1
2

How do you feel about this? (self.holocaust)

PopTart5454 が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
ベスト
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]SchwarzeSonne_ 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (21子コメント)

Even the modern Holocaust industry acknowledges that there were no "death camps" in Germany.

When bombing destroyed Germany's ability to feed her own people it also destroyed its ability to feed undesirables, who were contained for the purpose of preventing sedition and providing labor.

[–]PopTart5454[S] -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (20子コメント)

That's just a lie though...show me these history textbooks and papers from actual historians that say this?

[–]SchwarzeSonne_ 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (18子コメント)

Auschwitz - Poland

Belzec - Poland

Sobibor - Poland

Majdanek - Poland

Chelmno - Poland

Maly Trostinets - Byelarus

Sajmiste - Yugoslavia

Treblinka - Poland

This is in your fucking middle school textbook. Do I really need to spoonfeed you?

[–]winterdTo forget the dead would be akin to killing them a second time. 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

show me these history textbooks and papers from actual historians that say this?

[–]PopTart5454[S] -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (15子コメント)

Arbeitsdorf, Berga, Thuringia, Breitena, Buchenwald, Dachau, Frohburg, Flossenbürg, Kaufering, Kemna, Langenstein-Zwieberge, Malchow, Mittelbau-Dora, Neuengamme,Niederhagen, Oberer Kuhberg, Ohrdruf,Oranienburg, Ravensbrück, Sachsenhausen.

All found in Germany dipshit.

[–]SchwarzeSonne_ 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (14子コメント)

None of which were "death camps".

[–]PopTart5454[S] -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (13子コメント)

Yeah Dachau was a holiday park.

[–]SchwarzeSonne_ 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (12子コメント)

Until allied bombing destroyed German infrastructure, it wasn't much different then the American camps used to intern Japanese citizens.

[–]PopTart5454[S] -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (11子コメント)

Once again I will ask for peer-reviews historical papers from a reliable source to prove what you're saying.

[–]Daksund 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Why don't you do the research yourself? We all did, and we don't really like spoonfeeding people who can't be bothered to do some internet searching themselves.

The sidebar has many resources you may find interesting. Also, give some of Germar Rudolf's articles a glance

[–]PopTart5454[S] -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

You're the one making the claims against what has been proven, it's up to you to defend those claims when asked about them. More so when you comment on my post talking about them.

So your response to me asking fore historical papers defending your argument to link to a blog and tell me to do my own research because you have none? One must conclude you're full of shit.

[–]SchwarzeSonne_ 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (7子コメント)

>muh peer review

Common sense is pretty great stuff. Dachau was intended to hold political prisoners who were though to be threats to the state. The same applies to the American camps. The RAF and USAF maintained persistent strategic and terror bombing campaigns. These would devastate transportation of food to both civilians and inmates. Nearing the end of the war, all resources possible were channeled towards the war effort, including medical supplies, meaning that lice (and by extension typhus) would thrive. Do you think the situation would have been much different for the US if it was losing the war? In fact, the camps used for the internment of the Japanese often used shoddier facilities than those of Germany.

[–]RedditRevisionist 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

he wants peer review because he can't think for himself.

[–]PopTart5454[S] -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

So again you're not actually providing any evidence and are in fact mocking me for requesting it? Wow.

I'd also like evidence for the claims you've just made and evidence against the factual, accepted version.

[–]TTrns 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Even the modern Holocaust industry acknowledges that there were no "death camps" in Germany.

That's just a lie though...show me these history textbooks and papers from actual historians that say this?

Lol. Read Hilberg, 'Destruction of the European Jews' to at least understand the position you're claiming to defend.