>>992 pass I'd prefer to discuss the camps in germany AFTER world war 2

>>992 British high officials had already determined to declare war upon Germany before the invasion (here is a short video that shows a few quotes by Churchill that corroborate this, as well as illustrating motive https://www.Webm or instances.invidio.us/watch?v=eRiXv8Vt0EQ ). Britain likely saw the German invasion of Poland as a suitable pretense to move forward with their war preparations, and thus evacuated their citizens. We didn't see this happen in WWI likely because the start of the war came quite suddenly and rather unexpectedly. >>994 A true, and well documented tragedy. A rather long video (that I haven't seen all of myself) on the subject. ( https://www.bitchutePlease use archive.today/video/tWPJW4oDNoQl/ ) TL;DR, if the "evidence" for the "Holocaust" was damning enough to warrant executions at Nuremburg, then Eisenhower should be tried, exhumed and desecrated.

>>1007 Fucked up both links. I have autism. https://www.Webm or instances.invidio.us/watch?v=eRiXv8Vt0EQ https://www.bitchutePlease use archive.today/video/tWPJW4oDNoQl/

>>1007 >>1008 There's a word filter in place for Youtube URLs and anything ending in "Please use archive.today" or "Please use archive.today".

>>992 >wkuk I still remember when they tried to imply that eating butter was unhealthy in one of the sketches.

Can anyone help me find information on ones Robert Noble and Ellis O. Jones? Reading an 1942 article that brings them up, apparently they were some of the people stating that Japan was justified in their attack in Pear Harbor, and the only other information I have on them is Noble founded an organization called "The Friends of Progress".

>>1007 >the start of the war came quite suddenly and rather unexpectedly This is a popular myth that may be true for the general population, but well informed people (the involved governments included) were well aware that something is coming. The High Seas Fleet build up pre-WWI was a serious challenge to RN and even if they didn't know the precise date in advance, the war didn't come as a surprise. There's also a lot of noise about Belgium and how it lead to UK getting involved in the war, when the German leadership was probably well aware that challenging RN's naval dominance will likely lead to UK's involvement either way. >Britain likely saw the German invasion of Poland as a suitable pretense to move forward with their war preparations Construction plans of RN and Kriegsmarine both assumed the conflict would break out around mid 40s and both considered the other one as a likely opponent. Look at the situation here: on one side, you have someone who really really does not like having its naval dominance challenged, on the other you have a continental power building up a massive fleet. It's not hard to guess what's going to happen next. Of course, Germany could've made a gamble and scrapped their fleet plans in hopes to avoid confrontation with the UK, but then if UK got involved anyway Germans would have a war on their hands and no surface fleet to fight it with (which is how they more or less ended up after the Norway campaign anyway, but that's another matter) so they decided to just go with it. There's no need to involve ideology in this, if you just look at it as a strategy game, war was a foregone conclusion. There isn't an empire that would act significantly differently in similar situation.

>>992 There wasn't much of a threat for civilians in the UK at the start of WW1, it's in WW2 where long distance indiscriminate bombing could be done, you had examples like Guernica on one hand and military theories advocating it on the other, you know break the resolve of the enemy through bombing their homeland. >>1032 >The High Seas Fleet build up pre-WWI was a serious challenge to RN I wouldn't go that far >There's no need to involve ideology in this, if you just look at it as a strategy Yes, that's something /pol/ in general would do good to remember

>>1045 >I wouldn't go that far Yeah, it definitely depends on what you mean by "challenge". Tactically, RN absolutely still was the top dog. Strategically, it was a serious issue; the RN still needed to maintain presence all over the globe, which became much harder when they suddenly had the High Seas Fleet tying up a significant portion of their assets.

Let's hope this is a good /his/ thread

>Continuing my reading of selected newspaper front pages >Get to the Mid-50's and reading clips detailing the Suez Crisis: http://archive.vn/Eaqvl >England, France, and Israel trying to make greater Israel a reality by going to war with Egypt >The U.S., the USSR, and the U.N. ALL telling them to BTFO Why does NO ONE talk about this shit?

>>1414 >expecting any detail from average history classes You can't go into the decline of colonization and the waning power of Eurofags in the 50's with a 5th grader anon or even with a high schooler. I always think the distrust of education starts because so much is glossed over or misleading because it's complex or 'problematic'.

<Have a lot of freedom at work to listen to whatever I want <Decide to throw on The Story of Europe with Christopher Clark to give me a refresher >Humanity came from Africa and spread to the rest of the world. <Archeological finds in China have long countered this with the best "explanation" being that the "first man" bounced back and forth between Asia and Africa <Recent evidence declares that man was in Europe too and possibly even before residing in Africa and Asia, the but the documentary was made in 2017 so it may be outdated >I love how diverse Europe is. >Let's look at my genetics. >I'm 98% European, 78% British. But's let's ignore all that. What I'm really proud of is that <1% of Mudslime DNA I have. <This was done with ZERO irony or sense of self-awareness Also, I remember an episode from an old 70's series called Emergency where the one American-Indian in the cast actual spends some of the episode humorously pointing out how racists, self-righteous, and ridiculous this entire line of thinking is. If you're going to ask, Emergency is a good show. It's not pozzed >Episode 2 >Have you ever noticed how similar Christianity and Islam are? <Both are completely different from each other >Charlemagne was a murderer and plague upon Europe despite uniting it. <FUCKING WHAT?!? >The Islamics brought every facet of science and mathematics to Europe. <But, the Irish Monks, headed by St. Patrick, copied down every bit of Roman knowledge that they could get their paws on >All of this knowledge the Islamics passed towards people came from the Greeks and Romans. <After they burned Alexandria to the ground >The Islamic religion actually encourages science. <BULL FUCKING SHIT! Any attempt to remove Allah as the direct cause of an event is a sign of heresy punishable by death. All Arabian scholars are executed the moment they are found. >All this lead up to the Crusades. And, their first victims were the Jews, who were the center of European life. <In the span of 2000 years, the Kikes have been exiled from over 300 territories (Averaging expulsions from at least 6 regions every decade) <The ONLY people who actually relied upon the Kikes were the elites and the government, everyone else despised them That's it, I'm out. Couldn't even finish the second episode because of how pozzed this shit was. I know I was expecting some amount of revisionism, but, HOLY SHIT, not to that extent and not that quickly.

This. This picture. It might be the thing to shut black people up if it could be shown that slavery in the united states was all their doing.

>>5462 Not that I doubt the information, but it's talking about 1654 while the picture is a man dressed in 1800's clothing. Show this to someone and it will look obviously wrong, and more likely to push them away or find reason to doubt.

>Watch a doc on the "history of money" >First episode spends some time discussing how the Spaniards' exploration of America caused the empire to decline because market corrected itself after the extreme influx of gold and silver acquired from America >Spends some of the next episode talking about how the Rothschild first gained their name thanks to funding wars, but the wars themselves eventually became unprofitable, and almost "ruined" the family until they invest in the British government <Ignores the fact that wars, while invested at a loss, can still be used to make even greater profits after the war is over

>>5462 Pretty sure Anthony Johnson was a niggerkike, but I don't remember where I saw the proofs.

Why don't we write our own history book? Like not of the west, and not of modern history, but of the whole fucking world, and of all historical periods. so people can see what the score really is, instead of thinking that white people were these primitive violent savages and everyone else was holding hands and singing kumbaya while they invented everything they could con gullible liberals into believing that a white man didn't come up with. We need to do more than criticize the existing narrative, we need to present an alternative narrative of our own, a complete one, that is easy to read, easy to reference, and easy to quote. One handy book with the world's history, sorted by chronology, full of not only facts, but also the sources of evidence for those facts. The biggest problem with history is it focuses too much on white people and the modern era, they present white people's actions in a vacuum when they talk about bad shit, omitting all the worse things other races were doing at the time, giving the impression tat whites were morally behind the rest of the world, when in fact at that point in history, whites were trailblazers of morality, far closer to the current day moral standard, while everyone else was not only behind, but far behind, as well as being proudly and staunchly so. Whites have always, always been the closest to current day moral standards, and it takes a lot of leaving out, adding in, downplaying, and exaggerating to make the opposite seem true. We should also cover the academic frauds of anthropology, how primitive societies are actually worse in every single way than more advanced ones, even in the ways the cult of anthropologist fraudsters had claimed they were better. Sometimes they even would outright tell you this is a dystopian nightmare, but re-frame negative things with language that makes all the bad things sound good (until you actually see what they are talking about). The children aren't being "raised communally" - they aren't being raised at all, their own parents are ignoring them most of the time and so is everyone else. They don't live "peacefully" despite having little - crimes like theft, murder, and rape are common occurrences there, and most don;t get any hope of justice, there is also constant warfare or preparation for warfare with other tribes, from which the practicing of cannibalism and slavery will occur (that the anthropologists conveniently fail to mention as even existing). They don't "have a great respect for nature" - most of the clearcut loggers and illegal poachers in the world are from these regions. They don't have "a justice system they can all agree with" - the justice system is broken and regularly hands out unfair verdicts based on superstitious and corrupt foundations, like being able to pluck a ring out of boiling oil and not get your hand scarred being your sign of innocence, or a rape victim (who is a child) being forced to marry her rapist (who is her relative) so that her father can still get a dowry payment. they accept these verdicts not because they think they are fair, but because not doing so is punished corporally and in brutal fashion. They don't "build little wonders" - they sell crap that is worthless even to themselves to tourists and white people because they think we are stupid for being willing to shell out for junk. These types of people have literally nothing to teach us, except by example of how not to do things. I recall in a documentary on the cult of Boasian anthropology that even those who were thoroughly indoctrinated would see these places for what they were once they got to them, go into a crisis of cognitive dissonance (everything they took to heart might have been a lie, and they were now being asked to lie about this place, implying that those other places were just as fucked as this one, if not worse), then lie their asses off in their reports to make the cult happy, thus creating the hollywood trope of the "noble savages". We don't only need to be more global, but also need to talk more about what had happened in ancient times, rather than focus on pre-modern and modern eras, this is done to hide the moral progression of history from people, since it makes whites look like they've been where the other races of the world currently are stuck at, and that whites had moved past it on their own, despite opposition from other races. We should also focus on the historical crimes of non-whites on whites.

>Watching this show called ''Sacred Places >It gives a brief history and architectural details about the various churches and temples for the world's "most popular" religions >Episode on the Kikes and synagogues >Hey, did you know that Kikes and Mudslines were best friends since the beginning and share some of the same folklore? <No... >Well, let's talk about the Iberian Peninsula then. Back in the 700's, the Mudslimes came in and over threw the Christian rulers. And, the people who helped this insurrection where the Kikes. <What? >Oh yeah. In fact, the Mudslimes were so grateful, they placed the Kikes in positions of power. It was one of the most glorious times in Jewish history. That is, until the evil Christians came in to retake their land. The Kikes were shattered, their temples were destroyed, and were given the ultimatum of convert or die. Isn't this all tragic? <Kikes and Mudslimes were best buds since the beginning of time <Kikes helped the Mudslimes to take over Europe and create the Dark Ages <The Christians fought back the Mudslimes, and executed the Kikes for helping them <Tragic Fuck the Kikes everywhere they live!

>>7165 >Yeah, Islam makes more sense when it comes to theology. They're both shitty fucking religions though. <I'm a dumb faggot who doesn't know how fucking nonsensical goatfuckers are

>>7168 <I don't know how to read and I know fuck-all about either one

>>7170 >>7166 Excuse me, jackass, how about, instead of posting a series of non-replies, you actual explain where his reasoning is incorrect?

>>7174 Sure. Muhammed would blatantly makes shit up to justify the random bullshit he does. like how it was considered fine for him to fuck his adoptive son's wife. This even extends to the angels in the Quran; apparently Michael the angel is scared shitless of a fucking dog. Christianity, for whatever it's supposed issues it has, doesn't have a part where God shits his pants over a dog and tells Abraham to chase it out of the house or show Jesus blatantly making things up to satisfy his own personal desires and using religion as an excuse.

>>7177 So how does Christianity "solve" this problem, from what you know of it?

>>7180 >Basically, Christianity closes its fucking eyes and says that evil doesn't exist despite the fact that the world is created in such a way that cruelty and violence are some of its basic components (For example, Survival of the Fittest). 1. that should only count for Catholicism, not Christianity as a whole, as you yourself pointed out that this is supposedly a Catholic belief. 2. Christians themselves have argued about what good and evil are for centuries, but from my understanding this is nowhere near close to the consensus; Catholics seem to believe that evil is a natural occurence that arises from our corruption when Adam and Eve ate the fruit from the forbidden tree. >Another Christian idea is the concept of best of all possible worlds, the idea that God created the best possible world that could exist and that suffering as it is was necessary for the completion of creation of humans. That sounds like load of nonsense that unfortunately some Christians do indeed think. The reality is that the world we are in now was very much not God's intention. In regards to the problem of evil, the Catholic (if not overall Christian) answer is that while God created good and evil, he didn't create things exactly as they are now; he created creatures with the ability to choose to do either good or evil things. For instance, Satan chose of his own free will to deceive Adam and Eve and to tempt others, such as Jesus, to sin ever since. He wasn't created to be this way, he was just created with the capacity to choose to be either good or evil. >Otherwise the only answers I've seen were mostly just "Trust God, he has an answer you can't understand LMAO" which is just ignoring the fucking question. All other theodicies so far were either denying the Problem of Evil or making a really bad fucking argument for it. Again, I've unfortunately heard of people who actually have believed in something close to this; but from my understanding of Christianity (or at least, Catholicism) this is false.

>>7202 > If God just fucked up in some way... then he can be forgiven for many of the unnecessary suffering in the world like the suffering and death of children. Beause he made a mistake. If it was all part of his plan, then... he better have a really good fucking explanation for this shit. If God is omniscient then he knew perfectly well what he was doing even before he created Adam and Eve, which means that he knew that they would fuck up for the human race. If he isn't fully omniscient, this problem is not a problem because he simply didn't know. If he is omniscient, then he couldn't have created the world the way it is without engineering everything, at least to an extent where he accepted that the creatures he creates are going to commit an evil act even before they do that. He couldn't have created them without knowing that. The way I've come to understand this is that what God sees is every possible path everyone can take any every point in time from birth to death, all at once. Meaning, although he can see every single thing we could do at any given moment, the choice to do any of those things is still ours and not necessarily locked in.

>>7204 Except God is all powerful and created this particular world, this particular timeline. He just as easily could have any other timeline happen, but he has this one, knowing exactly what would happen in it. He chose it, over choosing the other ones. So your free will is an illusion. It was locked in when God chose this series of events to happen over every other possible series of events.

>>7233 Not true at all; timelines aren't anything mentioned in the Bible or the Quran, and even when you just mean in a general sense, I don't think God chooses timelines, he is just able to observe every timeline possible at once.

>>7234 The post I was responding to is the one that talked about timelines, albeit without using that particular word. God is all powerful. He knew everything that would happen in this world when He created it. He could have created any other world, but He chose to create this one. That means he knew you would do every action you ever do, that you would have every will you ever have, and He could have created any number of other worlds where you will and do different things, but He chose to create this world. He chose for you to do these things. Your free will is an illusion, or else God is not all powerful.

>>7240 I don't see where you get the idea that because God created everything, free will is an illusion; nothing that we could do is something He couldn't see, but we still have the freedom to do something or not. If he didn't, then He may not have commanded Adam and Eve to not eat from the forbidden tree or tell us to follow Him, because he would've known exactly who of us would do so and who wouldn't.

>>7241 I'm a bit conflicted on it myself. It seems it may be that free will is an Illusion He created...I mean with reverent respect to Him and His Ways. For example, in Ezekiel (I am rusty on which verses or if it was one of the other major four prophets) He mentions that Israel sacrificing children to Baal or Molech "never entered His mind" so that certainly implies free will. On the other hand in Jeremiah (or maybe Ezekiel again lol sorry) He says He did do evil to Judah implying that He led them to put idols in the Temple to show it is bad...I mean no disrespect to Him just trying to understand. It is progressive revelation of course and we use discernment (i.e., God does not tempt) but that free will thing doesn't seem Biblical but I don't freak out if people try to show it is. tl;dr If we really do not have free will until after our resurrections but we are still held accountable for our actions I do not have issue with that or think God is 'doing things wrong' I have no issue with reconciling the two. tl;dr too long lol.

>Watch a doc about Jack the Ripper >The original evidence and eye witness accounts point to Jacky possibly being a Kike >English police proceed to silence and remove any public acknowledgement or awareness of this because it may cause "Anti-Semetism" >All current theorists agree that Jacky was a Kike Some things you cannot make up.

>>7609 The holocaust isn't one of those things.

>Watching this British series about the history of the Celts >Talks about how they sacked Rome during the 3rd Century BC >Then went on to talk about the Celts ran roughshod over the rest of non-Mediterranean Europe <Know about how the Carthaginians eventually employed Gaul mercenaries as part of their army <And, how that became important later on during the Punic Wars <Want to hear about how the Romans eventually chased the Gauls back into the mountains, established a treaty, and laid the groundwork for why they joined Hannibal's army after helping to kill a fraction of his army >Now we're going to skip over ALL of that to talk about Caesar's Gaelic Wars.' <WHAT?!? Why do these history series (Especially those designed around "new evidence") leave out SO MUCH FUCKING HISTORY?

>>992 There had been air raids via zeppelin against Britain in wwI. Poison gas had been used to devastating effect. There were advances in aircraft by 1939 and the high command reasonably believed Hitler was going to drop poison gas on major British Cities. The decision to evacuate the children was in fear the children were they not evacuated would be exposed to chlorine mustard phosgene or some new variant of gas and likely die or be maimed for life.

>http://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmdF36SJiMqTCkCqB4XrRh4tnJ517SxqyfSeGzdTpQfbc2/Cowboy - Wikipedia.html >TIME Magazine referred to President George W. Bush's foreign policy as "Cowboy diplomacy",[129] and Bush has been described in the press, particularly in Europe, as a "cowboy".[130] So he was unaware of the "cowboy diplomacy" connotation of "cowboy" and showed it? Is that true?

Quick question: Was Athenian Expedition into Sicily during the Peloponnesian War equivalent to the U.S. going into Afghanistan?

>>8097 >bongs thought Hitler was going to fly zeppelins over London I guess I shouldn't be surprised they were thinking about zeppelins considering the bongs made one of their own islands completely uninhabitable because they wanted to try out dropping anthrax-infected sheep using hot air balloons.

For the /his/ Anons, I remember being told that murder mysteries have been a thing since the Roman Empire, so I was wondering if anyone knows of any "collection" of old world mystery stories. As in, stories that were actually told and written back then, not modern writers making stuff up.

>Reading a book on the history of the Middle East >The writer keeps moving heaven and Earth to talk about how Islam "benefited the Middle East" >Talks on one hand about all the literature and education that flourished under Islamic control <While also mentioning that it was only possible because the people in charge of the regions ignored Islamic law whenever and wherever they could >Talk about how Islam persecuted "both" Christians and Kikes <Never mention how the Kikes were persecuted <Only mention that they achieved some of the leadership roles in territories, so they were not oppressed <Meanwhile, the Christian children were kidnapped by the state to be trained as foot soldiers for the national army <Justify this by stating that it was an "honor" among Muslims to be in the army >Moving onto the start of the 20th century >Islamic world is falling apart because of how Europe came to naturally control much of the world stage >Nationalistic tendencies are arising within territories to secure their domains <Declare that such ideals of Nationalism are "evil European-sourced ideals" <Blame it on the Christians for being the ones who "taunted" the "innocent Mudslimes" by introducing Nationalism to them despite having lived and experienced much of the same international issues as the Muslims <Proceed to ignore that Islam was ALWAYS a nationalistic religion <Treat it as evil that the Christians and the Muslims in the regions finally decide to unite for nationalistic purposes to secure their lands And, that's where I'm going to stop reading. Probably could get the rest of reading through the various encyclopedias that I have. Unless you guys know of a better source. Pic related is the book that I was reading.

>>13032 I had no idea. I'll have to look around and see if I can find anything. >>15721 I really do not understand why they are so dedicated to sucking off islam all the time when the religion and it's followers are absolutely in conflict with all the left's favorite issues.

Myron C. Fagan was based and redpilled, he fought the good fight for decades. has a lot of work archived that we can learn from today, still relevant over 50 years later. https://archive (dot) org/details/themyronc.faganfiles-satanicplottoenslavetheworld-audiopdf/ and regarding a few decades earlier... >>994 >Based US anon knows about the real German death camps Eisenhowers Rhine Meadows Death Camps: A Deliberate Policy Of Extermination https://archive (dot) org/details/EisenhowersRhineMeadowsDeathCampsADeliberatePolicyOfExtermination Other Losses - a film by James Bacque https://www.bitchute (dot) com /video/iFV11guqdv3Q/

>>15721 have this

>>15726 last one of those, i remember having another by some other anon, but can't find it

>>1087 as long as there is no haplogroup schizos it's all fine

Why do so-called "historians" treat the Mudslime like they're great "philosophers, historians, and scientists"? Their entire society is still living in the iron-age structure that Muhammad conquered 1200 years ago, with the only advancements to it being a result of the Europeans literally selling technology to them (Even forcing it upon them on some instances).

>>19074 My understanding is the North African/Middle Eastern Golden Age was under Zoroastrianism, not Islam

>>19074 >>19075 Just did a bit more research. The acronym I meant to use was MENA, although Zoroastrianism was never popular in North Africa

Look at this US president ranking chart and sort it by party. Only 2 democrats before the civil war rank low, even Woodrow Wilson ranks high. Compare to republican ranks. Historians are objective? Lol https://en.m.wikipedia(Please use archive.today)/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_presidents_of_the_United_States#Scholar_survey_summary Found while exploring eisenhowers camps. Never heard of them before.

>>19074 Both hate modern civilization, so, enemy-of-my-enemy. University historians are sociologists, which is worse than a pseudoscience. Sociology is just Marxism, which is reactionary to modernism (17th and 18th century), the founding ideology of the US. Jihadi Islam is a primitive theocracy which also hates modernism and wants to return to a medieval society. They ideologically have nothing in common, but want to destroy modern society more than anything, so historians think they can be useful allies. Thats the only reason they cater to and apologize for them. Also why all on left do the same.

>>19074 It's obvious, anon. They're trying to diminish the accomplishments of Whites and mis-attribute it to non-Whites. The main thing the MENA contributed to civilization was preserving some ancient European texts, not much else. It's the same with pretending blacks invented and built everything, completely made-up horse-shit: https://tightroperecords dot com/Black-Invention-Myths.htm

https://archive.is/hUsQP >People have been asking me lately, "Why Dubois?" >Why is W.E.B. Dubois the "father of American Marxism". Wasn't he just a liberal? Didn't he say some random stuff pulled out of context? >Carlos Garrido recently wrote a brilliant paper on this, but unfortunately, it's behind a pay-wall. (Academic journals are the worst, and we're not allowed to re-publish it.) >So let me explain in brief: <Marxism, or Marxism Leninism if you want to be technical about it, is universal. It is the universality of all society moving forward, gives us the laws of development. <What Dubois gives us is the particular - Black Reconstruction in America shows us, if not THE primary particular form, then one of the most important particular forms of American class struggle. It gives us an analysis of the color line, of how race and class function, from that Marxist Leninist universal understanding - from the historical materialist viewpoint. It gives us the category of the black proletariat as a class of enslaved workers, and of the second American revolution they waged against the slaveocracy, of the dictatorship of the proletariat that was the Reconstruction South - the freedmen's bureaus backed by the power of the Northern armies. <But that isn't all Dubois gives us. He gives us the materialist view of racism; proving that it wasn't racism that created chattel slavery, but instead chattel slavery that created racism, that the relations the white proletariat had with the bosses, and with the black proletariat, all of this functions as an outcome of slavery. There is a lot of talk in Marxism about the steam engine, the spinning jenny, and other technological drivers of industrial capitalism, but underlying every bit of it was chattel slavery feeding the British textile mills with cotton. Without chattel slavery, capitalism would never have lasted a day. Capitalism is, very literally, built on a foundation of THE most brutal forms of oppression, of enslavement of man by man. <Every view of American history from the Marxist perspective must begin with Marx and Engels and with Lenin and with Dubois. There is no other way to arrive at a detailed Marxist analysis. Without this, we are lost, and we are able to be manipulated into all sorts of "left" deviations and dogmas. I've even heard "left" anti-immigrant sentiment these days. Dubois cuts through all of it in one go, and gives us a concrete foundation for our work today. <Lastly, I have to say: read Dubois yourself. Don't go in bits and pieces taken out of context, as you'll find in the bourgeois academy, that attempt to turn Dubois into something he's not. Just as you read Marx yourself, read Dubois yourself.