Thanks @APACHERAT as always your words are fascinating. I did not either know about the Colorado ranch.
We were taught that in grade school about Hitlers cattle ranch during the early 60's. But were never told about that Hitlers nephew served in the U.S. Navy during WW ll.
I have seen on tv and read that there are several Hitler nieces and nephews living in the USA as well. Don't know if they are still getting Mein Kampf royalties. The book is still a bestseller.
I'm afraid that there's even more to the story of Roosevelt's pro war deeds contradicting his anti war rhetoric: " The exchange of American destroyers for British bases in the Caribbean and in Newfoundland in September, 1940. This was a clear departure from the requirements of neutrality and was also a violation of some specific American laws. Indeed, a conference of top government lawyers at the time decided that the destroyer deal put this country into the war, legally and morally. The enactment of the Lend-Lease Act in March, 1941. In complete contradiction of the wording and intent of the Neutrality Act, which remained on the statute books, this made the United States an unlimited partner in the economic war against the Axis Powers all over the world. The secret American-British staff talks in Washington in January-March, 1941. Extraordinary care was taken to conceal not only the contents of these talks but the very fact that they were taking place from the knowledge of Congress. At the time when administration spokesmen were offering assurances that there were no warlike implications in the Lend-Lease Act, this staff conference used the revealing phrase, "when the United States becomes involved in war with Germany." The inauguration of so-called naval patrols, the purpose of which was to report the presence of German submarines to British warships, in the Atlantic in April, 1941. The dispatch of American laborers to Northern Ireland to build a naval base, obviously with the needs of an American expeditionary force in mind. The occupation of Iceland by American troops in July, 1941. This was going rather far afield for a government which professed as its main concern the keeping of the United States out of foreign wars. The Atlantic Conference of Roosevelt and Churchill, August 9-12, 1941 committing America as a partner in a virtual declaration of war aims, The orders to American warships to shoot at sight at German submarines, formally announced on September 11. The authorization for the arming of merchant ships and the sending of these ships into war zones in November, 1941."CONTINUED(1) While Hitler was forwarding peace proposals as early as 1933, former Prime Minister Lloyd George suggests that Churchill & Roosevelt were servants of more malevolent masters: "'The international bankers swept statesmen, politicians, journalists and jurists all to one side and issued their orders with the imperiousness of absolute monarchs.'" Prime Minister Lloyd George Meanwhile: "Poland wants war with Germany and Germany will not be able to avoid it even if she wants to." (Polish Marshal Rydz-Smigly as reported in the Daily Mail, August 6th, 1939) (1)"How Franklin Roosevelt Lied America Into War" http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/v14n6p19_Chamberlin.html
I've also heard or read the same thing. Most changed their last names when Hitler came into power during the 1930's and WW ll.
Neutrality means just that, it meant we could trade with whoever we wanted to, and does not mean we had to trade with everybody equally, too bad for Hitler and the Japanese. They didn't get to dictate to the U.S. who and what we decided to trade with or what we decided to trade, contrary to the spin otherwise. We even respected other countries' neutrality, even when it hurt us, as in the case of the Netherlands in WW I and the Swedes in WW II, both countries who traded openly with Germany during the wars, and Spain as well. Hitler attacked the U.S. because he was stupid, and believed his own BS, same reason as the Japanese, too stupid to leave well enough alone.
And what did the US offer to England or the Soviets that the Germans may have wanted? Sure, under neutrality they could have purchased the same things. But the equipment that Germany already had was superior generally in quality (but not quantity) than what the US was offering.
Yea, I got it. You are a Hitler Fanboi, and will forgive him for anything. You are not the first I have seen here, and you will not be the last. And as a general rule I mock anything they say. Such as your constant attempts to change and switch the aim of a conversation when people blow apart your flimsy claims. As an FYI, I do not post in response to you, but in rebuttal to you. The US started to report U boat sightings, because the Germans had already sunk one of our ships, and they were frequently traveling in or near British convoys. And no, Lend-Lease is not a violation of neutrality. To violate neutrality, we would have to sell exclusively to one nation in favor to another. Everything we sold was surplus to our needs, and Germany could also have petitioned to buy them. But why Germany would have wanted a ship load of Dodge trucks, railroad cars, and wheat, I have no idea.
The U.S. kept the German economy alive after WW I, so it was just absolutely moronic for Hitler to bite the hand that was feeding the country in the first place. He had literaly nowhere to go when his economic polices failed utterly in 1938, and had to resort to raiding his neighbors to keep alive. And then, he compounded this stupidity with repeating Wilhelm II's stupidity. Amazing, even for a lunatic. Why he wasn't assassinated by his own Party is incredible.
In retrospect it seems an alliance between Britain, the US and Nazi Germany is an absurd idea, but back then it was not so outlandish. I believe Hitler was genuine in his desire for an alliance with Britain. The Anglo-Saxons, after all, had a fair bit in common with the Saxons. The Americans had just elected a President who veered further towards a fascist economy than any before or since. Fascism is viewed in an extremely negative light today (quite rightly), but back then it was viewed largely as Communism is now: with adoration by some, indifference by most, and powerful hatred by those who had actually lived under and escaped from it. ___________________________________________________________________________ How do I know that an unholy alliance with a despicable nation was not that unlikely? Well, at the time we didn't know of the death camps in Dachau and elsewhere, but we most certainly knew about the genocide in the Ukraine deliberately precipitated by Stalin to exterminate the Kulaks. We knew about the Soviet secret police. We knew about Stalin's Great Purge. Yet we still allied with the USSR. We were never opposed to alliances with mass-murderers, genocidal dictators, or expansionist regimes (don't forget the Soviet invasion of Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Romania, etc). For this reason I believe Britain's opposition to alliance with Nazi Germany was based more in a desire to retain the balance of power on the continent than policy or humanity. When you look back at British aims throughout the 19th century, the intent seems clear. They allied with the Prussians when it looked like the French would take over, they allied with the French when it looked like the Germans would take over. They wanted stability and not much more.
In 1941 it was. Remember, that was after Belgium and France were over-run, and the Battle of Britain. No way an alliance was ever going to happen by then. The appeasement government was out, and a new hard line government was in. And the appeasers had mostly jumped ship and were crowing along with the Conservatives for Hitler's blood.
They aren't always wrong, and for a window of time there actual historians were writing genuinely objective histories for a moment, but that moment passed in the 1960's; most academics are actually mentally ill now, verifiably so. https://qz.com/547641/theres-an-awful-cost-to-getting-a-phd-that-no-one-talks-about/ A 2015 study at the University of California Berkeley found that 47% of graduate students suffer from depression, following a previous 2005 study that showed 10% had contemplated suicide. A 2003 Australian study found that that the rate of mental illness in academic staff was three to four times higher than in the general population, according to a New Scientist article. The same article notes that the percentage of academics with mental illness in the United Kingdom has been estimated at 53%.
OK, I now have my ducks swimming in a row. Error. Hitler sent Hess Fact: Hitler was furious when he learned Hess departed the Messerschmidt airfield and ordered arrests of him and workers as well as Hess senior people. Hess explained at the Nuremberg war trials what actually took place. Hess wanted to make peace believing if he did, Hitler would approve. Hitler did not authorize this and never told Hess he would make peace. Hess was high enough at the second in command to know if Hitler wanted this or not. Hess parachuted and was taken to a senior English leader. Hess made demands on England. Hess stipulated he would never negotiate with Churchill and only would negotiote with the "real government." England refused. England however did agree to have an important cabinet member visit Hess and see what took place. Hess basicly killed any proposal when he decided who to speak with and who not. Churchill was excluded. This killed the deal. Hess ended up in prison for 10 years. 7 Nazis were hung, 2 died at their own hands. Ribbentrop was the first to hang. Summary, the mission was never sanctioned by Hitler. nothing came of it. How i know this. In the Book the Rise and Fall of the 3rd Reich, it is in the details. This has long been the authoritative book on the Third Reich. Stalin was informed but did not believe Hess.
Lots of contradictory information has surfaced or been declassified since the book "The Rise & Fall of the Third Reich" was published that suggests that Hitler was sincere about wanting peace with the Western Allies For example: "Document Suggests Hitler Knew of Hess' British Flight Plans" http://www.spiegel.de/international...ew-of-hess-british-flight-plans-a-765607.html EXCERPT "But his air mission was a failure from the start. When he heard about the unexpected visitor from Germany, then-British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, who at the time was giving a dinner party at his weekend house near Oxford, was not even willing to postpone a planned film screening, saying: "Well, Hess or no Hess, I'm going to see the Marx Brothers." Why make peace with an aggressor who was determined to subjugate Europe? Hess was taken into custody."CONTINUED As early as his first speeches in 1933, Hitler stressed that he wanted peace & security for all German people including the 25% of Germany's population that was torn away in the creation of Czechoslovakia etc under the draconian Treaty of Versailles. The documents relating to Hitler's peace plan via Hess was scheduled to be declassified this year but the British decided to keep it resealed for another 20 years......Why? The following contains some of what Hitler had already offered but we'll have to wait an additional 20 years to find out what else he was willing to do to secure peace with the Western Allies: "The Inside Story of the Hess Flight" http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v03/v03p291_Anon.html EXCERPT "Hitler offered total cessation of the war in the West. Germany would evacuate all of France except Alsace and Lorraine, which would remain German. In short, Hitler offered to withdraw from Western Europe, except for the two French provinces and Luxembourg [Luxembourg was never a French province, but an independent state of ethnically German origin], in return for which Great Britain would agree to assume an attitude of benevolent neutrality towards Germany as it unfolded its plans in Eastern Europe. In addition, the Führer was ready to withdraw from Yugoslavia and Greece. German troops would be evacuated from the Mediterranean generally and Hitler would use his good offices to arrange a settlement of the Mediterranean conflict between Britain and Italy. No belligerent or neutral country would be entitled to demand reparations from any other country, he specified."CONTINUED An additionally interesting story is how over 100 British agents worked in the US via base propaganda to lure the US into WW2 "The conquest of the United States by Britain" http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/mahl.htm EXCERPT "The principal tactic of British propaganda, Mahl points out, was to excite American fears of a direct German threat to the United States. That involved two basic themes: - that Germany was poised to take over Latin America and that American non-interventionists were pro-Nazi fifth columnists. (It should be noted here that there was virtually no mention of German persecution of Jews, which today has become the ultimate justification for the "good war.") The theme that non-interventionists were really Nazi agents had perhaps the greatest long-term impact. That lethal smear destroyed the careers of many non-interventionists, eliminating opposition not only to involvement in World War II but also to postwar American globalism in general. Further, numerous works have shown that American intervention was not even essential for England's salvation. As John Charmley and others have maintained, England could have saved herself by agreeing to a separate peace with Germany.CONTINUED
Former British P.M. Lloyd George confirms the assertion that those who drive nations to wars are those who profit from wars: "The British Prime Minister, Lloyd George, wrote: 'The international bankers swept statesmen, politicians, journalists and jurists all to one side and issued their orders with the imperiousness of absolute monarchs.'"
Not to run over your material, but I am going on the official court records at the Nuremberg trials. Hess was clear on what took place. Hess never stated that Hitler was willing to engage in peace. Hess made it crystal clear that Hitler viewed himself having the stronger hand and was quite certain he would defeat Britain. Hitler ordered Hess shot on sight. Hess told the Brits he was positive Germany would defeat England so felt he had the upper hand. His hope was if he managed to stop England in it's tracks, Hitler would forgive his going to Scotland. All I can tell you is this is all on the record. The author of the book was extremely thorough and used actual records. not much more to say on this. I believe that given Hitlers attitude, he was not wanting to do more than get other countries to roll over and play dead. I hear that when asked post the war, the former military command, asked to explain why they lost, said we had a Corporal as a leader. Hitler was crazy to think he knew more than his senior command knew.
lol So the 'war mongers' are now those who refused to submit to Hitler? They caused WW II, not the clown who sent armies into all of his neighbors' countries???? .... Hilarious stuff.
Given you failed to quote some poster, why did you make the comment above? It was directly under my comments. I never said what you claim.
Probably this peace offer did exist but it was Hess's personal initiative, which was not authorized by Hitler. Otherwise, Hitler could have used official diplomatic channels to communicate his peaceful intentions to the British. Hitler subsequently ordered the German press to characterise Hess as a madman who made the decision to fly to Scotland entirely on his own, without Hitler's knowledge or authority. Churchill could not trust Hess's peace offer because of Hitler's public denunciation of Hess's mission. It's also possible that Hitler changed his warped mind just after Hess's departure in a fit of rage, even if he had initially authorized the peace offer.
So what? Anybody reading thread would know what it is referring to; I avoid citing long posts just to address one point I want to make.
I would be reluctant to believe anything a tortured, traumatized & intimidated defendant said at the Nuremberg trials. Many of the Allied judges & lawyers strongly condemned the proceedings in the harshest of terms dismissing them as "sanctimonious fraud" and a "high grade lynching party" (Judge Harlan Stone). Other condemnations of the politicized proceedings were: EXCERPT "Probably the most courageous condemnation was by US Senator Robert A. Taft, widely regarded as the "conscience of the Republican party." At considerable risk to his political career, he denounced the Nuremberg enterprise in an October 1946 speech. "The trial of the vanquished by the victors cannot be impartial no matter how it is hedged about with the forms of justice," he said. Taft went on: /16 About this whole judgment there is the spirit of vengeance, and vengeance is seldom justice. The hanging of the eleven men convicted will be a blot on the American record which we will long regret. In these trials we have accepted the Russian idea of the purpose of trials -- government policy and not justice -- with little relation to Anglo-Saxon heritage. By clothing policy in the forms of legal procedure, we many discredit the whole idea of justice in Europe for years to come. US Rear Admiral H. Lamont Pugh, former Navy Surgeon General and Commanding Officer of the National Naval Medical Center, wrote: "I thought the trials in general bordered upon international lunacy. I thought it particularly unfortunate, inappropriate, ill-conceived and dupably injudicious that the United States should have been cast in the leading role as prosecutors and implementators of the trials of German participants or principals." CONTINUED(1) I, too read "The Rise & Fall of the Third Reich" many years ago and agree that it is an excellent book but much new information has come forward & been declassified. RE: Prior to the war & in some cases, up to today, much of what we were supposed to know about Hitler's attitude was shaped by the hundreds of British Intelligence Services that used base propaganda to drag the US into WW2. Among their ploys was a forged map showing Hitler's invasion plan for Central & South America(2) and spreading the canard that Hitler wanted to "conquer the world" I also agree that Hitler's not listening to his Generals was indeed a fatal flaw, he also hindered the development of the Me-262 jet fighter which was ready for mass production as early as 1941 & on & on. However, I do believe that the reason that he ordered his Generals to "Stand Down" to spare the 330,000 Allied troops at Dunkirk was that he still hoped to make peace with the Western allies. thanks (1)"The Nuremberg Trials and the Holocaust" http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p167_Webera.html (2)"The conquest of the United States by Britain" http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/mahl.htm EXCERPT "The principal tactic of British propaganda, Mahl points out, was to excite American fears of a direct German threat to the United States. That involved two basic themes: - that Germany was poised to take over Latin America and that American non-interventionists were pro-Nazi fifth columnists. (It should be noted here that there was virtually no mention of German persecution of Jews, which today has become the ultimate justification for the "good war.") The theme that non-interventionists were really Nazi agents had perhaps the greatest long-term impact. That lethal smear destroyed the careers of many non-interventionists, eliminating opposition not only to involvement in World War II but also to postwar American globalism in general. Further, numerous works have shown that American intervention was not even essential for England's salvation. As John Charmley and others have maintained, England could have saved herself by agreeing to a separate peace with Germany.CONTINUED
You covered more than i did but my major point was and remains, was Hitler this peace loving man who only wanted peace but the West refused peace so it is the fault of the west. To this, i say no he was not wishing peace so much as he wanted them to simply give up. I try not to read past the history i have and i cited my source.
Page 732 in the "Rise and Fall" etc reports on Dunkirk this way. General Rundstedt met Hitler in France on May 24 and both decided to stop the tanks at Canal Aa to wait for the infantry catch up. So both made the decision after General Rundstedt explained his need of his infantry. Once the war ended, then the General tried to put all of the blame on Hitler. There were sound reasons for stopping at the canal. Hitler did issue the formal order yet his General Staff Chief was very unhappy. His report says his understanding was the enemy forces would be trapped in a small enough pocket for his air force to finish off. Bock's Army group B would perform mop up duty.
I have no issue with taking the perpetrators behind the chemical sheds and shooting them into a hole, but the Nuremberg trials infuriate me, dragging out system of law through the mud.
