The Instigator
Arimfexendrapuse
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Swagnarok
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

did Hitler do anything wrong

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/27/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,160 times Debate No: 100371
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (0)

 

Arimfexendrapuse

Pro

I open this debate by asking you to justify Hitler's human rights violations, including but not limited to: gassing, burning, mass shooting, torturing, killing women and children, attacking civilians, chemical warfare, and genocide.
Swagnarok

Con

As "Hitler did nothing wrong" is impossible to argue, the resolution of this debate will be the following: "On Balance, Hitler's actions as Chancellor of Germany were justified."
I have a limited character count, so I'll begin my arguments now.

1. Lebensraum
In 1925, the Weimar Republic had an area of 468,787 kilometers, which is 181,000 square miles.
Source: http://www.gonschior.de...
Note: Graph under "Verwaltung". Each figure for km is thousands. "Deutsches Reich (Berlin)" represents the total area of Germany at that time.
In 1933 the population of Germany was roughly 66 million.
Source: http://www.tacitus.nu...
If you divide 66,000,000 by 181,000 you get 364.640884 (we'll just say 364).
That is, Germany in 1933 had a population density of 364 people per square mile.
In comparison, China today has a population density of roughly 375.5 people per square mile, meaning that Germany in 1933 was nearly as dense as modern day China.

Technology allows countries to provide for a larger population than before. For example, around 1750 A.D. there were roughly 6.5 million people in Great Britain. By 1901 that number had risen to around 41 million, meaning the population increased more in those 150 years than it had in all of human history before that point, despite the fact that about 15 million people emigrated from Great Britain in between 1815 and 1914. This coincides with the First Industrial Revolution, which began around 1760 and ended around 1820-40, and the Second Industrial Revolution, which began a few decades afterwards and ended in the early twentieth century.
Source: http://www.localhistories.org...
Another example is global population growth. In 1750, on the eve of the First Industrial Revolution, the world's population stood somewhere between 629 and 961 million. By 1900 that number had risen to somewhere in between 1.550 billion and 1.762 billion (that is, according to which estimates are used it may've more than doubled). I would add that this doubling was not consistent with prior historical trends. In 1600, 150 years before 1750, the population stood somewhere between 545 million and 579 million. In 1400, 200 years before 1600, the population stood between 350 million and 374 million.
Source: https://www.census.gov...
All of this is to say that while a population density of 364 may be fine and dandy for developed nations today, whenever your civilization is 80 years less advanced than today, that makes it a lot harder to support such a large population, since technology is what makes large populations sustainable in the first place.
Germany needed more land, so it could have more resources. That was the conventional wisdom of the day. Germany lost its African colonies in WW1 so that wasn't a solution.
So what was Germany to do? The only thing it thought that it could do: take the land of its neighbors.
Debate Round No. 1
Arimfexendrapuse

Pro

Among other things they could urbanize, and not kill people, like every single large civilization before it, but that's not the question I asked. Your entire argument is based on Hitler needed to get more land so his country could survive. There are many many solutions to the problem that you have brought up, most importantly that that size population density is around the population density of Virginia, clearly not overcrowded. But still that's not the question I asked. What I need you to do is try to justify the mass murder by burning gassing and shooting of civilians, the other crimes he committed. From a moral standpoint, there is no justification of this unless it is for the greater good, and the cruelty and genocide required to do these acts has no greater good. Still I request that you attempt to justify these human rights crimes.
Swagnarok

Con

"Urbanization" was something that Germany was already doing. It did not magically make Germany's density problems go away.
Anyways...

2. Nazi Racialism
Before I would continue, I would like to point out that a national leader should put his country first, and other countries second. Hitler had no responsibility to Poland, or to the Soviet Union.
I would also like to point out that Germany was (and, to an extent, still is) an ethno-state. That is, Germany exists as the country for the German ethnicity. This kind of ethnic nationalism is a new concept; Germany did not exist prior to the Battle of Austerlitz, in which the Holy Roman Empire was destroyed. The Holy Roman Empire was a monarchic state whose citizens happened to be of ethnic German majority, not a German ethnostate. Germany as we know it today is different.
Hitler's first responsibility, then, was to ethnic German people. It was not to Jewish Germans, for whom the state of Germany was not established.

The racialist hierarchy of Nazi Germany was not wholly unique to Nazi Germany. At this time, the Anglo-French world order was one where white men lorded over the Negros of Africa, the Orientals of East Asia, and the dark-skinned Mohamedans of the Middle East. At this time, Japan was virtually the only non-white country on planet earth which could've commanded the respect of the white race, and this would not be so had they not embraced modernity.
Hitler, then, simply took the prevailing racialist hierarchy of the day and took it one step further by establishing a hierarchy of white races.
And frankly, it made sense. The Germans toppled the Roman Empire. Germany stood against the might of the Anglo-French during the Great War. The Poles? Pfft, they were everybody's doormat for centuries. The Russians? Total wimps. Despite their great population and land area, they proved unable to compete with the West, and against the German onslaught during the Great War they collapsed. In a day and age where the "evolvedness" of a race was determined by the advancement of its civilizations, it was perfectly reasonable to believe that the Poles and the Russians were inferior to Germany, and thus it was perfectly reasonable for Germany to take their land and resources which would of course first involve clearing the land of all inferior inhabitants.
But what about the Jews, you may argue? Well, the opposite was true in a way. The Jews, to the perspective of the Nazis, were an inferior race, evidence by their ethnic relation to "inferior" non-white races. However, they were an inferior non-white peoples who largely controlled the economy of Germany, and also they threatened the racial purity of the superior German race through their white appearance and subsequent ability to "pass" as white. Germany needed to free itself from the inferior peoples within Germany who economically exploited Germans and threatened their racial purity . To "free" itself from these people, of course, involved exterminating them.
Debate Round No. 2
Arimfexendrapuse

Pro

First of all urbanization would have solved their problems, and quite easily. But we know from Hitler's speeches that his intent was not to give his country more land it was to take over the world.
More importantly, you are using the same argument that white slave owners were justified, because hey, in their eyes, it was OK. With this argument, you could justify any massacre, any abomination, and it's disgusting. Of course it was wrong. This is like Mao's killings, Lenin's massacre, and most importantly ISIS. This is genocide. You cannot justify it. By finally, you refuse to address how he did it. Targeting civilians. Chemical warfare. Burning women and children alive. Gassing them. Tourture. Justify
Swagnarok

Con

Before I move on to my third and final round of arguments, I would like to point out that my opponent's argument against Hitler was literally "OMG Hitler did bad stuff". He provided no objective standard by which to determine that Hitler's actions were right or wrong. He said nothing to address my point that a leader's first responsibility is to the wellbeing of his people. He failed to address my point that, even if by today's standard Hitler's actions would be considered atrocious, he must be seen within the context of his day, in which the Anglo-French order acted similarly oppressive towards their African colonial subjects.
He asserted that "urbanization" would solve Germany's population density of 364 people per square mile, as though that would magically increase the amount of available food, drinking water, building materials, textiles, metals, oil, materials used in producing electronics, and luxury items.
In short, my opponent has done a truly abysmal job of arguing that Hitler's actions were not justified, and for this reason I ask the readers to vote Con.

3. Hitler's Foreign Policy of Aggression towards Great Britain, France, and the Soviet Union
First of all, it should be noted that in 1919 the Allies of WW1, forced the German Empire to pay an exorbitant sum in "reparations".
Article 231 of the Treaty states that "The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments...have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by...Germany and her allies."
Source: http://net.lib.byu.edu...
This is despite the fact that the war was started by the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
The sum amounted to 6.6 billion British pounds. This led to the hyperinflation that afflicted Germany in the mid 1920s.
http://www.johndclare.net...
In 1923 inflation went as high as 200 billion percent.
Source: http://www.businessinsider.com...
Whenever Germany proved unable to pay its massive debts imposed by the Treaty, the French occupied Germany's Ruhr region for more than two and a half years.
Source: http://alphahistory.com...
In short, the Allies totally wrecked the economy of Germany and totally humiliated the country. If I were a German living at that time, I would want to impose this same kind of misery on the French and the British.

The Soviet Union at the time was one of the world's only communist country, and definitely the center of communism. The "Reds" murdered millions of their own people in cold blood and it was evident to most that their economic policies had led to widespread famine, and millions starved to death. If Hitler was right about anything, it was that communism was one of the worst systems ever devised by man. Communism needed to be eradicated totally.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Arimfexendrapuse 10 months ago
Arimfexendrapuse
The way they're going to vote isn't based on their previous opinions. It will be due to the fact that you never once addressed Hitler's human rights crimes, so even if you are correct about his motivation, which we know you aren't from Hitler's speeches, then you would still be wrong because you can't justify the cruelty in how he did it.
Posted by Swagnarok 10 months ago
Swagnarok
Anyhow, you probably won. I don't think anybody would vote for a guy who was arguing that Hitler's actions were justified.
Posted by Swagnarok 10 months ago
Swagnarok
Also, in the future, when issuing challenges to people, it'd be helpful if you altered the settings so as to give your opponent (and yourself) more than 3,000 characters per round to argue with. I honestly thought that was a bit annoying. Also, it would be nice if you gave your opponents more than 24 hours to post each round.
Posted by Swagnarok 10 months ago
Swagnarok
You need to learn to detach yourself emotionally from the subject matter of a debate. I am not a supporter of Hitler or his policies, but within a formal debate setting one should expect for otherwise unquestioned assumptions to be questioned. I think you could become a decent debater if you stuck around.
Posted by Arimfexendrapuse 10 months ago
Arimfexendrapuse
Are you kidding me? I'm not addressing your argument? You have yet to even touch upon my argument from the first round, about Hitler gassing burning mass shooting committing genocide killing women and children torturing and chemical warfare. The objective standard I asked you to determine Hitler's actions by is a moral one. Just like the killings of the Crusades, Mao, Lenin, Isis and others, his actions were morally wrong. Your belief that a Leader's responsibility is to his people does not justify what he did. It's like if a father killed the competition for his son at getting into college. Yes it's in the son's best interest, but it's not justified. You have submitted that the murder of 11 million people was okay because Germany needed more land. Germany should have done what any other country would have done if they needed more resources. trade and urbanize. But if you read mine kampf, or listen to any of Hitler's speeches, you would know that the reason Hitler started World War II and killed all those people was because he considered the Aryan race Superior and wanted to take over the world because it was their rightful place in nature. Con has yet to address my basic argument, and almost all of my other arguments. Vote Pro!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by Swagnarok 10 months ago
Swagnarok
Dang, I wish I had more characters for my argument.
Posted by Swagnarok 10 months ago
Swagnarok
Ah. At the very top, you meant. I'd like to add that by 1939, they had already annexed Austria, which even today has a much lower population density than Germany had in 1933, and the Sudetenland (assuming that the figure you're using doesn't count all of Czechoslovakia, which Germany ultimately annexed that year), which would invariably lower Germany's population density on paper.
Posted by Arimfexendrapuse 10 months ago
Arimfexendrapuse
Look in the summary bar on the right, and please respond to the debate
Posted by Swagnarok 10 months ago
Swagnarok
To my knowledge, the "Reich Economics" section of that article made no mention whatsoever as to the population density of Nazi Germany. Would you mind showing me exactly where you got your 283 claim?
Posted by Arimfexendrapuse 10 months ago
Arimfexendrapuse
https://en.wikipedia.org...
u were wrong. pop density was 283 so basically, the pop density of Pennsylvania
No votes have been placed for this debate.