Resolved: Hitler deserved a nobel peace prize
I'll get our other debate deleted once we catch up to the point that we are at now. Our old debate was here but the glitch stopped us from doing it: http://www.debate.org... have noticed that resetting the debate has caused multiple glitches in debates that I have seen so that is why I have decided to redo it as a new debate. I will just copy my
arguments over and then I will get our old debate deleted.
I am doing this debate because I recently achieved 4000 elo.
Resolved: Adolf Hitler deserved a Nobel Peace Prize after World War 2 - assuming that he survived and did not commit suicide.
1. No forfeits
2. Sources may be provided in the comments
3. No new arguments in the final round
4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling
6. No semantics; debaters will adhere to the common/average understanding of the topic
7. The burden of proof is shared
8. First round is for acceptance only
9. You cannot contest with definitions, burdens or rules
10. Violation of any rules is an automatic loss
Adolf Hitler: Austria.
Thank you for accepting this debate whiteflame. I am sure that we will have an interesting discussion.
This shows (already) that the portrayal of Germany and Hitler is exaggerated however I will still continue.
Hitler deserves a nobel peace prize based on this. He was the ONLY major political figure to speak out against the war and even if you still oppose him you shouldn’t do so because he actually helped himself lose the war by allowing Britain to escape Dunkirk.
(2) Onward Christian Soldiers, 55.
(3) Fish, Hamilton, FDR: The Other Side of the Coin, 86
Contention 1: Beliefs
Whilst, I do not agree with all of Hitler’s beliefs and view this should NOT be a factor that contributes towards the nobel peace prize. Let’s apply this concept to Christianity. You cannot say that a Christian should not be allowed a nobel peace prize because of his beliefs. Just like you cannot say that Hitler shouldn’t be given a nobel peace prize based on his. This is discriminatory to Hitler and his beliefs.
There even people who believe that Hitler was too good! They believe that he brought himself and Germany to ruin by being too soft, generous and honorable rather than too tough and ruthless. They point to the following considerations:
For 20 years Hitler had always wanted a peaceful relationship and possibly alliance with Britain. But once the war began, he clung to the dream with vain, “[like a] slightly ridiculous tenacity of a lover unwilling to admit that his feelings are unrequited.” (b) As Hitler told Maj. Quisling on August 18, 1940:
“After making one proposal after another to the British on the reorganization of Europe, I now find myself forced against my will to fight this war against Britain. . . .” (c)
Hitler’s dreams were shattered by the British and the allies and now we dishonour him with our own stereotypes of Germany during ww2.
I have shown through reliable sourcing and evidence that Hitler does indeed deserve a Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts in minimizing the allied damage as well as protecting his own country. Hitler’s dreams were shattered and he was given unbearable tough decisions to make. The fact that we mock him now is appalling and I affirm the resolution that Hitler does deserve a Nobel Peace Prize.
(C) Irving, op. cit., 236
Let's be clear from the outset that we're talking about the real world with one caveat: that Hitler survived to the end of the war. His survival doesn't require anything beyond capture or surrender, though it necessarily requires that he not be immediately executed. Thus, the events of World War II proceeded exactly as we know them today. The events after World War II may be slightly altered due to his survival, but Pro will have to do quite a bit to justify any substantial butterfly effects. I may also expand on how this change affects history, if he chooses to pursue that route.
Pro carries a rather large burden in this debate. What we're discussing is an alternate history where the Norwegian Nobel Committee would award Adolf Hitler the Nobel Peace Prize. In other words, he's saying that Hitler committed acts aimed towards peace that rivaled other recipients of the time. Since he's arguing that a change to the basic facts of our history would have been warranted, it's entirely his burden to explain why history should have changed so dramatically. Only 96 Nobel Peace Prizes have been awarded over the years " that limited number clarifies that it's a rare honor that shouldn't be awarded flippantly. Nobel himself described the prizes as dedicated to "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses". Determining who, if anyone, will receive the prize sets a very high threshold, one that should be considered in the awarding of any prize. That's why it's not awarded every year, particularly in relation to war time.
Hitler was actually nominated to receive the Prize in 1939 (one of those years where none was awarded). Not only was the nomination quickly withdrawn, but it was intended as a satiric criticism of Swedish parliament. No one supported it. Pro will have to explain how 6-11 years substantially altered that view in a positive direction.
With that in mind, let's get into my case.
1) Hitler was a mass murdering f*ckhead
I don't view this as debatable, but as this debate regards whether or not Hitler should have received an award that emphasizes peace, I feel it's worth supporting this point to explain just how ridiculous that view is.
We can look to two separate and clear means by which Hitler is held responsible for mass death.
The first of these is the Holocaust. It's estimated that anywhere between 15 and 20 million people were killed in the Holocaust, including more than 5 million Jews,[2, 3]. To be clear, the reason why the number of Jews matters (and, for that matter, why the killings of Romani peoples, the disabled, and homosexuals matters) is that these were attempts to eliminate these populations completely, to blot them out of existence. Thus, while the total numbers of lives lost tells a grim tale, the genocidal efforts of Nazi Germany tell an even grimmer one, as they were clearly attempting to eliminate whole peoples, religions and sexualities.
However, while the numbers themselves do matter, we should be clear that simply quantifying the loss of human life doesn't tell the story well enough.
Those targeted during the Holocaust were deprived of any sense of ownership. This amounts to at least $8 billion worth of private property. People were deprived of businesses, and thus their livelihoods, essentially surrendering their entire independent economic existence. Even if they escaped from Germany, they paid a "Reich Flight Tax" that required them to pay substantially just to leave the country (this started at 25% of their entire wealth), making it that much more difficult to get started in any other nation. Much of these funds went to fund the very costly war effort (more on that later).
B. Imprisonment and Forced Labor
Some 20,000 camps were built to imprison millions of people from 1933-1945. Ignoring the death camps (as that death toll has already been mentioned), these camps were built to relocate individuals who had been deprived of their belongings, including their housing. They were moved on incredibly crowded trains with little food or water to distant locations, placed in cramped confines, and forced to live under constant threat of murder at the hands of their oppressors. And that was just the beginning. Many of these people were forced to labor for the very military machine that was oppressing them, doing what they could to stave off death from exhaustion, starvation and exposure while engaging in backbreaking and dangerous labor. In fact, during World War II, Germany was reliant on the weapons made in these camps, and thus used them to prolong the war effort. Prisoners were starved, beaten, deprived of water, and if the efforts of the Nazis didn't kill them, they were victims of terrible diseases that ravaged the camps.
Remember when I mentioned genocide? Well, it went much deeper than just trying to kill whole swaths of people. The Nazis engaged in extremely painful and often deadly experiments on thousands, ignoring basic medical ethics for several purposes. One was to facilitate the survival of Axis military personnel, which were continued efforts to prolong the war effort and put the prisoners through hell, forcing them to undergo hypothermia and injected with sea water, as well as be subjected to liver or spinal cord punctures.[7, 8] Another was to produce new pharmaceuticals and treatment methods, which sounds noble, but it involved giving patients a broad assortment of infectious diseases and testing all manner of new treatments on them. Some prisoners would also be exposed to phosgene and mustard gas.
The third is more broadly known: the Nazis believed that there was an Aryan master race, and that anyone who had traits that didn't match to that race needed to be cleansed. In an effort to accomplish this, they exposed many to a wide variety of diseases to see how they responded, engaged in mass sterilization, The Nazis were responsible for brutal efforts to try and change eye color, which blinded many.
What this all amounts to is dehumanization: people being treated as though they are plagues upon society. The Nazi regime saw the Jews as nothing but vermin. They were deprived of personal property because vermin don't own property, You can imprison them because they are only causing harm by scurrying around. If you put them to good use, then you're doing a public service. And, in the end, isn't it best just to eliminate them and ensure that no more vermin infest your cities?
2) World War II
The war itself goes against the basic tenets on which the Prize was founded. It destroyed fraternity between nations, massively increased standing armies, and was quite literally the antithesis of a peace conference. On every level, a world war functions against the basic idea of peace.
And Hitler was responsible for starting and perpetuating it.
War broke out as a result of Germany's invasion of Poland, a clear violation of the latter's sovereignty. While the causes of the war are indeed complex, it cannot be reasonably argued that the war would not have begun without this invasion, or the prior efforts on Germany's part to acquire the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia and, for that matter, the rest of Czechoslovakia. Even that invasion didn't bring action from any neighboring countries, which means that Hitler had opportunities to stop and simply live with his gains. He chose not to, and defied a promise from Britain and France that invading Poland would bring military action.
Further efforts to expand the war effort through treaties with Japan to expand their war effort and to ally themselves with a nation that had already carried out a brutal attack on Manchuria made it clear that Hitler was more interested in expanding the war effort than contracting it. Allying with other nations like Austria and Italy expanded on the problem. I've already pointed to multiple efforts to prolong the war effort through forced labor and medical testing, which further that point.
While Hitler may not be held responsible for every life lost, these actions show a distinct predilection for starting, continuing and expanding the war, and thus many of the 80 million deaths can be attributed to him. At the very least, the costs to his own people and those nations that he directly invaded and battled with (which include at least England, France, Czechosolvakia, Poland, the USSR, and Belgium), he's at least partially responsible for roughly 40,000,000 deaths. The death toll, as well as the general increase in instability and turn towards militarization, make Hitler's efforts a clear negative for peace.
There's a reason that Godwin's Law exists: Hitler comparisons are extreme. While often frivolous, comparing someone to Hitler is meant to highlight support for genocide, eugenics, racial purity and totalitarian regimes. That's who Hitler was. That's what he stood for and supported, explicitly.[14, 15] That's who Pro thinks deserved the Prize. Don't bring shame to the Prize and its recipients by siding with the view that Hitler should have received it.
With that, I hand the debate back over to Pro.
Hitler was a mass murdering f**k head
Hitler wasn’t an anti-Jew. Yes, he killed people but death is inevitable during war . I admit that he was against Jews but that was not why so many Jews were killed. There is a lot of evidence suggesting that Hitler liked Jews more than he let people know.
“Hitler may have [...] “married a Jew" shortly before he committed suicide, a television programme has claimed, after analysing DNA from Eva Braun's hairbrush” 
The sourcing is reliable and comes from the Telegraph - one of the biggest English Newspapers. This is also coincided with the documentary that is referred to in the quote.
“... during a rare period of tolerance, homosexuals served the armed forces with distinction during the Second World War ”
The key word in this quote being distinction. This war had more homosexuals fighting, it is clear that more homosexuals are going to be killed. There is also a strongly supported theory that homosexuals in the army are beneficial - especially at the time since men primarily fought.
A - Confiscation
“After World War II, according to the Potsdam conference held between July 17 and August 2, 1945, Germany was to pay the Allies US $23 billion mainly in machinery and manufacturing plants. Reparations to the Soviet Union stopped in 1953.”
Germany ended up paying $23 billion . My opponent has admitted that only $8 of private property was destroyed so that leaves us with an extra $15 billion. What was that for? You may say that this was for the deaths but Germany ended up suffering 5.3 million dead . Nobody else had to pay for the German damage and deaths. Why is it fair that only the Germans have to pay reparations?
B - Imprisonment and Forced Labour
The Nazi’s gave everyone in concentration camps clean and adequate quantities of drinking water .
“Each year for decades, tens of thousands of visitors to Auschwitz have been shown an execution "gas chamber" in the main camp, supposedly in its "original state." In January 1995 the prestigious French weekly magazine L'Express acknowledged that "everything" about this "gas chamber" is "false," and that it is in fact a deceitful postwar reconstruction.”  
It is also exaggerated how extreme Auschwitz was. It was no secret, extermination camp:
"As already reported, after the typhus epidemic in the Auschwitz camp had practically been suppressed in November and December, there followed a new rise in typhus cases among the Auschwitz inmates as well as among troops, brought by the newly arriving transports from the East. In spite of the counter-measures that were immediately taken, a complete suppression of typhus cases has still not been achieved."’ 
That is how concerned they were for the prisoner’s health. They only set up the concentration camps in response to the horror that Germany had been put through before and during the war (as my contentions describe).
Now, my opponent turns to Nazi war crimes but he is forgetting all of the ally war crimes that occurred too. It is also worth noting that my not every Nazi decision was made directly by Hitler .
Here are some examples of ally war crimes:
“After the fall of Berlin, Germany was in ruins. Occupied by millions of foreign troops, none of whom had complete control over any given entity, Germany quickly descended into anarchic lawlessness. The Soviet Army alone was responsible for the rape of up to two million women and children, as well as the subsequent death of 240,000.
Claimed to be the largest mass rape in history, many unfortunate victims were assaulted up to a hundred times.
It is [also] believed that the US was responsible for over 11,000 rapes, while the French have been accused of over 1,500. This is clearly not on the same scale as the Soviets – but it doesn’t make it any less terrible.” 
This clearly is much worse than just trying to change the eye colour of people. Rape and murder on this scale is horrific and I will be very shocked if my opponent contests with this.
The allies committed many other war crimes including:
Civilian Air Raids, Murder of Noncombatants Operation Teardrop torture The London Cage Torture Chinese War Crimes, Murder of POWs and Noncombatants, Torture, Looting, Rape, Mutilation Sterilization of German boys  
Now let’s compare this and the mass rape to what the Nazi’s did:
They tried to change people’s eye colour Mass Sterilization
Now I know that what the Nazi’s did isn’t right after but before you accuse Hitler for doing all of this, you should be considering what the allies did and comparing the two.
Germany had no choice other than to invade Poland. Poland were torturing and castrating German soldiers and even German children ! Germany were provoked and Hitler did his best not to invade Poland but since Poland knew that they were had back up they continued to attack  and therefore gave Germany no choice but to resort to self defense.
If the most peaceful man on Earth was in charge of a country, assuming that he is mentally stable, if he is being attacked by the British and all of the allies he wouldn’t just sit down and allow the German army to be killed. He would fight back - in self defense. I understand that not all of the German battles were done in self defense however this is understandable because once it got to the point that Hitler wasn’t going to make peace with the other countries he had no choice to fight .
Hitler’s efforts did not represent a negative for peace. He was advocating peace and trying to end the war. He had to fight in self defense but whilst he was doing it he trying to find ways to end the war.
 The Journal of Historical Review, winter 1982, 454-5
 Fish, Hamilton, FDR: The Other Side of the Coin, 86
 Arthur Butz, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, pp. 157-159
OV1: Pro's overarching logic is that so long as Hitler tried to prevent the war, he deserves a Nobel Peace Prize. I pointed out last round that the standards for getting the Prize involve 3 things:
Fostering fraternity between nations
Abolition or reduction of standing armies
Holding and promoting peace conferences
If Pro cannot show that Hitler meets at least 2 of these, then he hasn't met the standard set by Nobel himself, and therefore has failed to show that Hitler deserved the Prize. Note that none of these include "overtures to prevent warfare."
OV2: We should be clear that isolated events over the course of the 7 years prior to the end of WWII are not happening in a vacuum. While we might be inclined to award individuals for actions such as these, we must always keep those actions in context, understanding why they were committed and whether other actions taken by those same individuals emphasize the same good principles. For example, while we might want to reward a child for apologizing to someone they hurt, whether they meant it matters greatly. Similarly, a child who offers a friend of theirs a part of their sandwich might be considered praiseworthy, but if that same child then proceeded to steal lunches from everyone else in the classroom, we would not reward that child.
OV3: None of Pro's opening round addresses the Holocaust at all. I'll get to his rebuttals of my case next round, but it should be made clear that even if Hitler was a perfectly peaceful individual when it came to the war itself, the idea that the Holocaust can just be written off as wartime casualities that Hitler wasn't responsible for is absurd. 20,000 camps across multiple countries, the first one built in 1933 in Germany itself.[1, 2] This is no small issue, and Pro cannot write it off.
Onto Pro's contentions. His argument breaks down into 2 central points: Poland attacked first, and Hitler made overtures of peace to Britain. I'll start with a general response to both, and then get into specific responses.
Much of Pro's argument here is taken from this site, which cites all of the books he uses, similarly without any context. I highly doubt Pro has any more context to add.
Even if you're buying both of these arguments, Pro has in no way supported the view that Hitler was deserving of the Prize. Hitler's own words and actions clearly show that the man had no peaceful aspirations, and even if he had espoused it, the reality is that this is a man who participated in the mass slaughter of millions throughout a World War. Whether he caused that war is irrelevant; he clearly perpetutated the conflict. Whether he made one overture to other nations to try and end the conflict is irrelevant; he clearly refused to end the war at any other point, and sought to expand it as often as he could.
But let's assume that none of this was true. Even if that was the case, he still wouldn't deserve a Prize. Let's look at the people who actually received the Prize around this time. Cordell Hull, who is known as the Father of the United Nations, literally established a new world organization that fostered cooperation between nations on a whole new level. Emily Balch made her lifelong work towards disarmament and peace without any support or congratulations from the US. John Mott fostered religious brotherhood across national boundaries. Two organizations of the Quakers spearheaded international peace movements and engaged directly in humanitarian work for many countries. Ralph Bunche was a peace negotiator in the Middle East, brokering a cease-fire between Israelis and Arabs. None of these people were complex characters who caused mass death while trying to bring about peace. They were all very clearly peaceful individuals. Pro's attempts to introduce a complex character treats their efforts as mixed, and destroys the very concept of the Prize.
Claim 1: Poland attacked first
Pro seems to be rationalizing the means by which Hitler went to war. He's taking quite a few of these factors out of context, so let's be clear on what the context for the invasion of Poland was.
1933: Nazi Party declared Germany's only political party
1933: Germany quits the League of Nations
1934: The "Night of the Long Knives"
1934: Hitler seizes power, becoming the F"hrer of Germany, and violating the law and going against democratic ideals
1935: Hitler violates the Treaty of Versailles
1935: German Jews stripped of rights by Nuremberg Race Laws
1936: The German Gestapo is placed above the law
1936: German troops occupy the Rhineland
1937: Hitler reveals war plans during Hossbach Conference
1938: Hitler occupies Sudetenland
1939: Hitler threatens Jews during Reichstag speech
1939: Nazis take Czechslovakia
1939: Nazis ally with Italy (took Ethiopia by force in 1936)
1939: Nazis ally with Soviets (Stalin began purge of Red Army generals in 1937)
Only after this did Britain and Poland sign a Mutual Assistance Treaty. This doesn't match up with Pro's version of the events that took place, since his argument is based on Poland committing some egregious crimes against the German people after they had this protection, yet Germany clearly took aggressive, offensive action to instigate conflict before that treaty was ever signed.
But I'm not sure that we should be buying that this instigating event occurred. I can't find any evidence of it online, and Pro's source is from a book I cannot access. In order for Pro to be correct, there would have to be a very large conspiracy to cover up this information, since it's only available in a single book that he's found. I can't even find the evidence about 4 young German boys. But chances are that since Leon Degrelle was an SS officer, he had incentive to make the Nazis look good. Pro's witness William Joyce is even worse, a Nazi propaganda broadcaster from the UK. He fled to Germany in August 1939, and Pro wants us to believe that he coincidentally just happened to be there when these attacks were occurring, shortly before Germany invaded. Seems awfully suspect to me.
The idea that the first blow is significant is something I agree with, but only in the context of whether further confrontations are justified. Pro's position requires that we view a good justification as reason to award the Prize, but all that does is provide a reason to engage in conflict, not a reason to perpetuate it. Hitler did not engage in any clear efforts at diplomacy to deal with the problem. He didn't talk to Britain or France about reconsidering their Treaty. He didn't engage with the League of Nations to address it, going so far as to leave the organization and spurn the opportunity. A full scale invasion and occupation was far from his only option, and yet it was the only one he engaged in.
Claim 2: Hitler proposed peace
I laughed when I saw this. If Hitler was really trying to make an overture to Britain, then it's awfully strange that he stopped trying after 1941. Is it really that amazing that Britain would be so upset with Hitler for conquering France, Holland, Belgium (which was neutral), Norway and Denmark, causing tremendous harm to their people and infrastructure that they wouldn't view a retreat from these nations as sufficient? Germany defied multiple international laws and had defied deals before, particularly when it came to the Sudetenland. They had no reason to believe that this would be any different.
But then I checked into it, and it appears Pro isn't up to date on his literature. Yes, they apparently were sincere in offering peace, at least in the short term, with Britain and western Europe. However, their goal was to reduce the war to a single front and invade Russia, as a recent book revealed. The Germans weren't seeking peace, merely an easier path to victory.
Pro's other support for this is Dunkirk, but he simply asserts the reason that Hitler allowed the British to escape. There are multiple theories that are far better supported, the best of these being that the halt was called by Hitler to make clear that he was the supreme commander of the German armed forces. Hitler was a known megalomaniac and ruled via fear, so this was absolutely not beyond him.
C1) I didn't argue that beliefs should play a role in this debate, so this argument is meaningless.
C2) This is the most distortion-filled section in Pro's argument. He attempts to attribute nobility to Hitler's actions when so often these actions can be attributed to his brutality, megalomania, desire for conquest, and bad tactics.
I'd argue that the Night of Long Knives and Kristallnacht make it clear that Hitler was a harsh leader who cracked down on anyone who disagreed with him. Dunkirk itself functions as a perfect example of this. None of these make him look generous or honorable. He clearly wanted to attack the USSR earlier, as I've shown. His supposed 1939 peace offer was basically a list of demands, requiring that they basically surrender to him before the war began. The idea that the Battle of Britain showcased a lack of savagery on his part is cute: Hitler bombed London so savagely that it was practically reduced to rubble. The rest of this is basically Pro saying that Hitler was not as bad as he could have been, but not being as terrible as possible doesn't make him good.
C3) I've already shown that either his peace overtures came with tremendous demands or were clearly aimed at merely shifting the war effort to a different focus. Pro gives no reasons to believe his interpretations are more accurate.
Back to Pro.
I thank Whiteflame for his rebuttals and for a thoroughly enjoyable debate. I will now begin with my counter-rebuttals
I thought that this was self explanatorily explained through my arguments but I will restate them again (not new arguments):
Hitler met requirement 2: “Abolition or reduction of standing armies”
Hitler met requirement 3: “Holding and promoting peace conferences”
Since Hitler only needs to meet two of these as stated by my opponent I will now demonstrate how he meets these two Nobel Peace Prize Requirements with arguments that have previously been used in my second round arguments.
Hitler meets requirement 2 since he was the cause of the reduction of armies at Dunkirk (I will address my opponent’s individual rebuttal to this later). He also delayed his attack on Russia (as described in C2 of my R2 argument). This is also an evident reduction of standing armies.
Hitler meets requirement 3 simply due to two key events. He held and promoted peace conferences with the British and gave Britain many benefits within this offer. Again, the second event is Dunkirk as quoted in C2: “he permitted the British to escape at Dunkirk to encourage Britain to make peace” The key words here being ‘make peace’. This is an evident promotion of peace and a symbol of peace given out by Hitler.
“[Hitler] was not the one responsible for instigating or implementing the creation of the death camps. Responsibility for this tragedy must be shared with the other members of his government; Himmler in particular was particularly influential in the racial policy of the Third Reich.” 
As you can evidently see, the idea of the concentration camps was not Hitler’s fault or even his creation. Even if you are unconvinced by this, my counter rebuttals provide strong evidence against the arguments in regards to the atrocity of concentration camps.
Remember that we are talking about Hitler here, not the Nazi’s or Germany in particular. Unless you believe that Hitler ordered and confirmed every single one of those deaths. The Nazi’s are a group of people. Hitler is an individual who generally agreed with this group of people. Stereotyping a group and then calling out individuals and blaming them for the actions of the group is not strong evidence in support of your case. Stereotyping is wrong and can create the sense of the loss of individuality when you attribute the group to the person .
Whilst it is true that a lot of my history is taken from this source, my opponent is in no position to contest since they have done the exact same thing in their case. The majority of my opponent’s case comes from the ‘United States Holocaust Memorial Museum website’ - USHMM .
My opponent makes two massive claims without any evidence (unless I missed something). He makes the following ‘unsourced’ claims:
“ he clearly refused to end the war” … “expand it as often as he could”
When did he refuse to end the war? When did he seek to expand it? It is part of my opponent’s burden to show me when this happened and I am unable to refute this without further explanation and evidence suggesting that this is the case. Do not allow my opponent to respond to this in the final round since he is not allowed to respond to this round.
Next my opponent lists the names of many individuals who received the prize and attempted to (subjectively) persuade me and readers that Hitler was not as peaceful as these individuals, this is known as an ad hominem argument - appealing to the reader’s emotions. Hitler delayed his armies in Dunkirk and Russia, promoted peace with Britain and possibly others  and remained loyal to Japan despite obvious reasons as to why it shouldn’t . Hitler severely mitigated the impacts of a world war which ended up costing him the war and his life (in the real world, not this debate). Hitler is arguably more worthy of the award than these individuals as proven with objective evidence.
This argument is weakened by the fact that the significance of these events is not explained and it is not explained why this matters. Nevertheless, I will still attempt a refutation of an already mitigated argument.
I agree with the history put forth by my opponent however I do still believe that my history is correct and Poland did castrate German boys and commit other torturous war crimes towards the Germans.
The Nazi’s were gaining land and didn’t like Jews. I fail to understand how this equates to what Poland did. Evidently, my opponent did not look hard enough because when they ‘claim’ that there is nothing on the internet in regards to what the Polish did, they are very wrong. These sources all reference to the atrocious acts of Poland: [7,8,9,10].
A full scale invasion was his only option when Poland were doing what they did. He could not talk to Britain or France about reconsidering their treaty because it was a signed deal that they were not allowed to break .
It isn’t that strange that he stopped trying after years of attempting to gain peace. After years of attempting to make peace it was evident that peace could not be achieved . If they continued to promote peace, despite it being obvious that complete peace would not be achieved then casualty rates would be increased . They had to fight back at some point otherwise, innocent Germans would have been killed and the overall death toll would have been higher (in terms of innocent children and Germans in general). Soldiers know that they may die in way, innocent German children should not have to feel and experience this .
My opponent merely sites a book in which it says that Hitler proposed peace so that it would be ultimately beneficial for him. He hasn’t even questioned the sources that I have used - simply dismissing them as literature that is not up to date.
He then states that there is a better theory. He never states how mine is wrong or how his is superior, which is a point that is needed to be explained. Citing a source is not enough since I am not obliged to refute arguments stated by the source. The source may say that it presents a more reliable theory but that is not included in my opponent’s argument. My opponent states that his theory is superior. I have shown through evidence via multiple quotations and sources, that Hitler stopped the advance on the British troops on Dunkirk as a symbol of peace and to reduce casualty death numbers.
C1 is something that is brought up by my opponent in regards to his speaking out against Jews and his opinions in regards to homosexuals, Jews and other groups of people. Dropping the argument should be considered to be a drop of this contention.
C2 is almost as if Con is arguing in my favour. He states that Hitler was harsh and attempted to use Dunkirk as an example of this. The problem with this being that Dunkirk has just been refuted by me. He then makes the (new) argument that Hitler attempted to make people give in to him before the war even began. The problem with this being that this would have been the much more peaceful solution. I have shown that the only reason that WW2 began was because of the actions of the Polish and therefore, a forfeiture of the war would not have done anything bad for the allies, it would merely be a Nazi victory and there would be a hugely decreased number of casualties.
My opponent hasn’t actually refuted some important elements of this contention. Instead he focusses entirely on new arguments (in the rebuttals round). I quoted references to delayed attacks on Russia (which was dropped). I referenced to the war in North Africa being lost due to Hitler’s kindness, this was dropped.
C3 is dismissed and dropped. Con attempts to dismiss this argument, saying that I provided no reasons as to why my interpretations are more accurate. Clearly, Con missed all of my quotes and sources in regards to this contention because if he had actually seen these there should have been an effort to refute them.
I have shown through strong sources that my case should be considered preferable. My opponent has dropped multiple arguments of mine and has also insufficiently explained many. I thank Whiteflame for an enjoyable debate and I strongly urge voters to vote without bias and to vote Pro!
Over to Con for his final round.
 The Barnes Trilogy, section “Revisionism and Brainwashing
 McLaughlin, op cit., 10
Fish, Hamilton, FDR: The Other Side of the Coin, 86
Onward Christian Soldiers, 55
So, I don't know how you can realistically call our burdens equal when one of us is advocating for a substantial change to the way history perceives one of its greatest villains, but voters can decide.
What I will point out is that Pro's response that his contentions prove "that Hitler went to extraordinary efforts to prevent a second world war" would only be sufficient if he'd stopped there. If he didn't follow that up by massively expanding that war, torturing, imprisoning and killing millions of non-combatants, and engaging in genocide, that might be worth something. But he didn't, so it's not.
1) Mass murdering f*ckhead
Let me quote my opponent:
"Hitler wasn't an anti-Jew... I admit that he was against Jews... Hitler liked Jews."
If anyone else is confused by these sentences, then congratulations, you can read! Do I really need to post every quote Hitler made about the Jews publicly to be clear that he very much hated them and wanted them dead?
"The struggle for world domination will be fought entirely between us, between Germans and Jews...Even when we have driven the Jew out of Germany, he remains our world enemy."
"How many diseases have their origin in the Jewish virus! ... We shall regain our health only be eliminating the Jew."
This is just scratching the surface, there's so much more. Pro wants to deny that these exist, but they exist, and they're a matter of public record. Many of these state a desire to eliminate the Jews.
Some Jews fought for Finland (which was practically forced to ally with Germany), but note that the article points out that "They lived in permanent fear of their identity [as Jews] being revealed" and, in cases where they were revealed, the Finns outranked the Germans, preventing any harm. They did not agree with Hitler, though they found common cause in battling the Soviets. Also, this was a grand total of 300 people, who agreed they "did not help the Germans". Pro makes the same claim for homosexuals, but his article gives examples among the Allies.
As for Eva Braun, note that the article is titled "Hitler may have 'unwittingly married a Jew'". Misidentification doesn't profess love for Jews.
The rest of this is just not at all responsive to my points. Pro conflates the war and the Holocaust, yet these were non-combatants, often German citizens, rounded up on trains and brought against their will to concentration camps where most died. There are a staggering number of accounts of this. As for his claim that certain ethnic minorities are always killed more in wars, that does not justify the 6,000,000 Jews who lost their lives, so many of them women and children who literally couldn't have seen combat. Such a disproportionate number cannot be explained by this weak and, frankly, wrong assertion.
Homosexuality was used to justify mass incarceration and, in the case of Ernst Rohm, execution. 
But all of Pro's response is irrelevant. Pro ignores the 15-20 million deaths that Hitler himself is responsible for, whether as a result of war as he claims or as a result of the Holocaust. The Jews and Romani were almost killed off in the process. Whether the genocides were malicious or merely consequential makes no difference to the fact that they happened, and the blood was on Hitler's hands.
Pro concedes that confiscation happened and that it was specifically focused on Jews. He points to the need to pay reparations post-WW2 as justification for this, ignoring the fact that all of this confiscation happened BEFORE AND DURING WW2. Even if those reparations would justify taking all of their property (and Pro hasn't explained how completely depriving anyone of all their property is EVER justified), at the time these were confiscated, there was no such justification. The fact that so many of these people were fleeing the country is dropped by Pro, as is the fact that those funds expanded the war effort, directly against peaceful aims.
B. Imprisonment and Forced Labor
What Poland did doesn't justify Germany employing and dramatically increasing the use of concentration camps (not that his evidence of it is accessible). Since they housed mostly Jews, justifying these camps by saying that the Germans were getting back at Poland is clearly just scapegoating. Pro drops almost everything, so extend forced, dangerous labor, mass torture through deprivation, beatings, and lack of sanitation that led to disease spread.
Pro's source on providing clean water only talks about fluoridation, not access to water in general. There are multiple examples of how access was minimal, and led to sanitation issues, especially at Auschwitz.
Pro can argue all he wants that Auschwitz wasn't an extermination camp (it was [5, 6, 7]), but that doesn't affect my argument. The deaths speak for themselves. I've argued that the camps were used for subjecting people to the most inhumane conditions and medical testing, and that many of these efforts were clearly aimed at creating a master race and ending others. Pro drops this.
What he does say is baffling. This point on a typhus epidemic, which appears to apply solely to Auschwitz, is a myth that ignores actual death certifications (which show that roughly 69,000 died from typhus, not the 1.1 million that died there), the evidence of falsified death certificates, and a bevy of post-war testimony. Typhus death rates were well below 5 in 100,000 in the 1940's, and that was without vaccination. Mengele, who contributed so heavily to eugenics studies (Pro dropped his example) actually made an effort to reduce the incidence of typhus as well, sending serum and vaccinating prisoners (mainly to advance his research). Thus, Pro's body count is inexplicable. Lastly, the placement of individuals into the camps increased the spread of typhus, which is caused by lice. Jumping from human to human gets a lot easier when you're standing in crowded into close quarters.[11, 12] If typhus was the cause of death for so many, the Germans were at fault for increasing its spread.
Pro attempts to justify German war crimes by pointing to Allied war crimes. Again, one doesn't justify the other. Hitler doesn't deserve a Peace Prize for committing war crimes, no matter whether someone else did it first. Killing people en masse, confining them, depriving them of property, safety, food, water, family, friends, and basic dignity is what the Nazis did. Pro concedes mass sterilization and torture in attempts to change eye color, either one of which would be sufficient to vote Con alone.
I disproved Pro's logic on this last round. Poland didn't attack first, and even if it did, that doesn't justify everything Germany did afterward, to Poland or any other nation. Protecting oneself against a bully doesn't entail take out a rifle and fill them and everyone around them full of holes - that goes well beyond self defense.
Germany initiated conflict with Britain and France. He invaded the latter, and launched wave after wave of aircraft at the former, practically leveling London. These are not the actions of a peaceful man. This was not self-defense, and no matter how Pro spins it, it's never peaceful to invade another country or bomb them into submission.
These were clearly war-furthering actions. These were clearly not just self-defense. Pro drops that Hitler was responsible for at least 40,000,000 deaths as a result of this war, that his allying with Japan, Austria and Italy showed even further willingness to support invaders and murderers leading other nations to war, and that Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia without provocation and without the threat of response from other nations. All of this is damning evidence against him.
Hitler was clearly behind some of the most egregiously evil acts in recent history. You can vote against the resolution because his actions clearly bear out his wayfaring, brutal nature, the antithesis of what the Prize stands for. He was Fuhrer of Germany during the time these atrocities happened. As the sole dictator of the country, he was responsible for every single act of violence committed under his regime. He's especially responsible for the actions of the Nazi party because they were his party, and as I've shown and Pro dropped, he even spoke out in support of many of these acts, lending a personal touch to them.
If you're reading through this debate and suddenly seeing Hitler as a complex character who did some good in his time that might have qualified him for the Prize, you're still voting Con, because unlike every other winner I listed, he's complicated. The simple risk that Hitler's responsibility in killing over 40,000,000 people would demean the prize (and it would) is enough to vote Con. The Peace Prize, meant to showcase peaceful efforts in their purest forms, must not be sullied by Pro's efforts to rewrite history. The best Pro gains is changing the way Hitler is viewed, but that minimal benefit is far outweighed by any risk of demeaning every other Peace Prize winner and the Prize itself. This means that even if you're buying every argument Pro's made, you're still voting Con.
But let's be clear that he didn't do good. Just delaying attacks when one is clearly planning to strike, as Hitler was against the USSR, doesn't qualify one for a Prize. Even if Hitler did display some measure of good intentions initially, that doesn't mean we should ignore a continued pattern of aggression and invasion on his part that came later with no signs of stopping.
This is a man who deserves our revulsion, not our sympathies. Vote Con.
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|