You guys do know most leftists find right libertarian as code word for fascist… you’re only going to further that portrayal.
Oh so,
IF we fought Evil, then we are not evil (or we are pure)
You don’t like the above reasoning. Did I get that right?
Well neither do I, because it’s an obvious logical fallacy. But not because the premise has to be false. But apparently, you think you need to undermine the premise in order to show that the above is false. That doesn’t make you a very credible theoretician. Your motives are very clear.
Can’t both it be wrong on both counts?
People will just back off to “well we did some bad things, but that’s justified because we were fighting supermonsters”. You can avoid their mental acrobatics if you discredit the premise.
And I couldn’t care less about the ethnicity of people killed during the holocaust… I have no utlerior racist motive.
So you will discredit the premise even though it may be correct, just so you can discredit what you claim is a false conclusion that people infer from it. It is obvious that you’re driven by motives that have nothing to do with seeking the truth. So why should anybody take you seriously?
DD5, I can say the same about yourself.
Because maybe I want to have two reasons why someone is wrong.
Even if I’m wrong for wanting two reasons, you still haven’t shown I have an ulterior motive. I repeat, idgaf about any particular group’s misfortunes. All human beings are born with equal moral worth yadayada
You can say anything you like, but you have no such evidence.
This is not the case for him. Unlike you, which I can only speculate about, he has explicitly revealed revealed a motive. Something that he may benefit personally if it so happens that he can prove that the Holocaust is a myth.
I’ve shown that your motives are suspect to be of such nature. That was your main rant about the holocaust. That it justifies the war and makes us look good. Give me a break!
What? That’s a perfectly reasonable position to disprove.
Really? And I thought it was the other way around, a dehumanization of germans who eat babies, were barbarians threatening all europe.. that was the american jewish press was printing. You can check it out, I gave books before detailing lies told in the war.
I think this really speaks of your credibility as a serious thinker. This, for me, is [/thread]. It’s impossible to make a case against someone who thinks that the Holocaust is a Jewish conspiracy to conquer the world (or, well, the world was already conquered, since the Jews already controlled the media). So, this is as far as I will go into discussion with you.
Bert,
One could say Pearl Harbor was our reasoning for entering WWII, but if you want to go into a Pearl Harbor conspiracy we knew beforehand that Japan was going to attack us (my history class even discussed this).
The United States did goad the Japanese into an attack; the only thing I would stress is that I don’t think we expected the Japanese to deal as much damage as they did.
By the way, unrelated to this latest post of yours, the Western Allies did not hand over nearly half of Europe to the Soviet Union. If it had not been for the Western Allies I would venture to guess that even greater portions of Europe would have fallen to the Soviet Union (assuming that there been lend-lease, which accounted for 70% of the trucks which made up the Soviet Union’s logistics infrastructure, IIRC). If this justifies American intervention in the war is something I don’t mean to opine on. In any case, the German war against the Soviet Union was lost from nearly the very beginning; at best, the Germans could have hoped for some type of peace agreement (favorable or not).
The Western Allied campaign against the Germans, however, did make the Soviet war marginally easier (namely, the mass bombing campaigns, tying up thousands of German troops in France, Germany, the Balkans, Norway, et cetera [including key armored units which could have formed reserves in the East], and so on). But, it was the Western Allied advance in Western Europe (earlier in Italy, then in France) that made it imperative for both sides to divide Europe at Yalta.
Bert continued,
If hindsight was 20/20 wouldn’t it have made more sense to make a pact with Germany and stop Soviet imperialism?
Actually, one of the reasons the West allowed Germany to remilitarize in the mid-1930s was because it was believed that Hitler’s Germany would provide a bulkwark against the Soviet Union. The non-aggression pact between the two countries came as a surprise, and I don’t think the West expected the German invasion of France in May 1940.
Sieben,
Right a serious historian would have a more complex philosophy of WWII, but the reasoning given to us in high schools was that Hitler is bad because of the holocaust, so we have to stop him and that makes us the good guys no matter what. Without the holocaust, WWII does become a lot more debatable, even on non-libertarian grounds.
Is it worth discussing the topic on high school terms? I thought we would all be beyond high school at this level of intelligent discussion.
Regarding your last sentence, I don’t think that’s true. Hitler also agressed against a large number of nations, as did Italy (Ethiopia, France, Greece, British Egypt, et cetera), Spain (the international city of Tangiers), and Japan (China, et cetera). I think the Second World War is justified on broader utilitarian grounds, including that it was a war against German and Japanese aggression. Of course, we know that it would be naïve to believe that government have any type of broad objectives like those described (i.e. to stop German aggression), instead having specific political goals (for example, the Western Allies did nothing either time Polish leadership was killed - 1939 and 1944). My point is that I don’t think the Second World War is questioned outside libertarian, Marxist, other heterodox circles (and in fact, libertarians are not a unified front - for example, George Reisman thinks the Second World War was justified).
interesting that at least one non-practising jewish icon in the anarco-libertarian movement should also have nurtured denialist thoughts. but that obviously was an insiders’ joke, as this snippet makes clear. the occasion in question was the icon’s surprise 60th birthday party. do a search using “this crack, made in 1986”, to arrive straighaway at the punch-line.
it’s unimaginable that a similar event could be held today, with thoughtcrime so much better policed. one misses that sort of irreverance and fearlessness to tread where others dare not.
of course, one can easily dismiss the above-mentioned gentleman as a sloppy scholar, unable to get his mind around a complex argument, and filled with self-loathing or some other psychiatric disorder. after all, he never got tenure at any ivy league school, and he wasn’t a professional historian.
for those not in on the joke, “the hoax of the twentieth century” is by arthur r. butz, one of the maligned denialists.
well, morgenthau, head of treasury, architect of the infamous plan for the despoilation of germany, did embrace the rumours. whereas hull, secretary of state thought they were merely jewish propaganda. no cigar for guessing which department won the struggle for the president’s ear.
…or as non-dislexics say, “despoliation”.
could you name one credible witness to the presumed gassing of internees?
http://shamash.org/holocaust/denial/testimony.txt
http://rodohforum.yuku.com/topic/3013
Does anyone have a full list of these 65 SS witnesses to the gas chambers? (Also contractors…)
Quick initial stab at this; i.e. some statements, but also list of the accused in 2 main trials - not all of whom will have been ‘gas chamber witnesses’.
Confirmed Gas Chamber Witnesses
Rudolf Hss
Dr Fritz Klein Bergen-Belsen trial
SS guard Peter Weingartner Bergen-Belsen trial*
Franz Hssler Bergen-Belsen trial
Josef Kramer Bergen-Belsen trial
Pery Broad to British
Otto Moll at Nuremberg; Dachau trial
Walter Dejaco Vienna trial
Richard Br
Hans Stark
SS Private Hoelbinger
SS Private Boeck
Johann Schwarzhuber
SS guard Oskar Groening BBC interview
Dr Karl Kahr (Standortarzt) Nbg NO-1948 - hearsay
Dr Friedrich Entress Nbg NO-2368 - witness
Initially, I’m afraid that America was doing it the “Austrian” way, staying out of the war all together. Aside from granting asylum to refugees, there is little in the way of peaceful, free market methods we could offer.
Europeans in general were, and still are, thanks to the welfare state, basically sheep. They look not for leaders who would preserve their liberty, but for someone to take away their pain, even though this has always led to unimaginable suffering.
I would say the best way to prevent mass murder and genocide is for the would-be victims to fight back by all means available as soon as the state tries to brand them and loot their temples, rather than expect to be saved as they’re being loaded into a freight car. If individuals refuse to stand up for their own rights, they will lose them. The children of Israel will not make that same mistake twice.
“Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God.” – Benjamin Franklin
The “testimony” you link and use has been refuted.
http://www.codoh.com/newrevoices/nrtkfsgc.html
Yes, they won’t make the same “mistake” another time.
The mistake was letting them get nuclear weapons, Kennedy tried, and was murdered for it.
They will use nuclear weapons and destroy hummanity. They call it Samson Option, if they are loosing a war, they will just nuke all they can.