Vlads poor excuses for mass murder of civilians get more ironic by the
day as he seeks to emulate those he claims to despise - Right down their
cherished "Z" symbol which is nothing more than a Wolfsangel, a heraldic
rune used by many Nazi units including SS.

````````````````

VLAD THE SAVAGE Hero survivor, 96, of FOUR Hitler concentration camps
killed by shell in Putin’s perverted war to ‘rid Ukraine of Nazis’

https://www.the-sun.com/news/4945441/survivor-hitler-concentration-camps-killed-putin-ukraine/
--
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for
light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 22:32:10 -0400
JeSSe <zo@so.org> wrote:

> Right
> down their cherished "Z" symbol which is nothing more than a
> Wolfsangel

It's nothing like it. The Wolfsangel is typically mirrored; 'S' shaped rather than 'Z', and also has a horizontal bar through the centre like a French seven.

You are so full of shit.

Military experts and historians have been struggling to figure out its actual meaning for months, ever since Russia's troops began massing on the border last year and really aren't sure.

Journalists have been asking everyone at rallies wearing it what it means and no one has a clue, not even the fascists.

But expert Jesse knows it's a Nazi symbol because he wants everyone to believe Putin is a Nazi.

Totally full of shit.

My belief is it's just a symbol which has taken on a life of its own. Z, V and O being distinctive enough not to be confused with each other on the battlefield. Plus there's that pyramid-triangle.

The symbol of the Ukrainian Azov Battalion is much more obviously Nazi in origin. Because they are Nazis.

The Happy Hippy wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 22:32:10 -0400
> JeSSe <zo@so.org> wrote:
>
>> Right
>> down their cherished "Z" symbol which is nothing more than a
>> Wolfsangel
>
> It's nothing like it.

It is everything like it, google boy rune expert - You know it, so do I
[and so do Russians] ,, And really, you are going to pick that apart and
ignore the Russians callously murdering a holocaust survivor ?

What a blatant POS you are, you also know that and so do I.

--
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for
light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 23:47:52 -0400
JeSSe <zo@so.org> wrote:

> And really, you are going to pick that
> apart and ignore the Russians callously murdering a holocaust
> survivor ?

"Collateral damage" as America calls it when your military murders civilians.

"An accident" when they have deliberately targeted civilians after they finally stop lying about not having killed anyone, then pretending they were enemy combatants.

Unless you can prove the Russians knew Romantschenko was Jewish, a holocaust survivor, deliberately targeted him for that reason, your hyperbolic claim of "callously murdering a holocaust survivor" is just opportunistic propaganda, playing to the gallery, leveraging his death for political gain, for agenda pushing.

How would Russians even know he was a holocaust survivor, let alone Jewish, where he lives, or where he would be ?

Do Ukrainian fascists make Jews wear some kind of insignia which identifies them as such ?

It's the other 500 or so civilians killed in Kharkiv who don't even merit a mention I feel sorry for.

Still it's good to see you showing some concern for Jews rather than calling them "kikes", demonising them, wishing them dead.

It is of course merely your propagandist relativism in play, but it's still nice to have a break from your anti-Semitism and anti-Jewish hatred.

The Happy Hippy wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 23:47:52 -0400
> JeSSe <zo@so.org> wrote:
>
>> And really, you are going to pick that
>> apart and ignore the Russians callously murdering a holocaust
>> survivor ?
>
> "Collateral damage" as America calls it when your military murders civilians.
>
> "An accident" when they have deliberately targeted civilians after they finally stop lying about not having killed anyone, then pretending they were enemy combatants.
>
> Unless you can prove the Russians knew Romantschenko was Jewish, a holocaust survivor, deliberately targeted him for that reason, your hyperbolic claim of "callously murdering a holocaust survivor" is just opportunistic propaganda, playing to the gallery, leveraging his death for political gain, for agenda pushing.
>
> How would Russians even know he was a holocaust survivor, let alone Jewish, where he lives, or where he would be ?
>
> Do Ukrainian fascists make Jews wear some kind of insignia which identifies them as such ?
>
> It's the other 500 or so civilians killed in Kharkiv who don't even merit a mention I feel sorry for.
>
> Still it's good to see you showing some concern for Jews rather than calling them "kikes", demonising them, wishing them dead.
>
> It is of course merely your propagandist relativism in play, but it's still nice to have a break from your anti-Semitism and anti-Jewish hatred.
>
Ok ok you got me, I'm a big fat hypocrite pretending to show any
sympathy for JOOS I get it, I was illustrating a point that its quite
ironic, regardless of my personal opinions, [for a jewish holocaust
survivor] to be killed by the guys saying they are there to liberate
them from Nazis, would have been better off with the Nazis yeah ? He'd
still be alive.

I never made the claim that they killed him because he was a jew,
obviously he was killed because the Russians are engaged in
indiscriminate bombing/shelling of civilians - And no, you don't feel
sorry for any of them, save the crocodile tears.

Your line is "Putin was provoked by NATO to attack in order to defend
Russia, and if Ukrainians want him to stop murdering them, well then all
they have to do is accept his terms and boom, its over"

Russians have bombed schools they have bombed hospitals they have bombed
theaters packed with civilians and clearly marked as such and countless
apartment buildings, they have shelled fleeing civilians, they have laid
large cities under siege trying to pound them into submission and have
kidnapped 1,000's and sent them to god knows where.
None of this the USA or anyone else has ever did since WW2 so your
equivalency campaign comes up very short, there are no contemporary
comparisons to what these barbarous war criminals are doing, and they
are doing it only because they are losing, putin has lost face and
because they are a nuclear power.
Putins imaginary security problem has turned into a very real one and he
can't just walk away.
You are defending the indefensible [just like you did for the planet
poisoning chinks for years] and because of that you are an unrepentant POS.

--
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for
light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 21:03:15 -0400
JeSSe <zo@so.org> wrote:

> Ok ok you got me, I'm a big fat hypocrite pretending to show any
> sympathy for JOOS I get it

Yes, you are.

In article <nlu_J.93863$dln7.10155@fx03.iad>, JeSSe <zo@so.org> wrote:

> The Happy Hippy wrote:

[...]

Umm, folks, apparently the poor guy was not Jewish. So, no need to fight! We
can all go back to loving and respecting each other! :)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10639967/Ukrainian-volunteers-collect-remains-Holocaust-survivor-grandfather-96-killed-Kharkiv.html

1) First, note the red triangle = "political prisoner" (a very broad category). I don't
know why he was labeled with that -- perhaps due to his failed escape attempt.

2) "Although he was not Jewish, he was taken by German soldiers when he was 16 years old and
deported to the German city of Dortmund in 1942 to work as a forced labourer, as part of
Nazi intimidation tactics against the Ukrainian population at the time."

My remark -- it was not that much part of "Nazi intimidation", they just needed slaves,
more so since so many German men were in the army, and the plan was to eternally
maintain the surviving Poles and Soviets as such. Here's Himmler elaborating on that:

"Whether 10,000 Russian females fall down from exhaustion while digging an anti-tank ditch
interests me only in so far as the anti-tank ditch for Germany is finished. We shall never
be rough and heartless when it is not necessary, that is clear. We Germans, who are the only
people in the world who have a decent attitude towards animals, will also assume a decent
attitude towards these human animals. But it is a crime against our own blood to worry about
them and give them ideals, thus causing our sons and grandsons to have a more difficult time
with them. When somebody comes to me and says, 'I cannot dig the anti-tank ditch with women
and children, it is inhuman, for it would kill them,' then I have to say, 'You are a murderer
of your own blood because if the anti-tank ditch is not dug, German soldiers will die, and
they are sons of German mothers. They are our own blood.'"

Generally these slave laborers were treated horribly; in the winter of 1942, the death
rate in the "work camps" was 10% per month(!!). Conditions were somewhat improved
later, as dead men can't work, but they were still dying in huge numbers.

An Ukrainian Jew captured by the Nazis, even if "appropriate" for slave labor, would not
have made it to Germany; he would have been murdered by the "Einsatzgruppen" where he
was found.

Loose Cannon wrote:
> In article <nlu_J.93863$dln7.10155@fx03.iad>, JeSSe <zo@so.org> wrote:
>
>> The Happy Hippy wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> Umm, folks, apparently the poor guy was not Jewish. So, no need to fight! We
> can all go back to loving and respecting each other! :)
>
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10639967/Ukrainian-volunteers-collect-remains-Holocaust-survivor-grandfather-96-killed-Kharkiv.html
>
> 1) First, note the red triangle = "political prisoner" (a very broad category). I don't
> know why he was labeled with that -- perhaps due to his failed escape attempt.
>
> 2) "Although he was not Jewish, he was taken by German soldiers when he was 16 years old and
> deported to the German city of Dortmund in 1942 to work as a forced labourer, as part of
> Nazi intimidation tactics against the Ukrainian population at the time."
>
> My remark -- it was not that much part of "Nazi intimidation", they just needed slaves,
> more so since so many German men were in the army, and the plan was to eternally
> maintain the surviving Poles and Soviets as such. Here's Himmler elaborating on that:
>
> "Whether 10,000 Russian females fall down from exhaustion while digging an anti-tank ditch
> interests me only in so far as the anti-tank ditch for Germany is finished. We shall never
> be rough and heartless when it is not necessary, that is clear. We Germans, who are the only
> people in the world who have a decent attitude towards animals, will also assume a decent
> attitude towards these human animals. But it is a crime against our own blood to worry about
> them and give them ideals, thus causing our sons and grandsons to have a more difficult time
> with them. When somebody comes to me and says, 'I cannot dig the anti-tank ditch with women
> and children, it is inhuman, for it would kill them,' then I have to say, 'You are a murderer
> of your own blood because if the anti-tank ditch is not dug, German soldiers will die, and
> they are sons of German mothers. They are our own blood.'"
>
> Generally these slave laborers were treated horribly; in the winter of 1942, the death
> rate in the "work camps" was 10% per month(!!). Conditions were somewhat improved
> later, as dead men can't work, but they were still dying in huge numbers.
>
> An Ukrainian Jew captured by the Nazis, even if "appropriate" for slave labor, would not
> have made it to Germany; he would have been murdered by the "Einsatzgruppen" where he
> was found.
>

So would you say its inaccurate to describe him as a holocaust survivor,
since JOOS link that term to themselves ?

Yeah when I saw Peenemünde I figured he must have been used as low paid
unskilled labor digging caverns for rockets.

--
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for
light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

In article <XcL_J.425682$oF2.358657@fx10.iad>, JeSSe <zo@so.org> wrote:

>> Umm, folks, apparently the poor guy was not Jewish. So, no need to fight! We
>> can all go back to loving and respecting each other! :)

[...]

> So would you say its inaccurate to describe him as a holocaust survivor,

I'm not interested in semantics. He's certainly a survivor of Nazi brutality,
racism, and genocide.

Loose Cannon wrote:
> In article <XcL_J.425682$oF2.358657@fx10.iad>, JeSSe <zo@so.org> wrote:
>
>>> Umm, folks, apparently the poor guy was not Jewish. So, no need to fight! We
>>> can all go back to loving and respecting each other! :)
>
> [...]
>
>> So would you say its inaccurate to describe him as a holocaust survivor,
>
> I'm not interested in semantics. He's certainly a survivor of Nazi brutality,
> racism, and genocide.
>
Well it would not be semantic to a JOO and I was asking your opinion as
some what of an expert on the subject. "holocaust" is a term long ago
appropriated by the JOOS, is it not ?

What makes you think he was a victim of racism, might have been a common
criminal for all we know. And we can safely dismiss "genocide" as cheap
theatrics since many 1,000,000's survived.

--
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for
light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

In article <Q2N_J.200673$iK66.128373@fx46.iad>, JeSSe <zo@so.org> wrote:

> Loose Cannon wrote:

>>> So would you say its inaccurate to describe him as a holocaust survivor,

>> I'm not interested in semantics. He's certainly a survivor of Nazi brutality,
>> racism, and genocide.

> Well it would not be semantic to a JOO and I was asking your opinion as
> some what of an expert on the subject.

Well thanks, but I'm not an expert (not a real one anyway) on the
Holocaust nor on JOOS.

> "holocaust" is a term long ago appropriated by the JOOS, is it not ?

Perhaps true to some extent, but again, this is semantics. According to Wiki,
"As non-Jewish groups began to include themselves as Holocaust victims, many
Jews chose to use the Hebrew terms Shoah or Churban".

The persecution of the Jews *was* different from that of other groups: they
were by far and wide the group most demonized by Hitler and the Nazis; they
(and possibly the Roma) were the only ones marked for total extermination.
In the words of a top Nazi official

"It should be obvious that one cannot solve the Polish problem by
liquidating the Poles in the same way as the Jews. Such a solution
to the Polish problem would burden the German people with guilt for
years to come and lose us the sympathies of people everywhere,
particularly since our neighbors would be bound to reckon that
they would be treated in the same way when the time came."

The Jews constituted the very large majority of the victims in the
extermination camps. The Nazis did murder a huge number of non-Jews, but
the victims of the so-called "industrial extermination" in places like
Birkenau and Treblinka were about 95% Jews.

> What makes you think he was a victim of racism,

See the Himmler speech I posted before, and the numerous other references
to the Germans viewing the Slavs as "human animals" etc. Most of the slave
labor force were Soviets and Poles, and they were treated far worse than
others. Same for POWs; the death rate among the Soviet POWs in Nazi
captivity was far higher than for British/Americans, IIRC 55% vs. 2-3%.

> And we can safely dismiss "genocide" as cheap theatrics since many
> 1,000,000's survived.

"In 1948, the United Nations Genocide Convention defined genocide as any of
five 'acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic,
racial or religious group, as such.' These five acts were: killing members of the
group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions
intended to destroy the group, preventing births, and forcibly transferring
children out of the group."

In that regard, the Ukrainians were victims of genocide. Here's how the
Nazis treated those who in the beginning saw them as "liberators"...

Order from Reichsfuehrer-SS Himmler to the Higher SS and Police
Chief in the Ukraine, Kiev, September 7 1943
[Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression - Washington, U.S Govt. Print.
Off., 1946, Supp. A, p. 1270]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Pruetzmann,

Infantry general staff has special orders with regard to the Donetz
area. Get in touch with him immediately. I order you to cooperate as
much as you can. The aim to be achieved is that when areas in the
Ukraine are evacuated, not a human being, not a single head of cattle,
not a hundredweight of cereals and not a railway line remain behind;
that not a house remain standing, not a mine is available which is
not destroyed for years to come, that there is not a well which is
not poisoned. The enemy must really find completely burned and destroyed
land. Discuss these things with Stampf straight away and do your
absolute best.

Loose Cannon wrote:
> In article <Q2N_J.200673$iK66.128373@fx46.iad>, JeSSe <zo@so.org> wrote:
>
>> Loose Cannon wrote:
>
>>>> So would you say its inaccurate to describe him as a holocaust survivor,
>
>>> I'm not interested in semantics. He's certainly a survivor of Nazi brutality,
>>> racism, and genocide.
>
>> Well it would not be semantic to a JOO and I was asking your opinion as
>> some what of an expert on the subject.
>
> Well thanks, but I'm not an expert (not a real one anyway) on the
> Holocaust nor on JOOS.
>
>> "holocaust" is a term long ago appropriated by the JOOS, is it not ?
>
> Perhaps true to some extent, but again, this is semantics. According to Wiki,
> "As non-Jewish groups began to include themselves as Holocaust victims, many
> Jews chose to use the Hebrew terms Shoah or Churban".
>
> The persecution of the Jews *was* different from that of other groups: they
> were by far and wide the group most demonized by Hitler and the Nazis; they
> (and possibly the Roma) were the only ones marked for total extermination.
> In the words of a top Nazi official
>
> "It should be obvious that one cannot solve the Polish problem by
> liquidating the Poles in the same way as the Jews. Such a solution
> to the Polish problem would burden the German people with guilt for
> years to come and lose us the sympathies of people everywhere,
> particularly since our neighbors would be bound to reckon that
> they would be treated in the same way when the time came."
>
> The Jews constituted the very large majority of the victims in the
> extermination camps. The Nazis did murder a huge number of non-Jews, but
> the victims of the so-called "industrial extermination" in places like
> Birkenau and Treblinka were about 95% Jews.
>
>> What makes you think he was a victim of racism,
>
> See the Himmler speech I posted before, and the numerous other references
> to the Germans viewing the Slavs as "human animals" etc. Most of the slave
> labor force were Soviets and Poles, and they were treated far worse than
> others. Same for POWs; the death rate among the Soviet POWs in Nazi
> captivity was far higher than for British/Americans, IIRC 55% vs. 2-3%.
>
>> And we can safely dismiss "genocide" as cheap theatrics since many
>> 1,000,000's survived.
>
> "In 1948, the United Nations Genocide Convention defined genocide as any of
> five 'acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic,
> racial or religious group, as such.' These five acts were: killing members of the
> group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions
> intended to destroy the group, preventing births, and forcibly transferring
> children out of the group."
>
> In that regard, the Ukrainians were victims of genocide. Here's how the
> Nazis treated those who in the beginning saw them as "liberators"...
>
> Order from Reichsfuehrer-SS Himmler to the Higher SS and Police
> Chief in the Ukraine, Kiev, September 7 1943
> [Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression - Washington, U.S Govt. Print.
> Off., 1946, Supp. A, p. 1270]
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dear Pruetzmann,
>
> Infantry general staff has special orders with regard to the Donetz
> area. Get in touch with him immediately. I order you to cooperate as
> much as you can. The aim to be achieved is that when areas in the
> Ukraine are evacuated, not a human being, not a single head of cattle,
> not a hundredweight of cereals and not a railway line remain behind;
> that not a house remain standing, not a mine is available which is
> not destroyed for years to come, that there is not a well which is
> not poisoned. The enemy must really find completely burned and destroyed
> land. Discuss these things with Stampf straight away and do your
> absolute best.
>

So to summarize, after much hoopla:

* Yes, jews tried to patent "the holocaust" as exclusively jewish in
order to maximize, inflate and exaggerate the perception of their
losses, which admittedly were on a large scale by any definition.
This made perfect sense for them, they have been shouting about genocide
from the rooftops for decades before WW2 even started, before anyone
heard of Hitler, and they were trying to drum up support and sympathy to
establish a home state in the mid east. They didn't want anyone to
impede their status as ultimate victims.

* "Genocide" is a term played very loosely by many.
Under UN definition, we most certainly attempted genocide against
Germans, for instance.

* Germans were mean to their prisoners in general, Russia was no better.
Out of 70,000 prisoners out of Stalingrad alone, less than 10,000 were
ever heard from again.
You've heard of Andersonville, of course. Very bad and inhuman
conditions there, many 1,000's dead. Japs, well known to be brutal with
prisoners, 100,000's of Germans died under Allied imprisonment.
In the end, you cannot get around the fact that many 1,000,000's
survived, and if the Germans wanted them dead, they were in quite a good
position to make that happen.

* Far, far, far more Ukrainians were killed by Stalin than Hitler.
Except when colliding with the red army on Ukrainian territory, Germans
did not inflict that much damage, as far as I have ever read.
Yes, the Nazis were hailed by many as liberators, and for very good
reason. No, jews did not fare very well there, as in any other captured
territory. I don't recall any brute sieges on Ukrainian territory, such
as the Russians are engaging in now - And it was standard practice for
any army to rip up rail lines and destroy bridges, blow up depots ect
when they retreated [no one did that better than the Soviets btw],
wasn't anything personal.

Have you ever studied Shermans march to the sea in the civil war ? It
was brutal and merciless, probably the 1st example of scorched earth
policy on a massive scale [with the possible exception of some of the
Napoleonic campaigns in the east], and Sherman would have agreed with
every single word directed to Pruetzmann, and then some.
Germans had a genius for wrecking, but they hardly pioneered the tactic
or stand alone in its implementation.

Germans saw Ukraine as one big bread basket and a large stepping stone
to conquest of Russia, they saw that a large portion of the population
was compatible with their racial theories, and conducted themselves
accordingly.

--
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for
light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

In article <ID3%J.441760$LN2.220883@fx13.iad>, JeSSe <zo@so.org> wrote:

> So to summarize, after much hoopla:
>
> * Yes, jews tried to patent "the holocaust" as exclusively jewish in
> order to maximize, inflate and exaggerate the perception of their
> losses, which admittedly were on a large scale by any definition.
> This made perfect sense for them, they have been shouting about genocide
> from the rooftops for decades before WW2 even started, before anyone
> heard of Hitler, and they were trying to drum up support and sympathy to
> establish a home state in the mid east. They didn't want anyone to
> impede their status as ultimate victims.

Practically everyone exaggerates their sufferings, it's a basic human
tendency. Possibly Jews were more prone to this, having suffered a great
deal in Europe over the years, or due to some other reason; I don't know.
There appears to be some self-humor in that regard, IIRC it was Seinfeld
joking about his uncle accusing his Rabbi of antisemitism, since he did
not reserve a good seat for him in the synagogue (or something like that).

However, I don't think it mattered much; the extent and nature of the
mass murder of the Jews by the Nazis was so evident, that they didn't
have to shout genocide.

> * "Genocide" is a term played very loosely by many.
> Under UN definition, we most certainly attempted genocide against
> Germans, for instance.

Yes, and we keep hearing about the terrible "genocide" against the
Palestinians, although their number increased five-fold or so since
1948. I agree it sometimes becomes ridiculous. But still, the
Ukrainians suffered terribly under the Nazis. I agree to drop the
"genocide" label, as noted, it's just a word.

> * Germans were mean to their prisoners in general, Russia was no better.

In terms of absolute numbers, Nazis were far worse. But yes, numerous
German POWs died in Soviet captivity (although the overall percentage
was nowhere near that of the POWs of the Stalingrad campaign).

> You've heard of Andersonville, of course. Very bad and inhuman
> conditions there, many 1,000's dead. Japs, well known to be brutal with
> prisoners, 100,000's of Germans died under Allied imprisonment.
> In the end, you cannot get around the fact that many 1,000,000's
> survived, and if the Germans wanted them dead, they were in quite a good
> position to make that happen.

Agreed on two major points: POWs were often terribly treated, and the
Nazi goal was not to exterminate *all* Soviet POWs. However numerous
were murdered.

> * Far, far, far more Ukrainians were killed by Stalin than Hitler.

Stalin was one of the vilest leaders in human history and a mass murderer,
no question about that. Whether the mass starvation in the Ukraine was 100%
intentional, I don't know. There's a discussion in

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor_genocide_question

BTW, it was part of

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1930%E2%80%931933

> Except when colliding with the red army on Ukrainian territory, Germans
> did not inflict that much damage, as far as I have ever read.

In the beginning, they indeed did not.

> Yes, the Nazis were hailed by many as liberators, and for very good
> reason. No, jews did not fare very well there, as in any other captured
> territory.

Correct.

> I don't recall any brute sieges on Ukrainian territory, such
> as the Russians are engaging in now - And it was standard practice for
> any army to rip up rail lines and destroy bridges, blow up depots ect
> when they retreated [no one did that better than the Soviets btw],
> wasn't anything personal.

It was especially brutal, but you have a point, and the Sherman
analogy is a fair argument.
> Germans saw Ukraine as one big bread basket and a large stepping stone
> to conquest of Russia, they saw that a large portion of the population
> was compatible with their racial theories, and conducted themselves
> accordingly.

There was some "Germanization", but generally Ukrainians were seen
as Slavs, hence "sub-humans" in Nazi terms. This made their fate,
whether in their homeland or as slave laborers in Germany, rather
tragic.

Loose Cannon wrote:
> In article <ID3%J.441760$LN2.220883@fx13.iad>, JeSSe <zo@so.org> wrote:
>
>> So to summarize, after much hoopla:
>>
>> * Yes, jews tried to patent "the holocaust" as exclusively jewish in
>> order to maximize, inflate and exaggerate the perception of their
>> losses, which admittedly were on a large scale by any definition.
>> This made perfect sense for them, they have been shouting about genocide
>> from the rooftops for decades before WW2 even started, before anyone
>> heard of Hitler, and they were trying to drum up support and sympathy to
>> establish a home state in the mid east. They didn't want anyone to
>> impede their status as ultimate victims.
>
> Practically everyone exaggerates their sufferings, it's a basic human
> tendency. Possibly Jews were more prone to this, having suffered a great
> deal in Europe over the years, or due to some other reason; I don't know.
> There appears to be some self-humor in that regard, IIRC it was Seinfeld
> joking about his uncle accusing his Rabbi of antisemitism, since he did
> not reserve a good seat for him in the synagogue (or something like that).
>
> However, I don't think it mattered much; the extent and nature of the
> mass murder of the Jews by the Nazis was so evident, that they didn't
> have to shout genocide.
>
>> * "Genocide" is a term played very loosely by many.
>> Under UN definition, we most certainly attempted genocide against
>> Germans, for instance.
>
> Yes, and we keep hearing about the terrible "genocide" against the
> Palestinians, although their number increased five-fold or so since
> 1948. I agree it sometimes becomes ridiculous. But still, the
> Ukrainians suffered terribly under the Nazis. I agree to drop the
> "genocide" label, as noted, it's just a word.
>
>> * Germans were mean to their prisoners in general, Russia was no better.
>
> In terms of absolute numbers, Nazis were far worse. But yes, numerous
> German POWs died in Soviet captivity (although the overall percentage
> was nowhere near that of the POWs of the Stalingrad campaign).
>
>> You've heard of Andersonville, of course. Very bad and inhuman
>> conditions there, many 1,000's dead. Japs, well known to be brutal with
>> prisoners, 100,000's of Germans died under Allied imprisonment.
>> In the end, you cannot get around the fact that many 1,000,000's
>> survived, and if the Germans wanted them dead, they were in quite a good
>> position to make that happen.
>
> Agreed on two major points: POWs were often terribly treated, and the
> Nazi goal was not to exterminate *all* Soviet POWs. However numerous
> were murdered.
>
>> * Far, far, far more Ukrainians were killed by Stalin than Hitler.
>
> Stalin was one of the vilest leaders in human history and a mass murderer,
> no question about that. Whether the mass starvation in the Ukraine was 100%
> intentional, I don't know. There's a discussion in
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor_genocide_question
>

POW deaths can be tough to quantify, by necessity and circumstances info
can be scarce and conflicting, even for large scale, years long events
with many survivors.

Andersonville for instance, the Confederates were never known to be
brutes, in fact more often than not that were damn near chivalrous ,,
Certainly by todays standards.
Yet events and circumstances got out of their hands, they had way too
many men confined for prolonged periods in unsanitary conditions without
proper nourishment, and nearly 1/3 of those who entered the gates never
came out.

Much the same with the prisoners of Bataan, but worse since there were
strong elements of disdain and brutality added. We lost 1,000's of guys
at O'Donnell, and even worse, lost even more in ships loaded with
prisoners sunk by US submarines.

In both Andersonville and O'Donnell, camp commanders and others were
tried for war crimes, and paid with their lives.

In WW2 German case, their sheer brutality is not doubted, even by people
like me who challenge numbers, methods and other peripheral details.
They were some mean, ruthless sons of bitches, indeed that is a large
part of the attraction to them which survives til this very day.

Obviously a complex topic but generally, Germans took swarms of Russian
prisoners very early in the campaign, entire field armies by the
1,000,000's ,, And it really wasn't until Stalingrad that Russians
started capturing large amounts of Germans.
That being the case, since the Germans had many more prisoners for much
longer that many more Russians would not have survived captivity vs
Germans - But the actual % may well be higher for Soviet prisoners,
don't know I have never pursued that topic.

I don't know that either side had an edge in brutality.
Too, though I have no stats and if there were any they'd be just a best
guess, but many prisoners died, as in Andersonville and O'Donnell, from
unsanitary conditions and lack of nourishment ,, And to top it off,
German infrastructure and transport were being systematically wrecked to
the point they could not even properly nourish their own population.

Same for all camp inmates not just military, I'd be surprised if the
figure was less than 30% [German prisoners expiring from
disease/malnourishment]

********************************************

--
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for
light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

In article <R9q%J.599509$aT3.202463@fx09.iad>, JeSSe <zo@so.org> wrote:

> POW deaths can be tough to quantify, by necessity and circumstances info
> can be scarce and conflicting, even for large scale, years long events
> with many survivors.
>
> Andersonville for instance, the Confederates were never known to be
> brutes, in fact more often than not that were damn near chivalrous ,,
> Certainly by todays standards.
> Yet events and circumstances got out of their hands, they had way too
> many men confined for prolonged periods in unsanitary conditions without
> proper nourishment, and nearly 1/3 of those who entered the gates never
> came out.
>
> Much the same with the prisoners of Bataan, but worse since there were
> strong elements of disdain and brutality added. We lost 1,000's of guys
> at O'Donnell, and even worse, lost even more in ships loaded with
> prisoners sunk by US submarines.
>
> In both Andersonville and O'Donnell, camp commanders and others were
> tried for war crimes, and paid with their lives.
>
> In WW2 German case, their sheer brutality is not doubted, even by people
> like me who challenge numbers, methods and other peripheral details.
> They were some mean, ruthless sons of bitches, indeed that is a large
> part of the attraction to them which survives til this very day.
>
> Obviously a complex topic but generally, Germans took swarms of Russian
> prisoners very early in the campaign, entire field armies by the
> 1,000,000's ,, And it really wasn't until Stalingrad that Russians
> started capturing large amounts of Germans.
> That being the case, since the Germans had many more prisoners for much
> longer that many more Russians would not have survived captivity vs
> Germans - But the actual % may well be higher for Soviet prisoners,
> don't know I have never pursued that topic.
>
> I don't know that either side had an edge in brutality.
> Too, though I have no stats and if there were any they'd be just a best
> guess, but many prisoners died, as in Andersonville and O'Donnell, from
> unsanitary conditions and lack of nourishment ,, And to top it off,
> German infrastructure and transport were being systematically wrecked to
> the point they could not even properly nourish their own population.
>
> Same for all camp inmates not just military, I'd be surprised if the
> figure was less than 30% [German prisoners expiring from
> disease/malnourishment]

Agreed, that's a more complex issue. Probably, in addition to being viewed
as "sub-humans" (and for many of them, being plain murdered), the reason for
the approx. 55% death rate among Soviet POWs was their enormous number, and
the difficulty of providing them with food and shelter. Jewish POWs were
an exception, the order was to execute all of them; same for other categories,
incl. political activists, "leading personalities in the business world", even
"members of the Soviet-Russian intelligence"(!), see
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/chap15_part06.asp

With the Soviets and German POWs, numerous of whom indeed died, part of it
was, clearly, plain old vengeance.

Your mentions of Andersonville made me brush up a little on my history,
and I was surprised to recall what a high percentage of the losses in the
Civil War -- not only in the camps, but generally -- was due to disease!

The Japanese were very cruel to POWs, incl. ours and the British, and
even far worse to the Chinese.

Loose Cannon wrote:
> In article <R9q%J.599509$aT3.202463@fx09.iad>, JeSSe <zo@so.org> wrote:
>
>> POW deaths can be tough to quantify, by necessity and circumstances info
>> can be scarce and conflicting, even for large scale, years long events
>> with many survivors.
>>
>> Andersonville for instance, the Confederates were never known to be
>> brutes, in fact more often than not that were damn near chivalrous ,,
>> Certainly by todays standards.
>> Yet events and circumstances got out of their hands, they had way too
>> many men confined for prolonged periods in unsanitary conditions without
>> proper nourishment, and nearly 1/3 of those who entered the gates never
>> came out.
>>
>> Much the same with the prisoners of Bataan, but worse since there were
>> strong elements of disdain and brutality added. We lost 1,000's of guys
>> at O'Donnell, and even worse, lost even more in ships loaded with
>> prisoners sunk by US submarines.
>>
>> In both Andersonville and O'Donnell, camp commanders and others were
>> tried for war crimes, and paid with their lives.
>>
>> In WW2 German case, their sheer brutality is not doubted, even by people
>> like me who challenge numbers, methods and other peripheral details.
>> They were some mean, ruthless sons of bitches, indeed that is a large
>> part of the attraction to them which survives til this very day.
>>
>> Obviously a complex topic but generally, Germans took swarms of Russian
>> prisoners very early in the campaign, entire field armies by the
>> 1,000,000's ,, And it really wasn't until Stalingrad that Russians
>> started capturing large amounts of Germans.
>> That being the case, since the Germans had many more prisoners for much
>> longer that many more Russians would not have survived captivity vs
>> Germans - But the actual % may well be higher for Soviet prisoners,
>> don't know I have never pursued that topic.
>>
>> I don't know that either side had an edge in brutality.
>> Too, though I have no stats and if there were any they'd be just a best
>> guess, but many prisoners died, as in Andersonville and O'Donnell, from
>> unsanitary conditions and lack of nourishment ,, And to top it off,
>> German infrastructure and transport were being systematically wrecked to
>> the point they could not even properly nourish their own population.
>>
>> Same for all camp inmates not just military, I'd be surprised if the
>> figure was less than 30% [German prisoners expiring from
>> disease/malnourishment]
>
> Agreed, that's a more complex issue. Probably, in addition to being viewed
> as "sub-humans" (and for many of them, being plain murdered), the reason for
> the approx. 55% death rate among Soviet POWs was their enormous number, and
> the difficulty of providing them with food and shelter. Jewish POWs were
> an exception, the order was to execute all of them;

What order might that have been ?
I know about the Wannsee conference of course where the "final solution"
was allegedly discussed, you referring to that ?
Order must have been disobeyed on a large scale since so many survived
unexectuted, also I seem to remember a couple or few forced marches
[female camps ?] towards the end of the war with the goal of moving the
inmates from the advancing Russians, both would seem to fly in the face
of a kill em all order.

> same for other categories,
> incl. political activists, "leading personalities in the business world", even
> "members of the Soviet-Russian intelligence"(!), see
> https://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/chap15_part06.asp

Commissar order ?
[Don't have the time to browse through links right now, will try later]
>
> With the Soviets and German POWs, numerous of whom indeed died, part of it
> was, clearly, plain old vengeance.

Yeah, which unfortunately was soon to extend to German woman and
children on a massive scale [err, as you are aware moreso than me]
Perhaps thats one credit you can extend to the Nazis, they weren't that
big on rape of subhumans [yes no doubt you could dig up some
exceptions], and in countries like France, the females practically raped
the Germans, no problem getting a consensual date there.

>
> Your mentions of Andersonville made me brush up a little on my history,
> and I was surprised to recall what a high percentage of the losses in the
> Civil War -- not only in the camps, but generally -- was due to disease!

Pre penicillin bone saw days must have been quite a nightmare but people
tend to accept "thats the way it is" when living through events, as we
would ,, They might have been thinking that guys in the Revolutionary
war had it even worse than them, at least a functioning medical corps
was established by the civil war - And at least they had morphine.

But yeah its really beyond imagination what guys like that suffered in
camps, camps like those were studied extensively in my time of service
[and still are FAIK] in POW training classes.
Vietnam too of course with the unique element of extended and extensive
mental and psychical torture ,, The fact that we lost relatively few in
camps there was due to the fact that the NV saw their value as
bargaining chips and actually feared consequences if they got too homicidal.
Most in NV camps survived, most in VC camps are still MIA as we speak.

--
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for
light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

In article <4x90K.195207$4JN7.7664@fx05.iad>, JeSSe <zo@so.org> wrote:

> Loose Cannon wrote:

[...]

>> Agreed, that's a more complex issue. Probably, in addition to being viewed
>> as "sub-humans" (and for many of them, being plain murdered), the reason for
>> the approx. 55% death rate among Soviet POWs was their enormous number, and
>> the difficulty of providing them with food and shelter. Jewish POWs were
>> an exception, the order was to execute all of them;

> What order might that have been ?

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/chap15_part06.asp

"... On 17 July 1941 instructions were issued by the GESTAPO to
commandos of the SIPO and SD"

It's a list of categories of Soviets POWs to be executed. There are
quite a few such categories, incl. "all Jews".

> I know about the Wannsee conference of course where the "final solution"
> was allegedly discussed, you referring to that ?

No, that was later. The Wannsee protocols mainly address the "fit for
work" Jews, stating that the large majority will die during the slave
labor program, and adding

"The remnant that finally is able to survive all this - since this
is undoubtedly the part with the strongest resistance - must
be treated accordingly since these people, representing a natural
selection, are to be regarded as the germ cell of a new Jewish
development. (See the experience of history)."

> Order must have been disobeyed on a large scale since so many survived
> unexectuted, also I seem to remember a couple or few forced marches
> [female camps ?] towards the end of the war with the goal of moving the
> inmates from the advancing Russians, both would seem to fly in the face
> of a kill em all order.

This was part of the attempt (mostly due to Himmler) to both save his
skin and form an alliance with the Allies, see

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himmler-Kersten_Agreement

The Auschwitz crematoriums were dynamited, and indeed a few tens of
thousands of Jews were taken to other camps, a very high percentage
of them being murdered along the way and in the camps. I guess the
SS just could not adapt to not killing them, and anyway there was
a breakdown in the chain of command, as Germany was falling apart
at that stage.

>> With the Soviets and German POWs, numerous of whom indeed died,
>> part of it was, clearly, plain old vengeance.
> Yeah, which unfortunately was soon to extend to German woman and
> children on a massive scale [err, as you are aware moreso than me]

The German civilian population indeed suffered terribly. The numbers
are not certain, but they are quite high. And there was the bombing
campaign, led AFAIK esp. by the noble Brits, with the declared
intent of killing as much German civilians as possible. That does
not, of course, prevent them from screeching bloody murder whenever
the Israelis retaliate against Hamas etc. who fire thousands of
rockets from hospitals and schools, but well, that's a different
story.

> Perhaps thats one credit you can extend to the Nazis, they weren't that
> big on rape of subhumans [yes no doubt you could dig up some
> exceptions], and in countries like France, the females practically raped
> the Germans, no problem getting a consensual date there.

AFAIK you are generally correct.

>> Your mentions of Andersonville made me brush up a little on my history,
>> and I was surprised to recall what a high percentage of the losses in the
>> Civil War -- not only in the camps, but generally -- was due to disease!

> Pre penicillin bone saw days must have been quite a nightmare but people
> tend to accept "thats the way it is" when living through events, as we
> would ,, They might have been thinking that guys in the Revolutionary
> war had it even worse than them, at least a functioning medical corps
> was established by the civil war - And at least they had morphine.
>
> But yeah its really beyond imagination what guys like that suffered in
> camps, camps like those were studied extensively in my time of service
> [and still are FAIK] in POW training classes.
> Vietnam too of course with the unique element of extended and extensive
> mental and psychical torture ,, The fact that we lost relatively few in
> camps there was due to the fact that the NV saw their value as
> bargaining chips and actually feared consequences if they got too homicidal.
> Most in NV camps survived, most in VC camps are still MIA as we speak.

All correct AFAIK. I regret that our POWs died, and Jane Fonda survived;
someone should have put a bullet in the skull of this filthy bitch, or,
at the least, she should never have been allowed to set foot in the US
again. For the life of me, I cannot understand how we accepted this
filthy cunt, who openly called to execute our POWs; for some reason,
this is far less known than her infamous joy ride on the AA cannon:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJW70gzJyks

Fucking bitch.