/his/ - History

>>35498

its on my backlog. want to finish one of the two books im currently reading first. ive certianly heard good things about it.

In addition, I'd like for this to be a thread about which version of Mein Kampf should be considered "definitive" by us. And by us, I mean the critical audience who doesn't want some biased Western haters/Jews from the 60s botching the translation and adding a hateful commentary. I read the Mannheim edition I think (black cover with red font) and I just ignored the introduction and all the footnotes, and I think the translation was fine.

>>>/pdfs/ probably has it

>>35502

/pol/ is worthless, I'm not going there.

>>35498

>I have, and it is a brilliant piece of work by a brilliant critical thinker.

plz

>>35509

Have you read it?

>>35513

I attempted to read it, the fact that it was written poorly, was repetitive and certainly wasn't academic just annoyed me, especially since this is the foundation of a political ideology. Other than that, extracts quoting that Hitler blamed the Jews for taking black people to Germany and that the Jewish boy waited in bushes wishing to taint the German blood generally put me off from reading the rest. Granted, it is a nationalist book and national socialism is a pretty good ideology, if only he knew how to not run his mouth to the person who was writing the book or go a bit mental on his analogies.

>>35519

How far in did you get?

>>35498

Just downloaded it, after all you gotta know the enemy more than you know yourself

>>35503

Kek, butthurt

>>35593

I'm not going to support that police-state hugbox that suppresses dissident opinions, that's exactly the kind of thing I oppose, which is the very reason I am on 8chan and not 4chan /pol/.

>>35603

8chan /pol/ suppresses dissident opinions, too. Just look at the ban logs.

>>35500

>which version of Mein Kampf

Well, I guess the original one, NSDAP approved?

I have the 1943 one btw. Thank you grandpa.

>>35622

Exactly, that's why I am boycotting 8chan /pol/ as well. I am a devoted member of /politics/

>>35498

It's a rambling diatribe against things the author doesn't like with some pseudo-philosophy thrown in, and the fact that Hitler described it at various times as being "nothing more than a collection of leading articles from the Volkischer Beobachter" kind of tells you everything you need to know tbh.

>how the Holy Roman Empire wasn't holy Roman or an empire or how stab in the back is a "myth."

>>35623

Is it the one with both volumes?

Okay, the first point is moot, but other than that, top quality b8 fam.

>>35630

>how stab in the back is a "myth."

When I saw this I cringed really hard.

>>35630

Yeah both volumes included. On thin paper so it looks like a book with maybe 400 pages (it has almost twice that).

Tbh haven't read it further than first three chapters. It's a boring read, the only thing I found somewhat amusing is the description of Social Democrats in Wien which sounds like he's describing some of the politically active students at my uni.

>>35630

Also mine Deutsch is scheiße-grade so while I can read it I sometimes have to check for words and shit. Maybe I should go read it just so I learn German properly, kek.

>>35643

That would be hilarious, imagine explaining how you learned German at a dinner table "ja, ich habe mein Deutsch von "Mein Kampf" gelesen"

Excuse my C grade at GCSE level German.

>>35498

A very long-winded rant, poorly written and very base in its assertions. Granted, it does have some very interesting anecdotes and there are very, very few hints of actual legitimate discourse but it just felt like a 'give em what they want' (they being the german people) kind of book.

>>35713

If I recall correctly, the whole book was essentially written because someone gave Hitler a typewriter to busy himself instead of raging, while he was locked up after the Beer Putsch. It shows.

>>35717

He wasn't even given a typewriter, he actually dictated his whole novel to somebody else who then wrote it up, who I really feel sorry for because he had to actually make Hitler's writings into something actually readable.

>>35713

Can you support this review with anything from the book?

>>35627

>Implying /politics/ isn't just /pol/'s colony

Lots of Hitlers assertions aren't accompanied by evidence. While some of them are rather true, there are others which really need an explanation in order for them to be taken seriously, much less understood.

>>35728

It's a colony in the sense that the US was a colony of Britain, wherein the settlers were escaping persecution and looking for freedom.

>>35729

Such as?

You all are quick to make rapid vague statements but don't seem to give any specifics.

>>35722

Pretty sure it was his personal secretary Hess.

>>35840

>that shitty /pol/-tier video

back to /pol/ you stormfaggot.

>>35840

>>35855

I'd like to add that Genrikh Yagoda was executed by Stalin.

Also none of Stalin's inner circle were Jewish.

Not Voroshilov, Molotov, Beria, Budyonny, not one of them Jewish or had Jewish ancestry..

His top Generals Zhukov, Vasilievsky, Konev, Timoshenko, none were Jewish. Rokkosovsky was Polish for fucks sake.

The whole 'Judeo-Bolshevism' thing is just nazi propaganda perpetuated by stormfags.

>Why didn't Britain and France declare war on the Soviet Union too?

Maybe because 1939 they lacked real desire to wage offensive operations

1940 France was knocked out,.

And 1941 Hitler invaded the USSR. Yeah, makes sense for Britain to declare war on the USSR.

>>35864

Didn't Stalin only purge the Jews from his government after the war?

Poland was bound to be invaded, what with having a massive German population and how Germany had to try to get through the Danzig Corrider all the time to reach Prussian areas that were cut off.

It was pretty dang obvious that the Germans would try to unite all ethnically German areas. The French, British, and other major powers all had this right, too.

>Marx said a bout judaism

Judaism is ethnic and religious.

But yes, Marx is considered anti-Semitic by many.

I wish I knew more about Marx, but hsi life doesn't seem as interesting. Maybe it was and I'm just really underinformed on him ((probably am).

I'm not the person you responded to, by the way.

>>35856

The vast majority of the first Soviet government organizations were Jewish, especially in the departments regarding administration (and trade, finance, whatever) and ESPECIALLY the security and intelligence organs.

>Also none of Stalin's inner circle were Jewish.

Kaganovich immediately comes to mind.

>>35870

>The vast majority of the first Soviet government organizations were Jewish

such as?

>kaganovich

so what? 1 guy means that the entire soviet system was actually a zionist puppet?

>>35872

I was just pointing out that there was obviously a Jewish guy in Stalin's direct inner circle, which you said there wasn't.

The first president of the Russian Socialist Federation or whatever it was called was Jewish. Most of the early Soviets were Jewish (lots of Poles, too) and so were many Mensheviks.

Here is a partial, but incomplete, list.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jews_born_in_the_Russian_Empire_and_the_Soviet_Union

>so what? 1 guy means that the entire soviet system was actually a zionist puppet?

Maybe, maybe not. Not all Jews are Zionists - and not all Zionists are Jews.

The policies of the USSR towards Israel changed a lot over the years.

>>35874

>I was just pointing out that there was obviously a Jewish guy in Stalin's direct inner circle, which you said there wasn't.

Who was only kept because he was powerful and intelligent enough not to get purged, the original point, however, is that people actually believe that the Nazis were heroic for invading Russia because Russia was ruled by Jews, when it really wasn't.

>The first president of the Russian Socialist Federation or whatever it was called was Jewish. Most of the early Soviets were Jewish (lots of Poles, too) and so were many Mensheviks.

So what? Jewish population was situated near Europe where a lot of revolutionary action occurred and due to hardships many of them were part of the middle class, but this doesn't mean all Bolsheviks were Jews. The Bolsheviks didn't believe in a religion or race, they wanted immediate communism and many, if not all, were atheist and opposed the idea of race. Also, your list is stupid, out of the thousands of Bolsheviks it says less than twenty were Jews? Gee wiz, that does sound like a majority, I guess the Jew Revolution really was Jewish. And no, no they were not Zionists, they wanted a Communist Revolution all over the world so that there were no more countries, why the hell would they endorse the creation of a new country? Now PLEASE don't talk about Russia under Stalin's rule and later, that has nothing to do with the Bolsheviks, limit your talk to how the BOLSHEVIKS were Jewish.

>>35857

You're retarded and should probably kill yourself.

>>35887

>Soviets were threatening the oil fields in Bessarabia, and were mobilizing

You actually unironicaly believe the soviets wanted to attavk first, and that the mobilization wasn't in fear of the obvious german buildup?

>They were heroic. If we Americans and the British fought on the right side, we could have together crushed the Soviet Union and prevented countless millions of deaths from happening

I seriously hope you kill yourself. Or at least go back to /pol/

>The situation with Czechoslovakia was a total diplomatic victory for Hitler

You're ignoring the part where he lied. Also if all he was interested in was reclaiming german parts of poland, why did he take all of it?

>>35888

>You actually unironicaly believe the soviets wanted to attavk first, and that the mobilization wasn't in fear of the obvious german buildup?

I know that the Soviets and British had European invasion as an interests. The British looked for whatever excuse they could find (Poland) and Stalin was preparing and mobilizing. That they threatened Bessarabia which Germany depended on for oil is tantamount to a violation of their nonaggression pact and war.

>You're ignoring the part where he lied.

Where did he lie?

>Also if all he was interested in was reclaiming german parts of poland, why did he take all of it?

That was what Ribbentrop worked out with the Soviets. The result of the wars with Poland in the West and the East resulted in the collapse of the Polish state. In order to ensure "peace in the region," the two powers divided the remains in the way that was most conducive to friendship between them.

>>35884

> the original point, however, is that people actually believe that the Nazis were heroic for invading Russia because Russia was ruled by Jews, when it really wasn't.

I'm not arguing if it was heroic or if it wasn't. That's the other poster. I'm stating that the Bolsheviks had an incredibly high proportion of Jews in their ranks compared to their population in Russia, just as in Germany.

> Jewish population was situated near Europe where a lot of revolutionary action occurred and due to hardships many of them were part of the middle class, but this doesn't mean all Bolsheviks were Jews.

The Jewish population was very small in proportion especially to the amount of leaders they produced in movements.

>The Bolsheviks didn't believe in a religion or race, they wanted immediate communism and many

"An intelligent Russian is almost always a Jew or someone with Jewish blood in his veins. "

-Lenin

That quote is from the Russian Revolution by Pipes, written 1990.

>Also, your list is stupid, out of the thousands of Bolsheviks it says less than twenty were Jews?

You are missing the point:

1. The list is not even complete

2. The point is that the Jews were heavily overrepresented in the command structure of the Bolsheviks, not the rank and file.

Think of it this way -

If bears in the Bear Army were 98% of the armed forces, but the bear command staff which issue orders is composed of 50% eagles. the eagles have a overproportionally high degree of control, especially if eagles were only 5% of the total population of Bearlandia.

The example is childish, but it's precisely what was going on in the Russian Revolution. Jews were an absolute minority in the country, but the leadership structure of the Bolsheviks was anywhere from 25-50% Jewish at times.

>And no, no they were not Zionists

Maybe some were and some weren't. You don't know that. No one does. Zionism goes beyond the creation of a country, you know, and has many different versions of itself.

>so that there were no more countries, why the hell would they endorse the creation of a new country?

You know Trotsky and Lenin used the idea of national self determination when things got tricky and looked bad, right? Got them lots of support. Most revolutionary groups worldwide that are influenced by their ideas are also heavily involved in the point of NATIONAL self determination and wanting their own country.

>limit your talk to how the BOLSHEVIKS were Jewish.

Leon Trotsky

Yakov Sverdlov

Grigori Zinoviev

Karl Radek

Litvinov

Lev Kamenev

Moisei Uritsky

Yurovksy

Goloshchekin

Beloborodov

It's a lot

Here is a list that maybe has some names already mentioned

http://www.heretical.com/miscellx/bolshies.html

List gets bigger when you include regional administration heads. I mentioned a few already.

All of this material is very easy to obtain and read for yourself.

>>35888

>You actually unironicaly believe the soviets wanted to attavk first, and that the mobilization wasn't in fear of the obvious german buildup?

Both sides probably wanted to get the first strike in.

>>35887

>Germany posed absolutely no threat to America or Britain, and now both countries are in a shambles because of what those leaders did.

Definitely posed a trade and colonial threat.

> Bolshevism is the most evil force that has ever existed

Debatable. Where did it come from is a more interesting question. Who financed it? It was not simply just "Jews", but I agree that Bolshevism was an almost exclusively Jewish movement.

>anywhere from 25-50% Jewish at times.

Actually, often times more than that if you just look at the political councils. Military councils were usually not primarily Jewish, however.

Also, the Cheka and other intelligence organizations were usually 50%+ Jewish. There are some quotes directly by Trotsky floating around on that subject, but I admit I'm having a hard time finding them.

This kind of behavior has also kind of carried on into the Russian Federation (Intelligence is still headed by a Jewish guy - Fradkov).

One could debate that Russians seem to have always been ruled or administered by ethnic minorities - Scandinavians/Vikings (the Rus), Germans, Mongols, etc, though, and Jews are the latest ethnic minority to exert influence over the majority population of ethnic Russians.

The counterargument to that would be that the revolutionaries in Germany were also Jewish at the time, as well as in just about all countries between the late 1800s and early 1900s.

It could have also been that the Jews who were Bolsheviks that gained a lot of power or influence in other areas were simply spillover from Russia.

Perhaps no one can definitely say that Bolshevism is a "Jewish characteristic", which really sounds like a bunch of nonsense, but it is very plain that, at least in the context of Russian Communism, the leading and most powerful group in policy making was the Jewish component.

>>35897

>just as in Germany

I'm guessing you're talking about the Spartacists? See below.

>The Jewish population was very small in proportion especially to the amount of leaders they produced in movements.

What I'm saying is that since the Jews were predominantly middle class and in the same geographical location as to where the coup occurred. The majority of leading Bolsheviks were from the middle class and so some would be Jewish, but what I'm saying is that being Jewish wasn't equal to being a Communist Revolutionary. Jewish Bolsheviks did not identify as Jews, they were the middle-class and this was the reason why they were part of the Bolsheviks. It wasn't a revolution in order for a Jewish state to be created, Bolsheviks did not believe in race and believed in wealth distribution, it was to create a Communist country; they were deluded that it would be successful, however.

>That quote is from the Russian Revolution by Pipes, written 1990.

Pipes' work has largely been disregarded by Historians due to his very anti-Russian stance which is similar to how people viewed Russia during the Cold War; Russia is the big bad and everyone inside Russia is bad. The legitimacy of that quote has been disputed as he has been accused of using quotes that benefited him while disregarding context or other quotes that proved him wrong. For example, if Lenin had actually said that to Gorky, due to his stance on Jews, it is likely that he was saying this humorously.

>1. The list is not even complete

I understand this but if you're trying to prove a point that the majority of the Bolshevik command was Jewish then you really have to have a complete list.

>If bears in the Bear Army were 98% of the armed forces, but the bear command staff which issue orders is composed of 50% eagles. the eagles have a overproportionally high degree of control, especially if eagles were only 5% of the total population of Bearlandia.

Bearlandia, topkek I like it. But this is more that most of the Bears are very poor and majority of the Eagles are richer. As the Eagles are richer, they are able to create a Eagolshevik Club haha and put themselves as the leaders and since few Bears were as rich as the Eagles a smaller amount of them were leaders. This shows that, due to their income, it made sense that they were in control as they could afford to create and run the club. More Bears then joined later but with the majority of positions already filled by the Eagles they could not get promoted to high positions.

>Maybe some were and some weren't. You don't know that. No one does. Zionism goes beyond the creation of a country, you know, and has many different versions of itself.

But Bolsheviks effectively promoted and end to racial identity and religion, it is highly unlikely that Bolsheviks would actually hold these views.

>You know Trotsky and Lenin used the idea of national self determination when things got tricky and looked bad, right?

No this isn't right, Trotsky campaigned for world-wide revolution even after Lenin's death which was heavily opposed by the Communist Party which actually led to him being removed from power and sent away. This doesn't sound like a man who was simply trying to get support even though it was heavily opposed, does it?

>http://www.heretical.com/miscellx/bolshies.html

The lists of Jews are interesting, I'll have to check up on them, this is a better list than the one prior.

>Both sides probably wanted to get the first strike in.

I'm not so sure, to say the least Stalin was pretty damn surprised by the invasion and Stalin really wasn't ready to defend or even attack.

>Definitely posed a trade and colonial threat.

Not to mention their violations of the Treaty of Versailles.

>Who financed it?

A lot of the finance was from the robbery of banks, Stalin did this a lot when he was younger.

>

One could debate that Russians seem to have always been ruled or administered by ethnic minorities - Scandinavians/Vikings (the Rus), Germans, Mongols, etc, though, and Jews are the latest ethnic minority to exert influence over the majority population of ethnic Russians.

I honestly wouldn't go this far.

>>35901

Hey

>Jews were predominantly middle class and in the same geographical location as to where the coup occurred.

The same applied to Germans living in Russia (established merchant and land owner class in many ways), but they did not participate in this nearly as much, despite there being far more Germans than Jews in Russia at the time.

>For example, if Lenin had actually said that to Gorky, due to his stance on Jews, it is likely that he was saying this humorously.

Could be, but a lot of the non-Russian Soviets seemed to hold a lot of contempt for ethnic Russians.

Maybe this was because there were lots of groups such as Georgians who had mixed relations with Russia over multiple centuries (borderline colonialism, conflict, alliances, etc).

>Bolshevik command was Jewish then you really have to have a complete list.

List is provided in that one link. By saying "not a complete list", I meant to say that it doesn't include very many officials who were quite high up, but not at the VERY top. By this, things such as regional administrators/governors are implied.

>As the Eagles are richer, they are able to create a Eagolshevik Club haha and put themselves as the leaders and since few Bears were as rich as the Eagles

Why would the eagles spend money and undermine their position to begin trying to distribute wealth and power - unless they viewed the new system as an easier way to maintain their own status quo (or improve it?)

>But Bolsheviks effectively promoted and end to racial identity and religion, it is highly unlikely that Bolsheviks would actually hold these views.

Creating states with a formed and historical identity of some kind was actually an early policy of the Bolsheviks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korenizatsiya

>This doesn't sound like a man who was simply trying to get support even though it was heavily opposed, does it?

I was talking more about when things were getting tricky when they were trying to get local support during the Revolution.

>Not to mention their violations of the Treaty of Versailles.

I don't think the Treaty of Versailles being broken was a huge issue, considering that it was pretty obvious from the get-go that a treaty like that would not be upheld by a powerful country (even after defeat) like Germany in the first place.

>A lot of the finance was from the robbery of banks, Stalin did this a lot when he was younger.

Maybe to get small amounts of supplies, but revolutions cannot be financed through bank robbery, as most states (including Imperial Russia at the time) had strict banking regulations, reserve requirements, etc.

To make it simple, the amount of money that people deposited at the bank wasn't actually inside the bank or even in existence often.

>I honestly wouldn't go this far.

I think it's true, though. I believe the only era where Russians really ran Russia was around the time of Ivan (late Rurik dynasty) and early Romanov dynasty. The later Romanovs were not even really Russian. Russians have been largely ruled by ethnic minorities over the last 400 years to varying extents.

>>35905

Hello, anon!

>

The same applied to Germans living in Russia (established merchant and land owner class in many ways), but they did not participate in this nearly as much, despite there being far more Germans than Jews in Russia at the time.

The persecution of Jews did not happen to Germans however, they did not face pogroms and general hatred towards them, which would have led to more Jews becoming revolutionary. You have Jews with more money than anyone else and more of a reason to hate the system than anybody else, there is no question as to why they became revolutionary.

>Could be, but a lot of the non-Russian Soviets seemed to hold a lot of contempt for ethnic Russians.

I don't really know about others but this does seem to go against Lenin's character and the ideals that he stood for.

>List is provided in that one link.

Yeah, your second one was much better.

>Why would the eagles spend money and undermine their position to begin trying to distribute wealth and power - unless they viewed the new system as an easier way to maintain their own status quo (or improve it?)

Mainly because King Bear is a bit of a dick to the other Bears and also to the Eagles; they believed in a new system where everyone could have even more power and independence as them, which is the ideal of Communism. It seems like this is more of a form of self-sacrifice in order for future generations not to suffer as much as theirs did, which isn't unheard of.

>Creating states with a formed and historical identity of some kind was actually an early policy of the Bolsheviks.

This is interesting but from what I have read about this in your link it seems to be more of a temporary measure in order to make people think that they were contributing to the protection of their region or that they had actual representation in the Bolshevik party. It seems to be the Bolshevik version of positive discrimination but I probably have interpreted this wrongly.

>I was talking more about when things were getting tricky when they were trying to get local support during the Revolution.

Yes but this is wrong as Trotsky showed that he wanted this AFTER they stopped needing local support which suggests that he was genuine about these views, perhaps we can say that Lenin was not but then we can look at the invasion of Poland where they attempted revolution on the edge of a bayonet.

>Maybe to get small amounts of supplies, but revolutions cannot be financed through bank robbery, as most states (including Imperial Russia at the time) had strict banking regulations, reserve requirements, etc.

The banks that were robbed did not provide a massive amount of income, yes, but they used the money from the banks to be able to fund illegal printing of handbills. Also, the Bolsheviks were a very small party by 1917 with only 25 000 members so this amount of income would be capable of funding them.

>I think it's true, though. I believe the only era where Russians really ran Russia was around the time of Ivan (late Rurik dynasty) and early Romanov dynasty. The later Romanovs were not even really Russian. Russians have been largely ruled by ethnic minorities over the last 400 years to varying extents.

The British Royal Family are German so does this mean that Britain is actually ruled by the Germans? (before you say anything, yes I do understand Britain is a constitutional monarchy, I could not think of another example of a Royal Family that is not the nationality) Of course not, the Royal Family is British and identifies as being British, this is the same with the later Romanovs, they were undoubtedly Russian in the sense that they identified themselves as Russians.

>>35897

>Definitely posed a trade and colonial threat.

But not a threat in that the country should feel threatened. If we go by classical economics, the superiority of German manufacturing in some areas would simply free up that labor in Britain to be used for another purpose. What I mean is that Germany represented no threat to the British in a way that they should "feel threatened." If suddenly France becomes a great trade nation and we Americans were formally a great trade nation, we should not feel threatened, but just shift our labor around so that we and France can work together to produce the best economic efficiency.

I don't know about colonies. From what do gather, German colonization was a rather meager affair compared to what other powers did. I can hardly imagine Germany's colonies being a threat? If we are going by that logic, then everyone's colonies are threatening to everyone else's, so this is nothing in particular to feel uniquely "threatened" about on the part of America or Britain.

>Debatable.

More people have been murdered as a result of Bolshevism (and I extend that to Maoism and other "Communist" states which amount to the same thing) than anything else. I think that makes it rather definitely the most force that has ever existed.

>Who financed it?

It seems to have been financed predominately by Wall Street bankers from what I know, who indeed are largely Jews.

>>35909

>But not a threat in that the country should feel threatened. If we go by classical economics, the superiority of German manufacturing in some areas would simply free up that labor in Britain to be used for another purpose. What I mean is that Germany represented no threat to the British in a way that they should "feel threatened." If suddenly France becomes a great trade nation and we Americans were formally a great trade nation, we should not feel threatened, but just shift our labor around so that we and France can work together to produce the best economic efficiency.

It is certainly not easy to shift your whole economy from one sector, you can not "simply" do this as you have stated. Britain had lost a lot of their trade due to trade partners moving from them to the US so losing their trade to the Germans in Central Europe would have been terrible for the British. The country's industry was very similar to the Germans and of course they can not "simply" dismantle their whole industry in order to create a new industry just to accommodate for the Germans, don't be so absurd.

>I don't know about colonies. From what do gather, German colonization was a rather meager affair compared to what other powers did. I can hardly imagine Germany's colonies being a threat? If we are going by that logic, then everyone's colonies are threatening to everyone else's, so this is nothing in particular to feel uniquely "threatened" about on the part of America or Britain.

Germany had colonies, such as West and East German Africa, which would have impacted even more on Britain's declining international trade if they were allowed to develop. As the Germans also had intentions to create more living space for Germans, it was obvious that they wanted to get more colonies; how could they do this when most colonies had already been taken? By inciting revolution in those of course, especially those that had little control, such as some countries in the declining British Empire.

>More people have been murdered as a result of Bolshevism (and I extend that to Maoism and other "Communist" states which amount to the same thing) than anything else. I think that makes it rather definitely the most force that has ever existed.

For one, Maoism is not Bolshevism, Maoism is attempting Stalinism and failing spectacularly. Secondly, Bolshevism has killed around 40 000 people during the Red Terror, the resulting failure of Bolshevism and the rise of Stalinism killed millions of people. As Bolshevism is doomed to fail, other communist states failed and became states reminiscent of Stalinism and Maoism. Saying that Bolshevism is the reason why millions of people died is like saying that the Doctor that prepared a patient for heart by-pass surgery is responsible for when the surgeon fails.

The reason why Britain and France invaded Germany is because Germany was becoming a threat in Europe; it had grown a large army and almost doubled its landmass within a few years, dwarfing every other country in Europe around it. Obviously France and England felt threatened, not only militarily but also because they now had a superpower in the centre of Europe with a huge work force and massive industry. Of course they would invade, it's the only thing to curb the country's power.

>>35853

>m-muh /pol/ pls stop having opinions of your own

Lol cry more, retard

I actually have a shit-ton of good images clearly presenting the jewish influence in the Soviet Union and the communist revolution which took place, as well as other rather important moments in European history but since this board is a leftist shithole anyway and everyone will be shitting their pants when they see them because "muh /pol/ boogeyman" I guess there is no reason to post them here.

>>35736

>pilgrims

>escaping persecution

Those faggots were escaping too much liberty.

>>35925

>nev4r triedz!!!

Oh god. Don't you have some dongles to protest or house pets to euthanize?

>>35900

>"Jewish characteristic", which really sounds like a bunch of nonsense

Doesn't sound like nonsense to me. If a group has it's own theology, movements and other meme buckets it could conceivably create something that is more attractive to their own mentality than to others'. Plus Jews are, in essence, tribal. They really don't lose as much in communism as groups oriented purely as nations, religions, ethnicities etc. since at the end of the day the essence of identity doesn't matter, us-them dynamic is the only thing needed for a tribe to keep going, even if everything inside is fucked up beyond recognition.

Look at all the Jewish "anti-racists" a la Tim Wise furiously trying to fuck with whatever's the main out-group in their country of residence, there are equivalents in every liberal democratic society with a diaspora present. This shit probably goes a long way back culturally, it just didn't have a way to manifest.

>>35937

>I promise I do have proof but I am choosing not to post it!

Create a new thread on the Jews in the Soviet Union and post them there, this post was needless. I can not wait to see these /pol/-tier infographs which you lap up without any further research.

>>35936

>The Treaty of Versailles was unfair anyway, there was no reason for Hitler to follow it

It was internationally recognised so Hitler should have followed it, he should have tried to get the Treaty limited but of course he wouldn't because he wanted to appear to be aggressive and dominant in Europe, above international law because "muh German superiority". He must have been shocked when he was taken out very quickly.

>British government never said anything about the Soviet Union taking a part of Poland for literally no reason other than expanding their nation which was already huge while attacking Germany for taking a part of Poland which used to belong to their country.

Trying to take out Germany and the Soviet Union at the same time would have been possible, take out Germany and then the Soviet Union? Doable. Also, Germany was the greater threat at the time as they were the largest country in Europe which directly threatened France and Britain, while the Soviet Union was still viewed as being backwards compared to Germany. Plus if they attacked Germany first they knew there was a possibility that the Soviet Union could attack from the East. The Americans planned to continue the war against Russia after defeating Germany but no one anticipated a six year war so war-weariness had definitely set in at the time.

>By the way, I don't understand the last part of your post, about your opinion of that book about his childhood I mean, what were you rambling about?

People's personalities and views change. Look back at yourself five years ago and look at yourself now, you have changed. To say that Hitler was a good child and was, therefore, a good man is retarded logic. Also, it is difficult to prove how close the two men actually were and he could have released the book simply to get money.

>Oh god. Don't you have some dongles to protest or house pets to euthanize?

No, I'm not a leftist, I'm more of a conservative right-wing, I'm just not an idiot. Bolshevism had never actually been so you can not say that Bolshevism is the cause for all these problems if Bolshevism gave way to dictatorship. Communism just doesn't work though as if a state is too prosperous then they don't want communism because the majority are wealthy, while if a state is under-developed then they want communism but do not have the means to create communism. This is why so many communist revolutions had failed and gave way to dictatorships, communism =/= dictatorship and communists do not want dictatorships, it's completely against their ideology. Also, thank you for your intelligent reply, I took time out of my day to attempt to educate you in actual Russian history and you regarded it like the narrow-minded stormfag you are.

>Doesn't sound like nonsense to me.

Because you're an idiot.

>>35939

>No, I'm not a leftist, I'm more of a conservative right-wing, I'm just not an idiot. Bolshevism had never actually been so you can not say that Bolshevism is the cause for all these problems if Bolshevism gave way to dictatorship.

In what fairy tale scenario that ideological cluster fuck doesn't devolve into a dictatorship? It was primed and ready.

>Because you're an idiot.

Fantastic argument

>im not a leftist

It quacks like a duck.

>>35941

>In what fairy tale scenario that ideological cluster fuck doesn't devolve into a dictatorship? It was primed and ready.

At what point did I say that it was possible for it to work? However we have the benefit of hindsight, they didn't, if they did then very few countries would actually create a revolution in the name of communism, as you can see most modern day revolutions are aimed to create democracy's but most of those don't work. Revolutions just are generally not very successful, communist revolutions are doomed to fail though.

>Fantastic argument

This is very hypocritical for a guy who replied to my five hundred plus word reply stating how wrong you were and correcting your knowledge of Russian history by calling me a leftist. The reason why you are wrong is because races do not have characteristics, that is absurd, look at blacks in Africa and then blacks in the US, they do not share characteristics. Look at Asians in China and Japan, they do not share the same characteristics. People are individuals and have individual characteristics, none of it is inherent.

>It quacks like a duck.

So because I know and understand Russian history and disagree with your ludicrous and uneducated statements makes me a leftist and, therefore, my arguments invalid? What if I was a leftist, would my points be any less valid than they are now? I'm a capitalist who believes in a strong government that promotes growth over liberalism, but how is this at all relevant to my points? I was stating the truth, not attempting to put any political bias into my points as you accuse me of doing.

>>35943

Wrong reaction image, but whatever. It's a ludicrous claim anyway that "none of it is inherent". Even common sense would dictate the opposite.

>>35943

>But they absolutely do.

Look at Nigeria and other growing economies in Africa, they are predominantly black and have little to no problems that the US faces with their black population. I am not saying anything about how brains are influenced by our parents, but I am saying that this has nothing to do with race. A black baby born into starvation and malnutrition will be as intelligent as a white baby born out of starvation and malnutrition, this has nothing to do with the colour of a person's skin.

Thanks for not replying to the rest of my post by the way, it means a lot to know that I'm right! Still waiting on your infographic thread detailing about how Jews rule Russia that apparently we are too "leftist" on this board to fully comprehend!

>>35945

And look at Nigerian Americans being the most educated ethnic census group in the US mainly because they get all the benefits yet there's strong positive selection regarding who actually comes from Nigeria to US — it's mostly people who actually go there to study

>>35945

but hey

>how Jews rule Russia

just go through background of those guys

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_oligarch

>>35946

>And look at Nigerian Americans being the most educated ethnic census group in the US mainly because they get all the benefits yet there's strong positive selection regarding who actually comes from Nigeria to US — it's mostly people who actually go there to study

I don't especially understand the point you are making here, you were stating that all black people shared common characteristics but now you are saying that Nigerian Americans are most-educated ethnic group in the US because they are allowed in based on their intelligence? I honestly do not see your point here, this simply reinforces my point.

>just go through background of those guys

I did actually happen to, surprisingly enough, and most were described on far-right sites as "Crypto-Jews" whiich means "hidden Jews" which, in other words, means "I have no evidence that this person is a Jew or holds any Jewish beliefs bur I will believe this anyway in order for me to believe that my opinion is correct". Please try harder.

>>35945

>A black baby born into starvation and malnutrition will be as intelligent as a white baby born out of starvation and malnutrition, this has nothing to do with the colour of a person's skin.

>race is just skin color

You could start by looking at studies with adopted children of white and black skin color race in the US for example.

>Still waiting on your infographic

You do know that IDs exist, right? And you have the nerve of calling other people idiots.

>>35925

>It is certainly not easy to shift your whole economy from one sector, you can not "simply" do this as you have stated.

Not even addressing this ridiculous strawman.

>how could they do this when most colonies had already been taken? By inciting revolution in those of course, especially those that had little control, such as some countries in the declining British Empire.

But this contradicts everything we know about the Third Reich. Hitler intended to create Lebensraum out of the Eastern regions taken by the sword after their valiant crusade against Bolshevism. Inciting revolution in British colonies? What are you talking about? Hitler was such an anglophile he proposed giving Britain German troops to station in her provinces in order to preserve her "glorious empire." Hitler dreamed of an Anglo-German alliance, he had literally no interest whatsoever in weakening his beloved Britons. If Germany's economic successes had any negative impact on Britain, then it was completely unintentional and nothing that the Third Reich intended.

>For one, Maoism is not Bolshevism, Maoism is attempting Stalinism and failing spectacularly.

ALL of those ideologies are the same. It is all Bolshevism. Call it what you like: Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, "Castroism," "Ho Chi Minhism," "Kimism." All of it is the massacre of a country by a foreign idea that infects some extremists who try to set up a society that is very susceptible to corruption and implosion. Call it whatever you want, you know what I mean by "Bolshevism." Call it "Communism." Whatever idea it is that is common between all of these "Marxist-Leninist" states.

>The reason why Britain and France invaded Germany is because Germany was becoming a threat in Europe; it had grown a large army and almost doubled its landmass within a few years, dwarfing every other country in Europe around it. Obviously France and England felt threatened, not only militarily but also because they now had a superpower in the centre of Europe with a huge work force and massive industry. Of course they would invade, it's the only thing to curb the country's power.

>Of course they would invade, it's the only thing to curb the country's power.

Of course they weren't invade? Are you really so much of an interventionist that you can't conceive of anything other than destroying another country through total war just because they're doing well economically? There is no "of course they would invade," what they did was completely bloodthirsty, hawish, and unwarranted. In fact, sensible people like Chamberlain and David Lloyd George had no desire to commit their countries to another destructive war. This is during a time when most of Europe was exhausted from WW1. No-one except for jingoistic douchebags like Churchill wanted war. There was nothing natural about it.

Germany presented no threat to Britain to France. Germany did nothing but protect the ethnic German minorities who were forced into arbitrary multicultural paradises after WW1 and who self-determined that they wanted to be a part of the resurgent Germany under the Third Reich. Then, Germany had the distant goal of toppling the Bolshevik revolution and safeguarding the world from that evil.

NONE of this threatened Britain or France. Germany had NO designs on ANYTHING British. Germany wanted nothing but total friendship with Britain. Germany even forfeited Alsace-Lorraine to the French and renounced any claims to that territory. Germany bent-over backwards for Britain and France in order to avoid war with them.

Hitler called for peace and disarmament constantly.

Again, Germany presented NO threat to Britain or France. To claim otherwise is to have completely misunderstood the time.

Britain and France threatened Germany.

>>35950

>You could start by looking at studies with adopted children of white and black skin color race in the US for example.

yeah because kids are born as a blank page, right? let's disregard how mother's lifestyle affects baby's development in the womb (besides fetal alcohol syndrome a shitload of black kids in the US are crack babies)

Careful to maintain this a historical discussion, not a political one, m8s.

>>35950

>You could start by looking at studies with adopted children of white and black skin color race in the US for example.

Children that are born in to care universally have problems, the reason why black children are statistically worse behaved is not because of genetics but because they relate more to other black people. The black people in the US promote "Ghetto Culture" and this influences the children.

>You do know that IDs exist, right? And you have the nerve of calling other people idiots.

I noticed earlier that different IDs were posting in quick succession and, naturally as this is a slow board, I thought it was just the same guy changing his ID.

>>35951

>Not even addressing this ridiculous strawman.

>My point makes no sense and someone pointed it out, I'm going to pretend that I am more intelligent by refusing to reply!

>But this contradicts everything we know about the Third Reich. Hitler intended to create Lebensraum out of the Eastern regions taken by the sword after their valiant crusade against Bolshevism. Inciting revolution in British colonies? What are you talking about? Hitler was such an anglophile he proposed giving Britain German troops to station in her provinces in order to preserve her "glorious empire." Hitler dreamed of an Anglo-German alliance, he had literally no interest whatsoever in weakening his beloved Britons. If Germany's economic successes had any negative impact on Britain, then it was completely unintentional and nothing that the Third Reich intended.

Yeah, sorry about this anon, I spoke with certainty when I only meant of this as a theory.

>ALL of those ideologies are the same. It is all Bolshevism.

No they're not.

>All of it is the massacre of a country by a foreign idea that infects some extremists who try to set up a society that is very susceptible to corruption and implosion.

No they're not.

>Whatever idea it is that is common between all of these "Marxist-Leninist" states.

*failed Communist states.

>There is no "of course they would invade," what they did was completely bloodthirsty, hawish, and unwarranted.

Germany was a strong dictatorship in the centre of Europe that was performing well economically that threatened France and Britain economically and militarily.

>In fact, sensible people like Chamberlain and David Lloyd George had no desire to commit their countries to another destructive war.

These sensible people were lied to by Hitler and allowed him to invade Czechoslovakia because they wanted to prevent war, too bad Hitler thought he was above the two largest superpowers in Europe and could play them like fools.

>No-one except for jingoistic douchebags like Churchill wanted war.

Apart from Hitler who wanted to invade the whole of the East, but lets just ignore that.

Got to go, will post later I guess.

Did I get shadowbanned or something

>>35973

Nope, don't seem to be.

>>35970

>this is a liberal shithole

you need to use sources, irrefutable evidence, not rumors and comentaries, the one of the main problems of /pol/ apart that they tend to project their emotions into politics is that they are not experts on nothing, they just spread what they heard, this goes into social studies and science, it's common ot see somebody that preaches aganist race mixing and doesn't even know what Mendel laws are.

>>35968

>Germany was a strong dictatorship in the centre of Europe that was performing well economically that threatened France and Britain economically and militarily.

Germany in no way threatened France of Britain militarily. Hitler called for peace and was hopelessly outmanned by its neighbors. Military buildup was forced upon Germany as a result of what its neighbors were doing against the ethnic Germans that were essentially captive in Germany's former territories.

You keep using the word "threatened" to describe Germany's economic success, but I feel it is inappropriate. You are way too easily conflating economic competition with the kind of military threat that leads to wars. No, invasion is not inevitable in tandem with economic competition, what Churchill et al did was vicious. Yes, Germany achieved economic success, but that in no way "obligated" it being invaded by the whole world. I think that it is, indeed, much easier to allocate your labor elsewhere than to lose millions of men and ruin your empire through an unnecessary war.

>These sensible people were lied to by Hitler and allowed him to invade Czechoslovakia because they wanted to prevent war, too bad Hitler thought he was above the two largest superpowers in Europe and could play them like fools.

What lie did Hitler tell? When did Hitler invade any territory for any reason other than to protect the German minorities there before war was brought to him by Britain and France? You're right: he didn't. War was brought to him.

>Apart from Hitler who wanted to invade the whole of the East,

But not anytime soon. Hitler dreamed of a 1000 year Reich. He didn't even begin to stockpile armaments or increase military spending to any noticeable degree during the early part of the 30s. Indeed, he didn't start doing this until diplomacy warranted it. Even when war was brought to him, he signed a non-aggression pact with the Soviets, which the Soviets rendered void due to their plans to invade Bessarabia.

>>35977

All the images I have posted clearly have sources included in them. I also never mentioned race mixing so I'm not sure why you're bringing this up.

>>35500

Stalag edition which was the official english release given to POWs.

>>35986

It's signalling. Just tell him how smart and awesome he is and move on. It's a status thing for them.

>>36001

Yeah I already expected he wouldn't look at any of the stuff he posted. Anyone who thinks the jews are not a race of evil monsters have clearly not studied history enough.

>>36003

>lel let's just make fun of him instead of actually explaining him why I think he's wrong

Typical liberal.

>>36005

>>Anyone who thinks the jews are not a race of evil monsters have clearly not studied history enough.

I don't agree with this part.

But I will say that I oppose anyone who dismisses evidence without doing due diligence to study them first. This is for both the left or right, though in my experience the urge to signal superiority tends to be more common among liberals than right-wingers and traditional/hard leftists.

>>35977

>>preaches aganist race mixing and doesn't even know what Mendel laws are.

Please tell us more about Mendel and race mixing. I'm interested to know what you know.

>>36008

So that means you do realise that the holocaust is a lie, right? Since there is too much evidence for the fact that it didn't happen and too little for the fact that it did happen.

>>36006

Your mental gymnastics and delusions have been debunked multiple times in this thread alone. You deserve to be made fun of faggot.

>>36020

A Racial Program for the Twentieth Century is a hoax.

>>36025

>>/pol/acks thinks that as skin color is dominant on blacks also is their lack of intelligence (that's a redundant trait, it mean processing capacity?, retention?, memory?) is dominant (according to their beliefs

Actually, that is correct. mulattoes are generally more intelligent than blacks but less intelligent than whites. This is also true for blacks and mulattoes who have been raised in white environments.

Here are the sources if you're interested.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study

link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1016313718644

>>For each characteristic, the mixed race mean fell between the means of the two parental populations. Design extensions were proposed that include: (1) directly genotyping for individual racial admixture, (2) including parents of the mixed race children, and (3) including their cousins.

So in a sense yes, relative to whites, blacks IQ's are dominant.

>>also reproduction also passes inmunologic information, which makes appealing to reproduce whit exotic partners, even thought the inmunologic compatibility that is more dominant when choosing a partner has more to do whit the individual rather that the race, so race mixing doesnt not create super-inmulogic humans neither reproducing whit the same isolated population

I have no idea what you're talking about here. I'm guessing "inmunologic" is supposed to be immunologic?

But whatever. I'll take your word for it. This isn't /his/ related, and I don't want to get banhammered.

Fuck's sake.

I'm going to blame that idiot who keeps going "hahaha let's laugh at /pol/!" on the meta thread for this.

Stick to discussing historical events. You want to discuss politics, or racial science, that's elsewhere.

>>36019

As for you, you were already warned to stop this; if you're not only not willing to do so, but want to segue into discussing the Holocaust, have at least the decency of doing so in the correct thread instead of derailing this one (which is derailed enough already).

Mein Kampf. Who's read it. Who hasn't. Is it a good book. Is it a dry read. Stick to that.

>>36025

>skin color is dominants on black

not really tbh

I'm mediterranean and I'm darker than some first generation mulattoes with one blonde parent

it's more that being white means you'll notice that someone is darker faster

>skull shape and facial features seems dominant on whites

yeah the aryan jaw is dominant as fuck

>>36030

>adoption study

now look at the reasons why black kids get adopted

a shitload of them are crack babies or at least fetal alcohol syndrome

so even if twins share a trait it doesn't necessarily be genetic, they also had a common development in womb

>>36033

>>36034

M8.

>>36022

>>36021

Feel free to explain what exactly is wrong or delusional about my posts instead of insulting me. Oh wait…you can't.

>>36044

All you need to do is look at how many points you ignored to see how you are wrong and delusional. Now yes, please leave.

>>36036

Why the ban?

>>36046

You seem to be a subversive element. You've never responded to me here >>35979 and I don't see why you're telling people to leave.

>>36054

I haven't responded because I've been in London this weekend and, to be honest, I feel like it's getting nowhere. One of us says "Germany threatened Britain" while the other says "Germany didn't threaten Britain" and it's just the repetition of the same points. Neither of us is going to change our minds because there's too little to know and much more to interpret. I've said all I have wanted to say and I just hope that my interpretation has influenced more people than yours, honestly.

And I told him to leave because he himself said that he was going to leave, if he left then at least that means he is true to his word rather than waiting long enough to get himself banned.

>>36046

Still didn't explain anything and no one bothered to look at the pictures I posted.