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.

 

Hitler Time magazines man of the year 1938 and his American backers

page: 3
16
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2020 @ 02:25 AM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

If you really want your mind blown:
The National Socialist Movement started in Hollywood
Hitler was working for German military Intelligence when when he went to his first Nationalist Party Meeting, and if it wasn't for a chance meeting with one of the organizers of that event, he wouldn't have ran for politics.
The Morgan Family was a financer of these early Party meetings, as well as the Bolsheviks, and another group that was reportedly the remainders to the "Black Hand" from WWI infamy.

All people like Ford did was to try and exploit the financial ruin that Germany was in, but Lindbergh on the other hand was buying in to the more occult elements of the NAZI party. (current evidence shows that Chucky Lindbergh had his own kid kidnapped and killed because he was handicap. Friggen eugenicist)




posted on Sep, 6 2020 @ 06:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: ReadOnly
I am not familiar with Operation Barbarossa, heard of it though.


If you're not even aware of this it's not really worth discussing the rest of your post until you educate yourself.



posted on Sep, 6 2020 @ 06:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: ReadOnly
To add to that, Germany is a small country, low population etc.


Wow, you need to do some reading. Germany and it's territories were the seventh largest population on the planet in 1939.



posted on Sep, 6 2020 @ 06:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: anonentity
Its a known fact that Boreman was in Argentina after the war organising the business side of things along with Peron.


Kind of hard to do when he was dead which DNA reconfirmed when tested against his son.



posted on Sep, 6 2020 @ 06:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Guyfriday
...but Lindbergh on the other hand was buying in to the more occult elements of the NAZI party. (current evidence shows that Chucky Lindbergh had his own kid kidnapped and killed because he was handicap. Friggen eugenicist)


How did Lindbergh have his own child kidnapped for Nazi occult purposes in 1931 when he didn't get introduced to Nazism until years later?



posted on Sep, 6 2020 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I worded that badly. Lindbergh had his boy kidnapped, and then killed because of his belief in eugenics. It was one of the draws that he had towards the NAZI Occult side of things when he visited Germany. Lindbergh believed in the whole idea of a master race and, from what he wrote, he thought he was a member of.



posted on Sep, 6 2020 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Guyfriday

Still sounds totally ridiculous. I guess he planted the ransom money and other evidence with Hauptmann too.



posted on Sep, 6 2020 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

From: PBS:NOVA
Down in the transcripts;

NARRATOR: As shocking as this sounds, questions about Lindbergh's behavior emerged soon after the kidnapping. He didn't trust the police and used his enormous influence to control them and the investigation. He even kept the ransom notes and negotiations with the kidnappers secret. So, some people began to wonder if he was hiding something. But why would he want his own child kidnapped?

LLOYD GARDNER: Lindbergh was very much involved in the eugenics movement, and I think Lindbergh was very afraid that little Charlie was not ever going to be a healthy young man.

NARRATOR: Eugenicists believe in creating superior human beings by selectively breeding the smartest and strongest people, those with good genes, and sterilizing the physically and mentally weak.

There were rumors that Charlie had some physical problem. And if he did, this could be a sign that Lindbergh had inferior genes.

LLOYD GARDNER: And his feeling about having an imperfect child may have weighed on him very, very heavily.

JOHN DOUGLAS: Is there any evidence that Lindbergh's baby had any health problems?

LLOYD GARDNER: Yes. The family doctor noted an enlarged or still-open fontanel that should have been closed. He had difficulty getting the child to stand up straight when he was doing the physical examination and children who have this problem are often associated with rickets.

NARRATOR: Charlie's physician described him as having a "moderate rickety condition," but not the severe form of rickets that can bring deformed bones and other skeletal issues. Rickets is caused by a vitamin D deficiency, so the Lindberghs were giving Charlie vitamin supplements. But was he seriously affected or mildly compromised? According pathologist John Butts,…

JOHN BUTTS: His medical record shows no evidence that he had any significant medical problems. If he did have rickets, it was a very mild condition for which he was being appropriately treated.

NARRATOR: But what if his condition was more serious?

JOHN DOUGLAS: Do you think that this would be enough motivation to plan a kidnapping and killing of his own child?

LLOYD GARDNER: I don't think Lindbergh wanted the child killed. Obviously something went wrong. I think Lindbergh's idea, his overriding idea, was to get the child out of the household and into an institution. This is not unusual, for wealthy families to do something with a child who is not quite right.

NARRATOR: Gardner believes it was Lindbergh who told the kidnappers when the baby would be at the unguarded Hopewell residence and not at the well-guarded Englewood estate. Although any staffer could have given the family's location, only Lindbergh knew one thing.

LLOYD GARDNER: He would be the only person who would know whether he was going to be in Hopewell that night.

NARRATOR: That evening, Lindbergh had scheduled a speaking engagement in New York that evening. He was normally punctual, but this time he missed the appointment and returned home. He claimed he forgot the commitment, but Gardner has a different theory.

LLOYD GARDNER: The fact that he missed this appointment enabled him to come down to Hopewell and direct the kidnapping from the inside, to make sure that there was no interference with it being carried off successfully.


If you can find the episode, it's fairly interesting if you're into these types of historical crimes.



posted on Sep, 6 2020 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Yes but we are talking of a high stakes game played by a few people with enough power to tell the rest what truth they should belive for their own good. Why was Boreman allowed to leave Europe with his retinue,unless a deal was done ,The Nazis had failed with a millitary take over of Europe, but were well placed for an economic one.West Germany was a new vibrant and glistening state in 1960 The rest of Europe was still filling in the bullet holes in the masonry.



posted on Sep, 7 2020 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Guyfriday

That's nice, Lloyd Gardner wrote a book, he obviously is promoting his own theory to push sales.



posted on Sep, 7 2020 @ 09:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: anonentity
Why was Boreman allowed to leave Europe...


He didn't, he died from using a cyanide capsule and was buried in Berlin where his remains were found in the 1970's.



posted on Sep, 7 2020 @ 09:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: ReadOnly
I am not familiar with Operation Barbarossa, heard of it though.


If you're not even aware of this it's not really worth discussing the rest of your post until you educate yourself.



originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: ReadOnly
To add to that, Germany is a small country, low population etc.


Wow, you need to do some reading. Germany and it's territories were the seventh largest population on the planet in 1939.


In response to your first comment, I said 'I am not familiar'.

Familiar means - closely acquainted. You know I am educated.

In response to your last comment, what I wrote is accurate. Do not know 'German territories' at that time, to what extent, nor do i care to 'do some reading' (on it).

My point: There was no way GERMANY could have WON.



posted on Sep, 7 2020 @ 09:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: ReadOnly
In response to your last comment, what I wrote is accurate.


It is not correct. Germany had a huge population in 1939. it would have been the largest in Europe if France's African colonies were removed.


My point: There was no way GERMANY could have WON.


I gave you the scenario, if Operation Barbarossa was started even a month earlier the Soviets would have surrendered all of the Ukraine and part of Russia, Stalin was on the verge of surrender at that point and internal discussions were being held on how much land to let the Germans keep.



posted on Sep, 7 2020 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: ReadOnly
In response to your last comment, what I wrote is accurate.


It is not correct. Germany had a huge population in 1939. it would have been the largest in Europe if France's African colonies were removed.


My point: There was no way GERMANY could have WON.


I gave you the scenario, if Operation Barbarossa was started even a month earlier the Soviets would have surrendered all of the Ukraine and part of Russia, Stalin was on the verge of surrender at that point and internal discussions were being held on how much land to let the Germans keep.


Largest in Europe (per country), not in entirety. Even your example shows Germany had a population equal to France or you can say 2 countries in Europe.

All i did was post who the allies were. If you think about it, Germany is focused on Russia, already invaded Poland. You would think the rest of the European countries would have consolidated AND then made their push to Germany. Italy was always an outlier, in that large parts would not have sided with Germany.
edit on 7-9-2020 by ReadOnly because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2020 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: ReadOnly
Largest in Europe (per country), not in entirety.


What does that even mean?


Even your example shows Germany had a population equal to France or you can say 2 countries in Europe.


Making it the largest. Including the conquered territory, where forced labor prevailed, they where the seventh largest in the world.


All i did was post who the allies were. If you think about it, Germany is focused on Russia, already invaded Poland. You would think the rest of the European countries would have consolidated AND then made their push to Germany. Italy was always an outlier, in that large parts would not have sided with Germany.


Europe was beaten. The only countries left were Spain, Axis and neutral countries.



edit on 7-9-2020 by AugustusMasonicus because: 👁❤🍕



posted on Sep, 7 2020 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus


Europe was beaten. The only countries left were Spain, Axis and neutral countries.


Ahem.....Continental Europe was beaten, there was still the matter of The United Kingdom.

We had turned the tide and had won The Battle of Britain.
Hitler knew he couldn't defeat the UK without air superiority and he was never going to achieve that after losing the BoB.

His primary goal in his war against Russia was lebensraum but he also hoped that by defeating them it would force the UK to accept peace terms especially if the US remained neautral, which at the time looked highly likely.



posted on Sep, 7 2020 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Freeborn

I didn't include you Brexiters since you never really consider yourselves European.

But agreed, Britain stopped the Luftwaffe and prevented any hopes of an invasion so it would have been a stalemate until the Japanese attacked the United States and the mutual aggression pact that the Axis Powers had kicked in.



posted on Sep, 7 2020 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus


I didn't include you Brexiters since you never really consider yourselves European


I thought there was something amiss.

You are right; we don't consider ourselves European for the simple fact that we aren't!


Hitler was hoping we would agree to some sort of peace but when Germany failed to defeat Russia before their winter set in and then the US committed wholeheartedly it really was then just a matter of time.



posted on Sep, 7 2020 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Freeborn

Only because Hitler was a fool. If he had the luftwaffa focus on destroying aircraft he would have won. Hitler didnt understand the will of the people he thought if he does enough damage civilians would demand an end, So he did everything he could to attack the cities and against advice from his generals left airfieds intact. His goal was never to take over the UK it was to make them capitulate. If he wanted to invade instead of attacking Russia he could have easily attacked the Brits. He chose not to do this however but had he it would not have taken long the British army was incapable of stopping him.

As far as the Russians that fight came down to the wire the Germans almost won again Hitler underestimated the will of the people. The suffering he caused in multiple countries was huge. To this day im still amazed what the British and Russian people had to endure.
edit on 9/7/20 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2020 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
He chose not to do this however but had he it would not have taken long the British army was incapable of stopping him.


I don't think an invasion of Britain was even possible. There was no way to prepare that many landing craft, keep them from being bombarded in the interim and getting them across the channel unscathed. The Royal Navy completely outclassed the Kriegsmarine and even in the miracle chance Germans made it to the island the British had already drawn up plans to use chemical weapons on them without mercy.




top topics



 
16
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join