# Holocaust: victim numbers could be up to 20 million.



## Tez3 (Mar 4, 2013)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ice-as-big-as-previously-thought-8518407.html

_"The network of camps and ghettos set up by the Nazis to conduct the Holocaust and persecute millions of victims across Europe was far larger and systematic than previously believed, according to new academic research._
_Researchers conducting the bleak work of chronicling all the forced labour sites, ghettos and detention facilities run by Hitlers regime alongside such centres of industrialised murder as Auschwitz have now catalogued more than 42,500 institutions used for persecution and death._
_The figure has shocked academics and more than doubles an earlier finding by the same team that up to 20,000 sites were used. It casts a disturbing new light on the sheer scale of the machinery of imprisonment and oppression put in place by the Nazis throughout Europe, from Italy to Russia."_


----------



## oftheherd1 (Mar 4, 2013)

I always thought 6 million was a staggering number.

15 to 20 million is beyond comprehension.


----------



## CanuckMA (Mar 4, 2013)

It's always been more than 6 million. 6 million were just the Jews.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Mar 4, 2013)

Stalin is responsible for approximately 20 million deaths... perhaps more by some estimates...

Mao Ze-Dong, some estimate as many as 78 million...

Pol Pot estimates are around 2 million...

All horrible and terrible acts. Other than that, they also share other things in common in the events that led up to allowing them to commit such attrocities.


----------



## CanuckMA (Mar 4, 2013)

No arguments. The Shoah does not stand because of the numbers. It stands because it is the only one that had the stated goal of completely exterminating a people. With an infrastructure built for that purpose on a multi-national scale. We must still make sure we don't forget those other genocides.


----------



## granfire (Mar 4, 2013)

oftheherd1 said:


> I always thought 6 million was a staggering number.
> 
> 15 to 20 million is beyond comprehension.



well, that was 6 out of an estimated 10 million Jews living in Europe. Yes, quiet staggering.

Then we add socialists, communists, unionists, protestants, homosexuals, handicapped, sinties and romas, or outright out spoken people to the mix....
Also Russians, Poles, and the various people from further south, 

then we have in the last days of the war death squads roaming the streets, executing anybody who cannot muster the strength to believe in the Endsieg anymore....it's only 14 million more, that's done quiet easily.

Also, I am sure POWs can count in the number....The Russian chaps had it rather rough, and the story of the grand escape cost about 200 fellows their lives, much against anything the Geneva convention stood for....

It is said hat the Reich killed a good 20 million Russians alone....although, Stalin has been known to cull a few of his own people, giving his German counter the 'credit' for it. So Stalin's total could possibly be much higher!


----------



## celtic_crippler (Mar 4, 2013)

From the Center on Law & Globalization:
http://clg.portalxm.com/library/keytext.cfm?keytext_id=187

The link provides the perspective of Historian Mark Levene. He compares the features of the three events most widely described as genocides: the Holocaust (or Shoah), the Armenian genocide and the Rwandan genocide.

Levene finds eight features shared by the three genocides.


In each case we see a government or regime in control of the state that is committed to eliminating one or more groups for political purposes. In each case, *the regime had the resources and logistical capacity to carry out direct physical extermination. *
There was no real threat of outside interference in these cases,
The government or regime believed it was in extreme danger and that crisis was looming,
*The killing was extended over time* and did not happen in one or a few episodes of mass murder,
Victims were *killed regardless of gender or age*,
The *killing was spearheaded by the military and para-military organized by the state. *Other elements of the dominant population participated.
*The victim groups were in no position to protect themselves or fight back*. They had no way to halt or impede the killing.
*The government or regime had a palpable sense that the targeted group was a present and future threat to the state or dominant society* regardless of whether the victim group was a cohesive or even coherent unity.
 
The two other instances of mass killing make clear one more common feature:


The targeted group was identified based on the perpetrator's perception of reality, not on any sort of essential feature of the targeted group.
 
I think the most poignant point made is this: _genocide can only occur when the targeted group cannot defend itself._


----------



## CanuckMA (Mar 4, 2013)

celtic_crippler said:


> I think the most poignant point made is this: _genocide can only occur when the targeted group cannot defend itself._



I am so sick and tired of hearing this. I suggest that while they're still around, you go spend some time with Survivors and listen to their stories. It had a lot less to do with the ability to defend yourself and a lot more with disbelief.


----------



## granfire (Mar 4, 2013)

CanuckMA said:


> I am so sick and tired of hearing this. I suggest that while they're still around, you go spend some time with Survivors and listen to their stories. It had a lot less to do with the ability to defend yourself and a lot more with disbelief.



well, yes and no.

There was that disbelieve for sure, after all, what politician keeps his word.

but by then, when it all became clear, there was that element of helplessness. 
I mean, it is quiet shocking to be retroactively stripped of all rights and benefits.


----------



## arnisador (Mar 4, 2013)

Unbelievable.


----------



## CanuckMA (Mar 4, 2013)

granfire said:


> well, yes and no.
> 
> There was that disbelieve for sure, after all, what politician keeps his word.
> 
> ...



It was not about politicians keeping their words. It was about disbelief that their friends and neighbours would do that. Disbelief because they were well intergrated, well respected members of the community in the countries they lived in. Thos who did fight back were mowed down. 

We could have done exactly the same with our Japanese citizens. They would not have imagined they were being led to slaughter either.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Mar 4, 2013)

CanuckMA said:


> I am so sick and tired of hearing this. I suggest that while they're still around, you go spend some time with Survivors and listen to their stories. It had a lot less to do with the ability to defend yourself and a lot more with disbelief.



You assume much. As usual, that is the flaw in many of your "points". 



CanuckMA said:


> It was not about politicians keeping their words. It was about disbelief that their friends and neighbours would do that. Disbelief because they were well intergrated, well respected members of the community in the countries they lived in. Thos who did fight back were mowed down.
> 
> We could have done exactly the same with our Japanese citizens. They would not have imagined they were being led to slaughter either.



Ignorance is a primary tool used by tyrants, agreed. But in every instance history shows that disarmament contributed to the slaughter. You can deny it all you like, but facts don't change because you don't like them. That is the fallacy of the idealist.


----------



## Big Don (Mar 4, 2013)

CanuckMA said:


> Thos who did fight back were mowed down.



*It's better to die upon your feet than to live upon your knees!
Emiliano Zapata.

*


----------



## CanuckMA (Mar 4, 2013)

It's not about being an idealist. It's having lived with people who lived it. That glib line about if the Jews had weapons, those 6 million would not have died is quite frankly insulting to their memory.


----------



## Big Don (Mar 4, 2013)

CanuckMA said:


> It's not about being an idealist. It's having lived with people who lived it. That glib line about if the Jews had weapons, those 6 million would not have died is quite frankly insulting to their memory.



I think I'd rather be mowed down than starved to death while tortured or tortured to death while being starved.


----------



## arnisador (Mar 4, 2013)

Big Don said:


> I think I'd rather be mowed down than starved to death while tortured or tortured to death while being starved.



A lot of people who were there made a different decision and a number of them are still alive today.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 5, 2013)

arnisador said:


> A lot of people who were there made a different decision and a number of them are still alive today.



Those are bad odds, but they may be better than holing for a last stand and going out Waco style. Still, I think it's obvious that when you get to either of those points, it's too late.

How about we work for a society based off of reason and peace, then we don't have to worry about these things.  

I wonder how many people who live in countries that committed genocide supported every step of it's growth? How many cast votes that fed the beast that eventually broke the cage and ate them? How many people went to mass graves cursing their political delusions?  

Government is a gang of people who have the right to initiate force within a given geographic area. If people think they can control this, they are deluded. No amount of reason will ever control it, because the initiation of force means that reason has ended. This is why liberty is the only real preventative medicine against genocide. Liberty is reason and peace. Liberty is tolerance. 

Liberty is destroyed by the initiation of force. It is destroyed by government.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 5, 2013)

I put up a thread about* research* showing that more died in the Holocaust than previous thought and people turn in into a political rant about guns, frankly it's disgusting.

People with an inadequate knowledge of history really shouldn't spout their mouths off, spewing forth words that are all wind and piss. All this faux machismo about going down shooting, don't make me laugh. None of you have any idea what it was like to live either in Nazi Germany or in one of the Occupied countries. When a unit of storm troopers turns up on your doorstep do you actually think you and your puny little weapons are going to stop or that they will let you shoot, really? When you neighbours are cheering said soldiers on, don't you think they would have told the troops already where your weapons were , yeah those neighbours you grew up with went to school with, fottie matches, you best mates at work? don't you think that when they turned you in as being Jews they'd know everything about you and the soldiers would be prepared for any arms you might have? think of police swat raids in your own country and now see the same thing rounding up Jews. did you just think the local cop went round the Jewish houses and politely asked them to give themselves up? 
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/chap_12.asp

Jewish resistance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_resistance_under_Nazi_rule
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005213
http://kehilalinks.jewishgen.org/humenne/Resistance.htm

http://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/holocaust/resource_center/item.asp?gate=1-7

You have fine sounding words people but you have absolutely no idea what the hell you are talking about, it sounds grand sat at the computer but really it just shows a tremendous amount of ignorance of the history of the Nazis. Your persistent right wing rhetoric about something you know so little about means you always sound as if you blame the Jews rather than the Nazis. Nazi Germany was nothing like the world you know, not even in most violent parts of America would you find a place like Nazi Germany. You have no idea at all of what it was like living in Europe pre war, during the war or even afterwards. All you can see is your own selfish political viewpoint and overbearing need to be right in all the senses of the word.

Where was America and your freedom lovers when the Jews reached out and asked for help in the 1930s? 

Look to your own history before criticising others, look to your own efforts at genocide of native Americans before you criticise Jews for what you assume happened.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 5, 2013)

&#8220;The truth may be out there, but the lies are inside your head.&#8221; &#8213; Terry Pratchett


----------



## celtic_crippler (Mar 5, 2013)

CanuckMA said:


> It's not about being an idealist. It's having lived with people who lived it. That glib line about if the Jews had weapons, those 6 million would not have died is quite frankly insulting to their memory.


 
Let's just ignore the truth because you find it offensive. That's logical.

I never said that many Jews wouldn&#8217;t have died. For all I know they could all have been horrible shots. But we&#8217;ll never know what the outcome may have been because they were not afforded the opportunity due to the fact that they were disarmed. A fact you can not dispute. 

More facts you can not dispute:



Government                     Dates                    Estimated Dead            Gun Control
Ottoman Turkey           1915-1917        1-1.5 million                      1886
Soviet Union                    1929-1953        +20 million           1929
Nazi Germany                1933-1945      +13 million                        1928
China                                        1949-1976       +20 million                        1935
Guatemala                          1960-1981       100,000                               1871
Uganda                                   1971-1979     300,000                               1955
Cambodia                             1975-1979       +1 million                           1956

Coincidence? 

If you would like to see a complete translation of German Law specifically banning Jews from owning weapons I would suggest &#8220;Gun Control: Gateway to Tyranny&#8221; by J.E. Simkin & A. Zelman. 

Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it&#8230; at least that&#8217;s what I hear. I don&#8217;t suppose you&#8217;d dispute that philosophy; or perhaps you would?


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 5, 2013)

No. what I find offensive is this need to turn everything into a pro or anti gun control argument. This is an American argument and should stay between Americans, fight it out among yourselves and leave the rest of us out of it. Not everything is about guns in America.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 5, 2013)

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MURDER.HTM

Democide is not an American phenomenon. In the 20th century governments around the world have killed over 250,000,000 people. This does not include war, it's the government turning about and murdering it's own citizens. This is something that should have everyone in the world saying, "holy ****."  It's also something that people around the world should keep in their minds before they vote any more power to their governments. 

This is statistically your greatest chance of being murdered. Somewhere in the world right now, a government is murdering it's own citizens. It can happen at your home too.


----------



## billc (Mar 5, 2013)

> Where was America and your freedom lovers when the Jews reached out and asked for help in the 1930s?



The problem could have been that there was a democrat in office...


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 5, 2013)

However the Nazis didn't take over the governemnt of Germany, they were elected in with an overwhelming majority. They campaigned and won on the anti semitic policies they then put into practice. Basically Hitler gave the German people what they wanted. As far as they saw it they weren't murdering their own citizens as any one Jewish or of Jewish ancestry wasn't a citizen. Many who were killed as being Jewish weren't in fact, they had a Jewish ancestor but lived as good German Christians, however having Jewish 'blood' however 'thin' was enough to get you sent to a camp especially. Many were denounced by neighbours and colleagues btw. Blaming just the Nazi government doesn't cut it I'm afraid. The people were fully behind their government, few complained or opposed as any dissenters were disposed of in the early days. The Nazis guillotined more people than the French did in the Revolution. Anti semitism was a popular aspect of the Nazi party's political agenda. 

http://sitemaker.umich.edu/rememberingnazism/popular_appeal

http://www.nazism.net/about/nazi_ideology/


----------



## celtic_crippler (Mar 5, 2013)

billc said:


> The problem could have been that there was a democrat in office...



Who routinely used cocaine... ROFL


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 5, 2013)

Tez3 said:


> However the Nazis didn't take over the governemnt of Germany, they were elected in with an overwhelming majority. They campaigned and won on the anti semitic policies they then put into practice. Basically Hitler gave the German people what they wanted. As far as they saw it they weren't murdering their own citizens as any one Jewish or of Jewish ancestry wasn't a citizen. Many who were killed as being Jewish weren't in fact, they had a Jewish ancestor but lived as good German Christians, however having Jewish 'blood' however 'thin' was enough to get you sent to a camp especially. Many were denounced by neighbours and colleagues btw. Blaming just the Nazi government doesn't cut it I'm afraid. The people were fully behind their government, few complained or opposed as any dissenters were disposed of in the early days. The Nazis guillotined more people than the French did in the Revolution. Anti semitism was a popular aspect of the Nazi party's political agenda.
> 
> http://sitemaker.umich.edu/rememberingnazism/popular_appeal
> 
> http://www.nazism.net/about/nazi_ideology/



Exactly my point. Society had become delusional and dangerous and people fed it, refusing to see it as it was. In this case, forget clinging on to your guns...run.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 5, 2013)

billc said:


> The problem could have been that there was a democrat in office...



Lol. Plenty of conservatives loved the fascists, including Prescott Bush, who was prosecuted under the trading with the enemy act. The Bush family made their fortunes war profiteering. They might as well have used the gold teeth from Auschwitz to fund their political campaigns. Evil bastards.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Mar 5, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Lol. Plenty of conservatives loved the fascists, including Prescott Bush, who was prosecuted under the trading with the enemy act. The Bush family made their fortunes war profiteering. They might as well have used the gold teeth from Auschwitz to fund their political campaigns. Evil bastards.



ALL war is about profit. Didn&#8217;t you know that? 

Anyway&#8230; from earlier in the thread:



> Levene finds eight features shared by the three genocides.
> In each case we see a government or regime in control of the state that is committed to eliminating one or more groups for political purposes. In each case, *the regime had the resources and logistical capacity to carry out direct physical extermination. *
> There was no real threat of outside interference in these cases,
> The government or regime believed it was in extreme danger and that crisis was looming,
> ...


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 5, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Exactly my point. Society had become delusional and dangerous and people fed it, refusing to see it as it was. In this case, forget clinging on to your guns...run.




Considering what we've had in the past actually society today is better than it used to be. The past is far more dark and dangerous than the present is.


----------



## CanuckMA (Mar 5, 2013)

No gun laws in the US. How many US citizens of Japanese descent shot it out with the authorities when they came to put them in internment camps. Frankly your knowledge f what it was like then and there is sorely lacking.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Mar 5, 2013)

CanuckMA said:


> No gun laws in the US. How many US citizens of Japanese descent shot it out with the authorities when they came to put them in internment camps. Frankly your knowledge f what it was like then and there is sorely lacking.



I find your inability to reason and apply logic disturbing. :jediduel:


BACON!


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 5, 2013)

http://remember.org/imagine/limits/gabriel.htm

"The world may never know the true story behind the Holocaust, and it is left to speculate on the identity of those responsible. Much of the evidence gathered points in various directions. It is evident that the blame cannot rest fully on Nazi leaders, as it is obvious that the common German citizen was also a part of the attempted genocide enforced by those who served Hitlers cause. If the question is why or how, you must answer based on your perception of the information obtained from those who had every opportunity to avoid their involvement in the atrocity. Your conclusion should reflect the unmistakable connection between the average Germans actions and the staggering number of executed Jews.Most people do understand the nature of the Holocaust, but fail to hold almost the entire country of Germany responsible. It is impossible to think that such a crime could have centered exclusively within one particular military movement. We can see now that "average Germans gladly, almost gleefully, participated in the torture and mass murder of Jews during World War II" (Weinstein). It appears "they were not primarily SS men or Nazi Party members, but perfectly ordinary Germans from all walks of life, men (and women) who brutalized and murdered Jews both willingly and zealously" (Goldhagen 1). These "everyday" citizens delivered just as much pain and suffering as any Nazi affiliate, and must be unmasked for the sake of all those who perished as a result of Hitlers "final solution." It is not punishment that is sought through this exposure; it is a means of clarifying the Holocaust as an act of a single nation, where no one is left unaccountable for his or her actions.
However, some may argue that a strict and authoritative government influenced the acts of the common people. As most Germans were not directly associated with the Nazi party, it is believed they "were coerced into killing, followed orders blindly, succumbed to peer pressure, or simply were unaware of the ongoing genocide" (Weinstein). Researchers such as Christopher Browning discuss the voluntary nature of those involved in the executions to support the theory that some actually excused themselves as the acts were being committed. He also claims that the existence of "mere negative stereotypes contributed to these mens willingness voluntarily to hunt Jewish mothers and their infants" (Kern). This particular perception encourages the use of a sympathetic view towards those who were indirectly involved in the massacre.
The heart of Christopher Brownings argument reflects the fear and constraint of many Germans with little or no ties to the Nazi party. "The social-psychological conditions, the objective and keenly felt pressures of the group, the fear of being held in contempt by ones comrades: these were what turned these men into killers, in Brownings view, and kept them at it" (Kern). His argument must be taken into consideration because you cannot assume that every citizen performed the deeds advocated by their country. The mindset and beliefs of people differ as you examine larger and larger populations, with Germany as no exception. "You cannot draw the inference from the literature, the art or the politics of those years that the common sense of the people was that the Jews ought to be driven out or killed" (Reilly). "In a sobering conclusion, Browning suggests that these good Germans were acting less out of deference to authority or fear of punishment than from motives as insidious as they are common: careerism and peer pressure" (Browning 1). This position raises a legitimate debate as to the true motives of individuals who appear to have been left with no alternative.
Yet the testimony surrounding the willingness of the average German to participate in the brutal operation is enough to provide reasonable doubt in the mind of even the strongest nonbeliever. It is easy to see how most people can blame such horrible actions on outside influence; still there is the lingering notion that the existing pressure was a result of what each individual believed as being the only choice. If the orders were strictly optional, then why did they obey if no penalty was to be enforced? Why did they continue if they knew in their hearts that it was an unforgivable act? The answers lie in the hatred that built up among those who could not accept Jewish people as a part of their society. "Eventually, Jews were no longer even human beings in the eyes of Germans. Jews became an "anti-race" that required eradication, according to the Nazis"(Weinstein). How they chose to handle these impressions leaves no room for sympathy.
It must further be understood that those who chose to carry out the executions were fully aware of just how horrible their decisions were. Any pressure they may have felt should have washed away with the tears of the helpless victims as they held up their weapons to destroy another persons future. As Hitlers movement swore to exclude all non-Jewish German citizens from persecution, those who carried out the executions had no real reason to fear any type of retaliation by Nazi officers if they chose not to cooperate. "Goldhagen provides strong anecdotal evidence that Himmlers order that no German be coerced into taking part in the extermination campaign was respected. According to testimonies later given by these men, their officers repeatedly gave them the option to abstain from killing in any given operation. Some few exercised the option and served in support roles. Some transferred out. No soldier, it seems, anywhere in the Nazi Empire, was ever punished for failing to kill Jews. Nevertheless, almost every soldier who was asked to kill civilians in this way did so" (Reilly). Many other accounts rely on the theory that there must have been an internal hatred for Jewish people in general. This seems to be the only way to explain the inhumanity of an event such as the Holocaust. No excuses are to be made and there is no need to ponder the idea of a frightened society who was forced to obey unimaginable orders. "They acted as they did because of a widespread, profound, unquestioned, and virulent antisemitism that led them to regard the Jews as a demonic enemy whose extermination was not only necessary but also just" (Goldhagen 1). It is also clear that ordinary Germans displayed the ability to conduct the mass murders despite the threat of future oppression. It is believed that "many prisoners were shot even after it became known the Himmler had ordered the killing of the Jews to cease. All of this happened when the Germans had clearly lost the war, when the guards knew they could soon be held responsible for the mistreatment of prisoners, and when no one was making them do these things" (Reilly). These horrifying accounts suggest that average Germans were motivated by hatred, rather than a suspected fear of punishment.
Much of the information available centers on the apparent fact that most Germans should be held responsible for the worst crime in recorded history. Daniel Goldhagens argument reemphasizes the hypothesis that the Holocaust was a unified act of terror performed by Nazi extremists and their fellow German countrymen. "It also shows that the governments public antisemitic measures were not unpopular and that ordinary Germans did not need to be coerced to carry out the Holocaust itself" (Reilly). All that remains is the acknowledgement of such a contribution in terms of how the Holocaust is viewed by todays society. People must become aware that the "final solution" was an equation containing Nazi officials, with the addition of many German civilians. 
As we have come to view the Holocaust, we must now try to see why it is important that we reveal all who are responsible for the atrocity. Understanding the significance of identifying those involved will help explain why the number of Jewish casualties is so staggering. These individuals are charged with the greatest crime in recorded history and must be left for judgement in the highest court. Nevertheless it is our duty as a free society to view the perpetrators for everything they truly are. It must be known that Jewish victims suffered because of the hostility these Germans felt overall.
Whether it is the result of one man or one army, the purpose of including everyone is to show just how wrong Hitlers "final solution" really was."

*Works Cited*​_Browning, Christopher R_. Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1992.
_Goldhagen, Daniel J_. Hitlers Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1996.
_Kern, Paul._ "Goldhagen, Browning and Expertise." 16 Apr. 1996. <http://h-net2.msu.edu/~german/discuss/goldhagen/gold9.html> (2 Mar. 1999).
_Reilly, John J_. "Convicted of the Wrong Crime." 1997. <http://pages.prodigy.net/aesir/ 
hwe.htm> (2 Mar. 1999).
_Weinstein, Natalie._ "Prof. Defends His Theory of Willing Killers." 19 Apr. 1996. <http://JewishSF.Com/bk960419/sfaprof.htm> (2 Mar. 1999).


----------



## billc (Mar 5, 2013)

The Japanese in the United States were lucky...they were in the United States.  

One thing we now know is how things can go if they go really badly.  Too many people think that the mass murder committed by the socialists in Germany and Russia, and China, and Vietnam can't ever happen again.  Why they believe that is beyond me, but some people do...that is why they aren't worried about giving up their weapons.



> Considering what we've had in the past actually society today is better  than it used to be. The past is far more dark and dangerous than the  present is.



This is true...for now...but the state of the future is never guaranteed and the only guide we have to know what could happen is the past...so it is better to be prepared, and watch for the warning signs...and keep our weapons...than to trust that the past won't happen again...



> "Goldhagen provides strong anecdotal evidence that Himmler&#8217;s order that  no German be coerced into taking part in the extermination campaign was  respected. According to testimonies later given by these men, their  officers repeatedly gave them the option to abstain from killing in any  given operation. Some few exercised the option and served in support  roles. Some transferred out. No soldier, it seems, anywhere in the Nazi  Empire, was ever punished for failing to kill Jews.



The only problem here is that you, if you were a German citizen or soldier, had to trust the word of men who were carrying out the mass murder of innocent people...and that their word was good...considering what they were already doing to the most innocent of people.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Mar 5, 2013)

It has been leaked, more then once, that US soldiers have been tested on their ability to follow the order to fire on civilians. I believe I posted a thread on that somewhere...

And now, civilian law enforcement, are using drones...stockpiling ammunition by the billions of rounds... and buying tanks. The FEMA bill has been reintroduced which, if it passes, will make it perfectly legal to set up camps where civilians can be held against their will in the event of a national emergency; all under the direction of the Secretary of the DHS, a civilian law enforcement agency. Why? They've cited no reason and nobody is asking... except for fruit-cakes like me.

"The past is far more dark and dangerous than the present"????

Really?

You're right to a degree... it shouldn't be. We have more access to information than ever before. But what are we doing with it? Nothing. And there's the real danger as history shows what happens to those that do "nothing."

_When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle._ ~ Edmund Burke

_Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing._ ~John Stuart Mill

_The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing._ ~ John F. Kennedy (attributed to Burke) 

This philosophy of doing nothing leading to the triumph of evil is not a new one, and history bears out in grisly detail the usual outcome. 

With todays technology and our governments having state-of-the art weaponry (some on par with what was once considered science fiction) far more advanced than any civilian has, you honestly think the potential for something far more dark and dangerous than weve ever imagined before in our history isnt right around the corner? 

Oh, but I forget people actually think that things are different now. Sure, there have been tyrannical, murdering nut-jobs in the past but our current leadership is morally superior and righteous. Right? Theyd never do anything so hideous. Right? 

You think youre the first person who made that assumption? 



> The message to schoolchildren is thus: never again through never forgetting. Great store is put in the ability of memories and representations of the Holocaust to have a transformative effect on the young and to create active and engaged citizens. The danger is clear and so is the moral: the Holocaust not only can happen again, it _has_ happened again - in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Darfur - and it will keep on happening unless we remain eternally vigilant in our duty of remembrance.


http://www.spiked-online.com/site/article/8000/


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 5, 2013)

celtic_crippler said:


> It has been leaked, more then once, that US soldiers have been tested on their ability to follow the order to fire on civilians. I believe I posted a thread on that somewhere...
> 
> And now, civilian law enforcement, are using drones...stockpiling ammunition by the billions of rounds... and buying tanks. The FEMA bill has been reintroduced which, if it passes, will make it perfectly legal to set up &#8220;camps&#8221; where civilians can be held against their will in the event of a &#8220;national emergency;&#8221; all under the direction of the Secretary of the DHS, a civilian law enforcement agency. Why? They've cited no reason and nobody is asking... except for fruit-cakes like me.
> 
> ...



I've made no assumptions what so ever. I honestly don't think you read other peoples posts, you have that idea in your head of what you want to lecture people on and you do so even though it has nothing to do with anything anyone has said.
If you have problems with your government why don't you go do something about it, ie stand for office or something instead of pontificating on here and derailing threads, this one btw is about the research that lead to finding of more concentration camps than previous thought.


----------



## Big Don (Mar 5, 2013)

Tez3 said:


> http://remember.org/imagine/limits/gabriel.htm
> 
> "The world may never know the true story behind the Holocaust, and it is left to speculate on the identity of those responsible.


The NAZIS, the NATIONAL SOCIALISTS, who, we are routinely lectured were not socialists, even though it was part of their name...


----------



## Big Don (Mar 5, 2013)

An armed man will kill an unarmed man with monotonous regularity


----------



## granfire (Mar 5, 2013)

Big Don said:


> The NAZIS, the NATIONAL SOCIALISTS, who, we are routinely lectured were not socialists, even though it was part of their name...



because they are not

You can take my word for it.


----------



## Big Don (Mar 5, 2013)

granfire said:


> because they are not
> 
> You can take my word for it.



OK, I'll take your word for it, you are wrong.
Hitler:
The  National Socialist Party will prevent in the future, by force if  necessary, all meetings and lectures which are likely to exercise a  depressing influence on the German state.

We  are Socialists, we are enemies of the capitalistic economic system for  the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries,  with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and  property instead of responsibility and performance and we are all  determined to destroy this system under all conditions.

National  Socialism is what Marxism might have been if it could have broken its  absurd and artificial ties with the democratic order.

Goebbels:
As  socialists, we are opponents of the Jews, because we see, in the  Hebrews, the incarnation of capitalism, of the misuse of the nation&#8217;s  goods.​
Next you will tell us Islamic terrorist groups like al qaeda aren't Islamic​


----------



## Big Don (Mar 5, 2013)

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


> The *German Labour Front* (German: _Deutsche Arbeitsfront_, DAF) was the National Socialist trade union organization which replaced the various trade unions of the Weimar Republic after Adolf Hitler's rise to power.
> 
> Its leader was Robert Ley,  who stated its aim as 'to create a true social and productive  community' (Smelster, 1988). Theoretically, the DAF existed to act as a  medium through which workers and owners could mutually represent their  interests. Wages were set by the 12 DAF trustees. The employees were  given relatively high set wages, security of work, dismissal was  increasingly made difficult, social security programmes were started by  the Arbeitsfront, leisure programmes were started, canteens, pauses and  regular working times were established, and therefore generally the  German workers were satisfied by what the DAF gave them in repaying for  their absolute loyalty.
> Employment contracts created under the Weimar Republic  were abolished and renewed under new circumstances in the DAF.  Employers could demand more of their workers, while at the same time  workers were given increased security of work and increasingly enrolled  into social security programmes for workers. The organisation, by its  own definition, combated capitalism, liberalism, but also revolution  against the factory owners and the national socialist state.


Consolidating all unions into one super sized union is hardly eliminating unions.



No, no relation to the Nazis at all


----------



## celtic_crippler (Mar 5, 2013)

Those daggum fact thingy's don't suit my position.. therefore.. I'll ignore them. ROFL


----------



## Big Don (Mar 5, 2013)

celtic_crippler said:


> Those daggum fact thingy's don't suit my position.. therefore.. I'll ignore them. ROFL



Close, to say, "I like socialism, ergo, those bad people clearly weren't socialists" is more on point


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 5, 2013)

billc said:


> The Japanese in the United States were lucky...they were in the United States.



Fifty years before, US soldiers were mowing down innocent women and children at wounded knee and the smiling faces around the terrified Iraqis in Abu Ghraib should tell you that not a damn thing has really changed.  The Japanese were lucky...but not because the US is special in any way.  This State has created it's own crops of morally twisted drones and at a certain point, guns won't help you.  Guns won't help you if you let the State get so powerful that it can snuff out resistance to tyranny with lies, disinformation, ignorance, and overwhelming force.  Conservatives want to be big government military Keynesians and pretend like all they need to ward of tyranny is the 2nd amendment.  Yeah right.  

America, unfortunately, has way too much in common with the Nazis for reasonable and rationale people to be comfortable.  You want to see where your freedom is lost, check this out.  You want to see how good people can be twisted morally, check this out.  It starts with the children...






The Prussian school system, the same one exported all throughout the West, the same one that immolated Europe twice in the 20th century, was exported here in 1840.  The same men who mowed down women and children at Wounded Knee and laughed at Abu Ghraib were shaped here.


----------



## granfire (Mar 5, 2013)

Big Don said:


> OK, I'll take your word for it, you are wrong.
> Hitler:
> The  National Socialist Party will prevent in the future, by force if  necessary, all meetings and lectures which are likely to exercise a  depressing influence on the German state.
> 
> ...





Big Don said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Labour_Front
> 
> Consolidating all unions into one super sized union is hardly eliminating unions.
> 
> ...




Oh, Hai Ray, telling of color again?


You let yourself get blinded by labels, fall fr pretty words.

In case you have missed it, it part of my family history, from the other side from Tez.

You have 3rd hand information, from tainted sources. 

Say hi to your French Model girl friend for me, will you....because you found it on the internet does not make it so.

BTW, I don't need to have a translator to read their filth....


----------



## Big Don (Mar 5, 2013)

Because people should NEVER be taken at their own words.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 6, 2013)

Oh look the hysteria fairy has landed again. 

Given that the word 'liberal' means something different in America to what it does everywhere else it doesn't occur to you that when the Nazis called their party 'socialist' it didn't mean what you are saying it does? Oh right that's because you are never wrong.


The Nazi party was a facist organistion, your ideas of socialism are way off, which is fine when it comes to decribing your own politics, call them what you what but what the world knows as socialism isn't what you know it as, so the Nazis weren't socialists. They were right wing facists. I know that doesn't fit with your love fest for the right wing but there you are we all have to face uncomfortable facts sometimes.

http://sitemaker.umich.edu/rememberingnazism/was_nazi_germany_fascist_

http://www.nazism.net/about/ideological_theory/

_"The ideological roots which became German "National Socialism" were based on numerous sources in European history, drawing especially from Romantic 19th Century idealism, and from a biological misreading of Friedrich Nietzsche's thoughts on "breeding upwards" toward the goal of an Übermensch (Superhuman). Hitler was an avid reader and received ideas that were later to influence Nazism from traceable publications, such as those of the Germanenorden (Germanic Order) or the Thule society."

__[url]http://phdoctopus.com/2012/04/22/nazism-and-fascism-were-ideologies-of-the-right/_[/URL]

_"I was spurred to write this post after listening to right-wing talk radio, where the announcer described fascism as an ideology of the left, the result of the expansion of Big Government. These scare tactics are used to form a slippery slope argument, namely that the welfare state leads to the gas chambers. Friedrich Hayek advanced a version of this argument in his famous and erroneous work, __The Road to Serfdom__, particularly in his chapter __&#8220;The Socialist Roots of Nazism.&#8221;__ It is certainly true that fascism represents the worship and expansion of state power. Yet it can and did exist alongside capitalism, as was the case in Nazi Germany. Though Adolf Hitler led the National Socialist German Workers&#8217; Party (Nazi), Hitler was not a socialist."

"Most important, we know Nazism was an ideology of the far right because of the very logic behind it. Unlike socialism, Nazism was a hierarchical, Socially Darwinistic vision that encouraged competition, and showed disdain for the masses, who Hitler called &#8220;mentally lazy.&#8221; Most crucially, it did not denigrate individualism, but in fact celebrated it. This is evident in Hitler&#8217;s major work, Mein Kampf. "


_You can mock, sneer and deny as much as like, you'll still be wrong. Although I would say someone's propaganda department is doing a sterling job in your country.


----------



## billc (Mar 6, 2013)

Now who is dealing in fairy tales....can't let all the mass murderers be a part of socialism...that tends to give socialism a bad reputation...


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 6, 2013)

War is something socialist countries do well because the whole State is consumed to perform a single activity. This is why war results in more socialism, it greases the skids of tyranny by destroying individual freedom. FDR, Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, Europe, Japan, the whole West lurched toward socialism after WWII. Even the "conservatives" became socialists as they supported more and more militarism/security. This is the ugly legacy of WWII. It wasn't a war against socialism, it was a war between socialists.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 6, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> War is something socialist countries do well because the whole State is consumed to perform a single activity. This is why war results in more socialism, it greases the skids of tyranny by destroying individual freedom. FDR, Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, Europe, Japan, the whole West lurched toward socialism after WWII. Even the "conservatives" became socialists as they supported more and more militarism/security. This is the ugly legacy of WWII. It wasn't a war against socialism, it was a war between socialists.



Look I know the Untied States has a short history but really I wouldn't pontificate about world history when you obviously don't actually know much about it! I know too that Americans have been brain washed for decades about the dangers of socialism and it's the big bad wolf to you guys but a war between socialist states, really? America has never had nor I think ever will have a socialist President or even politician, not by any definition of socialism outside the States. Hitler was a facist and Stalin a communist dictator not a socialist. Churchill a socialist, you're having a Steffi Graf mate. You guys get confused because your political definitions aren't the same as everyone elses, you call Obama a socialist yet if he were in any other country he'd be quite a right wing conservative. You call liberals left wing when anywhere else they are centre to right wing. 
If you are going to commentate on world and European affairs I'm afraid you have to use our definitions not yours, then you will see how things really were. use your definitions by all means when you commentate on your domestic affairs but don't confuse the two which is what you are doing and so making a right dogs dinner of summing up World and European history.

You could also explain why anything you don't like is called 'socialist' and assume that someone who doesn't agree with you is a socialist? Really, that is quite a leap. You all seem so brainwashed that you think because someone rightly defines Hitler as right wing they must be defending the left wing, I know it's what you do...right always defends right.. but funnily enough it doesn't work for the rest of us. Stalin is as equally hated as Hitler was and quite rightly, no one defends Stalin any more than they defend Hitler, both were monsters, both were responsible for millions of deaths, both will be remembered with a shuddering hatred and some fear.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 6, 2013)

Tez3 said:


> Look I know the Untied States has a short history but really I wouldn't pontificate about world history when you obviously don't actually know much about it! I know too that Americans have been brain washed for decades about the dangers of socialism and it's the big bad wolf to you guys but a war between socialist states, really? America has never had nor I think ever will have a socialist President or even politician, not by any definition of socialism outside the States. Hitler was a facist and Stalin a communist dictator not a socialist. Churchill a socialist, you're having a Steffi Graf mate. You guys get confused because your political definitions aren't the same as everyone elses, you call Obama a socialist yet if he were in any other country he'd be quite a right wing conservative. You call liberals left wing when anywhere else they are centre to right wing.
> If you are going to commentate on world and European affairs I'm afraid you have to use our definitions not yours, then you will see how things really were. use your definitions by all means when you commentate on your domestic affairs but don't confuse the two which is what you are doing and so making a right dogs dinner of summing up World and European history.
> 
> You could also explain why anything you don't like is called 'socialist' and assume that someone who doesn't agree with you is a socialist? Really, that is quite a leap. You all seem so brainwashed that you think because someone rightly defines Hitler as right wing they must be defending the left wing, I know it's what you do...right always defends right.. but funnily enough it doesn't work for the rest of us. Stalin is as equally hated as Hitler was and quite rightly, no one defends Stalin any more than they defend Hitler, both were monsters, both were responsible for millions of deaths, both will be remembered with a shuddering hatred and some fear.



Lol. Americans are just as socialist, if not more, then European states in most of the ways that really matter. The history of European socialism is something I've read extensively about, from European sources. I suggest you try reading an Austrian named Mises. Perhaps he can straighten out your misconceptions.

Mises fled the empire ahead of Hitler because he understood what was happening and recognized the danger.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 6, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Lol. Americans are just as socialist, if not more, then European states in most of the ways that really matter. The history of European socialism is something I've read extensively about, from European sources. I suggest you try reading an Austrian named Mises. Perhaps he can straighten out your misconceptions.
> 
> Mises fled the empire ahead of Hitler because he understood what was happening and recognized the danger.



I love the way you think we know nothing, I do actually know of and have read Mises. the thing is, you read things about Europe and from a European point of view as you say but you understand it from an American point of view, your education and experience of living is all American so everything you see and understand is American-centric. 

I think you may well have death threats for calling Americans socialists, at the very least I expect you to get neg rep!!


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 6, 2013)

Tez3 said:


> I love the way you think we know nothing, I do actually know of and have read Mises. the thing is, you read things about Europe and from a European point of view as you say but you understand it from an American point of view, your education and experience of living is all American so everything you see and understand is American-centric.
> 
> I think you may well have death threats for calling Americans socialists, at the very least I expect you to get neg rep!!



From Mises perspective, Americans are socialists. From Mises perspective, militarism is socialism. Or, "war is the health of the state" as they say in the Austrian School of Economics.

Anyway, I don't think my perspective is very American anymore. Not many people in my country share it.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 6, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> From Mises *perspective*, Americans are socialists. From Mises perspective, militarism is socialism. Or, "war is the health of the state" as they say in the Austrian School of Economics.
> 
> Anyway, I don't think my perspective is very American anymore. Not many people in my country share it.


#

You see, that's the magic word! it's all about persepctive, Americans see the Nazis as socialist, not just because of the name but because that's how they perceive socialism to be, they can't see that socialism could be anything as good as capitalism, theyve never needed to see any other system in their short history. Europe, with it's centuries of war, empires, ravages of famines and plagues etc etc have a different perspective, for us the Nazi's are very right wing. Austrians btw are just Germans by another name, Nazism went down a treat there, they loved it, well, of course as we all know Hitler was Austrian not German but he felt the two countries were the same place. 

Spain under Franco was facist, he was right wing his views were so similiar to Hitler's that Germany helped them out killing the Spanish who protested and fought against Franco's troops. I don't see people saying 'oh Franco was a socialist!'


----------



## granfire (Mar 6, 2013)

Tez3 said:


> Spain under Franco was facist, he was right wing his views were so similiar to Hitler's that Germany helped them out killing the Spanish who protested and fought against Franco's troops. I don't see people saying 'oh Franco was a socialist!'



Oh, give billie half a chance with his google-foo and copy-pasta...


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 6, 2013)

granfire said:


> Oh, give billie half a chance with his google-foo and copy-pasta...



True enough, he's on ignore but to me he's still the man who thinks Maggie Thatcher is a socialist!! Imagine the Iron Lady as a commie roflmao!


----------



## sopraisso (Mar 6, 2013)

Tez3 said:


> #
> 
> You see, that's the magic word! it's all about persepctive, Americans see the Nazis as socialist, not just because of the name but because that's how they perceive socialism to be, they can't see that socialism could be anything as good as capitalism, theyve never needed to see any other system in their short history. Europe, with it's centuries of war, empires, ravages of famines and plagues etc etc have a different perspective, for us the Nazi's are very right wing.
> [...]
> Spain under Franco was facist, he was right wing his views were so similiar to Hitler's that Germany helped them out killing the Spanish who protested and fought against Franco's troops. I don't see people saying 'oh Franco was a socialist!'



Some people truly don't understand the difference. Some do, but try to deceive themselves and pretend they don't see such difference (some kind of cognitive dissonance). Some understand, but pretend they don't and try to deceive others, out of interests that would not be spoken out loud. The cold war is over, but many of its products live up today, and one of them is the misinformation propaganda that both sides made about each other - with some prevalence, naturally, of the propaganda of the winning side.

I've learned that being capitalism or socialism is more about whether the means of production are public or private, not about the political system. So there can be socialist democracies and capitalist dictatorships. In Latin America we have some kind of experience on many of those nuances, I believe. The most important thing is: there aren't only extreme positions, and I usually believe the moderate ones tends to be more lucid.

Enviado de meu GT-I9300 usando o Tapatalk 2


----------



## granfire (Mar 6, 2013)

Tez3 said:


> True enough, he's on ignore but to me he's still the man who thinks Maggie Thatcher is a socialist!! Imagine the Iron Lady as a commie roflmao!



I can only imagine her response to that....:lol:

But considering that my Grandmother was very proud of her brother to have been party member before it became compulsory, and that she would have never touched anything socialist, no matter how long the pole.....I am sure she and her family are spinning in their graves everytime somebody says Nazi=Socialists!
of course for different reasons as the millions of communists and socialists killed in the camps.....


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 6, 2013)

I've been doing a lot of reading in the Austrian School of Economics lately and from their perspective, there are many different flavors of socialism that comprise modern politics.  Left wing socialism is what people would identify with communism.  Right wing socialism is what people would define as fascism.  Middle of the road, centrist socialism is not fascist or communist, it's what most people would define as a social democracy.  This is the brain child of the Fabian Socialists, a clique out of Britain, who were the actual ideological winners of the second world war.

We know through history that both ends of the perspective can lead to genocide, but I think it remains to be seen in regards to social democracies.  We shall see...


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 6, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> I've been doing a lot of reading in the Austrian School of Economics lately and from their perspective, there are many different flavors of socialism that comprise modern politics. Left wing socialism is what people would identify with communism. Right wing socialism is what people would define as fascism. Middle of the road, centrist socialism is not fascist or communist, it's what most people would define as a social democracy. This is the brain child of the Fabian Socialists, a clique out of Britain, who were the actual ideological winners of the second world war.
> 
> We know through history that both ends of the perspective can lead to genocide, but I think it remains to be seen in regards to social democracies. We shall see...



Okay, it's not 'Fabian socialists' it's the Fabian Society, it's a think tank, Britian's oldest formed in 1884. They aren't a clique btw but a well respected organisation. They are socialist in inclination but as they say.. _"It is however editorially, organisationally and financially independent of the Labour Party and works with a wide range of partners of all political persuasions and none." _Being a member I know about this. I am however a socialist being what you call classic liberal, something very different. Members have included HG Wells, George Bernard Shaw, Rupert Brooke, Oscar Wilde, Emmeline Pankhurst and Earnest Bevin.
I'm not sure what you mean by saying the Fabian Society was the idealogical winners of the Second World War, that doesn't make sense.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 6, 2013)

This thread is about to get very interesting.  Grab some popcorn.  opcorn:



Tez3 said:


> Okay, it's not 'Fabian socialists' it's the Fabian Society, it's a think tank, Britian's oldest formed in 1884. They aren't a clique btw but a well respected organisation. They are socialist in inclination but as they say.. _"It is however editorially, organisationally and financially independent of the Labour Party and works with a wide range of partners of all political persuasions and none." _*Being a member I know about this.* I am however a socialist being what you call classic liberal, something very different. Members have included HG Wells, George Bernard Shaw, Rupert Brooke, Oscar Wilde, Emmeline Pankhurst and Earnest Bevin.



Fabian socialism is just another type of socialism, but why should I bother saying much more, since you are actually a member of the society.  For others, here's a description of this particular brand of socialism.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/551569/socialism/276343/Fabian-socialism



> As the anarcho-communists argued for a form of socialism so decentralized that it required the abolition of the state, a milder and markedly centralist version of socialism, Fabianism, emerged in Britain. Fabian Socialism was so called because the members of the Fabian Society admired the tactics of the Roman general Fabius Cunctator (Fabius the Delayer), who avoided pitched battles and gradually wore down Hannibals forces. Instead of revolution, the Fabians favoured gradualism as the way to bring about socialism. Their notion of socialism, like Saint-Simons, entailed social control of property through an effectively and impartially administered statea government _..._



Clique was just my tongue in cheek description and I know about all of the famous members.  They've had some famous quotations over the years...

http://www.newstatesman.com/society/2010/12/british-eugenics-disabled



> It wasn't just figures on the extreme right of politics who backed the eugenics philosophy. Some of British socialism's most celebrated names were among the champions of eugenics - Sidney and Beatrice Webb (the founders of the Fabian Society), Harold Laski, John Maynard Keynes, even the _New Statesman_ and the _Manchester Guardian_. They hoped that a eugenic approach could build up the strong section of the population and gradually remove the weak. In July 1931, the _New Statesman_ asserted: "*The legitimate claims of eugenics are not inherently incompatible with the outlook of the collectivist movement*. On the contrary, they would be expected to find their most intransigent opponents amongst those who cling to the individualistic views of parenthood and family economics."Many early left-wing thinkers wanted government to direct social policy towards "improving" the human race by discouraging reproduction among those sections of society deemed to have undesirable genes. Supporters of state planning often found the idea of a planned genetic future attractive. As Adrian Wooldridge, author of Measuring the Mind: Education and Psychology in England 1860-1990, comments: "The Webbs supported eugenic planning just as fervently as town planning." Beatrice Webb declared *eugenics *to be *"the most important question of all*" while her husband remarked that "no eugenicist can be a laissez-faire individualist".
> Similarly, George Bernard Shaw wrote: "*The only fundamental and possible socialism is the socialisation of the selective breeding of man.*" Bertrand Russell proposed that the state should issue colour-coded "*procreation tickets*" to prevent the gene pool of the elite being diluted by inferior human beings. Those who decided to have children with holders of a different-coloured ticket would be punished with a heavy fine. HG Wells praised eugenics as the first step towards the *elimination of "detrimental types and characteristics*" and the "fostering of desirable types" instead.



I find it very disturbing a Jew would belong to an organization like this.  Here we are talking about the Holocaust and about how millions of more people were murdered by their governments and I find out that the person who started the thread belongs to a group that is directly responsible for spreading the ideology that murdered her own people.  This is how I know we are doomed to repeat genocide again and again and again.  People don't learn.  They don't understand how dangerous government is.  They don't understand how powerful propaganda is.  For all of the readers out there, I want you to bear witness to the fact that government propaganda can be so strong that it can suck in it's own victims and spit them out as allies. 



Tez3 said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by saying the Fabian Society was the idealogical winners of the Second World War, that doesn't make sense.



You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you like it or not. If it were discovered that you had not character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be *executed *in a kindly manner... (Fabian Socialist George Bernard Shaw

As people get their opinions so largely from the newspapers they read But the Press is not free, the newspapers are owned by rich men. (Fabian Socialist George Bernard Shaw

Britain is not a country that is easily rocked by revolution... In Britain our institutions evolve. We are a *Fabian Society* writ large.

Barack Obama, Fabian Socialist



> Barack Obama is a Fabian socialist. I should know; I was raised by one. My Grandfather worked as a union machinist for*Ingersoll Rand *(nyse: IR - news -people ) during the day. In the evenings he tended bar and read books. After his funeral, I went back home and started working my way through his library, starting with T.W. Arnold's _The Folklore of Capitalism._ This was my introduction to the Fabian socialists.
> Fabians believed in gradual nationalization of the economy through manipulation of the democratic process. Breaking away from the violent revolutionary socialists of their day, they thought that the only real way to effect "fundamental change" and "social justice" was through a mass movement of the working classes presided over by intellectual and cultural elites.



This is our society.  This is the society that emerged from WWII.  This is the brand of socialism that won the war.  Will we see another holocaust or will they gradually implement their policies so that the average folk miss it?  

For those paying attention, the Fabians tell us what ideas vaccinate people against their philosophy.  They know that people who value individual freedom will never go along with their plans.[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]  Or, as the old adage goes, "Freedom is the answer, what is the question?"
[/FONT]


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 6, 2013)

I do like the way you go to the horses mouth to find out what the Fabian Society is.

http://www.fabians.org.uk/about/

*The Fabian Society is Britains oldest political think tank. Founded in 1884, the Society is at the forefront of developing political ideas and public policy on the left.*

*What we stand for*

We aim to promote:


greater equality of power, wealth and opportunity
the value of collective action and public service
an accountable, tolerant and active democracy
citizenship, liberty and human rights
sustainable development
multilateral international cooperation


Do you think everyone is stuck in the Dark Ages, that things don't change, that people and societies don't change their views on things? I bet you think we still have London fogs and all say 'gor blimey gov'.

I'm shaking my head at the things you think about the UK, you are so out of date. Eugenics was a popular subject back in the 19th century, it certainly isn't now. Political though changes with the times, people learn from history. You seem stuck on definitions and of believing evreything you read, you also have a penchant for conspiracy theories. Anyone can join the Fabian Society, I like it because it opposes Cameron and his ilk, look up the history of the Tory Party and see what they've done and believed in the past. In fact look up all of the UKs history as well as your own and see how many people believed in eugenics. Don't take things in isolation but take them in the times they were set.


----------



## billc (Mar 7, 2013)

For the record...again...I never called Margaret Thatcher a socialist...it is just one more thing that tez is wrong about.  I have posted the thread where she misread the Thatcher quote that I posted, thanking Thatcher for the quote...and she took from that that I thought Thatcher was a socialist....tez...still wrong about that...still wrong about the national socialsits...


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 7, 2013)

Bill who called the Brits and Europeans baby killers. Not in abortions but that we killed premature babies rather than look after then. For the record my premmie baby died despite marvellous care and the wishes of everyone that he lived. And that's why Bill is on ignore, so what ever he's libelling with me now I don't have to read it or care.


----------



## billc (Mar 7, 2013)

For the record, I did not call Europeans and Brits baby killers, but the article I pointed to showed that premature babies were not recieviing the best care and sometimes not given care because they were determined not to be in a "optimum," place for life saving measures  in the NHS...which is no surprise.

Why is it that here on the study, where people go to discuss political topics, one side is always bringing out personal tragedies to attack and silence the other side on topics they apparently don't want discussed.  We all feel horribly for the losses that people suffer as they go through life, and they always have our sympathies...but please...don't use them to attack other people, or to silence their thoughts or opinions on topics.  I have suffered through my own tragedies and experienced the sufferings of my own family but I will not put them out here to attack or silence anyone.  This is one place to go to discuss the issues, not to be silenced by using the suffering of family members.  

As it turns out, the NHS has a protocol for end of life treatment of adults...that is they deny them food and water when they don't think there is any chance of curing the patient, and it turns out many times they didn't consult with the patients families before this was implemented.  This protocol was meant for adults...but typical of any government run system it metasticized and they began to use it on children...on many occasions without consulting the parents.  This has become a problem and I believe it has reached a level of an official investigation over in Britain...sooooo, about that wonderful care in the NHS...

It doesn't take much time to find an article on the topic...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2249383/The-tiny-premature-baby-lived-doctors-recorded-weight-incorrectly-battled-alive.html




> Any baby that survives a premature  birth is considered by their parents to be a miracle. But for Kate and  Renato Douse, their daughter is extra special.
> 
> For  little Maddalena is one of the smallest premature babies ever to  survive in the UK - and it's all thanks to a pair of scissors.
> Born at just 23 weeks, doctors were unsure whether she would survive, or whether they should try and save her.





> Current ethical guidelines in the UK on the care  of very premature infants do not suggest providing active care for  babies born at 22 weeks six days and earlier.
> 
> 
> *More...*
> ...






> Now six months old, she has been discharged from the Royal Sussex Hospital and is expected to  grow into a healthy child.
> 
> Very  premature babies born around 24 weeks go to neonatal intensive care  units, although their parents often opt for withdrawal of care at some  point when the medical outlook for the child worsens.
> Babies born before this time struggle because their lungs and other vital organs are not developed enough.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...-incorrectly-battled-alive.html#ixzz2Mt6h1Rex 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


----------



## celtic_crippler (Mar 8, 2013)

Let's get this back on track. 

Here's a challenge: 

Present me with a tidbit of factual history as an example, or even a position rooted in logic and reason, to support a position of the disarming of the Jews by the Germans having no impact what-so-ever on the outcome of the number of Jews murdered. 

...go!


----------



## granfire (Mar 8, 2013)

celtic_crippler said:


> Let's get this back on track.
> 
> Here's a challenge:
> 
> ...



Really?

You have no concept of how German society operates

How it did operate. Past and present.

it is  not the Wild West the US is, and do open your eyes an do loo around: Here we see all kinds of singling out segments of the population to have rights infringed upon. Short of owning a F16, there is not a thing they can do about it should the mob be turned lose.

Germany was a _civilized _nation. Things like that just did not happen. 
You did not _use_ guns. 

What happened in Germany was the prime example of what happens when you force people into democracy who are not ready or _willing _to take that step (important point these days...), what happens when the checks and balances break. A thing to keep in mind when you cheer on the next asinine 'us vs them' spiels in DC.
When you crush and humiliate a nation, leave it in poverty and despair. 

it is what happens when people fall for sound bites and don't _THINK_ for themselves anymore.

Guns?
Guns had no part in social life.
gentlemen hunted with them, did target shooting....Anarchists threw bombs...

and yeah, the hunting rifle with a handful of bullets really stops a tank....or that double barrel shotgun....

If you think having guns would have saved a Jew...All I can say, April is Script Frenzy, November is Novel writing month....write the alternative ending! But it won't be grounded in anything reality could have provided!


----------



## Big Don (Mar 8, 2013)

granfire said:


> and yeah, the hunting rifle with a handful of bullets really stops a tank....or that double barrel shotgun....


A single shot makes the next man in the column think twice...
Ridiculously condescending much?


----------



## granfire (Mar 8, 2013)

Big Don said:


> A single shot makes the next man in the column think twice...
> Ridiculously condescending much?



Not as bad as you.

To you it is an exercise in hypotheticals.

It is the history of my country, and yes, part of my family.

Somebody has the Hollywood notion that a gun is the cure all. 
They did not save the Alamo people....

There is another thing that a single gunshot does: It can make the mob even angrier.

On November 9th 1938 a bunch of law abiding citizens woke up to mobs pulling them from their houses. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallnacht

At one point your bullets run out, then what?

I am sorry, but I am on Tez's side on this one.

More power to you if you believe in the myth of the gun.
reality is much different from a Chuck Norris movie!


----------



## celtic_crippler (Mar 9, 2013)

granfire said:


> Really?
> 
> You have no concept of how German society operates
> 
> ...



That's what is commonly known as an EPIC FAIL

You cited no historical evidence to support your position and instead of attempting to entertain the use of reason or apply logic to your stance, you resort to insults and an attempt to be witty. Key word there, is "attempt".

This pathetic attempt to validate your stance only reveals your frustration when confronted with logic, reason, and factual evidence. You could avoid the feeling of inadequacy by simply embracing the idea that you could be wrong. In truth, entertaining a thought or idea that you do not agree with is a reflection of intelligence and often leads to greater understanding. This effort does not require acceptance, but it does require an open mind. Which you seem to lack, but that can be overcome in time.

Your constant, unproven assumptions on everything from people you don't know to the subject of history are often amusing, yet frightening as well. Frightening because I know others suffer from the same narrow minded ignorance; however, the silver lining there is that ignorance can be overcome through education.

And, for your information, historic fact aside, I have family that was involved in WWII on both sides and have my own experience with "word of mouth." So, in the future, you may want to consider your words more carefully lest you make yourself out a fool.

Unfortunately, I feel all this advice is likely in vain and will probably be ignored just as you continue to ignore fact, logic, and reason. Though, if you somehow prove me wrong one day, that would be awesome!


----------



## granfire (Mar 9, 2013)

celtic_crippler said:


> That's what is commonly known as an EPIC FAIL
> 
> You cited no historical evidence to support your position and instead of attempting to entertain the use of reason or apply logic to your stance, you resort to insults and an attempt to be witty. Key word there, is "attempt".
> 
> ...



Ok then:

when was the last time you were _German_?

I am sorry that you do not concur with my POV.

but you should have the courtesy of being _polite_!

To make this clear: I won't scan my passport for you just so you can see or ignore when I tell you that 'gun' is an alien concept in Germany. Maybe you should spend some time there....get to know the people. 

But they would probably not tell you a thing because you are rather condescending in the attempt to prove your point which resides somewhere in the realm of Hollywood fantasy.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Mar 9, 2013)

granfire said:


> Ok then:
> 
> when was the last time you were _German_?
> 
> ...



Again, you assert much with no proof or even the tiniest smidgeon of logic or reason. How do you know so much about me and my experiences? You don't, and that's the point. Instead of speaking out of the south end of your anatomy again, I suggest you put more consideration into what you write before posting. Unless you find your foot quite tasty, in that case please continue.

And how was I rude? Oh, but I often forget that in today's culture the "truth" is considered offensive. I suppose for many, fantasy is preferable to reality as evidenced by the massive amounts of denial I routinely witness on this board.

You know, the way to get "under my skin" isn't to continuously prove my observations correct. Right?

This isn't directed at you specifically, but true stupidity does get to me because you can't "fix stupid". But as I stated previously, there is hope for the ignorant because education can improve upon that condition.

Again, I make the challenge: Present some historical fact or at the very least present a logical and reasonable argument for your position and I assure you I will entertain it. Until then&#8230; BACON!


----------



## Big Don (Apr 7, 2013)

A Law  Review article about Nazi Germany and Jews with guns.
A relative few Jews with a relative few weapons held off the might of the Nazi military in Warsaw, not once, but, twice, in 1943 and 1944. Enough so that Himmler stated:





> "This is the fiercest of our battles since the start of the war. It compares to the street battles of Stalingrad."


&#8211; SS chief Heinrich Himmler to German generals on 21 September 1944


----------



## celtic_crippler (Apr 8, 2013)

More on the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising (_this would be an example of &#8220;historical/factual evidence&#8221; that some people use to support a position._): 

Article:  http://www.ushmm.org/outreach/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007745



> In the summer of 1942, about 300,000 Jews were deported from Warsaw to Treblinka. When reports of mass murder in the killing center leaked back to the Warsaw ghetto, a surviving group of mostly young people formed an organization called the Z.O.B. (for the Polish name, Zydowska Organizacja Bojowa, which means Jewish Fighting Organization). The Z.O.B., led by 23-year-old Mordecai Anielewicz, issued a proclamation calling for the Jewish people to resist going to the railroad cars. In January 1943, Warsaw ghetto fighters fired upon German troops as they tried to round up another group of ghetto inhabitants for deportation. *Fighters used a small supply of weapons that had been smuggled into the ghetto.* After a few days, the troops retreated. This small victory inspired the ghetto fighters to prepare for future resistance.


 
What?!?! Those law-breaking Jews used illegal weapons! How dare they!? 



> On April 19, 1943, the Warsaw ghetto uprising began after German troops and police entered the ghetto to deport its surviving inhabitants. *Seven hundred and fifty fighters fought the heavily armed and well-trained Germans*. The ghetto fighters were able to hold out for nearly a month, but on May 16, 1943, the revolt ended. The Germans had slowly crushed the resistance. Of the more than 56,000 Jews captured, about 7,000 were shot, and the remainder was deported to camps.


 
An admirable stand, but it was too little too late. 

Do you see the real purpose behind the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment now? It is intended to keep things like this from happening again and again throughout history. When the people have the same &#8220;_guns_&#8221; the government has, it levels the playing filed considerably. 

_"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."_


----------



## Drasken (Apr 8, 2013)

I don't think guns would have solved all the problems Jews faced during this dark period. However they could have helped.

Never underestimate the resistance of a small group of people with the determination to resist. After all, if it were so easy to put down small groups of determined people with any kind of weapons, well there would be no insurgents left in Afghanistan.

I don't think guns solve all problems, but it would have given Jews ( some of them being my own family ) a fighting chance. Though also note that if the Nazis could have attributed their attacks on Jews to putting down a dangerous minority and had evidence of their resistance while manipulating the facts... Well we might not have been so inclined to try and help. So it could, in fact, have easily made things just as bad in a different way.


----------

