Pathetic.

Yeah Jewry! I'll be your #1 Nazi.

Pathetic? I'll tell you what's pathetic: you two lapping up the zionazi propaganda, claiming that since they portray Hitler as the epitome of unmitigated evil, it stands to reason that he was good and great and brilliant therefore, and accusing us of endorsing the propaganda because we agree that he was  evil..

Good luck with that, Obama and Ron Paul, &c.

It's really very simple (for all of its complexity): they financed and controlled your boy Alfie all the way: there is no other rational explanation. None.

(And if you wonder how I can speak so positively, pompously and authoritatively on the subject, I've never seen a post by either one of you that doesn't possess those very qualities, for good or ill-- and I am convinced to the point of almost certainty that you're both wrong on this particular, monumental issue. But I'll have to leave it to an abler commentator to convince you (as that's even possible), for now. Vale.)

then count me a Zionist because apparently they have some great ideas, as evidenced by Nazism. The Holocaust is a perfect example. Let's have a Holocaust against the white race which is too gawd-damned stupid to understand how horrible and oppressive it is, just for starters.

Christopher Jon Bjerknes Interviews Jim Condit, Jr.

May 23, 2007

Full Interview (21.5 MB)

Hour 1 (6.86 MB)

Hour 2 (6.86 MB)

Hour 3 (7.79 MB)

Discussion is about Condit's documentary "The Final Solution to Adolf Hitler"
 

Yeah, I know Eown.. Bjerknes had a jewish grandfather and Condit Jr. is possibly a crypto surnamed Kondut, or whatever it is you're going to say. Get real..

I happen to like and trust Richard Koshimizu's genealogical reasearch and information as well.

http://www15.ocn.ne.jp/~oyakodon/newversion/yudayasensou.e.htm

to SS: Then I embrace ZIONISM

Yeah Jewry! I'll be your #1 Nazi.

How you can even say that is beyond me.

then count me a Zionist

You do have all the hallmarks of one, so I'm getting there, slowly.

Many say that Hitler was a jew spoofing an anti-semite, and, obviously, I'm inclined to agree wholeheartedly with that assessment..

In fact, I see a lot of jews (and others) spoofing a lot of things these days: from cryptos like RP (imo) to neo-nazis like.. whomever.

to my comments COZ, since I'm an AshkeNAZI. Go attack your white brothers at Stormfront or something. Be constructive. Go peruse Judicial-Inc.biz or Uncle Semite.

EOWN

some advice for you. Go take your political apathy which you seem to like to spread like psoriosis (sp?), crawl into a hole, and linger. You are too depressing and always have thoughts about how useless it all is since Zionists are just everywhere, and always have been.

Any/ every key or side control points that can be stolen, occupied or controlled by frippery or $$$ (like your mind).. But you're right about one thing: I do have a marked tendency these days to butcher up anything I write, so I'll even to leave you to your egregious shilling.

What was the result of WWII?

Hitler would have done much better to re-invent the German industry, so as to FEED the people, before he decided to kill everybody. Figure it out.

i agree with Nobodaddy and SS on this one. There are definately a bunch of race-baiters posting lately.

The 'nazi bankers' from USA funded hitler,
THEN they were the first to officially recognise israeL!!
DO YOU SMELL A RAT? because i do.

Just for the record, once again, I've never called you a Nazi, and I've never had anything to do with Stormfront.

Actually EOWN, I came back online planning to apologise for some of my language in the other thread, so I'm gonna stick with that. I should be able to make my point without getting narky about it, so there's no excuses. But at the end of the day, I'm only a prick human.

I'm a little man in some ways, EOWN.

Anyway, I hope you don't leave on account of the absence of a consensus on this Nazi thing, or whatever. Your Truman blog appears to be gone, and so do you. Doesn't have to mean the end.

We posted some Good advice for 'im, which he didn't like at all, started insulting (you) *again*, so i told him to poke a pen-sized hole in hitler's pic and have at 'er.

he/she/it started about circumcision, blah blah blah.

Only a wanker or shill would just delete all the blogs like that, quite a waste of time considering how many people posted on those threads.

Oh well. I just think it's a shame when there's inhouse shitfighting. I don't believe she was a shill or anything. Just different views, different approach.

She knows where we are if she feels like coming back, anyway. I'm glad I wasn't here for the circumcision though, I'm not sure a second one would work out too well for me.

Strange that she mentioned my penis - can you imagine if I had've made some reference to her genitalia? I was a womyn-hater anyway, just for disagreeing with her!

Someone left WUFYS?

I know it's hard sometimes, but please try not to get so emotionally invested in your perspectives - to the point where you repel other anti-zionists from the site.

Let others have their own opinions. And when you reach a topic of fierce division, for which the truth is not easily ascertainable - such as Hitler - just let it be.

Believe what you want to believe and afford others the opportunity to believe and express what they want to believe.

___________________________

"Money" has no value - people do.

..we didn't shoot down her opinions at all, simple mentioned smart tactics to use, and all we got was insult. Maybe you can revive those blogs to see for yourself. I was mentioning how we should be original, and laser-sharp with our points when it comes to things they like to firebrand us with, as this will destroy their lies, and protect us at the same time; to which COZ agreed.

So what does she do? Some insult about being circumsized to COZ, that i didn't appreciate much. nor did i need to know coz's response =/

LOL, some people are really pig-headed when it comes to constructive criticism, which begets whatever they give.

That's too bad that you yanked that post with the comments.  I put in a lot of time with those comments, young lady!!

So did AZ!

 I would hope that you did a copy paste and will put it back on.....I am trying to be hopeful.

That's really too bad.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

  I consider Ehud as a young girl in the crowd pointing her finger at the emperor and shouting he has no clothes on.

Ehud is one of  the few people brave and daring enough to point out that Hitler may not have been what he appears to be through TV, Film, books and documentary - all operated and run by zionist jews. 

She researched and saw through the illusions.

The very fact that jews scream hysterically the name of  Hitler today - especially after they destroyed and raped Lebanon almost two years ago  - well that is quite a lot of bad acting on their part - aside from the fact that they are just a bit too zealously defensive of something that happened  over 60 years ago.  What are they really hiding?

This leaves me to wonder who Hitler REALLY WAS.  After all,  Hitler was THEIR installment...... [he may have tried to extricate himself from their tentacles , but he couldn't].....among so many other convenient installments.

My question is what the "deniers" here on WUFYS will make of this.

Wolfgang G. Schwanitz, Ph.D. - 5/15/2008

Amin al-Husaini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, remains a controversial figure. The Palestinian leader, who was born in 1895 and died in 1974, first sparked controversy during his lifetime. As an officer in the Ottoman army during the First World War, he implemented the German idea of organizing jihad and terror behind enemy lines. (See my discussion here.) Later, he led the resistance against the British mandate authority in Palestine during uprisings in 1929 and in 1936. He fiercely opposed Jewish settlement.

But it is, above all, the Grand Mufti's close ties to National Socialist Germany that are the subject of ongoing debates. From 1941 to 1945, he lived for the most part in Berlin as a guest of the German government. The Nazis provided office space, vehicles and money, so that the Mufti and his entire entourage could stay active. In return, the Mufti used his influence in the Middle East on the Nazis' behalf and recruited Muslims for the Nazi war effort. On the airwaves of Nazi Germany's Arab language radio service, he called for a Holy War, a jihad, against the Allies and the Jews.

Some German authors, like René Wildangel, claim that it is still unclear whether and to what extent Amin Al-Husaini was informed about the Nazis' exterminationist policies toward the Jews. In a recent review of Klaus Gensicke's biography of the Grand Mufti, John Rosenthal expresses some doubts as well: noting that the fact that members of the Grand Mufti's entourage visited the Sachsenhausen concentration camp in 1942 is not sufficient evidence for concluding that he also knew what was transpiring in the death camps further to the East.

But in fact the full record of the available evidence, including both German and Arabic sources, leaves no room for doubt anymore. Indeed, the Grand Mufti's own words provide the most compelling proof. Memoirs of the Grand Mufti, edited by Abd al-Karim al-Umar, were published in Damascus in 1999. (See cover photo click here.) In the memoirs, al-Husaini openly discusses his close relationship to SS chief Heinrich Himmler.

According to his account, he often met Himmler for tea and during these meetings the Nazi leader confided some of the secrets of the German Reich to him. Thus, for example, in the middle of 1943, Himmler is supposed to have told him that German nuclear research had made great progress: In three years, Germany could have an atomic weapon that would guarantee its "ultimate victory." As Rainer Karlsch's recent book on "Hitler's Bomb" has shown, this assessment was not far off. Himmler presumably confided this information to the Grand Mufti on July 4, 1943. That is the date on a photo of the two men with a signed dedication from Himmler: "to his Eminence the Grand Mufti -- a Memento" (to see picture click here).

In the memoirs, the Grand Mufti also describes what Himmler said to him in that summer of 1943 about the persecution of the Jews. Following some tirades on "Jewish war guilt," Himmler told him that "up to now we have liquidated [abadna] around three million of them" (p. 126 -- to see Arabic excerpt click here).

There is evidence, moreover, that the Grand Mufti knew about the Nazis' plans still earlier. In 1946, Dieter Wisliceny, a close collaborator of Adolf Eichmann in the "Jewish Affairs" division of the Reich Central Security Office, provided a written statement on the Grand Mufti to the Nuremberg Tribunal.

According to Wisliceny, at the beginning of 1942 Eichmann made a detailed presentation to al-Husaini on the "solution of the European Jewish question." The presentation took place in Eichmann's "map room" in Berlin: "where he had collected statistical graphics on the Jewish population in the various European countries." The Grand Mufti, Wisliceny recalls, was "very impressed." Furthermore, al-Husaini is supposed to have put in a request to Himmler to have Eichmann send one of his assistants to Jerusalem after Germany had won the war. The representative of Eichmann was to serve as the Grand Mufti's personal advisor: i.e. when the Grand Mufti would then set about "solving the Jewish question in the Middle East."

We can infer from other documentation that this was not just a vague idea. A declassified document on Nazi war crimes from the National Archives in Washington indicates that as of mid-1942 a special SS commando unit had plans to liquidate the Jews of Cairo following the capture of the city by German forces. (See detail below.) Gen. Erwin Rommel was supposedly disgusted by the proposition. The head of the SS unit, Walter Rauff, had earlier been involved in developing vans that served as mobile gas chambers. It should be noted that he was a German and not a Pole, as suggested in the U.S. government document. (to see a picture of the U.S. government document click here)

In his memoirs, however, the Grand Mufti feigns astonishment at Himmler's remark. On his account, Himmler asked him how he would solve the problem of the Jews in his country. Amin al-Husaini says that he answered that they should go back to where they came from. To which Himmler is supposed then to have replied: "Come back to Germany -- we will never allow them to do that." But the Grand Mufti is here white-washing his own role in history. After all, in Berlin on November 2, 1943, he publicly declared that Muslims should follow the example of the Germans, who had found a "definitive solution to the Jewish problem."

This is just a mere SAMPLING (cut and pasted from a PDF, I apologize for lousy format, but please read!) of the quality of research now coming to the fore since Zion's tentacles have been retracting from the German archives. What many of WUFYS fail to see is that Hitler was not a warmonger, and that his hand was forced by three conniving powers. What happens when Mahmoud's hand is forced by the coalition of Zion? Are we going to go nuts on him too? Besides, why would the American and British Zionist regimes seek to depose a fellow Zionist regime? It made no sense then and is equally nonsensical now. The majority of german war bonds were in the hands of British banks, not Jewish banks. Why is this so difficult for people to see?

by Tobias Jersak

Germany's war against France has been considered the prime example of Blitzkrieg. Historiography has it that Hitler had developed the 'revolutionary' concept of Blitzkrieg, adopted the 'sickle cut' plan and prepared the German war economy in order to defeat France and end the war on two fronts, which he had been desperate to avoid.

The geopolitical aspect of Hitler's strategy is only one dimension of the National

Socialist 'geometry of power' (Jay Winter's phrase). The racial-ideological dimension

is the flip side of the war planning coin, and it seems worthwhile to connect our

understanding of Hitler's geopolitical priorities - as modified by Frieser's findings -

with recent research on the racial-ideological dimension of his strategy, most

importantly the self-imposed 'Jewish Question'.

If Hitler aimed at 'solving' the 'Jewish Question' under the cover of war as some

historians suggest,51 how can one explain the fact that there were no plans to do so

during the war against France, a war planned to last for years? Furthermore, what

effects did the unexpectedly fast victory over France have on Nazi long-term plans to

deal with the Jews? The prospect of possessing formerly French territory including its

colonies and the defeat of the ancient enemy could have also affected the 'Jewish

Question'.

Brechtken's and Jansen's books on the Madagascar Plan provide an excellent point

of departure for a new approach to these difficult questions. Indeed, it seems that a

picture emerges from recent writing that allows the formulation of a new theory on the

interaction of Nazi war and extermination planning.

Since the I995 publication of Michael Wildt's documentation on the SS's Security

Service (SicherheitsdienSsDt ) and the 'Jewish Question' ,52 it has been undisputed that

from I933 Nazi policy concerning the 'Jewish Question' aimed at the emigration of all

Jews, preferably to Palestine.53 If their life were made miserable enough, Nazi planners

calculated, the Jews would emigrate 'voluntarily' and leave their property behind.

Moreover, the Ha'avara transfer agreement granted 'privileges' for those Jews willing

to emigrate to Palestine, allowing them to transfer at least part of their property.54

Correspondingly, the Zionist movement was intentionally supported, whereas assimilatory associations in Germany were 'hindered as much as possible, in order to

cause them to align themselves with the Zionist camp 55

I should follow this last post up with the following: Isn't the REMOVAL of Jewry from Palestine the goal of the Palestinians (ultimately); that is, since Jews DO NOT negotiate or cooperate with others unless it's absolutely to their benefit? Well, how is this different from what the Germans did? I mean, if the Jewish people keeps emigrating en masse to Canada and elsewhere, couldn't we very well see the emergence of a new, relocated Zion? If that's the case are we going to call Palestinians Zionists and Jews 65 years down the road? Think about it a sec...

yet YOU wasted alot of our time,
and WE DID give you VERY SOUND ADVICE.

What's wrong with being creative?

What's wrong with questions regarding your 90% of Jews this or that? What's wrong with being wise like serpents?

What's wrong with suggesting that you call it 90% of Jews to be more accurate, or even better: call 'em COWARDS, RACISTS, MURDERERS, LIARS and the like?

What's wrong with making up good names for 'em, or advice on how to deal with them?

Nope, all you had to return were insults, then you DELETED your blog that was GOING SOMEWHERE.

Now you wanna regurgitate.

And not even an apology, you suck.
You remind me of some other arrogant astards, including hitLER.

~flambo for you.

bye bye coward.

brain cells. You obviously haven't yet achieved the total vegetative state desired by most meth addicts. Take your 90% Jewish rubbish and stick it in your ear. If you choose not to read CONTRARY evidence (I have already listened to Condit and read Sutton's Wall Street info and found it unconvincing) then that's your choice. You contiue to respond to me while I ignore you. Why? Your the one who can't seem to resolve your feelings about anything. Buzz off unless you have something to counteract Jersak or this onfo on the Mufti.

OH, it because YOU DELETED THEM ALL.

That's the third time you'd told people not to comment on your posts. Why don't you just spam your website?

I'm not gonna waste anymore time on someone as arrogant as you, and i honestly DO think that you're some kind of shill.

Anyways, have a fucked up day.

The last Jersak excerpt you provided supports the claim made in ShArks' blog above, which is that

The Nazi's were a Zionist manufactured PR tool..

See here:

Since the I995 publication of Michael Wildt's documentation on the SS's Security

Service (SicherheitsdienSsDt ) and the 'Jewish Question' ,52 it has been undisputed that

from I933 Nazi policy concerning the 'Jewish Question' aimed at the emigration of all

Jews, preferably to Palestine.53 If their life were made miserable enough, Nazi planners

calculated, the Jews would emigrate 'voluntarily' and leave their property behind.

Moreover, the Ha'avara transfer agreement granted 'privileges' for those Jews willing

to emigrate to Palestine, allowing them to transfer at least part of their property.54

Correspondingly, the Zionist movement was intentionally supported, whereas assimilatory associations in Germany were 'hindered as much as possible, in order to

cause them to align themselves with the Zionist camp

According to Jersak, Hitler supported Zionism. So what exactly was your point?

I read every copy-paste you provided above. I don't know what you were trying to say with the Amin al-Husaini post. I can't see a clear point there either.

One thing's for sure: you'll never convince me that Hitler wasn't a war-monger, or that he was the 'greatest leader of the 20th Century', as AZ opined. His strategy was not merely defensive, whether or not German implementation of the Blitzkrieg doctrine is pure propaganda. If the Germans had developed the A-bomb before the Allies, they almost certainly would've used it to devastating effect, just as America did after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Hitler went well beyond just 'defending the Fatherland'.

To me, great leadership has nothing to do with violence, which is not to say that there isn't a case for the necessity of war. Nelson Mandela was a great leader. Gandhi was a great leader. MLK was a great leader, and so was Malcom X and Fred Hampton. Hitler was a great leader too, but loses points for obvious reasons.

It's also interesting that you baselessly accuse Grim of being a meth-head, when your greatest hero received daily injections of meth from his physician, and probably fed them to his troops too, just as the Allies did.

"One thing's for sure: you'll never convince me that Hitler wasn't a war-monger, or that he was the 'greatest leader of the 20th Century', as AZ opined. His strategy was not merely defensive, whether or not German implementation of the Blitzkrieg doctrine is pure propaganda."

Indeed, the perfect script, and I doubt you'll find too many jews who will agree with that (publicly, that is).

We're all subject to the same onslaught of propaganda and bullshit, AZ. There's always more to learn and older and deeper layers of conditioning to dissolve, no matter who you are. And it goes much deeper than just facts and information; physical reality itself is an illusion as far as I'm concerned, so I consider myself to be wrong about just about everything, including who and what I am.

Your whole post is just an arrogant display of passive aggression, and it's not even that passive. You insist on insulting me by talking about my addiction to "Jewish fairy tales", but pretend all the while that you don't engage in conflict.

I could explain how the Allies, Bolsheviks, and international bankers wanted war in Europe. I could explain how the USA blockaded Japan, moved all its new B-17 bombers to Manila, and parked them close together in the hope that Japan would attack them. I could explain how the USA knew about Pearl Harbor, but let it happen so there would be a pretext for war. I could explain that Jews and international bankers understand nothing but force.

 

But it wouldn’t matter.

You could explain everything to me, because you know it all, but it wouldn't matter, because I love Jews and the Stockholm Syndrome relationship I have with own Jewish-created false reality. That's about the gist of what you're trying to say really, isn't it. So who is fixated on being "right"?

Such people insist they are “right” They know they have the "truth," because Jews agree with them.

Do you not insist that you're right? Constantly, on this forum? Who does the most preaching, and considers their information beyond reproach, you or me?

CoZ writes, “Hitler went well beyond just 'defending the Fatherland'.”

 

Really? I could say the Allies went well beyond “defending democracy,”  -- but again -- it wouldn’t matter.

That's a straight up non sequitur, because it does nothing to address my point, except to imply that I believe the Allies were saints and I'm a hopelessly lost cause, and that you're a bottomless well of knowledge of wisdom. It reeks of arrogance and hubris.

You didn't address my point that Hitler supported Zionism. You didn't address anything at all, you just provided an unreferenced diatribe about WW2 to paint Hitler as a victim. It does nothing to refute my charge that Hitler was a warmonger. Hitler is dressed to the nines in military garb in nearly every photograph I've ever seen of him, but he was a man of peace, you would have us believe.

Basically you're just a wanker, AZ.

So go ahead, AZ.  Make those into posts.

AZ  -  I could  explain  how the  Allies, Bolsheviks, and  international bankers wanted  war in Europe. I could  explain how  the USA  blockaded Japan, moved all  its new B-17 bombers to Manila, and parked  them close together in the hope that Japan would attack them. I could  explain how the USA knew about Pearl Harbor, but let it happen so there would be a pretext for war. I could explain that Jews  and international  bankers understand nothing but force.

Yes.  It would matter.  Don't be ridiculous, AZ.   I still remember your excellent Edith Cavell post, among so many other great posts.

only the perception of one; by ego.

I'm sure hitler's hand was given a gun, and pretty much forced to attack by the hypocrite world bankers, and all their so-called jews. I'm sure he did many things that were well thought out, and with people's well being in mind.

Well, he didn't think hard enough, because not only did he FAIL, he played party to bringing down alot of people with him. One might listen to a familiar George Carlin piece at this time, and supplant America for Germany.

Hitler would have done much better to re-invent the German economy so as to FEED his people, and limit his campaigns severely; then arm the Germans abroad, or help them to return for protection from those bastard bolsheviks.

isn't fascism, corporate fascism anyways? Whilst not a world version of it, and obviously not as greedy; calling it socialism was a bit off, no? despite the fact that the 'national' part was quite skewed after the war officially started.

all played right into the bankster's hands, on all sides of the table, this fifth column signalled to each other who had what cards; playing the goyim like cattle.

Don't bother picking it apart, as if i'm trying to make a point that i'm not. You wanna get the 'jews' so-called; GO FOR IT, just make sure you don't miss.

to anti-Zionism, that's the bottom line. Truth is the answer, and the lies and propaganda vis-a-vis Hitler and WW2 are so ubiquitous and infused into the public consciousness that it renders those issues weak attack points. Even the LOL-o'-co$t aspect of WW2 is a weak angle for anti-Zionists, for the same reasons.

Note: In order to avoid the omniscient AZ's whiny 'it's no use, the body-snatchers have him now' bullshit, please be aware of the caveat that all of the above may not actually be true.

Correspondingly, the Zionist movement was intentionally supported [BY WHO THOUGH?], whereas assimilatory associations in Germany were 'hindered as much as possible, in order to cause them to align themselves with the Zionist camp [AGAIN, BY WHOM?]. Instead of seeing it one way, look at it another way: Jewry working to force the hand of BOTH SIDES to get their way (the leaders that is!). The Germans were fed up with Jewish filth, crime, and depravity (Judicial had an immense archive of Weimar filth, etc.), so of course they supported Zionism: it was in their best interest and people almost always put their interests ahead of others.

As far as Blitzkrieg, you missed the point COZ. GUDERIAN was insubordinate and ushered in this 'new' maneuver-annihilation strategy which Hitler had never even conceived of. As Jersak said, he nearly had a breakdown. Moreover, he ALLOWED some 350,000 Brits and their Allies to escape Dunkirk untouched. This is a warmonger? I'm not so sure Hitler would have unleashed an atomic bomb. It doesn't match up with the newest findings on his war conduct and strategic beliefs. You must understand that the Germans were FAR LESS brutal than the mainstream makes them out to be. Many docs were fabricated by the Soviets. The Katyn Massacre was committed by Soviets and blamed on the Germans. There was a recent mass burial site discov'd in Ukraine containing as many as 300,000 bodies. Again...SOVIETS did it and blamed the Germans. The concentration camps were safer and had better sanitation than the front lines by far. That is why there were millions liberated in the first place. As far as Mengele, nothing as to his experiments has been verified beyond a doubt. Much of this was part of the Nuremberg circus.

See onethirdoftheholocaust.com for more.

As far as Hitler taking meth, not even close. A primitive form of 'upper' yes, but Hitler's doctor did not tell him that this he was giving him 'drugs.' He told him it was Vitamultin. Need I even mention that Hitler NEVER would have voluntarily taken Strychnine? His 'doctor' (who I think intentionally poisoned him) gave him nearly-lethal doses of Strychnine among other things.

Hitler did issue certain upper-type drugs for soldiers, but every side did this. It's still done today. Hitler received similar stuff while he served in the trenches in WWI. That's a societal problem, not a Hitler problem.

Please analyze this index. It shows numerous exposed fake photos of Hitler's alleged 'atrocities' in the east.

You also must read AJP Taylor's The Origins of the Second World War. I will scan and post a lot of it for you.

A few good essays (like a few good men)...

Part I: Blacks in Hitler’s Nazi Germany; Part II: Black Ghettos in America

Breaking Taboos: Jewish War Agitation--Hitler to Ahmadinejad 

Bringing Down the Reich: The Allied Spies in Hitler’s Midst  An ongoing study

Heart of the Hoax: Ilya Ehrenburg Courtesy of Rense

Jewish Emigration from Hitler’s Germany by I. Weckert 

Hitler’s White Russians The story of Hitler’s White Russian, Kalmuck, Ukrainian and Cossack volunteers.

And a speech to follow:

I mean AZ!

You do realize I am Sherlock to your Watson....[I will always be Sherlock.]

You are ON to something quite PROFOUND!

You were right all along.  It doesn't matter.

Thanks, that was an interesting read.

Pinning the blame on Hitler and Nazi Germany for WW2 has never been my agle. That the Jews strangled Germany and its people in the years prior to the invasion of Poland is something that most of us here learned very early in the piece. But take a look at this list of the countries Germany occupied during WW2. 

Country of occupation	See for further details
Albania	German occupation of Albania
Austria	Anschluss
Belgium	Belgium during World War II
Byelorussian SSR	Occupation of Belarus by Nazi Germany
Czechoslovakia	Occupation of Czechoslovakia by Nazi Germany
Denmark	Occupation of Denmark by Nazi Germany
Estonia	Occupation of Estonia by Nazi Germany
Finland	Military history of Finland during World War II
France	Occupation of France by Nazi Germany
Greece	Occupation of Greece by Nazi Germany
Guernsey	Occupation of the Channel Islands by Nazi Germany
Hungary	History of Hungary, 1944-45
Italy	Italian Social Republic
Jersey	Occupation of the Channel Islands by Nazi Germany
Latvia	Occupation of Latvia by Nazi Germany
Lithuania	Occupation of the Baltic states by Nazi Germany
Luxembourg	Occupation of Luxembourg by Nazi Germany
Monaco	History of Monaco
The Netherlands	German occupation of the Netherlands
Norway	Occupation of Norway by Nazi Germany
Poland	Occupation of Poland (1939–1945)
San Marino	San Marino in World War II
Ukrainian SSR	Reichskommissariat Ukraine
Yugoslavia	Invasion of Yugoslavia

Is this a "Jewish fairy tale"? I'm half-serious, because it very well could be. This is your interest area, not mine. There is another list here. If it's not, how do you reconcile this information with your claim that Hitler wasn't a 'warmonger'? Is this a semantical misunderstanding? Why didn't Hitler stick to defending the Fatherland and occupy only the countries that Germany shared a border with? Obviously some sort of geographical buffer against the Allied onslaught was necessary, and the control of certain areas might be necessary for strategic reasons, but why most of Europe?

My predicament in this debate, and your and AZ's advantage (which AZ uses to great effect), is that when I come out with what I believe to be true on this matter, I'm derided as a 'Jew-lover' with an addiction to "Jewish fairy tales". I sometimes think that this is more of a pissing contest to see who's the staunchest anti-Zionist in the room, rather than what is actually true. When that becomes the case, the trend is toward extremism. Never mind the facts, "fuck the Kikes", as AZ proudly declares, as he becomes instantly respectable for his 'courage' and bemoans the fact that there's no use in actually explaining his position.

If I'm wrong, I'll admit it. If you stick around, you may yet witness just that. Anything's possible.

That's a list of the European countries that Germany occupied during WW2, so it doesn't include North African countries occupied by Germany like Libya, Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco.

3/4 of those countries on that list were pro-German and thus either put up no resistance for their own reasons (mostly fear of communism and Stalin) or actually supported it. The SS itself recruited about a million men voluntarily. The French occupation was hardly even an occupation. I believe more than half that country remained untouched; hence, the flourishing underground there.

Basically, Communist was fomenting in nearly every country in Europe at the time in one form or another. Sometimes it was popylar, sometimes governmental (i.e., Tito). This is why Germany chose to occupy so many countries...to root-out communists and gather up Jews for relocation. People forget that there were hundreds-of-thousands of spies, many of whom were Jewish and nearly all of whom were communist, swarming in Germany and throughout Europe. Thus, if certain countries were not cooperative in the process of rooting out these people, the Germans occupied and did it for them. One cannot assume that the occupation was going to be permanent just because it happened. There is no documentation indicating that Germany was bent on permanent occupation. Though, as we all know, there was a desire to incoporate Russia, perhaps as far as the Urals, into a Greater Reich. Thus, this aspect cannot really be called anything other than what it was: the desire for territorial acquisition because Germany was so resource-starved and rather overpopulated.

As far as exterminating Eastern Europeans and all that though, there is no proof to support a program of such a thing. Gypsies and Jews were never exterminated since they are still here today. Had the Germans been bent on that, they wouldn't be here. Now, as far as Jewry going to Palestine, the Allies made the Madagascar Plan impossible to fulfill. Thus, the Germans chose to send them to Palestine. But, as that Mufti article indicated (which I think is another Jewish load of silliness as far as the extermination aspect is concerned--would Himmler really have told the Mufti he "liquidated" 3 million Jews?...please),the Germans would have assisted the Arabs with a relocation program after they won the war. As we know, that isn;t what happened.

As far as Hitler being the one to have conceived of all of this occupation and all, he was one cog in a German wheel. He hardly had the level of power and control over his subordinates that most think. Guderian and Halder's insubordination on multiple occasions is indication enough. Halder chose to just "sit out" Operation Typhoon of his own will. Guderian is the one who chose to split Hitler's forces and head for Moscow. He had his own plan and stuck to it.

Anyway, that's about it. Interestingly enough, Switzerland told Hitler to keep out and largely failed to cooperate on many levels with German plans. He never even fathomed invading. It is also interesting that most nations in Europe voluntarily joined the EU, which is headed and controlled by Germany. Do you know that foreign workers swarmed into Germany for work during the Third Reich? I really don't buy the Allies' story that most nations in Europe were overrun wholly by force. Though, in order to clear their name many pretended they had been after the fact. Oh and that story about Heydrich killing about 3,000 in retaliation for some uprising or whatever the heck that was, that is completely unfounded. So is the official story of the Warsay Ghetto which Faurisson has already addressed. Maybe 200 people participated in any sort of 'uprising.'

The German fear of communism cannot be overstated with relation to its occupational extent and conduct. They believed in a possible Domino Effect around them and wished to prevent that at all costs. It would have been far worse for everyone to have had a successful invasion by Stalin against Europe. He had 183 divisions ready to do just that, so, look at it that way. He was a very scary neighbor to have.

The North Africa thing was an Italian thing. That, too, cannot be seen as anything other than a territorial expansion. The Germans went there to help Italy.

Perhaps a read from a minority perspective is a good idea. This is what DuBois said about what was being attempted in Europe, which America and Britain would not tolerate. He's quite pro-German and rather scathing about America.

http://hitlerresearch.org/index50_files/Page387.html

The North Africa thing was an Italian thing. That, too, cannot be seen as anything other than a territorial expansion. The Germans went there to help Italy.

Yeah, I discovered that after double-checking after my last post. Also, apparently I was wrong about Algeria and Tunisia. The British and French maintained control in those countries.

I hear what you're saying. This is pretty much the gist of it:

Basically, Communist was fomenting in nearly every country in Europe at the time in one form or another. Sometimes it was popylar, sometimes governmental (i.e., Tito). This is why Germany chose to occupy so many countries...to root-out communists and gather up Jews for relocation.

and

The German fear of communism cannot be overstated with relation to its occupational extent and conduct. They believed in a possible Domino Effect around them and wished to prevent that at all costs.

But that's just the reason, like America's reason for going into Iraq was fear of WMDs (official story) and to secure a future for Israel (real story). The military plans were still drawn up and executed by Germany to assert itself over other nations for its own benefit. It is what it is, or was what it was - war for the sake of fulfilling an agenda.

For me, war and violence is legit if it's about resisting hostility or self defence; the Palestinian resistance (Hamas) and the Lebanese resistance (Hezbollah) are two fine examples. So, can we say that the German war effort was legitimate? Was it a war of resistance? The Jews started the war, but was the whole of WW2 about Germany's self defence? Was it all necessary? This is what it boils down to, if we're talking about whether or not Hitler was a 'warmonger'.

I haven't read the Dubois thing yet, but I will next time I get online, if I remember. Thanks for the info.

You certainly have a legitimate point: how is it any different than what America, or to stretch it a bit, what Britain, has done? COZ, this is where one has to ask oneself, is the threat REAL or PERCEIVED? I think Jewry is a REAL threat and Arabs and terrorists are a perceived threat. The reason OBL broke off from his fam in Saudi is because he reviles Jewry. He resents the US for 'occupying' Saudi to this day. He is quite bitter if he's still alive and this was the reason he formed Al Qaida. He just wants the West OUT. He also likely really does want to destroy Jewry. He is a REAL threat to them and merely a perceived threat to Americans, only because we have allied ourselves to the creatures of Zion.

The crimes Stalin committed are SO bad and so incredibly numerous I just cannot even put it into words. I would highly recommend Robert Stephan's Stalin's Secret War. It's simply unreal what that regime did. Hitler had a neurosis about the USSR, no doubt. His neuroticism about a possible Soviet assault proved, in a way, to be his undoing. It's more tragic than anything. But, Germany and Europe did win the war. The USSR fell on its evil ass and the US allied with Germany during the Cold War.

What I find to be detestable about American foreign policy is that it fights wars for profit. It also takes on enemies that have no chance against American superiority, like Saddam. Hitler didn't do that. He really believed he was fighting a 'just war' and I tend to agree knowing what I know about the USSR and Tito and all. My sister put it this way after she visited Western Europe vs. Eastern Europe: there is simply NO comparison! Eastern Europe is a drab, hideous, uncolorful, miserable place, by and far, to this day. She lived in Ukraine for two and a half years. That says a lot.

I certainly do not think that Hitler or his gov't was in any way perfect or ideal. But it was leaps and bounds on what we have here today. What I try and do is point out the good things that we ought to try and resurrect while rejecting the mistakes. I for one think that the Germans should have retreated after the arrival of the Americans. Had they retreated all the way back into Germany proper and simply allowed the USSR to overrun Eastern Europe, the Americans and Britons would have had to stop it, because they, too, were entirely opposed to Communism. Thus, as Mao would say, a strategic retreat is oftentimes the smartest move of all. (Mao was a far better strategist than Hitler, BTW).

You're too obvious and backwards to be anything but a fraud-- that's all I've got to say.

take your circumcised stick-c*nt and shove it up your butt, dimwit. "The lights are on but no one's home," Robodaddy. Go hit someone else up with your "I don't believe you're for real" bullshyt. Tell it to a gawd-damned Jew...make yerself useful for a change.

..and all you do is get mad, because your ego is bloated.

If all this information you present is genuine, then Good and keep up the work, but careful not to draw the wrong conclusions, or assume that you're always right.

..as for your insults: why don't you drink cream made from circumsized baby nazis like shitler.

Piss off. Take your 'advice' and tell it to someone who gives a shyt.

Go cheer on poor Mahmoud before his country gets nuked by a nutty ass Jewish f*cktard over there in Shitsrael.

take your circumcised stick-c*nt and shove it up your butt, dimwit.

EOWN, I don't know where this preoccupation of yours with penises and circumcision comes from. Circumcision isn't a Jewish thing. The ancient Egyptians used to do it, and tribal cultures the world over do it, including the Australian Aborigines, until we sucked them into this Western pseudo-culture of ours and destroyed their heritage. About a third of my generation here in Oz is circumcised, and I think the circumcision rate was even higher in the U.S. until recent years. I'm circumcised, and I'm grateful for it. So is my girlfriend. Thanks, mum.

(Apologies to Grim Reaper and everyone else that would rather not be thinking about my penis right now.)

Actually, on that matter, I find it fascinating that we hide from our own genitalia, and hide it from others. People loathe to be reminded that they have genitals, and that they piss and shit. I believe it's because we're so divorced from nature and obsessed with the idea that we have nothing at all in common with the animal world. We're not animals, we're something higher and cleaner. It's just the denial of that which is. Denial of the Self. Take a small dose of whatever entheogenic substance you feel comfortable with, get into the lotus position, straighten your back, close your eyes, relax, and meditate on the culture of shame around our dicks and cunts and anuses and you'll quickly see where I'm coming from. You'll probably find it hilarious, if you don't get too paranoid about being locked in a meat-body in the first place. If you're lucky, you might even come upon the precious understanding that you're not a human being at all, if you haven't already.

Substituting vowels with asterisks in words like c*nt is another symptom of that whole hang-up too, probably. Or rather, the off-shoot phenomenon of the word itself being profane because the actual genitals are. That's kinda funny too - throw an asterisk in there and suddenly you have a perfectly sanitised word! Never mind the fact that you haven't changed a thing.

Now for something completely different:

COZ, this is where one has to ask oneself, is the threat REAL or PERCEIVED? I think Jewry is a REAL threat and Arabs and terrorists are a perceived threat.

Good point. Yes, we're fighting faux enemies today, or rather, they are, and we're fighting them. So you're saying that Hitler's war was justified, basically. I think it was justified in the beginning, but went too far.

That's probably about as far as we can take that discussion. I'll make you a deal: I'll keep learning, you keep learning, and we'll see where we end up. Apologies to anyone that doesn't like it that this post is more about penises than Hitler.

Lots of energy wasted here, pity

As always, Grim started it. Yes, I am that immature sometimes.