Continued

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

I'm not "sidestepping" anything. You lying sack of shit. Stop accusing me of what you commit. I have evidence. You have literally some random polock. You believe the german when you agree with them yet call them liars when they say you're full of shit. Fucking cowardice. Calling a spade a spade is not "sidestepping"..

also am not in the practice of engaging in people blinded by their own hostility,

I'm not blinded by my hostility. I'm blinded by the sheer stupidity of someone calling forensic evidence "crackpots" while saying drunk, dog fucking, inbred, communist loving poles are the gold standard of evidence. I really wish this conversation went differently. Hopefully we can talk about UFOs or some shit in the future. I HAVE to break you down for this. I've fought with too many child raping israelis and am salty about their indoctrination, as you should be.

I really want you to realise we are all together in this fight against communism. You can't act like poland is a lion who will beat the wolf just because of your bravado. The fight is bigger than that. Poland was played and they played their part well. I truthfully wish this conversation went differently. It's aggravating and I really appreciate you working through my insults. Just stop pissing on my leg and telling me it's raining, please.

utilizing ad-homenim attacks is a logical fallacy

I told you. They aren't a crutch. I'm peppering them in for flavor.

Ok, "witness" testimony versus hard data. No insults. Who wins?

You simply can't or won't.

I have and don't particularly enjoy it. Please stop asking me to.

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. 

Yes. It's a tragedy that people who called themselves brothers fought over machinations and propaganda while the pig sat back and waited to sweep Europe afterward, isn't it?

They were in a deadlock stalemate against the British and French in France.

No. Britain was in dire straits. Which is why they made the deal to get the eagle involved with the receipt being "the balfour declaration". Which went against their previous commitments.

MOST importantly, it was signed BY the Germans.

Only after they had been ganged up on by all the other animals because of the pig jews machinations, TWICE.

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.

Which I've been arguing was very much against poland's self interest in the long run. This isn't about poland, this is about communism and the establishment of palestine by any means necessary.

Do you have proof of any of this?

That's fair. Remember these are newspaper (jew owned) publications pushing poland to war. Any parallels to today? Are things starting to come together?

https://forgottentruthhistory.wordpress.com/2017/12/31/poland-waanted-war-and-was-the-aggressor-in-ww2/

am explaining that establishing whether or not Poland was the aggressor was is crucial to answering those questions factually.

Ok. How am I "mixing up arguments" or whatever you said?

Which is an entirely separate topic

No. I'm talking about both Great Wars" I'm not pretending it started at the sequel.

Your arguments consistently took my expressions out of context

How? You keep accusing me without evidence. Then say you'll explain but trail off about "rhetorical questions"

instead of refuting them for what they were saying,

I'm using the quote tool, bud

 a straw-man

Oh shit. Here we go..... Evidence? What "straw man"?

you did not read the arguments thoroughly or clearly

I have. You can stop trying to dismiss the fact I tore you apart and continue to do so.

 source does not refute the existence of gas chambers

Yes it does. And I've provided more.

Find me the specific part of the video 

Does it have to spell it out? It was an air raid shelter the bolsheviks poked holes in the ceiling of and called "chimneys" that aren't connected to any "furnace". And why the plumbing?

You did not ask about the validity 

I did. Pardon my transgressions for not using the vocabulary befitting of someone with such a high regard of themselves.

Let me expand on that a little bit

All well and dandy. As I've said his word isn't law. The evidence is. He presents the evidence. That's it.

, the chemical analysis of the walls of the chamber does not refute the usage of the chamber

No, everything else about it does. Explain the math of having a "genocide factory" where you only kill a couple people a day.

even if they disproved the chimneys,

Yes, they do. If you have anything written after this I can't see it. Hopefully you're writing this down somewhere else and moving it over like I am.