SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
No bio...
User ID: 853
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
9mo ago
Say the EU forces a two-state solution which includes EU administration of Jerusalem and the resettlement of all Jewish settlers out of the West Bank. Is a Palestinian state going to attack Tel-Aviv? Or Jewish locals in EU-administered Jerusalem? Then it's the EU's problem to solve that. That's a better arrangement than America being forced to fight all the enemies through the Middle East of a rogue Israel which it doesn't control.
This does assume a remilitarization of Europe which is already underway due to Russian aggression against Ukraine.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
9mo ago
Operation Poseidon Archer
Reported by CNN:
The United States has named the ongoing operation to target Houthi assets in Yemen “Operation Poseidon Archer,” according to two US officials.
The named operation suggests a more organized, formal and potentially long-term approach to the operations in Yemen, where the US has been hitting Houthi infrastructure as the Iran-backed rebel group has vowed to keep targeting commercial vessels in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden.
I have mixed feelings about this. It is clearly the responsibility of the imperial hegemon to protect global shipping lanes. But by that same logic, it's time for the imperial hegemon to force a settlement onto the Israelis due to their never-ending destabilization of the region. That would entail the EU forcing a peace onto Israel, performing a Special Military Operation within Israel if necessary.
Bring back the 117 AD borders, with EU administration of Jerusalem. Jews may live in Jerusalem, wail at their wall and study Torah in peace, but it is utterly nonsensical for the West to continue to bear the burden of Israeli destabilization of the region.
This washy middle ground of appealing to imperial obligations when it comes to Middle Eastern intervention, without control of the "vassal" state destabilizing the region, is a never-ending pattern that has to stop. The US and EU has more than enough leverage to force a settlement onto Israel.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
9mo ago
Why do you think Amy Coney Barrett adopted Haitian children if there was no fixation on race? There is obviously a virtue signaling element to that kind of decision, which is tied to the racial dynamics at play. She is leaning into those dynamics rather than rejecting them.
"Great Patriotic War" is considered sacred only in Russia
I am amazed that you don't think WWII is considered sacred and an unambiguous moral conflict in America. There is -zero- ambiguity in the mind of the public regarding that war, and the role of the United States in it, as anything short of a heroic salvation of the entire world, not just Europe. And that is foremost due to the gas chamber story everyone has been inundated with their entire lives in school, movie theaters, etc.
Even in this thread you have many people who refuse to accept that if Great Britain had remained neutral in Poland or Soviet war, there would have been no war in Western Europe. Even they cannot come to terms with the ambiguity of the decisions of the Western Allies to wage the war. They view it as inevitable when it was not.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
9mo ago
Look, the eastern front was evil vs evil in a way that breaks most peoples’ brains. I don’t blame you for trying to resolve that ambiguity in your head by absolving the Nazis of guilt.
This is a funny way to put it, because the whole gas chamber story is really what aims to resolve the ambiguity not just on the Eastern front, but on the entire war. Imagine how ambiguous the entire war effort and war consequences become if you take the gas chamber story away. Certainly I accept greater ambiguity on the Eastern Front than the person who believes all the claims about mass gas chamber extermination of millions of people inside shower rooms...
Look at 2rafa's argument: What Israel is doing can't be compared to the Nazis. Yes, it can be compared because it is very similar in very concrete ways. It's only the gas chamber story that puts it in a different realm of reality, where it does not belong.
Because Germany was quite clearly capable of running large scale prison camps with a normal-at-the-time death rate in conditions of wartime.
The death rates were "normal-at-the-time" throughout the war. Conditions became brutal in the final months of the war when the entire country was being destroyed and bombed on all sides, which did not happen in WWI. The gruesome footage captured by the Western allies at the liberation of camps like Belsen were not even filmed at the alleged extermination centers, and there is no footage or anything of those alleged massacres. Just eyewitnesses. The collapse of Germany was not planned, using the carnage from that to allege a planned extermination is not logical even if we accept custodial guilt for the conditions at the end of the war.
Not to mention the massacres ‘in the field’ by einsatzgruppen. I’ve never seen a Holocaust denier even attempt to address the einsatzgruppen by the way
Address how? Revisionists accept the documents which do point to anti-partisan activities and reprisals. Revisionists point to the fact that no order has ever been found for the extermination of all Jews, just evidence of anti-partisan activity and reprisals. Partisan warfare was enormously detrimental to the German war effort, and reprisals were even legal according to international law at the time. German civilians were intentionally targeted by the Allies as well. What Israel is doing in Gaza right now is a reprisal against Gazan civilians. The reprisals were real, the gassing of millions of people inside gas chambers disguised as shower rooms was not real.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
9mo ago
I told you what I think you are doing, with examples
You jumped in this thread to accuse me of participating in bad-faith. I only asked you to quote any of my comments here in which you think I'm acting in bad faith, instead of hiding behind paraphrasing and generalizations. You refuse to do that, because you can't.
If other mods want to jump in and accuse me of participating in bad-faith, I'm going to ask the exact same question and expect I'll receive the exact same answer of refusing to engage.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
9mo ago
There are two possibilities here:
- You genuinely believe you aren't doing what we described.
You are accusing me of being bad faith, obviously I do not believe I am participating in bad faith. I have asked for you to point to where I am being bad faith, but you "refuse to engage", which does increase my confidence that your accusations are not true...
If you are going to accuse somebody of something, you should be willing to engage in the conversation and let the person defend himself... you accuse me of being "bad faith" in this conversation out of nowhere and then refuse to elaborate. Obviously I can't stop you all from banning me, but I am going to ask you to elaborate if you are accusing me of doing something I do not think I am doing...
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
9mo ago
If you accuse me of being bad-faith, and I ask you to point out where exactly in this conversation I have been bad-faith, and you reply like this then I think it's fair for me to complain about this moderator intervention here...
How about you just let this conversation happen without jumping in to accuse me of being bad faith, and then refusing to identify where in this conversation I have done what you are accusing me of?
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
9mo ago
Israeli treatment of the Palestinians is quite horrible and still isn’t half as horrible Nazi treatment of the European Jews.
It's not as much a question of "horribleness."
For our entire lifetimes, the idea of anybody supporting a mass expulsion/deportation/resettlement, whatever you want to call it, so close to home has not even entered into anybody's minds. It is significant that now we are faced with two plausible programs of mass resettlement within the "Western" sphere of influence: the resettlement of Palestinians out of Palestine, i.e. to the Sinai desert, and the mass deportation of non-European migrants.
Of course people like 2rafa who support these initiatives are going to try to explain why these programs cannot be compared to the Nazi policies regarding the Jews. But the uncomfortable reality is that they are definitely comparable. It's a grave situation, it's going to be violent if these policies are carried out. The gas chamber legend elevates the Nazi policies to another plane of existence, and allows people like 2rafa to not confront the similarities which are definitely there.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
9mo ago
What that means is, for example, multiple people have walked through your claims that there is "no written evidence of an intent to exterminate Jews"
Why avoid actually quoting the parts of my comments where you think I'm being dishonest?
I said, exactly:
Historians though claim that (for some reason) this long-standing policy was replaced with an extermination order (they can't say who, when, where or why such a radical change in policy was decided, and such an order has never been found)
And nobody in the replies has challenged this claim at all or provided an explanation for this: the who, when, where, and why the long-standing policy of resettlement became "extermination." Even Historians don't have a consensus on this point either, and it's dishonest to pretend otherwise.
Can you Amadan please show me where this question has been answered for me, and I haven't responded to those answers, such that I have no right to again make this point where it is relevant?
This is a highly relevant point because if Revisionists are correct, that the Resettlement policy never actually changed to "extermination", and that accusation is a wartime propaganda fiction, then 2rafa's conclusions are wrong.
I promise I will engage in good faith, if you can just give me examples of something I have said here which is dishonest.
On the other hand, I think it's dishonest and bad-faith for Moderators to constantly put on their red hats when I am engaging in discussion. If you are going to accuse me of bad faith, then point to where in this thread specifically you think I'm engaging in bad faith or not responding to people who have replied to me. That would be more helpful than using your moderator status to accuse me of bad faith with vague generalities, and threatening to ban me for engaging in the discussion.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
9mo ago
The Nazis conducted slave raids across Europe insofar as the Soviets conducted slave raids across Europe, but nobody says the latter because the only real purpose of the former is to draw distinctions that don't actually exist. It's pretty typical of the mainstream historical method, too: ignore the thousands of WVHA documents dealing with the administration of the prisoner labor force, which did not regard them as slaves (and they were paid for their labor), but pick out a sentence from a (poorly sourced? can't tell) "secret speech" by Himmler.
If you want to call the forced labor during the war slavery that's your prerogative. I think it would be dishonest to call wartime forced labor as salvery but not conscription for front-line combat. But it's just splitting hairs. My point was that just because the Israelis have no plans to use Palestinians for forced labor does not mean their proposals to expel the Palestinians to the Sinai peninsula cannot be compared to German plans for the resettlement of Jews.
If someone like 2rafa is making a post that is inviting a discussion of this topic, i.e. trying to make an argument for reasons these situations are not comparable, I'm going to engage in the discussion with my viewpoint. You need to decide if you are going to ban me for doing this or not, I agree it's an annoying situation. It's up to you, I'm not going to avoid engaging in these discussions just because I'm afraid of these kinds of mods interventions. That defeats the point of this community for me...
What I will not do is not spam top-level threads to force topics like this every week, which I've never done. But if someone brings up a topic like this in a relevant CW discussion (especially with 2rafa trying to let Israel off the hook for policies that are indeed very similar to the Nazis), I'm going to participate, and if you're going to ban me for it then the ball's in your court I guess...
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
9mo ago
The Anglos paid dearly and lost their empire. They slaughtered their continental brethren and destroyed Old Europe. It's a perverted inversion of reality that this war is seen through the lens it is today, as a grand triumph.
The concentration camps and labor camps were part of the war effort, for sure. But the "Final Solution" as such was the resettlement of the Jews out of the European sphere into what would have become a Jewish territory partly occupied/administered by Germany, at least in the short term. That is comparable to Israeli ambitions to expel the Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank, including proposals to resettle them into a territory on the Sinai peninsula. 2rafa is trying to say these things are not comparable, but that's only the case if you accept certain premises such as mass gas chamber extermination inside shower rooms. If you take the documents at face value, they are comparable policies.
The use of "slavery" to describe wartime conscription is a bit dubious, but I don't feel like splitting hairs. If you give someone a rifle, force them to the front, and shoot them if they try to desert, I don't think you would call that enslavement (or maybe you would!).
"War broke out", you mean Great Britain declared war on Germany right?
The second in command of Germany, Rudolf Hess, actually boarded a plane, flew to Great Britain, strapped on a parachute for the first time in his life and bailed out of the plane to try to go around Churchill and make contact with Britain's peace factions:
... Hess was tasked to "use all means at his disposal to achieve, if not a German military alliance with England against Russia, at least the neutralization of England."
So how does war between Britain and Germany "break out" if Britain and France don't declare war on Germany, or if they make peace with Germany and remain neutral during the Soviet war?
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
9mo ago
I'm really curious as to how you think this happens. All evidence points to the fact that Hitler regarded the Anglos as natural racial allies. There were no plans at all for war against Western Europe. Hitler was genuinely surprised that Great Britain and France declared war over Poland.
So please explain to me why history suggests a war between Germany and Western Europe if Western Europe had remained neutral in the Polish and Soviet war (or joined the Soviet war on the German side as Hitler had hoped)?
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
9mo ago
Hitler genuinely lobbied for the Western Allies to join him in his war against the Soviet Union, or at least to remain neutral. If they had remained neutral then Germany would not have gone to war against Western Europe.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
9mo ago
An interrogation in a show trial from a rogue state that violated international law by kidnapping someone is not a good way to establish the use of code-words in the minutes to a meeting. Decades before the Eichmann circus, Josef Bühler, the deputy governor of the General Government and attendee of the Wannsee Conference testified at the IMT as a defense witness for Hans Frank in 1946, and claimed that the purpose of Wannsee was to discuss the forced resettlement of Jews in the northeast of Europe:
I ask you now, did the Governor General send you to Berlin for that conference; and if so, what was the subject of the conference?
BUEHLER: Yes, I was sent to the conference and the subject of the conference was the Jewish problem. I might say in advance that from the beginning Jewish questions in the Government General were considered as coming under the jurisdiction of the Higher SS and Police Leader and handled accordingly. The handling of Jewish matters by the state administration was supervised and merely tolerated by the Police.
During the years 1940 and 1941 incredible numbers of people, mostly Jews, were brought into the Government General in spite of the objections and protests of the Governor General and his administration. This completely unexpected, unprepared for, and undesired bringing in of the Jewish population from other territories put the administration of the Government General in an extremely difficult position.
Accommodating these masses, feeding them, and caring for their health-combating epidemics for instance-almost, or rather, definitely overtaxed the capacity of the territory. Particularly threatening was the spread of typhus, not only in the ghettos but also among the Polish population and the Germans in the Government General. It appeared as if that epidemic would spread even to the Reich and to the Eastern Front.
At that moment Heydrich's invitation to the Governor General was received. The conference was originally supposed to take place in November 1941, but it was frequently postponed and it may have taken place in February 1942.
Because of the special problems of the Government General I had asked Heydrich for a personal interview and he received me. On that occasion, among many other things, I described in particular the catastrophic conditions which had resulted from the arbitrary bringing of Jews into the Government General. He replied that for this very reason he had invited the Governor General to the conference. The Reichsfuehrer SS, so he said, had received an order from the Fuehrer to round up all the Jews of Europe and to settle them in the Northeast of Europe, in Russia. I asked him whether this meant that the further arrival of Jews in the Government General would cease, and whether the hundreds of thousands of Jews who had been brought into the Government General without the permission of the Governor General would be moved out again. Heydrich promised me both these things. Heydrich said furthermore that the Fuehrer had given an order that Theresienstadt, a town in the Protectorate, would become a reservation in which old and sick Jews, and weak Jews who could not stand the strains of resettlement, were to be accommodated in the future. This information left me definitely convinced that the resettlement of the Jews, if not for the sake of the Jews, then for the sake of the reputation and prestige of the German people, would be carried out in a humane fashion. The removal of the Jews from the Government General was subsequently carried out exclusively by the Police....
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
9mo ago
It is "well-trod territory" because even the mainstream has backed away from the original stature given to the Wannsee Conference as supposedly being the decision point for the extermination policy. It was a 90 minute meeting of mid-level officials. Wannsee was only important because they have literally nothing else to go on, so they have to take a 90 minute meeting about Jewish resettlement and pretend that "resettlement" is a codeword for gas chamber extermination. They also say the Germans specifically wrote the minutes of the meeting to camouflage the actual purpose of the meeting. That's not a misrepresentation, either, that's actually what they claim.
The Revisionist interpretation of Wannsee, i.e. what the minutes of the meeting say it was, is actually comparable to AfD meeting in secret to plan proposals for mass resettlement of migrants. It is not comparable to the Steven Spielberg version of history.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
9mo ago
If the Western Allies had refused to ally with the Soviet Union, there would have been no war between Germany and Western Europe. Instead, Europe was destroyed and Great Britain lost its empire. Liberalism's greatest victory entailed the destruction of Europe, the collapse of the British Empire, and the Communist conquest of half of Europe. All to "save Poland" by the way.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
9mo ago
“Genocidal intent” is a largely bullshit term (even if it’s sometimes necessary) outside of the most banal “I will commit genocide” declaration (and even then), just look at how many thing politicians say they’ll do and then don’t.
I don't think it's a bullshit term given that you appealed to it without calling it that in your previous post. Revisionists point to all the documentary evidence that the plan was resettlement and concentration. You point to Hitler's speeches portraying Jews as an enemy to infer a genocidal intent even if you don't call it that. In any case, you are trying to draw a difference between these two cases where we only find more similarities...
(not Bibi)
Bibi has invoked Biblical prophecy and associated the Palestinians with Amalek:
As others quickly pointed out, God commands King Saul in the first Book of Samuel to kill every person in Amalek, a rival nation to ancient Israel. “This is what the Lord Almighty says,” the prophet Samuel tells Saul. “‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys
the whole revisionism debate does revolve around estimates of the prewar and postwar Jewish population of Central and Eastern Europe, as I have long argued here.
The revisionism debate does not revolve around population estimates, because that data is fundamentally incomplete and unreliable. The Revisionist case weighs most heavily on the documentary and physical evidence, with population census data being too inconclusive for the question at hand. For what it's worth, the mainstream position does not revolve around estimates of prewar and postwar population estimates either, by far the most important body of evidence is testimony from witnesses which has been picked apart by Revisionists for decades.
If Iran had the grip on the region that Stalin had behind the Iron Curtain, you would not trust any reports coming out of Iran about the state of Palestinian survivors and how many of them were killed by Israel, and how. If Iran refused any international observers or investigators and deployed their own kangaroo courts to place the blame for every single Palestinian death during their brutal conquest of Israel onto Israel, you would not accept that either.
If anything, a Jewish Madagascar would have been - at best - like an occupied West Bank, which you have previously railed against as highly unethical. In reality, given the extremely generous NGO support for the Palestinians, life on Nazi Madagascar would have been much worse.
Yes, the Madagascar plan is comparable to the Israeli expulsion of the Palestinians to the occupied West Bank, that's my point (with the major exception that Palestinians were indigenous to Palestine and Jews were not indigenous to Europe). So were the plans to concentrate the Jews in the East in the Pale of Settlement/Lublin/Russia which never came to fruition because the Eastern Front and then entire regime collapsed. Those plans are in fact comparable to plans you support for dealing with Palestinians, and to a lesser extent non-European migrants.
And this is the crux of the whole question. If Hitler doesn’t merely hate Jews but considers them eternal enemies of his civilization, then leaving them alive in their own state in Madagascar or in Palestine or elsewhere just doesn’t make sense amid the heightened tension of wartime, unless you think he was such a great guy that he just considered it morally wrong to kill them (but not to do any of the other stuff he unambiguously intended, like ethnically cleansing West Slavs to make way for German settlers and so on).
The revisionist interpretation requires that Hitler - who had no issue killing his political enemies, or indeed even friends, often on spurious or fully false flag charges - chose not to kill the Jews under his total control, despite extreme public hostility toward them for 20+ years, blaming them for almost everything that went wrong in Germany, and considering even their existence in foreign lands a great threat to Aryan civilization, because…he was a nice guy? Because that was a step too far?
The Holocaust would appear to be more congruent with Hitler’s writing, ideology and deeply-held worldview than the absence of the Holocaust. Nowhere does Hitler express any empathy or compassion for the majority of the Jewish population that would suggest he was not content for them to die.
It's interesting you call adversarial rhetoric from leaders the "crux of the whole question" rather than the mountain of documents that quite clearly lay out the policy objectives as described by Revisionists... South Africa's submission to the ICC accusing Israel of genocide follows a similar line of argument, under the heading Expressions of Genocidal Intent against the Palestinian People by Israeli State Officials and Others (pp. 59 - 67), i.e. here's a brief sample from those pages:
Parliamentarians have publicly deplored anyone “feel[ing] sorry” for the “uninvolved” Gazans, asserting repeatedly that “there are no uninvolved”,489 that “[t]here are no innocents in Gaza”,490 that “the killers of the women and children should not be separated from the citizens of Gaza”,491 that “the children of Gaza have brought this upon themselves”,492 and that “there should be one sentence for everyone there — death”.493 Parliamentarians have stated “[w]e must not forget that even the ‘innocent citizens’ — the cruel and monstrous people from Gaza took an active part . . . there is no place for any humanitarian gesture — the memory of Amalek must be protested”,494 and that “[w]ithout hunger and thirst among the Gazan population, we will not be able to recruit collaborators”.495 Parliamentarians have also called for “mercilessly” bombing “from the air”,496 calling for the use of nuclear (“doomsday”) weapons,497 and a “Nakba that will overshadow the Nakba of 48....
Similar genocidal rhetoric is also commonplace in Israeli civil society, with genocidal messages being routinely broadcast — without censure or sanction — in Israeli media. The media reports call for Gaza to be “erase[d],”499 turned into a “slaughterhouse”,500 that “Hamas should not be eliminated” but rather “Gaza should be razed”,501 on the repeated claim that “[t]here are no innocents… There is no population. There are 2.5 million terrorists”.502 One local official, reportedly called for Gaza to be “desolate and destroyed” like the Auschwitz Museum, “demonstrating the madness of the people who lived there”.503 Former MKs have called for a level of destruction akin to that of Dresden and Hiroshima,504 asserting that it would be “immoral” for the Israeli army not to show themselves to be “vengeful and cruel”.505 In an Israeli news interview, one former MK called for all Palestinians in Gaza to be killed saying:
“I tell you, in Gaza without exception, they are all terrorists, sons of dogs. They must be exterminated, all of them killed. We will flatten Gaza, turn them to dust, and the army will cleanse the area. Then we will start building new areas, for us, above all, for our security
Those statements by prominent members of Israeli society — including former parliamentarians and news anchors — constitute clear direct and public incitement to genocide, which has gone unchecked and unpunished by the Israeli authorities. That such sentiment appears to be so widespread and mainstream in Israeli society is of particular concern, in circumstances where the soldiers serving in Gaza are largely reservists, drawn from and informed by civil society...
As set out above, numerous States have rightly recognized Israel’s statements in relation to Gaza as demonstrating genocidal intent. That assessment is shared by a significant number of United Nations experts who have repeatedly warned since at least mid-October 2023 that the Palestinian people are at grave risk of genocide by Israel.
This is especially interesting because, since no written orders for extermination or mass gas chamber executions have ever been found, the mainstream historical position has heavily relied on vague rhetoric from German leaders and cherry-picking diary vague diary entries to allege a genocidal policy intent in lieu of any orders actually establishing it, like you are doing in your post here. But now that it's Israeli leaders giving the same sort of rhetoric you would hear from Goebbels or Hitler (in many cases worse), I assume you don't think this is evidence of a genocidal intent. But don't tell me these things are not comparable, they absolutely are comparable.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
9mo ago
Liberalism made an alliance with Communism to make that happen. Something which both liberals and communists like to gloss over.
The element of the story you gloss over is the extensive but not-much-talked about cooperation between the Nazis and Zionists, which is a subject which was discussed in Ron Unz's new article on Israel and the Holocaust earlier this month. In addition to the extensive efforts of the Germans to transfer Jews to Palestine, there existed plans for a post-war Jewish state in multiple forms, including the Madagascar Plan (a plan which Joseph Goebbels still mentioned in his diaries when the Holocaust had supposedly already been decided and implemented). After the Madagascar Plan, there were various plans for resettlement in the Pale of Settlement, newly conquered Russian territory, the Lublin district of occupied Poland, etc.
This is why the gas chamber and alleged extermination program are such important claims in the story. Without those elements, this is a story of a country that brutally collapsed right in the middle of a mass resettlement. Like if Israel decided to concentrate and then resettle all Palestinians out of Israel into Egyptian territory, but then Israel was destroyed and conquered by Iran right as that was happening. And then the Iranians made a bunch of ridiculous claims about death factories using absurd methods of mass murder- i.e. the Israelis turned the Palestinians into bars of soap!
So, the Nazi plans all entailed the creation of a Jewish state after expulsion from the European sphere. Historians though claim that (for some reason) this long-standing policy was replaced with an extermination order (they can't say who, when, where or why such a radical change in policy was decided, and such an order has never been found) using primarily homicidal gas chambers disguised as shower rooms.
If you accept the Revisionist interpretation, that the plan was for resettlement East ahead of the post-war creation of a Jewish state, then these plans by the AfD are absolutely comparable to what the Nazis did. And in particular, if it turns out the Wannsee conference really was all about resettlement as a plain reading of the minutes show, and not codewords for an extermination policy, then the Wannsee Conference is comparable to secret conferences planning for mass resettlement of migrants to their homelands or to a separate colony of some sort.
The gas chamber legend and alleged extermination order are the only things that set them apart, which is why those claims are so important to the broader history.
I do blame Biden for enabling the status quo. It's going to destroy his legacy, particularly if things continue to escalate.
More options
Context Copy link