Posted on 06/20/2008 8:12:50 AM PDT by kellynla
Would you be offended if someone said that same thing, only replacing the words with Aryan, European, or white?
Yep. Like the Demaniuk defense.
Yes, he was. What's that saying? Oh yeah, "Even a blind sow will occasionally find an acorn"
Hitler wasn't all bad either. He liked dogs.
LoL! Two cliches in one post! Genius.
He was right on Demaniuk. Come on, you can say it.
There is no significant oil in the conquests of the Third Reich except in Romania, which was an ally (and in the North Sea, which hadn’t been discovered yet). The blitzkreig was running out of gas. Hitler preferred the idea of making for the Caucusus to the idea of attempting to get to Iraq.
And had Lee taken that offer, he’d have been a traitor to his home state and the South.
"A holy and accepted burnt offering" might be a usage of the word, but "holokaustos" comes from "holo" meaning whole and "kaustos" meaning burned.
The word's literal meaning is "complete destruction by fire."
Greek semantics aside, whatever meaning "holokaustos" has, The Holocaust does NOT mean "a holy and accepted burnt offering." It refers to the Nazi German effort to destroy the Jewish people through complete destruction by fire.
Isn’t it Holocaust Denial to ignore what happened to the Slavs? More Slavic non-combatants than Jews were exterminated by the Germans, after all.
Ya learn something new everyday. It’s hard to believe we took this asshat seriously at one point...
I am familiar with many Rabbinic associations, but I do not know of any "supreme" rabbinic authority in the U.S. Unlike Israel and Britain, the U.S. does not have a Chief Rabbinate.
I have the greatest respect for Israeli intelligence, but I don't think that their assets include time machines. ;^)
[The state of Israel was founded in 1948.]
History has two parts - a recording of factual events and the construction of a narrative to tie them together. One is, as the saying goes, entitled to one's own narrative but not to one's own facts.
Whether an alternate set of events might have avoided WWII is academic (in several senses). The real ones did not. Whether that alternate set of events would have led ineluctably to another alternate set of events - no Holocaust - is still more derivative and still more academic. In fact they did not.
The real difficulty with the "would have, could have, should have" treatment to such narratives as Buchanan's is that they depend entirely on events that didn't happen. Was WWII "necessary"? Was the Holocaust? Well, the discussion of such things as "necessary" in this regard is one of narrative, not of fact. These are questions only an academic could love. Both happened.
The real danger here is that clinging to any one narrative can lead one to deny facts that do not support it. One may be so enamored of the Jew As Enemy narrative that one blames both WWII and the Holocaust on Jewish perfidy, or worse, needs to deny the reality of the latter and at some point even the former. Certain radical Muslim narratives of the period do that. It is an astounding and frustrating thing for those who lived through such factual events to see their very reality denied by those who prefer to believe narratives to which they are inconvenient.
Without going into any particularly detailed analysis, I have in mind a few facts that might be regarded as inconvenient for this particular narrative - Hitler's clear intentions toward the Jews as expressed far earlier even than Mein Kampf but easiest to locate in that rather dull volume, the acts of organized anti-Semitism that preceded the events of the war, the detailed planning of population movements that happened quite to the detriment of the war effort. There are more, too many in my opinion to allow for Buchanan's narrative to carry much more weight than the purely hypothetical.
So if one supports a moderate foreign policy of defending America only (ending Nato, bringing troops home from Korea, Bosnia, etc) he’s an anti-semite b/c David Frum says so?
Eastern Europe is majority Slav. Jews were a small minority. Naturally more Slavs than Jews were killed in absolute numbers. But the Nazis were not trying to exterminate Slavs, who were to be the slaves of the future. They were trying to completely exterminate Jews. Look at it in percentages.
One should also remember that the Holocaust was largely carried out by Eastern Europeans, with only a thin layer of German staff.
*blush* Thank yew. You should see me when I really get rolling...
He was right on Demaniuk. Come on, you can say it.
Yes I can and I did. What were my first words in that post? I said "Yes, he was."
Yeah. Thank God my ancestor emigrated in 1914.
Beats the hell out of ‘Pukeannon’s nuts’. Thanks.
I think he meant after the war, the way the State of Israel pursued (is still pursuing?) Nazi war criminals.
If Churchill had not taken over in 1940, we might all be speaking German and Japanese. He was not perfect, but he showed great spine and courage despite the apparent odds in 1940. If Britain had given in in 1940, Hitler might well have been able to force Stalin to surrender and had the vast resources of much of Russia at his disposal. That would have been even worse for the USA, Britain, and civlization. Note: Stalin was just as wicked and evil as Hitler; as a mass murderer, Stalin killed far more people than even Hitler - he had more time to do so. Hitler and his demonic compatriots planned from way before WW2 to get rid of the Jewish people in Europe one way or another, and have their muzzie allies (the mufti if Jersualem - may he be forever blotted out) in the middle east take care of the Jewish people there. Pat’s dreamworld seems to be one that has no Jewish people. If he’d been alive in 1939, he’d likely have been a super isolationist apologist for that lowlife Hitler. Pat can kindly go stuff a potato in his mouth, go sit on an air hose, and turn it on full blast!
That is pure Holocaust Denial. Hitler intended to liquidate the Slavs, and 9 million souls weigh no less than six million. And some Slavs collaborated. As Hans Frank said, we will make mincemeat of the Poles and Ukranians. It’s a shame you can make such statements, which would be condemned if said about the Jews
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.