Resolved: Hitler deserved a nobel peace prize

Alright, thanks again to Balacafa, and let's get into this, starting with overviews. 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. General Rebuttal: Much of Pro's argument here is taken from this site, which cites all of the books he uses, similarly without any context.[3] 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.[4] 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 1938: Kristallnacht 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) [5] 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.[6] 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.[7] 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.[8] 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.[9] Remaining Claims: 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.[10] 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.[11] 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. 1. http://bit.ly... 2. http://bit.ly... 3. http://bit.ly... 4. http://bit.ly... 5. http://bit.ly... 6. http://bit.ly... 7. http://bit.ly... 8. http://dailym.ai... 9. http://bit.ly... 10. http://ti.me... 11. http://bit.ly...