I never said I hated Jews, rationally or otherwise. In fact, I have said just the opposite: I usually get along with them better than other religionists, particularly Christians. I invite Jews to my discussion forum, so far as I know the only place that H-Believers and H-Deniers can come in peace. Neither side is too terribly interested in discussing with the other in my experience; hopefully that can change.
I know you haven't said that. If you did, you'd be out of here before you could say "nuremberg", and you know it. Apart from this, I see little need to repeat my words stated above.
I've never said that "it didn't take place." I've complained about catchall or indefinable definitions being applied to "it," and the use of the Big-H in postwar Hate propaganda.
I know you haven't. Again, if you did, you'd be out of here before etc etc. But considering that the sum total of your approach to the project is to heap ridicule on the specific aspects of it as they emerge, it amounts to pretty much the same thing. In any case, why argue? All you need to do is say that you don't doubt that the Holocaust took place, and nobody will bother you any more about that particular issue. After all, this is the way normal people clarify things if they have been misunderstood....
How can one understand conflict without understanding even the enemy? And not propaganda views of the enemy but the enemy as the enemy rationally sees himself. My position is that there is plenty of blame to go around and that the Allied cause was not entirely pure and noble. If we learn anything from conflict we should learn that "it takes two to tango" and that nothing is ever entirely sketched only in black-and-white.
Fine words. It's just that they are completely inapplicable to your writing. They imply balance and even-handedness. If there is one thing you do not possess, it is that.
Then you have not been paying attention. I have consistently, and for as long as I've been posting on this forum, said that I disagree with single-party states and that the 1935 Nuremberg Race Laws "went too far" and set the stage for a tragedy once war came. That tragedy would not have occurred save for the war, but just the same, I've always condemned the race laws.
Again, inapliccability and lack of correlation with what you actually write. And the Nuremberg Laws "went too far"? Wow, that's pretty strong condemnation. You're pretty good at invective when it comes to the resistance, Britain, the US, historiography and several other things, why don't I see you using them here?
thought I did answer it. I tend to be independent-minded and anti-authoritarian in outlook, so I would not readily "narc" on anybody unless it were a safety issue, whether it were drugs or bootleg Jews. If they were agents of an enemy government then, yes, I would call the police/Gestapo, whatever, same as any other Fifth Column, as long as it were a "clear and present danger," like I said. And as also explained before, if I were an officer, German or otherwise, approached to join a treasonable plot, then I would notify whatever counterintelligence authorities immediately (unless it were a family member or dear friend, in which case I would warn them once that any further talk will be reported to the authorities). Is anything still not clear about this
I was not referring to this question. However, I see you have answered it in another post, though your answer of course amounts basically to drawing away from the issue - which was that the persecution of Jews constituted an entirely legitimate reason for any German to turn against the regime. Of course, most sane people would say that it constituted an Imperative to do just that if there was a degree of knowledge about actual goings on, but to you, this is, of course, treason.
? You wish .. You cling to your encapsulating set of beliefs and ,no logic, no arguments would ever be sufficient to move you out of it. 