Did Hitler ever kill anybody? I'm not talking about 6 million jews or whatever, but I mean personally...

...

Apparently he strangled Roselius in a hotel en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Spark_(1940)

Maybe Hitler was so sympathetic to Britain in his foreign policy because they were sympathetic to him in WW1?

>Zyklon B was a pesticide used in America?????
What is this meant to disprove? It's fucking cyanide gas.
It was used for all manner of pest control for decades because it kills things dead.

I don't think anybody is claiming it was exactly 6 million though.

To one of the other questions, thye brought victims to the camps so they coud work. When they couldn't work anymore, they executed them.

>Takes about 30 seconds to discredit every one of these in your head
Hide Holocaust deniers
Do not respond to holocaust deniers

What would hiding or not responding actually achieve? Shouldn't that topic be explored more deeply now that significant time has passed?

>Did Hitler ever kill anybody?
( •_•)
( •_•)>⌐■-■
(⌐■_■)
Himself
⌐(⌐■_■)

i don't like jews but i can't seriously believe that image isn't a satire... no one can be that fucking dumb

>inb4 /pol/ish turds flock claiming auschwitz was a summer colony for minorities

No.
Some things shouldn't be discussed by amateurs. This topic, just like most big "conspiracies" have already been studied in depth by academics and there is already a consensus.
The .jpg posts you see about stuff are usually heavily misleading.
This one, ad an example, confuses death camps with concentration camps.
There is a very easy way to dispell tinfoils, their conspiracy theory is always more flawed and weird than the public theories.
With that said, conspiracies do happen. Old Bush participated in a fascist coup as an example. There are conspiracies that we don't know of most likely.
But there are no aliens, illuminati, inside job around 9/11, cultural marxism, an eternal jew etc.
There may however be structures which reinforces ideology in media, already existent institutions controlling politics etc (bilderberg and the EU group are examples) but their existence are acknowledged and some of their documents are leaked to wikileaks.

Then how do you explain the pyramids?

Look up academic literature om the subject. Do not engage in wild speculations about it with amateurs.

Why are holocaust deniers unaware the Soviets spent 40 years trying to downplay, minimize and trivialize the holocasut?

Generally, if its so easy to disprove conspiracy theorists, just do it.

Not doing it further feeds into their ego and gives them a false sense of legitimacy.
Point out their absurdity to the point where their mental instability shines through and nobody takes them seriously anymore.

It's not easy to disprove conspiracy theorists because of pure denial, circular logic, and pure speculation. It's easy to discredit them.

The things you listed are actually fairly easy to discredit considering they're logical fallacies

>some things shouldn't be discussed by amateurs.
but why shouldn't it be discussed by "amateurs"? The public for the most part are amateurs, and there is nothing wrong with the masses educating themselves.
>their conspiracy theories are always more flawed and weird than the public theories
I've seen a large number of holocaust "testimonies" which are pretty dubious in nature. Some I think are more weird than the actual conspiracies.
>no aliens, illuminati, inside job around 9/11, cultural marxism, an eternal jew etc.
They are topics filled with disinformation, no doubt about that. They are all ultimately a matter of opinion whether you want to believe in it or not. Skeptics will be skeptics.
The builderberg and EU are the tip of the iceberg, and I'm sure that iceberg goes much deeper than you or I will ever know.

I said it's easy to discredit.
>It's easy to discredit them.
That's different than to disprove.

>I've seen a large number of holocaust "testimonies" which are pretty dubious in nature. Some I think are more weird than the actual conspiracies.
So some individuals saying false things discredits everyone else that said true things?

If I said "god doesn't exist" does that suddenly mean Veeky Forums is discredited?

I think you're putting words in my mouth that were never said.

Actually, there's quite a few well researched books written on cultural Marxism. There was a good wikipedia page on it as well, but it was defiled and removed by an editor that literally calls himself a cultural Marxist.

Old page
archive.is/YzkIS

The page now just redirects to the Frankfurt school under a subsection called conspiracy theory.

Old talk page,
archive.is/Y3pba
Go down to the merger proposal.

Here's the editor in question
archive.is/0L5wt#selection-3597.0-3597.52

>t. conspiracy theorist

There is often no need to disprove them since they are often directly a-factual or hinges up on a small weird detail they don't understand.
It is hard to convince them since they will use ad hoc explanations for everything.
But after you've pushed them for an alternative and better theory, sit down and compare them with the official story.
See which one is more likely.
Did you misunderstand something about steel beams or did Bush orchestrate 9/11? Then you might look up what happened and see that the steel beams were connected by more flammable materials which enabled the collapse, amd that the rescue workers cut steel beams to try saving people etc.
Is there more to the story of the concentration camps or is there a global silent jewish world order?
You get the idea. Convincing the tinfoils to change opinion is hard, but comparing their theories to the official (not media) stories will make them not seem like they know something hidden and profound but rather like schizophrenics. Which is what I meant by 'dispell.' Maybe I should have used 'discredit' ad the other user did.
So don't buy into the rhetorics of "I'm just asking questions" and start trying to infer to the most likely explanation.

Also, any idiot can write a book.
I'm not saying these books in particular are wrong, but things said in a book aren't more true than said anywhere else.
This user said "well researched" books, so I'll look into it.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RGloucester

This is his regular page.

The takeaway here friends, is that Wikipedia is a terrible source of information for anything remotely political.

any similar but more reliable sources that you can recommend? serious question.

With 'public' I meant 'official'.
There is a difference on education and wild speculations made after watching history channel and youtube.
Educate yourself but be sure to understand the official story, as an academic would, before criticising it.

Here's some books on the subject if you're interested, famalam.

amazon.com/Cultural-Marxism-Political-Sociology-Research/dp/0803916450

amazon.com/Marxism-Interpretation-Culture-Cary-Nelson/dp/0252014014

amazon.com/Jameson-Conversations-Cultural-Post-Contemporary-Interventions/dp/0822341093

I looked through them.
With "cultural marxism" I meant the idea that there is an actual conspiracy made by marxists to try to control universities etc., on a larger scale. It may happen in smaller forms on a global scale independently, but that is true with most forms of discrimination, institutional racism, affirmation bias etc.
The closest the wiki article got was "they were influential." They couldn't even cite an inside source which claimed them to be essentially the same group except following Marx or being part of the Frankfurt school.
So this is pretty far from the "cultural marxism conspiracy" which is more akin to terms like 'post-modernism', 'continental philosophy', 'Chinese' etc, which all are terms that kinda awkwardly attempt to group things together. I don't see how this idea of 'cultural marxism' is any different from "thought inspired by the Frankfurt school."

>various reasons, including medical experiments, treatment for guards and capos, and also, because the nazis intended to keep a part of the prisoners alive for a while so they can be worked as slaves, produce weapons, bullets, rubber etc.
>they were transported to the camps for days in sealed wagons, packed full of people, with no toilets, literally marinating in their own shit. of course they wouldn't refuse a shower after that.
>because if they just started going house to house in cities and towns killing jews, they would have more chance to hide. also, other civilians usually don't like seeing mass murder happening in the streets.
>could hundreds of thousands of trained historians be involved in a massive 70 years long coverup, with nobody ever speaking out:
>she was over 15, so she could be worked. Auschwitz was one of the main selection camps, only idiots think everyone who ever went there were killed.
>because there are even more victims.
>we don't.

about the Zyklon B thing. yes, it was originally a pesticide. so what?

this btw. I'm from a post soviet country, and before 1989, most people here didn't even know what the Holocaust was. there was a lot of propaganda about WW2, but it was mostly about heroic partisans, the brave red army, or the evil Nazis executing random peasants. the Holocaus only became prelevant later, mostly due to the western media's influence, after Schindler's List etc.

I thought communism was a jewish conspiracy though

Pic related.

Some section from the talk page:
Note 2: "Cultural Marxism" is the social and political version of Marx's revolution in the economic order. Its goal is a cultural revolution, dismantling the traditional culture of Western civilization and its values, then replacing it with a new egalitarian world order. It has its origins in the neo-Marxist Frankfurt School of Social Research in the 1930s and its leading theoretician, Herbert Marcuse. Marcuse emigrated to the U.S. and into Columbia University's Institute of Social Research. Marcuse taught that most social ills and evils are caused by the established order which must be demolished; that the only effective challenge to it will come from students and minority groups. During the social upheavals of the 1960s, his writings galvanized protesters, driven by his concept of "critical theory" (systematic criticism and tearing down of the established order, such as meritocracy, the "dead white men" and most American traditions; that there is "no such thing as truth, the things we think are true are only the constructs of dominant [white] groups"). His influence today still pervades most public schools, universities and media as they "deconstruct" Western civilization, replacing it with the "truths" and values of egalitarian multiculturalism (see "The English Department Virus" and "Media Fakes and Falsified Journalism" in The American Enterprise, May 1999). The quote in text above is from David Horowitz's Hating Whitey (1999); see also his summary in The American Enterprise (November 1999, p. 45) and Insight (November 15, 1999).

Also they wanted to include Breivik as a source for being a populariser of the term. How is this use not a conspiracy theory? The other use may as well be replaced with 'neo-marxist', 'post-Frankfurt' or whatever. It is not a coherent term.
It is not fair to blame leftists in this case, the page seems to have been a clusterfuck.
I'll check the books later this evening.

Plus, idk how much this trickled down to popular education, but State historiography downplayed there was that much 'unique' about Nazi Germany. A tight focus on Nazi Ideology doesn't play well with Marxist Materialism. And aside from that theoretical issue, they prefered to depict the Nazis as just the logical endpoint of German Capitalism.

Does this gel with your experience?

yep. also, they didn't call them nazis (because that's short for national socialist, and they didn't want to use the word socialist in a negative context), but fascists. they also used to call basically any right-wing authoritarian group or government (the Russian White movement, Horthy's Hungary, the Romanian monarchy etc.) 'fascist', often in pair with 'capitalist'.

Couriers in WW2 still held rifles and did fighting.

>believing Trevor roper

Full retard user

>hitler was a courrier in wwii
I'm going to post this in the stupidest things I've heard about history thread, right next to the user that called some girl retarded because she asked about Hitler when they were covering Ypres in WWI.

>capitalism and communism are the only economic systems

W E W

So he wasn't such a bad guy after all.

Fairly sure it happened. The sources on it are as valid as any other. He said himself a British soldier spared his life. Perhaps the shit about them talking after the war is false though.

Wait, what? Somebody explain this to me because the "evil Nazis executing random peasants" was the primary mechanism for the holocaust. More people died due to mobile killing units on the Eastern Front than did in death camps (including jews, slavs etc. targeted for being jews, slavs etc.)

What do you mean they covered up the "holocaust"? You mean they covered up the industrial killing element? People in the East saw the holocaust themselves, many participated in it and collaborated.

>Corporatism isn't a form of Capitalism
Fascism is one of those ideologies that has a bad time understanding economics and their place on the political spectrum. Kind of like Libertarians.

imgur.com/a/PSmeN
refute this, faggot

Evidence?

>believing Soviet propaganda

Full retard user

Does driving his niece to commit suicide with his depraved lust for her count?

He killed blondi

In MK he cites that he killed people in WWI.
This, according to himself, is what caused him to search for a better means of preventive war.
This is what the 3rd Reich was supposed to be about: kill all problem makers.
Problem is... he used fallacies and biases.
His false dilemma is infamous and was used in sociological studies which lead to the development to the Geneva Convention.
There is often another way to handle things rather than resorting to cruelty.

Only a tiny percentage of soldiers actually kill anybody in combat.

If Hitler had personally killed an enemy soldier, that would surely have become part of his mythos.

>>>/reddit/

First post best post

...

More like YouTube.

I thought he, most likely, killed at least one person during the Night of the Long Knives. I forgot who it was, does that ring a bell to anyone?

There is a strong possibility that he made this story up to present himself as a "chosen one" or someone protected by god

>or someone protected by god
But I thought Hitler was one of those typical mass murdering atheists.

yeah, I think he shot that boy fucker who was running the Brownshirts

I don't think he raped anyone, but about million Aryan girls got gang raped because of him

nice going, Dolphie!