Hitler Then vs Hitler Now

Originally posted by SteveR
They are deeply afraid that people will wake up and learn the truth.

uh-huh.

and then the blame for WWII would have to be re-distributed
which i would like to see happen

then maybe the world could heal this bleeding wound

reply to post by queenannie38


Well, this book goes some way toward doing that.

www.amazon.com...

A good read.

reply to post by SteveR


thanks!
i'll check it out

-----------------------

i just found this:

Headline of the NY Times, October of 1939:
CHURCHILL BARS A HITLER PEACE (10/2/39)

Hitler volunteered to abdicate as Fuhrer if that would stop the war.

Churchill's replied that "it was not the right of men who started wars to say when they should cease"

yet who technically started that war?
who or what...

Originally posted by OldDragger
Oh for Christs sake.
You guys want a police state. Great.
There is the gaining power by murder.
Book burning.
Curtailing of personal freedom, The SS and brown shirts.
Total control of media by the government.
Did I mention murder and a police state.
The harrasment of intellectuals and perversion of medicine and science.
The deiafication of the military.
And much, much more.
If you clowns are dying to hear the sound of jackboots at your door, you are......nuts.

No we don't want Marxist, Bolshevik Communism here in America and we intend to stop it. You only forgot religious freedom

here's a source related to the statement of Churchill's that i referred to earlier:

Rainbow at the Citadel

on page 2 of the article:

Interviewer: "Will you offer peace terms to Germany?"

Churchill: "Heavens, no! They would accept immediately."

Originally posted by neformore

Originally posted by queenannie38
WHAT IF is just a game
but it's a good one

Actually, its a self defeating dangerous waste of time.

All it leads to is idolatory fantasies.

In this case, it leads to people thinking that somehow one of - if not the single most - dangerous dictator that ever lived was somehow a nice person, when he most certainly was nothing of the sort.

To be fair, can you show your reasoning with a link or unbiased historical facts? More dangerous than Lenin?

Originally posted by queenannie38
i just found this:

Headline of the NY Times, October of 1939:
CHURCHILL BARS A HITLER PEACE (10/2/39)

Hitler volunteered to abdicate as Fuhrer if that would stop the war.

Churchill's replied that "it was not the right of men who started wars to say when they should cease"

yet who technically started that war?
who or what...

Do a bit deeper analysis. Hitler states he is willing to give up a title. He does not state the countries invaded and annexed by Germany will cease to be controlled by the Reich.

The war was over a series of hostile invasions in Europe, not the position held in the Reich by one Adolph Hitler.

Originally posted by queenannie38
yet who technically started that war?
who or what...

The SS did, in a false flag operation in Poland.

Glewitz Incident

The Gleiwitz incident was a part of a larger operation, carried out by Abwehr and SS forces.[3] At the same time as the Gleiwitz attack, there were other incidents orchestrated by Germany along the Polish-German border, such as house torching in the Polish Corridor and spurious propaganda output. The entire project, dubbed Operation Himmler and comprising 21 incidents in all,[6] was intended to give the appearance of Polish aggression against Germany.

Now I wonder who orchestrated that, eh?

Originally posted by queenannie38
then maybe the world could heal this bleeding wound

What "bleeding wound" ?

There is none.

Both Germany and Japan moved out of the war to become key allies/trading partners of the West, with - for a time - two of the strongest economies in the world.

Compare that with places like Cuba - who invaded no one and yet got shunned by the Western world and North Korea who, after the Korean War ended in 1953 has done nothing of any particular note and has also been shunned.

So where/what is this "wound" you perceive?

reply to post by queenannie38


Except, as we've already established, Churchill wasn't Prime Minister at the time - he came to power after 10th May 1940, when Chamberlain resigned which was approximately 7 months after that was written, and 8 months after the invasion of Poland by the Nazi's.

Originally posted by queenannie38
here's a source related to the statement of Churchill's that i referred to earlier:

Rainbow at the Citadel

on page 2 of the article:

Interviewer: "Will you offer peace terms to Germany?"

Churchill: "Heavens, no! They would accept immediately."

I think you should quote it in context by using the line immediately preceeding it;

Everybody laughed over a gag credited to Churchill before he left England.

Especially when the Quebec Conferences at the Citadel took place in 1943.

Its something of a push to try and blame the Allies for starting the war nearly 4 years after the invasion of Poland.

Cherry picking your propaganda without researching the actual facts is such a clumsy thing to do, don't you think?

Originally posted by neformore
I think you should quote it in context by using the line immediately preceeding it;

Everybody laughed over a gag credited to Churchill before he left England.

whether or not everyone laughed at what Churchill said does not negate the fact that Hitler appealed SEVERAL TIMES to England for peace but Churchill and the rest would have none of it.

that's how Rudolph Hess was captured - trying to get past Churchill to speak to the King, himself

Especially when the Quebec Conferences at the Citadel took place in 1943.

Its something of a push to try and blame the Allies for starting the war nearly 4 years after the invasion of Poland.

what?
i don't understand your point here.
the war started in 1939.
right after Poland.

what Churchill said in 1943 has nothing to do with the start of the war but rather the refusal to accept Germany's continued hope toward peace with the UK.

Originally posted by neformore
So where/what is this "wound" you perceive?

you're stepping right in the middle of it.

Originally posted by queenannie38

whether or not everyone laughed at what Churchill said does not negate the fact that Hitler appealed SEVERAL TIMES to England for peace but Churchill and the rest would have none of it.

So when did Hitler state that Germany would surrender to Churchill?

When did Hitler offer to remove German troops from Poland?

reply to post by queenannie38


Queen Annie,

You obviously have a great interest in why the war started. May I refer you to the Avalon Project & the British War Blue Books. It's a most interesting collection of speeches, memorandums & telegrams between the major players in the British Government & Diplomatic Service immediately before the start of hostilities.

As you'll see soon enough, the British Government was convulsed in its search for a diplomatic solution to the deteriorating international situation.

Hey, it's a lazy Sunday and this stuff is great reading. Here's your link.

Project Avalon / The British War Bluebooks

Originally posted by queenannie38
what Churchill said in 1943 has nothing to do with the start of the war but rather the refusal to accept Germany's continued hope toward peace with the UK.

Peace?

You have heard of Operation Sealion haven't you? - you know - where Hitler was going to invade Britain?

You surely must have heard of The Battle of Britain and The Blitz

If you call those peaceful plans and actions, you are suffering from some kind of delusion.

Originally posted by neformore

Originally posted by queenannie38
WHAT IF is just a game
but it's a good one

Actually, its a self defeating dangerous waste of time.

All it leads to is idolatory fantasies.

In this case, it leads to people thinking that somehow one of - if not the single most - dangerous dictator that ever lived was somehow a nice person, when he most certainly was nothing of the sort.

Wow, I'm amazed at this kind of ignorance!
You're saying, don't dare to think outside the box!
If we all would think like you, we'd still be in the stone age!

How did you draw that conclusion? Who provided you with the information?
Did you get any information from the opposition? Did "they" have a chance to tell you their side of the story?
It is easy to dismiss everything the Nazis or Hitler stood for was plain propaganda aka empty words or take notice of it and draw your own conclusions.

Maybe you should put Hitler on your own independent trial. Make your own judgment based on both/more sides of the story.








[edit on 3-1-2010 by Regenstorm]

reply to post by neformore


Don't forget Rudolf Heß his flight!
He got murdered by the SAS shortly before his release.
Heß couldn't be released alive because he was the only rightful successor of Hitler and therefor could claim the German Reich which is still occupied up to this day. It was rear admiral Dönitz who signed the defeat of the Wehrmacht, but he was not entitled to sign the surrender of the German Reich. Therefor, Germany never surrendered. On paper the Reich still exists but is occupied by the BRD.

This is something that is completely being ignored here on ATS. If Germany is occupied, how on Earth does that fit the claims that the Nazis are taking over the USA (Alex Jones)? Why is Germany still suffering from the aftermath?
Because no one dares to revise the case and those that do dare are being prosecuted or labeled "Neo Nazi", please ignore, nothing to see...
Hitler is the roots of all evil, even of the evil before him!

reply to post by Regenstorm


Hitler appointed Karl Donitz as his successor in his last political testament, signed on 29th April 1945.

Donitz was appointed head of state (Reichspräsident), also War Minister (Kriegsminister) and Commander in Chief of the Navy (Oberbefehlshaber der Kriegsmarine).

Himmler accepted Donitz's appointment and the brief "Flensburg Government" succeeded Hitler on his death.

As such he had the authority to instruct Jodl to sign the unconditional surrender.

Hess himself was stripped of office, following his bizarre flight to Scotland. And Hitler privately ordered he be shot on sight if he ever returned to Germany.

So I think your argument is rather flawed.

reply to post by Ulala

The state German Reich has never ceased to exist as a subject of international law. Only the German armed forces have signed the “unconditional surrender” on 8 MAY 1945 in Berlin-Karlshorst, but not the German Reich. The German Reich was and furthermore is without interruption an international personality, but has - as a national entity - legal capacity only, if an institutional organization is available and existing. This has been decided by the Federal Constitutional Court as well as by other German courts with verdicts 2 Bvl. 6/56, 2 BvF 1/73, 2 BvR 373/83; BVGE 2,266 (277); 3288 ( 319 I); 5.85 (126); 6, 309, 336 and 363.

www.reichsland-bayern.de...

The rest is very interesting as well!

Originally posted by Regenstorm
Wow, I'm amazed at this kind of ignorance!
You're saying, don't dare to think outside the box!
If we all would think like you, we'd still be in the stone age!

I don't think you understand

Playing "what if" with documented history is a pointless excercise.

Why?

Because its history, and no amount of pointless fantasising is going to make it any different. While alternate timelines and such ideas make for fun science fiction, in actual reality all they are is bunk.

Its nothing to do with "thinking outside the box" and everything to do with futility.

Trying to make Adolf Hitler into some kind of latter day saint is a delusional fantasy.

The man was a sadistic, psychotic dictator who bought about the biggest war this planet has ever seen by his own machinations, then died a cowards death, in a bunker because he did not have the power of his own convictions to face the people he deemed to be "inferior" - leaving behind a large swathe of Western and Eastern Europe in ruin.

How anyone can even try to draw a positive out of that utterly mystifies me.