Question for holocaust revisionists

[Helios Panoptes]

If the standard account of the holocaust were true, how would your opinion of the Third Reich change?

[Burrhus]

As you have placed us in the realm of speculative history, my opinion would not be changed pending a re-evaluation of the actual situation facing the Third Reich. If they were in fact confronted with a choice between the elimination of the German people and the elimination of the jewish people, then from an evolutionary perspective they would have had to choose to eliminate the jewish people.

Note that I am not saying that that was the case but, in the spirit of speculative history, I am simply saying, if that was the case. If that was not the case and the German people could have survived without eliminating the jewish people, then my opinion would change negatively.

Speculative history mutiplies the number of logic gates that one must assess in making a judgement about the past. Ambiguity increases as the accepted historical narrative must be unraveled in many places. When what is believed to be true or false is speculatively contradicted, other beliefs dependent on those beliefs are also then called into question. That does not mean that asking speculative questions about history is unwise but only that when doing so the ramifications of doing so should be taken account of.

That said, the truth or falsehood of the holocaust story in no way changes my opinion that National Socialism is still the best political philosophy for all in-groups to adopt as being the most conducive to their survival.

[Globus]

As you have placed us in the realm of speculative history, my opinion would not be changed pending a re-evaluation of the actual situation facing the Third Reich. If they were in fact confronted with a choice between the elimination of the German people and the elimination of the jewish people, then from an evolutionary perspective they would have had to choose to eliminate the jewish people.

Notice the use of the passive voice, as if some outside force impelled Nazis to murder Jews.

By the way, some Jews were Germans, and had been for centuries.

[delete]

If they were in fact confronted with a choice between the elimination of the German people and the elimination of the jewish people, then from an evolutionary perspective they would have had to choose to eliminate the jewish people.


I agree, but I dont want National Socialism where I live.

I just want pure ethno-states, leaving it up to them what to do.
If some state wants to kill its population, it is not my concern, as long as Norway doesn't do it to whites.

[Trojan]

I agree, but I dont want National Socialism where I live.

I just want pure ethno-states, leaving it up to them what to do.
If some state wants to kill its population, it is not my concern, as long as Norway doesn't do it to whites.

Such is the occult worship for Hitler.

[delete]

Such is the occult worship for Hitler.

Do you really care about Darfur, or do you prefer to discuss the holocaust with revisionsts?

I think it more true that Hitler is part of your religion, just like devil was for medieval priests.

He is just a person for me.

[Burrhus]

Originally Posted by Trojan
Such is the occult worship for Hitler.

Do you really care about Darfur, or do you prefer to discuss the holocaust with revisionsts?

I think it more true that Hitler is part of your religion, just like devil was for medieval priests.

He is just a person for me.

Excellent observation, Delete. Hitler was, in my opnion, neither a saint nor a demon. He should be judged with respect to his peers such as Roosevelt, Stalin, Churchill etc. In that regard, he was clearly the better man. Better relative to them, not absolutely good as Hitler haters persistently claim that revisionists assert.

[cerberus]

This is a very good question , so basic in nature that it is and perhaps has been over looked.

BurrhusAs you have placed us in the realm of speculative history, my opinion would not be changed pending a re-evaluation of the actual situation facing the Third Reich. If they were in fact confronted with a choice between the elimination of the German people and the elimination of the jewish people, then from an evolutionary perspective they would have had to choose to eliminate the jewish people.


Burrhus - The answer you give is the product of really being placed "on the spot" , on one hand you cannot ignore the question and on the other you put a brave face on answering it without being critical of the political system you are attempting to defend .
Talk about a "Janus" figure - answering and denying at the same time !

The key to your answer is you have placed us in the realm of speculative history

Burrhus - this has been referred to as contention
by another revisionist poster - what you seem to miss is that what you refer to as pseculation is a documented historical fact , it is not a rumour or the product of a conspircay theory.

You embark on what was a purely propaganda line straight from the mouth of Adolf Hitler talking about surival and elimination of the German people and imply that the genocide would have been a necessary step ( according to you, had it taken place at all ) , to enmsure the surival of the German people.

You go on to proclaim that the National Socialist poltical party was good.
That said, the truth or falsehood of the holocaust story in no way changes my opinion that National Socialism is still the best political philosophy for all in-groups to adopt as being the most conducive to their survival.

Burrhus can you reconcile this surival with the murder of the most vunerable sections of German society and explain how you can demonstrate this in relation to the projected savings which T4 would generate ?

You will no doubt say this has nothing to do with the Jews - in this you are incorrect , and you will also no doubt try and distance it from the National Socialist Goverment of Adolf Hitler , which again you cannot do - as in your own words it was a good political leadership for surival.

Can you also relate this secret policy of murder to the oath of office which Hitler took on entering office and how his later behaviour towards the handicaped and mentally ill can be viewed as his working for the welfare of the german people ?
Were these individuals not members of the German people as well ?

I find your answer to be interesting but flawed , in that you ignore the crux of the matter.
Denial , "is a many splendored thing".
If the question was not serious I would almost find your answer to be amusing.
Some revisionist have said that a policy of murder on such a scale could never have taken place - the asnwer is very simple , when you can embark on the murder , illegally and in secret of over 70,000 people you have taken the first step.
When you coldly justify this in terms of economic savings and call it "euthanasia" , you are using the same terms as " deportation" , "transportation" , "evacuation" ," re settlelment" , "to the east" " removal from our living space".
Do you think that the "T4" policy made an important contribution to the surival of the German people ?
Tell me , what contribution do you think it made towards medical ethics ?
What contribution did it make towards "political ethics" ?
Give it a try Burrhus , and keep it in the context of Hitler's oath of office and the surival of the German people .

[Brechun]

As you have placed us in the realm of speculative history, my opinion would not be changed pending a re-evaluation of the actual situation facing the Third Reich. If they were in fact confronted with a choice between the elimination of the German people and the elimination of the jewish people, then from an evolutionary perspective they would have had to choose to eliminate the jewish people.

Killing jews guarantees you a higher spot on the evolutionary ladder? :confused:

[Kolchab]

If the standard account of the holocaust were true, how would your opinion of the Third Reich change?
My opinion about the Third Reich would not change.

Kolchab

[Burrhus]

Killing jews guarantees you a higher spot on the evolutionary ladder? :confused:

First, there are no higher (or lower) spots on the evolutionary ladder. In fact, there is no ladder. That's a misleading metaphor. There is only survival or non-survival.

Burrhus: If they were in fact confronted with a choice between the elimination of the German people and the elimination of the jewish people, then from an evolutionary perspective they would have had to choose to eliminate the jewish people.

Second, please note the word IF in my conditional statement of the situation. I have not asserted that the Germans were confronted with such a choice nor have I asserted that they attempted to eliminate the jews (which I do not believe they did). For one in-group-A to kill the members of another in-group-B in order to prevent B from killing A is necessary in order for A to retain a place on your metaphorical "evolutionary ladder", if B intends to kill A.

Consider the meaning of the word if.

[Burrhus]

Burrhus
Quote:
As you have placed us in the realm of speculative history, my opinion would not be changed pending a re-evaluation of the actual situation facing the Third Reich. If they were in fact confronted with a choice between the elimination of the German people and the elimination of the jewish people, then from an evolutionary perspective they would have had to choose to eliminate the jewish people.

Cerb: Burrhus - The answer you give is the product of really being placed "on the spot" , on one hand you cannot ignore the question and on the other you put a brave face on answering it without being critical of the political system you are attempting to defend .
Talk about a "Janus" figure - answering and denying at the same time !

I do not appreciate being insulted by your use of the word "Janus" implying that I am a hypocrite.

The question was a conditional question which I did not ignore. I simply took into account the hypothetical nature of the antecedent in formulating my answer.

I saw no need to criticize the Third Reich political system given the aforesaid hypothetical nature of the antecedent. I did however state that if the holocaust story were true and that event unwarranted, that my opinion of the Third Reich would change negatively.

Cerb:The key to your answer is
Quote (A):
you have placed us in the realm of speculative history


Burrhus - this has been referred to as
Quote (B):
contention

by another revisionist poster - what you seem to miss is that what you refer to as pseculation is a documented historical fact , it is not a rumour or the product of a conspircay theory.

You should more careful when quoting people to supply accurate attributions. Quote A above is by me and not so noted by you. Quote B is likewise unattributed and undocumented and, it seems to me, irrelevant.

In Helios' question the truth of the holocaust story is asserted as a hypothetical in the antecedent of a conditional. For you to claim that it is a documented historical fact in the context of a discussion of a speculative historical nature is a tawdry rhetorical device which seems to me to serve merely to mislead readers. Not nice.

CERB: You embark on what was a purely propaganda line straight from the mouth of Adolf Hitler talking about surival and elimination of the German people and imply that the genocide would have been a necessary step ( according to you, had it taken place at all ) , to enmsure the surival of the German people.

Please direct me to the source of the "propaganda line straight from the mouth of Adolf Hitler" which was part of my text. Unless you meant that metaphorically, in which case that is more tawdry rhetoric, guilt by association (presumed guilt).

I did not imply that the German elimination of the jews would have been a necessary step to ensure the survival of the German people, I asserted that necessity IF the jews posed a threat to the survival of the German people.

Is the word if so difficult for some people to understand?

CERB: You go on to proclaim that the National Socialist poltical party was good.

Quote:
Burrhus: That said, the truth or falsehood of the holocaust story in no way changes my opinion that National Socialism is still the best political philosophy for all in-groups to adopt as being the most conducive to their survival.

Given that you quoted my words, I wonder that you did not read them. I said nothing about the "goodness" of the National Socialist party; I refered only to National Socialism as a political philosophy which you will discern if you read now what you quoted of mine. I have boldened it for your benefit.

I write carefully, please read me carefully.

The rest of your post was incomprehensible and I have ignored it.

[Basil Fawlty]

I do not appreciate being insulted by your use of the word "Janus" implying that I am a hypocrite.Get used to it with this guy. He accused me of approving of the murder of women and children. When I challenged him on this and demanded he withdraw it, I got a flurry of obfuscatory rubbish. Finally I had to lodge a formal complaint, the first and only time I have ever taken such a drastic step. Still no withdrawl, still no apology, instead he put me on ignore!
This was the last in a long line of misrepresentations, misquotes and lies; it was the straw that broke the camel's back.
You should more careful when quoting people to supply accurate attributions. You might as well be speaking to the cat.
In Helios' question the truth of the holocaust story is asserted as a hypothetical in the antecedent of a conditional. For you to claim that it is a documented historical fact in the context of a discussion of a speculative historical nature is a tawdry rhetorical device which seems to me to serve merely to mislead readers. Not nice. Most appropriate.
I write carefully, please read me carefully. Again, the cat . . .

[delete]

Burrhus can you reconcile this surival with the murder of the most vunerable sections of German society and explain how you can demonstrate this in relation to the projected savings which T4 would generate ?
...
Can you also relate this secret policy of murder to the oath of office which Hitler took on entering office and how his later behaviour towards the handicaped and mentally ill can be viewed as his working for the welfare of the german people ?
Were these individuals not members of the German people as well ?
...
Some revisionist have said that a policy of murder on such a scale could never have taken place - the asnwer is very simple , when you can embark on the murder , illegally and in secret of over 70,000 people you have taken the first step.
...
Do you think that the "T4" policy made an important contribution to the surival of the German people ?
Tell me , what contribution do you think it made towards medical ethics ?
What contribution did it make towards "political ethics" ?
Give it a try Burrhus , and keep it in the context of Hitler's oath of office and the surival of the German people .


What does the T4 have to do with 'If the standard account of the holocaust were true, how would your opinion of the Third Reich change" ???

Nobody claims that the T4 didn't take place.

I believe to force life upon people who are better off dead is immoral.
It is immoral a to let somebody else suffer, just because you don't want to grieve for them today.

[Basil Fawlty]

What does the T4 have to do with 'If the standard account of the holocaust were true, how would your opinion of the Third Reich change" ???

Nobody claims that the T4 didn't take place.

I believe to force life upon people who are better off dead is immoral.
It is immoral a to let somebody else suffer, just because you don't want grieve today.T4 is his little obsession, but watch his reaction if you present him with the grisly facts concerning involuntary euthanasia in the Netherlands.