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 Then vs Hitler Now

page: 10
15
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ulala
reply to post by shamhat
 


It's not beyond the realms of possibility, this theory you present.

But isn't it surprising that Hess himself never mentioned this in court ? He had the whole world hanging on his every word, his life in the balance, yet chose not to disclose this ?

I wonder why not ?


There is a lot about this period that doesn't make sense. I have read a number of books about Hess and the account that I present is an overview of the many theories while sticking to those that can be supported by witnesses and documentary evidence. Hess's silence at Nuremberg, his self-confessed feigning of amnesia, can be explained in a number of ways, but I don't think it would be unreasonable to suggest that given Goering's open threats to Hess, who he proclaimed an enemy of Germany, may have had some impact on his behaviour. I disagree with many of Hess's actions and his beliefs in general, but that he considered himself a man of honour and fought bravely in the first war, perhaps amnesia was his way of doing no further damage to a man whom he had proclaimed love for. You don't have to agree with a person to understand what may have motivated them to behave in a certain way. Especially with someone like Hess who's history is so well documented.

It is also interesting to note that throughout his imprisonment, he was never once allowed to be alone with his visitors, not even with his son. Why would his captors, right up until his death, be so concerned of what Hess may say, that even his son was not allowed to be alone with him?




posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 12:10 PM
link   
[edit on 4-1-2010 by shamhat]



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by shamhat
From 1939 to 1942 (I think, I would have to look up the exact time period if you are interested), there were 16 seperate peace offers from within Germany, at least three of those came directly from Hitler himself. At least one of those offers included the reliquishment of all territory taken after 1939, including France and the low countries and only requested a retention of the Danzig corridor to East Prussia.


Now, you know, you are going to have to back that up through the use of independent sources that don't have to assert their right to free speech because some of their pages contain views that aren't acceptable in modern civilised society, don't you?

This however;

German Propaganda Archive

Might provide you with some useful reading, because it seems that some of the information being presented in this thread comes from things contained in there.

Peace offers from inside the Reich from anyone other than Hitler were futile exercises, as I'm sure you well know, because no one had a hope in hell of making them work.

Even in 1945, with the Russians on the outskirts of Berlin, Hitler moved to have both Goering and Himmler arrested for making peace overtures.

Its worth noting that this "man of peace", between 1939 and 1942 - using the period you quoted orchestrated the following

Invasion Poland on the pretext of a false-flag attack
Invasion and occupation of Denmark and Norway
Invasion and occupation of Luxembourg, Beligium and France
The Battle of Britain.
Attempted a sea blockade of Britian using U Boats
Undertook the campaign in North Africa to bail out the Italians
Invaded Greece and Yugoslavia
Invaded the Soviet Union
Occupied Vichy France.

Thats quite some peace, isn't it?



[edit on 4/1/10 by neformore]



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


You forgot to mention the Invasion of Holland which happened on the same day as they marched into Belgium. The "neutral" Holland was invaded because of the Venlo Incident. Dutch Secret Service helped the English Secret Service with their plan to seek contact with the resistance in Germany. Of course this incident is something you don't learn in school or in mainstream documentaries.

(click to open player in new window)

On Dutch National Television there is a series of new documentaries about the Netherlands during WW2. They did a very good job except for the fact that they "forgot" the Venlo Incident.
deoorlog.nps.nl...
(subsidised by the Dutch State)

Summary about some interesting stuff I didn't knew in short:
Rotterdam was a mistake.
After the occupation almost everything remained the same in the Netherlands.
Unemployment sank rapidly.
The economy boomed and the occupation was a golden age for the Dutch.
It was the east-front that caused the drainage of goods, food and money at the end of the occupation.
It was the liberator that destroyed most of that what got destroyed.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Regenstorm
 


You mean this Venlo Incident?



The incident was used by the presiding German National Socialist German Workers' Party government (NSDAP - commonly referred to in English as the Nazi Party) for their propaganda purposes to link Great Britain to Georg Elser's failed assassination attempt of German Chancellor Adolf Hitler at the Burgerbraukeller two days before and to justify their later invasion of the Netherlands, a neutral country, on 10 May 1940.


Its funny you should mention the Netherlands. I spent quite a bit of time at the War Museum at Liberty Park this past summer. Oddly it doesn't support the pretty picture you attempted to paint.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


This is not the full article. There is no denial of these facts.

The Rise of Hitler - Nov. 11, 1918 World War 1 Ends with ...
During the war, Adolf Hitler became obsessed with this idea, especially laying blame on Jews and Marxists in Germany for undermining the war effort. ...

www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/ends.htm -



Germany was now a republic, a form of government (democracy) the Germans historically had little experience or interest in. With the abdication of Kaiser Wilhelm and the collapse of the Hohenzollern Monarchy, the German Empire founded by Bismark in 1871 (The Second Reich) had come to an end.

The new German Republic would eventually have a constitution that made it on paper one of the most liberal democracies in history. Its ideals included; equality for all, that political power would be only in the hands of the people, political minority representation in the new Reichstag, a cabinet and chancellor elected by majority vote in the Reichstag, and a president elected by the people.

But Germany was also a nation in political and social chaos. In Berlin and Munich, left-wing Marxist groups proclaimed Russian-like revolutions, only to meet violent opposition from right-wing nationalist Freikorps (small armies of ex-soldiers for hire) along with regular Army troops. End

The Marxists were also know as Bolshevik Communists.
They are the ones that murdered there way into the Russian goverment.
The ones that used terrorist tactics and bank robbing to get their way.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


Hahaha, chances are good we walked by each other, because I visited the Liberty Park twice in 2009. The second time I took the time to read the many documents that are displayed in the museum and that bunker about the holocaust. A very suggestive room in which they posted many horrible photo's without description mixed with drawings(!). No true evidence of genocide is shown. Lots of letters from prisoners and documents showing their deportation or release. Also there are some embroiled cloths from prisoners. Nothing special. Everything, even the letters from the prisoners suggests that they were deported to labour camps.
Here's a picture I took during my visit in 2008:

The museum shows in fact both sides, yet lack of German linguistic knowledge makes it for English speaking visitors like you impossible to draw your own conclusions.

[edit on 4-1-2010 by Regenstorm]

[edit on 4-1-2010 by Regenstorm]



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
Now, you know, you are going to have to back that up through the use of independent sources that don't have to assert their right to free speech because some of their pages contain views that aren't acceptable in modern civilised society, don't you?


Presumptious aren't we? Piece of piss mate!

www.amazon.com...=pd_sim_b_title_4

www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262632182&sr=1-1

www.amazon.com...=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262632007&sr=1-4

www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262632125&sr=1-1

www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262632329&sr=1-1

www.amazon.com...=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262632372&sr=1-2

www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262632645&sr=1-1

Documents are uncovered and released all the time, nothing about the period is, in my opinion, above question or set in stone, so it is pointless being arrogant about the little that you and I probably know about it.


Originally posted by neformore
This however;

German Propaganda Archive

Might provide you with some useful reading, because it seems that some of the information being presented in this thread comes from things contained in there.


What in particular were you refering to?


Originally posted by neformore
Peace offers from inside the Reich from anyone other than Hitler were futile exercises, as I'm sure you well know, because no one had a hope in hell of making them work.


Elements within the Abwehr were negotiating with British SIS throughout the war, this is fairly well documented and detailed in some of the books I link to, and aided in the planning of the 20 July 1944 assassination attempt against Hitler. Had they succeeded Churchill, allegedly, had agreed to a conditional surrender. Whether he intended to honour that is a matter of much debate amongst historians of the period. Additionally the infamous Red Orchestra had numerous contacts inside British SIS, as well as with the Free French, and Jewish organisations in Britain. Members of the Red Orchestra in some cases had infiltrated the OKH, as well as the party.

Just because those peace feelers did not have any chance of success, does not mean that they were not attempted with the hopes of success.


Originally posted by neformore
Even in 1945, with the Russians on the outskirts of Berlin, Hitler moved to have both Goering and Himmler arrested for making peace overtures.


And?


Originally posted by neformore
Its worth noting that this "man of peace", between 1939 and 1942 - using the period you quoted orchestrated the following


You're the one calling him a 'man of peace', I certainly wasn't, I merely stated the information that I have gleaned from reading on the subject. He made peace offers, good offers. Read the books.


Originally posted by neformore
Invasion Poland on the pretext of a false-flag attack
Invasion and occupation of Denmark and Norway
Invasion and occupation of Luxembourg, Beligium and France
The Battle of Britain.
Attempted a sea blockade of Britian using U Boats
Undertook the campaign in North Africa to bail out the Italians
Invaded Greece and Yugoslavia
Invaded the Soviet Union
Occupied Vichy France.

Thats quite some peace, isn't it?


Again, and?

I never said Hitler was a good guy. Try to be a little less judgemental once in a while and realise that no situation is ever black and white. Hitler quite openly states how he sees Britain as an ally in Mein Kampf, do you think that having read that, highly intelligent man that he was, that Churchill wouldn't exploit that? Hitler, and his advisors, Ribbentrop in particular, were incredibly naive with regards to the British political system, and many of those overtures of peace were made via 'neutrals' such as Spain, Sweden and Switzerland. It should also be remembered that groups of people in Britain had invested capital in German business, those assets had to be hidden or cloaked when war broke out, so there were wealthy Britons who were willing to aid in such negotiations in the hope of seeing a return.

[edit on 4-1-2010 by shamhat]



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Regenstorm
 


Yes. Thats the crude piece of Nazi Propaganda portraying Churchill as some kind of agent of an evil jewish plot to enslave europe isn't it?

Careful. Your colours are showing.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by shamhat
Presumptious aren't we? Piece of piss mate!


Thanks, but... none of those links give any detail other than to point me at books which I will probably go out an buy, but don't directly give the details of what you referred to - and thats what I'm after (well, one of them does, but again, Himmler's moves were not sanctioned by Hitler and were solely based on his own motives to save himself and further his ambition to run Germany after the war).

You know what you are talking about - and I may very well do if you point me in the right direction long enough - but people reading the thread don't. A book link on the internet is like describing a smell on a postcard - surely some of the stuff is available online?



What in particular were you refering to?


The propaganda side. The Nazi's were very good at it



Originally posted by neformore
Peace offers from inside the Reich from anyone other than Hitler were futile exercises, as I'm sure you well know, because no one had a hope in hell of making them work.




Just because those peace feelers did not have any chance of success, does not mean that they were not attempted with the hopes of success.


Possibly not, but this thread is about Hitler, not about anyone else. We're judging the man himself. You said three peace overtures came from him, I say that those overtures were grandiose propaganda designed to obfuscate his true intentions - thats why I mentioned the pact with the Soviets.


Originally posted by neformore
And?


And...that shows that even when the Reich was in its last days, Hitler was not looking for peace. In fact he had cast his people to the wolves. He did not want to negotiate a surrender because he believed that the people were not worthy of it. I think that says alot about the man, don't you?



You're the one calling him a 'man of peace',


No..I wasn't, and haven't, other than via sarcasm. Other people in this thread have implied such though.



He made peace offers, good offers.


He made offers to stall for time to aid his war ambitions. They were very well contrived and very well written offers, but they meant nothing.



Try to be a little less judgemental once in a while and realise that no situation is ever black and white. Hitler quite openly states how he sees Britain as an ally in Mein Kampf, do you think that having read that, highly intelligent man that he was, that Churchill wouldn't exploit that?


No situation is ever black and white....fair enough. I'll grant you that.

Except....... for all those events I listed above that you said "and?" about. They were fairly well damn black and white, and had nothing to do with peaceful intentions, which is why I listed them.

So, what you are telling me is that, after coming to power in a country that effectively had its back against a wall after 80% of Western Europe had been invaded, Churchill thought "this guy wants to be our ally, I know, lets exploit that by fighting him"

And while we're on the subject of Churchill... haven't we already established earlier in thread that Chamberlain was the PM at the outbreak of WW2, and not Churchill? The decision to declare war didn't come from Churchill.



Hitler, and his advisors, Ribbentrop in particular, were incredibly naive with regards to the British political system,


And thats soooooo much BS. These people negotiated a non agression pact with their ideological opposites in the Soviet Union. They played the government of Czechoslovakia like a fiddle. They played Chamberlain like a fiddle. They knew exactly what they were doing.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Thought I'd add this in for a "diversion"! Obviously there is a heated discussion going on here,and since I am no historical scholar,I'll leave those debates alone!

(In my opinion,and supposed "good" Hitler did is so far off-set by evil,it's not even debatable!)

Anyhow,I found this very interesting!

From
defenderpublishing.blogspot.com...

QUOTE:

..."Because it is true that any significant public political event requires both forethought and symbolic meaning, the location where Obama gave his Berlin speech in front of Berlin’s Victory Column contributed to O’Brien’s conclusions. The site was offensive to educated Germans as well as to Christians and Jews because of its ties to Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. It was nevertheless oddly appropriate, for it was upon this exact location that Hitler had planned to enthrone himself in the Welthauptstadt Germania—the new “World Capital” upon winning World War II.

...During the 1930s, Hitler commissioned Albert Speer “the first architect of the Third Reich” to design the new capital. As part of the plans, the “Siegessäule” or Berlin Victory Column—a 226-foot monument topped by a golden winged figure representing Borussia, the female personification of Prussia, and Victoria, the cult goddess of military victory—was removed from its location in front of the Reichstag building in 1939 and relocated to its current location in the Tiergarten, a 495 acre park in the middle of Berlin where Obama gave his speech in front of the Nazi symbol.

...Rainer Brüderle, deputy leader of the liberal political party Free Democrats in Germany complained to the newspaper Bild am Sonntag: “The Siegessäule in Berlin was moved to where it is now by Adolf Hitler. He saw it as a symbol of German superiority and of the victorious wars against Denmark, Austria and France.” This represented a serious question In Brüderle’s mind as to “whether Barack Obama was advised correctly in his choice of the Siegessäule as the site to hold a speech on his vision for a more cooperative world.” [36] Another German politician named Andreas Schockenhoff was equally disturbed, saying, “It is a problematic symbol.” [37]

...Evidently it was not problematic for Obama, who stood in front of it and saluted the German audience in a way eerily similar to what Adolf Hitler used to do, followed by thousands returning the salute, which is against German law. When Obama ended his speech in front of the war goddess, he said, “With an eye toward the future, with resolve in our hearts, let us remember this history, and answer our destiny, and remake the world once again.” This is exactly what Hitler had promised to do and exactly where he had planned to memorialize it.

...Of greater significance and not far from where Obama delivered his rousing speech, is the Great Altar of Zeus in the Pergamon Museum. According to several reports, Obama visited the Great Altar while in Berlin, which is especially important given what he did on returning to the United States. Before we examine Obama’s revealing actions, consider carefully what the Bible says about the Altar of Zeus in the letter to the church in Pergamos (Pergamum, Pergamon).


...“And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; These things saith he which hath the sharp sword with two edges; I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan’s seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and has not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth” (Rev. 2:12-13)

...Whether Obama received inspiration from the throne of Satan while in Berlin or not, what he did next was astonishing. Upon returning to the United States, he immediately commissioned the construction of a Greek-columned stage from which he made his acceptance speech for his party’s nomination. Because Greek temples such as those built to honor Zeus were thought to house the patron deity, the GOP ridiculed Obama, mocking him as playing Zeus of “Mount Olympus” and accusing his supporters of “kneeling” before the “Temple of Obama.” The New York Post ran an enlightening Convention Special supplement on August 28th, 2008 with the telling headline: ‘O’ MY GOD: DEMS ERECT OBAMA TEMPLE blazoned across the front cover. But it was not until blogger Joel Richardson pointed out how the design of Obama’s stage was a dead ringer for the Great Altar of Zeus [39] that Obama’s campaign managers tried to explain away the design as being a conglomeration representing the portico of the White House with the U.S. capital building. “But experts agreed with Richardson,” Gallo wrote, “it was a replica of the Great Altar of Pergamum.” [40]

...Thus, incredibly, like Hitler, Obama had honored the goddess Victoria with his presence before ordering a replica of the biblical throne of Satan built, upon which he accepted his date with destiny."...



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


Read the books, then we can talk... Or do you want me to scan in all the books for the purposes of this thread or type out all relevent passages, you may have that kind of time but I certainly don't. You asked for my sources, I gave them. The sources that you cite are no more detailed than mine, list the books that you use to inform your opinion on this matter as I have done and perhaps we can compare notes, but so long as you are unable to see any view that contradicts yours as being pro-Hitler or Germany, then there seems very little point in continuing to humour what seems to be your rather patriotic understanding of the period.

Or delete my posts for being off-topic if that's your gripe. I don't take the discussion as a personal afront to my national identity as you seem to do, so no skin off mine!



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by shamhat
Or delete my posts for being off-topic if that's your gripe. I don't take the discussion as a personal afront to my national identity as you seem to do, so no skin off mine!


Now that, I have to say, is a particularly low blow.

Up until this point I was enjoying the conversation and the exchange of information. A little heated banter yes, but nonetheless educational all ways round and quite stimulating.

But... the accusation that I see this as an affront to my national identity is off base - I simply don't make excuses for those who commit genocide, and see no point in trying to justify their actions or see a "nice side" to them, whatever nationality they are. Any accomplishment made by such a person is tainted by the death and destruction they bring.

And finally, if you think that I, or any other moderator on this site, would remove posts that are simply contrary to their opinion, in a thread where they are participating, then you have no idea how this site is run, or the standards the moderators work to. To suggest such a course of action is downright insulting.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


Why do you start to stigmatize? Because I don't buy everything Wikipedia says? If you're only able to accept your own little truth based on that only source or the links provided by that source I feel very sorry for you!



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


You are more patient with these guys than want to be.
I've decided to pretty much bow out of their "amoral intellectual" discussion. There is really no such discussion going on, they just are NAZI sympathizers. Sorry to be so blunt, but I can be honest even if they can't.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by OldDragger
 


Yes, keep on kicking us in that corner! No arguments left, just use the N-word which in this case means:

"Please move on, nothing to see here!"



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Regenstorm
 


Ok Have it your way, think what you like.
I don't seek or need your approval. hell I don't even want your approval.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
reply to post by Regenstorm
 


Yes. Thats the crude piece of Nazi Propaganda portraying Churchill as some kind of agent of an evil jewish plot to enslave europe isn't it?

Careful. Your colours are showing.



Why not tell us what colors you see? Or is it a flag?

Don't forget! They are still at it.

Snippit from: The Aftermath of the Bolshevik Revolution
The Bolsheviks were convinced that a world revolution was about to begin, first in Germany and then England and ultimately the United States.


Hyper History.net
As World War I continued to rage, Russia also faced a civil war among its own citizens. Immediately after Nicholas II's abdicated power in 1917, a Provisional Government led by Alexander Kerensky called for free elections and had the support of the allied nations of WWI. To counter this action, Germany sent Lenin back to Russia with the finances to to overthrow Kerensky. As pay back for German help in eliminating the Constituent Assembly in the Winter Palace and other anti-Bolshevik forces, Lenin betrayed millions by signing the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk which allowed Germany to move 17 divisions from the eastern front to the western front. During this process of consolidating power, the White Russians rebelled against the Bolsheviks (Red Russians) and insisted that the war would only end if Russia “[rejoined] the Allied cause.”
End

There is no doubt The Bolsheviks were a large part of the SECOND WORLD WAR and Mr. Hitler's actions.
Do you know anything about Bolsheviks?



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore


Thats quite some peace, isn't it?




maybe he just finally got pissed and decided to participate whole-heartedly




posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by shamhat
I never said Hitler was a good guy. Try to be a little less judgemental once in a while and realise that no situation is ever black and white.


HEAR HEAR!

thank you



Hitler quite openly states how he sees Britain as an ally in Mein Kampf, do you think that having read that, highly intelligent man that he was, that Churchill wouldn't exploit that? Hitler, and his advisors, Ribbentrop in particular, were incredibly naive with regards to the British political system, and many of those overtures of peace were made via 'neutrals' such as Spain, Sweden and Switzerland. It should also be remembered that groups of people in Britain had invested capital in German business, those assets had to be hidden or cloaked when war broke out, so there were wealthy Britons who were willing to aid in such negotiations in the hope of seeing a return.


thanks for posting that, too
because it is true

thank you for adding so much from what is obviously a well-researched topic for you

i wish more people would just OPEN THEIR MINDS to the fact that the "facts" aren't always the "truth."

if you know what i mean

the truth behind the facts



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join