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)
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.
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.
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.
First, I don't recommend resorting to personal attacks in an attempt to strengthen your argument. It falls flat, and is logically bankrupt.
I am not Jewish in any way; my direct ancestors fought in the allied armies during the war, and they have stories about the depravities of the war as a whole.
I have extended family, in which many members are dead from the Holocaust, and I believe (though I'd need to double check), there were some that survived the same camps that killed the others. I believe that, if you looked at any large enough Jewish family, you would find a sizable portion are "missing" as a result of the war; a good tangible place to start when affirming evidence, as the proliferation of immediately fabricated evidence amongst a widespread civilian population would be a borderline impossibility to accomplish (that is to say, second hand regurgitation and continuation of propaganda is not uncommon, but every person in a populace fabricating evidence towards the same thing is much more difficult, and, as a result, a harder claim to both believe and prove).
My family heritage is Polish. I value Polish heritage, and the Holocaust is a sizable part of that in more recent times; as is the Communist occupation of Poland, in which atrocities of similar magnitude but less direction and organization occurred. To be clear; I do not sympathize with fascism or communism; I have more reason than most Americans to despise Communism and Fascism, for my heritage is one of fighting both in favor of individualism and liberty.
Second; I never called what you have to say "hate speech"; nor do I have any objective in removal of "hate speech". I think hate speech is protected, and I think that even violent speech should be protected, but that's another thing entirely.
I'm working on a fuller response, but because I value evidence being real, it will take me some time to find the proper documentation for what I am speaking of and compile it into a comprehensive report. I'm dedicated to seeing this through, but I also have other obligations. I'll just say if you don't hear from me by Wednesday consider me conceded to what you have said; is that fair?
After all, this documentary wasn't made in a day let alone minutes.
...they do not disprove the entirety of the claims about that camp, let alone the other campuses of that camp or the other camps.
You next respond to this:
with:
Saying "I do" doesn't make it more true. You've presented one documentary with facts that do not prove the overwhelming majority of the arguments you are making. If you have more facts, please present them. Until then, you don't, and saying you do doesn't change that.
I've provided far more evidence than a single "random Polock" (which is also disingenuously untrue in and of itself); I provided three sources, each of which contain excerpts from stacks upon stacks of documentation from the period. Those excerpts are the single greatest proof POSSIBLE for assertion of any events in the period; if we have records of Nazi officials writing about the happenings of the Holocaust, and those records can be carbon dated to verify their validity, that is proof that can only be refuted in two ways; either the Nazis writing were lying, or the Nazis writing were delusional. Given that these writings come from some of the top officials, neither explanation makes much sense.
On top of that, the other evidence from the "random Polock" (Polock is a term for Polish immigrants; he would not be a Polock because he was not an immigrant) is much more than you dismiss it as. He was not "random"; he was a founding member of the Polish underground resistance. He was not the only one of the resistance to make such claims; his official government report was signed by at least a half dozen other officials; they were there, it was documented before that report that they planned on going there. If I'm not mistaken, his arrest record may even be around today as well. There were semi-regular updates form inside the camp, as well; it wasn't just a random Pole writing a random story well after any of it happened; there is a tremendous paper-trail of documentation, from the time. If the report contains details of gas chambers; that evidence is stronger than analysis of modern-day reconstructions, as said reconstructions may not have any forensic trail at all due to their nature as reconstructions. You then took my solidification of this person as a source as an attempt to deceive you?
(Me:)
When I'm trying to per-counter your argument. If you read the entire statement, you'll see that Witold Pilecki was KILLED by the communist regime for continuing his work of liberating Poland; subverting the occupation in the process. If he was a communist, why did he fight Communist occupation? Why was he executed?
Anyway; next, you respond to this statement of mine:
with:
What science? My sources have nothing to do with levels of Zycklon B trace on the walls of the chamber; they don't claim that that chamber was used, to my knowledge. That is all of the science you have demonstrated. Your argument "SCIENCE" sounds eerily like the arguments of left-wingers when they try to claim that a virtually non-lethal disease should be "prevented" with a vaccine with higher mortality rate. When their arguments fail, they resort to claiming "I have the facts" and "science is on my side". Do not make their same mistakes; it diminishes your argument.
As far as who started it, go back and look at my first post. I am respectfully disagreeing. As I recall, your response is where things get aggressive. You started it tremendously, and you are the one that maintains doing it; It makes your arguments look weak. What benefit does it bring you? Why bother continuing? You don't offend me; I've been called worse and I frankly don't care; it just makes your arguments look bad, and it both distorts them and fills valuable time and space in posts.
Next, you focus on my statement:
and respond with:
If Poland had lost the war, it would be a comparable analogy. Poland did not lose the war; they almost did, but they prevailed. Do you think Tsarist Russia would have had any tolerance for communism if they had succeeded in putting the revolution down? I think not. Similarly, Poland was thoroughly and aggressively against Communism, and they were very weary of any nation around them building up forces.
Next, me:
you:
Where do i claim that the Nazis infiltrated Poland? Where does that argument attempt to prove that? That argument is about the actions of Germany with regards to the Holocaust; actions which are supported both by the writing and documentation of top Nazi officials and by Polish officials. Had they been in dispute, more evaluation would be required; but they are not.
Me:
You:
You want to keep playing these child ass games bitch? Try me, I'll go all fucking day.
Allow me to clarify; David Cole was questioned about that document, and has admitted revisionists have no counter-explanation. Continue to make your arguments worse with illogical attacks, why don't you?
Me:
You:
Do you believe carbon dating is fake? Where in physics do you stop believing and start denying? Carbon dating is deeply tied to atomic theory; either you believe that or you don't, but if you don't, good luck explaining the Atomic Bomb. Why is chemical analysis of the walls of the reconstructed chamber scientifically valid but carbon dating is not?
Are you alternatively suggesting that the documents were written at the time of by someone else? That can also be proven or disproven through detailed microscopic handwriting analysis. These documents are verifiable in date and origin, and they detail some of the happenings of the Holocaust.
Me:
You:
The difference is that I supply and directly connect my evidence, while you make no effort to source what part of your evidence proves what and how. I don't call "proof" of anything without presenting the proof alongside; you, on the other hand, have a propensity to say "I proved it" without providing anything else.
Me:
You:
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
Refer to my previous statements.
Me:
You:
Show it, instead of saying you did and then insulting me to take the focus off of the fact that you continue to refuse to provide direct proof of your claims and an explanation as to how the proof connects.
Me:
You:
Good luck with that, bud. Are you aware that "might does not make right"? Punches are not proof; nor are they an argument. I am giving you my attention and time. You have no ability to take that from me; when I decide I'm done, we're done. Simple as that.
Jumping ahead because there's nothing of value discussing in the middle:
Me:
You:
What is this "in a vacuum", faggot? You're just saying random fucking words.
Have you ever cleaned your house? Do you understand the concept of "vacuum"? It is not a big word; it is not a random word. I speak to children that understand that expression; a "vacuum" is an empty space; void of air or frankly anything. A "vacuum cleaner" is called such because the fan (or whatever means that cleaner possesses of creating a vacuum) is propelling air out of the container, creating a vacuum inside the device which causes air to rush inside, taking crumbs and other debris with it. When the experession "In a vacuum" is used, it is to say that something is being isolated or taken out of context. For example, if I were taking your words selectively in a vacuum, I would say that "the only words you use are insults"; it is a lie based on the distortion of the truth.
Me:
You:
Do i need to explain those big words to you too?
An Ad Hominem attack: "Typically, this term refers to a rhetorical [speaking] strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making the argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself." Do I even need to quote the countless examples of you doing this?
A Logical Fallacy: "A misconception resulting from flaw in reasoning, or a trick or illusion in thoughts that often succeeds in obfuscating facts/truth."
Examples of Logical Fallacies: "Formal Fallacies: Bad Reason Fallacy, Quantification Fallacies, Propositional fallacies, Syllogistic Fallacies; Informal Fallacies: Ad Hominem, Anecdotal, Appeal to Emotion, Appeal to Ridicule, Argument from repetition, Bandwagon, Burden of Proof, Continuum Fallacy, Etymological Fallacy, etc."
Me:
You:
See above.
I believe I have made a sufficient argument, and rebutted your attempts to counter it. Unless fresh evidence or arguments are made by you (or others, for that matter), I will rest my case, as I believe any rational or logical person would see the value and logic in my arguments.
If you do not provide any new evidence, or any good connections, I will proceed to ignore you. If you continue to utilize insults and Ad Hominem attacks, I will ignore you; I will not reward the utilization of logical fallacies any longer.
I expect you will be unable to resist your impulses, so this is likely the end. I wish you the best in life, and I pray for you to understand more as you get older and reconsider your positions. God bless you!