Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Germany WWII

Holy Cripes! This is a messed up thread...

I'm not saying you have the same ideology or opinion just that you both talk out your ass whenever it suits you.

Plus you're both old. And seem to like two-wheeled vehicles that aren't motorcycles.

Just spit-ballin'.

TRH,

As far as those quotes are concerned I don't disagree with any of them. Everybody knows that those Neuremberg trials were just a big bullschit grandstanding and used as red meat for the Europeans. But, schit happens. Victors, spoils, yada, yada. But you'll never see me defending those trials. You'll also never find my admonishing our bringing SS officer's to the CONUS to work for us.

As far as that YouTube video... I don't where to start man. I gave it an honest to goodness 40 minutes and I'll finish it up tomorrow but that is one gigantic piece of fugking garbage.

For one thing it takes place during the time of contrarians realizing they can sell copies of their bullschit "expose" at gun shows for $40 a pop. For another it's conducted by a teenaged late bloomer that appears to be doing a 60's era impression of a diamond salesman.

He's interviewing tour guides. Do you know what tour guides do? Or get paid? They're not subject matter experts.

If you think that "supervisor" is some sort of authority on the ins and outs of the alleged holocaust, how can you discount all the other countless interviews of people that actually lived through the holocaust? This is a contradiction and makes you look foolish. You're admonishing thousands of accounts while accepting an un-vetted source from 1992 with a bad haircut and horrific shirt.

The lids were there, they weren't there... WTF? That kid isn't qualified to examine aerial footage. Do you have any idea how much qualified people are paid to review aerial footage from that era?

"lookout lids?" Uhhhh, that's not a thing my friend. I've been in bunkers. Never seen a "lookout lid". But if I ever did the first question out of my mind would be "Who is the dumb sumbtich up there taking the lid off and on so we can see if the bombers are coming?"

Sweet fugkin' Christ. I am an objective person and I don't mind reviewing other people's material but you need to cook up something better than that piece of garbage. That ain't evidence. That's comedy.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe.... Hitler and his Staff put more than 12 minutes of thought into this idea.

Maybe?

Kinda... "Read the room" type of endeavor?

Maybe?

Did it ever occur to you that you are simply wrong? Because, you are. Both in your facts as asserted and in your interpretations of events.

Feel free to type it all out JoeBob.

I’ll make you look like the dumb fugk you are tomorrow.

Take your time.

Sorry. I don’t have time to play chess with a pigeon like you.

I guess you can start with any of the Holocaust denial texts, you mean. Irving's book (and research) certainly suggests maltreatment of some Nazi prisoners, interrogation by "third degree", as it was called in those days; and it certainly suggests that Hoess's confession was likely coerced. However, Hoess's supposed recantation of the confession was hardly a denial of his involvement in the murders of Jews at Auschwitz.

I guess that you, TRH, like the leopard, cannot change your spots. You're still the antisemite conspiracy theorist you have ever been.

When it comes to history and facts, my money is on Travis.



Even though I can't figure out when he has time to read and watch all those movies when he's drunk all the time....

It’s America. You’re entitled to be as wrong as he is.

Quite right.

It's interesting to read the history of the strategic bombing of Germany in WW2 as discussed by the proponents themselves before, during and after the War, and compare and contrast that with the opinions of modern-day commentators. Many of these latter people believe the (patently false) assertion popularized by anti-war voices in the 60's and 70's that there was no benefit to the strategic bombing initiative. They also somehow believe that civilian casualties were never accepted as one of the goals of the strategic bombing initiative. This is emphatically contradicted by the authors of the air war, from Hap Arnold and Carl Spaatz, right on down the line. Post-war analyses done in the late 40's and 50's showed that levelling Germany's industry, including the cities, was a necessary and effective means for shortening the war and reducing Allied casualties thereby. It would have taken until late 1946 or longer to defeat Germany if we hadn't bombed the living s h i t out of their cities.

Civilians worked in the factories, the railyards, the refineries, and all the other war industries. They worked in the factories and they lived nearby. The bombs that killed them in the factories during their shifts were no different in purpose than the bombs that killed them in their beds. Killing Germany's ability to make war was the goal. The destruction of Hamburg by firebombing was horrific, but justifiable under the strategic bombing doctrine of the day. The firebombing of Dresden is harder to justify, but under the rules they were using at the time, the Allied commanders considered it justified. If America had lost the war and American generals had been tried as war criminals, I'm sure they'd have been sentenced to death by a German court just as readily as the German generals were condemned at Nuremburg. That's the way wars end. The victors slaughter the vanquished.

By the way, punishing noncombatants has ever been a part of war. I recently finished a pair of books, one on the Plantagenet Dynasty, the other a biography of William Marshal, who served under Henry II of England. "Harrying the countryside" (slaughtering livestock, burning crops, murdering the peasants) was a common strategic initiative used in those days to destroy an opponent's ability to wage war. Warfare hasn't change all that much over the centuries.

I had Jewish friends who survived the concentration camps...and they had the tattoos to prove it. You have to be incredibly stupid and bigoted to be a holocaust denier or one of their followers.

Some incredible garbage in this thread.

I just love the way everyone in this thread has to cluck cluck and virtue signal their disapproval of someone who strays from the narrative.

WW II is the edifice upon which our entire modern world is built. If you question the official narrative, you question the foundation of everything today. As I see and learn how increasingly rotten and deceitful everything is in this world today, I increasingly have to examine official histories of the past.

I don’t buy it hook line and sinker. WW II is becoming a bit like the Civil War. Instead of time healing wounds and allowing more thorough and thoughtful research, things have hardened into accepted opinions and orthodoxy that stifle anything that even could conceivably threaten the orthodoxy.

And I’ve seen it change in my life. It used to be that Hitler killed a bunch of Jews in the course of the war. And I don’t for one second doubt that he did. I’m convinced that he did. But if you watch the History Channel or some other approved purveyor of official truth these days that is morphing and has morphed into teaching that the only reason Hitler went to war was because of his hatred of Jews.

Make Hitler and all Germans racist who want nothing more than to kill Jews. Make it so that the entire reason for the war was to kill Jews. Then call everyone a racist for anything. Don’t like immigration. You’re a racist. Think Muslims might want to kill some of us? You’re a racist. Are you white? You’re a racist. And if your a racist? Who else was a racist? Hitler that’s who. You’re like Hitler. And Hitler was the most evil man ever who just wanted to kill everyone who wasn’t white, so you must want that too since you are a racist and all racist are like Hitler.

You actually believe this chit?

So was Churchill pm when England declared war on Germany? Think this out before you answer..

God Bless the USAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Good post. While we hung the Nazis after the war was over, we willingly turned a blind eye to what "our" side had done, and still do.

It was no different in the War Between the States. In the border states, partisans fighting under the Confederate flag were executed when caught, while those fighting for the Union, who were just as guilty as those on the other side when it came to targeting civilians, were not. Just as in WW2, the winners wrote the history and decided what was fact what was not.

What, you think people believe that here?

I’m gonna propose another view: If you point out that the whole round up the Jews thing to be shot/gassed/whatever was probably about killing Jews then you must be cluck cluck virtue-signaling.

Same thing if you don’t think rounding up Jews to be killed is the same thing as area bombing by the Allies.

The brainwashing is strong with this one, Obi Wan.

Spot on.