|
Post by cato on Aug 11, 2023 15:30:06 GMT
[quote But taken here think least as much the quote from Eisenhower and others it was not considered needed by all experts strategists and generals.
Glad you never fell into condescending against my negative view in the context. Thanks for that tone! The new movie would be interesting to watch on screen.[/quote][/quote]
The quote from General Eisenhower you referred to Tomas is a strange one. It allegedly was made in a social context and was recorded in the diary of a third party in the fall of 1945.
Eisenhower the Supreme commander in Europe expressed a wish he hoped the war would have ended before we needed to use the bomb. That sounds quite ambiguous to my ears. Is he implying it was "needed"? It's not a clear simple disavowal.
He claimed later to have been sceptical of the validity of the original decision but other participants dispute that he ever said anything at least not publicly.
As president he was an enthusiastic fan of all things atomic civil and military. He also left us with his famous warn8ng against the danger to democracy from the military industrial complex. An ambiguous man indeed.
|
|
|
Post by Antaine on Aug 21, 2023 19:42:18 GMT
Cato, that is no problem. I am not such a regular on this board, and I am obviously the most controversial member here, so I will take my leave. I will not put the board in a difficult position.
However, I will say a few things first. I see you have done a fairly wicked job of rebuking me. You made little attempt to argue with me on the topic, and simply resorted to a vulgar slander campaign. The fact that your mindset concerning hate-speech laws amounts to "Why would we give them fuel to oppress us by saying things they really don't like?" speaks volumes. Is that not the entire point of free speech? And for the record, no, I do not follow Gemma Doherty. I don't say that to cover my backside, but because with all the filth that exists in the modern world, I do not feel scared enough to pretend like Gemmma Doherty is the most reprehensible thing to exist on the face of the Earth. I will not sit here defending myself from you like some coward, who feels the need to desperately appeal and pander to others for validation, but I will clarify myself when I feel it necessary.
Maolsheachlann, I know you and I have fundamental disagreements on certain topics, but I refuse to believe you can't see how making up stories about turning people into soaps or lampshades wouldn't have a detrimental effect on how we see history. To make up additions to a story is to simply push a narrative of creating an evil greater than the one that actually existed. Judging by the reactions on this thread, it's safe to say people feel that genociding 6 million people is an act of evil beyond comprehension by itself, correct? Why, then, feel the need to add more false stories, other than there is something else you are trying to push? Is it also irrelevant that many of those put on trial at Nuremberg were tortured beforehand? That people were put through who knows what sort of suffering until they "confessed"? This is something I think most are aware of, but brush off as "They deserved it because of what they confessed to afterwards." Since this is my last post here, I am not trying to re-walk old ground or arguments; I am simply stating that, yes, details like this are relevant. If they weren't, they wouldn't exist in the first place. With all that said, I am genuinely sorry about your living situation. I hope the situation is resolved sooner than later, and whatever my prayers are worth, I will offer them up that the Lord will give you a solution.
Finally, Young Ireland. Since you posted in this thread, I may as well respond to you. You and I have had a tumultuous relationship, to put it lightly. We got along for some years when everything was strictly religious in the Irish Catholics forum, but ended up quite opposed to each other as politics began to take up. Despite everything, your response in this thread was spoken matter-of-factly and without any sort of confrontation. Perhaps you had such a poor view of me by this point that it didn't really matter; but regardless, I thank you for that. As this is my last post, I would also like to apologise to you. We have had some very harsh back-and-forths, with responses so long it looked like a text-based battlefield. In particular, my second last response to you (which was supposed to be my last) was filled with some very stinging remarks. Honestly, some of the things I have said to you are things I have felt quite remorseful about. I apologise for these more cruel remarks, and I am glad I have the opportunity to do as much. Disagreements aside, I have always respected your devotion to, and knowledge of, Catholicism. I sincerely wish the best for you, and your family.
One final note: If people here think me some twisted thing filled with hatred, then I invite you to pray for me, that the Lord guide me on a path of understanding and truth. As previously mentioned, I do not pretend to know it all. On the contrary, it is precisely because I have come to the understanding as to just how little we know, that I have come to accept that I will - whether I like it or not - be wrong about things, that I would question things most people would accept as fact. I have been this way for over 7 years. Whether you considered me a fool or just wicked, if you consider yourself a true Christian, then I invite you to pray the Lord changes me.
To avoid the risk of dragging this on into a pity-party, I will finish by saying, may the Lord protect and guide you all. Amen
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Aug 22, 2023 13:33:05 GMT
Cato, that is no problem. I am not such a regular on this board, and I am obviously the most controversial member here, so I will take my leave. I will not put the board in a difficult position. However, I will say a few things first. I see you have done a fairly wicked job of rebuking me. You made little attempt to argue with me on the topic, and simply resorted to a vulgar slander campaign. The fact that your mindset concerning hate-speech laws amounts to "Why would we give them fuel to oppress us by saying things they really don't like?" speaks volumes. Is that not the entire point of free speech? And for the record, no, I do not follow Gemma Doherty. I don't say that to cover my backside, but because with all the filth that exists in the modern world, I do not feel scared enough to pretend like Gemmma Doherty is the most reprehensible thing to exist on the face of the Earth. I will not sit here defending myself from you like some coward, who feels the need to desperately appeal and pander to others for validation, but I will clarify myself when I feel it necessary. Maolsheachlann, I know you and I have fundamental disagreements on certain topics, but I refuse to believe you can't see how making up stories about turning people into soaps or lampshades wouldn't have a detrimental effect on how we see history. To make up additions to a story is to simply push a narrative of creating an evil greater than the one that actually existed. Judging by the reactions on this thread, it's safe to say people feel that genociding 6 million people is an act of evil beyond comprehension by itself, correct? Why, then, feel the need to add more false stories, other than there is something else you are trying to push? Is it also irrelevant that many of those put on trial at Nuremberg were tortured beforehand? That people were put through who knows what sort of suffering until they "confessed"? This is something I think most are aware of, but brush off as "They deserved it because of what they confessed to afterwards." Since this is my last post here, I am not trying to re-walk old ground or arguments; I am simply stating that, yes, details like this are relevant. If they weren't, they wouldn't exist in the first place. With all that said, I am genuinely sorry about your living situation. I hope the situation is resolved sooner than later, and whatever my prayers are worth, I will offer them up that the Lord will give you a solution. Finally, Young Ireland. Since you posted in this thread, I may as well respond to you. You and I have had a tumultuous relationship, to put it lightly. We got along for some years when everything was strictly religious in the Irish Catholics forum, but ended up quite opposed to each other as politics began to take up. Despite everything, your response in this thread was spoken matter-of-factly and without any sort of confrontation. Perhaps you had such a poor view of me by this point that it didn't really matter; but regardless, I thank you for that. As this is my last post, I would also like to apologise to you. We have had some very harsh back-and-forths, with responses so long it looked like a text-based battlefield. In particular, my second last response to you (which was supposed to be my last) was filled with some very stinging remarks. Honestly, some of the things I have said to you are things I have felt quite remorseful about. I apologise for these more cruel remarks, and I am glad I have the opportunity to do as much. Disagreements aside, I have always respected your devotion to, and knowledge of, Catholicism. I sincerely wish the best for you, and your family. One final note: If people here think me some twisted thing filled with hatred, then I invite you to pray for me, that the Lord guide me on a path of understanding and truth. As previously mentioned, I do not pretend to know it all. On the contrary, it is precisely because I have come to the understanding as to just how little we know, that I have come to accept that I will - whether I like it or not - be wrong about things, that I would question things most people would accept as fact. I have been this way for over 7 years. Whether you considered me a fool or just wicked, if you consider yourself a true Christian, then I invite you to pray the Lord changes me. To avoid the risk of dragging this on into a pity-party, I will finish by saying, may the Lord protect and guide you all. Amen Well, first off, I wouldn't say you're the most controversial member here. The guy who wanted to persecute Church of Ireland members probably wins that (dubious) award. Thanks for the prayers. My living situation has actually improved, for the moment. I'm no longer sleeping in an apartment hallway but in an actual bed, while my apartment is being repaired. Of course I'll pray for you; in fact, I have often done so. There's so much in your post, it's hard to know how to approach it. You say: "I refuse to believe you can't see how making up stories about turning people into soaps or lampshades wouldn't have a detrimental effect on how we see history." But I didn't say that. I'm talking about proportion here. Presuming somebody (or many people) actively came up with this story to push some agenda, shame on them. It's a very attention-grabbing, ghoulish image and it's no wonder it stuck in peoples' minds. But how can such a wrong even begin (to begin to begin to begin) to compare with the evil of the Holocaust itself? The world is full of misinformation and legends: for instance, the centuries-old story that Jews captured Christian children to use their blood in sacrifices, or the fabricated document that is The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Why attach such importance to THIS particular fabrication, presuming it is one? I've never heard that the defendants in Nuremberg were tortured, and I don't believe it. Unless I was given good evidence, of course. If you'll forgive me for addressing motives, which I generally don't like to do, I honestly wonder whether you are not just lashing out at the media (and the establishment) here. We know the media lies and has an agenda. So it's probably understandable that many people are tempted to to push back by violating whatever taboos they perceive in the mainstream media. But not all taboos are equal. I don't think the taboo against criticizing LGBT and trans sacred cows is the same as the taboo against suggesting the Holocaust didn't happen, or attempting to minimize its gravity. The latter existed long before the former. The latter exists for a good reason, the former for a bad reason. (I don't think the taboo should be absolute.) How do you think St. John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, Pope Paul VI, and all the Popes who have existed since World War Two would regard this attitude scepticism or outright hostility towards the general (Western) consensus regarding the Holocaust? Especially Pope John Paul II, who rightfully apologized to the Jews for all the sins Christians have committed against them. Was he a woke liberal? I wouldn't call you "twisted with hatred" at all, but I do think you are misdirecting your anger, and (as I've said before) falling into the trap of the progressive left. Just my tuppenceworth. It's good to question everything, but there's a danger of replacing one consensus with another. Is the consensus of Bitchute viewers any more independent-minded than the consensus of Guardian readers?
|
|
|
Post by Tomas on Aug 22, 2023 14:09:49 GMT
I wish you would remain, despite these understandable grievances and misconceptions addressed as hostility. We all lack generosity and openness, more often than not without really thinking so at first. No problem in some in the forum having other views than the normal consensus either, if the difference is within the frames like in this particular case. I don´t think either you Antaine or Hilary or others in this particular really denied the Holocaust at all. Not even got into the trap of dubious revisionist numbers in any bad intended way. To argue or get upset because of legitimate questioning or concern is reaching to far. I would side with Cato and Maolsheachlann in regard to the general consensus number around 6(6+) millions, but side with you Antaine and Hilary in the right to question even that. Real facts and real numbers will be hard or even impossible to prove, but despite vicious interets (not by you) having OPEN arguing is better than censorship even unto dismissing any (bad) questioning in personal honest intention. The notorious postings of the troll-like guy who wanted to wipe out contemporary Church of Ireland men entirely, was much more strange. That was another problem than trying to come to grips with odd questionings from the infamous revisionist camp (no pun INTENDED there on the last word camp, sorry) or similar. I am always sad when seeing how opposite views gets hooked in hostility in this very unusual OPEN forum. A special and loved forum often great in its handling of occasional troublesome posting before. Every year, and most especially in the first three or four, this forum has been nearest a wonder of Free Speech morals and kindliness towards different views.
|
|
|
Post by hilary on Aug 22, 2023 17:53:21 GMT
"The world is full of misinformation and legends: for instance, the centuries-old story that Jews captured Christian children to use their blood in sacrifices, or the fabricated document that is The Protocols of the Elders of Zion". "How do you think St. John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, Pope Paul VI, and all the Popes who have existed since World War Two would regard this attitude scepticism or outright hostility towards the general (Western) consensus regarding the Holocaust? Especially Pope John Paul II, who rightfully apologized to the Jews for all the sins Christians have committed against them. Was he a woke liberal?" It's important to question everything to try and prevent the same thing happening again. I'm reading "Alone in Berlin" by Hans Fallada at the moment - it's set in Berlin during WW2, and the fear that all the characters, so far, seem to have of the various levels of authority (gestapo, SS etc) but also of their neighbours, colleagues (members of the party) etc, and the cruelty and small acts of dishonesty and immorality, but also of courage, that they engage in - how can we say that we would act any differently? In Ireland today, we can't. We weren't there during WW2 (most of us anyway) and most of the Jews alive today weren't there either. It's not persecution to ask questions. Pope John Paul II probably wouldn't consider it anti-semitic to ask questions. In the village where he grew up one quarter of the people were Jews so he had a better understanding than most of us and maybe he understood why there was a need to apologise. Apologising for something that you haven't done though is insincere. He wasn't doing that. Look at how nuns in Ireland have been treated and how a narrative has been built up around "Magdalene Laundries" and "Mother and Baby Homes" that is totally lacking in any balance, evidence or credit for the work that the nuns did and the sacrifices they made. Will future generations be allowed to question this narrative? It suits the motives of those, for example, who wanted to liberalise abortion laws etc and lots of people are making money out of it. Maolsheachlann you dismiss the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and the child blood sacrifice story without explanation. I know there is a fear of causing upset but is the explanation that obvious? I can read about Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln and William of Norwich for example, but I don't see how it's possible for us to know whether those stories from the 12th and 13th centuries are true or not.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Aug 22, 2023 18:17:33 GMT
Human sacrifice is not a part of any Jewish ritual and never has been. Furthermore, it would be insanity for a beleaguered and persecuted minority to risk drawing hostility on themselves by capturing Christian children and murdering them.
I honestly don't know if you're trolling. Let me ask you: the ancient Romans accused the first Christians of cannibalism in their rituals. How can you know they weren't right? It's so long ago now.
Every historical source I have ever read dismisses Protocols as a forgery. For instance, History of the Jews by Paul Johnson. Normally, this would be good enough. For instance, I believe the Popish Plot was a hoax because every historian I've read says so. I've done no original research on it.
So do you question the virtual unanimous consensus of historians in other cases, or only when it comes to Jewish questions?
|
|
|
Post by cato on Aug 22, 2023 19:58:22 GMT
As a moderator here I have had rare occasion to censor anyone but I make zero apologies for upsetting anyone who repeats neo Fascist tropes. Perhaps the person concerned is "simply asking questions"? My main concern is they don't appear to like the answers that virtually all bona fide historians who have studied the era have emerged at. In fact no one was actually ever censored. They object to being challenged or "rebuked". Free speech has never meant expecting everyone to agree with half baked crack pot nonsense or running away from the debate after bad mouthing those on the opposite side.
I debated with myself ignoring some of the outrageous remarks made by some here who claimed they were exercising their right to free speech. Some on the right have the view of no foes on the right. I make no apology for attacking the motives of someone who advances Holocaust revisionism or raises scores of "innocent" questions and objects when others don't go through each tedious half truth to offer a rebuttal. Life is short and I have a life too.
The old Brandsma Review magazine that some may recall had a principle of not giving a platform to anti semitic views. I thought that strange in the 1990s as I had never met an anti semite in the flesh. Sadly nowadays that vile shameful ideology seems to be on the rise from sources on the hard left, militant Islam and increasingly on the conspiratorial right.
|
|
|
Post by hilary on Aug 22, 2023 21:58:28 GMT
You're so defensive.
|
|
|
Post by Séamus on Aug 22, 2023 23:36:13 GMT
Cato...etc..Is it also irrelevant that many of those put on trial at Nuremberg were tortured beforehand? That people were put through who knows what sort of suffering until they "confessed"? This is something I think most are aware of, but brush off as "They deserved it because of what they confessed to afterwards."...etc..... Amen An excellent point, even given that there may be done doubt about the literal truth.....when exactly do the Squealers, Snowballs and Napoleons become indistinguishable from the Mr Joneses?
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Aug 23, 2023 0:06:58 GMT
I think we can accept that there were serious limitations to the Nuremberg Trials without drifting into the realm of conspiracy theory.
The rather barbaric manner in which the executions were carried out have long been a focus of of criticism.
But I see no reason to doubt their findings in general.
|
|
|
Post by Séamus on Aug 23, 2023 1:24:55 GMT
Cato, that is no problem. I am not such a regular on this board, and I am obviously the most controversial member here, so I will take my leave. I will not put the board in a difficult position. However, I will say a few things first. I see you have done a fairly wicked job of rebuking me. You made little attempt to argue with me on the topic, and simply resorted to a vulgar slander campaign. The fact that your mindset concerning hate-speech laws amounts to "Why would we give them fuel to oppress us by saying things they really don't like?" speaks volumes. Is that not the entire point of free speech? And for the record, no, I do not follow Gemma Doherty. I don't say that to cover my backside, but because with all the filth that exists in the modern world, I do not feel scared enough to pretend like Gemmma Doherty is the most reprehensible thing to exist on the face of the Earth. I will not sit here defending myself from you like some coward, who feels the need to desperately appeal and pander to others for validation, but I will clarify myself when I feel it necessary. Maolsheachlann, I know you and I have fundamental disagreements on certain topics, but I refuse to believe you can't see how making up stories about turning people into soaps or lampshades wouldn't have a detrimental effect on how we see history. To make up additions to a story is to simply push a narrative of creating an evil greater than the one that actually existed. Judging by the reactions on this thread, it's safe to say people feel that genociding 6 million people is an act of evil beyond comprehension by itself, correct? Why, then, feel the need to add more false stories, other than there is something else you are trying to push? Is it also irrelevant that many of those put on trial at Nuremberg were tortured beforehand? That people were put through who knows what sort of suffering until they "confessed"? This is something I think most are aware of, but brush off as "They deserved it because of what they confessed to afterwards." Since this is my last post here, I am not trying to re-walk old ground or arguments; I am simply stating that, yes, details like this are relevant. If they weren't, they wouldn't exist in the first place. With all that said, I am genuinely sorry about your living situation. I hope the situation is resolved sooner than later, and whatever my prayers are worth, I will offer them up that the Lord will give you a solution. Finally, Young Ireland. Since you posted in this thread, I may as well respond to you. You and I have had a tumultuous relationship, to put it lightly. We got along for some years when everything was strictly religious in the Irish Catholics forum, but ended up quite opposed to each other as politics began to take up. Despite everything, your response in this thread was spoken matter-of-factly and without any sort of confrontation. Perhaps you had such a poor view of me by this point that it didn't really matter; but regardless, I thank you for that. As this is my last post, I would also like to apologise to you. We have had some very harsh back-and-forths, with responses so long it looked like a text-based battlefield. In particular, my second last response to you (which was supposed to be my last) was filled with some very stinging remarks. Honestly, some of the things I have said to you are things I have felt quite remorseful about. I apologise for these more cruel remarks, and I am glad I have the opportunity to do as much. Disagreements aside, I have always respected your devotion to, and knowledge of, Catholicism. I sincerely wish the best for you, and your family. One final note: If people here think me some twisted thing filled with hatred, then I invite you to pray for me, that the Lord guide me on a path of understanding and truth. As previously mentioned, I do not pretend to know it all. On the contrary, it is precisely because I have come to the understanding as to just how little we know, that I have come to accept that I will - whether I like it or not - be wrong about things, that I would question things most people would accept as fact. I have been this way for over 7 years. Whether you considered me a fool or just wicked, if you consider yourself a true Christian, then I invite you to pray the Lord changes me. To avoid the risk of dragging this on into a pity-party, I will finish by saying, may the Lord protect and guide you all. Amen Well...etc ..I've never heard that the defendants in Nuremberg were tortured, and I don't believe it. Unless I was given good evidence, of course..etc..? I somehow can't see prison conditions at any level being up to present human rights standards, even given that it was only within,still for a few, living memory. Bearing in mind that some American soldiers were happy to torture captives in Iraq only a generation ago- the idiots' use of social media being the only exposing factor. There's often mention of heavy-handed methods being used by Australian police up to the early-80s, towards, of course, people they 'knew' to be guilty or at least involved in underworld gangs; admissions have come from retired officers themselves.
|
|
|
Post by cato on Aug 23, 2023 6:57:45 GMT
Marshal Stalin that well known human rights advocate advocated for dispensing with trials altogether and simply having mass summary executions like those the Italian partisans carried out on Mussolini and his mistress in Milan.
Can anyone come up with the source of these torture allegations at the Nuremburg War Crimes Trials?
|
|
|
Post by Séamus on Aug 28, 2023 12:18:17 GMT
I think we can accept that there were serious limitations to the Nuremberg Trials without drifting into the realm of conspiracy theory. The rather barbaric manner in which the executions were carried out have long been a focus of of criticism. But I see no reason to doubt their findings in general. Any royal-watchers will have noted the baptism a few days ago of the first child of Price Gustav of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Barleburg. Now THERE'S an interesting case: apparently he only married his half-Mexican lover after the Danish parliament (not German strangely enough, but they're obviously affiliated with the Danish throne) finally overturned a Aryan-only inheritance ruling imposed by his openly Nazi namesake grandfather,unnatural fertility method no doubt being partially symptomatic of the legal holdup. Imagine it not being overturned until the 2020s.
|
|