/lit/ - Literature

>>17729189
don't you have anything better to do rather than read about some obscure German politican?

>>17729216
You might not know this but he’s probably the most famous German in history. Definitely the most important person of the 20th century.

>>17729216
>obscure German politican

>>17729291
>>17729333
No one will remember Hitler in 300 years. He'll be a forgotten architect of a genocide much like the people behind genocide of the Native Americans. He's no Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great etc.

>>17729473
Lol. You're so stupid. God help you.

>>17729189
If you want my advice, you're going to have to wait at LEAST a half century on Hitler for a REALLY GOOD book on him to be written. That's the minimum.

The latter the better, that is if you want hitler explained. For now, your best bet is primary sources. The rest is rabble.

>>17729504
>The latter the better
The later*

>>17729473
He's the pivotal figure of the most important war in modern history since probably Napoleon, people are going to remember him lol.

>>17729189
For biographies, read Volker and Stolfi both for a reasonable overview. They're both biased to some extent, but to the opposing sides and only moderately so.
Also this >>17729504

>>17729189
The Lightning and the Sun - Savitri Devi
Adolf Hitler The Ultimate Avatar - Miguel Serrano

Hitler's War by David Irving

>>17729528
I'm not a huge fan of Ullrich. I feel like he retread a lot of the ground that Kershaw, Browning, et al. did.

>>17729473
The reason no one remembers 'the people behind the genocide of the native Americans' is that they don't exist. The natives died of disease, up to 90% of them. That was one of the greatest catastrophes in history. Hitler will be remembered like that is the case with the great Khan.

>>17729543
He did yes, but of that "side" I found him to be the most palatable. I prefer him to Kershaw anyway.

>>17729556
Khan actually succeeded in creating an empire, even if it collapsed after. Hitler's shenanigans were a lot more like Napoleon's, they even both got pincered in a kind of similar way by anglos and slavs and then their country became a meme.

>>17729577
Hitler failed because he was too kind, that is precisely the difference between him and the Khans: empathy. That led to his downfall.

Also logistical issues.

>>17729587
He failed because he was outnumbered about 3 to 1

>>17729189
Stolfi's book is the best over all.

>>17729601
Yes, the logistical issues. But he was also too kind, as a person. I know he was kind.
Sometimes, others like to abuse other peoples kindness.

What if he did not allow the Dunkirk evacuation. What if his bombing campaigns were more merciless. There are too many details, too many variables.

I'm just saying that people sometimes enjoy abusing others' kindness.

>>17729587
The Mongols didn't create an actual empire. They spread out like a disease for a little more than a hundred years and then collapsed and left nothing behind. Really they were just a quirk in history based on random technical developments which made primitive nomadic tribes the most militarily potent societies on the planet.
Hitler didn't plan for what happened. He pursued a political vision in the context of competition with the great empires and thought that Germany had to take eastern lands to survive in this struggle.He didn't think the Brits would declare over Poland and when they did Hitler hoped for a peaceful solution. There was no vision of world domination, the man wasn't that crazy.

>>17729657
>There was no vision of world domination, the man wasn't that crazy.
Like I said, too kind. If it was anyone who was after world domination it was the Americans (democracy) and they lucked out in the end.

>>17729686
There's nothing kind about it. Germany was a small and depleted country. To pursue world domination would've made about as much sense as the Swiss doing that. The Americans didn't really pursue domination either, they were just interested in open markets and stability and did the mininimum towards that direction. It's really the best sort of dominant Empire. Unless you're African I suppose, here a stronger hand would be advantageous for the natives.

>>17729790
The US have fucked up all sorts of countries in MENA, Asia, and LatAm. If they actually took the countries over that would be ok but instead they destroy them and then let them fester in chaos for years

>>17729473
People will remember his moustache and his haircut and that he shouted a lot in German, the way they remember Einstein as a haircut and a tongue or Da Vinci as "that one drawing of the man sticking his arms out".

>>17729790
Implying the Swiss don't kind of do that already. There's a reason *every* other country guaranteed their safety and independence in WWII.

>>17729808
The US did actually do good things for those countries in terms of living standards and all that, it's just that modernity is so unfortunate that the force accelerating toward it appears as a world poisoner. But it's not like there's much of an alternative anyway, economic rationalization is largely unpreventable so people shouldn't be so pissed at the US. The Brits did the same thing with fewer good intentions.

>>17729920
>The US did actually do good things for those countries in terms of living standards and all that,
no they fucking didn't lol. Look at Libya for a recent and awful example

>>17729928
That one is an aberration, more a random outburst of corruption from a degenerated political system. If you want to understand the effect of cold war imperial America compare North to South Korea. That's what they pursued everywhere. You can kill millions of people in a country and still do them a favor when things like communism are being prevented. Vietnam would've been the same thing without domestic subversion. Honestly if the US would've been more brutal we would've seen much better results in terms of 'humanitarian' developments. Why would you let Arabs control oil for example? That's just silly.

>>17729473
Hitler is at least on Napoleon, Ghenghis Khan, Bismarck and Caesars level. Maybe not Alexander the Great but no man really is.

>>17729189
Here is one you will find interesting "The Third Reich and the Palestine Question". Tedor's book is debatable. I suggest reading Speer, Tooze and Overy to get alternate perspectives on Germany's economy. You might find Peter Fritzsche's books interesting though he is not NS friendly.
Less to do Hitler but more to do with the "Barbarossa was preemptive" narrative. Do not read Suvorov, he is a meme. Read Constantine Pleshakov Stalin's Folly.

>>17730949
Whats wrong with Tedors? I've heard it's pretty good at tackling the NS vs Prussian conservative aspect of Germany's internal dynamic at the time.

>>17730006
Yeah Americanism worked out great in Argentina and Chile lmao. I'm sure Syria would look much better if Al-nusra had toppled Assad in 2016. Nation-building worked great for Iraq. And let's ignore Central America

>>17729189
Off topic but where the fuck did that Leatherbound Mein Kampf come from, that would be an amazing addition to my shelf of hitler books.

>>17731590
Show us your shelf of Hitler books

>>17731609
Will do when home, it's half directly hitler books and then books about third reich big names like goebbels, speer and I.G. Farben in general.

>>17731656
Good stuff

>>17729790
>There's nothing kind about it.

I think there's an element of it, if you believe Kubizek: "This war will set us back many years in our building programme. It is a tragedy. I did not become Chancellor of the Greater German Reich to fight wars."

>>17731656

I am also working on my Hitler shelf.

>>17729577
>collapsed after
> lived centuries after khan’s death

>>17729189
>>>/his/

>>17729556
>up to 90% of them
90% of the ones there when Columbus arrived. The ones who were still around when the US was settled didn't die of disease, they were systematically killed

>>17732049
>triggered commie

>>17729189
Good to see some fellow Dutch
David Irving is nice.
Don't know if I would recommend the golden thread since it is quite whacky but perhaps it can give you some idealistic ideas perhaps. If you are going to read any of that esoteric Hitlerism start with lightning and the sun.
If you want to read about Hitler most will be biased or you will just have to read about his actions and ideas so Hitlers table talk and Hitler speaks on the Jews are good in his own words

>>17731590
That leather-bound was just on Amazon for like 20 dollar. I got it too but I believe it is Murphy translation so not great. Still looks really fucking nice tho but amazon banned it.

>>17732070
I'm not triggered, your post is just off topic. please go back to /his/ or, more likely, /pol/

>>17732257
No, this is a hread perfectly suitable for /lit/, you're definitely triggered
>>17732233
Gebaseerd

>>17732233

Nice Irving. I'm waiting for the Hitler's War reprint to come out, I ordered it some time ago.

>>17731816
Hitler Shelf essentials:

Mein Kampf
Hitler's Second Book
The Essential Hitler
Hitler's Table Talk
Hitler: Beyond Evil and Tyranny
Hitler's Revolution
Adolf Hitler (John Toland's biography)
Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War"
The Lightning and the Sun
Hitler's War
White Noise

Add your favorites.

>>17732233
who published the leatherbound mein kampf

>>17732329
Is he doing another reprint? This is just the 2000 millennium edition with the war path included.

Still thinking about buying his new book about Himmler as well but don't know if I can be bothered to read 100 pages about how he was actually murdered.

>>17732349
Can't believe I forgot Hitler for 1000 Years by Degrelle.

>>17732369
Fingerprint publishing

>>17732385
can't find it anywhere. nice catch.

>>17732349

Here's my additions:
- Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by W. L. Shirer (wrong, but seminal in the study)
- Defiance by S. Devi
- Woman Against Time by S. Devi
- My New Order by A. Hitler
- Churchill's War Vol I by D. Irving
- Churchill's War Vol II by D. Irving
- The National Socialist State by G. Feder
- Manifesto For Breaking (...) by G. Feder
- The Young Hitler I Knew by A. Kubizek
- In The Bunker With Hitler by B. Loringhoven
- I Was Hitler's Chauffeur by E. Kempka
- Myth of the 20th Century by A. Rosenberg

I could go on.

>>17732370
This is the same edition, but they ran out I imagine, and I've been waiting since December for them to get new prints out.

>>17732349
The Serrano trilogy
Hitler on the Jews by Dalton

>>17732292
no, you're a /pol/ migrant who thinks reading evola and heidegger makes him /lit/

>>17732417
>wrong
Be specific as to how

>>17732453
Nope, sorry to disappoint but I'm only on this board, I never go to /pol/ nor do I come from there. You're just a sad, triggered commie who can't deal with dissenting opinions.

>>17732417
Is myth of the 20th really good
I have it lying in a box together with his memoirs but haven't gotten around to reading it yet. Basically every time he gets mentioned in another book he is just called kind of weird and to much into the pagan stuff

>>17732501
I've read mein kampf you moron. It's not literature and doesn't belong on this board.

>>17732561
>one of the most important books of the previous century
>doesn't belong on the book subreddit
What are you smoking my dude

>>17732571
important != literature
it's history. arguably shitty philosophy. not literature.

>>17732598
literature

written works, especially those considered of superior or lasting artistic merit.
Now any written work can actually be considered literature but some fags like you only apply it to ''artistic'' works
A man writing down his thoughts, his life and his plans which would go on to change the future of the whole world could definitely be considered a great work of art since the definition of art is

the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.

Now if you have read it you can clearly see that it was emotional and was and still is appreciated by people.
So even by your definition it should be considered art but you are just acting like a fag

>>17732480

He flip flops a lot on whether Hitler was a gutter tramp or a teutonic terror. He also peddled stuff like the so-called Niemoller myth about the Burgerbraukellar bombing, the Dachau myths about Rascher, etc.

>>17732617
ok, it's literature, it's just bad and uninteresting literature, whereas it's good and interesting history. Just post on the history board. Nazi fags fucking infiltrating this site ever since moot created /pol/ as a "containment" board
>just acting like a fag
please go back to /pol/ or stop talking like a middle schooler

>>17732629

Quit being a nancy and read some books for God's sake.

>>17732645
Keep seething, tranny

>>17732645
> stop talking like a middle schooler
Oh I am sorry good sir did my brash speech offend your delicate and oh so intelligent mind. Since you claim to love the arts and the written word so much I expected you to convey yourself in such a manner that you would come across as reasonable. Unfortunately you have acted in a regrettable manner to such an extend that the only right words for some scoundrel like you would be a fag, A giant fag. A dirty fag, A disgusting unwashed aids ridden fag. Now when you accuse me of speaking like a ''middle schooler'' I am in truth quite bewildered by this accusation. Did you honestly expect me to conduct myself perfectly on a site like this because I could describe that as nothing but foolish.
Good day to you sir

>>17732674
/pol/ and/or middle-school tier argument. reported your posts as underaged

>>17732695
I reported this one, too. go back, this is a board for average or higher iqs

>>17732698
>accuses others of middle-school behaviour
>gets triggered and goes crying to the teacher
Why are commies like this?

>>17732707
I just want you off this board. It wasn't always this shitty. Go away.

>>17732704
Oh my god he is even worse than a janny. He licks the janny boot.
FOR FREE

>>17732708
The Hitler threads are unironically some of the better threads around when mods don't delete them or trannies like yourself don't start reeing. I almost can't believe what a triggered crybaby you are, stop drinking the soi kiddo.

>>17732722
it doesn't take that long to report posts and, while unlikely, it does sometimes result in a ban for the stupid /pol/fag who got lost
>>17732730
no, they're not. They inevitably devolve into "debates" about the holocaust in which the /pol/fags refuse to acknowledge any evidence whatsoever while continuing to repeat the same idiotic strawmen.

>>17732740
>no, they're not. They inevitably devolve into "debates" about the holocaust in which the /pol/fags refuse to acknowledge any evidence whatsoever while continuing to repeat the same idiotic strawmen.
Yes they are. Just because you don't like them doesn't make it so. It's funny because your "side" won't accept any arguments either bur resorts to reporting because they can't tolerate dissenting opinions.

>>17732645
I've read hundreds and hundreds of books of all kinds, mostly highbrow works of acclaimed genius and can say without reservation that Mein Kampf is a singular work of genius both in the genre of polemics and zibaldone. I'd rank it with other lofty undefinable works like The Art of Melancholy and The Compleat Angler. Every educated man should consider it essential reading.

>>17732740
Ironically by saying you reported the post you also broke the rules.

>no, they're not. They inevitably devolve into "debates" about the holocaust in which the /pol/fags refuse to acknowledge any evidence whatsoever while continuing to repeat the same idiotic strawmen.
Only when you fags start talking about it like now for example. At most one or two guys throw in some holocaust denial book but they get not that much replies. Then come the ANTIFASH heroes and shit it all up just like you did in this thread which was just chilling before. Then you accuse the board of going to shit because muh evil nazi books are being discussed in a normal manner. How about you run back to your commie book club which is of course just hecking wholesome.

>>17732740
>come into a thread that's explicitly about a topic that you hate
>DURRR WHY DO THESE THREADS ALWAYS DEVOLVE INTO ARGUMENTS DURRR

>>17732775
Let's be honest the writing style is mediocre at best and the second part is not that great. I liked part one since it show how he became but part two got just kind of meh

>>17732755
no, we understand your points, they are just refuted by all evidence (which, of course, you refuse to hear). I'm fine with dissenting opinions that can be rationally defended. Yours cannot be.
>>17732775
>I've read hundreds and hundreds of books of all kinds
and apparently not learned a whole lot, based on how nonsensical your attempt at prose is.
>>17732779
there are literal recordings of Nazis talking about the final solution. It's not up for debate whether it happened. The only debate is the number, and that's 3 vs 6 million, which isn't really that much of a difference to the overall point. The only arguments /pol/fags have are "but jews don't allow you to talk about it" -- yes, I agree, it's stupid, but that doesn't prove it's not real. The other type of argument /pol/fags resort to is this:
>How about you run back to your commie book club which is of course just hecking wholesome
because they can't conceive that there are people who aren't delusional but also hate modern leftists.
>>17732786
>DURRRR WHY
no, I never asked why, I answered a question that was posed to me

>>17732800
The writing style is uneven but not mediocre, some parts are brilliant while others drag. The first part was comfier but the second part is where the real juicy bits are.

>>17732808
>no, we understand your points, they are just refuted by all evidence (which, of course, you refuse to hear).
No they're not, otherwise we wouldn't be having these discussions. Read pic (https://archive.org/details/ThomasDaltonDebatingTheHolocaust)) if you're really open to evidence.
> I'm fine with dissenting opinions that can be rationally defended. Yours cannot be.
So you're not, that's the ultimate cope. You claiming it doesn't make it so.

>>17732800
Mein Kampf is a work that transcends any commonplace conception of style. It is to be read with an open heart, bypassing the vulgar limited mind.

>>17732808
So you're not ignorant, just malicious.

>>17732808
What's nonsensical about my brief statement? I wasn't trying to be obscure or artistic.

>>17732808
Again starts about the holocaust which literally no one did but sure.
There is one recording before the end of the war by Himmler in the Posen speech but says nothing about gas chambers.
Even in court in the David Irving trail it was said there was no archeological or documentary evidence which was substantial enough to prove the existence of gas chambers so they had to rely on witness reports.
Your undisputed is far from that. Multiple parts of the holocaust have changed through the years and when the last victims died we can be quite certain more will change

>>17732846
Frankly I don't understand why anyone cares about whether or not the Holocaust happened. It's the very least interesting thing about the era.

Is the Richard Tedor book worth it?

>>17732817
It is fine but I am not the biggest fan of it. I get the ideal which drove Hitler but I must say in general he didn't go about it the smartest way. To afraid of dying before he could realize his dream so he rushed it. That's more why I prefer to read about the actual plans he laid out and think of better ways to achieve them in the long run

I don't know if you wanna read about that guy. heard he's fucking crazy. Like's to get peepeed and poopood on. Not even joke, there's a well researched article on this matter.

check out
Adolf Hitler's Guilt Feelings: A Problem in History and Psychology
R. G. L. Waite
Journal of Interdisciplinary History
on Zlibrary or something.

this thread can still be saved if we cease engagement with the tranny trying to derail it.

>>17732854
This. The Holocaust happened I just don't see the significance. Even within the context of the 20th Century alone it's completely unextraordinary, let alone when viewed within the entire span of history.

>>17732859
It's really one of the best, most objective historical analyses of Hitler's political program.

>>17732828
>otherwise we wouldn't be having these discussions
the only reason you have these discussions is because some small % of the people who read them are stupid enough to believe the and will join your cult. I've read plenty of holocaust "debates", I'm plenty familiar with the "revisionist" argument, and none of it is founded in fact. It all relies on many distinct and unlikely things to be true.
>that's the ultimate cope
it's not. I've just been on this website since 2007 and I've had too many of these "debates" to count. They all go the exact same way, and they all involved the pro-Nazi side being entirely unwilling to acknowledge any evidence. All of it is "but so-and-so was held at gunpoint when he said that" or "but they did say the holocaust didn't happen during the nuremberg trials, it just was stricken from the court record"
>>17732846
>here we go again...

>>17732854
Yeah I have my own opinions on it but in the end I always just say that I don't really care. Debating it in normal life is just to much of a chore. Plus the French revolution also wasn't without some death so it doesn't really matter.

>>17732859
Yeah it is a bit more of a positive view on the Natsoc economy and some very good statistics but I would say that the economic system still deserves more than enough critique so perhaps read wages of destruction or something besides it which is very negative

>>17732890
Sick glad I copped it. It's been in my stack for awhile, I bought it after hearing Borzoi talk about it.

>>17732864
Good take, but he didn't have much choice. If he hadn't rushed he probably would've been crushed by the globalists as well.
>>17732854
>>17732877
Because if it didn't happen, or at least not in the way we are told, all modern history can no longer be trusted, and it would expose the racket behind the holocaust industry. It's imperative that the truth gets out, whatever it may be, but it's illegal to even question it. That should send shivers down your spine by itself.

>>17732893
>I've read plenty of holocaust "debates", I'm plenty familiar with the "revisionist" argument, and none of it is founded in fact.
Retarded and disingenuous. You can disagree with them on issues, but to claim that none of it is founded in fact just proves you're an ideologue and not out for truth in any way, shape or form. Fuck off.
>It all relies on many distinct and unlikely things to be true.
Unlikely doesn't mean impossible. More unlikely things have been proven true in the past.
>I've just been on this website since 2007 and I've had too many of these "debates" to count.
Jfc get a life

>>17732846
>says nothing about gas chambers
fucking kek. is this an argument? how they were killed is an irrelevant detail, likely left up to the camps themselves to figure out. The intent is the thing that's being discussed, and the intent was there

>>17732900
I heard Borzoi just released a book. I've never read his stuff, but if it's half as autistic as his speech pattern I don't think I could deal.

>>17732914
> how they were killed is an irrelevant detail,
You cannot seriously be this disingenuous.

>>17732906
Whether you're going to believe the systemic extermination narrative or the internment camps-gone-wrong narrative, I don't think it really matters. My gripe is with the jump from "something happened and its bad" to "something happened and it was special enough to deserve the clout it as". I have never seen anyone able to explain it without falling back into some kind of veiled philo-semitism. The only way the treatment of the Holocaust by our society can be explained is as some kind of unwarranted grift at best.

>>17732913
>but to claim that none of it is founded in fact just proves you're an idealogue
it is founded in evidence that is easily explained by the mainstream theory.
>unlikely doesn't mean impossible
the likelihood that no Nazi would come forward and claim the extermination did not happen is pretty solid evidence. Yes, if you're willing to grasp on to any bit of hope, you can find some, but no, "more unlikely things" have not been proven true in the past (or, alternatively, name one)
>Jfc get a life
clearly not having this "debate" in good faith

>>17732926
>disingenuous
why do /pol/tards always try to use big words but then use them wrong? classic "95 posing as 125" attempt

>>17732916
No clue, the only Twitter meme book I ever bought was BAPbook. I like his philosophy podcast, the guy is clearly very well read. Maybe that translates into a good book on his part, but I have too much on my plate as is to add some Twitter nonsense too.

>>17732949
Yeah, Hyperpodcastism is really good. I hope he makes more.

>>17732914
>how they were killed is an irrelevant detail
Get a load of this guy
Do you even know what a revisionist is. Do you think we all act like 0 people died and every Jew was just happily dancing around or something

>>17732906
Perhaps. I think that if he would have worked together with Italy, Spain and Japan he maybe could have just become and economic force in the world which could not just be ignored like the USSR. At least if he had a better economy. That full autarky really fucked him over. It is possible the soviets would still have attacked which they then maybe could have won if he didn't start the war and just chilled for a while. Otherwise it could have been an tree way cold war which would be all right. They at least would have won the space race probs

>>17732931
>it is founded in evidence that is easily explained by the mainstream theory.
No it's not, it's only easily explained if you gloss over all the details. The fact that you're not allowed to question it says enough.
>the likelihood that no Nazi would come forward and claim the extermination did not happen is pretty solid evidence.
No, it's not. That's the exact issue with your entire line of reasoning. Can't you see you're doing what you're accusing the other side of?
>"more unlikely things" have not been proven true in the past (or, alternatively, name one)
Any intelligence conspiracy that was dismissed as crackpot but turned out to be true. Or on a totally other level, historical discoveries (cities/records/remains) that disproved widely accepted beliefs.
>clearly not having this "debate" in good faith
Why should I when you don't either? First you report me for calling your bullshit out and then claim I'm not arguing in good faith? You have some nerve. You're awfully good at pilpul though, I'll give you that. Makes me wonder if you don't have any ethnic reasons for acting like this.

>>17732929
So then it does matter.
>>17732967
The Soviets were backed by international finance (as were the Allieds), that's why the chances of him winning were always slim. David against Goliath, if you will.
>>17732939
No, it's exactly what's happening.

>>17729189
spear of destiny

>>17730936
the only person who is arguably superior to Hitler is Muhammad

>>17732969
>The fact that you're not allowed to question it says enough
this is literally your only argument. it's stupid we're not allowed to discuss this openly, but only so that idiots like you could be refuted publicly.
>Can't you see you're doing what you're accusing the other side of?
no, you'll have to explain it a little more. You are saying, literally every Nazi who was tried for exterminating Jews for some reason did not try to use "I'm innocent, we never exterminated any Jews" as a defense. I'm saying, that's implausibly unlikely if true.
>Any intelligence conspiracy that was dismissed as crackpot but turned out to be true
No, those involve governments fabricating lies. You are suggesting that historians, normal civilians, are also fabricating lies.
>Why should I when you don't either?
Good point.
>ethnic reasons
probably whiter than you, buddy

>>17730936
I mean Alexander wanted to merge all culteres together into one so that is really shit.
Ghenghis Kahn at least also ruled over his lands and made it okish
I think at a certain point it just becomes really hard to compare them because what they acieved is just so out of this world

>>17732939
>use them wrong?
How is that incorrect? He's making an assumption about your motivations, but he is using the word correctly. You're coming off as an irrational retard lashing out against a perfectly on topic thread.

>>17733135
>perfectly on topic thread
if you think this is on topic you should leave this board

>>17733166
I've been using this board since it was created. Fuck off if you don't like it.

So lads which is the best translated version of mein kampf? I want the closest to the original and apparently some of the versions cut out certain bits

>>17733219
dalton or stalag

>>17733223
Thank you

>>17733215
>has been posting in off topic threads since the board started
why does this not surprise me?

>>17733219
physical copies leave you wanting. stalag is the one to get if you need physical. however it is worth finding the reynal & hitchcock translation on archive. it's an unexpurgated and scholarly translation with copious notes to provide context.

>>17731207
It's good for some for understanding culture war aspects and ideology but sometimes it uses questionable sources (newspapers, preliminary reports, speeches) to assess the results that government policies had on the population, results that are disputed by other people who did research after the war. You can dismiss them and say, Speer was trying be the "good nazi", Tooze is a commie and Overy a germanophobe, but they imo they did better work than Tedor on those subjects.

>>17732233
Table talk's are post war fabrication, along with Goebbels Diaries

>>17732515
The myth is mainly him being a bit esoteric, claiming atlantis and all but only for the first bit, he's not as crazy as Serrano. In fact he's pretty reasonable and being a Chrstian the book made me start a quest to find a better (Pagan) faith more adjusted to my race.

The only problem with the English version of the book is that the translation is awful. It was translated by a redneck in the 80s or so, and the official story says his deposit was set aflame by some upset jews or something like that.

>>17732561
You will never be a woman

>>17733393
never tried to be, see >>17733053

>>17733053
>this is literally your only argument.
No it's not, there's more than enough arguments in the book I directed you to. You can disagree with some of them, but you can't dismiss any and all.
>You are suggesting that historians, normal civilians, are also fabricating lies.
Yes? or are you suggesting that historians, normal civilians, during nazi germany and/or soviet russia were not also fabricating lies? That they are somehow paragons of truth because they are historians and/or civilians? That they cannot be indoctrinated into perpetuating falsehoods because they're absolutely factual like robots? Retarded take. Most civilians broadly follow their government's ideology whether they are aware of it or not.
>probably whiter than you, buddy
Lmao you're a walking joke, I pity boomers like yourself who still hang around here.
And that doesn't say much because jews can look just as white as you or me. You could very well be a fellow white, if you will.

>>17733434
>That they are somehow paragons of truth
No, that's not at all what I'm saying. It's not about whether they would lie or not, it's about whether literally all of them got together and agreed to lie in the exact same way. That's the part that's absurd.

>>17733444
Why? This is the way it has been in every civilization under every ideology. Why would our current liberal one be any different? It's partly inherent to the human condition, partly (unconscious) fear of being accused of having the wrong opinion (which in this case carries quite severe consequences), partly a case of conflicting interests. It's not absurd or far-fetched at all.

>>17733522
how do you think this was coordinated?

>>17733539
The interesting thing is that it's mostly a self-sustaining system. But the gist of it is that it relies on fear and guilt (there is no holier cow than the holocaust), witness testimony instead of actual evidence (most of the actual tangible evidence is not definitive by any standard), and ethnic interests. Whatever the truth may be, the nazis treated jews horribly, and it's not far-fetched to imagine a tight-knit ethno-cultural community that identifies its own existence with surviving purges and persecution to blow it out of proportion in order to lessen the chance that something like that may ever happen again (see Finkelstein's The Holocaust Industry). Add to that the fact that most western/international media companies, publishers, academic institutions are overwhelmingly led by people of jewish background who would then either knowingly or unknowingly perpetuate that. Also a lot of material evidence was in hands of the soviets (since they took hold of most of eastern Europe after the war) and was only made public since the 1990s, well after the official narrative had already been established.
I'm not saying all this is exactly what happened - but they are issues that cannot be denied out of hand and need to be investigated, but if you try to do that you will be un-personed.

>>17733593
>self-sustaining
don't care. how did it start.

>>17733667
I already told you. Read my post again. But you should care because you asked how it was coordinated, and that plays into it.

>>17733683
I'm a semitic agent btw, not sure if that matters

>>17733692
I know, it doesn't

>>17733444
>>17733667
No more witty remarks? Too bad, but I accept your concession. Thanks for the nice chat.