Allies did nothing to stop Holocaust

[Matt W]

Bishop, as a History Graduate of a UK university, my only response has to be 'No sh*t, Sherlock!'!!! :p I doubt I've ever been anything like a 'homeboy' in my life!!!

What I was referring to (and I apologise if this was unclear) is why make these comments in a public, political sense? Why are politicians making these comments to the world, rather than referring them to historians?

[bishop]

your criticism's clearer now, thanks.

why is sharon saying all that nonsense? because he's a belligerent, plain and simple. plus, i believe the israelis enjoy playing the victim card, even though the days of the holocaust are long gone. it gives them a sense of national togetherness or pride, or something..

[MerlinsByte]

Quote by: Paavo I got the words "Allied" and "US" mixed up, the soviets were a part of the Allies of course.

MB writes: Yes, Paavo, thanks for clearing that up. I thought the old USSR was on our side, and had read the article on the 7th US liberation of the death camp, so I posted it.

9by Bishop) i agree.. if i heard of stories about what the nazis did, i'd have a hard time believing it without seeing it. what they did was so inhuman that it's inconsciable. although there were strong anti-semites here in america (walt disney and henry ford in particular), i don't believe that was the mindset of the roosevelt administration nor the allied generals (eisenhower or patton). hell.. we (the americans) ordered the germans to clean up the death camps once they were located and confirmed. we put the nuremberg trials together, specifically to try the nazis on war crimes.

Merlin's reply ; I think most history is accurate enough to believe. If one has the means most can be verified in person as in mass graves when related to the Nazi death camps. Pictures and other tangibles other means may prove historys texts as accurate.

mb

[bishop]

Merlin's reply ; I think most history is accurate enough to believe. If one has the means most can be verified in person as in mass graves when related to the Nazi death camps. Pictures and other tangibles other means may prove historys texts as accurate.

what does that have to do with my statement that you quoted? i was referring to what the allies knew at the time of the war, not in retrospect. not sure where i suggested that the accounts weren't accurate either - simply suggested that we probably didn't know what was going on or at least we didn't believe it.

[castille]

From a historical standview I don't think the Allies even knew much about the Holocauste. The Allied invasion of Germany was simply to cut down on Germany's power - as with all politics, German power means France/Britain will be less powerful.

Ironically it was the Russians who liberated the most death camps. Of course, then the Russians started their own holocauste.

[tinybear]

How can they not know? Hitler made no secret of the fact that he was going to exterminate the Jews.

[Paavo]

Hitler made no secret of the fact that he was going to exterminate the Jews.

Yes he did, there are alot of historians that openly dispute the idea of Hitler ever giving a direct order.
Hitler did, however make it very clear that he wanted the Jews out of Germany -- preferably to Madagascar or Palestine.
The Hitler government even worked closely together with the Zionist movers at the time, both had the same goals: Jews out of Europe, to an own homeland.

[Milton Bradley]

Hitler is then defeated, and two, and a half years later, the UN's first order of business is to recognize the State of Isreal.


Kind of makes me wonder if the UN's goals are not similar to Hitlers. They both want to rule the world, and make all the rules.

[Milton Bradley]

To further think about who writes policy for, and funds the UN, can you say Fourth Reich?

[castille]

I have never seen a shred of historical evidence that Hitler ordered any mass-scale genocide. Even the orders given at Wanssee were vague at best (especially that part about sending Jews to Madagascar.

[Taipanus]

One wonders what the Allies were supposed to do, since they were also fighting the Japanese in the Pacific, were concerned about Nazi reprisals in Western Europe, and had just come out of a major depression. Why didn't the Jews do more to defend themselves, as they do now?

Secondly, and I'm only making this point because I don't have much admiration for Sharon, what has the Jewish state done in regard to -

1. The victims of Pol Pot?
2. The victims of Idi Amin?
3. Christian victims of Soviet and other Bolshevik persecution?
4. Victims of dictators in many other places? (Sharon incidentally, according to a book I read, had some gun running involvement to South America, who and what for I don't know). He's got pretty dirty hands himself, the hypocrite.

In other words, as long as Jews are being mistreated their government protests loud and clear. But you don't hear much from them when somebody else is being mistreated.

Mind you the only thing that set me off here is that I think Ariel Sharon is a prime hypocrite.

Bob Crowley.

[Dr. Pundit]

I believe the allies did a lot to stop the Holocaust. Firstly, they fought in WWII against the Axes powers, which included Germany, the country that inflicted the Holocaust upon the Jews. By defeating Germany, they ended the possibilty that the Holocaust would continue. Furthermore, various troops of the Allies, particularily the British and Americans, stormed various Nazi concentration camps like at Auschwitz in order to free the Jews and others from their German oppressors. Although the Allies perhaps caused Fuhrer Hitler's rise to power in Germany by putting such strict restrictions on the country by the Treaty of Versailles and causing the country's people to be unhappy with their economic condition and vote for the Nazis, the Allies wholly ended the Holocaust; Sharon may have any other idea because of the current Israeli independence in military affairs or the independence of various heroes at concentration camps like Coldwitz (the airplane built by Jews).

[Nono]

Quote by: Dr. Pundit Various troops of the Allies, particularily the British and Americans, stormed various Nazi concentration camps like at Auschwitz in order to free the Jews and others from their German oppressors.

Pun, Auschwitz was liberated by the Red Army (it's in Poland for chrissakes).

Your other point is a good one, though. Just by taking on Hitler (by the way, he declared war on the United States and the Soviet Union, not the other way around) the Allies put an end to the Holocaust.

[Dr. Pundit]

sorry nono, I guessed on the Auschwitz point.

[Paavo]

(by the way, he declared war on the United States and the Soviet Union, not the other way around)

The US declared war on Japan (the day after Pearl Harbor), so Germany -- respecting the Tripartite Pact -- declared war on the US.
Germany declared war on the SU because of intelligence indicating a massive movement of Red Army units on the border. These units were placed for an offensive, not defensive move.

But yes, he did.

[Nono]

Jeez, Paavo, you reveal yourself more and more with every post.

I hold no brief for Stalin and I know what he tried to do to Finland. He was plenty aggressive.

But what you're telling us here is that Hitler in fact had no designs on the Soviet Union. All that stuff over the years about Lebensraum, zat voss yust a little yoke, eh?

And this is the same Hitler who, according to you, had no hand in planning the Holocaust, correct? In fact, according to you, the Holocaust actually wasn't one, but has been vastly inflated and exaggerated by the International Jewish-Communist Conspiracy. Is that a fair representation of your position? I mean, make your position plain.

[Matt W]

Now now, folks....steady on.

From what I recall of studying this subject fairly intensely at school, Hitler always had designs of the USSR. In fact, the 'Battle of Britain' (ie the air supremacy battle '40-'41) was won by the UK because Hitler was obsessed with assaulting the USSR - finishing us off was a much lesser priority than ensuring that the invasion forces had adequate air cover.

If I recall rightly, it was Stalin who ordered his troops not to fire on the Germans - because he couldn't believe it was happening. He was utterly convinced that he had appeased Hitler more than enough - it took over a day for those orders to be rescinded - and by that time, the Germans had pretty much rolled over the 'Russian' half of Poland. Hardly the act of an aggressor, is it?

[Paavo]

Jeez, Paavo, you reveal yourself more and more with every post.

Oh lord, not this again... Yes, I'm ready to take out my Nazi uniform and reveal my swastika tattoos any time now. *polishes his SS badges*

But what you're telling us here is that Hitler in fact had no designs on the Soviet Union. All that stuff over the years about Lebensraum, zat voss yust a little yoke, eh?

National Socialist Germany was furiously anti-communist/bolshevism, taking out the Soviet Union was probably seen as a good option from their point of view, yes. I'm not saying they weren't out for "lebensraum" either. This doesn't change the fact that the reason for the Barbarossa campaign was the intelligence Germany had gathered on the Soviet troops placed on the border.

And this is the same Hitler who, according to you, had no hand in planning the Holocaust, correct? In fact, according to you, the Holocaust actually wasn't one, but has been vastly inflated and exaggerated by the International Jewish-Communist Conspiracy. Is that a fair representation of your position? I mean, make your position plain.

I won't get into the whole holocaust thing anymore, as one who does, should be afraid of possible legal consequences (why is it illegal?!). I can make my "position" plain though:
I don't believe that the version of history concerning WWII is an objective one today. That's all. If this means I'm a "nazi" or a "holocaust-denier" to you, I really don't give a shit. In fact, it just shows how strictly one-sided the stories are, and how ready people are to think that events of that time were so black and white, so "Good vs. Bad."

[Nono]

In fact, the 'Battle of Britain' (ie the air supremacy battle '40-'41) was won by the UK because Hitler was obsessed with assaulting the USSR - finishing us off was a much lesser priority than ensuring that the invasion forces had adequate air cover.

The UK -- with the aid of Canadians, Australians, Poles, freelance Americans, etc. -- won the Battle of Britain because:

1) It had broken the Germans' radio-transmission code and they were too arrogant to consider such a thing possible and therefore made conveniently revealing transmissions.

2) Hitler went with his emotions instead of his head (after the Brits bombed Berlin in retaliation for a bomb dropped on Buckingham Palace) and switched the focus of German bombing away from the RAF fields around London to London itself, thus saving the RAF's bacon at the eleventh hour.

3) The Tories had ditched Chamberlain for Churchill a few months before, and Winston had a way of inspiring people that helped ward off despair and put backbone into a war-wary people.

Even then it was a damn close thing. That said, it's absolutely true that Hitler was looking east much more than west. Yeah, Stalin was in denial, no doubt.

If you do a Volvconvo search for "holocaust" you'll see that Paavo isn't listening to any non-revisionist nonsense about gas chambers at Auschwitz and all that Zionist rubbish. He knows what really happened. :p

OK, Paavo's post sideswiped mine.
Fair enough. Let's not go through the whole thing again. It's all in the 'archives' anyway.

But when I look at Paavo's posts about Somali refugees "raping Finnish girls" and about Auschwitz and about a lot of other things, I get a certain impression.

I'm not into black vs. white either, by the way. I agree that the holocaust has taken precedence in the public mind over other horrors, as if unspeakable cruelty and total mayhem in general weren't an a time-honoured human tradition, and that this view of the holocaust as absolutely unique is grist to the mill of the crazies in the Likud.

Nevertheless, it was massive and the historical facts are very well established.

[Matt W]

Plus, on the techie side, the RAF had radar - which gave them a nice advantage in getting their fighters in the air prior to the bombers ariving. Which was nice.

Paavo - That is as may be, but it was obvious to the Germans that the Red Army had no hope of defending against their experienced troops in a blitzkrieg. Hitler went for the throat of the USSR at that time because he believed he could knock it out of the war much as he had to France and Poland - with a fast strike which would take them down before winter. Thankfully, he was wrong.

As for the Holocaust, Hitler certainly had no direct hand in planning the thing. However, to deny that it was done on his wishes is wishful thinking at best, deluisional at worst. There are no written records of Hitler saying 'make it so'. In fact, all of the documentation that I've seen is in euphamisms - no one, anywhere in the hierachy, says anything about extermination. Yet the fact is that it happened.