Jews to blame for Global Warming???

MIMX wrote:

Jiphy wrote: Tricky question...

Not really mate.

No. Is the answer, and categorically NO!

Krups, Blue Circle, and other big businesses (most of whom are still around) in Germany were so afraid of "Bolshevism" and Real Reds like Rosa Luxembourg: that they supported anyone who they thought could stop them, which meant Hitler/The Nazi party.

(It's a TOTAL myth that Hitler seized power, he was voted into office.)

The first people the Nazi's killed everywhere they went wasn't the Jews or the disabled or any of their other victims it was the Reds, the dirty commies and socialists.

Look what the bastards did to poor Rosa.

What about being a jewish communist gay ?

MIMX wrote:

Jiphy wrote:

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote:

Jiphy wrote:

Doctor? wrote: I wonder if there is anything Jews HAVEN'T been blamed for.

"Indeed !" Far easier to find what they haven't been blamed for.

Did the Jews cause WWII???

Tricky question...

Not really mate.

No. Is the answer, and categorically NO!

Krups, Blue Circle, and other big businesses (most of whom are still around) in Germany were so afraid of "Bolshevism" and Real Reds like Rosa Luxembourg: that they supported anyone who they thought could stop them, which meant Hitler/The Nazi party.

(It's a TOTAL myth that Hitler seized power, he was voted into office.)

The first people the Nazi's killed everywhere they went wasn't the Jews or the disabled or any of their other victims it was the Reds, the dirty commies and socialists.

Look what the bastards did to poor Rosa.

Sometime I wonder. Every single occupied country by the Nazis did offer their jewish citizens to them without difficulties... Why were there only a few to protect/hide them by the time ?

Jiphy wrote:

MIMX wrote:

Jiphy wrote: Tricky question...

Not really mate.

No. Is the answer, and categorically NO!

Krups, Blue Circle, and other big businesses (most of whom are still around) in Germany were so afraid of "Bolshevism" and Real Reds like Rosa Luxembourg: that they supported anyone who they thought could stop them, which meant Hitler/The Nazi party.

(It's a TOTAL myth that Hitler seized power, he was voted into office.)

The first people the Nazi's killed everywhere they went wasn't the Jews or the disabled or any of their other victims it was the Reds, the dirty commies and socialists.

Look what the bastards did to poor Rosa.

What about being a Jewish communist gay ?

I guess that there must have been a few, both Rosa and Karl were "Jewish" (atheist "Jews" obviously), so there must have been a few bendy-of Jewish descent-reds, and well; they were fucked weren't they!

MIMX wrote:

Jiphy wrote:

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote:

Jiphy wrote:

Doctor? wrote: I wonder if there is anything Jews HAVEN'T been blamed for.

"Indeed !" Far easier to find what they haven't been blamed for.

Did the Jews cause WWII???

Tricky question...

Not really mate.

No. Is the answer, and categorically NO!

Krups, Blue Circle, and other big businesses (most of whom are still around) in Germany were so afraid of "Bolshevism" and Real Reds like Rosa Luxembourg: that they supported anyone who they thought could stop them, which meant Hitler/The Nazi party.

(It's a TOTAL myth that Hitler seized power, he was voted into office.)

The first people the Nazi's killed everywhere they went wasn't the Jews or the disabled or any of their other victims it was the Reds, the dirty commies and socialists.

Look what the bastards did to poor Rosa.

I dunno. They made Hitler angry. Arguably wound up. Perhaps he would have channelled his anger elsewhere, rather than trying to create a master race.

Burt Reynolds wrote: I dunno. They made Hitler angry. Arguably wound up. Perhaps he would have channelled his anger elsewhere, rather than trying to create a master race.

With "what if(s)?", we can rewrite History. Last time I was thinking : "What if Hitler's teachers gave him his degree at the Vienna School of Arts ?"

Hitler was just a figurehead. If it hadn't been him it would have been some other hate filled half wit. The country was ripe for political change. It's economy was in tatters and is was torn by civil unrest and political fights.

Part of the reason they (German Capitalists) were so scared of the reds was due to a failed revolution in Germany itself.

They'd been treated abysmally at the end of WW1, but had always had a strong streak of militarism (The Prussians) the anti-Semitic part of Nazism, may have been milder with no Hitler, but it was endemic throughout Europe, and strong within Germany itself, Hitler alone as a man would have achieved nothing, without the backing of Germany's ruling class. But if he'd never existed things wouldn't have taken a vastly different road.

MIMX wrote: Hitler was just a figurehead. If it hadn't been him it would have been some other hate filled half wit. The country was ripe for political change. It's economy was in tatters and is was torn by civil unrest and political fights.

Part of the reason they (German Capitalists) were so scared of the reds was due to a failed revolution in Germany itself.

They'd been treated abysmally at the end of WW1, but had always had a strong streak of militarism (The Prussians) the anti-Semitic part of Nazism, may have been milder with no Hitler, but it was endemic throughout Europe, and strong within Germany itself, Hitler alone as a man would have achieved nothing, without the backing of Germany's ruling class. But if he'd never existed things wouldn't have taken a vastly different road.

What you said is right. At school I had a German teacher of German and she once told us that the Nazis had been surprised by the population response to the election of Hitler concerning the Jews. The population began before the laws were voted or the order given. She was from Berlin and pround of it. This town made Hitler crazy as it was the capital city of the III Reich as well as the less nazi one.

Then we agree on another point. Europe was more or less (far more than less) anti-semitic by the time.

And how strange that the fate of the militarian Prussians were in the hands of an Austrian citizen ?

MIMX wrote: But if he'd never existed things wouldn't have taken a vastly different road.

Really have to disagree here. On the many negatives re: what he did in terms of aggression to surrounding nations, and the positives i.e. the most amazing economic turnaround in world history. These two are linked though.

Can't see anyone else heading down that path with such voracity and success. Country was on floor in 1929, wheelbarrows of marks needed to buy a loaf of bread etc. You have to put his economic policy down to a little bit of genius.

Bit more than dodgy on the anti-Semitism stuff, obviously, but hungry people will follow anything for a while if things are improving, and when they stop following, coercion helps together with building up almost a religious style cult following.

El Jarvo wrote:

Jiphy wrote: Sometime I wonder. Every single occupied country by the Nazis did offer their jewish citizens to them without difficulties... Why were there only a few to protect/hide them by the time ?*

Whoah there! Where did you learn history?! You happily offered up Jews who weren't born in France! But made sure your own were, relatively, okay.

That is precisely what I was trying to say in my weak English. The authorities did not only send the foreign Jews to Germany but many of the French born ones too. "The place to be", if I may say so, was Northern Africa. They were out of everything, tolerated in ghettos but never sent to Poland, via Germany.

El Jarvo wrote: Then again, the Germans never actually had more than 1500 troops in France at one time during their occupation.

But let's not get started, hey?

But they were more than that in 1940 before you left in Dunkirk after having tried to save us... We agree on that point ?

edit : "Why were there only a few to protect/hide them by the time ?" I was not meaning states (they all collaborated), I was meaning people, who said no and acted so. Maybe here is the misunderstanding.

Burt Reynolds wrote:

MIMX wrote: But if he'd never existed things wouldn't have taken a vastly different road.

Really have to disagree here. On the many negatives re: what he did in terms of aggression to surrounding nations, and the positives i.e. the most amazing economic turnaround in world history. These two are linked though.

Can't see anyone else heading down that path with such voracity and success. Country was on floor in 1929, wheelbarrows of marks needed to buy a loaf of bread etc. You have to put his economic policy down to a little bit of genius.

Bit more than dodgy on the anti-Semitism stuff, obviously, but hungry people will follow anything for a while if things are improving, and when they stop following, coercion helps together with building up almost a religious style cult following.

I must admit you've kinda lost me here Burt; what he did to surrounding nations was only what Germany had been trying to do since long before Hitler (the Austrian) was conceived, never mind born. It was one of the main reasons for WW1, (capitalist expansion of markets, thirst for colonies etc etc) and the genius that you talk of is the genius of any country whose economy is geared for war, or like Spain and Italy at the time, ran by a Fascist dictator.

PS Of course the Spanish & Italian dictators didn't have quite the same economic success but their countries were far less economically developed at the time.

Burt Reynolds wrote:

MIMX wrote:

Jiphy wrote:

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote:

Jiphy wrote:

Doctor? wrote: I wonder if there is anything Jews HAVEN'T been blamed for.

"Indeed !" Far easier to find what they haven't been blamed for.

Did the Jews cause WWII???

Tricky question...

Not really mate.

No. Is the answer, and categorically NO!

Krups, Blue Circle, and other big businesses (most of whom are still around) in Germany were so afraid of "Bolshevism" and Real Reds like Rosa Luxembourg: that they supported anyone who they thought could stop them, which meant Hitler/The Nazi party.

(It's a TOTAL myth that Hitler seized power, he was voted into office.)

The first people the Nazi's killed everywhere they went wasn't the Jews or the disabled or any of their other victims it was the Reds, the dirty commies and socialists.

Look what the bastards did to poor Rosa.

I dunno. They made Hitler angry. Arguably wound up. Perhaps he would have channelled his anger elsewhere, rather than trying to create a master race.

he did create a master race. whispers really low...north korea

Animadversion wrote:

he did create a master race. whispers really low...north korea

STOP SHOUTING

...this is how you whisper...

MIMX wrote:

Burt Reynolds wrote:

MIMX wrote: But if he'd never existed things wouldn't have taken a vastly different road.

Really have to disagree here. On the many negatives re: what he did in terms of aggression to surrounding nations, and the positives i.e. the most amazing economic turnaround in world history. These two are linked though.

Can't see anyone else heading down that path with such voracity and success. Country was on floor in 1929, wheelbarrows of marks needed to buy a loaf of bread etc. You have to put his economic policy down to a little bit of genius.

Bit more than dodgy on the anti-Semitism stuff, obviously, but hungry people will follow anything for a while if things are improving, and when they stop following, coercion helps together with building up almost a religious style cult following.

I must admit you've kinda lost me here Burt; what he did to surrounding nations was only what Germany had been trying to do since long before Hitler (the Austrian) was conceived, never mind born. It was one of the main reasons for WW1, (capitalist expansion of markets, thirst for colonies etc etc) and the genius that you talk of is the genius of any country whose economy is geared for war, or like Spain and Italy at the time, ran by a Fascist dictator.

PS Of course the Spanish & Italian dictators didn't have quite the same economic success but their countries were far less economically developed at the time.

It's simple really. Germany was virtually a third world country when Hitler took over, yet five years later was classed as a superpower, through a stunning economic policy and a series of impressive and aggressive bluffs and stand-offs. Without this ridiculous economic growth and turnaround, none of the subsequent horrors would have happened or have been financeable.

I went to a series of lectures by the renowned economic historian, AJP Taylor in the eighties (thanks to Mr Nash for jogging my memory), about Adolfs economic policy, and the impression was that it he oversaw a set of masterstrokes re: quick economic growth. If the nutter had stopped in 1938, well who knows.

I don't think this positive side of his policy would have been achieved by anyone else. Unfortunately, the good was followed, by the rest.

Burt mate I'm finding it really fucking hard to stomach your obvious and overt admiration for Hitler.

So I'm just going leave this thread alone for a while, you should have tried to pay more attention to Mr Talyor (I own many of his books, he in no way admired the man).

And payed more attention to the real economic advances made in Germany before Hitler.

MIMX wrote: Burt mate I'm finding it really fucking hard to stomach your obvious and overt admiration for Hitler.

I don't think so. Perhaps all that Special Brew is affecting your reading.

MIMX wrote: So I'm just going leave this thread alone for a while, you should have tried to pay more attention to Mr Talyor (I own many of his books, he in no way admired the man).

AJP was an economic historian. Did a series of lectures on Hitler's economic policy up to 1938. Whether he admired him or not, he certainly rated his economic policy highly. Its there clearly in the history books anyway; such swift turnarounds in a country's fortune do not happen without a bit of genius. As I think i said a few times earlier, shame what it led onto.

I always thought that Hitler's economic policies consisted of ignoring the actual economics. War was the inevitable outcome to keep the system going, with conquered loot of course.

Hum this sounds vaguely familiar.

Chris Nash wrote: If Hitler hadn't been an insane, racist, nationalist murdering bigot, he would quite possibly have been regarded as being one of the greatest world leaders in history. Such a shame. If he'd followed his economic and domestic policies with positive coercion and incentive-led initiatives and sought peaceful alliance and reconciliation with his European neighbours, things would have been so different.

When you think about the way the German people have discarded the Nazi legacy and that of the former Soviet Union with such grace and dignity and become one of UK/USA's closest allies, it goes to show the resiliance and perseverance of the German people. : oktoberfest:

And Mal - I really don't think Burt is expressing any admiration for Hitler as a person, rather the potential for the economic growth/stability that could have been peacefully achieved

I think we will be dead when it happens, but I sometimes think that he will be seen under a different light later. Think, Napoléon did more or less the same thing in his time (except genocides) and is in every history books. France was completly down and without men who died everywhere through Europe after his fall. Some cunts claim he was a genius.

MIMX wrote:

Jiphy wrote:

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote:

Jiphy wrote:

Doctor? wrote: I wonder if there is anything Jews HAVEN'T been blamed for.

"Indeed !" Far easier to find what they haven't been blamed for.

Did the Jews cause WWII???

Tricky question...

Not really mate.

No. Is the answer, and categorically NO!

(It's a TOTAL myth that Hitler seized power, he was voted into office.)

Look what the bastards did to poor Rosa.

That is a bit of a mismomer. The NAZIs were never held the majority in the Reichstag. They were the largest party, yes It is due to other parties being in coalition with them that they gained power. Hitler then convinced the president to grant him emergency power, and we know the rest.

NOOLigan wrote: I always thought that Hitler's economic policies consisted of ignoring the actual economics. War was the inevitable outcome to keep the system going, with conquered loot of course.

Hum this sounds vaguely familiar.

Make the others starve to keep the system going despite the costs of war. I agree on that point. In fact, this is what he did. I remembered some figures... 30% of his husband's salary given to a British woman, when he was on the front. In Germany, it was 80%. So, where the money was coming from ?

Jiphy wrote:

NOOLigan wrote: I always thought that Hitler's economic policies consisted of ignoring the actual economics. War was the inevitable outcome to keep the system going, with conquered loot of course.

Hum this sounds vaguely familiar.

Make the others starve to keep the system going despite the costs of war. I agree on that point. In fact, this is what he did. I remembered some figures... 30% of his husband's salary given to a British woman, when he was on the front. In Germany, it was 80%. So, where the money was coming from ?

I think from memory, devaluing the mark was the masterstroke. Renaming it the deutschmark etc at 10x. Thankfully, subsequent world economic law will never let that happen again.

As Mr Taylor said, if Germany had stopped in 1938, it would be a different more Germanic world today, one suspects.

Jiphy wrote:

Chris Nash wrote: If Hitler hadn't been an insane, racist, nationalist murdering bigot, he would quite possibly have been regarded as being one of the greatest world leaders in history. Such a shame. If he'd followed his economic and domestic policies with positive coercion and incentive-led initiatives and sought peaceful alliance and reconciliation with his European neighbours, things would have been so different.

When you think about the way the German people have discarded the Nazi legacy and that of the former Soviet Union with such grace and dignity and become one of UK/USA's closest allies, it goes to show the resiliance and perseverance of the German people. : oktoberfest:

And Mal - I really don't think Burt is expressing any admiration for Hitler as a person, rather the potential for the economic growth/stability that could have been peacefully achieved

I think we will be dead when it happens, but I sometimes think that he will be seen under a different light later. Think, Napoléon did more or less the same thing in his time (except genocides) and is in every history books. France was completly down and without men who died everywhere through Europe after his fall. Some cunts claim he was a genius.

I agree with you Jiphy. Especially because the main reason Hitler failed was that his cabinet was too scared to give him the reality of the certian situations... similar to how Japan fell.

As for Hitler "hating" the Reds more than the Jews (noted by MIMX), that just silly. He and Japan were vying strongly to get Russia (Stalin) part of the Axis... this main failure led to the destruction of both Nazis and Imperial Japan...

Burt Reynolds wrote: As Mr Taylor said, if Germany had stopped in 1938, it would be a different more Germanic world today, one suspects.

Central Europe would be worldwide known as Mitteleuropa.

EdelBrock wrote:

As for Hitler "hating" the Reds more than the Jews (noted by MIMX), that just silly. He and Japan were vying strongly to get Russia (Stalin) part of the Axis... this main failure led to the destruction of both Nazis and Imperial Japan...

Totally agree. Possibly totally off topic, but it was Stalin and his country's steadfast opposition to Hitler that led to Germany's destruction. Far more than either US or UK's contribution.