Because socialists don't deny or minimise the holocaust?
Stop generalising... it's what you asked Onar to do.
Because socialists don't deny or minimise the holocaust?
Where did you get THAT from? I stated something that you can ask any mainstream holocaust researcher about, namely that there is very little PHYSICAL evidence of industrial extermination. This is not controversial. There are witness accounts, but that is not the same as physical evidence. Someone here claimed that there were plans of extermination dating back to 1935, and that is news to me, and therefore I asked for references to this.
The death camps were "incidental"? How did you work that out? WWII was also "incidental"? Have you never heard of the word "causality"? Hitler and Stalin signed the Pact of Steel, which Hitler later violated by invading the USSR. Hitler was only upset because Britain had declared war but there was nothing to suggest that war between the countries wasn't inevitable. On the contrary, it was. That is causality.
Wilful ignorance? Oh yes.
Can you reference some of these "mainstream holocaust researchers" please.
I didn't ask you 'how are you different to Onar.' I'm just getting bored watching pots and kettles argue of the use of the word black....
Oh, on THAT account I agree, war was inevitable, and there was indeed a causal link, but that does not mean that the war itself was not incidental to the expressed views of Hitler and the Nazis. I agree that we should judge the Nazis by what they CAUSED not by what intentions they had in their heads. This is in fact how I want ALL forms of socialism judged. While socialism doesn't inevitably cause death camps, socialism does indeed cause thousands of deaths all over the world every single day in the form of structural violence. It is my view that socialism should be judged by this even though this is incidental to socialist ideology (i.e. not planned).
Oh, on THAT account I agree, war was inevitable, and there was indeed a causal link, but that does not mean that the war itself was not incidental to the expressed views of Hitler and the Nazis. I agree that we should judge the Nazis by what they CAUSED not by what intentions they had in their heads. This is in fact how I want ALL forms of socialism judged. While socialism doesn't inevitably cause death camps, socialism does indeed cause thousands of deaths all over the world every single day in the form of structural violence. It is my view that socialism should be judged by this even though this is incidental to socialist ideology (i.e. not planned).
Oh, on THAT account I agree, war was inevitable, and there was indeed a causal link, but that does not mean that the war itself was not incidental to the expressed views of Hitler and the Nazis. I agree that we should judge the Nazis by what they CAUSED not by what intentions they had in their heads. This is in fact how I want ALL forms of socialism judged. While socialism doesn't inevitably cause death camps, socialism does indeed cause thousands of deaths all over the world every single day in the form of structural violence. It is my view that socialism should be judged by this even though this is incidental to socialist ideology (i.e. not planned).
Because socialists don't deny or minimise the holocaust?
Onar Åm said:But then we are back to the question of whether Hitler was evil, because he definitely believed that the Jews were a terrible threat to Germany. His internment of Jews was justified that they were capitalist pigs which undermined a just socialist Germany. In his mind this was only legitimate self-defense. We're back to Hitler in his world view had good intentions and that his actions were simply wrong because Hitler was so fundamentally wrong about capitalism and Jews.
There is only one reasonable scenario where Hitler ends up as an evil person, and that is if we judge his actions objectively. Clearly there is an objectively evil act to kill an innocent man, but Hitler was an evil morality? Or did he just happen to error?
Evil morality requires at some level that they make conscious acts that we know or should know is wrong. Hitler's evil is that he had many occasions throughout his life to studying alternative views and make their own world view during the critical spotlight. There were large numbers of times in his life when someone said that he was wrong, and he just dismissed them without any justification. Here lies his way to an evil morality. Step by step, he built a morality in which he chose to ignore information from certain types of sources and to ignore the criticism.
This is no course or obvious way to be evil, but I would argue that Hitler was evil in the identical manner as Berg Jens Stoltenberg, Kristin Halvorsen and other socialists are evil. Just think of it: there are tons of documentation on what kind of disaster plan financially central control ala the Soviet Union causes. We know with 100% certainty that if an entire society based on such central control end up like North Korea. All this is not only known but extremely well known. Any reasonably intelligent and educated people should know this. Nevertheless, in other words Stoltenberg and other socialists think of asserting that right in health does not the free market. Just in the area of welfare, we must have a Soviet society.
The reason why socialists can so shockingly little about these things is because they choose to ignore all the knowledge in this area. Just as Hitler could never be imagined to listen to what a Jew has to say to most socialists no way intended to read a book written by a liberal. They deliberately choose ignorance and this makes them as guilty as Hitler.
Where did you get THAT from? I stated something that you can ask any mainstream holocaust researcher about, namely that there is very little PHYSICAL evidence of industrial extermination. This is not controversial. There are witness accounts, but that is not the same as physical evidence. Someone here claimed that there were plans of extermination dating back to 1935, and that is news to me, and therefore I asked for references to this.
I didn't ask you 'how are you different to Onar.' I'm just getting bored watching pots and kettles argue of the use of the word black....
Postone had a great essay on the centrality of the Holocaust to German Nazism: http://libcom.org/library/anti-semitism-national-socialism-moishe-postone
It's much worse than that.
Translate link here: http://translate.googleusercontent....r-ond/&usg=ALkJrhiRi9V5a-i-whzp3CPKxY7Su3OHjw
Which brings us back to the fact that the Nazis were SOCIALISTS, but with a racial aspect to them. Just like the communists seek a "Final Solution" for capitalism and capitalists at large, the Nazis sought to find a "Final Solution" for Jewry and jews at large, and for the very same reason.
No, as far as I can see this article deals with the centrality of ANTI-SEMITISM to Nazism. I have written on this very topic many times. The Jews were targeted by Hitler, because they were so strongly present as industrialists and capitalists that to many Jew and capitalist was one and the same thing. This very point is brought up in this article:
"The point to be made here, however, is that a careful examination of the modern anti-Semitic worldview reveals that it is a form of thought in which the rapid development of industrial capitalism, with all its social ramifications, is/ /personified and identified as the Jew."
Which brings us back to the fact that the Nazis were SOCIALISTS, but with a racial aspect to them. Just like the communists seek a "Final Solution" for capitalism and capitalists at large, the Nazis sought to find a "Final Solution" for Jewry and jews at large, and for the very same reason.
No, as far as I can see this article deals with the centrality of ANTI-SEMITISM to Nazism. I have written on this very topic many times. The Jews were targeted by Hitler, because they were so strongly present as industrialists and capitalists that to many Jew and capitalist was one and the same thing. This very point is brought up in this article:
"The point to be made here, however, is that a careful examination of the modern anti-Semitic worldview reveals that it is a form of thought in which the rapid development of industrial capitalism, with all its social ramifications, is/ /personified and identified as the Jew."
Which brings us back to the fact that the Nazis were SOCIALISTS, but with a racial aspect to them. Just like the communists seek a "Final Solution" for capitalism and capitalists at large, the Nazis sought to find a "Final Solution" for Jewry and jews at large, and for the very same reason.
OK, I now feel physically sick, and I'm not joking either.
Where did you get THAT from? I stated something that you can ask any mainstream holocaust researcher about, namely that there is very little PHYSICAL evidence of industrial extermination. This is not controversial. There are witness accounts, but that is not the same as physical evidence. Someone here claimed that there were plans of extermination dating back to 1935, and that is news to me, and therefore I asked for references to this.
Perhaps you prefer this explanation:
"in order to put a stop to the epidemics, we were forced to burn the bodies of incalculable numbers of people who been destroyed by disease. We were therefore forced to build crematoria..."
As for the 1935 plans, they are with specific reference to the systematic killing of the mentally ill and the handicapped, for which war is anticipated as providing a 'cover'. Of course the US Holocaust Memorial Museum may be playing fast and loose with the truth.
Do you think Onar is indulging in holocaust denial?
Is being edgy and provocative that important to you?
Louis MacNeice