General Eisenhower, a war criminal?

[Gurdur]

Why are you talking about hatred?

Because I'm talking about you.

I just want the TRUTH

Suuuure you do, suuuure you do, no, you only want something to suit your hatreds.

 

[Gurdur]

That kind of justice just leads to the people who like shooting people calling the shots - which is how a bunch of thugs started out in the 1920s. The Nuremberg trials were the correct route to go.

Oh suuuuuuure, that's why the shooting of 300 concentration camp guards led to a massive authoritarian regime led by Eisenhower. Oh wait, it didn't.

Or IOW: enough of the empty, pseudo-moralizing platitudes already.

 

[Sunni Man]

Suuuure you do, suuuure you do, no, you only want something to suit your hatreds.

Why do you keep talking about hatred??

I just want a historical and fair discussion based on the facts. But minus the Zionist influence and other radical groups.

 

[Nogbad]

Oh suuuuuuure, that's why the shooting of 300 concentration camp guards led to a massive authoritarian regime led by Eisenhower. Oh wait, it didn't.

Or IOW: enough of the empty, pseudo-moralizing platitudes already.

Your argument merely leads to he with the biggest gun is right - which may be true as far as such a thing can be true.

 

[Gurdur]

Why do you keep talking about hatred??

Why can't you read?

I just want a historical and fair discussion based on the facts. But minus the Zionist influence and other radical groups.

Make sure to bar anyone you hate from the discussions, and then call it "fair"?

You have a most interesting and Orwellian way of re-defining words.

 

[Gurdur]

Your argument merely leads to he with the biggest gun is right

Oh bollocks. My argument merely leads to the observation that armchair platitudinizing from a safe distance is not necessarily "moral" at all.

I'll be really happy to argue advanced ethics with you on a new thread. Considering it was one of my main areas of study many moons ago, and it has always been a main concern of mine. But ethics, not merely safe armchair platitudinizing.

 

[Gregory]

Is the idea that people ought to be tried before they're sentenced really that controversial?

 

[gtc]

In general, I agree that it was wrong to shoot them without trial. However, I suspect I might have done exactly the same (I don't know and I can't imagine being in that terrible place) and so I am not going to blame them for it.

I believe the Allies, at the direction of the Zionists, had many of the guards killed so that they could hide the true evidence. And create the hoax now known as the Holocaust.

And do you have any evidence for this belief? Other than the fact that they are jews?

And as far as I'm concerned, since the Führerprinzip, anti-semitism and sheer dictatorialness of the non-Waffen part of the SS were well-known to everyone who joined, then all those who joined the non-Waffen SS prior to 1945 deserved a death sentence.

There may have been some who joined as part of the resistance or somesuch.

Why are you talking about hatred?

I just want the TRUTH of the so called Holocaust to be discussed from a neutral historical perspective. Not the Zionist version we have been force feed over the years.

Is that too much to ask??

You seem to feel persecuted by the Jews. Do you think that is healthy?

 

[Sunni Man]

Is the idea that people ought to be tried before they're sentenced really that controversial?

I totally agree with you Gregory!!

 

[Gurdur]

Is the idea that people ought to be tried before they're sentenced really that controversial?

Like I said previously: I'll be really happy to argue advanced ethics with you on a new thread. Considering it was one of my main areas of study many moons ago, and it has always been a main concern of mine. But ethics, not merely safe armchair platitudinizing.

 

[Ian Osborne]

Putting aside, for the sake of argument, my objections to the death penalty, they should have been shot or hanged after a fair trial was held to determine that each of them, personally, deserved it.

Dachau was Dachau. And Treblinka was Treblinka, but of Karl Emil Ludwig, SS guard at said death camp, surviving prisoner Joe Siedlecki had this to say: "There was one SS, if I saw him today, if there was anything he needed, I'd give it to him, Karl Ludwig. He was a good good man. The number of times he brought me things, the number of times he helped me, the number of people he probably saved, I can hardly tell you. I don't know where he is now, but I wish I did." Similar testimony was given at his trial, and he was acquitted; how nice, therefore, that he was given a trial, instead of being shot on site by overenthusiastic soldiers who figured, "Treblinka is Treblinka."

Every singe one of the soldiers at Dachau should have been given the same opportunity. I don't care if every single one of them was obviously guilty; statistically speaking, they probably were. And I don't care if every single one of them deserved to die. When they were denied a fair trial, it was an affront against justice.

Exactly. Collective guilt is an anathema to justice.

 

[Nogbad]

Oh bollocks. My argument merely leads to the observation that armchair platitudinizing from a safe distance is not necessarily "moral" at all.

I'll be really happy to argue advanced ethics with you on a new thread. Considering it was one of my main areas of study many moons ago, and it has always been a main concern of mine. But ethics, not merely safe armchair platitudinizing.

To be perfectly honest I am no longer clear as to what you are arguing. If your position is that it is acceptable to gun down hundreds of unarmed people without trial (albeit criminals) then whether stood up or sat down I disagree and am unlikely to change my stance on the matter. You appear to beg to differ so lets just leave it at that. I am in no way defending the Nazis any more than I would vigilantism so I will leave you to discuss whatever it is Sunni is on about.

 

[Gurdur]

Exactly. Collective guilt is an anathema to justice.

More twaddle. It's the voluntary joining of an openly racist, armed organization specifically created to maintain a dictatorship, and more than that, to also maintain a brutal state within a state, that is anathema to justice. It's havinga safe billet far from the front lines, and guarding a murderous concentration camp, which is the real anathema to justice.

Hellooo? Hellloooo? Earth calling to those in outer orbit. It was bombing which helped win the war for the Allies, and bombing is a form of collective treatment. A big form. Boom!

I guess y'all think think Eisenhower should have ****ing PETITIONED them to shut down the camps instead of invading Germany?

 

[Gurdur]

... I disagree and am unlikely to change my stance on the matter. You appear to beg to differ ....

We could always do a new thread, you know. One free of the more nauseating aspects of this thread.

 

[Nogbad]

We could always do a new thread, you know. One free of the more nauseating aspects of this thread.

Could do but not tonight - it is 12:40 here, I'm off to bed. If you and Gregory set something up I will join in later. Ideally something that won't interest MaGz et al.

 

[ddt]

Oh bollocks. My argument merely leads to the observation that armchair platitudinizing from a safe distance is not necessarily "moral" at all.

I'll be really happy to argue advanced ethics with you on a new thread. Considering it was one of my main areas of study many moons ago, and it has always been a main concern of mine. But ethics, not merely safe armchair platitudinizing.

I'm a bit at a loss what you're arguing here. Is it somehow ethical that these Dachau guards were killed, whereas most of their bosses got away with (long) prison sentences?

One of the great things about how the Allies handled the aftermath of WW2 is that the Nazi culprits were tried and sentenced in trials where their individual atrocities were proven beyond reasonable doubt, i.e., the rule of law was upheld. The summarily shooting of these guards was a transgression of this principle. Not that I particularly feel sorry for them, but it wasn't right.

 

[gumboot]

Thanks for making the point that under international law concentration camps are legal.

Concentration camps are legal. What the Nazis did was not.

 

[Ian Osborne]

More twaddle. It's the voluntary joining of an openly racist, armed organization specifically created to maintain a dictatorship, and more than that, to also maintain a brutal state within a state, that is anathema to justice. It's havinga safe billet far from the front lines, and guarding a murderous concentration camp, which is the real anathema to justice.

Do you know they all joined voluntarily and were perfectly aware of the atrocities they were going to be ordered to commit? Did the SS careers brochure outline what was going on in the extermination camps?

Hellooo? Hellloooo? Earth calling to those in outer orbit. It was bombing which helped win the war for the Allies, and bombing is a form of collective treatment. A big form. Boom!

Bombing is an act of war. Shooting surrendered soldiers is not.

I guess y'all think think Eisenhower should have ****ing PETITIONED them to shut down the camps instead of invading Germany?

Has anyone here suggested Eisenhower was wrong to invade Germany?

 

[ravdin]

Jesus H. Christ on a popsicle stick!

Could this conversation get any more absurd? Kindly don't feed the trolls.

 

[ddt]

More twaddle. It's the voluntary joining of an openly racist, armed organization specifically created to maintain a dictatorship, and more than that, to also maintain a brutal state within a state, that is anathema to justice. It's havinga safe billet far from the front lines, and guarding a murderous concentration camp, which is the real anathema to justice.

Of course it is. But that's no reason to shoot someone without trial. Should, say, Günther Grass also have been summarily shot without trial? Should Willem Aantjes^WP have been shot without trial for his Waffen-SS membership?

Hellooo? Hellloooo? Earth calling to those in outer orbit. It was bombing which helped win the war for the Allies, and bombing is a form of collective treatment. A big form. Boom!

The bombing, primarily directed at civilian areas, has been heavily criticized for that. Its help in winning the war wasn't that big; and it certainly didn't break the German morale, as was asserted by, e.g., Bomber Harris.