Internment VS Concentration Camps

The Druids Grove combined Off Topic Forum. Politics, science, random oddities - discuss them all here. - Low Moderation
AbyssalMage
Posts: 156
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 12:06 am

Re: Internment VS Concentration Camps

Post by AbyssalMage » Sun Sep 25, 2011 10:22 pm

Tudamorf wrote:
erianaiel wrote:My .. you managed to read the exact opposite of what I actually said.
No, I just pointed out the flaw in your logic.

If people have to be killed for it to be a concentration camp, then by your definition all those German camps were at, the beginning, not concentration camps.

And the fact that people are killed in camp A doesn't turn camp B from a "concentration camp" into something better.
German concentration camps were created for the sole purpose of killing anyone not of the "master race." They were borne out of the necessity of finding a more streamlined method of killing everyone "not of the master race." Before German concentration camps, Germans simply shot you in the head next to a plowed out hole. The problem with that was two fold, it took up supplies (bullets) that could be used in fighting a war AND it was psychologically damaging to the soldiers preforming the mass murders.

Although I would have to agree with Tudamorf in a technical aspect. The definition and meaning has definitely changed for most people sense the 1940's and WWII which would force me to also disagree with him.

AbyssalMage
Posts: 156
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 12:06 am

Re: Internment VS Concentration Camps

Post by AbyssalMage » Sun Sep 25, 2011 10:35 pm

Tudamorf wrote: Just look at what happened at Abu Ghraib, and that's in modern times when concentration camps have fallen out of favor with the public.
Abu Ghraib was a detention center for suspected and confirmed terrorists. You didn't make it into Abu Ghraid (and remain there long at least) if you were simply Muslim.

Compare that to....

German WWII concentration camps were for the extermination of Jews, Gypsies, and Homosexuals and you didn't leave unless you were in a "body bag."

Trying to relate the two is pretty dumb. I guess your trying to compare torture to extermination and that is fine by me. Both are very horrendous!

User avatar
Tudamorf
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:45 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: Internment VS Concentration Camps

Post by Tudamorf » Mon Sep 26, 2011 12:01 am

AbyssalMage wrote:German concentration camps were created for the sole purpose of killing anyone not of the "master race." They were borne out of the necessity of finding a more streamlined method of killing everyone "not of the master race."
Wrong.

They were originally "internment" camps where they sent people mostly for political reasons, and they operated that way for many years. (Sound familiar?)

It was only well into World War II that the function changed into an attempted genocide.

So are you saying they weren't concentration camps for nearly a decade? And you're saying this just to justify the fact that Americans in the early 1940s did the exact same thing that the Germans did in the early 1930s?

I know Germany lost (and doesn't get to write the history) and America won (and does), but facts are facts.

User avatar
Tudamorf
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:45 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: Internment VS Concentration Camps

Post by Tudamorf » Mon Sep 26, 2011 12:05 am

AbyssalMage wrote:Abu Ghraib was a detention center for suspected and confirmed terrorists. You didn't make it into Abu Ghraid (and remain there long at least) if you were simply Muslim.
You hope.

AbyssalMage
Posts: 156
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 12:06 am

Re: Internment VS Concentration Camps

Post by AbyssalMage » Tue Sep 27, 2011 4:20 am

Tudamorf wrote:
AbyssalMage wrote:German concentration camps were created for the sole purpose of killing anyone not of the "master race." They were borne out of the necessity of finding a more streamlined method of killing everyone "not of the master race."
Wrong.

They were originally "internment" camps where they sent people mostly for political reasons, and they operated that way for many years. (Sound familiar?)
The internment camps for political prisoners looked much different (buildings and structures, and the activities that happened inside the gates. Many political prisoners "left" Germany and went to other European countries after promising to make some outlandish public statement to the German people. i.e. German propaganda) than the concentration camps (building and structures) from what is published in history books. And yes I know they shot political prisoners during this time also, but from what I read (and I am willing to say what I read may not be accurate) the main purpose was to suppress political opposition through coercion/deportation well into the late 30's when the tactic was totally scrapped in favor of political elimination(i.e. a bullet to the head of you and everyone in your family or simply sent everyone to the gas chamber to accomplish the same "end"). By the late 1930's Hitler and the Nazi party gave up all pretenses within its borders of political neutrality. If you spoke out against Hitler, The War, or the Nazi Party, you (and your friends and family if they didn't turn you in) found a one way trip to a concentration camp.
It was only well into World War II that the function changed into an attempted genocide.
I'm saying the function of early German Internment camps (late 20's - '38'ish) served a different role than the Concentration camps ('38 - liberation). And yes, I'm sure I have my exact dates wrong. For some reason I have 1934 as when the memo was written for the creation and use of gas chambers and the formation of concentration camps but another part of me says Fall 1938. Regardless, there are historical letter's from the Nazi party of their planning, creation, and operation seized after the War.
(A)So are you saying they weren't concentration camps for nearly a decade? (B)And you're saying this just to justify the fact that Americans in the early 1940s did the exact same thing that the Germans did in the early 1930s?
(A) Read above.
(B) From a technical aspect, I already agreed with you, so the answer is - No
I know Germany lost (and doesn't get to write the history) and America won (and does), but facts are facts.
And Americans are great at re-writing history. Just listen to the Republican party, they can't get any of their American History straight :oops: Neither Party can get any political facts straight :cry: We are definitely a country of revisionists :shock:

User avatar
Tudamorf
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:45 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: Internment VS Concentration Camps

Post by Tudamorf » Tue Sep 27, 2011 1:20 pm

AbyssalMage wrote:I'm saying the function of early German Internment camps (late 20's - '38'ish) served a different role than the Concentration camps ('38 - liberation).
They were the same camps. Dachau, Auschwitz, etc. They just shifted their purpose.

Just imagine what the American camps might have looked like a decade into World War II, as American losses mounted. The Japanese Americans were very fortunate that nuclear weapons ended the war as quickly as they did.

AbyssalMage
Posts: 156
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 12:06 am

Re: Internment VS Concentration Camps

Post by AbyssalMage » Tue Sep 27, 2011 1:41 pm

Tudamorf wrote: Just imagine what the American camps might have looked like a decade into World War II, as American losses mounted.
Considering Japanese Americans started fighting in Germany in 1942/43 I couldn't say. There would be less of them because they were fighting/dead in Germany?
The Japanese Americans were very fortunate that nuclear weapons ended the war as quickly as they did.
The Pacific War was almost over when we used nuclear warheads. There was only 2 (maybe 3) islands between the US Fleet and Japan and Japan's Defensive Locations were deteriorating quickly due to the American strategy of strangulation. That being said, many American lives were saved by using nuclear weapons vs. the island hopping campaign that was being employed up to that point. Can't say the same about the Japanese.

User avatar
Tudamorf
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:45 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: Internment VS Concentration Camps

Post by Tudamorf » Tue Sep 27, 2011 1:54 pm

AbyssalMage wrote:The Pacific War was almost over when we used nuclear warheads. There was only 2 (maybe 3) islands between the US Fleet and Japan and Japan's Defensive Locations were deteriorating quickly due to the American strategy of strangulation.
The Americans may have had the upper hand towards the end, but the war was not even remotely over. It would have dragged on for years if nuclear weapons hadn't abruptly ended it. And American camps would come to slowly resemble the German ones.

AbyssalMage
Posts: 156
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 12:06 am

Re: Internment VS Concentration Camps

Post by AbyssalMage » Wed Sep 28, 2011 12:33 am

Tudamorf wrote:
AbyssalMage wrote:The Pacific War was almost over when we used nuclear warheads. There was only 2 (maybe 3) islands between the US Fleet and Japan and Japan's Defensive Locations were deteriorating quickly due to the American strategy of strangulation.
The Americans may have had the upper hand towards the end, but the war was not even remotely over. It would have dragged on for years if nuclear weapons hadn't abruptly ended it. And American camps would come to slowly resemble the German ones.
Japan's capital would of fallen within the year and with it, its military and political government destroyed (Because Japanese soldiers/citizens weren't known for surrendering). The Japanese troops in China and the surrounding islands would of fallen even faster once the main island fell. The only reason nuclear weapons were used was because of the "cost of life" factor on American troops. And even that is being debated today as the projection of US casualties for taking the main island may have been grossly overstated for political maneuvering to use the nuclear weapons.

But we can always debate "What if...?" statements because they didn't happen.

And to your statement that the "war wasn't remotely over" is completely false. Europe had surrendered (there by allowing us to concentrate our forces in the Pacific) and Japan only had very limited resources (food, metal, and gas. EVERYTHING you need to conduct a war) by this time. Not to mention that the US/Europe had superior technology (Radar/Airplanes/tactics) by this time and also had no restriction on resources. Yes, Japan could of adopted a guerrilla style fighting, and they did on many of the islands. But the outcome of control and the Japanese elimination was never in question. Guerrilla style fighting only works if you can get supplies, something the Japanese had been cut off from for over a year before they surrendered.

Post Reply