Actual reasons with supporting evidence and real arguments as to why this documentary is or is not a good documentary

>What did he do wrong?

genocide, causing the worst war in human history, and being a corrupt dictator who led his people into ruin/being a shitty leader in general.

You have any proof of what you're saying? What was he so different from the rest of the leaders in history and present day?

Didn't the UK and France start the World War though? I don't remember Hitler wanting a war with them.

>You have any proof of what you're saying?
History.
>What was he so different from the rest of the leaders in history and present day?
There are all kinds of leaders. Hitler was one of the worst.

>Didn't the UK and France start the World War though?
No, Hitler started it by invading Poland.

>What was he so different from the rest of the leaders in history and present day?

genocide and war mongering on a global scale. Also, other shitty dictators existing in no way somehow justifies Hitler or magically makes his actions good.

>Didn't the UK and France start the World War though?

No, Hitler did when he invaded Poland, and then later invaded the USSR (both of which he had non aggression pacts with)

>You have any proof of what you're saying?

yes, but your a low IQ internet conspiracy theory who will ignore it anyway in favor of your neo-nazi revisionist internet conspiracies

I was looking for something like this. Seems like only nazi apologists recognize this documentary. I want an actual review. This is pretty close (while obviously still has some agenda).

sort of related, but theres also this that BTFO of holocaust deniers

imgur.com/a/725A7

Nobody BTFO'd Holocaust deniers more than Hoess, Wisliceny and Brunner. Basically people who were involved in it and were proud of it. The details may be dicussed etc. but claiming that it "was just typhoid because of allied bombings" is obviously wrong.

dont you get it? THEY WERE ALL TORTURED INTO SAYING THAT BY THE JEWISH REPTILIANS!

>the part where they ACTUALLY use the "well you lynch negroes!" argument

>part 8 says "zionist communism"

seriously, do stormfags know ANYTHING about communism or the USSR?

Or him. How do you torture this man and get away with it?

>torture doesn't happen in the real world pal, it is a conspiracy like reptilians

notice how you had to strawman my argument (it was more of a joke) in order to hold any water in this conversation?

It did not happen to the Nuremberg defendants, witnesses and people who escaped and died as free men.

If the mere fact that the Allies could have tortured the Nuremberg defendants into confessing "proves" that they did in fact do so, doesn't the mere fact that Nazi Germany could have committed genocide equally prove that they did so?

>History
Uh-uh.
>There are all kinds of leaders. Hitler was one of the worst.
In your opinion.
>No, Hitler started it by invading Poland.
Poland refused to give Danzig, a vital part of his plan. He actually wanted to ally with Poland and invade the Soviet Union, but the Poles refused him.

>genocide and war mongering on a global scale.
You have no proof of the genocide and the "war mongering" was already explained.

The Jews were killed, but nowhere near the numbers that's being constantly thrown around.
It wasn't worse than any other leader has done to them.

Besides there is a reason why the whole world hates the Jews. Literally ever single nation and religion in the world has had a problem with them. Ever think about that?

It's written for a community that's all about shitting on Nazis and Wehraboos, has in-jokes that aren't very funny.

It's cute how dumb stormfag newfags think they are knowledgeable about the subject. Wow, we have this thread like every day. And it's always the same """"""""""arguments""""""""""".

>He actually wanted to ally with Poland and invade the Soviet Union, but the Poles refused him.
Which is of course why he signed a treaty with the USSR to divide up Poland between them.

>You have no proof of the genocide and the "war mongering" was already explained.
holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2011/12/belzec-sobibor-treblinka-holocaust.html
Start with this.

>The Jews were killed, but nowhere near the numbers that's being constantly thrown around.
Really? Then where did they all go?

Who would've thought this board is being raided by leddit

Could you all just fuck off already?

>The Jews were killed, but nowhere near the numbers that's being constantly thrown around.

yes they were. Stop thinking you are an equal in the discussion. Youre a low IQ little boy who is having something he knows nothing about explained to him.

>Poland refused to give Danzig

This is what I mean. Poland didnt even own Danzig, it wasnt theirs to give. Danzig was a independent city state. Hitler invaded Poland because they wouldnt give him a part of their country called the Polish corridor.

You have no idea what you are talking about. You just remember reading something about danzig somewhere+Hitler dindu nuffin so you just throw these two together and spout out shit like that.

>Wow, we have this thread like every day.

This. They think repeating the SAME EXACT neo-nazi revisionist line for the 198492383743th time is going to OMG BLOW US AWAY!

I discussed it with one guy on /pol/ once. About the origins of WWII. The way the documentary presents it is both hilarious and disgusting. Czech and Polish people hunting down poor German minority even as their countries were being overrun.

It's especially annoying because they often post pictures that either don't have a source or they do but it's something extremely vague that can't be found. Finally the guys cited some neo-nazi website that quotes a newspaper (with the exact date given) with some anti-German, pro-war manifesto. Just so happens that I have the access to these archives and posted the entire issue proving it wrong. The entire narrative falls apart once it stops being vague and based on conspiracy.

>Didn't the UK and France start the World War though? I don't remember Hitler wanting a war with them.
He started a war against their ally which meant he started a war against them. Same if Russia invades Turkey which would be an act of war against all Nato members

He wanted war with France though. Not the UK but he had a score to settle with France.

Watch it and see what you get from it. Why let others form your opinion ?

ree harder, maybe the fearsome sound of your autistic screeching will send all the ledditors scampering in fear.

When I was a kid, I used to play parts of games on demodisc, look at the covers of them, and then piece those details together and write my own little comic books with the very little info I had on the game and its story.

Thats basically what stormfags do with WW2.

Awesome post. Allow me to +1 this post!

Holy crap it actually tries to justify einsatzgruppen. That's gotta be the final stage of the "how much of a Wehraboo are you?" scale. I'm almost impressed.

...

>"Hitler's Wehrmach and Waffen SS were in reality the most culturally, ethnically and religiously diverse military forces in Western history."
Episode 9.
This is gonna be a trippy ride.

Sigh. It's quite funny considering you've provided no arguments at all.

>yes they were. Stop thinking you are an equal in the discussion. Youre a low IQ little boy who is having something he knows nothing about explained to him.

You sound like a 12 years old. Reddit is your place to go.

>This is what I mean. Poland didnt even own Danzig,
Yes they did, little retard. They owned it in all but name.

By most accounts Hitler was actually quite surprised that they joined the war to defend Poland. He expected them to abstain one more time.

>I want an objective opinion
Spot the retard

And they did in a way. He expected them to sit back and watch so as they did. It would be unrealistic to assume that they're going to ignore their treaty 100%.

>cannister has the skull and cross bones on it. universal symbol for poison

>literally says "poison gas"

>"DUDE ZYKLON B WAS A HARMLESS DELOUSING AGENT!"

so this is the power of stormfaggotry

the plan was to use naval supremacy to starve Germany into submission and then use bombers to destroy their industry behind the lines. None expected the USSR to supply them with everything they needed to not only invade Belgium and France, but also take the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway

>You sound like a 12 years old. Reddit is your place to go.

nice projection

>Yes they did, little retard.

no they didnt. Youre just a really stupid person who thinks hes an expert on a situation he knows nothing about because you watched a youtube video on it.

>"Yet no matter how many bombs the Allies drop on German cities, there will never be a hint of uprising against the Fuhrer."
Episode 12

I want off this ride.

>nice projection
More like a fact. You're proving it time and time agian

>no they didnt. Youre just a really stupid person who thinks hes an expert on a situation he knows nothing about because you watched a youtube video on it.

Here you go... "projecting". If you have nothing to say, than don't say anything at all. There is no reason to showcase your autism with each post.

>"The Germans managed to save thousands [in the Auschwitz] during the outbreak using the pesticide Zyklon B, but the disease is so deadly that the victim's clothing had to be removed after death and burned to destroy the typhus-bearing lice."

I don't support treating WWII as a black and white conflict. I'm fighting against Soviet apologism wherever I can. I don't like when they make Hitler into a comic book villain. But is it too much to ask not to be a complete retard in the other way?

>By most accounts Hitler was actually quite surprised that they joined the war to defend Poland

Sauce?

>Here you go... "projecting"

stating historical facts isnt projecting.

>Didn't the UK and France start the World War though? I don't remember Hitler wanting a war with them.
No, Britain desperately wanted to avoid a war that would destroy their empire and have a higher cost than WW1. Likewise with France. The problem was that fascism and reasonable people are ideologically incompatible. Much like how Bismarck's German nationalism forced him to take Alsace Lorraine, Hitler's ideology forced him to take up arms.

>No, Britain desperately wanted to avoid a war that would destroy their empire and have a higher cost than WW1. Likewise with France.

lol no. They were following their Jewish overlords who had control of their banking system and finances.

But that is ironic because it was because of WW2 that their imperialism and colonialism was put to an end.

>Sigh. It's quite funny considering you've provided no arguments at all.
At the rate /pol/ posts on this board just look to the archive if you want 1000 more pieces of evidence proving the Holocaust happened.

I stopped watching this about ten minutes in. The constant use of emotional music was too manipulative. If you turn it off and only read the flash cards it becomes a lot less compelling.

Britain let hitler build up his military, occupy the rhineland, annex austria, gave them the Sudetenland and also let them take Lithuania

once again, stormfags have no fucking idea what they are talking about and just make shit up as they go.

It's sad that without knowing your verbal tone I can't tell if this is sarcasm. The rate /pol/ spiraled at really is incredible.

Who were their "Jewish overlords", then? I don't want any vague inferences, I want names.

>The constant use of emotional music was too manipulative

neo-nazism is predicated on appeals to emotion.

>projecting this hard

I think it mostly uses fragments of other documentaries and movies.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild_banking_family_of_England#Family_members

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild_banking_family_of_France#Family_members

>When you know cool words, but you don't know what they mean

>projecting is a "cool word".

>However, three historical events in particular especially damaged the interests of all Rothschild banking families across Europe: 1) the Revolutions of 1848, 2) the Great Depression of the 1930s and 3) Nazism of the late 1930s until the Second World War.

This says that WW2 damaged them especially. Did you read your own source?

>when you get BTFO and have nothing else to come back with, so you just misuse a buzzword like a jackass

this amazing stormfag intellect of yours is making me take the red pill!

In your opinion, which one did lobbied for a war against the nazis? Victor?

>until the Second World War.

Do you even know how to read to begin with?

So in what way were the Rothschilds responsible for British foreign policy? How did they effect their aims? Explain it to me.

The red pill was too much even for Hitler

Not an argument

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration

>So in what way were the head of the financial baking system responsible for British foreign policy?

This isn't a serious question, is it?

>When you saved cool reaction pics, but you don't know where to use them

>until the Second World War.
1930's-1945
>implying the Nazis didn't persecute jews even more once the war ramped up
>implying they wouldn't have brought the war around sone if they held the reins in London

>Rothschild sons not only established themselves in the UK but also in Paris, Vienna and Naples in the Two Sicilies.
>implying they would have let anti-semetic Nazis take Austria

Now show me real evidence and not a list of names and properties.

>1930's-1945
WW2 literally started late Q3 1939

>>implying the Nazis didn't persecute jews even more once the war ramped up
Implying persecuting minorities would be beneficial in times of war against another empire

>>implying they wouldn't have brought the war around sone if they held the reins in London
>implying Hitler did not restrain himself from invading London on a full scale

>>Rothschild sons not only established themselves in the UK but also in Paris, Vienna and Naples in the Two Sicilies.
Irrelevant

>>implying they would have let anti-semetic Nazis take Austria
>implying Germans did not arrest a Rothschild in Austria
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Nathaniel_de_Rothschild

This is from WW1

how did the rothchilds do anything to cause WW2?

>Implying persecuting minorities would be beneficial in times of war against another empire

yeah, but they still did it. Why do you faggots always pull this line and pretend the actions of Nazi Germany are so ridiculously unrealistic and impossible when they arent at all?

>implying WW1 does not tie into WW2.

>Surprised reddit is here considering the state of /pol/
u having a giggle m8?

engaging in sophistry to avoid having to admit a simple question isnt an argument.

First of all, the Balfour Declaration is one of the most frequently misunderstood artifacts of modern history. Arthur Balfour himself did not write it: it only bears his name as the cabinet minister. Whatever the wisdom in acceding to Zionist demands was, the Declaration was in any event not acted out: the British under the Mandate were loathed by Zionist migrants and seen as being too pro-Arab, betrayers of the Declaration (which was far more important to Zionists than it was to the British foreign office) leading to awful incidents like the King David bombing or the Sergeants' affair. The British retreated from Mandatory Palestine in 1948 precisely because they refused to grant Zionist groups anything more than the two-state solution, triggering a widespread revolt.
Second of all, the Balfour Declaration has no relation whatsoever to Hitler nor to Nazi Germany. It was drafted in 1917, two years after the British had already begun the Egyptian campaign in the Great War, where they were already at hostilities with the Ottomans. General Allenby had captured Jerusalem around a month after the Declaration had been delivered to Walter Rothschild. In other words, the Declaration was an opportunistic act that came after the fact: Zionist groups had watched the political situation and realised the Ottomans were on the losing front. The Declaration did not actually compel foreign policy in the first place.
So then in what possible way does the Balfour Declaration relate to Hitler, WW2 or British foreign policy in that war? How is it in any sense relevant?

>muh ad hominem

not an argument

The question asked is how the Rothschild played a role in Britain's foreign policy. That was just one example.

youtube.com/watch?v=PEqTLRy18lM

saying ad hominem isnt an argument user. Just because I call you a name while explaining why you are wrong doesnt mean you are automatically correct.

Notice how you keep having to avoid questions and bitching about semantics? Its because you cant articulate any defense for you silly little internet conspiracy theory

continue to flail around like a retard for our entertainment though. Its funny watching you guys try to think

Yes it is, asking a biased source their opinion on the opposing biased source is ridiculous. That fact that board exists is reactionary as fuck.

I smell the leddit in this post

WW2 was not a continuation of WW1. They were very different wars.

>WW2 literally started late Q3 1939
Not what I said. It talks about the period of Nazism until WW2. Reading comprehension is a bitch, huh?
>Implying persecuting minorities would be beneficial in times of war against another empire
Yeah, it never happened. Oh except for the Armenian genocide, Anglo concentration camps, and Holocaust to name a few of very, very many.
>Irrelevant
The Rothschilds having vested interests in territories seized by the Nazism before WW2 changes destroys the argument that the war was fought for their interests. They would have started the war before the Nazis seized their assets there if it was the case. It dismantles your reddit-tier "le joo shekels" conspiracy completely.
>implying Germans did not arrest a Rothschild in Austria
That vindicate my point that the Rothschilds would have stopped the Nazism sooner if the war was fought over their interests. A lot of their shot was liquidated or redistributed before WW2, and they would have fought to stop it earlier if they were in control.

>you silly little internet conspiracy theory

Another ad hominem once again.

Hello JIDF. Long time no see.

>"le joo shekels" conspiracy

Another JIDF. Working overtime, are we?

>Reading comprehension is a bitch, huh?

This much self projecting butt hurt.

You have to be over 18 to use this site.

I was referring explicitly to British foreign policy in WW2. You claimed that the British "were following their Jewish overlords" in declaring on Germany. You've explained neither the motive nor the means, and you linked a non-sequitur to the Balfour Declaration which predated the war by over thirty years. If a Rothschild were responsible for British policy against Germany then you should be able to provide evidence for it.

Not an argument

not an argument. Youre still failing at defending your silly little internet conspiracy theory

The fact that jews gravitate towards banking was an unavoidable aspect of Christian ethics. There is no conspiracy in it, a wealthy and educated minority endso up disproportionately on the top. I'mean not JIDF, and I find it funny you think that shills (if they are widespread, which I doubt) would even go to a board like Veeky Forums that sees 10% of the traffic of /pol/.

And here it is. When the stormfag realizes that their shilling didnt work, all their revisionist memes got BTFO, and they basically made asses of themselves so they just start calling everyone a jew

>he thinks head of the financial banking interest groups would play no role in foreign policies