This is off-topic at this point but I'll throw my hat in.>Probably because he was so mad he was more monster than man.
Although the metaphysical impact of his work has been disastrous (mainly because it was used by others for their own agendas), I do not believe him to have had any malicious impact or committed serious error. But regardless, it's an example of caricaturing someone to prevent his ideas from being seriously considered.>forensic studies have been done on the walls of the concentration camps and there were human remains found within them
And where's this evidence? We have at least one other thread about the Hall o' Costs, so it's worthy of discussion there.>And you may want to look at this.
China's practical policy being inspired by National Socialism is hardly damning of it; rather, it shows an acknowledgement that it works better than prior versions of socialism. The Chinese are smart and adopt policies that make them better off and cement their power, though for stability and PR reasons you won't see them replace the hammer and sickle with the swastika any time soon.>Not only did they outlaw ethnicities and religious beliefs that contradicted theirs
German policies toward non-German minorities were strict, even harsh, but you're oversimplifying it. The Nuremberg Laws offered greater leeway for Germans of mixed descent, after all. The aim of the National Socialists was not to create a permanent apartheid state as some believe, but more to encourage/coerce non-Germans to leave Germany. This was made more difficult of course by aims of territorial expansion.>British and Allied literature were outlawed and owning a copy of “The Invisible Man” or the New York Times could have one arrested.
If you mean during WW2, being seen with Mein Kampf
or a German periodical might well have had the same result in Allied countries. Wartime laws are always more strict.>The only remaining people on this world that are of Semitic lineage are several groups of Palestinians.
I'm interested to see how you arrived at this conclusion.>Using threats, violence, and indoctrination by making (((tradition)))
Very well, but as a traditionalist I find eco-fascism cringe.
Ultimately the answer is somewhere in the middle, though favoring the NatSoc side. The crimes of the National Socialists are vastly exaggerated because the entire world order is predicated on the success of the Allies in WW2, to the point that the most talked-about genocide in human history can be reasonably doubted. That doesn't mean the National Socialists weren't evil, because such actions as Aktion T-4 and Lebensborn have found no valid defense among modern-day apologists. My conclusion is that it would have been better for Germany to win than the Jews, but only as a less-bad option and the NatSocs should not be unironically idealized. And no, this isn't some "big-brained centrist" take, I just view both sides as inherently immoral though the mid-century Germans less-so.