The Dachau Massacre. The Slaughter of Nazis in Death Camps During WW2.

Originally posted by Neversaydie
reply to post by SteveR

 

We must remember the mindset then was different Germans where looked on as evil, with the atrocities of Lidici and Origador and what they did in Greece they raped and plundered everywhere they invaded.They where capable of anything.
If they had the A bomb they would have flattened everywhere as they used every new weapon they made.
But somehow they did not kill 6 million Jews,well it wasnt from lack of trying then.
I must add if they paid Greece back what they robbed Greece would not be in such a mess now.
In a nutshell they where mass murderers on a grand scale and if they murdered 2million or 6million Jews is irrespective as they would have murdered far more if they had won
As for fairy tale believe me some of the things they did is beyond fairy tale .beyond humanity can imagine with experiments and torture,and as for America thank god we had them on our side god bless them.

But this is exactly the problem. Let's just for a moment speculate that it was 6 million Jews killed. Why is that number so much more significant than anything else? The estimated total deaths caused by WW2 is between 62 and 78 MILLION. The Soviet Union alone suffered over 20 Million deaths. So why, when we talk about WW2, is it always drawing us to that magical "6 Million" number. Are the other deaths any less significant? Germany suffered 8 Million deaths. Is that any less significant? In respect to the OP.. is the gunning down of War Prisoners okay just because they were in charge of a Prison Camp? People of Jewish decent weren't the only ones to suffer during WW2. So why is the focus almost always on them?

reply to post by DerekJR321


Wikipedia is simply a collection of data, and is actually more efficient, and accurate then most sources since it contains within it a compilation of several sources/viewpoints on the matter. If a page on Wikipedia is not often frequented, then it is at risk of being tampered with unbeknownst to anyone, but the more heavily utilized pages are actually held under rather detailed scrutiny. If it is found that people are tampering with the page, and posting un-sourced, or false data, then it will be locked, or changed.

While it is true that the pages may be edited, they are also watched, and false information is caught quite easily. Anyways, what is the difference between Wikipedia, and a book for a source, the book can be edited in reprints, and while its not as easy, its also not as easy to catch since the access to books is limited compared to internet pages. If some one writes a book on "The lives of Trolls a detailed summery", and some one creates a webpage on the same topic, clearly each one is to be judged based on their sources, not the medium in which they are created internet/book.

Also, witness testimony's are considered the worst possible evidence in any trial, so one is quite frankly left with the only viable option of creating a truthful picture of an event, through looking at as many sources as possible. This is where Wikipedia/the internet comes in handy, I can cross reference every source, and double check with each side of the debate through forums, and other mediums to see how close these sources are to what is accepted as truth. Then its entirely up to one's self to make the decision of what is true/false, based on this.

Originally posted by 007Polytoks
reply to post by DerekJR321

 

Wikipedia is simply a collection of data, and is actually more efficient, and accurate then most sources since it contains within it a compilation of several sources/viewpoints on the matter. If a page on Wikipedia is not often frequented, then it is at risk of being tampered with unbeknownst to anyone, but the more heavily utilized pages are actually held under rather detailed scrutiny. If it is found that people are tampering with the page, and posting un-sourced, or false data, then it will be locked, or changed.

While it is true that the pages may be edited, they are also watched, and false information is caught quite easily. Anyways, what is the difference between Wikipedia, and a book for a source, the book can be edited in reprints, and while its not as easy, its also not as easy to catch since the access to books is limited compared to internet pages. If some one writes a book on "The lives of Trolls a detailed summery", and some one creates a webpage on the same topic, clearly each one is to be judged based on their sources, not the medium in which they are created internet/book.

Also, witness testimony's are considered the worst possible evidence in any trial, so one is quite frankly left with the only viable option of creating a truthful picture of an event, through looking at as many sources as possible. This is where Wikipedia/the internet comes in handy, I can cross reference every source, and double check with each side of the debate through forums, and other mediums to see how close these sources are to what is accepted as truth. Then its entirely up to one's self to make the decision of what is true/false, based on this.

But WHO controls that information? Let's say for arguments sake, I went to the Wikipedia page for Dachau and added the information that "No Prisoner was ever Gassed At Dachau".



No One Gassed at Dachau

Do you believe that information would be left on that page? Or would it be simply edited out by "the powers that be" because it didn't fit in with the currently believed narrative of Dachau?

“Those who control the present, control the past and those who control the past control the future.”

― George Orwell

[SNIP]

reply to post by DerekJR321


The same people who control information world round, thus why I clearly stated that the sources are contained within are the important part, and one must cross check, and reference all the data. I agree 100% that you would quickly find yourself out of a Wikipedia account, and your info removed if you posted that, but that does not mean that Wikipedia is any less of a reliable source for (most) data then anything else.

Here is an example, go on You Tube, and search up something questioning the holocaust, "Judea Declares War On Germany", you will find it has been flagged for "being potentially offensive or inappropriate.". Yet search up something about the holocaust which does not question the "official story", and you will find lots of videos with pictures of dead/dying people, which apparently is not "potentially offensive or inappropriate". Or all the videos of "American" soldiers murdering people, which are apparently not "offensive or inappropriate".


Another example, lots of website's questioning the holocaust are blocked on my ISP, they are not a threat to my country's security, they are not terrorist supporting, they are simply questioning an event, yet they are blocked. While at the same time there is tons of smut sites, showing videos of people being murdered, which are perfectly okay according to the internet providers (apparently).


So yes, I agree that the data is constantly disseminated in a way that profits those in charge, but that happens no matter where you get the data. So as I stated, you must cross check everything, and keep your mind open to the possibility's. Thus why Wikipedia is often a good place to look, because it contains several sources within which you can utilize to help you further illuminate the truth, whatever that truth may be.

reply to post by DerekJR321


The six million Jews who were murdered were seldom in a war zone. They weren't caught up in the fighting, they weren't combatants, they had no say in what was happening. They were systematically persecuted, legislated against, rounded up, sent to ghettoes and then finally shipped off to camps and either worked to death or gassed. Their only crime? To be Jewish. And they were followed by countless other victims of the Nazis.

Originally posted by SteveR

[SNIP]

edit on 2012/12/31 by SteveR because: (no reason given)

Erm, no. Hitler's only principle was self-interest. He didn't use Tabun, or Sarin, because he was told that if he did the Allies would drench German forces with Mustard Gas. Even Hitler wasn't that mad.

[SNIP]

Originally posted by SteveR
[SNIP]

Actually I looked it up in a big papery thing called a book. I have quite a few of them. I also found this -


'WHY HITLER DIDN'T USE NERVE GAS'
Sunday Telegraph – 29 August 1999

In recounting the story of the discovery of deadly nerve gases by the Nazis, Jeremy Paxman surprisingly states: "Why Hitler chose not to use the weapons is one of the enduring mysteries of the Second World War" (Comment, August 22).

It is nothing of the kind. Hitler did not use nerve gas for the same reason that he did not use poison gas (except against concentration camp victims, who could not hit back). He was deterred by the belief that using these weapons would lead to retaliation by the Allies. Had he known that the Allies did not possess retaliatory stocks of nerve gases, their use by the Nazis would have been highly probable.

In May 1943, in a discussion about tabun gas with Otto Ambros, his chemical warfare expert, Hitler was told that it was necessary to assume that tabun (like other chemical weapons) was also known abroad. Mr Paxman ought to realise that: "From that moment on, no matter how tempted he felt to use his secret gases, Hitler had always to balance in his mind the conviction of his scientists that the Allies had them too." That quotation is to be found on page 64 of a book about chemical and biological warfare, entitled A Higher Form of Killing and published in 1982. Its authors were Robert Harris and Jeremy Paxman.

In his book Reflections on Intelligence, the late Professor R.V. Jones, Churchill's wartime Head of Scientific Intelligence, confirmed the role of deterrence in averting a nerve gas attack. From decrypted Japanese signals, Jones had learned that "Hitler had told the Japanese ambassador in Berlin that he had some new and very effective gases, but that he was refraining from using them because he thought that we had equally deadly ones. Here he was wrong, because his chemists had discovered nerve gases and ours had not; that he thought that they had was in itself a deterrent, and neither side resorted to gas warfare".

Dr JULIAN LEWIS MP
Cadnam, Hampshire

reply to post by SteveR


If the Russians had took Germany they would have wiped them out.As for America bombing Germany.the Germans bombed England remember Coventry , Liverpool and London.My uncle was shot in cold blood by the occupiers in Greece and babies where bayoneted.They where the aggressor remember so they have no defense they bullied and bulldozed their way through Europe without mercy,but no the Americans are the bad guys in my opinion they got away with it.
Also 8 million Germans killed,well the should not have targeted Jews,slavs homosexuals,disabled and whoever would have been next on their death list,so 8 million is nothing compared to their plans.

Originally posted by DerekJR321
People of Jewish decent weren't the only ones to suffer during WW2. So why is the focus almost always on them?

Because holocaust deniers make it about them.

Because that way they can spread their particular sickness and suggest that no one died.

Its called setting up an argument to set your own premise.

The actual precise numbers of people killed in the holocaust is irrelevant. The act of the holocaust its whats relevant. Numbers only matter to those who wish to somehow try and belittle, and suggest that because a figure may not be "accurate", that the whole thing is somehow a lie, that historical record is inaccurate and that somehow everything got made up.

And yet here we are in a thread discussing historical record at a camp, and here you are suggesting that the historical record is wrong.

And, we're also supposed to be discussing the killing of Nazi prisoners of war, not the holocaust in general.

Now, if that doesn't smack of an agenda, what does?

Holocaust denial, when it boils down to it, is borne straight out of bigotry. There isn't another event in WW2 that is disputed with such venom. There is only one common denominator for that.

But as I've said a couple of times now, this thread is about the killing of Nazi Prisoners of war by the allies.

I wonder how many of the murdered German soldiers were also Jewish Nazi soldiers, now those should of been.
Hey but what about ours US soldiers, I'm sure some one mention this, we had a bunch doing bad things in the Mideast, just as bad as NAZI, Rape, Murder, Torture, other things to vial to mention.

The .soldiers are always the one that turn out to be the victims in the end, most times the higher ups just blame the grunt's for their crime's. Sure the grunt's did it but these Majors and Generals did it ten times worse, but get to walk away and blame it on the grunt.

Now you say the Nuremberg Trials, that's bull, what about project Paper Clip, a lot of the real bad guys got away with a pat on the back, Heck where do the CIA come from.

They say a lot of the things we the good guys did, was just as bad ,or worse than what the Nazi soldiers did, and those Nazi soldiers had no choice.

The post is valid. Unfortunately though, while the author isn't a "Nazi" nor trying to stir the pot, the pot is stirred. That's how these types of threads, threads that could be construed as being sympathetic to the Germans, go. This thread (imo) is Stormfront material and will attract the type of people we don't want here. Seen it happen before, -seen forums poisoned, seen forums taken right the f%%% off line because of racist/neo nazi idiots climbing on board a legit thread. Sorry, Just my 2 cents .

Hitler was gassed in the first world war and decided not to use it as a matter of principle.
-Principles eh LMFAO!

-Funny the mods cant see where this is going lol

Originally posted by canucks555
The post is valid. Unfortunately though, while the author isn't a "Nazi" nor trying to stir the pot, the pot is stirred. That's how these types of threads, threads that could be construed as being sympathetic to the Germans, go. This thread (imo) is Stormfront material and will attract the type of people we don't want here. Seen it happen before, -seen forums poisoned, seen forums taken right the f%%% off line because of racist/neo nazi idiots climbing on board a legit thread. Sorry, Just my 2 cents .

edit on 31-12-2012 by canucks555 because: (no reason given)

So true. i`m logging off before it gets worse.

these we hard times for both sides , truly is unthinkable the mental and physical trauma these guys went through on the battlefield , this can only be magnified in these death camps , violence only leads to more violence !
its easy enough to say that this type of thing is wrong , wich it is ! but just imagine for a slight second u had seen the terrible things and experianced the horrors of WW2 ... its enough to send any human raving mad ! im sure all these experiances and emotions explode and some soldiers just couldent couldent control them selfs ! i cannot imagine what i would do in their situation !
lets just pray we never have to go through the things our elders did !

not being biased to any side here btw ! WAR is a terrible thing no matter who is fighting them ! this happend to soldiers from many difrent countrys , i am strongly againt this all together !

Thanks for the thread OP ! u have a lot of great threads im looking forward to dive rite in to
Keep up the good work ! S&F

The actual precise numbers of people killed in the holocaust is irrelevant. The act of the holocaust its whats relevant.

Exactly. The other tactic they use is to try and claim that the camps were for detention only and that disease and starvation alone account for the bodies. Even if that were true, (and I don't believe that), it doesn't change the fact that those people wouldn't have died if they hadn't been detained in the first place. If nothing else, the holocaust was passive-agressive genocide.

British troops took unofficial reprisals during the liberation of the Belsen camp too.....Once again though, considering what they saw, is anyone really surprised?

My grandad was involved in the 'cleanup' there.....He was the most gentle and loving man in the world, but he never ever forgave the Germans for what he saw.

Originally posted by chishuppu
been through this discussion before, thanks for you input though.

Link to thread would have been nice, but, if you can't remember it, I suppose its better I search it up.

Originally posted by lynn112
reply to post by salainen

 

As I said before, I know my opinion is biased because as you said, it affected people I love. I do understand that they were people, but I also know what they did to the people in Dachau because I have copies of the records of my grandma's brother. (father-in-law got them on his last trip to Germany in the 90's)

Was it a witch hunt? I can't say it was because these monsters were very real and they did very horrible things.
These were not innocent people and my husbands family was changed forever by Dachau.

Do I care? I personally find it hard to care about these particular men.It doesn't mean I would have done the same, nor does it mean I'm justifying what happened. All it means is I understand why it happened and I hope we all learn from this dark chapter of history.

You say we should learn from history, yet you don't really care about this particular massacre... You don't think it was a massacre because they were monsters, but what if not all of them were monsters. If the Americans didn't really check the people, and just lined them up and shot them, who knows how many innocent people died.

Originally posted by intrptr
Actually it does show the mass execution of about (apparently) 60 Dachau camp guards by American soldiers with a machine gun.

It does show the mass execution of camp guards? Where else have you read about this (genuenly interested)?

I do agree that its interesting, but if our only source is a blog by a person who believes that there was no holocaust...

reply to post by dogstar23


Mostly I agree with your post, but I don't know how you can say that any deaths were terrible and then in the same breath talk about how Hitler & Co should have executed the Rothschilds. I mean, are we saying that gassing bankers is okay? Because once you decide to start with that, where do you draw the line? You'd have to get rid of their families too, so that no one can take thier place. Oh, and better get the Communists who were trying to overthrow the German government. And the people not working hard enough to repair the economy. See? You either gas no one or you gas everyone. We need a new tactic to deal with economic injustice, besides murder.

Originally posted by neformore

Originally posted by DerekJR321
People of Jewish decent weren't the only ones to suffer during WW2. So why is the focus almost always on them?

Because holocaust deniers make it about them.

Because that way they can spread their particular sickness and suggest that no one died.

Its called setting up an argument to set your own premise.

The actual precise numbers of people killed in the holocaust is irrelevant. The act of the holocaust its whats relevant. Numbers only matter to those who wish to somehow try and belittle, and suggest that because a figure may not be "accurate", that the whole thing is somehow a lie, that historical record is inaccurate and that somehow everything got made up.

And yet here we are in a thread discussing historical record at a camp, and here you are suggesting that the historical record is wrong.

And, we're also supposed to be discussing the killing of Nazi prisoners of war, not the holocaust in general.

Now, if that doesn't smack of an agenda, what does?

Holocaust denial, when it boils down to it, is borne straight out of bigotry. There isn't another event in WW2 that is disputed with such venom. There is only one common denominator for that.

But as I've said a couple of times now, this thread is about the killing of Nazi Prisoners of war by the allies.

And there in lies the problem. This thread is about Dachau, and the allied killing of Nazi guards at that camp. As Dachau is in itself a part of the "Holocaust" story... questioning the Holocaust in itself is completely relevant to this topic. However, when someone goes against the official story, they are brushed off simply as Anti-Semites, or Nazi Sympathizers. And this is exactly why this "lie" continues to permeate through history. It's funny how "the numbers don't matter". They only stopped mattering once that "6 million" number was proven to be false. I hate to break it to you but the numbers very much matter. Because if they don't.. then by nature it is not a "holocaust". The definition of a holocaust is "a mass slaughter of people; especially : genocide". There has been genocide through out the world that makes the Holocaust pale in comparison. But we aren't taught of it. We don't hear about the tens of millions of Russians killed during the Bolshevik revolution. We aren't told of the millions and millions of people who die every single year in Africa. We are barely taught about the horrors in Cambodia. But yet the mere mention of "genocide" is attributed to the Holocaust and WW2.

Ask yourself why this is constantly brought back to the forefront of everything. Ask yourself why there are museums everywhere. Ask yourself why in European countries, it is illegal to even QUESTION the holocaust.

How is questioning the holocaust related to the OP? Simple... these Soldiers gunned down the guards out of sheer disgust. What was the true nature of the prisoners conditions? The utter destruction and decimation of the Jewish population found inside the camp? Or was it due to the fact that the Allies were bombing the rail lines leading into Dachau, which in turn made it impossible to get supplies like food and medicine into the camp. How many deaths in Dachau were attributed to Typhus? Now.. how many deaths were attributed to Zyklon-B?

All of this is absolutely relevant to this discussion. You can put your hands over you eyes, stomp your feet like a child and pretend it doesn't. You can plug your ears and say "I'm not going to listen to your point of view because it is unpopular.". But that makes it NO less relevant to the discussion.