DNA tests reveal Hitler's Jewish and African roots

[janklow]

They wanted to totally annihilate the USSR so that they could do what they wished in the East for the betterment of Germany. Remember that they wanted the Ukraine, a State firmly under the USSR.

remember that i argued that the Nazis wanted to seize the land in the East for Hitler's motivation of seizing Russian territory for purposes of using it for farmland, and YOU argued that they were taking the land they had lost back. so now you're admitting my theory is correct? or are you just claiming Germany lost the Ukraine in the Treaty of Versailles?

They did not want the USSR to make any more power plays in the future and they very well could have accomplished this had the West not got involved, which is what Hitler was banking on.

and that's why he went to war with them when he was ALREADY at war with the West... and then subsequently declared war on ANOTHER Western nation? i think your view of his scheming is a bit off here.

The U.S. was already engaged in the war because of the Lend-Lease Act. So in reality, Germany just reacted.

the US may have been selling goods to the UK, but they were not at war with Germany; neither side was fighting each other, and we don't say Sweden was at war with the US because they sold materials to Germany during the war. Germany didn't "react," they actively declared war on the United States.

So what. Governments spew propaganda all the time in order to galvanize the populace & this was no different. Hitler knew that this crap wasn’t true-

the "so what" relates to your post of "the Nazis saw all Germanic peoples as brothers (Germans, Austrians, Dutch, English and linguistically and culturally related peoples were all included"; so they DID see this... but they DIDN'T for German Jews... but maybe they DID because Hitler knew this crap wasn't true... where are we going with this?

On top of that, the Jews came out of this more powerful than before.

but you're not going on about Jewish conspiracies on the internet, not at all...

I don’t have to give you anything in regards to this because you have nothing to prove me wrong. I know how Britain runs and there is no proof of Parliament stopping her from doing anything.

no, what you mean is, there's no example of the monarch ever overruling Parliament, so you don't want to try and think of something. and i read your post, so you didn't need to repeat it; that's why i asked if you could give me an example.

Well all people have to do is research.

or make up bullshit stories on the internet. it seems like that's pretty popular as well.

 

[musicology1985]

@Janklow

where are you going with that?

Those links answered all of your questions.

then i have to assume you're not debating this topic legitimately.

Copout. You’re just too dense to get it or more realistically, you just don’t want to. France is tied into it due to it’s declaration of war on the Nazis as well as its key roles the UN & EU, which were some of the main goals for WWII anyway. France did, however, begin to see through the global government plot during the reign of de Gualle.

you have not argued for any meaningful breaks in the nature or direction of this monarchy.

The First Reich-Holy Roman Empire, Prussia, successor confederations & Austrian Empire
(962-1871)

The Second Reich-German Empire; This Empire was led by the House of Hohenzollern who are cousins to the Royalty of Britain.
(1871-1918)

The Third Reich-Weimer Republic & Nazi Germany
(1918-1945)

The Fourth Reich-Allied Occupied Germany & Operation Paperclip
(1945-1990)

The Fifth Reich-Federal Republic of Germany
(1990-Present)

you're not willing to note the pointlessness of your Reich distinctions because you CAN'T

This whole statement is false. I proved all of my points very clearly.

we're getting away from your Reich notion of course

No we are not:
“U.S. set up West Germany’s infrastructure, intelligence apparatus, kept strong troop levels and when the Cold War was over, Communist East Germany and East Berlin joined the West and not the other way around. So, again, the 4th Reich was the Cold War United States.”

At the top of all 5 Reichs are German Royalty within different systems and eras. AND THE U.S. IS NOT 300 YEARS OLD.

this is a nice little knee-jerk conspiracy blurb ("Military Industrial Complex reasons,"

No it’s not a blurb.

“The U.S kept troops in Germany as an Occupying force up until the Treaty on the Final Settlement With Respect to Germany, which was not signed until 1990. Furthermore, the U.S. still maintains 3 U.S. bases and one NATO base in Germany for Military Industrial Complex reasons, and is in possible violation of this Treaty.”

It has everything to do with West vs. East and global governance engineered from the chess board that is Germany, not 75% & 25%; because both parts of Germany ended up adopting the system that the U.S. laid down, which was the plan from the start. Furthermore, Hitler’s consequence was that he was used as a pawn to further the agenda of global governance and the creation of Israel. The west didn’t give a damn about the Soviets, which is why the alliance quickly deteriorated.

John J. McCloy (Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Navy) had plenty of opportunities to disrupt Aushwitz but did not do so. After the war, he commuted the sentences of most prominent Nazis as High Commisioner of Germany.

if the UK wanted a war, they could have easily refused to back down at Munich and gone to war against Germany alongside France with odds much more in their favor.

Bullshit because they did exactly what you stated anyway and they were not attacked. Again, “The U.K. was just looking for a war and went on to force their little brothers (France and the U.S.) into it as well in order to complete their “global governance” plan, which they achieved.” Churchill had been hinting at this for years.

see how the last statement does not actually address the issue of who declared war?

Garbage; the Lend-Lease Act was a war tactic and everyone knew it, including Roosevelt. The U.S. was already in the war by 1941.

he was not "pulling back" in 1943

Yes he was. Hitler began pulling back in 1943 when he still had a chance but instead made the decision to taper down.

no, his body (along with others) was found, removed and later destroyed by the Soviets.

Complete garbage again, and you have no evidence to support Hitler’s death and neither do the Soviets. Nobody knows for sure what happened to Hitler because there is no proof of his demise.

guess we need to come back

Okay than lets do it.
his body was never found and his Scientists, Mathematicians, Intelligence, Doctors & Military personnel was absorbed into the U.S., while the U.S. focused on cultivating these talents and rebuilding Germany with the help of the same industrialists who supplied the Nazis.

The U.S. was very sensitive to the German peoples needs, they even sent in a German American General (Eisenhower) to fight, rebuild and then run the U.S. during the process. It was like two brothers duking it out. No hate, just business.

be consistent.

I am consistent. I have proven everything that I claimed.

i don't agree. Hitler's theory was that the Soviets were NOT a great power,

Well, in a sense he was right in regards to the Power part. The Nazi’s could have dominated Eastern Europe had the U.K., U.S. & France not got involved.

YOU argued that they were taking the land they had lost back.

I didn't back away from that position, but in order to keep this land they felt that they had to annihilate the USSR so no further action could be sought by the Russians later. Also, they wanted domination over all of Eastern Europe, and the USSR was standing in the way of that because they had the same goal, hence the formation of the Eastern Bloc after the fall of Nazi Germany.

and that's why he went to war with them when he was ALREADY at war with the West

What are you talking about? The East was always his target, not the West. The West declared war on him so he found himself encircled from all sides.

 

[musicology1985]

@Janklow

they were not at war with Germany

Yes they were.

The American Expierence

The United States officially entered World War II in December 1941, after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. In reality, however, the United States had been fighting a war against the Axis powers for years. It was a war of words and a war of action, a war of secret meetings and public duplicity. And the prosecutor of this war was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the 32nd president of the United States.

Roosevelt condemned international aggression, but could do little else. The American public was decidedly isolationist and antiwar. Memories of the expense of World War I -- in lives and money -- were still fresh. In 1934, Congress passed the Johnson Act, which prohibited loans to nations behind on World War I debt repayment. The Neutrality Act of 1935 forbade the export of arms, ammunition or implements of war to belligerent nations; a 1937 amendment to the act forbade American citizens and ships from entering war zones or traveling on belligerents' ships.

In early 1939, Roosevelt asked Congress to repeal the Neutrality Act, so the U.S. could sell arms to the free European forces. Congress refused. In September, World War II began as Germany invaded Poland. Roosevelt spoke before Congress again, and on November 4, it approved the Pittman Bill, which allowed America to sell arms to nations who could pay for their weapons in cash.

On September 27, 1940, Germany, Italy, and Japan signed the Tripartite Pact, in which they promised to defend each other against U.S. attacks. The pact formally established the Axis alliance. Designed to enforce American neutrality, the pact had quite an opposite effect, increasing interventionist sentiment in America. FDR skillfully capitalized on this change.

In a December "fireside chat" on national radio, Roosevelt condemned Axis aggression, insisting that its objective was no less than world domination. He asked for military aid for Britain, which was rapidly running out of money to buy arms. Behind the scenes, FDR moved even closer to war. He secretly sent Harry Hopkins to London to plan an Anglo-American war against Germany.

In March of 1941, Roosevelt persuaded Congress to pass the Lend-Lease Act. The act allowed the U.S. to lend the Allies war materials in return for repayment after the war. FDR, understanding Britain's desperation, began Atlantic transshipment of materials days before signing the bill.
Using all of his political ingenuity, Roosevelt struggled against the constraints of neutrality. In April, he gave the Navy permission to attack German submarines west of 25 degrees longitude. That same month, the U.S. and Denmark agreed to place Greenland under American protection. In July, the U.S. occupied Iceland. On August 14th, the Selective Service Act, which allowed a peacetime draft, passed Congress by a single vote.

That same August day, theAtlantic Charter was made public. Signed during a secret five-day conference at sea between Roosevelt and Churchill, the charter called for national self-determination and stated that aggressor nations should be disarmed. If this was not a declaration of war, it was close. Roosevelt hoped it would provoke the Germans to war on America.

On September 4, 1941, the first clash came. The Greer, a U.S. destroyer, spotted a German submarine and called in a British plane to bomb it. The sub and the destroyer exchanged fire, with little result. But Roosevelt used the incident to further his intention to get America into the war. On October 17, German subs attacked the U.S. destroyer Kearney as it escorted a British convoy. Several crewmen were injured. On October 31, Nazi subs sank the U.S. destroyer Reuben James, killing 115 men.

A little over a month later, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor would overshadow America's first Atlantic battles. The U.S. would declare war. But in no small way would the Allies' eventual victory in the declared war be attributable to Franklin Delano Roosevelt's prosecution of the unofficial one. With years of public speaking, private maneuvering, political lobbying and presidential action, FDR had helped save Britain and perhaps the world from Nazi domination, all while his country remained at peace.

the "so what" relates to your post of "the Nazis saw all Germanic peoples as brothers (Germans, Austrians, Dutch, English and linguistically and culturally related peoples were all included"; so they DID see this... but they DIDN'T for German Jews

Quit playing mind games. I wrote it exactly how I meant it. German Jews and Slavs were some of the scapegoats used to galvanize the Reich and it worked. You said yourself that speculation in regards to Hitler’s ancestry has been a topic of debate, however, the average German took the Nazi Propaganda “literally” and acted on it under Hitler’s directions, and he saw no need to challenge that except for the one example that I provided. So again, Jews are not considered Germanic by Nazis but the others were.

but you're not going on about Jewish conspiracies on the internet, not at all...

No I am not. Zionists do not represent all Jews.

no, what you mean

No, this is what I mean; I don’t have to give you anything in regards to this because you have nothing to prove me wrong. I know how Britain runs and there is no proof of Parliament stopping her from doing anything.

or make up stories

The collaboration between the U.K., Germany and the U.S. is a fact that is well documented. You’re the one that’s full of bullshit, as usual.

 

[And Step]

@Janklow

No I am not. Zionists do not represent all Jews. [

This is an excellent point. People act like the two are synonymous.

Besides, They were very prominent in world affairs prior to Hitler's rise. Some even supported Hitler and used this as an impetus to galvanize support for the state of Israel. It's a shame, but Jews in Nazi controlled areas were used as fodder and expendables for Zionist aspirations. Some Zionist even provided support to Hitler's war Machine.

 

[janklow]

Those links answered all of your questions.

no, they absolutely did not. you presented them as an argument that Germany was never called the Federal Republic of Germany, but the second one says nothing of the sort (it actually says the opposite), and you're refusing to note what the first link is even supposed to say.

Copout. You’re just too dense to get it or more realistically, you just don’t want to.

it's incredibly ironic that you would post this after your previous reply. furthermore, part of why i state that is that you are refusing to even note something as undisputed as the difference in size between East and West Germany.

The First Reich-Holy Roman Empire, Prussia, successor confederations & Austrian Empire, etc, etc

giving me the list again is NOT an argument for meaningful breaks in the monarchy. remember that you're arguing for continual, unbroken control of these nations by some German monarchs. what's the purpose of the breaks?

This whole statement is false. I proved all of my points very clearly.

no, because i'm waiting to hear the reasoning for these supposed distinctions any time now.

No we are not

that was actually a comment on my post, but please, let's get emotional about it and then repeat the same post.

At the top of all 5 Reichs are German Royalty within different systems and eras. AND THE U.S. IS NOT 300 YEARS OLD.

yes, i am aware that the US is not literally 300 years old, but at the same time your claim of direction by German royalty precedes 1776. and with all this "at the top of all 5 Reichs" is the same "explain to me why the breaks matter" thing again. look, the First and Second Reichs, as generally identified by everyone but you, have clear endings for clear reasons (such as World War I ending the Second Reich). arguing that there's NO breaks between the Reichs makes the concept of different Reichs meaningless unless you can tell me WHY there's a supposed break.

No it’s not a blurb.

so do you know what the term blurb means?

It has everything to do with West vs. East and global governance engineered from the chess board that is Germany, not 75% & 25%; because both parts of Germany ended up adopting the system that the U.S. laid down, which was the plan from the start.

if that was the plan from the start, then what was the purpose of East Germany? plus, you're saying "there's no way East Germany wouldn't have joined West Germany" as a response to... me saying "there's no way East Germany wouldn't have joined West Germany." huh.

Furthermore, Hitler’s consequence was that he was used as a pawn to further the agenda of global governance and the creation of Israel. The west didn’t give a damn about the Soviets, which is why the alliance quickly deteriorated.

so the West was continuing Hitler's work... but Hitler was a pawn, so he wouldn't have been continuing his own work... so what was with the continuing Hitler's work thing?

John J. McCloy (Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Navy) had plenty of opportunities to disrupt Aushwitz but did not do so. After the war, he commuted the sentences of most prominent Nazis as High Commisioner of Germany.

i don't know about this "plenty of opportunities," but what's with the randomly specific reference of John McCloy out of nowhere?

if the UK wanted a war, they could have easily refused to back down at Munich and gone to war against Germany alongside France with odds much more in their favor.

Bullshit because they did exactly what you stated anyway and they were not attacked.

bullshit? okay, first off, they did not do "exactly what i stated" because they DID back down at Munich. it's not possible for them to have done what i said; they signed the Munich Agreement in 1938, and didn't go to war until 1939. your refusal to acknowledge this FACT is simply ridiculous.

second, they weren't attacked? well, France certainly was, and they would have been in a better position to fight in 1938. and the UK obviously suffered from repeated aerial attacks while Hitler plotted an invasion. yes, the UK was not invaded by German forces. but what's the point of me acknowledging this if you can't even admit that the UK did not do "exactly what i stated?"

The U.S. was already in the war by 1941.

this is just being childish. you could ACKNOWLEDGE who declared war on whom and argue that it was inevitable because of the Lend-Lease Act, but instead, you simply claim otherwise. the US did not declare war on Germany.

Yes he was. Hitler began pulling back in 1943 when he still had a chance but instead made the decision to taper down.[/quote]here we go again:

"no, he did not. he was not "pulling back" in 1943; he was still throwing vast quantities of troops into Stalingrad at the end of 1942 and losing them in 1943. this is not pulling back or tapering down, this is having your men captured and killed by Soviet forces. or being pushed back across North Africa and Eastern Europe. if you are losing troops to advancing armies, you are not pulling back, you are being defeated. to repeat myself again: "seriously, show me ANY evidence of Hitler scaling back his work that cannot be explained by the Allies beating the shit out of his military." all you're giving me is a vague statement of "he still had a chance but he pulled back." what chance? what evidence of pulling back?"

is there some reason you are continually claiming that he "tapered down" without bothering to address the bolded question i have repeatedly asked you?

Complete garbage again, and you have no evidence to support Hitler’s death and neither do the Soviets. Nobody knows for sure what happened to Hitler because there is no proof of his demise.

i have witness statements and the evidence the Soviets collected. this is easily more support than your claim of "we don't know what happened." furthermore, even if you disagree with the Soviet claim, you should acknowledge it exists.

The U.S. was very sensitive to the German peoples needs, they even sent in a German American General (Eisenhower) to fight, rebuild and then run the U.S. during the process. It was like two brothers duking it out. No hate, just business.

now explain to me why Eisenhower has to be some loves-all-Germans person because he has German heritage. "the Nazis also encouraged Germans to return to Germany and fight with them, but oddly enough, i don't recall Eisenhower taking part in that."

I am consistent. I have proven everything that I claimed.

this is, pardon my tone, a flat-out fucking lie. you are giving absolutely zero support for your 1943 "tapering down" assertion. for something to be proven, you have to actually DO so.

Well, in a sense he was right in regards to the Power part. The Nazi’s could have dominated Eastern Europe had the U.K., U.S. & France not got involved.

i don't think he would have DOMINATED it, but obviously he would have been much more successful if the rest of the Allies were not involved.

I didn't back away from that position, but in order to keep this land they felt that they had to annihilate the USSR so no further action could be sought by the Russians later.

you SHOULD back away from that position, because once you say "well, they had to keep going," it's not really about getting back the land you lost, is it? plus, we're also talking about land they worked WITH the Soviets to acquire. obviously he wanted to wipe out Slavs, but that goes beyond getting back lost land.

Also, they wanted domination over all of Eastern Europe, and the USSR was standing in the way of that because they had the same goal-

i've never disputed this, so...

and that's why he went to war with them when he was ALREADY at war with the West

What are you talking about? The East was always his target, not the West. The West declared war on him so he found himself encircled from all sides.

i am talking about the basic timeline of World War II. which, if you were confused about, would make some sense:

1939 - Hitler is at war with the UK and France
1941 - Hitler is at war with the USSR

he declared war on the USSR while ALREADY at war with Western nations. and, according to you, while already at war with the US as well.

 

[janklow]

Yes they were.

if it's not clear by now that i don't consider it war until someone DECLARES WAR, i don't know what to tell you.

Quit playing mind games. I wrote it exactly how I meant it.

then why take issue with the fact that German Jews were, you know, linguistically and cultural similar to Germans?

No I am not. Zionists do not represent all Jews.

ah, yes, they become Zionists once the Jewish conspiracy stuff gets noticed...

No, this is what I mean; I don’t have to give you anything in regards to this because you have nothing to prove me wrong. I know how Britain runs and there is no proof of Parliament stopping her from doing anything.

and there's no proof of Parliament being stopped by her either, so i don't see why there's supposed to be any confirmation of her awesome royal power. the monarch hasn't vetoed legislation or appointments by the Prime Minister in how long, again?

The collaboration between the U.K., Germany and the U.S. is a fact that is well documented.

in the manner that YOU describe? yeah, sure... anyone can put some nonsense on the internet. and i could care less about it.

You’re the one that’s full of bullshit, as usual.

awww... the hurt feelings. they don't, however, change the fact that you haven't supported your claims.

 

[musicology1985]

Well I'm a be honest Jank, I'm a lil tired of this subject. So, I'll be back with a rebuttal in a few days so don't lock the thread.

 

[Harlem Shake]

Hitler never considered himself part of the "master race" in the first place, yet he was trying to create a master race, nigga was just crazy imo.....

 

[janklow]

Well I'm a be honest Jank, I'm a lil tired of this subject.

actually i might agree with this point; these posts are getting ridiculously long

 

[And Step]

ah, yes, they become Zionists once the Jewish conspiracy stuff gets noticed...

Actually, they become Zionist once they engage in that philosophy. Not all Zionist are Jewish. There are many more Christian Zionists than Jewish ones, who believe in that ideology based on their view of scripture.
Theodore Herzl and his crew were Jewish. They advanced the idea of Zionism. Nothing wrong with the principle of Zionism in theory. It is just the implementation that is hot garbage.

No need to stifle legitimate criticism and deny historical facts with the hollow claim of Anti-Jewish conspiracies.

 

[KTULU IS BACK]

Hitler's mustache was a weave.

 

[janklow]

No need to stifle legitimate criticism and deny historical facts with the hollow claim of Anti-Jewish conspiracies.

right, i'm certainly not responding to the implication that WWI/WWII were schemed for the benefit of Jews, as evidenced by the "more powerful than before" type of remark. because, as you know, such implications are incredibly rare here on the internet.

 

[musicology1985]

right, i'm certainly not responding to the implication that WWI/WWII were schemed for the benefit of Jews, as evidenced by the "more powerful than before" type of remark. because, as you know, such implications are incredibly rare here on the internet.

Zionists had interests in WWII just like many other groups, but most Jews were not privy to the plot.

 

[memphis]

Zionists had interests in WWII just like many other groups, but most Jews were not privy to the plot.

If I knew that it was possible to save all the children of Germany by transporting them to England, and only half by transferring them to the Land of Israel, I would choose the latter, for before us lies not only the numbers of these children but the historical reckoning of the people of Israel." Ben Gurion

 

[musicology1985]

@Janklow

no, they absolutely did not. you presented them as an argument that Germany was never called the Federal Republic of Germany, but the second one says nothing of the sort (it actually says the opposite), and you're refusing to note what the first link is even supposed to say.

Both articles question the legitimacy of the Federal Republic and the second article disputes it, thereby challenging its legality.

part of why i state that is that you are refusing to even note something as undisputed as the difference in size between East and West Germany.

I already answered this:

“It has everything to do with West vs. East and global governance engineered from the chess board that is Germany, not 75% & 25%; because both parts of Germany ended up adopting the system that the U.S. laid down, which was the plan from the start.

giving me the list again is NOT an argument

It gives you everything that you need.

remember that you're arguing for continual, unbroken control of these nations by some German monarchs. what's the purpose of the breaks?

I already answered this. The systems of Governance change but the Monarchs continue their reign, albeit from behind the scenes. As long as political leaders don’t rock the the boat, they don’t get overthrown.

no, because i'm waiting to hear the reasoning for these supposed distinctions any time now.

………………………………….

yes, i am aware that the US is not literally 300 years old, but at the same time your claim of direction by German royalty precedes 1776.

Saying the U.S. alone was an inaccurate approach. You should have said British Colonies as well, which still would not reach 300 years until 2014 A.D., Not too far from now.

if that was the plan from the start, then what was the purpose of East Germany?

Both Global Powers (U.S. vs. U.S.S.R.) were flexing their muscle and both benefited from the competition.

Wikipedia:

The Cold War (Russian: Холо́дная война́, Kholodnaya voyna, 1947–1991) was the continuing state of political conflict, military tension, proxy wars, and economic competition existing after World War II (1939–1945), primarily between the Soviet Union and its satellite states, and the powers of the Western world, particularly the United States. Although the primary participants' military forces never officially clashed directly, they expressed the conflict through military coalitions, strategic conventional force deployments, extensive aid to states deemed vulnerable, proxy wars, espionage, propaganda, a nuclear arms race, intense competition at international sports events, and economic and technological competitions, such as the Space Race.

Despite being allies against the Axis powers and having the most powerful military forces among peer nations, the USSR and the US disagreed about the configuration of the post-war world while occupying most of Europe. The Soviet Union created the Eastern Bloc with the eastern European countries it occupied, annexing some as Soviet Socialist Republics and maintaining others as satellite states, some of which were later consolidated as the Warsaw Pact (1955–1991). The US and some western European countries established containment of communism as a defensive policy, establishing alliances such as NATO to that end.

Several such countries also coordinated the Marshall Plan, especially in West Germany, which the USSR opposed. Elsewhere, in Latin America and Southeast Asia, the USSR assisted and helped foster communist revolutions, opposed by several Western countries and their regional allies; some they attempted to roll back, with mixed results. Some countries aligned with NATO and the Warsaw Pact, and others formed the Non-Aligned Movement.

so the West was continuing Hitler's work...

Yes, true indeed. Operation Paperclip, the Marshall Plan, NATO & the European Union serves as blatant proof of this.

but Hitler was a pawn,

I repeat:

"The Nazis needed to be co-opted, toned down and revamped in order to allow a greater level of efficiency. The U.S. accomplished this goal and the west benefited greatly from it. The large German American population (57 million) and influence as well as those still on the mainland (81 million in Germany alone), coupled with the German ruling Monarchy of Britain, made the Transition a smooth and successful one which is exemplified in the modern 5th Reich of today."

i don't know about this "plenty of opportunities," but what's with the randomly specific reference of John McCloy out of nowhere?

It’s not random. It goes right to my point of U.S. control of Germany and certain actions being taken as a benefit to Zionists in the future, such as avoiding Auschwitz. John McCloy was also a disciple of the German American Rockefeller Dynasty.

if the UK wanted a war,

Yes they did want a war. If not they would not have declared one because the Nazis did not attack the UK.

this is just being childish. you could ACKNOWLEDGE who declared war on whom and argue that it was inevitable because of the Lend-Lease Act, but instead, you simply claim otherwise. the US did not declare war on Germany.

The Lend-Lease Act was an act of War.

i have witness statements and the evidence the Soviets collected. this is easily more support than your claim of "we don't know what happened." furthermore, even if you disagree with the Soviet claim, you should acknowledge it exists.

There is absolutely no proof that Hitler died in 1945.

"the Nazis also encouraged Germans to return to Germany and fight with them, but oddly enough, i don't recall Eisenhower taking part in that."

The German Americans returned to their homeland and did Nazism their way; i.e. the Allied Occupation, Operation Paperclip & Marshall Plan way. It’s called an upgrade.

this is, pardon my tone, a flat-out fucking lie. you are giving absolutely zero support for your 1943 "tapering down" assertion. for something to be proven, you have to actually DO so.

Definition: adjective
gradually decreased in breadth or thickness toward one end
transitive verb, intransitive verb
1. to decrease gradually in width or thickness
2. to lessen; diminish

It says nothing of the sort about the process being done forcefully or willingly, as long as it gets done. So again, Hitler begun tapering down from 42-45.

i don't think he would have DOMINATED it,

The Eastern Bloc would have been the Nazi Bloc, therefore, the Nazis would have expanded as they wished.

it's not really about getting back the land you lost, is it?

Yes it is, because the Russians will come back again. History has shown us that they are just as much an expansionist Nation as the the British, French, Spanish & U.S. Only difference is, their main focus of expansion has always been in Asia and the European Peninsula, which was absolutely the same as what the Nazis wanted. Therein lays the conflict.

plus, we're also talking about land they worked WITH the Soviets to acquire.

Just Geopolitical Chess moves; setting your frenimies up for the later slaughter. Diplomats do it all the time.

then why take issue with the fact that German Jews were, you know, linguistically and cultural similar to Germans?

Because Jews adapt everywhere that they live but they are not a Germanic people. Their roots lay in Khazaria (which is today mainly southern Russia, Ukraine & Kazakhstan,) and they are of Turko-Slavic-Mongol extraction and lineage.

the monarch hasn't vetoed legislation or appointments by the Prime Minister

Of course she hasn’t vetoed it because she appoints the Prime Minister. You don’t get into that position without the Monarch.

in the manner that YOU describe?

Yes, in the manner that I describe.

awww... the hurt feelings.

Here you go with this “hurt feelings” crap again.

 

[KTULU IS BACK]

your feelings are hurt

please get your sadness out constructively

i know some of you blacks can get a little rowdy, invade Poland, gas chamber Jews, etc.

 

[musicology1985]

your feelings are hurt

please get your sadness out constructively

i know some of you blacks can get a little rowdy, invade Poland, gas chamber Jews, etc.

LMAO......Whatever you say man lol.

 

[janklow]

Both articles question the legitimacy of the Federal Republic and the second article disputes it, thereby challenging its legality.

alright, but let's be clear: there's a difference between questioning the legality of the Federal Republic of Germany and demonstrating that this term was never officially used for it. frankly, i think it's pretty clear that it was, and that you're being disingenuous to pretend otherwise. this is a little harsh, i admit, but it comes back to my point that you are refusing to acknowledge things that seem indisputable.

It has everything to do with West vs. East and global governance engineered from the chess board that is Germany, not 75% & 25%; because both parts of Germany ended up adopting the system that the U.S. laid down, which was the plan from the start.

you didn't really answer with that, because my point is to mention the clear difference in size between the two of them, and thus the lack of logic in presuming the much larger West could EVER join the East. i understand you think there's a conspiracy at work, but at the same time, you're stating that the size difference is irrelevant, as if it didn't exist.

It gives you everything that you need.

false. the question has long been "if the monarch(s) have controlled all these nations with NO breaks in their control, and everything is a scheme to their benefit, what's the purpose of the breaks YOU claim occur?"

I already answered this. The systems of Governance change but the Monarchs continue their reign, albeit from behind the scenes. As long as political leaders don’t rock the the boat, they don’t get overthrown.

if it was about civilian changes, then you wouldn't have changed the times when these Reichs supposedly existed for your convenience. for example, you lump the Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany into one era; however, these CLEARLY have massive differences in civilian government, and only you claim they're BOTH part of the Third Reich. if the break in political leaders mattered, you'd separate the two.

so since you don't, i have to assume that the only purpose in defining eras has to do with the "real leadership" of these German monarchs... but you can't describe that for me at all. so again, i point out that your eras don't make sense as written.

no, because i'm waiting to hear the reasoning for these supposed distinctions any time now.

Saying the U.S. alone was an inaccurate approach.

no, it's a figure of speech. seriously, you're not really in a position to call such a statement outrageous.

Both Global Powers (U.S. vs. U.S.S.R.) were flexing their muscle and both benefited from the competition.

why do you say the US as a "global power" if the US is merely part of a secret German monarch conspiracy?

Yes, true indeed. Operation Paperclip, the Marshall Plan, NATO & the European Union serves as blatant proof of this.

this is flat-out dodging the issue. Hitler's work was to seize USSR territory and kill Jews. "Operation Paperclip, the Marshall Plan, NATO & the European Union" do not serve as "blatant proof" of the US or the West continuing this.

I repeat:

i think you're missing my point to say that Hitler is a pawn but that the West was continuing his work. wouldn't the West be continuing the work he was a pawn in? see what i'm saying?

It’s not random. It goes right to my point of U.S. control of Germany and certain actions being taken as a benefit to Zionists in the future, such as avoiding Auschwitz. John McCloy was also a disciple of the German American Rockefeller Dynasty.

it's random because we weren't discussing John McCloy.

Yes they did want a war. If not they would not have declared one because the Nazis did not attack the UK.

this is the way treaties work: if you're Poland and i have agreed in advance to assist in your defense...

The Lend-Lease Act was an act of War.

the Lend-Lease Act was not a declaration of war. you know exactly who declared war on whom; again, you could ACKNOWLEDGE this and argue that it was inevitable because of the Lend-Lease Act, but instead, you simply claim otherwise. what's the purpose of that?

There is absolutely no proof that Hitler died in 1945.

again, i get that you don't want to debate anything, just repeat and repeat your posts, but "witness statements and the evidence the Soviets collected" would qualify as "proof." you can disagree with the claim while acknowledging the support for the position you don't agree with!

The German Americans returned to their homeland and did Nazism their way; i.e. the Allied Occupation, Operation Paperclip & Marshall Plan way. It’s called an upgrade.

actually, it's called you presuming that if you have a German gene in your body, you cannot exert free will.

It says nothing of the sort about the process being done forcefully or willingly, as long as it gets done. So again, Hitler begun tapering down from 42-45.

wow, it would just kill you to acknowledge anything i have said, wouldn't it?

let's be clear: i have been asking you to "show me ANY evidence of Hitler scaling back his work that cannot be explained by the Allies beating the shit out of his military." if you were saying that he "pulled back" but that it wasn't voluntary, all you would have to say is "i agree with you when you say Hitler was FORCED to pull back." the fact that you don't implies it was voluntary on Hitler's behalf.

note that you further use phrases like "instead made the decision to begin pulling back," which implies he wasn't forced to.

so are you a) agreeing that it wasn't voluntary or b) disputing this despite seeming to agree because you refuse to acknowledge anything i have posted?

The Eastern Bloc would have been the Nazi Bloc, therefore, the Nazis would have expanded as they wished.

and i disagree.

Yes it is, because the Russians will come back again. History has shown us that they are just as much an expansionist Nation as the the British, French, Spanish & U.S. Only difference is, their main focus of expansion has always been in Asia and the European Peninsula, which was absolutely the same as what the Nazis wanted. Therein lays the conflict.

this does not change the fact that once you take back the land you lost, and then continue to take additional land, you lose the right to say you were fighting the conflict ONLY to regain land that you lost in, say, Versailles.

Just Geopolitical Chess moves; setting your frenimies up for the later slaughter. Diplomats do it all the time.

or you could also not assist the USSR in any way if they're your sworn and mortal enemies.

Because Jews adapt everywhere that they live but they are not a Germanic people. Their roots lay in Khazaria (which is today mainly southern Russia, Ukraine & Kazakhstan,) and they are of Turko-Slavic-Mongol extraction and lineage.

it's still a) a religion that you can convert to and b) composed of people who lived for generations in Germany. and when you do the latter, your language and culture become, you know, Germanic...

Of course she hasn’t vetoed it because she appoints the Prime Minister. You don’t get into that position without the Monarch.

"so i don't see why there's supposed to be any confirmation of her awesome royal power"

Here you go with this “hurt feelings” crap again.

i generally try to keep it civil; i don't think i made any remarks along the lines of "you’re the one that’s full of bullshit, as usual." and that, to me, is a clear indication of your hurt feelings. sorry, dude.

 

[musicology1985]

@janklow

alright, but let's be clear: there's a difference between questioning the legality of the Federal Republic of Germany and demonstrating that this term was never officially used for it.

No its not.

"if the monarch(s) have controlled all these nations with NO breaks in their control, and everything is a scheme to their benefit, what's the purpose of the breaks YOU claim occur?"

Systems of Governance. I already answered this.

you lump the Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany into one era;

Power passed directly from Paul von Hindenburg's hands to Hitlers along with the blessing and support of Oskar von Hindenburg

no, it's a figure of speech. seriously, you're not really in a position to call such a statement outrageous.

And you are not in a position to calla anyone outrageous. I simply stated that the U.S. being 300 years old was inaccurate.

why do you say the US as a "global power" if the US is merely part of a secret German monarch conspiracy?

The U.S. is a global power, but if caught out of line, will be checked by the British, just like the Nazis.

this is flat-out dodging the issue.

No it's not. Hitler's work is Nazi work. Nazi work continued under the U.S. until 1991.

wouldn't the West be continuing the work he was a pawn in? see what i'm saying?

They did continue that work, albeit with the some changes.

"his Scientists, Mathematicians, Intelligence, Doctors & Military personnel was absorbed into the U.S., while the U.S. focused on cultivating these talents and rebuilding Germany with the help of the same industrialists who supplied the Nazis."

it's random because we weren't discussing John McCloy.

McCloy was a part of the Allied Occupation, Marshall Plan & U.S. control of Germany, so he's a major figure in this discussion.

this is the way treaties work: if you're Poland and i have agreed in advance to assist in your defense...

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.

you can disagree with the claim while acknowledging the support for the position you don't agree with!

There is no proof or evidence that Hitler died in 1945, and nor have you posted such.

so are you

I am stating that Hitler began tapering down from 1942/43 to 1945.

and i disagree.

The Nazis had already established a Bloc in the East, pushed the Russians farther East and subjugated most smaller Slavic peoples within their sphere of influence.

this does not change the fact that once you take back the land you lost, and then continue to take additional land, you lose the right to say you were fighting the conflict ONLY to regain land that you lost in, say, Versailles.

This makes sense, but the Soviet threat was real. Even the Americans found this out once they established themselves in Germany. They would rather align themselves with Nazis than the Soviets.

it's still a) a religion that you can convert to and b) composed of people who lived for generations in Germany. and when you do the latter, your language and culture become, you know, Germanic...

The Nazis didn't care about b at all.

"so i don't see why there's supposed to be any confirmation of her awesome royal power"

The Queens awesome power is clear for everyone to see.

i generally try to keep it civil; i don't think i made any remarks along the lines of "you’re the one that’s full of bullshit, as usual." and that, to me, is a clear indication of your hurt feelings. sorry, dude.

You implied that I was speaking bullshit and I replied accordingly.

 

[janklow]

No its not.

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. so, again, there's a difference between questioning the legality of the Federal Republic of Germany and demonstrating that this term was never officially used for it. why does it bother you to acknowledge anything you have not personally claimed?

Systems of Governance. I already answered this.

well, actually, you didn't answer this, because...

Power passed directly from Paul von Hindenburg's hands to Hitlers along with the blessing and support of Oskar von Hindenburg

which is still a change in the system of governance,a distinction EVERYONE makes by distinguishing between the Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany. if they were the same, there would be no difference. so the fact that you lump them together means your "system of governance" claim is not actually being explained.

And you are not in a position to calla anyone outrageous. I simply stated that the U.S. being 300 years old was inaccurate.

given that you are making it a point to refuse to acknowledge arguments you seem to agree with, yes, i am in a position to call you ridiculous. what's more, i have said "yes, of course it's not literally 300 years old," while you have been literally afraid to acknowledge anything i have stated, no matter how undisputed.

The U.S. is a global power, but if caught out of line, will be checked by the British, just like the Nazis

the Nazis were, of course, not "checked by the British," given the fact that they were not stopped militarily until the USSR and US entered the war. and then, of course, you claim the US and the UK are run by the same people... which would mean that the US isn't a global power, just part of something else.

No it's not. Hitler's work is Nazi work. Nazi work continued under the U.S. until 1991.

no, it's a flat-out dodge. you said Hitler's work, not Nazi work, and Hitler's work was to seize USSR territory and kill Jews. this was not continuing in 1991. you could acknowledge THAT and make a distinction between "Hitler's work" and "work done by any Nazi" ... but of course you will not. why would you?

They did continue that work, albeit with the some changes.

completely not the point. if the West was carrying out Hitler's work, he wouldn't be their pawn, they'd be doing his bidding. if Hitler was a pawn of the West, the West wouldn't be carrying out Hitler's work, it would be their own work.

McCloy was a part of the Allied Occupation, Marshall Plan & U.S. control of Germany, so he's a major figure in this discussion.

he's not the only figure to come up in the occupation or the Marshall Plan, but he's essentially the only "major figure" you've deigned to toss into the mix.

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.

several points:

01. the Nazis were not taking back "previously held lands" when you move on to "interests in Polish and Slavic resources." i don't know why you're trying to cut them slack and make them seem like a righteously aggrieved party when they were slicing up Poland.

02. it's an act that requires the UK and France to come to the defense of Poland; whether or not treaties have ever been broken is, frankly, irrelevant. they were designed to bring Poland aid and they were honored.

03. no, the US was not "already in the war." and i know what you're going to say, something about the Lend-Lease Act. however, please remember that Poland was attacked on September 1, 1939 ... and the Lend-Lease Act was signed in March of 1941. and, of course, the US wasn't at war with Germany until December 1941.

so feel free to acknowledge that no, the US was NOT "already in the war."

There is no proof or evidence that Hitler died in 1945, and nor have you posted such.

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) have testified to his death... this is evidence. your lack of agreement with it does not make it NOT evidence.

I am stating that Hitler began tapering down from 1942/43 to 1945.

why don't you just admit that you can't man up and acknowledge anything i have posted?

i have said, over and over, "show me ANY evidence of Hitler scaling back his work that cannot be explained by the Allies beating the shit out of his military." you dodged this and dodged this and then tried to play it off as your "tapering down" meant "oh, in the face of the Allies he was forced to." if you thought he was forced to, you could easily have stated it was due to the Allies beating down his military. but you want to refuse to acknowledge what i am saying while pretending that your position has been correct all along.

also, some of Hitler's later moves where he insisted on offensives that a) ultimately didn't work (Battle of the Bulge; Wenck's last ditch effort) or b) ultimately could not have occurred (Steiner's offensive) should put paid to the notion that any aspect of this was voluntary on his behalf. but you clearly do not want to engage in a real discussion anymore.

The Nazis had already established a Bloc in the East, pushed the Russians farther East and subjugated most smaller Slavic peoples within their sphere of influence.

maybe you need to re-read and see what i am disagreeing with.

This makes sense, but the Soviet threat was real. Even the Americans found this out once they established themselves in Germany. They would rather align themselves with Nazis than the Soviets.

it still means that you lose the right to claim it's about revenging the wrongs of Versailles whenever you go BEYOND that to attack a threat or take farmland or whatever.

The Nazis didn't care about b at all.

so it's NOT about linguistic and cultural similarity, then?

The Queens awesome power is clear for everyone to see.

yes, it's often on display as she does... nothing at all. what an awesome display of power!

You implied that I was speaking bullshit and I replied accordingly.

or i implied you were referencing bullshit stories, because as i stated, i think you're repeating someone else's argument.