Defending HItler

[Horatio Parker]

Sure, the Red Army slipped and fell on Finland, Baltic States, Poland, Bessarabia and Bukovina...

Actually yes. That's what happened.

Makes as much sense as "Hitler made me do it".

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Stalin was planning to attack Hitler, and Hitler was planning to attack Stalin. When Hitler attacked first, the Soviet troops were aligned in an offensive posture instead of a defensive posture, which is part of the reason Hitler was able to run over them.

 

[barbos]

Sure, the Red Army slipped and fell on Finland, Baltic States, Poland, Bessarabia and Bukovina...

Actually yes. That's what happened.

Makes as much sense as "Hitler made me do it".

It makes more sense than your "Stalin wanted to conquer the Europe". Stalin was preoccupied with holding what he had and any territories obtained as a result of the pact where to help him to achieve that, or so he thought. Also most of the land he got belonged to Russian Empire and were lost in WW1

 

[barbos]

Stalin was planning to attack Hitler, and Hitler was planning to attack Stalin. When Hitler attacked first, the Soviet troops were aligned in an offensive posture instead of a defensive posture, which is part of the reason Hitler was able to run over them.

You are making shit up. Soviet troops were not aligned in any posture. That's why Hitler had so much success. Stalin did not expect invasion in short term. I believe I already told you that.

 

[humbleman]

Yeah, not to the same extent.

Actually, short of publishing names of KGB informants pretty much everything more less is known.
The difference is, by the time USSR collapsed all these guys were dead. And again, Stalin was killing his own people and especially people who were somewhat opposing him politically, plus a bunch of polish POWs,
Hitler was quite a bit more insane because he was killing people based on their ethnicity - Jews, gypsies, Slavs, etc. And I doubt destroying archives would have helped nazi to hide their concentration camps, that's why they tried to destroy them but it did not work.
This idea that Putin is somehow rebuilding Soviet Union is stupid. He is not a true democrat and has fair amount of annoying mannerisms form his KGB past, but this is to be expected. In US South lost civil war 150 years ago and people can't still get over it. Commies did not even lose any war, they just collapsed merely 25 years ago. You need to at least let all people who grew up in Soviet Union to retire and/or die before worrying. Even in former East Germany older people are nostalgic about DDR, and they are clearly have no good reason to think that DDR was better than what they have now, still they are nostalgic and if you are a politician you have to take that into account when you are trying to bullshit them into voting for you. So you can't blame Putin for doing just that.

Hitler didn't send orders to kill people because their ethnicity. You are just propagating a propaganda that has no foundation.

Hitler was very smart. He persecuted others to make them slaves and have free hand labor to built his war machine.

The current fable that millions of deaths were ordered by Hitler is a cover up. The allies bombing with thousands of airplanes in daily schedule for more than four years, destroying German's factories, cities, roads, supplies of water and food, hospitals, is the cause of millions of deaths. The purpose was to destroy Hitler's capabilities and the collateral damage was killing hundreds of free labor workers in each destroyed factory, water supply center, etc.

Hitler didn't order camps of concentration detainees suffering of hungry, reality is that for several months roads were destroyed by the allies' bombings and no food and medicines arrived to those locations. For this reason you don't find those "missing archives", unless fake ones are being made today in order to corroborate the current fable.

Strategically speaking, Hitler couldn't ever order the killing of his free hand labor, on the contrary, when he was in the most critical part of the war losing it, it was when he wanted more free hand labor to have logistics and attack the allies.

Hitler was a war man, not a mass murderer.

Review history and clean up his name in this issue.

 

[barbos]

Yeah, not to the same extent.

Actually, short of publishing names of KGB informants pretty much everything more less is known.
The difference is, by the time USSR collapsed all these guys were dead. And again, Stalin was killing his own people and especially people who were somewhat opposing him politically, plus a bunch of polish POWs,
Hitler was quite a bit more insane because he was killing people based on their ethnicity - Jews, gypsies, Slavs, etc. And I doubt destroying archives would have helped nazi to hide their concentration camps, that's why they tried to destroy them but it did not work.
This idea that Putin is somehow rebuilding Soviet Union is stupid. He is not a true democrat and has fair amount of annoying mannerisms form his KGB past, but this is to be expected. In US South lost civil war 150 years ago and people can't still get over it. Commies did not even lose any war, they just collapsed merely 25 years ago. You need to at least let all people who grew up in Soviet Union to retire and/or die before worrying. Even in former East Germany older people are nostalgic about DDR, and they are clearly have no good reason to think that DDR was better than what they have now, still they are nostalgic and if you are a politician you have to take that into account when you are trying to bullshit them into voting for you. So you can't blame Putin for doing just that.

Hitler didn't send orders to kill people because their ethnicity. You are just propagating a propaganda that has no foundation.

Hitler was very smart. He persecuted others to make them slaves and have free hand labor to built his war machine.

The current fable that millions of deaths were ordered by Hitler is a cover up. The allies bombing with thousands of airplanes in daily schedule for more than four years, destroying German's factories, cities, roads, supplies of water and food, hospitals, is the cause of millions of deaths. The purpose was to destroy Hitler's capabilities and the collateral damage was killing hundreds of free labor workers in each destroyed factory, water supply center, etc.

Hitler didn't order camps of concentration detainees suffering of hungry, reality is that for several months roads were destroyed by the allies' bombings and no food and medicines arrived to those locations. For this reason you don't find those "missing archives", unless fake ones are being made today in order to corroborate the current fable.

Strategically speaking, Hitler couldn't ever order the killing of his free hand labor, on the contrary, when he was in the most critical part of the war losing it, it was when he wanted more free hand labor to have logistics and attack the allies.

Hitler was a war man, not a mass murderer.

Review history and clean up his name in this issue.

Wow, are you for real?

 

[Horatio Parker]

Makes as much sense as "Hitler made me do it".

It makes more sense than your "Stalin wanted to conquer the Europe". Stalin was preoccupied with holding what he had and any territories obtained as a result of the pact where to help him to achieve that, or so he thought. Also most of the land he got belonged to Russian Empire and were lost in WW1

"Most"? So whatever additional territory he gained did not represent territorial ambition? Poor Stalin, saddled with the task of conquering lands he didn't want...

I think Stalin miscalculated in 1940. When Hitler triumphed with almost no expenditure, Stalin thought it was time for the Germans to share the love. Instead he should've asked what could Russia do to help Hitler defeat Britain, short of declaring war. It might not have been decisive, but would've been more prudent than what he did. Especially if you believe that his aggressions to date were defensive in nature.

 

[barbos]

Makes as much sense as "Hitler made me do it".

It makes more sense than your "Stalin wanted to conquer the Europe". Stalin was preoccupied with holding what he had and any territories obtained as a result of the pact where to help him to achieve that, or so he thought. Also most of the land he got belonged to Russian Empire and were lost in WW1

"Most"? So whatever additional territory he gained did not represent territorial ambition? Poor Stalin, saddled with the task of conquering lands he didn't want...

Yes, most. Lenin lost shitload of land with his revolution.

I think Stalin miscalculated in 1940. When Hitler triumphed with almost no expenditure, Stalin thought it was time for the Germans to share the love. Instead he should've asked what could Russia do to help Hitler defeat Britain, short of declaring war. It might not have been decisive, but would've been more prudent than what he did. Especially if you believe that his aggressions to date were defensive in nature.

Well, Hitler ended up in a ditch burning. Stalin died in his bed from natural causes, did not he?
Hitler had no chance of winning a war with GB, I mean his strategy was to bomb them into surrender, Stalin understood that would never happen.

 

[Horatio Parker]

"Most"? So whatever additional territory he gained did not represent territorial ambition? Poor Stalin, saddled with the task of conquering lands he didn't want...

Yes, most. Lenin lost shitload of land with his revolution.

I think Stalin miscalculated in 1940. When Hitler triumphed with almost no expenditure, Stalin thought it was time for the Germans to share the love. Instead he should've asked what could Russia do to help Hitler defeat Britain, short of declaring war. It might not have been decisive, but would've been more prudent than what he did. Especially if you believe that his aggressions to date were defensive in nature.

Well, Hitler ended up in a ditch burning. Stalin died in his bed from natural causes, did not he?
Hitler had no chance of winning a war with GB, I mean his strategy was to bomb them into surrender, Stalin understood that would never happen.

None of that alters the point that Stalins decision to go hard line backfired.

 

[bigfield]

Stalin was planning to attack Hitler, and Hitler was planning to attack Stalin. When Hitler attacked first, the Soviet troops were aligned in an offensive posture instead of a defensive posture, which is part of the reason Hitler was able to run over them.

 Soviet offensive plans controversy

Suvorov's claim that the Soviets were poised for an offensive operation is based on indirect lines of evidence. The German invasion was devastating because they hit the Soviets while they were still forming up.

 

[laughing dog]

Hitler was a war man, not a mass murderer.

The concentration camps and their survivors prove you wrong.

Review history and clean up his name in this issue.

Good luck rewriting history.

 

[humbleman]

Hitler was a war man, not a mass murderer.

The concentration camps and their survivors prove you wrong.

Review history and clean up his name in this issue.

Good luck rewriting history.

This topic is about "defending Hitler", so "lets" do it.

An attorney won't care about the accused to be a known criminal, if the case in question is about a crime he didn't commit, then is worthy going in his defense.

You have mentioned "witness".

Prepare your argument.

In defense of Hitler I will state that a percent of witness were liars, and the other percent of them were telling "their truth" which is conditioned to what the allies made to brainwash them.

This can be proved applying psychology, where people under the conditions to which the detainees were exposed are easy prey to be brainwashed and repeat information input inside their brains.

Second evidence is "evidence itself". There is no correlation between the witness claims with the conditions of buildings, their structure, the period of time between events, and no scientific evidence backing up their claims.

 

[laughing dog]

The concentration camps and their survivors prove you wrong.
Good luck rewriting history.

This topic is about "defending Hitler", so "lets" do it.

An attorney won't care about the accused to be a known criminal, if the case in question is about a crime he didn't commit, then is worthy going in his defense.

You have mentioned "witness".

Prepare your argument.

In defense of Hitler I will state that a percent of witness were liars, and the other percent of them were telling "their truth" which is conditioned to what the allies made to brainwash them.

This can be proved applying psychology, where people under the conditions to which the detainees were exposed are easy prey to be brainwashed and repeat information input inside their brains.

Second evidence is "evidence itself". There is no correlation between the witness claims with the conditions of buildings, their structure, the period of time between events, and no scientific evidence backing up their claims.

You have presented no evidence - simply your unsubstantiated delusional assertions. Feel free to embarrass yourself with your defense of Hitler and the denial of the Holocaust.

What does applying psychology to people who are so desperate to deny reality that they insist on insisting that people they have never met or know are "liars" or brainwashed? BTW, some of those "liars"" or "brainswashed" people were my relatives. So, forgive me, if after I apply my knowledge of these people along with my reading of many scholars, that I know your position is full of shit.

 

[humbleman]

"Most"? So whatever additional territory he gained did not represent territorial ambition? Poor Stalin, saddled with the task of conquering lands he didn't want...

I think Stalin miscalculated in 1940. When Hitler triumphed with almost no expenditure, Stalin thought it was time for the Germans to share the love. Instead he should've asked what could Russia do to help Hitler defeat Britain, short of declaring war. It might not have been decisive, but would've been more prudent than what he did. Especially if you believe that his aggressions to date were defensive in nature.

Look at the situation from Hitler's point of view. Having Stalin on his side to go West and conquer it will mean having Russians walking thru and establishing themselves in the already conquered territories by the Nazis.

For Hitler was better destroying or containing Stalin's army while expanding himself in Europe.

 

[humbleman]

The concentration camps and their survivors prove you wrong.
Good luck rewriting history.

This topic is about "defending Hitler", so "lets" do it.

An attorney won't care about the accused to be a known criminal, if the case in question is about a crime he didn't commit, then is worthy going in his defense.

You have mentioned "witness".

Prepare your argument.

In defense of Hitler I will state that a percent of witness were liars, and the other percent of them were telling "their truth" which is conditioned to what the allies made to brainwash them.

This can be proved applying psychology, where people under the conditions to which the detainees were exposed are easy prey to be brainwashed and repeat information input inside their brains.

Second evidence is "evidence itself". There is no correlation between the witness claims with the conditions of buildings, their structure, the period of time between events, and no scientific evidence backing up their claims.

You have presented no evidence - simply your unsubstantiated delusional assertions. Feel free to embarrass yourself with your defense of Hitler and the denial of the Holocaust.

What does applying psychology to people who are so desperate to deny reality that they insist on insisting that people they have never met or know are "liars" or brainwashed? BTW, some of those "liars"" or "brainswashed" people were my relatives. So, forgive me, if after I apply my knowledge of these people along with my reading of many scholars, that I know your position is full of shit.

What scholars?

For your information, scientific evidence denies the existence of gas chambers.

WW2 was a very ugly war. The allies did what they had to do to contain Hitler's expansion and control of Europe, even if this action signified the killing -or murdering- of millions of people while destroying Hitler's war machine.

Look at the case of the last invasions to Iraq.

The consequences of the first invasion was the posterior death of tens of thousands of children because potable water sources were destroyed and these children drinking contaminated water died in the followed months.

On the second invasion, the US army with its allies killed tens of thousands of civilians which were victims of collateral damage caused by "the daily bombings" and combat incursions in the last phase. Some have calculated from 300,000 to half of million deaths just to remove one man out of power.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/15/iraq-death-toll_n_4102855.html

Iraq Death Toll Reaches 500,000 Since Start Of U.S.-Led Invasion, New Study Says

Nearly half a million people have died from war-related causes in Iraq since the US-led invasion in 2003, according to an academic study published in the United States on Tuesday.

That toll is far higher than the nearly 115,000 violent civilian deaths reported by the British-based group Iraq Body Count, which bases its tally on media reports, hospital and morgue records, and official and non-governmental accounts...

...The latest estimate by university researchers in the United States, Canada and Baghdad in cooperation with the Iraqi Ministry of Health covers not only violent deaths but other avoidable deaths linked to the invasion, insurgencies and subsequent social breakdown....

...Those included situations when a pregnant woman encountered difficult labor but could not leave the house due to fighting, or when a person drank contaminated water, or when a patient could not get treated at a hospital because staff was overwhelmed with war casualties.

“These are all indirect deaths, and they are significant,” Hagopian told AFP....

...About 70 percent of Iraq deaths from 2003-2011 were violent in nature, with most caused by gunshots, followed by car bombs and other explosions, said the study...

...Coalition forces were blamed for 35 percent of violent deaths; militias were blamed for 32 percent. The rest were either unknown (21 percent), criminals (11 percent) or Iraqi forces (one percent)...

In Iraq, there were two wars. One the US and allies against Saddam Hussein, and the another tribal fights which existed before Saddam Hussein and to which this dictator put on hold for many years by meaning of oppression.

You have now an idea of how war causes collateral damage in great numbers.

In Germany, the allies attacked without mercy and aim.

Today, war airplanes have very advanced systems to hit the desired target alone, and even so, you read later that the attack also killed civilians not related with the targeted people.

In WW2 the bombings caused damage not by quality in their aim but by quantity in destruction.

A bombing to a factory was also the destruction of houses around, specially the shelters made for workers, and the workers were detainees used as free labor. In a German factory there were about 30 Nazi troops guarding it and 500 detainees working and producing arms, vehicles, uniforms, etc. Allies bombers destroyed the factory killing 20 Nazi troops and 400 detainees as average.

Start using your calculator and check how many detainees (gypsy, jew, whoever) died under the allies attacks. And this is just considering the "factories". Start to check roads, storage buildings, and so forth.

The mass murdering has been extraordinary, and Hitler didn't kill those guys. Such was collateral damage, like the one you can check in the invasions to Iraq.

Of course, history books won't give you a single clue for you to start checking and making calculations about who killed whom. In the invasions to Iraq, the estimate of deaths is different between of what the US says, the British says, the Iraq's government says, and what agencies doing the counting say. The link given above, as it stated, is the estimate made "by university researchers in the United States, Canada and Baghdad in cooperation with the Iraqi Ministry of Health", and is a more accurate estimate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II

The estimate obtained from WW2 is given solely by the winner's side.

The estimated 2 million eight hundred thousand TONS OF BOMBS is just from US and England alone, you must add the Russian's tons of bombs.

The estimate of casualties in German cities alone

Overy estimated in 2014 that in all about 353,000 civilians were killed by British and American bombing of German cities

Now add the estimate in other places outside cities

In addition to the minimum figure given in the Strategic bombing survey, the number of people killed by Allied bombing in Germany has been estimated at between 400,000 and 600,000

Considering the Iraq invasions estimate by the UK alone, compared with the last one made by researchers in conjunction with Iraq's government, the proportion is rough 4 to 1. (check the link given above)

Do the same with the estimate obtained by the WW2 link. You'll have millions of casualties, not so hundreds of thousands.

The "hidden" casualties are the detainees who were killed by the allies bombings.

Time to clean up Hitler's reputation as mass murderer because he wasn't. He was a war man.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Stalin was planning to attack Hitler, and Hitler was planning to attack Stalin. When Hitler attacked first, the Soviet troops were aligned in an offensive posture instead of a defensive posture, which is part of the reason Hitler was able to run over them.

You are making shit up. Soviet troops were not aligned in any posture. That's why Hitler had so much success. Stalin did not expect invasion in short term. I believe I already told you that.

tYou already told me ... then there is the issue of your credibility...

 

[Harry Bosch]

You have presented no evidence - simply your unsubstantiated delusional assertions. Feel free to embarrass yourself with your defense of Hitler and the denial of the Holocaust.

What does applying psychology to people who are so desperate to deny reality that they insist on insisting that people they have never met or know are "liars" or brainwashed? BTW, some of those "liars"" or "brainswashed" people were my relatives. So, forgive me, if after I apply my knowledge of these people along with my reading of many scholars, that I know your position is full of shit.

What scholars?

For your information, scientific evidence denies the existence of gas chambers.

WW2 was a very ugly war. The allies did what they had to do to contain Hitler's expansion and control of Europe, even if this action signified the killing -or murdering- of millions of people while destroying Hitler's war machine.

Look at the case of the last invasions to Iraq.

The consequences of the first invasion was the posterior death of tens of thousands of children because potable water sources were destroyed and these children drinking contaminated water died in the followed months.

On the second invasion, the US army with its allies killed tens of thousands of civilians which were victims of collateral damage caused by "the daily bombings" and combat incursions in the last phase. Some have calculated from 300,000 to half of million deaths just to remove one man out of power.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/15/iraq-death-toll_n_4102855.html

Iraq Death Toll Reaches 500,000 Since Start Of U.S.-Led Invasion, New Study Says

Nearly half a million people have died from war-related causes in Iraq since the US-led invasion in 2003, according to an academic study published in the United States on Tuesday.

That toll is far higher than the nearly 115,000 violent civilian deaths reported by the British-based group Iraq Body Count, which bases its tally on media reports, hospital and morgue records, and official and non-governmental accounts...

...The latest estimate by university researchers in the United States, Canada and Baghdad in cooperation with the Iraqi Ministry of Health covers not only violent deaths but other avoidable deaths linked to the invasion, insurgencies and subsequent social breakdown....

...Those included situations when a pregnant woman encountered difficult labor but could not leave the house due to fighting, or when a person drank contaminated water, or when a patient could not get treated at a hospital because staff was overwhelmed with war casualties.

“These are all indirect deaths, and they are significant,” Hagopian told AFP....

...About 70 percent of Iraq deaths from 2003-2011 were violent in nature, with most caused by gunshots, followed by car bombs and other explosions, said the study...

...Coalition forces were blamed for 35 percent of violent deaths; militias were blamed for 32 percent. The rest were either unknown (21 percent), criminals (11 percent) or Iraqi forces (one percent)...

In Iraq, there were two wars. One the US and allies against Saddam Hussein, and the another tribal fights which existed before Saddam Hussein and to which this dictator put on hold for many years by meaning of oppression.

You have now an idea of how war causes collateral damage in great numbers.

In Germany, the allies attacked without mercy and aim.

Today, war airplanes have very advanced systems to hit the desired target alone, and even so, you read later that the attack also killed civilians not related with the targeted people.

In WW2 the bombings caused damage not by quality in their aim but by quantity in destruction.

A bombing to a factory was also the destruction of houses around, specially the shelters made for workers, and the workers were detainees used as free labor. In a German factory there were about 30 Nazi troops guarding it and 500 detainees working and producing arms, vehicles, uniforms, etc. Allies bombers destroyed the factory killing 20 Nazi troops and 400 detainees as average.

Start using your calculator and check how many detainees (gypsy, jew, whoever) died under the allies attacks. And this is just considering the "factories". Start to check roads, storage buildings, and so forth.

The mass murdering has been extraordinary, and Hitler didn't kill those guys. Such was collateral damage, like the one you can check in the invasions to Iraq.

Of course, history books won't give you a single clue for you to start checking and making calculations about who killed whom. In the invasions to Iraq, the estimate of deaths is different between of what the US says, the British says, the Iraq's government says, and what agencies doing the counting say. The link given above, as it stated, is the estimate made "by university researchers in the United States, Canada and Baghdad in cooperation with the Iraqi Ministry of Health", and is a more accurate estimate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II

The estimate obtained from WW2 is given solely by the winner's side.

The estimated 2 million eight hundred thousand TONS OF BOMBS is just from US and England alone, you must add the Russian's tons of bombs.

The estimate of casualties in German cities alone

Overy estimated in 2014 that in all about 353,000 civilians were killed by British and American bombing of German cities

Now add the estimate in other places outside cities

In addition to the minimum figure given in the Strategic bombing survey, the number of people killed by Allied bombing in Germany has been estimated at between 400,000 and 600,000

Considering the Iraq invasions estimate by the UK alone, compared with the last one made by researchers in conjunction with Iraq's government, the proportion is rough 4 to 1. (check the link given above)

Do the same with the estimate obtained by the WW2 link. You'll have millions of casualties, not so hundreds of thousands.

The "hidden" casualties are the detainees who were killed by the allies bombings.

Time to clean up Hitler's reputation as mass murderer because he wasn't. He was a war man.

?? Please google "Dachau". Then report back...

 

[Ford]

Time to clean up Hitler's reputation as mass murderer because he wasn't. He was a war man.

?? Please google "Dachau". Then report back...

Apparently we've got a full-on denier in our midst.

scientific evidence denies the existence of gas chambers.

 

[Hermit]

For your information, scientific evidence denies the existence of gas chambers.

Link?

For your information, eyewitnesses confirm the holocaust, gas chambers and all. For instance,   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial#Former_SS_members

Critics of Holocaust denial also include members of the Auschwitz SS. Camp physician and SS-Untersturmführer Hans Münch considered the facts of Auschwitz "so firmly determined that one cannot have any doubt at all", and described those who negate what happened at the camp as "malevolent" people who have "personal interest to want to bury in silence things that cannot be buried in silence".[170] Zyklon B handler and SS-Oberscharführer Josef Klehr has said that anyone who maintains that nobody was gassed at Auschwitz must be "crazy or in the wrong".[171] SS-Unterscharführer Oswald Kaduk has stated that he does not consider those who maintain such a thing as normal people.[172] Hearing about Holocaust denial compelled former SS-Rottenführer Oskar Gröning to publicly speak about what he witnessed at Auschwitz, and denounce Holocaust deniers,[173] stating: I would like you to believe me. I saw the gas chambers. I saw the crematoria. I saw the open fires. I was on the ramp when the selections took place. I would like you to believe that these atrocities happened because I was there.[174][175]

 

[humbleman]

?? Please google "Dachau". Then report back...

I don't use Google.

And about "Dachau", if anything is valuable from that web site, best is for you to post it as part of your position or insight about this topic.