that Hitler violated his own 25 point program through involuntary euthanasia of disabled people despite saying that he wouldn't violate the rights of German citizens

because it was involuntary euthanasia and you haven't provided a source that says otherwise

Covfefe

that Hitler wanted to colonize eastern lands as part of his ideology which he wrote about in Mein Kampf

@agag My counter argument is that if you do not have authoritarian control you will invariably devolve into a plutocracy, in which eventually you will have authoritarian rule by unknown elites behind a curtain of "democracy" which then rule you from the shadows. In the NS pov, you can at least rebel against that single leader or remove him, and his intentions and name is known. Also there is less chances for corruption in such a strict system, and the meritocratic militaristic culture and element is what prevents degeneracy in higher command.

saying he wanted to take new territories

but in NS Germany Hitler was not removed or eliminated despite what he did

the military is not an adequate check on the power of the dictator

you can see how that turned out in Rome

This is a straw man, because this presupposes that Hitler broke his promise to his volk. The German people lived well under NS, even during the war when drastic measures were taken, loyal citizens were not meddled with.

It was liberals and communists and traitors who were messed with. And that's the same in America wartime too

it presupposes that because that's what happened with Aktion T4

as I said, the euthanasia program had almost entirely willing subjects, there were a very small number of shady cases, which were *against* the law

which means that you could prob find court cases dealing with it

appeals from citizens etc.

so it's not an argument, because aktion t4 was only meant to be done with consent of the family

by design

the Führer's word was the supreme law, if he ordered involuntary euthanasia then that was law

anyways you're devolving into straw manning ally moral fagging arguments based on their own made up events

you're claiming that it was voluntary without providing a source for that claim

it would be very difficult for me to pull a source out of my ass in what is meant to be a less than an hour discussion in text, I can look for one and provide it for you tomorrow if you like

Look up Erik Striker, he sources well

knows more than me about this topic, and he specifically addressed and sourced this t4 issue

and addresses your points

Anyways any other arguments?

because I don't think you've made a compelling case

does he have a website

he's on Heel Turn as a talk show guest usually, he's a history major graduate I believe, so just look for clips of him on youtube I guess

you could maybe find something googling his name too

absolutism or authoritarianism will always devolve into tyranny and/or shitty government

hitler was no exception considering the chaos that was the german government under him

I think I've linked you some of Kershaw's stuff on that before

you can also look at the French after Louis XIV

@agag I contend this point with the fact that just and honorable rulers are not even denied by Americanist historians in monarchies of the past.

how that turned out for their absolute monarchs

Which were authoritarian by design

and I mean pre constitutional monarchy

just and honorable rulers give way to unjust and dishonorable rulers

where the monarchy's authority was almost the same as the Fuhrer in effect

we've had some really shitty presidents in the past but only one of them actually came close to destroying the country

I can't say the same thing for absolutist countries