Hello /his/ I am not a frequent poster of this board, but I

It's all 100% true.

>>1521769
>how much of the "history" of WWII and Nazi Germany was fudged to help promote an ideology

I assume you mean vilified in a "history is written by the victors" sort of way?

>>1521793
yea

>>1521769
>how much of the "history" of WWII and Nazi Germany was fudged to help promote an ideology
I wouldn't say that there's some sort of 'power' in the background trying to push an ideology, but many things that were invented war time propaganda have been accepted as fact by public opinion and thus fact and fictions has mixed. This is nothing new in history though, quite a lot of things were attributed to past rulers by the political opposition which is why historians usually ask the question who wrote it for whom and for what purpose. When it comes to Nazi Germany, people are still quite eager to accept anything lots of things without questioning, but with the decades to come we'll likely get a clearer, less emotionally biased picture.

>>1521769
I know im gonna get memed on for this but i honestly think not everything about the holocaust is true, not in a cover-up conspiracy way but in an exaggeration way. I think this will be uncovered in the future when it won't be controversial to investigate the holocaust because everyone involved will be dead.

Also i think the modern day witch hunts for Auschwitz guards/bookeepers/janitors is completely unwarranted.

>>1521809
Even today people still believe in propaganda about Wilhelm II and Napoleon.

The thing about modern history is that only the narratives can be fudged up. There are plenty of primary sources available which you can use to make your own conclusions. Now whether yo believe that the sources are reliable and not part of the "Allied-Jewish conspiracy" is shit we have to decide for ourselves.

>>1521824
That's mostly because your only sources about the holocaust are revisionists from /pol/.

>>1521911
Haven't been on /pol/ since moot turned off the captcha that one week. I didn't even post on it then, just wanted to see what the fuss was about.

I mostly post on /lit/, /sci/ and here.

>>1521796

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkMrCHaSi0M

File: anglo-cluster-1237115.png (46KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 640x480px

>>1521769
>Hello /his/
hi
>I am not a frequent poster of this board, but I am intrigued by history.
k
arent we all
>I am here to ask how much of the "history" of WWII and Nazi Germany was fudged to help promote an ideology.
they were non english speakers, they went against anglo saxon hegemony (see pic), they were mere proxies, the world is to this unified central tenant or idea, that is racially based in dogger.
>Sorry if this question is dumb, but I really don't know where I can find any non-biased sources.
no such thing, work it out for urself
prove it
> I only have a highschool level of history and years of stuff I've seen randomly on the internet(not places like this.) Both of which do not seem reliable.
like what?
where?

if ur african u have 2 choices,

south; SA & Rhodesia case study, contribute
north; gadaffi, emulate

>>1521769
best shot at non biased interpretation of srouces are PRIMARY sources, from that through whatever methodology of logic you subscribe to work out your conclusions. look for anthropological initial artificats, deduce truth from that.

/historian

>>1521937
is this source reliable?