I recently read Arthur Bryant’s book Unfinished Victory. It was released in 1940 and attempts to explain why Europe, and in particular Weimar Germany, developed the way they did after the Great War. This book is a quick and enjoyable read. In particular, it points out aspects that are completely ignored by the mainstream narrative today, for instance the shockingly unfair and vengeful treatment Germany received after the Great War, or the engineered hyperinflation of Weimar Germany. I want to highlight a few points I found quite remarkable.
Most interestingly, Bryant points out why there was anti-semitism in Germany, drawing attention to the scheming of the Jews. He does not babble about their supposedly high IQ but instead points to nepotism, usury, and financial engineering. One aspect I was not aware of was that many German doctors and lawyers were pushed out of their chosen profession because they could no longer afford to practice it, due to the deleterious effects of hyperinflation. Meanwhile, as Bryant points out, many Jews had international contacts, which gave them access to foreign currency. Consequently, this put them at a considerable financial advantage over Germans. In contrast, most Germans were reduced to living in abject poverty, which could be both directly and indirectly blamed on the Jews. This is the backdrop that made the rise of Hitler possible. If the common man had not been in such a vulnerable position, Hitler’s speeches would not have resonated at all with the public. Again, this is a very plausible explanation and certainly a much more reasonable one than musing about something “innately evil” in the German race, or some similar bullshit such as that the German’s had a dislike for Jews “for no reason at all.”
The German Nazi regime has not received a fair assessment in our history books, to put it mildly. It is commonly depicted as the embodiment of evil. Yet, this is again where Bryant’s perspective helps. One such instance is that the Nazis controlled the press, the so-called “Gleichschaltung”. This can be explained as a mandatory element of a totalitarian state. Yet, once could very well make the point that a totalitarian or authoritarian state could just as well nourish its own opposition. They are just for show, of course. Still, the optics are probably a bit better if you’re a totalitarian ruler and allow some renegade press to exist. So, why did the Nazis suppress freedom of speech? Bryant argues that it was a counter-reaction to how the Nazis were treated themselves. He writes that the political campaign of the NSDAP was barred from “the wireless”, i.e. radio transmission and they had great difficulty with newspapers as well. (This is just like today’s “deplatformign” of anybody who objects to the mainstream narrative.) Bryant does not draw the following conclusion, but to me it seems clear that this is the reason why Hitler was such an incredibly captivating speaker, sometimes holding four rallies a day. They had to do this because otherwise they would not have reached a wide audience. Arguably, the immense practice Hitler got as an orator was an unintended consequence of the Left denying him and his party access to regular means of mass communications.
The parallels to the current year are quite stark in other regards as well, I think. Hitler’s NSDAP had to combat a frenzied mob of leftists. He had to amass his own private army, which had to first beat up the communist mob before he could speak. Similarly, today Antifa and other thugs are used to suppress opinions the shadow government does not like. Violence is again used as a tool to limit freedom of speech. Now, would the Nazi regime possibly have been a bit less repressive had they not faced over a decade of violent, incessant prosecution by the Left? Countless leading Nazis were killed by communists, and they often didn’t even get a slap on the wrist. On the other hand, Nazi storm troopers (“Saalschutz”, which morphed into the later SA) put many more members of the red plague out of their miserable existence. However, the violence of the Right was a reaction to the violence of the Left. It was an all-out civil war back then. Could we be heading into the same direction? Considering the increasingly violent rhetoric and the immense suppression of any criticism of the globo-homo agenda, it is certainly the case that the ruling class is very afraid of a popular uprising. Violent attacks are also getting more common. We might see a civil war indeed, or maybe Western society will collapse before we get to that point. I am tempted to believe that the latter is a more likely outcome. (EDIT: I wrote the first draft of this post long before Covid-19 hit the mainstream. Now, societal collapse looks like a pretty realistic prospect.)
Bryant’s book is not without its flaws, though. For instance, he repeatedly dismisses some parts of Nazi ideology outright, without discussing them at all. He quotes from Hitler’s Mein Kampf, in which the author mocks the belief of leftist academics that heredity plays no role in humans, yet at the same time they pay great attention to the breeding of cats, dogs, and horses. This part of Hitler’s opus magnum fits the current year just as well. In the same context, Bryant dismisses Darwin’s theory of evolution, together with evolutionary genetics as a whole, as pseudo-science, which is quite something. He’s clearly throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Sure, you may not like the results of genetics, but then you should be brave enough to say that it applies to neither humans nor animals. Of course, this would be ludicrous, which is why Bryant prefers his double-think.
On a side note, Bryant correctly identifies the Nazi regime as a socialist one, which is flat-out denied by today’s mainstream narrative. In fact, Bryant points out that the Nazi flag has a red background because this links it to the traditional color of socialism. Today, we call the Nazi regime a right-wing terror regime. Yet, their policies were clearly influenced by socialism, but with a national as opposed to an international bent. Heck, it’s in the very name: National Socialism. It seems you have to be put through years upon years of “liberal” education to develop the kind of double-think that makes it possible to believe that the Nazis weren’t socialists.
Did you enjoy this article? Great! If you want to read more by Aaron, check out his excellent books, the latest of which is Meditation Without Bullshit. Aaron is available for one-on-one consultation sessions if you want honest advice. Lastly, donations for the upkeep of this site are highly appreciated.
85 thoughts on “Remarks on Arthur Bryant’s Unfinished Victory (1940)”
Speaking of illuminating books from the 1930s I can also recommend HILAIRE BELLOC’S L (an emiment Catholic man of letters of the Edwardian period) stunning “The Jews”, which is practically unknown today (have a wild guess why!). I’m currently reading it and it is really worth the time:
He doles out some tough love towards both sides: he shows how & why Europeans are giant cucks & cowards, letting themselves readily get looted and their societies undermined while he also historically demonstrates, how Jews habitually have zero respect for the lands they inhabit. It was written before WW II (2nd edition in 1937) so there’s no mention of the holocaust in it. Basically the same grievances that the Nazi’s had in the 1930s were present and repeatedly culminating in Europe for decades & centuries prior. He also foreshadows a great catastrophe for the European jews impending, should neither Europeans nor jews come to terms eith the pressing issues of the jewish question. Highly foreshadowing!
It is utterly remarkable that a book written a century ago for a specific purpose could so acutely address the same peril facing Western Nations. Truly, this is a perennial topic for Europeans. So there’s timeless insights inside these pages as well…
“the same peril facing Western Nations.”
It seems you are distinguishing between western Europe and the United States. Are you?
If I look at the opposition to the lockdown in Michigan and compare it to the half assed stuff Europe is pulling off, it seems pretty clear that these two are not the same type of “West”.
Well, it helps having a second amendment that lets you go out in front of the capital and remind the politicians, that there are more guns than citizens in your country. Can’t do that in Europe.
In my comment I referred to “Western nations” with regard to Belloc’s book as the nations of Western Europe. I didn’t mean to confuse at all, even though I actually might have.
The situation in the U.S. is quite fascinating to say the least. Let us see how all of this is going to play out…
As far as Belloc’s writing is concerned I’m going to read myself through his extremely fascinating oevre, which has until now been completely unknown go me. Yurns out he has written eminent and immediately captivating books on such diverse topics as Joan of Arc, Charlemaigne, The great heresies, Islam, Capitalism (“The Servile State”), The history and the enemies of the Catholic Church, the French revolution, on the Battle of Malplaquet, liberalism – and even witty children’s books… apparently I got hooked on some new crack! 😉
I closely follow an Italian Economist who speaks a lot about the Euro area from an economic and political point of view. One of his main concerns is the fact that the governments championing it (left wing governments) are supporting conditions of deflation and unemployment that in fact in the past have led to the rise of dictatorial regimes such as the Nazi regime (exactly because those regimes provided solutions to those untenable economic conditions). In other words, they are reproducing conditions that in the past have led to conflict.
Regarding the unfair treatment of Germany and its consequences on the German economy and Europe, I found out that Keynes write “the economic consequences of the peace”. I have not read it, but it sounds like it could be a good complement to the book reviewed in this post (which I will buy as well)
I think the same happened in Greece. Regardless of their responsibilities for their economic conditions, the measures imposed on them were just disproportionate and inhumane from my point of view and they did not promote the sense of responsibility that they were meant to (even at the IMF few years later they declared that they had exaggerated), and the investors had to accept a cut anyway (and today Greece in order to survive is controlling capital movements – great achievement for an economic area where they claim they want to promote free trade)
“Most interestingly, Bryant points out why there was anti-semitism in Germany, drawing attention to the scheming of the Jews. He does not babble about their supposedly high IQ but instead points to nepotism, usury, and financial engineering. One aspect I was not aware of was that many German doctors and lawyers were pushed out of their chosen profession because they could no longer afford to practice it, due to the deleterious effects of hyperinflation. Meanwhile, as Bryant points out, many Jews had international contacts, which gave them access to foreign currency. Consequently, this put them at a considerable financial advantage over Germans. In contrast, most Germans were reduced to living in abject poverty, which could be both directly and indirectly blamed on the Jews. This is the backdrop that made the rise of Hitler possible. If the common man had not been in such a vulnerable position, Hitler’s speeches would not have resonated at all with the public. Again, this is a very plausible explanation and certainly a much more reasonable one than musing about something “innately evil” in the German race, or some similar bullshit such as that the German’s had a dislike for Jews “for no reason at all.””
I am curious. The history of anti-Semitism predates Hitler. It already developed in Germany during the late 19th century. See wikipedia entry on anti-Semitism, etymology section:
What is the primary sources that Bryant used to construct this so-called Jewish conspiracy.
” Bryant argues that it was a counter-reaction to how the Nazis were treated themselves.”
This seems to be similar to the argument that the Communists suppress freedom of press due to the fact that they were repressed themselves by any kind of former government. They also tended to only trust comrades who had spent years in prisons.
Have you read the book German book “Germany’s Aims in the First World War” by Fritz Fischer. It emphasizes the fact that many of Nazy policies dated back the policies of the Second Reich.
I do not share his view that Germany was majorly responsible for the First World War, but I think he has examined almost the entire German archives related to the First World War.
Anti-semitism has been around for as long as Jews have been around. Of course, we can no longer discuss this issue openly and instead have to pretend that the fact that the Jews have been kicked out from basically every country they ever entered is completely inexplicable.
Bryant wrote this book as a contemporary observer. He had first-hand knowledge himself.
Sorry to break it to you, but Fischer is garbage. He quotes his sources very selectively, or misinterprets them outright to fit his narrative. He pretends to convince you that the war was deliberately engineered by Germany, the same way Bismarck purposefully engineered the wars of 1862, 1866 and 1870-71, but can only do so by being intellectually dishonest.
For example, he takes several quotes from Naumann, Bethmann-Hollweg and the Kaiser himself during the July Crisis, arguing in favor of war, that “the timing is right.” However, if you put them in context, the quotes refer to war between Austria-Hungary and Serbia. They were actually counting on the Entente powers (UK, France, Russia) to stand aside, they thought it unlikely these countries would actually go to war with Germany over Serbia.
It was a risky gamble and it backfired spectacularly, but its easy to see in hindsight. At the time it was much less obvious.
“Anti-semitism has been around for as long as Jews have been around. Of course, we can no longer discuss this issue openly and instead have to pretend that the fact that the Jews have been kicked out from basically every country they ever entered is completely inexplicable.”
A lot of these hatred seem to be unfounded. The Jews themselves didn’t seem to eradicate any kind of ethnic groups. Among some of forms of Anti-Semitism that I read about during the medieval period is the fact that they were tax-collectors and money-lenders. There were only a small portion of Jews who involved in these activities. Some of these acts were outright stealing, like the confiscation of Parisian Jews in 1182 by king Philippe II Augustus. The reason was that French crowns lacked money and thought of ways to enrich themselves. This is similar to the act of looting Buddhist temples for their wealth during the reign of Emperor Tang Wuzong (會昌毀佛) “The Destruction during Wuchang Era”. The Jews were in no ways the only usurers in Western Europe.
If you are particularly interested in this topic, here is a free detailed Phd Disserations:
I still think anti-Semitism during the Third Reich is distinct from older anti-Semitism. They emphasized racial inferiority.
Many of these allegations are false, like the fact that Jews didn’t enter into military service of the German Empire.
I think the Germans were unable to cope with the fact that they were defeated in the World War I. They find multiple reasons to explain for their defeats, among them were unfounded anti-Semitic sentiments.
So you are claiming that Bryant made up his explanation for anti-semitism in Weimar Germany? Bryant’s position makes a lot of sense. In contrast, you seem to be making an unfounded claim, so maybe you want to share some of your reasoning. Right now, it amounts to little more than stating that you don’t believe the Jews did anything wrong.
Also, you should acknowledge that Bryant makes a much more nuanced argument. He does not make all-encompassing claims accusing “all jews” of X, Y, or Z. Thus, it is quite irrelevant that some Jews may have been killed in the Great War.
“So you are claiming that Bryant made up his explanation for anti-semitism in Weimar Germany? Bryant’s position makes a lot of sense. In contrast, you seem to be making an unfounded claim, so maybe you want to share some of your reasoning. Right now, it amounts to little more than stating that you don’t believe the Jews did anything wrong.”
How can I claim something if I don’t even know what is the description of Bryant on the Jewish wrongdoings. That is why I ask you to share some of his descriptions.
The quality of any historical work lies in its inclusion of sources. This is why I ask you what is the sources that Bryant use to construct the wrongdoings of the Jews in the Weimar Republic. You state that he is a contemporary and has first-hand knowledge. My view is that the fact that he is a contemporary does lend itself some merits, but we have to consider what is his “first-hand knowledge”. Was he personally in Germany during the formation of the Third Reich, was he an official in the government of Hitler. Almost all historical sources are blended with biases from the authors, so it is valuable to detect them. Also, if he gives some references to the wrongdoings of the Jews, we can cross-examine sources to verify his claims.
I am just stating that many forms of anti-Semitism in imperial era and post-war period are simply unfounded.
You may want to read the book or at least the parts relevant to this point before rushing to the defense of the Jews. Bryant was a mainstream historian. He is using mainstream sources in his book.
Which page is it? I will read them when I have time.
What is the mainstream sources, for example?
Bryant uses Mainstream newspapers like the Times etc. You can’t expect me to do your legwork. Frankly, it’s a bit ridiculous that your position is that you believe I’m wrong (or Bryant) and instead of checking out the book yourself, I’m supposed to provide you with page numbers and sources. You could have found out that Bryant is using mainstream sources by clicking on the link I provided in the article and simply flicking through the book in the PDF viewer on archive.org.
Here is an excerpt from page 139:
“In the 1924 Reichstag nearly a quarter of the Social Democratic representatives were Jews.”
I am unable to find his reference to the source that he uses for this. You know German, so you may be able to obtain a list of all representatives of the 1924 Reichtag election.
“In business, according to figures published in 1931 by a Jewish statistician, they controlled 57% of metal trade, 22% of the grain and 39% of textiles. Of 98 members of the Berlin Chamber of Commerce and Industry, 50, or more than half were Jewish, and of the 1474 of the Stock Exchange in 1930 no less than 1200…”
The paragraph is longer, but I couldn’t find any mention of primary sources that contain these figures. I have actually spent a good half hour looking on google with various relevant keywords, but couldn’t locate the primary sources of these numbers.
On page 140:
“…a telephone conversation between three Jews in Ministerial Offices could effect the suspension any newspaper in the State. It was a power that was frequently used.”
He cites “Germany puts the clocks back”, page 177, but I was able to locate this passage on page 228 of this book:
The work doesn’t cite any primary source for these instances.
On page 141:
“as if Germans culturally life was to be completely transformed into Jewish hands,…”
He cites Montz Goldstein, but didn’t specify the source for this quote.
Luckily, I was able to trace it to this article of Goldstein “German Jewry’s Dilemma: The Story of a Provocative Essay”:
I don’t have access to this journal portal, so if you have, please download and read it to make sure that author was not quoted out of context.
The same article of Goldstein also mentioned these:
“Sex seems to be regarded as a Jewish vice of which the good German people know nothing except the procreation of children in legal wedlock.”
“Scandal trails are recorded when the defendants were Jews, suggesting that no such crimes were committed by the non-Jews.”
These are evidences that Jews were discriminated in Hitler’s time.
In general, I won’t say that Bryant is inaccurate, but I find his lack of citing sources violates the code of historians. We must cite sources to ensure that our readers are able to cross-check, hence affirming our conclusion.
Don’t you find it more plausible that anything that is obvious or which was, at the time of writing, widely acknowledged as true wouldn’t be referenced with a source or an explanatory footnote? The German Social Democratic Party (SDP) was a stronghold of Jews. Every educated German, even nowadays, is familiar with names like Rosa Luxemburg who was a Jewish revolutionary and a member of the SPD.
I appreciate your criticism, but you also need to take into account that some facts where, at the time of writing, simply widely known to be true. Likewise, Jewish dominance in certain industries is not seriously disputed. In fact, Jews often boast about it. It’s only downplayed when it’s a problem. The case of Jeffrey Epstein is an excellent case in point. His Wikipedia page used to refer to him as a “Jewish financier”, but once he had fallen from grace, his profile got significantly “de-jewed”. On a similar note, the quote on p. 140 may strike you as outlandish, but Jewish domination of the German newspaper industry in Weimar Germany is a simple fact. Jewish influence on German culture, for instance their dominance in the theater industry, is also undisputed.
To further illustrate the major issue with your style of inquiry: Imagine someone wrote a book on recent Germany history that is primarily intended for the general public. Do you think they would bother citing primary sources for contemporary events? Also, the kind of sources you may have in mind (academic, “serious” works) tend to get written decades after the fact. You can’t expect someone to cite doctoral dissertations and academic journal articles in such circumstances.
Lastly, if you want to dispute the author, it would be your task to do so by citing contradictory evidence.
Well, I am not an expert in the field of Jewish people in Weimar republic. I have tried to read further from other sources and it seems that the Jews played a prominent role in Post-war Germany. Like this document:
What bothers me is that it seems you are sympathetic to the Holocaust and that the prominence of some Jews in Weimar republic is just reason for the infamous extermination.
This reminds me of the Hua (Chinese) prominence in the Southern Vietnam (Republic of Vietnam) economy. They bribed the officials and evaded taxes. They were later expunged due to the Sino-Vietnamese War in 1979.
I still think that expulsion and extermination of people based on the so-called concept of race is morally damnable. No reasons can justify for such a massive and systematic killing.
I have read that many Jews already assimilated into German culture, and regarded their Jewish origin as only one among other identities.
I want to read more on why the Nazi hated the Jews. From what I have read from my textbooks, they were blamed for the defeat of Germany in WWI. This is the stab-in-the-back myth. These allegations are clearly false because the Judenzählung (Jewish census) taken by the German Imperial Army in 1916 was wrong:
I have also read Fritz’s book as mentioned above and I find that anti-Semitism and racism had already existed in the pre-WWI Germany. It was an abhorrent ideology.
This book is very interesting, perhaps you can have a look
Scapegoating of minorities is not a new phenomena, nor is it limited to the jewish people, although is it the example that comes more readily to mind in western culture.
This is worse in the case of “successful” minorities, that is, successful in comparison to the majority of the population. Happens to jews, happens to chinese diaspora communities, happend to lebanese diaspora communities, happened to armenians in Turkey, still happens to european descended peoples in some parts of Africa and Latin America as well. That by itself, of the fact that they dominate certain economic sectors does not tell you as much as people sometimes assume.
I know there is a debate about whether the inflation in Germany was a consequence of excessive reparations or if t was deliberate, I have not a firm position on that yet. I used to be on the latter side of the debate, but the more I read the more I gravitate to the former. If true, it was very much in line with the objective of german nationalists to sabotage the reparations scheme, as a first step to undermine the unjust Versailles system.
Even if this were not thecase, its a stretch to say it was engineered by jews for profit – taking opportunistic advantage of circumstances is not proof that these circumstances were engineered to benefit any particular group. You can just as plausibly make the case that jewish bussiness culture and practices make them more resilient to economic disruption more generally.
Sorry Aaron, but pointing out jews often get kicked out of places seems to imply they somehow deserved it? Would you say the same of the white africans kicked out from Zimbabwe of South Africa?
You forgot to mention that Hitler often referred to the enemy as judeo-bolsheviks, which is understandable as plenty of jews supported the communist revolution initially. But it would be stupid to conclude that the communist regime was a jewish plot of some sort – the communists in fact persecuted jews as well, their early support for Israel notwithstanding.
It is a fact that the early Bolshevik leadership was predominantly comprised of Jews. Thus, it is a clear victory of Israeli propaganda that this has now become some kind of “antisemitic canard”.
Also, financial manipulation to benefit one particular group has happened rather frequently throughout history. Sure, it could all just a strange coincidence.
Srry, little mixup – I meant to say, the more I read about the inflation of the early 20s, the more I am convinced it was deliberate policy.
“Don’t you find it more plausible that anything that is obvious or which was, at the time of writing, widely acknowledged as true wouldn’t be referenced with a source or an explanatory footnote? The German Social Democratic Party (SDP) was a stronghold of Jews. Every educated German, even nowadays, is familiar with names like Rosa Luxemburg who was a Jewish revolutionary and a member of the SPD.”
I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but without citing clearly where he got his information, how do I know that the stuffs he wrote didn’t come from Nazi propaganda leaflets, movies, documentaries? Propaganda is almost a science for secret intelligence agencies to study.
The sources must be reliable, quoted directly. Unless he wrote it as an eye-witness account.
“It is a fact that the early Bolshevik leadership was predominantly comprised of Jews. Thus, it is a clear victory of Israeli propaganda that this has now become some kind of “antisemitic canard”.”
Wiki said this is a conspiracy theory. I don’t understand. Jews normally suffered from segregation. They lived in their ghettos, were constantly abused and discriminated. How do they took part in such an event with great numbers?
You need to read non-mainstream sources. Judging by this and others of your blogs, I’m tempted to believe that you’re a troll.
Calling someone a troll without a proof is actually an insult. I wish to have a serious discussion. At the very least, it helps enriching both parties.
Let me be frank. I find that you have a strong tendency to believe in conspiracy theories and become a fervent Nazi apologist.
The definition of an internet troll, according to wiki:
In internet slang, a troll is a person who starts flame wars or upsets people on the Internet by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses and normalizing tangential discussion, either for the troll’s amusement or a specific gain.
I have committed none of that.
If anything, I respectfully ask you to provide concrete sources for many claims that come from Bryant. My concern is legitimate.
I thought that you would be calm and collective given your long-time training in meditation. I am impressed that you are well-versed in formal logic and mathematics. Yet I don’t know what has taken you to the path of being an internet aggressor.
I made a typo or maybe it the autocorrection had messed up. I wanted to write “posts” not “blogs”. You’re engaging in “concern trolling”.
“Judging by this and others of your blogs, I’m tempted to believe that you’re a troll.”
By my “blog”, do you mean this blog of mine:
I don’t see how those contents are what can be called the work of a troll. They are written mostly in my native language, except for a single unfinished translation in English.
CQV: I looked at your blog. I can’t understand a word but I have to say I laughed at the picture of Tạ Chí Đại Trường. He looks like a Vietnamese George Bush. 🙂
I have watched the anti-Semitic propaganda Der Ewige Jude:
At 39:32 It says as followed: “The relativity Jew Albert Einstein, the master of hatred of Germans behind his obscure pseudo-science.”
This kind of sources cannot be trusted until they are verified by cross-examination of sources.
You really should look into Einstein a bit more. That guy was quite a fraud. Also, you have to take into account how science progresses. It takes a long time until ideas get accepted and they can always get disproven.
I’m not sure I follow your argument. You can use anything as sources. The question is simply what you want to show. Surely, you could write a book on anti-Jewish propaganda and point to “Der Ewige Jude”. Also, you should give the Nazis a bit more credit than you’re willing to because stereotypes are generally grounded in reality. You may find the presentation and content of that movie reprehensible. However, you may also want to read what Goebbels had to say about propaganda. A key point of successful propaganda, according to him, is to not lie because then your opposition only needs to point out your lies. Today’s propagandists no longer adhere to that principle, however.
“You really should look into Einstein a bit more. That guy was quite a fraud. ”
I am very interested to learn more about why he was a fraud.
Really, you can’t always expect others to do all the work for you. For starters, check this out:
I don’t really see the link between hyperinflation and the rise of the Nazis and Hitler. The hyperinflation lasted from late 1922 to late 1923, and Hitler did not become chancellor until Janury 1933, almost 10 years after the hyperinflation ended.
The election following the hyperinflation, in May 1924, the National Socialist Freedom Movement (a placeholder party since the Nazi party had been banned after the Beer Hall Putsch) only received 6.5% of the vote. Another election was held in December of the same year, and they received only 3.0 % of the vote. In the election of 1928, the Nazis party had been legalized again, and they received even fewer votes – only 2.8%.
If there is a link between the hyperinflation and Hitler’s rise to power, I don’t see it in this article. Did I miss something, or is there something in the book that clarifies this?
By the way, I chuckled at this:
“He does not babble about their supposedly high IQ but instead points to nepotism, usury, and financial engineering. One aspect I was not aware of was that many German doctors and lawyers were pushed out of their chosen profession because they could no longer afford to practice it, due to the deleterious effects of hyperinflation. Meanwhile, as Bryant points out, many Jews had international contacts, which gave them access to foreign currency. Consequently, this put them at a considerable financial advantage over Germans.”
This sounds exactly like many complaints about minority Chinese who have achieved great success in other countries in Asia. I don’t know to what extent this played a role in German anti-Semitism, but I guess we can always trust good old human jealousy to get people upset. 🙂
Ooops! I made a mistake in this post – the Nazi share of the vote in 1928 was 2.6%, and not 2.8%. My apologies.
Hyperinflation had some long-term consequences. Due to hyperinflation in Germany, access to foreign money made it possible to buy up assets for cheap.
There are some parallels between Jews and the Chinese. For instance, many Canadians and Australians complain about getting squeezed out of the real estate market because they can’t compete with Chinese buyers who are looking for a safe haven for their money. However, I would say that the Chinese are much more interested in a symbiotic relationship as opposed to an extractive one. Also, I’d be careful to use the term “jealousy” (“envy” is probably more suitable as it’s about material possessions) to downplay the macro-economic effects. I’d say that both in Weimar Germany as well as in Canada and Australia today, and many other countries, the issue is a weak government, caused by post-war chaos in Germany and liberal fantasies today, that does not protect its citizenry. A war-torn country can’t, but today’s governments simply are not willing to. They happily sell out their countries.
I actually post a longer response to this thread, but it is not published.
“the issue is a weak government,”
I’d say the isssue is that the currency can be inflated at all. Everything else is just a side effect.
Of course, telling a typical gold-bug, that you could still print money under a gold standard is how you trigger them jnto oblivion.
Fact is: True hard money would’ve made the first and the second World War impossible.
History doesn’t repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme. Germans, from what I can tell, have shame and embarassment for the Nazi regime.
Now in USA, it seems like the shame and self-hate is reaching the same levels as in Germany. In this video (link below), there are white people kneeling and seeking forgiveness from blacks for slavery (and such starting from 400 years ago):
Silver linin: At least we’re not grovelling before or bowing to Greta Thunberg anymore…
At least, these peoples sincerely remorse their past wrongdoings. In Communist China where Mr. Sleazy praise with all his heart, the people are totally ignorant of what their government did to them during the Four Years Hunger, the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution. Almost everything that is valuable to Chinese culture is trampled by the Communist Party. And that is not to say that they deliberately conserved their force for a final shadow rather than resisting the Japanese Imperial Army.
What kind of warped mind that supports this kind of institution?
“Now in USA, it seems like the shame and self-hate is reaching the same levels as in Germany. In this video (link below), there are white people kneeling and seeking forgiveness from blacks for slavery (and such starting from 400 years ago):”
Uhm, no. It’s not the same levels.
What you see there are individual dumbfucks who virtue signal. You know when the guilt has reached Germany-levels? When it becomes institutionalized.
In Germany, schools take their students to concentration camps. That’s a level the US is far away from, on so many levels.
When the US bans homeschooling like Germany has, when the US bans Holocaust-criticism and makes an exception in its 1st amendment, when the US takes their students to some place that apparently is the symbol of whatever is the origin of racism and promotes guilt, then, and only then can you compare it to Germany’s level of self-hate and guilt. As of now, it’s not institutionalized.
Oh boy, if we could just make this guilt go away. I’d love to live in a Germany that doesn’t hate itself the way it does, I’d love to be able to honestly say that I’m proud to be German. There are an infinite number of things to be proud of as a German and all this country does is rot away in guilt and self-hate. It’s pathetic and the sad reality is that someone who behaves like that deserves the live he lives.
In Germany, school-children are also forced to watch Schindler’s List, which is reprehensible Jewish propaganda. It contains nonsense like an SS guard shooting inmates for fun. You can bet that any German doing that would have been court-marshaled. The Nazis didn’t arbitrarily kill civilians. Of course, there were instances like killing the communists who murdered Horst Wessel in cold blood.
While the United States has not elevated slavery to the same status as Germany has its six million, it is certainly the case that there is massive indoctrination going on. The TV show “Roots” is popular in U.S. high schools, for instance, which fulfills the same purpose as Schindler’s List in German classrooms.
I have seen the Pianist in which a German officer shot Jews after ordering them to stand out of the line.
Maybe this is also a piece of Jewish propaganda?
I have also watched Come and See, a Soviet masterpiece. According to wiki, an officer said that all of actions in the movie was truthful. The director, Elen Klimov, was a kid when he left Stalingrad.
I’m not denying that some Germans did atrocious things in the war, just like any of their opponents did. However, this is a far cry from the absurdities that are made up by Hollywood and other interested parties. For instance, you have Jews telling bullcrap that Mengele had built Rube Goldberg machines that randomly hit the head of an inmate with a hammer.
Are you claiming that Amon Goth did not kill Jews arbitrarily?
“The Nazis didn’t arbitrarily kill civilians.”
Is there a proof for this statement?
Are you familiar with the expression, “the exception proves the rule”? Posts like this make me seriously doubt that you are arguing in good faith. You should also know that I’m a very patient man who readily gives people the benefit of the doubt online (not so much offline), but I do have my limits.
The Nazis weren’t quite the monsters the Jews make them out to be. For instance, they generally followed the Geneva convention, they furthermore refrained from using biological and chemical weapons, even though they had access to them, and also they also refrained from bombing civilian cities until they were pressured to do so. One of the biggest propaganda lies is “The Blitz”, which wasn’t some vile surprise attack on London for no reason at all but revenge for Britain’s bombing of German cities. That’s also why the German rockets were called “Vergeltungswaffe”, i.e. “revenge weapon”. That’s where the V in V-1 and V-2 comes from.
“Are you familiar with the expression, “the exception proves the rule”? Posts like this make me seriously doubt that you are arguing in good faith. You should also know that I’m a very patient man who readily gives people the benefit of the doubt online (not so much offline), but I do have my limits.”
You are telling me that Amon Goth was the exception?
How do you explain for the very existence of the Einsatzgruppen.
What about the depiction of Jews being killed randomly the Pianist? That is a lie?
“I’m not denying that some Germans did atrocious things in the war, just like any of their opponents did. However, this is a far cry from the absurdities that are made up by Hollywood and other interested parties. For instance, you have Jews telling bullcrap that Mengele had built Rube Goldberg machines that randomly hit the head of an inmate with a hammer.”
Your example is sadly trivial to the mountain of evidences that show how brutal the Nazis were towards the Jews.
Some? You cannot deny the extermination camps established by Nazi government. This is also a lie?
That is systematic killing, eradicating a whole host of people.
This movie has some footages, see 1:26:00.
I couldn’t trace the origin of these footages, but if you can find any information that proves that these footages are faked, I will highly appreciate that.
“For instance, they generally followed the Geneva convention”
That may be true for American and British Empire prisoners, but not true in the Eastern Front. There are countless evidences to suggest that German soldiers executed or mistreated Soviet POW.
The lyrics of the famous song Sacred War mentions:
The rapists and the plunderers,
The torturers of people.
“Posts like this make me seriously doubt that you are arguing in good faith. ”
Please rest assured that I want to have a serious and productive discussion. You have taken an orthodox stance, so please expect to encounter strong pressures.
I can’t help but to think that you haven’t read deeply into the literature of Holocaust, as well as the Eastern Front. I don’t know why you have chosen those “non-mainstream” books.
I have to admit that the kind of self-hate that happens to Germans is due to the fact that Germans were defeated in WW2. When we look at Russia, they whitewash all traces of the Great Purge, the Holodomor, and the maltreatment of their own soldiers who surrendered to the German Army.
I believe that these kinds of things should be forever instill in the mind of the people.
I mean this movie, please watch it for the footages that I mentioned above:
You’re engaging in “concern trolling”.
I openly object some of your claims. I don’t pretend to support your causes. Hence, I am not concern-trolling you on your blog.
Besides, how do you distinguish between concern troll and dissident?
“you have Jews telling bullcrap that Mengele had built Rube Goldberg machines that randomly hit the head of an inmate with a hammer.””
Mengele? Josel Mengele? Maybe he didn’t invent that kind of machine, he only performed experiment on humans.
That much cannot be just bullshit.
Do you think he was the only doctor who conducted human experiments? Maybe look into the truly horrific research programs the US pulled off. The ones we know about, such as MKUltra, are revolting enough, turning innocent people into vegetables based on pseudo-science. I don’t want to know what’s sitting in classified U.S. archives.
If you did a bit more research, you’d find that the vilification of the Nazis is rather hypocritical.
The Americans performed experiments on humans as well. Where’s the outrage there? Just look at this rap sheet:
Just to be clear, my intention is not to engage in some kind of “whataboutism”. Instead, I want to point out that the broad vilification of the Nazi regime is unjustified when you consider what other countries did at that time or, in the case of the United States, are doing to this very day.
“The ones we know about, such as MKUltra, are revolting enough, turning innocent people into vegetables based on pseudo-science. I don’t want to know what’s sitting in classified U.S. archives.”
I didn’t know about this project. Thank you!
Nevertheless, you cannot find in the USA the kind of racial extermination that was found in Nazy Germany.
“Just to be clear, my intention is not to engage in some kind of “whataboutism”. Instead, I want to point out that the broad vilification of the Nazi regime is unjustified when you consider what other countries did at that time or, in the case of the United States, are doing to this very day.”
Nazi didn’t just do human experimentation, they built extermination camps, concentration camp, massacring Soviet civilians, etc. So while their vilification on human experimentation is rather hypocritical ( agree with you on this), vilification on other issues still stand.
“Where’s the outrage there? ”
There are public outrage as documented on Wikipedia:
“Public outrage in the late 20th century over the discovery of government experiments on human subjects led to numerous congressional investigations and hearings, including the Church Committee and Rockefeller Commission, both of 1975, and the 1994 Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments, among others.”
Oh, that kind of outrage sure is at about the same level as the non-stop Nazi hysteria the Jews have been drumming up for about 100 years.
“Nevertheless, you cannot find in the USA the kind of racial extermination that was found in Nazy Germany.”
The Native Americans might disagree…
You mean the Indians were exterminated? You mean the Trail of Tears?
If the US had wanted to exterminate them, why not shoot them, instead of relocating them?
Are you serious? The whole North American continent used to be populated by Natives, how many are there in the US today and what sort of position do they hold in society? The US even deliberately tried to make the Buffalo extinct because that wad the Indians main source of food.
“Are you serious? The whole North American continent used to be populated by Natives, how many are there in the US today and what sort of position do they hold in society? The US even deliberately tried to make the Buffalo extinct because that wad the Indians main source of food.”
I don’t know about the population of Native Americans in the whole American continent before the arrival of Columbus. However, the current population of Native Americans in the United States is roughly 3 million. There is no reason to believe that the population of Indians in the 19th century is larger than this number. Thus if we think of the population of Indians before the American Revolution, they could not occupy the whole country. There were lots of lands to explore, uninhabited and all that.
As I said, if American whites wish to destroy the Native Americans, exterminating them, obliterating them from the map, they would shoot them, burn them, hack them to pieces, instead of taking part in a long arduous journey, which endangered themselves in the process.
“However, the current population of Native Americans in the United States is roughly 3 million. There is no reason to believe that the population of Indians in the 19th century is larger than this number.”
So what? The global jewish population has returned to its pre WW2 numbers, I don’t think anyone takes that as evidence that they weren’t the victims of genocide.
“From the time Europeans arrived on American shores, the frontier—the edge territory between white man’s civilization and the untamed natural world—became a shared space of vast, clashing differences that led the U.S. government to authorize over 1,500 wars, attacks and raids on Indians, the most of any country in the world against its indigenous people. By the close of the Indian Wars in the late 19th century, fewer than 238,000 indigenous people remained, a sharp decline from the estimated 5 million to 15 million living in North America when Columbus arrived in 1492.”
“So what? The global jewish population has returned to its pre WW2 numbers, I don’t think anyone takes that as evidence that they weren’t the victims of genocide.”
That is not what I meant. You have to re-read what you wrote:
Here is what you wrote:
““Are you serious? The whole North American continent used to be populated by Natives, how many are there in the US today and what sort of position do they hold in society? The US even deliberately tried to make the Buffalo extinct because that wad the Indians main source of food.””
I counter your point: “The whole North American continent used to be populated by Natives”
They didn’t. There were many places that were inhabited.
““From the time Europeans arrived on American shores, the frontier—the edge territory between white man’s civilization and the untamed natural world—became a shared space of vast, clashing differences that led the U.S. government to authorize over 1,500 wars, attacks and raids on Indians, the most of any country in the world against its indigenous people. By the close of the Indian Wars in the late 19th century, fewer than 238,000 indigenous people remained, a sharp decline from the estimated 5 million to 15 million living in North America when Columbus arrived in 1492.””
These were caused by war, not genocide. This number is still no that high if you compare to the number of deaths in China and Western Asia (the Islamic World) at the time of the Mongol invasion. Yet nobody said the Mongol attempted to eradicate the whole people. This is essentially different from what the Nazi did to the Jews, the Turks did to the Armenians.
Again, you haven’t answered my inquiry. If the US attempted to massacre the Indian tribes, why not just summarily executed any of them on sight, burnt them, and destroyed them similar to how the Nazi did to Belarussians and Ukranians?
Also, the causes of death might not purely due to military actions, but diseases.
I do not outright contend your point, I just think that the death of native Americans is essentially different from the Holocaust, Armenian Genocide and Cambodian Genocide. Why? Because they accomplished total annihilation in little time, and employed the most effective methods.
I’ve found an argument that counter my own points and it will be in your favour. As you already see, I compared the decline of Native Indian population with the Holocaust, the Armenian Genocide and the Cambodian Genocide. My point is that if the US wished to utterly wipe out the Native Indian tribes, they would employ similar methods that were used in those genocides.
Here is a counterargument. The similarity between those genocides is that the people who are subjected to the massacre were all subjected to the central authority. This makes their massacre much easier. In contrast, the native Indians were not all subjected to the US government. They remained untamed, thus wholesale massacre to the extent of those genocides could not be carried out. Their population must be reduced by intentional contamination and wars.
If you stand by this position, then suddenly my argument will become much weaker.
“When the US bans homeschooling like Germany has, when the US bans Holocaust-criticism and makes an exception in its 1st amendment,”
Why not ban Holocaust-criticism? Please correct me if I make a mistake, but I interpret it as Holocaust denial.
It is definitely one of the greatest crime of humanity that has ever been committed.
And Germany should also shoulder the responsibility of killing not just Jews, but also Belarusian, Russians and Ukrainians as well.
I view Germans in a much a better light than say Japanese, many of whom do not repent for their sins committed to China.
If you believe in the law cause-and-effect of Buddhism, then the self-hate that Germans carry with them is the consequence of the sins they committed during the WWII
1. It’s about free speach, not anybody’s feelings.
2. I have a strong feeling that a) you are on the wrong blog and b) Aaron will block you very soon.
If this blog upholds it’s standard, then he won’t ban me. If he is the same kind of person that exhorts the political system that he has little understanding, then go ahead, just ban me.
That proves that he opposes all value that he supports, including the freedom of speech
“1. It’s about free speach, not anybody’s feelings.”
Any kind of freedom must-have it limit. The government should retain some degrees of censor, this is to prevents flows of harmful ideas to spread out and cause instability to the society.
Holocaust denials and Nazi sympathizers don’t have the right to utter speeches because they base their statements on dubious or out right wrong sources. That kind of garbage should be kept way from future generations.
Hey man, I was about to post in the other thread to defend you against Aaron’s claim that you are a troll, but after reading this stuff I can’t really do that any more.
You seriously approve of kneeling to people and apologizing for other people’s racism?
(I assume you are not a racist yourself.)
I’d be totally cool to apologize to any person I had wronged myself (but without kneeling), but not for some random claim against a person I don’t even know.
Claiming that you should apologize for something just because of the color of your skin sounds pretty racially profiled to me, heh.
And of course Holocaust denial should be legal. Yes, it is dubious and wrong, but one of the points of freedom of speech is that it applies even to that which is wrong, morally or factually. The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that the free speech protections of the European Convention on Human Rights applies even to “repugnant” speech, and the U.S. Supreme Court has steadfastly resisted even the slightest restrictions on freedom of speech. It’s one of the few areas where both liberal and conservative justices often come together as one.
As to your criticisms of Aaron’s China views, I think he’s making a distinction between pre- and post-Xiaoping China. China was an absolute hellhole before Deng Xiaoping’s reforms, but has improved markedly since. I disagree with Aaron on China and find the U.S., despite its many flaws, to still be a far superior country. But I’m not going to mischaracterise his arguments.
There are things that can be discussed. Historical revisionism is not always toxic. But Holocaust denial, along with Holodomor or Four years famine must be ingrained in the public consciousness. Any effort to erase them is a crime, no matter from what angle you look at it. If you agree that Holocaust denial is wrong then why do you defend it? If it is wrong, then it is wrong. And any effort to say otherwise is meaningless. Germany had to go through de-Nazification to be where it is right now. I want to emphasize the fact that Hitler’s policy is a continuation of German aggressive policy that predates the WW1. Racial anti-Semitism is very distinct from religious one.
“You seriously approve of kneeling to people and apologizing for other people’s racism?
(I assume you are not a racist yourself.)
I’d be totally cool to apologize to any person I had wronged myself (but without kneeling), but not for some random claim against a person I don’t even know.’
It is an act of seeking forgiveness. You can do it if you want to, nobody forces you to do so. Whether you decide to knee or not depends on the severity of your wrongdoings. It also depends on your culture. I have seen pictures how Europeans knee, that is half-kneeing in my culture. You should kow-tow to pay respect to your parents according to ancient customs. Filiality is still the mainstay of East Asian ethics. I and
my younger sister used to know tow before our mother to ask for forgiveness. She know tows us to express her grievance.
Many past descendants of Vietnam veterans came to apologize and contribute donation to families that suffer loss from the war.
“I think he’s making a distinction between pre- and post-Xiaoping China. China was an absolute hellhole before Deng Xiaoping’s reforms, but has improved markedly since. I disagree with Aaron on China and find the U.S., despite its many flaws, to still be a far superior country. But I’m not going to mischaracterise his arguments.”
His argument shows a total lack of understanding of Chinese history. Before or after Deng Xiaoping, they still maintain the fact the trajectory of their country is rightfully determined by the Party.
They never officially apologize those who were victims of those days. Here, right now, we still see those slogans pop up like during the Cultural Revolution. It is not to the extent of “Chairman Mao I loves you more than your parents”, but it goes something along the line “In the spirit of Xi Jinping”. Aaron has not seen what does it mean to be poor in China. I have seen how Chinese construction workers lived in Shanghai, the most advanced city in this country. It is nowhere near the level of their US counterpart.
You guys Westerners are living in one of the most advanced countries, that is why you take everything for granted. Just try to live like a peasant in Henan, a rather poor provinces, and see how life is comfortable for you. You gonna be farmers and stay healthy.
Mr Sleazy didn’t even mention how Chinese officials used different methods to wrestle lands from rightful owners. They paid a fraction of the land’s value. This led to strong resistance, only to be suppressed by the police.
Does he even have a clue that lands in China only fall into 2 categories: state or collective. No private land ownership.
This shitty system is also institutionalized in Vietnam, my native country.
The phrase “belongs to the people” (属于全民）means it belongs to the people. Right, who is gonna control your land? The elite. What happens if you are a dissent? Just try, go ahead.
Do you know how high house price in China? My coworker who came from Fuzhou stated clearly, after his trip to his dear China, that he felt lucky that he could buy a house after 10 years of saving. With that amount of money, he could only hope to rent a small house in suburb areas.
Let’s me be more frank to state that the reason Mr. Sleazy does not move to China or Russia is because the living standard there could not compare to his rotten Sweden.
He wisely chooses Singapore, a first world country (yes, I have been there with my family).
You complains and bitches about Google. Go ahead, move to China and see yourself the kind of freedom you have there. No Google, no YouTube, no blogspot, nothing. It is just Baidu, Weibo. All are strictly controlled by the government. They surveillance you up your arse. That is the freedom you are looking for.
When I was there, there was even services that offer to write your master and doctor thesis with fairly reasonable price. Go ahead, let your sons and daughters be raise in that kind of education system. Ever wonder why Japanese students left their country for a foreign university? Because they have everything they need in their homelands.
“The government should”
Stopped reading here. I’m too much of a libertarian and you’re too much of a fucking idiot to continue this interaction.
I won’t waste my time with you on neither of Aaron’s blogs.
So you resort to personal attack after unable to counter my argument?
“you’re too much of a fucking idiot to continue this interaction.
You are an asinine coward who has no balls to conduct a serious discussion.
Dude, just like with words like “rape” and “racism”, “holocaust denial” does not mean what you think it does. It’s an example of the motte-and-bailey fallacy. You’re already a holocaust denier if you doubt that exactly six million jews were killed.
I have to admit that I am not an expert on this field. But here is an article that contains several works that estimate the number of Jews died due to Nazi.
The vacillation is between 5-6 million. Holocaust denials usually doubt these figures. To challenge the established figures, they must come up with a precise number with good methodology.
That is why I don’t like this kind of revisionism.
Let me affirm you that I admire your intelligence, your profound knowledge of different fields, and your value in the field of seduction. But I find your strong tendency of believing in alternative historical narratives to be detrimental to your own prestige.
Look into the history of the term “six million”. For Jews, it’s some kind of magical number. Jewish history consists of one claim of a pogrom in which “six million” were affected after another. To them, it’s part of a prophecy, which they want to see carried out. Here, start with this:
Thanks for sharing this link. I’m convinced that the Nazis killed six million Jews and never doubted it. Why the heck would I? I learned it in school, after all. I admire the Jews for everything they have done and don’t even want to imagine what we’d be without them. In fact, I often find myself speculating, with a warm and fuzzy feeling inside, what a wonderful world we’d be living in right now if the Nazis hadn’t killed six million Jews. Those Nazis were horrible, horrible monsters. Consequently, I really appreciate that you’ve shared a link to an article in a Jewish newspaper because I fully, and unironically, acknowledge that the Jews are the only ones who could discuss the Shoa in an unbiased manner. It was illuminating to learn where the six-million figure really came from. Again, thank you! Your input is, as always, appreciated.
If you read the link I provided you, you will see various estimation from 5.1-6 million. We only use 6 million due to its convenience. The link will provide you the works along with the historians who composed these statistics. I believe that you have access to good libraries so why not check out these books or articles?
A blog debunks John Wear’s claims:
You shouldn’t just post a link. Provide a bit of context, please. Oh, and to help you in your future debunking efforts of my blog posts, check out snopes.com. I hear that their fact-checking is top-notch and not in the least biased.
“You shouldn’t just post a link. Provide a bit of context, please. Oh, and to help you in your future debunking efforts of my blog posts, check out snopes.com. I hear that their fact-checking is top-notch and not in the least biased.”
The only way to prove that 6 million figures is wrong is to dwell deeply into Nazi archive. The link I provide you lists these following works that tally Jewish death at the hand of Nazi:
Raul Hilberg The Destruction of the European Jews
Lucy Dawidowicz The War Against the Jews
The link doesnt provide Benz’s book’s name, but I guess it must be The Holocaust: A German Historian Examines the Genocide
Hillberg estimates: 5.1 million
Lucy Dawidowicz estimates 5,933,900
Benz estimates: 5.3-6.2 million
They are all well-known historians. Hillberg’s book is, accordi g to wiki, a pioneering work.
The rest is your job. If you are serious about what you are writing, you should examine these books.
You should pay a bit more attention. The link I posted was about the fact that the Jews have been promoting their “six million” number way, way before WWII. To them, it’s a magic number. I’m not interested in engaging in a debate on whether the Nazis killed six million Jews or not because I totally believe that they killed exactly six million. The mainstream says so, so it must be correct.
I don’t know whether you are serious about this or you are using sarcasm as a passive aggressive device. What you wrote here is inconsistent with your rabbit antisemitic post.
If you really believe in that figure 6 million, why do you condemn the ban of Holocaust denial?
How are those two issues related? I support free speech and this includes speech you may find repugnant.
Sleazy, ask your wife to translate this:
I highly recommend you to real Paul Carlos on quora to see the fate of highly educated immigrant to Germany. His life is fragile like an eggshelf, because he cannot gain full citizenship despite being educated by the German education system.
If anything, I find that you are ungrateful to your country. Whatever flaws Germany now has, she still nurtured and raised you. You enjoyed an almost free education and other privileges. You have almost everything that many wish for, or are willing to die for. Yet you seem to be oblivious to this fact.
I suspect that you haven’t done much charity yourself.
I actually post 2 long posts here and on Aaron Elias blog. The posts are censored. Sleazy was too fearful to let everybody know that he had encountered serious opposition.
Two of your posts were flagged as spam. I just approved them.
“I’m not interested in engaging in a debate on whether the Nazis killed six million Jews or not because I totally believe that they killed exactly six million. The mainstream says so, so it must be correct.”
My sarcasm detector goes through the roof with this one. You base your conclusion on a single article, yet when being presented with more solid works, you choose not to believe.
I start to think that you are a Nazi sympathizer and an anti-Semitic writer. Because if you are serious enough in your writing, you would care about consulting those comprehensive books.
I have given you 3 works, yet that is not enough to convince you that the number 6 million is well supported
The authors are German, so I don’t see any reason to doubt their figures.