It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Interesting notes from Hitler

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 01:23 PM
link   
After reading through some of Hitler's speeches and other archives, I found a few striking things that I would like to share:

From: Hitler's speech of January 30, 1939 before the Reichstag
1. Nazi Germany was rather friendly to the christian religion, donated tons of money every year to both catholic and protestant churches:


"The National Socialist State since 30 January 1933 from public monies derived from taxation through the organs of the State has placed at the disposal of both Churches the following sums:
In the fiscal year 1933 130 million Reichsmark
In the fiscal year 1934 170 million Reichsmark
In the fiscal year 1935 250 million Reichsmark
In the fiscal year 1936 320 million Reichsmark
In the fiscal year 1937 400 million Reichsmark
In the fiscal year 1938 500 million Reichsmark "


2. Nazi germany offered the Jews to western democracies, yet they declined -- insuring that Jews would be placed into camps. Hitler notes,



"1. "We," that is the democracies, "are not in a position to take in the Jews." Yet in these empires there are not 10 people to the square kilometer. While Germany, with her 135 inhabitants to the square kilometer, is supposed to have room for them!

2. They assure us: We cannot take them unless Germany is prepared to allow them a certain amount of capital to bring with them as immigrants.



From Hitler's Secret Speech to the German Press, 10 November 1938
3. Hitler defended his offensive because of worries of what military difficulties would arrise if he waited.



"After 21 May it was quite clear that this problem had to be solved one way or another [so order so]! Each further postponement could only make it more difficult and make its solution more bloody. Now we know also that it was, I would say, the last moment at which this problem could be solved in the way it was solved. One thing is certain, gentlemen: a delay of only one or two years would have put us into an extraordinarily difficult situation from the military point of view. Our enemies in the rest of the world would have remained. The aircraft carrier in the heart of Germany, i.e. Czechoslovakia, would have strengthened and fortified itself more and more, and gradually all the additional weapons produced by our rearmament programme would have been swallowed up by the task of having to solve this problem first before tackling any other.


4. Hitler maintains to the press that they must hold to the following type of thinking for victory to be obtained:



"They must be educated to the absolute, steadfast, optimistic belief that in the end we will achieve all that is necessary. We can only succeed in this by a continuous appeal to the strength of the nation, by stressing the qualities of the nation and by disregarding the so-called negative sides as much as possible. To achieve this, it is also necessary for the press in particular to hold blindly to the principle: The leadership is always right!



Any thoughts? I'll continue to post more interesting things as I go through his speeches.




posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Very interesting, although Hitler himself was no Christian by any means, his government giving funds makes sense, there were a lot of Christians that failed to speak out, but many did and paid the price.....


That was a dark time for Germany, and now it is an atheistic country for the most part.



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Very interesting, although Hitler himself was no Christian by any means, his government giving funds makes sense, there were a lot of Christians that failed to speak out, but many did and paid the price.....


Hitler believed he was a Christian and not only helped the church but spoke out against atheism.
www.nobeliefs.com...



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Hitler was born and baptized Catholic. That is where it stopped like most of Europe.

He know more professed his belief in Christ. Many of those sent to concentration camps were Christians. He despised the church and those he thought were superstitious fools. Hitler was a German pagan. His god was the State. Much like most liberals.



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 02:53 PM
link   
And it was during those years the bush family was raising money for hitler and greasing his pagan war machine. Want websites, ther's plenty.



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Yes, that could be true indeed. Send me some links

I came from an East German background. No doubt my family has done some very evil stuff prior to 1900 that they will answer for. GW was not around so do not hold him for stuff he is not responsible for.

Shall I go through all the great liberal Democtrats whose family owned slaves.

Here it is for all of you Bush haters.

Kerry was a no choice. He would have consulted the French on the best way for America to surrender to what ever crack pot group that comes up hating Americans, hating jews, hating Shiites, hating conservatives, hating Christians, hating hating hating. I did not want someone to startup diplomatic give and take with a thug. i wanted someone who would just do it and show the world that all those opposed to it were getting kickbacks from Saddam in the oil for food and weapons proliferation.

We do not whine like all your girly men. We do..... and then we bury our children.
They died and now they are in heaven. You guys are still here alive thanks to them but the good days of self gratification will soon be over for you eternally. Repent! (all you haters)


By the way, I do repent nightly.

Now back to Bush,

"Git her done!"

cable guy



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 11:27 PM
link   
March 12, 1938, broadcast read by Goebbels
5. Hitler invaded Austria because he argued that was the only way they could be self determining,


"I have therefore decided to offer the millions of Germans in Austria the assistance of the Reich. Since this morning soldiers of the German armed forces have been crossing all of the German-Austrian borders. Armored units, infantry divisions and SS units on the ground and the German Luftwaffe in the skies, summoned by the new National Socialist Government in Vienna, will ensure that the Austrian People are within the very near future finally given the opportunity to determine for themselves their future, and thus their fate, through a genuine plebiscite. "


25 March 1938 in Königsberg

7. Hitler answers the question "Why couldn't you allow Austrians self rule peacefully?" and notes that the League of nations wasn't doing its job.



A foreign paper asks: Why could you not have done this peaceably? The world would have been ready to grant you all you wanted? We know better: the conscience of the world, the justice of the world shone forth upon us for the first time from the peace treaties. When has more shameless violence been done to peoples than in the period when men began to talk about world conscience and world justice? When have economic territorial unities been torn apart with less regard to conscience than since the day when a League of Nations was established with the professed aim of serving the interests of peoples? How often have I made representations, have warned and counselled -- but all to no effect?
...
Up to the present our complaints fell on ears that were stone deaf."


8. Hitler accuses previous Austrian leader of oppressing his people, then notes that they came as liberators.


"I said to the Austrian Chancellor: Herr Schuschnigg, you are oppressing a country. You have no right to do so. ... How comes it that you are continually doing violence to it? ... Not as tyrants have we come, but as liberators: an entire people rejoiced.
"



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reaganwasourgreatest
Hitler was a German pagan. His god was the State. Much like most liberals.


Rhetoric, at it's finest.

BTW, did you know that the Spanish Influenza 85 years ago was also the fault of those bastard Liberals?


How do I know this?







posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

How do I know this?






What? that Liberal TV Organization! Geez..............



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
What? that Liberal TV Organization! Geez..............


Ed you DO have a sense of humor.



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Hilter was baptised Catholic but as far as I can tell never really practiced. He left the majority of christians alone but only for the time being. He felt, as well as Himmler (and the rest of the inner circle for that matter) that Christianity was flawed because its base was Judeaism. He actually loathed Judeo-Christian values as being weak. Remember he was a proponent of eugenics and social darwinism in its ugliest form; showing mercy was for fools. Hitler and particularly Himmler was occultists by nature. Himmler wanted to round up the Christians soon after the Jews and Gypsies but Hitler told him Germany was not ready for a step that radical. Both of them wanted to create a German religion based partly on Norse myth. Hilter appeased christians to keep them silent in the face of his evil. He would have turned on the them in end as well.



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 01:56 PM
link   
It's interesting to me that the discussion picked up on Hitler's religion, and not his notes on the comments of his actions. Doesn't anyone see anything else that's interesting in these quotes?



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by radardog
It's interesting to me that the discussion picked up on Hitler's religion, and not his notes on the comments of his actions. Doesn't anyone see anything else that's interesting in these quotes?


Yes, but I've been out sick


Let's take a look at these figures. First of all, Hitler did offer the Jews to western countries. It is important to note, no one knew the levels of depravity the Nazis would reach around 1940-1941, when they began the wholesale killing of Jews. Many Nazis weren't even aware of this, and the Jews themselves were kept in the dark until they were crowded into the "showers" to die.

Hitler made a deal. He would allow the Jews to leave Germany, but they could only take the clothes on their backs. All of their finances had to stay in Germany to pay for their evils. So, western European nations were asked to take on a rather large group of welfare recipients. The western nations said no, let them take their finances and we'll take them.

Now, to the donations. Sure seems like a lot of cash, doesn't it? Hitler was just flooding the church with millions of dollars! Or, at least, Reichmarks. So what was the value of a Reichmark? To really understand this, you have to understand the German economic strategy after the treaty of Versailles. As you may know, Germany was stuck paying the bill for all of World War I, and France, the prime recipient, wouldn't give an actual dollar figure to it. As a result, the German government began printing Reichmarks en masse to throttle their economy until France gave up its enormous demands. To give you an idea of the Reichmark's value, in 1923, one trillion Reichmarks had the value of one American dollar. There are accounts of people getting mugged on the street when carrying wheelbarrows of money to buy a loaf of bread, the money was dumped out and the thief stole the wheelbarrow. That's how worthless it was. The money was cheaper than the paper it was printed on.

The US stepped in, and started to invest in Germany, and the economy started to stabilize a bit. However, after the stock market crash of 1929, American investment dried up, and the rest of Europe was hit pretty hard, too. As a result, France increased pressure on Germany to pay reparations, since France itself was hurting. Germany responded by, once again, printing tons of Reichsmarks. It was at about this time that Hitler came into power, campaigning on how badly the current government was doing without making any real statements himself. It was about 1933 he started to kick up the German industrial machine, and the economy was increasing at about 9.5% per year. Still, the economy at this point was in shambles. Around 1938, it was on solid footing again, though a Reichsmark still didn't compare to the dollar.

There was more, too. Hitler needed the Catholic Church's support in the war. Italy was an ally, but wouldn't be if the Catholic Church turned against them. Mussolini had done a great job of winning the Church's favor in his domination of Italy, and Hitler had to follow suit. Granted, Italy and Germany never really worked together through WWII, they did have a truce going on.

Finally, Hitler was very interested in the arcane. He sent Nazi delegates to every place paranormal power was spoken of to investigate it. If it could be used to further Germany and the Third Reich, it would be. The Indiana Jones movies were actually based somewhat (though very loosely) on reality.

#3 is absolutely true. Germany may have been the first to use Blitzkrieg, but every major nation had plans for a similar advance. The world was, once again, gearing towards war. Had Germany not struck when it did, Hitler would have found himself stuck without being able to strike out and form his 4 superpower world vision.

#4 I suspect you're trying to parallel to Bush. There was one primary difference, and many, many others. The primary difference is that Hitler would throw detractors into concentration camps. Not the ones reserved for the Jews, but others. After the Nazis came to absolute power, there was a wholesale imprisonment and execution of Hitler's political detractors.

At the same time, though, when you lose the war at home, you do lose the war abroad. Morale counts for a lot, and a soldier who doesn't feel like he has the support of his nation is more likely to fall than one who does. This has been shown time and time again from Rome to Vietnam. Mix some truth with a little tyranny, and you have a dangerous propaganda weapon. Here in the US, you don't, though, because there will always be detractors pointing out the flaws in someone's claim.

And seriously, could you imagine Bush being able to convince the press in a secret meeting to only print positive things?! First off, it would not stand a chance at being secret; someone would leak it. Second, they would say no, plain and simple.



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 08:34 AM
link   
I find it funny that Hitler saw jews as a 'problem' and let everybody know of the problem including jews... He's the azz that created the problem, and he's the azz that made it worse. What's that saying, problem, reaction, solution? Wasn't he also a genius?

To achieve this, it is also necessary for the press in particular to hold blindly to the principle: The leadership is always right!
He was a propagandist, and the press was also.
Plus he was on a crusade. Holy man? no, perhaps he felt if he donated money to the church's it would make him a holy/better man... He did have some seriously flawed thinking.



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueLies
I find it funny that Hitler saw jews as a 'problem' and let everybody know of the problem including jews...


Actually, no he didn't. Initially as the Nazi party was trying to come to power, they talked about their platform. One of the primary platforms was the supremacy of the white Aryan race, and anti-Semitism. At best, they took 2% of the vote on that platform. The Nazi party was looked at as one of those fringe extremist political groups and dismissed. Then, unfortunately, they got smart, and changed their tactics.

Instead of talking about why everything was the Jew's fault and what they planned to do about it, they attacked the current government for everything. Germany had lost WWI and got a miserable deal at the treaty of Versailles. Granted, it was a completely different government structure in control during WWI, and the current government wasn't allowed a say in the establishment of the treaty, Hitler blamed them. Hitler blamed them for the massive unemployment. Hitler and the Nazi party embarked on a massive negative campaign, and they did it in a way that was different than anything democratic politics had seen before that day. Instead of campaigning only on election years, the Nazi party would hold campaign events all the time. So it was a constant barrage of negative campaigning against the party in charge, for things they were responsible for and things they had no control over. The Nazis actually sold tickets to these events and would pack stadiums with people to hear whatever Nazi was speaking.

If questioned, the Nazi party would say they blamed the Jews, but they no longer volunteered the information. This campaigning worked very well, raising the Nazi party's relevance to German politics from a paltry 2% to 33% of the vote going to them. Hitler was made chancellor, even. Shocked the German political body something fierce: this fringe group had managed to hold the second highest number of seats in the german government in a matter of 4 years.

But after Hitler came to power, Germans were cool with hating the Jews, right? Not exactly. For the most part, people saw that as an unfortunate side of Hitler, but one that wasn't playing a major role in his politics. He initially tried to make a move against Jewish business and was slammed by the public. It was overturned within a week, and he would wait several more years before trying anything like that again. Instead, it was a slow inundation of anti-Semitism being done. Cartoons would come out, editorials would be written, etc, initially being offensive, but eventually being seen as acceptable humor or opinion. Then there were several events that took place, some accidents, some planned, that were blamed on a Jewish and Socialist conspiracy.

Even during the war, though, the people were not ravenous haters of the Jews as they have been portrayed as today. When the concentration camps were established, Hitler explained that they were going to be Jewish settlements to protect them (the Jews) from the anger of the general public. Hitler tried to appear as though he was protecting the Jews, not condemning them. Not even the soldiers bringing them to the camps were aware of what was going on in there. Too many times during the campaign in Russia would soldiers desert or even hide the Jews after seeing the massacres the SS would do after the army took the town or city.

So yes, Hitler saw the Jews as a problem, but he saw anything non-Aryan as a problem. He saw them as impure and less capable than an Aryan. He believed it was the Aryan’s responsibility to rule all of Europe (Great Britain was going to get to keep its naval power and Africa. The Japanese, who he saw as the Aryans of the orient, would control Asia, and the US would get the western hemisphere. However, the US wouldn't be able to maintain the western hemisphere very well or for too long because they gave too much power to the "impure" blacks.) However, he was not very forthcoming initially, until after he established a world presence for Germany once again. Even then, it was in moderation of what he really believed; he was a great politician.

Really, the only reason Germany doesn't control all of Europe today is because England backed up France. Hitler knew he'd be going to war with France and Russia, but figured England, since they had racial ties and had suffered so much in WWI, would never enter the war. All of Hitler's carefully laid out plans fell to the ground when England declared war on Germany. There are accounts of Hitler meeting with his staff and just trying to wrap his mind around England's joining France. He absolutely could not understand it..



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 11:35 AM
link   


You have voted junglejake for the Way Above Top Secret award.


Excellent info jake
Not that I'm doubting, but where did you get all that? History Channel, school, ???



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by MCory1
Excellent info jake
Not that I'm doubting, but where did you get all that? History Channel, school, ???


Combination of a lot. I love history, and can never learn enough. Most of that information I presented on Germany between 1918 and 1939 came from the Teaching Company's lectures on "Europe and Western Civilization In The Modern Age", which I finished a few months ago, and Wiki helped fill in some of the facts and figures I couldn't remember exactly. So right now modern European history is my bread and butter



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 10:06 PM
link   
Hi Jake,

Good and true information. I've found, looking back at history, that the most interesting parts of history won't be found in text books, but rather in the words of the men and woment that made the history. It's easy to summarize another person's accounts, but it's harder to put yourself in thier shoes. It sheds light on the differences of what people want you to know, and what actually did happen. In my of my old college text books, for example, the nazis were refered to as "evil" as if there is an objective standard for evil. It's the ultimate sign that history is written by the victors, in my opinion. Had the nazis won, I'm sure their text books would have mentioned America as inferior, for an easy example.

My intent isn't to make a parallel with Bush, but after reading some parts of Hitler's speeches, I do see that some of the public reasoning between the two men were the same. Both saw threats to their way of life, both saw the internationall community as a whole as useless, and both saw that time was the enemy. What strikes me the most is how some of the language (although translated) looks the same. Don't get my wrong, I don't mind Bush; I've even defended him.



posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 03:12 AM
link   
I must say, Jake, you did a primo job. I was about to point a few things out, but then I saw your post, and was impressed.

I studied Nazi Germany alot too. Much Of what I gained was from reading, not the internet. Im pleased to see that you take reading as a more reliable source of info than the internet. You definitely have summed up accurate all the factors of the Reich and their attitude towards Jews and Christians.

Its a fact that Hitler used Christian beliefs to help push Anti Semetism. he eve distributed a pamphlet that showed an "Aryan" looking Jesus being crucified by scheming evil Jews.

But anyone who has studied Nazi Germany knows that Christianity had absolutely NO place in the Nazi party. Hitler held the Christian faith in contempt, seeing it as the ideology of imbeciles and weaklings. Himmler was working to revive pre Christian Germanic tribal religons, and had a program to try and replace Christian holidays with their original Pagan ones. Appeasing Christians was vital to holding power, since there were so many Catholics and Protestants in Germany. Eventually, the plan was to erradicate Christianity all together, but for the time being, they needed a united Germany to accomplish their military goals. But had Hitler succeeded in overruning the whole of Europe, he would have begun to slowly remove Christianity from German life.

Just because Hitler was born and baptized a Catholic does not mean he was one. Religon is not something you are born into and inherit, it is something you choose to practice. So Hitler was not a Catholic, or a Christian. He wasnt even Pagan, as he even considered the Germanic religon Himmler was trying to revive a primitive and embarrassing part of the Germanic past.

And for another note, Australia rejected the Jews because of its strict "whites only" immigration policy. The Australians told Hitler no Jews would be accepted there, because they didnt have a race problem then, and did not want to create one.



posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 06:48 PM
link   



But anyone who has studied Nazi Germany knows that Christianity had absolutely NO place in the Nazi party.



I think you have been mislead slightly. There is plenty of evidence that the nazi party embraced christianity in more than a symbolic manner. This included government contributions and events related to the christian ideal, and more importantly the nazi 25 points, or platform, for which people elected them by, an excerpt seen here:



We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race. The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity without binding itself confessionally to any one denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our nation can only succeed from within on the framework: common utility precedes individual utility.


Hitler and the NAZIS wanted to bring Germany back to some idealic past, including a romantic view of the teutonic knights. Many see this as diving into the occult; however, we all need to remember that the teutonic knights were germanic christian holy war order, and fought in the crusades. Hitler's "Table-talk" wherein he supposedly trashes christianity has some reliability issues that not many people will discuss. To be fair, I suggest looking at the counter to that single source of antichristian speech from Hitler: www.nobeliefs.com...



new topics




 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join