I don't trust justice system, he can be hitler himself and I wouldn't tell police anything.
Not to mention justice system is meant to protect the population, not to punish (at least it should be). If he's remorseful, then there's no need to imprison him.
I don't trust justice system, he can be hitler himself and I wouldn't tell police anything.
Not to mention justice system is meant to protect the population, not to punish (at least it should be). If he's remorseful, then there's no need to imprison him.
Then I'll ask you as well to answer my question... Would you also protect the 80 year old ex-pedophile priest who had abused, and possibly even murdered, dozens or even hundreds of little boys and girls but who is now deepl remorseful and hasn't hurt fly in 50 years?
3. Not the point. I said nazi officer that served in a concentration camp, nazi was used because long titles turn people away. If you had said that I never specified death camps, then you'd be getting at something as most people have taken it to mean that he was involved with the gas chambers. Should I have been more specific? Possibly. Done now.
Indeed, but death camps were built for the specific purpose of extermination, whereas concentration camps were more of a slow, torturous death and a small number had more lenient supervisors. I tried explaining my reasoning, but actually talking about death camps in a non-emotional way made me feel a bit sick, so I stopped before I was done. I'm sorry if what's already been written isn't enough.
was clarifying the Nazi-soldier thing more for some of the posters who didt seem to grasp it.
Again I was saying the dr who morals thing about a serious thing like this to the posters rather than you, because as you can see some people have been ridiculously open an close about everything.
An finally think you too my "what gives you the right to judge?" I was meaning the more moral question of, these crimes where not done directly to you so why should you be able to decide if justice has been done? you do not have all the facts only his word. Just seems a bit silly to me that everyone is assuming that if you hand him to the police he is automaticly going in a black whole. if you look into it only the Nazi's an German solderers that were in command positions were prosecuted. Because it was considered that they were only following orders an by not doing anything they did't do the right thing, but equally they were doing what they were ordered.
In that case, please don't quote me unless you intend to make a counter-point against something I have said, or agree specifically with what I have written, etc. (essentially, unless I'm being addressed, I prefer not to be quoted). When you quote me, it makes me think that you're taking issue with what I said, and that demands a response of some sort. Either an "oh, now I see" or a "let me clarify my argument".
Just because he's stopped doesn't mean he should be forgiven. What the Nazis did in the concentration camps is just plain wrong. To say they treated them like dirt is an understatement. He can't be nice to a few people and wave it all away and think he's redeemed himself.
I wouldn't let him in, no. But then again, what the police would do is pretty petty.
I would harbor him and keep him safe I mean how do I know that hitler wasn't the true victim and the jews were the criminals that hitler was trying to save the world from I mean how will I truly ever know.
I'm just joking I would kill the stupid bratwurst eating fag and then put his head on a pike outside my front door.
No forgiveness for Nazis. It's as simple as that. I talked to holocaust survivors. I've seen the numbers. No amount of good deeds could ever fix what the Nazis, and especially the officers, did. No redemption for them, in this life, or any other.
I've spoken to about 3 survivors in my time. Only 1 of them still has any animosity towards the Nazis. The other 2 don't really see them as evil anymore. They don't defend them, but they don't rant about how sick and twisted and demonic they were.
If people who experienced it 1st hand don't have anger left over it, why should I suddenly feel horrified by it and want to punish them?
I see your point, but you need to understand that's to me its personal. Because of these people, I have no extended family, and my people, already few, are about half of what they could have been. This isn't about justice for me, it's about vengeance. To teach those who would come after that there are consequences for what they did, and that we will pursue them to the ends of the earth, and for all time, if they attempt such a thing again.
Unless it's affected me directly, I'm willing to not let past mistakes, no matter how grievous, go, as long as the person who committed said acts is fully repentant.
If you changed anything, the world would be a much worse place.
- America is no longer a superpower.
- Russia unchallenged.
- European governments never learned humility. Nazis took every atrocity European powers ever committed, including religious genocide which was common to Europe, and turned it on them.
- Moon landing never happened.
- Stealth Fighters never invented.
- UN never established.
- Wars more likely.
- etc.
granted it was a tragedy, but a hell of lot better than the alternatives that could have happened. German technology was advanced, even in the 70s. Without it, technology would be much less evolved as it is today.
EDIT: Also due to the surge in technology, it is entirely possible that we would have not known about climate change (or not have the means to combat it) until AFTER it was too late if WWII never happened.
How dare you sir! It is NOT A HELL OF A LOT BETTER than the alternatives! The holocaust of my people is the greatest crime in human history. Representing the Jewish people on this forum, and everywhere, let me set your facts straight.
I would've changed the holocaust, that would NOT affect the research or the results of WWII, as I would be killing the soldiers stationed at the concentration camps, not researching weapons or fighting the wars, and even if I were to be killing (extremely hypothetical scenario) all it would've done, if it were after pearl harbour, would be to end the war sooner and save more lives.
Now to tell you how all your points are wrong. (the quoted text is above; I'm not going to re-quote each line).
- America is no longer a superpower.
- Russia unchallenged.
- European governments never learned humility. Nazis took every atrocity European powers ever committed, including religious genocide which was common to Europe, and turned it on them.
- Moon landing never happened.
- Stealth Fighters never invented.
- UN never established.
- Wars more likely.
- etc.
-No impact would result on America being a super power
-Russia would still be challenged
-HUMILITY! How dare you! The holocaust has nothing to do with 'Europe' learning humility, it's about the near genocide of the Jewish people! The Nazi's may I remind you were IN EUROPE!
-Moon landing would've still happened
-Stealth would've still been invented had I not killed the scientists working on experimental jets at the end of WWII
-League of Nations was established well BEFORE WWII, in fact, 1919, the year after WWI was it's founding year (its on wiki, go check).
-Wars more likely? No.
My points stand to say, if the holocaust never happened, but WWII still did, we'd likely be in the same place we are today.
The only history 'what if' you could draw from this, was without the Nazi's pursuit of purity, and if they weren't such an evil nation to begin with, their efficiency combined with their greater resources (i.e. the German Jews that would not have been killed), this might have lead them to defeat the allies. But if they did that, then they wouldn't be the evil Nazis, now would they?
Now, if you could please apologize to myself and my fellow Jews, and restate that you meant 'if world war two didn't happen' instead of your currently perceived statement of 'if the holocaust didn't happen' that would be well received, and frankly, expected.
1. Actually yes it would. The cold war. If America wasn't a super power, the world would be very different. The great depression was ended by WWII. The military wouldn't have grown to the numbers it did. Economics, and military would be entirely different.
2. No they wouldn't, Europe would still be hurting from World War I and even in World War II some countries failed to over come the World War I mindset. France was a prime example.
3. I didn't say it was the cause, but it was a consequence. Europe had every chance to stop another World War, but instead laid the groundwork for another. Why? Self entitlement. If it isn't them, they wont care unless it becomes their business. Look at Europe's history, as long as it benefits them it doesn't matter who suffers. Crusades (which killed 9 million) over trade routes in the middle east, screwing over native Americans, and imposing military and cultural imperialism on weaker nations. WWII was a learning lesson for everyone. A lesson humanity would have learned anyway regardless (Stalin). Every atrocity European powers has done throughout history came back in World War II, except it was used against European powers. If it hasn't happened to the European power itself, it doesn't care. France wanted reparations from Germany, but when anyone else is asked for an apology and reparations, it rarely does anything. The most you would get is a few cheap words, and no reparations "because that would bankrupt us." They don't want bankruptcy through reparations, but gladly forced it on WWI Germany?
4. There was no American or Russian space program. All the tech they used were from World War II GERMANY. It may still happen, but far into the future.
5. Again, stops technological development.
6. The league of nations was a joke. It was only AFTER WWII did the United Nations (not the league of nations) was founded.
7. Yes it would. The UN tends to step in and interfere in some cases. Not to mention the alliances formed by countries started World War I, not prevented it. It creates a false sense of power "because i got my big buddies backing me up." Its easy to be brave when you're standing behind walls of foreign soldiers fighting your battles for you. Not to mention Stalin had planned to do what Hitler did, but was beat to the punch.
8. WWII without the deaths or persecution of the Jewish? You assume that it would play out in Germany's favor, and with a different culture. The anti-Jewish attitude was widely known throughout history, essentially making it an inevitability. Jews have been demonized and used as scapegoats since Roman times. Germany would also not win against the allies, even if they did they wouldn't be able to extend beyond Europe. The costs of maintaining an empire that spans multiple continents is astronomical.
1. Actually yes it would. The cold war. If America wasn't a super power, the world would be very different. The great depression was ended by WWII. The military wouldn't have grown to the numbers it did. Economics, and military would be entirely different.
No, no it bloody wouldn't, read my post again, and I still expect an apology.
Ultratwinkie said:
2. No they wouldn't, Europe would still be hurting from World War I and even in World War II some countries failed to over come the World War I mindset. France was a prime example.
You better draw the line that you're talking about the war and NOT the holocaust.
Ultratwinkie said:
3. I didn't say it was the cause, but it was a consequence. Europe had every chance to stop another World War, but instead laid the groundwork for another. Why? Self entitlement. If it isn't them, they wont care unless it becomes their business. Look at Europe's history, as long as it benefits them it doesn't matter who suffers. Crusades (which killed 9 million) over trade routes in the middle east, screwing over native Americans, and imposing military and cultural imperialism on weaker nations. WWII was a learning lesson for everyone. A lesson humanity would have learned anyway regardless (Stalin). Every atrocity European powers has done throughout history came back in World War II, except it was used against European powers. If it hasn't happened to the European power itself, it doesn't care. France wanted reparations from Germany, but when anyone else is asked for an apology and reparations, it rarely does anything. The most you would get is a few cheap words, and no reparations "because that would bankrupt us." They don't want bankruptcy through reparations, but gladly forced it on WWI Germany?
Your point that reparations from the Great War did lead us to World War II is certainly valid. But it has nothing to do with harbouring a Nazi and the fact they played part to mass genocide of the Jewish people!
Ultratwinkie said:
4. There was no American or Russian space program. All the tech they used were from World War II GERMANY. It may still happen, but far into the future.
This is still completely irrelevant to the holocaust! Yes, WWII lead to breakthroughs in jets, and nuclear science, but the holocaust could've EASILY been avoided, whilst still achieving this, in fact, had they harnessed the rich and the intelligent Jews, we might be much further ahead technologically - The holocaust can only be seen as an atrocity
The league of nations wasn?t a joke, go read your history again, without the league of nations we wouldn?t have the united nations we have today.
Ultratwinkie said:
7. Yes it would. The UN tends to step in and interfere in some cases. Not to mention the alliances formed by countries started World War I, not prevented it. It creates a false sense of power "because i got my big buddies backing me up." Its easy to be brave when you're standing behind walls of foreign soldiers fighting your battles for you. Not to mention Stalin had planned to do what Hitler did, but was beat to the punch.
Yes it would? There's no direct link I can see between this statement and the fact the holocaust could've been avoided.
Ultratwinkie said:
8. WWII without the deaths or persecution of the Jewish? You assume that it would play out in Germany's favor, and with a different culture. The anti-Jewish attitude was widely known throughout history, essentially making it an inevitability. Jews have been demonized and used as scapegoats since Roman times. Germany would also not win against the allies, even if they did they wouldn't be able to extend beyond Europe. The costs of maintaining an empire that spans multiple continents is astronomical.
Yes WWII without the holocaust. YES, bloody oath it would play out better, see my previous posts as to why. An inevitability! That is disgusting sir, and I now demand an immediate apology for myself and my fellow Jewish people for the disgraceful notion, that our near genocide was 'an inevitability'.
The Roman Empire and the British Empire are two right off the bat I can name that successfully maintained massive empires for hundreds of years. The German's may have been able to do it, with better strategic planning, better morals, and less waste. But again, had they been a smarter, less violent, more noble nation (eg. No Hitler), they might not have rebuilt themselves as quickly and as efficiently as they did either.
I want an apology to the Jews and myself now, thank you.
1. It was an inevitability but not in your context(that prejudice could lead to violence against Jews in that time, if you haven't noticed it didn't mean extinction). Why? Jews have been used as escape goats for everything. Europe persecuted (and heavily used genocide against) protestants, Muslims, and Jews before. It was only a matter of time before another religious oriented war or persecution broke out. Hell, now Muslims are being persecuted out of fear. People attack them, demonize them, and mistreat them. Religious tolerance isn't exactly something Europe has been known for, even now. In fact, hate crimes against Jews rose in 2000. Why? Old hatred coupled with hatred of religion over the past (crusades, despite Judaism not being responsible for it. People believe all religion is bad even though Christianity isn't the only religion). It has nothing to do with Jews themselves, but violence against them was inevitable given Europe's habit of blaming Judaism, heightened tensions, and the cycle of prejudice and violence. Anti-Muslim attitudes are rising, and the same still applies. Violence was bound to happen due to cultural prejudice. Want an example from CNN?
Anti-anything attitudes rise, violence against the party that the culture (of the time) despises is inevitable. It's a tragic mechanism in the psyche of humanity, but such as human nature it can't be changed. Many tried, but human nature is too corrosive.
2. The league of nations was a joke. It's threats were empty, and the incentive to work out their problems were damn near nonexistent. It failed, and was criticized for it.
3. The Anti Jewish hate was at an all time high after World War I. A scapegoat situation. Desperation, hatred, etc. All that anger took one person to point to anyone for everyone to blame them. The same situation Europe (and in one case I know of, China) repeated over and over and over.
4. Where did i say harboring a Nazi? I said that changing the past would only negatively effect us. You seem to bring out points completely unrelated to what i said, and try to link them in some blinded rage. You seem to try every logical fallacy in the book to twist what i said. A strawman argument does not work, nor does crystal ball logic.
5. Rome collapsed over becoming too large. Britain only put the colonies, and basically created a protectorate smaller state to cut down on costs. Germany expanding to multiple continents would never work, not to mention the rioting people in the newly conquered cities. It would spread Germany too thin.
Where is the apology to the Jewish people in all of this? Your comments are outlandish, make up for it now with an apology, 'please'.
1. Your comments are near irrelevent. Yes, many of us are aware that being jewish wasn't exactly popular, and I'm sure without me reading through the soup of a paragraph you wrote you list various examples why.
2. In your opinion needs to be stamped all over that paragraph. Regardless of how they acted, disregarding their fundemental involvment in the formation of the UN is a mistake.
3. Are you a neo-nazi? No seriously? If you want to look into the art school that rejected Hitler, which had jewish association, go ahead, but the bottom line is, Hitler's hatred for Jews stemed from the lack of success he had as an artist, and the jewish communities rightful option to decline him.
4. Exactly, where did you say it? You're going completely off topic by not mentioning its relevance. Strawmen and Crystalballs? How about, not linking your arguments directly to mine, and instead writting an eight and five point list trying to defend your position that the holocaust was necessary for human evolution, its disgusting.
5. Ever heard of a concept known as 'sacking'? It's where an invading army, once defeating the defending army, essentially raides the enemies village, rapes the women, steals the resources, and enlisted total soverign domination of the people there. If successful, they could easily have bent the people to obey them, how about how they treated the French during the war? They were occupied (yes, it is great that the French resisted the Germans, but I'm not aware of evidence that without the allies support they could've over thrown the German occupying forces.
The main point here, if you wouldn't mind getting back to it, is that the holocaust was a horrible tragedy that was NOT necessary for human development. Correct yourself immediately, please, and state that it was infact the second world war which contributed greatly to technology of the 20th century, and we can end this back and forth. But I'll carry on writting till my fingers are bare until you apologize, or a mod closes this thread.
2. Where did i disregard it? I said it was a joke. The UN had actual power.
3. Hitler hated jews, sure, but the people still had prejudice for Jews. The people pick the leader that represents them at the time. It was no secret that Jews were unjustly blamed for what WWI did to Germany (it was the European governments who were at fault). People want a certain view put into power, they find someone who has their views (or claims to) and he automatically gets into power. History is full of tyrants that came to power like this.
4. The holocaust? I said World War II was unavoidable, but defined the modern world. The persecution only had negative effects, but inevitable due to extreme prejudice throughout the culture. Its the same with Muslims in the world, unjustly blamed. If World War II never happened, then everything would change. In a world where World War II never happened, Stalin would have taken the place of Hitler replacing "Germany vs. the world" with "Russia vs. the world." Even without Stalin, World War II would still happen because World War I was unavoidable. America got where it was because of World War II. It put an end to the great depression. If it was left to work out on its own who knows were America's economy would be. The American military bloated after World War II, without it we wouldn't have the bloated military that acted as a buffer in the Cold War. The nuke wouldn't have been invented, keeping super powers from declaring crippling war. It changed technology, how modern politics work, interactions between nations, and economies. To change history would open a can of worms far worse than our current time line can even imagine.
5. So you hate the killing of people, but support scorched earth? Killing more people than Hitler and Stalin put together? Do you know how many cities you would have to do that in? And people wont sit idly by while you slaughter them. You insert you "superior" genes into theirs? A master genetic pool, mass killings ranging into billions, and yet you find no parallel with this doctrine of war and genocide?
2. You believe the UN 'has' power or 'had' power? it'll be unlikely the UN has any real power for another 50, 100 maybe even 150 years, global political progress is very slow.
3. There is not a single possible connection between the jewish people and ANYTHING that happened in WWI of historical significance. How you could possibly draw that conclusion, or rather, think they did, I have no idea.
4. You say 'holocaust' like it hasn't come up at all during this exchange in information between us. the Holocaust is the key thing I'm describing here, and if you're not reading my posts throughly enough to understand why I'm disgusted with your attitude towards the holocaust, then why are you even bothering to try and support your failing position?
5. You obviously don't have a firm enough grasp on the English language to understand my comments thus far, let me try and explain further. I do not support the modern day sacking of a people's home, I was explaining to you a concept, of how IF the Nazi's had not killed so many of the (German) Jewish people, they may have achieved a large empire, using this or a similar means.
in over 60% of people an intimidationg individual (even greater) if seen as a leader can make people do things that they wouldnt normally do or they believe is wrong a leader can sway a population against its own will if that leader is good enough (lord of the flies) illistrates this point very well
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
