Memoirs of Hitler aide could finally end Holocaust claims

reply to post by ZeroKnowledge


My friend, I appologize if for some reason you can not have your cake and eat it too.

The Zionists and Jews of the world can not be in lock step on the Palestinian issue regardless of whether they live in Canada, the United States, England, Greece or Israel and not have not been in lock step of the politics regarding the Balfour Agreement.

You truly would have to read the Newspaper Archives to see how it all actually played out step by step to see how it all played out.

Have you read the Newspaper Archives from 1916 to 1942?

If you haven't we have an apples and oragnes argument going on my friend.

You are gleaning your information from one source (the victors) while I am gleaning my information for contemporary accounts as events went down (far more accurate and revealing and much more detail oriented).

You have a sound bite version of history that plays towards your own politics and identity.

I have a more complete version of history that is just history. Who it favors is neither here nor there to me, it is what it is.

Those who fail to learn history's lessons are condemned to repeat them.

People who have a partial understanding of history have a partial understanding of what happened. There are things still out there to bite them on the royal behind.

People who have an innacurate deliberately falsified for political purposes version of history are even in worse shape.

I am not responsible for events as they transpired, and ultimately many people who out of ego or political or religious identity or affiliation act as if you were the culprit for events that transpired you played no hand in simply for not agreeing with their politicized, and religousized, sanitized version of events.

If you haven't read everything there is to read in regards to the history I reject the notion that you have "read enough" to "know enough".

If you want me to pretend things that occured didn't occur for the sake of your own ego, politics or religion, please write that check out to: Protoplasmic Traveler in the amount of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.00 dollars
because real history is to priceless to abandon for peer pressure and politics.

Though that number would make me strongly consider it.

The New York Times amonst others keeps archives online of every newspaper published from about 1862 to today. They are photostats of the original paper, not re-edited web pages. They contain history as it unfolds, not history as it is told.

I prefer the source friend.

Whether you think that's right or wrong makes no never mind to me.

Being civil and on point, and on topic does!

Thanks.

I'm not sure what the truth is.

But I think we can all agree that not all is as it seems, the truth is rarely shown to us in it's true form.

Originally posted by JJay55
Hitler had a mufti by his side. just sayin.
Hitler part II is Amadinijad who yells his hateful speeches daily.

Oh really?

I don't think that's 100% true.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


I will be glad to read non-Goebbels newspaper saying that Warburgs pressed for heavy sanctions on Germany.
I will be ecstatic to learn that Rotchild owned French palace in 1918.
Finally - i will be satisfied if you would tell me what your mysterious "Jewish politics" is. Newspapers, articles... Share the knowledge. Yoda would have shared.
And as for check with lots of zeroes - you need to speak with US government. They are generous about handing out such sums recently. I am just Zeroknowledge. No need to mix me with Rotchild. No Jewish politics here. Whatever it is.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Not because they were Jewish, Gypsies, Slavs, Bolsheviks, Dissidents or Homosexuals but because they no longer had any value to the State and now became a burden on it. In each case it was politics, the politics of a group and their lifestyle that made them enemies of the state. It was not because they were Jewish; it was because of Jewish politics. Jewish politics that ran contrary to the state and many people have a hard time comprehending that because much of the between the Wars History that transpired between World War I and II has been altered or erased.

From a purely academic and historically acurate point of view, the fact that Hitler launched a boycott on 1st April 1933 (just over 3 months after becoming chancellor) of Jewish businesses, and then on the 7th April started passing decrees banning jews from the civil service, from being lawyers and doctors and capping the amount of jews who could attend university, and then between '33 and '39 passed another 400 anti-jewish laws (including ones prohibiting sexual relations between jews and "arayans"), and on 15th September 1935 passed the Nuremberg Laws specifying could or couldn't be classed as jewish - I'd say that politics had very little to do with things - wouldn't you?

reply to post by ZeroKnowledge


My friend, once again your remarks are tinged with politics and personal accusations.

I think I stated my primary source as being the New York Times beginning in a period where Goebells was not minsiter of Propoganda.

I think I have stated I look at these things in purely objective and academic ways.

I think I have stated that academic debates become more productive when the emotional aspects are taken out of them.

I am partially slavic in ancestory, Polish in fact, I had distant relatives die in World War II to the Nazi regime.

We don't celebrate that any day of the year in my family friend.

We though don't attempt to exchange real facts for convenient "Conventional Wisdom" or "Political Correctness" either.

Some people can handle the truth, some people can't.

Your argumements will be far more effective when you become far more effective at putting them forward in a civil manner.

Until then they will appear to be to most rational people an attempt to use emotional intimidation to accept your arguments regardless of their validity.

Learn and share, and if what you have to share comes with a dose of anger, resentment or disgust, there is an excellent chance that critical minds are going to reject it for it's highly emotional not academic content.

I recommend the New York Times, the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, The Washington Times and Post, and the Philadelphia Inquirer Archives as the best sources to really understand everything from the Federal Reserve Act in 1911 onwards. All the subsequent events factor heavily into both World Wars and even the politics of today.

I don't speak German and I have denounced the Nazi Government which by the way was heavily financed by American Zionists and Oligarchs time and time again.

I want to know as much of the truth so events aren't allowed to be repeated.

It's why I take the time to learn, it's why I reject fairy tails aimed at emotionally comforting and empowering people.

If you have a problem with that, it's your problem and not mine!

Thanks.

reply to post by neformore


If you back up further starting at 1916 you will understand better what compelled the German Nazi State to do these things.

I am not condoning the actions of the German Nazi State.

I am stating why the German Nazi State formulated certain policies.

Further I would add the German Nazi State like here in America often presents things to the Public in highly emotionalized forms of Propaganda.

They promote the reasons that the general population might accept to accept and endorse policy. They don't promote the actual reasons why they want the policy.

For instance Afghanistan. The government wants an oil pipeline built and control of the poppy crop. Hard to sell that to the American People. So instead they sell the emotions of terrorism. In reality no one from Afghanistan has carried out an act of terrorism on American Soil. Saudi citizens maybe, though never convicted in a Court of Law. Most of the supposed 9-11 attack was planned in Germany and the United States by the accussed high jackers. We haven't attacked Germany or the United States. We have attacked Afghanistan for highly emotional reasons and then lingered and stayed for highly economic and financial reasons that have to do with big business and organized crime not protecting American Citizens.

The war though is pitched on emotional grounds using propoganda and laws to play to emotions.

The Germans did the exact same thing. All governments do the exact same thing.

Once again the Newspaper accounts give a much better reflection of the actual politics from 1916 on, and you really have to start at 1911 with the Federal Reserve Act to begin to understand all the manipulations involved of the Shadow Governments and the Oligarchs.

I haven't seen anything credible that overcomes a lot of the very decietful things that the Oligarchs, Bankers, Military Industrialists, and Zionists did in promoting these ways and fighting these wars.

Congress as well as President Wilson was shocked at the level of deception that actually took place when the side deals and agreements between European Powers started hitting the negotiating table in Versailles, they knew then we had been grossly manipulated as a Nation and were being tricked into paying a horrible and continued cost in not just lives but dollars and debt as a result.

This is covered in the Newspapers of the day extensively, and not in the History Books.

Calling it like I see it is not an endorsement of anyone's actions.

It's just merely what I feel and contend is a more accurate rendering of the parties actions.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


I am sorry but all i can see is that you refuse to discuss your own points. This is ok, it is you right.
I just did not expect that referring someone to search through thousands of newspapers or making provocations by painting an opponent as emotionally disturbed individual, while clearly avoiding any answers or direct sources - are accepted ways of civil academic research. Some seem to take it as such though.

reply to post by ZeroKnowledge


My friend once again. I have spent countless hours reading Newspaper archives that cover a span of decades out of my own academic curriousity.

I did so because I have a genuine love of history. I did not do so for political reasons, or to prove a theory. I did so to better understand a critical point of history.

In your on-demand world of sound-bites designed to promote or debunk an argument based on snypetts of carefully selected snypetts to promote and debunk all you have is an argument about history not a better understanding of history.

Do I feel compelled to wade through the archives to copy and paste a paragraph here or there for you to accept or attempt to debunk with some other paragraph you copy and paste from somewhere?

No I surely don't.

I feel compelled to share what I have learned, and to explain how I have learned it, and in what manner and then to let people themselves decide whether they want to invest in learning in the same manner because they see a value in learning.

You see a value in debating, for the point of debate.

I see a value in learning for the point of learning.

I have told you how I have, and why it leads me to reject your arguments.

You can lead a horse to water but you can not make them drink.

I have told you were you can find the water from where I have drunk from.

If you see some value to yourself in investigating that further at your time and expense for your own knowledge you will.

If you don't you won't.

Learning is a hard and never ending process for those who are on a quest for knowledge friend.

It takes an investment in time and patience and willingness many people don't have a desire to display.

So they turn to Sound-Bites, Conventional Wisdom, Peer Pressure, and Propoganda that can be quickly imparted to validate and absolve and manipulate.

I have no interest in playing that game.

Three decades of crucial history does not a sound-bite make.

Your path is yours, my path is mine.

If you want to learn more in black and white sources and published accounts I have told you where to find them.

The rest is up to you!

Thanks.

Hitler wrote about a final solution to the Jewish question in a letter long before he became Chancellor. Later on, perhaps he did not know or want to know details, but he certainly knew what was going on.