Does anyone else here go to bed watching old World War documentaries?

I dont i just need to plug something in my ears to shut up my brain telling me im a useless loser...

Attached: 1541656683758.jpg (925x864, 59K)

when i was younger i subconsciously rooted for the nazis and felt bad that they lost, is that weird

It's because you subconsciously knew who the good guys were

post height and jaw

more recently i've been watching wwii in colour before going to bed or during hour long edging sessions. its nice background tv

No, I'm not that too far gone. Hitchhiker stories are better.

based
not based

>I'm not that too far gone
How is that being too far gone? It's mostly just background noise to help one go to sleep

cringe
based
cringe

All 26 episode of this series should be required viewing for high school age and above.

whats hitchhiker stories?

This one is Hitlerkino, most WWII documetaries introduce him as "the evil man who wanted to take over the world and kill all the jews" but this one shows his rise from incendiary speaker and idealist to genocidal dictator

Attached: 864ca6a35da240cd8198a507ead79c7b8589b9e4.jpg (426x597, 30K)

I used to manage a video store years ago. There was an old guy who had a bundle of our documentaries like World at War and Victory a Sea just on permanent rental. Like every week he would come in for new release movies and just re-hire those on his account. When schools or people needing them for study inquired about them we would take down their details, let him know and he would return them so the other people could watch them then instantly hire them out again when they were returned.
His daughter told me once that he used to put them on so he could fall asleep.

that other user got trips......you only got dubs...

>it's a hitler fucks up episode

oh wait that's every episode

and you only got singles sorry bro but cringe

youtube.com/watch?v=wbKYbLUkIpk

this whole series is comfykino and i've fallen asleep to it more times than i can count

cringe
cringe
cringe
based
cringe
based
based
SUPER based

>it's a French refuse to attack while the Germans are bogged down in the Polish campaign episode
What the fuck was their problem? Why didn't the French just push the Germans shit in when they remilitarized the Rhineland?

I did the same for WWI germany as well, I think they're just in a more dynamic and interesting strategic situation plus are outnumbered/outgunned usually

>plus are outnumbered/outgunned usually
in WW2 that was the case cuz of their shit foreign policy. Invading Russia and declaring war on America is not the smartest move

I hate how they always demonise Hitler and portray him as this massive racist, ignoring the existing racism of the British and French colonial systems which occupied half the world at the time, instead portraying them as these liberal freedom-fighter underdogs.

>germany
>outnumbered
>WWI

????

Same here, but I did it consciously, because of my hatred towards judaism

Did he do anything wrong?

Attached: 1545649038648.png (560x344, 43K)

>I hate how they always demonise Hitler and portray him as this massive racist,
The documentaries I've seen usually only portray Hitler as anti-Semitic and anti-Russian I've rarely seen blacks brought for example in these outside of French colonial troops

invaded and subjugated neighboring white slavic lands. had double standards for certain jews that he liked. created a shit tier ideology in NatSoc

i guess i should recommend "the greatest story never told" at this point

Greatest Meme Never Told is filled with debunked propaganda and inaccuracies

Attached: y.jpg (363x334, 44K)

like what?

Danzig Massacre, economic miracle meme which is further debunked in wages of destruction, claiming invasion of Russia was a pre-emptive strike. All of it and more is detailed here worth a read

imgur.com/gallery/nUtifYK

It's depressing shit and even the higher quality docs are full of mythology, be it propagandistic or just urban legend-tier interpretations that get more authority the more they're repeated.

I listen to Ian's soothing voice as I succumb to slumber.

Attached: 1492026777826.png (512x553, 286K)

>even the higher quality docs are full of mythology,
like what? any examples?

Unironically is better sourced and referenced than any other ww2 documentary.

It has been thoroughly debunked along with its citations refer to

meh, this guy obviously has his own agenda, and saying "wrong look at the Wikipedia" isnt exactly convincing. he starts out with a character assassination right at the beginning which he admits to.
>I have also now come to know that Dennis Wise believes in the "New World Order".
as if this is supposed to convince me not to take it seriously?

>sources are all wikipedia

>as if this is supposed to convince me not to take it seriously?
he has a snarky tone but all the information in the link is good. The doc isn't exactly hard to debunk anyway things like the Danzig Massacre, the alleged genocide of 50k Germans by Poles, outright never happened and has never been collaborated only spouted in Nazi propaganda

based

now i only go to bed listening to old cum town episodes

This.

yea I'm thinking I'm black

i don't really view the Nazis as the good guys, it's just that i don't buy the good vs evil narrative we have been told, history is written by the victors after all. i could never wrap my head around WW2, no matter how many documentaries i saw, or what we learned in school, it just didnt make sense to me. tgsnt made me think of it in a different and more nuanced way, i'm not unwilling to admit that there are inaccuracies, but learning about Hitler as a person, his motivations, the state of degeneracy in Berlin, his love for his people, the fact that Jews held a disproportional amount of power compared to their population, and their direct contribution to the decline of the morality at the time, i can understand why things went the way they did. international bankers and other international interests played, and still play a huge role in geopolitics; false flags as justification for wars are a proven thing, the point is that history is nuanced, and the fact that we arent even allowed to question the narrative is ridiculous.

downsald trump is an all timer for me. or adam's flip flop rape story. or even adam being confronted in the back of an uber in LA is so funny - honestly adam's funniest moments are either when he's just a massive piece of objective shit or when he's fucking with people (after the girl in the uber yells at him for hanging out with chapo and he brings up deleting the uber app for sexism is so good)

>history is written by the victors after all.
That's a a pretty stale meme. Most of what we know about the Romans comes from the Romans themselves and they sure as shit weren't the victors of history. Look at the Germans post WW1 they wrote their own stab in the back version of history they certainly did not follow the victors version there. The truth is history is written by those who bother to write it down

>tgsnt made me think of it in a different and more nuanced way,
But it's just pushing another biased narrative based on propaganda.

>the state of degeneracy in Berlin
The Nazis were quite the degenerates themselves my man

>the fact that Jews held a disproportional amount of power compared to their population
source?

>their direct contribution to the decline of the morality at the time
how so?

>false flags as justification for wars are a proven thing
Which is funny because the Nazis did that themselves. See Operation Himmler

for me? it's adam's black son, the entire episode where they read that virgin chapo post, and the five below bit from recently. tfw you will never be best friends with nick

Ok, read as far as claim 1 before closing the tab. Russia enacting general mobilization is not a pretext of war? Why else would they do that, if they didn't plan to go to war? The Russians also refused to answer Wilhelm's call for peace, instead choosing to enact full mobilization. France, having an alliance treaty with Russia and having hated Germany for losing Alsace-Lorraine were also planning to declare war.

Don't get me wrong, Austria's dumb ambitions towards Serbia is what caused WWI, but the arguments you've just posted are fucking stupid.

adam wearing a dress and hiding in a closet to beat off to interracial porn while his south african dad yells at him is very funny too

you wouldn't trust my sources so what's the point. i'm really not interested in convincing you one way or the other, i'm not german nor am i a national socialist, so i'm really not invested

>Russia enacting general mobilization is not a pretext of war?
Russia was mobilizing against Austria-Hungary not Germany. The ultimatum Germany gave Russia and subsequent result was solely due to Germany's doing.

>The Russians also refused to answer Wilhelm's call for peace,
source?

>France, having an alliance treaty with Russia and having hated Germany for losing Alsace-Lorraine were also planning to declare war.
France intentionally waited for German aggression first going so far as to pull its army back 20 miles from the frontier on the eve of war

>but the arguments you've just posted are fucking stupid.
Why don't you actually read the whole thing instead of rage quitting not even a few paragraphs in? What are your thoughts on the Danzig Massacre?

>you wouldn't trust my sources so what's the point.
And you base that on what?

>i'm really not interested in convincing you one way or the other,
Because your arguments are unsubstantiated and much of what you talk about are long debunked talking points. Nazis were anti-degeneracy dude? Seriously? Are you aware of their actions on the Eastern Front or the Nazi Foreign Birthing Centers for example? They were ruthless

>i'm not german nor am i a national socialist, so i'm really not invested
ok dude

>Most of what we know about the Romans comes from the Romans themselves and they sure as shit weren't the victors of history.
Let me just stop you right there. Most of the history comes from Romans themselves, but all of it was preserved by Christians and the opinion formed by Christians. For example, Caligula and Nero were not the monsters they are often portrayed as. Furthermore, the Romans were "victors", in a general sense. Their empire fell apart naturally, they weren't destroyed by some outward force or anything. Much of their history, cultural heritage, language, way of life was preserved. Pretty much the entirety of Europe can trace back its origins to Rome.
>Look at the Germans post WW1 they wrote their own stab in the back version of history they certainly did not follow the victors version there.
And I'm sure if NatSoc Germany was alive today, they'd view the war differently. But the fact remains that they were destroyed so they recounting of events is a little hard to come by. Weimar Germany was still kicking after WWI, in dire straits - but still kicking. As such they had the ability to write their own version of events. But can you really argue that NatSoc Germany today isn't viewed through the eyes of the victors? The US, at the forefront, churning propaganda by jewish controlled Hollywood and education institutions against it?

History is ALWAYS written by the victors. To argue otherwise is just absurd.

>Furthermore, the Romans were "victors", in a general sense. Their empire fell apart naturally, they weren't destroyed by some outward force or anything.
lol dude it was a slow deterioration yes but the elements that brought the Romans down were exterior both in the western and eastern half barbarians and Ottomans respectively. You can claim they had a substantial impact on history but they in no way came out as the victors in any general sense

>nd I'm sure if NatSoc Germany was alive today, they'd view the war differently.
You completely just ignored the point there. Victors write history as a general rule is just wrong as there's so many examples to point to otherwise such as Germany post-WW1. It's a dumb meme that is just not true in any general sense

>Weimar Germany was still kicking after WWI, in dire straits - but still kicking. As such they had the ability to write their own version of events.
The Stab in the Back myth was mostly propagated by nationalist elements of the former German Imperial Army not the Weimar Government as far as I'm aware

>But can you really argue that NatSoc Germany today isn't viewed through the eyes of the victors?
In that specific case I can agree with you to a certain extent it's the "victors write history" as a general rule that I take issue with

>History is ALWAYS written by the victors.
Dude that's just simply incorrect and you were unable to debunk either of the example I brought up. This isn't even mentioning other examples such as Napoleon who is still revered to this day despite losing hard. You can argue it's true to some extent in the last century or so but as a general rule? That's silly

>Russia was mobilizing against Austria-Hungary not Germany.
And who was Austria-Hungary allied with, numbnuts? Germany. And who asked Russia to stop their mobilization? Germany.
>source?
The telegrams Wilhelm II and Nicholas exchanged.
>France intentionally waited for German aggression first going so far as to pull its army back 20 miles from the frontier on the eve of war
on 1st of August, France said explicitly that it will not remain neutral in an eventual war against Russia and started a full scale mobilization. That's why Germany decided to attack them. Or you think they opened a two front war for giggles?
>Why don't you actually read the whole thing instead of rage quitting not even a few paragraphs in?
Because it's retarded. Why should I read the rest when the first point is entirely wrong?
>What are your thoughts on the Danzig Massacre?
What about it? As I said, I didn't read the rest of the shit the retard wrote.

>And who was Austria-Hungary allied with, numbnuts?
Russia had no intention to go to war with Germany though as they themselves explicitly said their mobilization was against the Austro-Hungarians. Beyond that Russia had no interest in going to war with Germany

>The telegrams Wilhelm II and Nicholas exchanged.
Which ones in particular? I also find it highly doubtful that Germany had an interest to pursue peace in any real sense as it was planning for war as early as 1912.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Imperial_War_Council_of_8_December_1912
It was a decisive step to war, long before the July Crisis.

>France said explicitly that it will not remain neutral in an eventual war against Russia and started a full scale mobilization
source?

>Why should I read the rest when the first point is entirely wrong?
It's not wrong retard your just looking to fuel your confirmation bias and kvetch when something goes against it

>What about it?
What are your thought on the Germans completely making it up? What are your thoughts on there being zero evidence for the alleged genocide of 50k Germans in Poland

Sometimes. So far, I watched The Greatest Story never told, 3 hour history channel documentary, and lots of Biographies on Hitler, Goebbels, Patton, etc.

And other days, spend my nights (before bed) watching 9/11 documentaries and documentaries on mass shooters.

Funny thing is whatever just watched enters my dreams. I am sometimes in Nazi Germany talking with Hitler, speaking to Patton on base, trying to prevent 9/11, or I'm a mass shooter. Funny shit how what you watch enters dreams.

>You can claim they had a substantial impact on history but they in no way came out as the victors in any general sense
As I said, the vast majority of Rome's cultural heritage was preserved. They disintegrated, they weren't "defeated" or "destroyed". Which the exception of the ERE, but the ERE is a moot point considering their vast cultural heritage made other empires try to emulate them and preserve their history. The example of the Ottomans you gave - sure, they destroyed the ERE. But Mehmet II tried to LARP as a Roman and much of the Ottoman state was based on the ERE. The ERE cultural heritage also far extended the borders of the Ottomans because they were the bulwark of Christianity for many years which is why they are so "revered" today by Europeans.
>as Germany post-WW1.
But that's fucking stupid. Yes, Germany may have lost, but they still could write their own history and spin of things. NS Germany was completely destroyed. It would have been the same if they survived. Which doesn't dispute my point of the "history is always written by the victors" because Germany after WWI wasn't viewed favourably anywhere but Germany because that's how far their control extended.
>The Stab in the Back myth
First off, the Stab in the Back was not a myth. Second, Weimar themselves played a large part in fuelling the flames at the beginning.
>as a general rule that I take issue with
Why?
>Napoleon who is still revered to this day despite losing hard
Ironic, considering Napoleon had to say this about history: "History is a set of lies agreed upon.". I also think that your take is absolute bullshit as Napoleon is only generally viewed favourably in France and is nowhere near "revered". The vast majority of people still consider him the aggressor in the Napoleonic wars and a warmongerer.

>really is a shame what the kikes did to Europe

Fixed that for you

You’re not alone. It took me years to understand that my fascination with what I consciously believed to be the horrors of Nazism, was in fact a genuine affinity towards my own kind.

>claim to be Aryan
>Russians are more Aryan than Germs
>like in ancient times Russian Aryans came to Europe, exterminated farmeroid "men" and claimed their women
Ironic.

The French didn’t even have the strength to defend their own territory, let alone undertake an offensive into Germany. As with the First World War, they needed substantial amounts of allied troops (British) just to defend their border, which they failed at the second time. Germany had double the population of France, it was a simple matter of logistics. I happen to think the French fought rather bravely and were undone by the incompetence of their commanders, and the ingenuity and material resources of the Germans.

>As I said, the vast majority of Rome's cultural heritage was preserved.
As was France's post Napoleon defeat, as was the Italians post WW2 defeat this in no way means however that they WON dude.

>they disintegrated, they weren't "defeated" or "destroyed"
They collapsed due to exterior elements

>The ERE cultural heritage also far extended the borders of the Ottomans because they were the bulwark of Christianity for many years which is why they are so "revered" today by Europeans.
I get what you're saying dude and yes the Ottomans did adapt some of the elements of ERE but they still LOST at the end. Perserved culture doesn't mean a general victory in any sense.

>Yes, Germany may have lost, but they still could write their own history and spin of things.
Which flies completely in the face of your "History is ALWAYS written by the victors"

>Which doesn't dispute my point of the "history is always written by the victors"
It literally does

>Germany after WWI wasn't viewed favourably anywhere but Germany because that's how far their control extended.
Now you're moving goalposts. Germany wrote their own history post-WW1 in spite of loosing your claim that history is ALWAYS written by the victors is simply wrong. I agree in the case of WW2 it is true but to suggest it is a general rule throughout history? Absolute nonsense

>the Stab in the Back was not a myth
Yes it was. The German Army was defeated in the field after the failure of the Summer Offensive. For someone who claims to take no sides you sure do spout a lot of Nazi propaganda

>Why?
Because there's so many examples you can point to of this just simply not being the case.

>I also think that your take is absolute bullshit as Napoleon is only generally viewed favourably in France
Are you fucking serious dude? Napoleon has had favorable films created about him all over the globe even Hitler revered him. You're sperging at this point because you know I'm right

German intelligence noticed massive Russian troop movements during the invasion of France. Hitler invaded the USSR in order to preempt the inevitable Soviet invasion of Germany. Nobody talks about that, just go read Spetsnaz by Viktor Suvorov.

>The French didn’t even have the strength to defend their own territory,
During the Polish campaign? They absolutely did have the strength to push into Germany as there were only something like 12 divisions on Germany's western boarder compared to the 90+ or so France had

>Germany had double the population of France, it was a simple matter of logistics.
France's Army outnumbered Germany's during the Polish campaign

>Beyond that Russia had no interest in going to war with Germany
You know full well that Russia was well aware that an eventual war against Austria would mean a war against Germany. That's what the telegrams send between Nicholas and Wilhelm were also all about. Russia didn't and wouldn't back down until Austria stopped trying to gobble Serbia and Austria wouldn't back down so Germany didn't want to back down either.
>It was a decisive step to war
Let's view it in the right context, shall we? It followed the outbreak of the First Balkan War, in which the entente powers recklessly supported the revisionist forces on the Balkans at the expense of the existing status quo. This brought Europe to the brink of war and in november 1912, a month before the Imperial War Council meeting, Russia partially mobilized against Austria-Hungary, which partially mobilized against Russia in response. Germany stayed mostly impartial in all this, but it became more and more apparent in Berlin that the entente powers were willing to prioritize political adventurism on the Balkans over peace.

Germany didn't need the assassination of Franz Ferdinand as a pretext for war, if it wanted to start one. There were plenty of opportunities during the Balkan Wars. If anything, I would argue it's largely thanks to Germany that a European war didn't occur prior to 1914 and Germany continued to restrain Austria-Hungary and commit to Great Power arbitration and peace after 1912
>What are your thought on the Germans completely making it up?
How so?

>source?
see img

Attached: evening_world_aug_1_1914[1].png (1100x618, 246K)

>German intelligence noticed massive Russian troop movements during the invasion of France
Source?

> Suvorov
Surovov has never provided evidence of the supposed preemptive strike theory and it is highly unprovable considering the absolute state of the Red Army in 1941. Just look at the winter war they were in no shape for an invasion of Germany anytime soon. No evidence to suggest they had such plans either

It’s been proven that the Red Army systematically dismantled its defensive structures in the late 1930s, and was reoriented towards more offensive equipment and military doctrine. Deep Battle theory is just one example. Regardless, it seems logical to assume that Hitler considered war with Stalin inevitable, and decided to enter the conflict on his own terms.

Planet earth is best for going to bed

Right, but consider that the Soviet Union had also just betrayed the Western democracies by invading Poland. Sure, France could have launched an offensive, but the Germans would have rushed some troops back west and stopped it. There’s a reason the French strategy revolved around defensive fortifications, their entire military doctrine in the period revolves around frontier defense. They couldn’t reasonably hope to invade and occupy Germany alone, and allied troops took considerable time to arrive.

>You know full well that Russia was well aware that an eventual war against Austria would mean a war against Germany.
The only reason they mobilized was because they had to protect their interest in the Balkans and felt obligated to do so after the humiliation the suffered in the Russo-Japanese War. Nicky didn't really have a choice in the matter and Germany failed to understand the point of view from the Russians. It was the German ultimatum that forced war upon Russia mobilization in of itself is not an act of war.

>Austria wouldn't back down so Germany didn't want to back down either.
That's largerly due to the blank check Germany gave Austria allow the Hungarians to reaffirm their position. Had the Germans been a bit more diplomatic in their approach war would've likely never broken out

>powers recklessly supported the revisionist forces on the Balkans at the expense of the existing status quo.
How was it reckless exactly?

>the entente powers were willing to prioritize political adventurism on the Balkans over peace.
And Germany was willing to risk a general European war just for Austria to keep their hand in the Balkans don't you think that was as equally stupid? Germany was hardly blameless in this. The Schlieffen plan alone, while I understand its purpose, was reckless in that it pretty much guaranteed that Germany would have to go to war with its neighbors in the case of mobilization which was far from a guarantee of conflict.

>I would argue it's largely thanks to Germany that a European war didn't occur prior to 1914
I would argue it's largely due to Germany a general European conflict did break out in 1914 due to the Schlieffen plan in combination with the blank check

>How so?
There is no evidence to corroborate it.

>see img
I don't see anything in your image that confirms:
>France said explicitly that it will not remain neutral in an eventual war against Russia and started a full scale mobilization

History documentaries suck, too many inaccuracies. I like documentaries about animals, they are cool.
This.

This is better than ww2 in colour. Alot of focus on the eastern front

Attached: MV5BMzEyMmM1ZGMtZTgwMS00Y2Y4LTg0MTItMGRiZGE3YTVhYjU3L2ltYWdlXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNTAyODkwOQ@@._V1_.jpg (811x1073, 347K)

>betrayed
No. The Soviets never claimed they won't invade anyone.

>As was France's post Napoleon defeat
There are different ways of winning. Generally, when we talk about losers we talk about countries that were utterly destroyed. Like Carthage for example. The Roman Empire was no loser in any real sense.
>They collapsed
Mostly internal, actually
>but they still LOST at the end.
You're looking at this all too literally, me thinks. As I said, they "lost", but their cultural heritage was far too large to be erased. And even if we take your side of things, are you honestly going to say that them losing hasn't hurt their image in history? For fuck sakes, they're being paraded as the "Byzantines", most of their great accomplishments have been absolutely forgotten. People keep preaching on about how the battle of Tours "saved" Europe when that was a simple raid by a small number of ghazis while the real invasion, the real savior of Europe - the Siege of Constantinople in 717 is all but forgotten about. There are no movies made about them even though their political intrigues and court factions make Game of Thrones look like a puppy game. Most of what anyone knows about the "Byzantines" come from Paradox games. So please, don't try to argue over this point because you're way over your head here.
>Which flies
No, it doesn't. As I said, in a general sense nobody aside from Germany had that story. The world as a whole saw Germany as the instigator of WWI, so I am, once again, correct.
>It literally does
?
>Germany
I think you're trying to wiggle yourself out from the hole you made by stretching what I meant to the absolute extreme. Is Germany not viewed by the majority as the country to have started WWI even to this day?
>Yes it was
It wasn't. Post limit prevents me from talking more on this point. Next post.
>For
You're probably confusing me with another user
>You're
Which are the movies that paint him in positive light? And also please, dispute my point as him not being seen to this day as a warmonger.

>It’s been proven that the Red Army systematically dismantled its defensive structures in the late 1930s
source?

>and was reoriented towards more offensive equipment and military doctrine.
As was Germany military doctrine alone isn't enough evidence to prove intention to go to war. In fact most militaries that point in time began to adapt a more mobile method of warfare.

>it seems logical to assume that Hitler considered war with Stalin inevitable, and decided to enter the conflict on his own terms.
I understand the rationale of Hitler at the time and I get his decision why he chose to go to war I just don't think Stalin viewed it the same way. Stalin struck me as a much more realpolitik sort of guy and didn't think Hitler was as ideologically autistic as he turned out to be. It is why Stalin didn't react to reports of German Army massing at the boarder he genuinely didn't think Hitler would be irrational enough to go to war on two fronts

>Is Germany not viewed by the majority as the country to have started WWI even to this day?
It's not "even to this day". This narrative started in the 1960s and was pushed by German historians. After WW1 Germans were portrayed as victims of the war, even by foreign media. There are many Hollywood films from the interwar period that don't portray Germnas as the bad guys.

>the Siege of Constantinople in 717 is all but forgotten about
not the user you're responding to, but I didn't know anything about this. how do i stop being a historylet?

>Sure, France could have launched an offensive, but the Germans would have rushed some troops back west and stopped it.
I highly doubt it dude. Germany simply didn't have the strength industrial or otherwise to deal with two Allied armies on its western boarder and the Polish Army which was still alive and kicking in the east. Also consider the Soviets didn't invade Poland until some time later. I personally don't think Germany would've had the resources to manage at best it would've bogged down into another war of attrition

>They couldn’t reasonably hope to invade and occupy Germany alone,
In a 1v1 situtation yes but since Germany had most of its Army massed in the East it was absolutely their best shot. I don't think Germany could've handled it but French doctrine was outdated and defensive minded so it never would've happened anyway

counter-currents.com/2011/04/exposing-stalins-plan-to-conquer-europe/

>There are different ways of winning.
There are different degrees of victory yes which is why a general rule such as "victors always write the history" is retarded because the SCALE of the victory changes depending on the context.

>Mostly internal, actually
The collapse was due to foreign elements within the empire

>You're looking at this all too literally
It's you who is looking at history in terms that are too black and white. You yourself say that there are different victories which again is why general rules like "victors always write history" is simply not true and cannot be applied on a large scale

>but their cultural heritage was far too large to be erased.
refer to my earlier post "Perserved culture doesn't mean a general victory in any sense."

>are you honestly going to say that them losing hasn't hurt their image in history?
I never suggested that or even implied it. My entire point was that the written record we do have on the Romans mostly comes from the Romans themselves. They were not the victors despite the written record being dictated by them

>most of their great accomplishments have been absolutely forgotten.
LOL WHAT DUDE? Byzantines are STILL jerked off about do you go to /his/ at all? They absolutely have not been forgotten. If you're suggesting the general public doesn't know much about them then sure but the general public knows little about history in general

>So please, don't try to argue over this point because you're way over your head here.
You don't know what the fuck your talking about dude and your mental gymnastics are embarrassing to watch

>As I said, in a general sense nobody aside from Germany had that story.
Your moving goalposts dude first you say Victors always write history now you say no no no Germany post WW1 had their own version with a rule as general as that it's either one or the other

Glantz demolished most of Suvorov's arguments. Suvorov barely cites any sources, it's hard to take him seriously. And come on, counter-currents, ihr? lol.

>>The world as a whole saw Germany as the instigator of WWI
The Germans themselves dictated their own narrative in spite of their mammoth lose. The issue is you keep trying to apply this general rule of "victors always write history" despite their being tons of nuance in individual cases such as those of the Germans and French

>I think you're trying to wiggle yourself out from the hole
I'm not wiggling my way out of shit it's you who keeps adding these qualifiers to this general rule you're trying to apply throughout history

>Is Germany not viewed by the majority as the country to have started WWI even to this day
No actually it isn't there is tons of debate regarding this

>Which are the movies that paint him in positive light?
Waterloo, The Battle of Austerlitz, Napoleon (1995 and 2007) not to mention tons of documentaries and books that glorify him

>dispute my point as him not being seen to this day as a warmonger.
Dude he is almost viewed as a romantic figure today I honestly don't know where the fuck you're getting this warmonger image from

Source?

Danzig massacre is literally a modern meme. It's not even from actual Nazi propaganda, but it was made up by some retarded neo-Nazis who confused Bromberg/Bydgoszcz with Danzig/Gdansk and the so-called Polish Corridor with Danzig/Gdansk.
There are very few educated revisionists, most of them don't know basic facts.

There's retards ITT who unironically believe stab in the back myth there's no reasoning with some of the people who have been fed these debunked talking points

>source
His book? He actually cites his sources. Stumbling Colossus is his most famous work.

>It was the German ultimatum that forced war upon Russia mobilization in of itself is not an act of war.
No, it was Russian's idea of declaring war on Austria that forced the war. The mobilization was the consequence of that. Stop trying to argue that Nicholas wasn't planning on waging war and he dindu nuffin. Don't get me wrong here, Wilhelm II was as stupid as a brick, but to argue that Russia was peacefully mobilizing for no reason is utterly ridiculous.
>Had the Germans been a bit more diplomatic in their approach war would've likely never broken out
Diplomatic how? The Germans just gave their support to Austria and that was it. Nobody expected for a full war to break out. In fact, the Kaiser was on vacation during that time and he didn't give a fuck.
>And Germany was willing to risk a general European war
Where did I say Germany was smart? I said they were not at fault for starting WWI which you tried to imply which your copy-pasted link.
>I would argue it's largely due to Germany a general European conflict did break out in 1914 due to the Schlieffen plan in combination with the blank check
No, I would argue it was a mix of things. Serbia's trying to ignite Pan-Slavist elements onto Austria's territory, Russia and Austria having a game on who should have influence in the Balkans, Germany not wanting to be sandwiched by France and Russia, France wanting its territory back and Britain wanting to keep the balance in Europe so they can be the top dog.
>There is no evidence to corroborate it.
There's actually plenty of evidence. For one, the census conducted by the Germans actually does indeed show the jews were vastly underrepresented in it. The November Revolution was actually overrepresented with jews and much of the initial Weimar government had jews in it.
>France
"The Government of the Republic will have regard to its own interests.”. In diplomatic terms, I'm pretty sure that means "yeah, fuck off. we're going to war".

The Germans desperately wanted to go to war, both the politicians and military circles. They are actually more responsible for this shitshow than WIlhelm II.

Stop watching kike propaganda, good goyim.

>The November Revolution was actually overrepresented with jews and much of the initial Weimar government had jews in it.
Source?

>everything i dont like is jewish

What about the Soviet invasion of Finland? It's hard to believe anything the establishment says. They absolutely do not want their narrative challenged, especially with the idea that Hitler saved Europe from the communists.

Attached: 1508549722372.png (500x557, 819K)

>is retarded because the SCALE of the victory changes depending on the context.
Then you agree with me that the Romans didn't "lose", as you'd understand it?
>The collapse was due to foreign elements within the empire
You do know that is also an internal element?
>is simply not true and cannot be applied on a large scale
You keep agreeing with me, yet trying to make some kind of an argument I don't understand. Is it or isn't it? "History is written by the victors". Simple as that.
>"Perserved culture doesn't mean a general victory in any sense."
It does.
>They were not the victors despite the written record being dictated by them
Then who were the victors of the Roman dissolution? Oh let me guess, the "barbarians" you do not even know. Fact is, even though Rome as a state was "destroyed", its legacy remained.
> Byzantines are STILL jerked off about do you go to /his/ at all?
Oh yes, a bunch of autists on /his/ jerk themselves off. What a fucking legacy, really. We're not talking about some small number of idiots, we're talking about the world as a whole. On Stormfront people are speaking about NS Germany in glowing terms, yet ask anyone outside of that bubble what they think about Hitler. Nobody knows about the ERE in real life and their accomplishments are all but forgottten. Simple as that.
>Victors always write history
No, you're either too stupid or you're playing stupid. Victors did write WW1. As I said, nobody outside of Germany's influence regarded them as the victims. We're talking as a whole here and your argument appears to be "well, there are at least 5 people from 5 million here that believe otherwise so your point is irrelevant". Some people believe the Earth is flat, does that suddenly discount the main narrative?

>What about the Soviet invasion of Finland?
You can't be this fucking historically illiterate.

Finland was in the Soviet's sphere of influence.

>In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement in the areas belonging to the Baltic States (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), the northern boundary of Lithuania shall represent the boundary of the spheres of influence of Germany and U.S.S.R. In this connection the interest of Lithuania in the Vilna area is recognized by each party.
From Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

>No, it was Russian's idea of declaring war on Austria that forced the war.
They didn't do so unjustly dude Austria was threatening a Russian ally in the Balkans they were just responding to this.

>top trying to argue that Nicholas wasn't planning on waging war and he dindu nuffin.
I never suggested that or even implied it

>but to argue that Russia was peacefully mobilizing for no reason
Their mobilization was just in my opinion as it was merely responding to Austrian aggression against an ally it was the German strategy of the Schlieffen plan that put them on a tight timetable and forced their hand in declaring war on Russia when a peaceful solution could've been reached had their been more time for diplomacy. Again mobilization is not a guarantee for war

>Diplomatic how?
The Blank Check they offered Austria I thought was rather reckless as essentially it gave confidence to the Austrians to act however they wanted in the Balkans. It emboldened them to offer the ultimatum to the Serbs which was completely unreasonable and a deliberately made as such to spark conflict

>I said they were not at fault for starting WWI which you tried to imply which your copy-pasted link.
I used the link as evidence they had clear intentions of war sometime in the near future. I never used the link as evidence they were the sole party responsible for WW1 though I think they do deserve considerable blame

>Serbia's trying to ignite Pan-Slavist elements onto Austria's territory
What evidence is there to suggest the Black Hand acted at the behest of the Serbian Government? What responsibility do you personally think the Germans bare in WW1 by the way?

>There's actually plenty of evidence
Of the Danzig Massacre?

>the census conducted by the Germans actually does indeed show the jews were vastly underrepresented in it.
I was talking about Danzig Massacre not stab in the back

>"The Government of the Republic will have regard to its own interests.”. In diplomatic terms, I'm pretty sure that means "yeah, fuck off. we're going to war".
That's just a typical stock response any nation would've put out in such circumstances it hardly means:
>France said explicitly that it will not remain neutral in an eventual war against Russia and started a full scale mobilization
specifically as you suggested

>As I said, nobody outside of Germany's influence regarded them as the victims.
But this is not true. The popularity of books such as All Quiet on the Western Front is a good example of how Germans were portrayed in the interwar period.
Then there were a lot of films portraying the Southern states as the good guys (including Gone with the Wind), and so on.

>The issue is you keep trying to apply this general rule of "victors always write history" despite their being tons of nuance in individual cases such as those of the Germans and French
You keep trying to circumvent my point and it isn't working.
>No actually it isn't there is tons of debate regarding this
Debate by some fucking armchair historians on historum. Get real. We're talking about the general opinion here, not a bunch of autist. You keep bringing this shit and it's fucking annoying.
>>Waterloo, The Battle of Austerlitz, Napoleon (1995 and 2007) not to mention tons of documentaries and books that glorify him
Haven't watched any of them
I don't believe I've watched any of them so I can't really comment. As for your other argument, I haven't seen many that glorify him and aside from that, that's not what I talked about. The general opinion is what's important here, not how many books and movies are to his name.
>Dude he is almost viewed as a romantic figure today I honestly don't know where the fuck you're getting this warmonger image from
Where, aside from France? Do we live in an alternate reality or something?

Look it up. Why the fuck do I have to bring source into everything? Here's a tip - first cabinet of Weimar.

what would he do differently?

Attached: qqgvs9bu1t531.jpg (480x417, 61K)

Stalin a gud boy, he dindu nuffin.

Checked.

Attached: 1555125250412.png (752x587, 366K)

>Then you agree with me that the Romans didn't "lose"
No they lost they just weren't completely destroyed as Germany was in WW2. You don't seem to understand that phrase "victors always write history" implies that the victory and the scale of its consequences are always the same. You yourself admit circumstances vary so a general rule like that inherently cannot be applied

>You do know that is also an internal element?
You do know what "foreign" means right? The elements that lead to the collapse were largely not native to the empire itself

>You keep agreeing with me
Work on your reading comprehension bud.

>It does.
It does not by that same logic Greeks won because Ottomans retained a lot of elements of their culture

>Fact is, even though Rome as a state was "destroyed", its legacy remained.
Is in tact legacy really your only measure of victory?

>Oh yes, a bunch of autists on /his/ jerk themselves off. What a fucking legacy, really.
Are you familiar with Roman scholarship whatsoever? Byzantines are still a huge area of study

>Victors did write WW1.
You're simply wrong. Most of the resentment in German society came from narrative spun by nationalists post defeat

>As I said, nobody outside of Germany's influence regarded them as the victims.
You are wrong once again refer to and what's more than that you are moving goalposts

>"well, there are at least 5 people from 5 million here that believe otherwise so your point is irrelevant".
The state of your strawmanning m8.

>Some people believe the Earth is flat, does that suddenly discount the main narrative?
What the fuck are you even talking about dude?

>look it up
Ebert - not Jew
Hasse - Jew
Scheidemann - not Jew
Dittmann - not Jew
Barth - not Jew
Landsberg - Jew
Noske - not Jew
Wissell - not Jew
So two Jews out of eight. And the most important guys like Ebert and Scheidemann weren't Jews.

shoot himself in 1918

Where did you get that from, you brainlet? The Nazis didn't give a fuck about Finland that's why they basically sold it to Stalin in M-R Pact.

>the Balkans they were just responding to this.
So now you quit arguing that Russians dindu nuffin and the Germans attacked them for no reason?
>I never suggested that or even implied it
You fucking did. With that copy-paste imgur shit you posted. Now you try to back out. Nice.
>it was the German strategy of the Schlieffen plan that put them on a tight timetable and forced their hand in declaring war on Russia when a peaceful solution could've been reached had their been more time for diplomacy.
Ugh, it was Austria's intention to go to war with Serbia which would have drawn Russia in that caused the war. Whether Germany initiated any kind of plans was absolutely irrelevant. Austria wanted war with Serbia and Russia was gonna go to war wit Austria irregardless of what the Germans did.
>It emboldened them to offer the ultimatum to the Serbs which was completely unreasonable and a deliberately made as such to spark conflict
The Austria may have seen a serb killing their heir as completely unreasonable. Furthermore, Nicholas actually advised the Serbs to sign the ultimatum rather than haggle and try to compromise with the Austrians which the Serbs tried to do.
>I never used the link as evidence they were the sole party responsible for WW1 though I think they do deserve considerable blame
Dude, you argued otherwise. You basically said that Germany declared war on the entire world for no reason and that France and Russia dindu nuffin.
>Of the Danzig Massacre?
Eh, I was talking about the Stab in the Back here, but of the Danzig Massacre, too.The Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau, 1939-1945 (1979) list close to 60k German minority citizens as being victims of rape, murder, robbery, etc

>You keep trying to circumvent my point
How so?

>Debate by some fucking armchair historians on historum.
No debate in the actual scholarship of WW1 this was a huge point of contention in cold war west Germany for example

>Haven't watched any of them
But they exist despite your kvetching

>I don't believe I've watched any of them so I can't really comment.
Then why the fuck do you keep saying that he's depicted as a warlord despite having watched literally none of the media that depicts him? Why do you talk shit on these subjects you know nothing about?

>I haven't seen many that glorify him and aside from that,
Would you like me to list the books and documentaries too? Jesus dude the romantic depiction of Napoleon has been pretty well established in media for centuries

>The general opinion is what's important here, not how many books and movies are to his name.
What the fuck do you think dictates general opinion dude? It's books and movies and other such media. Hell there were plays only decades after Napoleon's death showing him in a romantic light throughout Europe why are you so completely ignorant to this?

>Where
He's had favorable productions made of him in Germany, Britain, America, and Russia along with favorable romanticized novels written about him worldwide in what fucking world do you live in dude?

Attached: 1560966028252.jpg (318x416, 26K)

It wasn't the Nazis to give away. It's also more evidence that the Soviets had imperialistic aims over other European countries. This whole notion that the Soviets were unprepared when Barbarossa hit is just them covering their asses because of how badly they got btfo. They wanted Europe, but Barbarossa proved their army was weak, untrained, and their tactics were poor despite having superior numbers and armor.

>So now you quit arguing that Russians dindu nuffin
I never suggested that stop strawmanning

>Germans attacked them for no reason?
I never said that either why do you argue like a jew?

>You fucking did. With that copy-paste imgur shit you posted.
No I fucking didn't retard at no point did I suggest Russia was blameless

>Austria wanted war with Serbia and Russia
And that was largely because Austria felt emboldened by Germany's blank check convenient you keep ignoring that

>The Austria may have seen a serb killing their heir as completely unreasonable
It was unreasonable of Austria to target the entirety of Serbia based on the actions of a few fringe nationalists from Bosnia yes. They had no evidence to even suggest Serbia was behind the assassination

>to compromise with the Austrians which the Serbs tried to do.
Because the demands were totally unreasonable. One of them essentially demanded for Serbia's government to be occupied:
>Accept in Serbia "representatives of the Austro-Hungarian Government" for the "suppression of subversive movements".

>You basically said that Germany declared war on the entire world for no reason and that France and Russia dindu nuffin.
Holy fucking strawman

>I was talking about the Stab in the Back here
I never once brought that up

>The Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau, 1939-1945 (1979) list close to 60k German minority citizens as being victims of rape, murder, robbery, etc
source?

Oh okay. Then France would not have declared war on Germany?
>So two Jews out of eight. And the most important guys like Ebert and Scheidemann weren't Jews.
5. You're obviously not looking very well. As well as the fact that the failed November Revolution in Germany featured mostly jews on the other side.
>No they lost
Who did they lose to?
>The elements f
I don't think you know what external and internal means. Foreign or not, they were within the empire and "worked" for the empire.
>Work on your reading comprehension bud.
You're literally autistic.
>It does not by that same logic
No, they lost.That's why nobody gives a fuck about them.
>Is in tact legacy really your only measure of victory?
Of course. What else is history if not legacy of the countries that existed?
>Are you familiar with Roman scholarship whatsoever? Byzantines are still a huge area of study
There we go. Now the Byzantines are a great area to study. Spin this around in some more directions, why don't you?
>Most of the resentment in German society came from narrative spun by nationalists post defeat
In Germany. Germany is a minority when you look at the whole world, isn't it? So how is my point not relevant?
>You are wrong once again refer to and what's more than that you are moving goalposts
Again with the movies and shit. Who the fuck cares? We're talking about the general opinion of people here, not if some rich jew made a movie. The book "All Quiet on the Western Front" was also written by a German, so your whole point is fucking moot.... yet again.
>What the fuck are you even talking about dude?
I'm just copying you. Apparently in your mind, just because a couple of people disagree with the majority, then that means that history isn't really written by the victors. That's your whole argument. Nevermind that everyone viewed and still views Germany as the cause of WWII, at least Germany doesn't view itself that way.

>Soviets had imperialistic aims over other European countries
No shit, lol.
>but Barbarossa proved their army was weak
This already happened during the war with FInland, that's why the Germans didn't take them seriously. There is zero evidence they wanted to attack the West in 1941.

>5
So who else was a Jew? This is the entire first cabinet.
>As well as the fact that the failed November Revolution in Germany featured mostly jews on the other side
No? Are you confusing November Revolution with the Spartacist Uprising which happened in January?

>How so?
By trying to paint a minority as a majority.
>No debate in the actual scholarship of WW1 this was a huge point of contention in cold war west Germany for example
Again with what's debated in Germany. Germany is irrelevant to this. Why not say the entire world instead?
>But they exist despite your kvetching
I doubt that.
>Then why the fuck do you keep saying that he's depicted as a warlord despite having watched literally none of the media that depicts him? Why do you talk shit on these subjects you know nothing about?
GENERAL. OPINION. OF. THE. WORLD. POPULACE. YOU. FUCKING. BUFFOON. Do you know what that even means? Movies are made about Hitler, as well. Tell me, do you, the low IQ person that you are, seriously believe that Napoleon is viewed favourably by the general populace? Really?
>Jesus dude the romantic depiction of Napoleon has been pretty well established in media for centuries
oh my fucking god.
>Hell there were plays only decades after Napoleon's death showing him in a romantic light throughout Europe why are you so completely ignorant to this?
ok bud.
>He's had favorable productions made of him in Germany, Britain, America, and Russia along with favorable romanticized novels written about him worldwide in what fucking world do you live in dude?
autism.

>We're talking about the general opinion of people here, not if some rich jew made a movie.
The adaptation of All Quitet on the Western Front was very popular.

>So who else was a Jew? This is the entire first cabinet.
Dernburg, Schiffer, Preuss, Erzberger, Gothein.

>GENERAL. OPINION. OF. THE. WORLD. POPULACE
The fuck does this even mean? What is this mysterious general opinion of the world? What is this based on? Surveys? Because apaprently popular media don't count.

>I never suggested that stop strawmanning
The Imgur link you posted suggested that.
>I never said that either why do you argue like a jew?
I was just thinking the same thing about you.
>No I fucking didn't retard at no point did I suggest Russia was blameless
Then why post the link you posted if you didn't? Because the link quite clearly says Russia and France are blameless and Germany started WWI.
>And that was largely because Austria felt emboldened by Germany's blank check convenient you keep ignoring that
There was no "blank check". There was only a promise of support by Germany.
>They had no evidence to even suggest Serbia was behind the assassination
Don't be absurd. The Black Hand was a Serbian organization.
>Because the demands were totally unreasonable. One of them essentially demanded for Serbia's government to be occupied:
>Accept in Serbia "representatives of the Austro-Hungarian Government" for the "suppression of subversive movements".
How so? This doesn't scream occupation at all. A few representatives to keep order given that the heir of Austria-Hungary was just killed isn't that unreasonable. That's why Russia urged Serbia to accept the demands even though Russia had interests in Serbia, as well.
>source?
Gave you the source.

It means what your average person in everyday life thinks. Is that so hard to get?

But that's the first Scheidemann cabinet. And it didn't have 8 members, but 18. So 5 Jews out of 18? And Erzberger was a Catholic. He belonged to the Zentrum.

There is a based Documentary about ancient greece that liam neeson narrated

And who is this "average" person? And how do you know what he thinks?

>So 5 Jews out of 18?
Learn to count. Also, that isn't a small number by any means given the jewish population. Way overrepresented.
>And Erzberger was a Catholic
A jew is born a jew. There is no such thing as a jewish catholic
I know that he thinks that Napoleon is an aggressor and not a "romantic" figure. I know that he thinks that Napoleon started the Napoleonic wars, which is false.

SteveMRE is best for that lad

He wasn't born a Jew.
>I know that he thinks
How do you know this?

You're so full of shit it's not even funny.