Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,333
ahh yes, we don't condone torture or human experimentation, unless it's already happened in which case we might as well use its results.
Any history buffs ? Why are Nazi worst in history
- Thread starter 2013
- Start date
ahh yes, we don't condone torture or human experimentation, unless it's already happened in which case we might as well use its results.
It is shocking because it reminds us that we, all of us, are just as capable of doing stuff like this.
If anything is an example of the old "You are what you Hate/Fear" then this is it.
As I said, the big Holocaust myth is that it was perpetrated by a small number of evil dedicated fanatics.
In fact the vast majority of the hundreds of thousands of people involved were just perfectly ordinary people simply doing a job of work.
This is so disturbing that, to this day, we still give the people involved a special name (Nazi) so as try to make them seem somehow different to the rest of us and part of a past never to be revisited.
Actually there is no society that isn't more than 5 years or so from the death camps.
It simply takes the right set of circumstances to make it happen.
Soldato
Auschwitz was a sort after post - much preferred to being sent to the Russian front. good food plenty to drink and easy work......
Last edited:
Soldato
Most appropriate "thread title-->forum name" relationship ever... and a post to match!
Permabanned
I just skimmed through this thread and am sat perplexed by why some forum members ridicule me for saying mankind is tribal..... <LOL>
Of the few geneticists I know, several say Mengele actually moved genetic science on more in a few years with his somewhat unethical experiments, than more measured research could have done in perhaps 100 years. Whether this is true I am unqualified to say, but I was somewhat surprised by that. Can anyone give a measured response as to its veracity?
Of the few geneticists I know, several say Mengele actually moved genetic science on more in a few years with his somewhat unethical experiments, than more measured research could have done in perhaps 100 years. Whether this is true I am unqualified to say, but I was somewhat surprised by that. Can anyone give a measured response as to its veracity?
Soldato
This reminds me of Operation Paperclip
The wages of defeat for inter tribal conflict has always been Rape, Enslavement and Death!
We dont even have to look to the past for this.
It is going on today all over the world. even only a couple of thousand miles away.
Just because we have internet, I-phones and digital watches doesn't make us any different creatures than we have been for the last 10's to 100's of thousands of years.
I never cease to be amazed at the, really quite large, numbers of people who seem surprised that they do not.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,333
My point was simple and straightforward. The typhus epidemic is not common knowledge, while I believe it should be. Why is it omitted from the vast majority of the history books? Mentioning that one or two died from it is not the same as stating the truth that it was indeed an epidemic.
Evidence exists showing the extent at which the typhus swept through the German and Soviet army, as well as the concentration camps. There are pictures of mass graves, confirmed to be for typhus victims. I've even seen these pictures presented as evidence of war crimes, even though they are indeed confirmed to be typhus victim burials.
I notice that some were instantly triggered by my factual postings and accused me of denying the holocaust. I'm doing nothing of the sort, I have no doubt that the Nazi's did commit war crimes and did indeed murder Jews. We'll never know the true numbers of deaths by gassing, shooting, typhus, starvation, which is why this whole subject will always be surrounded with controversy.
I must admit it is refreshing to see the younger generations question history. We now ask for hard evidence, while the older generations seem happy to be accept anything they are told as fact. Sometimes times change for the better
Soldato
It's treated as part of the war crimes because the disease is directly linked to unhygienic conditions people were kept in and lack of medical care. Vaccination against typhus, btw, was available since 1933.
Soldato
Whenever people are crowded together in filth, cold, poverty and hunger. Typhus needs two things - weakened immune system of the initial hosts and lice. Loads of itchy, itchy lice (the disease is transmitted by rubbing infected lice faeces into the wound).
Rephrase, "When" (Which year/years ) was the typhus epidemic in the concentration camps etc that is being discussed here? (I suspect that it was towards the end of the War rather than the beginning, but confirmation would be interesting)
Nobody ever (Well not very many anyway) died of Typhus in a "Death" camp. In Places like Treblinka, people arrived fit and healthy in the morning and were dead and ashes by lunchtime, Just in time for the afternoon shift!
If you research this topic a little, you'll find that the Soviet and German army both suffered terribly from the typhus epidemic. I don't think either nation would have wanted their own armies to suffer from it, if they could have prevented it, do you?
Soldato
Of course they have - Germans noted epidemics and mass deaths among workers in Auschwitz (Oswiecim), Theresienstadt (Terezin) and Bergen-Belsen to name but three. You have to remember that even "high volume" death camps like Auschwitz held tens of thousands (up to 200,000 at some point) "long term" prisoners manning the "work stations", digging graves or moving and burning bodies, building facilities, roads, cutting trees, maintaining the camps etc.
As to "when" the epidemics happened - Auschwitz was 1942, Germans didn't react for months until SS head camp physician died of typhus. Theresienstadt was certainly during last weeks of war.
Germans suffered from typhus outbreak on Eastern Front in 1941. They were cut off, depleted and hit by the heaviest winter for generations. Typhus was actually one of the lesser issues they suffered there. I don't know much about outbreaks among Russian army, but it's not impossible - disposability of the force was the name of the game - disease would be the least of their issues on the front - many units were short in supplies and left to their own devices for weeks - the game and movie scenes where soviet solders are sent to battles with gun supplies drawn among only every second or every third soldier (and that didn't mean the gun had any ammo) are actually true, not during siege of Stalingrad, but while defending front at the start of Operation Barbarossa...
Last edited:
Soldato
Oh absolutely we didn't have largest Empire in history by offering free lollipops.
Soldato
Well there is very strong evidence the Russians used Tularamia against the German soldiers in 1942;
what is unknown is why , when the soviet`s closed in , they did not unleash the Tabun stock piles they had
what is unknown is why , when the soviet`s closed in , they did not unleash the Tabun stock piles they had
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,333
probably because they were too busy breaking the hague convention using exploding bullets in their sniper rifles.
interestingly, german exploding sniper ammo at the time was very explicitly marked on the box that it was only to be used on the eastern front.
so they kept some of their civility fighting on the west but the gloves were off when it came to killing russians. no wonder stalin was so mad.
Associate
Aye fair enough but I wanna know the K to D ratio !