DNA tests reveal ? 's Jewish and African roots
Options
Comments
-
from 1949 to 1990, West Germany was specifically called the Federal Republic of Germany (Bundesrepublik Deutschland). no Deutsches ? . i can't find any evidence that they called it that from 1945 to 1949 either.musicology1985 wrote: »Ahh but it was. Allied Occupied Germany was specifically called Deutsches ? , and lasted from 1945-1990. However, the United States dominated this entire period through what was known at the time as “West Germany” and “West Berlin,” all the while supporting these activities internationally through Operation Paperclip, which was based over here and in Latin America.
this can also been written in the far more logical way of "25% of Germany rejoined the 75% of Germany it had been detached from." and then it makes sense because we're talking about the reunification of the nation and all.musicology1985 wrote: »The U.S even set up West Germany’s infrastructure, intelligence apparatus, kept strong troop levels and when the Cold War was over, Communist East Germany and East Berlin joined the West and not the other way around.
well, again, you've claimed some continual plots that make the distinctions meaningless, but more to the point: if the prior ? was run from Germany and West Germany is "free" ... it's illogical to tell me things are being run from the US as the Fourth ? .musicology1985 wrote: »A ? is based around Germany. The United States ran itself as well as West Germany from 1945-1990 with the help of ? Scientists, Intelligence and former Military personnel. It was the 4th ? .
why do i ask? "Germany rooted Financial House of Rothschild in the funding for massive Wars." i have been around this kind of thing on the internet before.musicology1985 wrote: »Why do you ask?
yes... and ? 's work was to seize Russian territory for purposes of using it for farmland and executing Jews? are you saying the US was continuing this? ? wasn't checking the Soviet threat or stabilizing his nation; he was attempting to take territory for the benefit of Germany. the man had a peace treaty in force with the USSR at the time. and he didn't "begin tapering down from 1942-1945," he was continually fighting nations like, oddly enough, the US and the UK at the time.musicology1985 wrote: »I said they continued ? ’s work. Even ? knew that he could not complete all of his “avowed goals” and begun tapering down from 1942-1945. However, he still sought to check the Soviet threat, stabilize his Nation and have a consolidating force on the mainland. This was all achieved through the U.S., U.N., NATO & EU.
so please tell me more about all the Ukrainian-land-stealing and Jew-killing the US was involved in post-1945.
it is true that the monarch still enjoys some formal executive authority, but this authority is restricted by Parliament (and convention, but i suppose the latter doesn't matter much). Parliament has removed the monarch from governance and forced it into a politically neutral position.musicology1985 wrote: »1. The Monarch appoints the Prime Minister and it’s Cabinet.
2. All Bills passed require Royal Assent to become Law. This is ruler-ship.
makes absolutely no sense when you're talking about the following eras: 1933-1945, 1945-1990 and 1990-present (your timeline, not mine). if there's no break in the eras... there's no break in the eras.musicology1985 wrote: »Because of the eras.
you've tossed some other random dates in there.musicology1985 wrote: »It’s not random; I’ve already stated the Holy Roman Empire as the starting point for the ? ’s.
okay... so let me post this again: if they've been in control the entire time, what's the purpose of trying to distinguish between a Third ? and a Fourth ? and a Fifth ? ? or a Second ? ? according to you, there's been continual government by the same people, right?musicology1985 wrote: »Right. Conflicts arise; economies, education, politics, religion and the flow of people along with goods change, but the Monarchies stay the same under numerous titles but the same bloodlines and allegiances.
the "simple explanation" does not involve a complicated, secret royal conspiracy.musicology1985 wrote: »This is the simple explanation. I just go over the entire story instead of select portions of it. -
@ Janklow
from 1949 to 1990, West Germany was specifically called the Federal Republic of Germany (Bundesrepublik Deutschland). no Deutsches ? . i can't find any evidence that they called it that from 1945 to 1949 either.
Deutsches ? is the legal name for the country and was never changed during the occupation (look it up). Federal was the system of Government and not the formal name. Power simply resided in D.C. during this period with much of the same ? personnel. That’s why I call it the 4th ? .
this can also been written in the far more logical way of "25% of Germany rejoined the 75% of Germany it had been detached from." and then it makes sense because we're talking about the reunification of the nation and all.
They still joined the part that was under U.S. and greater Western influence.
I repeat: the U.S set up West Germany’s infrastructure, intelligence apparatus, kept strong troop levels and when the Cold War was over, Communist East Germany and East Berlin joined the West and not the other way around. So, again, the 4th ? was the Cold War United States.
well, again, you've claimed some continual plots that make the distinctions meaningless, but more to the point: if the prior ? was run from Germany and West Germany is "free" ... it's illogical to tell me things are being run from the US as the Fourth ? .
No the distinctions are not meaningless and yes things were being run from the U.S. as the 4th ? with much of the same personnel. Again, I repeat: A ? is based around Germany. The United States ran itself as well as West Germany from 1945-1990 with the help of ? Scientists, Intelligence and former Military personnel. It was the 4th ? .
why do i ask? "Germany rooted Financial House of Rothschild in the funding for massive Wars." i have been around this kind of thing on the internet before.
So what. This debate is not about your preconceived notions of what you think people mean when bringing up the Rothschilds in regards to war funding. They were involved as well as many others who were not Jews.
yes... and ? 's WORK
Again, to repeat for a third time: Even ? knew that he could not complete all of his “avowed goals” and begun tapering down from 1942-1945. However, he still sought to check the Soviet threat, stabilize his Nation and have a consolidating force on the mainland. This was all achieved through the U.S., U.N., NATO & EU.
To further add, the extermination of Jews did not have to continue because the pretext for a Jewish state was set by the time of his death. Land did not have to be seized from the East because stabilization was accomplished due to the U.S. Marshall plan, which was drawn up by the same man who designed the “containment” of the Soviets strategy. The work of his scientists, mathematicians & doctors continued under operation paperclip. The work of his still active surviving, hiding and acquitted intelligence and military personnel continued under that same operation as well as the U.S. occupation.
the man had a peace treaty in force with the USSR at the time.
I know this. But this treaty did not stop the fighting between the two because ideologically, the ? ’s viewed the Slavs as “Untermensch,” aka sub-human. Germany, at that time, also needed the Ukraine (a Slavic state of the USSR) for food support, just as it needed Poland. Therefore, confrontation was imminent.
and he didn't "begin tapering down from 1942-1945,"
Yes he did. ? forces were checked in 42’ & begun retreating from previously held possessions in 43.’
he was continually fighting nations like, oddly enough, the US and the UK at the time.
He was only fighting them because they declared war on him. The Nazis saw all Germanic peoples as brothers (Germans, Austrians, Dutch, English and linguistically and culturally related peoples were all included.) Also, France declared war on Germany and not vice versa.
it is true that the monarch still enjoys some formal executive authority,
I repeat for a 5th time:
1. The Monarch appoints the Prime Minister and therefore its Cabinet.
2. All Bills passed require Royal Assent to become Law. This is ruler-ship. The Monarch remains neutral out of privilege, not by force.
makes absolutely no sense when you're talking about the following eras: there's no break in the eras... there's no break in the eras.
Let me repeat myself for a 6th time (these are the ? 's who are all blood related. Keep in mind that German Royalty did not attain control of Britain until 1714 A.D. Prior to that, Britain was ruled by the Norman, French, Scottish & Welsh as well as even earlier dynasties prior to that date, who remain to this day amongst the peerage, but not the Royal House):
The First ? -Holy Roman Empire, Prussia, successor confederations & Austrian Empire
(962-1871)
The Second ? -German Empire This Empire was led by the House of Hohenzollern who are cousins to the Royalty of Britain.
(1871-1918)
The Third ? -Weimer Republic & ? Germany
(1918-1945)
The Fourth ? -Allied Occupied Germany & Operation Paperclip
(1945-1990)
The Fifth ? -Federal Republic of Germany
(1990-Present)
the "simple explanation" does not involve a complicated, secret royal conspiracy.
It’s not complicated. Monarchies & Warfare on the mainland as well as in the British Isles have been a continual mainstay of Europe up until 1945. Conspiracies still are.
The Nazis needed to be co-opted, toned down and revamped in order to allow a greater level of efficiency. The U.S. accomplished this goal and the west benefited greatly from it. The large German American population (57 million) and influence as well as those still on the mainland (81 million), coupled with the German ruling Monarchy of Britain, made the Transition a smooth and successful one which is exemplified in the modern 5th ? of today. -
actually, i DID look it up, and what i found was "from 1949 to 1990, West Germany was specifically called the Federal Republic of Germany (Bundesrepublik Deutschland)." hence all the capital letters and specific title. so i don't know what else you want me to look up.musicology1985 wrote: »Deutsches ? is the legal name for the country and was never changed during the occupation (look it up). Federal was the system of Government and not the formal name.
and i repeat, "this can also been written in the far more logical way of "25% of Germany rejoined the 75% of Germany it had been detached from." and then it makes sense because we're talking about the reunification of the nation and all."musicology1985 wrote: »I repeat: the U.S set up West Germany’s infrastructure, intelligence apparatus, kept strong troop levels and when the Cold War was over, Communist East Germany and East Berlin joined the West and not the other way around.
well, again, you've claimed some continual plots that make the distinctions meaningless, but more to the point: if the prior ? was run from Germany and West Germany is "free" ... it's illogical to tell me things are being run from the US as the Fourth ? .
yes, they're meaningless given the conspiracy you subscribe to, and no, it's not "based around Germany" if the claim is that the US is constructing and directing Germany.musicology1985 wrote: »No the distinctions are not meaningless and yes things were being run from the U.S. as the 4th ? with much of the same personnel. Again, I repeat: A ? is based around Germany.
i think it's pertinent when people start bringing up the conspiracies of Jews, because they tend to go in a certain direction.musicology1985 wrote: »So what. This debate is not about your preconceived notions of what you think people mean when bringing up the Rothschilds in regards to war funding. They were involved as well as many others who were not Jews.
yes... and ? 's work was to seize Russian territory for purposes of using it for farmland and executing Jews? are you saying the US was continuing this? ? wasn't checking the Soviet threat or stabilizing his nation; he was attempting to take territory for the benefit of Germany. the man had a peace treaty in force with the USSR at the time. and he didn't "begin tapering down from 1942-1945," he was continually fighting nations like, oddly enough, the US and the UK at the time.
so please tell me more about all the Ukrainian-land-stealing and Jew-killing the US was involved in post-1945.
now, let's repeat as well, remembering that you're claiming that a conspiracy controlled the US AND the UK AND Germany: ? wasn't "tapering down," he was actively fighting a multitude of countries. it's not like he stepped back from his "work" and the USSR attacked him; he attacked the USSR and was forced to deal with the consequences. he declared war on the US in 1941 and was forced to deal with the consequences. he did not voluntarily decide to scale back operations.musicology1985 wrote: »Again, to repeat for a third time: Even ? knew that he could not complete all of his “avowed goals” and begun tapering down from 1942-1945.
you know, i don't even know what the ? the latter two are supposed to mean. his nation wasn't destabilized before World War II beyond anything caused by extreme ? policies. we weren't talking about the post-WWI Germany at that point. and prior to the war i'm not sure what needed to be "consolidated," as the Nazis had pretty much talked their way into whatever could be vaguely claimed to be Germany. and checking the Soviet threat? they had a non-aggression treaty in place ... and then ? broke it. what was the threat?musicology1985 wrote: »However, he still sought to check the Soviet threat, stabilize his Nation and have a consolidating force on the mainland.
? 's "work" was not to create a Jewish state (or the pretext for one), as this could have been accomplished without going out of his way to ? the ? out of them.musicology1985 wrote: »To further add, the extermination of Jews did not have to continue because the pretext for a Jewish state was set by the time of his death.
land was not being seized from the East for the purposes of stabilization.musicology1985 wrote: »Land did not have to be seized from the East because stabilization was accomplished-
well, for one thing, the treaty DID stop the fighting until Germany broke it. for another, if your argument is that he was trying to stop some Soviet threat, acknowledging that ? a) saw Slavs as sub-human and b) wanted to seize their land for farming purposes is a pretty poor way to go about it.musicology1985 wrote: »I know this. But this treaty did not stop the fighting between the two because ideologically, the ? ’s viewed the Slavs as “Untermensch,” aka sub-human. Germany, at that time, also needed the Ukraine (a Slavic state of the USSR) for food support, just as it needed Poland. Therefore, confrontation was imminent.
see, i think you don't know what the term "tapering down" implies.musicology1985 wrote: »Yes he did. ? forces were checked in 42’ & begun retreating from previously held possessions in 43.’
considering that you're trying to correct me, note the following: the US did not declare war on Germany, Germany declared war on the US. i'm also fairly confident that the Nazis did not consider Slavs and Jews who were linguistically and culturally related to Germans to be their brothers. think about it.musicology1985 wrote: »He was only fighting them because they declared war on him. The Nazis saw all Germanic peoples as brothers (Germans, Austrians, Dutch, English and linguistically and culturally related peoples were all included.) Also, France declared war on Germany and not vice versa.
well, i think you mean the second time, but you're still ignoring the role of Parliament and/or the average voting citizen. seriously, give me an example where the monarch has gone against them.musicology1985 wrote: »I repeat for a 5th time:
1. The Monarch appoints the Prime Minister and therefore its Cabinet.
2. All Bills passed require Royal Assent to become Law. This is ruler-ship. The Monarch remains neutral out of privilege, not by force.
blah, blah, blah. you're claiming there is continual control by this monarchy from let's say 1714 on. so if this monarchy controls Germany, what's the break in 1871 about? you're still claiming the same guys are running things, especially since you've decided to not use the eras everyone ELSE agrees on (962–1806 and 1871–1918). you've done this to imply continual control, which makes the era concepts pointless (and suspicious, frankly).musicology1985 wrote: »Let me repeat myself for a 6th time...
you're arguing for the control of multiple nations by a monarchy for hundreds of years in which these nations have been repeatedly at odds for secret reasons. this qualifies as "complicated."musicology1985 wrote: »It’s not complicated. -
janklow
actually, i DID look it up, and what i found was "from 1949 to 1990, West Germany was specifically called the Federal Republic of Germany (Bundesrepublik Deutschland)." hence all the capital letters and specific title. so i don't know what else you want me to look up.
The fact of the matter is that the Deutschreich name was never changed. Germany has had the same legal name since at least the Weimer Republic.
And your percentages still do not dispute what I wrote nor does it negate U.S. control during the Cold War period.
well, again, you've claimed some continual plots that make the distinctions meaningless,
No the continual plots do not make it meaningless and yes things were being run from the U.S. as the 4th ? with much of the same ? personnel. Again, I repeat: A ? is based around Germany. The United States ran itself as well as West Germany from 1945-1990 with the help of ? Scientists, Intelligence and former Military personnel. It was the 4th ? .
I repeat: the U.S set up West Germany’s infrastructure, intelligence apparatus, kept strong troop levels and when the Cold War was over, Communist East Germany and East Berlin joined the West and not the other way around. So, again, the 4th ? was the Cold War United States.
now, let's repeat as well, remembering that you're claiming that a conspiracy controlled the US AND the UK AND Germany: ? wasn't "tapering down," he was actively fighting a multitude of countries. it's not like he stepped back from his "work" and the USSR attacked him; he attacked the USSR and was forced to deal with the consequences. he declared war on the US in 1941 and was forced to deal with the consequences. he did not voluntarily decide to scale back operations.
The Versailles Treaty as well as many other factors forced him and Germany into this position. Furthermore, the U.S was already supporting the U.K. & all rest of Germany's major enemies with the lend-lease act. And I repeat, ? was tapering down.
his nation wasn't destabilized before World War II
Yes it was. the Weimer Republic was very unstable.
and checking the Soviet threat? they had a non-aggression treaty in place ... and then ? broke it. what was the threat?
The threat of having a major power next to you with a stronger military and agricultural capabilities. Also, the Nazis viewed the Slavs as sub-human and thus, ripe for the taking.
land was not being seized from the East for the purposes of stabilization.
Yes it was. Germany lost much land after WWI and many wanted a recoup to stabilize the country.
considering that you're trying to correct me, note the following: the US did not declare war on Germany, Germany declared war on the US.
the U.S was already supporting the U.K.
i'm also fairly confident that the Nazis did not consider Slavs and Jews who were linguistically and culturally related to Germans to be their brothers. think about it.
The Slavs speak Slavic (not a Germanic language) and were looked at as sub-human, now culturally they do have similarities but have never been considered a Germanic people and the same goes for the Jews. the Jews however, did speak German but they were looked at as being sub-human as well. why? because it was a part of the propaganda to galvanize the ? and it worked.
well, i think you mean the second time, but you're still ignoring the role of Parliament and/or the average voting citizen. seriously, give me an example where the monarch has gone against them.
That's not the point. The point is, She has not been forced to give up power. She is neutral out of privilege.
you're arguing for the control of multiple nations by a monarchy for hundreds of years in which these nations have been repeatedly at odds for secret reasons. this qualifies as "complicated."
Its not for secretive reasons. They just never told the whole story. War is profitable and many of the disputes were legitimate on the side of the common people. For the orchestrators, they received numerous rewards and were able to develop the US Military Complex, EU & UN with a clear pretext for the creation of modern Israel. -
feel free to give a source. because the fact of the matter is that you say that, and i say "i looked it up and you don't seem to be correct." and the percentages are to reflect the fact that it was neither an even split nor a US-Soviet split.musicology1985 wrote: »The fact of the matter is that the Deutschreich name was never changed. Germany has had the same legal name since at least the Weimer Republic.
you are arguing for continual, unbroken control of Germany, the US and the UK, if nothing else, by a German monarchy. you have not argued for any meaningful breaks in the nature or direction of this monarchy. therefore, claiming the distinctions - especially this Fourth/Fifth ? nonsense - is meaningless. and frankly, it makes me think you're parroting someone else's argument: since it's not yours, you're not working to explain or adjust it.musicology1985 wrote: »No the continual plots do not make it meaningless-
and here's the reason why the percentages are not meaningless: because it was NEVER logical that West Germany would "join" East Germany. West Germany was eleven German states originally occupied by three Western powers; East Germany was five German states occupied by the USSR. there doesn't need to be a decision by some shadowy monarch for East to join West, because it was the only logical conclusion aside from "the USSR takes over all of Germany somehow."musicology1985 wrote: »-and when the Cold War was over, Communist East Germany and East Berlin joined the West and not the other way around.
now, let's repeat as well, remembering that you're claiming that a conspiracy controlled the US AND the UK AND Germany: ? wasn't "tapering down," he was actively fighting a multitude of countries. it's not like he stepped back from his "work" and the USSR attacked him; he attacked the USSR and was forced to deal with the consequences. he declared war on the US in 1941 and was forced to deal with the consequences. he did not voluntarily decide to scale back operations.
a treaty negotiated by Western powers. sure seems logical that they were under the same direction as Germany! oh wait...musicology1985 wrote: »The Versailles Treaty as well as many other factors forced him and Germany into this position.
and i repeat, i think you don't know what the term "tapering down" implies. ? attacked the USSR and pushed as far as he could; there was no "tapering down," it was go-go-go for the Nazis until the weight of the Allied powers made it impossible. seriously, show me ANY evidence of ? scaling back his work that cannot be explained by the Allies beating the ? out of his military.musicology1985 wrote: »And I repeat, ? was tapering down.
well, here's what i said: his nation wasn't destabilized before World War II. the Weimar Republic existed from roughly 1919-1933... which means that for six years before World War II, Germany wasn't the destabilized Weimar Republic. this may be the actual time period i am talking about.musicology1985 wrote: »Yes it was. the Weimer Republic was very unstable.
which is it, the major power thing you're concerned about or the subhuman thing you can do with as you wish?musicology1985 wrote: »The threat of having a major power next to you with a stronger military and agricultural capabilities. Also, the Nazis viewed the Slavs as sub-human and thus, ripe for the taking.
so let's discuss the land that was taken following WWI. for example, Alsace wasn't taken back from the East, it was taken back from France. this concept would apply to any of the territory lost to Belgium or Czechoslovakia or Denmark. this leaves us with some territory given to Poland and the slight amount eventually taken by Lithuania.musicology1985 wrote: »Yes it was. Germany lost much land after WWI and many wanted a recoup to stabilize the country.
now, Germany worked WITH the USSR to chop up Poland to get territory back, so there's clearly no need for a further war in the East --which is what we're really talking about-- to reclaim it. that Lithuanian territory was also regained in 1939. so there's no argument that they needed to attack the East in 1941 to recoup territory and stabilize the country: they already HAD the territory. attacking the USSR was for other reasons.
however, your claim was that Germany didn't declare war on the US, the US declared war on Germany. this is false; Germany declared war on the US on 12.11.1941.musicology1985 wrote: »the U.S was already supporting the U.K.
we'd be talking about the large numbers of Slavic people living in Slavic countries but of Germanic descent. furthermore, Jews were definitely culturally and linguistically connected; they were simply deemed subhuman anyway. my point is that this linguistic/cultural thing is a matter of convenience when you're far more willing to spare Frenchmen than German Jews who have lived in Germany for generations, speak German and think of themselves as German.musicology1985 wrote: »The Slavs speak Slavic (not a Germanic language) and were looked at as sub-human, now culturally they do have similarities but have never been considered a Germanic people-
it's entirely the point, because i'm saying the monarch is constrained by Parliament, and you say she's not. so give me an example that demonstrates this.musicology1985 wrote: »That's not the point. The point is, She has not been forced to give up power. She is neutral out of privilege.
but you don't think any of that qualifies as secretive reasons, despite the part where you state the "whole story" was never told?musicology1985 wrote: »Its not for secretive reasons. They just never told the whole story. War is profitable and many of the disputes were legitimate on the side of the common people. For the orchestrators, they received numerous rewards and were able to develop the US Military Complex, EU & UN with a clear pretext for the creation of modern Israel. -
@Janklow
feel free to give a source.
Read this first
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2194454
Then this
http://www.rense.com/general69/germany.htm
and the percentages are to reflect the fact that it was neither an even split nor a US-Soviet split.
The percentages do not prove that. The U.S. was the dominant force in Germany from 1945-1990/91, with additional support from Britain & France. The U.S., Britain & France went on to further consolidate their ties through the U.N., E.U. & NATO.; in which West Germany & West Berlin and later, all of Germany was firmly assimilated.
you are arguing for continual, unbroken control of Germany, the US and the UK, if nothing else, by a German monarchy.
Yes, the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha in the United Kingdom, their cousins perched at the top of the U.S. establishment as well as their sister German Houses in Germany and throughout Europe.
you're not working to explain or adjust it.
You know enough so there is nothing more to explain. Systems of Governance change but the Royal Families still enjoy influence and in the U.K., ruler-ship, as well as in many other nations of Europe. All U.S. Presidents are related to the European Monarchies.
and here's the reason why the percentages are not meaningless: because it was NEVER logical that West Germany would "join" East Germany.
I never said it was. My point was that the “U.S. set up West Germany’s infrastructure, intelligence apparatus, kept strong troop levels and when the Cold War was over, Communist East Germany and East Berlin joined the West and not the other way around. So, again, the 4th ? was the Cold War United States.”
They totally assimilated into the Federal republic which the West (mainly U.S.) created.
West Germany was eleven German states originally occupied by three Western powers;
The U.S kept troops in Germany as an Occupying force up until the Treaty on the Final Settlement With Respect to Germany, which was not signed until 1990. Furthermore, the U.S. still maintains 3 U.S. bases and one NATO base in Germany for Military Industrial Complex reasons, and is in possible violation of this Treaty.
he attacked the USSR and was forced to deal with the consequences.
The U.K. was just looking for a war and went on to force their little brothers (France and the U.S.) into it as well in order to complete their “global governance” plan, which they achieved. The German elites already had the inside track on this play and were all for it because of the profit opportunities. Rothschild, Krupp and Thyssen are excellent examples of this.
he declared war on the US in 1941
No, the U.S. was already participating in the war by funding & supplying the UK, China & Russia with the Lend-Lease Act of 1941. They were already active, just not officially. Roosevelt knew that they would be hit and he & his advisers were waiting on it.
he did not voluntarily decide to scale back operations.
Yes he did. ? began pulling back in 1943 when he still had a chance but instead made the decision to begin pulling back. Even after it was all over, his body was never found and his Scientists, Mathematicians, Intelligence, Doctors & Military personnel was absorbed into the U.S., while the U.S. focused on cultivating these talents and rebuilding Germany with the help of the same industrialists who supplied the Nazis.
The U.S. was very sensitive to the German peoples needs, they even sent in a German American General (Eisenhower) to fight, rebuild and then run the U.S. during the process. It was like two brothers duking it out. No hate, just business.
a treaty negotiated by Western powers. sure seems logical that they were under the same direction as Germany! oh wait...
It’s just war games man, nothing personal between the people at the top. The House of Hohenzollern of Germany and the House of Saxe-Coburg & Gotha are cousins.
Germany wasn't the destabilized Weimar Republic.
The Weimer Republic was very unstable due to the principles of the Versailles Treaty that it was founded upon. There were constant political problems and the Nazis would not have been able to take power otherwise.
which is it, the major power thing you're concerned about or the subhuman thing
It’s both and you know it.
they already HAD the territory. attacking the USSR was for other reasons.
They wanted to totally annihilate the USSR so that they could do what they wished in the East for the betterment of Germany. Remember that they wanted the Ukraine, a State firmly under the USSR. They did not want the USSR to make any more power plays in the future and they very well could have accomplished this had the West not got involved, which is what ? was banking on. It sounds crazy but hey, that’s what they wanted and that was a major part of the strategy and ideology of the Nazis.
however, your claim was that Germany didn't declare war on the US, the US declared war on Germany. this is false; Germany declared war on the US on 12.11.1941.
The U.S. was already engaged in the war because of the Lend-Lease Act. So in reality, Germany just reacted.
my point is that this linguistic/cultural thing is a matter of convenience
So what. Governments spew propaganda all the time in order to galvanize the populace & this was no different. ? knew that this ? wasn’t true, hell one of his early ? buddies was discovered to have Jewish ancestry and ? did nothing. Nevertheless, he was addicted to the power and the effect he had on people. On top of that, the Jews came out of this more powerful than before.
it's entirely the point, because i'm saying the monarch is constrained by Parliament, and you say she's not. so give me an example that demonstrates this.
I don’t have to give you anything in regards to this because you have nothing to prove me wrong. I know how Britain runs and there is no proof of Parliament stopping her from doing anything.
1. The Monarch appoints the Prime Minister and therefore its Cabinet.
2. All Bills passed require Royal Assent to become Law. This is ruler-ship. The Monarch remains neutral out of privilege, not by force.
but you don't think any of that qualifies as secretive reasons, despite the part where you state the "whole story" was never told?
Well all people have to do is research. Germany, the UK nor the US set out to hide anything outside of Operation Paperclip and they eventually released the info on that as well. They put it in the peoples faces and see who wants to know. If people don't react to it? Oh well. All they have to say when confronted is "I never lied, I just didn't tell you the whole truth." -
wasn't already common knowledge that ? was Jewish?
he wasnt jewish
some of his relatives MIGHT have been
but its a fact: ? was black -
KTULU IS BACK wrote: »he wasnt jewish
some of his relatives MIGHT have been
but its a fact: ? was black
Well we know you cornered the Market on non-Jewish disclaimers.
Heck you probably half black-half Jewish. I know Christmas must suck. -
hitlers blackness is unforgivable
-
for the first one... seriously, what am i looking for here? now, your second link seems to be aside from the point, but also clearly notes that West Germany was called "Federal Republic of Germany," while you are arguing that it never was. so... where are you going with that?musicology1985 wrote: »Read this first http://www.jstor.org/pss/2194454
Then this http://www.rense.com/general69/germany.htm
okay. the percentages, and the description i have given you, CLEARLY show the size difference between West Germany and East Germany. if you are arguing against this, i have to insist that you take the time to look at a map. furthermore, you don't seem to grasp the difference between "the US" and "the US, the UK and France," or the difference in "? " between West and East Germany. now granted, i know you are arguing for a shadowy conspiracy, but you have yet to drag France into it. and here's the thing: if you're not willing to acknowledge the blatant difference in SIZE between West and East Germany, then i have to assume you're not debating this topic legitimately.musicology1985 wrote: »The percentages do not prove that. The U.S. was the dominant force in Germany from 1945-1990/91, with additional support from Britain & France. The U.S., Britain & France went on to further consolidate their ties through the U.N., E.U. & NATO.; in which West Germany & West Berlin and later, all of Germany was firmly assimilated.
so let's go right back to the REST of that statement: "you are arguing for continual, unbroken control of Germany, the US and the UK, if nothing else, by a German monarchy. you have not argued for any meaningful breaks in the nature or direction of this monarchy. therefore, claiming the distinctions - especially this Fourth/Fifth ? nonsense - is meaningless."musicology1985 wrote: »Yes, the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha in the United Kingdom, their cousins perched at the top of the U.S. establishment as well as their sister German Houses in Germany and throughout Europe.
there is something to explain: the illogical nature of the argument. you're not willing to note the pointlessness of your ? distinctions because you CAN'T because it's not your argument, is what i am saying. but furthermore, are you arguing the royal families run these countries or "enjoy influence?" because the latter seems like it's backing down from some of your claims.musicology1985 wrote: »You know enough so there is nothing more to explain. Systems of Governance change but the Royal Families still enjoy influence and in the U.K., ruler-ship, as well as in many other nations of Europe.
i suppose what i am trying to get at here is that it is inevitable that East would join West. we're getting away from your ? notion of course; you've argued that the German monarchy has controlled the US for 300 years, but never bothered to claim it as part of the Second ? or anything. that's a little odd.musicology1985 wrote: »I never said it was. My point was that the “U.S. set up West Germany’s infrastructure, intelligence apparatus, kept strong troop levels and when the Cold War was over, Communist East Germany and East Berlin joined the West and not the other way around. So, again, the 4th ? was the Cold War United States.”
and this is the point, there's no reason that the LARGER part of Germany would assimilate into the SMALLER part.musicology1985 wrote: »They totally assimilated into the Federal republic which the West (mainly U.S.) created.
this is a nice little knee-? conspiracy blurb ("Military Industrial Complex reasons," indeed), but it's got nothing to do with the point, which was discussing my previous statement: there's no reason that the LARGER part of Germany would assimilate into the SMALLER part.musicology1985 wrote: »The U.S kept troops in Germany as an Occupying force up until the Treaty on the Final Settlement With Respect to Germany, which was not signed until 1990. Furthermore, the U.S. still maintains 3 U.S. bases and one NATO base in Germany for Military Industrial Complex reasons, and is in possible violation of this Treaty.
he attacked the USSR and was forced to deal with the consequences.
garbage. the UK went to war as a response to Germany invading neighboring nations (that of Poland); they didn't drag the US and France into it, as France went along for legitimate reasons and the US didn't enter the war until 1941. if the UK wanted a war, they could have easily refused to back down at Munich and gone to war against Germany alongside France with odds much more in their favor.musicology1985 wrote: »The U.K. was just looking for a war and went on to force their little brothers (France and the U.S.) into it as well in order to complete their “global governance” plan, which they achieved.
no. listen to your own argument:musicology1985 wrote: »No, the U.S. was already participating in the war by funding & supplying the UK, China & Russia with the Lend-Lease Act of 1941. They were already active, just not officially. Roosevelt knew that they would be hit and he & his advisers were waiting on it.
musicology: He was only fighting [the US and the UK] because they declared war on him
janklow: the US did not declare war on Germany
musicology: no, the US was funding and supplying the UK
see how the last statement does not actually address the issue of who declared war?
no, he did not. he was not "pulling back" in 1943; he was still throwing vast quantities of troops into Stalingrad at the end of 1942 and losing them in 1943. this is not pulling back or tapering down, this is having your men captured and killed by Soviet forces. or being pushed back across North Africa and Eastern Europe. if you are losing troops to advancing armies, you are not pulling back, you are being defeated. to repeat myself again: "seriously, show me ANY evidence of ? scaling back his work that cannot be explained by the Allies beating the ? out of his military." all you're giving me is a vague statement of "he still had a chance but he pulled back." what chance? what evidence of pulling back?musicology1985 wrote: »Yes he did. ? began pulling back in 1943 when he still had a chance but instead made the decision to begin pulling back.
no, his body (along with others) was found, removed and later destroyed by the Soviets.musicology1985 wrote: »Even after it was all over, his body was never found-
i guess we need to come back to that "one of these days you're going to have to understand that you can come from a country to another country without your ethnic background meaning you work for that country FOREVER" concept again. the Nazis also encouraged Germans to return to Germany and fight with them, but oddly enough, i don't recall Eisenhower taking part in that.musicology1985 wrote: »The U.S. was very sensitive to the German peoples needs, they even sent in a German American General (Eisenhower)-
so do they retain influence, or are they running everything? be consistent.musicology1985 wrote: »It’s just war games man, nothing personal between the people at the top. The House of Hohenzollern of Germany and the House of Saxe-Coburg & Gotha are cousins.
because you have ignored my comments and just complained about Versailles again, here you go again: "the Weimar Republic existed from roughly 1919-1933... which means that for six years before World War II, Germany wasn't the destabilized Weimar Republic. this may be the actual time period i am talking about." i am not talking about the Weimar Republic; i am talking about the fact that ? Germany was not "destabilized" in 1933-1939, prior to the war.musicology1985 wrote: »The Weimer Republic was very unstable due to the principles of the Versailles Treaty that it was founded upon. There were constant political problems and the Nazis would not have been able to take power otherwise.
i don't agree. ? 's theory was that the Soviets were NOT a great power, merely a vast wasteland of subhuman people. his racism made him arrogant.musicology1985 wrote: »It’s both and you know it.
? forum is making me break this into two parts -
remember that i argued that the Nazis wanted to seize the land in the East for ? 's motivation of seizing Russian territory for purposes of using it for farmland, and YOU argued that they were taking the land they had lost back. so now you're admitting my theory is correct? or are you just claiming Germany lost the Ukraine in the Treaty of Versailles?musicology1985 wrote: »They wanted to totally annihilate the USSR so that they could do what they wished in the East for the betterment of Germany. Remember that they wanted the Ukraine, a State firmly under the USSR.
and that's why he went to war with them when he was ALREADY at war with the West... and then subsequently declared war on ANOTHER Western nation? i think your view of his scheming is a bit off here.musicology1985 wrote: »They did not want the USSR to make any more power plays in the future and they very well could have accomplished this had the West not got involved, which is what ? was banking on.
the US may have been selling goods to the UK, but they were not at war with Germany; neither side was fighting each other, and we don't say Sweden was at war with the US because they sold materials to Germany during the war. Germany didn't "react," they actively declared war on the United States.musicology1985 wrote: »The U.S. was already engaged in the war because of the Lend-Lease Act. So in reality, Germany just reacted.
the "so what" relates to your post of "the Nazis saw all Germanic peoples as brothers (Germans, Austrians, Dutch, English and linguistically and culturally related peoples were all included"; so they DID see this... but they DIDN'T for German Jews... but maybe they DID because ? knew this ? wasn't true... where are we going with this?musicology1985 wrote: »So what. Governments spew propaganda all the time in order to galvanize the populace & this was no different. ? knew that this ? wasn’t true-
but you're not going on about Jewish conspiracies on the internet, not at all...musicology1985 wrote: »On top of that, the Jews came out of this more powerful than before.
no, what you mean is, there's no example of the monarch ever overruling Parliament, so you don't want to try and think of something. and i read your post, so you didn't need to repeat it; that's why i asked if you could give me an example.musicology1985 wrote: »I don’t have to give you anything in regards to this because you have nothing to prove me wrong. I know how Britain runs and there is no proof of Parliament stopping her from doing anything.
or make up ? stories on the internet. it seems like that's pretty popular as well.musicology1985 wrote: »Well all people have to do is research. -
@Janklow
where are you going with that?
Those links answered all of your questions.
then i have to assume you're not debating this topic legitimately.
Copout. You’re just too dense to get it or more realistically, you just don’t want to. France is tied into it due to it’s declaration of war on the Nazis as well as its key roles the UN & EU, which were some of the main goals for WWII anyway. France did, however, begin to see through the global government plot during the reign of de Gualle.
you have not argued for any meaningful breaks in the nature or direction of this monarchy.
The First ? -Holy Roman Empire, Prussia, successor confederations & Austrian Empire
(962-1871)
The Second ? -German Empire; This Empire was led by the House of Hohenzollern who are cousins to the Royalty of Britain.
(1871-1918)
The Third ? -Weimer Republic & ? Germany
(1918-1945)
The Fourth ? -Allied Occupied Germany & Operation Paperclip
(1945-1990)
The Fifth ? -Federal Republic of Germany
(1990-Present)
you're not willing to note the pointlessness of your ? distinctions because you CAN'T
This whole statement is false. I proved all of my points very clearly.
we're getting away from your ? notion of course
No we are not:
“U.S. set up West Germany’s infrastructure, intelligence apparatus, kept strong troop levels and when the Cold War was over, Communist East Germany and East Berlin joined the West and not the other way around. So, again, the 4th ? was the Cold War United States.”
At the top of all 5 Reichs are German Royalty within different systems and eras. AND THE U.S. IS NOT 300 YEARS OLD.
this is a nice little knee-? conspiracy blurb ("Military Industrial Complex reasons,"
No it’s not a blurb.
“The U.S kept troops in Germany as an Occupying force up until the Treaty on the Final Settlement With Respect to Germany, which was not signed until 1990. Furthermore, the U.S. still maintains 3 U.S. bases and one NATO base in Germany for Military Industrial Complex reasons, and is in possible violation of this Treaty.”
It has everything to do with West vs. East and global governance engineered from the chess board that is Germany, not 75% & 25%; because both parts of Germany ended up adopting the system that the U.S. laid down, which was the plan from the start. Furthermore, ? ’s consequence was that he was used as a ? to further the agenda of global governance and the creation of Israel. The west didn’t give a damn about the Soviets, which is why the alliance quickly deteriorated.
John J. McCloy (Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Navy) had plenty of opportunities to disrupt Aushwitz but did not do so. After the war, he commuted the sentences of most prominent Nazis as High Commisioner of Germany.
if the UK wanted a war, they could have easily refused to back down at Munich and gone to war against Germany alongside France with odds much more in their favor.
? because they did exactly what you stated anyway and they were not attacked. Again, “The U.K. was just looking for a war and went on to force their little brothers (France and the U.S.) into it as well in order to complete their “global governance” plan, which they achieved.” Churchill had been hinting at this for years.
see how the last statement does not actually address the issue of who declared war?
Garbage; the Lend-Lease Act was a war tactic and everyone knew it, including Roosevelt. The U.S. was already in the war by 1941.
he was not "pulling back" in 1943
Yes he was. ? began pulling back in 1943 when he still had a chance but instead made the decision to taper down.
no, his body (along with others) was found, removed and later destroyed by the Soviets.
Complete garbage again, and you have no evidence to support ? ’s death and neither do the Soviets. Nobody knows for sure what happened to ? because there is no proof of his demise.
guess we need to come back
Okay than lets do it.
his body was never found and his Scientists, Mathematicians, Intelligence, Doctors & Military personnel was absorbed into the U.S., while the U.S. focused on cultivating these talents and rebuilding Germany with the help of the same industrialists who supplied the Nazis.
The U.S. was very sensitive to the German peoples needs, they even sent in a German American General (Eisenhower) to fight, rebuild and then run the U.S. during the process. It was like two brothers duking it out. No hate, just business.
be consistent.
I am consistent. I have proven everything that I claimed.
i don't agree. ? 's theory was that the Soviets were NOT a great power,
Well, in a sense he was right in regards to the Power part. The ? ’s could have dominated Eastern Europe had the U.K., U.S. & France not got involved.
YOU argued that they were taking the land they had lost back.
I didn't back away from that position, but in order to keep this land they felt that they had to annihilate the USSR so no further action could be sought by the Russians later. Also, they wanted ? over all of Eastern Europe, and the USSR was standing in the way of that because they had the same goal, hence the formation of the Eastern Bloc after the fall of ? Germany.
and that's why he went to war with them when he was ALREADY at war with the West
What are you talking about? The East was always his target, not the West. The West declared war on him so he found himself encircled from all sides.
-
@Janklow
they were not at war with Germany
Yes they were.
The American Expierence
The United States officially entered World War II in December 1941, after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. In reality, however, the United States had been fighting a war against the Axis powers for years. It was a war of words and a war of action, a war of secret meetings and public duplicity. And the prosecutor of this war was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the 32nd president of the United States.
Roosevelt condemned international aggression, but could do little else. The American public was decidedly isolationist and antiwar. Memories of the expense of World War I -- in lives and money -- were still fresh. In 1934, Congress passed the Johnson Act, which prohibited loans to nations behind on World War I debt repayment. The Neutrality Act of 1935 forbade the export of arms, ammunition or implements of war to belligerent nations; a 1937 amendment to the act forbade American citizens and ships from entering war zones or traveling on belligerents' ships.
In early 1939, Roosevelt asked Congress to repeal the Neutrality Act, so the U.S. could sell arms to the free European forces. Congress refused. In September, World War II began as Germany invaded Poland. Roosevelt spoke before Congress again, and on November 4, it approved the Pittman Bill, which allowed America to sell arms to nations who could pay for their weapons in cash.
On September 27, 1940, Germany, Italy, and Japan signed the Tripartite Pact, in which they promised to defend each other against U.S. attacks. The pact formally established the Axis alliance. Designed to enforce American neutrality, the pact had quite an opposite effect, increasing interventionist sentiment in America. FDR skillfully capitalized on this change.
In a December "fireside chat" on national radio, Roosevelt condemned Axis aggression, insisting that its objective was no less than world ? . He asked for military aid for Britain, which was rapidly running out of money to buy arms. Behind the scenes, FDR moved even closer to war. He secretly sent Harry Hopkins to London to plan an Anglo-American war against Germany.
In March of 1941, Roosevelt persuaded Congress to pass the Lend-Lease Act. The act allowed the U.S. to lend the Allies war materials in return for repayment after the war. FDR, understanding Britain's desperation, began Atlantic transshipment of materials days before signing the bill.
Using all of his political ingenuity, Roosevelt struggled against the constraints of neutrality. In April, he gave the Navy permission to attack German submarines west of 25 degrees longitude. That same month, the U.S. and Denmark agreed to place Greenland under American protection. In July, the U.S. occupied Iceland. On August 14th, the Selective Service Act, which allowed a peacetime draft, passed Congress by a single vote.
That same August day, theAtlantic Charter was made public. Signed during a secret five-day conference at sea between Roosevelt and Churchill, the charter called for national self-determination and stated that aggressor nations should be disarmed. If this was not a declaration of war, it was close. Roosevelt hoped it would provoke the Germans to war on America.
On September 4, 1941, the first clash came. The Greer, a U.S. destroyer, spotted a German submarine and called in a British plane to bomb it. The sub and the destroyer exchanged fire, with little result. But Roosevelt used the incident to further his intention to get America into the war. On October 17, German subs attacked the U.S. destroyer Kearney as it escorted a British convoy. Several crewmen were injured. On October 31, ? subs sank the U.S. destroyer Reuben James, killing 115 men.
A little over a month later, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor would overshadow America's first Atlantic battles. The U.S. would declare war. But in no small way would the Allies' eventual victory in the declared war be attributable to Franklin Delano Roosevelt's prosecution of the unofficial one. With years of public speaking, private maneuvering, political lobbying and presidential action, FDR had helped save Britain and perhaps the world from ? ? , all while his country remained at peace.
the "so what" relates to your post of "the Nazis saw all Germanic peoples as brothers (Germans, Austrians, Dutch, English and linguistically and culturally related peoples were all included"; so they DID see this... but they DIDN'T for German Jews
Quit playing mind games. I wrote it exactly how I meant it. German Jews and Slavs were some of the scapegoats used to galvanize the ? and it worked. You said yourself that speculation in regards to ? ’s ancestry has been a topic of debate, however, the average German took the ? Propaganda “literally” and acted on it under ? ’s directions, and he saw no need to challenge that except for the one example that I provided. So again, Jews are not considered Germanic by Nazis but the others were.
but you're not going on about Jewish conspiracies on the internet, not at all...
No I am not. Zionists do not represent all Jews.
no, what you mean
No, this is what I mean; I don’t have to give you anything in regards to this because you have nothing to prove me wrong. I know how Britain runs and there is no proof of Parliament stopping her from doing anything.
or make up stories
The collaboration between the U.K., Germany and the U.S. is a fact that is well documented. You’re the one that’s full of ? , as usual.
-
musicology1985 wrote: »
This is an excellent point. People act like the two are synonymous.
Besides, They were very prominent in world affairs prior to ? 's rise. Some even supported ? and used this as an impetus to galvanize support for the state of Israel. It's a shame, but Jews in ? controlled areas were used as fodder and expendables for Zionist aspirations. Some Zionist even provided support to ? 's war Machine. -
no, they absolutely did not. you presented them as an argument that Germany was never called the Federal Republic of Germany, but the second one says nothing of the sort (it actually says the opposite), and you're refusing to note what the first link is even supposed to say.musicology1985 wrote: »Those links answered all of your questions.
it's incredibly ironic that you would post this after your previous reply. furthermore, part of why i state that is that you are refusing to even note something as undisputed as the difference in size between East and West Germany.musicology1985 wrote: »Copout. You’re just too dense to get it or more realistically, you just don’t want to.
giving me the list again is NOT an argument for meaningful breaks in the monarchy. remember that you're arguing for continual, unbroken control of these nations by some German monarchs. what's the purpose of the breaks?musicology1985 wrote: »The First ? -Holy Roman Empire, Prussia, successor confederations & Austrian Empire, etc, etc
no, because i'm waiting to hear the reasoning for these supposed distinctions any time now.musicology1985 wrote: »This whole statement is false. I proved all of my points very clearly.
that was actually a comment on my post, but please, let's get emotional about it and then repeat the same post.musicology1985 wrote: »No we are not
yes, i am aware that the US is not literally 300 years old, but at the same time your claim of direction by German royalty precedes 1776. and with all this "at the top of all 5 Reichs" is the same "explain to me why the breaks matter" thing again. look, the First and Second Reichs, as generally identified by everyone but you, have clear endings for clear reasons (such as World War I ending the Second ? ). arguing that there's NO breaks between the Reichs makes the concept of different Reichs meaningless unless you can tell me WHY there's a supposed break.musicology1985 wrote: »At the top of all 5 Reichs are German Royalty within different systems and eras. AND THE U.S. IS NOT 300 YEARS OLD.
so do you know what the term blurb means?musicology1985 wrote: »No it’s not a blurb.
if that was the plan from the start, then what was the purpose of East Germany? plus, you're saying "there's no way East Germany wouldn't have joined West Germany" as a response to... me saying "there's no way East Germany wouldn't have joined West Germany." huh.musicology1985 wrote: »It has everything to do with West vs. East and global governance engineered from the chess board that is Germany, not 75% & 25%; because both parts of Germany ended up adopting the system that the U.S. laid down, which was the plan from the start.
so the West was continuing ? 's work... but ? was a ? , so he wouldn't have been continuing his own work... so what was with the continuing ? 's work thing?musicology1985 wrote: »Furthermore, ? ’s consequence was that he was used as a ? to further the agenda of global governance and the creation of Israel. The west didn’t give a damn about the Soviets, which is why the alliance quickly deteriorated.
i don't know about this "plenty of opportunities," but what's with the randomly specific reference of John McCloy out of nowhere?musicology1985 wrote: »John J. McCloy (Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Navy) had plenty of opportunities to disrupt Aushwitz but did not do so. After the war, he commuted the sentences of most prominent Nazis as High Commisioner of Germany.
if the UK wanted a war, they could have easily refused to back down at Munich and gone to war against Germany alongside France with odds much more in their favor.
? ? okay, first off, they did not do "exactly what i stated" because they DID back down at Munich. it's not possible for them to have done what i said; they signed the Munich Agreement in 1938, and didn't go to war until 1939. your refusal to acknowledge this FACT is simply ridiculous.musicology1985 wrote: »? because they did exactly what you stated anyway and they were not attacked.
second, they weren't attacked? well, France certainly was, and they would have been in a better position to fight in 1938. and the UK obviously suffered from repeated aerial attacks while ? plotted an invasion. yes, the UK was not invaded by German forces. but what's the point of me acknowledging this if you can't even admit that the UK did not do "exactly what i stated?"
this is just being childish. you could ACKNOWLEDGE who declared war on whom and argue that it was inevitable because of the Lend-Lease Act, but instead, you simply claim otherwise. the US did not declare war on Germany.musicology1985 wrote: »The U.S. was already in the war by 1941.
Yes he was. ? began pulling back in 1943 when he still had a chance but instead made the decision to taper down.[/quote]here we go again:
"no, he did not. he was not "pulling back" in 1943; he was still throwing vast quantities of troops into Stalingrad at the end of 1942 and losing them in 1943. this is not pulling back or tapering down, this is having your men captured and killed by Soviet forces. or being pushed back across North Africa and Eastern Europe. if you are losing troops to advancing armies, you are not pulling back, you are being defeated. to repeat myself again: "seriously, show me ANY evidence of ? scaling back his work that cannot be explained by the Allies beating the ? out of his military." all you're giving me is a vague statement of "he still had a chance but he pulled back." what chance? what evidence of pulling back?"
is there some reason you are continually claiming that he "tapered down" without bothering to address the bolded question i have repeatedly asked you?
i have witness statements and the evidence the Soviets collected. this is easily more support than your claim of "we don't know what happened." furthermore, even if you disagree with the Soviet claim, you should acknowledge it exists.musicology1985 wrote: »Complete garbage again, and you have no evidence to support ? ’s death and neither do the Soviets. Nobody knows for sure what happened to ? because there is no proof of his demise.
now explain to me why Eisenhower has to be some loves-all-Germans person because he has German heritage. "the Nazis also encouraged Germans to return to Germany and fight with them, but oddly enough, i don't recall Eisenhower taking part in that."musicology1985 wrote: »The U.S. was very sensitive to the German peoples needs, they even sent in a German American General (Eisenhower) to fight, rebuild and then run the U.S. during the process. It was like two brothers duking it out. No hate, just business.
this is, pardon my tone, a flat-out ? lie. you are giving absolutely zero support for your 1943 "tapering down" assertion. for something to be proven, you have to actually DO so.musicology1985 wrote: »I am consistent. I have proven everything that I claimed.
i don't think he would have DOMINATED it, but obviously he would have been much more successful if the rest of the Allies were not involved.musicology1985 wrote: »Well, in a sense he was right in regards to the Power part. The ? ’s could have dominated Eastern Europe had the U.K., U.S. & France not got involved.
you SHOULD back away from that position, because once you say "well, they had to keep going," it's not really about getting back the land you lost, is it? plus, we're also talking about land they worked WITH the Soviets to acquire. obviously he wanted to wipe out Slavs, but that goes beyond getting back lost land.musicology1985 wrote: »I didn't back away from that position, but in order to keep this land they felt that they had to annihilate the USSR so no further action could be sought by the Russians later.
i've never disputed this, so...musicology1985 wrote: »Also, they wanted ? over all of Eastern Europe, and the USSR was standing in the way of that because they had the same goal-
and that's why he went to war with them when he was ALREADY at war with the West
i am talking about the basic timeline of World War II. which, if you were confused about, would make some sense:musicology1985 wrote: »What are you talking about? The East was always his target, not the West. The West declared war on him so he found himself encircled from all sides.
1939 - ? is at war with the UK and France
1941 - ? is at war with the USSR
he declared war on the USSR while ALREADY at war with Western nations. and, according to you, while already at war with the US as well. -
if it's not clear by now that i don't consider it war until someone DECLARES WAR, i don't know what to tell you.musicology1985 wrote: »Yes they were.
then why take issue with the fact that German Jews were, you know, linguistically and cultural similar to Germans?musicology1985 wrote: »Quit playing mind games. I wrote it exactly how I meant it.
ah, yes, they become Zionists once the Jewish conspiracy stuff gets noticed...musicology1985 wrote: »No I am not. Zionists do not represent all Jews.
and there's no proof of Parliament being stopped by her either, so i don't see why there's supposed to be any confirmation of her awesome royal power. the monarch hasn't vetoed legislation or appointments by the Prime Minister in how long, again?musicology1985 wrote: »No, this is what I mean; I don’t have to give you anything in regards to this because you have nothing to prove me wrong. I know how Britain runs and there is no proof of Parliament stopping her from doing anything.
in the manner that YOU describe? yeah, sure... anyone can put some nonsense on the internet. and i could care less about it.musicology1985 wrote: »The collaboration between the U.K., Germany and the U.S. is a fact that is well documented.
awww... the hurt feelings. they don't, however, change the fact that you haven't supported your claims.musicology1985 wrote: »You’re the one that’s full of ? , as usual. -
Well I'm a be honest Jank, I'm a lil tired of this subject. So, I'll be back with a rebuttal in a few days so don't lock the thread.
-
? never considered himself part of the "master race" in the first place, yet he was trying to create a master race
, ? was just crazy imo..... -
actually i might agree with this point; these posts are getting ridiculously longmusicology1985 wrote: »Well I'm a be honest Jank, I'm a lil tired of this subject. -
ah, yes, they become Zionists once the Jewish conspiracy stuff gets noticed...
Actually, they become Zionist once they engage in that philosophy. Not all Zionist are Jewish. There are many more Christian Zionists than Jewish ones, who believe in that ideology based on their view of scripture.
Theodore Herzl and his crew were Jewish. They advanced the idea of Zionism. Nothing wrong with the principle of Zionism in theory. It is just the implementation that is hot garbage.
No need to stifle legitimate criticism and deny historical facts with the hollow claim of Anti-Jewish conspiracies. -
? 's mustache was a weave.
-
right, i'm certainly not responding to the implication that WWI/WWII were schemed for the benefit of Jews, as evidenced by the "more powerful than before" type of remark. because, as you know, such implications are incredibly rare here on the internet.No need to stifle legitimate criticism and deny historical facts with the hollow claim of Anti-Jewish conspiracies. -
right, i'm certainly not responding to the implication that WWI/WWII were schemed for the benefit of Jews, as evidenced by the "more powerful than before" type of remark. because, as you know, such implications are incredibly rare here on the internet.
Zionists had interests in WWII just like many other groups, but most Jews were not privy to the plot. -
If I knew that it was possible to save all the children of Germany by transporting them to England, and only half by transferring them to the Land of Israel, I would choose the latter, for before us lies not only the numbers of these children but the historical reckoning of the people of Israel." Ben Gurionmusicology1985 wrote: »Zionists had interests in WWII just like many other groups, but most Jews were not privy to the plot. -
@Janklow
no, they absolutely did not. you presented them as an argument that Germany was never called the Federal Republic of Germany, but the second one says nothing of the sort (it actually says the opposite), and you're refusing to note what the first link is even supposed to say.
Both articles question the legitimacy of the Federal Republic and the second article disputes it, thereby challenging its legality.
part of why i state that is that you are refusing to even note something as undisputed as the difference in size between East and West Germany.
I already answered this:
“It has everything to do with West vs. East and global governance engineered from the chess board that is Germany, not 75% & 25%; because both parts of Germany ended up adopting the system that the U.S. laid down, which was the plan from the start.
giving me the list again is NOT an argument
It gives you everything that you need.
remember that you're arguing for continual, unbroken control of these nations by some German monarchs. what's the purpose of the breaks?
I already answered this. The systems of Governance change but the Monarchs continue their reign, albeit from behind the scenes. As long as political leaders don’t rock the the boat, they don’t get overthrown.
no, because i'm waiting to hear the reasoning for these supposed distinctions any time now.
………………………………….
yes, i am aware that the US is not literally 300 years old, but at the same time your claim of direction by German royalty precedes 1776.
Saying the U.S. alone was an inaccurate approach. You should have said British Colonies as well, which still would not reach 300 years until 2014 A.D., Not too far from now.
if that was the plan from the start, then what was the purpose of East Germany?
Both Global Powers (U.S. vs. U.S.S.R.) were flexing their muscle and both benefited from the competition.
Wikipedia:
The Cold War (Russian: Холо́дная война́, Kholodnaya voyna, 1947–1991) was the continuing state of political conflict, military tension, proxy wars, and economic competition existing after World War II (1939–1945), primarily between the Soviet Union and its satellite states, and the powers of the Western world, particularly the United States. Although the primary participants' military forces never officially clashed directly, they expressed the conflict through military coalitions, strategic conventional force deployments, extensive aid to states deemed vulnerable, proxy wars, espionage, propaganda, a nuclear arms race, intense competition at international sports events, and economic and technological competitions, such as the Space Race.
Despite being allies against the Axis powers and having the most powerful military forces among peer nations, the USSR and the US disagreed about the configuration of the post-war world while occupying most of Europe. The Soviet Union created the Eastern Bloc with the eastern European countries it occupied, annexing some as Soviet Socialist Republics and maintaining others as satellite states, some of which were later consolidated as the Warsaw Pact (1955–1991). The US and some western European countries established containment of communism as a defensive policy, establishing alliances such as NATO to that end.
Several such countries also coordinated the Marshall Plan, especially in West Germany, which the USSR opposed. Elsewhere, in Latin America and Southeast Asia, the USSR assisted and helped foster communist revolutions, opposed by several Western countries and their regional allies; some they attempted to roll back, with mixed results. Some countries aligned with NATO and the Warsaw Pact, and others formed the Non-Aligned Movement.
so the West was continuing ? 's work...
Yes, true indeed. Operation Paperclip, the Marshall Plan, NATO & the European Union serves as blatant proof of this.
but ? was a ? ,
I repeat:
"The Nazis needed to be co-opted, toned down and revamped in order to allow a greater level of efficiency. The U.S. accomplished this goal and the west benefited greatly from it. The large German American population (57 million) and influence as well as those still on the mainland (81 million in Germany alone), coupled with the German ruling Monarchy of Britain, made the Transition a smooth and successful one which is exemplified in the modern 5th ? of today."
i don't know about this "plenty of opportunities," but what's with the randomly specific reference of John McCloy out of nowhere?
It’s not random. It goes right to my point of U.S. control of Germany and certain actions being taken as a benefit to Zionists in the future, such as avoiding Auschwitz. John McCloy was also a disciple of the German American Rockefeller Dynasty.
if the UK wanted a war,
Yes they did want a war. If not they would not have declared one because the Nazis did not attack the UK.
this is just being childish. you could ACKNOWLEDGE who declared war on whom and argue that it was inevitable because of the Lend-Lease Act, but instead, you simply claim otherwise. the US did not declare war on Germany.
The Lend-Lease Act was an act of War.
i have witness statements and the evidence the Soviets collected. this is easily more support than your claim of "we don't know what happened." furthermore, even if you disagree with the Soviet claim, you should acknowledge it exists.
There is absolutely no proof that ? died in 1945.
"the Nazis also encouraged Germans to return to Germany and fight with them, but oddly enough, i don't recall Eisenhower taking part in that."
The German Americans returned to their homeland and did ? their way; i.e. the Allied Occupation, Operation Paperclip & Marshall Plan way. It’s called an upgrade.
this is, pardon my tone, a flat-out ? lie. you are giving absolutely zero support for your 1943 "tapering down" assertion. for something to be proven, you have to actually DO so.
Definition: adjective
gradually decreased in breadth or thickness toward one end
transitive verb, intransitive verb
1. to decrease gradually in width or thickness
2. to lessen; diminish
It says nothing of the sort about the process being done forcefully or willingly, as long as it gets done. So again, ? begun tapering down from 42-45.
i don't think he would have DOMINATED it,
The Eastern Bloc would have been the ? Bloc, therefore, the Nazis would have expanded as they wished.
it's not really about getting back the land you lost, is it?
Yes it is, because the Russians will come back again. History has shown us that they are just as much an expansionist Nation as the the British, French, Spanish & U.S. Only difference is, their main focus of expansion has always been in Asia and the European Peninsula, which was absolutely the same as what the Nazis wanted. Therein lays the conflict.
plus, we're also talking about land they worked WITH the Soviets to acquire.
Just Geopolitical Chess moves; setting your frenimies up for the later slaughter. Diplomats do it all the time.
then why take issue with the fact that German Jews were, you know, linguistically and cultural similar to Germans?
Because Jews adapt everywhere that they live but they are not a Germanic people. Their roots lay in Khazaria (which is today mainly southern Russia, Ukraine & Kazakhstan,) and they are of Turko-Slavic-Mongol extraction and lineage.
the monarch hasn't vetoed legislation or appointments by the Prime Minister
Of course she hasn’t vetoed it because she appoints the Prime Minister. You don’t get into that position without the Monarch.
in the manner that YOU describe?
Yes, in the manner that I describe.
awww... the hurt feelings.
Here you go with this “hurt feelings” ? again.
