The AH Debate

[vicawoo]

Ah, you're right, it was Tojo. For some reason, I could only think of the name Tokugawa and popped the first alternative that came to mind. Speaking of which, the responsibility of the japanese emperor is one of the debatable facts.

It's probably not surprising that US credibility has gone done so much, given the whole weapon's of mass destruction debacle. The US has spun a lot of things, including the leadup to the cold war (truman tried to use the monopoly on nuclear weapons to assure the supremacy of US policies).

The holocaust, according to sometimes unreliable wikipedia, is estimated to have killed 5-6 million Jews:
The figure commonly used is the six million quoted by Adolf Eichmann, a senior SS official. Most research confirms that the number of victims was between five and six million. Early calculations range from 5.1 million (Professor Raul Hilberg) to 5.95 million (Jacob Leschinsky). More recent research, by Professor Yisrael Gutman and Dr. Robert Rozett in the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, estimates the Jewish losses at 5.59–5.86 million, and a study headed by Dr. Wolfgang Benz presents a range from 5.29 million to six million.

This figure includes "over 800,000" who died from "Ghettoization and general privation"; 1,400,000 who were killed in "Open-air shootings"; and "up to 2,900,000" who perished in camps.

open air shootings is pretty convincing.

It killed 90% of the Jewish population in Poland. So they were clearly targeted.
"Of Poland's 3.3 million Jews, over 90 percent were killed. The same proportion were killed in Latvia and Lithuania, but most of Estonia's Jews were evacuated in time. In Czechoslovakia, Greece, the Netherlands and Yugoslavia, over 70 percent were killed. More than 50 percent were killed in Belgium, Hungary and Romania."

Work camps that kill 90% of the population is a little unlikely. Now some Iranians I know do argue is that the Holocaust is misused in order to turn a blind eye to what Israel does. That's a perfect valid argument. Whether Iran is justified in getting nuclear weapons can easily be justified. The US having imperialistic intents is as well (although in my opinion well documented in every US strategic policy report of the middle east). But the holocaust is an event, that's very different.

 

[Barton]

I believe Yeekim should shut the hell up and burn in hell with the Nazis [especially Hitler, Hydriech, Himmer and Goering] and anyone else who believes that the Final Solution never took place. Really, 6 million people died.

You know what, what if someone just shot you in the face, you died and then people just pretended you just never existed. How would you feel? [if you were not dead somehow]

 

[Psyringe]

I believe Yeekim should shut the hell up

Try to keep cool. I know it's difficult, but I don't think Yeekim's a bad guy - he just seems to be misinformed. As long as people ask questions and are open to discussion, this can be mended.

It has become *very* easy to be misinformed about the Holocaust. The first-eye witneses die away. There are well-organized groups who spread misinformation that looks quite convincing if you don't know the background well, and these groups are quite active. (For example - at one time, when you entered the term "Holocaust" in a German web search engine, the first *twenty* sites mentioned were propaganda pages for holocaust denial.)

Also, keep in mind that it's currently en vogue to assume huge conspiracies going on. Topics like the Illuminati, Area 51, the fake moon-landing hypothesis etc. have raised a lot of interest. Shows like the X-files are hugely popular. If people start to think that they live in a world full of lage-scale conspiracies, then seeing the holocaust as another one is only one step away. The problem is that *many* people seem to be interested in conspiracy theories, and willing to believe them, while very *few* people are willing to actually find out the facts (which, in case of the holocaust, are overwhelmingly clear). Hence, people who do know the facts should do their best to make them known among those people who don't know them for one reason or another.

 

[Yeekim]

I believe Yeekim should shut the hell up and burn in hell with the Nazis [especially Hitler, Hydriech, Himmer and Goering] and anyone else who believes that the Final Solution never took place. Really, 6 million people died.

You know what, what if someone just shot you in the face, you died and then people just pretended you just never existed. How would you feel? [if you were not dead somehow]

I never said it never took place. I am just saying that, (for pretty logical reasons) the crime already terrible enough has been and is being inflated and misused for political or financial gain. The death toll of Auschwitz has been claimed to be from 9 million to ~73,000 and while 1,5 million is generally accepted today, the figures have shown tendency to constantly decrease in time.

To answer your question, I'd likely feel quite sad. But I'd also feel bad, if my death was "decorated" to make it look more dramatic in order to exploit this for some dubious end.

The topic came up, because I was curious, if my beliefs would constitute "holocaust denial" e.g in Germany and I have received a good answer. If you are unable to engage in civil argument on the topic, you might want to stay away. I have apparently unintendedly hurt your feelings, but since I feel little guilt I can't really say I am sorry.

@Psyringe: Thank you for thorough answer. I was apparently wrong about the 6 million figure, it still seems to stand. Let's take a look after another dozen years - who knows, maybe that estimate is even correct. The exact number of people perished is imho irrelevant in judging the event itself anyway. I read the net for several hours and may consummate, that numerous past cases of clear pro-Holocaust propaganda (=downright lies and exaggerations) are doing great disservice to the cause itself by discrediting the entire thing and providing Neo-Nazis ammunition against it.

It is indeed very difficult to know the truth where history is concerned, since it is almost always just too complicated. But sometimes you can spot a poorly devised lie

EDIT: I wrote this comment so long (along with my so-to-say research on Net), that I did not see the previous comment. I just want to say, that while I am no fan of huge conspiracies, I am also 1) a former citizen of Soviet Union 2) former public servant of Estonia. And that means I know too well, that governments DO lie to people. Some more often than the others, naturally.

 

[Barton]

Yeekin, get dogbert off your avatar, your sulleying his great name.

There is proof that Jewish people where executed, there are ovens, bodies, paperwork, photos... so just shut up. People dies, that's all that needs to be said.

 

[rabidveggie]

When was the death tole at Auschwitz estimated at 9 million? Maybe initial estimates were in the 70000 range at first before they went looking for bodies. If your misinformed then don't go on the web attempting to dissuade people from the truth. Maybe your not a Nazi, but your helping there cause.

 

[Joe Harker]

Barton, cool it, he is correct that the figure of deaths widely varies where you go, Yes there was proof that Jews were exucuted, but so were many other people, resistance and political activists as well as the mentally unwell and other
minioities in eastern europe. Also Stalin is in the game and he kill millions of people by sending them to siberian concentration camps, he may have sentmore people to their deaths than hitler did.

 

[ZB2]

WTH its allways the jewish figures of 6 million (Disputed number). never mention the 5 million slavs, gypsies and ethnic minorities clensed from greater german society. oh jews have a higher number, they must be better.


phff zoinists

Hitler brought Germany out of economic depression, an acomplishment, build up the armed forces and provided jobs with new factories being build, (another acomplishment) But he didnt do much to benifit the country in the long goal or leaving a lasting influence. it shattered in 1945 so therefore hes not all succesfful.

So hes not inclined to fill up valuble DVD space that civ can use to have a nice 700mb AI

Edit: Stalin killed more yes, but he was a succesffull leader with his 5 year plan and industrialized RUissa. Though you would say the same if Hitler won the war he would have been completly succesffull, and warranting him for a placement in the game.

 

[Yeekim]

There is proof that Jewish people where executed, there are ovens, bodies, paperwork, photos... so just shut up. People dies, that's all that needs to be said.

I wonder, did you actually read my posts? Yes. People died.

@rabidveggie: I am not dissuading anybody. I just tell what I believe. Naturally I might be wrong. Or you could. Or we both. And I doubt that having an argument to try and find out is especially helping any cause. Of course, I am doomed to hell nonetheless

 

[ZB2]

your not doomed to hell, your expressing your oponion and what you believe on the subject, hordes of zionists shouldnt put you off just becuase there are more of them.

And it does seam that the death toll changes every year. they died so lets get over it

 

[aronnax]

I thought this was about Hitler as a leader in civ, not how many ppl died in the holocaust.

oh well this is more interesting.

 

[Psyringe]

Yeah, well, these topics tend to develop some sort of inherent dynamics (which is probably the reason why many threads about them get closed).

Anyway, with regards to the 6 million figure: As the Wikipedia article correctly states, the number was confirmed by Eichmann in his trial. This is a very credible account for several reasons:

- Eichmann was in charge of the "Final Solution" after the Wannsee conference, i.e. it was part of his *job* to collect these numbers (his position basically made him the "chief manager" of the extermination process)

- Eichmann's office (and Germany in general) had the infrastructure in place to determine and collect these numbers reliably.

- Eichmann was very credible throughout his trial (which was public). He showed no signs of either guilt or pride. He did not try to deny his crimes. He had no reason to exaggerate or diminish the numbers that his office had collected.

- Eichmann's whole defense strategy throughout his trial was that he was just "following orders". With this defense strategy, the specific number of people killed was not important. Again, he had no reason to skew the numbers that his office had collected.

- Eichmann's figure is in the same range as the estimates that have been calculated by comparing pre-war and post-war census data.

- Eichmann's figure isn't unreasonably higher than the number of documented victims in Yad Vashem (it *is* higher, but has to be higher because not every case can be documented post-war)

I don't think that the theory of the holocaust being a "governmental lie" holds much merit seen in this context. Yes, governments do lie, that's no secret. And I strongly recommend to check statements of *any* government thoroughly before accepting them. But, in case of the six million figure, I think that this statement turns out to be reliable even after thorough checking.

That said, I totally agree with Yeekim that each single case is a tragedy, and that the Nazi crimes wouldn't be less condemnable if the number was lower.

 

[Holycannoli]

I know too well, that governments DO lie to people. Some more often than the others, naturally.

I know too. So much so that I can almost believe the US government faked the moon landing, because at that time they were both more than capable of faking it and in a race with the USSR.

(Not saying I believe the conspiracy theory mind you! Just saying I don't completely disbelieve it either)

 

[Holycannoli]

This was meant to be a positive example, right? Actually it greatly varies, depending upon where are you from.
First, it was self-defense, not just some altruism. US got attacked by Germany's ally Japan. Pretty natural US did find allies in Soviets and did everything to help them survive the attack.

Because of that, I am not saying US that was wrong or evil by helping Soviets fight Nazis. But actually you just helped one criminal regime beat another. And entire Eastern Europe in between them got very little to be really grateful about.
9.may 1945 does not symbolize happy end but grim beginning for us.

Nazis and Soviets were allies, who sought to divide Europe between them. I do not know, how widespread is that knowledge in US, but in 1939 they entered mutual non-aggression pact (Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact), with secret part, where independent Eastern European countries were divided into "spheres of influence". Soviet Union gave Germany extensive economic support, successfully manipulating Hitler into attacking Western Europe as an "Icebreaker", after what a quick strike from east would have "liberated" all of war-worn Europe - from Poland (which, as an obstacle, was jointly conquered) till Bretagne (or even Scotland). However, German intelligence disclosed that plan, and Germany was forced to deal a desperate, suicidal pre-emptive strike against Soviet Union.

Because of that, Soviet plan of conquest was only half-successful. However, it was finally fully executed up to eastern Germany. And while mention of the puppet is today prohibited as the embodiment and root of all evil, the puppeteer grins at us from CIV IV screen.

Yeah, at first Russia was allied with Germany, and even with Japan.

But, Hitler being the idiot he was, invaded. Why did he not learn from Napoelon's mistake? I know he required the resources, and your info on a German-Russian conspiracy is intriguing (I've heard that elsewhere), but still. What an idiot.

The US, Britain, and the Allies did not want Russia to lose. They did not want Russia's resources falling into Nazi hands (btw, did you know that the US occupied Russian territory for a time?). The US purposely gave Russia all the material support it needed-somewhere in the range of $11 billion in goods and services, a staggering sum for that time. It kept Germany fighting a two-front war. If that war were simply a one-front war it could have turned out quite different or at least dragged on for years later.

After the war, Britain did a dumb thing: They assumed Russia really was an ally and friend of the Allies, and gave them jet fighter technology AND Rolls Royce engines! Up until that point Russia had lagged far behind Britain and the US in jet technology, and it can be argued that had Britain not given Russia the technology to produce advanced jet fighters (for the time) that the Cold War may never have occured. MiG fighters of the Korean War were found to have pirated versions of Rolls Royce engines in them...

(it can also be argued that had the Cold War not occured that today's massive technological advances would never have occured either, so it's not really a bad thing in retrospect)

BTW, Hitler should have used his new ME-262 jets as bomber interceptors and not as bombers themselves. That's another huge mistake he made. If he could have stopped the Allied bombing there was a chance he could have stalled the Allied advance on Berlin, and indeed the Allied advance through Europe or even prevented them from invading altogether. But noo...he was an idiot. He eventually ordered them to intercept but it was too late. The Allied bombing already did what it had to do. That ME-262 could have spelled doom for the Allies in Europe.

(I also think the Allies did a dumb thing in invading Normandy on D-Day. I mean no disrespect to the fine men who fought their way through those beaches, but why didn't the Allies bomb the crap out of everything in their way first? Why sacrifice all those lives? Soften the crap out of those targets before making that landing! It's right across the channel...it could have been nonstop bombing in multiple locations)

 

[rabidveggie]

Because Russia was pushing for a second front as soon as possible. The invasion of Italy was initially planned to open that front, but it wasn't involving enough of the German army. The Americans wanted an earlier end to the war and I believe they also wanted to defeat Germany before it could finish its own atomic bomb and put an end to the V1 and V2 rockets hitting Britain. Besides Germany already proved that you can't bomb a country into submission as seen first hand against the Brits.

 

[Holycannoli]

Because Russia was pushing for a second front as soon as possible. The invasion of Italy was initially planned to open that front, but it wasn't involving enough of the German army. The Americans wanted an earlier end to the war and I believe they also wanted to defeat Germany before it could finish its own atomic bomb and put an end to the V1 and V2 rockets hitting Britain. Besides Germany already proved that you can't bomb a country into submission as seen first hand against the Brits.

No you can't bomb into submission unless you totally devastate that country (which Germany did not do to Britain). But you can destroy their ability to maintain their war machine by bombing their manufacturing. If you're gonna try to bomb into submission you better be prepared to bomb their cities and kill their civilians, in mass numbers.

(Yes I'm alluding to the US' eventual bombing-into-submission of Japan via atomic bomb)

I know it sounds crazy, but I've always wanted to know what would have happened if D-Day failed, or if the war simply dragged on many more years. Lots of technological advances were being made, meaning the skies would be fought over jet vs jet, and it's quite possible an atomic weapon would have been used vs Germany.

 

[Betafor]

If D-Day had failed then the soviets would have steadily reached berlin. After stalingrad, russia had the momentum it needed to penetrate deeply into germany(and did, allude eastern germany). If Operation Overlord had failed, the position may have not been one but the defenses/german men in france would have be much less. Hitler would then have made the decision to either a) strengthen the western front or b) press the advantage into england. Crossing the english channel would prove diffficult, and this may have been done at the expense of troops on the eastern front, further aiding the russians. USA would feel obliged to help britian's defence before russia's attack, so most likely if russia suceeded all of eastern europe AND germany would be russian. cold war less likely but still probable.

 

[Barton]

The Soviets got to Berlin because of US aid, not Soviet strenght.

All join the revolution, deport all Italian footballers to Nauru.

 

[DrewBledsoe]

No you can't bomb into submission unless you totally devastate that country (which Germany did not do to Britain). But you can destroy their ability to maintain their war machine by bombing their manufacturing. If you're gonna try to bomb into submission you better be prepared to bomb their cities and kill their civilians, in mass numbers.

(Yes I'm alluding to the US' eventual bombing-into-submission of Japan via atomic bomb)

I know it sounds crazy, but I've always wanted to know what would have happened if D-Day failed, or if the war simply dragged on many more years. Lots of technological advances were being made, meaning the skies would be fought over jet vs jet, and it's quite possible an atomic weapon would have been used vs Germany.

You needn't wonder. The allies had already picked the target out for an atomic attack on Germany, but the bomb took too long to develop. If Germany hadn't surrendered when they had, then Dussedorf would have been the target (this was actually planned before the attack on Japan). It was revealed in previously secret declassified wartime files....

Its a sobering thought, especially when you've been to Dusseldorf many times.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Adolf Hitler and civilization ?

Frankly I don't see any link between both.