Adolf Hitler: The Greatest Story Never Told (yes, that's the title)

reply to post by AngryCymraeg


Well, you dont seem to be able to understand what you read so...
Do you have anything aside "the nazis were bad"? Because that is not evidence in itself, furthermore, given the track record of "the victors", I cant really believe anything the historians tell us.

But if you feel warm and confy thinking the nazis were the most evil, and they were beaten, you may be as ignorant as you like...

reply to post by AngryCymraeg

In the new British strategic thinking, the Zionists appeared as a potential ally capable of safeguarding British imperial interests in the region. Furthermore, as British war prospects dimmed throughout 1917, the War Cabinet calculated that supporting a Jewish entity in Palestine would mobilize America's influential Jewish community to support United States intervention in the war and sway the large number of Jewish Bolsheviks who participated in the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution to keep Russia in the war. Fears were also voiced in the Foreign Office that if Britain did not come out in favor of a Jewish entity in Palestine the Germans would preempt them. Finally, both Lloyd George and Balfour were devout Christians who attached great religious significance to the proposed reinstatement of the Jews in their ancient homeland.

The negotiations for a Jewish entity were carried out by Chiam Weizmann, who greatly impressed Balfour and maintained important links with the British media. In support of the Zionist cause, his protracted and skillful negotiations with the Foreign Office were climaxed on November 2, 1917, by the letter from the foreign secretary to Lord Rothschild, which became known as the Balfour Declaration. This document declared the British government's "sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations," viewed with favor "the establishment in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish People," and announced an intent to facilitate the achievement of this objective. The letter added the provision of "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

Just the fact Rothschild's are involved is sketchy. But I guess if we go further back in history, It's jut a dose of same thing, different era.

Developing circumstances soon allowed the Rothschilds to formulate a plan which would guarantee them the financial control of Europe, and soon the world. It began with taking advantage of the outcome of the Battle of Waterloo, which was fought at La-Belle-Alliance, seven miles south of Waterloo, which is a suburb of Brussels, Belgium.

Early in the battle, Napoleon appeared to be winning, and the first secret military report to London communicated that fact. However, upon reinforcements from the Prussians, under Gebhard Blucher, the tide turned in favor of Wellington. On Sunday, June 18, 1815, Rothworth, a courier of Nathan Rothschild, head of the London branch of the family, was on the battlefield, and upon seeing that Napoleon was being beaten, went by horse to Brussels, then to Ostende, and for 2,000 francs, got a sailor to get him to England across stormy seas.

When Nathan Rothschild received the news on June 20th, he informed the government, who did not believe him. So, with everyone believing Wellington to be defeated, Rothschild immediately began to sell all of his stock on the English Stock Market. Everyone else followed his lead, and also began selling, causing stocks to plummet to practically nothing. At the last minute, his agents secretly began buying up the stocks at rock-bottom prices. On June 21, at 11 PM, Wellington's envoy, Major Henry Percy showed up at the War Office with his report that Napoleon had been crushed in a bitter eight hour battle, losing a third of his men.

This gave the Rothschild family complete control of the British economy, and forced England to set up a new Bank of England, which Nathan Rothschild controlled. However, that wasn't the only angle he used to profit from the Battle of Waterloo. Meyer Rothschild sent some of Prince William's money to his son Nathan in London, and according to the Jewish Encyclopedia:

"Nathan invested it in 800,000 pounds of gold from the East India Company, knowing it would be needed for Wellington's peninsula campaign. He made no less than four profits: (1) on the sale of Wellington's paper (which he bought at 50¢ on the dollar); (2) on the sale of gold to Wellington; (3) on its repurchase; and (4) on forwarding it to Portugal. This was the beginning of the great fortune."

And there influence in Europe.

Amschel Meyer Rothschild (1773-1855) Was the head of the bank in Frankfurt, Germany, which was known as M. A. Rothschild and Sons. It closed in 1901, after the deaths of Meyer Karl and his brother Wilhelm Karl, the sons of Karl Meyer Rothschild. In 1838, he said: "Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws".

Salomon Rothschild (1774-1855) Was the head of the bank in Vienna, Austria, known as S. M. Rothschild and Sons. It was closed during World War II after the Nazi occupation).

Nathan Meyer Rothschild (1777-1836) Was the head of the bank in London, England, which [is] known as N.M. Rothschild and Sons. It has occupied the same premises since 1809, at 2 New Court, St. Swithin's Lane in London, near the Bank of England and Stock Exchange. He once said: "I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply."

Karl Rothschild (1788-1868) Was the head of the bank in Naples, Italy. It closed in 1861.

James Rothschild (1792-1868) Was the head of the bank in Paris, France, which was known as Messieurs de Rothschild Freres. It's name was changed to La Banque Rothschild in 1967.

It really doesn't matter what country I omit because the fact is this

- Rothschild's did and still do control the banking cartels
- England annexed Palestine
- England left Palestine and the Zionists took over
- Now the USA nurture Israel
- Israel brought terrorism to the middle east.

Yusomad
reply to post by AngryCymraeg

 

Well, you dont seem to be able to understand what you read so...
Do you have anything aside "the nazis were bad"? Because that is not evidence in itself, furthermore, given the track record of "the victors", I cant really believe anything the historians tell us.

But if you feel warm and confy thinking the nazis were the most evil, and they were beaten, you may be as ignorant as you like...

edit on 201400000037201404am07 by Yusomad because: (no reason given)

Given the vast ocean of evidence we have that states, clearly and without any shadow of a doubt, that the Nazis murdered, butchered and plundered their way across Europe, destroying villages, towns and cities on a whim, exterminating millions of people based on a perverted concept of genetic purity and enslaving millions of others based on that race, I think that yes we can all conclude that the Nazis were indeed evil. We can also point out that Stalin's lot were almost as bad. By what possible yardstick could the Nazis be found to have been a force for good then?

reply to post by 168617


I see. So you now resort to an anti-Rothschild tirade?

AngryCymraeg
reply to post by 168617

 

Britain was on the verge of defeat in WW1 before the entry of the USA? Can I ask which alternate reality you are from? Passchendaele was unimaginably bloody, yes, but it was a strategic victory. By the end of 1917 the Ottomans were a broken reed. We helped stop the German Spring Offensive in 1918 and we were the main force (the Americans were elsewhere mostly) of the 100 Days Offensive, which shattered the German Army. It's a myth that the Germans were undefeated at the end of the First World War. They weren't - they were beaten and they knew it.

Of course they were beaten at the end of the first world war... Have you understood anything I have written? I'm talking about the Early stages of WW1 (1914-1916). And if you think I want to say 'Jews', I'll say this - To be a good Jew, one cannot be a Zionist, and to be a Zionist, one cannot be a good Jew. With that, 90% of the world's Jews are Ashkenazi Jews and therefore even the term 'Anti-Semite' has no value because they are not Semites to start with. They don't even have a legitimate right to Palestine.

Ashkenazi Jews are Jews from Europe.Over the centuries, many European pagans and Christians converted to Judaism, and their descendants are referred to as Ashkenazi Jews. Of course, there had always been some Jews in Europe who were descendants from the original immigrants from Judea. Apart from those who fled to Spain to avoid persecution, their descendants are also called Ashkenazi Jews.

And this is possibly where they originated from

The The Khazars were a national group of general Turkic type, independent and sovereign in Eastern Europe between the seventh and tenth centuries C.E. During part of this time the leading Khazars professed Judaism. The name is frequently pronounced with an a-vowel, as in the Greek Χάξαροι and Arabic Khazar (Ḥazar), but there are traces of a different pronunciation in Hebrew (Kuzari, pl. Kuzarim), Greek (Χότξιροι), and Chinese (Kʿo-sa). The name has been explained as having derived from Turkish qazmak ("to wander," "nomadize (?)"), or from quz ("side of mountain exposed to the north"). The latter etymology would account for the o/u-vowel in some forms of the name, for which no satisfactory explanation has been given.

Isn't it funny that these modern one's really don't have a nationality? Just reside in and pillage countries?

AngryCymraeg
reply to post by 168617

 

I see. So you now resort to an anti-Rothschild tirade?

No, I am resorting to historical fact. Obviously the side that you never got taught about.

SLAYER69

demus
he could persuade people to do exactly what he want them to do.

however, he will remember for the evils he is responsible for.

So, in essence, he could influence people in mass to do his bidding yet some feel he was the victim...?

Ironic revisionist logic...

I get the impression Vladimir Putin is cast in very much the same mold.

A study of Putin's appeal and methodology probably has several parallels

reply to post by 168617


No, you stated that: "Remember, Britain were beaten in WW1 and on the brink of collapse until the USA became involved. Germany had an arsenal which had never been seen before in the world and even with that arsenal were willing to call the war off and return to the way things were before the war started."

There's nothing there about the early period of the war. Can I remind you that Germany was defeated at the Battle of the Marne in 1914 and failed in its strategic aim of knocking the French out of the war right from the start. Can I also remind you that there were other nations involved, as you seem to have a fixation with the German-British aspect of the war. The Somme was fought to support the French at Verdun. Both battles resulted in Allied victories. Costly victories, but they still achieved their purpose.
Passchendaele was a bloody victory as well in 1917, but it was a victory - and it was preceded by the Battle of Messines, which was most assuredly as British victory.
I'm not sure what you're talking about with this reference to a German 'arsenal which had never been seen before in the world'. Can you please clarify this? And no, Bethman-Hollweg was not going to offer to restore everything. We know from the German archives that he would have demanded Belgium, Luxembourg, Longwy and Poland. Totally unacceptable for the Allies.

AngryCymraeg

Yusomad
reply to post by AngryCymraeg

 

Well, you dont seem to be able to understand what you read so...
Do you have anything aside "the nazis were bad"? Because that is not evidence in itself, furthermore, given the track record of "the victors", I cant really believe anything the historians tell us.

But if you feel warm and confy thinking the nazis were the most evil, and they were beaten, you may be as ignorant as you like...

edit on 201400000037201404am07 by Yusomad because: (no reason given)

Given the vast ocean of evidence we have that states, clearly and without any shadow of a doubt, that the Nazis murdered, butchered and plundered their way across Europe, destroying villages, towns and cities on a whim, exterminating millions of people based on a perverted concept of genetic purity and enslaving millions of others based on that race, I think that yes we can all conclude that the Nazis were indeed evil. We can also point out that Stalin's lot were almost as bad. By what possible yardstick could the Nazis be found to have been a force for good then?

Your limitation is the rigidity of your own thinking that you are incapable of seeing perspectives other than your own.

However much we might disapprove of the Nazi regime, the German people perceived the situation from a different perspective than your own. The German people saw him as a solution to much earlier problems and shared a them and us mentality against the world.

It was a sense of injustice and deprivation, lack of access to markets for trade, being shut out by the colonial systems of France and Britain. They perceived rightly or wrongly that various entities were the cause of their problems...called the blame game. Blame the Jews, blame the Bolsheviks, or whatever.

I can see you chose the right degree. Psychology would have been a stretch.

sy.gunson
Your limitation is the rigidity of your own thinking that you are incapable of seeing perspectives other than your own.

However much we might disapprove of the Nazi regime, the German people perceived the situation from a different perspective than your own. The German people saw him as a solution to much earlier problems and shared a them and us mentality against the world.

It was a sense of injustice and deprivation, lack of access to markets for trade, being shut out by the colonial systems of France and Britain. They perceived rightly or wrongly that various entities were the cause of their problems...called the blame game. Blame the Jews, blame the Bolsheviks, or whatever.

I can see you chose the right degree. Psychology would have been a stretch.

I quite understand that the Germans perceived a different situation. They had after all been lied to by their own leaders, who hung the Dolchstoßlegende around their necks in a desperate effort to shift the blame for Germany's defeat in the First World War. And can I point out that the German people never chose Hitler. The Nazis never won a majority in Germany.

AngryCymraeg
reply to post by 168617

 

No, you stated that: "Remember, Britain were beaten in WW1 and on the brink of collapse until the USA became involved. Germany had an arsenal which had never been seen before in the world and even with that arsenal were willing to call the war off and return to the way things were before the war started."

There's nothing there about the early period of the war. Can I remind you that Germany was defeated at the Battle of the Marne in 1914 and failed in its strategic aim of knocking the French out of the war right from the start. Can I also remind you that there were other nations involved, as you seem to have a fixation with the German-British aspect of the war. The Somme was fought to support the French at Verdun. Both battles resulted in Allied victories. Costly victories, but they still achieved their purpose.
Passchendaele was a bloody victory as well in 1917, but it was a victory - and it was preceded by the Battle of Messines, which was most assuredly as British victory.
I'm not sure what you're talking about with this reference to a German 'arsenal which had never been seen before in the world'. Can you please clarify this? And no, Bethman-Hollweg was not going to offer to restore everything. We know from the German archives that he would have demanded Belgium, Luxembourg, Longwy and Poland. Totally unacceptable for the Allies.

If Germany was defeated then the USA wouldn't of got involved in the first place. And as it also says above "Until the USA became involved" which was around the time of the Balfour Declaration.

German U-Boats....
WW1

In the First Word War military submarines made a significant impact for the first time. The German U-Boats enjoyed a great deal of success and were responsible for destroying around half of all the food and supplies transported by the British Merchant Navy.

U- Boat is an abbreviation of ‘unterseeboot’, which when translated into English means ‘undersea boat’. When the First World War began the German armed forces had 29 U-Boats at their disposal. In the first 10 weeks of the conflict they sank five British cruisers. Between October 1916 and January 1917 a grand total of 1.4 million tons of allied shipping was lost to the U-Boats. These losses were eventually curtailed when the allies introduced escorted convoys with merchant ships surrounded by military vessels. During WW1 Germany built 360 U-Boat submarines, 178 of which were lost. In total they were responsible for the loss of more than 11 million tons of allied shipping.

Doesn't sound like a country who was defeated...

reply to post by 168617


You seem to be shifting about quite a bit. Countries often join wars when it appears that the main protagonist seems to be losing (Mussolini gave a dunderheaded masterclass in this). Was Germany losing the war when the USA entered the war? It can be argued that yes it was, on a strategic level. Was it beaten yet? No, of course not, there's a clear difference between the two positions. The main German problem was that by 1916-17 it had military men casting an increasingly heavy influence over Government, and those military men did not understand diplomacy. The Zimmerman Telegram was a hideous mistake.

AngryCymraeg
reply to post by 168617

 

You seem to be shifting about quite a bit. Countries often join wars when it appears that the main protagonist seems to be losing (Mussolini gave a dunderheaded masterclass in this). Was Germany losing the war when the USA entered the war? It can be argued that yes it was, on a strategic level. Was it beaten yet? No, of course not, there's a clear difference between the two positions. The main German problem was that by 1916-17 it had military men casting an increasingly heavy influence over Government, and those military men did not understand diplomacy. The Zimmerman Telegram was a hideous mistake.

No, the perpetrators of the first two wars are shifting around a bit. They don't attack Europe anymore, now they are trying to subdue the Middle East lol

168617
No, the perpetrators of the first two wars are shifting around a bit. They don't attack Europe anymore, now they are trying to subdue the Middle East lol

I didn't know that the Austro-Hungarian Empire had come together again and was trying to subdue the Middle East. Have you warned Vienna and Budapest?

People paint Hitler as a black-and-white villain. Such a character can not exist; when it comes to people, there are always shades of gray. No person is pure evil, just as no person is pure good. Sure, the scale may tip a bit in one direction than the other, but the duality between good and evil is undeniably within all of us.

Yes, there were monstrosities committed in Hitler's name, but he was also subject to the same human condition that we all are.

It is to embrace ignorance to refuse to explore a person's good side due to his bad deeds, and vice versa. Those claiming it is appalling that such a documentary would exist are burying their heads in ignorance. The light ruins everything; this is especially true for things that have been hammered into us since child hood.

DestroyDestroyDestroy
People paint Hitler as a black-and-white villain. Such a character can not exist; when it comes to people, there are always shades of gray. No person is pure evil, just as no person is pure good. Sure, the scale may tip a bit in one direction than the other, but the duality between good and evil is undeniably within all of us.

Yes, there were monstrosities committed in Hitler's name, but he was also subject to the same human condition that we all are.

It is to embrace ignorance to refuse to explore a person's good side due to his bad deeds, and vice versa. Those claiming it is appalling that such a documentary would exist are burying their heads in ignorance. The light ruins everything; this is especially true for things that have been hammered into us since child hood.

A deeply insightful post.

One which demands the discipline of psychology, not a degree in history.

When the world is ready to admit that Stalin and Tojo were every bit as bad as Hitler we might have a chance at a reasonable assessment of history. Even today the Nazi Germany carries incredibly evil connotations while people think of the Japanese as peace-loving, hard-working people. How did the sins of the Japanese genocide against China get washed clean so quickly?

One need look no further than the Yalta and Bretton Woods conferences to see how the future of the world was being laid out by the big 3 powers of the time - US, England and the Soviet Union. Happily forgotten are the German POW's marched away in to slave labor after the war was over, the millions of German civilians thrown out of their homes and replaced by displaced persons, the forced starvation of these same civilians to the point where Germans were trying to escape East in to Soviet controlled territory since the Allies thought 1200 calories per day was sufficient to live on while having no coal to heat with.

The Marshall plan took several years to get started and the suffering in the years immediately after the war was hardly less than during it.

To lay blame for the entire war on Germany is a ridiculous oversimplification as is the good guys/bad guys casting of the combatants

sy.gunson
A deeply insightful post.

One which demands the discipline of psychology, not a degree in history.

??? Are you saying that History is without discipline?

reply to post by AngryCymraeg


I can see where your coming from and the great thing about it is we can express different points of view. What I was trying to get at was Germany in WW1 was in the end double-crossed by something which operated openly in their country and the same thing happened to England when they walked out of Palestine in 1948 (King David Hotel Bombing etc) with the exact same people I'm talking about from WW1. This isn't me backing England or Germany because when it comes down to it, they are both responsible for killing but is it possible that there is something which goes much deeper that the politics that we understand. Some of the documents from back then still haven't been released to this very day and I can only wonder why not.

The reason why I bring up the Rothschild's is because they are pretty much in control or influence many governments and it cannot be swept under the rug that they didn't do the same in not only WW1, but also WW2. When I speak of the Middle East I am pointing the finger at Zionist Israel. Prior to the creation of Israel Arabs, Jews and Christians lived in harmony with each other but after Israel, it has been a non-stop killing spree. I like to put pieces together because since the coming together of the Zionist Federation/Movement, the world has literally been in turmoil and to this very day it doesn't look like it's going to end soon. For some reason every major incident will involve a Zionist cover-up including 9/11. So I think there should be a lot more focus on this group because not only are these people proclaimed Jews, they are also Christians and they have infiltrated high places of power in including the US government. They could be planning WW3 right now and we wouldn't suspect it with our one-eyed views.

I'm also sorry if I come across a bit rude..

reply to post by 168617