Crazies as far as the holocaust, I have to ask

[Guerrilla Guy]

SUD, that was a very interesting read thanks for sharing that. I actually don’t base that belief on either the flag (Solar Wind was actually my reasoning behind that being wrong) or photography (Light emissions, Lens used, etc.) but on survival possibilities of Astronauts in their Spacecraft enviroment. Once beyond the Magnetic Envelope of Space their isn’t a “free” sailing where you are debunked of encountering Solar Radiation. You are going to get hit by Rays. I went to a site though just to see if they had something to debunk that and I found out about Bremsstrahlung. So since I am in the simmering embarrasement platform at the front of the class I will submit what I found :-) .

Bremsstrahlung is when Electro-Magnetic Radiation is created by an accelerated particle (such as an electron) deflected by another particle, in our case, metal particles. Solar Radiation is mainly Radiant Energy and is on the lower end of the Electromagnetic Spectrum. By creating a large amount of shielding (particles) to interact with the Accelerating Radiation Particles they could have easily created more chances to kill the Astronauts then normal Sun Radiation. More Resistance = More Bremsstrahlung. So I now have that closed as a possibility in my mind.

But I must say I now know why I kept believing it after some of it had been debunked. Everyone I told that I believed that theory said “Your an idiot! Can’t you see the pictures.” Now I do not mind getting called an idiot (glad you had a good laugh :-D ). But I do mind people that do not research whether it is possible overall to accomplish what is being refuted. You are the first person that has ever done that and I am happy to be corrected by you.

Now that I am way off topic and need to redeem myself as a mod…

Zooey you asked, “But why is that even worth mentioning?” I assume you mean why even try to debunk it. My response those who don’t question don’t learn, or they will learn by expeirimentation. In our case the only way to learn that the holocaust is real is by observational Experimentation. When was the last time you saw a child burn their hand and say “That doesn’t hurt me.”? In the same way these guys are not convinced or they have closed their minds to something I was always told “you never stop learning.” They in effect refuse to ask questions where they will get no as an answer. And it is sad that they will never know the truth behind the deeper issues of what happened…

GG

[Guest]

I just saw something on Fox about a prof teaching in his classes that the holocaust never happened.

But he was an engineering instructor not a social sciences instructor :wink:.  Besides you shouldn’t believe what you think about Fox News they have been cited in the past for factual inaccuracies which they don’t bother to correct.  Yellow journalism indeed!

So what is the insanity of the argument?  I do know one thing about the Nazi regime.  Because they were German, they were thorough.  There is no “paper trail”.  In the documents they reffered to victems as “cargo” or whatever.  If that is their “proof” than any sane person can read between the lines.  Of course they may be playing to the crazies who will believe anything.  But why is that even worth mentioning?  There are crazies out there who said we never landed on the moon, but any sane person knows it did happen.

There really isn’t any proof which is the problem with this “urban legend” it started circulating after WWII some speculate by former Nazis and sympathizers and it comes back every now and again with another wave of anti-semitism.  Usually it just points out weaknesses in the documentation used at nuremburg etc but doesn’t have any factual evidence to support the opposite hypothesis.  Namely it doesn’t account for the many documented cases of people who disappeared and where they went, and why so many people who lost loved ones would lie.

[AgentOrange]

GG, in my opinion, that is what science is all about - Always question, seeking to know the truth behind everything, until you can prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt.  People who don’t question things like this, well, they’re just cutting themselves off from the possibility of learning from it.  If you don’t cut yourself off, then you can learn from everything, no?  :?

[Guerrilla Guy]

@AgentOrange:

GG, in my opinion, that is what science is all about - Always question, seeking to know the truth behind everything, until you can prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt.  People who don’t question things like this, well, they’re just cutting themselves off from the possibility of learning from it.  If you don’t cut yourself off, then you can learn from everything, no?  :?

I think I see your point. It could be said that they haven’t “learned” from it yet. The whole basis for their argument is that we can only say it happened based off of past observance, not data that can be collected (being history it is a little different. Sorry if my previous posts were confusing in that light). Yes you could learn from everything but that is only after you have excepted you can be wrong, like I had to do with the Moon Theory. Now in that case I am at a 85%/15% in favor of the official story (no one can disprove the possibility of a filming of it happening) but I can still be proved wrong on that. They on the other hand have already decided their result, and seek or refuse to accept evidence that they come across.

GG

[Zooey72]

Quick post, but this does agravate me.

To dispell a myth, 6 million jews did not die in the holocaust.  11 million PEOPLE died.  I think it is sick that the deaths of 5 million people are thrown in as a side note to most people, and that if you asked joe blow on the street who died in the holocaust he would say just Jews.  I don’t believe in crap like the protocols of Zion or anything like that, but I do believe there is an agenda by the jewish community to claim sole victemization of the Holocaust.  Schindler’s list was a great movie, but I did not see one non jew in it.

I think that the Jews have an obligation to speak up for the others who died in the holocaust because they can not speak up themselves (the are dead).  Instead they seem to have gone out of their way to dismiss the deaths of the other 5 million who died just as gruesome of deaths as the 6 million jews.

[Guest]

Zooey, the Jews are focused on because the holocaust was the culmination of hundreds of years of persecution. They have suffered much more than others, and the holocaust was the worst they where put through.

[Zooey72]

Not good enough, 5 million people deserve (at best) to be more than a footnote in history.  At worst they will be forgotten comepletly.  The jewish community should be ashamed for not drawing more attention to the suffering of all victems of the holocaust.

[Guest]

While we are at it, should we also mention 21,000,000 Soviet citizens who died in that war… most of them NOT military…

[Guest]

This is the same thing as the Nazis getting all the press for being butchers, when the communists actually killed more. Some stuff just doesnt make it out.

[Mary]

Stalin wasn’t trying to methodically liquidate an entire group of people. The goal of the Nazis, and the industry to which they tried to accomplish that goal make them uniquely evil in history. Don’t get me wrong: Stalin was a murdering bastard, but he wasn’t giving awards on who could liquidate peasents most efficiently.

[Guest]

Stalin wasn’t trying to methodically liquidate an entire group of people.

He wasn’t?  You might want to check on that.  Stalin was as anti-semitic as was Hitler, and like Hitler he connected the Bolshevik movement with the jews since there were some jews among the original Bolsheviks like Trotsky.  In fact his purge of the Communist party of the Bolsheviks could be seen as an act of anti-semitism.  And not only this but his purges brought famine which was worst in the Ukraine where the Jewish population was the largest.

The goal of the Nazis, and the industry to which they tried to accomplish that goal make them uniquely evil in history.

Well this is true but Russia really didn’t have the industrial capacity for this hence he let people especially jews starve.

[Mary]

@AgentSmith:

Stalin wasn’t trying to methodically liquidate an entire group of people.

He wasn’t?  You might want to check on that.  Stalin was as anti-semitic as was Hitler, and like Hitler he connected the Bolshevik movement with the jews since there were some jews among the original Bolsheviks like Trotsky.  In fact his purge of the Communist party of the Bolsheviks could be seen as an act of anti-semitism.  And not only this but his purges brought famine which was worst in the Ukraine where the Jewish population was the largest.

The goal of the Nazis, and the industry to which they tried to accomplish that goal make them uniquely evil in history.

Well this is true but Russia really didn’t have the industrial capacity for this hence he let people especially jews starve.

So Russia could churn out T-34’s, Katyushas, Migs, mobilize millions of men, but they lacked the indsutry to build concentration camps? No. They poured everything into defeating Germany. Germany, on the other hand, devoted resoucres to liquidating ethnic groups EVEN as the Wehrmacht was being steamrolled across the Volga. THAT is murderous insanity.

[Guest]

Well, just to clarify that post of mine, since it appears to be being misconstrued here…

21,000,000 Soviets died during WWII.

I was not refering to the Stalin purges, etc…  just of the losses the Soveits took at the hands of the Axis.  Those are military losses and civilian losses caused by military action.

And yes, I have heard this occasionally refered to as the “Slavic Holocaust.”  Not entirely accurate in nomenclature, but it is interesting to notice that we do seem to only remember the 6,000,000 and not the 21,000,000…

[Guerrilla Guy]

The reason is not that it is forgotten but that it is ignored because the Soviets were our “allies”.

[Zooey72]

I was mostly addressing the fact that not only the jews were victems, and it outrages me that it is portrayed in mainstream society that they were the sole victems.  If we are comparing evils though, I think Stalin was worse.  Say what you will about the evils of National Socialism, but it was an ideology.  The Nazis in their own warped and twisted way felt that they were doing right by their own people, or at least what they viewed as “Aryans”.  I don’t have to go into a history lesson about how screwed up that is, but it is an “idea” of a greater good.  Stalin had no “greater good” outside himself and the power he could acumulate.

To put it another way since we are comparing evils, which is hard to do because it can sound at times like you are defending an evil which is not my intent at all.  For those of you who have seen the movie “Seven”, the serial killer there was more along the lines of evil as far as how I see the Nazis.  “Voices”, “God”, or his dog may have been his inspiration for doing what he did, but he believed in it.  In the Nazis case, it was that they thought that they were decedants from Atlantis who migrated from India.  Needless to say, both crazy as hell.

Stalin on the other hand was just a killer, no ideology what so ever.  Kill for gain, kill for profit, kill because he just liked killing.  I equate him more to a jeffery dalmer who killed for his own satisfaction.  It doesn’t intrest me what ethnic, religious, political or eye color that inspired the killer to commit the slaughter.  A a slaughter is a slaughter.

It may be splitting hairs, but I do see a difference in the 2.  And if my rational doesn’t work for you than I can just point out the obvious that Stalin killed a lot more people than Hitler did.

[Guest]

I agree with you 100% Zooey. At least Hitler had a reason, however twisted and sick it was.

[Guest]

Zooey, that was well spoken and well illustrated.

My only question is this…

Is personal gain, or the pursuit thereof, evil?

[Guest]

So Russia could churn out T-34’s, Katyushas, Migs, mobilize millions of men, but they lacked the indsutry to build concentration camps?

Yes!  Your history is again spotty Mary I hope you aren’t a history teacher.  The purges of the military and party offiicials began in 1937 and even then Russias state of industrialization was not what it was by wars end.  Further, the even I was referring to ie forced collectivization began in the late 20s almost at the beginning of his reign.  This is when Stalin let peasants in the Ukraine starve etc etc in order to industrialize, but even at the end of the war Russia was not as industrialized per capita anywhere near to where Germany was.  They made up for this by their vastness.  Also, a lot of the capital in terms of gold that Russia used to finance this came from Spain during the Spanish Civil War as the Russians demanded the Republic pay for arms in gold so much of the gold from the Americas ended up in Moscow.

No. They poured everything into defeating Germany. Germany, on the other hand, devoted resoucres to liquidating ethnic groups EVEN as the Wehrmacht was being steamrolled across the Volga. THAT is murderous insanity.

Sure but so did Germany.  The amount of manpower tied down to the final solution was very small relatively speaking and stalin too had death squads.  And you neglect to mention that many of the first immigrants to the Levant after the war not from the MiddleEast came from Stalinist Russia, ie the Ukraine and the Baltic States b/c they were afraid of Stalin.

Say what you will about the evils of National Socialism, but it was an ideology.

Was it now?  I know people that would dispute this.

The Nazis in their own warped and twisted way felt that they were doing right by their own people, or at least what they viewed as “Aryans”.

I don’t agree I think they saw it all as an end to a means that is if they give the people what they want or what they think they’ll want then it would solidify their control over them.

Stalin had no “greater good” outside himself and the power he could acumulate.

As I think it can be said that Fascism was basically an ideologically bankrupt system the same could be said about Stalinism and its break from Bolshevik ideology.  Stalin and Hitler therefore were very similar in that they both wanted to create states which serviced them.

To put it another way since we are comparing evils, which is hard to do because it can sound at times like you are defending an evil which is not my intent at all.  For those of you who have seen the movie “Seven”, the serial killer there was more along the lines of evil as far as how I see the Nazis.  “Voices”, “God”, or his dog may have been his inspiration for doing what he did, but he believed in it.  In the Nazis case, it was that they thought that they were decedants from Atlantis who migrated from India.  Needless to say, both crazy as hell.

But this is the problem I see with how the West concieves of the Halocaust versus Stalinist purges.  Hitler is just seen as crazy but Stalin as evil.  I would argue they are both the same, either both are evil or both are crazy but to seperate them does ultimately make you a defender of one or the other.

Stalin on the other hand was just a killer, no ideology what so ever.  Kill for gain, kill for profit, kill because he just liked killing.

But I think you underestimate Stalinist motives and blanket them with bland generalizations.  Clearly Stalin was trying to create a super state apparatus around himself, but isn’t that what Hitler was trying to do.  While you can point to the clearly social darwinist logic behind National socialism you can’t overlook that this was in every single western country at that time but only Germany went to that end.  The same sort of vehement racialism existed in the US, France, the UK, etc etc but only in Germany did it lead to genocide.

[Mary]

@AgentSmith:

So Russia could churn out T-34’s, Katyushas, Migs, mobilize millions of men, but they lacked the indsutry to build concentration camps?

Yes!  Your history is again spotty Mary I hope you aren’t a history teacher.  The purges of the military and party offiicials began in 1937 and even then Russias state of industrialization was not what it was by wars end.  Further, the even I was referring to ie forced collectivization began in the late 20s almost at the beginning of his reign.  This is when Stalin let peasants in the Ukraine starve etc etc in order to industrialize, but even at the end of the war Russia was not as industrialized per capita anywhere near to where Germany was.  They made up for this by their vastness.  Also, a lot of the capital in terms of gold that Russia used to finance this came from Spain during the Spanish Civil War as the Russians demanded the Republic pay for arms in gold so much of the gold from the Americas ended up in Moscow.

This is all moot. By referencing T-34’s and Katyusha rocket launchers, I am clearly talking about DURING the war. The point stands: The Russians had the means to build concentration camps to liquidate ethnic undesireables. They did not do so.

No. They poured everything into defeating Germany. Germany, on the other hand, devoted resoucres to liquidating ethnic groups EVEN as the Wehrmacht was being steamrolled across the Volga. THAT is murderous insanity.

Sure but so did Germany.

::boggle:: Um, Yeah, I know. Kind of why I said GERMANY and all. Nice to see you agreeing with me.

The amount of manpower tied down to the final solution was very small relatively speaking and stalin too had death squads.

Stalin had the equivalent of Einsatzcommandos roaming around Eastern Europe in their little death vans? The Ukrainians actually welcomed the Germans… until the death squads showed up in the army’s wake. As to the 2nd point: Resources were spent running trains full of “undesireables” to the death camps (oppurtunity costs there as well), the camps themselves took valuable resources to keep running, and roundiing up jews and patrolling the camps took more resources. All with the Russians advancing everywhere in the East. The Russians had NOTHING equivalent to such an industrialization of death, and hadn’t even articulated a philosophy for it because they had NO guiding philosophy for “purifying” their race. Germany had already had the Wansee conference where the “final solution” had been laid out in great detail.

    And you neglect to mention that many of the first immigrants to the Levant after the war not from the MiddleEast came from Stalinist Russia, ie the Ukraine and the Baltic States b/c they were afraid of Stalin.

Probably because it has nothing to do with what I’m talking about. As usual. If you bother replying to this, it will be for another audience. I’m about done arguing this point.

[Guest]

This is all moot. By referencing T-34’s and Katyusha rocket launchers, I am clearly talking about DURING the war.

Right but this brings up several issues.  First to what extent did the war industrialize Russia further, to what extent did Stalin abandon previous racialist policies for the sake of survival, and if so what were those previous policies.  Even though he did abandon them it doesn’t negate that the early part of collectivization was especially hard on Russian Jews and its logical to think that had he lived longer it would’ve been continued.  Further, if you ever actually read Stalins personal writings going back to his youth you’ll find he was very anti-semtic.

The point stands: The Russians had the means to build concentration camps to liquidate ethnic undesireables. They did not do so.

Right b/c they were at war with a superior enemy.

As to the 2nd point: Resources were spent running trains full of “undesireables” to the death camps (oppurtunity costs there as well), the camps themselves took valuable resources to keep running, and roundiing up jews and patrolling the camps took more resources. All with the Russians advancing everywhere in the East. The Russians had NOTHING equivalent to such an industrialization of death

And this is easily attributable to the lack of wealth in EEurope/Russia compared to WEurope.  Russia simply didn’t have the rail capacity to do this which is why they chose starvation.  The reason why the Ukrainians welcomed the Germans was b/c collectivization was so unpopular.

The Russians had NOTHING equivalent to such an industrialization of death, and hadn’t even articulated a philosophy for it because they had NO guiding philosophy for “purifying” their race. Germany had already had the Wansee conference where the “final solution” had been laid out in great detail.

But this is b/c of two seperate reasons.  First Russia didn’t need an official doctrine b/c Stalin was the state at this point, and Germany was completely different than Russia.  Hitler unlike Stalin needed his beauracrats to run his govt and they were the old Wilhelmine guys that were around back during WWI in some cases.  So unlike with Stalin it was in his interest to let people in his govt know what he was going to do to engage their cooperation and participation.  Which brings up another point in that anti-semitism in Germany was institutionalized long before the Nazis came to power dating back to the Wilhemine era.  So its simply not accurate to say Hitler was the Halocaust and therefore it wouldn’t have happened but for him.

Probably because it has nothing to do with what I’m talking about. As usual. If you bother replying to this, it will be for another audience. I’m about done arguing this point.

You say that but I doubt you’ll follow through.  I think this does have some bearing b/c it shows where the large portion of Jews f/Europe were coming from.  Even those that survived in WEurope tended to stay there in Francel, Germany or Italy, but no so with Russian jews.