Are there any objective disproofs of questionable subjects during WW2?
It recently hit me that most, if not a lot of history is probably wrong. History was written by humans, after all. Especially the ones that survived for the "better".
My knowledge of WW2 is limited to school history books, and I really need to know the closest thing to some form of truth. The painful the better.
The intention of the thread is so people can distribute information and argue over the greater truth. Please refrain from /pol/ tier SIX GORILLION posting, unless it's for the kekz.
If you have nothing off the top of your head, could you recommend any documentaries of reading material? Recently I was recommended WW2 Behind Closed Doors, so I might check that out.
oh look, more bullshit neo nazi propaganda revisionist history
This is what happens when you have an entire generation who go through some shitty public school system that spends 2 weeks on the war that amounts to nothing but "hitler was evil and racist" to shill multiculturalism
Levi Taylor
Not bad for perspective though.
Sebastian Russell
>This video contains content from BBC Worldwide, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds.
I LOVE J(undisclosed)'S
>perhaps a bit biased Yeah... Probably. These seem too /pol/ for my liking. Looking for more objective arguments.
This is why I emphasised objectivity.
Mason Scott
lastly have an image which sums up how good the situation was in pre-war Germany under the NSDAP
Justin Morris
...
Matthew Thompson
>Veeky Forums posts and memes as a source of non-biased information You're asking a lot for me to read this.
>inb4 implen this thread is non-biased Arguments exist for a reason.
Synopsis?
Nicholas Evans
i've seen people blown away by these documentaries, at least watch a bit of it, nearly all of it is well cited.
also according to google to watch a video blocked in your country "replace /watch?v= with /v/" in the URL, may work.
Cameron Johnson
No it doesn't, holy fuck, this entire picture is so biased and inaccurate.
Evan Perez
But it uses actual sources, unlike your argument-free post.
Adrian Murphy
>i've seen people blown away by these documentaries People are easily impressed. Pic related.
URL didn't work.
Evan Moore
>It recently hit me that most, if not a lot of history is probably wrong. History was written by humans, after all. What is this supposed to even mean? You've offered no explanation as to why most historical accounts that are generally accepted are wrong.
Parker Bell
Yes it is because it literally tells lies and half truths for the express purpose of promoting neo-nazism. This isnt historical at all
Im not trying to shit on you, but you really should stop with this conspiracy theory shit if you dont even know the regular version of the story. I dont understand why people do this, you need to study the "official" version of WW2, or any historical event, before you get into this alternative view of it bc you will ask questions that anyone whos actually studied it would know, and you just end up being drawn into these dogmatic tinfoil theories that just make you look retarded.
What you are doing is like trying to learn how to dunk from the 3 point line before you can even dribble the ball. Also, whenever you even mention anything close to some sort of revisionist view of WW2, its going to be nothing but neo-nazis shilling you their ideology and trying to recruit you into their cult
Nathan Peterson
also the documentaries have been "normie-fied", they were made with the express purpose of being digestible for someone who's non-pol.
on Veeky Forums you're only gonna hear two sides, the side of the textbooks or other side. make of it what you will, you made the thread to hear controversial shit.
Ryan Hughes
>that absolute diarrhea image
jesus christ its god awful.
Blake Gonzalez
>i've seen people blown away by these documentaries, at least watch a bit of it, nearly all of it is well cited.
you know for as much as you guys bitch about jews, you stormfags sure do act just like them
Austin James
>what is "History is written by the victors" I said humans because we're naturally biased towards however better we survive.
You'd be a fool to believe all accounts of history you read as if they're written by an morally unbiased computer.
Oliver Campbell
>You'd be a fool to believe all accounts of history you read as if they're written by an morally unbiased computer. Never said that, but a computer would probably come up with worse results than a historian, considering history is an entirely human subject and requires human understanding.
'History is written by the victors' is mostly a meme. There are plenty of accounts of the losers, and even when there aren't there are still plenty of examples of historical narratives that are contrary to those who won. Things like colonialism is one example.
Ryan Johnson
It's one of the books of the third reich trilogy by Richard Evans, one of the top historians of the era. /pol/ types don't like him because he btfo David Irving during his libel trial.
>a computer would probably come up with worse results than a historian, considering history is an entirely human subject and requires human understanding
so aliens don't have history?
Michael Torres
>>what is "History is written by the victors"
why do people say this as if it means "everyone that ever lost in history was actually right"? Its such a retarded way of misinterpreting the saying
Xavier James
great argument >even more of a diarrhea post
Jace Green
I don't know. We can't really presume anything about aliens, since we only think in human terms.
Angel Hernandez
>conspiracy theory shit This is why I didn't say "CONSPIRACY THEORY THREAD". Tin foil hat blabber is just another form of bias and half truth.
>I need to thoroughly study WW2 before I learn anything else about WW2 This just seems really unfair and a waste of time. And I already know about WW2. Just not an encyclopedic knowledge because History wasn't and isn't my primary subject.
>and you just end up being drawn into these dogmatic tinfoil theories that just make you look retarded I know how to judge information for myself. The thread isn't all about me, it's a general, open one. People can argue for their preferred information if they're not sure.
Asher Torres
OP, this is a good starter book. Im pretty sure everyone whos into WW2 has read this as either their first or one of their first books about the subject
I have no idea why you would seek "disproofs" about a topic you dont even know in the first place.
Adam Williams
>'History is written by the victors' is mostly a meme So? It's still very much valid.
Please don't strawman me. My interpretation is that the victor will account his moral bias. You'd be stupid to believe in what you assume is a general misinterpretation, because there's plenty of self accounted victories that entail a moral confliction with the reader.
Robert Morales
desu i'm a free agent, i spam this shit on my own accord
been to stormfront like twice
Carson Watson
Stormfront look, the reality is Hitler got so rekt he killed himself and no one takes national socialism seriously except you and /pol/. There is nothing else to say or to be added, WW2 was a war no one wanted, so much England tried to negotiate with the manlet to keep peace, but the manlet had such an inferiority complex he fucked Europe up and then the world.
Even if there is a hidden truth in all this, I don't think it would enlighten us because the manlet was a piece of shit.
Jeremiah Sanders
>And I already know about WW2.
No you dont. What you are doing is essentially asking for neo-nazis to spout their propaganda at you and try to recruit you into their cult since you are another public school educated person who got some shitty version of WW2 taught to you in the first place.
That fact that the first few post in your thread were exactly that, neo-nazi propaganda, should have made you realized this. I know this because I see it all the time and I was once one of those neo-nazis trying to recruit people like you into the fold.
Austin Williams
>So? It's still very much valid. Good job reading what I said.
Ian Gomez
>I was once one of those neo-nazis trying to recruit people like you into the fold. bullshit
once you're one of us you never go back, you're stuck with the truth for life
Isaac Reed
I did, I just don't care because I already agree, I'm just too lazy too explain why.
Henry Robinson
I'm not /pol/ or NatSoc, but your post is taken into account.
Liam Martinez
or you grow up and learn to process information better
Adam Cox
>My interpretation is that the victor will account his moral bias This is true, but so will the vanquished, and in modern history, the idea that only victors and not the vanquished get to write history is BS. There is just as much writing on various 20th century wars from the perspective of the losers as there is from the perspective of the winners. For instance, because of the Cold War, almost all of our understandings in the West of the Eastern Front in WWII come from the Germans (the losers), rather than the Soviets (the victors)
Kayden Parker
>No you dont. Yes I do, just not enough that's worth wasting my time learning everything through paying for a humanities course or a months of reading and interpretation like you expect of anyone who talks about WW2.
>What you are doing is essentially asking for neo-nazis to spout their propaganda at you I know what propoganda looks like. Stop assuming I don't know anything about anything to please your ego by proving a point that's worthless because I already know what you're shouting at me with.
>you are another public school educated person who got some shitty version of WW2 taught to you in the first place I didn't take History. I learned as much as I know about WW2 myself.
>That fact that the first few post in your thread were exactly that, neo-nazi propaganda, should have made you realized this It's one guy shilling his shit. I know what and what not to input. If read the thread you'd see my response, but fuck that, assume I'm a retard so it gives your statement more gravity.
Eli Hernandez
The Sherman was a perfectly adequate tank and probably the best war time medium tank of the war.
Camden Stewart
>I know what propoganda looks like all ww2 information is propaganda friend, there's things that happened and the "why's", and the "why's" are when propaganda comes into play
Justin Murphy
>Yes I do
user, you already admitted yourself you dont know that much about it.
>My knowledge of WW2 is limited to school history books
And Im not saying you go to college for this, Im saying you use the internet and research it for free, but use actual history and not conspiracy theory bullshit.
And yeah, Im sure you are a big boy and can tell propaganda when you see it, but what you are asking for, propaganda is all you will get.
Aaron Thompson
>user, you already admitted yourself you dont know that much about it. See >just not enough that's worth wasting my time learning everything through paying for a humanities course or a months of reading and interpretation like you expect of anyone who talks about WW2. Please don't cherry pick.
>>My knowledge of WW2 is limited to school history books Christ. I really don't want to explain how my fucking shitty secondary education worked, but all I'll say is that History is required for the first half, then it's a choice for the second. Everything else I learned about WW2 was me. It was a mistake on my part for not being able to concisely put "a adequate but non university level knowledge of WW2".
>Im saying you use the internet and research it for free I've done this, just not meticulously at a Uni level. Unless your knowledge is about as good as mine.
>but use actual history and not conspiracy theory bullshit I didn't ask for conspiracy theory. I tried to emphasise historical accuracy and objectivity in the OP but you've ignored that and looked at the contents of the of the thread which are not my responsibility.
>And yeah, Im sure you are a big boy and can tell propaganda when you see it Now you're really a faggot with a superiority complex.
>but what you are asking for, propaganda is all you will get. Fine by me, because ignoring things isn't a problem for me.
Isaac Watson
>actual sources no it doesn't. theres name drops in that clusterfuck of Veeky Forums text but that isn't a source. the smaller of the two Veeky Forums posts doesn't have any sources whatsoever, its just a guy rambling. there's quotes that those people supposedly said, quotes from hitler, memes, and a massive wall of text that has no source. how can you look at that and say there's sources?
