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: 4
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 05:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
And a big problem is racists are the ones doing the most research on the Nazi era. So an extra level of misinformation is floating around.


Hmm interesting. So all historians who researched Hitler's life are racists because they did not accepted what was written in book in front of them? Because it raised questions in their minds? I was beginning to agree with your last two posts and I still do to some extent but and a big BUT this statement of yours watered down all your talk about serious research.




posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by December_Rain

Originally posted by mmiichael
And a big problem is racists are the ones doing the most research on the Nazi era. So an extra level of misinformation is floating around.


Hmm interesting. So all historians who researched Hitler's life are racists because they did not accepted what was written in book in front of them? Because it raised questions in their minds? I was beginning to agree with your last two posts and I still do to some extent but and a big BUT this statement of yours watered down all your talk about serious research.


I didn't say anything of the sort. Just pointing out what every single serious researcher on the Nazi era encounters - a mountain of racial agenda baloney that has to be discounted as fiction. Same with 75% of the material on the Occult Reich, secret technologies, hidden bases in Antarctica, faked deaths, sightings into the 70s.

Books from scholarly sources are generally the best. People sometimes spend years or decades reading primary documents, interviewing witnesses, corroborating information, comparing conflicting information, providing citation. Anything without proper citation from credible sources is immediately suspect.

The Internet demands a special skill set. Videos and out of context material can appear very persuasive to the unskilled. There is a library of material on how Hitler survived the bunker and activities afterward. All worthless crap.

Researching is like steering a ship. You have to navigate through a lot of icebergs.

[edit on 2-1-2010 by mmiichael]



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldDragger
Oh for Christs sake.
You guys want a police state. Great.
There is the gaining power by murder.
Book burning.
Curtailing of personal freedom, The SS and brown shirts.
Total control of media by the government.
Did I mention murder and a police state.
The harrasment of intellectuals and perversion of medicine and science.
The deiafication of the military.
And much, much more.
If you clowns are dying to hear the sound of jackboots at your door, you are......nuts.


To my ears you've just described what you have in the US no? Go out into a public place and say anything anti-jewish, what do you think will happen? Do you know how many books are not allowed onto our shelves that are controlled 100% by the same NWO media controlled elite corps? Where is the scientific decent that exists in the 1000's about Drugs, Aids, man-made Global Warming, NWO, you've rolled over yet again and with your un-Patriotic act may your god help you cause your constitution certainly won't. Wasn’t one of your presidents grandfathers part of the Nazi Banking?



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 06:35 AM
link   
Very good thread folks. A little off kilter rhetoric, but that happens with most discussions.

The smartest history teacher I ever had was my US History teacher in high school. Actually probably the most important teacher I ever had.

He started with a lecture on the first day.

Paraphrasing-

History, is the pursuit of truth of our past. Everything one learns in this world has to do with history. Math, language, everything has to do with history. One builds from the collection of the past in every endeavor. But false history can lead you astray. Learning history you must put everything you learn into context. That context being, where did you learn or are learning this history? Did you actually see it? Did you hear it? Did you read it?

Everyone knows that to read history you must take into account the author and every referenced material into account when deciphering that history.

People tend to forget the other sources of history. You must take into account ones own preconceived notions into account. Are you warping what you are learning by your very own beliefs?

I could go on, but you get my drift.

As for Olddragger, if you do not see the correlation between the US and Nazi Germany, you are mistaking the velvet glove/iron glove misnomer.

What the US lacks in bare handed brutality, it makes up for in absolute control by the astronomical amount of statutes used to control it's citizens.

Can you control a citizen that does not break any laws? So how do you solve this? Make enough laws so that anyone at anytime can be arrested for anything!

Tax and Control.

OP, excellent read on this thread. Thanks for the effort.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 07:22 AM
link   
A lot of extra caution always has to be added to any discussion of Hitler.

For better or worse one of the most important people in history. And 0th Century so documentation of his career was done in real time.

Because of his tremendously effective Jewish genocide policy he's a hero to extreme racists.

So in addition of historical information there is a wealth of literature on the mythological Hitler and the Nazis.

One has to take extra care one is talking about Adolph Hitler the person and not the historical fiction one.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 08:58 AM
link   


I have now seen the famous German leader and also something of the great change he has effected. "Whatever one may think of his methods - and they are certainly not those of a parliamentary country, there can be no doubt that he has achieved a marvelous transformation in the spirit of the people, in their attitude towards each other, and in their social and economic outlook. He rightly claimed at Nuremberg that in four years his movement had made a new Germany. It is not the Germany of the first decade that followed the war - broken, dejected and bowed down with a sense of apprehension and impotence. It is now full of hope and confidence, and of a renewed sense of determination to lead its own life without interference from any influence outside its own frontiers. There is for the first time since the war a general sense of security. The people are more cheerful. There is a greater sense of general gaiety of spirit throughout the land. It is a happier Germany. I saw it everywhere, and Englishmen I met during my trip and who knew Germany well were very impressed with the change. One man has accomplished this miracle. He is a born leader of men. A magnetic and dynamic personality with a single-minded purpose, as resolute will and a dauntless heart. He is not merely in name but in fact the national Leader. He has made them safe against potential enemies by whom they were surrounded. He is also securing them against the constant dread of starvation which is one of the most poignant memories of the last years of the War and the first years of the Peace. Over 700,000 died of sheer hunger in those dark years. You can still see the effect in the physique of those who were born into that bleak world.


David Lloyd George, Daily Express, September 17. 1936



The victor writes history.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 09:14 AM
link   
LOL seriously the only reason Germany's economy was booming before WW2, was he was building a war machine.. No other explaination.. Period.. I did not read all 4 pages either. Concidering I lived in germany for a long portion of my life I have studied WW2, on a scale above a hobby. THE PRINCIPALS, Hitler believed in were wrong on a mental perspective, the holocost for example was something created from a mental perception on a dictorial command, what I mean is, because Hitler, was mad, he energized his masses to SLAUGHTER, human beings.. That alone was wrong.. The Only thing I think Germany, did well, was suprise the Allies. Yet in 1941 during the Ally Summit in North Africa, Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stallin, came to a conclusion that their will be no talk for a Axis, peace treaty. In 1943 the allies determined we would win mercilessy. That we did. So on the contrary Hitler, sure would have been marked as one of the greatest leaders if WW2, would not have happened, but without WW2, Hitler would be nothing. They go hand in hand. If history teaches us anything, it teaches me that Hitler, was wrong. Their absolutely nothing you can write or say, that can get me to see him in any other way. Facism, is like some ungodly religion government. I could not envision living in a world where people in military uniforms walk arould everywhere like someone with shorts and a t shirt..

[edit on 2-1-2010 by Bicent76]



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 09:52 AM
link   
I don't think the Nazi economic miracle was up to much.

Unemployment was reduced by a series of massive, labour intensive public works (the autobahn etc). That was paid for by reinflating the economy using mefo bills as a unit of exchange, mefo bills being exchangeable on demand for marks but having no value in themselves, arguably like some of the complex financial instruments which so plague us today. Mefo bills paid for those works & were a vital medium through which rearmament was financed.

The rest of the financial trickery was little better than a siege economy, with autarky (economic self sufficiency) being the major platform. Foreign debt was effectively frozen by the use of a new currency, the Reichsmark, which paid for the few vital foreign imports required. They basically drew up the drawbridges and brought in a "think German, buy German" policy.

And borrowed, confiscated or made up money & used that to get people back to work.

It's a miracle !

As to AH himself, he's a complex character indeed. Within a month of his appointment as Kanzler he'd arranged for Parliament to be burned down, abolished trade unions and opposition political parties, scrapped the state powers of the Länder and centralised all executive power ... in himself. Way to go, Adolf !

He didn't do all this through his charm, charisma & wise words. He had thugs which battered or killed everyone in his way. He was no poor, little misunderstood soul for whom history has given a unjustifiably bad reputation.

He was a bloody lunatic and his character deserves no favourable revision now.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by endisnighe
People tend to forget the other sources of history. You must take into account ones own preconceived notions into account. Are you warping what you are learning by your very own beliefs?

I could go on, but you get my drift.


exactly

everything i learned about Hitler went AGAINST my preconceived beliefs and assumptions.
so i learned something far greater than just some hidden aspects of global history.


OP, excellent read on this thread. Thanks for the effort.


thank YOU
i appreciate your comments



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragonsmusic
Annie, great post.
Did you see this?

Hitler becomes Time Magazine Man of the Year. 1939

www.time.com...

I didn't see it in the thread or on any of the posts.

Amazing how his atrocities were still unkown by this point


yes, i know about that.
but thanks for posting it.

they weren't any *atrocities* to know, in 1939.
Churchill didn't declare war on Germany until September 3, 1939.

the main atrocity, imo, was WWII, in general



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Bicent76
 


The war industry started after the invasion of Poland. We're talking about the years before Hitler was forced to invade Poland which resulted in the declaration of war by Britain and France.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 10:54 AM
link   
what most people don't realize is that Churchill first declared war.

Hitler never declared war on any country other than the USA, that i know of.

the "Dutch war scare" and the "Romanian war scare" are interesting, albeit seldom discussed, factors in the early months of 1939.

the rumor mill can be deadly on a national scale.
look what happened right before the eruption of the Great War, aka WWI



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Regenstorm
We're talking about the years before Hitler was forced to invade Poland


Hitler wasn't forced to invade Poland

Hitler chose to invade Poland.

Big difference.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38
what most people don't realize is that Churchill first declared war.


Lets get the facts straight here.

Churchill wasn't even in power when World War 2 started.

Actually, it was a joint declaration by France and Britain (including the countries of the British Empire) following the attack on Poland by the Nazi's.

Facts. Not supposition.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 11:45 AM
link   
In simple terms..

Hitler 'chose' to take back what was rightfully German.

Britain declared war on Germany to enforce the Versailles treaty. Britain made the obligation to Poland prior for this reason. It was an unjustified aggressive action which shocked the Nazis.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by SteveR
 


No, Hitler broke the Munich Agreement by invading Czechoslovakia.

The Brits then signed a mutual defence treaty with the Poles, which resulted in the British declaration of war against Germany when they invaded Poland.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ulala
No, Hitler broke the Munich Agreement by invading Czechoslovakia.

The Brits then signed a mutual defence treaty with the Poles, which resulted in the British declaration of war against Germany when they invaded Poland.


funny how even here there are apologists for Hitler, trying to blame anyone but him for starting WW2



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by Ulala
No, Hitler broke the Munich Agreement by invading Czechoslovakia.

The Brits then signed a mutual defence treaty with the Poles, which resulted in the British declaration of war against Germany when they invaded Poland.

funny how even here there are apologists for Hitler, trying to blame anyone but him for starting WW2


You don't have to be an apologist to go deeper than "Hitler started WW2". In fact, to ignore the causal factors...wherever they may lead...is to set the stage for the next one.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
Lets get the facts straight here.

Churchill wasn't even in power when World War 2 started.


you're absolutely right and i stand corrected
:shk:
i should have said England declared war on Germany

Neville Chamberlain was PM in September of 1939.
but Churchill became the new PM less than a year after WWII started - May of 1940 - and i tend to think of it as "Churchill's War," because of all that i've found out. not about Hitler, specifically, but about WWII itself.



Hitler just happened to be the biggest shock of all that i had while i was investigating - NOTHING was exactly as we've all been told and felt at ease with enough to believe and not to question.

and who knows? maybe history becomes clouded over as time marches on simply due to the laws of thermodynamics
(order = chaos)
i wouldn't say it becomes chaos but that it moves from order in that it becomes smoothed over and generalized.


Actually, it was a joint declaration by France and Britain (including the countries of the British Empire) following the attack on Poland by the Nazi's.

Facts. Not supposition.


right. thank you for setting that straight.


so now i must ask you this:
do you know the reason behind the "attack on Poland?"
from BOTH sides of the disagreement?

Hitler had already reclaimed several of Germany's former territories, that had been taken in the Treaty of Versailles. but when it came to Poland, there was a problem for the Allies in Europe - they had effectively divided up the actual land mass of Germany, with East Prussia separate from "mainland" Germany.

map

it is absolutely understandable for the Allies to have had such fear-driven ideas when drawing up the Treaty of Versailles - and even though it's not true in saying that Imperial Germany started WWI, it is fair to say that the behavior of Germany on many levels, during the war, caused a lot of concern.
but the Treaty was grossly unfair because of all that, and even though not only leadership in Germany changed, so did the style of government, still the German people were the scapegoats of WWI.


Germany's borders in 1919 had been established nearly a half-century earlier, at the country's official establishment in 1871. Territory and cities in the region had changed hands repeatedly for centuries, including at various times being owned by the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Kingdom of Sweden, Kingdom of Poland, and Kingdom of Lithuania. However, Germany laid claim to lands and cities that it viewed as historically "Germanic" centuries before Germany's establishment as a country in 1871. Other countries disputed Germany's claim to this territory. In the peace treaty, Germany agreed to return disputed lands and cities to various countries.

Germany was compelled to yield control of its colonies, and would also lose a number of European territories. The province of West Prussia would be ceded to the restored Poland, thereby granting it access to the Baltic Sea via the "Polish Corridor" which Prussia had annexed in the Partitions of Poland. This turned East Prussia into an exclave, separated from mainland Germany.


Territorial Changes in the Treaty of Versailles

and really, for all the fuss and bluster of declaring war on Germany, supposedly for the sake of Poland, England and France did very little after that, for Poland. there were only a few scuffles on the Germany/France border. for the most part, it seems to be an excuse for something *bigger* or maybe just clandestine defense of their (England and France) imperial position in Europe.

imperialism remained, underneath, a big factor and idea in WWII - it wasn't so much talked about, anymore, because it IS rather barbaric,
but yet, it WAS one of the main driving forces for many of the participants in WWII; the whole upheaval in Palestine and surrounding being testament.



it might very well have felt, to Hitler and others, that they were being surrounded by wolves all around, just out of the light of the campfire.

just saying


it never hurts to TRY to see things from the other guy's perspective.
no matter who the *other guy* is.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by dereks
funny how even here there are apologists for Hitler, trying to blame anyone but him for starting WW2


who's apologizing?
for Hitler or anyone?

apologies, whether genuine or irrelevant, don't really help anything become resolved

i'm not personally into the ideas of "blame" and "fault," for the same reason - they do nothing but prolong and confuse the issue...
BUT if THERE is blame to be taken, then it is a SHARED blame between ALL participants of the war.

there was no "hero" and no "villain" in the absolute sense of the word. heroics and tragedies and crimes and miracles were the order of the day, back in that day, for all involved.

so why blame Hitler for everything and let everyone else get off scot-free?
the mainstream historians may feel comfortable with that, but i don't.
that's NOT just nor is it ethically correct.
none of us are worthy to judge such things or to deceive common memory for the sake of self-justification

the bottom line is that there IS a hidden truth behind this and all other global events experienced by our *world* - why not find it out?
even if it means admitting that a few things could stand some clarification?



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join