Comments by "The french are harlequins" (@thefrenchareharlequins2743) on "How to Ideologically undermine Holocaust Denialism" video.

Hey, maybe the Austrian School is on to something if Ron Paul, Bob Murray and Peter Schiff were able to predict a crash in the housing market using its business cycle theory.
5
"I am am artist."
3
@BlackpilledBuddha6476 >why are you everywhere in the comment section Because you look for me >You're wrong about your definitions of ideologies, you're wrong about about free-market Capitalism and parliamentary Democracy being the greatest political system No explanation of how >you're wrong about historical facts in relation to Hitler etc. Because we all know, everything the man ever wrote was just electoral propaganda. >Allies and Soviets were worse than Hitler and led to deaths which could have been prevented such as the one in this video For the Soviets, somewhat agreeable. For the Allies, you are going to have to come up with a list of charges equivalent to: the creation of a fascist state in which all citizens are disposable property, invading and attempting to ethnically cleanse 22 neighbouring countries, the very bad thing that I think is the reason why YouTube keeps deleting my reply, horrific human experimentation, the killing of civilians in occupied territory, and starting a war in Europe killing 20 million people. Good luck.
3
Volk n (genitive Volkes or Volks, plural Völker, diminutive Völkchen n or Völklein n) people, nation, folk, tribe, race (group united by culture, history, descent, and/or language)
2
Tends to be both.
2
@promethium-145 How Hitler could win WW2? Shoot Halder.
2
You need only look to Mao.
1
@JosiahJS976 I bet it was with two sources one of which being Wikipedia.
1
Based
1
"Group control of the means of production."
1
Created in 1913, the Fed remained inactive throughout the first eight years of its existence. After the economy recovered from the 1920 to 1921 depression, the Fed allowed significant monetary expansion. Total money supply grew by $28 billion, a 61.8% increase between 1921 and 1928. Bank deposits increased by 51.1%, savings and loan shares rose by 224.3%, and net life insurance policy reserves jumped 113.8%. All of this occurred after the Federal Reserve cut required reserves to 3% in 1917. Gains in gold reserves via the Treasury and Fed were only $1.16 billion. By increasing the money supply and keeping the interest rate low during the decade, the Fed instigated the rapid expansion that preceded the collapse. Much of the surplus money supply growth inflated the stock market and real estate bubbles. After the bubbles burst and the market crashed, the Fed took the opposite course by cutting the money supply by nearly a third. This reduction caused severe liquidity problems for many small banks and choked off hopes for a quick recovery.
1
Kauvan on kärsitty ryssien valtaa , Suomen kansan vapautta suojellessa.
1
@Gvjrapiro Yes, but when it was managed so incompetently, amd in such a specific region, we should probably pit 2+2 together.
1
@Gvjrapiro Such as where, and if it was government mismanagement, it was managed so completely and utterly imcompentently that it was man-made.
1
@promethium-145 Yes. The best arguments against the Holodomor not being a genocide relies on extreme functionalism.
1
@promethium-145 A major debate in the study of the Holocaust is that between functionalism and intentionalism. Neither of these interpretations is Holocaust denial, though the controversy might be abused by Holocaust deniers. Intentionalists believe that the Holocaust was planned, ordered and directed by Hitler — that he devised it and put it into place, and had even been secretly planning it before he came to power. Functionalists believe that the Holocaust was not directly planned but organically evolved in response to bureaucratic pressures within the Nazi state. Intentionalists believe that Hitler personally ordered the murder of millions of Jews — although, we are lacking the "smoking gun" of a direct order or plan from him stating the same. For example, intentionalists believe that Hitler ordered the deportation of Jews to Eastern Europe as a prelude to killing them and that his cryptic phrase "the final solution of the Jewish question" was code for extermination. Functionalists believe that Hitler gave the order for deportation with no particular end-goal in mind; but when the Jews arrived in Poland, local Nazi officials did not know what to do with them and decided that killing them was the simplest solution to their problem. Functionalists do not deny that Hitler had major moral responsibility for the Holocaust, by helping to create and maintain the climate of anti-Semitism which made it possible and by authoring or approving some of the decisions which produced it — but they see the origin of the Holocaust as more a process of bottom-up innovations than top-down designs. Even if Hitler did not originate the idea for the Holocaust, he would have become aware of it, yet having so become aware he did nothing to stop it.
1
@Gvjrapiro A nation made a bad situation worse? No. A cock up by a bureaucracy, too big to be accidental and coincidentally in many territories wanting independence? Yes.
1
@Gvjrapiro If it was merely economic mismanagement, then how come it only affected Ukraine, and other parts of the Soviet Union where independence movements were becoming a subversive force?
1
@Gvjrapiro Collectivisation was strongly concentrated in the areas which had strong nationalist movements. Soviet politician Stanislaw Kosior declared Ukrainian nationalism to be the Soviets greatest threat. There was more than enough grain produced in Ukraine to feed the Ukrainians, although there was less than the previous year due to collectivisation. However, it was the Soviet government who got the final say on who got the food, and it was either they had one, great, massive pepega, or, the men at the top, realising their plan to crush Ukrainian spirit by ending the NEP and collectivising the farms causing a famine had failed, and they resorted to "mismanaging" the situation. Call it conspiratorial all you want, they knew what happened to the economy when it was somewhat private, and what happened to it when it was collectivised from past experience, and they thought Ukrainian nationalism was their biggest threat. As for the whole "kulaks had it coming" argument, dekulakisation had only a year left when the Holodomor started, and the extent to which destroying crops aided in the creation of the famine is debatable.
1
@Gvjrapiro With what means could the Ukrainians resist? At most, the people who were most against collectivizations, the kulaks, destroyed their grain, so not exactly trying to launch a civil resistance campaign like that of the civil rights movement. What was the name of this famine, and how does the fact that the state made a profit detract from the fact that it was an attempt to end Ukrainian nationalism? I have shown proof that the Soviet government was concerned with Ukrainian nationalism, where is the memorandum that states "дa comrade, we need to make lots of money for our great centrally planned state"? Ukrainian nationalism had received a boost through the Korenizatsiya programs of the 1920s and to a much, much lesser extent in the 1930s. I presume you are referring to the Russian famine of 1891–1892? That was caused by poor weather and the fact medieval farming methods were still used. And it didn't kill nearly as many people as the Holodomor. Collectivization didn't work, why do you think Lenin backtracked on it and introduced the NEP? And the Soviets weren't going after a few farmers. They were going after an entire nation. Yes... mismanaging the agricultural economy in areas that you collectivized, but it's all just a conspiracy theory that they collectivized it in parts of the country with big nationalist movements! And of course, it was a conspiracy. Practically every genocide in modern history is a conspiracy. And this doesn't make them any less unlikely either. There were no direct orders for the Holocaust, but even if you are a functionalist it is pretty easy to figure that Hitler would have known about it due to the sheer scale of things, and didn't give enough of a damn about it to stop it. I doubt it did have much to do with famines, given that there was enough food to feed the Ukrainians in 1932, and the Soviets "mismanaged" the grain away from Ukrainians mouths.
1
@Gvjrapiro Precisely. They couldn't resist, as they had no means to, so "movements against these policies and the government that supported them would spring up around these areas". The factors were certainly within the Soviet's control, as they could have stopped exporting food and properly divvied up the food among the farmers. They could have also, I don't know, not have liquidated the best farmers in their country? It was more than a single politician. Pavel Postyshev said that "1933 was the year of the defeat of Ukrainian nationalist counter-revolution." But listen, if words aren't good enough for you, why from 18 November 1932 peasants from Ukraine were required to return extra grain they had previously earned for meeting their targets? Why on 20 November 1932 was a law was passed forcing peasants who could not meet their grain quotas to surrender any livestock they had? Why then did collective farms that failed to meet their quotas were placed on "blacklists" in which they were forced to surrender 15 times their quota, then those farms were picked apart for any possible food by party activists, and blacklisted communes had no right to trade or to receive deliveries of any kind? Why on 5 December 1932, Stalin's security chief presented the justification for terrorizing Ukrainian party officials to collect the grain and it was considered treason if anyone refused to do their part in grain requisitions for the state? Why was Ukraine was required to provide 1/3 of the grain collection of the entire Soviet Union? The Korenizatsiya programmes were an indigenisation policy... what was not to like about that? That's kind of what happens when you use medieval farming methods. Not the fault of the state. "First" is a funny way to spell "second". The first policy was actually war communism. "Other areas" included other parts of the country with nationalist movements. Why don't you accept that putting a nation through a traumatic event is a surefire way to cripple it? Firstly, it's functionalism, not minimalism. Secondly, the fact that orders were passed down proves that the Holocaust was a conspiracy, and saying that I am "manufacturing a conspiracy" is a joke of an argument. Interesting how at that point in history the Soviets cared more about other countries' peoples than their own, and that you cannot seem to name any of these famines. And again, yes, it would have to have been a conspiracy, I say that loud and clear, and it doesn't detract from my argument. A conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime at some time in the future, find me one genocide in modern history that does not meet that description.
1
@Gvjrapiro Nope, there are ways of subverting the Soviet state without launching a civil resistance movement. You can keep repeating it was outside Soviet control, it doesn't make it true. Especially when scholars such as Stephen Wheatcroft and Lewis H. Siegelbaum agree that it was largely a result of Soviet policies. Again, name this great famine that the centrally planned Soviet Union thought they could make money from. Why was it that livestock, a form of food, was specifically requisitioned? Was there no other incentive of confiscation the Soviets could have thought of? >So the state told people to listen to the state's policies? OK, and? Ukraine produced 14.65 million tonnes of grain in '32, compared to the Soviet estimate of 69.8 million tonnes. It is quite disproportionate. You brought the thing up with your statement "You act as though the whole of the USSR's policies was to end Ukrainian nationalism when in reality, that nationalism didn't even exist until these policies, so how could the USSR have conspiratorially put them into place?" Which I refuted since nationalism existed before collectivisation and was the result of a different policy. Because it wasn't like Imperial Russia was industrialising at an equal rate. The point being, they knew collectivisation didn't work, so why did they bring it back? Who said it was exclusive to "Ukrainian" nationalist movements? Not manufacturing, just realising it makes more sense with a conspiracy. Also, the first report of the Holocaust was the result of a man having to go into one of the camps. If that isn't trying to keep a secret, I don't know what is. You have Belarus, you have Kazahkstan, you have Chechenya, need I go on? Now, how about you stop deflecting and answer my question, otherwise I can assume that the claim of famines abroad is false. It's good enough to be used in criminal law. I have provided proof, and you have not shown where I fabricated proof.
1
@Gvjrapiro You could. For one example, many people fled to the Ukrainian lands in Poland, told stories of the famine, turning international opinion against the Soviets. It was beyond poor. It was so, idiotic, and utterly stupid that it must have been malice. This is the view taken by many scholars including but not limited to Timothy Snyder, Stephen Wheatcroft and Robert Conquest. So according to you, the Soviets thought they could export grain to Ukraine and yield incalculable profit... problems with that hypothesis include the fact that the USSR was centrally planned so it didn't need currency, you cannot export within your borders and generally making no sense whatsoever. You would have your own farm in this scenario. The Soviet Government just wanted a fair deal of your yield. No, I am just expressing concern over your use of "OK, and?" when we are speaking about coercion by a sovereign state here. You are thinking of kulaks and their limited resistance to the Soviet Union. Kulaks weren't necessarily Ukrainian. High estimation? The Soviet leadership knew that there would be poor results from collectivisation, as war communism taught them in the RSFSR. High quotas were made out of malevolence. People weren't being slighted by indigenisation. They were loving it. People were allowed to celebrate their own culture. The Soviet government got concerned that they got too carried away and sought to crush Ukrainian spirit, and introduced a policy of limited Russification. Historically, it was like that. Imperial Russia was in fifth place for industrially produced goods. Cast iron production went up 106,200,000 pounds between 1900 and 1913. Coal production went up 1,229,000,000 pounds between 1900 and 1913. Steel and iron production went up 83,000,000 pounds between 1900 and 1913. Who is to say Imperial Russia couldn't produce tractors? They did know that collectivisation, like the policies under war communism, didn't work. that is why I am assuming they are failing on purpose. Ah, but I never said that was the only movement they wanted to end, did I? I have provided evidence, over which you are coping right now. Yes, they were trying to keep it a secret from the Allies. Of course, the government knew, they were secretly planning and carrying out mass murder, if that is not a conspiracy, nothing is. And it made no sense whatsoever. Belarus was part of the USSR, which also had a rebirth of nationalism thanks to indigenisation. Romania? It's interesting how I haven't heard of famine there before. The worst I have heard is that many farms went bankrupt because of the Great Depression, but I haven't heard of any famine. You will need to direct me to proof of the Great Romanian Famine of 1932. I have shown proof, you are coping over it.
1
@Gvjrapiro *many less. And the field burnings aren't as extensive as you make them out to be. All those people believe that the Holodomor was a genocide. And I am not manufacturing a conspiracy, many in the Soviet government said that Ukrainian nationalism is the biggest threat to the USSR. The USSR was centrally planned. Its currency was as pointless as a disability ramp that leads to stairs since anything you could buy with the currency was centrally planned for you. And no, you said that the Holodomor was the famine the Soviet government thought they could make money from. Depends on who you were. 11% of farms weren't collectivised. You just said that it was false. I don't know what kind of a response you get from that. So it wasn't exclusive to Ukraine and many Russians and Azerbaijanis owned large tracks of lands. Thank you for your concession. It did provide poor results. People fled from the cities, strikes were everywhere, rebellions such as the Tambov rebellion broke out. Again, Kulaks weren't necessarily Ukrainian nationalists, and the extent of the burning of crops is debatable. It was a country recently industrialising, what do you expect them to do as well, build a jet engine? It made life pretty miserable for the peasants. But I have. See above. And why didn't they speak out? Because the Nazis wanted to keep it a secret. Takes one to know one. Many western nations included Odesa as part of Ukraine? That makes sense because Odesa was part of Ukraine in the 1930s. Political geography is a bit too much for you, seemingly. But I have.
1
@Gvjrapiro The Holodomor was a genocide. No amount of whataboutisms about the monarchy, incorrect political geography and blaming literally anything but collectivization will change that.
1
Listen do you want to undermine denialism or nkt?
1
@supasf thats like saying I murdered someone when I stop someone from killing a 3rd party. I wont defend the invasions of numerous neutral nations, but you should choose better examples than an enemy puppet state and a country that joined the allies after being invaded by germany.
1
Why is this video wrong?
1
It exploded into PuBG, so not entirely sold on it.
1
@promethium-145 I'm replying to the Yugoslavian.
1
trainbomb Considering it kills everything that can be killed, it's not much of an achievement.
1