Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 sebster wrote:
A bunch of stuff.

Sebster, you might want to read the book we were discussing before commenting on it. It'll make you look a lot less ignorant. LordofHats finally started actually reading what I was arguing and, lo and behold, we agreed on Galletely's conclusions. Which, by the way, are my conclusions as well.

Don't get me wrong, I love taking advice on everything under the sun from some insurance manager or whatever who passes off Google searches as both personal experience and years of in-depth study, but watching you rage is becoming less and less entertaining. I may have to start doing what the others do and just let the crazy go unanswered for a while.

Considering the following facts:

1. The population of Germany was about 62,000,000 in 1945
2. The Red Army was about 11.2 million troops total in 1945.

If 15,000,000 women were raped we are expected to believe that 1/2 of German women were raped by more than the entire Red Army.

Or perhaps only 1/10 of the troops joined in but they were very active. Given that half the German population was in the western zone, all of the German women in the east must have got raped.

It needs only a cursory examination to see this is nonsense.

Not to belittle the real suffering of German women who did get raped.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Considering the following facts:

1. The population of Germany was about 62,000,000 in 1945
2. The Red Army was about 11.2 million troops total in 1945.

If 15,000,000 women were raped we are expected to believe that 1/2 of German women were raped by more than the entire Red Army.

Or perhaps only 1/10 of the troops joined in but they were very active. Given that half the German population was in the western zone, all of the German women in the east must have got raped.

It needs only a cursory examination to see this is nonsense.

Not to belittle the real suffering of German women who did get raped.

Maybe what was meant was that German women were raped 15 million times, as gang rape is a fairly common thing in such circumstances. That seems pretty reasonably given the numbers of the groups involved.

 Seaward wrote:

 sebster wrote:
A bunch of stuff.

Sebster, you might want to read the book we were discussing before commenting on it. It'll make you look a lot less ignorant. LordofHats finally started actually reading what I was arguing and, lo and behold, we agreed on Galletely's conclusions. Which, by the way, are my conclusions as well.

I read it. And I read your conversation with LordofHats. And I just do not agree that there is a line between setting up camps to systematically physically work people of a minority group to death, and systematically killing them. Nor do I agree that the mass executions were unknown, given the amount of bureaucracy involved in the processing, and in the amount of on the spot killing that had already taken place.

In fact, I find the argument quite contrived.

Don't get me wrong, I love taking advice on everything under the sun from some insurance manager or whatever who passes off Google searches as both personal experience and years of in-depth study, but watching you rage is becoming less and less entertaining. I may have to start doing what the others do and just let the crazy go unanswered for a while.

Ah, the Fraz strategy of ignoring it when people explain stuff to you, so you can keep on posting whatever it is you like to believe. Well, I guess if your interest here is feeling self-satisfied in your opinions then that's the way to do it.

And I dearly, dearly love that you wandered in to this thread with a single statement that was so vague as to be almost meaningless, and then proceeded to just niggle and argue your way from there... without ever actually providing any information on the issue off your own bat. It's almost as if... you've never read a goddamn thing about this, came in blind and made your claim, and are now doing whatever you can to avoid that becoming obvious.

There's nothing wrong with not knowing a lot about a subject and making a claim in error. But there's a whole lot wrong with dragging a thread out as you desperately try to avoid admitting you didn't know something. And given this is at least the third time you've wasted your time and mine to protect your ego, it's getting kind of sad.

 sebster wrote:
I read it. And I read your conversation with LordofHats. And I just do not agree that there is a line between setting up camps to systematically physically work people of a minority group to death, and systematically killing them. Nor do I agree that the mass executions were unknown, given the amount of bureaucracy involved in the processing, and in the amount of on the spot killing that had already taken place.

Then you have read the thread with your customary lack of attention to detail, and also managed to find yourself standing opposed to the balance of facts and the conclusions drawn on the subject by most of the people who have written about it for a living.

 Seaward wrote:

 sebster wrote:
I read it. And I read your conversation with LordofHats. And I just do not agree that there is a line between setting up camps to systematically physically work people of a minority group to death, and systematically killing them. Nor do I agree that the mass executions were unknown, given the amount of bureaucracy involved in the processing, and in the amount of on the spot killing that had already taken place.

Then you have read the thread with your customary lack of attention to detail, and also managed to find yourself standing opposed to the balance of facts and the conclusions drawn on the subject by most of the people who have written about it for a living.

Oh look, another post from Seaward that provides no facts or references. Don't worry though, your snide little comments have tricked everyone into thinking you've read something about the issue.

@Sebster: I'm pretty sure you've provided neither either.

 nomsheep wrote:
@Sebster: I'm pretty sure you've provided neither either.

You're wrong there.

In my OP in this thread I provided a quote from Felix Romer, who studied the transcripts of captured German soldiers held in the US
"An especially interesting aspect is the perspective of Wehrmacht soldiers on the Holocaust. There it is confirmed that the majority of soldiers knew very well and had heard rumors - in principle, everyone could have known about it who wanted to know."

I pointed out the number of people who had to be aware of the transport of people to the extermination camps. I pointed out the number of people who were given homes and property of Jewish citizens. And I pointed out the scale of the killing on the Eastern front, before the extermination camps were even being considered.

I provided that and other points of evidence because I've actually read about this.


And that's just in my first post to start this thread. Compare that Seaward who's given us nothing. Just a vague first statement, and then a lot of pissy nonsense without a single piece of evidence brought to the thread. He does this because he's never actually read about the issue.

This is such a stupid thread.

It doesn't seem to be going anywhere useful anymore. Locking.