I understand that Hitler wasn’t democratically elected at first because we has simply appointed Chancellor by the current President, but was he ever elected democratically after that for multiple terms? Every website says something different, so I figured I’d ask her. If not, what other well-known ‘evil’ leaders have been democratically elected? I’m doing a presentation, and I’d like to put have a visual of a terrible ruler elected in a democracy.
Lincoln, FDR, and Wilson are evil leaders who have been democratically elected as have Obama and Bush.
I don’t know if Adolf Hitler was ever democratically elected, but it wouldn’t surprise me if he was.
Actually he was elected, and had huge popular support, he could have won any election any time.
He achieved big success for Germany:
-Reuniting millions of Germans separated under different countries as revenge in Versailles.
-Protecting Europe for the Soviet Union of which the europeans were afraid, under Versailles the allowed army was a joke and germany would have been overrun by the soviets.
-Offering peace and alliance to Britain to defend Europe against the proven incoming Soviet Assault.
-Getting out of the unjust Versailles Treaty without War, he reconquered german lands and ethnic germans with very few bloodshed, none at all in the French occupied german zones, none at all in Austria and relatively few in the East, where Germans had been suffering revenge for decades in allied-protected countries.
-When Britain declared war on Germany, he order his navy and air force not to attack or initiate any hostilities and he tried to negotiate peace again and again, saying to his military that he would never fight the British, only Churchill kept the war alive and started shooting the moment he got in power.
-He captured Paris and almost all of France intact, he saved millions of lives by taking France fast and negotiating a honorable peace, he didn’t even demand the navy because he believed he hadn’t earned it, he only ask it to be dismantle or used for their colonies only.
-He created the first Autobahns, highways.
-He lived a modest life, unlike previous politicians and army.
-He tried to find an answer to the jewish question (what to do with a foreign ethnic minority that does not integrate) by proposing them a whole country for them (Madagascar, more than twice the size of Great Britain for fewer people).
-After the 24 March of 1933 when Judea declared War on Germany, he detained only a part of them in concentration camps legal under international law, more during the war and with the objective of sending them when possible to their new country when international negotiations secure one for them. Later when French and British made Madagascar impossible or refuse to offer any place, he decided East Europe, in the mean time some of them worked in factories, camps were visited by Red Cross, and photographed by the allies. During Kristalnacht, he personally ordered the police to go to protect the jews immediately. There is absolutely no evidence of him ordering more than their internment in camps and their relocation later to Eastern Europe. During 1942 when the first propaganda of gas chambers appear, British Intelligence recommended not to use it as they know it was false and that supporting that falsehood would be their losing in the propaganda war, as they loose propaganda war in WW1 by statements like the germans made butter out of belgians and cut their hands which was too exaggerated and unproven and make them liars in front of the world community.
-He maintained Geneva Conventions during the whole war, breaking them only second, against the soviet which didn’t respect them.
-He refused to firebomb civilians and make excuses not to attack Britain, believing the clever people would realize the threat and brutality of the Bolsheviks and accept a common front against them in Europe. Many were in favour or peace inside the military, royalty, government, media, but Churchill detained them by suspending common law and becoming dictator (Regulator 18B, about 2000 detained without trial or charges). So answering your question, Churchill and Roosevelt were evil and won elections.
-He refused to use the advantage Germany had in industrial/chemical production when his generals suggested it.
-He stood for years the clear violation of americans and their the-facto entry into war, he tried to avoid a world war, his objective uniting Germany and protecting it against the bolshevik menace. (Which Britain and US financed and helped to ruin Europe and slave it for half a century).
-His worst were his rude internal anti-dissident policies and his optimism that clever British could be able to overtake the Churchill/Banking clique that was bent on war, had it succeed, he would have won a Nobel price for getting out of Versailles avoiding another war and rallying a common front against Bolshevism.
I don’t see how the circus of voting would mean anything, democracies go to war all the time everywhere and voting doesn’t influence any of the big decisions that are already made. I fail to see the reason for that fetishism and naive hope, what cares are rights and quality of life, that what should be analyze in a country, even in such a difficult time as a war one. But if you need to know he got more than one third of the vote and organized several referendums which he won with overwhelming majority. But he was not the ‘evil’ leader of that time, Churchill and Roosevelt were, that has to be 100% clear.
salvador allende.
Nonsense. Read Carthaginian Peace: Or, Economic Consequences of Mr. Keynes by Mantoux, E. as regards Versailles; and Unbound Prometheus by Landes, D. and Mises’ Planned Chaos for clear understanding of Nazi’s economic policies, for starters. As for how nice he and his buddies were to the French and the Jews… is this a joke?
I’m pretty sure he wasn’t democratically elected. I know 100% that he was appointed at first. I asked for someone to find me evidence of voting polls or something but I can’t.
Is this post even serious? All of the things you listed are things that could have easily happened in the free market. Just because he didn’t abuse the statist power of bombing civilians, that is make us supposed to respect him or something? It’s 100% clear that Hitler was evil and Stalin perhaps even more so, and we know that Churchill and Roosevelt weren’t innocent by all means either, but to stand up for Hitler is stupid. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Based on a lot of your points, it seems like you’re a Holocaust denier. If you have some kind of proof or source for what you’re saying, post it.
is it not possible to condemn hitler as an artful demagogue, a racist practising “ethnic cleansing”, and a socialist, albeit one who didn’t totally crush civil society like the bolsheviks, and also not believe in the holocaust? hitler’s economy policies would have ended in ruination even without the war. and it was a police state.
there were no mass rapes, killings or looting when the germans occupied paris. german reprisals against innocents only began in earnest after the alliance with stalin broke down, and the communist resistance commenced attacks on members of the german armed forces. people like sartre, camus and chanel, whose sympathies were distinctly not with the nazis weren’t rounded up and shot.
yes, hitler came to hate jews, whom he identified as the cause of germany’s woes, along with the allies’ imposition of the nuremburg treaty, post world war I. i’m not sure there’s any trace of that animosity in the early hitler. my understanding is that as a young man he rather admired jewish racial integrity and wished germans were similarly focused on bloodlines.
chavez might also appear in the rogues’ gallery of despotic democrats.
“Just because he didn’t abuse the statist power of bombing civilians, that is make us supposed to respect him or something?”
Yes. Are you really libertarian?
Theory of Just War as opposed to Churchill Total War? Innocent civilians / military separation? Are you aware with those concepts?
“It’s 100% clear that Hitler”
So clear that if you don’t agree you end in jail.
(During 1993-2003 there were 100.000 Inquisition Political Pre-determined ‘trials’ where defending yourself or presenting evidence gets you more time in jail)
Do you choose only the part of libertarianism that you like so you can still believe the anti-german propaganda you were fed since school? Britain and America were the war-mongers and the genociders, read the Morgenthau Plan, they were going to ethnically annihilate the germans and convert it into farm land. Only the cold war that only the nazis predicted way before forced them to alter their plans.
Why do you have to defend nuker Roosevelt? Or civilian-burner Churchill? Can’t you have a serious debate on historical facts without patriotism and “my country was right, not yours! We were the good ones!” I’m neither American, British or German, I’m an outsider who looks at the facts and says who started the war (Britain) and what false propaganda they fabricated.
So yes, I want a Europe without Inquisition, without with-hunts, with Free Speech and I blame the Jews for putting thousands of political prisoners in jail, whose only crime is having the courage to stand up for the truth and say the emperor is naked, the victors rewrote history and are feeding anti-german war-propaganda at gun-point.
“you’re a Holocaust denier”
You are a flat-earth denier! It’s “common accepted knowledge” the Earth is flat. You will be burned at the stake.
Medieval Inquisition.
You’re a Holocaust denier! It’s “common accepted knowledge” the Holocaust happened. You will be jailed for years!
XXI century Inquisition.
‘He captured Paris and almost all of France intact, he saved millions of lives by taking France fast and negotiating a honorable peace, he didn’t even demand the navy because he believed he hadn’t earned it, he only ask it to be dismantle or used for their colonies only.’
How benevolent. He captured a country but at least he did it quickly. The same with Poland. I guess libertarians have an issue with this because it violates basic NAP. It doesn’t matter if he captured it quickly or not.
’ During 1942 when the first propaganda of gas chambers appear, British Intelligence recommended not to use it as they know it was false and that supporting that falsehood would be their losing in the propaganda war, as they loose propaganda war in WW1 by statements like the germans made butter out of belgians and cut their hands which was too exaggerated and unproven and make them liars in front of the world community.’
So were the gas chambers not actually real? Just wondering.
'He maintained Geneva Conventions during the whole war, breaking them only second, against the soviet which didn’t respect them.
-He refused to firebomb civilians and make excuses not to attack Britain, believing the clever people would realize the threat and brutality of the Bolsheviks and accept a common front against them in Europe. Many were in favour or peace inside the military, royalty, government, media, but Churchill detained them by suspending common law and becoming dictator (Regulator 18B, about 2000 detained without trial or charges). So answering your question, Churchill and Roosevelt were evil and won elections.’
It’s actually funny that you put these two together because while Hitler didn’t firebomb Britain ( like the US did to Japan ), he actually shot V2 rockets into London and tried to bomb the city indiscriminately that is of course unless you can prove that the Nazis were just dropping teddy bears.
‘He stood for years the clear violation of americans and their the-facto entry into war, he tried to avoid a world war, his objective uniting Germany and protecting it against the bolshevik menace. (Which Britain and US financed and helped to ruin Europe and slave it for half a century).’
He avoided war by conquering countries? Such an odd strategy. That is like avoiding diabetes by eating donuts. While I am no friend to Bolshevik ideals, it seems rather absurd to protect Germany against Bolshevikism by embracing socialist ideals and conquer foreign countries that could possibly work with Germany or at least act as a buffer between Germany and Bolshevikism.
Are Churchill and Roosevelt bad men? Absolutely but so is Hitler. All 3 were mass murders, Hitler was just more discriminatory about it.
So were the gas chambers not actually real? Just wondering.
Nope.
‘Nope.’
Really? So…was it ‘Jewish Propaganda’?
Really? So…was it ‘Jewish Propaganda’?
Soviet and Allied propaganda. Air-raid shelters were converted to look like gasing chambers after the war. This is documented fact (see David Cole’s video on Auschwitz). Yet, [Holocaust] historians hate to mention the fact of already existent delousing chambers used throughout the war for inmates and people passing through (visiting officials) and guards.
'Soviet and Allied propaganda. Air-raid shelters were converted to look like gasing chambers after the war. This is documented fact (see David Cole’s video on Auschwitz). Yet, [Holocaust] historians hate to mention the fact of already existent delousing chambers used throughout the war for inmates and people passing through (visiting officials) and guards.
So individuals who admitted to gassing Jews were..delusional? I understand there are delousing chambers but the delousing agent is so toxic that it can be used to kill humans too.
So individuals who admitted to gassing Jews were..delusional? I understand there are delousing chambers but the delousing agent is so toxic that it can be used to kill humans too.
The “testimonies” of gas chambers are all questionable. The delousing agent was zyklon-b, the top pesticide at the time in Europe. I’m not sure how many times the delousing chambers were used a day, but zyklon-b leaves a blue colored residue on the walls after time, this is all noticeable on the delousing chambers, but not on the supposed gas chambers, not even on the inside (as opposed to the blue residue on the outside of the walls at delousing chambers from hanging/propping up such things as mattresses on the outside walls for airing out). How is the concentration of zyklon-b higher in the delousing chambers compared to the gas chambers?
David Cole interviewed an expert in Auschwitz about this, and he said that the gas chambers can only have done 1 gassing for 30 minutes every 24 hours, but the delousing chambers were used more frequently (per day they could be used more than once). This doesn’t add up that even if extremely concentrated amounts of zyklon-b were used in a gassing for 30 minutes, guards would still have to go in and remove the bodies, and it shouldn’t take long to air the chamber out (especially if you are just going to gas more people, so why air it out completely?). The top of the chambers had 3 or 4 holes (probably a 1-2’ square no more than a couple feet apart) that zyklon-b would be dropped down into. From what I’ve seen though I haven’t see the delousing stations set up in this manner (I haven’t compared the roofs of delousing stations to supposed gas chambers yet).
So the top pesticide in Europe used for common delousing (in which it can’t be that deadly as even guest to the camps would be “deloused” or get a small amount on them while wearing their clothes) was somehow used to exterminate dozens of people in one room. It would take A LOT of zyklon-b to pull something like this off, and I don’t recall zyklon-b being that cheap.
“How benevolent. He captured a country but at least he did it quickly.”
As individuals what matters judging statism is the damage it caused, the more it kills and destroys, the worst the state is.
If between wars between states the conquering state wins without destroying cities and in a short victory with few blood. Then that state is less-aggressive and less damaging to life, property and individuals.
During the war Nazis also saved Rome, order troops to abandon it and the allied propaganda claimed their clever generals managed to save Rome. A honest man gives credit where it’s due.
French hated the americans and the british, the most damaging thing the germans did was to shout and launch panflets telling the French they were being used by the British. Which was true, the British used them, abandon them, betray them, run home, to come back later like pirates and sink their fleet by surprise murdering French sailors. If that wasn’t enough they were bombed to pieces by “their friends and allies”, 7.000 innocent civilians were murdered D-Day because Churchill wanted to rule over France and was jealous Hitler was doing it. The americans weren’t received as liberators, and didn’t behave as such, as soon as they put foot on continental europe the anti-german propaganda they were fed showed itself as summary execution of prisoners. Read what General Patton said (before Eisenhower order him death). Read the inhumanity of Einsenhower; http://iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmith_Eisenhower.html
Sorry but I failed to see how a libertarian can justify the deaths of hundred of thousands of inocent so France could get back to being ruled by the British instead of the Germans.
“It’s actually funny that you put these two together because while Hitler didn’t firebomb Britain ( like the US did to Japan ), he actually shot V2 rockets into London and tried to bomb the city indiscriminately”
No, Hitler built the wrong Air Force to attack Britain because he never wanted to (weird how the man they told was a threat to the Western World didn’t built a military to confront the West… maybe it’s because he wasn’t going to confront the West? but saved it from the Bolsheviks doing the job the american and british cowardly refused to do and condemned Europe to the soviet boot)
Churchill started the fire-bombings and Hitler refused to retaliate. When he finally did was mostly as retaliation from a British bombing. Have you read the Fire-bombing of Dresden? Germans moved anti-air batteries from Dresden to confront the incoming soviet menace to Berlin, they knew what orders the commissars were giving, murder, rape to german women… the British bombed Dresden for days killing between 100.000 and 150.000, a refugee city. This are the guys that you trust for propaganda. They approved plans to murdered millions of germans after the war, they never cared about civilians, justice or anything. They controlled 99% of the information you hear about the WW2 because they are the victors and occupied Germany, and still do as thousands of American troops are ready and trigger happy to murder german civilians at the word of “nazi”, it’s worst than “terrorist”.
If you believe destruction of civil rights disguised as the war against terrorism is something new, you are wrong. Someone called “terrorist” can be kidnapped and jailed without public opposition, the same with anyone the ruling called “nazi”, doesn’t matter if he is an 80 innocent man who never served in the army, one “eyewitness” can get him kidnapped, flown in a mossad plane, just like the cia with “terrorist”.
It’s the same tactics used again and again, propaganda, dehumanize a group (nazis, arabs) and the force you unleashed on them won’t be criticized by public opinion because they have been conditioned.
The similarities are clear and the total police state is growing, you can’t researched history because you risk being called nazi, you can’t buy a chemistry set to your kids because you will be labelled “potential terrorist”, you can’t grow plants because you will be “drug manufacturer business”.
Divide and conquer, if you allow the Inquisition and allow them to condition you with their anti-german propaganda piece by piece they will take all your rights.
“He avoided war by conquering countries? Such an odd strategy.”
He avoided it, that’s why even when Britain and France declared war on Germany it was called the phoney war.
French troops swim in rivers in front of the German line.
The declaration of war against Germany was made only because the British gave a blank check to the Polish and were obliged to declare war, even a phony non-shooting war. Everybody knew that and talks were in progress to find a honorable solution for the stupidity of the British who were trapped by wrong diplomacy to formally declare war. The war, that was only on paper was about to be stopped and peace assured on Europe. Only Churchill backed by some interests barked like a mad dog for murdering civilians and killing women and children of German cities. It was Churchill’s War pure and simple. It’s an injustice that the war is being portrayed as anything else. Many historians agree with that, even the famous Pat Buchanan who is clearly not pro-german. It’s important not to forget that the first casualty of war is truth and the allied has propaganda units in their military. Many captured British soldiers were lied about the peace proposals of the Germans, when the hear the german side when they were captured, they said they were volunteering to go back and publicly state that, the official peace proposals germany made again and again never reached the british public, because of Churchill and his clique censorship and control of media. It was a pack a of lies, British people were told Germany wanted their whole empire when the reality is that Germany was offering troops to fight on British side for them!
'The “testimonies” of gas chambers are all questionable.
David Cole interviewed an expert in Auschwitz about this, and he said that the gas chambers can only have done 1 gassing for 30 minutes every 24 hours, but the delousing chambers were used more frequently (per day they could be used more than once).’
So testimonies of actual German staff on the camps are suspect but a guy in the present isn’t? Why does this strike me as odd?
‘The delousing agent was zyklon-b, the top pesticide at the time in Europe. I’m not sure how many times the delousing chambers were used a day, but zyklon-b leaves a blue colored residue on the walls after time, this is all noticeable on the delousing chambers, but not on the supposed gas chambers, not even on the inside (as opposed to the blue residue on the outside of the walls at delousing chambers from hanging/propping up such things as mattresses on the outside walls for airing out). How is the concentration of zyklon-b higher in the delousing chambers compared to the gas chambers?’
Well the canisters were apparently made with 200 gram measurements. It only takes 0.3 grams to kill a human and obviously humans are more complex beings and lice and flies. Why there is a higher concentration in the delousing chambers is probably because they were delousing chambers that were regularly used. There is historical evidence that the Germans did delouse clothes to get rid of squaller diseases. However, there is a difference between a delousing chamber and a gas chamber, namely the contents.
And concerning your claim that ‘well there wasn’t blue on the walls!’, that has been debunked, no doubt by the Jews
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/iffr/report.shtml
‘This doesn’t add up that even if extremely concentrated amounts of zyklon-b were used in a gassing for 30 minutes, guards would still have to go in and remove the bodies, and it shouldn’t take long to air the chamber out (especially if you are just going to gas more people, so why air it out completely?).’
Why air out an area that was just saturated with cyanide? You seem to have a difficult time understanding that cyanide is poisonous. In those super cool James Bond films, they didn’t give Bond cyanide because its a fresh maker. It kills you if it enters your system.
‘So the top pesticide in Europe used for common delousing (in which it can’t be that deadly as even guest to the camps would be “deloused” or get a small amount on them while wearing their clothes)’
Right, cyanide isn’t bad for you. Take some, it’s a miracle drug.
‘As individuals what matters judging statism is the damage it caused, the more it kills and destroys, the worst the state is.’
Sure but there is also the principle of aggression. Aggression isn’t wrong if it just affects 1,000 people and right if it only affects 100. Germany invaded Poland and France. Aggression, bare and naked. Bad Germany! Bad!
Sorry but I failed to see how a libertarian can justify the deaths of hundred of thousands of inocent so France could get back to being ruled by the British instead of the Germans.
Well the point of libertarianism, or the expounding of libertarianism would be that neither the Germans nor the British nor the French government should be ruling the ‘French people’ if that is who we are going to call them. Really this game of ‘well British were bad people, therefore Germans were less bad’ is just baseless apologia for Nazi aggression.
‘No, Hitler built the wrong Air Force to attack Britain because he never wanted to (weird how the man they told was a threat to the Western World didn’t built a military to confront the West… maybe it’s because he wasn’t going to confront the West? but saved it from the Bolsheviks doing the job the american and british cowardly refused to do and condemned Europe to the soviet boot)’
So the Luftwaffe isn’t a military force? Luftwaffe literally means Air Force. And are you pretending that the V2 rockets didn’t exist?
‘Have you read the Fire-bombing of Dresden?’
Yes I have and never have I justified it.
‘They controlled 99% of the information you hear about the WW2 because they are the victors and occupied Germany, and still do as thousands of American troops are ready and trigger happy to murder german civilians at the word of “nazi”, it’s worst than “terrorist”.’
Right, with the modern age of global technology, they control 99% of the information on WWII.
‘If you believe destruction of civil rights disguised as the war against terrorism is something new, you are wrong. Someone called “terrorist” can be kidnapped and jailed without public opposition, the same with anyone the ruling called “nazi”, doesn’t matter if he is an 80 innocent man who never served in the army, one “eyewitness” can get him kidnapped, flown in a mossad plane, just like the cia with “terrorist”.’
Useless rant.
‘It’s the same tactics used again and again, propaganda, dehumanize a group (nazis, arabs) and the force you unleashed on them won’t be criticized by public opinion because they have been conditioned.’
I’m well aware that all sides of WWII used dehumanizing propaganda against their enemies.
‘The similarities are clear and the total police state is growing, you can’t researched history because you risk being called nazi, you can’t buy a chemistry set to your kids because you will be labelled “potential terrorist”, you can’t grow plants because you will be “drug manufacturer business”.’
If you wish to research history then by all means do. I just suggest that you stop making up apologia for the Nazi Reich.
‘Divide and conquer, if you allow the Inquisition and allow them to condition you with their anti-german propaganda piece by piece they will take all your rights.’
I feel so conquered with this burden of historical objectivity. Alas, I am sinking under its weight.
'He avoided it, that’s why even when Britain and France declared war on Germany it was called the phoney war.
French troops swim in rivers in front of the German line.’
Clearly that is grounds for invasion. Swimming in German rivers? The outrage! Those French bastards would probably steal German women if they weren’t so homely.
‘The declaration of war against Germany was made only because the British gave a blank check to the Polish and were obliged to declare war, even a phony non-shooting war.’
Whether Britain gave this ‘blank check’ to Poland is irrelevant. Germany still invaded Poland. Case closed. Whether Churchill was a bad guy or not is irregardless of that fact.
-
I didn’t say that.
-
I would have the same reaction if someone didn’t believe in gravity.
-
Is that a “Yes, I deny the Holocaust.”?
The fact that I go about my day without getting shot doesn’t make me respect everyone who walks by without shooting me.