Defending HItler

[bilby]

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.

Hitler had some very strong opinions in favour of mass migration; He liked it a lot, and thought that Germans should migrate en-masse into Eastern Europe and western Russia to farm, and that the Eastern Europeans and Western Russians should migrate en-masse to somewhere else, in order to facilitate this. He didn't really care where that 'somewhere else' was, as long as it wasn't anywhere in his empire other than a slave labour camp (or for selected groups, an extermination camp).

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Progressives are not for racism, xenophobia, or genocide.

Which is why they support cop-killers and terrorists?

I do not support cop killers and alleged tuhrrists except in cases of self defense. Please stop fabricating stories about me that aren't even relevant to the thread.

 

[humbleman]

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.
View attachment 14249

View attachment 14250

I thought once that Muslims -as enemies of Jews- were posting online several documents, as newspapers from the 1900's before WW2, arguing how "fake" are those "six million" deaths claimed by Jews.

Have a look at this site below. Actually, the publications do exist, and the articles are correct, at least some that I found corroborating the Muslim web sites.

http://balder.org/judea/Six-Million...000,000-Before-The-Nuremberg-Trials-Began.php

Sorted by date:
1900

Originally Posted by Stephen S. Wise, New York Times, June 11, 1900

There are 6,000,000 living, bleeding, suffering arguments in favor of Zionism.

1902

Originally Posted by Encyclopaedia Britannica, 10th Edition, 1902, page 482

While there are in Russia and Rumania six millions of Jews who are being systematically degraded...

1903

Originally Posted by The Jewish Criterion (Pittsburgh), September 18th, 1903, page 6

[...]six million downtrodden brethren.

1904

Originally Posted by The Jewish Criterion (Pittsburgh), February 19th, 1904, page 2

[...] where five or six million people existed under persecution.

1904

Originally Posted by The Jewish Criterion (Pittsburgh), October 7th, 1904

[...] the final and definite deliverance of the six millions of Russian, Roumanian and Galician Jews [...] transporting five or six million people over the sea.

1905

Originally Posted by New York Times, January 29th, 1905

He declared that a free and a happy Russia, with its 6,000,000 Jews, would possibly mean the end of Zionism, since the abolition of the autocracy would practically eliminate the causes that brought Zionism into existence.

1905

Originally Posted by New York Times, November 1st, 1905

From 1800 to 1902 he caused 6,000,000 Jewish families to be expelled from Russia [...]

1906

Originally Posted by New York Times, March 25th, 1906

[...] the condition and future of Russia's 6,000,000 Jews were made on March 12 in Berlin to the annual meeting of the Central Jewish Relief League of Germany by Dr. Paul Nathan [...]

1907

Originally Posted by The Jewish Criterion (Pittsburgh), October 18th, 1907, page 13

[...] for six million people cannot emigrate.

1908

Originally Posted by Deseret Evening News, March 17th, 1908

[...] poverty, starvation and disease are the afflictions which now beset the six million Jews in that country and Roumania.

1908

Originally Posted by The Jewish Criterion (Pittsburgh), August 7th, 1908

[...] when six million Russian Jews are crying [...]

1910

Originally Posted by The Jewish Criterion (Pittsburgh), February 4th, 1910

SIX MILLION BABIES SAVED BY STRAUS.

1911

Originally Posted by The Zionist Congress, 1911

[...] complete annihilation for six million people [...]...

And the list continues...

It is showing that this number "six million" dead Jews in WW2 is just a fabrication.

 

[humbleman]

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.

Inferior people thoughts can be found with Mr. Kant, the German philosopher, in his book Anthropology.

And, actually, the thoughts of Mr. Kant were well accepted by England, France, Italy, etc.

Having Mr. Hitler repeating the thoughts of Mr. Kant was just "le mode" in those years.

Just compare the words of Mr. Hitler with how blacks were treated here in the US in those years.

 

[Underseer]

humbleman, you did it wrong. In the book, Hitler defended himself:
"The book was controversial, particularly among reviewers and Jewish scholars, because the author allows Hitler to defend himself when he is put on trial in the jungle by his captors." Also, Hitler used his oratory skill, if you can call it that. Something Steiner wrote in the book: "there shall come a man [who] ... will know the grammar of hell and ... will know the sounds of madness and loathing and make them seem music."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Portage_to_San_Cristobal_of_A.H.

So you need to pretend to be Hitler defending himself and use his style of argument.

Hitler's defense sounds an awful lot like rhetoric from conservatives, libertarians (who are totally different, honest!), and other members of the right.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

humbleman, you did it wrong. In the book, Hitler defended himself:
"The book was controversial, particularly among reviewers and Jewish scholars, because the author allows Hitler to defend himself when he is put on trial in the jungle by his captors." Also, Hitler used his oratory skill, if you can call it that. Something Steiner wrote in the book: "there shall come a man [who] ... will know the grammar of hell and ... will know the sounds of madness and loathing and make them seem music."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Portage_to_San_Cristobal_of_A.H.

So you need to pretend to be Hitler defending himself and use his style of argument.

Hitler's defense sounds an awful lot like rhetoric from conservatives, progressives (who are totally different, honest!), and other members of the political class.

His defense of Hitler, as faulty as it was, was still better than yours. All you did was yell at people for advocating white genocide.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

His defense of Hitler, as faulty as it was, was still better than yours.

His defense:

It is showing that this number "six million" dead Jews in WW2 is just a fabrication.

That's as dumb as trying to defend Hitler by saying Hitler didn't exist.

New York Times, 1900:
"There are 6,000,000 living, bleeding, suffering arguments in favor of Zionism. "

Implies that someone claiming people "living" is equivalent to people claiming people are dead.

How is that an argument at all, Jason? Everything humbleman has written was wrong.

Name any Hitler defense argument he presented that was not faulty? Anything at all?

Anything.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

His defense:


That's as dumb as trying to defend Hitler by saying Hitler didn't exist.

New York Times, 1900:
"There are 6,000,000 living, bleeding, suffering arguments in favor of Zionism. "

Implies that someone claiming people "living" is equivalent to people claiming people are dead.

How is that an argument at all, Jason? Everything humbleman has written was wrong.

Name any Hitler defense argument he presented that was not faulty? Anything at all?

Anything.

I agreed it was faulty. However Underseer's argument was worse. Instead of attempting a defense he went on the offense and said if you are attacking Hitler then you are advocating white genocide.

As bad as humbleman's argument was, underseer's was worse.

 

[Ford]

Sorry, no. Claiming the holocaust just didn't happen is not a defense of Hitler. It isn't faulty. It is simply wrong.

 

[laughing dog]

Sorry, no. Claiming the holocaust just didn't happen is not a defense of Hitler. It isn't faulty. It is simply wrong.

Clearly Jason Harvesdancer has thought long and hard evaluating defenses of his man Hitler. I think we should defer to his expert judgment on this issue.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Sorry, no. Claiming the holocaust just didn't happen is not a defense of Hitler. It isn't faulty. It is simply wrong.

Clearly Jason Harvesdancer has thought long and hard evaluating defenses of his man Hitler. I think we should defer to his expert judgment on this issue.

You defense of your man Hitler was actually the best one offered in this thread, better than humbleman's defense. You claimed that he wasn't as bad as Stalin.
Humbleman's defense of your man Hitler was still better than underseer's defense. Underseer merely accused anyone who would criticize Hitler of wanting white genocide.

 

[Ford]

Sorry, no. Claiming the holocaust just didn't happen is not a defense of Hitler. It isn't faulty. It is simply wrong.

Clearly Jason Harvesdancer has thought long and hard evaluating defenses of his man Hitler. I think we should defer to his expert judgment on this issue.

You defense of your man Hitler was actually the best one offered in this thread, better than humbleman's defense.

Again, humbleman didn't offer up a defense. He just stuck his fingers in his ears and said "no holocaust" over and over again.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You defense of your man Hitler was actually the best one offered in this thread, better than humbleman's defense.

Again, humbleman didn't offer up a defense. He just stuck his fingers in his ears and said "no holocaust" over and over again.

Underseer didn't offer one either. He just stuck his fingers in his ears and said "white genocide" over and over again.

 

[Ford]

You defense of your man Hitler was actually the best one offered in this thread, better than humbleman's defense.

Again, humbleman didn't offer up a defense. He just stuck his fingers in his ears and said "no holocaust" over and over again.

Underseer didn't offer one either.

I agree. Underseer did not defend Hitler. He didn't even defend someone pretending to defend Hitler.

Come to think of it, nobody in this thread offered up a proper defense of Hitler. Because Hitler is indefensible. He was, as many historians have said, a murdering fuckhead.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

His defense:


That's as dumb as trying to defend Hitler by saying Hitler didn't exist.

New York Times, 1900:
"There are 6,000,000 living, bleeding, suffering arguments in favor of Zionism. "

Implies that someone claiming people "living" is equivalent to people claiming people are dead.

How is that an argument at all, Jason? Everything humbleman has written was wrong.

Name any Hitler defense argument he presented that was not faulty? Anything at all?

Anything.

I agreed it was faulty. However Underseer's argument was worse. Instead of attempting a defense he went on the offense and said if you are attacking Hitler then you are advocating white genocide.

As bad as humbleman's argument was, underseer's was worse.

Your post is foolish. Here is the proof: explain one thing you agreed with in humbleman's defense. You already refused to answer once.

 

[repoman]

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Underseer didn't offer one either. He just stuck his fingers in his ears and said "white genocide" over and over again.

I agree. Underseer did not defend Hitler.

Well, he did try to. It just that when he tried, he failed.

 

[laughing dog]

Sorry, no. Claiming the holocaust just didn't happen is not a defense of Hitler. It isn't faulty. It is simply wrong.

Clearly Jason Harvesdancer has thought long and hard evaluating defenses of his man Hitler. I think we should defer to his expert judgment on this issue.

You defense of your man Hitler was actually the best one offered in this thread, better than humbleman's defense. You claimed that he wasn't as bad as Stalin.
Humbleman's defense of your man Hitler was still better than underseer's defense. Underseer merely accused anyone who would criticize Hitler of wanting white genocide.

I used your tacit defense of your man Hitler. So it is not a surprise you as an expert on defenses of your man Hitle would think it is better defense than an absolute nondefense. Why you feel the need to argue with someone who is agreeing with your original comment is beyond me.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You defense of your man Hitler was actually the best one offered in this thread, better than humbleman's defense. You claimed that he wasn't as bad as Stalin.
Humbleman's defense of your man Hitler was still better than underseer's defense. Underseer merely accused anyone who would criticize Hitler of wanting white genocide.

I used your tacit defense of my man Hitler

Impossible as I made no defense, tacit or loud.

Why you feel the need to argue with someone who is agreeing with your original comment is beyond me.

Because I see nobody agreeing with me at all, especially not you defending your man Hitler with your argument. Why you feel the need to credit me with your argument is something I don't understand, probably never will. You want to defend your man Hitler, but don't want to be seen defending your man Hitler, so you credit me with your defense of your man Hitler.

 

[laughing dog]

Impossible as I made no defense, tacit or loud.

Wrong.

Because I see nobody agreeing with me at all...

Then you need to read with some comprehension because "Clearly Jason Harvesdancer has thought long and hard evaluating defenses of his man Hitler. I think we should defer to his expert judgment on this issue." ir response to Ford's disagreement would clearly indicate to even the most rudimentary literate person that there is at least one person in agreement. Duh.