Red pill me on the Danzig Crisis

Red pill me on the Danzig Crisis.

Were the Poles really ethnically cleansing Ethnic Germans in the area as Stormfags love to claim?

Would Danzig have voted itself into Germany after a few years? The mayor was a Nazi and the population was majority German.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_City_of_Danzig_parliamentary_election,_1933
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_City_of_Danzig_parliamentary_election,_1935
youtube.com/watch?v=FUt-yxJODxI
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill,_Hitler_and_the_Unnecessary_War
greatgameindia.com/controller-houses-east-india-company-eic-series-part-iv/
ihr.org/jhr/v07/v07p498_okeefe.html
youtube.com/watch?v=MLloM6ufVgk
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_All-Union_Census_of_the_Soviet_Union
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Census_(1937)
ibtimes.com/how-many-people-did-joseph-stalin-kill-1111789
theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/15/david-irving-youtube-inspiring-holocaust-deniers
zundelsite.org/archive/victims/victims_of_zion.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_v_Penguin_Books_Ltd
ihr.org/jhr/v11/v11p207_staff.html
germarrudolf.com/persecution/germars-persecution/auschwitz-forensics/
youtube.com/watch?v=RHzWo79dCHs
youtube.com/watch?v=hMBramnCg_s
jta.org/2017/01/31/news-opinion/united-states/remember-the-11-million-why-an-inflated-victims-tally-irks-holocaust-historians
amazon.com/Beyond-Belief-American-Coming-Holocaust/dp/0029191610
youtube.com/watch?v=pW0Kg_rBi2k
reddit.com/r/holocaust/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Okay.
No.
Yes.
Correct.

>Were the Poles really ethnically cleansing Ethnic Germans in the area as Stormfags love to claim?
For stormfags and /pol/tards everybody is doing that shit except not Nazi dindus.
But you perfectly know all of this you just finishing for more (you)s

Hitler said they were treating Germans 'like niggers'.

He laso got really pissed off. Considering how poorly he controlled his temper he probably believed it.

Germans had shit on polish people while they ruled and its probably true the polish people were shitting on Germans.

Everyobody at Versailles knew giving 2 million germans to Poland was a mistake but fuck Germany do it anyway was the main idea.

Danzig wasn't ruled by Polish authorities, they couldn't harm the people living there.

The Germans living in Poland were indeed subjected to various forms of state discrimination (expropriation), boycotts and especially in 1939 also mob violence.

See Blanke, Orphans of Versailles. from p. 207 onwards for the situation in 1939

preview is available on google books

It's noteable that Hitler had grossly exaggerated the plight of the Sudeten Germans in 1938, so in 1939 the public in western countries often wouldn't believe claims of mistreatment of Germans in Poland, even though it occured on a larger scale this time

Bump

butthurt germboos assault in 3...2...

>Everyobody at Versailles knew giving 2 million germans to Poland was a mistake but fuck Germany do it anyway was the main idea.

First off, it was under one million people (about 800,000 - plus 400,000 in Danzig but that was under international auspices rather than Polish control).

More importantly, what was the alternative? 1945-style mass resettlements? Millions of Poles in Germany instead? The latter is a trick question, since Germany ended up with 1.5M Poles within their borders anyway.

Pic related, it's a map of the 1910 German census with Polish-majority areas in green.

Note muh corridor.

Superimposed what the actual border ended up being just to highlight the gross injustice done to Germany.

(the border in Silesia cuts off a bit early at the bottom since that's where Czechoslovakia starts)

>Were the Poles really ethnically cleansing Ethnic Germans in the area as Stormfags love to claim?

Danzig was a free city and all its internal affairs were governed locally. Poland had no military presence there sans a token garrison of military docks. There was literally no way Poland could have massacre Germans even if they wanted to. But in reality they were doing everything no to give Germany any casus belli.

>Would Danzig have voted itself into Germany after a few years? The mayor was a Nazi and the population was majority German.

A few years ago I would say that Danzig certainly would, but now after reading a shitton on the subject, I am not so sure. Danzig population was subjected to massive intimidation by the local Nasi party. And I take the name "local" rather loosely - it turns out that absolute majority of Danzig's Nazis and officials weren't locals but came from Germany proper. The native Danzigers themselves weren't very vocal about their support for Germany. Most of them were passive.

Nobody knows how Danzigers would vote provided they the vote was free. My bet is that it would be a close call between rejoining Germany and remaining a Free City. The truth is that Danzig was economically dependent on trade with Poland and was experiencing an economic boom because of that. With Danzig in Germany, Polish trade would bypass it.

Another part of the story is that Poland was actually ready to give away Danzig. Poles proposed it in 1920s already in exchange for Germany just fucking off Poland forever. Poland simply had to wait until the seaport in Gdynia is completed.

>Nazi Germany gets The Free City of Danzig after they have an internal vote on the subject
>The City is as the name suggest, free. Poland has no jurisdiction over it at all
>Hitler wants the Danzig Corridor to connect himself to his eastern territories and to finally rebuild Germany to its pre-WW1 map
>tries to negotiate a deal with Poland, but since hes such a horrible diplomat and because of his history of going back on his word the moment is suits him, Poland rejects the deal
>Hitler cooks up some bullshit excuse about attacks on radio towers as a justification for invasion


Thats it. "black sunday" was a total of ~300 dead Germans. And they were militia/nazi supporters living in Poland. And they attacked the Polish military. And, most importantly, this happened 3 days AFTER the German invasion.

>Poles proposed it in 1920s already in exchange for Germany just fucking off Poland forever.

Such promises are worthless anyway and are done away with as soon as it becomes expedient.

In the mid-90s Ukraine gave away their nuclear weapons for an American-British-Russian guarantee that their borders would not be fucked with and look where that got them.

>Would Danzig have voted itself into Germany after a few years? The mayor was a Nazi and the population was majority German.

they did dummy. Danzig was a free city, similar to something like Hong Kong, and had nothing to do with the Polish government.

The War started over the polish corridor, a large western chunck of Poland that Hitler wanted to connect Danzig to Germany.

>The Germans living in Poland were indeed subjected to various forms of state discrimination (expropriation), boycotts and especially in 1939 also mob violence.

That's bullshit. It sucked to be a member of a minority in Interbellum Europe in general, but Germans in Poland had the best treatment precisely because Germany was ready to scream bloody murder for anything. German schools, newspapers, political parties, associations, ethnic German officials (including Senators) - Germans had it all in Poland. And the truth is that most ethnic Germans remained loyal to Poland during the war - only a small but vocal minority supported German occupation. This was in stark contrast with Germans in Czechoslovakia who went full Nazi.

>The National Socialist German Workers Party emerged as the largest party, receiving 50% of the vote and winning 38 of the 72 seats in the Volkstag, the first time any party had won a majority of seats in the legislature.[1] Voter turnout was 92%.[2]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_City_of_Danzig_parliamentary_election,_1933

>The Nazi Party emerged as the largest party, receiving 59% of the vote and winning 43 of the 72 seats in the Volkstag.[1] Voter turnout was reportedly over 99%.[2]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_City_of_Danzig_parliamentary_election,_1935

The Poles were discriminating against all minorities of the Polish republic.

The Gleiwitz incident was the last of many.

Gleiwitz wasn't even in Poland.

Where did all those Germans who had been living there since the Ice Age go? Oh yeah, they were ethnically cleansed by the """""good guys."""""

youtube.com/watch?v=FUt-yxJODxI

> Oh yeah, they were ethnically cleansed by the """""good guys."""""
Based.

DO IT AGAIN BOMBER HARRIS.

DO IT AGAIN BOMBER HARRIS

DO IT AGAIN, BOMBER HARRIS

Talk shit, get hit as they say.

How much must those Germans have been regretting voting NSDAP when they were getting kicked out of their houses by Russians?

Fucking scundered.

Good goyim.

>"To Churchill,” Buchanan writes, “the independence and freedom of one hundred million Christian peoples of Eastern Europe were not worth a war with Russia in 1945. Why, then, had they been worth a war with Germany in 1939?"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill,_Hitler_and_the_Unnecessary_War

>From 1800 to 1947, the House of (((Sassoon))) controlled most of the trade within India: banking, trading, shipping, insurance, etc., from their Mumbai headquarters. House of (((Openheimers)))/Rhodes handled the gold and diamond mining business. The American operations were handled by the House of Rockefellers, (((Seagrams))), (((Sassoons))), (((Japhets))), Jardine-Mathesons etc. The Houses of (((Rothschilds))) and (((Warburgs))) coordinated the banking aspect of this trade.
greatgameindia.com/controller-houses-east-india-company-eic-series-part-iv/

>Churchill was financed during the "wilderness years" between 1930 and 1939 by a slush fund emanating from a secret pressure group known as the Focus. The Focus was financed by a slush fund set up by some of London's wealthiest businessmen -- principally, businessmen organized by the Board of Jewish Deputies in England, whose chairman was a man called Sir Bernard Waley Cohen. Further details of Churchill's financing by the Czechs, as well as the facts of Churchill's financial rescue by a wealthy banker of Austro-Jewish origins, Sir Henry Strakosch. When Churchill was bankrupted overnight in the American stock market crash of 1937-1938, it was Strakosch who was instrumental in setting up the central banks of South Africa and India, who bought up all Churchill's debts.
ihr.org/jhr/v07/v07p498_okeefe.html

>Churchill's War by David Irving
youtube.com/watch?v=MLloM6ufVgk

Hilariously enough until quite recently the leader of the BdV (German Federation of Expellees) was a woman who indeed had to flee from Poland in 1945 - after her family was settled there in 1941.

The NSDAP were the only ones in Europe fighting the communists. Meanwhile the British were stabbing them in the back. While the Soviets were murdering 50 million of their own people, invading Finland, the Baltics, Ukraine, Belarus, and Poland in September 1939, that was A-OK by the British and French. The Poland guarantee made less than a week previously didn't apply to the Soviets for some reason. They became Allies and were rewarded for committing worse crimes than the worst of what the Nazis were accused of with half of Europe in 1945, including the whole of Poland. Great job!

>David Irving
Throw it in the trash.

...

>First off, it was under one million people

Initially it were much more, up to one million Germans left the territory ceded to Poland after 1919.

Also, a significant number of Polish speakers in some regions prefered to be part of Germany, as evidenced in the plebiscite in Upper Silesia, so mixed areas tend to had a majority of people who oposed the cessation to Poland.

(The Masurians were a special case, they were Lutherans and had always belonged to Prussia, Polish nationalism was very weak there.)

In the Southern parts of the corridor Germans were probably a majority, it's very likely that this and some other areas would have voted for Germany in a plebiscite; in Reichstag elections, the electoral districts there voted for delegates from German nationalist parties

>That's bullshit.

The post contained a source

>German schools, newspapers, political parties, associations, ethnic German officials (including Senators) - Germans had it all in Poland.

This doesn't mean that the aforementioned mistreatment didn't exist. Poland was obliged to provide these things due to the minority protection treaties the Allies urged them to sign. The German school system was gradually pushed back by Polish authorities, which eventually resulted in more than half of German children not being able to attend a German school. Btw: Polish political parties, newspapers and Reichstag delegates also existed in Imperial Germany, doesn't mean there was no discrimination.

>And the truth is that most ethnic Germans remained loyal to Poland during the war - only a small but vocal minority supported German occupation.

Dunno, there was the Volksdeutscher Selbstschutz, which participated in crimes against Poles. Thousands of military aged men fled over the border in August '39 to avoid being conscripted into the Polish military. During the September campaign, 10k-15k Germans were interned by Polish authorities. That and attacks like the "bloody sunday" likely extinguished any loyalty for the Polish state, if it even existed to begin with. What makes you think that most Germans were loyal to the Polish state during the occupation?

>The NSDAP were the only ones in Europe fighting the communists
Except Poland who the NSDAP attacked WITH the USSR.

Good going, stormshits.

Reminder the German Empire was a nation state with 95% of it's population speaking German.

This

Germany got off to easy after the shit they did in the Eastern Front. They are lucky only a few of them died.

>Buchanan
pseudo-historian who only uses obscure sources that are highly questionable to begin.

>David Irving
Dear god people read him still?

You mean the shit the Soviets did on the Eastern Front to their own people, lied about, and then blamed on the Nazis.

>The First All Union Census of the Soviet Union took place in December 1926. Total in the Soviet Union - 147,027,915 (urban 26,314,114)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_All-Union_Census_of_the_Soviet_Union
>The new Soviet Census (1939) showed a population figure of 170.6 million people, manipulated so as to match exactly the numbers stated by Stalin in his report to the 18th Congress of the All-Union Communist Party.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Census_(1937)

>In his book, “Unnatural Deaths in the U.S.S.R.: 1928-1954,” I.G. Dyadkin estimated that the USSR suffered 56 to 62 million "unnatural deaths" during that period, with 34 to 49 million directly linked to Stalin.
>In “Europe A History,” British historian Norman Davies counted 50 million killed between 1924-53, excluding wartime casualties.
>Alexander Nikolaevich Yakovlev, a Soviet politician and historian, estimated 35 million deaths.
>In his acclaimed book “The Great Terror: Stalin’s Purge of the Thirties,” Anglo-American historian Robert Conquest said: “We get a figure of 20 million dead [under Stalin], which is almost certainly too low and might require an increase of 50 percent or so.”
ibtimes.com/how-many-people-did-joseph-stalin-kill-1111789

See. That's not an argument my friend. If you dispute something they say, explain why, otherwise it stands as long as it's sourced.

>Dear god people read him still?
Well, considering he's one of the bestselling historians of all time, yes. Some people enjoy his books so much they give him 5-figure donations.

>David Irving is doing well for himself - Five-figure donations to the great historian pour in, including a 40-room mansion and Rolls Royce.
>Irving says that a whole new generation of young people have discovered his work via the internet and social media.
theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/15/david-irving-youtube-inspiring-holocaust-deniers

You will have to shut the internet down before people stop reading David Irving.

>[[[Some people]]] enjoy his books so much they give him 5-figure donations.

hmm...I wonder who would do that

Why would Jews finance someone they tried to shut down and destroy and has done more than anyone to expose their lies? In relation to Hitler and Auschwitz at least. He actually went to prison you know. For writing about history. A man. Went to prison. For writing about history. That (((some people))) didn't like. Did you ever hear about anything like that before? Think about that for a second.

zundelsite.org/archive/victims/victims_of_zion.html

Well, I think you might already be aware, but David Irving was widely exposed at being a complete hypocrite, and showing complete disregard for the historical method during the Iriving v Penguin trial.
As an example, Churchill could be, in his opinion, be completely blamed for the Indian Famine, but at the same time, there was no way Hitler knew of the Holocaust. I don't remember the exact details though, I suggest looking into it.

Honestly, David Irving is really only used as a source by people who don't have a better one for their specific claims, that Hitler didn't know about the Holocaust, the Holocaust actually wasn't that large, there were no gas chambers, all of which has been proven wrong.
All he is good for, is to source to him, so you can hide behind his title as a "real" historian.

>David Irving
>deliberately misrepresented historical evidence.for his own ideological reasons.
>Known to completely edit books simply so they can conform his views.
>Is known to use dubious source for his books which not only contradicts allies, but also axis documents.
>His Reputation as a Historian is Ruin due to the fact he sperg the fuck out.
>People who hate him now have nothing but pity for him.
>Told everyone He has a younger generation following and that was bold face lie
>Even neo-nazis and holocaust Deniers think something is wrong with him along the lines of being disturbed, or Unbalance.

He misrepresented history for his own gain. That's good enough a reason for me.

>muh truth do not fear de la investigation maymay
By no means o I support criminalizing Holocaust denial but to say that you are "investigating the truth" is bullshit, you have no intention of searching for truth.

And pic related, it just as idiotic as yours ;)

Irving's "double standard on evidence", accusing Irving of "demanding absolute documentary proof to convict the Germans (as when he sought to show that Hitler was not responsible for the Holocaust), while relying on circumstantial evidence to condemn the British

If by truth, spouting bullshit and sperging out when someone criticizes your work and calling them a filthy no good kike. I can see why no one wants to deal with your searching for the truth bullshit

No he wasn't and no he didn't. This was the judge's conclusion.

>On the issue of Auschwitz, the judge states "My conclusion is that the various categories of evidence do 'converge' in the manner suggested by the Defendants... Having considered the various arguments advanced by Irving to assail the effect of the convergent evidence relied upon by the Defendants

Guess what. A """""convergence""""" of evidence isn't the same as ACTUAL evidence.

And then he called him a racist antisemite.

>Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence; that for the same reasons he has portrayed Hitler in an unwarrantedly favourable light, principally in relation to his attitude towards and responsibility for the treatment of the Jews; that he is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-Semitic and racist, and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism...[4][65] therefore the defence of justification succeeds...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_v_Penguin_Books_Ltd

What kind of fucking judgment is that? BULLSHIT. David Irving hasn't exposed anything but what a massive fucking hoax the holocaust is.

Name ONE thing David Irving has said that was wrong. And explain why David Irving is any more compromised or self-serving than Jews pushing comprehensively debunked war atrocity propaganda in a multi-billion cottage industry that the foundation of their ethno-state relies on.

That's literally all I'm doing and all my intention is. BUT IT'S ILLEGAL TO DO SO. We are not the bad guys here.

>comprehensively debunked
Unnuanced, unsourced, and non-peer-reviewed image macros on Veeky Forums do not count as "comprehensively debunked"

>David Irving hasn't exposed anything but what a massive fucking hoax the holocaust is.
The fag actually admitted it happened.

>Name ONE thing David Irving has said that was wrong.
He cited Leuchter report for starters. That publication is probably the peak of retardation when it comes to Holodenial.

And by the way, this is the Defendant the judge claimed was more reliable and had better evidence than the accused.

Give me one good reason to believe her monstrous lies.

>He cited Leuchter report for starters. That publication is probably the peak of retardation when it comes to Holodenial.
Except that its results were separately replicated by:

The Auschwitz museum

ihr.org/jhr/v11/v11p207_staff.html

And Germar Rudolf, an Australian chemistry professor who gained his doctorate from the Max Planck Institute

germarrudolf.com/persecution/germars-persecution/auschwitz-forensics/

It's a fucking hoax. We know that the gas chamber at Auschwitz is a Soviet reconstruction of an air raid shelter made to look like a homicidal gas chamber, including holes in the roof and a fake chimney that isn't even connected to anything (pic related). We know all this because Dr. Franciszek Piper, the head curator of the Auschwitz museum, is on camera describing this in an interview with the Jewish American historian David Cole in 1992 (23:49).

youtube.com/watch?v=RHzWo79dCHs

You're just repeating bullshit you gullibly read on wikipedia. Didn't your history teacher ever tell you that wikipedia isn't a reliable source?

>JIDF training seminar for wikipedia editors
youtube.com/watch?v=hMBramnCg_s

The hoax is over where free speech survives.

What am I supposed to do with this image though? There's a woman, who I assume was the defendant in the case, a newspaper cutout.
Some imaginary death tolls, and finally something I can't decipher. Where are the sources for this?

You /pol/ boys, why so many images, are you unable to concentrate on just text? You need that visual stimulant?

It's been comprehensively debunked. Government conspiracy. Gas chambers. 6 million. No evidence. Lots of contradictory evidence. Mountains of proven fraud and lies even from the most famous (((authorities))) and originators of the hoax.

jta.org/2017/01/31/news-opinion/united-states/remember-the-11-million-why-an-inflated-victims-tally-irks-holocaust-historians

so i discovered a new internet law

"Any discussion WW2 related sooner or later turns into holocaust denial shitstorm"

Its just one or two people sperging the fuck out simply because the mere thought germany was wro g terrifies them more than it should

Go look up Max Funfack, who, according to Irving was the Chief Medical Officer of Dresden, despite no such position existing and Funfack himself writing to correct Mr Irving when he appeared as such in The Destruction of Dresden.

Or how Irving still sticks to a six figure death toll, roughly twice that of Hamburgs losses in Operation Gomorrah, despite the latter having more people more densely packed and more tonnage of bombs dropped on them.


There, objectively wrong shit.

Holocaust deniers are such despicable worthless liars. Why didn't you mention a much better researched study from 1994 by the Cracow Institute? Because you're a piece of shit liar and propagandist, like Irving, Leuchter and Rudolf.

>Where are the sources for this?
Deborah Lipstadt is one of THE most famous hoaxers. Hollywood even made their own fucking film about the cunt.

The top image is from her book, Beyond Belief (ironic title, don't you think?).

amazon.com/Beyond-Belief-American-Coming-Holocaust/dp/0029191610

She repeated the 1.7 million number from the original Majdanek trials. The Nuremberg number was 1.5 million. Dozens of people pleaded Not Guilty, but were put to death anyway on the basis of the evidence at these trials remember.

For questioning that number in Germany or Poland, you would have got 5 years in jail 20 years ago. Now the Majdanek museum recognises that the death toll was 78,000. The sign is from the museum and repeated in their own literature.

>Unnuanced, unsourced, and non-peer-reviewed image macros on Veeky Forums do not count as "comprehensively debunked"

Also, articles by literally whos about the death toll being inflated does not take away from the Holocaust itself.

>Except that its results were separately replicated by: The Auschwitz museum
First Leuchter is a fucking Bachelor of art that doesn't know basic shit about chemistry. His result showed presence of cyanide, yet the idiot called them low since he forgot what happens to CN- in damp acidious enviromnent so its not always the measurement thats wrong but the interpratation matters too. Second please use credible sources not IHR, if you want to be taken seriously. I have no time or patience to fact-check it.

>an Australian chemistry professor who gained his doctorate from the Max Planck Institute
In fact he did not. He wanted to found his doctorate on his factually wrong holocaust research.

>It's a fucking hoax. We know that the gas chamber at Auschwitz is a Soviet reconstruction of an air raid shelter made to look like a homicidal gas chamber, including holes in the roof and a fake chimney that isn't even connected to anything (pic related).
Some of Auschwitz is reconstructed some is legit. It's well known information.

THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS.

You are the evil one. Thousands of people were put to death on the basis of your lies. Millions of lives have been ruined. Our kids' heads filled with the grotesque fantasies of liars and FALSE WITNESSES.

youtube.com/watch?v=pW0Kg_rBi2k

>ihr.org/jhr/v11/v11p207_staff.html
The report this cites, by the "Krakow Institute" I can't find anywhere else on the web. Does anyone have a link to the original Polish? You'd think this would be big news, but I can only find this on other Holocaust denial sites.

The problem with you guys, is that you aren't very critical of your "sources" that apparently prove the Holocaust didn't take place.
You'll find a single chemist who says it didn't (and is a known Holocaust denier) and proclaim this as the final nail in the Holocaust coffin. But I am sure I can find 10 other chemists, who are totally in agreement that gassings did take place. But you won't care, they're probably just paid of by the jews, right?
History is all about accepting the bias of sources, and coming to terms with, as well as being open to new theories, and seeing how they hold up under academic scrutiny. These are all things Holocaust deniers lack.
Instead of looking at what evidence you've got, and forming a conclusion from that, you already have your conclusion, the Holocaust didn't happen. And then you go on the hunt for evidence to support this. This is not historical inquiry into anything, it is faulty methods.

I promise you, if there was a single place where the Holocaust (and I won't even say theory, it's not) wasn't water tight, hundreds of scholars and historians would be looking into it.
If it is as obvious as you claim, where are they? Why are the only ones supporting your cause Hitler fanboys, Neo-Nazis, and German nationalist chemists? Where are the centrists, the ones without ideology?

>We should be portraying someone who is retarded, a liar, and who misrepresents evidence as good
Fuck off /pol/

>You'd think this would be big news
See. and How are you going to make it big news when the people who control media and finance in our world destroy anyone who repeats it on a public platform?

>German nationalist chemists

pls don't associate these idiots with German nationalism

Stop making excuses for your failings.

>Germany
>wrong
B-but the eternal dindu can't be wrong! The dindu of nations, always victim of the ebil joos...

See. Name one thing he lied about or misrepresented. ONE THING.

I already showed you one big thing our infallible heroine lied about.

>Thousands of people were put to death on the basis of your lies. Millions of lives have been ruined

As if you care, you just don't like Jews.

Mate. You're on Veeky Forums. We own this site. No one believes the holohoax here. We're winning everywhere speech is free. Even reddit knows what's up.

reddit.com/r/holocaust/

>le unsourced pol jaypeg is proof face

It is legal in the vast majority of the world, including the United States and the Untied Kingdom where the most important universities are.

>muh jews control the laws
Aside from France, Israel, Hungary, and Russia, none of the countries which ban Holocaust denial have many Jews left living there anymore (and you may be interested in why that is???)

I started studying the holocaust in order to refute deniers on here. The fact that Jews are forcing this hoax on the world does not dispose me favourably towards those Jews though, no.

You're on Veeky Forums, kid. This is not your playground.

How about these two? Haven't been answered either.

I sourced it here.

>Were the Poles really ethnically cleansing Ethnic Germans in the area as Stormfags love to claim?
No.

The Man himself admitted he lied. What more do you want

>Even reddit knows what's up.
Then you should have stayed there.

>No one believes the holohoax here.
This is not /pol/ you idiot.

>objectively wrong
All searching that name showed up was more kike lies on wikipedia. Irving based his six figure Dresden number on the Dresden police chief's report at the time, not some random.

Remember then, study means books, not IHR and /pol/ infographics. You should probably learn German as well, so you're able to read the primary sources, maybe Russian too, just to be sure. Then after you've done that, get yourself a degree in history, so we know you actually can utilize the historical method, and don't just go looking for "evidence" for your already drawn conclusions, and then finally, you can disprove the Holocaust.

(Long before that though, you'll have realised there is nothing unrealistic about, and it actually happened.)

Then I'm sure you know holocaust controversies blog. It's pretty good at debunking revisionist garbage.

Its runs by kikes

>Anything that doesn't conform to the narrative, or is inconvenient are Jews lies!

It's pathetic, this is the tactic you guys always claim leftists use so much.

Of course, neo nazis without any historical education are a much better source.

>Nicholas Terry
>Jew

Again you're just deflecting by calling everyone you don't like Jew lies. Doesn't work like that I'm afraid.

I've been obsessed with the holocaust for two years since I first started to doubt the official narrative after reading Hoess's memoirs. I study from primary sources only. I check and cross-check everything. I've read dozens of accounts from Jews, SS, trial transcripts from Nuremberg, separate trials such as Eichmann, Goeth, Hoess. I've looked at all the evidence that is offered for the holocaust conspiracy theory from almost daily debates on here and elsewhere. Nowhere have I found compelling evidence for the official, legally enforced holocaust narrative. All the evidence "converges" on the government conspiracy/gas chamber/6 million narrative being wrong.

I will not be decieve by your Bolshevik lies. Irving is the only historian who searches for facts in the sea of deceit

But Max Funfack or anything to do with him doesn't contradict the Dresden narrative. If you have a problem with anything David Irving has reported about Dresden, what is it?

ok so at this point it must be bait

>I started studying the holocaust in order to refute deniers on here.
oh ok then good job

He lied about the death toll of the Holocaust.

>muh concentration camp death toll went down!
Irrelevant. 6 million Jews still disappeared during WWII, it takes historical scholarship to figure out exactly how they died and where. Also, you deliberately left out evidence here. As early as 1948, researchers put the estimated death toll at 360k. By 1961, Jewish researchers were estimating 50k.

As well, it is known now that the Soviets misrepresented evidence. They did the same thing at Auschwitz too. There have been many researchers who have looked into these death tolls and said that they are significantly lower, the difference is that they are not denying the realities of the Holocaust for ideological purposes, they are simply seeking more clarity. Holocaust deniers like to pretend that you cannot revise any aspect of the Holocaust when this is so blatantly false that it is just more deliberate lying on their part.

Incorrect estimations were used until more evidence proved otherwise. The fact that it was continuously rounded down does not prove that nothing ever happened there. Jesus Christ Holocaust deniers will say any retarded shit to further their retarded case.

Then why haven't historians, with access to more and better sources than you, come to the same conclusion?

Primary sources? Are you a German historian? Because it's not that easy to enter the archives.

Why would you say this and then prove that you lied by posting this right after?

>i am a holocaust denier but i am not like the rest i check and crosscheck primary sources against myself oh but i don't peer review because reasons

>still no answer

>everything that disproves my point is propaganda
or invisible, apparently

Because they been paid by the jews to keep the farce

So you deliberately wanted to manipulate people by not mentioning the Krakow Institute research article from 1994.