Surely surely surely this person understands the severity of the stupidity here? How the hell can you possibly go with “Hitler would have been OK if he had kept it within the borders of Germany?” I am gobsmacked.
It’s not outright Holocaust denial, but it’s lurking in the background.
Anti-semitism is much worse than “an embarrassment”.
They keep using this word. I don’t think it means what they think it means.
It’s saying people were correct in letting the Holocaust begin, because it was local.
That’s as bad, in its own way, as Holocaust denial.
It’s disgusting anti-semitic garbage, in the same bin.
Racism and divisions like it hurt and weaken any nation. Hitler proved it. Think of how many thousands and thousands of men Germany didn’t have at the front, because they were rounding up Jews and guarding prison camps. Think of the millions of tons of materials used to build concentration camps and rail lines to them that couldn’t be used to make tanks or shells. Think of all the fuel and natural resources used to run those trains and feed the camp guards and other things, that couldn’t be used to support the troops at the front. Think of the hundreds of thousands of soldiers Germany couldn’t enlist from the Jews because they were discriminated against. - what could Germany have done with another 40 divisions? Discrimination was a cancer that ate away Germany’s strength.
Hey, if she wants to draw parallels between Trump and Hitler then who am I to argue?
Besides the other horrific-ness of this take, she is also working from an absolutely crazy premise…that Nazi Germany should have been more focused on the concept of Nationalism.
How half-hearted about Nationalism does she think they were?
As with most things these chuds do, there’s so much wrong with her basic premises that it’s difficult to even get a grasp on how to respond. Where does one start? With her fundamental ignorance of what the concept of “nationalism” meant to Hitler and his contemporaries? With her lack of understanding of what his dreams for Germany entailed, from the time he lay convalescing at the time of the armistice to the time he bit down on the capsule? How trying to apply current usage of loaded political terms to historical events without recognizing their evolution is worse than folly? With her being a git? Too many options!
Well she distinctly said Hitler was a National Socialist, implying that the Socialist part is the most important. People on the right love to do this, conveniently ignoring the pretty well established fact that there was nothing socialist about the Nazis other than their name.
I would say this construction is actually worse than outright denial. It is at least conceivable that a denier is simply wrong about the evidence and opposed in principle to genocide (note this clearly is almost never true and I’ve never met such a person). This idea, that the problem occurs when it leaves the borders, sanctions the genocide and treats it like a zoning board offense. That’s a fine thing to do, but not over here. It also goes to when it is okay to intervene in the genocide. This view says that when it stays localized, it is just a difference in governing philosophies and should be ignored.
As ridiculous as it sounds, the world in general gives less fucks if it is your own country/people you are murdering. When someone says something like “If Germany had just kept it to themselves and not tried to take over Europe, things would have been ‘ok, fine’.” The sad, sick things is: she is probably right. The US was turning away boats full of Jewish kids and other refugees pre WWII. Antisemitism was at a high globally. It would have been a footnote in history that appears in a wikipedia list for 20th century genocides - with the same amount of weight to it as the others (e.g. US genocide of the Native Americans, The Armenian Genocide, the various purges in the USSR and China, Cambodia etc etc).
The other sad, sick thing is: horrible human rights atrocities are still being carried out today (albeit on a much smaller scale) in Syria, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Turkey, Honduras, Myanmar, Tibet, etc etc that are going on today is largely met with shoulder shrugging and at worst finger wagging. No one wants to help the people who are fleeing those areas, and overall no one thinks we should go in and actually try to stop it. Arguably, doing so would possibly make things worse. While there IS more awareness and vocalized concern today - it is still pretty quiet out there for the most part.
And the sadder, sicker thing is: instead of looking at our past and learning from it, people are using it as a playbook today for how to control and manipulate people. If they were honest with their tactics it would sound like:
Establish an “other”, demonize the “other”, kill all “others”. Oh wait, did I say kill? I meant meant just keep them completely separate and alienated so they don’t bring us down. They can live and all, just over there, away from us good folk. I mean, we aren’t Nazis or anything. Hahaha (nervous laugh).
Holy 'Self-Hating Negroes,’ Batman…
It’s comparing logical obscenities. Even if one’s “worse” (and you make good points), it’s still somehow impossible to call one “better”.
How can Jared Kushner be okay with this?
“Hitler just wanted to make Germany great”
For definitions of “Germany” that included Austria, the Sudetenland, and Alsace-Lorraine.