The Holocaust is justifiable

Thank you for creating this topic which I would love to argue about. Definitions restated: The Holocaust - the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of approximately six million Jews as part of a programme of deliberate extermination planned and executed by the National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazi) regime in Germany led by Adolf Hitler. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... Justifiable - 1: the act, process, or state of being justified by God 2: the to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable 3: to show to have had a sufficient legal reason Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com... Rebuttals: 1. Utilitarian - idea that the moral worth of an action is solely determined by its contribution to overall utility, that is, its contribution to happiness or pleasure as summed among all persons. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... The utopia Hitler tried to create were political utopias that are ones in which the government establishes a society that is striving toward perfection. He was trying to promote nationalism, antisemitism and anti-communism with charismatic oratory and propaganda. Indeed, Hitler's bid for territorial conquest and racial subjugation caused the deaths of 43 million people, including the systematic genocide of an estimated six million Jews as well as various additional "undesirable" populations in what is known as the Holocaust. While achieving this society, SOME people were not aligned with Hitler's views? More than the Jewish entire population were against Hitler's politics. In fact, World War II was a global military conflict which involved a majority of the world's nations, including all of the great powers organized into two opposing military alliances: the Allies and the Axis. The reason that the war started was because in September 1939, the German invaded Poland and subsequent declarations of war on Germany occurred by the United Kingdom, France and the British Dominions. Germany annexed Austria, with little European response and as a result, Hitler was making claims on the Sudetenland and Danzig. Alarmed, France and Britain guaranteed their support for Polish independence. As you can see, Hitler was trying to take over Europe by force without permission from other countries. Moreover, there was more people outside of Germany than in Germany. So can you still claim that Hitler's actions of attempting to eliminate the Jews, and taking over the world is give supports toward working for the greater good? Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... In his autobiography Mein Kampf (1925), Hitler had been open about his hatred of Jews, and gave ample warning of his intention to drive them from Germany's political, intellectual, and cultural life. As a consequence, his racial hatred for Jews led to the Holocaust. "The fact that the Jews constitute the majority of this internal opposition is" NOT merely a coincidence. Hitler had hated them and wanted Germany to be cleansed out of Jews. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... The assumption in antisemitism based on racial grounds is that there in fact exists a Jewish race. The proponents point to the perceived "distinctive" physical appearance of Eastern-European Ashkenazi Jews. In fact, there is no scientific evidence for the proposition that Jews constitute a "race", and even among Ashkenazi Jews, physical appearance varies greatly. The particular problem with racial antisemitism is that the discrimination or hostility directed at Jews is based on ancestry and not beliefs or practices. Therefore, a certain Christian who may not even know of his or her Jewish background, may still be treated as a Jew and discriminated against (or worse) accordingly, as it was in the time of Nazi Germany and The Holocaust. Therefore, people who are not Jewish but have a Jewish background could be executed in the Holocaust. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... I can even give you the list of many famous Holocaust survivors who survived the Nazi genocides in Europe and went on to achievements of great fame and notability: http://en.wikipedia.org... Do you think that eliminating them in the Holocaust would beneficial to the world, and not just to Germany? You would also like to know that Albert Einstein, best known for his theory of relativity and many other contributions to physics that can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org..., left Germany before the Holocaust, essentially escaping its wrath. What would have happen if Albert Einstein was eliminated in the Holocaust too? 2. The end justifies the means - "For a more perfect society to be established and maintained, all negative opposition must be subdued." Does that mean executing genocides would be the best way to subdue all negative opposition? Do you even consider human rights? Genocide is a crime against humanity and the policy that was adopted to prevent it was the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Can you still say why the Holocaust was merely a necessary action to insure the greater good when more than 3/4 of the population doesn't agree? Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... This relates to utilitarianism again: In order for utilitarianism to be justified, the justification of slavery, torture or mass murder would require unrealistically large benefits to outweigh the direct and extreme suffering to the victims. Utilitarianism would also require the indirect impact of social acceptance of inhumane policies to be taken into consideration; for example, general anxiety and fear might increase for all if human rights are commonly ignored. Acts such as enslavement and genocide always cause great unhappiness and little happiness. Utilitarianism has been criticized for only looking at the results of actions, not at the desires or intentions which motivate them, which many people also consider important. Can you still call the Holocaust justifiable? Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. All's fair in love and war - something that you say which means behavior that is unpleasant or not fair is acceptable during an argument or competition. Not anything is moral, Hitler had on goal, to take over the world for Germany, including cleansing it by eliminating the Jews. The idiom is only acceptable if the goal is morally acceptable UNLIKE creating the Holocaust. An action intended to cause harm but that inadvertently causes good results would be judged equal to the result from an action done with good intentions. Utilitarianism is not proven by science or logic to be the correct ethical system. Therefore it is not correct to say "all is fair in love and war" if the goal was morally and ethically wrong. Source: http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com... Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. Hitler didn't care for Germany at the end of World War II Hitler realized that Germany had lost the war, but allowed no retreats. Hitler's stubbornness and defiance of military realities also allowed the Holocaust to continue. He also ordered the complete destruction of all German industrial infrastructure before it could fall into Allied hands, saying that Germany's failure to win the war forfeited its right to survive. Rather, Hitler decided that the entire nation should go down with him. So did creating the Holocaust justifiable? I disagree, because Hitler failed to win World War II and didn't care for his country anymore. Therefore the Holocaust was useless and was a result of Hitler stubbornness. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...