Comments by "Quint Rankid" (@quintrankid8045) on "Top Nazis "Everyday" Voices" video.

You left out my favorite part of Heinrich's little speech, "And to have seen this through, and — with the exception of human weaknesses — to have remained decent, has made us hard and is a page of glory never mentioned and never to be mentioned." Frankly, I love the irony of that. They "remained decent"? Were they decent to begin with? And then two days later "...But it was accomplished, and without — I believe I can say — our men and their leaders suffering any mental or spiritual damage. " Now that's just sad. Robert Jay Lifton begs to differ with Heinrich.
1
@lordgobby3049 What's your definition of decent?
1
@lordgobby3049 The Germans didn't have many other options? Hmmm... Well, they could have done other things, like not invaded Poland, Russia, France, and several other countries because all of that seems like a choice. Maybe AH shouldn't have made the choice to abandon Sixth Army. If Speer is to be believed maybe he shouldn't decided that the German nation didn't deserve to survive. No, I think the choices that were made indicate a certain lack of decency. If the Allies bombed countries that were on the brink of defeat, which means that continued resistance was futile and would only result in more deaths then I think it might be said that the choice to go on fighting, meaning that your own people would continue to die, isn't a decent choice. And it's not clear to me how what Heinrich was talking about in the speech I quoted had anything to do with the war. The deliberate murder of around 11 millions who were not under arms and were not contributing to the enemy's war effort isn't part of the war, but a campaign of robbery and murder.
1
书中自有黄金屋 If Poland was invaded to protect ethnic Germans then there would have been no need of a false flag operation to justify it. BTW, IIRC, there was months of agit prop presented as fact before the event. If it was just to protect ethnic Germans then there ought to be questions about why Germany and the Sovs agreed to divide the country between them. Did they need the entire country to protect ethnic Germans? And was there a choice? There's always a choice. Invaders of your country? What invaders of your country? Was Germany invaded prior to its invasion of Poland. Sorry, but I'm having some trouble understanding your point here. How many people do you think were murdered for reasons that had nothing to do with the war, but for their ethnicity, religion, race, religion, etc?
1
书中自有黄金屋 Why do you think Gleiwitz wasn't a false flag? What is your evidence that ethnic Germans were being mistreated in Danzig? One small request? Weren't there other small requests? Maybe the Sudentenland? Alsace Lorraine? After a while, well, yes, Germany sounds like the aggressor here. This all sounds like Vlad The Invader's claim that where there are ethnic Russians that's where the Russian state is. Do you think that Russia instigated war with Germany? On what grounds would you say that Operation Barbarosa was justified? And if the point of the war was to save German lives do you think that Germany should have surrendered when losing was inevitable? Or do you think that Germany should have gone on fighting no matter the cost in lives, that is German lives? I think it would be fair to say that the Treaty of Versailles didn't do the world much good, but Germany was a signatory to this treaty, wasn't it? If you can't give a figure for the murders, then why not 11 millions? How can you claim this is wrong, even if it was made up? Why is it difficult to separate murders from unintentional deaths?
1
书中自有黄金屋 Is the claim made by Alfred Naujocks about Gleiwitz false? It seems to me that in his speech AH does make a general reference to Poland attacking Germany, although it would seem this is a false claim. What whitepaper are you referring to? I can't find a reference online to the Sovs attacking Romania prior to ww2. But perhaps I misunderstood you? Did you mean that the Sovs invaded Rumania during the war? Please clarify. If Germany was unable to defend itself, then shouldn't it have surrendered to save the lives of its citizens? Or should it have gone on fighting without regard to their lives? To not surrender in those circumstances seems indecent to me. If Wisenthal made up the number or not, if you don't know what the number is, then I don't think you have any basis for claiming the number is wrong, even if it was made up. Let me try to explain this with an analogy, if you claim that you don't know how many pages there are in particular book and someone else says, "There are 348 pages, but I made that number up," the most you can claim is that they made the number up. You have no basis for saying that the book doesn't have that many pages because you've already stated that you don't know. It's not clear to me that we need forensic testing for each and every victim when there are witnesses to the horror. At the very least, putting someone into a camp with inadequate food where their death is the expected outcome, or putting someone in a chamber where people are murdered should count as murder. I'm still not entirely sure what you mean by unintentional death, which still might count as something criminal, like manslaughter.
1
书中自有黄金屋 I can see both replies and I replied to the previous post already.
1