Happier Abroad Forum Community

Some claim the Nazis were installed in power as part of a conspiracy to bring about a war to end the racial and cultural aspirations of the German people, in which case they would be the bad guys along with everyone else. If on the other hand they were on the level, I don't see how such a belief can be maintained, given post-war events. Surely, taken at face value, they were the last non-traitor regime in Europe, arguably the last Europeans. In just six years they raised Germany from crushing poverty to probably the richest country in the world and eliminated unemployment, largely by standing up to the global bankster system. They made corporations spend a lot to improve the condition of workers and society in general and spread a culture of extended family all-in-this-togetherness. If they had won the war then Europe would be without all the social pathologies currently infesting it - no feminism, nihilism, cultural Marxism, self-loathing, mass immigration of third world genetic trash, depopulation, debt slavery to Jewish banksters etc. Tragically the banksters won, with the men most likely to stand up to them on both sides being killed, and look at the mess we have now.

If the Nazis had won WW2, not much would have changed. Hitler would have transformed much of Europe into a federal state with Germany as the leading power, not dissimilarly to what the EU is now, in fact much more visibly so over the past few years of crisis. The cartel of German and American bankers and industrialists that financed Hitler, his party, his press and media campaigns, and eventually his war, would have come back to get even more of their dues. And once Hitler and a few of his buddies had died, they would have ensured the usual team of puppets would take over and make the world exactly as it is today.

It's always a nice thought game to think the winners as the losers, and vice-versa. Unfortunately it's easy to forget that, at least since Napoleon's wars, the same people and the same agendas have been behind both sides.

^ That is possibly all true. I was taking the hypothetical case that the Nazis were sincere, had broken away from the banksters who installed them in power and were able to maintain their integrity.

Cornfed wrote:^ That is possibly all true. I was taking the hypothetical case that the Nazis were sincere, had broken away from the banksters who installed them in power and were able to maintain their integrity.

f***ing hell, I feel weird that we agree, for once I'm sure you hold David Icke in good esteem. I do, too. I remember reading one of his books as far back as 12 years ago. He was one of the first public speakers to openly mention the "problem - reaction - solution" chain that powers to be have been using to justify large swathes of a sovereign population to side with one extreme faction and buy their propaganda with open hearts and open hands. What was left of old Prussia was a weakened Germany and an even weaker Austria. Both countries were economically crushed during the Great Depression, and huge inflation and unemployment ensued. A Rothschildt in disguise, Adolf Hitler, was chosen to bring about "change" and "hope"... WW2 was designed to enslave much of Europe just like the Bolshevik revolution and WW1 were meant to bring Zarist Russia to an end.

No one thinks of themselves as the bad guys. Not even Hitler and the Nazis did. They did what they thought was right and just.

Even thieves see their act as a sort of balancing the scales of injustice in that they are robbing the rich and giving to the poor (themselves) with a Robin Hood mentality.

Did the Nazis exterminate millions of innocent people? Isn't that why people think they are the bad guys? Didn't they start WWII? That's what the Western media claims at least.

Why is it that when Hitler kills a lot of people, it's considered an atrocity and evil crime, but when the US kills a lot of people, like in Vietnam or Iraq, it's considered just an honest mistake? Isn't that a humongous double standard?

There are two sides to every story, and you've all only heard one side about Hitler. Check out this new film: "Adolf Hitler: The Greatest Story Never Told". It helps bring balance to the real Hitler rather than the extremes that are portrayed about him.

Trailer:



Part 1:



Also check out these comments by Mark Weber about a new book about Hitler:



"THE BEST FILM ABOUT HITLER ON YOUTUBE" The "standard" biographies of Adolf Hitler are inadequate and fundamentally flawed, says American historian Russell Stolfi in his remarkable new book 'Hitler: Beyond Evil and Tyranny' The Zionist controlled mass media, and even supposedly scholarly works, portray the German leader as a monstrous, criminal demagogue who was driven by irrational hatred and lust for power. In fact, contends Stolfi, Hitler was a prophetic, messianic and visionary figure, who should be understood and appreciated along with such towering personalities as Julius Caesar, Napoleon, Mohammed and Jesus. Stolfi's important book not only provides much-needed historical perspective. It is itself an expression of an inevitable trend toward a more valid and truthful understanding of an extraordinary historical figure. READ THE BOOK: Hitler: Beyond Evil and Tyranny by Stolfi:

The Nazis may not have been as bad as the Western media portrays, but no one can deny that they invaded a lot of countries aggressively right? It's an objective fact, isn't it? If so, isn't that a hostile immoral act?

The invasion of Poland may have been justifiable, but what about the invasion of France and the other countries?

I wonder why Winston Churchill refused Hitler's peace offer. Why did he want to go to war with the Nazis so bad, even though the Nazis didn't want war with them?

Winston wrote:The Nazis may not have been as bad as the Western media portrays, but no one can deny that they invaded a lot of countries aggressively right? It's an objective fact, isn't it? If so, isn't that a hostile immoral act?

For more than a century, the US have been invading countries in Latin America, the Middle East and Asia, as well as masterminding countless violent regime changes, funding lobbies in favour of their geopolitical and economic interests. These are objective facts, too, documented by writers of the caliber of Gore Vidal.

Yet, especially after WW2, the US have been consistently portrayed by the media as the "all round Goog Guys", those who save the day and restore peace and democracy.

Thanks to the Internet and the (relative) freedom of independent media, this narrative is coming to an end.

+1 to all posters. Good thread.

Well I have to agree with publicduende, things will never change as long as the same establishment runs the show, there is more dictators today than ever.

Cornfed wrote:.....In just six years they raised Germany from crushing poverty to probably the richest country in the world and eliminated unemployment, largely by standing up to the global bankster system. They made corporations spend a lot to improve the condition of workers and society in general and spread a culture of extended family all-in-this-togetherness.

This is the part that interests me most.

I think they freed up credit by creating 90-day bills like cash, allowing industry to take orders and expand, paying for raw materials with 90-day credit -- bypassing banks.

At least I think that's a part of it.

In any case, the fact that ALL economists studiously ignore the greatest and fastest economic turnaround in history - is highly suspect.

publicduende wrote:If the Nazis had won WW2, not much would have changed. Hitler would have transformed much of Europe into a federal state with Germany as the leading power, not dissimilarly to what the EU is now, in fact much more visibly so over the past few years of crisis. The cartel of German and American bankers and industrialists that financed Hitler, his party, his press and media campaigns, and eventually his war, would have come back to get even more of their dues. And once Hitler and a few of his buddies had died, they would have ensured the usual team of puppets would take over and make the world exactly as it is today.

It's always a nice thought game to think the winners as the losers, and vice-versa. Unfortunately it's easy to forget that, at least since Napoleon's wars, the same people and the same agendas have been behind both sides.

The world would be a far better place

No communism, which means no Russian gulags, China, Cambodia, Vietnam, liberation wars in Africa, despots in Latin America.

No Israel, which means no major conflict in the middle east and no major conflict between Muslims and western nations who support Israel.

Hitler losing the war was a major setback for the world.

Yeah, interesting thread here.

Who knows what would have happened if the Germans had been allowed to take over the whole of Europe.

I guess Hitler wouldn't have invaded the UK, but there would be an uneasy relationship with Europe - ha ha ha, much like there is now.

Without WW2 the USA maybe wouldn't have been able to assume its role as international peacekeeper. Maybe there would be more wars now? Maybe a weaker USA would have been more worried about border strife from the Mexicans or Canadians? A more inward looking USA could have produced more "rogue states", i.e. like Cuba.

I'm sure that Germany/Russia would have been at each other's throats regardless of what happened in Western Europe.

Maybe Japan would have taken over the whole of Asia? I'm not sure the USA would have stopped them if Pearl Harbour hadn't happened.

Hitler had some pretty bad weapons that would have killed huge numbers of people if he wasn't stopped. Many projects were smashed by the RAF dropping tall boy's - the frontrunners of today's bunker busting bombs. The Germans would probably have had jet engines years before the USA though. No doubt they would have invented ICBM's that could reach Washington, and maybe there would now be a German flag on the moon. If they'd have glued German submarine know-how to Wernher von Braun's rocket tech then they would have had some truly fearsome weapons.

My grandfather was in Berlin in 1945/46 and he said that the Russians used to shoot at the Brits after the war had officially ended!

Did Hitler really start WWII? Or was he forced into it?

I don't understand why a guy who didn't drink alcohol, didn't eat meat, and was morally upright, would want to start a World War.