Holocaust Denial query - Page 50

savoir-faire · 10-16-07, 02:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MickB

It has always interested me to know how some people were able to assert with great passion that the Nazi genocide never occurred.

I would have thought real bona Nazis would have taken a grim satisfaction from knowing that kind of thing.

Or is it because, as with those of the far-Left, that the neo-Nazis still see a purity in their basic ideas which the reality would only serve to sour?

Perhaps I've answered my own question.

I think your entire post was devisive and hateful to equate the left with nazis.Democrats nor republicans are like the nazi party. I think denial of the holocaust is wrong-however you tried to slip a devisive attack in your post.

bub · 10-16-07, 03:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Americanadian

War is inherently pointless, other than to serve as a method of population control.

I'm a pacifist! But whatever I could say, the WWI has already hapened. I'm talking about history.

Did you know that in order to conquer the small Flemish village of Passchendaele, over 600,000 soldiers were slaughtered (in september-october 1917 only. If you take the rest of the year into account, it's around one million, for a single village)

Quote:

I suppose each country would be optimistic about their imperialistic endeavors. Few hesitate and think about the innocent who may be lost as a result of their inebriated malfeasance.

"To secure peace is to prepare for war" ?

During each war, the generals are hidden behind thousands of soldiers.

winston53660 · 10-16-07, 03:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bub

During each war, the generals are hidden behind thousands of soldiers.

I've never understood why or how some are able to amass power of this nature.

Volker · 10-16-07, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Americanadian

I once did some research on the various assassination attempts against Hitler. There were many Germans devoted to ridding Germany of the virus of Nazism. Unfortunately they failed.

Tom Cruise is in Germany to make a movie about one of them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Americanadian

If that is the case, all of the countries involved should have abstained from entering the war. Thus, Austria and Serbia could fight it out amongst themselves. However, there was more to it than what we are told in the history books.

Austria has not been attacked, if this is what the alliance was for, there was something wrong with the alliance.

RightinNYC · 10-16-07, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Americanadian

Hmmm...interesting. This could lead even more credence to the possibility of a follow up war now that you mention this. They wanted another war. I'll be back in a bit.

"This is not a peace. It is an armistice for 20 years"
-Marshall Ferdinand Foch on the Treaty of Versailles

RightinNYC · 10-16-07, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Volker

Austria has not been attacked, if this is what the alliance was for, there was something wrong with the alliance.

They weren't attacked? The heir to their throne was assassinated and Serbia obfuscated.

Iriemon · 10-16-07, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightinNYC

They weren't attacked? The heir to their throne was assassinated and Serbia obfuscated.

Depends upon what version of history you read, I suppose. But to say Austria was "attacked" by Serbia justifying military response because of the act of a lone gunman's assissination is a bit of a stretch.

I've read that the conditions Austria placed on Serbia were so onerous as to amount to a surrender of sovereignty. But I admit I'm not an expert in this area.

RightinNYC · 10-16-07, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iriemon

Depends upon what version of history you read, I suppose. But to say Austria was "attacked" by Serbia justifying military response because of the act of a lone gunman's assissination is a bit of a stretch.

I've read that the conditions Austria placed on Serbia were so onerous as to amount to a surrender of sovereignty. But I admit I'm not an expert in this area.

Austria definitely had plans for Serbia anyways and this was as good a reason as they were going to get, so it's not as if their hand was suddenly forced. But it wasn't a lone gunman - it was members of the Black Hand who were assisted by members of the Serbian military. Whether it was an officially sanctioned action isn't known, but there is very strong evidence that there was military involvement at a high level.

And the 10 conditions were very onerous, but Serbia immediately agreed to 9 of them. The only sticking point was the issue of whether Austro-hungarian officials would be permitted to participate in the inquiry. That doesn't strike me as such an outlandish request as to warrant the Serbian order of mobilization, which eliminated all chances for a peaceful resolution.

Iriemon · 10-16-07, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightinNYC

Austria definitely had plans for Serbia anyways and this was as good a reason as they were going to get, so it's not as if their hand was suddenly forced. But it wasn't a lone gunman - it was members of the Black Hand who were assisted by members of the Serbian military. Whether it was an officially sanctioned action isn't known, but there is very strong evidence that there was military involvement at a high level.

And the 10 conditions were very onerous, but Serbia immediately agreed to 9 of them. The only sticking point was the issue of whether Austro-hungarian officials would be permitted to participate in the inquiry. That doesn't strike me as such an outlandish request as to warrant the Serbian order of mobilization, which eliminated all chances for a peaceful resolution.

I'll have to defer to your greater knowledge on the subject. Still, I'm hestitant to so easily excuse military attack and war in a case like that, which lead to unimaginably horrific suffering.

RightinNYC · 10-16-07, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iriemon

I'll have to defer to your greater knowledge on the subject. Still, I'm hestitant to so easily excuse military attack and war in a case like that, which lead to unimaginably horrific suffering.

Oh, I don't mean to excuse the military action, just to say that in this particular case it wasn't completely Austria's fault. If the Archduke hadn't been assassinated, there almost certainly still would have been war within the next few months.

As an interesting side note, the Serbian partial mobilization followed by the Russian full mobilization caught the Germans off guard because they hadn't expected to see things happen so quickly. The result was that the Schlieffen plan, which had projected the fall of Paris in 39 days, failed (though just barely). As a result, the germans had to maintain a two front war, leading to the eventual outcome. Might have turned out a lot difference had Germany had the luxury of picking the timing themselves.