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.

[ConfusedJew]

[Mod note: thread merged]

There are many totalitarian dictators that have overseen the deaths of millions of men. Do you think Hitler really deserves as much hatred as he receives? He was obviously extremely bad but maybe history is biased because he killed Jews and Jews are even more influential in the 21st century than they were in the 20th century. You guys aren't really allowed to say that or you'll be canceled but I can say it.

Who do you think was the most evil person in history? Do you put Hitler up there at the top of the list?

[ConfusedJew]

My post was merged even though it was a pretty different question, but I can't answer this until you guys tell me what is worth demonization

Demonization is the act of portraying someone or something as evil, wicked, or morally reprehensible — often in an exaggerated or one-dimensional way. It typically involves reducing complex people, groups, or ideas to caricatures of evil, making them seem entirely bad or dangerous. Demonization is almost always a sign of distorted thinking. It shuts down dialogue, fuels hatred, and can lead to violence or persecution.

When you might justify demonization:

Some ideologies are so harmful that it could be justified to demonize them in order to unify moral opposition in a political sense to prevent harm

If a group or movement is actively committing atrocities, urgent and forceful rhetoric may rally mobilize resistance.

It's generally better to condemn harmful behaviors or policies, not entire identities or groups. Strive to maintain moral clarity to avoid losing nuance.

As it pertains to Hitler and the Nazis:

Do you guys think that their ideologies were harmful, in whole or in part?
Do you think they committed any atrocities against any group or person?

[Stubble]

Do you guys think that their ideologies were harmful, in whole or in part?

No

Do you think they committed any atrocities against any group or person?

No

Caveat;

I can not speak for anyone else and my opinions are my own.

Clarification;

Adolf Hitler was a rather meek and reasonable man. He certainly was not a villain. WW 2 was something he wanted greatly to avoid. Unfortunately, other interests had other plans.

WW 2 killed millions of Europeans (even jewish ones) which to me is greatly regrettable. It also bankrupted the west. The English never really recovered from 'winning' that war. America moved to trading paper with literally nothing to back it. The industrialists and the banksters were the real winners, as is usually the case.

The deprivations of civil liberties and the revocations of citizenship rights against the jews along with their internment into the camp system was not a high point in human history. Unfortunately, the German state was unable to find more appropriate redress for the jewish question, although they did try.

With regard to atrocities, some may consider reprisals and decimations during a war atrocities. It is certainly a form of terrorism. The practice is as old as man himself however. Hell, the us starved about half a million Iraqi children to death and didn't bat an eye, Mrs Albright said it was worth it and she'd do it again.

We give much lip service to how humane we are and how we are just spreading 'democracy', just as Israel pipes out about how it is just defending itself as it ethnically cleanses Gaza.

Not killing innocent people is certainly preferable to decimations and reprisals, unfortunately, sometimes the people harbor and protect terrorists that hang your men from trees, disembowel them and place their genitals in their mouths. War is a nasty thing.

The Ghetto Fighters are celebrated, and the Einsatzgruppen are vilified for fighting them.

The lens of history is very narrow and only points 1 way.

The more I learn about the Reich, the more empathy I develop for its people. Those that were drown by dam busting simply because of where they lived, those that were burned to death, those that were strafed any time they stepped out of their door.

Do you, Mr confused, ever consider how many atrocities the allies conducted upon the German people, not only during, but after the war? The piles of bodies? Bodies that we know names of that had birthdays? People that are confirmed dead, not simply missing?

You may consider Adolf Hitler evil, I would levy that charge 10 times at least against every allied leader and most of the commanders.

[Nazgul]

Of course the most evil man, according to legend in Heinrich HImmler. This is he:

495388514_1094885426004200_3295995544077406770_na.jpg (184.56 KiB) Viewed 492 times

[InuYasha]

Regarding the demonization of AH, I think he was definitely not a good leader or politician, given his racial and nationalistic views and beliefs. Although the German government took steps to prevent war during 1933-39, they nevertheless invaded Poland, starting the conflict. The attack on the Soviet Union cost millions of lives, and although it was not a deliberate policy of extermination, the German government is also to blame. The Russian government, for example, is to blame for the invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022 - the largest conflict in history since September 2, 1945. So, yes, Hitler is not someone who can be excused. I mean, under his leadership, all these people were deported to concentration camps, etc. As the practice of the First World War showed, German Jews were loyal to their government, there was no real reason for their deportation. The problem is that after the war ended, the blame was placed on the entire German people, and the hysteria about the Shoah grew all the time. Some German citizens still feel guilty about what happened. In the face of a possible WWII, it would be better for the German people to reject this guilt, and to make efforts to rebuild their state. I do not mean "return to the NS" by this. Europe has two paths - either Reconquista or Requiem.

David Irving's 1977 theory would have reduced Hitler's blame while not challenging the Holocaust directly. Most mainstream theorists do not accept anything like this, but some of the less organized theories are a bit in this direction.

I haven't read Irving, but aren't you talking about the theory that AH didn't know about the Holocaust and that Himmler organized it behind the Fuhrer's back?
This is quite interesting, but it breaks down against the fact that everything in Germany was under Hitler's control. Only towards the end were his decrees sabotaged (for example, Speer did not carry out the "Nero" order about scorched earth, so that the German people would have at least some basis for survival). Germany after the revolution* is a personalistic dictatorship, like Russia. In 80 years, not a single document issued by Hitler "On the mass extermination of Jews" has been found. There were only repressions against Jews in the second half of WWII, such as shootings. Exterminationists call it "Shoah by bullets", but it was the result of the radicalization of the German government, increasingly desperate as the war dragged on and was lost.

*I mean the 1933 revolution that brought the National Socialists to power.

[Stubble]

You know, an odd bit of consistency between the invasion of Poland and the invasion of Ukraine is the persecution of ethnic Germans in the Polish Corridor and with ethnic Russians in the Donbas.

The Donbas is like ths Polish Corridor all over again. You had groups like 'misanthropic division' 'tornado' and the like committing atrocities against the ethnic Russians just as there were Poles persecuting ethnic Germans.

Now, what would you have Putin or Hitler do? Eh?

Just roll with it?

Hitler wanted peace with Poland and a restoration of the Reich. He also wanted to stop bolshevism.

Hitler did not want a war with the western powers, to the contrary, Hitler wanted an alliance with them so they could fight bolshevism together.

[InuYasha]

You know, an odd bit of consistency between the invasion of Poland and the invasion of Ukraine is the persecution of ethnic Germans in the Polish Corridor and with ethnic Russians in the Donbas.

The Donbas is like ths Polish Corridor all over again. You had groups like 'misanthropic division' 'tornado' and the like committing atrocities against the ethnic Russians just as there were Poles persecuting ethnic Germans.

Now, what would you have Putin or Hitler do? Eh?

Just roll with it?

Hitler wanted peace with Poland and a restoration of the Reich. He also wanted to stop bolshevism.

Hitler did not want a war with the western powers, to the contrary, Hitler wanted an alliance with them so they could fight bolshevism together.

Yes, there is some coincidence. Moreover, if you watched Putin's address on the eve of his invasion, he directly mentioned that "a number of historically German territories" were torn away from Germany in favor of Poland (an almost verbatim quote where Putin justified his attack).

There are certain coincidences between AH and VVP.

I mentioned Hitler's attempts to offer peace in the 1930s in "Inductive Reasoning of WWII". They failed, and Britain and France declared war on the Reich. However, it still cannot be said that Germany did not commit crimes and atrocities during the war.

[Stubble]

You know, an odd bit of consistency between the invasion of Poland and the invasion of Ukraine is the persecution of ethnic Germans in the Polish Corridor and with ethnic Russians in the Donbas.

The Donbas is like ths Polish Corridor all over again. You had groups like 'misanthropic division' 'tornado' and the like committing atrocities against the ethnic Russians just as there were Poles persecuting ethnic Germans.

Now, what would you have Putin or Hitler do? Eh?

Just roll with it?

Hitler wanted peace with Poland and a restoration of the Reich. He also wanted to stop bolshevism.

Hitler did not want a war with the western powers, to the contrary, Hitler wanted an alliance with them so they could fight bolshevism together.

Yes, there is some coincidence. Moreover, if you watched Putin's address on the eve of his invasion, he directly mentioned that "a number of historically German territories" were torn away from Germany in favor of Poland (an almost verbatim quote where Putin justified his attack).

There are certain coincidences between AH and VVP.

I mentioned Hitler's attempts to offer peace in the 1930s in "Inductive Reasoning of WWII". They failed, and Britain and France declared war on the Reich. However, it still cannot be said that Germany did not commit crimes and atrocities during the war.

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.

[HansHill]

Regarding the demonization of AH, I think he was definitely not a good leader or politician, given his racial and nationalistic views and beliefs.

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.

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.

Although the German government took steps to prevent war during 1933-39, they nevertheless invaded Poland, starting the conflict.

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.

The attack on the Soviet Union cost millions of lives, and although it was not a deliberate policy of extermination, the German government is also to blame.

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.

The Russian government, for example, is to blame for the invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022 - the largest conflict in history since September 2, 1945. So, yes, Hitler is not someone who can be excused.

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.

I mean, under his leadership, all these people were deported to concentration camps, etc. As the practice of the First World War showed, German Jews were loyal to their government, there was no real reason for their deportation.

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.

The problem is that after the war ended, the blame was placed on the entire German people, and the hysteria about the Shoah grew all the time. Some German citizens still feel guilty about what happened. In the face of a possible WWII, it would be better for the German people to reject this guilt, and to make efforts to rebuild their state. I do not mean "return to the NS" by this. Europe has two paths - either Reconquista or Requiem.

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.

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

- 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?

David Irving's 1977 theory would have reduced Hitler's blame while not challenging the Holocaust directly. Most mainstream theorists do not accept anything like this, but some of the less organized theories are a bit in this direction.

I haven't read Irving, but aren't you talking about the theory that AH didn't know about the Holocaust and that Himmler organized it behind the Fuhrer's back?
This is quite interesting, but it breaks down against the fact that everything in Germany was under Hitler's control. Only towards the end were his decrees sabotaged (for example, Speer did not carry out the "Nero" order about scorched earth, so that the German people would have at least some basis for survival). Germany after the revolution* is a personalistic dictatorship, like Russia. In 80 years, not a single document issued by Hitler "On the mass extermination of Jews" has been found. There were only repressions against Jews in the second half of WWII, such as shootings. Exterminationists call it "Shoah by bullets", but it was the result of the radicalization of the German government, increasingly desperate as the war dragged on and was lost.

*I mean the 1933 revolution that brought the National Socialists to power.

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