Defending HItler

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Sorry, I have allowed myself to become as petty as my conversation partner who defended Hitler by pointing out he killed fewer people than Stalin.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I found this online and found it interesting: http://www.rense.com/general30/schol.htm

George Steiner, Cambridge professor of English and comparative literature, author of numerous scholarly books such as Tolstoy or Dostoyevsky, Language and Silence etc, set out his sobering views in a novel called The Portage to San Cristobal of A.H. (1981). Strangely enough - Dr Steiner is a Jew - he uses his imagination to hypothetically 'give Hitler the chance to defend himself before a Jewish court', 'to defend the indefensible'. How on earth can a Cambridge professor, a Jew, in effect defend A.H., claimed by Jews to be the 'greatest embodiment of evil in human history'? What can be his argument? In summary (Steiner pp 120-126):

Point One: 'The Nazi race doctrines were but a "parody" of the Jewish doctrine of "a chosen people, chosen by God for his own, the only race on earth chosen, exalted, made singular among mankind.. to set a race apart, to hold before it a promised land".'
Point Two: 'The Jew's addiction to [his version of] the ideal.. "It is no accident that Marx and his minions were Jews, that the congregations of Bolshevism - Trotsky, Rosa Luxemberg, Kamenev, the whole fanatic, murderous pack - were of Israel..'
[Chaim Bermant in his book The Jews devotes a chapter to this aspect of Communism that is hardly generally known. The author, himself Jewish, writes with a certain authority and familiarity concerning his subject and can hardly be accused of the charge of 'anti-Semitism' which is usually leveled at anyone who offers any criticism, no matter how justified, of Jews. "No people is so averse to change yet none in recent times has dissipated more of its energy on revolution.. Although Jews formed less than five percent of Russia's population, they formed more than fifty percent of its revolutionaries..

"It must be added that most of the leading revolutionaries who convulsed Europe in the final decades of the last century and the first decades of this one, stemmed from prosperous Jewish families.. They were perhaps typified by the father of revolution, Karl Marx.. Thus when, after the chaos of World War I, revolutions broke out all over Europe, Jews were everywhere at the helm; Trotsky, Sverdlov, Kamenev and Zinoviev in Russia, Bela Kun in Hungary, Kurt Eisner in Bavaria, and, most improbable of all, Rosa Luxemburg in Berlin.

"To many outside observers, the Russian revolution looked like a Jewish conspiracy, especially when it was followed by Jewish-led revolutionary outbreaks in much of central Europe. The leadership of the Bolshevik Party had a preponderance of Jews and included Litvinov (real name Wallach), Liadov (Mandelshtam), Shklovsky, Saltz, Gusev (Drabkin), Zemliachka (Salkind), Helena Rozmirovich, Serafima Gopner, Yaroslavsky (Gubelman), Yaklovlev (Epstein), Riaznov (Goldendach), Uritsky and Larin. Of the seven members of the Politburo, the inner cabinet of the country, four, Trotsky (Bronstein), Zinoviev (Radomsky), Kamenev (Rosenfeld) and Sverdlov, were Jews."]

Point Three: "You have exaggerated. Grossly. Hysterically. What were Rotterdam or Coventry compared to Dresden and Hiroshima? Did I invent the camps? Ask the Boers.. To whom did you hand over millions, tens of millions of men and women from Prague to the Baltic? What did [Solzhenitsyn] say? That Stalin had slaughtered thirty million. I was a man of a murderous time, but a small man compared to him. That he perfected genocide [of the kulaks] when I was still a nameless scribbler in Munich. My boys used their fists and their whips. I won't deny it. The times stank of hunger and blood. But when a man spat out the truth they would stop their fun. Stalin's torturers worked for the pleasure of the thing. To make men befoul themselves, to obtain confessions that are lies, insanities, obscene jokes. The truth only made them more bestial. It is not I who assert these things: it is your own Jewish survivors, your historians, the sage of the Gulag. Who, then was the great destroyer, whose blood-lust the more implacable? Stalin's or mine? Our terrors were a village carnival compared to his. Our camps covered absurd acres; he had strung wire and death-pits around a continent. Yet Stalin died in bed, and yet you hunt me down like a rabid dog.."
Point Four: 'Zionism was shaped in the image of German nationalism.. "The Holocaust gave you the courage of injustice, to drive the Arab out of his home, out of his field, because he was without resource, because he was in your way, knowing that those you had driven out were rotting in refugee camps, not ten miles away, buried alive in despair and lunatic dreams of vengeance.. You used the Holocaust to create Israel.. Should you not honour me who have made your long, vacuous dream of Zion a reality?".'
Why is anti-Palestinianism, unquestionably a form of anti-Semitism, not 'politically incorrect'? As various commentators have been pointing out for more than half a century, the Palestinians have been made to pay for the Holocaust over this extended period, and are still doing so.

I truly don't think Hitler will use those arguments in his defense.

First, a Jewish court would never be accepted to judge Hitler. The best judge must be neutral.

With this first point, Hitler must request neutrality in this case and he already won the first round. The court must be ruled by a judge with neutrality about WW2.

Second, he has the right of an attorney, his attorney will prepare the defense.

Third, the attorney will demand evidence from the accusatory party. If evidence doesn't corroborate the testimony of witness, then their testimonies will be discarded.

Fourth, a judicial case is itself a "legal war of words and evidence", and Hitler was a master strategist of war, it might be very possible that he and his attorney should have made his enemies eat dirt right there in the court room.

His first defense would start exposing the pressure by England and other countries to subjugate Germany after WW1. Here Hitler has the best reason on his side to start the second war.

The rest, Hitler has the opportunity to demonstrate that the accusation party has no evidence, that the damage has been well exaggerate, and that the honor of his name must be vindicated.

In court, comparison with other leaders who committed mass crimes won't be allowed, the case is about Hitler and the assumed victims. However, if the victims have a history record of mass crimes, their former crimes can be used as background against their credibility.

This is the way a real court case should take its path.

These are meta-statements about strategy of a defense where you discuss an "attorney" in the third-person. Within such statements you wrote the following:

The rest, Hitler has the opportunity to demonstrate that the accusation party has no evidence, that the damage has been well exaggerate, and that the honor of his name must be vindicated.

 

[laughing dog]

Oh, sorry. I appear to have stumbled into the infants playground by mistake.

Do any of you children know where the adults are?

I would like to join your discussion, but I am having trouble keeping track of who is rubber, and who is glue.

There is no point to this discussion. One party denies reality of the holocaust. Another party is fixated in trying to turn his delusions and straw men into fact while denying the content of his posts And the other parties are simply falling into the la la land of the first two parties.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Another party is fixated in trying to turn his delusions and straw men into fact while denying the content of his posts.

If you don't like that you are doing that then you should not be doing that. Either dismiss your Defending Hitler argument or own your Defending Hitler argument. Don't try to straw man me by crediting it to me.

 

[laughing dog]

Another party is fixated in trying to turn his delusions and straw men into fact while denying the content of his posts.

If you don't like that you are doing that then you should not be doing that. Either dismiss your Defending Hitler argument or own your Defending Hitler argument. Don't try to straw man me by crediting it to me.

Your babbling proved my observation - there is no point to the discussion.

 

[humbleman]

Another party is fixated in trying to turn his delusions and straw men into fact while denying the content of his posts.

If you don't like that you are doing that then you should not be doing that. Either dismiss your Defending Hitler argument or own your Defending Hitler argument. Don't try to straw man me by crediting it to me.

Your babbling proved my observation - there is no point to the discussion.

If the accusers have quit their demands against my client Mr. Hitler, then it's time for the defense to initiate a process of compensation as part of the vindication of the honor of Mr. Hitler.

If you think that you are free in this court to input crimes that my client Mr. Hitler never committed, then you are wrong.

No matter how much damage the war caused, no matter what is the image you have invented about my client, you have tested the flavor of defeat when your "evidence" is not pointing Mr. Hitler as a war criminal but deaths by hundreds of thousands were caused by collateral damage.

You have had practically pages and pages of online support to make your case against my client, but with a few reviews on the critical aspects, like scientific evidence of the existence of gas chambers, discouraged you in your attempts to win in court.

Hope one day at least a TV series to do the same, a court case against my client and his attorneys to use the same strategy I used in this topic. The public will have the opportunity to use their own weight scale and decide how true they think is the official account of the WW2 events in reference to my client.

I have reasons to disagree with what Mr. Hitler did, but I have no reason to lie and accuse him of things he didn't make in the war. I have no idea how many people sleep at nights knowing that they are punishing a man just because he destroyed their families and use big lies to increase his already bad fame.

I prefer to maintain sanity and avoid being dirty as many are, when in order to obtain some profit, after 70 years still faking suffering as if WW2 happened yesterday rather than decades ago.

The Holocaust museums must be dismantled and forgotten, they have no meaning at all. Those are based on lies. My client had nothing to do with many of those deaths.

My job as his attorney gives me this privilege to defend him and express the concern of vindicating the integrity of Mr. Hitler.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Uh yeah.... bilby... I just did the same. I started this thread as an intellectual exercise in playing devil's advocate and maybe seeing some rarely mentioned arguments and points. It has now devolved into what sounds like 5 year olds mocking one another. Any mod care to clean up or close the thread?

Or just leave it as a stellar example of what happens when a troll trolls a troll.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

If the accusers have quit their demands against my client Mr. Hitler, then it's time for the defense to initiate a process of compensation as part of the vindication of the honor of Mr. Hitler.

For the last time, this thread is not a mock trial. Posters in the thread are not a prosecution. As I wrote already in a previous post, people are looking at your argument objectively and observe it is a dumb argument. It's as stupid as trying to make a case that Hitler didn't exist.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Or just leave it as a stellar example of what happens when a troll trolls a troll.

It is entirely possible humbleman just makes terrible arguments and was not trolling your terrible op.

 

[Derec]

Say what you will about Hitler, but he would fit perfectly among today's "progressive" SJWs. He liked Muslims, hated Jews and bankers, and didn't eat meat.

And speaking of liking Muslims, today's Muslims are returning the favor.

 

[laughing dog]

Hitler was a nationalist who did not like immigrants and worried about their effect on national culture, just like a number of posters in this forum. And he spoke and understood German, just like some posters on this forum.

 

[Derec]

Hitler was a nationalist who did not like immigrants and worried about their effect on national culture, just like a number of posters in this forum. And he spoke and understood German, just like some posters on this forum.

He also built the Autobahn and created the VW Bug, so obviously those are bad too.

What is relevant is that just like modern-day so-called "progressives" he was infatuated with the ideology of Islam. He even had a Muslim SS division, called "Handschar".

Literal "Islamonazis".

 

[laughing dog]

Hitler was a nationalist who did not like immigrants and worried about their effect on national culture, just like a number of posters in this forum. And he spoke and understood German, just like some posters on this forum.

He also built the Autobahn and created the VW Bug, so obviously those are bad too.

That follows from your "logic".

What is relevant is that just like modern-day so-called "progressives" he was infatuated with the ideology of Islam.

It is relevant to your ignorant description of "progressives".

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

What is relevant is that just like modern-day so-called "progressives" he was infatuated with the ideology of Islam.

I am not "infatuated with the ideology of Islam" -- please stop fabricating things about me. I just support civil and human rights of Muslims, same as for Jews, and other groups.

Regarding the more general statement that Hitler would get along with progressives, no he wouldn't. Progressives are not for racism, xenophobia, or genocide.

Clearly, you are posting to get under skin and not in earnest.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Progressives are not for racism, xenophobia, or genocide.

Progressives no. Regressives yes to racism and wrong speak nearing a xenophibic level on ideas. Genocide, maybe in time if they continue to get their way.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Progressives are not for racism, xenophobia, or genocide.

Progressives no. Regressives yes to racism and wrong speak nearing a xenophibic level on ideas. Genocide, maybe in time if they continue to get their way.

Every group can be tribal on ideas and "purist" acting. It's a group thing that happens. It's ridiculous to pretend that somehow that is justification for claiming Hitler would like progressives. He KILLED progressives.

Can we get out of the tribalism and stick to the dumb op instead?

 

[Derec]

That follows from your "logic".

It does not.

It is relevant to your ignorant description of "progressives".

Or really? And why is for example Linda Sarsour, an Islamist Sharia supporter, one of the chief darlings of the progressives these days?

 

[Derec]

Hitler was a nationalist who did not like immigrants and worried about their effect on national culture,

One more thing: in the 1930s there was no mass migration into Germany like we have now, so Hitler had no opinion on it any more he had an opinion on iPhones.
But he did like Islam and worked closely with Islamists like al-Husseini.

 

[Derec]

Progressives are not for racism, xenophobia, or genocide.

Which is why they support cop-killers and terrorists?

 

[laughing dog]

Hitler was a nationalist who did not like immigrants and worried about their effect on national culture,

One more thing: in the 1930s there was no mass migration into Germany like we have now, so Hitler had no opinion on it any more he had an opinion on iPhones.

False. We have his opinions about "inferior"people.