Stop Using the Hitler Argument

[Nathan]

It isn't the best argument against gun control anyway:

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_about_hitler/

 

The article does make one terrible point about cops, public works and urban planning, but irrelevant to the overall point that the claim is historically inaccurate.

[agun]

I try not to use Hitler arguments ever since I listened to David Irving's views on the holocaust. It's just a magnet for red-herrings.

[Stephen C]

What do fish have to do with Hitler?

[Ozzie]

I try not to use Hitler arguments ever since I listened to David Irving's views on the holocaust. It's just a magnet for red-herrings.

 

Do you agree with David Irving's views?

[Magnus]

Do you agree with David Irving's views?

I'm only superficially familiar with David Irving's views, but he has written on a few topics that I found illuminating. He took a strong moral stand against the carpet bombing of Dresden. He has openly criticized the British government's decision to go to war against Germany (an agenda that was years in the making). I know very little about the whole "Holocaust historians versus the Deniers" issue, but I would point out that very few issues are as heavily politicized as that one. I think we can take it as a general axiom that as political pressure increases, historical accuracy decreases. I can think of no topic (except perhaps the US Civil War) where there is more social pressure to proclaim one's allegiance to official doctrine. Conversations about Nazi Germany typically take the form of a confession at gunpoint -- just like the times when people were coerced into confessing their sins, repenting their transgressions, denounce the official enemies, and declare their loyalty to the Party. One curious tidbit of World War II history always intrigued me -- the German declaration of war against the US. Every historical account I had read always described this event as one of history's mysteries, and left it at that. It was deemed to be an impenetrable conundrum, etc. To me, this non-explanation always seemed like the tactic that Stef calls "fogging" -- when a caller on a show balks at an important question. The vagueness and confusion is a psychological defense mechanism, designed to prevent further investigation. It turns out that Hitler gave a clear speech on the subject at the time. I have never even seen or heard an English translation of it. But I speak German, and the speech is on YouTube. It literally took me 25 years to hear an explanation of Hitler's motive behind that decision. (Hint: He blames Roosevelt.) Of course, Hitler is not to be trusted to honestly explain his own official acts, but you'd think that his own contemporaneous explanation would be a good starting point. That speech has been virtually erased from history, at least as to US popular histories, as part of the campaign to canonize Roosevelt. (Roosevelt's illegal, secret war against Japan prior to Pearl Harbor has also gone down the Memory Hole.) Another interesting fact on WWII to consider is that the Holocaust was largely conducted in territories that, after the war, became Soviet-controlled. The Soviets were masterful propagandists. (WWII was largely the Nazis versus the Soviets, not the Nazis versus America and Britain.) I don't think a reasonable person can have any confidence whatsoever in a highly-politicized recitation of Soviet history.

[Ozzie]

Fascinating. I didn’t know a thing about Dresden, until I read Vonnegut’s, "Slaughterhouse Five" a few short years ago. As a teen and young adult I had watched more than a few documentaries on WWII, and it was always from the point of view of the “good guys,” and I don’t recall Dresden rating a mention. Curiouser and curiouser :-/  
Thanks for your reply Magnus.




[Duderio]

goodbye

[Guest Cosmic42]

I remember way back when (Pre 911), if you tried to use "Hitler" anything in an argument you could get banned in IRC chat rooms.  These days, not so much...