PDA

View Full Version : Morality in War: Did Nazi Atrocities Justify Harsh Allied Tactics



Drake
07-19-2007, 02:46 PM
Mod Note:
This is a thread header for the discussion of how Nazism came to power and the Third Reich came into being split-off from the heated digressions in the Bomber Harris thread. As a part of this thread's exploration: Were ruthless Allied tactics, both Western and Eastern, such as firebombing and indiscriminate use of artillery in civilian areas justified? Did the Holocaust and Wehrmacht/SS atrocities in the ost lesson the disgrace of the Red Army's breakdown of discipline, and rampant raping and plundering in Germany during 1945?

Other questions raised in this split off from the Bomber Harris thread:

-What was the nature and the extent of anti-Nazi German resistance?

-How did the Germans allow this to happen?

-Were the Germans the only peoples culpable not only in Nazi atrocities, but of Hitler's rise to power?

--Nickdfresh


As I see it, any Aerial Bombardment (from Guernica to Dresden) which dedicatly targeted the civilian population was an atrocity and a war crime. One might understand the motivation behind such attacks when it comes to the british command, but I can also understand, why a father would kill a rapist and murder of his daughter, yet it remains murder and would be prosecuted, and correctly so. The argument "The other one did it aswell" would nowadays usually be found in Kindergarten discussions. And it was in fact a war crime even under the rules back then to target civilians, especially late in the war, say 1944 or 1945, when the writing about the end of the war was already on the wall.

Nickdfresh
03-15-2008, 01:35 PM
its a little hypocritical to complain if the enemy uses the tactics you first used on them, more effectively


The Allies while not fully aware of the scale of the holocaust at the death camps were fully aware of the SS death squads operating in the East.


...

The Allies were at least aware to an extent, what was going on in the death camps. But they weren't really focusing in it much as the object was to win the War, therebye ending whatever the Nazis were doing. There's a NYTimes article about all this dating from the 1990s somewhere around here and there were articles printed in the American press regarding extermination camps as early as 1943 or 44...

http://hnn.us/articles/10903.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/31/international/europe/31holocaust.html



The New York Times (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=980DE7DA103AF93AA25752C1A9609582 60&scp=91)

November 19, 1996
Files Suggest British Knew Early Of Nazi Atrocities Against Jews
By ALAN COWELL

They crouched in makeshift booths in dank, secret parts of wartime England, poring over the coded radio traffic flowing from the commanders of Nazi Germany. With some brilliant coups, and much plodding labor, the British code-breakers tracked the progress of the German Army on its march across Europe.

Then came the summer of 1941 and the German invasion of the Soviet Union. Now the content of the coded messages used by the German commanders of the SS and police units that followed the front-line troops was shockingly different from routine intelligence about troop movements: July 18 -- ''1,153 Jewish looters shot;'' Aug. 27 -- ''Regiment South shot 914 Jews; the special action staff with police battalion 320 shot 4,200 Jews;'' Aug. 31 -- ''2,200 Jews shot.''

Those messages, many historians now believe, were a shorthand about the beginnings of the Holocaust. But in a striking display of official secretiveness, only in recent days have the contents of the radio intercepts finally been made public in Washington. For historians and Holocaust researchers, they provide a clue to one of the vital missing links of the history of the era: who in the West knew at the time that genocide was beginning?

''What is perfectly clear is that British intelligence had absolutely definite information, not about all of Europe, but certainly about occupied parts of the Soviet Union,'' Prof. Richard Breitman said.

Mr. Breitman, a historian at American University here, was among a group of American scholars who requested the declassification of 1.3 million wartime documents from the National Security Agency under the Freedom of Information Act. The agency, which was created after the war, released the documents to the National Archives.

Professor Breitman said in a recent interview that 282 pages of radio intercepts from SS and police commanders in Belarus and Ukraine were among the documents. Taken together with earlier British research, he said, they establish that the British knew that Jews were being targeted for atrocities as early as September 1941 -- more than a year before Britain or the United States publicly acknowledged the plight of the European Jews.

Even before the German invasion of the Soviet Union, Polish resistance and Jewish groups had been telling Britain and its allies of atrocities against civilians in occupied Poland.

By late 1941, Professor Breitman said, ''the British knew a lot about the shootings in the Soviet Union'' and had concluded that ''it was perfectly obvious that the Nazis were executing every Jew they could lay hands on.''

Although Britain and the United States shared intelligence during the war, it remains unclear when the British passed on this information, including copies of the documents, to the Americans, who entered the war in December 1941 after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

The documents reaffirm that in the wartime German hierarchy, responsibility for the mass killing of Jews lay not only with elite SS units, but also with municipal police units -- the Order Police -- supposedly drawn from less fanatical Germans.

The disclosure, moreover, raises the troubling question of why the transcripts, still classified in Britain, were not released earlier to assist in the prosecution of war criminals.

The documents have opened a new fault line among historians of the Nazi era in the United States, Britain and Germany over questions relating to the very definition of the Nazi genocide and the Allied response to it: is it reasonable, half a century later, to assume that the British code-breakers would extrapolate from the messages that Nazi Germany planned the destruction of the European Jews? And, if Allied intelligence had drawn that conclusion, why was the beginning of the Holocaust the object of a cover-up?

The transcripts draw a chilling picture of events from July to August 1941, as German SS and police units moved through the Soviet Union, chronicling their achievements with a blend of precision and horror, at once terse and boastful.

Explosive Reports Of Nazi Killings

On Aug. 4, 1941, for example, a German commander reported: ''Up until Aug. 3, SS cavalry brigade liquidated 3,274 partisans and Jewish Bolshevists. Own losses: none.''

Even at that time, the transcripts were evidently viewed as so explosive that British intelligence analysts marked them: ''To be kept under lock and key. Never to be removed from the office.''

Significantly, though, the flow of detailed information relating to atrocities was interrupted on Sept. 13, 1941, with a coded order from Berlin on the same network that all future reference to executions be delivered by courier, not by a radio system vulnerable to interception. From now on, the message from Kurt Daluge, Commander of the Order Police in Berlin, insisted, executions should be treated as ''most secret matters of the Reich.''

That order itself, decoded on Oct. 9, 1941, provided ample evidence that the Germans themselves attached such importance to the atrocities as to classify them alongside the highest state secrets.

''What is totally new is that the British were able to intercept the cables,'' Prof. Wolfgang Wippermann, a German historian who supports Professor Breitman's assessment of the importance of the disclosure, said in a telephone interview from Berlin. ''That the Allies knew all the details, this is a scandal. And it's still a scandal in 1996 because disclosure of this information was necessary for research, for the courts and for the survivors.''

Reports Not Open At Nuremberg Trials

None of the information in the intercepts, Professor Breitman said, were used at the Nuremberg war crimes trials after World War II because the documents were then still classified.

Indeed, Professor Breitman said, one of the main Nazi commanders involved in the massacres, Gen. Erich von dem Bach-Zelewsky, was able to testify as a prosecution witness at the trials and escape prosecution for ''four or five years'' after the war -- even though his activities were known to Allied intelligence. He was later convicted by a West German court, Mr. Breitman said.

One transcript, for instance, from the town of Slonim in Belarus, states, ''In yesterday's cleansing action in Slonim by the police regiment Mitte, 1,153 Jewish looters were shot.'' The message on July 18, 1941 -- less than a month after the German invasion -- was signed by General von dem Bach-Zelewsky, the German commander in Belarus, and transmitted to Heinrich Himmler, the head of the SS, and Commander Daluge of the Order Police.

The transcript notes that the message was decoded just three days later.

In another message, dated Aug. 7, 1941, General von dem Bach-Zelewsky wrote, with evident self-congratulation: ''The action of the SS cavalry brigade proceeds. By noon today, a further 3,600 were executed, so that the total number by Cavalry Regiment Eastern is 7,819. Thereby, the number of 30,000 in my area has been exceeded.''

The disclosures come in a turbulent period in Holocaust research. Earlier this year, Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, a Harvard historian, came out with a book that asserted that the Holocaust had its roots in a specific German anti-Semitism that turned the destruction of Jews into a ''national project.''

While Professor Breitman disputes that contention, the transcripts reaffirm what Professor Goldhagen and a 1992 study by Prof. Christopher R. Browning of Pacific Lutheran University in Tacoma, Washington had explored: that ordinary police battalions -- not just SS units -- were widely used in the mass killing of Jews after front-line soldiers had subdued occupied lands.

That earlier research, though, relates to events in Poland in 1942, rather than what is now widely acknowledged to be the beginning of genocide in the Soviet Union.

The transcripts shed light on a period predating both the Wannsee Conference of Nazi leaders in January 1942 that formalized the ''final solution,'' the decision to kill the European Jews en masse, and the construction of the Auschwitz and Dachau death camps in 1942.

Cont'd

Nickdfresh
03-15-2008, 01:52 PM
The Rest:


Were Clues Enough To Alert the Allies?

The question of what they say about the Allies is more opaque.

''What's not new is that the police regiments were carrying out massacres,'' Professor Browning said after the documents were made public. ''What is new is that the British intercepted this. But you cannot deduce a ''final solution'' from that. There is no way you could conclude'' on the basis of the transcripts ''that the Germans had a plan to exterminate all the Jews.''

''This is where we are going to have a difference of interpretation,'' he said. ''Those who are looking for someone to blame are going to see this in terms of: here is proof of perfidy and British cover-ups.

''And then there are those who argue: here is Britain, fighting alone, looking for something else and they have a whole lot of problems without looking for any others. These are the two poles between which this debate is going to take place.''

Indeed, said Prof. Hans Mommsen, a German scholar who differs with Professor Breitman on the origins of the Holocaust, while the British intercepts relate to the summer and early fall of 1941, the Nazi leadership itself did not resolve ''to carry out the systematic elimination of European Jews'' before early 1942.

Intelligence analysts in Britain thus could hardly be expected to reach conclusions in 1941 about events that still defy a comprehensive explanation half a century later, he said.

''How could the British be aware that this was a systematic process?'' Professor Mommsen said. ''There was no program, no order.''

Moreover, said Gitta Sereny, a British writer in London who published a new study of the Nazi leader Albert Speer last year, it is still unclear whether the British knew ''that the killings which began in July 1941 were the start of the genocide of all European Jewry and the systematic elimination by murder of Eastern Europe's non-Jewish cultural elite.''

''The truth about this will not be found in German or Russian documents, but in Britain, where it is as yet carefully hidden away,'' she said.

Nonetheless, the transcripts do raise disturbing questions about Allied reticence.

One tactical reason for their silence, Professor Browning said, was that the British were ''desperate to keep secret the fact that they were breaking the German codes'' and, therefore, any public acknowledgment of the atrocities would have alerted the Germans to modify their encrypting methods.

The British intelligence analysts who were handling the transcripts were under orders to glean as much as they could about the military situation on Germany's Eastern Front, not about the mass killing of Jews. ''Some of the people who were looking at these things had a very narrow focus,'' Professor Breitman acknowledged.

Beyond that, though, the evidence of massacres collided with many other reasons to avoid the conclusion that genocide was under way -- a reluctance among the Allies even to acknowledge the monstrousness of German plans, a refusal to recast World War II as a war on behalf of European Jews and a strain of anti-Semitic thinking at high levels of British officialdom.

Additionally, as the war ground on, a variety of strategic considerations -- ranging from concern about Arab sentiment in the contested Middle East to the argument that aiding Jews could prolong the war -- were cited in Washington and London as grounds for playing down the Holocaust.

''In the eyes of some officials in both London and Washington, virtually any publicized assistance or attention to European Jews jeopardized some requisite of the war effort,'' Professor Breitman wrote in a 1985 article. ''To a remarkable degree, Adolf Hitler had succeeded in devaluing the lives of European Jews in the eyes of the rest of the world.''

Covenanter
03-16-2008, 06:32 AM
Lets malke it clear, Hitler happened because majority of Germans wanted, Nazi camps and wholesale extermination of nations and ethnicities happened because german nation accepted it as a prize for their power.

Today apologetics claim that it was just some germans or that the german crimes were not widely known, that is NOT true.

German crimes and extermination policies were not known in detail but every german had the general idea, the german people despite all this loved Hitler and endorsed his ideology, not some nazi from the moon but german people including civilians.

Harris said that if a hundred thousand civilians died to save one british soldier that was an acceptable price, i cant agree more,crushing majority of germans were nazi supporters, today they are different people but back then even wholesale extermination of the german people to save the lives of their victims i would find acceptable, germans of WW2 deserved total war, they deserved every death, every rape, every bomb.

Thats not hate talking through me, like i said today these men and women are dead or old and new generations are different people but back then it was men and women of Germany who made concentration camps possible, they did not deserve mercy, pity or leniency, its one time when group responsibility was actually a pretty fair implementation of justice.

Harris was not a hero but i find his approach extremely healthy( even if not politically correct ) under the circumstances.

Drake
03-16-2008, 06:58 AM
Lets malke it clear, Hitler happened because majority of Germans wanted, Nazi camps and wholesale extermination of nations and ethnicities happened because german nation accepted it as a prize for their power.

Today apologetics claim that it was just some germans or that the german crimes were not widely known, that is NOT true.

German crimes and extermination policies were not known in detail but every german had the general idea, the german people despite all this loved Hitler and endorsed his ideology, not some nazi from the moon but german people including civilians.

Harris said that if a hundred thousand civilians died to save one british soldier that was an acceptable price, i cant agree more,crushing majority of germans were nazi supporters, today they are different people but back then even wholesale extermination of the german people to save the lives of their victims i would find acceptable, germans of WW2 deserved total war, they deserved every death, every rape, every bomb.

Thats not hate talking through me, like i said today these men and women are dead or old and new generations are different people but back then it was men and women of Germany who made concentration camps possible, they did not deserve mercy, pity or leniency, its one time when group responsibility was actually a pretty fair implementation of justice.

Harris was not a hero but i find his approach extremely healthy( even if not politically correct ) under the circumstances.

Wow, bullshit of the day award would be very deserved for this post. It's exactly that kind of uninformed generalization of unbelievably complex things that makes people like hitler possible.
And it's presumptuous to the max to claim you'd know what people 70 years ago thought, knew or felt just because it fits into your confused little world of jingoism.

generalderpanzertruppen
03-16-2008, 07:01 AM
germans of WW2 deserved total war, they deserved every death, every rape, every bomb.



Hmm, I'm guessing that all the Polish and Czech women deserved their rapings at the hands of the Soviets as well? If not, why not?

Covenanter
03-16-2008, 07:30 AM
Wow, bullshit of the day award would be very deserved for this post. It's exactly that kind of uninformed generalization of unbelievably complex things that makes people like hitler possible.
And it's presumptuous to the max to claim you'd know what people 70 years ago thought, knew or felt just because it fits into your confused little world of jingoism.

Drake i come from a family of germanized poles, i know first hand what people 70 years ago thought ( not that there isnt a ton of documentaries where people say what they thought ).

Germans. Loved. Hitler. Even today they admit it, youtube is your friend, you can see random german citizens, now elderly people or dead confirming that they felt pride with the power of Germany and when asked about nazi crimes they claim ignorance.

Well my gramps who was in the Wehramcht saw it that way, "Jewish neighbours vanished, we knew that they wont be coming back but we didnt want to know the details" and thats the stand with the whole bloody german society of the day, you get discovery programs, specialist literature, all kinds of sources that say Hitler and his regime were widely and enthusiastically accepted.

Also do not compare poles or lithuanias of the time to Nazi Germans, your nation is responsible for the single most horrid crime in the history of the human race, not some random mysterious creatures called the nazi but men and women of Frankfurt, Berlin and all the cities and villages who did not say "NO".

There was no opposition to Hitler and when they finally tried to blow him up it wasnt to save jews or slavs but to save what was left of their precious Germany, what i am saying is not generalisation, the german people as a nation were co-responsible for Hitler and all his regime brought and as such the only one whom they can blame for their suffering is themselves.

I am neither a hatefull person nor am i generalising, i can understand that for you as a German it is hard to grap or accept but the fact is a vast majority of adult Germans of the 3rd Reich were active or passive nazi supporters so yes Harris was right in his bombing campaign.

That doesnt make him a hero since bombing of civilians even ones that back up their pretty little murderous regime aint heroic but he was still right, deal with it.

One more thing, do not compare other nations sufferings to your nation, Germany started the war, Germany is to blaim, suffering of the Germans was caused by Germans themselves, when a killer goes to prison its because he killed, poles and lithuanians were innocent victims whereas all the suffering your people endured was if not justifiable than understanble at the very least.

gumalangi
03-16-2008, 08:12 AM
You do wrongdoing things to the wrongdoers,. do not make you better than the latter,..

Covenanter
03-16-2008, 08:20 AM
You do wrongdoing things to the wrongdoers,. do not make you better than the latter,..

Which is why i'm saying the guy was not a hero however german civilian population deserved total war, quite frankly burning german cities and civies would shake the gerries enough to punch through the propaganda blanket that covered the nations collective mind and make them realise that this is no longer to get more lebensraum but a fight for survival and war is coming home.

Its much easier to fight a broken and terrorised nation and in this particular case anyone willing to do it had the luxury of moral justification, it would never be good or heroic but acceptable and understandable.

Rising Sun*
03-16-2008, 08:58 AM
Germans. Loved. Hitler. Even today they admit it, youtube is your friend, you can see random german citizens, now elderly people or dead confirming that they felt pride with the power of Germany and when asked about nazi crimes they claim ignorance.

.....

Also do not compare poles or lithuanias of the time to Nazi Germans, your nation is responsible for the single most horrid crime in the history of the human race, not some random mysterious creatures called the nazi but men and women of Frankfurt, Berlin and all the cities and villages who did not say "NO".

Ignoring several other events which might rank as as the single most horrid crime in history, if all Germans were so keen on Hitler, how come he never managed to get anywhere near a majority of them to vote for him and that he came to power by devious devices which were necessary to overcome the lack of majority support after about two thirds of Germans had voted against him?

His best electoral result still had well over half of Germans saying "NO".

All the historical evidence is against your condemnation of the German people as unanimous supporters of Hitler.

Given Poland's treatment of Jews, it's unwise to get too moralistic about Germany's 'horrid crimes'.

Drake
03-16-2008, 09:23 AM
Drake i come from a family of germanized poles, i know first hand what people 70 years ago thought ( not that there isnt a ton of documentaries where people say what they thought ).

Germans. Loved. Hitler. Even today they admit it, youtube is your friend, you can see random german citizens, now elderly people or dead confirming that they felt pride with the power of Germany and when asked about nazi crimes they claim ignorance.


Well my gramps who was in the Wehramcht saw it that way, "Jewish neighbours vanished, we knew that they wont be coming back but we didnt want to know the details" and thats the stand with the whole bloody german society of the day, you get discovery programs, specialist literature, all kinds of sources that say Hitler and his regime were widely and enthusiastically accepted.

Also do not compare poles or lithuanias of the time to Nazi Germans, your nation is responsible for the single most horrid crime in the history of the human race, not some random mysterious creatures called the nazi but men and women of Frankfurt, Berlin and all the cities and villages who did not say "NO".

There was no opposition to Hitler and when they finally tried to blow him up it wasnt to save jews or slavs but to save what was left of their precious Germany, what i am saying is not generalisation, the german people as a nation were co-responsible for Hitler and all his regime brought and as such the only one whom they can blame for their suffering is themselves.

I am neither a hatefull person nor am i generalising, i can understand that for you as a German it is hard to grap or accept but the fact is a vast majority of adult Germans of the 3rd Reich were active or passive nazi supporters so yes Harris was right in his bombing campaign.

That doesnt make him a hero since bombing of civilians even ones that back up their pretty little murderous regime aint heroic but he was still right, deal with it.

One more thing, do not compare other nations sufferings to your nation, Germany started the war, Germany is to blaim, suffering of the Germans was caused by Germans themselves, when a killer goes to prison its because he killed, poles and lithuanians were innocent victims whereas all the suffering your people endured was if not justifiable than understanble at the very least.

You are both hateful and generalising and furthermore unbelievably ignorant. Before you actually comment on complex matters try to gather enough knowledge to not make a complete fool of yourself (and the poles in general, if your theories had a grain of truth).

Btw. the poles of the time were hardly innocent bystanders on the holocaust, they gladly helped and killed some more jews even after the germans were gone.

Rising Sun*
03-16-2008, 09:24 AM
It beats me why the RAF thought that Germany would cave in after sustained bombing of civilian targets in the first place. It didn't work when the Luftwaffe tried it on England, why did they think that Germans would fold any quicker?

What the Luftwaffe tried on England wasn't comparable with the Allied bombing campaign against Germany, nor did Germany run such a sustained campaign as the Allies did against Germany.

Germany never had a heavy bomber, let alone thousands of them, that could inflict anything like the damage on England that the Allies inflicted on Germany.

Popular history throws up Rotterdam and Coventry in conjunction with Dresden and Cologne and Hamburg and even Tokyo as examples of the power of and death visited by bombers.

Check out the death tolls and you'll find that Rotterdam and Coventry weren't in the same league. They were just terrible in the early days of the war when there wasn't anything worse to compare them with. That came later, in the Allied campaigns against the Axis powers.

Covenanter
03-16-2008, 09:35 AM
You are both hateful and generalising and furthermore unbelievably ignorant. Before you actually comment on complex matters try to gather enough knowledge to not make a complete fool of yourself (and the poles in general, if your theories had a grain of truth).

Btw. the poles of the time were hardly innocent bystanders on the holocaust, they gladly helped and killed some more jews even after the germans were gone.

That is a filthy lie on which i am going to hold you for evidence, there was a single tragic incident in Jedwabne post war, by and large Poland was the most active country when it comes to aiding the Jews, i will now ask you to prove that poles assisted in holocaust, i stand ready to provide documentation which proves we tried to stop your people in their murderous intent as best as we could hiding hundreds of jewish families, providing evac routes and organising escapes.

Calling your forefathers murderers is not hatefull, its true, when i see a dog i call it a dog and screw political corectness.

Covenanter
03-16-2008, 09:37 AM
All the historical evidence is against your condemnation of the German people as unanimous supporters of Hitler.

Given Poland's treatment of Jews, it's unwise to get too moralistic about Germany's 'horrid crimes'.

Polands treatment of Jews ? You mean inviting and being host to the largest european community of Jews who took active part in our life or the fact that 90% of Jews saved from the holocaust were saved by the poles ?

Rising Sun*
03-16-2008, 09:39 AM
Btw. the poles of the time were hardly innocent bystanders on the holocaust, they gladly helped and killed some more jews even after the germans were gone.

And long before the Germans arrived, and independently of the Germans during the German occupation.

Which raises the issue that is conveniently ignored by various European nations that there was often enthusiastic local support for Nazi anti-Semitic measures. The Nazis didn't have to round up and load every cattle car full of Jews headed for concentration camps from occupied, or as in Hungary even non-occupied, territories.

Germans weren't the only people who should have been in the dock at Nuremberg. They just made the mistake of losing the war and being blamed for everything that happened in Europe during it.

Rising Sun*
03-16-2008, 09:44 AM
That is a filthy lie on which i am going to hold you for evidence, there was a single tragic incident in Jedwabne post war,

July 10, 1941 was post war?

What ****ing planet are you on?

Covenanter
03-16-2008, 09:44 AM
And long before the Germans arrived, and independently of the Germans during the German occupation.

Which raises the issue that is conveniently ignored by various European nations that there was often enthusiastic local support for Nazi anti-Semitic measures. The Nazis didn't have to round up and load every cattle car full of Jews headed for concentration camps from occupied, or as in Hungary even non-occupied, territories.

Germans weren't the only people who should have been in the dock at Nuremberg. They just made the mistake of losing the war and being blamed for everything that happened in Europe during it.

Long before the Germans arrived the Jews were legally represented group going as far as one of them becoming polish president, they were not opressed either officially nor unoficially, the society accepted them as nothing less than full polish citizens and anti-semitic excesses were extremely limited unlike in France, Russia or Germany, i will again ask you for the proof of your blatant lies.

I am perfectly aware that there were pre and post war anti-semitic crimes in Poland but as far as history is concerned Poland was the kindest of all european countries, here Jews were free of opression and welcome as a valuable part of society and during the war it was us, the poles who saved 90% of the total of Jews saved from holocaust.

Both the communist and nazi propaganda worked hard to reverse that picture but the actuall documented proof says otherwise, so again i ask you to forward what you base your anti-polish prejudice and "racism" on ?

Covenanter
03-16-2008, 09:48 AM
July 10, 1941 was post war?

What ****ing planet are you on?

There were two such events, the first one is still not clear and its suspected that SS instigated and perhaps even carried it out acting in plain clothes, the latter 1945 is undeniably polish in nature.

That is the one and only time when Jews were murdered by polish citizens, standing against thousands of accounts where poles died and risked their lives to save their jewish co-citizens.

Again i ask for proof that Poland was taking part in holocaust as opposed to trying to save as many as it could, i always enjoy discussing with nazi revizionists since sooner or later we hit the hard undeniable burden of proof, for which i am asking now.

Drake
03-16-2008, 09:59 AM
That is a filthy lie on which i am going to hold you for evidence, there was a single tragic incident in Jedwabne post war, by and large Poland was the most active country when it comes to aiding the Jews, i will now ask you to prove that poles assisted in holocaust, i stand ready to provide documentation which proves we tried to stop your people in their murderous intent as best as we could hiding hundreds of jewish families, providing evac routes and organising escapes.

Calling your forefathers murderers is not hatefull, its true, when i see a dog i call it a dog and screw political corectness.

A single incident, yeah right :roll:. Some 1500 jews were killed in poland after ww2 in pogroms (f.e. Kielce) and the majority of jewish population that was left fled the country til 1950 because they feared the raging antisemitism.
It's just very convenient for the french, the poles, the dutch and others to point their fingers at the germans as the sole perpetrators, but it's hardly historically correct. And the poles were also not particularly friendly to the germans in poland before ww2, following your argumentation I assume your nation deserved everything you received from my murderous forefathers.
I can provide documentation for germans who tried to save jews and resisted the nazis as well, btw.
As you might see, an undifferentiating approach to issues of historic proportions is hardly a viable one.

Drake
03-16-2008, 10:01 AM
You might want to read Jan T. Gross "Fear".

Nickdfresh
03-16-2008, 10:02 AM
...
There was no opposition to Hitler and when they finally tried to blow him up it wasnt to save jews or slavs but to save what was left of their precious Germany....

Clearly not true! There were plots to assassinate Hitler from the very beginning. There were German officers selecting commandos to storm Hitler's Berlin offices to kill him. What saved Hitler was the luck he had in the Invasion of France in 1940. There are many what-ifs at work here, but if the Anglo-French Armies had not sprung into Belgium, and managed a mobile counter-attack severing the armored punch after the infantry-lite panzer forces had driven into France from the Ardennes, we may very well have a different history...

Had things not gone as well in the Fall Gelb portion of the operation, Hitler may very well have been overthrown by the Wehrmacht. What finally muted the internal, institutional opposition to Hitler was his initial successes. Nothing more.

Rising Sun*
03-16-2008, 10:07 AM
I am perfectly aware that there were pre and post war anti-semitic crimes in Poland but as far as history is concerned Poland was the kindest of all european countries, here Jews were free of opression and welcome as a valuable part of society and during the war it was us, the poles who saved 90% of the total of Jews saved from holocaust.


I'll ignore the other silly parts of your post (notably Poland being the kindest nation while committing crimes against Jews), as I have a tendency to write long essays on important issues but your posts don't warrant such attention, so I'll just concentrate on your silly figures to challenge your claims.

If Poles saved 90% of the total Jews 'saved' from the Holocaust, that'd be about two million people, give or take a few based on numbers such as these http://www.mtsu.edu/~baustin/jewvicts.html

Which, remarkably, happens to be about four times more than the half million or so Polish Jews who survived the war.

Care to let me know which countries Poland's great Jew-saving operation extended into to save the other one and a half million Jews to make up your 90%?

Covenanter
03-16-2008, 10:08 AM
Clearly not true! There were plots to assassinate Hitler from the very beginning. There were German officers selecting commandos to storm Hitler's Berlin offices to kill him. What saved Hitler was the luck he had in the Invasion of France in 1940. There are many what-ifs at work here, but if the Anglo-French Armies had not sprung into Belgium, and managed a mobile counter-attack severing the armored punch after they had driven into France from the Ardennes, we may very well have a different history...

Had things not gone as well in the Fall Gelb portion of the operation, Hitler may very well have been overthrown by the Wehrmacht. What finally muted the internal, institutional opposition to Hitler was his initial successes. Nothing more.

There were plots to assasinate Napoleon right after his highly succesfull 1809 campaign, there were plots to assasinate Ceasar for years before they actually did it, it doesnt change the fact that wide public and majority of the figures did love them and no formal opposition existed.

There will always be someone who's opposed to the leader but :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpbyjPXAdcw&feature=related

Those cheering kids are not propaganda, thats the german nation and its fanatical love and belief in their Fuhrer, people opposed to the nazi regime were a tiny minority in the see of cheers and pride that filled every passive nazi supported which comprised most of the nation at the time.

Rising Sun*
03-16-2008, 10:12 AM
Again i ask for proof that Poland was taking part in holocaust as opposed to trying to save as many as it could, i always enjoy discussing with nazi revizionists since sooner or later we hit the hard undeniable burden of proof, for which i am asking now.

Normally I'd resent being called a Nazi revisionist (well, I might if anyone had made that idiotic accusation before), but in your case it's a title I'll wear with pride as it's been earned by objecting to your nonsense.

generalderpanzertruppen
03-16-2008, 10:13 AM
they deserved every rape



Hi Covenanter, I'm still waiting for you to justify collective punishment that extends to pre-teen girls being raped. This attitude seems pretty hate-filled to me.

Troy
www.feldpost.tv

Covenanter
03-16-2008, 10:17 AM
I'll ignore the other silly parts of your post (notably Poland being the kindest nation while committing crimes against Jews), as I have a tendency to write long essays on important issues but your posts don't warrant such attention, so I'll just concentrate on your silly figures to challenge your claims.
Indulge me, i have patience to go through your so called essay and pick it apart since i have all the sources and links at hand and its always a pleasure to call out a nazi revisionist.


If Poles saved 90% of the total Jews 'saved' from the Holocaust, that'd be about two million people, give or take a few based on numbers such as these http://www.mtsu.edu/~baustin/jewvicts.html
Read what i wrote again, poles saved 90% of the total of Jews saved from holocaust, not 90% of the jewish population, under the circumstances polish resistance and society did not have capacity to shelter even a fraction of the polish-jewish citizens, yet tens of thousands of Jews were saved, after the war there were more Jews in Poland than in France, Germany, Belgium and the countries of the Benelux combined, that gives you idea of the massive effort the poles undertook to save as many as they could so i'd be carefull in calling us nazi or holocaust supporters.



Care to let me know which countries Poland's great Jew-saving operation extended into to save the other one and a half million Jews to make up your 90%?

I explained your misreading but as for the nets there were quite a few, usually Jews were stucked in monasteries, there was also so called angel net which comprised of over sixty thousand families who sheltered their Jewish neighbours in an attempt to transport them to Italy but usually Jews were simply hidden in safehouses across Poland or lived with polish families.

Coicidentally over one hudred thousand poles were murdered for aiding the Jews, entire families, nazi supporter or not you should be carefull when you spit on the graves of my people based on your pop culture view of history.

Covenanter
03-16-2008, 10:21 AM
Hi Covenanter, I'm still waiting for you to justify collective punishment that extends to pre-teen girls being raped. This attitude seems pretty hate-filled to me.

Troy
www.feldpost.tv

Ah theres no justification there, i was championing the idea of bombings, the rapes conducted on german girls were inhuman cruelty, nazi or not there are limits even to terror warfare and you wont see me supporting that kind of stuff.

However be aware that the prime reason for those rapes was that your people started a war of extermination and war came home, also your girls still had better than ours, ours were just gassed.

Simply put i will always stand against victimizing german nation of WW2 even if there were crimes commited on german people they followed cause and effect, german actions were the cause.

Edit.

Dropping the polish-gerrie subject, i'll start a topic on it when ill come up with the way to formulate it so no one gets offended and it'll be hard with my right wing views, back to the bombings.

Nickdfresh
03-16-2008, 10:23 AM
...
Again i ask for proof that Poland was taking part in holocaust as opposed to trying to save as many as it could, i always enjoy discussing with nazi revizionists since sooner or later we hit the hard undeniable burden of proof, for which i am asking now.

I know there were plenty of Poles shooting at my forefathers landing on Omaha Beach...

Covenanter
03-16-2008, 10:30 AM
I know there were plenty of Poles shooting at my forefathers landing on Omaha Beach...

Only if your forefathers were nazi.

Rising Sun*
03-16-2008, 10:32 AM
Indulge me, i have patience to go through your so called essay and pick it apart since i have all the sources and links at hand and its always a pleasure to call out a nazi revisionist.

I'd love to debate you, but I'm afraid I have to be at a retired gruppenfuhrers' meeting to discuss what went wrong with all those extermination camps in Poland like Auschwitz and Treblinka and Maidanek that no Poles in those areas knew anything about, it being an old Polish custom to have cattle cars full of Jews heading to such places, so no Poles had to do anything to stop the horrid crimes there while the 100% of Germans supporting Hitler in Germany knew exactly what was going on in Poland and deserved to be bombed for it, and for not doing anything about all the concentration camps they knew about.

Rising Sun*
03-16-2008, 10:34 AM
Only if your forefathers were nazi.

Ever heard the phrase:

You've lost the plot, big time.

Nickdfresh
03-16-2008, 10:43 AM
Only if your forefathers were nazi.

My forefathers weren't in the 716th ID, they were in the 29th and 1st IDs...

Divisional Areas

* 716th Infantry Division (Static) defended the Eastern end of the landing zones, including most of the British and Canadian beaches. This division, as well as the 709th, included Germans who were not considered fit for active duty on the Eastern Front, usually for medical reasons, and various other nationalities such as conscripted Poles and former Soviet prisoners-of-war who had agreed to fight for the Germans rather than endure the harsh conditions of German POW camps.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Normandy

:rolleyes:

Nickdfresh
03-16-2008, 05:30 PM
Opening this thread:

I warn you, keep the posts civil, impersonal, and on-topic so what is an otherwise heated topic retains a modicum of discussion and not nationalistic flaming...

Firefly
03-16-2008, 06:05 PM
Please dont lets spoil a good debate and the time Nick has spent splitting off posts here.

Keep it civil folks, but beyond that, go where you want within the bounds of the site rules.

Cheers

Covenanter
03-16-2008, 06:30 PM
My forefathers weren't in the 716th ID, they were in the 29th and 1st IDs...

Divisional Areas

* 716th Infantry Division (Static) defended the Eastern end of the landing zones, including most of the British and Canadian beaches. This division, as well as the 709th, included Germans who were not considered fit for active duty on the Eastern Front, usually for medical reasons, and various other nationalities such as conscripted Poles and former Soviet prisoners-of-war who had agreed to fight for the Germans rather than endure the harsh conditions of German POW camps.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Normandy

:rolleyes:


Then Nicholas that makes you a liar, while there has been a minuscule number of volksdeutsch and a few units of silesians who were forced into service none of these served in Normandy, the claim that poles were present there... would you care to document it ?[/quote]

I know of two regiments that featured a high percentage of polish citizens generally of ukrainian descent, none of them ever saw active duty, none was ever in France let alone in Normandy so once again i call you a liar untill you can prove me otherwise.

No, not "anyone can edit" Wikipedia since it pretty much contradicts existing sources about silesian and volksdeustch conscription.

Nickdfresh
03-16-2008, 07:23 PM
Then Nicholas that makes you a liar, while there has been a minuscule number of volksdeutsch and a few units of silesians who were forced into service none of these served in Normandy, the claim that poles were present there... would you care to document it ?

Document it? I've read no less than three or four books that directly address the subject of Poles that served in German uniform at Normandy. You can argue that most were drafted, and they had little choice in the matter. Or that they were reluctant, less effective and prone to surrender whenever they got the chance. Some may well have even rebelled and killed their German sergeants and lieutenants. Among the more notable, the father of none other than US Army General John Shalikashvili (http://www.jcs.mil/cjs/history_files/bios/shalikashvili_bio.pdf) - whose Polish father did indeed fight at Normandy, in the Wehrmacht coastal defense divisions...

But you have absolutely NO credibility in arguing that they weren't there, in some significant numbers. And I say none of this lightly, since I grew up near the heavily Polish-American suburbs of Buffalo, NY (Cheektowaga, NY was once the largest city of of persons with a Polish last name outside the nation of Poland), and I dated Polish-American girls. They were certainly Americans, but there was an underlying cultural influence that survived even the second or third generations after their grandparents immigration...



Thanks for the personal insult though. You're act is already getting old I mean, I guess I provided (admittedly Wiki) link supporting what I say? Now I'm a "liar" why? Because you are arguing that "there really weren't that many Poles fighting for the Germans at Normandy?" Then you're contradicting your self and back-peddling, that hardly makes me a "liar." Well, there were more than a few. I never stipulated numbers, and if I am a liar, than you're quite frankly ignorant and revising history to perpetuate a sham and ignore the more ignominious events that have transpired. The fact is that "Hitler's willing executioners" and goons were not all Germans, some of his best ones in fact.

And I include the Jews who became Kapos in the Ghettos and Concentration camps in that assessment....


I know of two regiments that featured a high percentage of polish citizens generally of ukrainian descent, none of them ever saw active duty, none was ever in France let alone in Normandy so once again i call you a liar untill you can prove me otherwise.

I already did, posting links that prove otherwise. I've a better ideal troll-flamer, why don't you prove me wrong and actually support some of your ridiculous statements here with actual links...


Edit.

No, not "anyone can edit" Wikipedia since it pretty much contradicts existing sources about silesian and volksdeustch conscription.

A tired argument. Actually, Wiki has a legion of web "bots" and editors that quickly respond to malicious or incompetent editing and now they are even being criticized in some quarters for NOT ALLOWING anybody to freely edit entries, so that argument is only getting weaker. In any case, I obviously never learned this info from Wiki; I learned it from Ambrose and Sir Keegan. Wiki is just a handy, free resource that is, for the most part, accurate and well edited regarding major subjects relating to history.

Feel free to post an order of battle that shows that all defenders at Normandy were pure Germans, and not Russians, Ukrainians, and yes, Poles. I bid you good luck, because I guarantee you're going to be a fail..

Rising Sun*
03-16-2008, 07:59 PM
Long before the Germans arrived the Jews were legally represented group going as far as one of them becoming polish president, they were not opressed either officially nor unoficially, the society accepted them as nothing less than full polish citizens and anti-semitic excesses were extremely limited unlike in France, Russia or Germany, i will again ask you for the proof of your blatant lies.

I am perfectly aware that there were pre and post war anti-semitic crimes in Poland but as far as history is concerned Poland was the kindest of all european countries, here Jews were free of opression and welcome as a valuable part of society and during the war it was us, the poles who saved 90% of the total of Jews saved from holocaust.

Both the communist and nazi propaganda worked hard to reverse that picture but the actuall documented proof says otherwise, so again i ask you to forward what you base your anti-polish prejudice and "racism" on ?

So far you've labelled me a blatant liar, an anti-Polish bigot, and a nazi revisionist.

I'm waiting with interest to see what new labels you come up with because now I've dared to offer some proof that Poles persecuted Jews.

Your claims about Jews being consistently well treated in Poland are as empty as your assertions about all Germans being enthusiastic supporters of Hitler, as events in Poland between 1919 and 1934 show.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Mission_of_The_United_States_to_Poland,_Henry_Morg enthau,_Sr._Report

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9D0DE4DE173AE03ABC4F51DFB3668382 609EDE Click on View Full Article icon for details

http://www.shtetlinks.jewishgen.org/BialyGen/Morgenthau.htm

http://www.binghamton.edu/history/resources/bjoh/PolesAndJews.htm


Now, to back up your assertion, show me something in France that was worse than this during the same period.

gumalangi
03-18-2008, 01:43 AM
This sometimes confuse me, the so calld 'double' standard of law to defeated countries. For example, Donitz was martialed for he conducted a total war in the sea, which was also conducted by Allied, he was then saved by Nimitz.

This supposed not to be happened in the first place, should the victors could drawback awhile assesing themselves before went ahead pursuing the unlawful performance of the defeated generals or leading individuals. Because, it was their duty to served the country in whatever might took to perform that.

I hardly see any Russian leaders sued for their crimes, except crimes against the people of Sovjet Union when they lost their ground to the germans, they were shot on the spot. Or General LeCrerc, after he ordered to shoot his fellow countrymen without trial, who were wearing the SS uniform.

just my 2 cents

Rising Sun*
03-18-2008, 06:50 AM
This sometimes confuse me, the so calld 'double' standard of law to defeated countries. For example, Donitz was martialed for he conducted a total war in the sea, which was also conducted by Allied, he was then saved by Nimitz.

This supposed not to be happened in the first place, should the victors could drawback awhile assesing themselves before went ahead pursuing the unlawful performance of the defeated generals or leading individuals. Because, it was their duty to served the country in whatever might took to perform that.

I hardly see any Russian leaders sued for their crimes, except crimes against the people of Sovjet Union when they lost their ground to the germans, they were shot on the spot. Or General LeCrerc, after he ordered to shoot his fellow countrymen without trial, who were wearing the SS uniform.

just my 2 cents

Google 'victor's justice' and you should find some information and discussion about such things.

gumalangi
03-18-2008, 07:26 AM
Thanks for the hint, i did that all right.
What is matter now, why bother with so much opera. Simply pull the pistol and pop the guy out.

Rising Sun*
03-18-2008, 08:18 AM
Thanks for the hint, i did that all right.
What is matter now, why bother with so much opera. Simply pull the pistol and pop the guy out.


You raise the interesting question of why suddenly at the end of a war after people were being shot and bombed and torpedoed and mined out of hand for years in their hundreds of thousands by both sides, the victors suddenly became very formal and legal.

One thing that rarely happened even up to that point was that generals got executed by either side after being captured. Why?

Why did the Yanks have deep moral debates about whether it was right or wrong to blow Yamamoto's plane out of the sky when they knew where he was going? Some felt it was an assassination and wrong.

When did the same American commanders ever have a similar debate about attacking another Japanese person or aircraft, or committing their own men to battle and death?

What was it about targeting and killing a specific person like any of the many other Japanese they killed that worried the Yanks about killing Yamamoto, and made them and the other Allies want to run the IMTFE rather than just slaughter a few mass murderers the same way they'd condoned the slaughter of millions?

Why did targeting a single important person cause them such concern when they unleashed bombardments on ships and shores that they knew, or hoped, would kill thousands of people?

Was there a form of class privilege practised and acknowledged between generals?

Were the IMTFE trials instances of justice or merely events which needed to occur to confirm in the Allies' minds that what they did was right?

Was Curtis le May right or wrong when he said that if America lost the war he'd have been tried as a war criminal for the Tokyo firebombings?

Doesn't his comment suggest that he knew his actions would fail the tests applied to Axis people charged with war crimes?

The unpopular reasoning of the Indian judge at the IMTFE points to more areas for debate about moral and legal hypocrisy, but it also points to areas for debate about the influences which led the Indian judge to his position, as it does about the other judges and the positions they took.


A Brief history of the IMTFE

Starting on 3rd May 1946 and ending in November 1948, twenty-eight Japanese leaders were tried before a panel of eleven judges. The judges came from Australia, Canada, France, Great Britain, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Philippines, USSR, and USA. Philippines and India gained independence during the time of the trial. The mandate of the tribunal covered acts committed between 1st January 1928[5] and 2nd August 1945.

Article 10 of the Potsdam Declaration stated that 'stern justice shall be meted out to all war criminals, including those who have visited cruelties upon our prisoners'. The criteria to define war criminals did not allow the prosecution of allied forces. The Charter of the IMTFE was a slightly modified version of the charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal drawn up at the London Conference[6]. The three categories of offences tried were:

1. overall conspiracy to carry out wars of aggression in East Asia and Indian and Pacific Ocean areas;

2. ordering, authorising or permitting conventional war crimes; and

3. not taking adequate measures to prevent the occurrence of conventional war crime.

After the examination of over four hundred witnesses and four thousand documents, eleven were sentenced to death by hanging; sixteen to life in prison; one to twenty years' imprisonment; and one to seven years imprisonment. There were no acquittals, but two died during the trial and one was found to be mentally incompetent.

There were five judges who gave separate opinions[7]. Sir William Webb from Australia (and President of the IMFTE) stated that the fact that 'leader in the crime' (the Emperor) had not been indicted must be considered while passing sentences. The French judge Henri Bernard complained of procedural shortcomings and stated that:

'a verdict reached by a tribunal after a defective procedure cannot be a valid one'.

Judge Radhabinod Pal from India pointed out the necessity of considering acts of Western powers before judging Japan and argued that all defendants were innocent of all charges. Judge B.V.A. Roling of the Netherlands argued that no conspiracy existed and that five of the defendants were innocent. Judge Delfin Jaranilla of the Philippines argued that many sentences were:

'too lenient, not exemplary and deterrent, and not commensurate with the gravity of the offence or offences committed' (Hosoya, 1986, p.11).

It is interesting to note that the two most extreme views, of acquittal and more grave sentences came from judges of newly independent countries. It may be pointed out the judge from Philippines had suffered personal injury and loss at the hands of the Japanese (Nandy, 1995, p.64).

3. Radhabinod Pal's Dissenting Judgement

Radhabinod Pal was the only judge who raised the issue of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to suggest that the trial was farcical. His judgement was not read out at Tokyo and was even banned for a while. Although scholars outside India have largely ignored Radhabinod Pal's judgement, the few comments that it has received are widely conflicting. Nationalist historians in Japan have hailed it as a vindication of their utter victimisation[8]. Hideki Tojo, who was Prime Minister during the war and sentenced to hanging, even left a haiku in Pal's honour. (Nandy, 1995, p.56) Some others have described it as a misconceived attempt to translate Gandhian notions of ahimsa (non-violence) rather inappropriately into international law. Chomsky has hailed it as a courageous indictment of American criminality[9]. More recent historical accounts have again nearly ignored him[10]. Pal is often described as being the only judge on the tribunal who was formally trained in international law (Minear, 1986 and Saburo, 1986). Within India, Pal has been almost totally forgotten by legal scholars and historians. One of the only exceptions, which earned the qualification in the previous sentence, is an essay by psychoanalyst and social commentator, Ashis Nandy (Nandy, 1995).

Radhabinod Pal's possible motivations will be discussed later while we now turn to the content of his judgement. It is littered with quotes from scholars of international law of the time[11]. His contradictory statements that the victors should be brought before tribunals, while stating that vengeance or retribution are not ethical values, may be described most charitably as being representative of his dilemma. In one of the most revealing sentences, he states that:

'questions of law are not to be decided in an intellectual quarantine area…we cannot afford to be ignorant of the world in which disputes arise'.

The judgement contains a detailed account of political events of the war. The basic premise seems to be that war in the Far East was the sporadic activity of groups rather than a well-defined conspiracy with clear commanders. This characterisation of war as mere international conflict seems to naturalise the atrocities in war. Pal also tried to justify that Japanese intervention in Chinese territory to prevent a communist take-over would not amount to aggression.

Legally speaking, the judgement clearly stated that new crimes cannot be created under international law and enforced without precedent. Further aggression and conspiracy to commit aggression did not exist as crimes in international law and therefore cannot be created ex post facto. This reflects Pal's inherent conservative attitude towards the expansion of international law.

Now, turning to Nandy's article, there are certain startling insights to be found. Contrary to Western authors' accounts, Nandy's biographical sketch of Pal clearly indicates that this law-teacher-turned High Court Judge had no formal training in international law (Nandy, 1995, p.70). By placing Pal in the context of the nationalist movement in India, the sympathetic treatment of Japanese may be influenced by the strong Japanese alliance forged by certain Indian nationalists especially in Bengal (Pal's home state) arguing that the enemy of the British is their friend. The connection between politically active Bengalis and Japan may be traced to their celebration of the 1905 victory of Japan over Russia. In 1946, around the same time as Pal's appointment, a sensational trial was underway in India of nationalists who fought with Japan against the British army with Nehru as the defence counsel. http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/lgd/2001_1/jayasimha

Rising Sun*
03-20-2008, 08:32 AM
Hi Covenanter, I'm still waiting for you to justify collective punishment that extends to pre-teen girls being raped. This attitude seems pretty hate-filled to me.

Troy
www.feldpost.tv


I'd like to see the justification for this too.

Rising Sun*
03-20-2008, 08:33 AM
So far you've labelled me a blatant liar, an anti-Polish bigot, and a nazi revisionist.

I'm waiting with interest to see what new labels you come up with because now I've dared to offer some proof that Poles persecuted Jews.

Your claims about Jews being consistently well treated in Poland are as empty as your assertions about all Germans being enthusiastic supporters of Hitler, as events in Poland between 1919 and 1934 show.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Mission_of_The_United_States_to_Poland,_Henry_Morg enthau,_Sr._Report

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9D0DE4DE173AE03ABC4F51DFB3668382 609EDE Click on View Full Article icon for details

http://www.shtetlinks.jewishgen.org/BialyGen/Morgenthau.htm

http://www.binghamton.edu/history/resources/bjoh/PolesAndJews.htm


Now, to back up your assertion, show me something in France that was worse than this during the same period.

Covenanter, I wouldn't mind an answer to this, either.

32Bravo
03-20-2008, 01:00 PM
Morality in war has to be an oxymoron!

Covenanter
03-20-2008, 01:59 PM
Covenanter, I wouldn't mind an answer to this, either.

Ceirtanly, first about Morgenthaus case.

1. We read of the "pogrom" in 1919 when soldiers search the jewish quarter for arms, this so called pogrom does not see any casualities mentioned, the report does not mention the fact that jewish citizens were often symphatizing with soviet Russia and as such were under constant surveillance, the report claims mass robbery but given that earlier it states that jews were murdered ( thats what a pogrom is ) and then claims there were some "bruises" its questionable in nature.

2.The actuall digging up of the graves i cannot really counter and if it was done its appaling however searching of processions and funerals was a routine if an unwelcome job knowing the sympathies of the jewish population.
The Israeli Jews do far worse to their palestinian citizens and the threats are similar to those faced by the Poles from the Jewish population.

Matter of fact 90% of NKVD units responsible for the wipeouts in Poland were jewish in origin during WW2 which gives some scope to the sympathies of the Jews in Poland towards the communist regime.

3.Bereavement and econimic boycott.

Jewish groups attempted to monopolise whole branches of industry, the statue that said 50% polish in fact said that 50% of the business would belong to poles of any non jewish descent ie ukrainian, russian and others.

What is claimed as economical repressions were actually an agressive anti-monopoly policy aimed at the Jews who while portrayed as poor victims in reality monopolised entire regional branches of manufacture and business based on relgious prejudice towards non-jews.


4. Political repressions.

This one is particularly rubbish, we read that the sole reason of creating a large district is to make Jews a minority, of course it never occured to the anti-polish prejudiced authors that Poland was an organisational mess and creating large artificial urban units simply improved management and had nothing to do with Jews.


5. National restrictions.

Ok this baby is funny.

Jews were not allowed to advertise in yiddysh nor use it in formal documents... DOH ?! Poland was struggling to become a uniform country without alienating anyone, Jews could use all the yiddysh they wanted provided it did not interfere with the smooth running of public affairs which it obviously did if for example an employer has received a document proving his employees previous experiences in yiddysh.

But wait it gets better.

Jews cannot use yddish while being goverment figures.. no sh*t imagine our David or Abraham explaining some elderly polish woman how to do her taxes...in yiddysh.

The philosophy behind this was that as a gov figure everyone has to understand you or you are not the right person in the place, hardly prejudice.

6.Economical prejudice.

Jews complain that just because they form 30% of the cities population they receive only 30% of the food aid, the report in its bias did not mention that Jews in Białystok were among the wealthier groups and most of the food went to the truly needy who were mostly non-Jews.

Prejudice indeed !

That is the deal with these kind of documents, you never knew who compose them and there bias is often obvious.

As for mr Nathan Strauss and his report about pogroms, mr Strauss was a member of the soviet partisan unit which comprised mostly of Jews, between 1943-44 they burned three villages murdering their total population, along with few other Jewish "defenders" there is a comfortable prison cell and a lifetime or rotting in it if he ever comes to Poland.

Personally i think the guy deserves to be friend on an electric chair and nothing that filthy criminal will ever write wont get a comment from me.

The third article i need to deal with separately since its quite long.

Also for the reason of jewish claims of pogroms, theres great money to be had especially in times of turmoil when its hard to prove something didnt happen and far easier to prove it did, without pictures, bodies, graves or names general statements or documents purposefully turned tail like the one i commented, given without context are used to pry money from the polish goverment and gain quiet support from the west since its always better to be "pro-semitic" especially in a goverment that gets elected.

Also part of the reason while jewish communities start things like that is simple guilt, Jews commited massive and horrible crimes against their polish hosts, today its easier to portray themselves as victims rather than face the fact that jewish community in Poland is guilty of soviet guild genocide on Poles during and immidietaly after the war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_Morel

This fellow is one of the sixteen thousand Jews that the polish govt is after for crimes of murder or genocide on the polish nation, initially the list was far larger but most of these criminals die peacefully in Israel, while Israel invents pogroms to cover what really happened between 1939-1947.

Solomon Morel killed more polish men women and children than all the so called "pogroms" claimed both in reality and fiction and he's not even the most wanted one, just the most famous one.

Rising Sun*
03-20-2008, 05:24 PM
Ceirtanly, first about Morgenthaus case.

1. We read of the "pogrom" in 1919 when soldiers search the jewish quarter for arms, this so called pogrom does not see any casualities mentioned, the report does not mention the fact that jewish citizens were often symphatizing with soviet Russia and as such were under constant surveillance, the report claims mass robbery but given that earlier it states that jews were murdered ( thats what a pogrom is ) and then claims there were some "bruises" its questionable in nature.

2.The actuall digging up of the graves i cannot really counter and if it was done its appaling however searching of processions and funerals was a routine if an unwelcome job knowing the sympathies of the jewish population.
The Israeli Jews do far worse to their palestinian citizens and the threats are similar to those faced by the Poles from the Jewish population.

Matter of fact 90% of NKVD units responsible for the wipeouts in Poland were jewish in origin during WW2 which gives some scope to the sympathies of the Jews in Poland towards the communist regime.

3.Bereavement and econimic boycott.

Jewish groups attempted to monopolise whole branches of industry, the statue that said 50% polish in fact said that 50% of the business would belong to poles of any non jewish descent ie ukrainian, russian and others.

What is claimed as economical repressions were actually an agressive anti-monopoly policy aimed at the Jews who while portrayed as poor victims in reality monopolised entire regional branches of manufacture and business based on relgious prejudice towards non-jews.


4. Political repressions.

This one is particularly rubbish, we read that the sole reason of creating a large district is to make Jews a minority, of course it never occured to the anti-polish prejudiced authors that Poland was an organisational mess and creating large artificial urban units simply improved management and had nothing to do with Jews.


5. National restrictions.

Ok this baby is funny.

Jews were not allowed to advertise in yiddysh nor use it in formal documents... DOH ?! Poland was struggling to become a uniform country without alienating anyone, Jews could use all the yiddysh they wanted provided it did not interfere with the smooth running of public affairs which it obviously did if for example an employer has received a document proving his employees previous experiences in yiddysh.

But wait it gets better.

Jews cannot use yddish while being goverment figures.. no sh*t imagine our David or Abraham explaining some elderly polish woman how to do her taxes...in yiddysh.

The philosophy behind this was that as a gov figure everyone has to understand you or you are not the right person in the place, hardly prejudice.

6.Economical prejudice.

Jews complain that just because they form 30% of the cities population they receive only 30% of the food aid, the report in its bias did not mention that Jews in Białystok were among the wealthier groups and most of the food went to the truly needy who were mostly non-Jews.

Prejudice indeed !

That is the deal with these kind of documents, you never knew who compose them and there bias is often obvious.

As for mr Nathan Strauss and his report about pogroms, mr Strauss was a member of the soviet partisan unit which comprised mostly of Jews, between 1943-44 they burned three villages murdering their total population, along with few other Jewish "defenders" there is a comfortable prison cell and a lifetime or rotting in it if he ever comes to Poland.

Personally i think the guy deserves to be friend on an electric chair and nothing that filthy criminal will ever write wont get a comment from me.

The third article i need to deal with separately since its quite long.

Also for the reason of jewish claims of pogroms, theres great money to be had especially in times of turmoil when its hard to prove something didnt happen and far easier to prove it did, without pictures, bodies, graves or names general statements or documents purposefully turned tail like the one i commented, given without context are used to pry money from the polish goverment and gain quiet support from the west since its always better to be "pro-semitic" especially in a goverment that gets elected.

Also part of the reason while jewish communities start things like that is simple guilt, Jews commited massive and horrible crimes against their polish hosts, today its easier to portray themselves as victims rather than face the fact that jewish community in Poland is guilty of soviet guild genocide on Poles during and immidietaly after the war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_Morel

This fellow is one of the sixteen thousand Jews that the polish govt is after for crimes of murder or genocide on the polish nation, initially the list was far larger but most of these criminals die peacefully in Israel, while Israel invents pogroms to cover what really happened between 1939-1947.

Solomon Morel killed more polish men women and children than all the so called "pogroms" claimed both in reality and fiction and he's not even the most wanted one, just the most famous one.

In summary, your position is: Non-Jewish Poles never did anything to the Polish Jews before the war except give them the best place they ever had to live, but if non-Jewish Poles did do anythng to the Jews the Jews deserved it, primarily because of things the Jews were going to do after the war began because nothing happened to them before the war apart from things they deserved which didn't happen but which were invented by Israel to cover up Jewish racial guilt for persecuting non-Jewish Poles after the war began.

Has it occurred to you that the Polish Jews were sympathetic to the Russians in WWII as a result of the persecution they received from the non-Jewish poles? That's the conventional historical view, outside Poland anyway.

Don't waste your time dealing with the third article. Anyone who reads your absurdly pro-Polish rants in this and other threads can already predict what you'll say. You've largely said it already.

Still, it was worth reading your last post for what has to be a contender for the award for the most ridiculous statement ever made in a historical debate.


Also for the reason of jewish claims of pogroms, theres great money to be had especially in times of turmoil when its hard to prove something didnt happen and far easier to prove it did

There's a very good reason that it's far easier to prove something happened than that it didn't happen. The evidence supports it, unlike your posts which are long on strongly felt opinion and Polish self-pity and short on evidence and generally devoid of sources.

And I'm still waiting for evidence that the French treated their Jews worse than the Poles treated theirs 1919- 1934.

alephh
03-21-2008, 06:55 AM
IMO, the Allied Air Raids during the last months of the war were pretty useless (=not justified). As most of the German Army was captured or without supplies, it didn't make much sense to bomb the infrastructure anymore, since it just caused problems such: germans could not even deliver food to POW/concentration camps.


_

Rising Sun*
03-21-2008, 07:37 AM
IMO, the Allied Air Raids during the last months of the war were pretty useless (=not justified). As most of the German Army was captured or without supplies, it didn't make much sense to bomb the infrastructure anymore, since it just caused problems such: germans could not even deliver food to POW/concentration camps.


_


True, in hindsight.

But it's like saying that a boxer shouldn't have landed the last few winning punches after his opponent got up off the canvas after a count a minute from end of the fifteenth round.

If the other corner doesn't throw in the towel, you keep slugging away until they do, or until you knock your opponent out.

Nickdfresh
03-21-2008, 09:57 AM
IMO, the Allied Air Raids during the last months of the war were pretty useless (=not justified). As most of the German Army was captured or without supplies, it didn't make much sense to bomb the infrastructure anymore, since it just caused problems such: germans could not even deliver food to POW/concentration camps.


_


True, but it should be also noted that the Allies literally stopped all but tactical air support (bombing) at the tail end, because there was literally nothing left to bomb...

gumalangi
03-21-2008, 10:07 AM
IMO, the Allied Air Raids during the last months of the war were pretty useless (=not justified). As most of the German Army was captured or without supplies, it didn't make much sense to bomb the infrastructure anymore, since it just caused problems such: germans could not even deliver food to POW/concentration camps.


_

you won't know it is dead,.. untill it is dead

generalderpanzertruppen
03-24-2008, 02:51 PM
True, in hindsight.

But it's like saying that a boxer shouldn't have landed the last few winning punches after his opponent got up off the canvas after a count a minute from end of the fifteenth round.

If the other corner doesn't throw in the towel, you keep slugging away until they do, or until you knock your opponent out.

Or until the referee steps in and stops the fight.

Rising Sun*
03-25-2008, 07:47 AM
Or until the referee steps in and stops the fight.

True, but the problem is that there wasn't any referee in WWII, unlike some minor conflicts where other nations might have some influence in stopping the conflict.

Not that there was much sign of effective referee action, or often even the presence of a referee, in the former Yugoslavia or Sudan or much of black Africa and sundry other places since WWII, like Kenya, Angola, and Belgian Congo, and larger internal killing feasts such as Indonesia, China, Cambodia etc.

Covenanter
03-27-2008, 07:29 AM
Actually i would like to point out that bombing germans is fully justified by the fun way their children scream "mine gott nein !" when their skin peels off after being napalmed.

No seriously Germans and Russians are warmongers and need to be sterylized, as do Americans for being obese burger munching morons without basic geography knowledge, Jews for making everyone to apologize for holocaust when in reality they helped Hitler to power, anyway Poland should rule all of your shithole cowardly holes and i ought to be able to shoot you and your loved ones for even trying to discuss with me.

I. Am. ****ing. Right.

Everyone who disagrees needs a brain tumor to kill him in a particulary painfull and gross way.

Seriously.

Ps. that was worth every ounce of the ban i'm getting, bubye armchair generals :D

Rising Sun*
03-27-2008, 08:02 AM
Actually i would like to point out that bombing germans is fully justified by the fun way their children scream "mine gott nein !" when their skin peels off after being napalmed.

No seriously Germans and Russians are warmongers and need to be sterylized, as do Americans for being obese burger munching morons without basic geography knowledge, Jews for making everyone to apologize for holocaust when in reality they helped Hitler to power, anyway Poland should rule all of your shithole cowardly holes and i ought to be able to shoot you and your loved ones for even trying to discuss with me.

I. Am. ****ing. Right.

Everyone who disagrees needs a brain tumor to kill him in a particulary painfull and gross way.

Seriously.

Ps. that was worth every ounce of the ban i'm getting, bubye armchair generals :D

Personally, I don't think you should be banned.

I'd leave your latest posts and encourage you to make more in the same vein as shining testaments to the fact that every nation has bigoted ****wits in its ranks, and that Poland has done rather better than many other nations in producing you. It confirms your endless proclamations of Polish superiority in every field.

It's just that your achievements here must be a major embarrassment to most other Poles.

So, just for the record, I and I expect all other members don't think you're representative of Polish thinking or the Polish people, but just a sad and bitter little person who crops up in all nations from time to time.

Pity you still haven't been able to show me how France treated Jews worse than Poland did 1919-34, but historical evidence for your nasty opinions isn't your strong point, is it?

Probably explains why you've been quiet for a while.

Spending all that time trying to find evidence to support rubbish, and coming up empty handed.

And here's something just to give you a bit of a laugh, which you badly need. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53Q1y5EAN4E

Nickdfresh
03-27-2008, 10:44 AM
Oh, I haven't banned him. We need exemplar idiots that are disgruntled, but he does have two points (more) points, one for trolling, and one for insults. Three more will do it though. I'm quite willing to tolerate his internet wanking if it gives him something to do and prevents him from joining a Polish right wing party and lighting immigrants on fire...

Rising Sun*
03-27-2008, 10:52 AM
I'm quite willing to tolerate his internet wanking if it gives him something to do and prevents him from joining a Polish right wing party and lighting immigrants on fire...

You mean the klutz can use a match?

Oy! Vey!

Vill vonders never cease? ;)

Nickdfresh
03-27-2008, 11:06 AM
...as do Americans for being obese burger munching morons without basic geography knowledge....

First of all, Burgers are great!! Uff, haven't had one for a while, maybe for lunch to celebrate my American moroness and inherit genetic flaw and inability to use Google maps...

Secondly, you owe your freedom more to America than any other nation you intellectually flaccid little jerk:

http://www.hallersarmy.com/background.php

http://www.sonsofpoland.org/


Ps. that was worth every ounce of the ban i'm getting, bubye armchair generals :D

Oh, never fear. You don't need to brag to your Polish friends about your martyrdom as of yet. Assuming you have friends...