Re: May 1933: Hitler Abolishes Unions

[Bret Cahill]

> http://newsjunkiepost.com/2011/02/20/may-1933-hitler-abolishes-unions/
>
> On May 2nd, 1933, the day after Labor day, Nazi groups occupied union
> halls and labor leaders were arrested.  
>
> Trade Unions were outlawed by Adolf Hitler, while collective
> bargaining and the right to strike was abolished.  
>
> This was the beginning of a consolidation of power by the fascist
> regime which systematically wiped out all opposition groups, starting
> with unions, liberals, socialists, and communists using Himmler s
> state police.
>
> Fast forward to America today, particularly Wisconsin.  
>
> Governor Walker and the Republican/Tea Party members of the state
> legislature are attempting to pass a bill that would not only severely
> punish public unions (with exception for the police, fire, and state
> trooper unions that supported his campaign), but it would effectively
> end 50 years to the right of these workers to collectively bargain.
>
> Collective bargaining is a process of voluntary negotiations between
> employers and trade unions aimed at reaching agreements which regulate
> working conditions. Collective agreements usually set out wage scales,
> working hours, training, health and safety, overtime, grievance
> mechanisms and rights to participate in workplace or company affairs.
> -wikihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_bargaining
>
> __________________________________________________
>
> Harry

According to teabaggers "filling pot holes is just like Hitler."

Bret Cahill

[Topaz]

Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:

"There were millions and millions of workmen who began by being
hostile to the Social Democratic Party; but their defences were
repeatedly stormed and finally had to surrender. Yet this defeat was
due to the stupidity of the bourgeois parties, who had opposed every
demand put forward by the working class. The short-sighted refusal to
making an effort towards improving labour conditions, the refusal to
adopt measures which would insure the workmen in case of accidents in
the factories, the refusal to forbid child labour, the refusal to
consider protective measures for female workers, especially expectant
mothers--all this was of assistance to the Social Democratic leaders,
who were thankful for every opportunity which they could exploit for
forcing the masses into their net. Our bourgeois parties can never
repair the damage that resulted from the mistake that was made. For
they sowed the seeds of hatred when they opposed all efforts at social
reform. And thus they gave, at least, apparent grounds to justify the
claim put forward by the Social Democrats--namely that they alone
stand up for the interest of the working class.
"And this became the principle ground for the moral
justification of the actual existance of the Trades Unions, so that
the labour organizations became from that time onwards the chief
political recruiting ground to swell the ranks of the Social
Democratic Party."

"the Jew seized upon the manifold possiblities which the
situation offered him for the future. While on the one hand he
organized capitalistic methods of exploitation to their ultimate
degree of efficiency, he curried favour with the victims of his policy
and his power and in a short while became the leader of their struggle
against himself. 'Against himself' is here only a figurative way of
speaking; for this 'Great Master of Lies' knows how to appear in the
guise of the innocent and throw the guilt on others. Since he had the
impudence to take a personal lead among the masses, they never for a
moment suspected that they were falling prey to one of the most
infamous deceits ever practiced. And yet that is what it actually
was."

http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com http://www.nsm88.org

http://heretical.com/ http://immigration-globalization.blogspot.com/

[sarge]

Hitler was a moron whose decisions led to the deaths of more of his
people than anyone else's. His refusal to let much better military
minds do their thing, resulted in a devastating war for the Germans.
His idiocy around Jews led to their shame. His incest, his own
shame.

The guy was a terrible leader and a terrible person.

Who cares what he thinks of trade unions?

[Shrikeback]

In Wisconsin, the struggle is with public employee
unions. Public employees don't really need unions
because they don't work for capitalist pigs, they work
for the government, which is only there to help bring
unicorns and rainbow sandwiches. We should let the
voters decide their salaries and benefits.

That's democracy.

Anyone who's against democracy is worse than Hitler,
Stalin, and Mao in a menage a trios, sauer kraut
& frankfurter sandwich. What man could think
otherwise?

[tooly]

> Bret Cahill- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I think Hitler saw something similar happening in Germany that is now
in the process of taking place in Europe and America. The Bolsheviks
were active during those times. Today, we don't have such a 'violent'
element [yet]...but just as subversive is a core activism trying to
work 'within' the system to bring down the western way of life.

Such things are what dictators are made of. I've said all along the
'greater' danger of the progressive ruination of our culture was the
eventual REACTIONARY movement upon which those like Hitler come to
power.

I'm a worker; I denote how unions have done a lot of good for the
common worker. But I'm also aware of WHO leads these damn
organizations at the TOP now, and who are now trying to USE such
organization for a 'surge' to bring down our way of life. I think
socialists realize, especially after last November, that their window
of opportunity is slipping as Obama proves more and more to be a
dimwit who only serves their purpose marginally [but still being a
political wrecking ball on traditional America].

I Obama cannot be elected, it leaves the socialist window less than
two years left...and many activist behind the scenes I'm sure realize
a tremendous opportunity like this may not come along again for many
many years to come. So, l like the bolsheviks, I suppose the energies
of formation are being kicked up a few notches...and therefore...

Tunisia, Egypt Jordon, Libya, Bahrain, Madison, Columbus, and soon to
come most any state capital where a legislature tries to cut back on
spending...ANYWHERE the socialist can see possibility for uprising and
chaos, no matter the issue, no matter the ideal, no matter the seeming
disconnect to thier ultimate goal of socialism. After all, before one
can reform, there first be the 'tearing down' of the old...and to
marxists et.al., I doubt they care too much who takes care of that
part, as long as they get to influence the end result.

The one really great thing Hitler did for Germans was to demolish the
Bolshevik Marxist movement in his country. It was his nemesis, his
prime target [if I've read correctly]. To this end, Hitler should be
congratulated by the world...for whatever he evil may have become
later on, it was a far far far far far far far far far far far far
greater evil he once slayed.

Karl Marx was a profound evil. Socialism drains the human being of
his spirit. And totalitarianism leaves power in the hands of the
brutal; the bottom feeder hubris of human ego, that can only get their
rocks off by subjegation and abuse of other human beings. And Karl
Marx plays to the insanity of human idealism that argues liberalism,
but works to create only prisons for the human soul [excepting of
course, the few who gain control].

Unions once had a purpose; but like all power, once flexed, becomes
addictive to corrupt. The teacher's Union [for one] in the USA is one
such union...long since lost of it's virtuous foundation; now just a
greedy grab for selfish want.

[tooly]

I wonder why FDR OPPOSED public employee unions?
but then, "THIS" Democrat Party is so far LEFT, they even leave FDR in
the 'conservative' dust.

They left JFK long ago.

What champions do they have left anyway [that would support 'what they
do' today]? Looks like Obama is out on a limb by himself [along with
his party]. Think his profile will be plastered on Tiananmen Square
some day [alongside Mao]? I think that's their REAL champion now.

Did you get how the LEFT was trying to claim Ronald Reagan on his
100th birthday a few weeks ago?? Wow...talk about the absurd.

Hmm...as a sidebar...The Beatles song, 'Back in the USSR'...was it PRO
communist, or Anti-communist? I was never sure about the lyrics.

[Topaz]

by James Buchanan

Let's say the Germans merely removed the Jews from positions of
political power and banned them from the legal profession. Germany
went from devastating economic poverty in 1932 to full employment just
a couple years later. If an incredible economic improvement can be
achieved, merely by removing the Jews from power (and replacing them
with patriotic nationalists), then every Gentile nation in the world
should give this a try.

Obviously the Jews don't want anyone else getting the idea of removing
them to create prosperity. The Jews control the mass media in most
Western countries. Most people don't know about the Balfour
Declaration. During World War One, Zionist Jews offered to use their
control of the press to bring America into World War One if Britain
would promise them Palestine. This offer was dubbed the Balfour
Declaration. If the Jews had enough media control and influence to
push America into World War One in 1917, what else have they done with
their power?

It was a huge embarrassment for the Jews to see Germany so prosperous
in the mid-1930s after removing them from power. They considered this
a dangerous precedent. To deal with this "problem" the Jewish World
Congress declared war on Germany in 1933. This declaration of war at
least encouraged a world-wide boycott against Germany and at worst
encouraged other nations of the world to become hostile toward
Germany. (The Jews curiously sanctioned the Germans before the Germans
passed any laws restricting the Jews.) More importantly the Jews
pushed vicious anti-German slander in all the Jewish-owned newspapers
in the West in the years leading up to World War Two. The Communist
mass murder of 30 million people in Russia and the Ukraine received
almost no publicity in the Jewish media. Most people in the West only
heard a serious mention of these Communist mass murders beginning in
the 1980s. Instead, the Jewish media focused all their hatred and
agitation against Germany and its allies.

After six years of relentless agitation, the Jews pushed England and
France into war with Germany. Only two years later, FDR and his cabal
of Jews provoked a war with Japan (and Germany).

Naturally, the Jews did not want future historians to say: "World War
Two was provoked by the Jewish media in retaliation for Germany
removing the Jews from power." The Jews needed a new reason for World
War Two. A reason that painted their enemies as unquestionably evil.
So they invented the Holocaust.

The Holocaust stood mostly unchallenged for decades after the war
because people feared being branded "Nazi-sympathizers" for
questioning its details. The truth always comes out in the long run.
Professor Arthur Butz published his famous work "The Hoax of the 20th
Century" in 1977 detailing a very solid argument against this war
propaganda. Dr. Butz pointed out that the world population of Jews
remained at about 16 million before and after the war. He also noted
that half a million Jews remained in Paris after four years of German
occupation. Both these facts strongly suggest the Holocaust is a
fraud, but the political power of the Jews has suppressed and punished
any public questioning of the Holocaust to this day. David Irving
joined the ranks of Revisionist historians several years ago and went
from a famous successful author to a pariah thanks to persecution by
the Jews.

The Institute for Historical Review has done great work exposing the
Holocaust as a great historical fraud. Anyone interested in looking
for historical truth should visit their website. It's a shock for many
people to see how much propaganda we've been force fed.

http://www.ihr.org

[Topaz]

Leon Degrelle

"We have the power. Now our gigantic work begins."
Those were Hitler's words on the night of January 30, 1933, as
cheering crowds surged past him, for five long hours, beneath the
windows of the Chancellery in Berlin.

His political struggle had lasted 14 years. He himself was 43, that
is, physically and intellectually at the peak of his powers. He had
won over millions of Germans and organized them into Germany's largest
and most dynamic political party, a party girded by a human rampart of
hundreds of thousands of storm troopers, three fourths of them members
of the working class. He had been extremely shrewd. All but toying
with his adversaries, Hitler had, one after another, vanquished them
all.

Standing there at the window, his arm raised to the delirious throng,
he must have known a feeling of triumph. But he seemed almost torpid,
absorbed, as if lost in another world.

It was a world far removed from the delirium in the street, a world of
65 million citizens who loved him or hated him, but all of whom, from
that night on, had become his responsibility. And as he knew-as almost
all Germans knew on January 1933 -- that this was a crushing, an
almost desperate responsibility.

Half a century later, few people understand the crisis Germany faced
at that time. Today, it's easy to assume that Germans have always been
well-fed and even plump. But the Germans Hitler inherited were virtual
skeletons.

During the preceding years, a score of "democratic" governments had
come and gone, often in utter confusion. Instead of alleviating the
people's misery, they had increased it, due to their own instability:
it was impossible for them to pursue any given plan for more than a
year or two. Germany had arrived at a dead end. In just a few years
there had been 224,000 suicides - a horrifying figure, bespeaking a
state of misery even more horrifying.

By the beginning of 1933, the misery of the German people was
virtually universal. At least six million unemployed and hungry
workers roamed aimlessly through the streets, receiving a pitiful
unemployment benefit of less than 42 marks per month. Many of those
out of work had families to feed, so that altogether some 20 million
Germans, a third of the country's population, were reduced to trying
to survive on about 40 pfennigs per person per day.

Unemployment benefits, moreover, were limited to a period of six
months. After that came only the meager misery allowance dispensed by
the welfare offices.

Notwithstanding the gross inadequacy of this assistance, by trying to
save the six million unemployed from total destruction, even for just
six months, both the state and local branches of the German government
saw themselves brought to ruin: in 1932 alone such aid had swallowed
up four billion marks, 57 percent of the total tax revenues of the
federal government and the regional states. A good many German
municipalities were bankrupt.

Those still lucky enough to have some kind of job were not much better
off. Workers and employees had taken a cut of 25 percent in their
wages and salaries. Twenty-one percent of them were earning between
100 and 250 marks per month; 69.2 percent of them, in January of 1933,
were being paid less than 1,200 marks annually. No more than about
100,000 Germans, it was estimated, were able to live without financial
worries.

During the three years before Hitler came to power, total earnings had
fallen by more than half, from 23 billion marks to 11 billion. The
average per capita income had dropped from 1,187 marks in 1929 to 627
marks, a scarcely tolerable level, in 1932. By January 1933, when
Hitler took office, 90 percent of the German people were destitute.
No one escaped the strangling effects of the unemployment. The
intellectuals were hit as hard as the working class. Of the 135,000
university graduates, 60 percent were without jobs. Only a tiny
minority was receiving unemployment benefits.

"The others," wrote one foreign observer, Marcel Laloire (in his book
New Germany), "are dependent on their parents or are sleeping in
flophouses. In the daytime they can be seen on the boulevards of
Berlin wearing signs on their backs to the effect that they will
accept any kind of work."

But there was no longer any kind of work.
The same drastic fall-off had hit Germany's cottage industry, which
comprised some four million workers. Its turnover had declined 55
percent, with total sales plunging from 22 billion to 10 billion
marks.

Hardest hit of all were construction workers; 90 percent of them were
unemployed.

Farmers, too, had been ruined, crushed by losses amounting to 12
billion marks. Many had been forced to mortgage their homes and their
land. In 1932 just the interest on the loans they had incurred due to
the crash was equivalent to 20 percent of the value of the
agricultural production of the entire country. Those who were no
longer able to meet the interest payments saw their farms auctioned
off in legal proceedings: in the years 1931-1932, 17,157 farms-with a
combined total area of 462,485 hectares - were liquidated in this way.
The "democracy" of Germany's "Weimar Republic" (1918 -1933) had proven
utterly ineffective in addressing such flagrant wrongs as this
impoverishment of millions of farm workers, even though they were the
nation's most stable and hardest working citizens. Plundered,
dispossessed, abandoned: small wonder they heeded Hitler's call.
Their situation on January 30, 1933, was tragic. Like the rest of
Germany's working class, they had been betrayed by their political
leaders, reduced to the alternatives of miserable wages, paltry and
uncertain benefit payments, or the outright humiliation of begging.
Germany's industries, once renowned everywhere in the world, were no
longer prosperous, despite the millions of marks in gratuities that
the financial magnates felt obliged to pour into the coffers of the
parties in power before each election in order to secure their
cooperation. For 14 years the well-blinkered conservatives and
Christian democrats of the political center had been feeding at the
trough just as greedily as their adversaries of the left..

One inevitable consequence of this ever-increasing misery and
uncertainty about the future was an abrupt decline in the birthrate.
When your household savings are wiped out, and when you fear even
greater calamities in the days ahead, you do not risk adding to the
number of your dependents.

In those days the birth rate was a reliable barometer of a country's
prosperity. A child is a joy, unless you have nothing but a crust of
bread to put in its little hand. And that's just the way it was with
hundreds of thousands of German families in 1932..

Hitler knew that he would be starting from zero. From less than zero.
But he was also confident of his strength of will to create Germany
anew-politically, socially, financially, and economically. Now legally
and officially in power, he was sure that he could quickly convert
that cipher into a Germany more powerful than ever before.
What support did he have?

For one thing, he could count on the absolute support of millions of
fanatical disciples. And on that January evening, they joyfully shared
in the great thrill of victory. Some thirteen million Germans, many of
them former Socialists and Communists, had voted for his party.
But millions of Germans were still his adversaries, disconcerted
adversaries, to be sure, whom their own political parties had
betrayed, but who had still not been won over to National Socialism.
The two sides-those for and those against Hitler-were very nearly
equal in numbers. But whereas those on the left were divided among
themselves, Hitler's disciples were strongly united. And in one thing
above all, the National Socialists had an incomparable advantage: in
their convictions and in their total faith in a leader. Their highly
organized and well-disciplined party had contented with the worst kind
of obstacles, and had overcome them..

In the eyes of the capitalists, money was the sole active element in
the flourishing of a country's economy. To Hitler's way of thinking,
that conception was radically wrong: capital, on the contrary, was
only an instrument. Work was the essential element: man's endeavor,
man's honor, blood, muscles and soul.

Hitler wanted not just to put an to the class struggle, but to
reestablish the priority of the human being, in justice and respect,
as the principal factor in production..

For the worker's trust in the fatherland to be restored, he had to
feel that from now on he was to be (and to be treated) as an equal,
instead of remaining a social inferior. Under the governments of the
so-called democratic parties of both the left and the right, he had
remained an inferior; for none of them had understood that in the
hierarchy of national values, work is the very essence of life; ..

The objective, then, was far greater than merely getting six million
unemployed back to work. It was to achieve a total revolution.
"The people," Hitler declared, "were not put here on earth for the
sake of the economy, and the economy doesn't exist for the sake of
capital. On the contrary, capital is meant to serve the economy, and
the economy in turn to serve the people."

It would not be enough merely to reopen the thousands of closed
factories and fill them with workers. If the old concepts still ruled,
the workers would once again be nothing more than living machines,
faceless and interchangeable..

Nowhere in twentieth-century Europe had the authority of a head of
state ever been based on such overwhelming and freely given national
consent. Prior to Hitler, from 1919 to 1932, those governments piously
styling themselves democratic had usually come to power by meager
majorities, sometimes as low as 51 or 52 percent.

"I am not a dictator," Hitler had often affirmed, "and I never will
be. Democracy will be rigorously enforced by National Socialism."
Authority does not mean tyranny. A tyrant is someone who puts himself
in power without the will of the people or against the will of the
people. A democrat is placed in power by the people. But democracy is
not limited to a single formula. It may be partisan or parliamentary.
Or it may be authoritarian. The important thing is that the people
have wished it, chosen it, established it in its given form.

That was the case with Hitler. He came to power in an essentially
democratic way. Whether one likes it or not, this fact is undeniable.
And after coming to power, his popular support measurably increased
from year to year. The more intelligent and honest of his enemies have
been obliged to admit this, men such as the declared anti-Nazi
historian and professor Joachim Fest, who wrote:

For Hitler was never interested in establishing a mere tyranny. Sheer
greed for power will not suffice as explanation for his personality
and energy-He was not born to be a mere tyrant. He was fixated upon
his mission of defending Europe and the Aryan race ... Never had he
felt so dependent upon the masses as he did at this time, and he
watched their reactions with anxious concern.
These lines weren't written by Dr. Goebbels, but by a stern critic of
Hitler and his career..

When it came time to vote, Hitler was granted plenary powers with a
sweeping majority of 441 votes to 94: he had won not just two thirds,
but 82.44 percent of the assembly's votes. This "Enabling Act" granted
Hitler for four years virtually absolute authority over the
legislative as well as the executive affairs of the government..

After 1945 the explanation that was routinely offered for all this was
that the Germans had lost their heads. Whatever the case, it is a
historical fact that they acted of their own free will. Far from being
resigned, they were enthusiastic. "For the first time since the last
days of the monarchy," historian Joachim Fest has conceded, "the
majority of the Germans now had the feeling that they could identify
with the state."..

"You talk about persecution!" he thundered in an impromptu response to
an address by the Social Democratic speaker. "I think that there are
only a few of us [in our party] here who did not have to suffer
persecutions in prison from your side ... You seem to have totally
forgotten that for years our shirts were ripped off our backs because
you did not like the color . . . We have outgrown your persecutions!"
"In those days," he scathingly continued, "our newspapers were banned
and banned and again banned, our meetings were forbidden, and we were
forbidden to speak, I was forbidden to speak, for years on. And now
you say that criticism is salutary!"..

Hitler's millions of followers had rediscovered the primal strength of
rough, uncitified man, of a time when men still had backbone..

Gustav Noske, the lumberjack who became defense minister - and the
most valiant defender of the embattled republic in the tumultuous
months immediately following the collapse of 1918 - acknowledged
honestly in 1944, when the Third Reich was already rapidly breaking
down, that the great majority of the German people still remained true
to Hitler because of the social renewal he had brought to the working
class..

Here again, well before the collapse of party-ridden Weimar Republic,
disillusion with the unions had become widespread among the working
masses. They were starving. The hundreds of Socialist and Communist
deputies stood idly by, impotent to provide any meaningful help to the
desperate proletariat.

Their leaders had no proposals to remedy, even partially, the great
distress of the people; no plans for large-scale public works, no
industrial restructuring, no search for markets abroad.
Moreover, they offered no energetic resistance to the pillaging by
foreign countries of the Reich's last financial resources: this a
consequence of the Treaty of Versailles that the German Socialists had
voted to ratify in June of 1919, and which they had never since had
the courage effectively to oppose..

In 1930, 1931 and 1932, German workers had watched the disaster grow:
the number of unemployed rose from two million to three, to four, to
five, then to six million. At the same time, unemployment benefits
fell lower and lower, finally to disappear completely. Everywhere one
saw dejection and privation: emaciated mothers, children wasting away
in sordid lodgings, and thousands of beggars in long sad lines.
The failure, or incapacity, of the leftist leaders to act, not to
mention their insensitivity, had stupefied the working class. Of what
use were such leaders with their empty heads and empty hearts-and,
often enough, full pockets?

Well before January 30, thousands of workers had already joined up
with Hitler's dynamic formations, which were always hard at it where
they were most needed. Many joined the National Socialists when they
went on strike. Hitler, himself a former worker and a plain man like
themselves, was determined to eliminate unemployment root and branch.
He wanted not merely to defend the laborer's right to work, but to
make his calling one of honor, to insure him respect and to integrate
him fully into a living community of all the Germans, who had been
divided class against class.

In January 1933, Hitler's victorious troops were already largely
proletarian in character, including numerous hardfisted street
brawlers, many unemployed, who no longer counted economically or
socially.

Meanwhile, membership in the Marxist labor unions had fallen off
enormously: among thirteen million socialist and Communist voters in
1932, no more than five million were union members. Indifference and
discouragement had reached such levels that many members no longer
paid their union dues. Many increasingly dispirited Marxist leaders
began to wonder if perhaps the millions of deserters were the ones who
saw things clearly. Soon they wouldn't wonder any longer.
Even before Hitler won Reichstag backing for his "Enabling Act,"
Germany's giant labor union federation, the ADGB, had begun to rally
to the National Socialist cause. As historian Joachim Fest
acknowledged: "On March 20, the labor federation's executive committee
addressed a kind of declaration of loyalty to Hitler." (J. Fest,
Hitler, p. 413.)

Hitler than took a bold and clever step. The unions had always
clamored to have the First of May recognized as a worker's holiday,
but the Weimar Republic had never acceded to their request. Hitler,
never missing an opportunity, grasped this one with both hands. He did
more than grant this reasonable demand: he proclaimed the First of May
a national holiday..

I myself attended the memorable meeting at the Tempelhof field in
1933. By nine o'clock that morning, giant columns, some of workers,
others of youth groups, marching in cadence down the pavement of
Berlin's great avenues, had started off towards the airfield to which
Hitler had called together all Germans. All Germany would follow the
rally as it was transmitted nationwide by radio..

In the dark, a group of determined opponents could easily have heckled
Hitler or otherwise sabotaged the meeting. Perhaps a third of the
onlookers had been Socialists or Communists only three months
previously. But not a single hostile voice was raised during the
entire ceremony. There was only universal acclamation.
Ceremony is the right word for it. It was an almost magical rite.
Hitler and Goebbels had no equals in the arranging of dedicatory
ceremonies of this sort. First there were popular songs, then great
Wagnerian hymns to grip the audience. Germany has a passion for
orchestral music, and Wagner taps the deepest and most secret vein of
the German soul, its romanticism, its inborn sense of the powerful and
the grand.

Meanwhile the hundreds of flags floated above the rostrum, redeemed
from the darkness by arrows of light.

Now Hitler strode to the rostrum. For those standing at the of the
field, his face must have appeared vanishingly small, but his words
flooded instantaneously across the acres of people in his audience.
A Latin audience would have preferred a voice less harsh, more
delicately expressive. But there was no doubt that Hitler spoke to the
psyche of the German people.

Germans have rarely had the good fortune to experience the enchantment
of the spoken word. In Germany, the tone has always been set by
ponderous speakers, more fond of elephantine pedantry than oratorical
passion. Hitler, as a speaker, was a prodigy, the greatest orator of
his century. He possessed, above all, what the ordinary speaker lacks:
a mysterious ability to project power.

A bit like a medium or sorcerer, he was seized, even transfixed, as he
addressed a crowd. It responded to Hitler's projection of power,
radiating it back, establishing, in the course of myriad exchanges, a
current that both orator and audience gave to and drew from equally.
One had to personally experience him speaking to understand this
phenomenon.

This special gift is what lay at the basis of Hitler's ability to win
over the masses. His high-voltage, lightning-like projection
transported and transformed all who experienced it. Tens of millions
were enlightened, riveted and inflamed by the fire of his anger,
irony, and passion.

By the time the cheering died away that May first evening, hundreds of
thousands of previously indifferent or even hostile workers who had
come to Tempelhof at the urging of their labor federation leaders were
now won over. They had become followers, like the SA stormtroopers
whom so many there that evening had brawled with in recent years.
The great human sea surged back from Tempelhof to Berlin. A million
and a half people had arrived in perfect order, and their departure
was just as orderly. No bottlenecks halted the cars and busses. For
those of us who witnessed it, this rigorous, yet joyful, discipline of
a contented people was in itself a source of wonder. Everything about
the May Day mass meeting had come off as smoothly clockwork.
The memory of that fabulous crowd thronging back to the center of
Berlin will never leave me. A great many were on foot. Their faces
were now different faces, as though they had been imbued with a
strange and totally new spirit. The non-Germans in the crowd were as
if stunned, and no less impressed than Hitler's fellow countrymen.
The French ambassador, André François-Poncet, noted:
The foreigners on the speaker's platform as guests of honor were not
alone in carrying away the impression of a truly beautiful and
wonderful public festival, an impression that was created by the
regime's genius for organization, by the night time display of
uniforms, by the play of lights, the rhythm of the music, by the flags
and the colorful fireworks; and they were not alone in thinking that a
breath of reconciliation and unity was passing over the Third Reich.
"It is our wish," Hitler had exclaimed, as though taking heaven as his
witness, "to get along together and to struggle together as brothers,
so that at the hour when we shall come before God, we might say to
him: 'See, Lord, we have changed. The German people are no longer a
people ashamed, a people mean and cowardly and divided. No, Lord! The
German people have become strong in their spirit, in their will, in
their perseverance, in their acceptance of any sacrifice. Lord, we
remain faithful to Thee! Bless our struggle!" (A. François-Poncet,
Souvenirs d'une ambassade à Berlin, p. 128.)

Who else could have made such an incantatory appeal without making
himself look ridiculous?

No politician had ever spoken of the rights of workers with such faith
and such force, or had laid out in such clear terms the social plan he
pledged to carry out on behalf of the common people.

The next day, the newspaper of the proletarian left, the "Union
Journal," reported on this mass meeting at which at least two thirds-a
million-of those attending were workers. "This May First was victory
day," the paper summed up.

With the workers thus won over, what further need was there for the
thousands of labor union locals that for so long had poisoned the
social life of the Reich and which, in any case, had accomplished
nothing of a lasting, positive nature?

Within hours of the conclusion of that "victory" meeting at the
Tempelhof field, the National Socialists were able to peacefully take
complete control of Germany's entire labor union organization,
including all its buildings, enterprises and banks. An era of Marxist
obstruction abruptly came to an end : from now on, a single national
organization would embody the collective will and interests of all of
Germany's workers.

Although he was now well on his way to creating what he pledged would
be a true "government of the people," Hitler also realized that great
obstacles remained. For one thing, the Communist rulers in Moscow had
not dropped their guard-or their guns. Restoring the nation would take
more than words and promises, it would take solid achievements. Only
then would the enthusiasm shown by the working class at the May First
mass meeting be an expression of lasting victory.

How could Hitler solve the great problem that had defied solution by
everyone else (both in Germany and abroad): putting millions of
unemployed back to work?

What would Hitler do about wages? Working hours? Leisure time?
Housing? How would he succeed in winning, at long last, respect for
the rights and dignity of the worker?

How could men's lives be improved-materially, morally, and, one might
even say, spiritually? How would he proceed to build a new society fit
for human beings, free of the inertia, injustices and prejudices of
the past?

"National Socialism," Hitler had declared at the outset, "has its
mission and its hour; it is not just a passing movement but a phase of
history."

The instruments of real power now in his hands-an authoritarian state,
its provinces subordinate but nonetheless organic parts of the
national whole-Hitler had acted quickly to shake himself free of the
last constraints of the impotent sectarian political parties.
Moreover, he was now able to direct a cohesive labor force that was no
longer split into a thousand rivulets but flowed as a single, mighty
current.

Hitler was self-confident, sure of the power of his own conviction. He
had no intention, or need, to resort to the use of physical force.
Instead, he intended to win over, one by one, the millions of Germans
who were still his adversaries, and even those who still hated him.
His conquest of Germany had taken years of careful planning and hard
work. Similarly, he would now realize his carefully worked out plans
for transforming the state and society. This meant not merely changes
in administrative or governmental structures, but far-reaching social
programs.

He had once vowed: "The hour will come when the 15 million people who
now hate us will be solidly behind us and will acclaim with us the new
revival we shall create together." Eventually he would succeed in
winning over even many of his most refractory skeptics and
adversaries.

His army of converts was already forming ranks. In a remarkable
tribute, historian Joachim Fest felt obliged to acknowledge
unequivocally:

Hitler had moved rapidly from the status of a demagogue to that of a
respected statesman. The craving to join the ranks of the victors was
spreading like an epidemic, and the shrunken minority of those who
resisted the urge were being visibly pushed into isolation-The past
was dead. The future, it seemed, belonged to the regime, which had
more and more followers, which was being hailed everywhere and
suddenly had sound reasons on its side.

And even the prominent leftist writer Kurt Tucholsky, sensing the
direction of the inexorable tide that was sweeping Germany, vividly
commented: "You don't go railing against the ocean." (J. Fest, Hitler,
pp. 415 f.)

"Our power," Hitler was now able to declare, "no longer belongs to any
territorial fraction of the Reich, nor to any single class of the
nation, but to the people in its totality."

Much still remained to be done, however. So far, Hitler had succeeded
in clearing the way of obstacles to his program. Now the time to build
had arrived.

So many others had failed to tackle the many daunting problems that
were now his responsibility. Above all, the nation demanded a solution
to the great problem of unemployment. Could Hitler now succeed where
others had so dismally failed?..

Unemployment could be combated and eliminated only by giving industry
the financial means to start up anew, to modernize, thus creating
millions of new jobs.

The normal rate of consumption would not be restored, let alone
increased, unless one first raised the starvation-level allowances
that were making purchases of any kind a virtual impossibility. On the
contrary, production and sales would have to be restored before the
six million unemployed could once again become purchasers.
The great economic depression could be overcome only by restimulating
industry, by bringing industry into step with the times, and by
promoting the development of new products..

Nearly ten years earlier, while in his prison cell, Hitler had already
envisioned a formidable system of national highways. He had also
conceived of a small, easily affordable automobile (later known as the
"Volkswagen"), and had even suggested its outline. It should have the
shape of a June bug, he proposed. Nature itself suggested the car's
aerodynamic line.

Until Hitler came to power, a car was the privilege of the rich. It
was not financially within the reach of the middle class, much less of
the worker. The "Volkswagen," costing one-tenth as much as the
standard automobile of earlier years, would eventually become a
popular work vehicle and a source of pleasure after work: a way to
unwind and get some fresh air, and of discovering, thanks to the new
Autobahn highway network, a magnificent country that then, in its
totality, was virtually unknown to the German worker.

From the beginning, Hitler wanted this economical new car to be built
for the millions. The production works would also become one of
Germany's most important industrial centers and employers.
During his imprisonment, Hitler had also drawn up plans for the
construction of popular housing developments and majestic public
buildings.

Some of Hitler's rough sketches still survive. They include groups of
individual worker's houses with their own gardens (which were to be
built in the hundreds of thousands), a plan for a covered stadium in
Berlin, and a vast congress hall, unlike any other in the world, that
would symbolize the grandeur of the National Socialist revolution.
"A building with a monumental dome," historian Werner Maser has
explained, "the plan of which he drew while he was writing Mein Kampf,
would have a span of 46 meters, a height of 220 meters, a diameter of
250 meters, and a capacity of 150 to 190 thousand people standing. The
interior of the building would have been 17 times larger than Saint
Peter's Cathedral in Rome." (W. Maser, Hitler, Adolf, p. 100.)

"That hall," architect Albert Speer has pointed out, "was not just an
idle dream impossible of achievement."

Hitler's imagination, therefore, had long been teeming with a number
of ambitious projects, many of which would eventually be realized.
Fortunately, the needed entrepreneurs, managers and technicians were
on hand. Hitler would not have to improvise.

Historian Werner Maser, although quite anti-Hitler-like nearly all of
his colleagues (how else would they have found publishers?) - has
acknowledged: "From the beginning of his political career, he [Hitler]
took great pains systematically to arrange for whatever he was going
to need in order to carry out his plans."

"Hitler was distinguished," Maser has also noted, "by an exceptional
intelligence in technical matters." Hitler had acquired his knowledge
by devoting many thousands of hours to technical studies from the time
of his youth.

"Hitler read an endless number of books," explained Dr. Schacht. "He
acquired a very considerable amount of knowledge and made masterful
use of it in discussions and speeches. In certain respects he was a
man endowed with genius. He had ideas that no one else would ever have
thought of, ideas that resulted in the ending of great difficulties,
sometimes by measures of an astonishing simplicity or brutality."
Many billions of marks would be needed to begin the great
socioeconomic revolution that was destined, as Hitler had always
intended, to make Germany once again the European leader in industry
and commerce and, most urgently, to rapidly wipe out unemployment in
Germany. Where would the money be found? And, once obtained, how would
these funds be allotted to ensure maximum effectiveness in their
investment?

Hitler was by no means a dictator in matters of the economy. He was,
rather, a stimulator. His government would undertake to do only that
which private initiative could not.

Hitler believed in the importance of individual creative imagination
and dynamism, in the need for every person of superior ability and
skill to assume responsibility.

He also recognized the importance of the profit motive. Deprived of
the prospect of having his efforts rewarded, the person of ability
often refrains from running risks. The economic failure of Communism
has demonstrated this. In the absence of personal incentives and the
opportunity for real individual initiative, the Soviet "command
economy" lagged in all but a few fields, its industry years behind its
competitors.

State monopoly tolls the death of all initiative, and hence of all
progress.

For all men selflessly to pool their wealth might be marvelous, but it
is also contrary to human nature. Nearly every man desires that his
labor shall improve his own condition and that of his family, and
feels that his brain, creative imagination, and persistence well
deserve their reward.

Because it disregarded these basic psychological truths, Soviet
Communism, right to the end, wallowed in economic mediocrity, in spite
of its immense reservoir of manpower, its technical expertise, and its
abundant natural resources, all of which ought to have made it an
industrial and technological giant.

Hitler was always adverse to the idea of state management of the
economy. He believed in elites. "A single idea of genius," he used to
say, "has more value than a lifetime of conscientious labor in an
office."

Just as there are political or intellectual elites, so also is there
an industrial elite. A manufacturer of great ability should not be
restrained, hunted down by the internal revenue services like a
criminal, or be unappreciated by the public. On the contrary, it is
important for economic development that the industrialist be
encouraged morally and materially, as much as possible.

The most fruitful initiatives Hitler would take from 1933 on would be
on behalf of private enterprise. He would keep an eye on the quality
of their directors, to be sure, and would shunt aside incompetents,
quite a few of them at times, but he also supported the best ones,
those with the keenest minds, the most imaginative and bold, even if
their political opinions did not always agree with his own.
"There is no question," he stated very firmly, "of dismissing a
factory owner or director under the pretext that he is not a National
Socialist."

Hitler would exercise the same moderation, the same pragmatism, in the
administrative as well as in the industrial sphere.
What he demanded of his co-workers, above all, was competence and
effectiveness. The great majority of Third Reich functionaries - some
80 percent-were never enrolled in the National Socialist party.
Several of Hitler's ministers, like Konstantin von Neurath and
Schwerin von Krosigk, and ambassadors to such key posts as Prague,
Vienna and Ankara, were not members of the party. But they were
capable..

"Herr Schacht," he said, "we are assuredly in agreement on one point:
no other single task facing the government at the moment can be so
truly urgent as conquering unemployment. That will take a lot of
money. Do you see any possibility of finding it apart from the
Reichsbank?" And after a moment, he added: "How much would it take? Do
you have any idea?"

Wishing to win Schacht over by appealing to his ambition, Hitler
smiled and then asked: "Would you be willing to once again assume
presidency of the Reichsbank?" Schacht let on that he had a
sentimental concern for Dr. Luther, and did not want to hurt the
incumbent's feelings. Playing along, Hitler reassured Schacht that he
would find an appropriate new job elsewhere for Luther.
Schacht then pricked up his ears, drew himself up, and focused his big
round eyes on Hitler: "Well, if that's the way it is," he said, "then
I am ready to assume the presidency of the Reichsbank again."
His great dream was being realized. Schacht had been president of the
Reichsbank between 1923 and 1930, but had been dismissed. Now he would
return in triumph. He felt vindicated. Within weeks, the ingenious
solution to Germany's pressing financial woes would burst forth from
his inventive brain.

"It was necessary," Schacht later explained, "to discover a method
that would avoid inflating the investment holdings of the Reichsbank
immoderately and consequently increasing the circulation of money
excessively."

"Therefore," he went on, "I had to find some means of getting the sums
that were lying idle in pockets and banks, without meaning for it to
be long term and without having it undergo the risk of depreciation.
That was the reasoning behind the Mefo bonds."

What were these "Mefo" bonds? Mefo was a contraction of the
Metallurgische Forschungs-GmbH (Metallurgic Research Company). With a
startup capitalization of one billion marks - which Hitler and Schacht
arranged to be provided by the four giant firms of Krupp, Siemens,
Deutsche Werke and Rheinmetall-this company would eventually promote
many billions of marks worth of investment.

Enterprises, old and new, that filled government orders had only to
draw drafts on Mefo for the amounts due. These drafts, when presented
to the Reichsbank, were immediately convertible into cash. The success
of the Mefo program depended entirely on public acceptance of the Mefo
bonds. But the wily Schacht had planned well. Since Mefo bonds were
short-term bonds that could be cashed in at any time, there was no
real risk in buying, accepting or holding them. They bore an interest
of four percent-a quite acceptable figure in those days-whereas
banknotes hidden under the mattress earned nothing. The public quickly
took all this into consideration and eagerly accepted the bonds.
While the Reichsbank was able to offer from its own treasury a
relatively insignificant 150 million marks for Hitler's war on
unemployment, in just four years the German public subscribed more
than 12 billion marks worth of Mefo bonds!

These billions, the fruit of the combined imagination, ingenuity and
astuteness of Hitler and Schacht, swept away the temporizing and
fearful conservatism of the bankers. Over the next four years, this
enormous credit reserve would make miracles possible.

Soon after the initial billion-mark credit, Schacht added another
credit of 600 million in order to finance the start of Hitler's grand
program for highway construction. This Autobahn program provided
immediate work for 100,000 of the unemployed, and eventually assured
wages for some 500,000 workers.

As large as this outlay was, it was immediately offset by a
corresponding cutback in government unemployment benefits, and by the
additional tax revenue generated as a result of the increase in living
standard (sping) of the newly employed.

Within a few months, thanks to the credit created by the Mefo bonds,
private industry once again dared to assume risks and expand. Germans
returned to work by the hundreds of thousands.

Was Schacht solely responsible for this extraordinary turnaround?
After the war, he answered for himself as a Nuremberg Tribunal
defendant, where he was charged with having made possible the Reich's
economic revival:

I don't think Hitler was reduced to begging for my help. If I had not
served him, he would have found other methods, other means. He was not
a man to give up. It's easy enough for you to say, Mr. Prosecutor,
that I should have watched Hitler die and not lifted a finger. But the
entire working class would have died with him!

Even Marxists recognized Hitler's success, and their own failure. In
the June 1934 issue of the Zeitschrift für Sozialismus, the journal of
the German Social Democrats in exile, this acknowledgement appears:
Faced with the despair of proletarians reduced to joblessness, of
young people with diplomas and no future, of the middle classes of
merchants and artisans condemned to bankruptcy, and of farmers
terribly threatened by the collapse in agricultural prices, we all
failed. We weren't capable of offering the masses anything but
speeches about the glory of socialism.

VI. The Social Revolution
Hitler's tremendous social achievement in putting Germany's six
million unemployed back to work is seldom acknowledged today. Although
it was much more than a transitory achievement, "democratic"
historians routinely dismiss it in just a few lines. Since 1945, not a
single objective scholarly study has been devoted to this highly
significant, indeed unprecedented, historical phenomenon.
Similarly neglected is the body of sweeping reforms that dramatically
changed the condition of the worker in Germany. Factories were
transformed from gloomy caverns to spacious and healthy work centers,
with natural lighting, surrounded by gardens and playing fields.
Hundreds of thousands of attractive houses were built for working
class families. A policy of several weeks of paid vacation was
introduced, along with week and holiday trips by land and sea. A
wide-ranging program of physical and cultural education for young
workers was established, with the world's best system of technical
training. The Third Reich's social security and workers' health
insurance system was the world's most modern and complete.
This remarkable record of social achievement is routinely hushed up
today because it is embarrasses those who uphold the orthodox view of
the Third Reich. Otherwise, readers might begin to think that perhaps
Hitler was the greatest social builder of the twentieth century..

Nevertheless, restoring work and bread to millions of unemployed who
had been living in misery for years; restructuring industrial life;
conceiving and establishing an organization for the effective defense
and betterment of the nation's millions of wage earners; creating a
new bureaucracy and judicial system that guaranteed the civic rights
of each member of the national community, while simultaneously holding
each person to his or her responsibilities as a German citizen: this
organic body of reforms was part of a single, comprehensive plan,
which Hitler had conceived and worked out years earlier.
Without this plan, the nation would have collapsed into anarchy.
All-encompassing, this program included broad industrial recovery as
well as detailed attention to even construction of comfortable inns
along the new highway network.

It took several years for a stable social structure to emerge from the
French Revolution. The Soviets needed even more time: five years after
the Bolshevik revolution of 1917, hundreds of thousands of Russians
were still dying of hunger and disease. In Germany, by contrast, the
great machinery was in motion within months, with organization and
accomplishment quickly meshing together..

Hitler personally dug the first spadeful of earth for the first
Autobahn highway, linking Frankfurt-am-Main with Darmstadt. For the
occasion, he brought along Dr. Schacht, the man whose visionary credit
wizardry had made the project possible. The official procession moved
ahead, three cars abreast in front, then six across, spanning the
entire width of the autobahn..

Hitler's plan to build thousands of low-cost homes also demanded a
vast mobilization of manpower. He had envisioned housing that would be
attractive, cozy, and affordable for millions of ordinary German
working-class families. He had no intention of continuing to tolerate,
as his predecessors had, cramped, ugly "rabbit warren" housing for the
German people. The great barracks-like housing projects on the
outskirts of factory towns, packed with cramped families, disgusted
him.

The greater part of the houses he would build were single story,
detached dwellings, with small yards where children could romp, wives
could grow vegetable and flower gardens, while the bread-winners could
read their newspapers in peace after the day's work. These
single-family homes were built to conform to the architectural styles
of the various German regions, retaining as much as possible the
charming local variants.

Wherever there was no practical alternative to building large
apartment complexes, Hitler saw to it that the individual apartments
were spacious, airy and enhanced by surrounding lawns and gardens
where the children could play safely.

The new housing was, of course, built in conformity with the highest
standards of public health, a consideration notoriously neglected in
previous working-class projects.

Generous loans, amortizable in ten years, were granted to newly
married couples so they could buy their own homes. At the birth of
each child, a fourth of the debt was cancelled. Four children, at the
normal rate of a new arrival every two and a half years, sufficed to
cancel the entire loan debt.

Once, during a conversation with Hitler, I expressed my astonishment
at this policy. "But then, you never get back the total amount of your
loans?," I asked. "How so?" he replied, smiling. "Over a period of ten
years, a family with four children brings in much more than our loans,
through the taxes levied on a hundred different items of consumption."
As it happened, tax revenues increased every year, in proportion to
the rise in expenditures for Hitler's social programs. In just a few
years, revenue from taxes tripled. Hitler's Germany never experienced
a financial crisis.

To stimulate the moribund economy demanded the nerve, which Hitler
had, to invest money that the government didn't yet have, rather than
passively waiting-in accordance with "sound" financial principles-for
the economy to revive by itself.

Today, our whole era is dying economically because we have succumbed
to fearful hesitation. Enrichment follows investment, not the other
way around..

Even before the year 1933 had ended, Hitler had succeeded in building
202,119 housing units. Within four years he would provide the German
people with nearly a million and a half (1,458,128) new dwellings!
Moreover, workers would no longer be exploited as they had been. A
month's rent for a worker could not exceed 26 marks, or about an
eighth of the average wage then. Employees with more substantial
salaries paid monthly rents of up to 45 marks maximum.

Equally effective social measures were taken in behalf of farmers, who
had the lowest incomes. In 1933 alone 17,611 new farm houses were
built, each of them surrounded by a parcel of land one thousand square
meters in size. Within three years, Hitler would build 91,000 such
farmhouses..

Everywhere industry was hiring again, with some firms-like Krupp, IG
Farben and the large automobile manufacturers-taking on new workers on
a very large scale. As the country became more prosperous, car sales
increased by more than 80,000 units in 1933 alone. Employment in the
auto industry doubled. Germany was gearing up for full production,
with private industry leading the way.

The new government lavished every assistance on the private sector,
the chief factor in employment as well as production. Hitler almost
immediately made available 500 million marks in credits to private
business.

This start-up assistance given to German industry would repay itself
many times over. Soon enough, another two billion marks would be
loaned to the most enterprising companies. Nearly half would go into
new wages and salaries, saving the treasury an estimated three hundred
million marks in unemployment benefits. Added to the hundreds of
millions in tax receipts spurred by the business recovery, the state
quickly recovered its investment, and more.

Hitler's entire economic policy would be based on the following
equation: risk large sums to undertake great public works and to spur
the renewal and modernization of industry, then later recover the
billions invested through invisible and painless tax revenues. It
didn't take long for Germany to see the results of Hitler's recovery
formula.

Economic recovery, as important as it was, nevertheless wasn't
Hitler's only objective. As he strived to restore full employment,
Hitler never lost sight of his goal of creating a organization
powerful enough to stand up to capitalist owners and managers, who had
shown little concern for the health and welfare of the entire national
community.

Hitler would impose on everyone-powerful boss and lowly wage earner
alike-his own concept of the organic social community. Only the loyal
collaboration of everyone could assure the prosperity of all classes
and social groups.

Consistent with their doctrine, Germany's Marxist leaders had set
class against class, helping to bring the country to the brink of
economic collapse. Deserting their Marxist unions and political
parties in droves, most workers had come to realize that strikes and
grievances their leaders incited only crippled production, and thus
the workers as well.

By the of 1932, in any case, the discredited labor unions were
drowning in massive debt that realistically could never be repaid.
Some of the less scrupulous union officials, sensing the oncoming
catastrophe, had begun stealing hundreds of thousands of marks from
the workers they represented. The Marxist leaders had failed:
socially, financially and morally.

Every joint human activity requires a leader. The head of a factory or
business is also the person naturally responsible for it. He oversees
every aspect of production and work. In Hitler's Germany, the head of
a business had to be both a capable director and a person concerned
for the social justice and welfare of his employees. Under Hitler,
many owners and managers who had proven to be unjust, incompetent or
recalcitrant lost their jobs, or their businesses.

A considerable number of legal guarantees protected the worker against
any abuse of authority at the workplace. Their purpose was to insure
that the rights of workers were respected, and that workers were
treated as worthy collaborators, not just as animated tools. Each
industrialist was legally obliged to collaborate with worker delegates
in drafting shop regulations that were not imposed from above but
instead adapted to each business enterprise and its particular working
conditions. These regulations had to specify "the length of the
working day, the time and method of paying wages, and the safety
rules, and to be posted throughout the factory," within easy access of
both the worker whose interests might be angered and the owner or
manager whose orders might be subverted.

The thousands of different, individual versions of such regulations
served to create a healthy rivalry, with every factory group vying to
outdo the others in efficiency and justice.

One of the first reforms to benefit German workers was the
establishment of paid vacations. In France, the leftist Popular Front
government would noisily claim, in 1936, to have originated legally
mandated paid vacations-and stingy ones at that, only one week per
year. But it was actually Hitler who first established them, in 1933
-- and they were two or three times more generous.

Under Hitler, every factory employee had the legal right to paid
vacation. Previously, paid vacations had not normally exceed four or
five days, and nearly half of the younger workers had no vacation time
at all. If anything, Hitler favored younger workers; the youngest
workers received more generous vacations. This was humane and made
sense: a young person has more need of rest and fresh air to develop
his maturing strength and vigor. Thus, they enjoyed a full 18 days of
paid vacation per year.

Today, more than half a century later, these figures have been
surpassed, but in 1933 they far exceeded European norms.
The standard vacation was twelve days. Then, from the age of 25 on, it
went up to 18 days. After ten years with the company, workers got a
still longer vacation: 21 days, or three times what the French
socialists would grant the workers of their country in 1936.
Hitler introduced the standard forty-hour work week in Europe. As for
overtime work, it was now compensated, as nowhere else in the
continent at the time, at an increased pay rate. And with the
eight-hour work day now the norm, overtime work became more readily
available.

In another innovation, work breaks were made longer: two hours each
day, allowing greater opportunity for workers to relax, and to make
use of the playing fields that large industries were now required to
provide.

Whereas a worker's right to job security had been virtually
non-existent, now an employee could no longer be dismissed at the sole
discretion of the employer. Hitler saw to it that workers' rights were
spelled out and enforced. Henceforth, an employer had to give four
weeks notice before firing an employee, who then had up to two months
to appeal the dismissal. Dismissals could also be annulled by the
"Courts of Social Honor" (Ehrengerichte).

This Court was one of three great institutions that were established
to protect German workers. The others were the "Labor Commissions" and
the "Council of Trust."

The "Council of Trust" (Vertrauensrat) was responsible for
establishing and developing a real spirit of community between
management and labor. "In every business enterprise," the 1934 "Labor
Charter" law stipulated, "the employer and head of the enterprise
(Führer), the employees and workers, personnel of the enterprise,
shall work jointly toward the goal of the enterprise and the common
good of the nation."

No longer would either be exploited by the other-neither the worker by
arbitrary whim of the employer, nor the employer through the blackmail
of strikes for political ends.

Article 35 of the "Labor Charter" law stated: "Every member of an
enterprise community shall assume the responsibility required by his
position in said common enterprise." In short, each enterprise would
be headed by a dynamic executive, charged with a sense of the greater
community-no longer a selfish capitalist with unconditional, arbitrary
power.

"The interest of the community may require that an incapable or
unworthy employer be relieved of his duties," the "Labor Charter"
stipulated. The employer was no longer unassailable, an all-powerful
boss with the last word on hiring and firing his staff. He, too, would
be subject to the workplace regulations, which he was now obliged to
respect no less than the least of his employees. The law conferred the
honor and responsibility of authority on the employer only insofar as
he merited it..

In the Third Reich, the worker knew that "exploitation of his physical
strength in bad faith or in violation of his honor" was no longer
tolerated. He had obligations to the community, but he shared these
obligations with every other member of the enterprise, from the chief
executive to the messenger boy. Finally, the German worker had clearly
defined social rights, which were arbitrated and enforced by
independent agencies. And while all this had been achieved in an
atmosphere of justice and moderation, it nevertheless constituted a
genuine social revolution..

Factories and shops, large and small, were altered or transformed to
conform to the strictest standards of cleanliness and hygiene:
interiors, so often dark and stifling, were opened up to light;
playing fields were constructed; rest areas where workers could unbend
during break, were set aside; employee cafeterias and respectable
locker rooms were opened. The larger industrial establishments, in
addition to providing the normally required conventional sports
facilities, were obliged to put in swimming pools!

In just three years, these achievements would reach unimagined
heights: more than two thousand factories refitted and beautified;
23,000 work premises modernized; 800 buildings designed exclusively
for meetings; 1,200 playing fields; 13,000 sanitary facilities; 17,000
cafeterias.

To assure the healthy development of the working class, physical
education courses were instituted for younger workers. Some 8,000 were
eventually organized. Technical training was equally emphasized.
Hundreds of work schools, and thousands of technical courses were
created. There were examinations for professional competence, and
competitions in which generous prizes were awarded to outstanding
masters of their craft.

Eight hundred departmental inspectors and 17,300 local inspectors were
employed to conscientiously monitor and promote these improvements.
To provide affordable vacations for German workers on a hitherto
unprecedented scale, Hitler established the "Strength through Joy"
program. As a result, hundreds of thousands of workers were now able
to make relaxing vacation trips on land and sea each summer.
Magnificent cruise ships were built, and special trains brought
vacationers to the mountains and the seashore. In just a few years,
Germany's working-class tourists would log a distance equivalent to 54
times the circumference of the earth! And thanks to generous state
subsidies, the cost to workers of these popular vacation excursions
was nearly insignificant..

Was Hitler's transformation of the lot of the working class
authoritarian? Without a doubt. And yet, for a people that had grown
sick and tired of anarchy, this new authoritarianism wasn't regarded
as an imposition. In fact, people have always accepted a strong man's
leadership.

In any case, there is no doubt that the attitude of the German working
class, which was still two-thirds non-Nazi at the start of 1933, soon
changed completely. As Belgian author Marcel Laloire noted at the
time:

When you make your way through the cities of Germany and go into the
working-class districts, go through the factories, the construction
yards, you are astonished to find so many workers on the job sporting
the Hitler insignia, to see so many flags with the swastika, black on
a bright red background, in the most densely populated districts.
Hitler's "German Labor Front" (Deutsche Arbeitsfront), which
incorporated all workers and employers, was for the most part eagerly
accepted. The steel spades of the sturdy young lads of the "National
Labor Service" (Reichsarbeitsdienst) could also be seen gleaming along
the highways.

Hitler created the National Labor Service not only to alleviate
unemployment, but to bring together, in absolute equality, and in the
same uniform, both the sons of millionaires and the sons of the
poorest families for several months' common labor and living.
All performed the same work, all were subject to the same discipline;
they enjoyed the same pleasures and benefited from the same physical
and moral development. At the same construction sites and in the same
barracks, Germans became conscious of what they had in common, grew to
understand one another, and discarded their old prejudices of class
and caste.

After a hitch in the National Labor Service, a young worker knew that
the rich man's son was not a pampered monster, while the young lad of
wealthy family knew that the worker's son had no less honor than a
nobleman or an heir to riches; they had lived and worked together as
comrades. Social hatred was vanishing, and a socially united people
was being born.

Hitler could go into factories-something few men of the so-called
Right would have risked in the past-and hold forth to crowds of
workers, at times in the thousands, as at the huge Siemens works. "In
contrast to the von Papens and other country gentlemen," he might tell
them, "in my youth I was a worker like you. And in my heart of hearts,
I have remained what I was then."

During his twelve years in power, no untoward incident ever occurred
at any factory he visited. Hitler was at home when he went among the
people, and he was received like a member of the family returning home
after making a success of himself.

But the Chancellor of the Third Reich wanted more than popular
approval. He wanted that approval to be freely, widely, and repeatedly
expressed by popular vote. No people was ever be more frequently asked
for their electoral opinion than the German people of that era-five
times in five years.

For Hitler, it was not enough that the people voted from time to time,
as in the previous democratic system. In those days, voters were
rarely appealed to, and when they expressed an opinion, they were
often ill-informed and apathetic. After an election, years might go
by, during which the politicians were heedless and inaccessible, the
electorate powerless to vote on their actions.

To enable the German public to express its opinion on the occasion of
important events of social, national, or international significance,
Hitler provided the people a new means of approving or rejecting his
own actions as Chancellor: the plebiscite.

Hitler recognized the right of all the people, men and women alike, to
vote by secret ballot: to voice their opinion of his policies, or to
make a well-grounded judgment on this or that great decision in
domestic or foreign affairs. Rather than a formalistic routine,
democracy became a vital, active program of supervision that was
renewed annually.

The articles of the "Plebiscite Law" were brief and clear:

1.The Reich government may ask the people whether or not it approves
of a measure planned by or taken by the government. This may also
apply to a law.

2. A measure submitted to plebiscite will be considered as established
when it receives a simple majority of the votes. This will apply as
well to a law modifying the Constitution.

3. If the people approves the measure in question, it will be applied
in conformity with article III of the Law for Overcoming the Distress
of the People and the Reich.

The Reich Interior Ministry is authorized to take all legal and
administrative measures necessary to carry out this law.
Berlin, July 14, 1933.
Hitler, Frick..

From the first months of 1933, his accomplishments were public fact,
for all to see. Before end of the year, unemployment in Germany had
fallen from more than 6,000,000 to 3,374,000. Thus, 2,627,000 jobs had
been created since the previous February, when Hitler began his
"gigantic task!" A simple question: Who in Europe ever achieved
similar results in so short a time?..

In his detailed and critical biography of Hitler, Joachim Fest limited
his treatment of Hitler's extraordinary social achievements in 1933 to
a few paragraphs. All the same, Fest did not refrain from
acknowledging:

The regime insisted that it was not the rule of one social class above
all others, and by granting everyone opportunities to rise, it in fact
demonstrated class neutrality-These measures did indeed break through
the old, petrified social structures. They tangibly improved the
material condition of much of the population. (J. Fest, Hitler, pp.
434-435.)

Not without reason were the swastika banners waving proudly throughout
the working-class districts where, just a year ago, they had been
unceremoniously torn down.

[Topaz]

Democracy is a cruel joke when the Jews control the media.

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation
with the average voter."
Winston Churchill

"Jewry rules from behind the mask of democracy. What one calls
democracy today is concealed Jewish domination. Jews determine what
happens in the democratic states"
Julius Streicher, Der Stürmer, #34/1939.

"A couple of weeks ago I quoted a few sentences from a book published
in 1928 titled Propaganda, by ... Edward Bernays. Today I'll read to
you an expanded set of excerpts from Bernays' book to give you a
little more of the gist of his message. I quote:

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits
and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic
society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society
constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of
our country.

"We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes are formed, our
ideas suggested largely by men we have never heard of. This is a
logical result of the way in which our democratic society is
organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner
if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. . . .

"Whatever attitude one chooses to take toward this condition, it
remains a fact that in almost every act of our daily lives, whether in
the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our
ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of
persons . . . who understand the mental processes and social patterns
of the masses.
It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind, who
harness old social forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide the
world. . .

"No serious sociologist believes any longer that the voice of the
people expresses any divine or especially wise and lofty idea. The
voice of the people expresses the mind of the people, and that mind is
made up for it by the group leaders in whom it believes and by those
persons who understand the manipulation of public opinion. . . .

"Whether in the problem of getting elected to office or in the problem
of interpreting and popularizing new issues, or in the problem of
making the day-to-day administration of public affairs a vital part of
the community life, the use of propaganda, carefully adjusted to the
mentality of the masses, is an essential adjunct of political life." -
end of quote -

I should mention that Bernays' book is not profound or especially
valuable in itself. It merely states a few self-evident facts about
the way in which a modern society works. For the person interested in
propaganda, far more useful books are available. The fact that Bernays
was a Jew is not even especially relevant here except to emphasize
that propaganda, the mass media, psychology, and the manipulation of
others always have been subjects of special interest to the Jews. It
is not for nothing that they are as thick in these fields today as
they were in the time of Bernays and Freud. The reason I chose
Bernays' book to quote is that it provides a more concise and clear
summary, in a few quotable paragraphs, of the role of propaganda in
modern life than most other
books on the subject.

If I were you I wouldn't even waste time trying to hunt down a copy of
Bernays' book. All it does is state the obvious: namely, that the
whole concept of democracy is meaningless in an age where a few people
have in their hands the mechanism for controlling the attitudes and
opinions of a majority of the electorate. And Bernays also takes the
disingenuous position that not only is this control a fact of life,
but it is a good thing; it is necessary to control and regiment the
thinking of the public in order to avoid chaos, and it can only lead
us to greater progress and prosperity. He simply glosses over the
question of
who should exercise this control and what their motives should be.

If you really want to study the subject of propaganda, a good place to
start is with the 1962 book, also titled Propaganda, by the Frenchman
Jacques Ellul. That book is still in print and is available from the
sponsor of this program, National Vanguard Books. Professor Ellul
deals with the subject in much greater depth and with much greater
honesty than Bernays does, but he agrees with Bernays on the most
obvious and
fundamental conclusions: on the irrelevance of the idea of democracy,
for example. I quote from Professor Ellul's book:

"If I am in favor of democracy, I can only regret that propaganda
renders the true exercise of it almost impossible. But I think that it
would be even worse to entertain any illusions about a coexistence of
true democracy and propaganda." -- end of quote --

To me it is frustrating that a conclusion that seems so obvious is
nevertheless resisted by so many otherwise intelligent people.
Democracy has become almost a sacred concept to them, this idea that
the policies guiding our nation should be decided by counting the
votes of every featherless biped who has reached the age of 18. It's
like motherhood:
they're almost afraid to question it.

This seems to be as true of intellectuals in our society as it is of
Joe Sixpacks. The fact is that intellectuals are no more likely to be
independent-minded than people who work with their hands; most
intellectuals, just like most Joe Sixpacks, are lemmings. In fact, as
Ellul points out, it is precisely the intellectuals who are most
strongly controlled by propaganda, because they are more open to every
medium of propaganda.

And I must admit that it took me a long time to overcome the ideas
drummed into me when I was in school that under a democracy people are
more free than under any other political system, that under a
democracy we are all free to think and say whatever we want, and that
we have a greater responsibility as citizens of a democracy to make up
our own minds about things independently, and so on. Actually, we
still have some degree of individual freedom in the United States
today because more than 200 years ago men whose temperament was far
more aristocratic than democratic in the modern sense of the word were
willing to go to war against their legitimate government in order to
secure that freedom for us, and people with a truly democratic
temperament, who have been
gnawing away at that freedom ever since, haven't yet succeeded in
suppressing it completely.

Well, it should not be surprising to us that although books such as
Professor Ellul's Propaganda - and many others - are readily
available, almost no one has heard of them. Keeping the public
believing in the myth of democracy is an important element in
maintaining control over the thinking and behavior of the public. It
is simply immoral and
scandalous to question the reality of democracy. It's like questioning
the truth of the "Holocaust" story. And for that reason we're not
likely to be taught in our social studies classes in school or to read
in the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal even the most obvious
and self-evident conclusions presented by Bernays or Ellul. We're
still
taught how democracy safeguards our freedom, even while those who
control the mechanism of propaganda in our democratic society are
working day and night to eliminate that freedom."

[Topaz]

by James Buchanan

http://www.ihr.org

http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com http://www.nsm88.org

http://heretical.com/ http://immigration-globalization.blogspot.com/

[Dave Heil]

On 2/26/2011 11 04, Topaz wrote:
> by James Buchanan
>
> Let's say the Germans merely removed the Jews from positions of
> political power and banned them from the legal profession.

We can't say that. It isn't what took place. It's a giant lie.

[Topaz]

by James Buchanan

Let's say the Germans merely removed the Jews from positions of

http://www.ihr.org

http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com http://www.nsm88.org

http://heretical.com/ http://immigration-globalization.blogspot.com/

[big john whine]

> Who cares what he thinks of trade unions?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

hitler was, i believe, the first (but not the last)
high-profile methedrine addict.
(History [hitler] Channel)

[Dave Heil]

On 2/26/2011 17 42, Topaz wrote:
> by James Buchanan
>
> Let's say the Germans merely removed the Jews from positions of
> political power and banned them from the legal profession.

You could say that, but you'd be lying your evil ass off, Toe Jam.

[sarge]

None of this matters, in context. We do know that Hitler fucked his
own country over. He devastated it, shamed it, was a terrible
military leader and an asshole.

Who cares what someone like him thinks?

He was so idiotic and destructive to what he claimed to love. You
want to deny he was effective against those he hated. Even if you
were right, he was so destructive towards his own team, his thoughts
should be considered the mullings of dangerous moron.

[tooly]

> should be considered the mullings of dangerous moron.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I'm more 'rational' on the subject of Hitler...dismiss the
enculturation to paint him with such a vile black face that he
challenges the devil's myth itself [hmm...the Devil 'IS' a myth isn't
it?]. If one sees what the Versailles treaty did to the German people
after WWI [leaving them without pride, humilated, and devastated
economically], one can see that HItler did much to bring back both
economic vitality and national esteem to the country. I think the
nazi's were actually TOO rational in scope, taking on professed
Science of the day [things like applying genetic husbandry that we do
farm animals to human beings; and things like 'natural selection'
taken to the nth degree as justifcation for a national impertive (ie
social darwinism etc), and well, how far can 'rational' science be
taken anyway before it steps on our HUMANITY? But then there was
'emotional' content too; perhaps the focus upon Jews to blame for all
problems [though there is a loose tie of Jewish intellectualism to
Liberal radicalism and Communism in general].

As SCIENCE obliterates our belief systems [our 'stories' no longer
work], it leaves us more and more leaning toward COLD rationalism.
Ergo, the destruction of the traditional family unit, sexual
promiscuity, unbinding codes of morality, and the re-embrace of things
traditionally 'INhuman' [like cloning, homosexuality, pornography,
drugs, and did I mention sexual promiscuity?]...all based upon a more
'rational' understanding of what we are, life is on thie planet
[without elevation of moral BEing that our belief systems allowed us
"once upon a time"].

Indeed, WHAT is 'enobling' in today's world? A fatter paycheck? or
altruistic Behavior? Most 'rational' thinkers see 'altruistic
behavior as being the FOOL these days [I know I was, the white girl
just took me for all I was worth...and I charged the beaches and
created her nest [civilization]...and she just turned around and gave
it to the black man, hehe]. Ain't that like a woman [marry you,
divorce you of your earnings, and end up with the guy who can service
her selfish needs best]. So much for 'altruism' hehe.

God died in our lives; what can I say. [I speak to grand means
remember; mainstream stuff...though few see it I imagine...what we've
become 'et.al.].

Just IMHO.

[sarge]

than?

...dismiss the
> enculturation to paint him with such a vile black face that he
> challenges the devil's myth itself [hmm...the Devil 'IS' a myth isn't
> it?].  If one sees what the Versailles treaty did to the German people
> after WWI [leaving them without pride, humilated, and devastated
> economically], one can see that HItler did much to bring back both
> economic vitality and national esteem to the country.  

On the surface, but people were scared and not just Jews and other
soon to be targets.
He brought in a culture of fear.

>I think the
> nazi's were actually TOO rational in scope,

I agree. This is the kind of evil they were. Cold, rational, and
nevertheless loony.

taking on professed
> Science of the day [things like applying genetic husbandry that we do
> farm animals to human beings; and things like 'natural selection'
> taken to the nth degree as justifcation for a national impertive (ie
> social darwinism etc), and well, how far can 'rational' science be
> taken anyway before it steps on our HUMANITY?  But then there was
> 'emotional' content too; perhaps the focus upon Jews to blame for all
> problems [though there is a loose tie of Jewish intellectualism to
> Liberal radicalism and Communism in general].
>
> As SCIENCE obliterates our belief systems [our 'stories' no longer
> work], it leaves us more and more leaning toward COLD rationalism.
> Ergo, the destruction of the traditional family unit, sexual
> promiscuity, unbinding codes of morality, and the re-embrace of things
> traditionally 'INhuman' [like cloning, homosexuality, pornography,
> drugs, and did I mention sexual promiscuity?]

'we've' always had periods where we were more accepting of these
things - except for cloning of course. This is not tied to science,
but it may be partly tied, in the West, to the secularization of
Judaism and Christianity.

...all based upon a more
> 'rational' understanding of what we are, life is on thie planet
> [without elevation of moral BEing that our belief systems allowed us
> "once upon a time"].
>
> Indeed, WHAT is 'enobling' in today's world?  A fatter paycheck? or
> altruistic Behavior?  Most 'rational' thinkers see 'altruistic
> behavior as being the FOOL these days [I know I was, the white girl
> just took me for all I was worth...and I charged the beaches and
> created her nest [civilization]...and she just turned around and gave
> it to the black man, hehe].  Ain't that like a woman [marry you,
> divorce you of your earnings, and end up with the guy who can service
> her selfish needs best].  So much for 'altruism' hehe.

I am not sure it is rational to universalize one's individual
experiences.

> God died in our lives; what can I say.  [I speak to grand means
> remember; mainstream stuff...though few see it I imagine...what we've
> become 'et.al.].
>
> Just IMHO.

I am not sure how any of this makes Hitler less of a problem. And it
certainly does not excuse what he did to Germany itself.

[Dave Heil]

On 2/27/2011 00 18, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

> You think Jews remained political viable in Germany under Hitler?
>
> No fucking wonder you can't help being laughed at.

Yijngris, you just can't help walking around with a full load of
ignorance, can you. I wrote nothing about Jews remaining "political
viable". I pointed out that the Nazis did far more than simply removing
Jews from political power and banning them from the legal profession.
Stop, read and think before you post.

[tooly]

> certainly does not excuse what he did to Germany itself.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Well, I speak with 'dispassion' on Hitler...just a footnote in history
now [a large one albiet, ha]. My only point is that nothing is
TOTALLY and absolutely 'evil'. HItler did some good things...early on
anyway. I spent some time in Germany and found the German people very
civil, friendly, highly cultured. It is a great country. It always
amazed me that just a couple of decades before [I was there in the
1970's], these same noble people would have been my mortal enemy. I
argue that people, especially 'enmasse', tend to follow what they
sense as 'higher virtue'. By virtue, I mean anything that is 'good' or
'strong'...that benefits the human effort in general. People don't
just follow EVIL 'out of hand'. So, I look to the unique
circumstances that surrounded the rise to power of someone like
Hitler, and as well, that he, at least at one time, displayed
something 'enobling' to the masses that, at least for that moment,
appeared like something virtuous. We look for hope wherever we can.

This I think is the more important lesson from nazism. Today, the
radical left disturbs the common tranquility of the western world to
bring about a great lapse of hope [coinciding with such things like
peak oil, global warming, and the general decline of the western way
of life by mass diffusion of multiculturism etc]. Divorce rates are
up, and civility is declining. Family seems to be assaulted along
with our belief systems. The BAD guys seem to be winning [relative to
our traditional western judao-christian value system].

I argue, a vast demoralization sets in. But what has saved us to this
point is that our ECONOMY has held and most people can 'turn away'
from this general demoralization by caccooning and delving into their
personal lives. But with this national debt about to come to a head
[a cascading of events including monetizing that debt inducing
increasing inflation, devalue of our credit worthiness making higher
interest rates necessary, the world seeking other standards other than
the dollar, and China becoming a great consumer nation [and
India],..along with rising oil prices, social upheaval in places like
the mideast, and rising social unrest even here in the
west...well...the 'doom and gloom' is gathering like Tolkien's dark
cloud of doom from Mordor that covered the land of middle earth. Add
to this the popular culture fare of things like movies like "2012",
"Knowing", "Impact", "Armegeddon", and others, constant bombardment
from history and discovery channel of things like 'Yellowstone 'ultra'
volcanoes', Gamma ray bursts in our direction, cataclysmic meteor
impacts, super novas just in our solar system, monster solar
flares...and on and on it seems to come at us from every direction
these days, almost as if by 'design' to demoralize us and leave us
without HOPE.

So, it makes us susceptible [more so anyway] to charismatic leaders
who might appear more than they really are at first sight [ha, like
Obama].

But as I said, for now, our ECONOMY saves us. We can rattle swords,
whine and complain, scathe one another here on the internet, and it
all remanis academic. Things are happening though...in Egypt,
mideast, and now Wisconsin, soon to be most all states perhaps.
Still, though the left celebrates what it thinks is a certain
'victory' in Obama, it is the REACTION by the 'traditional, civil,
good enobled society' that might be the more dangerous thing [just
like in nazi Germany?...I dunno].

But Hitler offered something to the people or they would not have
followed him.

I blame the bolsheviks myself; the LEFTIST radicals that pushed things
to become so 'liberalized' that all standards seem to vanish, opening
up society to runaway 'decadense' and 'indenceny' and everything
counter to wholesome family life. That's pretty much where are at now
in America, but instead of 'bolsheviks', we have the Gramsci-ite
'Cultural Marxists' in our midst, pretty much doing the same thing
[ah...but they are damned good 'intellectuals', say what, convincing
eskimoes to buy ice cubes and Cindy Loo to fuck the black man, hehe...
[sorry, my moral albatross...but it has destroyed my soul...very very
very painful you see...you know, to be destroyed 'inside out'
etc] ].

but again...our economy saves us for now.

[Topaz]

Leon Degrelle

[sarge]

I don't think I said he was. He was, overall, a terrible leader for
Germany. His skills only added to the problems his evil side
created. IOW if he had tried to kill every human he saw or openly
beat and raped German children, he would not have been able to gain a
following.

HItler did some good things...early on
> anyway.  I spent some time in Germany and found the German people very
> civil, friendly, highly cultured.  It is a great country.  It always
> amazed me that just a couple of decades before [I was there in the
> 1970's], these same noble people would have been my mortal enemy.  I
> argue that people, especially 'enmasse', tend to follow what they
> sense as 'higher virtue'.

or an easy out. If you can present them with magic bullets - in other
words fairly simple descriptions of 'their problems' and simple
solutions, this has a strong appeal, because people do not want to
face complicated solutions, especially ones where they have to
question their own values, actions, etc. Hitler did this well. He
found a way to manipulate people to see jews, for example, as the root
of evil - and Hitler needs your lecture on the idea that nothing is
only evil more than almost
anyone, ever - and that they were a better race than other races. IOW
he gave the Germans simple shortcuts, some economic, some
psychological, and finally some military that were disastrous for the
German people. And it did not take that long for the disasters to
start. Of course he was a product of problems already present in
German society, a very controlled patriarchal society where catharsis
and emotional expression were frowned on, where there was much anti-
semitism and much sense of racial superiority.

>By virtue, I mean anything that is 'good' or
> 'strong'...that benefits the human effort in general.  People don't
> just follow EVIL 'out of hand'.  

It depends what out of hand means. I don't think, of course, that if
Hitler had simply run around saying 'kill the jews' people would have
en masse followed him. He needed a philosophy. He needed to make it
seem logical. Along with everything else he did.

>So, I look to the unique
> circumstances that surrounded the rise to power of someone like
> Hitler, and as well, that he, at least at one time, displayed
> something 'enobling' to the masses that, at least for that moment,
> appeared like something virtuous.  We look for hope wherever we can.

He was an appealing lie. And many lies are appealing to people.

> This I think is the more important lesson from nazism.  Today, the
> radical left disturbs the common tranquility of the western world to
> bring about a great lapse of hope [coinciding with such things like
> peak oil, global warming, and the general decline of the western way
> of life by mass diffusion of multiculturism etc].   Divorce rates are
> up, and civility is declining.

These last two sound like right wing concerns disturbing hope.

> Family seems to be assaulted along
> with our belief systems.

Well, they were limited.

The BAD guys seem to be winning [relative to
> our traditional western judao-christian value system].

What bad guy is winning?

> I argue, a vast demoralization sets in.  But what has saved us to this

> point is that our ECONOMY has held and most people ...
>
> läs mer »

[sarge]

On 27 Feb, 09:08, tooly <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> Well, I speak with 'dispassion' on Hitler...just a footnote in history
> now [a large one albiet, ha].  My only point is that nothing is
> TOTALLY and absolutely 'evil'.  HItler did some good things

Probably. But in a fairly short time he devastated his country, even
his beloved Aryans and their creations.

He fucked up royally. He was almost unbelievably effective at leading
his country to ruin.

[Topaz]

From a German pamphlet:

Do you remember the state of Germany and the German people in the days
before the aged Reich President von Hindenburg chose Adolf Hitler and
his party as the last hope of saving Germany from certain political,
social and economic collapse that would lead to chaos? Tens of
thousands of factories had closed their gates. Millions of workers and
employees lost their jobs and were thrown ruthlessly into the gray
misery of mass unemployment. There seemed no way out...
By the end of 1933, 2 million citizens had jobs again. By September
1936, the number of unemployed had fallen beneath a million. By 1937
unemployment had vanished...
One of the foundations of National Socialism is the knowledge that
only work creates value and prosperity...
But not only the dreadful misery before 1933 reduced the desire of
countless Germans to have children. Crass egotism and materialism also
played a role. The System Era saw having children as foolish and
backward. The transformation that has occurred is clear in the rising
German birth rate...
The National Socialist state gives major tax reductions to fathers for
each child. Families with three or more children receive payments of
10 and 20 marks monthly. By the end of 1937, 510,000 children were
receiving such support...
By the end of 1937, 252,000 mothers had received free vacations...
The Winterhilfswerk is the most beautiful expression of the new German
people's community. It is not the work of a small group of rich
people. No, each German, all of us, rich and poor, manual laborers,
farmers and city-dwellers cooperate in fulfilling the Führer's will:
No German may be hungry or cold!
One does not know whom to admire more: the cheerful willingness of
those who collect, or the rising amount of the gifts, to which even
the poorest contribute their share. The success of the
Winterhilfswerk, written permanently into the law of 1 December 1936,
demonstrates the efforts of the entire German nation. Gifts of money
alone totaled over 920 million marks during the four winters from
1933/34 to 1936/37. An additional 570 million marks of goods were
contributed. 50,000 freight cars alone would have been needed for the
potatoes contributed in the past years. The three million meters of
clothing given out by the WHW would stretch from Berlin to the Middle
East. The two million kilograms of coal would form a wall ten meters
high around all of Germany. These few examples, and more could be
given, prove the strength of the German people's will to be active
socialists..
Another sign of this socialism is the entirely different status of the
German worker in factories. The social honor of each working German is
guaranteed by law. The state's representatives ensure that exploiting
workers is impossible. The legal working conditions correspond to
National Socialism's high opinion of work. Workers have a right to a
vacation and for paid holidays, even hourly and temporary workers.
There is nothing like this elsewhere in the world.
The dignity of labor is evidenced by improvements in the appearance of
the work place. Wherever one looks in Germany, ugly dark buildings are
vanishing. The "Beauty of Labor" movement in today's Germany is not
empty talk or an impossible demand, but living reality. Large sums
that formerly would have been wasted in strikes and lockouts have been
used since 1933 to improve work places. 23,000 places have been
transformed form soulless drudgery to pleasant places to work. 6,000
factory courtyards now offer space for real relaxation, which was not
true in the past. 17,000 canteens and lounges, 13,000 shower and
changing rooms have been transformed. The dirtier the work, the
cleaner the workers. More than 800 community buildings and 1200 sport
facilities , including over 200 swimming pools, have been established.
The crew quarters in over 3500 ships have also been improved.
The NS Society Kraft durch Freude brings cheer and pleasure to
workplaces through concerts and art exhibits. The art exhibits alone
introduced more than 2,5 million workers to the creations of true
German art. Just five years ago, it was obvious that the great works
of German culture belonged to a small group of the upper class.
Besides the factory concerns and art exhibitions, the NS Society Kraft
durch Freude uses theatrical performances, other concerts, singing and
musical groups to introduce the creations of German art to every
working German. 22 million citizens have attended theatrical
performances..
Of no less importance is the KdF's vacation program. Earlier, German
workers did not know what to do with their, at best, five days of
annual vacation. They could not visit the beauties of the German
landscape, much less travel abroad. The NS Society Kraft durch Freude
gave German workers the possibility of vacationing at the beach or in
the mountains, or to explore the homeland. Over 20 million have
participated in KdF trips since 1934. That is more than a quarter of
Germany's population. 19 million citizens participated in 60,000
vacation trips at home. Hand to hand, they would stretch from Berlin
to Tokyo. KdF trains have traveled 2,160,000 kilometers, or 54 times
around the world. The nine large KdF cruise ships have covered a
distance equal to twice the distance from the earth to the moon. They
have carried German workers to Madeira, Italy and Norway, broadening
their horizons and giving them unforgettable experiences. Three
additional ships will be added the KdF's own fleet of four. A KdF
resort is being built on the island of Rügen. It will not be the only
one. A series of other vacation and spa resorts will be built. They
will fulfill the Führer's wishes at the start of the NS Society Kraft
durch Freude: to lead a cheerful, creative and strong people to
success in the world.
The goal of bringing German culture to the entire German people,
regardless of their income, is especially clear with the German radio.
Thanks to the People's Radio Set, a solid, inexpensive and capable
receiver, the number of radio listeners has risen from around 4
million in 1932 to 9.1 million today. The un-German programming of the
System Era has been transformed by National Socialism. Now radio
acquaints the German people with the work of their great masters of
music and literature. Alongside these artistic programs, the
entertaining programming provides for the relaxation of hard-working
people.
Clear proof for the rising prosperity of the German people is provided
by the growing consumption of foodstuffs and luxury items of every
variety. During the prewar year 1913, only a little more than 2.9
million tons of meat were consumed. In 1937, that figure had risen to
3.7 million, up about 5% from 1932. Thanks to the elimination of
unemployment, bread consumption increased by about 10%, sugar by 15%.
Butter consumption rose from 420,000 to 519,000 tons. Milk production,
both for drinking and for making butter and cheese, rose from 23.5 to
25.4 billion liters from 1932 to 1937. Coffee consumption rose from
104,000 to 140,000 tons. Beer consumption has risen from 3.3 to 4.4
billion liters. That is an increase of about 3 billion glasses of
beer...
The growing prosperity and rising consumption of foodstuffs and luxury
items required hard work. A people can only consume what it produces.
In the face of this obvious truth, which however only became clear to
us after 1933, all the parliamentary resolutions, all the decisions of
international conferences and the demands of the international unions
become silly talk. The German people have proved that by our own work.
Germany has worked untiringly since 1933, producing itself the goods
it needs to improve its standard of living.
The rising production in all areas, which has never before been seen,
is the fruit of our work. The foundation of our life is agriculture,
whose task is to guarantee that the nation is fed. When the Führer
took power, agriculture was in a ruinous state. Officers of the court
were regular visitors at German farms. The animals and the harvest
were seized ruthlessly because taxes and interests had risen to
impossible levels that German soil could not meet. Forced auctions
drove tens of thousands of German farmers from their land. Desperation
prevailed in the villages. As a result of the desperate situation,
agriculture could not ensure the feeding of the German nation. The
ghost of hunger threatened.
Here too the Führer set to work immediately. Interest and taxes were
lowered, and the German soil was freed from usurious capital. Between
1927 and 1931, German agricultural debt rose by 2,9 billion marks.
From 1933 to 1936, it fell by 800 million marks. The interest burden,
which was over a billion marks in 1931/32, was reduced by National
Socialist actions to 630 million marks. The crowning achievement was
the creation of the Reich Inherited Farm Law, which guaranteed that
the German family farm will always remain the wellspring of the
nation...
Just as for farmers and agricultural workers, the urban population is
also being cared for. Although more than enough willing and able
workers were available in 1932, and although the housing need was
certainly great, the government put workers on the dole and built only
141,265 dwellings. This was an area in which the need for new jobs was
particularly clear. Even in 1933, the number of new dwellings rose to
178,000, with particular attention being given to small and mid-sized
units for those with limited incomes. This number grew year by year,
reaching 340,000 dwellings in 1937, double the number of 1932. In all,
National Socialist has built more than 1.4 million new, and above all
healthy and affordable, dwellings for the German people since 1933.
This is enough to house the entire population of Berlin...
Growing prosperity and production led to a growth in traffic. The
entirely neglected German highway system had to be repaired and
expanded. 40,000 kilometers of highway have been repaired since 1933.
That is enough to go all the way around the world! Then there are the
Reich Autobahns, the most splendid construction project in the world.
2,000 kilometers were open to traffic by the end of 1937. 1,000
kilometers more will be added yearly, until Germany has a highway
network unique in all the world.
Automobile production has reached a level that no one would have
thought possible a few years ago.
The number of motor vehicles in Germany has doubled, exceeding the 3
million mark in 1937. Thanks to the growing prosperity, broad circles
of our nation can now afford a car. 137,141 of the new vehicles in
1937, well over half, were purchased by workers and employees. 30,015
workers and employees were able to buy a car the previous year. Cars
are becoming both better and cheaper. The increase in cars will be
even more striking when the Volkswagen comes on the market. Enormous
factories are even now being built. The best proof for the quality and
good pricing of German cars is the fact that automobile exports have
increased by a factor of eight since 1932!..
The great improvements in the German transportation system have
resulted in a growing stream of foreign visitors. The pulsing life in
Germany is drawing more and more visitors to the Third Reich. The
number of overnights by foreigners has risen from 2.7 million in 1932
is far above 7 million in 1937. These foreigners, who often come to
Germany with false ideas, see with their own eyes the work of the
Führer and the remarkable efforts of the German people. They return
home as the best witnesses of the greatness and strength of the German
Reich...
The Führer has repeatedly reminded the German people that strong
policies are the absolute prerequisite to our economic, social and
cultural health. Only intentional hostility and stupidity can still
deny that the Führer was right in every respect...

[Topaz]

Obviously losing the war didn't prove they were wrong. It only proved
they were outnumbered. Compare the size of Germany to the size of the
Jewish controlled countries, the USA and the USSR. Hitler made Germany
great. Of course the Jew parasites couldn't stand that. Unfortunately
the bad side won the war.

An article by Dr. Joseph Goebbels, January 21, 1945
The Creators of the World's Misfortunes
by Joseph Goebbels

One could not understand this war if one did not always keep in mind
the fact that International Jewry stands behind all the unnatural
forces that our united enemies use to attempt to deceive the world and
keep humanity in the dark. It is so to speak the mortar that holds the
enemy coalition firmly together, despite its differences of class,
ideology and interests. Capitalism and Bolshevism have the same Jewish
roots, two branches of the same tree that in the end bear the same
fruit. International Jewry uses both in its own way to suppress the
nations and keep them in its service. How deep its influence on public
opinion is in all the enemy countries and many neutral nations is
plain to see that it may never be named in newspapers, speeches and
radio broadcasts. There is a law in the Soviet Union that punishes
anti-Semitism - or in plain English, public education about the Jewish
Question - by death. The expert in these matters is in no way
surprised that a leading spokesman for the Kremlin said over the New
Year that the Soviet Union would not rest until this law was valid
throughout the world. In other words, the enemy clearly says that its
goal in this war is to put the total domination of Jewry over the
nations of the earth under legal protection, and to threaten even a
discussion of this shameful attempt with the death penalty.

It is little different in the plutocratic nations. There the struggle
against the impudent usurpation of the Jewish race is not punished by
the executioner, rather by death through economic and social boycott
and by intellectual terror. This has the same effect in the end.
Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt were made by the Jewry. They enjoy its
full support and reward it with their full protection. They present
themselves in their speeches as upright men of civil courage, yet one
never hears even a word against the Jews, even though there is growing
hatred among their people as a result of this war, a hatred that is
fully justified. Jewry is a tabu theme in the enemy countries. It
stands outside every legal boundary and thus becomes the tyrant of its
host peoples. While enemy soldiers fight, bleed and die at the front,
the Jews make money from their sacrifice on the stock exchanges and
black markets. If a brave man dares to step forward and accuse the
Jews of their crimes, he will be mocked and spat on by their press,
chased from his job or otherwise impoverished, and be brought into
public contempt. Even that is apparently not enough for the Jews. They
want to bring Soviet conditions to the whole world: to give Jewry
absolute power and freedom from prosecution. He who objects or even
debates the matter gets a bullet in the back of his head or an axe
through his neck. There is no worse tyranny than this. This is the
epitome of the public and secret disgrace that Jewry inflicts on the
nations that deserve freedom.

That is all long behind us. Yet it still threatens us in the distance.
We have, it is true, entirely broken the power of the Jews in the
Reich, but they have not given up. They did not rest until they had
mobilized the whole world against us. Since they could no longer
conquer Germany from within, they want to try it from without. Every
Russian, English and American soldier is a mercenary of this world
conspiracy of a parasitic race. Given the current state of the war,
who could still believe that they are fighting and dying at the front
for the national interests of their countries! The nations want a
decent peace, but the Jews are against it. They know that the end of
the war would mean the dawning knowledge of humanity of the unhealthy
role that International Jewry played in preparing for and carrying out
this war. They fear being unmasked, which has in fact become
unavoidable and must inevitably come, just as the day follows the
night. That explains their raging bursts of hatred against us, which
are only the result of their fear and their feelings of inferiority.
They are too eager, and that makes them suspicious. International
Jewry will not succeed in turning this war to its advantage. Things
are already too far along. The hour will come in which all the peoples
of the earth will awake, and the Jews will be the victims. Here too
things can only go so far.

It is an old, often-used method of International Jewry to discredit
education and knowledge about its corrupting nature and drives,
thereby depending on the weaknesses of those people who easily confuse
cause with effect. The Jews are also masters at manipulating public
opinion, which they dominate through their network of news agencies
and press concerns that reaches throughout the world. The pitiful
illusion of a free press is one of the methods they use to stupefy the
publics of enemy lands. If the enemy press is as free as it pretends
to be, let it take an open position, for or against, on the Jewish
Question. It will not do that because it cannot and may not do so. The
Jews love to mock and criticize everything except themselves, although
everyone knows that they are most in need of public criticism. This is
where the so-called freedom of the press in enemy countries ends.
Newspapers, parliaments, statesmen and church leaders must be silent
here. Crimes and vices, filth and corruption are covered by the
blanket of love. The Jews have total control of public opinion in
enemy countries, and he who has that is also master of all of public
life. Only the nations that have to accept such a condition are to be
pitied. The Jews mislead them into believing that the German nation is
backward. Our alleged backwardness is actually proof of our progress.
We have recognized the Jews as a national and international danger,
and from this knowledge have drawn compelling conclusions. This German
knowledge will become the knowledge of he world at the end of this
war. We think it our primary duty to do everything in our power to
make that happen.

Humanity would sink into eternal darkness, it would fall into a dull
and primitive state, were the Jews to win this war. They are the
incarnation of that destructive force that in these terrible years has
guided the enemy war leadership in a fight against all that we see as
noble, beautiful and worth keeping. For that reason alone the Jews
hate it. They despite our culture and learning, which they perceive as
towering over their nomadic worldview. They fear our economic and
social standards, which leave no room for their parasitic drives, They
are the enemy of our domestic order, which has excluded their
anarchistic tendencies. Germany is the first nation in the world that
is entirely free of the Jews. That is the prime cause of its political
and economic balance. Since their expulsion from the German national
body has made it impossible for them to shake this balance from
within, they lead the nations they have deceived in battle against us
from without. It is fine with them, in fact it is part of their plan,
that Europe in the process will lose a large part of its cultural
values. The Jews had no part in their creation. They do not understand
them. A deep racial instinct tells them that since these heights of
human creative activity are forever out of their reach, they must
attack them today with hatred. The day is not distant when the nations
of Europe, yes, even those of the whole world, will shout: The Jews
are guilty for all our misfortunes! They must be called to account,
and soon and thoroughly!
International Jewry is ready with its alibi. Just as during the great
reckoning in Germany, they will attempt to look innocent and say that
one needs a scapegoat, and they are it. But that will no longer help
them, just as it did not help them during the National Socialist
revolution, The proof of their historical guilt, in details large and
small, is so plain that they can no longer be denied even with the
most clever lies and hypocrisy.

Who is it that drives the Russians, the English and the Americans into
battle and sacrifices huge numbers of human lives in a hopeless
struggle against the German people? The Jews! Their newspapers and
radio broadcasts spread the songs of war while the nations they have
deceived are led to the slaughter. Who is it that invents new plans of
hatred and destruction against us every day, making this war into a
dreadful case of self-mutilation and self-destruction of European life
and its economy, education and culture? The Jews! Who devised the
unnatural marriage between England and the USA on one side and
Bolshevism on the other, building it up and jealously ensuring its
continuance? Who covers the most perverse political situations with
cynical hypocrisy from a trembling fear that a new way could lead the
nations to realize the true causes of this terrible human catastrophe?
The Jews, only the Jews! They are named Morgenthau and Lehmann and
stand behind Roosevelt as a so-called brain trust. They are named
Mechett and Sasoon and serve as Churchill's money bags and order
givers. They are named Kaganovitsch and Ehrenburg and are Stalin's
pacesetters and intellectual spokesmen. Wherever you look, you see
Jews. They march as political commisars behind the Red army and
organize murder and terror in the areas conquered by the Soviets. They
sit behind the lines in Paris and Brussels, Rome and Athens, and
fashion their reins from the skin of the unhappy nations that have
fallen under their power.

That is the truth. It can no longer be denied, particularly since in
their drunken joy of power and victory the Jews have forgotten their
ordinarily so carefully maintained reserve and now stand in the
spotlight of public opinion. They no longer bother, apparently
believing that it is no longer necessary, that their hour has come.
And this is their mistake, which they always make when think
themselves near their great goal of anonymous world domination.
Thoughout the history of the nations, whenever this tragic situation
developed, a good providence saw to it that the Jews themselves became
the grave diggers of their own hopes. They did not destroy the healthy
peoples, rather the sting of their parasitic effects brought the
realization of the looming danger to the forefront and led to the
greatest sacrifices to overcome it. At a certain point, they become
that power that always wants evil but creates good. It will be that
way this time too.

The fact that the German nation was the first on earth to recognize
this danger and expel it from its organism is proof of its healthy
instincts. It therefore became the leader of a world struggle whose
results will determine of fate and the future of International Jewry.
We view with complete calm the wild Old Testament tirades of hatred
and revenge of Jews throughout the world against us. They are only
proof that we are on the right path. They cannot unsettle us. We gaze
on them with sovereign contempt and remember that these outbursts of
hate and revenge were everyday events for us in Germany until that
fateful day for International Jewry, 30 January 1933, when the world
revolution against the Jews that threateend not only Germany, but all
the other nations, began.
It will not cease before it has reached its goal. The truth can not be
stopped by lies or force. It will get through. The Jews will meet
their Cannae at the end of this war. Not Europe, rather they will
lose. They may laugh at this prophecy today, but they have laughed so
often in the past, and almost as often they stopped laughing sooner or
later. Not only do we know precisely what we want, we also know
precisely what we do not want. The deceived nations of he Earth may
still lack the knowledge they need, but we will bring it to them. How
will the Jews stop that in the long run? They believe their power
rests on sure foundations, but it stands on feet of clay. One hard
blow and it will collapse, burying the creators of the misfortunes of
the world in its ruins.

[sarge]

On 28 Feb, 22:47, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Obviously losing the war didn't prove they were wrong. It only proved
> they were outnumbered.

It proved that Hitler was a terrible leader. He took on much more
than his country could chew and his country paid for his idiocy.
He killed more Germans through his idiocy than all the Jews put
together have killed Germans.
If he had gassed himself, Germany would have faired much better.

[tooly]

yea, but if Hitler had gassed himself, what would we have to villify
today? And all them War movies and watching John Wayne die on Mt.
Surabachi and all ...and what would the History Channel do? And we
need our conspiracy theories to keep us from falling off in deep
boredom, don't you think?

All kidding aside, I'm pretty circumspect...I like to look at what has
been 'plugged' into my brain, and then to critique it. I see what
emotions are evoked...that kind of thing [trying to stay as objective
as possible]. I noticed that the very WORD 'Jew' evokes a kind of
'confused' array of 'mystery and fear' in me. The message has somehow
entered my brain, 'STAY AWAY'...'danger will robinson, danger'....

I think I'm like Pavlov's dogs...and I have been PROGRAMMED to NOT
think about Jews. Or to 'shock' myself with some pre-ordained pablum
of socialability that acts like a 'POsted, Keep OUT" sign to certain
areas of information in my brain [however sparse it may be].

The Jews are quite interesting if you ask me. I mean, my entire
'belief' system came from their teachings...again, is it PROGRAMMING?
I dunno. Most of the major scientific discoveries have come from
Jews...from Darwin, Freud, Einstein, to Jesus himself. So all that I
THINK I understand is rooted to what they have presented us with and
now sits in my brain [in some rudimentary fashion anyway].

We all know that Jews occupy a large percentage [more than their
portion of the general population] of professional level positions in
society...like dentists, lawyers, bankers etc...and are represented in
large percentages in large corporate ownership and management, like
major news corportations, New York Times, television media...and of
course are highly represented in Hollywood productions [the type,
subject matter, and angle of purview we are presented in movies for
example, which are very influential to how we are led to THINK]. All
this...more PROGRAMMING? I dunno.

I Just don't know myself. I just know the 'no tresspasssing' signs
are up in my brain [that evoke fear when I turn that way]...which
spurs interest...and perhaps 'susupicion'. I was always rebellious as
a kid when told "NO"...and tried to do it anyway, just for spite.

I mean, I just woke up here and I'm trying to figure out what all this
about. It seems to me, to understand that [what it is all about], you
pretty much have to probe that area in our brains that have been
PROGRAMMED [for whatever reasons]...especially probably the 'keep out'
areas. Hmm...forbidden zones in our brains. Interesting supposition,
say what. But why?

I'm probably being naive and putting my head in some invisible
dragon's mouth or something. Curiosity killed the cat and all that,
ha. But I think Hitler was on to something...but probably 'concluded'
things when the information is simply far too sparse to really
conclude anything. And the holocaust thing was very EVIL.

All one can really do is prick an eyebrow and say, 'Wow, that's
weird'...and probably just dismiss it and go on. But it is curious.
Do the Jews even know how they have PROGRAMMED, well, at least 'my'
brain anyway. Are these guys aliens from Mentat Planet Zargon or
something, hehe. When Karl Marx said that someday the 'intellectuals'
would rule the masses, I wonder what he meant anyway? My own peabrain
simply cannot muster a complete picture in all this...the information
is simply not there; just some observations and conspiracy theories.
But I look at how my culture has been trashed, and I think it is a
kneejerk 'reaction' in me to look for something blame. I try to not
jump to conclusions though..."IT WAS THE MARXISTS!!" ["ee, ee, ee,
ee...", screeched the pod people while pointing fingers].

No...I mean, it REALLY was the marxists.

[Topaz]

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 17:26:26 -0800 (PST), sarge
<grease...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 28 Feb, 22:47, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Obviously losing the war didn't prove they were wrong. It only proved
>> they were outnumbered.
>
>It proved that Hitler was a terrible leader.

No, it only proved he was outnumbered. Look at Germany. Look at the
USA and the USSR. Look at a map. The Jews control your media and your
mind. Figuratively speaking, you have your head up a Jew aft end.

By Mark Weber

Much has already been written about Roosevelt's campaign of deception
and outright lies in getting the United States to intervene in the
Second World War prior to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in
December 1941. Roosevelt's aid to Britain and the Soviet Union in
violation of American neutrality and international law, his acts of
war against Germany in the Atlantic in an effort to provoke a German
declaration of war against the United States, his authorization of a
vast "dirty tricks" campaign against U.S. citizens by British
intelligence agents in violation of the Constitution, and his
provocations and ultimatums against Japan which brought on the attack
against Pearl Harbor-all this is extensively documented and reasonably
well known.[1]

Not so well known is the story of Roosevelt's enormous responsibility
for the outbreak of the Second World War itself. This essay focuses on
Roosevelt's secret campaign to provoke war in Europe prior to the
outbreak of hostilities in September 1939. It deals particularly with
his efforts to pressure Britain, France and Poland into war against
Germany in 1938 and 1939.

Franklin Roosevelt not only criminally involved America in a war which
had already engulfed Europe. He bears a grave responsibility before
history for the outbreak of the most destructive war of all time.

This paper relies heavily on a little-known collection of secret
Polish documents which fell into German hands when Warsaw was captured
in September 1939.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p135_Weber.html
These documents clearly establish Roosevelt's crucial role in bringing
on the Second World War.

Poland had refused to even negotiate over self-determination for the
German city of Danzig and the ethnic German minority in the so-called
Polish Corridor. Hitler felt compelled to resort to arms when he did
in response to a growing Polish campaign of terror and dispossession
against the one and a half million ethnic Germans under Polish rule.
In my view, if ever a military action was justified, it was the German
campaign against Poland in 1939.

Poland's headstrong refusal to negotiate was made possible because of
a fateful blank check guarantee of military backing from Britain-a
pledge that ultimately proved completely worthless to the hapless
Poles. Considering the lightning swiftness of the victorious German
campaign, it is difficult to realize today that the Polish government
did not at all fear war with Germany. Poland's leaders foolishly
believed that German might was only an illusion. They were convinced
that their troops would occupy Berlin itself within a few weeks and
add further German territories to an enlarged Polish state. It is also
important to keep in mind that the purely localized conflict between
Germany and Poland was only transformed into a Europe-wide
conflagration by the British and French declarations of war against
Germany.

On 9 February 1938, the Polish Ambassador in Washington, Count Jerzy
Potocki, reported to the Foreign Minister in Warsaw on the Jewish role
in making American foreign policy:

The pressure of the Jews on President Roosevelt and on the State
Department is becoming ever more powerful ...

... The Jews are right now the leaders in creating a war psychosis
which would plunge the entire world into war and bring about general
catastrophe. This mood is becoming more and more apparent.
in their definition of democratic states, the Jews have also created
real chaos: they have mixed together the idea of democracy and
communism and have above all raised the banner of burning hatred
against Nazism.

This hatred has become a frenzy. It is propagated everywhere and by
every means: in theaters, in the cinema, and in the press. The Germans
are portrayed as a nation living under the arrogance of Hitler which
wants to conquer the whole world and drown all of humanity in an ocean
of blood.

In conversations with Jewish press representatives I have repeatedly
come up against the inexorable and convinced view that war is
inevitable. This international Jewry exploits every means of
propaganda to oppose any tendency towards any kind of consolidation
and understanding between nations. In this way, the conviction is
growing steadily but surely in public opinion here that the Germans
and their satellites, in the form of fascism, are enemies who must be
subdued by the 'democratic world.'

Ambassador Potocki's report from Washington of 9 January 1939 dealt in
large part with President Roosevelt's annual address to Congress:
President Roosevelt acts on the assumption that the dictatorial
governments, above all Germany and Japan, only understand a policy of
force. Therefore he has decided to react to any future blows by
matching them. This has been demonstrated by the most recent measures
of the United States.

The American public is subject to an ever more alarming propaganda
which is under Jewish influence and continuously conjures up the
specter of the danger of war. Because of this the Americans have
strongly altered their views on foreign policy problems, in comparison
with last year.

Of all the documents in this collection, the most revealing is
probably the secret report by Ambassador Potocki of 12 January 1939
which dealt with the domestic situation in the United States. This
report is given here in full:

The feeling now prevailing in the United States is marked by a growing
hatred of Fascism and, above all, of Chancellor Hitler and everything
connected with Nazism. Propaganda is mostly in the hands of the Jews
who control almost 100 percent radio, film, daily and periodical
press. Although this propaganda is extremely coarse and presents
Germany as black as possible-above all religious persecution and
concentration camps are exploited-this propaganda is nevertheless
extremely effective since the public here is completely ignorant and
knows nothing of the situation in Europe...

It is interesting to note that in this extremely well-planned campaign
which is conducted above all against National Socialism, Soviet Russia
is almost completely excluded. If mentioned at all, it is only in a
friendly manner and things are presented in such a way as if Soviet
Russia were working with the bloc of democratic states. Thanks to the
clever propaganda the sympathy of the American public is completely on
the side of Red Spain.

Besides this propaganda, a war psychosis is being artificially
created. The American people are told that peace in Europe is hanging
only by a thread and that war is unavoidable. At the same time the
American people are unequivocally told that in case of a world war,
America must also take an active part in order to defend the slogans
of freedom and democracy in the world.

These groups of people who occupy the highest positions in the
American government and want to pose as representatives of 'true
Americanism' and 'defenders of democracy' are, in the last analysis,
connected by unbreakable ties with international Jewry.

For this Jewish international, which above all is concerned with the
interests of its race, to portray the President of the United States
as the 'idealist' champion on human rights was a very clever move. In
this manner they have created a dangerous hotbed for hatred and
hostility in this hemisphere and divided the world into two hostile
camps. The entire issue is worked out in a masterly manner. Roosevelt
has been given the foundation for activating American foreign policy,
and simultaneously has been procuring enormous military stocks for the
coming war, for which the Jews are striving very consciously. With
regard to domestic policy, it is very convenient to divert public
attention from anti-Semitism, which is constantly growing in the
United States, by talking about the necessity of defending religion
and individual liberty against the onslaught of Fascism.

On 16 January 1939, Polish Ambassador Potocki reported to the Warsaw
Foreign Ministry on another lengthy conversation he had with
Roosevelt's personal envoy, William Bullitt

1. The vitalizing of foreign policy under the leadership of President
Roosevelt, who severely and unambiguously condemns totalitarian
countries.

2. United States preparations for war on sea, land and air will be
carried out at an accelerated pace and will consume the colossal sum
of 1.25 billion dollars.

3. It is the decided opinion of the President that France and Britain
must put an end to any sort of compromise with the totalitarian
countries. They must not get into any discussions aiming at any kind
of territorial changes.

4. They have the moral assurance that the United States will abandon
the policy of isolation and be prepared to intervene actively on the
side of Britain and France in case of war. America is ready to place
its whole wealth of money and raw materials at their disposal.

The Polish Ambassador to Paris, Juliusz (Jules) Lukasiewicz, sent a
top secret report to the Foreign Ministry in Warsaw at the beginning
of February 1939 which outlined U.S. policy towards Europe as
explained to him by William Bullitt:

A week ago, the Ambassador of the United States, William Bullitt
returned to Paris after a three months' leave in America. Meanwhile, I
have had two conversations with him which enable me to inform you of
his views regarding the European situation and to give a survey of
Washington's policy.

The international situation is regarded by official circles as
extremely serious and in constant danger of armed conflict. Those in
authority are of the opinion that if war should break out between
Britain and France on the one hand, and Germany and Italy on the
other, and should Britain and France be defeated, the Germans would
endanger the real interests of the United States on the American
continent. For this reason, one can foresee right from the beginning
the participation of the United States in the war on the side of
France and Britain, naturally some time after the outbreak of the war.
As Ambassador Bullitt expressed it: 'Should war break out we shall
certainly not take part in it at the beginning, but we shall finish
it.'

On 7 March 1939, Ambassador Potocki sent a remarkably lucid and
perceptive report on Roosevelt's foreign policy to his government in
Warsaw. This document was first made public when leading German
newspapers published it in German translation, along with a facsimile
reproduction of the first page of the Polish original, in their
editions of 28 October 1940. The main National Socialist party
newspaper, the Voelkischer Beobachter, published the Ambassador's
report with this observation:

The document itself needs no commentary. We do not know, and it does
not concern us, whether the internal American situation as reported by
the Polish diplomat is correct in every detail. That must be decided
by the American people alone. But in the interest of historical truth
it is important for us to show that the warmongering activities of
American diplomacy, especially in Europe, are once again revealed and
proven by this document. It still remains a secret just who, and for
what motives, have driven American diplomacy to this course. In any
case, the results have been disastrous for both Europe and America.
Europe was plunged into war and America has brought upon itself the
hostility of great nations which normally have no differences with the
American people and, indeed, have not been in conflict but have lived
for generations as friends and want to remain so...

While the Polish documents alone are conclusive proof of Roosevelt's
treacherous campaign to bring about world war, it is fortunate for
posterity that a substantial body of irrefutable complementary
evidence exists which confirms the conspiracy recorded in the
dispatches to Warsaw...

On 19 September 1938 -- that is, a year before the outbreak of war in
Europe-Roosevelt called Lindsay to a very secret meeting at the White
House. At the beginning of their long conversation, according to
Lindsay's confidential dispatch to London, Roosevelt "emphasized the
necessity of absolute secrecy. Nobody must know I had seen him and he
himself would tell nobody of the interview. I gathered not even the
State Department." The two discussed some secondary matters before
Roosevelt got to the main point of the conference. "This is the very
secret part of his communication and it must not be known to anyone
that he has even breathed a suggestion." The President told the
Ambassador that if news of the conversation was ever made public, it
could mean his impeachment. And no wonder. What Roosevelt proposed was
a cynically brazen but harebrained scheme to violate the U.S.
Constitution and dupe the American people.

The President said that if Britain and France "would find themselves
forced to war" against Germany, the United States would ultimately
also join. But this would require some clever maneuvering. Britain and
France should impose a total blockade against Germany without actually
declaring war and force other states (including neutrals) to abide by
it. This would certainly provoke some kind of German military
response, but it would also free Britain and France from having to
actually declare war. For propaganda purposes, the "blockade must be
based on loftiest humanitarian grounds and on the desire to wage
hostilities with minimum of suffering and the least possible loss of
life and property, and yet bring the enemy to his knees." Roosevelt
conceded that this would involve aerial bombardment, but "bombing from
the air was not the method of hostilities which caused really great
loss of life."

The important point was to "call it defensive measures or anything
plausible but avoid actual declaration of war." That way, Roosevelt
believed he could talk the American people into supporting war against
Germany, including shipments of weapons to Britain and France, by
insisting that the United States was still technically neutral in a
non-declared conflict. "This method of conducting war by blockade
would in his [Roosevelt's] opinion meet with approval of the United
States if its humanitarian purpose were strongly emphasized," Lindsay
reported.[19]

The American Ambassador to Italy, William Phillips, admitted in his
postwar memoirs that the Roosevelt administration was already
committed to going to war on the side of Britain and France in late
1938. "On this and many other occasions," Phillips wrote, "I would
like to have told him [Count Ciano, the Italian Foreign Minister]
frankly that in the event of a European war, the United States would
undoubtedly be involved on the side of the Allies. But in view of my
official position, I could not properly make such a statement without
instructions from Washington, and these I never received."[20]

The fateful British pledge to Poland of 31 March 1939 to go to war
against Germany in case of a Polish-German conflict would not have
been made without strong pressure from the White House

In their nationally syndicated column of 14 April 1939, the usually
very well informed Washington journalists Drew Pearson and Robert S.
Allen reported that on 16 March 1939 Roosevelt had "sent a virtual
ultimatum to Chamberlain" demanding that henceforth the British
government strongly oppose Germany. According to Pearson and Allen,
who completely supported Roosevelt's move, "the President warned that
Britain could expect no more support, moral or material through the
sale of airplanes, if the Munich policy continued."[22] Chamberlain
gave in and the next day, 17 March, ended Britain's policy of
cooperation with Germany in a speech at Birmingham bitterly denouncing
Hitler. Two weeks later the British government formally pledged itself
to war in case of German-Polish hostilities.

In a confidential telegram to Washington dated 9 April 1939, Bullitt
reported from Paris on another conversation with Ambassador
Lukasiewicz. He had told the Polish envoy that although U.S. law
prohibited direct financial aid to Poland, it might be possible to
circumvent its provisions. The Roosevelt administration might be able
to supply war planes to Poland indirectly through Britain. "The Polish
Ambassador asked me if it might not be possible for Poland to obtain
financial help and aeroplanes from the United States. I replied that I
believed the Johnson Act would forbid any loans from the United States
to Poland but added that it might be possible for England to purchase
planes for cash in the United States and turn them over to
Poland."[24]

On 25 April 1939, four months before the outbreak of war, Bullitt
called American newspaper columnist Karl von Wiegand, chief European
correspondent of the International News Service, to the U.S. embassy
in Paris and told him: "War in Europe has been decided upon. Poland
has the assurance of the support of Britain and France, and will yield
to no demands from Germany. America will be in the war soon after
Britain and France enter it."[25]

In a lengthy secret conversation at Hyde Park on 28 May 1939,
Roosevelt assured the former President of Czechoslovakia, Dr. Edvard
Benes, that America would actively intervene on the side of Britain
and France in the anticipated European war.[26]

In June 1939, Roosevelt secretly proposed to the British that the
United States should establish "a patrol over the waters of the
Western Atlantic with a view to denying them to the German Navy in the
event of war." The British Foreign Office record of this offer noted
that "although the proposal was vague and woolly and open to certain
objections, we assented informally as the patrol was to be operated in
our interests."[27]

Many years after the war, Georges Bonnet, the French Foreign Minister
in 1939, confirmed Bullitt's role as Roosevelt's deputy in pushing his
country into war. In a letter to Hamilton Fish dated 26 March 1971,
Bonnet wrote: "One thing is certain is that Bullitt in 1939 did
everything he could to make France enter the war."[28] An important
confirmation of the crucial role of Roosevelt and the Jews in pushing
Britain into war comes from the diary of James V. Forrestal, the first
U.S. Secretary of Defense. In his entry for 27 December 1945, he
wrote:

Played golf today with [former Ambassador] Joe Kennedy. I asked him
about his conversations with Roosevelt and [British Prime Minister]
Neville Chamberlain from 1938 on. He said Chamberlain's position in
1938 was that England had nothing with which to fight and that she
could not risk going to war with Hitler. Kennedy's view: That Hitler
would have fought Russia without any later conflict with England if it
had not been for [William] Bullitt's urging on Roosevelt in the summer
of 1939 that the Germans must be faced down about Poland; neither the
French nor the British would have made Poland a cause of war if it had
not been for the constant needling from Washington. Bullitt, he said,
kept telling Roosevelt that the Germans wouldn't fight; Kennedy that
they would, and that they would overrun Europe. Chamberlain, he says,
stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into the
war. In his telephone conversations with Roosevelt in the summer of
1939, the President kept telling him to put some iron up Chamberlain's
backside.[29]

"In the West," the Ambassador told Szembek, "there are all kinds of
elements openly pushing for war: the Jews, the super-capitalists, the
arms dealers. Today they are all ready for a great business, because
they have found a place which can be set on fire: Danzig; and a nation
that is ready to fight: Poland. They want to do business on our backs.
They are indifferent to the destruction of our country. Indeed, since
everything will have to be rebuilt later on, they can profit from that
as well."[30]

On 24 August 1939, just a week before the outbreak of hostilities,
Chamberlain's closest advisor, Sir Horace Wilson, went to Ambassador
Kennedy with an urgent appeal from the British Prime Minister for
President Roosevelt. Regretting that Britain had unequivocally
obligated itself in March to Poland in case of war, Chamberlain now
turned in despair to Roosevelt as a last hope for peace. He wanted the
American President to "put pressure on the Poles" to change course at
this late hour and open negotiations with Germany. By telephone
Kennedy told the State Department that the British "felt that they
could not, given their obligations, do anything of this sort but that
we could." Presented with this extraordinary opportunity to possibly
save the peace of Europe, Roosevelt rejected Chamberlain's desperate
plea out of hand. At that, Kennedy reported, the Prime Minister lost
all hope. "The futility of it all," Chamberlain had told Kennedy, "is
the thing that is frightful. After all, we cannot save the Poles. We
can merely carry on a war of revenge that will mean the destruction of
all Europe."[31]

But Roosevelt rejected out of hand this chance to save the peace of
Europe. To a close political crony, he called Kennedy's plea "the
silliest message to me that I have ever received." He complained to
Henry Morgenthau that his London Ambassador was nothing but a pain in
the neck: "Joe has been an appeaser and will always be an appeaser ...
If Germany and Italy made a good peace offer tomorrow, Joe would start
working on the King and his friend the Queen and from there on down to
get everybody to accept it."[33]

Infuriated at Kennedy's stubborn efforts to restore peace in Europe or
at least limit the conflict that had broken out, Roosevelt instructed
his Ambassador with a "personal" and "strictly confidential" telegram
on 11 September 1939 that any American peace effort was totally out of
the question. The Roosevelt government, it declared, "sees no
opportunity nor occasion for any peace move to be initiated by the
President of the United States. The people [sic] of the United States
would not support any move for peace initiated by this Government that
would consolidate or make possible a survival of a regime of force and
aggression."[34]

In the months before armed conflict broke out in Europe, perhaps the
most vigorous and prophetic American voice of warning against
President Roosevelt's campaign to incite war was that of Hamilton
Fish, a leading Republican congressman from New York. In a series of
hard-hitting radio speeches, Fish rallied considerable public opinion
against Roosevelt's deceptive war policy. Here are only a few excerpts
from some of those addresses.[35]

On 6 January 1939, Fish told a nationwide radio audience:
The inflammatory and provocative message of the President to Congress
and the world [given two days before] has unnecessarily alarmed the
American people and created, together with a barrage of propaganda
emanating from high New Deal officials, a war hysteria, dangerous to
the peace of America and the world. The only logical conclusion to
such speeches is another war fought overseas by American soldiers.

All the totalitarian nations referred to by President Roosevelt ...
haven't the faintest thought of making war on us or invading Latin
America.
I do not propose to mince words on such an issue, affecting the life,
liberty and happiness of our people. The time has come to call a halt
to the warmongers of the New Deal, backed by war profiteers,
Communists, and hysterical internationalists, who want us to
quarantine the world with American blood and money.
He [Roosevelt] evidently desires to whip up a frenzy of hate and war
psychosis as a red herring to take the minds of our people off their
own unsolved domestic problems. He visualizes hobgoblins and creates
in the public mind a fear of foreign invasions that exists only in his
own imagination.

On 5 March, Fish spoke to the country over the Columbia radio network:
The people of France and Great Britain want peace but our warmongers
are constantly inciting them to disregard the Munich Pact and resort
to the arbitrament of arms. If only we would stop meddling in foreign
lands the old nations of Europe would compose their own quarrels by
arbitration and the processes of peace, but apparently we won't let
them.

Fish addressed the listeners of the National Broadcasting Company
network on 5 April with these words:
The youth of America are again being prepared for another blood bath
in Europe in order to make the world safe for democracy.
If Hitler and the Nazi government regain Memel or Danzig, taken away
from Germany by the Versailles Treaty, and where the population is 90
percent German, why is it necessary to issue threats and denunciations
and incite our people to war? I would not sacrifice the life of one
American soldier for a half dozen Memels or Danzigs. We repudiated the
Versailles Treaty because it was based on greed and hatred, and as
long as its inequalities and injustices exist there are bound to be
wars of liberation.

The sooner certain provisions of the Versailles Treaty are scrapped
the better for the peace of the world.

I believe that if the areas that are distinctly German in population
are restored to Germany, except Alsace-Lorraine and the Tyrol, there
will be no war in western Europe. There may be a war between the Nazis
and the Communists, but if there is that is not our war or that of
Great Britain or France or any of the democracies.

New Deal spokesmen have stirred up war hysteria into a veritable
frenzy. The New Deal propaganda machine is working overtime to prepare
the minds of our people for war, who are already suffering from a bad
case of war jitters.

President Roosevelt is the number one warmonger in America, and is
largely responsible for the fear that pervades the Nation which has
given the stock market and the American people a bad case of the
jitters.

I accuse the administration of instigating war propaganda and hysteria
to cover up the failure and collapse of the New Deal policies, with 12
million unemployed and business confidence destroyed.

I believe we have far more to fear from our enemies from within than
we have from without. All the Communists are united in urging us to go
to war against Germany and Japan for the benefit of Soviet Russia.

Great Britain still expects every American to do her duty, by
preserving the British Empire and her colonies. The war profiteers,
munitions makers and international bankers are all set up for our
participation in a new world war.

On 21 April, Fish again spoke to the country over nationwide radio:

It is the duty of all those Americans who desire to keep out of
foreign entanglements and the rotten mess and war madness of Europe
and Asia to openly expose the war hysteria and propaganda that is
impelling us to armed conflict.

What we need in America is a stop war crusade, before we are forced
into a foreign war by internationalists and interventionists at
Washington, who seem to be more interested in solving world problems
rather than our own.

In his radio address of 26 May, Fish stated:
He [Roosevelt] should remember that the Congress has the sole power to
declare war and formulate the foreign policies of the United States.
The President has no such constitutional power. He is merely the
official organ to carry out the policies determined by the Congress.

Without knowing even who the combatants will be, we are informed
almost daily by the internationalists and interventionists in America
that we must participate in the next world war.

On 8 July 1939, Fish declared over the National Broadcasting Company
radio network:
If we must go to war, let it be in defense of America, but not in
defense of the munitions makers, war profiteers, Communists, to cover
up the failures of the New Deal, or to provide an alibi for a third
term.
It is well for all nations to know that we do not propose to go to war
over Danzig, power politics, foreign colonies, or the imperialistic
wars of Europe or anywhere in the world.

President Roosevelt could have done little to incite war in Europe
without help from powerful allies. Behind him stood the self-serving
international financial and Jewish interests bent on the destruction
of Germany. The principal organization which drummed up public support
for U.S. involvement in the European war prior to the Pearl Harbor
attack was the cleverly named "Committee to Defend America by Aiding
the Allies." President Roosevelt himself initiated its founding, and
top administration officials consulted frequently with Committee
leaders.[36]

Although headed for a time by an elderly small-town Kansas newspaper
publisher, William Allen White, the Committee was actually organized
by powerful financial interests which stood to profit tremendously
from loans to embattled Britain and from shrewd investments in giant
war industries in the United States.
At the end of 1940, West Virginia Senator Rush D. Holt issued a
detailed examination of the Committee which exposed the base interests
behind the idealistic-sounding slogans:

The Committee has powerful connections with banks, insurance
companies, financial investing firms, and industrial concerns. These
in turn exert influence on college presidents and professors, as well
as on newspapers, radio and other means of communication. One of the
powerful influences used by the group is the '400' and social set. The
story is a sordid picture of betrayal of public interest.
The powerful J.P. Morgan interest with its holdings in the British
Empire helped plan the organization and donated its first expense
money.

Some of the important figures active in the Committee were revealed by
Holt: Frederic R. Coudert, a paid war propagandist for the British
government in the U.S. during the First World War; Robert S. Allen of
the Pearson and Allen syndicated column; Henry R. Luce, the
influential publisher of Time, Life, and Fortune magazines; Fiorella
LaGuardia, the fiery half-Jewish Mayor of Now York City; Herbert
Lehman, the Jewish Governor of New York with important financial
holdings in war industries; and Frank Altschul, an officer in the
Jewish investment firm of Lazard Freres with extensive holdings in
munitions and military supply companies.

If the Committee succeeded in getting the U.S. into war, Holt warned,
"American boys will spill their blood for profiteers, politicians and
'paytriots.' If war comes, on the hands of the sponsors of the White
Committee will be blood-the blood of Americans killed in a needless
war."[37]

In March 1941 a list of most of the Committee's financial backers was
made public. It revealed the nature of the forces eager to bring
America into the European war. Powerful international banking
interests were well represented. J.P. Morgan, John W. Morgan, Thomas
W. Lamont and others of the great Morgan banking house were listed.
Other important names from the New York financial world included Mr.
and Mrs. Paul Mellon, Felix M. and James F. Warburg, and J. Malcolm
Forbes. Chicago department store owner and publisher Marshall Field
was a contributor, as was William Averill Harriman, the railroad and
investment millionaire who later served as Roosevelt's ambassador in
Moscow.

Of course, Jewish names made up a substantial portion of the long
list. Hollywood film czar Samuel Goldwyn of Goldwyn Studios was there,
along with David Dubinsky, the head of the International Ladies
Garment Workers Union. The William S. Paley Foundation, which had been
set up by the head of the giant Columbia Broadcasting System,
contributed to the Committee. The name of Mrs. Herbert H. Lehman, wife
of the New York Governor, was also on the list.[38]

Without an understanding of his intimate ties to organized Jewry,
Roosevelt's policies make little sense. As Jewish historian Lucy
Dawidowicz noted: "Roosevelt himself brought into his immediate circle
more Jews than any other President before or after him. Felix
Frankfurter, Bernard M. Baruch and Henry Morgenthau were his close
advisers. Benjamin V. Cohen, Samuel Rosenman and David K. Niles were
his friends and trusted aides."[39] This is perhaps not so remarkable
in light of Roosevelt's reportedly one-eighth Jewish ancestry.[40]

In his diary entry of 1 May 1941, Charles A. Lindbergh, the American
aviator hero and peace leader, nailed the coalition that was pushing
the United States into war:

The pressure for war is high and mounting. The people are opposed to
it, but the Administration seems to have 'the bit in its teeth' and
[is] hell-bent on its way to war. Most of the Jewish interests in the
country are behind war, and they control a huge part of our press and
radio and most of our motion pictures. There are also the
'intellectuals,' and the 'Anglophiles,' and the British agents who are
allowed free rein, the international financial interests, and many
others.[41]

Joseph Kennedy shared Lindbergh's apprehensions about Jewish power.
Before the outbreak of war he privately expressed concerns about "the
Jews who dominate our press" and world Jewry in general, which he
considered a threat to peace and prosperity. Shortly after the
beginning of hostilities, Kennedy lamented "the growing Jewish
influence in the press and in Washington demanding continuance of the
war "[42]

Roosevelt's efforts to get Poland, Britain and France into war against
Germany succeeded all too well. The result was untold death and misery
and destruction. When the fighting began, as Roosevelt had intended
and planned, the Polish and French leaders expected the American
president to at least make good on his assurances of backing in case
of war. But Roosevelt had not reckoned on the depth of peace sentiment
of the vast majority of Americans. So, in addition to deceiving his
own people, Roosevelt also let down those in Europe to whom he had
promised support.

Seldom in American history were the people as united in their views as
they were in late 1939 about staying out of war in Europe. When
hostilities began in September 1939, the Gallup poll showed 94 percent
of the American people against involvement in war. That figure rose to
96.5 percent in December before it began to decline slowly to about 80
percent in the Fall of 1941. (Today, there is hardly an issue that
even 60 or 70 percent of the people agree upon.)[43]

Roosevelt was, of course, quite aware of the intensity of popular
feeling on this issue. That is why he lied repeatedly to the American
people about his love of peace and his determination to keep the U.S.
out of war, while simultaneously doing everything in his power to
plunge Europe and America into war.

In a major 1940 re-election campaign speech, Roosevelt responded to
the growing fears of millions of Americans who suspected that their
President had secretly pledged United States support to Britain in its
war against Germany. These well-founded suspicions were based in part
on the publication in March of the captured Polish documents. The
speech of 23 October 1940 was broadcast from Philadelphia to the
nation on network radio. In the most emphatic language possible,
Roosevelt categorically denied that he had
pledged in some way the participation of the United States in some
foreign war. I give to you and to the people of this country this most
solemn assurance: There is no secret Treaty, no secret understanding
in any shape or form, direct or indirect, with any Government or any
other nation in any part of the world, to involve this nation in any
war or for any other purpose.[44]

We now know, of course, that this pious declaration was just another
one of Roosevelt's many brazen, bald-faced lies to the American
people.

Roosevelt's policies were more than just dishonest-they were criminal.
The Constitution of the United States grants authority only to the
Congress to make war and peace. And Congress had passed several major
laws to specifically insure U.S. neutrality in case of war in Europe.
Roosevelt continually violated his oath as President to uphold the
Constitution. If his secret policies had been known, the public demand
for his impeachment would very probably have been unstoppable.

The Watergate episode has made many Americans deeply conscious of the
fact that their presidents can act criminally. That affair forced
Richard Nixon to resign his presidency, and he is still widely
regarded as a criminal. No schools are named after him and his name
will never receive the respect that normally goes to every American
president. But Nixon's crimes pale into insignificance when compared
to those of Franklin Roosevelt. What were Nixon's lies compared to
those of Roosevelt? What is a burglary cover-up compared to an illegal
and secret campaign to bring about a major war?

Those who defend Roosevelt's record argue that he lied to the American
people for their own good-that he broke the law for lofty principles.
His deceit is considered permissible because the cause was noble,
while similar deception by presidents Johnson and Nixon, to name two,
is not. This is, of course, a hypocritical double standard. And the
argument doesn't speak very well for the democratic system. It implies
that the people are too dumb to understand their own best interests.
It further suggests that the best form of government is a kind of
benevolent liberal-democratic dictatorship.

Roosevelt's hatred for Hitler was deep, vehement, passionate-almost
personal. This was due in no small part to an abiding envy and
jealousy rooted in the great contrast between the two men, not only in
their personal characters but also in their records as national
leaders.

Superficially, the public fives of Roosevelt and Hitler were
astonishingly similar. Both assumed the leadership of their respective
countries at the beginning of 1933. They both faced the enormous
challenge of mass unemployment during a catastrophic worldwide
economic depression. Each became a powerful leader in a vast military
alliance during the most destructive war in history. Both men died
while still in office within a few weeks of each other in April 1945,
just before the end of the Second World War in Europe. But the
enormous contrasts in the lives of these two men are even more
remarkable.

Roosevelt was born into one of the wealthiest families in America. His
was a life utterly free of material worry. He took part in the First
World War from an office in Washington as UnderSecretary of the Navy.
Hitler, on the other hand, was born into a modest provinicial family.
As a young man he worked as an impoverished manual laborer. He served
in the First World War as a front line soldier in the hell of the
Western battleground. He was wounded many times and decorated for
bravery.

In spite of his charming manner and soothing rhetoric, Roosevelt
proved unable to master the great challenges facing America. Even
after four years of his presidency, millions remained unemployed,
undernourished and poorly housed in a vast land richly endowed with
all the resources for incomparable prosperity. The New Deal was
plagued with bitter strikes and bloody clashes between labor and
capital. Roosevelt did nothing to solve the country's deep, festering
racial problems which erupted repeatedly in riots and armed conflict.
The story was very different in Germany. Hitler rallied his people
behind a radical program that transformed Germany within a few years
from an economically ruined land on the edge of civil war into
Europe's powerhouse. Germany underwent a social, cultural and economic
rebirth without parallel in history. The contrast between the
personalities of Roosevelt and Hitler was simultaneously a contrast
between two diametrically different social-political systems and
ideologies.

And yet, it would be incorrect to characterize Roosevelt as merely a
cynical politician and front man for powerful alien interests.
Certainly he did not regard himself as an evil man. He sincerely
believed that he was doing the right and noble thing in pressuring
Britain and France into war against Germany. Like Wilson before him,
and others since, Roosevelt felt himself uniquely qualified and called
upon by destiny to reshape the world according to his vision of an
egalitarian, universalist democracy. He was convinced, as so many
American leaders have been, that the world could be saved from itself
by remodeling it after the United States.

Presidents like Wilson and Roosevelt view the world not as a complex
of different nations, races and cultures which must mutually respect
each others' separate collective identities in order to live together
in peace, but rather according to a selfrighteous missionary
perspective that divides the globe into morally good and evil
countries. In that scheme of things, America is the providentially
permanent leader of the forces of righteousness. Luckily, this view
just happens to correspond to the economic and political interests of
those who wield power in the United States.

President Roosevelt's War
In April 1941, Senator Gerald Nye of North Dakota prophetically
predicted that one day the Second World War would be remembered as
Roosevelt's war. "If we are ever involved in this war, it will be
called by future historians by only one title, 'the President's War,'
because every step of his since his Chicago quarantine speech [of 5
October 1937] has been toward war.[45]

The great American historian, Harry Elmer Barnes, believed that war
could probably have been prevented in 1939 if it had not been for
Roosevelt's meddling. "Indeed, there is fairly conclusive evidence
that, but for Mr. Roosevelt's pressure on Britain, France and Poland,
and his commitments to them before September 1939, especially to
Britain, and the irresponsible antics of his agent provocateur,
William C. Bullitt, there would probably have been no world war in
1939, or, perhaps, for many years thereafter."[46] In Revisionism: A
Key to Peace, Barnes wrote:

President Roosevelt had a major responsibility, both direct and
indirect, for the outbreak of war in Europe. He began to exert
pressure on France to stand up to Hitler as early as the German
reoccupation of the Rhineland in March 1936, months before he was
making his strongly isolationist speeches in the campaign of 1936.
This pressure on France, and also England, continued right down to the
coming of the war in September 1939. It gained volume and momentum
after the quarantine speech of October 1937. As the crisis approached
between Munich and the outbreak of war, Roosevelt pressed the Poles to
stand firm against any demands by Germany, and urged the English and
French to back up the Poles unflinchingly.
There is grave doubt that England would have gone to war in September
1939 had it not been for Roosevelt's encouragement and his assurances
that, in the event of war, the United States would enter on the side
of Britain just as soon as he could swing American public opinion
around to support intervention.

Roosevelt had abandoned all semblance of neutrality, even before war
broke out in 1939, and moved as speedily as was safe and feasible in
the face of anti-interventionist American public opinion to involve
this country in the European conflict.[47]

One of the most perceptive verdicts on Franklin Roosevelt's place in
history came from the pen of the great Swedish explorer and author,
Sven Hedin. During the war he wrote:

The question of the way it came to a new world war is not only to be
explained because of the foundation laid by the peace treaties of
1919, or in the suppression of Germany and her allies after the First
World War, or in the continuation of the ancient policies of Great
Britain and France. The decisive push came from the other side of the
Atlantic Ocean.

Roosevelt speaks of democracy and destroys it incessantly. He slanders
as undemocratic and un-American those who admonish him in the name of
peace and the preservation of the American way of life. He has made
democracy into a caricature rather than a model. He talks about
freedom of speech and silences those who don't hold his opinion.
He talks about freedom of religion and makes an alliance with
Bolshevism.

He talks about freedom from want, but cannot provide ten million of
his own people with work, bread or shelter. He talks about freedom
from the fear of war while working for war, not only for his own
people but for the world, by inciting his country against the Axis
powers when it might have united with them, and he thereby drove
millions to their deaths.
This war will go down in history as the war of President
Roosevelt.[48]

Officially orchestrated praise for Roosevelt as a great man of peace
cannot conceal forever his crucial role in pushing Europe into war in
1939.

It is now more than forty years since the events described here took
place. For many they are an irrelevant part of a best-forgotten past.
But the story of how Franklin Roosevelt engineered war in Europe is
very pertinent-particularly for Americans today. The lessons of the
past have never been more important than in this nuclear age. For
unless at least an aware minority understands how and why wars are
made, we will remain powerless to restrain the warmongers of our own
era.

Notes
1. See, for example: Charles A. Beard, President Roosevelt and
the Coming of the War 1941 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1948);
William Henry Chamberlin, America's Second Crusade (Chicago: Regnery,
1952, 1962); Benjamin Colby, 'Twas a Famous Victory (New Rochelle,
N.Y.: Arlington House, 1979); Frederic R. Sanborn, Design for War (New
York: Devin-Adair, 1951); William Stevenson, A Man Called Intrepid
(New York: Ballantine Books, 1980); Charles C. Tansill, Back Door to
War (Chicago: Regnery, 1952); John Toland, Infamy: Pearl Harbor and
Its Aftermath (New York: Doubleday, 1982).
2. Saul Friedlander, Prelude to Downfall: Hitler and the United
States 1939-1941 (New York: Knopf, 1967), pp. 73-77; U.S., Congress,
House, Special Committee on Investigation of Un-American Activities in
the United States, 1940, Appendix, Part II, pp. 1054-1059.
3. Friedlander, pp. 75-76.
4. New York Times, 30 March 1940, p. 1.
5. Ibid., p. 4, and 31 March 1940, p. 1.
6. New York Times, 30 March 1940, p. 1. Baltimore Sun, 30 March
1940, p. 1.
7. A French-language edition was published in 1944 under the
title Comment Roosevelt est Entre en Guerre.
8. Tansill, "The United States and the Road to War in Europe," in
Harry Elmer Barnes (ed.), Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace (Caldwell,
Idaho: Caxton, 1953; reprint eds., New York: Greenwood, 1969 and
Torrance, Calif.: Institute for Historical Review [supplemented],
1982), p. 184 (note 292). Tansill also quoted from several of the
documents in his Back Door to War, pp. 450-51.
9. Harry Elmer Barnes, The Court Historians Versus Revisionism
(N.p.: privately printed, 1952), p. 10. This booklet is reprinted in
Barnes, Selected Revisionist Pamphlets (New York: Arno Press & The New
York Times, 1972), and in Barnes, The Barnes Trilogy (Torrance,
Calif.: Institute for Historical Review, 1979).
10. Chamberlin, p. 60.
11. Edward Raczynski, In Allied London (London: Weidenfeld and
Nicolson, 1963), p. 51.
12. Orville H. Bullitt (ad.), For the President: Personal and
Secret (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972), p. x1v [biographical
foreword]. See also Time, 26 October 1936, p. 24.
13. Current Biography 1940, ed. Maxine Block (New York: H.W.
Wilson, 1940), p. 122 ff.
14. Gisleher Wirsing, Der masslose Kontinent: Roosevelts Kampf um
die Weltherrschaft (Jena: E. Diederichs, 1942), p. 224.
15. Bullitt obituary in New York Times, 16 February 1967, p. 44.
16. Jack Alexander, "He Rose From the Rich," Saturday Evening
Post, 11 March 1939, p. 6. (Also see continuation in issue of 18 March
1939.) Bullitt's public views on the European scene and what should be
America's attitude toward it can be found in his Report to the
American People (Boston: Houghton Mifflin [Cambridge: Riverside
Press], 1940), the text of a speech he delivered, with the President's
blessing, under the auspices of the American Philosophical Society in
Independence Hall in Philadelphia shortly after the fall of France.
For sheer, hyperventilated stridency and emotionalist hysterics, this
anti-German polemic could hardly be topped, even given the similar
propensities of many other interventionists in government and the
press in those days.
17. Michael R. Beschloss, Kennedy and Roosevelt (New York: Norton,
1980), pp. 203-04.
18. Robert Dallek, Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign
Policy 1932-1945 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979), p. 31. See
also pp. 164-65.
19. Dispatch No. 349 of 20 September 1938 by Sir. R. Lindsay,
Documents on British Foreign Policy (ed. Ernest L. Woodward), Third
series, Vol. VII (London, 1954), pp. 627-29. See also: Joseph P. Lash,
Roosevelt and Churchill 1939-1941 (New York: Norton, 1976), pp. 25-27;
Dallek, pp. 164-65; Arnold A. Offner, America and the Ori-, gins of
World War II (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1971), p. 61.
20. William Phillips, Ventures in Diplomacy (North Beverly, Mass.:
privately published, 1952), pp. 220-21.
21. Carl Burckhardt, Meine Danziger Mission 1937-1939 (Munich:
Callwey, 1960), p. 225.
22. Drew Pearson and Robert S. Allen, "Washington Daily
Merry-Go-Round," Washington Times-Herald, 14 April 1939, p. 16. A
facsimile reprint of this column appears in Conrad Grieb (ed.),
American Manifest Destiny and The Holocausts (New York: Examiner
Books, 1979), pp. 132-33. See also: Wirsing, pp. 238-41.
23. Jay P. Moffat, The Moffat Papers 1919-1943 (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1956), p. 232.
24. U.S., Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United
States (Diplomatic Papers), 1939, General, Vol. I (Washington: 1956),
p. 122.
25. "Von Wiegand Says-," Chicago Herald-American, 8 October 1944,
p. 2.
26. Edvard Benes, Memoirs of Dr. Eduard Benes (London: George
Allen & Unwin, 1954), pp. 79-80.
27. Lash, p. 64.
28. Hamilton Fish, FDR: The Other Side of the Coin (Now York:
Vantage, 1976; Torrance, Calif.: Institute for Historical Review,
1980), p. 62.
29. James V. Forrestal (ads. Walter Millis and E.S. Duffield), The
Forrestal Diaries (New York: Viking, 1951), pp. 121-22. I have been
privately informed by a colleague who has examined the original
manuscript of the Forrestal diaries that many very critical references
to the Jews were deleted from the published version.
30. Jan Szembek, Journal 1933-1939 (Paris: Plan, 1952), pp.
475-76.
31. David E. Koskoff, Joseph P. Kennedy: A Life and Times
(Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974), p. 207; Moffat, p. 253;
A.J.P. Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War (London: Hamish
Hamilton, 1961; 2nd ed. Greenwich, Conn.: Fawcett Premier [paperback],
1965), p. 262; U.S., Department of State, Foreign Relations of the
United States, 1939, General, Vol. I (Washington: 1956), p. 355.
32. Dallek, p. 164.
33. Beschloss, pp. 190-91; Lash, p. 75; Koskoff, pp. 212-13.
34. Hull to Kennedy (No. 905), U.S., Department of State, Foreign
Relations of the United States, 1939, General, Vol. I (Washington:
1956), p. 424.
35. The radio addresses of Hamilton Fish quoted here were
published in the Congressional Record Appendix (Washington) as
follows: (6 January 1939) Vol. 84, Part 11, pp. 52-53; (5 March 1939)
same, pp. 846-47; (5 April 1939) Vol. 84, Part 12, pp. 1342-43; (21
April 1939) same, pp. 1642-43; (26 May 1939) Vol. 84, Part 13, pp.
2288-89; (8 July 1939) same, pp. 3127-28.
36. Wayne S. Cole, Charles A. Lindbergh and the Battle Against
American Intervention in World War II (New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, 1974), pp. 128, 136-39.
37. Congressional Record Appendix (Washington: 1941), (30 December
1940) Vol. 86, Part 18, pp. 7019-25. See also: Appendix, Vol. 86, Part
17, pp. 5808-14.
38. New York Times, 11 March 1941, p. 10.
39. Lucy Dawidowicz, "American Jews and the Holocaust," The New
York Times Magazine, 18 April 1982, p. 102.
40. "FDR 'had a Jewish great-grandmother'" Jewish Chronicle
(London), 5 February 1982, p. 3.
41. Charles A. Lindbergh, The Wartime Journals of Charles A.
Lindbergh (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1970), p. 481.
42. Koskoff, pp. 282, 212. The role of the American press in
fomenting hatred against Germany between 1933 and 1939 is a subject
that deserves much more detailed treatment. Charles Tansill provides
some useful information on this in Back Door to War. The essay by
Professor Hans A. Muenster, "Die Kriegsschuld der Presse der USA" in
Kriegsschuld und Presse, published in 1944 by the German
Reichsdozentenfuehrung, is worth consulting.
43. An excellent essay relating and contrasting American public
opinion measurements to Roosevelt's foreign policy moves in 1939-41 is
Harry Elmer Barnes, Was Roosevelt Pushed Into War By Popular Demand in
1941? (N.p.: privately printed, 1951). It is reprinted in Barnes,
Selected Revisionist Pamphlets.
44. Lash, p. 240.
45. New York Times, 27 April 1941, p. 19.
46. Harry Elmer Barnes, The Struggle Against the Historical
Blackout, 2nd ed. (N.p.: privately published, ca. 1948), p. 12. See
also the 9th, final revised and enlarged edition (N.p.: privately
published, ca. 1954), p. 34; this booklet is reprinted in Barnes,
Selected Revisionist Pamphlets.
47. Harry Elmer Barnes, "Revisionism: A Key to Peace," Rampart
Journal of Individualist Thought Vol. II, No. 1 (Spring 1966), pp.
29-30. This article was republished in Barnes, Revisionism: A Key to
Peace and Other Essays (San Francisco: Cato Institute [Cato Paper No.
12], 1980).
48. Sven Hedin, Amerika im Kampf der Kontinente (Leipzig: F.A.
Brockhaus, 1943), p. 54.

Bibliography
Listed here are the published editions of the Polish documents, the
most important sources touching on the questions of their authenticity
and content, and essential recent sources on what President Roosevelt
was really-as opposed to publicly-doing and thinking during the
prelude to war. Full citations for all references in the article will
be found in the notes.
Beschloss, Michael R. Kennedy and Roosevelt. New York: Norton, 1980.
Bullitt, Orville H. (ed.). For the President: Personal and Secret.
[Correspondence between Franklin D. Roosevelt and William C. Bullitt.]
Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972.
Germany. Foreign Office Archive Commission. Roosevelts Weg in den
Krieg: Geheimdokumente zur Kriegspolitik des Praesidenten der
Vereinigten Staaten. Berlin: Deutscher Verlag, 1943.
Germany. Foreign Office. The German White Paper. [White Book No. 3.]
New York: Howell, Soskin and Co., 1940.
Germany. Foreign Office. Polnische Dokumente zur Vorgeschichte des
Kriegs. [White Book No. 3.] Berlin: F. Eher, 1940.
Koskoff, David E. Joseph P. Kennedy: A Life and Times. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974.
Lukasiewicz, Juliusz (Waclaw Jedrzejewicz, ed.). Diplomat in Paris
1936-1939. New York: Columbia University Press, 1970.
Wirsing, Giselher. Der masslose Kontinent: Roosevelts Kampf um die
Weltherrschaft. Jena: E. Diederichs, 1942.

[sarge]

On 1 mar, 15:59, tooly <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Feb 28, 8:26 pm, sarge <greasethew...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On 28 Feb, 22:47, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Obviously losing the war didn't prove they were wrong. It only proved
> > > they were outnumbered.
>
> > It proved that Hitler was a terrible leader.  He took on much more
> > than his country could chew and his country paid for his idiocy.
> > He killed more Germans through his idiocy than all the Jews put
> > together have killed Germans.
> > If he had gassed himself, Germany would have faired much better.
>
> yea, but if Hitler had gassed himself, what would we have to villify
> today?  

Some of the people in Rwanda; perhaps:

[Shrikeback]

Topaz tried to defend the genetically inferior
leadership of the Third Reich by writing:

> No, it only proved he was outnumbered. Look at Germany. Look at the
> USA and the USSR. Look at a map. The Jews control your media and your
> mind. Figuratively speaking, you have your head up a Jew aft end.

Clearly, Hitler was outnumber by choice, though.

He had a separate peace with Stalin, and for some
inexplicable reason decide spit that relationship
out like a ball of chewed spit. Stalin was perfectly
happy to allow Hitler's conquests without intervention,
as long as he could do his, "socialism in one country,"
thing. The Japanese were all in favor of maintaining
peace with the USSR. When Hitler broke up with
Stalin, Stalin was, in fact, so devastated that he didn't
speak a word for a week.

This speaks of poor judgement on your intravenous
methamphetamine using hero. Nazis just didn't have
what it takes to survive. May Darwin have mercy on
their twisted genetically-bungled souls.

I always thought it was a kind of reductio ad absurdum
that a part of the Nazi eugenics program was weeding
insanity out of the gene pool. Since so many of them
died, perhaps they made some progress on that front.
What do you think, Liebster Topaz?

And we all know that so many neo-Nazis are tweakers,
cranksters, methheads, speed freaks-- call it what you
will-- just because it's a longstanding Nazi tradition.
I wonder how many of them are lusting after their
nieces as well.

[sarge]

On 1 mar, 23:25, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 17:26:26 -0800 (PST), sarge
>

> <greasethew...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On 28 Feb, 22:47, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Obviously losing the war didn't prove they were wrong. It only proved
> >> they were outnumbered.
>
> >It proved that Hitler was a terrible leader.
>
> No, it only proved he was outnumbered.

Only a moron would create a two front war that fast and keep sending
more and more troops into it and keep overextending it.
His generals knew he was messing up and not in a small way, but like
all bad leaders Hitler did not listen to his intellectual and
experience superiors
and on a scale of error that few have matched.

He was a terrible leader.

[Topaz]

On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 17:51:55 -0800 (PST), sarge
<grease...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>Only a moron would create a two front war that fast and keep sending

There was only one front. The Jews controlled both the Capitalists and
the Communists.

How Americans Have Been Misled About World War II
Robert Higgs
http://www.lewrockwell.com/higgs/higgs77.html

... Many people are misled by formalities. They assume, for example,
that the United States went to war against Germany and Japan only
after its declarations of war against these nations in December 1941.
In truth, the United States had been at war for a long time before
making these declarations. Its war making took a variety of forms ...
Probably not one American .. in 10,000 - has an inkling of any of this
history. So effective has been the pro-Roosevelt, pro-American,
pro-World War II faction that in this country it has utterly dominated
teaching and popular writing about U.S. engagement

[tooly]

On Mar 7, 7:28 pm, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 17:51:55 -0800 (PST), sarge
>

> <greasethew...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Only a moron would create a two front war that fast and keep sending
>
> There was only one front. The Jews controlled both the Capitalists and
> the Communists.
>
> How Americans Have Been Misled About World War II

> Robert Higgshttp://www.lewrockwell.com/higgs/higgs77.html

>
> ... Many people are misled by formalities. They assume, for example,
> that the United States went to war against Germany and Japan only
> after its declarations of war against these nations in December 1941.
> In truth, the United States had been at war for a long time before
> making these declarations. Its war making took a variety of forms ...
> Probably not one American .. in 10,000 - has an inkling of any of this
> history. So effective has been the pro-Roosevelt, pro-American,
> pro-World War II faction that in this country it has utterly dominated
> teaching and popular writing about U.S. engagement
>
> http://www.ihr.org/   http://www.natvan.com http://www.nsm88.org
>
> http://heretical.com/ http://immigration-globalization.blogspot.com/

I cannot imagine the suffering that took place during those times; no
one can. I try to imagine just one human being...and the literal
torture.

I don't know why the world is as it is. But, it is. And I'm in it.

I'm bombarded with points of view. All have some merit.

It seems to me that Topaz actually speaks for 'reality'; but it is
something no one wants to accept. So, we deny it.

Truth is, the 'races' did not evolve equally upon the planet. I don't
know why. But it seems to me, that the best promise of a better world
is to recognize this 'evolution'. Are caucasians 'superior'? It is a
stupid question if you ask me. It is 'hubris' upon which, the 'ego'
is given reason to 'conflict' with itself.

The truth is, caucasians 'apparently' [as I've observed this planet
anyway], evolved in such a way...well, let's just say, the last thing
we want is that 'blacks' lead the way.

Pants on the ground. Says it all.

[Topaz]

On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 01:43:53 -0800 (PST), Shrikeback
<shrik...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Topaz tried to defend the genetically inferior
>leadership of the Third Reich by writing:
>
>> No, it only proved he was outnumbered. Look at Germany. Look at the
>> USA and the USSR. Look at a map. The Jews control your media and your
>> mind. Figuratively speaking, you have your head up a Jew aft end.
>
>Clearly, Hitler was outnumber by choice, though.
>
>He had a separate peace with Stalin, and for some
>inexplicable reason decide spit that relationship

Stalin Prepared for Summer 1941 Attack
Institute for Historical Review
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p501a_Weber.html

.. .. Suvorov assembles impressive evidence to show that Stalin was
preparing to attack Germany in 1941. Suvorov writes that on June 13,
1941, Stalin secretly began "the biggest troop movement in the history
of civilization," transferring enormous military forces to the
Soviet-German frontier. The Soviet troops were deployed there not for
defense, but in preparation for a surprise invasion. "It seems
certain," writes Suvorov, "that the Soviet concentration on the
frontier was due to be completed by July 10. Thus, the German blow
which fell just 19 days earlier found the Red Army in the most
unfavorable situation -- in railway waggons."

The Nazis and Hitler Saved Us
The really bad guys in World War 2 were the western allies, especially
the Americans. The monumental blindness and stupidity, unmatched
barbarism and sadism of America and Britain nearly brought a new Dark
Age upon a world dominated, not by them, but by the Soviet Union and
communism, Although the Nazis and fascists lost the war-their heroic
struggle with hardly any resources against overwhelming odds allowed
western civilization to survive. After 1945, it was the atomic bomb,
far above and beyond everything else, which allowed the west to
survive, even to this day-but before that, it was ADOLF HITLER who
saved us. For that he deserves our eternal gratitude and admiration.
It was HITLER who built and inspired the small coalition of the
willing to fight the good war against communism. By launching the
attack on the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941 with only conventional
weapons, HITLER and Germany, and Germany's allies pre-empted STALIN's
well-prepared and massive attack to the west, and postponed a complete
Soviet victory long enough for the US and Britain to finally come to
their senses. The US and Britain eventually took up essentially the
same struggle with nuclear weapons, or at least the threat of nuclear
weapons, even when that meant possible destruction of all life on the
planet.
Friedrich Paul Berg
Learn everything at www.nazigassings.com

[sarge]

On 8 mar, 01:28, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 17:51:55 -0800 (PST), sarge
>

> <greasethew...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Only a moron would create a two front war that fast and keep sending
>
> There was only one front. The Jews controlled both the Capitalists and
> the Communists.

Hello. Anyone home in there. Hitler did not need to make the same
mistakes other despots did - Napolean for example.
He did not need to send huge numbers of troops into Russia where what
happened to them was inevitable.
Even if you were right about Jews being on all sides, he was a
terrible war strategist and overrode the concerns of his betters.

He was terrible leader.

> How Americans Have Been Misled About World War II

> Robert Higgshttp://www.lewrockwell.com/higgs/higgs77.html

[Shrikeback]

On Monday, March 7, 2011 4:39:59 PM UTC-8, Topaz wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 01:43:53 -0800 (PST), Shrikeback
> <shrik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Topaz tried to defend the genetically inferior
> >leadership of the Third Reich by writing:
> >
> >> No, it only proved he was outnumbered. Look at Germany. Look at the
> >> USA and the USSR. Look at a map. The Jews control your media and your
> >> mind. Figuratively speaking, you have your head up a Jew aft end.
> >
> >Clearly, Hitler was outnumber by choice, though.
> >
> >He had a separate peace with Stalin, and for some
> >inexplicable reason decide spit that relationship
>
>
> Stalin Prepared for Summer 1941 Attack
> Institute for Historical Review
> http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p501a_Weber.html
>
> .. .. Suvorov assembles impressive evidence to show that Stalin was
> preparing to attack Germany in 1941. Suvorov writes that on June 13,
> 1941, Stalin secretly began "the biggest troop movement in the history
> of civilization," transferring enormous military forces to the
> Soviet-German frontier. The Soviet troops were deployed there not for
> defense, but in preparation for a surprise invasion.

IHR is one of your Neo-Nazi holocaust-denier sites. It's
not surprising for a Neo-Nazi site to claim Hitler was
acting defensively to try to cover up Hitler's obvious
incompetence.

Clearly, Hitler was an inferior genetic specimen, and
should have never been allowed in the gene pool.

[Shrikeback]

On Monday, March 7, 2011 4:40:19 PM UTC-8, tooly wrote:

> On Mar 7, 7:28 pm, Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 17:51:55 -0800 (PST), sarge
> >

The blacks had an empire in Egypt while the krauts
were still dressing in animal skins and grunting
like Neanderthals.

[Topaz]

On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 16:41:20 -0800 (PST), sarge
<grease...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>Hello. Anyone home in there. Hitler did not need to make the same
>mistakes other despots did

Franklin Roosevelt did some things to help people. But he didn't
really upset the money bag parasites who rule over us. Only Hitler did
that.

When Hitler came to power, Germany was hopelessly broke. The Treaty
of Versailles had imposed crushing reparations on the German people,
demanding that Germans repay every nation's cost of the (First World)
war. These costs totaled three times the value of all the property in
Germany.

Jewish currency speculators caused the German mark to plummet,
precipitating one of the worst runaway inflations in modern times. A
wheelbarrow full of 100 billion-mark banknotes could not buy a loaf of
bread. The national treasury was empty. Countless homes and farms
were lost to Jewish speculators and private banks. Germans lived in
hovels. They were starving.

Nothing like this had ever happened before - the total destruction of
the national currency, plus the wiping out of people's savings and
businesses. On top of all this came a global depression. Germany had
no choice but to succumb to debt slavery under international Jewish
bankers until 1933, when the National Socialists came to power. At
that point, the German government thwarted the international Jewish
banking cartels by issuing its own money. World Jewry responded by
declaring a global economic boycott of Germany.

Hitler began a national credit program by devising a plan of public
works that included flood control, repair of public buildings and
private residences, and construction of new roads, bridges, canals,
and port facilities. All these were paid for with money that no
longer came from the private international Jewish bankers.

The projected cost of these various programs was fixed at one billion
units of the national currency. To pay for this, the German
government issued bills of exchange, called Labor Treasury
Certificates. In this way, the National Socialists put people to
work.

Under the National Socialists, Germany's money wasn't backed by gold.
It was essentially a receipt for labor and materials delivered to the
government. Hitler said, "For every mark issued, we require the
equivalent of a mark's worth of work done, or goods produced." Workers
spent those Certificates on on other people's goods and services, thus
creating more jobs for more people. In this way, the German people
climbed out of the crushing debt imposed on them by the Jew bankers.

Within two years, the unemployment problem had been solved, and
Germany was back on it's feet. It had a solid, stable currency with
no debt, and no inflation, at a time when millions of people in the US
and other Western countries were still out of work. Within five
years, Germany went from being the poorest nation in Europe to the
richest!

Germany even managed to restore foreign trade, despite the global
boycott by Jew-owned enterprises, and the denial of foreign credit by
Jew-owned banks. Germany succeeded in this by exchanging equipment
and commodities directly with other countries, using a barter system
that cut the Jew bankers out of the picture. Germany flourished, since
barter eliminates national debt and trade deficits.

Germany's economic freedom was short-lived; but it left several
monuments, including the famous Autobahn, the world's first extensive
superhighway. This economic freedom made Hitler extremely popular with
the German people. Germany was rescued from English economic theory,
which says that all currency must be borrowed against the gold owned
by a private and secretive banking cartel - such as the Federal
Reserve, or the European Central Bank - rather than issued by the
government for the benefit of the people.

In "Billions For The Bankers, Debts For The People" (1984), Shelton
Emry commented:

"Germany issued debt-free and interest-free money from 1935 on, which
accounts for Germany's startling rise from the depression to a world
power in five years. The German government financed its entire
operations from 1935 to 1945 without gold, and without debt. It took
the entire Capitalist and Communist worlds to destroy the German
revolution, and bring Europe back under the heel of the Jewish
bankers."

> - Napolean for example.
>He did not need to send huge numbers of troops into Russia where what
>happened to them was inevitable.
>Even if you were right about Jews being on all sides, he was a
>terrible war strategist and overrode the concerns of his betters.

The German U Boat U-30 had been at sea for several days, under strict
orders to avoid contact or discovery. On September 3rd 1939 she
received notification that Germany was now at war with Great Britain.
The U boat's commander was Lieutenant Fritz-Julius Lemp. He had been
in command for almost a year, therefore was not unaware of the
"rules".

According to Admiral Doenitz at his trial at Nurenberg, Lemp had been
under orders, when notified of the outbreak of hostilities, to keep a
lookout for Armed Merchant Cruisers. German U boats had been issued
with strict orders to operate within the Prize Rules, international
laws governing the conduct of war at sea.

This was known as the Hague convention. Merchant ships were to be
stopped and searched, if they were found to be carrying enemy cargo,
they could be sunk. This was only after the crew had been seen safely
into lifeboats. U-30 had received this signal. Upon sighting the ship,
Lemp decided there and then that she was an Armed Merchant Cruiser and
shadowed her, watching her zig-zig pattern and course and speed.

This was a period in time when the United States was supposed to be a
neutral power. In defiance of international law, the U.S. was
supporting the British in what was known as Roosevelt's undeclared
war.

During the latter part of 1941, U.S. Navy ships provided escorts for
convoys bound for Great Britain carrying war materials from our
"Arsenal of Democracy." Because German U-boats (submarines) considered
all ships in the convoys fair game, it was only a matter of time
before we became involved in a "shooting war."

Congress passed a bill allowing armed American merchant ships to sail
into combat zones. President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed it. Although
the United States was not officially at war with Germany. The German
government did not apologize for the sinking. Instead, the Germans
issued a statement which read: "Anybody walking along the railroad
track at night should not be surprised if he gets run over by an
express train." The U.S. made unprovoked attacks on many German and
Italian subs under direct orders from the White House. During this
time, we were not legally at war. We had positive kills of at least
two U-Boats. You will find no record of this in Navy Records - our
logs were purged and all message traffic was removed from the ship by
order of the White House about three days after the Pearl Harbor
attack."

JS

>
>He was terrible leader.
>

"Hitler will have no war, but he will be forced into it, not this year
but later..." (The Jewish Emil Ludwig, Les Annales, June, 1934)

[Topaz]

On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 19:21:07 -0800 (PST), Shrikeback
<shrik...@gmail.com> wrote:

>The blacks had an empire in Egypt while the krauts
>were still dressing in animal skins and grunting
>like Neanderthals.

"Queen Hetop-Heres II, of the Fourth Dynasty, the daughter of Cheops,
the builder of the great pyramid, is shown in the colored bas reliefs
of her tomb to have been a distinct blonde. Her hair is painted a
bright yellow stippled with little red horizontal lines, and her skin
is white."

Coon, Carleton Stevens. The Races of Europe. New York City, Macmillan.
1939, p.98

The tomb of the wife of Zoser, the builder of the first pyramid in
Egypt, has a painting of her showing her with reddish-blond hair.

Heyerdahl, Thor, The Ra Expeditions, Garden City, Doubleday, 1971,
p.249

The mummy of Rameses II has yellow hair.

Egypt: Land of the Pharaohs, Time-Life books, Alexandria, VA 1992 p.8

"A funerary mask with the attributes of the goddess Isis shows a
vivid blue-green color of eyes.

A General Introduction to the Egyptian Collections in the the British
Museam. London, Harrison and Sons, 1930, p.49

The mummy of the wife of King Tutankhamen has auburn hair.

Carter, Michael, Tutankhamun, The Golden Monarch, N.Y. 1972 p.68

Red-haired mummies were found in the crocodile-caverns of Aboufaida.

Tomkins, Henry George, Remarks on Mr. Flinders Petries Collection of
Ethnographic Types from the Monuments of Egypt, Journal of the
Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland Vol. XVIIII,
1889, p.216

The mummy of Rameses II has fine silky yellow hair.

Smith, G. Elliot and Dawson, Warren R. Egyptian Mummies, London,
George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1924 p.99

A blond mummy was found at Kawamil along with many chestnut-colored
ones.

De Lapouge, G. Vacher, L'Aryen, Sa Vie Sociale. Paris, Pichat, 1899,
p.26

Amenhotep III's tomb painting shows him as having light red
hair.

National Geographic Society, Ancient Egypt, Discovering its
Splendors,1978 p.103

An Egyptian scribe named Sakkarah around 2500 B.C. has blue eyes.

Strouhal, Eugen, Life of the Ancient Egyptians, Norman, Oklahoma,
University of Oklahoma Press, 1992, p.53

A common good luck charm was the eye of Horus, the so-called
Wedjat Eye. The eye is always blue, and the word "wedjat" means "blue"
in Egyptian.

Queen Thi is painted as having a rosy complexion, blue eyes and
blond hair.

Hamy, E.T., "Races Humaines de la Vallee du Nil" Bulletin de la
Societe d'Anthropologie de Paris, 1886, p.739

Paintings from the Third Dynasty show native Egyptians with red
hair and blue eyes.

Pijoan, Jose, Historia del Arte Vol III, Madrid, Espasa-Calpe, 1932,
plate XI

The god Nuit was painted as white and blond.

Champollion, H., Le Nil et la Societe Egyptienne, Marseille, Musee
Boreby, 1973 p.94

A painting from Iteti's tomb at Saqqara shows a very Nordic-looking
man with blond hair.

Westendorf, Wolfhart, Painting, Sculpture and Architecture of Ancient
Egypt. New York, Harry N. Abrams, Inc. 1968 p.65

Time-Life books recently put out a volume called Rameses II The
Great. It has a good picture of the blond mummy of Rameses II. Another
picture can be found in the book X-Raying the Pharaohs, especially the
picture on the jacket cover. It shows his yellow hair.

A book called Chronicle of the Pharaohs was recently published
showing paintings,scuptures and mummies of 189 pharaohs and leading
personalities of Ancient Egypt. Of these, 102 appear European, 13 look
black and the rest are hard to classify. All nine mummies look
European.

The very first pharaoh, Narmer, also known as Menes, looks very
European, The same can be said for Khufu's cousin Hemon, who designed
the Great Pyramid of Giza. A computer-generated reconstruction of the
face of the Sphinx shows a European-looking face.

Egypt: Land of the Pharaohs, Time-Life books Alexandria, VA 1992 p.67

It was once painted sunburned red.

Silverberg, Robert, Before the Sphinx; Early Egypt N.Y., N.Y., T.
Nelson 1971 p.168

The Egyptians often painted upper class men as red and upper
class women as white; this because the men became sunburned or tanned
while outside under the burning Egyptian sun.

The information above is part of the information compiled by
Phillip Bonner and was printed in The Barnes Review, 130 Third Street,
SE, Washington, D.C. 20003

[Topaz]

By Patrick Grimm

We hear daily of the alleged dangers of "Holocaust denial." We read in
newspapers the frightful scare-mongering, comparing those who deny
"global warming" to "Holocaust deniers." But I purport that there is
one form of denial truly more deadly to the survival of all nations
than any other. It is "Jew-denial."

Now you might say, no one denies that Jews exist, that they live among
us and have done quite well economically, sometimes honestly and other
times dishonestly. This is not what I refer to. "Jew-denial" or a
"Jew-denier" is a person, either uninformed or collusive with the
overclass, who denies the power of Jews in America and the world,
denies that their organized power has been corrosive (and many honest
Jews will admit that it is) and denies that Jews are a racial group
(their own words) who believe in their right to rule over the Goyim
(which means cattle). To deny all these things is only to ignore the
words of Jewish leaders and the words of the Jews' own holy books, the
Torah and the Talmud. It is also to jettison mountains of evidence and
decades of Jewish political activism.

But the Jew-deniers are everywhere, a ubiquitous dullard or deceptive
or deceived (take your pick) band of human beings. The Jew-deniers are
in our churches, in our governments, in our schools, in our military,
in our White House and in some of our own houses. Now I don't believe
these people should be jailed, imprisoned or fined for swallowing
false news or abetting the genocide the Jews are working to bring upon
us all, whites and Palestinians alike (the white is the Palestinian of
the European sphere), but they should be approached with caution,
mainly because a lifetime of brainwashing and hornswoggling can elicit
an animalistic reaction when one of these Jew-deniers is smacked in
the face with the truth.

The Jew-deniers (at least the lay ones) should be pitied rather than
stigmatized, though I do exactly that with this article and I deeply
apologize for that. But in all seriousness, they need help. They are
not mentally ill as the Jews call any person who disagrees with their
steamrolling of humanity. The Jew-deniers are misinformed and in need
of rescuing from a life of reckless disinfo which the media Jews will
be glad to force-feed them on a daily basis forever and ever if they
are willing to read the Jew newspapers and watch inane Jew newscasts
with reporters who are front men and front women for Big Jewry. These
types of medium masteries only perpetuate Jew-denial and breed more
little Jew-deniers, persons for whom the thought that Jewry could
desire anything but beneficence and ennoblement toward the Gentile
herds is a "canard" or a "libel", either bloody or bloodless, or an
"anti-Semitic" screed.

Present facts, statistics, troubling Israeli massacres, Talmudic
quotes, lists of ultra-liberal Jewish wheelers and dealers,
anti-Christian political action committees, discombobulating
historical accounts that show Jews as they are rather than as how they
dress themselves up for the camera, and a Jew-denier and those who are
card-carrying members of the Jew-denial movement that numbers in the
millions upon millions will spit out one or more replies taken from a
prepared list of oodles of Pavlovian conditioned retorts. For the sake
of brevity, here are just a select few:

1.You're an anti-Semite!

This one is easy to combat because most Jews are not Semites and many
non-Jews are. Most Jews are Khazars, Ashkenazi Khazars, so this
characterization (anti-Semite) is a real living, breathing canard.
Inform the Jew-denier of this reality and recommend Arthur Koestler's
book The Thirteenth Tribe for his/her perusal. Some Jew-deniers are
smart, while others don't read anything more intellectual than Harry
Potter novels. If this is the case, a sympathetic and platonic hug may
be in order.

2 Jews are "God's Chosen People"

If the Jew-denier is someone who believes in God, ask the Jew-denier
if God is indeed a racist of the crudest sort (though this is not to
say that racism defensively and properly understood is always a
negative). If the reply is a reflexive egalitarian 'no', and it will
be if this person goes to any Zionized, Judaized church in this
country, then ask the person if he/she honestly believes that God
would have sanctioned the killing of thousands upon thousands of
innocent human beings only for the purpose of having the Jews procure
their property, vineyards, wives, concubines, etc. Either God is a
genocidal maniac or the stories of the Old Testament are
Judahite-penned justifications of mass murder. It's one or the other.
This is not going to wash as an argument if you are talking to a
biblical literalist or one of those folks who believes that all
Scripture is "God-breathed" and "inerrant." If the Jew-denier
regularly sends financial love gifts to television evangelists, then
quietly walk away after shaking the dust from your Reeboks.

3. Jews are just members of one of the world's monotheistic religions

Jews identify themselves as a "race", a "master race" superior to all
other races and destined to enslave the world. Jews consider
themselves a race, first and foremost. One helpful quote is in order:
"The former Israeli Prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, speaking to
Jewish group in southern California said: 'If Israel had not come into
existence after World War II then I am certain the Jewish race
wouldn't have survived. I stand before you and say you must strengthen
your commitment to Israel.'" [1]
Judaism is a racial religion based on blood purity and conquest of the
Gentile as ordered by their holy books. This is not conspiracy theory.
This is basic Old Testament hermeneutics. I won't list all the verses
here where God tells the "Chosen People" that they are destined to
rule the world, but you can find them in your family Bible in books
like Deuteronomy and Numbers and present them to any Jew-deniers you
happen to run into.

CONCLUSION
Friends and countrymen, Jew-denial is an epidemic sweeping the world,
especially the American portion of it. Our churches are cranking out
little Judaized clones right off the conveyor Bible belt, ready to
parrot the words of Cyrus Scofield and John Hagee. Our governments are
rife with Judeophilic politicians scared to speak out about the Jewish
hijacking of our foreign policy. They attack those like Jim Moran,
even projecting Protocols of Zion conspiracies onto his temperate and
reasonable critiques of AIPAC and the Israel-First-Last-And-Always
Lobby. The Jew-denial movement is running wild in the United States!
It is ignoring the real issues, which are Jewish dual loyalty or
Israel-only loyalty, the Jewish machinations manipulating our currency
and economy and the debauching of our culture and the shattering of
our borders by galvanized Jews drunk and delirious with political
power and ruinous regency.

Should we prosecute the Jew-deniers, persecute the Jew-denial movement
on the internet, lock up its sycophants, lackeys and philo-Semitic
toadies and batter these simpletons in the streets with steel pipes
and tire irons? No, there's no use emulating the Jews.

We can only curb or put the kibosh on the Jew-denial movement by
spreading data far and wide on the web and to anyone who will listen
to the straight skinny on Jew supremacism and traitorous Jew antics.
The Jew-denial campaign has done quite a bang-up job deceiving and
misdirecting the energies of ordinary individuals (acolytes of
Jew-deniery) away from their true enemy and their greatest threat,
Jewish extremism and onto bogeymen like supposed white supremacists
and radical Islamists. Because of the popular front and font of lies
and anti-white disempowerment, most people are unaware or too
apathetic to even notice the Big Jewry Hidden Hand pouring our
liberties and our freedoms straight down the Talmudic drain.
To paraphrase the son of a rabbi and the creator of Communism, Karl
Marx "Jew-recognizers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose
but your high interest rates!"

[1] (Daily Pilot, Newport Beach/ Costa Mesa, Feb. 28, 2000, front
page)

[sarge]

On 8 mar, 21:59, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 16:41:20 -0800 (PST), sarge
>

Nothing here is a response. He rushed into conflict instead of
consolidating acheivable gains. He tried to binge eat the world. He
did the over the advice of more experienced professional military
leaders who eventually were trained to be too scared to tell Hitler
the problems with his various plans. He overextended his armies, his
supply lines, he made poor choices and hypocritical ones for allies,
he misjudged his enemies, he created enemies where he did not need to
yet. He acted in ways that made it easy for nations to convince their
people to fight. He fucked up in so many ways it led to the rapid
destruction of his own country.

He was not a competent leader.

And since all you can do is cut and paste, how could you really
evaluate anything. It seems clear that you cannot formulate your own
position so you relate on quotes from others, even when these quotes
do not really fit the context.

Just because you rely on others to do your thinking for you does not
mean that this is the only way to think. It is not impressive. But
it does fit your love for a despot.

[Day Brown]

The only thing we learn from Hitler is what happens when a great nation
is led by a meth head. Only meth heads or other pathologicals would try
to defend him, a classic example of what the Greeks called 'sophistry',
that is, to defend an outrageous idea because, as we see, it garners
attention.

[Topaz]

Leon Degrelle

[Topaz]

On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 08:32:16 -0800 (PST), sarge
<grease...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Nothing here is a response. He rushed into conflict instead of
>consolidating acheivable gains.

Poland occupied German territory and acted
aggressively against Germany already before September 1939:
"Rydz-Smigly said to his army officers (according to the English
newspaper, Daily Mail on 6th August 1939): "Poland wants war with
Germany and Germany will not be able to avoid it even if she wants
to". During the months before the outbreak of the war, nearly all of
the larger newspapers in Poland, such as Dzien Polski, Mosarstwowiec,
Ilustrowany Kurier, demanded the annexation of at least East Prussia,
but if possible the Oder-Neisse Line as a frontier. And the National
Polish Youth League gave the following excitement: "In 1410 the
Germans were defeated at Tannenberg. Now we shall beat them up at
Berlin. Danzig, East Prussia and Silesia are minimal demands". In
August 1939 alone more than 2,000 Germans in Poland were slain or shot
without any indictment by a Polish prosecuting attorney. ..."
http://www.patriot.dk/poland.html
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/witness3.htm

> He tried to binge eat the world. He
>did the over the advice of more experienced professional military

The Jews control your media and your mind:

There was a book in ordinary bookstores called "An Empire of
Their Own". It was a pro-Jewish book but it showed that the Jews ran
Hollywood.

Here are some quotes from a magazine for Jews called "Moment".
It is subtitled "The Jewish magazine for the 90's" These quotes are
from the Aug 1996 edition after the Headline "Jews Run Hollywood - So
What?":

"It makes no sense at all to try to deny the reality of Jewish
power and prominence in popular culture. Any list of the most
influential production executives at each of the major movie studios
will produce a heavy majority of recognizably Jewish names."

"the famous Disney organization, which was founded by Walt
Disney, a gentile Midwesterner who allegedly harbored anti-Semetic
attitudes, now features Jewish personnel in nearly all its most
powerful positions."

"When Matsushita took over MCA-Universal, they did nothing to
undermine the unquestioned authority of Universal's legendary - and
all Jewish - management triad of Lew Wasserman, Sid Scheinberg, and
Tom Pollack."

Jewish control of the media:
MORTIMER ZUCKERMAN, owner of NY Daily News, US News & World Report and
chair of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish American
Organizations, one of the largest pro-Israel lobbying groups.
LESLIE MOONVES, president of CBS television, great-nephew of David
Ben-Gurion, and co-chair with Norman Ornstein of the Advisory
Committee on Public Interest Obligation of Digital TV Producers,
appointed by Clinton.
JONATHAN MILLER, chair and CEO of AOL division of AOL-Time-Warner
NEIL SHAPIRO, president of NBC News
JEFF GASPIN, Executive Vice-President, Programming, NBC
DAVID WESTIN, president of ABC News
SUMNER REDSTONE, CEO of Viacom, "world's biggest media giant"
(Economist, 11/23/2) owns Viacom cable, CBS and MTVs all over the
world, Blockbuster video rentals and Black Entertainment TV.
MICHAEL EISNER, major owner of Walt Disney, Capitol Cities, ABC.
RUPERT MURDOCH, Owner Fox TV, New York Post, London Times, News of the
World (Jewish mother)
MEL KARMAZIN, president of CBS
DON HEWITT, Exec. Director, 60 Minutes, CBS
JEFF FAGER, Exec. Director, 60 Minutes II. CBS
DAVID POLTRACK, Executive Vice-President, Research and Planning, CBS
SANDY KRUSHOW, Chair, Fox Entertainment
LLOYD BRAUN, Chair, ABC Entertainment
BARRY MEYER, chair, Warner Bros.
SHERRY LANSING. President of Paramount Communications and Chairman of
Paramount Pictures' Motion Picture Group.
HARVEY WEINSTEIN, CEO. Miramax Films.
BRAD SIEGEL., President, Turner Entertainment.
PETER CHERNIN, second in-command at Rupert Murdoch's News. Corp.,
owner of Fox TV
MARTY PERETZ, owner and publisher of the New Republic, which openly
identifies itself as pro-Israel. Al Gore credits Marty with being his
"mentor."
ARTHUR O. SULZBERGER, JR., publisher of the NY Times, the Boston Globe
and other publications.
WILLIAM SAFIRE, syndicated columnist for the NYT.
TOM FRIEDMAN, syndicated columnist for the NYT.
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, syndicated columnist for the Washington Post.
Honored by Honest Reporting.com, website monitoring "anti-Israel
media."
RICHARD COHEN, syndicated columnist for the Washington Post
JEFF JACOBY, syndicated columnist for the Boston Globe
NORMAN ORNSTEIN, American Enterprise Inst., regular columnist for USA
Today, news analyst for CBS, and co-chair with Leslie Moonves of the
Advisory Committee on Public Interest Obligation of Digital TV
Producers, appointed by Clinton.
ARIE FLEISCHER, Dubya's press secretary.
STEPHEN EMERSON, every media outlet's first choice as an expert on
domestic terrorism.
DAVID SCHNEIDERMAN, owner of the Village Voice and the New Times
network of "alternative weeklies."
DENNIS LEIBOWITZ, head of Act II Partners, a media hedge fund
KENNETH POLLACK, for CIA analysts, director of Saban Center for Middle
East Policy, writes op-eds in NY Times, New Yorker
BARRY DILLER, chair of USA Interactive, former owner of Universal
Entertainment
KENNETH ROTH, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch
RICHARD LEIBNER, runs the N.S. Bienstock talent agency, which
represents 600 news personalities such as Dan Rather, Dianne Sawyer
and Bill O'Reilly.
TERRY SEMEL, CEO, Yahoo, former chair, Warner Bros.
MARK GOLIN, VP and Creative Director, AOL
WARREN LIEBERFORD, Pres., Warner Bros. Home Video Div. of AOL-
TimeWarner
JEFFREY ZUCKER, President of NBC Entertainment
JACK MYERS, NBC, chief.NYT 5.14.2
SANDY GRUSHOW, chair of Fox Entertainment
GAIL BERMAN, president of Fox Entertainment
STEPHEN SPIELBERG, co-owner of Dreamworks
JEFFREY KATZENBERG, co-owner of Dreamworks
DAVID GEFFEN, co-owner of Dreamworks
LLYOD BRAUN, chair of ABC Entertainment
JORDAN LEVIN, president of Warner Bros. Entertainment
MAX MUTCHNICK, co-executive producer of NBC's "Good Morning Miami"
DAVID KOHAN, co-executive producer of NBC's "Good Morning Miami"
HOWARD STRINGER, chief of Sony Corp. of America
AMY PASCAL, chair of Columbia Pictures
JOEL KLEIN, chair and CEO of Bertelsmann's American operations
ROBERT SILLERMAN, founder of Clear Channel Communications
BRIAN GRADEN, president of MTV entertainment
IVAN SEIDENBERG, CEO of Verizon Communications
WOLF BLITZER, host of CNN's Late Edition
LARRY KING, host of Larry King Live
TED KOPPEL, host of ABC's Nightline
ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN Reporter
PAULA ZAHN, CNN Host
MIKE WALLACE, Host of CBS, 60 Minutes
BARBARA WALTERS, Host, ABC's 20-20
MICHAEL LEDEEN, editor of National Review
BRUCE NUSSBAUM, editorial page editor, Business Week
DONALD GRAHAM, Chair and CEO of Newsweek and Washington Post, son of
CATHERINE GRAHAM MEYER, former owner of the Washington Post
HOWARD FINEMAN, Chief Political Columnist, Newsweek
WILLIAM KRISTOL, Editor, Weekly Standard, Exec. Director
Project for a New American Century (PNAC)
RON ROSENTHAL, Managing Editor, San Francisco Chronicle
PHIL BRONSTEIN, Executive Editor, San Francisco Chronicle,
RON OWENS, Talk Show Host, KGO (ABC-Capitol Cities, San Francisco)
JOHN ROTHMAN, Talk Show Host, KGO (ABC-Capitol Cities, San Francisco)
MICHAEL SAVAGE, Talk Show Host, KFSO (ABC-Capitol Cities, San
Francisco) Syndicated in 100 markets
MICHAEL MEDVED, Talk Show Host, on 124 AM stations
DENNIS PRAGER, Talk Show Host, nationally syndicated from LA. Has
Israeli flag on his home page.
BEN WATTENBERG, Moderator, PBS Think Tank.
ANDREW LACK, president of NBC
DANIEL MENAKER, Executive Director, Harper Collins
DAVID REMNICK, Editor, The New Yorker
NICHOLAS LEHMANN, writer, the New York
HENRICK HERTZBERG, Talk of the Town editor, The New Yorker
SAMUEL NEWHOUSE JR, and DONALD NEWHOUSE own Newhouse Publications,
includes 26 newspapers in 22 cities; the Conde Nast magazine group,
includes The New Yorker; Parade, the Sunday newspaper supplement;
American City Business Journals, business newspapers published in more
than 30 major cities in America; and interests in cable television
programming and cable systems serving 1 million homes.
DONALD NEWHOUSE, chairman of the board of directors, Associated Press.
PETER R KANN, CEO, Wall Street Journal, Barron's
RALPH J. & BRIAN ROBERTS, Owners, Comcast-ATT Cable TV.
LAWRENCE KIRSHBAUM, CEO, AOL-Time Warner Book Group

[sarge]

On 9 mar, 22:27, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 08:32:16 -0800 (PST), sarge
>

> <greasethew...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Nothing here is a response.  He rushed into conflict instead of
> >consolidating acheivable gains.
>
>  Poland occupied German territory and acted
> aggressively against Germany already before September 1939:
> "Rydz-Smigly said to his army officers (according to the English
> newspaper, Daily Mail on 6th August 1939): "Poland wants war with
> Germany and Germany will not be able to avoid it even if she wants
> to". During the months before the outbreak of the war, nearly all of
> the larger newspapers in Poland, such as Dzien Polski, Mosarstwowiec,
> Ilustrowany Kurier, demanded the annexation of at least East Prussia,
> but if possible the Oder-Neisse Line as a frontier. And the National
> Polish Youth League gave the following excitement: "In 1410 the
> Germans were defeated at Tannenberg. Now we shall beat them up at
> Berlin. Danzig, East Prussia and Silesia are minimal demands". In
> August 1939 alone more than 2,000 Germans in Poland were slain or shot

> without any indictment by a Polish prosecuting attorney. ..."http://www.patriot.dk/poland.htmlhttp://www.biblebelievers.org.au/witness3.htm

Again, your cutting and pasting are primarily irrelevent. Even if the
information were correct about Poland, Hitler charged deeply into
RUSSIA. Hello. And this overextended his armies and led to the
deaths of thousands and thousands of Germans. He could easily have
defended the Eastern Front, maintained his supply lines, while
expanding to the West. But Hitler, moron that he was, tried to
expand - did you read that, expand - in all directions at once. And
this led to the downfall of Germany. And he thought he was going to
win, the moron, even when every other military leader in the world,
including German ones, knew the war was lost. He continued to
sacrifice Germans rather than face up to his mistakes.

The Jews in media cut and paste is irrelevent. I am not cutting and
pasting quotes from filmmakers.
You can't think or write for yourself so you assume other people are
like you.
Racists score low on IQ tests.

[Topaz]

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 05:41:10 -0800 (PST), sarge
<grease...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Again, your cutting and pasting are primarily irrelevent. Even if the
>information were correct about Poland, Hitler charged deeply into
>RUSSIA. Hello.

Stalin Prepared for Summer 1941 Attack
Institute for Historical Review
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p501a_Weber.html

.. .. Suvorov assembles impressive evidence to show that Stalin was
preparing to attack Germany in 1941. Suvorov writes that on June 13,
1941, Stalin secretly began "the biggest troop movement in the history
of civilization," transferring enormous military forces to the
Soviet-German frontier. The Soviet troops were deployed there not for

http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com http://www.nsm88.org

http://heretical.com/ http://immigration-globalization.blogspot.com/

[sarge]

On 10 mar, 23:38, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 05:41:10 -0800 (PST), sarge
>

> <greasethew...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Again, your cutting and pasting are primarily irrelevent.  Even if the
> >information were correct about Poland, Hitler charged deeply into
> >RUSSIA.  Hello.
>
> Stalin Prepared for Summer 1941 Attack

> Institute for Historical Reviewhttp://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p501a_Weber.html

And, as usual, your cutting and pasting is off target.
Even if Stalin was preparing to attack Germany, Hitler casting his
forces deep into Russia in Winter was idiotic and had many precedents
to show this was idiocy. He then had supply line issues,
hyperextension of his troops, a much greater line to defend, a wildly
resistent population inside his lines, all making his troops
vulnerable and what happened happened. As predicted by more
intelligent generals.

Further leaping into Russia, while expanding in many other directions,
gave Stalin easy propaganda. This was not a war of aggression, he
could say to the Russians, but defense against an invasion. And so
Stalin could cast bodies at the Germans until they were choking on
them.

Hitler was a terrible leader.

And I am starting to wonder, again, if you are not just some kind of
Nazi computer program that uses key words and throws quotes at
people. Your responses are not really responses since they do not
address main points and they are just cutting and pasting which a
machine could do.

Can you think for yourself?

Are you a Nazi Turing program?

[Topaz]

On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 15:49:35 -0800 (PST), sarge
<grease...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>And, as usual, your cutting and pasting is off target.
>Even if Stalin was preparing to attack Germany, Hitler casting his
>forces deep into Russia in Winter was idiotic and had many precedents
>to show this was idiocy. He then had supply line issues,

Hey man, I don't really give a shit about this war crap.

Hitler said on 19 July 1940: "My intention was never to wage war, but
to build a new social state with the highest level of culture. Each
year of war keeps me from this work."

[sarge]

On 12 mar, 12:39, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 15:49:35 -0800 (PST), sarge
>

If only Hitler was always honest that statement could be a kind of
evidence of something.

He was a terrible leader and he damaged the Germans more than anyone
before or after.

[Topaz]

On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 14:57:50 -0800 (PST), sarge
<grease...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>If only Hitler was always honest that statement could be a kind of
>evidence of something.

Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that the Jews tell big lies. The
Jewish media took his words out of context and claimed that Hitler was
in favor of big lies. This was in itself a big lie and proof that
Hitler was right. Here is what Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf and in
context:

"But it remained for the Jews, with their unqualified capacity
for falsehood, and their fighting comrades, the Marxists, to impute
responsibility for the downfall precisely to the man who alone had
shown a superhuman will and energy in his effort to prevent the
catastrophe which he had foreseen and to save the nation from that
hour of complete overthrow and shame. By placing responsibility for
the loss of the world war on the shoulders of Ludendorff they took
away the weapon of moral right from the only adversary dangerous
enough to be likely to succeed in bringing the betrayers of the
Fatherland to justice. All this was inspired by the principle--which
is quite true in itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain
force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always
more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature
than consciously or voluntarily, and thus in the primitive simplicity
of their minds they are more readily fall victims to the big lie than
the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little
matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It
would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and
they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort
truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so
may be brought clearly to their minds, they still doubt and waver and
will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For
the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it
has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in
this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These
people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest
purposes.
"From time immemorial, however, the Jews have known better than
any others how falsehood and calumny can be exploited. Is not their
very existence founded on one great lie, namely, that they are a
religious community, whereas in reality they are a race? And what a
race! One of the greatest thinkers that mankind has produced has
branded the Jews for all time with a statement which is profoundly and
exactly true. He (Schopenhauer) called the Jew 'The Great Master of
Lies'. Those who do not realize the truth of that statement, or do not
wish to believe it, will never be able to lend a hand in helping Truth
to prevail."

>
>He was a terrible leader and he damaged the Germans more than anyone
>before or after.

"The simple, self-evident, and indisputable fact is that Hitler saved
Germany from total collapse and earned the undying gratitude of the
German people. The world depression hit Germany harder than other
countries. In order to pay the grotesque war reparations demanded by
the victors of World War I, the German economy depended heavily on
exports of manufactured goods. Because of the worldwide depression,
foreign demand for German goods collapsed. What was left of German
industrial production after the war further declined by 40%. And while
the German mark was inflating to worthlessness, prices for exported
goods drastically deflated, reducing Germany's ability to acquire
foreign reserves. Germany was for all practical purposes bankrupt. And
the unemployed and destitute Germans looked for a miracle worker.

Hitler's solution was brilliant and unique-other countries would not
catch on for more than a decade. The German government invested to
stimulate domestic demand. Interest rates were set low and debts of
German enterprises were rescheduled. The Government limited imports,
and rather than depend on foreign loans from foreign banks, Germany
entered into barter agreements with Eastern European and Balkan
countries. Tariffs were imposed on food imports and the government
assisted farmers with low-interest-rate loans and complete
cancellation of debts on farms. Germany embarked on a series of public
works projects building high-speed highways, efficient railroads,
modern housing, and public buildings. At the same time, Jews were
phased out of positions of power in the German economy.

Within three years, German industrial production had increased by an
astounding 60%. GNP had increased by an incredible 40%. Unemployment
in Germany simply disappeared. Germany was the economic powerhouse of
Europe and the country's prosperity reached all classes of Germans.
Such was the genius of Hitler. He demonstrated that a European country
could achieve economic greatness by excluding Jews and avoiding loans
from Jewish banks, and the Jews worldwide never forgave him for it."

Morghus

[sarge]

On 13 mar, 10:55, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 14:57:50 -0800 (PST), sarge
>

> <greasethew...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >If only Hitler was always honest that statement could be a kind of
> >evidence of something.
>

>        Hitler wrote .......
[snip]
The terribly sad thing is that you are using Hitler's writing about
Jews being liars to defend his honesty. You should realize that that
is not logical. Jews and Hitler could be liars. A politician saying
they just want peace is meaningless. You have to look at their
actions. But you somehow think that if Hitler says he is peaceful, he
is. This kind of naivte about politicians is clinical.

> >He was a terrible leader and he damaged the Germans more than anyone
> >before or after.
>
> "The simple, self-evident, and indisputable fact is that Hitler saved
> Germany from total collapse and earned the undying gratitude of the

> German people. [snip]

No. One can make a case that he helped the economy for a while, but
long term he destroyed his country and it was put back together by its
conquerers.

The above assertion by you is ridiculous. Ask Germans. More than
most groups they wish he'd been aborted.

[Topaz]

On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 21:42:49 -0700 (PDT), sarge
<grease...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>The terribly sad thing is that you are using Hitler's writing about
>Jews being liars to defend his honesty. You should realize that that
>is not logical. Jews and Hitler could be liars. A politician saying
>they just want peace is meaningless. You have to look at their
>actions. But you somehow think that if Hitler says he is peaceful, he
>is. This kind of naivte about politicians is clinical.

Did your media tell you that Hitler was in favor of "big lies"? Were
they telling you the truth?

>
>No. One can make a case that he helped the economy for a while, but
>long term he destroyed his country and it was put back together by its
>conquerers.

Obviously losing the war didn't prove they were wrong. It only proved

they were outnumbered. Compare the size of Germany to the size of the
Jewish controlled countries, the USA and the USSR. Hitler made Germany
great. Of course the Jew parasites couldn't stand that. Unfortunately
the bad side won the war.

An article by Dr. Joseph Goebbels, January 21, 1945
The Creators of the World's Misfortunes
by Joseph Goebbels

One could not understand this war if one did not always keep in mind
the fact that International Jewry stands behind all the unnatural
forces that our united enemies use to attempt to deceive the world and
keep humanity in the dark. It is so to speak the mortar that holds the
enemy coalition firmly together, despite its differences of class,
ideology and interests. Capitalism and Bolshevism have the same Jewish
roots, two branches of the same tree that in the end bear the same
fruit. International Jewry uses both in its own way to suppress the
nations and keep them in its service. How deep its influence on public
opinion is in all the enemy countries and many neutral nations is
plain to see that it may never be named in newspapers, speeches and
radio broadcasts. There is a law in the Soviet Union that punishes
anti-Semitism - or in plain English, public education about the Jewish
Question - by death. The expert in these matters is in no way
surprised that a leading spokesman for the Kremlin said over the New
Year that the Soviet Union would not rest until this law was valid
throughout the world. In other words, the enemy clearly says that its
goal in this war is to put the total domination of Jewry over the
nations of the earth under legal protection, and to threaten even a
discussion of this shameful attempt with the death penalty.

It is little different in the plutocratic nations. There the struggle
against the impudent usurpation of the Jewish race is not punished by
the executioner, rather by death through economic and social boycott
and by intellectual terror. This has the same effect in the end.
Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt were made by the Jewry. They enjoy its
full support and reward it with their full protection. They present
themselves in their speeches as upright men of civil courage, yet one
never hears even a word against the Jews, even though there is growing
hatred among their people as a result of this war, a hatred that is
fully justified. Jewry is a tabu theme in the enemy countries. It
stands outside every legal boundary and thus becomes the tyrant of its
host peoples. While enemy soldiers fight, bleed and die at the front,
the Jews make money from their sacrifice on the stock exchanges and
black markets. If a brave man dares to step forward and accuse the
Jews of their crimes, he will be mocked and spat on by their press,
chased from his job or otherwise impoverished, and be brought into
public contempt. Even that is apparently not enough for the Jews. They
want to bring Soviet conditions to the whole world: to give Jewry
absolute power and freedom from prosecution. He who objects or even
debates the matter gets a bullet in the back of his head or an axe
through his neck. There is no worse tyranny than this. This is the
epitome of the public and secret disgrace that Jewry inflicts on the
nations that deserve freedom.

That is all long behind us. Yet it still threatens us in the distance.
We have, it is true, entirely broken the power of the Jews in the
Reich, but they have not given up. They did not rest until they had
mobilized the whole world against us. Since they could no longer
conquer Germany from within, they want to try it from without. Every
Russian, English and American soldier is a mercenary of this world
conspiracy of a parasitic race. Given the current state of the war,
who could still believe that they are fighting and dying at the front
for the national interests of their countries! The nations want a
decent peace, but the Jews are against it. They know that the end of
the war would mean the dawning knowledge of humanity of the unhealthy
role that International Jewry played in preparing for and carrying out
this war. They fear being unmasked, which has in fact become
unavoidable and must inevitably come, just as the day follows the
night. That explains their raging bursts of hatred against us, which
are only the result of their fear and their feelings of inferiority.
They are too eager, and that makes them suspicious. International
Jewry will not succeed in turning this war to its advantage. Things
are already too far along. The hour will come in which all the peoples
of the earth will awake, and the Jews will be the victims. Here too
things can only go so far.

It is an old, often-used method of International Jewry to discredit
education and knowledge about its corrupting nature and drives,
thereby depending on the weaknesses of those people who easily confuse
cause with effect. The Jews are also masters at manipulating public
opinion, which they dominate through their network of news agencies
and press concerns that reaches throughout the world. The pitiful
illusion of a free press is one of the methods they use to stupefy the
publics of enemy lands. If the enemy press is as free as it pretends
to be, let it take an open position, for or against, on the Jewish
Question. It will not do that because it cannot and may not do so. The
Jews love to mock and criticize everything except themselves, although
everyone knows that they are most in need of public criticism. This is
where the so-called freedom of the press in enemy countries ends.
Newspapers, parliaments, statesmen and church leaders must be silent
here. Crimes and vices, filth and corruption are covered by the
blanket of love. The Jews have total control of public opinion in
enemy countries, and he who has that is also master of all of public
life. Only the nations that have to accept such a condition are to be
pitied. The Jews mislead them into believing that the German nation is
backward. Our alleged backwardness is actually proof of our progress.
We have recognized the Jews as a national and international danger,
and from this knowledge have drawn compelling conclusions. This German
knowledge will become the knowledge of he world at the end of this
war. We think it our primary duty to do everything in our power to
make that happen.

Humanity would sink into eternal darkness, it would fall into a dull
and primitive state, were the Jews to win this war. They are the
incarnation of that destructive force that in these terrible years has
guided the enemy war leadership in a fight against all that we see as
noble, beautiful and worth keeping. For that reason alone the Jews
hate it. They despite our culture and learning, which they perceive as
towering over their nomadic worldview. They fear our economic and
social standards, which leave no room for their parasitic drives, They
are the enemy of our domestic order, which has excluded their
anarchistic tendencies. Germany is the first nation in the world that
is entirely free of the Jews. That is the prime cause of its political
and economic balance. Since their expulsion from the German national
body has made it impossible for them to shake this balance from
within, they lead the nations they have deceived in battle against us
from without. It is fine with them, in fact it is part of their plan,
that Europe in the process will lose a large part of its cultural
values. The Jews had no part in their creation. They do not understand
them. A deep racial instinct tells them that since these heights of
human creative activity are forever out of their reach, they must
attack them today with hatred. The day is not distant when the nations
of Europe, yes, even those of the whole world, will shout: The Jews
are guilty for all our misfortunes! They must be called to account,
and soon and thoroughly!
International Jewry is ready with its alibi. Just as during the great
reckoning in Germany, they will attempt to look innocent and say that
one needs a scapegoat, and they are it. But that will no longer help
them, just as it did not help them during the National Socialist
revolution, The proof of their historical guilt, in details large and
small, is so plain that they can no longer be denied even with the
most clever lies and hypocrisy.

Who is it that drives the Russians, the English and the Americans into
battle and sacrifices huge numbers of human lives in a hopeless
struggle against the German people? The Jews! Their newspapers and
radio broadcasts spread the songs of war while the nations they have
deceived are led to the slaughter. Who is it that invents new plans of
hatred and destruction against us every day, making this war into a
dreadful case of self-mutilation and self-destruction of European life
and its economy, education and culture? The Jews! Who devised the
unnatural marriage between England and the USA on one side and
Bolshevism on the other, building it up and jealously ensuring its
continuance? Who covers the most perverse political situations with
cynical hypocrisy from a trembling fear that a new way could lead the
nations to realize the true causes of this terrible human catastrophe?
The Jews, only the Jews! They are named Morgenthau and Lehmann and
stand behind Roosevelt as a so-called brain trust. They are named
Mechett and Sasoon and serve as Churchill's money bags and order
givers. They are named Kaganovitsch and Ehrenburg and are Stalin's
pacesetters and intellectual spokesmen. Wherever you look, you see
Jews. They march as political commisars behind the Red army and
organize murder and terror in the areas conquered by the Soviets. They
sit behind the lines in Paris and Brussels, Rome and Athens, and
fashion their reins from the skin of the unhappy nations that have
fallen under their power.

That is the truth. It can no longer be denied, particularly since in
their drunken joy of power and victory the Jews have forgotten their
ordinarily so carefully maintained reserve and now stand in the
spotlight of public opinion. They no longer bother, apparently
believing that it is no longer necessary, that their hour has come.
And this is their mistake, which they always make when think
themselves near their great goal of anonymous world domination.
Thoughout the history of the nations, whenever this tragic situation
developed, a good providence saw to it that the Jews themselves became
the grave diggers of their own hopes. They did not destroy the healthy
peoples, rather the sting of their parasitic effects brought the
realization of the looming danger to the forefront and led to the
greatest sacrifices to overcome it. At a certain point, they become
that power that always wants evil but creates good. It will be that
way this time too.

The fact that the German nation was the first on earth to recognize
this danger and expel it from its organism is proof of its healthy
instincts. It therefore became the leader of a world struggle whose
results will determine of fate and the future of International Jewry.
We view with complete calm the wild Old Testament tirades of hatred
and revenge of Jews throughout the world against us. They are only
proof that we are on the right path. They cannot unsettle us. We gaze
on them with sovereign contempt and remember that these outbursts of
hate and revenge were everyday events for us in Germany until that
fateful day for International Jewry, 30 January 1933, when the world
revolution against the Jews that threateend not only Germany, but all
the other nations, began.
It will not cease before it has reached its goal. The truth can not be
stopped by lies or force. It will get through. The Jews will meet
their Cannae at the end of this war. Not Europe, rather they will
lose. They may laugh at this prophecy today, but they have laughed so
often in the past, and almost as often they stopped laughing sooner or
later. Not only do we know precisely what we want, we also know
precisely what we do not want. The deceived nations of he Earth may
still lack the knowledge they need, but we will bring it to them. How
will the Jews stop that in the long run? They believe their power
rests on sure foundations, but it stands on feet of clay. One hard
blow and it will collapse, burying the creators of the misfortunes of
the world in its ruins.

>
>The above assertion by you is ridiculous. Ask Germans. More than
>most groups they wish he'd been aborted.
>
>He was a terrible leader.

The Jews control your media and your mind. Figuratively speaking, you
have your head up a Jews aft end.

[sarge]

On 14 mar, 21:44, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 21:42:49 -0700 (PDT), sarge
>

> <greasethew...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >The terribly sad thing is that you are using Hitler's writing about
> >Jews being liars to defend his honesty.  You should realize that that
> >is not logical.  Jews and Hitler could be liars.   A politician saying
> >they just want peace is meaningless.  You have to look at their
> >actions.  But you somehow think that if Hitler says he is peaceful, he
> >is.  This kind of naivte about politicians is clinical.
>
> Did your media tell you that Hitler was in favor of "big lies"? Were
> they telling you the truth?
>

You still don't understand something very basic: Hitler was a
politician speaking about himself.
That is not evidence. It isn't evidence in relation to anyone. In
relation to a policitian, even less so.
It has no relevence what any media have told me about Hitler.

>
> >No.  One can make a case that he helped the economy for a while, but
> >long term he destroyed his country and it was put back together by its
> >conquerers.
>
> Obviously losing the war didn't prove they were wrong. It only proved
> they were outnumbered. Compare the size of Germany to the size of the
> Jewish controlled countries, the USA and the USSR. Hitler made Germany
> great. Of course the Jew parasites couldn't stand that. Unfortunately
> the bad side won the war.

again missing the point, though I appreciate you are at least writing
a portion of your post here.
If you are correct that all these Jewish controlled countries were
ready to gang up on him HE STILL CARRIED OUT THE WAR INCORRECTLY.
He should not have spread out his forces and tried to take so much
land.

He was a bad leader.

[Topaz]

On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 17:10:38 -0700 (PDT), sarge
<grease...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>
>> Did your media tell you that Hitler was in favor of "big lies"? Were
>> they telling you the truth?
>>
>You still don't understand something very basic: Hitler was a
>politician speaking about himself.
>That is not evidence. It isn't evidence in relation to anyone. In
>relation to a policitian, even less so.
>It has no relevence what any media have told me about Hitler.

BS

>again missing the point, though I appreciate you are at least writing
>a portion of your post here.
>If you are correct that all these Jewish controlled countries were
>ready to gang up on him HE STILL CARRIED OUT THE WAR INCORRECTLY.
>He should not have spread out his forces and tried to take so much
>land.

Let's say David fights Goliath but doesn't have any rocks. After
Goliath pounds they poop out of him, you can argue on and on about how
David should have correctly fought. But it's really about his being
too small.

By the way, no one country could have defeated the Germans. The
Germans almost beat all the Jewish controlled countries combined.

>
>He was a bad leader.

He was the greatest leader ever to have lived on the planet earth.

[sarge]

On 17 mar, 23:05, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 17:10:38 -0700 (PDT), sarge
>

> <greasethew...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> Did your media tell you that Hitler was in favor of "big lies"? Were
> >> they telling you the truth?
>
> >You still don't understand something very basic: Hitler was a
> >politician speaking about himself.
> >That is not evidence.  It isn't evidence in relation to anyone.  In
> >relation to a policitian, even less so.
> >It has no relevence what any media have told me about Hitler.
>
> BS

Good argument. Wow.

>        Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that the Jews tell big lies. The
> Jewish media took his words out of context and claimed that Hitler was
> in favor of big lies. This was in itself a big lie and proof that
> Hitler was right. Here is what Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf and in
> context:

This has nothing to do with my point. My point was that a politician
talking about his intentions is not evidence of his intentions. This
goes for all politicians.

You repeatedly put forward arguments, mostly through cut and paste,
that are irrelevent.

And what did David do? Did he go rushing in at his larger opponents?
No. He fought from a distance.

It is a basic idea that one should not overextend armies and fight
offensive battles and many fronts, especially given the kinds of
historic disasters of other despots charging into Russia.

Of course we can judge his military errors, which were not small, they
were huge. And if he was not a liar, as you say, then he was very
confused about how badly it was going to go, how badly it was going,
despite what the experienced military leaders around him knew.

> By the way, no one country could have defeated the Germans. The
> Germans almost beat all the Jewish controlled countries combined.
>

Of course he wasn't alone, nor was Germany. But if you are correct,
how absurd his errors were. If instead of trying to conquer
everythign so fast he had simply tried to hold onto his gains in
western Europe, played a defensive game in the east, it would have
been harder to involve the americans. But he went on his rampages,
allied himself with the Japanese who were quite happy to engage the US
and basically bit off more than he could chew and allowed the media to
paint him as an aggressor that was not going to stop.

>
> >He was a bad leader.
>
> He was the greatest leader ever to have lived on the planet earth.

For all the reasons about, not even getting into moral issues, he was
likely the most destructive leader of his own people of any leader,
percentage wise. Stalin probably killed more but russia was much
larger than germany. No, Hilter wins the prize for leading more of
his people to death than any leader of a nation.

[Topaz]

On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:10:25 -0700 (PDT), sarge
<grease...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> BS
>
>Good argument. Wow.

>
>
>This has nothing to do with my point. My point was that a politician
>talking about his intentions is not evidence of his intentions. This
>goes for all politicians.

Your Jewish controlled media said Hitler was in favor of big lies.
They quoted from Mein Kampf where Hitler wrote about big lies. But
they took it out of context, Hitler wrote that the Jews tell big lies.

>
>You repeatedly put forward arguments, mostly through cut and paste,
>that are irrelevent.

You are proven intellectually dishonest. You deserve only a cut and
paste.

>>

>> Let's say David fights Goliath but doesn't have any rocks. After
>> Goliath pounds they poop out of him, you can argue on and on about how
>> David should have correctly fought. But it's really about his being
>> too small.
>
>And what did David do? Did he go rushing in at his larger opponents?
>No. He fought from a distance.

>
>It is a basic idea that one should not overextend armies and fight
>offensive battles and many fronts, especially given the kinds of
>historic disasters of other despots charging into Russia.

There was only one front. The Jews controlled both Communism and
Capitalism.

>Of course we can judge his military errors,

You are a waste of time. The Jews control your media and your mind.

[sarge]

On 18 mar, 22:00, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:10:25 -0700 (PDT), sarge
>

> <greasethew...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> BS
>
> >Good argument.  Wow.
>
> >This has nothing to do with my point.  My point was that a politician
> >talking about his intentions is not evidence of his intentions.  This
> >goes for all politicians.
>
> Your Jewish controlled media said Hitler was in favor of big lies.
> They quoted from Mein Kampf where Hitler wrote about big lies. But
> they took it out of context, Hitler wrote that the Jews tell big lies.
>
>
>
> >You repeatedly put forward arguments, mostly through cut and paste,
> >that are irrelevent.
>
> You are proven intellectually dishonest. You deserve only a cut and
> paste.
>

Notice again how you do not respond to what I wrote. I say that they
are irrelevent and you respond with I only deserve cut and paste.
This is irrelevent. You could cut and paste and have those quoted
sections actually respond to what I said. My deserving cut and paste
has nothing to do with the issue of irrelevence.

further this was intellectually dishonest since you begin your
participation in many threads just with cut and paste. Meaning you
assume any potential reader is not deserving of something more.

But at least in this you have admitted that your primary form of
communication is a sign of disrespect. I called it rude. For some
reason you disagreed.

So lacking any ability to counter my points, you attack me, and
hallucinate that you know where I get my information.
I have nothing emotionally attached to Hitler being a poor military
leader. Some completely horrendous humans have amazing skills.
All you can say is that Hitler had no chance.
A fact he was certainly too stupid to notice.

[Topaz]

On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 16:55:54 -0700 (PDT), sarge
<grease...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 18 mar, 22:00, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:10:25 -0700 (PDT), sarge
>>
>> <greasethew...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> BS
>>
>> >Good argument.  Wow.
>>
>> >This has nothing to do with my point.  My point was that a politician
>> >talking about his intentions is not evidence of his intentions.  This
>> >goes for all politicians.
>>
>> Your Jewish controlled media said Hitler was in favor of big lies.
>> They quoted from Mein Kampf where Hitler wrote about big lies. But
>> they took it out of context, Hitler wrote that the Jews tell big lies.
>>
>>
>>
>> >You repeatedly put forward arguments, mostly through cut and paste,
>> >that are irrelevent.
>>
>> You are proven intellectually dishonest. You deserve only a cut and
>> paste.
>>
>Notice again how you do not respond to what I wrote.

You wrote BS.

> I say that they
>are irrelevent and you respond with I only deserve cut and paste.
>This is irrelevent.

Did your media tell you Hitler was in favor of "big lies"?

Did they tell you the truth?

> You could cut and paste and have those quoted
>sections actually respond to what I said. My deserving cut and paste
>has nothing to do with the issue of irrelevence.
>
>further this was intellectually dishonest since you begin your
>participation in many threads just with cut and paste. Meaning you
>assume any potential reader is not deserving of something more.
>
>But at least in this you have admitted that your primary form of
>communication is a sign of disrespect. I called it rude. For some
>reason you disagreed.

My "cut and pastes" are highly important information. If you have a
problem with that you should be in alt.penpal rather than
alt.philosophy. And obviously your answer to the "big lie" one is hot
air BS. Your Jewish controlled media told you Hitler was in favor of
"big lies". Your Jewish controlled media are the liars, face it.

>

>So lacking any ability to counter my points,

You don't make any points. You said Hitler was a lousy leader because
he lost the war. I told you enough times to look at a map. See the
size of Germany? See the size of the Jewish controlled countries, the
USA and the USSR?

> you attack me, and
>hallucinate that you know where I get my information.
>I have nothing emotionally attached to Hitler being a poor military
>leader. Some completely horrendous humans have amazing skills.
>All you can say is that Hitler had no chance.
>A fact he was certainly too stupid to notice.

Here is part of Hitler's speech at Rheinmetall-Borsig Works, Berlin,
on December 10, 1940:

"In this Anglo-French world there exists, as it were, democracy, which
means the rule of the people by the people. Now the people must
possess some means of giving expression to their thoughts or their
wishes. Examining this problem more closely, we see that the people
themselves have originally no convictions of their own. Their
convictions are formed, of course, just as everywhere else. The
decisive question is who enlightens the people, who educates them? In
those countries, it is actually capital that rules; that is, nothing
more than a clique of a few hundred men who possess untold wealth and,
as a consequence of the peculiar structure of their national life, are
more or less independent and free. They say: 'Here we have liberty.'
By this they mean, above all, an uncontrolled economy, and by an
uncontrolled economy, the freedom not only to acquire capital but to
make absolutely free use of it. That means freedom from national
control or control by the people both in the acquisition of capital
and in its employment. This is really what they mean when they speak
of liberty. These capitalists create their own press and then speak of
the 'freedom of the press.'

In reality, every one of the newspapers has a master, and in every
case this master is the capitalist, the owner. This master, not the
editor, is the one who directs the policy of the paper. If the editor
tries to write other than what suits the master, he is ousted the next
day. This press, which is the absolutely submissive and characterless
slave of the owners, molds public opinion. Public opinion thus
mobilized by them is, in its turn, split up into political parties.
The difference between these parties is as small as it formerly was in
Germany. You know them, of course - the old parties. They were always
one and the same. In Britain matters are usually so arranged that
families are divided up, one member being a conservative, another a
liberal, and a third belonging to the labor party. Actually, all three
sit together as members of the family, decide upon their common
attitude and determine it. A further point is that the 'elected
people' actually form a community which operates and controls all
these organizations. For this reason, the opposition in England is
really always the same, for on all essential matters in which the
opposition has to make itself felt, the parties are always in
agreement. They have one and the same conviction and through the
medium of the press mold public opinion along corresponding lines. One
might well believe that in these countries of liberty and riches, the
people must possess an unlimited degree of prosperity. But no! On the
contrary, it is precisely in these countries that the distress of the
masses is greater than anywhere else. Such is the case in 'rich
Britain.'

She controls sixteen million square miles. In India, for example, a
hundred million colonial workers with a wretched standard of living
must labor for her. One might think, perhaps, that at least in England
itself every person must have his share of these riches. By no means!
In that country class distinction is the crassest imaginable. There is
poverty - incredible poverty - on the one side, and equally incredible
wealth on the other. They have not solved a single problem. The
workmen of that country which possesses more than one-sixth of the
globe and of the world's natural resources dwell in misery, and the
masses of the people are poorly clad.. In a country which ought to
have more than enough bread and every sort of fruit, we find millions
of the lower classes who have not even enough to fill their stomachs,
and go about hungry. A nation which could provide work for the whole
world must acknowledge the fact that it cannot even abolish
unemployment at home. For decades this rich Britain has had two and a
half million unemployed; rich America, ten to thirteen millions, year
after year; France, six, seven, and eight hundred thousand. Well, my
fellow-countrymen - what then are we to say about ourselves?
It is self-evident that where this democracy rules, the people as such
are not taken into consideration at all. The only thing that matters
is the existence of a few hundred gigantic capitalists who own all the
factories and their stock and, through them, control the people. The
masses of the people do not interest them in the least. They are
interested in them just as were our bourgeois parties in former times
- only when elections are being held, when they need votes. Otherwise,
the life of the masses is a matter of complete indifference to them.

To this must be added the difference in education. Is it not ludicrous
to hear a member of the British Labor Party - who, of course, as a
member of the Opposition is officially paid by the government - say:
'When the war is over, we will do something in social respects'?
It is the members of Parliament who are the directors of the business
concerns - just as used to be the case with us. But we have abolished
all that. A member of the Reichstag cannot belong to a Board of
Directors, except as a purely honorary member. He is prohibited from
accepting any emolument, financial or otherwise. This is not the case
in other countries.

They reply: 'That is why our form of government is sacred to us.' I
can well believe it, for that form of government certainly pays very
well.. But whether it is sacred to the mass of the people as well is
another matter.

The people as a whole definitely suffer. I do not consider it possible
in the long run for one man to work and toil for a whole year in
return for ridiculous wages, while another jumps into an express train
once a year and pockets enormous sums. Such conditions are a disgrace.
On the other hand, we National Socialists equally oppose the theory
that all men are equals. Today, when a man of genius makes some
astounding invention and enormously benefits his country by his
brains, we pay him his due, for he has really accomplished something
and been of use to his country. However, we hope to make it impossible
for idle drones to inhabit this country.

I could continue to cite examples indefinitely. The fact remains that
two worlds are face to face with one another. Our opponents are quite
right when they say: 'Nothing can reconcile us to the National
Socialist world.' How could a narrow-minded capitalist ever agree to
my principles? It would be easier for the Devil to go to church and
cross himself with holy water than for these people to comprehend the
ideas which are accepted facts to us today. But we have solved our
problems.

To take another instance where we are condemned: They claim to be
fighting for the maintenance of the gold standard as the currency
basis. That I can well believe, for the gold is in their hands. We,
too, once had gold, but it was stolen and extorted from us. When I
came to power, it was not malice which made me abandon the gold
standard. Germany simply had no gold left. Consequently, quitting the
gold standard presented no difficulties, for it is always easy to part
with what one does not have. We had no gold. We had no foreign
exchange. They had all been stolen and extorted from us during the
previous fifteen years. But, my fellow countrymen, I did not regret
it, for we have constructed our economic system on a wholly different
basis. In our eyes, gold is not of value in itself. It is only an
agent by which nations can be suppressed and dominated.
When I took over the government, I had only one hope on which to
build, namely, the efficiency and ability of the German nation and the
German workingman; the intelligence of our inventors, engineers,
technicians, chemists, and so forth. I built on the strength which
animates our economic system. One simple question faced me: Are we to
perish because we have no gold; am I to believe in a phantom which
spells our destruction? I championed the opposite opinion: Even though
we have no gold, we have capacity for work.

The German capacity for work is our gold and our capital, and with
this gold I can compete successfully with any power in the world. We
want to live in houses which have to be built. Hence, the workers must
build them, and the raw materials required must be procured by work.
My whole economic system has been built up on the conception of work.
We have solved our problems while, amazingly enough, the capitalist
countries and their currencies have suffered bankruptcy.

Sterling can find no market today. Throw it at any one and he will
step aside to avoid being hit. But our Reichsmark, which is backed by
no gold, has remained stable. Why? It has no gold cover; it is backed
by you and by your work. You have helped me to keep the mark stable.
German currency, with no gold coverage, is worth more today than gold
itself. It signifies unceasing production. This we owe to the German
farmer, who has worked from daybreak till nightfall. This we owe to
the German worker, who has given us his whole strength. The whole
problem has been solved in one instant, as if by magic.
My dear friends, if I had stated publicly eight or nine years ago: 'In
seven or eight years the problem of how to provide work for the
unemployed will be solved, and the problem then will be where to find
workers,' I should have harmed my cause. Every one would have
declared: 'The man is mad. It is useless to talk to him, much less to
support him. Nobody should vote for him. He is a fantastic creature.'
Today, however, all this has come true. Today, the only question for
us is where to find workers. That, my fellow countrymen, is the
blessing which work brings.

Work alone can create new work; money cannot create work. Work alone
can create values, values with which to reward those who work. The
work of one man makes it possible for another to live and continue to
work. And when we have mobilized the working capacity of our people to
its utmost, each individual worker will receive more and more of the
world's goods.

We have incorporated seven million unemployed into our economic
system; we have transformed another six millions from part-time into
full-time workers; we are even working overtime. And all this is paid
for in cash in Reichsmarks which maintained their value in peacetime.
In wartime we had to ration its purchasing capacity, not in order to
devalue it, but simply to earmark a portion of our industry for war
production to guide us to victory in the struggle for the future of
Germany...

One thing is certain, my fellow-countrymen: All in all, we have today
a state with a different economic and political orientation from that
of the Western democracies.
Well, it must now be made possible for the British worker to travel.
It is remarkable that they should at last hit upon the idea that
traveling should be something not for millionaires alone, but for the
people too. In this country, the problem was solved some time ago. In
the other countries - as is shown by their whole economic structure -
the selfishness of a relatively small stratum rules under the mask of
democracy. This stratum is neither checked nor controlled by anyone.

It is therefore understandable if an Englishman says: 'We do not want
our world to be subject to any sort of collapse.' Quite so. The
English know full well that their Empire is not menaced by us. But
they say quite truthfully: 'If the ideas that are popular in Germany
are not completely eliminated, they might become popular among our own
people, and that is the danger. We do not want this.' It would do no
harm if they did become popular there, but these people are just as
narrow-minded as many once were in Germany. In this respect they
prefer to remain bound to their conservative methods. They do not wish
to depart from them, and do not conceal the fact.

They say, 'The German methods do not suit us at all.'
And what are these methods? You know, my comrades, that I have
destroyed nothing in Germany. I have always proceeded very carefully,
because I believe - as I have already said - that we cannot afford to
wreck anything. I am proud that the Revolution of 1933 was brought to
pass without breaking a single windowpane. Nevertheless, we have
wrought enormous changes.

I wish to put before you a few basic facts: The first is that in the
capitalistic democratic world the most important principle of economy
is that the people exist for trade and industry, and that these in
turn exist for capital. We have reversed this principle by making
capital exist for trade and industry, and trade and industry exist for
the people. In other words, the people come first. Everything else is
but a means to this end. When an economic system is not capable of
feeding and clothing a people, then it is bad, regardless of whether a
few hundred people say: 'As far as I am concerned it is good,
excellent; my dividends are splendid.'

However, the dividends do not interest me at all. Here we have drawn
the line. They may then retort: 'Well, look here, that is just what we
mean. You jeopardize liberty.'
Yes, certainly, we jeopardize the liberty to profiteer at the expense
of the community, and, if necessary, we even abolish it. British
capitalists, to mention only one instance, can pocket dividends of 76,
80, 95, 140, and even 160 per cent from their armament industry.
Naturally they say: 'If the German methods grow apace and should prove
victorious, this sort of thing will stop.'

They are perfectly right. I should never tolerate such a state of
affairs. In my eyes, a 6 per cent dividend is sufficient. Even from
this 6 per cent we deduct one-half and, as for the rest, we must have
definite proof that it is invested in the interest of the country as a
whole. In other words, no individual has the right to dispose
arbitrarily of money which ought to be invested for the good of the
country. If he disposes of it sensibly, well and good; if not, the
National Socialist state will intervene.

To take another instance, besides dividends there are the so-called
directors' fees. You probably have no idea how appallingly active a
board of directors is. Once a year its members have to make a journey.
They have to go to the station, get into a first-class compartment and
travel to some place or other. They arrive at an appointed office at
about 10 or 11 A.M. There they must listen to a report. When the
report has been read, they must listen to a few comments on it. They
may be kept in their seats until 1 P.M. or even 2. Shortly after 2
o'clock they rise from their chairs and set out on their homeward
journey, again, of course, traveling first class. It is hardly
surprising that they claim 3,000, 4,000, or even 5,000 as compensation
for this: Our directors formerly did the same - for what a lot of time
it costs them! Such effort had to be made worth while! Of course, we
have got rid of all this nonsense, which was merely veiled
profiteering and even bribery.
In Germany, the people, without any doubt, decide their existence.
They determine the principles of their government. In fact it has been
possible in this country to incorporate many of the broad masses into
the National Socialist party, that gigantic organization embracing
millions and having millions of officials drawn from the people
themselves. This principle is extended to the highest ranks.

For the first time in German history, we have a state which has
absolutely abolished all social prejudices in regard to political
appointments as well as in private life. I myself am the best proof of
this. Just imagine: I am not even a lawyer, and yet I am your Leader!
It is not only in ordinary life that we have succeeded in appointing
the best among the people for every position. We have
Reichsstatthalters who were formerly agricultural laborers or
locksmiths. Yes, we have even succeeded in breaking down prejudice in
a place where it was most deep-seated -in the fighting forces.
Thousands of officers are being promoted from the ranks today. We have
done away with prejudice. We have generals who were ordinary soldiers
and noncommissioned officers twenty-two and twenty-three years ago. In
this instance, too, we have overcome all social obstacles. Thus, we
are building up our life for the future.

As you know we have countless schools, national political educational
establishments, Adolf Hitler schools, and so on. To these schools we
send gifted children of the broad masses, children of working men,
farmers' sons whose parents could never have afforded a higher
education for their children. We take them in gradually. They are
educated here, sent to the Ordensburgen, to the Party, later to take
their place in the State where they will some day fill the highest
posts....

Opposed to this there stands a completely different world. In the
world the highest ideal is the struggle for wealth, for capital, for
family possessions, for personal egoism; everything else is merely a
means to such ends. Two worlds confront each other today. We know
perfectly well that if we are defeated in this war it would not only
be the end of our National Socialist work of reconstruction, but the
end of the German people as a whole. For without its powers of
coordination, the German people would starve. Today the masses
dependent on us number 120 or 130 millions, of which 85 millions alone
are our own people. We remain ever aware of this fact.

On the other hand, that other world says: 'If we lose, our world-wide
capitalistic system will collapse. For it is we who save hoarded gold.
It is lying in our cellars and will lose its value. If the idea that
work is the decisive factor spreads abroad, what will happen to us? We
shall have bought our gold in vain. Our whole claim to world dominion
can then no longer be maintained. The people will do away with their
dynasties of high finance. They will present their social claims, and
the whole world system will be overthrown.'
I can well understand that they declare: 'Let us prevent this at all
costs; it must be prevented.' They can see exactly how our nation has
been reconstructed. You see it clearly. For instance, there we see a
state ruled by a numerically small upper class. They send their sons
to their own schools, to Eton. We have Adolf Hitler schools or
national political educational establishments. On the one hand, the
sons of plutocrats, financial magnates; on the other, the children of
the people. Etonians and Harrovians exclusively in leading positions
over there; in this country, men of the people in charge of the State.
These are the two worlds. I grant that one of the two must succumb.
Yes, one or the other. But if we were to succumb, the German people
would succumb with us. If the other were to succumb, I am convinced
that the nations will become free for the first time. We are not
fighting individual Englishmen or Frenchmen. We have nothing against
them. For years I proclaimed this as the aim of my foreign policy. We
demanded nothing of them, nothing at all. When they started the war
they could not say: 'We are doing so because the Germans asked this or
that of us.' They said, on the contrary: 'We are declaring war on you
because the German system of Government does not suit us; because we
fear it might spread to our own people.' For that reason they are
carrying on this war. They wanted to blast the German nation back to
the time of Versailles, to the indescribable misery of those days. But
they have made a great mistake.

If in this war everything points to the fact that gold is fighting
against work, capitalism against peoples, and reaction against the
progress of humanity, then work, the peoples, and progress will be
victorious. Even the support of the Jewish race will not avail the
others.

I have seen all this coming for years. What did I ask of the other
world? Nothing but the right for Germans to reunite and the
restoration of all that had been taken from them - nothing which would
have meant a loss to the other nations. How often have I stretched out
my hand to them? Ever since I came into power. I had not the slightest
wish to rearm.
For what do armaments mean? They absorb so much labor. It was I who
regarded work as being of decisive importance, who wished to employ
the working capacity of Germany for other plans. I think the news is
already out that, after all, I have some fairly important plans in my
mind, vast and splendid plans for my people. It is my ambition to make
the German people rich and to make the German homeland beautiful. I
want the standard of living of the individual raised. I want us to
have the most beautiful and the finest civilization. I should like the
theater - in fact, the whole of German civilization - to benefit all
the people and not to exist only for the upper ten thousand, as is the
case in England.

The plans which we had in mind were tremendous, and I needed workers
in order to realize them. Armament only deprives me of workers. I made
proposals to limit armaments. I was ridiculed. The only answer I
received was 'No.' I proposed the limitation of certain types of
armament. That was refused. I proposed that airplanes should be
altogether eliminated from warfare. That also was refused. I suggested
that bombers should be limited. That was refused. They said: 'That is
just how we wish to force our regime upon you.' ...

[sarge]

On 19 mar, 17:51, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 16:55:54 -0700 (PDT), sarge
>
>
>
> <greasethew...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On 18 mar, 22:00, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:10:25 -0700 (PDT), sarge
>
> >> <greasethew...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> BS
>
> >> >Good argument. Wow.
>
> >> >This has nothing to do with my point. My point was that a politician
> >> >talking about his intentions is not evidence of his intentions. This
> >> >goes for all politicians.
>
> >> Your Jewish controlled media said Hitler was in favor of big lies.
> >> They quoted from Mein Kampf where Hitler wrote about big lies. But
> >> they took it out of context, Hitler wrote that the Jews tell big lies.
>
> >> >You repeatedly put forward arguments, mostly through cut and paste,
> >> >that are irrelevent.
>
> >> You are proven intellectually dishonest. You deserve only a cut and
> >> paste.
>
> >Notice again how you do not respond to what I wrote.
>
> You wrote BS.
>
> > I say that they
> >are irrelevent and you respond with I only deserve cut and paste.
> >This is irrelevent.
>
> Did your media tell you Hitler was in favor of "big lies"?

Hello. This is now the 3rd time I am saying this. I am not saying
that we cannot use Hitler's self-assessment as evidence because of
anything I have read about Hitler. As I have said before, 1) someone
saying what their motives are is not evidence, regardless of who they
are. 2) Hitler was a politician. Politicians are as a group not
honest about their motivations. I truly cannot understand what is so
hard to understand about this argument. I am sure you do not agree,
but to keep tossing this irrelevent idea out that I am manipulated by
Jewish media shows such poor reading skills on your part, I am
shocked, actually. If you are capable of responding to the argument
itself, let me know.

Notice: nowhere in this argument to I rely on the idea that Hitler is
a big liar or cite evidence from media, Jewish controlled or
otherwise.

> >  You could cut and paste and have those quoted
> >sections actually respond to what I said.  My deserving cut and paste
> >has nothing to do with the issue of irrelevence.
>
> >further this was intellectually dishonest since you begin your
> >participation in many threads just with cut and paste.  Meaning you
> >assume any potential reader is not deserving of something more.
>
> >But at least in this you have admitted that your primary form of
> >communication is a sign of disrespect.   I called it rude.  For some
> >reason you disagreed.
>
> My "cut and pastes" are highly important information. If you have a
> problem with that you should be in alt.penpal rather than
> alt.philosophy.

Well, no. There is nothing inherent in a philosophy discussion forum
or newsgroup that means there will be cutting and pasting. We all
have access to orginal texts online and off. Links to supporting
information come up of course, but the generall idea, which you can
see in almost all posts, is to formulate your own ideas in your own
words. The problem with cutting and pasting really comes out in your
posts because they are usually not really responding to what the other
person said, but are places AS IF they are responses. Immortalist
also cuts and pastes a lot, but 1) they are on topic and 2) he can
also formulate the ideas in his own words.

> And obviously your answer to the "big lie" one is hot
> air BS. Your Jewish controlled media told you Hitler was in favor of
> "big lies". Your Jewish controlled media are the liars, face it.

I have very little trust for the media. I am not relying on any
information or 'information from the media. See above.

No, I did not say he was a lousy leader because he lost the war. I
clearly and repeatedly described his errors in the way he carried out
the war. Looking at the map only strengthens my arguments, which I
already pointed out.

Again, you cannot seem to read what I write or you are intellectually
dishonest when you describe what I write.

> > you attack me, and
> >hallucinate that you know where I get my information.
> >I have nothing emotionally attached to Hitler being a poor military
> >leader.   Some completely horrendous humans have amazing skills.
> >All you can say is that Hitler had no chance.
> >A fact he was certainly too stupid to notice.
>
> Here is part of Hitler's speech at Rheinmetall-Borsig Works, Berlin,
> on December 10, 1940:

and yet again, not relevent. You place this as if it is a response to
what I said, but it is not.

You have also said I was a waste of time. Yet here you are posting
again.

[Topaz]

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 16:04:48 -0700 (PDT), sarge
<grease...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> Did your media tell you Hitler was in favor of "big lies"?
>
>Hello.

You were saying something about rudeness. "Hello" is from the movie
"Back to the Future".

>This is now the 3rd time I am saying this.

So you're going to repeat your BS again. When faced with a simple
question you need to answer, yes, no, or give an explanation.
Otherwise it's over, you lose, checkmate.

Did your media tell you Hitler was in favor of "big lies"?

> I am not saying
>that we cannot use Hitler's self-assessment as evidence because of
>anything I have read about Hitler.

You are giving an excuse for not answering a simple question. You are
only fooling yourself with your horse poop.

> As I have said before, 1) someone
>saying what their motives are is not evidence, regardless of who they
>are. 2) Hitler was a politician. Politicians are as a group not
>honest about their motivations.

> I truly cannot understand what is so
>hard to understand about this argument.

You are changing the subject. You are not answering a simple question,
because the answer proves your whole world is a pack of lies.

> I am sure you do not agree,
>but to keep tossing this irrelevent idea out that I am manipulated by
>Jewish media shows such poor reading skills on your part, I am
>shocked, actually. If you are capable of responding to the argument
>itself, let me know.

Oh, so having been beaten you now want to change the subject, fine.
You think Hitler's self-assessment doesn't prove that he didn't really
like the Jews telling big lies. Maybe he actually did like the Jews
telling big lies? Anyway that is what he wrote, that the Jews tell big
lies.

>

>Notice: nowhere in this argument to I rely on the idea that Hitler is
>a big liar or cite evidence from media, Jewish controlled or
>otherwise.
>

>Well, no. There is nothing inherent in a philosophy discussion forum
>or newsgroup that means there will be cutting and pasting. We all
>have access to orginal texts online and off. Links to supporting
>information come up of course, but the generall idea, which you can
>see in almost all posts, is to formulate your own ideas in your own
>words. The problem with cutting and pasting really comes out in your
>posts because they are usually not really responding to what the other
>person said, but are places AS IF they are responses.

My replies are outstanding. Give one example of one "cut and paste"
that doesn't rock and resolve the whole issue.

> Immortalist
>also cuts and pastes a lot, but 1) they are on topic and 2) he can
>also formulate the ideas in his own words.

Oh they are on topic. So if they are debating over whether it's better
to kiss a Jews aft end on the left side or on the right side, he stays
on topic and tries to show which side is best.

>I have very little trust for the media. I am not relying on any
>information or 'information from the media. See above.

>

>No, I did not say he was a lousy leader because he lost the war. I
>clearly and repeatedly described his errors in the way he carried out
>the war.

Getting back to David and Goliath, saying for the sake of arguement
that David didn't have any rocks. You said David should fight from a
distance. But I already said he didn't have any rocks in the example.
What exactly is the point in trying to reason with you?

> Looking at the map only strengthens my arguments, which I
>already pointed out.

So did you look at the map?

>
>Again, you cannot seem to read what I write or you are intellectually
>dishonest when you describe what I write.

Hah

>> >A fact he was certainly too stupid to notice.
>>
>> Here is part of Hitler's speech at Rheinmetall-Borsig Works, Berlin,
>> on December 10, 1940:
>
>and yet again, not relevent. You place this as if it is a response to
>what I said, but it is not.

It proves he wasn't stupid. Why don't you read your own words and then
you might get the cut and paste that follows.

>
>You have also said I was a waste of time. Yet here you are posting
>again.

But this is usenet. We are not the only ones here.

[sarge]

On 20 mar, 19:26, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 16:04:48 -0700 (PDT), sarge
>

> <greasethew...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Did your media tell you Hitler was in favor of "big lies"?
>
> >Hello.  
>
> You were saying something about rudeness. "Hello" is from the movie
> "Back to the Future".

Well, no, it isn't. It may be in there, but people used that word
that way before that film was made. Not that it being in the film
makes it rude.

> >This is now the 3rd time I am saying this.
>
> So you're going to repeat your BS again. When faced with a simple
> question you need to answer, yes, no, or give an explanation.
> Otherwise it's over, you lose, checkmate.
>
> Did your media tell you Hitler was in favor of "big lies"?

No.

and the question makes no sense in context. My argument is not based
on judgments of Hitler in particular. It holds just as well for, for
example, Israeli politicians.

Your question showed you do not understand something very basic about
the argument I was making. And apparantly still don't.

> > I am not saying
> >that we cannot use Hitler's self-assessment as evidence because of
> >anything I have read about Hitler.
>
> You are giving an excuse for not answering a simple question. You are
> only fooling yourself with your horse poop.

Well, no. Look at the arguments. I talk about how we cannot use
someone's evaluation of themselves as evidence of their motives. That
goes for anyone.

Then I pointed out he was a politician. Politicians are not regularly
honest about their motivations. Perhaps you think they are.

You could argue that. You could respond to the argument. Or you
could keep asking me about Jewish media's affect on me, which is
irrelevent.

That has nothing to do with what we were discussing right there. I
say you cannot use politicians self evaluations as evidence of their
motivations or honesty and you go into things that do not relate. You
do this time and again.

> > I truly cannot understand what is so
> >hard to understand about this argument.
>
> You are changing the subject. You are not answering a simple question,
> because the answer proves your whole world is a pack of lies.

Nope. The question is irrelevent. I have answered it now. I do not
take mainstream media at all seriously.

> >  I am sure you do not agree,
> >but to keep tossing this irrelevent idea out that I am manipulated by
> >Jewish media shows such poor reading skills on your part, I am
> >shocked, actually.  If you are capable of responding to the argument
> >itself, let me know.
>
> Oh, so having been beaten you now want to change the subject, fine.

Change the subject? I said we cannot trust what Hitler says about
himself after you defended his motivations by using a quote he said.
I pointed out that this is not evidence. That was the subject.

> You think Hitler's self-assessment doesn't prove that he didn't really
> like the Jews telling big lies.

And this was intellectually dishonest. THAT WAS NOT the issue. The
issue was his supposed lack of interest in war. That was the quote
you wheeling out, where he claimed, basically, to be a man of peace.

Now you are lying.

Maybe he actually did like the Jews
> telling big lies? Anyway that is what he wrote, that the Jews tell big
> lies.
>
>
>
> >Notice: nowhere in this argument to I rely on the idea that Hitler is
> >a big liar or cite evidence from media, Jewish controlled or
> >otherwise.
>
> >Well, no.  There is nothing inherent in a philosophy discussion forum
> >or newsgroup that means there will be cutting and pasting.  We all
> >have access to orginal texts online and off.  Links to supporting
> >information come up of course, but the generall idea, which you can
> >see in almost all posts, is to formulate your own ideas in your own
> >words.  The problem with cutting and pasting really comes out in your
> >posts because they are usually not really responding to what the other
> >person said, but are places AS IF they are responses.
>
> My replies are outstanding. Give one example of one "cut and paste"
> that doesn't rock and resolve the whole issue.
>
> > Immortalist
> >also cuts and pastes a lot, but 1) they are on topic and 2) he can
> >also formulate the ideas in his own words.
>
> Oh they are on topic. So if they are debating over whether it's better
> to kiss a Jews aft end on the left side or on the right side, he stays
> on topic and tries to show which side is best.

So you think if you respond to my arguments it means you have to kiss
Jewish asses, but if you respond to arguments I do not make you are
avoiding that.

That makes no sense; but at least I can see why you keep avoiding
responding to the arguments I am making and paste things in that do
not relate.

> >I have very little trust for the media.  I am not relying on any
> >information or 'information from the media.  See above.
>
> >No, I did not say he was a lousy leader because he lost the war.  I
> >clearly and repeatedly described his errors in the way he carried out
> >the war.
>
> Getting back to David and Goliath, saying for the sake of arguement
> that David didn't have any rocks. You said David should fight from a
> distance. But I already said he didn't have any rocks in the example.
> What exactly is the point in trying to reason with you?

I said David did fight from a distance, because his opponent was too
strong to fight directly. I was not saying what David should do in a
situation without rocks. In that situation, unless he has some other
trick, he gets beaten.

I simply noticed that you brought up a classic situation where someone
deals with what you claim was the situation with Hitler. He was
surrounded and was going to be destroyed anyway. Even if this is
correct, he dealt with it poorly. He attacked in all directions and
spread out his forces and created partisan resistence all around these
troops in addition to whatever armies were called up to fight them.
His supply lines were longer. His men were fighting on terrain better
known to and more friendly to his enemies troops, in weather they were
unused to - on the eastern front at least on that last point.

> >  Looking at the map only strengthens my arguments, which I
> >already pointed out.
>
> So did you look at the map?
>

Yes. I also read your cut and pastes.

>
> >Again, you  cannot seem to read what I write or you are intellectually
> >dishonest when you describe what I write.
>
> Hah
>
> >> >A fact he was certainly too stupid to notice.
>
> >> Here is part of Hitler's speech at Rheinmetall-Borsig Works, Berlin,
> >> on December 10, 1940:
>
> >and yet again, not relevent.  You place this as if it is a response to
> >what I said, but it is not.
>
> It proves he wasn't stupid.

He had areas of intelligence and areas of stupidity, and unfortunately
not enough self-knowledge about these to keep him from being a truly
terrible leader.

I read that cut and paste looking for a response in context and found
none.

Why don't you read your own words and then
> you might get the cut and paste that follows.
>
>
>
> >You have also said I was a waste of time.  Yet here you are posting
> >again.
>
> But this is usenet. We are not the only ones here.

Ah, the potential national socialist peanut gallery. OK, that is
consistent if unlikely.

[sarge]

On 20 mar, 19:26, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:

So now there is a backlog of not responded to arguments. Pastes that
are not relevent do not count as responses.

[Topaz]

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 17:43:36 -0700 (PDT), sarge
<grease...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Well, no, it isn't. It may be in there, but people used that word
>that way before that film was made.

I don't think so

> Not that it being in the film
>makes it rude.

pffff

>
>> Did your media tell you Hitler was in favor of "big lies"?
>No.

liar

>
>and the question makes no sense in context. My argument is not based
>on judgments of Hitler in particular. It holds just as well for, for
>example, Israeli politicians.
>
>Your question showed you do not understand something very basic about
>the argument I was making. And apparantly still don't.

I see through it, it is BS

>
>Well, no. Look at the arguments. I talk about how we cannot use
>someone's evaluation of themselves as evidence of their motives. That
>goes for anyone.

Hitler wrote that the Jews tell big lies. The Jewish controlled media
reported that Hitler himself was in favor of big lies. This is proof
that Hitler was right.

>

>Then I pointed out he was a politician. Politicians are not regularly
>honest about their motivations. Perhaps you think they are.

That meaning of the word "politician" doesn't apply to Hitler at all.

>
>You could argue that. You could respond to the argument. Or you
>could keep asking me about Jewish media's affect on me, which is
>irrelevent.
>
>

>That has nothing to do with what we were discussing right there. I
>say you cannot use politicians self evaluations as evidence of their
>motivations or honesty and you go into things that do not relate. You
>do this time and again.

Hitler wasn't a "politician". He was the real deal.

>
>Nope. The question is irrelevent. I have answered it now.

You have lied. The media said Hitler was in favor of big lies.

> I do not
>take mainstream media at all seriously.

>Change the subject? I said we cannot trust what Hitler says about

>himself after you defended his motivations by using a quote he said.
>I pointed out that this is not evidence. That was the subject.

The subject was the fact that Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that the Jews
tell big lies. The Jewish controlled media then claimed that Hitler
was in favor of big lies.

>
>> You think Hitler's self-assessment doesn't prove that he didn't really
>> like the Jews telling big lies.
>
>And this was intellectually dishonest. THAT WAS NOT the issue. The
>issue was his supposed lack of interest in war. That was the quote
>you wheeling out, where he claimed, basically, to be a man of peace.

Hitler said on 19 July 1940: "My intention was never to wage war, but

to build a new social state with the highest level of culture. Each
year of war keeps me from this work."

>
>Now you are lying.

How do you figure.

>So you think if you respond to my arguments it means you have to kiss
>Jewish asses, but if you respond to arguments I do not make you are
>avoiding that.
>
>That makes no sense; but at least I can see why you keep avoiding
>responding to the arguments I am making and paste things in that do
>not relate.

You have not made any good argument.

>>
>> Getting back to David and Goliath, saying for the sake of arguement
>> that David didn't have any rocks. You said David should fight from a
>> distance. But I already said he didn't have any rocks in the example.
>> What exactly is the point in trying to reason with you?
>
>I said David did fight from a distance, because his opponent was too
>strong to fight directly.
> I was not saying what David should do in a
>situation without rocks. In that situation, unless he has some other
>trick, he gets beaten.

Hitler lost because the allied countries were a lot bigger.

>
>I simply noticed that you brought up a classic situation where someone
>deals with what you claim was the situation with Hitler. He was
>surrounded and was going to be destroyed anyway. Even if this is
>correct, he dealt with it poorly. He attacked in all directions and
>spread out his forces and created partisan resistence all around these
>troops in addition to whatever armies were called up to fight them.
>His supply lines were longer. His men were fighting on terrain better
>known to and more friendly to his enemies troops, in weather they were
>unused to - on the eastern front at least on that last point.
>

>> So did you look at the map?

>>
>Yes. I also read your cut and pastes.
>>
>

>He had areas of intelligence and areas of stupidity, and unfortunately
>not enough self-knowledge about these to keep him from being a truly
>terrible leader.

He was the greatest genius who ever lived, and the best leader.

>
>I read that cut and paste looking for a response in context and found
>none.

You have been brainwashed by Jews from birth till now. I could point
out that Hitler started with nothing and became the leader of Germany,
while you sit in your armchair and think he was stupid. But one of his
speeches was more to the point. If you were not brainwashed from the
day of your birth, you would see that.

>
>Ah, the potential national socialist peanut gallery. OK, that is
>consistent if unlikely.
>

Here are some quotes from the book "Kampfzeit", (period of
struggle), by Hans Hinkel:

"Faster than lightening a lie about us spread throughout the country,
spread in every attic room where poor people lived by newspapers owned
or obedient to the opponent. It took a week of work by us National
Socialists to deal with a three-line lie in an opposing newspaper. As
soon as one lie was dealt with, a hundred more sprang up. Like a
hydra, the opponent's horror stories about National Socialism and its
supporters spread. There was not a speech by the F锟絟rer or his
associates that was not immediately twisted and tastefully served up
to the gullible Michael at breakfast or dinner. Adolf Hitler had "spat
out the communion wafer." Hermann G锟絩ing was smuggling opium or
morphine. Robert Ley has "lost a 'v'" in his name Pastor M锟絥chmeyer
was guilty of "moral crimes" in Borkum. We often would have laughed
had we not hourly learned the amazing gullibility of millions of
German citizens who were trapped in the enemy's web of lies. The only
answer was for everyone to set to work with the people, going
everywhere to fight, speak and educate. Sooner or later the opponent
would have to face us and be revealed as a liar to the public."

"The city was like an upset anthill on that cold winter night. Roland
Freisler ran out from the chattering council meeting and went with us
to the nearby Friedrich Square where we spoke with the starving
masses. We forgot the middle class niceties! We had to stop Moscow
from winning over these citizens driven crazy by hunger, making them
wiling subjects of the insane ideas of Bolshevism"

"Only a few weeks later, I needed an escort to leave or return to my
apartment. Several loyal S.A. men had to be with me all the time,
since Communist unemployed men, unscrupulously incited against us
National Socialists, wanted to attack me now that they knew who I was.
Every day I joined the unemployed who demonstrated in the large
courtyard of the labor office on Giesberg Street. More than once I had
to be met by party members at the Kassel train station to protect me
from lurking Communist terror troops. It was the same or worse for all
of our prominent Kassel party members and S.A. men, just as for the
storm troops of our movement who risked their lives every day and
every hour in every city and every village of Germany. The enemy
naturally was particularly after us speakers. According to the law, we
had to be unarmed. We would have been in deep trouble if a body search
had found a weapon! A nail file was thought to be a weapon. Later even
a party badge, since it had a long needle!"

"The attempts of our party comrades to hold a National Socialist
meeting failed a half dozen times or more. Most meetings were made
impossible by the thousand-fold numerical superiority of the opponent,
or else broken up before they could finish. Our protective service
-every party member in each local group belongs - is still too weak in
most areas to stand up against the red avalanche, driven more and more
by the Communists. One National Socialist against five hundred or even
a thousand citizens, that is how it always is there!"

"After I had spoken about twenty minutes, a worker jumped up on a
table and called upon the "comrades" to leave the meeting of the
"Fascist band." Several dozen start singing the "Internationale" and
we have no choice but to overpower the growling of the comrades with
"Deutschland, Deutschland 锟絙er alles." Another several hundred leave
the hall. The singing quieted down and peace was slowly restored. I
spoke to several hundred people at the end, all that were left of the
more than a thousand who were there to start."
"For years now we speakers have been traveling through every Gau in
Germany. I speak primarily in Saxony, Brandenburg, Hessen-Nassau and
in the West. We see that even red Saxony is streaming more and more to
National Socialism. The meetings are difficult, but always
successful."

"For how long? When would this hard battle end? When would more
Germans wake up? When would hundreds of thousands finally be ready to
march into battle behind the banner of National Socialism?! - None of
us thinks about the "when." Forward! - Only forward! Each heart won
over is a victory! The day will come...!"

[Topaz]

The relevance is above your head and beyond your comprehension.

You said the media did not report that Hitler was in favor of "big
lies". Unless I'm missing something, that makes you a liar.

[sarge]

On 23 mar, 22:08, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 18:07:14 -0700 (PDT), sarge
>

No, I did not say that. I said I was not basing my argument on any
particular quality of Hitler's, except that he was a politician. The
rest of the argument was based on him being a human being. I don't
think my assumptions that he was a politician or a human being means
that my mind has been twisted by Jewish media. I have made this
argument many times now and not once have you actually responded to
the argument. Instead you keep misreading it or responding as if to
it but not at all.

[sarge]

On 23 mar, 22:04, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 17:43:36 -0700 (PDT), sarge
>

> <greasethew...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Well, no, it isn't.  It may be in there, but people used that word
> >that way before that film was made.
>
> I don't think so
>
> > Not that it being in the film
> >makes it rude.
>
> pffff
>
>
>
> >> Did your media tell you Hitler was in favor of "big lies"?
> >No.
>
> liar
>
>
>
> >and the question makes no sense in context.  My argument is not based
> >on judgments of Hitler in particular.  It holds just as well for, for
> >example, Israeli politicians.
>
> >Your question showed you do not understand something very basic about
> >the argument I was making.  And apparantly still don't.
>
> I see through it, it is BS
>

In your next post you, yet again, fail to respond to it. You cannot
seem to manage this. Seeing through it is all very well, but your
inability to actually respond to it other than labeling it is hardly
appropriate in a philosophy forum.

>
> >Well, no.  Look at the arguments.   I talk about how we cannot use
> >someone's evaluation of themselves as evidence of their motives.  That
> >goes for anyone.
>
> Hitler wrote that the Jews tell big lies. The Jewish controlled media
> reported that Hitler himself was in favor of big lies. This is proof
> that Hitler was right.
>

It is not proof that Hitler, when describing his motivations, is being
honest. You cannot use someone's self-evaluation as evidence of their
motivations.

Obama did X. Obaman said *I did it to help people.'

His statement about his motivations is not evidence.

Joe Smo on the street hits someone. He says he did it because X.
Therefore he did it becasue of X:

No, sorry. Someone's assertion of their own motives is not evidence.

You keep arguing that I must be swayed by the Jewish media on this
issue. This shows a fundamental misunderstanding, again and again.

My God, this is basic stuff here.

>
> >Then I pointed out he was a politician.  Politicians are not regularly
> >honest about their motivations.  Perhaps you think they are.
>
> That meaning of the word "politician" doesn't apply to Hitler at all.
>

finally; the beginnings of a response to the argument. And what
evidence do you have that Hitler did not falsely report on his own
motives, something most people do, either because they are mistaken or
becuase they want to present a certain appearance. How do you, Topaz;
know what was really going on in his mind?

>
> >You could argue that.  You could respond to the argument.  Or you
> >could keep asking me about Jewish media's affect on me, which is
> >irrelevent.
>
> >That has nothing to do with what we were discussing right there.  I
> >say you cannot use politicians self evaluations as evidence of their
> >motivations or honesty and you go into things that do not relate.  You
> >do this time and again.
>
> Hitler wasn't a "politician". He was the real deal.
>

Ibid.

>
> >Nope.  The question is irrelevent.  I have answered it now.
>
> You have lied. The media said Hitler was in favor of big lies.

I never said they didn't.

> > I do not
> >take mainstream media at all seriously.
> >Change the subject?  I said we cannot trust what Hitler says about
> >himself after you defended his motivations by using a quote he said.
> >I pointed out that this is not evidence.  That was the subject.
>
> The subject was the fact that Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that the Jews
> tell big lies. The Jewish controlled media then claimed that Hitler
> was in favor of big lies.

No that was not the subject. The subject was you, many posts ago,
using a quote by Hitler to show that he was really peaceful. I
responded that you cannot use someone's own self-evaluation as
evidence they were honest or meant to be peaceful or whatever.

>
>
>
> >> You think Hitler's self-assessment doesn't prove that he didn't really
> >> like the Jews telling big lies.
>
> >And this was intellectually dishonest.   THAT WAS NOT the issue.  The
> >issue was his supposed lack of interest in war.  That was the quote
> >you wheeling out, where he claimed, basically, to be a man of peace.
>
> Hitler said on 19 July 1940: "My intention was never to wage war, but
> to build a new social state with the highest level of culture. Each
> year of war keeps me from this work."
>

Yes, it was a comment like or one like it. And again. You cannot use
someone's self-evaluation as evidence, since we do not have access to
his mind at that time. We cannot know whether he; a jewish leader; a
little boy; some guy at the store; and so on; are telling the truth
when they report on their motives.

>
> >Now you are lying.
>
> How do you figure.
>
> >So you think if you respond to my arguments it means you have to kiss
> >Jewish asses, but if you respond to arguments I do not make you are
> >avoiding that.
>
> >That makes no sense; but at least I can see why you keep avoiding
> >responding to the arguments I am making and paste things in that do
> >not relate.
>
> You have not made any good argument.
>

And what happens in philosophy is that when you encounter what you
consider a poor argument, you engage with that argument and show the
problems with that argument. You have finally, after many, many
posts, in this post, just started to actually respond to my argument.
You did this by attacking my labeling Hitler as a politician and said
that he was not a politician in that sense. That is the first step.
It was unsupported. But i actually felt like; yes; he has read my
argument and is disagreeing with that argument. Up until that point
you were not responding to my argument.

>
> >> Getting back to David and Goliath, saying for the sake of arguement
> >> that David didn't have any rocks. You said David should fight from a
> >> distance. But I already said he didn't have any rocks in the example.
> >> What exactly is the point in trying to reason with you?
>
> >I said David did fight from a distance, because his opponent was too
> >strong to fight directly.
> >  I was not saying what David should do in a
> >situation without rocks.  In that situation, unless he has some other
> >trick, he gets beaten.
>
> Hitler lost because the allied countries were a lot bigger.
>

And; again. He did not carry out his campaigns as if he was fighting
opponents who were a lot bigger. His strategy was poor or he was
ignorant, in the extreme about what was going to happen. His
invasion of Russia was especially foolish, given the well-known
earlier failures of such invasions. If he knew he was dealing with
stronger opponents he carried out the war incorrectly. He tried to
cover too much ground too fast and made it even easier for what you
are calling the Jewish media to engage more countries and more
individuals in the struggle. He also created, essentially, partisan
militias - iow informal armies of people who would not have gone to
war against him otherwise. He tried to cover too much ground and his
armies got smashed for it.

>
>
>
> >I simply noticed that you brought up a classic situation where someone
> >deals with what you claim was the situation with Hitler.  He was
> >surrounded and was going to be destroyed anyway.  Even if this is
> >correct, he dealt with it poorly.   He attacked in all directions and
> >spread out his forces and created partisan resistence all around these
> >troops in addition to whatever armies were called up to fight them.
> >His supply lines were longer.  His men were fighting on terrain better
> >known to and more friendly to his enemies troops, in weather they were
> >unused to - on the eastern front at least on that last point.
>
> >> So did you look at the map?
>
> >Yes.  I also read your cut and pastes.
>
> >He had areas of intelligence and areas of stupidity, and unfortunately
> >not enough self-knowledge about these to keep him from being a truly
> >terrible leader.
>
> He was the greatest genius who ever lived, and the best leader.
>

Obviously I disagree.

>
> >I read that cut and paste looking for a response in context and found
> >none.
>
> You have been brainwashed by Jews from birth till now. I could point
> out that Hitler started with nothing and became the leader of Germany,
> while you sit in your armchair and think he was stupid. But one of his
> speeches was more to the point. If you were not brainwashed from the
> day of your birth, you would see that.
>

He was a terrible military leader and national leader. Short term
gains that led to huge long term losses. Impatient and overreaching
and not dealing with the reality of his situation.

>
> >Ah, the potential national socialist peanut gallery.  OK, that is
> >consistent if unlikely.
>

No, I've read enough. It took you, I don't know 15 posts to actually
reply, in just a very preliminary way, to what I wrote. I am not
going to read your cut and pastes any more.

I can't hold your hand any longer to lead you to where you actually
participate in a discussion of ideas, rather than you simply releasing
salvos of information and other people's words.

[Topaz]

On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 18:07:50 -0700 (PDT), sarge
<grease...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>In your next post you, yet again, fail to respond to it. You cannot
>seem to manage this. Seeing through it is all very well, but your
>inability to actually respond to it other than labeling it is hardly
>appropriate in a philosophy forum.

Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that the Jews tell big lies. You wrote some
crap about how we can not know what Hitler thought from what he wrote.
Well why don't you tell us all what he really did think then.

>It is not proof that Hitler, when describing his motivations, is being
>honest. You cannot use someone's self-evaluation as evidence of their
>motivations.
>
>Obama did X. Obaman said *I did it to help people.'
>
>His statement about his motivations is not evidence.

That's true.

The Germans removed the Jews from ruling over them. They had a lot of
very good reasons for doing that. None of it sounds like the BS Obama
says.

>
>Joe Smo on the street hits someone. He says he did it because X.
>Therefore he did it becasue of X:
>
>No, sorry. Someone's assertion of their own motives is not evidence.

There is a very good chance that it was because of X. Obama saying he
did it to help people sounds like BS though. It's usually easy to
tell.

>
>You keep arguing that I must be swayed by the Jewish media on this
>issue. This shows a fundamental misunderstanding, again and again.
>
>My God, this is basic stuff here.

>finally; the beginnings of a response to the argument. And what
>evidence do you have that Hitler did not falsely report on his own
>motives, something most people do, either because they are mistaken or
>becuase they want to present a certain appearance. How do you, Topaz;
>know what was really going on in his mind?

The same thing exists in the USA. The Jews rule it. We need to remove
the Jews from ruling over us, like the Germans did.

>> You have lied. The media said Hitler was in favor of big lies.
>
>I never said they didn't.

Starting over, Did your media tell you Hitler was in favor of big
lies?

>>

>> The subject was the fact that Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that the Jews
>> tell big lies. The Jewish controlled media then claimed that Hitler
>> was in favor of big lies.
>
>No that was not the subject. The subject was you, many posts ago,
>using a quote by Hitler to show that he was really peaceful. I
>responded that you cannot use someone's own self-evaluation as
>evidence they were honest or meant to be peaceful or whatever.

Here is an article about some supposed "concrete evidence" that claims
otherwise:

An article by Dr. Joseph Goebbels, November 30, 1941

Mr. Roosevelt Cross-Examined
by Joseph Goebbels

"On 28 October, more than a month ago, U.S. President Franklin D.
Roosevelt gave a radio speech which apparently had as its goal
plunging the American people into uncertainty and panic and thus to
prepare gradually for the fateful intervention which the American
president desires, regardless of American public opinion. The speech
differed from all of his previous speeches in that Roosevelt did not
limit himself to the almost traditional and unconscionable and
slanderous attacks on the Führer and National Socialist Germany. This
time he made concrete accusations against the policies of the Reich,
which he attempted to prove though compromising documents he allegedly
possessed.

Mr. Roosevelt claimed that he had proof in his hands that the Axis
powers were planning to reorganize South and Central America. They
were planning to transform the existing fourteen countries into five
states that would be under their control. His proof was a secret map
allegedly produced by the Reich government. The American government
also claims to possess another Reich document. According to it, the
Reich government plans, once it has won the war, to abolish the
existing religions of the world-Catholicism, Protestantism,
Mohammedism, Hinduism. Buddhism and Judaism. They are to be replaced
by an international National Socialist church, the cross by the
swastika and God by the Führer. That is what he claims.

It is clear to us that Mr. Roosevelt needed this grand swindle to whip
up American public opinion. He needed the heaviest possible
ammunition, since the American people are at the moment more
intelligent than their government and want absolutely nothing to do
with the war in Europe. We really are not all that interested in Mr.
Roosevelt's opinion of the intelligence of his people nor in what he
thinks them capable of believing, and normally would see no need to
reply to his bald-faced and outrageous lies which so clearly bear the
signs of fabrication. In this case, however, it is a matter of a
political falsification which seems to us to have a clear and ominous
purpose, and gave us such an easy chance to show up the liars to the
entire world that we could hardly let the opportunity pass. We had to
overcome our moral scruples, however, to confront the liar and ask him
where he got these alleged documents from, where they can be found,
and if he was ready to show them to the public.

Things went as we expected. Mr. Roosevelt, the president of a nation
of 130 million, dodged our questions. He claimed the authenticity of
the documents was unassailable; he had them. They could not be
published, however, since they were secret and publishing them would
reveal the source. And the map in question that carved up Central and
South America had markings in pencil which could compromise the source
that provided them. He, Roosevelt, did not want to cause any
difficulties for the poor chap who passed them along.

Would that we had such a president! He is a well-meaning soul who
cares for his scoundrels. Given his speeches and actions, he would not
hesitate to send hundreds of thousands of soldiers to the battlefield,
even perhaps sacrificing them in service to his crazy plans of
conquest, but the thought of causing a fine and honorable traitor any
trouble breaks his heart. As one can imagine, Roosevelt's answer was
not very convincing proof of his hair-raising allegations either at
home or abroad. Our tough questions bore fruit. We used the press and
radio to propose to the American president that he might publish the
incriminating map of Central and South America, perhaps either erasing
the ominous pencil markings or covering them up with paper, and to at
least publish the text of our notorious plan to begin a campaign
against all the world's religions once the war was over, from Jehovah
to Confucius to Christ.

Mr. Roosevelt sank into silence, saying nothing at all. Only one of
his creatures, the former Argentinean bordello-owner and pimp Taborda,
who happened to be visiting him at the time, said that he had been
able to sneak a look at the map, and that all was as Mr. Roosevelt
said. More he could not say, since he had given his word of honor.
One can understand our reluctance to consider the word of honor of so
dubious an underworld figure as absolutely convincing. We looked
further, and since we could learn nothing more given the stubborn
silence of the accuser, we attempted to lure him into a response by
massive attacks. Alas, the normally talkative gentleman seemed to have
forgotten how to speak. Even the attempts of the American press to
learn something more as he visited one of the famous skyscrapers were
in vain.

The Reich government published two formal denials on 1 November, which
boxed Roosevelt's ears so strongly that he had to chose between
revealing his documents or proving himself a forger and liar to the
entire world. He chose the latter. The U.S. press gave headline
treatment to the German denials and asked for a response. Mr.
Roosevelt accepted the blows, rubbed his checks and said nothing. We
made every conceivable suggestion to ease the publication of the
documents, but the U.S. president preferred to be thought a liar and
forger than to prove his absurd accusations.

That's the way things are. We do not flatter ourselves by believing
that we have some way to force Mr. Roosevelt to speak. He apparently
has every reason to hope the matter will be forgotten. When he made
his charges, one could perhaps generously grant that he believed them.
It was at least possible that he had been the victim of some sort of
swindle and had believed in the documents' authenticity. That is no
longer possible, for if he had been acting honestly he would have
provided the evidence supporting his accusations. He has not done so.
That is sufficient proof that he was not the victim of a forgery,
rather that he himself was directly or indirectly involved. This is a
matter of war and peace, and the American public has every right to
examine its president and his actions, to ask him about these
documents, why Mr. Roosevelt has not published them. whether he still
stands by his speech of 28 October, and what he plans to do to restore
the damage done to his reputation by the two German denials that
accuse him of forgery.

One always feels the need to wash one's hands after being forced to
deal with the methods of U.S. interventionism. It is so unpleasant and
filthy that one shudders. One hears the pious nonsense of the
Jewish-ruled world plutocracy over the radio or reads them in the
press, one need only to look behind the scenes to feel pity for the
miseries of mankind. That such a man has the impudence to judge us, to
call on God and the world as his witnesses of the purity of his deeds,
to incite war and send innocent people singing "Onward Christian
Soldiers" to battle for his filthy financial interests can only fill
anyone with even the most primitive sense of decency with the deepest
horror. Were there only such people in the world, one would have to
despise humanity..."

>
>> Hitler said on 19 July 1940: "My intention was never to wage war, but
>> to build a new social state with the highest level of culture. Each
>> year of war keeps me from this work."
>>
>Yes, it was a comment like or one like it. And again. You cannot use
>someone's self-evaluation as evidence, since we do not have access to
>his mind at that time. We cannot know whether he; a jewish leader; a
>little boy; some guy at the store; and so on; are telling the truth
>when they report on their motives.

>And what happens in philosophy is that when you encounter what you
>consider a poor argument, you engage with that argument and show the
>problems with that argument. You have finally, after many, many
>posts, in this post, just started to actually respond to my argument.
>You did this by attacking my labeling Hitler as a politician and said
>that he was not a politician in that sense. That is the first step.
>It was unsupported. But i actually felt like; yes; he has read my
>argument and is disagreeing with that argument. Up until that point
>you were not responding to my argument.

All you did was claim that Hitler was a "politician" in that sense. It
was unsupported.

>And; again. He did not carry out his campaigns as if he was fighting
>opponents who were a lot bigger. His strategy was poor or he was
>ignorant, in the extreme about what was going to happen. His
>invasion of Russia was especially foolish,

> given the well-known
>earlier failures of such invasions. If he knew he was dealing with
>stronger opponents he carried out the war incorrectly. He tried to
>cover too much ground too fast and made it even easier for what you
>are calling the Jewish media to engage more countries and more
>individuals in the struggle. He also created, essentially, partisan
>militias - iow informal armies of people who would not have gone to
>war against him otherwise. He tried to cover too much ground and his
>armies got smashed for it.

>Obviously I disagree.

Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:

"All that we admire in the world to-day, its science, its art, its
technical developements and discoveries, are the products of the
creative activities of a few peoples, and it may be true that their
first beginnings must be attributed to one race. The maintenance of
civilization is wholly dependant on such peoples. Should they perish,
all that makes this earth beautiful will descend with them into the
grave."

"All the great civilizations of the past became decadent because
the originally creative race died out, as a result of the
contamination on the blood."

"Every manifestation of human culture, every product of art,
science and technical skill, which we see before our eyes to-day, is
almost exclusively the product of the Aryan creative power. This very
fact fully justifies the conclusion that it was the Aryan alone who
founded a superior type of humanity"

"The foundations of actual life in Japan to-day are not those of
the native Japanese culture., although this characterizes the
exterenal features of the country, which features strike the eye of
European observers on account of their fundamental difference from us;
but the real foundations of contemporary Japanese life are the
enormous scientific and technical achievements of Europe and America,
that is to say, of Aryan peoples."

"A people that fails to preserve the purity of its racial blood
thereby destroys the unity of the soul of the nation in all its
manifestations. A disintegrated natioanal character is the inevitable
consequence of the process of disintegration in the blood. And the
change which takes place in the spiritual and creative faculties of a
people is only an effect of the change that had modified its racial
substance."

"For in a world which would be composed of mongrels and negroids all
ideals of human beauty and nobility and all hopes of an idealized
future for our humanity would be lost forever."

"It is especially the cultural creativeness which disappears when a
superior race inter-mixes with an inferior one."

"There may be hundreds of excellent States in this earth, and yet if
the Aryan, who is the creator and custodian of civilization, should
disappear, all culture that is on an adequate level with the spiritual
needs of the superior nations to-day would also disappear."

"We National Socialists know that in holding these views we take
up a revolutionary stand in the world to-day and that we are branded
as revolutionaries. But our views and our conduct will not be
determined by the approbation or disapprobation of our contemporaries,
but only by our duty to follow a truth which we have acknowledged. In
doing this we have reason to believe that posterity will have a
clearer insight"

"Thus for the first time a high inner purpose is accredited to
the State. In face of the ridiculous phrase that the State should do
no more than act as the guardian of public order and tranquillity, so
that everybody can peacefully dupe everybody else, it is given a very
high mission indeed to preserve and encourage the highest type of
humanity which a beneficent Creator has bestowed on this earth."

>He was a terrible military leader and national leader. Short term
>gains that led to huge long term losses. Impatient and overreaching
>and not dealing with the reality of his situation.

The reality of the situation is that the earth would be a third world
hell hole without the White race. And the main problem is that we are
ruled by Jews. Your low budget drivel shows you are not worthy to be
discussing Hitler.

>No, I've read enough. It took you, I don't know 15 posts to actually
>reply, in just a very preliminary way, to what I wrote. I am not
>going to read your cut and pastes any more.

Well I'm still reading your low budget drivel.

>
>I can't hold your hand any longer to lead you to where you actually
>participate in a discussion of ideas, rather than you simply releasing
>salvos of information and other people's words.
>
>Hitler was a terrible leader.

Your view of the world is too small to bother with. I should cut and
paste. That is the only way anything important will be said in these
posts:

Here are quotes from a speech delivered by Dr. Joseph Goebbels
at the National Socialist Party Congress, Nuernberg, 1937.

"'Spain represents the world at the cross-roads.' Thus wrote
the Bolshevic press organ, Die Rundschau, in its issue dated July 22,
1937. That one sentance precisely defines the international
significance of the Spanish problem. It states exactly what the
Spanish problem is. Here the final decision must lie either with
Bolshevism or the principle of Authority. On the one side stands
ruinous anarchy and, on the other, orderly constructive development."

"Nations which in recent years have kept their eyes closed to
the startling growth of the international Bolshevic menace will one
day experience a terrible awakening from this moral narcosis. The fact
that we, German National Socialists, as conscious and uncompromising
protaganists against the Bolshevic world-front, are still condemned to
play the part of a preacher in the wilderness, calling out to deaf
ears--this cannot prevent us from seeing things as they are and
calling them by their right names. For if the constantly increasing
extension of this Bolshevic infection in Europe should cause still
greater disaster, then future historians will be in a position to
record the fact that we, German National Socialists, were not among
those who allowed themselves to be led astray in the universal chaos
of thought and mental fog purposely created as a sort of smoke-screen
by an insidious epidemic of political propaganda. Nothing could make
us deviate in the least from the straight road we have taken.
"From the very nature of the case it is obvious that the
subversive forces of International Jewry will raise a tumult of rage
when we clearly and dispassionately lay bare the background of this
revolutionary developement which is extending through the world. For,
after all, they are the only people who are drawing profit forn the
chaotic ruin which Bolshevism is bringing upon mankind. That on this
account they will swamp us with a torrrent of abuse and lies and
calumnies is only an honour for us and a further proof that we are
right in warning Europe against this peril."

"The fight which General Franco is waging, with the support of all
the constructive elements, against the Bolshevic menace to his native
land is at the same time a fight for civilization."

"The Moscow Comintern never tires of impressing on public
opinion thoughout the world the theory that the national movement,
which on July 17, 1936, intervened in the seething developements in
Spain, was a military rising oragnised by reactionary generals and
that this rising was definately repudiated by the Spanish people. The
truth however is that this national movement was in reality an act of
self-defence on the part of the people, against the revolt which had
been planned by the Spanish Communist Party for that time and was
subsequently postponed to August 1936. This communist revolt had been
planned in Moscow several years previously, organized from Moscow and
directed from Moscow, and is still being carried out in practice from
Moscow today."

"In 1935 the annual funds which Moscow contributed for the
support of the Communist Party in Spain totalled several million
pesetas, of which two millions were officially acknowledged as having
been paid by the Comintern itself. At the 7th World Congress of the
Comintern in Moscow, in 1935, Dimitroff gave instructions for the
formation of a Front Populaire in Spain. Between February 16 and April
19,1936, 140 people were murdered by gangs of red revolutionaries, and
529 buildings were burned down and destroyed before the Bolshevic
Revolution officially broke out."

"We can account for this baffling style of mutual admiration
between Bolshevism and Western Liberalist Intellectualism only if we
assume it to be some form of mental disease."

"During February and March 101 Russian Soviet aeroplanes were shipped
from Reval to Spain. And on March 1st, 50 heavy guns from Soviet
Russia were brought overland to Almansa. Recently one single large
consignment of was material from Soviet Russia to the Reds in Spain
included 100 heavy tanks, 500 medium-sized tanks, 2000 light tanks,
4000 heavy machine guns, 6000 light machine guns and 300 aeroplanes,
with their pilots."

"I shall now deal with some instances which will help to give an
idea of the extent to which World Liberalism goes in its moral support
of the Reds in Spain. I have already emphasized the fact that the
marriage between Bolshevism and Democracy presents some uncanny
features; indeed one might call them downright perverse. In the
historical developement of its activities Democracy has more and more
become the political facade of World Capitalism. Bolshevism now
carries the democratic principle to its ultimate logical application.
We may call it the Democracy of Terror. It increases the pace of that
sanguinary and pitiless developement of which Liberalism had already
mapped out the path. I might illustrate this point by a rather drastic
comparison. In democracy leading heads were out-voted by the counting
of heads. In Bolshevism the same result is obtained by chopping off
heads with the guillotine. The result in both cases is the same. The
heads are wanting. The masses are robbed of their natural leaders and
left prey to international Jews, who are now free to exercise their
dictatorship by the employment of terrorization and money."

"Pleasing catchwords were used to win the favour of the
workers but when the communist leaders came into power social terror
became the rule of the day. Among the workers and peasant classes
hunger prevailed, as symbol and sign of the Bolshevic rule."

"In keeping with the Soviet Russian pettern, family life and
the instituton of marriage are being ruined by this world plague.
Degradation of married women, the socialization of women, the
martyrdom of children--these are the principles which are in vogue
here."

"According to the 'Daily Mail' of August 22, 1936, Twenty-eight
nuns from the convent of Santa Clara "were subjected to inconceivable
tortures by relays of red maniacs."

"But Bolshevism in practice is nothing better than the most
frightful find of barbarism. It is the outward expression of the
hatred of the underworld agianst all those who are representative of
Western civilization and a cultural level to which Bolshevism can
never hope to attain."

"Among the 20,000 churches and monasteries which the Reds have
plundered and destroyed many were of historical and architectual
significance which cannot be replaced."

"But the churches of the world remain passive to it all and do not
seem to have the least suspicion as to the deadly menace that
threatens them. This is where Bolshevism shows itself again as the
incarnation of evil. Its destructive influence on the popular
religious instinct goes to the very roots of that instinct itself. And
this ruthless atheistic campaign spares nothing whatsoever which might
serve to remind the people of God and religion. The one fact alone
that the Fuerer has saved the German churches from this fate should be
enough to make them feel bound to remain eternally thankful to him.
But instead of this they never tire of going beyond the sphere of
their religious duties, interfering in political matters and making
their influence felt in a way that has no connection whatsoever with
their duties or their divine calling."

"According to indisputable figures based exclusively on
Bolshevic statistics, 42,000 priests have been murdered in Russia. Up
to February 2,1937, approximately 17,000 priests and monks and eleven
bishops were murdered in Spain."

"A Swedish refugee stated, on November 10, 1936: 'I have seen
churches on the walls of which the murdered bodies of women were hung,
nuns that had been beheaded or burned and whose bodies had been nailed
in rows to the church walls."

"The Strassburg paper, 'Der Elsasser', in its issue of
February 27, 1937 published the staggering fact that '50,000 Spanish
children are at the present moment wandering through Spanish
provinces, abandoned and in rags. All public activities for the
welfare of the youth have been abolished. And so the youngsters, very
often no more than four or five years old, are left no alternative.
They stagger along the road in swarms, shivering with cold and are
nothing more than wandering skeletons.'"

"One shudders to think what might happen to humanity if this
system became universal throughout the world."

"Bolshevism and its 'friendly press' throughout the world lose no
opportunity of pointing an accusing finger at the alleged use of
terror in countries which are governed according to the principles of
authority. The whole world gives a cry of agonizing sympathy when, for
example, a Jew in Germany receives a well-earned box on the ears. But
what is this when compared with the terror that disrupts whole
nations"

"Lenin himself, when asked at the 12th Congress of the Red Party,
what were the principles on which Communism relied, answered: 'Murder,
destruction, not a stone to be left in place if its removal should be
to the advantage of the Revolution.'"

"The Jewish Soviet Ambassador in London finds it convenient to
express his moral indignation before the Non-Intervention Committee in
London. The world and the League of Nations are hypocritically
appealed to. Before these tribunals the Jew Litwinow-Finkelstein plays
the part of the civilised philistine and fills Europe with cries of
protest."

"The Intenational Brigades which are sent into action on the Red
Spanish front are commanded by Soviet officers. Their commander was
the Jew, General Kleber."

"We shall not be deterred from pointing to the Jew as the inspirer,
the instigator and the beneficiary of the dreadful catastrophe."

"At Barcelona he sits, in the person of Wladimer Bischitzki as
director of the international oragnization for the smuggling of arms
and munitions, comrades Lurje and Fuchs, of his own racial breed,
sitting by his side. His Paris agents are his racial compatriots,
Fratkin, Rosenfeld and Schapiro. At Hirtenberg in Austria their
collaborator is the Jew, Mandl. In Amsterdam the Jew, Wolf. In
Rotteerdam the Jews, Cohen, Gruenfeld, Kirsch, and Simon. In Denmark
the Jew, Moses Israel Diamant. In Prague the Jews, Kindler, Kahn,
Abter and Hithner. We know them all and we know them well."

"The fact that Western Liberalism closes its eyes to this evil
portent is only a sign of its almost childish naivety."

"A struggle for native land and liberty, for honour and family
and God and religion, for wife and child, for school and upbringing,
for order, moral principle, culture and civilization, for our lives
and our daily bread , has begun. In Germany it has already been
brought to a triumphant issue."

[Topaz]

On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 17:48:25 -0700 (PDT), sarge
<grease...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>No, I did not say that. I said I was not basing my argument on any
>particular quality of Hitler's, except that he was a politician. The
>rest of the argument was based on him being a human being. I don't
>think my assumptions that he was a politician or a human being means
>that my mind has been twisted by Jewish media. I have made this
>argument many times now and not once have you actually responded to
>the argument. Instead you keep misreading it or responding as if to
>it but not at all.

Well what do you think of the subject line?

Here is a quote from Mein Kampf:

"There were millions and millions of workmen who began by being
hostile to the Social Democratic Party; but their defences were
repeatedly stormed and finally had to surrender. Yet this defeat was
due to the stupidity of the bourgeois parties, who had opposed every
demand put forward by the working class. The short-sighted refusal to
making an effort towards improving labour conditions, the refusal to
adopt measures which would insure the workmen in case of accidents in
the factories, the refusal to forbid child labour, the refusal to
consider protective measures for female workers, especially expectant
mothers--all this was of assistance to the Social Democratic leaders,
who were thankful for every opportunity which they could exploit for
forcing the masses into their net. Our bourgeois parties can never
repair the damage that resulted from the mistake that was made. For
they sowed the seeds of hatred when they opposed all efforts at social
reform. And thus they gave, at least, apparent grounds to justify the
claim put forward by the Social Democrats--namely that they alone
stand up for the interest of the working class.
"And this became the principle ground for the moral
justification of the actual existance of the Trades Unions, so that
the labour organizations became from that time onwards the chief
political recruiting ground to swell the ranks of the Social
Democratic Party."

[sarge]

On 25 mar, 03:54, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 17:48:25 -0700 (PDT), sarge
>

Hitler overextended his armies and chose a ludicrous strategy. If
Topaz's assertion is correct that really there was only one front and
all these jewish controlled nations were working as one, this only
makes Hitler's strategy more ludicrous. Also his optimism. He was a
terrible leader. If he was not like other politicians and did not
lie, then he did not understand how bad Germany's situation was during
the war. He either misled the German's through stupidity - not being
able to evaluate the situation he was in militarily. Or he mislead
them in the ways that politicians do, by lying about how hopeless the
situation was.

Poor military strategy with historical precedents as warning signs.

Either lying or stupid when communicating about the war to his people
and troops.

[sarge]

On 25 mar, 03:54, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 17:48:25 -0700 (PDT), sarge
>

His errors are easiest to see in the East. He thought he could
quickly take over Russia. He was wrong. He thought resistence would
be mild. he was wrong. And especially after occupation by the
Germans reistence movement sprang in occupied territories. He
thought is would go quickly and did not prepare for winter war. He
ignored suggestions by people in the supply part of the military who
were concerned about winter issues. The winter took a huge toll on
the GeGerman armies. He thought the Soviet system was too inflexible
to deal with the early losses. They adapted effectively enough and
kepy many more troops in the Germans' faces then expected and cleverly
moved industries back to safer territories. Hitler misjudged the
Soviet government, the Soviet people and the Soviet military. All of
whom responded flexibly and with incredible drive against the
invasion.

He should have known better. He could look at Napolean. But he
overestimated German capabilities along with the resolve of his
enemies.

And his soldiers paid for his weaknesses as a leader.

[Andy F]

On 01/03/2011 14:59, tooly wrote:
> On Feb 28, 8:26 pm, sarge<greasethew...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> On 28 Feb, 22:47, Topaz<mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Obviously losing the war didn't prove they were wrong. It only proved
>>> they were outnumbered.
>>

>> It proved that Hitler was a terrible leader. He took on much more
>> than his country could chew and his country paid for his idiocy.
>> He killed more Germans through his idiocy than all the Jews put
>> together have killed Germans.
>> If he had gassed himself, Germany would have faired much better.
>
> yea, but if Hitler had gassed himself, what would we have to villify
> today? And all them War movies and watching John Wayne die on Mt.
> Surabachi and all ...and what would the History Channel do? And we
> need our conspiracy theories to keep us from falling off in deep
> boredom, don't you think?
>
> All kidding aside, I'm pretty circumspect...I like to look at what has
> been 'plugged' into my brain, and then to critique it. I see what
> emotions are evoked...that kind of thing [trying to stay as objective
> as possible]. I noticed that the very WORD 'Jew' evokes a kind of
> 'confused' array of 'mystery and fear' in me. The message has somehow
> entered my brain, 'STAY AWAY'...'danger will robinson, danger'....
>
> I think I'm like Pavlov's dogs...and I have been PROGRAMMED to NOT
> think about Jews. Or to 'shock' myself with some pre-ordained pablum
> of socialability that acts like a 'POsted, Keep OUT" sign to certain
> areas of information in my brain [however sparse it may be].
>
> The Jews are quite interesting if you ask me. I mean, my entire
> 'belief' system came from their teachings...again, is it PROGRAMMING?
> I dunno. Most of the major scientific discoveries have come from
> Jews...from Darwin, Freud, Einstein, to Jesus himself. So all that I
> THINK I understand is rooted to what they have presented us with and
> now sits in my brain [in some rudimentary fashion anyway].

What makes you think Darwin was Jewish?
>
> We all know that Jews occupy a large percentage [more than their
> portion of the general population] of professional level positions in
> society...like dentists, lawyers, bankers etc...and are represented in
> large percentages in large corporate ownership and management, like
> major news corportations, New York Times, television media...and of
> course are highly represented in Hollywood productions [the type,
> subject matter, and angle of purview we are presented in movies for
> example, which are very influential to how we are led to THINK]. All
> this...more PROGRAMMING? I dunno.
>
> I Just don't know myself. I just know the 'no tresspasssing' signs
> are up in my brain [that evoke fear when I turn that way]...which
> spurs interest...and perhaps 'susupicion'. I was always rebellious as
> a kid when told "NO"...and tried to do it anyway, just for spite.
>
> I mean, I just woke up here and I'm trying to figure out what all this
> about. It seems to me, to understand that [what it is all about], you
> pretty much have to probe that area in our brains that have been
> PROGRAMMED [for whatever reasons]...especially probably the 'keep out'
> areas. Hmm...forbidden zones in our brains. Interesting supposition,
> say what. But why?
>
> I'm probably being naive and putting my head in some invisible
> dragon's mouth or something. Curiosity killed the cat and all that,
> ha. But I think Hitler was on to something...but probably 'concluded'
> things when the information is simply far too sparse to really
> conclude anything. And the holocaust thing was very EVIL.
>
> All one can really do is prick an eyebrow and say, 'Wow, that's
> weird'...and probably just dismiss it and go on. But it is curious.
> Do the Jews even know how they have PROGRAMMED, well, at least 'my'
> brain anyway. Are these guys aliens from Mentat Planet Zargon or
> something, hehe. When Karl Marx said that someday the 'intellectuals'
> would rule the masses, I wonder what he meant anyway? My own peabrain
> simply cannot muster a complete picture in all this...the information
> is simply not there; just some observations and conspiracy theories.
> But I look at how my culture has been trashed, and I think it is a
> kneejerk 'reaction' in me to look for something blame. I try to not
> jump to conclusions though..."IT WAS THE MARXISTS!!" ["ee, ee, ee,
> ee...", screeched the pod people while pointing fingers].
>
> No...I mean, it REALLY was the marxists.
>
>
>

[Topaz]

On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 15:04:40 -0700 (PDT), sarge
<grease...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>Hitler overextended his armies and chose a ludicrous strategy.

Germany was too small compared to the Jewish controlled countries the
USA and the USSR.

> If
>Topaz's assertion is correct that really there was only one front and
>all these jewish controlled nations were working as one, this only
>makes Hitler's strategy more ludicrous. Also his optimism. He was a
>terrible leader.

Hitler was the greatest leader who ever lived. Right now the world is
going downhill because the wrong side won the war.

> If he was not like other politicians and did not
>lie, then he did not understand how bad Germany's situation was during
>the war. He either misled the German's through stupidity - not being
>able to evaluate the situation he was in militarily. Or he mislead
>them in the ways that politicians do, by lying about how hopeless the
>situation was.
>
>Poor military strategy with historical precedents as warning signs.
>
>Either lying or stupid when communicating about the war to his people
>and troops.

Germany was unfortunately too small. The talk about military strategy
is a lot of boring crap.

[Topaz]

On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 18:24:38 -0700 (PDT), sarge
<grease...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>His errors are easiest to see in the East.
> He thought he could
>quickly take over Russia. He was wrong. He thought resistence would
>be mild. he was wrong. And especially after occupation by the
>Germans reistence movement sprang in occupied territories. He
>thought is would go quickly and did not prepare for winter war. He
>ignored suggestions by people in the supply part of the military who
>were concerned about winter issues. The winter took a huge toll on
>the GeGerman armies. He thought the Soviet system was too inflexible
>to deal with the early losses. They adapted effectively enough and
>kepy many more troops in the Germans' faces then expected and cleverly
>moved industries back to safer territories. Hitler misjudged the
>Soviet government, the Soviet people and the Soviet military. All of
>whom responded flexibly and with incredible drive against the
>invasion.
>
>He should have known better. He could look at Napolean. But he
>overestimated German capabilities along with the resolve of his
>enemies.
>
>And his soldiers paid for his weaknesses as a leader.

Here is a letter by Otto Deissenroth, Military Post Number 12 827D
In the East, 30.7.1941

Dear Comrade Karl !
I write this letter from the desolation of a Ukrainian forest village,
40 kilometers from Kiev, which we hope to capture in a few days. The
fruitful land of the Ukraine is all around us, but 20 years of
Bolshevist mismanagement have brought it to ruin. The poverty, misery
and filth we have seen and experienced in the past weeks is
indescribable. You back home cannot imagine the terrible results of
Bolshevism in this fruitful land. Everything that we formerly read in
newspapers and books pales in the face of the terrible reality. Our
eyes look in vain for some sign of construction, for a trace of
progress, for a bit of culture. We yearn for the sight of a clean
house, an orderly street, a few tended gardens, a few trees! Wherever
we look there is filth, decay, desolation, misery, death and
suffering! Everywhere we see the ghost of Bolshevism in the tortured
look of farmers, the blank stares of captives, the hundreds of
murdered people, the farm houses of impoverished buildings and ruined
houses. I sometimes think it is all the work of the devil.

The land was rich when it was inhabited by German, Ukrainian, Czech
and Polish farmers. Then Bolshevism came, and with it enormous misery.
Everything that was prosperous or cultured was killed or burned. I
spoke with dozens of people whose family members, fathers, husbands,
brothers and sons perished somewhere in Murmansk, Siberia or the icy
north. Thousands died during the great famine, particularly in
1932-1933. Thousands more ended up in prisons and jails. The misery of
those freed from Bolshevism is indescribable. Any free expression was
prohibited, any movement banned.

Everything in nature that was beautiful, good and free was destroyed.
Everything created by God was exterminated! They took the blessing
from the land and the soul from the people. They reduced them to the
level of animals, impotent, miserable enslaved animals with no hope of
life who did not know if they would be alive tomorrow, who lived from
hand to mouth, and were happy only when someone killed them. Hell can
be no worse that this "Soviet paradise." There is no hope of
salvation. What Bolshevism has done to humanity is a sin against God,
a crime one cannot begin to understand. Every German who formerly
thought Bolshevism was a worthy idea and who threatened we National
Socialists with death and bloodshed only because we didn't believe in
this nonsense should be ashamed! We were right! We are all shaken and
moved as we face this misery, this suffering, this hopeless Bolshevist
life. They stole everything from these people except the very air they
breathed. The land they inherited from their fathers became a
collective, the property of the state, and they became slaves worse
than those of the darkest Middle Ages in Germany. They had a tiny plot
of land of their own, and even that was heavily taxed. They had to
report to the collective's commissars each morning, work the whole
day, even Sunday, with no free time. They belonged to the state. They
were supposedly paid, but rarely saw the money. They got 33 kopeks a
day, about a third of a Mark. They owned no plow, no spade, no wagon,
no yoke. Everything supposedly belonged to everyone, everything
belonged to the state.

The Jews and party bigwigs lived in prosperity, the farmers had only
hunger, misery, work and death. No one felt himself responsible for
the soil, no one felt the love we Germans have for our homeland, for
the soil that is ours. The knowledge of blood and soil had died out. I
spoke with 30-year-olds who did not understand the concept of
property. They had been educated in Soviet schools. That explains why
they had no sense of culture, no need for it. Their homes are empty,
cold and desolate, much poorer than in Poland. No pictures, no flowers
break the desolation. The art of cooking also disappeared, given the
food shortages. The daily diet consists of milk and bread, along with
a bit of honey and a few potatoes. When one see this dismal poverty,
one is reminded that these Bolshevist animals wanted to bring culture
to us industrious, clean and creative Germans. How God has blessed us!
How justified is the Führer's claim to European leadership! The
poorest German village is a pearl in comparison to these ruined
Russian villages.

Sometimes as I face the thousands of murdered people that we found in
the cities and villages, and in the numerous occasions where we found
women and children wailing over the corpses of their family members,
or when they asked us to free their men who had been hauled off just
before we arrived, I see the Führer before me. He saved an enslaved
and raped humanity, giving it once more divine freedom and the
blessing of a worthy existence. The last and deepest reason for this
war is to restore the natural and godly order. It is a battle against
slavery, against Bolshevist insanity. I am proud, deeply proud, that I
may fight against this Bolshevist monster, fighting once again the
enemy I fought to destroy during the hard years of struggle in
Germany. I am proud of the wounds I suffered during the election
battles in Germany, and I am proud of my new wounds, and of the medal
that I now wear. It is as if the people here are awakening from a deep
sleep. They cannot yet believe in their new freedom; they do not know
where to begin. They sit down and wait for orders. Now they have them:
"Go back to work, harvest the fields, now you have your own home."
That is what all the posters say, and one sees the masses at work in
the fields. Man and nature are free again, God has his place once
more, his eternal order has been restored. We National Socialist
soldiers of Adolf Hitler have restored the godly order, though some
call us heathens. That is the way life is. And what did those who
spoke about God do? Ask them!"

The Soviet Union was in fact a paradise for one group: the Jews. Even
at times when for foreign policy reasons Jews were less evident in the
government, or when they ruled through straw men, the Jews were always
visible in the middle and lower levels of the administration. During
the whole period of the red dictatorship, they were the beneficiaries.
This was clearest in the small nations that the Soviet Union was using
to prepare for its attack on the Greater German Reich after the
outbreak of Churchill's war, above all in the Baltic states.

Fred Fallnbigl wrote to his Parents in Salzburg, 17.7.41

I wrote in my last two letters about Russian atrocities, and could
fill volumes more.
But a bit more from the Soviet Paradise. I'll especially tell you
about things that happened in Lemberg-Tarnopol and Tromborla.
Tromborla is due south of Tarnopol. I saw the prisons in Lemberg, and
saw things that struck me deeply. There were men with their ears and
noses cut off, etc. They had nailed children alive by their hands and
feet to the wall, butchering them. The blood was ankle deep. It didn't
make any difference if they were alive or dead. They doused the piles
of bodies with gasoline and set them on fire. The stench was terrible.
I saw similar things in Tarnopol and Tromborla. In T. seven Ukrainians
were hauled out of their beds after the Germans had arrived. The next
morning their bodies were found in the woods, beaten until they were
unrecognizable. I have seen all of this myself, they are not matters I
heard about. Feel free to tell them to others, particularly those who
may still think well of the Soviet Union.

I always think how fortunate we are that this scourge of humanity
never made it to our country. I don't think that even years of
preparation would make Germans capable of such atrocities

Paul Rubelt, Military Post Number 34 539 F, wrote to Miss Grete Egger,
Lebring 71, Steieirark:
6.7.1941
"I was in Lemberg yesterday and saw a bloodbath. It was terrible. Many
had their skin stripped off, men were castrated, their eyes poked out,
arms or legs chopped off. Some were nailed to the wall, 30-40 were
sealed into a small room and suffocated. About 650 people in this area
must have died in such ways. The stench can be endured only if one
smokes a cigarette and keeps a handkerchief over one's nose. The Jews
did most of it. Now they have to dig the graves. The culprits will be
shot. Many already died because of the stench. In this city they even
opened graves and defiled the corpses. It is terrible. One can hardly
believe that such people exist."

There are few families in Germany today who do not have a member,
and therefore an eyewitness of Bolshevism. These letters already
circulate within families and factories, villages and party local
groups. Now they reach millions who are working for victory, giving
them a broader picture of the experiences and impressions of their
brothers and sons.

No one will put this pamphlet down without being deeply moved. His
thoughts will then turn to the Führer, the man who in the midst of
Germany's deepest disgrace was the first to recognize and oppose the
communist enemy. The few units of the SA and the SS that opposed the
Bolshevist-Jewish enemy when Moscow's terror still prevailed in the
streets of our great cities, when Red revolution threatened whole
states and provinces of the Reich, and Moscow's Foreign Legion
murdered German men on German soil, now have the whole German people
with them. The enormous columns of German regiments and divisions are
striking Bolshevism deep in Russia. At the right time and with careful
forethought, the Führer, side by side with all the awakened European
nations, gave the command to save the West. The decision was
difficult, the scale of the struggle vast, and the results tremendous.

Everyone today can see that the order given on 22 June 1941 was the
greatest decision in Europe's life. The Bolshevist armies that today
are being destroyed by the blows of the German army, blows from which
they will never recover, were ready to attack Europe. Despite the
treaties, the Bolshevist leaders were ready to attack when the hour
was right. The presumed state of workers and soldiers had secret
agreements with the plutocracies and capitalism. They were preparing
the way for World Jewry to take over Central Europe.

If Stalin's tanks and planes had crossed our borders, it would have
been the end of everything noble and beautiful in the world. Europe
would have been filled with enslaved masses like the prisoners our
soldiers find today in the East. A whole part of the world would have
fallen into filth and misery if Adolf Hitler had not at the last
moment intervened to forever eliminate the criminal danger.

We may not forget it. Moscow's criminals are praised as heroes and
defenders of culture every day by the English and American press.
People in London and New York pray for these animals in human form,
and thousands of Jewish editors, speakers and radio announcers are at
work recruiting American youth to shed their blood for these
subhumans.

This lying and decaying world of plutocracy along with its Bolshevist
allies may not and will not win. No sacrifice is too great in
comparison to what is at risk, and what victory will bring us in the
future.

[sarge]

On 28 mar, 23:06, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hitler overextended his armies and chose a ludicrous strategy. If

Topaz's assertion is correct that really there was only one front and

all these Jewish controlled nations were working as one, this only

makes Hitler's strategy more ludicrous. Also his optimism. He was
a

terrible leader. If he was not like other politicians and did not

lie, then he did not understand how bad Germany's situation was
during
the war. He either misled the German's through stupidity - not being
able to evaluate the situation he was in militarily. Or he mislead
them in the ways that politicians do, by lying about how hopeless the
situation was.
Poor military strategy with historical precedents as warning signs.
Either lying or stupid when communicating about the war to his people
and troops.

His errors are easiest to see in the East. He thought he could

quickly take over Russia. He was wrong. He thought resistance would

be mild. he was wrong. And especially after occupation by the

Germans resistance movement sprang in occupied territories. He

thought is would go quickly and did not prepare for winter war. He
ignored suggestions by people in the supply part of the military who
were concerned about winter issues. The winter took a huge toll on

the German armies. He thought the Soviet system was too inflexible

to deal with the early losses. They adapted effectively enough and

kept many more troops in the Germans' faces then expected and

cleverly
moved industries back to safer territories. Hitler misjudged the
Soviet government, the Soviet people and the Soviet military. All of
whom responded flexibly and with incredible drive against the
invasion.

He should have known better. He could look at Napoleon. But he

[Topaz]

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 17:17:39 -0700 (PDT), sarge
<grease...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 28 mar, 23:06, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Hitler overextended his armies and chose a ludicrous strategy.

Are you saying that if the Germans had followed all your
recomendations, that they would have won the war?

> If
>Topaz's assertion is correct that really there was only one front and
>all these Jewish controlled nations were working as one, this only
>makes Hitler's strategy more ludicrous. Also his optimism. He was
>a
>terrible leader.
> If he was not like other politicians and did not
>lie, then he did not understand how bad Germany's situation was
>during
>the war. He either misled the German's through stupidity - not being
>able to evaluate the situation he was in militarily. Or he mislead
>them in the ways that politicians do, by lying about how hopeless the
>situation was.

Then the Germans would have lost no matter what military stategy they
used, right?

>Poor military strategy with historical precedents as warning signs.
>Either lying or stupid when communicating about the war to his people
>and troops.
>His errors are easiest to see in the East. He thought he could
>quickly take over Russia. He was wrong. He thought resistance would
>be mild. he was wrong. And especially after occupation by the

If they would have lost the war no matter what they did, isn't that
just a lot of boring drivel?

[sarge]

On 29 mar, 22:52, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> Hitler overextended his
armies and chose a ludicrous strategy. If

Topaz's assertion is correct that really there was only one front and
all these Jewish controlled nations were working as one, this only
makes Hitler's strategy more ludicrous. Also his optimism. He was
a
terrible leader. If he was not like other politicians and did not
lie, then he did not understand how bad Germany's situation was
during
the war. He either misled the German's through stupidity - not being
able to evaluate the situation he was in militarily. Or he mislead
them in the ways that politicians do, by lying about how hopeless the
situation was.

Poor military strategy with historical precedents as warning signs.
Either lying or stupid when communicating about the war to his people
and troops.
His errors are easiest to see in the East. He thought he could
quickly take over Russia. He was wrong. He thought resistance would
be mild. he was wrong. And especially after occupation by the

[Topaz]

http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com http://www.nsm88.org

http://heretical.com/ http://immigration-globalization.blogspot.com/

[sarge]

On 30 mar, 22:21, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Here is a letter by  Otto Deissenroth, Military Post Number 12 827D
>                         In the East, 30.7.1941
>
> Dear Comrade Karl !
> I write this letter from the desolation of a Ukrainian forest village,
> 40 kilometers from Kiev, which we hope to capture in a few days. The
> fruitful land of the Ukraine is all around us, but 20 years of

Hitler overextended his

[sarge]

On 30 mar, 22:21, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Hitler’s Military “Mistakes”/”Blunders”
Dunkirk “Stop” Order
One of the most controversial questions in the history of World War II
surrounds the infamous “stop” order issued in the last days of May
1940 which allowed the British Expeditionary Force (over 338,226 men
including 26,176 French) to escape from Dunkirk. The controversy is
based upon two separate questions. First, was Hitler solely
responsible for the decision to stop his advancing army at the gates
of Dunkirk, or did General Gerd von Rundstedt make the decision and
Hitler merely agree with him based on Rundstedt’s military expertise?
The second question, and perhaps the most debated among military
historians and military leaders alike, is why was the stop order
issued at all?
In response to the first question, there seems little doubt that
Hitler did in fact insist that the stop order be issued on his own
behalf. Hitler was already nervous over the ease at which his armies
had successfully advanced into France and was quite concerned by the
lack of overwhelming resistance his armies continued to encounter. All
of this seemed too good to be true and only served to heighten his
concern, since he was not sure what the French and British might be
planning from the south. Hitler’s uneasiness was reinforced
18
when he visited Rundstedt’s Army Group A Headquarters on May 24th.
Rundstedt informed Hitler that he was concerned about the way the tank
strength had been reduced during the long and expeditious advance
across France and, more importantly, the possibility of further
engagements with the enemy from the north and the south. Hitler agreed
with Rundstedt’s reservations and wanted to save his panzer force for
future operations. He could not risk losing them fighting in the
Flanders marshes. Although undoubtedly inspired by Rundstedt’s shared
concern over the condition and strength of the panzer forces, the
decision to halt the attack of the armored force at the Canal Line and
not allow any further advances beyond that point was made by Hitler
alone. Later that day after meeting with Rundstedt, Hitler called for
the Commander-in-Chief of the Army and after a heated discussion,
insisted that the tanks be halted and the infamous stop order was
issued.1
There remains one further argument that lends itself to support the
fact that it was Hitler’s decision to issue the stop order and not
Rundstedt’s overwhelming influence over him as some may assume. After
the British did escape from Dunkirk, Hitler never tried to lay the
blame of his mistake on the advice of his generals as he had so often
done in the past. As Liddell Hart states, “Such negative evidence is
as significant as any.”2
The final question of why Hitler issued the stop order offers several
possibilities. Hitler was convinced from his own personal experience
during the First World War that the muddy Flanders terrain was not
suited for heavy armor. The marshes were crisscrossed with canals and
drainage ditches which made tank maneuver hazardous and vulnerable to
heavy losses if they fell prey to British or French attack. Hitler
wanted to save as many tanks as he possibly could for his battle
against the French and his march
19
into Paris which was the next phase of Hitler’s plan—the defeat of the
French Army. Therefore, Hitler saw no sense in squandering his tank
force in the swampy lowlands of the Flanders marshes, or for that
matter, destroyed in the streets of Dunkirk when they could be put to
better use in the future.3
The most compelling argument behind Hitler’s issuance of the stop
order was Field Marshal Hermann Goering’s assurance to Hitler that the
Luftwaffe was more than capable of single–handedly stopping the
evacuation of the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) at Dunkirk. Hitler
saw this as an opportunity to save his precious panzer force from the
hazards of the Flanders region and give Goering a chance to score a
decisive victory for his Luftwaffe. Goering’s insistence that the
Luftwaffe could finish the job without the aid of the army may have
influenced Hitler’s decision as well since a victory by Goering would
surely deny the army generals from reaping the glory of the triumph.
Therefore, with assurances from Goering and Hitler’s concern over the
possible heavy loss of tanks to the Flanders region, Hitler issued the
stop order with the understanding that Dunkirk would be left to the
Luftwaffe.4
Hitler’s decision to allow the Luftwaffe to destroy the BEF on the
shores of Dunkirk completely contradicts the assertion of those who
may have felt Hitler had political motives for issuing the stop order.
It has been suggested by Liddell Hart, through an interview with
Blumentritt who was Rundstedt’s operational planner, that Hitler may
have intentionally allowed the BEF to escape from Dunkirk in order to
make peace with the British easier to achieve. This assumption is
based on Hitler’s visit to Rundstedt’s headquarters on May 24th in
which Blumentritt recalls:
20
Hitler was in very good humor, he admitted that the course of the
campaign had been ‘a decided miracle,’ and gave us his opinion that
the war would be finished in six weeks. After that he wished to
conclude a reasonable peace with France, and then the way would be
free for an agreement with Britain.
He then astonished us by speaking with admiration of the British
Empire, of the necessity for its existence, and of the civilisation
that Britain had brought into the world. He remarked, with a shrug of
the shoulders, that the creation of its Empire had been achieved by
means that were often harsh, but ‘where there is planning, there are
shavings flying’. He compared the British Empire with the Catholic
Church—saying they were both essential elements of stability in the
world. He said that all he wanted from Britain was that she should
acknowledge Germany’s position on the Continent. The return of
Germany’s lost colonies would be desirable but not essential, and he
would even offer to support Britain with troops if she should be
involved in any difficulties anywhere. He remarked that the colonies
were primarily a matter of prestige, since they could not be held in
war, and few Germans could settle in the tropics.
He concluded by saying that his aim was to make peace with Britain on
a basis that she would regard as compatible with her honour to accept.
5
If Hitler truly believed that by allowing the BEF to escape from
Dunkirk would have
eased peace relations with Britain, he would have never ordered
Goering’s Luftwaffe to
attack. According to General Heinz Guderian, “Hitler and above all
Goering believed
German air supremacy to be strong enough to prevent the evacuation of
the British forces
by sea.”6 The opportunity for the Luftwaffe to inflict serious
casualties on the enemy by
bombing them from the air during their escape attempt certainly had
merit.
Hitler’s army generals, on the other hand, were completely appalled
when they
received the order that Dunkirk was to be left to the Luftwaffe.
Manstein later wrote that,
“Dunkirk was one of Hitler’s most decisive mistakes.” He goes on
further to express his
discontent by stating, “Hitler had a certain instinct for operational
problems, but lacked the
thorough training of a military commander which enables the latter to
accept considerable
risks in the course of an operation because he knows he can master
them. In this case,
21
therefore, Hitler preferred the safe solution of defensive action to
the bolder method
suggested by Army Group A.”7 Guderian was also perplexed when he
received
notification of the stop order and stated, “On this day (the 24th) the
Supreme Command
intervened in the operations in progress, with results which were to
have a most disastrous
influence on the whole future course of the war. Hitler ordered the
left wing to stop on
the Aa. It was forbidden to cross that stream. We were not informed of
the reasons for
this. The order contained the words: ‘Dunkirk is to be left to the
Luftwaffe’.…We were
utterly speechless.”8
The true reasons for Hitler’s historic decision to issue the stop
order will never be
known. Just as this account is nothing more than speculation, the fact
remains that over
336,000 men survived to fight another day. Telford Taylor best
summarizes the events as
they occurred at Dunkirk:
And so, while the British were preparing and commencing the greatest
naval rescue operation in recorded history, Hitler and the generals
wrangled about the stop-order and busied themselves with plans for the
approaching offensive on the Somme–Aisne front. The stop-order would
not have been issued but for the failure to grasp the urgency of
cutting the Allies off from the coast before the resourceful might of
British sea power could be brought to bear in a huge salvage
operation. The reprieve of the stop-order was the prelude to “the
deliverance of Dunkirk.”9
Stalingrad “No Retreat” Policy
Hitler’s unrelenting policy of no retreat at Stalingrad cost thousands
of German soldiers’ lives. According to James Duffy, “It was a policy
of fanatical resistance. On October 14, 1942, Hitler issued this order
to his troops: ‘Every leader, down to squad leader must be convinced
of his sacred duty to stand fast come what may even if the
22
enemy outflanks him on the right and left, even if his part of the
line is cut off, encircled, overrun by tanks, enveloped in smoke or
gassed.’”10
Hitler’s decision to hold Stalingrad at all costs can be attributed to
a similar situation he faced in Moscow during the winter of 1941. The
Soviets had launched a counter-offensive against the German army on
December 6 and Hitler’s generals saw no other option available for
their armies other than a massive retreat to establish a more
defensible position and even counterattack. Against the advice of his
generals, Hitler categorically refused any request to withdraw and
issued the order that the German armies were to stand firm and fight
to halt the enemy offensive. Those officers who refused to follow
Hitler’s orders were either dismissed or court-martialled.11 Hitler
based his decision on the fact that “any large-scale retreat by major
sections of the army in midwinter, given only limited mobility,
insufficient winter equipment, and no prepared positions in the rear,
must inevitably have the gravest consequences.”12
Even though thousands of German soldiers died from further Soviet
attacks and frost-bite, the German army held out until the spring thaw
and did not allow the Soviet army to break through their front lines.
During this time, Hitler managed to reinforce his armies, provide the
desperately needed winter clothing for his troops, and salvage most of
the heavy equipment which enabled him to resume the offensive in
1942.13
Many of Hitler’s generals did not agree with his decision at the time,
but now feel it was his greatest accomplishment of the war based on
the results of his no retreat policy. General von Tippelskirch, a
corps and later army commander, stated: “It was Hitler’s one great
achievement. At that critical moment the troops were remembering what
they had heard about Napoleon’s retreat from Moscow, and living under
the shadow of it. If they
23
had once begun a retreat, it might have turned into a panic flight.”14
General Blumentritt
also agreed.
Hitler’s fanatical order that the troops must hold fast regardless in
every position and in the most impossible circumstances was
undoubtedly correct. The withdrawal could only be carried out across
the open country since the roads and tracks were blocked with snow.
After a few nights this would prove too much for the troops, who would
simply lie down and die wherever they found themselves. There were no
prepared positions in the rear into which they could be withdrawn, nor
any sort of line to which they could hold on.15
Hitler’s successful decision to overrule the requests from his
generals to withdraw the
troops from Moscow convinced him that his judgment was correct and,
more importantly,
that the best defense against an attacking Soviet army was simply to
hold the ground and
fight. Therefore, Hitler found it hard to tolerate or even consider
his generals’ advice to
withdraw troops in future engagements with Soviet forces. This was the
premise Hitler
used to justify his decision to hold Stalingrad at all costs a year
later.16
On November 19, 1942, the Soviet army launched an offensive against
the Sixth
Army, commanded by General Friedrich Paulus, at Stalingrad. Hitler’s
Army Chief of
Staff, General Kurt Zeitzler, tried to convince Hitler to allow Paulus
to withdraw from
Stalingrad before his army was completely surrounded by Soviet forces
and then attack
the Soviets from the rear in order to overcome the offensive. Hitler
became infuriated
17
with Zeitzler and refused to grant his request. On November 21, Hitler
decided that the Sixth Army must hold their ground “despite the danger
of its temporary encirclement” and ordered Paulus to stand firm.18 The
following day, Paulus found himself completely surrounded by two
Soviet pincer units. Hitler denied Paulus’ request to allow him the
“freedom of action” to withdraw from Stalingrad to the west while he
still had a chance to
24
break through the Soviet encirclement. According to Geoffrey Jukes,
Hitler’s decision enabled him to “continue in the belief, derived from
his experience of the previous winter, that refusal to withdraw was
the correct response to Soviet attacks.”19
Hitler’s decision also relied heavily upon Goering’s boastful
assurance that the Luftwaffe could airlift the badly needed food and
ammunition to the Sixth Army and keep them resupplied so they could
continue to fight. The necessary supplies, however, were not getting
through and the airlift was clearly a failure. Paulus continued to
keep Hitler updated on his lack of supplies and informed him that “the
planes were no longer landing at Gumrak airfield; they were just
throwing out their loads in midair. The loads were thus largely
wasted, and the thousands of injured waiting to be flown out were left
to suffer.”20 Even with this vital information, Hitler was determined
to stand by his decision regardless of the outcome and continued to
insist that Paulus hold his ground until the last man. Manstein’s
assertion that Hitler’s character had little in common with the
thoughts and emotions of the common soldier was certainly proven in
this case. As Manstein points out, “The cause of Sixth Army’s
destruction at Stalingrad is obviously to be found in Hitler’s refusal—
doubtless mainly for reasons of prestige—to give up the city
voluntarily.”21
The Soviet army, on two separate occasions, had offered Paulus an
opportunity to surrender. Paulus relayed the conditions to Hitler and
asked for his permission to surrender stating that his troops were
without food and ammunition, his wounded were in serious need of
medical attention, and further defense was senseless. Hitler’s
response remained the same—hold your positions at all costs. In a vain
attempt to ensure Paulus’ loyalty, Hitler promoted him to field
marshal on January 30, 1943, and reminded him that
25
no German field marshal had ever surrendered. However, on January 31,
the final
message from Paulus’ headquarters stated that the Soviet army was at
the door and the
remaining equipment was being destroyed. Hitler learned early the next
morning that
Paulus had surrendered and over 90,000 German soldiers had been taken
prisoner.22
Hitler’s prestige was shattered by Paulus’ surrender and he could not
understand how
anyone could display such acts of disloyalty and ingratitude. On
February 1, Hitler held
his normally scheduled military meeting and expressed his disgust for
Paulus’ cowardly
action.
The man should have shot himself just as the old commanders who threw
themselves on their swords when they saw their cause was lost. That
goes without saying. Even Varus gave his slave the order: “Now kill
me!.”
You have to imagine, he’ll be brought to Moscow. There he will sign
anything. He’ll make confessions, make proclamations. You’ll see: they
will now walk down the slope of spiritual bankruptcy to its lowest
depths.…The individual must die anyway. Beyond the life of the
individual is the Nation. But how anyone could be afraid of this
moment of death, with which he can free himself from this misery, if
his duty doesn’t chain him to this Vale of Tears. No!
What hurts me most, personally, is that I promoted him to Field
Marshal. I wanted to give him this final satisfaction. That’s the last
Field Marshal I shall appoint in this war. You mustn’t count your
chickens before they are hatched. I don’t understand that at all. So
many people have to die, and then a man like that besmirches the
heroism of so many others at the last minute. He could have freed
himself from all the sorrow and ascended into eternity and national
immortality, but he prefers to go to Moscow. What kind of choice is
that? It just doesn’t make sense.23
It also made no sense for Hitler to insist that Stalingrad be held
until the last man and
was clearly a mistake in judgment on Hitler’s behalf. Hitler believed
that his military
genius would again prevail over the advice of his generals. What
Hitler failed to realize,
however, was that his successful decision to stand firm and fight
during the winter months
of Moscow could not be applied to every situation as status quo each
time he found his
26
armies confronted by Soviet forces. The circumstances Paulus faced at
Stalingrad were not the same as those encountered by the German army
at Moscow. Hitler’s decision in early November for Paulus to hold
Stalingrad and not withdraw removed any possibility for the Sixth Army
to break through the Soviet lines and fight from a more defensible
position while they were still combat capable. Hitler was also
convinced that airlift would provide the food and ammunition needed to
continue the fight and that reinforcements would soon arrive to assist
Paulus in annihilating the Soviet forces. The reinforcements, however,
never arrived. Field Marshal von Manstein’s troops were unable to
reach Stalingrad and were driven back by strong Soviet counter-
attacks. The two closest airfields had been overrun and the
Luftwaffe’s attempt to resupply Paulus’ army by air failed miserably.
Once the Sixth Army was overwhelmed by the Soviet forces, Paulus was
left with only two options: either fight to the death or surrender. He
chose to surrender.
Stalingrad marked the end of Hitler’s obsessive attempt to conquer the
Soviet Union at the cost of roughly two hundred thousand German lives.
Later that summer, the Soviet army launched a massive counter-
offensive, from which the German army never recovered. According to
Duffy, “Following the defeat at Stalingrad there would be no more
blitzkriegs. There would be no more advances, only a steady retreat
across eastern Europe until the German army was forced back to where
it began in 1939: Germany itself.”24
Notes
1 B. H. Liddell Hart, History of the Second World War (New York:
Putnam’s, 1970), 80-81 and Telford Taylor, The March of Conquest (New
York: Simon and Schuster, 1958), 255, 259, 263 and Alan Bullock,
Hitler A Study in Tyranny (London: Odhams Press Limited, 1952), 537.
2 Hart, History of the Second World War, 81.
27
Notes
3 Ibid., 82 and Taylor, The March of Conquest, 262 and Alistair Horne,
To Lose a Battle France 1940 (Boston: Little, Brown and Company,
1969), 533-534 and David Irving, Hitler’s War (New York: Viking Press,
1977), 121.
4
Horne, To Lose a Battle France 1940, 533-534 and Taylor, The March of
Conquest, 263 and Erich von Manstein, Lost Victories, edited and
translated by Anthony Powell (Chicago: Regnery, 1958), 124.
5
B.H. Liddell Hart, The German Generals Talk (New York: William Morrow,
1948), 134-135. 6 Heinz Guderian, Panzer Leader, translated by
Constantine Fitzgibbon (New York: Dutton & Co, 1952), 120.
7 Manstein, Lost Victories, 124-125.
8 Guderian, Panzer Leader, 117.
9 Taylor, The March of Conquest, 264-265.
10 James Duffy, Hitler Slept Late And Other Blunders That Cost Him The
War (New York: Praeger, 1991), 149-150.
11 Bullock, Hitler A Study in Tyranny, 609-610.
12 Irving, Hitler’s War, 357.
13 Ibid., 366 and Bullock, Hitler A Study in Tyranny, 610.
14 Hart, The German Generals Talk, 189.
15
William Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (New York: Simon
and Schuster, 1960), 868.
16
Geoffrey Jukes, Hitler’s Stalingrad Decisions (Berkeley and Los
Angeles: University of California Press, 1985), 23.
17 Duffy, Hitler Slept Late, 90.
18 Irving, Hitler’s War, 455.
19 Jukes, Hitler’s Stalingrad Decisions, 19, 177.
20 Irving, Hitler’s War, 476.
21 Manstein, Lost Victories, 290.
22 Duffy, Hitler Slept Late, 91, 151-152 and Percy Schramm, Hitler:
The Man and the Military Leader translated by Donald Detwiler
(Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1971), 113.
23 Bullock, Hitler A Study in Tyranny, 632.
24 Duffy, Hitler Slept Late, 91.
28
Chapter
>

[Topaz]

On Fri, 1 Apr 2011 15:33:58 -0700 (PDT), sarge
<grease...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Hitler overextended his
>armies and chose a ludicrous strategy. If
>Topaz's assertion is correct that really there was only one front and
>all these Jewish controlled nations were working as one, this only
>makes Hitler's strategy more ludicrous. Also his optimism. He was
>a
>terrible leader. If he was not like other politicians and did not
>lie, then he did not understand how bad Germany's situation was
>during
>the war.

If it was that bad, what difference would it make what military
strategy they used? They would have lost in any case. The Jewish
controlled countries, the USA and the USSR, were a lot bigger than
Germany.

The Germans made radio broadcasts to America from Berlin. This is part
of what they said:

"The world today is divided into two camps, on the one side
Bolshevism, and on the other the forces for civilization. Why is
America on the wrong side?"

Article Winston Churchill wrote in 1920:
"This movement amongst the Jews (the Russian Revolution) is not new.
From the days of Spartacus Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down
to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kuhn (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany)
and Emma Goldman (United States), this world wide conspiracy for the
overthrow of civilization and the reconstruction of society on the
basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible
equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer,
Mrs. Nesta Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part
in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of
every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at
last this band of extraordinary personalities has gripped the Russian
people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the
undisputed masters of that enormous empire. There is no need to
exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the
actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international
and for the most part atheistic Jews. Moreover, the principal
inspiration and driving power comes from Jewish leaders." (ibid)

Lev Trotzky wrote a book called "Stalin: An Appraisal of the Man and
His Influence", Harper Bros., New York and London, 1941, translated by
Charles Malamuth.
In this book he told who the principle members of the October Central
Committee were. This group was the leadership of the Bolshevik Party
during the October Revolution. This is what he wrote:
"In view of the Party's semi-legality the names of persons elected by
secret ballot were not announced at the Congress, with the exception
of the four who had received the largest number of votes. Lenin--133
out of a possible 134, Zinoviev--132, Kamenev--131, Trotzky--131."

Of these four top leaders of the Bolshevik Party the last three were
known Jews. Lenin was thought to be a gentile married to a Jewess. It
was later proven that he was one quarter Jewish, London Jewish
Chronicle April 21, 1995, Lenin: Life and Legacy.

David Francis, the American Ambassador to Russia at the time of the
Revolution, wrote:
"The Bolshevic leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90 percent of
whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country
but are internationalists and they are trying to start a world-wide
revolution."

The Director of British Intelligence to the U.S. Secretary of State
wrote this:
"There is now definite evidence that Bolshevism is an international
movement controlled by Jews."

In 1945 the FBI arrested six individuals for stealing 1700 highly
confidential documents from State Department files. This was the
Amerasia case they were:
Philip Jaffe, a Russian Jew who came to the U.S. in 1905. He was at
one time the editor of the communist paper "Labor Defense" and the
ringleader of the group arrested.
Andrew Roth, a Jew.
Mark Gayn, a Jew, changed his name from Julius Ginsberg.
John Service, a gentile.
Emmanuel Larsen, nationality unknown
Kate Mitchel, nationality unknown.

In 1949 the Jewess Judith Coplin was caught passing classified
documents from Justice Department files to a Russian agent.

The highest ranking communist brought to trial in the U.S. was Gerhart
Eisler. He was a Jew. He was the secret boss of the Communist Party
in the U.S. and commuted regularly between the U.S. and Russia.

In 1950 there was the "Hollywood Ten" case. Ten leading film writers
of the Hollywood Film Colony were convicted for contempt of Congress
and sentenced to prison. Nine of the ten were Jews. Six of the ten
were communist party members and the other four were flagrantly
pro-communist.

One of the top new stories of 1949 was the trial of Eugene Dennis and
the Convicted Eleven. This group comprised the National Secretariat of
the American Communist Party. Six were Jews, two gentiles, three
nationality unknown.

Also in 1949 the German-born atomic scientist Klaus Fuchs was
convicted for passing atomic secrets to the Russians. Acting on
information obtained from Fuchs the FBI arrested nine other members of
the ring. All of them were convicted. Eight of the nine were Jews.
Here are some quotes from a very pro-Jewish book that was first
published in 1925. The book is "Stranger than Fiction" by Lewis
Browne.

"But save for such exceptions, the Jews who led or participated in the
heroic efforts to remold the world of the last century, were neither
Reform or Orthodox. Indeed, they were often not professing Jews at
all.
"For instance, there was Heinrich Heine and Ludwig Borne, both
unfaltering champions of freedom. And even more conspicuously, there
was Karl Marx, one of the great prophetic geniuses of modern times.

"Jewish historians rarely mention the name of this man, Karl Marx,
though in his life and spirit he was far truer to the mission of
Israel than most of those who were forever talking of it. He was born
in Germany in 1818, and belonged to an old rabbinic family. He was not
himself reared as a Jew, however, but while still a child was baptized
a Christian by his father. Yet the rebel soul of the Jew flamed in him
throughout his days, for he was always a 'troubler' in Europe."
"Then, of course, there are Ludwig Borne and Heinrich Heine, two men
who by their merciless wit and sarcasm became leaders among the
revolutionary writers. Karl Marx, Ferdinand Lassalle, Johann Jacoby,
Gabriel Riesser, Adolphe Cremieux, Signora Nathan- all these of Jewish
lineage played important roles in the struggle that went throughout
Europe in this period. Wherever the war for human liberty was being
waged, whether in France, Germany, Austria, Hungary, or Italy, there
the Jew was to be found. It was little wonder that the enemies of
social progress, the monarchists and the Churchmen, came to speak of
the whole liberal movement as nothing but a Jewish plot."

The book "Soviet Russia and the Jews" by Gregor Aronson and published
by the American Jewish League Against Communism, quotes Stalin in an
interview in 1931 with the Jewish Telegraph Agency. Stalin said:
"...Communists cannot be anything but outspoken enemies of
Anti-Semitism. We fight anti-Semites by the strongest methods in the
Soviet Union. Active anti-Semites are punished by death under the
law."

The following quotes are taken directly from documents available from
the
U.S. Archives:
State Department document 861.00/1757 sent May 2, 1918 by U.S. consul
general in Moscow, Summers: "Jews prominent in local Soviet
government, anti-Jewish feeling growing among population...."

State Department document 861.00/2205 was sent from Vladivostok on
July 5, 1918 by U.S. consul Caldwell: "Fifty percent of Soviet
government in each town consists of Jews of the worst type."

From the Headquarters of the American Expeditionary Forces, Siberia on
March 1, 1919, comes this telegram from Omsk by Chief of Staff, Capt.
Montgomey Shuyler: "It is probably unwise to say this loudly in the
United States but the Bolshevik movement is and has been since it's
beginning, guided and controlled by Russian Jews of the greasiest
type" type."

A second Schuyler telegram, dated June 9, 1919 from Vladivostok,
reports on the make-up of the presiding Soviet government: "...(T)here
were 384 'commissars' including 2 negroes, 13 Russians, 15 Chinamen,
22 Armenians, AND MORE THAN 300 JEWS. Of the latter number, 264 had
come to Russia from the United States since the downfall of the
Imperial Government.

The Netherlands' ambassador in Russia, Oudendyke, confirmed this:
"Unless Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately, it is bound to
spread in one form or another over Europe and the whole world as it is
organized and worked by Jews who have no nationality, and whose one
object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things."

"The Bolshevik revolution in Russia was the work of Jewish brains, of
Jewish dissatisfaction, of Jewish planning, whose goal is to create a
new order in the world. What was performed in so excellent a way in
Russia, thanks to Jewish brains, and because of Jewish dissatisfaction
and by Jewish planning, shall also, through the same Jewish mental an
physical forces, become a reality all over the world." (The American
Hebrew, September 10, 1920

"In the Bolshevik era, 52 percent of the membership of the Soviet
communist party was Jewish, though Jews comprised only 1.8 percent of
the total population." (Stuart Kahan, The Wolf of the Kremlin, p. 81)

Interestingly, one of the first acts by the Bolsheviks was to make
so-called "anti-Semitism" a capital crime. This is confirmed by Stalin
himself:
"National and racial chauvinism is a vestige of the misanthropic
customs characteristic of the period of cannibalism. Anti-semitism, as
an extreme form of racial chauvinism, is the most dangerous vestige of
cannibalism...under USSR law active anti-Semites are liable to the
death penalty." (Stalin, Collected Works, vol. 13, p. 30).

Here is a quote from Mein Kampf:

"Making an effort to overcome my natural reluctance, I tried to read
articles of this nature published in the Marxist Press; but in doing
so my aversion increased all the more. And then I set about learning
something of the people who wrote and published this mischievous
stuff. From the publisher downwards, all of them were Jews. I
recalled to mind the names of the public leaders of Marxism, and then
I realized that most of them belonged to the Chosen Race- the Social
Democratic representatives in the Imperial Cabinet as well as the
secretaries if the Trades Unions and the street agitators. Everywhere
the same sinister picture presented itself. I shall never forget the
row of names- Austerlitz, David, Adler, Ellonbogen, and others. One
fact became quite evident to me. It was that this alien race held in
its hands the leadership of that Social Democratic Party with whose
minor representatives I had been disputing for months past."

Solzhenitsyn named in his book the six top administrators of the
Soviet death camps. All six of them were Jews.

Here is something the National Socialists wrote:
"The Soviet Union was in fact a paradise for one group: the Jews. Even
at times when for foreign policy reasons Jews were less evident in the
government, or when they ruled through straw men, the Jews were always
visible in the middle and lower levels of the administration."

Article Winston Churchill wrote in 1920:
"This movement amongst the Jews (the Russian Revolution) is not new.
From the days of Spartacus Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down
to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kuhn (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany)
and Emma Goldman (United States), this world wide conspiracy for the
overthrow of civilization and the reconstruction of society on the
basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible
equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer,
Mrs. Nesta Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part
in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of
every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at
last this band of extraordinary personalities has gripped the Russian
people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the
undisputed masters of that enormous empire. There is no need to
exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the
actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international
and for the most part atheistic Jews. Moreover, the principal
inspiration and driving power comes from Jewish leaders." (ibid)

Lev Trotzky wrote a book called "Stalin: An Appraisal of the Man and
His Influence", Harper Bros., New York and London, 1941, translated by
Charles Malamuth.
In this book he told who the principle members of the October Central
Committee were. This group was the leadership of the Bolshevik Party
during the October Revolution. This is what he wrote:
"In view of the Party's semi-legality the names of persons elected by
secret ballot were not announced at the Congress, with the exception
of the four who had received the largest number of votes. Lenin--133
out of a possible 134, Zinoviev--132, Kamenev--131, Trotzky--131."

Of these four top leaders of the Bolshevik Party the last three were
known Jews. Lenin was thought to be a gentile married to a Jewess. It
was later proven that he was one quarter Jewish, London Jewish
Chronicle April 21, 1995, Lenin: Life and Legacy.

David Francis, the American Ambassador to Russia at the time of the
Revolution, wrote:
"The Bolshevic leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90 percent of
whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country
but are internationalists and they are trying to start a world-wide
revolution."

The Director of British Intelligence to the U.S. Secretary of State
wrote this:
"There is now definite evidence that Bolshevism is an international
movement controlled by Jews."

In 1945 the FBI arrested six individuals for stealing 1700 highly
confidential documents from State Department files. This was the
Amerasia case they were:
Philip Jaffe, a Russian Jew who came to the U.S. in 1905. He was at
one time the editor of the communist paper "Labor Defense" and the
ringleader of the group arrested.
Andrew Roth, a Jew.
Mark Gayn, a Jew, changed his name from Julius Ginsberg.
John Service, a gentile.
Emmanuel Larsen, nationality unknown
Kate Mitchel, nationality unknown.

In 1949 the Jewess Judith Coplin was caught passing classified
documents from Justice Department files to a Russian agent.

The highest ranking communist brought to trial in the U.S. was Gerhart
Eisler. He was a Jew. He was the secret boss of the Communist Party
in the U.S. and commuted regularly between the U.S. and Russia.

In 1950 there was the "Hollywood Ten" case. Ten leading film writers
of the Hollywood Film Colony were convicted for contempt of Congress
and sentenced to prison. Nine of the ten were Jews. Six of the ten
were communist party members and the other four were flagrantly
pro-communist.

One of the top new stories of 1949 was the trial of Eugene Dennis and
the Convicted Eleven. This group comprised the National Secretariat of
the American Communist Party. Six were Jews, two gentiles, three
nationality unknown.

Also in 1949 the German-born atomic scientist Klaus Fuchs was
convicted for passing atomic secrets to the Russians. Acting on
information obtained from Fuchs the FBI arrested nine other members of
the ring. All of them were convicted. Eight of the nine were Jews.
Here are some quotes from a very pro-Jewish book that was first
published in 1925. The book is "Stranger than Fiction" by Lewis
Browne.

"But save for such exceptions, the Jews who led or participated in the
heroic efforts to remold the world of the last century, were neither
Reform or Orthodox. Indeed, they were often not professing Jews at
all.
"For instance, there was Heinrich Heine and Ludwig Borne, both
unfaltering champions of freedom. And even more conspicuously, there
was Karl Marx, one of the great prophetic geniuses of modern times.

"Jewish historians rarely mention the name of this man, Karl Marx,
though in his life and spirit he was far truer to the mission of
Israel than most of those who were forever talking of it. He was born
in Germany in 1818, and belonged to an old rabbinic family. He was not
himself reared as a Jew, however, but while still a child was baptized
a Christian by his father. Yet the rebel soul of the Jew flamed in him
throughout his days, for he was always a 'troubler' in Europe."
"Then, of course, there are Ludwig Borne and Heinrich Heine, two men
who by their merciless wit and sarcasm became leaders among the
revolutionary writers. Karl Marx, Ferdinand Lassalle, Johann Jacoby,
Gabriel Riesser, Adolphe Cremieux, Signora Nathan- all these of Jewish
lineage played important roles in the struggle that went throughout
Europe in this period. Wherever the war for human liberty was being
waged, whether in France, Germany, Austria, Hungary, or Italy, there
the Jew was to be found. It was little wonder that the enemies of
social progress, the monarchists and the Churchmen, came to speak of
the whole liberal movement as nothing but a Jewish plot."

The book "Soviet Russia and the Jews" by Gregor Aronson and published
by the American Jewish League Against Communism, quotes Stalin in an
interview in 1931 with the Jewish Telegraph Agency. Stalin said:
"...Communists cannot be anything but outspoken enemies of
Anti-Semitism. We fight anti-Semites by the strongest methods in the
Soviet Union. Active anti-Semites are punished by death under the
law."

The following quotes are taken directly from documents available from
the
U.S. Archives:
State Department document 861.00/1757 sent May 2, 1918 by U.S. consul
general in Moscow, Summers: "Jews prominent in local Soviet
government, anti-Jewish feeling growing among population...."

State Department document 861.00/2205 was sent from Vladivostok on
July 5, 1918 by U.S. consul Caldwell: "Fifty percent of Soviet
government in each town consists of Jews of the worst type."

From the Headquarters of the American Expeditionary Forces, Siberia on
March 1, 1919, comes this telegram from Omsk by Chief of Staff, Capt.
Montgomey Shuyler: "It is probably unwise to say this loudly in the
United States but the Bolshevik movement is and has been since it's
beginning, guided and controlled by Russian Jews of the greasiest
type" type."

A second Schuyler telegram, dated June 9, 1919 from Vladivostok,
reports on the make-up of the presiding Soviet government: "...(T)here
were 384 'commissars' including 2 negroes, 13 Russians, 15 Chinamen,
22 Armenians, AND MORE THAN 300 JEWS. Of the latter number, 264 had
come to Russia from the United States since the downfall of the
Imperial Government.

The Netherlands' ambassador in Russia, Oudendyke, confirmed this:
"Unless Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately, it is bound to
spread in one form or another over Europe and the whole world as it is
organized and worked by Jews who have no nationality, and whose one
object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things."

"The Bolshevik revolution in Russia was the work of Jewish brains, of
Jewish dissatisfaction, of Jewish planning, whose goal is to create a
new order in the world. What was performed in so excellent a way in
Russia, thanks to Jewish brains, and because of Jewish dissatisfaction
and by Jewish planning, shall also, through the same Jewish mental an
physical forces, become a reality all over the world." (The American
Hebrew, September 10, 1920

"In the Bolshevik era, 52 percent of the membership of the Soviet
communist party was Jewish, though Jews comprised only 1.8 percent of
the total population." (Stuart Kahan, The Wolf of the Kremlin, p. 81)

Interestingly, one of the first acts by the Bolsheviks was to make
so-called "anti-Semitism" a capital crime. This is confirmed by Stalin
himself:
"National and racial chauvinism is a vestige of the misanthropic
customs characteristic of the period of cannibalism. Anti-semitism, as
an extreme form of racial chauvinism, is the most dangerous vestige of
cannibalism...under USSR law active anti-Semites are liable to the
death penalty." (Stalin, Collected Works, vol. 13, p. 30).

Here is a quote from Mein Kampf:

"Making an effort to overcome my natural reluctance, I tried to read
articles of this nature published in the Marxist Press; but in doing
so my aversion increased all the more. And then I set about learning
something of the people who wrote and published this mischievous
stuff. From the publisher downwards, all of them were Jews. I
recalled to mind the names of the public leaders of Marxism, and then
I realized that most of them belonged to the Chosen Race- the Social
Democratic representatives in the Imperial Cabinet as well as the
secretaries if the Trades Unions and the street agitators. Everywhere
the same sinister picture presented itself. I shall never forget the
row of names- Austerlitz, David, Adler, Ellonbogen, and others. One
fact became quite evident to me. It was that this alien race held in
its hands the leadership of that Social Democratic Party with whose
minor representatives I had been disputing for months past."

Solzhenitsyn named in his book the six top administrators of the
Soviet death camps. All six of them were Jews.

Here is something the National Socialists wrote:
"The Soviet Union was in fact a paradise for one group: the Jews. Even
at times when for foreign policy reasons Jews were less evident in the
government, or when they ruled through straw men, the Jews were always
visible in the middle and lower levels of the administration."

http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com http://www.nsm88.org

http://heretical.com/ http://immigration-globalization.blogspot.com/

[Topaz]

On Fri, 1 Apr 2011 19:05:44 -0700 (PDT), sarge
<grease...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 30 mar, 22:21, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Hitler’s Military “Mistakes”/”Blunders”
>Dunkirk “Stop” Order
>One of the most controversial questions in the history of World War II
>surrounds the infamous “stop” order issued in the last days of May
>1940 which allowed the British Expeditionary Force (over 338,226 men
>including 26,176 French) to escape from Dunkirk. The controversy is
>based upon two separate questions. First, was Hitler solely
>responsible for the decision to stop his advancing army at the gates
>of Dunkirk, or did General Gerd von Rundstedt make the decision and
>Hitler merely agree with him based on Rundstedt’s military expertise?
>The second question, and perhaps the most debated among military
>historians and military leaders alike, is why was the stop order
>issued at all?
>In response to the first question, there seems little doubt that
>Hitler did in fact insist that the stop order be issued on his own
>behalf. Hitler was already nervous over the ease at which his armies

Hitler admired British people and was hoping the war would stop.

[sarge]

On 2 Apr, 12:51, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Apr 2011 19:05:44 -0700 (PDT), sarge

Great with this cut and paste stuff. I don't have to read your posts
or respond to them. I mean, why waste my time actually responding to
your arguments when you can't return the favor. I can save dialogue
for people who actually engage what I say....

HITLER'S BIGGEST BOOBOOS - another take
1. Battle of Britain. When Hitler ordered the Luftwaffe to “take out”
the Brits, the Luftwaffe sensibly enough began their campaign by
trying to destroy the RAF. By the RAF’s admission, they nearly
succeeded, in fact they were about two weeks away from pretty much
shutting down the RAF and controlling the skies of Britain. Then
Hitler got involved and ordered the Luftwaffe to attack the British
cities instead, especially London. Which did nothing but piss the
British off and freed to RAF to concentrate on regaining control of
the skies over Britain. London burned, but German casualties mounted
to the point where they had to call off the campaign, and that was
that.
2. Cancellation of weapons programs. After the Fall of France in 1940
Hitler was so confident of victory that he cancelled most weapons
research programs, insisting that the war could be won with the
weapons they had. Two years later when the Germans were being
outclassed on all fronts by next-gen Allied weapons, the programs were
all frantically restarted. Two years had been lost though, and worse,
key engineers and such had died in Russia. Germany did manage to
produce some impressive weapons, but never in any quantity and most of
them never had the bugs worked out and thus weren’t terribly reliable
in practise.
3. Invasion of Russia. There were multiple mistakes made here, just
attacking Russia for one was incredibly optimistic. Compounded by a
six week delay in the attack so Hitler could pointlessly bail out
Mussolini in the Balkans. And then the Germans made no preparations
for a long war because Hitler assumed Russia could be completely
defeated the first summer. He ordered Leningrad to be surrounded, not
captured! And Hitler fatally delayed the push for Moscow by diverting
his panzers to the stalled southern front. Unlike in Napoleon’s time,
Moscow was the absolute centre of the Russian railroad network, and if
the Germans had captured the city and the rail connections south of
the city, it would have crippled the Russian war effort.
4. The “No retreat” order. This is Hitler’s biggest mistake in Russia
and one of the biggest military blunders of all time. When the war in
Russia started going badly during the first winter, Hitler ordered his
troops to never retreat under any circumstances. This is insane in
general because there’s no point standing your ground if you are
outnumbered and getting the crap beat out of you. Doubly insane
because the only real advantage the Germans had over the Russians was
that the German troops were far more mobile. So it made far more sense
to retreat when attacked and then counterattack after he Russians had
advanced beyond their supply lines. The one German general with the
stones to defy Hitler, Manstein, did this a number of times with
devastating effect.
5. Me-262 as a bomber. The Me-262 was a beautiful plane, in some ways
a decade or more before its time. It was the world’s first jet
interceptor and could fly rings (literally) around the best Allied
planes of the time. The Me-262 was conceived, designed, and developed
as a jet interceptor, a plane specifically designed to hunt down and
destroy Allied planes. Hitler ordered it into full production … as a
bomber. His minions nodded, and quietly continued to develop it as an
interceptor. Someone tipped Hitler off though, and he made sure it was
developed as a bomber. In trial runs few pilots were even able to get
their bombs within a mile of the targets. The Me-262 was a complete
(and predictable) failure as a bomber. By the time a few Me-262
interceptors saw action they were too few too late to change anything.
6. No women labourers. Did the Nazis use slave labour in their
factories because they were mean people? Well, yes, but they were also
motivated by a severe shortage of factory labour … because Hitler had
decreed that German women were not to do factory work. Millions of
American and British women went to work on assembly lines freeing up
millions of men for military duty. The Germans suffered terrible
manpower shortages during the war, while millions of German women sat
at home.
7. War on USA. Hitler declared war on the USA right after the Japanese
attack on Pearl Harbor. Why? He thought it would be good for morale.
(Most of his dumbf*ck ideas were based on thinking like that.) Maybe
the USA would have declared war on him anyhow, but it was crazy to
simply give Roosevelt what he wanted.
8. More Russian errors. In i942 Hitler ordered his armies to seize the
oil fields in the Caucasus and the city of Stalingrad, spreading his
armies far too thin. As a result his forces failed to capture the oil
fields, and suffered crippling losses at Stalingrad.
9. The Battle of Kursk. At Kursk in 1943 Hitler ordered a massive
attack even though the Russians clearly knew he would attack Kursk.
The German armies last great offencive flung themselves against massed
Russian defenders dug in with huge numbers of anti-tank weapons and
legions of modern Russian tanks. It was the biggest tank battle in
history, and a crushing defeat for Germany. The battle of Stalingrad
guaranteed that Germany was not going to win its war with Russia,
Kursk guaranteed that the Russians would win.
10. Battle of the Bulge. Hitler’s last gasp attempt to win the war. He
attempted to repeat his success of 1940 by attacking the Allies the
exact same way. Even though his forces were vastly smaller, didn’t
have the fuel to do the job, and were facing a vastly superior enemy
than the French army of 1940. The attack had zero chance of success,
it would have been far more sensible to attack the Russians and try to
slow down their advance.

[Topaz]

Britain bombed civilians first.

BERLIN, REICHSTAG
Adolf Hitler
Part of his Speech of May 4, 1941

Even my warnings against night bombings of the civilian
population, as advocated by Mr. Churchill, were interpreted as a sign
of German impotence. He, the most bloodthirsty or amateurish
strategist that history has ever known, actually saw fit to believe
that the reserve displayed for months by the German Air Force could be
looked upon only as proof of their incapacity to fly by night.

So this man for months ordered his paid scribblers to deceive the
British people into believing that the Royal Air Force alone - and no
others - was in a position to wage war in this way, and that thus ways
and means had been found to force the Reich to its knees by the
ruthless onslaught of the British Air Force on the German civilian
population in conjunction with the starvation blockade.

Again and again I uttered these warnings against this specific
type of aerial warfare, and I did so for over three and a half months.
That these warnings failed to impress Mr. Churchill does not surprise
me in the least. For what does this man care for the lives of others?
What does he care for culture or for architecture? When war broke out
he stated clearly that he wanted to have his war, even though the
cities of England might be reduced to ruins. So now he has got his
war.

My assurances that from a given moment every one of his bombs
would be returned if necessary a hundredfold failed to induce this man
to consider even for an instant the criminal nature of his action. He
professes not to be in the least depressed and he even assures us that
the British people, too, after such bombing raids, greeted him with a
joyous serenity, causing him to return to London refreshed by his
visits to the stricken areas.

It is possible that this sight strengthened Mr. Churchill in his
firm determination to continue the war in this way, and we are no less
determined to continue to retaliate, if necessary, a hundred bombs for
every one of his and to go on doing so until the British nation at
last gets rid of this criminal and his methods...

GOD KNOWS THAT I WANTED PEACE. But I can do nothing but protect
the interests of the Reich with those means which, thank God, are at
our disposal...

[CUNTICA]

On Apr 2, 6:51 am, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:

----crap/crud/shit & turds/pig farts deleted - poster is a twisted,
little nazi troll who smells really bad & is a homo-----

[sarge]

On 3 Apr, 11:48, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
D-Day: Afternoon on Omaha Beach
What Hitler Did Wrong
Converted for the Web from "D-Day: June 6, 1944: The Climactic Battle
of World War II" by Stephen E. Ambrose

Jump to: Afternoon on Omaha Beach | Landing on Omaha Beach
Correspondent Ernest Hemingway | What Hitler Did Wrong | What
Eisenhower Did Right

There was no German counterattack. Rommel's plans for fighting the D-
Day battle were never put into motion. There were many reasons.

First, German surprise was complete. The Fortitude operation had fixed
German attention on the Pas-de-Calais. They were certain it would be
the site of the battle, and they had placed the bulk of their panzer
divisions north and east of the Seine River, where they were
unavailable for counterattack in Normandy.

Second, German confusion was extensive. Without air reconnaissance,
with Allied airborne troops dropping here, there, everywhere, with
their telephone lines cut by the Resistance, with their army, corps,
division, and some regimental commanders at the war game in Rennes,
the Germans were all but blind and leaderless. The commander who was
most missed was Rommel, who spent the day on the road driving to La
Roche-Guyonan -- another price the Germans paid for having lost
control of the air; Rommel dared not fly.

Third, the German command structure was a disaster. Hitler's mistrust
of his generals and the generals' mistrust of Hitler were worth a
king's ransom to the Allies. So were Hitler's sleeping habits, as well
as his Wolkenkuckucksheim ideas.

The only high-command officer who responded correctly to the crisis at
hand was Field Marshal Rundstedt, the old man who was there for window
dressing and who was so scorned by Hitler and OKW. Two hours before
the seaborne landings began, he ordered the two reserve panzer
divisions available for counterattack in Normandy, the 12th SS Panzer
and Panzer Lehr, to move immediately toward Caen. He did so on the
basis of an intuitive judgment that the airborne landings were on such
a large scale that they could not be a mere deception maneuver (as
some of his staff argued) and would have to be reinforced from the
sea. The only place such landings could come in lower Normandy were on
the Calvados and Cotentin coasts. He wanted armor there to meet the
attack.

Rundstedt's reasoning was sound, his action decisive, his orders
clear. But the panzer divisions were not under his command. They were
in OKW reserve. To save precious time, Rundstedt had first ordered
them to move out, then requested OKW approval. OKW did not approve. At
0730 Jodi informed Rundstedt that the two divisions could not be
committed until Hitler gave the order, and Hitler was still sleeping.
Rundstedt had to countermand the move-out order. Hitler slept until
noon.

The two panzer divisions spent the morning waiting. There was a heavy
overcast; they could have moved out free from serious interference
from Allied aircraft. It was 1600 when Hitler at last gave his
approval. By then the clouds had broken up and Allied fighters and
bombers ranged the skies over Normandy, smashing anything that moved.
The panzers had to crawl into roadside woods and wait under cover for
darkness before continuing their march to the sound of the guns.

"The news couldn't be better," Hitler said when he was first informed
that D-Day was here. "As long as they were in Britain we couldn't get
at them. Now we have them where we can destroy them." He had an
appointment for a reception near Salzburg for the new Hungarian prime
minister; other guests included diplomats from Bulgaria, Romania, and
Hungary. They were there to be browbeaten by Hitler into doing even
more for the German war economy. When he entered the reception room,
his face was radiant. He exclaimed, "It's begun at last." After the
meeting he spread a map of France and told Goering, "They are landing
here -- and here: just where we expected them!" Goering did not
correct this palpable lie.

Nazi propaganda minister Goebbels had been told of the Allied airborne
landings at 0400. "Thank God, at last," he said. "This is the final
round."

Goebbels's and Hitler's thinking was explained by one of Goebbels's
aides, who had pointed out in an April 10, 1944, diary entry: "The
question whether the Allied invasion in the West is coming or not
dominates all political and military discussion here.

"Goebbels is afraid that the Allies dare not make the attempt yet. If
so, that would mean for us many months of endless, weary waiting which
would test our strength beyond endurance. Our war potential cannot now
be increased, it can only decline. Every new air raid makes the petrol
position worse." It had been galling to the Nazis that the Allies had
been able to build their strength in England, untouchable by the
Luftwaffe or the Wehrmacht. Now they had come within range of German
guns.

But Hitler was more eager to hit London than to fight a defensive war.
He had a weapon to do it with, the V-1. It had first been flown
successfully on Christmas Eve, 1943; by June 1944, it was almost ready
to go to work. The V-1 was a jet-powered plane carrying a one-ton
warhead. It was wildly inaccurate (of the 8,000 launched against
London, only 20 percent even hit that huge target), but it had a range
of 250 kilometers and flew at 700 kilometers per hour, too fast for
Allied aircraft or antiaircraft to shoot down.

On the afternoon of June 6, Hitler ordered the V-1 attacks on London
to begin. As was so often the case, he was giving an order that could
not be carried out. It took six days to bring the heavy steel catapult
rigs from their camouflaged dumps to the Channel coast. The attack did
not begin until June 12, and when it did it was a fiasco: of ten V-1s
launched, four crashed at once, two vanished without a trace, one
demolished a railway bridge in London, and three hit open fields.

Still, the potential was there. Fortunately for the Allies, Hitler had
picked the wrong target. Haphazard bombing of London could cause
sleepless nights and induce terror, but it could not have a direct
military effect. Had Hitler sent the V-1s against the beaches and
artifical harbors of Normandy, by June 12 jammed with men, machines,
and ships, the vengeance weapons (Goebbels picked the name, which was
on the mark -- they could sate Hitler's lust for revenge but they
could not effect the war so long as they were directed against London)
might have made a difference.

[sarge]

[sarge]

On 9 mar, 23:28, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Leon Degrelle
He was a coward.

[Topaz]

Jewish Leaders in the Homosexual Movement

Larry Kramer -- co-founder of "Act Up," a homosexual/AIDS activist
organization; co-founder of the Gay Men's Health Crisis

Alan Klein -- co-founder of group ACT UP, co-founder of group Queer
Nation, National Communications Director and chief spokesperson for
the Gay & LesbianAlliance Against Defamation [GLAAD]. Klein also co-
founded the successful multimedia campaign STOPDRLAURA.COM

Arnie Kantrowitz -- co-founder of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against
Defamation [GLAAD].

Jonathan D. Katz -- founded and chairs the Harvey Milk Institute, the
largest queer studies institute in the world. A long time queer
political activist, was a co-founder of Queer Nation, [the key San
Francisco branch].

Harvey Fierstein -- film actor [Mrs. Doubtfire]; well-known gay
activist.

Moises Kaufman -- playwright and film director [The Laramie Project].

Israel Fishman -- founder of the Gay Liberation Caucus in 1970 [now
known as the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgendered Round Table of
the American Library Association], the world's first gay professional
organization.

Bella Abzug and Edward Koch -- both Jewish -- the first members of the
US. House of Representatives to introduce legislation banning
discrimination based on sexual orientation [1974].

Winnie Stachelberg -- political director, Human Rights Campaign [HRC]

Michael S. Aronowitz, The New York Log Cabin Republicans.

Tony Kushner -- gay activist; Tony and 1993 Pulitzer Prize-winning
playwright [for Angels in America, 1992].

Len Hirsch -- president of the GLBT federal government employees
group, GLOBE.

Meg Moritz, Ph.D. -- a Director and member of the Executive Committee
of GLAAD.

Barbara Raab -- an NBC-TV producer; a "Jewish lesbian feminist
journalist, writer."

Charles Kaiser [?] -- author & founding member of National Lesbian and
Gay Journalists Association [NLGJA].

David Goodstein -- owner/publisher of the gay magazine The Advocate
[1975-1985]; co-founder of the National Gay Rights Lobby.

Judy Wieder -- Editor-in-chief, The Advocate gay magazine.

Alison Bechdel [?] -- cartoonist creator and author of the bi-weekly
comic strip "Dykes to Watch Out For."

Kevin Koffler -- Editor-in-chief, Genre gay magazine.

Garrett Glaser -- National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association
[NLGJA] national board member.

Ronald Gold -- reporter for Variety; a leader in the fight to overturn
the American Psychiatric Association's policy that homosexuality is an
illness.

Magnus Hirschfeld [d. 1935], early gay rights activist in Germany;
founded one of the first gay rights organizations, the Scientific
Humanitarian Committee; coined the term "transvestism"; fled Nazi
Germany.

Fred Hochberg -- deputy administrator, U.S. Small Business
Administration; co-chair of the Human Rights Campaign [HRC].

Michael Berman -- member, Human Rights Campaign Board of Directors.
Mitchell Gold -- HRC Board
Marty Lieberman -- HRC Board
Andy Linsky -- HRC Board
Dana Perlman -- HRC Board
Abby Rubenfeld -- HRC Board
Andrew Tobias -- HRC Board
Lara Schwartz -- Senior Counsel, HRC
Heather Wellman -- HRC Field Coordinator
Dan Furmansky -- HRC Senior Field Organizer, West
Sally Green -- HRC Associate Field Director

Rick Rosendall [?] -- President, Gay & Lesbian Activists Alliance of
Washington, DC.

Barney Frank -- member of U.S. Congress; helped create non-
discriminatory employment policies in all U.S. federal agencies

Kerry Lobel -- executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task
Force.

Robin Margolis, American coordinator of the Bi Women's Cultural
Alliance and author [Bisexuality: A Practical Guide].

Evan Wolfson, Senior Staff Attorney, Lambda Legal Defense and
Education Fund -- and -- the executive director of Freedom to Marry.

Jennifer Einhorn -- Communications Director, Gay & Lesbian Alliance
Against Defamation [GLAAD]
Nancy Alpert [?] -- Treasurer, GLAAD
Judy Gluckstern -- Board of Directors, GLAAD.
Stephen M. Jacoby -- Board of Directors, GLAAD.
Matt Riklin -- Board, GLAAD
Carol Rosenfeld -- Board, GLAAD.
William Weinberger -- Board, GLAAD
Tanya Wexler -- Board, GLAAD.
David Huebner -- GLAAD Counsel.

Richard Goldstein -- Village Voice writer on gay culture and politics

Ron Schlittler -- Director of Field & Policy, Parents and Friends of
Lesbians and Gays [PFLAG].

Craig Ziskin -- Deputy Director of Development, PFLAG.

Debra Weill -- Senior Field & Policy Coordinator, PFLAG.

Dody Goldstein -- Board of Directors, PFLAG.

David Horowitz -- Board of Directors, PFLAG.

Shawn Frank -- Board of Directors, PFLAG.

Leon Weinstein -- Chair, Nominating Committee, PFLAG.

Kate Kendell [?], National Center for Lesbian Rights.

Gayle Rubin -- lesbian author/activist.

Hilary Rosen -- a founding member of the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund;
former board co-chair of the Human Rights Campaign.

Roz Richter, American attorney and activist.

Bob Kunst -- long-time activist in gay and Jewish causes.

"Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network" [GLSEN]. Board co-chairs:
Marty Seldman, president

"National Gay & Lesbian Task Force" [NGLTF].
Board co-chairs: ..... Rachel Rosen in Santa Fe, N.M
Dave Fleischer -- Director of Training [political training], NGLTF.
Craig Hoffman -- Board of Directors, NGLTF.
Beth Zemsky -- Board, NGLTF.
Marsha C. Botzer -- Treasurer, NGLTF.
Jeff Levi -- first, Levi was NGTF's lobbyist, early 1980s [NGTF became
NGLTF in 1985]. Later, he was NGLTF executive director.

Bill Rubenstein, J.D. '86, developed the ACLU Lesbian and Gay Rights
Project

Martin Duberman -- author/historian; founded the Center for Lesbian
and Gay Studies at the City University of New York.

Ben Schatz '81, J.D. '85, is executive director of the Gay and Lesbian
Medical Foundation.

Kevin Schaub, American; Executive Director and Dean of the Harvey Milk
Institute in San Francisco, the world's largest center for queer
studies.

Sarah Schulman [1958- ], American playwright, novelist, and activist
[one of the founders of the Lesbian Avengers, a direct-action lesbian
rights organization].

Susan Spielman -- principal/head of Common Ground, an education/
consulting firm specializing in workplace sexual orientation
education; her company has worked with hundreds of U.S. organizations,
helping them to implement domestic partner benefits plans; co-author
of the book Straight Talk About Gays in the Workplace.

Gertrude Stein -- wrote the first openly lesbian novel, "Q.E.D.," in
1903, but it was only published posthumously in 1950.

Rikki Streicher (1925-1994), American activist and businesswoman.

Michael Goff -- founded Out magazine in 1992.

Paulette Goodman -- founder of local chapter [Washington D.C.] of
PFLAG and served as President of the National PFLAG organization from
1988-1992.

Jeffrey Newman, American, president and COO of the Gay Financial
Network; president and CEO of out.com.

Jim Levin -- New York gay historian.

Barrett Brick -- GLAA [Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance] Treasurer.

Robin Tyler -- American comedian [born Arlene Chernick] who was the
first openly gay comic in North America; Tyler is also an activist who
was the stage producer for the first three gay marches on Washington
and the national protest coordinator for the "Stop Dr. Laura"
campaign; she produces women's comedy and music festivals, and
operates a lesbian travel-tour company.

Dr. Bruce Voeller [1935?-1994] [?] American gay rights activist,
molecular biologist, physiologist, and AIDS researcher (pioneer in the
use of nonoxynol-9 as a spermicide); cofounder and first executive
director of the National Gay Task Force; creator of the Mariposa
Foundation [an AIDS prevention research organization].

Mark Elderkin [?] -- co-founded Gay.com.

Leroy Aarons -- American professor, journalist, and founder of the
National Gay and Lesbian Journalists Association (1990).

Dr. Donald I. Abrams -- American physician, HIV expert, medical
marijuana researcher, and past president of the Gay and Lesbian
Medical Association.

Johnny Abush (1952-2000) -- [Canadian]; archivist of the International
Jewish GBLT Archives.

Roberta Achtenberg [1950- ]; civil rights lawyer and federal official;
appointed as Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal
Opportunity by President Bill Clinton in 1993.

Miriam Ben-Shalom [1948- ], American Army Reserves drill sergeant and
gay activist; in 1986 she won a ten-year legal battle with the
Reserves
when a court ordered her reinstatement; founder of the Gay, Lesbian,
and Bisexual Veterans Association [GLBVA] in 1990, serving as its
first president.

Larry Brinkin, American gay activist who brought the first domestic
partnership lawsuit [against Southern Pacific Railroad, 1982].

Rob Eichberg, American psychologist, co-creator of National Coming Out
Day [October 11th].

Scott Evertz, American; in April 2001, President Bush appointed him to
serve as the Director of the White House Office of National AIDS
Policy [ONAP].

Gene Falk [?, Jewish name], American business executive; Senior Vice
President of the Showtime Digital Media Group; part of the team that
launched and marketed the U.S. TV series Queer as Folk; Chair of the
Board of Directors of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation
[GLAAD].

Surina Kahn -- American lesbian activist.

Larry Kessler -- founding director in 1983 of the AIDS Action
Committee of Massachusetts, the largest AIDS support organization in
New England.

Kathy Levinson -- American investor and philanthropist; serves on the
board of PlanetOut; also on NGLTF Board of Directors.

Judith Light -- actress, activist for gay causes.

David Mixner -- gay activist, political consultant; co-founder of the
Municipal Elections Committee of Los Angeles [MECLA], a group of
wealthy gays and lesbians who became influential in local politics;
president Bill Clinton's Special Liaison to the Gay-Lesbian Community.

Dan Savage -- American author of gay-themed books [The Kid: What
Happened
After My Boyfriend and I Decided to Go Get Pregnant; Skipping Towards
Gomorrah: The Seven Deadly Sins and the Pursuit of Happiness in
America] and gay-themed- sex-advice columnist [Savage Love].

Susan Schuman, American executive vice-president and general manager
of the Planet Out gay and lesbian online service.

Scott Seomin, American entertainment media coordinator for the Gay &
Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation [GLAAD].

Jason Serinus [Jay Guy Nassberg] -- founder and coordinator of the
Lavender Healing Network; a former gay activist with the New York
chapter of the Gay Liberation Front.

David Sine [?] -- American CEO of C1TV, the first U.S. gay and lesbian
cable TV network.

Rex Wockner -- longtime gay, American journalist who has reported news
for the gay press since 1985.

Jack Fritscher -- became Editor in Chief of Drummer gay magazine
[1977].

Leslie Feinberg [1949- ], American trade unionist, transgender
activist and author [Transgender Warriors: Making History from Joan of
Arc to RuPaul].

Allan Ginsburg - late Jewish poet and leading member of North American
Man Boy Love Association

[Topaz]

General Leon Degrelle was the leader of the Belgian contingent of the
Waffen SS. He was in 75 hand-to-hand combat actions against the
Marxists.

[sarge]

On 5 Apr, 04:27, Topaz
another take:

1. He did not demand the entry of Spain on the side of the Axis.
2. He stopped air superiority bombing in favor of terror bombing in
England.
3. He delayed his invasion of the Soviet Union to invade the
Balkans and help out Italy in its failed invasion of Greece.
4. He underestimated the manpower and resiliency of the Soviet
Union (a big mistake).
5. He diverted assets from the drive on Moscow in 1941 and did not
take it.
6. In the 1942 offensive he split his forces in an attempt to take
two strategic objectives: Stalingrad and the Caucasus. He made the
problem worse by diverting forces from Stalingrad to the Caucasus.
7. He refused to let his encircled 6th army try to break out of
Stalingrad.
8. He did not require Japan to declare war on USSR in return for
Germany declaring war on the US (another big mistake).
9. He did not suspect that the Western powers had cracked his
communication codes until it was too late.
10. He was late in sending sufficient troops soon enough to Rommel
in Africa. When he did send large numbers, it was too late and he lost
them all.
11. He often did not follow the advice of his General Staff,
particularly in regard to ceding territory to gain maneuver.
12. He did not commit all his available panzer divisions to the
defense of Normandy quickly enough.
13. He did not put Germany on a total war economy until 1942 or even
1943.
14. He did not put enough resources into the development of an
atomic bomb.
15. He chose major allies that were of little use to him.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_were_Hitler%27s_key_mistakes_during_the_war#ixzz1Ic0j47Kw

[Topaz]

On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 19:32:11 -0700 (PDT), sarge
<grease...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 5 Apr, 04:27, Topaz
>another take:
>
>1. He did not demand the entry of Spain on the side of the Axis.

Demand? How would he do that, invade them?

> 2. He stopped air superiority bombing in favor of terror bombing in
>England.

England started it, and why isn't that on the list of things the
allies did wrong.

> 3. He delayed his invasion of the Soviet Union to invade the
>Balkans and help out Italy in its failed invasion of Greece.
> 4. He underestimated the manpower and resiliency of the Soviet
>Union (a big mistake).
> 5. He diverted assets from the drive on Moscow in 1941 and did not
>take it.
> 6. In the 1942 offensive he split his forces in an attempt to take
>two strategic objectives: Stalingrad and the Caucasus. He made the
>problem worse by diverting forces from Stalingrad to the Caucasus.
> 7. He refused to let his encircled 6th army try to break out of
>Stalingrad.
> 8. He did not require Japan to declare war on USSR in return for
>Germany declaring war on the US (another big mistake).

Require? How would he do that, invade them?

> 9. He did not suspect that the Western powers had cracked his
>communication codes until it was too late.
> 10. He was late in sending sufficient troops soon enough to Rommel
>in Africa. When he did send large numbers, it was too late and he lost
>them all.
> 11. He often did not follow the advice of his General Staff,
>particularly in regard to ceding territory to gain maneuver.
> 12. He did not commit all his available panzer divisions to the
>defense of Normandy quickly enough.
> 13. He did not put Germany on a total war economy until 1942 or even
>1943.
> 14. He did not put enough resources into the development of an
>atomic bomb.
> 15. He chose major allies that were of little use to him.
>

And the Jewish controlled countries, the USA and the USSR, were much
bigger than Germany.

[sarge]

On 6 Apr, 04:50, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 19:32:11 -0700 (PDT), sarge
>

> <greasethew...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On 5 Apr, 04:27, Topaz
> >another take:
>
> >1. He did not demand the entry of Spain on the side of the Axis.
>
> Demand? How would he do that, invade them?
>
> >   2. He stopped air superiority bombing in favor of terror bombing in
> >England.
>
> England started it, and why isn't that on the list of things the
> allies did wrong.

See, here is a simple example of how you cannot really respond.
Instread of addressing his error, you shift the focus.

And notice that the legacy you give Hitler is to present him as a
victim. Everything comes down to this good man who really wanted
peace who was the victim of Jews.

He's probably rolling over in his grave.

[Day Brown]

On 04/07/2011 07:18 AM, sarge wrote:
> See, here is a simple example of how you cannot really respond.
> Instread of addressing his error, you shift the focus.

While I've found your comments interesting regarding the historic
record, you are arguing with a Turing machine; its not programmed well
enuf to respond appropriately.

> And notice that the legacy you give Hitler is to present him as a
> victim. Everything comes down to this good man who really wanted
> peace who was the victim of Jews.

The only thing we learn from Hitler is what happens to a great nation
run by a meth head. Like any drug addict, deserving of compassion. As
for Churchill, he was a drunk, also deserving, and FDR polio. None of
them were saints.

> He's probably rolling over in his grave.

What must really have him rolling is that the women in Israel, aware of
the high rate of genetic disease among Jews, have been going to
fertility clinics- where they find Nordic Y chromosome lines have the
lowest rate of genetic defect.

There is now an epidemic of towheads in Israel. The Jews are practicing
eugenics, and doing so far more effectively than the Nazis ever imagined.

[Topaz]

On Thu, 7 Apr 2011 05:18:27 -0700 (PDT), sarge
<grease...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>
>> >1. He did not demand the entry of Spain on the side of the Axis.
>>
>> Demand? How would he do that, invade them?
>>
>> >   2. He stopped air superiority bombing in favor of terror bombing in
>> >England.
>>
>> England started it, and why isn't that on the list of things the
>> allies did wrong.
>
>See, here is a simple example of how you cannot really respond.
>Instread of addressing his error, you shift the focus.

that's BS

>
>And notice that the legacy you give Hitler is to present him as a
>victim. Everything comes down to this good man who really wanted
>peace who was the victim of Jews.

That is correct.

>
>He's probably rolling over in his grave.

The Jews control your media and your mind.

There was a book in ordinary bookstores called "An Empire of
Their Own". It was a pro-Jewish book but it showed that the Jews ran
Hollywood.

Here are some quotes from a magazine for Jews called "Moment".
It is subtitled "The Jewish magazine for the 90's" These quotes are
from the Aug 1996 edition after the Headline "Jews Run Hollywood - So
What?":

"It makes no sense at all to try to deny the reality of Jewish
power and prominence in popular culture. Any list of the most
influential production executives at each of the major movie studios
will produce a heavy majority of recognizably Jewish names."

"the famous Disney organization, which was founded by Walt
Disney, a gentile Midwesterner who allegedly harbored anti-Semetic
attitudes, now features Jewish personnel in nearly all its most
powerful positions."

"When Matsushita took over MCA-Universal, they did nothing to
undermine the unquestioned authority of Universal's legendary - and
all Jewish - management triad of Lew Wasserman, Sid Scheinberg, and
Tom Pollack."

Jewish control of the media:
MORTIMER ZUCKERMAN, owner of NY Daily News, US News & World Report and
chair of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish American
Organizations, one of the largest pro-Israel lobbying groups.
LESLIE MOONVES, president of CBS television, great-nephew of David
Ben-Gurion, and co-chair with Norman Ornstein of the Advisory
Committee on Public Interest Obligation of Digital TV Producers,
appointed by Clinton.
JONATHAN MILLER, chair and CEO of AOL division of AOL-Time-Warner
NEIL SHAPIRO, president of NBC News
JEFF GASPIN, Executive Vice-President, Programming, NBC
DAVID WESTIN, president of ABC News
SUMNER REDSTONE, CEO of Viacom, "world's biggest media giant"
(Economist, 11/23/2) owns Viacom cable, CBS and MTVs all over the
world, Blockbuster video rentals and Black Entertainment TV.
MICHAEL EISNER, major owner of Walt Disney, Capitol Cities, ABC.
RUPERT MURDOCH, Owner Fox TV, New York Post, London Times, News of the
World (Jewish mother)
MEL KARMAZIN, president of CBS
DON HEWITT, Exec. Director, 60 Minutes, CBS
JEFF FAGER, Exec. Director, 60 Minutes II. CBS
DAVID POLTRACK, Executive Vice-President, Research and Planning, CBS
SANDY KRUSHOW, Chair, Fox Entertainment
LLOYD BRAUN, Chair, ABC Entertainment
BARRY MEYER, chair, Warner Bros.
SHERRY LANSING. President of Paramount Communications and Chairman of
Paramount Pictures' Motion Picture Group.
HARVEY WEINSTEIN, CEO. Miramax Films.
BRAD SIEGEL., President, Turner Entertainment.
PETER CHERNIN, second in-command at Rupert Murdoch's News. Corp.,
owner of Fox TV
MARTY PERETZ, owner and publisher of the New Republic, which openly
identifies itself as pro-Israel. Al Gore credits Marty with being his
"mentor."
ARTHUR O. SULZBERGER, JR., publisher of the NY Times, the Boston Globe
and other publications.
WILLIAM SAFIRE, syndicated columnist for the NYT.
TOM FRIEDMAN, syndicated columnist for the NYT.
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, syndicated columnist for the Washington Post.
Honored by Honest Reporting.com, website monitoring "anti-Israel
media."
RICHARD COHEN, syndicated columnist for the Washington Post
JEFF JACOBY, syndicated columnist for the Boston Globe
NORMAN ORNSTEIN, American Enterprise Inst., regular columnist for USA
Today, news analyst for CBS, and co-chair with Leslie Moonves of the
Advisory Committee on Public Interest Obligation of Digital TV
Producers, appointed by Clinton.
ARIE FLEISCHER, Dubya's press secretary.
STEPHEN EMERSON, every media outlet's first choice as an expert on
domestic terrorism.
DAVID SCHNEIDERMAN, owner of the Village Voice and the New Times
network of "alternative weeklies."
DENNIS LEIBOWITZ, head of Act II Partners, a media hedge fund
KENNETH POLLACK, for CIA analysts, director of Saban Center for Middle
East Policy, writes op-eds in NY Times, New Yorker
BARRY DILLER, chair of USA Interactive, former owner of Universal
Entertainment
KENNETH ROTH, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch
RICHARD LEIBNER, runs the N.S. Bienstock talent agency, which
represents 600 news personalities such as Dan Rather, Dianne Sawyer
and Bill O'Reilly.
TERRY SEMEL, CEO, Yahoo, former chair, Warner Bros.
MARK GOLIN, VP and Creative Director, AOL
WARREN LIEBERFORD, Pres., Warner Bros. Home Video Div. of AOL-
TimeWarner
JEFFREY ZUCKER, President of NBC Entertainment
JACK MYERS, NBC, chief.NYT 5.14.2
SANDY GRUSHOW, chair of Fox Entertainment
GAIL BERMAN, president of Fox Entertainment
STEPHEN SPIELBERG, co-owner of Dreamworks
JEFFREY KATZENBERG, co-owner of Dreamworks
DAVID GEFFEN, co-owner of Dreamworks
LLYOD BRAUN, chair of ABC Entertainment
JORDAN LEVIN, president of Warner Bros. Entertainment
MAX MUTCHNICK, co-executive producer of NBC's "Good Morning Miami"
DAVID KOHAN, co-executive producer of NBC's "Good Morning Miami"
HOWARD STRINGER, chief of Sony Corp. of America
AMY PASCAL, chair of Columbia Pictures
JOEL KLEIN, chair and CEO of Bertelsmann's American operations
ROBERT SILLERMAN, founder of Clear Channel Communications
BRIAN GRADEN, president of MTV entertainment
IVAN SEIDENBERG, CEO of Verizon Communications
WOLF BLITZER, host of CNN's Late Edition
LARRY KING, host of Larry King Live
TED KOPPEL, host of ABC's Nightline
ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN Reporter
PAULA ZAHN, CNN Host
MIKE WALLACE, Host of CBS, 60 Minutes
BARBARA WALTERS, Host, ABC's 20-20
MICHAEL LEDEEN, editor of National Review
BRUCE NUSSBAUM, editorial page editor, Business Week
DONALD GRAHAM, Chair and CEO of Newsweek and Washington Post, son of
CATHERINE GRAHAM MEYER, former owner of the Washington Post
HOWARD FINEMAN, Chief Political Columnist, Newsweek
WILLIAM KRISTOL, Editor, Weekly Standard, Exec. Director
Project for a New American Century (PNAC)
RON ROSENTHAL, Managing Editor, San Francisco Chronicle
PHIL BRONSTEIN, Executive Editor, San Francisco Chronicle,
RON OWENS, Talk Show Host, KGO (ABC-Capitol Cities, San Francisco)
JOHN ROTHMAN, Talk Show Host, KGO (ABC-Capitol Cities, San Francisco)
MICHAEL SAVAGE, Talk Show Host, KFSO (ABC-Capitol Cities, San
Francisco) Syndicated in 100 markets
MICHAEL MEDVED, Talk Show Host, on 124 AM stations
DENNIS PRAGER, Talk Show Host, nationally syndicated from LA. Has
Israeli flag on his home page.
BEN WATTENBERG, Moderator, PBS Think Tank.
ANDREW LACK, president of NBC
DANIEL MENAKER, Executive Director, Harper Collins
DAVID REMNICK, Editor, The New Yorker
NICHOLAS LEHMANN, writer, the New York
HENRICK HERTZBERG, Talk of the Town editor, The New Yorker
SAMUEL NEWHOUSE JR, and DONALD NEWHOUSE own Newhouse Publications,
includes 26 newspapers in 22 cities; the Conde Nast magazine group,
includes The New Yorker; Parade, the Sunday newspaper supplement;
American City Business Journals, business newspapers published in more
than 30 major cities in America; and interests in cable television
programming and cable systems serving 1 million homes.
DONALD NEWHOUSE, chairman of the board of directors, Associated Press.
PETER R KANN, CEO, Wall Street Journal, Barron's
RALPH J. & BRIAN ROBERTS, Owners, Comcast-ATT Cable TV.
LAWRENCE KIRSHBAUM, CEO, AOL-Time Warner Book Group

[Topaz]

Leon Degrelle

"We have the power. Now our gigantic work begins."
Those were Hitler's words on the night of January 30, 1933, as
cheering crowds surged past him, for five long hours, beneath the
windows of the Chancellery in Berlin.

His political struggle had lasted 14 years. He himself was 43, that
is, physically and intellectually at the peak of his powers. He had
won over millions of Germans and organized them into Germany's largest
and most dynamic political party, a party girded by a human rampart of
hundreds of thousands of storm troopers, three fourths of them members
of the working class. He had been extremely shrewd. All but toying
with his adversaries, Hitler had, one after another, vanquished them
all.

Standing there at the window, his arm raised to the delirious throng,
he must have known a feeling of triumph. But he seemed almost torpid,
absorbed, as if lost in another world.

It was a world far removed from the delirium in the street, a world of
65 million citizens who loved him or hated him, but all of whom, from
that night on, had become his responsibility. And as he knew-as almost
all Germans knew on January 1933 -- that this was a crushing, an
almost desperate responsibility.

Half a century later, few people understand the crisis Germany faced
at that time. Today, it's easy to assume that Germans have always been
well-fed and even plump. But the Germans Hitler inherited were virtual
skeletons.

During the preceding years, a score of "democratic" governments had
come and gone, often in utter confusion. Instead of alleviating the
people's misery, they had increased it, due to their own instability:
it was impossible for them to pursue any given plan for more than a
year or two. Germany had arrived at a dead end. In just a few years
there had been 224,000 suicides - a horrifying figure, bespeaking a
state of misery even more horrifying.

By the beginning of 1933, the misery of the German people was
virtually universal. At least six million unemployed and hungry
workers roamed aimlessly through the streets, receiving a pitiful
unemployment benefit of less than 42 marks per month. Many of those
out of work had families to feed, so that altogether some 20 million
Germans, a third of the country's population, were reduced to trying
to survive on about 40 pfennigs per person per day.

Unemployment benefits, moreover, were limited to a period of six
months. After that came only the meager misery allowance dispensed by
the welfare offices.

Notwithstanding the gross inadequacy of this assistance, by trying to
save the six million unemployed from total destruction, even for just
six months, both the state and local branches of the German government
saw themselves brought to ruin: in 1932 alone such aid had swallowed
up four billion marks, 57 percent of the total tax revenues of the
federal government and the regional states. A good many German
municipalities were bankrupt.

Those still lucky enough to have some kind of job were not much better
off. Workers and employees had taken a cut of 25 percent in their
wages and salaries. Twenty-one percent of them were earning between
100 and 250 marks per month; 69.2 percent of them, in January of 1933,
were being paid less than 1,200 marks annually. No more than about
100,000 Germans, it was estimated, were able to live without financial
worries.

During the three years before Hitler came to power, total earnings had
fallen by more than half, from 23 billion marks to 11 billion. The
average per capita income had dropped from 1,187 marks in 1929 to 627
marks, a scarcely tolerable level, in 1932. By January 1933, when
Hitler took office, 90 percent of the German people were destitute.
No one escaped the strangling effects of the unemployment. The
intellectuals were hit as hard as the working class. Of the 135,000
university graduates, 60 percent were without jobs. Only a tiny
minority was receiving unemployment benefits.

"The others," wrote one foreign observer, Marcel Laloire (in his book
New Germany), "are dependent on their parents or are sleeping in
flophouses. In the daytime they can be seen on the boulevards of
Berlin wearing signs on their backs to the effect that they will
accept any kind of work."

But there was no longer any kind of work.
The same drastic fall-off had hit Germany's cottage industry, which
comprised some four million workers. Its turnover had declined 55
percent, with total sales plunging from 22 billion to 10 billion
marks.

Hardest hit of all were construction workers; 90 percent of them were
unemployed.

Farmers, too, had been ruined, crushed by losses amounting to 12
billion marks. Many had been forced to mortgage their homes and their
land. In 1932 just the interest on the loans they had incurred due to
the crash was equivalent to 20 percent of the value of the
agricultural production of the entire country. Those who were no
longer able to meet the interest payments saw their farms auctioned
off in legal proceedings: in the years 1931-1932, 17,157 farms-with a
combined total area of 462,485 hectares - were liquidated in this way.
The "democracy" of Germany's "Weimar Republic" (1918 -1933) had proven
utterly ineffective in addressing such flagrant wrongs as this
impoverishment of millions of farm workers, even though they were the
nation's most stable and hardest working citizens. Plundered,
dispossessed, abandoned: small wonder they heeded Hitler's call.
Their situation on January 30, 1933, was tragic. Like the rest of
Germany's working class, they had been betrayed by their political
leaders, reduced to the alternatives of miserable wages, paltry and
uncertain benefit payments, or the outright humiliation of begging.
Germany's industries, once renowned everywhere in the world, were no
longer prosperous, despite the millions of marks in gratuities that
the financial magnates felt obliged to pour into the coffers of the
parties in power before each election in order to secure their
cooperation. For 14 years the well-blinkered conservatives and
Christian democrats of the political center had been feeding at the
trough just as greedily as their adversaries of the left..

One inevitable consequence of this ever-increasing misery and
uncertainty about the future was an abrupt decline in the birthrate.
When your household savings are wiped out, and when you fear even
greater calamities in the days ahead, you do not risk adding to the
number of your dependents.

In those days the birth rate was a reliable barometer of a country's
prosperity. A child is a joy, unless you have nothing but a crust of
bread to put in its little hand. And that's just the way it was with
hundreds of thousands of German families in 1932..

Hitler knew that he would be starting from zero. From less than zero.
But he was also confident of his strength of will to create Germany
anew-politically, socially, financially, and economically. Now legally
and officially in power, he was sure that he could quickly convert
that cipher into a Germany more powerful than ever before.
What support did he have?

For one thing, he could count on the absolute support of millions of
fanatical disciples. And on that January evening, they joyfully shared
in the great thrill of victory. Some thirteen million Germans, many of
them former Socialists and Communists, had voted for his party.
But millions of Germans were still his adversaries, disconcerted
adversaries, to be sure, whom their own political parties had
betrayed, but who had still not been won over to National Socialism.
The two sides-those for and those against Hitler-were very nearly
equal in numbers. But whereas those on the left were divided among
themselves, Hitler's disciples were strongly united. And in one thing
above all, the National Socialists had an incomparable advantage: in
their convictions and in their total faith in a leader. Their highly
organized and well-disciplined party had contented with the worst kind
of obstacles, and had overcome them..

In the eyes of the capitalists, money was the sole active element in
the flourishing of a country's economy. To Hitler's way of thinking,
that conception was radically wrong: capital, on the contrary, was
only an instrument. Work was the essential element: man's endeavor,
man's honor, blood, muscles and soul.

Hitler wanted not just to put an to the class struggle, but to
reestablish the priority of the human being, in justice and respect,
as the principal factor in production..

For the worker's trust in the fatherland to be restored, he had to
feel that from now on he was to be (and to be treated) as an equal,
instead of remaining a social inferior. Under the governments of the
so-called democratic parties of both the left and the right, he had
remained an inferior; for none of them had understood that in the
hierarchy of national values, work is the very essence of life; ..

The objective, then, was far greater than merely getting six million
unemployed back to work. It was to achieve a total revolution.
"The people," Hitler declared, "were not put here on earth for the
sake of the economy, and the economy doesn't exist for the sake of
capital. On the contrary, capital is meant to serve the economy, and
the economy in turn to serve the people."

It would not be enough merely to reopen the thousands of closed
factories and fill them with workers. If the old concepts still ruled,
the workers would once again be nothing more than living machines,
faceless and interchangeable..

Nowhere in twentieth-century Europe had the authority of a head of
state ever been based on such overwhelming and freely given national
consent. Prior to Hitler, from 1919 to 1932, those governments piously
styling themselves democratic had usually come to power by meager
majorities, sometimes as low as 51 or 52 percent.

"I am not a dictator," Hitler had often affirmed, "and I never will
be. Democracy will be rigorously enforced by National Socialism."
Authority does not mean tyranny. A tyrant is someone who puts himself
in power without the will of the people or against the will of the
people. A democrat is placed in power by the people. But democracy is
not limited to a single formula. It may be partisan or parliamentary.
Or it may be authoritarian. The important thing is that the people
have wished it, chosen it, established it in its given form.

That was the case with Hitler. He came to power in an essentially
democratic way. Whether one likes it or not, this fact is undeniable.
And after coming to power, his popular support measurably increased
from year to year. The more intelligent and honest of his enemies have
been obliged to admit this, men such as the declared anti-Nazi
historian and professor Joachim Fest, who wrote:

For Hitler was never interested in establishing a mere tyranny. Sheer
greed for power will not suffice as explanation for his personality
and energy-He was not born to be a mere tyrant. He was fixated upon
his mission of defending Europe and the Aryan race ... Never had he
felt so dependent upon the masses as he did at this time, and he
watched their reactions with anxious concern.
These lines weren't written by Dr. Goebbels, but by a stern critic of
Hitler and his career..

When it came time to vote, Hitler was granted plenary powers with a
sweeping majority of 441 votes to 94: he had won not just two thirds,
but 82.44 percent of the assembly's votes. This "Enabling Act" granted
Hitler for four years virtually absolute authority over the
legislative as well as the executive affairs of the government..

After 1945 the explanation that was routinely offered for all this was
that the Germans had lost their heads. Whatever the case, it is a
historical fact that they acted of their own free will. Far from being
resigned, they were enthusiastic. "For the first time since the last
days of the monarchy," historian Joachim Fest has conceded, "the
majority of the Germans now had the feeling that they could identify
with the state."..

"You talk about persecution!" he thundered in an impromptu response to
an address by the Social Democratic speaker. "I think that there are
only a few of us [in our party] here who did not have to suffer
persecutions in prison from your side ... You seem to have totally
forgotten that for years our shirts were ripped off our backs because
you did not like the color . . . We have outgrown your persecutions!"
"In those days," he scathingly continued, "our newspapers were banned
and banned and again banned, our meetings were forbidden, and we were
forbidden to speak, I was forbidden to speak, for years on. And now
you say that criticism is salutary!"..

Hitler's millions of followers had rediscovered the primal strength of
rough, uncitified man, of a time when men still had backbone..

Gustav Noske, the lumberjack who became defense minister - and the
most valiant defender of the embattled republic in the tumultuous
months immediately following the collapse of 1918 - acknowledged
honestly in 1944, when the Third Reich was already rapidly breaking
down, that the great majority of the German people still remained true
to Hitler because of the social renewal he had brought to the working
class..

Here again, well before the collapse of party-ridden Weimar Republic,
disillusion with the unions had become widespread among the working
masses. They were starving. The hundreds of Socialist and Communist
deputies stood idly by, impotent to provide any meaningful help to the
desperate proletariat.

Their leaders had no proposals to remedy, even partially, the great
distress of the people; no plans for large-scale public works, no
industrial restructuring, no search for markets abroad.
Moreover, they offered no energetic resistance to the pillaging by
foreign countries of the Reich's last financial resources: this a
consequence of the Treaty of Versailles that the German Socialists had
voted to ratify in June of 1919, and which they had never since had
the courage effectively to oppose..

In 1930, 1931 and 1932, German workers had watched the disaster grow:
the number of unemployed rose from two million to three, to four, to
five, then to six million. At the same time, unemployment benefits
fell lower and lower, finally to disappear completely. Everywhere one
saw dejection and privation: emaciated mothers, children wasting away
in sordid lodgings, and thousands of beggars in long sad lines.
The failure, or incapacity, of the leftist leaders to act, not to
mention their insensitivity, had stupefied the working class. Of what
use were such leaders with their empty heads and empty hearts-and,
often enough, full pockets?

Well before January 30, thousands of workers had already joined up
with Hitler's dynamic formations, which were always hard at it where
they were most needed. Many joined the National Socialists when they
went on strike. Hitler, himself a former worker and a plain man like
themselves, was determined to eliminate unemployment root and branch.
He wanted not merely to defend the laborer's right to work, but to
make his calling one of honor, to insure him respect and to integrate
him fully into a living community of all the Germans, who had been
divided class against class.

In January 1933, Hitler's victorious troops were already largely
proletarian in character, including numerous hardfisted street
brawlers, many unemployed, who no longer counted economically or
socially.

Meanwhile, membership in the Marxist labor unions had fallen off
enormously: among thirteen million socialist and Communist voters in
1932, no more than five million were union members. Indifference and
discouragement had reached such levels that many members no longer
paid their union dues. Many increasingly dispirited Marxist leaders
began to wonder if perhaps the millions of deserters were the ones who
saw things clearly. Soon they wouldn't wonder any longer.
Even before Hitler won Reichstag backing for his "Enabling Act,"
Germany's giant labor union federation, the ADGB, had begun to rally
to the National Socialist cause. As historian Joachim Fest
acknowledged: "On March 20, the labor federation's executive committee
addressed a kind of declaration of loyalty to Hitler." (J. Fest,
Hitler, p. 413.)

Hitler than took a bold and clever step. The unions had always
clamored to have the First of May recognized as a worker's holiday,
but the Weimar Republic had never acceded to their request. Hitler,
never missing an opportunity, grasped this one with both hands. He did
more than grant this reasonable demand: he proclaimed the First of May
a national holiday..

I myself attended the memorable meeting at the Tempelhof field in
1933. By nine o'clock that morning, giant columns, some of workers,
others of youth groups, marching in cadence down the pavement of
Berlin's great avenues, had started off towards the airfield to which
Hitler had called together all Germans. All Germany would follow the
rally as it was transmitted nationwide by radio..

In the dark, a group of determined opponents could easily have heckled
Hitler or otherwise sabotaged the meeting. Perhaps a third of the
onlookers had been Socialists or Communists only three months
previously. But not a single hostile voice was raised during the
entire ceremony. There was only universal acclamation.
Ceremony is the right word for it. It was an almost magical rite.
Hitler and Goebbels had no equals in the arranging of dedicatory
ceremonies of this sort. First there were popular songs, then great
Wagnerian hymns to grip the audience. Germany has a passion for
orchestral music, and Wagner taps the deepest and most secret vein of
the German soul, its romanticism, its inborn sense of the powerful and
the grand.

Meanwhile the hundreds of flags floated above the rostrum, redeemed
from the darkness by arrows of light.

Now Hitler strode to the rostrum. For those standing at the of the
field, his face must have appeared vanishingly small, but his words
flooded instantaneously across the acres of people in his audience.
A Latin audience would have preferred a voice less harsh, more
delicately expressive. But there was no doubt that Hitler spoke to the
psyche of the German people.

Germans have rarely had the good fortune to experience the enchantment
of the spoken word. In Germany, the tone has always been set by
ponderous speakers, more fond of elephantine pedantry than oratorical
passion. Hitler, as a speaker, was a prodigy, the greatest orator of
his century. He possessed, above all, what the ordinary speaker lacks:
a mysterious ability to project power.

A bit like a medium or sorcerer, he was seized, even transfixed, as he
addressed a crowd. It responded to Hitler's projection of power,
radiating it back, establishing, in the course of myriad exchanges, a
current that both orator and audience gave to and drew from equally.
One had to personally experience him speaking to understand this
phenomenon.

This special gift is what lay at the basis of Hitler's ability to win
over the masses. His high-voltage, lightning-like projection
transported and transformed all who experienced it. Tens of millions
were enlightened, riveted and inflamed by the fire of his anger,
irony, and passion.

By the time the cheering died away that May first evening, hundreds of
thousands of previously indifferent or even hostile workers who had
come to Tempelhof at the urging of their labor federation leaders were
now won over. They had become followers, like the SA stormtroopers
whom so many there that evening had brawled with in recent years.
The great human sea surged back from Tempelhof to Berlin. A million
and a half people had arrived in perfect order, and their departure
was just as orderly. No bottlenecks halted the cars and busses. For
those of us who witnessed it, this rigorous, yet joyful, discipline of
a contented people was in itself a source of wonder. Everything about
the May Day mass meeting had come off as smoothly clockwork.
The memory of that fabulous crowd thronging back to the center of
Berlin will never leave me. A great many were on foot. Their faces
were now different faces, as though they had been imbued with a
strange and totally new spirit. The non-Germans in the crowd were as
if stunned, and no less impressed than Hitler's fellow countrymen.
The French ambassador, André François-Poncet, noted:
The foreigners on the speaker's platform as guests of honor were not
alone in carrying away the impression of a truly beautiful and
wonderful public festival, an impression that was created by the
regime's genius for organization, by the night time display of
uniforms, by the play of lights, the rhythm of the music, by the flags
and the colorful fireworks; and they were not alone in thinking that a
breath of reconciliation and unity was passing over the Third Reich.
"It is our wish," Hitler had exclaimed, as though taking heaven as his
witness, "to get along together and to struggle together as brothers,
so that at the hour when we shall come before God, we might say to
him: 'See, Lord, we have changed. The German people are no longer a
people ashamed, a people mean and cowardly and divided. No, Lord! The
German people have become strong in their spirit, in their will, in
their perseverance, in their acceptance of any sacrifice. Lord, we
remain faithful to Thee! Bless our struggle!" (A. François-Poncet,
Souvenirs d'une ambassade à Berlin, p. 128.)

Who else could have made such an incantatory appeal without making
himself look ridiculous?

No politician had ever spoken of the rights of workers with such faith
and such force, or had laid out in such clear terms the social plan he
pledged to carry out on behalf of the common people.

The next day, the newspaper of the proletarian left, the "Union
Journal," reported on this mass meeting at which at least two thirds-a
million-of those attending were workers. "This May First was victory
day," the paper summed up.

With the workers thus won over, what further need was there for the
thousands of labor union locals that for so long had poisoned the
social life of the Reich and which, in any case, had accomplished
nothing of a lasting, positive nature?

Within hours of the conclusion of that "victory" meeting at the
Tempelhof field, the National Socialists were able to peacefully take
complete control of Germany's entire labor union organization,
including all its buildings, enterprises and banks. An era of Marxist
obstruction abruptly came to an end : from now on, a single national
organization would embody the collective will and interests of all of
Germany's workers.

Although he was now well on his way to creating what he pledged would
be a true "government of the people," Hitler also realized that great
obstacles remained. For one thing, the Communist rulers in Moscow had
not dropped their guard-or their guns. Restoring the nation would take
more than words and promises, it would take solid achievements. Only
then would the enthusiasm shown by the working class at the May First
mass meeting be an expression of lasting victory.

How could Hitler solve the great problem that had defied solution by
everyone else (both in Germany and abroad): putting millions of
unemployed back to work?

What would Hitler do about wages? Working hours? Leisure time?
Housing? How would he succeed in winning, at long last, respect for
the rights and dignity of the worker?

How could men's lives be improved-materially, morally, and, one might
even say, spiritually? How would he proceed to build a new society fit
for human beings, free of the inertia, injustices and prejudices of
the past?

"National Socialism," Hitler had declared at the outset, "has its
mission and its hour; it is not just a passing movement but a phase of
history."

The instruments of real power now in his hands-an authoritarian state,
its provinces subordinate but nonetheless organic parts of the
national whole-Hitler had acted quickly to shake himself free of the
last constraints of the impotent sectarian political parties.
Moreover, he was now able to direct a cohesive labor force that was no
longer split into a thousand rivulets but flowed as a single, mighty
current.

Hitler was self-confident, sure of the power of his own conviction. He
had no intention, or need, to resort to the use of physical force.
Instead, he intended to win over, one by one, the millions of Germans
who were still his adversaries, and even those who still hated him.
His conquest of Germany had taken years of careful planning and hard
work. Similarly, he would now realize his carefully worked out plans
for transforming the state and society. This meant not merely changes
in administrative or governmental structures, but far-reaching social
programs.

He had once vowed: "The hour will come when the 15 million people who
now hate us will be solidly behind us and will acclaim with us the new
revival we shall create together." Eventually he would succeed in
winning over even many of his most refractory skeptics and
adversaries.

His army of converts was already forming ranks. In a remarkable
tribute, historian Joachim Fest felt obliged to acknowledge
unequivocally:

Hitler had moved rapidly from the status of a demagogue to that of a
respected statesman. The craving to join the ranks of the victors was
spreading like an epidemic, and the shrunken minority of those who
resisted the urge were being visibly pushed into isolation-The past
was dead. The future, it seemed, belonged to the regime, which had
more and more followers, which was being hailed everywhere and
suddenly had sound reasons on its side.

And even the prominent leftist writer Kurt Tucholsky, sensing the
direction of the inexorable tide that was sweeping Germany, vividly
commented: "You don't go railing against the ocean." (J. Fest, Hitler,
pp. 415 f.)

"Our power," Hitler was now able to declare, "no longer belongs to any
territorial fraction of the Reich, nor to any single class of the
nation, but to the people in its totality."

Much still remained to be done, however. So far, Hitler had succeeded
in clearing the way of obstacles to his program. Now the time to build
had arrived.

So many others had failed to tackle the many daunting problems that
were now his responsibility. Above all, the nation demanded a solution
to the great problem of unemployment. Could Hitler now succeed where
others had so dismally failed?..

Unemployment could be combated and eliminated only by giving industry
the financial means to start up anew, to modernize, thus creating
millions of new jobs.

The normal rate of consumption would not be restored, let alone
increased, unless one first raised the starvation-level allowances
that were making purchases of any kind a virtual impossibility. On the
contrary, production and sales would have to be restored before the
six million unemployed could once again become purchasers.
The great economic depression could be overcome only by restimulating
industry, by bringing industry into step with the times, and by
promoting the development of new products..

Nearly ten years earlier, while in his prison cell, Hitler had already
envisioned a formidable system of national highways. He had also
conceived of a small, easily affordable automobile (later known as the
"Volkswagen"), and had even suggested its outline. It should have the
shape of a June bug, he proposed. Nature itself suggested the car's
aerodynamic line.

Until Hitler came to power, a car was the privilege of the rich. It
was not financially within the reach of the middle class, much less of
the worker. The "Volkswagen," costing one-tenth as much as the
standard automobile of earlier years, would eventually become a
popular work vehicle and a source of pleasure after work: a way to
unwind and get some fresh air, and of discovering, thanks to the new
Autobahn highway network, a magnificent country that then, in its
totality, was virtually unknown to the German worker.

From the beginning, Hitler wanted this economical new car to be built
for the millions. The production works would also become one of
Germany's most important industrial centers and employers.
During his imprisonment, Hitler had also drawn up plans for the
construction of popular housing developments and majestic public
buildings.

Some of Hitler's rough sketches still survive. They include groups of
individual worker's houses with their own gardens (which were to be
built in the hundreds of thousands), a plan for a covered stadium in
Berlin, and a vast congress hall, unlike any other in the world, that
would symbolize the grandeur of the National Socialist revolution.
"A building with a monumental dome," historian Werner Maser has
explained, "the plan of which he drew while he was writing Mein Kampf,
would have a span of 46 meters, a height of 220 meters, a diameter of
250 meters, and a capacity of 150 to 190 thousand people standing. The
interior of the building would have been 17 times larger than Saint
Peter's Cathedral in Rome." (W. Maser, Hitler, Adolf, p. 100.)

"That hall," architect Albert Speer has pointed out, "was not just an
idle dream impossible of achievement."

Hitler's imagination, therefore, had long been teeming with a number
of ambitious projects, many of which would eventually be realized.
Fortunately, the needed entrepreneurs, managers and technicians were
on hand. Hitler would not have to improvise.

Historian Werner Maser, although quite anti-Hitler-like nearly all of
his colleagues (how else would they have found publishers?) - has
acknowledged: "From the beginning of his political career, he [Hitler]
took great pains systematically to arrange for whatever he was going
to need in order to carry out his plans."

"Hitler was distinguished," Maser has also noted, "by an exceptional
intelligence in technical matters." Hitler had acquired his knowledge
by devoting many thousands of hours to technical studies from the time
of his youth.

"Hitler read an endless number of books," explained Dr. Schacht. "He
acquired a very considerable amount of knowledge and made masterful
use of it in discussions and speeches. In certain respects he was a
man endowed with genius. He had ideas that no one else would ever have
thought of, ideas that resulted in the ending of great difficulties,
sometimes by measures of an astonishing simplicity or brutality."
Many billions of marks would be needed to begin the great
socioeconomic revolution that was destined, as Hitler had always
intended, to make Germany once again the European leader in industry
and commerce and, most urgently, to rapidly wipe out unemployment in
Germany. Where would the money be found? And, once obtained, how would
these funds be allotted to ensure maximum effectiveness in their
investment?

Hitler was by no means a dictator in matters of the economy. He was,
rather, a stimulator. His government would undertake to do only that
which private initiative could not.

Hitler believed in the importance of individual creative imagination
and dynamism, in the need for every person of superior ability and
skill to assume responsibility.

He also recognized the importance of the profit motive. Deprived of
the prospect of having his efforts rewarded, the person of ability
often refrains from running risks. The economic failure of Communism
has demonstrated this. In the absence of personal incentives and the
opportunity for real individual initiative, the Soviet "command
economy" lagged in all but a few fields, its industry years behind its
competitors.

State monopoly tolls the death of all initiative, and hence of all
progress.

For all men selflessly to pool their wealth might be marvelous, but it
is also contrary to human nature. Nearly every man desires that his
labor shall improve his own condition and that of his family, and
feels that his brain, creative imagination, and persistence well
deserve their reward.

Because it disregarded these basic psychological truths, Soviet
Communism, right to the end, wallowed in economic mediocrity, in spite
of its immense reservoir of manpower, its technical expertise, and its
abundant natural resources, all of which ought to have made it an
industrial and technological giant.

Hitler was always adverse to the idea of state management of the
economy. He believed in elites. "A single idea of genius," he used to
say, "has more value than a lifetime of conscientious labor in an
office."

Just as there are political or intellectual elites, so also is there
an industrial elite. A manufacturer of great ability should not be
restrained, hunted down by the internal revenue services like a
criminal, or be unappreciated by the public. On the contrary, it is
important for economic development that the industrialist be
encouraged morally and materially, as much as possible.

The most fruitful initiatives Hitler would take from 1933 on would be
on behalf of private enterprise. He would keep an eye on the quality
of their directors, to be sure, and would shunt aside incompetents,
quite a few of them at times, but he also supported the best ones,
those with the keenest minds, the most imaginative and bold, even if
their political opinions did not always agree with his own.
"There is no question," he stated very firmly, "of dismissing a
factory owner or director under the pretext that he is not a National
Socialist."

Hitler would exercise the same moderation, the same pragmatism, in the
administrative as well as in the industrial sphere.
What he demanded of his co-workers, above all, was competence and
effectiveness. The great majority of Third Reich functionaries - some
80 percent-were never enrolled in the National Socialist party.
Several of Hitler's ministers, like Konstantin von Neurath and
Schwerin von Krosigk, and ambassadors to such key posts as Prague,
Vienna and Ankara, were not members of the party. But they were
capable..

"Herr Schacht," he said, "we are assuredly in agreement on one point:
no other single task facing the government at the moment can be so
truly urgent as conquering unemployment. That will take a lot of
money. Do you see any possibility of finding it apart from the
Reichsbank?" And after a moment, he added: "How much would it take? Do
you have any idea?"

Wishing to win Schacht over by appealing to his ambition, Hitler
smiled and then asked: "Would you be willing to once again assume
presidency of the Reichsbank?" Schacht let on that he had a
sentimental concern for Dr. Luther, and did not want to hurt the
incumbent's feelings. Playing along, Hitler reassured Schacht that he
would find an appropriate new job elsewhere for Luther.
Schacht then pricked up his ears, drew himself up, and focused his big
round eyes on Hitler: "Well, if that's the way it is," he said, "then
I am ready to assume the presidency of the Reichsbank again."
His great dream was being realized. Schacht had been president of the
Reichsbank between 1923 and 1930, but had been dismissed. Now he would
return in triumph. He felt vindicated. Within weeks, the ingenious
solution to Germany's pressing financial woes would burst forth from
his inventive brain.

"It was necessary," Schacht later explained, "to discover a method
that would avoid inflating the investment holdings of the Reichsbank
immoderately and consequently increasing the circulation of money
excessively."

"Therefore," he went on, "I had to find some means of getting the sums
that were lying idle in pockets and banks, without meaning for it to
be long term and without having it undergo the risk of depreciation.
That was the reasoning behind the Mefo bonds."

What were these "Mefo" bonds? Mefo was a contraction of the
Metallurgische Forschungs-GmbH (Metallurgic Research Company). With a
startup capitalization of one billion marks - which Hitler and Schacht
arranged to be provided by the four giant firms of Krupp, Siemens,
Deutsche Werke and Rheinmetall-this company would eventually promote
many billions of marks worth of investment.

Enterprises, old and new, that filled government orders had only to
draw drafts on Mefo for the amounts due. These drafts, when presented
to the Reichsbank, were immediately convertible into cash. The success
of the Mefo program depended entirely on public acceptance of the Mefo
bonds. But the wily Schacht had planned well. Since Mefo bonds were
short-term bonds that could be cashed in at any time, there was no
real risk in buying, accepting or holding them. They bore an interest
of four percent-a quite acceptable figure in those days-whereas
banknotes hidden under the mattress earned nothing. The public quickly
took all this into consideration and eagerly accepted the bonds.
While the Reichsbank was able to offer from its own treasury a
relatively insignificant 150 million marks for Hitler's war on
unemployment, in just four years the German public subscribed more
than 12 billion marks worth of Mefo bonds!

These billions, the fruit of the combined imagination, ingenuity and
astuteness of Hitler and Schacht, swept away the temporizing and
fearful conservatism of the bankers. Over the next four years, this
enormous credit reserve would make miracles possible.

Soon after the initial billion-mark credit, Schacht added another
credit of 600 million in order to finance the start of Hitler's grand
program for highway construction. This Autobahn program provided
immediate work for 100,000 of the unemployed, and eventually assured
wages for some 500,000 workers.

As large as this outlay was, it was immediately offset by a
corresponding cutback in government unemployment benefits, and by the
additional tax revenue generated as a result of the increase in living
standard (sping) of the newly employed.

Within a few months, thanks to the credit created by the Mefo bonds,
private industry once again dared to assume risks and expand. Germans
returned to work by the hundreds of thousands.

Was Schacht solely responsible for this extraordinary turnaround?
After the war, he answered for himself as a Nuremberg Tribunal
defendant, where he was charged with having made possible the Reich's
economic revival:

I don't think Hitler was reduced to begging for my help. If I had not
served him, he would have found other methods, other means. He was not
a man to give up. It's easy enough for you to say, Mr. Prosecutor,
that I should have watched Hitler die and not lifted a finger. But the
entire working class would have died with him!

Even Marxists recognized Hitler's success, and their own failure. In
the June 1934 issue of the Zeitschrift für Sozialismus, the journal of
the German Social Democrats in exile, this acknowledgement appears:
Faced with the despair of proletarians reduced to joblessness, of
young people with diplomas and no future, of the middle classes of
merchants and artisans condemned to bankruptcy, and of farmers
terribly threatened by the collapse in agricultural prices, we all
failed. We weren't capable of offering the masses anything but
speeches about the glory of socialism.

VI. The Social Revolution
Hitler's tremendous social achievement in putting Germany's six
million unemployed back to work is seldom acknowledged today. Although
it was much more than a transitory achievement, "democratic"
historians routinely dismiss it in just a few lines. Since 1945, not a
single objective scholarly study has been devoted to this highly
significant, indeed unprecedented, historical phenomenon.
Similarly neglected is the body of sweeping reforms that dramatically
changed the condition of the worker in Germany. Factories were
transformed from gloomy caverns to spacious and healthy work centers,
with natural lighting, surrounded by gardens and playing fields.
Hundreds of thousands of attractive houses were built for working
class families. A policy of several weeks of paid vacation was
introduced, along with week and holiday trips by land and sea. A
wide-ranging program of physical and cultural education for young
workers was established, with the world's best system of technical
training. The Third Reich's social security and workers' health
insurance system was the world's most modern and complete.
This remarkable record of social achievement is routinely hushed up
today because it is embarrasses those who uphold the orthodox view of
the Third Reich. Otherwise, readers might begin to think that perhaps
Hitler was the greatest social builder of the twentieth century..

Nevertheless, restoring work and bread to millions of unemployed who
had been living in misery for years; restructuring industrial life;
conceiving and establishing an organization for the effective defense
and betterment of the nation's millions of wage earners; creating a
new bureaucracy and judicial system that guaranteed the civic rights
of each member of the national community, while simultaneously holding
each person to his or her responsibilities as a German citizen: this
organic body of reforms was part of a single, comprehensive plan,
which Hitler had conceived and worked out years earlier.
Without this plan, the nation would have collapsed into anarchy.
All-encompassing, this program included broad industrial recovery as
well as detailed attention to even construction of comfortable inns
along the new highway network.

It took several years for a stable social structure to emerge from the
French Revolution. The Soviets needed even more time: five years after
the Bolshevik revolution of 1917, hundreds of thousands of Russians
were still dying of hunger and disease. In Germany, by contrast, the
great machinery was in motion within months, with organization and
accomplishment quickly meshing together..

Hitler personally dug the first spadeful of earth for the first
Autobahn highway, linking Frankfurt-am-Main with Darmstadt. For the
occasion, he brought along Dr. Schacht, the man whose visionary credit
wizardry had made the project possible. The official procession moved
ahead, three cars abreast in front, then six across, spanning the
entire width of the autobahn..

Hitler's plan to build thousands of low-cost homes also demanded a
vast mobilization of manpower. He had envisioned housing that would be
attractive, cozy, and affordable for millions of ordinary German
working-class families. He had no intention of continuing to tolerate,
as his predecessors had, cramped, ugly "rabbit warren" housing for the
German people. The great barracks-like housing projects on the
outskirts of factory towns, packed with cramped families, disgusted
him.

The greater part of the houses he would build were single story,
detached dwellings, with small yards where children could romp, wives
could grow vegetable and flower gardens, while the bread-winners could
read their newspapers in peace after the day's work. These
single-family homes were built to conform to the architectural styles
of the various German regions, retaining as much as possible the
charming local variants.

Wherever there was no practical alternative to building large
apartment complexes, Hitler saw to it that the individual apartments
were spacious, airy and enhanced by surrounding lawns and gardens
where the children could play safely.

The new housing was, of course, built in conformity with the highest
standards of public health, a consideration notoriously neglected in
previous working-class projects.

Generous loans, amortizable in ten years, were granted to newly
married couples so they could buy their own homes. At the birth of
each child, a fourth of the debt was cancelled. Four children, at the
normal rate of a new arrival every two and a half years, sufficed to
cancel the entire loan debt.

Once, during a conversation with Hitler, I expressed my astonishment
at this policy. "But then, you never get back the total amount of your
loans?," I asked. "How so?" he replied, smiling. "Over a period of ten
years, a family with four children brings in much more than our loans,
through the taxes levied on a hundred different items of consumption."
As it happened, tax revenues increased every year, in proportion to
the rise in expenditures for Hitler's social programs. In just a few
years, revenue from taxes tripled. Hitler's Germany never experienced
a financial crisis.

To stimulate the moribund economy demanded the nerve, which Hitler
had, to invest money that the government didn't yet have, rather than
passively waiting-in accordance with "sound" financial principles-for
the economy to revive by itself.

Today, our whole era is dying economically because we have succumbed
to fearful hesitation. Enrichment follows investment, not the other
way around..

Even before the year 1933 had ended, Hitler had succeeded in building
202,119 housing units. Within four years he would provide the German
people with nearly a million and a half (1,458,128) new dwellings!
Moreover, workers would no longer be exploited as they had been. A
month's rent for a worker could not exceed 26 marks, or about an
eighth of the average wage then. Employees with more substantial
salaries paid monthly rents of up to 45 marks maximum.

Equally effective social measures were taken in behalf of farmers, who
had the lowest incomes. In 1933 alone 17,611 new farm houses were
built, each of them surrounded by a parcel of land one thousand square
meters in size. Within three years, Hitler would build 91,000 such
farmhouses..

Everywhere industry was hiring again, with some firms-like Krupp, IG
Farben and the large automobile manufacturers-taking on new workers on
a very large scale. As the country became more prosperous, car sales
increased by more than 80,000 units in 1933 alone. Employment in the
auto industry doubled. Germany was gearing up for full production,
with private industry leading the way.

The new government lavished every assistance on the private sector,
the chief factor in employment as well as production. Hitler almost
immediately made available 500 million marks in credits to private
business.

This start-up assistance given to German industry would repay itself
many times over. Soon enough, another two billion marks would be
loaned to the most enterprising companies. Nearly half would go into
new wages and salaries, saving the treasury an estimated three hundred
million marks in unemployment benefits. Added to the hundreds of
millions in tax receipts spurred by the business recovery, the state
quickly recovered its investment, and more.

Hitler's entire economic policy would be based on the following
equation: risk large sums to undertake great public works and to spur
the renewal and modernization of industry, then later recover the
billions invested through invisible and painless tax revenues. It
didn't take long for Germany to see the results of Hitler's recovery
formula.

Economic recovery, as important as it was, nevertheless wasn't
Hitler's only objective. As he strived to restore full employment,
Hitler never lost sight of his goal of creating a organization
powerful enough to stand up to capitalist owners and managers, who had
shown little concern for the health and welfare of the entire national
community.

Hitler would impose on everyone-powerful boss and lowly wage earner
alike-his own concept of the organic social community. Only the loyal
collaboration of everyone could assure the prosperity of all classes
and social groups.

Consistent with their doctrine, Germany's Marxist leaders had set
class against class, helping to bring the country to the brink of
economic collapse. Deserting their Marxist unions and political
parties in droves, most workers had come to realize that strikes and
grievances their leaders incited only crippled production, and thus
the workers as well.

By the of 1932, in any case, the discredited labor unions were
drowning in massive debt that realistically could never be repaid.
Some of the less scrupulous union officials, sensing the oncoming
catastrophe, had begun stealing hundreds of thousands of marks from
the workers they represented. The Marxist leaders had failed:
socially, financially and morally.

Every joint human activity requires a leader. The head of a factory or
business is also the person naturally responsible for it. He oversees
every aspect of production and work. In Hitler's Germany, the head of
a business had to be both a capable director and a person concerned
for the social justice and welfare of his employees. Under Hitler,
many owners and managers who had proven to be unjust, incompetent or
recalcitrant lost their jobs, or their businesses.

A considerable number of legal guarantees protected the worker against
any abuse of authority at the workplace. Their purpose was to insure
that the rights of workers were respected, and that workers were
treated as worthy collaborators, not just as animated tools. Each
industrialist was legally obliged to collaborate with worker delegates
in drafting shop regulations that were not imposed from above but
instead adapted to each business enterprise and its particular working
conditions. These regulations had to specify "the length of the
working day, the time and method of paying wages, and the safety
rules, and to be posted throughout the factory," within easy access of
both the worker whose interests might be angered and the owner or
manager whose orders might be subverted.

The thousands of different, individual versions of such regulations
served to create a healthy rivalry, with every factory group vying to
outdo the others in efficiency and justice.

One of the first reforms to benefit German workers was the
establishment of paid vacations. In France, the leftist Popular Front
government would noisily claim, in 1936, to have originated legally
mandated paid vacations-and stingy ones at that, only one week per
year. But it was actually Hitler who first established them, in 1933
-- and they were two or three times more generous.

Under Hitler, every factory employee had the legal right to paid
vacation. Previously, paid vacations had not normally exceed four or
five days, and nearly half of the younger workers had no vacation time
at all. If anything, Hitler favored younger workers; the youngest
workers received more generous vacations. This was humane and made
sense: a young person has more need of rest and fresh air to develop
his maturing strength and vigor. Thus, they enjoyed a full 18 days of
paid vacation per year.

Today, more than half a century later, these figures have been
surpassed, but in 1933 they far exceeded European norms.
The standard vacation was twelve days. Then, from the age of 25 on, it
went up to 18 days. After ten years with the company, workers got a
still longer vacation: 21 days, or three times what the French
socialists would grant the workers of their country in 1936.
Hitler introduced the standard forty-hour work week in Europe. As for
overtime work, it was now compensated, as nowhere else in the
continent at the time, at an increased pay rate. And with the
eight-hour work day now the norm, overtime work became more readily
available.

In another innovation, work breaks were made longer: two hours each
day, allowing greater opportunity for workers to relax, and to make
use of the playing fields that large industries were now required to
provide.

Whereas a worker's right to job security had been virtually
non-existent, now an employee could no longer be dismissed at the sole
discretion of the employer. Hitler saw to it that workers' rights were
spelled out and enforced. Henceforth, an employer had to give four
weeks notice before firing an employee, who then had up to two months
to appeal the dismissal. Dismissals could also be annulled by the
"Courts of Social Honor" (Ehrengerichte).

This Court was one of three great institutions that were established
to protect German workers. The others were the "Labor Commissions" and
the "Council of Trust."

The "Council of Trust" (Vertrauensrat) was responsible for
establishing and developing a real spirit of community between
management and labor. "In every business enterprise," the 1934 "Labor
Charter" law stipulated, "the employer and head of the enterprise
(Führer), the employees and workers, personnel of the enterprise,
shall work jointly toward the goal of the enterprise and the common
good of the nation."

No longer would either be exploited by the other-neither the worker by
arbitrary whim of the employer, nor the employer through the blackmail
of strikes for political ends.

Article 35 of the "Labor Charter" law stated: "Every member of an
enterprise community shall assume the responsibility required by his
position in said common enterprise." In short, each enterprise would
be headed by a dynamic executive, charged with a sense of the greater
community-no longer a selfish capitalist with unconditional, arbitrary
power.

"The interest of the community may require that an incapable or
unworthy employer be relieved of his duties," the "Labor Charter"
stipulated. The employer was no longer unassailable, an all-powerful
boss with the last word on hiring and firing his staff. He, too, would
be subject to the workplace regulations, which he was now obliged to
respect no less than the least of his employees. The law conferred the
honor and responsibility of authority on the employer only insofar as
he merited it..

In the Third Reich, the worker knew that "exploitation of his physical
strength in bad faith or in violation of his honor" was no longer
tolerated. He had obligations to the community, but he shared these
obligations with every other member of the enterprise, from the chief
executive to the messenger boy. Finally, the German worker had clearly
defined social rights, which were arbitrated and enforced by
independent agencies. And while all this had been achieved in an
atmosphere of justice and moderation, it nevertheless constituted a
genuine social revolution..

Factories and shops, large and small, were altered or transformed to
conform to the strictest standards of cleanliness and hygiene:
interiors, so often dark and stifling, were opened up to light;
playing fields were constructed; rest areas where workers could unbend
during break, were set aside; employee cafeterias and respectable
locker rooms were opened. The larger industrial establishments, in
addition to providing the normally required conventional sports
facilities, were obliged to put in swimming pools!

In just three years, these achievements would reach unimagined
heights: more than two thousand factories refitted and beautified;
23,000 work premises modernized; 800 buildings designed exclusively
for meetings; 1,200 playing fields; 13,000 sanitary facilities; 17,000
cafeterias.

To assure the healthy development of the working class, physical
education courses were instituted for younger workers. Some 8,000 were
eventually organized. Technical training was equally emphasized.
Hundreds of work schools, and thousands of technical courses were
created. There were examinations for professional competence, and
competitions in which generous prizes were awarded to outstanding
masters of their craft.

Eight hundred departmental inspectors and 17,300 local inspectors were
employed to conscientiously monitor and promote these improvements.
To provide affordable vacations for German workers on a hitherto
unprecedented scale, Hitler established the "Strength through Joy"
program. As a result, hundreds of thousands of workers were now able
to make relaxing vacation trips on land and sea each summer.
Magnificent cruise ships were built, and special trains brought
vacationers to the mountains and the seashore. In just a few years,
Germany's working-class tourists would log a distance equivalent to 54
times the circumference of the earth! And thanks to generous state
subsidies, the cost to workers of these popular vacation excursions
was nearly insignificant..

Was Hitler's transformation of the lot of the working class
authoritarian? Without a doubt. And yet, for a people that had grown
sick and tired of anarchy, this new authoritarianism wasn't regarded
as an imposition. In fact, people have always accepted a strong man's
leadership.

In any case, there is no doubt that the attitude of the German working
class, which was still two-thirds non-Nazi at the start of 1933, soon
changed completely. As Belgian author Marcel Laloire noted at the
time:

When you make your way through the cities of Germany and go into the
working-class districts, go through the factories, the construction
yards, you are astonished to find so many workers on the job sporting
the Hitler insignia, to see so many flags with the swastika, black on
a bright red background, in the most densely populated districts.
Hitler's "German Labor Front" (Deutsche Arbeitsfront), which
incorporated all workers and employers, was for the most part eagerly
accepted. The steel spades of the sturdy young lads of the "National
Labor Service" (Reichsarbeitsdienst) could also be seen gleaming along
the highways.

Hitler created the National Labor Service not only to alleviate
unemployment, but to bring together, in absolute equality, and in the
same uniform, both the sons of millionaires and the sons of the
poorest families for several months' common labor and living.
All performed the same work, all were subject to the same discipline;
they enjoyed the same pleasures and benefited from the same physical
and moral development. At the same construction sites and in the same
barracks, Germans became conscious of what they had in common, grew to
understand one another, and discarded their old prejudices of class
and caste.

After a hitch in the National Labor Service, a young worker knew that
the rich man's son was not a pampered monster, while the young lad of
wealthy family knew that the worker's son had no less honor than a
nobleman or an heir to riches; they had lived and worked together as
comrades. Social hatred was vanishing, and a socially united people
was being born.

Hitler could go into factories-something few men of the so-called
Right would have risked in the past-and hold forth to crowds of
workers, at times in the thousands, as at the huge Siemens works. "In
contrast to the von Papens and other country gentlemen," he might tell
them, "in my youth I was a worker like you. And in my heart of hearts,
I have remained what I was then."

During his twelve years in power, no untoward incident ever occurred
at any factory he visited. Hitler was at home when he went among the
people, and he was received like a member of the family returning home
after making a success of himself.

But the Chancellor of the Third Reich wanted more than popular
approval. He wanted that approval to be freely, widely, and repeatedly
expressed by popular vote. No people was ever be more frequently asked
for their electoral opinion than the German people of that era-five
times in five years.

For Hitler, it was not enough that the people voted from time to time,
as in the previous democratic system. In those days, voters were
rarely appealed to, and when they expressed an opinion, they were
often ill-informed and apathetic. After an election, years might go
by, during which the politicians were heedless and inaccessible, the
electorate powerless to vote on their actions.

To enable the German public to express its opinion on the occasion of
important events of social, national, or international significance,
Hitler provided the people a new means of approving or rejecting his
own actions as Chancellor: the plebiscite.

Hitler recognized the right of all the people, men and women alike, to
vote by secret ballot: to voice their opinion of his policies, or to
make a well-grounded judgment on this or that great decision in
domestic or foreign affairs. Rather than a formalistic routine,
democracy became a vital, active program of supervision that was
renewed annually.

The articles of the "Plebiscite Law" were brief and clear:

1.The Reich government may ask the people whether or not it approves
of a measure planned by or taken by the government. This may also
apply to a law.

2. A measure submitted to plebiscite will be considered as established
when it receives a simple majority of the votes. This will apply as
well to a law modifying the Constitution.

3. If the people approves the measure in question, it will be applied
in conformity with article III of the Law for Overcoming the Distress
of the People and the Reich.

The Reich Interior Ministry is authorized to take all legal and
administrative measures necessary to carry out this law.
Berlin, July 14, 1933.
Hitler, Frick..

From the first months of 1933, his accomplishments were public fact,
for all to see. Before end of the year, unemployment in Germany had
fallen from more than 6,000,000 to 3,374,000. Thus, 2,627,000 jobs had
been created since the previous February, when Hitler began his
"gigantic task!" A simple question: Who in Europe ever achieved
similar results in so short a time?..

In his detailed and critical biography of Hitler, Joachim Fest limited
his treatment of Hitler's extraordinary social achievements in 1933 to
a few paragraphs. All the same, Fest did not refrain from
acknowledging:

The regime insisted that it was not the rule of one social class above
all others, and by granting everyone opportunities to rise, it in fact
demonstrated class neutrality-These measures did indeed break through
the old, petrified social structures. They tangibly improved the
material condition of much of the population. (J. Fest, Hitler, pp.
434-435.)

Not without reason were the swastika banners waving proudly throughout
the working-class districts where, just a year ago, they had been
unceremoniously torn down.

[sarge]

> http://heretical.com/ http://immigration-globalization.blogspot.com/