The problem with this is that the Nazis were largely funded by western industrialists and bankers, specifically Wall Street. How can it be that Hitler and the Nazis were truly opposed to these people when they were being funded by them?

This also ignores all of the evil things that Nazis did do, such as Josef Mengele's appalling experiments on live subjects, many of them children, which later formed the basis for MK-Ultra

[deleted]

Chaos is opportunity .

If your playing a game of chess and losing, it couldn't hurt to up turn the board and see what the chaos brings, could be a better outcome than the loss you saw coming.

This guy's comment is on point. Hitler was funded by bush and supported by Rockefeller and other powerful people. First thing I thought when I read OP's post was that either he went full retard or is posting to discredit this subreddit.

Yeah but they funded Hitler and the Nazi's to form Israel.

Yes they did

It is important to address one of the first points made in the post: "why is hitler the most vilified leader of the 20th century".

I heard a podcast discussing this topic and it did open my mind. As op said other leaders killed many more people and yet hitter is widely considered the most evil man in the 1900s.

Therefore I don't see your statement of hitler being funded by western forces to refute his.

The west was also full of people who were against oligarchy and supported Germany, the most popular person in America at the time Charles Lindbergh for example.

I completely agree with you that Hitler being vilified as the most evil man in history while ignoring all of the atrocities committed by the allies during the war, along with the outright lies in the "official story" of the allies, are obvious bullshit.

But the OP seemed to be trying to make the point that not only was Hitler not the most evil man in history, but that he actually was good and the Nazis had legitimate and noble goals. This conflicts with the reality that they were being funded by the very people OP claims Hitler was against and also with the many evil things that certain Nazis were responsible for (like Mengele and Dr. Greenbaum - though they weren't the only ones).

Well it's a complicated topic.

Suggesting that the Nazis were a panacea certainly seems foolish. They were oppressive to any other political parties or opinions. They did in fact kill many people for no good reason.

However we have to look at why they are so vilified. I don't know that I have the answer but it is an intriguing question.

I would also caution you and everyone else to never assume you have the story figured out. Were the financiers really the same in both sides? What was their motivation? Consolidation of gold? Destruction of developed economies? Population reduction?

I don't know, and I am suspicious of the opinion of anyone who claims to know everything and uses that to debunk any new information.

However we have to look at why they are so vilified. I don't know that I have the answer but it is an intriguing question.

Because today we only get the "allied version" of events which is pure, unadulterated propaganda through and through. Hitler was literally Satan and the allies were literally God, waging a holy war against their (and the world's) ideological and moral enemies.

Were the financiers really the same in both sides?

Well, a lot of them were yeah. Wall Street and a lot of other industrialists were heavily funding both sides of the war. For instance, GM & Ford provided the majority of armored trucks for Nazi Germany, Standard Oil provided a lot (possibly the majority) of their oil, and IBM produced technology for them as well.

The BIS, the central banks' central bank, was also crawling with Nazis all during the 30's and 40's.

The BIS had a clause in its original charter saying that it would be immune from seizure, closure, or censure, regardless of what happened and even if its members were at war. Some of its members were the First National Bank of New York, the Bank of England, the Reichsbank, the Bank of Italy, the Bank of France, etc. So then when this same bank turns around and funnels money and gold to the Nazis, with the total consent of its other member banks (a few of which were their supposed "mortal/moral enemies"), red flags begin to be raised.

I don't know, and I am suspicious of the opinion of anyone who claims to know everything and uses that to debunk any new information.

I hope you aren't referring to me as I by no means claim to "know everything". But I do know some things and I use this knowledge to speculate on what may have happened.

My opinion at this point is that Hitler was either a pawn who was in way over his head and didn't realize where his funding was coming from (Nazi Germany was very compartmentalized and Hitler had numerous powerful advisors and people in charge of various aspects of the country/government/war effort) or he was a willing agent of the international bankers whose main goals were (probably) to help bring about the creation of Israel and also to destroy German sovereignty (and he succeeded at both, even if he didn't mean to).

Sorry I am replying on a mobile device so I can't expand on my points as much as I would like to.

You bring up some interesting points.

The phrase that ones to mind for me is "the more you know the more you know you don't know shit".

So many lies, Obfuscations, and mistrusted exist it is hard for me to have any firm belief.

Trade doesn't equal control in my eyes so I have a hard time believing that hitter was a puppet and that the international order didn't fear him.

Fair enough and I couldn't agree with you more about the difficulty in sifting through all of the bullshit. I think all we can do as individuals is trust our intuition and critical thinking and try to stay open to all viewpoints. And, above all (as you mentioned), don't ever make the mistake of thinking, "This is it - I've found the truth. My search is over."

Cheers my friend.

Anthony Sutton has written books on this very subject. Look him up

Well, yes, but his book about 'Hitler and Wall Street' doesn't really explore NSDAP funding in any depth. This is a far more comprehensive overview:

http://inconvenienthistory.com/archive/2011/volume_3/number_3/demystification_of_the_birth_of_the_nsdap.php

Wow thanks!

You're welcome. That whole site is worth exploring, too. So much good research which barely ever gets mentioned.

Yes, this is an excellent point. OP's point of discussion is the coincidence that Hitler was against international bankers and is now the most vilified leader in current history. Western industrial factions do not equate with international banker cabals. They may share the same bed but not necessarily the same end goals.

Don't forget that they also pulled off 9/11 all on their own by burning down the Reichstag and blamed it on the Poles. Same tactics, different era. People in power are all the fucking same, and do not give a shit about those with no money.

Agreed. Globalists in every sense of the word. Countries and ideologies are just tools.

The Rothschilds got rich by playing country against country, selling both sides weapons, then loaning them both money to payback their debts(which were to the Rothschilds). It's the same scheme as Iraq and the Federal Reserve(also Rothschild), and why we(US) are currently in Debt. Why would Hitler care where the money came from, so long as he got it? And why would they care if Hitler was trying to destroy them if they could still profit off him(and the Allies, if war broke out), and didn't really perceive him as a threat. I've never seen a source for Hitler's funding, and would love a link.

EDIT: As far as the evils, yes there are many. But the USA was doing, and has since replicated many of these experiments(and even integrated Nazis into America for their knowledge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip). And the experiments were for the greater good of humanity, and science at least(not for the sadistic pleasure, like Stalin and some Japanese).

Why would Hitler care where the money came from, so long as he got it?

Because the entire supposition of your OP is that Hitler was against these international banking interests and the powerful Jews in Germany. Why would he then accept funding from these very sources?

I've never seen a source for Hitler's funding, and would love a link.

Check out Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler by Anthony Sutton, it's probably the best book I've read on the subject.

As far as the evils, yes there are many. But the USA was doing, and has since replicated many of these experiments(and even integrated Nazis into America for their knowledge

I can agree with you here - there's no doubt that the US and others were and are doing similar things.

And the experiments were for the greater good of humanity, and science at least

This can be said of literally every immoral and evil experiment in the history of the planet. Eugenicists believe their ideology is for the good of humanity as well. But the reality is that Mengele was a monster and there is no justification for some of the things he did to his (unwilling) subjects such as injecting chemicals into the eyes of children and attempting to sew twins together to create a pseudo-Siamese twin.

There is no justification whatsoever for experiments like these.

I wouldn't be surprised at a Wall Street connection, but it was probably an agent of the Rothschilds who lent the money, or minimally the Rothschilds knew all about it. The Rothschilds had a deal with Germany(Hitler) from 1933 to 1940 where Jews could sell all possessions in Germany, immigrate to Palestine, then be reimburse in Palestine by the Rothschilds(who got money transferred from Germany for the value of the goods). The Rothschild name was obviously hidden by corporations, and people who act for them. This was the beginning of Israel. I personally think they used Hitler(that's more their style), to get the Jews moved to Palestine so they could have their own "Jewish"(Rothschild) state. The Rothschild name is all over Israel, and they funded much of it(along with the USA).

I'm not advocating human testing, but I can understand how somebody could think sacrificing one person's life to potentially cure glaucoma, or cancer for the whole of humanity for the rest of time is "moral". I don't agree with it, but it's not quite as bad a nuking or firebombing a civilian population IMO, or lying about WMDs in Iraq, and killing hundreds of thousands. To each their own.

I agree with almost all of that.

But I urge you to look into Mengele more, he was not doing anything for the good of humanity. He was performing experiments for his own sadistic pleasure and to learn more about the human body in order to make it easier to dominate and control.

I wouldn't be surprised at a Wall Street connection, but it was probably an agent of the Rothschilds who lent the money, or minimally they knew all about it.

Yes, a lot of the Wall Street financiers had ties to Europe and the Rothschilds and their many agents.

My personal opinion is that Hitler was mostly a pawn who either was in way over his head and didn't know where the funding was coming from (he had a ton of powerful advisers and Nazi Germany was highly compartmentalized) or he was a willing agent of these bankers and simply helped provide the catalyst that led to both the creation of Israel and the destruction of German sovereignty.

It would then, perhaps, make sense for Hitler to have escaped to Argentina if those stories are true.

Re: sources of Hitler's funding - more recent and in-depth than Sutton:

http://inconvenienthistory.com/archive/2011/volume_3/number_3/demystification_of_the_birth_of_the_nsdap.php

Jackpot. I'm definitely gonna take a look at that.

That whole online journal is gold.

As is this blog:

http://justice4germans.com

And this:

http://codoh.com/library/

It is arguable that the financiers played Hitler for a fool, their end game being the establishment of the Jewish state.

Most people do not realize that the Nazis had a huge hand in this, working with the Zionist Federation to form the Haavara Agreement, which basically paid for Jews to emigrate to Palestine. Thousands of them left before the war ever started, and it was the war which ultimately ended it.

The vilification of the Nazis after the war and the spreading of propaganda that Hitler tried to exterminate the Jews encouraged further Jewish emigration to Israel out of fear of future persecution.

It was also a financial boon, with the billions reaped from the Holocaust story in the form of forced reparations extorted from Germany, in addition to billions more in financial aid and sympathy from the international community. Plus now they've got the Americans by the balls through the manipulation of media and their stranglehold on the US economy through the federal reserve bank, they essentially get a free military to pound their neighbors with and a shield against any international backlash for their blatant land grabbing and human rights violations.

There was a huge scandal involving Holocaust reparations that of course was never covered by the zionist media. Many of the families, genuine victims of the war, never received a cent of the reparation money, it was mostly embezzled and stolen.

Norman Finkelstein has written a thorough indictment of these practices in his book The Holocaust Industry

Exactly. One of the questions I still have though is was Hitler a willing pawn or an unwitting one? I've seen some evidence to support both ideas - I think I probably lean towards his being complicit in the globalists' agenda to destabilize Germany and create Israel. His possible "escape to Argentina" plays into this idea and would seem to support it.

Nobody talks or knows about the Haavara Agreement - it's such an essential piece of the puzzle. I think the BIS is as well, as it was crawling with Nazis during the 30's and 40's despite some of its member banks being the First National Bank of New York, the Bank of England and the Bank of France, among others, and it was a main source of funding for Nazi Germany.

He might have not been complicit until he realized that his forces were too spread out and he had no chance of winning the war. I've seen enough facts supporting his living in Argentina to believe that top level officials and Adolf made a deal so they could live out the rest of their lives instead of being publicly executed.

He double-backed on them. That's why, and when, the "world" finally turned against him.

Perhaps. I think I lean towards his being complicit all along at the moment but my opinions of WWII have been in almost constant flux for the last 3 or 4 years as I've read more about it. It's definitely possible that he "went rogue".

I was just floating a balloon.

There really is a vast number of viewpoints out there and more documents than one could ever hope to read in a lifetime.

Nazis were largely funded by western industrialists and bankers

Hi. I used to think this, only being aware of Sutton's book, before I started researching. The thing is, it isn't remotely accurate to say "largely". This is probably the best article exploring NSDAP funding:

http://inconvenienthistory.com/archive/2011/volume_3/number_3/demystification_of_the_birth_of_the_nsdap.php

I haven't looked at your link, and I will when I have some time, but even if it's true that "largely" isn't accurate, some level of funding (and not an insignificant amount) did occur.

Why would any funding or association have occurred if Hitler was viewed as a serious threat to western banking and industrial interests (I'm assuming that's the argument your link makes, if not I apologize)?

some level of funding (and not an insignificant amount) did occu

Sure, but that funding pales in comparison to the money the NSDAP got from basically emptying the accounts of the trade unions in 1933...

There's also ["Warburg's"] allegation of secret Jewish funding, but that's based on an anonymous account which has been fairly comprehensively debunked by revisionist scholars.

Why would any funding or association have occurred if Hitler was viewed as a serious threat to western banking

Simply because not everyone was opposed to a strong Germany, as a counterbalance to Bolshevism, as a means to making money, and for moral reasons after Versailles. Some industrialists and bankers were pro-NS, it doesn't mean "Hitler was funded by the Jews" -- that's kind-of pop-conspiracy nonsense.

From the article:

No Warburgs. No Rothschilds. No Rockefellers. While the Rockefellers indirectly came into Hitler’s financial sphere by way of Standard Oil technical investments and the Warburgs via I. G. Farben and J. H. Stein later on, neither gave Hitler any financial support before 1933. And neither directly supported or paid Hitler at any point in time. The Sidney Warburg story is pure fabrication. Fritz Thyssen and some of Hugenberg’s heavy industrial connections, not James Warburg, gave Hitler substantial monetary gifts in 1929 (at least RM 1,250,000) and Deterding and several German coal companies took care of Hitler in the early 1930s. While Hitler spent a vast amount on campaigning, he was by no means rolling in untraceable money. All of his funding was carefully accounted for and most of it came from VB advertising; party dues, insurance, and speaking fees; Gregor Strasser’s left-wing faction, which received RM 10,000 per month in 1931; the good will of VB publisher Adolf Müller; and the financial frugality of party treasurer Franz Schwarz, whose meticulous party financial records were destroyed. The Americans interrogated him so brutally that he died in 1946 in British captivity. His records denoting even Hitler’s anonymous donors never turned up anywhere. The Pools suspect that the American occupiers destroyed them.

As for Goebbels’s remark on 17 January 1932 that the finances of the party “suddenly improved,” this was not exactly true. The truth is that the party’s credit line suddenly improved, and this was thanks to the maneuverings of Franz von Papen and Baron Kurt von Schröder with his syndicate of investors, including a number of prominent heavy industrialists, the Hamburg-America Steamship Line, the Stein Bank of Cologne, Commerz und Privat Bank, the Gelsenkirchen Mine Company, Deutsche Bank, Reichskredit-Gesellschaft Bank, Allianz Insurance, members of the potash industry, the Brabag Coal Company, Deutsches Erdöl, and a number of other brown-coal industrialists. While Hitler tolerated fifth-column banks like M. M. Warburg and the Temple Bank (a special account created for the Temple Society by the Reichsbank to fund Ha’avara emigration), he eventually restricted and regulated their business opportunities and forced them to assist with financing Jewish emigration. Hitler’s goal was to increasingly inhibit and thereby financially squeeze the foreign banks until they were unable to exist any longer and had to relocate outside Germany—the same policy he employed to encourage Jewish emigration and business closures. One such example was the Germanization (i.e. German takeover) of two Jewish ironworks plants in the Rhön region in 1937.

The whole article has that level of detail. Clark casts her net far wider than Sutton.

sorry - continued:

In general, I think the "Hitler was a serious threat to western banking" thing is slightly over-played. I don't consider it the primary reason even for Jewish opposition, compared to the overarching project just to re-cripple Germany's economy and steal its export markets, [depose the NSDAP] and then move back in and take over again - as somewhat happened between 1918 and 1930ish. But that's not to say that the foreign economic and geopolitical motivations weren't [also] "Jewish" to a certain extent, considering how intertwined Jewish aristocracy is with the English ruling-class, for example.

But I don't deny that Germany's barter trade network, and the crack-down on speculative "easy money" weren't significant factors also.

I'm curious what you think about the Haavara agreement if you don't mind my asking. Kind of a way to get Jews out of the country in a "civil" way?

Kind of a way to get Jews out of the country in a "civil" way?

Exactly. Which was basically what the NSDAP policy always was, although of course by '41 that changed to "we'll use them for labor and then dump them in the east, and after the war, continue to exclude them so hopefully they'll all emigrate."

If I recall correctly, it was only really about 60,000 Jews who emigrated through that scheme between '33 and '39. So it didn't make the huge dent in the Jewish population that the NSDAP may have wanted. That said, without the war, presumably the NSDAP and the Zionists could've worked together to eventually achieve their mutual goal.

Interestingly, in dealing with the Zionists, the NSDAP turned their back on supporters within the Jewish-German nationalist communities. In the Weimar period, these guys were like, "hey, wtf, who are all these Eastern Jews flooding into Germany - they're Bolsheviks and Zionists and basically confirm all of the worst anti-semitic stereotypes!" They considered themselves German nationalists first, [then Jews] - they spoke out against anti-German propaganda in the international press, for example.

http://inconvenienthistory.com/archive/2013/volume_5/number_3/german_nationalist_jews.php

Compared to today, back then the Jewish diaspora was much more divided between assimilationists and Zionists. The Jewish WWI veterans groups basically supported the NSDAP. But the NSDAP didn't want Jews to assimilate, just leave.

Anyway, back to Haavara. I assume you've read these first two short books?

Weckert's 'Jewish Immigration and the Third Reich':

http://vho.org/dl/ENG/jefttr.pdf

And Udo Walendy's book on 'The Transfer Agreement and the Boycott Fever', which I've uploaded for you here:

http://www.uploadmb.com/dw.php?id=1418440671

If you want to go deeper, to get a really good sense of where the NSDAP were at with their Jewish policy, you could read Wiebe's 'The Jewish Problem in Germany' from 1938:

http://www.national-socialism.com/jewish-problem-germany/

Also relevant, perhaps is Eckhart's 'Jewish Domination of Weimar Germany':

http://ia601807.us.archive.org/12/items/JewishDominationOfWeimarGermany1919-1932/Jewish%20Domination%20of%20Weimar%20Germany%20-%201919-1932_text.pdf

I'm happy to suggest or upload other books or documents if there are other sub-topics you're interested in.

Hmm... I'll get back to you once I've checked some of this stuff out. Thanks for all of the links - I've probably read about 25% of them but it's the rest that I'm more interested in.

Edit: I'm curious though, how do you explain Hitler's letting the British escape at Dunkirk, signing the treaty with the French saying he wouldn't use any of the French fleet for his own purposes (even after France was under control), canceling weapons research ~1940 because he thought he could "win with what he had", and his "no retreat" order? Just some strange tactical decisions that I've never quite understood.

Also recommend you listen to the researcher/author interviewed about NSDAP funding --

part 1 here:

http://www.uploadmb.com/dw.php?id=1418435621

part 2:

http://www.uploadmb.com/dw.php?id=1418435921

In general, I'd highly recommend listening to all of the interviews Deanna Spingola did with V.K. Clark. Many are here:

https://spingolaspeaks.wordpress.com/specials/

https://spingolaspeaks.wordpress.com/2014-guests/

https://spingolaspeaks.wordpress.com/2013-guests/

https://spingolaspeaks.wordpress.com/2012-guests/

Yeah much like today, all the enemies are propped up and knocked down in a perpetual war cycle.

[deleted]

You can't really use Mengele as an ethical strawman to discredit OP about Hitler.

I wasn't. I was using it to make the point that the Nazis aren't the harbingers of freedom and good fortune that this OP seems to paint them as. Are you suggesting that Hitler was unaware of the work Mengele (and many others) were doing?

How many people did Hitler kill himself? It pales in comparison to those who he persuaded.

I agree with this as well but the point remains that the Nazis were responsible for many war crimes and atrocities. I obviously agree that the western propaganda which has made Hitler out to be the most evil man in history and the sole cause of WWII is complete bullshit but I don't think it's true to paint Hitler and the Nazis as noble crusaders for justice who've been unjustly persecuted by history.

I mean, they have to some extent, but they were also involved in a lot of evil things and I believe that Hitler was aware of these things.

OP has many valid points.

I agree with more things in the OP than not, I just think it wasn't wholly accurate or at least didn't tell the whole story.

[deleted]

I'm not sure about it but I think it definitely requires more research and inquiry. To my knowledge, there really isn't much out there about the idea except for the FBI files that have partially been released.

What I do think is that his escaping to Argentina (if he indeed did) would tend to suggest that he was working for the globalists and was let go after he'd "served his purpose". I've heard it suggested that Hitler himself was related to the Rothschilds and/or an "elite" bloodline which might play in here as well.

We also know that a lot of other Nazis did escape to Argentina (like Josef Mengele) so this sort of supports the idea too - or at least doesn't refute it.

(Interesting side note: There is a story about how a town in Brazil had an incredibly high rate of twin births, almost all of which were blonde haired and blue eyed. Who visited this town during the 1960's posing as a vet and later "treated" pregnant women? Josef Mengele.)

I'm not sure though - I don't think there is enough evidence to know either way and if there is I haven't come across it.

especially his twin experimentation

Which is a myth:

http://codoh.com/library/document/3223/

I don't believe that is correct. His science was incredibly sloppy and virtually worthless to future scientists.

This thread has been linked to from elsewhere on reddit.

• [/r/conspiratard] Hitler did nothing wrong

• [/r/conspiratard] Hitler did nothing wrong - X/post from our Judaism-loving friends at /r/conspiracy

• [/r/conspiratard] I'm at a loss for words.

• [/r/TopMindsOfReddit] Hitler was a great guy, who has been maligned for standing up to the International Bankers (read: Jooz)

^{If you follow any of the above links, respect the rules of reddit and don't vote or comment. Questions? Abuse? Message me here.}

Keep in mind that the tards will upvote and support this post to paint this sub as crazy and encourage new people to write it off entirely.

And that there's a sub in existence purely to deride this one is very telling.

I like to refer to them as our Fan Club.

And that there's a sub in existence purely to deride this one is very telling.

No, the fact that there is a sub that is there to mock this one isn't telling of anything other than that this is a big sub. Good things are mocked, as well as bad things.

They love this thread so much and are totally blind to the fact that most of the comments refute OP's assertions.

Hitler was THE most popular leader in Europe before World War 2.

He was not the most popular, there were a lot of concerns from the over countries about his internal politics.

Germany experienced an explosion in the arts, sciences, literature, military, philosophy,

Yes science and military evolved but a lot of cultural figures from Germany flew the country. There were complaints about the freedom of speech way before 1940. All this happened not because of the war but because of the censorship happening in the country in the 30s. Some choose to stay but they could not criticize publicly the regime.

The whole point is that Hitler is one of most despised man in History but that doesn't mean people like Staline were acclaimed. There is plenty of literature about the Staline and the Soviet era telling us about the horrors that have been committed.

How can you say Hitler wasn't against any religion when he cleary had something against the Jews. There are several reports coming from Hitler or his close entourage (notably Göring) about what was called "the Jewish problem". If he wanted every race to be on the same level (this is him already admitting being racist if he considers that some races are weaker), calling the Jewish a problem, killing them, deporting them, banning everything related to them, is not the solution.

A lot happened before 1940 in Gemrany. There are several good reads about it, for example "In the Garden of Beasts" which uses as base the Memoires of the US Ambassador in Germany in 33-34 William Dodd which many relates as having been too weak regarding Hitler position and yet what he describes is truly horrifying.

People joined the opposing armies as much as people joined Germany's. There are always two sides to take into account. The WW2 has brought a lot of misery and horror stories from both sides but it is not an excuse to apologise one side because the other did it too.

Is anybody else sick of this daily Nazi propaganda?

Hitler was better than Stalin? That's the best you can say?

People loved Ted Bundy, too, until they found out he was a serial killer. But at least he was better than John Wayne Gacy!

Sure, Hitler invaded a lot of countries, but they deserved it. They looked like his mother, that lemon-stealing whore!

Everybody complains about the Jews but nobody did anything about them until Hitler! But he didn't kill them! No, I didn't mean that! He rounded up the international bankers and the media tycoons and shipped them all off to Poland. And all those Jews pretending to be shopkeepers or teachers or doctors or dentists or lawyers? Ship them off, too, just to be safe! And all those rich Jews pretending to be poor Jews? An all-expenses-paid vacation to the lovely Polish countryside. And those Illuminati Judeo-masons dressed up like women and children? There's a shortage of those in Poland.

But Hitler never killed them, oh no. They deserved it, but he didn't mean to kill them. Those thousands of eyewitness reports of people gassed, people rounded up and shot? They're all lies! The physical evidence? All fake. All of it. The testimony from Germans? Torture! Every last one was a liar!

What? You want your Jews back after the war? Sorry, we've misplaced them. But we didn't kill them. Are you sure you gave them to us? Did you keep your receipt? We can't have lost more than 1 or 2 million Jews. Maybe 3 million. At most 5 million. But not 6 million! That would be terrible. If it's only 5 million and they died of disease and starvation, that's okay. What did you want us to do, leave them in their homes? Are you crazy?

And did I mention that everybody loved Hitler? The Czechs loved him. The Poles loved him. The Belgians and Greeks loved him. The Serbs and the Croats joined hands and danced when Germany invaded. The French and English loved him. The Dutch and the Danes loved him. The Ukrainians and Russians loved him. Everybody loved Hitler! No person in the history of the world was more loved than Hitler. It's an undisputed fact.

And Hitler loved England! Oh, boy, let me tell you about how much Hitler loved England. He would go on and on about how cute England was, telling me stories about England and showing me baby pictures.

But most importantly, Hitler was better than Stalin!

Love Hitler! Hate the Jews! Love Hitler! Hate the Jews! Love Hitler! Hate the Jews! Love Hitler! Hate the Jews!

1.5 million Germans died in camps controlled by the allies AFTER the war ended. Unspeakable tragedies occurred by the dozen during WW2. I'm just saying, all sides had MILLIONS die in their camps. Why is Hitler(who by all accounts is responsible for less death than Stalin) criticized solely? "Total Warfare", the killing of ALL enemy possessions and personnel(including civilians, and cities) was used by Britain before Germany. By the end of the war, all parties were indiscriminately and purposefully killing civilians. To say the Nazis were evil, and the allies were good is the biggest misconstruction in history. I think Stalin was evil. I think the Rothschilds are evil. I think Germany, America, Britain, and France all took part in one of the ugliest chapters in human history, and all committed crimes against humanity(but according to the international laws created by the allies, crimes against humanity by definition could only be committed by Germans, in order to protect the Allies(mainly the Soviets) from some of the same charges they punished the Nazis with). The international court was heavily criticized(even by American Judges), because the allies created the laws the Nazis were tried under AFTER WW2,(and after the supposed crimes took place) then charged the Nazis with these newly created laws. In law, it is widely accepted that it is not fair to prosecute somebody for a crime that was not illegal at the time it occurred.

EDIT: As a part of the post-war agreement with the Soviets, the other powers (America, France, and Britain) "repatriated"(sent back to their home country) hundreds of thousands of "Soviet" "citizens" against their will and to their certain death(or sentencing to hard labor camps). Stalin enacted a policy during the war that made all Soviet POW's and "refugees" no longer citizens, and labeled them as traitors(because he thought they were cowards, or Nazi sympathizers for surrendering instead of dying for the Union). The allies lied to the refugees, saying the trains went to refugee camps, then they shipped them to the Soviet Union. Almost every single "refugee" was sent to hard labor or death. I've seen videos of British Officers describing it, and how they were told to lie, because otherwise there was no way the people would ride to their deaths or imprisonment.

1.5 million Germans died in camps controlled by the allies AFTER the war ended.

And then there were the millions of German civilian deaths, due to violence and starvation.

The Western powers dhe same in WWI, and continued after they forced them to sign the Treaty of Versailles - blockaded Germany and starved them.

Well said. I particularly don't like "The greatest truth never told" because it does lean too "pro-nazi" for me but you are absolutely right when you point out that people demonize the Nazis while thinking the allies were the "good guys" when in reality they were all equally bad...with the exception of Stalin and the Japanese who were notoriously evil. Also worth mentioning is the Cambodian government in the 1960's-1980 where they killed off almost 2/3 of the entire country's population but hey, it's the Nazis that were the most evil on the 20th century...

Equally bad? Really? At what point did in the war did the U.S. round up millions of innocent people, based solely on some idea of race, and kill them? At what point did the U.S. or Britain or France simply invade their neighbors and start slaughtering people?

Do a youtube search for "Cole Goes to Auschwitz" and watch that documentary. If you start waking up to the fact that the winners of wars blatantly lie about their opponents to make themselves look better we can start having a debate.

How about answering those very simple questions I asked?

The American government rounded up and killed a bunch of Native Americans. More recently, the American government rounded up Japanese citizens and put them into camps, exactly like the Nazis did. The only reason the Japanese weren't dying off in those camps is because the American government wasn't getting its ass kicked in WW2 like the Nazi government. If the Nazi's goal was to simply kill their POW's, they wouldn't have wasted their time and resources to house, feed, and cloth them.

What native Americans were rounded up and killed during the war? I missed that one.

The U.S. did have internment camps, but it was never the intention to kill them all, or any. From the very start of the war the nazis were killing Jews and other undesirables by the thousands. They had special units whose job it was to round up and kill such people. From the very start of the war.

So your answer is nonsense.

It was not Germany's intention to kill their POW's either. If it was, they would not have wasted their time, money, and resources to feed, house and clothe the POW's. Sorry that you think the official story of WW2 isn't a lie.

We are not talking about POWs, we are talking about rounding up and slaughtering millions of civilians. We know they had special units whose job it was to kill them. Again, right from the start of the war.

I'm sorry you think that simply repeating this one line over and over again while ignoring the facts will somehow make it true.

This wall of text brought to you by the ADL

and the JIDF

Sophist - One who is captious, fallacious, or deceptive in argument.

It's even worse. OP doesn't even deny that Hitler killed them, he just says that more people that were killed during WWII weren't Jewish..

Holy shit. This subreddit actually is fucking insane.

He lead Germany to an economic boom the likes of which had never before been seen in history

There's a sub called r/historicalwhatif, where WWII and Hitler questions often come up. One question in particular, always seems to get the same answer.

The question: What if Hitler hadn't started WWII? Or What if he'd waited another 4 or 5 years? The answer always seems to be that the German economy was unsustainable. That somehow, they had to go to war and plunder the gold and resources of neighboring countries in order to keep going.

I've always wondered about this. AFAIK, the Nazis came to power in 1933 and started turning things around after that. Of course this included a military buildup that required high levels of government spending.

This seems to be similar to what happened in the USA though. During the 1930's America was in a depression. Conventional history tells us that it was all the government spending for the war effort that got the country going again.

So in one case, we have the German government spending on a war effort that brings the country out of a depression and gets the economy going, but is supposed to be unsustainable. In the other case, we have the US government spending on a war effort that brings the country out of a depression and gets the economy going, and this is considered to be what led America to becoming a superpower.

So, when someone gives the answer that Germany would have run broke in another year or two, I'm a bit skeptical.

I might visit that sub as I would like to discuss what would have happened if Hitler didn't allow the British to retreat from France in 1940.

Evidence suggests that Hitler was goaded into war against his better judgment.

Its undisputed fact now that we have the records that Russia was seventeen days away from invading Germany in the east, when Hitler jumped the gun on Stalin.

I think I read the same thing in a Jim Marrs book. One the one hand, it makes sense. Launch a pre-emptive attack while your enemy is not deployed defensively, but for an attack of their own. You get the advantage of surprise and the enemy will need time to reconfigure for an effective defense.

On the other hand, an invasion the size of Operation Barbarossa would take a significant period of time to put together and launch. I've got the feeling that the Germans were going to invade sooner or later anyways.

Hitler considered the Bolsheviks to be murderous backstabbers and he knew that one way or another he would be forced to fight them.

WW2 did not get America out of the depression, it was deregulation after the troops came home that allowed them to be taxed less and more easily start businesses that got America out of the depression. WW2 simply masked the symptoms of the depression because the government was having to socialize productions for the war effort, which did "create" a lot of jobs but those jobs had to be paid for by the taxpayers versus any non-government job that is funded by the profits of said business.

People don't distinguish between what is destructive economic activity and productive economic activity.

This is why you will hear the government say things like "Military spending creates a bazillion jobs!" without the acknowledgement that military involves itself in destructive economic activity that does not use resources to improve quality of life.

That's because Hilter had his government print a TON of money. Over the next couple of years, this devalued the German dollar a fuckton, literally.

I've seen pictures of German citizens burning piles of money after the war ended for heat, because it wasn't valid tender for food. (As is tradition in r/conspiracy I'll be too lazy to find proof/links)

That's because Hilter had his government print a TON of money. Over the next couple of years, this devalued the German dollar a fuckton, literally.

I think what you're talking about was going on during the Weimar Republic in 1923. Here's a link if you want to read more about it.

You're completely right, and thank you for the interesting read. I was totally mistaken haha

The u.s. seems to ALWAYS be at war now however. We just look for a place to spend money and start shooting. Unfortunately for the economy the wars of late haven't been nearly as popular as the world wars.

Well I think a key difference is that Germany relied on slave labor whereas the U.S. just decided to employ women instead.

Edit: Wow, lots of feminists here. Yes, women were and still are paid substantially less than men in the U.S.

That was an extremely interesting post. I've always been told that what happened was historical fact and questioning it was a very bad thing to do, to say the least.

Anyway, what are some research material I could look up on this topic? My uncle used to tell me things like this when I was younger but I always dismissed him because I thought he was crazy.

I guess he was right haha

The greatest story never told, google it.

This.

As a Pole, that movie angered me beyond belief. Maybe some things about Hitler have been misconstrued, but he was still an evil psychopath that killed millions of my countrymen simply for being Slavic. His propaganda machine was so strong that it's still working today! (No the Poles didn't kill thousands of ethnic Germans as a prelude to the invasion) That said, the Russians were way worse.

[deleted]

Rule of thumb, "evil" as a descriptor is very good evidence for some propaganda at work. Evil is an emotional-judgemental term, not based on rationality. Not saying that's a bad thing, but you have to be careful because when you describe something as evil the thinking part of your brain is mostly automatically shut off.

Just because some people on a forum validate your uncle's (probably racist) opinion doesn't mean it's the truth. Remember you are in a subreddit full of people who believe the Jews are responsible for pretty much everything bad in the world. They wear their bias on their sleeves and actively look for ways to validate it, usually ignoring anything that may contradict it in the process.

Basically what I'm saying is you need to take posts like this with a gigantic, planet sized grain of salt. Compare it to what historians are saying, look at the actual evidence being presented by both sides. Don't just assume you know the ins and outs of the "official" story... actually research why the vast majority of historians have come to conclusions different then the people in this thread.

My uncle is undoubtedly racist. However, information is not.

The users here and I don't blame the Jews for the world's ailments. We blame the zionist. There is a very big difference between the two.

You're right. I usually do that all the time when I'm researching. Not trying to be a smart ass, but that's what critical thinking is. And that's what I'm really good at. Nah mean, CUZ?!

This is actually your problem. Your bias is to assign some form of mental illness or irrational hate to any criticism of jews. Do you apply this criteria to jewish historians? Do they have a conflict of interest maybe. Unless you have some actual knowledge on the topic, what use is your opinion. There's no way you can know someone's motivations. If your too fucking lazy to look it up it's one thing, but that cheap tactic of whining "racist" or anti-semitic is irritating. It's telling that the deniers offer arguments and links, while you attack the messengers without rebutting any arguments.

I think you've misunderstood what i meant when i said historians. See, I trust the work by academics who actually submit their work to peer review. The shit that OP is spewing is not supported by actual historians who submit their work to be criticized and debated by people from all over the world. If some fringe zionist group was making up shit as monumentally stupid as this post, i'd would approach it with the same degree of skepticism.

The notion that Hitler was some martyr trying to simply prevent the jews from taking over the world is one of the dumbest, clearly anti-semitic things I've seen, and any actual historian would agree.

So before you call me lazy or a whiner, learn what standards evidence are, and what conditions historian's claims are examined under to in order to understand how things become accepted.

Shame on you for false framing of what is wrong in our world, by saying that this subreddit is full of people "who believe the Jews are responsible for pretty much everything bad in the world". I defy you to prove what you say is true.

What I do think can be demonstrated is that many of us here are witness to the ongoing crimes of the Zionists and are speaking out against this evil.

Well... considering that this post is highly upvoted and says exactly that... I'll use this as exhibit A. I'm on mobile now but I could provide you with many more later on.

No, this post does NOT "say exactly that" - Jews. That's what YOU say. The post does say "Zionists", but you DON'T say that. Your exhibit A is false, just as your framing is.

It literally says ' the Jewish elite'.

Jesus christ... the post is making excuses for Hitlers murder of JEWS because of what he views as behaviour of current day Zionists. OP is conflating the two.

WWII was not, as you connote, all about Hitler killing Jews. That is a deliberate, deceptive false framing of what Hitler was about and what WWII was about.

When did i say that? The op is defending Hitler. The guy who not only instigated ww2 but systematically murdered millions. Get your insane neo-nazi logic the fuck out of my inbox

"racism" is a common tactic used to try and discredit this sub.

Zionists and bankers may be predominantly jewish, but that doesn't mean that all jews are a problem, or even that the zionists and bankers are the cause of all our problems.

Racism doesn't make much sense, considering that Jews are basically just white people and 99.999% of most people don't think twice about it.

That being said, you should always investigate and research shit like this, instead of either blindly believing it or rejecting it outright.

Often, however, Racists consider being accused of racism as a tactic to insult their credibility, when in reality people are just calling them out for saying fucking racist things (or anti-Semitic in this case). They have already exposed their lack of credibility by saying racist shit, its not somebody elses fault for calling them out.

No. Saying "fuck Israel" is no more racist than saying "fuck the U.S.". But try it a few times and see how fast you get called an anti-Semite.

Often people yelling the word racist are trying to kill a conversation, not "calling someone out" as you say.

Well, from my perspective, saying fuck Israel or fuck the u.s. is equally pointless and childish.

Thoughtful criticism of either nation, be it their foreign policy, immigration laws etc. Is something I've never seen anyone called an anti-semite for. Perhaps you have, in which case I'm sorry you ran into an idiot.

That said, a common tactic by racists is to pretend like they are simply being critical while spewing racist shit. This occurs often in this sub, when idiots try to imply that the jews control the world or hitler wasn't such a bad dude. That crap reeks of racism and should be called out as such

And a Common tactic by SJWs is to pretend like they are being critical, while painting with the widest brush possible.

i.e.

This happens often in this sub

Says the guy arguing for a post that basically defends the idea that an entire race of people somehow deserved to be wiped out. Now that's a wide brush.

As for this sub's tendency to confuse legitimate criticism with outright or implied racism. I can only speak from experience but to me it is a common occurrence.

Does being anti-racist and anti-nazi make me a sjw?

I'm arguing for free and open discourse. I suppose you will label me a vile Neo-Nazi for that.

Does being anti-racist and anti-nazi make me a sjw?

Being an douche full of indignation makes you an SJW.

My opinions on you being a neo-nazi or nazi sympathizer depend solely on your views. If you agree with the original post then I would suspect that you might be one. But even then, I'd probably prefer a bigger sample to say for sure. You could just be especially gullible or not informed on the views of actual historians.

I am all for open discourse. I am also all for calling bullshit out when I think it's bullshit. The original post is especially stupid because it tries to justify genocide. That's why I commented here

My opinions on you being a neo-nazi or nazi sympathizer depend solely on your views. If you agree with the original post then I would suspect that you might be one. But even then, I'd probably prefer a bigger sample to say for sure. You could just be especially gullible or not informed on the views of actual historians.

I really don't need a play by play on how you come to your asinine conclusions about people.

You SJWs are pretty consistent. If you don't like someone's opinion, you feel compelled shut them up. You seek out unpopular opinions like a shark to blood, because you are addicted to indignation.

I can't think of anything else to say to you. Have a good day.

Interesting the way you use sjw as an excuse to ignore anything i say

probably because a.) you're a sjw and b.) you're spewing the same recycled bullshit

And what recycled bullshit is that? I seriously want an answer. I am expressing my opinion about a post, and defending my opinion against people in this thread. I've seen the term Social Justice Warrior thrown around quite a bit, but it always just seems to be code for "someone who disagrees with what I am saying". So what am I spewing? Educate me.

Hmm... let me put my understanding of the situation this way:

1) Hitler was a bad guy - no dispute

2) Hitler is directly responsible for millions of Jewish deaths - no dispute.

3) We should learn from and prevent things like this from happening again - no dispute.

Here are the questions that I think the history has become less clear about:

1) The actual number of Jewish deaths. How many and what was the benefit to lying, if, in fact, the numbers cited are inaccurate?

2) The mode of death. While I think there were certainly death camps, were all of them death camps? Or were some "internment" and "labor" camps? I honestly don't know.

3) The population of Germany in 1940 was approximately 70 million. Hitler had widespread support among the general population. I have a hard time believing so many people can be written off as "blind, hate-filled racists" without asking the simple question of "Were there actually any legitimate complaints that could be made towards the Jewish population in Germany in the years preceding WW2?" (even if there are legitimate complaints, this does not excuse the behavior of the nazi regime)

I think all three questions are very fair.

"Were there actually any legitimate complaints that could be made towards the Jewish population in Germany in the years preceding WW2?"

Translation: Can we persecute an entire race because we don't like them?

What kind of "legitimate complaint" from 20 years ago is a reason good enough to reduce millions of people to nothing? I am just asking so I will know, so that in 20 years suddenly someone kills my children for something I did.

Are you delusional? I don't remember saying anything about any desire to persecute an "entire race".

This is just hyperbolic sophistry at its most pathetic.

What kind of "legitimate complaint" from 20 years ago is a reason good enough to reduce millions of people to nothing?

I think it is important to have an accurate view of history to understand where we are at today and where we are headed.

Do you have problems with violence where you can't examine things without wanting to murder everyone?

That's what you are implying and it is quite the strawman: "Examining the history of WW2 means you want to persecute an entire race and reduce them to nothing!"

Stop making things up and saying outrageously ridiculous things.

You're missing the point.

If I fuck your wife and rob your house and you shoot me, that's a bit different from you just seeing me on the street, saying, "I don't like this person", and shooting me. Context is important when studying history and questions like that shouldn't be off limits.

There certainly were labor camps as well as death camps, though even those had an incredibly high mortality rate.

The Nazis were thugs. They controlled through fear and intimidation. They never had the support of the majority of the population, at least before they took control. After that it is hard to tell because as they demanded everyone fall in line.

I believe the issue here is that nobody is referring to nations. They're referring to the Nazis and the Jews. While an argument could be made that Nazi was the nation, Jews absolutely are not a reference to anything other than a race of people.

The issue here IMO, is why no one is supposed to talk about this. I am fascinated by rulers and dictators throughout history. Why do so many psychopaths rise to the top for instance. I can delve into the history of Pol Pot, Stalin, Genghis and Nero, and look at all sides of it. But all I can find on Hitler is either Neo-Nazi propaganda or Zionist Propoganda.

Meanwhile any actual scholar who tries to approach it is labeled an anti-Semite if they don't tow the line.

There are hundreds if not thousands of books written on Hitler. Are you really claiming they are all pure propaganda? Please tell me which Hitler biographies you have read that you consider Zionist propaganda.

Possibly. It's difficult to argue against the Jews, especially when you set them up beforehand as the "controlling race" of Europe. Saying things like that is racist, and it taints all of your proceeding comments.

I did not call them a controlling race as far as I know...

Oh, sorry, I wasn't suggesting you were. It was more in reference to someone else who posted the claim about Jews taking over Europe before WWII.

What racist thing has been said here?

Implying that Hitler is just a misunderstood martyr who wanted to prevent the jews from taking over the world like the OP is doing is insanely fucking racist (or anti-semitic). He tried to eliminate a race of people, killing millions. Defending that makes you a racist.

Jesus fuck I can't believe that is something I need to explain.

Except the argument here is that he did not actually try to eliminate a race of people. Detain them, yes. (So did the Russians and the Americans). Deport them, yes (We came close to it with the Japanese). Gas them? Well, that is up for debate. There is strong evidence against that being the truth.

What is being debated here is that the Holocaust did not happen as we have been taught for decades.

Why is it racist to suggest that this is the case? Oh, because that implies that the Jews concocted a scam and a deception on an almost impossibly massive scale and have been perpetuating it ever since?

What if it's the truth?

It isn't the truth according to every actual historian who studied it. The holocaust isn't some barely researched event. It happened in the modern age. The evidence is documented and photographed. The only people who ever dispute it are those with ties to racist organizations with a vested interest in presenting another narrative. Are there debates over specific points such as casualties etc... sure, but Show me some peer reviewed papers that defend any of the claims that op is making.

The claim that the jews somehow concocted this scheme using the evidence presented in the OP is laughable and points to an ulterior motive aside from the interest in discovering truth. If you believe it, I'd wager you are extremely gullible a best, but more likely someone with racist motivations.

I'd keep going, but upon wandering over to the conspiratard post that was linked by the bot here, I happened to see a user respond to a comment you made with a rather humorous point by point rebuttal of the points the op made as well as the scathing and (from my perspective) accurate appraisal he presented regarding your nazi defending motives. From here on out, I'll just say that, for the most part, I agree with him.

Actually, there is very little in terms of forensic physical evidence to support the official story. Not to mention that hundreds of photos have been proven to be faked.

Why do you think that it is a crime punishable by imprisonment to question the holocaust in 19 countries? Thought crime much?

Why is "racism" the first line of "rebuttal" against holocaust revionism?

http://www.therealistreport.com/2014/03/how-holocaust-was-faked.html

http://www.whale.to/b/holocaust_prop_p.html

Calling Racism isn't the first line against "Holocaust Revisionism."

Holocaust Denial, the more accurate title for the fucked up little movement you appear to be a part of, is the most evidence deprived, pathetic attempt to rewrite history anyone has ever witnessed. Take the sources you linked to me for example... what journal were they published in? Who peered reviewed them? What primary sources have they presented and what do other scholars say about them? They are just bullshit filled articles, repeating the same bullshit filled claims that bullshit filled White Supremacists, Skinheads, and Neo-Nazis have spewed since the beginning of the movement.

How do you justify the fact that historians in the entire academic world, no matter the country, find no fucking credibility in these arguments? Wait, let me guess.... Make up a world-wide conspiracy! Thousands of actors, paying off thousands of academics. Not a single whistle-blower! Those dirty Jews won't stop until everyone blames those innocent Nazis! All so they can gain sympathy to take back Israel! or control the banks! or something...

Nevermind the fact that there is mountains of evidence to support the fact that people were captured, forced to board trains and sent to die at work and extermination camps. And that there is testimony from Nazis themselves regarding what took place at the camps. And that there were records of all the people who were taken into the camps and exterminated. And that there is photo evidence of masses of starving people. And piles of human remains. Fuck that shit, because some articles you found on Stormfront let you hate the Jews all you want!

So calling you a racist is the first line against "holocaust revisionism" not because your big scary Hate blogs are so hard to debunk, but because any rational, educated person knows that anyone who buys into this movement is a hateful, gullible idiot with more allegiance to the Swastika on their sleeve than the search for truth.

I intend to make this my last post in this abortion of a thread, I've officially learned that arguing with Pro-Hitler folk is as pointless as it is depressing. For you and anyone else I've spoken to over the course of this pointless exchange, I would like to leave you with the immortal words of one Jello Biafra ....

I have serious doubts that you even know what the actual arguments are.

Oh, i read your links, and I'm familiar with dumbass neo-nazi arguments and talking points. The author of the first link you posted in particular makes spectacular, un-sourced claims and is wears his bias on his sleeve. He makes no effort to cite historians with different arguments, he just builds up some strawmen and knocks them down, claiming himself the victor. Pure garbage with a clear motivation.

This is the shit you fell for? This convinced you? Did you even both to look up what historians say? Like most racists, I imagine you found this junk, noticed it was different from what you learned back in high school (assuming you managed to get that far, I guess) and decided to believe it, without fact-checking, because it let feel justified in hating another race.

As I said in my last post, kindly fuck off. Go get some sleep. After all, you wouldn't want to sleep in and be late for the rally tomorrow... I hear the grand Dragon is a real stickler when it comes to punctuality.

I figure it must be your job to come in here on your high intellectual horse and reinforce the official narrative that the establishment has everything right, and you're an idiot for believing anything different, or in the case of anything critical of Jews or Israel, you're a neo-nazi racist.

How many sock puppets do you have?

Fuck. You got me. I am a JIDF Shill. I get paid to argue with people on reddit by the Jews to help keep people from the truth. That's right... The Nazi's were right all along. It is policy to keep 15 sock-puppets, but I've been using 25 in hopes of getting a raise. Now that you've exposed me, however, I fear that I will no longer be able to shill effectively. Given the horrifically evil nature of the jew that you and the rest of the brave nazi-loving denizens of Stormfront have exposed, I am sure I will be eliminated for my failure. Why Oh Why didn't I just support Hitler and his benevelont genocidal ways!

If you couldn't tell, that may have been sarcasm. As for your hilarious stupid strawman you built in your last comment:

1. I said nothing about my position on Israel. I do not support many aspects of their foreign policy. I don't however, use this as an excuse to hate a race.
2. Just because something is the "official story" doesn't mean it's automatically wrong. Truth exists in evidence. Your Nazi buddies have presented insanely laughable evidence to support their claims and there is a fuckload of evidence for the "official story". I don't believe the Iraq had WMD's because the American government told me so... that "official story" was proved wrong. Evidence is what is important, and your evidence is real fucking bad.
3. I call you a neo-nazi racist because you are vehemently defending Nazis.

But ya, if you want to believe my first paragraph, go for it. You've already demonstrated that you prefer to believe things that confirm your own racist desires over actually looking for the truth, and taking my first paragraph as true lets you do that.

Anyways, I'd ask you to fuck off again, but I have a feeling you won't. If you say something especially dumb again, I may respond for the fun of it, or I may not.

Yea see, that's just it. People in this sub keep arguing that Hitler was set up, that he was framed, that there is no evidence that he intended to execute a mass genocide.

Yet, you still seem to think that people who believe this might be possible are genocidal racists.

How does that even make sense?

It's all you can talk about. You have not actually mentioned a single point or argument that has been made and said something about why it's wrong in a rational manner.

You just keep screaming "stormfront! racist! nazi sympathizer!"

It's obvious that the whole discussion really gets under your skin. And all of the stupid logical fallacies you keep tossing at me are pretty telling.

Your comments have been nothing but thinly veiled attempts to derail any rational analysis of the subject.

So calling you a racist is the first line against "holocaust revisionism" not because your big scary Hate blogs are so hard to debunk, but because any rational, educated person knows that anyone who buys into this movement is a hateful, gullible idiot with more allegiance to the Swastika on their sleeve than the search for truth.

From my previous post. See, I am not trying to convince you of shit. That fact that you can say something like "Hitler was framed" already demonstrates that you are far too ignorant of history to possibly comprehend a reality where your racist fantasies aren't true. I am calling you a racist because only someone with a clear motivation against specific races would twist their brain enough to think anything in the OP or in the links you posted has anything resembling credibility.

Just because you don't like the established history doesn't make it untrue. I could waste my time going back through all the actual historical sources I used to find the truth when I first heard of your retarded theories, then I could post them here. But that would be a waste of time, because just by your commitment to believe your Nazi crap, despite the massive tidal wave of evidence that exists to disprove it, you would find a way to discount everything as some Jewish conspiracy or some other shit.

You are a lost cause. Already too deep in your hate to actually have any interest in the truth. If you weren't, you would have read what actual historians had to say and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I said I wanted to be done this conversation, but honestly, people like you who bathe in your hate and ignorance and treat it like a virtue, make me sick. I have a compulsive need to at least leave some sort of rebuttal to your shit, just in case some poor fool stumbles upon your ramblings and mistakes it for a cohesive argument. God forbid more stumble down the horrid path you have.

There is more than enough reason to doubt the official narrative, you have just not bothered to investigate any of it for yourself, or at worst you're just another brainwashed shill.

It's easier to simply dismiss people like me as being just some redneck racist idiots.

But, if you havent been able to tell, the movement is growing. Why? Because there is enough information available to enlighten people to just how much bullshit we've been fed for the last 100 years.

It's not about hate. It's about truth. Funny, how they've managed to turn truth seekers into a derogatory term "truther"

Anyway, I already know it's your job to enforce the narrative that anyone who questions the zionist version of history is a racist. So, keep on keepin on, but your shit isn't going to fly forever.

Funny how "Investigate for myself" always means "believe what I believe". I have investigated, and I came to a far different conclusion. It just so happens that EVERY SINGLE HISTORIAN who has ever studied it has also come to the conclusion that I have. You make up your conspiracy theories to plug the thousands of holes in your terrible excuse for a theory and pretend like you know what Critical thought is like.

Like I said, lost cause. This shit is going nowhere. Sorry you hate so much, sorry you have been convinced of so many lies while thinking you are hunting truth. Sorry you are so blind to evidence and critical analysis. But most of all, Sorry I started this exhausting conversation. I never thought my opinion on Neo-Nazi's could get any lower, but you've helped make that happen. Congrats.

Every single historian you say?

Except for people like Germar Rudolf, who was booted from his doctoral program and forced into exile from Germany to avoid a 14 month prison sentence.

Fred Leuchter, who has had to dodge various death threats, in addition from bogus charges against him for "practicing engineering without a license"

Ernst Zundel, who spent years fighting charges of "hate speech" in canada, rotted away in solitary confinement, and was extradited to Germany and sent to prison for his heinous crime of denying the holocaust.

Robert Faurisson, who was beaten nearly to death by a gang of Jews for daring to point out that part of the diary of Anne frank, a sacred cow of holocaust mythology, was written in with a ball point pen invented after 1945.

Henri Roques had his doctorate stripped.

Those are only the most prominent among a growing list of scholars who are targeted with death threats, smear campaigns, and "hate speech" legal charges.

Weird how the holocaust is the only historical event that the belief in which is enforced by rule of law, prison sentences being doled out to any who would dare to speak out in question of it.

Oh, but those of us who harbor doubts are just hate mongers.

And here we are, with sniveling anti-intellectual weasels like you reinforcing the footings.

Zionism is the issue, not "Jews"

Also, racism as we understand it does not exist. We are members of the human race, and none other.

But this is a post defending fucking Hitler. Over the course of the holocaust, did he make sure to only target zionists? No, the nazi regime rounded up, hunted down and systematically killed people because they were jewish (among other ethnicities and cultural groups).

The Nazis were not out to specifically kill the people they put into camps. If they were, why would they waste their time and resources to build the camps? They would have just simply executed the POW's. The only reason the POW's were dying in the Nazi camps was because the Nazi government was getting its ass kicked. POW's are on the bottom of the food chain so if the government imprisoning the POW's can't even sustain itself, how can it be expected to properly house its POW's? The point of all this is that there was no "good" government during WW2, they were all equally bad (arguably Stalin's government was the worst...) but the propaganda is all out against the Nazi's in order to make the other governments look like saints.

You've been severely misinformed. Look up Master Plan East, Hitler's plan was very specific.

GENERALPLAN OST is nothing more than allied propaganda/revisionist history.

A little reference...if you don't speak German, toss it in google translate.

Why would the Germans waste their time and resources putting people into camps if the goal was to simply kill them?

Cause they were more efficient at sorting and killing people? Check out Master Plan East. His plan called for 100% of Jews to die, 85% of Poles to die, etc... The camps allowed an efficient way to sort people, strip and sort their belongings, and then kill them according to the quotos laid out in the Master Plan.

I've been to the camps, they were not designed to house people for very long and you can see each step of the extermination process.

You are the misinformed one. Building camps and housing inmates is NOT more efficient than simply killing them on the spot, that's the opposite of efficiency. Those camps you've visited are propaganda centers. Do a youtube search for "Cole Goes to Auschwitz", that documentary proves that Auschwitz was not a "death" camp.

You can always find one person that believes in something. I know I won't be able to convince you, even though I think it's easy to see that the logistics of mindless killing in the streets is extremely inefficient, but I'm sure you won't see it that way. I guess we have to disagree :(

"Mindless killing in the streets" IS efficient, and that's the point. That wasn't going on. The Nazi's kidnapped people out of their homes, forced them into ghettos, then forced them into labor camps. They were not just mindlessly killing people in the streets. But yeah, neither of us will probably change the other mind's. I'd also like to mention that I am not pro-Nazi (or pro-government at all) I am just trying to point out blatant lies in the "official" story.

I think the term "death camp" gets tossed around a little more than it should. They weren't killing in the streets because while that maybe more efficient cleaning up the mess would have been more problematic with how many deaths were recorded.

The main reason they forced these people into camps was:

1) make the clean up easier
2) conduct biological experiments of all kinds on human subjects

These expirements were done as a co-op with Japan and their version of Mengele; Shiro Ishii

Ishii was responsible for, in Manchuria iirc (always mess up the provinces) performing experiments on the Chinese which involved dumping chemical and biological weapons into the local water supplies to see how long it would take to wipe out small towns.

This joint research is what saved a lot of these scientist from prosecution in the world courts in Geneva as it was traded to the US for leniency / immunity.

The depiction of Hitler and the Nazi's while deserved was mainly used to distract the general public of the leniency / immunity given to the scientist in exchange for their research.

Here is some info on Shiro Ishii and his unit 731:

part 1:

http://www.deepblacklies.co.uk/unit731-part1.htm

part 2:

http://www.deepblacklies.co.uk/unit731-part2.htm

Write up by a student at East Tennessee State (about 70 pages):

http://dc.etsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2167&context=etd

Information on the leniency / immunity and payouts to the scientist by the US:

http://japanfocus.org/-Christopher-Reed/2177

Tl;DR - you're both correct on certain aspects

Camps weren't "death camps" they were giant biological research facilities that were used to make the selection and disposal of research subjects efficient.

Of course, a large percentage of the exterminated Jews were rounded up and killed in the streets by Einzatsgruppen, so the whole argument that 6 million Jews couldn't have been killed in the camps is already based on a flawed premise. Sometimes it was easier to kill them in the villages, other times it was more effective to round them up and murder on an industrial scale. In all instances, however, it is well documented that the Nazi regime pursued Jewish extermination to the point that it was severely harming their war efforts, proving beyond a doubt that this was a concerted pre planned effort and a Nazi priority, regardless of their methods in different cases.

[deleted]

according to literature written by who?

Every fucking historian ever. Sourced by thousands of primary sources and eyewitness accounts and peer reviewed.

every historian ever huh?

during the gaza conflict, did the IDF only target hamas, or shoot 4 year old children playing soccer to death?

Sick logic bro

Hashtag top logic person

So did anyone name the historians yet?

This article is about people's perception of Israel and how the powers that be vilified Hitler. Apparently you missed that part. It wasn't even 100 years ago.

Lemme guess

Hitler, Gadaffi, Hussein, Kim Jong-un, and everyone else that opposes these regimes is evil, a bigot etc. But carpet bombing the people next door in Palestine relentlessly and being involved in holy wars for thousands of years is okay.

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooope.

Try using a larger historical context than the dozen or so years you spent in the public school system.

"Every fucking historian ever" is not an answer for anything. It actually avoids my answer.

The answer was "According to literature written by Americans and Israelis"

not "Every historian ever." You can't even say that and be right about every AMERICAN historian ever.

this article is about how /r/conspiracy people are bad at history

Hitler, Gadaffi, Hussein, Kim Jong-un, and everyone else that opposes these regimes is evil, a bigot etc. But carpet bombing the people next door in Palestine relentlessly and being involved in holy wars for thousands of years is okay.

lol

"joos are bad therefore hitler did nothing wrong"

top logic bro

your counter points are non-existent. hitler is bad cause you read biased texts provided by notorious liars.

What the fuck does that have to do with anything? I think the current Israeli government has done some despicable things, but that doesn't invalidate decades of historical research consensus on Einsatzgruppen and concentration camps in Nazi Germany and areas controlled by Nazi Germany..

Check out Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler if you haven't before.

That's a lot for the suggestion. I'll check it out and comment back.

Amazing. Thank you very much. I found a PDF file for the entire book and it looks promising. I have a feeling I am about to go into the rabbit hole. Haha

If you found it on modernhistoryproject.org, be careful - the rabbit hole is deep.

I have a feeling I am about to go into the rabbit hole. Haha

Haha you are, but knowledge is power my friend!

It's part of Sutton's "Wall Street Trilogy", the other two deal with the Bolshevik Revolution and with FDR. You can probably find the other two online as well if you feel so inclined.

Incredibly interesting stuff - Sutton was easily one of the most courageous historians of the last century and many attempts were made to discredit and marginalize his work because of it. Most people today have never even heard of him which is by design.

He also has one about the Order of Skull and Bones which I would highly recommend too.

Edit: And you should talk to your uncle. I'm sure it would be an interesting conversation. :)

Lol conspiritard will love this.

Do People here really believe the Holocaust never happened?

I believed the indoctrination I received at the hands of my education in the US, which is the whole gas chambers, "6 Million" died (a number that the Jews have used through out history) by Nazi thing.

But when one actually does the research and ignores the learned guilt and shame associated with thinking against the establishment narrative...many things start to came to light when you question "Why are things the way they are today?"

Personally, I still have a hard time when it comes to the Holocaust. I'm not ready to come out and say it never happened yet. However, after learning the ways of Zionism, controlled media and the absolute destruction of people who try to go against it...I absolutely believe most of what I was taught in school was a lie.

Like 9/11, the Holocaust is religion. That is to say, if you don't believe the official story, you are a blasphemer. A sinner that is damned to hell. The brainwashed masses will treat you like a freak for believing in a hidden truth.

Veteran conspiracy theorists know this very well. But like the old saying goes...somebody's got to do it and I'm glad I swallowed that red pill many years ago.

It's definitely is interesting how anyone going against it is immediately branded a nazi and a heretic. I'll have to look more closely at this one. I'm still new to the conspiracy game.

Nazi and a heretic

And in 19 countires, a criminal

Holocaust denial / revisionism is a jailable offence in most of Europe.

Think about that for a second.

It took me a year or 2 after reading comments regarding the holocaust before I explored it for myself. It's a real mental block, but then you look into it... and the rabbit hole just gets deeper and deeper. The holocost, the Bolsheivik revolution, the banks, media, academia, immigration etc. It's something else, and most of it is well documented. It's not just some shit "anti-semites" made up or can't prove.

Some do. Others think that it did happen but the numbers may have been a bit skewed. And others still, usually the silent ones, think it totally happened just like the books say. Me? Im in the second group.

Same goes for me. It just shows how they always talk about the 6 million jews but never about the 30 million Russians that got killed.

Most people have a good nature, so they would never believe that a group of people could collectively make up something as horrendous and fantastical as the Holocaust just for profit.

The truth is, the bits and pieces don't quite fit together. Actually, that's an understatement. The entire story falls to shambles. Like the goose that laid the golden egg, if the Jews were patient then they may have gotten away with all the riches in the world. But, that's not how the story of the Jew goes. Thanks to their greed, they've given us a reason to peak behind the curtain. Lets just say once you see what goes on behind there, you can never again live in the Zionist fairy dream.

Hmm you seem to have some resentment toward jews. Fitting given your stance on the holocaust.

Do People here really believe the Holocaust never happened?

Did you see anyone suggest that? Because I didn't.

Yea, there's a couple people in here who straight up say it didn't happen.

Sadly there are posts about the holohoax in here.

No, and that's not the point. Do you believe other holocausts weren't worse?

I never said that. And yes, people in this thread believe the Holocaust didn't happen.

I think the point is that, oh, the sacred 6 millions Jews died (despite the official death toll now being 1.1m) and it's the worst thing in recent history... Despite the 90m many more killed in Russian gulags? What's wrong with this picture?

90 million in Russian gulags? Are you crazy? Where did you pull that number from?

Batshit.

I agree with you, that doesn't give us the right to ignore that 1.1m Jews died.

Where did you get that 1.1 mil number? As the Russians, nobody disputes the millions Stalin killed. The thing is, for the most part it was hidden until much later and we don't have the survivors telling us about it, or the footage of the carnage like we did for the Holocaust.

I would be interested to read more on this topic. Do you have any additional reading? This is all becoming more believable as the holohoax and Ally WW2 atrocities are coming to light.

According to Sir Arthur Bryant the British historian (Unfinished Victory (1940 pp. 136-144):

Every year it became harder and harder for a gentile to gain or keep a foothold in any privileged occupation.. At this time it was not the 'Aryans' who exercised racial discrimination. It was a discrimination that operated without violence. It was exercised by a minority against a majority. There was no persecution, only elimination.. It was the contrast between the wealth enjoyed - and lavishly displayed - by aliens of cosmopolitan tastes, and the poverty and misery of native Germans, that has made anti-Semitism so dangerous and ugly a force in the new Europe.

Additionally, this book is published out of Princeton University

Strangely enough, in a book unexpectedly published by Princeton University Press in 1984, Sarah Gordon (Hitler, Germans and the "Jewish Question") essentially confirms what Bryant says. According to her, 'Jews were never a large percentage of the total German population; at no time did they exceed 1% of the population during the years 1871-1933.' But she adds 'Jews were overrepresented in business, commerce, and public and private service.. They were especially visible in private banking in Berlin, which in 1923 had 150 private Jewish banks, as opposed to only 11 private non-Jewish banks.. They owned 41% of iron and scrap iron firms and 57% of other metal businesses.. Jews were very active in the stock market, particularly in Berlin, where in 1928 they comprised 80% of the leading members of the stock exchange. By 1933, when the Nazis began eliminating Jews from prominent positions, 85% of the brokers on the Berlin Stock exchange were dismissed because of their "race".. At least a quarter of full professors and instructors (at German universities) had Jewish origins.. In 1905-6 Jewish students comprised 25% of the law and medical students.. In 1931, 50% of the 234 theatre directors in Germany were Jewish, and in Berlin the number was 80%.. In 1929 it was estimated that the per capita income of Jews in Berlin was twice that of other Berlin residents..' etc etc.

Funny how all of that sounds very familiar to what we are seeing today.

Look up the recent Documentary of the Month - Adolf Hitler. The Greatest Story Never Told.

War is a racket. Never forget it.

While one side is fighting other is making profit from it. Biggest racket ever made...

see justice4germans.com & thegreateststorynevertold.tv

[deleted]

You are not allowed to refute claims in this subreddit or you will be banned for being argumentative/abusive.

You are not allowed to refute claims in this subreddit or you will be banned for being argumentative/abusive.

I hereby refute your claim as generalised, asinine drivel. I await my imminent expulsion.

You limitedhangout trolls are pretty much the problem with this new regime. You are either George_tennet or one of his minions...the same scum that have taken over and are killing this subreddit. A loss of 200k subs isn't planned? Now this guy Cole is doing an AMA? Seems pretty greasy.

It is funny how one of the limitedhangout mods so quickly responded to my vague accusations. Real greasy stuff...

(for the newbies...watch how quick I get downvoted for my mere observation..almost as if someone with multiple accounts didn't like what I had to say...)

Why are you so defensive? If the facts and evidence are there to prove you correct, then you should present them in a logical manner and let them speak for themselves.

Everyone is just a bunch of "racist dummies" around here, so it should be easy for you, right?

Why are you so defensive? Why do you call all the people left around here racist? If the facts and evidence are there to prove you correct, then you should present them in a logical manner and let them speak for themselves....so it should be easy for you, right?

Dude.. you're delusional... look at your completely irrational response.

Yeah, your comment was so cogent. Koo koo.

More asinine drivel. Did you bother looking at my comment history before making this shit up? I speak for myself and only myself using this account, and have been doing so for nearly 8 years.

I initially suspected you were just another delusional idiot, but then I had a look at your account since I've never noticed you in /r/conspiracy before. You are actually a disruptor and a hate-monger.

If it wasn't true, you wouldn't be so mad. Sorry I outed you.

"disruptor"/"hate-monger"

Ignoring that "disruptor" is agency terminology.

let me guess, regime ban incoming? lol...you guys are so greasy and transparent.

hopefully people are smart enough to get RES and tag you guys.

Give me strength...

religious too...so greasy.

you should watch the documentary "The Greatest Story Never Told"

Exactly. Documentary of the Month a while back.

Just wanted to let you know this post was responded to pretty comprehensively on /r/badhistory.

Here: http://np.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/2p3qxh/everybody_complains_about_the_international/

While not required, you are requested to use the NP domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

I'm not saying I disagree nor agree - I simply know too little about the personal reasoning behinds Hitlers action, beyond what's textbook.

But I'm wondering, if he tried to rid the world of the bankers and the "elite" - why did he try to invade Russia or England for that matter?

I know that they were both sworn enemies, but Hitler was obsessed with the destruction of England, amongst other things. But there's a lot I don't know.

I don't know why you think Hitler was obsessed with the Destruction of England. If anything he was averted to it. He even let the British retreat back to their island by giving them two days without attack to leave France. Britain had to embarrassingly use commercial boats to ferry its soldiers back, as almost all of their military transport ships were destroyed. Rather than invade a vulnerable Britain(that had run out of ways to fight), Hitler invaded the Soviets, who he thought would invade the whole of Europe if he took out the only other remaining superpower(England). Hitler revered the Brits, and thought of them as similar to the Germans. Hitler was obsessed with the destruction of communism, not England. Hitler tried to strike peace with England many times throughout the war, but their imperialist pride would not let them agree to surrender with conditions. Instead England convinced America to enter the War(even though there was no reason for Isolationist America to fight, and their citizenry was firmly against joining WW2 which was seen as a European civil war).

It just seems odd, that he would work so hard to exterminate the 'elite' and the bankers - AND communism aswell, which had similar goals. He had earlier made agreements with Stalin, about them turning a blind eye while he invaded Poland.

All I'm saying is, from what I know - it doesn't seem like his motive/agenda was solely that of ridding the world of the pests that plague us today.

I can't speak for the poster above specifically but I believe the reason people think Hitler wanted England destroyed was because of exposure to old propaganda shown in school. You had the reels that were shown to potential soldier citizens after the fact falsely saying that everyone else in the US supported war and it would be unpatritoic if they didn't join, there were the videos showing a demonic hitler talking about his plans of world domination and expanding the motherland, and then there was the film showing London during the bombings showing how happy and strong they were while showing massive destruction in an attempt to guilt the US into helping. The cherry on top was Triumph of the Will which solidified peoples view on the crazy of Hitler. It's been quite awhile since watching them but I could probably drag up names if anyone is interested in the films if they haven't seen them.

You know that Hitler declared war on the US right? England didn't convince the US to.enter the war.

You can't execute millions of people in industrialised killing camps and get away with it, ever.

Hitler and his terror regime were the worst mankind could come up with. Your post is terrible. White old men run the world and they inherit all their power to their children. Be they christians, jews or mormons...

Racism and anti semitism were "en vogue" at that time where everybody focused how "great" their own nation was, compared to any other.

Do you really think people work at Goldman or JP Morgan, because they are part of a worldwide conspiracy, or they just want to get stinking rich?

Do you think this system would be that way, if americans were a little bit more reflective and less nationalistic?

The American government interned the Japanese. You know why the Japanese weren't dying in those camps? Because the American government wasn't getting its ass kicked like the Nazi government. If the Nazi government wasn't getting its ass kicked, its prisoners of war would not have been dying off. POW's are on the bottom of the food chain during a war so if the government imprisoning them can't even feed its soldiers and citizens, the POW's are going to start dying off.

EDIT: The Nazi's weren't purposely trying to kill their POW's...If they were, why would they waste the time and resources to build camps for them when they could have just executed them?

They were not, generally, trying to slaughter their POWs, well except for maybe for the Russian ones. They did however, create camps for the mass execution of undesirables, like Jews, Slavs, gays, etc. This is heavily documented and confessed to by huge numbers of germans.

They built the camps for the execution in order to keep it secret. Even the nazis knew what this looked like.

60% of Soviet POW's died in german hands, resulting in 3.5 million deaths.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_mistreatment_of_Soviet_prisoners_of_war

Guess what? The official story of WW2 is a lie. I could link you to the wikipedia page about 9/11 but that doesn't mean what that wikipedia page says is true.

Hitler and Stalin were both equally brutal dictators yet the one who won the war is still treated with a degree of respect.

Hitler and Stalin were both equally brutal dictators yet the one who won the war is still treated with a degree of respect.

Here's the thing about that. You can read up on Hitler's plans for after he won the war. The conquest would spread to Africa and Asia, and possibly to the Americas. Minority groups of all kinds would be put to genocide or work camps. All of the world would eventually come under the reign of the fuhrer.

In a nutshell: 100% hell on Earth.

What if Stalin won the war? Thing is...we know what happens when Stalin wins the war, because...well, it did happen. It was by no means pretty, by no means humane, absolutely...but it wasn't utter Hell on Earth for the entire globe, as Hitler planned. You can even blame some of the deaths under Stalin on incompetence, or political vendettas or pressuring. Moreover, the Marxist agenda for spreading Communism is primarily through education of working classes and encouraging them to foment their own revolutions, in theory. In practice, it was not so straightforward. However, for Hitler, global conquest by force was the explicit plan. Any revolutions within countries of their own making would be an obstacle for Hitler.

After Stalin, despite no huge ideological shift in the USSR, things got demonstrably better for many (not all, not even close) people, and a lot of the brutality was deliberately purged from the government. Still not pretty, but, compare that to Hitler, for whom racist genocide and world conquest by force was a primary, central tenet of the governing ideology.

It's more than "Winners write history." We saw who won, what they planned, and what they did. Much of it was worse as a direct result of incompetence. If Hitler won, incompetence could only get in the way of creating a Hell on Earth for every non-Aryan or non-Nazi.

It does not, in any way shape or form, suggest Stalin was not a monster to assert that Hitler was a way worse monster.

Not defending Hitler. Hitler lost for many reasons including Germans with morals that would not see the world burn.

Oh no, wasn't accusing you of doing so. I'm not defending Stalin either. I just think the classic "Who's worse, Hitler or Stalin" debate has a more straightforward answer than many think, and Hitler "wins" by a hair.

Yep, winners write history.

That's why Putin is currently set to be the next Hitler even though he hasn't done 1/100ths of the atrocities the us has been doing this past century. If the west topples him or causes Russia to collapse, that's how it will go down in history books.

I'm going to guess that most of these upvotes are coming from /r/conspiratard, which loves blame the joos posts on this sub.

I don't agree with OP's take, but I think it's an interesting topic. What were the Jewish banking/Industrialist families roles in World War 2, whether as scapegoats or profiteers? What were the relationships between the war machine and the german/austrian royalty and banking houses: Particularly Hapsburgh, Sachs Coburg Goetha, Rothschild and Warburg. What did the same industrialists contribute to the rise of Soviet Communism? And what role might zionism have played in all of this?

To this day, Germany has an interesting relationship with Russia AND a united europe.

It's interesting to study the tides of banking and industry capitals which tend to shift as people get fed up with profiteering. Even follow the history of the Warburgs (who sat on the board of IG Farben leading up to WW2), back to 16th century Venice- which was at the time the banking capital of the world until anti-semitic legislation was passed as a reaction to usery. But remember that the "court jew" was used by both christian and islamic royalty to manage their finances in both the austro hungarian and ottoman empires.

This post really sparked my interest and I'm scouring the internet trying to locate more solid proof. If anyone has articles or anything please link me!

ProTip: You're only going to find pro white supremacist, pro stormfront sites...

[deleted]

All points of view is a fair assessment when looking at something.. But one must consider the source of said point of view correct?..

Here you go. A very, very good blog; an essential book of historical quotes; a book exploring the myth of German war guilt; and an archive of books by researchers skeptical of atrocity claims against Germany:

http://justice4germans.com/

http://www.germanvictims.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/2013-New-Edition-WITNESS-TO-HISTORY.-Autumn.-2013.pdf

https://archive.org/details/TruthForGermany

http://vho.org/dl/ENG.html

Kudos on being open-minded enough to look at things from the German side.

There's a great book called 'Hitler's Revolution' by Richard Tedor, which draws mostly from German sources, and which I would recommend, as it talks a lot about NS reforms and their actual economic and social policies -- but you'd need to buy it.

Read a book called Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler.

Read the book by Shirer. "Rise and fall of the third Reich". Definitive work on everything Nazi.

Lol. It's a propaganda book, terrible history.

You've obviously never read it.

Lol. I have. It's perhaps the worst, most biased propaganda-history-mythology book about WWII. Horribly outdated, also.

Well yeah. It's from 1961.

Indeed, but that's no excuse. 1961 also saw the release of AJP Taylor's 'Origins of the Second World War', and Hoggan's 'The Forced War' -- both far less superficial. Shirer was writing for a popular audience, completely glosses over the big questions, and uncritically accepts any and all accusations made against the Axis. By the standards of 2014, it reads as propaganda, sorry.

Hitler apologists.. Color me shocked..

I'm starting to think this sub just isn't for me. Everyday, it's Israel bashing, or a false flag. Yesterday it was that stupiditing about he NSA hiding things on the Reddit front page, and now we're actively supporting Adolf Hitler. I think I'm just gonna show myself out.

The Nazi economy was completely unsustainable. Hitler did turn Germany around, but his improvements would not have lasted for more than a couple of decades. He used government money to put people to work, nearly bankrupting the country and replenishing his coffers by nationalizing businesses, stealing from wealthy jews and invading other countries. He demonized, exploited and stole from jews because they weren't popular at the time and robbing them provided an easy source of capital to fuel his hyper-keynesian economic policies. You can build an economy around stealing resources from rich people and giving them to poor people. But it never lasts.

Obama could do the same thing in America today and experience the same level of economic growth and personal popularity. Just nationalize several unpopular companies (Halliburton, Exxon, Monsanto, etc) and use the money to give people make-work jobs, fixing up roads and bridges and what not. Declare himself king so that he can re-orient that entire national budget toward productive welfare programs and then start invading smaller countries when the money finally starts to run out. It would probably work as well and be as popular here as it was in post-Weimar Germany. For a while at least.

The reality is that Hitler's economic and military plans were stupid and short sighted. He was popular in the same way that any idiot who stands on a corner and hands out $20 bills would be popular. His bad economic policies forced him into a situation where territorial aggression was his only hope, a plan that was never realistic in the face of the industrial might of the properly planned US economy. It seems like everything would have worked out for him if only it weren't for that pesky Eisenhower, but the whole endeavor was doomed from the start. Germany was lost from the moment Hitler adopted short sighted quick fixes as an attempt to save a national economy. It was only a matter of time. Taking short cuts is always tempting, but it's always better to do things the right way. You have to work your way out of a bad situation, you can't just steal and spend to buy friends. That story always ends badly.

Sic semper tyrannis.

tl;dr - Hitler's plan was to steal from rich people and give money to poor people, then to start stealing from other countries. Eventually the rest of the world ganged up on him and he ruined his own people. He wasn't standing up to jewish bankers, he was just trying to maintain a ponzi scheme based on old fashioned theft.

Saved this whole thread as .pdf against the inevitable memory-holing.

JIDF incoming!

Hitler is most contraversal character that has ever occurred in history of mankind. There are tons of them but he is someone who will be dicussed by our grandchilds. Some people hates him, some says he has been doing good thing and that he wasnt the only bad fella from that time. Lets say you are all right.

My theory is, he may not be funded by west, instead his troops were. You know, i'm thrilled how no one mentioned famous society called thule. Yes those fellas were famous nazi's underground, they were specially related to ss troops. Are they anyhow related to illuminati and other well known secret societies, i dont know. All i know they still exist but they are now undergoing with other indentities and they are strong. They idea about gross deutschland still lives in Germany...

I don't know about all of that, BUT, JFK, Lincoln, Muamar Gadaffi and Sadam Hussein tried to kill the centralized banks and look at what happened to them. You can't try to depose the string-pullers without consequences.

This was interesting to watch

Great documentary. Also here, if YT blocks:

https://archive.org/details/HitlersWar-WhatTheHistoriansNeglectToMentiontestVersion

Hitler was also the reason for the collapse of the British Empire.

And this is why Germany was burned to the ground, same will happen to anyone else who resists the Global Bankers

Because Germany isn't a powerhouse of industry and technology today, is it?

It was rebuilt from the ground up, with new values and propaganda to replace the old wisdom

Fuck your facist BS, so many others have stood up against banks and media more than he did. Also he and his regime were just as bad as the US in terms of propaganda and neocolonialism expansionism. So not only are yo wrong, but you are making this sub look bad with your nonsense. Go back to /r/nolibs this is right up their alley.

Hitler was a great guy and never had any intention of killing people for fun. He just wanted to take over the world so people dont have to be oppressed by the jewish controled media. He knew if he could win over the polish people, the rest of the world will follow. Get your history right, geez.

Lol at the downvotes

Right, but killing six million other Jews indiscriminately isn't "fighting the system," that's being a racist fuck. In comparison to Stalin, he didn't kill anywhere as many people, but that's like saying someone who didn't win a race didn't compete at all. He still DID it.

I'm really not going to get into a flaming war, but "The Final Solution" was a western fabrication. Hitler was not sadistic. He didn't go out of his way to kill Jews for fun. He viewed them as political opponents(the same way we viewed the Japanese who were American citizens that we locked up in concentration camps). Many countries in WW2 had concentration camps. All of them had deaths from starvation, the elements, and disease. Germany's couldn't save its own CIVILIANS and SOLDIERS from starvation, the elements and disease, let alone its POWs and prisoners. As the war went on, they lost supply lines, and ran short on resources, not to mention the overcrowding. This caused many deaths at German concentration camps(but not as much as Russian ones). The numbers are very debatable(6 and 12 million), as well as the fact that I have never seen evidence that the Nazis killed Jews with gas(either in video, picture, audio, or writing). Blaming the whole race of Jews was wrong, but the Idea that he wanted to kill them all is hogwash, and frankly doesn't make sense if you study Hitler(who even had a Jewish friend who he made an honorary Aryan).

I'm not asking for the sake of argument, but I have seen pictures of gas rooms, incinerators, mass graves in German concentration camps. Have I been misrepresented towards? What evidence is there against the Holocaust?

gas rooms, incinerators, mass graves

gas room = de lousing chambers (for killing pests in your clothing) also the ones they say were used for people have no forensic evidence of ever having the suposed gas inside them, the ones that were used for delousing with the same gas are stained blue and the concrete is partially eaten by the reaction. the ones they supposed murdererd everyone in have no signs of gas at all

incinerators - go visit a hospital they have a bunch of them there too. theyve done the math on these as well and with the time it takes to creamate some one there simply were not enough space in those ovens to cremate any thing near the numbers they claim even if they ran 24/7 and they even use present day machines as the basis for the calculations, the actual ovens they had would have been even slower.

mass graves - where? i thought they cremated them all what mass graves would there of been?

almost all the stuff they have evidence of can be explained as a prison camp that had an out break of common illnesses

this is the problem a lot of the "evidence" that was used to create the story doesnt hold water now with the developments in forensics since then, things like zero trace of the gas ever having been used in the "gas chambers" or that the ovens couldn't possibly have burned the # of bodies they claimed.

its like thread unraveling on a tshirt, the more you tug at the loose bits the more the whole things slowly falls apart.

the holocaust hits us in the feels, and describes things that make you want to cringe and recoil from them but think back what evidence have you ever really been shown?

in the end all the concentration camps were work camps to build bombs, ammo etc. what sense would it make to systematically murder your captive work force?

also some of the largest camps were bombed by the allies intentionally. WWII was so full of bullshit and propoganda you really can't trust one side to tell the truth

I think a better question would be: "What evidence is there for the Holocaust?"

Put it this way: if 9/11 truthers provided evidence that was equivalent to what we have for the Holocaust, they would be ridiculed even more than they are now.

If you want an example check out Rudolph Hoss's confession. This was considered key to proving that the Holocaust happened but it turns out that he was tortured for three days before "confessing", as stated in Rupert Butler's Legions of Death.

I would also recommend reading The Six Million: Fact or Fiction.

"Gas rooms" were de-lousing chambers(everybody had lice in WW2) and showering areas. Incinerators are to burn the clothes(and sometimes bodies) of those infected with typhoid fever(the disease of war) to prevent the spread of disease. If these camps were used to kill all of these people, you think one video, one picture or one letter would have turned up. But nothing has yet. Seems fishy to me. Fishy enough to keep the jury out. Plus there was no benefit in killing Jews. It would have been a very costly and risky undertaking with zero benefits.

I´m not answering for the sake of argument, but...

pictures of "gas rooms", and incinerators? What the hell is that? We had an incinerator at my grade school. How do you know what you saw was a "gas room", and that it was used to kill jews?

I have seen pictures of mass graves from many countries. Did you see anything that looked like it contained 500,000 bodies? Did you see 12 mass graves that looked like this? How did you discern that they were all jews?

Compelling evidence should be provided by the party making the claim. I have never seen anything that even approaches evidence for the Holocaust.

Honestly it's something I've never thought to question. It's presented as complete historical fact, and any questioning of those facts is taboo and is seen as racist, at least in my country. I've always been curious when I see opposition to the holocaust as historical fact. I ask because I wouldn't know where to look, do you have any reading material debunking or weakening the holocaust argument?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vnu5uW9No8g

That's a six and a half hour documentary on Adolf Hitler. It has tons of information about what really happened and why. It doesn't go too far into the conspiracy theory(which is kind of good, because the facts are insane enough). It sort of feels like an old history channel segment on WW2, but with info you won't find anywhere on TV(or Reddit for that matter).

http://pauleisen.blogspot.ie/2014/10/the-great-holocaust-mystery.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oinItLYg7qQ

the 6 million# is bullshit and nearly every holocaust researcher admits that.

Nearly every? There must be a lovely link to support that I'm sure.

pick anyone and see if they can give any actual evidence of the number. your asking me to disprove something they can't prove in the first place.

i can't disprove Santa exists because no one has been able to prove he ever did in the first place

i mean really for a group so organized they tattoo numbers on people arms you think they might have a record some where that they could slap on a table and tell you where every single person was from and where they ended up right?

maybe even some documents about or even related to this supposed final solution. i mean for such a strictly organized group you think they'd have a few copies of the grand scheme or that some of the 100's of defectors(sorry make that 1,500 source ) might have been able to confess or lead them to like a cache or something.

but nope those just don't exsist, instead we have testimony from the people who were there, i mean those people would never possibly consider holding a grudge, and im sure not 1 or 2 of the millions could possibly ever even consider making shit up to make sure the higher ups got what was coming to them at tribunals.

i mean its hilarious how quickly we dehumanize the germans, like they were all sociopaths and lusted for Jew blood. while we Canadian and Americans were doing the same shit to the japanese north americans (don't get me started on the treatment of the natives or blacks)

there is a lot we do not know about what happened which is why it is fucked up that even discussing it is taboo. the story we got predates 80% of the science in human history, there are actual things we can test that simply were not possible in the 1950's there was no DNA testing or ability to examine the walls of a "gas chamber" under an electron microscope. the story we have has a lot of holes, and its not a great sign when some one tries to fill in the bits they get shouted down by a mob as anti-Semitic, or marked with some snappy nick name like a denier.

No, he's simply asking you for sources that back up your claim that "nearly every holocaust researcher admits that".

Go do some of your own research, I'm not here to hold your hand or point the way for you especially some one who clearly has their already established view it's not like I'm going to change his mind anyway. you wouldn't trust the info i linked anyway so go search for it your self and see what you find

Yeah, this is exactly what I thought you'd say...as you all do.

For some odd reason (well, not odd...I know the reason), this sub has an ass-backwards way of how debates and evidence work.

You are the one who said "nearly every holocaust researcher admits that", so you are the one who needs to provide the source. I'm not going to do the research you should have readily available to provide when you make statements like that. All this proves is that you do not have any evidence, and that everything you say should be taken very, very lightly.

you seem to think im paid to educate you rather than here to stir up discussion. no matter what i replied with you would have some challenge or snappy shot back to argue against it. rather than engage you and become a target im telling you to go look for the answer yourself so YOU can be the judge.

im not trying to force my views on you or turn you in to my student, the info is out there read it and make your own judgment with out my interference

What?

1. You made a statement. That means you provide the evidence. It's simple. It's called having an adult conversation. They do this in court too. The prosecutors don't say "Hey, we know you killed that guy!" then turn to the jury and say "Now, go find the evidence we used to come up with our theory!". Do you not see how stupid that is?

2. You're assuming things. Assumption is the mother of all f-ups.

3. I know you're not trying to force your views. I never said you were. You providing the sources you used is not going to make you "interference". Now you're just coming up with shoddy excuses to not do something you should have done.

no i disputed a statement, not made one, where is this burden of sourcing for the original comment? just because you put your disjointed rant in a numerical sequence doesn't make any of it valid.

the original comment provided no evidence which is why i attack the baseless claim, yet suddenly i am held to a greater burden of proof than the original comment which has no supporting evidence

you just want me to post something you can attack, if i make you go look for it your not going to attack your own sources. why would i hunt down sources for you (i read 100's or articles every day) your not paying me, there is literally nothing for me to gain in doing the work for you so....

and if i did post a bunch of sources that made you look like an asshole you would just "humph" crinkle your face, disappear and stop replying or launch in to some rant about how i must be some neo-nazi or my grandfather was a nazi guard or some other nonsense.

no i disputed a statement, not made one, where is this burden of sourcing for the original comment? just because you put your disjointed rant in a numerical sequence doesn't make any of it valid.

You disputed a statement (using no sources) then made one of your own. That's what we were asking for sources on. And the burden of proof is not on the OP because he stated something is common knowledge, to which you are the one directly refuting it.

the original comment provided no evidence which is why i attack the baseless claim, yet suddenly i am held to a greater burden of proof than the original comment which has no supporting evidence

Also, just because someone else doesn't do something correctly doesn't mean you have the same right to do it incorrectly to. "Oh, well he was speeding too! Why am I in trouble?"

you just want me to post something you can attack, if i make you go look for it your not going to attack your own sources. why would i hunt down sources for you (i read 100's or articles every day) your not paying me, there is literally nothing for me to gain in doing the work for you so....

I wanted you to post something that would back up a claim. It's not that hard. And you're already exaggerating...100's of articles every day? IF you read articles for even eight hours a day, you'd have to read almost 2.5 articles a minute to reach 200 articles in 8 hours. Don't exaggerate, it doesn't help your poor excuses for having no sources whatsoever.

and if i did post a bunch of sources that made you look like an asshole you would just "humph" crinkle your face, disappear and stop replying or launch in to some rant about how i must be some neo-nazi or my grandfather was a nazi guard or some other nonsense.

Again, more assumptions. Typical conspiracy theorist.

Enjoy making stuff up and calling it fact!

i work 12 hr night shifts and read for about 80% of that time

And you should maybe educate yourself

I do.

But again, when someone makes a claim they should be able to back it up. Why is that so hard to understand.

You guys are making the claims --> hence, you guys should have the sources already from which you have taken these claims.

Why would you make a claim, not provide a source, then tell everyone else to find the source THAT YOU SHOULD ALREADY HAVE?

It's asinine and very, very typical of this sub.

I think it stems from the fact that you guys don't actually rely on true sources. You just see something in a YouTube video and say 'well it must be true...it's on the internet'. That, or you just make up stuff and hope no one calls you on it.

AKA citation needed

i could spend all morning making a nice cited and source paper for you on the topic, but frankly why bother. i would spend the time and the ones who want to argue wouldn't read the articles anyway, I'm not about to change their minds with a bibliography. people who believe something are very hard to convince otherwise so why bother.

i'm flat out telling you don't take my word for it go dig around yourselves and see what you find, but for some reason for a sub full of supposed freethinkers and open minded knowledge seekers its awfully hard to get some of you to do your own research

Most level headed post here

shhh i'm an anti-semetic jew hating sociopath obviously

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/17/world/poland-agrees-to-change-auschwitz-tablets.html

This thread has been linked to from elsewhere on reddit.

• [/r/SubredditDrama] A source on /r/conspiracy drama? Ugh, why don't you slackers go do your own research? It's not my job to educate you!

^{If you follow any of the above links, respect the rules of reddit and don't vote or comment. Questions? Abuse? Message me here.}

allied propaganda - never happened

Are you saying that the holocaust never happened?

Oh the Holocaust of my people, the Native Americans, definitely happened. The Jewish holocaust - propaganda and lies has destroyed whatever truth there might have actually been. But 6million is total nonsense, I doubt it got to 1mil. and they were no more or less targeted than anyone else. In defense of those Jews millions more were killed and quite frankly I doubt it was a fair trade.

I agree that what happened to the Native America happened and it is definitely under-recognized.

Having said that how can you honestly say that they were no more or less targeted than other Europeans? Hitler wrote and spoke many times about his hatred of Jews. Laws were put in place that specifically forbade Jews from many professions. They were forced to register themselves and wear armbands that marked themselves as Jews.

As for the exact numbers, how can you explain the precipitous and persistent loss of the Jewish population in formerly Jew-rich countries like Poland and Ukraine?

I don't recall any Jewish cities or countries being firebombed and decimated. But I can think of many people who have suffered much worse and it was their skin color that gave them away as opposed to an arm band.

I believe you're referring to the Japanese so I'm going address your response with that in mind. No, no Jewish cities were firebombed but I don't recall hearing of any Japanese cities where the allies rolled in, lined people up at the edge of mass graves and shot them. The skin color argument is also pretty weak because it ignores not only the differences between the European and Pacific theaters but also the fact that German cities did get firebombed (albeit not to the same extent).

Your overall position is also pretty immature from a more standpoint. We should ignore or refuse to acknowledge the suffering of one group because another group may have suffered worse?

If the Nazis were half as evil as the allies claim - there wouldn't have been any survivors from any of the concentration camps. They would have been exterminated like what happened in Rwanda a few years back.

You do realize that concentration camp =/= death camp. See if you can find any survivors from places like Treblinka or Sobibor. Your comparison to Rwanda leads me to think you're probably ill informed in multiple areas of history because the Tutsis weren't "exterminated" at levels higher (as determined by a percentage of population) than those claimed for the Holocaust. Or Native Americans by European settlers. Or Cambodians by other Cambodians. Or Armenians by the Ottoman Empire. Poor example.

haha what a joke.

Holy crap there are a lot of holocaust deniers/apologists in this sub.

[deleted]

Ended up in r/conspiracy after reading random posts in r/all

Stumbled upon this thread

Kept reading waiting for a reveal that this was all a joke and not some bullshit from /pol/

0/10 you fucking fascist Holocaust-denying Neo-Nazi pieces of shit

OP is not denying it ever happened, just pointing some things out. It is true that Stalin killed ~20 million people, yet we allied with him and he doesn't get vilified as Hitler does. My people, eastern slav's where slaughtered by the millions, yet you don't ever hear about it really. You only hear about the "6 million, never forget". Shit's propaganda, you should research history.

edit: a word.

Stalin doesn't get vilified? Ok..

Not to the extent Hitler does, and Stalin killed 20 million people +.

edit: a word

Even if it were true that nobody ever heard about Stalin murdering millions (and that's definitely the most bizarre idea I've read today) how does that make Hitler a saint? I can't believe there are people in this day and age that read Mein Kampf and consider it as a pretty accurate description of what's going on today..

I'd venture to say, in the US if you asked people who killed more Hitler or Stalin, they'd say Hitler. I'm not saying Hitler was a saint, the dude was far from it. Despicable and his regime killed many. I'm saying that there is a clear bias from the "victors". Hitler is regarded as a monster, yet Stalin is brushed over in history class. Everyone knows of Hitler and the Jews, but what about the Slavs, the Russians, Ukrainians, hungarians, bulgarians,etc etc, and all other Eastern Europeans under Stalin? Do you hear us crying "Never again", "remember the 20 million", where is the Slavic version of ADL, there is none. But the Jews have one! Ask anyone who Stalin is, I bet 20% will know and that's a liberal guess. They may say he was the dictator of the Soviet Union, but probably do not know of the genocide he committed, which far out weighs Hitler's. Especially in the younger generation.

You're trying to make me out as a Nazi sympathizer, I'm not, You're trying to make OP into a skin head nazi fascist, from this post, OP isn't. It seems like you got a little cognitive dissonance going on.

OP's quote from Hitler which he stands behind is a distilled form of Hitler's grand obsession over the Jewish problem. I find it very hard to believe that someone can try to defend that and not have neo Nazi sympathies.

As for the lack of knowledge on Stalin.. Well I wasn't educated in the USA, so maybe that's why I have a different perspective. I still find it very hard to believe that your assumptions about ignorance about Stalin are correct, especially given the cold war and its impact on American education. What I do know is that both Stalin and Hitler are basically synonyms for evil where I'm from (Western Europe). In high school we spent a whole semester on the USSR, covering everything from Lenin to Gorbachev, with a lot of emphasis on Stalin 's reign of terror, the purges, the personality cult, the paranoia, the holodomor, gulags, Katyn and other massacres, etc.

OP's quote is quoting a man of his time, who felt certain people or ideas were damning the country he loved. Hitler was idealistic and delusional at times. He killed many, but there is a truth in what he said, which was that the west corruption of banking and debts is a hinder on Germany and the world. He did work with the Muslims, far from Aryans. He was right, the banking cartel controlled then as they do now, don't dismiss this, just because Hitler said it. He spoke a lot of truth, was he deranged in some aspects? Yes, but there is truth in it. That's all I'm saying, don't tote the line, research history and the man. You'll find he was less insane and more idealistic.

All the people talking about the FED and the banking cartels today? Well, he was there and spoke before them, he was a man who tried to fight back. He fought back, and was led astray because his passion led to insanity (which I think he was at the end). This is wrong and is not justifiable, but he was also betrayed by many of the people who funded him. You should research that. Who was his backroom financiers?

BTW, That's the point, most of us are from the US. And if you ask the US this question it will be as I said. You have a different view, being from western Europe. Good! I'm so glad you know both sides. But, it's simply not taught here. I think we agree more than we disagree, a text forum isn't the best way to converse. Cheers mate!

edit: 2 words

Edit 2: To give you some contexts, I have ancestors from the era who were from Poland, they welcomed the Nazi's. They welcomed them because the Soviets literally were raping, killing, and exterminating the Poles. The soviets tried to erase Polish history, the Nazi's didn't. Did they capture Polish Jews? Yes, they did, but did they try to exterminate us ethnic Poles? No, they didn't. Ask any old-timer Pole and ask them who was worse, Nazi or Soviets, they will tell you, the Soviets. Just context. I hope you find truth, love and happiness. Cheers!

You are really giving Hitler way too much credit. He was an uneducated narcissist with a knack for public speaking. From his early days as a rabble rousing beer hall thug he was obsessed with ideas of purity and nationalism. The last three sentences of OP's Hitler quote demonstrate what that mindset led to: The idea that all Jews, as 'a rootless people' were a parasitic force of corruption within the German society. It is a profoundly disturbing and dangerous philosophy that almost led to the extermination of an entire group of people, simply based on their ethnicity. No conspiracy talk of international bankers or the FED can change the fact that Hitler, from the very beginning of his political career until the inevitable violent end to his hate filled life, was nothing but a crudely effective psychopath with simplistic, dangerous ideas. He was so determined to carry out the final solution that he was willing to hurt the war effort and the German economy in order to further the murder of millions of innocent men, women and children. Outside of a very small fringe group of people led by either a severe case of second opinion bias or racist intentions, he will forever and rightfully go down in history as one of the worst leaders of human history, right alongside Stalin.

lol, what about the ~20 million Slavs? You have still, yet to address this. Talk about Hitler all you want, but what about all them million Slavs? Dude you are so brain washed it's laughable. I'm a Slav, told you my history, we don't cry and ask to be remembered. Yet you bring up Hitler, supposedly killing 6 millions Jews. WTF, are you serious? You seem butt hurt with Hitler, are you a Jew? Kinda seems like you are. If so, let's talk, both are people have been massacred. Dangerous ideas? The FED and banking cartels are not dangerous ideas, they are truth!! Holy shit, I think you are a troll. Do I think all Jews should be killed? No, fucking no! But the point he brings is substantial. Wow, fuck the sincerity, I think you're brain dead, because you address nothing I've said, and only revert back to "history". Good bye, fuck off, too-DA-loo. Hope you run head first into a wall. BYE.

What's your point exactly? Hitler hated slavs and Jews, fair enough. I'm just saying that he didn't start out as a reasonable politician with good economic ideas. He was obsessed with Jews and other ' parasitic races ' from early on. That was the core and sum total of his political ideology. It's not so strange to point that out when discussing his legacy. I don't know what you want me to address about the Slavs..

And no. I'm not Jewish. Blue eyed and Germanic, not that that's remotely relevant.

His ideology, if you look into it was purging the world of debt slaves and the western monarchy of banks. You claim you are blue eyed and Germanic. Where does your history lay? Within the Germanic people, because they "publicly" denounce him? But inside you know the truth, it's not about him, but about his words. His ideology, what he actually said. Never would I, being a Pole side with Putin, but listen to what he says, listen to what he does. He doesn't feed his public with bullshit, he tells them the truth, as did Hitler. Putin !== Hitler, but he knows what is best for his country. This is strength. I hate the Soviets, but Putin is not one, he doesn't want to exterminate us. As Hitler did to others, you can see it in history, if you would only look. Yes, he hated "certain" Jews, but not all. He persecuted Sephardi not Zionist. Those in power. It's a power struggle.

You're completely missing the point, it's a bigger picture and I'm afraid your being mislead. Idk...

Exactly. Though Stalin now does get a lot of shit lately because of the whole Ukraine thing.

Also, for having a different opinion or raising questions, apparently you get called a fascist nowadays. :/

I'm sorry that you accidentally wandered out of your neckbeard bubble. Would you like some Mountain Dew to calm your nerves, Bubbelah?

Everyone's entitled to their own belief system. If people want to believe in the Holocaust, that's their right.

Personally, I don't consider it actually happened. For lots of reasons. You find one inconsistency about the Holocaust story; and then another, and another.

If you're just going to be insulting, then you're just demanding the reader subscribes to your belief system, or else.....which is really tiresome.

Everyone's entitled to their own belief system.

This is bullshit (sorry, not picking on you personally). I'm tired of "respecting everyone's" clearly inaccurate and wrong opinion that does not coincide with facts and reality.

Things cease to be an opinion and become a lie when the facts fail to support it. That goes for both the denial aspect (something bad clearly happened) and the hoax aspect (but not like we were told).

Do you have any actual data to refute what was said in the OP's post? Also, why do you believe they "deny" the holocaust? What does that actually mean?

EDIT: This user is claiming to have been banned for this post over on conspiratard.

He was. Both of his first two comments on this sub were blatantly attacking other users and trolling. Pretty clear he didn't have any interest in actual discussion.

Ah Ok, thanks for clearing up. Funnily enough he PM'd me with an actual response that appeared to be well thought out. I don't know why they couldn't have just opened with that.

Because they're extremely, extremely immature.

This thread has been linked to from elsewhere on reddit.

• [/r/SubredditDrama] /r/conspiracy doubles down on Hitler drama: Was Stalin literally worse than Hitler, and did the Holocaust even actually happen?

^{If you follow any of the above links, respect the rules of reddit and don't vote or comment. Questions? Abuse? Message me here.}

I've been reading this subreddit for the past 5 years, and just this past year, or since the end of 2012, it has been going downhill further and further - it used to be full of really interesting and insightful stuff, now it's either a bunch of retards from stormfront posting their irrelevant nonsense(guess what guys, whether hitler killed a million jews of six million jews is irrelevant, death camps are not an acceptable way to solve your problems, and there are pictures & videos of their existence as well as massive amounts of eye-witness testimony from soldiers of every country that invaded Germany), or it's full of people who are intentionally trying to create this exact reaction from people who happen to stumble across 'conspiracy theories' on one of the most major social forums on the internet.

I think that's exactly what the modern counter-intelligence program would be doing with their online action projects today, making sure nothing of social import or relevance is conveyed or popularized on any major social forums while at the same time branding as or connecting any "conspiracy theorists" with, as you put it, 'fucking fascist holocaust-denying neo-nazi pieces of shit". Infiltrating communities like these is nothing new for these people who are paid to maintain the established social order, though they typically don't understand what they are doing and are just normal people doing their jobs. I would guess that one goal would be to gain a position of power here, like becoming a moderator, while also using a bunch of other accounts to direct discussion in certain directions. Look over at Egypt - online communities are used by protesters / resistors to organize themselves and post inflammatory ideas, it's something they are scared of. It makes sense that they(the establishment and the agents they pay) would do what they can to dilute the discussions here and divert attention to other less meaningful things while slipping in things that repel and repulse the normal, every day people who mistakenly end up here from /r/all.

This has been happening consistently for the past year/2 years, and it was a sudden change that has been persistent for the recent history of this subreddit/forum. Personally I'm inclined to think it's option B, of the two, as there can't really be that many people who think this shit is relevant to the world today, or who are stupid enough to think that a single racial group is in control of the whole world - but it's a great way to write off anything posted here and keep the actually relevant content from gaining a foothold in the online zeitgeist. Just associate it with neo-nazi retards, job well done /r/conspiracy mods. Reddit has been picking up in popularity and something needed to be done to prevent it from starting a fire against the establishment in the minds of young people. "They" can't control all the content here like they can on mainstream TV and radio, so they bog it down/flood it with bullshit and neo-nazi bullshit while making it just tame enough to where the normal, every day 'conspiracy theorist' might get roped in and think 'well that's a rational idea I guess', whereas the normal every day John Doe will just dismiss it immediately out of contempt and never come here again while also having their view of the subject matter(alternative views of history/'conspiracy theories'/anything outside of the official social narrative) colored this way as well. There was a time in this website's history when the overwhelming majority of people posting here knew that there were outrageous lies associated with 9/11 and that it needed to be investigated further - now though, you mention 9/11, you're immediately painted as a neo-nazi conspiracy theorist lunatic. I wonder why that is? Could it have anything to do with the sustained attack on this subreddit I'm talking about here?

I wonder who is involved and where this is coming from, because this isn't organic. There have been consistent posts about how the nazis weren't that bad and how hitler was lied about and how blah blah blah almost every time I check this subreddit over the past year, and it all started and came out of nowhere. Stuff that is totally irrelevant and unhelpful to the people of today which does absolutely nothing meaningful or productive except to act AGAINST the cause of the subreddit in general.

mods please take some action to stop this place from turning into a complete garbage dump, take your jobs seriously and stop pretending stuff that harms us all and is irrelevant should be covered under freedom of speech, thanks! Maybe offer a new subreddit about jews and hitler, and transfer all those posts there - you could even add a link in the sidebar, just keep it out of /r/conspiracy because it has completely clogged up the works here for years now and there has never been a single instance of anything productive coming from it(except for the establishment, it's productive for them to have any 'alternative views' community be branded as neo-nazi idiots).

Immediately after making this post, within minutes, I was contacted by a user named "User_name13" about not "attacking this subreddit or the mods" and told not to do it again, when in reality what I'm posting about is about an attack on this subreddit which has been ongoing for the past year and turning this place into stormfront-esque hole that people will take one look at and view as totally irrelevant/full of neo-nazis. It really has become that, I haven't found a single worthwhile or interesting thing here in years because it's been so full of petty jew-bashing and Hitler posts, and documentaries, and AMAs. Stuff that has no value except to make us all look like morons and give the rest of this website reason to write off anything that comes out of this sub. Do your jobs instead of harassing users who talk about what's going on here - unless your job is to silence them and keep all of that going.

There are pictures and videos of 9/11...but the story that goes along with those pictures and videos is a lie (official story).

The thing is they show us pictures and video all the time and tell us lies about what is actually going on in those pictures...and that kind of controlled media/ government lie BullShit story tactic started way before WWII. So how can someone prove the Holocaust pictures and videos are actually what "they" say it is?

One of the most important things people can do is research history. I'm not talking about established stamp of approval history, but well researched and sources provided alternative history that proves the official story is debatable at the very least.

I have been here at /r/conspiracy for 7+ years. This is a very fluid sub. It changes with who the members and the mods of this community are...sometimes it's really good for a while and sometimes it isn't worth a shit for a while.

One thing I have learned...CONTROVERSY like this is the sign of a real and profound conspiracy.

Your comment shows you are still holding on to the learned guilt and shame to anyone who dares speak against the official story. It's bullshit and an affront to free speech and thought...why is questioning this particular subject so wrong to the point where it is illegal to debate it? What's going on when that happens?

To do what you are proposing would limit the scope of conversation, effectively having the opposite effect you wish to see

effectively having the opposite effect you wish to see

The opposite of having this subreddit clogged with jew-bashing and nazi apologists is not 'the opposite effect I wish to see', it dilutes the real content here and keeps discussion away from anything that actually influences our lives while painting us all with a neo-nazi brush. It has been happening consistently and filling the front page for years now, and it is really apparent to people who have been browsing reddit since before 2012.

The greatest effect this subreddit is having now is discrediting anyone who goes outside the boundaries of the official social narrative in discussions on the rest of reddit, and that should really change, unless you want to keep opening /r/conspiracy and seeing the frontpage full of how Israeli soldiers killed some random guy or how Hitler wasn't really that bad, or how the holocaust only killed a million, not 6 million, and how we should spend our time re-evaluating the numbers of deaths in the holocaust, or how that one christian fundamentalist preacher who wears that weird hat + robe get-up thinks the jews are the devil and stealing the whole world from the gentiles for satan. Keeping it all firmly centered in irrelevant conflict and views that help no one/contribute to nothing(except discrediting us all) is the opposite of 'the effect I wish to see'.

None of those are conspiracies, other than the conspiracy to discredit information/views outside the officially authorized social narrative by connecting them all to hating jews or supporting hitler, or other than the fact this subreddit is under attack and being used as a tool AGAINST it's own stated purpose. If you want to post about jewish soldiers killing a palestinian, there are other subreddits for that, it isn't a conspiracy.

Sorry we offended your religious beliefs.

Same goes for me. It just shows how they always talk about the 6 million jews but never about the 30 million Russians that got killed.

Well said. I particularly don't like "The greatest truth never told" because it does lean too "pro-nazi" for me but you are absolutely right when you point out that people demonize the Nazis while thinking the allies were the "good guys" when in reality they were all equally bad...with the exception of Stalin and the Japanese who were notoriously evil. Also worth mentioning is the Cambodian government in the 1960's-1980 where they killed off almost 2/3 of the entire country's population but hey, it's the Nazis that were the most evil on the 20th century...

Cause they were more efficient at sorting and killing people? Check out Master Plan East. His plan called for 100% of Jews to die, 85% of Poles to die, etc... The camps allowed an efficient way to sort people, strip and sort their belongings, and then kill them according to the quotos laid out in the Master Plan.

I've been to the camps, they were not designed to house people for very long and you can see each step of the extermination process.

Agreed. Globalists in every sense of the word. Countries and ideologies are just tools.

Rule of thumb, "evil" as a descriptor is very good evidence for some propaganda at work. Evil is an emotional-judgemental term, not based on rationality. Not saying that's a bad thing, but you have to be careful because when you describe something as evil the thinking part of your brain is mostly automatically shut off.

My opinions on you being a neo-nazi or nazi sympathizer depend solely on your views. If you agree with the original post then I would suspect that you might be one. But even then, I'd probably prefer a bigger sample to say for sure. You could just be especially gullible or not informed on the views of actual historians.

I am all for open discourse. I am also all for calling bullshit out when I think it's bullshit. The original post is especially stupid because it tries to justify genocide. That's why I commented here

Except the argument here is that he did not actually try to eliminate a race of people. Detain them, yes. (So did the Russians and the Americans). Deport them, yes (We came close to it with the Japanese). Gas them? Well, that is up for debate. There is strong evidence against that being the truth.

What is being debated here is that the Holocaust did not happen as we have been taught for decades.

Why is it racist to suggest that this is the case? Oh, because that implies that the Jews concocted a scam and a deception on an almost impossibly massive scale and have been perpetuating it ever since?

What if it's the truth?

no i disputed a statement, not made one, where is this burden of sourcing for the original comment? just because you put your disjointed rant in a numerical sequence doesn't make any of it valid.

You disputed a statement (using no sources) then made one of your own. That's what we were asking for sources on. And the burden of proof is not on the OP because he stated something is common knowledge, to which you are the one directly refuting it.

the original comment provided no evidence which is why i attack the baseless claim, yet suddenly i am held to a greater burden of proof than the original comment which has no supporting evidence

Also, just because someone else doesn't do something correctly doesn't mean you have the same right to do it incorrectly to. "Oh, well he was speeding too! Why am I in trouble?"

you just want me to post something you can attack, if i make you go look for it your not going to attack your own sources. why would i hunt down sources for you (i read 100's or articles every day) your not paying me, there is literally nothing for me to gain in doing the work for you so....

I wanted you to post something that would back up a claim. It's not that hard. And you're already exaggerating...100's of articles every day? IF you read articles for even eight hours a day, you'd have to read almost 2.5 articles a minute to reach 200 articles in 8 hours. Don't exaggerate, it doesn't help your poor excuses for having no sources whatsoever.

and if i did post a bunch of sources that made you look like an asshole you would just "humph" crinkle your face, disappear and stop replying or launch in to some rant about how i must be some neo-nazi or my grandfather was a nazi guard or some other nonsense.

Again, more assumptions. Typical conspiracy theorist.

Enjoy making stuff up and calling it fact!

I was just floating a balloon.

There really is a vast number of viewpoints out there and more documents than one could ever hope to read in a lifetime.

Fair enough and I couldn't agree with you more about the difficulty in sifting through all of the bullshit. I think all we can do as individuals is trust our intuition and critical thinking and try to stay open to all viewpoints. And, above all (as you mentioned), don't ever make the mistake of thinking, "This is it - I've found the truth. My search is over."

Cheers my friend.

Lol. It's a propaganda book, terrible history.

1.5 million Germans died in camps controlled by the allies AFTER the war ended.

And then there were the millions of German civilian deaths, due to violence and starvation.

The Western powers dhe same in WWI, and continued after they forced them to sign the Treaty of Versailles - blockaded Germany and starved them.

Kind of a way to get Jews out of the country in a "civil" way?

Exactly. Which was basically what the NSDAP policy always was, although of course by '41 that changed to "we'll use them for labor and then dump them in the east, and after the war, continue to exclude them so hopefully they'll all emigrate."

If I recall correctly, it was only really about 60,000 Jews who emigrated through that scheme between '33 and '39. So it didn't make the huge dent in the Jewish population that the NSDAP may have wanted. That said, without the war, presumably the NSDAP and the Zionists could've worked together to eventually achieve their mutual goal.

Interestingly, in dealing with the Zionists, the NSDAP turned their back on supporters within the Jewish-German nationalist communities. In the Weimar period, these guys were like, "hey, wtf, who are all these Eastern Jews flooding into Germany - they're Bolsheviks and Zionists and basically confirm all of the worst anti-semitic stereotypes!" They considered themselves German nationalists first, [then Jews] - they spoke out against anti-German propaganda in the international press, for example.

http://inconvenienthistory.com/archive/2013/volume_5/number_3/german_nationalist_jews.php

Compared to today, back then the Jewish diaspora was much more divided between assimilationists and Zionists. The Jewish WWI veterans groups basically supported the NSDAP. But the NSDAP didn't want Jews to assimilate, just leave.

Anyway, back to Haavara. I assume you've read these first two short books?

Weckert's 'Jewish Immigration and the Third Reich':

http://vho.org/dl/ENG/jefttr.pdf

And Udo Walendy's book on 'The Transfer Agreement and the Boycott Fever', which I've uploaded for you here:

http://www.uploadmb.com/dw.php?id=1418440671

If you want to go deeper, to get a really good sense of where the NSDAP were at with their Jewish policy, you could read Wiebe's 'The Jewish Problem in Germany' from 1938:

http://www.national-socialism.com/jewish-problem-germany/

Also relevant, perhaps is Eckhart's 'Jewish Domination of Weimar Germany':

http://ia601807.us.archive.org/12/items/JewishDominationOfWeimarGermany1919-1932/Jewish%20Domination%20of%20Weimar%20Germany%20-%201919-1932_text.pdf

I'm happy to suggest or upload other books or documents if there are other sub-topics you're interested in.

So calling you a racist is the first line against "holocaust revisionism" not because your big scary Hate blogs are so hard to debunk, but because any rational, educated person knows that anyone who buys into this movement is a hateful, gullible idiot with more allegiance to the Swastika on their sleeve than the search for truth.

From my previous post. See, I am not trying to convince you of shit. That fact that you can say something like "Hitler was framed" already demonstrates that you are far too ignorant of history to possibly comprehend a reality where your racist fantasies aren't true. I am calling you a racist because only someone with a clear motivation against specific races would twist their brain enough to think anything in the OP or in the links you posted has anything resembling credibility.

Just because you don't like the established history doesn't make it untrue. I could waste my time going back through all the actual historical sources I used to find the truth when I first heard of your retarded theories, then I could post them here. But that would be a waste of time, because just by your commitment to believe your Nazi crap, despite the massive tidal wave of evidence that exists to disprove it, you would find a way to discount everything as some Jewish conspiracy or some other shit.

You are a lost cause. Already too deep in your hate to actually have any interest in the truth. If you weren't, you would have read what actual historians had to say and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I said I wanted to be done this conversation, but honestly, people like you who bathe in your hate and ignorance and treat it like a virtue, make me sick. I have a compulsive need to at least leave some sort of rebuttal to your shit, just in case some poor fool stumbles upon your ramblings and mistakes it for a cohesive argument. God forbid more stumble down the horrid path you have.

The American government rounded up and killed a bunch of Native Americans. More recently, the American government rounded up Japanese citizens and put them into camps, exactly like the Nazis did. The only reason the Japanese weren't dying off in those camps is because the American government wasn't getting its ass kicked in WW2 like the Nazi government. If the Nazi's goal was to simply kill their POW's, they wouldn't have wasted their time and resources to house, feed, and cloth them.