>''Our strength is our quickness and our brutality. Genghis Khan had millions of women and children hunted down and killed, deliberately and with a gay heart. History sees in him only the great founder of States. What the weak Western European civilization alleges about me, does not matter. I have given the order—and will have everyone shot who utters but one word of criticism—that the aim of this war does not consist in reaching certain geographical lines, but in the enemies' physical elimination. Thus, for the time being only in the east, I put ready my Death's Head units, with the order to kill without pity or mercy all men, women, and children of the Polish race or language. Only thus will we gain the living space that we need. Who still talks nowadays of the extermination of the Armenians''?
How could Hitler be so ruthless? Or is Western civilization weak and capricious? Did he have a point about Genghis Khan and the Armenian genocide?
They are a coward's words daydreaming of a bully's glories.
>shot himself in a bunker knowing it was all over
Aaron Gonzalez
He's not wrong. Eventually the difference in perception to the average person between Hitler, Ghengis Kahn, Caesar, Alexander, etc, is just time.
One day Hitler and Alexander will be side by side in a history book and nobody will care. Remember that everyone used the equivalent of "Literally Napoleon" as their go-to insult before Hitler.
Jackson Roberts
and now poland is like 50km from berlin, really makes your brain train go choo choo
William Davis
>One day Hitler and Alexander will be side by side in a history book and nobody will care. This.
In particular given that China and India are going to become globally more important. Over there Hitler is just one ruthless conqueror among many rather than evil incarnate.
Liam Flores
At least those historical ruthless warriors had the common courtesy to die with honor or live down the ages as great heroes of history, and not committing suicide like a faggot.
Jackson Barnes
>and now poland is like 50km from berlin, really makes your brain train go choo choo More like Pooland today relies on gibs from Germany so it doesn't become just a another post-Soviet Eastern European shithole.
Charles Hughes
I need a citation on this quote
Ryan Anderson
Bullshit. Respectful people have always been divided on Napolean, from the day he seized power until today. Hitler's fanclub in his day consisted of people ignorant of his real atrocities, and today they're just skinheads and edgelords.
Alexander always was and always will be the greatest man. The Egyptians recognized that when they crowned him voluntarily.
The three are nothing alike. Only pseuds group them together.
Andrew Kelly
Couple of things: 1. Hitler lost. 2. The whole Holocaust thing makes him look worse. Alexander, Genghis Khan, etc. killed tons of people, but as far as I know, they only killed people people who opposed them. They didn't go out of their way to exterminate a race just because of the way they were born. That distinction makes him appear more malicious 3. Hitler wasn't a good strategist at all. He didn't lead armies into battle like Alexander, Genghis, or Napoleon. He stayed in his bunker doing meth and generally acting like a spastic. Whenever he took full command of armies it was a failure. 4. Napoleon was a good guy
Charles Perez
>. Remember that everyone used the equivalent of "Literally Napoleon" as their go-to insult before Hitler. he's right you know
Jose Sanders
>Ghengis Kahn, Caesar, Alexander But these were capable men. Hitler would not even reach Hannibal, who at least knew how to fight.
Tyler Hughes
He took the 'Might is Right' pill. The only thing he did wrong, was losing the war. Had he won you would have been worshipping at his shrine right now. That's what he's trying to say about Gengis Khan. Or take Charlemagne for example, he genocided people left and right and today people look at him as a founder of a strong and prosperous Europe.
Andrew Murphy
Caesar was Hitler as fuck. Both took life threatening roles multiple times for their cause. Both wrote bullshit books justifying ethnic cleansing and looting. Both fucked their democratic institutions for live-long power in a permanent state of emergency. Both lost because of it, Hitler militarily, Caesar politically/knifely.
They are extremely similar. In 100 years they'll both be seen the same way by everyone except for history nerds. In 200 years you'll see bunches of young little Adolfs running around and there will be political positions with bastardized pronunciations of Fuhrer.
Asher Smith
Oi, mates. Why wouldn't 'ee commit suicide? He was in a pretty tight situation. Ya think he coulda just 'opped away on a kangaroo or somethin'?
William Gutierrez
Not this time. Hitler's perception has been forever immortalized by pop culture and such.
Jose Martin
>pop culture is forever It's inherently temporary.
James Morales
typical g*rman nigger glorifies mongols and muslims. literally nobody thinks mongols made a great civilization. if you ever want to know for sure that hitler was wrong, read his comments on muslims. instant insight into what goes on in the mind of the eternal europe-destroying g*rman.
Colton Robinson
>Both took life threatening roles multiple times for their cause huh?
>Both lost because of it Hitler lost because he was incompetent moron, Ceasar died because of assasination but he didn't exactely "lost", his name became synonymous to power and his legacy shaped Roman state for centuries.
>Both fucked their democratic institutions for live-long power in a permanent state of emergency. Plenty of people did that.
>Both wrote bullshit books justifying ethnic cleansing and looting Ceaser didn't jusified shit, since conquest was normal back then. Also Ceasar wrote books that actually carry some weight. Hitler wrote manifest for his ideology and that's it..
>They are extremely similar. You might as well draw such simmiliarities between Hitler and Trump...
Dylan Thomas
>just because the way that we're born
Evan Hughes
...
Matthew Cook
...
Aiden Phillips
It's in cartoons, movies, documentaries ; all of which will stay on the internet forever.
Kevin Garcia
...
Ethan Gonzalez
>he thinks a boycott is an actual war
Gavin Evans
This, sounds like little man syndrome.
Benjamin Sanchez
geez I wonder why those evil jooz boycott such a peaceful regime
Evan Fisher
That's because only people who don't know shit about Napoleon say that.
Michael Sanchez
>he thinks people even 20 years from now will bother to read even 0.00001% of all the information that is currently on the internet.
Chase Reed
>Muh boycott This is a common newspaper headline peddled around by holocaust deniers in an attempt to reverse the roles of victim and perpetrator.
Why don't we begin by asking the denier giving us this information some very simple questions such as:
Who was this "Judea"? What did this "war" look like? How many tanks, planes & soldiers? What armies and navies were involved?How did international leaders react to this supposed declaration of war? Clearly this can't go unnoticed... And where can one find a copy of the actual declaration of war itself, rather than the news report?
They will have difficulty providing answers.
An alternate scan of this newspaper, of the same day exists. See here:
Two different versions of the same newspaper of the same day (a morning and evening edition). The morning edition in the linked image even states this was not an action, but a reaction to "medieval Jew-baiting" that was already going on in Germany.
Nolan Carter
So on March 24, 1933, the headline "Judea Declares War on Germany" was indeed splashed across the front page of the British newspaper Daily Express. The problem with this is there was no such thing as "Judea", no unified political entity, nevermind country, and no Jewish organization declared war on Germany. Sensationalist headline and likeminded hot air rhetoric aside, the article's actual content was about an economic boycott, and not an enacted one, but a proposed one: the only organization mentioned in the article, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, was scheduled to meet two days later to "discuss the German situation," but they did NOT end up supporting a boycott, for fear that this would only worsen the situation for Jews in Germany (per London Times, March 27, 1933) There's your proof.
The article also mentioned protests in many different cities without going into detail, apart from one at Madison Square Garden. But even there, the resolution was caution, rather than bold action.
If holocaust deniers still insist that there was a Jewish declaration of war on Germany, I kindly ask them to produce a copy of this as proof. Surely a newspaper article is a report ABOUT it and not the declaration of war ITSELF? It would indeed be hilarious if a non-country could declare war on a country via newspaper.
I would also like to lecture the denier crowd that National Socialist Germany itself did not react to this as a formal (or even informal) declaration of war. Instead, they denounced it as agitation and more proof of Jewish harassment and anti-German propaganda. Challenge to deniers: bring forth ONE German document or politician's speech from that time that took this newspaper headline at face value and recognized it as a declaration of war. Protip: you can't.
Anthony Russell
Some deniers have even claimed the German boycott of Jewish stores in the early days of April 1933 was a reaction to this, when again there is no connection they can make via documentary or speech evidence linking the two together. In fact, if these deniers had bothered to do more digging, they would find out the NSDAP had been existing since the 1920s, and calling for anti-Jewish activism since its beginning.
To claim the Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses was a limited reaction, and then nothing of the sort ever happened again is beyond foolish. It was only the beginning.
There were many anti-Nazi rallies outside of Germany, yes. It would be pointless if anyone tried to deny this. Most of them were similar in character to demonstrations today, i.e. a group of people gather in a hall or on a street, hold some signs, chant some slogans, and call it a day.
I have had trouble finding the source for the images above, i.e. what year they were taken in (1933 or later?) and where. Similarly, the newspaper headline in the middle is about a protest supposedly held in Madison Square Garden, but I can't find the original.
Now, how many of these protests actually ended up in committed boycotts? I don't know. Revisionists don't seem to provide properly sourced material either. Obviously, individual stores might have enacted them for varying lengths of time, but what about bigger organizations? If revisionists want to advance the "Anti-Nazi boycott really damaged Germany's economy" theory of theirs, they need to do better than this.
Jaxon Parker
What is clear however, is the message revisionists are trying to send here: THEY started it, not Hitler. Which of course, is absolute nonsense because the Nazi Party's rise to prominence was centered around railing against the Treaty of Versailles and against Jews all throughout the 20s. Mein Kampf was written in the 20s. For the revisionists to portray these largely American rallies as an action and not a reaction is them being deliberately fraudulent about history. Furthermore, they go on to label these as provocations which resulted ("naturally") in Germany eventually rounding up all its Jews and sending them to camps. It's a bit like saying 'holding Free Tibet rallies is counter-productive and only makes life worse for the Tibetans in China, so kindly refrain from doing so or you are the aggressor, not the Chinese'.
Some even go so far as to say the "Declaration of War" (which I have dismissed previously) meant all Jews were enemies and compare their internment in concentration camps with the internment of SOME Japanese and Japanese-American citizens in camps in the United States after Imperial Japan had attacked the US at Pearl Harbor killing 2,403 people. This is the nerve and modus operandi of revisionists: 'Because foreign Japs attacked the US and the US put local Japs into camps, why is it so criminal for Germany to have done likewise? Put local Jews into camps as a result of foreign Jews declaring war?'
Parker Thompson
Comparing Nazi concentration camps with American Wartime Civil Control Administration (WCCA) Assembly Centers, civilian-run War Relocation Authority (WRA) Relocation Centers, and Department of Justice (DOJ) camps where Japanese-Americans were held and treated well is ridiculous. These people enjoyed freedoms and comforts of life 99% of Nazi camp inmates could only dream of. The death toll in these US camps is so ridiculously low it is shameful to even bring them up in a holocaust discussion. But wait! Holocaust deniers have an answer to that one as well: everyone in Nazi concentration camps was doing juuuust fine until the Allies started their bombing. We've heard that one already, haven't we?
Given that holocaust deniers do not believe anyone was gassed, and think far fewer Jews lived in Europe than really did, they still do not deny that Jews were deported into camps against their will. So they need to whitewash Germany in this regard as well. Therefore, foreign anti-Nazi rallies and boycotts and US internment of ethnic Japanese civilians is used as an excuse to justify the rounding up and deportation of completely uninvolved, poverty-stricken Eastern European Jews to slave labor and death: Revisionist logic.
Tyler Turner
>American Wartime Civil Control Administration (WCCA) Assembly Centers >civilian-run War Relocation Authority (WRA) Relocation Centers >Department of Justice (DOJ) camps re-naming them to something nice doesn't take away the fact that they were concentration camps
