Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Richnorth who wrote (1718)	9/25/2006 4:49:59 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 10087

As you say there are opinions and opinions. I personally find it hard to respect the opinion of someone who considers Stalin and Mao to be great statesmen. Outside of war they killed more people than even Hitler. (Hitler might have a higher death total, but only if you assign all the deaths caused by WWII in Europe to him). Was the Holocaust over-hyped? Well what do you mean by over-hyped? Received more attention than other massive atrocities? Perhaps but you seem to want to downplay the guilt of the perpetrators of the only similar scale atrocities. Received more attention that it should? Well it has received a lot of attention, but such a horrible thing should receive a lot of attention. Exaggerated death total? Possibly, but not by a massive amount. As for over-hyped beyond measure, that's just ridiculous. It was one of the most horrible of all human actions throughout history. 2. to justify America arming Israel and providing it with aid to the tune of $2B to $5B annually. Massive American aid was not something that Israel had in its early days. It came much later. The Holocaust did not have any great new amount of hype between the creation of Israel, and Israel's receipt of massive American aid. BTW, there was a suggestion that even though the Zionists had had a chance to rescue the imprisoned Jews from the concentration camps by paying the Nazis a ransom for them, the Zionists refused, insisting that Jewish blood had to be spilt to strengthen the case for, and justify the creation of, Israel. There was a suggestion. There are many suggestions. But there is no reason to regard this suggestion as either true, or particularly important. In the unlikely event that the story has any truth behind it, it still doesn't change the basic nature of the Holocaust or shift blame away from the Nazis, or do much of anything else that is important to your argument. And its important to stress how unlikely such a story is. There may indeed have been ransoming or ransom requests for specific groups of Jews by the Nazis, but the Nazis were not looking to push the Jewish people of of the areas they controlled. There program started with 2nd class status and abuse, progressed to slave labor, and then eventually to a campaign of extermination. If they had allowed free movement out of Nazi Germany after the repression of Jews began, many more would have left. A fair number of German Jews were wealthy but they were not allowed to buy their own freedom or anyone else's. There wealth was simply taken, and they were sent to concentration, labor, and or extermination camps. If the Nazis did make any ransom demands, there would have been a good chance that the money would have just been taken, and few if any Jews would have been released. You take an unlikely claim, exaggerate the possible implications of the claim even if it was true, and then turn it in to some massive monolithic secret plan of Zionists, and then use that supposed plan to downplay the relevance of the Holocaust to any later decision. Each step is faulty, when you combine them all you add faulty logic, on top of false claim, on top of questionable assertion.