Adolf Hitler and the side of History never before seen.

[Desert Fox]

Breaking the non-aggression pact turned all cards against Germany and it was a very poor move by Hitler because Stalin USSR was already collapsing due to famines, political problems and lack of economic activity. Few years down the like communism would have collapse. So weak was the morale of USSR soldiers during German attack that 3 million of them just gave in.

The USSR was being propped up by wealthy capitalist and financiers from the West, most notably the United States and Britain. Soviet Union wasn't going to fall anytime soon.

Beside Nazi Germany was so obsessed with racial theory to the point of stomach sickness. They even tried to reform Christianity by trying to portray Jesus as an Aryan race hero...however the movement of German Church never took hold in Germany!

This is most likely allied propaganda to make Hitler look like a anti-Christian Bolshevist. FDR used this as his way of rallying support against Germany in the US during the late 1930's and early 1940's.

Hitler was referred to by FDR as a "brown Bolshevist".

 

[Desert Fox]

I find it strange that some one who choses Rommel as their avatar would idolise hitler.

And i find it strange but not surprising that someone can do no better than to take cheap shots at others as a desperate attempt since they don't have a logical argument. Though it only goes to prove the bigoted and narrow mindedness of such a person who can't tolerate differing beliefs.


The real Rommel: Enduring myth of the decent Nazi is debunked

While Stülpnagel was being treated, he blurted out General Field Marshal Erwin Rommel's name. A few days later, Stülpnagel's personal adviser, Caesar von Hofacker, admitted under gruesome torture that Rommel was an active member of the conspiracy. The extent to which Rommel had been involved has been debated, but many historians have concluded that he at least knew of the plot even if he wasn't involved directly. Hitler, however, knew it would cause a major scandal to have the popular Rommel branded as a traitor. With this in mind, he opted to give Rommel the option of suicide via cyanide or a public trial by Freisler's People's Court. Had Rommel chosen to stand trial, his family and staff would have been executed along with him. Knowing that being hauled before the People's Court was tantamount to a death sentence, Rommel committed suicide on 14 October 1944. He was buried with full military honours; his role in the conspiracy didn't come to light until after the war.[9]

20 July plot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why would his family be executed? Even Klaus Von Stauffenberg's (the main perpetrator of the assassination attempt) Wife and children were spared of execution.

I can't believe people fall for all of this BS. 60+ years and on and there are enough fools to keep falling for these lies.

 

[EzioAltaïr]

Why did he attack Poland? "To increase Germany's size"?

Or was it to reunite the Danzig Corridor, who's population was 95-97% Ethnic German.

The Danzig region was a part of Germany for 700 years, that is until the Allied powers acceded it to the NEWLY formed state of Poland, as was the condition in the Versailles Treaty.

Hitler wanted to reunite that region with Germany through a reasonably fair deal with the Polish government. However, it was the British who did everything in their power to sabotage that deal since it was their only chance to trigger a war with Germany. Germany's dispute with Poland was its only major dispute with a neighboring country. Once this dispute was resolved Britain's only chance of dragging Germany into war would have forever been lost.


Hitler's Declaration of War Against the US


But since Poland, under the strong influence of the same powers who carved it out after WW1 (Britain, France, and USA), did not agree to these terms, and continued its forced removal of German ethnic minority from their ancestral land and the mobilization of its armed forces in the process leaving Hitler with no choice but to invade.

The fact was, that though the area was ethnically German, it had been under Polish control originally, and in fact was annexed in the late 18th century by Prussia. The only reason that this part was handed over to Poland after the Great War, was because Poland was a newly formed country, and effectively landlocked. This was the only access they could give Poland to the sea, and while it may not be completely fair to the Germans, it still was necessary.

Note: Hitler was completely justified in uniting Austria, Sudentenland, and Rhineland, but in my opinion, he shouldn't have attacked Poland.

Also, the Corridor was one area, but Germany and Russia split up the entire land of area of Poland between themselves, why? Also, Germany used Poles as slave labour, deporting most people from their homes to make space for Germans to live in, while working the original inhabitants till they died.

Also, keep in mind that the Soviet Union also INVADED POLAND from the east, yet Britain and France did not declare war against the Soviet Union but only on Germany

Both sides were filled with hypocrisies. USA and UK siding with Russia was not an admirable move, but I suppose they did it only because Russia was more likely to side with the West than Germany were.

This further strengthens the view that the war was specifically targeted at Germany, and Hitler was indeed forced into a war.

Well they were targeting Germany, Hitler was a powerful leader, and I bet they wanted him out of the way. But Hitler could have avoided the war with a few easy precautions which he chose not to take.

But these people seem to disagree with you:

Hitler 'shook hands' with black 1936 Olympic hero Jesse Owens | Mail Online

Forget Hitler - it was America that snubbed black Olympian Jesse Owens | Mail Online





ESPN.com: Owens pierced a myth





History News Network


Another Prominent African American leader, W.E.B. DuBois toured NS Germany during the late 1930's, after the Olympics, and this is what he had to say:




Also, here are the accounts of a African-American fighter Pilot who was shot down over NS German occupied territory and thus taken POW by the Germans:


Feature - Tuskegee Airman recalls time as POW

Now here is a little summary on a man by the name of Lawrence Dennis, a mixed race fella, half black and half white. A American diplomat, he visited Germany and met Hitler quite a few times. He was impressed by National Socialism and the economic and social revival it had brought in Germany after the wake of the humiliating Treaty of Versailles and then the financial collapse following it. Hitler found him to be one of the few people capable of understanding his view of a better world. Lawrence Dennis would later advocate a similar system to that of NS Germany and Fascist Italy within the United States.


Also, i would like to touch up a little more on Jesse Owens, the Black American athlete who visited Germany for the 1936 Berlin Olympics. Jesse Owens recalled that he was treated far better in Germany than he was back home in America. That he found it difficult to walk down the streets of Berlin since crowds of people stormed to have his autograph and congratulate him on his victories. He could walk into to any restaurant he wanted, stay at any hotel of his choice, ride in any part of the bus, and no one told him he couldn't do so due to his skin color. However, it was the exact opposite in democratic and free America.

As the saying goes, a leader is the reflection of his people, and if the German people showed so much tolerance and welcome to these men of color, one can only imagine Hitler would have been not much different. After all he was democratically elected in 1933 by the overwhelming majority of the German people.

Now, here is a video in which Adolf Hitler, the supposedly "most racist, hate ridden man", is praising in his speech the Non-White-non-European, Turkic (Tartar) and Slavic (Ukrainian) troops of his Waffen SS and Wehrmacht, along with the rest of the European troops from 3:11 onwards:

He was mainly racist towards Jews, gypsies, handicapped, and political opponents. His ideology was something like a ladder, with blond, blue-eyed (I don't think Hitler was either), Nordic German Aryans at the top, and Jews at the bottom. He hated handicapped people because he felt they only used up state resources and gave nothing in return. He hated the people from lands he conquered, seen from his deporting Poles and Ukranians to labour camps. I'm not sure about his ideas about blacks, but I assume he was neutral, at least to those who supported him. The same we can assume for all the people you mentioned, fighting for him.

Millions of these people would be handed back to Stalin by Churchill and Roosevelt, the so called democratic freedom loving leaders, only for these people to be executed and starved to death in Gulags in Siberia.

Again, the Allies had no fewer monsters than the Axis. It's just that their monstrosities were usually less monstrous than Hitler's (Stalin is an exception, he was more of a monster).

A Reich isn't necessarily a Empire, it doesn't have to be one. Third Reich lasted from 1933-1945.

1933-1939 it's borders did no go beyond Ethnic German territory, yet it was called a Reich. Only after being forced into a war did NS Germany's Armies invade other territories and even then NS Germany officially only annexed Eastern Poland, notably the Danzig Corridor which, BTW, was already German since 700 years.

The Rest of the countries which came under German occupation were not considered a official part of the German Reich, as would be in an "empire". These occupied countries had their own Pro-German administrative gov.t's, same as was set up in Japan and Germany by the allies after the war, though these were allied military controlled gov.t's friendly to the allies.

These satellite countries were effectively puppet states though, and many had active running resistance movements.

These countries were invaded after the war started in 1939. I was talking about before 1939. And Ukraine was a part of the Soviet Union.

Poland was invaded in 1939. The others were invaded after 1939, but the invasion of Russia was completely unjustified, and France.. well okay, you're right there. They didn't invade France until the latter declared war.

Stalin invaded Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, and forcefully annexed these countries into the Soviet Union, he attempted to invade Finland and Romania, failed to invade Finland and bullied Romania into giving up Moldova. Hitler acceded to Stalin's demand for Moldova in order to avoid a confrontation with the Soviet Union.

Again, despite the mistrust, invading Russia despite having a pact was a foot-in-mouth move. Regardless of his intentions, he knew very well, that he would lose a three-front war.

Why Britain, France, and the USA, the so called freedom loving democracies who themselves were innocent of any kind of crimes against humanity, not come to the aid and protection of the above mentioned countries which were invaded and forcefully annexed by the Soviet Union?

Well that's all politics. They had an alliance with Poland, not with the other victims. Like I said, they did not start a war to free anyone, everyone starts a war selfishly.

Of course Stalin did, Churchill knew that, so did Roosevelt, but how come Stalin wasn't charged for war-crimes against the Poles? After all Britain declared war to protect the Polish freedom and integrity? Am i not right?

Or was it only to punish Germany from freeing itself from the slavery of international finance?

It was a war, fought in both bullets and propaganda. Criticising one's ally, regardless of how wrong would be a bad move, and even if there was anyone genuinely interested in human rights among the allies (not likely), they would still be forced to keep quite.

That's utter nonsense! Stalin was a ally of Churchill and Roosevelt's. Roosevelt referred to Stalin as "Uncle Joe" and the Soviets as "our gallant Soviet Allies", the British followed along with this line.

During the war only. After the war, their words were suddenly more along the lines of "monstrous, authoritarian communists". Hypocrisy at it's best.

Hunting down a few communist fanatics who had almost overthrown the German gov.t of Bavaria in 1918-1919 and thus started to systematically butcher the wealthy families, doctors, intellectuals, and remnants of the imperial army, similar to what the Bolsheviks did in Czarist Russia, is not considered a crime. The communists committed treason by receiving covert and even overt support from Lenin's Red Army to spread "Red Revolution" in Germany and from there to the rest of Europe.

That's simply not the way to deal with criminals. If someone murdered someone, they can be legally hanged, no need to hunt them down and dissolve parliaments and such.

As to the rest of the post, I would have responded, but the length is making my computer lag. I'll respond later.

 

[Desert Fox]

The fact was, that though the area was ethnically German, it had been under Polish control originally, and in fact was annexed in the late 18th century by Prussia. The only reason that this part was handed over to Poland after the Great War, was because Poland was a newly formed country, and effectively landlocked. This was the only access they could give Poland to the sea, and while it may not be completely fair to the Germans, it still was necessary.

Poland, before 1918, did not exist. It was a part of Imperial Russia. Danzig historically was always inhabited by Germans for 700 years. It was German land and was to be handed back to Germany once the Polish gov.t, under British and French influence began to turn down any peace proposals from Germany.

Hitler's proposal to the Polish gov.t (i posted the proposal in my previous post, and i'm assuming you read it) was very fair. It allowed both Poland and Germany access to the Danzig corridor and free access to German ports to Poland.

Note: Hitler was completely justified in uniting Austria, Sudentenland, and Rhineland, but in my opinion, he shouldn't have attacked Poland.

While thousands of Germans were being kicked out of their ancestral lands, he should not have invaded Poland? Does that make sense? Was the impotent League of Nations going to prevent the deportation of these ethnic Germans?

Also, the Corridor was one area, but Germany and Russia split up the entire land of area of Poland between themselves, why?

At that time it was a done deal, it no longer was only about the corridor. It made no difference if they only captured the Danzig corridor or half of Poland, Britain and France would still have declared war on Germany.

Also, Germany used Poles as slave labour,

Not much different to how British used indians, or the French the North Africans.

deporting most people from their homes to make space for Germans to live in, while working the original inhabitants till they died.

Most likely POW's. Very rarely did Germans use civilians for slave labor, they had enough Red army POW's to do the job.

Both sides were filled with hypocrisies. USA and UK siding with Russia was not an admirable move, but I suppose they did it only because Russia was more likely to side with the West than Germany were.

Not sure what you mean by "Russia was more likely to side with the West than Germany were". Side with the West against what?? Germany?

If Germany decided to side with the West after invading Poland, do you think Britain would have repealed its declaration of war? Same for France? And they would have sided against Soviet Union?

How so if Britain and France didn't declare war on Soviet Union for invading Poland in the first place???

Well they were targeting Germany, Hitler was a powerful leader, and I bet they wanted him out of the way. But Hitler could have avoided the war with a few easy precautions which he chose not to take.

What "easy precautions"? Is it easy to sit idle while thousands of your people are being deported from their ancestral lands, and you as a leader of those people take no action and wait for some impotent organization to do something, meanwhile more and more of your people are persecuted day by day.

He was mainly racist towards Jews, gypsies, handicapped,

There were more than 100,000 half and quarter Jews in the armed forces of NS Germany. Even some full Jews as well.

1). A full Jew, by Jewish standards is anyone who's mother is Jewish, regardless of the fathers race or ethnicity. By that standard all of those half Jews in NS Germany's armed forces were full Jews.

2). Gypsies were persecuted in ALL European countries due to them being involved in crimes and subversive movements.

3). Handicapped, does that also include Dr Joesph Goebbels who limped as he walked due to one leg being shorter than the other? How did Hitler forget to gas him for that genetic defect?

and political opponents.

Political opponents aren't a race.

His ideology was something like a ladder, with blond, blue-eyed (I don't think Hitler was either),

Hitler had piercing blue eyes.

He hated handicapped people because he felt they only used up state resources and gave nothing in return.

Gee, how did he not notice the limping walk of Goebbels. That's one less handicap in the concentration camps.

He hated the people from lands he conquered, seen from his deporting Poles and Ukranians to labour camps.

This contradicts his speech where he praises Ukrainian and Tartar troops in his Waffen SS. This also contradicts the photos of Ukrainian troops meeting with Goebbels, i posted photos of that in the previous pages of this thread.

I wouldn't be surprised that these are bogus allied propaganda. Though, i am 100% certain that it is allied propaganda. Ukrainians were amongst the most staunch supporters of Hitler's on the Eastern front.


How do you think the Germans treated Polish soldiers and officers? Would like to know your view on that.

I'm not sure about his ideas about blacks, but I assume he was neutral, at least to those who supported him. The same we can assume for all the people you mentioned, fighting for him.

It was mentioned that Hitler stormed out of the stadium red faced, enraged that a black sub-human defeated his Aryan opponent. When in reality, as recalled by Jesse Owens himself, Hitler did no such thing. But the allied propaganda it seems is much louder than the voice of the black athlete himself, and people would rather believe propaganda and than believe in the truth, even when the truth is coming straight from the horse's mouth.

Again, the Allies had no fewer monsters than the Axis. It's just that their monstrosities were usually less monstrous than Hitler's (Stalin is an exception, he was more of a monster).

Bengal Famine= 4 million people die from starvation.

Eisenhower's death camps= 1.5 million German POW's dies of starvation and unsanitary conditions.

Justification for nuking two Japanese civilian populated cities, as a result thousands burned alive and thousands more affected by radiation for decades.

Terror bombings of German cities which had no military importance. As a result, millions of people baked alive.

Torturing Axis POW's, deporting millions more to the Gulags, handing millions more over to Stalin to be deported to the Gulags.

Don't try to make the Allies seem like they were any less than Stalin when in fact they were hand in glove.

You and i, or anybody else doesn't hear about these atrocities only because all of this is politically incorrect and does not go in line with the lies that millions have been spoon fed by their gov.t's and mainstream media.

These satellite countries were effectively puppet states though, and many had active running resistance movements.

But there was no "Nazi Empire" as you were suggesting in your previous post.

Poland was invaded in 1939. The others were invaded after 1939, but the invasion of Russia was completely unjustified, and France.. well okay, you're right there. They didn't invade France until the latter declared war.

The 7 years before 1939 there was no German occupation of foreign territory.

Again, despite the mistrust, invading Russia despite having a pact was a foot-in-mouth move. Regardless of his intentions, he knew very well, that he would lose a three-front war.

Of course, he knew very well that a two front war was not winnable, but he had no choice, i've discussed this issue before and i am well convinced that the invasion of Soviet Union was necessary though not well timed.

Well that's all politics. They had an alliance with Poland, not with the other victims. Like I said, they did not start a war to free anyone, everyone starts a war selfishly.

Yes they DID start the war, the British and French declared war on Germany over Polish territorial integrity, at least under the guise of it, since after the War Poland would annexed by the Soviet Union.

It was a war, fought in both bullets and propaganda. Criticising one's ally, regardless of how wrong would be a bad move, and even if there was anyone genuinely interested in human rights among the allies (not likely), they would still be forced to keep quite.

Exactly. Does this not prove my point that the war was to crush Germany for having rebuilt its honor and for having freed itself from the shackles imposed on it by international finance.

During the war only. After the war, their words were suddenly more along the lines of "monstrous, authoritarian communists". Hypocrisy at it's best.

Even after the war, there were always back alley deals between the so called "democratic" and "freedom" loving western gov.t's and their Soviet chums. It was only the millions of civilians and soldiers who suffered due to the ideologies of the two sides during the cold war, used as chess pieces. Meanwhile the higher ups comfortably exchanged some sensitive knowledge with one another (eg Soviet n--u--k--e-- program).

That's simply not the way to deal with criminals. If someone murdered someone, they can be legally hanged, no need to hunt them down and dissolve parliaments and such.

Not only did they murder innocent people and cause agitation, but they also conspired with a foreign entity in the overthrow of the German state, they received funds, arms, and even manpower in their mission to do so. That is treason and traitors are given nothing less than a death sentence.

no need to hunt them down and dissolve parliaments and such.

Parliament was dissolved as a result of of the burning of the Parliament building by the Communists in order to signal a nationwide Communist uprising after the victory of the National Socialists in the elections.

 

[somebozo]

Hitler's Foreign Policy Statement - YouTube

 

[somebozo]

Hitler on the German economy - YouTube

 

[somebozo]

The cruise ship was built by the government for the people and offered cruise for 2RM!

 

[Aka123]

Winston Churchill once said "History will be kind to me for I intend to write it", and indeed how right he was, for almost every major school textbook and every major mainstream media source, be it documentaries or movies, has painted him in a good light. That too, despite the fact that this man had played a major role in the Bengal famine and mass starvations elsewhere in British Occupied Subcontinent, which resulted in the deaths of more than 4 million people, add to that countless more in other British colonies, who's populations combined numbered more than 500 million people.

Other similar inhuman policies of this man and his empire included the forced repatriation and handing over of millions of Eastern Europeans and Russians who fled the Stalinist Soviet regime during the years following the end of WW2 (Operation Keelhaul), many of whom were Soviet POW's who's fate Stalin had already sealed. Many of these people who sought protection in the Western Allies, only found themselves betrayed by the Western Allies and handed over to the Soviets and thus transported to Siberia where millions perished in the Gulags, never to be seen again.

Yet, this man goes down as a hero to many people who were never affected by his cruel and inhumane policies or the policies of the British crown. In israel, a monument has been erected in the honor of this man.

These are just a few of the many atrocities this one man and one empire are responsible for. One can't even begin to mention those committed by the other Western powers, their allies, and their leaderships (Roosevelt, Truman, and Stalin). Not many people are aware of the war crimes committed by these criminal leaderships/governments, mostly due to the fact that these men were the victors and they chose what would be taught to the generations to come.

And thus, it is rightfully said that History is written by the Victors, for the defeated side will forever be demonized, painted in infamy and propaganda, while the victors will shove their heinous crimes under the rugs and have many a good things written about themselves.


But as free citizens, let us for once view history through an objective and neutral lense, from an unbiased perspective. If we truly are free in the sense that we claim and believe ourselves to be, then let us not allow bias, lies, and deceit to cloud our judgement.

Now i will begin by introducing you to this brilliant documentary i stumbled upon online. A story of a man who has been continuously slandered, demonized, and painted as the greatest monster in human history, solely responsible for initiating WW2, and a story of a Nation which was (and still is being) punished for having strived for its own freedom, independence, liberty, preservation and right to peaceful coexistence amongst the nations of the world, and even to this day continues to pay the price.

For over 70 years we have been seeing, hearing, and believing one side of the story without any objection, let us at least for once give the other side an equal chance to present its side of the story.

See this speech......


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJcjXC3YRT8

 

[priti]

Lets glorify genghis khan, hulagu khan, George W. Bush and Modi as well.

MOdi has never fought a war. maybe the prophet mohammad should also be glorified. for he fought wars.

 

[Silverblaze]

MOdi has never fought a war. maybe the prophet mohammad should also be glorified. for he fought wars.

Mr. Modi has been accused of inciting communal violence and my post was directed at some Pakistanis.

 

[priti]

Mr. Modi has been accused of inciting communal violence and my post was directed at some Pakistanis.

accused is the operative word here.

here is a quote from wiki on prophet mohd.

Non-Arabic sources

The earliest documented Christian knowledge of Muhammad stems from Byzantine sources. They indicate that both Jews and Christians saw Muhammad as a "false prophet". In the Doctrina Jacobi nuper baptizati of 634, Muhammad is portrayed as being "deceiving[,] for do prophets come with sword and chariot?, [...] you will discover nothing true from the said prophet except human bloodshed."[41] Another Greek source for Muhammad is the 9th-century writer Theophanes. The earliest Syriac source is the 7th-century writer John bar Penkaye.[42]

 

[Aka123]

accused is the operative word here.

here is a quote from wiki on prophet mohd.

Non-Arabic sources

The earliest documented Christian knowledge of Muhammad stems from Byzantine sources. They indicate that both Jews and Christians saw Muhammad as a "false prophet". In the Doctrina Jacobi nuper baptizati of 634, Muhammad is portrayed as being "deceiving[,] for do prophets come with sword and chariot?, [...] you will discover nothing true from the said prophet except human bloodshed."[41] Another Greek source for Muhammad is the 9th-century writer Theophanes. The earliest Syriac source is the 7th-century writer John bar Penkaye.[42]

The discussion was on Adolph Hitler, from were did Prophet Muhammad and Narendra Modi come in that..... I mean is there any context.... don't think so.....

 

[priti]

The discussion was on Adolph Hitler, from were did Prophet Muhammad and Narendra Modi come in that..... I mean is there any context.... don't think so.....

i mean to say supporters paint one picture of a person and non supporters paint another picture.
the winning side's picture is what we know as history.
somethings like Modis case , there is no clear winner yet. but indian supreme courts decision will be the one i will go by..
if there is no case well i will believe Modi is innocent , if ther eis a conviction i will support his punishment. for now he is innocent until proven otherwise.

 

[Aka123]

i mean to say supporters paint one picture of a person and non supporters paint another picture.
the winning side's picture is what we know as history.
somethings like Modis case , there is no clear winner yet. but indian supreme courts decision will be the one i will go by..
if there is no case well i will believe Modi is innocent , if ther eis a conviction i will support his punishment. for now he is innocent until proven otherwise.

Probably.... but that is not related to the thread right.... so it can be discussed in another thread...... this is a nice thread.... bringing Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H) and Narendra Modi in this thread will completely derail this thread.....

 

[Aka123]

Subash Chandra Bose was a freedom fighter. You may disagree with his ways but his heart was in the right place and he was only following prgmatism. Truth is at that time, only Nazis and Japanese were capable(and willing to) fight the imperial forces of Britain. Netaji saw an opportunity in that and took advantage of it. There is no records to indicate that he was himself a believer of Nazism. Indeed it would be very strange as Indians do not have anything against the Jews. I have seen many Pakistanis like you criticizing Netaji but I have no idea why. He was indeed one of the true sons of the soil. A real warrior which has not been born ever since.

Netaji's only cause to support Hitler as both were enemies of British.... Hitler always had a soft corner for Aryans and specially British, because of him hundreds of thousands of British Soldiers were able to leave Dunkirk alive... The below quote was made by Netaji...... just imagine how much courage he had to issue such a statement when the German Army was one of the most powerful army in the whole world and Hitler the most powerful dictator.... this comment shook the world then.....when he announced in Radio....

"Hitler is at liberty to lick British boots, it is below my dignity to do so" (after Hitler praised British Rule in India, next day Hitler apologized on Berlin radio)

Hitler (to the German soldiers about Netaji)-"Do not salute me today, salute this great leader of 300million"