Lyke Omg!11, The Nazis Were Soo Imperliaistic!!!1111!

When governments continue to keep the documents classified guesses are all you have. We never did get to hear Hess's story because the Allied Powers would never allow it to be revealed.

We hear alot about the desperate situation in Britian because it could not be resupplied by the it's colonies but logistics were begining to effect the Nazi's too. They had only what was available in the area's they occupied. They had no colonies to resupply from. Mass exterminations were not just a political statement they were a logistical necessity if they wanted to win.

I do not think Speer was part of the inner circle until after Hess was in British custody so I would doubt that Speer would have had knowledge of any high level plans in 1941.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

These are statements with which I have a lot of sympathy. There is an extraordinary amount of information still held under wraps by governments, and we cannot tell what records have been deliberately destroyed. It is very frustrating!

We should not forget how long it took for the wartime exploits of GCHQ Bletchley to become known. All the histories written in the years immediately following WWII were compiled in ignorance of the intelligence triumphs of Enigma codebreakers. France has consigned many wartime records to extraordinary periods of quarantine, making it difficult to investigate Jean Moulin -- in some ways as mysterious a figure as Hess.

However, there is more known (actually “on the record”) about Hess than many people realise. And not all records are under the control of governments; individuals have their own recollections. There are things that happened ahead of Hess's arrival at Dungavel House that indicate that his arrival was expected by what might loosely be described as "the authorities". We do know that “negotiations” took place with Hess, which he was allowed to believe were genuine. We know (and this comes as a surprise to many) that Hess had an aide in these “negotiations” – a PoW whom he had asked to be released to assist him.

What we do not know is who were the people involved in inviting Hess to make his visit to Scotland – and which of them were genuinely seeking a peace settlement, and which intended to betray him. Nor can we be sure what it was that led Hess to believe he had been assured “safe conduct”.

Picknett et al record the testimony of an Elizabeth Adam whose father was involved in the peace plan. Her father had told her, “It must have been pukka because of [the Duke of] Kent’s involvement.” (Imagine my surprise reading this on page 283 of Double Standards. I used to know Elizabeth in my student days!) There is other evidence pointing to the Duke of Kent as an active player in the search for a peaceful settlement.

There is much about Hess that we do not know, but when it comes to the big picture we can do much better than “guess” -– in the popular meaning of that word.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you prefer you can call it an undocumented hypothesis.

I wish we could know more about "Ultra Secret" and the Enigma machine. The US has everything about it ultra classified.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It would justify an Italian move to invade about half of Europe. Then we could all watch ghastly quiz shows with semi-naked females.
Or should we take it back much earlier in time: I think I'll start a movement - Europe for the Neanderthals.

 

But the Neanderthals migrated from Africa.
Europe was just an African colony.
Africa should own the whole world.

 

James R:

Numerous times. However, sometimes their claims have a ring of truth. It is not a crime to steal back something which was yours originally.

If you condemn the land grab by the Germans in WWII, you have to condemn the land grab by the French in WWI. And then you condemn the land grab by the Germans in the Franco-Prussian War... etc etc.

 

Just a wee tad silly, don't you think? By that simplistic logic, England would be acting properly to attack a large portion of the world - including much of the U.S. and Canada. :bugeye:

 

Because England has never attacked the U.S... or burnt Washington D.C to the ground.

I never mentioned anything about 'proper'. Attempting to put words in my mouth now, hmmm?

 

Not at all! You clearly said "It is not a crime to steal back something which was yours originally." And that perfectly implies that it would be proper.

 

Once again, I never mentioned anything about 'properness'. I mentioned that in the eyes of the law, it is not a crime to steal back something which was stolen from you. I never made any comment about moral 'correctness'.

 

Technically you appear to be correct Mountainhare. However:
The phrase 'it is not a crime' is colloquial and relates not to the legality of an act, but, as Light has suggested to its properness, or, in your words, its moral correctness.
Had you said It is not against international law ...etc you would appear to have a leg to stand on.
However:
"It is not a crime to steal back....". Stealing is a crime, so your original statement is shown to be logically flawed.
You might be best advised to quit now while you are still behind.

 

Wrong. Technically, I AM correct.

Wow, it seems that you are a mind reader as well! Tell me, at what age did you learn to read minds?

And you are shown to be a retard, who can't grasp even simple statements.

Once again, in the eyes of the LAW, it is perfectly fine for someone to steal something back which is originally theirs.

That has nothing to do with what I PERSONALLY BELIEVE is proper. At no point did I state that since American law states that stealing what originally belonged to you is proper, then Germany's invasion was proper. However, if we are to hold Germany up to the same standards as the law in America or the U.K, it had a legitimate claim for going to war. If you are going to call Germany's actions evil, then you have to brand America's law as corrupt if you are to remain consistent.

It's amazing how blithering retards keep failing to grasp simple concepts.
"OMG, HE SAID THAT GERMANY'S INVASION WAS RIGHT BECAUSE AMERICA'S LAW SAYS SO!!111"

No you illiterate dumbfucks, I am pointing out the hypocrisy often employed by victors. Before spouting bullshit like 'Evil insane Germany' having 'no justification to restore old borders', explain why you see nothing wrong with American laws stating that stealing something which originally belonged to you is not theft. Also explain why it was fine for the British to invade America and drive the Indians off their land, or for the Israelis to drive the Arabs of their land. Israel 'restoring old borders' is fine, but God forbid Germany doing the same (despite it having a legitimate claim)!

No country has been created without war. If you're going to pick and choose about what sorts of imperialism are good and evil, you have to explain why, instead of just saying "OMG HITLER WAZ EVIL BECUZ HE INVADED COUNTRIES WHICH FORMERLY CONSTITUTED PRUSSIA!!!1111"

 

Mountainhare,

No. Technically you're a fucking jackass and possibly a troll. (I'm betting that you're just stupid though. Too dumb to be a troll.)

No, you illiterate bastard, he's reading your words, not your mind. I know that your semantical confusions make this a difficult distinction to comprehend, but just take my word for it. "Mind" does not equal "words". (Although, in a way mind does equal words.... Hmm. You're too stupid to understand what I'm saying though, so I won't waste my time on this tangent.)

Now, now. Don't be so hard on yourself. Yes. You are proving to be a retard who not only has difficulty understanding simple statements but also doesn't even know basic history (and are also showing paranoid tendencies in your feelings that things are being hdden from you just because you're too stupid to pick up a real history book or even to turn on the history channel from time to time). But, there's hope for you still. If you listen to people who actually know how to communicate and have taken the time to learn some history then maybe you'll be more than the subhuman that you feel that yourself to be at present. There's always hope. But you will have to work for it. Humans don't have everything handed to thiem, you know.

Kindly quote me the law that states this. Can you? I suspect your legal education is as poor as your history.

Now. This isn't a law, per se, but you might have heard an old adage that goes like this: "Possession is nine-tenths of the law." Ring any bells? Does that have the 'ring of truth'? (What the fuck does that mean? Are you some kind of human truth-detector? Oh. Wait. You're not human, are you?)

Stop your semantically stubborn bullshit. You're being a fucking ass.
The concept is simple. By saying that the invasion of Europe by Germany was legally sanctioned, then you are saying that it was legally proper. Yes. There is some slight semantical difference between the concept of legal properness and polite properness (i.e. sticking out your pinky while drinking tea) but I think the concept is simple enough even for your tiny mind to comprehend... maybe. Time will tell.

What law?

Yes. It is.

That was a different time. Difficult as it is to believe, morals change. In the days of colonialism, it was considered proper to establish colonies in lands occupied by 'savages'. (*gasp*)

It was also considered proper to rule by the fist. Hitler was just born in the wrong time, that's all. Colonialism and imperialism is no longer an acceptable way of life. However, had Germany been successful in its landgrab then things would be different. In this way, England would have been better served to have joined with Germany and then she could have maintained her empire. America too might have jumped on the empire bandwagon in this new world. (As per my previous post on such things.)

Now this is another story altogether. Many don't believe that the establishment of Israel is 'proper'. I am one of them.

No. We don't consider Hitler evil because he invaded foreign countries (By the way, Germany was a part of Prussia. Therefore Germany had no right to the lands which constituted Prussia. Germany was only a vassal state (or something. Hapsburg knows all this shit. Where the fuck is that Kaiser-kissing bastard?))

Hitler is considered 'evil' (or at least sociopathic) because of a little thing called the Holocaust. He also slaughtered gypsies and slavs wholesale. Not in the act of war, but in the act of housecleaning. (Let me guess. That's something else you were never taught?)

And you're considered dumb becase you have amazing levels of difficulty with rather simple concepts.

 

Moutainhare, my post, where I pointed out some minor illogic in your arguments, was a lighthearted dig. I had assumed you were a moderately intelligent and reasonably educated individual who had just been momentarily sloppy in their writing - my own posts are replete with such oversights.

I had expected a similar lighthearted response from yourself, perhaps picking out a flaw in my own case (though I thought I hade been careful to exclude that possibility), or a wry grin accompanying an "you got me there Ophiolite".
But to my delight you suprised me with a torrent of invective and thoughtless nonsense. I say delight, since predictable responses can become so boring, don't you think. Sorry, you've already established that point.

I would like you to reflect on one thing. You stated this "Once again, in the eyes of the LAW, it is perfectly fine for someone to steal something back which is originally theirs." MountainHare, you cannot seriously mean that statement. Please identify the law that makes it legal to steal. Do you understand the meaning of the word steal.
Stealing is taking something that doesn't belong to you. There is no law that permits you to do that, is there? By that statement you are revealing yourself, to every reader of this site to be slightly foolish. To continue to to defend the statement you reveal yourself to be very immature. Fess up. You got it wrong. Saying so will earn respect. The reverse will generate little more than contempt.

Your choice.

 

invert nexus:

Oh look, the dumb sheep is bleating 'troll', as if I give a shit.

Apparently he needs to take a reading comprehension lesson, as do you.

Oh look, the dumb retard fails to grasp the concept that if you have ownership rights, taking something back which is yours is NOT classified as theft in the first place. He wants me to go hunting through precedent and previous rulings to prove something which even schoolkids know.

Oh, colonialism and imperialism were no longer an 'acceptable' way of life? Says who, the French, who were quite happy with their land annexed in WWI? The British, who had humiliated Germany and had forced it to pay compensation? Yeah, colonialism was no longer acceptable to the Western powers who had grabbed plenty of land in previous wars.

If colonialism and imperalism were 'no longer acceptable', then explain why nobody protested when France made a land grab in WWI? Why nobody gave a shit when Russia took Poland, the Baltic States, and Finland? Why Russia continued to occupy countries like Poland and portions of Germany after WWII? Why France tried to retake Vietnam after WWII? Why France and Britain didn't want to give up their African colonies without a fight (Algeria, anyone?)

Of course, you're too fucking ignorant (or stupid) to realize that Hitler was merely doing what the other imperalistic, Western powers were doing AT THAT VERY TIME, and even AFTER WWII. The difference was that Hitler occupied European countries who could bite back, while countries like Britain and France occupied African, Arab or Asian countries. But then again, who has ever given a shit about the Arabs, Africans, or Asians, hey?

Imperialism is OK if you're occupying inferior races who don't know how to drink wine or sip tea!

Good. At least you are consistent. But explain why the U.S saw Germany's 'redrawing' of borders was evil and imperalistic, while Israel's 'redrawing' was perfectly fine.

During the Franco-Prussian war, the German states, INCLUDING PRUSSIA, unified, coming under Prussian leadership. Prussia constituted a large part of the German Empire. Where are you pulling the above shit from? The Germany of today was never a 'vassal' state, because the Germany of today is a result of LOSING Prussian land to the French, Polish, and Russians. The Germany of today didn't exist back then...

Oh goodie. That means you'll be able to produce documentation from Hitler that demanded the mass murder of gypsies and slavs!

Oh wait, I've long given up on a parrot of THE Holocaust of producing evidence that the Nazis engaged in mass murder.

 

Last things first:

What the hell exactly do you know about any of this, Mountainhare? You didn't even know the widely-known fact on Hess's strange peace mission. Now you're going to say that you're knowledgeable enough to deny the validity of anything anyone else says?

You're a fucking joke, dude.

And a joke who denies the holocaust as well. Always strange when one comes across one as blatantly blind as that. So. I suppose you're a skinhead or something then? Pictures of Herr Hitler hanging on your bedroom wall? Do you masturbate to thoughts of Eva Braun? (Actually, for a WWII era chick, she was pretty cute. I'd fuck her. Even if she was a little chunky.)

Anyway.
Ha!
I'm not going to get into this issue of whether the holocaust occurred or not with you. The very fact that you deny it says a lot about the futility of this whole conversation.

Yeah. I've got all Hitler's documents right here in my wall safe. Let me get them for you.
Jerkoff.

What exact tactic are you using here? Are you denying the holocaust altogether or just saying that Hitler wasn't part of it and that it was actually undertaken by people under Hitler rather than from the top man himself?

There exists documentation in piles and piles on the mass murder that took place in WWII. Beginning with the Einsatzgrupen and ending with the Zyklon gas chambers and crematoriums.

And how can you deny the film footage of walking skeletons?

You're seriously an anus. (Are you, by the way, a nihilist? I have this hunch...)

No. Douchebag. That's what the court of laws are for. You have to prove your ownership. You have to prove it in a court of law. To just take it back is vigilanteism and is frowned upon.

So. You want me to dig up some holocaust documents. I'll do it if you can dig up the law that says its ok to steal back what was stolen from you.

You have no grasp of history seeing as how you only have the historical education of a 'secondary school' so I'll clue you in a little bit here.

The 20th century brought change to the world. It made the world a much smaller place and it made keeping things quiet practically impossible.

Colonialism and imperialism, to a large part, depend upon isolation. This is why the imperial and colonial powers were so successful in lands far from home. It took so long for information to trickle back to the common people from the colonies that the extent to which the powers could maintain their hold was quite extreme.

With the shrinking of the world this was made impossible. Any difficulty in the colonies was front page news the very next day. And in the newsreels. Soon to be on television.

To hold one's colonies demanded a certain heavy-handedness. Most modern nations had long since pretended that they no longer were warlike and yet their behavior in their colonies showed different.

This is why colonialism and imperialism are no longer 'proper'. Because the moral implications of colonialism are unstomachable by the present and 'proper' philosophies of governance.

This is why I stated that if Germany had won the war and if Britain had sided with Germany then there'd still be a British Empire. And the odds are that America would have joined the team and there'd be an American Empire as well. Germany probably would have satisfied itself with Europe and possibly North Africa (although Hitler never cared much about North Africa). And Britain and America probably would have split much of the rest of the globe. In this new world view, brutal dominance over an area would be perfectly acceptable and colonialism would not have gone the way of the dinosaurs.

But, Germany lost. It's colonialist viewpoint lost with it. Such are the vagaries of fate. Came pretty close to winning. If only Hitler hadn't been such a fool.

Because it was an outcome of a war. That's what happens at the end of wars. Boundaries change. That's usually the cause of wars. The heart of wars. Territory.

However, I wouldn't say nobody objected. Plenty objected. Plenty didn't think the terms of the Treaty of Versailles were proper. However, such is the fate of war.

Why are you so focused on the end of WWI? Let's look instead to the end of WWII. Did France make a huge land grab there as well? Did the western powers learn a lesson from the Treaty of Versailles or did they not?

Because this was a mexican standoff. A little thing called the cold war.

How old are you, Mountainhare? Do you remember what it was like when the Soviet Union existed?

The Soviets took land and held it (although they didn't actually annex the land. Each of those countries were self-ruling... ostensibly.) And they were 'allowed' to do so because the west didn't want to fight a war with Russia. Especially after Russia got the bomb. (You might have heard of the atom bomb perchance? Do they teach that in history class?)

Because old ways change hard. That's why. The various nations strived to maintain their colonies as long as they could. But, eventually they all got the message. Colonialism is dead. It's not possible with the modern political philsophies.

(France's attitudes towards its colonies is especially ironic considering its modern stance as bastion of freedom.)

Basically? Yeah.
That's another thing that's changed (is changing still) in the past century.

NO shit?
Did you know the Holy Roman Emperor held the title of the King of Germany?
But. Germany didn't exist back then, I suppose...
Idiot.

Anyway. I'm not going to argue this point with you as I really don't have the best understanding of the dynamics of pre-WWI Germany. That's why I wish Hapsburg would show up in here. That's his area of expertise.

I'll just suffice it to say that, to my knowledge (which might well be wrong) the Prussians were something like overlords to the German Empire. The Prussians made up the nobility. Thus. The Germany which you're discussing. The Germany that got its land grabbed, had no claim to much of that land as it actually belonged to Prussia and not to Germany. I could be wrong about the dynamics. In fact I probably am.

(How does someone who never even heard of Hess's peace flight know anything about that anyway? Spent the night reading Wikipedia or something?)

Anyway.
Let's just take your statement "The Germany of today didn't exist back then..." and examine that. Shall we? If the "Germany of today" didn't exist back then (I'm assuming you're also talking about the Germany of post WWI/pre WWII right?) then what claim did it have to those lands?

And even if you could connect them and say that it did have some type of historical claim to the lands, then how do you get away from the fact that the lands weren't 'stolen' but were given away in treaty?

You do know what treaties are, don't you? They're legal documents.

There was no land stolen from the Germans. The Germans gave away their land (among other things such as the right to a sizeable army) in order to secure peace.

That's the way it works.

Now. If they'd won the war. Then we could say that the French and every other European power who lost their land due to signing of peace treaties would have been equally held by such treaties.

This is a sticky situation, of course, as one generally doesn't consider a document signed under duress as having any legally binding power. And yet, practically all peace treaties, by their very definitions, are signed under duress.

So. In the end, we have the right of the victor. It's a dog eat dog world. And the Germans were the dog that got eaten. They're doing pretty good nowadays, though, aren't they?

 

So, now that we've all agreed that we're all guilty as charged, Imperialism is a bad thing, soundly flagellated ourselves, and sworn never to do it again, would you like to make a cogent and sensible argument about something?

 

invert:

Lie. I obviously did know about Hess's peace mission, since I was the one who started this thread about it. I made it quite clear previously that I did not learn about Hess during secondary school. Gee, I wonder why?

Bla bla bla, you're a dickhead and missed the clue train.

Wrong again, dumbass. There are very few holocaust deniers. I'm a Holocaust Dimisher. And I also object to the Jewish Holocaust being called THE Holocaust, because it was far from the first Holocaust in history.

Ahh, the dumb troll needs to whip out tired old stereotypes. Truth be told, I'm not German at all. Of course, only weak-minded, spineless retards believe that anyone doubting the exaggerations of the Jewish Holocaust in Germany must be Nazis who believe in German superiority.

So now you're assuming that I'm close minded because my opinions differ from yours? Not only are you ignorant of basic history, you are also act like an intellectual snob (note that I said ACT LIKE. You aren't an intellectual snob, since that requires intelligence)

*yawns* Credentialism. Merely because I haven't taken a university degree in history doesn't make me 'ignorant' of history. More spin from the resident parrot.

*sighs* Whatever you say. It's ironic how Holocaust diminishers are called 'revisionists'. Germany's 'colonialist' viewpoint never lost, it continued to be practiced by the French in Algeria, the Israelis in Palestine, the Russians in Afghanistan, and the Americans in Vietnam (where 'Democracy' was merely New Age imperialism).

Countries like Britain and France didn't lose their colonies because they lost the stomach to rule. They lost there colonies because they became WEAK AS PISS. After WW2, America and Russia rose to power, and grabbed their own land. Britain and France lost theirs.

It's amazing how you entertain the delusion that colonialism and imperialism were 'out' when Hitler came into power.

WELL DONE! You caught the clue train, and then fell off. Ripping land off someone via war is imperialism, is it not? The fact that the French didn't start the war doesn't make their actions any less imperialistic. They took land which didn't belong to them prior to WWI via force.

I thought imperialism was a thing of the past back then?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It is merely an example of imperialism, which supposedly was 'taboo' back then (according to your fallicious revisionism).

You tell me. What was all that nonsense about the Berlin Wall about? I guess the U.S and Russia didn't grab German land, nor did Poland...

Aha, lovely. Once again, you catch the clue train, and then jump off, missing my obvious point. Imperialism was QUITE OK if you were Russia, but not Germany. Germany was an evil imperialistic country, whereas the Polish 'greeted the Russians with open arms'.

Imperialism wasn't always wrong. It was quite OK if the the country you invaded, and their allies, were too scared to say anything.

To call Germany an 'evil imperalistic power' while locking your lips to the well worns asses of the French who tried to cling onto Algeria, the Israelis who grabbed Arab land, and the Americans who tried to enforce their 'New Age' colonialism on Korea and Vietnam is inconsistent and downright hypocritical.

Not it's not. Colonialism is alive and well, in a new form. The occupation of Arab land is merely one example. Subtle American infiltration into Arab land is yet another. The Russians dominating the Chechyans is another.

Once again, you miss the point. You are aware that the Israel of today is not the same Israel which existed 40 years ago? It has incorporated extra landmass. To assume that 'Germany' was dominated by 'Prussia' is absurd, because the German Empire INCLUDED Prussia back then.

You are. Prussia was part of the German Empire. The German Empire belonged to the Germans. Hence, Prussia belonged to Germans.

Oh look, the retard is going to misinterpret a simple statement I made...

The 'Germany of Today' didn't exist back then because the German Empire 'back then' was partially made up of Prussia. Amazing how simple points slide right by you.

Legal documents signed under duress. After being hammered by the British, French, and the U.S. Lands gained through imperialism. Naughty Germany for using war to gain back lands taken from it via war.

Good. I agree. When the French surrendered in WW2, they also surrendered their land to the Germans. The Germans won that land through conquest. They also won it through conquest in the Franco-Prussian war. The French won it through conquest in WWI.

I'm glad you admit it. There was nothing inherently evil about what the Germans did. If what they done was 'evil', then the French, British and U.S were just as bad.

Isn't it amazing what conclusions one reaches when one looks at a situation objectively?

I look at WWII, and do not realize it as a war between 'Good' and 'Evil'. I recognize it as one country acting imperalistically, something which happened frequently between European countries, and even in Africa and Asia. I recognize that it was a common occurance, and that to brand Germany 'evil' for going to war to restore its old borders is the height of hypocrisy.

 

One of the great ironies of history is that Hitler did favor the Zionist idea of creating a homeland for the Jews in Palestine.

More recent calculations have placed the number of civilians murdered by the Nazi's at closer to 11 million (6 million Jews and 5 million nonjews).

The Holy Roman Empire was mainly a very loose confederation of the Germanic principalities usually lead by the Austrian Emperor. In the mid 1700's Frederich of Prussia took leadership from Auastria. Following the Napoleonic wars power reverted to Austria until Bismark forged the Northern German Confederation under Wilhelm I which lasted until the end of WWI.