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.
From reading your response I can tell you didn't even take time to read what I wrote fully.
I did. I really do appreciate the time you take to correspond. It's incredibly aggravating, I wish it were more productive.
Quick recap. Correct me if I'm wrong. I provided evidence that the last 100 years of history are a lie. To which you responded saying "denying the holocaust is retarded" and "I'm Polish" as if it proves anything. If you didn't disregard all evidence to push one random polock because he says something that you like to hear then I wouldn't have attacked you for it.
I don't hate you because your polish. There's some I like, luke rudkowski is a national treasure, beautiful and amazing human being.
You, on the other hand, have the chutzpah to call people "retarded" for providing evidence while acting "holier than thou" telling me not to "resort to personal attacks" You disgust me with your attitude. You're a complete hypocrite.
You will not turn your nose up at me. Because I will take it and I will shove it the pile of shit your ancestors left on the floor. Is that clear?
Let's look at the world wars like animal farm. Germany beat all the other animals and just wanted peace. They wanted to go back to the way things were before the war. The conniving pig jew with britain got the eagle to beat germany by starting rumors in the pigs jew owned media. Also the conniving pig jew subverted russia. After it took all the animals to chase the wolf back to it's den poland, the retarded opportunistic vulture, squawked up begging for scraps. And the pig with his cohorts gave the vulture the scraps in front of the wolf's den. The vulture doesn't shut the fuck up about "my grandpappy told me this was HIS hill 500 fucking years ago SQUAWK! Im the pig jews bitch, look what the pig jew does for me SQUAWK!" But the wolf wasn't finished, it was biding it's time. Healing, waiting for the day to tear through that annoying vulture and go straight for the throat of the mutated half pig, half man, half bear.
And you expect what from me? Sympathy for the vulture? Poland rattled their sabres when they thought the rest of the planet was behind them. And when they got put back in their place they pretend to be a victim. Bitch shit.
It was the old world clashing with the new in more ways than one. Poland saw the empire building Germany had worked for and drunkenly pined for the "good old days" and retardedly thought "poland will rise again" because they're so self important. They wanted war with Germany and they played nice with communists. If you sit up with your adorable feathered helmets with muskets on horseback and dare Germany to take back what was stolen, don't be surprised when they do. Poland asked for it. Poland deserved every single god-damned minute of being rolled over by mechanized infantry.
I'm going to get back to tearing apart your lack of argument piece by piece.
Your comprehension drifted sections
How can you tell? Prove it.
and you blurred different arguments and statements
Where?
You did zero external research of your on on the sources I provided
I don't have to. The very second I heard "gas chambers" I can write that off as propaganda because the false warcrimes were constructed by the bolshevist jews after the war. I've proved that already.
and when I have repeatedly shown you that the sources of your "facts" openly contradict you, you just ignore it
You've shown nothing of the sort. You made a claim about a guardian article which I asked how it could be real if the guy changed his name multiple times. Its funny how you can do a deep dive on David cole yet you refuse to look at chemical analysis of the walls in the "gas chamber"
"I have facts!!!111!".
I do. You have....... a random polock. Congratulations, princess. The pinnacle of evidence.
Your only capacity for argument seems to be in refuting official documentation with personal attacks
You're wrong. I refuted your bullshit propaganda with SCIENCE.... while personally attacking you. To be fair, I don't think I started it. Hypocrite.
for example, the Polish-Soviet war of 1919 and 1920 which effectively proves no even remote or conceivable alliance between Poland and communism.
How does it prove anything? The "soviets" (bolshevist jews) were at war with constitutional russia. Does that prove russia was never communist?
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 happene
So you believe the Nazis when they say they infiltrated poland but not when they say poland attacked first? How completely unbiased. Funny how you can pick and choose when to believe people.
These are not disputed by David Cole,
Lol. And you haven't disputed that you're ancestors are dog fucking retards. Therefore, you're admitting your ancestors are dog fucking retards.
You want to keep playing these child ass games bitch? Try me, I'll go all fucking day.
and they can be factually verified through carbon dating of the paper.
Hahahahahahahaha. I'll just leave that up for you to ponder why it's retarded, you product of beastiality.
I will not continue to debate
You haven't debated anything. You've only had an emotional temper tantrum insisting we have to believe the poles and nobody else.
completely inept
It seems like you're trying to "dazzle" someone with your vocabulary. Trust me, it's backfiring.
AND unwilling to read the completeness of arguments
You don't have an argument. Again. The only thing you have is "you better believe the polocks". When you step off that retarded notion, I'll stop shitting on you for it. Deal?
The fact that you're unable or unwilling to even use proper grammar or spelling
Hahaha I honestly wrote all that before reading anything else. I'm tearing you apart piece by piece and I fucking called it.
You will not turn your gigantic inbred nose up at me you fucking coward because I will shove it back into the dirt where you belong. Where Germany put you, you thieving punk ass bitch.
You cannot say "I proved it" and have it be true;
Oh, but YOU can. Why is that? Because you're a weak inbred polock?
you must prove it using actual sources
Chemical analysis, census data, and the head curator of antiquities at the polish museum of auchwitz aren't "actual sources" but your syphilitic dog raping grandpappy is the absolute gold standard of evidence? Go fuck yourself
You have not done so, a
Yes. I have. you self important faggot.
I'll give you one more opportunity
You won't GIVE me anything, you bitch made coward ass son of a whore. I'll GIVE you $10,000 in dental work for free faggot.
Paint the entire picture it shows,
"Don't listen to anything except the inbred polocks" "entire picture"
Don't piecemeal it together quoting line by line in a vacuum,
What is this "in a vacuum", faggot? You're just saying random fucking words.
Restrain your temptation to make your only argument obscenities and personal attacks,
Again, that's not my argument. You are ignoring the evidence because it proves your ancestors are communist bitches. They played the game and lost. Boo fucking hoo. Go cry for the pig jew to steal some more land for you, coward.
that makes your argument look weak and is a complete logical fallacy.
There is no "logical fallacy" faggot. I'm not replacing evidence with personal attacks, I'm peppering them into evidence because you attacked me first, then have the chutzpah to pretend to be a victim. How stereotypically polish of you.
not, I'm done debating with you because you cannot present a logical argument.
You have no "debate". If you run away now you will concede that the BEST thing you can come up with is some random pole who's been proven full of shit with forensic analysis. Then you have the gall to tell me what's "logical"
I wonder how the jew could've played such a stupid fucking people. Life's mysteries, I guess.
Correct me if I'm wrong. I provided evidence that the last 100 years of history are a lie.
You have provided two pieces of evidence.
One is a video which talks about a specific camp and makes very specific claims; it does not claim the past "100 years" of history are a lie. It doesn't claim anything much beyond it's very specific scope; and what it proves is simply this: Physical evidence in the form of the camps is not trustworthy as there is no way to verify the legitimacy of it. This is logical and fair; it does not provide, in the video, an argument disproving the Holocaust; it doesn't provide evidence disproving history beyond that.
Two is an excerpt from a Wikipedia page (bad source, by the way, I'm surprised you trusted it) in which there is discussion of how historians from both Poland and Germany have looked into and written about the events of Bloody Sunday. The conclusion is generally that it was a complete mess of a situation and a lot of people died from a lot of causes; the specific figures of which are not totally agreed upon due to uses of different sources. You have taken this quote and somehow claimed it shows that "poles have a propensity to completely disregard facts of history to push their egocentric supremacy.". It doesn't talk at all about your next statement, which makes a different claim:
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.
In fact, the source as you presented in and of itself contains a counterargument; the German population in the corridor was a "German minority". If having a German majority justifies the seizure of Czechoslovakia, surely having a Polish majority justifies the holding of Gdansk?
To which you responded saying "denying the holocaust is retarded" and "I'm Polish" as if it proves anything.
This is simply false. Find me the quote and I will explain how that assessment is incorrect.
I don't hate you because your polish.
That's good. I didn't claim such, but I'm glad to hear that isn't the case.
You, on the other hand, have the chutzpah to call people "retarded" for providing evidence while acting "holier than thou" telling me not to "resort to personal attacks" You disgust me with your attitude. You're a complete hypocrite.
I have not called anyone "retarded". If you cannot distinguish between an argument and a person, I suggest you do not engage in debate. An intelligent person can have a thoroughly stupid idea; a person is not defined by their ideas. On the other hand, every step of the way you have been continuously using visceral language to describe me in an attempt to sidestep my arguments. While I am not particularly offend-able, in particular, not by a stranger on the internet, I also am not in the practice of engaging in people blinded by their own hostility, and I also have advised on multiple occasions that utilizing ad-homenim attacks is a logical fallacy and makes your argument appear terrible, regardless of whether or not it is.
You will not turn your nose up at me. Because I will take it and I will shove it the pile of shit your ancestors left on the floor. Is that clear?
You simply can't or won't. Extensive hostility will mean I just move on because I would consider you too emotional or beyond logic.
Taking your analogy:
Let's look at the world wars like animal farm. Germany beat all the other animals and just wanted peace.
When did Germany beat all of the other animals? Don't forget, as well, that World War I was not Germany alone; not even close. It was Germans, Prussians (in Germany; ethnically and nationally distinct from Germany historically), Poles (In Germany's side of the partitioning, which happened ~100 years prior. They still nationally identified as Poles, by the way), the Austria-Hungary empire, and the (Islamic) Ottoman Empire. They were in a deadlock stalemate against the British and French in France. The scales only shifted with the Russian Revolution, which took Russia out of the fight. A short time later, the US entered the war and totally decimated the German forces.
To be clear; the Germans had not "won" anything. They also did none of this alone. World War I was a total war; one that would have ended with the crippling of one power or another. The Treaty of Versailles was not in any way a balanced resolution, but, unlike your claims, it WAS a completely valid treaty.MOST importantly, it was signed BY the Germans. It was valid and legally binding in the same way that prior conquests of territories Germany had undertaken were.
In the wake of the war, several nations were re-established, and measures to disarm and prevent further aggression from Germany were passed. One of these nations was Poland; a people that had been craving independence and freedom since their nation, one of the world's earliest and longest lasting representative governments was ganged up on and partitioned, in a very similar way you're claiming/describing Germany was.
Let's look at the world wars like animal farm... [snip] Poland deserved every single god-damned minute of being rolled over by mechanized infantry.
Do you have proof of any of this? I'm talking period documentation; proof of the quality of which I have provided prior; any primary sources? The claims you're making go against the generally established narrative, meaning you are the claimant and the burden of proof lies upon you, in this instance. Furthermore; this isn't a narrative that is written in a factual manner; it is an opinion piece in writing. If you want to better convince me, or anyone, for that matter, write an objective narrative to prove your points, not a subjective.
You respond to these quotes from me:
"Your comprehension drifted sections"
and you blurred different arguments and statements"
with:
How can you tell? Prove it.
and
and you blurred different arguments and statements"
Okay; these happned when you were responding to my quote:
Was Germany completely in the right, and just being interfered with?" or "Was Poland allied to Communism?" and so on.
Your response:
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 you are responding to is clearly a rhetorical question; I am explaining that establishing whether or not Poland was the aggressor was is crucial to answering those questions factually. My full quotation, as a reminder, is this:
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 next response you give is to this quote from me:
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.
You respond with:
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.
Which is an entirely separate topic from the one which I was discussing there; the expansion of Germany and why that would be concerning to Poland, who had just repelled expansionist aggression from the Soviets.
Your arguments consistently took my expressions out of context, and, instead of refuting them for what they were saying, refuted a straw-man argument you fabricated around those arguments ("strawmanning" being another logical fallacy, mind you). It is natural, then, to assume that either it was intentional, and you were deliberately being illogical, or it was accidental, because you did not read the arguments thoroughly or clearly, instead opting to skim and respond emotionally immediately.
You respond to my claim that:
You did zero external research of your on on the sources I provided
with:
I don't have to. The very second I heard "gas chambers" I can write that off as propaganda because the false warcrimes were constructed by the bolshevist jews after the war. I've proved that already.
which is false, as I demonstrate above. Your source does not refute the existence of gas chambers whatsoever. Find me the specific part of the video in which it is claimed that "there were no gas chambers used to kill Jews" in Germany, and the specific part of the video in which it is proven.
Next, you respond to my statement that:
and when I have repeatedly shown you that the sources of your "facts" openly contradict you, you just ignore it
with:
You've shown nothing of the sort. You made a claim about a guardian article which I asked how it could be real if the guy changed his name multiple times. Its funny how you can do a deep dive on David cole yet you refuse to look at chemical analysis of the walls in the "gas chamber"
First: You did not ask about the validity due to the number of times he changed his name. You asked:
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?
to which I responded:
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.
Let me expand on that a little bit: David Cole was the target of threats from others; they came to a settlement that he would reject his ideas publicly and be allowed a peaceful life. He did this, but revealed in his book later that he does not actually reject his beliefs. He changed his name in the earlier years for similar reasons; the name change has since been discovered, and he no longer operates under an alias. In this modern era of media, he opted to interview with The Guardian, a decision that, in my opinion, is a mistake. Had his responses been altered, he most likely would have responded publicly and alleged foul play; I have not seen such allegations. As an aside; I did not do a deep dive on David Cole. I simply performed a basic search to understand who he is and what he is saying today. You also respond to the The Guardian article with:
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 have just looked, and cannot find video proof. That said, the details are so extensive, that it is either an extremely elaborate (and unnecessary) fraud, which likely would have been refuted by Cole, or it is legitimate. The example you provide for inconsistency isn't inherently inconsistent; arguably, there is a middle ground which Cole appears to believe, in which there were genocidal programs, but the majority of the camps were for needed cheep labor.
Finally; as the video clearly states, the chemical analysis of the walls of the chamber does not refute the usage of the chamber; nor does it refute anything on its own. The biggest thing it does do, is raise dependencies in the commonly accepted narratives of the time, and it points out the invalidity of the use of the physical building as proof, as much of it is a reconstruction, meaning the full extent of the real construction is lost to time.
It does bring up the aerial photographs; that said, even if they disproved the chimneys, which they do not entirely do, (PART 1)
This says he was critical of communists yet helped the jews against their pograms and ghetto uprisings.
From the "polish government in exile"s wiki
When Germany launched a war against the Soviets in 1941, the Polish government in exile established diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union against Hitlerism, but also in order to help Poles persecuted by the NKVD.[15][16]
Sound anything like today with "trumpism"?
I really hope to bring you into the fold here. It sucks your country was used as a tool for the establishment of a zionist authoritarian occupation of palestine.
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.
I did. I really do appreciate the time you take to correspond. It's incredibly aggravating, I wish it were more productive.
Quick recap. Correct me if I'm wrong. I provided evidence that the last 100 years of history are a lie. To which you responded saying "denying the holocaust is retarded" and "I'm Polish" as if it proves anything. If you didn't disregard all evidence to push one random polock because he says something that you like to hear then I wouldn't have attacked you for it.
I don't hate you because your polish. There's some I like, luke rudkowski is a national treasure, beautiful and amazing human being.
You, on the other hand, have the chutzpah to call people "retarded" for providing evidence while acting "holier than thou" telling me not to "resort to personal attacks" You disgust me with your attitude. You're a complete hypocrite.
You will not turn your nose up at me. Because I will take it and I will shove it the pile of shit your ancestors left on the floor. Is that clear?
Let's look at the world wars like animal farm. Germany beat all the other animals and just wanted peace. They wanted to go back to the way things were before the war. The conniving pig jew with britain got the eagle to beat germany by starting rumors in the pigs jew owned media. Also the conniving pig jew subverted russia. After it took all the animals to chase the wolf back to it's den poland, the retarded opportunistic vulture, squawked up begging for scraps. And the pig with his cohorts gave the vulture the scraps in front of the wolf's den. The vulture doesn't shut the fuck up about "my grandpappy told me this was HIS hill 500 fucking years ago SQUAWK! Im the pig jews bitch, look what the pig jew does for me SQUAWK!" But the wolf wasn't finished, it was biding it's time. Healing, waiting for the day to tear through that annoying vulture and go straight for the throat of the mutated half pig, half man, half bear.
And you expect what from me? Sympathy for the vulture? Poland rattled their sabres when they thought the rest of the planet was behind them. And when they got put back in their place they pretend to be a victim. Bitch shit.
It was the old world clashing with the new in more ways than one. Poland saw the empire building Germany had worked for and drunkenly pined for the "good old days" and retardedly thought "poland will rise again" because they're so self important. They wanted war with Germany and they played nice with communists. If you sit up with your adorable feathered helmets with muskets on horseback and dare Germany to take back what was stolen, don't be surprised when they do. Poland asked for it. Poland deserved every single god-damned minute of being rolled over by mechanized infantry.
I'm going to get back to tearing apart your lack of argument piece by piece.
How can you tell? Prove it.
Where?
I don't have to. The very second I heard "gas chambers" I can write that off as propaganda because the false warcrimes were constructed by the bolshevist jews after the war. I've proved that already.
You've shown nothing of the sort. You made a claim about a guardian article which I asked how it could be real if the guy changed his name multiple times. Its funny how you can do a deep dive on David cole yet you refuse to look at chemical analysis of the walls in the "gas chamber"
I do. You have....... a random polock. Congratulations, princess. The pinnacle of evidence.
You're wrong. I refuted your bullshit propaganda with SCIENCE.... while personally attacking you. To be fair, I don't think I started it. Hypocrite.
How does it prove anything? The "soviets" (bolshevist jews) were at war with constitutional russia. Does that prove russia was never communist?
So you believe the Nazis when they say they infiltrated poland but not when they say poland attacked first? How completely unbiased. Funny how you can pick and choose when to believe people.
Lol. And you haven't disputed that you're ancestors are dog fucking retards. Therefore, you're admitting your ancestors are dog fucking retards.
You want to keep playing these child ass games bitch? Try me, I'll go all fucking day.
Hahahahahahahaha. I'll just leave that up for you to ponder why it's retarded, you product of beastiality.
You haven't debated anything. You've only had an emotional temper tantrum insisting we have to believe the poles and nobody else.
It seems like you're trying to "dazzle" someone with your vocabulary. Trust me, it's backfiring.
You don't have an argument. Again. The only thing you have is "you better believe the polocks". When you step off that retarded notion, I'll stop shitting on you for it. Deal?
Hahaha I honestly wrote all that before reading anything else. I'm tearing you apart piece by piece and I fucking called it.
You will not turn your gigantic inbred nose up at me you fucking coward because I will shove it back into the dirt where you belong. Where Germany put you, you thieving punk ass bitch.
Oh, but YOU can. Why is that? Because you're a weak inbred polock?
Chemical analysis, census data, and the head curator of antiquities at the polish museum of auchwitz aren't "actual sources" but your syphilitic dog raping grandpappy is the absolute gold standard of evidence? Go fuck yourself
Yes. I have. you self important faggot.
You won't GIVE me anything, you bitch made coward ass son of a whore. I'll GIVE you $10,000 in dental work for free faggot.
"Don't listen to anything except the inbred polocks" "entire picture"
What is this "in a vacuum", faggot? You're just saying random fucking words.
Again, that's not my argument. You are ignoring the evidence because it proves your ancestors are communist bitches. They played the game and lost. Boo fucking hoo. Go cry for the pig jew to steal some more land for you, coward.
There is no "logical fallacy" faggot. I'm not replacing evidence with personal attacks, I'm peppering them into evidence because you attacked me first, then have the chutzpah to pretend to be a victim. How stereotypically polish of you.
You have no "debate". If you run away now you will concede that the BEST thing you can come up with is some random pole who's been proven full of shit with forensic analysis. Then you have the gall to tell me what's "logical"
I wonder how the jew could've played such a stupid fucking people. Life's mysteries, I guess.
You have provided two pieces of evidence.
In fact, the source as you presented in and of itself contains a counterargument; the German population in the corridor was a "German minority". If having a German majority justifies the seizure of Czechoslovakia, surely having a Polish majority justifies the holding of Gdansk?
This is simply false. Find me the quote and I will explain how that assessment is incorrect.
That's good. I didn't claim such, but I'm glad to hear that isn't the case.
I have not called anyone "retarded". If you cannot distinguish between an argument and a person, I suggest you do not engage in debate. An intelligent person can have a thoroughly stupid idea; a person is not defined by their ideas. On the other hand, every step of the way you have been continuously using visceral language to describe me in an attempt to sidestep my arguments. While I am not particularly offend-able, in particular, not by a stranger on the internet, I also am not in the practice of engaging in people blinded by their own hostility, and I also have advised on multiple occasions that utilizing ad-homenim attacks is a logical fallacy and makes your argument appear terrible, regardless of whether or not it is.
You simply can't or won't. Extensive hostility will mean I just move on because I would consider you too emotional or beyond logic.
Taking your analogy:
When did Germany beat all of the other animals? Don't forget, as well, that World War I was not Germany alone; not even close. It was Germans, Prussians (in Germany; ethnically and nationally distinct from Germany historically), Poles (In Germany's side of the partitioning, which happened ~100 years prior. They still nationally identified as Poles, by the way), the Austria-Hungary empire, and the (Islamic) Ottoman Empire. They were in a deadlock stalemate against the British and French in France. The scales only shifted with the Russian Revolution, which took Russia out of the fight. A short time later, the US entered the war and totally decimated the German forces.
To be clear; the Germans had not "won" anything. They also did none of this alone. World War I was a total war; one that would have ended with the crippling of one power or another. The Treaty of Versailles was not in any way a balanced resolution, but, unlike your claims, it WAS a completely valid treaty. MOST importantly, it was signed BY the Germans. It was valid and legally binding in the same way that prior conquests of territories Germany had undertaken were.
In the wake of the war, several nations were re-established, and measures to disarm and prevent further aggression from Germany were passed. One of these nations was Poland; a people that had been craving independence and freedom since their nation, one of the world's earliest and longest lasting representative governments was ganged up on and partitioned, in a very similar way you're claiming/describing Germany was.
Do you have proof of any of this? I'm talking period documentation; proof of the quality of which I have provided prior; any primary sources? The claims you're making go against the generally established narrative, meaning you are the claimant and the burden of proof lies upon you, in this instance. Furthermore; this isn't a narrative that is written in a factual manner; it is an opinion piece in writing. If you want to better convince me, or anyone, for that matter, write an objective narrative to prove your points, not a subjective.
You respond to these quotes from me:
with:
and
Okay; these happned when you were responding to my quote:
Your response:
What you are responding to is clearly a rhetorical question; I am explaining that establishing whether or not Poland was the aggressor was is crucial to answering those questions factually. My full quotation, as a reminder, is this:
The next response you give is to this quote from me:
You respond with:
Which is an entirely separate topic from the one which I was discussing there; the expansion of Germany and why that would be concerning to Poland, who had just repelled expansionist aggression from the Soviets.
Your arguments consistently took my expressions out of context, and, instead of refuting them for what they were saying, refuted a straw-man argument you fabricated around those arguments ("strawmanning" being another logical fallacy, mind you). It is natural, then, to assume that either it was intentional, and you were deliberately being illogical, or it was accidental, because you did not read the arguments thoroughly or clearly, instead opting to skim and respond emotionally immediately.
You respond to my claim that:
with:
which is false, as I demonstrate above. Your source does not refute the existence of gas chambers whatsoever. Find me the specific part of the video in which it is claimed that "there were no gas chambers used to kill Jews" in Germany, and the specific part of the video in which it is proven.
Next, you respond to my statement that:
with:
First: You did not ask about the validity due to the number of times he changed his name. You asked:
to which I responded:
Let me expand on that a little bit: David Cole was the target of threats from others; they came to a settlement that he would reject his ideas publicly and be allowed a peaceful life. He did this, but revealed in his book later that he does not actually reject his beliefs. He changed his name in the earlier years for similar reasons; the name change has since been discovered, and he no longer operates under an alias. In this modern era of media, he opted to interview with The Guardian, a decision that, in my opinion, is a mistake. Had his responses been altered, he most likely would have responded publicly and alleged foul play; I have not seen such allegations. As an aside; I did not do a deep dive on David Cole. I simply performed a basic search to understand who he is and what he is saying today. You also respond to the The Guardian article with:
I have just looked, and cannot find video proof. That said, the details are so extensive, that it is either an extremely elaborate (and unnecessary) fraud, which likely would have been refuted by Cole, or it is legitimate. The example you provide for inconsistency isn't inherently inconsistent; arguably, there is a middle ground which Cole appears to believe, in which there were genocidal programs, but the majority of the camps were for needed cheep labor.
Finally; as the video clearly states, the chemical analysis of the walls of the chamber does not refute the usage of the chamber; nor does it refute anything on its own. The biggest thing it does do, is raise dependencies in the commonly accepted narratives of the time, and it points out the invalidity of the use of the physical building as proof, as much of it is a reconstruction, meaning the full extent of the real construction is lost to time.
It does bring up the aerial photographs; that said, even if they disproved the chimneys, which they do not entirely do, (PART 1)
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/witold-pilecki.html
This says he was critical of communists yet helped the jews against their pograms and ghetto uprisings.
From the "polish government in exile"s wiki
Sound anything like today with "trumpism"?
I really hope to bring you into the fold here. It sucks your country was used as a tool for the establishment of a zionist authoritarian occupation of palestine.