English POW eyewitness to Dresden

Holocaust denial and related subjects.
User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1609
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: English POW eyewitness to Dresden

Postby Balsamo » Fri Mar 27, 2015 7:36 pm

The worst thing to do would be to take him too seriously...
My guess is that he is only having some fun spitting his same BS now and then...creating micro-buzz...when he is bored. He then dissapears for days or weeks, and come back and do the same circus...

Mary Q Contrary
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1177
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:30 am

Re: English POW eyewitness to Dresden

Postby Mary Q Contrary » Fri Mar 27, 2015 8:27 pm

Jeff_36 wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:We're done with this, I should think. LOL.


Yep. A river of tears for the little blue eyed people of Dresden but scant attention to the suffering nmasses of Leningrad. What a shame.

Yep. A river of tears for the little hooked nose people of Poland but scant attention to the suffering masses of Dresden and Berlin and hamburg and....

If the Commies gave a rats ass about the people of Leningrad all they had to do was surrender. Boo {!#%@} hoo. I have more sympathy for the poor dogs and cats that were murdered than any pinko babies who allegedly "suffered."
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4600
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: English POW eyewitness to Dresden

Postby Jeff_36 » Fri Mar 27, 2015 9:20 pm

The Germans were instructed not to accept the surrender of the city. Destruction was the goal. Never mind the fact that in the event of victory the Nazis intended to enslave most of eastern Europe as part of Generalplan Oct.

You've never heard of that have you?

Also, your references to "hooked noses" and "pinko babies" hardly advances your filthy cause. This was a real atrocity, fuelled by unwarranted hate.

PLEASE EXPLAIN IN GREATER DETAIL YOUR RACIALIST OPINIONS ON SLAVS AND JEWS MARY

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1609
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: English POW eyewitness to Dresden

Postby Balsamo » Fri Mar 27, 2015 10:13 pm

Jeff_36 wrote:The Germans were instructed not to accept the surrender of the city. Destruction was the goal. Never mind the fact that in the event of victory the Nazis intended to enslave most of eastern Europe as part of Generalplan Oct.

You've never heard of that have you?

Also, your references to "hooked noses" and "pinko babies" hardly advances your filthy cause. This was a real atrocity, fuelled by unwarranted hate.

PLEASE EXPLAIN IN GREATER DETAIL YOUR RACIALIST OPINIONS ON SLAVS AND JEWS MARY


Hi Jeff,

my first question was lost somehow.
Do you have some details about the order NOT to accept the surrender of this symbolic and strategic city?

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 20511
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: English POW eyewitness to Dresden

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Fri Mar 27, 2015 10:42 pm

Seconding Balsamo's query and thanking David for this thread which somehow provoked Mary's repulsive post - I always love it when their masks come off.
You know, my dear Colonel General, I don't really believe that the Russians will attack at all. It's all an enormous bluff. - Heinrich Himmler to Heinz Guderian, December 1944

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4600
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: English POW eyewitness to Dresden

Postby Jeff_36 » Fri Mar 27, 2015 11:55 pm

It was mentioned at length in an HC post. The Nazi policy towards Leningrad that is. Just query "Leningrad" there and it will show up. It is filed under the "non-Jewish Victims" category.

There is no doubt that the intention was to wipe out the city.

User avatar
NathanC
Regular Poster
Posts: 550
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:19 am

Re: English POW eyewitness to Dresden

Postby NathanC » Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:04 am

Roberto Muehlenkamp translated the following

http://holocaustcontroversies.yuku.com/topic/1909/The-Siege-of-Leningrad#.VRXvYvmUfxU


Order of the Army High Command (Oberkommando des Heeres) to Army Group North of 28.09.1941 (Bundersarchiv/Militärarchiv, RM 7/1014)

Subject: Sealing off the city of Leningrad

To

Army Group North

According to directives of the Supreme Command the following is ordered:
1.) The city of Leningrad is to be sealed off by a ring to be taken as close as possible to the city in order to save forces.A capitulation is not to be demanded.
2.) In order to achieve that the city as center of the last great Red resistance on the Baltic is eliminated as soon as possible without greater sacrifices in blood of our own being brought, the city is not to be attacked by infantry. It is to be deprived of its life and defense capacity by crushing the enemy air defense and fighter planes and destroying waterworks, stores and sources of light and power. The military installations and defense forces of the enemy are to be crushed by fire and bombardment. Any move by the civilian population in the direction of the encircling troops is to be prevented if necessary by force of arms.
3.) Liaison Staff North will require the Finnish high command to provide for the Finnish troops advancing in the Karelian isthmus taking over the encirclement from the north and north-east in connection with the German troops advancing over the Neva and the encirclement itself being carried out according to the above criteria.

Immediate contact between Army Group North and Liaison Staff North for regulation of details will be ordered by Army Supreme Command in due time.

By order

signed Halder


User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1609
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: English POW eyewitness to Dresden

Postby Balsamo » Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:08 am

thanks

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 20511
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: English POW eyewitness to Dresden

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:26 am

thanks, brutal
You know, my dear Colonel General, I don't really believe that the Russians will attack at all. It's all an enormous bluff. - Heinrich Himmler to Heinz Guderian, December 1944

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4600
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: English POW eyewitness to Dresden

Postby Jeff_36 » Sat Mar 28, 2015 1:03 am

Balsamo wrote:thanks


Sorry it took so long man.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 20511
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: English POW eyewitness to Dresden

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Sat Mar 28, 2015 2:01 am

An interested reader sent this along:
Order of the Wehrmacht Supreme Command (Oberkommando der Wehrmacht) to the Army Supreme Commander (Oberbefehlshaber des Heeres) about the rejection of capitulation offers from Leningrad or Moscow, 7.10.1941 (Bundesarchiv/Militärarchiv, RM; 7/1014, Bl. 51 f.)

Der Führer hat erneut entschieden, dass eine Kapitulation von Leningrad oder später von Moskau nicht anzunehmen ist, auch wenn sie von der Gegenseite angeboten würde.

Die moralische Berechtigung zu dieser Maßnahme liegt vor aller Welt klar. Ebenso wie in Kiew durch Sprengungen mit Zeitzündern die schwersten Gefahren für die Truppe entstanden sind, muß damit in Moskau und Leningrad in noch stärkerem Maße gerechnet werden. Dass Leningrad unterminiert sei und bis zum letzten Mann verteidigt würde, hat der sowjetrussische Rundfunk selbst bekannt gegeben.

Schwere Seuchengefahren sind zu erwarten.

Kein deutscher Soldat hat daher diese Städte zu betreten. Wer die Stadt gegen unsere Linien verlassen will, ist durch Feuer zurückzuweisen. Kleinere, nicht gesperrte Lücken, die ein Herausströmen der Bevölkerung nach Innerrußland ermöglichen, sind daher nur zu begrüßen. Auch für die übrigen Städte gilt, dass sie vor der Einnahme durch Artilleriefeuer und Luftangriffe zu zermürben sind und die Bevölkerung zur Flucht zu veranlassen ist.

Das Leben deutscher Soldaten für die Errettung russischer Städte vor einer Feuergefahr einzusetzen oder deren Bevölkerung auf Kosten der deutschen Heimat zu ernähren, ist nicht zu verantworten.

Das Chaos in Rußland wird umso größer, unsere Verwaltung und Ausnützung der besetzten Ostgebiete umso leichter werden, je mehr die Bevölkerung der sowjetrussischen Städte nach dem Innern Rußlands flüchtet.

Dieser Wille des Führers muß sämtlichen Kommandeuren zur Kenntnis gebracht werden.

Der Chef des Oberkommandos der Wehrmacht

I.A.

gez. Jodl
You know, my dear Colonel General, I don't really believe that the Russians will attack at all. It's all an enormous bluff. - Heinrich Himmler to Heinz Guderian, December 1944

Mary Q Contrary
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1177
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:30 am

Re: English POW eyewitness to Dresden

Postby Mary Q Contrary » Sat Mar 28, 2015 5:05 am

Jeff_36 wrote:The Germans were instructed not to accept the surrender of the city. Destruction was the goal. Never mind the fact that in the event of victory the Nazis intended to enslave most of eastern Europe as part of Generalplan Oct.

You've never heard of that have you?

Also, your references to "hooked noses" and "pinko babies" hardly advances your filthy cause. This was a real atrocity, fuelled by unwarranted hate.

PLEASE EXPLAIN IN GREATER DETAIL YOUR RACIALIST OPINIONS ON SLAVS AND JEWS MARY

First you explain your racialist opinions on Germans or are you going to double standard us and act like your "blue eyed" comment didn't belie an unwarranted hate for Germans?
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

Mary Q Contrary
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1177
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:30 am

Re: English POW eyewitness to Dresden

Postby Mary Q Contrary » Sat Mar 28, 2015 5:22 am

Jeff_36 wrote:It was mentioned at length in an HC post. The Nazi policy towards Leningrad that is. Just query "Leningrad" there and it will show up. It is filed under the "non-Jewish Victims" category.

There is no doubt that the intention was to wipe out the city.

If they wanted to wipe out the city why didn't they just drop about 2,400 tons of high explosives and 1,475 tons of incendiary bombs over a two day period? Or would that have been too barbaric?
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27746
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: English POW eyewitness to Dresden

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat Mar 28, 2015 7:01 am

images (8).jpg
Mary Q Contrary, the holocaust denier danced for us and wrote: If they wanted to wipe out the city why didn't they just drop about 2,400 tons of high explosives and 1,475 tons of incendiary bombs over a two day period? Or would that have been too barbaric?


And would the Germans ask the Russians permission to drive 3,875 trucks into Leningrad to deliver the ordinance?
:D

You are amazingly simple minded . What delivery system do you propose the Germans should have used based on their manufacturing output?

.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 20511
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: English POW eyewitness to Dresden

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Sat Mar 28, 2015 1:29 pm

Mary Q Contrary wrote:act like your "blue eyed" comment didn't belie an unwarranted hate for Germans?

Among Maryzilla's many failures and shortcomings, her inability to grasp irony must be recognized.

Jeff's main points were to criticize David for a double standard and also to explain that on account of scale he considered Leningrad to be worse than the bombing of Dresden, of which he also disapproved. I myself would not have written that the fire-bombing of a city and killing of 1000s - we can disagree on the number (the city of Dresden says 25,000) but it didn't come close to the number of civilian deaths that the Germans caused in the siege of Leningrad (1.5 million? - Maryzilla's speculation about methods is beside the point) - was "child's play."

Again, my own view is that there's not case for military operations against masses of civilians - and thus I won't apologize for or minimize the intentional killing of civilians during war, whoever carries out such actions. Jeff, Matthew Ellard, and I seem to hold different viewpoints on this - but it would be helpful for Maryzilla at least to state correctly what people have written in this thread. Perhaps she is unable to understand what's been written due to her anti-Semitic bile, ideological blinders, and overall negative character?
You know, my dear Colonel General, I don't really believe that the Russians will attack at all. It's all an enormous bluff. - Heinrich Himmler to Heinz Guderian, December 1944

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4600
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: English POW eyewitness to Dresden

Postby Jeff_36 » Sat Mar 28, 2015 1:49 pm

My "blue eyed" comment was in reference to David's near canonization of the Dresden victims due to their race, while ignoring the victims of Leningrad for the same reason. Mr. Ellard made the same point, only in reference to the Tokyo bombing.

David
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4998
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: English POW eyewitness to Dresden

Postby David » Sat Mar 28, 2015 3:43 pm

Jeff_36 wrote:
> My "blue eyed" comment was in reference to David's near canonization of the Dresden
> victims due to their race, while ignoring the victims of Leningrad for the same
> reason. Mr. Ellard made the same point, only in reference to the Tokyo bombing.

My goodness- I cite an interesting video with an English soldier telling of
his experiences and the Believers all go apesh*t with stupid personal attacks and endless babbling about how bad the Germans were.

This proves my point. Much of the emphasis on German crimes is generated by the same dishonest attempts to sweep Allied crimes under the rug.
This tendentiousness can be seen down the line. No figure of victims of Allied bombings is too low, no figure of victims of German crimes is too high.

German crimes are not justified by Allied crimes.
But Allied crimes are not made any less by German crimes yet this is the game
Believers play.


The old Soldier could only tell of his terrible experiences in Dresden. The horrors
of British and American terror bombing of civilians was repeated many times during the
War...culminating on the use of atomic weapons against Japanese civilians.

These bombings were all part of an English and American policy of "strategic bombing"
that started in the 1920's and lead to the B-29 and "Fat Man." There is much evidence that strategic bombing was, in effect or by design, nearly useless terror bombing of women and children. There is a lot for Believers to sweep under the rug.

The tradition of massive bombing of civilians was carried on in the Vietnam War and
in the Shock and Awe attack on Iraq with a similar forgetfulness of its horrible effects.

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4600
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: English POW eyewitness to Dresden

Postby Jeff_36 » Sat Mar 28, 2015 3:48 pm

And yet due to your Nazi ideological leanings you continue to refuse any acknowledgement of non-German, non-axis victims at all. Such victims were targeted because of pure ideological and racial hatred and far outnumbered any victims of Allied strategic bombing.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 20511
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: English POW eyewitness to Dresden

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Sat Mar 28, 2015 3:56 pm

Jeff_36 wrote:My "blue eyed" comment was in reference to David's near canonization of the Dresden victims due to their race, while ignoring the victims of Leningrad for the same reason. Mr. Ellard made the same point, only in reference to the Tokyo bombing.

Which was obvious to all including Maryzilla.
You know, my dear Colonel General, I don't really believe that the Russians will attack at all. It's all an enormous bluff. - Heinrich Himmler to Heinz Guderian, December 1944

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 20511
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: English POW eyewitness to Dresden

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Sat Mar 28, 2015 4:33 pm

David wrote:. . . This proves my point.

No, it doesn't. You're in the grips of a delusional state which makes you believe that everything proves your points.

David wrote:. . . dishonest attempts to sweep Allied crimes under the rug.
This tendentiousness can be seen down the line. No figure of victims of Allied bombings is too low, no figure of victims of German crimes is too high.

Utter BS as Jeff explains in his post just above. But also because of, er, reality: you are writing about a discussion going on inside your head, not the one in this thread, which included Jeff's comment:
Jeff_36 wrote:FYI I generally disprove of the Dresden bombing, but it was childs play compared to the atrocities of Nazi Germany. . . . Tell us if you think that Jewish or eastern European lives matter, or any lives other than German ones for that matter.

And my writing the precise opposite of what you try putting over:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
David wrote:We have Jeff and SM demanding that any discussion of Dresden be proceeded and followed with genuflections in the direction of real or imagined German crimes as a "justification" of the tens of thousands of people burned alive in Dresden.

Neither of us did any such thing. I assure you, the German crimes I condemn, just like the other crimes I condemn, were real and not imagined.

In case you were too slow to "get it," I later spelled out what I meant by what I've boldfaced above:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:. . . Jeff is shoving into your face the fact that you wail about Dresden - but go to lengths to deny, minimize, or rationalize Nazi crimes, such as the siege of Leningrad.

I cannot think of a case in which I approve of the bombing of, or other military attacks, on civilians - and that goes for Allied bombing of German cities, German atrocities committed in the anti-partisan actions in the East, German reprisal killings in the East and West (such as hostage shootings, Lidice, etc), German bombing of civilian areas, the hunger policy of the Germans which Jeff mentioned, American atrocities in Vietnam (like the violence against civilians in the strategic hamlet program, napalm and Agent Orange, etc) and human rights abuses more recently for example Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and drone strikes in civilian areas, the American atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and conventional bombing of Tokyo/Yokohama, and many other instances.

Jeff is calling you out as a Nazi sympathizer and purveyor of a double standard, I'm guessing.

And you're also pretending that I didn't post that
Statistical Mechanic wrote:Again, my own view is that there's not case for military operations against masses of civilians - and thus I won't apologize for or minimize the intentional killing of civilians during war, whoever carries out such actions.

What I'm trying to say is that you are a liar.

David wrote:German crimes are not justified by Allied crimes.
But Allied crimes are not made any less by German crimes yet this is the game Believers play.

You missed this in your ravings:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
David wrote:There was no justification.

Neither of us said there was.

You're caught lying again.

One of the best, and most horrific, descriptions, of the Allied fire-bombing of Dresden that I've read is the passage in Viktor Klemperer's diary on his bizarre "rescue" from the Nazis, starting p 406. True, Klemperer's word should not be taken because he was one of the
little hooked nose people of

Dresden and we don't need yet another
river of tears

for the Jews. Besides which, Klemperer was the very worst of the hook noses, staying in Dresden and thus in the DDR and thus becoming a Red-Jew.
Boo {!#%@} hoo

for the Jew Klemperer, he got what he deserved . . . er, he should have been taken to a camp . . .

Thinking of which, Maryzilla's declaration that she has
more sympathy for the poor dogs and cats that were murdered than any pinko babies who allegedly

puts her in the company of the mass murderers and architects of genocide, echoing comments of her heroes and showing that she's been reading too many speeches of the RFSS. Because, you know, as to the Jewish-Bolshevik children and babies, Maryzilla and the RFSS both believe the Germans had no right to let these children and babies grow up to become Commies, hook-nosed parasites, and avengers who would kill the fathers and grandchildren of the war generation of Germans. That, Maryzilla thinks, as did the RFSS, would have been cowardly. Thus the problem was solved without half-measures, the babies, hook-nosed and pinko, were put down like animals, for whom a moral person would in fact have more sympathy.
You know, my dear Colonel General, I don't really believe that the Russians will attack at all. It's all an enormous bluff. - Heinrich Himmler to Heinz Guderian, December 1944

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1609
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: English POW eyewitness to Dresden

Postby Balsamo » Sat Mar 28, 2015 5:09 pm

Mary Q Contrary wrote:
Jeff_36 wrote:It was mentioned at length in an HC post. The Nazi policy towards Leningrad that is. Just query "Leningrad" there and it will show up. It is filed under the "non-Jewish Victims" category.

There is no doubt that the intention was to wipe out the city.

If they wanted to wipe out the city why didn't they just drop about 2,400 tons of high explosives and 1,475 tons of incendiary bombs over a two day period? Or would that have been too barbaric?


Actually they did, through artillery and aerial bombings. But to be as effective as were the RAF or USAF in 1943, you need heavy bombers and bombs that the Germans just did not have in 1941. Plus Leningrad is a huge city of 1500 km2 ( fifteen times San Francisco) and three times the size of Stalingrad ( which was 65 kilometer long).
Actually, Barbaric is a good term to qualify the way Germany led its eastern war.
A siege is not illegal - even a Barbaric one - what is criminal is the refusal of surrender, so whatever the reason behind the order - and there are reasons - this order should be added to the other "criminal orders" issued by the Fuhrer.

It is really rare to find someone who will not qualify the bombing of Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagazaki and Tokyo as criminal - some more and some less - but it is very common to find Deniers considering the bombing of Dresden as THE real Holocaust, the absolute crime above any others.
That is how i understood Jeff anyway.

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4600
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: English POW eyewitness to Dresden

Postby Jeff_36 » Sat Mar 28, 2015 5:52 pm

You are exactly right Mr. Balsamo
It is quite common to hear deniers referring to the bombing of Germany as the "only" genocide of WWII. This is pure horseshit. Mary here has succinctly exposed the real feeling of deniers on the very real, much worse crimes committed by their heroes.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 20511
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: English POW eyewitness to Dresden

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Sat Mar 28, 2015 6:01 pm

Balsamo wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:
Jeff_36 wrote:It was mentioned at length in an HC post. The Nazi policy towards Leningrad that is. Just query "Leningrad" there and it will show up. It is filed under the "non-Jewish Victims" category.

There is no doubt that the intention was to wipe out the city.

If they wanted to wipe out the city why didn't they just drop about 2,400 tons of high explosives and 1,475 tons of incendiary bombs over a two day period? Or would that have been too barbaric?


Actually they did, through artillery and aerial bombings. But to be as effective as were the RAF or USAF in 1943, you need heavy bombers and bombs that the Germans just did not have in 1941. Plus Leningrad is a huge city of 1500 km2 ( fifteen times San Francisco) and three times the size of Stalingrad ( which was 65 kilometer long).
Actually, Barbaric is a good term to qualify the way Germany led its eastern war.
A siege is not illegal - even a Barbaric one - what is criminal is the refusal of surrender, so whatever the reason behind the order - and there are reasons - this order should be added to the other "criminal orders" issued by the Fuhrer.

It is really rare to find someone who will not qualify the bombing of Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagazaki and Tokyo as criminal - some more and some less - but it is very common to find Deniers considering the bombing of Dresden as THE real Holocaust, the absolute crime above any others.
That is how i understood Jeff anyway.

Indeed, just how does Maryzilla think over 1 million died in the siege?

Your last point is also well put. As many times as we write that the Allies committed criminal acts, and as many times as we, using the same standard, deplore e.g. US "interventions" since WWII, deniers recycle the same false accusations we're reading in this thread.
You know, my dear Colonel General, I don't really believe that the Russians will attack at all. It's all an enormous bluff. - Heinrich Himmler to Heinz Guderian, December 1944

Mary Q Contrary
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1177
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:30 am

Re: English POW eyewitness to Dresden

Postby Mary Q Contrary » Sat Mar 28, 2015 9:47 pm

Jeff_36 wrote:My "blue eyed" comment was in reference to David's near canonization of the Dresden victims due to their race, while ignoring the victims of Leningrad for the same reason. Mr. Ellard made the same point, only in reference to the Tokyo bombing.

And my "hooked nose" comment was in reference to your near canonization of Jewish victims of the war due to their race, while ignoring the victims of Dresden for the same reason.
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4600
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: English POW eyewitness to Dresden

Postby Jeff_36 » Sat Mar 28, 2015 10:00 pm

I canonize no one and ignore no one either. I pay scant attention to Dresden, tragic as it was due to its iconic status in Neo-Nazi circles, and it's use as a rallying cry for anti-Semitic scum such as yourself. Such treatment has been nothing but a stain on the legacy of those unfortunate people.

But it is all about scale and the strategic bombing campaign was a) not genocidal and b) not fueld by racial hatred. It simply does not register when compared to Nazi crimes. One must not forget that the Nazis were the first to embark on bombing of civilian targets.

Your insult to the poor victims of Leningrad was unforgivable and exposed IMO, your true colours and what really motivates you people.

Mary Mary au contrary, shave that pussy too damn hairy.......

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1609
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: English POW eyewitness to Dresden

Postby Balsamo » Sun Mar 29, 2015 1:02 am

These bombings were all part of an English and American policy of "strategic bombing"
that started in the 1920's and lead to the B-29 and "Fat Man." There is much evidence that strategic bombing was, in effect or by design, nearly useless terror bombing of women and children. There is a lot for Believers to sweep under the rug.


You are right about Strategic bombings, but i fail to see where and when it was swepts under the rug. I think all the difference is there. When i was young, the "official" or at least uncontested number of victims for Dresden was between 150 and 200.000 thousands. It was subject to critics since day 1, since then it has been commemorated every year.
We are not only talking about bombing of german cities here. In Normandy, there are still very strong negative feelings against the USAF among the local population, despite the liberation because of the wiping of cities like Caen and St-Lô and a lot of villages along the coast. More French citizens were killed that British during the Blitz!
It was also noticed by Headquarters and eventually to a change in the aerial strategy.
Whether those constitute "positively" a war crimes or not is still an open debate, and i have open a topic about that on this forum.

But although one can pity the Japanese civilians who paid a heavy price, one tends to forget that the japanese airforce did also target Chinese cities killing hundreds of thousands - outside any tacticical strategy.

Once you adopted a strategy, you accept that this strategy can be eventually use against you.

My stance is still that contrary to the Japanese, the Germans never adopted the Strategic aerial warfare, until september 40. From that date, things changed as illustrates the V1 and V2 project which had no tactical value whatsoever. They did not start it, but with the Blitz they finally adopted the Strategy exposing themselves to further escalation in that matter.

Jeff:
One must not forget that the Nazis were the first to embark on bombing of civilian targets.


Contrary to a common belief, it is not the fact to target civilians (or to kill civilians) which is outlawed by the Laws of War. A siege is a strategy that exists since the mist of times. And even the IMT would have put any German generals on trials for a siege, even if the result is thousands of civilians deaths. In the case of Leningrad, the crime is the refusal of surrender - which is a theoretical crime as i am not aware that the Soviets even proposed the surrender of their symbolic city.

In the case of Strategic bombings it is the strategy itself that can be considered as contrary to all principles and Laws of war. Even if one can argue that the specific legislation regarding aerial warfare had never been ratified.
Contrary to what happened at Leningrad, both Warsaw and Rotterdam were asked to surrender and warned of the bombing, there were made "legal" by this detail.

Personnally, i also refrain myself to judge a crime based on the number of victims. It is the policy that matter, the intend and not the result.
Whether 1000.000 or 300.000 civilians starved at Leningrad does not change a thing, the same way the shoah would not be a lesser crime of Reitlinger's number were the right ones, or the downgrade in the number of victims of Dresden does not - in my eyes - downgrade the criminal aspect of this operation.

The funny part here is David and Mary reaction to Jeff's blue eyed allusion, but how can one be shocked by that when one dedicates his entire intelect to justify downplay or deny obvious crimes - and an endless list can be made of them - committed by the Nazi Regime outside any military context, which is why one had to invent the concept of crimes against humanity...

If one had to designate one point in commmon between the Strategic bombing and the Judenpolitiek - and it's a little and shaky one .- is that both are some kind of collective punishment- and that is about it.
But in this regards, The Nazi clearly started their infamous operation well before bombs started to fall and destroy its cities.
Double standard is indeed the only thing that comes to mind.
Had you been as sensitive toward the Jewish people and all the other persecuted minorities, as you are toward the German women and children, you might have find yourself realizing how blindminded you really are.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 20511
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: English POW eyewitness to Dresden

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Sun Mar 29, 2015 1:57 am

Balsamo, I agree with a number of the points you make to Maryzilla but differ strongly on part of what what you're arguing; your argument neglects I think, Nazi war aims in the East, and especially against the USSR, including the provisions of the Generalplan Ost - with Backe's Hunger Plan in the background (food deficit/food surplus areas, German colonization, umpteen millions to die, etc). This context gives the military action a dimension, and intent, different to, well, a military operation.

We need to consider, in the light of war planning, such documents as Hitler's war-time directive to Army Group North quoted in Anna Reid, Leningrad: The Epic Siege of World War II, 1941-1944 (unpaged Google Books version):
Subject: the future of the City of Petersburg

The Führer is determined to erase the city of Petersburg from the face of the earth. After the defeat of Soviet Russia there can be no interest in the continued existence of this large urban centre. . . . It is intended to encircle the city and level it to the ground by means of artillery bombardment using every calibre of shell, and continual bombing from the air.

Following the city’s encirclement, requests for surrender negotiations shall be denied, since the problem of relocating and feeding the population cannot and should not be solved by us. In this war for our very existence, we can have no interest in maintaining even a part of this very large urban population.

This criminal directive came from the Führer on 29 September 1941. It was followed by the criminal implementation order from Jodl on 7 October 1941, which I quoted above, and then of course the criminal actions against the civilians of Leningrad we’ve been discussing - which actions the forced starvation deaths of about three quarters of a million people trapped in the city.

Contrary to Maryzilla's hateful and sub-literate snarling, these deaths were German policy, not determined by by Soviet decisions.

Given the connections outlined above, the siege has to be understood as part of a premeditated mass murder and part of Germany’s specific war aims, not a tactic of battle. This is a war crime and crime against humanity of the highest order. Even allowing for your “shaky” comparison, I disagree that the Nazi’s Jewish policy (genocide) was like the strategic bombings of cities, which did not aim at the extermination of a whole people and which stopped simultaneous with the cessation of military hostilities. Likewise, German aims - and accomplishments - in the war of two systems, clash of ideologies, with Leningrad a prime example, were not similar to the crimes committed by the Allies in Dresden.
Last edited by Statistical Mechanic on Sun Mar 29, 2015 3:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
You know, my dear Colonel General, I don't really believe that the Russians will attack at all. It's all an enormous bluff. - Heinrich Himmler to Heinz Guderian, December 1944

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27746
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: English POW eyewitness to Dresden

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Mar 29, 2015 2:15 am

zippy-6.jpg
Mary Q Contrary, the lying holocaust denier wrote:And my "hooked nose" comment was in reference to your near canonization of Jewish victims of the war due to their race, while ignoring the victims of Dresden for the same reason.


Historians accept and study the death of both Dresden victims and Holocaust victims.

Neo-Nazi holocaust deniers, like yourself, deny there there were holocaust victims as they hate Jews.

It's pretty simple.

:D
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Mary Q Contrary
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1177
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:30 am

Re: English POW eyewitness to Dresden

Postby Mary Q Contrary » Sun Mar 29, 2015 5:37 am

Balsamo wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:
Jeff_36 wrote:It was mentioned at length in an HC post. The Nazi policy towards Leningrad that is. Just query "Leningrad" there and it will show up. It is filed under the "non-Jewish Victims" category.

There is no doubt that the intention was to wipe out the city.

If they wanted to wipe out the city why didn't they just drop about 2,400 tons of high explosives and 1,475 tons of incendiary bombs over a two day period? Or would that have been too barbaric?


Actually they did, through artillery and aerial bombings. But to be as effective as were the RAF or USAF in 1943, you need heavy bombers and bombs that the Germans just did not have in 1941. Plus Leningrad is a huge city of 1500 km2 ( fifteen times San Francisco) and three times the size of Stalingrad ( which was 65 kilometer long).
Actually, Barbaric is a good term to qualify the way Germany led its eastern war.
A siege is not illegal - even a Barbaric one - what is criminal is the refusal of surrender, so whatever the reason behind the order - and there are reasons - this order should be added to the other "criminal orders" issued by the Fuhrer.

I'm not so sure the problem was the German's refusing to accept a surrender. It doesn't sound like city officials were pathetically begging the Germans to accept their surrender to which the Germans shouted "Nein!" and told them to return to the city and await their death. This website suggests that it was the brave comrades of Leningrad who valiantly refused to surrender despite 900 days of a brutal siege. This website puts the same spin on it too.

Leningrad could have been surrendered or it could've been evacuated. The suffering of the Russians in Leningrad was brought about by the Russians themselves.

It is really rare to find someone who will not qualify the bombing of Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagazaki and Tokyo as criminal - some more and some less - but it is very common to find Deniers considering the bombing of Dresden as THE real Holocaust, the absolute crime above any others.
That is how i understood Jeff anyway.

See, your problem is that, in your mind, the Holocaust of the Jews is the absolute crime above all others and that for some reason you believe that acknowledging the suffering of non-Jews is the same as denying the suffering of Jews.

And if you want to get Oxford Dictionary about it, being burned alive is closer to what you would call a holocaust than anything both exteminationists and revisionist believe happened to the Jews. (Except those unfortunate enough to be in Hamburg, Berlin, Cologne, Dresden, etc.on the wrong day.)
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27746
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: English POW eyewitness to Dresden

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Mar 29, 2015 6:27 am

Mary Q Contrary, the really stupid holocaust denier wrote:Leningrad could have been surrendered or it could've been evacuated. The suffering of the Russians in Leningrad was brought about by the Russians themselves.


Who surrounded Leningrad and stopped food from being brought in, Mary?

Why are you so incredibly stupid?

:D

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 20511
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: English POW eyewitness to Dresden

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Sun Mar 29, 2015 1:08 pm

Mary Q Contrary wrote:I'm not so sure the problem was the German's refusing to accept a surrender.

Führer directive of 29 September 1941, which Maryzilla ignores:
Subject: the future of the City of Petersburg

The Führer is determined to erase the city of Petersburg from the face of the earth. After the defeat of Soviet Russia there can be no interest in the continued existence of this large urban centre. . . . It is intended to encircle the city and level it to the ground by means of artillery bombardment using every calibre of shell, and continual bombing from the air.

Following the city’s encirclement, requests for surrender negotiations shall be denied, since the problem of relocating and feeding the population cannot and should not be solved by us. In this war for our very existence, we can have no interest in maintaining even a part of this very large urban population.

German war aims are surely of some interest in the question of what happened at Leningrad, and the Führer's directives surely are pertinent to those aims and the subsequent actions taken by the Germans.

Mary Q Contrary wrote:Leningrad could have been surrendered or it could've been evacuated. The suffering of the Russians in Leningrad was brought about by the Russians themselves.

Pretty much the same way an assault victim is responsible for being assaulted for not doing as the thug with the pistol says pronto.

Mary Q Contrary wrote:See, your problem is that, in your mind, the Holocaust of the Jews is the absolute crime above all others and that for some reason you believe that acknowledging the suffering of non-Jews is the same as denying the suffering of Jews.

See, Maryzilla's problem is that the siege of Leningrad didn't target the Jews, but the Jew-obsessed Maryzilla wants to see Jews everywhere. Maryzilla goes around the bend on this even as Balsamo has written
Had you been as sensitive toward the Jewish people and all the other persecuted minorities, as you are toward the German women and children, you might have find yourself realizing how blindminded you really are.
You know, my dear Colonel General, I don't really believe that the Russians will attack at all. It's all an enormous bluff. - Heinrich Himmler to Heinz Guderian, December 1944

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1609
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: English POW eyewitness to Dresden

Postby Balsamo » Sun Mar 29, 2015 2:39 pm

StatMec wrote:
your argument neglects I think, Nazi war aims in the East, and especially against the USSR, including the provisions of the Generalplan Os


and

This criminal directive came from the Führer on 29 September 1941. It was followed by the criminal implementation order from Jodl on 7 October 1941, which I quoted above, and then of course the criminal actions against the civilians of Leningrad we’ve been discussing - which actions the forced starvation deaths of about three quarters of a million people trapped in the city.


It was not my intention.
Actually, i though i didn't neglect when i wrote:
Actually, Barbaric is a good term to qualify the way Germany led its eastern war. (…)what is criminal is the refusal of surrender, so whatever the reason behind the order - and there are reasons - this order should be added to the other "criminal orders" issued by the Fuhrer.


The confusion might be the result of me isolating the siege for the sake of my argumentation.
Siege is a barbaric strategy, and the starvation of the population is an essential part of this strategy to force the city to surrender. Only a surrender - most of the time unconditional - put an end to a siege, this is why evacuation of population is almost never accepted before the surrender.
Richelieu adopted the same strategy at La Rochelle in the first half of the XVII century: including shooting at the ones who try to escape- actually they were sent by the authorities of La Rochelle. The Siege lasted 14 months and the three quarters of its population died from starvation before the city finally surrendered.
Of course, if the objective is not the city surrender, then the whole strategy becomes a criminal act. No ambiguity here.
This must be the reason why i then disgress to the distinction between a "legal" way of targeting civiians and the "illegal" and "criminal" way. A distinction i admit that is sometimes hard to see.


Or maybe the confusion came from my allusion to “theoretical crime” as the Soviets never asked to be allowed to surrender. But in this situation - the Siege of Leningrad - had there been no such a criminal order, the result would have been the same. It must be clear that it is this order that makes the Siege of Leningrad a criminal act, not the Siege itself. Again, that is why I insist on the criminal intend in such cases. …Nazi plans for the USSR – the GO Plan- were criminal by nature, but not the siege by itself as it took place, as were the infamous "criminal orders".

Mary:
Leningrad could have been surrendered or it could've been evacuated. The suffering of the Russians in Leningrad was brought about by the Russians themselves.


Maybe you should get a minimum of knowledge on a subject before posting about it. StatMec posted two documents proving that the surrender would have been refused – Fuhrer’s Befehl – had the Soviets asked for it. And The Soviet DID try their best to evacuate the city – more than 1,5 millions of them in total. Strangely, a couple of lines from a websites are often not enough.

Mary:
See, your problem is that, in your mind, the Holocaust of the Jews is the absolute crime above all others and that for some reason you believe that acknowledging the suffering of non-Jews is the same as denying the suffering of Jews.

And if you want to get Oxford Dictionary about it, being burned alive is closer to what you would call a holocaust than anything both exteminationists and revisionist believe happened to the Jews. (Except those unfortunate enough to be in Hamburg, Berlin, Cologne, Dresden, etc.on the wrong day.)


Complete rubbish!
And for your information, I tend to use the term Shoah when I speak of the genocide, or even Judenpolitiek and I tend to agree with Bloxham – another one you’ve never read – who calls the Shoah A genocide.
If you acknowledge the suffering of the Jews the same way you acknowledge the suffering of the population of Leningrad, you are just confirming what I said.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 20511
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: English POW eyewitness to Dresden

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Sun Mar 29, 2015 4:11 pm

Balsamo, thanks for clarifying, got it.
You know, my dear Colonel General, I don't really believe that the Russians will attack at all. It's all an enormous bluff. - Heinrich Himmler to Heinz Guderian, December 1944

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4600
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: English POW eyewitness to Dresden

Postby Jeff_36 » Sun Mar 29, 2015 5:03 pm

I think it's best to ignore Mary. She has chosen this far to ignore the clear evidence.
Last edited by Jeff_36 on Sun Mar 29, 2015 11:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27746
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: English POW eyewitness to Dresden

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Mar 29, 2015 11:31 pm

Balsamo wrote:Only a surrender - most of the time unconditional - put an end to a siege, this is why evacuation of population is almost never accepted before the surrender..
I'm with you. Siege warfare has its own unique complex logic and etiquette from the city-state period. Starvation is a weapon, like any other weapon.

Mary Q Contrary
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1177
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:30 am

Re: English POW eyewitness to Dresden

Postby Mary Q Contrary » Mon Mar 30, 2015 7:32 am

Balsamo wrote:StatMec wrote:
your argument neglects I think, Nazi war aims in the East, and especially against the USSR, including the provisions of the Generalplan Os


and

This criminal directive came from the Führer on 29 September 1941. It was followed by the criminal implementation order from Jodl on 7 October 1941, which I quoted above, and then of course the criminal actions against the civilians of Leningrad we’ve been discussing - which actions the forced starvation deaths of about three quarters of a million people trapped in the city.


It was not my intention.
Actually, i though i didn't neglect when i wrote:
Actually, Barbaric is a good term to qualify the way Germany led its eastern war. (…)what is criminal is the refusal of surrender, so whatever the reason behind the order - and there are reasons - this order should be added to the other "criminal orders" issued by the Fuhrer.


The confusion might be the result of me isolating the siege for the sake of my argumentation.
Siege is a barbaric strategy, and the starvation of the population is an essential part of this strategy to force the city to surrender. Only a surrender - most of the time unconditional - put an end to a siege, this is why evacuation of population is almost never accepted before the surrender.
Richelieu adopted the same strategy at La Rochelle in the first half of the XVII century: including shooting at the ones who try to escape- actually they were sent by the authorities of La Rochelle. The Siege lasted 14 months and the three quarters of its population died from starvation before the city finally surrendered.
Of course, if the objective is not the city surrender, then the whole strategy becomes a criminal act. No ambiguity here.
This must be the reason why i then disgress to the distinction between a "legal" way of targeting civiians and the "illegal" and "criminal" way. A distinction i admit that is sometimes hard to see.


Or maybe the confusion came from my allusion to “theoretical crime” as the Soviets never asked to be allowed to surrender. But in this situation - the Siege of Leningrad - had there been no such a criminal order, the result would have been the same. It must be clear that it is this order that makes the Siege of Leningrad a criminal act, not the Siege itself. Again, that is why I insist on the criminal intend in such cases. …Nazi plans for the USSR – the GO Plan- were criminal by nature, but not the siege by itself as it took place, as were the infamous "criminal orders".

Mary:
Leningrad could have been surrendered or it could've been evacuated. The suffering of the Russians in Leningrad was brought about by the Russians themselves.


Maybe you should get a minimum of knowledge on a subject before posting about it. StatMec posted two documents proving that the surrender would have been refused – Fuhrer’s Befehl – had the Soviets asked for it. And The Soviet DID try their best to evacuate the city – more than 1,5 millions of them in total. Strangely, a couple of lines from a websites are often not enough.

SM posted something talking about a fuhrer befehl. That's not the same thing as as fuhrer befehl. He has offered no evidence whatsoever to convince anybody except those who share his ideology that Leningrad could not have surrendered. If he wants to extricate himself from the dunce chair he will show us evidence that the Soviets tried to surrender but were refused. There would be no problem show clear evidence of that, if it had happened. Since Leningrad never tried to surrender, SM is left with egg on his face...again. Strangely, a couple of lines from a website are enough when they say the same thing that every other source says.

Mary:
See, your problem is that, in your mind, the Holocaust of the Jews is the absolute crime above all others and that for some reason you believe that acknowledging the suffering of non-Jews is the same as denying the suffering of Jews.

And if you want to get Oxford Dictionary about it, being burned alive is closer to what you would call a holocaust than anything both exteminationists and revisionist believe happened to the Jews. (Except those unfortunate enough to be in Hamburg, Berlin, Cologne, Dresden, etc.on the wrong day.)


Complete rubbish!

OK, what is your definition of holocaust?

And for your information, I tend to use the term Shoah when I speak of the genocide, or even Judenpolitiek and I tend to agree with Bloxham – another one you’ve never read – who calls the Shoah A genocide.

Well a lot of other people call it "holocaust" even though what happened to the Jews during World War II was clearly not a holocaust.

If you acknowledge the suffering of the Jews the same way you acknowledge the suffering of the population of Leningrad, you are just confirming what I said.

I acknowledge the suffering of all innocent civilians in war equally. If you believe the suffering of the Jews deserves recognition as more tragic than the suffering of non-Jews then you are just confirming what I said.
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 20511
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: English POW eyewitness to Dresden

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Mon Mar 30, 2015 11:17 am

Mary Q Contrary wrote:SM posted something talking about a fuhrer befehl. That's not the same thing as as fuhrer befehl. He has offered no evidence whatsoever to convince anybody except those who share his ideology that Leningrad could not have surrendered.

My main point - and why I posted from two German documents - was clearly about German war aims, as were the points in the Führer's directive and the instructions in the implementation orders. My point was not about what the Soviets tried to do or did - that's your latter day justification for the criminal aims of the Germans.

Indeed, why on earth would I need to provide evidence that the Soviets tried to surrender when I was writing about German plans for the occupied East? You should try reading more carefully instead of working yourself up to defend your heroes.

What, pray tell, is my ideology?

Mary Q Contrary wrote:If he wants to extricate himself from the dunce chair he will show us evidence that the Soviets tried to surrender but were refused. There would be no problem show clear evidence of that, if it had happened. Since Leningrad never tried to surrender, SM is left with egg on his face...again. Strangely, a couple of lines from a website are enough when they say the same thing that every other source says.

I have no idea what you're going on about. Egg on my face? What I wrote was accurate - but not apparently what you wanted me to write about. Your incoherence gets egg all over your own face. What website, what few lines? Your conversations with yourself are not even interesting.

Mary Q Contrary wrote:
And for your information, I tend to use the term Shoah when I speak of the genocide, or even Judenpolitiek and I tend to agree with Bloxham – another one you’ve never read – who calls the Shoah A genocide.

Well a lot of other people call it "holocaust" even though what happened to the Jews during World War II was clearly not a holocaust.

Balsamo does often use the term Shoah and he does rely on Bloxham - what is your point? And so what if the OED defines the root of a word differently to its current usage?

Mary Q Contrary wrote:I acknowledge the suffering of all innocent civilians in war equally.

You've got a curious way of expressing this brave and honorable sentiment. After all, you told us that you have more sympathy for dogs and cats than for the pinko babies of Leningrad, remember?
If the Commies gave a rats ass about the people of Leningrad all they had to do was surrender. Boo {!#%@} hoo. I have more sympathy for the poor dogs and cats that were murdered than any pinko babies who allegedly "suffered."

Oh, that's right, you are a siege of Leningrad denier too, I see. "Allegedly": what a crock.

The additional benefit of the topic is that it enabled you to throw in a repugnant jab at hook noses, to explain, you know, your sharing and caring attitude toward all innocent victims.
You know, my dear Colonel General, I don't really believe that the Russians will attack at all. It's all an enormous bluff. - Heinrich Himmler to Heinz Guderian, December 1944

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1609
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: English POW eyewitness to Dresden

Postby Balsamo » Mon Mar 30, 2015 1:49 pm

Mary:

SM posted something talking about a fuhrer befehl. That's not the same thing as as fuhrer befehl. He has offered no evidence whatsoever to convince anybody except those who share his ideology that Leningrad could not have surrendered.


Really?
so an Order from the OKW to the OKH stating:
Der Führer hat erneut entschieden, dass eine Kapitulation von Leningrad oder später von Moskau nicht anzunehmen ist, auch wenn sie von der Gegenseite angeboten würde.


Even google translate can deal with that sentence.
erneut= again, once again,
nicht anzunehmen = not to be accepted
angeboten würde = asked (Gegenseite = the other side)

That is the second order fro october 41 which repeat the first one.
Both orders are motivated and expained.

What is your problem?
The Soviets did not surrender, so this order is void?

Dresden would still be the beautiful city it was had Hitler accepted to surrender earlier in 1945. Because in this case, the surrender would have been accepted.

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4600
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: English POW eyewitness to Dresden

Postby Jeff_36 » Mon Mar 30, 2015 3:34 pm

Berlin would likely have not suffered as much damage had Hitler surrendered. Instead he chose to sacrifice it on the altar of his ego. That was a case where their was no order on the USSR side to not accept the surrender of the city.

The order provided by Nathan is key here. The siege of Leningrad was a genocidal war crime with exterminatory intent, whereas the strategic bombing camping was a military operation with unintended and unfortunate consequences. It's not even remotely comparable.

And as always: :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXOO67y6ekU

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27746
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: English POW eyewitness to Dresden

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Mar 30, 2015 10:18 pm

Mary, the lying holocaust denier wrote:Leningrad could have been surrendered or it could've been evacuated. The suffering of the Russians in Leningrad was brought about by the Russians themselves.

Jeff_36 wrote:Berlin would likely have not suffered as much damage had Hitler surrendered. Instead he chose to sacrifice it on the altar of his ego.


Mary? Do you agree that Hitler should have surrendered early to protect the lives of German citizens?

Mary? Do you agree with Hitler's Nero Policy to destroy all German infrastructure leaving Germans to starve to death?


Return to “Holocaust Denial”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Linkdex [Bot] and 1 guest