It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin
Actually you haven't done much to prove your case; in fact you are in no better position to acquire the actual documentation that supports your conclusion than anyone else.
Why? Because many of these things were being sanitized from the moment they transpired.
Russians, Americans, English, French, Germans etc. et al have carved up little slices of what was Nazi Germany in ways that suited their post war propaganda positions.
Documents, surviving personnel, physical structures, all have been selectively destroyed, altered, or whisked out of the public eye to paint a picture that yes, you know very well.
Anyone can learn to be a parrot and mimic things that they are taught through educational programs.
Program being the key word, like one programs a computer, one can also program a human, it's all about the information that you feed them and program into them, and the elites have known this for thousands of years.
Yes you are programmed very well, besides earning a star on your forehead for accepting everything hook line and sinker, I see no 'winning' virtue in it.
Not much point in debating someone who has a closed mind.
Not much point in trying to pretend you can meet the evidentiary standards of someone with a close mind that requires a level of proof that has long ago been wiped away.
In the conspiracy world everything is about motive and opportunity, conjecture and then hunting down the evidence that hasn't been destroyed, to look for the information that you weren't programmed with.
Much of that evidence will be purely circumstantial.
Just a difference circumstance than victors with guns, deciding what relevant information you can know, in order to get you to support political policies and a military industrial complex that's long been used to solve problems in a barbaric way, that some people then later like to pretend their justifications for that are some exercise in intellectualism.
The long and short of it, is as long as people have questions and doubts they should continue to look for answers and explanations to fill in those doubts.
Even amongst the official stories as they are told by the various powers, there are huge discrepancies; you are satisfied with your sources for history.
Other’s aren’t, they most frightening thing is not about who might be right or wrong, but that a very large segment of people would resort to anything to prevent people from asking questions or digging at all.
Pretty simple, enjoy that ‘victory’ in your mind, sadly to proclaim it, is an admission of being blind.
Hogwash. As I have shown, all of the documents that you have invoked are still around - and we know from people who looked at them back then that it's the same thing.
What is missing? His Taufschein isn't. His Father's Taufschein isn't.
Uhm. Can you please give me the name and approximate date of the people who did this? How can they have sanitized something when the originals we still possess today conform with what the people saw 80 years ago?
Maybe so - but Hitlers Taufschein is not among them. It was never stolen, it never went missing.
Again you try to counter a specific argument by making broad-brushed claims.
Given that this is true - you wouldn't know about it now, would you?
This doesn't matter as Hitlers Taufschein was never stolen.
Who is parrotting here? You seem to be the parrot.
I have invested money, time and effort to see for myself where the claim originated that Hitler is a Rothschild. Since I have done so I find myself to be quite competent to counter people who clearly haven't done so.
Ah. But only Protoplasmic traveller, since he is so unique, could free himself of his programming to come to ATS and enlighten the world. Come one, haven't you got another spiel - one that hasn't been tried over and over and over?
Wait a minute. You're the one claiming (uncritically, parrotting) that HItlers "birth certificate" was stolen because someone told you so - I went and checked that claim and showed you that it isn't so.
Who's programmed? The one who actually checks the BS that he is told or the one who simply spreads it? My money is not on the latter.
Not much point in debating someone who can not back up his claims.
Ah. So mere speculation trumps history based on sources - as long as it fits your pre-conceived view of the world, that is.
If it would have been destroyed and you know about it - you could cite me the source that documents said destruction. If - as you do - you fail to produce that I'm left with the following options i) you are simply making up BS ii) you're the only one who really got history right, but there's no way to review the process by which you came to your conclusions.
Well, it's not a hard choice.
But it still comes from documents as history deals with nothing else.
So actually knowing that many of the myths about Hitler originate in the 1950's somehow makes me part of a conspiracy to support a military industrial complex?
Yeah, because I'm so supportive of Empire and everything just because I prefer source-based history to mere speculation. Right.
Yes - and by peer-review we determine if these answes and explanations are plausible to more than one man's logic - that's why we need to be able to reproduce our lines of thought and can't just make bold assertions.
When it comes to the question of Hitlers ancestry then I am quite satisfied with the sources. The Rothschild version is the most implausible, as I have demonstrated. If it were true Austria would never have been annexed.
And BTW - when it comes to Hitlers origins, there is no "official story". In history there never is such thing as an "official story". History is constant flux and constant revision in light of new sources.
I haven't prevented anyone from anything. I just showed you that you have no basis for the bold claims you make - sorry if that upsets you. But assigning the straw-man position of "debate supresser" to me won't help you - as anyone can see I'm fairly interested to debate the details.
Well, taking your defitinion of being "blind" and "asleep", I am quite happy to fit the description. In your books this just means "being anyone who doesn't swallow my BS" - a title I'm proud to wear.
Now - If you have further proof of Hitler being Jewish - let's discuss that... If not .. Let's leave it at that, ok - since 90% of the stuff you post an I answer to have nothing to do with this thread. I'll be happy to discuss my so called blindness and your impressive superiority in the appropriate place.
Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin
Actually endless World War II documentaries on Hitler present the Birth Certificate controversy. You can see those on Networks like the History and Discovery Channel.
These are the documentaries that tend to be the official version of people's history.
So if documentaries by such organizations as Time/Life report what you insist are distortions how many other distortions are they then reporting?
The case for Hitler having Rotschild blood is circumstantial yet compelling, because of who ended up funding Hitler and the Third Reich.
Harriman through Prescott Bush operating as a bagman through Thyssen is well documented.
Harriman represented Rothschild wealth in America and that's well documented too.
In other words years after Hitler's public stance on the Jews and Communists Hitler was still recieving Rothschild money, through Harriman and Bush.
No few people are going to piece a conclusive case to prove these things, simply because the records are divided between States,
In other words neither you nor I, have access to the level of sources we would need to prove or disprove this,
There are still documents pertaining to World War II that are rumored to implicate the British Royals and other nobles in England sealed under National Security Provisions.
There is no denying Hitler conquered Europe using General Motors and Ford Trucks and fueled them at Esso/Standard Oil/Rockefeller Gas Stations often along the way.
There is no denying substantial investments of Wall Street money in the Nazi Party as well as the fascists in Italy.
War is a lucrative sport for the elites, and simply an emotional exercise for the masses.
Follow the money.
Personally I do believe that Hitler was not an aboration, but a carefully cultivated persona and not one of simply his own making.
Scapegoating Hitler as entirely a product of himself does serve a lot of people with at the very least financial ties to him.
Why did they select him to invest in,
when you see how close the Rothschild family MAY have been involved from the beginning, through his grandmother FACTUALLY being in their employ,
and then realize that Rothschild Money continued to flow to him through American cutouts well past the point a World War was waging, yes you have some very compelling circumstantial evidence to ponder.
All I am saying is trust these official stories at your own risk.
It was either a manipulation of the highest and most sinister order or a true stroke of good fortune Hitler turned out to want to persecute Jews.
Because our only 'credible' sources of information come from the very same States and Militaries that rely on oil to run their infrastructure and war machines, the States that are home to these mega-corporations, I don't consider the source to be reliable.
It is documented that Hitler’s grandmother served briefly as a housekeeper to the Austrian Branch of the Rothschild Family
Once again the evidence is Circumstantial, it is as impossible to prove as it is to discount. Hitler is dead, the Rothschild in question is dead, and if true this would have been a very private matter at a time handled discretely in ways that would have left little to no documentation.
Further I can appreciate English might not be your native or first language but I listed one source for the Birth Certificate controversy as being video documentaries such as Time/Life’s series on World War II that you can often find shown on the Discovery and History Channel.
Can you show me the registry entry of Anna Maria Schicklgruber as domestic servant in 1836 in Vienna? It's not there - I've cited you at least one scholar who has been there and verified it himself.
She wasn't - as a control sample: The "young girls" Salomon loved so much are in that registry - and again, he was not a "womanizer", the only thing we know about him is that he "loved young girls and therefore only employed very young girls as servants" - Anna Maria Schicklgruber was 42 at the time.
His credibility was compromised, however, when he claimed in the late 1970s to have tracked down Hitler’s illegitimate son, said to have been born of an 18-month liaison with a peasant girl.
Further evidence for how highly charged the serving maid-Jewish master fantasy was in Hitler's own mind can be found in its prominence as a pornographic motif in Julius Streicher's Der Sturmer, in Hitler's peculiar ecstasy over Streicher's coverage of the Hirsch case, a celebrated 1920s trial of a Jewish master for the rape of his Aryan serving girl. And in Hitler's denunciation of Matthias Erzberger, one of the "November Criminals" (the men who signed the "stab in the back" November 1918 armistice), as "the bastard son of a Jew and a serving girl."
And then, as Robert Waite has pointed out, there is the serving-girl codicil which Hitler insisted on including in the 1935 Nuremberg racial laws, a codicil that not only specifically outlawed intercourse between Jews and Aryans but also explicitly forbade Jews even to employ Aryan women under the age of forty-five in their homes. It is a bizarre legislative provision, in that it seems to have a pornographic fantasy embedded within it. It's a subversively ambiguous fantasy at that: While it seems to say that Jews could not be trusted with nubile Aryan women in their employ, the fact that the prohibition extended not just to the act of miscegenation but to the possibility of a Jewish master and Aryan maidservant being in each other's presence carries an implicit hint that the Aryan maids themselves might not be trusted. This deeply embedded distrust, or at least deeply divided view of the serving girl and her relationship to the shadowy pater incertus who may be her master, is at the heart of the enigma of Maria Schicklgruber and the fantasies projected upon the blank line on the baptismal certificate she filed in Dollersheim.
No explicit eyewitness or documentary evidence has survived to support this dark view of Maria. The rumored paternity correspondence that would document the story of a liaison between Maria and a wealthy Jew she served, the "Jew from Graz" cited by Hitler's personal attorney Hans Frank in his Nuremberg memoir, has never surfaced. There is no testimony from Maria's contemporaries to indict her, to indicate she was anything other than a simple good-hearted peasant woman, even a courageous single mother who defied poverty and advancing age to bear a child without benefit of clergy or paternal support at an age, forty-two, when other peasant women might have resigned themselves to declining years of childless drudgery.
And yet there is testimony, reported testimony, from a descendent. A story about Maria, a sordid story of low, mean sexual intrigue, fraud, and blackmail that makes her out to be a cunning and deceitful anti-Semitic extortionist. It's a story we might otherwise ignore were it not for its source--a man specifically assigned by Adolf Hitler to investigate the circumstances of Maria's pregnancy, an attorney who claimed he got his seamy, disreputable portrait of Maria from a member of her own family. And yet there is testimony, reported testimony, from a descendent. A story about Maria, a sordid story of low, mean sexual intrigue, fraud, and blackmail that makes her out to be a cunning and deceitful anti-Semitic extortionist. It's a story we might otherwise ignore were it not for its source--a man specifically assigned by Adolf Hitler to investigate the circumstances of Maria's pregnancy, an attorney who claimed he got his seamy, disreputable portrait of Maria from a member of her own family. To be more precise: from Adolf Hitler himself..
"Various candidates have been suggested," Maser writes. In addition to the official nominee on the Nazi Party family tree for Hitler, Johann Georg Hiedler, and Maser's own candidate, Johann Georg's wealthier brother Johann Nepomuk Hiedler, there are "a 'Graz Jew' by the name of Frankenberger, a scion of the seigneurial house of Ottenstein, and even a Baron Rothschild of Vienna." Maser doesn't believe Adolf Hitler was a Frankenberger, an Ottenstein, or a Rothschild descendant (the latter astonishing suggestion seems to be traceable to the pre-Anschluss anti-Hitler Austrian secret police). But he has concocted an elaborate theory of rural sexual intrigue and greed over a legacy to bolster the candidacy of his man, Johann Nepomuk Hiedler.
In his discussion of the controversial assertion, in a pre-execution Nuremberg memoir by Hitler's one-time private attorney Hans Frank, that Frank had uncovered evidence to support the view that the mysterious stranger/paternal grandfather of Hitler was a Jew, Jetzinger cites "this curious fact which may be interpreted as bearing out Frank's story":
Not two months after Hitler invaded Austria, in May 1938, an order was issued to the Land Registries concerned to carry out a survey of Dollersheim (Alois Hitler's birthplace) and neighbourhood with a view to their suitability as a battle training area for the Wehrmacht. In the following year the inhabitants of Dollersheim were forcibly evacuated and the village together with the surrounding countryside was blasted and withered by German artillery and infantry weapons. The birthplace of Hitler's father and the site of his grandmother's grave were alike rendered unrecognizable, and today this whole tract of what was once fertile and flourishing country is an arid desert sown with unexploded shells. But an area so closely associated with Hitler's family could not have been used for battle training without his knowledge and permission. Then why did he give it? Or did Hitler himself initiate the order for the destruction of Dollersheim out of insane hatred of his father and the desire to erase the "shame" of his Jewish blood?
While Jetzinger's account has been challenged, primarily by Werner Maser (who argues that it was the Russians who destroyed Dollersheim after 1945 to eliminate a possible future shrine for neo-Nazis), in either version the goal was the elimination of the problematic archival nexus of Hitler's origins--a sanitizing, cleansing operation designed to exterminate the rats' nest of ambiguities that had its origin there, to exterminate the possibility of hostile or empathetic explanation.
Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin
reply to post by Studenofhistory
There's simply no good reason to believe that Hitler was Jewish, as is elaborated in the previous pages of this post, and - contratry to what the article makes of it - is not what the journalist mentioned in the article came to conclude from the DNA tests.
But who cares, right?
"Hitler had a Jewish grandfather" is true
[edit on 25-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]