You don't think it had anything to do with the Ruskis being on his doorstep? Or his own sense of self righteous narcicism? By that point, they were having troops, many of whom were boys and old men, fight on despite loss already being a foregone conclusion. Not exactly indicative of a man who thought he betrayed these people. I would say it's more accurate to say that he acted like a selfish twat to the end.
By taking this line of reasoning, you're in league with people like David Irving and David Duke in their denial of genocidal intentions. It follows from this that you are susceptible to people like Leuchter. Am I hitting the mark? Are you still searching for that Prussian Blue?
Oof
I'm saying if we had a socialist economy and we started losing the war and there wasn't enough food for our own people that I doubt the Japanese or Germans in internment camps would've been fed. I don't think it started as genocidal intentions, but they started losing the war, Typhus was spreading, food was scarce etc.
Oof?
It's like a line of dominoes. First Hitler was just in a bad spot, and then there was no homicidal gas chamber. I remember investigating the supply argument years ago because it's quite plausible. It would account for starvation and disease in the camps. That's all well and good, but it only bolsters the argument that Hitler was a seriously evil motherfucker. The grimmest practical application of Nazi horror imo was the knowledge of human burning gained at Treblinka, used to clean up the corpses at Dresden.
Right, supply and disease became a particularly serious problem in the last days. How extra evil then, in light of such an excuse, that the horrors were committed anyway.
Not disagreeing, it's not an excuse. I'm just saying there is more to it than "he wanted to kill Jews for no reason at all".
Who is supporting him? I mean, I'd be a cuck by Hitler's standards.
I think you're doing the soft shoe here. Who are your go-to deniers? I'm thinking David Duke and perhaps David Irving, because of the echoes of their words in yours. Let's play our cards, shall we?
I read David Irving at the recommendation of Christopher Hitchens in this lecture on free speech. Called him the "foremost expert on Nazi Germany" and argues the importance of being able to question these types of things.
Do you have an argument you'd like to present or do you merely intend to shut down discussion of people that may disagree with you?
Hey man, we are all entitled to enjoy a Hitler thread in our own ways imo
Ah, I'm not saying I like the overall persona based on a few random statements. I'm saying that the situation that lead to the final solution was complicated. That is the essence of my argument.
You're welcome to, I was merely asking if you had an argument.
