Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have done a lot of research about who knew what was going on. I know of Jews who were in the Warsaw ghetto (and escaped) who did not know what was going on until the end of the war. They had good reason to knw, and they still did not know. There were rumors, but the Nazis did so much to cover up, and scare the --- out of anyone who knew. The Nazis also had the smokescreen of war covering up and confusing the whole thing.

In Germany, many people were clueless. One officer was sent back to Munich on mental health leave. When he saw some of the brutality, he broke down and had to be hospitalized. His wife discretely told a neighbor. That was the kind of information that was spreading in the community.

On the few occaisions that the Allies bombed concentration camps, they bombed the ones that wre actually labor camps. The information was not perfect.

The truth came out with the Vrba report, spring 1944. That is when it was clear to everyone. From then on, action was taken to slow the Holocaust, as with Hungary.

The Nazis put half of their effort into the coverup, and for the most part, they were successful with that. I am of the opinion that the war was fought to provide the screen and get access to the Jews. Secondary gains like land, gold, and slave labor from all non Germans were less important.
Please pardon the typos.

This sounds insane and nothing that any reputable historian on the topic would endorse.

There is a very good (but tiring) book called What We Knew. It has lenghthy interviews with Jews and Germans, and the same theme keeps coming back. That is, no one (regular citizens) was really certain.
The documentary Shoah has interviews of locals in Poland. They say that they knew, or were very suspicious, but they were scared for their own lives or in some cases, did not care for the Jews. One person said that even staring directly at what the Germans were doing in public could get a person shot. People knew to just look at the ground or look away.
Some of the prostitutes and girlfriends of the men who worked in the camps were the first outsiders to know. The men would talk in bed, I suppose.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This sounds insane and nothing that any reputable historian on the topic would endorse.

There is a very good (but tiring) book called What We Knew. It has lenghthy interviews with Jews and Germans, and the same theme keeps coming back. That is, no one (regular citizens) was really certain.
The documentary Shoah has interviews of locals in Poland. They say that they knew, or were very suspicious, but they were scared for their own lives or in some cases, did not care for the Jews. One person said that even staring directly at what the Germans were doing in public could get a person shot. People knew to just look at the ground or look away.
Some of the prostitutes and girlfriends of the men who worked in the camps were the first outsiders to know. The men would talk in bed, I suppose.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The Nazis put half of their effort into the coverup, and for the most part, they were successful with that. I am of the opinion that the war was fought to provide the screen and get access to the Jews. Secondary gains like land, gold, and slave labor from all non Germans were less important.
Please pardon the typos.

No way! Nooo, Hitler had that much animosity towards Jews that that was the real reason for the war? War is usually about resources. And if you get rid of people you think are your enemies then all the better. Not the other way around, right?

interesting point of view. Are wars fought because of natural resources of the need to annihilate the perceived enemy?

Americans annihilated the natives. That was a holocaust too

Yes, I believe this to be the case. All other aspects of the war were handled so badly. Hitler just wanted access to countries that had a lot of Jews so that he could get them. He was sick.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have done a lot of research about who knew what was going on. I know of Jews who were in the Warsaw ghetto (and escaped) who did not know what was going on until the end of the war. They had good reason to knw, and they still did not know. There were rumors, but the Nazis did so much to cover up, and scare the --- out of anyone who knew. The Nazis also had the smokescreen of war covering up and confusing the whole thing.

In Germany, many people were clueless. One officer was sent back to Munich on mental health leave. When he saw some of the brutality, he broke down and had to be hospitalized. His wife discretely told a neighbor. That was the kind of information that was spreading in the community.

On the few occaisions that the Allies bombed concentration camps, they bombed the ones that wre actually labor camps. The information was not perfect.

The truth came out with the Vrba report, spring 1944. That is when it was clear to everyone. From then on, action was taken to slow the Holocaust, as with Hungary.

The Nazis put half of their effort into the coverup, and for the most part, they were successful with that. I am of the opinion that the war was fought to provide the screen and get access to the Jews. Secondary gains like land, gold, and slave labor from all non Germans were less important.
Please pardon the typos.

This sounds insane and nothing that any reputable historian on the topic would endorse.

Anonymous wrote:

There are other immigrant groups that have done extremely well, in spite of language and other huge barriers. And no, it did not involve scrubbing anyone else's toilets.

I would have to say if anything was learned from the Holocaust, one would HOPE it is to NOT lump ANY group together. Nor, to consider ANy group superior.

Is that asking too much of allegedly intelligent people? Wow.

Anonymous wrote:I have done a lot of research about who knew what was going on. I know of Jews who were in the Warsaw ghetto (and escaped) who did not know what was going on until the end of the war. They had good reason to knw, and they still did not know. There were rumors, but the Nazis did so much to cover up, and scare the --- out of anyone who knew. The Nazis also had the smokescreen of war covering up and confusing the whole thing.

In Germany, many people were clueless. One officer was sent back to Munich on mental health leave. When he saw some of the brutality, he broke down and had to be hospitalized. His wife discretely told a neighbor. That was the kind of information that was spreading in the community.

On the few occaisions that the Allies bombed concentration camps, they bombed the ones that wre actually labor camps. The information was not perfect.

The truth came out with the Vrba report, spring 1944. That is when it was clear to everyone. From then on, action was taken to slow the Holocaust, as with Hungary.

The Nazis put half of their effort into the coverup, and for the most part, they were successful with that. I am of the opinion that the war was fought to provide the screen and get access to the Jews. Secondary gains like land, gold, and slave labor from all non Germans were less important.
Please pardon the typos.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The Nazis put half of their effort into the coverup, and for the most part, they were successful with that. I am of the opinion that the war was fought to provide the screen and get access to the Jews. Secondary gains like land, gold, and slave labor from all non Germans were less important.
Please pardon the typos.

No way! Nooo, Hitler had that much animosity towards Jews that that was the real reason for the war? War is usually about resources. And if you get rid of people you think are your enemies then all the better. Not the other way around, right?

interesting point of view. Are wars fought because of natural resources of the need to annihilate the perceived enemy?

Americans annihilated the natives. That was a holocaust too

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always find it interesting that folks can have a reasonable discussion about the Holocaust, yet get super defensive and combative when slavery is the topic.

Is it because many Jews have been able to do well for themselves despite their history? While AAs have continued to struggle. So history seems to have more affect on the present day SES of descendants of former slaves than Holocaust survivors. Or maybe because the Holocaust happened in a foreign country while slavery happened here.

Hmmmm, your comment is offensive and telling. Many Holocaust survivors received reparations from Germany which gave them the ability to start anew. But I agree that it's easier to start over by moving to another country where white is considered the superior race. Kind of hard NOT to be successful under those circumstances.

BTW, blacks were oppressed for another 100 years after slavery officially ended. And this ability to sympathize with foreign matters makes me think about folks who decry kids starving in Africa while conveniently ignoring the fact that many US children go to bed hungry. I wonder why we choose to ignore the problems in our own backyard?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The Nazis put half of their effort into the coverup, and for the most part, they were successful with that. I am of the opinion that the war was fought to provide the screen and get access to the Jews. Secondary gains like land, gold, and slave labor from all non Germans were less important.
Please pardon the typos.

No way! Nooo, Hitler had that much animosity towards Jews that that was the real reason for the war? War is usually about resources. And if you get rid of people you think are your enemies then all the better. Not the other way around, right?

interesting point of view. Are wars fought because of natural resources of the need to annihilate the perceived enemy?

Americans annihilated the natives. That was a holocaust too

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always find it interesting that folks can have a reasonable discussion about the Holocaust, yet get super defensive and combative when slavery is the topic.

Is it because many Jews have been able to do well for themselves despite their history? While AAs have continued to struggle. So history seems to have more affect on the present day SES of descendants of former slaves than Holocaust survivors. Or maybe because the Holocaust happened in a foreign country while slavery happened here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The Nazis put half of their effort into the coverup, and for the most part, they were successful with that. I am of the opinion that the war was fought to provide the screen and get access to the Jews. Secondary gains like land, gold, and slave labor from all non Germans were less important.
Please pardon the typos.

No way! Nooo, Hitler had that much animosity towards Jews that that was the real reason for the war? War is usually about resources. And if you get rid of people you think are your enemies then all the better. Not the other way around, right?

Anonymous wrote:I always find it interesting that folks can have a reasonable discussion about the Holocaust, yet get super defensive and combative when slavery is the topic.