If they have material that backs their claims, then what's stopping them?
Well, except that holocaust revisionism is illegal in some countries, as far as I know it at least.
Obama's second term
- Thread starter rainforests1
- Start date
If they have material that backs their claims, then what's stopping them?
Well, except that holocaust revisionism is illegal in some countries, as far as I know it at least.
das_nut
Forum Legend
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Reaction score
- 579
If it came to a debate, you'll probably hear something like this from a Holocaust denier:
So did you know that tests from Nazi concentration camps don't show Zyklon B? That there was no proof that Hitler ordered the final solution? That there was a published book about the "Jewish conspiracy" long before the war? Or that the "official" record of concentration camp deaths have changed in the downward direction? That holocaust "survivor" testimonies are contradictory? That people who have later been shown to have nothing to do with concentration camps have been accused of being guards?
Now most of the above is false, misleading or out of context. Yet they are common arguments used by Holocaust deniers. While I think there's a place in the education to study the claims of holocaust deniers and why the evidence refutes them, the subject is too in-depth outside of a specialized class. It is far too in-depth to be settled merely by a debate during class time.
There is plenty of evidence to support the Holocaust, and Hitler's involvement in it. There are simple explanations for much of the "contradictory" evidence that Holocaust deniers throw out. There's also less neat explanations for the rest (history can be like that, unfortunately) and there is still legitimate debate over the amount of deaths at certain camps - but such debate is academic in nature, and doesn't resemble in any way, shape or form the arguments of Holocaust deniers - no more than scientists arguing over the evolutionary path of H. Sapiens have a resemblance to creationists' arguments.
All that information is available to anyone who cares to read. It's not hidden. Of course, you're the one who thinks there's been a huge conspiracy to hide Genghis Khan, just because you happened to have been ignorant of him.
I'm not sure why you think that people would tune in for such "debates" - after all, most people don't care to inform themselves at all. Almost a third of Americans can't even name who the vice president is, for crying out loud.
You could even put it on the least watched night for television(I think Friday's, but I could be wrong) and in the Summer. You wouldn't need to pull in very good ratings. Ideally it would be shown in every history class. The goal would be to give both sides exposure rather than to have huge ratings.
Our beloved Roosevelt aided Stalin and Churchill while many businesses were aiding Hitler. Considering American businesses greatly benefitted off World War 1 as well, you could argue the United States played a large role in creating the two worst wars in human history. I think it's very important that Americans understand this, and should be given a lot of attention. Exposure in a few books that the media ignores just isn't good enough for me.
Dave in MPLS
Not an actual rooster
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Reaction score
- 25
And who decides which historians can present their view? No doubt anyone who mentions the Lizard People would be excluded. I smell a conspiracy.
das_nut
Forum Legend
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Reaction score
- 579
Look, if it would pull in sufficient ratings, it would already be airing. Now, if you're proposing that the networks be paid to air this, I suggest you put some financing together to produce and air it.
You won't get any contributions from me, though - I prefer to spend my money taking care of animals, rather than waste it to get something on the air that people won't watch. If I wanted to do that, I'd contribute to a fund to regularly air Earthlings or Meet Your Meat.
FortyTwo
Custom Title
How does a secretive government mean that conspiracies are more likely to be true? If something is true, it's true. Something doesn't just become fact just because the government is secretive.
The government is naturally secretive about a lot of stuff because they feel they have to be. Most of it is probably incredibly uninteresting.
The government is naturally secretive about a lot of stuff because they feel they have to be. Most of it is probably incredibly uninteresting.
das_nut
Forum Legend
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Reaction score
- 579
You state that a million German POWs died in allied camps, but fail to point out that almost all of the deaths were in Soviet German POW camps.
Technically true, but a little misleading, wouldn't you say?
Agreed. The Eastern Front was brutal, and not just for POW's. My mother had horrific memories of soldiers coming back from the Eastern Front with feet and hands frozen off - these were returning soldiers, not POW's. The Russian troops didn't fair much better, I would expect. Hitler failed to learn the lesson that the Napoleonic wars should have taught him.
FortyTwo
Custom Title
das_nut
Forum Legend
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Reaction score
- 579
I'm going to have to disagree. Hindsight is 20/20, but in 1941, it wasn't as apparent.
Consider these points:
- The USSR/Germany relationship stank. War was inevitable, and both sides knew it.
- Due to #1, many German troops were tied up on the eastern border. If the USSR was defeated, those troops could be moved west, to deal with the UK/US threat.
- Countries that Germany invaded before (Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Netherlands, France, Yugoslavia) fell within about two months or less. Blitzkrieg appeared to be an effective military strategy.
- USSR appeared weak - Stalin had purged many of his more capable military commanders because they appeared to be threats.
- Invasion of the USSR could begin on June 22, 1941, giving the Germans many months of good weather before winter set in.
- Germany beat Russia in WWI, when Russia collapsed under the weight of the war effort. Finland did well against the USSR as well, even though Finland lacked the resources of Germany.
The two mistakes that were made (IMO) were:
- The USSR was big. Far bigger than the Germans could grasp. It's one thing to look at the USSR on a map. It's another thing to realize it's a large country with what was frequently poor roads.
- Uncle Joe was a psychopath. It is far harder to fight against someone who is willing and able to throw bodies without caring if those soldiers lived or died. It's far harder to fight against someone who will shoot their own troops for surrendering or retreating. Up until the invasion of the USSR, Germany was fighting against countries who cared if people lived or died. So Germany made the fatal mistake of thinking that the USSR was the same way.
*Snort.* I guess you can't help disagreeing with me, even when you're actually agreeing. The lesson of the Napoleonic wars with respect to Russia wasn't just the harshness of the winters, you know.
ETA: And BTW, Napoleon's invasion of Russia was also begun in June. The German career military advised against the invasion (they thought that opening up the Eastern Front would be a recipe for disaster, which it in fact was), but Hitler thought he was a military genius. Part of what he was actually counting on was the insanity of Stalin.
Further, invading in June gave Germany weeks in which to defeat Russia, not "many months." Russian roads turned to mud every early autumn, making large scale transport of military vehicles, tanks and supplies laboriously slow at best. That too was a lesson which should have been learned from Napoleon.
Your point about the size of the Soviet Union is a ludicrous one - Germans generally are not any more incapable of understanding relative size on a map than anyone else. It was Hitler's overveening vanity in this regard that was the problem. The career military well knew what they were facing, even though Hitler's inner circle bought into his insanity.
ETA: And BTW, Napoleon's invasion of Russia was also begun in June. The German career military advised against the invasion (they thought that opening up the Eastern Front would be a recipe for disaster, which it in fact was), but Hitler thought he was a military genius. Part of what he was actually counting on was the insanity of Stalin.
Further, invading in June gave Germany weeks in which to defeat Russia, not "many months." Russian roads turned to mud every early autumn, making large scale transport of military vehicles, tanks and supplies laboriously slow at best. That too was a lesson which should have been learned from Napoleon.
Your point about the size of the Soviet Union is a ludicrous one - Germans generally are not any more incapable of understanding relative size on a map than anyone else. It was Hitler's overveening vanity in this regard that was the problem. The career military well knew what they were facing, even though Hitler's inner circle bought into his insanity.
das_nut
Forum Legend
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Reaction score
- 579
Winter was one of the major ones. Another lesson from Napoleon's invasion of Russia (one that the Germans tried to follow) was not to push towards Moscow, but instead destroy the army in the field. Too bad the USSR could field armies more quickly than the Germans could kill them.
Yep, but 19th century and 20th century warfare was different.
Blitzkrieg looked like it could work. Heck, Germany's invasion of Russia in WWI worked - to the point where Russia collapsed, ceasing to exist as a nation.I'm told that there was heavy rains that spring, something the Germans weren't expecting. It made the roads bad regardless. I'd have to check the rainfall patterns in the USSR to see how valid the German advance was. Note that Germany did accomplish most of its initial objectives in the beginning - it did destroy the Soviet army in the field, and it thought (incorrectly) that if it defeated most of the Soviet army near the border, that would be the majority of the Red Army. Germany was wrong.
Not all kilometers are the same. A paved road is different from a well-maintained dirt road, and that's far different than a dirt road that's poorly maintained. But those roads are the same distance on a map.
ETA: It occurs to me that since the fall of communism, it may be interesting to see what new historians have done in regards to the Soviet/Nazi warfare of WWII. It could be a situation like Nomonhan - where the Soviet casualties were far higher than what the USSR reported.
FortyTwo
Custom Title
Yep, but 19th century and 20th century warfare was different.
FortyTwo
Custom Title
Fortytwo - it got better.
/obligatory Monty Python link.
So you're saying Germany turned Russia into a newt?
I distinctly remember saying that the Russian winter was not the only one, in response to your earlier post. Maybe my mind is going, and I only imagined saying that? No, I just checked. I did say that. There were a number of major lessons from the Napoleonic wars, including these: a small to middling size country can only extend itself so far in its push to conquer before it overextends itself; Russia is a ****ing huge country in comparison to, say, France or Germany; there's a limited time frame between the spring thaw and the early autumn rains during which vast swaths of Russia are difficult to navigate because of the mud; winter in Russia sucks; Russia tends to be ruled by people who don't care how many of her people are killed in furtherance of the ruler'sdesires; all of the foregoing make Russia a place where it's super easy for a small to middling size country like, say, France or Germany to overextend itself. I came to these conclusions as a fourth grader reading Desiree and following up with some nonfiction history of the Napoleonic wars, and I was by no means a military genius at that age, nor am I one now.
All of those factors combined to make the Eastern Front the most brutal of WWII, and, if I remember correctly, with the highest toll of military and civilian deaths in history.
Kind of goes back to my points about Russia being a big ****ing country and the overextension of the small to middling size would-be conqueror, doesn't it?
Yep, but 19th century and 20th century warfare was different.
Well, that's the point, isn't it? Tanks and trucks get stuck in mud no less easily than marching men, infantry and wagons.
It's interesting that you choose to ignore the role of the Bolshevik revolution, which was occurring at the same time as WWI, or perhaps you're unaware of the Bolshevik revolution, and the Bolsheviks' desire to withdraw from WWI, which they ultimately did unilaterally (and that unilateral withdrawal is what caused the loss of considerable territory). I suspect that Hitler would have been aware of the role of the Bolshevik revolution in connection with the cessation of WWI Eastern Front hostilities, though. And if he was looking to what happened in WWI as an incentive for aagain invading Russia, he really should have kept in mind that the fighting on the Eastern Front resulted in Germany's inability to maintain the Western Front, and Germany's resounding and humiliating defeat.
The invasion was originally scheduled for mid May, but Hitler wanted to take care of something else first. Germany did have an advantage in that the autumn rains started late that year.
Not all kilometers are the same. A paved road is different from a well-maintained dirt road, and that's far different than a dirt road that's poorly maintained. But those roads are the same distance on a map.
See, you're thinking like an American who is pretty blissfully unaware of things like road conditions in other countries. Trust me, Germans have not been an insular people, and would have been perfectly aware of how little certain things (like road building) had progressed in Russia. For Germans, Russia is not the other side of the world, as it seems to be for many Americans.
Nope. The American camps were considered some of the worst in the entire war. The French were bad as well(England and Canada were the two that get praise). Eisenhower would get rewarded for his death camps. One of the books I've read about it:
http://www.amazon.com/Other-Losses-...8&qid=1346332803&sr=1-2&keywords=other+losses
Are you aware that the Nazis had an actual plan to starve Russian POWs because they wanted to reduce the population of Russia and free up resources, and that about 3 million Russian POWs starved to death in German POW camps? Are you aware of the conditions not only in German, Russian, Japanese and other Asian POW camps? You must not be, if you think American camps were "some of the worst."
