For Tarpon and Kaschner CONTINUED

[Scott Smith]

From this thread at the old board:

http://pub3.ezboard.com/fskalmanforumfr ... =306.topic

Hi guys,

I don't want to beat this horse but would like to make a couple of additional points.

I'm not disputing that it is a crime to murder Allied nationals under the terms of the Hague convention, to which Germany was signatory. But Germany after the war was a rump occupied puppet-state and the court in jurisdiction was composed exclusively of the victorious Allies, not neutrals.

Furthermore, sovereign states can make or break treaties at will. (Of course, not keeping agreements undermines a State's diplomatic credibility.) In any case, a strong argument can be made that Nuremberg did not have legitimate jurisdiction. And murder was illegal, even in Nazi Germany. We would need to establish the precise authorization for the murders, however, to determine that responsibility.

But to say that the defendants who sold chemicals to the Nazis are guilty of the murders begs torturous reasoning, IMHO.
:roll:

[Roberto]

But Germany after the war was a rump occupied puppet-state and the court in jurisdiction was composed exclusively of the victorious Allies, not neutrals.

Actually the victorious Allies were the only state authority in Germany after the Nazi state had vanished. It was they who took care of all affairs incumbent upon state authority in their zones of occupation, including the judiciary.

Furthermore, sovereign states can make or break treaties at will. (Of course, not keeping agreements undermines a State's diplomatic credibility.)

Pacta sunt servanda, as the ancient Romans said. That applies to conventions entered into by individual and collective persons. Those who break legitimate conventions not only lose their credibility, but are also subject to a number of more or less harsh sanctions. Bilateral or multilateral conventions among sovereign states are the constituent elements of international law, which means that the state which breaks them becomes an outlaw that will be subject to severe sanctions and that no self-respecting other state will negotiate with. The key international conventions broken by the Nazi government are listed in the IMT's judgment at Nuremberg. See the transcriptions under the following links:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/judviol.htm

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/judlawre.htm

In any case, a strong argument can be made that Nuremberg did not have legitimate jurisdiction.

A rather weak argument, given that the Allies were the only state authority in Germany at the time. Who if not they had jurisdiction over Nazi criminals? There was no German state prior to the constitution of the FRG and the GDR.

But to say that the defendants who sold chemicals to the Nazis are guilty of the murders begs torturous reasoning, IMHO.

A problematic issue indeed, addressed in my post # 1828 (3/12/02 11:00:24 am) on the thread

For Tarpon and Kaschner
http://pub3.ezboard.com/fskalmanforumfr ... =306.topic

and in Tarpon’s response thereto.

[Scott Smith]

++But Germany after the war was a rump occupied puppet-state and the court in jurisdiction was composed exclusively of the victorious Allies, not neutrals.++

<<Actually the victorious Allies were the only state authority in Germany after the Nazi state had vanished. It was they who took care of all affairs incumbent upon state authority in their zones of occupation, including the judiciary.>>

Nonsense. The Dönitz government was legitimate but it was placed into prison by the victorious Allies by force-of-arms and with their successful propaganda machine. Nuremberg lays the foundation for the Bundestablishment today.

++Furthermore, sovereign states can make or break treaties at will. (Of course, not keeping agreements undermines a State's diplomatic credibility.) ++

<<Those who break legitimate conventions not only lose their credibility, but are also subject to a number of more or less harsh sanctions. Bilateral or multilateral conventions among sovereign states are the constituent elements of international law, which means that the state which breaks them becomes an outlaw that will be subject to severe sanctions and that no self-respecting other state will negotiate with.>>

Nonsense again. Sovereign States make and break agreements all the time. This is a continuing process that definitely does require a long history of trust and goodwill, but also a lot of credibility-by-force. Empires that rely upon the latter only have an appearance of majesty concealing a hollow center because their agreements are not reciprocally advantageous to others and their word is fickle.

I've just described Perfidious Albion. Germany did not have centuries to build her empire. Germany was no more atavistic. And Albion was no more altruistic.

The key international conventions broken by the Nazi government are listed in the IMT's judgment at Nuremberg.

It was a major propaganda coup for the Allies to cease all negotiations with their call for Unconditional Surrender and simultaneously present the entire conflict as stemming from "unreasonable" German war aims and irrational conquest/genocide/slavery. A coup de theatre which goes on today for Democracy-Capitalist apolgia, even though that Famous Victory is dead news.

++In any case, a strong argument can be made that Nuremberg did not have legitimate jurisdiction.++

<<A rather weak argument, given that the Allies were the only state authority in Germany at the time. Who if not they had jurisdiction over Nazi criminals? >>

The Germans didn't break any "laws." There was no higher jurisdiction--unless God is a higher jurisdiction, but the Allies certainly had no higher-handle upon that concept. The Allies also broke agreements, which was their prerogative, and they hardly kept the spirit of those international agreements as well. Churchill's motive for heating-up the bombing of Germany, for example, was to prevent any possibility of peace negotiations that would remove his war-party from power.

That the Allies "did not want war" to contain Germany is the biggest propaganda coup of the past century, more important even than the concentration camp and gaschamber propaganda. The Myth of Munich went on to Vietnam and influences foreign relations today in every imperialist adventure and abstract crusade. Wall Street, enrichez vous!

There was no German state prior to the constitution of the FRG and the GDR.

A rather circular argument since Allied force declared the German government itself criminal and held show-trials to prove it. Warcrimes committed by Axis soldiers, as defined by existing international agreements, were not ajudicated by neutrals but by the victorious Allies themselves, who were above the so-called "international law."

[Roberto]

<<Nonsense.>>

Unlike Smith, I don’t usually write nonsense, as Smith should know.

<<The Dönitz government was legitimate but it was placed into prison by the victorious Allies by force-of-arms and with their successful propaganda machine.>>

Exactly. The victorious Allies, by force of arms, put an end to a criminal regime and their own administration in place of it.

<<Nuremberg lays the foundation for the Bundestablishment today.>>

In the minds of poor little True Believers like Smith, perhaps. How about the currency reform in 1948, the creation of the German Federal Republic and the economic miracle of the 1950’s instead?

<<Nonsense again.>>

For someone who has got nothing but True Believer sermons to offer, the Reverend is pretty arrogant. He should be grateful for my response to his post, which otherwise would probably have rotten in solitude.

<<Sovereign States make and break agreements all the time.>>

Any examples, Mr. Smith? Those who break agreements all the time better don’t lose a war, otherwise their representatives will end up like criminals who got caught.

<<This is a continuing process that definitely does require a long history of trust and goodwill, but also a lot of credibility-by-force. Empires that rely upon the latter only have an appearance of majesty concealing a hollow center because their agreements are not reciprocally advantageous to others and their word is fickle.>>

What’s the poet trying to tell us? Good old-fashioned empire building is no longer in these days. It usually results in wars of aggression and crimes against humanity.

<<I've just described Perfidious Albion. Germany did not have centuries to build her empire.>>

That’s right, they took centuries to become one country in the first place. Tough luck.

<<Germany was no more atavistic. And Albion was no more altruistic.>>

The Kaiser’s Germany was certainly no better and no worse than the British Empire. But Smith’s beloved Nazis were a breed apart.

<<It was a major propaganda coup for the Allies to cease all negotiations with their call for Unconditional Surrender and simultaneously present the entire conflict as stemming from "unreasonable" German war aims and irrational conquest/genocide/slavery.>>

It took no Allied propaganda to make things look that way. That’s how things all too obviously happened. The attacks on Poland and the Soviet Union were the inevitable consequence of the colonial projects that good old Adolf has already set down in Mein Kampf.

<<The Germans didn't break any "laws.">>

Except for the Hague Convention, the Geneva Convention, the Kellog-Briand pact …

<<There was no higher jurisdiction--unless God is a higher jurisdiction, but the Allies certainly had no higher-handle upon that concept.>>

Not God. The idea of unalienable human rights, which has in the meantime been codified in UN conventions but was already present in the Hague and Geneva Conventions.

<<The Allies also broke agreements, which was their prerogative, and they hardly kept the spirit of those international agreements as well.>>

Any examples? The above assertion, if accurate, may make the moral authority of the Allies to judge the breach of international conventions questionable. It doesn’t change the fact of such breaches by the Nazis, nor does it make them less condemnable.

<<Churchill's motive for heating-up the bombing of Germany, for example, was to prevent any possibility of peace negotiations that would remove his war-party from power.>>

Why, and I thought he had fallen for Harris’ proposal to bomb Germany into surrender. Any backup to his assertion that Smith can provide?

<<That the Allies "did not want war" to contain Germany is the biggest propaganda coup of the past century, more important even than the concentration camp and gaschamber propaganda.>>

As the concentration camps and gas chambers were everything other than propaganda, my hint is that what Smith calls <<the biggest propaganda coup of the past century>> may not have been all that propagandistic either. The sell-out of Czechoslovakia in the name of “Peace in our time” in 1938 suggests that I’m not so far off.

<<The Myth of Munich went on to Vietnam and influences foreign relations today in every imperialist adventure and abstract crusade. Wall Street, enrichez vous!>>

What Smith considers myths are usually proven facts, which makes me suspect that the “Myth of Munich” might be another such case.

<<A rather circular argument since Allied force declared the German government itself criminal and held show-trials to prove it.>>

The Nazi government was criminal, whether Smith likes it or not. The Allies replaced it as state authority and gave its representatives a remarkably fair trial, as demonstrated on the old forum, however often Smith mumbles his unsubstantiated “show trials” nonsense.

<<Warcrimes committed by Axis soldiers, as defined by existing international agreements, were not ajudicated by neutrals but by the victorious Allies themselves, who were above the so-called "international law.">>

They were not above the law, they were enforcing the law as the state authority in charge which had tracked down the criminals and brought them to trial, in the absence of a non-Nazi German state authority that did not yet exist. If they had handed over the trial procedures to neutrals, that would have prevented a lot of True Believer whining, for sure. But I don’t see neutrals putting anything other than a noose around the necks of Göring, Keitel, Frank, Kaltenbrunner and other mass-murderers who had done everything to deserve it.

[Scott Smith]

Any examples, Mr. Smith? Those who break agreements all the time better don’t lose a war, otherwise their representatives will end up like criminals who got caught.

Unconditional Surrender abrogates all agreements and all diplomacy.

That Churchill was the force behind bombing Germany in 1940 to provoke a retaliatory response that would end all diplomacy and peace initiatives was established long ago. The question now is one of teleology. Churchill was an admittedly immoral man but he was Right in using his "Bodyguard of Lies" to oppose Hitler, who was Evil. It's a saga fit for Sunday School.

It begs the question, however, that if Democracy must be preserved by lying to the people, then what is it that Democracy is supposed to stand for? Plutocracy, perhaps? It certainly doesn't reflect democratic principles, except perhaps in the minds of totalitarian-liberals. Thus, "he who has the gold rules," and "what is good for Wall Street is good for the world!" Those are the "democratic ideals" that endure.

Raise high the flag!

[Roberto]

++Any examples, Mr. Smith? Those who break agreements all the time better don’t lose a war, otherwise their representatives will end up like criminals who got caught.++

<<Unconditional Surrender abrogates all agreements and all diplomacy.>>

The demand of Unconditional Surrender was the consequence of the Nazis’ previous breach of all agreements and conventions they were bound to. Through this and their atrocities they had become outlaws that no self-respecting government would negotiate with. They had broken down all bridges behind them, as Goebbels at least seems to have recognized.

<<That Churchill was the force behind bombing Germany in 1940 to provoke a retaliatory response that would end all diplomacy and peace initiatives was established long ago. The question now is one of teleology. Churchill was an admittedly immoral man but he was Right in using his "Bodyguard of Lies" to oppose Hitler, who was Evil. It's a saga fit for Sunday School.>>

Interesting theory, but where, once again, is the evidence to back it up? Smith should know by now that I consider what he thinks to be strictly for the birds and that I won’t accept any of his statements without a reference to a reliable source.

<<It begs the question, however, that if Democracy must be preserved by lying to the people, then what is it that Democracy is supposed to stand for? Plutocracy, perhaps? It certainly doesn't reflect democratic principles, except perhaps in the minds of totalitarian-liberals. Thus, "he who has the gold rules," and "what is good for Wall Street is good for the world!" Those are the "democratic ideals" that endure.>>

Democracy is far from perfect. But I definitely prefer it to the alternatives that Smith et al cherish.

[Scott Smith]

Medorjurgen wrote:

++Unconditional Surrender abrogates all agreements and all diplomacy.++

<<The demand of Unconditional Surrender was the consequence of the Nazis’ previous breach of all agreements and conventions they were bound to. Through this and their atrocities they had become outlaws that no self-respecting government would negotiate with. They had broken down all bridges behind them, as Goebbels at least seems to have recognized.>>

No, it was because after WWI there was very little occupation of defeated Germany, and the AEF had hardly even been committed yet by the time of the Armistice, which ended the "war to end all wars." Yanks roll up their sleeves and that's that.

Unconditional Surrender fit the American psyche perfectly, that the war was being fough not for land or treasure but for moral abstractions. Since Versailles had NOT contained Germany, occupation was deemed necessary, as well as removing Evil German sovereignty altogether.

It made no difference that the Weimar government had not the support of the people when accepting War Guilt and reparations, as well as partial dismemberment and encirclement. And it made no difference whether the Nazi government had the support of the people or not. "Democratic values" are those defined by international financial interests.

I have already outlined the diplomatic advantages from the Allied stance of Unconditional Surrender.

++That Churchill was the force behind bombing Germany in 1940 to provoke a retaliatory response that would end all diplomacy and peace initiatives was established long ago. The question now is one of teleology. Churchill was an admittedly immoral man but he was Right in using his "Bodyguard of Lies" to oppose Hitler, who was Evil. It's a saga fit for Sunday School.++

<<Interesting theory, but where, once again, is the evidence to back it up? Smith should know by now that I consider what he thinks to be strictly for the birds and that I won’t accept any of his statements without a reference to a reliable source.>>

I didn't invent this from wholecloth. I suggest a little more reading. Perhaps starting withChurchill's War. But wait! That is by Irving, and Lipstadt says that he is a History Denier, whatever that means. There's an article in a periodical I saw about this' recently. If I can remember where it was I'll refer to it. If I had a little more time maybe I could get you some quotes from more "establishment" historians, but in any case this is not my problem. If it isn't on Nizkor it never happened, right?

++It begs the question, however, that if Democracy must be preserved by lying to the people, then what is it that Democracy is supposed to stand for? Plutocracy, perhaps? It certainly doesn't reflect democratic principles, except perhaps in the minds of totalitarian-liberals. Thus, "he who has the gold rules," and "what is good for Wall Street is good for the world!" Those are the "democratic ideals" that endure.++

<<Democracy is far from perfect. But I definitely prefer it to the alternatives that Smith et al cherish.>>

I don't recall proposing any alternatives whatsoever. I've only been asking questions. If you had followed my "What is the be Done?" thread on the History forum, you would know this. I was hoping for more interest in the subject but, oh well, c' est la vie.

http://pub11.ezboard.com/fskalmanmessag ... D=99.topic

Best Regards,
Scott

[Roberto]

++The demand of Unconditional Surrender was the consequence of the Nazis’ previous breach of all agreements and conventions they were bound to. Through this and their atrocities they had become outlaws that no self-respecting government would negotiate with. They had broken down all bridges behind them, as Goebbels at least seems to have recognized.++

<<No, it was because after WWI there was very little occupation of defeated Germany, and the AEF had hardly even been committed yet by the time of the Armistice, which ended the "war to end all wars." Yanks roll up their sleeves and that's that.

Unconditional Surrender fit the American psyche perfectly, that the war was being fough not for land or treasure but for moral abstractions. Since Versailles had NOT contained Germany, occupation was deemed necessary, as well as removing Evil German sovereignty altogether.

It made no difference that the Weimar government had not the support of the people when accepting War Guilt and reparations, as well as partial dismemberment and encirclement. And it made no difference whether the Nazi government had the support of the people or not. "Democratic values" are those defined by international financial interests.

I have already outlined the diplomatic advantages from the Allied stance of Unconditional Surrender.>>

Nice sermon, but I don’t see how it relates to let alone refutes my contention that the demand for Unconditional Surrender – which after all was a demand of all Allied nations, not only the United States – was a consequence of the Nazi policy of no-holds-barred aggression and their policies of exploitation and extermination, as is borne out by the following proclamation from the Casablanca Conference:

In an attempt to ward off the inevitable disaster, the Axis propagandist are trying all of their old tricks in order to divide the United Nations. They seek to create the idea that if we win this war, Russia, England, China, and the United States are going to get into a cat-and-dog fight.

This is their final effort to turn one nation against another, in the vain hope that they may settle with one or two at a time-that any of us may be so gullible and so forgetful as to be duped into making "deals" at the expense of our Allies.

To these panicky attempts to escape the consequences of their crimes we say-all the United Nations say-that the only terms on which we shall deal with an Axis government or any Axis factions are the terms proclaimed at Casablanca: "Unconditional Surrender." In our uncompromising policy we mean no harm to the common people of the Axis nations. But we do mean to impose punishment and retribution in full upon their guilty, barbaric leaders...

Source of quote:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/casablan.htm

--That Churchill was the force behind bombing Germany in 1940 to provoke a retaliatory response that would end all diplomacy and peace initiatives was established long ago. The question now is one of teleology. Churchill was an admittedly immoral man but he was Right in using his "Bodyguard of Lies" to oppose Hitler, who was Evil. It's a saga fit for Sunday School.--

++Interesting theory, but where, once again, is the evidence to back it up? Smith should know by now that I consider what he thinks to be strictly for the birds and that I won’t accept any of his statements without a reference to a reliable source.++

<<I didn't invent this from wholecloth. I suggest a little more reading. Perhaps starting with Churchill's War. But wait! That is by Irving, and Lipstadt says that he is a History Denier, whatever that means.>>

The meaning becomes quite clear from the judgment at the Irving-Lipstadt trial, which can read online under the link

http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.com/ieindex.html

But the issue in this respect is not Irving’s being a Holocaust denier. It is his being an admirer of Hitler and apologist of the National Socialist regime with the unfortunate tendency to distort and misrepresent the evidence so as to match his own personal bias. Anyway, I would like to see what Irving writes in Churchill’s War to back up Smith’s contentions. Quote, please.

<<There's an article in a periodical I saw about this' recently. If I can remember where it was I'll refer to it. If I had a little more time maybe I could get you some quotes from more "establishment" historians, but in any case this is not my problem.>>

I’m one of those old-fashioned fellows who thinks that who makes a contention in a debate must provide backup for that contention if such is requested. Under this perspective, it is Smith’s problem to put some legs under his statements. One quote from Irving, another from a “establishment historian”, so that we may compare.

<< If it isn't on Nizkor it never happened, right?>>

A bit of cheap spam to cover up Smith’s lack of backup for his contentions, right?

++It begs the question, however, that if Democracy must be preserved by lying to the people, then what is it that Democracy is supposed to stand for? Plutocracy, perhaps? It certainly doesn't reflect democratic principles, except perhaps in the minds of totalitarian-liberals. Thus, "he who has the gold rules," and "what is good for Wall Street is good for the world!" Those are the "democratic ideals" that endure.++

<<Democracy is far from perfect. But I definitely prefer it to the alternatives that Smith et al cherish.>>

<<I don't recall proposing any alternatives whatsoever. I've only been asking questions. If you had followed my "What is the be Done?" thread on the History forum, you would know this. I was hoping for more interest in the subject but, oh well, c' est la vie.
http://pub11.ezboard.com/fskalmanmessag ... D=99.topic>>

After having created the impression that he sees National Socialism as an alternative through his fervent apology of that system and simultaneous condemnation of “Democracy-Capitalism”, Smith is now denying his master. I’m told that Islam allows for denying the Faith when it helps the Faith. Maybe so does National Socialism.

[Scott Smith]

Roberto, I made the point myself in an earlier post that one of the purposes of U.S. WAS to eliminate the possibility of a separate peace; this is not mutually exclusive of the fact that another purpose was to eliminate negotiation and diplomacy altogether in order to destroy Germany. And also, so that the Allies could choose what "international laws" they would follow and which ones the enemy would break, like a plate of hors d' oeuvres.

Again, I suggest some more reading. When you're as well-read as Mr. Kaschner then you can disagree with me, which of course does not mean that I will necessarily agree with you.

After having created the impression that he sees National Socialism as an alternative through his fervent apology of that system and simultaneous condemnation of "Democracy-Capitalism," Smith is now denying his master. I'm told that Islam allows for denying the Faith when it helps the Faith. Maybe so does National Socialism.

In your own mind, Roberto. I have said repeatedly that Hitler was not a cardboard cutout of Evil. That for Roberto means that Scott is a National Socialist. Dream on, silly guy. The Führer is dead, long live the Führer!

Gut-laughing out loud.

There is no God but Allah,
And Muhammad was His Prophet

No Muslim would ever Deny that, silly guy.

[Roberto]

<<Roberto, I made the point myself in an earlier post that one of the purposes of U.S. WAS to eliminate the possibility of a separate peace; this is not mutually exclusive of the fact that another purpose was to eliminate negotiation and diplomacy altogether in order to destroy Germany.>>

Again beating around the bush. The purpose was to eliminate negotiation and diplomacy altogether, for sure. But not in order to destroy Germany. In order to destroy the National Socialist regime, which had become an outlaw that no one wanted to negotiate with any longer, that’s more like the real thing.

<<And also, so that the Allies could choose what "international laws" they would follow and which ones the enemy would break, like a plate of hors d' oeuvres.>>

Another of Smith’s hollow tirades. I doubt he can offer any backup for that crap. Tell us, Mr. Smith, had the Nazis broken the Hague Convention, the Geneva Convention, treaties of mutual guarantee, arbitration and non-aggression and the Kellog-Briand Pact before the demand for Unconditional Surrender was made, or had they not? Had they engaged in unprovoked aggression against other countries, or had they not? Had they committed large-scale atrocities against unarmed civilians, or had they not? Whether Unconditional Surrender was the most appropriate approach to such a regime or not – and I don’t see what alternatives there would have been - , that demand did not come out of a vacuum, and it was neither an evil concoction of the evil Allies aimed at destroying poor little Germany.

<<Again, I suggest some more reading. When you're as well-read as Mr. Kaschner then you can disagree with me, which of course does not mean that I will necessarily agree with you.>>

More reading is always fine, but all of Smith’s vaunted reading, to the extent that it went beyond the Journal of Historical Review, seems to have done him no good. He can do nothing better with it than mumbling the same old, often refuted but always repeated propaganda nonsense. If I can take his junk apart with the little reading I have done, imagine what I would do if I were more well-read. Wasn't it Smith's beloved Führer who said something in Mein Kampf about people who have read a lot but learned absolutely nothing? That verdict seems to fit poor Smith like a glove.

As to whether Smith agrees with me or not, that’s the last thing I care about. I’m not here to come to terms with the arrogant preacher. I’m here to demonstrate what a dishonest propagandist and blindly faithful True Believer he is – and in that I dare say I’ve been rather successful.

++After having created the impression that he sees National Socialism as an alternative through his fervent apology of that system and simultaneous condemnation of "Democracy-Capitalism," Smith is now denying his master. I'm told that Islam allows for denying the Faith when it helps the Faith. Maybe so does National Socialism.++

<<In your own mind, Roberto. I have said repeatedly that Hitler was not a cardboard cutout of Evil. That for Roberto means that Scott is a National Socialist. Dream on, silly guy. The Führer is dead, long live the Führer!>>

At least that’s what Smith’s resorting to open insults suggests. The poor guy must be frustrated like hell. The issue, as he well knows, is not his having said that Hitler was not a “cardboard cutout of Evil”. He wasn’t. Neither were Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot or Genghis Khan. The issue is that, as has become apparent to everyone who is not a True Believer and has stuck around this forum long enough, Smith systematically denies or plays down the crimes of the National Socialist regime and apologizes its actions with “what would we have done in their place?” and similar stances at every possible and impossible occasion.

<<Gut-laughing out loud.>>

Unless he’s laughing at himself, I don’t see what there could possibly be for Smith to laugh about.

<<There is no God but Allah,
And Muhammad was His Prophet

No Muslim would ever Deny that, silly guy.>>

Another downright insult. The poor guy must be about to bite into the carpet, like his beloved Führer is rumored to have done when in rage. Tell us, Mr. Smith, you fully underwrite the following illustrative statement, don’t you:

[/I]“Keep the Faith fellow revisionists. The Nazis and the SS were the good guys--but the anti-Nazis and the anti-revisionists dare not admit it for fear of losing their fabulous, ill gotten gains from the war.”[/I]

“Hoaxbuster” Friedrich Paul Berg on the Codoh discussion forum.
http://www.codoh.org/dcforum/DCForumID9/143.html#10

No “there were also good guys among the Nazis and in the SS” – beating around the bush, please. Your mentor is clearly referring to the institutions as such. A “yes” or “no” answer is what I want to see.

And you also see Hitler as “a great statesman who gambled and failed”, don’t you? Or, as a peer of yours so keenly put it, “about the best thing that could have happened to Germany”. Something like this:

http://www.hitler.org/posters/lebedeut.jpg

Am I right? Come on, True Believer, let's have a Glaubensbekenntnis.

[Martin Månsson]

....I believe in the guidelines.....do you ??

Best
Martin

[Roberto]

....I believe in the guidelines.....do you ??

Best
Martin

Martin,

Who is that addressed to, and on purpose of what?

[Anantya]

[Edited, 9/15/02]

[Roberto]

Anantya,

Thanks for the explanation.

My dear opponent and I have gone on like this for most of almost 2,000 posts on the old forum. It's almost what you can call a way of life.

In this particular case, I hope you will appreciate that it was my opponent who started out with direct insults. I have this unfortunate habit of not only responding in kind, but if possible dealing out more than was dealt out to me. That's just the way I am. Stay around a while and you will understand what there is about my opponent that brings about this attitude. A fellow poster on the old forum aptly summed it up as follows:

Brain & David

I felt as you did when I first started posting here a couple of months ago, that is, I thought Roberto did get a bit personal with Scott.

I thought that what Roberto said was so well referenced and researched that it could speak for itself without any personal animosity towards Scott.

However, I must admit that now I do share Roberto's feelings towards Scott. Why? Fundamentally because Scott is intellectually dishonest.

Once you have been here for a while you will notice a pattern to Scott's posts - a topic will be raised, he will vent his usual apologist/revisionist arguments, that will prompt a response from some of the more knowledgable posters correcting his errors, Scott will either acknowledge that his arguments are wrong or contradicted by the evidence (or will just ignore the posts) and the topic will eventually die off.

A few weeks later a similar topic will come up and we are back at square one with Scott, he will raise the same points again and its as if the earlier discussion with him never occurred. He seems to have no capacity to learn or to develop his arguments.

On one view it might be thought that Scott is not particularly bright, that he simply is unable to comprehend why his arguments and "facts" are wrong.

But, if you ever encounter a topic here that does not involve Jews, the Holocaust or Nazi atrocities then you will see that Scott can actually write well reasoned and researched posts and is capable of intelligent debate.

Its just that once a topic comes up that involves his personal biases it seems he is unable to resist the temptation to run the same points again and again, no matter how bad they are, he so desperately wants to believe certain things that he just turns his brain off.

This is starting to ramble, I just think that once you have been here for a while you may understand why Scott is such a source of frustration for quite a few of us.

Source of quote:
Stephen’s post # 47 (5/30/01 3:56:00 am) on the thread

American TV Dramatization of Wannsee Conference
http://pub3.ezboard.com/fskalmanforumfr ... 21&stop=40

I have to leave now. Stay tuned for my opponent telling you what a bad guy I am.

Cheers,

Roberto

[Anantya]

[Edited, 9/15/02]