4000 Elo debate: Hitler deserved a nobel peace prize

I am sure that we will have an interesting discussion. I understand that voters will most likely be bias in my opponent's favour but I request that if you feel like you cannot vote without bias then you avoid voting on this debate. I would like votes to only judge the content within this debate and nothing else. 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: 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. Contention 2: 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) Contention 3: False Hopes 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. Conclusion 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. Sources(A) The Barnes Trilogy, section “Revisionism and Brainwashing(B) . http://justice4germans.com...(C) Irving, op. cit. , 236