1. The gassed *supposedly used was exylon-b. Face it they never used it seeing as how it would take two tonnes just to kill one person and imagine millions as people claimed. Also if it was so dangerous why did our prisons use it till 1980 and not even as a execution method?
It did not take 2 tonnes to kill one person. Either do your reseach or pipe down. One paint can sized container full of pellets would be enough to fill a gas chamber. Why do nations not use it as a method of execution. Perhaps because they do not want to be associated with Nazism. Perhaps because they value humanity before German efficiency?
2. They never burned the Jews. Why in the world would they use it on dead Jews when they were already running short on the fuel which they used to heat the fires especialy when they warred with Russia where they had to retreat from it because they ran out of the fuel supposedly used to fuel the fires?
Because Hitler was in charge, and he was a madman. In fact, his devotion of resources to concentration camps ultimately lost him the war, when you consider that the majority of scientists who invewnted the nuclear bomb were Jews who fled from Germany due to the Nazis.
Not only this, but because from official Nazi records, it can be deduced that Hitler took the ideology more seriously than he did any pragmatic factor. In 1945, he still insited upon Jewish prisoners being relocated and gassed. The documentation is there.
3. They were running short on bullets so why would they waste it on Jews why not wait till after the war?
The vast majority of Jews who were shot were kjilled in the Soviet Union. This was before the major gassing operations got under way in Eastern Europe. Sadly, the only thing that stopped most Jews from being gassed eariler was the lack of the idea, not the lack of the means.
In addition, the war gave Hitler a perfect cover up for the Holocaust. The negative reaction he recieved due to the T4 programme showed him the German and Western Allies would not stand for it, and thus he did it in secret. Waiting til after the war makes no sense, simply because he had a perfect opportunity to reach his aims during the war, and because there was no gaurantee he would have won the war.
1.Neo-nazism is good because it tries to get rid of obesity. 2. It tries to get rid of smoking. 3. It tries to get rid of the gays. I believe they are bad because if what ever made us intended for us to mate with one n other we would have all been made the same sex. 4. It tries to get rid of blacks. I don't really like them because everyone is so rascist to them I think it'd just be better to get rid of them all Or deport them all to a single place and 1/3 of all blacks have criminal records (resource "Americain History X" 5. It tries to get rid of mentally retarded people/handicapped people. I resent them because they take up resources that could be used elsewhere they take up scientists minds to try to think of way's to make their lives easier and they feel sorry for themselves (the handicapped.) And we try to go out of our way to help them. 6. They tried to get rid of gypsies. http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/in ⦠i I know that's yahoo but it's rather spot on. 7. Everyones afraid of them so theres very little crime in (Nazi Germany ) when they were in charge.
1. How does going swastika make you diet again?
2. Dude, half of the people in that new movie (don't know if the B word is allowed on this forum) smoked, including the nazis.
3. From the greener point of view, this prevents human reporoduction, decreasing the human population, and preventing the resources on Planet Earth from being devoured. Also, you can't control who you are.
4. Ever heard of MLK?
5. Getting rid of special people... It would work, but that would be mean, and again, you can't choose who you are. That's why human rights were created.
6. You're trying to get rid of Romanian-speaking people? What did they ever do to you?
7. That's because they sent not only Jewish people, but they also sent people of other cultures and groups, such as the Protestants and Catholics, to concentration camps. Also, not much crime goes on during a war...
1.Neo-nazism is good because it tries to get rid of obesity. Some are addicted to eating. Have you ever had an addiction of any kind?
Your really defending obesity? When they are eating (an unesseccary amount) even more of our resources and sending a lot more waste to our dumps. Yes you should feel proud for defending that.
It tries to get rid of smoking. Again addiction Also it's a person choice to start. We tried to outlaw smoking at one time it only caused even more problems. So how many freedoms would you like taken away from you?
Your defending smokes when they pollute the air/give plenty of cancer/second hand smokes ect...? I don't think I really need to say anything about why getting rid of the smokes and smoking addiction will help do I?
And I would just like to get rid of the freedoms such as killing myself and others (smoking) and killing myself slower, filling the landfills even more (obesity).
This is just pure stupidity. You seem to be ignoring there are numerous species on this planet that demonstrate homosexual tendencies. So if there is something that made us, which gets into a whole other level of bs but I won't go there right now. It did intend to have homosexuality
Flawed sure other species can mate with it's same sex and produce there kids from it but we can't therefore I don't think were supposed to therehence I think it's not right and will lead to damnation.
Your logic here seems rather flawed. Kill them because other people hate them. I'm sure there are plenty of people who hate Neo-Nazis, does this mean we should deport or kill all Neo-Nazis?
People hate blacks for there color and people hate neo-nazis for there correct idealogy (why you ask is it correct? It's already explained). I think theres a diffrence between the hates that'll make it proper for neo-nazis to survive.
I wonder how you would feel if you ended up on the receiving end of this one. I'm guessing you would say you would hope to die or would kill yourself if you ended up disabled, but some how I doubt this is what you would really do.
I hope I could do the decent thing (suicide)but I'll never know till it happens.
Your link seems to be deleted. See my reply to #4.
So your defending pigs that don't have to do what others do. And on top of that they do everything in the link and you still defend them?
And what we fear we destroy.
Yes I can see you've destroyed all the current dictatorships and communists (sarcasm).
All of that is stupid and denies all basic rules of freedom. Should we enforce strict rules on everything just to "get rid of smoking"?
did not take 2 tonnes to kill one person. Either do your reseach or pipe down. One paint can sized container full of pellets would be enough to fill a gas chamber. Why do nations not use it as a method of execution. Perhaps because they do not want to be associated with Nazism. Perhaps because they value humanity before German efficiency?
1. If you argue make sure your right because it did take two tonnes to kill one person. Sorry I may be acting a little slow but what does one paint canned size of pellets have to do with anything? And if the the gas was so dangerous then why did we use it? And as I said the Nazis never actually gassed them.
Because Hitler was in charge, and he was a madman. In fact, his devotion of resources to concentration camps ultimately lost him the war, when you consider that the majority of scientists who invewnted the nuclear bomb were Jews who fled from Germany due to the Nazis. Not only this, but because from official Nazi records, it can be deduced that Hitler took the ideology more seriously than he did any pragmatic factor. In 1945, he still insited upon Jewish prisoners being relocated and gassed. The documentation is there.
Yea a madman that never personaly lost a single battle (only when he let his generals command in battle did he lose). Yep I see your logic and on top of that no matter what you or anyone else says I won't believe that just because of *records* (propaganda built records) that says his generals thought he was to devoted to the concentration camps he wasted the immense ingredients to gas the people/fuel the Jews/shoot the Jews.
The vast majority of Jews who were shot were kjilled in the Soviet Union. This was before the major gassing operations got under way in Eastern Europe. Sadly, the only thing that stopped most Jews from being gassed eariler was the lack of the idea, not the lack of the means. In addition, the war gave Hitler a perfect cover up for the Holocaust. The negative reaction he recieved due to the T4 programme showed him the German and Western Allies would not stand for it, and thus he did it in secret. Waiting til after the war makes no sense, simply because he had a perfect opportunity to reach his aims during the war, and because there was no gaurantee he would have won the war.
According to records there was still some shooting of Jews after the gas/incarnation chambers were built. And what gassing operations you mean the propaganda? How does the war give a perfect cover up? You mean for the Jews/gays/jypsies ect... That escaped to make up resistances or stories that'll only harden the hatred and resistence to the righteous nazis?
And before anyone asks the Jews died because of the bombings of the camps/disease. The disease could've been avoided if the allies didn't bomb the trucks/convoys ect... that were bringing the already short foods/medication ect...
2. Dude, half of the people in that new movie (don't know if the B word is allowed on this forum) smoked, including the nazis
A. There not true nazis. B. I never said I agreed with that
3. From the greener point of view, this prevents human reporoduction, decreasing the human population, and preventing the resources on Planet Earth from being devoured. Also, you can't control who you are.
What does that have to do with gays? And I know you can't control being what you are doesn't make it right though therefore they shouldn't be here unfortunately
4. Ever heard of MLK?
Milk has to do with blacks?
5. Getting rid of special people... It would work, but that would be mean, and again, you can't choose who you are. That's why human rights were created.
Sadly it's for the greater good deceasing them
6. You're trying to get rid of Romanian-speaking people? What did they ever do to you?
Were they a nazis enemy?
That's because they sent not only Jewish people, but they also sent people of other cultures and groups, such as the Protestants and Catholics, to concentration camps. Also, not much crime goes on during a war...
If they got rid of other groups it must've meant they were resisting/critiszing the nazis therfore demoralizing the war effort therefore they deserved to be gotten rid of. Even before the war the crime was relatively low during Hitlers reign.
Whoa. Where does it end. You actually believe this stuff?
Should we get rid of anorexics too? That is also an eating disorder.
Where does special people criteria end. Einstien was special. Anyone whose brain works on that level has got to be special. Oh yeah you just killed Stephen Hawkings. Also, are we gonna remove those whose injuries have crippled them. A woman in a car accident is paralyzed...bye bye sweety. She can't possibly be productive again.
Next up on the agenda. Removing blacks, gays, jews, and anyone else I forgot that the Neo-Nazi movement doesn't like this week. Lets assume you accomplish this horrendous goal. Who do you train your hatred on next? The green eyed? How about anyone with freckles? Maybe those that wear glasses? Wait no they are already dead because that could be considered a special need.
And where are you getting your info on the holocaust from?! Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Ask soldiers from any nation that walked up to the abandoned concentration camps. It happened. Deal with the fact that a crazy bastard convinced peoples of Germany that it was for the betterment of their Nation. It was pure national insanity. He did a whole lot right in the beginning and so people thought that he could do no wrong and so he proved the peoples blind trust WRONG!!!
And to address your idea that he won until he let his generals take charge, wow dude. Read a history book. The allies really only had a chance thanks to his incompetence. He had some of the best generals and admirals in history and his meddling cost them battles. Thank god by the way.
