4 ms·

There is no evidence Hitler was at all involved with the execution of the holocaust either. Funny how you're holding one responsible for the crimes of their re

There is no evidence Hitler was at all involved with the execution of the holocaust either. Funny how you're holding one responsible for the crimes of their regime and the other was a figurehead. The moral of the story is don't lose a world war if you've committed genocide.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> There is no evidence Hitler was at all involved with the holocaust either. There's considerable evidence he was, actually. > Funny how you're holding one responsible for the crimes of their regime and the other was a figurehead. It's almost like a head of state and a combined executive head of government and head of state are different things.
- thrown_22 4y ago
  There is evidence he wanted the Jews out of Germany and he didn't much care if they left in a boat to Madagascar or on a train to an extermination camp. There isn't evidence that he was involved with either attempt. If we applied the standards of the Nuremberg trials to the British Empire during the Boer war Queen Victoria would have been hung.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > There isn't evidence that he was involved with either attempt. This simply isn't true. There's plenty of evidence of that. (There's one specific kind of evidence—an documented order—that doesn't exist, but there is plenty of other evidence, including a series of public statements stating intent to exterminate the Jews stretching back to 1922, and a statement in 1942 referring back to those anticipatory statements and claiming to have silenced those who would have laughed at them, among other anticipatory and inculpatory statements.) > If we applied the standards of the Nuremberg trials to the British Empire during the Boer war Queen Victoria would have been hung. There might be an interesting argument for that, but the assertion is not the argument, and since no person similarly situated to the British Monarch was tried at Nuremberg, such an argument would require something much more specific behavioral analogy to make.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> There is no evidence Hitler was at all involved with the holocaust either. There's considerable evidence he was, actually. > Funny how you're holding one responsible for the crimes of their regime and the other was a figurehead. It's almost like a head of state and a combined executive head of government and head of state are different things.

thrown_22 4y ago
There is evidence he wanted the Jews out of Germany and he didn't much care if they left in a boat to Madagascar or on a train to an extermination camp. There isn't evidence that he was involved with either attempt. If we applied the standards of the Nuremberg trials to the British Empire during the Boer war Queen Victoria would have been hung.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > There isn't evidence that he was involved with either attempt. This simply isn't true. There's plenty of evidence of that. (There's one specific kind of evidence—an documented order—that doesn't exist, but there is plenty of other evidence, including a series of public statements stating intent to exterminate the Jews stretching back to 1922, and a statement in 1942 referring back to those anticipatory statements and claiming to have silenced those who would have laughed at them, among other anticipatory and inculpatory statements.) > If we applied the standards of the Nuremberg trials to the British Empire during the Boer war Queen Victoria would have been hung. There might be an interesting argument for that, but the assertion is not the argument, and since no person similarly situated to the British Monarch was tried at Nuremberg, such an argument would require something much more specific behavioral analogy to make.