Two points that I think the quoted passage demonstrates are
1. how emotional language is used with, seemingly, the deliberate attempt to impair the ability to critically analyze the situation; and
2. the chronological failure of the argument.
A third point that I think is important is to be able to discuss Hitler and Nazism dispassionately, objectively, rationally: R. H. S. Stolfi makes this argument in “Hitler: Beyond Evil and Tyranny.” (an excerpt from this review is quoted below http://www.prometheusbooks.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=2090&zenid=fsuii65tef0lno68hr968bpm76 ). Stolfi, professor at U S Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, says that it is grossly inadequate to say that “Hitler was evil” and end the conversation; Hitler must be studied in the same way as Caesar and Napoleon are studied — for their accomplishments and their flaws, and in their context. I would add that to do anything less is to learn or teach a distorted history, which can only result in a flawed analysis producing a flawed prescription with, possibly — demonstrably — tragic outcomes.
wrt #1: I showed only a piece of the “emotional” language, but what I had in mind was the opening sentence of Breitman & Lichtman’s book, which is the sentence that came immediately before the quoted passage.
Here is that sentence:
“During World War II, the Nazis and their collaborators shot, gassed, starved, and worked to death some six million Jewish men, women, and children in order to destroy the biological substance of the Jews “
“in order to destroy the biological substance of the Jews.”
The authors chose to introduce their book, their thesis, their argument, with that language and image.
Which is absurd, and demonstrably false.
It seems as if they wanted to ‘set’ the reader’s emotional receptors at the highest possible level: it is extremely difficult to counter such a hyper-emotional charge through the use of mere reason. The areas of the brain that are involved have a hard time speaking to each other in such a state of excitement.
But the statement, to “destroy the biological substance of the Jews.”
The image it summons is of Dr. Strangelove raving as he rides off straddling a torpedo.
What were the authors thinking — that their readers are stupid? What were they trying to accomplish? Why did they write this book, and compose as its opening sentence that unhinged statement?
How can a rational person square that statement by Breitman and Lichtman with THIS information from Francis Nicosia’s “Zionism and Antisemitism in Nazi Germany” –
“[For many years, from before the turn of the century,] Jews had settled in Ottoman Palestine legally and illegally. Moreover, immigration remained a source of friction between the Zionist movement and British authorities in Palestine during the entire Mandate period following the First World War. * The Zionists insisted on the right of the Jewish people to unlimited immigration into Palestine, while the British imposed restrictions on Jewish immigration as they sought to be responsive simultaneously to both Arab opinion and to their commitment to the Jewish National Home. Since the outbreak of the Arab revolt in Palestine in 1936, British authorities had imposed stricter limits on Jewish immigration into Palestine. * This posed a problem for the SD as it sought to step up the movement of Jews from Central Europe to Palestine in 1938 and 1939. In 1937, a group of . . .Haganeh officials in Palestine created the Mossad al aliyah Bet (Committee for Illegal Immigration); later that year, the Mossad set up a headquarters in Paris . . .to illegally move Jews from Europe into Palestine. They were able to operate autonomously in Central Europe but they had little choice but to operate in conjunction with Nazi authorities in the Greater German Reich.
“Mossad agents were assigned to Berlin and Vienna in 1938 with instructions to establish a working relationship with the SC and the Gestapo in order to facilitate the clandestine movement of Jews from Central Europe to Palestine. . . .Their tasks included …selecting Jews willing to leave via the illegal route, and generally cooperating with Nazi authorities without whom there could be no movement of Jews, legal or illegal, to Palestine. A former Mossad agent wrote:
In pre-war Germany, these operations were neither illegal nor secret. The Gestapo office directly across the street from ours knew exactly where we were and what we were doing. The illegality began only at the shores of Palestine with the British blockade.” p. 272
Thus, it is irrational to conclude that Nazis sought to “destroy the biological substance of the Jews” when they were cooperating with zionist agents who were carrying out Louis Brandeis’s diktat to remove German Jews from Germany, thence to illegal passage into the “safe haven” for Jews, Palestine, or to extraordinarily privileged passage to the U.S.A.
*This is highly significant. Leonard Stein, Weizmann’s biographer, writes of that man’s extraordinary efforts to corner Balfour into giving Palestine to Jews — in exchange for Weizmann’s assistance in maintaining the Allied blockade on Germany that cost the lives of 800,000 German civilians.
Weizmann’s technique to gain Balfour’s favor was guilt: he identified Balfour as an anti-semite and played upon that ‘guilt and shame.’ see “The Commentary Reader,” Norman Podhoretz, ed., 1966; pp. 274- )
However, by the war’s end (the Great War), the British, and Balfour, were eager to sever their relationship with zionists. Christopher O’Sullivan opens his book, “FDR and the End of Empire,” ( see http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/FDRand ) with this quotation:
Lord Balfour had hardly been aware of the existence of the Arabs, but he suddenly became acutely conscious of their existence when he went to Damascus in 1922 and they stoned him in the streets!
-Sir Maurice Peterson, speaking to a State Department Delegation, Apr 1944
** This point is important in the context of, i.e. Lynne Olson’s theses in “Those Angry Days,” the efforts that were made to induce the American people to wage war on Germany to “save Britain.” It is plausible that zionists were pressuring Britain to wage war on Germany, and also pressuring FDR to wage war on Germany. Thus, they would have been pressuring Churchill to pressure FDR to wage war on Germany. The British decision to ally with Poland may well have been the result of zionist pressure on the British.
As to the chronology connundrum –
Yes, there was a war, in which Jews were shot, starved, forced into labor camps; the gassed part is arguable.
There was a war.
That is what happens in wars.
WHEN did this “shooting, starving, labor camping” happen?
By the author’s own statements, from 1933 until late 1938, Nazis quelled physical violence against Jews. True, they “discriminated” against Jews, but that is not the same as “shooting, starving” etc.
Yet by Feb. 14, 1933, Louis Brandeis had decreed that “All Jews must leave Germany,” and as the newspapers give evidence, on March 24, 1933, “Judea Declared War on Germany.”
Did Brandeis and the zionists responsible for prosecuting the economic war on Germany have some special gift of prophecy that eleven years*** down the road it would be discovered that Auschwitz was more than a labor camp?
Check these dates:
***According to a paper by Rafael Medoff for the Wyman Institute, on June 11, 1944 (11 years after the 1933 Jewish declaration of war on Germany), the Jewish Agency Executive in Palestine, headed by David Ben Gurion, considered whether they should ask the Allies to bomb Auschwitz. On that date in 1944, the JAE “believed that Auschwitz was a labor camp” and it was the consensus agreement of JAE that they “must not be responsible for the bombing death of a single Jewish person.” http://wymaninstitute.org/special-reports/WymanAuschwitzReport2012.pdf
That is another highly significant statement: “not a single Jew” must suffer being bombed to death in 1944.
On May 11, 1940, Churchill
**** re the “gassing” charge in Breitman & Lichtman’s statement: John Kerry echoed the claim, adding Assad to the “two other dictators who used chemical weapons — Hitler and Saddam.”
We know that Saddam used chemical weapons: American companies sold 650,000 tons of chemical precursors to Saddam between 1980 and 1988; and an estimated 50,000 Iranians still live with the debilitating effects of having been attacked with chemical weapons by Saddam’s forces, who relied on US intelligence to target and drop their deadly chemicals.
But the case against Hitler is not so clear-cut.
For one thing, no less a source than Sidney Hook, in a round table discussion moderated by Norman Podhoretz, declared that:
“On the eve of the Second World War it was widely predicted that a world war would lead to the end of all civilization because of the use of poison gas. . . .Despite these predictions, two things happened. Those who felt that the values of the West were worth preserving against the onslaught of fascism took the risk of war, despite the fact that they weren’t sure that gas warfare wouldn’t bring an end to mankind. And secondly, to the surprise of many, gas warfare was not used. Hitler was a madman; yet this madman realized that if he used gas he would provoke reprisals which would mean the end of the national existence of Germany.” [The Commentary Reader, p. 160]
This statement requires extensive unpacking.
1. Lynne Olson does not raise the “gas will destroy civilization” argument
2. As R H S Stolfi pointed out, the fact that Hitler was gassed and saw so many of his fellow soldiers die of gas bombing in the Great War, rather militates against the expectation that Hitler would use gas himself.
3. Rather like the Iranians — fellow ‘Aryans,’ who, when they were gassed by American-supplied and assisted Saddam, DID NOT retaliate with chemical weapons.
4. But Hook’s argument rings hollow, even as it indicts the Allies: No, Hitler did NOT use chemical weapons, but his country was still destroyed — by Allies who formed the intention to used chemical weapons — firebombing — against German civilians, early in 1940. Another participant in the Podhoretz round table discussion, historian H. Stuart Hughes, son of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Charles Evans Hughes,
Kerry wants listeners to believe that the “chemical weapon” that Hitler used was Zykon-B, and that he used it to gas Jews in places such as Auschwitz. However, a number of factors suggest that the notion that Jews were gassed to death was contrived by propagandists. Ewan Montagu, who is Jewish, was head of a British office for dirty tricks; he engineered “Operation Mincemeat,” by which the Germans were intended to be deceived as to the location of the Allied landing on Sicily. Ewan’s younger brother, ____, was a Communist sympathizer and gadabout. His travels took him to the United States, where he spent some time with Alfred Hitchcock and Charlie Chaplin. He taught Chaplin to curse in Russian.
Shortly after Montagu’s trip to California, late in 1939 Chaplin released “The Great Dictator.” Most people recall an ethereal scene in “Dictator” when the Hitler-character artfully toggles a large ball; it is a beautifully choreographed scene.
But another intriguing scene in “Dictator” has one of the young Jewish characters say to his companions, “Yes, they’re gassing us. Pffft Pffft.”
This is in 1939.
Remember: Medoff said that on June 11, 1944, the JAE believed that Auschwitz was just a labor camp. Not a place where Jews were being gassed.
Once again, knowledge of things that did not occur until many years later are set in an earlier time frame; Jews charged that they were victims nearly five years before even their own leadership claimed to have knowledge of the alleged evil act.
Additional studies have been made of the architecture and the remains at the prison camps where gas chambers have been said to have been used, and no conclusive proof of the use of Zykon B to KILL human beings has been produced. It is as certain that Hitler gassed Jews as it is that Assad gassed his own people.
But yet another element must be factored into the equation.
By June 11, 1944, when the JAE declared that is would NOT be responsible for the “bombing death of a single Jew,” Allied forces had already dropped millions of tons of firebombs on German civilians.
A brief chronology of the Allied firebombing campaign against the German people
Germans offered peace, to Churchill, but Churchill insisted on war.
Jews declared an economic war on Germany.
Hitler warned Jews and “international financiers” that <b>IF</b> they pursued a “FINANCIAL” war against Germany, then Germany would retaliate — with all options on the table — kinda like “if Assad does not step down, US will shoot cruise missiles at Syrian citizens & infrastructure” A threat to warn of a contingency.
+ + +
“. . .the man at the center of so much study and evil circumstance remains elusive. For some he was evil personified, a diabolical tyrant driven by a lust for power; for others he was a banal demagogue, an opportunist with talent for propaganda and speech-making but little more than an empty vessel embodying the disappointments of a defeated Germany. Though we know many facts about Hitler, no coherent picture of his character or personality emerges. Instead, we are left with a cardboard cutout of an evil dictator whom in the end no one can really explain.
“In this new biography of Hitler, historian R.H.S. Stolfi reinterprets the known facts about the Nazi fuehrer to construct a convincing, realistic portrait of the man. In place of the hollow shell whom others have made into an icon of evil, Stolfi sees a complex, nuanced personality. He tells the story of Hitler, starting with the dreamy youth who showed talent for architectural design but who struggled academically and floundered without direction. The Hitler of later youth is then depicted as a patriot who risked his life on the front lines during World War I, was wounded by shrapnel and war gas, and was impressively decorated for valor. In Stolfi’s interpretation, Hitler came out of the war a respected veteran driven by dark fury over the deaths of two million fellow soldiers and convinced he had a calling to save the Germans from historical oblivion.
The author sees Hitler as a
[A] young man who would consciously transform himself into a self-proclaimed messiah, a savior who would be called by providence to make new Germans capable of defending themselves against a French-imposed punitive peace. On another level, Stolfi reinterprets
[B] Hitler as the creator of a quasi-mystical political movement based on his revelation that the Germans were under attack by a Jewish-inspired Marxian Socialism of global dimensions. As such Hitler would set Germany on a course intended to achieve historical permanence for the state and personal immortality for its providentially inspired leader. Finally, Stolfi
[C] ranks Hitler’s successes from 1919 through 1941 as achievements so astonishing that he must be characterized, along with Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, and Napoleon, as one of Hegel’s impossibly rare world historical personalities.
Without in any way glorifying its subject, this unique revision of Hitler biography brings us closer to understanding a pivotal personality in the history of mankind.”