Jews like to claim "blood libal " whenever anyone says anything about them doing criminal things that gave rise to stories like vampires , but if you dare even question the narrative of the holocaust then you are evil and should be killed.
Also it's now illegal in many US states to do a boycott of israel due to laws passed too. So not only can you not question things that happened 70 years ago, you are not allowed to stop your money from going to a foreign nation halfway across the world.
Aye, the letter of these laws and measures is not exactly as prohibitive as one might expect. Still, it's a slimy tributary act in service to a foreign power that the U.S. doesn't owe any true allegiance.
It was intended to attack people who advertise their boycott. Basically, they could score woke points there, a la Ben and Jerrys. I think a boycott makes you more friends than it loses.
Protecting US allies from malicious actors isnt a bad thing. Tax dollars finance military bases all over the world, which ensure world peace. How is this any different?
It's actually sad when you think about it. Have YOU ever spent hours daily trolling social media groups or message boards containing people you don't like?
I haven't. You know why? I have a life. I go to work 5-6 days a week. I have friends and family.
These pathetic fucking leftoid worms you see making 40 sock puppets to troll online are sitting in Mommy's house, or leeching government benefits and couch surfing. It's insanely pathetic to think about what actually enables people like this faggot to be faggots on the internet.
we entered the war on the wrong side, frankly. there was a large contingent of the USA at the time that did not want to enter the war at all. and if we did, we wanted to enter it on the German side.
but of course by the 40's we were already infiltrated and subverted by zionist jew cultists at the highest levels.
Not just a commie, an outright Bolshevik. Half his cabinet were friends with Trotsky. Once we take this country back we should dig up his bones, strap them to a wheelchair and try his corpse for treason.
To be fair, there was almost certainly a lot of pressure and influence coming from Britain and other allied nations actively embroiled in the war as well.
Not that I'm discounting your claims, but merely pointing out that there were almost certainly other parties involved too.
Well, Britain should have also never involved itself in the war, either. It was between continental countries, and their insignificant little island nation would have never been a target otherwise.
Britain was the one that egged on Poland to instigate a war with Germany. Britain made a secret pact with Poland, that if war broke out, no matter who started it, that Britain would ally with Poland against Germany. It was all a ruse to start a war with Germany, since Britain didn't give a shit about Poland, since the "allies" declared war on Germany for invading Poland, but not Soviet Russia for doing the exact same thing and in the exact same month.
The Americans didn't want to enter the war. No one really wanted to enter it on the German side because even during the 30's everyone could see that the National Socialists were shit.
I don't know why you're downvoted. It took the probably-contrived Pearl Harbor attack to get US public opinion on the side of entering the war. Back then people took it seriously that if they hit you, you hit them back no matter who their friends are. The Japanese were perfectly played in this way. Their overconfidence was played, and "someone" got their war fought for them. I speak of course about the British.
I've never been one to really care about the Jews, plight of the Jews, arguing about the Jews, etc. Still you make a fool of yourself in anything to take the story of one side as the whole truth and totally dismiss any alternate accounts. The truth is always elsewhere. Even if something as crazy as 95% of the Jewish account of the holocaust is true, that means 5% is not.
I do find the comment a bit dumb to imply that a country at war should not have cut off supply lines of the country they were trying to defeat. I'll take that over a modern pussified forever war. Aggressively win or go home.
There’s a Chilean ultra violent horror movie called Trauma. It features wildly over-the-top depictions of sexual assault and torture, mostly apropos of nothing. The director said that he made the movie to bring attention to the historical atrocities of Pinochet.
All I could think while reading about this explanation was “muh masturbation machines”. Leftists lie nonstop about everything right here and now. Why would we imagine that they have ever told the truth? At this point, I distrust basically the entire historical narrative.
I wouldn't say that's necessarily the implication they are trying to make. Moreso they seem to be clapping back at someone trotting out the "my grandfather liberated the camps and saw the horrors" shtick. I think it's perfectly reasonable to point out if a significant portion of that is due to logistic failures caused by war.
UK killed 750 000 dogs and cats to prepare for WW2 due to possible country-wide food shortages (and that was still at the very beginning of the war, when all infrastructures were perfectly ok).
If a country is attacked from 2 opposite sides by the 2 other biggest military power in the world (both with an army size far above yours), and suffered constant bombing, local revolutions, and other small operations all over your territory to cut resources, wouldn't you expect some logistical issues too? Even the tiny war (in comparison) between Ukraine and Russia right now has impacted logistics on a multi-national level. Remember the logistic nightmare that was at the end Afghanistan war by Biden, where all countries where in panic mode to retrieve their soldiers and equipment?
In general, I despise when leftoids, or anyone really, creates a term that labels a position on an issue and simply use that term to stifle any and all discussion on the issue by merely using the label as an argument itself. "Holocaust denier" "Anti-vaxxer" Hell, even "Flat Earther." Pure NPC useful idiot behavior.
This is why logic is a key way to identify them and dismantle their arguments. They use logically unsound, inconsistent, and fallacious arguments. You'll never "win" an argument with them using logic, as they've openly embraced the antithesis. It's more for you and those listening. The specific example you bring up is an ad hominem logical fallacy.
Notice, once again, the Soviets invaded Poland which the Socialists cited explicitly as a hive of jewry which needed to be exterminated, because it had the largest concentration of jews in Europe. The Soviets found plenty of Labor camps as well.
Italy doesn't have extermination camps because the Italians didn't agree with Aryanist rhetoric, and many of the Italian Fascists were also jews.
The Germans themselves showed that although they were comfortable with deporting jews, they weren't okay with mass executions or terrorism like they saw with Kristalnacht, hence another reason the Germans didn't want extermination to take place literally in Germany if it could be avoided.
Allied bombing and blockade didn't cause mass starvation, Socialism did. The German Socialists were struggling to feed the country when they were winning. Even if you want to blame the poor conditions on starvation, that doesn't mean that jews weren't intentionally starved more severely than the Russians. The Russians were also intentionally starved more than the western allies. The Holocaust, in part, was a solution to the problem of not being able to feed everyone, let alone POWs or people who they thought were racial inferiors that deserved to be exterminated.
I'm sorry that I didn't get back to this, but it's important so this is a quite delayed reply.
So, fundamentally, this starts with Hitler asserting the "Shrinking Markets" theory of economics (an archaic socialist economic concept). TL;DR Tik's 40 minute video: Hitler was certain that in order for Germany to stay industrialized and avoid a judeo-bolshevist revolution from bread riots that would be the result of an industrialized Eastern Europe no longer needing to export food to Germany to get refined goods; Germany would have to conquer Eastern Europe to have a functioning Autarkey (an archaic socialist economic concept of "total economic self-sufficiency / no longer needing outside trade), keep the East permanently under-industrialized to maintain food shipments to Germany and prevent a judeo-bolshevist revolution.
So, just to be clear: Hitler already assumes he will have an inevitable food crisis from the outset.
Once in power, the NSDAP's centralized agricultural economic policies that rewarded "traditional" farming methods tended to not only produce inefficiency from bureaucracy and mismanagement, but lower yields than could have been achieved without the policies in place. Goebbels explicitly mentioned struggles with food problems very badly between 1941-1943.. If his diary is to be believed, the situation is so bad even by 1941, that occupied territories are being unintentionally starved, including in France and Belgium. He makes an interesting comment that rations in Germany have to be adjusted because "even the Bolsheviks left one cow to a farmer." Some of the old members of the Social Democratic Party (the old Weimar boys), complained about the mismanagement too (thinking they would have managed everything better just like every other Socialist ever has). The German military was utterly infamous for plundering the hell out of Eastern Europe, especially stealing food supplies in order to quell the on-going food crisis in Germany, causing intentional famines basically everywhere they went, critically in Greece.
The Holocaust presents a unique solution to the Food crisis. Killing jews certainly prevents the Judeo-Bolshevist revolution that Hitler claims is inevitable. However, starving jews or other undesirable populations to free up food-stuffs for Germany is a major benefit. Even if you can't increase the yield of a Polish farm, if you decrease the population of the country by several million, you're going to have much more food on-hand to import back to Germany. This also goes for Russian POW's.
Basically, Socialist policies guaranteed that Germany would suffer famines that it couldn't prevent. So they instead responded to the hunger in Germany by introducing theft & depopulation policies literally everywhere else.
Me too. It's kind of contradictory to the foundational narrative. (well, depending on whether the Final Solution was considered from 1933 or they only settled on that as the situation got more desperate between 33 and 41)
I'm sorry that I didn't get back to this, but it's important so this is a quite delayed reply.
So, fundamentally, this starts with Hitler asserting the "Shrinking Markets" theory of economics (an archaic socialist economic concept). TL;DR Tik's 40 minute video: Hitler was certain that in order for Germany to stay industrialized and avoid a judeo-bolshevist revolution from bread riots that would be the result of an industrialized Eastern Europe no longer needing to export food to Germany to get refined goods; Germany would have to conquer Eastern Europe to have a functioning Autarkey (an archaic socialist economic concept of "total economic self-sufficiency / no longer needing outside trade), keep the East permanently under-industrialized to maintain food shipments to Germany and prevent a judeo-bolshevist revolution.
So, just to be clear: Hitler already assumes he will have an inevitable food crisis from the outset.
Once in power, the NSDAP's centralized agricultural economic policies that rewarded "traditional" farming methods tended to not only produce inefficiency from bureaucracy and mismanagement, but lower yields than could have been achieved without the policies in place. Goebbels explicitly mentioned struggles with food problems very badly between 1941-1943.. If his diary is to be believed, the situation is so bad even by 1941, that occupied territories are being unintentionally starved, including in France and Belgium. He makes an interesting comment that rations in Germany have to be adjusted because "even the Bolsheviks left one cow to a farmer." Some of the old members of the Social Democratic Party (the old Weimar boys), complained about the mismanagement too (thinking they would have managed everything better just like every other Socialist ever has). The German military was utterly infamous for plundering the hell out of Eastern Europe, especially stealing food supplies in order to quell the on-going food crisis in Germany, causing intentional famines basically everywhere they went, critically in Greece.
The Holocaust presents a unique solution to the Food crisis. Killing jews certainly prevents the Judeo-Bolshevist revolution that Hitler claims is inevitable. However, starving jews or other undesirable populations to free up food-stuffs for Germany is a major benefit. Even if you can't increase the yield of a Polish farm, if you decrease the population of the country by several million, you're going to have much more food on-hand to import back to Germany. This also goes for Russian POW's.
Basically, Socialist policies guaranteed that Germany would suffer famines that it couldn't prevent. So they instead responded to the hunger in Germany by introducing theft & depopulation policies literally everywhere else.
I'm sorry that I didn't get back to this, but it's important so this is a quite delayed reply.
So, fundamentally, this starts with Hitler asserting the "Shrinking Markets" theory of economics (an archaic socialist economic concept). TL;DR Tik's 40 minute video: Hitler was certain that in order for Germany to stay industrialized and avoid a judeo-bolshevist revolution from bread riots that would be the result of an industrialized Eastern Europe no longer needing to export food to Germany to get refined goods; Germany would have to conquer Eastern Europe to have a functioning Autarkey (an archaic socialist economic concept of "total economic self-sufficiency / no longer needing outside trade), keep the East permanently under-industrialized to maintain food shipments to Germany and prevent a judeo-bolshevist revolution.
So, just to be clear: Hitler already assumes he will have an inevitable food crisis from the outset.
Once in power, the NSDAP's centralized agricultural economic policies that rewarded "traditional" farming methods tended to not only produce inefficiency from bureaucracy and mismanagement, but lower yields than could have been achieved without the policies in place. Goebbels explicitly mentioned struggles with food problems very badly between 1941-1943.. If his diary is to be believed, the situation is so bad even by 1941, that occupied territories are being unintentionally starved, including in France and Belgium. He makes an interesting comment that rations in Germany have to be adjusted because "even the Bolsheviks left one cow to a farmer." Some of the old members of the Social Democratic Party (the old Weimar boys), complained about the mismanagement too (thinking they would have managed everything better just like every other Socialist ever has). The German military was utterly infamous for plundering the hell out of Eastern Europe, especially stealing food supplies in order to quell the on-going food crisis in Germany, causing intentional famines basically everywhere they went, critically in Greece.
The Holocaust presents a unique solution to the Food crisis. Killing jews certainly prevents the Judeo-Bolshevist revolution that Hitler claims is inevitable. However, starving jews or other undesirable populations to free up food-stuffs for Germany is a major benefit. Even if you can't increase the yield of a Polish farm, if you decrease the population of the country by several million, you're going to have much more food on-hand to import back to Germany. This also goes for Russian POW's.
Basically, Socialist policies guaranteed that Germany would suffer famines that it couldn't prevent. So they instead responded to the hunger in Germany by introducing theft & depopulation policies literally everywhere else.
I don't care much about the Jews but how is this denial? As far as I can tell it makes the argument that someone's grandfather did not find a death camp but rather a concentration camp that lost supplies. It doesn't say there were no death camps nor does it say the concentration camps are ok.
I also imagine that things got extremely horrible once they no longer had supplies.
You might want to look at the leftist coalition of White haters on your own side lately. Lots of Muslims and whatnot are walking away from Democrats because of Israel's bullshit. You're quickly running out of goyem as the oldest generations (brainwashed from birth about muh nazis and lampshades) die out.
Holocaust was real or not, soon it won't matter. Anytime you try to play the Holocaust card to distract from your actions, everyone will say but what about Gaza.
Holocaust Denial has growing support among the Left. The "Far Right" are just retarded Socialists who want people to except Leftist rhetoric about jews.
You haven't seen White people defending ourselves yet. You will know when you do, because it's going to look like three story piles of burning corpses.
I get that you're a retarded shill or maybe just a particularly brain dead troll, but are you suggesting that Whites are conspiring to replace themselves? I've got the proof it's no theory right here, faggot.
Jews like to claim "blood libal " whenever anyone says anything about them doing criminal things that gave rise to stories like vampires , but if you dare even question the narrative of the holocaust then you are evil and should be killed.
Also it's now illegal in many US states to do a boycott of israel due to laws passed too. So not only can you not question things that happened 70 years ago, you are not allowed to stop your money from going to a foreign nation halfway across the world.
You are not allowed to ADVERTISE that you're boycotting for such a reason. Doing it, well, they'd have to prove it.
Aye, the letter of these laws and measures is not exactly as prohibitive as one might expect. Still, it's a slimy tributary act in service to a foreign power that the U.S. doesn't owe any true allegiance.
It was intended to attack people who advertise their boycott. Basically, they could score woke points there, a la Ben and Jerrys. I think a boycott makes you more friends than it loses.
So these states want to give them a disincentive.
Protecting US allies from malicious actors isnt a bad thing. Tax dollars finance military bases all over the world, which ensure world peace. How is this any different?
It's amazing how being such a flaming faggot gives you this endless energy to keep posting the same shit to get attention.
You remind me of the impossible 1, who also was a flaming faggot with infinite energy when it came to attention whoring.
It's actually sad when you think about it. Have YOU ever spent hours daily trolling social media groups or message boards containing people you don't like?
I haven't. You know why? I have a life. I go to work 5-6 days a week. I have friends and family.
These pathetic fucking leftoid worms you see making 40 sock puppets to troll online are sitting in Mommy's house, or leeching government benefits and couch surfing. It's insanely pathetic to think about what actually enables people like this faggot to be faggots on the internet.
yes. fanatic cults usually kill heretics if they have the power to.
We used to kill people with hammers for telling the truth!
We also forced integration at the points of bayonets.
"We" could stand to be speaking more German, frankly.
The Austrian painter shut down tranny clinics. Drag queen story hour and the sexual mutilation of kids vindicated him on that front at least.
Kinda hard to not see his point when the exact people he cracked down on are the ones ruining society
He's also quoted as saying the Jews would import blacks to Europe to dilute their blood.
:/
General Patton was right.
we entered the war on the wrong side, frankly. there was a large contingent of the USA at the time that did not want to enter the war at all. and if we did, we wanted to enter it on the German side.
but of course by the 40's we were already infiltrated and subverted by zionist jew cultists at the highest levels.
FDR was a communist.
Not just a commie, an outright Bolshevik. Half his cabinet were friends with Trotsky. Once we take this country back we should dig up his bones, strap them to a wheelchair and try his corpse for treason.
To be fair, there was almost certainly a lot of pressure and influence coming from Britain and other allied nations actively embroiled in the war as well.
Not that I'm discounting your claims, but merely pointing out that there were almost certainly other parties involved too.
Well, Britain should have also never involved itself in the war, either. It was between continental countries, and their insignificant little island nation would have never been a target otherwise.
Britain was the one that egged on Poland to instigate a war with Germany. Britain made a secret pact with Poland, that if war broke out, no matter who started it, that Britain would ally with Poland against Germany. It was all a ruse to start a war with Germany, since Britain didn't give a shit about Poland, since the "allies" declared war on Germany for invading Poland, but not Soviet Russia for doing the exact same thing and in the exact same month.
The Americans didn't want to enter the war. No one really wanted to enter it on the German side because even during the 30's everyone could see that the National Socialists were shit.
I don't know why you're downvoted. It took the probably-contrived Pearl Harbor attack to get US public opinion on the side of entering the war. Back then people took it seriously that if they hit you, you hit them back no matter who their friends are. The Japanese were perfectly played in this way. Their overconfidence was played, and "someone" got their war fought for them. I speak of course about the British.
How was the US infiltrated by "Zionist jews" when the US was and still is a christian country?
I've never been one to really care about the Jews, plight of the Jews, arguing about the Jews, etc. Still you make a fool of yourself in anything to take the story of one side as the whole truth and totally dismiss any alternate accounts. The truth is always elsewhere. Even if something as crazy as 95% of the Jewish account of the holocaust is true, that means 5% is not.
I do find the comment a bit dumb to imply that a country at war should not have cut off supply lines of the country they were trying to defeat. I'll take that over a modern pussified forever war. Aggressively win or go home.
There’s a Chilean ultra violent horror movie called Trauma. It features wildly over-the-top depictions of sexual assault and torture, mostly apropos of nothing. The director said that he made the movie to bring attention to the historical atrocities of Pinochet.
All I could think while reading about this explanation was “muh masturbation machines”. Leftists lie nonstop about everything right here and now. Why would we imagine that they have ever told the truth? At this point, I distrust basically the entire historical narrative.
As you should be.
Winners write history and they sure as hell don't write themselves as villains.
It's funny how in all wars waged it's always the good guys who win, what are the odds eh?
I wouldn't say that's necessarily the implication they are trying to make. Moreso they seem to be clapping back at someone trotting out the "my grandfather liberated the camps and saw the horrors" shtick. I think it's perfectly reasonable to point out if a significant portion of that is due to logistic failures caused by war.
Sure..blame a systematic ethnic cleansing of Jewish people on "logistical failures". Anything else that needs to be added Adolph?
UK killed 750 000 dogs and cats to prepare for WW2 due to possible country-wide food shortages (and that was still at the very beginning of the war, when all infrastructures were perfectly ok).
If a country is attacked from 2 opposite sides by the 2 other biggest military power in the world (both with an army size far above yours), and suffered constant bombing, local revolutions, and other small operations all over your territory to cut resources, wouldn't you expect some logistical issues too? Even the tiny war (in comparison) between Ukraine and Russia right now has impacted logistics on a multi-national level. Remember the logistic nightmare that was at the end Afghanistan war by Biden, where all countries where in panic mode to retrieve their soldiers and equipment?
In general, I despise when leftoids, or anyone really, creates a term that labels a position on an issue and simply use that term to stifle any and all discussion on the issue by merely using the label as an argument itself. "Holocaust denier" "Anti-vaxxer" Hell, even "Flat Earther." Pure NPC useful idiot behavior.
This is why logic is a key way to identify them and dismantle their arguments. They use logically unsound, inconsistent, and fallacious arguments. You'll never "win" an argument with them using logic, as they've openly embraced the antithesis. It's more for you and those listening. The specific example you bring up is an ad hominem logical fallacy.
more like founded
what is with the hammer obsession?
It's a far more flexible tool to have on hand than a sickle.
God, this retarded shit again.
Notice, once again, the Soviets invaded Poland which the Socialists cited explicitly as a hive of jewry which needed to be exterminated, because it had the largest concentration of jews in Europe. The Soviets found plenty of Labor camps as well.
Italy doesn't have extermination camps because the Italians didn't agree with Aryanist rhetoric, and many of the Italian Fascists were also jews.
The Germans themselves showed that although they were comfortable with deporting jews, they weren't okay with mass executions or terrorism like they saw with Kristalnacht, hence another reason the Germans didn't want extermination to take place literally in Germany if it could be avoided.
Allied bombing and blockade didn't cause mass starvation, Socialism did. The German Socialists were struggling to feed the country when they were winning. Even if you want to blame the poor conditions on starvation, that doesn't mean that jews weren't intentionally starved more severely than the Russians. The Russians were also intentionally starved more than the western allies. The Holocaust, in part, was a solution to the problem of not being able to feed everyone, let alone POWs or people who they thought were racial inferiors that deserved to be exterminated.
Citation? This is the first time I have heard this claim.
I'm sorry that I didn't get back to this, but it's important so this is a quite delayed reply.
So, fundamentally, this starts with Hitler asserting the "Shrinking Markets" theory of economics (an archaic socialist economic concept). TL;DR Tik's 40 minute video: Hitler was certain that in order for Germany to stay industrialized and avoid a judeo-bolshevist revolution from bread riots that would be the result of an industrialized Eastern Europe no longer needing to export food to Germany to get refined goods; Germany would have to conquer Eastern Europe to have a functioning Autarkey (an archaic socialist economic concept of "total economic self-sufficiency / no longer needing outside trade), keep the East permanently under-industrialized to maintain food shipments to Germany and prevent a judeo-bolshevist revolution.
So, just to be clear: Hitler already assumes he will have an inevitable food crisis from the outset.
Once in power, the NSDAP's centralized agricultural economic policies that rewarded "traditional" farming methods tended to not only produce inefficiency from bureaucracy and mismanagement, but lower yields than could have been achieved without the policies in place. Goebbels explicitly mentioned struggles with food problems very badly between 1941-1943.. If his diary is to be believed, the situation is so bad even by 1941, that occupied territories are being unintentionally starved, including in France and Belgium. He makes an interesting comment that rations in Germany have to be adjusted because "even the Bolsheviks left one cow to a farmer." Some of the old members of the Social Democratic Party (the old Weimar boys), complained about the mismanagement too (thinking they would have managed everything better just like every other Socialist ever has). The German military was utterly infamous for plundering the hell out of Eastern Europe, especially stealing food supplies in order to quell the on-going food crisis in Germany, causing intentional famines basically everywhere they went, critically in Greece.
The Holocaust presents a unique solution to the Food crisis. Killing jews certainly prevents the Judeo-Bolshevist revolution that Hitler claims is inevitable. However, starving jews or other undesirable populations to free up food-stuffs for Germany is a major benefit. Even if you can't increase the yield of a Polish farm, if you decrease the population of the country by several million, you're going to have much more food on-hand to import back to Germany. This also goes for Russian POW's.
Basically, Socialist policies guaranteed that Germany would suffer famines that it couldn't prevent. So they instead responded to the hunger in Germany by introducing theft & depopulation policies literally everywhere else.
Thanks for answer.
This, I would like more info on.
Me too. It's kind of contradictory to the foundational narrative. (well, depending on whether the Final Solution was considered from 1933 or they only settled on that as the situation got more desperate between 33 and 41)
It's certainly not the conventional narrative of why killings took place.
I'm sorry that I didn't get back to this, but it's important so this is a quite delayed reply.
So, fundamentally, this starts with Hitler asserting the "Shrinking Markets" theory of economics (an archaic socialist economic concept). TL;DR Tik's 40 minute video: Hitler was certain that in order for Germany to stay industrialized and avoid a judeo-bolshevist revolution from bread riots that would be the result of an industrialized Eastern Europe no longer needing to export food to Germany to get refined goods; Germany would have to conquer Eastern Europe to have a functioning Autarkey (an archaic socialist economic concept of "total economic self-sufficiency / no longer needing outside trade), keep the East permanently under-industrialized to maintain food shipments to Germany and prevent a judeo-bolshevist revolution.
So, just to be clear: Hitler already assumes he will have an inevitable food crisis from the outset.
Once in power, the NSDAP's centralized agricultural economic policies that rewarded "traditional" farming methods tended to not only produce inefficiency from bureaucracy and mismanagement, but lower yields than could have been achieved without the policies in place. Goebbels explicitly mentioned struggles with food problems very badly between 1941-1943.. If his diary is to be believed, the situation is so bad even by 1941, that occupied territories are being unintentionally starved, including in France and Belgium. He makes an interesting comment that rations in Germany have to be adjusted because "even the Bolsheviks left one cow to a farmer." Some of the old members of the Social Democratic Party (the old Weimar boys), complained about the mismanagement too (thinking they would have managed everything better just like every other Socialist ever has). The German military was utterly infamous for plundering the hell out of Eastern Europe, especially stealing food supplies in order to quell the on-going food crisis in Germany, causing intentional famines basically everywhere they went, critically in Greece.
The Holocaust presents a unique solution to the Food crisis. Killing jews certainly prevents the Judeo-Bolshevist revolution that Hitler claims is inevitable. However, starving jews or other undesirable populations to free up food-stuffs for Germany is a major benefit. Even if you can't increase the yield of a Polish farm, if you decrease the population of the country by several million, you're going to have much more food on-hand to import back to Germany. This also goes for Russian POW's.
Basically, Socialist policies guaranteed that Germany would suffer famines that it couldn't prevent. So they instead responded to the hunger in Germany by introducing theft & depopulation policies literally everywhere else.
I'm sorry that I didn't get back to this, but it's important so this is a quite delayed reply.
So, fundamentally, this starts with Hitler asserting the "Shrinking Markets" theory of economics (an archaic socialist economic concept). TL;DR Tik's 40 minute video: Hitler was certain that in order for Germany to stay industrialized and avoid a judeo-bolshevist revolution from bread riots that would be the result of an industrialized Eastern Europe no longer needing to export food to Germany to get refined goods; Germany would have to conquer Eastern Europe to have a functioning Autarkey (an archaic socialist economic concept of "total economic self-sufficiency / no longer needing outside trade), keep the East permanently under-industrialized to maintain food shipments to Germany and prevent a judeo-bolshevist revolution.
So, just to be clear: Hitler already assumes he will have an inevitable food crisis from the outset.
Once in power, the NSDAP's centralized agricultural economic policies that rewarded "traditional" farming methods tended to not only produce inefficiency from bureaucracy and mismanagement, but lower yields than could have been achieved without the policies in place. Goebbels explicitly mentioned struggles with food problems very badly between 1941-1943.. If his diary is to be believed, the situation is so bad even by 1941, that occupied territories are being unintentionally starved, including in France and Belgium. He makes an interesting comment that rations in Germany have to be adjusted because "even the Bolsheviks left one cow to a farmer." Some of the old members of the Social Democratic Party (the old Weimar boys), complained about the mismanagement too (thinking they would have managed everything better just like every other Socialist ever has). The German military was utterly infamous for plundering the hell out of Eastern Europe, especially stealing food supplies in order to quell the on-going food crisis in Germany, causing intentional famines basically everywhere they went, critically in Greece.
The Holocaust presents a unique solution to the Food crisis. Killing jews certainly prevents the Judeo-Bolshevist revolution that Hitler claims is inevitable. However, starving jews or other undesirable populations to free up food-stuffs for Germany is a major benefit. Even if you can't increase the yield of a Polish farm, if you decrease the population of the country by several million, you're going to have much more food on-hand to import back to Germany. This also goes for Russian POW's.
Basically, Socialist policies guaranteed that Germany would suffer famines that it couldn't prevent. So they instead responded to the hunger in Germany by introducing theft & depopulation policies literally everywhere else.
What always suprised me about the holocaust was how no one ever mentions the fact that all the Nazi soldiers and Jewish prisoners were girls.
Except this totally is Holocaust denial. And it has growing support among the far right.
I don't care much about the Jews but how is this denial? As far as I can tell it makes the argument that someone's grandfather did not find a death camp but rather a concentration camp that lost supplies. It doesn't say there were no death camps nor does it say the concentration camps are ok. I also imagine that things got extremely horrible once they no longer had supplies.
You have met the kind of people who crow about denial now. There's not really any point in looking for logic in their emotional arguments.
You might want to look at the leftist coalition of White haters on your own side lately. Lots of Muslims and whatnot are walking away from Democrats because of Israel's bullshit. You're quickly running out of goyem as the oldest generations (brainwashed from birth about muh nazis and lampshades) die out.
Holocaust was real or not, soon it won't matter. Anytime you try to play the Holocaust card to distract from your actions, everyone will say but what about Gaza.
Holocaust Denial has growing support among the Left. The "Far Right" are just retarded Socialists who want people to except Leftist rhetoric about jews.
“To except leftist rhetoric about jews”
Learn the fucking language of the people you’re trying to subvert, or better yet DON’T because it makes you so much easier to notice
Then most of the posters here are leftists because almost everyone here is an anti Semite.
It's a conspiracy theory up until it's a "good thing".
Yes I am white, double on the overt part too. I'm also correct and that's the difference.
Not defending themselves is how white peoples ended up in this soft genocide.
By the by, if whites are overly defensive, what does that make Jews? They literally destroy your life for publicly criticizing them.
die in an african cobalt mine, jew faggot
You haven't seen White people defending ourselves yet. You will know when you do, because it's going to look like three story piles of burning corpses.
Who will be in those piles?
If you have to ask...
Most likely, you
"Oy Vey! They want to cremate me 6 million times!"
-gopower2024
I get that you're a retarded shill or maybe just a particularly brain dead troll, but are you suggesting that Whites are conspiring to replace themselves? I've got the proof it's no theory right here, faggot.
https://archive.is/https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/ageing/replacement-migration.asp
I have no reason to care about what "SchlomoGoldstein" has to say lmao