Why didn't nazis just shoot the jews? Who thought gassing

>>2807709
don't question the narrative goy

>>2807709
They shot them as well, they found it had worse psychological effect on the soldiers though.

>>2807709
They shot them at first but the bullets were getting too expensive and the whole activity was too time consuming.

>>2807709

Gassing creates a barrier between Gasser and Gassee.

Nazi's tried shooting and most people simply can't kill in cold blood like that.

They did tho: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babi_Yar , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktion_Erntefest .

>>2807709
>Eichmann came to see me in Auschwitz and acquainted me with the plans for actions in the various countries. First, Upper Silesia and the adjoining parts of the Government General were to be drawn upon. Then, proceeding geographically, the Jews from Germany and Czechoslovakia, then those from the West - France, Belgium, and Holland. We went on to discuss the extermination process. It transpired that only gas could be considered, because to eliminate the masses that were to be expected by shooting was absolutely impossible and also too hard on the SS men involved, having to shoot women and children.
t. Höss

>>2807709
Bullets were more precious then jew lives in nazi germany

>>2807709

It had a real drain on the psychological effect. They managed to clear out Estonia doing it and decided they couldn't keep it up. That and it was a drain on armaments.

Personally I would have deployed all the captured barges, load them up and jump the jews into the Baltic as it was basically a German lake.

The deciding factor was Himmler. An RSHA man in Prague, who had spent months dealing with the psychological trauma his men were suffering (especially shooting westernized, integrated jews). He got fed up of having his rotests dismissed, so he walked into a meeting and invited Himmler to a execution in front of his subordinates, most notably Heydrich.

Heydrich already knew what it was like, but just had to be there to see his bosses reaction.; and Himmler was not about to look weak in front of his student and rival.

When the execution of 150 people started, Himmler fainted after the first machine gun pass. Heydrich ended up having to carry Himmler back to his car, witnesses described the absolute contempt Heydrich had for his boss after that incident.

File: 1493032649366.jpg (50KB, 472x785px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 472x785px

>>2807709
That's exactly what they did, you fucking retard.
Are you shitposting or are you just uneducated?
It's called the Holocaust By Bullet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust_in_Belarus

>>2807709
because the einzgrauppen wet the beds at night reliving the memories of machinegunning jews in lines
the 6 million weren't just gassed but many other forms of death

>>2807736
>upper silesia
>protectorate of bohemia
such good ideas but then the nazis were nazis

cheap labor

>>2807730
>Nazi's tried shooting and most people simply can't kill in cold blood like that.
>most soldiers cannot shoot people

>>2808120
most can't, that's why army targets are human shaped rather than circles now

>>2808120
there's a difference between combat and just lining up and shooting entire families (including women and children) day in day out

>>2808120
>killing an armed person that represents a direct threat to you life is the same that merciless killing of unarmed families.

Why are the germans such pussies? Can't even genocide their mortal enemies. So much for the master race. Pffft

>>2808380
Killing is killing.

>>2807721
This.

>>2808383
This. It took some blacks in Rwanda 3 months and several machetes to kill 1mln Tutsi, and Germans barely reached 6mlns in 6 years of industrialized killing. So much for famed German efficiency.

>>2808387
In a moral sense yes, however your brain responds differently depending of the situation, so killing an armed adult male after having an adrenaline rush won't leave you feeling the same that killing dozens of unarmed people that were usually undernourished and with a large presence of woman and children.

>>2808411
Pretty sure killing enemy soldiers and civilian children aren't moral equivalents in any way either.

>>2807709
Ask Himmler, it was his idea.

>>2808418
They are, the children you spare are in truth young adults, the next generation which will try to avenge itself on yours.

>>2808489
Wow and here I was thinking
>Killing is killing
Was gonna be the edgiest thing in this thread

>>2808570
Well he's not wrong

File: this.jpg (44KB, 492x270px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 492x270px

>>2807721
>>2807724

>>2808489
>quoting Himmler

>>2808570
>what nations had done for centuries
>edgy

No anon, you're just too stupid to realize it. Maybe it's because you don't value your family, or the degeneration of the nuclear family in general.

>>2807760
>psychological trauma his men were suffering (especially shooting westernized, integrated jews).
this seems to be the important info. englishmen had no problem killing indians in most brutal ways. it must be the empathy.

>>2809629
>englishmen had no problem killing indians in most brutal ways
Did they really, or were these kinds of issues just not understood back then.

>>2807709
>shooting millions jews
>millions of corpses to bury/burn
>millions of bullets
>normie soldiers traumatized
Letting them starve and finishing them off at once with gas, afterwards burning the tiny bag of bones and skin in a furnace into smoke & dust is much more efficient.