Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => Topic started by: Traditional Guy 20 on June 02, 2012, 05:12:40 AM

Title: Hitler as military strategist...
Post by: Traditional Guy 20 on June 02, 2012, 05:12:40 AM
A lot of people talk about Hitler's supposed failures of military strategies during World War II, citing his declaration of war on the U.S. and his 1941 invasion of Russia. However let us talk about these two supposed 'blunders' of military strategy.

First of all, considering that FDR was already going to war against German U-boats in the Atlantic in 1940 Hitler was fully within the right to declare war on America. Secondly, FDR was given by British intelligence a supposed map of "nαzι plans" in this hemisphere, all lies cooked up by British intelligence to lure America into war. Hitler would later cite this map as an American provocation in his declaration of war. The point of mentioning this is that FDR and his cabinet was fully prepared to go to war against Germany by any means necessary so Hitler was actually just accepting the inevitable.

To the second point of the 1941 invasion of Russia Hitler did not invade Russia for Lebensraum or to crush ʝʊdɛօ-Bolshevism but to knock out the one country (besides America) Britain had the most hope in. Britian still clinged onto the hope that Russia would crush Germany from the east which is why Britain largely continued the war against Germany. Hitler's invasion of Russia was to crush the nation so that Britain would also surrender. Hitler offered Britain peace twice, both times she refused, and so Hitler hoped that by crushing Russia Britain would finally accept surrender.

Hitler's biggest blunder in my opinion of strategy was his constant rescuing of Mussolini in Italy, by use of German troops, wasting time and resources.
Title: Hitler as military strategist...
Post by: Sigismund on June 02, 2012, 09:05:35 AM
Hitler's biggest blunder was rejecting the Catholic faith, embracing a Satanic pseudo-paganism, and murdering the innocent.  Next to that, military strategy pales into insignificance.  
Title: Hitler as military strategist...
Post by: Traditional Guy 20 on June 02, 2012, 03:57:14 PM
Quote from: Sigismund
Hitler's biggest blunder was rejecting the Catholic faith, embracing a Satanic pseudo-paganism, and murdering the innocent.  Next to that, military strategy pales into insignificance.  


Well can we have a rational discussion of Hitler without someone shouting out, "Hitler's evil! Hitler's a madman!" Or are we all too irrational for that? :rolleyes: And who the hell thumbed down my post except the liberal ilk that blab on this forum?
Title: Hitler as military strategist...
Post by: Sigismund on June 02, 2012, 09:15:52 PM
There really isn't much to say beyond that.
Title: Hitler as military strategist...
Post by: ServusSpiritusSancti on June 02, 2012, 09:51:10 PM
More praise of Hitler I see.

This site is starting to get a lot of rubbish posted on it lately. From new members.
Title: Hitler as military strategist...
Post by: Traditional Guy 20 on June 03, 2012, 01:47:31 AM
Quote from: Sigismund
There really isn't much to say beyond that.
There is plenty to say beyond that but I see I'm wasting my time here with you and braininglitch.
Title: Hitler as military strategist...
Post by: Traditional Guy 20 on June 03, 2012, 01:49:18 AM
Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
More praise of Hitler I see.

This site is starting to get a lot of rubbish posted on it lately. From new members.


Yeah I see a rational discussion is not possible with liberals.
Title: Hitler as military strategist...
Post by: LaramieHirsch on June 03, 2012, 10:49:31 AM
Quote from: Traditional Guy 20
Quote from: Sigismund
There really isn't much to say beyond that.
There is plenty to say beyond that but I see I'm wasting my time here with you and braininglitch.


A colleague of mine who is atheist--and who is starting to see a negative issue in regards to the Judaic folks who run this country--recently commented that people are often having knee-jerk reactions to Hitler, that he is automatically considered evil, and no one critically thinks about WHY nαzι Germany was reacting to the Jєωs of their time.

Basically, my friend says that the German people were getting robbed and plundered by the Judaic bankers, the same way America is getting eaten alive by them--and that the Germans understood this, unafraid to confront the truth of it.  And for this reason, they had no problems with the nαzι Party's persecution of them.  In this way, we might be able to relate to the average German of those days.  Now, death and torture, I'm sure is not the way to go with solving the dilemma.  

If Hitler wasn't such an occultist, and if only he were to turn to the Catholic Church for guidance on the matter, he would have found in history that the Church already set up rules for dealing with subversive Judaic traitors.  There is a latin term for the policy that the Church instituted...a term that I do not have at the moment.  If I find it, I'll post it.  

- - - - -

I am not so sure that people are beginning to praise Hitler, so much as they are starting to understand what was going through the German people's minds at that time.  
Title: Hitler as military strategist...
Post by: Sigismund on June 03, 2012, 04:33:05 PM
If you think Spiritus Sanctus is any kind of liberal, you either have not been reading his posts or are really out of communion with reality.   :smirk:
Title: Hitler as military strategist...
Post by: Traditional Guy 20 on June 03, 2012, 07:15:53 PM
Quote from: Sigismund
If you think Spiritus Sanctus is any kind of liberal, you either have not been reading his posts or are really out of communion with reality.   :smirk:


No I just know you are a philo-Semite Sigmund Freud. :smoke-pot:

Accusing someone of praising Hitler is the tell-tale sign of a liberal.
Title: Hitler as military strategist...
Post by: ServusSpiritusSancti on June 03, 2012, 07:45:59 PM
I deny the h0Ɩ0cαųst yet I still have enough sense not to praise Hitler.
Title: Hitler as military strategist...
Post by: alaric on June 03, 2012, 07:53:18 PM
 Hitler's biggest military blunder was not going for the throat against England when he had the chance after chasing them back across the channel early in the war.

He actually thought he could be merciful and reconcile with them lousy limey Masonic, anti-Catholic bastards. He should've buried them and the frogs when he had them on the ropes instead of turning and attacking the sleeping Russian bear.

Big mistake.
Title: Hitler as military strategist...
Post by: Telesphorus on June 03, 2012, 08:09:34 PM
Most of us have been history buffs at one point or other, but alternative history, trying to employ hindsight quickly becomes counter-productive.

WWII and its aftermath had disastrous consequences for everyone: including the Catholic Church.  

As Leon de Poncins explains in his State Secrets, the European states in the aftermath, whatever material gains might have been made in the postwar period, were a ruin of their former selves.  Particularly so far as political power was concerned.

As the old Time Bombs of Vatican II stated, there was a great deal of moral and spiritual destruction wrought by the wars.  When the last generations raised before WWI died, the anchor to the past was removed.

I think the correct attitude to WWII is to recognize it's long over and that what happened does not invalidate opposition to Jєωιѕн and Leftist influence.  This is of course the opposite of h0Ɩ0cαųstianity, for which WWII takes on cosmic significance and supposedly means the end of Christianity.  Which is the take of the Jєωs and the modernists.  

What happened in WWII was a chastisement.  

If the the Jєωs and conciliarists believed in God, they would be afraid to so self-righteously refer to the war as some sort of justification for their collaboration in the destruction of western society.  On the contrary, they would recognize it was the very efforts of the Left to bring about revolutionary change that created conditions that made war inevitable.
Title: Hitler as military strategist...
Post by: Traditional Guy 20 on June 03, 2012, 10:28:16 PM
Quote from: alaric
Hitler's biggest military blunder was not going for the throat against England when he had the chance after chasing them back across the channel early in the war.

He actually thought he could be merciful and reconcile with them lousy limey Masonic, anti-Catholic bastards. He should've buried them and the frogs when he had them on the ropes instead of turning and attacking the sleeping Russian bear.

Big mistake.


Well Hitler respected the British Empire and thought it should remain preserved. That is why the Battle of Britain was used to bring down Churchill, not cause the destruction of Britain. And that is why he attacked Russia instead, thinking that Britain would surrender if Germany defeated Russia, considering Britain placed its hopes in Russia and America to defeat Germany. In fact Hitler explained his own stop-order at Dunkirk that spared British lives was so that "there could be no irreconcirable breach between our two peoples." To him the British were a superior race and more fit partner for the Germans, preferable even to his Asian ally Japan.
Title: Hitler as military strategist...
Post by: Traditional Guy 20 on June 03, 2012, 10:31:49 PM
Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
I deny the h0Ɩ0cαųst yet I still have enough sense not to praise Hitler.


No one is praising Hitler. We are having a rational discussion of him as military strategist.
Title: Hitler as military strategist...
Post by: Malleus 01 on June 04, 2012, 02:26:09 PM
Quote from: Traditional Guy 20
Quote from: alaric
Hitler's biggest military blunder was not going for the throat against England when he had the chance after chasing them back across the channel early in the war.

He actually thought he could be merciful and reconcile with them lousy limey Masonic, anti-Catholic bastards. He should've buried them and the frogs when he had them on the ropes instead of turning and attacking the sleeping Russian bear.

Big mistake.


Well Hitler respected the British Empire and thought it should remain preserved. That is why the Battle of Britain was used to bring down Churchill, not cause the destruction of Britain. And that is why he attacked Russia instead, thinking that Britain would surrender if Germany defeated Russia, considering Britain placed its hopes in Russia and America to defeat Germany. In fact Hitler explained his own stop-order at Dunkirk that spared British lives was so that "there could be no irreconcirable breach between our two peoples." To him the British were a superior race and more fit partner for the Germans, preferable even to his Asian ally Japan.


Hitler had a few problems.  He knew America would enter the War sooner or later.  He also knew that he couldnt invade Great Britain without Air Superiority and that was the reason for the Battle of Britain in the Summer and Fall of 1940.  It failed. At that point - Hitler knew that he couldnt wait another year to invade Britain and that his hold on the occupied countries under his control was tenuous without raw materials.   Britain was resisting him in North Africa.   He was bogged down in Greece.  Russia had ample Raw materials , Oil , Human slave labor , and in Hitlers view was weak and divided.   He felt that Communism was doomed to fail and that a quick decisive blitzkreig style takeover would collapse the country fairly quickly and give him the needed raw materials for the eventual fight with America.  He also knew that having taken Russia and Linking up with Japan , an ally who was invading China at the time would give him a one front war. So he gambled on a quick knock out of Russia.  Had he not invaded Russia - his war effort may have quickly dissolved anyway. He would have had to take the Middle East Oil fields and even if successfull he would have had logistics problems moving the oil to refineries , especially during a war.   I believe he had few options.  
Title: Hitler as military strategist...
Post by: Sigismund on June 04, 2012, 07:21:22 PM
Well, when they actually DO praise Hitler, it is just recognizing reality.  
Title: Hitler as military strategist...
Post by: Sigismund on June 04, 2012, 07:22:24 PM
Quote from: Traditional Guy 20
Quote from: Sigismund
If you think Spiritus Sanctus is any kind of liberal, you either have not been reading his posts or are really out of communion with reality.   :smirk:


No I just know you are a philo-Semite Sigmund Freud. :smoke-pot:

Accusing someone of praising Hitler is the tell-tale sign of a liberal.


 I meant to quote this in my above post.  Sorry.
Title: Hitler as military strategist...
Post by: Traditional Guy 20 on June 05, 2012, 01:11:18 AM
Quote from: Sigismund
Well, when they actually DO praise Hitler, it is just recognizing reality.  


So you are accusing me of being a nαzι?
Title: Hitler as military strategist...
Post by: Deo Vindice on June 05, 2012, 05:24:50 PM
It startles me and amazes me as I get older, watching the beginning of the "post Christian era", how obvious the social and media conditioning kicks in when anyone tries to look at Germany's motivations for recovering from the Versailles Treaty while at the same time they were also front row spectators to what was going on in ʝʊdɛօ-Bolshevist Russia, a country whose (Christian) Krulak population was exterminated, etc., etc.

Germany had a dagger to its throat and they knew who was holding it.  They had already had more than enough, understanding full well that they were also quite literally in a fight for their very survival, and yes, their culture and their faith.

Typically, as soon as someone raises any issue about Germany's perspective in WWII then the ad hominen attacks and  insults begin by calling someone a nαzι or Hitler lover, ad nauseum, ad stupido.  Right on cue.

Let me ask you this.  Did the" made for media" western Allies really win WWII, or did we get our backside handed to us?  Thanks to the internet and the breakdown of the conditioning model we may finally begin to see a rational discussion of the causes and effects of WWII and the disasters thereafter; yet, as always, good corn fed Americans will be the last to catch on.  After all, we've all been trained to pounce on that issue like a cat on a mouse.  And God knows, no one wants to be "anti-Semetic" or a nαzι lover, or a Hitler lover.  Just love who you're told to love, and hate who your told to hate, whether it''s the Hun, the Jap, the Gook, the rag head camel jockey, etc.

I have members of my family by way of marriage who are Jєωιѕн, as that term is generally understood, so go ahead and take your whacks boys.  I may also add that my family gave in cruel measure during WWII, including one KIA, so let's put on our big boy pants and start thinking for ourselves.  It's your responsibility to yourself and the salvation of your soul. And I feel that its my responsibility to my dad and my uncles.  Being wilfully ignorant and bigoted is uncharitable and gets people killed.

Ever come across facts that indicate that you may have been played for a sucker??
Title: Hitler as military strategist...
Post by: Sigismund on June 05, 2012, 09:40:14 PM
Quote from: Traditional Guy 20
Quote from: Sigismund
Well, when they actually DO praise Hitler, it is just recognizing reality.  


So you are accusing me of being a nαzι?


No, certainly not.  I am suggesting you do nor seem to appreciate what an evil man Hitler was.  
Title: Hitler as military strategist...
Post by: Traditional Guy 20 on June 05, 2012, 10:33:10 PM
Quote from: Sigismund
Quote from: Traditional Guy 20
Quote from: Sigismund
Well, when they actually DO praise Hitler, it is just recognizing reality.  


So you are accusing me of being a nαzι?


No, certainly not.  I am suggesting you do nor seem to appreciate what an evil man Hitler was.  


Yeah Hitler was evil. There happy?
Title: Hitler as military strategist...
Post by: Marcelino on June 06, 2012, 12:09:47 AM
Quote from: Traditional Guy 20
Quote from: Sigismund
Quote from: Traditional Guy 20
Quote from: Sigismund
Well, when they actually DO praise Hitler, it is just recognizing reality.  


So you are accusing me of being a nαzι?


No, certainly not.  I am suggesting you do nor seem to appreciate what an evil man Hitler was.  


Yeah Hitler was evil. There happy?


I don't know if that is true.  If he didn't kill 6 million Jєωs in the h0Ɩ0cαųst, then why is he evil?  If he didn't send his troops out to desecrate altars, rape nuns and murder priests, then why is he evil?

As far as I can tell, Hitler is a symbol of the right and as long as the left is in power, they need a symbol to attack.  He's it.

(when i say "right vs. left" i'm talking on the issue of "rank," not size of government.  the traditional catholic church is to the extreme right on issues of "rank," by the way and what we call modernism is to the left, on issues of rank).  



Title: Hitler as military strategist...
Post by: Marcelino on June 06, 2012, 12:11:52 AM
Quote from: Deo Vindice
It startles me and amazes me as I get older, watching the beginning of the "post Christian era", how obvious the social and media conditioning kicks in when anyone tries to look at Germany's motivations for recovering from the Versailles Treaty while at the same time they were also front row spectators to what was going on in ʝʊdɛօ-Bolshevist Russia, a country whose (Christian) Krulak population was exterminated, etc., etc.

Germany had a dagger to its throat and they knew who was holding it.  They had already had more than enough, understanding full well that they were also quite literally in a fight for their very survival, and yes, their culture and their faith.

Typically, as soon as someone raises any issue about Germany's perspective in WWII then the ad hominen attacks and  insults begin by calling someone a nαzι or Hitler lover, ad nauseum, ad stupido.  Right on cue.

Let me ask you this.  Did the" made for media" western Allies really win WWII, or did we get our backside handed to us?  Thanks to the internet and the breakdown of the conditioning model we may finally begin to see a rational discussion of the causes and effects of WWII and the disasters thereafter; yet, as always, good corn fed Americans will be the last to catch on.  After all, we've all been trained to pounce on that issue like a cat on a mouse.  And God knows, no one wants to be "anti-Semetic" or a nαzι lover, or a Hitler lover.  Just love who you're told to love, and hate who your told to hate, whether it''s the Hun, the Jap, the Gook, the rag head camel jockey, etc.

I have members of my family by way of marriage who are Jєωιѕн, as that term is generally understood, so go ahead and take your whacks boys.  I may also add that my family gave in cruel measure during WWII, including one KIA, so let's put on our big boy pants and start thinking for ourselves.  It's your responsibility to yourself and the salvation of your soul. And I feel that its my responsibility to my dad and my uncles.  Being wilfully ignorant and bigoted is uncharitable and gets people killed.

Ever come across facts that indicate that you may have been played for a sucker??


Nicely put.  Welcome to the forum.  
Title: Hitler as military strategist...
Post by: Marcelino on June 06, 2012, 12:14:31 AM
Quote from: Traditional Guy 20
A lot of people talk about Hitler's supposed failures of military strategies during World War II, citing his declaration of war on the U.S. and his 1941 invasion of Russia. However let us talk about these two supposed 'blunders' of military strategy.

First of all, considering that FDR was already going to war against German U-boats in the Atlantic in 1940 Hitler was fully within the right to declare war on America. Secondly, FDR was given by British intelligence a supposed map of "nαzι plans" in this hemisphere, all lies cooked up by British intelligence to lure America into war. Hitler would later cite this map as an American provocation in his declaration of war. The point of mentioning this is that FDR and his cabinet was fully prepared to go to war against Germany by any means necessary so Hitler was actually just accepting the inevitable.

To the second point of the 1941 invasion of Russia Hitler did not invade Russia for Lebensraum or to crush ʝʊdɛօ-Bolshevism but to knock out the one country (besides America) Britain had the most hope in. Britian still clinged onto the hope that Russia would crush Germany from the east which is why Britain largely continued the war against Germany. Hitler's invasion of Russia was to crush the nation so that Britain would also surrender. Hitler offered Britain peace twice, both times she refused, and so Hitler hoped that by crushing Russia Britain would finally accept surrender.

Hitler's biggest blunder in my opinion of strategy was his constant rescuing of Mussolini in Italy, by use of German troops, wasting time and resources.


According to pat buchanan, in "the unneccessary war," the biggest blunder of the war, was britain giving poland a war guarantee.  

Title: Hitler as military strategist...
Post by: Telesphorus on June 06, 2012, 12:24:44 AM
Quote from: Marcelino
Quote from: Traditional Guy 20
A lot of people talk about Hitler's supposed failures of military strategies during World War II, citing his declaration of war on the U.S. and his 1941 invasion of Russia. However let us talk about these two supposed 'blunders' of military strategy.

First of all, considering that FDR was already going to war against German U-boats in the Atlantic in 1940 Hitler was fully within the right to declare war on America. Secondly, FDR was given by British intelligence a supposed map of "nαzι plans" in this hemisphere, all lies cooked up by British intelligence to lure America into war. Hitler would later cite this map as an American provocation in his declaration of war. The point of mentioning this is that FDR and his cabinet was fully prepared to go to war against Germany by any means necessary so Hitler was actually just accepting the inevitable.

To the second point of the 1941 invasion of Russia Hitler did not invade Russia for Lebensraum or to crush ʝʊdɛօ-Bolshevism but to knock out the one country (besides America) Britain had the most hope in. Britian still clinged onto the hope that Russia would crush Germany from the east which is why Britain largely continued the war against Germany. Hitler's invasion of Russia was to crush the nation so that Britain would also surrender. Hitler offered Britain peace twice, both times she refused, and so Hitler hoped that by crushing Russia Britain would finally accept surrender.

Hitler's biggest blunder in my opinion of strategy was his constant rescuing of Mussolini in Italy, by use of German troops, wasting time and resources.


According to pat buchanan, in "the unneccessary war," the biggest blunder of the war, was britain giving poland a war guarantee.  



http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p135_Weber.html
Title: Hitler as military strategist...
Post by: Traditional Guy 20 on June 06, 2012, 06:21:22 AM
Quote from: Marcelino


According to pat buchanan, in "the unneccessary war," the biggest blunder of the war, was britain giving poland a war guarantee.  



Oh don't even get me started on the British blunders during World War II. I could make about 10 threads on that, especiually Winston Churchill 'the Man of the Century.' :laugh2:
Title: Hitler as military strategist...
Post by: Traditional Guy 20 on June 06, 2012, 06:22:46 AM
Quote from: Telesphorus


http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p135_Weber.html


Hey thanks for bringing that up Tele. I will eventually make a thread about FDR trying to incite Germany to attack the United States but I already made a thread about FDR inciting Japan that lead directly to Pearl Harbor.
Title: Hitler as military strategist...
Post by: Sigismund on June 06, 2012, 06:54:33 PM
Quote from: Marcelino
Quote from: Traditional Guy 20
Quote from: Sigismund
Quote from: Traditional Guy 20
Quote from: Sigismund
Well, when they actually DO praise Hitler, it is just recognizing reality.  


So you are accusing me of being a nαzι?


No, certainly not.  I am suggesting you do nor seem to appreciate what an evil man Hitler was.  


Yeah Hitler was evil. There happy?


I don't know if that is true.  If he didn't kill 6 million Jєωs in the h0Ɩ0cαųst, then why is he evil?  If he didn't send his troops out to desecrate altars, rape nuns and murder priests, then why is he evil?

As far as I can tell, Hitler is a symbol of the right and as long as the left is in power, they need a symbol to attack.  He's it.

(when i say "right vs. left" i'm talking on the issue of "rank," not size of government.  the traditional catholic church is to the extreme right on issues of "rank," by the way and what we call modernism is to the left, on issues of rank).  





Well, He did kill six million Jєωs, or something close to it.   Along with a lot of other innocent people.  Do you think there were no cσncєnтrαтισn cαмρs?  Did St. Maximilian Kolbe die of a hunting accident?
Title: Hitler as military strategist...
Post by: Traditional Guy 20 on June 06, 2012, 06:56:13 PM
Quote from: Sigismund


Well, He did kill six million Jєωs, or something close to it.   Along with a lot of other innocent people.  Do you think there were no cσncєnтrαтισn cαмρs?  Did St. Maximilian Kolbe die of a hunting accident?


Can diesel engine fuel kill people?
Title: Hitler as military strategist...
Post by: Sigismund on June 06, 2012, 08:49:53 PM
Well, sure, I guess.  If you drink it or breath the fumes enough.  Why?

I am not being contentious here.  I am genuinely puzzled by this question.
Title: Hitler as military strategist...
Post by: Traditional Guy 20 on June 06, 2012, 10:10:05 PM
Quote from: Sigismund
Well, sure, I guess.  If you drink it or breath the fumes enough.  Why?

I am not being contentious here.  I am genuinely puzzled by this question.


Well a story in the h0Ɩ0cαųst is that Jєωs died by breathing in deisel engine fuel and yet in 1987 (I believe) a train got in an accident in Washington D.C. and people were breathing deisel engine fuel for hours and yet no one died.
Title: Hitler as military strategist...
Post by: Marcelino on June 06, 2012, 11:12:19 PM
Quote from: Sigismund
Quote from: Marcelino
Quote from: Traditional Guy 20
Quote from: Sigismund
Quote from: Traditional Guy 20
Quote from: Sigismund
Well, when they actually DO praise Hitler, it is just recognizing reality.  


So you are accusing me of being a nαzι?


No, certainly not.  I am suggesting you do nor seem to appreciate what an evil man Hitler was.  


Yeah Hitler was evil. There happy?


I don't know if that is true.  If he didn't kill 6 million Jєωs in the h0Ɩ0cαųst, then why is he evil?  If he didn't send his troops out to desecrate altars, rape nuns and murder priests, then why is he evil?

As far as I can tell, Hitler is a symbol of the right and as long as the left is in power, they need a symbol to attack.  He's it.

(when i say "right vs. left" i'm talking on the issue of "rank," not size of government.  the traditional catholic church is to the extreme right on issues of "rank," by the way and what we call modernism is to the left, on issues of rank).  





Well, He did kill six million Jєωs, or something close to it.   Along with a lot of other innocent people.  Do you think there were no cσncєnтrαтισn cαмρs?  Did St. Maximilian Kolbe die of a hunting accident?


Yeah, well, if you believe that, then I guess you would think he was evil.  Definitely.  I mean, that would be an awful thing to do.  

I've been convinced he didn't do it.  

One thing that really got me was the figures from the world almanac on world Jєωry and that, it claimed, there was actually an increase in the world population of Jєωs during the war years.  

Another thing that got me was that the population of european Jєωs was apparently significantly less than six million before the outbreak of wwii.  

Another thing was reports that places like London, Sydney and New York were being flooded with Jєωs.  

Apparently, a lot of Jєωs went to palestine, during that time period.  

The numbers don't seem to add up and I think that is important.  

Another thing that got me was that Jєωs appear to significantly benefit ethnically from the h0Ɩ0cαųst.  So, they could have an ulterior motive for making up the story.  

Another thing that bothered me about it was how much attention it gets.  That seems suspicious to me.  Considering, for example, 50 million babies are year are slaughtered world wide in abortion clinics, according to sources like planned parenthood.  Why should a regime that isn't particularly bothered by that, give a hoot about 6 million Jєωs, that were killed 70 years ago, in a war that is becoming "ancient history."  Remember, Jєωs are overwhelmingly pro abortion and it shows in their own birth rates.  I find it hard to believe, they really place that high a value on human life, even their own.  

Probably the most outrageous thing to me though is that they resort to locking people up who question the veracity of the h0Ɩ0cαųst story.  That seems like an act of desperation to me, not confidence.  










Title: Hitler as military strategist...
Post by: Marcelino on June 07, 2012, 12:23:21 AM
Another problem was the crematoriums that were supposed to have reduced the bodies to ashes.  They say it takes around 2 hours to cremate a body.  That's twelve million crematory hours.  Actual extermination wasn't supposed to have started until near the end of the war.  So, if you give them a year, they would have needed almost 1400 ovens burning 24 hours a day.  I think there are only like 6 in auschwitz.  More than half of the Jєωs are supposed to have died there.  
Title: Hitler as military strategist...
Post by: Marcelino on June 07, 2012, 12:29:15 AM
Now, what's really fascinating about the h0Ɩ0cαųst though, are the things that do appear to be real.  Take this quote from wikipedia for example,

"In nαzι cσncєnтrαтισn cαмρs, the remains of dead inmates were disposed of using incineration in special built furnaces supplied by a number of manufacturers, with the most common being Topf and Sons. This method was considered deeply offensive in Orthodox Judaism, because Halakha, the Jєωιѕн law, forbids cremation and additionally holds that it is painful to the soul of a cremated person. This is because the soul of a recently dead person is not fully aware that they died, and they experience seeing their body burnt (this is also one of the reasons autopsies are forbidden under normal circuмstances). In a normal burial, as the body decays, slowly the soul moves "farther" from it. Since then, cremation has carried an extremely negative connotation for many Jєωs."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cremation


So, I think some of the outrage Jєωιѕн cσncєnтrαтισn cαмρ survivors had was real.

Incidentally, what christian could possibly know that stuff about Jєωs?!   :laugh1:  (maybe the nαzιs could have been more sensitive, but what ordinary christian would have any idea!  Anyway, maybe this is part the ire we see in old h0Ɩ0cαųst movies about "german efficiency.")  

It seems that in some ways we are extremely ignorant about these people.  





Title: Hitler as military strategist...
Post by: Marcelino on June 07, 2012, 12:36:25 AM
Now, I definitely could see some sadistic nαzι camp guard teasing Jєωs about their souls burning in the crematorium!  
Title: Hitler as military strategist...
Post by: Marcelino on June 08, 2012, 09:51:01 PM
 :geezer:
Title: Hitler as military strategist...
Post by: Spork on June 09, 2012, 05:51:17 PM
Quote from: Marcelino

Another thing was reports that places like London, Sydney and New York were being flooded with Jєωs.  


Another thing is is that Jєωs were walking around Berlin living life up through 1945 :shocked:
Title: Hitler as military strategist...
Post by: roscoe on June 09, 2012, 09:46:29 PM
Quote from: alaric
Hitler's biggest military blunder was not going for the throat against England when he had the chance after chasing them back across the channel early in the war.

He actually thought he could be merciful and reconcile with them lousy limey Masonic, anti-Catholic bastards. He should've buried them and the frogs when he had them on the ropes instead of turning and attacking the sleeping Russian bear.

Big mistake.


It wasn't a mistake-- Dunkirk is evidence that Hitler is really a crypto- Communist. This is shown again at Stalingrad when he falls for Gehlen's phoney intell re: Russian troop strength. Peter Hoffman's book Hitlers Personal Security says that his strategy invariably played into the hands of the Allies.

The rhetoric Hitler used towards England is similar to that which he used towards the Church-- only to betray later. He signs the Concordat and proceeds immediately to violation of same--- among other things.  This is what drives Pius XII into an alliance of sorts with the Allies. I don't believe that his rhetoric towards England was any more sincere.

This is not a defense of the Allies as the Pope later worries that he may have erred. At this point, most should comprende that Hitler is just another Hegelian.  I don't believe that he Hari--Karied in the bunker either.
Title: Hitler as military strategist...
Post by: Marcelino on June 09, 2012, 11:34:31 PM
Quote from: Spork
Quote from: Marcelino

Another thing was reports that places like London, Sydney and New York were being flooded with Jєωs.  


Another thing is is that Jєωs were walking around planet vulcan living life up through 1945 :shocked:


Is that from the sporkapedia?  

live long and prosper  :jester:

Title: Hitler as military strategist...
Post by: Traditional Guy 20 on June 10, 2012, 03:12:30 AM
Quote from: roscoe


It wasn't a mistake-- Dunkirk is evidence that Hitler is really a crypto- Communist. This is shown again at Stalingrad when he falls for Gehlen's phoney intell re: Russian troop strength. Peter Hoffman's book Hitlers Personal Security says that his strategy invariably played into the hands of the Allies.

The rhetoric Hitler used towards England is similar to that which he used towards the Church-- only to betray later. He signs the Concordat and proceeds immediately to violation of same--- among other things.  This is what drives Pius XII into an alliance of sorts with the Allies. I don't believe that his rhetoric towards England was any more sincere.

This is not a defense of the Allies as the Pope later worries that he may have erred. At this point, most should comprende that Hitler is just another Hegelian.  I don't believe that he Hari--Karied in the bunker either.


What the...Hitler was not a crypto-Communist. National Socialism is not Communism! National Socialism is more of a 'fascist' movement if you were. Hitler always talks very badly about Marxism, Communism, Bolshevism, etc. even in Mein Kampf. In fact in his own ideology he was moving towards the East to crush ʝʊdɛօ-Bolshevism in Russia. Hitler's strategy in dealing with the British was that he admired the British Empire and the British rule of Asia and Africa. In fact one of his favorite films was a film that dealt with British troops subjugating 'Indian coolies.' He was 'easy' on Britian if you were because he wanted them as an ally and thought he could get them to surrender and negotiate. As for the Vatican you are correct that Pius XII did fight Hitler but also the Vatican did carry to England Hitler's peace offers during the war as well. In fact Hitler saw the British Empire and the Catholic Church as forces of stablility in the world. Britain's biggest blunder of the war was not only the Polish war guarentee but allying with a nation, the United States, that wanted to destroy the British Empire, while being against a nation that wanted to actually preserve it, Germany.
Title: Hitler as military strategist...
Post by: alaric on June 10, 2012, 11:46:41 AM
Quote from: Traditional Guy 20
Quote from: roscoe


It wasn't a mistake-- Dunkirk is evidence that Hitler is really a crypto- Communist. This is shown again at Stalingrad when he falls for Gehlen's phoney intell re: Russian troop strength. Peter Hoffman's book Hitlers Personal Security says that his strategy invariably played into the hands of the Allies.

The rhetoric Hitler used towards England is similar to that which he used towards the Church-- only to betray later. He signs the Concordat and proceeds immediately to violation of same--- among other things.  This is what drives Pius XII into an alliance of sorts with the Allies. I don't believe that his rhetoric towards England was any more sincere.

This is not a defense of the Allies as the Pope later worries that he may have erred. At this point, most should comprende that Hitler is just another Hegelian.  I don't believe that he Hari--Karied in the bunker either.


What the...Hitler was not a crypto-Communist. National Socialism is not Communism! National Socialism is more of a 'fascist' movement if you were. Hitler always talks very badly about Marxism, Communism, Bolshevism, etc. even in Mein Kampf. In fact in his own ideology he was moving towards the East to crush ʝʊdɛօ-Bolshevism in Russia. Hitler's strategy in dealing with the British was that he admired the British Empire and the British rule of Asia and Africa. In fact one of his favorite films was a film that dealt with British troops subjugating 'Indian coolies.' He was 'easy' on Britian if you were because he wanted them as an ally and thought he could get them to surrender and negotiate. As for the Vatican you are correct that Pius XII did fight Hitler but also the Vatican did carry to England Hitler's peace offers during the war as well. In fact Hitler saw the British Empire and the Catholic Church as forces of stablility in the world. Britain's biggest blunder of the war was not only the Polish war guarentee but allying with a nation, the United States, that wanted to destroy the British Empire, while being against a nation that wanted to actually preserve it, Germany.
Which is why I said not decimating Britain into submission early in the war was his worst mistake outside of invading the USSR when he was already in a bind on the Western and north African fronts.

Squashing the U.K. was the key to victory and stabilizing the European continent so then they could prepare for the eventual assault from the U.S. democracy from the West and their "allies" the commies  from mother Russia from the east.

Hitler was a fool to ever believe that the ʝʊdɛօ-friendly Protestant Masons in England were ever his friend or sympathizer. Actually he would've had a better ally in the snake Stalin to be honest. Germany ironically broke their pack with the Soviets and attacked Russia out of nowhere while Hitler tried to swoon the Brits who had no intention of negotiating with that "antisemite" in Berlin.

He should've crushed them "gentlemen" when he had the chance.
Title: Hitler as military strategist...
Post by: Traditional Guy 20 on June 10, 2012, 12:56:15 PM
Quote from: alaric
Which is why I said not decimating Britain into submission early in the war was his worst mistake outside of invading the USSR when he was already in a bind on the Western and north African fronts.

Squashing the U.K. was the key to victory and stabilizing the European continent so then they could prepare for the eventual assault from the U.S. democracy from the West and their "allies" the commies  from mother Russia from the east.

Hitler was a fool to ever believe that the ʝʊdɛօ-friendly Protestant Masons in England were ever his friend or sympathizer. Actually he would've had a better ally in the snake Stalin to be honest. Germany ironically broke their pack with the Soviets and attacked Russia out of nowhere while Hitler tried to swoon the Brits who had no intention of negotiating with that "antisemite" in Berlin.

He should've crushed them "gentlemen" when he had the chance.


Well if you read Hitler's private writings he thought the 400,000 dead of the British were enough to get them to stop the war. He obviously was very naive and thought he was indeed dealing with "gentlemen" here if you were of, in his own words, "traditional British diplomacy." As was shown by the bombing of German civilian centers, the firebombing of Dresden, the testing of anthrax cakes, Churchill's agreement with Stalin to use Germans as slave laborers, and the British turning the other way after the Soviets pretty much decimated Germany, Hitler was dealing with far more ruthless men than he believed. Interestingly enough though Hitler was proven right in how the war would turn out as he saw his own demise. He said the Soviets would go deep inside Eastern Europe, Germany would be decimated, Britain would collapse and lose her greatness, and America would be the true beneficiary of World War II, all of which was proven correct. In truth though the attack on Russia didn't exactly come out of nowhere though because Stalin knew sooner or later that Hitler would turn against him. He just didn't know the exact time. The British were fools to give out the war guarentee. It made a tiny territorial dispute of a town the size of Ocean City, Maryland, in summer, turn into a catastrophic world war, all because Hitler was an "αnтι-ѕємιтє" and out to "conquer the world," which he was not of course. He had no plans to conquer anything except trying to reclaim the lost lands of the old German Empire, and used force only after diplomacy failed. Hitler did know the Brits were Jєω-friendly if you were, but he still thought that eventually the Brits would turn against the Jєωιѕн pressure in London. It didn't happen though.
Title: Hitler as military strategist...
Post by: Traditional Guy 20 on June 10, 2012, 01:10:49 PM
But you're right Hitler was definitely naive with how he dealt with Britain. As for France though if I am not mistaken quite a few French actually liked the Vichy era in France.
Title: Hitler as military strategist...
Post by: Traditional Guy 20 on June 10, 2012, 07:07:20 PM
Actually though I'm not sure Germany would've won anyway. Germany was facing France, Britain, the United States, and Russia as four major powers and Hitler's allies Italy and Japan turned out not to be much help. Considering it was really Germany going alone against four major powers who wanted to decimate her (with the exception of Japan holding America up in the Pacific which again didn't seem to hurt America much) I don't believe Germany could've won.
Title: Hitler as military strategist...
Post by: SaintBasil on June 26, 2012, 09:32:18 PM
Quote from: Sigismund
Hitler's biggest blunder was rejecting the Catholic faith, embracing a Satanic pseudo-paganism, and murdering the innocent.  Next to that, military strategy pales into insignificance.  


Hitler at no time rejected the Catholic Faith, ties with The Vatican were very strong, Tithes to the Vatican went up 3 fold under Hitler.

Pseudo Paganism is basically...horsedung.  
As we invoke Saints to pray for us, German soldiers invoked the great German warriors of old to inspire them in battle.
Hardly paganistic.


Murdering the innocent?  
Hitler Banned Abortion.
Hitler freed the German people frm the Jєω Central Bankers.  
Hitler won 2 peace prizes, made peace overrturers to England, freed 300K brits art Dunkirk, believing this action would lea to peace with England.
The only questionable act on his part was experimentation in Eugencs, yet the USA led Germany in this regard and was actively involved in it 2 decades Prior to.


Please, enough with the Western propoganda about Hitler.
Hitler took on the 'red menace' so he is forever villified by Jєωry. That was his crime.

Some say that The world really needs another Franco, Mussolini or dare I say..Hitler.


Those most Critical are knee jerk reactionists, shills, liars and disinfo specialists...and/or most are simply clueless.  Hitler did NOT desire war in any way, shape or fashion.  War ws declared ON Germany BY Jєωy in 1933-See London Times Headline.

I also think few have ever read Mein Kampf or Germany history.
Title: Hitler as military strategist...
Post by: Traditional Guy 20 on June 26, 2012, 10:20:15 PM
Quote from: SaintBasil
I also think few have ever read Mein Kampf or Germany history.


I have. :smirk:

Yes that is really the point, Hitler never wanted war. People talk about Hitler approving of the Austrian nαzιs assasinating Dolfuss, but that is highly unlikely considering that Hitler was near hysterical that the event would lead him into a confrontation with Mussolini.

People talk about Hitler breaking his Munich agreement, which again was more of Hitler wanting to reclaim the old German Empire. He was willing to negotiate with Poland to get a return of Danzig. As for Hitler's "invasion" of Czechoslovakia the Poles got the disputed land of Teschen, the Slovaks had their full independence guarenteed by Germany, and the Czechs were given an offer by Hitler to submit to a protectorate. You have to remember that the Slovaks, Poles, Hungarians, Germans, etc. did not want to be a part of the Czech-dominated Czechoslovakia.

How does this show a Hitlerian drive to conquer the world?