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.
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: hellobruce
No, Hitler did not want to invade Poland. He was forced to.
Also, if you did your research you would learn that there is not one single piece of evidence that the Final Solution was a plan to kill all Jews. In fact, the entire idea is based on the assumption that what the Nazis wrote were actually euphemisms that had to be interpreted. Can you guess how it was interpreted? What they claim the Nazis said was not what they actually said. They thought they were speaking on some sort of secret code and interpreted it as they saw fit.
A bit of research will easily reveal that. They even admit it on the wiki page.
originally posted by: CJCrawley
I've always suspected as much.
It's inconceivable to me that he would have stayed behind in a bunker in Berlin, trapped and just waiting for the Red Army to find him - also given the fact that the top brass (Himmler, Goehring, Bormann, etc) had made a decent effort to get away.
It's common knowledge that many Nazis successfully fled to South America so again, why not the top man? One gets the feeling that this was a carefully arranged Plan B for if they lost the war.
originally posted by: darkbake
I happen to believe the story that Hitler escaped and lived out his life in Argentina. It was probably known by the CIA at the time, too.
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: hellobruce
No, Hitler did not want to invade Poland. He was forced to.
Also, if you did your research you would learn that there is not one single piece of evidence that the Final Solution was a plan to kill all Jews.
originally posted by: Azureblue
Just yesterday I watched a video of David Irving
"Not one of [Irving's] books, speeches or articles, not one paragraph, not one sentence in any of them, can be taken on trust as an accurate representation of its historical subject. All of them are completely worthless as history, because Irving cannot be trusted anywhere, in any of them, to give a reliable account of what he is talking or writing about. ... if we mean by historian someone who is concerned to discover the truth about the past, and to give as accurate a representation of it as possible, then Irving is not a historian".[33]