right to claim "ownership" than did the new countries were these were (ie Czechoslovakia).

You don't think Germany would have done anything like Dresden in the East? How do you possibly come to that conclusion? They had mobile death squads operating in the East, they perfected mass killing techniques in the East......it goes on and on. And before you argue about the death squads, not only have eye witness testimonies, we also have recovered corpses to corroborate the testimonies - including corpses of babies shot whilst in their mothers arms, etc.

It is good to question what we know and to look for new sources and new info, etc, but never lose sight of the realities of the situation.

For me, the most interesting aspects of the demise of the Second World War is that the last defenders of Berlin were Waffen SS - Nordland and Charlemagne Divisions. These were predominantly Scandinavian and French men, not German. So the defenders of the Nazi faith turned out to be non Germans.........



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 05:46 AM
link   
If he is played up as a hero by our establishment then he is probably as villainess as the rest of em.

Good Question OP btw, weather people agree or not it was defo worth asking in my opinion.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThePeopleParty
If he is played up as a hero by our establishment then he is probably as villainess as the rest of em.

Good Question OP btw, weather people agree or not it was defo worth asking in my opinion.


I suggest reading his many many diaries. The war diaries are amazing but there are lots of them (well over 20 very thick books). There is an awful lot of very interesting information in them.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 05:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
Dresden had no significance whatsoever, it was a city filled with refugees fleeing from the red army hordes in the east, it was a city that had no tactical importance whatsoever, it only housed civilians (duh), wounded soldiers, both German and other nationalities fleeing from the Soviets, etc


I see you are trying to revise history again, you totally ignore the following... I wonder why?


The US Air Force Historical Division wrote a report in response to the international concern about the bombing, which was classified until December 1978.[28] This said that there were 110 factories and 50,000 workers in the city supporting the German war effort at the time of the raid.[29] According to the report, there were aircraft components factories; a poison gas factory (Chemische Fabrik Goye and Company); an anti-aircraft and field gun factory (Lehman); an optical goods factory (Zeiss Ikon AG); as well as factories producing electrical and X-ray apparatus (Koch & Sterzel AG); gears and differentials (Saxoniswerke); and electric gauges (Gebrüder Bassler). It also said there were barracks, hutted camps, and a munitions storage depot.[30] The USAF report also states that two of Dresden's traffic routes were of military importance: north-south from Germany to Czechoslovakia, and east-west along the central European uplands.[31] The city was at the junction of the Berlin-Prague-Vienna railway line, as well as the Munich-Breslau, and Hamburg-Leipzig.[31] Colonel Harold E. Cook, a US POW held in the Friedrichstadt marshaling yard the night before the attacks, later said that "I saw with my own eyes that Dresden was an armed camp: thousands of German troops, tanks and artillery and miles of freight cars loaded with supplies supporting and transporting German logistics towards the east to meet the Russians



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
I was referring to Hitler's pleas to the League of Nations prior to September 1939.


Germany left the league in 1933....



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
I was referring to Hitler's pleas to the League of Nations prior to September 1939.


Germany left the league in 1933....


you're absolutely rightm so did the USA, but that didn't keep Hitler from complaining to the league



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 05:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
And the war should have been continued, maybe Germany could have been asked to join in defeating the reds and BAM, Germany would have maybe gotten their "stolen" land in the east back, Poland could have been moved a bit to the west, Russia would have been occupied and no ww2. Unfortunately it didn't happen. And Dresden did not serve as the point you're making, it was pure devilish action on the side of the allies. I don't even think the Nazis would have done something like that even in the east. And the Lebensraum idea is nowadays taken out of proportion, back then it meant first of all the reintroduction of stolen German land which was occupied by Poland back into Germany Proper. What people don't realize is that the Lebensraum idea was effected by the poor choice of the WW1 allies to go into nationbuilding in eastern Europe. They set up ww2 practically by doing that, Poland was given German land, Czechoslovakia was given German, Polish and Hungarian land....entire new countries were built in the east, and Hitler wanted to revise that


That is all a bit 'could've, would've, should've' and not really a valid argument. Had any of those possibilities existed, there would have been no reason for conflict at all. Many in Britain did propose and argue for an alliance with Germany in order to fight the 'red menace'...and in the US. The Nazis were seen by many as an effective bulwark against the Comintern but many also, such as Churchill, and in the US, Morgenthau, realised that Germany posed a greater threat to sea trade...as I have already explained. In many respects, one can see that there were two wars being fought simultaneously, one ideological, and one economic. For Churchill the greater threat was Germany gaining control of the geographical pivot, and therefore he was economically motivated. He was also deeply concerned about the US, as a sea power, forming an alliance with Germany, economically. That would have been the death knell for Britain, and her hegemony of sea trade. The US did not share the same economic fears obviously, they had everything to gain, economically, from alliance with Germany. Which is why it was essential to exaggerate the threat of Bolshevism in order to sway public opinion in Britain's favour, many in the US were keen to usurp Britain's role in sea trade.

Lebensraum was developed as an ideology supportive of Germany's geo-political objectives of obtaining control of the 'world island' and the Auslander drive necessitated the clearance of those Eastern occupied territories when so many Germans, who had emigrated overseas in the aftermath of WW1 came back and wanted to land that they had been promised by the Auslander organisation.


edit on 15-1-2013 by KilgoreTrout because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 06:00 AM
link   
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
 


Firstly, I read Mein Kampf more than 20 years ago. I have studied and read many books on this for more than 25 years. No need for any 'history lessons' from you, thanks.

Here is a quote from you



Jews were not specifically murdered, for being Jewish, until 1941. The majority of Jews from the occupied territories were ghettoised. Those Jews that were massacred, following the invasion of Poland, were killed primarily because they were Slavic (Ethnic Poles) or considered as ideological opposition.


You are wrong. Nuremberg Laws were in place in 1935 and Kristallnacht was 1938, Jews were sent to concentration camps then.

en.wikipedia.org...


Between 1935 and 1936, persecution of the Jews increased apace while the process of "Gleichschaltung" (lit.: "standardisation", the process by which the Nazis achieved complete control over German society) was implemented. In May 1935, Jews were forbidden to join the Wehrmacht (the armed forces), and in the summer of the same year, anti-semitic propaganda appeared in shops and restaurants. The Nuremberg Laws were passed around the time of the great Nazi rallies at Nuremberg; on September 15, 1935, the "Law for the Protection of German Blood and Honor" was passed, preventing marriage between any Jew and non-Jews as Rassenschande or racial pollution. At the same time, the "Reich Citizenship Law" was passed and was reinforced in November by a decree, stating that all Jews, even quarter- and half-Jews, were no longer citizens of their own country (their official title became "subjects of the state"). This meant that they were deprived of basic citizens' rights, e.g., the right to vote. This removal of citizens' rights was instrumental in the process of anti-semitic persecution: the process of denaturalization allowed the Nazis to exclude—de jure—Jewish people from the "Volksgemeinschaft" ("national community"), thus granting judicial legitimacy to their persecution and opening the way to harsher laws and, eventually, extermination of the Jews. Philosopher Hannah Arendt pointed out this important judicial aspect of the Holocaust in The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951), where she demonstrated that to violate human rights, Nazi Germany first deprived human beings of their citizenship. Arendt underlined that in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, citizens’ rights actually preceded human rights, as the latter needed the protection of a determinate state to be actually respected.




The increasingly totalitarian regime that Hitler imposed on Germany allowed him to control the actions of the SS and the army. On November 7, 1938, a young Polish Jew named Herschel Grynszpan attacked and shot German diplomat Ernst vom Rath in the Nazi-German embassy in Paris. Grynszpan's family, together with more than 12,000 Polish-born Jews, had been expelled by the Nazi government from Germany to Poland during the so-called "Polenaktion" on October 28, 1938. Joseph Goebbels ordered retaliation. On the night of November 9, the SS conducted "the Night of Broken Glass" ("Kristallnacht"), in which at least 91 Jews were killed and a further 30,000 arrested and incarcerated in concentration camps.


you then said this quote



The ghetto Jews were killed because they were starving slowly to death and there was seen to be little alternative other than to dispose of them as humanely as possible. BUT, that only applied to 'white' Jews. Jews who possessed Slavic characteristics had already been summarily executed by the Eisatzgruppen in the course of the invasions


This is also wrong, Nazis classified Jews as Jews, it didn't classify as ''white Jew'' or ''Slavic Jew''.

The Slavic people were categorized varyingly by Nazis depending on their complexion and hair colour etc., many became members of Hitler's army as they were seen as Aryans.

The term ''Slavic characteristics'' in reference to Jews is a term you said, it isn't one of Nazi policy nor even definable under their general hatred of Jews.

Jews were classified as Jews or Mischlinge (''crossbreeds'').

Slavs, Poles, Russians, Gypsies etc were classified as Untermenschen.

Untermenschen


Untermensch (German for under man, sub-man, sub-human; plural: Untermenschen) is a term that became infamous when the Nazi racial ideology used it to describe "inferior people", especially "the masses from the East," that is Gypsies, Jews, and Slavic peoples including Belarusians, Poles, Russians and Ukrainians, although many of the Slavs were accepted as Aryans.[1][2][3]



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by ConservativeAwakening
 


It wasn't German land though. Germany is a fairly new country - before that it was Prussia, Bavaria, Swabia, etc. Yes they were all Germanic peoples but you cannot really call them a unified nation - they were independent entities. Therefore they had no more right to claim "ownership" than did the new countries were these were (ie Czechoslovakia).

You don't think Germany would have done anything like Dresden in the East? How do you possibly come to that conclusion? They had mobile death squads operating in the East, they perfected mass killing techniques in the East......it goes on and on. And before you argue about the death squads, not only have eye witness testimonies, we also have recovered corpses to corroborate the testimonies - including corpses of babies shot whilst in their mothers arms, etc.

It is good to question what we know and to look for new sources and new info, etc, but never lose sight of the realities of the situation.

For me, the most interesting aspects of the demise of the Second World War is that the last defenders of Berlin were Waffen SS - Nordland and Charlemagne Divisions. These were predominantly Scandinavian and French men, not German. So the defenders of the Nazi faith turned out to be non Germans.........


Germany de facto existed since 1871. Before that Germany existed in various ways since Charlemagne and Otto the Great. The Germans as an ethnic group existed on the Prussian (now Polish) lands longer than the Poles did. The land that was cut off from Germany after ww1 was historic German land. No one is denying the atrocities in the east, but Hitler's war was different in that he did not do genocide through the air. He did that in other ways, the allies however with they genocidal campaign of fire bombing civilians is another thing.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 06:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
but Hitler's war was different in that he did not do genocide through the air.


Except he tried in Coventry etc....


He did that in other ways, the allies however with they genocidal campaign of fire bombing civilians is another thing.


Of course you ignore all the German fire bombing.... funny that. The only reason the allies did it better is they had better and more bombers, that was the only thing stopping Germany.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join