0
0

[–] the_sovereign ago 

The book called for gassing Jews. The Nazi gassed the Jews. It clearly wasn't just a WW1 metaphor. Your argument failed. Simple enough?

0
0

[–] MasivGam3 ago  (edited ago)

Let us take apart your message:

The book called for gassing Jews.

The book did not call for "gassing the Jews" as in "all Jews must be killed by poison gas - men, women and children alike", which indeed would be a call for a genocide. It is simply not there.

The Nazi gassed the Jews.

What if they had gassed them even without this book? (Some will say they never actually did and that is technically impossible the way it is presented.) You are missing the point that you have to prove that the two facts form a cause-and-consequence chain instead of just being present.

It clearly wasn't just a WW1 metaphor.

It was not a call for genocide either.

Your argument failed.

Let us begin from the beginning - that you have not produced a proof for your claim as of yet, so if anything is failing, then it is you. Sorry if you are saddened by your assumptions and beliefs not being accepted as facts. Because ... they aren't.

Simple enough?

Pretty nonsensical, actually.

0
0

[–] the_sovereign ago 

Ok now we are arguing in circles. I showed you where in the book it says that Jews should be subjected to poison gas. You said it was a WW1 metaphor. Perhaps it was, but sadly, Jews were gassed in concentration camps such as Auschwitz. The perpetrators of these atrocities were the primary readers of the book and their leader was the author. There's your cause-and-effect. Simple enough?