russ@ihuxf.UUCP (Russell Spence) (03/27/85)
Oddly enough, some of the Don Black "Nazism" articles have slipped past my admittedly liberal 'n' key finger. I've been thinking about such things lately and would like to put in my 2 cents worth. I had heard of Zundle and the others who claim that the holocaust never happened, quite a while ago. I tend to think that these people are just admirers of Hitler and the Nazis who don't have enough guts to fess up to the actions of the Nazis. Actually, having just finished reading *Mein Kampf* I would have been disappointed if Hitler HADN'T tried to kill all of the Jews. Was Hitler wrong in killing the Jews? Well, history has already made that judgement, he lost the war. Therefore, even by his standards he can be judged a failure and in the wrong. Is he wrong JUST because he exterminated 6 million Jews? That one is tougher. Sure the simple answer is that genocide is evil and since Hitler tried to kill all of the Jews, he is evil too. This is a very nice and simple answer. It has the added benefit that it removes from the listener any responsibility to THINK. However, the truth is that the issue of the phenomena of Nazism is much more complex and still deserves more objective study. What pisses me off is that since Hitler did commit this "atrocity", people use that as an excuse to remove their own guilt for things that they did during the war. Hey, how about a little quiz? Which country is the only country to use atomic weapons on fellow human being? What is the name of the country that in World War II fire-bombed Dresden for three day when it knew that Dresden didn't have any significant war industry? Which "freedom-loving" country suspended the civil rights of a group of citizens simply because ethnically they were of Japanese origin? Of course people will say, "Oh, but look what Hitler did to the Jews!!". This makes me sick. Does that make what we did right? I think that you all know the answer to that. But, my, isn't it ironic that the people who have gotten the most mileage out of the holocaust are the Jews? They got their own state out of it and the support of the United States since it's creation. And, my, look at all of the wonderful things that they have done in Lebanon and the Middle East in general! But hey, you can't criticize them. Oh, no, look what Hitler did to them. The U.S. withdraw support!! No, we can't do that, look at all the problems they've had! Personally I have alot more respect for Hitler and the Nazis than I do for the Jews. The Jews were just victims. At least the Nazis had ideals for which they willing to fight and die for and yes even commit "atrocities" for. Which of the three do you think takes more courage? But isn't it so much easier to close your eyes, condemn the Nazis (who will argue with you?) and pretend that Hitler was insane? --------------------- [The following is reprinted without permission from the Chicago Tribune. "Our 'good neighbors'" by Peter Gorner. Feb. 17, 1985] Romanian Orthodox Bishop Viorel Trifa...had been a leader of the viciously anti-semitic Romanian fascist Iron Guard and as a newspaper editor in Bucharest, had incited his countrymen to the 1941 riot in which Jewish men, women and children where skinned alive and left hanging on meat hooks in a slaughterhouse. Before being deported to Portugal last year, Trifa complained to the press that he was a victim of the times. "The point was to revive the Holocaust," he said, "But all this talk by the Jews about the Holocaust is going to backfire - against the Jews. Something," he says darkly, "will be done." Such a telling response is unusual, Ryan says. Most of the people he prosecuted have admitted to nothing. The lack of contrition, he says, began to haunt him in 1981 when he proved that John Demjanjuk, a Cleveland automaker, was in truth "Ivan the Terrible," the infamous Ukrainian sadist who manned the pumps for the Nazi gas chamber at the Treblinka killing camp. "He was absolutely impassive in court," Ryan says, "His family didn't know about his past. They were being tortured every day. The evidence was over- whelming. I was looking for some sign... some acknowledgement... some conscience. But there was nothing. "Demjanjuk was not special, no more unique than a cockroach. But the Nazi attitude he represents is significant. In his smug silence he was telling us something: 'I did it once and got way with it. I won't explain how or why, for if I did, you might understand it a little better than you did before and learn how to recognize it better when it rears its head again.'" -- Russell Spence (new path ->) ihnp4!ihuxf!russ AT&T Technologies Naperville, IL
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (03/27/85)
> Personally I have alot more respect for Hitler and the Nazis than I do for > the Jews. The Jews were just victims. At least the Nazis had ideals > for which they willing to fight and die for and yes even commit "atrocities" > for. Which of the three do you think takes more courage? > > But isn't it so much easier to close your eyes, condemn the Nazis (who will > argue with you?) and pretend that Hitler was insane? > Russell Spence > (new path ->) ihnp4!ihuxf!russ I searched for a :-) in this article. I didn't find one. Apparently now we have *two* of them on the net. *sigh* -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "Humans are a great goodness. Every fuzzy should have one."- some fuzzy
carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (03/28/85)
In article <> russ@ihuxf.UUCP (Russell Spence) writes: > Actually, having just finished reading *Mein >Kampf* I would have been disappointed if Hitler HADN'T tried to kill all >of the Jews. >Was Hitler wrong in killing the Jews? Well, history has already made that >judgement, he lost the war. Therefore, even by his standards he can be >judged a failure and in the wrong. Is he wrong JUST because he exterminated >6 million Jews? That one is tougher. Yes, this one's a real toughie, so let's warm up on an easier one, recently posed by Don Black. Are the Jews living today responsible in part for the crucifixion of Christ? At first glance, this appears to be one of those insoluble legal conundrums, but then we recall that in most courts of law, it is considered an extenuating circumstance if the crime was committed 1,900 years before the birth of the alleged perpetrators. So I would have to say, pending further reflection and the appearance of additional witnesses and/or evidence, that living Jews such as my apartment-mate George cannot be held fully responsible for the death of Christ. (George denies any involvement, but what did you expect. Hey, you want I should torture him to make him confess?) Now, back to the original question: >Sure the simple answer is that genocide >is evil and since Hitler tried to kill all of the Jews, he is evil too. >This is a very nice and simple answer. Incredibly simplistic. It's amazing the way people will jump to conclusions and jump all over a guy just because he tries to wipe out a race or ethnic group. It's sad that there is such prejudice in the world. Look, sometimes it's just an honest mistake, and people make mistakes, right? Well, anyway, I have thunk and thunk about whether Hitler was wrong JUST because he exterminated 6 million Jews, but I still can't get a handle on this one. Maybe if some of the best net brains put their heads together we can get somewhere with this question. Any ideas out there? Richard Carnes, Legion of the Iron Fist Marching in your neighborhood soon!
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dr. Emmanuel Wu) (03/28/85)
>>> Actually, having just finished reading *Mein >>>Kampf* I would have been disappointed if Hitler HADN'T tried to kill all >>>of the Jews. >>>Was Hitler wrong in killing the Jews? Well, history has already made that >>>judgement, he lost the war. Therefore, even by his standards he can be >>>judged a failure and in the wrong. Is he wrong JUST because he exterminated >>>6 million Jews? That one is tougher. [RUSS SPENCE] >> Yes, this one's a real toughie, so let's warm up on an easier one, >> recently posed by Don Black. Are the Jews living today responsible >> in part for the crucifixion of Christ? At first glance, this appears >> to be one of those insoluble legal conundrums, but then we recall >> that in most courts of law, it is considered an extenuating >> circumstance if the crime was committed 1,900 years before the birth >> of the alleged perpetrators. So I would have to say, pending further >> reflection and the appearance of additional witnesses and/or >> evidence, that living Jews such as my apartment-mate George cannot be >> held fully responsible for the death of Christ. (George denies any >> involvement, but what did you expect. Hey, you want I should torture >> him to make him confess?) [RICHARD CARNES] I saw no smileys in either article, so I have to be appalled that even the thought of blaming the death of Jesus on the *Jewish* *people* even crosses the minds of modern Christians. As Carnes says above, "Oh, I don't know if we can still blame them today, but they WERE responsible for it originally, no?" Saying "but gee, my roommate is Jewish" isn't the point". Nor is whether or not the whole article was submitted with sarcasm in mind. The point is, as Wingate showed us himself, that anti-Semitism, though perhaps of a variety more subliminal than it is vicious/overt, is still a prominent piece of the mindset of many modern Christians, as reinforced (also perhaps not "overtly") by religious teaching. This makes it all the more important to debunk people like Black and his Nazi literature, because, despite Dave Brown's pacifist cheekturning ("It's <1% of the population"), there are historical lessons about such vocal minorities that have gone unlearned. Since the seeds of such beliefs are apparently already in place (e.g., "the Jews as a people killed Jesus, and we are now thinking, even if in a joking way, about whether or not today's Jews are responsible"), it's not hard for fascist propaganda to work its way into the mainstream line of thought. >>Sure the simple answer is that genocide >>is evil and since Hitler tried to kill all of the Jews, he is evil too. >>This is a very nice and simple answer. > Incredibly simplistic. It's amazing the way people will jump to > conclusions and jump all over a guy just because he tries to wipe out > a race or ethnic group. It's sad that there is such prejudice in the > world. Look, sometimes it's just an honest mistake, and people make > mistakes, right? Well, anyway, I have thunk and thunk about whether > Hitler was wrong JUST because he exterminated 6 million Jews, but I > still can't get a handle on this one. Maybe if some of the best net > brains put their heads together we can get somewhere with this > question. Any ideas out there? Of course the answer to the question "Is it wrong to wipe out an entire race of people because you dislike them?" is obvious. Whether or not, as Spence claims, "our" side also did wrong things. (Which it did. Japanese internment camps were just as racist as Hitler's death camps, though perhaps less murder and violence resulted. No one said there had to be a "right" side, although some assume that there is and that it's always their own...) The obviousness of the answer is the very reason why Nazis of today must claim that the atrocities never happened, in order that they might happen again. We know what Nazism (and its clone, Identity Christianity) are all about, so the proponents must somehow dissociate themselves from our conceptions of such movements. Fortunately for them, the big lie technique still works: if you repeat a lie often enough and forcefully enough ("There's no evidence that the holocaust really happened..."), it will be believed. And those who meekly back off and say "What's my stake in answering or debunking these ideas? This is a crackpot minority, who cares?", as most of the Christian community on this net do, can eventually lead to propagation of the racist ideas in the mainstream. That's what both Christians and Jews did the last time in response to such big lies. I guess Jews know that there's more of a stake in not doing so this time. But others don't. -- "Wait a minute. '*WE*' decided??? *MY* best interests????" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (03/28/85)
> Personally I have alot more respect for Hitler and the Nazis than I do for > the Jews. I can undersand that. The Nazis has sexy uniforms, whereas all we can credit the Jews for is trivia like the basis of our ethical system and relativity. > The Jews were just victims. At least the Nazis had ideals > for which they willing to fight and die for and yes even commit "atrocities" > for. Which of the three do you think takes more courage? > > Russell Spence It takes a *lot* of courage to die for your faith and heritage. Please explain the "courage" required to slaughter unarmed civilians. ROM DOS
jcp@osiris.UUCP (Jody Patilla) (03/29/85)
> > Personally I have alot more respect for Hitler and the Nazis than I do for > > the Jews. The Jews were just victims. At least the Nazis had ideals > > for which they willing to fight and die for and yes even commit "atrocities" > > for. Which of the three do you think takes more courage? Hatred and desire for world domination are not what I would call ideals. -- jcpatilla "'Get stuffed !', the Harlequin replied ..."
carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (03/29/85)
Rich Rosen: > As Carnes says above, "Oh, I don't know if we can still blame [the > Jews] today, but they WERE responsible for [the crucifixion] > originally, no?" No, I *didn't* say that, nor have I ever believed such rubbish at any time in my entire life. Excuuuuuse me for attempting to fight on your side. Richard Carnes
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (03/29/85)
> Rich Rosen: > > As Carnes says above, "Oh, I don't know if we can still blame [the > > Jews] today, but they WERE responsible for [the crucifixion] > > originally, no?" > > No, I *didn't* say that, nor have I ever believed such rubbish at any > time in my entire life. Excuuuuuse me for attempting to fight on > your side. > > Richard Carnes I thought he'd been pretty unfair to you too. What's the matter, Rich? Why *isn't* sarcasm a valid weapon to use in fighting lies? -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "Parts is parts."-Jack the Ripper
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (03/29/85)
In article <2580@ihuxf.UUCP> russ@ihuxf.UUCP (Russell Spence) writes: >Personally I have alot more respect for Hitler and the Nazis than I do for >the Jews. The Jews were just victims. At least the Nazis had ideals >for which they willing to fight and die for and yes even commit "atrocities" >for. Which of the three do you think takes more courage? To die. I do not believe that the Jews were under some moral obligation to kill in return for killing. To say that they were "just victims" appalls me. Not everyone is in the position of being able to help themselves. So many people are defenseless against the evils that beset them. To condemn the helpless is to glorify might. To praise blind, unthinking loyalty which willingly submits to evil, is to deny the evil. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dr. Emmanuel Wu) (03/30/85)
> Rich Rosen: > > As Carnes says above, "Oh, I don't know if we can still blame [the > > Jews] today, but they WERE responsible for [the crucifixion] > > originally, no?" > > No, I *didn't* say that, nor have I ever believed such rubbish at any > time in my entire life. Excuuuuuse me for attempting to fight on > your side. > > Richard Carnes I quote: >> Yes, this one's a real toughie, so let's warm up on an easier one, >> recently posed by Don Black. Are the Jews living today responsible >> in part for the crucifixion of Christ? At first glance, this appears >> to be one of those insoluble legal conundrums, but then we recall >> that in most courts of law, it is considered an extenuating >> circumstance if the crime was committed 1,900 years before the birth >> of the alleged perpetrators. So I would have to say, pending further >> reflection and the appearance of additional witnesses and/or >> evidence, that living Jews such as my apartment-mate George cannot be >> held fully responsible for the death of Christ. (George denies any >> involvement, but what did you expect. Hey, you want I should torture >> him to make him confess?) [RICHARD CARNES] If this was sarcastic, it was not only not clear, it was in bad taste. Claiming that it's an "insoluble legal argument" whether or not Jews today are responsible for what (presumably) their ancestors (as a nation?) did 1900 years ago. Large blocks of Christians, and many Christian teachers, still teach that the Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus. A remnant of lingering anti-Semitism of the first order, just waiting to be tapped by people like Black. Please find a less virulent way to "fight on my side". If you agree that the notions being debunked are despicable, please don't rehash some of the same notions being debunked, even if in (attempts at) jest. -- Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts. Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dr. Emmanuel Wu) (03/30/85)
> > Rich Rosen: > > > As Carnes says above, "Oh, I don't know if we can still blame [the > > > Jews] today, but they WERE responsible for [the crucifixion] > > > originally, no?" > > > > No, I *didn't* say that, nor have I ever believed such rubbish at any > > time in my entire life. Excuuuuuse me for attempting to fight on > > your side. > > > > Richard Carnes > > I thought he'd been pretty unfair to you too. What's the matter, > Rich? Why *isn't* sarcasm a valid weapon to use in fighting lies? > -- > Jeff Sonntag > ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j > "Parts is parts."-Jack the Ripper It wasn't at all clear that sarcasm was being invoked. Even if it was, the way in which the "Jew-blaming" was brought up smelled a bit to me. -- "It's a lot like life..." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (03/31/85)
Rich Rosen writes: >Please find a less virulent way to "fight on my side". I apologize if Rich was offended by my article. As far as I know, good satire and good taste are incompatible; and Rich seemed to be using an interpretive principle of "If in doubt, assume it's anti-Semitic." It is self-defeating for Jews to flame gentiles who speak out against the neo-Nazi creeps. There is a fine article on the various neo-Nazi groups in the issue of *In These Times* dated about March 11 or so. Richard Carnes
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (03/31/85)
>> The Jews were just victims. At least the Nazis had ideals >> for which they willing to fight and die for and yes even commit "atrocities" >> for. Which of the three do you think takes more courage? >> >> Russell Spence > >It takes a *lot* of courage to die for your faith and heritage. >Please explain the "courage" required to slaughter unarmed civilians. > > ROM DOS A (long) quote from Himmler's Posen address to the SS group leaders in 1943: " I shall speak to you here with all frankness about a very serious subject. We shall now discuss it openly among ourselves; nevertheless we shall never speak about it in public. I mean the evacuation of the Jews, the extermination of the Jewish People. It is one of those things which is easy to say: "The Jewish people are to be exterminated," says every party member. "That's clear, it's part of our program, elimination of the Jews, extermination, right, we'll do it." And then they all come along, eighty million upstanding Germans, and each one has his decent Jew. Of course the others are all swine, but this one is a first-class Jew. Of all those who talk like this, not one has watched [the actual extermination], not one has had the stomach for it. Most of you know what it means to see a hundred corpses lying together, five hundred, or a thousand. To have gone through this and yet -- apart from a few exceptions, examples of human weakness -- to have remained decent, this has made us hard. This is a glorious page in our history that has never been written and never shall be written. The wealth which they had, we have taken from them. I have issued a strict command . . . that this wealth is as a matter of course to be delivered in its entirety to the Reich. We have taken none of it for ourselves. Individuals who have violated this principle will be punished according to an order which I issued at the beginning and which warns: Anyone who takes so much as a mark shall die. A certain number of SS men -- not very many -- disobeyed this order and they will die, without mercy. We had the moral right, we had the duty to our own people, to kill this people that wanted to kill us. But we have no right to enrich ourselves by so much as a fur, a watch, a mark, or a cigarette, anything else. In the last analysis, because we exterminated a bacillus we don't want to be infected by it and die. I shall never stand by and wathc even the slightest spot of rot develop or establish itself here. Wherever it appears, we shall burn it out together. By and large, we can say we have performed this most difficult task out of love for our people. And we have suffered no harm from it in our inner self, in our soul, in our character." (Quoted by Alice Miller in "For your Own Good" Farrar, Strauss, Giroux 1983; in Canada McGraw-Hill) -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dr. Emmanuel Wu) (04/01/85)
> I apologize if Rich was offended by my article. As far as I know, > good satire and good taste are incompatible; and Rich seemed to be > using an interpretive principle of "If in doubt, assume it's > anti-Semitic." It is self-defeating for Jews to flame gentiles who > speak out against the neo-Nazi creeps. [RICHARD CARNES] Apology accepted. AS to my my "interpretive principle", let me say this: It may have seemed to you that your article was satirical. A good look at it showed little difference in content or tone from the article that preceded it, or from Black's original diatribes. The point is: though it may be obvious from the very ridiculousness of what you said that it was (to you) satirical, Black's articles (and the words of other neo-fascists) contain exactly the same words, and are NOT satirical, but rather very serious in intent. If you might say "But a reasoned person would realize it's ridiculous satire", think again. Reasoned people believe "big lie" techniques and other fascist propaganda techniques not less much than the rest of the population. The reason they use those manipulative techniques is because they work (look at the world of modern advertising!). Your article was, ridiculous in notion and may have been construed as satire, but it was little different from those that preceded it (Spence's and Black's). As such, how would YOU be able to tell the difference. Satire *IS* a great literary tool, but satire backfires, because there are some people who don't realize that it was satirical. (In fifteen or twenty years, people may believe that Spinal Tap was one of the great rock groups of the 80s, not knowing that the movie about them was a satire...) ---------- "Wait a minute. '*WE*' decided??? *MY* best interests????" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr -- "Discipline is never an end in itself, only a means to an end." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
srm@nsc.UUCP (Richard Mateosian) (04/01/85)
Can't this be moved to net.abortion, net.jokes, net.unix-wizards, or some
other windy newsgroup that I don't read (list available on request).
--
Richard Mateosian
{allegra,cbosgd,decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!srm nsc!srm@decwrl.ARPAteitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) (04/01/85)
> > Was Hitler wrong in killing the Jews? Well, history has already made that > judgement, he lost the war. Therefore, even by his standards he can be > judged a failure and in the wrong. Is he wrong JUST because he exterminated > 6 million Jews? That one is tougher. Sure the simple answer is that genocide > is evil and since Hitler tried to kill all of the Jews, he is evil too. > This is a very nice and simple answer. It has the added benefit that it removes > from the listener any responsibility to THINK. However, the truth is that > the issue of the phenomena of Nazism is much more complex and still deserves > more objective study. > I really do not believe what I am reading. Was Hitler wrong? If he had won the war, would he be right? How can a man, for any twisted crazy ideal go and kill one person, let alone 6,000,000. What right does any person have to kill innocent people. Were the Jews trying to overthrow Germany? were they menacing people. The phenomenon of nazism is indeed complex. How did the world not see it for the evil it is. How did almost the entire word stand by and watch idly as an army massacred a people? Why did the US army not bomb the rail lines leading into Auschwitz? ( yes, I blame America too, but this does not mean that the nazis were correct. In fact they were worse. The non-action of America is contemptable. The action of the nazis for perpetrating the crimes they did are worse. In America a man is considered evil for killing one person. That is why murder is illegal. It is wrong and should not be done. How can a man who killed 6,000,000 people be considered anything but evil. > What pisses me off is that since Hitler did commit this "atrocity", people > use that as an excuse to remove their own guilt for things that they did during > the war. > Hey, how about a little quiz? > > Which country is the only country to use atomic weapons on fellow human > being? > What is the name of the country that in World War II fire-bombed Dresden > for three day when it knew that Dresden didn't have any significant war > industry? > Which "freedom-loving" country suspended the civil rights of a group of > citizens simply because ethnically they were of Japanese origin? > Good points, all of them. But this does not justify Hitler in any way. > Of course people will say, "Oh, but look what Hitler did to the Jews!!". > This makes me sick. Does that make what we did right? I think that you > all know the answer to that. But, my, isn't it ironic that the people who have > gotten the most mileage out of the holocaust are the Jews? They got their > own state out of it and the support of the United States since it's > creation. And, my, look at all of the wonderful things that they have > done in Lebanon and the Middle East in general! But hey, you can't > criticize them. Oh, no, look what Hitler did to them. The U.S. withdraw > support!! No, we can't do that, look at all the problems they've had! > Milage. Do you judge the rightness and wrongness of action by mileage? Is that what is important to you? The Jews got teir homeland back ( yes, it was theirs first ) because the world wasn't willing to promise tat it would give the Jews a place in their homes where they ( the Jews ) would be safe from persecution. The world was not willing to stand up and say that the Jews would be safe with them. So they gave the Jews a place for themselves. ( Looks like a nice theory ). Maybe, in reality, the world was admitting its error and trying to rectifythe situation of its abandoning of the Jews? The reason the US supports Israel has little to do with the holocaust. Israel is the only stable democracy in the area, aside from being the only ally America has in the entire world. The arabs side up to America as true friends but they only want the destruction of Israel. That is teir u is their sole intent. The Israelis invaded Lebanon, not to expand their borders, they can hardly sustain what they have already, but rather because Israel's northern border villages were being bombed constantly, and the citizens couldn't live normal lives. What else have the Israelis done in the Middle East? Did they mount an army of 40 million to attack a country on the day it declared its independence? Do they set bombs in civillian busses to kill innocent bystanders? When the Israeli Army entered Lebanon leaflets were dropped over cities and villages warning citizens of what was about to happen and telling them to relocate until the battle was over. Do the arabs put labels on bombs that they leave on Israeli busses? Do terrorists who kill innocent athletes ( at the Olympics ) and children ( read the papers about 15 years ago and more recently when a bus was commandeered and the terrorists eventually killed but not before civilians were murdered, do they leave warning notes to make sure no one gets hurt accidentally? More about the Middle East. Syria hates Jordan, Iraq hate Iran, Iran hates almost everyone, everyone hate Libya, Egypt can't get along with Syria. These are all Arab states in the Middle East. Israel is the smallest problem of them all. The arabs states butcher each other and themselves ( look at what Assad did to the city of Hamma. 50,000 people exterminated without a mention in the news, barely ).Why is Israel the Middle East problem. Hussein in Jordan kicked out the PLO. Why? Because they were nice, fun loving people? No, because they wanted to take over his country, which was set up by the British mandate to be the home of the palestinians ( along s. So, why do you make Israel out as the bad guy? Iran and Iraq have been fighting for 5 years. All the Israeli wars combined don't last that long. There are more casualties in the iraq-iran war than in any Israeli war. Why is that not a problem? Do the countries of the world go running to stop them? Harly. But when Israel has the Egyptian, Jordanian, and Syria n armies running after just 6 days everyone says that its wrong and the war must stop. In 1973, when the arabs were winning the war no one cried to stop. As soon as Israel turned the tables there was a hue and cry. Why have the arabs attacked the Israelis so often? Israeli atrocities, bullshit ( and I never use these terms ). The arabs have been trying to finish Hitler's work. But Hitler was a hero, I forgot. So the arabs are great too. If the US did not support Israel the entire area would be under communist control. Maybe you favor that too. Israel is an invaluable partner to the US. They supply the US with intelligence information that has recently been valued at over 50 billion dollars ( I read this in a paper, although I don't remember offhand which ). Not a bad investment for the US I would say. > Personally I have alot more respect for Hitler and the Nazis than I do for > the Jews. The Jews were just victims. At least the Nazis had ideals > for which they willing to fight and die for and yes even commit "atrocities" > for. Which of the three do you think takes more courage? > Firstly, did the Jews not have ideals for which they were willing to die? Are victims to be left with nothing? Why prosecute the murderer? He stood up for something. The dead man was a dumb victim. If I were to rob your house would you let me keep what I took because I was willing to stand up for something and you were a victim? The crusaders could have used someone like you. Who gives a damn what is right and what is wrong, if you believe do as you wish. I believe that people like you should be killed in the most painful manner possible. Does that mean I have the right to do this? No. > But isn't it so much easier to close your eyes, condemn the Nazis (who will > argue with you?) and pretend that Hitler was insane? > Isn't it much easier to say that Hitler was right and let's do it again? ( Who would argue with you, except the Jews, but they're victims so who cares about them ). > --------------------- > [The following is reprinted without permission from the Chicago Tribune. > "Our 'good neighbors'" by Peter Gorner. Feb. 17, 1985] > > Romanian Orthodox Bishop Viorel Trifa...had been a leader of the > viciously anti-semitic Romanian fascist Iron Guard and as a newspaper > editor in Bucharest, had incited his countrymen to the 1941 riot in which > Jewish men, women and children where skinned alive and left hanging on > meat hooks in a slaughterhouse. > Before being deported to Portugal last year, Trifa complained to the press > that he was a victim of the times. "The point was to revive the Holocaust," > he said, "But all this talk by the Jews about the Holocaust is going to > backfire - against the Jews. Something," he says darkly, "will be done." > Such a telling response is unusual, Ryan says. Most of the people he > prosecuted have admitted to nothing. The lack of contrition, he says, began > to haunt him in 1981 when he proved that John Demjanjuk, a Cleveland automaker, > was in truth "Ivan the Terrible," the infamous Ukrainian sadist who manned the > pumps for the Nazi gas chamber at the Treblinka killing camp. > "He was absolutely impassive in court," Ryan says, "His family didn't know > about his past. They were being tortured every day. The evidence was over- > whelming. I was looking for some sign... some acknowledgement... some > conscience. But there was nothing. > "Demjanjuk was not special, no more unique than a cockroach. But the Nazi > attitude he represents is significant. In his smug silence he was telling us > something: 'I did it once and got way with it. I won't explain how or why, > for if I did, you might understand it a little better than you did before > and learn how to recognize it better when it rears its head again.'" > -- > And you advocate doing this again, by saying Hitler wasn't wrong. He was wrong and w mustn't shut our eyes to it. Other countries were also wrong and must admit it. But to say because someone else is wrong therefore I am right is incorrect. I have had to use extreme control not to flame you and call you all kinds of evil things. You are sicker than Don Black , in that he thinks nothing happened. You think something did, and that it wasn't wrong. You need help in the worst way possible. You have to be taught between right and wrong. I sincerely hope you go for counselling soon. Eliyahu Teitz. > Russell Spence > (new path ->) ihnp4!ihuxf!russ > AT&T Technologies > Naperville, IL *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
russ@ihuxf.UUCP (Russell Spence) (04/02/85)
I have received a few person attacks and some questions regarding my posting about Nazis. I would like to bring up a few questions and maybe clarify some of my feelings. My knowledge of Nazism comes from reading Mein Kampf and general knowledge obtained from several sources. I felt that reading Mein Kampf was most valuable for understanding the Nazis because it expresses Hitler's own feelings about his goals written in his own hand. Thus his opinions are not distorted by someone who may have pre-judged him. On the other hand, one must realize that Hitler also makes gross generalizations and sometimes miss-represents facts. If you are aware that this is happening, hopefully you can try to read past that and try to see what he his really saying. I am certainly not an expert on Nazism, but I have formed some tentative opinions and have some thoughts on the matter. The Holocaust was not wrong from the Nazi point of view and according to their moral standards (which is not to say that some individuals who were Nazis didn't find it morally unacceptable). This point seems obvious to me from the fact that they did it and many of them do not seem to feel guilty about it. Of course, some did feel guilty about it, but it is hard to tell whether this is genuine or not is affected by the fact they the Nazis lost the war and individual people want to save their own skins (and possibly even make a buck (nobody today wants to buy a book by a proud Nazi)). The fact that they actually committed the Holocaust also shows how committed they were to their ideals (whether right or wrong). This is why I feel that Don Black, Zundle and their kind are doing a disservice to the Nazis when denying the Holocaust. I do not think that Hitler would hesitate to call them weaklings. I think that to judge the Nazis based on their actions is taking a close minded attitude which will get in the way of understanding their ideals. The value of looking back at the Nazis is to understand their ideas and judge them for yourself. I don't feel good about letting ANYONE make moral judgements for me. I am interested in the Nazis and am making an attempt to understand them. I'm not interested in talking to people who aren't willing to accept this basic idea, because they are using the Nazis as a scapegoat just as much as they blame the Nazis for using the Jews. If someone wants to DISCUSS some issues of Nazism, how about answering this question, am I right in my assumption that the whole struggle between the Nazis and the Marxists (which the Nazis assert are very closely tied with the Jews) is the struggle between the ideas that men are equal (Marxist) and that men are not equal (Nazi)? ------ Will YOU recognize Nazism when it rears it head again? -- Russell Spence ihnp4!ihuxf!russ AT&T Technologies Naperville, IL
muffy@lll-crg.ARPA (Muffy Barkocy) (04/02/85)
In article <1345@aecom.UUCP> teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) writes: > > I really do not believe what I am reading. Was Hitler wrong? If he had > won the war, would he be right? How can a man, for any twisted crazy ideal go > and kill one person, let alone 6,000,000. What right does any person have to > kill innocent people. Actually, if Hitler had won, he would indeed have been correct. Not from *my* point of view, of course, but I would be dead. In fact, as I recall, he wanted to kill everyone who didn't believe as he did, so the only people left alive would be those that agreed with him, or said they did. Regard- less of what you may believe, "right" and "wrong" are societally defined, they are *not* inborn. Thus, if everyone in my society thinks as I do, then I am right. If Hitler killed off all the people that didn't think as he did, his society would have agreed with him, and he would be right. Certainly, I don't believe that killing even one person is right, but that is definitely not instinctive. If the rules change, so does what is "right." Muffy
alcmist@ssc-vax.UUCP (Frederick Wamsley) (04/03/85)
<Zundel says the bug never happened> In article <2580@ihuxf.UUCP> russ@ihuxf.UUCP (Russell Spence) writes: >Personally I have alot more respect for Hitler and the Nazis than I do for >the Jews. The Jews were just victims. At least the Nazis had ideals >for which they willing to fight and die for and yes even commit "atrocities" >for. Which of the three do you think takes more courage? I read this with a numb horror I have never felt before on the net. It's not even true! Read about the heroic resistance in the Warsaw ghetto, against professional soldiers. "Ideals" which lead to war and butchery need to be condemned and fought. I feel sick to learn that anyone can respect mass murderers. > The Holocaust was not wrong from the Nazi point of view and according to > their moral standards (which is not to say that some individuals who were > Nazis didn't find it morally unacceptable). This point seems obvious to me > from the fact that they did it and many of them do not seem to feel guilty > about it. That is exactly why Nazi Germany had to be destroyed, at a ghastly price! > ------ > Will YOU recognize Nazism when it rears it head again? > -- When a mass movement preaches militant nationalism and hatred of minorities, I will not waste precious time being "open-minded" and admiring its ideals. I will oppose it. When someone professes concern for the poor, and blames their poverty on Jews, I will not be objective. I will work against him. And I will be especially suspicious of any group that does evil while calling itself idealistic. Fred Wamsley -- UUCP:{ihnp4,decvax}!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!alcmist ARPA:ssc-vax!alcmist@uw-beaver It's not my employer's fault if I say something absurd.