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.

 

Was Hitler our last savior?

page: 4
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 
Good point with the 1984 thing.

What totalitarian regime has been in power in the last 200 years, let's say, that hasn't degraded into silliness? Pol Pot killing off people who wore eyeglasses, that sort of thing.




posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 10:59 AM
link   
It's hard to find information about WWII that isn't buried in some type of propaganda. This includes information about Hitler. Just mention his name in a positive or neutral manner and you have all labels thrown at you and you are categorised as a Nazi sympathiser. But this always happens in topics where people cannot separate emotion from logic.

PS: No I don't think Hitler was a Saviour. I just think the events of WWII have been "recorded" in a way that makes neutrality extremely difficult.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 11:01 AM
link   
If Hitler could have got the anglo saxon nations on board he probably would have left them alone, he admired the British Empire model and wanted to emulate it but with thousands of times the brutality.His real ambition was expansion in the east where the slavs would live as slaves to the German people.
If he had won his empire vast populations of ''lower races'' would be forced labourers and live in poverty.Would this system have survived in that form until today impossible to know but i would say likely.No we definitely made the right decision for all its faults Anglo America was nothing like the NAZI regime.
As for world government i think it's a bad idea i prefer there to be balance between powerful blocks of nations.In a world government there would still be persecution of minorities and who could save them who could fight a world army?



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 11:56 AM
link   
There are plenty of other people that tried to make the world "one" that are infinitely better choices that Hitler. You say Hitler tried to unite the world, but in his view only the Aryans were the true world. Sure, he was trying to unite the people, but he was simply eliminating everyone so that only one people would be left because in his mind there was only one group of people worth unifying.

When you are writing a book trilogy, you try to connect each different book into something that flows together and is coherent. You unify the books. What Hitler did was try to make a third book that would make the other two in the trilogy completely useless.

Or you could view it like a painting with many different colors all over. What Hitler wanted to do was not blend the colors together so that they transition into each other, but paint over the canvas and have just one color.

I agree there are some interesting, logical things with Hitler and the Third Reich, but the reason people get bashed for stating them and get called Nazi Sympathizers is because those people, in a case like this, a post with the topic of unity, the people focus on a man like Hitler, and not a peaceful men like Ghandi or Martin Luther King Jr.



[edit on 13-8-2010 by SubPop79]



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by moosevernel

And believe me thejews were just the start, if indeed nazi germany did succeed in controlling the world, he would not have stopped at slaughtering jews in pursuit of this ONE RACE


Actually, the Jews weren't the start. Hitler started with the mentally and physically disabled of his own people.

It was the technical experience gained in killing those people which the Nazi's "improved" upon when it came to killing Jews.

Either way, if that's the behaviour of a saviour, count me out of the salvation.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 12:22 PM
link   
A kinder, gentler Dictator?

I don't think so.

It's possible that we could of had a Facist Utopia. However nothing is ever perfect and things like that don't last forever.

So no.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


What the hell is a Gypsier?



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
[ Hitler was a mass murderer and a man who started a war that killed over 418,000 Americans. That doest include the Deaths between 50-70 Million people altogether... Hitler was no hero or savior.


he didn't start the war, either.

Winston Churchill declared war on Germany and that got the ball rolling.
in fact, Germany only declared war one time during WWII, against the United States.

source

just sayin'
those ARE the facts.

no matter who is aggressive toward who, over what, and how, when, etc...
war does not start until it is declared.
so the war started with Britain declaring war on Germany, in 1939.

a year later, Britain was petitioning FDR's administration for financial help - they had spent all their funds and so the United States entered WWII, financially, in 1940.


It was a largely uneventful trip. After stopping in Cuba to pick up cigars, Roosevelt and his companions spent most of their time fishing and watching movies. On December 9, however, a navy seaplane slid alongside the Tuscaloosa to deliver mail to the president. Among the stacks of newspapers and correspondence was a long letter from British Prime Minister Winston Churchill. In his remarkable, 4,000-word discourse, Churchill detailed the military situation in Great Britain and across Europe. After a year of war with Germany, he wrote, Britain was running out of money to pay for war goods and needed American help. He could not, however, suggest exactly how the president would provide it.



source



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skittle
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


What the hell is a Gypsier?


I meant Gypsie

Typo



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by queenannie38
 
Do you know why England declared war on Germany?

England , France and Poland were co-signatories on a treaty providing for common defense if any were attacked by an outside country. Poland was invaded by Germany on September 1, 1939. England and France were obliged to declare war on Germany by the treaty.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38


he didn't start the war, either.



Legally, declaring war and actually attacking a country is equivalent as to establshing a state of war.

Maybe the USA was the only country that got a declaration of war because it was the only country not directly attacked of the early coalition?




Winston Churchill declared war on Germany and that got the ball rolling.
in fact, Germany only declared war one time during WWII, against the United States.

just sayin'
those ARE the facts.



Are they?




en.wikipedia.org...

At 11:15 a.m. British Summer Time (BST), British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain announces on BBC Radio that the deadline of the final British ultimatum for the withdrawal of German troops from Poland expired at 11:00am and that "consequently this nation is at war with Germany". Australia, India, and New Zealand also declare war on Germany within hours of Britain's declaration.






no matter who is aggressive toward who, over what, and how, when, etc...
war does not start until it is declared.
so the war started with Britain declaring war on Germany, in 1939.


Is that so?




www.merriam-webster.com...

state of war

1.

Main Entry: state of war
Date: 1656

1 a : a state of actual armed hostilities regardless of a formal declaration of war b : a legal state created and ended by official declaration regardless of actual armed hostilities and usually characterized by operation of the rules of war
2 : the period of time during which a state of war is in effect






a year later, Britain was petitioning FDR's administration for financial help - they had spent all their funds and so the United States entered WWII, financially, in 1940.



Adam Tooze suggests that the retooling of the US air industry was already motivated by a willingness to enter the war, that was 1938.

I'd wonder how that is evidence of a conspiracy though. Nazi-US antagonism was pretty much a given from 33 on.

[edit on 13-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

[edit on 13-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 01:03 PM
link   
the problem with making a "pure race" is that different people are going to have different ideas about what a "pure race" would be, a.k.a. their own race. eventually america will just be a mix of black white asian and hispanic. maybe a mixture of all races is "pure"



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Hitler as a savior, hmmm NOPE I don't see it at all.
Unless you're into eugenics and racism....then YES, he just may have been your savior!



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Edit: Double tap.

[edit on 13-8-2010 by Masinger]



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ypperst
 


Hey, buddy, Hitler was a tweaker. A METH ADDICT! If he couldn't run a war against the U.S. properly, how can he run the entire globe? He also had a HUGE EGO! If there's ANYONE who should be in a seat of world power, it's one person, after that, dissolve the friggin seat. That person? Ghandi! With Einstein and Tesla somewhere up in power in his admin.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


yes
i know all about all that
way more than you might think

but still....declaring war is declaring war.
and once declared, it's awful hard to "take it back."

i no longer see "bad" guys and "good" guys...i just see a bloody mess overwhelming a large mixed group of human beings.

if we continue to be lulled into thinking that the second world war was the sole fault of one solitary man running one country, both of which are effectively DEAD and GONE, we will find ourselves rudely awakened by the same trouble all over again. but there will be no Adolf Hitler to blame it all on.

some of the players no longer exist.
but a great many of us live on and it's up to us to make sure that we do live, if you know what i mean.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ypperst
Was Hitler our last savior?


No.

Eugenics is wrong thinking. Putrification through purification should not be limited to one of the tribes of Earth.

There is one race and that is human.

Standardization is a corporate philosophy to minimize productions issues and maximize profits.

Anything other than natural will meet resistance and the heat from that resistance will force the separation to occur faster.

The end result will be destruction or perfection.

Long story short. Hitler believed in eugenics which is a flawed belief system.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stillalive
trust me your on the right path,if hitler won,we would be living in a better world,alot better


Right on there stillalive, star from me

The thing is history has been twisted and distorted to paint Hitler as a monster and I am slowly learning that it has been one of the biggest cons, certainly in my lifetime.

In Billions for the Bankers, Debts for the People (1984), Sheldon Emry commented:

“Germany issued debt-free and interest-free money from 1935 on, which accounts for Germany’s startling rise from the depression to a world power in five years. The German government financed its entire operations from 1935 to 1945 without gold, and without debt. It took the entire Capitalist and Communist world to destroy the German revolution, and bring Europe back under the heel of the Bankers.”

These facts do not appear in any textbooks today. What does appear is the disastrous runaway inflation suffered in 1923 by the Weimar Republic, which governed Germany from 1919 to 1933. Today’s textbooks use this inflation to twist truth into its opposite. They cite the radical devaluation of the German mark as an example of what goes wrong when governments print their own money, rather than borrow it from private cartels such as...... oh yeah the FED

US Bankers financed Hitler to keep a check on Stalin, when Hitler was so successful in building the Nation up from its knees, he no longer needed their loans they had to start a war with him ........

I say we wake T.F Up and throw the Zionist edited history books in the bin.

PEACE,
RK



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ypperst
 


[Sarcasm] Or better yet, maybe Stalin was our last saviour. Our world would be much more united without those pesky Slavs. Darn Slavs, ruining everyone's fun. [Sarcasm]



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Was Hitler your last savior, what a stupid question, is anybody your savior... ww1 and 2 are just culmination effects of the elites of the time. Anybody looking for a savior will find him, history is full of saviors who are there when there is a buck to be made. Hitler is no different then any of them...though he was really nationalistic in a time when the march for, no nation corporations were coming into power Germany was on the wrong end of the spectrum on the world movement. All peoples on this planet are in the interest of themselves and there group, that is all there is... nothing else... there is no such thing as a "world leader" or even a "nation leader"...and you would be lucky to have a town leader. Hitler is average in the scale of despots that came into power, and there are some here in the good old USA if they gained total power they would do much worse...And there are some in all other countries that would do way worser, but in historical text Hitler is average, the boogie man to scare the sheeple and Jews into pens. It take more then one person or country to make a world war...and Hitler and Germany were one of many factors involved in that war, and not even the most important.



* IM NOT SUPPORTING NAZI, I just wanted to ask, what do you think? where would the world be today, if Hitler was in lead and had made his "über race" all around the world?




First there is no such thing as an 'uber race" That is a myth or a political slogan of the time...Second he in no way could of won the war and took over the world, in fact he didn't even want to... If Germany would of won the war the same thing would happen as has always happened, first they would get a nationalistic country for a time then the scope of the world would encumber them...and in time it would turn in to a corporatist fascist country in the interest of those in power. And the countries that imposed a huge tribute on Germany after ww1 would have a tribute imposed on them...so therefore they would go looking for the war path...just as Germany did and in time they will get it, either through economical ways, or the physical war way, like Germany did. So to answer your question.... no not much would change, the biggest difference would be that the world language would be German not English.




top topics



 
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join