Wouldn't the responsible, balanced thing be to include an opposing point of view from the SS on how no genocide took place?
Didn't the Reich "have a right to exist" and to "defend itself"?
We afford the IDF and the murderous Zionist State the right of denial at every turn when it comes to the obvious genocide and ethnic cleansing in Gaza, for "fairness".
Anne Frank's father, Otto, used to recount how in 1932 he witnessed Nazi marches in Frankfurt, where they sang a German song with lyrics like "When Jewish blood spurts from the knife, things will go well again."
The family went into hiding in 1942. When asked why he didn't just leave with his family in 1932 he said he thought it would be too difficult to find work elsewhere. He worked in a bank that he eventually inherited and ultimately collapsed.
Newspapers during this period had plentiful access to Hitler and to other top Nazi officials. They did not, at any point, pull punches as to their intentions. Initially they would have been happy to just deport all the jews. Literally no one would take them. Hitler ultimately told reporters how much he hated this, and his responsibility for them, and what would likely happen to them in the long run.
Otto, his wife, and his children were sent to a concentration camp to work. They died shortly before the end of the war of typhus.
You can relitigate the holocaust until the end of time but it's far more worthwhile to pull back and look at the big, long, detailed picture that was the history of WWII and the hand of everyone in the disastrous outcome it held for Germany and the conditions and fates of those prisoners of war.
Initially they would have been happy to just deport all the jews. Literally no one would take them.
When other countries would not take civilian Jews as refugees, they were complicit in the genocide of innocent civilians.
When other countries won't take civilian Palestinians, it is obviously because they are terrorists.
Otto, his wife, and his children were sent to a concentration camp to work. They died shortly before the end of the war of typhus.
Putting innocent Jewish civilians in concentration camps to murder them, or kill them from starvation and disease is certainly genocide and a crime against humanity.
Putting innocent Palestinian civilians in concentration camps for generations, murdering them through relentless bombing, starvation and disease, is not genocide and not a crime against humanity.
You can relitigate the holocaust until the end of time
No need to relitigate anything, we'll just let it happen again!
But this time, we will correct the inequities of the past by allowing the perpetrators to dominate the narrative and continue with full impunity.
Ask the king of Jordan what happened when he took in Palestinian refugees.
There is a reason not a single country wants them. So I rather see them both wipe each other out than have some Palestinian terrorist blow up a market near me because he had a hissy fit.
Initially they would have been happy to just deport all the jews. Literally no one would take them. Hitler ultimately told reporters how much he hated this, and his responsibility for them, and what would likely happen to them in the long run.
I wonder if that was the impetus for the Madagascar Plan.
If Hitler wanted to deport jews, he could have, instantaneously, and without objection that would matter.
He didn't because just telling jews to leave doesn't give him the ability to seize every single asset they own. Jews that fled Nazi controlled Germany could leave, but only after paying extreme fees, penalties, charges, and having most of the remaining assets seized. The Nazis basically considered reparations to Germans for being jewish and then having the audacity to leave a Socialist utopia with "hoarded jewish gold" that could only have been gotten from Capitalist exploitation. This doesn't include the necessary bribes to immigration officers at the last minute who will seek to prolong the stay of a escapee by inventing a fee to take the last bit of jewelry off them. Yes, you could leave Germany if you were a jew, with nothing more than the clothes on your back, which is why many of them couldn't.
The Madagascar Plan in and of itself was an effort at genocide as the island would be kept under SS control, jews would still be forced into ghettos, and the given spaces for families certainly wasn't going to be enough to hold all jews in Poland without mass death, let alone all jews in Germany, Poland, Ukraine, France, Denmark, Netherlands, Latvia, Estonia, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Greece, Norway, Sweden, Italy, and western Russia. Best case scenario where the Nazis dindu nuffin ends up with the largest possible recreation of "Shark Island"... which is still the Holocaust, just without an explicit gas chamber.
After WWI the banks worked with world governments to place all of the debt from the war on Germany. Regular people in Germany, who had nothing to do with WWI, were starving to death in the streets because of these bankers stealing all German wealth.
So yes, bankers would not be able to flee with the scraps that remained.
WWII started in part because of anger of this attack on the German people, but also because economically they had no choice.
Wouldn't the responsible, balanced thing be to include an opposing point of view from the SS on how no genocide took place?
Yes.
There isn't one.
The National Socialists never denied what they did when they were confronted with it; they just deflected once they were being prosecuted that that they, "Didn't know", or "Followed orders", or "Someone else did it", or "It was necessary", or "I wasn't there at the time", or "I would have gone to jail if I objected", or "I was one of the nice ones", or "I didn't think that's what 'liquidate' meant", or even what I like to call the 'Goering maneuver': "Yes, but it was only Hitler's idea". Holocaust Denial isn't the invention of members of the SS, SA, or NSDAP. It's the invention of American National Socialists decades later who are intentionally making false appeals to Liberal morality for recruitment purposes, despite being explicitly opposed to Liberal morality.
German National Socialist Ayranist Ideology is clear: the jews are a race bent on destroying civilization and it is a moral imperative for the strong races to conquer the weak ones, and to eradicate every jew that exists in order to preserve civilization. This is not a debate. Debate is for the untermench. The problem is that, even in Germany, this ideology is so fucking crazy that most of the Germans would oppose it if you said it out loud (because it is fucking crazy). So like any Leftist, you claim that your opponents are crazy, hyperbolic, liars: ala BLM's "Remember when we had to pretend that we weren't saying abolish the police?... Defund the police? No, this is a budget issue." You get this because anti-Liberals don't agree to Liberal morality, which they believe is a false consciousness that they are allowed to coerce and deceive you out of.
The National Socialists never denied what they did when they were confronted with it
Oh you are referring to the confessions coerced through torture. Unfortunately those confessions couldn't be backed up by any paper trails because the National Socialists miraculously managed to destroy every single document pertaining to the industrial scaled mass murder of Jews.
No, not confessions through torture, most of the National Socialists (particularly the administrative staff) were not tortured. One of the Commandant's of Autchwitz freely expressed what he did and why he did it, and what the estimated the number of deaths to be.
Frankly, most of the actual people who did the direct killing were not tortured. The problem is that they were being mass executed on site when the concentration and death camps were discovered by infantry units. Infamously American infantrymen discovered one concentration camp, took many of the surrendered guards, handed the prisoners (most of whom were jews) tommy guns, and machine-gunned them to death as a reprisal killing for what the infantrymen considered to be atrocities. Similar reprisal killings took place during the liberation of Dachau, after the discovery of thousands dead prisoners on a rail-line.. This issue of infrantry units and commanders going absolutely ape-shit every time they found a concentration camp was dangerously common-place, to the point that the Allied Command set-up units designed explicitly to accept the surrender of camps and their garrisons in order to process the prisoners and prosecute war criminals without having reprisal killings. It's almost as if there was some specific reason that allied infantry were outraged to the point of open murder.
Now, thankfully, US officials managed to save the vast majority of the guards of these death camps and concentration camps for criminal prosecution. They were not tortured according to anything I've seen, and their testimony normally helped continuously prove the scope and depth of the holocaust and additional crimes against humanity conducted by the Nazi regime.
Many of those confessions weren't just backed up by paper trails, but also by massive amounts of physical evidence, including the camps themselves, and a clean-up operation that documented hundreds of thousands of dead in mass graves that took years to complete. One of the things about the Holocaust isn't that we don't have documentation on it, it's that we do. It's the most well documented genocide in history. There's less documentation on the Rwandan Genocide than there is on the Holocaust.
it is a moral imperative for the strong races to conquer the weak ones
This is also the reason Hitler kept fighting the war long after it had become clear they would lose, and he was just going to force them to march all the way to Berlin. "I thought this was supposed to be the nation of superior ubermench, and now you are allowing yourselves to be defeated by these lesser beings. So I am going to let them do it, and I can only hope that the Soviets gang-rape you to death in punishment for not fighting harder."
Holocaust Denial also isnt the only thing that was invented by Western National Socialist, as off the top of my head I remember it was them who turned Dresden from "just another bombing raid on a strategically important target" into "unforgiveable war crime against civilians".
Yes, Albert Speer was quite clear that Hitler believed that the heroic Germans were already long since dead on the eastern front when he passed him the order to annihilate Germany's infrastructure, and that the utter ravaging of Germany was effectively a necessary act. If "Deutchland Ist Hitler, und Hitler Ist Deutchland", then if Hitler is about to die... then Germany must die as well.
In fairness with regard to Dresden, the Nazis did bump up those numbers. They intentionally multiplied the number of deaths by 10 to get to an asserted 202,040 dead which was immediately used as a propaganda tool. So, it was being used as a propaganda tool during the war. David Irving, Nazi & German apologists, and western National Socialists simply ran with the propaganda number that was created.
Wouldn't the responsible, balanced thing be to include an opposing point of view from the SS on how no genocide took place?
Didn't the Reich "have a right to exist" and to "defend itself"?
We afford the IDF and the murderous Zionist State the right of denial at every turn when it comes to the obvious genocide and ethnic cleansing in Gaza, for "fairness".
Anne Frank's father, Otto, used to recount how in 1932 he witnessed Nazi marches in Frankfurt, where they sang a German song with lyrics like "When Jewish blood spurts from the knife, things will go well again."
The family went into hiding in 1942. When asked why he didn't just leave with his family in 1932 he said he thought it would be too difficult to find work elsewhere. He worked in a bank that he eventually inherited and ultimately collapsed.
Newspapers during this period had plentiful access to Hitler and to other top Nazi officials. They did not, at any point, pull punches as to their intentions. Initially they would have been happy to just deport all the jews. Literally no one would take them. Hitler ultimately told reporters how much he hated this, and his responsibility for them, and what would likely happen to them in the long run.
Otto, his wife, and his children were sent to a concentration camp to work. They died shortly before the end of the war of typhus.
You can relitigate the holocaust until the end of time but it's far more worthwhile to pull back and look at the big, long, detailed picture that was the history of WWII and the hand of everyone in the disastrous outcome it held for Germany and the conditions and fates of those prisoners of war.
Reminds me of this totally innocent, non genocidal Israeli song (sung by settler CHILDREN):
When other countries would not take civilian Jews as refugees, they were complicit in the genocide of innocent civilians.
When other countries won't take civilian Palestinians, it is obviously because they are terrorists.
Putting innocent Jewish civilians in concentration camps to murder them, or kill them from starvation and disease is certainly genocide and a crime against humanity.
Putting innocent Palestinian civilians in concentration camps for generations, murdering them through relentless bombing, starvation and disease, is not genocide and not a crime against humanity.
No need to relitigate anything, we'll just let it happen again!
But this time, we will correct the inequities of the past by allowing the perpetrators to dominate the narrative and continue with full impunity.
It's only fair!
Ask the king of Jordan what happened when he took in Palestinian refugees.
There is a reason not a single country wants them. So I rather see them both wipe each other out than have some Palestinian terrorist blow up a market near me because he had a hissy fit.
Or look what happened to America after we gave refuge to the Frankfurt School.
They even tried to send them all to the British Mandate of Palestine under the Haavara Agreement, but the brits weren't having it.
I wonder if that was the impetus for the Madagascar Plan.
If Hitler wanted to deport jews, he could have, instantaneously, and without objection that would matter.
He didn't because just telling jews to leave doesn't give him the ability to seize every single asset they own. Jews that fled Nazi controlled Germany could leave, but only after paying extreme fees, penalties, charges, and having most of the remaining assets seized. The Nazis basically considered reparations to Germans for being jewish and then having the audacity to leave a Socialist utopia with "hoarded jewish gold" that could only have been gotten from Capitalist exploitation. This doesn't include the necessary bribes to immigration officers at the last minute who will seek to prolong the stay of a escapee by inventing a fee to take the last bit of jewelry off them. Yes, you could leave Germany if you were a jew, with nothing more than the clothes on your back, which is why many of them couldn't.
The Madagascar Plan in and of itself was an effort at genocide as the island would be kept under SS control, jews would still be forced into ghettos, and the given spaces for families certainly wasn't going to be enough to hold all jews in Poland without mass death, let alone all jews in Germany, Poland, Ukraine, France, Denmark, Netherlands, Latvia, Estonia, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Greece, Norway, Sweden, Italy, and western Russia. Best case scenario where the Nazis dindu nuffin ends up with the largest possible recreation of "Shark Island"... which is still the Holocaust, just without an explicit gas chamber.
After WWI the banks worked with world governments to place all of the debt from the war on Germany. Regular people in Germany, who had nothing to do with WWI, were starving to death in the streets because of these bankers stealing all German wealth.
So yes, bankers would not be able to flee with the scraps that remained.
WWII started in part because of anger of this attack on the German people, but also because economically they had no choice.
The grievances in this comment only make sense if you consider Weimar a meritocracy.
Singing in the streets about killing a demographic. So... South Africa 5 years ago?
Yes.
There isn't one.
The National Socialists never denied what they did when they were confronted with it; they just deflected once they were being prosecuted that that they, "Didn't know", or "Followed orders", or "Someone else did it", or "It was necessary", or "I wasn't there at the time", or "I would have gone to jail if I objected", or "I was one of the nice ones", or "I didn't think that's what 'liquidate' meant", or even what I like to call the 'Goering maneuver': "Yes, but it was only Hitler's idea". Holocaust Denial isn't the invention of members of the SS, SA, or NSDAP. It's the invention of American National Socialists decades later who are intentionally making false appeals to Liberal morality for recruitment purposes, despite being explicitly opposed to Liberal morality.
German National Socialist Ayranist Ideology is clear: the jews are a race bent on destroying civilization and it is a moral imperative for the strong races to conquer the weak ones, and to eradicate every jew that exists in order to preserve civilization. This is not a debate. Debate is for the untermench. The problem is that, even in Germany, this ideology is so fucking crazy that most of the Germans would oppose it if you said it out loud (because it is fucking crazy). So like any Leftist, you claim that your opponents are crazy, hyperbolic, liars: ala BLM's "Remember when we had to pretend that we weren't saying abolish the police?... Defund the police? No, this is a budget issue." You get this because anti-Liberals don't agree to Liberal morality, which they believe is a false consciousness that they are allowed to coerce and deceive you out of.
Oh you are referring to the confessions coerced through torture. Unfortunately those confessions couldn't be backed up by any paper trails because the National Socialists miraculously managed to destroy every single document pertaining to the industrial scaled mass murder of Jews.
No, not confessions through torture, most of the National Socialists (particularly the administrative staff) were not tortured. One of the Commandant's of Autchwitz freely expressed what he did and why he did it, and what the estimated the number of deaths to be.
Frankly, most of the actual people who did the direct killing were not tortured. The problem is that they were being mass executed on site when the concentration and death camps were discovered by infantry units. Infamously American infantrymen discovered one concentration camp, took many of the surrendered guards, handed the prisoners (most of whom were jews) tommy guns, and machine-gunned them to death as a reprisal killing for what the infantrymen considered to be atrocities. Similar reprisal killings took place during the liberation of Dachau, after the discovery of thousands dead prisoners on a rail-line.. This issue of infrantry units and commanders going absolutely ape-shit every time they found a concentration camp was dangerously common-place, to the point that the Allied Command set-up units designed explicitly to accept the surrender of camps and their garrisons in order to process the prisoners and prosecute war criminals without having reprisal killings. It's almost as if there was some specific reason that allied infantry were outraged to the point of open murder.
Now, thankfully, US officials managed to save the vast majority of the guards of these death camps and concentration camps for criminal prosecution. They were not tortured according to anything I've seen, and their testimony normally helped continuously prove the scope and depth of the holocaust and additional crimes against humanity conducted by the Nazi regime.
Many of those confessions weren't just backed up by paper trails, but also by massive amounts of physical evidence, including the camps themselves, and a clean-up operation that documented hundreds of thousands of dead in mass graves that took years to complete. One of the things about the Holocaust isn't that we don't have documentation on it, it's that we do. It's the most well documented genocide in history. There's less documentation on the Rwandan Genocide than there is on the Holocaust.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160820163011/http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2223831/How-Britain-tortured-Nazi-PoWs-The-horrifying-interrogation-methods-belie-proud-boast-fought-clean-war.html
That's the fun thing about torture. If you torture a few you only need to threaten the rest to comply.
I guess that's why he admitted to murdering 2.5 million Jews in Auschwitz.
Shouldn't be a problem to show us then. But you probably just gonna tell me to read Mein Kampf again.
This is also the reason Hitler kept fighting the war long after it had become clear they would lose, and he was just going to force them to march all the way to Berlin. "I thought this was supposed to be the nation of superior ubermench, and now you are allowing yourselves to be defeated by these lesser beings. So I am going to let them do it, and I can only hope that the Soviets gang-rape you to death in punishment for not fighting harder."
Holocaust Denial also isnt the only thing that was invented by Western National Socialist, as off the top of my head I remember it was them who turned Dresden from "just another bombing raid on a strategically important target" into "unforgiveable war crime against civilians".
Yes, Albert Speer was quite clear that Hitler believed that the heroic Germans were already long since dead on the eastern front when he passed him the order to annihilate Germany's infrastructure, and that the utter ravaging of Germany was effectively a necessary act. If "Deutchland Ist Hitler, und Hitler Ist Deutchland", then if Hitler is about to die... then Germany must die as well.
In fairness with regard to Dresden, the Nazis did bump up those numbers. They intentionally multiplied the number of deaths by 10 to get to an asserted 202,040 dead which was immediately used as a propaganda tool. So, it was being used as a propaganda tool during the war. David Irving, Nazi & German apologists, and western National Socialists simply ran with the propaganda number that was created.
lol. You were born 90 years too late.