Do I dare ask about the Holocaust?

[JoOeetheplatypuS]

You can even go further back, into WW1.

When the U.S under Wilson enter ww1, they forced germany to accept unconditional surrender. And this is after wilson promised "I will not send your sons to fight foreign wars on foreign soil"

If u.s had not interfered, the ww1 would have ended with what's called "mutual exahustion" and quite possibly bismarck would have been overthrown by socialists, which would have failed like russia.. in other words, less bloodshed.

This morning in history -101 at Guartz University: What "would have" happened "quite possibly" if the scenario I made up actually happened.

Bring liquor to class.

Best post in this thread, lol. Guartz, you do realize that whether the Holocaust could've been prevented or not is completely irrelevant to the fact that Hitler killed millions upon millions of Jews, right? For someone that seems to read so much, I have a hard time believing that you could overlook that detail.

Hey, hey, hey, that fact is a COMPLETE LIE because you didn't include the small amounts of others that were killed

[guartz]

Best post in this thread, lol. Guartz, you do realize that whether the Holocaust could've been prevented or not is completely irrelevant to the fact that Hitler killed millions upon millions of Jews, right? For someone that seems to read so much, I have a hard time believing that you could overlook that detail.

ah, you seem new. Here is how it works, if you read what people accuse me of, i'm an insane neo-nazi. But the trick is, you gotta read what I've actually said...

[Brill Weave]

I agree this topic shouldn't be moved. It hasn't broken any rules and as of this point it still has managed to remain somewhat civil. Now time will tell if this trend will continue or not.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

[quote=Kuya]

lol @ the idea of someone being scared of the French

lol Damn.

Last good French army was in 1066.

What's with the US/France hating anyway?

I can't recall specifically, but it has something to do with either 9/11 or Iraq and the oil for food scandal, and we bailed them out in WWII. I can recall hearing on the news, "some restaurants are going to stop selling french fries and are only going to sell freedom fries from now on." lol. I can remember French wines being poored out to.

That's pretty childish behaviour considering no ally is obligated to help without some sort of pact made, and considering that the US's principal intentions had little to do with freeing France, and considering what Iraq has turned into...[/quote:4vuuqzxm]

I'll see if I can find what the reasons were, but it really depends. I mean, if the reason the French were against us going into Iraq was because they were making bank off the Oil for Food scandal, thats kinda messed up to do to an ally. If it's because they just disagreed with out policy then that's different.

And regardless of our overall intentions, we still freed their nation. I don't believe just because it wasn't our overall goal it somehow means less that we freed their nation.

[Gafgarionn]

Best post in this thread, lol. Guartz, you do realize that whether the Holocaust could've been prevented or not is completely irrelevant to the fact that Hitler killed millions upon millions of Jews, right? For someone that seems to read so much, I have a hard time believing that you could overlook that detail.

ah, you seem new. Here is how it works, if you read what people accuse me of, i'm an insane neo-nazi. But the trick is, you gotta read what I've actually said...

No. Dumb. Listen. I understand that you never denied the Holocaust happened. I wasn't implying anything else. What you did say though, was that WWII might have been preventable. Seeing as how it's completely irrelevant, I'm not really sure why you brought it up, but my best guess is that you're implying that it somehow makes the Holocaust less of a tragedy. I could be completely wrong and may not be giving you enough credit, but I don't know what else to think when in the same topic you also debate the statistics as to how many people actually died.

And quit trying to act like there's some deep rooted mysticism in all your posts. I lurk BG forums like a motherfucker and I've read pretty much every relevant thread that's been posted in General Discussion for the past 3 years now, as much as I hate to admit...

[guartz]

No. Dumb. Listen. I understand that you never denied the Holocaust happened. I wasn't implying anything else. What you did say though, was that WWII might have been preventable. Seeing as how it's completely irrelevant, I'm not really sure why you brought it up, but my best guess is that you're implying that it somehow makes the Holocaust less of a tragedy. I could be completely wrong and may not be giving you enough credit, but I don't know what else to think when in the same topic you also debate the statistics as to how many people actually died.

And quit trying to act like there's some deep rooted mysticism in all your posts. I lurk BG forums like a motherfucker and I've read pretty much every relevant thread that's been posted in General Discussion for the past 3 years now, as much as I hate to admit...

It is irrelevant, but now I'm confused here. You wanna know why the topic was changed/derailed? Are you SURE you've been here 3 years?

[Tristam]

Ok I just want to make a quick distinction here.

I'm not talking about the morality here.

I'm talking about a peice history which has been closed to inspection.

Nazi death camps didn't keep accurate records, and their records attributed death to old age, starvation, natural causes, cross fire, disease. Not murder.

However, after the war, ever missing jewish person (about 6mil) were assigned to nazi death camp as a murder victim. Also, very innacurate for obvious rationale too boring to discuss.

So we don't know if 6 million is accurate. It's probably not. What I do know, that any investigation into it will lead to public banishment in most countries and jail sentence in some countries.

This is where the derail started, you seem to think that there aren't historians actively researching the holocaust, which is entirely false. The crime of holocaust denial in some countries is not at all related to persecution of historians doing actual work. Nitpicking about how many millions died (edit: which is pretty tasteless, even on a message board) dosen't change the fact that millions died.

Then you tried to blame WW2 on the treaty of versailles, which fails to account for the surge of nationalism in japan, the rise of fascism in italy, and the rise of stalinism and subsequent struggles with russia.

[Demosthenes11]

lmao @ the US is to blame for hitler

[guartz]

This is where the derail started, you seem to think that there aren't historians actively researching the holocaust, which is entirely false. The crime of holocaust denial in some countries is not at all related to persecution of historians doing actual work. Nitpicking about how many millions died (edit: which is pretty tasteless, even on a message board) dosen't change the fact that millions died.

Then you tried to blame WW2 on the treaty of versailles, which fails to account for the surge of nationalism in japan, the rise of fascism in italy, and the rise of stalinism and subsequent struggles with russia.

Awesome. You complain about derails and then you wanna get into Japan and italy.

Which historians are doing research? How many? Is that 0 by any chance?

[guartz]

lmao @ the US is to blame for hitler

lol, I knew somebody would catch that.

This is why I voted for you, demosthenes11. *hug*

[Demosthenes11]

ok seriously, you just escalated into obvious troll
drop the fucking act and pick up your testicles

[Charla]

Now now, be reasonable everyone. There's a big difference between an insane neo-nazi and an insane libertarian.

Also, Charla. I agree with you regarding the rhinelands. Wouldn't have really changed much, but if you had to name 2 main reasons why Hitler was able to come to power, what would it be?

I say; 1. U.S involvement in ww1, and 2. treaty of versaille.

If #1 didn't happen, #2 wouldn't happen... and #2 radicalize germany. It's easy when you can spend your entire savings on a cup of coffee, or require a wheelbarrel of cash to buy a loaf of bread.

Well, if you're only saying that American involvement in WW1 was significant because it led to the Treaty of Versailles (specifically the reparations part) then you're using both numbers for the same thing. What's more, it's because of American involvement that Wilson was able to attempt to block the reparations and try instead for his League of Nations plan. If that had worked, and the treaty hadn't imposed poverty on Germany, then #1 would have cancelled out #2, right? Furthermore, even with the treaty and the resulting hyperinflation of postwar Germany, the Communists might have taken control instead of the Nazis, in which case we would have had a very different situation in the mid 30s (for one thing, if a communist Germany had allied early on with an already communist Russia, Britain and France might have been more eager to intervene. Not to mention that Italy might not have jumped on the fascism bandwagon). But now I'm stretching the limits of speculation just to prove those limits. The important part is that given the political reality, no one could get together enough support to take down Germany pre-Poland.

[Correction]

Which historians are doing research? How many? Is that 0 by any chance?

Someone never went to college...

but since it's you I guess I'm not exactly surprised out of my chair.

[Tyr]

Can we put an end to unnecessary prolonging of a very sensitive subject?

Did the Holocaust occur? Yes.

There's no need for all the superfluous discussion. If someone wants to close their eyes and just subscribe to conspiracy (not pointing any fingers, just talking generally), then let them. The Holocaust did occur. Millions of people were murdered. We're talking human lives, 6,000,000 and 6,000,001 shouldn't be a point of debate. Human lives were lost, and every one of those is as valuable as any singular human life is. If anything, I would hope the numbers were less, because that just means that less people died.

The most disheartening thing about "Holocaust refutations" and the like are that it takes away from the impact of so many millions of people dying. Similar to any catastrophic event in human history where such great numbers of people were slaughtered. We lose sight of the fact that "I" is just one of the millions in that number, whatever statistic it may be.

I don't think this thread has room for the political implications of the Holocaust, nor should it. I have my own personal views about what happened following the Holocaust, but to even get into them I have to acknowledge the event from a human perspective, as opposed to a dry statistical approach.

Second to that, We (or rather I, because I don't want to imply that others don't know this) need to learn about other catastrophic events in human history, such as the Armenian Holocaust, and learn about them in a more apt approach than simple statistics. When we say "and there were 153,000 deaths," we lose sight of what that truly means.

[Shuemue]

If things aren't discussed, how is learning to be facilitated amongst those lacking knowledge?

[Sonomaa]

A reminder, this thread needs to remain civil or there will be suffering.

[Septimus]

You know what, no. Just no.

There is no reason to put up with insane ramblings of delusional people with a crazy agenda.

I know, the crazy guy is going to be all "another example of the pro-Zionist-forces are trying to silence the truth", but you know what? I don't give a flying fuck about what the crazy guy thinks. It's just like creationists who plug their fingers in their ears and shout when you show them anything that contradicts their whack-a-doodle world-views.

There is a difference between debate and racism. This thread was never a discussion, so it leads one other option. So in short- go find a political blog on which to post this bullshit. Or any place that is not here.