musicology1985
New member
@janklow
actually, yes, it's quite different. in fact, one of the links YOU posted acknowledges the use of the term; it just takes issue with the legitimacy of said term.
No it's not different. The Federal Republic name has never been official due to the nature of it's founding.
which is still a change in the system of governance
It was the same Reich (3rd) and everyone knows this. The Weimer Republic was the build up to the Nazi's and was given the blessing of those in the Republic. No Treaties, Hostile Takeovers or Wars took place because it's all the same period.
the Nazis were, of course, not "checked by the British,"
Yes they were. The UK brought the U.S. into the War just like they did for both Iraq Wars and the Afghan War. Britain has two major Western Arms; One who Defends (Canada) and One who Conquers (U.S.)
no, it's a flat-out dodge.
No it's not dodging. Hitler was doing much more than killing Jews and taking land and Operation Paperclip is proof of such.
if Hitler was a pawn of the West, the West wouldn't be carrying out Hitler's work, it would be their own work.
Germany and the U.S. are pawns of the U.K., just look at the top 4 troop levels in Afghanistan right now:
NATO (119,819)
* United States – 78,430
* United Kingdom – 9,500
* Germany – 4,590
They move as one unit with the Military capabilities primarily maintained by NATO & the U.S. Keep in mind that the U.K. has been in Central Asia for business reasons since the early 18th century.
he's not the only figure to come up in the occupation or the Marshall Plan,
There is nothing wrong with putting McCloy into the discussion because he's a part of it. If you want to hear about someone else, you bring them up; As McCloy was, again, a disciple of the German American Rockefeller Dynasty and a major U.S. Policy maker, Allied re-organizer and re-builder of Germany as well as the Nazis.
several points:
01. the Nazis were not taking back "previously held lands" when you move on to "interests in Polish and Slavic resources."
"The Nazis were taking back previously held lands and they had an interests in Polish and greater Slavic resources. This was not an act of aggression against the West, and both sides have broken Treaties in the past and present. And again, the U.S. was already in the war."
03. no, the US was not "already in the war."
Yes they were, the Dutch American Roosevelt was always pro Britain, he just could not do anything out in the open because the American public was strongly "pro-isolationist."
and the Lend-Lease Act was signed in March of 1941.
Doesn't matter, the U.S. was already engaged with the Destroyers for Bases Agreement OF September 1940.
actually, i have: i've stated that Soviet authorities recovered the remains of Hitler (and others), which was noted when KGB/FSB files were examined; witnesses (Gunsche, Misch)
This is not evidence, this is hearsay.
but you clearly do not want to engage in a real discussion anymore.
Hitler began Tapering down from 42/43-45.
it still means that you lose the right to claim it's about revenging the wrongs of Versailles
It was revenging the wrongs because without that Treaty being the way that it was WW2 would have never been fought, this is especially true for the common German. Now, I admit that Hitler took it too far but the Allies did not destroy Nazism, they just co-opted it with a tailoring to greater Western needs.
Case in point, they used Hitlers resources to eventually break up the Eastern Bloc and include many former members into the Union. In other words, they did in 50+ years what he did in 1 or 2. Hitler's problem was that he wanted everything "right now" and he had no patience, so they put those in place that did.
so it's NOT about linguistic and cultural similarity, then?
Groups considered to be Germanic: Germans, Austrians, German Swiss, Dutch, Flemish Belgian, Luxembourgian, Alsatian French, Liechtensteiner & English.
Linguistic and Culturally similar people with a common Nordic origin: Norwegian, Swedish, Norman French (including the people residing in the Crown dependencies of Jersey & Guernsey) as well as the Danish.
Linguistic and Culturally similar people: Welsh, Cornish, Manx, Irish & Scottish (all of the British Isles,) and to a lessor extent, the General French and Walloon Belgians, due to their Germanic Frankish founding.
Ashkenazi Jews have never been included in this group by the Nazis because they are of Turko-Slavic-Mongol origin. Other Jews are not exempt either. Furthermore, it was not only Jews and Slavs that suffered but many Romani, Jehovah's Witnesses, Homosexuals, & people with disabilities.
what an awesome display of power!
She appoints the top Political Leaders but the Monarchy and Peerage are the real rulers, as such, most top Politicians are in the Peerage or Heraldry and the current Prime Minister is a testament to this.
or i implied you were referencing
I'm referencing what I know based upon my research of History & Western Foreign Policy.
actually, yes, it's quite different. in fact, one of the links YOU posted acknowledges the use of the term; it just takes issue with the legitimacy of said term.
No it's not different. The Federal Republic name has never been official due to the nature of it's founding.
which is still a change in the system of governance
It was the same Reich (3rd) and everyone knows this. The Weimer Republic was the build up to the Nazi's and was given the blessing of those in the Republic. No Treaties, Hostile Takeovers or Wars took place because it's all the same period.
the Nazis were, of course, not "checked by the British,"
Yes they were. The UK brought the U.S. into the War just like they did for both Iraq Wars and the Afghan War. Britain has two major Western Arms; One who Defends (Canada) and One who Conquers (U.S.)
no, it's a flat-out dodge.
No it's not dodging. Hitler was doing much more than killing Jews and taking land and Operation Paperclip is proof of such.
if Hitler was a pawn of the West, the West wouldn't be carrying out Hitler's work, it would be their own work.
Germany and the U.S. are pawns of the U.K., just look at the top 4 troop levels in Afghanistan right now:
NATO (119,819)
* United States – 78,430
* United Kingdom – 9,500
* Germany – 4,590
They move as one unit with the Military capabilities primarily maintained by NATO & the U.S. Keep in mind that the U.K. has been in Central Asia for business reasons since the early 18th century.
he's not the only figure to come up in the occupation or the Marshall Plan,
There is nothing wrong with putting McCloy into the discussion because he's a part of it. If you want to hear about someone else, you bring them up; As McCloy was, again, a disciple of the German American Rockefeller Dynasty and a major U.S. Policy maker, Allied re-organizer and re-builder of Germany as well as the Nazis.
several points:
01. the Nazis were not taking back "previously held lands" when you move on to "interests in Polish and Slavic resources."
"The Nazis were taking back previously held lands and they had an interests in Polish and greater Slavic resources. This was not an act of aggression against the West, and both sides have broken Treaties in the past and present. And again, the U.S. was already in the war."
03. no, the US was not "already in the war."
Yes they were, the Dutch American Roosevelt was always pro Britain, he just could not do anything out in the open because the American public was strongly "pro-isolationist."
and the Lend-Lease Act was signed in March of 1941.
Doesn't matter, the U.S. was already engaged with the Destroyers for Bases Agreement OF September 1940.
actually, i have: i've stated that Soviet authorities recovered the remains of Hitler (and others), which was noted when KGB/FSB files were examined; witnesses (Gunsche, Misch)
This is not evidence, this is hearsay.
but you clearly do not want to engage in a real discussion anymore.
Hitler began Tapering down from 42/43-45.
it still means that you lose the right to claim it's about revenging the wrongs of Versailles
It was revenging the wrongs because without that Treaty being the way that it was WW2 would have never been fought, this is especially true for the common German. Now, I admit that Hitler took it too far but the Allies did not destroy Nazism, they just co-opted it with a tailoring to greater Western needs.
Case in point, they used Hitlers resources to eventually break up the Eastern Bloc and include many former members into the Union. In other words, they did in 50+ years what he did in 1 or 2. Hitler's problem was that he wanted everything "right now" and he had no patience, so they put those in place that did.
so it's NOT about linguistic and cultural similarity, then?
Groups considered to be Germanic: Germans, Austrians, German Swiss, Dutch, Flemish Belgian, Luxembourgian, Alsatian French, Liechtensteiner & English.
Linguistic and Culturally similar people with a common Nordic origin: Norwegian, Swedish, Norman French (including the people residing in the Crown dependencies of Jersey & Guernsey) as well as the Danish.
Linguistic and Culturally similar people: Welsh, Cornish, Manx, Irish & Scottish (all of the British Isles,) and to a lessor extent, the General French and Walloon Belgians, due to their Germanic Frankish founding.
Ashkenazi Jews have never been included in this group by the Nazis because they are of Turko-Slavic-Mongol origin. Other Jews are not exempt either. Furthermore, it was not only Jews and Slavs that suffered but many Romani, Jehovah's Witnesses, Homosexuals, & people with disabilities.
what an awesome display of power!
She appoints the top Political Leaders but the Monarchy and Peerage are the real rulers, as such, most top Politicians are in the Peerage or Heraldry and the current Prime Minister is a testament to this.
or i implied you were referencing
I'm referencing what I know based upon my research of History & Western Foreign Policy.
Last edited:
