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

[InuYasha]

I beg your pardon? It can indeed be said that the Germans did not commit crimes and atrocities during the war.

That some actions taken by the Germans during the war were made criminal after the war (expulsion etc) really has no bearing. So far as atrocities go, siege is nasty business, however, any army on earth lays siege. Is that an 'atrocity'? If you use language playfully. It is important to be consistent however. I see you don't accuse the allies or even the Soviet or partisans of atrocities. You are specific.

War is a nasty business. Best for it to be brutal and short.

War itself is immoral from a humanistic point of view. It is destruction, murder, trauma and perpetuation of mutual hatred of nations. I do not deny the war crimes and atrocities of the USA and England (Hiroshima, Dresden, anti-Japanese repressions), as well as the Soviet Union (Katyn, deportations of peoples, such as the Chechens, the Great Terror). This is a topic about Hitler, so Hitler is subject to evaluation.

The German government repressed its citizens of Jewish origin, although they were loyal to their country. The American did the same with Japanese Americans, and MI5 in England arrested Germans. The NKVD even exiled the entire German minority in Russia to the steppes of Kazakhstan. All this is evil. Usually I say that the evil of the Axis powers does not cancel out the evil of the Allies, but the opposite is also true.

The world in general - and Europe in particular - would be better off without this war. Germany would have developed peacefully, as would Russia, England, etc. WWII turned the independent European continent into a political battlefield between capitalists and communists, deprived of any sovereignty.

[Stubble]

I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that the jews of Berlin (that remained) had a functioning synagogue and held service until the allies bombed it.

I will also reiterate that the suspension and revocation of rights and due process was not a high point in human history. There was however a war on.

Adolf Hitler, Time Magazine man of the year, the man who turned his country around and made sure there was food on the table for his countrymen, was in no way a poor leader. That man did much to benefit his people.

After the invasion of Poland, when he could point at the Soviet and say, see, they are not your friend, he tried to negotiate with Poland and with the allies. All he wanted was a restoration of the Reich.

He didn't decimate the armies of Europe at Dunkirk, instead allowing them to evacuate intact, even if a little embarrassed.

The choice to wage war on Germany had little to do with Poland, it was about keeping Germany's head under water so she could not reach her potential, something that Adolf Hitler was not going to abide.

[InuYasha]

I quite like your posts Inu and I appreciate you are very objective and unbiased in your approach which is very refreshing - I note you described yourself somewhere as Liberal (or something like that) and so i guess that alone will mean we disagree fundamentally on this point. We should be able to discuss history and events like this without the need for modern politics, but since it was mentioned (Nationalism) i feel a brief comment is needed.

Some or most posters here will tell you they arrived at Holocaust Revisionism independently, or prior to forming strong political opinions. Thats fine, and I believe them fully when they say that. I think they say this (honestly) to bulletproof themselves against ad homs related to bias, antisemitism, ethnocentrism, racism etc. Again I see nothing wrong with this per se as it is likely the truth, however I do want to note that I don't feel it's necessary, in that I don't see why someone arriving at Holocaust Revisionism after forming strong political opinions is any less qualified to debate the points (all other things being equal). As for myself I won't comment on this unless directly asked, again because I don't feel it's necessary, but also I may answer it if asked because I don't view it as a secret.

I'm glad to know that you found my posts interesting. I believe that the revisionist view of the events of WWII and the alleged Holocaust is not directly related to politics. Yes, some revisionists are supporters of right-wing and ethno-nationalist ideas, which allows supporters of criminalization and enemies of free speech to ban revisionism, presenting all revisionists as some kind of anti-Semitic fanatics.

All revisionists, as someone from the previous forum, where I was not, noted, are former believers. But the revision of history in the direction of greater objectivity is not directly related to political views. I think you all know that its founder, Paul Rassinier, was a communist, and Robert Faurisson was a liberal.

So to your point, your a priori dismissal of a Nationalist or Racialist leader isn't doing enough to qualify him as "definitely not a good leader" as I or we don't share this premise. I will assume you mean "good" = "moral", and not "good" = "skilled". The problem with this is that you are in turn simultaneously demonising not only Adolf Hitler's Nationalism, but the Nationalism the predates him in Germany, along with all the other Natoinalist movments that exist(ed) worldwide, and I will suggest that to do that, is biting off way too much that you can chew for a post dedicated to simply, Adolf Hitler.

You might have more success with the "Racialist" angle which was what Frye attempted earlier in this thread. You might find racialism to be distasteful or outdated - I'm not a moron and I live in the same world that you do so I can at least understand this - but you still have a lot of heavy lifting to do to explain why this warrants unique demonisation of Adolf Hitler.

Yes, the term "good" or "bad" was obviously meant from the point of view of morality and the value of human life. From the point of view of utilitarianism, Hitler is effective leader. In just 6 years of National Socialism, Germany showed unprecedented successes in economic growth, which are sometimes criticized in the historical community as "fraudulent", based on manipulation of bills, bonds and loans that Germany took from other countries.

However, I do not think that the Reich would have faced economic collapse without the war. Growth would have slowed down, which is natural - because the crisis was over. How untenable are theories about the "non-existence" of economic growth under Hitler is shown by the simple fact that Germany managed to fight for 6 years with the largest country in the world, of which 4 years - against almost all of developed humanity. The standard of living in the Reich remained high until the end of 1942, and even in 1944, despite the bombing and destruction, the Germans did not starve, as, for example, in 1917 under the Kaiser.

In this regard, Hitler was an incredibly effective leader, although he did many bad things from a moral point of view (but who didn't? Truman ordered a nuclear strike on civilians). He is not "uniquely evil", but rather a brutal dictatorial leader who failed in his war with the entire world.

This is what i meant earlier when I said I like and appreciate your posts. You correctly acknowledge the multiple peace offerings and failed attempts of the Germans to avoid war, but ultimately invading.

Yes, and it is an obvious fact that for a long time before and even after the start of the war, the Reich government tried to find a dialogue with Western democracies. The same is true for the Japanese, who, before December 7, were desperately signaling their readiness for peace and were negotiating directly with the Roosevelt administration, which had its own views on the political order of the world, but was hampered by a strong isolationist faction in America.

I'm roundly unqualified to talk about the Russian conflict so I will stick to WWII - correct, the Germans are "to blame" for invading Poland. I would say they are "accountable" for their invasion rather than "to blame" but that's semantics and I'm not overly fussed with how you wrote it because I don't feel you are acting in bad faith.

I think it is true to say that Germany is responsible for the immediate start of the German-Polish conflict. WWII began two days later - when France and England declared war on Germany.

As for the Eastern Front, in Russia, among some Russian revisionist researchers, such as Viktor Suvorov, there is a theory that the introduction of troops into the Soviet Union was connected with the supposed Plan M (the so-called "Thunderstorm" operation) - the Communist program to invade warring Europe and seize the continent, supposedly scheduled for July 1941. This theory is not confirmed, since there is not a single document indicating a plan to invade Europe. Although the expansionist aspirations of the Communists are known, and they planned to arrange a world revolution, but this part of the Soviet political elite was destroyed in the late twenties and early thirties, during the purges. Stalin was more of a "strongman" dictator, who saw Russia as a new empire. Under him, the persecution of the Christian Church ceased in 1943, the Soviet army returned to the ranks and shoulder straps of the pre-revolutionary Imperial Army, and the People's Commissariats were transformed into Ministries. IVS tried to turn the Soviet Union into an "ordinary" state before he died (or was he killed?) in 1953.

Spoiler

If you mean the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, the largest in history since 1945, with total casualties of almost 1 million people, then it is difficult to compare it with what happened between Germany and Poland. You in the West, at least Mr. Stubble, may not realize it well, but Putin started the war because it was important to him, to maintain power. Having started it, he was able to suppress the rest of the opposition, and direct all resources to the realization of his imperial ambitions.

This has little to do even with the protection of the Russian minority, since as a result of the invasion they either died or fled, and a significant part joined the Ukrainian army. This was the stated goal, not the actual one.

If we are going to compare, imagine that the Germans living in Poland would have joined the Polish Army and fought against the Wehrmacht, and Hitler sent soldiers into bloody assaults, destroying cities populated by Germans, including Danzig itself. Putin also has incredible ingratiation from Trump, who offers the latter negotiations, and it was Putin who refused peace. Roosevelt did not offer the Germans anything except an iron bomb, ruins and unconditional surrender. So the comparison of WWII and the approaching WWIII is quite incorrect.

Correct - Adolf Hitler accepted full responsibility for every action undertaken in his name, and bore the weight of each decision made. From his 1st September 1939 speech:

"I am asking of no German man more than I myself was ready throughout four years at any time to do. There will be no hardships for Germans to which I myself will not submit. My whole life henceforth belongs more than ever to my people. I am from now on just first soldier of the German Reich. I have once more put on that coat that was the most sacred and dear to me. I will not take it off again until victory is secured, or I will not survive the outcome".

This is completely consistent with what we know about National Socialism, and put another way:

“This system differs
from dictatorship in that the appointed leader accepts responsibility
before the people and is sustained by the confidence of the nation. . . .
His actions insure that the leadership of the state is in harmony with the
overall interests of the nation and its views. The essence of this system is
overcoming party differences, formation of a genuine national community,
and the unsurpassed greatness of the leadership as prerequisites. The
leader of the authoritarian state personifies the principle of Friedrich the
Great: I am the first servant of the state."
- Theo Rehm, “Politisches Wörterbuch,” Die SA. #6, 1940, p. 4

However, all you've really done is told us "Adolf Hitler took responsibility for the decision to invade Poland" We already know and accept this, but where this warrants unique demonisation remains to be seen.

Military intervention itself is morally bad, although it is not a reason to declare the leader who wages war "uniquely evil." Hitler came to be seen that way because it is convenient for the victorious countries. I mean, they all have this consensus: we defeated absolute evil, we are proud. WWII was the glue that held the Soviet Union together, and the national myth that kept the country going. Without it, half of Europe would not have been in communist hands, there would have been no decolonization - and therefore many Third World countries sympathizing with the Reds. Yes, Hitler is evil, but not absolute. Just as Stalin, Mao Zedong, Putin, or Pol Pot are evil.

This will be our first major point of departure. I see no reason why a Jew is de facto entitled full and boundless access to the resources of the German state (including citizenship), and you will have a lot of heavy lifting to do to persuade me that they simply "deserve" this for some reason or another. I will save you some time that I reject the premises of modern Western Democratic Liberalism, so appeals to this or "Enlightenment values" will fail.

It is not so much a question of Western liberalism or enlightenment. There was no reason in the 1930s and 1940s to consider the Jewish minority in Germany an internal threat. Yes, in 1933 some American Jews called for a boycott of Germany, but this is no justification for such measures. As the practice of World War I showed, the Jews were loyal to Germany until the very end, and Hitler probably knew this. It was enough to take only a step forward - and recognize them as citizens. This does not mean "giving the privilege of control" or anything like that. I am sure that in 1939-1945, without these measures, Jews would have served in the Wehrmacht just as in the Reichsheer in 1914-1918. It was a situation similar to Roosevelt's repression of the Japanese during the war.

[InuYasha]

I agree that the German people absolutely need to shake off their Holocaust guilt as a matter of urgency. You say, again correctly that they can rebuild their state. At the risk of going off-topic here, and feel free to split this into another thread, please answer these questions:

- Who are the "German people"? No need to get too lost in the weeds on this, because I assume you know exactly who they are, just like I do.

It's simple - people of German origin, das Deutschen Volk, as well as German citizens who have largely assimilated German culture and are loyal to their country.

- If you say "rebuild" their state, this must mean the current state is not working for them. Why not?

The current state, created in 1949, works poorly for the interests of the German people. It is politically dependent on the United States, but at the same time very inert. Current Germany is poorly able to defend itself from external threats, and I believe this is the result of the political amorphousness of the German elite, its willingness to accept migrants without their cultural assimilation, to disarm in the face of obvious evil and dictatorship (such as Putin's regime), to turn a blind eye to the interests of its people. Yes, from the point of view of democracy, everything is much better than under Hitler. But even then, with reservations: freedom of speech does not extend to revisionists, some political parties. However, America, with several million Americans deprived of human dignity, rights and freedoms, and nailed to the pillory by psychologists and legislators, is no better. Even the American left is afraid to raise this issue, since it has been something of a "sacred cow" of America for the last fifty years (which is based on lies). Germany has acquired democracy, but is unable to defend it because of its current situation.

- When the German people shake this guilt, and rebuild their state, will they feel aggrieved as to what has been done to them? Assume I mean everything from wartime (eg the firebombings) through to the early Cold War (concentration camps, Berlin Blockade, partition) right through to modernity (Holocaust reparations, Migrant crises etc). Will there be consequences for this?

Yes, the German people will definitely be angry and resentful of their political elites, who for 80 years, and especially the last half century (as Butz noted, the Holocaust hysteria really began in 1978) brainwashed the population, instilling a cult of guilt in Germany and making it vulnerable. If a free discussion about revisionism, about the Holocaust and that war were allowed, then dissenting voices would rise. Such political forces would lose all credibility (regardless of whether the Holocaust happened or not). It would also lead to demands for an end to reparations to Israel (they were supposed to stop by the early 60s anyway, but then the Eichmann affair happened and... you know), and the closure of NATO military bases. The collapse of the "Holocaust consensus" would lead to the rearmament of Germany, which is so necessary now. Moreover, Europe, abandoned by Trump, would receive the impetus that would allow it to unite. I am for democracy, and this does not contradict my views. A free country - if it is truly free - must have the strength to defend these freedoms. I do not personally think that legitimizing revisionism will lead to a dictatorship like Hitler's regime. But the political consequences will be enormous.

I don't want to answer for Archie but yes, this just supports that the Holocaust could not have happened as described.

By the way, Irving was a pretty legitimate historian in the 70s compared to his later position. Admitting to be a revisionist pretty much ruins anyone's reputation in academia.

[InuYasha]

I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that the jews of Berlin (that remained) had a functioning synagogue and held service until the allies bombed it.

I will also reiterate that the suspension and revocation of rights and due process was not a high point in human history. There was however a war on.

Adolf Hitler, Time Magazine man of the year, the man who turned his country around and made sure there was food on the table for his countrymen, was in no way a poor leader. That man did much to benefit his people.

After the invasion of Poland, when he could point at the Soviet and say, see, they are not your friend, he tried to negotiate with Poland and with the allies. All he wanted was a restoration of the Reich.

He didn't decimate the armies of Europe at Dunkirk, instead allowing them to evacuate intact, even if a little embarrassed.

The choice to wage war on Germany had little to do with Poland, it was about keeping Germany's head under water so she could not reach her potential, something that Adolf Hitler was not going to abide.

By 1939, Hitler had effectively achieved his goal. Saarland, Austria, and the Sudetenland had become part of the Reich, as had Memel. All that remained was the German minority in Poland, which was a significant issue (the AH was prepared to turn a blind eye to the eternal problem of Alsace-Lorraine if the French would cooperate with him). Apparently, the National Socialists' goal was to build an ethnically homogeneous German state.

I previously provided a link to a book where the author mentioned numerous secret attempts by the Germans to negotiate with the Poles on the subject of Danzig and the corridor. Before March, I think, this could still have been resolved without great political damage to both sides. After the UK gave guarantees to Poland, it was unlikely. Nevertheless, the negotiation process continued until August 30.

[Stubble]

We are in agreement.

Unfortunately, we got ww2 instead.

[InuYasha]

We are in agreement.

Unfortunately, we got ww2 instead.

Yes... And whole European continent was destroyed. I don't know if there is realistically a chance for Germans and Europeans.

[Stubble]

It is not too late.

[Frye]

I am going to be very blunt and clear here Frye - the only reason I have entertained this for so long is, given what is currently going on in the world and the moment in history being what it is, threads like this will exist indefinitely for curious newcomers to find, absorb, and reflect upon. Alot of what you are throwing around this thread is beginning to fall on deaf ears, or being outright discredited by younger generations. Its very likely that threads like this will reflect very poorly on your position in coming years, and those younger readers will be very happy to see how easily it is debunked.

So you'll forgive me Frye if I tell you I'm not addressing any of this to you, I'm addressing it to those future readers.

The biggest "tell" here in what Frye is saying is that he has all but completely dropped the genocide accusations, and has pivoted almost exclusively to a tepid rebuke of Colonialism due to 20th century views on racial differences.

Let us remind ourselves of Frye's opening salvo from this thread:

Hitler fully believed in Racial Supremacy and the right of the "Superior" Race to subjugate or even exterminate the "Inferior" Races. He also proceeded to construct his New State fully embellished in such principles
- Frye, April 29

His most recent post reflects a complete capitulation to:

It's A-Ok for Whites to displace the Indians "with the most barbaric means" not for means of self defense, but to conquer the land, according to Hitler's "principles".
-Frye, May 11

Thats quite the walkback, from genocide to ethnic displacement. I don't think anybody would deny the European Great Powers were highly expansionist from the Age of Discovery right through to the early / mid 20th century. Our friend Frye of course is checkmated then, into pinning this on Adolf Hitler by applying specifically a racial angle to this ethnic displacement, which brings me to my next point.

The title of this thread references the "demonization of Adolf Hitler" but really it should be the "unique demonization of AH", and I would argue the key word is "unique" in that nobody else from this time period (or any period) is as demonized as much as him. So to uniquely demonize AH you need something unique. However, Frye has rooted his demonization in his rebuke of AH's approval of colonialism due to 20th century racial differences. These views were not unique, and if anything were practically universal. I'm going to provide some Winston Churchill quotes, and I will preface this by saying this is not whataboutism. I am not demonizing WC here, I am contextualising the era-specific quotes about race that AH has made, as era-appropriate.

I do not admit for instance that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been to those people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race or at any rate a more worldly-wise race, to put it that way, has come in and taken their place. I do not admit it. I do not think the Red Indians had any right to say, 'American continent belongs to us and we are not going to have any of these European settlers coming in here'. They had not the right, nor had they the power.

- Winston Churchill, 1937

Snippet taken from Andrew Roberts, "Churchill: Walking With Destiny"



Mr Roberts is underscoring here exactly what i have been telling Frye in this thread.

I think we shall have to take the Chinese in hand and regulate them. I believe that as civilized nations become more powerful they will get more ruthless, and the time will come when the world will impatiently bear the existence of great barbaric nations who may at any time arm themselves and menace civilized nations. I believe in the ultimate partition of China – I mean ultimate. I hope we shall not have to do it in our day. The Aryan stock is bound to triumph.

Winston Churchill, 1902

https://winstonchurchill.org/publicatio ... view-1902/

If our friend Frye wishes to find such language distasteful, that's his right. However he must account for the fact he is viewing history through the lens of 2025 Western Liberalism which as a worldview is itself an enormous outlier compared to the entirety of human history. He can find these passages and beliefs as distateful as he likes, but what he cannot do is assert that Adolf Hitler was writing or speaking in a vacuum, and certainly cannot continue his failing demonization of AH on the grounds of what was commonly understood and accepted at the time.

Indiscriminately killing people when they resist you violating treaties and taking their homes perfectly fits with the UN definition of Genocide. How that is a "walk down" I do not really know.

Winston Churchill did not restructure the entire British government into mandating anti miscegenation laws and detailed racial screenings throughout the United Kingdom. You cannot compare the two. Especially considering Winston Churchill's government reflects a far more tolerant man than the excerpt quoted

"Churchill’s first five years as prime minister were spent waging global war, though he did manage to ban segregation of black American soldiers (1942). Between his premierships he backed UN statehood plans for Israel and Palestine (1948). Two years later Churchill at 76 was defending the Fellaheen against the pashas of Egypt. Prime Minister again, he defied racist South Africa’s claim to Basutoland, Swaziland and Bechuanaland, which later achieved independence.

Colleagues surrounding Churchill did not necessarily harbor ill motives. But most were a good deal less enlightened, and some thought he held very extreme views about equality. The overall records shows that when it came to race (as we understand the term today), he was ahead of his time. He was thirty-two when he urged Parliament

to advance the principle of equal rights of civilized men irrespective of colour. We will not—at least I will pledge myself—hesitate to speak out when necessary if any plain case of cruelty of exploitation of the native for the sordid profit of the white man can be proved.”

https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/ ... ism/#_ftn8

[ConfusedJew]

Is the celebration of Hitler as we sometimes see, like in Kanye West's recent music video, even warranted?

[HansHill]

Indiscriminately killing people when they resist you violating treaties and taking their homes perfectly fits with the UN definition of Genocide. How that is a "walk down" I do not really know.

Please explain what you mean by this.

Winston Churchill did not restructure the entire British government into mandating anti miscegenation laws and detailed racial screenings throughout the United Kingdom. You cannot compare the two. Especially considering Winston Churchill's government reflects a far more tolerant man than the excerpt quoted

"Churchill’s first five years as prime minister were spent waging global war, though he did manage to ban segregation of black American soldiers (1942). Between his premierships he backed UN statehood plans for Israel and Palestine (1948). Two years later Churchill at 76 was defending the Fellaheen against the pashas of Egypt. Prime Minister again, he defied racist South Africa’s claim to Basutoland, Swaziland and Bechuanaland, which later achieved independence.

Colleagues surrounding Churchill did not necessarily harbor ill motives. But most were a good deal less enlightened, and some thought he held very extreme views about equality. The overall records shows that when it came to race (as we understand the term today), he was ahead of his time. He was thirty-two when he urged Parliament

to advance the principle of equal rights of civilized men irrespective of colour. We will not—at least I will pledge myself—hesitate to speak out when necessary if any plain case of cruelty of exploitation of the native for the sordid profit of the white man can be proved.”

https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/ ... ism/#_ftn8

Moving the Goalposts
No True Scottsman

[InuYasha]

Is the celebration of Hitler as we sometimes see, like in Kanye West's recent music video, even warranted?

I believe that the glorification of Hitler is unfounded from a moral point of view, and the people who glorify him are mistaken. Although I know one German who to this day believes that "AH was our national hero, not a bogeyman. The last one under whom Germany was respected." He has his own truth, though.

[HansHill]

Is the celebration of Hitler as we sometimes see, like in Kanye West's recent music video, even warranted?

I wouldn't expect many Holocaust Revisionists to be in the demographic of rap fans, as such. I view that particular situation as a very curious social phenomenon, and an example of the overton window not so much sliding to the right, but being slammed to the right by a freight train.

Which is good.

[InuYasha]

Is the celebration of Hitler as we sometimes see, like in Kanye West's recent music video, even warranted?

I wouldn't expect many Holocaust Revisionists to be in the demographic of rap fans, as such. I view that particular situation as a very curious social phenomenon, and an example of the overton window not so much sliding to the right, but being slammed to the right by a freight train.

Which is good.

Hitler was a scientific racist who refused to shake hands with a black man during the Olympics. He would hardly have appreciated Kanye West. Yes, it was a different time then, racism and segregation were the order of the day, as were many other sad phenomena. But this looks like the glorification of the ancient Romans by the descendants of the ancient Carthaginians.

[Stubble]

The 'Hitler snubbed Jesse Owens' play, really?

No, Hitler didn't 'refuse to shake his hand'. He also talked to him after the games, and, for the rest of his life Jesse Owens had a portrait of Adolf Hitler on his mantle.

https://codoh.com/library/document/jess ... d-reality/

Was Adolf Hitler a race realist? Yes. Is bone marrow heavy and are fast twitch and slow twitch muscle distributions different in White persons and Black persons? Also yes.

Race realism and 'racism' as it has come to be defined, are different. Nature has blessed the different races with different traits to assist in their survival.