• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If

If it was Nazi Germany all over again, America should

  • Butt in

    Votes: 36 73.5%
  • Butt out

    Votes: 4 8.2%
  • Specifically ......

    Votes: 6 12.2%
  • No clue

    Votes: 3 6.1%

  • Total voters
    49
There are two schools of thought on this matter: one focuses on the man, one on the "tides of history".

One theory says it is the man, the dictator, the Hitler, who makes Nazi Germany (or whatever regime/nation) what it is.

Another theory says that when the tides of history, the forces of collective will, economic conditions, political trends, and so on, come together in such a manner, that some suitable leader will step forward to claim the mantle and ride the tide to conquest... the details might vary, but there would be war and atrocity all the same.

I'm not sure I entirely buy either argument... but if you assassinate one dictator, there's a very good chance that someone in his top-tier of advisors will simply step into his shoes and very likely continue similar policies for similar reasons.

In this sense, assassination is much less decisive than winning a war. Once you win a war the whole nation is no longer capable of fighting against you anymore... no one will be stepping into anyone's shoes with the same problems and resources inclining him to act the same.

During my much more revolutionary youth, when considering the question of what one person could do jf it appeared necessary to do something, assasination kept coming up.

Pick the worst offenders, end them.

Now when I told anybody this I got pretty much the same responses I got here.

The instability mentioned in the thread is a potential factor, but I don't believe it would be as intense as most people think. There was a million dollar bounty on HW Bush and apparently nobody even tried to collect. I'm sure Al Quaeda or other terrorist organizations would love to assasinate various leaders but don't as far as I know and the assassin willing to give his life cannot be defended against.

As to someone stepping right into a targets shoes, this is true. But it won't be the BEST one. Often only the right person CAN do what might draw an assassins attentions. You might have to go through a couple of leaders until no one was left that is capable of perpetrating the offenses being addressed, but I don't consider it impossible.

As a person who believes that those who rule should do so with the consent of the governed, I think the governed should reserve this right.

And those who KNOW they are doing wrong should live in constant fear. I can't think of a better deterrent to being a dick.

As I've gotten older, I've come to the conclusion that the best punishment for these types is to take everything away from them and then make them live with the loss of everything that matters to them.:2wave:
 
Before I ask (I think Bhodisattva has been waiting too) for your evidence - can you clarify what you mean by "these facilities?"

I will repeat that Auschwitz was not the only camp where jews and others were killed and that nobody has tried saying 12 million died there. Please clarify exactly what you are asserting if that was not what you were disagreeing.

auschwitz and treblinka were the "death camps". i already mentioned treblinka, too. and someone on this thread DID mention 12 million.
 
auschwitz and treblinka were the "death camps". i already mentioned treblinka, too. and someone on this thread DID mention 12 million.

If the chronology of this thread is to be believed - you were the one who mentioned aushwitz and treblinka here in response to Viktyr Korimir who simply mentioned that he would have let the Nazi's kill more than 6 million jews.

I think in response to you, Bodisattva mentioned the 12 million dead but he did not say it was 12 million jews.

Does your post thus mean you acknowledge you either went down a red herring track of your own making or were you being disengenuous all along?
 
If the chronology of this thread is to be believed - you were the one who mentioned aushwitz and treblinka here in response to Viktyr Korimir who simply mentioned that he would have let the Nazi's kill more than 6 million jews.

I think in response to you, Bodisattva mentioned the 12 million dead but he did not say it was 12 million jews.

Does your post thus mean you acknowledge you either went down a red herring track of your own making or were you being disengenuous all along?

no, it acknowledges that i meant what i said. there is no way physically possible that millions of people were killed in those camps
in a 3 year period with the limited space and resources of those facilities.
 
Japan attacked us and Germany declared war against us.

Sorry, high school was a lifetime ago. Thank you. So we stayed out until we were, ourselves, attacked.
 
no, it acknowledges that i meant what i said. there is no way physically possible that millions of people were killed in those camps
in a 3 year period with the limited space and resources of those facilities.

If those camps are specifically only Birkenau and Auschwitz then yes, neither 6 million nor 12 million were killed there. You are still the only person to have raised that scenario so acknowledging a refutation or point that nobody else raised is a bit meaningless.

If on the other hand, the picture is raised across all the camps that jews were sent to - from Romania to Germany, Poland etc then the figures are pretty accurate.
 
That is a pretty awful thing to say Viktyr. There is no "just like" either: the world knew about the Hutus but it was wrangling and procrastination in the UN which stopped any action to prevent the slaughter.

We wouldn't have waited for the UN's permission if intervention had suited our purposes.

You can say what you will about my motivations, but at least they're honest. I don't use false humanitarianism to justify my imperialistic agenda.
 
Do you wonder if your opinion would change if your own family members had been directly affected 'over there'?
 
We wouldn't have waited for the UN's permission if intervention had suited our purposes.

You can say what you will about my motivations, but at least they're honest. I don't use false humanitarianism to justify my imperialistic agenda.

No, I'm realist enough to know that many countries balked at the idea of intervening in Rwanda, they carried no greater threat as compared to Germany and Japan during WW2.

I recognise your honesty even when I disagree what you say. At least with you - I know where you stand and don't have to ask you repeatedly for clarity.
 
no, it acknowledges that i meant what i said. there is no way physically possible that millions of people were killed in those camps
in a 3 year period with the limited space and resources of those facilities.

This is so ludicrous.

Look.

Trains with cattle cars... you can put 10,000 people on a train this way, no problem. If they're unarmed and they've been told they're being "relocated", one platoon of soldiers will suffice for security.
Get them off the train, divide them into smaller manageable groups, and send them walking down seperate confined paths. Load 100 at a time into a mass shower facility. Gas them dead. Drag the bodies out, scoop them with a dozer and dump them in a trench to be burned, while other people clean out the "shower room". In a couple of hours the "shower room" could be ready for another "load".

Ten large shower rooms and related facilities, and you could exterminate perhaps 10,000 people in a day at one camp. 10,000 x 365 = 3.65 million. Maybe not quite that many, there would be bottlenecks from time to time, but one camp could certainly kill more than a million a year.

The first camps were in operation for at least two years, and IIRC there were six of them by the war's end. I find the Holocaust offical numbers quite believeable.
 
ohhhhhh...i see. you are wanting me to provide you with a link regarding the matter that you can then deem as "racist".

well, let's go beyond that a bit. auschwitz was divided into multiple sections. auschwitz II was where those held for extermination
were placed.
this is how big auschwitz was in it's entirety..............
220px-Auschwitz-birkenau-main_track.jpg

all 3 sections of it.

the entire structure is no larger than a small town hospital. cut that structure into a 1/3, and you have the capacity to
dispose of how many people in a 3 year period? you're saying 12 million. so i'm to believe that these tiny establishments could
effectively dispose completely of 300,000 people a month? not even the NYC morgue could do that $h!t. not the NYC, chicago,
and los angeles morgues COMBINED could handle that number. are you ill in your mind?

Why would I accuse you of racism? Unless you are saying what you are saying for racist reasons, I would only claim that you are ignorant. Are you a member of Storm Front? I assume that you are only questioning the numbers and not if the Holocaust actually took place, right?

Look, I stick to facts and logic, neither of which you have offered here. You are basically saying, "Damn, that is a lot of people to kill in a short amount of time with such small facilities. It has to be false. Oh, you think that it is true, well, I will offer no proof and call you insane instead, so there!"

Refute these guys with some facts, and then I will provide some to counter your claims.

No serious historian questions that the Holocaust took place. — Governing council, unanimous declaration, American Historical Association

SS-Rottenführer Oskar Gröning to publicly speak about what he witnessed at Auschwitz, and denounce Holocaust deniers,[159] stating: I would like you to believe me. I saw the gas chambers. I saw the crematoria. I saw the open fires. I was on the ramp when the selections took place. I would like you to believe that these atrocities happened because I was there

SS-Untersturmführer Hans Münch considered the facts of Auschwitz "so firmly determined that one cannot have any doubt at all", and described those who negate what happened at the camp as "malevolent" people who have "personal interest to want to bury in silence things that cannot be buried in silence."

SS-Oberscharführer Josef Klehr has said that anyone who maintains that nobody was gassed at Auschwitz must be "crazy or on the wrong"

Provide evidence of your claims or just admit that it is just an opinion. You do realize that this is a debate forum?
 
Originally Posted by lewstherin
auschwitz and treblinka were the "death camps". i already mentioned treblinka, too. and someone on this thread DID mention 12 million.

I said 12 million died in the Holocaust, not just the death camps. Hundreds of thousands were killed by execution squads before the death camps were in operation. Whole towns were executed and there are video links that show this. 1.5 million were killed by these squads.

YouTube - ‪Nazi Death Squads - Esquadrões da Morte Nazis - Parte 1-5‬‏

no, it acknowledges that i meant what i said. there is no way physically possible that millions of people were killed in those camps
in a 3 year period with the limited space and resources of those facilities.

Schools almost out and you need to seriously learn how to debate before you leave...


I honestly don't buy the numbers that have been released either. I don't have any proof, but I can't figure how they could manage it.

At least you are honest about it. I can appreciate that.
 
WW2 was not fought based on humanitarian concerns. The allies were certainly willing to violate sovereign rights when it was convenient as in Iraq or Iran. The entire pacific war was a fight between imperialist conquerors deciding who was going to rule over the natives. FDR made the choice to get the U.S. in the war starting in '39 before the Holocaust was known. WW2 was about power and the winners pretty much ended up ruling the world for a time.
 
Conversely, if such an atrocity happens here, should we expect no help, and it's just the way of things that our lives end because of it?
 
Conversely, if such an atrocity happens here, should we expect no help, and it's just the way of things that our lives end because of it?


I don't believe in sitting passively awaiting fate.

If you have reasonable suspicion that TPTB in a rising totalitarian state aren't fond of "your kind" (whatever that might be), your best bet is to get out early.... as some European Jews and others did.
Failing that, be prepared to run, hide, and/or fight. Those who tried to do these things had a better survival ratio than those who meekly boarded the cattle cars...
 
Conversely, if such an atrocity happens here, should we expect no help, and it's just the way of things that our lives end because of it?

That's a very good point. IMO, it would depend upon whether it was a foreign invader, or whether Americans were doing that to their fellow Americans (a greater likelihood in any powerful nation).

There is no doubt in my mind that if the US was attacked and invaded by superior force (and I can't think how that would be possible currently,) Great Britain, Ireland, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand (distant family, so to speak) would immediately, and without question, come to her aid.

But if it were a Fascist US government enslaving and murdering its own citizens, under the convenient cover of National Security, it would be impossible to rescue them, short of invading and effectively destroying the US itself (always assuming this is possible, given comparative military power). Remember that it took years of fighting, and the combined military power and resources of most of the developed world, to overcome a single powerful Fascist European nation.
 
Conversely, if such an atrocity happens here, should we expect no help, and it's just the way of things that our lives end because of it?

No, we shouldn't expect help. This is our country, our land, and our government. We take care of our problems ourselves.
 
Read the historians, check some history watch some interviews however this semi-denial / negotiation of numbers is distracting from the thread

I see nothing wrong with doubting estimates that don't appear to add up. I'm not here to prove anything just to say I can't figure out how their estimates could actually be real.
 
The British and French were allies, which is the only reason we interceded. Frankly, I think we were on the wrong side in WW2.

I think we really couldn't go wrong picking either Germany or the Soviets for enemies. It would be interesting to see an alternative future whereby we allied against the Soviets instead.

I do agree with you that communist ideology is more dangerous than fascist ideology. But the Germans were looking for the nuke too. I imagine it was a case of 6 of one and half a dozen of another. We likely would have had another Cold War, but with an enemy that could afford it.
 
Do you wonder if your opinion would change if your own family members had been directly affected 'over there'?

Nope. If I'd lost family in the Holocaust, I'd want revenge against the people responsible. Wouldn't make me give a damn about other victims. Why would it?

I love how people keep assuming that I'd have more empathy if only I'd been victimized more.

Conversely, if such an atrocity happens here, should we expect no help, and it's just the way of things that our lives end because of it?

Expecting any different ain't going to make it happen.
 
This is so ludicrous.

Look.

Trains with cattle cars... you can put 10,000 people on a train this way, no problem. If they're unarmed and they've been told they're being "relocated", one platoon of soldiers will suffice for security.
Get them off the train, divide them into smaller manageable groups, and send them walking down seperate confined paths. Load 100 at a time into a mass shower facility. Gas them dead. Drag the bodies out, scoop them with a dozer and dump them in a trench to be burned, while other people clean out the "shower room". In a couple of hours the "shower room" could be ready for another "load".

Ten large shower rooms and related facilities, and you could exterminate perhaps 10,000 people in a day at one camp. 10,000 x 365 = 3.65 million. Maybe not quite that many, there would be bottlenecks from time to time, but one camp could certainly kill more than a million a year.

The first camps were in operation for at least two years, and IIRC there were six of them by the war's end. I find the Holocaust offical numbers quite believeable.

how long does it take to cremate a single human body? i mean, i already know the answer. i'm just seeing if you know.
oh....and how many crematorium ovens were there at each camp? i already know this, also. but we can play the game, if you wish.
 
-- Frankly, I think we were on the wrong side in WW2.

The only way to have become partner to a fascist Germany would have been to become fascist yourself as a nation. However I do remember you view yourself as a fascist - but in regard to the fascist germany, there were many policies to do with ethnic minorities and civil rights that already had a faint echo in the US.

If I also recall, weren't some powerful US bankers involved in helping the German military machine?

I don't believe in sitting passively awaiting fate.

If you have reasonable suspicion that TPTB in a rising totalitarian state aren't fond of "your kind" (whatever that might be), your best bet is to get out early.... as some European Jews and others did.
Failing that, be prepared to run, hide, and/or fight. Those who tried to do these things had a better survival ratio than those who meekly boarded the cattle cars...

I don't either and many Jews tried to escape however to successfully escape to another country, that country must be willing to offer you refuge. Many jews tried escaping very early and some were returned to Germany.

I see nothing wrong with doubting estimates that don't appear to add up. I'm not here to prove anything just to say I can't figure out how their estimates could actually be real.

Then do some basic research on the industrial processes that the Nazis employed. Before the camps, the germans used soldiers with machine guns to shoot jewish and ethnic minority victims and eventually the mechanical process of holding a trigger down got wearing.

If you mechanise any process, you can usually accomplish a particular task quicker and more efficiently. The subject is disgusting and distasteful and lack of knowledge dishonours the victims.
 
If events were unfolding in a foreign land exactly as they unfolded in Nazi Germany, what would you recommend?

I'm a NeoConservative, I tend to argue that America's foreign strength is aided by robust defense and expansion of her ideals abroad. Butt In.


World War One, now... that conflict perhaps we should have just let the belligerents wear each other to nubs and give up. We could have avoided alot of later trouble that way.
 
Last edited:
Nope. If I'd lost family in the Holocaust, I'd want revenge against the people responsible.

Aren't those the same people you say we should have been supporting when you say we were fighting on the wrong side in WWII?
 
Back
Top Bottom