And using the H-word is not? I assume the world is recovering from its late 1980s revival of the Nazi menace metaphor and returning to the sanity of the 1950s.

1) We agree Britain and France spread the conflict beyond Poland.

2) We know from history that in ignoring Soviet aggression against five countries including Poland means the current view in the history books is nothing more than successful Allied propaganda which in the process rewarded Soviet agression with Eastern Poland.

2a) Because the Soviet recovery of territory lost as a consequence of Brest-Litvosk is acceptable so also is the recovery of Germany territory as a consequence of that same treaty.

3) Once Russia is off the hook so also is Germany.

You mean exactly what the Bolsheviks had done to the entire ex-Russian empire in the course of operating a dictatorship.

You mean like the dictatorships the British and French had in operation around the world encompassing nearly 1 billion oppressed by just those two foreign powers.

4) You accuse Germany of wanting to do what three of the four major Allies had already done including one which attacked four countries in addition to Poland.

4a) In accusing Germany of wanting to do what three of the Allies were like before the war started you again vindicate Germany.

I thoroughly agree it means Britain is absolutely at fault for escalating the war in Europe and I would not absolve France either. As for the responsiblity Britain and France assumed that is also for engulfing all of Europe and North Africa over the forceful dissolution of Brest-Litvosk to the detriment of the Polish dictatorship.

The criteria for a "just war" have been debated for centuries. WWII does not qualify any more than the first Iraq war. ALL the propaganda reasons raised by Britain for its selective war on Germany applied four times over the Russia. That eliminates any possibility of a moral basis for the its chosen war on Germany.

5) Poland was not a neighbor.

6) Poland was also a military dictatorship. This negates any possible claim to playing good neighbor and leaves only England's national interest in hegemony over Europe -- to be able to create borders and nations which would bind tens of millions to governments at the whim of whomever was most successful at pandering to British voters.

6a) So the war was declared to once again force Germans to live under a Polish dictatorship.

Trust me I can understand Britains love of friendly dictators and sending off "king and country" indoctrinated peasants to preserve them. What I do not understand is an adult today not seeing through the Walt Disney level propaganda that was mounted against Germany.

I would rather speculate upon the opinion of the forced to fight (the US called it a draft which is how it raised 94% of its wartime military) honorable dead what they think of being dead. Again, why too much Dr. Who chintzy patriotism.

To repeat your characterization of Europe as under Germany is false. The entire former Austro-Hungarian empire plus Italy had voluntarily allied with Germany in the 1930s. Note the word voluntary. It was the anticommunist pact, a pact Britain was too stupid to join. There was no revolt nor any reasonably foreseeable as a consequence of this voluntary alliance.

BUT if there were that would have been their business not Britain's.

To repeat learn what non-German Europe was really like not the crap they lead you to believe as a schoolboy.

Again Europe was not as in your childhood history lessons.

Excuse me. When have I failed to draw the Nazi-Zionist comparison? I have often pointed to the Zionist-Nazi cooperation with the Ha'Avara, Havara, Transfer Agreement. I have been one of the few who calls the Occupied Territories for what it is, a Jewish military dictatorship over oppressed millions.

I have not noticed Britain declaring war on Israel as a consequence. Have you folks become immoral since 1939?

Nor can you claim Britain was only prepared to get its ass whipped by Germany, raise it as a humanitarian and moral issue and then exclude war on Russia out of practical necessities. 

It was fought by Britain and France to preserve their power to control the political landscape of Europe.

 

I have never said that. I said it was none of Britain's business. You said Britain was so far out-classed militarily that there was nothing Britain could have done about it. As it could do nothing about it, it hardly excuses or justifies Britain's warmongering much less ennoble near-terminal stupidity.

We both agree Britain expanded the war beyond a three-way conflict in the Baltic, the natural sphere of influence of Russia and Germany.

The Poles were sent back to WWI Poland where they came from. What is wrong with that? It was called the General Government of Poland and administered by Germany, yes, as a dictatorship. So? All the war participants in 1940 ran dictatorships including Britain and France. Because of that dictatorship cannot be discriminatory criteria as all were the same in this regard. It was the Allies who massacred the Polish officer corp and intelligensia.

I have no idea what you expect to accomplish bringing up the common feature of dictatorship.

Of course you did not say that. I said Britain chose to ignore the communist crimes and aided in covering up the massacres. I introduced it to demonstrate Britain did not give a damn about Poland per se but as a pretext for a selective war with Germany.

To repeat, I am pointing out any British pretension to a moral high ground is for children to read in their schoolbooks. Expediency negates a moral position.

Which means Germany cannot be singled out by the British for the same "evils" as the British were guilty of. When all parties are the same, including Britain's gratuitous war on Germany, you can't get by the Winstons' 1984 or 1940s propaganda unless you want to believe your country was conscripted to the side of the angels.

One ordinarily determines who is the agressor by who attacks who. Germany did not attack Britain. Germany was not an agressor against Britain. Britain was the aggressor against Germany. Again everyone is an aggressor, there is no discriminant in that matter. Everyone but Poland, the Baltics and Finnland which was just fine with Britain where Russia was concerned. It will take a while for you to get over the years of indoctrination. It takes a while for everyone.

The best way to do it is to keep the facts in mind, the real history, and review them every time you hear some patriotic, self-congratulatory claim about the war. There are many good reasons why certain stories, camp fire tales by the village elders, are never told together. The most obvious example is the fall of France and Dunkirk. There are others. They are all neatly packaged tribal tales. Peasants are not supposed to look at the real events and real chronology or the real geopolitics of the time. Refusing to look set you folks up for 2003 in Iraq completely against the wishes of almost everyone. And there was no mutiny. The peasants went off once more to do their duty and die for the interests of their betters.

We have agreed declaring war on Germany with no hope of success was an abysmally stupid thing to do. Clearly it brought on the fall of France and the battle of Britain and the submarine blockade for openers. It did not end until some 44 million were dead in the European theater. I don't see it was worth the lives of so many English and Scottish peasants just to please the potentially mentally impaired Chamberlain nor to satisfy the whims of the mentally disabled alcoholic who replaced him. Look at where all if his drunken decisions lead the country.

As to millions Gandhi attributed 8 to 12 million dead from starvation in India due to Britain stealing food for its use. A million here a million there, pretty soon you are talking a real holocaust to use the currently popular liturgy.

So far the only claim you have presented about Germany's wrongs are they they were 75% to 80% less than Russia's in this case. That does not come close to a justification.

All I have been doing is undermining the juvenile propaganda that attempts to justify Britain's chosen war.

Lead up to the war? What might that be? Supporting the Zionists was certainly morally reprehensible if that is what you mean. OTOH, what Germans do to Germans is the business of Germans only.

During the war is not of interest as there is no way of knowing what might have happened had Britain not started a war with Germany. For a fact I would some day like to see if there was ever an impartial examination of what Germany really did during the war completely separate from all the 1984 propaganda. I do know India would have no part of the Nuremberg trials for the absence of proper legal evidence, at least that is what it said in less polite terms and for even more reasons.

You might some day actually read the charter of the IMT and learn it does not rise to even the most elementary standard of justice. You might also learn the charges were for violations of ex post facto laws. Of course as a loyal peasant you fully support the Nuremberg findings even though it was not a court of law in even the English sense. Even though you were taught to like the results they were not in accordance with any system of law and contrary to existing systems of law, i.e. both arbitrary and capricious.

Excuse me sir but I have offered many times to discuss those supposed crimes based upon the available world jewish population statistics showing a slight increase in the world jewish population over the war years. Until that is addressed no claim of gassing millions can be established. Remember the offer to debate is open only to gassing millions and that physical evidence is the only basis for discussion and there is no evidence of any population decrease in the first place.Like everyone else, you have declined the challenge.

You will do better to explain how the stories continue to exist contrary to the population data.

Nor do I expect Britain to return to its high moral standards of 1939 and declare war on Israel.

What one calls a thing is not what a thing is. I really do not give a damn about what any court historian says in violation of the seventy year rule on writing history. Simply no history is to be written until at least 70 years after the event, until the generation that was involve in it is dead. People live longer these days so it should be more than 70 years.

The fact of British and French agression against Germany is in all the history books. That court historians declare it was German aggression is why they are court historians. They record one set of facts and then call it something else.

It is still too soon to be writing a legitimate geopolitial history of that war. It has become a laughable cloak of piety for the west, a view not shared by Russia, never was, is not to this day.

There are even Russian military historians who find Germany engaged in a preemptive strike against Russia just days before Stalin was ready to order an invasion of Germany. That the Russian troops had moved into attacking positions is not in question when it comes to their findings. In any event, Russia had ceded the Ukraine to Germany in 1917. Britain did not like that and reversed it in its great, empire loving tradition.

Go rent A Man Called Intrepid for a broad brush treatment of the bribery and blackmail, read criminal activity, ordered by Britain's Drunken Master in the US.

All of this over Hitler who was no worse than Slobadan Milosevic. Amazing what you peasants accept from your betters.

 

whoa whoa whoa.  czechs and slovaks are not "free" of each other now, nor were they under the germans.  the 1992 split was nothing but power politics by two populist leaders, vaclav klaus and vladimir meciar (two of the biggest motherfuckers in central europe), and was almost totally divorced from the will of the people.  otherwise, why was no referendum held?  the american reporters of the early '90s who painted czechoslovakia as another yugoslavia ready to erupt were either misinformed of dishonest.  no surprise, since a lot of western european leaders--helmut kohl, for one--were all for the split, and the white house was only too happy to oblige.

i've lived in slovakia now for 8 years and i've been to the czech republic countless times.  i've never yet met a single slovak or czech of any age who will outright say the split was a good thing.  many are apathetic about it, and many (particularly slovaks) regret it.  the usual comment is that it probably wasn't a good idea because a larger country is a stronger country.

as for the first slovak state under that nazi-fellating fascist tiso, the only slovaks who are not embarrassed of it today are ignorant nationalists like slota, kotleba, and their ilk.  the only "freedom" there was temporary, as everybody knows that once hitler was finished with the jews, gypsies, etc., the slavs were next on his list.  as for the czechs being in any way "free" under the germans, i dare you to go anyplace in the czech republic and say that.  you'll probably get your face smashed in, since the czechs were outright occupied. 

Pardon if I edit to get to the issue relevant to the subject.

You have lived in both. There are two. There were two under the Nazis. They were separate political units under the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

Therefore I have demonstrated the point I was making.

What the man in the street thinks about it is something separate from political will. Were there a political movement in both countries to reunite as the Brits demanded I can only assume it would happen, US willing or EU willing or Putin willing, whomever is running things these days. Little countries are rarely masters of their fate.

I agree separation can be short sighted. The US would have been per capita stronger and faster if it had accepted the secession of the Southern states and wished them good luck. It would have economically dominated the CSA from the beginning and slavery would have dissolved on its own in another 30 years or so without nearly a million dead to advance the inevitable result a few decades. Slavery had been around for at least 6000 years before 1861. Another few decades in a backward part of the world would not make much difference. (Before someone else's ignorant indignation is posted, freed share-croppers lived worse than slaves. Real equality did not appear until the 1980s which is 160 years after the war.)

I enjoy well developed What-If science fiction stories. All of the "fate worse than death" political scenarios of alternate history do not rise the elementary requirements of SF. I have been waiting for the "if Britain had not declared war on Germany" scenario to rear its facetious head. So far my Scot opponent has exhibited wisdom in not attempting it. Long before Pat Buchanan published his book on the subject I was saying the same thing.

 

and into enormous debt.  hitler's social policies for aryans were more lavish and irresponsible than anything the soviet union or the warsaw pact countries ever came up with.  no, i don't have the data at hand but it is summarized nicely by richard overy in the dictators.  hitler's scrambling for central european land was as much about funding his social policies as about any kind of ideology.

i rub elbows with people who lived it every day.  my wife's grandparents were born under the first czechoslovak republic, they clearly remember the war and tiso's first slovak state, and of course they spent most of their lives under the czechoslovak socialist republic.  her grandfather lived within 10 yards of a jewish family.  he used to light their fires on the sabbath.  he remembers their deportation.  my wife's second cousin lives in a house that used to be a jewish-owned store.  the village had a whole jewish neighborhood.  now there's not a single jewish family here. 

her grandfather can recount--and has on many occasions--walking by the railroad tracks and seeing boxcars loaded with jews, their hands extended, offering rings and watches for a cup of water.  holocaust education was never a big issue in czechoslovak education under the communists, and even if it was, he doesn't have much of an education anyway.  his primary education was definitely pre-socialist.  he was not indoctrinated with anything concerning the jews.  in fact, if you can get an elderly slovak to talk straight (i have, on one occasion), they'll tell you they were so addled with guilt over their pillaged property--property they retained under the communists--that the whole country just tried to forget the jews had ever been there.

very few people in either czech or slovakia have a hostile attitude to the old socialist regime.  it's mostly apathetic or nostalgic.  they will tell you straight out they didn't believe all the propaganda, but that everyone had a job, a place to live, and enough to eat.  very few people other than political dissidents and certain christians remember feeling politically or ideologically constrained.  what most people were irritated with were the travel restrictions and the dearth of american movies and music, but anyone will tell you (and has told me) this hardly made life intolerable.

what i objected to was your choice of words, specifically "free of each other."  no one ever anything less than "free," at least not on account of living in a multinational state.  while there were certainly disagreements at times, to this day czechs and slovaks consider each other "brothers."  also, it's an oversimplification to say czechs and slovaks were politically separate under the habsburgs.  the czechs were more or less part of austria and the slovaks hungary, and in slovakia you will find immeasurably more bitterness about hungarian domination than about czech or communist domination, much of it first-hand (there are a lot of very old people in slovakia).

fyi, the czechoslovak version of the nkvd were the štb, and no, they no longer exist.  i hardly think the czech republic and slovakia would manage to be members of nato, the eu, and the schengen zone (and slovakia is in the eurozone) if there were still repressive state organs in place.  please remember that czech and slovakia are both geographically and culturally far-removed from the soviet union and the balkan.

finally, in what way were the czechoslovak communists "worse by every measure" than the nazis or the hlinka guards?  i'd really like to see the data and analyses that support this, since you're the first person i've ever met who holds this opinion, and as far as i know you've never been to this part of the world.  maybe you can teach me something i don't know about the country i've lived, built a home, and raised a family in for nearly a decade.

if not, kindly bow out and cease mentioning an area you know very little about.

 

 

As we've argued this I've sought far and wide for references to Britain's war of aggression against poor victimized Germany and found none. Nothing from Germans, nothing from Russians, nothing from anyone. 

I wonder if iwb could help me out here and reveal if those in his homeland blame Britain for an act of commission or omission as far as their subjective sense of international morality goes. I think I know the answer. 

 

This is getting more than a little weird. You have agree Britain and France declared war on Germany. You have agree the British Expeditionary Force was in France to invade Germany.

Yet you appear to not to understand the meaning of aggression in the military sense. To rest of us declaring war is aggression. Preparing is invade is aggression.

Could you please me the definition of aggression you are using? That might clear things up.

i already have, which is why i'm not interested in convincing you of anything.

 

 

I often think angrily of Rome and it's destruction of my ancestral culture, language and religion. Importantly in terms of comparison with Hitler, we have a more detailed coverage of the 1930s and 40s than Caesar's Gallic War. 

 

 

 

You mean your innocent, peace-loving ancestors who were constantly raiding in Italy and once got so far as to lay siege to Rome? As to religion although there is no surviving record as to why Rome did attempt to exterminate the Druids. Today's best guess is because of human sacrifice. I can also ask which of the three major languages you are talking about or did you have a fourth in mind?

But at least they were not innocent Poles, I guess. Or is it all menhirs and Asterix?

But the issue with Caesar is he was worse than Hitler. Why are both not universally condemned? And you avoid Napoleon whose legacy at the time was considered worse than Hitler's has ever been yet people actually say good things about him these days. In fact discovering he was once so condemned was a bit of happenstance for me. Same question as with Caesar. And the records for Napoleon are all over Europe and fill local archives so information is not an excuse.

He is Big Brother. Obligatory denunciations are still standard political fodder. There is no important political leader today who participated in WWII and the few who were alive during the war were kids. They know nothing but war movies and propaganda and schoolbooks written to reflect that same propaganda.

 

he was worse in every way????

That is the most moronic statement I’ve read in a long time. The romans conquered in order to gain tribute or open up trade routes.   they did not as a rule transplant their populations outside Italy, except for garrison soldiers, while hitler’s clearly expressed purpose was forcibly deporting (or murdering) whole populations to leave their lands open for german settlers. 

The romans encouraged the arts, they were multicultural and multilingual, they were religiously synchretistic and only fucked with religions when those religions fucked with their money. That’s why they went after druids, Christians, jews, etc., and even then they didn’t go after private devotion or popular religious expression, but contented themselves with destroying the main cultic center and wiping out the priestly caste (so, for example, the Jerusalem temple was destroyed and Jerusalem made off-limits to jews, but synagogues all over palestine were left unmolested). Everywhere they went, the romans brought sanitation, running water, policed roads, public baths, public safety, and economic security to the native populations. The Nazis wanted to bring these things with them, but only for the german volk, and the natives could scrub the toilets or fuck off and die.

 

For the three centuries or so of its apex, and particularly during the reign of augustus and the pax romana, right after the time of Caesar, literally almost nobody, except religious fanatics and disinherited native nobility, had any problem living under the romans.

 

Oh, and something else the romans didn’t have: FUCKING DEATH CAMPS.

 

And just who the fuck would ever compare Caesar to hitler? Caesar was a brilliant military strategist; hitler was a wounded corporal who monumentally fucked things up anytime he tried to take direct control of military affairs. Caesar was a helluva writer (I know, I translated his latin in college): his commentaries are fascinating and engaging, while mein kampf is a frustrated, rambling snooze. And let’s not forget that the commentaries are all about what a great man had already done, while mein kampf is all about what an incarcerated, manic failure wanted to do. Shit, even as a teenager, Caesar escaped from kidnapping pirates, got a group of soldiers together, and went back and crucified every fucking one of them—after they laughed at him when he told them that was precisely what he was going to do. Hitler, as I recall, spent most of his youth unemployed and generally getting the shit kicked out of him. No way would I ever compare Caesar to hitler. I wouldn’t compare Caesar to napoleon either, though I think Alexander would be an apt comparison to napoleon. No, the only people I’d ever think of comparing Caesar to would be the Indian emperor asoka, henry v, or otto von Bismarck (who, had he been alive in the 1930s, would never have allowed a sniveling toad like adolphus hitler so much as the honor of spit-shining his boots).  

 

but please, give me an itemized fucking list of how caesar was worse than hitler in every way.  and tread lightly.  there aren't too many things i know more about than late republican/early imperial rome.   

 

 

 

 

(Mind the usual sycophant remark but You sum it up even more effectively.

 

We start banning people because they actively 'hate' someone or something else... might as well ban me.  I hate Zionism because I believe it has become a justification for tyranny and lying to friends (meaning... feeding America false intel in 2007.)

Other than that... "I could give a shit".  Nony (apparently) thrives on the thought that one day a 'free' Palestine will emerge from the smoking ashes of Tel Aviv, and will somehow be better for it. If so, it shows how little he understands.

For him, his rationale for Palestinian freedom appears largely antisemitic. So he meets up with Neterei Karta and decides he can bury the hatchet for some of the "Chosen People". 

Frankly, I wouldn't mind seeing a few bombs dropped/fired on Israel every time it hurts Palestinians, AND... I would not mind them being American in origin. However, that isn't going to happen any time soon. Just my two copper pieces worth.

On the other hand in my reality Rome built Roman cities for Romans in the lands they conquered. Upon retirement Legionaires were given parcels of the best farmland formerly owned by the conquered. These farmers further romanized the conquered lands. Usually instead of becoming farmers they sold the land to wealthy Romans who set up huge farms and controlled the local price of the food they raised which was as high as they could get away with. Roman also controlled the currency and therefore controlled the trade. The Romans who then dominated local agriculture and trade, being citizens, were exempt for taxes while the local "competition" paid taxes.

I can go on.

As for the deporting, there were two examples. The first was reinstating German nationals who, as a consequence of being forced to live under a Polish dictatorship were themselves displaced by Poles. The second was the Ukraine, ceded to Germany by Russia in 1917 and which had populated by Germanic people since the 16th c., but that was largely limited to executing the Kommisars who had forced starvation upon some ten million. The only good communist is still a dead communist.

As to extermination, I extend to you the challenge of showing a pre and post war decrease in world population of any group you care wish to claim was exterminated. So far everyone has declined the challenge or conceded the evidence is contrary to the mythology. Please be the first to produce evidence in support of the belief system.

You are the first to claim Rome encouraged the arts. Please tell me more. The closest thing I can think of is their buying power resulted in the literal mass production of "art" in Greece. Perhaps you could simply provide one or two examples of Roman contribution to the arts. I look forward to your reply.

While there were a few problems with some religions, the best guess for attempting to exterminate the Druids is human sacrifice.

The city-state of Judea set off the revolt. They retreated to Jerusalem and then to their temple (whereever it was built) for their last stand in both revolts. It was only after second that the city was rebuilt and Judeans prohibited entry. In both revolts Galileans and Samarians supported Rome and often pled for protection from the marauding Judeans. BTW: Jews means Judeans according to Josephus. The Galileans and Samaritans had been conquered and forced to convert in the mid 2nd c. BC. They hated the Judeans for good cause. In any event while it may have been religious fanatics behind the revolt, it was the revolt itself not the religion that Rome dealt with.

As to your hypotheticals as to what Germany wanted or intended, it is perhaps unfortunate they lost as due to losing such claims can never be never be distinguished from propaganda. What we do know for a fact is what you describe as Germany wanting only for the Germans the communists did not want even for the Russians. And when they took over eastern Europe they destroyed what existed either actively by carrying it away or letting rot.

As to the arts, what today we consider the classics were fully supported. As most of it was from the Austro-Hungarian empire the music, for example, would likely be indistinguishable from any classical music station today. For the allies at one geographic extreme there was Hollywood and at the other fat women in uniform singing about the glorious people's revolution. Jazz was equally unsavory on both sides of the war.

When you make a claim you can expect me to point out where it is not related to my reality.

Such an idyllic reality you live in. In my reality there was a minor fracas in the Teuton forest that for the most part convinced the Romans to stay on their side of the Rhine. There was a wall across the Tin Islands to keep out people clamoring to live under the Romans. The guy who built the wall also rebuilt Jerusalem. That covers the first 150 years from Agustus becoming emperor. I am not too well versed on the next 150 years other than the continuing Sythian and Syrian revolts. 

I do invite you to present world population data, pre and post war, to preface any claims of death camps. However I am familar with the Roman gulags mainly in the mines if that it what you mean. Do gladiators count in your reality?

Anyone who condemns the defensive move of conquering France certainly has address all conquerors of France, no? And then is not it reasonable to compare then and ask why the worst conqueror, Caesar, is not condemned as being worse than Hitler? Did the Gauls line their streets with trees so Romans could march in the shade?

It is not clear if you are blaming Germany's defeat upon him personally and would have preferred a win.

Perhaps but did he have a ghost writer? FDR gave a hell of a speech after Pearl Harbor but he did not write it. Anyway may I ask what writing skills have to do with conquering Gaul?

I have finally found another person who bothered to actually read it. Care to give some examples of what you found to object to? You go first. [That is not a raise, that is a call.]

Frankly I find it hilarious when today we know who really writes official histories and why people think it was different in the good old days. Plutarch would no more write something negative than anyone today would publish the blunt truth about Churchill. As to the pirates he caught them at anchor with a superior force. I could do that. Plutarch's vignette is hardly praise. It is brutal in its frankness. BTW: Would you take the time to explain how taking men out of prison and crucifying them is praiseworthy? Do you run these things through a Braveheart filter before posting? I could do that too.

So Napoleon who was reviled worse than Hitler is today almost until the turn of the 20th c. you would compare to Alexander. You sure love military dictators. Bet you loved Britain's enslavement of 750million on the Indian subcontinent too. The wogs did need their betters to civilize them and all that. Be that as it may, who the fuck was Alexander to impose his will upon anyone else? Who the fuck was he to roam over Asia slaughtering anyone who dared to resist? If that is your idea of an admirable person you are irredeemable.

You are impressed by man doing little more than travelling as a passenger with an experience naval squadron who happened to have the good fortune to catch the pirate ship at anchor. If you had read the only available information you would have learned he was a poet who ranked up there with Nero as one the great lights of the arts. You know he lead the slaughter in Gaul to further his political career in Rome which you think is praiseworthy. His political acumen was so great that he gave Cleopatra a claim to ruling Rome via their son and he let her live in Rome to flaunt that claim. I can go on. He was assassinated for very good reasons. Simply because Shakespeare portrayed him as sympathetic does not make it more than a dramatic contrivance.

 

 

 

 

Could all the lurkers please chase this link. Nony will criticise this post but it's an open view.

Personally, I think it's worth trying to establish what can be known in the face of Nony's endless denial. he won't alter his position but we can better understand our own. 

 

Here's a particularly relevant pull-out quote:

 

Jewish population

One Holocaust denial argument is the comparison of the population of Jews before and after the Holocaust. They state that the 1940 World Almanac gives the world Jewish population as 15,319,359, while the 1948 World Almanac gives the world Jewish population as 15,713,638. They therefore claim that either the figures are wrong, or the Holocaust, meaning the deaths of millions of Jews, cannot have happened to any extent similar to the claimed 6 million. Ken McVay writes:

Only in 1949 are postwar estimates employed, the figures given are for estimates made in 1948. A year or two lag seems to be common for various other population estimates given by the World Almanac. The difference between the 1938 and 1948 figures is thus 4,481,491. In 1949, however, the World Almanac gives a revised 1939 population of 16,643,120 giving a difference of between 1938 and 1947 of 5,376,520. Where the extra population between 1938 and 1939 came from is not cited, though one might speculate that it was based upon the Nazi estimates made in 1942 for the Wannsee Conference. Despite the apparent exactness of the numbers listed, the World Almanac warns that all numbers listed are estimates.[53]

Other sources confirm similar numbers—and earlier than the 1949 World Almanac—for the Jewish population before and after the war. The 1932 American Jewish Yearbook estimate the total number of Jews in the world at 15,192,218, of whom 9,418,248 resided in Europe. However, the 1947 yearbook states: "Estimates of the world Jewish population have been assembled by the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee (except for the United States and Canada) and are probably the most authentic available at the present time. The figures reveal that the total Jewish population of the world has decreased by one-third from about 16,600,000 in 1939 to about 11,000,000 in 1946 as the result of the annihilation by the Nazis of more than five and a half million European Jews. In Europe only an estimated 3,642,000 remain of the total Jewish pre-war population of approximately 9,740,000." These numbers are also consistent with the findings of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, Appendix III, in 1946.

 

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

 

 

 

Oh, I listen. I just don't care for humanitarian morality. IMO, it has no place in the 21st century, because it is an abject failure based on a self-satisfying argument.

The Mossad is a terrorist organization. Most recently exposed was using US passports, claiming to be CIA, hiring Iranian dissidents to conduct terror attacks in Iran. That costs the US a lot although assigning to dollar figure to an intangible is notoriously difficult. If it leads to Iran attacking the US in retaliation and that leads to war then the entire cost of the war and the lives is the cost of Israel.

Given the Israeli agents in the US who promoted the war on Iraq it is reasonable to put the entire cost of that war as a cost of Israel. Excuse me, not Israeli agents. Rather people indistinguishable from Israeli agents.

As for Mossad as intelligence, never has been. It is a source false information to support Israeli foreign policy. Always has been. For example it was the primary source for reams of intelligence about Iraq's nonexistent WMD programs including nuclear, chemical, biological and voodoo. Do you know what happens to a city bombarded wtih goofer dust?

 

 

 

world population data that the jewish population of Europe did not fall from nine and half million to just over three and a half million between 1939 and 1945. You completely ignore the German data which suggest 1.2 million Jews were murdered in 1942 alone. So far all we have seen from you is a facsimile of figures that are barely legible and that cannot be considered the definitive source you demand I provide. You repeatedly insist no Jews died in German hands in the period under consideration. Regardless of the wrongs of the Israeli state, this belief marks you as a person of extreme bias whose position on the topic under consideration will always be completely devoid of balance and credibility. 

 

I value you, Nony... because you give definite answers in the face of questions most people would choose to hide from behind a curtain of pretenses or "read-between-the-lines" morality clauses.

I hope you value my input, as I am one of a tiny few remaining antiIsrael conservatives in my country, largely because most are either kooks or aging 60s military vets in terms of "causality". Some are more rational in their... preferences. cj's remark "two unwinnable wars" comes to mind readily, and she is not the one to have originally coined the term "unwinnable war". Everyone, believe me when I say it isn't Israelis I hate... it's Israel itself. Too many pointless conflicts caused by a singular, xenophobic entity without much concern for the 'second class citizens' living outside a 'preferred religious faith class', for my taste.

Everyone else: "walk a mile in (his) shoes", and I am almost certain he will be glad to walk a mile in yours. Chances are (I believe)... you're too chicken shit to do it. No appeals to having spent time in Peace Corps... or some other NGO-related nonsense, please!

-Kapkao, proud citizen of "The Great Satan"

Nor have you presented any physical evidence that it did. Are you so stupid as to think I will not notice you presented nothing any value whatsoever?

At the risk of Sapient's wrath, you are a fucking idiot.

 

I'm an idiot to waste my time talking to a grub like you. 

I am glad. Understand that in many Nato countries INCLUDING "the greatest satan" there are many people atheist and theist alike that are sympathetic to 'your' side of the wall. Perhaps I have said this before but you should never forget it.

/done_here

Do you really think quantities of irrelevant URLs are going to substitute for world population data? [thousands of miraculous cures] [[tens of thousands of UFO sightings]]

Of course you do. That is why we agree on the idiot part. [therefore there is a god] [[therefore were are being visited]]

 

 

Nony, claim to be an empiricist of some description and yet refuse to except the findings of research carried out on the ground. All you will believe are population figures gathered we know not how and we know not how accurate. Please direct me to research that coherently supports your assertions Germany never committed any acts of mass murder in WW2 and that effectively refutes the testimony of hundreds of thousands of people. That explains the nature of death camp sites, that refutes the testimony of locals. And explain why the research at Treblinka is wrong. Whose are those bones. Try to get an actual forensic archaeologist involved if you possibly can. 

And yeah we all agree with you. No coherent research, no valid arguments and nothing of any value has ever been published or re-published on the Internet. Every URL is automatically false so please, no one else link to a URL in future. Or make an argument here in this false world of lies. Why would I believe your unsupported arguments and 'proofs' Mr. http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/31197 ? You can hardly be called an unbiased source. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a forensic archaeologist using the latest methods found evidence of mass murder at Treblinka including vast numbers of bones and ash pits, this material evidence is supported by eye witness reports of survivors, escapees, locals and former guards, as well as evidence from the Germans themselves including the Hoefle Telegram decoded by the Enigma cryptographers at Bletchley. You can read about this on the Internet.

 

 

Again, Nony, you refer to your population figures, the only form of evidence that's sanitary enough to be tolerable to you, and then you slide inexorably off into ad hominem. As I've said before, I don't care about the 6 million. It could be any number at all. And I never read a romantic detective story about about the Kommandant of Auschwitz and his adventures with Larry and Stretch. I've read Martin Gilbert's excellent Tragedy of the Jews, however. Why not read it yourself? It's a compelling drama. 

I contend the evidence for the Holocaust is overwhelming and its weight cannot be undone by your cherry picking a single line of data. If this case was to be heard in the supreme court anywhere, it could not be proved using a population almanac. 

Personally, I don't have a problem with your criticising Israel. But I do think criticism must be balanced and if it is clearly slanted against one group of people without consideration of the crimes of any others then it must be considered inconsistent. It's hard to take your criticism of Israel seriously Nony, when you hold these additional views about a group of people who were quite obviously slaughtered long before Israel ever existed to make the moral errors you abhor only in them.