The Rest of the Story!
Curly C
17-16 in that time span.
There is a reason why even Lance Armstrong bikes on his off days in the
Tour de France. There is a lesson here that the redsox need to learn.
DonFro...@webtv.net
Go away you conspiracy nut one track mind traitorous nut job. Oh, did I
mention, you're a nut? And not in a comocal cute way. Too bad you
can't learn the lesson that you'll always be considered a traitor and a
nut.
--
DON !!!
GOING BASIC !!!
GO 200SIX BOSTON
RED SOX !!!
ray o'hara
"Curly C" <KeeponC...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:21874-449...@storefull-3153.bay.webtv.net...
yeah but they be rested in october at tee time.
John Fariss
<DonFro...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:22245-449...@storefull-3114.bay.webtv.net...
<<(Curly C)
Despite leading the league in days off since May 8th, the sox are only
17-16 in that time span.
There is a reason why even Lance Armstrong bikes on his off days in the
Tour de France. There is a lesson here that the redsox need to learn.>>
"The Auschwitz museum itself has changed its plaque from 4.5 m dead to
1.5 m dead (40,000 is more accurate) Also, the museum admits that all
the gas chambers there were built after the war.
And yes, the camps were terrible with typhus and other diseases running
rampant. I pity anyone that happened to have the misfortune to be there,
but that doesn't make it right to blame the Nazi's for gassing 6 m Jews
when there is no proof it ever happened.
The reason these people were brought there in the first place was to
work at factories, not to get gassed."
Curly C on 9/2/05
<Snip>
ray o'hara
"John Fariss" <jfa...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:pXBkg.28083$3B.1...@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
from the auschwitz museum website
III. THE NUMBER OF VICTIMS
The overall number of victims of Auschwitz in the years 1940-1945 is
estimated at between 1,100,000 and 1,500,000 people. The majority of them,
and above all the mass transports of Jews who arrived beginning in 1942,
died in the gas chambers.
here is a comprehensive list.
Name of the camp Country (today) Type of camp Operation time Estimated
number of prisoners Estimated number of deaths Subcamps Webpage
Arbeitsdorf Germany Labour camp April 8, 1942 - October 11, 1942 min.
600 none
Auschwitz-Birkenau Poland Extermination and labour camp April 1940 -
January 1945 400,000 1,100,000 - 1,500,000 list [1]
Bardufoss Norway Concentration camp March 1944 - ? 800 250 ?
Belzec Poland Extermination camp March 1942 - June 1943 600,000 [2]
Bergen-Belsen GermanyHowell Collection point April 1943 - April 1945
70,000 2 [3]
Bozen Italy Transit July 1944 - April 1945 11.116 list
Bredtvet Norway concentration camp ? ? ? ?
Breendonk Belgium Prison and labour camp September 20, 1940 -
September 1944 min. 3532 min. 391 none [4]
Breitenau Germany "Early wild camp", then labour camp June 1933 -
March 1934, 1940 - 1945 470; 8500 [5]
Buchenwald Germany labour camp July 1937 - April 1945 250,000 56,000
list [6]
Chelmno Poland Extermination camp December 1941 - April 1943;
April 1944 - January 1945
340,000
Dachau Germany labour camp March 1933 - April 1945 200,000 min. 30,000
list [7]
Falstad Norway Prison camp December 1941 - May 1945 min. 200 none [8]
[9]
Flossenbürg Germany labour camp May 1938 - April 1945 min. 100,000
30,000 list [10]
Grini Norway Prison camp December June 14, 1941 - May 1945 19,788 8
Fannrem, Bardufoss, Kvćnangen
Gross-Rosen Poland Labour camp August 1940 - February 1945 125,000
40,000 list [11]
Herzogenbusch Netherlands Prison and transit camp 1943-summer 1944
list [12] [13]
Hinzert Germany Collective point and subcamp July 1940 - March 1945
14,000 min. 302 [14]
Jasenovac Croatia Extermination camp August 1941 - April 1945
700,000 [15]
Kaufering/Landsberg Germany labour camp June 1943 - April 1945 30,000
min.14,500 [16]
Kauen
(Kaunas) Lithuania Ghetto and internment camp Prawienischken [17]
Klooga Estonia labour camp Summer 1943 - September 28, 1944 2,400
Langenstein Zwieberge Germany Buchenwald subcamp camp April 1944 -
April 1945 5,000 2,000
Le Vernet France Internment camp 1939 - 1944
Lwów, Janowska Street
(L'viv) Ukraine Ghetto; Transit, Labour, and Extermination camp
September 1941 - November 1943 more than 40,000 none [18](Go to articles
A-Z)
Majdanek
(KZ Lublin) Poland Extermination camp July 1941 - July 1944 78,000
[19]
Malchow Germany Labour and Transit camp winter 1943 - May 8, 1945
5,000
Maly Trostenets Belarus Extermination camp July 1941 - June 1944
200,000-500,000 [20]
Mauthausen-Gusen Austria labour camp August 1938 - May 1945 195,000
min. 95,000 list [21]
Mittelbau-Dora Germany Labour camp September 1943 - April 1945 60,000
min. 20,000 list [22]
Natzweiler-Struthof France labour camp May 1941 - September 1944
40,000 25,000 list [23]
Neuengamme Germany Labour camp December 13, 1938 - May 4, 1945 106,000
55,000 list [24]
Niederhagen Germany Prison and labour camp September 1941 - early 1943
3,900 1,285 none [25]
Oranienburg Germany Collective point March 1933 - July 1934 3,000 min.
16 [26]
Osthofen Germany Collective point March 1933 - July 1934
Plaszów Poland labour camp December 1942 - January 1945 min. 150,000
min. 9,000 list [27], [28]
Ravensbrück Germany Labour camp May 1939 - April 1945 150,000 (min.
90,000) list [29]
Riga-Kaiserwald
(Mezaparks) Latvia Labour camp 1942 - August 6, 1944 20,000? 16,
incl. Eleja-Meitenes [30]
Risiera di San Sabba
(Trieste) Italy Police detainment camp September 1943 - April 29, 1945
5000 [31]
Sachsenhausen Germany Labour camp July 1936 - April 1945 min. 200,000
(100,000) list [32]
Sobibór Poland Extermination camp May 1942 - October 1943 250,000
[33]
Stutthof Poland Labour camp September 1939 - May 1945 110,000 65,000
list [34]
Lager Sylt
(Alderney) Channel Islands Labour camp March 1943 - June, 1944 1000?
460 none [35]
Theresienstadt (Terezín) Czech Republic Transit camp and Ghetto
November 1941 - May 1945 140,000 35,000 [36]
Treblinka Poland Extermination camp July 1942 - November 1943 min.
800,000
Vaivara Estonia ? September 15, 1943 - February 29, 1944. ? ? 22
[37]
Warsaw Poland Labour and extermination camp 1942 - 1944 Up to 40,000
Up to 200,000
Westerbork Netherlands Collective point October 1939 - April 1945
102,000
QuiGon
The problem is you cannot really simulate game conditions when it is
raining.
OceanView
dn...@comcast.com:
> III. THE NUMBER OF VICTIMS
> The overall number of victims of Auschwitz in the years 1940-1945 is
> estimated at between 1,100,000 and 1,500,000 people. The majority of them,
> and above all the mass transports of Jews who arrived beginning in 1942,
> died in the gas chambers.
>
So, essentially he mistook the numer of victims as Auschwitz as the total for
ALL the camps. (I thought there were about dozen camps, but that's a long
list.)
gclark
--
-Glen
BT
"Anyway, this idiot has had enough. I know the sox will never win it
all because they don't know baseball like the yanks do. ..."
BTT
Let's Go, Red Sox!
ray o'hara
"OceanView" <m...@TheSea.com> wrote in message
news:Xns97E56A04...@66.26.32.8...
holocaust deniers are a strange breed.
Curly C
total for ALL the camps. (I thought there were about dozen camps, but
that's a long list.) """"""
I didn't mistake anything. What I was saying was that the Auschwitz
Museum itself had a plaque (actually 19 of them) stating that 4 million
had died there. These plaques stayed up from 1947-1990. In 1990, the
plaques were changed to read that only 1.5 million had died there. The
Nuremberg Trial never officially gave a number for Auchwitz dead but
during the trial, the 4 million number was tossed around quite a few
times and became the unofficial/official Nuremberg total. A year or two
before that, the New York Times also reported that 4 million had died at
Auchwitz. Don't forget, this is only for Auschwitz, not the other camps.
Hey, the holohoaxers were only at least 2.5 million off. Actually, they
are off more than that but they have lost all credibility now, so I
can't imagine that anyone would ever believe what they say ever again,
although I still cringe when I hear the "6 million" number still
accepted as fact today.
Actually, every number from 30,000-19 million has reported at one time
or another of total holocaust dead. First, it was mass electrocution on
conveyer belts, then it was a German vaporizing machine, then it was
huge open pit fires where live inmates were tossed in, then finally the
gas story came along which actually pissed off alot of Jews because they
didn't think of it first. In any case, I can't believe anyone actually
accepts that this crap as true.
My guess of Auscwitz dead is 70,000, mainly from typhus and other
diseases.
Dano
go somewhere and die a horrible death you Nazi-loving bastard?
OceanView
@storefull-3155.bay.webtv.net:
I studied the holocaust in depth at one point and where it's 4 million or 6
million makes little difference. It's still murder by the millions. You
70,000, though an absurd joke, would still be an outrage (23 times the 9-11
total). I have a Frontline tape called "Memory of the camps" that would
change your mind, if it's changeable.
mario
> "Curly C" <KeeponC...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:5674-449...@storefull-3155.bay.webtv.net...
<snip>
>>Actually, every number from 30,000-19 million has reported at one time
>>or another of total holocaust dead. First, it was mass electrocution on
>>conveyer belts, then it was a German vaporizing machine, then it was
>>huge open pit fires where live inmates were tossed in, then finally the
>>gas story came along which actually pissed off alot of Jews because they
>>didn't think of it first. In any case, I can't believe anyone actually
>>accepts that this crap as true.
>>
>>My guess of Auscwitz dead is 70,000, mainly from typhus and other
>>diseases.
>>
>>
>
> How the fuck did this vile, putrid puss get through my killfile...will you
> go somewhere and die a horrible death you Nazi-loving bastard?
I think Curly's new crusade is to 'prove' his beloved Yankees have won,
not 26, but 56 world series. . .
mario in victoria
..
if ignorance is bliss, i want some of what curly's on
Pearly Soames
> KeeponC...@webtv.net (Curly C) wrote in news:5674-449459FC-329
> @storefull-3155.bay.webtv.net:
>
>>
>>diseases.
>>
>
> change your mind, if it's changeable.
If there's one thing we know about Curly, it's that his mind is
changeable. It might help to find out who his father rooted for in WWII.
Dano
"Pearly Soames" <mr_s...@REMOVEcharter.net> wrote in message
news:oCglg.42$MV...@fe02.lga...
It's fairly clear it wasn't the side my Dad fought on :(
Keith Willoughby
At the beginning or the end of the war?
--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
"Go back, Jack, and do it again"
Steve Robbins
> Pearly Soames <mr_s...@REMOVEcharter.net> writes:
>
>> OceanView wrote:
>>> KeeponC...@webtv.net (Curly C) wrote in news:5674-449459FC-329
>>> @storefull-3155.bay.webtv.net:
>>>
>>>> My guess of Auscwitz dead is 70,000, mainly from typhus and other
>>>> diseases.
>>>>
>>> I have a Frontline tape called "Memory of the camps" that would
>>> change your mind, if it's changeable.
>> If there's one thing we know about Curly, it's that his mind is
>> changeable. It might help to find out who his father rooted for in
>> WWII.
>
> At the beginning or the end of the war?
There is a Google post where he said that he was tired of losing and was
going to start rooting for the Germans. This was right before D-Day.
--
The Unofficial a.s.b.b-r Reference Page
http://redsox.robbins-ut.com/index.html
Gnork
Keith Willoughby wrote:
> Pearly Soames <mr_s...@REMOVEcharter.net> writes:
>
> > OceanView wrote:
> >> KeeponC...@webtv.net (Curly C) wrote in news:5674-449459FC-329
> >> @storefull-3155.bay.webtv.net:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>My guess of Auscwitz dead is 70,000, mainly from typhus and other
> >>>diseases.
> >>>
> >> I have a Frontline tape called "Memory of the camps" that would
> >> change your mind, if it's changeable.
> >
> > If there's one thing we know about Curly, it's that his mind is
> > changeable. It might help to find out who his father rooted for in
> > WWII.
>
> At the beginning or the end of the war?
LOL. A lot of Germans changed sympathies near the end of the war.
Curly C
change your mind, if it's changeable."""""""
The point I am trying to make is that the more proholocaust material I
read, the less I believe it happened the way they say. I always believed
what I was told about the holocaust until I actually started doing the
research. Most holocaust revisionists got that way by reading
proholocaust material, not by reading antiholocaust material. That is
also true in my case, as I could care less what some skinhead or white
supremist says. I am more interested in what the holocaust supporters
say and the proof backing their claims. That is why I have spent
countless hours on the wikipedia and nizkor sites, along with reading
books and material by Weisel, Anne Frank, Corrie TB, Lipstadt, and many
others. The only thing I learned was that many Jews were mistreated by
guards and other inmates, and many died from disease. I have yet to see
one iota of proof that the Germans put a final solution in place to rid
all of German occupied territory of Jews by gassing.
The president of Iran demanded again yesterday that proof that the
holocaust really happened needs to be made known. He is dreaming because
there is no proof in writing that will ever be revealed because there
isn't any. He thinks that if the holocaust didn't happen, that the Jews
should be kicked out of Palestine and moved to Europe. I agree with this
too but it will never happen because Europe doesn't want the Jews
either.
Curly C
losing and was going to start rooting for the Germans. This was right
before D-Day.""""""""
Actually, you are not far off the mark. We would all have been better
off if the Allies joined Germany in its fight against Russia during the
war. That would have saved us from the 40 year cold war, korean war,
vietnam, near nuclear war in the cuban missile crisis, etc.
I know it sounds crazy to have allied ourselves with Hitler, but what's
even crazier is actually doing it with Stalin, who was 100 times more
evil then Hitler. The fact is Britain and the US had a choice on who to
wage war on and they chose Germany, as evidenced by their declaration of
war on Germany on 9/1/39 but not on Russia, who also attacked Poland on
that same day and attacked Finland in nov/1939. It seems Russia was
given a free ride because Britain and France did not want to wage war
against both Germany and Russia.
OceanView
@storefull-3157.bay.webtv.net:
Though I agree about Stalin, aligning with Germany would not have worked,
as evidenced by Neville CHamberlain's "Peace in our time" speech after
appeasing Hitler. Hitler wanted German and only Germany to run the world.
I've read estimates ranging from 20 million to 40 million deaths that
Stalin was responsible for, either through war, the "purges", the Galags,
and so on. A high percentage of them were Russians. I know little about
Russian history, just repeating what I've read and heard.
John Fariss
"Pearly Soames" <mr_s...@REMOVEcharter.net> wrote in message
news:oCglg.42$MV...@fe02.lga...
The numbers were changed to reflect the "death registers" kept by the Nazi
scorekeepers. The Russians kept these books and when the numbers were
released the Russians further admitted that the score books were incomplete.
Some were missing. Curly's numbers don't reflect the gassing of those just
off the train. They never made it into the score books.
Bob-Nob
> Keith Willoughby wrote:
>> Pearly Soames <mr_s...@REMOVEcharter.net> writes:
>>> OceanView wrote:
>>>>> My guess of Auscwitz dead is 70,000, mainly from typhus and other
>>>>> diseases.
>>>> I have a Frontline tape called "Memory of the camps" that would
>>>> change your mind, if it's changeable.
>>> If there's one thing we know about Curly, it's that his mind is
>>> changeable. It might help to find out who his father rooted for in
>>> WWII.
>> At the beginning or the end of the war?
> There is a Google post where he said that he was tired of losing and was
> going to start rooting for the Germans. This was right before D-Day.
Found it...
-----
This is the first time I have ever wanted the Germans to win. I
have been around Americans my whole life and they indeed are 100%
idiots and it would not be worth the price of the Americans and British
winning to have these idiot citizens spouting off for the next
millenium.
I have been a regular over on the alt.fan.usa group for a year now
and I usually am considered the forum idiot. The first thing I was
crucified for was for wanting FDR to replace Henry Morgenthau Jr.
The latest is for wanting the Allies to take seven bridges near Arnhem,
not six in the upcoming invasion of occupied Europe. (I guess sox fans
didn't pay attention to WWI).
Anyway, this idiot has had enough. I know the Allies will never win
it all because they don't know about making war like the Germans do.
The sox fans and organization will never, never, never get it.
On the bright side, I am going to go work with my father, Rudolf Hoess,
while cheering on the same national army for the first time in 30 years.
Good luck with the typhus.
-Curly C, June 3, 1944
-----
Catch you later.
--Robert Machemer
--
Robert Paul Aubrey Machemer | "For each time he falls, he shall
Amherst College, Math & Classics | rise again, and woe to the wicked!"
IF1, IF3, IF9: best films, cast | --Don Quixote (Man of La Mancha)
"I know about society. I am taking a Sociology course." -- from asbb-r
smacdo
Curly C wrote:
>
> Actually, every number from 30,000-19 million has reported at one time
> or another of total holocaust dead. First, it was mass electrocution on
> conveyer belts, then it was a German vaporizing machine, then it was
> huge open pit fires where live inmates were tossed in, then finally the
> gas story came along which actually pissed off alot of Jews because they
> didn't think of it first. In any case, I can't believe anyone actually
> accepts that this crap as true.
Let's pretend that only 30,000 people died in these camps. Does that
make it any more palatable?
Even just the video of the inmates that were alive when the camps were
liberated is gut wrenching. The idea that one human could treat
another human that way is horrible. They were obviously overworked,
underfed and treated horribly. Even if there were no ovens...even if
there was no gas...it is still one of the worst tragedies in human
history.
Curly...I can put up with a lot from a lot of different people. But
you are showing yourself to be an absolute piece of human shit.
> My guess of Auscwitz dead is 70,000, mainly from typhus and other
> diseases.
Yeah...and you have exactly zero first hand knowledge of the situation.
So your guess is about as useful as anyone else's...including the ones
you put down.
You are a fucking scumbag. I hope you rot from the inside out with
cancer or something horrible like that...
I am through with you.
BadgerBC
LOL. The only objection I have is that the Yanks aren't the Germans
("the sox fans and organization will never, never get it" I hope wasn't
a purposeful slip). The Yanks represent America and apple pie as
everyone knows the usual "Yankee go home" we hear from time to time.
Very nicely done though (esp. the Market Garden reference and Hoess).
I just can't believe the idiot jumped the wagon then. Too bad he
couldn't have picked the Cards.
BadgerBC
OceanView wrote:
>
> Though I agree about Stalin, aligning with Germany would not have worked,
> as evidenced by Neville CHamberlain's "Peace in our time" speech after
> appeasing Hitler. Hitler wanted German and only Germany to run the world.
>
> I've read estimates ranging from 20 million to 40 million deaths that
> Stalin was responsible for, either through war, the "purges", the Galags,
> and so on. A high percentage of them were Russians. I know little about
> Russian history, just repeating what I've read and heard.
Well it's the viewpoint like what this moronic Teuton-wannabe espouses
that made it impossible for France and Britain to contain Germany.
A.J.P. Taylor's controversial claims and the following 40 years of
historiographical debates have revealed what most historians now know
namely the war wasn't preordained to occur on Sep.1939. The extent to
which anti-Communism was widespread in the West (among the political
leadership) during the interwar period is the reason why Stalin made a
truce with Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact. During the Munich crisis (cf.
Telford Taylor_Munich: The Price of Peace_), Stalin tried to engage the
French and Britain in an anti-fascist alliance in 1937-38. However the
general sentiment among Western political leaders was similar to what
Harry Truman said in June 1941:
"If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if
Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill
as many as possible, although I don't want to see Hitler victorious
under any circumstances. Neither of them thinks anything of their
pledged word."
Now as we now know Stalin was buying time after his terrible mistake of
purging the leadership of the Red Army while his armament modernization
program was raised to the highest level. Had the West allied with the
Soviets in 1938, there are very respected diplomatic historians like
Hans Gatzke and Gerhard Weinberg who believe Hitler probably would've
been deterred in 1939 as he was an opportunist. Even Hitler had
envisaged the window for war in 1941 as the German economy wasn't in
war footing and while the Wehrmacht obviously was ready, the
Kriegsmarine clearly wasn't and even the Luftwaffe had not begun to
develop strategic air capability. The German military then was geared
toward tactical and operational emphasis despite early successes in
Blitzkrieg years.
As to which is the greater evil, it's a value judgment IMO. In fact
there were some striking similiarities between the two as Alan Bullock
and John Lukacs have demonstrated in their books. The horror of the
Holocaust (or perhaps the uniqueness in its history) isn't the numbers
as this idiot seems to think. It's in the fact that it occurred in a
country that was considered a highly cultured and had enjoyed the
Enlightenment tradition. Sure there's plenty of the Sonderweg
historiography (special path) on Germany, but ultimately it's the
industrial nature of the genocide that merits note. It demonstrates
the horror and depravity when a modern political state uses its
enormous resources to the process that its political leadership saw as
a means to an end that the history will judge to be right. In some
ways it's reflective of the arrogance of the time period when things
like scientific materialism held legitimacy. As was the case during
the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution, when a group of
people think they're going to create a better new world, no means are
unthinkable to help bring about such ends. I imagine all the SS
involved with the Final Solution believed they were the real heroes
fighting a war that posterity would thank them for their "sacrifices."
The reason why Eichmann pushed for the gas chambers wasn't because of
some humane reasons for the inmates. It was to spare the Germans from
the psychological traumas when even the thugs of the Einsatzgruppen
were demonstrating ill discipline and drunken disorderly conduct (which
may suggest even they had a small sliver of humanity left in them)
after months of going around Soviet villages and massacring Jews like
Babi Yar. When a modern industrial state like Germany can mobilize its
resources then you can have such tragedy like killing off six million
Jews in the middle of a world war when Germany was fighting a two front
war. (Eichmann's figure he gave to Wilhelm Hoettl who was the SS
historian in 1945) While I find the Gulag and the Stalin's crimes (the
best source is probably Robert Conquest) evil, my opinion is given the
power of the German state, we had to fight the Nazis first. As Robert
Harris interestingly portrayed counterfactual possibilities in
_Fatherland_, the world would've been a very different place had the
Germans developed the A-bomb first.
As crude as it may appear, when we see the Pol Pot or the genocide in
Rwanda we in the West tend to dismiss it as barbaric hinting it
couldn't happen in the Westerns societies. Even the Soviet Union and
China are seen as "Asiatic" and by implication barbaric (although
Hannah Arendt was very incisive in distinguishing the totalitarian
nature of the regimes) then. That's the trouble with playing
counterfactual games like this scumbag is doing though. It's an old
old historiographical trick that German historians of the right engaged
in the 1970s and 1980s (Die Historikerstreit) when people like Ernst
Nolte tried to relativize Holocaust by insinuating the same crap Curly
put up.
Bob-Nob
<snip of lots of good stuff, as always>
> As to which is the greater evil, it's a value judgment IMO.
Tangentially related: have you read Armageddon, by Max Hastings?
<snip>
> ultimately it's the industrial nature of the genocide that merits note.
> It demonstrates the horror and depravity when a modern political state
> uses its enormous resources to the process that its political leadership
> saw as a means to an end that the history will judge to be right.
Amen.
> In
> some ways it's reflective of the arrogance of the time period when things
> like scientific materialism held legitimacy. As was the case during
> the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution, when a group of
> people think they're going to create a better new world, no means are
> unthinkable to help bring about such ends.
I might disagree with you here (except that you almost certainly
are more historically knowledgable than I): I think the sort of arrogance
described above is still quite obviously around. Or narrow-mindedness,
if you prefer. (I'm sure people on both sides of the political spectrum
can insert their favorite examples here, though I myself would prefer to
just let it be, at least at this point).
bmo...@nyx.net
He doesn't like Jews. That's the one and only motivating factor for him
and every other Holocaust denier or revisionist.
Bob-Nob
<snip>
>> Found it...
>> -----
>> This is the first time I have ever wanted the Germans to win. I
>> have been around Americans my whole life and they indeed are 100%
>> idiots and it would not be worth the price of the Americans and British
>> winning to have these idiot citizens spouting off for the next
>> millenium.
>> I have been a regular over on the alt.fan.usa group for a year now
>> and I usually am considered the forum idiot. The first thing I was
>> crucified for was for wanting FDR to replace Henry Morgenthau Jr.
>> The latest is for wanting the Allies to take seven bridges near Arnhem,
>> not six in the upcoming invasion of occupied Europe. (I guess sox fans
>> didn't pay attention to WWI).
>> Anyway, this idiot has had enough. I know the Allies will never win
>> it all because they don't know about making war like the Germans do.
>> The sox fans and organization will never, never, never get it.
>> On the bright side, I am going to go work with my father, Rudolf Hoess,
>> while cheering on the same national army for the first time in 30 years.
>> Good luck with the typhus.
>> -Curly C, June 3, 1944
> LOL. The only objection I have is that the Yanks aren't the Germans
*laughs* You would have that objection, wouldn't you?
> ("the sox fans and organization will never, never get it" I hope wasn't
> a purposeful slip).
Ack, nope, I screwed up. Oh well.
> The Yanks represent America and apple pie as
> everyone knows the usual "Yankee go home" we hear from time to time.
I remember reading (though not enjoying) Fatal Light (a Vietnam War
book) in junior year of high school. My favorite passage in the book...
-----
"You good boy," she said. "Good Yankee."
"Grandmother," I replied, "there's no such thing."
-----
It turned out that I had to lead the class discussion (and make up
a reading quiz) for the section containing the above quotation. I
guarantee everyone who knew me knew that I was going to put something
about that passage on the quiz. (There was a loud chorus of "Ha! I
knew it!" from half the class when I referred to the passage in a quiz
question).
Not that I REALLY feel that way about the Yankees. It's fun to
engage in some of the silliness of sports fanaticism, but deep down,
I know it's all just a game. I ahve friends who are Yankees fans and
there are Yankees whom I (begrudgingly) respect. (I think one of the
tragedies of Bernie Williams's last few years is that he's never going
to get the respect he deserves for how good he was in his prime, for
instance). I still never root for the Yankees though.
> Very nicely done though (esp. the Market Garden reference and Hoess).
Thank you. :)
> I just can't believe the idiot jumped the wagon then. Too bad he
> couldn't have picked the Cards.
*laughs* It's true. You guys had Yanksfan4eva, Curly, AND
Pier-14 rooting for your team. I feel sorry for you (and quite
a few other Yankees fans) for the association.
BadgerBC
Bob-Nob wrote:
> BadgerBC venit, vidit, et dixit:
>
> <snip of lots of good stuff, as always>
>
> > As to which is the greater evil, it's a value judgment IMO.
>
> Tangentially related: have you read Armageddon, by Max Hastings?
>
> <snip>
Yes I did and found it excellent as usual (I've enjoyed his past works
on Normandy, Korea and Falklands). A really nice overview I thought
and better than John Toland's _The Last 100 Days_ which had been the
standard for decades. I also found Anthony Beevor's _Berlin: The
Downfall 1945_ quite impressive as well (as was his Stalingrad).
>
> > ultimately it's the industrial nature of the genocide that merits note.
> > It demonstrates the horror and depravity when a modern political state
> > uses its enormous resources to the process that its political leadership
> > saw as a means to an end that the history will judge to be right.
>
> Amen.
>
> > In
> > some ways it's reflective of the arrogance of the time period when things
> > like scientific materialism held legitimacy. As was the case during
> > the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution, when a group of
> > people think they're going to create a better new world, no means are
> > unthinkable to help bring about such ends.
>
> I might disagree with you here (except that you almost certainly
> are more historically knowledgable than I): I think the sort of arrogance
> described above is still quite obviously around. Or narrow-mindedness,
> if you prefer. (I'm sure people on both sides of the political spectrum
> can insert their favorite examples here, though I myself would prefer to
> just let it be, at least at this point).
>
I think you're right and I probably should've qualified it more. I
agree though the arrogance is definitely around as I think Fukuyama was
too hasty in his proclamation. I guess I was looking more into the
fact that fascism and communism appeared to be the ideologies of the
future and both had promised better world in the midst of the Great
Depression.
Danil
neilricha...@hotmail.com says...
>
> LOL. The only objection I have is that the Yanks aren't the Germans
Forget it, he's rolling.
Curly C
France and Britain declared war, not Germany. Hitler was only after land
lost in the Treaty of Versailles which included the danzig corridor in
Poland. Another lesser known reason for attacking Poland was the
slaughter of thousands of innocent German nationalists by Polish Jews in
western Poland starting in the late 1930's. Hitler even pleaded to the
League of Nations to no avail to put a stop to the massacres.
Yes, Hitler would have eventually waged war but it probably would have
been around 1945 and it would have been with Russia, not the west.
Hitler had no plans of waging war or conquering the west, despite the
propaganda your 6th grade teachers have told you. Hitler made many peace
gestures with the west including Dunkirk and Hess's flight to Scotland.
Churchill would have none of it because he didn't want peace. The fact
is FDR and Churchill did not want to miss out on all the fun. They
didn't want to feel left out when the bullets started flying. They knew
the winners of the war get the biggest pieces of the pie.
And no Jews were gassed. Did you know that some camp commanders were
executed for mistreatment of inmates. Did you know that Himmler was so
concerned about typhus that a new machine (microwave) was put into use
to delouse clothing at the camps. Did you know that the US Army admitted
they found no evidence of any gassing taking place in the camps they
liberated. That is why the focus was shifted to Auschwitz, because the
Russians liberated that camp and the pesky American investigators
weren't allowed to inspect the eastern camps.
10 million russians died after the revolution in a 3-5 year span from
typhus. Don't underestimate the power of the louse....Lenin and Napoleon
sure didn't.
Why is Badger still spouting the 6 million number? The holohoaxers don't
even believe that number anymore. The Auschwitz Museum has already cut
their number of dead almost in half 16 years ago. Why are you spreading
Zionist propaganda? There are 22 plaques at Auschwitz, so why don't you
take a trip to Poland and visit the camp. That seems to be the only way
that reality will sink in.
BadgerBC
Curly C wrote:
> Why is Badger still spouting the 6 million number? The holohoaxers don't
> even believe that number anymore. The Auschwitz Museum has already cut
> their number of dead almost in half 16 years ago. Why are you spreading
> Zionist propaganda? There are 22 plaques at Auschwitz, so why don't you
> take a trip to Poland and visit the camp. That seems to be the only way
> that reality will sink in.
Hey Schicklgruber wannabe. I've been to Oswiecm, Dachau and
Flossenburg so spare me the useless neo-Nazi bullshit. The point isn't
whether Auschwitz-Birkenau gassed 1million or 2.2 million. Or whether
1.5 million or 2.5 million died in Maidanek. There are thousands of
pages of documentation that have been available since 1945 that are
available to all at Bundesarchiv, NARA and now at US Holocaust Museum.
Since I'm not going to waste time throwing pearls and some neo-Nazi pig
like you, let me just concisely point out something even you might've
read since you seem to enjoy so much of the Nazi propaganda. The
following are from the Goebbels Diaries:
(February 12, 1942 entry)
"The Fuhrer once again expressed his determination to clean up the Jews
in Europe pitilessly. There must be no squeamish sentimentalism about
it. The Jews have deserved the catastrophe that has now overtaken them.
Their destruction will go hand in hand with the destruction of our
enemies. We must hasten this process with cold ruthlessness."
(February 27, 1942 entry)
"The procedure is a pretty barbaric one and not to be described here
more definitely. Not much will remain of the Jews. On the whole it can
be said that about 60 per cent of them will have to be liquidated
whereas only 40 per cent can be used for forced labor."
(Louis P. Lochner, tr. _The Goebbels Diaries_, pp.86, 146)
Now if you've read the Wannsee protocol like a good little Illinois
Nazi, you'd realize the SS or more accurately RSHA amt 4 gave their
estimate of total Jews under the Reich control and influence as 11
million (which incidentally was in January 1942). Now if you have no
idea what I'm talking about that's Adolf Eichmann who calculated the
numbers as the head of amt 4 then. Now 60 percent of 11 million is
6.6million and when Dr.Wilhelm Hoettl asked Eichmann what the final
numbers of liquidated were in 1945 the proud and defiant Adolf replied
"six million." That's why while the figure may be 5.7, 5.8 or 5.9mil
or on the higher side of 6.6 million according to Peter Stearns who is
now delving into the recently released NKVD archives from Moscow, the
usual figure of 6million is the one used regardless of what the actual
distribution of casualties were in Auschwitz-Birkenau, Treblinka,
Maidanek, Belsen, etc.
OceanView
news:1151092504.6...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>
><snip>
Very well-composed essay! I agree with most of it, and that which I don't
I'll defer, since you know more on the topic than I do. (I watch the
History channel a lot, but Idon't read as much as I used to. I hate
needing reading glasses now, so I don;t read as much.)
One general comment: It is interesting to me looking back as various
practices and paradigms in the past that different than the current.
Currently, we are in the midst of a humanist movement that didn't exist
then. We would not likely have said, let's invade a country to 'free' a
people unless there was a nother reason (there usually is anyway). We
thought nothing of saying, okay 4000 dead in one battle on Iwo Jima was
acceptable because we took the island. Bombing campagns took little account
of civlian casualties. We value life more today, at least we profess to.
Getting 'rid' of a class of people to achieve some social goal is
unthinkable today, at least for most of us. We look at slavery as evil, but
it was common practice, right or wrong, for thousands of years around the
world. (I have a theory that some form of genocide is taking place
somewhere around the world pretty much all the time. Any any given time
around the world there are on avarage 25 wars being fought.)
I'm surprised at Truman's statement, but given the choices of who to back,
I suppose it makes sense. The "let them kill each other off and we take
the winner" tactic has been used in warfare before. There's probably a
better name for it.
BadgerBC
OceanView wrote:
> "BadgerBC" <neilricha...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:1151092504.6...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>
> >
> ><snip>
>
> Very well-composed essay! I agree with most of it, and that which I don't
> I'll defer, since you know more on the topic than I do. (I watch the
> History channel a lot, but Idon't read as much as I used to. I hate
> needing reading glasses now, so I don;t read as much.)
>
> One general comment: It is interesting to me looking back as various
> practices and paradigms in the past that different than the current.
> Currently, we are in the midst of a humanist movement that didn't exist
> then. We would not likely have said, let's invade a country to 'free' a
> people unless there was a nother reason (there usually is anyway). We
> thought nothing of saying, okay 4000 dead in one battle on Iwo Jima was
> acceptable because we took the island. Bombing campagns took little account
> of civlian casualties. We value life more today, at least we profess to.
> Getting 'rid' of a class of people to achieve some social goal is
> unthinkable today, at least for most of us. We look at slavery as evil, but
> it was common practice, right or wrong, for thousands of years around the
> world. (I have a theory that some form of genocide is taking place
> somewhere around the world pretty much all the time. Any any given time
> around the world there are on avarage 25 wars being fought.)
I think you point out something that is not only valid but serves as a
hinge on what the near future holds. Back in 1989, John Mueller wrote
a book called _Retreat from Doomsday_ that sparked a long running
series of debates among political scientists who specialize in
international relations. Mueller had argued that aversion to
casualties and the increased lethality of conventional weapons made
major wars (described as conventional wars fought among the advanced
industrial countries) obsolete and nuclear weapons were simply overkill
figuratively and literally in contributing to deterrence stability.
I'm not as optimistic as Mueller, but he does highlight the important
changes that have taken place at least in the West.
There is no doubt in my mind that the West has increased aversion to
higher casualties (to be specific among our own people). However it
really is a function of not having a major war like another eruption in
Korea or (thank heavens) in Germany. Most Americans old enough to have
either served in Korea or even the kids who've rotated out of 2ID know
that if a war erupts we're looking at 40000 or 50000 probably within
the first 24 hours. It would've been much worse in Germany along the
Meiningen-Fulda Gap and North German Plains had the Soviets struck
against NATO. Hopefully Mueller is right and I'm wrong about the
future possibilities of major conventional wars but I just don't know.
The key question though is that the genocide in Rwanda took place only
12 years ago and while all of us saw the ethnic cleansing by various
sides in the former Yugoslavia. And there are enough of us here who
remember the Pol Pot. Given the rate of intervention by the West, I
think my corrective to the view that we have a higher value of human
life is that I think we value Western human life more and to be precise
we value our own people's lives far more than others which is expected
in all countries.
>
> I'm surprised at Truman's statement, but given the choices of who to back,
> I suppose it makes sense. The "let them kill each other off and we take
> the winner" tactic has been used in warfare before. There's probably a
> better name for it.
Yes it's "rational" and historical. In international relations theory
it's called "realism" (or realpolitik as Kissinger would prefer to call
it) and Britain from 17th to 20th century had been the consummate state
that expertly maneuvered to keep a dominant state from emerging in the
European continent (and hence threaten the island state). That's why
the French who had fought them for so long had called them "perfidious
Albion" Some international relations theorists have portrayed Britain
as the Great Balancer that helped European stability.
In fact in the years before the First World War, the British Admiralty
was facing a major dilemma (cf. Paul Kennedy, _The Rise and Fall of
British Naval Mastery_). While Britain was the leading economic power
in the world and had possessed the greatest Navy, the two emerging
states namely newly unified Germany and the United States had started
to build up their navies and modernize at rapid pace. While the past
doctrine had been for the Royal Navy to be superior in number and
capabilities to the combination of the next two biggest naval powers,
the Admiralty could see the trend that economically it just wasn't
feasible to prepare for a possible conflict against both the United
States (the Special Relationship really didn't emerge until WWII) and
Germany. While some may point to the fact that Britain had been the
largest source of foreign direct investment in the US after the Civil
War, their was probably higher level of interdependence between Britain
and Germany if we look at their trade figures throughout the last two
decades of the 19th century. To this day I'm not really sure what it
was that made them pick the US as potential ally though I suspect
common language and some cultural affinity had to do with it, but
ultimately IMHO it was the proximity to the danger of the Imperial
German Navy parked at Kiel ready to spring into action at North Sea
that probably made the Admiralty "balance" against Germany. Some
historians have attributed to the naval arms race between Germany and
Britain as one of significant causes of the First World War.
McDuck
quacked:
>Stalin, Churchill, and FDR were the real war mongerers, not Hitler.
>France and Britain declared war, not Germany.
Germany decared war on the United States. So did Japan.
--McDuck
BadgerBC
McDuck wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 02:38:08 -0400, KeeponC...@webtv.net (Curly C)
> quacked:
>
> >Stalin, Churchill, and FDR were the real war mongerers, not Hitler.
> >France and Britain declared war, not Germany.
That's because you were taken in by that verdampter Allied propaganda.
Such filthy lies. But nobody said a bad vord about Winston Churchill
did they? Oh no, Vin Vit Vinnie! Churchill, vit his cigars and his
brandy and his rotten paintings. Couldn't even say Nazi. He would say
Narzis, Narzis. Ve vere not Narzies, ve vere Nazis. But let me
tell this, and you're getting it straight from the horse, Hitler vas
better looking than Churchill, he vas a better dresser than Churchill,
had more hair, told funnier jokes,and could dance the pants off
Churchill! Hitler, there was a painter! He could paint an entire
apartment in ONE afternoon! TWO coats!
>
> Germany decared war on the United States. So did Japan.
Germany was having trouble,
What a sad, sad story.
Needed a new leader
To restore its former glory.
Where, oh, where was he,
Who could that man be,
We looked around,
And then we found,
The man for you and me,
And now its...
Springtime for Hitler and Germany
Dano
"BadgerBC" <neilricha...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151176939.5...@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
and winter for Poland and France...
OceanView
news:1151171874.0...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
I'm not either. I think its a reason for our current balance of powers and
why none of our conflicts have becayse nuclear, (I think '62 scared the
crap out of us!) But two human tendencies trouble me: The tendencies to
wage war, and the propogation and evolution of technology. More and more
counties will go nuclear, regardless of what the US, the UN or anybody else
has to say about it. Sooner of later, somebody will push the button in
anger or a country will breakup and the weapons will get intothw wrong
hands. More time, more wars and more tenchnology (and more portable).
Collision course.
>
> There is no doubt in my mind that the West has increased aversion to
> higher casualties (to be specific among our own people). However it
> really is a function of not having a major war like another eruption in
> Korea or (thank heavens) in Germany. Most Americans old enough to have
> either served in Korea or even the kids who've rotated out of 2ID know
> that if a war erupts we're looking at 40000 or 50000 probably within
> the first 24 hours. It would've been much worse in Germany along the
> Meiningen-Fulda Gap and North German Plains had the Soviets struck
> against NATO. Hopefully Mueller is right and I'm wrong about the
> future possibilities of major conventional wars but I just don't know.
>
> The key question though is that the genocide in Rwanda took place only
> 12 years ago and while all of us saw the ethnic cleansing by various
> sides in the former Yugoslavia. And there are enough of us here who
> remember the Pol Pot. Given the rate of intervention by the West, I
> think my corrective to the view that we have a higher value of human
> life is that I think we value Western human life more and to be precise
> we value our own people's lives far more than others which is expected
> in all countries.
>
I have to admit I didn't know about Pol Pot until the mid-80s and while I
knew about Rwanda while it was happening, I was think, "Oh yeah, some loin-
cloth wearing tribal war, no big deal." I had no idea the depth and scope
of the genocide. Non-white non-western genocide is just not reported the
same way.
My guess is that the US was still sort of viewed as a colony, a child of
sorts, as well as the cultural affinity.
mario
<snip>
> Why is Badger still spouting the 6 million number? The holohoaxers don't
> even believe that number anymore. The Auschwitz Museum has already cut
> their number of dead almost in half 16 years ago. Why are you spreading
> Zionist propaganda? There are 22 plaques at Auschwitz, so why don't you
> take a trip to Poland and visit the camp. That seems to be the only way
> that reality will sink in.
I think you seriously underestimate the power propaganda has had on you,
Curly.
mario in victoria
..
if you weren't so dangerous i'd pity you