View Full Version : The Holocaust.
John Little
07-Apr-10, 18:11
The Holocaust was not justified.
On any grounds whatsoever.
Genocide is not justified - yet it has occurred many times throughout History.
Genocide is not a legitimate object of foreign policy - rather it is the manifestation of some rather inhuman theories of racial superiority, which sets it apart from any other consideration of aims in war.
From Magdeburg, Drogheda, the massacres of the Armenians, Smyrna, the Holocaust, Bosnia, Rwanda we get horror.
They should never happen.
That said, I am deeply suspicious of Tony Blair's introduction of Holocaust memorial day. It is something I am supposed to automatically sympathise with and if I do not then it makes me somehow anti-semitic. There was no such holiday as I was growing up, and though I abhor what happened I cannot manufacture a sense that I should be observing a special day of remembrance for it - it is not in my experience.
And I get deeply suspicious when a welter of stuff appears in newspapers about holocaust when Israel is about to do something .... regrettable.
And I do not think that asking me my position on the holocaust validates polemical views on the outbreak of WW2.
Godwin's law is in abeyance here.
for now.
I thought Holocaust Day was to remember all Holocausts not just the Jewish one.
I don't have a problem with a day of remembrance for all Holocausts as listed but I do object to the day being used solely to commemorate just one Holocaust.
Of course we must remember that the holocaust perpetuated by the Nazis was not just directed at the Jews; it was also directed at the disabled, the mentally ill, the Roma and other groups.
I thought Holocaust Day was to remember all Holocausts not just the Jewish one.
I don't have a problem with a day of remembrance for all Holocausts as listed but I do object to the day being used solely to commemorate just one Holocaust.
Of course we must remember that the holocaust perpetuated by the Nazis was not just directed at the Jews; it was also directed at the disabled, the mentally ill, the Roma and other groups.
There is only one Holocaust.
Tighsonas4
07-Apr-10, 19:29
it was also part of the war that we were involved in in britain tony
The Act of Proscription 1747 caused a Highland Holocost 35 thousand Highlanders were put to death or transported to the America's and the Antipodese, because our English neighbours wanted to teach us heelanders a lesson. Just a bit of trivia
I think that we are on a slippery slope here. It would seem that there were many holocausts. Look at the definition in any good dictionary.
From Magdeburg, Drogheda, the massacres of the Armenians, Smyrna, the Holocaust, Bosnia, Rwanda we get horror.
They should never happen.
Then closer to home there was the Irish genocide and there was the genocide of the Native American.
Godwin's law is in abeyance here.
Godwin's law merely says that the longer a thread runs the greater the chance that someone will compare their opponent to Hitler.
It doesn't mean you can't have threads about Hitler or Nazis or the Holocaust or that you can't talk about those things in threads where it is relevant.
What about the intent to genocide?
That was the intent of the 6 day war.
It is pretty obvious now that the Iranian leadership is actively seeking nuclear weapons capability. I wonder who they have in mind for a target?
Muslim Radicals have the expressed intention of destroying western civilisation. How would you characterise that intent?
George Brims
07-Apr-10, 20:40
Holocaust Memorial Day is an international event. I don't see why anyone would object to it being commemorated in the UK as it is elsewhere.
Here's a pertinent story.
http://open.salon.com/blog/lea_lane/2010/04/06/for_nathan_who_was_only_two
What about the intent to genocide?
That was the intent of the 6 day war.
It is pretty obvious now that the Iranian leadership is actively seeking nuclear weapons capability. I wonder who they have in mind for a target?
Muslim Radicals have the expressed intention of destroying western civilisation. How would you characterise that intent?
Obvious to who that the Iranian leadership is actively seeking nuclear weapons capability? I've seen no new evidence. When Britain developed nuclear weapons was that intent to genocide? France, Israel, India, America?
Here is a report written in 1991 and made available to both the American and British governments stating what would happen if Iraq was denied parts and chemicals for their water treatment plants as part of the sanctions.
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_511rept_91.html
Yet both governments did deny Iraq the parts and chemicals resulting in the deaths of over a million Iraqis more than half of them children.
Now that is actual genocide, not your imaginary genocide.
northener
07-Apr-10, 21:00
We seem to be inundated with 'Days' to remember.
I'm not suggesting the the horrors of the Holocaust should be somehow swept under the carpet and forgotten, but I fail to see what positive benefit will come from 'Holocaust Day'.
So if this genocide holiday is about all genocides, and genocide is murder is it a memorial for people who were killed by other people? Thats alot of people in a single holiday.
Obvious to who that the Iranian leadership is actively seeking nuclear weapons capability? I've seen no new evidence. When Britain developed nuclear weapons was that intent to genocide? France, Israel, India, America?
Here is a report written in 1991 and made available to both the American and British governments stating what would happen if Iraq was denied parts and chemicals for their water treatment plants as part of the sanctions.
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_511rept_91.html
Yet both governments did deny Iraq the parts and chemicals resulting in the deaths of over a million Iraqis more than half of them children.
Now that is actual genocide, not your imaginary genocide.
Well yes, if you arm yourself with Nuclear weapons you must imagine a circumstance when they would be used.
Iraq could have had the sanctions lifted at any time. What is the point of imposing sanctions if you don't want a result?
I was just making the point that there are groups queuing up to commit genocide. It is certainly not a thing of the past.
We seem to be inundated with 'Days' to remember.
I'm not suggesting the the horrors of the Holocaust should be somehow swept under the carpet and forgotten, but I fail to see what positive benefit will come from 'Holocaust Day'.
If nothing else, maybe it will bring it to the attention of a new generation. The one that nothing is real to unless they see it on the internet.
Well yes, if you arm yourself with Nuclear weapons you must imagine a circumstance when they would be used.
Iraq could have had the sanctions lifted at any time. What is the point of imposing sanctions if you don't want a result?
I was just making the point that there are groups queuing up to commit genocide. It is certainly not a thing of the past.
Ah so those Iraqi babies who died of horrible disease only had themselves to blame.
We actually have committed genocide while Iran hasn't.
So America is developing their new generation nuclear missiles intending to use them then? Lets face it, they actually have used nuclear weapons against a civilian population, Iran hasn't, they don't have any and there is no evidence they intend to get any.
Am I detecting a strong anti Muslim bias here?
November 11 should be the only day to remember the horrors of war, regardless of which war or atrocities committed, we don't need another day, and especially Tony Blair, to tell us how we should feel.
Ah so those Iraqi babies who died of horrible disease only had themselves to blame.
We actually have committed genocide while Iran hasn't.
So America is developing their new generation nuclear missiles intending to use them then? Lets face it, they actually have used nuclear weapons against a civilian population, Iran hasn't, they don't have any and there is no evidence they intend to get any.
Am I detecting a strong anti Muslim bias here?
Iraqi babies have been avenged by the Iraqi people (they topped Sadam)
Depends what you call evidence not that it matters time will tell.
It is true America is the only country in the world that has used Nuclear weapons. Having seen the result, the rest of the world has refrained so far. It is important to be vigilant and not knowingly allow Looney dictatorships to aquire them.
I am biased against anyone who means me, my family, and my country harm.
Iraqi babies have been avenged by the Iraqi people (they topped Sadam)
Depends what you call evidence not that it matters time will tell.
It is true America is the only country in the world that has used Nuclear weapons. Having seen the result, the rest of the world has refrained so far. It is important to be vigilant and not knowingly allow Looney dictatorships to aquire them.
I am biased against anyone who means me, my family, and my country harm.
It was us who caused the deaths of over half a million Iraqi children, they never did anything to us.
It is us who illegally invaded two Muslim countries causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, they hadn't done anything to us.
They have good reasons to hate us, we have no reason to hate them.
Now you want to do the same to Iranians based on the same old myths, like the myth Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or the myth that Afghanistan was behind 9/11. You create the myth that Iran wants nuclear weapons as an excuse to kill them because they are Muslim.
I dont want to kill them because they are muslim...I want to kill them for there oil...
Im sure someone in government once said...
It was us who caused the deaths of over half a million Iraqi children, they never did anything to us.
It is us who illegally invaded two Muslim countries causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, they hadn't done anything to us.
They have good reasons to hate us, we have no reason to hate them.
Now you want to do the same to Iranians based on the same old myths, like the myth Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or the myth that Afghanistan was behind 9/11. You create the myth that Iran wants nuclear weapons as an excuse to kill them because they are Muslim.
Wow :eek::eek:
You can rant away but it doesn't change the facts.
John Little
07-Apr-10, 23:42
Eh I don't know. I go away for a few hours to appear on stage and look what happens. All sorts of good stuff.
I'm actually with Joxville on this one. November 11 is a day of remembrance for all who die in war. Don't need two. And Holocaust remembrance day may be international but I am uneasy as to the use made of it.
And nuclear weapons?
They have no use.
The men who first made the H bomb knew that. President Truman and Omar Bradley discussed whether or not to build the H bomb in the garden of the White House in Dec 1949.
Bradley said; 'There is no military use for them - they are not weapons but instruments of genocide,'
Truman; "Should we build it or not?"
Bradley "Yes - for the Soviets to have it and us not to would be intolerable."
The talk took 7 minutes and they built the H Bomb. Its purpose was existential deterrence and, arguably it worked. Who do we deter now?
And why does Iran want an 'instrument of genocide'?
As they undoubtedly do.
Deterrence - of us.
Fred; "It was us who caused the deaths of over half a million Iraqi children, they never did anything to us."
Nothing to do with Saddam Hussein's decision to spend his available cash on weapons then. I seem to recall that even Mussolini, faced with sanctions in 1935 found good propaganda use in providing powdered milk for Italian babies. Saddam, admittedly america's Frankenstein monster could not do likewise?
"It is us who illegally invaded two Muslim countries causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, they hadn't done anything to us."
I do wish you would not keep saying 'illegally' - I keep telling you that international law is such a hazy thing that it's a misnomer and it's more accurate to say 'A random collection of international agreements and jurisprudence'
But you would actually find that there's quite a few people here agree with this part. They had done nothing to us.
So why did we do it?
Foreign policy Fred. we stay on the side of the big boy. So our people eat, our babies live, our people prosper.
Ethical?
No.
But then again what have ethics got to do with any of this?
"Then closer to home there was the Irish genocide "
I did actually mention Drogheda. I suppose you are thinking of the Irish Famine. That was not genocide. It was incompetence. And stupidity.
The mechanisms of the early victorian state were simply not up to coping with what happened and the ministers were too imbued with the philosophy of Jeremy Bentham to react with imagination.
And why does Iran want an 'instrument of genocide'?
As they undoubtedly do.
Deterrence - of us.
If you can say undoubtedly then you must have sound evidence, there is no evidence.
Nothing to do with Saddam Hussein's decision to spend his available cash on weapons then. I seem to recall that even Mussolini, faced with sanctions in 1935 found good propaganda use in providing powdered milk for Italian babies. Saddam, admittedly america's Frankenstein monster could not do likewise?
Ah so genocide is excusable when we do it, we just blame the Iraqis for having those weapons of mass destruction which they didn't have. Isn't that like saying the Jews were to blame for the Holocaust?
I do wish you would not keep saying 'illegally' - I keep telling you that international law is such a hazy thing that it's a misnomer and it's more accurate to say 'A random collection of international agreements and jurisprudence'
Just more wishful thinking on your part, you are trying to justify our breaking of international law by pretending international law doesn't exist. It does exist, there are international laws and there are international courts.
So why did we do it?
Foreign policy Fred. we stay on the side of the big boy. So our people eat, our babies live, our people prosper.
Ethical?
No.
But then again what have ethics got to do with any of this?
Then what did ethics have to do with the Holocaust? Hitler was just looking after the German people wasn't he? Shouldn't we just be calling it "Realpolitk" and forgetting about it like you do when we kill over half a million Iraqi children.
I did actually mention Drogheda. I suppose you are thinking of the Irish Famine. That was not genocide. It was incompetence. And stupidity.
The mechanisms of the early victorian state were simply not up to coping with what happened and the ministers were too imbued with the philosophy of Jeremy Bentham to react with imagination.
They knew damn well what to do because they had done it before in the 1782 famine. Ireland had plenty of food, the English land owners were exporting masses of corn calves bacon and ham, their food exports actually increased during the famine. The British army gave an armed escort for the food to go to England while a million Irish peasants starved to death.
If people really cared about the Holocaust they would care about the genocides we have committed as well instead of making excuses for them.
John Little
08-Apr-10, 09:50
"If you can say undoubtedly then you must have sound evidence, there is no evidence."
Not necessary - the same considerations impel them towards deterrence as impelled us. You don't need evidence to deduce a fairly logical imperative.
"Ah so genocide is excusable when we do it, we just blame the Iraqis for having those weapons of mass destruction which they didn't have. Isn't that like saying the Jews were to blame for the Holocaust?"
The sanctions were in place because of Saddam's treatment of the Kurds. To blame shortages in Iraq on us because of that is rather like blaming the doctor instead of the disease.
As to the WMD - yes they did not exist. They were a fabrication.
Can you think why?
"our breaking of international law "
I keep pleading with you to name the legislative body responsible for promulgating and enforcing this body of law - but you never tell me. Why is that?
Then what did ethics have to do with the Holocaust? "
Nothing at all. Unless you are a Social Darwinist in which case they do.
But that was one of the reasons for WW2. The Social Darwinists lost and it is our ethics that rule, not theirs.
"we kill over half a million Iraqi children."
You did not and will not answer my point that Saddam preferred to spend on his army instead?
"They knew damn well what to do"
Who are 'they'?
Do you refer to Peel who opened corn depots and staved the worst of the famine off in 1845 or to his Cabinet who revolted, thinking that workschemes and the Free market economy would sort it out and refused to re-stock the depots in the summer of '46?
Or to the Utilitarian officials at the Treasury Office who advised against the restocking of the depots on grounds of cost?
Yes food was imported to England during the famine- severe rural unrest due to bad harvests and food shortages was prevalent here too.
Some reading round the subject reveals that there was actually no deliberate policy to starve the Irish. I repeat, the early victorian state was non interventionist and did not have the mechanisms to cope with a disaster on this scale. You talk as if a modern state were guilty of these things, but interventionism is really a 20th century development.
That, compounded by stupidity, Whiggery and incompetence brought catastrophe.
You could start by reading Cecil Woodham Smith's 'The Great Hunger'
But actually the best current work on it is by an Irish Historian Alvin Jackson- "Ireland " published 1999.
'The government was undoubtedly characterised by a cussed faith in a self regulating market... In all this there was arrogance and officiousness and ( at the least) the appearance of coldness; but there is no evidence of a genocidal impulse or a murderous conspiracy...'
"making excuses for them."
Oh I excuse nothing Fred. You really misunderstand me.
I note and I try to understand why.
But I do not excuse, or try to change what I cannot change. Or even rant really.
The sanctions were in place because of Saddam's treatment of the Kurds. To blame shortages in Iraq on us because of that is rather like blaming the doctor instead of the disease.
No, the sanctions were imposed because we imposed them, we imposed them knowing full well we were sentencing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children to death. We denied them parts and supplies for water treatment plants for Gods sake man. We knew that we would deprive a large portion of the population of safe drinking water, we knew we would be causing epidemics. What is the matter with you? What sort of person can condone such a crime and try to push the blame onto the victims?
As to the WMD - yes they did not exist. They were a fabrication.
Can you think why?
Yes, because the same people who are now saying "of course Iran wants nuclear weapons" were saying "of course Iraq has weapons of mass destruction".
I keep pleading with you to name the legislative body responsible for promulgating and enforcing this body of law - but you never tell me. Why is that?
I keep telling you that we have the United Nations and the ICC but you just don't listen because you want to believe our crimes are justified, they aren't.
You did not and will not answer my point that Saddam preferred to spend on his army instead?
Look, just read what I write.
We denied them parts and supplies for water treatment plants knowing we would be condemning hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children to death. You can ignore it but it doesn't go away, that is genocide just the same as if we'd herded them into gas chambers. It wasn't Saddam Hussein who did it, it was the American and British Governments that did it. Someone produced a report outlining exactly what would happen if we denied Iraq parts and supplies for their water treatment plants, I posted the link to the report here, we did it anyway.
Who are 'they'?
Do you refer to Peel who opened corn depots and staved the worst of the famine off in 1845 or to his Cabinet who revolted, thinking that workschemes and the Free market economy would sort it out and refused to re-stock the depots in the summer of '46?
Or to the Utilitarian officials at the Treasury Office who advised against the restocking of the depots on grounds of cost?
Yes food was imported to England during the famine- severe rural unrest due to bad harvests and food shortages was prevalent here too.
Some reading round the subject reveals that there was actually no deliberate policy to starve the Irish. I repeat, the early victorian state was non interventionist and did not have the mechanisms to cope with a disaster on this scale. You talk as if a modern state were guilty of these things, but interventionism is really a 20th century development.
That, compounded by stupidity, Whiggery and incompetence brought catastrophe.
You could start by reading Cecil Woodham Smith's 'The Great Hunger'
But actually the best current work on it is by an Irish Historian Alvin Jackson- "Ireland " published 1999.
'The government was undoubtedly characterised by a cussed faith in a self regulating market... In all this there was arrogance and officiousness and ( at the least) the appearance of coldness; but there is no evidence of a genocidal impulse or a murderous conspiracy...'
"making excuses for them."
Oh I excuse nothing Fred. You really misunderstand me.
I note and I try to understand why.
But I do not excuse, or try to change what I cannot change. Or even rant really.
But at the end of the day a million Irish peasants died while massive amounts food from Ireland was being exported to England. At the end of the day half a million Iraqi children died because we denied them supplies for water treatment plants.
I don't see you thinking up any reasons why Hitler was justified in killing people in the Holocaust, I'm sure he must have had reasons and I'm sure he'd thought of someone else to blame for it probably the victims. I'm sure when people in concentration camps were starving to death he was saying "but we need all the food we can get to feed our troops they're hungry too", I'm sure when he was putting people in gas chambers he was saying "it's all those Zionist leader's fault, they shouldn't have declared war on Germany". In short, I'm sure he justified it just the same as you do.
John Little
08-Apr-10, 12:12
"What sort of person can condone such a crime and try to push the blame onto the victims?"
Presumably the sort of person who is trying to bring the ruler of a puppet state back into line or the sort of person who uses poison gas against his own people. Presumably the sort of person who is trying, short of invasion, to bring down a government?
Read some Machiavelli; people will endure a tyrant until they summon enough anger to displace him. Until they do then they deserve their tyranny. It really was not up to us to bring him down, but to his own people. But if he was so reliant on us then it behoved him to answer to his masters a bit more reasonably.
Objectively speaking there is no compulsion on us to trade with anyone we choose not to.
The author of the suffering was the man who chose to flout the people who set him up.
"Yes, because the same people who are now saying "of course Iran wants nuclear weapons" were saying "of course Iraq has weapons of mass destruction"."
but of course. If I were an Iranian Islamo-fascist I'm damned certain I'd want a nuclear deterrent in place as soon as I could. That's a no-brainer.
"I keep telling you that we have the United Nations and the ICC but you just don't listen because you want to believe our crimes are justified, they aren't."
And I keep telling you that they are not legislative bodies except in some reality you appear to have manufactured. They represent aspirations.
I also keep telling you that I justify nothing and excuse nothing; I have not the power, mandate or even the inclination to do so. I observe reality as it it and try to understand the strings that pull me. Who knows - I might be able to twitch the strings occasionally, but it is unlikely.
You Fred do not understand the workings of power. What happens outrages you - but you cannot perceive anything of why.
Or if you do then you are guilty of Polemicism.
"Someone produced a report outlining exactly what would happen if we denied Iraq parts and supplies for their water treatment plants, I posted the link to the report here, we did it anyway."
You imagine that Saddam Hussein did not know this too? But still chose his path.
"But at the end of the day a million Irish peasants died while massive amounts food from Ireland was being exported to England"
That's what is usually called a selective judgement - a polemicist's device, ignoring what he does not wish to see. Jackson's view is rather more balanced and I prefer it. Most historians today accept Jackson's view but hey - ignore it if you want. There's more than him.
"I don't see you thinking up any reasons why Hitler was justified in killing people in the Holocaust, I'm sure he must have had reasons and I'm sure he'd thought of someone else to blame for it probably the victims. I'm sure when people in concentration camps were starving to death he was saying "but we need all the food we can get to feed our troops they're hungry too", I'm sure when he was putting people in gas chambers he was saying "it's all those Zionist leader's fault, they shouldn't have declared war on Germany". In short, I'm sure he justified it just the same as you do"
No- completely wrong.
It's odd that you use the Nazis quite a bit but don't understand how their minds worked.
They were heavily into Eugenics and Social Darwinism. They believed all that stuff about master races, inferiors and subhumans. They did not think like we do. That's the point; they believed that what they were doing was for the good of their race and all their ethics were based on that prefix. Do you know of the bunkers in Berlin with the SS graffitti on the wall? They show themselves with beams of light coming out of their eyes fighting against the hordes of daarkness.
Their thinking was completely alien to ours and they had moved out of the normal range of modern civilised morality- which is what defines a 'monster'.
They tried to impose their way of thought on the world - but they lost.
War is also about ideas.
Tubthumper
08-Apr-10, 12:12
It's difficult to figure out who Fred hates the most, 'Them' or us!
It's difficult to figure out who Fred hates the most, 'Them' or us!
Fred doesn't hate anybody (except the mercins and the Zionists and the RAF and the Marines and the Govenment and the people on the org and.....
Presumably the sort of person who is trying to bring the ruler of a puppet state back into line or the sort of person who uses poison gas against his own people. Presumably the sort of person who is trying, short of invasion, to bring down a government?
Saddam Hussein was a psychopath, as were Bush and Blair but what's your excuse?
Tubthumper
08-Apr-10, 12:38
Saddam Hussein was a psychopath, as were Bush and Blair but what's your excuse?
Ah. Here we go.
John Little
08-Apr-10, 12:38
"what's your excuse?"
Getting personal usually achieves nothing - as you well know.
You think I need an excuse.
Very well- I cannot change things in this world. I am a modest person by and large and have not influence or any degree of control. And ranting/ screaming/ outrage is completely nugatory as I cannot change things.
I'm not particularly afraid of death either because I long ago came to the conclusion that it's a waste of time and energy to be so because it's going to happen anyway.
So, having a brain I look on with a interested but dispassionate view of foreign affairs and try to understand the whys and wherefores.
I see but try not to judge. There is no point.
"what's your excuse?"
Getting personal usually achieves nothing - as you well know.
You think I need an excuse.
Very well- I cannot change things in this world. I am a modest person by and large and have not influence or any degree of control. And ranting/ screaming/ outrage is completely nugatory as I cannot change things.
I'm not particularly afraid of death either because I long ago came to the conclusion that it's a waste of time and energy to be so because it's going to happen anyway.
So, having a brain I look on with a interested but dispassionate view of foreign affairs and try to understand the whys and wherefores.
I see but try not to judge. There is no point.
Then you would find justification for the Holocaust as you find justification for our genocide in Iraq? You would blame the Jewish leaders as you blamed Saddam Hussein?
John Little
08-Apr-10, 13:10
"Then you would find justification for the Holocaust as you find justification for our genocide in Iraq? You would blame the Jewish leaders as you blamed Saddam Hussein?"
No - I believe I've already covered that - see above.
"They were heavily into Eugenics and Social Darwinism. They believed all that stuff about master races, inferiors and subhumans. They did not think like we do. That's the point; they believed that what they were doing was for the good of their race and all their ethics were based on that prefix. Do you know of the bunkers in Berlin with the SS graffitti on the wall? They show themselves with beams of light coming out of their eyes fighting against the hordes of daarkness.
Their thinking was completely alien to ours and they had moved out of the normal range of modern civilised morality- which is what defines a 'monster'.
They tried to impose their way of thought on the world - but they lost.
War is also about ideas. "
"Then you would find justification for the Holocaust as you find justification for our genocide in Iraq? You would blame the Jewish leaders as you blamed Saddam Hussein?"
No - I believe I've already covered that - see above.
"They were heavily into Eugenics and Social Darwinism. They believed all that stuff about master races, inferiors and subhumans. They did not think like we do. That's the point; they believed that what they were doing was for the good of their race and all their ethics were based on that prefix. Do you know of the bunkers in Berlin with the SS graffitti on the wall? They show themselves with beams of light coming out of their eyes fighting against the hordes of daarkness.
Their thinking was completely alien to ours and they had moved out of the normal range of modern civilised morality- which is what defines a 'monster'.
They tried to impose their way of thought on the world - but they lost.
War is also about ideas. "
Eugenics wasn't a German invention, it was widely practised in America at the same time, Darwin wasn't German.
You mean the Germans saw themselves as the superior race in much the same way as the European settlers in America saw themselves as superior to the "savage" Native Americans when they wiped 90% of them out or as we see ourselves as superior to the Muslims in the Middle East or how those of the Jewish faith believe they are God's chosen people?
I don't see how around the 1930s an entire country suddenly became monsters then suddenly stopped being monsters in 1945.
John Little
08-Apr-10, 13:58
I don't believe I said Eugenics was a german invention?
"You mean the Germans saw themselves as the superior race in much the same way as the European settlers in America saw themselves as superior to the "savage" Native Americans when they wiped 90% of them out"
No not at all. The European settlers were not given lessons in racial science in school, have social darwinism elevated into Civic virtue and did not form themselves into Einsatzgruppen.
As to the native americans Bartlomeo de las Casas identified the main killers of the 60 million native americans in the Caribbean as measles and colds. Which is why he suggested acquiring replacements in Africa...
"we see ourselves as superior to the Muslims in the Middle East"
You do?
I'm surprised at you Fred.
"I don't see how around the 1930s an entire country suddenly became monsters then suddenly stopped being monsters in 1945."
Ah - that's easy. It was called world war two and involved the deaths of about 55 million, after which the German's homeland was invaded and a new order imposed on them.
If we had been nastier in 1918 when we defeated the Germans and let them have an armistice, we should have done the same. Then there would have not been a replay 20 years later.
No not at all. The European settlers were not given lessons in racial science in school, have social darwinism elevated into Civic virtue and did not form themselves into Einsatzgruppen.
So what is Manifest Destiny then?
As to the native americans Bartlomeo de las Casas identified the main killers of the 60 million native americans in the Caribbean as measles and colds. Which is why he suggested acquiring replacements in Africa...
Well yes, as you have shown people always find excuses for genocide when it's them committing it. I'm sure if Germany had won the war six million Jews would have died of the flu.
Ah - that's easy. It was called world war two and involved the deaths of about 55 million, after which the German's homeland was invaded and a new order imposed on them.
If we had been nastier in 1918 when we defeated the Germans and let them have an armistice, we should have done the same. Then there would have not been a replay 20 years later.
History has proved you wrong, by not being ruthless with Germany after WWII, by helping them rebuild infrastructure and their economy we have prevented another war. We were ruthless after WWI and it did lead to another war.
John Little
08-Apr-10, 14:33
"So what is Manifest Destiny then?"
You could just Google it.
It was a conceit by certain politicians in the late 19th century that it was the manifest destiny of the white anglo-saxon races to dominate the globe. Thankfully, like many similar ideas of the time it has died out.
"I'm sure if Germany had won the war six million Jews would have died of the flu."
Are you attempting irony?
It isn't a good way of making a point.
"History has proved you wrong, by not being ruthless with Germany after WWII, by helping them rebuild infrastructure and their economy we have prevented another war. We were ruthless after WWI and it did lead to another war. "
Not at all - we were completely ruthless in 1945. We invaded, destroyed and conquered the German homeland - then we rebuilt it.
If we had done that in 1919 another world war would have been very unlikely. See John Maynard Keynes on the Economic consequences of the peace.
You could just Google it.
It was a conceit by certain politicians in the late 19th century that it was the manifest destiny of the white anglo-saxon races to dominate the globe. Thankfully, like many similar ideas of the time it has died out.
No it hasn't, it's alive and doing better than ever and killing people in Iraq and Afghanistan among other places.
Are you attempting irony?
It isn't a good way of making a point.
Telling it how it is.
Not at all - we were completely ruthless in 1945. We invaded, destroyed and conquered the German honeland - then we rebuilt it.
If we had done that in 1919 another world war would have been very unlikely. See John Maynard Keynes on the Economic consequences of the peace.
We didn't impose any crippling extortionate reparations like we did after WWI then.
John Little
08-Apr-10, 14:56
We didn't impose any crippling extortionate reparations like we did after WWI then. (http://forum.caithness.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=688095)
Well no - there was this thing called the Marshall Plan...
The reparations thing was need you know. The 20s in France and Britain were not called the 'Hungry 20s' for nothing.
"No it hasn't, it's alive and doing better than ever and killing people in Iraq and Afghanistan among other places."
You are forming a link between an historical sophistry and modern events which does not hold. What is being done to Iraq and Afghanistan is by multi-racial forces who have, in some cases at least, no interest whatsoever in ensuring WASP hegemony.
"Telling it how it is."
telling what how it is? That Germany won the war and said 6 million Jews died of flu?
No - that's not how it is - it's a flight of fancy - an if.
I see I must try to find some of Bartolomeo's stuff for you. I hope it's on the net...
Fred, please curb your use of the word "psychopath."
It does not advance the debate.
John Little
08-Apr-10, 15:04
Well Wikipedia because it's quick - if you are interested there's plenty out there;
"Apologists for Spanish colonial policies see Las Casas as an originator of the "Black Legend (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Legend)", a discourse conceived as having created stereotypical images of the Spaniards as rapacious colonists and Indians as innocents.[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartolom%C3%A9_de_las_Casas#cite_note-22) Some scholars now believe that, among the various contributing factors, epidemic disease (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics) was a major cause or even the main cause of the population decline of the Native Americans because of their lack of immunity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunity_%28medical%29) to new diseases brought from Europe.[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartolom%C3%A9_de_las_Casas#cite_note-23) Some believe that Bartolomé de las Casas exaggerated the Indian population decline in an effort to persuade King Carlos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_V,_Holy_Roman_Emperor) to intervene, and that encomenderos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encomienda) also exaggerated it, in order to receive permission to import more African slaves."
Other reasons for the deaths are worth considering. In the end we can end up seeing the truth we want to see and only that.
Fred, please curb your use of the word "psychopath."
It does not advance the debate.
psy·cho·path (sī'kə-pāth') http://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html)
n. A person with an antisocial personality disorder, manifested in aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral behavior without empathy or remorse.
Could apply to many politicians and military leaders don't you think?
John Little
08-Apr-10, 15:59
Hey Fred - you're just gonna lurve this...
http://rabbibrian.wordpress.com/2010/01/31/howard-zinn-israeli-policital-leaders-and-the-meaning-of-the-holocaust/
a sample;
"Another such moment came when Elie Wiesel, chair of President Carter’s Commission on the Holocaust, refused to include in a description of the Holocaust Hitler’s killing of millions of non-Jews. That would be, he said, to falsify the reality in the name of misguided universalism. Novick quotes Wiesel as saying They are stealing the Holocaust from us. As a result the Holocaust Museum gave only passing attention to the five million or more non-Jews who died in the Nazi camps. To build a wall around the uniqueness of the Jewish Holocaust is to abandon the idea that humankind is all one, that we are all, of whatever color, nationality, religion, deserving of equal rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. What happened to the Jews under Hitler is unique in its details but it shares universal characteristics with many other events in human history: the Atlantic slave trade, the genocide against native Americans, the injuries and deaths to millions of working people, victims of the capitalist ethos that put profit before human life."
Fred, please curb your use of the word "psychopath."
It does not advance the debate.
Under Hitler Germans put millions of Jews into concentration camps, some they worked to death, some they starved to death and some they killed in gas chambers. I fail to see how anyone with an ounce of empathy could ever do such a thing, I don't believe anyone capable of remorse or guilt would do that just as they wouldn't condemn half a million children to die from horrible diseases because they couldn't get clean drinking water.
They were psychopaths no doubt about it, the way the world works I don't think anyone who isn't a psychopath will ever achieve great power and probably wouldn't want to.
psy·cho·path (sī'kə-pāth') http://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html)
n. A person with an antisocial personality disorder, manifested in aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral behavior without empathy or remorse.
Could apply to many politicians and military leaders don't you think?
Bush and Blair were psychopaths? :confused
John Little
08-Apr-10, 23:06
Fred. I came across this today.
"In December 1511, a Dominican preacher Father Fray Antonio de Montesinos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_de_Montesinos) preached a fiery sermon that implicated the colonists in the genocide of the native peoples. He is said to have preached, "Tell me by what right of justice do you hold these Indians in such a cruel and horrible servitude? On what authority have you waged such detestable wars against these people who dealt quietly and peacefully on their own lands? Wars in which you have destroyed such an infinite number of them by homicides and slaughters never heard of before. Why do you keep them so oppressed and exhausted, without giving them enough to eat or curing them of the sicknesses they incur from the excessive labor you give them, and they die, or rather you kill them, in order to extract and acquire gold every day."
A genuinely good man.
They did not take any notice; he asked the questions but did not affect the outcome in any way shape or form.
He reminded me of you.
You are that rare commodity - a genuinely good man who cares.
You care so much you are quite happy to twizzle things sometimes.
But good anyway.
Bush and Blair were psychopaths? :confused
Why so confused? Look at the qualities it takes to become a head of state. You would have to be ruthless, you're going to be stabbing your friends and colleagues in the back so there's no room for a conscience. You will need the ability to lie convincingly without being ashamed of lying, no use blushing when you're telling the world about WMD. And you will have to be charming, perfectly charming, the sort of perfection that can only come from the elaborate fake or the second coming.
Some estimates have said that as many as 6% of the population are psychopaths and some of them (like other sections of society no two psychopaths are the same) have all the qualities needed to get them to the top.
John Little
09-Apr-10, 09:13
"Why so confused? Look at the qualities it takes to become a head of state. You would have to be ruthless, you're going to be stabbing your friends and colleagues in the back so there's no room for a conscience. You will need the ability to lie convincingly without being ashamed of lying, no use blushing when you're telling the world about WMD. And you will have to be charming, perfectly charming, the sort of perfection that can only come from the elaborate fake or the second coming."
Fred! Reality!
We agree - yes - that's how it is.
And always has been
And always will be.
So let em get on with it and live your life. You are not your brother's keeper.
Why so confused? Look at the qualities it takes to become a head of state. You would have to be ruthless, you're going to be stabbing your friends and colleagues in the back so there's no room for a conscience. You will need the ability to lie convincingly without being ashamed of lying, no use blushing when you're telling the world about WMD. And you will have to be charming, perfectly charming, the sort of perfection that can only come from the elaborate fake or the second coming.
Some estimates have said that as many as 6% of the population are psychopaths and some of them (like other sections of society no two psychopaths are the same) have all the qualities needed to get them to the top.
: a mentally ill or unstable person
: a mentally ill or unstable person
Look back at all the scandals involving politicians, never wondered how they could do that? Geoffrey Archer for instance?
So let em get on with it and live your life. You are not your brother's keeper.
I am getting on with my life, I make a point of not stopping getting on with my life if at all possible.
John Little
09-Apr-10, 10:40
Why then all your outrage is superfluous.
http://talentdevelop.com/articles/LGOTRFO.html
November 11 should be the only day to remember the horrors of war, regardless of which war or atrocities committed, we don't need another day, and especially Tony Blair, to tell us how we should feel.
Spot on, best comment in this post.
Tubthumper
09-Apr-10, 12:55
So we need to replace our democratically-elected politicians (by definition psychopaths) with sensible, well-balanced individuals who have a realistic world view, good empathy with their fellow humans, and observe both the spirit and substance of the Nation's traditions and laws. An ability to formulate policy, promote unity of purpose and do their best for all their fellow men (and women) is a definite must.
Is there anyone on the org who could fit this bill? Anyone?
Perhaps some of those most vociferous in their criticism of our country will be willing to step forward, put their money where their mouths are?
But that would require becoming one of them, wouldn't it? :eek:
So we need to replace our democratically-elected politicians (by definition psychopaths) with sensible, well-balanced individuals who have a realistic world view, good empathy with their fellow humans, and observe both the spirit and substance of the Nation's traditions and laws. An ability to formulate policy, promote unity of purpose and do their best for all their fellow men (and women) is a definite must.
Is there anyone on the org who could fit this bill? Anyone?
Perhaps some of those most vociferous in their criticism of our country will be willing to step forward, put their money where their mouths are?
But that would require becoming one of them, wouldn't it? :eek:
So, when do you start Tubs? [lol]
Look back at all the scandals involving politicians, never wondered how they could do that? Geoffrey Archer for instance?
Do you mean Jeffrey Archer - did not know he was mentally ill?
Do you mean Jeffrey Archer - did not know he was mentally ill?
That's the point with psychopaths, they can seem more normal than normal. When the BBC are interviewing the neighbour next to the garden being sifted by forensic scientists don't they always say "he was the last person you would expect...".
Psychopathy is not generally recognised as an illness, it is a disorder, it has no cause or cure, it is just the way some people are.
That's the point with psychopaths, they can seem more normal than normal. When the BBC are interviewing the neighbour next to the garden being sifted by forensic scientists don't they always say "he was the last person you would expect...".
Psychopathy is not generally recognised as an illness, it is a disorder, it has no cause or cure, it is just the way some people are.
Wibble Wibble
Wibble Wibble
Not Edmund!!
To call democratically elected politicians "psychopaths" is a little wonky, dont you think? The term is being stretched until it is meaninglerss.
Which of the following politicians are or were psychopaths?
William Ewart Gladstone?
Benjamin Disraeli?
Charles Stuart Parnell?
Keir Hardy?
Ghandi?
Sir Robert Peel?
Abraham Lincoln?
Martin Luther King?
Franklin Delano Roosevelt?
Eamon de Valera?
Pierre Eliot Trudeau?
Sir John A. MacDonald?
Give us a break, guys, and let's start talking like grown-ups.
To call democratically elected politicians "psychopaths" is a little wonky, dont you think? The term is being stretched until it is meaninglerss.
Which of the following politicians are or were psychopaths?
William Ewart Gladstone?
Benjamin Disraeli?
Charles Stuart Parnell?
Keir Hardy?
Ghandi?
Sir Robert Peel?
Abraham Lincoln?
Martin Luther King?
Franklin Delano Roosevelt?
Eamon de Valera?
Pierre Eliot Trudeau?
Sir John A. MacDonald?
Give us a break, guys, and let's start talking like grown-ups.
OK, tell me now, as a grown up, what sort of person does things like this.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7092435.ece
Fred, you are ducking the question.
So I'll repeat it.
Who among the political leaders I cited was a psychopath?
Fred, you are ducking the question.
So I'll repeat it.
Who among the political leaders I cited was a psychopath?
I really can't be bothered looking through the profiles of all those people and checking them against the accepted list of traits, you do it if you want.
Now what sort of a person keeps people they know are innocent of any crime in chains in a prison camp and tortures them?
What sort of a person tortures people even if they are guilty for that matter?
Bush is a psychopath.
Fred, If I understand you properly, you are confessing to being lazy! I can indentify with that. But good heavens, it doesn't take a Carnegie Endowment Fellowship to figure out that none of the people on my list could be called psycopaths.
Not for a moment!
I think it's time you read some real history. Crack a book or two. Start with Morley on Gladstone or Robert Blake on Disraeli.
Read a few pages. Have a cup of tea. Cogitate. Become a learned fellow - goodness knows you have the enegy for it.
And you will find life easier to bear as scholarship works it's mellowing magic on you..
Trust me, Fred.
(Are you still smoking?)
Fred, If I understand you properly, you are confessing to being lazy! I can indentify with that. But good heavens, it doesn't take a Carnegie Endowment Fellowship to figure out that none of the people on my list could be called psycopaths.
Not for a moment!
I think it's time you read some real history. Crack a book or two. Start with Morley on Gladstone or Robert Blake on Disraeli.
Read a few pages. Have a cup of tea. Cogitate. Become a learned fellow - goodness knows you have the enegy for it.
And you will find life easier to bear as scholarship works it's mellowing magic on you..
Trust me, Fred.
(Are you still smoking?)
No, you don't understand me, I don't think you understand much of anything.
The first thing you must understand is that you don't have the right to demand I do anything and accusing me of being lazy for not doing what you dictate is personal abuse which is against the rules of this forum.
The second thing you must understand is nothing I do in my personal life is any of your goddamned business, I discuss the issues, I don't discuss other posters and I expect not to be the subject of discussion.
Understand?
No, you don't understand me, I don't think you understand much of anything.
The first thing you must understand is that you don't have the right to demand I do anything and accusing me of being lazy for not doing what you dictate is personal abuse which is against the rules of this forum.
The second thing you must understand is nothing I do in my personal life is any of your goddamned business, I discuss the issues, I don't discuss other posters and I expect not to be the subject of discussion.
Understand?
Fred, you bring it down on yourself.
Every time.
I prefaced my remarks by saying that I too am lazy.
Like so many of today's young people your sense of irony is not what it might be.
Possibly this has come about by your watching too much television or whatever the current electronic fad is. I am doubtless too ancient to understand these things.
Let me hasten to add that the above statement is self - deprecating.
I'm not sure you understand what that means but then, in a way, that is the whole thing.
I have an idea.
Let us get one of the Mods to be the ORG director of fun. And then if I do transgress a suitable punishment will be meted out to me - sort of like being in the stocks. You can throw virtual custard pies at me.
Now there's a deal you can't refuse!
Fred, you bring it down on yourself.
Every time.
I prefaced my remarks by saying that I too am lazy.
Like so many of today's young people your sense of irony is not what it might be.
Possibly this has come about by your watching too much television or whatever the current electronic fad is. I am doubtless too ancient to understand these things.
Let me hasten to add that the above statement is self - deprecating.
I'm not sure you understand what that means but then, in a way, that is the whole thing.
I have an idea.
Let us get one of the Mods to be the ORG director of fun. And then if I do transgress a suitable punishment will be meted out to me - sort of like being in the stocks. You can throw virtual custard pies at me.
Now there's a deal you can't refuse!
I'm not interested in your silly games.
There was a discussion going on here about the Holocaust, the horrible murder of millions of people and I don't think the proposal that the people who committed and are still committing these crimes against humanity have an antisocial personality disorder is unreasonable.
You seem to be deliberately trying to disrupt this debate.
Tubthumper
09-Apr-10, 22:30
Is bullying taking place? I think something should be done. [evil]
I'm not interested in your silly games.
There was a discussion going on here about the Holocaust, the horrible murder of millions of people and I don't think the proposal that the people who committed and are still committing these crimes against humanity have an antisocial personality disorder is unreasonable.
You seem to be deliberately trying to disrupt this debate.
Fred, you are suggesting that one of the leadership qualities required by British Prime Ministers is to be a psychopath. When asked to name prime ministers who were psycopaths you said it would be too much work.
I think all those people whose sufferings you regale us with on a daily basis deserve better.
You are not analyzing.
You are shouting.
You need to learn the difference.
Fred, you are suggesting that one of the leadership qualities required by British Prime Ministers is to be a psychopath. When asked to name prime ministers who were psycopaths you said it would be too much work.
Martin Luther King was a British Prime Minister?
I didn't know that.
Is bullying taking place? I think something should be done. [evil]
It is now.
Why isn't it possible to have a sensible debate, on what is a very serious subject, on this forum without the same people deliberately disrupting it with personal abuse and asinine remarks.
John Little
09-Apr-10, 23:00
Hello everybody.
There are no psychopaths on that list. Unless you count Disraeli. Blake was a Conservative of course so one should not see Dizzy too rosily. I don't think Dizzy was quite connected to the rest of the human race, but that's a quality I can relate to. He was utterly pragmatic and almost devoid of principle- he reminds me a lot of Peter Mandelson; but by heavens he knew how to use power.
Lincoln possibly had Marfan's syndrome which is often linked these days with forms of autism - but not a psychopath.
Gladstone was a bit over-religious but he was a creature of his time. the others all had their foibles- too long for here really - but no psychopaths.
Eclectic and interesting list.
No Fred is not the subject of this thread nor should he be. Fred cares about things very seriously and I respect that.
What matters here is the arguments so please let's stick to it.
There are no psychopaths on that list.
But you never know, the sociopath is more normal than normal because at an early age they realise or are taught they are not normal and learn or are taught how to fake normality. they appear whiter than white.
Hitler was a very popular person among the German people wasn't he? He was by all accounts a most charming charismatic person.
But he still murdered six million Jews without losing a minutes sleep over it.
John Little
10-Apr-10, 00:10
Ah well the truth is that Rich's list does not faze me because I know something of each of these gentlemen and I know some of them very well indeed, not only from their own writings but those of their contemporaries.
They were all pretty much like the rest of us - fallible and human- trying to do what they could with the power at their disposal. All of them had their little ways. All were fond of money, or sex, or power for its own sake.
But psychopaths? No.
You have the grain of a case to make, but you exaggerate so - and there really is no need to. If your remark about psychopaths had been phrased differently then people might have agreed with you.
eg
'I am deeply suspicious of the mentality of the person who seeks power over others, for the process of obtaining power usually removes them from the normal thought processes and tends to dehumanise their activities."
Now that is reasonable and I would agree with it.
But 'Psychopaths is not an argument or a rational case - it's just lashing out. You are a man passionate in your beliefs but you would make a far stronger case by moderation.
And sometimes you jump to conclusions such that people think you manufacture a reality and that taints your future arguments. eg
"He was by all accounts a most charming charismatic person."
It's actually not the case- outside of the Nazi's own propaganda.
He was a very odd boy who liked playing cowboys and indians, involving tying girls to drainpipes and 'rescuing' them. He turned into a very odd young man with one friend, an oddball himself called Auguste Kubizek then at the outbreak of war joined the German army. None of his war comrades were prominent in the party he started after the war.
He had no personal friends at all - just acolytes, and the two women he was involved with both shot themselves. His conversation was a monologue which no-one dared interrupt ... he was very strange indeed.
But he did have charisma on the stage- that of a great actor. But he was a manufactured creation - it was Goebbels who did that through the 'Fuhrerprinzip' He was not a normal person and the only affection he showed was to children or dogs because he was in charge.
And he murdered far more than 6 millions.
And he did not think like you or I - he had stepped so far out of conventional human morality that you could hardly describe his thoughts as human any more. He had become a monster.
Sweet reason carries a million times more impact than a sledgehammer in argument.
Ah well the truth is that Rich's list does not faze me because I know something of each of these gentlemen and I know some of them very well indeed, not only from their own writings but those of their contemporaries.
They were all pretty much like the rest of us - fallible and human- trying to do what they could with the power at their disposal. All of them had their little ways. All were fond of money, or sex, or power for its own sake.
But psychopaths? No.
You have the grain of a case to make, but you exaggerate so - and there really is no need to. If your remark about psychopaths had been phrased differently then people might have agreed with you.
eg
'I am deeply suspicious of the mentality of the person who seeks power over others, for the process of obtaining power usually removes them from the normal thought processes and tends to dehumanise their activities."
Now that is reasonable and I would agree with it.
But 'Psychopaths is not an argument or a rational case - it's just lashing out. You are a man passionate in your beliefs but you would make a far stronger case by moderation.
And sometimes you jump to conclusions such that people think you manufacture a reality and that taints your future arguments. eg
"He was by all accounts a most charming charismatic person."
It's actually not the case- outside of the Nazi's own propaganda.
He was a very odd boy who liked playing cowboys and indians, involving tying girls to drainpipes and 'rescuing' them. He turned into a very odd young man with one friend, an oddball himself called Auguste Kubizek then at the outbreak of war joined the German army. None of his war comrades were prominent in the party he started after the war.
He had no personal friends at all - just acolytes, and the two women he was involved with both shot themselves. His conversation was a monologue which no-one dared interrupt ... he was very strange indeed.
But he did have charisma on the stage- that of a great actor. But he was a manufactured creation - it was Goebbels who did that through the 'Fuhrerprinzip' He was not a normal person and the only affection he showed was to children or dogs because he was in charge.
And he murdered far more than 6 millions.
And he did not think like you or I - he had stepped so far out of conventional human morality that you could hardly describe his thoughts as human any more. He had become a monster.
Sweet reason carries a million times more impact than a sledgehammer in argument.
Well now I would still maintain that there was a majority in Germany who worshipped Hitler, I do not believe it was all propaganda, but we can agree that he was a psycopath can we?
Boozeburglar
10-Apr-10, 00:47
No, you don't understand me, I don't think you understand much of anything.
It seems clear to me who it was who started the personal insults . . .
Like so many of today's young people your sense of irony is not what it might be.
Possibly this has come about by your watching too much television or whatever the current electronic fad is. I am doubtless too ancient to understand these things.
Fred young???
Why isn't it possible to have a sensible debate, on what is a very serious subject.
Because people like you make statements like this:
I really can't be bothered looking through the profiles of all those people and checking them against the accepted list of traits, you do it if you want.
If you're going to be involved in debates, you have to be willing to answer, or at least acknowledge the evidence against your point of view.
Martin Luther King was a British Prime Minister?
I didn't know that.
Sarcasm like that just stinks of immaturity.
Well now I would still maintain that there was a majority in Germany who worshipped Hitler, I do not believe it was all propaganda, but we can agree that he was a psycopath can we?
Now to add to the debate.....
I don't really know if the majority really "worshipped" Hitler.
At the time, Germany was a downtrodden superpower in effect, held back because of the sanctions of the great war.
As a sizeable, industrious, once proud nation it is easy to understand how the general population were persuaded to vote the nazis in. People wanted that pride back, and the nazi party was the only one offering that.
But they were cleaver in only showing their 'desirable' qualities at the time of election. After that, people just 'went with the flow'.
I can actually imagine a similar thing happening in Britain in the future. Although not many would dream about voting BNP, if a major party announced tomorrow they were going to stop immigration for asylum seekers and only allowed trained individuals in I am sure it would cause a much bigger vote swing than any education/health or tax policy.
Once 'in', it's easy to get control, and that's what the nazi's did.
Aaldtimer
10-Apr-10, 03:43
[quote=fred;688888]But you never know, the sociopath is more normal than normal because at an early age they realise or are taught they are not normal and learn or are taught how to fake normality. they appear whiter than white.
Ah but, now Fred has moved the discussion forwards to Sociopaths!
Perhaps he might explain the difference?
I hope I'm not "bullying" by asking that question.:confused
John Little
10-Apr-10, 08:10
"Well now I would still maintain that there was a majority in Germany who worshipped Hitler"
In this you would be correct. Profesor Greg Philo of Manchester university conducted an investigation (circa 1980) into the amount of support enjoyed by the Fuhrer at different times during the Third Reich's existence. He found that the Fuhrerprinzip propaganda had been so effective that the majority of Germans still supported Hitler, blaming his ministers, even as Berlin fell about their ears.
"but we can agree that he was a psycopath can we? "
Undoubtedly - he fits more the descriptions of psychopath than sociopath. The trembling of the hands, the megalomania, the uncontrollable rages.
Sounds like my ex boss...
One thing I do not understand about this forum is why people so often quote the entire post by somebody else. Must waste an awful lot of bandwidth. I know what I said.
Now as to snark- which is showing its ugly head.
There really is no need for it. People feel passionate and have strong feelings on large numbers of topics. So, trying to convince others of the justice of their case they over-state, make things up or dissemble.
It's what people do when they care a lot.
But snark does not change anybody's mind - it just makes them jump into a trench and start blazing away.
If we stick to topic it could be more interesting - at least we don't have any Holocaust deniers here.......
Fred young???
I'm younger than you.
Tubthumper
10-Apr-10, 09:08
Saddam Hussein was a psychopath, as were Bush and Blair but what's your excuse?
Choose any of the following words:
Bullying - Personal - Insult - Asinine - Immature - Serious - Debate - Idiot
Fred young???
I'm younger than you.
Tubthumper
10-Apr-10, 09:21
I'm younger than you.
He's not picking on you, he's just making a wee observation. It's not a competition.
Undoubtedly - he fits more the descriptions of psychopath than sociopath. The trembling of the hands, the megalomania, the uncontrollable rages.
Stalin, Mussolini, Saddam Hussein, Churchill?
Psychopaths?
Tubthumper
10-Apr-10, 09:40
John Major, Anthony Eden, Bob Geldof, Mahatma Ghandi, Neil Kinnock, Mo Mowlam, Gerry Adams, Ian Paisley...
Psychopaths?
I'm younger than you.
Not much unless looks are deceptive.[evil]
John Little
10-Apr-10, 12:57
"Stalin, Mussolini, Saddam Hussein, Churchill"
Stalin- american psychologists observing him at Yalta and Potsdam put forward the hypothesis that he was paranoid schizophrenic.
Mussolini - an opportunistic play actor and control freak who let things get out of his control. Not mad - he reminds me of many people I know who just like to control.
Sadam Hussein - feudal baron elevated by US money and influence to a position of power. No - not nuts, just typical of his type; see Chiang kai Shek, Dinh Diem, Juan Batista, Juan Peron et al.
Churchill; opportunist, easy with power, unprincipled and ruthless- just what was needed in 1940. And he did have his limits.
There's a nice anecdote where he is buttonholed in the Commons lobby by Enoch Powell circa 1955 who desperately tried to convince him that we should reconquer India with 6 divisions. When Churchill finally got away he asked Duncan Sandys who was nearby ; 'Is that young man mad?'
BTW; Psychopath is not a label. It's a specific term which requires diagnosis. Unless diagnosis has taken place you cannot state with certainty that anyone is a psychopath and since Hitler was never diagnosed it includes him..
Too easy to shove people into one box Fred. Everyone is different
Not much unless looks are deceptive.[evil]
A lot younger, it's just that I've had a much harder life than you have.
"Stalin, Mussolini, Saddam Hussein, Churchill"
Stalin- american psychologists observing him at Yalta and Potsdam put forward the hypothesis that he was paranoid schizophrenic.
Mussolini - an opportunistic play actor and control freak who let things get out of his control. Not mad - he reminds me of many people I know who just like to control.
Sadam Hussein - feudal baron elevated by US money and influence to a position of power. No - not nuts, just typical of his type; see Chiang kai Shek, Dinh Diem, Juan Batista, Juan Peron et al.
Churchill; opportunist, easy with power, unprincipled and ruthless- just what was needed in 1940. And he did have his limits.
There's a nice anecdote where he is buttonholed in the Commons lobby by Enoch Powell circa 1955 who desperately tried to convince him that we should reconquer India with 6 divisions. When Churchill finally got away he asked Duncan Sandys who was nearby ; 'Is that young man mad?'
BTW; Psychopath is not a label. It's a specific term which requires diagnosis. Unless diagnosis has taken place you cannot state with certainty that anyone is a psychopath and since Hitler was never diagnosed it includes him..
Too easy to shove people into one box Fred. Everyone is different
Well yes even psychopaths are all different but there are some things only a psychopath would be capable of. Like the use of poisonous gas against people in Iraq, only a psychopath would be capable of such an act wouldn't they?
Well yes even psychopaths are all different but there are some things only a psychopath would be capable of. Like the use of poisonous gas against people in Iraq, only a psychopath would be capable of such an act wouldn't they?
Yes or setting an unofficial police force on your citizens with batons motorbikes and guns :(
John Little
10-Apr-10, 23:52
"...only a psychopath would be capable of such an act wouldn't they?"
Actually no.
I do suggest you read Machiavelli's Prince.
In it the ruler is advised to do whatever is necessary to maintain terror and this power.
Whatever Fred.
Let that sink in.
As a cold pragmatic instrument of policy. As an example.
And the ability to do it coldly and without emotion is a virtue.
Do you see why Nicolo Machiavelli was condemned as 'Old Nick by the church?
Oh dear, still people don't believe it happened :confused
"A renegade British bishop has been fined 10,000 euros (£8,750) for denying the Holocaust in a case that has acutely embarrassed the Vatican. The case went ahead in a German court without Richard Williamson, whose breakaway Catholic fraternity told him not to testify, his lawyer said. The bishop acknowledged the offending comments in a statement read in court.
Williamson, 70, was convicted by the court in the southern German city of Regensburg of inciting racial hatred for stating in a TV interview aired in January 2009 that only "200,000 to 300,000 Jews perished in Nazi concentration camps".
He also denied the Nazis had used gas chambers.
"Bishop Williamson must have assumed that his remarks would draw attention. Williamson knowingly accepted that attention."
Williamson was fined 12,000 euros (£12,500) earlier this year for giving the interview in Germany to a Swedish broadcaster.
The latest trial was ordered after Mr Williamson, who lives in London, refused to pay. He faced a sentence ranging from a fine to up to five years in prison. Williamson's lawyer, Matthias Lossmann told the court: "Bishop Williamson would gladly have come, but the Saint Pius X Society suggested he did not - to be precise, they forbade him from coming."
Mr Lossmann read a statement by Williamson in which the cleric acknowledged casting doubt on the Holocaust.
"I was aware that it is against German law to express such doubts, so I expressed these doubts for exclusive broadcast on Swedish television" where such remarks are legal, he said.
The Saint Pius X Society, an ultra-conservative, Swiss-based Catholic fraternity, appointed Williamson a bishop without the pope's blessing after it broke away from Rome over the Vatican II reforms of 1965.
The trial comes at a difficult time for Pope Benedict XVI and the Vatican as a sexual abuse scandal rocks the Catholic church.
Bishop Williamson's case prompted a rare comment on religious matters by the German chancellor. Angela Merkel called on Pope Benedict to "clarify unambiguously that there can be no denial" that the Nazis killed six million Jews. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8625543.stm
Oh dear, still people don't believe it happened :confused
"A renegade British bishop has been fined 10,000 euros (£8,750) for denying the Holocaust in a case that has acutely embarrassed the Vatican. The case went ahead in a German court without Richard Williamson, whose breakaway Catholic fraternity told him not to testify, his lawyer said. The bishop acknowledged the offending comments in a statement read in court.
Williamson, 70, was convicted by the court in the southern German city of Regensburg of inciting racial hatred for stating in a TV interview aired in January 2009 that only "200,000 to 300,000 Jews perished in Nazi concentration camps".
He also denied the Nazis had used gas chambers.
"Bishop Williamson must have assumed that his remarks would draw attention. Williamson knowingly accepted that attention."
Williamson was fined 12,000 euros (£12,500) earlier this year for giving the interview in Germany to a Swedish broadcaster.
The latest trial was ordered after Mr Williamson, who lives in London, refused to pay. He faced a sentence ranging from a fine to up to five years in prison. Williamson's lawyer, Matthias Lossmann told the court: "Bishop Williamson would gladly have come, but the Saint Pius X Society suggested he did not - to be precise, they forbade him from coming."
Mr Lossmann read a statement by Williamson in which the cleric acknowledged casting doubt on the Holocaust.
"I was aware that it is against German law to express such doubts, so I expressed these doubts for exclusive broadcast on Swedish television" where such remarks are legal, he said.
The Saint Pius X Society, an ultra-conservative, Swiss-based Catholic fraternity, appointed Williamson a bishop without the pope's blessing after it broke away from Rome over the Vatican II reforms of 1965.
The trial comes at a difficult time for Pope Benedict XVI and the Vatican as a sexual abuse scandal rocks the Catholic church.
Bishop Williamson's case prompted a rare comment on religious matters by the German chancellor. Angela Merkel called on Pope Benedict to "clarify unambiguously that there can be no denial" that the Nazis killed six million Jews. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8625543.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8625543.stm)
Just what the world needs, more mad religious factions :roll:
George Brims
16-Apr-10, 22:03
That group have been around forever. When the Mrs and I were in the S of France camping in 1976, there were graffiti supporting Archbishop Lefebre, the main architect of that resistance to change in the Catholic Church.
That group have been around forever. When the Mrs and I were in the S of France camping in 1976, there were graffiti supporting Archbishop Lefebre, the main architect of that resistance to change in the Catholic Church.
I thought he was talking about the German government.
Tubthumper
16-Apr-10, 23:10
How do these people manage to survive? I mean they must earn money from somewhere? Who pays for them?
Speaking of which, is the man Campbell standing for election in Ciathness, Sutherland & Easter Ross this general election?
How do these people manage to survive? I mean they must earn money from somewhere? Who pays for them?
Speaking of which, is the man Campbell standing for election in Ciathness, Sutherland & Easter Ross this general election?
For the Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross constituency, the current Liberal Democrat MP John Thurso will again be standing for election, defending an 8,168 majority.
His opponents identified so far are Alastair Graham (Conservative), John Mackay (Labour) and Jean Urquhart (SNP). Wot no Gordon Campbell! :(
"..The Saint Pius X Society, an ultra-conservative, Swiss-based Catholic fraternity, appointed Williamson a bishop without the pope's blessing after it broke away from Rome over the Vatican II reforms of 1965.
The trial comes at a difficult time for Pope Benedict XVI and the Vatican as a sexual abuse scandal rocks the Catholic church. .."
The story states that this group "broke away from Rome" so how can you make the link between them and the Catholic Church.
The Vatican website states that the The Saint Pius X Society:
"..does not enjoy any canonical recognition by the Catholic Church.."
In addition the Vatican make the following statement on the Holocaust:
"..The positions of Bishop Williamson with regard to the Shoah are absolutely unacceptable and firmly rejected by the Holy Father, as he himself remarked on 28 January 2009 (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20090128_en.html) when, with reference to the heinous genocide, he reiterated his full and unquestionable solidarity with our brothers and sisters who received the First Covenant, and he affirmed that the memory of that terrible genocide must lead "humanity to reflect upon the unfathomable power of evil when it conquers the heart of man", adding that the Shoah remains "a warning for all against forgetfulness, denial or reductionism, because violence committed against one single human being is violence against all.."
Linking this group to the Catholic church is similar to saying that break away COE groups share the same beliefs as Rowan Williams.
George Brims
17-Apr-10, 01:46
Now come on Anfield. No-one is saying the Pius X lot are the Catholic Church, but they sure came out of it. I'm pretty certain most Catholics would say the further out the better, and good riddance to them.
Now come on Anfield. No-one is saying the Pius X lot are the Catholic Church, but they sure came out of it. I'm pretty certain most Catholics would say the further out the better, and good riddance to them.
See post #93
I agree the sooner they are out the better, but their claims about Holocaust are not helping the Catholic church in any way whatsoever, and has been shown on this thread gives gullible people the impression that they are part of catholic church
The story states that this group "broke away from Rome" so how can you make the link between them and the Catholic Church.... Linking this group to the Catholic church is similar to saying that break away COE groups share the same beliefs as Rowan Williams.
Anfield, you miss my point; this is not a 'knock the Catholics' post - I'm an Atheist, and (IMO) think all religions cause more damage than good, although as Evelyn Beatrice Hall wrote (but often misattributed to Voltaire) "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," - (delete 'defend to the death' insert 'understand your needs').
My point was that there are still - after 65 years - people who can state; "only 200,000 to 300,000 Jews perished in Nazi concentration camps". and "He also denied the Nazis had used gas chambers." - Having been to Oświęcim not far from Krakow when kayaking the Vistula to Gdansk in June 1976, and Bergen-Belsen I know he is talking crap.
Anfield, you miss my point; this is not a 'knock the Catholics' post - I'm an Atheist, and (IMO) think all religions cause more damage than good, although as Evelyn Beatrice Hall wrote (but often misattributed to Voltaire) "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," - (delete 'defend to the death' insert 'understand your needs').
My point was that there are still - after 65 years - people who can state; "only 200,000 to 300,000 Jews perished in Nazi concentration camps". and "He also denied the Nazis had used gas chambers." - Having been to Oświęcim not far from Krakow when kayaking the Vistula to Gdansk in June 1976, and Bergen-Belsen I know he is talking crap.
But why should it be illegal to talk crap? If we can disagree with what the Catholics say about religion but defend their right to say it how come we can't disagree with what a Holocaust denier says yet defend their right to say it? Why is it illegal in Germany to have any opinion at all except the official one?
This smacks of the old blasphemy laws, was a time you could be burnt at the stake for denying God exists.
But why should it be illegal to talk crap? If we can disagree with what the Catholics say about religion but defend their right to say it how come we can't disagree with what a Holocaust denier says yet defend their right to say it? Why is it illegal in Germany to have any opinion at all except the official one?
This smacks of the old blasphemy laws, was a time you could be burnt at the stake for denying God exists.
It is in my opinion 'crap', whether tis legal or not is beside the point. Maybe in Germany the Germans think it's not quite right to deny the holocaust - at Belsen I watched a load of German school kids get shown around (seems to be obligatory there) maybe some others nearer home should visit it too and might know what they are talking about?
NB; Germany's parliament passed legislation in 1985, making it a crime to deny the extermination of the Jews. In 1994, the law was tightened. Now, anyone who publicly endorses, denies or plays down the genocide against the Jews faces a maximum penalty of five years in jail and no less than the imposition of a fine.
It is in my opinion 'crap', whether tis legal or not is beside the point. Maybe in Germany the Germans think it's not quite right to deny the holocaust - at Belsen I watched a load of German school kids get shown around (seems to be obligatory there) maybe some others nearer home should visit it too and might know what they are talking about?
NB; Germany's parliament passed legislation in 1985, making it a crime to deny the extermination of the Jews. In 1994, the law was tightened. Now, anyone who publicly endorses, denies or plays down the genocide against the Jews faces a maximum penalty of five years in jail and no less than the imposition of a fine.
So do you think the law is right? That government should have the right to legislate on what someone can believe?
Like once it was illegal to not believe in God.
You can believe any brain-rotting garbage you like.
It is the expression of these views that is the issue.
I may say,Fred, that your views re the Third Reich are becoming more and more odious. If you wish to carry on in this vein I will not stop you. But then, I am not Jewish.
However, in society, at work, on the bus home, wherever, whenever - most decent people exercise restraint if only for fear of giving offence.
You seem to have no such inhibitions.
What is the matter with you?
Have you no decency?
So do you think the law is right? That government should have the right to legislate on what someone can believe?
Like once it was illegal to not believe in God.
Countries are at liberty to make their own laws. I have no right to criticise any ruling carried out by a democratic nation. Holocaust denial is also illegal in 14 countries. Anyone can 'believe' what they wish, if, however they publicly endorse....
1) I believe that c 6 million Jews were murdered in the Holocaust
2) I also believe the Nazis used gas chambers
Fred, I have been totally honest in my opinions as to 1) and 2) above. I now ask you to be totally honest with me. do you agree with 1) and 2)?
NB Holocaust denial is explicitly or implicitly illegal in 14 countries: Austria Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Hungary, Israel, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Switzerland The European Union's Framework decision on Racism and Xenophobia states that denying or grossly trivialising "crimes of genocide" should be made "punishable in all EU Member States".
*The common law offences of blasphemy were abolished by the Criminal justice and Immigration Act 2008 - which is rather recent considering your last sentence.
John Little
17-Apr-10, 21:20
"That government should have the right to legislate on what someone can believe?"
Well some people believe that they can regard children as sexual beings.
Some people believe that they can murder others if they have reason.
I heard a traveller on the television not long ago tell an interviewer that he had the right to steal from the settled community because they had stolen the land which should belong to nobody...
And many other things which society finds odious.
They legislate on those.
If some persists in stating that black is white despite all evidence to the contrary I see no reason why it should not be a subject of legislation.
Any rights we have are conferred and policed by the ordered society in which we live. Without that is lawlessness and chaos. Freedom of expression is an illusion we allow ourselves; there are limits defined by time, tradition and history.
1) I believe that c 6 million Jews were murdered in the Holocaust
2) I also believe the Nazis used gas chambers
Fred, I have been totally honest in my opinions as to 1) and 2) above. I now ask you to be totally honest with me. do you agree with 1) and 2)?
I believe the Holocaust was one of the greatest crimes in modern history.
I just don't understand why when it was committed by Europeans it is Arabs who are being punished for it.
But what I believe is irrelevant, we are talking about if it is right to legislate what someone is allowed to believe, whether that is if the Holocaust happened exactly as it says in the history books or if there is a God.
"That government should have the right to legislate on what someone can believe?"
Well some people believe that they can regard children as sexual beings.
Some people believe that they can murder others if they have reason.
I heard a traveller on the television not long ago tell an interviewer that he had the right to steal from the settled community because they had stolen the land which should belong to nobody...
And many other things which society finds odious.
They legislate on those.
No they don't, there is no law against believing them, just against doing them.
I'm surprised at you taking this stance, from your other posts I would have thought you wouldn't have been on the side of us who condemn the Holocaust. Don't you just see it as realpolitik? Don't you think anything is excusable when you are at war and your nation's survival is at stake?
I would have thought you would have been coming out with all the same excuses you come out with when I point out the atrocities Britain has committed.
John Little
17-Apr-10, 22:12
"there is no law against believing them"
If that is the case, then the prominent comedian who lives near me who was arrested and tried for having paedophile images on his computer would not have been arrested. He did nothing to children but thought about it and looked at images. To think what he thinks is unacceptable in our society.
Or do you see that as thought police at work?
"I'm surprised at you taking this stance, from your other posts I would have thought you wouldn't have been on the side of us who condemn the Holocaust."
No you are not - you are attempting to get a rise out of me. I have never condoned the Holocaust and condemn it.
I do however understand why the Nazis did it because I have taken time and trouble to read up on it- I wanted to see how their minds worked. Realpolitik takes many forms and has many threads. Our form of realpolitik triumphed over theirs because we were stronger.
I wonder how you would have stopped their ideology from exterminating Jews? Have you read Mein Kampf?
"Don't you think anything is excusable when you are at war and your nation's survival is at stake?"
Yes I do but I suspect that you do not see that as a relative concept. What is 'excusable' depends on your culture and your mentality.
LeFebrve had a point when he founded the Annales school of Historians when he posited that you can only understand events in the past when you understand the mentality of those engaged in it and the conditions which created that mentality.
To try to judge the actions of another age by the standards of today is rather like anthropomorphising- it's a false parameter.
I think it was Lord Acton who said 'The past is a foreign country - they do things differently there.'
You find it very easy to condemn.
I do not set out to try to judge but to understand. Stand in the shoes of Himmler or Hitler for 20 seconds and you understand why the Holocaust happened - read their stuff.
I condemn the Holocaust, but on a different premise to you.
The Nazis did not carry out the Holocaust because the survival of their nation was at stake.
They carried it out because they saw the world in terms of races, superior and inferior, and because they could. We allowed them to through our own weakness and cowardice.
Who was the woman who was condemned a few years ago for saying that she understood why suicide bombers did what they do?
That was a foolishness; I thought good for her - because she understood. Just because she understood did not mean that she was on their side.
Know your enemy and how he thinks is an axiom older than Sun Tzu.
"I point out the atrocities Britain has committed. "
Why dost thou point to the speck in thy neighbour's eye but see not the beam in your own?
Or perhaps not your own- but of the other guys.. And what they do?
Do you know Gilbert and Sullivan?
'There's the idiot who praises with enthusiastic tone, all centuries but this and every country but his own'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hk7qC2So61s&feature=related
There's nothing new under the sun.
This is enough. Time to go bye bye, Fred. Take a rest and have a beer come back later - much much later....
I believe the Holocaust was one of the greatest crimes in modern history.
I just don't understand why when it was committed by Europeans it is Arabs who are being punished for it.
But what I believe is irrelevant, we are talking about if it is right to legislate what someone is allowed to believe, whether that is if the Holocaust happened exactly as it says in the history books or if there is a God.
Fred I am not being pedantic, with reference to your first statement, please do me the common decency, of simply answering 1) and 2) below, do you also believe these two statements. This is not a trick question, but simply a question as to your own beliefs.
1) I believe that c 6 million Jews were murdered in the Holocaust
2) I also believe the Nazis used gas chambers
Your penultimate sentence makes no sense whatsoever.
As to your final statement; I again reiterate, as you do not seem to understand, that 'Anyone can 'believe' what they wish, if, however they publicly endorse Holocaust denial, it is classed as a crime as detailed in #107 above.
You can believe any brain-rotting garbage you like.
It is the expression of these views that is the issue.
I may say,Fred, that your views re the Third Reich are becoming more and more odious. If you wish to carry on in this vein I will not stop you. But then, I am not Jewish.
However, in society, at work, on the bus home, wherever, whenever - most decent people exercise restraint if only for fear of giving offence.
You seem to have no such inhibitions.
What is the matter with you?
Have you no decency?
But I condemn the Holocaust just like everyone else.
But unlike others it isn't the only atrocity I condemn.
Don't you think there may be widows and orphans in Iraq and Afghanistan would find the justifications for our slaughter bandied here offensive? Or don't they count? What about the people of Dresden or Nagasaki? Maybe they don't count either.
If that is the case, then the prominent comedian who lives near me who was arrested and tried for having paedophile images on his computer would not have been arrested. He did nothing to children but thought about it and looked at images. To think what he thinks is unacceptable in our society.
Presumably there were real children involved in the making of the pictures which would make it wrong.
But on this very forum someone questioned the belief that sex with someone under the age of 16 should be illegal, pointed out that the age of consent has changed with time and changes from place to place. Should he be thrown in gaol?
No you are not - you are attempting to get a rise out of me. I have never condoned the Holocaust and condemn it.
I do however understand why the Nazis did it because I have taken time and trouble to read up on it- I wanted to see how their minds worked. Realpolitik takes many forms and has many threads. Our form of realpolitik triumphed over theirs because we were stronger.
I don't think their minds worked too much different to the minds of the leaders we have to day. Perhaps it would be beneficial to look at how it happened so we can ensure it doesn't happen again.
But I don't believe you have.
Fred I am not being pedantic, with reference to your first statement, please do me the common decency, of simply answering 1) and 2) below, do you also believe these two statements. This is not a trick question, but simply a question as to your own beliefs.
1) I believe that c 6 million Jews were murdered in the Holocaust
2) I also believe the Nazis used gas chambers
Your penultimate sentence makes no sense whatsoever.
As to your final statement; I again reiterate, as you do not seem to understand, that 'Anyone can 'believe' what they wish, if, however they publicly endorse Holocaust denial, it is classed as a crime as detailed in #107 above.
I answered your question.
So why is it a crime to deny this Holocaust and not, say, the Armenian Holocaust?
I answered your question.
So why is it a crime to deny this Holocaust and not, say, the Armenian Holocaust?
Oh no you did not - so, unable to answer, but I expected that from you; par for the course. . I now fully understand where you stand on this horror.
Me thinks you had better contact one of the 14 counties to which I refer to above.
I find it unbelievable that you can compare the actual murdering of millions of captive Jews in extermination camps to bombing by the RAF.
Have you read Mein Kampf?
.
Many years ago, circa 1970's, I remember a story about people being polled about the manifestoes of various political parties which included Hitler’s "Mein Kampf"
He would have won a general election.
Oh no you did not - so, unable to answer, but I expected that from you; par for the course. . I now fully understand where you stand on this horror.
Me thinks you had better contact one of the 14 counties to which I refer to above.
I find it unbelievable that you can compare the actual murdering of millions of captive Jews in extermination camps to bombing by the RAF.
Because it was us doing the murdering then you mean?
So if you want atrocities committed by Britain in concentration camps how about what we did in Kenya in the 1950s?
Because it was us doing the murdering then you mean?
Wibble wibble, I'm off
John Little
18-Apr-10, 08:53
"Presumably there were real children involved in the making of the pictures which would make it wrong."
Apparently there were- he was arrested for looking at images on the computer- but had no hand in making them. So the government do legislate over thoughts that society finds unacceptable.
And quite right too.
As to the forum member- merely questioning the age of consent is not a crime. But thinking of having sex with children is so.
Ergo criminal thought exists.
I approve that it does.
You seem to think that you can have all the freedoms that society offers without accepting any of the constraints that have made those freedoms possible. This is not a contradiction because freedom is socially constructed in the sense that you have it. Man may be born free but without the rights he is given by the society he lives in, he has only the freedon to eat or be eaten - as in nature.
You seem like one of those obscenely rich businessmen who boast that they are 'self made men'. They are not. They have made certain efforts to make themselves rich, but they are only successful in that because they use an already existing infrastructure to succeed. Richard Branson is rich, but he did not educate his workers, build the airports, invent the technologies etc.
You are free merely because of the accident of being born in a freer society than many if not most.
"I don't think their minds worked too much different to the minds of the leaders we have to day. Perhaps it would be beneficial to look at how it happened so we can ensure it doesn't happen again.
But I don't believe you have. "
Oh I assure you that I have. Very widely. To me the fact that you don't believe that their minds worked differently is proof absolute that you have not. The great gulf between the minds of us today and those of Hitler, Himmler etc is like the gap between us and the nearest star. If you do not understand that I do not see how you can make informed comment.
Anfield.
"Many years ago, circa 1970's, I remember a story about people being polled about the manifestoes of various political parties which included Hitler’s "Mein Kampf"
He would have won a general election. "
Then in Mein Kampf, written in 1924, you will remember that Hitler speaks of acquiring lebensraum, of expanding Germany; he also speaks of where he will do it - the great decaying empire in the East where all we have to do is give one kick at the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing to the ground.
In the 25 point programme, published 1922 he speaks of Lebensraum, of adjusting borders.
How were these things to be done? Not through peaceful negotiation I assure you. The man was determined to go to war and planned it; he thought he could win.
You would not stop a Hitler by talk. There is ample evidence out there- Bullock, Kershaw, Toland- even the books on Hitler's table talk where you have it from his own mouth. Talk was tried.
Fred
"So if you want atrocities committed by Britain in concentration camps how about what we did in Kenya in the 1950s? "
Fred - is your hair curly? If you would like to curl it then read what the Mau Mau did as well.
If you speak of Hola camp I think you will find that the 11 prisoners killed were beaten to death by Africans under British command. Not good, but as I have told you before, if you set loose the dogs of war then nastiness follows.
Apparently there were- he was arrested for looking at images on the computer- but had no hand in making them. So the government do legislate over thoughts that society finds unacceptable.
And quite right too.
Someone who receives stolen goods has no hand in stealing them, the same principles apply.
As to the forum member- merely questioning the age of consent is not a crime. But thinking of having sex with children is so.
Ergo criminal thought exists.
I approve that it does.
But merely questioning the numbers of people killed in the Holocaust is illegal.
Oh I assure you that I have. Very widely. To me the fact that you don't believe that their minds worked differently is proof absolute that you have not. The great gulf between the minds of us today and those of Hitler, Himmler etc is like the gap between us and the nearest star. If you do not understand that I do not see how you can make informed comment.
But we are still starting wars of aggression, the horrors of the concentration camps were there at Abu Ghraib and Bagram. Our leaders still imposed sanctions on Iraq which they knew would kill hundreds of thousands of children. How are they different?
Fred - is your hair curly? If you would like to curl it then read what the Mau Mau did as well.
If you speak of Hola camp I think you will find that the 11 prisoners killed were beaten to death by Africans under British command. Not good, but as I have told you before, if you set loose the dogs of war then nastiness follows.
You claim we only killed 11 prisoners? You're starting to sound like a certain Bishop.
The Drunken Duck
18-Apr-10, 10:38
Fred, if you hate our society so much go live with your beloved Arabs in the Utopia you see the Middle East as. Maybe then your eyes will be opened to the place. If you had an ounce of integrity you would not remain in a society you show every sign of loathing.
But you wont will you ??, because its the empty vessels that make the most noise.
John Little
18-Apr-10, 11:04
"Someone who receives stolen goods has no hand in stealing them, the same principles apply."
I think the defence lawyer might make a case about fore-knowledge and intent.
"But merely questioning the numbers of people killed in the Holocaust is illegal."
yes. This is because western civilisation regards it as an absolute truth. To question it is considered to trivialise the whole thing, as if it were up for debate. If a matter of fact becomes a matter of debate then it destroys the meaning of it and anaesthetises the truth.
There is enough evidence around on the Holcaust - but you do not wish to see it. And there are still people alive from the camps who will tell you how it was. I met an ordinary lady from North London a few years ago called Esther. She told me how it was.
The British army also commissioned a team of their photographers to film the camps because they foresaw that future generations might deny the horror.
"But we are still starting wars of aggression, the horrors of the concentration camps were there at Abu Ghraib and Bagram. Our leaders still imposed sanctions on Iraq which they knew would kill hundreds of thousands of children. How are they different?"
You are asking the wrong man. I do not consider it to be in our interests to be in Iraq or Afghanistan. Both those places were run by the american military.
Read some Chomsky- he has some pretty good responses to this question.
"You claim we only killed 11 prisoners? You're starting to sound like a certain Bishop. "
Yawn! Don't be so predictable. I was not speaking of Kenya as you well know, but of the Hola massacre as a particular.
Again there is enough stuff out there - if you don't believe me then here's one to peer at - and probably ignore as you did on the Polish Pact thing.
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-1239316/Kenya-the-Hola-massacre-on.html
I think the defence lawyer might make a case about fore-knowledge and intent.
Irrelevant. The principle is the same.
yes. This is because western civilisation regards it as an absolute truth. To question it is considered to trivialise the whole thing, as if it were up for debate. If a matter of fact becomes a matter of debate then it destroys the meaning of it and anaesthetises the truth.
There is enough evidence around on the Holcaust - but you do not wish to see it. And there are still people alive from the camps who will tell you how it was. I met an ordinary lady from North London a few years ago called Esther. She told me how it was.
The British army also commissioned a team of their photographers to film the camps because they foresaw that future generations might deny the horror.
I haven't disputed how it was. There are plenty who believe the existence of God is an absolute truth but do they have the right to persecute those who deny it?
You are asking the wrong man. I do not consider it to be in our interests to be in Iraq or Afghanistan. Both those places were run by the american military.
Read some Chomsky- he has some pretty good responses to this question.
No, I'm talking to the man who said the minds of the leaders of Nazi Germany were somehow different to the minds of the leaders we have today.
Yawn! Don't be so predictable. I was not speaking of Kenya as you well know, but of the Hola massacre as a particular.
Again there is enough stuff out there - if you don't believe me then here's one to peer at - and probably ignore as you did on the Polish Pact thing.
Yes and there is enough on the other 50,000 people over half children we killed in Kenya in the 1950s, there is enough on the concentration camps we put them in and the tortures we used on them. Wonder why you chose to ignore it.
Fred, if you hate our society so much go live with your beloved Arabs in the Utopia you see the Middle East as. Maybe then your eyes will be opened to the place. If you had an ounce of integrity you would not remain in a society you show every sign of loathing.
But you wont will you ??, because its the empty vessels that make the most noise.
Now I wonder if that's what they told the people of Germany who pointed out the atrocities being committed in their name, I wonder if that's why so many ordinary people looked the other way as the trains went by to Auschwitz.
John Little
18-Apr-10, 13:13
"Irrelevant. The principle is the same."
Actually no - ignorance is not an excuse in law. The Attorney General is in a spot of bother for being ignorant that her maid was an illegal immigrant. The premise appears to be that she should have checked the provenance more carefully.
"I haven't disputed how it was."
Good.
"There are plenty who believe the existence of God is an absolute truth but do they have the right to persecute those who deny it?"
Not in our society - not any more. But in other societies they do. For example the strict interpretation of Sharia law requires you to kill apostates. I told you - the rights you have depend on the society you live in.
"No, I'm talking to the man who said the minds of the leaders of Nazi Germany were somehow different to the minds of the leaders we have today."
And so they were Fred - so they were. Your failure to understand that underscores your lack of comprehension of why it happened. Your views are anachronistic.
"Yes and there is enough on the other 50,000 people over half children we killed in Kenya in the 1950s, there is enough on the concentration camps we put them in and the tortures we used on them. Wonder why you chose to ignore it."
I did not ignore it - I was talking of the "...atrocities committed by Britain in concentration camps how about what we did in Kenya in the 1950s? "
You were speaking of the camps and I took you to be referring to the Hola massacre. You are referring to the deaths from cholera and other diseases in the camps I think, and you are using the 50,000 figure from Wikipedia?
Yes - well concentrating the Kikuyu population into camps with not a lot of sanitation caused a lot of deaths but I do assure you there were no gas chambers and ovens. There are 26 ethnic groups in Kenya and not all were happy at the idea of the Kikuyu taking over - the population generally did not support them. That's how you win guerilla wars; it happened with the Boers too - remember? I don't think it happened in the Vietnamese strategic hamlets because the yanks had installed plumbing and sewerage.
And as you know, the 50,000 figure is in dispute - the official figure is aboyt 11,500,with more modern estimates at about 20,000.
But as to actual deaths of Africans through violence, the Mau Mau killed far more than we did.
John Little
18-Apr-10, 13:15
"Now I wonder if that's what they told the people of Germany who pointed out the atrocities being committed in their name, I wonder if that's why so many ordinary people looked the other way as the trains went by to Auschwitz"
LOL! You wonder?
No- that's not what they were told.
Instead the Nazis had this thing called the Geheimstatspolizei - a secret poloice who were above the law. They were not answerable at all.
Which is why more than 800,000 Germans were in a camp at one time or another 1933-40 and why most people kept their mouths shut.
They saw what happened to the opposition and kept schtum.
Terror Fred.
You'd keep quiet too.
You were speaking of the camps and I took you to be referring to the Hola massacre. You are referring to the deaths from cholera and other diseases in the camps I think, and you are using the 50,000 figure from Wikipedia?
So you think all six million Jews died in the gas chambers?
No, the vast majority died of cholera and other diseases, overwork and malnutrition.
You think all 50,000 in Kenya died of cholera and other diseases, no, many of them were murdered.
"Now I wonder if that's what they told the people of Germany who pointed out the atrocities being committed in their name, I wonder if that's why so many ordinary people looked the other way as the trains went by to Auschwitz"
LOL! You wonder?
No- that's not what they were told.
Instead the Nazis had this thing called the Geheimstatspolizei - a secret poloice who were above the law. They were not answerable at all.
Which is why more than 800,000 Germans were in a camp at one time or another 1933-40 and why most people kept their mouths shut.
They saw what happened to the opposition and kept schtum.
Terror Fred.
You'd keep quiet too.
That sounds very similar to the system we used in Kenya in the 1950s
John Little
18-Apr-10, 14:16
"That sounds very similar to the system we used in Kenya in the 1950s"
Not really.
The way the Mau Mau worked was a mixture of animist shamanism, tribal loyalty and terror. The activists would kidnap people and force them to swear an oath- once sworn they had to do as Mau Mau said or nasty things would happen to them or their families.
The key to ending the revolt was the British sussing this and staging their own ceremonies with their own witch-doctors and de-oathing Mau Mau members, hundreds of whom, released from their forced oaths, joined gangs to hunt the Mau Mau. There was in effect a Kikuyu civil war going on.
"So you think all six million Jews died in the gas chambers?"
i never said so.
"No, the vast majority died of cholera and other diseases, overwork and malnutrition."
Indeed that is so. And it was by design. The third Reich had no need of Jews; that was their official policy, despite reality.
"You think all 50,000 in Kenya died of cholera and other diseases, no, many of them were murdered"
You do like to cling to figures that are maximised don't you? I never said so.
Murdered? They were killed.
Murder is a Fred word which he uses a lot.
There was this thing called 'war' going on at the time.
You seem to have the notion that all this would stop if we got terribly terribly civilsed together.
You seem to have the notion that all this would stop if we got terribly terribly civilsed together.
I'm of the opinion it wouldn't have started if the British hadn't gone into Kenya and stolen most of the land forcing the indigenous population to work as slaves or starve.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/mau-mau-veterans-to-sue-over-british-atrocities-417565.html
Now, as we see the British government is denying the atrocities occurred despite the overwhelming evidence they did, yet in Germany to deny the atrocities they committed is illegal.
I'm of the opinion it wouldn't have started if the British hadn't gone into Kenya and stolen most of the land forcing the indigenous population to work as slaves or starve.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/mau-mau-veterans-to-sue-over-british-atrocities-417565.html
Now, as we see the British government is denying the atrocities occurred despite the overwhelming evidence they did, yet in Germany to deny the atrocities they committed is illegal.
I don't know enough about Kenya to comment.
But I don't understand why you are pursuing the line complaining about the illegality of questioning or denying the Holocaust of the Jewish people by the Nazis. Surely you would welcome this, as it is one of the measures designed to ensure nothing of the nature occurs again.
You can complain about history, which is a bit pointless, or you can try to learn from it.
Which would you rather do?
John Little
18-Apr-10, 14:46
"despite the overwhelming evidence they did"
Quod erat demonstrandum.
You regret the Empire; the exploitation, the Scramble for Africa. The discovery of America? The Norman conquest? You seem to wring your hands at our entire history.
It's called war Fred.
We won.
You don't win by being terribly terribly nice to people.
Nothing here surprises me - I see why it was done. Consider the alternative.
That we pulled out; we were defeated. And that our African empire dissolved in blood, war and hundreds of thousands of deaths. We were not going to let that happen.
Yet Kenya taught us a valuable lesson - that we could not hang on to our African empire and we would have to pull out.
Not like the Belgians, overnight and without preparation, but phased over 10 years and by and large peacefully.
Wind of change and all that.
Unlike the Portuguese our empire did not go down in a welter of gore, but left governments that were by and large friendly to us and trade advantages decidedly in our favour. Communists did not take over; and the price paid was relatively small compared to how it could have been.
But I don't understand why you are pursuing the line complaining about the illegality of questioning or denying the Holocaust of the Jewish people by the Nazis. Surely you would welcome this, as it is one of the measures designed to ensure nothing of the nature occurs again.
You can complain about history, which is a bit pointless, or you can try to learn from it.
Which would you rather do?
No, if those who control the present are allowed to control the past they will be able to control the future.
It's a matter of principle not just for the Holocaust, for everything.
Dictating to people what they can or can't believe is it happening again, it brings us one step closer to being Nazis.
"despite the overwhelming evidence they did"
Quod erat demonstrandum.
You regret the Empire; the exploitation, the Scramble for Africa. The discovery of America? The Norman conquest? You seem to wring your hands at our entire history.
It's called war Fred.
We won.
You don't win by being terribly terribly nice to people.
Nothing here surprises me - I see why it was done. Consider the alternative.
That we pulled out; we were defeated. And that our African empire dissolved in blood, war and hundreds of thousands of deaths. We were not going to let that happen.
Yet Kenya taught us a valuable lesson - that we could not hang on to our African empire and we would have to pull out.
Not like the Belgians, overnight and without preparation, but phased over 10 years and by and large peacefully.
Wind of change and all that.
Unlike the Portuguese our empire did not go down in a welter of gore, but left governments that were by and large friendly to us and trade advantages decidedly in our favour. Communists did not take over; and the price paid was relatively small compared to how it could have been.
So we did to the people of Kenya what Hitler did to the Jews but in our case it was justified because...well because it was us doing it.
John Little
18-Apr-10, 15:10
"So we did to the people of Kenya what Hitler did to the Jews"
Did we?
I missed that bit.
So let's get this straight then. Sometime in the 1930s Hitler started counter-insurgency measures against the Jews of Europe. He determined to round them up and concentrate them into camps where he could control their access to military hardware and counter their terrorist activites. The jews had been attacking Germans in their homes, hacking them to death, inventing new nasty ways of torturing people to terrify the population and forcing them to swear oaths to help the Jews. The rest of Europe was converted into SAD areas where the Wehrmacht could open fire on groups because no-one else was there ergo anyone who was, was an insurgent.
I had not realised that this is what really happened Fred.
This of course is what we did in Kenya - the same tactics that had worked in Malaya too - but in truth, that Hitler was doing it is news to me.
Well you live and learn.
"in our case it was justified because...well because it was us doing it. "
Well - yes. By and large the majority of the population of Kenya and about a half of Kikuyu were glad that the Mau Mau lost.
"So we did to the people of Kenya what Hitler did to the Jews"
Did we?
I missed that bit.
So let's get this straight then. Sometime in the 1930s Hitler started counter-insurgency measures against the Jews of Europe. He determined to round them up and concentrate them into camps where he could control their access to military hardware and counter their terrorist activites. The jews had been attacking Germans in their homes, hacking them to death, inventing new nasty ways of torturing people to terrify the population and forcing them to swear oaths to help the Jews. The rest of Europe was converted into SAD areas where the Wehrmacht could open fire on groups because no-one else was there ergo anyone who was, was an insurgent.
I had not realised that this is what really happened Fred.
This of course is what we did in Kenya - the same tactics that had worked in Malaya too - but in truth, that Hitler was doing it is news to me.
Well you live and learn.
"in our case it was justified because...well because it was us doing it. "
Well - yes. By and large the majority of the population of Kenya and about a half of Kikuyu were glad that the Mau Mau lost.
We rounded up the Kenyans, we put them in concentration camps, we made them work hard, we fed them little, we tortured them and we executed them, we caused the deaths of over 50,000 over half of them children.
Yet you deny it, yet you try to justify it while saying even questioning the Holocaust should be illegal
John Little
18-Apr-10, 15:48
"Yet you deny it,"
Nope. Read it again. Even in Wikipedia the figure of 50,000 is cast into doubt. Not that it matters - you would take the highest figure whatever it was.
"yet you try to justify it "
So my seeing why it was done is a justification?
I was under the impression that it was an observation.
"while saying even questioning the Holocaust should be illegal "
You are attempting to marry two events. In one the figures are beyond dispute- ie - over 6 million Jews. plus the other groups who died.
In the other it depends on whose figures you read. This was Africa 60 years ago. In a guerilla war fought by groups operating independently in the bush. You expect hard and fast figures?
It was the Germans who had lists- in Kenya the killing was much more random.
"we made them work hard"
Oh? What at?
John Little
18-Apr-10, 16:06
You will undoubtedly like this Fred...
http://www.erroluys.com/BoerWarChildsStory.htm
and this
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v02/v02p137_Weber.html
and this
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1038453/The-French-Fuhrer-Genocidal-Napoleon-barbaric-Hitler-historian-claims.html
and this;
At the same time, the French military ruthlessly applied the principle of collective responsibility to villages suspected of sheltering, supplying, or in any way cooperating with the guerrillas. Villages that could not be reached by mobile units were subject to aerial bombardment. The French also initiated a program of concentrating large segments of the rural population, including whole villages, in camps under military supervision to prevent them from aiding the rebels -- or, according to the official explanation, to protect them from FLN extortion. In the three years (1957-60) during which the regroupement program was followed, more than 2 million Algerians were removed from their villages, mostly in the mountainous areas, and resettled in the plains, where many found it impossible to reestablish their accustomed economic or social situations. Living conditions in the camps were poor.
http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/alpha/algeria1954.htm
We rounded up the Kenyans, we put them in concentration camps, we made them work hard, we fed them little, we tortured them and we executed them, we caused the deaths of over 50,000 over half of them children.
Yet you deny it, yet you try to justify it while saying even questioning the Holocaust should be illegal
Fred, just popped in from P wing, read and digest
wibble wibble
http://www.opendemocracy.net/david-elstein/daniel-goldhagen-and-kenya-recycling-fantasy
It was the Germans who had lists- in Kenya the killing was much more random.
No, the Germans usually most meticulous in their record keeping either did not make lists or they destroyed them at the end of the war. There were no lists.
Oh? What at?
Working the land we stole from them.
John Little
18-Apr-10, 17:01
"No, the Germans usually most meticulous in their record keeping either did not make lists or they destroyed them at the end of the war. There were no lists"
No - there were lists. But there are no lists now. Except a copy of Schindler's....
"Working the land we stole from them. "
Well yes - but that's imperialism and had been going on for years - it was not a particular feature of the Mau Mau insurrection or of the camps.
Whilst we are debating on here about tragic events which took place a long time ago, there is another holocaust happening right now.
The Democratic Republic of the Congo is witnessing carnage on an unprecedented scale and it is estimated that over 5 Million people have died since 1996.
John Little
18-Apr-10, 17:08
Careful Anfield - Fred will blame that on us too....
Fred, just popped in from P wing, read and digest
wibble wibble
http://www.opendemocracy.net/david-elstein/daniel-goldhagen-and-kenya-recycling-fantasy
So I can post links to eminent historians who dispute the figures given for the Holocaust.
It doesn't alter the fact that we put them in concentration camps and large numbers of them died.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/correspondent/2416049.stm
"No, the Germans usually most meticulous in their record keeping either did not make lists or they destroyed them at the end of the war. There were no lists"
No - there were lists. But there are no lists now. Except a copy of Schindler's....
"Working the land we stole from them. "
Well yes - but that's imperialism and had been going on for years - it was not a particular feature of the Mau Mau insurrection or of the camps.
That's the way it was is no justification, that could be just as easily applied to the Holocaust. Human rights abuses are human rights abuses. Imperialism is going to other peoples countries and stealing from them, oppressing them and killing any of them who object.
John Little
18-Apr-10, 17:27
Read the poster on the link you posted Fred.. They're not after justice - they want cash.
Nice work if they can get it.
"that could be just as easily applied to the Holocaust."
No - not really. The deaths in the Kenyan camps were largely due to neglect, cruelty and unconcern The Holocaust was a deliberate and determined attempt to expunge a whole race of people.
"Human rights abuses are human rights abuses."
That is undoubtedly true.
What are Human rights and from where do they derive?
"Imperialism is going to other peoples countries and stealing from them, oppressing them and killing any of them who object. "
Very true. History is full of them. It's usually done because the other side is weaker. If the other side have guns as well it's more difficult.
Read the poster on the link you posted Fred.. They're not after justice - they want cash.
Nice work if they can get it.
"that could be just as easily applied to the Holocaust."
No - not really. The deaths in the Kenyan camps were largely due to neglect, cruelty and unconcern The Holocaust was a deliberate and determined attempt to expunge a whole race of people.
"Human rights abuses are human rights abuses."
That is undoubtedly true.
What are Human rights and from where do they derive?
"Imperialism is going to other peoples countries and stealing from them, oppressing them and killing any of them who object. "
Very true. History is full of them. It's usually done because the other side is weaker. If the other side have guns as well it's more difficult.
So you are saying that the Jews in Nazi Germany had no human rights because there are no human rights. The Germans were stronger than the Jews therefore they had the right to put them into Ghettos and concentration camps then kill them?
John Little
18-Apr-10, 17:36
Do you reserve your outrage for stuff beyond a particular line in time?
I mean the Romans, according to Tacitus 'Create a desert and call it "peace"'
William the Conqueror harried the whole North of England, burned looted and hanged in order to make an example.
Richard 11 did the same in Kent and Sussex during the Peasant's revolt.
Henry V111 did it after the Pilgrimage of Grace.
When the Civil war finished 10% of the population of England Wales and Scotland had been killed.
There were only half a million Irish left.
In the French revolution barges with 2000 people were locked in and sunk on the river Rhone because the guillotine was too slow.
The bloodiest war in history killed 67 million people.
You seem to want to rewrite History and condemn it by a notional idea of what is wrong by today's standards.
Problem is that there are many many people who do not think like you do - I have met some. One in particular has a burning ambition to be Africa's Bolivar- he would love to lead a conquering army across black Africa and unite it by force. Given his connections he might just do it too....
Why do you seem to reserve your outrage for Britain in particular in a world absolutely bristling with teeth and bad guys?
John Little
18-Apr-10, 17:39
"So you are saying that the Jews in Nazi Germany had no human rights because there are no human rights."
Exactly - now you begin to see. The Nazis had removed those rights by promulgating a set of laws called the Nuremburg Laws. Jews were not members of the Volksgemeinschact and therefore had no rights at all in Germany- not even basic human ones. Human rights apply where societies let them.
"The Germans were stronger than the Jews therefore they had the right to put them into Ghettos and concentration camps then kill them?"
Fred - 'right' is another word for 'might'.
They had the might so they did it. So the world turns.
We had the might to overturn them.
So I can post links to eminent historians who dispute the figures given for the Holocaust.
It doesn't alter the fact that we put them in concentration camps and large numbers of them died.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/correspondent/2416049.stm
Germans; for 'Concentration Camps' insert 'Extermination' Harking back to earlier posts it would appear by your silence, that you do not accept 6,000,000 were murdered in these camps? whoops; Holocaust denier.. (er, Fred, that does not mean you 'deny' the Holocaust, but reject the number given..)
DSM-IV 301.81 (look it up)
Germans; for 'Concentration Camps' insert 'Extermination' Harking back to earlier posts it would appear by your silence, that you do not accept 6,000,000 were murdered in these camps? whoops; Holocaust denier.. (er, Fred, that does not mean you 'deny' the Holocaust, but reject the number given..)
DSM-IV 301.81 (look it up)
I haven't denied anything, first you declare I denied something then you declare I am a Holocaust denier. But the fact is, not that you tend to bother yourself with facts too often, I have not denied anything.
The fact is that nobody knows, it is impossible to say with any degree of accuracy because the evidence is just not available but those who have provided an educated guess no one has ever said that 6 million Jews died in the extermination camps, around 3 million is the usual estimate and how many of those died in the gas chambers and how many from disease, malnutrition or other causes is not known.
The number of 6 million is the total number of Jews who died in German controlled territories during WWII. It is based on birth, death and census data which is far from complete either because it never existed or because it was destroyed, the number could easily be higher. There is no way of knowing how many were killed by the Germans and how many died of other causes. For instance we do not know how many Jews were in Dresden when we fire bombed it, we do know that our bombs did kill a large number of Jews because they worked in and were housed close to the munitions factories we bombed all too frequently.
For instance we do not know how many Jews were in Dresden when we fire bombed it, we do know that our bombs did kill a large number of Jews because they worked in and were housed close to the munitions factories we bombed all too frequently.
Just a wee thought Fred how many were killed by the Luftewaffe when they bombed London, Coventry,Plymouth, and Clydeside?
My historical facts are not fully up to date, but the above mentioned were all bombed before Dresden I am fairly sure.
John Little
18-Apr-10, 18:40
"or instance we do not know how many Jews were in Dresden when we fire bombed it,"
Very true.
We don't know how many Jews were in London, Southampton, Coventry, Plymouth, Birmingham, Exeter... either when they were bombed....
"or instance we do not know how many Jews were in Dresden when we fire bombed it,"
Very true.
We don't know how many Jews were in London, Southampton, Coventry, Plymouth, Birmingham, Exeter... either when they were bombed....
They weren't in German controlled territory so wouldn't be included in the figures anyway.
John Little
18-Apr-10, 19:04
LOL!
Fred - you made a joke!!
I like it.
I haven't denied anything, first you declare I denied something then you declare I am a Holocaust denier. But the fact is, not that you tend to bother yourself with facts too often, I have not denied anything.
The fact is that nobody knows, it is impossible to say with any degree of accuracy because the evidence is just not available but those who have provided an educated guess no one has ever said that 6 million Jews died in the extermination camps, around 3 million is the usual estimate and how many of those died in the gas chambers and how many from disease, malnutrition or other causes is not known.
The number of 6 million is the total number of Jews who died in German controlled territories during WWII. It is based on birth, death and census data which is far from complete either because it never existed or because it was destroyed, the number could easily be higher. There is no way of knowing how many were killed by the Germans and how many died of other causes. For instance we do not know how many Jews were in Dresden when we fire bombed it, we do know that our bombs did kill a large number of Jews because they worked in and were housed close to the munitions factories we bombed all too frequently.
Oh dear, silly me, I mentioned 'murdered in these camps'; you have given a partial answer, but my 'harking back' was - as you well know - referring to #107 of this thread 1) I believe that c 6 million Jews were murdered in the Holocaust
2) I also believe the Nazis used gas chambers
So, now that we have established, that you can reply, please answer #107, do you believe the figures that I believe in? by the way congratulations that you have confirmed above, that Jews did die in the gas chambers..
"the munitions factories we bombed all too frequently" Goodness me, aren't we naughty; bombing these factories that made German bombs that killed our people? tut tut.. silly boy
As for your paragraph "the fact is that nobody knows, it is impossible..etc". I suggest to you, that you have taken this from the Institute for Historical Review.. i.e.:
The Institute for Historical Review (IHR), founded in 1978, is an American organization that describes itself as a "public-interest educational, research and publishing center dedicated to promoting greater public awareness of history." Critics have accused it of being an antisemitic "pseudo-scholarly body" with links to neo-Nazi organizations, and assert that its primary purpose is to disseminate views denying key facts of Nazism and the genocide of Jews and others. It has been described as the "world's leading Holocaust denial organization."
John Little
18-Apr-10, 19:52
I wonder if Fred Likes Handel?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9CwcHm4b-4
Tubthumper
18-Apr-10, 21:19
He canny handel the world ootside his head!
Fred gets weirder and weirder. I cant help but think there is some sort of ideological focus here. Fred, are you a Fascist, a Holocaust Denier, a lunatic out on a day pass? Whence comes this stubborn anti-British position and why? And how many sites have you been asked to leave?
I dare say Mr. Goebels is one of your heroes - tell 'em a big enough lie and keep repeating it and folk will believe it. In your case the lie is that the Allies in the Second World War were as bad as the Germans.
Well they weren't.
Now shut up and go to bed.
LOL!
Fred - you made a joke!!
I like it.
It wasn't a joke.
We were discussing the number of Jews who died in German controlled territory during WWII, I pointed out that many of them will have died from other causes than being killed by the Germans including those who were killed by our bombs.
Those killed by German bombs in Britain were not relevant to the discussion so why bring them up? They wouldn't be included in the 6 million.
Oh dear, silly me, I mentioned 'murdered in these camps'; you have given a partial answer, but my 'harking back' was - as you well know - referring to #107 of this thread 1) I believe that c 6 million Jews were murdered in the Holocaust
2) I also believe the Nazis used gas chambers
So, now that we have established, that you can reply, please answer #107, do you believe the figures that I believe in? by the way congratulations that you have confirmed above, that Jews did die in the gas chambers..
"the munitions factories we bombed all too frequently" Goodness me, aren't we naughty; bombing these factories that made German bombs that killed our people? tut tut.. silly boy
As for your paragraph "the fact is that nobody knows, it is impossible..etc". I suggest to you, that you have taken this from the Institute for Historical Review.. i.e.:
The Institute for Historical Review (IHR), founded in 1978, is an American organization that describes itself as a "public-interest educational, research and publishing center dedicated to promoting greater public awareness of history." Critics have accused it of being an antisemitic "pseudo-scholarly body" with links to neo-Nazi organizations, and assert that its primary purpose is to disseminate views denying key facts of Nazism and the genocide of Jews and others. It has been described as the "world's leading Holocaust denial organization."
No, never even heard of the Institute for Historical Review.
Why are you going to such great lengths to try and convince people I'm a Holocaust denier? Can't you just discus the facts without having to resort to character assassination?
If you can show any source which says anything I said in my post is not true then post it.
John Little
18-Apr-10, 22:58
"We were discussing the number of Jews who died in German controlled territory during WWII,"
Ah - I was under the impression that we were talking of those who were deliberately put to death by the Nazis merely for being Jews.
"Those killed by German bombs in Britain were not relevant to the discussion so why bring them up? "
I brought them up because you mentioned them in the context of being bombed in dresden. I have no doubt that the Nazis were not too bothered about the races they killed during their previous bombing of our cities.
I'm off to bed. Catch you tomorrow.
In your case the lie is that the Allies in the Second World War were as bad as the Germans.
Well they weren't.
Now shut up and go to bed.
Do you not think that by not bombing the Auschwitz camp and railways we helped contribute to the vast number of people killed there.
The following link suggest that contrary to the Allied claims that it was logistically impossible to reach, American planes DID manage to reach, and bomb the surrounding area in 1944, 3 years after the Allies were informed of the nature of the camp and a year before it was liberated.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/127584
No, never even heard of the Institute for Historical Review. Why are you going to such great lengths to try and convince people I'm a Holocaust denier? Can't you just discus the facts without having to resort to character assassination? If you can show any source which says anything I said in my post is not true then post it.
Fred, as you know, my original post (#93) pointed out that recently a person had been accused of 'holocaust Denial*'; a crime in most of Europe.
To refresh: "A renegade British bishop has been fined 10,000 euros (£8,750) for denying the Holocaust. The case went ahead in a German court without Richard Williamson, whose breakaway Catholic fraternity told him not to testify, his lawyer said. The bishop acknowledged the offending comments in a statement read in court. Williamson, 70, was convicted by the court in the southern German city of Regensburg of inciting racial hatred for stating in a TV interview aired in January 2009 that only "200,000 to 300,000 Jews perished in Nazi concentration camps". He also denied the Nazis had used gas chambers".
Additionally (#102): "My point was that there are still - after 65 years - people who can state; "only 200,000 to 300,000 Jews perished in Nazi concentration camps". and "He also denied the Nazis had used gas chambers." - Having been to Oświęcim not far from Krakow when kayaking the Vistula to Gdansk in June 1976, and Bergen-Belsen I know he [Williamson above] is talking crap."
Reading through your own posts you have ducked and weaved away from the simple question; 'do you believe six million Jews were killed by the Nazis' - I have given my affirmative belief - nowhere have I read that you support this view.
No, this is not 'character assassination' [In practice, character assassination usually consists of the spreading of rumours and deliberate misinformation on topics relating to one's morals, integrity, and reputation.] but a search for the truth. In simple terms it would appear that you could, by definition, be a holocaust denier. Nothing you have posted - as far as I can see IMO negates this.
I feel that although I have stated my own views, you seem, shall I say rather a tad reticent. This is not a court, but a minor website in the Far North of Scotland, and this is a General Forum, where ideas and ideals are banded. If you feel unable to give a straight answer; so be it. In the grand scheme of things it is not important, it has simply confirmed my personal opinion. End of.
*NB; Germany's parliament passed legislation in 1985, making it a crime to deny the extermination of the Jews. In 1994, the law was tightened. Now, anyone who publicly endorses, denies or plays down the genocide against the Jews faces a maximum penalty of five years in jail and no less than the imposition of a fine.
John Little
19-Apr-10, 09:53
Again short cos I am at work
"The following link suggest that contrary to the Allied claims that it was logistically impossible to reach, American planes DID manage to reach, and bomb the surrounding area in 1944, 3 years after the Allies were informed of the nature of the camp and a year before it was liberated"
It was not possible for Allied planes to reach the camps and return because Stalin would not allow allied planes to land and refuel in soviet held territory. He was persuaded to do so in September 1944 - which got the yanks into trouble because on one return trip they spotted and bombed a tank column which was, unfortunately Russian....
Shuttle bombing it was called.
Reading through your own posts you have ducked and weaved away from the simple question; 'do you believe six million Jews were killed by the Nazis' - I have given my affirmative belief - nowhere have I read that you support this view.
Now this is getting ridiculous, you are just determined to prove me a Holocaust Denier. It's personal abuse, it's character assassination, it is org bullying. Nowhere have I said I denied the Holocaust, you just posted that you supposed I denied the Holocaust. Then you start posting that you supposed I got my information from some anti Semitic web site when I was stating the official facts.
Now for the last time, I clearly stated in post #153
"The number of 6 million is the total number of Jews who died in German controlled territories during WWII. It is based on birth, death and census data which is far from complete either because it never existed or because it was destroyed, the number could easily be higher."
Have you got that now or are you going to keep on harassing me till I decide to be a Holocaust denier?
Now this is getting ridiculous, you are just determined to prove me a Holocaust Denier. It's personal abuse, it's character assassination, it is org bullying. Nowhere have I said I denied the Holocaust, you just posted that you supposed I denied the Holocaust. Then you start posting that you supposed I got my information from some anti Semitic web site when I was stating the official facts.Now for the last time, I clearly stated in post #153 Have you got that now or are you going to keep on harassing me till I decide to be a Holocaust denier?
I am not "determined to prove you a Holocaust Denier" + "Nowhere have I said I denied the Holocaust" I stated, that you seemed to find difficulty to accept "Since 1945-46, the most commonly quoted figure for the total number of Jews in the killed in the Holocaust has been an estimate of approximately six million. This figure, first given at the Nuremberg Tribunal, has been confirmed again and again by later research."
Denying the Holocaust' is whereby "anyone who publicly endorses, denies or plays down the genocide against the Jews"
Instead of 'died', the word 'killed in the Holocaust' seems to quite dissimilar to 'died in German controlled territories' and your "For instance we do not know how many Jews were in Dresden when we fire bombed it, we do know that our bombs did kill a large number of Jews because they worked in and were housed close to the munitions factories we bombed all too frequently" is, one could say, a bit of a red herring.
Why oh why do you continue with this scream of 'bullying' - this is a General Forum where robust exchanges are a part and parcel of debate, if one posts inflammatory, curious, interesting, etc threads, one must expect a reaction..
So Fred, I will leave it there. ;)
It was not possible for Allied planes to reach the camps and return because Stalin would not allow allied planes to land and refuel in soviet held territory. He was persuaded to do so in September 1944 - which got the yanks into trouble because on one return trip they spotted and bombed a tank column which was, unfortunately Russian....
Shuttle bombing it was called.
"..After the Allies gained control of the Foggia Air Base in Italy in December 1943, Auschwitz was within striking distance of Allied planes for the first time.."
http://judaism.about.com/od/holocaust/a/aush_nobomb.htm
http://hgs.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/11/2/129
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/bombau.html
John Little
19-Apr-10, 12:38
Interesting that Foggia was in range - I assume you mean they could bomb and return from there? Was Foggia a strategic or tactical bombing base? I don't actually know.
To bomb an area effectively I'm assuming a certain level of logistics is necessary. To establish that kind of capability in Italy at that time would have been rather a lot of trouble considering the length of supply route from manufacture to aircraft.
Whereas in England the heavy bomber bases existed with all the supply and backup in place.
Just because you physically reach a particular point does not necessarily mean that you can use it for a particular purpose. There's all sorts of cost-benefit calculations to take into account - fuel, personnel, back-up.
I have never been in the air force and am willing to heed information for or against on these matters.
John Little
19-Apr-10, 17:44
So I have learned that the Yanks were able to bomb Eastern Europe from Foggia and did so.
The Brits confined their strategic bombing capability to Britain.
The American bombers appear to have concerned themselves with military targets which were considered to have direct links to aiding the advance of Allied forces.
From 1944 onwards both Brit and US airforces concentrated their efforts on V1 and V2 sites and manufacturing bases as bombs were raining down on southern England.
And despite the carpet bombing Speer had succeeded in increasing production of armaments during 1944 so industrial targets had priority.
Considering the death percentage rate amongst aircrews flying over occupied Europe I would think that a target would have to be pretty high up on the military priorities list before risking emn's lives to bomb it.
I guess Auschwitz was not sufficiently high to justify diverting from other targets. After all if the invasion of Nazi Europe succeeded then the camps would be over-run anyway.
But thankyou Anfield - I have learned today.
John Little
20-Apr-10, 17:50
http://www.hdot.org/en/learning/myth-fact
Interesting and educational.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.