The Holocaust Thread - The Great Debate Between Affirmers, Revisionists and Deniers

    • t.me/kiwifarms is our Telegram for downtime and announcements.
    • The .is domain is disabled due to issues with the CDN and having multiple domains.

Chugger

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Sep 22, 2021
so in response to my post linking to a Jim Goad (not a philosemite by any means) article 'Men who taste Jews in their sandwiches" you say
Again, witchcraft was the best thing they could use to describe crimes which we now have specific terms for - the most exact would be "Spiking" or "Date Rape" - things which you likely have a lot of experience with. They weren't doctors, they were people being abused by Jews and had a poor understanding of the methods used - so they just labelled it all as witchcraft and killed them, usually rightfully, for it.

I know that you likely had some fantasies about finding "primitive people" and using your modern knowledge of medicine to drug and abuse them, but in reality, they'd wisen up and kill you for it and label it as justified under religious reasons - they'd just say it was religious if they didn't quite understand it.

so the people, "usually rightfully" killed for being witches

eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials

were in fact secretly poisoned and drugged by Jews? bro, you are making the holocaust deniers look like rocket scientists
 

Shidoen

..-. .-. . . / ... -. .- .. .-.. ... .-.. .. -- .
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Oct 20, 2021
Ey this shit wildin.
 

Lemmingwise

They're always yapping
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Feb 2, 2019
His defense isn't very believable if you read more of the man. Or watch the video that generated his response:


(First release of this video had the same mtv-style cutting. Only the second half of the video is edited by that uploader, apparently, where parts are played in reverse).

Ps, I don't believe the statement below, it's a mirroring statement to make you reconsider your position.

So again, maybe he's wisely covering up his hatred of whites, but it's also possible he is motivated by true justice.
Maybe the national socialist regime was wisely covering up their genocide of jews, but it's also possible they were motivated by true justice.
 

Chugger

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Sep 22, 2021
Re the lynching of blacks in the USA: This is a big difference here, because these lynchings were carried out by vigilante mobs against suspected murderers and rapists. The tortures the soviets conducted were done by official order of the communist government, against POWs and political dissidents.
We know nothing really about the photo you showed earlier. Is there evidence that a Soviet or Jew ordered this guy to be mutilated?

What we can see by looking at how history unfolded, is a clear escalation of conflicts in the eastern front. Prior to WW2, Nazi propaganda was pretty mild. "Jews are swindlers", "Jews are profiteers", "jews stabbed us in the back during the Great War", in general, jews in west and central Europe were accused of being white collar criminals, or sell-outs to the enemy, and the solution was deportation, nobody was really targeting them for anything other than harassment and humiliation (to give an example Krystalnacht was ordered by Goebbels, who ordered no jews be killed or physically injured, unless they fought back, only their property was to be destroyed; and this was done behind Hitler's back, when he found out, he was furious, and nearly kicked Goebbels out of the party, and Hess circulated a letter to all Gauleiters never to do such a thing again). Then after Barbarossa, Nazi propaganda changed to "jews are the instigators of the most horrific crimes against mankind and need to be stopped at any cost".
Hitler most heavily blamed the Jews for starting the war

1638809430520.png


did the Jews start the war? ehhh no. My quick summary here is the Nazis were bullies, and then got told to stop by bigger bullies--the liberal order. Perhaps Britain/France and the US should have allowed Nazi Germany free reign over Eastern Europe, but they didn't, and this had nothing to do with Jews but basic geopolitics, balance of power, shit Britain had been doing for centuries

I have some sympathy for fascism because I view it as a response and reaction to the liberal order which I'm no friend of. The world has problems yeah, and the Jews since they are part of the world, are also problematic. But responsible for liberalism and the problems that come with it? Hah. It's probably comforting for people to believe in a simple explanation for why things are shitty.
 

JohnDoe

Locker room snapshots and political posts are fun!
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Feb 19, 2018
so in response
I'm still waiting for your non sarcastic and direct response to my question. Are you a Jew? It isn't difficult, I'm not even asking if you're ethnically Jewish, practicing Judaism, or the combinations thereof. I'm not even asking if you're Orthodox or Ashkenazi, this shouldn't be difficult.

So are you a Jew?
 

Chugger

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Sep 22, 2021
His defense isn't very believable if you read more of the man. Or watch the video that generated his response:


(First release of this video had the same mtv-style cutting. Only the second half of the video is edited by that uploader, apparently, where parts are played in reverse).

Ps, I don't believe the statement below, it's a mirroring statement to make you reconsider your position.
Those "original" Ignatiev statements are heavily edited and he doesn't say anything particularly offensive anyway. Please send me an unedited interview or article.

Ignatiev seems like a pretty cool guy to be honest,

1638811653290.png



Maybe the national socialist regime was wisely covering up their genocide of jews, but it's also possible they were motivated by true justice.
Yes, based on my reading the Nazis viewed themselves as motivated by true justice. They also certainly believed they were exterminating the Jewish race or doing it great harm (aka they were hostile towards it
 

Lemmingwise

They're always yapping
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Feb 2, 2019
Those "original" Ignatiev statements are heavily edited and he doesn't say anything particularly offensive anyway. Please send me an unedited interview or article.
The first release of this was of that mtv style editing and he has never contested it or said that he was misrepresented.



"My concern is doing away with whiteness"
"There can be no white race, without the phenomenon of white supremacy"
"The task is to (..) make it impossible to for the legacy of whiteness to reproduce itself"
he doesn't say anything particularly offensive anyway.
Ignatiev seems like a pretty cool guy to be honest

Lmao, thanks for going mask off about this whole thing. Must have gotten tiring to keep up the facade.

With this amount of blindness to jewish racial hostility, I can see how you never once seen any in your entire life. He literally calls to organize one race to eliminate another and you say, wow, pretty cool guy. I can see why malcolm x was sick of this shit, too.
 
Last edited:

JohnDoe

Locker room snapshots and political posts are fun!
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Feb 19, 2018
Yes, based on my reading the Nazis viewed themselves as motivated by true justice. They also certainly believed they were exterminating the Jewish race or doing it great harm (aka they were hostile towards it
I'm still waiting for your non sarcastic and direct response to my question. Are you a Jew? It isn't difficult, I'm not even asking if you're ethnically Jewish, practicing Judaism, or the combinations thereof. I'm not even asking if you're Orthodox or Ashkenazi, this shouldn't be difficult.

So, are you a Jew?
 
Last edited:

Bonesjones

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jan 27, 2021
Thinking Chugger can answer any question I'm either a straightforward or honest way. I mean look at how much he ducks and dodges anything that makes him slightly uncomfortable. How he misrepresented all evidence to come to his conclusion no matter how much it doesn't. Hes just another Jewish liar.
 

Willie Thrills

Just bear with
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Oct 8, 2020
so in response to my post linking to a Jim Goad (not a philosemite by any means) article 'Men who taste Jews in their sandwiches" you say


so the people, "usually rightfully" killed for being witches

eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials

were in fact secretly poisoned and drugged by Jews? bro, you are making the holocaust deniers look like rocket scientists
Jesus fucking Christ, this guy.
They were accusing people of being sympathetic to the "enemy" - aka France, in the middle of a major war in which Protestantism itself was under threat. They genuinely believed that Louis XIV was an agent of Satan and therefor, a climate of paranoia was born.

You live in one, I'm sure you're still looking for the evil Antisemites under your bed, despite Hitler being dead for far longer than he was alive.

Thinking Chugger can answer any question I'm either a straightforward or honest way. I mean look at how much he ducks and dodges anything that makes him slightly uncomfortable. How he misrepresented all evidence to come to his conclusion no matter how much it doesn't. Hes just another Jewish liar.
he can't behave honestly, at all, so I'm just dutifully showing people how to handle this sort of bullshit.
 

Rapechu

If you bore me, I shall take my revenge
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Sep 28, 2021
We know nothing really about the photo you showed earlier. Is there evidence that a Soviet or Jew ordered this guy to be mutilated?
https://secondeguerremondialeclairegrube.wordpress.com/2012/11/30/russie-guerre-civile-de-1917-1922/

It is from a French newspaper "L’Illustration" published on July 31, 1920. Article is titled “A People Has Become Mad” by Alfred Savoir:

Machine translated by google translate:

“I have before me authentic, irrefutable documents, photographs taken by the Bolsheviks themselves. It is a horror, an unnamed nightmare: flayed women, butchered trunks, torn limbs. The sight of these horrors would be unbearable to you; I wouldn't mind presenting them to you in their sickening ugliness. " “However, I submit to your appreciation, to your astonishment, the execution of Polish Captain Rosinsky, executed in Orscha in 1918 on the order of the Soviet Commissioner, Mr. B .. (by design I do not publish his very honorably known name). In this inhuman document you will find something more terrible than the ordeal, and that is the attitude of the crowd. Look at these figures: they are bored! A horse that falls on the avenue de l'Opéra provokes in the Parisian public more reflexes, more comments. Here, what placidity, what indifference! The savages, at least, dance in front of the people they scalped. " “The people you see were undoubtedly good people before Bolshevism. They weren't bullies as you might think. Peasants, workers or petty bourgeois, before being recruited for the Red Army, they had a certain education, religion, morality, scruples, a conscience. It all vanished. In two years a people suddenly changed its nature, its thought, its sensitivity, its psychology. Bolshevism contains a force of destruction greater, more formidable than that of war. He destroys, he kills souls. It is here - much more than in summary executions, than in learned punishments - the crime of Bolshevism. " “I would like to talk to you again about Mr. B…, People's Commissar, who ordered this beautiful spectacle.” “I once knew him; he was a charming teenager, with an ironic and joking mind. He was familiar with French culture, he admired the novels of Barres and he readily quoted poets that I was completely ignorant of. He was also a great dancer, a great flirtatious and a good bridger. He came to Paris a lot, and he was having fun. " “Today this enjoyable and skeptical bourgeois, this happy boy impales people. Understand who can! “

So the author of the article personally knows the person who had ordered this killing, and directly attributes him to be acting in official function as a Soviet Commissioner. The commissioner's race is not revealed, but I did not mean to imply that he was jewish, only that the Soviet Union did have a precedent for brutality, so it is not unfeasible for me to believe that jewish leaders within the USSR were now using their position to promote a continuation of brutality (like the kind that had been seen in the 20s and 30s) against Germans and Ukrainians due to the racially-charged ongoing war.

Hitler most heavily blamed the Jews for starting the war

View attachment 2778529

did the Jews start the war? ehhh no.
Hitler is speaking to the Reichstag, so he is speaking to party members whom he presumes are already familiar with his views. Once again, this is an accusation of jews as white collar criminals, which is more common in the early war, and not so much accusing jews of barbarism. Hitler believes that the liberal world order is run by banks, and that democratic politicians are often just puppets to wealthy oligarchs, and these wealthy oligarchs are overwhelmingly jewish, and through this means, jewish oligarchy is a shadow government that manipulates formal governments to go to war for it. Hitler wanted to create an autarkic country, which is a completely economically independent country with a local economy which is self-sustaining which the globalist bankers cannot profit from. Hitler has always maintained that the reason why Britain opposed him, was because of this, because this would be an economic system designed to be insulated against global depression, where investors could not capitalize on the German economy, which he felt was being exploited, particularly because of the collapsed post-WW1 economy they suffered from for so many years. So Hitler is using aggressive rhetoric, but is naming financiers as the culprits, and is saying "is this war going to be good for the jews or for the political movements they are attached to? No, if they go to war with us, we will destroy them".

My quick summary here is the Nazis were bullies, and then got told to stop by bigger bullies--the liberal order.
Eh... I don't think they were bullies. Before WW2, Hitler only ever demanded territories with a significant German population, which was actively demanding to be returned to Germany.

-Austria: Austria held a referendum which overwhelmingly voted to join Germany. All contemporaries agreed there was no foul play, and nothing wrong had occurred here, as it was by popular will.
-Sudetenland: Czechoslovakia was going through a crisis where a German separatist political party was being suppressed by the government, which was brewing into a civil war as German separatists were rising up. An international conference was held and it was agreed that they should be returned to Germany by popular will. ("Returned" in the sense that Germany was now the inheritor of Austria's legacy, as the two countries had merged)
-Bohemia and Slovakia: Slovakia declared independence and the Czech government lost control of the military. Commanders were going rogue and firing at German troops arriving in Sudetenland (in the agreed-upon borders), which made President Hacha lose his shit and fear a German military response, so to prevent this, he basically surrendered pre-emptively, recognizing that Czechoslovakia had become a collapsed state and was in need of protection from a great power. Shortly afterwards, the Slovaks did the same, probably fearing Hungarian or Soviet annexation. Even though this was a completely legitimate mutually-agreed on treaty, this was spun as an invasion and a treaty violation by the western powers that be.
-Memel: this was given to Germany by Lithuania without any quarrel. In fact, Memel was supposed to be a free city like Danzig, but the Lithuanians annexed it illegally. It also had a large German population.
-Danzig: Danzig voted for many years in a row to be annexed into Germany, but Hitler never did this because he knew it would upset the Poles. Eventually Hitler asked Britain for permission, and Britain agreed as long as the Poles agreed too. So this led to Hitler opening negotiations with Poland, which actually caused Poland to lose their shit because the Poles thought of Danzig as a Polish city even though it was German by population. This lead to sabre-rattling, ethnic tensions, and quickly escalated, and the rest is history.

So before WW2 the Germans weren't just going around like the communists did, annexing foreign cultures for the sake of imperialism, they were actually just fulfilling Hitler's campaign promises, which was to be an avocate for Germans at home and abroad, and Hitler did not demand any place which Germans did not have a majority population. Hitler was also diplomatic enough not to demand, say, Alsace-Loraine, which also had a German majority, because he knew that it would escalate to war with France. He also never bothered Italy about South Tyrol.

Perhaps Britain/France and the US should have allowed Nazi Germany free reign over Eastern Europe, but they didn't, and this had nothing to do with Jews but basic geopolitics, balance of power, shit Britain had been doing for centuries
It probably involves multiple factors, but I generally agree. Though Britain had alway been primarily an empire based on control over commerce, so capitalism (and capitalists) are always a major motivator for their historical actions.

I have some sympathy for fascism because I view it as a response and reaction to the liberal order which I'm no friend of. The world has problems yeah, and the Jews since they are part of the world, are also problematic. But responsible for liberalism and the problems that come with it? Hah. It's probably comforting for people to believe in a simple explanation for why things are shitty.
I generally agree. I don't think it's fair to lay all the problems of the world at jews' feet. Whites are just as involved in capitalism and communism as jews are. But when jews involved in these things have a very prominent voice or position of power, it sticks out like a sore thumb and people take notice, because people begin to question "why is someone who doesn't think of himself as one of us, now ruling over us? And is he acting in our interests, or in jewish interests?" So it is not so much that jews are more immoral than whites, only that they are far more conspicuous.
 

Chugger

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Sep 22, 2021
The first release of this was of that mtv style editing and he has never contested it or said that he was misrepresented.



"My concern is doing away with whiteness"
"There can be no white race, without the phenomenon of white supremacy"
"The task is to (..) make it impossible to for the legacy of whiteness to reproduce itself"
What does doing away with 'whiteness' mean exactly?

According to this definition

1638822893281.png


Ignatiev's 'whiteness' does not refer to people of European descent, but rather what he sees as a social category. So there are no white people, but rather German people, French people, and yes Ashkenazi Jews, who as far as I know have fair skin and count themselves as white on US census

I'm still waiting for your non sarcastic and direct response to my question. Are you a Jew? It isn't difficult, I'm not even asking if you're ethnically Jewish, practicing Judaism, or the combinations thereof. I'm not even asking if you're Orthodox or Ashkenazi, this shouldn't be difficult.

So, are you a Jew?
I'm Irish
 

Attachments

  • 1638823524287.png
    1638823524287.png
    86.8 KB · Views: 23

Chugger

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Sep 22, 2021
@Rapechu said:

So before WW2 the Germans weren't just going around like the communists did, annexing foreign cultures for the sake of imperialism, they were actually just fulfilling Hitler's campaign promises, which was to be an avocate for Germans at home and abroad, and Hitler did not demand any place which Germans did not have a majority population.

This is incorrect, based (eg) on Goebbels diaries, a source no revisionist disputes. Bohemia and Moravia, the territory seized in 1939, was probably less than 5% German


I originally compiled this info to post somewhere else


Goebbels diaries concerning the “Czech Crisis”

Interesting to read Irving’s interpretation here: http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/Goebbels/Book.pdf

Based on this and the text he quotes, a few things seem fairly well evidenced:

1. At this time Germany was on a path of territorial expansion beyond areas with substantial German population (Czechoslovakia minus Sudetenland, Baltic countries, Hungary and Romania are mentioned)

2. Nazi leadership was very close to deciding on invading Czechoslovakia in 1938 despite their knowledge that the Sudetenland demands would very likely be met. It was surprising for me to learn this.

3. Leadership employed extensive subterfuge/false propaganda/deception to help them accomplish their aims.

In general the thing that stands out is British/French/Polish mistrust and suspicion of Germany are validated here. What Germany seems to want, above all else, is a free hand in the East. It’s actually a valid discussion about whether or not this should have been “allowed”. There’s many examples in history of Britain constraining continental strength in Europe (ie Napoleonic era), though perhaps this was really just the British establishing hegemony due to their maritime power and overseas colonies. European powers, with the British as exemplars, had politically subjugated and colonized vast regions of America, Asia, and Africa. The Nazis simply wanted this as well, only this time with Eastern Europe.

We begin immediately following the Anschluss of Austria in March 1938 when the decision to take Czechoslovakia was made. Irving writes:
On March  Hitler invited him upstairs to his little study in the Reich chancellery, unrolled a map of central Europe, and plotted their next moves. Each man spurred the other on. Germany would tackle Czechoslovakia next, Hitler confirmed. ‘We’ll share that with the Poles and Hungarians,’ recorded Goebbels afterwards: ‘And without ado. At the next best opportunity.’ (‘We are a boa constric- tor, still digesting,’ he added, as though apologising to the diary for the delay since entering Austria.) Then, the two men agreed, Germany would strike north-east into the Baltic countries, and west into Alsace and Lorraine. ‘Just let France wallow deeper and deeper into her crisis,’ he wrote. ‘Let there be no false sentimentality.’ How he admired Hitler. ‘How stirring it is when he says his one desire is to live to see with his own eyes this great German, Teutonic Reich.’

Longerich relates this scene thusly:
“On March 19, in Hitler’s study in the Reich Chancellery, Goebbels was informed about Hitler’s further foreign policy plans: “Then we study the map: Czechoslovakia is next. We share it with Poland and Hungary. [Go in] relentlessly at the next opportunity.” It emerges at this point that “we wanted to bag” the Memel area, administered by Lithuania, “if Kovno had gotten into a conflict with Warsaw,” but the case had not arisen: “We are now a boa constrictor, digesting its prey.” But it did not stop there: “Then the Baltic, and a chunk of Alsace and Lorraine. We need France to sink further and further into its crisis. No false sentimentality.”98”

Note that the non-German Baltic states are distinguished from Memel. The annexation of Alsace and Lorraine, though perhaps morally justifiable due to the high German population there, evinces Hitler’s willingness or perhaps realism about fighting the west at some point.

Now moving forward to the summer, near the outset of the 'Sudeten Crisis’:
Five days later, both Goebbels and Hitler spoke at the athletic festival in Breslau. Reassuring the twenty thousand madly cheering Sudeten Germans present, Goebbels bragged that their enemies now had to take Germany ‘bloody seriously.’ ‘Too cowardly to open fire on us with machine-guns and artillery,’ he shrilled, ‘they set upon the Reich with printer’s ink.’ Yet privately he foresaw problems even in victory. What was Germany to do with the six million Czechs, he pondered, once they had overrun Czechoslovakia?

War psychosis gradually permeated Europe’s capitals including Berlin. Addressing the gauleiters, Göring argued against panicking. Goebbels, listening in his capacity as gauleiter of Berlin, wondered uneasily whether the German people would stand for a long war. They would have to rely on rapid surprise tactics. He could see Hitler’s mind constantly turned to Britain—how dearly he would like to be on good terms with her—and to the south-east. ‘We don’t want these peoples,‘ Hitler commented later in August, discussing Hungary, Romania, and Czechoslovakia. ‘Just their land.’

THE WAR clouds now conjured up by Hitler over Europe were thus almost a welcome diversion. Several times the diary showed him debating privately with his senior staff whether there would be war—‘the one big topic now.’ Through a British mediator Prague had offered conciliatory terms to the Sudeten Germans, but this only embarrassed Hitler. ‘The problem now,’ observed Goebbels,’is how the Führer can create a suitable situation to strike.’
Here Germany is shown to desire war (or bloodless occupation) over a settlement where they get just the Sudetenland.

‘Things are panning out just as we wanted,’ triumphed Goebbels as the world’s press betrayed the first signs of panic.The death toll began to rise—‘over fifty in one village,’ he recorded, carelessly confusing fact with his own propaganda. Addressing his editors he called for tough nerves and perseverance.
Here Irving insinuates Goebbels’ propaganda (of heinous crimes against Sudeten Germans) was not grounded in truth.

Then came the totally unexpected. The elderly British prime minister Neville Cham- berlain offered to visit Hitler the next day. Still hoping for a military showdown which would give him all of Czechoslovakia, Hitler had little opinion but to agree. For a moment Prague faltered, and relaxed her pressure. ‘Nevertheless,’ observed the cynical propaganda minister, ‘we make a splash about “Czech terror.” Things have got to be brought up to boiling point.’
Irving’s thoughts here so the entries he is referencing should be examined on their own.

He [Goebbels] issued fresh instructions to Berndt to create the necessary frontier incidents.
Berndt was a journalist working for Goebbels.

Goebbels attended both days of the Hitler–Chamberlain conferences at Godesberg. The first on September  began at four P.M. and lasted for three hours. Hitler’s new sketch-map shocked the Englishman. But Hitler reminded him that the frontiers would look somewhat worse if he eventually had to use force. (The main thing, realized Goebbels, listening to them haggling, was to get behind the formidable Czech mountain fortifications.)
“Behind the mountain fortifications." I remember learning in 10th grade history about this. Getting past the mountain defenses was important because then Czechoslovakia could have been taken much more easily in the case of armed conflict.

As the deadline for Hitler’s ultimatum approached Goebbels decided to head him off. The British and French ambassadors got to Hitler first, bringing fragrant fresh proposals. Ribbentrop was furious that war might be averted. ‘He nurtures a blind hatred of Britain,’ decided Goebbels. ‘Göring, Neurath, and I urge Hitler to accept.... You can’t get into what may well turn into a world war over procedural issues. Göring ... totally shares my viewpoint and gives Ribbentrop a piece of his mind.’ ‘Mein Führer,’ he blurted out over lunch in Hitler’s chancellery on the twenty-eighth, ‘if you think that the German public is thirsting for war, you are wrong. They watch its approach with a leaden sense of apathy.’

In that instant Hitler changed his mind. According to Ribbentrop’s Staatssekretär Ernst von Weizsäcker␣ it was primarily Goebbels who persuaded Hitler to back off from war at this, the eleventh hour.Perhaps Hitler even welcomed his moderating influence. He immediately approved suggestions for a four-power conference to take place in Munich the next day. Goebbels saw the likely outcome thus: We take the Sudeten territories peacefully; the grand solution remains wide open, and we gird ourselves for future contingencies.’
Here we find again the notion that Germany was very close to war, Irving calls it the 11th hour, despite the great possibility of them getting what they were publicly demanding re the Sudetenland.

“Remaining in Berlin, he warned his editors not to let their campaign about ‘Czech terror’ flag either. Soon Hanke, sent to Munich as his observer, reported that Musso- lini, Chamberlain, and Daladier had agreed to Hitler’s demands. Czechoslovakia should hand over the disputed territories in the first ten days of October. ‘So that’s all we get for the time being,’ noted Goebbels. ‘Under the circumstances,’ he added, hiding his relief, ‘we are unable to realize our grand plan’—seizing all␣ of Czechoslovakia.”

Now we leap forward from September 1938 to the events of March 1939: the dissolution of Czechoslovakia and creation of a German protectorate in its place.
THE very next day the Nazis’ months of subversion in Slovakia paid off. For weeks since Munich Hitler’s agents had been fomenting discord there. Slovakia declared herself independent from Prague. On the tenth Prague sent in troops to arrest the Slovak prime minister. This was the opportunity Hitler wanted, to ‘solve the problem we left half-solved in October,’ as Goebbels put it. Hitler sprang into action and sent for Goebbels at midday followed by Ribbentrop and Keitel soon after. The deci- sion was to march in on Wednesday the fifteenth, smash the whole hybrid Czech state, and seize Prague. ‘Our frontier must extend to the Carpathians,’ Goebbels penned into his (hitherto unpublished) diaries: ‘The Ides of March.’
Irving states heavy German hand in destabilizing the region in preparation for the planned solving of the problem "left half-solved in October", that is the case of Czechoslovakia.

Afterwards he sat sipping tea with Hitler until four A.M. in the artistes’ club—‘We have our alibi,’ wrote Goebbels, ignoring the word’s criminal connotations. Upset- ting Hitler’s cynical plot, the Slovak leader Father Tiso refused to sign the appeal for German help that Hitler had sent him. The steam was going out of the plan. ‘We’re going to have to help it along a bit,’ observed Goebbels. ‘The balloon’s got to go up. We’ll find a cause.’ Next day, March , began with bad news—that Prague had restored Tiso to office; this proved wrong, and Goebbels sighed with relief. ‘Our operation is running according to timetable,’ noted Goebbels. ‘Abroad, nobody’s spotted anything.’ Berndt reported in, and Goebbels jokingly appointed the thickset, burly Nazi propagandist his ‘Reich Rumourmonger.’ It was the Sudeten crisis all over again.
Here Germany is again manufacturing pretext for an invasion of Czechoslovakia.

“Hacha arrived with his foreign minister from Prague the evening. ‘The Führer,’ recorded his admiring propaganda minister, ‘has them wait until midnight, slowly and surely wearing them out. That’s what they did with us at Versailles. The tried and tested methods of political tactics.’ The tension mounts as we all wait for the outcome of their talks... Once Hacha collapses in a faint, then they surrender all down the line. They accept more than we ever dreamed possible. And unconditionally. Order their own troops not to offer any resistance. “
We are perhaps reminded here of Hitler’s famous words concerning the Sudetenland. "And now we face the last great problem that must be resolved and that will be resolved! It is the last territorial demand I shall make in Europe.”

I suppose it is a matter of semantics, but I think threatening to invade a country unless they sign it over to you counts as a 'territorial demand'.
Germany had also seemingly been planning for this takeover since before Munich, as well as creating favorable conditions for it in the previous months, making Hitler's deception here even more blatant, at least if we can trust what we've learned from Irving + Goebbels' diary on this subject.

I would encourage anyone here to examine Goebbels’ full diary to see if they can find flaws in Irving's interpretations. It seems most of the entries for this period are available on his site: http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/PDF-foreign-versions/UNBEKANNTER-DR-GOEBBELS.pdf
 
Last edited:

JohnDoe

Locker room snapshots and political posts are fun!
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Feb 19, 2018
I'm Irish
I'm still waiting for your non sarcastic and direct response to my question. Are you a Jew? It isn't difficult, I'm not even asking if you're ethnically Jewish, practicing Judaism, or the combinations thereof. I'm not even asking if you're Orthodox or Ashkenazi, this shouldn't be difficult.

So, are you a Jew?
 

Rapechu

If you bore me, I shall take my revenge
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Sep 28, 2021
What does doing away with 'whiteness' mean exactly?

According to this definition

View attachment 2778955

Ignatiev's 'whiteness' does not refer to people of European descent, but rather what he sees as a social category. So there are no white people, but rather German people, French people, and yes Ashkenazi Jews, who as far as I know have fair skin and count themselves as white on US census


I'm Irish
There is no way that he does not realize that his idea of "privilege" is actually just the privilege of being an assimilated inhabitant of a country and being a member of the majority. By his definition, if I go to Zimbabwe, then "whiteness" is when Mugabe is taking away the farms of poor white farmers and leaving them homeless. It's arbitrarily attaching a racial/cultural element to what is in fact a common element to every society, which is that it is based on a shared heritage. At this point, he is just arbitrarily redefining words in order to form a false mental association between two completely unrelated concepts. Why not call it jewishness then? What if I say "Jewishness is when you swindle and profiteer and backstab your countrymen" and then when people say "hey don't you think you're being a little bit of a jerk towards jews?" then I respond "Well actually, I don't define jewishness as a race, I define jewishness as a system whereby international financiers profit off of a global economy by speculating on labor and manipulating markets, so I'm not being racist :smug:"

I'm still waiting for your non sarcastic and direct response to my question. Are you a Jew? It isn't difficult, I'm not even asking if you're ethnically Jewish, practicing Judaism, or the combinations thereof. I'm not even asking if you're Orthodox or Ashkenazi, this shouldn't be difficult.

So, are you a Jew?
I honestly don't think this really matters, we're all discussing ideas here, and ideas should stand or fail on their own merits regardless of who said them. I think that, anyways, jews should have the right to defend themselves from allegations made against them.
 

Rapechu

If you bore me, I shall take my revenge
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Sep 28, 2021
@Chugger re:Sudetenland

When tensions are running high, everyone starts sabre-rattling, but Hitler did let cooler heads prevail and acquiesced to a reasonable settlement in the end (only the German-speaking territories being annexed). Placing Bohemia into a union with Germany was also done by mutual treaty, not by a forceful invasion (which is what many people wrongfully believe), and was largely a result of the fact that the Czech military was now shooting at German soldiers crossing into Sudetenland, so once again, this wasn't a situation that Hitler had initiated, even if he did start sabre-rattling about it. Goering testified at Nuremberg that the NSDAP felt that Czechoslovakia was a hostile country and that by bringing it into a union they were securing the peace and economic stability of the region.

It wasn't only Hitler who was bearing down on Hacha either, Stalin also had "offered" to station soviet troops in Bohemia for "protection". We saw with the Baltic states just what happened to countries that accepted Stalin's demands (they were quickly couped and annexed). There was also the large possibility of further Polish or Slovak aggression against the Czechoslovak rump state (which was clearly outside of the protection of any major power), so by surrendering to Hitler, Hacha could at least guarantee some degree of autonomy for Czechia and avoid further conflict. So this treaty was one of mutual benefit, given the circumstances.
 

Chugger

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Sep 22, 2021
@Chugger re:Sudetenland
it really doesn't seem like you read my post, which I won't blame you for, since it was long as hell. I wrote it a while ago and basically went through Irving's entire chapter on the subject

So we can go through this slowly, and you tell me what you think.

THE WAR clouds now conjured up by Hitler over Europe were thus almost a welcome diversion. Several times the diary showed him debating privately with his senior staff whether there would be war—‘the one big topic now.’ Through a British mediator Prague had offered conciliatory terms to the Sudeten Germans, but this only embarrassed Hitler. ‘The problem now,’ observed Goebbels,’is how the Führer can create a suitable situation to strike.’
Strike? Wut why?

We can also look at some previous entries for context (going back to Spring of 1938

On March  Hitler invited him upstairs to his little study in the Reich chancellery, unrolled a map of central Europe, and plotted their next moves. Each man spurred the other on. Germany would tackle Czechoslovakia next, Hitler confirmed. ‘We’ll share that with the Poles and Hungarians,’ recorded Goebbels afterwards: ‘And without ado. At the next best opportunity.’ (‘We are a boa constric- tor, still digesting,’ he added, as though apologising to the diary for the delay since entering Austria.) Then, the two men agreed, Germany would strike north-east into the Baltic countries, and west into Alsace and Lorraine. ‘Just let France wallow deeper and deeper into her crisis,’ he wrote. ‘Let there be no false sentimentality.’ How he admired Hitler. ‘How stirring it is when he says his one desire is to live to see with his own eyes this great German, Teutonic Reich.’

Longerich relates this scene thusly:
“On March 19, in Hitler’s study in the Reich Chancellery, Goebbels was informed about Hitler’s further foreign policy plans: “Then we study the map: Czechoslovakia is next. We share it with Poland and Hungary. [Go in] relentlessly at the next opportunity.” It emerges at this point that “we wanted to bag” the Memel area, administered by Lithuania, “if Kovno had gotten into a conflict with Warsaw,” but the case had not arisen: “We are now a boa constrictor, digesting its prey.” But it did not stop there: “Then the Baltic, and a chunk of Alsace and Lorraine. We need France to sink further and further into its crisis. No false sentimentality.”98”

Five days later, both Goebbels and Hitler spoke at the athletic festival in Breslau. Reassuring the twenty thousand madly cheering Sudeten Germans present, Goebbels bragged that their enemies now had to take Germany ‘bloody seriously.’ ‘Too cowardly to open fire on us with machine-guns and artillery,’ he shrilled, ‘they set upon the Reich with printer’s ink.’ Yet privately he foresaw problems even in victory. What was Germany to do with the six million Czechs, he pondered, once they had overrun Czechoslovakia?

What is going on here exactly?
 
Last edited:

Bonesjones

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jan 27, 2021
it really doesn't seem like you read my post, which I won't blame you for, since it was long as hell.
You dont even read the items you post since they constantly contradict what you say and or say they say. You either a bold face liar or so caught up in your own bullshit you find delusional connections to your own thought. You say eyewitness accounts only matter if they agree with you and unsurprisingly they tend to be Jewish.

You are just another Jewish supremacist absolving jews of every crime against the goys.
 
Last edited:

Rapechu

If you bore me, I shall take my revenge
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Sep 28, 2021
it really doesn't seem like you read my post, which I won't blame you for, since it was long as hell. I wrote it a while ago and basically went through Irving's entire chapter on the subject
I read it, but it doesn't seem as interesting to me as you think it is.

What is going on here exactly?
Memel ("the Baltic"): this is a German-settled area which was illegally annexed by Lithuania
Alsace-Lorraine: This is also a German-settled area, taken by France after WW1
Sudetenland: This is a German-settled area which was part of Austria-Hungary

Czechoslovakia and France were regarded as hostile to Germany. The German government were merely excited about the opportunity to achieve all their goals at once, to reunite the Germans and remove a hostile government from Czechoslovakia, because the Sudeten crisis was regarded internationally as a legitimate grievance for Germany, so if it did break out into war, it would be very beneficial for the Germans. Czechoslovakia was primarily a French-allied satellite. If France protects it, then they will lose the war without British aid; if France abandons it, then they will lose influence over central Europe which they had acquired after WW1. This is just great power diplomacy, which the German government knew how to turn to their advantage.

Also, it is worth noting that Germany accepted France's armistice in 1940, and in fact their demands were extremely mild, their only permanent annexation was Alsace-Lorraine (the disputed area) and nothing else. So just because Hitler was excited about the prospect of a war with France, doesn't mean that Hitler was overly aggressive with his goals. Hitler, like most people, probably still regarded WW1 as an aberration, and still thought that most wars would be more like the Franco-Prussian War, more like a gentlemanly round of fisticuffs which end quickly, with both sides signing a treaty after a few decisive battles, and without carrying it on to mutual extinction. It was really the British refusal to negotiate that turned it into another war of extinction, but it didn't have to be that way.
 
Last edited: