DEBATE between Eric Hunt & Friedrich Paul Berg

[NSDAP]

There is no legal basis on which an American civilian can declare war on behalf of anyone against another country. It is ridiculous in the extreme to justify Nazi oppression of German and then other Jews on what an American said.

These were considered the worlds financiers. In a nation that had struggled with hyper inflation this was considered a major threat. In the US Japanese and German US citizens were interned for no other reason than their ethnicity. It is not what an American said, there were multiple people. In War time, they were interned and rightfully so. It is sad for the individuals concerned but war is a terribly serious business. The SS were not boy scouts. There was a legal basis, the Reich created its own laws. You cannot look at the past with the glasses of current political thinking.

[papasha]

There is no legal basis on which an American civilian can declare war on behalf of anyone against another country. It is ridiculous in the extreme to justify Nazi oppression of German and then other Jews on what an American said.

These were considered the worlds financiers. In a nation that had struggled with hyper inflation this was considered a major threat. In the US Japanese and German US citizens were interned for no other reason than their ethnicity. It is not what an American said, there were multiple people. In War time, they were interned and rightfully so. It is sad for the individuals concerned but war is a terribly serious business. The SS were not boy scouts. There was a legal basis, the Reich created its own laws. You cannot look at the past with the glasses of current political thinking.

No, we can't, you're right. But I also don't think that most of these Ukranian etc Jews had 2 shekels to rub together so they probably weren't financing shit. Anyway I don't want to give you another tangent to go off on, just gonna say that this "Judea declares war on Germany" gambit is something modern Nazis push and I don't think it featured that prominently in 1930s or wartime NS propaganda or conversations.. most of which was more crude and simply portrayed the purges as simply exterminating vermin, or ridding the body of some cancer or infection. And they weren't interned cause there literally wasn't enough space in the camps when the Ghettos started getting liquidated even if you had set free everyone already there (which they didn't), so there's that. You should just drop this stuff man, its getting dumb, just admit the Holocaust happened and spin it politically somehow, that's what you do with everything else

[NSDAP]

I can assure you we are not neo nazis. Judea did declare war on the Reich in times of great political and financial instability: their intended purpose was political and perhaps over stretched their hand. This declaration is what prompted Herr Hitler to put increased political pressure on Juden. The timeline if you should decide to look closely fits perfectly. In many ways Herr Hitlers version of National Socialism was similiar to the SPQRs version of Rome: the mob speaks: using this method is a way to stay in ultimate power and used by most Roman Emperors. The Ghettos were deliberately isolationist but intended to rid Europe of Juden, the potential 5th columnists but also give them the freedoms to be themselves before final resettlement. However, war interferred with this and shortages accompanied by events turned those ghettos into hell holes for the victims within. There was no holocaust, no policy of genocide but some local commanders did with hindsight make decisions we find abhorrent today. I doubt if I or you in similar circumstances could do any better. In a maelstrom where 70 million perished we are not really concerned with just 8% of those deaths. We find the deaths of all people not a tragedy but a calamity.

[papasha]

Okay.. 8% of 70 million is 5.6 million, which is basically the official death count, you just don't want to call it a "Holocaust" or even genocide (despite the fact that putting people into camps or ghettos is already genocide according to the UN definition "Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life...") .. because that's your feelings, that's how you feel about it. Okay

[NSDAP]

For Juden it was Holocaust and this is accepted; a deal of empathy is needed here from all sides. I find it disturbing that some people use this horrible period of time to capitalize for financial gain with total disrespect or common humanity. I find it disturbing that most Western Political institutions have not authorized a forensic probe into the realities and horrors of the time. On all sides, mothers lost their sons, sons lost their dads, whole families were destroyed: truth was flushed down the toilet and this is still continuing when we see current world events. National Socialism is about humanity, and does not take sides.

[papasha]

Yeah Mother Teresa step aside right. your posts crack me up not the least of which because you sound like those tankies who say "real communism has never been tried" to defend soviet atrocities.

[Nessie]

.....

In exchange for his testimony against his former superiors at the Nuremberg Trials, Bach-Zelewski never faced trial for any war crimes.

When you copied and pasted that from Wikipedia, you should have copied it all; "In exchange for his testimony against his former superiors at the Nuremberg Trials[citation needed], Bach-Zelewski never faced trial for any war crimes". Missing out "citation needed" shows that claim is not evidenced. There is evidence why he never faced trial here;

http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org ... weski.html

"In March 1951 he was condemned by a Munich de-Nazification court to ten years “special labour” which in practice meant being confined to his own home in Franconia. The only one among the mass murderers who publicly denounced himself for his wartime actions, he was never prosecuted for his role in the anti-Jewish massacres."

[Scott]

Whatever they are called, under the Hague and Geneva international agreements (treaties) they are Illegal Combatants....

Link and quote please.

/wiki/Unlawful_combatant#International_criticism_of_unlawful_combatant_status

/wiki/Irregular_military

I am not sure what part you are having trouble with. Maybe you could be more specific. ....

It is very simple. Link to and quote the Hague and Geneva international agreements (treaties) which state when civilians fight back against an occupying army, they are illegal combatants.

Unless you want the texts of the treaties themselves (what about all the addendums?), which are deliberately generalist and not specific (even obfuscatory), then I think I already did that, Nessie.

The second Wiki article. which explains what Illegal Combatants are--without wanting to actually label or specifically declare them that--is particularly good.

I also brought in some nuance because International "Law" is nothing if not equivocal, if not downright "Talmudic."

[Nessie]

There is no legal basis on which an American civilian can declare war on behalf of anyone against another country. It is ridiculous in the extreme to justify Nazi oppression of German and then other Jews on what an American said.

These were considered the worlds financiers.

So, any declaration of war is just words.

In a nation that had struggled with hyper inflation this was considered a major threat. In the US Japanese and German US citizens were interned for no other reason than their ethnicity. It is not what an American said, there were multiple people. In War time, they were interned and rightfully so. It is sad for the individuals concerned but war is a terribly serious business. The SS were not boy scouts. There was a legal basis, the Reich created its own laws. You cannot look at the past with the glasses of current political thinking.

I am not. I am looking at events at the time and the Nazis were always going to be removing Jewish influence from German society and what an American said changed nothing.

[Nessie]

Link and quote please.

/wiki/Unlawful_combatant#International_criticism_of_unlawful_combatant_status

/wiki/Irregular_military

I am not sure what part you are having trouble with. Maybe you could be more specific. ....

It is very simple. Link to and quote the Hague and Geneva international agreements (treaties) which state when civilians fight back against an occupying army, they are illegal combatants.

Unless you want the texts of the treaties themselves (what about all the addendums?), which are deliberately generalist and not specific (even obfuscatory), then I think I already did that, Nessie.

The second Wiki article. which explains what Illegal Combatants are--without wanting to actually label or specifically declare them that--is particularly good.

I also brought in some nuance because International "Law" is nothing if not equivocal, if not downright "Talmudic."

You have made a false claim. There is nothing in those agreements/treaties which make civilians who rise up against an occupying army, illegal combatants.

The Wiki article says nothing about irregular combatants being illegal. The other article just claims civilians who participate in war are subject to domestic, not military law or the Geneva Convention etc.