Things that piss you off

When someone thinks in a certain way because of the political climate at the time, and many years down the road people who follow said thinking apply it in exactly the same fashion
Example: Hitler hated Slavs (probably because of communism) and now somehow Slavs are racially inferior according to neo-nazis

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_Plan
ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p167_weberb.html
books.google.com/books?id=tXaaBAK7r7EC&pg=PA117&lpg=PA117&dq=Size of Einsatzgruppen d&source=bl&ots=gcQu6DKp1y&sig=tdEthTy9M-vnyGpr5LvCzor2MsU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjwoN2E6PfTAhXKPiYKHfQOCaQQ6AEITDAG#v=onepage&q=Size of Einsatzgruppen d&f=false
blackbirdlibrary.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/75867983/Einsatzgruppen.pdf
siouxcityjournal.com/special-section/siouxland_life/questions-with-a-cemetery-caretaker/article_bfeeb4d9-a0b2-5eb7-bf4f-8110eb23cc85.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>Hitler hated Slavs
>Slavs are racially inferior according to neo-nazis
Neither of those things are true. Go to any "neo-nazi" website and not one of them is anti-Slavic, the only ones with an anti-Slavic bias are the supposedly anti-racist liberal ones like Salon and Buzzfeed.

>Implying that Hitler didn't plan on killing off all of the Slavs once he was finished with the Jews

>people ask me questions not to gain knowlesge but to talk to me

Yeah that's exactly what I'm implying Schlomo, good catch.

You are wrong and your picture is wrong. Slavs were not as hated as Jews, but they were considered inferior. But it was mostly based on their culture, not on their inherent traits. That's why it was possible to Germanize some Slavs, that's why Germans stole Slavic children.

Stop taking your information's from /pol/ and start reading actual books.

I probably read more primary sources than you could ever hope to read.

>your picture is wrong
Every single thing in that picture is a verifiable fact.

well, they on the whole are given to societal corruption, graft, crime, etc.

they certainly provide many low points for their detractors to point towards

The biggest problem with Slav's from Hitler's point of view was that they were simply in the way, living on land that he wanted for German colonization. The plan was to take a page out of Stalin's playbook and deliberately engineer a famine of such severity that 20 million Slavs would be killed, opening up room for new German settlements in Russia.

And you don't know about Himmler's Treatment of Alien Races in the East? Or about segregationist policies in occupied Poland? Or about pre-Nazi 19th century volkish anti-Slavic sentiment? Or how Russia was portrayed as Eastern barbarians?

>Poles
>Slavic
This meme has to end already. They're mischlings.

The entire "the Red Army was nothing but human waves" comes from German generals desperately trying to explain why they lost to an "inferior" race after the war was over.

And now you are pretending to be retarded.

I've read tons of primary material from propaganda brochures through Signal and Völkischer Beobachter issues to memoirs and there was zero mention of this "inferior race bound for extermination" shit. In fact the only publications that pushed forward this claim are Soviet, American and British historians long after the war was over.

>Ummm sweetie who cares about primary sources when I read a badly written book from (((Timothy Snyder)))
Commit sudoku please.

Have you read Himmler's Treatment of Alien Races in the East? You are really fucking dumb. Official propaganda couldn't explicitly mention genocidal policies. Everyone could read Volkischer Beobachter, even Slavic allies.

What happened to Ukrainian pro-Nazi nationalists when they declared independence? Why was there a segregationist policy in occupied Poland? Why was Polish intelligentsia exterminated by the Nazis?

You know that those evil historians usually use mainly primary sources? Including documents that you didn't read such as military reports, secret memos and so on?

>Have you read Himmler's Treatment of Alien Races in the East?
You mean the one that didn't mention "extermination" in any way and only emerged during the Nuremberg trials? That one?

>What happened to Ukrainian pro-Nazi nationalists when they declared independence?
What happened to the Croatian and Slovak nationalists after declaring independence?

Sure you have. The Nazis was good boys who dindu nuffin.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_Plan

>"neo-nazi" website
I wonder if that has to do with the fact that most neo-nazis are Russian? Regardless the Nazis have their contempt with Slavs, mostly for propaganda purposes. Remember, these were the same people who listed the Japanese as "honorary aryan" so the Slavic hate thing wasn't really absolute.

Get lost with your mental gymnastics, faggot.

The Nazis didn't really "hate" Slavs so much as simply viewed them as a obstacle to their plans. Hitler wanted to claim Russian land for Germany, and unfortunately for him, there were lots of Slavs living there who had little intention of moving out. The purpose of the Hunger Plan was to kill off as many Slav's as possible to create room for new German settlements in Russia.

Germans weren't interested in Slovakia or Croatia. They wanted Poland, Ukraine and parts of Russia.

Yes, this document. But you're probably dumb enough to disregard every evidence presented at Nuremberg. Because we all know that Nazi propaganda is the most trustworthy source. Remember how Volkisher Beobachter wrote about German plans to attack Poland. Yeah, if only those stupid Poles read it.

And don't fucking lie, you haven't read all VB issues. It was a daily newspaper.

>torture people for testimony
>fabricate witness accounts
>reconstruct non-existing documents from nothing
>sentence people to death for publishing newspapers
Nuremberg trials were a kangaroo court. For fuck's sake, the Soviets even pushed the charge of German commiting the Katyn massacre and almost got away with it.

>torture people for testimony

[citation needed]

>fabricate witness accounts

[citation needed]

>reconstruct non-existing documents from nothing

[citation needed]

>sentence people to death for publishing newspapers

[citation desperately needed]

ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p167_weberb.html
Kill yourself.

How predictable. Do you idiots read anything that isn't neo-Nazi propaganda. I bet even modern communists aren't dumb enough to defend Stalin by using articles from Pravda.

>You mean the one that didn't mention "extermination" in any way and only emerged during the Nuremberg trials? That one?

Yeah, totally nothing happened with civilian population of USSR. Oh wait, no, 15 millions were killed, with entire towns wiped put by G*rms to the last man. Like Babiy Yar.
You naziboos are just a bunch of retards, go read a book.

>It isn't from the peer-reviewed journals that I have some (((shares))) on so it's automatically invalid
Look at the bottom, you dumb subhuman. There are shitloads of citations for it. But of course you'll never admit it, will you? You'll never admit that perhaps our greatest allies are the good boys and dey dindu nuffin, huh?

I even checked out some of them. One was manipulated, other came from a neo-Nazi source.

You're a bad joke. Holocaust revisionism isn't history.

No, you didn't.

>only emerged during the Nuremberg trials?

When else would it "emerge"? Trials are literally when you collect that sort of evidence. Also, the Nuremburg trials were exceptionally fair. Anytime the defense could prove that the Allies had committed similar crimes during the war, the defendant was not punished. For example, Admiral Karl Donitz was found guilty of conducting unrestricted submarine warfare, but he was not punished for it because Admiral Nimitz admitted that the US had used similar tactics in the pacific theatre.

Anything from a respected author?

The first source is Emil Lachout and his forged document. Isn't it funny how you think that every document presented during Nuremberg trials is a forgery but blindly believe that an actual forgery that "appeared" in 1987 is a real document? This "document" was first published in a neo-Nazi magazine "Halt". What a great source. So you have others?

And this is what I found about Sauckel's case (document 3057-PS)

>we included this in our document book but did not offer it in evidence. I think I said to the Tribunal at the time that we had decided not to offer it.

>were you aware dr. Servatius was objecting to the document on the ground that it was obtained during duress?

>My recollection is that at the time of presentation of the Slave Labor case dr. Servatius made some objection, and I think that is what brought the matter up at that time. And that is why we did not use it.

>making up "crimes" on the spot to judge the defense for and retracting them when you turn out to be guilty too
>"fair trial"
lmfao
Also I take it none of the charges involved invading poland in 1939 then?

/pol/ monkeys btfo?

/pol/ monkeys btfo. Good shit sir, good shit.

Most neo-nazis are braindead slavs with a chip on their shoulder against Russia
>he literally posted a screencap of his own retard ramblings as evidence

Yeah, the Slav prisoners of war and villagers were intentionally starved similar to what Von Trotha had done earlier.

That image actually fits America and Britain way more tha Nazi Germany.

When you're having an actual, scholarly (or as close to scholarly as anything on Veeky Forums gets) discussion of theology or biblical construction, and then someone starts shouting JEW!, usually because someone writes something in Hebrew.

See this in the Christian general thread, itself referencing a still earlier thread mentioning translation.

True, altough Britain first turned a blind eye on Nazi's and fascists thinking of them as a bulwark against communist expansion.

They had to reevaluate their policy once the German team gone rogue.

>A 'things that piss you off thread' begins with a statement about how people apply contextual political thinking of a period to the modern day
>Sparks off an argument about hitler being a goodboi as a stormnigger starts shitposting
>Someone comes in at the end to say they wish their religion threads wouldn't get shitted up every time someone says the word Jew

really gets the synapses snapping desu

so just as an example, i went through all of the supposed 'evidence' from the international military tribunal that your silly wall of text cites, since the IMT files are easy to access online, and guess what? absolutely none of teh citations make any sense, the source makes what appear to be direct quites from the IMT but which are nowhere, and nor does anything to their effect appear, in the blue series

nice try

>the Soviets even pushed the charge of German commiting the Katyn massacre and almost got away with it.

>almost

So in other words, they didn't get away with it. More proof that the Nuremburg trials were fair and just.

>Anytime the defense could prove that the Allies had committed similar crimes during the war, the defendant was not punished.

Yeah, the German generals for example weren't sentenced for the aggression against Poland because the Soviet Union had done the same. ...Right?

So they dropped all charges of "Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of a crime against peace" then?

Babi Yar has been totally debunked. That alone destroys your whole argument of the 15 trillion Jews that died on the Eastern front.

>Anytime the defense could prove that the Allies had committed similar crimes during the war, the defendant was not punished.

Yeah, the German generals for example weren't sentenced for the aggression against Poland because the Soviet Union had done the same. ...Right?

>people still using debunked Table Talk as a source of information as opposed to the actions of the National Socialists

Germany's first "Axis" ally was Slovakia for fucks sake, before the war broke out.

Well Soviets fought for their part of Europe. It's not like Germany just conquered the entire thing for them. The most dangerous alliance.

My sources are actions of Nazis in Poland and the Soviet Union.

I like how you think that few retarded revisionists are somewhat an authority on Babi Yar. No user, it wasn't debunked. You will find information's about Babi Yar in all new books about holocaust.

Books made by who? Schlomo Goldenstein? Here's what Manstein reported on Babi Yar and how killing 30,000 people in 2 days is mathematically impossible:

“It seemed to me that in the SD claims (in the Einsatzgruppen reports) were quite impossible. Single companies of about 100 with about 8 vehicles were reporting the killing of up to 10,000 and 12,000 Jews in 2 or 3 days. They could not have got more than about 20 or 30 Jews who, be it remembered, thought they were being resettled and had their traps with them, into a single truck. Loading, travelling at least 10 kilometres, unloading and returning trucks would have taken nearer 2 hours than 1. The Russian winter day is short and there as no travelling by night. Killing 10,000 Jews would have taken at least 3 weeks.
In one instance we were able to check their figures. The SD Claimed that they had killed 10,000 in Simferopol during November and in December they reported Simferopol clear of Jews. By a series of cross checks we were able to establish that the execution of Jews in Simferopol had taken place in a single day, 16th November. Only one company of SD were in Simferopol. The place of execution was 15 kilometres from the town. The numbers involved could not have been more than about 300. These 300 were probably not exclusively Jews, but a miscellaneous collection of people who were being held on suspicion of resistance activity. The Simferopol incident received a good deal of publicity because it was spoken of by the prosecution’s only witness, an Austrian corporal called Gaffa who said that he heard anti-Jewish activities mentioned in an engineers mess when he was an orderly and had [passed the scene of the Simferopol execution."

If you have more than 2 brain cells in your head you'll probably agree with his reasoning. If you don't, you'll probably quote what some Jewish witness said.

Who the fuck is Manstein and what are his qualifications to speak on this subject?

>Who the fuck is Manstein

Typical Holohoax believer, ignorant as hell and doesn't know anything else apart from "6 million jews were killed in gas chambers" that someone told him when he was a kid growing up.

The only person I can find for "Manstein" is a Nazi general who was himself convicted of war crimes. Certainly not a credible source by any measure.

Oh shit well I guess you got him there. Turns out the Nazis had black hole trucks capable of FTL speeds. Fuck, how could I have been so ignorant... damn...

Is this bait or are you guys really THAT stupid? Not only Manstein is full of shit. This passage is actually from his trial, but he isn't even talking about Babi Yar here. Open a map, you fucking idiot and look where is Babi Yar (Kiev) and where is Simferopol.

If you're citing literal Nazis as reputable sources, then yes, you're quite ignorant.

>nazis are biased sources
>but jews are not

Are you so dumb that you can't think for yourself but what someone else tells you? Here's what he said, what does it matter if he got convicted in a rigged trial? From a mathematical standpoint it's absolutely impossible for the Einsatzgruppen to have killed 10,000-30,000 people in a day, no matter if you like the Nazis or not.

Holohoax believers simply refuse to acknowledge the many facts against the genocide of the Jews while they still believe the embelished stories of Jewish soap from what Dinglestein said.

The claims are basically the same shit, you moron. The fuck does it matter which city it was? So it's impossible for 10,000 Jews to be killed in 2 days in Simerfopol, but it somehow possible to be done in Babi Yar?

Give me a source for those numbers from somebody who wasn't a Nazi war criminal. I will only accept information from credible authors.

Who are the (((credible authors))) from whom you would accept your information? Give me names so that I know.

He's citing Paget - Manstein's attorney. Of course he was lying, which was proved by German historian Andrej Angrick.

...

?

>the claims are basically the same shit
Sometimes I wonder why I even bother discussing this with such ignorant idiots.

(((Richard J. Evans)))

Pager was Manstein's attorney during his trial. It was his line of defense.

So you basically have nothing to say?

So what part of the text you disagree with?

this. All you faggots getting your information from kike propaganda. I know I know the truth because I get my history from aryanwolf666 at Hitlerwasright.blogspot

The entire text is a blatant lie.

Read Holocaust controversies article about this. Even a court from West Germany confirmed that it was possible to kill that many Jews in Simferopol.

>Doubting the power of Germanic efficiency

Well, he provides no citation or even reference to what his source as to "these numbers could not have been more than about 300" come from. Similarly for his claims that the entire execution took place on the 16th of November. Furthermore, the Einsatzgruppen habitually reinforced their manpower with local militias and HiWis that happened to be around and available.

Really, all you have here is a self-serving statement by Manstein himself. That is hardly credible.

Wrong Hitler widely believed the Slav peoples were inferior, however in his final days he conceded his and Germany's defeat and came to the realization that "the German people might not be fit enough to survive" and that the victorious slav people might be.

>muh fake quote

really made me think.

Isn't that a picture of a modern day leftist though? Haven't seen a neo-Nazi with a neckbeard in my life.
How so? Can you explain or are you just going to beat around the bush all day?

Give me that article. Also, the German court testament on that and why it was possible, since you're obviously unable to use your own words.

Einsatzgruppen reports aren't a viable source to you?

>these numbers could not have been more than about 300

From a mathematical and logistics standpoint, that's accurate, actually.

>Einsatzgruppen reports aren't a viable source to you?
I haven't seen an Einsatzgruppen report. I've seen a statement in a trial by someone who isn't even direclty connected with the Einsatzgruppen.

>From a mathematical and logistics standpoint, that's accurate, actually.
And how are you basing this "mathematical and logical" reasoning?

We're not in math class you idiot this is history.

Einsatzgruppen report actually mentions 11.000 Jews killed in Simferopol.

Can't seem to find the Simerfopol report itself. Anyone have it?

>And how are you basing this "mathematical and logical" reasoning?
Let's go judging from what Manstein says considering I don't have the report itself.

"Single companies of 100 men with 8 vehicles were reported to have killed 10,000 Jews in 2-3 days"
Think that's pretty much impossible no matter how you look at it. The winter that was going around, the loading and unloading, burying them in mass graves, rounding and then proceeding to shoot these Jews, the exhaustion from all of that work is just impossible to be done in the span of 2 days.

Babi Yar's 30,000 number is even more ridiculous in a matter of a day.

Well, mathematics is in absolutely everything there is. If you can't explain the Holocaust in a logical way, then how can we be sure it ever happened? Too many, and I really mean *too many*, things just don't fit.

>How so?

The claims that the quote makes are factually inaccurate, thus the quote itself is false.

You have the report itself to claim that they are inacurrate? Post it.

>"Single companies of 100 men with 8 vehicles were reported to have killed 10,000 Jews in 2-3 days"
And how do we know that it was "Single companies of 100 men and 8 vehicles"? Einsatzgruppe D had 500 men assigned to it books.google.com/books?id=tXaaBAK7r7EC&pg=PA117&lpg=PA117&dq=Size of Einsatzgruppen d&source=bl&ots=gcQu6DKp1y&sig=tdEthTy9M-vnyGpr5LvCzor2MsU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjwoN2E6PfTAhXKPiYKHfQOCaQQ6AEITDAG#v=onepage&q=Size of Einsatzgruppen d&f=false

And of course, as stated before, they would raise local manpower to help out when needed, often from police or reserve units, so even if they only had 100 men present, that doesn't mean much.

>Think that's pretty much impossible no matter how you look at it. The winter that was going around, the loading and unloading, burying them in mass graves, rounding and then proceeding to shoot these Jews, the exhaustion from all of that work is just impossible to be done in the span of 2 days.
Who says that the burying and other body disposal was all done by the time the massacre ended, or that it was to be done by the Einsatzgruppen? That seems to be a claim that is thoroughly unsupported.

>Can't seem to find the Simerfopol report itself. Anyone have it?
By the way, why did you write this in light of >Einsatzgruppen reports aren't a viable source to you?

>And how do we know that it was "Single companies of 100 men and 8 vehicles"? Einsatzgruppe D had 500 men assigned to it

So it's pretty much accurate? You do know what "military company" means, don't you?

>And of course, as stated before, they would raise local manpower to help out when needed, often from police or reserve units, so even if they only had 100 men present, that doesn't mean much.
[citation needed]. When was this done during the massacre?

>Who says that the burying and other body disposal was all done by the time the massacre ended, or that it was to be done by the Einsatzgruppen? That seems to be a claim that is thoroughly unsupported.

Were they going to bury them 3 years after the massacre? Also, multiple reports from Jews say that the Jews were led to ravines by truck and then killed en masse

>By the way, why did you write this in light of
Because it's obvious
Because it's pretty obvious that Paget was reading from an Einsatzgruppen report. You don't need to be Sherlock Holmes to guess that.

>So it's pretty much accurate? You do know what "military company" means, don't you?
Except the Einsatzgruppen were not military but paramilitary, nor is there any proof given that it was just one company present.

>[citation needed]. When was this done during the massacre?

That they did it in general? blackbirdlibrary.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/75867983/Einsatzgruppen.pdf
That they did it here? I don't know, you're the one who still hasn't demonstrated that they only had 100 men, which is the subject of debate here. But given that it was a fairly normal practice, why not?

>Were they going to bury them 3 years after the massacre?
Where'd you pull that number from?
siouxcityjournal.com/special-section/siouxland_life/questions-with-a-cemetery-caretaker/article_bfeeb4d9-a0b2-5eb7-bf4f-8110eb23cc85.html
According to this guy, it takes 2-3 hours in the winter to dig a grave. 2.5*10,000/500/8 means that it would take Einsatzgruppen a bit under a week, assuming
A) Nobody else helped them but the entire Einsatzgruppe was there
B) There are no increases of efficiency when digging mass graves as opposed to individual ones
C) They worked 8 hour days.

>Also, multiple reports from Jews say that the Jews were led to ravines by truck and then killed en masse
Let's see some of these reports.

>Because it's pretty obvious that Paget was reading from an Einsatzgruppen report. You don't need to be Sherlock Holmes to guess that.
No, it's obvious that Manstein is testifying to something that he allegedly read, without the actual document being here before us to see i he's actually being accurate or honest.

In other words not the "Slavs". Slovaks, Ukrainians, Croatians, Bosniaks, Cossacks among other fought alongside the Germans.

>Collaborators and useful idiots prove that we did nothing wrong

Their motivations does not change that you and other use the term "Slavs" when describing "enemies of Germany" erroneously (likewise using "collaborators" instead of allies is disingenious as well)
Remember this next time you or anyone complains about /pol/ historical revisionism.

He didn't hate meds or balkans but he objectivly hated Russians and poles without a question

These are the same guys who claim the trial is biased and their admition of guilt was forced out of them.

There was the Jager report and most Nazis after getting captured even admitted the numbers were correct and the events happened.

>Even at the price of a long and slow Slaviz-ation of the Austrian Germans the State would secure no guarantee of a really durable Empire; because it was very questionable if and how far the Slavs possessed the necessary capacity for constructive politics.
>the features that contributed most to estrange me from the Social Democratic movement was its hostile attitude towards the struggle for the conservation of Germanism in Austria, its lamentable cocotting with the Slav 'comrades'
>the House of Habsburg set to work with all its determination to exterminate the dangerous German element--about whose inner feelings and attitude there could be no doubt--slowly but deliberately. I use the word exterminate, because that alone expresses what must have been the final result of the Slavophile policy.
>the Church did not defend German rights, as it should have done, but always supported those who encroached on these rights, especially then Slavs
>did anyone really believe that Germany could continue to be the ally of a Habsburg Empire under the hegemony of the Slavs?
>From the viewpoint of racial policy, this alliance with Austria was simply disastrous. A new Slavic Great Power was allowed to grow up close to the frontiers of the German Empire.
>I looked upon the defeat of the Russians as a blow to Austrian Slavism.
>Even in Pan-German circles one heard the opinion expressed that the Austrian Germans might very well succeed in Germanizing the Austrian Slavs, if only the Government would be ready to co-operate. Those people did not understand that a policy of Germanization can be carried out only as regards human beings.
Hitler thought slavs were too retarded for constructive politics, that they were trying to exterminate the germans in austria, that they encroached german rights, that allowing a slavic power to rise was a disaster, that defeating slavism was good, and that they were too inferior for german culture. But he totally loved them guyz.

Their job was to kill civilians and their own people though. They were useful idiots.

>We have only to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down