Did the Nazis do anything wrong?

[Cornfed]

Here I am not talking about specific military or industrial strategies. We all make mistakes. The question is whether they had any major policies that were morally or intellectually indefensible, or is it more that they were the ideal modern state? One might say they were overly authoritarian, their justice system created lots of innocent victims etc. However, there is a view that fascism should not be seen as a permanent form of government, but rather an emergency tactic for rescuing the country from a catastrophic state of cultural degeneracy, as existed in the Wiemar Republic, which could be reformed once it had done its work.

[droid]

Before that can be asked, it is necessary to sift through all the allegations and claims and determine what was true and what wasn't. Hard to do since the losers of the conflict suffer presumption of guilt and it's difficult to even commence a dialogue.
Was it moral to make lampshades out of human skin? well that was proven untrue last time I checked, and so on....

[fschmidt]

It is morally indefensible not to allow people to leave a society. Both Nazism and Communism were guilty of this. The Nazis should simply have allowed/forced all people who they considered undesirable to leave their society.

[Cornfed]

I suppose this invites the question of whether the Japs were as bad as they were portrayed. For example, take the issue of them starving Allied POWs to death. This happened of course, but apparently they were technically compliant with the Geneva Convention, in that they issued prisoners with 2/3 of the rations of their combat soldiers. The problem was that Japs of the time were among the least well nourished people in history whereas white Westerners were probably the most well nourished, so the food was insufficient to sustain them. If east Asians of the time were given the same amount of food there would have been no problem.

[HouseMD]

It is morally indefensible not to allow people to leave a society. Both Nazism and Communism were guilty of this. The Nazis should simply have allowed/forced all people who they considered undesirable to leave their society.

But weren’t they initially allowed to leave? Lots of Jews etc. left in the mid 30s. During the war both sides interned those they considered enemy aliens. For example the US interned Japanese in America and the Japs interned whites in Asia, so I assume this was the accepted custom of the time.

We didn't refuse to feed the Japanese and then work them to death and burn their corpses.

[droid]

We didn't refuse to feed the Japanese and then work them to death and burn their corpses.

If you look at the official death records it is apparent that it was not so much a refusal to feed the inmates as it was an inability to do so due to relentless Allied bombing of the rail heads

Correct, and this is what i referred to with my original point. Now the dialogue has been obfuscated since certain events are assumed to be intentional policies. Now the actual discussion takes a second place.

Talking about the burning of people and official policy:

On the night of 9–10 March ("Operation Meetinghouse"),[12] 334 B-29s took off to raid with 279 of them dropping 1,665 tons of bombs on Tokyo. The bombs were mostly the 500-pound (230 kg) E-46 cluster bomb which released 38 napalm-carrying M-69 incendiary bomblets at an altitude of 2,000–2,500 ft (610–760 m). The M-69s punched through thin roofing material or landed on the ground; in either case they ignited 3–5 seconds later, throwing out a jet of flaming napalm globs. A lesser number of M-47 incendiaries was also dropped: the M-47 was a 100-pound (45 kg) jelled-gasoline and white phosphorus bomb which ignited upon impact. In the first two hours of the raid, 226 of the attacking aircraft unloaded their bombs to overwhelm the city's fire defenses.[13] The first B-29s to arrive dropped bombs in a large X pattern centered in Tokyo's densely populated working class district near the docks in both Koto and Chuo city wards on the water; later aircraft simply aimed near this flaming X. The individual fires caused by the bombs joined to create a general conflagration, which would have been classified as a firestorm but for prevailing winds gusting at 17 to 28 mph (27 to 45 km/h).[14] Approximately 15.8 square miles (4,090 ha) of the city was destroyed and some 100,000 people are estimated to have died.

The Operation Meetinghouse firebombing of Tokyo on the night of 9 March 1945 was the single deadliest air raid of World War II,[2] greater than Dresden,[25] Hiroshima, or Nagasaki as single events.[26][27]

My point is, somehow this type of filth is brushed aside as 'clean' and 'aesthetically acceptable' but god forbid some intern on either side starves

Anyhow, it would be nice if this type of discussion was mainly focused on pre-war Germany, but that is always an impossibility.

[HouseMD]

We didn't refuse to feed the Japanese and then work them to death and burn their corpses.

If you look at the official death records it is apparent that it was not so much a refusal to feed the inmates as it was an inability to do so due to relentless Allied bombing of the rail heads

Correct, and this is what i referred to with my original point. Now the dialogue has been obfuscated since certain events are assumed to be intentional policies. Now the actual discussion takes a second place.

Talking about the burning of people and official policy:

On the night of 9–10 March ("Operation Meetinghouse"),[12] 334 B-29s took off to raid with 279 of them dropping 1,665 tons of bombs on Tokyo. The bombs were mostly the 500-pound (230 kg) E-46 cluster bomb which released 38 napalm-carrying M-69 incendiary bomblets at an altitude of 2,000–2,500 ft (610–760 m). The M-69s punched through thin roofing material or landed on the ground; in either case they ignited 3–5 seconds later, throwing out a jet of flaming napalm globs. A lesser number of M-47 incendiaries was also dropped: the M-47 was a 100-pound (45 kg) jelled-gasoline and white phosphorus bomb which ignited upon impact. In the first two hours of the raid, 226 of the attacking aircraft unloaded their bombs to overwhelm the city's fire defenses.[13] The first B-29s to arrive dropped bombs in a large X pattern centered in Tokyo's densely populated working class district near the docks in both Koto and Chuo city wards on the water; later aircraft simply aimed near this flaming X. The individual fires caused by the bombs joined to create a general conflagration, which would have been classified as a firestorm but for prevailing winds gusting at 17 to 28 mph (27 to 45 km/h).[14] Approximately 15.8 square miles (4,090 ha) of the city was destroyed and some 100,000 people are estimated to have died.

The Operation Meetinghouse firebombing of Tokyo on the night of 9 March 1945 was the single deadliest air raid of World War II,[2] greater than Dresden,[25] Hiroshima, or Nagasaki as single events.[26][27]

My point is, somehow this type of filth is brushed aside as 'clean' and 'aesthetically acceptable' but god forbid some intern on either side starves

Killing people who are a part of the war effort is fair game. Killing people who happen to be a certain race or religion but are not involved in the enemy war effort is not.

[droid]

Killing people who are a part of the war effort is fair game. Killing people who happen to be a certain race or religion but are not involved in the enemy war effort is not.

You wouldn't say that if it had been the other way around. It's just nuts to see a doctor utter that.
But that is logically dishonest anywas. If a Japanese grandmother and a 5 year old were part of the war effort, so were their jewish counterparts then, as were the interned japs.
But then again, you are assuming killing jews was official policy, so it's back to my original point about the predictable obfuscation of this thread.

[fschmidt]

But weren’t they initially allowed to leave? Lots of Jews etc. left in the mid 30s. During the war both sides interned those they considered enemy aliens. For example the US interned Japanese in America and the Japs interned whites in Asia, so I assume this was the accepted custom of the time.

I know what happened in Hungary. Hungary was an ally of Germany but not Nazi. So the Jews in Hungary were basically fine. Later Germany overthrew the Hungarian government, its own ally, and installed a Nazi government. This government immediately rounded up the jews and sent them to work camps or extermination camps. There was no opportunity to leave.

If you look at the official death records it is apparent that it was not so much a refusal to feed the inmates as it was an inability to do so due to relentless Allied bombing of the rail heads, resulting in very little supplies getting to the camps in the last few months of the war. Keep in mind that German civilians were also starving at this time. In such circumstances, prisoners are always going to be last in line. As to burning their bodies, how else would you dispose of them without contaminating the ground water?

I know about this too because my father was in a work camp. The procedure was to work the prisoners on some project and then shoot them when the project was completed. This was based on the desire to exterminate jews not on a food shortage. There was plenty of food in the area where my father's work camp was located (in Serbia).

[droid]

I know about this too because my father was in a work camp. The procedure was to work the prisoners on some project and then shoot them when the project was completed. This was based on the desire to exterminate jews not on a food shortage.

How did he survive more than say, a month, if the procedure was doing some project and then getting shot?
I believe there is generally a contradiction between the arguments of exploiting free labor, and that of extermination. If you really enjoy the free labor you are not going to systematically shoot or starve your workers, and if the goal is extermination, then there is not much work to be done, since everyone arrives to get shot. It can't go both ways.

There was plenty of food in the area where my father's work camp was located (in Serbia).

How is that known? The general argument to which cornfed was referring is that railways got bombed, and supplies got interrupted. Whether the general 'area' had food has an unknown implication I guess.

[fschmidt]

Yes, but this happened during the actual war. If fact quite late in the war, when Germany was up shit creek. Like I said, the same thing happened on both sides everywhere. I guess it was thought that is would be stupid to give potential combatants and intelligence assets to the enemy. Maybe this was wrong, but in that case everyone was wrong.

Like HouseMD said, extermination wasn't a policy of the West. The Holocaust was pointless for Germany, they could have just left things as they were with jews in isolated areas until the war was over.

If true, this can't have been the policy everywhere. The sheer number of survivors of the camps, which apparently includes your father, mitigates against that. I am not denying the Germans committed what in isolation could be called atrocities, as did the Allies. This was bound to happen in a war of that magnitude.

The numbers of survivors is quite small as a percentage of the original population. My father survived because Serbian fighers killed the Germans who were marching my father's group out to be shot. The Serbs did this to recruit the jews to fight for their side which most of the jews did.

[Cornfed]

Yes, but this happened during the actual war. If fact quite late in the war, when Germany was up shit creek. Like I said, the same thing happened on both sides everywhere. I guess it was thought that is would be stupid to give potential combatants and intelligence assets to the enemy. Maybe this was wrong, but in that case everyone was wrong.

Like HouseMD said, extermination wasn't a policy of the West. The Holocaust was pointless for Germany, they could have just left things as they were with jews in isolated areas until the war was over.

You underestimate the loyalty of your fellow Jews to your fellow Jews, and especially to the Jew hierarchy. The lead commies, liberals and other forces of evil were hugely skewed towards Jews then, just as they are now. Arguably, the Jews were the enemy. Leave things as they are? As I understand it, before the Nazis took over, out of 4500 lawyers in Berlin, 3800 were Jews. If this were allowed to stand, and even a small percentage of the Jews followed the decrees of the global Jewish hierarchy rather then the German state, this would cause the war effort to collapse immediately.

The numbers of survivors is quite small as a percentage of the original population.

You might want to check your sources on that one. I think Jews were about 2% of the population in German controlled areas, and there were about 5 million alleged holocaust survivors. You do the math.

My father survived because Serbian fighers killed the Germans who were marching my father's group out to be shot.

That sounds like a scene out of the movie Red Dawn. I'm sure such things happened. It was a big war.

[fschmidt]

You underestimate the loyalty of your fellow Jews to your fellow Jews, and especially to the Jew hierarchy. The lead commies, liberals and other forces of evil were hugely skewed towards Jews then, just as they are now. Arguably, the Jews were the enemy. Leave things as they are? As I understand it, before the Nazis took over, out of 4500 lawyers in Berlin, 3800 were Jews. If this were allowed to stand, and even a small percentage of the Jews followed the decrees of the global Jewish hierarchy rather then the German state, this would cause the war effort to collapse immediately.

When I said to leave things as they were, I didn't mean to leave jews in position of authority, I just meant to leave them in isolated areas without power until the war was over, and then if Germany won, it could expell them.

But you underestimate the size of conflicts within judaism itself which would have offered a much better solution. Those jewish lawyers were liberal jews who were in direct conflict with zionists. The zionists were the jewish Right, analagous to the Nazis. Hitler could have made an alliance with zionists to move all jews out of nazi territory and the zionists would have done all the work and not cost Nazis anything. Not only would this have been far more moral, avoiding unnecessary killing, but it would have been strategically advantageous for the nazis to have an alliace with the zionists. Why didn't this happen? Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu offers a possible explanation:

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.681525

Of course Netanyahu was attacked by everyone for defending Hitler, but what he said makes perfect sense. Hitler made a bad miscalculation in siding with the Muslims over the Jews, partly motivated by his own bias. In fact the zionists would have made a much better ally than the muslims because Hitler would have gotten the atomic bomb first and won the war. Jewish brains were more valuable than muslim numbers, and Hitler lost the war for this miscalculation.

You might want to check your sources on that one. I think Jews were about 2% of the population in German controlled areas, and there were about 5 million alleged holocaust survivors. You do the math.

I have never bothered to look into the numbers because I don't care. I know what happened in Hungary and that is bad enough.

[Cornfed]

Like HouseMD said, extermination wasn't a policy of the West.

It was clearly not the policy in the East either. Take Auschwitz for example. The Soviets claimed that four million Jews died there, and that figure was later tortured out of Hoss by British/Jewish torturers. For decades you could go to prison in certain countries for claiming the figure was only 3.9 million. After the fall of the Soviet Union, lots of new information proved this to be untenable, so the new "official" figure is now about one million. This is of course bullshit too. The actual figure was released in the captured death book, correlated by British Intelligence decrypts, (both released in the 90s) as about 70k, which seems to have been backed up by the Red Cross (who incidentally had a post at Auschwitz) at the time. But this is really the topic for another thread. If the official Zionist version of the holocaust really happened then this was a bad thing for various reasons.

[fschmidt]

He did. It didn't come to fruition because the Jewish hierarchy wanted to destroy Germany as well as creating Israel, thereby having their cake and eating it. Look it up.

Look it up? How about we exchange references? Here is mine for you:



(Skip part 1, chapters 1 and 2, which is boring and pointless.)

What you will see is that there is no unified Jewish hierarchy and that Jewish liberals and Zionists differed as much as the leaders of the Weimar Republic differed from the Nazis.