Customer Discussions > History forum

The Holocaust "Death By Bullets"


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 176-200 of 2110 posts in this discussion
Posted on Oct 7, 2010 2:02:35 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 7, 2010 2:03:59 PM PDT
Conor says:
Keep reporting my posts all you like guys. The truth hurt? Your indoctrination system has been FAR more successful than the Soviets ever was.
How else could you justify the mass murder of civilians? And again, you're fooling nobody outside the US, and no amount of reporting posts is gonna change that fact.
Guss freedom of speech is only good when it's fawning, huh? lol.

Posted on Oct 7, 2010 2:19:54 PM PDT
Conor says:
Oh, and the fact that people seem to think non sequitur rants and personal prejudicial attacks regarding a poster's country of origin actually "adds to the discussion" speaks volumes on your mindsets and all, not to mention your maturity levels, and seeming acceptance of prejudice.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 7, 2010 2:34:25 PM PDT
Conor says:
Nope. Not nonsense or gibberish. I don't need a dime, we don' use your currency, and it ain';t worth that much lately anyhoo.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 7, 2010 2:52:22 PM PDT
Joe Hill says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 7, 2010 2:53:16 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 5, 2011 8:52:35 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 7, 2010 2:56:43 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 5, 2011 8:52:35 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 7, 2010 2:59:35 PM PDT
Joe Hill says:
Susanna says, or rather spends significant time spamming irrelevant material because she is either unwilling, or more likely unable, to engage in a discussion.

I also might point out that Susanna had two posts in a row excised, and Conor had zero.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 7, 2010 3:09:03 PM PDT
Joe Hill says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 7, 2010 3:14:33 PM PDT
Joe Hill says:
"Second, a blockade of Japan would have produced little results."

NOT according to the US Navy. The numerous battleship bombardments of Japanese cities and industriesin 1945 without any significant opposition argues their point for them. And if this -were- the case, why is it an article of faith among the pro-bombers that dropping the bombs "saved lives" by preventing mass starvation in Japan?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 7, 2010 5:07:58 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 7, 2010 5:09:22 PM PDT
Susanna says:
it took no time at all, moron.

PS read much:

In reply to an earlier post on Oct. 7, 2010 1:51 PM PDT
Conor says:
[Deleted by Amazon 3 hours ago]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 7, 2010 5:22:59 PM PDT
Whow, before now you were actully debating, and though I think your wrong I apretiated it. What is this? Your not even going to try anymore? Does that mean I win? Or was your actual reply deleated by Amazon?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 7, 2010 5:26:36 PM PDT
Of course the Navy is going to say that, their the Navy.

Posted on Oct 7, 2010 6:05:47 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 7, 2010 6:11:07 PM PDT
L. King says:
I thought I'd add a few words about Father DuBois' talk that I went to on Monday night.

First of all there about 22 people working on this project covering 4 countries at this point: Poland, Ukraine, Belarus and Russia. So far they've uncovered evidence of approximately 700 sites where mass murder occurred, of which 35 are Sinti (Romani) and the rest are of Jews. In the Ukraine they feel that they are 60% done.

He is collecting oral testimony and using this to find the mass graves. Many of the witnesses were teenagers at the time. Because of their present age Father DuBois feels that they have at most 5-6 years left. For many this is the first time that they have talked of these things since the war - and it may be the last time

One of the reasons that it is possible to do this now is because of the Soviet archives which collected some of this information and are only recently become available to Western researchers. They knew of this, they kept the information, and they buried it from sight. What they knew, why they did this is something I wanted to ask, but there were other questions that were more important.

They would have either the Jews or the locals dig the graves. A Nazi scout would go to the town, drive around the farms and the forest and look for the best place, then the Jews would be rounded up. In some cases the Nazis would scare the kids away, threatening to shoot them too - of course they would run a bit then hide and watch. In other cases they would invite the locals to watch - it was spectacle, entertainment, theatre.

One witness said that she had seen the shootings from her house. When Father DuBois pointed out that the grave site was too far to be seen she said, "Oh, I forget to tell you. My mother said to hurry up and get dressed to see the shooting of the Jews and we walked over."

After the Jews had been killed the locals would then auction off the possessions of the Jews.

Under German occupation law it was legal to kill Jews - and anyone could do it.

An important component is that many people felt that they could talk to a priest, yet no-one felt any guilt or remorse. Many of the people interviewed came from families that had collaborated with the Nazi. One woman told Father DuBois not to bring his van and camera - the grave site was on her neighbour's farm and he would attack her if she told.

One of the questions asked was simply "where were the Jews killed". Sometimes more specific questions such as what happened to the rabbi, who were the Jews - a store owner, and the respondents would tell the story.

Another question was "Where were the girls". The Nazis would round up Jewish girls and keep them in a brothel for use by the Nazis and by the town. They would be among the last to be shot. Father DuBois told of one group of 34 women, all apparently pregnant, who asked to be driven around the town, shake hands and say goodbye before being killed.

Another common practice in each town - the Nazi soldiers wanted to have their pictures taken with "the last Jew". They would pose in or beside the mass grave and then send the pictures to their wives or girl friends as a souvenir.

The Wehrmacht was complicit. They had a deal with the SS - 1 bullet per Jew. If the bullet didn't kill they Jew they were pushed into the mass grave. Sometimes they forced the Jews into the mass graves, blew them up with dynamite and had the locals remove the bits of bodies from tree branches and put them back in the grave.

There is a mass grave near a sugar factory - I think the estimate is 10-12000 dead. People have known that it is there for years. It keeps being reopened today by people looking for gold teeth. I didn't quite get the name of the town - Lusk?

There was a train from Odessa. They told the Jews that they were going to Palestine. The reports were that they were happy - they wanted to go. The trip actually took an hour. They closed Jews in pig sties and weren't let out. They traded their possessions for food and other necessities. The Rumanians then asked for permission to shoot them when the Jews had nothing left to sell.

The book is The Holocaust by Bullets: A Priest's Journey to Uncover the Truth Behind the Murder of 1.5 Million Jews.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 7, 2010 8:12:37 PM PDT
S. Kessler says:
Father Desbois did a wonderful thing getting all this information together and bringing it to light. But the funny thing is that as a child of Holocaust survivors I knew all these types of stories from an early age -- Jewish survivors talked about these forest shootings and mass graves among themselves, among other Jews. Others really didn't want to hear and said it couldn't possibly be true. But it was.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 7, 2010 9:28:31 PM PDT
Joe Hill says:
Susanna scrawled:

"PS read much"

Obviously more than you're capable of, judging by your puerile posts.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 7, 2010 9:29:59 PM PDT
Joe Hill says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 7, 2010 9:56:15 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 7, 2010 9:59:04 PM PDT
LOL! Yes, until the poor, innocent nazis had WW II forced on them in 1939, they were model citizens, right? Watta maroon.
+++++++

That all you got clown ? You watch way too much TV dude.......

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 8, 2010 12:16:37 AM PDT
Conor says:
Of course I'm not going to try. Why would i? I tried to debate, and have been subject to tired ad hominems, quasi prejudicial attacks against my country and nationality and dismissals of my country's history by a variety of people, and I never even instigated any of this.
You really think this is a forum for serious debate? When a post by Susanna which was basically a combination of non sequiturs and ad hominems add to a discussion?
Sorry mate, but playground slagging match bored me since the playground.
I like to debate. I don't take part in cheap popularity contests, or juvenile levels of immaturity. Nor do I bother once I'm subjected to a string of personal abuse, so I reckon we're done here.
But my apologies to you if I came off snappy to you personally, as I was rather annoyed at the level of immaturity shown here , and responded to you in the heat of the moment.
And "win"? "win" what? the debate? Yeah, sure why not, whatever you like, dude.
but read over all the posts objectively and ask yourself if this exchange constituted a debate.

You are essentially saying that in certain circumstances, the deliberate targeting of civilian cities is acceptable.
Mass murder, in other words.
I cannot condone that. I'm not trying to be self righteous here, or idealistic, or have "zeal".
But I know the difference between right and wrong. It was wrong. Call me simplistic, or whatever else you feel like calling me. But it won't change the fact that what happened was morally repugnant.
And I can only imagine the response if it had have been the other way around, and New York had an atomic bomb dropped on them. To "save lives".
I will never accept your stance. We'll have to agree to disagree. And i appreciate your civility.
So, like I said, I reckon we're done here.
Cheers.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 8, 2010 12:25:00 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 8, 2010 12:34:00 AM PDT
Conor says:
Either susanna has a bunch of sock accounts or a lot of people are morally bankrupt here. You're peeing in the wind dude. I like Americans.
But unfortunately they have a hard nationalist streak in them, generally speaking that borders on jingoism.
They cannot take constructive criticism, it just doesn't compute with them, and they resort to vitriolic attacks whenever any misdeeds by their nation is highlighted. Ad hominems are hurled. Phrases like "anti American" or "anti western kook" are employed, rather than valid counterpoints. Susanna is a sterling example of this, even with her answer to you.
And btw, I mean no offense to you with my comments if you're American.
But this is what I meant by the American system of indoctrination being far more successful than the USSR's.
One can see it here, plainly, when I said that mass murder of civilians is wrong, and unjustified, regardless of the side that's doing it. Look at the responses. Only a handful have actually been valid responses in regards to disagreements.
What you're doing, while laudable, is an exercise in futility.
There's nobody home with them, and never will be, seemingly.
Peace out anyway dude, I really couldn't be bothered sticking around to read any more of this juvenile tired old vitriolic crap, as it bores me, and stifles debate and degenerates things to some dumb teen level.
Cheers.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 8, 2010 3:22:39 AM PDT
Suet says:
Conor says: "And again, spell my name right, jeez."

I spelled your name Conor, Conor. Isn't that what it is?

Conor adds: "don't you DARE try and be dismissive of what happened."

I know what happened, Conor, and I am not dismissive of it. I am simply saying that the Irish Potato Famine was NOT genocide, however much you may wish it to have been, because it was not planned by anyone and nobody sent round armed gangs to steal the peasants' crops as the Bolsheviks did in the Ukrainian Holodomor.

Here is the gist of what I said:

"It can be argued that the effects of the Irish Potato Famine were exacerbated by government incompetence and (perhaps) callousness; but it was not an act of genocide ..."

I stand by that. And btw, I don't care what Tony Blair said or didn't say. His knowledge and respect for history would fit on a postage stamp with room to spare.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 8, 2010 4:48:00 AM PDT
Conor says:
Yes it was. Deliberately allowing 1 million people to starve, despite there being an abundance of food is a genocide, however much you may wish it not to have been..
I don't care if you don't care about Blair. Tony Blair didn't just think this up one day for chuckles. He was speaking as a representative of his nation and government.
And acknowledging a genocide. That's because it was one.
I don't even know why I keep returning to this thread anyhoo, as I've already commented on how it degenerated and turned into a personal attack from several posters, so feel free to have the last word mate.
I'm outa here. Have fun.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 8, 2010 5:45:29 AM PDT
Suet says:
genocide: n. Deliberate extermination of a race, nation, etc.

deliberate: a. Intentional, fully considered.

So who intended the Irish Potato Famine, Conor, and what did they expect to get out of it?

P.S. This is a question, not a personal attack!

Posted on Oct 8, 2010 8:32:10 AM PDT
S. Kessler says:
Suetonius, you take a narrow view of genocide. Perhaps the potato blight itself was not foreseeable or "intended," but that was only the proximate cause of the widespread starvation. British colonial land policies instituted from the 17th and 18th centuries led to the Irish peasantry's dependence on the potato as practically the only form of sustenance. And then when the blight did occur, the British were slow to respond and in many respects let the Irish peasants starve and die as a matter of neglectful policy. The fact that there were continued exports of food from Ireland during the entire period of the starvation supports this view. The food was there. The sad fact is that the British government saw no need to get it to the people under their rule who were starving and dying from disease as a consequence. And this had to do with British attitudes toward the Catholic irish who they saw as inferior examples of humanity. No, the British didn't deliberately implement a policy of killing the Irish outright, but they let circumstance do the job for them and didn't do very much to try to stop it. Whether that is technically genocide or not is a matter still being debated. I think a good case can be made that it was.

This section of the article on the Famine from Wiki provides a balanced view of determination of historians over whether the famine amounted to genocide or not.

Suggestions of genocide

The famine is still a controversial event in Irish history. Debate and discussion on the British government's response to the failure of the potato crop in Ireland and the subsequent large-scale starvation, and whether or not this constituted genocide, remains a historically and politically-charged issue.
In 1996 Francis A. Boyle, a law professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, wrote a report commissioned by the New York-based Irish Famine/Genocide Committee, which concluded that the British government deliberately pursued a race and ethnicity based policy aimed at destroying the group commonly known as the Irish people and that the policy of mass starvation amounted to genocide per the Hague convention of 1948.[fn 11] On the strength of Boyle's report, the U.S. state of New Jersey included the famine in the "Holocaust and Genocide Curriculum" at the secondary tier.[fn 12]
Historian Peter Duffy writes that "The government's crime, which deserves to blacken its name forever ..." was rooted "in the effort to regenerate Ireland" through "landlord-engineered replacement of tillage plots with grazing lands" that "took precedence over the obligation to provide food ... for its starving citizens. It is little wonder that the policy looked to many people like genocide."[130]
Several commentators have argued that the searing effect of the famine in Irish cultural memory has effects similar to that of genocide, while maintaining that one did not occur. Robert Kee suggests that the Famine is seen as "comparable" in its force on "popular national consciousness to that of the 'final solution' on the Jews," and that it is not "infrequently" thought that the Famine was something very like, "a form of genocide engineered by the English against the Irish people." This point was echoed by James Donnelly, a historian at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, who wrote in his work Landlord and Tenant in Nineteenth-century Ireland, "I would draw the following broad conclusion: at a fairly early stage of the Great Famine the government's abject failure to stop or even slow down the clearances (evictions) contributed in a major way to enshrining the idea of English state-sponsored genocide in Irish popular mind. Or perhaps one should say in the Irish mind, for this was a notion that appealed to many educated and discriminating men and women, and not only to the revolutionary minority...And it is also my contention that while genocide was not in fact committed, what happened during and as a result of the clearances had the look of genocide to a great many Irish..."[131]
Historian Cormac Ó Gráda disagreed that the famine was genocide: first, that "genocide includes murderous intent and it must be said that not even the most bigoted and racist commentators of the day sought the extermination of the Irish"; second, that most people in Whitehall "hoped for better times in Ireland" and third, that the claim of genocide overlooks "the enormous challenges facing relief efforts, both central, local, public and private". Ó Gráda thinks that a case of neglect is easier to sustain than that of genocide.[132] However, people in charge like chief of the Government relief Charles Trevelyan contradict a "neglect" but rather hazarded the consequenses from the colonial perspective that the Famine was a "mechanism for reducing surplus population" and a "judgement of God".[32] =

Famine Memorial in Dublin
Views of the Irish as racially inferior, and for this reason significantly responsible for their circumstances, gained purchase in Great Britain during and immediately after the famine, especially through influential publications such as The Medical Times and The Times.[133]
Irish columnist John Waters has described the famine as "an act of genocide, driven by racism and justified by ideology".[134]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 8, 2010 8:59:07 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 8, 2010 9:09:41 AM PDT
Suet says:
Thank you, S. Kessler. It appears that most of the assessments in the Wikipedia article that you cited concur with my original post:

"It can be argued that the effects of the Irish Potato Famine were exacerbated by government incompetence and (perhaps) callousness; but it was not an act of genocide, because it was not planned by anyone."

To which I added:

"If you want an example of genocide by man-made famine, look up the Ukrainian Holodomor of 1932-33. This was not caused by natural blight or bungling, it was caused by the Bolsheviks STEALING crops from millions of peasants who then starved to death."

I am not excusing British governments of the 1840s. In hindsight, they should have been able to do much better. But they were not committing genocide.

"Genocide includes murderous intent and it must be said that not even the most bigoted and racist commentators of the day sought the extermination of the Irish" - Cormac Ó Gráda.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 8, 2010 12:18:30 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 8, 2010 12:19:24 PM PDT
Conor says:
Laizzez faire: Leave it be. They let them starve. Deliberately. What part of that don't you understand? When the death toll reaches 1 million, and it's still laizzez faire... that's genocide. Genocide by proxy.
And why would you possibly think I'd be HOPING for this to be a genocide? What's wrong with you?
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  History forum
Participants:  53
Total posts:  2110
Initial post:  Sep 30, 2010
Latest post:  Nov 24, 2010

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions