[QatzelOk]

Once the war was one capitalist forces were very prompt and took full advantage of the situation in most countries and profited quite nicely.

Exactly. And these businessmen knew in advance that they would become incredibly rich if there was a war.

Why do you still blame "mental illness" and "nationalist causes" when the cui bono is clearly money? Haven't you read Disaster Capitalism, The Prince, or the PNAC? They're all the same kind of confession of corruption in high places. The highest places are Federal Banks and Multinationals.

Aspirational commoners with few political connections (like Hitler or Sarah Palin or Obama) make perfect pawns because they are completely beholden to their moneyed sponsors. 100%.

[Smilin' Dave]

Exactly. And these businessmen knew in advance that they would become incredibly rich if there was a war.

Why do you still blame "mental illness" and "nationalist causes" when the cui bono is clearly money?

Once again your explanation is not in fact the most logical one, making it an unconvincing conspiracy theory. If the 'outside cabal' knew the outcome as you suggest, then surely they wouldn't have been entirely pleased with the logical emergence of a non-capitalist superpower in the aftermath of this war, one that could challenge any capitalist power and which would go on to close off markets all over the world. If some 'cabal' inside Germany is to blame, then you have to wonder why they were so keen to allow a heavily regulated, statist economy, to collect the supposed windfall of successful conquests. How many times does your theory need to be attacked with Occams razor before you will admit it doesn't even make sense, never mind that it has no proof to back it up?

Aspirational commoners with few political connections (like Hitler or Sarah Palin or Obama) make perfect pawns because they are completely beholden to their moneyed sponsors. 100%.

No serious study supports the idea that Hitler was beholden to the few industrialists who did support him. Hitler was if anything beholden to Paul von Hindenburg (hardly a capitalist fat cat), the only man who could actually make him chancellor. His political moves in in 1933-34 support this interpretation.

[pugsville]

There was some link between Hitler and some industrialists. The Nazi movement was defnitely getting money from Industrailists. So I think it can be argued that there may have been some influence. (the payback later when the state unions replaced trade unions and the controlled workplace favoured these industrialists.) Hitler repeated used people who sought to use him, and repeatedly failed to be controlled as some thought they could. Hitler personal income was mainly as an author, Mein Kampf was quite sucessfull for him in that regard. But I dont know about the Nazis in the run up to power. I would have thought some wealthy industralists did provide a lot of money that helped the Nazis. (but I dont know the facts, it seems reasonable)

[Smilin' Dave]

Oh there certainly were political donations etc. (Hitler was introduced to a lot of them during a brief alliance with more traditional right wing parties), but I would question their subsequent influence over Hitler. As you noted, it wasn't a one way street. Another complicating factor would be an odd one: Hitler's political style and working habits wouldn't have left a lot of room for non-party/government lobbiests. He didn't really seem to have many meetings (hence why things like the Hossbach Memorandum were so notable afterwards) and preferred others to sort out a particular problem or sector rather than deal with things directly. An 'outsider' might have had a chance to meet him during a meal, but during those Hitler tended to lecture, rather than converse/listen.

[valken09]

Smilin' Dave

I would like to ask you a few questions so to avoid lengthy debates and to have a more brief discussion or argument. Do you think Hitler was the sole cause of the World War II? or do you think Hitler was the catalyst, the spark? To add another question to further bridge that understanding (and tolerance) gap as we might have some problems later on, do you think there were foreign interferences that might had contributed to the culmination of the war? Last but not least, do you think Hitler was just a scapegoat?

Now before you judge me as a holocaust denier, as in truth I have acknowledged that, I would like ask yet again. Did all(or most) the Jews who perished in the concentration camps died being gassed or through other causes?

And just as a reminder, no hostilities towards you by the way, here's some references.:
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adnazium.html

[Smilin' Dave]

Do you think Hitler was the sole cause of the World War II? or do you think Hitler was the catalyst, the spark?

I thought I had been pretty clear and consistent on this but anyhow: While there were a range of other factors contributing to WWII (after all the Japanese invasion of China was pretty important to the evolution of the conflict that emerged in the Pacific Theatre), Hitler was the crucial spark. It is difficult to see how the events of 1939 could have turned out the same with someone other than Hitler at the helm. Hitler had been pretty consistent in his preparations for war, had continously pushed the boundaries of what was acceptable and finally decided to go to war with Poland without provocation. Indeed, the Nazis clearly felt their case for war with Poland was so weak that they had to manufacture an excuse, in the form of the Gleiwitz Incident.

do you think there were foreign interferences that might had contributed to the culmination of the war?

Yeah, absolutely. At the Nuremberg Trials the Nazi use of fifth columnists (of various forms) against their neighbours is quite clearly documented. It's hard to compare any other intervention against these acts.

Last but not least, do you think Hitler was just a scapegoat?

Would you like to point to another leader who you think was actually responsible? Scapegoating tends to suggest that someone/something else was at fault.

Now before you judge me as a holocaust denier

Oh we'll wait and see but I'm naturally quite suspicious already. But what does this thread have to do with the Holocaust for a start?

Did all(or most) the Jews who perished in the concentration camps died being gassed or through other causes?

The majority died of malnutrition or diseases that related to those starvation rations, like a lot of victims of Nazism. If this were an attempt to re-cast the Holocaust as something other than deliberate genocide, you haven't proved a thing. After all there were not similar death rates amongst POWs from Western Allied nations, so it's not like there was a general famine in the camps. This suggests that the Nazis set a clear hierarchy, in effect who could live and who would die. This fits in with what we know about the Wansee Conference.

And just as a reminder, no hostilities towards you by the way, here's some references.:
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adnazium.html

This is a thread about Hitler and by association Nazism, the idea that I have played "The Hitler Card" by mentioning him is absurd. Doing so is a strawman, and that does raise my level of hostility.

[valken09]

Would you like to point to another leader who you think was actually responsible?

Its a wonder why Hitler is always the front man for the Axis "of Evil". It would also be logical though to put Tojo in the picture but I guess we have to take the media into account and him being the catalyst and all.

But what does this thread have to do with the Holocaust for a start?

My bad, I'm just trying to avoid lengthy "out of topic" debates here. Perhaps I'm too careful in what I typed.

If this were an attempt to re-cast the Holocaust as something other than deliberate genocide

I have my suspicions as well, but I have no intention to revision the Holocaust though merely I have doubts on their solution to "Gas the Jews". Either way, the 6 million figure stands affirm no matter what the methods or criteria were.

Doing so is a strawman, and that does raise my level of hostility.

The link was merely a reminder so you do not dissolve into obscurity but if you did not played that "card" then there is no need to have a truculent stance towards the sender.

Well, I got my questions answered but it proves to open more questions instead. Anyhow, thank you and perhaps we'll meet again on some other topic.

[pugsville]

Tojo had a much more limited effect. The Japanese leadership was disorgnizsed oligharcy whith pretty similar views, there are plenty of other Japanese amounts the likely leaders who would have taken the same descions. The German alterntives would have been more almost more cautionous.

[Smilin' Dave]

With Japan one also has to consider the surprising level of independence of the Kwantung Army and its role in creating the early conflict. IIRC the Japanese government wasn't entirely keen on a full invasion of China, but the Kwantung army just kept creating provocations.

I have doubts on their solution to "Gas the Jews".

So did Jean Claude Pressac, but when he sat down and did some real research on it, he changed his mind and published on the topic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Claude_Pressac
I believe you can find some or all of his work online.

You might genuinely have doubts, but honestly the number of times I heard this 'oh I just have some doubts', or 'how do you explain this' from Holocaust deniers leaves me dubious. I've looked at your posting history and I see you have previously waved off non-gassing deaths in the concentration camps as 'natural' in the past. So it seems that you don't have doubts at all and have made up your mind, and this whole 'I'm just asking questions' routine just looks like a facade for denial and negation.