politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Including 7.8 million soviet civilians and POWs in the count kind of seems like a revisionist definition of what the holocaust was to include anyone killed in the war. To undermine how much focus was on the jews pre-war.
To be fair, the Soviet citizens were targeted because of their ethnicity. Slavics were considered sub human like Jews.
Then you'd have to also look at deaths before the war for every group...
Like, you get that right?
Do you just not know most of the death wasn't till Nazis understood they were likely going to lose the war?
That's not a rhetorical question. To understand how to best explain this it helps if I know this is something you've thought about more than clicking on the Wikipedia link from a social media comment 2 minutes ago.
Where do I need to start explaining stuff here?
According to museumoftolerance.com and their Holocaust Timeline, Hitler said during a Reichstag speech in January 1939:
So before the war even started, when these people were already surviving in the world, eating, etc, the Nazis and Hitler already knew feeding them would be a logistical problem best solved by death?
The Chelmno (Kulmhof) extermination camp began operations on December 8, 1941, literally one day after Pearl Harbor, far before Germany was "losing" the war. And camps don't just pop up overnight, especially ones that earn the denomination of being an extermination camp, so was this just more logistical foresight on behalf of those oh so kind Nazi officials?
From the same source regarding the Kulmhof Extermination Camp opening:
Or the March 17, 1942 Entry:
Wow, the German 6th Armored didn't surrender at Stalingrad until January 1943, and the Allies didn't invade until June 1944, so that's an awful lot of "mercy killing" happening before the Nazis knew they were going to lose the war.
And FYI, just because the Nazis didn't begin their extermination campaign until after the war began, doesn't mean their actions don't signal what their intentions were from the start: Dachau opened in March 1933, Jewish Germans were barred from military service in 1935, Jewish doctors barred from practicing medicine in 1936, immigrant Jews having their German citizenship status revoked, the Nuremberg Laws of 1935, Kristallnacht in 1938... Like, you see all this, right?
Where do I need to start explaining stuff here?
So I said:
And you link about less than a million deaths...
Do you think 1 out of 17 million is a majority?
Then there's a big rant about other stuff you didn't understand...
But I won't get to that, one thing at a time because it's concerning we're going in the wrong way.
6/17 isn't bigger than half, and 1/17 is a lot less than half, you need the top number to get bigger
Removed, civility.
So, nothing but insults?
And accusing the people who don't want to ignore the majority of Holocaust victims the whole ones denying the Holocaust?
I'm not the one ignoring 11 million deaths because they're not Jewish.
Ok, so then what was the plan? If the killing was a mercy, and was expedited by Germany losing the war, what was the plan for the 17 million collective people? Because I provided such a dismally low number of under one million in response to your comment saying the only reason the Nazis started killing more quickly was because they were losing. And those one million (more, since I'm sure my source didn't count all deaths, only those who were Jewish) mattered to people, so they mean no less than the other 16 million killed later during the war.
I'm waiting, I've provided sources regardless of whether you respect them, you've provided nothing to back up any of your claims, so why don't you refute my apparently unfounded claims of you being a holocaust denier?
Is that civil enough for a discussion with a holocaust denier, moderators? I'm glad we have to respect the opinions of holocaust deniers, god bless tolerating the intolerant. 🙄
Too chicken to answer my questions? Or did you finally realize you're wrong?