The Jews got other people to fight Germany.

And if it weren't fightin the Allies, Germany could certainly of defeated Russia.

quote:

---

Originally posted by VeneFrigus:
The Jews got other people to fight Germany.

And if it weren't fightin the Allies, Germany could certainly of defeated Russia.

---

first of all the alied nation could careless about the jews the only reason they got involved is because of attacks on them. the allies new that the jews were being killed. did they help in the begging no it took a long time before they got involved.

if it wasnt for the russians, britian would not be here today. The russians won the war they were the ones who put up the biggest fight which made the germans move alot of their force to the russian front.

if u think the jew had friends then why did it take 6 million dead jews to let their "friends" rethink and help them

kinda off topic but

the thing i dont get is why couldn't the germans land troops on england. they had uboats going almost in striking distance of america. surely they could have invaded them. if anyone knows i would really like to know.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Agent Boris_KGB:
The Russians didnt suck it was hitler that sucked stalin and lenins dick...

---

LOL. YOU, are a mental patient.

The English had lots of ships in the channel, as well as platforms and observation posts, to spot submarines.

And neither the Russians nor the Allies could have one the war alone. And Russia did well only because it had plentiful cannon fodder.

The Russians are a formidable opponent on their own turf. Look how far they were driven back. It was the harsh winter and the torching of their own townes to starve the German armies that did the most damage.

Fighting Russia was, by far, their worst mistake.

I don't buy the figure of 6 million, but that's just me.

And if they hadn't torched their towns, the German army would have continued on. And the harsh winter was worse for the Germans.

Our empire is to vast to be conquered. there is know doubt in my mind that stalin would have burned Moscow to the ground if it wasnt for the victory near the city. he would never let stalingrad fall however. Russian's have bin at war with the germans since Alexsader nevsky defeated the Tuetonic kinghts on a frozen lake athousend years ago. even without the help of the other allies russia would have not sucembed to Fritz. even if it meant 100 of war.

quote:

---

Originally posted by irishsniper:
Hitler was a great military leader after that assination attempt he got a bit mentally unstable. And that head of the air force the luffwaga (sp) was a yes man telling hitler what he wanted to hear and then i back fired on hitler

---

He slept in on the Normandy invasion, ordered General Paulus to stay at Stalingrad even when there was no chance of taking the city, And even went so far as promoting him to Field Marshal, knowing that no German Field Marshal in history surrendered, had an absurd obsession with bombers even when Germany's only hope was Air Defense, And forced the continued production of Mauser Rifles even when the first assualt rifle would have either prolonged the war and might have ended on more favorable terms.

He may have rebuilt the German economy and military, but he was NOT a great general.

Hitler was a great military leader on the grounds that he fought a war on 4 fronts and nearly and should have won.

He fought I world war one and got a medal for doing so. He knew what he was at and he knew that the allies would invaded in Europe or from north Africa. His only real mistake in that invasion was that he sent bulk of his forces to North Africa to fend of the invasion there.

His biggest mistake was that he attacked Russia too soon and pushed to far to fast and then was to weak to push on. And the harsh winter killed of all hope of victory in the east.

He had the entire world of the smartest scientist and decided to get technology on his side with the jet engine, the atom bomb and the assault rifle.

If he had succeed with this he would have being unstoppable and he wouldn�t have invaded the UK or America because in his diaries he said he wanted Britain and the USA allies

Wasn't Russia founded by Scandinavians?

And Hitler didn't want to conquer[i] Russia, he wanted to [i]colonize it.

It was Italy's fault.

quote:

---

Originally posted by irishsniper:


His biggest mistake was that he attacked Russia too soon and pushed to far to fast and then was to weak to push on. And the harsh winter killed of all hope of victory in the east.

He had the entire world of the smartest scientist and decided to get technology on his side with the jet engine, the atom bomb and the assault rifle.

---

i agree he had incrediable technology. they had a "super cannon" which was huge and angled properly so that it could be fired i think over 50 miles away maybe more. the only draw back was it could only be shot once and then had to be rebuilt. it fired so high that it reached the atomoshperic limits travling in space for a period of time, then rentering the atomshpere. this allowed it to cover great distances.

and if the nazis empire had won there would be very little disease and the world would be so technologically advance becuase of hitler love of technology and the human testing on the jews.

He would have cured cancer in about 10 years. Reports show he had started this research and would have a cure in ten years!!!!!!!!!!

I dont think he loved technology. What are you talking about? Nazis were in general a Green kinda party that would have rather phased technology out of everyday life. Technology would be applied for warfare and to control the lesser racial element laborers. The Germanic aristocrats would not apply as much technology on an everyday basis as we do.

since when did Hitler start loving technology? The first law the Nazis passed was the banning of vivisection, not really the actions of someone who loves technology.

Hitler a great leader!? You are 'avin' a larf, mate. The brits were on the brink of surrender at Dunkirk, yet he let them escape. Attacking Russia was insane, and not oly did he attack Russia, he did it in the winter for fucks sake.

Anybody can sort out an economy by going to war and building too many roads.

Hitler in WW1? He was a glorified postman.

What did i say about the Jews??

Anyway, some interesting points have been raised, most of them covered here beofre but here goes.

The Russians managed to push back the russians after Moscow due to the fact that Stalin had held his reserves back in Siberia. These were the same troops that had fought the Japanese years earlier. There is too much to discuss concerning Russia, but one more point is that russia only managed to keep the steamroller on the Germans is down to the fact the Americans and British continued to supply arms and ammunition and tanks.

This was so helpful that the russian government recently decided to give medals to all the brits who sailed to Russia against the odds to supply them.

The germans didn't invade Britain because they lost air supperiority early in the phoney war. The fleet attacking would have been spotted miles out and attacked, in fact they wouldn't have been able to assemble because the British air fleets would have stopped it.

Regarding Dunkirk, the germans didn't think the British could get out of France so quickly. It was only due to factors outside reasonable thinking that they actually did get them off the beach.

Hmmm, 6 million dead, i remember something about if there are so many holocaust victims, who did Hitler actually kill?

All well and good. We all agree that Germany should have won and that we all lost when they lost.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SATURNROCKETX:
All well and good. We all agree that Germany should have won and that we all lost when they lost.

---

And what makes you think they would have spared your life just because you are a wannabe Hiterite?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lazy Bastard:
Hitler in WW1? He was a glorified postman.

---

Hitler is far from my idea of a fine human being. However, I do believe in giving credit where credit is due.

Yes, because his duties as a dispatch runner in WWI would technically qualify him as a "glorified postman", this is a cheap propaganda diminuation of Hitler's personal courage in battle. Remember, these dispatch runners were a high priority target on both sides simply because taking one of these guys out could and did distrupt the command structure. Hitler survived four years in the trenches, no small feat for that war. He was also awarded the Iron Cross, 2nd Class...a pretty heavy duty hero badge.

I fully agree that Hitler's 'ability' to lead the German Army during WWII is non-existant, but personally, Hitler was no coward.

Nox

Fair enough, I stand corrected.

quote:

---

Originally posted by VeneFrigus:
Wasn't Russia founded by Scandinavians?

And Hitler didn't want to conquer[i] Russia, he wanted to [i]colonize it.

---

No Russia was founded By Slavs and will always be Slavic. Kievian Russ and Novgorod was first led by Rurik(a Varagian). after two generations it was all slavic kings who rulled. VeneFrigus what do you mean by colonize it??? are you saying we are subhuman barbarians just like your hero Hitler once said???

Germany should not have won. English sovereignity takes precedence.

Regarding technology, the Germans did advance it substantially. The Apollo missions were based on German rocketry.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lazy Bastard:
Fair enough, I stand corrected.

---

Thats right.

quote:

---

Originally posted by hype_jv:

the thing i dont get is why couldn't the germans land troops on england. they had uboats going almost in striking distance of america. surely they could have invaded them. if anyone knows i would really like to know.

---

The reason why Hitler did not attempt to cross the English Channel (an amphibious assault) was because of the great difficulty in conducting amphibious operations against an adversary that can mount a strong defence. Also do not forget that England has a relatively small land mass which makes it easier to concentrate force on particular points. Israel demonstrated this concept in 1973, and while the technology is different, the principal applies.

Also see John Mearsheimer, especially where he talks about the "stoppage power of water" as it significantly limits the number of troops and equipment that can be employed against an enemy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by hype_jv:

the thing i dont get is why couldn't the germans land troops on england. they had uboats going almost in striking distance of america. surely they could have invaded them. if anyone knows i would really like to know.

---

Hmm I answered this but it did not show up. I am new, as you can tell.

There is a book by John Mearsheimer where he explains how water limits the ability of projecting power.

Also England was then a relatively small (in size) "great" power and hence can concentrate force on certain points (see Israel in 1973).

I think if the Germans tried to land on England they would have been sent home.

Small point:

My peanut brain seems to remember reading that the Wehrmacht did invade a couple of the small channel islets.

Nox

I assume that you mean the channel islands.

The channel islands are hardly a good example of an island fortress. Not to mention the fact that the Feudal government basically gave the islands over to the Nazis.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kookaburra:
Hmm I answered this but it did not show up. I am new, as you can tell.

There is a book by John Mearsheimer where he explains how water limits the ability of projecting power.

Also England was then a relatively small (in size) "great" power and hence can concentrate force on certain points (see Israel in 1973).

I think if the Germans tried to land on England they would have been sent home.

---

thanks, but it still seems to me that they could have. they should have attacked and landed troops on england before engaging russia.

"they should have attacked and landed troops on england"

In order to invade Britain Hitler need air superiority over the English Channel. Which is why he started the Battle of Britain, the fight for air superiority. Hitler lost, very badly, thanks to the dedication of the RAF and some stupid tactical errors, eg changing the focus of the bombing campaign from RAF airfields to cities.

Oh and have you ever been across the English Channel, it's not the most ideal strech of water for a huge amphibious assult for to travel over, as demonstrated by the huge numbers of troops lost sea on D-Day.

Hitler done well to in the naval front with the fact that he stuck to the treaty and only had a few "pocket" battleships weighing no more than 10,000 ton and 46 u boats.and i earlier stressed that hitler was decorated for his achivements in WW1.

By the way NOX this topic is doing well

quote:

---

Originally posted by irishsniper:
By the way NOX this topic is doing well

---

True. The only thing you need to do in the future is to provide a little more substance in the opening post. Sometimes, what is in the brain (as far as meaning) doesn't make it to the page. I'm sure that your opening remarks had far more meaning than what appeared.

Nox

I know it was my first post and i wasnt sure what to do

I could talk all day about germany, hitler, war and weapons. I am knwon throughtout my school for it.

Not bad for a 17 year old dumb ass from ireland is it!!!!!!!!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by irishsniper:
Not bad for a 17 year old dumb ass from ireland is it!!!!!!!!!

---

Not bad for a 17 year old from anywhere. Dumb ass... those are your words not mine. Although I personally would use different adjectives, adverbs, and nouns, the concept you describe (dumb ass) applies to several idiots that post here.

Nox

>>>Hitler done well to in the naval front with the fact that he stuck to the treaty and only had a few "pocket" battleships weighing no more than 10,000 ton and 46 u boats<<<

No, There were bigger, faster, and more powerful Battlewagons that Hitler had, There was the Bismark, Tirpitz, Scharnhorst, Gneisnau(spelling) and he had more then 46 U-Boats when the war broke out.

I could go on about Hitler's Navy. He had alot more then most think that he did.

>>>Oh and have you ever been across the English Channel, it's not the most ideal strech of water for a huge amphibious assult for to travel over, as demonstrated by the huge numbers of troops lost sea on D-Day<<<

It doesn't matter whether the stretch of water is big or small, what matters is what is in the air, and on the sea. In D-Day, they had much air and sea cover.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Boo:


It doesn't matter whether the stretch of water is big or small, what matters is what is in the air, and on the sea. In D-Day, they had much air and sea cover.

---

Exactly, you need that air superiority, combined with naval forces. Japan was a good example of that (the US didn't land on Honshu but they were preparing to). As was Normandy (as you say).

hitler when he invaded poland and thus starting war had two things wrong with his army.

his navy was underdeveloped and he did not have the capablities to fight a long war

plus in the war records book it says that hitler had 46 u boats and the few battleships he had where no more than 10,000 tons. but as the war progreesed he had a few brutes is rite

quote:

---

Originally posted by ShadowFist:
The theft of freedom was wrong, however I belive the theroy of eugenics is correct, if it can be used on horses and dogs, it should work for humans

---

I suppose it would depend on whether you were forcibly sterilised because of a supposedly 'inferior' genetic trait

quote:

---

They were not a factor on the battlefield at all.

---

Hmm... Wouldn't it have increased Germany's military strength, if he'd utilised such a significant proportion of the population in the war...? or maybe not.

Or maybe he really DID need a scapegoat to focus the nation's attention on...

What really shits me is high school history in Australia, especially regarding WW1 and WW2, is unashamedly one-sided.

[This message has been edited by TigerJK (edited 10-12-2002).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TigerJK:
What really shits me is high school history in Australia, especially regarding WW1 and WW2, is unashamedly one-sided.

---

Your observation is not limited to Oz (or any other country). Today, the little Japanese kids can't understand how the Imperial Japanese Army/Navy/Air Force never lost a battle but managed to lose the war. Such is nationalism.

Nox

i state once again that hitler was a brillaint leader of the army beacuse of his assault on frnace and other western europen countries.

His attack on france against a larger force and Hitler himself chhose this way against all his advisors.

He changed the way war was fought and this beat of all opposition. His tactic of a coloumn of 10 high speed panzers and glider troops and using his air force as artillary quickly and with ease overwhelmed the allies.

Only Hitler was afriad of spreading his forces to thin he called for a 48 halt and this allowed the british forces to evacuate, and only for this engalnds army would have being destoryed.

Hitler as i said before never wanted to take over england and thus offered peace to england and said something like "i dont want to see a empire destoryed" it was refused and hitler started on britain with air power and he hoped this alone would force england to surrender. He didnt want a sea assualt because his naval fleet was greatly under powered.

In the battle of britain it was bad luck and a stupid general that lost them that battle. And the fact that england cracked evry german code they had.

and Hitler success in Yugolsavia (sp) and greece also shows his skill as a leader and military mastermind.

quote:

---

Originally posted by irishsniper:
and Hitler success in Yugolsavia (sp) and greece also shows his skill as a leader and military mastermind.

---

I question your use of the phrase 'success in Yugoslavia'. I see the Yugoslavia as an ordeal. Hitler won a tactical victory in taking over the country. However, strategically, he brought Tito firmly into the Yugoslav scene and created a forum for unity not seen in that region either before or since. The partisan war Tito unleashed was exceedingly costly for the Third Reich.

I'm not as well read on the Greek campaign so I'll not comment on that.

Nox

sorry to butt in, since you are talking about Yugo and WW2 then lets all remember Jasenovac. 700,000 serbs were killed by tito's brood the Croats. Nazi puppets. Lets not forget.

Da "blitz"

"operation punishment"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zheka:
700,000 serbs were killed by tito's brood the Croats. Nazi puppets. Lets not forget.

---

I thought Tito was a Serb.

Nox

The question is: how much of Germany's economic success during the 1930s and ingenious military tactics were directly attributable to Hitler, and how many of these successes were due to the inspired planning and attention to detail of others in the Nazi regime? Some will argue that Himmler was mainly to blame for the implementation of Nazi racial policy and Hitler's role in this was minimal; surely it is also fair to say that Hitler is sometimes given too much credit for the industrial rebuilding, the moulding of the Wehrmacht into arguably the greatest fighting force ever seen, and the use of Blitzkrieg tactics to devastating effect on the Western front.

Most of the blame for the bad decisions of the German's can be placed upon Hitler's shoulders - the switch from attacking the RAF to attacking London, the disastrous failures and refusal to withdraw on the Eastern Front. Hitler's undoubted personal charisma and magnificent oratory powers, and his single-handed transformation of the fledgling German Workers' Party into the Reichstag's largest party show the characteristics of a great leader. But his decision making during the war was often irrational, bordering on the whimsical - a man so far-removed from reality that he continued to draw up architectural masterplans for the Reich as Soviet tanks rolled into Germany.

Edit: spelling

[This message has been edited by FuckOffandDie (edited 10-13-2002).]

Usually when discussing world leaders we mean not only them individually, but their advisors. For example, when speaking of Bush's policy, we're also talking about his advisors.

That's a poor analogy Vene, Bush's actions are more the result of his puppetmasters, than his advisors. Hitler, right, wrong or indifferent, was at least his own man, in regards to the general direction, he was taking Germany.
___

I agree w/ FOAD, in that he became withdrawn from reality. And, the resource draining Russian front, logistically affected all other concurrent actions.

are you sure Nox? he was Born a Roman Catholic in Croatia. Serbs are Orthodox.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zheka:
are you sure Nox? he was Born a Roman Catholic in Croatia. Serbs are Orthodox.

---

No I'm not. Thanks for the info.

Nox

Didn't Tito (unlike most Croats) oppose Hitler?

Yes it is. But I think my point is still valid. You could subsitute Bush with his father, FDR, or even Kaiser William II.

>>>His attack on france against a larger force and Hitler himself chhose this way against all his advisors.<<<

What kind of accomplishmentment is this? Practically any country can defeat France

Tito fought in red revolution in Saint Petersburg. though he did fight with Red partizan against Ustasa. He deserves credit for that. i will try to find some info on him.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Boo:
>>>Hitler done well to in the naval front with the fact that he stuck to the treaty and only had a few "pocket" battleships weighing no more than 10,000 ton and 46 u boats<<<

No, There were bigger, faster, and more powerful Battlewagons that Hitler had, There was the Bismark, Tirpitz, Scharnhorst, Gneisnau(spelling) and he had more then 46 U-Boats when the war broke out.

I could go on about Hitler's Navy. He had alot more then most think that he did.

---

I'll give you the Scharnhorst and the Gneisenau, although they were only just about ready when the war officially started, but the Bismarck and Tirpitz were only operational around 1940, the Tirpitz slightly later than that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by preying mantis:
I'll give you the Scharnhorst and the Gneisenau, although they were only just about ready when the war officially started, but the Bismarck and Tirpitz were only operational around 1940, the Tirpitz slightly later than that.

---

And they weren't even actually "battleships" as I understand the definition. Including his pocket battleships.

hey i thought we were talking about if the nazis had the right idea?if we look at the melting pot of identities and mongrel races that are now on display in europe right now then i think it speaks volumes about hitlers vision of the future....though i disagree about certain aspects of his methods he bought his country from the brink of ruin if not ruin itself to a roaring tiger...and as for the figure of 6 million...........really ?

Its hard to catagrise them because the Germans had several restriction and built their ships around those therefore basically having their own catagories.

Germans favoured protection whereas the British favoured speed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sikhbutnoturban:
hey i thought we were talking about if the nazis had the right idea?if we look at the melting pot of identities and mongrel races that are now on display in europe right now then i think it speaks volumes about hitlers vision of the future....though i disagree about certain aspects of his methods he bought his country from the brink of ruin if not ruin itself to a roaring tiger...and as for the figure of 6 million...........really ?

---

And i stated exactly what i thought in the third or fourth post of this thread. No one seems to have disagreed much though.

So i'll assume that they did have the right idea.

"No one seems to have disagreed much though.

So i'll assume that they did have the right idea."

I'll disagree. The Nazis had the wrong idea. By trying to stop the mixing of cultures in order to "save" their culture they would actually destroyed their culture. Cultures need to mix to grow and survive, if they don't they become stagnated and die. Look at Britain, Britain has mixed culture throughout it's history, Celtic, Roman, Norman, Saxon, etc, etc, Britain became the most powerful country on earth.

Look at India. India had a really diverse culture. India is a hellhole.

"Look at India. India had a really diverse culture. India is a hellhole."

There are alot of reasons why a country is poor, culture is just one of them. My point was about the survival of culture. It needs to mix with others. Even more so now than ever before. If culture's don't mix they die.

Los Angeles is very diverse, and it's a hellhole. Before it became "diversified", it was a nice place to live with a tiny fraction of the crime it has now. The same can be said for many major cities with high immigration rates.

quote:

---

The Nazis had the wrong idea. By trying to stop the mixing of cultures in order to "save" their culture they would actually destroyed their culture.

---

Did you even ponder reality? Germany lost a World War. It had nothing to do with how Germany "tried to stop the mixing of cultures". Their culture isn't destroyed, either. It's more intact than in Little Mexico, err.. California.

I'm talking about the actual mixing of cultures. In Los Angles and places like it, culures don't mix, they are separated into differant communities.

"Did you even ponder reality? Germany lost a World War. It had nothing to do with how Germany "tried to stop the mixing of cultures". Their culture isn't destroyed, either. It's more intact than in Little Mexico, err.. California."

Yes, Germany lost the war, and therefore could not be successful in stopping their culture mixing witn others.

OK so i guess the majority of us agree that flawed as it was certain aspects of nazi ideology were spot on.....now was it the killing on jews that we liked or the way the german war machine roared on or what ? and as for india being a poor culture i lay particular blame to the "great" british people who over centuries looted and terrorised other countries and proclaimed them as their own? oh isnt that what the nazis did ?

LB, I want you to explain how exactly the mixing of cultures is needed for cultures to survive. That statement seems to contradict itself - You are saying that a culture needs to be overrun by other cultures, or the culture will die. However, when a culture is overrun by others, it dies anyway and becomes something else. When cultures clash, they don't just mix into a happy medium. One culture dominates, or total clashes occur divided upon ethnic/religious lines. Cultures only survive by maintaining integrity.

Do you think Amish culture will only survive if they import a bunch of Japanese cityfolk into their communities?

quote:

---

Originally posted by sikhbutnoturban:
oh isnt that what the nazis did ?

---

sikh,

Interesting analogy. I have to think about this one.

Nox

nox im new to this but are you being sarcastic or serious ?im all for debate

quote:

---

Originally posted by sikhbutnoturban:
nox im new to this but are you being sarcastic or serious ?im all for debate

---

Totally and completely serious. And if you're right (my first impression is that you are) there is nothing to debate.

Nox

"LB, I want you to explain how exactly the mixing of cultures is needed for cultures to survive."

Culture is not a static thing. It evolves. Cultures that don't evolve, stagnate and die. Internal forces alone are not enough to keep a culture evolving, it needs outside influences. The outside influences come from other cultures.

"You are saying that a culture needs to be overrun by other cultures, or the culture will die. However, when a culture is overrun by others, it dies anyway and becomes something else."

No I'm not. I'm saying that cultures need to mix. Not be overrun.

"When cultures clash, they don't just mix into a happy medium. One culture dominates, or total clashes occur divided upon ethnic/religious lines."

Yes, they don't mix together straight away in a happy medium, it takes time.

When cultures mix, aspects of those cultures are lost.

When cultures develop, they grow stronger.

A culture can internally develop. Take for example Ancient Sumeria. It was surrounded by deserts, of which the only inhabitants were barbaric Akkadians, without any real culture. Sumer kept developing right up until those barbarians conquered it.

Cultures never truly stagnate. They're either developing or decaying. Often the source of the decay is external contamination.

"When cultures mix, aspects of those cultures are lost."

...and new aspects are created. When was the last time you heard somebody say "Thou" in everyday speach?

"A culture can internally develop."

But, not very successfully, and not for very long.

"Cultures never truly stagnate. They're either developing or decaying."

Ok, cultures may never TRULY stagnate, but they can come to a point where they are developing so slowy, they might as well have stagnated.

Cultures decay when new ideas are spread that weaken the old convictions, usually the result of an alien culture in continued contact with a native one. If the early colonists had as large numbers of neighbors Imperial Japanese people, they would not have been against the king strongly enough to rebel. There would always be a million nay-sayers who cite how they think their Japanese neighbors had their shit worked out. If Nazi Germany survived but in every fourth household was a hippie commune, the youth would not scramble to become good Hitler Youths.

>>>>But, not very successfully, and not for very long.<<<<

That is stupid.

>>>>Ok, cultures may never TRULY stagnate, but they can come to a point where they are developing so slowy, they might as well have stagnated.<<<<<


Why does a culture have to constantly change to fit your model of survivability? The culture of Medieval Europe lasted for 800 years just fine, and finally fell because of.....

...

other cultural outlooks.

Mixing with other people similar to yourself is heathy, such as the Britons.

True. But Jews and Germans are about as similar as humans and demons.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spirit of '22:
True. But Jews and Germans are about as similar as humans and demons.

---

Can't say as I totally agree with this. Remember, Adolf had to have a special session to figure out the definition of what blood mix constituted whether one was a Jew or not. If my memory is correct, if you only had one grandparent who was Jewish, you were not a Jew, but if you had two or more Jewish grandparents, then you were a Jew (Someone needs to help me on this). In any event, there were specific critereon established because of the intermixed of Aryan/Jewish blood through the centuries (not to mention conversions).

As a sidelight, our buddy Louis Farrakkan has the same problem in identifying blackness.

Nox

Modern Jews are usually the same as the populaces of the countries they're from, physiologically. I've seen Jews with blonde hair, medium-brown hair, and red hair.

And slow growth is a viable plan. The US achieved it's economic power by constant slow growth.

Lingual evolution is minute, and your particular example involved internal evolution. All the same, I'd rather be speaking Anglo-Saxon than modern English.

I agree with Defiant on his opinion of your comment.

>>>>Can't say as I totally agree with this. Remember, Adolf had to have a special session to figure out the definition of what blood mix constituted whether one was a Jew or not.<<<<

Only in cases of mixture. Its not like they looked at an archetypical Jew and couldnt figure whether to group him with the jews or the germans.

>>>> If my memory is correct, if you only had one grandparent who was Jewish, you were not a Jew, but if you had two or more Jewish grandparents, then you were a Jew (Someone needs to help me on this).<<<<<

this scale was made possible by the fact that a plain ol Jew is easily identifiable, as is a plain ol German.

But that was back in the days where you kept to your own and it was rare to mix the bloods.

These days it almost cool to be a race mixer.

original post was about the nazis being right and i see the jewish issue has been bought up again....allies didnt get into a world war to help their suffering jewish friends....churchill et all knew full well the purpose and location of many of the major concentration camps for nigh on 2 years but did nothing....if we take the jews out of the equation then all u have is a germany that was expanding its borders and attempting to colonise europe and maybe beyond....this is what "great" britain have done over centuries.....australia? jamaica? india?what right did "great" britain have to take these countries as their own ?seems kinda hypocritical i say.....dont do as i do but do as i say.....and i think the figure of 6 million also includes gypsies, jehovah witnesses and homosexuals
also i cant see anything wrong with wanting to keep a race "pure

quote:

---

Originally posted by sikhbutnoturban:
churchill et all knew full well the purpose and location of many of the major concentration camps for nigh on 2 years but did nothing

---

This is a true statement. I am curious: Just what were the Allies supposed to do? They were already at war, and they eventually did invade and 'liberate' the camps.

I will use but one small example, Dachau (located near Munich, Bavaria). Assuming Eisenhower, et al were actually aware of what was going on in those camps (and something tells me they really did): What were they supposed to do to stop it? Munich is a long way from the coast. Were they supposed to have a paratrooper drop? What about the Luftwaffe? Were those boys going to sit around and let an airborne armada deposit soldiers on German soil uncontested? I think not. Was the Red Cross going to stop anything? I think not. Could the Pope stop anything? I think not. At this point: Could the German people stop anything that Hitler and the Nazi thugs were doing? I think not. And before you do-gooders start jumping up and down, remember, by this point in the war, the 'Big Three' (Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin) had already decided upon Germany's 'unconditional' surrender. Now if you are the average German citizen at this point in history, you are painfully aware of what got shoved down Germany's throat after WWI by the Allies, and that was a negotiated peace. Now these same benevolent Christians (some, not all) want you to give them a blank check (unconditional surrender) for the latest conflagration. No way. So we come back to the initial question: Just what was anyone to do about the concentration camps (whether they knew what was happening or not)?

I will not jump into the frey about the numbers...I tend to agree with Mouse on that issue. But regardless of the numbers and/or ethnicity/nationality of the victims, I submit, that there was little anyone (other than Adolf himself) could do to stop the carnage in those camps. Do I like that answer? No. But unfortunately, that is a cold, hard reality.

Nox

Churchill actually wanted to bomb the camps, and the transit around them, but FDR said he had better things to do, and thought it would just end up killing the jews in them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by VeneFrigus:
Churchill actually wanted to bomb the camps, and the transit around them, but FDR said he had better things to do, and thought it would just end up killing the jews in them.

---

And they would, those days bomb runs were done at 10-20,000 feet, long before modern technology existed to even place unguided bombs on target.

quote:

---

Originally posted by irishsniper:
The nazi did the get the idea right?

---

It�s interesting that a subject that starts out as quoted, turns out to be mostly about Hitler and his (non)brilliance as a military leader at war.

But what was the Nazi "idea" behind it all?!
What was their "hidden agenda"?!

Funny thing is, that if you look at what�s happening in Europe right now, you see a main part of "the Nazi idea" being worked out and fullfilled...

The Thule society and their forerunners, and other affiliated quasi Masonic groups, had their hearts set on reviving The Holy Roman Empire of The German Nation (I�m not sure that�s the right name for it in English, but I hope you understand). The Habsburgs who had lost that throne wanted it back, and they were among the conspirators.

It was those guys who started the Nazi party, and decided that the agitator Adolf Hitler was the perfect "leader". Franz von Papen, one of the conspirators, who also "happened" to be a Knight of Malta, was the man who persuaded President von Hindenburg to make Hitler the Chancellor of Germany. At that point, and for a long while after, Hitler was far from being the leader, even if he officially had that position. But that�s another story...

The next Nazi "idea" we might consider, is the question of the Jews (obligatory, so we might as well do it sooner than later). That question was considered a problem all over Europe, and the Nazi�s original plan was not the death camps. The leaders of the SS worked together with the Zionists (!) on the, now fullfilled, plan to give the Jews Israel as their own country. The fact that the Habsburgs then, and still, hold the title Emperor of Jerusalem, has probably got to do with it all, as the Nazi version of Israel most likely would have become a part of the new empire - The Third Reich, if you heard about it?!

Others within the Nazi leadership were against the idea of Israel, and Hitler�s own agenda of revenge on the Jews started to take over, as Hitler got more and more real power within the party.

As many already know, there were also a lot of occultism going on. The Thule society was so called because Ultima Thule (where I come from, approximately) was by many occultists considered to have been the real Atlantis. Most of these muddled ideas didn�t exactly help, when the Third Reich was supposed to be built.

The Nazi "idea" to keep Germans a clean "Aryan" race, was not wholy a Nazi idea. From the latter part of the 19th century, scientists had worked in different ways on those ideas. The Thule guys and the Nazis added their occultism and esoteric knowledge. People from the SS went to India and Tibet, to search for proof of the (mythological) Aryans, who invaded India from the north a long time ago. The north European and Teutonic people were supposedly their descendents (and descendents of the Atlanteans).

On another level, the ideas of the Swedish scientists Alva and Gunnar Myrdal, was significant in what is now considered Nazi ideas about race.

Yes, this comes closer and closer to getting moved from here to Fringe, but it was part of the Nazi "ideas" and it had a significant impact on what they were doing.

At one point or another, the Habsburgs must have had a fall out with the Nazi�s, because when the Nazis finally went to war, Hitler immediately went to Vienna and picked up the Spear of Longinus, belonging to the Habsburgs up until then, and now again. A special branch of the SS also searched the Balkans and southern France in particular, and verywhere else, after all the other christian relics, and all the "missing papers" from the Cathars and others. Something the Habsburgs had been doing for a long time, and still do I guess...

Shortened like this it becomes confusing, and even more so if you read some books about it. But all this seemingly gibberish had a lot to do with who the Nazis were and why they did what they did...

As we all know, their plans failed. But not long after the war, Otto von Habsburg formed the League for the United States of Europe. This time he kept a strict lobbying agenda, and little by little what is now the European Union was formed. Otto himself is now well past 80 years of age, and holds an ordinary, independent seat in the European parliament. Funny thing is that most of the people sitting around him don�t have a clue he�s their actual boss!

Europe is now also closing it�s borders, more and more, exactly as the Nazis planned to do, had they come that far.

The Nazis failed to overthrow the Communists, wich was also on their agenda, but in the late 1980ies, Otto von Habsburg, the Vatican and Opus Dei had a big part in the fall of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Block.

I don�t know if the Nazis had the right ideas, but I do know that some of their main ideas have come true today, and are considered as positive developement. But, then again, most of it wasn�t Nazi ideas in teh first place...

Ewige Blumenkraft! FoxLeonard

Edit: The mistakes Spirit points out in his post below, plus that I had happened to call the European Union by the name "the European Community". FoxLeonard

[This message has been edited by FoxLeonard (edited 10-20-2002).]

[This message has been edited by FoxLeonard (edited 10-20-2002).]

Fox,

Another superior and highly informative post. Thank you.

I am not very familiar with the organization of the EU and did not know either this or that independent seats existed. Would you please enlighten me further? Also, are these seats hereditary?

quote:

---

Originally posted by FoxLeonard:
Otto himself is now well past 80 years of age, and holds an ordinary, independent seat in the European parliament.

---

Nox

The European Parliament is the lowest in the hierearchy and have elected politicians of all colours, from all the member countries. In the parliament they are put together with their political friends, into blocks; the Socialist block, the Green block, and so on. But some doesn�t fit into any block, for various reasons, like having a fall out with their party, and choosing to keep their seat. Those people are independent from the blocks, and put together in the independent "block".

So the seats are certainly not inherited, and I don�t have a clue how Otto von Habsburg managed to be elected into the parliament.

But it�s funny that he chooses to hold an ordinary seat in what is only advisors to the real European "government": the European Counsel and the board of the Ministers (once again I�m unsure about the names in English here). and it�s both funny and scary, that most people around him don�t have a clue who he really is.

I hope this is some of what you wondered about, Nox, and thank�s for the kind remarks. I�m doing my best, as the saying goes... Wiecny kwiat wtadza! FoxLeonard

[This message has been edited by FoxLeonard (edited 10-20-2002).]

>>>>>The Nazi "idea" to keep Germans a clean "Aryan" race, was not wholy a Nazi idea. From the latter part of the 19th century, scientists had worked in different ways on those ideas. The Thule guys and the Nazis added their occultism and esoteric knowledge. People from the SS went to India and Tibet, to search for proof of the (mythological) Aryans,<<<<<

There is nothing mythological about them...

>>>>> who supposedly invaded India from the north a long time ago.<<<<<

Did invade India...

>>>>> the north European and Teutonic people were supposedly their ancestors (and ancestors of the Atlanteans).<<<<

Descendents.

Yes, Spirit! Of course I meant descendents and not ancestors. I can only blame the fact that English is not my first language. I especially tend to stumble when my mind is on the subject and not on the words; when I try to think, with various results...

What I meant by writing "(mythological) Aryans" is that there IS a debate, among historians etc., about the truth about the Aryans. The people who go by that name undoubtedly existed.

They also DID come down from the north, into what now is India, so I don�t have a clue what the word "supposedly" came from. Perhaps I thought about the fact that the way it happened is debated; part of what is by some scholars considered myth, if not in whole, so in part.

Thanks for keeping an eye on my scribblings, Spirit!

FoxLeonard

For clarity I have now done corrections in my earlier post, according to some of what you point out, even if it can make your post above, and this one look confusing.


[This message has been edited by FoxLeonard (edited 10-20-2002).]

The Nazi ideas about Race are supported by the work of Mendel. Mendellian science is used today in all genetic programs and sciences. Why? Because Mendellian theory is reality. Mendel is Nazi as Nazi is Mendel and there is no way to the future without Mendel.

Damn it. If Otto van Hapsburg supports the EU I suppose I must also.

But if I recall correctly, Hitler was anti-Hapsburg. I remember him talking about the Slavicization of the Austrian monarchy as reason for it's removal.

Yes, I guess Hitler was anti-Habsburg. At least something happened that made the Habsburgs withdraw from the conspiracy, or from the Nazi part of it, while Hitler went to Vienna to pick up the Spear of Longinus, then in Habsburg�s possesion and supposedly "protecting" them. As I also mentioned above, a special branch of the SS started searching for the other relics and artefacts that the Habsburgs (among others) had been searching, for hundreds of years. As far as I can understand the SS didn�t do this just to stop the Habsburgs from getting their hands on this stuff, but also because at least some of the esoteric scholars among the Nazis believed in the power of the artifacts. The search also involved a lot of documents, probably relating to the complex issues that are described in Holy Blood, Holy Grail, by Baigenth et al.

And Otto von Habsburg is not exactly a "supporter" of the EU. He is more it�s true inventor or originator.

But, what I don�t understand is why you, VeneFrigus, would have to support the EU only because of Otto?!

Ewige Blumenkraft! FoxLeonard

Oh, I've been going around lately and telling people to be loyal Austrians, and support the Hapsburgs, and all that.

Mein Kampf was written before the Nazi party ever amounted to anything. So it didn't come from a falling out, but it may have been written before they ever became allies.

I get the Ewige Blumenkraft, but what's the Wiecny kwiat wtadza?

VeneFrigus

You are correct about Mein Kampf, so there was no fall out needed. But the Habsburgs did neverhteless leave the conspiracy shortly before the outbreak of the war, and most probably because of a disagreement with Hitler, who by then had power of his own, as we all know.

I guess the Habsburgs didn�t read Mein Kampf before going along with the idea to "employ" Adolf. Also, and more importantly, it was not only a Habsburgian conspiracy, so they couldn�t decide everything for their own good.

As for your other question: It�s the same thing! And you�re the first one to ask, amazingly enough (at a place like totse).

Sero venientibus ossa! FoxLeonard

quote:

---

Originally posted by VeneFrigus:
Damn it. If Otto van Hapsburg supports the EU I suppose I must also.

But if I recall correctly, Hitler was anti-Hapsburg. I remember him talking about the Slavicization of the Austrian monarchy as reason for it's removal.

---

I thought Hungarians weren't slavs, but magyars.

They are.

But there are Slavs in part of Austria.

quote:

---

Originally posted by anarchy720:
any one who agrees with the nazis is a fucking idiot you see first of all what the fuck is killing 6 million jews going to do decrease the population and thats just about all it will do. you see im an athies but still that doesnt mean any thing is wrong with being a jew. the only thing that seperates jews and christians is the fact that jews didnt think jesus was the prophet but to tell you the truth all religion is bullshit evolution has no unanswered questions.

---

faggot. im atheist too, but i dont go around asserting my opinions like they're the supreme truth. your post was ok, until the last part of your last sentence that went something like this "but to tell you the truth all religion is bullshit evolution has no unanswered questions" evolution does have unanswered questions. how did the universe begin? the big bang? just a theory my friend.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SenorJesucristo:
im atheist too

---

An atheist with a Screen Name like yours...hmmm.

Nox

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nox:
An atheist with a Screen Name like yours...hmmm.

Nox

---

Yep! Only an atheist would use it. To a christian it would be heresy to call oneself by that name...

FoxLeonard

quote:

---

Originally posted by irishsniper:
Hitler was a great military leader on the grounds that he fought a war on 4 fronts and nearly and should have won.(four fronts? Wetern Front, Eastern front and Italia/African front - wheres the fourth?)

He fought I world war one and got a medal for doing so. (As a corporal and got the Iron cross 2nd class, as did some millions of other cannon fodder)

He knew what he was at and he knew that the allies would invaded in Europe or from north Africa. His only real mistake in that invasion was that he sent bulk of his forces to North Africa to fend of the invasion there. ( Rubbish - He thought the invasion would be at Normandy, then had a brain storm and decided that it would be Pas De Calaise - The Germans were out of Africa by 1944)

His biggest mistake was that he attacked Russia too soon and pushed to far to fast and then was to weak to push on. And the harsh winter killed of all hope of victory in the east. (True enough, assisted by appalling decisions made by OKW and Der Fuehrer, no strategic bombers, SS atrocities against people who would otherwise have helped his cause, etc etc)

He had the entire world of the smartest scientist and decided to get technology on his side with the jet engine (?), the atom bomb ( Rubbish again) and the assault rifle (Rubbish - the Sturm Gewehr 44 was in production by late 44, but was largely issued to Waffen SS and Valshirmjaeger units.)

If he had succeed with this he would have being unstoppable and he wouldn�t have invaded the UK or America because in his diaries he said he wanted Britain and the USA allies

---

My god, what are they teaching in Irish schools these days?

HA !i didnt want to knock sniper buti really did think he was mis informed but i didnt have the nerve to say it ...but this is the diluted history that our children now learn...i find my mind has been educated by the use of this site and i hope sniper will learn much more from ppl with real knowledge rather than standard text books

Please feel free to point out the inaccuracies you self. You never know, you may not be the genius you thought you were.

point 1 again - my mind has been educated
point 2 again - ppl with real knowledge from this site
apology if it came across as im the one with the knowledge, far from it, this site (again) has educated me
maybe u read it the wrong way mantis?

I doubt he learned that in school, even in Ireland.