German bishop faces 5 years for denying the holocaust

[JohnOfSheffield]

Most of the Jews killed were from Poland and the USSR, and these eastern Jews (ostjuden) were for the most part, dirt poor. I'm afraid the core of the issue really was ethnic, not economic, though sometimes economic excuses were employed.

- wolf

To the topic it's irrelevant, Hitlers camps would have killed the LOT of them if given the chance.

To the topic, Hitler did the worst he could, we're discussing Germany here.

If you take one bloody look at the propaganda you'll realise that the ONLY reason WHY Hitler could turn the population was because of the economics, the Jews in Germany fared very well while most others were starving, there is not fucking discussion to be had about that.

So yeah, dipsheit, it was economics, the promises of a better world after the shitty deal the Germans got after WWI is so fucking well known that every sane human being understands the main reason.

Hitler got fucking elected on that platform and WHY do you think that he had such loyalty in his ranks, from higher to lower?

I gave you way too much credit , you're as fucking daft and uneducated as the rest of the twats.

 

[woolfe9999]

To the topic it's irrelevant, Hitlers camps would have killed the LOT of them if given the chance.

To the topic, Hitler did the worst he could, we're discussing Germany here.

If you take one bloody look at the propaganda you'll realise that the ONLY reason WHY Hitler could turn the population was because of the economics, the Jews in Germany fared very well while most others were starving, there is not fucking discussion to be had about that.

So yeah, dipsheit, it was economics, the promises of a better world after the shitty deal the Germans got after WWI is so fucking well known that every sane human being understands the main reason.

Hitler got fucking elected on that platform and WHY do you think that he had such loyalty in his ranks, from higher to lower?

I gave you way too much credit , you're as fucking daft and uneducated as the rest of the twats.

I'm sorry but it is quite useless to have a discussion with you on just about any topic. Even when you're correct, which is a good percentage of the time, you act like a complete ass.

In the current case, you are not entirely wrong, but you are definitely oversimplying this issue. It's like you're pretending that the economics of Weimar Germany were a wholly sufficient explanation for the propaganda success of Hitler's anti-semitism in and of itself, as if the history of anti-semitism in Germany leading up to that time is somehow irrelevant, including its religious dimension. And as if Hitler never made purely cultural arguments when he attacked Jews - that Jews were pervaders of "decadent modernism" who were destroyers of pure classic aryan culture - and as if those arguments did not also resonate. And as if the Nazis did not use and capitalize on religious anti-semitism, particularly Goebbels in the early 1930's, in order to reach out to Christian anti-semites who did not respond well to Hitler's pseudo-scientific anti-semitism. While it's fair to say that but for the economics of Weimar Germany, Hitler's anti-semitism would not have resonated to the extent that it did, and indeed Hitler would never have come to power, it is wrong to view that condition as wholly sufficient for those outcomes.

Mono-causal explanations are rarely useful in explaining complex historical events.

- wolf

 

[Moonbeam]

Should be executed

 

[Noobtastic]

I'm sorry, but the majority of Holocaust historians would disagree that a genocide was planned before the war.

And if you read my post closely, I did not deny its uniqueness any more than I deny the uniqueness of any other genocide.

I would caution you against accusing me of Holocaust denial. Not only am I well read on the subject, but I have spent the better part of the last two years debating deniers on another discussion forum.

- wolf

please tell me what historians disagree that the final solution was planned during the war.

please.

Hundreds of millions alone died during the genocide the British brought forth through their system of man-made famines in South Asia. Even during WW2, 3-4 million died in Bengal alone. The 6-12 million in the WW2 Holocaust is hardly the largest.

for starters, the bengal famine was not a genocide - it was a famine.

as i said before, you really dont understand the definition of genocide. millions of people starving and dying because of colonialism is not a genocide in the definite sense as the holocaust was.

 

[Atheus]

You've misread what I posted.

Nnnope.... no I didn't... you posted this:

"Natives in the Americans[sic] died from diseases, but natives in Africa, Asia did not die from diseases in the same way. They died from forced starvation, war, slavery, destruction of resources, etc."

You are clearly saying that white Americans did not starve, make war on, enslave, or destroy the resources of the native Americans in the same way as other colonialists did elsewhere. Were the land and the buffalo not resources to the native North Americans? Those were actually probably their _only_ resources. Were the wars not real wars? And what about 'Indian reservations' - segregating people by race into camps? I suppose those aren't real either despite the fact they exist to this very day?

/edit: it's funny, it's very hard to find any real facts and numbers on the American Genocide, even though it was witnessed by many literate people who would have written about it... its almost like someone doesn't want us to know...

 

[woolfe9999]

please tell me what historians disagree that the final solution was planned during the war.

please.



for starters, the bengal famine was not a genocide - it was a famine.

as i said before, you really dont understand the definition of genocide. millions of people starving and dying because of colonialism is not a genocide in the definite sense as the holocaust was.

I think the discussion about the definition of "genocide" can be tabled for the moment as it is a controversial topic.

You asked for a list of historians who belief the Final Solution was decided after the war started. Here is a partial list:

Raul Hilberg
Christopher Browning
Martin Broszat
Saul Friedlander
Hans Mommsen
Yehuda Bauer
Arno Mayer
Ian Kershaw

Off the top of my head, Lucy Dawidowicz is the main proponent of the theory that Hitler decided on genocide early in his political career. Her interpretation is not favored or well regarded by other historians. Richard Breitman puts the time of decision as either right before the war (1939) or shortly after it began, as memory serves.

- wolf

 

[Atheus]

You asked for a list of historians who belief[sic] the Final Solution was decided after the war started. Here is a partial list:

errrr... I think he actually asked for the opposite...

"please tell me what historians disagree that the final solution was planned during the war"

 

[CanOWorms]

Nnnope.... no I didn't... you posted this:

"Natives in the Americans[sic] died from diseases, but natives in Africa, Asia did not die from diseases in the same way. They died from forced starvation, war, slavery, destruction of resources, etc."

You are clearly saying that white Americans did not starve, make war on, enslave, or destroy the resources of the native Americans in the same way as other colonialists did elsewhere. Were the land and the buffalo not resources to the native North Americans? Those were actually probably their _only_ resources. Were the wars not real wars? And what about 'Indian reservations' - segregating people by race into camps? I suppose those aren't real either despite the fact they exist to this very day?

Nope. I said that Native Americans were devastated by European-brought diseases unlike Africans and Asians. It was in response to the lie that deaths via colonialism was primarily through disease. 90%+ of Native Americans were wiped out by Europeans through disease, but only the British actually used intentional biological warfare. People dying in Africa from disease were killed mainly through conscious policy decisions.

/edit: it's funny, it's very hard to find any real facts and numbers on the American Genocide, even though it was witnessed by many literate people who would have written about it... its almost like someone doesn't want us to know...

You are clearly saying that you are a Nazi slavemaster. You consciously avoid that type of stuff. It's all over the place. American academics are much more objective than most others. Howard Zinn just died after a very popular career.

 

[CanOWorms]

for starters, the bengal famine was not a genocide - it was a famine.

as i said before, you really dont understand the definition of genocide. millions of people starving and dying because of colonialism is not a genocide in the definite sense as the holocaust was.

More Nazi-like denials. It was a genocide enacted via forced, man-made famine. Was the Holomodor not a genocide as well? The Bengal famine was man-made. A Nobel Prize in Economics was awarded partly due to that research. Are those in concentration camps who died from starvation or exhaustion not counted? Of course they are. They died from a conscious policy.

Over 100 million in South Asia were massacred via man-made famines the British intentionally orchestrated via their policies. It was one of the largest genocides in history.

 

[RabidMongoose]

When you think you can win an argument with a troll you have thought too much.

Next up... "it was the Brits who killed them (mumbles about queens and kings)"

You have to realise, this is a man who actually proclaims that the Queen does indeed hold power of the UK.

SAS special salute for him.

Well, it was the Europeans with their European diseases who killed the vast majority of native Americans. That's undeniable. The US then followed up with their own slaughter and relocation of natives, but that was after the much larger European slaughter.

Honestly, if the Europeans were not stopped, they probably would have genocided the entire world 100 times over.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I'm sorry but it is quite useless to have a discussion with you on just about any topic. Even when you're correct, which is a good percentage of the time, you act like a complete ass.

In the current case, you are not entirely wrong, but you are definitely oversimplying this issue. It's like you're pretending that the economics of Weimar Germany were a wholly sufficient explanation for the propaganda success of Hitler's anti-semitism in and of itself, as if the history of anti-semitism in Germany leading up to that time is somehow irrelevant, including its religious dimension. And as if Hitler never made purely cultural arguments when he attacked Jews - that Jews were pervaders of "decadent modernism" who were destroyers of pure classic aryan culture - and as if those arguments did not also resonate. And as if the Nazis did not use and capitalize on religious anti-semitism, particularly Goebbels in the early 1930's, in order to reach out to Christian anti-semites who did not respond well to Hitler's pseudo-scientific anti-semitism. While it's fair to say that but for the economics of Weimar Germany, Hitler's anti-semitism would not have resonated to the extent that it did, and indeed Hitler would never have come to power, it is wrong to view that condition as wholly sufficient for those outcomes.

Mono-causal explanations are rarely useful in explaining complex historical events.

- wolf

When you grow up, send me a PM, until then you are on ignore.

I don't have the time to discuss with people who make up their own realities as they see fit.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Well, it was the Europeans with their European diseases who killed the vast majority of native Americans. That's undeniable. The US then followed up with their own slaughter and relocation of natives, but that was after the much larger European slaughter.

Well you don't see me denying that, do you? Of bloody course it was the invading foce that slaughtered the native population.

France saved you and freed you, if not for France the US would still be part of the UK.

 

[sandorski]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. They have good intentions with these laws, but no matter how you view it, it's a restriction on freedom of speech, and even worse, freedom of thought. It's basically saying "you must believe what we tell you, and you must profess your belief in what we tell you, or end up in jail. You are not free to believe what you like". That sounds like Iran or China, not Germany or the US.

Germany knows all about Hell. That's why they have these Laws. I give Germany a pass on this issue for that alone.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Well you don't see me denying that, do you? Of bloody course it was the invading foce that slaughtered the native population.

France saved you and freed you, if not for France the US would still be part of the UK.

Nah, the UK would have collapsed against the will of the world. Evil Empires don't last forever. They could have only gotten away with genocidal policies for so long. I can't wait until their former slaves come back to dominate over them, too! (kind of like how the UK is already like an American dog)

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Nah, the UK would have collapsed against the will of the world. Evil Empires don't last forever. They could have only gotten away with genocidal policies for so long. I can't wait until their former slaves come back to dominate over them, too! (kind of like how the UK is already like an American dog)

Wait, so you want Nigeria to rule the US?

That is the only sensible thing to take out of your reply.

Of course you don't mean that, you simply can't think properly and that, my dear twat of a man is why you are hereby ignored.

Cheerio my little friend, if you ever grow up, PM me.

 

[CanOWorms]

It's not to include, it's to exclude, a SAS salute is a turnback mission, like a tracking that leads nowhere.

Thanks, I'm assuming that means I would live instead of being executed by a terrorist group under command of an inbred Queen.

I'm saying you are useless. But you already knew that i'm sure.

Of course. My skin color is too tanned for you.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Wait, so you want Nigeria to rule the US?

That is the only sensible thing to take out of your reply.

Of course you don't mean that, you simply can't think properly and that, my dear twat of a man is why you are hereby ignored.

Cheerio my little friend, if you ever grow up, PM me.

I want what the UK deserves. I feel that justice has not been achieved for the rest of the world against the bloodthirsty genocidal British Empire. They are basically insignificant now and are basically American dogs, but I feel that soon their other former slaves will soon be their masters.

 

[Lemon law]

Sorry,I have to side more with JOS when RabitMongoose asserts, "I want what the UK deserves. I feel that justice has not been achieved for the rest of the world against the bloodthirsty genocidal British Empire. They are basically insignificant now and are basically American dogs, but I feel that soon their other former slaves will soon be their masters."

Nah, the British have always been a race of super achievers, they are highly educated, are fairly politically unified, and its hard to be anything but bullish on the British future.
Any British decline has to be attributed not to the assertion that they are running more slowly now, but rather to the fact the competition worldwide is running ever so much faster as they too catch up.

And the fact is, every nation is struggling now.

But the sad fact is and remains, a repeat of Hitler is well within Human potential anywhere in he world, and part of Hitler's talent was convincing others to underestimate him.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Sorry,I have to side more with JOS when RabitMongoose asserts, "I want what the UK deserves. I feel that justice has not been achieved for the rest of the world against the bloodthirsty genocidal British Empire. They are basically insignificant now and are basically American dogs, but I feel that soon their other former slaves will soon be their masters."

Nah, the British have always been a race of super achievers, they are highly educated, are fairly politically unified, and its hard to be anything but bullish on the British future.
Any British decline has to be attributed not to the assertion that they are running more slowly now, but rather to the fact the competition worldwide is running ever so much faster as they too catch up.

No, they're not politically unified at all. First, they hate all of their minorities. Second, it would probably be easy to break up the various parts of the UK.

However, I'm also referring to conquest by force. Look at history. These genocidal maniacs have lost almost all of their slave colonies because various parts of the world has stepped up against them. Some of the UK's former slaves are already more powerful and more significant than the genocidal UK regime. The UK is already America's dog - it's only a matter of time before one of their former slaves make the UK their doormat. If the British continue to not pay for their absolute genocide of the entire world, then they will be forced to.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Sorry,I have to side more with JOS when RabitMongoose asserts, "I want what the UK deserves. I feel that justice has not been achieved for the rest of the world against the bloodthirsty genocidal British Empire. They are basically insignificant now and are basically American dogs, but I feel that soon their other former slaves will soon be their masters."

Nah, the British have always been a race of super achievers, they are highly educated, are fairly politically unified, and its hard to be anything but bullish on the British future.
Any British decline has to be attributed not to the assertion that they are running more slowly now, but rather to the fact the competition worldwide is running ever so much faster as they too catch up.

And the fact is, every nation is struggling now.

But the sad fact is and remains, a repeat of Hitler is well within Human potential anywhere in he world, and part of Hitler's talent was convincing others to underestimate him.

I'm going to go right ahead and say this in response to you LL even though it's actually a response to Rabid moonbat.

We got rid of Blair, the UK population has never been a US bitch, we FIRE our politicians when they fail. Yeah, that is right, when they lie to us and go against our interests as a people we have the balls to tell them to get the fuck out.

If you had done that to GW then you would seem much less like the pussyfied scared sheitless nation who keeps one in the chamber on the nightstand as you are quivering in fear in your beds.

Blair should be prosecuted and might very well be prosecuted for the MI6 orders, do you think the US would allow their former bullshitter to be prosecuted? Of course not, US uber alles, right?

Sorry Lemon, i just had to say that because while i rarely like your input at least your not a bloody troll like rabid moonbat and his sock puppet canosheit.

That is all folks, now i have to go fix another bloody issue, you'll know all about it come tuesday.

 

[CanOWorms]

Awwww, look at the peasant rage! Did your Queenie order you to post that? It's so cute.

The UK is barely a sovereign country. The entire world views it as America's bitch. That is its reputation. It dreams of empire but is sceptical of the EU and thus tries to latch upon the USA which treats it like the inbred cousin it is. The USA shits on the UK and the UK just eats it up. Seeing the UK fear for its relations with the USA when Obama got elected was hilarious. History coming back around is glorious - torture the family of the American president = UK all alone in the world.

Blair resigned. He was not fired. Your history revisionism fails because people still remember it.

The entire UK government, judiciary, military, etc. should be prosecuted. But most important is the royalty. It would be impressive if the inbred Queen-Bitch herself was fired. If the symbol of British genetic supremacy (which is hilarious since she's inbred) was eliminated, that would be an impressive step into modern times for the UK. Claiming to fire Blair is just a delusion; even if he was fired it would be like firing a janitor at the White House. That's about how much power and prestige being PM of the UK means.

 

[Noobtastic]

More Nazi-like denials. It was a genocide enacted via forced, man-made famine. Was the Holomodor not a genocide as well? The Bengal famine was man-made. A Nobel Prize in Economics was awarded partly due to that research. Are those in concentration camps who died from starvation or exhaustion not counted? Of course they are. They died from a conscious policy.

Over 100 million in South Asia were massacred via man-made famines the British intentionally orchestrated via their policies. It was one of the largest genocides in history.

you are comparing apples and oranges.

the holomodor was a famine brought my government policy. so was the bengal famine.

the "100 million" (more like 30 million) in south asia who died from famines were victims of british imperialism, and perhaps some could argue it was a genocide.

but you cannot draw moral parallels between those events in history. i see you are trying to paint the holocaust as just one ordinary genocide in a century of many genocides and that is simply not the reality.

jews had over 2,000 year history of expulsions, genocides, pogroms, etc. the holocaust was simply the largest antisemitic event in the history of jews.

will it be the last?

 

[Lemon law]

All I can say to JOS is that USA also gave the ole heave ho to GWB&co. I believe both Blair and GWB should face charges regarding war crimes, but sadly I am not holding my breath for it to happen anytime soon.

And I have lost count of the number of times JOS has predicted big success soon, and its always always come to nothing.

The fact is and remains, the former Muslim possessions are the last vestige of the former British empire, and they too are giving the West the ole heave ho.

As the USA and Europe as a whole are fighting against a rising tide they cannot resist.

Its time we all face the facts, colonialism is dead as a historical force. Colonialism has had its advantages and disadvantages, but its still planted the seeds of its own destruction. Its a new world out there and we all adapt to new realities or get crushed by new realities.

 

[Atheus]

You are clearly saying that you are a Nazi slavemaster.

Lol, yep, that's exactly what I said... isn't there some kind of law to be involked in this situation?

 

[CanOWorms]

you are comparing apples and oranges.

You're trying to say that one variety of apple, such as a Granny Smith, is not an apple because it's not a McIntosh.

the holomodor was a famine brought my government policy. so was the bengal famine.

Yes, they were genocides enacted through famines.

the "100 million" (more like 30 million) in south asia who died from famines were victims of british imperialism, and perhaps some could argue it was a genocide.

I hope you realize how ironic this is... You are acting exactly like the Holocaust denier in the article.

but you cannot draw moral parallels between those events in history. i see you are trying to paint the holocaust as just one ordinary genocide in a century of many genocides and that is simply not the reality.

Are you claiming the deaths of hundreds of millions was ordinary?!

I see you plainly denying a genocide. You deny the horror that brought the deaths of hundreds of millions. You are denying the horrors the British Empire brought upon the world. It's strange that you would even do that since the British were the ones who created concentration camps in the first place!