Hitler; Hero or Demon?

Why was there an attempted assasination on jackson?

Why was lincoln assasinated?

Kennedy?


This is the other side of the story, its the true side.

However this story has something, a direct link, to Jackson, Lincoln and kennedy assinations.

Its why this man this man was such an incredible threat to the english status quo and had to go down at all costs and be portrayed in history as the worlds top shelf demon.

But to whom?

The untold TRUE story. (Part 1 - 2)

[video=youtube;NwYEdq97qVQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwYEdq97qVQ[/video]


The untold TRUE story. (Part 2 - 2)

[video=youtube;mrcpW7h24XY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrcpW7h24XY[/video]


How can we believe our history books when critical facts as these are simply left out?

 

I started a thread on this subject on another forum. I posted so much info that it's easier just to link to the thread. It would take me twenty minutes to click on all of the links and copy and paste them.
http://forum.grasscity.com/pandoras-box/1199419-were-we-told-truth-about-world-war-two.html

It seems that there are a lot of omissions and distortions and outright fabrications in the history we are taught.

 

[video=youtube;WHlfnLj0RPg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHlfnLj0RPg[/video]

 

The video has quite a few facts wrong. This is real old fashion Nazi-anti-Semite propaganda I've seen so much of already in my research. It gets worse with the mistakes as the video progresses...

That's why you don't see the these "facts" in history books. Because they're untrue and wrong. If they were true you'd find these in discussions being presented in an university surrounding not on youtube.

I just would like to point out that Hitler got elected with merely 33.1% of the national vote. It's a wide spread misconception that he was really popular.

 

Hitler is a hero of the bourgeoisie and and the West.The defeat of the united under the auspices of Hitler Europe in the confrontation with communist USSR was the greatest catastrophe of the West and capitalism.

 

care to let us in on your secret?

If you believe you have "facts" to the contrary put them up so we can examine them, otherwise you are doing nothing more than just talking for the sake of old worn out talking points. In other words back up what you say, like the clip does.

 

exactly!

and that is precisely why I requested an explanation from mihapiha!

 

Hitler was just another right-wing scumbag who got paid to defend capitalism, at whatever cost to mere people.

 

Well I'm a historian and primarily research WW2, so I can present more details on the 20th century than other centuries. As I am sure everyone will get bored reading, I just want to point out a few things you can even find on wikipedia or easy accessible sources online. The first 4 minutes were taken out of "Zeitgeist" and I honestly never took the time and made an effort to check whether they got everything right in that conspiracy theory documentary. But the stuff after Zeitgeist is made for the purpose of this video and is just full of inaccuracies, mistakes or faulty informations for an Anti-Semite propaganda purpose.

Here just the mistakes from 4:50 to about 6:20:

Although the cause of WW1 is still debated in some circles, there is no actual debate going on in which Britain's declaration of war on August 5th started WW1. Especially after the British ultimatum. However it was suggested in the video. It was also pointed out that Britain was the mean aggressor, which is just untrue. You can go back to many reasons but the facts are that Germany declared war on Russia first August 1st and France August 2nd. Austro-Hungary was already at war since July 28th.

In WW1 about 2.5 million Germans died, of which a bit over 2 million were military casualties. So a 763,000 civilian casualty number till 1918 is just wrong, because we didn't miss 200,000 people who died, and not all (as in 100%) of the casualties were deaths due to the British blockade. So the number presented here is just false.

In Versailles they decided Germany had to pay 7,000 tons of gold, which was 20 billion RM in 1918. The 132 billion RM was decided in London 1921, which was 47,000 tons of gold and had to be payed back in 66 years. So I just don't know where they got the 100 billion from.

Ruhr and Rheinland were not occupied because Germans lacked payments on the reparations. Already in Compiègne it was decided that these two regions must be demilitarized to avoid future invasions into France. In Versailles there merely confirmed that and ruled that for a period of 15 years the victors would occupy this region to insure the peace.



I hope this short introduction makes my point more obvious as the mistakes and inaccuracies are presented as such hard facts in the video. Unfortunately it gets worse as the video progresses. I also didn't pick purposely the worst minute in this, but one at the start I felt was easy to check and didn't base new faulty informations from previous faulty informations in the video. Maybe you can tell that pretty much every sentence presented in that video has some errors. But the hand full of mistakes I point out might give you an idea how this would continue if you look at the numbers and facts...

 

It's generally accepted that the Treaty of Versailles, which imposed heavy war reparations upon Germany after the World War I, caused German economic problems such as hyperinflation. The Federal Reserve of the US played no role in the devaluation of the German currency and it was the central bank of Germany which caused the problems by printing paper money out of thin air to meet its payment obligations. John Maynard Keynes accurately argued in 1919 that reparations threatened to destabilise the German economy and German politics and German political culture became poisoned by vengeance against an unjust peace, paving the way for the rise of Hitler. After Germany made an initial reparations payment of $250 million in 1921, it put an enormous strain on the Germany economy and the value of the German Reichsmark collapsed as Germany's gold reserve dwindled.

 

I don't understand why the focus is on Germany when it comes to a hyper inflation. We had one in Austria at the same time, so did Poland. Hungary to my knowledge was one of the worst hyper inflation after WW1, especially if you take the hyperinflation of 1945/46 into consideration.

But I don't see the argumentative point here. Any country within or shortly after a war has severe financial problems (especially if they loose the war), unless someone else bails them out. Think of the confederate states in America 1861-65. They had a hyper inflation too - if you are looking for an American example. The inflation in the north was quite bad too.

As soon as a country is broke they print the money to solve the problem short term. This solution is used since we have printed money. However inflation even happened with the "gold-coin" system back in the middle ages. You'd have a gold coin after a while which was really only 10% gold or silver. The value of the coin diminished. Devaluing a currency is nothing new or related to Jews or Germany. They had a hyper inflation in the West-Roman Empire from 276 - 334 were Jews didn't own the banks. Think of more recent examples like Zimbabwe 2006-09 or Belarus 2011-12. The countries are just broke, and this is a short term solution.

 

[video=youtube;Rhs4cuKmPdE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rhs4cuKmPdE[/video]

[video=youtube;h-7YCcZUXmw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-7YCcZUXmw[/video]

 

Interesting to see that story from the British perspective.

This phrases of these videos is funny: "terms to be offered to the defeated countries" (1:28 ) as we had a choice in the matter.

Unfortunately they didn't mention that Germany (and Austria-Hungary) were demilitarized. Meaning the peace-treaty demanded firearms to be handed to the allies as well as the fleets and airforce. But to be fair, the firearm demand wasn't really enforced by the allies. The restriction of 100,000 soldiers had a negative side effect nobody seem to foresee: If you have more than 10 million soldiers who return home, and only few are allowed to remain in the army system, the rest who choose to remain soldiers find their "army"-calling else were. You see Germany indeed was only allowed to have 100,000 soldiers in a regular army, but they could have more in a militia-type environment. Hence many joined the militia forces available. These however were politically controlled. One party might control one militia or para-military organization and another party might control another. In this concept the SA and SS were created. It was the private army of the Nazi party and they were fighting against the private armies of the socialist and communist parties. To bad they didn't mention that in that video.

Odd that they didn't mention that the USA didn't join the league of nations.

 

Hero or Demon? Neither one.

But surely Hitler has been the best lider that have ever existed in the modern world, and compared to liders of other eras, Hitler still is the champion.

No other man on earth has been capable of creating such a war machine and dominate so many countries in such a short period of time. And he did it practically from zero ground.

I really don't care much about history books portraying him as the bad guy of the story, because good or bad, no one can challenge him about such control over the world that Hitler enjoyed the first years of the war. What a man! What a brilliant war strategist! What a lider to lift up in such a way a country left in misery after a first war...

He is not "my" hero, but no doubt that even Napoleon looks like a mere amateur in front of Hitler.

 

You're forgetting what the difference between them is. Hitler actually used up all German money reserves, and all the money the country could get loaned for his Blitzkrieg. In June to July 1938 Germany would have been bankrupt if they didn't get Austria. Austria at that point in time had more money than Germany. I forgot the exact numbers but I do remember that Austria had at least 8 times the money reserves in 1938 than Germany, while it was the other way around in 1933. The occupation of Austria made it possible for the German Reich to actually survive another year. So financially Germany was much better off in 1933 than 1939 no matter what the propaganda says. The numbers just confirm that Germany in 1939 was pretty much broke and had to start a war an conquer land quickly to avoid bankruptcy. Only after the deserter of WW2 people tend to forget that. Germany in 1938 was even in a far worse situation than Greece is today.

You see, Nazi-Germany was build on foreign and internal credit and they used up all the money the state could possibly get and it had an economy based on getting more foreign "aid" and building "canons" which are outdated in 10 years. Also Nazi-Germany mistreated and abused countries they conquered. In historic circles there's actually a debate if Germany would have conquered Moscow and hence gotten their hands on Stalin as he refused to flee, would have Hitler actually stopped with the wars. The overwhelming consensuses is that Germany would have had to continue the war, as they would have used up the financial reserves of all the countries eventually, because they didn't produce "butter".

Napoleon on the other hand did conquer Moscow, it just was empty because Alexander fled. Also the financial well being of France was messed up when Napoleon became consul. Remember that the county was financially broke after Bourbon leadership and after the French revolution. So the start Napoleon got financially was worse, especially since there was a civil war going on and foreign countries wanted to use the internal French problems to get a piece of French territories.

Napoleon stabilized his economy and defeated the enemies. Contrary to Hitler he didn't destroy the countries he conquered but rather build them and gave them the innovations from the French revolution. Most western countries are based on the Codé Civil Napoleon himself wrote. It's used as a part in many countries not only France. Few laws Hitler got into place actually remain to today. One I can think of is the Germans now use Latin letters instead of the Cursive letters because Hitler found out that the guy who invented these letters was a quoter Jewish (which actually is false and untrue).

The French build roads and schools in the occupied counties; not only things for the war effort. And in 1815 when Napoleon finally lost and was send to St. Helena, France had to pay reparations for the Napoleonic wars to the victors. While every other country was in severe financial problems and had inflation difficulties, France did not, and could even afford to pay back the reparations quite quickly while their country didn't go broke.

There are millions of reasons why Hitler is hated by the German people and why Napoleon to this day is France's national hero.

 

I don't claim to be an expert of pre-WWII history, but I think Hitler actually saw Bolsheviks at the Brandenburg Gate. He was paying attention when the Marxist-Leninist murdering thugs overwhelmed Belorus, the Ukraine, Poland, etc. and saw Germany as next in line. If you like Jewish-Bolshevism you're probably not going to think too highly of Adolf Hitler.

 

You have both the timing and the "cause/effect" wrong. Hitler hated the commies with a passion and he most definitely was committed to forestalling a commie foothold in germany. he was delighted to be able to effectively merge his jew hating and commie hating propaganda into a single story line for the consumption of "non=experts of history".

It appears you buy into hitler's claims that jews are a race unto themselves and therefore even when a person with jewish parents is an atheist commie, he is still a dirty jew. Its a rather pathetic attempt at blaming the "universal jew".

 

Perpetrated murder and death, shoots self in the head... the trumpets of Nazi Fascism play as background music to the patterns of another psychopathic spree killer ravaging the bleak makings of society.

Demon.

 

Hitler was around long enough to know that Bolshevism was a uniquely Jewish movement. He lived it and he saw that the Jews/Bolsheviks were dedicated to Germany's downfall. So what if he merged Jew and commie-hating into a story line. The Jews and the Bolsheviks were joined at the hip just like Zionism and the Jews are joined at the hip.

 

Why is that conspiracy theory of Jewish-Bolshevism still around? It's very well documented that this is not true and that the Jewish-Bolshevistic movement was primarily created out of thin air by the Nazi propaganda. I'm surprised that this (so easily proved wrong) conspiracy theory is still so widely spread. Just to point out the numbers: On the eve of the February Revolution, in 1917, the Bolshevik party had about 10,000 members, of whom 364 were ethnic Jews. According to the 1922 party census, there were 19,564 Jewish Bolsheviks, comprising 5.21% of the total. Jews made up 7.1% of members who had joined before October 1917.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Bolshevism

 

-Winston Churchill

Was Churchill a Nazi? Let's face it, man, the Jews have their own propaganda.

 

Your lack of knowledge is only matched by your inability to see one of the worst tyrants of the 20th century as a bad guy. Does hate make people feel strong?

 

Churchill wasn't a Nazi, but Antisemitism isn't exclusive to Nazis.
I still don't understand by what rational 12 million Jews could control 7 billion people.

 

All you have to do is look at the top tier of our own government during the Bush administration. We might as well have move our capitol to Tel Aviv and saved a few bucks.

 

Hitler was a (*)(*)(*)(*)head, but he didn't occur in a vacuum as the Jewish propagandists would have you believe. He knew who the bankers were and he knew who was trying to topple Germany from within. I guess you don't understand the concept of better dead than red, eh? Hitler did.