PlacesAsiaRussia
ANSWERS: 4
  • "Bloodthirsty"? You've been watching too many old war movies. That term should be reserved for those who wanted the war.
    • Jenny Rizzo is brilliant ⭐
      Thumbs up for answering anyway. There have been many Russian soldiers in Ukraine waving Soviet Union flags and killing civilians in unimaginable ways, just as the Nazis. But I just remembered you are one of those who denies the Jewish Holocaust ever happened. Therefore, you've been exposed, hahahahahahaha!
    • 1465
      I should clarify my answer - sorry. I was talking about WW2. "Bloodthirsty" better describes Churchill and the Western allies - they were the ones who wanted war. I don't deny that hundreds of thousands of Jews died (some put it at millions) - I just don't agree with *HOW* they died. The real cause is never mentioned because it doesn't support the claims. And the claims were never proven through forensic evidence. As for Russian soldiers killing civilians in unimaginable ways, I would hate to think that you and everyone else in the West are putting all of your beliefs in CNN, MSNBC, and the New York Slimes. Haven't they proven themselves as anything but reliable over the past 5 years?
    • Jenny Rizzo is brilliant ⭐
      The real cause is that Hitler ordered a bloody purge of his own political party, Churchill did not. Hitler was a ruthless dictator with dreams of conquering all of Europe in his first step of annexing Poland. To deny part of the Jewish atrocities is to want to deny everything. ANYONE can see this. If you want forensic evidence, I suggest you hear the testimonies of the Jewish Holocaust survivors to know what they went through. I doubt if you would call them liars or would you?????????????? Trump who is supported by Fox News calls the Russian invasion on Ukraine a Holocaust. You're not looking good with your back against the wall. lol
    • 1465
      Hitler's purge against his own was aimed at the Brownshirts - a paramilitary group called the Stormtroopers (or "Brownshirts"). The Brownshirts were useful in the beginning when instability between many political parties in Germany (there were more than 50 political parties in the 1932 election) resorted to violence. After his time spent in Landsberg Prison, he changed his political strategy to going after votes to get support rather than using the old barbaric ways to get his message across. The Brownshirts had tasted blood, however, and threatened to get out of control - which would have destroyed Hitler's new approach. This is why he did away with them - in doing so, he avoided real bloodbaths in the streets. Hitler had no such "dreams" of conquering Europe. He made numerous offers of peace to all of the nations of Europe but each was refused by France and Britain. He even offered to end Germany's arms buildup - if Britain would do the same. Needless to say, Britain refused that as well. The only "conquering" he wanted were those areas of German people who were ripped away from their homeland by the Versailles Treaty. Danzig and East Prussia belonged to Germany but land access to them was denied. The people of Danzig were being persecuted by Poland and Hitler had no access to protect them. This is what he wanted a narrow easement through Poland for. If Britain declared war on Germany for invading Poland...why didn't they declare war on the Soviet Union for doing the same thing just 2 weeks later??? (It was because they wanted to go to war with Germany, not the Soviet Union.) Listening to the testimonies of Jewish survivors will never offer forensic evidence (do you even know what forensic evidence is?). Dario Gabbai was a Jewish survivor who claimed to have worked using canes around the necks to drag corpses from the gas chamber to the crematory. His description of the bodies was nowhere near being close to accurate. That's where "forensics" comes in. Forensics is important for determining the cause of death. But people like you don't really want to know the actual cause - you're only interested in what agrees with what you've been taught to believe - even if it's wrong. If you're interested in the truth, then go out and look for it. Don't "settle" on the common belief to avoid cognitive dissonance. Finding the truth is quite fascinating, actually - and getting more challenging since censorship has become the political norm.
    • Jenny Rizzo is brilliant ⭐
      Quote: "Hitler's purge against his own was aimed at the Brownshirts" All existing political parties were banned during Hitler's rise to power. From mid-July 1933 onwards, Germany was a single-party state. Cultural and scientific cleansings were carried out as well. Quote: "Hitler had no such "dreams" of conquering Europe." You have no evidence to support your claims. The evidence of his world conquest is found in the humiliating terms, which made Germany accept blame for WW1, limit their armed forces and pay reparations. Also, after Hitler's rage and invading Poland in 1939, he took swift control over all of Europe. England would have fell too if the US had not entered WW2. I don't want to know the actual case? Precisely, many Nazi war criminals would not have to escape to South America if the forensic testimonies of the Jewish Holocaust survivors was not true.
    • Creamcrackered
      1465, do you think that if the league of Nations had listened to Hitlers numerous letters to put Germany on an equal footing, and to bring about peace in Europe, do you think he would still have gone in to Poland for annexation under the treatment of the Germans in those areas? It appears since the writing of Mein Kampf in 1924, that there was an attempt to bring about German Nationalism, even in small societies, much like at the beginning of world war 1, the Black Hand, and the Carbonari were also infiltration secret groups trying to bring about political overthrow? Do you see similarities in Putin's invasion of Ukraine?
    • 1465
      "All existing political parties were banned during Hitler's rise to power. From mid-July 1933 onwards, Germany was a single-party state." - And your point is...? I said, "more than 50 political parties in the 1932 election". 1933 has nothing to do with it. [] "Quote: "Hitler had no such "dreams" of conquering Europe." You have no evidence to support your claims. - How can I be expected to have proof of something that didn't happen? If he had no such dreams of conquering Europe or flying on the Starship Enterprise, there would be no "proof" to show. [] "The evidence of his world conquest is found in the humiliating terms, which made Germany accept blame for WW1, limit their armed forces and pay reparations." - this one's on you. Provide proof of this. Hitler was a Corporal during WW1 and didn't get into politics until around 1920. The Versailles Treaty (to which you refer) took place in 1919. How are the terms personally connected to him? [] "...after Hitler's rage and invading Poland in 1939, he took swift control over all of Europe." - Britain declared war on Germany on Sept 3, 1939 - what do you expect? France attacked Germany in 1939 - violating the non-aggression pact they had with Germany as recently as 1938. The Netherlands and Belgium both claimed neutrality and yet, positioned their militaries so that they faced Germany. The Netherlands was caught allowing Britain to hold secret meetings to plan tactics against Germany. [] "Forensic testimonies?" Jewish survivors can't testify on anything "forensic" - such a thing requires an expert in the medical field. The reason Nazi "war criminals" (as the West likes to refer to them) fled to South America can be seen in the Nuremberg Kangaroo Court. No one gets a fair trial when they're judged by their enemies.
    • 1465
      "1465, do you think that if the league of Nations had listened to Hitlers numerous letters to put Germany on an equal footing, and to bring about peace in Europe, do you think he would still have gone in to Poland for annexation under the treatment of the Germans in those areas?" - The League of Nations has nothing to do with why Hitler went into Poland. The areas in Poland that were at issue were areas that already belonged to Germany - Germany had a right to access them but was being denied. The League of Nations discriminated against Germany from the "get-go" (laughingly as they supported a nation's inherent right to sovereignty).
    • 1465
      Jenny - there is another definition of "holocaust" than the one normally used when referring to the Jews. The term "holocaust" also refers to "carnage and massive destruction". It was used by the Allies to describe what they saw when they liberated the German prison camps. They were not medical personnel, so they couldn't have meant "extermination" in gas chambers, since there were no gas chambers in Germany (nor in Poland - but that's another can of worms). You need to look at the whole picture, and not just the parts that are pointed out for you to see.
  • Not too sure
    • Jenny Rizzo is brilliant ⭐
      Thanks for sharing!
  • No, like German soldiers they are given a different narrative and are fighting for what they believe is right. I've been around British and German soldiers from world war 2, most of them dead now, they got on perfectly well, they understood this simple fact.
  • IDT they are.

Copyright 2020, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy