Defending HItler

[humbleman]

For your information, scientific evidence denies the existence of gas chambers.

Link?

For your information, eyewitnesses confirm the holocaust, gas chambers and all. For instance,   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial#Former_SS_members

Critics of Holocaust denial also include members of the Auschwitz SS. Camp physician and SS-Untersturmführer Hans Münch considered the facts of Auschwitz "so firmly determined that one cannot have any doubt at all", and described those who negate what happened at the camp as "malevolent" people who have "personal interest to want to bury in silence things that cannot be buried in silence".[170] Zyklon B handler and SS-Oberscharführer Josef Klehr has said that anyone who maintains that nobody was gassed at Auschwitz must be "crazy or in the wrong".[171] SS-Unterscharführer Oswald Kaduk has stated that he does not consider those who maintain such a thing as normal people.[172] Hearing about Holocaust denial compelled former SS-Rottenführer Oskar Gröning to publicly speak about what he witnessed at Auschwitz, and denounce Holocaust deniers,[173] stating: I would like you to believe me. I saw the gas chambers. I saw the crematoria. I saw the open fires. I was on the ramp when the selections took place. I would like you to believe that these atrocities happened because I was there.[174][175]

Forget about "witness", because actually the men mentioned in that link are not alive, so, it is possible that those words don't belong to them.

Lets go to the scientific side.

Show me the gas chambers. This is to say, according to your theory, how those were built.

You must make your scientific theory credible by supporting it with evidence, no assumptions will be accepted but evidence. The theory's explanation must have solid back up with the technology and methods which apply for the building of a gas chamber.

Any failure to the scientific method requirements will automatically discard your scientific theory probing that there were gas chambers in those concentration camps.

Your theory must include samples which back up the validity of it.

Again, forget about "witness", same as DNA has been obtained from fossils of species which lived in ancient times, same as well scientific evidence can be obtained from gas chambers that existed 70 years ago. The original buildings still stand erected over there, no way to evade having a study of their structure to become gas chambers as you are claiming.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Link?

For your information, eyewitnesses confirm the holocaust, gas chambers and all. For instance,   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial#Former_SS_members

Forget about "witness", because actually the men mentioned in that link are not alive, so, it is possible that those words don't belong to them.

Lets go to the scientific side.

Show me the gas chambers. This is to say, according to your theory, how those were built.

You must make your scientific theory credible by supporting it with evidence, no assumptions will be accepted but evidence. The theory's explanation must have solid back up with the technology and methods which apply for the building of a gas chamber.

Any failure to the scientific method requirements will automatically discard your scientific theory probing that there were gas chambers in those concentration camps.

Your theory must include samples which back up the validity of it.

Again, forget about "witness", same as DNA has been obtained from fossils of species which lived in ancient times, same as well scientific evidence can be obtained from gas chambers that existed 70 years ago. The original buildings still stand erected over there, no way to evade having a study of their structure to become gas chambers as you are claiming.

Nuts. I've personally visited three death camps, including Dachau. To their credit, the Germans have taken a pretty detailed history of what happened. There are thousands of real life interviews with survivors, former guards, local citizens, allied troops who liberated the camps. I personally met a guy who was part of Easy company (Band of Brothers). He liberated a camp. He told me the full story. I believe that he died a couple years ago. Great guy.

I am curious, what is your motivation for being so willing to ignore such overwhelming evidence? I understand religious people defending their nonsense despite the evidence. But what do you get out of thinking that Hitler was framed?

 

[laughing dog]

You have presented no evidence - simply your unsubstantiated delusional assertions. Feel free to embarrass yourself with your defense of Hitler and the denial of the Holocaust.

What does applying psychology to people who are so desperate to deny reality that they insist on insisting that people they have never met or know are "liars" or brainwashed? BTW, some of those "liars"" or "brainswashed" people were my relatives. So, forgive me, if after I apply my knowledge of these people along with my reading of many scholars, that I know your position is full of shit.

What scholars?

For your information, scientific evidence denies the existence of gas chambers.....

I see you took my invitation and decided to embarrass yourself. Iraq is irrelevant to the denial of the Holocaust. Using Iraq as some sort of template to explain away the Holocaust is a pathetic illogical desperate attempt to deny reality. The Holocaust occurred. There are too many witnesses - survivors, liberators and guard testimony, and Nazi records .

But please, continue to embarrass yourself.

 

[bilby]

"Scientific Evidence" denies the existence of the Great Pyramid of Giza too. There are plenty of studies that show that it would be impossible for such a monument to be built with the technology of the times. But those studies are wrong - and we KNOW that they are wrong, because we can simply go and look - and there's no possible way that you can go for a look, and STILL think that it doesn't exist (unless you are clinically insane).

The same applies to the gas chambers. They are there - and no amount of "Scientific Evidence" is able to outweigh the simple act of going and taking a look. Observation ALWAYS trumps theory. Anyone can go and see for themselves; Almost all who have done so agree that the Pyramid of Giza, and the gas chambers of Dachau, are real. The evidence for their existence is overwhelming, and readily available to anyone who wants to see for themselves; You might as well deny gravity and expect your coffee to stay in the cup when you turn it upside down - no matter what "Scientific Evidence" you might have, a simple observation will assure any sane observer that the coffee does indeed end up on their shoes.

 

[barbos]

Stalin was planning to attack Hitler, and Hitler was planning to attack Stalin. When Hitler attacked first, the Soviet troops were aligned in an offensive posture instead of a defensive posture, which is part of the reason Hitler was able to run over them.

 Soviet offensive plans controversy

Suvorov's claim that the Soviets were poised for an offensive operation is based on indirect lines of evidence. The German invasion was devastating because they hit the Soviets while they were still forming up.

Lots of people came up with competing theories and corresponding books which people bought. My theory is utter military incompetence, which is coincidentally what historians agree on.

 

[barbos]

Stalin was planning to attack Hitler, and Hitler was planning to attack Stalin. When Hitler attacked first, the Soviet troops were aligned in an offensive posture instead of a defensive posture, which is part of the reason Hitler was able to run over them.

You are making shit up. Soviet troops were not aligned in any posture. That's why Hitler had so much success. Stalin did not expect invasion in short term. I believe I already told you that.

tYou already told me ... then there is the issue of your credibility...

Yeah, accepted history is not credible to you.

 

[bilby]

Stalin was planning to attack Hitler, and Hitler was planning to attack Stalin. When Hitler attacked first, the Soviet troops were aligned in an offensive posture instead of a defensive posture, which is part of the reason Hitler was able to run over them.

 Soviet offensive plans controversy

Suvorov's claim that the Soviets were poised for an offensive operation is based on indirect lines of evidence. The German invasion was devastating because they hit the Soviets while they were still forming up.

Lots of people came up with competing theories and corresponding books which people bought. My theory is utter military incompetence, which is coincidentally what historians agree on.

Purging the Soviet general staff, and replacing competent strategists and logisticians with politically reliable incompetents was not particularly conducive to an effective defensive strategy, for sure.

 

[Bronzeage]

I don't see any point in trying to defend Hitler. He had the entire German Army to defend him and even they couldn't do it.

 

[Hermit]

Forget about "witness", because actually the men mentioned in that link are not alive, so, it is possible that those words don't belong to them.

Muench was alive until very recently. In the interview below he claims to have saved prisoners from being sent into the gas chambers (0:21 - 0:24). He referred to the existence of gas chambers and how they were used later on in the interview. Either way, he confirms the existence of the gas chambers and the gassing.

I suppose you could say now that he was lying, has gone senile or maybe he is an impostor.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_ZXHbq8lV4[/YOUTUBE]

Klehr was interviewed and recorded by journalist and film-maker Ebbo Demant after he was found guilty of the murder in at least 475 cases, assistance in the joint murder of at least 2730. He told Demant: "Jews never gassed? No? Yes, I have already been asked about that. ...Three elderly ladies come to visit us here. That is such an official society. They always want to support us a little bit, to give us a present on our birthdays, and so on, and one of them asked me once if people were gassed in Auschwitz? I said - I will tell you openly and honestly, but if it were someone else, I would have answered that I did not know. But because it is you, I will tell you precisely, that people were gassed. And anyone who maintains that there are no gassing. ... Yes, I don't understand him, he must be crazy or on the wrong. ... When you are three, four years in Auschwitz and experienced everything, then I cannot get myself to lie about it and say that no gassings were ever conducted."

Hearsay?

I won't go on rebutting your nonsense point by point. There are hour after hour of audiovisual records of participants in the holocaust describing what they did and what they saw others doing. They are easy to find, so I leave you to it, but let me finish on a personal note.

This is a picture of my father and his father.



Neither of them ever joined the NSDAP. My grandfather in fact told my father that if he as much as considered joining, he'd be disowned. Both knew enough to realise that it is ludicrous to even attempt denying that the holocaust took place.

 

[bilby]

I don't see any point in trying to defend Hitler. He had the entire German Army to defend him and even they couldn't do it.

Well, they were hardly going to be able to stop his eventual killer from getting into the Führerbunker.

 

[barbos]

I don't see any point in trying to defend Hitler. He had the entire German Army to defend him and even they couldn't do it.

I can see how a battalion of Jewish lawyers could do it. For some reason it did not happen.

 

[Underseer]

I'm not sure what insights people are hoping to come across in defending a mad person who is not obligated to make any sense at all to a rational human being.

You think that about Hitler?

Oh my gosh, you are committing white genocide! You are obviously prejudiced against white people! Stop persecuting us!!!!!!!! [/conservolibertarian]

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

tYou already told me ... then there is the issue of your credibility...

Yeah, accepted history is not credible to you.

The issue is your credibility, which extends to whatever you try to claim is accepted history. You are exactly like the religious nut who tries to say that the Bible is true because the Bible says the Bible is true.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I'm not sure what insights people are hoping to come across in defending a mad person who is not obligated to make any sense at all to a rational human being.

You think that about Hitler?

Oh my gosh, you are committing white genocide! You are obviously prejudiced against white people! Stop persecuting us!!!!!!!! [/conservolibertarian]

That is an interesting way for you to try to defend Hitler. I never thought conservatives liked him much.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Even if we accept everything as true, it's still whataboutism or tu quoque. If it was wrong for ancient tribes to kill neighbor tribes and their children in the night, then it was even more wrong for modern tribes to do so. I will add that Hitler was an ethnic purist and if it were really the ideology of a "chosen people" he had issue with, then he could have crushed the ideology without murdering all the people so murdered. The goal was ethnic "purity." Lastly, even if we pretend there was some grand conspiracy of Elders of Scion, it still does not excuse killing millions of innocent persons.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

This is an interesting intellectual exercise. I can see the point of some arguments made previously.

In order for there to be a trial, the defendant must have the ability to have a defense attorney. If there is nobody to argue the defense's case, there is no trial. The alternative is to dispense with trials.

Assuming Hitler did survive the war long enough to be captured, he would very likely have been tried as one of history's worst criminals. Therefore he would have needed someone to defend him.

Like it or not, the defense attorney has to act to the best of his ability in order to legitimately make the case that an actual defense case was made. We wouldn't want one of those cases where the defendant claimed he never got a fair trial because the court appointed defense attorney fell asleep during the trial. There are actual cases like that, and I disapprove of the behavior of those defense attorneys.

So, for there to be a trial there has to be a defense attorney.

Also for there to be a trial, there has to be a judge. The judge should be as impartial as possible. If it is clear the judge is not impartial, it is clear that it isn't a fair trial.

To actually defend Hitler, you need the ability to try Hitler. Two large obstacles.

Now back to this thread, where defending Hitler is an intellectual exercise instead of a real court trial. Even here, trying to do it as an intellectual exercise will lead to people assuming that anyone attempting the exercise must therefore be a fan of Hitler and his policies. It is not necessarily true. A good lawyer is supposed to be able to argue either side of a case given the same set of facts, and that if you have two basically equivalently skilled lawyers they could flip a coin before walking into a courtroom to see who takes what side.

It isn't the same in a public forum, where people will say "how dare you conduct that intellectual exercise, you must be a fascist." I think if you want a thread on defending Hitler, you should do it in a more court-like format in a one-on-one debate thread.

 

[Sarpedon]

Maybe we consider it to be a fascist exercise because the bit quoted was obviously written as a vigorous defense of the man and the ideology, rather than the actual arguments that a defense would attempt to muster in this sort of case:

1. Sanity
2. Blame underlings
3. Blame environment, circumstances

A real lawyer would realize that the whole thing is indefensible, and so attempt to shift the narrative to something else. In short, the defense would have resembled the defenses actually argued at Nuremberg. But those arguments were made to save men, not the ideology, and so have no use to the people who would like to 'exercise' their 'intellect' in this fashion.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

A good lawyer is supposed to be able to argue either side of a case given the same set of facts, and that if you have two basically equivalently skilled lawyers they could flip a coin before walking into a courtroom to see who takes what side.

It isn't the same in a public forum, where people will say "how dare you conduct that intellectual exercise, you must be a fascist." I think if you want a thread on defending Hitler, you should do it in a more court-like format in a one-on-one debate thread.

I was expecting some of that reaction. You get it from idiots. I am pleasantly surprised how many here did NOT go with that reaction though, and actually thought their way through the exercise. Kudos.

 

[humbleman]

Nuts. I've personally visited three death camps, including Dachau. To their credit, the Germans have taken a pretty detailed history of what happened. There are thousands of real life interviews with survivors, former guards, local citizens, allied troops who liberated the camps. I personally met a guy who was part of Easy company (Band of Brothers). He liberated a camp. He told me the full story. I believe that he died a couple years ago. Great guy.

I am curious, what is your motivation for being so willing to ignore such overwhelming evidence? I understand religious people defending their nonsense despite the evidence. But what do you get out of thinking that Hitler was framed?

Nonsense.

You should ask how those gas chambers did work.

Their "stories" is not scientific evidence, those are just stories.
'
Defending Hitler I ask for the scientific evidence that those gas chambers were built in those buildings.

Helping you to have a better idea, you could look for how gas chambers work, what is the method for their application, and see if such scientific explanation corroborates the claims made by witnesses.

You see, you just can't defend a story without proper evidence.

The integrity of Adolph Hitler is in play here.

If you can't scientifically prove that gas chambers were possible to exist in those buildings, then Hitler has been vindicated, at least in this part of his life.

You just can't accuse another person of a crime without evidence.

In this case, the structures still are standing over there. There is no reason to evade an investigation proving if gas chambers existed in those places. On the contrary, this scientific investigation will indeed provide the missing part which stops the credibility of the existence of such gas chambers.

To be more fair, some dudes have made this kind of investigation already.

Secretly took samples of the walls, and taking them to a lab, the result was that no enough residual corroborated that poison gas was used in those buildings.

This is like the house of a person who smokes. The smoke of the cigarette will gradually stick in the walls, curtains, furniture, etc. You take samples from those, and the lab will analyze the residuals and will confirm if that the person was a smoker.

The other factor is the construction of gas chambers. Building gas chambers is not just using pipes and cut off valves to release gas. Come on.

If you are point Hitler as using gas chambers, you should learn first how gas chambers are built and how they work.

This is not about being antisemitic, this is about the scientific method applied to check if in reality there were gas chambers in those concentration camps.

So far, the scientific method says: NO.

 

[humbleman]

Maybe we consider it to be a fascist exercise because the bit quoted was obviously written as a vigorous defense of the man and the ideology, rather than the actual arguments that a defense would attempt to muster in this sort of case:

1. Sanity
2. Blame underlings
3. Blame environment, circumstances

A real lawyer would realize that the whole thing is indefensible, and so attempt to shift the narrative to something else. In short, the defense would have resembled the defenses actually argued at Nuremberg. But those arguments were made to save men, not the ideology, and so have no use to the people who would like to 'exercise' their 'intellect' in this fashion.

I didn't start this topic.

But, so far, it is a great adventure defending Hitler.

I just noticed that something fishy is going around, and this will be just an opportunity to clear up cloudy things input to Hitler.

My review of the allies as killing millions of people as collateral damage is sound when you read and analyze the several targets which the allies claim they destroyed in WW2.

You make an account of the tons of bombs dropped over German sites. You make an estimate of how many free labor people Germans use in their war machine, and you come out with the reality that the bombs dropped by the allies didn't believe in natural selection but killed the whole inside factories, storage buildings, etc. which include hundreds of detainees in each target.

At the end of the war, those "missing" bodies must be justified some how... so leave it to the beaver... Hitler was gone to defend himself, easy target to input those deaths.

Time to review history and verify is such claims about Hitler are real.