Is the demonization of Hitler as we see even warranted at all?

[Stubble]

Ideally they would emigrate. Deportation at expense would be a last resort, quite obviously.

[HansHill]

So, is it justifiable to deport part of your country's population if you consider it a "threat"? If not, then the politician who does this is committing evil. If yes, then in what cases can we determine whether the threat is real?

It wasn't the greatest evil in the universe........ But it's still evil.

This is wholly unsatisfying. Jews did not have an innate, de facto entitlement to the resources and privileges of the Third Reich. This is an unsatisfactory retroactive analysis embedded with modern Liberalism that must be rejected. It was to the credit of the NSDAP that they sought ethnic homogeneity for their citizens. To forcibly remove an incompatible ethnic minority is not evil.

I'm not an idiot, I know what you will likely counter with: But they had their rights violated and many died due to exhaustion and disease.

Yes, but now we are just quibbling about the execution and logistics of a plan, rather than the morality of the plan itself. I agree its very regrettable that entire populations were lost to starvation, disease etc, and I also find it regrettable that many others were deployed as what may be considered slave labour: But again this is not the same conversation as wanting them removed, and is merely a comment on execution and logistics.

"Germany for Germans" is not an evil statement. "Germany for everyone" is evil.

[InuYasha]

So, is it justifiable to deport part of your country's population if you consider it a "threat"? If not, then the politician who does this is committing evil. If yes, then in what cases can we determine whether the threat is real?

It wasn't the greatest evil in the universe........ But it's still evil.

This is wholly unsatisfying. Jews did not have an innate, de facto entitlement to the resources and privileges of the Third Reich. This is an unsatisfactory retroactive analysis embedded with modern Liberalism that must be rejected. It was to the credit of the NSDAP that they sought ethnic homogeneity for their citizens. To forcibly remove an incompatible ethnic minority is not evil.

I'm not an idiot, I know what you will likely counter with: But they had their rights violated and many died due to exhaustion and disease.

Yes, but now we are just quibbling about the execution and logistics of a plan, rather than the morality of the plan itself. I agree its very regrettable that entire populations were lost to starvation, disease etc, and I also find it regrettable that many others were deployed as what may be considered slave labour: But again this is not the same conversation as wanting them removed, and is merely a comment on execution and logistics.

"Germany for Germans" is not an evil statement. "Germany for everyone" is evil.

I am not looking at the situation from the perspective of the average person in 2025, but from the perspective of humanism - a concept that has existed for quite a long time in history.

I just don't want to turn a blind eye to obvious morally evil actions like deportations. It's worth providing some context.

The actions of the AH are not a unique evil. I suppose to some extent that anti-Jewish sentiment may have been caused by the declaration of "war" on Germany by international Jewry in 1933 (war in quotes here, since international Jewry is not a country or coalition of countries). Before 1935, there were no organized anti-Jewish measures in the Reich, so perhaps such calls for a "boycott of the Reich" could have worsened the situation. Ironically, the actions of some particularly zealous figures overseas may have provoked the loss of Jewish civil rights.

I do not intend to place the blame for inhumane or illegal actions solely on the Germans. After all, it was Roosevelt who gave the order to deprive Japanese Americans of all civil rights and sent them to concentration camps until the end of the war.

Why doesn't Japan protest this obvious injustice? Why are they silent about the nuclear strikes on civilians by the US Air Force? By that time, the concept of "Crime against Humanity" had existed for several days (IIRC, the charter of this whole circus-tribunal in Nuremberg was adopted several days before Nagasaki). Why didn't the Allies judge themselves? The answer is obvious: Japan lost the war and lost its independence. There is no one to speak out for the Japanese.

Also, at least before WWII, Hitler and the Nazis contacted Zionist figures in order to facilitate the emigration of Jews (the Palestine plan). The plan was thwarted even before the war, since the British Empire refused to accept Jews. Which is strange, considering how "concerned" the Allies were about their situation after the war and the destruction of the Reich.

All the same, the imprisonment of people who did nothing wrong (I don't mean overseas rich provocateurs of Jewish origin) in concentration camps and their subsequent deaths from hunger and disease, or from hangings and shootings - this is terrible, both by the standards of 1945 and 2025. It would have been better if these people had peacefully left Germany and remained alive and unharmed. It is strange that democratic England and America did not want to accept the victims of the National Socialist regime.

It seems that before the war they did not care, and after the war they suddenly "cared" about the fates of the dead. This seems odd if you accept the narrative of the absolute moral superiority of the Allies over the Axis, but it makes sense if you accept the revisionist interpretation that they wanted to blame all generations of Germans and make Germany a vassal puppet state forever.

As for the Allies, I believe that if they won, they should have played fair. By giving Germany, Japan, Italy and other continental European countries genuine independence after the war and the fall of their national socialist and fascist regimes. And not allowing half of Europe to fall under communist rule. On the Soviet side, if they considered themselves "liberators", they should have taken into account that the East Germans, Hungarians, Poles, Czechs and Romanians did not want communism, and allowed them to choose the government they wanted.

For example, in 2008, when Russia won the war against Georgia, the Georgians were allowed to remain independent and choose any government they wanted.

Of course, this is all wishful thinking. The Allies did not reject all peace talks and offers in order to suddenly sincerely advocate for freedom for all people and give them the right to choose.

[InuYasha]

Ideally they would emigrate. Deportation at expense would be a last resort, quite obviously.

I agree. Unfortunately, the British and Americans did not care about the Jews and did not accept them.

[HansHill]

I just don't want to turn a blind eye to obvious morally evil actions like deportations. It's worth providing some context.

This is the root of our disagreement Inuyasha - you simply won't convince me that an ethnic group enforcing its sovereignty via borders is "obviously evil" (!). This is a discussion forum so you are welcome to rebut, but I'm almost certain anything you say will be rejected out of hand.

[InuYasha]

I just don't want to turn a blind eye to obvious morally evil actions like deportations. It's worth providing some context.

This is the root of our disagreement Inuyasha - you simply won't convince me that an ethnic group enforcing its sovereignty via borders is "obviously evil" (!). This is a discussion forum so you are welcome to rebut, but I'm almost certain anything you say will be rejected out of hand.

There is nothing wrong with a people defending itself from external enemies and alien elements. However, all these measures must be carried out with a humane approach to the affected group. For example, in the case of a fundamentally unassimilable group, potentially dangerous - emigration from the territory of the country can be organized. During this emigration, it must be ensured that people do not suffer (do not get sick, do not die of hunger, are not subjected to torture and execution).

It cannot be denied that many Jews died during the deportations to concentration camps. Organized emigration would have been a way out - but before the war the US and England were against it, and then the situation quickly escalated...

[Stubble]

I don't think there is any argument that the execution of the stopgap solution to the jewish question was less than ideal. The German Government was less than plussed about the mortality rates and worked hard not only to make the concentration and labor camps places for life worthy of life but also to reduce mortality.

People often talk about 'slave labor' in the camps, to that my rebut is to mention that financial remuneration, when converted to gold, exceeded the average Polish wage.

Granted, the commissary was often bare, but, the brothels were open...

Again, it was not a high point in human history, and mistakes were made.

[HansHill]

People often talk about 'slave labor' in the camps, to that my rebut is to mention that financial remuneration, when converted to gold, exceeded the average Polish wage.

A good point from Mr Stubble here - just a brief comment. This technically is true, as evidenced here:

For inmate labour employed by private firms, the rates as at 1943 were 4 RM per hour for skilled labour, 3 RM per hour for unskilled, and 2 RM per hour for females. Starting on June 1, 1943, Himmler’s directive to grant production premiums (Leistungsprämien) to the inmates came into effect. The premiums consisted of purchasing coupons to be used at the inmate canteen (Häftlingskantine). Between July 1943 and November 1944, inmates received premiums for a total value of 214,119 RM

Additionally, the Nuremberg transcripts refer to "cheap forced labor" (Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Volume 2 : Pages 29 - 94 - Tuesday, 20 November 1945).

So yes the labour derived from inmates at least at Auschwitz was indeed remunerated. It would be an actual real life Holocaust for these people to work for free. However, that's only part of what is commonly understood when we say "slave labour" - with the other part being coercion, which it was.

**Edit - I've lost my citation for the above but I believe it's Mattogno - don't have access to library atm.