It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by seagull
Realtruth. They aren't saying they are Jews, they are saying they may be Jews. Odds are good that they are, but they may not be. Let's wait until all the evidence is in before we go to either extreme.
No one, least of all I, deny that many, many others aside from those of the Jewish faith died at the hands of the Nazi's.
Originally posted by seagull
Realtruth. They aren't saying they are Jews, they are saying they may be Jews. Odds are good that they are, but they may not be. Let's wait until all the evidence is in before we go to either extreme.
No one, least of all I, deny that many, many others aside from those of the Jewish faith died at the hands of the Nazi's.
Originally posted by Realtruth
Point taken, but my whole interjection was that the article title is a bit loaded or one sided. Instead of saying "Jews" they should have just said "people" killed by the Nazis.
Do you see where I am coming from?
Originally posted by Muaddib
Originally posted by Realtruth
Point taken, but my whole interjection was that the article title is a bit loaded or one sided. Instead of saying "Jews" they should have just said "people" killed by the Nazis.
Do you see where I am coming from?
Is there anything really wrong with saying these may be Jewish people?
According to the article they think they were because that's the general area where some specific camp was located.
So tell us "realtruth", what is so bad about the word "Jewish" that you feel you need to make it such a deal?
Yes, it is true many other people of different ethnic groups were killed, but if the evidence points to these people being Jewish because of the area the bodies were found, why try to change a word which describes a group of people who suffered greatly and were mass murdered?.....
Originally posted by Muaddib
Originally posted by Realtruth
Point taken, but my whole interjection was that the article title is a bit loaded or one sided. Instead of saying "Jews" they should have just said "people" killed by the Nazis.
Do you see where I am coming from?
Is there anything really wrong with saying these may be Jewish people?
According to the article they think they were because that's the general area where some specific camp was located.
So tell us "realtruth", what is so bad about the word "Jewish" that you feel you need to make it such a deal?
Originally posted by paigcal
Geez, I can't believe there is even an argument about this. I can't believe there are people who think the holocost never happened. I suppose...
Originally posted by Rockpuck
Originally posted by paigcal
Geez, I can't believe there is even an argument about this. I can't believe there are people who think the holocost never happened. I suppose...
You would be surprised how far hatred goes.. to hate a people so much that you think they lied about the deaths of millions in order to establish some kind of superiority guilt trip over it.. yeah, if you hate enough you can believe it.
The bodies CAN be identified as Jewish with what they where burried with, their belongings or lack of, clothing (patches or something) and also you can see how long they have been dead for, as well as manor of death, that being close proximity to a camp, it is obvious. Unless it was at the end of the war and this was a hurried draining of the camp, the Nazi party kept excellent record of who they killed -- hence the biggest evidence that it DID happen. To deny without proof is simply hate, the crimes that where committed are in historic accuracy.
Can they be Soviet peasants? Sure they could, but a soviet peasant would not be wearing (nothing) or a prison outfit, all dressed accordingly.
Aside from that, often those who starved where buried by their families, and sometimes the Army would burn the bodies to stop the spread of disease (don't want to make your workers sick now......) but the Peasants also would not have died all at the same time, but a trickle and gradual incline, eventually to much for peasant farmers to handle, they would have burned to spare time instead of burying as well. Stalin was cruel, much crueler then Hitler, but these have the distinct markings of a WWII era massacre committed by the minds of Germans.
Originally posted by Beelzebubba
KilgoreTrout,
You cannot discount that this mass grave could very well be from the Soviet pogroms. Remember, the Soviets murdered 7 million people in the Ukraine (1932-33). A number much higher than that of Nazi atrocities in the same region.
The Soviets also had concentration camps in the Ukraine where the elderly and youthful were of no use. Roughly 3 million Ukranian children were murdered during this time.
Ukranian Massacre
Murdered by Moscow
Originally posted by PONCE
...BUT, no one keep records of the 11 millions Germans and 21 millions Russians that were killed AFTER WWWII.......... I don't see anyone talking for them...
...why should the world keep on paying the Jews (Zionists) any money?, if it was stolen money or returned property then I say GOOD IT WAS THEIRS TO START WITH.....but why should the world keep on giving, giving and giving?