In a comment on YouTube I quoted a document submitted by the prosecution [at Nuremberg] as E-168 (see references at the bottom), it reads like so:
The senior camp medical officers must use every means at their disposal to reduce the death rate in the various camps considerably. The best medical officer in a concentration camp is not the man who believes that undue harshness must be applied, but rather the one who, by means of careful control and interchanges at the various places of work, maintains a high standard of efficiency.
To this, somebody replied:
shoot yourself you Nazi dog
I asked myself if such behaviour is becoming prevalent today. As indicated in my screenshot; quoting from Nuremberg documents when it denigrates Germans is perfectly fine but quoting something that demolishes the impossible stories contained in the ‘Holocaust’ is considered to be wrong (or in this case makes one a ‘Nazi dog’).
So, apparently, now we know when to call somebody a ‘Nazi’
To my quoted document ‘Sidzeman’ replies with this:
in the first place, if the Nazis were “humane”, there would have been absolutely NO NEED for concentration camps for Jews, Romani, etc. once they conquered the territories they invaded. The people they sent to the camps were mostly CIVILIAN. Your logic is stupid.
My response to that would be something like:
My logic certainly isn’t stupid. The Jews were considered ‘enemies of the state’ and were thus confined to camps for [safe-keeping and] deportation elsewhere (further east as documents indicate).
Every other country involved in the war did precisely the same and in the case of the Soviet Union, far worse, and on a much larger scale!
My logic is perfectly fine, my friend.
Interesting to note is, also, that concentration camps in Germany, to a large degree, replaced the traditional prisons. Tens of thousands of common criminals were placed in those concentration camps – these later became “Holocaust victims” and “survivors”!
The most famous of which must be the notorious sex offender Louis Schloss (Jewish, of course). This man is now something of a Jewish icon in the Dachau story; a common criminal whose speciality was sex crimes. However, what’s even more interesting in this connection, is that the man who killed the sex offender Schloss was Hilmar Wäckerle and he was hanged in 1933 by the ‘evil Nazis’. Wäckerle was not promoted, didn’t receive any medals, he wasn’t even praised for his deed. All he got was execution. Yeah, the Nazis surely was evil in this regard; for Schloss rightfully deserved to be killed due to his perverse sexual crimes. However, the Nazis probably figured that even scum like Louis Schloss deserved a fair trial, or at the very least rehabilitation in Dachau, or sent far, far away from the Reich.
The flick I commented on was titled “Nazi Holocaust – Death Mills” from 1946 – shot by the Allies and misleadingly labeled a ‘historical documentary’!
- ‘E-168’ or ‘Document E-168’: http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com/u/yaleu?domains=yale.edu&sitesearch=avalon.law.yale.edu%2F&q=E-168&x=0&y=0