[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.c++

float* f vs float *f

Tom Impelluso

11/8/2008 5:27:00 PM

10 Answers

Paavo Helde

11/8/2008 5:35:00 PM

0

Tom Impelluso <impellus@attila.sdsu.edu> kirjutas:

>
> Hi!
>
>
> I have used both of these
> "float *f"
> and
> "float* f"
>
> Could someone tell me if one is
> preferred and why?

It's a style issue. If you declare multiple pointers together, then this
looks better:

float *f, *g, *h;

than

float* f,* g,* h;

On the other hand, if you declare a single thing only, then IMHO

float* f;

looks better than

float *f;

Some people (not me) argue that this gives one reason to the idea to
always declare only a single thing at a time.

YMMV
Paavo

Erik Wikström

11/8/2008 5:56:00 PM

0

On 2008-11-08 18:35, Paavo Helde wrote:
> Tom Impelluso <impellus@attila.sdsu.edu> kirjutas:
>
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>>
>> I have used both of these
>> "float *f"
>> and
>> "float* f"
>>
>> Could someone tell me if one is
>> preferred and why?
>
> It's a style issue. If you declare multiple pointers together, then this
> looks better:
>
> float *f, *g, *h;
>
> than
>
> float* f,* g,* h;
>
> On the other hand, if you declare a single thing only, then IMHO
>
> float* f;
>
> looks better than
>
> float *f;
>
> Some people (not me) argue that this gives one reason to the idea to
> always declare only a single thing at a time.

On the other hand, if you already subscribe to the idea of only one
declaration per line it becomes natural to write "float* f"; type,
whitespace, and then the name.

--
Erik Wikström

Zeppe

11/8/2008 6:46:00 PM

0

Erik Wikström wrote:
> On 2008-11-08 18:35, Paavo Helde wrote:
>> Tom Impelluso <impellus@attila.sdsu.edu> kirjutas:
>> Some people (not me) argue that this gives one reason to the idea to
>> always declare only a single thing at a time.
>
> On the other hand, if you already subscribe to the idea of only one
> declaration per line it becomes natural to write "float* f"; type,
> whitespace, and then the name.
>

And then whitespace, '=', whitespace, and initialisation value (possibly
NULL). Initialising each pointer when it is declared is a good practice.

Best wishes,

Zeppe

Rolf Magnus

11/8/2008 10:12:00 PM

0

Tom Impelluso wrote:

> Could someone tell me if one is
> preferred and why? Yes, i know both
> work but it makes me feel uneasy.
>
> Ditto for:
>
> FILE* fp
> vs.
> FILE *fp
>
> I would hope to know if there is a standard
> and the second is just allowed.

There is no standard. It seems to me that the first is more common in C++,
while the second is more common in C, but I've seen both in both languages.
I've also seen a third form, for the undecided:

FILE * fp;

I prefer the first version, since it's more natural to me. The * is part of
the type, and so it belongs to the type and not the name. The inventors of
C, howerver, seem to think that the other variant is more natural, since it
kind of matches with the dereferene operator, and you could say that *fp is
of type FILE.

red floyd

11/9/2008 12:25:00 AM

0

Rolf Magnus wrote:
The inventors of
> C, howerver, seem to think that the other variant is more natural, since it
> kind of matches with the dereferene operator, and you could say that *fp is
> of type FILE.

That's how I finally grokked pointers in C, wayyyyy back in the day.

Bo Persson

11/9/2008 1:20:00 AM

0

Rolf Magnus wrote:
> Tom Impelluso wrote:
>
>> Could someone tell me if one is
>> preferred and why? Yes, i know both
>> work but it makes me feel uneasy.
>>
>> Ditto for:
>>
>> FILE* fp
>> vs.
>> FILE *fp
>>
>> I would hope to know if there is a standard
>> and the second is just allowed.
>
> There is no standard. It seems to me that the first is more common
> in C++, while the second is more common in C, but I've seen both in
> both languages. I've also seen a third form, for the undecided:
>
> FILE * fp;
>
> I prefer the first version, since it's more natural to me. The * is
> part of the type, and so it belongs to the type and not the name.
> The inventors of C, howerver, seem to think that the other variant
> is more natural, since it kind of matches with the dereferene
> operator, and you could say that *fp is of type FILE.

This fails for C++ references, where

int i = 42;

int& r = i;
and
int &r = i;

are equivalent, but we can't say that &r is of type int.

So to be consistent, you might want to use the style
type-space-name-initializer whenever possible:

int& r = i;

int* p = &i;


Bo Persson

James Kanze

11/9/2008 12:29:00 PM

0

On Nov 8, 11:11 pm, Rolf Magnus <ramag...@t-online.de> wrote:
> Tom Impelluso wrote:
> > Could someone tell me if one is preferred and why?  Yes, i
> > know both work but it makes me feel uneasy.

> > Ditto for:

> > FILE* fp
> > vs.
> > FILE  *fp

> > I would hope to know if there is a standard and the second
> > is just allowed.

> There is no standard. It seems to me that the first is more
> common in C++, while the second is more common in C, but I've
> seen both in both languages. I've also seen a third form, for
> the undecided:

> FILE * fp;

> I prefer the first version, since it's more natural to me. The
> * is part of the type, and so it belongs to the type and not
> the name. The inventors of C, howerver, seem to think that the
> other variant is more natural, since it kind of matches with
> the dereferene operator, and you could say that *fp is of type
> FILE.

That was the original philosophy behind C's declaration syntax;
you specified the basic type, and then an expression which
denoted the basic type. It broke, of course, the day they
introduced typedef's and struct. It broke again when const was
introduced. In sum, it was an experiment that failed, but that
we still have to live with. What it does mean is that we get a
lot of ambiguities between expressions and declarations, and
that there is one more reason to reject more than one
declaration per statement.

--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:james.kanze@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34

Bharath

11/9/2008 9:49:00 PM

0

On Nov 9, 6:29 am, James Kanze <james.ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 8, 11:11 pm, Rolf Magnus <ramag...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Tom Impelluso wrote:
> > > Could someone tell me if one is preferred and why?  Yes, i
> > > know both work but it makes me feel uneasy.
> > > Ditto for:
> > > FILE* fp
> > > vs.
> > > FILE  *fp
> > > I would hope to know if there is a standard and the second
> > > is just allowed.
> > There is no standard. It seems to me that the first is more
> > common in C++, while the second is more common in C, but I've
> > seen both in both languages.  I've also seen a third form, for
> > the undecided:
> > FILE * fp;
> > I prefer the first version, since it's more natural to me. The
> > * is part of the type, and so it belongs to the type and not
> > the name. The inventors of C, howerver, seem to think that the
> > other variant is more natural, since it kind of matches with
> > the dereferene operator, and you could say that *fp is of type
> > FILE.
>
> That was the original philosophy behind C's declaration syntax;
> you specified the basic type, and then an expression which
> denoted the basic type.  It broke, of course, the day they
> introduced typedef's and struct.  It broke again when const was
> introduced.  In sum, it was an experiment that failed, but that
> we still have to live with.  What it does mean is that we get a
> lot of ambiguities between expressions and declarations, and
> that there is one more reason to reject more than one
> declaration per statement.
>
> --
> James Kanze (GABI Software)             email:james.ka...@gmail.com
> Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
>                    Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
> 9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34

Check here: http://www.research.att.com/~bs/bs...
see question: Is ``int* p;'' right or is ``int *p;'' right?

Jerry Kraus

6/17/2014 10:09:00 PM

0

On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 4:43:11 PM UTC-5, Phil McGregor wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 12:33:50 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus
>
> <jkraus1999@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Monday, June 16, 2014 6:23:19 PM UTC-5, Phil McGregor wrote:
>
> >> On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 11:22:47 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus
>
> >>
>
> >> <jkraus1999@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >On Saturday, June 14, 2014 8:49:39 PM UTC-5, Phil McGregor wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >> On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 11:42:49 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> <jkraus1999@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >The Nazis were brutal. Nevertheless, the Nazis did not begin a policy of official extermination of Jews until August 1941, in Lithuania, specifically.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >Sorry. Violence and willful total extermination are not identical. The former is a control strategy, the latter is genocide. There is a significant difference.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> So, the deliberate killing - murder - of ONE MILLION JEWS that
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> occurred before 1941 and/or the Wannsee Conference were mere
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> 'violence' ... it would be interesting to see nazi victory fantasists
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> and/or apologists come up with something ... *original* ... not merely
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> repeat the same tired old lies, distortions, half truths and wilful
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> obfuscation of what was actually going on.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> Phil
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >Phil, all documentation of the Jewish Holocaust specifies it as defining the period between 1941 and 1945. I don't suppose you'd care to identify who these one million Jews who were exterminated before 1941, were? I'm sure the state of Israel would be interested, if you could. So would I.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Jerry, \Jerry, Jerry ... you *can* do some basic research that
>
> >>
>
> >> *doesn't* involve your collection of Nazi Victory Fantasy
>
> >>
>
> >> documentation, can't you?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Note the 'and/or' bit, above.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Since the Nazis deliberately didn't keep accurate records we don't
>
> >>
>
> >> know exactly when the 1 million mark was reached, but it was very
>
> >>
>
> >> probably somewhere *well* before the implementation of the Wannsee
>
> >>
>
> >> protocols, as, as you prefer to ignore, the Germans went into
>
> >>
>
> >> Barbarossa with Ordnungspolizei and Einsatzgruppen whose job it was to
>
> >>
>
> >> massacre the Jews *right from the get go*, and, even before that, the
>
> >>
>
> >> Jews had been targetted for slow extermination in the General
>
> >>
>
> >> Government.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> But, hey, Nazi Victory Fanboys are immune to facts, so you either
>
> >>
>
> >> won't respond, doing an ostrich impersonation, or will give an inane
>
> >>
>
> >> and meaningless response that does not deal with the issues in a real
>
> >>
>
> >> way ... because that's what you've done from the get-go.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> You're either channelling Giwer or Freck ... or, maybe, you're Giwer
>
> >>
>
> >> and Freck's *final solution" aka 'love child'
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Phil
>
> >
>
> >As I've been indicating the "Final Solution" has some special characteristics that the members of this group are choosing to ignore -- out of anti-Semitism, stupidity, or sheer bloody-mindedness, I really couldn't say.
>
>
>
> No, yopu've been deliberately ignoring that *Hitler's* position and
>
> that of the instrumentalities of the Nazi party were not always at a
>
> 1:1 correspondence.
>
>
>
> You seem to have severe intellectual problems coming to grip with that
>
> fact.
>
>
>
> Hitler classed the Jews as 'life not worthy of life' and made it clear
>
> *at all times* that there were *no exceptions* ... no, Mrs Meier next
>
> door who babysat the kids, or Dr. Goldschmidt who saved your mother's
>
> life ... *NO* exceptions. He had to keep reiterating this again and
>
> again regardless of what policy was being implemeneted.
>
>
>
> The wider Nazi instrumentalities did not immediately want to kill all
>
> Jews, not if it was easier to strip them of their wealth (especially
>
> hidden wealth) by allowing them to become someone else's problem.
>
>
>
> That said, whatever policy the Nazis were implementing against enemies
>
> of the regime, right from the get go, it was more harshly applied
>
> against the Jews.
>
>
>
> From the get go.
>
>
>
> In the initial work camps, non-Jews got a rough time and had a
>
> significant chance of dying. Jews? Jews got it worse. If they
>
> survived, they were lucky ... and that was only because the mechanisms
>
> of extermination had to be worked out gradually.
>
>
>
> But you'd know that if you read material other than that written by
>
> Nazi Victory fanbois ... or were actually of an intellectual
>
> attainment to be capable of grasping the meaning of non-Nazi fanboi
>
> material.
>
>
>
> >1. It's not just killing people. It's killing everyone. The Jews were accustomed to Pogroms, mass killings. This was different. Starting in summer 1941, the Nazis began killing everyone of Jewish background, systematically eliminating ALL JEWS in Lithuania, in August 1941.
>
>
>
> It was different from 1933. Visit Sachsenhausen and read the material
>
> on what was done to the first non-Jewish internees ... they were
>
> brutalised but had a chance of survival. Jews? They got it worse
>
> *right from the beginning* ... the camp staff literally didn't give a
>
> rat's arse whether they lived or died, with a leaning towards working
>
> them to death. But, no, they didn't have a policy, *at that time* of
>
> working them to death *deliberately* or of *exterminating* them in
>
> industrial quantities ... but Hitler's ideology was obviously ramping
>
> up to that.
>
>
>
> They had been targetting Jews from the get go in 1939 invasion and
>
> occupation of Poland. Early Einsatzgruppen and Ordnungspolizei units
>
> were deployed, and Jews were coralled so they could be starved and
>
> worked to death more easily ... and THAT was the PLAN. To starve and
>
> work them to death. From 1939.
>
>
>
> You can quibble about whether to call this 'the final solution' or
>
> not, but it was deliberate, if slow, genocide. The Nazis were actually
>
> quite angry that the Jews were dying sufficiently quickly, because of
>
> the Jewish tradition of helping each other out.
>
>
>
> >2. There was no practical motivation for this. The Jews were productive citizens. The Nazi extermination of the mentally disabled was totally immoral, but did make sense economically.
>
>
>
> Of course there wasn't.
>
>
>
> Hitler was insane.
>
>
>
> His hatred of Jews was insane.
>
>
>
> The adoption of this as policy by the Nazi machine was a reflection of
>
> this insanity.
>
>
>
> However, it was never seriously questioned (if it was questioned at
>
> all) by *anyone* in the hierarchy ...
>
>
>
> Unfortunately, his hatred of Jews was tied up and part and parcel of
>
> his ideology.
>
>
>
> If you strip it from Hitler, then you get 'not Hitler' ... and there
>
> is no reason to believe that 'not Hitler' would be as successful (for
>
> some values of 'successful') as a dictator *unless* he was crazy in
>
> exactly the same way as Hitler was.
>
>
>
> It is unlikely, for example, that without a carefully selected
>
> outsider group as targets for hatred as a political tool, the Nazis
>
> would not have been as successful in growing from a bunch of crazy
>
> rabble-rousing losers in Munich Beer Halls.
>
>
>
> Given that Hitler is insane and his ideology is insane ... just like
>
> the Japanese High Command were insane to believe that they had a
>
> snowball's chance of beating the US, for example ... it does not
>
> follow that Hitler or the Nazis were *crazy* (nor that the Japanese
>
> High Command were, either).
>
>
>
> They implemented their plans against the Jews from 1933 onwards with a
>
> definite agenda, one that made sense (i.e. was *not* crazy) in terms
>
> of their ideology (though their ideology was *insane*) ... that is,
>
> their actions had internal consistency, for the most part and, when
>
> they didn't, it was because outside forces (from outside the Party),
>
> affected those actions.
>
>
>
> So, killing the Jews (and wanting to kill them) was insane, but it
>
> wasn't crazy.
>
>
>
> Happy?
>
>
>
> >3. Indeed, the costs of the extermination seem to clearly outweigh any practical benefits.
>
>
>
> The benefits were in terms of racial purity ... Jews were a stain on
>
> the face of humanity. Simply by existing and breeding they polluted
>
> the Aryan people of Germany (and non-Aryans as well, one presumes),
>
> and brought them down from the greatness they were genetically born
>
> for. Therefore, in exterminating them, the Nazis were actually doing
>
> the German people, and the rest of the world, an active favour.
>
>
>
> Insane? Of course.
>
>
>
> Crazy? That is, adhering to the internal logic of the insane position?
>
> No.
>
>
>
> >The Nazis had a strong sense of theatre, particularly theatre of the violently absurd, a la Wagner. The Final Solution does seem, at times, a kind of theatre of the absurd.
>
>
>
> Nope, the Final Solution was the logical conclusion of Hitler's racial
>
> policies and was, pretty much, inevitable.
>
>
>
> >The Final Solution was clearly motivated by the violent resistance of the Russian People to the Nazi invasion. It starts then, not before. No scholars dispute this point. The members of this group do -- again, whether out of anti-Semitism, stupidity, or sheer bloody-mindedness, I couldn't say. Given the Nazis get their way, they might very well become more rational and tolerant of Jews. Clearly, when they don't, they arrange to destroy them more totally than they have ever been before.
>
>
>
> Well, we've finally managed to get you to grasp *some* semblance of
>
> reality.
>
>
>
> As for the 'members of this group' believing that it was, umm, what
>
> are you smoking? It must be pretty powerful ... let us know so we can
>
> either order some or avoid it ...
>
>
>
> The only person on this group pushing that delusionary line, until
>
> now, has been you, deer Jerry.
>
>
>
> Get a grip! Google groups has archives, you know ...
>
>
>
> Phil

Hitler was ambivalent about Jews, sometimes expressing a desire to give them equal rights -- in his election campaigns in the early thirties when he campaigned in the Jewish Ghettos -- sometimes talking about gassing them, sometimes talking about their political value to him, sometimes funding attempts to give them homelands in Palestine or Madagascar.

The Nazis were as hard, or harder, on Gypsies, than they were on Jews. Why? Again, helpless victims they could take out their frustrations on, following their setbacks in Russia. Everything changes following the disasters and casualties in Barbarossa -- this is when the Holocaust for Jews and Gypsies starts -- July 31, 1941. Not one day before. The Nazis are angry, emotionally they need some helpless victims to destroy -- they choose Gypsies and Jews. This isn't really racism in any normal sense. This is just a group of childish, violent individuals getting upset, and doing as much damage as they possibly can.

The Holocaust of Gypsies and Jews is the direct result of the disaster of the Barbarossa Campaign, and would certainly not have occurred without it. It was certainly not inevitable. Hitler could have been bribed not to hurt people, or, when he got his way, he could be tolerant. Following Barbarossa, he knew he was doomed, and wanted to consummate the destruction of the weak as he went down. So, he took the Gypsies and the Jews with him.

Jerry Kraus

6/17/2014 11:24:00 PM

0

On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 6:13:43 PM UTC-5, Phil McGregor wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 15:09:24 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus
>
> <jkraus1999@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 4:43:11 PM UTC-5, Phil McGregor wrote:
>
> >> On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 12:33:50 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus
>
> >>
>
> >> <jkraus1999@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >On Monday, June 16, 2014 6:23:19 PM UTC-5, Phil McGregor wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >> On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 11:22:47 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> <jkraus1999@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >On Saturday, June 14, 2014 8:49:39 PM UTC-5, Phil McGregor wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 11:42:49 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> <jkraus1999@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> >The Nazis were brutal. Nevertheless, the Nazis did not begin a policy of official extermination of Jews until August 1941, in Lithuania, specifically.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> >Sorry. Violence and willful total extermination are not identical. The former is a control strategy, the latter is genocide. There is a significant difference.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> So, the deliberate killing - murder - of ONE MILLION JEWS that
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> occurred before 1941 and/or the Wannsee Conference were mere
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> 'violence' ... it would be interesting to see nazi victory fantasists
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> and/or apologists come up with something ... *original* ... not merely
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> repeat the same tired old lies, distortions, half truths and wilful
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> obfuscation of what was actually going on.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> Phil
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >Phil, all documentation of the Jewish Holocaust specifies it as defining the period between 1941 and 1945. I don't suppose you'd care to identify who these one million Jews who were exterminated before 1941, were? I'm sure the state of Israel would be interested, if you could. So would I.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> Jerry, \Jerry, Jerry ... you *can* do some basic research that
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> *doesn't* involve your collection of Nazi Victory Fantasy
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> documentation, can't you?
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> Note the 'and/or' bit, above.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> Since the Nazis deliberately didn't keep accurate records we don't
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> know exactly when the 1 million mark was reached, but it was very
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> probably somewhere *well* before the implementation of the Wannsee
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> protocols, as, as you prefer to ignore, the Germans went into
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> Barbarossa with Ordnungspolizei and Einsatzgruppen whose job it was to
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> massacre the Jews *right from the get go*, and, even before that, the
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> Jews had been targetted for slow extermination in the General
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> Government.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> But, hey, Nazi Victory Fanboys are immune to facts, so you either
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> won't respond, doing an ostrich impersonation, or will give an inane
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> and meaningless response that does not deal with the issues in a real
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> way ... because that's what you've done from the get-go.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> You're either channelling Giwer or Freck ... or, maybe, you're Giwer
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> and Freck's *final solution" aka 'love child'
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> Phil
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >As I've been indicating the "Final Solution" has some special characteristics that the members of this group are choosing to ignore -- out of anti-Semitism, stupidity, or sheer bloody-mindedness, I really couldn't say.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> No, yopu've been deliberately ignoring that *Hitler's* position and
>
> >>
>
> >> that of the instrumentalities of the Nazi party were not always at a
>
> >>
>
> >> 1:1 correspondence.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> You seem to have severe intellectual problems coming to grip with that
>
> >>
>
> >> fact.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Hitler classed the Jews as 'life not worthy of life' and made it clear
>
> >>
>
> >> *at all times* that there were *no exceptions* ... no, Mrs Meier next
>
> >>
>
> >> door who babysat the kids, or Dr. Goldschmidt who saved your mother's
>
> >>
>
> >> life ... *NO* exceptions. He had to keep reiterating this again and
>
> >>
>
> >> again regardless of what policy was being implemeneted.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> The wider Nazi instrumentalities did not immediately want to kill all
>
> >>
>
> >> Jews, not if it was easier to strip them of their wealth (especially
>
> >>
>
> >> hidden wealth) by allowing them to become someone else's problem.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> That said, whatever policy the Nazis were implementing against enemies
>
> >>
>
> >> of the regime, right from the get go, it was more harshly applied
>
> >>
>
> >> against the Jews.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> From the get go.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> In the initial work camps, non-Jews got a rough time and had a
>
> >>
>
> >> significant chance of dying. Jews? Jews got it worse. If they
>
> >>
>
> >> survived, they were lucky ... and that was only because the mechanisms
>
> >>
>
> >> of extermination had to be worked out gradually.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> But you'd know that if you read material other than that written by
>
> >>
>
> >> Nazi Victory fanbois ... or were actually of an intellectual
>
> >>
>
> >> attainment to be capable of grasping the meaning of non-Nazi fanboi
>
> >>
>
> >> material.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >1. It's not just killing people. It's killing everyone. The Jews were accustomed to Pogroms, mass killings. This was different. Starting in summer 1941, the Nazis began killing everyone of Jewish background, systematically eliminating ALL JEWS in Lithuania, in August 1941.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> It was different from 1933. Visit Sachsenhausen and read the material
>
> >>
>
> >> on what was done to the first non-Jewish internees ... they were
>
> >>
>
> >> brutalised but had a chance of survival. Jews? They got it worse
>
> >>
>
> >> *right from the beginning* ... the camp staff literally didn't give a
>
> >>
>
> >> rat's arse whether they lived or died, with a leaning towards working
>
> >>
>
> >> them to death. But, no, they didn't have a policy, *at that time* of
>
> >>
>
> >> working them to death *deliberately* or of *exterminating* them in
>
> >>
>
> >> industrial quantities ... but Hitler's ideology was obviously ramping
>
> >>
>
> >> up to that.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> They had been targetting Jews from the get go in 1939 invasion and
>
> >>
>
> >> occupation of Poland. Early Einsatzgruppen and Ordnungspolizei units
>
> >>
>
> >> were deployed, and Jews were coralled so they could be starved and
>
> >>
>
> >> worked to death more easily ... and THAT was the PLAN. To starve and
>
> >>
>
> >> work them to death. From 1939.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> You can quibble about whether to call this 'the final solution' or
>
> >>
>
> >> not, but it was deliberate, if slow, genocide. The Nazis were actually
>
> >>
>
> >> quite angry that the Jews were dying sufficiently quickly, because of
>
> >>
>
> >> the Jewish tradition of helping each other out.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >2. There was no practical motivation for this. The Jews were productive citizens. The Nazi extermination of the mentally disabled was totally immoral, but did make sense economically.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Of course there wasn't.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Hitler was insane.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> His hatred of Jews was insane.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> The adoption of this as policy by the Nazi machine was a reflection of
>
> >>
>
> >> this insanity.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> However, it was never seriously questioned (if it was questioned at
>
> >>
>
> >> all) by *anyone* in the hierarchy ...
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Unfortunately, his hatred of Jews was tied up and part and parcel of
>
> >>
>
> >> his ideology.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> If you strip it from Hitler, then you get 'not Hitler' ... and there
>
> >>
>
> >> is no reason to believe that 'not Hitler' would be as successful (for
>
> >>
>
> >> some values of 'successful') as a dictator *unless* he was crazy in
>
> >>
>
> >> exactly the same way as Hitler was.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> It is unlikely, for example, that without a carefully selected
>
> >>
>
> >> outsider group as targets for hatred as a political tool, the Nazis
>
> >>
>
> >> would not have been as successful in growing from a bunch of crazy
>
> >>
>
> >> rabble-rousing losers in Munich Beer Halls.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Given that Hitler is insane and his ideology is insane ... just like
>
> >>
>
> >> the Japanese High Command were insane to believe that they had a
>
> >>
>
> >> snowball's chance of beating the US, for example ... it does not
>
> >>
>
> >> follow that Hitler or the Nazis were *crazy* (nor that the Japanese
>
> >>
>
> >> High Command were, either).
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> They implemented their plans against the Jews from 1933 onwards with a
>
> >>
>
> >> definite agenda, one that made sense (i.e. was *not* crazy) in terms
>
> >>
>
> >> of their ideology (though their ideology was *insane*) ... that is,
>
> >>
>
> >> their actions had internal consistency, for the most part and, when
>
> >>
>
> >> they didn't, it was because outside forces (from outside the Party),
>
> >>
>
> >> affected those actions.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> So, killing the Jews (and wanting to kill them) was insane, but it
>
> >>
>
> >> wasn't crazy.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Happy?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >3. Indeed, the costs of the extermination seem to clearly outweigh any practical benefits.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> The benefits were in terms of racial purity ... Jews were a stain on
>
> >>
>
> >> the face of humanity. Simply by existing and breeding they polluted
>
> >>
>
> >> the Aryan people of Germany (and non-Aryans as well, one presumes),
>
> >>
>
> >> and brought them down from the greatness they were genetically born
>
> >>
>
> >> for. Therefore, in exterminating them, the Nazis were actually doing
>
> >>
>
> >> the German people, and the rest of the world, an active favour.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Insane? Of course.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Crazy? That is, adhering to the internal logic of the insane position?
>
> >>
>
> >> No.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >The Nazis had a strong sense of theatre, particularly theatre of the violently absurd, a la Wagner. The Final Solution does seem, at times, a kind of theatre of the absurd.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Nope, the Final Solution was the logical conclusion of Hitler's racial
>
> >>
>
> >> policies and was, pretty much, inevitable.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >The Final Solution was clearly motivated by the violent resistance of the Russian People to the Nazi invasion. It starts then, not before. No scholars dispute this point. The members of this group do -- again, whether out of anti-Semitism, stupidity, or sheer bloody-mindedness, I couldn't say. Given the Nazis get their way, they might very well become more rational and tolerant of Jews. Clearly, when they don't, they arrange to destroy them more totally than they have ever been before.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Well, we've finally managed to get you to grasp *some* semblance of
>
> >>
>
> >> reality.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> As for the 'members of this group' believing that it was, umm, what
>
> >>
>
> >> are you smoking? It must be pretty powerful ... let us know so we can
>
> >>
>
> >> either order some or avoid it ...
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> The only person on this group pushing that delusionary line, until
>
> >>
>
> >> now, has been you, deer Jerry.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Get a grip! Google groups has archives, you know ...
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Phil
>
> >
>
> >Hitler was ambivalent about Jews,
>
>
>
> Only in Nazi fanboiland. The 'life not worthy of life' is a loose
>
> translation of Hitler's own words.
>
>
>
> Pretty explicit, except to Nazi apologists, I suppose.
>
>
>
> It's interesting to note that there were a significant number of
>
> negroes in Nazi Germany (most, one suspects, from their pre-WW1
>
> colonies), and *they* were *not* targetted.
>
>
>
> Why?
>
>
>
> Bloody simple. They were *obviously* inferior. You could spot them in
>
> the crowd ... so, as long as they stood aside in the gutter to let
>
> their betters pass, tugging their forelock with a 'yes massa', as they
>
> did so (or German equivalent thereof), they survived the Nazi racial
>
> policies.
>
>
>
> The Jews didn't. The Jews were special. Despite claims to the contrary
>
> (eg 'Jew Suss' and 'The Eternal Jew' and others), you *couldn't*
>
> always tell them apart from 'real' Aryans. There were blond haired,
>
> blue eyed jews who looked like SS poster boys, which was why they were
>
> such a threat.
>
>
>
> >sometimes expressing a desire to give them equal rights
>
>
>
> Oh, really?
>
>
>
> Please provide documentary evidence of this ... interesting ...
>
> statement.
>
>
>
> If there is any, other than your fevered imagination!
>
>
>
> > -- in his election campaigns in the early thirties when he campaigned in the Jewish Ghettos -- sometimes talking about gassing them, sometimes talking about their political value to him, sometimes funding attempts to give them homelands in Palestine or Madagascar.
>
>
>
> Read Mein Kampf and the Second Book, as well as Hitler's
>
> writings/speeches on race ... they are clear, and clear that the Jews
>
> are a threat and must be removed.
>
>
>
> If to contaminate someone else's racial stock, fine, but, ultimately,
>
> getting rid of them *any way possible* was the desired end.
>
>
>
> >The Nazis were as hard, or harder, on Gypsies, than they were on Jews. Why? Again, helpless victims they could take out their frustrations on, following their setbacks in Russia.
>
>
>
> But last post you just denied that the setbacks in Russia had anything
>
> to do with it!
>
>
>
> You can't even keep your falsehoods straight from one post to the
>
> next!
>
>
>
> >The Holocaust of Gypsies and Jews is the direct result of the disaster of the Barbarossa Campaign,
>
>
>
> Twaddle.
>
>
>
> You're obviously a fanboi with not even the slightest connection with
>
> reality.
>
>
>
> Phi;

As I've indicated, this is actually a fairly simple issue. The Germans were frustrated as a result of the First World War. Hitler personified and incarnated their frustrations. They were seeking scapegoats for their problems -- Jews and Gypsies filled the bill. Nevertheless, their anger never really exceeded familiar levels of violence to Jews until the failures in Russia. The Jews were used to Pogroms -- White Russians slaughtered 100,000 of them in 1919 alone for example.

So, when he faced defiance in Russia, Hitler came up with something extra special -- for no reason other than sheer bloody-mindedness, and to gratify his sadism, he and his associates decided to systematically kill all Jews and Gypsies. Why? Well, Phil, why are you denying the obvious? Same principle, I suppose.