Total posts: 99
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Jozef Paczynski spoke to a group about his experiences cutting Höss’ hair for four years. He said he has been asked over and over why he didn’t use his sharp instruments to slit the throat of the mass murderer. “I thought about it,” Paczynski said. “But when I realized what the consequences would be I simply could not do it."
The more appropriate question to ask is: why would somebody who was overseeing the murder of thousands of Jews daily allow a Jewish prisoner to be next to his head once, never mind several times, with a lethal weapon? Regardless of the prisoner being a sonderkommando or of any privileged status, if Höss really was doing what they say he was doing, there is not a chance in hell he would take such a risk.
If Höss would take such a risk, he did not consider his actions as a level-headed person would. If this eyewitness statement reflects the truth, to argue Höss was tasked with overseeing a well-oiled and secret killing operation without the ability to make such a rudimentary estimation of risk is... curious.
One may argue the prisoner wasn't aware of the murders: then why did he suggest he would perhaps have killed Höss if the consequences were not there?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Again, on February 15, 2007, Zündel was sentenced to five years in prison, the maximum sentence possible for violating the Volksverhetzung law in the German penal code which bans incitement of hatred against a minority of the population, which is how his Holocaust denial was interpreted by the Federal German court.
sorry, that must be the one he did 3 years of. the last prison sentence he did was the one he got early release from on the aforementioned conditions.
the German laws are a bit ridiculous when it comes to levying justice in regard of critique of the Holocaust histories. if you testify as an expert witness and your testimony 'denies the Holocaust' or however they word it, you will be arrested and prosecuted yourself. even if you are simply stating a scientific conclusion
here's a documentary on his Canadian trials if interested. the media in this one is pretty impartial
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
The book in your reference https://rudolfhoess.wordpress.com/ is by Holocaust Handbooks & DocumentariesPresented by Castle Hill Publishers and CODOH. it is owned by Germar Rudolf, a German citizen, who was born in 1964 in Limburg, Germany. He has a university degree in Chemistry. Rudolf became a revisionist in 1991 and has written and edited numerous books and articles about the "Holocaust" subject. In 1995 a German court sentenced Rudolf to 14 months in prison for his first revisionist book, the "Rudolf Report" on chemical and technical questions of the alleged Auschwitz gas chambers. After the supreme court of his country had confirmed the sentence in 1996, Rudolf went into exile, first to the UK, then to the U.S. In spite of his officially recognized marriage to a U.S. citizen, Rudolf was deported back to Germany in 2005, where he was put on trial again, this time for his revisionist book "Lectures on the Holocaust." After having served his accumulated prison terms of 44 months, he eventually managed to immigrated once more to the U.S. to join his U.S. wife and daughter.
100% true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Also, German prosecutors charged Ernst Zündel on July 19, 2005, with 14 counts of inciting racial hatred, which is punishable under German penal code with up to 5 years in prison. The indictment stated Zündel "denied the fate of destruction for the Jews planned by National Socialist powerholders and justified this by saying that the mass destruction in Auschwitz and Treblinka, among others, were an invention of the Jews and served the repression and extortion of the German people."
Based on everything I have read by Ernst Zündel and every documentary he has made or been featured in, I can tell you right now he is one of the least hateful people I've ever come across. He almost looks like a harmless baby in adult form. He got out after 3 years, I think, on the condition that he did not communicate with his former fellows of historical revisionism. And he complied with that until his death, after which the ADL called him a hatemonger who "will not be missed."
His trials in 1985 and 1988 revealed many important things, including confirmations from cross-examination that:
- the Red Cross, whose representatives visited the camps many times during the war, did not witness any gassings or hear anybody in the camps mention them. they interviewed prisoners freely in the camps.
- to the knowledge of Raul Hilberg, foremost Holocaust historian of the time and one who had studied it for 40 years, authoring The Destruction of the European Jews, arguably the seminal work of Holocaust historiography, there is no scientific report confirming the existence of homicidal gas chambers (emphasis on word homicidal)
- Rudolf Vrba, the Auschwitz prisoner responsible for the first report of genocide in Auschwitz after he escaped with another prisoner, did not actually see any prisoner entering a gas chamber (real or otherwise)
even with just those three claims, enough doubt is cast upon the history of the Holocaust to make any sitgmatisation of critical thought on the topic absurd. And for anybody who knows these things to call Zündel a hatemonger after his death is... revealing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
"Another improvement we made over Treblinka was that we built our gas chambers to accommodate 2,000 people at one time, whereas at Treblinka their 10 gas chambers only accommodated 200 people each. The way we selected our victims was as follows: we had two SS doctors on duty at Auschwitz to examine the incoming transports of prisoners. The prisoners would be marched by one of the doctors who would make spot decisions as they walked by. Those who were fit for work were sent into the Camp. Others were sent immediately to the extermination plants. Children of tender years were invariably exterminated, since by reason of their youth they were unable to work. Still another improvement we made over Treblinka was that at Treblinka the victims almost always knew that they were to be exterminated and at Auschwitz we endeavored to fool the victims into thinking that they were to go through a delousing process. Of course, frequently they realized our true intentions and we sometimes had riots and difficulties due to that fact. Very frequently women would hide their children under the clothes but of course when we found them we would send the children in to be exterminated. We were required to carry out these exterminations in secrecy but of course the foul and nauseating stench from the continuous burning of bodies permeated the entire area and all of the people living in the surrounding communities knew that exterminations were going on at Auschwitz."— Rudolf Höss, Auschwitz camp commandant, Nuremberg testimony.Also, German prosecutors charged Ernst Zündel on July 19, 2005, with 14 counts of inciting racial hatred, which is punishable under German penal code with up to 5 years in prison. The indictment stated Zündel "denied the fate of destruction for the Jews planned by National Socialist powerholders and justified this by saying that the mass destruction in Auschwitz and Treblinka, among others, were an invention of the Jews and served the repression and extortion of the German people."
is that the same Höss that was tortured into making such ludicrous confessional statements as "we cremated 2000 bodies in 24 hours in five ovens" (3 or 4 bodies per oven, can't remember)? https://rudolfhoess.wordpress.com/ - and I think he said that went on for two weeks.
just to let you know, that is chemically impossible due to the water level in a body, even an emaciated one. minimum ~45mins to remove moisture from body before fire can properly start.
going by his claim, which was used along with the rest of his confession to hang him: at four bodies, that's 100 cremation cycles in 24 hours across all five ovens. that means each cremation cycle, from intact bodies to bones and ashes, would be done in 14 minutes 24 seconds. it is beyond the height of ridicule - yet the court just accepted it.
that's excluding the considerations of cremation such as:
- limitation of the chimneys (can do only so many cycles before needing to be re-bricked)
- time needed to allow remains to cool to a temperature that allows you to safely remove them
- time needed to remove bodies and load them in
- insane fuel requirement for 2000 bodies. e.g. at 15kg coke (I think it's that amount, could be 20kg) per body, that's 30 tonnes of coke per day. if using wood, it's 70 tonnes. per day (that's about 100x 50-foot pine trees' worth of wood)
if it wasn't talking about an event that in other areas had real, provable deaths and atrocities, it would be a source of comedy. but it's horrible that somebody would even lie like this, never mind torture somebody into confessing with those lies.
his entire testimony is worthless when looking for the truth of what happened at Auschwitz-Birkenau.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
don't hate on me because you're ignorant, brainwashed, lazy, or all three thereof.
hey, let's see what ADL (Anti-Defamation League, a NGO founded to defend child rapists and murderers from vigilante justice) has to say on the matter of 'eyewitnesses':
For Holocaust deniers to be correct in their assertion that the Holocaust did not happen, all Holocaust survivors would have to be wrong.
Now, there are very few people who would claim the Holocaust did not happen. Most people who don't believe the story believe it is exaggerated, not fabricated, instead with parts of it, including eyewitness testimony, being fabricated rather than the whole thing.
so, really, thanks for pointing out:
The idea that you can’t accept eye witness accounts of historical events is nonsense, that is what history is, we only know about history because of the record of accounts given by those people who observed or experienced it.
below taken from Jewish Survivors of Auschwitz-Birkenau by John Wear, 2018 https://codoh.com/library/document/jewish-survivors-of-auschwitz-birkenau/en/
---
A credible eyewitness who states that genocide did not take place at Birkenau is the Austrian-born Canadian Maria Van Herwaarden, who was interned at Birkenau from December 2, 1942 to January 1945. Van Herwaarden testified at the 1988 Ernst Zündel trial that she saw nothing at Birkenau that resembled mass murder. The Jewish prisoners she saw at Birkenau were not treated differently from the other prisoners. She also testified that many of the inmates at Birkenau died of diseases, and some inmates committed suicide. [1]
Joseph G. Burg, a Jewish author who wrote several books on the Holocaust story, testified at the 1988 Zündel trial that he had spoken to hundreds of people who had been at Auschwitz-Birkenau when he visited the camp in the fall of 1945. Burg formed the opinion that there were no German extermination camps, the gas chambers had never existed, and there was no plan to exterminate the Jews of Europe.
Joseph Burg also testified at the 1988 Zündel trial that he spoke to hundreds of people who serviced and operated the crematoria, but he could not find anyone who had operated homicidal gas chambers. Burg testified that the crematoria had been established for hygienic purposes as a result of typhus and other diseases. Burg also testified that he attended the Nuremberg trials in 1946 and met Ilya Ehrenburg, who had visited Auschwitz-Birkenau, as well as a Jewish publisher who had been interned in Auschwitz for several years. Both Ehrenburg and the Jewish publisher said they did not see any homicidal gas chambers while at Auschwitz-Birkenau. [2]
Thies Christophersen was another witness who said the alleged genocide of Jews during the war never happened. Christophersen supervised about 300 workers, many of them Jewish, at Auschwitz from January to December 1944. On a number of occasions during this period he visited Birkenau where allegedly hundreds of thousands of Jews were being gassed to death. In The Auschwitz Lie, a memoir first published in Germany in 1973, Christophersen wrote that during the time he was at Auschwitz he did not notice the slightest evidence of mass gassings. He also successfully answered numerous pointed questions by the prosecuting attorney at the 1988 Ernst Zündel trial about his experiences at Auschwitz. [3]
The prosecutors in the 1985 and 1988 Ernst Zündel trials were not able to find any credible witnesses. In fact, the prosecution witnesses in the 1985 Zündel trial were so bad that the prosecutors did not call any witnesses in the 1988 Zündel trial. Even Sabina Citron, a Jewish Auschwitz survivor who originally filed the criminal complaint against Zündel, did not take the witness stand in either of these two trials. [4]
The failure of the prosecutors in the Ernst Zündel trials to find credible witnesses caused Robert Kahn to write: [5]
“If the concept of ‘symbolic victory’ is sometimes difficult to apply precisely, the 1985 prosecution of Ernst Zündel clearly backfired. What had been an attempt to silence Zündel, and possibly use the legal system to repudiate denial, became instead a public relations coup for the Toronto publisher and his supporters.”
Alan Dershowitz concurs, calling the Zündel trials “a total victory for Holocaust deniers and a total disaster for Holocaust survivors and the Jewish people.” [6]
Dr. Wilhelm Stäglich also wrote that he did not see any evidence of genocide of the Jews at Auschwitz. Stäglich, a German judge, visited Auschwitz several times during the Second World War as a German orderly officer of an anti-aircraft detachment. Dr. Stäglich published an account of his visits to Auschwitz in which he stated that on none of these visits did he see gassing installations, instruments of torture, or similar horrors. Stäglich wrote: [7]
“None of the inmates behaved as though they were in fear of mistreatment, let alone death.”
Violette Fintz, a Jewish woman who had been deported from the island of Rhodes to Auschwitz in mid-1944, and then to Dachau and then to Belsen in early 1945, said that from her experience Belsen was worse than Auschwitz. Fintz is another Jew who survived Auschwitz and lived to describe her experiences at the camp. [8]
[1] Kulaszka, Barbara, (ed.), Did Six Million Really Die: Report of Evidence in the Canadian “False News” Trial of Ernst Zündel, Toronto: Samisdat Publishers Ltd., 1992, pp. 253-255.
[2] Ibid., pp. 259-262.
[3] Christophersen, Thies, “Reflections on Auschwitz and West German Justice,” The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 6, No. 1, Spring 1985, p. 118.
[4] Kulaszka, Barbara, (ed.), Did Six Million Really Die: Report of Evidence in the Canadian “False News” Trial of Ernst Zündel, Toronto: Samisdat Publishers Ltd., 1992, pp. i-1.
[5] Kahn, Robert A., Holocaust Denial and the Law: A Comparative Study, New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2004, pp. 86f.
[6] Ibid., p. 119.
[7] Stäglich, Wilhelm, Auschwitz: A Judge Looks at the Evidence, Institute for Historical Review, 1990, p. 293.
[8] Weber, Mark, “‘Extermination’ Camp Propaganda Myths” in Gauss, Ernst (ed.), Dissecting the Holocaust: The Growing Critique of Truth and Memory, Capshaw, AL: Thesis and Dissertations Press, 2000, p. 303.
---
The verypremise of the flow chart is illogical, it is conspiracy-based speculation withno logic to it at all. You don’t look atevidence and draw logical conclusions from it, you look at evidence and speculatethat the evidence is either manufactured as part of a conspiracy, or unprovenas part of a conspiracy. Youstart with your biased conclusion and speculatively back into a flow chart thatsupports your agenda, your primary conclusions aren’t conclusions, they are non-sequiturs.You ask why heads were shaven -- to delouse or disinfect, why – to prevent thespread of typhoid –therefore Gas Chambers were never used, that conclusion isnothing but a non-sequitur, there is no chain of reasoning whatsoever thatmight lead to that conclusion, it is not logical, and it’s profoundly stupid to think anyonewould think it made any sense at all. Itmight suit the mentality of a dumb shit antisemitic holocaust denier, but thereis no reason or logic behind dumb shit antisemitic holocaust denial.To quoteWolfgang Pauli, “It’s not even wrong”. It’s just some kind of mental masturbation that has nothing to do withlogic.
i started with a fact. the yellow box is a fact. it's mentioned in https://newyorker.com/magazine/1993/11/15/evidence-of-evil and see Nuremberg Trial docs for source.
then I asked a question about that fact "why shave the hair of gas-chamber victims?" (the evidence was presented as the hair of gas-chamber victims at trial) and drew logical routes from there until all routes ended at the same conclusion.
the fact that you actually reached the conclusion without escaping the chart by making a logical argument shows me, either:
A) you couldn't find a logical fallacy; or
B) you are ignorant to how logical flowcharts work; or
C) you agree that the conclusion given is the only one that can be drawn.
A essentially means C, though.
your opinion on it doesn't matter and neither does mine. all that matters is the logic, which I suggest you go and research the definition of. it's nothing to do with what's real or what's not real or what's believable etc. it's to do with what's possible and what is not possible in a relationship between two or more objects or concepts.
e.g. arguably the simplest form of logic is called Boolean logic, which is what is used in binary code. true/false; 1/0; on/off (the logic is that if something is true it cannot be false; if something is 1 it cannot be 0; if something is on it cannot be off)
or, in your case, if something is dumb, it cannot be smart.
you get it now, I hope.
now go find me a logical fallacy in the fucking flowchart
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
the argument is logical. as in the flowchart's integrity is my argument. so there is no specific claim to be made. I am simply stating a fact in the starting node (see the reference material) and showing the logical flow from it, eventually reaching a conclusion, simply by laying out all possibilities.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I need to know what you are arguing. What specifically is your argument. I need a claim.Then I can dig into your evidence/flowchart to determine if your evidence is valid with your argument.
I thought I made it clear
My claim is that my flowchart covers all logical possibilities (i.e. considering known evidence of homicidal gas chambers) stemming from the starting node (yellow box.) and concluding with the end node (at bottom in middle.)
The argument (or claim) is that there is no logical way to escape the flowchart, therefore the logical conclusion is the end node.
If you can find another logical conclusion that is not presented, I am interested to hear it, because it will show there is a logical fallacy in my flowchart. But you must point to where you can exit the flowchart with a specific logical argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
You know what, let's start over.Obviously it seems like you want to get into a rational conversation, but I think we both think each other are understanding each other wrong.Let's start over.Ok so can you tell me your claim, and what you are arguing, then we can start over this conversation and get back on track.
ok, good idea.
thank you for this consideration.
my claim is that my flowchart is absent of a logical fallacy
well, I think I have spotted one, but I want to see if anybody else can find it or any other logical fallacy in it.
why do I want this, deep down, other than that I wanted to have a discussion based on reason: I repeatedly have to defend an image of Hitler that I believe is tainted by a story based on illogical premises, one of which is the mandatory acceptance of the existence of homicidal gas chambers.
so, some of the evidence presented at Nuremberg to prove the existence of homicidal gas chambers was cyanide traces in shorn hair that was found in bales in the camps, namely in this argument Auschwitz-Birkenau, by the Soviets. The hair was tested by the Polish and that's when they found the cyanide traces. This was presented as proof of genocide.
However: other evidence presented I believe nullifies this evidence and because of this the entire base of evidence for homicidal gas chambers, presented at Nuremberg to prove their existence, is inconclusive and this in turn casts doubt over any other evidence presented, accepted and unchallenged at Nuremberg. But there are other options I gave time to and they are in the flowchart too.
So all I want to see is: is there a logical fallacy in my flowchart, specifically in the reasoning and the paths I have created, to lessed the doubt I have created by production of the chart.
Can you find a way out of the flowchart by providing other theories that rely upon existing evidence? And please remember, a claim of 'evidence was destroyed' is not evidence in itself.
I have been asking around on different forums but I haven't had a fallacy suggested yet. I am hopeful though to disprove the logic in the chart, because it should not be this easy to discount the Nuremberg evidence for homicidal gas chambers...
reference materials
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
This is the stupidest argument I have ever heard:Argue according to my standards, or we can't argue.That's not how arguments work.I could do the exact same thing for you.I provided a timeline and the events, and things that Hitler did, and you have yet to say any of them are false.
you know you literally just did what you said was the
"stupidest argument I have ever heard: argue according to my standards, or we can't argue."
unless you come back and finish this like a man.
I provided a rationale for not continuing the argument: I wanted it to be grounded in reason, not 'tit-for-tat' response where it would go nowhere.
You provided no rationale for discontinuing the argument other than that my request was irrational.
And that's kinda... ridiculous, considering that I specified the rationale.
How could I make it any clearer.
Disprove the logic in my flowchart by pointing out the logical fallacy; or
Admit there is no logical fallacy to your understanding.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist simply because you cannot disprove my logical argument and thus consider it a theoretical argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Your flow chart leads to the possibility of gas chambers not existing but evidence says otherwise, so your flow chart outcome is wrong.the reason I want you to do this? I want to know if your argumentation is grounded in reason and not in response. because if it's the latter then this discussion will never yield fruit for either of us and it is a waste of our time.You want me to do this?Why should I do what you want me to do.This is the stupidest argument I have ever heard:Argue according to my standards, or we can't argue.That's not how arguments work.I could do the exact same thing for you.I provided a timeline and the events, and things that Hitler did, and you have yet to say any of them are false.You are a conspiracy theorist, and a bad one at that.Go worship your Hitler statue, you Nazi.You can't even argue rationally.
you can't find a logical fallacy in a simple flowchart and you won't admit you can't find one either.
now that's irrational, my friend.
I gave you the reason. I will respond to your points once you prove you are replying to my points with reason, not for the sake of having an argument.
what's wrong with that?
if you resort to name-calling, what got you to that? can't you just show that I[m a conspiracy nut by following the flowchart and showing how existing evidence disproves the logic of the flowchart.
should be easy, if I'm such a nut.
prove what you say.
Your flow chart leads to the possibility of gas chambers not existing but evidence says otherwise, so your flow chart outcome is wrong.
no. my chart leads to the conclusion that homicidal gas chambers are not proven to exist, merely presumed to exist. not gas chambers. homicidal gas chambers.
by the very evidence used to prove their existence, my chart concludes they are not proven to exist and can only be presumed to exist.
show how it's wrong by pointing out where it is wrong. simple. your stating that it's wrong does not disprove the logic in the chart.
you can't argue with logic. you can only prove it to be a fallacy by using other logic. simple
this is similar to how scientific theories are presented and disproven.
so do it or say you can't. i'm not going to waste time arguing for the sake of it with no end to it. show that you are a reasonable person (in this context meaning that you are capable of applying reason to your argumentation)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
send me as many pics of bodies that you want to. hey, notice all the shaved heads?i refer back to my flowchart, in which you have failed to find a logical fallacy.Alright.In your flowchart, you say that homicidal gas chambers are not materially proven to exist.PicturesAlsoThe extermination procedure in the gas chambers / Auschwitz and Shoah / History / Auschwitz-BirkenauSo that's definitely a logical fallacy.
that's definitely not a logical fallacy in my flowchart, which is what I asked you to find. and I did not claim that gas chambers are not materially proven to exist. the flowchart reaches that possibility in the centre, alongside the possibility that the evidence does not evidence gas-chamber deaths, unless you can show why it logically shouldn't, based on the source material https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1993/11/15/evidence-of-evil https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/pa5592 and known evidence of homicidal gas chambers.
here:
logical fallacynoun
- A fallacy; a clearly defined error in reasoning used to support or refute an argument, excluding simple unintended mistakes.
- a fallacy in logical argumentation
so, before I respond to everything else you have said, please either:
1. find a logical fallacy in my flowchart; or
2. state that you can't find a logical fallacy in my flowchart (i.e. it is logically sound, to your estimation)
another way to put it is: find a way out of the flowchart without reaching the end point. the way out must be grounded in logic and not subjective opinion. e.g. "there are two options there, but there would be three, because those two options don't cover all reasonable possibilities, and this is the third possibility that is not covered elsewhere in the flowchart." or "that lone next point is not the only reasonable possibility stemming from this point."
the reason I want you to do this? I want to know if your argumentation is grounded in reason and not in response. because if it's the latter then this discussion will never yield fruit for either of us and it is a waste of our time.
time is finite.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Maybe do your research before making your claims.
right back at ya. I recommend starting with Mein Kampf.
then I recommend not taking results from the first page of Google when you try to prove somebody wrong without knowing what you're talking about.
serious question: do you know why Hitler came to power? like the main reason? (without Googling it)
send me as many pics of bodies that you want to. hey, notice all the shaved heads?
i refer back to my flowchart, in which you have failed to find a logical fallacy.
those bodies... do you know anything about the camps... honestly...
what are you trying to argue, by linking the bodies? please learn more about the camps. it's embarrassing
here, i am going to school you quickly on your points:
Alright:Hitler was responsible for the start of WW2 where 55 million people were killed.
why did Hitler propose peace to the UK over 12 times? why did Hitler use Blitzkrieg? why did Hitler attempt via peaceful means several times to reclaim the German-speaking areas of Eastern Europe taken from Germany after WW1, arguably unjustly?
Over 20 million of those were Germans.
so he killed his own people, you're saying? look up "G-day"
He is also responsible of the execution of 6 million Jews (Holocaust) where the population of Jews in Europe went from 9 million to 3.
hmm. how many non-Jews? less than 6 presumably
Hitler used Propaganda techniques to achieve his selfish goal in building a German Empire in Europe.
refer to chapter 6 of Mein Kampf: "War Propaganda"
He was a fascist, a strong nationalist... And also an imperialist.
and? tbh he was an anti-imperialist, which you would know if you read Mein Kampf.
He took over the Sudetenland which is a chunk of land in the Czech Republic where 3.5 million Germans lived, afterwards he took the entire Republic.
true. and? conquest is... what?
He took land back from France, Belgium, and Poland, which he was not allowed to do according to the Treaty of Versailles and its 14 points.
yeh he did this to secure the area from being used as a mounting point by the Allies. it's quite clear. the French were sitting waiting near the border in trenches for him to attack and he went around that, through the low countries and into France. what is wrong here?
On September 1st WW2 began when Germany carpet bombed Poland off the map - they surrendered within a month.
yes. could have surrended earlier and avoided being carpet-bombed. although the extent of bombing on Poland was nowhere near the extent levied on Germany by the Allies, and Germany did not intentionally target civilian areas at anywhere near the level the Allies did.
https://www.hellstormdocumentary.com/ and "G-day" (foiled by German intelligence)
1940, June, before the killings allegedly commenced, yes. By the Jewish World Congress. 6,000,000. there's the notion for ya"The Allied Powers were aware of the scale of the Jewish Holocaust two-and-a-half years earlier than is generally assumed, and had even prepared war crimes indictments against Adolf Hitler and his top Nazi commanders.Newly accessed material from the United Nations – not seen for around 70 years – shows that as early as December 1942, the US, UK and Soviet governments were aware that at least two million Jews had been murdered and a further five million were at risk of being killed, and were preparing charges. Despite this, the Allied Powers did very little to try and rescue or provide sanctuary to those in mortal danger.
flick through it. explain the rest of them https://archive.org/details/SIXMILLIONOPENGATESByS.A.R.Lynch271_201808/page/n15/mode/2up
also, it's barely an autobiography, it's more like political theory mixed with anecdotes and historical issues that have resulted in problems in modern (then) Germany and AustriaNo, it's definitely an autobiography, by definition. The rest of the things you just mentioned is something called context.
you haven't read it. so stop acting like you know what's in it. I don't see why you think something has changed here.
he did make Germany prosperous.........you just love the idea of mass genocide, don't you?
this right here proves to me all you know about WW2 is what you learned in school. I advise reading some books about the interwar period, which they don't really tell you properly about in school, and the pre-WW1 period. or you can read Mein Kampf, where that period is summarised and is backed up by the historical record as being truthfully told by Hitler.
come back to me when you know something. theorising doesn't help you learn.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
There is about a hundred times more direct evidence that millions died in the concentration camps than there is that Hitler wrote Mein Kampf, your conspiracy theory approach to evaluating the Holocaust can be applied to anything to achieve any outcome, it's OK to do it, you clearly have an agenda and that agenda isn't about the truth, but most of the members here are whack job conspiracy theorists trying to sell thier own whack job conspiracy theory, good luck trying to gaslight the gaslighting crowd here (most of them are better at it than you BTW). Everyone here everyone here knows conspiracy logic is not logic, the only ones swallowing it are the ones that already want to swallow it.If you want us to read Mein Kampf to understand Hitler you need to show us that Hitler wrote it, if you can't do that then we only need to read it if we are interested in Shecky Goldstein. The question you have to ask, is why they want us to believe Hitler wrote it, how does that let them control us and take us away from the truth of Shecky Goldstein.That, or admit your approach is agenda based BS and kindly stop trying to associate the words "logic" and "truth" with it, it's offensive that you think we are that stupid.
logic, huh?
you serious?
Mein Kampf was published in 1925/1926. It was serialised in multiple newspapers globally and is available in tens of languages, still available today, and the man we know as Adolf Hitler never said he didn't write it - and - guess what - he started a second book, which is now available as an unfinished manuscript - "Hitler's Second Book" - try arguing what the first one was if not Mein Kampf?
as for your attacks on my logic.
you haven't pointed out a logical fallacy in the flowchart I created that shows how evidence presented at Nuremberg for homicidal gas chambers helps to prove there were none. you've just continued to insult my person and generally talk shit about me.
point out a logical fallacy in the flowchart.
here, try your best
p.s. I actually don't care if people read Mein Kampf. for the third or fourth time, I only care when people state lies about him that they have heard from sources other than him, which they would not state if they had read Mein Kampf. simple.
and no, it's not "he said, she said" - it's things like saying he was a racist. when there really is no evidence he was... you could just give me one example and I'll show you how you believe in BS without researching it first.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
You need to understand that Hitler didn't even write Mein Kampf, it's a conspiracy...prove me wrong.
the author name is 'Adolf Hitler'
gotcha...!
do you know what 'Untermenschen' means?Of course I do, so what?
I just heard something about it. quite surprising tbh. from the exiled Jurgen Graf, around minute 30.
according to his research, "Untermenschen" has been, surprise surprise, taken out of context... and was used in Germany, in actual physical literature that he has studied, to apply to paedophiles and other degenerate criminals of German society.
but we were told it meant the Slavs! well! that sure angered the Slavs!!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
haha, you got me on that to be fair, I was a bit worried when I saw 'Important Video' haha
but still, thanks, you're a good sport to acknowledge there are no logical fallacies in my flowchart.
even though you lack the stones to say it outright
please note: i rejected the 'supreme master race' bullshit that you believe Hitler believed in.
do you know what 'Untermenschen' means?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
based on postwar opinions. makes sense
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
tell me one thing wrong with the logic in this flowchart.
I am desperate for error-checking on this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I am glad that we have a national socialist here now. My Communist ideology and other people's capitalism was a good thing, but yes having national socialist should spice things up more.
haha sure, if you'll consider me as that I'm fine with being the token national socialist, but tbh I don't bother with politics, just interested in the history of them
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
You said that you reject everything presented in Mein Kampf, but you still whine that we have to read it because...why is that again?
I said I reject everything presented in Mein Kampf, did I?
er.
do I claim it doesn't exist, or something? I don't get it.
didn't say that though
I also didn't whine that you had to read it. just don't like when people recite bull about Hitler without knowing anything about him from his perspective so I'll call it out
Of course, the reason is you lied about rejecting it, we don't have to read your book to know everything we need to know about you. You are a white supremacist, you are a liar, and you are dumber than a fucking post.
I'm actually not white, so... good job on that one
liar how, exactly? tell me one of my lies, go on
and you're smarter than Einstein, honey
this always happens.
people get so interested in me instead of what I say
it's sweet, in a way
but I'm not that interesting so I don't get it
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
p87/88 for the expansionist stuff https://der-fuehrer.org/meinkampf/english/Mein%20Kampf%20(Ford%20Translation).pdf
as for the Gleiwitz incident and others, I'll have to do more research elsewhere, maybe on Polish sources. I don't use Wikipedia for this topic because it is too one-sided.
as for the Gleiwitz incident and others, I'll have to do more research elsewhere, maybe on Polish sources. I don't use Wikipedia for this topic because it is too one-sided.
Here is info on Katyn as well https://wpolityce.pl/facts-from-poland/491594-katyn-massacre-basic-facts-katyn-massacre-basic-facts
You have an interesting writing style,
You have an interesting writing style,
Like poetry
or something.
I like it
I would put back to you as well:
If there were 'real incidents,The need to manufacture incidents, is puzzling.
would you say the same for evidence?
puzzling I do say
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
The Katyn Forest Massacre is a similar event that was called a false flag. There are parallels to examine. Though tbh I think Hitler would still have moved East eventually. Lebensraum was a real thing and he spoke about it even in Mein Kampf. I just don't see how it makes one a terrible person to conquer territory by military means. It's exaggerated out of proportion and pinned to his character to shame him in history. Look at occupied France, for example, where there was hardly any atrocity reported compared with the East. Communism was in the East and communism resisted National Socialism at all angles. It still does today.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
1, Germany invaded first,2, Secret Clause,"Under the terms of the Polish-British Common Defence Pact of 25 August 1939, Britain had promised assistance if a European power attacked Poland.[Note 9] A secret protocol of the pact, however, specified that the European power referred to Germany.[107] When Polish Ambassador Edward Raczyński reminded Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax of the pact, he was bluntly told that it was Britain's exclusive right to declare war on the Soviet Union or not."3,"The Polish government did not declare war on USSR.The Polish government declared war on Germany when Germany invaded on September 1, 1939. It did not declare war on the USSR."4,Germany had more a history, look of warmongering, and actual war, at the moment, (I assume, but do not know)I've heard a lot about the appeasement play towards Germany, until enough was enough,I'm not 'so familiar with the appeasement play towards Russia, until enough was enough.
all good arguments.
what do you think about the attacks on German villages near the border in Poland
Germany says they were real
Allies say they were a false flag
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
same is true for UK/France joining with Germany to fight the USSR. so I think there's more behind it
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
well one has to ask:
Germany invades Poland = UK and France declare war on Germany
USSR invades Poland = ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
) i never claimed a right, I pointed out that people were talking about Hitler with falsities and they spread such falsities without reading the most fundamental written word on his struggle.Ok well are those falsities wrong.Yes, or no?
already explained.
Do you agree with what Hitler did through his life?
what exactly? he did a lot.
p.s. do you know the context of any of those quotes? NO. because you (still) haven't bothered to read it and instead act as if you know about it. I already gave you a PDF link that you can go and read the context of such quotes in.I know the context.
hmm.
I'd readily forgive your not having read it if:a) you didn't act like you know what's in itb) you act like you know more than I do about Hitler (and I don't even know that much)You don't even know that much about Hitler, so why are you defending him?
because people talk shit about him and I don't like it. simple
I haven't read Mein Kampf, but I know a summary of what the book is about based on certain parts of the book I have read, and the fact that it is an autobiography.I don't need to read the Quran or the Bible, to know what it is about. Same with Mein Kampf.
ridiculous...
also, it's barely an autobiography, it's more like political theory mixed with anecdotes and historical issues that have resulted in problems in modern (then) Germany and Austria
you rely on the annals of history as a guide to what happened.Yes, I rely on historical evidence when arguing about history.Like every other logical person.
same as last comment, you rely on historical evidence when I have just shown you that the evidence is flawed and can actually disprove other evidence by its being pushed
well, find something wrong in my logic here and come tell me why history is correct. remember, that's the historical recordThere is nothing historically wrong about Mein Kampf, but the way Hitler portrays himself in Mein Kampf, is wrong.He portrays himself as this chosen hero of Germany, that will make the world. prosperous.
he did make Germany prosperous.
That sounds pretty good. But then you find out his actions, and the things he did to try to get to that point, and you realize he was a horrible man for doing that.
all his actions, such as?
what did he do.
be specific.
sound like a parrot after coming out of history class
he wasn't a horrible man. how was he?
you could read what Ghandi said about him.
go back to my initial comment. and the errors I pointed out in things people were saying about Hitler.Hitler killed millions of Jews and was racist. He was also a psychopath, and thought he was chosen/destined for a greater purpose.That is all anyone in the forum has said about him.Is that wrong?
i've already explained the genocide and racism - psycopath, though? really? why do you claim that? and the chosen/destined thing, so what? the greater purpose of saving Germany, which he failed to do?
i mean I can't really help you if you fail to accept the possibility that he has been lied about by those who defeated him.The notion that he had killed millions of Jews happened before his defeat.
1940, June, before the killings allegedly commenced, yes. By the Jewish World Congress. 6,000,000. there's the notion for ya
We have photographic, eyewitness, testimonial, and audible evidence of his wrongdoings, by thousands of people, not just by those who have defeated him.It's harder to believe the conspiracy that thousands lied about what he did, rather than believe he did those things, based on all the evidence we have of him doing it.
want to see eyewitness accounts from prisoners who lived in the camps for years and didn't see anything of the sort? why is counter-narrative evidence censored online?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
You are not even arguing against me anymore.You are telling me to prove you wrong, when I told you that the history you provided literally isn't wrong, but the way Hitler portrays himself is.You didn't answer my question also.My question was would you support Hitler?You still dodge this question.
effectively, albeit not explicitly, you just said that homicidal gas chambers are not proven to exist - do you realise that?
look, I already answered you on that, you need to be more specific, it's such a broad question. make it specific enough so I can answer it. Hitler is dead and cannot be supported. if Hitler was alive today, would I support him? In what? how about if I was alive when he was campaigning, would I support him? probably would. it depends if I was German and living in Germany. Is that the question?
i don't dodge shit.
i learned humility a long time ago and am happy to concede if I am shown to be wrong in my claims.
you're trying to make my understanding of Hitler invalid based on what you have learned in history about Hitler. And I've just shown you how that history is massively flawed. you can convince me that it possibly isn't, if you can find a logical fallacy in my flowchart.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
haha that's good.
you know, once I heard two guys discussing him and it went like this
"you know, Hitler had some good ideas."
...
"yeah, he did have some good ideas."
but the take from it was that he did have them, past-tense
to be fair on him, he was in a near-impossible position. he should not have trusted that the masses in the UK and US would somehow realise what their leaders were getting them into. his dreaming failed him there
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
i answered you
you answer me
well, find something wrong in my logic here and come tell me why history is correct. remember, that's the historical record
you just called yourself a logical person. prove it by finding an error in my logic at that link.
then we can continue once you've shown how dumb I am to even consider that Hitler's atrocities were exaggerated
go on
please show me
the logical fallacy in that image.
I beg you to do it
put my mind at ease.
then I will answer the rest of your points
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
I would replace all mentions of 'racial' with 'racialist' but each to their own. Hitler did choose to refer to Jews as a race. This was enshrined in the Nuremberg Racial Laws 1933, where Jewish rights were also upheld. So when I see an image of a menorah on a window sill with a Nazi banner outside, and the caption reads "defiance" I have to laugh. Jews were entitled to practice their religion in the Reich and there were 150,000+ quarter- and half- Jews in Hitler's military forces. None died in a gas chamber. Weird, huh.
Here's a quote from Degrelle, who survived the war in exile in Spain, that should summarise the racialism vs racism:
"German racialism has been deliberately distorted. It never was an anti-"other race" racialism. It wasa pro-German racialism. It was concerned with making the German race strong and healthy in everyway. Hitler was not interested in having millions of degenerates, if it was in his power not to havethem. Today one finds rampant alcohol and drug addiction everywhere. Hitler cared that the Germanfamilies be healthy, cared that they raise healthy children for the renewal of a healthy nation. Germanracialism meant re-discovering the creative values of their own race, re-discovering their culture. Itwas a search for excellence, a noble idea. National Socialist racialism was not against the otherraces, it was for its own race. It aimed at defending and improving its race, and wished that all otherraces did the same for themselves."
Here's a quote from Degrelle, who survived the war in exile in Spain, that should summarise the racialism vs racism:
"German racialism has been deliberately distorted. It never was an anti-"other race" racialism. It wasa pro-German racialism. It was concerned with making the German race strong and healthy in everyway. Hitler was not interested in having millions of degenerates, if it was in his power not to havethem. Today one finds rampant alcohol and drug addiction everywhere. Hitler cared that the Germanfamilies be healthy, cared that they raise healthy children for the renewal of a healthy nation. Germanracialism meant re-discovering the creative values of their own race, re-discovering their culture. Itwas a search for excellence, a noble idea. National Socialist racialism was not against the otherraces, it was for its own race. It aimed at defending and improving its race, and wished that all otherraces did the same for themselves."
The Waffen SS was the most ethnically diverse military force in all of modern history. Although it should be noted that initially the Waffen SS was open only to Aryans. Foreigners were generally volunteer units but they ranged across the world.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
You can't read a book that almost no one else here has read, and claim your right and no one else is, because you read an opinionated book.
a) i never claimed a right, I pointed out that people were talking about Hitler with falsities and they spread such falsities without reading the most fundamental written word on his struggle.
b) you know what else is opinionated? WW2 history. I'll give you plenty examples if you want them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
This is the stupidest argument that I have ever heard.Saying:You can't argue this topic because you haven't read Mein Kampf..Is like saying:You can't argue about any historical figure who has a book.It's stupid, and just a way to get out of a hard question.So, if you want to continue to use this as a weak defense then fine.But you are still avoiding questions and refusing to get into an actual intellectual argument.Here's what you can do, if you were smart:Take whatever Hitler said in Mein Kampf and see if it lines up with historical records.If it doesn't, then it's probably BS.If it does, then you should look deeper into it.Litteral quotes from Mein Kampf (translated):"A state which in this age of racial poisoning dedicates itself to the care of its best racial elements must some day become lord of the earth.May the adherents of our movement never forget this if ever the magnitude of the sacrifices should beguile them to an anxious comparison with the possible results.""What reduces one race to starvation stimulates another to harder work.""All the great civilizations of the past became decadent because the originally creative race died out, as a result of contamination of the blood."These quotes are showing Hitlers true colors through Mein Kampf.He might have had good intentions, but he did very very bad things to get there. Some of those things unforgivable.
I'd readily forgive your not having read it if:
a) you didn't act like you know what's in it
b) you act like you know more than I do about Hitler (and I don't even know that much)
you rely on the annals of history as a guide to what happened.
well, find something wrong in my logic here and come tell me why history is correct. remember, that's the historical record
https://i.postimg.cc/kG91B66k/chm.pngp.s. do you know the context of any of those quotes? NO. because you (still) haven't bothered to read it and instead act as if you know about it. I already gave you a PDF link that you can go and read the context of such quotes in.
I didn't say "You can't argue this topic because you haven't read Mein Kampf."
why would I say that.
go back to my initial comment. and the errors I pointed out in things people were saying about Hitler.
i mean I can't really help you if you fail to accept the possibility that he has been lied about by those who defeated him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
you're right I think. but the reason Mein Kampf isn't taught as part of history class is not because it isn't useful, rather that it is not congruent with the picture of Hitler that is painted in other sources in the curriculum. Hitler is an evil anti-Semitic devil. And he is a racist. And hates everybody. Just ludicrous
Jan 22 2023
Jan 22 2023
'Protected Identity Harm report filed as screenshot of student reading ‘Mein Kampf’ circulates'
"A Protected Identity Harm report has been filed after the circulation of a Snapchat screenshot of a student reading “Mein Kampf,” the autobiographical manifesto of Nazi Party leader Adolf Hitler, according to an email sent to Jewish students Sunday by Rabbi Jessica Kirschner and Rabbi Laurie Hahn Tapper.
The Protected Identity Harm Reporting process is the University’s system to address incidents where a student or community member feels attacked due to their identity.
The photo of the student reading the book was posted to another student’s Snapchat story Friday evening, according to a screenshot of the image obtained by The Daily.
University spokesperson Dee Mostofi confirmed that the Office of Student Affairs and the Office of Religious and Spiritual Life (ORL) became aware of this incident on Saturday. Mostofi added that the two offices, along with Stanford’s Hillel chapter, are working with the leaders of the residence that the students belong to address the social media post and its impact on the community."
The Protected Identity Harm Reporting process is the University’s system to address incidents where a student or community member feels attacked due to their identity.
The photo of the student reading the book was posted to another student’s Snapchat story Friday evening, according to a screenshot of the image obtained by The Daily.
University spokesperson Dee Mostofi confirmed that the Office of Student Affairs and the Office of Religious and Spiritual Life (ORL) became aware of this incident on Saturday. Mostofi added that the two offices, along with Stanford’s Hillel chapter, are working with the leaders of the residence that the students belong to address the social media post and its impact on the community."
tl;dr a guy was reading a book and somebody took a picture of it and essentially filed a 'lite' hate-crime report.
safe to say if the person taking the pic had even read 10 pages of Mein Kampf they likely wouldn't take a second look.
it's scary to see these things. how quickly people feel offended by something they know one side of, especially when that one side is riddled with lies
a guy actually said to me one time, when I was talking about something related to Hitler but not Hitler himself, "have you read Mein Kampf? the dude literally talks about hating black people in it."
so I hadn't read Mein Kampf at that point.
and when I finally did:
surprise, surprise: no he doesn't talk about hating black people in it. he actually mentions the word 'negro' (which is what black wouild have been called at the time) I think under 10 times, none of them referring to his views on them specifically but how they fit into society and how they have been used by colonies.
Hitler had a fondness for the tribes and peoples of Africa - but he wanted them to stay in Africa
and that's an example of his racialism idealogy that has been warped into racist ideology over time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
Too much conspiracy theories for you pumpkin, only a moron would think he can change the narrative and change the historical reality about Adolf Hitler. But go ahead, tell us all about how your misunderstood Hitler is the victim, the Holocaust didn't happen, and green teeth white boys are the persecuted ones, it's entertaining to watch the far right pretend to be clever, we have to enjoy the show now since the jews will replace you soon.
'historical reality' isn't a thing. history is chronilogically oriented narratives, written or otherwise recorded. the extent to which history is reality is limited to what is recorded. and you are completely ignoring everything that is recorded that does not agree with your tunnel-vision view
I'll sum up Hitler's 'provable' involvement in an order to create what is known today as 'the Holocaust' with this scholarly essay:
nothing explicit
nothing concrete
but he did it, didn't he, because who else did it, then, if he didn't?
but he did it, didn't he, because who else did it, then, if he didn't?
ridiculous
this is your typical 'historian scholar' repeating the claims of other 'historian scholars' and adding them as citations in an appendix.
case closed, I suppose!
let's throw logic out the window, shall we, and just listen to these guys.
at least they make it clear, though:
This debate has largely been fueled by the fact that no written decreefrom Hitler directly ordering the Final Solution has ever been found.
well, no body or even body part, including ash, has ever been found that proves death by poison gas in any of the Third Reich camps. still, though, eyewitnesses and historians say that's how it happened for ~3 million Jews and [unknown] others. so let's just believe that and if we don't then we are anti-Semitic simply because our standards for evidence require something more than hearsay, eyewitness, and presumption of facts not in evidence (in this context, documentary evidence.)
there is one exception to the above: lots of severed hair has been found with traces of cyanide in it. but it can't prove murder by gas chamber because:
- if it is severed, it was intended to be used for something and/or destroyed
- if it was intended to be destroyed, why bother fumigating it
- it it was intended to be used for something, why wouldn't you fumigate it
- if it was severed after death, why do you always hear about people having their heads shaved when they came into the camps; why do you see people with their heads shaved in photographs
- if it was severed before death, why bother, when you'd be 'fumigating' people to their death anyway and could just sever it after death.
- therefore if it was severed before death then you weren't fumigating people to death
- therefore if it was severed after death those people didn't die by fumigation (unless you can tell me why people would have their heads shaved when they entered the camp if not for health measures for the camp (typhus))
furthermore, there is repeated use of the term "Final Solution" yet no mention of what the term "Final Solution" actually means (or even that it could mean something else) or that the term predates the war
you can find that info here https://archive.org/details/youtube-fkggjLpmbYI from which you can do further research.
You will also find a newspaper article from June 25, 1940, where the World Jewish Congress somehow predicts that 6,000,000 Jews will be destroyed if Hitler wins in Europe
You will also find a newspaper article from June 25, 1940, where the World Jewish Congress somehow predicts that 6,000,000 Jews will be destroyed if Hitler wins in Europe
So, if you publicly question that number today in several countries you can be imprisoned.
Let me make it clearer:
If you publicly question the 1940 predicted death toll of a 1941-1945 event, you can be imprisoned in several countries; in other countries, your career is ruined and your reputation tarred. So why bother.
If you publicly question the 1940 predicted death toll of a 1941-1945 event, you can be imprisoned in several countries; in other countries, your career is ruined and your reputation tarred. So why bother.
It's 6 million. Not 5,999,999 or 6,000,001. 6,000,000.
Remember. Exactly 6 million or you are anti-Semitic. It's simple to remember but so many get it wrong. Bigots, I guess.
Remember. Exactly 6 million or you are anti-Semitic. It's simple to remember but so many get it wrong. Bigots, I guess.
tell me then how the idea that Hitler ordered The Holocaust isn't a conspiracy theory, and how I am the one interested in conspiracy theories when all I focus on is facts you can go look up yourself. prove that anything I said above is a lie.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
I'll just give you a paragraph from Mein Kampf instead. Who the fk is George Santos btw. Some COVID-19 thing or something. Turn off the news, it's affecting your brain
I am simply calling people out for chatting shit about Hitler when they haven't even read Mein Kampf -- so they are parroting rubbish about him instead of, I don't know, maybe, possibly, perhaps reading the man's own words, first? Or even a critique of them? A parody, maybe?
yes, the winners of WW2 have said plenty nice things about Hitler, and they continue to disseminate the unabashed truth of him almost eight decades later as mandatory education in school - not
p.s. most people I know who became 'Holocaust questioners' did so before they became anti-Semites, not the other way round, as you may have been led to believe
Even by 1916, several alarming signs became apparent. The men at the front were cursingand complaining—they were discontented and justifiably resentful in many respects. Whilethey were starving and suffering and their families at home were in misery, they could stillsee places where there was abundance and festive living. Even at the front itself, everythingwasn’t as it should have been in this respect. There were faint warnings of crisis, but thesewere all still internal matters. The same man who growled and cursed would silently do hisduty a few minutes later as if it were habit. The same company that was feelingdiscontented would dig into the section of trenches it had to defend, as if Germany’s Fatedepended upon this hundred yards of mud and shell-holes. This front line was still formedby the old, magnificent “Army of Heroes!” I would soon experience the difference betweenit and home in glaring contrast. At the end of September, 1916, my division entered thebattle of the Somme (one of the largest battles in the First World War with over 1.5 millioncasualties at the river Somme in northern France). For us, it was the first of the huge battlesthat now followed, and the impression it created is hard to describe. It seemed more likeHell than a war. The German front held out against the whirlwind drumming of the guns forweeks at a time. Sometimes, they were pushed back; then they would advance again, butthey never gave up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
So, you are legitimately denying actual history, and believing a book Hitler wrote, and calling us dumb for not looking at the facts?
you don't get it at all. you are dumb (in this topic) because you think you can lecture me on Hitler when you haven't even read Mein Kampf.
that's my point and you're just proving it by responding to everything I say without going and looking at Mein Kampf first.
you are a teenager or early 20s who thinks they learned everything they need to know about one of the most important figures of the 20th Century - and all from 'middle school' ...
Well done. Go read Mein Kampf if you want to continue your arguments. Waste of time otherwise
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
That only works in a pampered society. In a society wracked by poverty and starvation, that would turn people off.
That's a fine point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Oh, and to add on to what I said, the Title of Mein Kampf (My Struggle) proves my point even further.When trying to gain power, you try to make people feel bad for you. Victimhood.
YOU
HAVE
NOT
READ
IT
simple
how the fk do you think you can know what the title means
never mind how that understanding could prove anything
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Not going to read a book by a guy who mass murdered millions.
really? not even to learn about the "roots of hate" as ADL likes to call it
Why would someone write a book, and purposefully admit they were wrong, and they purposefully killed millions?No this is not a valid source of information when it comes to identifying what Hitler did in his life.
yeh I said up there somewhere, or you can see it in the book's publisher page, it was written in 1923 and 1924 and published in 1925 and 1926.
Would you believe a murderer, who lies and deceives in his alibi, only 2 minutes later to be shown guilty with DNA tests, camera footage, and eyewitness testimony?No, you wouldn't. Because the actual evidence stacks up against that person.
Would LOVE to see that level of evidence for what is alleged of Hitler. Also what Hitler lie are you referring to, please?
Who ordered the killing of all of those Jews, if not Hitler?
I'd love to know too.
Why were Nazi soldiers running the camps, and loyal to Hitler?
Are you really asking that? You kind of answered it by asking it.
Why did Hitler kill himself, if he was truly innocent?
You can research what he said before he died. He dictated to his typist a statement. How the hell am I supposed to know why somebody who is dead killed themselves unless they explicitly say so. Go research it if you'r interested
I can tell you that Mein Kampf is an invalid source of information, because (in court terms) the defendant wrote it. It is opinionated. It doesn't line up with actual historical evidence.
way to demonstrate your own ignorance. you think he wrote it during the war or something? or could travel ahead of time, write it, then go back to before the war.
So, one is right, and the other is wrong.Which do you believe, and why?
let me put it this way: you've seen one side; I've seen two; and you can't be bothered to look at the second one. Not my fault.
You are still dodging the question.Do you support what Hitler did? Do you agree with it? Would you vote for him again under the same circumstances?Simple questions really.
I was never asked the first two questions. I answered the last one, up there somewhere.
If you want me to answer the first two questions there you assume that I have the same understanding of what happened as you do, and I can tell that's not true. Bit of a broad question as well. Hitler did a lot of things, e.g. he created Volkswagen so people (Volk) could have affordable cars (Wagen).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
I do know what is in it and what it's about, and so I know that you are lying about it.How about you cut the cutesy bullshit and be honest, answer questions instead of all the dishonest distractions that I suppose you think is clever or something.You are selling the book, the only reason to do so is you accept it's premises, so answer these questionsAre you a White Supremacist or NeoNazi?Do you believe the white race should be kept pure, and so should remain separate and not marry inferior races.Do you believe Jews are a parasitic inferior race attempting to control the world?Do you believe Jews should be eliminated through bloodshed?Do you believe that the Aryan race is the superior master race to which all other inferior races must be subordinated?Have you read the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and "The Turner Diaries"?
no, no, no, no, no, yes
'superior master race'
too much Hollywood for you, pal. I doubt you've read Mein Kampf. Maybe you have but you have gobbled up too many post-war propaganda pieces after reading it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
"My struggle" is a clue that it's not autobiographical, you guys crack me up.
fine, keep reinforcing the fact you haven't read it but act like you know what's in it or what it's about.
I didn't ask you to
Created:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
I literally just gave you a free round and you tell me it's my last chance. I know it is and I knew it would be. Can't wait to see your response. I will post it within a few days when I have validated all my source material
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
How many swastika tatoos do you have.
zero, not that my tattoos would be visible here anyway, not that my body or character being a certain way is a prerequisite for being able to read Mein Kampf and understand what the book says. Anybody who can read can read Mein Kampf. It's the second highest selling book in many Middle-Eastern countries, in fact - and, to my surprise when I saw it first-hand - sometimes comes bundled with the Quran
but you'll usually find people who haven't read Mein Kampf appear to know way more about Hitler than those who have read it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
I'll bet you highly recommend The Turner Diaries too.
I wouldn't recommend it. Could put ideas in the mind of the reader or develop existing related ones.. definitely on the verge of 'dangerous'
Have you read Mein Kampf?
Created:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
your recent argument shows me your level of knowledge in this area. you should not have accepted the contender position IMO.
do you want to agree to cancel the rule of 'no new arguments in final round' so you can try again in round 4? then I will publish my JPG in round 5 and you can respond to it.
willing to give you another chance, despite that you have absolutely ignored my efforts and shown little consideration for my time invested in round 1.
that's because deep down I like to believe my ego does not control me. but I could be wrong.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Why not then focus on the consequences of the legislation and juxtapose toward which effect said consequences are geared?
I was planning to do just that as part of my arguments
If you focus on the members of this status quo, i.e. what they think? how much integrity they have? What their desires are? etc. That will be an impossible task, unless there's an explicit mention of desires/intent. That is, if a person explicitly states that it's his/her desire to protect so-called Jews from harm more than X,Y, or Z, it would be near impossible to prove wrong that that is his/her desire.
It is difficult. But I feel I can do it with the knowledge and stats I have. The issue I have is presenting it, something I am trying to improve on over time
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
After the debate is argued I will gladly talk freely about it, sure. But oromagi seems to want to argue about how I formed the debate without actually debating me on it. I don't know why. Unless trying to be helpful maybe.
Created:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
acting like a child again
here you go
have a free round.
please.
don't forfeit
use the space wisely because you will need it
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I thought you were talking about the decline of the internal integrity of Weimar due to the lack of national identity and the spread of degeneracy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
out of scope.
my goodness
I suspect that's by design tbh. But it really could be ignorance either
Created: