Would Hitler have been less hated today if the Holocaust didn’t happen?
Let’s just say he still invaded countries, but his government didn’t actively send people to the camps, would he have been less despised today?
Let’s just say he still invaded countries, but his government didn’t actively send people to the camps, would he have been less despised today?
Anonymous
Favorite Answer
No because he still invaded many countries
?
Dave (or ◄♦►) you finish your answer with the sentence:
"It is said that a lie told often enough becomes the truth."
Don't rely on this. No on is going to believe your lies just because you keep telling them.
You say: "The accusations (Aug 6, 1933) came after the Zionists ("Jews") had spent 18 years promoting the concept of "6 million Jews being persecuted and threatened with extermination".
The newspapers had reported on the persecution of Jews in Russia and E Europe. When 6 million Jews were in danger, the reports said '6 million'. When it was 5 million or 3 million, that is what the newspapers said. It is not true to say that the figure was always 6 million.
You also say "a vast amount of money and support came pouring in" - you give no evidence for this (any more than you give evidence that the reports came from your imaginary Zionists) so it is presumably a lie too.
The persecutions were real - you could, for instance, look up the number of refugees who were forced to run for their lives (around 2 million) or just look at the list of massacres in Odessa, and the figure under threat that was not always 6 million. You should know this by now, but you repeat your lies, no doubt in the hope that they will become accepted eventually.
They won't.
No one declared war on Germany in 1933. You are repeating a piece of early 20th century clickbait from 'The Daily Express.' Hitler did continue his campaign against the Jews (which he began during his political campaign). As soon as he took power - he banned Jewish doctors from working for charities in Berlin - this is what you call 'defending German culture' no doubt. He also allowed vicious physical attacks on Jewish citizens by his Brownshirts (whom he later turned on in the murders of the Night of the Long Knives) and banned the Manchester Guardian from being sold in Germany because it reported the truth about them.
You say: "The fact is, there was never any forensic investigations at Auschwitz"
Another lie. The truth is that there were. Seehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leuchter_report#Polish_follow-up_investigation
And finally (although I could say a great deal more) you say this:
"Of course, there are the unbiased "eyewitnesses" who relate inconsistent narratives - but they were Jews so they would never lie, would they?"
I suppose this is meant to be deeply ironical. What you have done here is betray your profound anti-semitism - you say that the eyewitness reports of the gas chambers in Auschwitz (and no doubt elsewhere) should be dismissed - because they come from Jews. And you probably don't even understand how appalling that sounds
What is your excuse for ignoring the testimony of Oskar Groening by the way? or the admissions at the Nuremberg Trials? surely you don't think that was from Jews.
You have demonstrated a frightening gullibility, in offering blatant forgeries both of photographs and documents to support your denial of the Holocaust.
When your lies are questioned you resort to abuse - one of your favourites is to dismiss your opponents as childish.
Why do you go on?
?
No. It didn't happen.
He was accused of extermination just 188 days after becoming Chancellor. Such a thing in that short of a timespan would have been impossible.
The accusations (Aug 6, 1933) came after the Zionists ("Jews") had spent 18 years promoting the concept of "6 million Jews being persecuted and threatened with extermination". Because the population relied on newspapers more than anything else to get their news, these stories ran over a hundred times during this period and continued to do so until 1939 just before Britain declared war on Germany.
This claim also came approximately 5 months after the Zionists ("Jews") declared war on Germany (March 24, 1933). Declaring war on Germany first became an effective selling point that convinced the world that Hitler was exterminating Jews.
The fact that so many people bought into the "6 million" claims is reflected in the vast amount of money and support that came pouring in. They had their human emotions hijacked so that they would support the Zionists (the political group that claimed to be protectors of the Jews, but who, in reality, just used the Jews as tools to further their own ambitions).
The many deaths that occurred came mostly as a result of disease epidemics, although there were some executions and some outright murders - there's no denying this.
Admitting to these murders and executions, you might notice, separates the "Nazis were evil" camp from the "Nazis were innocent" camp, which the debate is really about. I don't whitewash over anything. I point blame to where it goes - the Germans as well as to the British, Americans, and the Soviet Union, whatever the facts support.
Most of what the Holocaust peddlers spew is not based on fact - it is based on unsubstantiated claims, artifacts of a generalized nature that offer no proof of their claims, statements and passages twisted out of context, and a lack of forensic evidence.
The fact is, there was never any forensic investigations at Auschwitz. The Soviets denied access to the Americans for weeks before they announced to the world that there was a gas chamber (a gas chamber that the museum authorities admit to being "altered"). The Western Allies accepted this as fact on face value. Thus, the only "proof" of exterminations at Auschwitz came from accusations by the German-hating Soviets. Of course, there are the unbiased "eyewitnesses" who relate inconsistent narratives - but they were Jews so they would never lie, would they?
The ones who peddle the Holocaust narrative do so from an emotional perspective - patriotism. They support their own country's actions, oblivious to their fallacies. This is especially true where the British are concerned.
Churchill, for instance, called for the Dresden Massacre based on nothing more than because it was a way to defeat German morale which would thus end the war quicker. Dresden had no military value and it was a highly populated and historical city (over 500,000 people). He used illegal firebombs to complete his mission.
Brits applaud this move since it killed a lot of "Nazi supporters". But this was genocide and extremely against the Geneva Convention. But because the Allies won the war, it was deemed "justifiable" and swept under the rug.
Yet, they continue to push a Holocaust narrative that was born out of an accusation made just 188 days after Hitler became Chancellor, and believed by a gullible population that continues to peddle the narrative.
It is said that a lie told often enough becomes the truth.
?
He defiantly would be but he still tried to bomb my granny so not by much.
Pearl L
maybe not if he hadnt killed so many people