In responding to the post below I have considered issues far outside the
scope of revisionism and principally have considered the political
implications of a racist ideology and its inevitable outcome. Thus it
is tangentially relevant to soc.history and alt.revisionism but I have directed
followups to t.p.m since it is principally consideration of the political
lessons to be drawn from the history of the NAZI party that I deal with.




Let us assume for the sake of argument that this was indeed the case? Does
this mean that Hilter would have been in any way less guilty of mass murder
because he aquiesced rather than participated as an active and ardent
supporter?

One of the important things to realise about the NAZIs is that the system
was far more evil than any single member. Once created the NAZI party
itself was a murder machine that would inevitably commit genocide, there was
noone within it strong enough to prevent it. Remember that Hitler did not
originaly lead the NAZI party nor was he particularly powerful within it
until his oratory allowed the party to come to power. Had Hitler reneged
upon the emotiaonal expectations which he had created within the ranks of 
his supporters he would have been replaced as he had himself replaced the
old guard who he beleived were unable to grasp the intellectual implications
of their rhetoric. 

This is why all parties that espouse NAZI style race supremacy ideologies must
be considered as dangerous and as evil as the NAZIs. The idea that one "race"
of people is inherently superior to another and that the greatest goal of
humanity is to achieve racial perfection has only one logical outcome,
the gas chambers of Auschwitz.

The NAZI party is not simply the tale of a supremely evil single man who
lead an entire country astray, beyond the evil of individuals there was the
evil of the system itself which was self generating and self perpetuating.
Hitler was an extreemly evil person who built his party arround an ego
cult centered on the demonstration of his own power, this does not however
mean that he was as entirely free from political constraints as he and
his propagandists worked so hard to assert. The myth that racism can
produce a strong government that can cure a nations ills must be 
emphatically rejected. In the same way we must accept a distinction between
a govenrment that demonstrates its strength and one that is able to 
govern decisively in the manner it beleives is best. I would accept only the
latter as a "strong" government since most displays of strength are made
necessary by an essential weakness.

It is important to understand that the NAZIs were not stupid nor were they
amoral in the sense that they lacked moral scruples. They acted in the
same manner as the Spanish Inquisition - murder and torture in the cause
of morality. The fault of the NAZIs lies in their axioms, not in their
logic nor in their implementation of those axioms. Thus all such parties
such as the National Front or David Dukes Klu Klux Klan front who assert
the truth of those axioms must be considered for what they are, advocates
of a system that would commit genocide. 

The conclusion that Hitler was not only responsible but imensely evil is
inescapable from the historical record. It is important though to not let
the conclusion be reached that the NAZIs espoused a set of ideas that
were basically correct but had an unfortunate proponent. The evils of
the concept of race supremacy are primary. Although this most emphaticaly
does not excuse individual culpability this is nevertheless secondary.

No matter what the promises made by a racist, supremacist party upon 
election those promises will be broken as soon as circumstances permit.
If this requires the replacement of the leaders that originally made
the pledges, that will occur. Hatred is a supreme justifier. It also creates
a dynamic of its own when those in government allow it reign. For many
in government politics is a method of providing a justification for
their own existence through a demonstration of their importance. A 
rhetoric of hatred inevitably develops the question of action since the
continued existence of an object of hatred is inevitably a reminder of the
essential impotence of the politician. Thus we have the US raid on Tripoli
which has little purpose beyond a demonstration of power. It is important
to realise that there is no quantum jump between the politics of the right
and those of the extreeme right but a progression from the reinforcement
of popular predjudice to action being taken on the basis of that predjudice.
In the same way the extreeme left trace their route to despotism through
their assertion of the subjugation of the individual to ideology.

It is important though that in attempting to understand the dynamics
of political systems that this is not used to excuse the participants. The
leaders of a nation take on a supreme moral burden but not only do
so voluntarily are required to stive to do so. Thus to take on such a 
task without a fundamental examination of the logical progression of
ones set of axioms to its conclusion in itself is a moral crime. Furthermore
in taking on such a duty one is obliged to put the interest of the whole
before personal concerns, even of personal security.

Although it was inevitable that a party such as the NAZIs, based upon hatred
and an idolisation of the symbols of power should have saught to commit
genocide it was not inevitable that they should succeeded. Each member of
the system had an ability to create a change within it that had a possibility
of changing the dynamic. Realising that the individual cannot hope to 
control a system does not mean accepting that the individual cannot 
affect the system.
