/lit/ - Literature

>>15908047
That's standard in academia, actually, if you write a book about anything involving Nazi Germany as an academic you have to at least make reference to it in a negative light or you will become suspicious in the eyes of some and lose status and publishing and trust and networking. Worst case you lose your post because you were "effectively blind to the sufferings of jewish peoples" or something like that.

It's comical how tight you have to be about jews and hitler in the modern west.

I have spent months looking for a book that shows colonialism from the perspective of the colonizer in an objective and unbiased way. Outside of a handful of essays, it's amazing how little there seems to be.

>>15908047
But everything leading to the genocide WAS wrong, so what's so bad about authors giving an opinion about it?

>>15908185
Simply not true, which you would know if you had published any actual academic work.

>>15908047
I'm a huge historyfag, and that's has been my major issue since day one. The more relevant an issue to contemporary culture, the more opinionated it is. Obvious examples would be WWII, Jewish history, Trans-Atlantic slavery, Fascism, Communism, etc.
It's why I can't stand /his/.
>>15909417
Would you regard as scholarly a book with the same moralistic attitudes towards premodern cultures, such as the Mongols or the Arabs?

>>15909417
What genocide?

>>15909502
>Would you regard as scholarly a book with the same moralistic attitudes towards premodern cultures, such as the Mongols or the Arabs?
If the culture committed genocide? Fuck yeah. That's kind of a no-brainer.

>>15909417
Would you write with the same philosophy about the Dzungar genocide? How about the Holodomor? The Tutsi and Huto conflict? The Armenian genocide?

>>15909540
So you think is was Mongol culture that led Genghis Khan to commit genocide?

>>15909540

Nazi Germany is considered to be universally and absolutely evil. To not comment on it being evil when its brought up would be eyebrow-raising at best.

>>15909566
I have no idea. I'm not an expert.

>>15909581
>it's just a coincidence that the "forces of good" are always the victors and the "forces of evil" are always those who've lost

>>15908047
You sound like a Nazi OP.

>>15909673
>LA faggot poster hours
Checks out.

>>15909680
Are you a Nazi?

I'm a nazi. Ask me anything.

>>15909688
Why are you a Nazi?

>>15909683
I don't believe in anything at all.

>>15909668
The victors are usually considered evil in the modern postcolonial perspective.

>my magnum opus quotes hundreds of fanatics, war criminals and terrorists of every ideology
>I don't even mention what they did and just use their recognition to further my own positions

>>15909698
>The victors are usually considered evil in the modern postcolonial perspective
This is untrue, it's simply that those who used to be our victors have lost to their new enemy and now suffer the same fate as their previous adversaries.

>>15909691
Because me and mine are all that matters.

>>15909581
No, to comment on it being evil is superfluous and boring.
It’s like a reddit comment that opens with three sentences designed to mitigate criticism before coming to the actual point.

>>15909691
because it's based

>>15909540

Seriously whats with all the faggot niggers on lit my god. It like a reddit colony in here with all you screeching heebs and cum guzzling man children. “Muh nazis ebil reeee” “cant discuss anything like grown adult men because my momma told me nazi bad REEEEE cant talk about WHYYYYY just DAY EVIL REEE” its so pathetic

>>15909774
It's the mainstream opinion in both the academy and the general public so of course Redditors will defend it.
Interesting enough, I have yet to read an account of the Holocaust that wasn't moralistic.
If someone knows of such an account I'd be very grateful.

I don't know what's going on in this thread but we had a good thread recently on revisionist Hitler literature. Two books in particular were recommended, pic related and RHS Stolfi's Beyond Evil and Tyranny.

David Irving's Hitler's War is good too.

>>15909986
There are plenty of objective books on the Holocaust.

>>15909774
Fuck off back to stormfront, Nazi.

>>15909683
Yes.

>>15909688
How are you, my friend?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbQrGaTm02Y

>>15909998
Here's a library containing all 3 of those, and everything related.
https://mega.nz/#F!BGpDxQZR!nML6GBQ2DJPbqESkc8ZCtQ

>>15909547
you realise the job of a historian is to interpret history, not just list dates and events

>>15910018
>Erica
On that note I'm great. You?

>>15908185
Literally read any academic work on the NSDAP retard, only a handful of them do that.

>>15910072
Not true, they commonly go out of their way to say 'then evil stinky Hitler came along, boy was he a loser what a fucking loser retard' and so on. It feels childish.

>>15910077
>"Then evil stinky Hitler came along, boy was he a loser what a fucking loser retard." - Raul Hilberg

>>15910077
In what books?

>>15910077
>>15910086
Uhhhh oh stinky

>>15910086
Hilberg is one of the decent ones. He said holocaust denial should be legal and defended Finkelstein's book The Holocaust Industry.

>>15910088
Kershaw is the worst example I can recall immediately. Bendersky openly moralizes too.

Older books like Shirer are better I think, maybe because they were more intellectually mature and reflecting on a war they had experienced. Even Taylor's shrill anti-german rhetoric is at least straightforward and forthright instead of whiny like more recent books.

>>15910107
Rich Evans doesn't do that, neither does Siemens. Even Longerich only does some mild psychoanalysis.

>>15910107
What books would you recommend on this subject?

Reminder that "Hitler's Table Talk" is NOT to be trusted. There exists no valid translation, because even the original German is not representative of Hitler's words to his staff:
>Despite many declarations to the contrary, in actual fact the Table Talk is not Hitler’s verbatim words. It consists only of paraphrases and summaries composed by people who took notes, often further edited by yet others after the fact, and often unreliably.
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/15035

In case anyone was wondering.

Honestly I don't even care about the genocide at this point, even if it was basically the most evil shit in existence. Nazis, and fascists in general, are the biggest fucking cucks on the planet. Imagine wanting a strong big brother government or 'muh national unity' because you're too much of a loser to assert your own identity and focus on your own life.

The only reason a person could ever care about having a homogeneous culture or some vague sense of national unity is because they're an insecure weakling and have the incessant need to feel strong through the validation of others. That, or they have the need to amend their weakness and insecurity by exercising power fantasies over other human beings, which makes them an even bigger bitch.

>>15910330
>liberal critique of fascism
Cringe, individualism is just how capitalism controls people. See pic related for a real critique of fascism.

>>15910330
>genocide
What genocide?
>muh strong individual
Good luck getting what you want politically.

>>15910011
“Muh stormfront” kys jew im so sick of you reddit kikes throwing out your short quips in a pathetic attempt at what youbelieve to be wit. Fuck you fuck you fuck you

>>15909310
Just read old stories, like Betrothal in Santo Domingo

>>15909502
>Jewish history
Biggest fraud in the universe

>>15910011
stormfront hasn't been relevant for a decade, try harder shlomo

>>15910341
dilate

>>15910966

>>15909998

It's annoying that it's still called revisionist history, because of the obvious implications.

>>15910995
I refuse to use that word for anyone but my enemies. Don't readily accept the label. Language is a weapon.

>>15910966
why do they always look like that

>>15910086

Hilberg was probably the least bad of the yids, but he also supported the whole skinsoap and lampshade shit, at the time.

>>15910999
Trips of truth

>>15910999

Ever notice how it's only right-wing lit that gets accused of being revisionist? Nobody ever accused Zinn of that.

>>15911111
Same with film. Anything that goes against the status quo. German films between 1933 and 1945 are always called propaganda (not that they aren't), while the term is never applied to cinema of other countries (even though it should be). It's no accident.

I haven't finished this book, but the author seems pretty fair and sort of a Prussian fanboy.

Any other based nonfic lit out there? Any topic of discussion is fine -- war, memoirs, etc.

>>15911585
I haven't read this, but there's a bunch of butthurt faggots on goodreads complaining about how positively it paints Mussolini.

>>15911609
Whenever I'm on goodreads, if the first review of a book is some Jew complaining about how it 'apologizes' for a 'bad guy', I add it to my list.

>>15911757
It really is the best tipoff.

>>15911550
I don't think any person would do research over a 300 year period of history for like a 800 page book on a subject they really truly hated. The few people that actually do almost "hate-write" on their subjects are really low, the historical revisionists who write new biographies with trendy covers just to "set the record straight" and take previous biographers down a peg are also equally worth of contempt

>>15910966
Whenever I see the colors of communist flags, it kinda makes me want a cheeseburger.

>>15912079
kek

A major strain of western historiography interprets the national history of Germany as one that led to holocaust through a long process. Of course a book framed like that, with a special era from 1866 to 1945, is going to reitate the theory - just as 'USSR from 1917 to 1941' would probably give a poor image of Bolsheviks.

>>15912236
except bolshies only ever existed in that time interval

>>15912041
>The few people that actually do almost "hate-write" on their subjects are really low, the historical revisionists who write new biographies with trendy covers just to "set the record straight" and take previous biographers down a peg are also equally worth of contempt

No kidding. I am so tired of all these utterly facile kikebios that have come out in recent years.

>>15912350

Jill Lepore

>vomit

>>15911160

>>15912041
Does this applies to self-healing Jews?

>>15912361

You can measure the worth of an American Revolutionary historian by their take on the meaning of the 2nd amendment.

>>15912236
Who cares though. Muh holocaust. Im so sick of hearing about duh joooooos. Its annoying and childish not to mention completely retarded to relegate an entire nation to “evil nazi” status because some j*wd cant stop bitching because they got righteously got BTFO by the chad germans

>>15912494
As much as they bitch about it you'd think they'd have presented proof by now.

>>15909310
>perspective of the colonizer in an objective and unbiased way
you sure you're not just looking to validate your own opinions on colonialism?

>>15912506
Umm, hello, based department???

>>15912523
Yes?

>>15911609
If normies are making a big show of being offended by something, it's at least worth a look. Thanks fren.

>>15911550
You too.

>>15911585
Read Skorzeny's?

>>15908047
If he doesn't make very clear his agreement with the narrative of Jewish capitalist academia and culture industry he loses his ability to work to any meaningful degree.

Why are right wingers such pussies?

>>15911585
Twilight of The Gods is really good. I can't believe they let this on audible as the guy was an unapologetic natsoc.

>>15912518
My country was colonized so no.
I just want to read a social history on say, the Dutch in the East Indies and the general sentiments among the settler population there. I think there are a few on the British Raj but they all play up this anti-colonialist agenda which is a pain to sit through.

>>15912494
That's probably the most insulting thing. I don't care at this point if they're faking it or were killed. People died by the millions. Their suffering isn't unique and shouldn't hold an iota of moral sway over us.

>>15913346
Good luck finding that actually after the fact. I'd look for accounts from the time it was actually occurring. French and British accounts will speak plainly that this is hideous in say Africa but then counter that what was there before them wasn't any prettier. Hierarchical replacing individualized dispersal of cruelty.

American accounts from the frontier are predictably atomised in that they seemed to see the land as up for grabs and their contest with the natives a more personalized one. Expansion for expansion's sake with no narrative justification. Capital's process in the vast north American continent outpaced Liberalism's ability to grow around it.

>>15912967
>Read Skorzeny's?

Which work of his should I read?

>>15913330

Neat, will look.

>>15908047
That's mandatory for any academic to be published and to not get cancelled. It's like when Hobbes was doing history but had to pretend allegiance to Christianity--you do what you gotta do.

Now you stop being a faggot and fuck off with your whining retard

>>15910889
Why?

>>15908047
Most of history written in the last century is secondary source self-referential horseshit to scaffold around the AFO, because it's the basketweaving/journalism/psychology equivalent within the humanities (a washout discipline)

>>15914167
AFO?

>>15909310
The problem is that anyone that was involved has too much emotional investment in it. You need outside perspectives. I pray to god for the Chinese to begin researching western history and writing on it, because they are truly divorced from it (minus a few places such as Hong Kong) physically and possibly more importantly, they have no dogmatic alliances with defending either one or painting either side as good or bad.

>>15909310
Imperialism by Hobson

>>15911006
It’s such a bad way to make a lampshade

>>15909774
Holy based

>>15915420
>Look it up
>find this in one of the reviews
Yep that's an instant buy

>>15911550
>sort of a Prussian fanboy
>Spends the whole foreword bitching about German imperialism praising Churchill for breaking the German spirit

Peepeepoopoo i like to get raped by niggers

>>15916982
You're just in time to live your best life then

>>15908047

Anglos love their Sonderweg, always have. It has always been a way for them to (subconsciously?) negate their own historical sins and project their own psychological problems onto the Germans.

>>15909751
The Jews committed a bunch of genocides and even recorded them for posterity to ponder their greatness. They have no room to complain about others on this topic.

>>15910126
Thank you.

>>15910995
I work in manufacturing and we speak of revisions regarding documents all of the time - the latest rev just being the latest version, and presumably the most accurate. I see no inherent fault in use of the term, though I am aware of the deprecative nature that is implied. Frankly, if you can get someone to call you a revisionist and to tip their hand, you can put them on the defensive side by making them defend their own bigotry.

>>15913346
Read works by contemporary authors, like Kipling.

>>15913318
Are you still stuck on the Left/Right political continuum?

>>15914193
>they have no dogmatic alliances with defending either one or painting either side as good or bad
Mao adopted a Jewish political philosophy and Jews helped found the Communist government of China:
https://jewishjournal.com/news/worldwide/179731/

>>15909719
Based

>>15908047
yeah this pisses me off. i've seen it happen in books like mein kampf, turner diaries and even a fucking pocket dictionary. it said things like "men at work" id offensive and should say people at work lol.

>>15911111
Checking these quints.

>>15917832
>Rittenberg, who was a holier than thou Communist, becomes an agent of capitalism after prison.
Christ, these people.

>>15909540
um, like, fawk yaaaaas.

>>15909581
people seem to ignore or not want to talk about some of the good aspects of nazi germany. science, medicine, culture, fashion, even film. it's weird because i remember people like hitchens defending peoples free speech in denying the holocaust. now you can't even compliment their aesthetics. all i know is i'd be safer in germany back then than most parts of america.

>>15909683
accusing everyone of being a nazi is cringe. just like if i called you a commie. what op doesn't like is heavy handed opinion pieces in historical works.

>>15910011
do you people even have an internal monologue? or do you just parrot what you hear without thought?

>>15911006
Lies. Hilberg never supported either of those. Go ahead, quote him.

>>15910107
>>15911006
Hilberg is considered very authoritative in mainstream scholarship, yet he came under criticism in pic related.
Could anyone sum up the criticism against him?

>>15909581
>the hivemind says its bad
>therefore it is bad

This is a poor line of reasoning. Surely there are better ones out there.

>>15910330
Yawn, this sort of vulgar use of psychoanalysis has been ran into the ground several times over by now.

>>15911003
Why does he have a cross on his bracelet if he's a commie?

>>15911111
It's the same deal with looney bin candidates like Sartre being termed as "intellectuals" while anyone who even slightly goes against the status quo is automatically called an "ideologue". Linguistic manipulation is fucking real.

>>15911585
I'm not sure if it has ever been translated but the diaries of Goebbels are a major source for historians for what went on in the NSDAP during the war. It's more than a thousand pages long, unfortunately.

>>15918143
All Hilberg and other proponents of the holocaust have is unreliable "eyewitness" testimony. I haven't read that book, but I imagine it goes into the inconsistencies and impossibilities of people's stories, the lack of hard evidence, and the non-rigorous methods of determining truth by the "Allies" after the war.

>>15918260
Irving is one of 2 or 3 people in the world who can read Goebbel's handwriting, and he provided many translations of much of Goebbels' diaries for use by other historians. His book "Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich" is excellent. Got it on my shelf. The jacket is delicate, though. I recommend not leaving it on whilst reading it (check top left in pic).

>>15918289
based jacketcareadvice anon

>>15918289
I feel quite conflicted about Irving. While he has obvious biases, he also had all the makings of a great historian - his work about the V-weapons is relevant even to this day. It's truly a shame because someone who is quite like him, but on the opposite end of the political spectrum (and a member of the tribe, which of course doesn't hurt), Hobsbawm, specifically, is celebrated as one of the greatest historians of the 20th century while apologizing for communist russia. Would have people made as big of a deal out of Irving if he apologized for any other empire but the third reich?

>>15918338
Of course not, the modern political paradigm is based on the lie of "hitler bad"

>>15918338
>apologized
What do you mean?

>>15918338
Irving was gaslighted into "becoming" an icon of more radical than he actually was. All the bullying and arguing in bad faith against him basically forced him to adopt positions that he didn't actually had in the beginning.

>>15918338
Good post. Fuck this hypocrisy is annoying.

>>15910966
Those are all liberals, try again libtard. Trannies and gays were exterminated under the Soviet Union.

>>15918376
>exterminated
try again

>>15918289
Leviathan is a big omission from that nice shelf

>>15918289
That's a nice shelf anon, gonna save it for some recommendations. What's your top 10 on there?

>>15917738

Revision and revisionist are not the same thing.

>>15918103
>Go ahead, quote him.

It was at a conference, not in one of his written works. The only reason you're saying this is because you know his primary work centered purely on captured German papers rather than testimony.

Dishonest kike.

>>15918289
Wow, awesome collection. I am actually pretty jealous.

>>15913346
You just need to wait a couple hundred years
Once these countries achieve a solid and stable standard of living, these themes will be reexplored from a different perspective
Sort of what happened with shit like the A-H and the Ottomans which, during their hayday occupied the spot colonial empires do now
Modern academia considers both of them to be saintly paradises

I think the major taboo on saying anything negative about Jews is the primary obstacle in writing on these sort of topics.

>>15918898
Enough time has passed that the younger generations in many of these countries don't really care anymore. All these books are just written for Westerners so I don't think we'll ever get this kind of scholarship sadly.
>>15913426
Thanks, do you have any recommendations? I haven't been able to find any good accounts yet. There does seem to be a lot on settler colonies like Australia but not so much anywhere else.
>>15915420
>>15910883
>>15917798
I'll give these a read as well. Thanks.

>>15918615
If I ever see it I'll certainly grab it. Thanks, bud.

>>15918825
Thank you, I'm pretty pretty partial to Irving's 4 books up there, and my collection of Hindu philosophy, like "The Bhagavad Gita" and "The Upanishads", and I've been reading "Vasistha's Yoga" as a remedy for negative emotional states for over a decade. That copy of "Mein Kampf" (Thomas Dalton) is quite readable, but unfortunately contains the same errors that exist in the Stalag and Ford translations. "The Rise of American Civilization" by the Beards is extremely good. "War Through the Ages" by Montross is great until you get to WW2, then it turns into a comic book about good vs evil. "Blood-Drenched Altars" is an excellent history of Mexico by a Catholic Reverend; he's of course seeing everything through a Catholic lens, and I disagree with a lot of his conclusions, but because his bias is overt it's very easy to isolate from the information.

>>15918879
Most of it is from hitting up a local used book store ($1 - $3 per book), Value Village (same), and the dump (free!). I bet you could build a similar collection in a year of perusing.

>>15919239
Based take. I've been enjoying Dharmic/Pagan philosophy a lot myself and the connection to Third Positionism is undeniable. Hence Savitri Devi.

You're lucky to have such a good shop, any of these books would be $30-40 where I am and every 2nd hand book store is a bunch of old female erotica novels and sport biographies.

>>15919239
>Most of it is from hitting up a local used book store ($1 - $3 per book), Value Village (same), and the dump (free!). I bet you could build a similar collection in a year of perusing.

I have already started, actually. I only started reading recently but I have a few of the staples in historical nonfic. I always go to yard sales and thrift shops, etc.

>>15919284
>the connection to Third Positionism is undeniable
At the risk of provoking anyone silently fuming at our open veneration of Fascism, I'd like to say: the truth is the same everywhere.

Bummer book situation. Try garage sales like >>15919315
.

>>15919336
Well not all Third Positionism is Fascism, I'm a Dharma Nationalist + Royalist myself. There are many manifestations but like you say the underlying truth is the same.
Garage sales are a good idea.

>>15919346
>underlying truth
Yeah, that's what I mean. I'll check out that manifesto.

>>15912396
>a jew uses the world weight
>instinctively uses gold

>>15919380
word*

>>15919380
kek

>>15909421
AJP Taylor, E H Carr, Betrand Russell, Umberto Eco, all notable people I've read that played the poor jews/stinky Hitler card, and not even in relevant contexts

>>15919336

Isn't it quite something that they teach you to hate it when you're a schoolkid, but the more you read the literature, the more you're drawn to it?

>>15910107
>Older books like Shirer are better I think, maybe because they were more intellectually mature and reflecting on a war they had experienced.

Even Shirer has this problem, though. He goes on and on about how Hitler is a stinky gutter tramp.

>>15908047
You don't need a history book, just Mein Kampf in its scholarly standard edition

>>15919187
>Ever
That's a really "big" word fren
All trends die out and so will this one, if younger generations in those countries have already stopped caring then we might even get to see this in our lifetimes
>>15918059
Read Evans, he got a bad name with poltards because he helped the potato looking Jew against Irving but he is very thorough about the third Reich in his trilogy, talking about everything from the Volkssturm to the holiday programs
He generally refrains from moral judgements, which he considers arrogant and self-absorbed, though he has a slight source bias towards socdems (though he doesn't miss their own Radicalisation and selfcanibalisation)

>>15919406
>drawn to it
I don't think the NSDAP could keep drawing people in all these years later if not for being so fucking aesthetic. Would I have played all those nazi-shootin games as a kid if the nazis themselves weren't such a great enemy? The ideology clicks for me now as an adult, but the allure has always been there.

>>15919571
The spirit of the Teutonic titans might never die.

>>15919571

>>15908185
Based and truthpilled.

>>15909417
Wrong by what standard? Are you religious and believe in objective morality?

I still can't believe this guy has so many scarce Irving works. Fuck me. My jealousy used to be bounded.

>>15919732
Which books are you looking for? He's got all his stuff in stock on his website. I'm irritated, though, he has a new edition of "Hitler's War" out, and I already have two signed copies of the 2002 edition.

>>15919856
>Which books are you looking for?

Pretty much all of them. I want to support Irving, but $50+ (even the versions on his site) is a whopping price to pay for a book.

>>15919856

Also, bit of a sidebar, but I noticed you don't have a copy of Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. What's your take on it, if you've read it.

>>15920047
>$50+ is a whopping price to pay for a book.
He's pretty old. You're not gonna get a chance to thank him with money for much longer. He accidentally sent me the second copy of "HW", so I donated $100 to on his website and informed him that we were even. I know not everybody can afford to do that, but at that time I could, and I highly valued his work.

>>15920059
>Rise and Fall of the Third Reich
I haven't read it. I verified that it was the work of a system historian, figured I'd already gotten enough of their version of that period of history, and passed on it. This isn't to say that I completely defer to Irving. He gets stuff wrong, too, like using the Table Talks as a source (Richard Carrier is a faggot, but he does great research).

>>15908047
>NOO YOU CANT CRTICISE POLITICS WHICH LEAD TO MY 3RD REICHERINO!!!

>>15920117
>He's pretty old. You're not gonna get a chance to thank him with money for much longer.

You know, this is true. As amateur historians, we stand on the shoulders of giants. I think as soon as I get some spare change, I'm going to order books from him and send him a thank-you postcard as well. The perspective is appreciated.

>>15920117
>I haven't read it. I verified that it was the work of a system historian, figured I'd already gotten enough of their version of that period of history, and passed on it.

It's worth reading for the first-person soundbites, but apart from that, Shirer is very wishy-washy. He also (probably unknowingly) peddled Niemoller garbage like the whole Burgerbraukeller false-flag. It's not a particularly scarce volume, and it's been reprinted many times. My version is older, but I'd suggest the post-'90 reprint which has an afterword about Coomunists from Shirer.

>>15921051
>as amateur historians
You are an amateur but I wouldn’t use the word historian.

>>15918866
More lies. What conference. How do you know he said it if there’s no transcript? You’re just making bullshit up

>>15921500
Hilberg explicitly says in Destruction that Jewish soap was a rumour that likely started in Polish POW camps, I don’t know if he said anything about lampshades but I doubt it since they are both rumours.

>>15920608
Not while claiming to be an impartial scholar no.

>>15921555
I don’t think most scholars of Nazi Germany claim to be impartial when it comes to approving or the regime or not. Sorry it offends your Nazi sensibilities.

>>15921500
>More lies.
>>15921537
>Hilberg explicitly says in Destruction that Jewish soap was a rumour that likely started in Polish POW camps

Except that he also said, and I quote, "It's fairly reliable that the story was circulated, but I can't say whether or not it is true." If he was as conservative in his scholarship as some people like to claim, then he would have outright denied this allegation. In Destruction, Hilberg also referred to it as a "suspicion", and there were related attributions to Dirlewanger, among others.

He only completely repudiated it in the 1990s during the Lipstadt era. Hilberg may have been the best of the kikes, but he was still a kike. If I had my way, he'd have been pushing shotguns into peepholes.

>>15921491

The Jew cries out in pain as he strikes you.

>>15921625
>Except that he also said, and I quote, "It's fairly reliable that the story was circulated, but I can't say whether or not it is true."
Where? Post the full thing.

>>15921646
JTA 4-24-90 -- the date is important, it was shortly before he repudiated the claims. Why are you so in love with Hilberg, huh? Are you a slimy yid or something?

Sidebar, I wish the claims were true.

>>15921659
Oh, that’s the Danzig soap. That’s a completely different claim than the Jewish soap myth which is that there was industrial production of human soap made from the fat of Jews. That has considerable more evidence including primary witness testimony and a piece of soap which was submitted to Nuremberg and forensically found compatible with being made from human fat. Danzig soap =/= Jewish soap and so once again. You are lying.

>>15921689
>That has considerable more evidence including primary witness testimony and a piece of soap which was submitted to Nuremberg and forensically found compatible with being made from human fat. Danzig soap =/= Jewish soap and so once again. You are lying.

Imagine actually fucking believing this shit, and as far as that quote going with the Danzig soap myth, it's in reference to the Jew soap myth. Read the article.

>>15921689
http://marcuse.faculty.history.ucsb.edu/dachau/legends/2006NeanderDanzigSoapCaseGSR.pdf
Here’s actual academic info on the claim Hilberg is defending. He’s not out of line with any scholarship, whereas industrial production of soap is.

>>15921722
No it’s not:
> In Danzig, Germany (now Gdansk, Poland), pictures of dead, heavyset people cut into pieces and a recipe for soap were discovered in 1945 at the Stutthof camp. "But we don't know that the bodies were of Jews, or that the pictures and recipe went together," said Hilberg.
>Moreover, the rumor was being circulated as early as 1942, according to documentary evidence.
>”It's fairly reliable that the story was circulated, but I can't say whether or not it is true," said Hilberg. square

Literally in the same article Hilberg says
> All of these rumors are untrue, based on nothing at all," Hilberg said. "No evidence has turned up" to suggested that the Nazis used human fat to make soap.
So either you can’t read, or you are a liar.

>>15921729
I don't think that the Russian """captured""" German documents have ever been corroborated ever, historically, ever. This includes their claims about Danzig Institute, and further.

>So either you can’t read, or you are a liar.

See:
"I can't say whether or not it is true."
Contrast:
"All of these rumors are untrue."

Which was it, Hilberg?

Still, you have not answered about your connection to Hilberg.

>>15912361
I had a class with her at Harvard. She's bretty cool actually

>>15921766
Most of the documents werent captured by Russians, so this is just another lie. All the allies found documents. The Russian ones are used when they can be corroborated. You’re just making more shit up. W/ Hilberg, if you know the basic scholarship around Jewish soap it’s obvious he’s defending the small scale use of soap at the Danzig anatomical institute in the latter half and talking about the Jewish soap rumour in the first. It’s just poor editing, we don’t have the full transcript of what he said.

>>15921788
>The Russian ones are used when they can be corroborated.

There are whole entire subgenres of Holocaust history based, almost completely, on Russian capture documents. Are you being retarded on purpose, or what?

I'd really love to punch you in the neck.

>>15921555
yeah, you have a deeply simple understanding
of "impartial scholarship" if you think it means "making no moral judgments about anything"

>>15921798
>There are whole entire subgenres of Holocaust history based, almost completely, on Russian capture documents. Are you being retarded on purpose, or what?
No, I just have more than a pedestrian understanding of holocaust history and know when you’re making stuff up which you once again are doing right now.

>>15921821
>No, I just have more than a pedestrian understanding of holocaust history

Do you believe that human soap was experimented with at Danzig? Do you believe that Hitler directed the EDJ?

These two simple questions will reveal how much of a pedestrian you are.

>>15921836
>Do you believe that human soap was experimented with at Danzig?
Yes, that’s not the same as the Jewish soap claim. The bodies were likely not even Jewish. And I’ve cited academic literature in this thread. Go debunk that.
>did Hitler direct the EDJ
What does EDJ stand for?
> These two simple questions will reveal how much of a pedestrian you are.
I’m not the one reduced to making claims up about Hilberg and Russian documents.

>>15921871
>Go debunk that.

Present non-Russian sources and I will.

>What does EDJ stand for?

Endlosung der Judenfrage! You just said you were a historian, no?

>I’m not the one reduced to making claims up about Hilberg and Russian documents.

No, you're just the know-nothing Judenlüge peddler who came into this thread (for no particular reason, I might add) to SHIT and PISS and CUM everywhere.

>>15910035
>job of a historian is to interpret history
Spoken like a true bolshevik.

>>15921902
>Present non-Russian sources and I will.
Cope, go read the article. The soap recipe isn’t used to back the experimental soap claim.
>Endlosung der Judenfrage! You just said you were a historian, no?
No, I said you were an amateur and certainly not a historian. I will just defer to to what experts say here, functionalist explanations such as The Origins of the Final Solution by Christopher Browning or Ian Kershaw’s working towards the furher.

>>15921902
>Trying to discredit someone because they didn't know your intentionally obscure acronym
Very cool

Theres an argument right now between normal men and jew children. Jew go away SHOO SHOO noone cares about your whining or muh soap or muh holocaust. Its so fucking annoying

>>15921948
>>15921957

Utterly contemptible fools. No point in continuing this irreconcilable conversation. One day you will come to love this man and his accomplishments.

>>15909310
ever read cortes's letters? what do u think is so biased about colonialism in typical literature?

>>15919239
>but unfortunately contains the same errors that exist in the Stalag and Ford translations.
which are?

>>15922107
It offends his white sensibilities.

>>15908047
Read Kitler

>>15921689
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soap_made_from_human_corpses#Danzig_Anatomical_Institute
Danzig soap is equally fake as the other soap

>>15922233
No it’s not. Read the article I cited written by an actual historian. Soapy grease is a byproduct of the maceration process. It was used for simple cleaning around the institute and likely further refined at least a few times into a more effective detergent.

>>15922233
Btw Neander literally wrote the article being cited in the Wikipedia page.

>>15922268
>>15922279
Yes, and that wasnt "holocaust soap" made by killed jews/poles. It was totally unrelated to concentration camps or any "human expermientation"/"body harvesting". Its just regular, legal, ethical anatomical work, it has no connection to the holocaust in any way.

The foiled Jew continues his subterfuge. Why? Has he not been humiliated enough already?

>>15922294
Yeah, I already said that. Hilberg says in the article the Nazi cited there’s no evidence that there was soap made from human fat. In context it’s clear that Hilberg is not propagating the Jewish soap myth but just taking a skeptical position on the Danzig soap.

>>15922323
>but just taking a skeptical position
Haven't even payed attention to the rest of your conversation but I can just tell this is faggy tactics.

>>15922353
Well then maybe you should not engage if you don’t understand what’s going on. I cited Neanders article to clarify what Hilberg was talking about. You didn’t introduce any new info by posting a Wikipedia link.

>>15922370
I'm not that guy you fucking stupid retard. I don't give a fuck what you two are arguing about. I pointed out that when people bring up "woe is me I am but a simple skeptic" they're most likely disingenuous and somewhat feigning ignorance to advance their own position.

>>15922401
>I'm not that guy you fucking stupid retard.

No, you aren't me, but you are based, so you have my full approval.

>>15922401
I know you aren’t the other guy, I’m saying you are fucking stupid for jumping in without reading the argument, do you understand that? They didn’t say they are a simple skeptic. They said there’s no evidence the Nazis produced soap from human fat, that it’s not clear what conclusions you can draw from photos and that the bodies in the photos are not necessarily from Jews. Then he says he can’t say whether it’s true or not. Keep in mind, this is in a highly edited interview which is literally two paragraphs long. If you know the academic debate going on at that time, it’s clear he’s skeptical about the “small scale” soap production at Danzig but not taking a definitive position. This isn’t “pushing the Jewish soap myth” or whatever the other guy said. It’s a blatant lie and it’s why I responded.

>>15922425
>I’m saying you are fucking stupid for jumping in without reading the argument, do you understand that?
I don't need to know anything about your stupid petty argument because my complain has nothing to do with that subject you fucking retard.
>They said there’s no evidence the Nazis produced soap from human fat, that it’s not clear what conclusions you can draw from photos and that the bodies in the photos are not necessarily from Jews. Then he says he can’t say whether it’s true or not.
>Then he says he can’t say whether it’s true or not.
>there’s no evidence (x) happened
>Then he says he can’t say whether it’s true or not.
This is maliciously obtuse behavior and I'm calling it out as such.

I see a bunch of heated niggers in the chat rn. Lemme lighten it up.
Last night i put my vibrating toothbrush up my ass and had an amazing prostate orgasm and came buckets

>>15922455
>I don't need to know anything about your stupid petty argument because my complain has nothing to do with that subject you fucking retard.
Well, yes it does. You’re complaining about something said in the context of the argument. Sorry, you’re stupid. It’s just the facts
> This is maliciously obtuse behavior and I'm calling it out as such.
It’s not, and it’s in a highly edited interview. It’s not clear what question he was responding to when he made that statement. My reading of the interview can resolve the contradiction between Hilberg saying “ All of these rumors are untrue, based on nothing at all,", and him saying he can’t say whether it happen or not. If you actually read the article it’s clear he’s saying there’s no evidence for Holocaust soap and the evidence for soap production at the Danzig Institute is inconclusive. Why he’d say that about the former and then abstain from committing on the latter is clear if you read Neander’s article and take into account the testimony of British POW’s working at the camp and Spanner’s own testimony. This is why it’s important to read before spewing textual diarrhoea.

>>15919549
I can't trust him after what he wrote about Irving.

>>15922504
>You’re complaining about something said in the context of the argument.
I'm complaining about the behavior of one of your lispy little buttbuddies. I don't give a shit what side of the argument he's on. I don't give a shit what his argument is. I don't give a shit about some other faggot's testimony. I don't give a shit about the British or POWs. If I went around telling people I fucked your mother up her greasy unkempt shitpipe and you asked me to provide evidence, it would be disingenuous to say "there's no evidence so we can't really say whether it's true or not".

>>15922584
Again, I already explained how my reading can resolve the contradiction between those two statements since Hilberg would have been aware of Spanner’s testimony as well as the POW workers, at the same the scholarly debate was actually inconclusive. Feel free to throw more insults at me, but this reply is completely rhetorical.

>>15922612
>muh testimony
>muh pows
>muh muh muh scholarly debate
I already said I don't give a shit about any of that gay autistic garbage. If you go around telling people "I can't say whether or not it's true ;)" you're a fag. End of discussion.

>>15922640
If you don’t care about the history informing his statements, then no one should (rightly) take your inane rambling seriously.

>>15922654
The history informing his statements makes not difference whatsoever. The structure of his statements is what makes him a fag. His statements could literally be about any subject and if he stated "there's no evidence so we can't really say whether it's true or not." he'd instantly be a disingenuous fag.

>>15922675
Again, the fact a lengthy conversation was edited down into a few paragraphs accounts for the structure of his statements. The former and latter comments refer to two separate soap making claims.

>>15922688
>lengthy conversation
He could have written a whole novel for all I fucking care, the second anyone says "there's no evidence so we can't really say whether it's true or not" all their statements concerning that subject can be written off.

>>15922712
>"there's no evidence so we can't really say whether it's true or not"
But he didn’t say that. You’re mashing together two separate statements in the article that referred to two separate soap making claims.

>>15922748
>>15922425
>They said there’s no evidence the Nazis produced soap from human fat
>Then he says he can’t say whether it’s true or not
If you say there is no evidence for a claim, then later say you can't really say whether it's true or not, it does not matter how far apart those statements were. You are still saying "there's no evidence so we can't really say whether it's true or not".

>>15922799
>If you say there is no evidence for a claim, then later say you can't really say whether it's true or not, it does not matter how far apart those statements were
If you read the article, that statement is written as paraphrasing something Hilberg said. My reading is that the claim being paraphrased is about the industrial production of human soap, the latter about whether human soap was used at the Danzig anatomical institute. He didn’t say there’s no evidence so we can’t say whether or not it’s true. My reading is parsimonious with the fact he says Jewish soap was a myth both in the interview and his written work, as well as the academic debate over the Danzig institute. Yours is not. This is why it’s important to read the thread.

>>15922835
>>15922425
>Then he says he can’t say whether it’s true or not
>My reading is that
This is also a gay tactic that removes all responsibility from the claimant. You're a fag that has no spine, quoting other fags that have no spine.

>>15922878
>This is also a gay tactic that removes all responsibility from the claimant
Nope. He was paraphrased in the periodical. We don’t have the transcript of the interview, I’m well within my rights to read it charitably. This is just another rhetorical reply with no substance.

>>15922915
>My reading is that
>paraphrased
This is a rat-like weasel tactic used to distance yourself from your own claims in post.
>We don’t have the transcript of the interview, I’m well within my rights to read it charitably.
>literally "there's no evidence so we can't really say whether it's true or not"

>>15922948
>This is a rat-like weasel tactic used to distance yourself from your own claims in post.
No, he was literally paraphrased in the article. More rhetoric, I’ve already addressed the second part extensively.

>>15922963
>We don’t have the transcript of the interview, I’m well within my rights to read it charitably.
>there's no evidence so we can't really say whether it's true or not
My reading is that he made multiple statements concerning the flavor of his father's cock, I have no evidence that this is what was meant by any of his comments, but it was paraphrased so you really have to interpret and read between the lines.

>>15922983
>I have no evidence that this is what was meant by any of his comments
But I do have evidence for why he’d make that statement about industrial soap, but not Danzig soap. That’s the difference here.

>>15922997
>I have evidence but I can't provide it and actually it isn't evidence at all and just assumption

>>15923008
Because the second part of that article is taking about Danzig soap. Instead of saying there’s no evidence he talks about inconclusive evidence. He would have also been aware of the testimony I mentioned earlier. My reading can resolve the contradiction between the statements.

>>15923026
>Instead of saying there’s no evidence he talks about inconclusive evidence.
>Then he says he can’t say whether it’s true or not
>backtracking this hard
Again don't give a shit about testimony or soap.

>>15923036
>Again don't give a shit about testimony or soap
Again, my whole argument has been about what soap story he’s referring to when he says he can’t say whether it’s true or not. If you’re not interested in engaging that, there’s no point in having the argument.

>>15923050
My argument is plainly stated here >>15922401 and here >>15922584.

>>15923064
I understand that, and my argument is that he’s talking about two seperate soap claims. So if you’re not interested in engaging that, then there’s no point in having the conversation.

>>15923077
>my argument is that he’s talking about two seperate soap claims
>My reading is that
>paraphrased
>We don’t have the transcript of the interview, I’m well within my rights to read it charitably.
Your argument is that you CHARITABLY INTERPRETED that he was talking about two separate claims based on an interview that was paraphrased, of which there is no original transcript.

>>15923108
That’s one of the reasons for why it’s structured in a confusing way. My argument is that the statements referred to two seperate soap making claims/

>>15923108
>My argument is that the statements referred to two seperate soap making claims
Without any evidence to say as much.

>>15923136
Well, we don’t have the original interview transcript. And the “no evidence” statement is clearly paraphrased in the article.

>>15923145
>Well, we don’t have the original interview transcript.
So shut the fuck up and don't put words in other people's mouths to try and falsely substantiate claims.

>>15923159
>So shut the fuck up and don't put words in other people's mouths to try and falsely substantiate claims.
It’s not putting words in people’s mouth, you are because at no point in the interview does Hilberg say “there’s no evidence but we can’t really say whether it’s true or not”.

>>15923174
>It’s not putting words in people’s mouth
>My reading is that the claim being paraphrased is about the industrial production of human soap, the latter about whether human soap was used at the Danzig anatomical institute.
>My reading

>you are because at no point in the interview does Hilberg say “there’s no evidence but we can’t really say whether it’s true or not”.
From your own comment
>They said there’s no evidence the Nazis produced soap from human fat, that it’s not clear what conclusions you can draw from photos and that the bodies in the photos are not necessarily from Jews. Then he says he can’t say whether it’s true or not.

>>15923230
I am clearly paraphrasing the article there. You said he literally claimed that there’s no evidence but we can’t say whether it’s true or not, which appears at no point in the article. This is the actual part of the article (which you would know if you read the thread).
> “No evidence has turned up" to suggested that the Nazis used human fat to make soap.
This is clearly paraphrased as well. It’s blatantly in contradiction with the soap recipe and photographs mentioned in the next paragraph about Danzig, hence my interpretation.

>>15923263
>I am clearly paraphrasing the article there.
>I am clearly putting words in other people's mouths there
See >>15923159

>>15923268
No, I’m not. You didn’t address the fact the “no evidence” is paraphrased in the article.

>>15923293
>I am clearly paraphrasing
>No, I'm not
I don't need to address anything but the fact that you are disingenuous, have no standards, and will say anything so long as you think it bolsters your claims, whether or not it is true or false or even contradictory to anything you've previously stated.

>>15923344
More empty rhetoric. The bottom line is that Hilberg refers to Jewish soap as a rumour in his academic work and the scumbag Nazi died.

>>15923372
>The bottom line is that I can't properly substantiate any of my claims, regularly put words in other's mouths, and resort to calling whatever callouts on the matter rhetorical

>>15923394
Not an argument. I’m sorry that you’re retarded.

>>15923399
>yfw

I still understand this guy's point. Why is he defending the lyin' Hilberg? What does he get out of being a Hilberg fanboy?

Inexplicable behavior.

>>15923416
I don't even know who Hilberg is

>>15921051
>I'm going to order books from him and send him a thank-you postcard as well.
Cool, man.

>It's not a particularly scarce volume, and it's been reprinted many times.
Yeah, I see it around every now and then. I've almost bought it every time I've seen just because of the attractive cover, but I'd always crack it, read something that made me cringe, and put it back. I've got the PDF, I'll save my dwindling shelf space for other stuff. Thinking of buying CODOH's Holocaust Handbook series since they've done such good work that I'd like preserved, and deserve the support.

I can't follow this Hilberg shit, did he fucking say the soap shit was real or not

>>15922497
No chapofags ITT please

>>15923534
>Thinking of buying CODOH's Holocaust Handbook series since they've done such good work that I'd like preserved, and deserve the support.

I'd like to do that as well.

>I've almost bought it every time I've seen just because of the attractive cover, but I'd always crack it, read something that made me cringe, and put it back.

He was a journalist, not a historian, so I can forgive the cringemaxxed excerpts, mostly. Hindsight being what it is, I think he vastly overstates his own distaste for the Reich during his time as a correspondent. Even with all this, I still think it's a good one to keep on hand as a seminal work in the Hitler narrative category.

>>15922179
I don't have a complete list, but here's an example:
> He became a civil servant. He was about 23 years old, I think, when he achieved his life’s dream.
>Nach fast dreiundzwanzig Jahren, glaube ich, war das Ziel erreicht.

The german sentence speaks of a passing of 23 years, not the age of the person being 23 years. That's from the first chapter, you can check here: https://www.thomasdaltonphd.com/mein-kampf-vol-1-dual

I intend to learn German, so I can read the original, 'cause I'm sick of this shit. I like Thomas Dalton, and I'm happy I supported him, but how do errors like this persist? Did he just copy/paste the Stalag edition and tweak it, calling it a new translation?

>>15923774

It doesn't look like the Manheim translation has this error.

>>15923939
No, neither does the 1941 Reynal & Hitchcock version.

>>15923959

I wish the R&H version wasn't so scarce. If you want one in good shape with the dust jacket, you're already spending good money.

>>15923993
Yeah, damn, that is ridiculous. I just looked. The Colchester Collection version is also free of the error.

>>15924139

I will probably pick up a Manheim version, but I'd like to Catch 'Em All, as it were.

>>15924387
You read "Hitler's Second Book"? Aurthur Kemp did a translation of it, I enjoyed it. I should probably buy a copy.

>>15924414

I've seen Zweites Buch kicking around, but I always thought it was some kind of Jewish trick. Is it actually legit?

>>15924437
The Arthur Kemp version opens with
>Only two copies of the 200 page manuscript were originally made, and only one of these has ever been made public. Kept strictly secret under Hitler's orders, the document was placed in an air raid shelter in 1935 where it remained until it's discovery by an American officer in 1945.

>Written in 1928, the authenticity of the book has been verified by Josef Berg (former employee of the Nazi publishing house Eher Verlag), and Telford Taylor (former Brigadier General U.S.A.R., and Chief Counsel at the Nuremburg war-crimes trials) who, after an analysis made in 1961,comments: "If Hitler's book of 1928 is read against thebackground of the intervening years , it should interest not scholars only, but the general reader.

You can decide for yourself if that's convincing, but, having read the full text myself, I can say that it doesn't do the enemy propaganda any favors. His long chapter on why Britain is an ally certainly doesn't boost the narrative that Britain was fighting for its existence.

>>15924489
>His long chapter on why Britain is an ally certainly doesn't boost the narrative that Britain was fighting for its existence.

I mean, this should be obvious to even casual readers. Hitler's wavering in Sea Lion, and his constant insistence that The British Empire remain a world power, are evidence enough of that. It was only Churchill's bullheadedness that ensured the war would continue. Isn't it interesting that Churchill was only saved by bankruptcy by Sir Strakosch, a disgusting Yid, and that he would then doggedly go on to extend the war?

I wish Churchill had died from his fucking obesity because he had the chance to replace Chamberlain. I wish Chamberlain had never been ousted.

>>15924707
>I wish Chamberlain had never been ousted.
Yeah, Chamberlain likely would have accepted a peace treaty, even though he was the one to declare war initially. Churchill was a scumbag, responding to every offer of peace by bombing civilian centers.

I'm currently looking into the discovery of zweites buch. Looking through this with google translate:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321387139_Hitlers_Zweites_Buch_-_Eine_vergessene_Quelle_der_Zeitgeschichte_zu_Hitlers_aussenpolitischen_Ansichten

>Further references to a second Hitler's book came from a credible source in the late 1950s. Josef Berg, former employee of the Franz-Eher-Verlag, testified in a letter dated September 12, 1958 to the Munich Institute for Contemporary History the existence of this second Hitler book. There was some information in Berg's letter that soon turned out to be Memory errors turned out, but otherwise quite correct statements, such as should show later.

So Joseph Berg, not the man who found the manuscript, spoke of it 3 years before it was identified and published. Still room for tricks, but it looks good for authenticity.

>>15924817
Reading further, it seems that they matched the manuscript to a WW1 typewriter. David Irving discusses in one of his talks the difficulty of forging documents, because there are so many steps to completing the forgery. Write it up on the wrong typewriter = exposed. Use the wrong ink = exposed. They can even date the ink accurately through forensic testing.

I was already confident Zweites Buch was genuine, but this all bodes well.

>>15924817
>>15924904

I appreciate the research. I will source a copy of Zweites Buch and get reading.

>>15924914
Right on.

>>15924904
Is the Table Talk genuine?

>>15925149
No, Table Talk is completely worthless. See >>15910126

This has been a nice thread, hitlerfriends.

>>15926407
A rare treat. Minimal shitflinging.

>>15909310
You might be interested the memoir Adieu, hanoi. A very touching read.