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: 9
15
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ulala
Queen Annie,

You obviously have a great interest in why the war started. May I refer you to the Avalon Project & the British War Blue Books. It's a most interesting collection of speeches, memorandums & telegrams between the major players in the British Government & Diplomatic Service immediately before the start of hostilities.

As you'll see soon enough, the British Government was convulsed in its search for a diplomatic solution to the deteriorating international situation.

Hey, it's a lazy Sunday and this stuff is great reading. Here's your link.

Project Avalon / The British War Bluebooks


thank you. Ulala

i've read a lot of these, already, but a refresher is never a bad idea!
a good link to post in the thread, as well.

thanks




posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by December_Rain
You can continue to argue that WWI, WWII and Hitler is nowhere associated/ had no role with creating of Israel albeit that argument is for a different thread, in hope of not getting this thread being derailed again.


Hitler and the Nazis actively tried to prevent the formation of a Jewish state and were complicit in extermination plans for the Jews in the Middle East.

His appointed representative was Haj Mohammad Amin al-Husseini, recently the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. Yasser Arafat's uncle and inspiration. Both agreed in principle on the need for a war against all Jews and methods to be used. Hitler's commitment to preventing the existence of a Jewish state should not be ignored.



www.wnd.com...

... al-Husseini owes his place in history to a meeting that took place on Nov. 28, 1941, in Berlin, where he had gone to convince Adolf Hitler of his total dedication to the Nazi goal of exterminating the Jews, and offered to raise an Arab legion to carry out that task in the Middle East. For the mufti, the meeting with Hitler was the culmination of an eight-year effort to convince the Nazis to forge an alliance with the Palestine Arab Higher Committee he headed. Their once-secret pact, which I shall describe, marks the beginning of Nazi-style anti-Semitism as a mass movement in the Arab world.

The mufti first approached the Nazis through the German consul in Jerusalem in 1933, soon after Hitler seized power. "His objectives, as he explained on numerous occasions to German officials, were far-reaching. His immediate aim was to halt and terminate the Jewish settlement in Palestine. Beyond that, however, he aimed at much vaster purposes, conceived not so much in pan-Arab as in pan-Islamic terms, for a holy war of Islam in alliance with Germany against world Jewry, to accomplish the final solution of the Jewish problem everywhere."

[..]

What changed the German attitude toward the mufti and his cause was the publication in July 1937 of a report by the British Royal Commission, headed by Lord Peel, which for the first time recommended the partition of Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states. Once the conclusions of the report were known, the German minister of foreign affairs, Konstantin von Neurath, sent out instructions to German legations in Britain and the Middle East explaining the new directives of the Nazi leadership:

"The formation of a Jewish state or a Jewish-led political structure under British mandate is not in Germany's interest, since a Palestinian state would not absorb world Jewry, but would create an additional position of power under international law for international Jewry, somewhat like the Vatican state for political Catholicism or Moscow for the Comintern. Germany therefore has an interest in strengthening the Arab world as a counterweight against such a possible increase in power for world Jewry."

[…]

the mufti traveled to Berlin, where he was greeted enthusiastically by the Islamische Zentralinstitut and the assembled Muslim leaders of Germany as the "Fuhrer of the Arabic world." In a speech kicking off his visit, he called the Jews the "most fierce enemies of the Muslims" and an "ever corruptive element in the world."

The mufti also met with SS leader Heinrich Himler and Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop, who were tasked with preparing the fateful interview with Hitler. The mufti had sent no fewer than 15 drafts of a joint declaration he wanted Hitler and Mussolini to issue with him, announcing the intention to apply Hitler's Final Solution to the Jews of the Middle East.
When the language had been scrubbed and the declaration sent to Hitler's staff, it was chillingly explicit: "Germany and Italy recognize the illegality of the Jewish National Home in Palestine. They recognize the right of Palestine and other Arab countries to solve the question of the Jewish elements in Palestine and in other Arab countries as required by national Arab interests, and in the same way as the Jewish question in the Axis lands is being solved."

The mufti found his soul mate in the German fuhrer, who was prepared to accept him as an "honorary Aryan" because of the red beard and blue eyes he had inherited from his Circassian mother. He began the meeting in Hitler's ornate reception room in the Reich Chancellery with a lengthy panegyric, dutifully shortened in the official Foreign Ministry "Record of Conversation," which nevertheless preserves the distinct Oriental flavor of the mufti's supplication.

The grand mufti began by thanking the fuhrer for the great honor he had bestowed by receiving him. He wished to seize the opportunity to convey to the fuhrer of the Greater German Reich, admired by the entire Arab world, his thanks for the sympathy he had always shown for the Arab and especially the Palestinian cause.

They were therefore prepared to cooperate with Germany with all their hearts and stood ready to participate in the war, not only negatively by the commission of acts of sabotage and the instigation of revolutions, but also positively by the formation of an Arab Legion. The Arabs could be more useful to Germany as allies than might be apparent at first glance, both for geographical reasons and because of the suffering inflicted upon them by the English and the Jews.

Hitler was receptive to the spirit and ultimate goals of Haj Mohammad Amin al-Husseini, although he was unwilling for strategic reasons to commit troops as yet to liberate the Arab countries from the British. As World War II historian Bevin Alexander has argued, this was Hitler's fatal mistake.
The fuhrer replied to the mufti that Germany's fundamental attitude on these questions, as the mufti himself had already stated, was clear. Germany stood for uncompromising war against the Jews. That naturally included active opposition to the Jewish national home in Palestine.

[…]

The mufti never attempted to disguise his Nazi beliefs or his wartime role as the mouthpiece for Hitler's genocide in the Arab world. His oft proclaimed desire to exterminate the Jews worldwide, and his offer to Hitler to become his willing instrument in Palestine, cannot possibly be excused – as some apologists do today – as simple "anti-Zionism." The only Jews the mufti and his followers wanted to remain in Palestine were the descendants of the original inhabitants, who had lived as dhimmis under Muslim rule for the past 1,400 years. The rejection of a Jewish state very clearly signified to the mufti and his followers the extermination or forced emigration of every single Jew who had come to Israel from Europe or the Arab world since 1917, leaving those remaining to become subjects of Muslim rulers. The core beliefs of Arab anti-Zionism and Arab anti-Semitism are identical.





[edit on 3-1-2010 by mmiichael]



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


So you think this is all a result of the Germans
understanding of the results of the Bolshevik,
Communists on their borders and within?



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Let's look into similarities between Nazi Germany and the United States; Firstly, military uniforms... is it me or do the American uniforms look strickingly similar to German Wermacht uniforms, especially the helmets and camoflage design? Secondly, the state of economic collapse in America reflects that of post WWI Germany with a few exception such as outsourcing jobs in order to get our so called menial jobs out of the country while at the same recolonizing the third world countries in Indochina and India by providing them with American jobs and cash.
Thirdly, ever hear of the New World Order coined by George Herbert Bush? I think it was actually inspired by Hitler's phrase of a similar title that he made in a speech at Nuremberg(I believe). Has anyone noticed a definite rise in police brutality cases in the US and UK? I have. Notice that the local media addresses only murder and violence as worthy news items where the major networks harp on whatever agenda that the current administration thinks necessary to tell you? It would be nice every once in a while to see what's going on in the UK or Russia. Let me tell you a story about the US media. A friend of mine visited Ireland about three years ago. He came back with a story of how a Russian plane flew into British airspace which almost caused a military action from the British Government. This could have led to another war with Russia, possibly nuclear war but there was no mention of it in US news. None that I can remember at least.
"Beware the Ides of March my Friends" Shakepeare, Julius Ceaser



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 12:05 AM
link   
Scriptorium

a good place to read some source documents contemporary with the events before and during WWII.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
But we weren't discussing those, we were discussing the misguided notion that somehow Hitler was seeking peace when he was planning to invade the UK, and bombing the country.


there is a lot more to it that just those few months in 1939 and 1940.
the history between the UK, France, Germany, and other countries, in regard to the peace issue, goes back several years.

Hitler's Peace Offers



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 12:59 AM
link   
ok .. this is totally from memory and a bit from wiki..

From video documents on the TV in the past 2 decades, things beging to surface.. such as ..

Germany NEVER did have an issue with the USA but .. with England, it certainly did.. ! here's the link

It has always been my understanding that after WW1, England and others emposed HUGE amounts of reporations against Germany inwhich they could never pay...As the saying goes.."who pushed first ?? "

Germany infuriated by the reposistions emposed on them, the Germans still deeply held a grudge against all, mostly England. The more I read the more it certainly seems 'they' saw an opertunity and completely ganged up on Germany, mostly England since England wanted the upper hand in the war machine not to be out done by the Germans.

Chivalry.
During WW1, from IMO, it was a common understanding that when in war, should either of the opposing side capture their enemy, they would return them to their homeland. During WW1, England withheld the captives and held them permenately.

Wanna know why Hilter restored Germany to a Superpower...leaving the entire country desolate without any assistance from those that had it in their power to make it a great country before WW2.

full reads here...

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38
there is a lot more to it that just those few months in 1939 and 1940.
the history between the UK, France, Germany, and other countries, in regard to the peace issue, goes back several years.

Hitler's Peace Offers


Hitlers "peace offers" before the war were all on his own terms in order to put Germany in the most favourable position for his war plans. Take for example;

Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in 1939

Followed two years later by

Operation Barbarosssa in 1941

The only peace Hitler wanted came after the Reich had conquered mainland Europe.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 02:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Komodo
 


good points

another link



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

Originally posted by queenannie38
well, then, lucky for Rudolph Hess that Churchill saw fit to put him in "protective custody" for THE REST OF HIS LIFE, huh?


he lived a long long time in desolation and loneliness.
NO one deserves that
NO ONE

it wasn't ethical of Churchill to do as he did
and it made a significant change, downhill, in the ways of war
a messenger was never treated as an offensive before that
it was certainly not commendable on any level

and then they put Hess on trial at Nuremburg - how could he have commited war crimes, all locked up in solitary Spandau?


Churchill didn't imprison Hess.

Churchill was voted out of office in the British General Election of July 1945. He was replaced as Prime Minister by the Labour Party leader Clement Attlee.

Hess was sentenced to life imprisonment at the War Crimes Trials in 1946. So Churchill wasn't even Prime Minister when Hess was tried, sentenced & imprisoned.

Churchill said of Hess :


Reflecting upon the whole of the story, I am glad not to be responsible for the way in which Hess has been and is being treated. Whatever may be the moral guilt of a German who stood near to Hitler, Hess had, in my view, atoned for this by his completely devoted and frantic deed of lunatic benevolence. He came to us of his own free will, and, though without authority, had something of the quality of an envoy. He was a medical and not a criminal case, and should be so regarded.


The Four Power Agreement required unanimity between France, UK, USA & USSR before Hess could be released. The USSR consistently refused to release him. However the USSR signalled a change in outlook in 1987. It didn't make much difference, Hess killed himself before any formal decision on his release could be made.

Life imprisonment was the very least Hess deserved. He was lucky not to swing.

I know you might not care for Churchill. But to blame him for the detention of Hess from the war's end until 1987 is stretching things a bit.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 04:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ulala
Life imprisonment was the very least Hess deserved. He was lucky not to swing.


This is a bit harsh. Yes he was perhaps lucky not to swing, given the political climate, but then many of those executed were, in my opinion, wrongfully so, but that doesn't mean he 'deserved' to die.

Hess came to Britain in May 1941 with a peace deal at the very least, at most, he came with important tactical information about Barbarossa that aided the British in it's strategic planning. But, we don't know, because not only did a very convenient fire destroy much of the records, but what remains is still locked, including the more than suspicious circumstances surrounding his death.

Either way, in my book, he would have been better off murdered by the Allied powers executioner, solitary confinement for life, is beyond cruel and unusual imprisonment, it is totally inhumane.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 04:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo
Chivalry.
During WW1, from IMO, it was a common understanding that when in war, should either of the opposing side capture their enemy, they would return them to their homeland. During WW1, England withheld the captives and held them permenately.


Just where did you get that silly idea from?
en.wikipedia.org...
"At the end of the war in 1918 there were believed to be 140,000 British prisoners of war in Germany,"



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
The only peace Hitler wanted came after the Reich had conquered mainland Europe.



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. By 1942, even Hitler knew that he couldn't win the war, after 1942 he had nothing left to bargain with.

After 1942 groups within Germany continued to offer Britain and the US terms, up until Roosevelt announced that they would accept nothing but unconditional surrender, even then, there was still an open line of communication between Britain and those factions right up until April 1945.

It is easy to forget that there was resistence from within Germany and that those organisations worked with British SIS throughout the war. Not all Germans blindly followed.

[edit on 4-1-2010 by shamhat]



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by shamhat
 


I don't think you can ignore the Crimes Against Peace for which Hess was convicted at Nuremberg, namely the invasions of Austria, Czechoslovakia & Poland. For that he did deserve to swing.

Nor can you ignore his selective amnesia from 1941 onwards, which he admitted to Lord Justice Lawrence & the court, was nothing but a ruse.


I should like to say this: in order that I may be allowed to continue to attend the trial and receive judgement alongside my colleagues as is my wish, and in order not to be declared unfit to plead, I submit the following declaration to the court – a declaration which I had not intended to make until a later point in the proceedings: From this time on my memory is again at the disposal of the outside world. The reasons why I simulated amnesia are of a tactical nature. In fact, only my ability to concentrate is slightly impaired. On the other hand my ability to follow the trial, to defend myself, to question witnesses, and to answer questions myself – these are not impaired. I emphasize that I assume full responsibility for everything that I have done, everything I have signed, and everything that I have co-signed. My deep-seated conviction that the Tribunal has no competency is not affected by the above statement. I have successfully maintained the illusion of amnesia with my official defence counsel; he has acted accordingly in good faith.


So I don't consider him as helpful a prisoner as you seem to think.

The most balanced thing you could about his health is that he suffered from fluctuating sanity, probably brought on by the complete failure of his mission and his prolonged imprisonment. That doesn't, however, excuse his conduct as Deputy Fuhrer and Hitler's close accomplice in the Nazi movement.

But he certainly had his wits about him as he prepared for his trip to Scotland. He had Messerschmidt provide him with a brand new M110 aircraft for his personal use & had it fitted with long range fuel tanks, upgraded radio systems, enhanced navigation equipment & improved heating. He was provided with daily weather briefings for the United Kingdom. His skill as a pilot was remarkable, he managed to navigate his way across the North Sea at nighttime using the Leitstrahl navigation system, as used by Luftwaffe bomber crews.

I guess in mitigation, Hess was on a peace mission but one of his very own making. He wanted the Duke of Hamilton to introduce him to King George VI, bypassing the "warlike" British Government, and wished to explain to the British monarch that Germany & the UK were really two very similar nations & best together in peace. I can only guess he wanted Germany to have free reign over Europe, with the UK being allowed to retain its empire and that those were basically the terms he was going to offer.

But I haven't seen any evidence which suggests that Hitler had been consulted by Hess about this mission, or that Hitler had given the mission any encouragement whatever. Hitler distanced himself from Hess as soon as the mission became known.

To that extent, any peace offer made by Hess or others was absolutely worthless because it didn't come from the Fuhrer himself. And that's what counts, really, whether Hitler wanted peace ; all the evidence is entirely to the contrary.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ulala
I don't think you can ignore the Crimes Against Peace for which Hess was convicted at Nuremberg, namely the invasions of Austria, Czechoslovakia & Poland. For that he did deserve to swing.


And for the charge of 'Waging of Aggressive War'. But all those charges were drawn up after the fact by a panel of representatives comprised only of France, Britain, Russia and the US. If that justice had been balanced with offending victors and nationals, facing the same charges I would have little argument, but Nuremberg, from start to finish, was little more than a Kangeroo court, and evidence and research since that date demonstrates clearly that those who truly deserved to be found guilty of those charges, invariably got off with a few years in prison. Hess, if anything, by flying to Britain at great personal risk, aided the Allied war effort far more than he did Germany's.

He was tried on jumped up charges and unsurprisingly found guilty. That is not justice, or really, even legal.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ulala
To that extent, any peace offer made by Hess or others was absolutely worthless because it didn't come from the Fuhrer himself. And that's what counts, really, whether Hitler wanted peace ; all the evidence is entirely to the contrary.


The ever unpopular David Irving has published extensively on the subject and though he possesses an obvious bias, the interviews and evidence he has collated strongly point to Hitler being aware of Hess's flight to Britain. He has a great difficulty getting published in Britain though, and Germany now.

However other authors, both in the UK and the US hae investigated Hess's flight. Waiting for him at the estate of Lord Hamilton, was the Duke of Kent; according to witnesses who heard Hess's plane, saw the landing strip prepared and then all the lights extinguished, as if giving a signal, the Duke, amongst others were expectant of 'someone' arriving by air. Following a phonecall sometime after, the Duke left in haste and was involved in a car accident not far from the estate (he was unharmed), but Police records for the accident help confirm he was in the locality.

The Duke of Kent is said to have only accepted the task of meeting with Hess because he was given the assurance that the government and Churchill knew of the meeting and approved. Kent himself died soon after in very mysterious circumstances.

There is evidence to suggest that Hess was lulled into coming to Britain with false promises of an alliance against Russia, and that the operation was run by SOE under Churchill's authority. None of this can be confirmed or disproved as Britain refuse to release the documents. But all evidence so far presented indicates that Hess's intentions, if no one else's were genuine. Doesn't that count as mitigation? Speer just had to say sorry and he got off with a prison sentence.



[edit on 4-1-2010 by shamhat]



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 09:03 AM
link   
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 ?



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 09:41 AM
link   
Stalin made these comments in the Pravda of November 30, 1939.

It cannot be denied that it was France and England that attacked Germany and consequently they are responsible for the present war.

Germany made peace proposals to France and England, proposals supported by the Soviet Union on the grounds that a quick end to the war would ease the situation of all countries and peoples.

The ruling circles of England and France rudely rejected Germany's peace proposals.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR

www.amazon.com...


For those who don't have the book...

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by SteveR
 


Quoting Stalin to defend Hitler isn't necessarily the most compelling of arguments.

I'm receptive to many theories about the run up to WW2, but the idea that Hitler is some innocent and that the German people are still, even today, oppressed by occupying powers is just something I can't stomach.

And while some say that the far right needs to be engaged with & argued against at every opportunity, I come away from such encounters feeling a little bit dirty.

So I'm outta here.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join