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

[HansHill]

If I say I wholeheartedly agree with "Germany Must Perish!" by Theodore Newman Kaufman as its an example of principles I agree with, you would likely concur with the idea that I am not a good person. Hitler is using these examples of European Colonialism as how he thinks a Superior race is entitled to act, so I ask again, Mr Hill, do you agree that the White Race has a right to violently subjugate other peoples?

No, I don't. Neither did Adolf Hitler. From your own quote earlier:

England did not acquire India by right and order, but without regard for the wishes, opinions, or legal opinions of the natives, and maintained this rule, if necessary, with the most brutal ruthlessness.

So while the British didn't necessarily have the "right" to conquer India, they had the means. And they did so. Your attempt at a gotcha question also conveniently ignores the reality of history, in that White nations are often at war and conquer each other, so any banal attempt by you, to overlay your racial superiority thesis on those examples, must surely fail (unless of course you wish to subdivide the White races into their individual component, but I don't think you have the appetite for that because you are keen to adhere to AH's usage of "Aryan").

If AH used the example of English conquest over Ireland, you would have to concede he is talking about civilisational superiority, along with superiority of firepower, armaments, industry, resources, technology etc etc etc. But I sense that is inconvenient for you argument.

I'm unaware of AH ever commenting on that particular example, but it would probably be something along the lines as:

- Acknowledging the ambition and military mastery of the formidable British army in a centuries long conquest of a smaller, weaker foe to expand its Empire
- Acknowledging the rebellious spirit and the instinct of self-preservation of the Irish to fight back for so long against unfathomable odds
- Acknowledging that Irish people and English people are not one in the same, and that it would be a shame were the Irish to be wiped out by conquest, despite having been militarily and civilisationally outmaneouvered for so long

Finally, you'll note that during this entire conversation I have painstakingly limited myself to only using your own provided sources, in the interests of keeping things fair for you. However your position and your arguments have nonetheless run their course I'm afraid, so I'd like to close this off by a discussion about what was happening in the world at this exact time period. I will look at Wilson's own "14 points", whereby despite all his pompous talk about the equal rights of subjugated peoples, facilitated a massive transfer of colonies from Germany to be administered by Britain and France, specifically because those subjugated peoples were unable (inferior?) to govern themselves. I quote from Richard Tedor:

Woodrow Wilson’s 14 Points, which lulled the Reich’s Government into
accepting an armistice in 1918, promised “a free, open-minded and
absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims.” This proved to be
an illusion. In Africa, France gained the former German colony of
Kamerun totaling nearly 50,000 square miles. The Versailles settlement
awarded Ruanda and Burundi to Belgium. England took the lion’s share,
incorporating German East Africa, German Southwest Africa and Togo,
augmenting the British Empire by over 630,000 square miles. Italy
received about 50,000 square miles. Britain and Japan divided Germany’s
Pacific colonies.
The Allies classified the seized colonies as mandate states that England
and France administered as trustees. This avoided the appearance of
outright annexation, which would have raised the inconvenient argument
that so much valuable territory appropriated from Germany should be
credited to the reparations account. The League of Nations charter stated
that administering colonies “inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by
themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world” was a
“sacred trust of civilization." It sanctioned Anglo-French colonial
administration as a blessing for underdeveloped nations, overlooking the
fact that Syria, India, Egypt and several other countries under British and
European subjugation had requested independence after World War I.

I suspect this is inconvenient for you, because this is exact kind of fodder (in content, tone and type) you wish to use as ammunition to continue your demonisation of Adolf Hitler.

[Frye]

If I say I wholeheartedly agree with "Germany Must Perish!" by Theodore Newman Kaufman as its an example of principles I agree with, you would likely concur with the idea that I am not a good person. Hitler is using these examples of European Colonialism as how he thinks a Superior race is entitled to act, so I ask again, Mr Hill, do you agree that the White Race has a right to violently subjugate other peoples?

No, I don't. Neither did Adolf Hitler. From your own quote earlier:

England did not acquire India by right and order, but without regard for the wishes, opinions, or legal opinions of the natives, and maintained this rule, if necessary, with the most brutal ruthlessness.

So while the British didn't necessarily have the "right" to conquer India, they had the means. And they did so. Your attempt at a gotcha question also conveniently ignores the reality of history, in that White nations are often at war and conquer each other, so any banal attempt by you, to overlay your racial superiority thesis on those examples, must surely fail (unless of course you wish to subdivide the White races into their individual component, but I don't think you have the appetite for that because you are keen to adhere to AH's usage of "Aryan").

If AH used the example of English conquest over Ireland, you would have to concede he is talking about civilisational superiority, along with superiority of firepower, armaments, industry, resources, technology etc etc etc. But I sense that is inconvenient for you argument.

I'm unaware of AH ever commenting on that particular example, but it would probably be something along the lines as:

- Acknowledging the ambition and military mastery of the formidable British army in a centuries long conquest of a smaller, weaker foe to expand its Empire
- Acknowledging the rebellious spirit and the instinct of self-preservation of the Irish to fight back for so long against unfathomable odds
- Acknowledging that Irish people and English people are not one in the same, and that it would be a shame were the Irish to be wiped out by conquest, despite having been militarily and civilisationally outmaneouvered for so long

Finally, you'll note that during this entire conversation I have painstakingly limited myself to only using your own provided sources, in the interests of keeping things fair for you. However your position and your arguments have nonetheless run their course I'm afraid, so I'd like to close this off by a discussion about what was happening in the world at this exact time period. I will look at Wilson's own "14 points", whereby despite all his pompous talk about the equal rights of subjugated peoples, facilitated a massive transfer of colonies from Germany to be administered by Britain and France, specifically because those subjugated peoples were unable (inferior?) to govern themselves. I quote from Richard Tedor:

Woodrow Wilson’s 14 Points, which lulled the Reich’s Government into
accepting an armistice in 1918, promised “a free, open-minded and
absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims.” This proved to be
an illusion. In Africa, France gained the former German colony of
Kamerun totaling nearly 50,000 square miles. The Versailles settlement
awarded Ruanda and Burundi to Belgium. England took the lion’s share,
incorporating German East Africa, German Southwest Africa and Togo,
augmenting the British Empire by over 630,000 square miles. Italy
received about 50,000 square miles. Britain and Japan divided Germany’s
Pacific colonies.
The Allies classified the seized colonies as mandate states that England
and France administered as trustees. This avoided the appearance of
outright annexation, which would have raised the inconvenient argument
that so much valuable territory appropriated from Germany should be
credited to the reparations account. The League of Nations charter stated
that administering colonies “inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by
themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world” was a
“sacred trust of civilization." It sanctioned Anglo-French colonial
administration as a blessing for underdeveloped nations, overlooking the
fact that Syria, India, Egypt and several other countries under British and
European subjugation had requested independence after World War I.

I suspect this is inconvenient for you, because this is exact kind of fodder (in content, tone and type) you wish to use as ammunition to continue your demonisation of Adolf Hitler.

"No, I don't. Neither did Adolf Hitler."

Since the archive link I posted doesn't seem to show his 1932 Industry Club Speech anymore, I will reproduce relevant portions of said speech.

"This is already clear from a glance at the current world situation: We have a number of nations that, based on an innate, superior value, have created a way of life that bears no relation to the living space they inhabit in dense settlements. We have the so-called white race, which, since the collapse of antiquity, has secured a privileged position for itself in the world over the course of about a thousand years However, I cannot understand the economically privileged position of the white race over the rest of the world unless I closely connect it with a political conception of mastery that has been inherent in the white race as something natural for many centuries and has been represented by it externally. Take any individual region, for example, India: England did not acquire India through the exercise of law and order, but without regard for the wishes, opinions, or legal declarations of the natives, and maintained this dominion, if necessary, with the most brutal ruthlessness. 18 Just as Cortés or Pizarro once appropriated Central America and the northern states of South America not on the basis of any legal claims, but out of the absolute, innate feeling of mastery of the white race. 19 The settlement of the North American continent was just as little the result of any higher legal claims according to democratic or international understanding, but rather-

a sense of justice rooted solely in the conviction of the superiority and thus of the rights of the white race. 20 If I were to disregard this state of mind, which over the course of the last three or four centuries has conquered the world by the white race, then the fate of this race would indeed be no different than, say, the fate of the Chinese: an immensely compressed mass of people on extraordinarily cramped ground, overpopulation with all its inevitable consequences. 21 If fate led the white race to take a different path, it was only because this white race was convinced that it had a right to organize the rest of the world. No matter how this right was disguised in detail - in practice, it was the exercise of an extraordinarily brutal right of mastery. From this political conception grew the basis for the economic seizure of the other world."

Page 83-84 of HITLER REDEN SCHRIFTEN ANORDNUNGEN FEBRUAR 1925 BIS JANUAR 1933 Band IV Von der Reichstagswahl bis zur Reichspräsidentenwahl Oktober 1930 - März 1932
Teil 3: Januar 1932 - März 1932
Herausgegeben und kommentiert von Christian Hartmann
https://archive.org/details/hitler-rede ... 8/mode/2up

So, the Right of the British to conquer India was not based on respecting the native's wishes, but from the Superiority of the British (and other Europeans) as they belong to the White Race. Infact, according to Hitler if Whites had not gone across the World subjugating other peoples they would be overpopulated and cramped like the Chinese. This fits in nicely with other cited speeches and with a plethora of NSDAP publications touting racial supremacy.

[HansHill]

And there we have it - the final collapse of your argument from “Adolf Hitler was explicitly genocidal towards inferior races” to “Adolf Hitler supported having colonies”. You could have saved all this time by simply quoting point 3 of the NSDAP party platform, its right there. I am very familiar with it.

That is of course if i interpret your posts in good faith, that interpretation is also slowly collapsing, Frye. Ignoring key arguments, and insisting on a selective interpretation, and failing to respond to context, indicates to me that you are not acting in good faith, and are angling for ways to “demonise” Adolf Hitler that fall away under light scrutiny.

So to deal with this for the last time:

“Europeans went to go establish colonies because they were way better at managing them” is not the same thing as “let’s go kill all the black and Indian people because they all deserve to die”.

Your shift from Genocide to Colonialism, is in tandem met with no comment on White-On-White colonialism? No comment on Wilson & the LON’s explicit furtherance of their colonies based on the perceived inability (inferiority) of those subjugated people to self-govern? I thought not, because that would jeopardise your continued demonisation of Adolf Hitler and expose your (new) argument to uncomfortable contradictions.

So yet again in the final analysis, nothing here points to genociding or otherwise committing mass violence against “inferior” races because they all deserve it.

The very fact i even need to caveat this with Colonialism =\= Genocide is a dire reflection on you, and the irony of ironies that this is a thread about the unwarranted demonisation of Adolf Hitler, is almost poetic.

And btw, can you offer any competing comment on how exactly the British / French / Dutch / Portuguese / Spanish justified their colonies?

[Archie]

Food for thought on Hitler's "demonization":

[Frye]

And there we have it - the final collapse of your argument from “Adolf Hitler was explicitly genocidal towards inferior races” to “Adolf Hitler supported having colonies”. You could have saved all this time by simply quoting point 3 of the NSDAP party platform, its right there. I am very familiar with it.

That is of course if i interpret your posts in good faith, that interpretation is also slowly collapsing, Frye. Ignoring key arguments, and insisting on a selective interpretation, and failing to respond to context, indicates to me that you are not acting in good faith, and are angling for ways to “demonise” Adolf Hitler that fall away under light scrutiny.

So to deal with this for the last time:

“Europeans went to go establish colonies because they were way better at managing them” is not the same thing as “let’s go kill all the black and Indian people because they all deserve to die”.

Your shift from Genocide to Colonialism, is in tandem met with no comment on White-On-White colonialism? No comment on Wilson & the LON’s explicit furtherance of their colonies based on the perceived inability (inferiority) of those subjugated people to self-govern? I thought not, because that would jeopardise your continued demonisation of Adolf Hitler and expose your (new) argument to uncomfortable contradictions.

So yet again in the final analysis, nothing here points to genociding or otherwise committing mass violence against “inferior” races because they all deserve it.

The very fact i even need to caveat this with Colonialism =\= Genocide is a dire reflection on you, and the irony of ironies that this is a thread about the unwarranted demonisation of Adolf Hitler, is almost poetic.

And btw, can you offer any competing comment on how exactly the British / French / Dutch / Portuguese / Spanish justified their colonies?

You insinuated Hitler was simply describing History with the "So while the British didn't necessarily have the "right" to conquer India, they had the means. And they did so." even though he is fully endorsing such as how a Superior Race should act.

The Inferior races deserve violence when they resist the White Man taking their land and ruling them. Besides trying to misrepresent the 1932 Industry club speech, I notice you ignore attempting to sugarcoat

His August 1927 speech in which he again says of a pacifist man who wants to go to the USA
He completely forgets that he is entering a country that was conquered according to our principles, not presented to the white man by a host of angels, but that the white man one day took up arms against the redskins and slowly displaced the redskins, with powder and lead, with blood and even with brandy, with every means imaginable, with the most barbaric means.

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". I guess the power and lead is meant for playfighting instead of killing right? Do you Hans Hill, agree with that Worldview? Don't give me anything about oh its History or whatever, just a simple yes or no.

I am not here to defend European Colonialism, I'm also not here to defend the book Germany Must Perish, yet again, if I were to say I agreed with Germany must Perish as it aligns with my principles, you would likely concur with the notion I am a bad person.

[HansHill]

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.