I read both forums, CODOH and RODOH, but don’t post. I realize I am getting into a fight that lasted already for long where historical research is already a "secondary" thing for some people who are more interested in bashing the "opponent", but some hypocrisy is really annoying, so it would be interesting to hear what EVERYBODY (no matter on which side of the fight) thinks about it. The thing is, several of days ago I decided to make a couple of posts on CODOH about 2 things that I really take seriously, almost personally, when they are being discussed:
In the topic about Babi Yar (the same that is quoted in the last posts here)
that Hannover guy posted several photos of dead people, said they were being listed as victims of the “Babi Yar massacre” but, according to him it’s “a fraud” and therefore we should “take a laugh” by looking at them. I don’t know whether these photos are really from Babi Yar, how many people were killed there, or if the massacre occurred elsewhere as someone claims, I don’t know which things are “gotten wright” or “gotten wrong” by the Revisionists and the Believers. I read the official history of the Holocaust, then learned about Revisionism and read a number of articles and followed different forums for some time. I don’t know what the exact truth is. What I know for sure though, and I thought this was one point the Revisionists and the Believers would all agree upon, is that NONE of the 2 positions is “funny” or “laughable”! Wars are always horrible, because people die, both civilians and soldiers, on all sides, and there is nothing glorious and exciting about killing each other. Of course, when somebody attacks your country and your home, you defend it, this is the right thing to do. But anyway, while trying to avoid presenting myself as a supporter of either side, I commented Hannover’s invitation to “take a laugh” at those “death pictures”, by writing this:
My post didn’t appear, it said it had to be checked by a moderator first. Ok, I thought. But then I posted in the topic about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing by the USA:Laughing at dead bodies???!!! Listen, I don’t know whether they are Jews or not, they may as well not be related to the 2nd World War at all, for all I care but, if seeing a lot of dead bodies, whoever the victims were, whoever killed them, whatever the circumstances or the time period, even if they were not murdered at all, but died a natural death or because of illness, having a laugh as a reaction is something maniacal. Good that I first learned about Revisionism elsewhere, from sources where people are actually interested in historical research and establishing the truth, which facts were falsified and/or exaggerated and which were not. But you are the ONLY one to consider pictures of dead people as “funny”. No revisionist or believer whose posts or articles I have ever read, has ever considered death funny. No revisionist says a dead Jew is funny or a believer says that a hanged German is funny. Even if no Jew died during that period at all, people (no matter the nationalities) did die, a lot of them. Soldiers died, civilians died, on both sides, and this is NOT funny. WARS NEVER ARE. Have you ever seen a dead body in real life, if photos have no effect on you? Instead of debates, it’s usually just insults and mutual online “throat-slashing”, when people disagree on this “Holocaust matter”, but even insults and hot-headed behavior are more “normal” than laughing at mass murder. A serious revisionist would be indignant for the twisting of historical facts, if something has been made up or lied about, but only a troll with nothing better to do would laugh at it, as mass death is always a tragedy, no matter the circumstances. It doesn’t to have be Jews at all, for a normal onlooker to be horrified, if it’s the racial aspect that you are concerned with. In this specific case, even if no living person was ever killed at Babi Yar at all in the history of the world, still if you think that the photos you have posted would make ANYBODY laugh (no matter whether revisionists or believers), then you seriously need a doctor. Laughing at corpses goes next to necrophilia.
And this post APPEARED IMMEDIATELY, without requiring any verification! It's still there as you see (unless they decide to delete it eventually):The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a horrible crime. Wars are always horrible and there is nothing exciting or glorious about them, ever, and this case shows the hypocrisy of humanity, how a diabolical massacre has been declared as "justified" by many people only because it has been committed by the "winning side".
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f ... 052#p85052
So how is it? If somebody talks about the crimes committed by the Nazis, then it requires verification or maybe gets simply deleted (my post in the Babi Yar thread still hasn’t appeared, and I didn’t even state whether I believe that the photos are really from Babi Yar, if the bodies were Jews, whether I believe in the official version of the story, because in fact I DON’T KNOW WHAT DID REALLY HAPPEN THERE), while when it’s about the crimes committed by the Allies, then there is no problem with posting it right away? How so? If this Hannover user (if I remember well, somebody here on RODOH said he and the CODOH moderator are the same person, is it true?) if he is so fascinated by death that it makes him laugh, that why on earth does he agree (and I agree with him) that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a horrible crime? He makes jokes at dead bodies in one topic and suddenly “wakes up” in another?
Really, historical research is an important thing, learning the historical truth is important (whether it’s confirming the official information or finding it false, although it’s rarely 1 of the 2, the truth is usually somewhere in the middle in such arguments, although I am not yet sure about the 2nd World War), but lately it has become only about trolling and insulting, not like at the beginning. That would be nothing, but seeing the word “laughable” used so much in discussions pertaining to WW2, one of the biggest tragedies in history of the world, this is almost as creepy at the war itself. “Laughable”, “funny”….. These words being used while talking about an international violent conflict, with more than enough victims, including civilians on both sides, being it Jews or other nationalities! Even if (hypothetically speaking) concentration camps didn’t exist at all, or if I knew 100% that no prisoner was ever killed by gas (and I am not sure of that at all, because more than providing evidence, usually it’s just mutual insults but, even when something is provided, the opposite side claims that everything provided by the “opponent” being a fake), even without discussing the Jewish/Holocaust aspect and how accurately it has been presented, what was made up, what was true etc, even without this, was World War 2 not bloody enough to consider it an enormous tragedy that will forever remain in the history of the world? How can anyone LAUGH at anything pertaining to it?
To make 1 point about my position here: I don't really care whether an innocent victim is a Jew, a German, A Russian, French or whatever. Even wars that didn't have any "racial" aspect at all and were never claimed by anybody to have one, are bloody and tragic events too. Even if the number of Jewish victims was "increased" by official statistics and the victims of the victims of other ethnicities has been underestimated, is it really the main point in WW2 ? A number of Jews surely died, as did people of other ethnic groups, and their lives were equally important.
About Revisionism, I don't know. I don't buy the "international Jewish conspiracy controlling everything" talks, I could make up such a story any time to write a spy thriller if I had writer talents. But I agree that the first revisionists likely have a point by trying to re-evaluate the statistics from an objective point of view. BUT, one thing is to say for example "It was 1 million who died and not 6, and they were not gassed but somebody was shot, somebody died of typhus in the camps which is both the Nazis' and the Allies' responsibility because the Allies bombed the infrastructures that provided food, although they shouldn't have been put in the camps in the first place, somebody died while resisting as a partisan etc", and it's completely different to dismiss as a "fraudulent fairy tail" EVERY SINGLE episode where the German military has killed civilians. For example, when they search for partisans and are sure (and maybe are right) that a village is hiding them, they slaughter the whole village (even not necessarily that big, maybe several hundred people). But, sorry, killing 600 or 700 people without exception of gender, age or guilt, "just to be sure" that the partisans don't get away, is this ok? How many similar episodes have happened that aren't denied by anyone, nor by the traditional theory supporters nor by the Revisionists?
Do you know about the reprisal about the Via Rasella bombing on German soldiers in Rome, Italy? Ok, the ones who did so were not "heroes", to put it mildly. But the reprisal by killing about 300 hostages, how about that? They were not the bombers, the Germans never found them. They killed 300 people because they had them and they have warned the "underground fighters" that they would kill hostages if they would have attacked the Germans. So what the bombers did was irresponsible and if those soldiers never committed crimes against civilians, it was a bloody crime too, but WHY SHOULD 300 HOSTAGES, WHO HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS, TAKE THE BLAME? Even more so, why is the late Erich Priebke, one of the executioners, sometimes labeled as a "hero"? He is no more of a hero than the bombers were or even worse because he shot civilians with the usual excuse of "following the orders". But why calling him a HERO? Has he ever done anything historically known apart from taking part in this mass hostage execution? If somebody knows he did something else as well, please enlighten me. But, if it was only that and nothing else, and his "heroism" consists in shooting hostages and nothing else, then how exactly you call this kind of "logic"?
About partisans: why some people call them "terrorists" and "illegal fighters" who are "breaking international laws" and are therefore "rightfully" executed? If an army gets defeated on their own territories, the local resistance is conducted by small partisan groups, it's the best the local people can do to drive the foreign army away from their home. What are they supposed to do, just stay and watch or surrender? Why would they? How are their actions more illegal that a foreign army staying in THEIR country? If they drove them away and then chased them into Germany and started wreaking havoc there, on local civilians, then THIS would be illegal and morally reprehensible (to put it mildly). But as long as they are defending THEIR homes, what's the problem? Defense is always legitimate. I KNOW THAT THE PARTISANS DID HORRIBLE THINGS TOO, WHEN TAKING REVENGE ON WHOEVER THEY SUPPOSED WAS SUPPORTING NAZIS OR FASCISTS, once they have won. But the whole concept of "partisan" gets called "terroristic" and illegal by itself, while a foreign army conquering a territory of another country is not. How so? Wouldn't it be quite idiotic of them not to resist to foreign invasions at all, especially if they have lost their soldier friends and / or relatives in battles?
By the way, this talk about "mass graves" or "no mass graves have ever been found": the Revisionists say no mass graves have been found, yet talk about "rightful" executions of partisans, even this Hannover dude did so time ago (if I remember well). Then have THEIR graves been found or not? Or, when talking about "no mass graves", you mean "no non-partisan mass graves"? It's a question of genuine curiosity, not a sarcastic one.
I understand that I made a way too long post, especially about Nazi crimes, but to prevent you from getting the wrong idea, I say: I maintain absolutely the same position towards the Allies who committed atrocities towards innocent civilian Germans (or others). The ones who bombed Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki (and who gave the orders), or the soldiers who raped and pillaged on their way to Berlin, should have hung from the same gallows as the Nazis. They got away with it, and it is sad and hypocritical. But this doesn't make those Nazis who committed atrocities into "good guys", does it? Just being on the "side that has lost", doesn't make them saints, or does it?
To compare to another situation: when 2 mafia clans are in a turf war and one is exterminated by the others who take over, do the dead gangsters suddenly become "good people" just because they are dead now? They haven't murdered, extorted, sold drugs etc just like their rivals? Please don't tell me you don't get the comparison.
Sorry if my post was too long. I almost never post, prefer to do it once and in long detail, rather than short questions and replies.