• Als Spam markieren
• Beitrag melden

• 
  Diese Gruppe Alles

• Archiv
• RSS-Feeds

• Kontakt
• Hilfe
• Impressum
• Datenschutz

Re: How did the piles of personal effects at Auschwitz get there?

On Oct 17, 7:10 pm, Doc Tony <doct...@localnet.com> wrote:
> waldeau...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Oct 17, 2:44 pm, Doc Tony <doct...@localnet.com> wrote:
>
> >>waldeau...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>>On Oct 17, 9:01 am, "It's all a bit strange"
> >>><strangethingshap...@turkeygoy.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>waldeau...@gmail.com wrote in news:1192614472.707028.223090
> >>>>@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
>
> >>>>>Funny that you would use the word "Spa". These were
INTERNMENT camps
-
> >>>>>places designed to keep those deemed a threat to the State from
> >>>>>causing mischief - like the US did to the Japanese during WWII.
> >>>>>Anyway, they brought typhus with them. As I said, typhus
epidemics
> >>>>>occur most frequently among populations that experience cramped
> >>>>>quarters and poor hygiene - hence its pseudonyms "Jail
Fever",
> >>>>>"Hospital Fever", "Ship fever", etc, and
epidemics were VERY common
> >>>>>during times of war and similar disasters.
>
> >>>>Funny how "konzantrationlager" (and please forgive any
misspelling) s
omehow
> >>>>got translated to "internment camps"
>
> >>>The primary purpose for the camps was obviously to intern individuals
> >>>who were deemed a threat to the State - to remove them from broader
> >>>society where they might cause harm. In the Nazi's eyes, Jews and
> >>>certain other groups fit the bill - thus they were moved together -
> >>>*concentrated* - into the camps where they could be monitored - and
> >>>sometimes put to work.
>
> >>>The US did the same thing with its Japanese citizens - men, women and
> >>>children - interned them in isolated *concentration camps*, where they
> >>>would not be threats as spies, saboteurs or subversives.
>
> >>>**
>
> >>>Waldo
>
> >>>Observer at Large
>
> >>The critical difference being that when the war was over, there was no
> >>need for multiple BULLDOZERS at those Japanese-American internment camps
> >>to bury anyone!
>
> > Then again, the war was not fought on US soil, was it? The US was not
> > invaded, nor its infrastructure destroyed, was it?
>
> > Not being war-torn, typhus and similar diseases did not infect the US
> > population, did it?
>
> > There were no massive shortages of supplies foodstuffs and medication
> > here in the US, were there?
>
> > We should count ourselves lucky - or "blessed", if you prefer.
>
> > On the other hand, US bulldozers got quite busy in Hiroshima and
> > Nagasaki cleaning up a mess that was *not* caused by Nazis, didn't
> > they?
>
> > Had the war gone the other direction, had Germany and Japan prevailed
> > - had our cities been firebombed, our rail lines and highway bridges
> > made impassible, our critical manufacturing facilities decimated,
> > things may well have turned out differently.
>
> > Had we been in the throes of invasion by Japanese forces, had we been
> > forced to prioritize the allocation of our critical goods and
> > services, where do you suppose the interned Japanese would have fallen
> > on that priority scale?
>
> > I'm sure you'd like to thing that we'd have acted in a way that was
> > "morally superior" to the  Germans. I'm sure most people would
*like*
> > to believe that. It feels *good* to believe that, doesn't it?
>
> > But you only have to look at the way occupying US forces treated the
> > defeated Germans - both military and civilian - in the immediate
> > aftermath of the war to know better.
>
> Waldo, what do 'you' know about Germany after the war and how Germans
> were treated? You know squat about Germany and the Volk save for what
> you parrot and regurgitate from websites.


You have a problem with websites, Phonio? Well then, you probably
won't like the following from Wikipedia:

<quote>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Although James Bacque has estimated that 726,000 German prisoners died
of starvation or disease while in U.S. captivity, this has been shown
to be a gross overestimation.[3] However, "the mortality rate for
German POW's in U.S. hands was more than 4 times higher than the rate
for those who surrendered to the British".[4] Further, another
advantage with surrendering to the British rather than the Americans
was that besides treating German prisoners better than the U.S. did,
the British were also less likely to hand German prisoners over to the
Soviet Union.[5] Large numbers of German prisoners were transferred
between the Allies. The U.S gave 765,000 to France, 76,000 to Benelux
countries, and 200,000 to the Soviet Union. The U.S. also chose to
refuse to accept the surrender of German troops attempting to
surrender in Saxony and Bohemia. These soldiers were instead handed
over to the Soviet Union.[6] (The Soviet Union in turn handed German
prisoners over to other Eastern European nations, for example 70,000
to Poland)[7] Death rates of German soldiers held prisoner in the
Soviet Union was 35.8%.[8]

American food policy in Germany shortly after the war

Throughout all of 1945 the Allies forces of occupation ensured that no
international aid reached ethnic Germans. [9] It was directed that all
relief went to non-German displaced persons, liberated Allied POWs,
and concentration camp inmates.[10]

General Lucius Clay, then Deputy to General Eisenhower, stated:
"I feel that the Germans should suffer from hunger and from cold as I
believe such suffering is necessary to make them realize the
consequences of a war which they caused.[11]	"

The German Red Cross was dissolved, and the International Red Cross
and the few other allowed international relief agencies were kept from
helping Germans through strict controls on supplies and on travel.[12]
The few agencies permitted to help Germans, such as the indigenous
Caritas Verband, were not allowed to use imported supplies. When the
Vatican attempted to transmit food supplies from Chile to German
infants the U.S. State Department forbade it.[13]

During 1945 it was estimated that the average German civilian in the
U.S. and U.K occupation zones received 1,200 calories a day.[14]
Meanwhile non-German Displaced Persons were receiving 2,300 calories
through emergency food imports and Red Cross help.[15] In early
October 1945 the U.K. government privately acknowledged in a cabinet
meeting that German civilian adult death rates had risen to 4 times
the pre-war levels and death rates amongst the German children had
risen by 10 times the pre-war levels. [16]

General Lucius Clay stated in October 1945 that:
"undoubtedly a large number of refugees have already died of
starvation, exposure and disease.... The death rate in many places has
increased several fold, and infant mortality is approaching 65 percent
in many places. By the spring of 1946, German observers expect that
epidemics and malnutrition will claim 2.5 to 3 million victims between
the Oder and Elbe.[17]"

In early 1946 U.S. President Harry S. Truman finally bowed to pressure
from Senators, Congress and public to allow foreign relief
organization to enter Germany in order to review the food situation.
In mid-1946 non-German relief organizations were finally permitted to
help starving German children.[18] During 1946 the average German
adult received less than 1,500 calories a day. 2,000 calories was then
considered the minimum an individual can endure on for a limited
period of time with reasonable health.[19]

The German food situation became worst during the very cold winter of
1946-1947, when German calorie intake ranged from 1,000-1,500 calories
per day, a situation made worse by severe lack of fuel for heating.
[20] Average adult calorie intake in U.S was 3,200-3,300, in UK 2,900
and in U.S. Army 4,000.[21]

In a comparative U.S. government study[22] run by former U.S.
President Herbert Hoover and published in February 1947, the
nutritional situation surveyed in some of Germany's neighbor states
(Italy, France, Belgium, Holland and the UK) was close to pre-war
normal, while the nutritional situation for certain population groups
in Germany (mainly children and the elderly) was disastrously low.

The Historian Nicholas Balabkins notes that the Allied restrictions
placed on German steel production, and their control over to where the
produced coal and steel was delivered, meant that offers by Western
European nations to trade food for desperately needed German coal and
machinery were rejected. Neither the Italians nor the Dutch could sell
the vegetables that they had previously sold in Germany, with the
consequence that the Dutch had to destroy considerable proportions of
their crop. Denmark offered 150 tons of lard a month; Turkey offered
hazelnuts; Norway offered fish and fish oil; Sweden offered
considerable amounts of fats. The Allies were however not willing to
let the Germans trade.

Another consequence of the Allied policy of "Industrial
Disarmament" (see The industrial plans for Germany) was that there was
a drastic fall in fertilizer available for the German agriculture,
further decreasing the food production.[24]

German infant mortality rate was twice that of other nations in
Western Europe until the close of 1948.[25]

The adequate feeding of the German population in occupied Germany was
an Allied legal obligation[26] [27] under international law: Article
43 of The 1907 Hague Rules of Land Warfare.

Richard Dominic Wiggers draws in "The United States and the Refusal to
Feed German Civilians after World War II" the conclusion that not only
did the Allies violate international law when it comes to the feeding
of enemy civilians, they both directly and indirectly caused the
unnecessary suffering and death of large numbers of civilians and
POW's in occupied Germany, guided partly by a spirit of postwar
vengeance when creating the circumstances that contributed to their
deaths.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
</quote>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenhower_and_German_POWs

And we were the "good guys". The "moral superiors".
The above was long, but begged to be posted. Ironically, Germans held
prisoner by/under the occupation of US forces fared VERY well when
compared to those that found themselves in the hands of the Soviets.

If you're going to treat people that badly and still try to maintain
an image of "moral superiority", you'd better have a damn good excuse.
The Holocaust® tales provided that excuse - and that's ALL they are -
an *excuse*.

> And I don't have to remind you
> of the ridiculous yarns as regurgitated by Knoll who speaks for Germany
> or the Volk about as "effectively" [cough-cough]  as Crackpot® Freddy
> Berg talks about his envisioned "world revolution in order for mankind
> to survive" [sic] and his related claptrap how "western civilization
> should be grateful to Adolf Hitler for saving the world itself" [sic]
> and how "the real bad guys during World War II were the Allies." [sic --
> Berg]. Save your website regurgitated spiels for the great unwashed and
> the Vangel's [et al] of the planet.

Apparently there were *no* "good guys", eh Phonio?

> As for the war itself, well, when one 'declares' war as Hitler did on
> the USA or via the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in '41,

Or worldwide Jewry on Germany in 1933? (Which was simply a
formalization of a campaign that Zionist Jewry had waged against the
Germans since the middle of WWI. We've discussed the Zionist/Jewish
treacheries toward Germany before, haven't we?)

> hey, war is a
> veritable horror by nature, as the world already knew from the First
> World War and millions dead and countless other wars, but the price is
> heavy for those who 'initiate' such global conflicts.

Those who actually orchestrated and fomented those wars profited quite
handsomely - and they're doing so now via war industry and, more
importantly, the interest they collect on the tens of billions in
loans that they float to the governments so that they can afford to
carry out their dirty work. Loans guaranteed by the taxpayer.

> The problem is, what has been learned from these unceasing human species
> conflicts! That is the one is ponder!

Not much by the man on the street. He remains as gullible and
manipulable as ever - his heart beaming with pride as he sends his
sons off to fight and die for what he believes is king, country, God
and "freedom". That he is simply selling his genetic future to satisfy
the lust for power and lucre of unseen puppeteers he does not know -
nor does he *want* to know - *especially* after he's been handed a
folded flag..

> What's done is done and no amount
> of rhetoric or 20-20 hindsight will change that,

Blinding ourselves to our past does not bode well for the future.

> so, what I ask is where
> from here! Hence my rather vociferous opposition to the Iraq fiasco
> having been involved in a previous fiasco called Vietnam.

Ah yes, Vietnam, where we valiantly fought to stop the spread of
Communism - the scourge that the Germans sought to end during WWII,
and that we called our "ally". Ironic, isn't it?

Fake, contrived wars being fought to achieve nefarious ends. But the
bloodshed is real enough - it's just that it seems always to be shed
by the wrong people.

> Now just today
> I hear Mr. Bush going on about Iran and North Korea and my great fear,
> and I'll be quite frank with you Waldo, is Mr. Bush 'again' receiving
> some 'communication' from the Almighty telling him what to do!

Now you have to ask yourself: Who is Bush's "almighty"? Who does he
serve?  Who did his predecessors serve? Who holds the keys to the
*real* power in today's world?

Follow the money (and no, I'm not talking about 'campaign
contributions' - but the kind of financial prowess that finances
governments - and *both* sides of wars).

> This is
> NOT satire, this is an absolute reality when I had to hear almost 3
> years ago the man say, "God TOLD ME to go after Sadaam Hussein" [sic]

"God" being his "Chosen" NeoCon advisors - as per the PNAC plan.

> while, ironically, the Mullahs on the other side of the world are
> whooping up the people about what "Allah" allegedly "wants and
demands"
> for the "infidel" and so it almost seems like an ad hoc replay between
> the original "Crusades" versus the "Jihad" !

So the hated Christians will fight the hated Muslims. Gee, who do you
suppose could possibly benefit from such an arrangement?

> >>A VERY critical difference as long as the 20-20
> >>hindsight specs are being utilized for which was indeed a black page in
> >>the treatment of Japanese-Americans
>
> > We interned the Japanese for the exact same reasons that the Germans
> > interned the Jews. Period. You can't condemn one and absolve the other
> > - either both were justified, or neither were, and the only principal
> > differences were the sheer numbers and logistics involved, and the
> > outcome of the war.
>
> > Oh, and the fact that Jewry had a long and strong track record for
> > stabbing Germany in the back.
>
> Get off it, Waldo, the Jews were KILLED as a matter of racial policy
> genocide for the sole 'reason' of simply being Jewish!

So says the Dogma.  Many Jews were killed, and the greater part of
European Jewry was displaced. They were certainly selected by their
race, and frankly, I can't think of any other way that the Zionists
could have convinced them to migrate to Israel.

> There were no
> doubt enclaves of Jews who knew nothing of UK headlines talking about
> 'Boycott' situations et al and when they were reached in the hinterlands
> of the USSR, Poland, usw., they were sent to the KZ's and that was the
> end of them save for those who could work and made it out alive.

Jews were certainly suspected of working and sympathizing with the
Communists - and such suspicions were well founded, as it turns out.
See the book "Neighbors", by Jan Gross.

> >>but, as I say, when the horror of
> >>the war was over, no bulldozers pushing bodies 24/7 ==or== MASS
burial
> >>pits from death by 'other causes.'
>
> > As I said above. We were victorious. War wasn't waged on our soil. We
> > had nodisease epidemics. Different circumstances, different outcomes.
>
> >>As for the Jews, were those 'Jewish children' really "totally
> >>understandable Reich security risks" [sic]
>
> > Who are you supposedly quoting, Phonio? Provide a link.
>
> Do you know how you sound and come off here, Waldo, but then, YOU have
> always been the faux pas king of the newsgroup.

Note the "[sic]" in the above. So you falsified the quote then,
Phonio?

> >>and what was 'proven crime'
> >>for such KZ placement to begin with, 'other' than being born Jewish and
> >>no matter age or gender or 'whatever' ?
>
> > The EXACT same "proven crime" that the Japanese children - who were
> > interned ALONG WITH THEIR PARENTS were guilty of.  Both the Jews and
> > the Japanese were viewed as security risks by Germany and the US,
> > respectively, by sheer virtue of their "race", or
"ethnicity", if you
> > prefer, and when adults were interned to protect the states from these
> > *perceived* risks, the children were interned along with them.
>
> But not killed, the piece you always like to circumvent.

Obviously. I don't buy Dogma. It's just too damn pricey.


> > Perhaps the children should have been left parentless -  to roam the
> > streets?
>
> Bellinger made the identical comment. Interesting, for all I know, you
> are Bellinger in one of the many nyms he used in AR before but even if
> so, what's the difference as the parroted rhetoric is always the same.

Mirror.

> > <quote>
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > More than 120,000 Japanese Americans were interned behind barbed wire
> > during World War II...
> > ...over half were children.
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > </quote>
>
> >http://www.pbs.org/childofcamp/
>
> > Judge not, lest ye be judged, Phonio.
>
> >>Smacks of the "Yellow Star" as
> >>mandated wear for Jewish children age ==SIX== and up. Age SIX! 
What is
> >>the 'internal security risk' for a six year old Jewish child, Wally-lad
®
>
> > I don't know, Phonio. All I know is that Japanese children as young as
> > one-day old were held prisoner by the US government.
>
> > And while we're pointing fingers, are Palestinian children under the
> > age of six allowed to pass freely the checkpoints manned by Jewish
> > Israelis today? No?
>
> > Sounds sort of hypocritical, doesn't it?
>
> You brought that one up, not me! If 'you' have a solution to the 60+
> years problems of the Middle East, hey, let's hear it! What would YOU do
> to solve the problems, Waldo? Now DEM made it quite clear, "Israel
> should be wiped off the face of the earth" [sic], what do you say?

Are you sure that is what he said? Or are you "taking liberties" with
the quote, as the Jewish controlled press does with that of the
Iranian president?

As to the Israeli/Palestinian issue, it just so happens that I had a
brilliant inspiration the other day that would resolve this issue once
and for all.

First, all parties must ABANDON the notion that some hallucinogen-
induced "god" gave or promised this land to ANYONE.

Second, we abandon any pretense of prior ownership of ANY land in the
region - including any mandates that the British or the UN may have
birthed on their respective commodes.

Third, we establish the ultimate frontiers of what will be the area in
question.

Fourth, we favor the JEWS: We give them SIX MONTHS (a nice cabalistic
number) to draw a line bisecting the territory into TWO areas and NO
MORE.  The Jews are free to divide the territory in ANY way that they
see fit - straight line, squiggly line, it doesn't matter - provided
that there are ONLY TWO areas demarcated, and that they complete this
task within the six-month period.

Fifth, the Palestinians then get to CHOOSE which of these two sections
will belong to them, and which to the Jews - including all associated
infrastructure.

What could be fairer than that?

> >>or are we talking about 'potential' of the 6 year old to do harm to the
> >>  NSDAP regime?
>
> > Or the US "regime", or the Israeli "regime", for that
matter, eh
> > Phonio?
>
> Waldo, you seem to have this idea that I have excuses or solutions for
> 'Israel', I do not!

No excuses? Glad to hear it. This child of hell cost humanity tens of
millions of lives, and it now demands more.

> Nor do I have any connection with Israel or their
> internal politics nor do I or have I ever 'fronted' for what Israel does
> or does not do!

So have you a position on Israel, or will you play 'possum a la
Suisse'?

> Now, again I say, if you have a Middle Eastern area
> 'solution', well, present it! I'll certainly listen!

Done. Above. Where's my Nobel Prize?

> Recall  too and
> Mike Stein, a guy I respected when he posted here, agreed with me about
> the Israeli policy of "heightened interrogation" which we both
> castigated and criticized severely but unfortunately that policy
> continues so what now?

As they say, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the
problem.

The circumstances following WWI and the Treaty of Versailles caused
the German people to feel abused, vulnerable and defensive. Inciting
intense nationalism, protectionism and a sense of superiority was
easy. Germany was easily molded into an ethnocentric and racialist
state - and it is this ethnocentrism and racism that is blamed for her
'crimes', and for which she is ruthlessly condemned.

Israel, OTOH, was FOUNDED on the very principles for which Germany is
condemned, and her track record proves that she lives up to those
principles.

You, Phonio, are quick to mock those that you believe might deny or
minimize any evils that Germany might be accused of, but for the most
part, you remain silent when it comes to the Jewish State - the mirror
image of Nazism - or vice versa.

As I said, part of the problem.


> Neither Stein or my objection to that Israeli
> policy made any difference! I'm also on record as saying that No-one,
> absolutely no-one is beyond criticism and that obviously includes Israel

And Jews in general? The "Nation among nations"?

> or anyone else including the US leader and his Iraq policies which I
> vociferously oppose!

As do I. However, I am not so blind that I don't see that those that
are formulating those policies have *not* US interests at heart, but
Zionist/Semitist interests. See the PNAC, and who authored it and
when.

>> Look out, here comes Iran. <<

> And any further ventures or 'divine messages' to
> further conflict.

Ask yourself: Who has his ear?

> I've witnessed war, it's a horror! To the extent
> possible, I want to avoid it but unfortunately the history of man itself
> and since recorded history began shows that wars come and go! If you
> have a solution for 'that' one, which is to say human nature and
> behavior therein, hey, bring it on! Ditto crime et al.

Unfortunately, you nailed it when you mentioned human nature. But as
of late, wars are rarely prosecuted for the reasons proffered by those
that lead the call to arms - we are manipulated into conflict by small
cadres of individuals who think nothing of killing millions and
decimating whole societies to achieve their selfish ends.

As I said - it seems that the wrong blood inevitably gets spilled.

> >>But then, if we get into potential as in 'growing up',
> >>well, wasn't that a comment made at Posen ... by Himmler ... and his
> >>'cure' for such things? You 'have' read the Posen spiel, yes? I have!
>
> > Cite it.
>
> It's available on the net and obviously when you say 'cite it', you have
> no idea what it says or means but that is a given from the get-go!

I just read it on the Holocaust History website. No doubt a Gord McFee
translation. But I see nothing related to 'growing up'. Do you?

> I
> don't think it's dawned on you yet that what you have to say gives the
> impression ,at least to me, that the breath of your worldly savvy, is
> merely parroting the stuff of others but you offer no solutions!

Forgive me if I fail to lose sleep worrying over what you might think
of me, Phonio.


> Let's
> talk not so much what was and can't be changed, let's talk the NOW. You
> bring up the Israel/Palestinean conflict, so, what solutions do YOU
> offer and an end to a chronic and on-going 60 year conflict? Well? What?

Israel is truly a snowball in hell. It is an unnatural entity strained
into existence via generations of intrigue, skullduggery, murder,
bribery, betrayal, revolution, war and terrorism - and at the cost of
millions of lives. All of this to fulfill the psychotic dreams of a
handful of megalomaniacal men and the deluded, narcissistic masses
that follow them - both Jew and Gentile.

It cannot exist without being artificially propped up from the
outside, and will not exist for long in any case. The sad part is that
it may well cause as much or more mayhem in its death throes as it did
in its birth pangs.

Israel's supporters constantly say that she is "The only friend we
have in the Middle East". The truth is that she is *no* friend, and
were it not for this ugly Frankenstein's monster, we'd likely have few
enemies in the Middle East.

You complain about our being embroiled in the Iraquagmire, and are
rightfully concerned that we may go to war with Iran. You see the
folly of these actions, but fail/refuse to recognize that we are being
spitefully used by the masters of Zionism to fight Israel's enemies
and expand her frontiers.

Yes, Israel will fall, but don't expect her to go 'gently into that
good night'. You observed above that "God" is being invoked by both
Christians and Muslims. Indeed. We are being pitted against one
another by the perpetual middle men to serve their nefarious purposes.
There is a good chance that we'll soon be involved in a conflagration
that will make anything previous pale by comparison - especially when
you consider the wildcards of Russia, which retains much of its Cold
War muscle, and China, whose manufacturing capacity - converted to war
industry- would be a thing to behold - not to mention her sheer
manpower.

In case you hadn't noticed, the US has very little manufacturing
capability left - it has all been shipped overseas thanks to the
traitorous actions of our bought-and-sold politicians.

I suppose that should we go to war with China, we'll have to make
"special arrangements" so that they'll continue to supply our men with
uniforms, boots and ammunition, eh?

> > And as usual, be careful not to address the points I've made above
> > when (and if) you respond.
>
> Why would I not respond? What, I should do a Harrington and hide via the
> plonk routine? What for!

I figured you'd respond. I merely questioned whether you'd address the
points. You did, and that's a pleasant surprise.

> So, let's talk the NOW ... what do YOU suggest for the Middle East TODAY
> because a historical re-hash will always remain a historical re-hash
> just as it 'did' happen [Holocaust] will always have its equally
> committed 'did not' happen and back and forth it goes ad infinitum  but
> the TODAY, ahhhh, and YOU bringing up Israel and the Palestinians, OK,
> fine, so what do 'you' think should be done?

If we continue on our current course, it would appear that the future
of the Jews will be a magnified reflection of countless episodes of
their past, and many, many people will suffer in the process.

Not that this is what I would want, but to date, I've yet to see many
of them showing signs that they might finally be "getting it".

**

Waldo

Observer at Large

Antworten