#no_jews_confirmed

i think if we invade area 51 there'd be a paper on great experiment, where they created jews to keep us from money and power

Oof.

Get rekt, holocaust deniers.

I don't see where they address the claim that the gas chambers were "rebuilt" by the Soviets after the war in their holocaust revisionist rebuttals

And that the doors on the wrong way round

So, either we have a wide scale conspiracy .. where the wide slew of survivors are in on it with a bunch of people dead.. *or* there was a genocidal campaign that this group of survivors managed to eak by whilst their fellows were used for experimentation (of which we still benefit from the results thereof medically).

Ultimately this is the same sort of problem I have with flat earthers. The scale of conspiracy that *must* be assumed to make it not be is far too widescale to make it make sense.

Furthermore, Germans are damned good at engineering so such a thing is a non-issue to stabilize the chemical agent in question (also, what the person up there said is one of many reasonable work arounds).

One thing I will say, is anything the Soviets touched is poisoned information so I won't bother trying to defend them as a data source, but there are countless eyewitness reports of the matter on *both* (German and Jew alike) sides.

Finally, although the exact number massacred is up to debate, the fact that there was a massacre of civilian population is not contestable. Elsewise where did that population go?

I think that last point is really the important one here tbh. Who the fuck cares how did they kill em?

Lots were just shot along the way as the Germans progressed East during Barbarossa...

**HAM** is typing...

But then at that point if we're just talking about people died during a war the issue of the Holocaust is that it distracts from the killings of lots of people.
The Holocaust is unironically not inclusive enough.
The Holocaust is put on a pedestal while the deaths caused by allied bombings go unnoticed, from Dresden to Tokyo. That thousands of ethnic Germans were killed and forcibly removed from areas that had call home for centuries all for the purpose of peace after the war.

From my research I've not heard the claim about Zyklon B being highly flammable. But it's an issue either way that one can not even simply disagree with points perhaps disputable in Europe now because it's criminal to do so.

I'd have to wonder what the state of the Holocaust would have been if the Allies agreed to peace with Germany after being pushed from the continent.
But I guess it's needless to speculate.

At the end of the day for me personally I'm not going to believe either way because I can't do so I good honest conscious.
I'm not entirely bias in defending fascism because I'm not really a fascist. I just disagree with the point that politically from communist to conservative the Holocaust is banded around to say look at what people who want to preserve an ethnicity will do, ignoring the death toll of their own side.

(And yes I take time to write long. I'd be quicker if on the computer but alas I'm on my phone)

The Holocaust also specifically only concerns the Jewish civilian victims of the German gov. - allegedly around 6 million. outside of that there is also about 5 million other civilian victims of the German gov..

Holobunga

Murdered for various reasons including political, ethnic, ideological or a mix of them all.

Sexual deviants, elites of the countries to be Germanized, all political opposition...

The infirm

**HAM** is typing...

I'm just curious to know why Sargon thinks we needed to go back onto the continent after our withdrawal? During WW2.
It's not like the Germans were suing for peace or anything. Oh wait.

Well to be honest with how Sargon's been going lately I honestly don't know what he'd even say.
Like his constant appeals to tradition lately and his defence of Eton elite being the rightful rulers of England bollocks to liberalism and proper representation.

Right wing populism is one helluva drug

He bought into the 19th century historiography of Glorious Britain

syncretic populism when

the entire 19th century is, for the Euro Empires of the time, the birth of History as a discipline

and it was born almost entirely as a propaganda too, explicitly so

he whole narrative of Britain as this unique beacon of Liberty comes from that

This destiny to lead the way in the field of personal freedom and whatnot. It's a powerful story

And I remember when he 1st started to buy into it

only went further and further down that road, and even at the beginning he was rather chauvinistic about it

understandably so, because his opposition wishes to degrade any English identity as much as possible

but I think he might be playing into their hands a bit

I think that he should have went nationalist but not chauvinist. As a strategy that is. Politically I think both are gay options.

but that is another story

I agree. He plays far to much into the Britain has been for freedom for a really really long time guys while we castrate homosexuals for winning the war

Land of the free (ultra puritans who's national religion was an attempt by the monarchy to gain ultimate moral authority over its citizenry as well as political)

(The castration of gays always just fucking confused me as a Pollack... To us this is such an outlandish idea... Like, gay bad, ok... But mutilation far worse so... Wtf? And why do you even care that much?! It's such a niche issue that rarely ever comes up to begin with... S'not like they suck dick in public...)

You know how the Russian Empire punished gays? It called them pansies behind their backs. Fucking ultra-authoritarian, the Tsar is above morality Russian Empire.

I've probably said it before in here but Sargon also said something rather silly in regards to the "battle" of cable street. That he would of been on the side opposing the British Union of Fascist.
Of course a charitable interpretation would be that he means he'd be on the side opposing the fascist.
However if we're to take this statement for what it is, Sargon is saying that he'd of allied himself with the violent rioting communist and I believe mostly foreign Jews in this case against the police. You know pouring human waste on them, throwing marbles under their horses (I.e trying to cripple them). In opposition to the fascist who instead turned around and had a peaceful March in the other direction.
Not looking good is it.
Especially when you've got the WW1 veteran campaigning for peace not war (in the form of Oswald Mosley) vs the WW1 general who sent tens of thousands of men to their death in a failed military campaign. And then wanting into war that cost hundreds of thousands of British deaths.
(Winston Churchill if you hadn't caught on)

Then of course if I'm to just compare the moral fortitude of Churchill vs Mosley just a little more.
Take the issue of India.
Mosley who held great sympathies to the suffering of the Indian colonies, decrying the crimes of sweatshop labour endorsed by globalist capitalism.
Churchill on the other hand compared Indians to rabbits when they were starving to death in the millions from a famine because he'd diverted food away for the war effort.

it's funny too

ethiopia as an italian colony prospered as it had never before while the brits left bangladesh to starve

of course, i'm not going to pretend the acquisition of fascist italy's colonial territories wasn't accompanied by a fair amount of brutality