Hot Take: Nazis were not evil for their time.

It's not, there is a lot work that goes into building a SI.

After WW2, we were trying to build a constructive relationship with Germany. That meant we had to come up with propaganda that it was the evil guys at the top, and not regular Germans. The problem was it just wasn't true, which became a major fight among historians (and others) in the 1960s.

On the day Hitler was born, the mayor of the city he was born in gave a fiery speech about the evils of Jews. My personal experience suggests there is still a lot of anti-Semitism in Europe, to this day.

So this is old, old territory for me, and I am really quite tired of it.

 

You still haven't shown where anything I have written and supported is "propaganda" as you claimed.
If someone had accused you of deliberately writing falsehoods wouldn't you expect them to be able to support their accusations?
That's all I'm asking of you now.

Since the victors are the ones who write the history and control the information, I have little faith in the objectivity and accuracy of what you call the SI.
For example, it was once part of the SI that the Germans made lampshades and pocketbooks out of the skin of the inmates. However, that and countless other parts of the SI have been proven to be deliberate lies used to demonize and extort $ Billions from the German people.

Finally, this is old territory for me too but it is not every day that I am referred to as a propagandist.
I don't think that it is unreasonable to ask that you prove your accusation and suspect that you would ask the same thing of someone who accused you of spreading propaganda.

So, please quit being evasive and show where anything I have written and supported is "propaganda".

Thanks,

 

I hope this thread continues another 18 years, so we can explore all the peripheral matters.
Grau, you reflected upon the propaganda aspects of Hollywood movies. Remember that the propaganda comes up everywhere. Today I stumbled upon it unexpectedly in a 1983 miniseries called Sadat.
There was propaganda everywhere and favoring Jews over all other categories of people, most of all blacks.
Most telling for this thread they show a ranting Nasser talking about a final solution to the Zionist problem.

 

Thank you.
Yes, I am disappointed at the inability of so many people to use critical thinking skills and see through the propaganda that is all around us.
The example you just cited is of the most pervasive "poor-Jews-evil-everybody-else" genre that builds on a fraudulent interpretation of the so called "Final Solution".

The Holocaust Industry and its complicit Hollywood-MSM myth makers has convinced the unthinking masses that the Final Solution was about genocide when, in reality, the "Solution" was a product of an agreement between Germany's National Socialists and the German Zionist Federation to move Germany's Jews to Palestine as per the Haavara Agreement and to the East.
There is absolutely no evidence that Germany had a genocidal agenda in spite of what professionally deceived Westerners have been led to believe.

I specify that it is primarily Westerners who have been most effectively deceived by the Holocaust Industry and its complicit Hollywood-MSM myth makers because the vast majority of people around the world do not believe holocaustian propaganda(1).

The study I cited reveals that Hindus and younger people are less likely to believe lies about "6 million Jews" killed in physically impossible homicidal gas chambers and other grisly and absurd means.

The fact that younger people are less likely to believe hate filled holocaustian lies has made them targets of "Holocaust Education / brainwashing".
Absolutely no critical thinking is allowed when it comes to this topic and this topic alone(2). Students guilty of holocaustian "thought crimes" were marched off to one of many holocaust theme parks for further brainwashing.

None of this does anything to address the fact that most people simply don't believe the slanderous lies of the Holocaust Industry but with numerous "Holocaust Denial Laws", its countless $ Billions and control of Hollywood - MSM, the truth about WW 2 era Germany and the holocaust is getting increasingly hard to find.




(1) ”THE WORLD IS FULL OF HOLOCAUST DENIERS”
https://www.theatlantic.com/interna...he-world-is-full-of-holocaust-deniers/370870/

EXCERPT “Only a third of the world's population believe the genocide has been accurately described in historical accounts.

Some said they thought the number of people who died has been exaggerated; others said they believe it's a myth.

Thirty percent of respondents said it's probably true that "Jews still talk too much about what happened to them in the Holocaust."

- Hindus were most likely to believe that the number of Holocaust deaths has been exaggerated.

- people younger than 65 were much more likely to say they believe that facts about the Holocaust have been distorted”CONTINUED


(2) "SHOCK: District’s ‘critical thinking’ assignment led at least 50 students to conclude Holocaust never occurred"
http://eagnews.org/shock-districts-...tudents-to-conclude-holocaust-never-occurred/

 

Not all propaganda comes from Hollywood. Explain this one.
Recently actress Eva Ingeborge-Scholz passed away at 93. I watched 3 of her movies.
First I watched a 1951 movie that was directed by and starred Peter Lorre. It was in German with no subtitles but it was a lot like M from 18 years earlier.
Next I watched the 1948 East German film 1, 2, 3, Corona. She played Corona. They make good use of devastated buildings but it doesn't seem to influence the plot.
Then I watched a West German film from 1955 called The Devil's General.
First of all I'm curious how she managed to go back and forth between the 2 Germanies.
The story starts on December 5, 1941. You know why. There is some question about the general's loyalty. They lock him up briefly but release him for lack of evidence. When he returns to work he learns they are now at war with America and failed to take Moscow. A Jewish acquaintance of his daughter and her husband get sent to a concentration camp. He goes into a rage and points at the word Vaterland, listing the camps, then flies a plane into a munitions storage building.

 

Thanks for introducing me to actress Eva Ingeborge-Scholz and the films in which she acted. I just did some cursory research on both and most of those films seem far more subtle than the more recent melodramatic WW 2 propaganda films.

"1,2,3, Corona" doesn't seem to be the sort of propaganda I had in mind and "The Devil's General" which is roughly based on the life of Luftwaffe General Ernst Udet also seems tamer than more recent films of that genre.

Based on what little I know about the movie, it is far more subtle than Hollywood's glut of crude and simple minded, "evil German" / holocaust propaganda movies in which all Germans are portrayed as ugly and moronic sadists and all Western Allies depicted as noble and heroic supermen.

So called "documentaries" such as Billy Wilder's "Death Mills" which features the infamous and fraudulent human skin lampshades, human fat soap, shrunken heads and similar hoaxes began shaping Western minds since the 1940s and sadly such fodder as "Band of Brothers", "The Dirty Dozen", "Saving Private Ryan" etc are the only sort of depictions of WW 2 that most Westerners ever see or know. Therefore, most of the "Hollywood educated" WW 2 enthusiasts with whom I have discussed this topic seem to lack any critical thinking capacity and simply parrot what Hollywood's propagandists have relentlessly poured into their heads since the mid 1940s.

 

So was the real officer upset about the camps or upset at the unrealistic expectations that they could win a war against 3 superpowers at once?

 

I did a little research on Luftwaffe General Ernst Udet and he was apparently quite a colorful character.
He was Germany's second highest ranked ace fighter pilot in WW 1 and between the wars, he was a stunt pilot and alleged playboy but flying was his real passion.

Like all Germans who served in Germany's WW 1 military, he was especially despondent over the disastrous Treaty of Versailles and post-war Allied abuses.

Even though he joined the National Socialist Party, he was far more interested in flying and forming Germany's WW 2 Luftwaffe than politics.

Upon his suicide in 1941, Germany's work camps were little different than the prisons of any other Western country. The inmate population was primarily for the usual sort of criminals such as rapists, thieves, murderers, pedophiles in addition to political prisoners and saboteurs.
As I have shown in previous Posts, there were no gas, steam or electrocution chambers nor was there a genocidal German agenda so there was nothing about Germany's work camps to distress him.

Even though German intelligence discovered Stalin's plans to attack Germany, France, England and other countries to the West in or around 1941, it was probably the likelihood that Germany would be fighting the Communists as well as the Western Allies that drove him to shoot himself on 17 November 1941.

 

An American Broadway star died. I was looking forward to days of his silly comedies, but they aren't available so late last night I ended up watching a movie called The Cardinal. I didn't expect NAZIs but the fictional Bishop finds himself in Austria the day the Germans took over.
The husband of the woman who almost got him to quit the priesthood long before that throws himself out the window because one grandmother was ethnically Jewish. As I understand it, such a man would not have gone to the camps unless he resisted, but he didn't know that.. Obviously these people who got famous for hiding in attics feared the worst. That's called terrorism. You kill a few million and scare almost everyone else.
Next they arrest the Cardinal and destroy the Cathedral.
Did anything like that happen.

 

The movie you are describing does not accurately portray several events.

Firstly, the partially Jewish character who threw himself out of a window would not have automatically have gone to a work camp unless he was a common criminal (murderer, rapist, thief, pedophile etc) or active Communist.

Secondly, "millions" were not killed in the German work camps. That's just more Holocaust Industry - Allied propaganda.
The Red Cross which is the most credible and impartial source reported that fewer than 300,000 people died in all the German work camps(1) and the overwhelming majority of those deaths were from typhus and related diseases.

Finally, members of the clergy were not persecuted except for treason nor were cathedrals destroyed except by indiscriminate Allied firebombing of civilian targets. Briefly put, freedom of religion was little different during the Third Reich than earlier in Germany.

Very much like in America today where Americans have mainly 2 political parties from which to chose: Republican or Democrat, Germans of the 1920s and 1930s also had 2 major parties from which to chose: National Socialism or Communism. National Socialists allowed freedom of religion while a Communist Germany would have abolished freedom of religion.

Does any of what I've written address the questions you have?



(1)" HOLOCAUST DEPROGRAMMING COURSE"
https://fullcontrol.se/holocaust-deprogramming-course.html

EXCERPT "In a 1650 page Red Cross report there was never a mention of gas chambers.
Ernst Zündel is a German Canadian who was put on trial in Canada for questioning the Holocaust. He forced the Red Cross to produce their WW2 records, they showed approximately 280,000 total dead for all the camps.

The Auschwitz Camp had sickbays and hospitals where thousands of inmates were cured. Since late 1942, the camp authorities, foremost the garrison physician Dr. Wirths, tried with all conceivable means to keep the Auschwitz inmates alive and healthy." CONTINUED
PDF: http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/33-hia.pdf

 

It surprises me that there are still people who believe the holocaust could not have been as evil as it clearly was. There is a strong need for denial in those people.

 

Some explanation is needed in my opinion about the topic dilemma. Eugenics comes from the idea that natural selection is blind yet it is leading to biological evolution. Artificial selection on the other hand is guided by human reason and it should like be much more efficient. But even if you believe for example that males are better than females and you use selective abortion in society to make more males and lets say make society more military capable which is of course also a form of eugenics that does not remove the moral question if it is right to kill human beings to achieve such goals. The same can be applied in the question if you can make one race like more strong with using eugenics or artificial selection. The timeframe is not specially important.

 

Not really.

Eugenics is nothing different than what we have been doing with animals for thousands of years.

However, nobody complains if you sterilize animals with a congenital birth defect. Or only breed the top animals, and do not allow any others to reproduce.

In general, eugenics is trying to apply the same thing to humans. And that is almost always invariably evil, because we are not animals and should have freedom of choice in that area.

But the far-left in that era was all for it. Such people as Margaret Sanger, which was one of the main goals of Planned Parenthood.