Hitler's War Crimes vs. Those of Churchill & the Americans

[BADecker]

So, read the article. Then come back and let us know what you think reality is.


Hitler's War Crimes vs. Those of Churchill & the Americans

Third and Final Installment of Ron Unz's "Understanding World War II" http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-understanding-world-war-ii/

When we want to demonize someone the worst epithet we can think of is to call him a Nazi or compare the person to Hitler, as Hillary Clinton did when she declared Russia's President Putin "the new Hitler." This ingrained habit comes from the influence of the massive anti-German World War II propaganda. Revisionist historians who have actually dug up the buried evidence and examined it have made a case that whatever the Nazi crimes, they were rivaled, if not exceeded, by those of Churchill and the Americans.

Unz, a prolific reader with a knack for tying things together reviews some of the true history in what follows. To condition yourself for the coming shock, keep in mind that the same Hitler that is said to have hated Jews and systematically gassed and burnt them, had 150,000 half-and quarter-Jews serving in his armies, "mostly as combat officers, and these included at least 15 half-Jewish generals and admirals, with another dozen quarter Jews holding those same high ranks. The most notable example was Field Marshal Erhard Milch, Hermann Goering's powerful second-in-command, who played such an important operational role in creating the Luftwaffe. Milch certainly had a Jewish father, and according to some much less substantiated claims, perhaps even a Jewish mother as well, while his sister was married to an SS general."

[squatz1]

Like -- You've not even linked to the true article anyway.

But I think it's fair to note this very simple thing. Did Churchill and the Americans draft up a 'final solution' to mass kill people? No. Alright then these things cant even be compared, that's it.

I really should just stop responding to your threads. It would probably be better for my mental health.

[tsaroz]

Every discussion on Hitler ends up with the ethnically targeted concentration camps and killing of Jews.
But people rarely discuss what brought that situation. What was the stand of Hitler on the issue. And how that amount of jews ended up in Germany and in the hands of Hitler.

[af_newbie]

Every discussion on Hitler ends up with the ethnically targeted concentration camps and killing of Jews.
But people rarely discuss what brought that situation. What was the stand of Hitler on the issue. And how that amount of jews ended up in Germany and in the hands of Hitler.

Because people do not study history, read Hitler's Mein Kampf, learn more about who Adolf Eichmann was, and what they initially set out to do.

People learn the shortcuts: Hitler was a crazy lunatic who created concentration camps, we bombed the shit out of him, the end.

[BADecker]

Like -- You've not even linked to the true article anyway.

But I think it's fair to note this very simple thing. Did Churchill and the Americans draft up a 'final solution' to mass kill people? No. Alright then these things cant even be compared, that's it.

I really should just stop responding to your threads. It would probably be better for my mental health.

Except... unless your were with Churchill and the Americans around the clock, you don't know what they drafted up and used without telling other people. Do you really think that all the orders that were handed down in WW2 were made public, or were even known to exist other than by the few in the chain of command?

You essentially haven't responded to this thread. You only look like you have. Make some sense.

[BADecker]

Every discussion on Hitler ends up with the ethnically targeted concentration camps and killing of Jews.
But people rarely discuss what brought that situation. What was the stand of Hitler on the issue. And how that amount of jews ended up in Germany and in the hands of Hitler.

Because people do not study history, read Hitler's Mein Kampf, learn more about who Adolf Eichmann was, and what they initially set out to do.

People learn the shortcuts: Hitler was a crazy lunatic who created concentration camps, we bombed the shit out of him, the end.

Hitler was used by his generals in much of the same way he was using them. It wasn't only Hitler.

[squatz1]

Like -- You've not even linked to the true article anyway.

But I think it's fair to note this very simple thing. Did Churchill and the Americans draft up a 'final solution' to mass kill people? No. Alright then these things cant even be compared, that's it.

I really should just stop responding to your threads. It would probably be better for my mental health.

Except... unless your were with Churchill and the Americans around the clock, you don't know what they drafted up and used without telling other people. Do you really think that all the orders that were handed down in WW2 were made public, or were even known to exist other than by the few in the chain of command?

You essentially haven't responded to this thread. You only look like you have. Make some sense.

You're openly saying that Churchill and the Americans commited war crimes that were comparable in some way to Hitler.

Is there any evidence to support this conclusion? No. Not at all.

Even in the US -- which had Japanese internment camps, there was no 'final solution' for the Japanese people. Millions of Japanese civilians (or people of any race, religion, national origin, etc) weren't exterminated.

You're a psycho.

[BADecker]

Like -- You've not even linked to the true article anyway.

But I think it's fair to note this very simple thing. Did Churchill and the Americans draft up a 'final solution' to mass kill people? No. Alright then these things cant even be compared, that's it.

I really should just stop responding to your threads. It would probably be better for my mental health.

Except... unless your were with Churchill and the Americans around the clock, you don't know what they drafted up and used without telling other people. Do you really think that all the orders that were handed down in WW2 were made public, or were even known to exist other than by the few in the chain of command?

You essentially haven't responded to this thread. You only look like you have. Make some sense.

You're openly saying that Churchill and the Americans commited war crimes that were comparable in some way to Hitler.

Is there any evidence to support this conclusion? No. Not at all.

Even in the US -- which had Japanese internment camps, there was no 'final solution' for the Japanese people. Millions of Japanese civilians (or people of any race, religion, national origin, etc) weren't exterminated.

You're a psycho.

I went back and looked briefly at the OP.

I wasn't there... WW2. Were you? There's a record of a historian, whose work is directed at in the OP, who says that Churchill and the Americans were worse than Hitler. So, why are you calling me a psycho?

You have the wrong guy. If you don't believe the historian, why aren't you calling him a psycho? Sounds like you have your mind made up so firmly, that to even show writings of a historian that says something different than what you like to hear, is something that causes you to go immediately bonkers.

Is it possible that you are an ostrich with your head in the sand?

[yoseph]

Like -- You've not even linked to the true article anyway.

But I think it's fair to note this very simple thing. Did Churchill and the Americans draft up a 'final solution' to mass kill people? No. Alright then these things cant even be compared, that's it.

I really should just stop responding to your threads. It would probably be better for my mental health.

Except... unless your were with Churchill and the Americans around the clock, you don't know what they drafted up and used without telling other people. Do you really think that all the orders that were handed down in WW2 were made public, or were even known to exist other than by the few in the chain of command?

You essentially haven't responded to this thread. You only look like you have. Make some sense.

You're openly saying that Churchill and the Americans commited war crimes that were comparable in some way to Hitler.

Is there any evidence to support this conclusion? No. Not at all.

Even in the US -- which had Japanese internment camps, there was no 'final solution' for the Japanese people. Millions of Japanese civilians (or people of any race, religion, national origin, etc) weren't exterminated.

You're a psycho.

I went back and looked briefly at the OP.

I wasn't there... WW2. Were you? There's a record of a historian, whose work is directed at in the OP, who says that Churchill and the Americans were worse than Hitler. So, why are you calling me a psycho?

You have the wrong guy. If you don't believe the historian, why aren't you calling him a psycho? Sounds like you have your mind made up so firmly, that to even show writings of a historian that says something different than what you like to hear, is something that causes you to go immediately bonkers.

Is it possible that you are an ostrich with your head in the sand?

OP must be mad, how in the world is Churchill and the Americans people worse than Hitler when Hitler is the main instigator in the war that brought about the death of millions. If not for his master race ideologies,  none of these would have happened so whatever the Allied forces did to win the war was all his fault.

[BADecker]

OP must be mad, how in the world is Churchill and the Americans people worse than Hitler when Hitler is the main instigator in the war that brought about the death of millions. If not for his master race ideologies,  none of these would have happened so whatever the Allied forces did to win the war was all his fault.

Except for one fact. If Churchill and American leaders wanted to do the same things that Hitler did, what would stop them? The people of their respective countries.

Hitler got away with what he did because he talked much of Germany into believing that he was good. Later, when they found out he was bad, it was too late to stop him.

So, Hitler became the excuse that Churchill and American leaders used to do the bad kinds of things that Hitler was doing, not to stop Hitler, but because they wanted to do worse all along. But the excuse was that they were stopping Hitler. And because it was easily seen that Hitler was bad, the people jumped behind Churchill and American leaders to stop Hitler.

It seems that it is only coming out now how bad Churchill and American leaders really were. However, there have been many critics of Churchill and American leaders who have been silenced over the years.

Consider our recent president, George W. Bush. How in the world could he and his dad ever get elected presidents? G.W.'s grandfather helped Hitler in WW2. But both of them were presidents, because of why? Maybe to emulate Hitler in some foreign country, just like we are doing in Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq, Bolivia and who knows where else, right now.

[BADecker]

At least we don't put them in concentration camps - like we did the Japanese in WW2 - and starve them to death, like Hitler did in WW2... do we?


Report on How the US Tortures

Torture is longstanding US policy, notably by the CIA and its henchmen.

The policy continues at secret global black sites under its new director Gina Haspel — earlier involved in running an offshore black site, notorious for torture during interrogations.

CIA human experiments began in the early 1950s, including sensory-deprivation ones – developing unlawful interrogation methods amounting to torture.

In his book titled "A Question of Torture: CIA Interrogation from the Cold War to the War on Terror," Alfred McCoy discussed a half-century of Langley efforts to develop torture techniques – no matter how heinous, immoral, illegal, or ineffective.

It's well known that victims in severe pain say whatever interrogators want to hear to stop it.

The UN Convention against Torture is clear and unequivocal — banning the practice at all times, under all conditions, with no allowed exceptions.

The US Constitution's 8th Amendment bans "cruel and unusual punishments" — clearly what torture is all about.

Seton Hall University School of Law's Center for Policy and Research's report on "How America Tortures" documents the lawless practice by the US — prepared under the direction of Law Professor Mark Denbeaux.

[squatz1]

Like -- You've not even linked to the true article anyway.

But I think it's fair to note this very simple thing. Did Churchill and the Americans draft up a 'final solution' to mass kill people? No. Alright then these things cant even be compared, that's it.

I really should just stop responding to your threads. It would probably be better for my mental health.

Except... unless your were with Churchill and the Americans around the clock, you don't know what they drafted up and used without telling other people. Do you really think that all the orders that were handed down in WW2 were made public, or were even known to exist other than by the few in the chain of command?

You essentially haven't responded to this thread. You only look like you have. Make some sense.

You're openly saying that Churchill and the Americans commited war crimes that were comparable in some way to Hitler.

Is there any evidence to support this conclusion? No. Not at all.

Even in the US -- which had Japanese internment camps, there was no 'final solution' for the Japanese people. Millions of Japanese civilians (or people of any race, religion, national origin, etc) weren't exterminated.

You're a psycho.

I went back and looked briefly at the OP.

I wasn't there... WW2. Were you? There's a record of a historian, whose work is directed at in the OP, who says that Churchill and the Americans were worse than Hitler. So, why are you calling me a psycho?

You have the wrong guy. If you don't believe the historian, why aren't you calling him a psycho? Sounds like you have your mind made up so firmly, that to even show writings of a historian that says something different than what you like to hear, is something that causes you to go immediately bonkers.

Is it possible that you are an ostrich with your head in the sand?

I don't think I'd call this guy a historian. If he beleives that Churchill/Americans were as bad as someone who exterminated millions upon millions upon people. It doesn't matter what these groups potentially planned, or could have planned. They didn't do things that were as horrible as Hitler and that's a fact.

Anything else is wrong.

[BADecker]

I went back and looked briefly at the OP.

I wasn't there... WW2. Were you? There's a record of a historian, whose work is directed at in the OP, who says that Churchill and the Americans were worse than Hitler. So, why are you calling me a psycho?

You have the wrong guy. If you don't believe the historian, why aren't you calling him a psycho? Sounds like you have your mind made up so firmly, that to even show writings of a historian that says something different than what you like to hear, is something that causes you to go immediately bonkers.

Is it possible that you are an ostrich with your head in the sand?

I don't think I'd call this guy a historian. If he beleives that Churchill/Americans were as bad as someone who exterminated millions upon millions upon people. It doesn't matter what these groups potentially planned, or could have planned. They didn't do things that were as horrible as Hitler and that's a fact.

Anything else is wrong.

How do you know?

Is it something you want to exist that way?
Is it a philosophy?
Is it like a religion?
Would you feel guilty if it turned out to be opposite of what you believe?
You were there?

I'm not disagreeing with you. I wasn't there to do a count. But Stalin and his at-least 60 million (some say 100 million) was way worse than Hitler. And Stalin was our ally. That's a fact. Anything else is wrong.

[BADecker]

This is what I don't like to do. I don't like to read 18,000 words just so I can find something out. I would rather that somebody just tell me point-blank. This means that I don't wind up having enough info to formulate an opinion on my own. It's bad style to be this way. And it is probably the way most of us are. After all, who has time to read millions of words?

Wikipedia has writers who write what Wikipedia wants the world to know... whether or not it is truth. To see the Wikipedia double talk, look at these two articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_Mineral_Supplement and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine_dioxide. Both of these articles are talking about the same chemical. The first is a do-it-yourself usage of the substance. The second is done by professionals. The resulting product works the same no matter who makes it.


The Holocaust

I turned to Ron Unz's article "American Pravda: Holocaust Denial." Just as incompetent Wikipedia attributed David Irving's views to me, no doubt Wikipedia will credit me with authorship of Ron Unz's article.

Ron Unz is a prolific reader who provides reliable accounts. His article reports on books that promote the official Holocaust story and on books that have researched the Holocaust and find facts different from the official story. The best way to get your feet wet on any subject is to see what Ron Unz has to say. Unz, of course, is thorough, because he understands the importance of truth. Reading his articles is like reading a monograph. This one is 18,000 words. It takes commitment. You have to really want to know. The alternative is to read the dozen plus books that Unz reports on. So, it is either Unz's 18,000 words or a couple of million words. I suggest the shortcut that Unz provides. If it spurs your interest, you can start on the books.

Unz's article begins with a map of Europe showing 15 countries in which any denial of the official Holocaust account, whether true or not, lands the denier in prison.

...

A story that is true has nothing to fear from denial, as the facts will defend the story. If Zionists are confident of The Holocaust story, they should show their confidence by permitting their account to be examined and debated. The truth will emerge, and if Zionists are correct they will be vindicated.

[star7dust]

IMO, America is almost as bad as Hitler and his nazi state. Remember the genocide of native Americans, but not only this. The American government just keeps exterminating whoever they don't like

[BADecker]

IMO, America is almost as bad as Hitler and his nazi state. Remember the genocide of native Americans, but not only this. The American government just keeps exterminating whoever they don't like

We don't have to go back that far. Consider Waco - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege. And if you check into 9/11, most people who think about it deeply, think that it was done by the Federal Government.

[franky1]

another topic example where a few people re calling out that badecker lacks critical thinking and real research

seems he just finds an article and takes it as fact. doesnt research it, doesnt try validating it. but just acts like a spoonfed kid happy with whatever is handed to him..

badecker when you read random blogs. dont just take it as fact. actually check it out. yep before posting. check it out validate it.
you pretend to say 'i dont know what happened in WW2'
well try finding out. do some proper research and vet the research you try.
if you still continue to post things and then later come up with excuses like 'but no one really knows' means your initial post just becomes irrelevant.

dont just post a blog and then later say you went back and checked it and now your opinion is that someone else said it and not anything to do with you and no one should hold you to account for what you posted.
.. you posted it so stand by what you post or just dont post if if your not sure

if something is wrong with your post then you should just accept its time you verify before copy and pasting.

use blockchain rules. validate the data, check with peers if it complies with their versions of accounts. temporarily accept it but also be prepared to reject it.

dont just cry that you didnt create the data, while still trying to find excuses to keep your opinion the same
..
just do some research, checks and validations

[BADecker]

another topic example where a few people re calling out that badecker lacks critical thinking and real research

seems he just finds an article and takes it as fact. doesnt research it, doesnt try validating it. but just acts like a spoonfed kid happy with whatever is handed to him..

badecker when you read random blogs. dont just take it as fact. actually check it out. yep before posting. check it out validate it.
you pretend to say 'i dont know what happened in WW2'
well try finding out. do some proper research and vet the research you try.
if you still continue to post things and then later come up with excuses like 'but no one really knows' means your initial post just becomes irrelevant.

dont just post a blog and then later say you went back and checked it and now your opinion is that someone else said it and not anything to do with you and no one should hold you to account for what you posted.
.. you posted it so stand by what you post or just dont post if if your not sure

if something is wrong with your post then you should just accept its time you verify before copy and pasting.

use blockchain rules. validate the data, check with peers if it complies with their versions of accounts. temporarily accept it but also be prepared to reject it.

dont just cry that you didnt create the data, while still trying to find excuses to keep your opinion the same
..
just do some research, checks and validations

Hi, f1. Thanks for the critical eye, there. The forum is a great place to give orders. Did you want me to send you an invoice for obedience to you as I following your orders?

Tell you what. PM me what you think it is worth, and I'll see if I agree. Then you can send the agreed-upon amount of bitcoin to a bitcoin escrow agent that we both agree on, and from then on all you have to do is check all my posts for obedience.

I won't get the bitcoins until I resign from the forum. You will get them back if I fail the obedience test. We can select a jury to determine who is infracting, or who is right or wrong about the infractions of the other.

Add whatever other points to the agreement that you want, and I'll see if I agree with them. Okay? I'll be watching my mail.

[poptok1]

War is hell, it always awakens this what is the worst in people.
For me the greatest crime of the allies was accepting fucking Stalin as one of their own.
Accepting is in fact one thing and the other, is how they left half of the world in grasps of that monster later on.
General Patton during the invasion said "we fought the wrong enemy" and two weeks later he dies in a fender-bender as a only victim... says a lot. The whole world should get mobilised against the axis and right after wiping those commies of the face of the earth, the onslaught should continue, until not a single bolshevik was left in Russia. But hey, it's all a rich man's trick after all, right Mr Rothschild?      

[CoinCube]

So, read the article. Then come back and let us know what you think reality is.


Hitler's War Crimes vs. Those of Churchill & the Americans

The reality is that the Nazi's were one of the most terrifying ideologies to emerge in the 20th centuries and we are very fortunate they did not emerge victorious in WWII as could easily have occurred had events not played out in just the right way to ensure they were crushed in a few short years. Their ideology much worse then Communism because communism self-implodes after a few decades. Its too far detached from reality. The Nazi evil is much more practical and thus functional and efficient.

There is no reason to doubt the mass extermination efforts against those deemed undesirable to the Nazis. It was not just the Jews who suffered but anyone deemed inferior. The Nazi ideology held that the Aryan race was ethnically superior to all and therefore it was permissible to rule via conquest and certainly desirable to exterminate a lessor races if it was needed to make room for their "betters". Nazism was a rejection of all Christian ethics in favor of a Darwinian worldview of survival of the fittest.

You don't have to limit your analysis to the Jews to understand the issue. Looking at how the Germans treated their Russian prisoners is just as instructive. The Germans captured nearly 4 million soviet prisoners of war during the first year of their 1941 surprise offensive. Very few of those four million Russians would survive.  

Nazi Persecution of Soviet Prisoners of War
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/nazi-persecution-of-soviet-prisoners-of-war

The brutal treatment of Soviet POWs by the Germans violated every standard of warfare. Existing sources suggest that some 5.7 million Soviet army personnel fell into German hands during World War II. As of January 1945, the German army reported that only about 930,000 Soviet POWs remained in German custody. The German army released about one million Soviet POWs as auxiliaries of the German army and the SS. About half a million Soviet POWs had escaped German custody or had been liberated by the Soviet army as it advanced westward through eastern Europe into Germany. The remaining 3.3 million, or about 57 percent of those taken prisoner, were dead by the end of the war.

This death toll was neither an accident nor an automatic result of the war. It was a deliberate policy of the Nazi state. German treatment of Soviet POWs differed dramatically from German policy towards POWs from Britain and the United States, countries the Nazis regarded as racial equals to the Germans. Of the 231,000 British and American prisoners held by the Germans during the war only about 8,300—3.6 percent—died in German custody.