In respect of your graphic signature where do the five million plus Jews who died in World War II figure, are they counted in the Axis or Allied dead? That is are they included in the 11,000,000 Axis or 17,000,000 Allied dead.
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
Five million plus Jews didn’t die in WWII, in the sense of war deaths.
They died during it, and for reasons and from activities not related to the deaths in combat
They were not in the main in uniform and armed but the Third Reich was at War with them, hence they should be included in combat deaths, in the graphic which I have referred too.
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
I did not include the Holocaust victims in my signature, as I support the same stance as Rising Sun*, that is that the Holocaust and the war were two different events taking place at the same time.
While it is true that the latter enhanced the former, they were still somewhat independent from each other. Even if Germany had not gone to war, the Holocaust would have still taken place, except instead of international victims, the murdered would have been purely German and Austrian.
I chose only to include dead soldiers into my signature, excluding both civilian and holocaust victims.
Are you arguing that the extermination of the Jews was not a War aim?
What is the difference if a War is being waged within the frontiers of a country and if the War is being waged outside the frontiers of a country.
So civilians murdered by the Nazis are irrelevant?
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
You are just trolling here (as you are in previous and subsequent posts) because you know full well that there was nothing approximating a war between the Third Reich and Jews, nor was there any more reason to include Jews in combat or warlike operation deaths than there was to include the hundreds of thousands of Russians who died in German captivity as combat or warlike operation deaths.
As your recent reappearance on this forum has been notable primarily for your overt trolling, and as you have been on this board before and know how it works, I am going to abandon my normal practice of giving an informal warning, in the nature of a shot across the bows, before giving a formal warning.
You have just incurred a formal warning which will be recorded in your personal profile.
Ignore it and you will incur as many infraction points as are appropriate to your offence.
If you continue your trolling you will be amazed by how quickly I shall ramp up your penalties so that you will pick up enough infraction points to be catapulted into the cyber ether in just a few more trolling posts. You could manage it one intemperate post, if you like martyrdom.
Your future on this board is entirely in your own hands.
Yes, that’s what I’m saying. It was a political aim, not a war aim. They didn’t wage war against to get more Jews to kill. They waged for out of a hunger for more Power in the East, and because war was declared on them in the West. The Holocaust is more of an Interior affair. Don’t confuse the Holocaust with war crimes.
What is the difference if a War is being waged within the frontiers of a country and if the War is being waged outside the frontiers of a country.
The Holocaust wasn’t a war against the Jews, it was an extermination campaign. A war would require them to be organized with a political agenda and -most importantly- a serious fight. Most of them were simply kidnapped and murdered by the Nazis. Even though there was armed Resistance, it was often unorganized and relatively insignificant. If there was a war, it would suggest that at least some of the murders were legal, and I hope you aren’t suggesting that.
So civilians murdered by the Nazis are irrelevant?
They, as well as the civilians murdered by the Allies, are irrelevant to my signature which remarks dead soldiers. If you want to make a signature remembering the civilian deaths, feel free to do so, nobody hinders you and if you want I can even help you with it. But my signature remembers those that fell in battle.
I am neither saying that they aren’t worth remarking nor that they insignificant. They just aren’t part of what I wanted to show in my sig, case closed.
Agreed, and correct, in every respect.
What is often described as trolling in forums, is often in fact nothing more than than the personal opinions of posters which happen to be at variance with the personal opinions of the site moderators. There was not a War between the Jews and the Third Reich in the conventional sense and it would be hard to argue that there was a War in even the unconventional sense, however given the nature of World War II and the fact the extermination of the Jews was a major War aim of the Third Reich, there is reason for legitimate concern about signature, which I referred to.
You can accuse me of trolling whatever that is, whether such an accusation would stand up in a court of law is an entirely different matter.
You can do precisely what you wish to do, whether your actions constitute fair and reasonable judgment, that is an entirely different matter.
You can do precisely what you wish to do, whether your actions constitute fair and reasonable judgment, that is an entirely different matter.
You can do precisely what you wish to do, whether your actions constitute fair and reasonable judgment, that is an entirely different matter.
You can do precisely what you wish to do, whether your actions constitute fair and reasonable judgment, that is an entirely different matter.
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
Noted.
I’d suggest you note mine, above.
There won’t be a second warning.
Was there a “holocaust” trial of Germany’s War Leaders?
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
Yes, it was a part of the Nuremberg Trials. There were leaders found guilty for war crimes (murder of POWs, civilians) as well as crimes against the humanity (Genocide = Holocaust), some where only found guilty of the former, some only of the latter, some of both.
So your argument really has pretty much no ground to stand on, as even the courts saw it as two different things.
Since Adolf Hitler was the Third Reich and killing Jews was a priority to him, I am somewhat confused how to make a neat differentiation between a War aim and a Political aim. Well in so far as one can understand Hitler’s rantings, he regarded the USSR as part of the International Jewish Conspiracy and was in part waging War on the USSR because he regarded the USSR as a Jewish State entity.
It was a campaign of extermination against the Jews, I think we are are discussing whether it was a war or a political initiative. I have never sought to imply legality on the part of the Third Reich in its actions against the Jews. I regard the entire War conducted by the Third Reich in World War II as an illegal War and hence when uniformed military personnel of the Third Reich such as Luftwaffe fighter pilots in Me Bf 109s shot down British Spitfires attacking German bombers, I regard that as illegal killing. The Jews in Europe did not even have the military capability of a small country like Denmark and the Third Reich picked a fight with them, not the other way round and the Third Reich was careful to lull the Jews in to a false sense of security about its intentions towards them, so they were not even in a position to offer what little resistance they could have offered, if they had been aware of their intended fate.
What do you mean civilians murdered by the Allies? There are problems with your signature, if I was to create a similar signature, it would have problems too, two wrongs do not make a right.
There are more people in the world than you and it might not be unreasonable to bear that in mind.
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
Adolf Hitler was not the Third Reich. Adolf Hitler was its dictator, but that doesn’t mean that the high Officers and Ministers didn’t commit actions of their own and had personal agendas. Even if, through his position as a Dictator, everything came back to his orders, there are still differences between Interior policies and Exterior policies.
It was a campaign of extermination against the Jews, I think were are discussing whether it was a war or a political initiative. I have never sought to imply legality on the part of the Third Reich in its actions against the Jews. I regard the entire War conducted by the Third Reich in World War II as an illegal War and hence when uniformed military personnel of the Third Reich such as Luftwaffe fighter pilots in Me Bf 109s shot down British Spitfires attacking German bombers, I regard that as illegal killing.
That is your position, but it is not a valid legal position. By declaring war against Germany, France, England and the US automatically made it legal for German fighter pilots to shoot them down, German soldiers to shoot their soldiers, and German tanks to shoot their tanks. It was war, whether Germany declared it against them, too, or not, as in a way the Western Allies started the war against Germany by invading them. (This is not saying that Germany did not provoke it through its invasion of Poland)
The Third Reich was careful to lull the Jews in to a false sense of security about its intentions towards them, so they were not even in a position to offer what little resistance they could have offered, if they had been aware of their intended fate.
You’re kidding me, right? The Nazi government started introducing anti-Semitic laws as soon as they got to power in 1933. The actual Holocaust did not start until the second half of their time in power. By then, many Jews had already left Germany because they could foresee what all the policies were slowly leading towards. What they could not foresee was the quick and complete defeat of almost every bordering nation, so many were caught in countries like Holland, Belgium and Poland after their quick capitulations.
What do you mean civilians murdered by the Allies?
What I mean by civilians murdered by the Allies are Axis civilians killed by the advancing armies as well as the bombing raids on the cities, which are quite numerous, too.
There are problems with your signature, if I was to create a similar signature, it would have problems too, two wrongs do not make a right.
No, YOU have problems with my signature, and so far you’re the only one who had this problem. You might want to apply to yourself what you said next:
There are more people in the world than you and it might not be unreasonable to bear that in mind.
I am very well aware of that, but this is my signature based on my opinions, and I believe I made those clear.
Adolf Hitler was the Third Reich.
I never said otherwise.
Your point being?
Declaring war on a country does not legalize a war, which is being conducted by the country which the War has been declared against, when that War is an illegal War. Having as a War aim genocidal extermination, places the Third Reich in the position of conducting an illegal War. Hence members of the German military were engaged in an illegal War, whether they were Luftwaffe pilots bombing British cities or camp guards at an extermination concentration camp.
No I am not kidding you at all. The Nazis went to some considerable efforts to deceive Jews as to what they intended to do to them, for example the showpiece concentration camp of Theresienstadt intended to be featured in the Nazi propaganda film, Der Führer schenkt den Juden eine Stadt The Fuhrer gives the Jews a City.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theresienstadt_concentration_camp
So are are you saying then that, German housewives who were killed by British and American bombing raids on German cities but who were very happy to see Warsaw, Rotterdam and London Blitzed by the Luftwaffe and the German Jews treated like dirt are the same as German veteran Jewish frontline soldiers from the Kaiser’s Imperial Army who were decorated in World War One for bravery for fighting for the fatherland, who were sent to the concentration camps to be gassed by the Third Reich, were the same way murdered?
Just because I may have been the one to say it, does not mean that I am the only person who would hold such an opinion.
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
Have you any third party evidence for these assertions?
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
Do your regard murder as a crime and if you do, what do you believe is a suitable punishment for a person convicted in a court of law of the crime of murder?
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
I don’t know what your definition for that is, but as the Third Reich was a name given to Greater Germany by the Nazis, it is a country, not a person.
I never said otherwise.
You did by claiming that Hitler alone was the Third Reich
Your point being?
That you are wrong. Duh.
Declaring war on a country does not legalize a war, which is being conducted by the country which the War has been declared against, when that War is an illegal War.
You make no sense. Germany did not declare war to France and Britain, but as the Allies did declare war, and in fact attacked Germany first (See Saar Offensive) they fought and defeated France. (I’m not saying that it wasn’t very much expected and planned by Hitler)
Having as a War aim genocidal extermination, places the Third Reich in the position of conducting an illegal War. Hence members of the German military were engaged in an illegal War, whether they were Luftwaffe pilots bombing British cities or camp guards at an extermination concentration camp.
The Allied forces did not know of the Holocaust at that point in time. They based their decision to declare war on the German invasion of Poland. Neither did all German troops know that the Jews were exterminated, not deported as it was claimed.
No I am not kidding you at all, the Nazis went to some considerable efforts to deceive Jews what they intended to do to them, for example the showpiece concentration camp of Theresienstadt intended to be featured in the Nazi propaganda film Der Führer schenkt den Juden eine Stadt The Fuhrer gives the Jews a City.
As you said, those were propaganda effort. Every Jew with the possibility and half a mind should have left after Hitler had declared in one of his numerous speeches that he was going to exterminate the Jews. Even though the Propaganda tried to hide it, Hitler never really made a secret of his plans, as anybody who read ‘Mein Kampf’ can prove.
So are are you saying then that, German housewives who were killed by British and American bombing raids on German cities but who were very happy to see Warsaw, Rotterdam and London Blitzed by the Luftwaffe and the German Jews treated like dirt are the same as German veteran Jewish frontline soldiers from the Kaiser’s Imperial Army who were decorated in World War One for bravery for fighting for the fatherland, who were sent to the concentration camps to be gassed by the Third Reich, were the same way murdered?
Your ignorance is amazing. Not even your sentence structure makes any sense. Still, you assume that every German, be it woman, elderly or child knew about what horrors awaited the people in the death camps? You assume that every German was automatically enthusiastic about the Nazis? If you honestly believe that completely innocent members deserve to be killed in cold blood, just because they are the citizens of a murderous Regime, I can only be disgusted by you.
Just because I may have been the one to say it, does not mean that I am the only person who would hold such an opinion.
Well, I’ve received a lot more positive feedback than negative one, and so far, you’ve shown me absolutely nothing that proves to me that I should value your opinion.
Have you any third party evidence for these assertions?
It differs between the two right here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials#The_main_trial
Do your regard murder as a crime and if you do, what do you believe is a suitable punishment for a person convicted in a court of law of the crime of murder?
Dumb question. Of course I consider murder a crime. But the same way not everything is black or white, not every killing can be described as murder in the legal sense.
The Third Reich was not a country, Germany was and is a country. The Third Reich was a statuary legal instrument pertaining to a certain geographic territory, hence the Third Reich was whatever Hitler said it was, in so far as he had the power to enforce his will. There was one authority in the Third Reich Adolf Hitler, hence Hitler was the Third Reich.
If I claimed that, why did you not cut and paste it?
Is that supposed to constitute an argument, on your part?
Are you claiming that, the Republic of Poland attacked the Third Reich Radio station Sender Gleiwitz in upper Silesia on 31 August 1939, violating the sovereign territory of the Third Reich and murdering innocent citizens of the Third Reich.
You seem to be implying, because of the fact that Britain and France would not have known that the Third Reich would go ahead to wage a campaign of extermination against the Jews, when Britain and France declared War on Germany, that makes the Third Reich’s War legal, I can not see any logic to that.
So, having Jewish children turfed out of their beds in a TB hospital in Berlin and made to dance in their night clothes in their bare feet on broken glass, in the cold night air, was in accordance with the code of honor of the Prussian officer class of the German Army, was it?
Are you saying then, that the Jews in Germany brought their fate on themselves by ignoring fair warnings? If so, how come you are also saying that the Allies did not know Hitler was going to exterminate the Jews?
See my previous comment.
How do you know what I know and do not know?
Why does my sentence structure not make sense?
Where and when, did I make a statement to that effect?
You have made a statement that, I am assuming that every German was automatically enthusiastic about the Nazis and then just plonked a question mark on to the end of it, to apparently give some vague aspect of a question to it. That is outside the conventions of the English language.
What your definition of completely innocent is and what my definition of completely innocent is may be completely different and what is your definition to be killed in cold blood and my definition to be killed in cold blood is, may be completely different. For example, would members of the Einstatz SS who worked as guards in concentration camps be completely innocent, when they would be merely followed the orders of superiors?
Well I am happy for you that you happy such a high level of confidence in your position.
I am going to have to come back to you on that one.
So what punishment do you think there should be for murder, as you say yourself murder is a crime?
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
The Third Reich, (Reich = Empire) was the name given by the Nazis to the Dictatorial Empire they were intending to create. It is true that nobody was supposed to replace Hitler as the ‘Führer’ after his suicide, and maybe this is what lead you to believe that he alone was the Third Reich. In fact, however, it survived him by at least two days, to the 2 May 1945, or depending on the definition, until the 5th of July, 1945, when the Allies officially assumed power over Germany. I consider your claim that the Third Reich was solely Hitler as proven to be false.
If I claimed that, why did you not cut and paste it?
You did so in the previous paragraph of your own post!
Is that supposed to constitute an argument, on your part?
No, this was an answer to your question. I don’t see a point of argument in the question ‘What is your point?’.
Are you claiming that, the Republic of Poland attacked the Third Reich Radio station Sender Gleiwitz in upper Silesia on 31 August 1939, violating the sovereign territory of the Third Reich and murdering innocent citizens of the Third Reich.
Stop throwing Red Herrings around you. I never claimed that, I was talking about the Western powers, being France and the UK.
You seem to be implying because of the fact that Britain and France would not have known that the Third Reich would to go ahead to wage a campaign of extermination against the Jews, when Britain and France declared War on Germany that makes the Third Reich’s War legal, I can not see any logic to that that.
This statement once again doesn’t make any sense in the way you’ve written it. What has the lack of knowledge about the Holocaust to do with legalizing the Third Reich’s War? I can’t even recall ever having stated something like that.
Anyway, what I did state, was that by declaring war on Germany, theoretically, Germany had the right to defend itself, so your claim that any fighting of German troops against British or French ones was illegal (on Germany’s part) is wrong.
So having Jewish children turfed out of their beds in a TB hospital in Berlin and made to dance in their night clothes in their bare feet on broken glass in the cold night air was in accordance with the code of honor of the Prussian officer class of the German Army, was it?
Please give me a reference that states that the entire German army watched, as soldiers committed this atrocity towards these children. Also, please give me a concrete resource where I can look up that this actually happened in the way you describe it.
Or was this just another attempt to provoke?
Are you saying then that the Jews in Germany brought their fate on themselves by ignoring fair warnings? If so, how come you are also saying that the Allies did not know Hitler was going to exterminate the Jews?
I am not saying they brought their fate on themselves. What I am saying, though, is that they should have very well been able to tell that they were not going to be safe in Germany, as many of them in fact did.
The Antisemitism in the Third Reich was terrible, but it was no indication of Extermination.
How do you know what I know and do not know?
I do not know if you’re actually ignorant, that is very true. But I do know how you portray yourself through your post, which leaves to only two options:
You know very well that you’re just trolling, which would make you an asshole.
You do not know that you’re just trolling, which would make you ignorant.
As you might be able to tell, I chose to assume the more flattering possibility.
Why does my sentence structure not make sense?
Because it is faulty and unclear.
Where and when, did I make a statement to that effect?
Right here:
I only chose to expand on who the victims of the bombing raids were, as they were not only housewives.
You have made a statement that I am assuming that every German was automatically enthusiastic about the Nazis and then just plonked on a question mark on to the end of it to apparently give it some vague aspect of a question to it.[/quote
Wrong. It was a question. If you do not know how to differ between a counter-question and a statement, then I can only refer you to Grade 2.
[quote]That is outside the conventions of the English language.
Wrong. Read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question
And then come back.
What is your definition of completely innocent and what is my definition of completely innocent is may be completely different
Allow me to clarify: In this context, completely innocent would mean that they did not commit a crime, such as Genocide or Murder.
and what is your definition to be [i]killed in cold blood[i] and my definition to be killed in cold blood is may be completely different.
Well, my definition would be that they were killed without having personally provoked anything. That would include the Allied and Axis bombing raids aimed to demoralize the people, without targeting any military institutions.
For example would bmembers of the Einstatz SS who worked as guards in concentration camps be completely innocent, when they would be merely followed the orders of superiors?
No, as they actually committed a crime against humanity, whether they were ordered to do so or not. You cannot compare these people to the civilians, and you should know that. You should really watch out, or you won’t be posting on this board for very long anymore.
Well I am happy for you that you happy such a high level of confidence in your position.
My confidence is simply based on my ability to, unlike you, back my claims with facts.
So what punishment do you think there should be for murder, as you say yourself murder is a crime?
As I said beforehand, not everything is so simple, you cannot compare one murder to another. Generally speaking, I agree with the local Canadian law that differs between 1st degree Murder, which has life-long imprisonment as punishment, and 2nd degree murder, which sees a minimum of 10 years imprisonment as punishment.