The Instigator
Forever23
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Balacafa
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

The Debate

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Balacafa
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/16/2016 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 521 times Debate No: 85103
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (2)

 

Forever23

Pro

How much can you write on any topic in 5 minutes?
Balacafa

Con

I accept. I agree to debate the resolution: Hitler does not deserve a nobel peace prize. My opponent is Pro. I am Con.
Debate Round No. 1
Forever23

Pro

Forever23 forfeited this round.
Balacafa

Con

Thank you for accepting this debate whiteflame. I am sure that we will have an interesting discussion.


History


So, most people have been taught about this subject in the wrong war. The bias way. Of course you are going to be taught that Hitler was enemy and we were all the great soldiers who fought against him. This natural since we are both living in countries that fought against Hitler in the war. What I’m going to do now is provide some history before I get into my contentions.


War was forced upon Germany. Poland had an immense amount of power! This power was sourced by British Ambassador Sir Howard William Kennard and French Ambassador Leon Noel (1). They promised that England and France would come to defend and help Poland. The only condition necessary would be that Poland was in danger. Then they would come to the aid of them. This meant that no matter what Poland did to Germany in order to provoke them, Poland had the guaranteed help of both England and France. After Poland delivered the first blow Hitler announced (in self defense) the following words:


“Since dawn today, we are shooting back.” (2)


It should be noted that the words: ‘shooting back’ are not the words of the aggressor. The words shooting back imply self defense which is a justified act given the circumstances (ie. war).


A young German political leader named Leon Degrelle (who was originally a non-German European) said:


“Of all the crimes of World War II, one never hears about the wholesale massacres that occurred in Poland just before the war. Thousands of German men, women and children were massacred in the most horrendous fashion by press-enraged mobs. Hitler decided to halt the slaughter and he rushed to the rescue.”4 Young German boys, when captured by the Poles, were castrated.” (3)


This shows (already) that the portrayal of Germany and Hitler is exaggerated however I will still continue.


Young German boys! It is sickening to think that 4 young German boys were captured and castrated. This clearly comes to subjective morality. How can any human being allow this to happen without retaliation? I cannot source this subjectivity but I assume that my opponent will accept that this is a sickening act. If he does not accept that this is a sickening act then we can discuss this further in later rounds.


A German witness to this, William Joyce, described the horrific acts of Poland in further detail:


German men and women were hunted like wild beasts through the streets of Bromberg. When they were caught, they were mutilated and torn to pieces by the Polish mob. . . . Every day the butchery increased. . . . [T]housands of Germans fled from their homes in Poland with nothing more than the clothes that they wore. Moreover, there was no doubt that the Polish army was making plans for the massacre of Danzig. . . . On the nights of August 25 to August 31 inclusive, there occurred, besides innumerable attacks on civilians of German blood, 44 perfectly authenticated acts of armed violence against German official persons and property. These incidents took place either on the border or inside German territory. On the night of [August 31], a band of Polish desperadoes actually occupied the German Broad casting Station at Gleiwitz. Now it was clear that unless German troops marched at once, not a man, woman or child of German blood within the Polish territory could reasonably expect to avoid persecution and slaughter.” (4)


So what we can conclude so far is that Poland delivered the first blow and not Germany. This first blow was extremely significant. A first blow gave the US the ‘right and justification to do whatever was necessary to defeat the Japanese.’ But Germany did not have this right with Poland even after Poland had delivered the first blow (1). How is this fair on Germany and Hitler? You cannot pick and choose countries that are allowed to do this. It is either all countries or no countries.


In January 1941, Hitler was making great efforts to come to peace terms with England. He offered England extremely beneficial terms. He offered, if Britain would assume an attitude of neutrality, to withdraw from all of France, to leave Holland and Belgium . . . to evacuate Norway and Denmark, and to support British and French industries by buying their products. This proposal had many other beneficial points for England and Western Europe. But the English officials did not want peace. They wanted war. Do you not recall that England celebrated the end of the war with beer and jokes (5)?


So I’ll quickly recap and what has happened so far. Poland deliver the first strike. Somehow, the US get more privileges than Germany does. Hitler has gone through extreme efforts to get peace offering deals that give England many benefits. England refused for no apparent reason, so we can only assume that they wanted war.


Hitler even allowed Britain to escape on Dunkirk, which was possibly one of the deciding wars on whether or not the allies would win the war. Blumentritt states why Hitler allowed the British to escape:


“He [Hitler] then astonished us by speaking with admiration of the British Empire, of the necessity for its existence, and the civilization that Britain had brought into the world. He remarked with a shrug of the shoulders, that the creation of the Empire had been achieved by means that were often harsh, but “where there is planning there are shavings flying.” He compared the British Empire with the Catholic Church—saying they were both essential elements of stability in the world. He said that all he wanted from Britain was that she should acknowledge Germany’s position on the continent. The return of Germany’s lost colonies would be desirable but not essential, and he would even offer to support Britain with troops if she should be involved in any difficulties anywhere.” (6)


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.


Sources

1. http://justice4germans.com...

2.Onward Christian Soldiers, 55.


3.Fish, Hamilton, FDR: The Other Side of the Coin, 86

4.Twilight Over England, 125-6

5.McLaughlin, op cit., 10

6.Barnes, Harry Elmer, Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, 162

Contention 1: Too good?


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:


“he made a genuine and liberal peace offer to Britain on August 25, 1939; he permitted the British to escape at Dunkirk to encourage Britain to make peace, which later on cost him the war in North Africa; he failed to occupy all of France, take North Africa at once, and split the British Empire, he lost the Battle of Britain by failing to approve the savagery of military barbarism which played so large a role in the Allied victory; he delayed his attack on Russia and offered Molotov lavish concessions in November 1940 to keep peace between Germany and Russia; he lost the war with Russia by delaying the invasion in order to bail Mussolini out of his idiotic attack on Greece; and he declared war on the United States to keep his pledged word with Japan which had long before made it clear that it deserved no such consideration and loyalty from Hitler.” (a)

Sources

1 The Barnes Trilogy, section “Revisionism and Brainwashing


2. http://justice4germans.com...

3. Irving, op. cit., 236

Debate Round No. 2
Forever23

Pro

The Nobel Prize is given to- [1] According to his will, Alfred Nobel's enormous fortune was to be used to establish prizes to award those who had done their best to benefit mankind in the fields of physics, chemistry, medicine, literature and peace. The first Nobel Prizes were awarded in 1901, five years after Nobel's death.



Hitler did not in any way make this world a better place.


In fact, he committed a massive genocide of Jews and caused the death of money.


He did not help humanity reach new heights or imporve in any possible way.

[2] Born in Austria in 1889, Adolf Hitler rose to power in German politics as leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party, also known as the Nazi Party. Hitler was chancellor of Germany from 1933 to 1945, and served as dictator from 1934 to 1945. His policies precipitated World War II and the Holocaust. Hitler committed suicide with Evan Braun in bunker.



My opponents only contention that many actually considered Hitler to be good.



But really? Is that why GB fought with him? Is that why millions of people died in order to stop his actions.


The genocide of Jews...


Clearly, after all these, you can not say that he was good. If he did not help the world develop, he clearly does not deserve the nobel peace prize.

Vote pro

[1] http://www.nobelprize.org...
[2] http://www.biography.com...
Balacafa

Con

The years in which the first Nobel peace prize was awarded is irrelevant. Hitler put in great efforts to stop the world war (as my contentions demonstrate). This is sufficient to meet the qualities that need to be met to win the prize.

I've already addressed this issue. Hitler was against Jews but it is often exaggerated. People are bound to die in wars. It is not unlikely that deaths will occur.

Did my opponent not read my contentions? They dismiss all of them saying excluding one. Hitler married a Jew [1]! Hitler allowed Jews to fight for him [2]. He didn't like them but that doesn't mean that all of their deaths were intentional. Furthermore, Hitler did not order every single individual death. He had advizers and other commanders that made some decisions for him. The BOP is on Pro and they have not produced a good enough argument.

[1] http://bit.ly...;
[2] http://bit.ly...;
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by PowerPikachu21 10 months ago
PowerPikachu21
So... what was the resolution?
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Chrysalism// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: That was interesting. Still agree with Pro however Balacafa made more convincing arguments and better conduct.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain sources. (2) The voter doesn't explain arguments, merely restating the decision.
************************************************************************
Posted by 9spaceking 1 year ago
9spaceking
Good job to both of you.
Posted by Balacafa 1 year ago
Balacafa
tbh I had 3 more contentions but since there was an 8k character limit, not 10k, I had to cut it down a bit.
Posted by Forever23 1 year ago
Forever23
lol I couldnt read your contentions. I guessed what you said because I had only 1 min left
Posted by Balacafa 1 year ago
Balacafa
I nearly ff the last round. Just made it.
Posted by Forever23 1 year ago
Forever23
Its fine :)
Posted by Balacafa 1 year ago
Balacafa
Sorry for calling you whiteflame. I did the same debate with whiteflame and copied it over.
Posted by Balacafa 1 year ago
Balacafa
Easily made it.
Posted by Forever23 1 year ago
Forever23
I almost made it!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by famousdebater 1 year ago
famousdebater
Forever23BalacafaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 1 year ago
9spaceking
Forever23BalacafaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: ff. Con's arguments were unaddressed especially with Hitler's contradictory show to Jews (note that pro didn't even mention exactly what happened in the Holocaust!). Thus, con wins.