Is this board complicit in the closing of Being that is the trajectory of the west since Plato?
Are German, Ancient Greek and Sanskrit the most philosophical languages because of they have a lot of grammatical cases and therefore allow you to speak and think of "Being?"
>Is this board complicit in the closing of Being that is the trajectory of the west since Plato?
Probably, I don't see how it couldn't be. This is a place where petty academic arguments are carried on in a more violent way than they can be in journals and institutions. It's a toxic academic environment; the Academy was the beginning of this decline, and we've removed all virtue from the concept of logos, so it seems like Heidegger would loathe us.
>Are German, Ancient Greek and Sanskrit the most philosophical languages because of they have a lot of grammatical cases and therefore allow you to speak and think of "Being?"
It probably also has a lot to do with the fact that the concept of Being was first known in Greece, India, and China and the lingual baptism of the concept occured when those languages were relatively young, or at least had young scripts.
>>409700
top lel
Yeah, I think Heidegger is interesting but flawed because there's a lot of pro-Nazi thought in his philosophy and ultimately the Nazis were flawed (even if you don't invoke the Holocaust).
While I do see the similarities in the three languages, and how German and Greek are similar, I feel this kind of German patriotism was blind. Finnish could easily have the claim for language most open to Being.
Heidegger would probably contest that German is closest to Homeric Greek. I can't confirm nor deny but I'm skeptical of his emphasis on language in general.
>>409728
>I think Heidegger is interesting but flawed because there's a lot of pro-Nazi thought in his philosophy
If you actually read Sein und Zeit, you would know that wasn't true.
The only reason you say that is because you know that Heidegger was associated with the Nazis.
>>409728
>Yeah, I think Heidegger is interesting but flawed because there's a lot of pro-Nazi thought in his philosophy and ultimately the Nazis were flawed
Stop reading Adorno
>>409726
Well, Heidegger wants to argue that the Greek language itself was becoming more and more closed off to Being.
He famously stipulated some quote by Heraclitus (pre-Socratic philosopher) to be the first document of western civilization and the place where Being was unconcealed.
Heidegger thought his philosophy and the Nazi party could retrieve that essence from the pre-Socratic Greece who didn't believe in monotheism, thought the gods were all around them, were proud warriors etc - all the things a culture would have if they didn't think metaphysically, I guess.
>>409728
>Yeah, I think Heidegger is interesting but flawed because there's a lot of pro-Nazi thought in his philosophy and ultimately the Nazis were flawed
Literally every philosopher is flawed. His allegiance to the Nazis isn't a good reason to disregard this philosophy. In fact, the Black Notebooks bring it all full circle: Jews have been trying to close off Being since the beginning of moderntiy, and National Socialism alone, with its emphasis on the importance of linguistic, cultural, ethnic, traditional, and historical identities, could fight it off. Communism and liberalism were clearly not trying to fight this closure.
>>409747
>Heidegger thought his philosophy and the Nazi party could retrieve that essence from the pre-Socratic Greece who didn't believe in monotheism, thought the gods were all around them, were proud warriors etc
I don't think you get the point of his philosophy. This sounds more like Evola than Heidegger.
>>409749
>Jews have been trying to close off Being since the beginning of moderntiy, and National Socialism alone, with its emphasis on the importance of linguistic, cultural, ethnic, traditional, and historical identities, could fight it off. Communism and liberalism were clearly not trying to fight this closure.
>>409732
But Heidegger's philosophy is a brilliant defense of National Socialism.
It's clear he thinks what is uniquely German is better for the environment, for community, for thinking. It's a grand endorsement of what the Nazis themselves saw as the inheritance of ancient Greece. The Nazis wanted to cleanse Germany of Jewish culture and Heidegger is philosophically endorsing Germanic paganism as the light out for Germany and the world.
This is what triggered Levinas so much about Heidegger's philosophy. After initially liking Heidegger, he came to realize that it's essentially a 1930's philosophy, big on certain aspects of Nazism.
Heidegger was dissapointed with the Nazi party in practice, but the idealization the Nazis constructed of themselves in the early 30s is the one found in Heidegger's work.
Although there's nothing in Heidegger that could be construed as antisemitic (he was technically anti-Judaic but not a racialist) or pro-Holocaust, but because of Heidegger's distinction of truth and knowledge, it's hard to use Heidegger's thought to critique other people's morality. You could say, maybe, the Holocaust was concealing Being, especially through the use of technology but I don't think it's that strong. Maybe there's an ethical stance in "Let Beings be." But it seems to quaint compared to what was happening in Germany. I don't think there's much substance in it.
But you can always live in the country and not deal with these things.
>>409767
That's what Heidegger thought.
>>409776
Heidegger's philosophy *can* be construed as a brilliant defense for any reactionary or traditionalist politics, because he was antagonistic towards excessive materialism, commercialism, and hypertechnology.
>>409749
I just don't believe in Germanic superiority, although I really respect and admire German culture. Plus I think Heidegger didn't gain much by critiquing Aristotle. I find the latter more useful.
But this is the real Heidegger. When Derrida dismisses these connections he's being so dishonest, but it's expected since his entire career was repeating Heidegger in the french language.
>>409754
Heidegger, like Nietzsche, admired pre-Socratic Greek philosophy and morality. Heidegger uses Homer as examples for stuff on truth and morality. The warriors in the Iliad had a markedly different conception of the world. Heidegger wanted that. Or at least, a Germanic reinterpretation that grasps some of its essence.
>>409767
It's basically Heidegger when you compare them. Although I stress Heidegger wouldn't have seen taken materialist conceptions of race seriously. Dasein isn't really compatible with genetics. This is already too science-y for Heidegger. Language, he thinks is more important. He would, however, take issue with Judaism and some and perhaps most forms of Christianity.
>>409756
Existence.
>>409797
What does Derrida have to do with anything? I don't think Derrida ever made a coherent or useful claim in his life. Whether or not you believe in German superiority is beside the point. The fact that you can't talk about National Socialism without talking about 'muh master race stupidity' leads me to think you don't understand National Socialism or any kind of traditionalism in the first place.
You're right that Heidegger and most 19th century German thinkers romanticised Greek life. That doesn't mean Heidegger wanted to simply reclaim the Greek life. Like I said, you only think this because you misunderstand revolutionary conservatism.
>>409606
>ontology
Do you even sublate, bro?
>>409836
Not him, but National Socialism is a retarded collectivist totalitarian ideology.
There's nothing to discuss.
>>409849
That's a really terrible opinion, and you should be ashamed for dismissing National Socialism out of hand in a Heidegger thread.
>>409836
> leads me to think you don't understand National Socialism or any kind of traditionalism in the first place.
Because I value Slavic culture and Slavic peoples. Because I see no reason for Italians to shine the boots of the Germans.
> What does Derrida have to do with anything? I don't think Derrida ever made a coherent or useful claim in his life.
Well, you see, Heidegger never cared about any contemporary philosopher except for Derrida. He liked Derrida and tried to arrange a meeting. Derrida bailed at the last minute because he's a pussy. Deconstruction is just Heidegger's De-struktion. There's nothing in Derrida that was not first in Heidegger.
Derrida is a purer Heidegger. Stripped of all the romanticism, Derrida shows Heidegger to be what it "truly is," annoying, useless bullshit.
>>409868
Or maybe you should take your pseudo-intellectual NatSocism back to /pol/.
>>409848
Adorno's critique is not bad. And his critique of Hegel is interesting as well, and ultimately, he is much closer to Hegel.
What I find ironic is that Adorno and Heidegger both agree on many points, but they argue that the foundations of the other's philosophy necessarily will culminate into disaster. Adorno, for Heidegger, would start without considering Being, and Heidegger, for Adorno, is just a fascist provincialism in poetic language. And yet, they both end up, from different initial arguments, to agree on many things like pop culture and technology.
Do Adorno and Heidegger inadvertently prove that each of their philosophies is bullshit?
>>409876
But that isn't the entirety of National Socialism. Again, you're focusing purely on the master race bullshit, which Heidegger didn't buy into at all, so this criticism can't even be applied to his philosiphy. And it isn't like the Communists weren't trying to eradicate as much of Slavic culture as they could so that they could move their world forward and, yknow, be Communists.>>409876
Derrida isn't a 'purer' Heidegger, either; that claim oversimplifies both men painfully. But I want to repeat my belief that Derrida was a charlatan, and he did more harm than good with the whole 'nothing is outside the text' nonsense that shitposters on /lit/ can't get enough of.
>>409879
Maybe you should accept that Heidegger was a Nazi and this is a Heidegger thread before telling someone who wants to talk about things you don't like to go back to /pol/. Calling something "retaded" because it's "collectivist totalitarian" and not elaborating on why those terms are necessarily bad, analytically or synthetically, is the height of anti-intellectualism.
>>409892
>Again, you're focusing purely on the master race bullshit
Not him again, but the "master race bullshit" is literally National Socialism's defining characteristic.
If you think there is anything profound beyond the statist racism of National Socialism, you are delusional.
>>409879
Nigger go home. You don't even understand the basic concepts behind it.
>>409900
>Maybe you should accept that Heidegger was a Nazi
I have never in this thread denied that he was.
And personally I think National Socialism is horrible, because there is nothing good about racism, and neither is there anything good with denying the rights of individuals for "the greater good", nor is there anything good about being a militarily expansionistic dictatorship.
>>409915
>nothing good about racism
Define racism
>denying rights
>men
>having universal rights
Lol
>>409902
But this is a Heidegger thread, wherein I'm defending Heidegger's philosophy from idiots who don't realize that he was almost kicked out of the Party because he disagreed with it and thought the essence of National Socialism wasn't racial.
>>409915
Those are all statements, but I don't see arguments supporting any of them. Not saying I disagree with you, I just think you should back those statements up.
>>409931
>Define racism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Laws
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust
These two should give you a decent idea.
>>409888
>Do Adorno and Heidegger inadvertently prove that each of their philosophies is bullshit?
Since Heidegger's only verified reaction to Adorno was "Negative Dialectics? Wuts that?", the whole issue will tend to be somewhat one-sided.
At least regarding the technology part, their similarity of position seems to be somewhat superficial, as Adorno was enough of a marxist to keep believing in its utopian potential that was just perverted by capitalism/the dialectics of enlightenment. This is still admittedly superficial, as Derrida put it, some 20.000 pages are yet to be written on the difference between critical theory and deconstruction.
>>409892
>But that isn't the entirety of National Socialism.
I never claimed that.
> so this criticism can't even be applied to his philosiphy
I never did that. I said specifically, this criticism cannot be applied to his philosophy. Dasein isn't genetic, isn't materialist. He is closer to Evola in this respect.
>>409892
>Derrida isn't a 'purer' Heidegger
Here, we actually disagree. "Nothing is outside the text" is right in line with Heidegger's thought.
>>409933
>But this is a Heidegger thread, wherein I'm defending Heidegger's philosophy from idiots who don't realize that he was almost kicked out of the Party because he disagreed with it and thought the essence of National Socialism wasn't racial.
I know that. But this doesn't change the fact that National Socialism is retarded, and would be retarded even if National Socialism wasn't racist.
Dictatorship and military expansionism doesn't turn into virtuous systems or behaviors, just because you think you have a good reason for doing them.
>>409606
Linguist here. Tell me what the fuck "Being" is and why you think grammatical cases make a language more philosophical.
>>409947
You haven't studied both if you don't think there's a great deal of overlap.
>>409968
OK, but why do you think that? I don't see any arguments, you're just asserting and emoting. Do you think Heidegger was retarded for thinking there was an authenticity to the movement?
>>409965
>That isn't a definition. Why don't you offer one?
The definition is implied within the articles that I posted.
Racism is irrational and dangerous, as those incidents no doubt show.
>>409986
Well, you should be able to define it. Is it an attitude, a bias, a product of power relations?
>>409965
Because they both see language as the requisite for thought.
Derrida is just being provacative, but Heidegger would also agree that there's no thought without language. So Derrida is really just using "text" as "language."
"There is nothing outside [language]" = Language is the house of Being (Heidegger)
Deconstruction is the exact same thing as Heidegger's de-struktion of western philosophy. Every deconstructive analysis is just saying "look, no metaphysical Truth, just play, or as Heidegger said "Being" or as Heraclitus said "flux."
To me, the entire Heraclitus -> Heidegger -> Derrida trajector is faulty. Derrida just has no romanticism to lure you into his philosophy. He's just being annoying in an ivory tower setting.
>>409984
>Do you think Heidegger was retarded for thinking there was an authenticity to the movement?
I think he was mistaken in thinking that a political monster like National Socialism would be a cure to any of the problems that he saw in world culture, i.e capitalism, hypertechnology etc.
He was clearly enchanted by the mass-movement of National Socialism, like many people of that era just with different ideologies such as Communism.
It's interesting how the only people who saw that, were the Weimar Liberals like Friedrich Hayek.
>>409986
Define racism.
Or you have no concept.
>>409999
>"There is nothing outside [language]" = Language is the house of Being (Heidegger)
I don't think those statements are identical. I don't think Heidegger treats Being purely as "play" the way Derrida does.
>>409996
Does it matter? Racism means you treat people as lesser than yourself, because of meaningless characteristics such as skin color or ethnicity, i.e it is not rational at all, and it usually ends in bloodshed.
>>410006
>Racism means you treat people as lesser to yourself
Does treating people different mean lesser? Or different?
Also, it's not just skin color, or ethnicity. It's much deeper than that.
>>410000
You realize that you're just speaking out of an ideological position you're comfortable with, right? Your support of Weimar Liberals is tacit support of the American war in Vietnam, btw, since it was waged by liberals for liberalism.
>>410005
There's no "differance" between Derrida and Heidegger.
>>409971
I'm not saying there ksn't, I'm saying the overlap is present at a superficial level, when you try to state their position as short and concise as possible. This, however, would do injustice to both, and the deep structure of their respective argument will more often than not reveal fundamental opposition.
>>410012
Of course I am speaking from an ideological position I'm comfortable with.
What, you think I'm a political nihilist?
Sorry, but yes, liberalism will always be superior to a system that literally effectively murdered 11 million people in slave labor camps.
Regardless of whatever reductio ad absurdum you pull forward about the Vietnam war.
>>410006
>Racism means you treat people as lesser than yourself, because of meaningless characteristics such as skin color or ethnicity,
Those things aren't meaningless at all. I don't understand why you would think they are, when people clearly get so worked up over them.
>i.e it is not rational at all,
>Muh rationality
Can you explain what makes something rational?
>and it usually ends in bloodshed.
Reason is responsible for a looooot of bloodshed. Irrational beliefs like "I will go to Hell if I murder people because God exists" can help to prevent bloodshed. Antiracism is responsible for 9/11: most of the hijackers and terrorists involved were on watchlists and were reported for behaving suspiciously (in one case, learning how to fly but not land a plane) prior to the Event, but weren't investigated because of policies that were meant to discourage 'irrational' rcial profiling.
>>410030
Do you have similar views about Comminism?
>>410039
Of course.
>>410035
>Antiracism is responsible for 9/11:
partially* responsible, I should say, since it was also a lot of other things.
>>410041
Carry on.
>>410035
>Those things aren't meaningless at all. I don't understand why you would think they are, when people clearly get so worked up over them.
The only people who get worked up about skin color and ethnicity are racists.
This includes the average National Socialist, but it also includes the modern liberal professor at a university who has a white savior complex.
>>410035
>Antiracism is responsible for 9/11: most of the hijackers and terrorists involved were on watchlists and were reported for behaving suspiciously (in one case, learning how to fly but not land a plane) prior to the Event, but weren't investigated because of policies that were meant to discourage 'irrational' rcial profiling.
Dude, if you believe that...
>>410048
Communism is not liberal.
It's illiberal. Just like National Socialism.
So yes, I have the same reservations again Communism.
>>410049
Actually medical doctors, geneticists, anthropologists, sociologists, BLM activists, the lot of them care about race.
You're arguing from an imaginary point of
>this general undefined concept of racism is bad, because only people like xyz think about it.
>>410053
against*
>>410055
These people only care about racial characteristics if it is related to their field of inquiry.
You will never hear a medical doctor say that because black people have a slightly higher chance of getting sickle cell anemia, this means that we should annihilate all black people, and no one should breed with them.
So, while I concede that there are differences between people, these differences will never be large enough to justify unequal treatment before the law or any societal institution.
>>410069
Who is saying we should alienate all black people?
I am suggesting providing them with their own society where they can determine their culture and structures for themselves.
You're entire concept is based off of the "big bad raycist" and it isn't very accurate.
>>410105
>I am suggesting providing them with their own society where they can determine their culture and structures for themselves.
But why? Do you really hate black people so much that it is hard for you to even have them within your own geographical region?
what the fuck does grammatical case have to do with philosophy
>>410052
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/003149.html
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2006/09/political-correctness-saved-mohammed.html?m=1
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/07/02/did-logan-airport-miss-a-chance-at-atta/
>>410069
Those are important fields. I think the fact that they care about race means that race means something.
>>410156
Dude, if you believe that...
>>410163
I agree. It means *something*.
But it will never mean anything remotely near the average /pol/-tard wants it to mean.
>>410142
Better conception of time and truth, essentially.
Which is why he coins new terms in German and keeps referring to old Greek terms.
>>410165
>DUDE MUSLIMS CAN'T BE EXTREMISTS BECAUSE ISLAM ISN'T EXTREME LMAO
>>410171
It also won't mean as little as the average leftist wants it to mean.
>>410176
Which would be what if you don't mind me asking?
>>410175
No, man...if you believe those are the reasons...
Dude, I...I'm at a loss for words.
>>410180
Those are partial reasons, I see you didn't see the post directly underneath the one where I originally made the claim. Obviously it was a more complex event than that. It wasn't made more difficult for the perpetrators by the factors I mentioned, though.
>>410121
No, I feel that they are disadvantaged by society, and have been in a state of injustice for two hundred years of history.
Sure some can be successful, but their culture and societies are plagued by materialism and toxic self destructive cosmopolitan culture, and a crab mentality.
The only way they can solve their issues is by themselves.
I don't hate anyone because of their race, that's illogcial, a man can't help what race he is. That doesn't mean we are all equal and we don't have differences, or that we would be better off living seperate.
>>410179
That it's reasonable to expect people to simultaneously accept all differences and look beyond them all the time, while still being mindful of them. Cultures clash. It's that simple.
>>410172
lel really
>>410196
>That doesn't mean we are all equal and we don't have differences, or that we would be better off living seperate.
People can be of equal value as humans regardless of whatever their individual prowess is.
Also, there is a huge difference between you yourself not wanting to associate with certain people because you are a racist, and trying to change society into having a system which forcibly relocates or murders everyone who doesn't fit the majority ethnic group in the area.
The former is something I as a liberal cannot control, the latter is something I will never put up with and will resist with every fiber of my being.
>>410256
>you want to murder and relocate everyone
No, I want people to have the full right to association.
It they WISH to live in a segregated community they may, without persecution.
>>410277
Which is essentially how it is now.
Gentrification exists you know.
>>410006
>Racism means you treat people as lesser than yourself, because of meaningless characteristics such as skin color or ethnicity
How are these meaningless? The looks of a person give you a certain aesthetic impression. Also, do you really believe that the innate abilities that are in demand in a modern first world country are equally distributed among all races (or genders)?
>>410341
>Also, do you really believe that the innate abilities that are in demand in a modern first world country are equally distributed among all races (or genders)?
Depends. Are you comparing a white man and a black man who have the exact same education?
Or a woman and man with the exact same education? There is essentially little difference between them.
>>410360
Education alone does not turn someone of below average intelligence into a mathematician or engineer.
The point is: I don't rule out that black or female engineers and mathematicians exist - formidable ones even. I'm saying that the qualities to become one aren't as common among blacks or females.
>>410383
>Education alone does not turn someone of below average intelligence into a mathematician or engineer.
No, it doesn't, but what sense does it make to create a society which would treat people who are below average intelligence differently as a matter of law?
>>410397
I'm not talking about political implications yet, I'm merely talking about the likely fact that ability is unevenly distributed among certain demographics.
Besides: don't we have such laws already in many western countries, e.g. in the form of affirmative action or gender quotas?
>>410402
Yes, but ability is unevenly distributed even among white people of different ethnicity, and even within the same ethnic group.
You aren't guaranteed to be Richard Feynman or Albert Einstein just because you are born with the genetics that could make you into one.
>>410301
Sigh. Except it is ridiculed and legislated againts like it's some heinous crime to want to live with people more like yourself.
My own hometown of Highland park, has no racialist policies of descrimination, and is only de facto segregated because of its wealth and culture.
There are articles calling for an undermining of my old community for "equality" or "anti-racism" or what not. It's disgusting and infantile.
All in all, success breeds jelousy.
>>410448
The point is: why do we still have affirmative action, quotas, etc.?
>>410517
>why do we still have affirmative action, quotas, etc.?
Ask a person that agrees with affirmative action and quotas, because I certainly don't.
>>410517
Stepping in for a moment; the courts have decided that to "remedy" past discrimination, they can actively discriminate againts whites and males, to "level out" the playing field.
I don't agree with this process, that's just the court ruling.
Test
>>409606
>caring about muh mental gymnastics
Philosophy is lowest of low tier
>>410520
I very much doubt that this is their reasoning.
Essentially, their ideology is that all people are a same and possess the same talents and thus any sort of uneven distribution among genders or races in a field must be due to discrimination which must be counter-acted by law.
Personally, I find their premise of equality rather unlikely though.
>>410517
Because the Democrats have been pandering to the lowest common denominator for decades.
>>410547
Whether or not it's their reasoning is beside the point. Jews and Asians are overrepresented on college campuses for bad reasons.
>>410030
>slave labor camps
Holocaust denier detected
>>410600
Not even him, but you have to be baiting.
The vast majority were slave labour camps.
>>410675
The Nazis were tying to exterminate the Jews. They were death camps.
>>410678
The original intention was never to commit mass genocide, it only became a reality after the war tide turned.
Most camps were just labour camps, not death camps.
>>410875
Hitler campaigned on an antisemitic platform.
>>410882
Your point? Europe during the time period was very anti-Semitic. Ploes, Germans, French, the lot of them. It had been spurring since the 1880s.
Hitler did not campaign chiefly on anti-Semitism, that was more of Gobbles appealing the the far right and left of the Nazi party, and the protestants.
You should also note that the majority of holocaust victims were not Jews, but Poles, Russians, and other people.
>>410905
Six million? The majority of the 11 million weren't Jews? Are you just bad at math?
The other fascist parties in Europe were all Nazi supporters.
>>410913
The Holocaust does not encompass the entirety of the liquididation that occurred in death camps. It includes the terror bombing, the targeting of Polish civilians, Russian civilians, and other people's.
The totality of the holocaust was not a uniquely jewish suffering, but a Polish and Russian one.
You're brainwashed by American propaganda, go to another country once in a while.
>>410930
Nazi tyranny and the Holocaust are the same thing now? Five million is a minority, six million is the majority. Get your facts straight.
>>410942
First off, six million is not the accepted number anymore. The offical holocaust institutes recognize that the number of deaths for jews is closer to 5.1 million.
And that the holocaust is not JUST the liquididation that occurred in death camps, but the totality of the events of civillian targeting and executions, of which, people other than Jews were the primary victims of.
This is basic holocaust historu, you are a holocaust denier if you oppose this.
If you claim Heidegger's support for the Nazi Party is irrelevant to his philosophy, you are claiming one of three things:
1) Heidegger was a chimp typing at a keyboard who didn't understand what he wrote.
2) Heidegger was acting under bad faith, either when he wrote his philosophy, or when he supported the Nazi Party (the historical evidence certainly points to the first case being easier to maintain).
3) Heidegger's philosophy is useless an irrelevant to matters of ethics, aesthetics, and the core question of how we should live our lives.
>>410974
>all because some faggot on a Mongolian finger painting appreciation board said so
>>410957
OK, but the Jews were targeted in a way that Poles and Slavs weren't. The Germans hated Jews.
>>410993
Everyone hated jews in Europe, because most were much more wealthy than the averaged impoverished unemployed German or Polish or Spanish during the time period. and Poles and Russians were targeted MORE because they were considered POWs. They were occupied. More of them died.
Civilians lined up in the streets and mowed down, buried into mass graves.
Those polish didn't have the luxury to even get a chance to survive.
Stop touting American propaganda, visit another country like Poland and see a more balanced view.
All in all, it was a mass suffering; but it was not a uniquely JEWISH suffering.
>>411020
I didn't say it was unique, I said the Jews were specifically persecuted differently from other groups
Europe being antisemitic isn't am excuse, it just speaks lowly about Europe
>>411034
>persecuted
Oh brother.
I will say this, everyone gets what they deserve friend.
The Jews got the holocaust, the Germans got Dresden and Hamburg and having their entire national identity crushed.
China got Nanking, Japan got two nuclear wamos, and America got 9/11.
The cause of the holocaust was an increasing radicalization of the leaders, not the general population who would just joke about jews and "their ways".
>>410678
There were like half a dozen 'death camps'. On the other hand there were hundreds of labor camps and concentration camps
