James Bacque: "1 million POW's murdered by the US"

[Luca]

Xanthro -- You asked, after being warned that personal insults were not permitted here: "And the personal insult in question would be?"

The personal insults were contained in the statement directed at Galicia:

"Your accusation is idiotic and infantile."

Idiotic and infantile are attributes of a person defective in intelligence and behavior. Your statement was calculated to insult and to offend. You've been warned about offensive remarks before. I will not quibble with you about the forum rules. Be civil or be gone.

Precious Moderator,
I ve problems for my motherlanguage so is sure funny that im permit a respecte comment concern Your analysis in english language.
Appare at my poor eyes that "idiotic and infantile" is no refered to the writer but to the teoria that he write, that maybe is no he personal elaboration. In concrete the suject no is the writer, but what he write, the accusation.

For explane better i want quote a reply of Caldric to Ebusitanus in the first page of this topic:
"""
Ebusitanus ha scritto:
I did not say at any point anything about a million as I recall. But even when playing with "lowly figures" like thousands or tens of thousands that pale in the light of other millionaire figures I would like to point that tens of thousands are no joke either. 5000 is though a joke, a bad joke IMHO. And I know they starved to death, thanks for that.


Well I am not arguing it all over again. 1 million is worse then a joke it is stupid and ignorant for anyone to suggest such a number."""

In this case,maybe, the "supid and ignorant" is refered to all peoples,no teorie, that suggest such as number.
So in this case what is stupid and ignorante no is who have elaborate this teoria (and maybe the writer think no is right but write this for public agree or no agree comments, that, i think, increase the public cultura),
but stupid and ignorante is is anyone to suggest this.



So in the Xantro message You can think that """Your statement was calculated to insult and to offend.""" but is Your opinion, maybe in the second case is no questionable, or not?

Sorry for my famous english.
With respect.
Luca

[Luca]

I did not say at any point anything about a million as I recall. But even when playing with "lowly figures" like thousands or tens of thousands that pale in the light of other millionaire figures I would like to point that tens of thousands are no joke either. 5000 is though a joke, a bad joke IMHO. And I know they starved to death, thanks for that.

Well I am not arguing it all over again. 1 million is worse then a joke it is stupid and ignorant for anyone to suggest such a number.

Dear Caldric,
this is ONLY the comment Number 8 of this topic.
Only now i note that who have open the topic is You.
Sincerly appare a little bit strange.
If You have so strong acknowledge concern the topic that You can't read any different version of the facts, why have open the debate?
If You want write a public manifesto that show Your opinions without debate write the first message and ask to the Moderator for close the topic
.So Your golds truths will stay immacolate for the future generations of Members.
Best Regards.
Luca

[Xanthro]

Xanthro -- You asked, after being warned that personal insults were not permitted here: "And the personal insult in question would be?"

The personal insults were contained in the statement directed at Galicia:

"Your accusation is idiotic and infantile."

Idiotic and infantile are attributes of a person defective in intelligence and behavior. Your statement was calculated to insult and to offend. You've been warned about offensive remarks before. I will not quibble with you about the forum rules. Be civil or be gone.

A personal insult would have to be directed toward a person.

I don't think Galicia is idiotic and infantile, and I didn't even imply that she or he is. I said the particular argument in question is infantile and idiotic.

The statement wasn't calculated to insult or offend either, it was calculated to belittle the argument because said argument itself was calculated to be offensive and insulting and was wholly unsupported by facts.

Just exactly what do you think the a statement of "US and Britian carelessly allowed 50,000 POWs to die, maybe more" is supposed to do?

90% of what is posted on this particular forum is offensive. You have the outright Holocaust deniers, you have the people who post it's rational for Jews to be murdered people, they Holocaust minimizers, the equilivency arguments.

Odd how Michael Mills posts death to Jews, and that's not offensive, but I make a comment about are statement, not even a person, and that's the height of uncivility.

Xanthro

[Xanthro]

Jewish eat in war time?
Luca

Just what is that supposed to mean?

You trying to say Jews were well feed?

Xanthro

Dear Xanthro,
No, i no want say that Jews prisoners were well feed.
Was simple question for Caldric that write : "Most of those that died was due to shortage of food."
In concrete i want know if exist some difference between a prisoner dead in captivity cause incredible bad life situations of captivity and a prisoner dead for bullet in the nek.
Appare that definition of "Murder" for Caldric cant be used for the first typ of dead prisoner and, sincerly, i no agree.
Best Regards
Luca

I think you have missed an important point Caldric was making .

Caldric isn't saying that being killed by a bullet or starvation is different, in fact, he's posted many times that the means of deaths aren't important.

What you may have missed is Caldric is arguing that intent is important.

Some German POWs in American custody died because of restricted rations, that wouldn't have otherwised done. Plus, the rations were restricted in technical violation of the Geneva convention which requires prisoners to be feed the same as the captive nations soldiers.

Unfortunately, there wasn't nearly enough food to do this, and it would have led to the horrible infliction of more cilivians deaths.

Should German POWs been feed at a much higher level than German civilians?

One can debate whether sticking to the absolute letter of the Geneva convention and saying a few hundred POWs is better than saving a few hundred thousand civilians. Personally, I say save the civilians, but I can see an argument that says the POW were under your care, they have no possiblity to get food elsewhere and it is more important to never allow rationalizing the change in prisoner treatment, less it be done in future wars for evil intent.

The US and Britian didn't want any POWs to starve to death, it wasn't calculated in order to create the most economic production.

Jews starvation deaths were calculated for evil intent. The amount of food given was calculated to produce the greatest possible economic return for the least amount of food. The Jews in question were deliberatly starved to death.

That is very different that what happened with German POWs after the war.

Xanthro

[Luca]

Dear Xantro,
as i have ask before....
How have some sources concern the trials concern this topic?
I have read some about this much Years ago and probable the pages are again in my home but i don't know where.
Some here is very sure of he affermations but the trials of the time , where much was sentenced as coupable no confirm that.
I know that these trials no was much reclamized but "experts" as You sure well know this.
If i remeber well i have also some pics of the trials.
Best Regards
Luca

[Xanthro]

I did not say at any point anything about a million as I recall. But even when playing with "lowly figures" like thousands or tens of thousands that pale in the light of other millionaire figures I would like to point that tens of thousands are no joke either. 5000 is though a joke, a bad joke IMHO. And I know they starved to death, thanks for that.

Well I am not arguing it all over again. 1 million is worse then a joke it is stupid and ignorant for anyone to suggest such a number.

Dear Caldric,
this is ONLY the comment Number 8 of this topic.
Only now i note that who have open the topic is You.
Sincerly appare a little bit strange.
If You have so strong acknowledge concern the topic that You can't read any different version of the facts, why have open the debate?
If You want write a public manifesto that show Your opinions without debate write the first message and ask to the Moderator for close the topic
.So Your golds truths will stay immacolate for the future generations of Members.
Best Regards.
Luca

Luca,

Caldric didn't open the topic. He was responding to someone in another thread, and a forum moderator thought it needed to be in a topic of its own. The moderator created this topic and created the heading for the topic.

This has happened many times lately, and personally, I don't like it. It changes the dynamic of the topic and sometimes the headings are something that person wouldn't have chosen.

Caldric wouldn't open a topic (thread) with this heading. Someone casually glancing at the forum could think that Caldric believes that 1 million German POWs were murdered.

The one million figure has been researched conclusively. About 1 million German captives never made it into POW camps. Children, and the very old were sent home immediately. While they were counted in capture reports, they don't appear in Prisoner reports, because they weren't sent to POW camps.

Someone taking capture reports and prisoners reports and comparing them saw a million person difference and came to the conclusion they were killed, though by simply reading other reports, you could see exactly what happened. They are listed on release reports.

Xanthro

[Luca]

Xantro,
if what You write is right why the responsables of the camps was declarated coupables?
Luca

[Xanthro]

Dear Xantro,
as i have ask before....
How have some sources concern the trials concern this topic?
I have read some about this much Years ago and probable the pages are again in my home but i don't know where.
Some here is very sure of he affermations but the trials of the time , where much was sentenced as coupable no confirm that.
I know that these trials no was much reclamized but "experts" as You sure well know this.
If i remeber well i have also some pics of the trials.
Best Regards
Luca

Please tell me what sentence, the Nuremburg ones for instance?

I'm not sure what you mean by coupable. I know it's very hard when translating, I think I know what you mean, but I want to be sure. Do you mean, "To be held responsible?"

Xanthro

[Luca]

Some, or better, much years after the war was open some trials concern the fact in subject, and some of the responsables of the POW camps was sentenced as cupable, guilty.
Tomorrow or today i will try a search in my veryyy ordinate and organizate home, so maybe in the next time i can write some more exact.
I remeber a good part of these facts , but i prefere facts,no bla bla bla.
Luca

[Luca]

I'm not sure what you mean by coupable. I know it's very hard when translating, I think I know what you mean, but I want to be sure. Do you mean, "To be held responsible?"

Xanthro

All the times that i was in prisons was because a black man with an hammer in the hand say that i was cupable, no because he say that i was held responsable.
Luca

[Xanthro]

I'm not sure what you mean by coupable. I know it's very hard when translating, I think I know what you mean, but I want to be sure. Do you mean, "To be held responsible?"

Xanthro

All the times that i was in prisons was because a black man with an hammer in the hand say that i was cupable, no because he say that i was held responsable.
Luca

This sounds very odd and racist in English, I'm sure this isn't what you meant, it's simply translation.

By black man I think you mean judge, they are often in black robes, the hammer is a gavel, and cupable is culpable.

Luca, culpable is the correct word when a court assigns guilt, it was what I thought you were saying. Just as a note, not many Americans are going to know what you mean. The word isn't commonly used, we just say quilty. Culpable as a more specific legal definition behind it.

It's ironic that many foreign speakers often use more technical terms than American English speakers, it's just what you've been taught, or read in newspapers, where words like culpable are used for more frequently than in speech.

Xanthro

[Luca]

Thank You very much for the traslation.
Luca

[Luca]

Xantro,
if what You write is right why the responsables of the POW camps was declarated culpables?
Luca

[Xanthro]

Thank You very much for the traslation.
Luca

Not a problem, you should see some of the many embarrasing things I've accidently said in foreign languages.

Such as in German, saying "I'm really horny" instead of "I'm really hot" and "Is it always this homosexual outside" instead of "Is it always this humid outside"

Xanthro

[Luca]

lol