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 'had Jewish and African roots', DNA tests show

page: 6
9
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 





The thread has been an interesting read thus far.

I have to keep reminding myself that this is a "Conspiracy" site and that the root word there is.

Conspire

1. To plan together secretly to commit an illegal or wrongful act or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
2. To join or act together; combine:




posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 05:48 PM
link   
I'm just hoping that on whatever level, he learned this. About the Jewish heritage. Even after death.

"Oh, by the way, you were from Jewish decent".

He probably would have tried to commit suicide.

...............oh, wait.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 06:28 PM
link   
The aspect that Jewish people did this thing to Jewish people is often overlooked...of course, that would take much of the indignation out of the accusations...
So then, the hate accusation would be leveled at Jewish people by jewish people...
Well, that would sure confuse the issue now wouldn't it?


Now, the 31-year-old professor of history at the online American Military University, who recently received a Ph.D. from the University of Cambridge, has just published a book on Nazi Germany that some historians are calling pathbreaking. This month, the University Press of Kansas releases Hitler's Jewish Soldiers: The Untold Story of Nazi Racial Laws and Men of Jewish Descent in the German Military

this guy seems qualified...

What surfaces in those papers, and in Mr. Rigg's in-depth interviews, is a glimpse into how the several thousand men of partial Jewish origin who served in Hitler's army saw themselves -- how they felt about their Germanness, their Jewishness, the war, the Holocaust, and their own participation therein. Mr. Rigg estimates that there were upwards of 100,000 such "Mischlinge" -- German for mixed-blood or half-breed -- as they were known in Nazi parlance, and possibly as many as 150,000

Like Kerry finding out in an AIPAC controlled election that he is of Jewish decent

German Jews, unlike many of their Eastern European counterparts, tended to be highly assimilated. Most of them were educated, professional, and urban. They saw themselves -- and, until the National Socialist takeover, were largely seen -- as German, as part of the national culture. Indeed, many of them had served in the German military in World War I. They were patriotic. Some were even antagonistic toward the Eastern European Jews who began to migrate to Germany after the war, seeing them as backward, parochial, and insular.

AH, so much for solidarity..
Zionist created "anti semetism" really united the disparate types of Judaism. as it was meant to do...

While in Germany in 1992, studying language at the Goethe Institute and doing research into his family origins, Mr. Rigg happened upon some records indicating that his mother's ancestry included Jews

www.factsofisrael.com...
Of course,
Just like John Kerry, or this work probably would never have seen the light of day...

PS
Not as entertaining a post as Slayer's video, but meatier I hope.





[edit on 26-8-2010 by Danbones]

[edit on 26-8-2010 by Danbones]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin
 


I don't believe man originated from Africa and there's no real proof that we did. I don't believe in the evolution of man from an ape like ancestor..

My blood is of Scots Irish, Dutch and Swedish. There is no African or Jewish blood in my bloodline. My ancestor's came to north America in the mid 1700's from Ulster Ireland.



[edit on 26-8-2010 by TruthSeeker8300]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 06:10 AM
link   
reply to post by bentai22
 




Therefore, Hitler was in fact a Jew if you use Nazi thinking.

So explain your circular logic on how you conclude that he wasn't.


I don’t see where I used circular logic, but since you demand an explanation let me try again.

First of all, cutting out the ““Hitler had a “Jewish” grandfather is true” is a pretty disngenious attempt at quote mining. My point is that even if we assume that he had a “Jewish” grandfather this would not make him Jew – but since his “Jewish” grandfather is not proven the point is moot. I was merely asking the “what if” question – and I tried to point out that it doesn’t matter since having a “Jewish” grandfather does not automatically make you a willing tool of a Zionist conspiracy.

Secondly possessing the haplogroup E1b1b1 is simply not evidence of a recent influx of “Jewish blood”. Haplogroup E1b1b1 stems from a mutation 20,000 years ago – it is not evidence of a 19th century influx of “Jewish blood” – you can possess this genetic marker without having a recent Jewish relative some generations prior, and claiming the opposite is simply bad science. Let me again quote the relevant part: story



IN fact, the E1B1B1 gene is relatively common in Europe. Here's the incidence in major European countries:
France - 8%,
Germany 4%
Italy 11% (Northern Italy 24%)
Portugal 17%
Switzerland 9%
Spain 6%
Slovakia 11%
Greece 27%
[note: at the tip of Southern Greece E1B1B1 reaches up to 40%, incidence and there's a 40% pocket around Montenegro too.]


Do you get the relevance of this snippet? I hope you do - it is not the case that all of the groups mentioned above are of Jewish origin. For god’s sake said haplogroup is around for 20,000 years and probably came to Europe with Hannibal or even earlier.

Genetic Details




It is difficult to see how much of the hype is due to the original geneticists or to the "journalists" who report on the work.

These "Jewish and African" roots are supposedly due to the fact that Hitler belonged to haplogroup E1b1b1. But, without further information about the subclade in which Hitler belonged to, there is no reason to think that he was of Jewish or African ancestry. He could just as well be of Greek or Albanian patrilineal ancestry. But, I guess that "Hitler's Greek or Albanian roots" doesn't have the same zing that his "Jewish and African roots" does.

What do we know? That Hitler may have had distant Y-chromosome E1b1b1 cousins that wouldn't be considered Aryan in Nazi Germany. But, this would be true no matter what haplogroup he had

So no, possessing haplogroup E1b1b1 is not proof of Jewish ancestry. Chances are I possess it too ( I’m no mathematician but having Swiss /German and Italo/British ancestors gives me a fairly large chance of possessing it myself – how does that make me Jewish? I’ve never been to a synagog, never read the Talmud, I don’t speak Hebrew, I’m not circumcised – but here you are practically telling me that I pretty much am a Jew – how is that logical?).

As for your claim to the “Nazi definition”. Maybe you should look that one up – maybe this was an honest mistake on your part, it’s not easy to remember all the Nazi bullcrap. So here’s a run-down for ya:

Having one Jewish grandparent did not make you a “Jew” under the Nürnberger Gesetze. It made you a “Mischling zweiten Grades” – still not something you’d want to be in Nazi Germany but way more comfortable than being labeled a full-blooded Jew by the Nazis. For instance, if Hitler would have had kids with Eva Braun, those kids would have been considered normal, Aryan, full-blood Germans. As a Mischling zweiten Grades you were way better off as someone deemed to be a full-blooded Jew – you could remain in the army, your kids could become Aryans, etc., etc. If you were a Mischling zweiten Grades and participated in Word War 1 then you might even be allowed to keep your job, you were eligible to be exempted from the “Jewish” status by Hitlers proclamation, etc., etc.

So yes, under the Nürnberger Gesetze Hitler would have been deemed a Mischling zweiten Grades. This would have saved him from instant deportation if he would have played it right. So there is a difference – study the Nuremberg laws and you’ll find them.

This is of course, only if we accept that Maria Anna Schicklgruber was impregnated by a Jew – something for which there is not enough evidence to establish it as a fact

Edit: Bentai ... I've reconsidered your post: Of course if what you are saying is that by the definition of the Nürnberg laws Hitler was no "aryan" then you are correct. But he wouldn't have been considered a full blooded Jew, either.

I think the fact that the Nazi-Junta didn't live up to their racial ideals is quite clear for almost all of them: hitler, Darré, Rosenberg, Ley, Goebbels, Goering, Heydrich, Himmler: These were all far cries from the blond-blue-eyed ideal that the Lebensborn held. The fact that they did not live up to their own standards is apparent without any further genetic analysis.

[edit on 27-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by TruthSeeker8300
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin
 


I don't believe man originated from Africa and there's no real proof that we did. I don't believe in the evolution of man from an ape like ancestor..



Evolution is not about believing. But let's leave that discussion for a thread where this is the topic.




My blood is of Scots Irish, Dutch and Swedish. There is no African or Jewish blood in my bloodline. My ancestor's came to north America in the mid 1700's from Ulster Ireland.



Uhm - as I said, either you possess haplogroup E1B1B1 or you don't - it is not a question of what you choose or what you wish for.

Netherlands: 2%

Sweden 1%

Ireland 2%

www.thegeneticatlas.com...

Chances are you have said haplogroup - albeit the chances are less likely compared to someone like me who has a large continental ancestry - but still chances are you possess this genetic marker.

If this irks you so much go an make a DNA test - my point is exactly that it makes no difference. You wouldn't suddenly consider yourself a Jew if you went to make such a test and it came back positive - neither would I deem you a Jew for it. In fact - nobody would - that's the whole point of my blog. Possessing said haplogroup is not indicative of having recent Jewish forebears.



[edit on 26-8-2010 by TruthSeeker8300]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 07:18 AM
link   
Correction of a blunder that I made yesterday

I have a correction to make to an earlier post I made. Seems I have been confusing Werner Maser with Franz Jetzinger.

Maser is of course the guy who disspelled the Frankenberger/Frankenreiter myth - an effort that has been reproduced by Ian Kershaw for his Hitler Biography.

Jetzinger is the Author of "Hitler's Youth", and that is the book I wanted to refer to, not the book by Maser I cited. Therein the plausibility of the Vienna story is taken up.

So please accept my apologies for mixing these two up. It's not easy to keep them all seperate when writing from the top of my head, and since the people peddling the Rothschild-version here keep jumping between the Rothschild-spiel and the Frankenberger story, it is quite hard to folow: It is like battling two myths at once when the people making said claims don't even realize that they are citing two different myths. So sorry, honest mistake there. In addition, in the Fest Biography that I consulted for a run-down of Jetzinger/Maser, both appear alternatively in the footnotes - where both works are given as Maser, Hitler / Jetzinger, Hitler... So that's where I blundered: What I have been ascribing to Maser is actually from Jetzinger's Hitler's Youth.

As for my endorsment of Maser; of course this changes things. I still stand by my opinion that Maser's pushing of the "Jean Loret was Hitlers son" was an honest mistake - no historian is flawless. I do endorse parts of his first Hitler biography (not the book I cited a page back) but I do vehemently oppose many of his other works: I do not believe in the Präventivkriegsthese and quite honestly I think it is safe to say that the older the works of Maser the more accurate they are; it is not completely unfair to say that Maser jumped the shark somewhere along the line.

As for Jetzinger - as I said no one is perfect. I find "HItler's YOuth" to be a seminal work and it's one of the most interesting works I've ever read about Hitler. But Jetzinger has his problems too - like his feud with Kubiceck. As I said no one is infallible.

The same can be said for the Fest biography - certainly inclusion of some parts of the Rauschning is problematic. But Fest is the ideal source to pinpoint the stage of the debate about Hitlers ancestry as it was in the 70's.

Anyway - the point being that we should be careful not to mingle the Frankenberger myth with the Rothschild myth - or such blunders happen. Of course, this thread invites discussion of both myths but we have primarily been discussing the Rothschild angle so far.

So it's Hans Frank - Werner Maser - Ian Kershaw - Frankenberger

and

Hansjürgen Koehler - Fritz Thyssen - Jetzinger (and Rosenbaum, if I remember correctly, it's 12 years since I read the book) - Rothschild.

Just to prevent further confusion. Sorry for the blunder.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


Danbones.. I'm not sure if you realized this but the link to the book you gave does not claim that there were "Vollblutjuden" in Hitler's Werhmacht. The books deals with Mischlinge zweiten Grades who, by the code of the Nuremberg laws, were allowed to be soldiers up to somewhere in the 1940's.




Rigg interviewed over four hundred former soldiers and documented more, finding people and documents that were previously unknown, to come to the conclusion that perhaps up to 150,000 Mischlinge served in the Wehrmacht during Hitler's reign. This is important because it "tells us how Jewish identity was viewed, constructed, and contested by German citizens, Nazi leaders, military commanders, and the Jewish community within German borders, and for what it tells us about how these perceptions saved some while condemning others to the death camps (1).



The point this book makes is that the Nuremberg laws were quite arbitrary and that by their definition a big group of non-pure-aryans were also part of the German community or at least were allowed into the army and into some profession. For a defitinition of "Vollblutjude" and "Mischlinge zweiten Grades" please see the post I made above.

We should not confuse the Nuremberg laws with our modern definition of "being Jewish" - it differs quite dramatically. As I pointed out above, by that standard, given that Maria Anna Schicklgruber was impregnated by a "Jew" would make Hitler a Mischling zweiten Grades too (as someone pointed out before my post).



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 07:43 AM
link   
This is interesting but no matter what race he was I really wish this guy did not exist. He killed plenty of everyone, Europeans included, in fact after WW2 Europe was but a shadow of it's former self. If I could invent a time machine him and Stalin would be dead even if that meant me not existing.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Jacob08
 


I can only second that feeling. But probably things were already too late by the time Hitler and Uncle Joe hit the scene. So if I had a time-machine I'd rather off Gavrilo Princip and therefore negate the basis on which Hitler and Stalin rose to power.

The monarchies would have eventually given in, both in Germany and Russia. Globalization wouldn't have been nixed and would not have to be rebuilt piece by piece. Although of course in that scenario I probably would never have existence since I am pretty much a direct consequence of the post-45 German diaspora - but that's a fair price to pay for preventing some hundred million deaths.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin
 





Correction of a blunder that I made yesterday

I have a correction to make to an earlier post I made. Seems I have been confusing Werner Maser with Franz Jetzinger.

Maser is of course the guy who disspelled the Frankenberger/Frankenreiter myth - an effort that has been reproduced by Ian Kershaw for his Hitler Biography.



Really? Confused? The truth is that the source of the allegations that it was Baron Rothschild who was Hitler's Grandfather, comes from the Austrian Secret Police that were very anti-Hitler.

Now the questions one might want to ask, is was this a pure invention of the Austrian Secret Police that would slander in essence the scion of the world's wealthiest and most powerful family along with Hitler, or was this a desperately made revelation and admission through their own investigative work as an arm of the Austrian Government with presumably far better access to Austrian records before Germany ever annexed it and destroyed many of them?

That's the reasonable doubt that either condemns or exonerates Baron Rothschild as Hitler's unknown Grandfather.

The person who was not listed on his father's baptismal certificate in a town and at a church that Hitler later had leveled to the ground and the people run off so people could not investigate his past.

Meser's other contemporary historians describe him as impressionable.

The truth is that most historians that specialize in Hitler have long operated as a rather rigid clique that in large part pays lip service to Jewish and Zionist politics which is why it is so hard for someone like Riggs to investigate and uncover things like Hitler's Jewish Soldiers, because the academic community all of which have basically written books that more or less support each other's theories and research throw up road blocks for serious researchers and writers that deviate from the standard dogmas and propaganda.

Yet the most credible historians while they all have their own favorite theories as to who Hitler's Grandfather was, admit readily that there is just not enough surviving information to know conclusively.

So you are in reality attempting to argue a case, that none of your sources have ever been able to difinitively prove.

Since you yourself don't actually have the source documents either, you can not prove or disprove who Hitler's grandfather was either.

All you can do is pretend, likely for the sake of some political agenda, and frankly there is no virtue in anything less than the truth, no matter how well someone imagines a lie will serve them.

There is no way to disprove Baron Rothschild and there is no way to prove it was Baron Rothschild.

So it is purely a matter of speculation and conjecture which is what makes it a very attractive thing for conspiracy theorists and truth hunters of all stripes.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Playing the race card is irrelevant with the Illuminati.
Its all about what money can do.
Compare them all to Elizabeth I as to what they can get away with
sexually.
If Hitler had to coddle to someone's plan I'm sure he did.
See what Bush did.
See what Obama is doing.
Just to find out about Hitlers birth right perhaps we should have
asked him when we had the chance after May 1945 in CIA hands.
He could not pull the strings on the scientists like he did on the
scudded submarines but there are stories.
When everyone looking like Hitler after the war did we ask for any papers.
Just where did he go and where is he buried.
Those people might know more than we do.



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Really? Confused?


Yes, that happens to us mere humans - sorry if I didn't live up to your standards.



The truth is that the source of the allegations that it was Baron Rothschild who was Hitler's Grandfather, comes from the Austrian Secret Police that were very anti-Hitler.


I agree that that is the narrative of the Hitler-was-a-Rothschild myth. Now I have repeatedly asked in this thread for evidence, circumstancial or anecdotal if sources are not available, that what you say about the Austrian secret police is indeed true.

All we have concerning these stories are rumors. I have given a run-down of the origin of those rumors - the earliest public mentioning of them that I could find where the books I cited from Thyssen and Koehler. To my knowledge, there is no older source for the allegation that the Dollfuss file ever existed. If it existed, one would suppose that it would have left some kind of trace - what is the basis for believing that there indeed was such a file? Seems no one working for the Austrian Political Police back then remembers - Schuschnigg's wife, who is implicated in Koehlers book as a witness to the existence of the file does not seem to remember it - Schuschnigg himself has never publicly or privately talked to anybody about it - neither has he written about it publicly nor privately as far as his personal notes are concerned. Heydrich left no trace, not one word in his notes, not one word to his co-workers about the affair - and indeed non of the surviving Gestapo people that have given testimony to their activity in those times have ever alluded that Koehlers report was factual.

This is just a preliminary list of people who would have known, written, or talked about the Dollfuss file if it ever would have existed. Of course this is not definitive proof of its non-existence (since you can not prove a negative, as any CTer will know). But usually people have a basis for believing something. If there would be anecdotal or circumstancial evidence for the files existence that comes from another source besides Koehler or Thyssen - preferably from someone implicated by Koehler - then the picture would be different. But so far I have not encountered another source speaking of the file - even though, given that it existed, there would be numerous people implicated of having known about it or seen it.

So all I'm saying is personally I need more than a wild story told by someone who seemed hell-bent on deflecting from his own crimes by writing about far-out, sometimes evidently invented events once he was picked up by the allies. Koehler has been proven to be inacurate and outright lying in the book concerning other things. I simply can't acknowledge the existence of said file when the only evidence for it is anecdotal, coming from a source that has been demonstrated to fabricate lies in the very publication that the Dollfuss myth made its first public appaerance.

So again, my position is that given the evidence we are in possession of today there is no basis for taking the existence of the Dollfuss file as fact. Maybe it existed, maybe it didn't - the case for its existence isn't very strong, and there is plausible circumstantial evidence against it that I have described in posts previous to this one some pages back. The main argument being: If Schuschnigg was in possession of such a file - why didn't he make it public? How did Austria end up under Nazi tyrrany when the myth states that Schuschnigg had the ultimate weapon against Hitler? How come the whole thing didn't blow? It was intended to be a security against German invasion - yet they ended up invaded. Seems a bit contradictory to me. ( Of course being in possession of Koehlers book has allowed me to see for myself how he dances around that fact - but I don't wanna spoil your chance of dancing around it yourself).



Now the questions one might want to ask, is was this a pure invention of the Austrian Secret Police that would slander in essence the scion of the world's wealthiest and most powerful family along with Hitler, or was this a desperately made revelation and admission through their own investigative work as an arm of the Austrian Government with presumably far better access to Austrian records before Germany ever annexed it and destroyed many of them?


If the latter was the case, one would suppose that they would have implemented the fruits of their "presumably far better access to Austrian records..." in defending Austria from said annexation, would one not?

Given that the latter version is true there remains the not unimportant fact that as far as the record goes, nobody seems to have cared to use this "ultimate weapon" against Hitler even though the very circumstance that the purported file was to prevent came to be. I'm left wondering why a file, composed as a hedge against the possible annexation by Germany, is not used for the sole occasion it was composed for.




The truth is that most historians that specialize in Hitler have long operated as a rather rigid clique that in large part pays lip service to Jewish and Zionist politics which is why it is so hard for someone like Riggs to investigate and uncover things like Hitler's Jewish Soldiers, because the academic community all of which have basically.....


Now this is just Bulveristic nonsense. There's plenty of anti-zionist scholars or those who are critical of Israel policy ever since its inception. I can somehow understand how an American perspective would come to such a conclusion about the political motivations of a scientific community, but outside of the United States the whole Israel question is not as heavily politicized - certainly not within the historic community. And describing the global scene of Holocaust/WW2 research as a "rigid clique" is so far away from the truth that its almost comical. But then again, such notions were always part of the laymans view on professional scholarship regardless of the topic and it has been that way ever since the days of the Atheans, so its kind of forgivable. Let me conclude this reply to this (again rather off topic) portion of your answer with the simple observation that I personally don't know any scholarly profession that is as embattled and heterogenous as history.




Yet the most credible historians while they all have their own favorite theories as to who Hitler's Grandfather was, admit readily that there is just not enough surviving information to know conclusively.


They admit it as I do - repeatedly in this thread. You are the one categorically stating that Hitler was a Rothschild. All I'm doing is pointing out that there is not enough evidence for such an assertion while pointing out other circumstancial and anecdotal evidence that makes it implausible. As I said, it is a possibily - one of many, and one that doesn't stand on a firm basis as far as material sources go. I myself have not endorsed a particular version in this thread although all in all I do find one version way more probable than all others. But that's not really what this thread is about either, is it? The premise of this thread was that there is "new" genetic evdidence that he indeed had a recent Jewish forebear, something that is simply not the case.





[edit on 29-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

[edit on 29-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

[edit on 29-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 




So you are in reality attempting to argue a case, that none of your sources have ever been able to difinitively prove.


That's a straw-man; I've made clear that I'm arguing against the bold assertion that he was Jewish or a scion of the Rothschilds. I'm not promoting any specific of the (more plausible) other versions.



Since you yourself don't actually have the source documents either, you can not prove or disprove who Hitler's grandfather was either.


No, but I can point out where certain myths originated and what their factual basis is - exactly what I have done in this thread.



All you can do is pretend, likely for the sake of some political agenda, and frankly there is no virtue in anything less than the truth, no matter how well someone imagines a lie will serve them.


Ad-hom followed by a Bulversim - no thanks! Youre the one spreading one particular version of the myth - I'm the one showing that there isn't really evidence to take one of the several as a fact.



There is no way to disprove Baron Rothschild and there is no way to prove it was Baron Rothschild.


In all but some freak cases there's no way to disprove anything.



So it is purely a matter of speculation and conjecture which is what makes it a very attractive thing for conspiracy theorists and truth hunters of all stripes.


No, it's a question of finding and interpreting documents as to their worth on this question. The interpretation may be faulty of far-fetched (as in the version that your peddling here) but the documents clearly allow us to judge their conclusiveness in the matter - as I said, the documents so far don''t let us make a conclusive case for any version.

[edit on 29-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

[edit on 29-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin
 





That's a straw-man; I've made clear that I'm arguing against the bold assertion that he was Jewish or a scion of the Rothschilds. I'm not promoting any specific of the (more plausible) other versions.


Why yes you have made your extreme bias clear to the point of illustrating those as an agenda, which of course credible researchers and students of history have no agenda other than uncovering the truth.

I on the other hand simply am speculating and using conjecture to ‘attempt’ to piece together a conspiracy!

As such yes my contention and theory would fit that conspiracy.

ATS is a conspiracy site.

So in reality all you have done is expose a political agenda, one where you will argue incessantly to deny any possibility that Hitler could have Jewish Blood or be a Rothschild.

Why you are doing this is likely a conspiracy in and of itself.

Your pseudo intellectual approach to history in a biased agenda driven way, where you are not even clearly sure of who your sources are, or their standing in the academic community further illustrates you attempting to likewise use anything that will fit your agenda.

So yes, while there are many political and religious entities that have a vested interest in denying Hitler has any Jewish Blood or could be the progeny of a Rothschild this simply places you on the other side of the coin to my own position in regards to my conspiracy theory that he does, making you absolutely no different in your methodology.

The difference is while I am engaged in the process as a puzzle purely for the sake of working out a puzzle, you are engaged in a process that would deny people pieces to the puzzle through your misrepresentation of your sources, and your own credentials as being qualified to speak in regards to these matters.

No in fact you haven’t made your arguments as a result of that, except to people sharing that same bias and political agenda that you have shamefully made no attempt to hide!

Credible historians concede that there is not enough surviving documentation to rule anyone in or out.

The Austrian Secret Police who speculated either correctly or incorrectly that Hitler may have been a illegitimate descendent of the Baron Rothschild are the actual source of that, not the first author who identified them as being the source of that after the war.

This is where your argument fails and is disingenuous as you are basically claiming that the Austrian Secret Police never made the claim that the claim itself originates with a historian.

Which is like saying the Holocaust is not the responsiblity of Hitler or the Nazis but the first post war author writing about the Holocaust, as I have pointed out time and time again there is not enough surviving documentation for either you or I or anyone else to prove or disprove whether Baron Rothschild was Hitler’s grandfather, however the difference is your motive for denying that possibility in disingenuous ways is political in nature, and relies on emotional exploitation and manipulation to support it, where as my interest in piecing a conspiracy theory together has no political agenda and doesn’t need emotional manipulation to bolster, or discredit.

All in all you have failed to make your arguments because your argument can’t be made by you or anyone else.

Which is why I readily admit my argument is a theory, one that might never be able to be proved but tantalizing none the less because it would explain so many other facets of a very enigmatic figure that being Hitler, and a very troubling portion of our past World War II and the Holocaust.

The end!


[edit on 29/8/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
So in reality all you have done is expose a political agenda, one where you will argue incessantly to deny any possibility that Hitler could have Jewish Blood or be a Rothschild.


I didn't deny that it's a possibility - even in my last post I pointed that out (again). You may insist on my "extreme" bias but that won't change the fact that you are the one making bold assertions while I argued that the question is not definitively solveable with the sources we have today from the very start.



Why you are doing this is likely a conspiracy in and of itself.


Why do you constantly adress me and my motives in your post while barely touching the subject of the thread or our ensuing discussion? It makes your posts long to read and its quite exhausting... Can't we just keep it to what evidence there is for the Austrian Secret Political Police composing such a file?



The difference is while I am engaged in the process as a puzzle purely for the sake of working out a puzzle, you are engaged in a process that would deny people pieces to the puzzle through your misrepresentation of your sources, and your own credentials as being qualified to speak in regards to these matters.


Where did I deny anyone the right to ask questions? I like to think that contributing to the discussion in the kind of way that I do would rather tend to interest people in the topic than the opposite. My very point of contributing was to show that this is not a clear-cut issue; I have adressed several versions of his origin while not dislosing or promoting the one I prefer for reasons that I believe to be objective.



Credible historians concede that there is not enough surviving documentation to rule anyone in or out.


Well thank you - because in your book that makes me a credible historian since that is exactly the point I have been making in this thread from the beginning. Granted, I have delved into what I find inconsistent and implausible about the two basic versions of Hitler-was-Jewish myth and I have definitely ruled out the Frankenberger myth (and have given the reasons for that) but never did I say that it was outright impossible that Salomon Rothschild was Adolf Hitler's grandfather. Again, I find that possible but rather unlikely for various reasons that I stated in this thread.



The Austrian Secret Police who speculated either correctly or incorrectly that Hitler may have been a illegitimate descendent of the Baron Rothschild are the actual source of that, not the first author who identified them as being the source of that after the war.


Hey if you have a source alluding to the existence of the Dollfuss file that was drawn up prior to Koehlers publishing his book then feel free to share it. As long as I haven't that source myself this is what I have to work with - and as I said, there's objective reasons for questioning the thrufulness of Koehlers book.



This is where your argument fails and is disingenuous as you are basically claiming that the Austrian Secret Police never made the claim that the claim itself originates with a historian.


Do you have a source where the Austrian Secret Police makes this claim? Do you have a source for Dollfuss, Schuschnigg or any other of their contemporaries that mentions the file? Again, if you do it would be a real charm if you would share it with us. It would definitely increase the credibility of what is at this point, at best, a rumour.



Which is like saying the Holocaust is not the responsiblity of Hitler or the Nazis but the first post war author writing about the Holocaust,


Material, source-based evidence, anecdotal and circumstancial evidence for the Holocaust outweighs that for the Hitler-was-a-Rothschild-myth by a factor of a gazillion or so.



as I have pointed out time and time again there is not enough surviving documentation for either you or I or anyone else to prove or disprove whether Baron Rothschild was Hitler’s grandfather,


As I have said, nobody can disprove anything. It's funny that you write this part in such an accusatory tone since this is exactly the position that I have been stating since entering this discussion with you. Isn't it funny that you accuse me while it was originally me defending the there's-not-enough-sources-to-definetively-decide standpoint while you boldly asserted his "Jewishness".



however the difference is your motive for denying that possibility in disingenuous ways is political in nature, and relies on emotional exploitation and manipulation to support it, where as my interest in piecing a conspiracy theory together has no political agenda and doesn’t need emotional manipulation to bolster, or discredit.


Why engage in endless Bulverisms? when we can discuss the question without them? This thread would be so much nicer and more productive if you could just cut the straw-man arguments as well as such Bulverisms. I got it - I'm part of the Zionist secret cabal that supresses real history etc. etc. You've made that clear. Can we now debate who else than Koehler ever spoke of a Dollfuss file?



All in all you have failed to make your arguments because your argument can’t be made by you or anyone else.


Let's let the readers decide that - I for one will leace it to them.



Which is why I readily admit my argument is a theory, one that might never be able to be proved but tantalizing none the less because it would explain so many other facets of a very enigmatic figure that being Hitler, and a very troubling portion of our past World War II and the Holocaust.


Very well. And I respect you for intelligently and diligently promoting that theory with your posts that seem to be based on sound reflection. The only reason we got in this argument is because I did not take that to be your position from reading your initial posts - I had the strong suspicion that you were trying to make the point that the case is basically closed.

I think a middle ground has crystallized here that I have been promoting from the very beginning: That there is no evidence on the table at this point that would definitely settle the question of who his granfather was or who not.

The end!


[edit on 29/8/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

[edit on 29-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

[edit on 29-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin
 


Once again you fail to understand that History is NOT BOOKS, history is the actual events.

Not who recounts those events.

Your arguments are all focused on the sources of sources that you seem to imagine then define what truly happened or didn't.

If a tree falls in the woods did it not fall because there was no one to see it?

History is only as reliable or accurate as the people retelling it as they see it.

Your argument is basically one of, the tree did not fall in the woods except unless a historian claims it fell in the woods, and then it only fell for the reasons the historian claims it did.

You are simply choosing to attempt to make people hostage to that process, where you are basically saying that events weren't driven by the actual participants in the events, but can only be defined by people selling it in a book.

That's nonesense, and that's how the masses get manipulated by false versions of history, usually written by victors with a political goal in mind.

There really aren't enough surviving records to rule out Rothschild or any of the other half a dozen candidates for Hitler's Grand Father.

What Hitler didn't get to himself to erase the trail and we know he was intent on erasing the trail, the Russians, British and Americans got to, and a lesser extent Independent Jewish and Zionist Interests, looking to selectively weave history after the war to justify their own actions looking backwards and their political agendas moving forward.

You are content to have your history held hostage to such entities where I am content to theorize on the blanks they have left that might discredit their post war version of events.

That there are blanks in the story means that either no one has the whole story or someone doesn't want us to know it.

Either way it leaves an open door to inquisitive minds, that are not going to be swayed by the emotional demands and political demands to not investigate certain avenues and suspects.

Rule number one for those in the Intelligence Community unlike paid authors is, when in doubt, there is no doubt.

So if there is doubt as to whether it is Baron Rothschild and Baron Rothschild being the Grandfather would then fill in many other blanks in the story then yes, Rothschild is your man!

So on that kind of strategic level pursuing the conspiracy and there is a conspiracy or that Baptismal Certificate would not be blank as to who Hitler's Grandfather is, and Hitler would not have raised the whole town, then yes, Rothschild is the number one suspect.

It makes perfect sense to pursue it along those lines.

Baron Rothschild is Hitler's grandfather as you very well know which is why you are so desperate and singularly focused in denying it!

Discussing details you don't have is pointless, discussing records you don't have is pointless, relying on the claims of paid authors many of whom have been since discredited is pointless.

These are all just attempts to deflect away from the Conspiracy and the Rothschild's family involvement in it!



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by zerbot565
reply to post by TruthSeeker8300
 


as i recall there where about 8 arch types of females on this planet with its wast gene pool so its an 1/8 chance im correct to some degree


Ok there are more than 8 mitochondrial DNA "clans" out there, but in Europe there are around 7. Similarly there are a number of y-chromosomal clans.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 06:04 AM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


Can you help me out here? It seems you are implying that you are not basing your theory about the existence of the Dollfuss file on Hans-Jürgen Kohelers book?

I suppose you read that Hitler was a Rothschild somewhere on the internet (you haven't disclosed your source on that) and I think it is very reasonable to believe that the internet-page you got that from based its account of the Dollfuss file on Koehler - since it is the only available source on it.

Either you are way older than I expect (90+ or so) and you were a direct witness to the existence of the file, or you are basing your account on someone who was alive then and actually saw the file - both scenarios I find highly unlikely. It's more probable to assume that the account you base your assertions on is derived from Koehler, since that is the only source - if not, I would repeat my request that you cite your sources for the story.

Of course you are aware of the fact that a person named Hansjürgen Koehler did never work for the Gestapo and that the name is fictional? And that it is therefore logical to conclude that - given that said person never existed - it is not plausible to assume that a fictional person was in charge of hunting the Dollfuss file?
Of course you are also aware that "Inside the gestapo" has shown to be, partly, a collection of fiction and half truths? Certainly you are aware of the fact that the summary of the Röhm-Putsch given in "inside the Gestapo" can be shown to be fictional when compared to the actual documents?

To quote Bowden:




„With Koehler/Orb the historian is torn between the almost certainly accurate inside information, the obviously fictional accounts, and much that has yet to be tested.



If you read Bowden's book it's absolutely clear that the "fictional accounts" pertains to the whole of the "file" chapter - be that the Schleicher, Schuschnigg, or Dollfuss file.

All I'm asking you to do - if you're still denying that you're basing your assertions on a fictional person - is to provide another source that talks about the Dollfuss file PRIOR to the publication of the Koehler book. Semantics strongly suggest that "Thyssen" got his account of the Dollfuss file from "Koehler".

[edit on 31-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 09:55 AM
link   
I so totally knew that I owned that one, limited point.

This is the only self-gloating post that I ever made or ever will make.
edit on 18-7-2012 by NichirasuKenshin because: (grammar)



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join