Okay, well the first thing we can do if we're going to try and debate this logically is break up the issues and understand the arguments being made. Let's first find common ground; what do you think about David Cole's modern assessments as per an interview with The Guardian:
He became convinced that on some points they were right and that as a Jew, he would undertake a quixotic quest to "correct" the historical record, arguing that Auschwitz was not an extermination camp in the manner of Treblinka, Sobibor, Belzac and Chelmno – which he acknowledged were part of a genocidal programme against Polish Jews; that the Holocaust ended in 1943, when the Nazis realised they needed Jewish slave labour for factories; and that there was no overarching, genocidal plan, but an evolving, morphing policy which claimed perhaps 4 million, rather than 6 million, Jewish lives.
(Yes, it's The Guardian, but he agreed to an interview and does not appear to have challenged their publication that I see)
From what you've seen, it's hard to know for sure; do you believe Poland was fully the aggressor? What part do you believe Germany had in the war?
What's more; what do you think about the German actions up until that point? Did they violate the Treaty of Versailles? Did they initiate a forcefully backed annexation of Austria and swaths of Czechoslovakia?
You seem to (rightfully) dislike the Soviets extensively; what do you think about the modern narrative about the Molotov Ribbentrop pact, or the (at the time, ignored and under-reported) invasion of Poland by the Soviet Union; or the Polish-Soviet war of 1919 and 1920?
You seem to question US involvement in the war against Germany; what is your take on Pearl Harbor? What do you think about the narrative of the German declaration of war against the United States?
To be clear, these questions are not meant to be antagonistic. I just want to know where you stand so I can know what points we agree on and what I can argue based upon; if you are open minded as you claim and proclaim I should be, you should accept my attempts to counter-argue, just as I am willing to take your arguments and evidence and argue based on that. IMO open mindedness doesn't just mean accepting whatever anyone says; it means debate or argument with those you disagree with, and accepting defeat if they can prove you wrong; or coming to a compromise if the truth lies between both positions.
Let's first find common ground; what do you think about David Cole's modern assessments as per an interview with The Guardian:
How is this a "modern assessment" if the guy changed his name multiple times because the zionist cadre tried to murder him for exposing their fraud? And it contradicts itself saying "yes genocidal program" to "no, they just needed cheap labor"
Is there a video of this which proves it's him? I don't believe he said any of that. Even if he did it doesn't change the fact his video full of hard science completely destroyed the narrative.
do you believe Poland was fully the aggressor
I believe the claims of the Germans responding to "aggression" on the border are more than plausible given communist infiltration. They had third party swiss doctors come in to investigate. Contrast that with the bolsheviks and the crude holes in their air raid shelter.
I mean, we can find people "calling" WW2 and it's just centuries long tensions between old kingdoms. I'll try to edit with quotes of it "being set off in the balkans".
"Otto Von Bismarck predicted the start of World war I with quote “One day the great European War will come out of some damned foolish thing in the Balkans (1888).”
If we can point the finger at any one people, it's the bolsheviks.
What part do you believe Germany had in the war?
The only crime of germany was that of being successful.
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/freedman.htm
What's more; what do you think about the German actions up until that point? Did they violate the Treaty of Versailles
Versailles was no "treaty". They slapped Germany down for the crime of being successful. In WW1 they won. England was going to surrender when America got involved. Who got America involved? The bolsheviks for palestine. The speech by Mr Freeman I sourced above this is enlightening. This is the "first hand knowledge" which I value.
Did they initiate a forcefully backed annexation of Austria and swaths of Czechoslovakia?
I don't know off hand and I won't pretend to know every detail of the wars by memory. I also don't give a shit about every tiny european country. Germany saw communism which is really jewish bolshevism taking europe and sacrificed itself to save the rest of us. They broke the molotov ribbentrop pact because they knew the shiesty jews were waiting to sweep the continent.
what do you think about the modern narrative about the Molotov Ribbentrop pact,
What is the modern narrative? That it was a ploy? I don't know exactly what you mean but I can tell you Hitler was disgusted by the jews and was himself jewish.
what is your take on Pearl Harbor?
Was japan starving at that point? If I remember they were pretty desperate. I don't know where youre going with any of these questions.
What do you think about the narrative of the German declaration of war against the United States?
I have no idea what you're talking about. If I had to guess I would say it was more political show at the tail end of the war than anything. And the United States never declared war on "the Nazi party" it was Germany.
you should accept my attempts to counter-argue,
Ok, do it.
IMO open mindedness doesn't just mean accepting whatever anyone says; it means debate or argument with those you disagree with
That's not what's you've demonstrated with your argument of "I have family, therefore the shoah definitely happened". That's not an argument.
The formatting seems to have got botched, but I think I've parsed it out.
The reason the Polish aggressor question is relevant to me is because I want to be on the same page about the validity of documentation and claims by the Polish Government in Exile and the Polish Underground; these are some of the most crucial documents in understanding what happened in Poland without going through German or Soviet sources, or Western sources that are just further bastardizations of the prior.
The question about the invasion of Poland is also interesting in that it assists in ascertaining motivations, and judging other actions, as well as the validity of those actions. It influences answers to questions such as "Was Germany completely in the right, and just being interfered with?" or "Was Poland allied to Communism?" and so on.
The answer to the questions of aggression can be found in the documentation of the time. This document, sourced for me by a friend living in Poland, is the original order of mobilization from the Polish government. This, combined with the other history of Poland from WWI out, shows us a few different things:
1.) Poland was on high alert for invasion from the Soviets since they experienced a pyrrhic victory in the Polish-Soviet war of 1919-1920. They Second Polish Republic was no ally to Communism, as no good Republic should be.
2.) Poland was on high alert in the 1930s because of the rising threat of aggression from Germany, with good reason:
Here is a map of German expansion prior to the war going hot; The orange is territory that Germany started with, post Versailles.
The marked Rhineland region was a demilitarized zone; Germany marched troops into said zone in the mid 1930s, re-militarizing it; an action met with strongly-worded letters from France and Britain.
In March of 1938, Germany announced the "Anschluss", translating to "Joining", of Germany and Austria. Without going into it too much, this decision was controversial; many Austrians wanted to retain independence, but some had German heritage and wanted to be re-united. The decision to march the German army through Austria was a signal to those opposing the annexation; resistance will be met with bullets.
Later in 1938, the Germans demanded Czechoslovakia surrender the Sudetenland, a region inhabited primarily by the Sudeten Germans. This, again, brought the objections of the Western Allies; resolution was found in the Munich Agreement, in which the Germans were granted Sudetenland in exchange for promising they would cease territorial expansions of any kind. This conference did not allow any input from Czechoslovakia, from whom the lands were being taken at that time. Given that they had effectively completely defied the Treaty of Versailles by that point, it was apparent that the Western Allies would do virtually anything to appease and avoid war. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain is famously quoted saying, on return from the Munich Conference, "I believe it is peace for our time".
In a short order later, Czechoslovakia, under continued pressure from Germany, fractured; Czech lands were consumed by Germany, while Poland and Hungry rushed to claim Slovakia, primarily to prevent other powers from securing it (something that partially failed, as much of Slovakia was puppeted by Germany as the "Slovak Republic"). The breakdown of that can be seen here.
By that point, it was clear that Germany was continuing on the path of expansion, and that the Western Allies would do nothing to prevent it. Germany now looked to the East; they were intent on seizing what was effectively a protectorate of Poland; the Free City of Danzig/Gdansk. Closely tied with Poland, it was Poland's only significant port and an absolutely critical trade hub to the nation. Germany demanded it, and Poland refused. To justify war, Germany staged a set of false-flag attacks, including the Gleiwitz incident (Something corroborated by significant testimony form many involved). The next morning, the invasion began.
It was not initiated by Poland. The date on the mobilization notice is the 30th of August; war began two days later. Poland actually attempted to mobilize sooner; they knew what was in store, and wanted to defend against it. They could have raised as much as double the manpower had they had the time, but the British and French strongly compelled them to stop, as they were still under the impression that war could be avoided. If Poland wanted to conquer Germany, they would have mobilized sooner, trained more, and procured more equipment; instead, they faced a losing defensive battle, though they put up significant resistance, the strength of which was extensively underplayed by both the German and Allied propaganda machines; the Germans wanted to appear stronger, and the Allies wanted to have an excuse for their complete military incompetence.
This is where the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact comes in. As per the agreement, Germany wasn't the only country to invade Poland; the Soviets invaded from the east shortly after the Germans invaded from the West. As strong as it's resistance was, Poland had no chance to defend against both powers, given that their primary defensive lines were rivers, which, obviously, can't be used for defense both ways. That should be the final nail in the coffin of the idea that the Polish government might somehow be sympathetic to or allied with Communism.
That said, the importance of the establishment of the motivations and allegiances of the Polish government lies in the understanding and interpretation of the actions of the Polish people and government, as well as the original documentation of the time. Early in the documentary, David Cole claims "there's no picture, plan, or wartime document dealing with homicidal gas chambers or a plan to exterminate the Jews" [12:56]; something that is simply not true. There is documentation from the Polish underground detailing it; evidence that was transmitted to the Government-in-exile relatively early in the war, and suppressed by the Western Allies. For this, we turn to Pilecki's Report.
In 1939, after Poland was defeated, Major Jan Włodarkiewicz and cavalry captain Witold Pilecki founded the Secret Polish Army. In 1940, Pilecki devised and presented a plan to infiltrate Auschwitz, gather intelligence, and organize the inmates to resist. This plan was accepted, and he got himself arrested and placed into the camp. He managed to organize a few inmates, and managed to get communications sent from the Camp to his superiors. His reports detailed atrocities taking place there; he requested that the allies drop supplies or troops into the camp to enable an organized resistance (as the inmates were not strong enough to conduct an effective resistance alone). In 1943, he escaped the camp and wrote "Raport W.", a thorough and detailed report of the camp, one which was signed by the other members involved in the operation, as his prior communications were downplayed or ignored by the Western Allies.
To be fair to Cole, this report was not published in any form until 2000, and not in English until 2012. That said, this documentary, as per admittance in the documentary, is not proof that the Holocaust didn't happen. The video does point out what is now commonly understood, accepted, and taught; that evidence of the specifics of the Holocaust has been manipulated, and, in some instances, fabricated. That said, as I implied before, the two greatest types of evidence we possess, and, frankly, the only evidence possible and trustworthy, is documentation from the time and reports from those that were there. As to the latter, there is sizable room for error; eye witness reports are notorious for failures, and, in such an experience as traumatic as reported, there is significant room for confused distortion. On top of that, it is more or less impossible for an eye-witness to have or provide accurate death tolls first hand. That is why the Pilecki report is valuable; it is a very deliberate report where details were taken at the time they happened, not recalled and written years later.
Those documents, combined with those of the period, and an analysis of other motivations and actions we can verify, are the only ways you could possibly prove such things.
For example; Cole focuses intently on the gas chambers as a supposed proof; yet, the failure in that is that no physical instance of a gas chamber would be proof to one that is truly skeptical. After all, if the Soviets had staged the whole thing, would it be hard to believe that they would have made a gas chamber themselves, executed people in it, and then presented it as evidence? For that matter, if the Soviets were so intent on fabrication, and the Poles so complicit, why wouldn't they have gone more over the top? Why not fill the room for days with Gas in order to stain the walls blue, something that would be an obviously easy way of improving a fabrication. Regardless; it would not be accepted as evidence, and indeed, alone, it is not suitable evidence.
See, the biggest thing to realize here, and that Cole appears to realize as per later interviews (such as the one I sent the quote from; and, to be clear, you believe it may be fabricated, yet he would have had ample opportunity to reverse that statement later, as he reversed his acceptance of the mainstream argument in a later book of his.) is that the issue is not black and white. There is no prove or disprove for most of it; small pieces, yes, but not the whole of it. Most evidence would be anecdotal or subject to propaganda, which can have a whole variety of motivations both for the exaggeration and for the suppression of the actions. It is very possible that figures are wrong, or details of testimonies inaccurate; that is why said figures are presented as estimates.
While I have not personally read it, I will put forth as counter-evidence three different sources:
One; Raport W; if you are willing to trust English translation, or if you are willing to learn (or already know) Polish and will seek out the original documentation and read it. According to translation, it includes details about genocide performed in the camp, including gassings.
Two; "The Destruction of the European Jews", a book by historial Raul Hilberg, written in 1961 and revised since as more direct sources are made available. This book is said to be extensively based on writings and testimonies of those that were there; survivors, perpetrators, and the less involved. These documents are both from the period and from the time after.
Three; the resources available at this website, which contain statements from historians, citations, and even discusses many of the objections raised by David Cole. As per the prior, I have not extensively evaluated any of these resources; I plan on doing so in the coming days.
If you can find refutations to their primary claims or arguments, I would appreciate those here. I don't mean "this isn't right" or things like that; I mean proper documentation or evidence that proves each explicitly to the contrary.
As a closing note; Witold Pilecki's report is not Communist propaganda. After the "liberation" and reoccupation of Poland by the Soviets, Witold continued the underground resistance to the Soviet occupational government. For that, he joined the death count of the thousands if not millions of Poles mercilessly murdered by the Soviet Union.
Apologies for any errors or mistakes; this post took me over two hours to source and write, and I'm just about out of characters, as well.
Well, thanks for taking the time to write this up.
these are some of the most crucial documents in understanding what happened in Poland without going through German or Soviet sources
Shouldn't we use all sources to get a more complete picture? Obviously the bolsheviks have a penchant for "manufacturing" warcrimes which needs to be accounted for.
Was Germany completely in the right, and just being interfered with?" or "Was Poland allied to Communism?" and so on.
As I've said, the only crime of germany is that of being successful. And yes, poland was "allied" with communism. Wether it was by subversion or otherwise there were communists in poland and they wanted war with Germany.
Poland was on high alert in the 1930s because of the rising threat of aggression from Germany, with good reason: Here is a map of German expansion prior to the war going hot; The orange is territory that Germany started with, post Versailles.
What about BEFORE versailles? Was the danzig corridor german before that? "Danzig" doesn't sound very polish to me, sounds like a german village name. I've already stated the rest of the planet got together to "slap down" Germany for basically doing what genghis khan did to Asia and connected disparate Germanic people to a successful powerhouse.
From the wiki on "bloody sunday"
"The Polish historians point out that since these losses occurred during actual combat, most of the civilian losses should be attributed to accidents common in urban combat conditions; they argue that civilian losses might have occurred when the town was attacked by the German air force (Luftwaffe).[20] Strafing of civilians in the town by the Luftwaffe is confirmed by German witnesses.[30] Nazi propaganda reinforced Polish perceptions of the German minority as hostile, and during the invasion reported that the German minority was aiding the forces. This contributed to Polish misconceptions, as the Poles were expecting the German minority to be actively hostile.[31]
An even bigger debate in the scholarship concerned the question whether—as the Polish historiography suggests—there were indeed any members of a German fifth column in the city who opened fire on the Polish troops (and if so, whether they were composed of members of the Bydgoszcz German minority or not), or whether—as critics among the German historiography argue—Polish troops (or panicking civilians) overreacted in the confusion and targeted innocent German civilians.[32] This debate has been resolved by investigation of German archives, which confirmed existence of several diversion and saboteur groups in Bydgoszcz overseen by intelligence organizations by Nazi Germany [33] Among the Germans killed in the fighting historians identified Otto Niefeldt who was an Abwehr agent from Szczecin[9] The account of Peter Nasarski alias Aurich has been called by Harry Gordon[31] one of the most thorough German accounts; his work is however generally rejected in Poland,[27] perhaps because he indiscriminately used witness statements collected by Nazi officials.[34] According to Nasarski, after police forces retreated from Bydgoszcz, agitated Polish civilians accused many Germans of assaulting Polish soldiers and executed them and any Poles who stood up in their defence.[31] Rasmus attributes the situation to confusion and the disorganised state of the Polish forces in the city.[28]
Von Frentz wrote that "In Bydgoszcz, the event was probably caused by confusion among the rapidly retreating soldiers, a general breakdown in public order and panic among the Polish majority after two German air raids and the discovery of a small reconnaissance group of the German Army on the previous day."[20] He quotes Nazi German reports about the civilian victims and atrocities, later corroborated by a Red Cross commission that the Nazis invited to the scene.[20] Von Frentz also noted that eyewitness accounts of atrocities committed against the German population are as unreliable as Polish accounts of the fifth columnists.[20] While authors like Blanke write that no ethnic Germans are known to have spoken of participation in that event, by 2007 Nazi documents were uncovered confirming that assistance, supplies and aid were given to both German saboteurs and their families[28][35] In the post-war collaboration trials, no ethnic German was charged in relation to Bloody Sunday.[20][31] Another counterargument that was made to the fifth column theory is that Polish troops were being targeted by advance units of the German regular army (Heer), or that the shots were fired by Polish soldiers in the confusion of the mass withdrawal.[28] Von Frentz claims that Polish troops and civilians massacred German civilians due to confusion.[20] Polish historians feel the German historiography is based on Nazi German sources, ignoring numerous Polish sources.[36
We can clearly see that poles have a propensity to completely disregard facts of history to push their egocentric supremacy. The Germans just say "it was Germany before the war and we want it back. They're torturing our people". The very existence of a "corridor" completely shatters your antigerman narrative.
Let's get this straight right now. The only reason the poles had any level of control over the territory was PRECISELY because of the fake "treaty" at versailles which gave them the land for being sore losers. You can't start history at fucking WW2 and pretend you're being unbiased.
the Germans demanded Czechoslovakia surrender the Sudetenland, a region inhabited primarily by the Sudeten Germans
Just like the Germans in danzig "poland", huh?
continuing on the path of expansion
Another way to say it would be "liberate occupied german territory"
Germany now looked to the East;
Germany ONLY looked to the east. Which is precisely why, when ready to take britain in ww1 offered to go back to the way things were before the war. Then the balfour declaration was signed which lead to versailles and so on. Germany saved the rest of europe from communism, for a short time.
it was Poland's only significant port and an absolutely critical trade hub to the nation.
So is ukraine to russia, yet I doubt you'll be foaming at the mouth supporting Russian annexation of ukrainian land.
It was not initiated by Poland
Arguable. The poles were on german land. They DID take what they could in the "treaty" then pretend to be innocent. That's bitch shit. If you're trying to institute an ancient "polish empire" then you sit there on your horse with feathers in your helmet and you take the full force of mechanized infantry and don't say shit. How incredibly jewish it is to steal whatever you can then pretend to be a "victim"?
war began two days later.
Again, which is why hitler had the red cross come in to do independent investigations and the poles just say "lies!!!!"?
Sounds legit
Poland actually attempted to mobilize sooner;
This disproves your narrative of "german expansion", doesn't it?
and wanted to defend against it.
That's called aggression. Preemptive "defense" is an attack. The poles aren't the innocent bystander you've been lead to believe simply because they lost.
This is where the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact comes in. As per the agreement, Germany wasn't the only country to invade Poland; the Soviets invaded from the east shortly after the Germans invaded from the West. As strong as it's resistance was, Poland had no chance to defend against both powers, given that their primary defensive lines were rivers, which, obviously, can't be used for defense both ways. That should be the final nail in the coffin of the idea that the Polish government might somehow be sympathetic to or allied with Communism
That's not a "nail in the coffin". That proves nothing. You did business with communists and in typical bolshevist jew fashion, they played you. You played the game and lost. Sore losers. Should've allied with Germany against communism but like I said, fever dreams of ancient polish empire and suckling at the teat of versailles, they got what they asked for.
the importance of the establishment of the motivations and allegiances of the Polish government lies in the understanding and interpretation of the actions of the Polish people and government,
Which was "occupy Germany and kill Germans"
as well as the original documentation of the time
Which you disregard if they aren't syphilitic poles entertaining fever dreams.
there's no picture, plan, or wartime document dealing with homicidal gas chambers or a plan to exterminate the Jews" [12:56]; something that is simply not true.
You can't state that matter of factly. You need evidence. I have it. You don't. Get evidence or get over yourself.
There is documentation from the Polish underground de
"But the poles say they own the planet. Why? Because they cant win a war, or course!"
I need actual evidence. Not "my inbred grandfather told me while stealing shekels" OK, pal?
Pilecki devised and presented a plan to infiltrate Auschwitz, gather intelligence, and organize the inmates to resist.
What you mean to say is "a bolshevist jew from russia said the jews are TOTALLY innocent.
There are no "gas chambers". The "crematorium" is a post war soviet construction and you try to source a soviet saying "believe me" as "evidence". Good Lord, the chutzpah of you bullshit artists.
this documentary, as per admittance in the documentary, is not proof that the Holocaust didn't happen.
Doesn't matter what the narrator states. Fact is this proves it's all manufactured. Germany tied to move them to Madagascar. Why don't you explain "the Madagascar plan" and how that fits into your notion of "homicidal gas chambers". Or the lack of any forensic evidence indicating mass death at Auchwitz?
"But this pole says the poles will rule the world!!!!"
That's the stereotypical "polish" attitude the communists and their cohorts in the allied powers took advantage of.
That said, as I implied before, the two greatest types of evidence we possess, and, frankly, the only evidence possible and trustworthy, is documentation from the time and reports from those that were there.
Youre wrong. "My grandpappy says give him shekels" is not "evidence". In fact, the ACTUAL evidence we DO have says the "gas chambers" are a post war soviet construction for the purpose of warcrime propaganda. "My syphilitic inbred grandpa" doesn't "debunk" the lack of prussian blue staining in the "crematorium", genius.
there is significant room for confused distortion
But not room for german claims of polish aggression, right hypocrite?
is why the Pilecki report is valuable
It's not valuable. It's certified propaganda because there were never any "gas chambers". POST WAR SOVIET CONSTRUCTION
no physical instance of a gas chamber would be proof to one that is truly skeptical
Bullshit. You're projecting your pole ignorance. The fact that they're lying about the gas chamber is proof that there was a gas chamber? Go fuck yourself. I haven't seen mental gymnastics this stupid since R Kelly claimed he was being "attacked" for being a pedophile rapist.
AND THERE IS NO "PHYSICAL INSTANCE"
POST
WAR
SOVIET
CONSTRUCTION
capice?
if the Soviets had staged the whole thing,
I provided all the evidence to prove that. Keep crying "fake news!"
would it be hard to believe that they would have made a gas chamber themselves, executed people in it, and then presented it as evidence?
Yes. Because again.
POST
WAR
SOVIET
CONSTRUCTION
How many poles does it take to read a fucking sentence?
why wouldn't they have gone more over the top?
You mean like telling people they made "human soap" and "human lamp shades"? Or what about the Nazi "masterbation death machines" that TOTALLY existed. You better believe it, otherwise you're a rAcIsT.
No. Nothing YOU have is evidence. I have HARD SCIENTIFIC evidence you are refusing to acknowledge because your syphilitic grandpa told you you were some superman because YOU LOST.
There is no prove or disprove for most of it;
There is if youre not an inbred pole and are capable of reading.
Most evidence would be anecdotal
Hahahahahahahaha. Says the guy. Go fuck yourself, you completely lacking self awareness ass punk. Lol
"My inbred grandpa says it totally happened, give me shekels"
is very possible that figures are wrong, or
I proved it
While I have not personally read it, I will put forth as counter-evidence three different sources:
"This guy wrote a book" is NOT evidence.
would appreciate those here.
Your syphilitic grandpa is not "evidence". How many fucking times do I have to explain it to you?
THIS is where the jokes come from. It takes the collective mental capacity of ALL of you to screw in a fucking lightbulb.
mean proper documentation or evidence that proves each explicitly to the contrary.
You can't disprove a negative, faggot. Maybe you should figure out how to logic before pretending to be a historian just because you're the product if inbreeding.
Witold Pilecki's report is not Communist propaganda
From reading your response I can tell you didn't even take time to read what I wrote fully. Your comprehension drifted sections, and you blurred different arguments and statements. You did zero external research of your on on the sources I provided, and when I have repeatedly shown you that the sources of your "facts" openly contradict you, you just ignore it, close your ears and eyes and start yelling "I have facts!!!111!". Your only capacity for argument seems to be in refuting official documentation with personal attacks, because somehow that is supposed to logically follow.
What's more; you conveniently brushed over parts of my writing that irrefutably demolished your narrative to dust; for example, the Polish-Soviet war of 1919 and 1920 which effectively proves no even remote or conceivable alliance between Poland and communism.
"there's no picture, plan, or wartime document dealing with homicidal gas chambers or a plan to exterminate the Jews" [12:56]; something that is simply not true." for example; I go on throughout the remaining ~6000 characters detailing my sources; which are far greater and factually irrefutable; such as the writings of the Nazis themselves, at the time of actions which PROVE what happened. These are not disputed by David Cole, and they can be factually verified through carbon dating of the paper.
I will not continue to debate with someone that is either obviously trolling or completely inept AND unwilling to read the completeness of arguments and even consider their validity. The fact that you're unable or unwilling to even use proper grammar or spelling reinforces your apparent inability to debate.
You cannot say "I proved it" and have it be true; you must prove it using actual sources that agree with your claim. You have not done so, and I don't expect you will do so.
I'll give you one more opportunity to get it right; read my entire previous posting/argument again, in detail, evaluate it with an open mind and piece it together. Paint the entire picture it shows, and don't ignore the parts that don't suit you. Then, take the time to write up a coherent, grammatical, and complete counterargument to all of it. Don't piecemeal it together quoting line by line in a vacuum, and read it through, completely, before making your counterargument. Responding to the first line only for the second to refute your response just makes you look dumb. Restrain your temptation to make your only argument obscenities and personal attacks, as I said before, that makes your argument look weak and is a complete logical fallacy.
I don't expect you to do that. I don't even frankly expect you to read that. If you do, let's see what you can present. If not, I'm done debating with you because you cannot present a logical argument.
Okay, well the first thing we can do if we're going to try and debate this logically is break up the issues and understand the arguments being made. Let's first find common ground; what do you think about David Cole's modern assessments as per an interview with The Guardian:
(Yes, it's The Guardian, but he agreed to an interview and does not appear to have challenged their publication that I see)
From what you've seen, it's hard to know for sure; do you believe Poland was fully the aggressor? What part do you believe Germany had in the war?
What's more; what do you think about the German actions up until that point? Did they violate the Treaty of Versailles? Did they initiate a forcefully backed annexation of Austria and swaths of Czechoslovakia?
You seem to (rightfully) dislike the Soviets extensively; what do you think about the modern narrative about the Molotov Ribbentrop pact, or the (at the time, ignored and under-reported) invasion of Poland by the Soviet Union; or the Polish-Soviet war of 1919 and 1920?
You seem to question US involvement in the war against Germany; what is your take on Pearl Harbor? What do you think about the narrative of the German declaration of war against the United States?
To be clear, these questions are not meant to be antagonistic. I just want to know where you stand so I can know what points we agree on and what I can argue based upon; if you are open minded as you claim and proclaim I should be, you should accept my attempts to counter-argue, just as I am willing to take your arguments and evidence and argue based on that. IMO open mindedness doesn't just mean accepting whatever anyone says; it means debate or argument with those you disagree with, and accepting defeat if they can prove you wrong; or coming to a compromise if the truth lies between both positions.
Let's first find common ground; what do you think about David Cole's modern assessments as per an interview with The Guardian: How is this a "modern assessment" if the guy changed his name multiple times because the zionist cadre tried to murder him for exposing their fraud? And it contradicts itself saying "yes genocidal program" to "no, they just needed cheap labor" Is there a video of this which proves it's him? I don't believe he said any of that. Even if he did it doesn't change the fact his video full of hard science completely destroyed the narrative.
The formatting seems to have got botched, but I think I've parsed it out.
The reason the Polish aggressor question is relevant to me is because I want to be on the same page about the validity of documentation and claims by the Polish Government in Exile and the Polish Underground; these are some of the most crucial documents in understanding what happened in Poland without going through German or Soviet sources, or Western sources that are just further bastardizations of the prior.
The question about the invasion of Poland is also interesting in that it assists in ascertaining motivations, and judging other actions, as well as the validity of those actions. It influences answers to questions such as "Was Germany completely in the right, and just being interfered with?" or "Was Poland allied to Communism?" and so on.
The answer to the questions of aggression can be found in the documentation of the time. This document, sourced for me by a friend living in Poland, is the original order of mobilization from the Polish government. This, combined with the other history of Poland from WWI out, shows us a few different things: 1.) Poland was on high alert for invasion from the Soviets since they experienced a pyrrhic victory in the Polish-Soviet war of 1919-1920. They Second Polish Republic was no ally to Communism, as no good Republic should be. 2.) Poland was on high alert in the 1930s because of the rising threat of aggression from Germany, with good reason: Here is a map of German expansion prior to the war going hot; The orange is territory that Germany started with, post Versailles.
By that point, it was clear that Germany was continuing on the path of expansion, and that the Western Allies would do nothing to prevent it. Germany now looked to the East; they were intent on seizing what was effectively a protectorate of Poland; the Free City of Danzig/Gdansk. Closely tied with Poland, it was Poland's only significant port and an absolutely critical trade hub to the nation. Germany demanded it, and Poland refused. To justify war, Germany staged a set of false-flag attacks, including the Gleiwitz incident (Something corroborated by significant testimony form many involved). The next morning, the invasion began.
It was not initiated by Poland. The date on the mobilization notice is the 30th of August; war began two days later. Poland actually attempted to mobilize sooner; they knew what was in store, and wanted to defend against it. They could have raised as much as double the manpower had they had the time, but the British and French strongly compelled them to stop, as they were still under the impression that war could be avoided. If Poland wanted to conquer Germany, they would have mobilized sooner, trained more, and procured more equipment; instead, they faced a losing defensive battle, though they put up significant resistance, the strength of which was extensively underplayed by both the German and Allied propaganda machines; the Germans wanted to appear stronger, and the Allies wanted to have an excuse for their complete military incompetence.
This is where the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact comes in. As per the agreement, Germany wasn't the only country to invade Poland; the Soviets invaded from the east shortly after the Germans invaded from the West. As strong as it's resistance was, Poland had no chance to defend against both powers, given that their primary defensive lines were rivers, which, obviously, can't be used for defense both ways. That should be the final nail in the coffin of the idea that the Polish government might somehow be sympathetic to or allied with Communism.
That said, the importance of the establishment of the motivations and allegiances of the Polish government lies in the understanding and interpretation of the actions of the Polish people and government, as well as the original documentation of the time. Early in the documentary, David Cole claims "there's no picture, plan, or wartime document dealing with homicidal gas chambers or a plan to exterminate the Jews" [12:56]; something that is simply not true. There is documentation from the Polish underground detailing it; evidence that was transmitted to the Government-in-exile relatively early in the war, and suppressed by the Western Allies. For this, we turn to Pilecki's Report.
In 1939, after Poland was defeated, Major Jan Włodarkiewicz and cavalry captain Witold Pilecki founded the Secret Polish Army. In 1940, Pilecki devised and presented a plan to infiltrate Auschwitz, gather intelligence, and organize the inmates to resist. This plan was accepted, and he got himself arrested and placed into the camp. He managed to organize a few inmates, and managed to get communications sent from the Camp to his superiors. His reports detailed atrocities taking place there; he requested that the allies drop supplies or troops into the camp to enable an organized resistance (as the inmates were not strong enough to conduct an effective resistance alone). In 1943, he escaped the camp and wrote "Raport W.", a thorough and detailed report of the camp, one which was signed by the other members involved in the operation, as his prior communications were downplayed or ignored by the Western Allies.
To be fair to Cole, this report was not published in any form until 2000, and not in English until 2012. That said, this documentary, as per admittance in the documentary, is not proof that the Holocaust didn't happen. The video does point out what is now commonly understood, accepted, and taught; that evidence of the specifics of the Holocaust has been manipulated, and, in some instances, fabricated. That said, as I implied before, the two greatest types of evidence we possess, and, frankly, the only evidence possible and trustworthy, is documentation from the time and reports from those that were there. As to the latter, there is sizable room for error; eye witness reports are notorious for failures, and, in such an experience as traumatic as reported, there is significant room for confused distortion. On top of that, it is more or less impossible for an eye-witness to have or provide accurate death tolls first hand. That is why the Pilecki report is valuable; it is a very deliberate report where details were taken at the time they happened, not recalled and written years later.
Those documents, combined with those of the period, and an analysis of other motivations and actions we can verify, are the only ways you could possibly prove such things.
For example; Cole focuses intently on the gas chambers as a supposed proof; yet, the failure in that is that no physical instance of a gas chamber would be proof to one that is truly skeptical. After all, if the Soviets had staged the whole thing, would it be hard to believe that they would have made a gas chamber themselves, executed people in it, and then presented it as evidence? For that matter, if the Soviets were so intent on fabrication, and the Poles so complicit, why wouldn't they have gone more over the top? Why not fill the room for days with Gas in order to stain the walls blue, something that would be an obviously easy way of improving a fabrication. Regardless; it would not be accepted as evidence, and indeed, alone, it is not suitable evidence.
See, the biggest thing to realize here, and that Cole appears to realize as per later interviews (such as the one I sent the quote from; and, to be clear, you believe it may be fabricated, yet he would have had ample opportunity to reverse that statement later, as he reversed his acceptance of the mainstream argument in a later book of his.) is that the issue is not black and white. There is no prove or disprove for most of it; small pieces, yes, but not the whole of it. Most evidence would be anecdotal or subject to propaganda, which can have a whole variety of motivations both for the exaggeration and for the suppression of the actions. It is very possible that figures are wrong, or details of testimonies inaccurate; that is why said figures are presented as estimates.
While I have not personally read it, I will put forth as counter-evidence three different sources:
If you can find refutations to their primary claims or arguments, I would appreciate those here. I don't mean "this isn't right" or things like that; I mean proper documentation or evidence that proves each explicitly to the contrary.
As a closing note; Witold Pilecki's report is not Communist propaganda. After the "liberation" and reoccupation of Poland by the Soviets, Witold continued the underground resistance to the Soviet occupational government. For that, he joined the death count of the thousands if not millions of Poles mercilessly murdered by the Soviet Union.
Apologies for any errors or mistakes; this post took me over two hours to source and write, and I'm just about out of characters, as well.
Well, thanks for taking the time to write this up.
Shouldn't we use all sources to get a more complete picture? Obviously the bolsheviks have a penchant for "manufacturing" warcrimes which needs to be accounted for.
As I've said, the only crime of germany is that of being successful. And yes, poland was "allied" with communism. Wether it was by subversion or otherwise there were communists in poland and they wanted war with Germany.
What about BEFORE versailles? Was the danzig corridor german before that? "Danzig" doesn't sound very polish to me, sounds like a german village name. I've already stated the rest of the planet got together to "slap down" Germany for basically doing what genghis khan did to Asia and connected disparate Germanic people to a successful powerhouse.
From the wiki on "bloody sunday"
"The Polish historians point out that since these losses occurred during actual combat, most of the civilian losses should be attributed to accidents common in urban combat conditions; they argue that civilian losses might have occurred when the town was attacked by the German air force (Luftwaffe).[20] Strafing of civilians in the town by the Luftwaffe is confirmed by German witnesses.[30] Nazi propaganda reinforced Polish perceptions of the German minority as hostile, and during the invasion reported that the German minority was aiding the forces. This contributed to Polish misconceptions, as the Poles were expecting the German minority to be actively hostile.[31]
An even bigger debate in the scholarship concerned the question whether—as the Polish historiography suggests—there were indeed any members of a German fifth column in the city who opened fire on the Polish troops (and if so, whether they were composed of members of the Bydgoszcz German minority or not), or whether—as critics among the German historiography argue—Polish troops (or panicking civilians) overreacted in the confusion and targeted innocent German civilians.[32] This debate has been resolved by investigation of German archives, which confirmed existence of several diversion and saboteur groups in Bydgoszcz overseen by intelligence organizations by Nazi Germany [33] Among the Germans killed in the fighting historians identified Otto Niefeldt who was an Abwehr agent from Szczecin[9] The account of Peter Nasarski alias Aurich has been called by Harry Gordon[31] one of the most thorough German accounts; his work is however generally rejected in Poland,[27] perhaps because he indiscriminately used witness statements collected by Nazi officials.[34] According to Nasarski, after police forces retreated from Bydgoszcz, agitated Polish civilians accused many Germans of assaulting Polish soldiers and executed them and any Poles who stood up in their defence.[31] Rasmus attributes the situation to confusion and the disorganised state of the Polish forces in the city.[28]
Von Frentz wrote that "In Bydgoszcz, the event was probably caused by confusion among the rapidly retreating soldiers, a general breakdown in public order and panic among the Polish majority after two German air raids and the discovery of a small reconnaissance group of the German Army on the previous day."[20] He quotes Nazi German reports about the civilian victims and atrocities, later corroborated by a Red Cross commission that the Nazis invited to the scene.[20] Von Frentz also noted that eyewitness accounts of atrocities committed against the German population are as unreliable as Polish accounts of the fifth columnists.[20] While authors like Blanke write that no ethnic Germans are known to have spoken of participation in that event, by 2007 Nazi documents were uncovered confirming that assistance, supplies and aid were given to both German saboteurs and their families[28][35] In the post-war collaboration trials, no ethnic German was charged in relation to Bloody Sunday.[20][31] Another counterargument that was made to the fifth column theory is that Polish troops were being targeted by advance units of the German regular army (Heer), or that the shots were fired by Polish soldiers in the confusion of the mass withdrawal.[28] Von Frentz claims that Polish troops and civilians massacred German civilians due to confusion.[20] Polish historians feel the German historiography is based on Nazi German sources, ignoring numerous Polish sources.[36
We can clearly see that poles have a propensity to completely disregard facts of history to push their egocentric supremacy. The Germans just say "it was Germany before the war and we want it back. They're torturing our people". The very existence of a "corridor" completely shatters your antigerman narrative.
Let's get this straight right now. The only reason the poles had any level of control over the territory was PRECISELY because of the fake "treaty" at versailles which gave them the land for being sore losers. You can't start history at fucking WW2 and pretend you're being unbiased.
Just like the Germans in danzig "poland", huh?
Another way to say it would be "liberate occupied german territory"
Germany ONLY looked to the east. Which is precisely why, when ready to take britain in ww1 offered to go back to the way things were before the war. Then the balfour declaration was signed which lead to versailles and so on. Germany saved the rest of europe from communism, for a short time.
So is ukraine to russia, yet I doubt you'll be foaming at the mouth supporting Russian annexation of ukrainian land.
Arguable. The poles were on german land. They DID take what they could in the "treaty" then pretend to be innocent. That's bitch shit. If you're trying to institute an ancient "polish empire" then you sit there on your horse with feathers in your helmet and you take the full force of mechanized infantry and don't say shit. How incredibly jewish it is to steal whatever you can then pretend to be a "victim"?
Again, which is why hitler had the red cross come in to do independent investigations and the poles just say "lies!!!!"?
Sounds legit
This disproves your narrative of "german expansion", doesn't it?
That's called aggression. Preemptive "defense" is an attack. The poles aren't the innocent bystander you've been lead to believe simply because they lost.
That's not a "nail in the coffin". That proves nothing. You did business with communists and in typical bolshevist jew fashion, they played you. You played the game and lost. Sore losers. Should've allied with Germany against communism but like I said, fever dreams of ancient polish empire and suckling at the teat of versailles, they got what they asked for.
Which was "occupy Germany and kill Germans"
Which you disregard if they aren't syphilitic poles entertaining fever dreams.
You can't state that matter of factly. You need evidence. I have it. You don't. Get evidence or get over yourself.
"But the poles say they own the planet. Why? Because they cant win a war, or course!"
I need actual evidence. Not "my inbred grandfather told me while stealing shekels" OK, pal?
What you mean to say is "a bolshevist jew from russia said the jews are TOTALLY innocent.
There are no "gas chambers". The "crematorium" is a post war soviet construction and you try to source a soviet saying "believe me" as "evidence". Good Lord, the chutzpah of you bullshit artists.
Doesn't matter what the narrator states. Fact is this proves it's all manufactured. Germany tied to move them to Madagascar. Why don't you explain "the Madagascar plan" and how that fits into your notion of "homicidal gas chambers". Or the lack of any forensic evidence indicating mass death at Auchwitz?
"But this pole says the poles will rule the world!!!!"
That's the stereotypical "polish" attitude the communists and their cohorts in the allied powers took advantage of.
Youre wrong. "My grandpappy says give him shekels" is not "evidence". In fact, the ACTUAL evidence we DO have says the "gas chambers" are a post war soviet construction for the purpose of warcrime propaganda. "My syphilitic inbred grandpa" doesn't "debunk" the lack of prussian blue staining in the "crematorium", genius.
But not room for german claims of polish aggression, right hypocrite?
It's not valuable. It's certified propaganda because there were never any "gas chambers". POST WAR SOVIET CONSTRUCTION
Bullshit. You're projecting your pole ignorance. The fact that they're lying about the gas chamber is proof that there was a gas chamber? Go fuck yourself. I haven't seen mental gymnastics this stupid since R Kelly claimed he was being "attacked" for being a pedophile rapist.
AND THERE IS NO "PHYSICAL INSTANCE"
POST
WAR
SOVIET
CONSTRUCTION
capice?
I provided all the evidence to prove that. Keep crying "fake news!"
Yes. Because again.
POST
WAR
SOVIET
CONSTRUCTION
How many poles does it take to read a fucking sentence?
You mean like telling people they made "human soap" and "human lamp shades"? Or what about the Nazi "masterbation death machines" that TOTALLY existed. You better believe it, otherwise you're a rAcIsT.
Get fucking real, dude.
Continued
Continued
No. Nothing YOU have is evidence. I have HARD SCIENTIFIC evidence you are refusing to acknowledge because your syphilitic grandpa told you you were some superman because YOU LOST.
There is if youre not an inbred pole and are capable of reading.
Hahahahahahahaha. Says the guy. Go fuck yourself, you completely lacking self awareness ass punk. Lol
"My inbred grandpa says it totally happened, give me shekels"
I proved it
"This guy wrote a book" is NOT evidence.
Your syphilitic grandpa is not "evidence". How many fucking times do I have to explain it to you?
THIS is where the jokes come from. It takes the collective mental capacity of ALL of you to screw in a fucking lightbulb.
You can't disprove a negative, faggot. Maybe you should figure out how to logic before pretending to be a historian just because you're the product if inbreeding.
The fact that you have to say that.....
Then why do you keep making them?
From reading your response I can tell you didn't even take time to read what I wrote fully. Your comprehension drifted sections, and you blurred different arguments and statements. You did zero external research of your on on the sources I provided, and when I have repeatedly shown you that the sources of your "facts" openly contradict you, you just ignore it, close your ears and eyes and start yelling "I have facts!!!111!". Your only capacity for argument seems to be in refuting official documentation with personal attacks, because somehow that is supposed to logically follow.
What's more; you conveniently brushed over parts of my writing that irrefutably demolished your narrative to dust; for example, the Polish-Soviet war of 1919 and 1920 which effectively proves no even remote or conceivable alliance between Poland and communism.
"there's no picture, plan, or wartime document dealing with homicidal gas chambers or a plan to exterminate the Jews" [12:56]; something that is simply not true." for example; I go on throughout the remaining ~6000 characters detailing my sources; which are far greater and factually irrefutable; such as the writings of the Nazis themselves, at the time of actions which PROVE what happened. These are not disputed by David Cole, and they can be factually verified through carbon dating of the paper.
I will not continue to debate with someone that is either obviously trolling or completely inept AND unwilling to read the completeness of arguments and even consider their validity. The fact that you're unable or unwilling to even use proper grammar or spelling reinforces your apparent inability to debate.
You cannot say "I proved it" and have it be true; you must prove it using actual sources that agree with your claim. You have not done so, and I don't expect you will do so.
I'll give you one more opportunity to get it right; read my entire previous posting/argument again, in detail, evaluate it with an open mind and piece it together. Paint the entire picture it shows, and don't ignore the parts that don't suit you. Then, take the time to write up a coherent, grammatical, and complete counterargument to all of it. Don't piecemeal it together quoting line by line in a vacuum, and read it through, completely, before making your counterargument. Responding to the first line only for the second to refute your response just makes you look dumb. Restrain your temptation to make your only argument obscenities and personal attacks, as I said before, that makes your argument look weak and is a complete logical fallacy.
I don't expect you to do that. I don't even frankly expect you to read that. If you do, let's see what you can present. If not, I'm done debating with you because you cannot present a logical argument.