hahahaha.. oh BG! i like you too. and i'm sorry that you think that Hitler had some plan for mass extermination of his people. because it's simply not true. i'm not saying that nobody died at any of the camps, because they did. but the most that he ordered killed were 3000. they were executed for their crimes. much like we do it here in the US. people commit a heinous crime, they are executed for it. He did the same thing. that doesn't make him a monster. all the other people that died in those prisons died for other reasons. like typhus, i mentioned that earlier. also when the USSR came and tried to invade Poland, many of the people at the camps were killed. Hitler tried to have them all moved safely to other places, unfortunatly some of them didn't make it. Anne Frank for instance, she was at Auschwitz when the Russians invaded. She was moved safely to Bergen-Belsen. If Hitler wanted them all dead he wouldn't have cared if the Russians killed them or not. But he did care, so that is why they were moved. That is why they were hospitalized when they were ill. That's why when their sentence had been fulfilled, they were free to go.
I know what all of you have "learned" in school. Too bad most of it isn't true. Not only on this issue. People love to manipulate history and change things around. You know how Bush is trying to come up with reasons to go to war with Iraq? You see how he hasn't any real evidence against him, so he's pulling at truths and stretching them into lies? All so he can have a reason to go to war? Well, that is very much like what the Allied Forces did in WWII. They made things up, told lies, did everything they could just so that they could go to war with Germany. Let's it put it this way, when the Allied Forces held the Nuremberg Trials, they didn't care about the truth or evidence to support any claims made.
"The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence."
Article 19 of the Statutes of the International Military Tribunal (in reality: the Inter-allied Military Tribunal) at Nuremberg
"The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge, but shall take judicial notice thereof."
Article 21 of the Statutes
that alone proves that they knew there was no evidence to prove anything they were saying. so they said they didn't any evidence. wow.. really fair trial huh?
also - ya know.. i'm the only one here throwing out any specifics. i am mentioning specific names and places. those are facts. you can look those up. all you do to refute me is say that you did some project so you know i'm wrong. seems that i'm proving my point a lot better than any of you can prove yours.
"when you look around, you can't tell me honestly you're happy with what you see"