Hitler was NOT a Rothschild or a Zionist Agent--Prothink, Condit and William Finck

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Hitler was NOT a Rothschild or a Zionist Agent
Submitted by wmfinck on Thu, 07/21/2011 - 02:32

Unless you want to believe the conjecture and second-guessing of Jim Condit Jr., along with the endless stream of post-war jewish fables. William Finck in a discussion with Jim Condit concerning his "Hitler was a Rothschild Agent" theory.

http://mk.christogenea.org/audio/downlo ... Condit.mp3

[checkitb4uwreckit]

I gotta say, William Fink is a fucking screwball. It's painful trying to listen to that nutjob as he flies off the handle and interrupts Condit every two seconds to spew some religious garbage.

Condit has wacky religious beliefs as well, but he's far less crazy than Fink.

[checkitb4uwreckit]

CSR are you a Christian Identity follower?

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

I'm not a C.I. follower but I do think they have some areas worth looking at.
The Christian Identity belief in the Edomite Jews - Dual seedline is interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edom


------------

   You can note the casual use of the name Yahweh without any hesitance in this military correspondence, certainly not with any hint that the name was so sacred it shouldn't be spoken or written! Furthermore, many of the other personal names contain yahu as parts of the names. At the time of this letter in 590 BC, it would only be four more years before Lachish was conquered as a punishment from God because His Israelite children had gone chasing after Pagan gods. Yahweh was likely one of them! The Pagan religion was being practiced in the Jerusalem Temple. Ezekiel had been taken captive to Babylon in 598 BC, where he was shown a vision from God in 593 BC, about iniquities inside that Temple. Ezekiel 8:13, 14 - "(13)Then He said to me, you shall see still greater transgressions which they are committing. (14) Then He led me to the vestibule of the gate of the house of the Lord facing the north, and behold here were women sitting there, weeping for Tammuz." Tammuz was the dead son for whom worshippers wept in that religion of lamentations.

 

        Edomites were evicted from their land in 312 BC by the Nabateans, then emigrating to a region of southern Judea which was called Idumea. Then in 132 BC, the leader of Jerusalem, John Hyrcanus, forced the troublesome Edomites to be circumcised and convert to the Jerusalem temple religion of Talmudic Phariseeism. Within a century, Judea was being run by an Edomite dictator, Herod the Great, followed by his descendant Herods. The Edomites had become Judeans. When Jesus called His sheep away from that corrupt temple religion, to be Christians, the Edomites continued to be called Judeans, which is translated into English as Jews. That race of Edomites continues to be called Jews to this day. They are the eternal enemies of Christ, and certainly NOT God's chosen ones. But, I'm getting off track.

        A Christian brother, who has honored the name of Yahweh, recently referred me to a couple fragments of parchment, found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are Greek texts that contain the name YHWH. While the general text is Greek, the tetragrammeton is written in what modern scholars call "Paleo-Hebrew" letters, implying that ancient Hebrews had an early script of their own. But, the letters are actually Phoenician characters. Anyway, one of these parchment fragments is dated from between 50 BC and 50 AD. The other is dated in the first century AD, but it would have to be prior to 68 AD when the scrolls were buried. Finding the tetragrammeton in Greek Septuagint text is nearly like finding the Holy Grail for one who wants to believe God has a sacred name. These fragments have supported the Yahwists, who can point to them and say, "See, this proves that the tetragrammeton was used in the ORIGINAL Septuagint!" In their court, they can proudly sit down and say, "The defense rests. Case closed." They have subsequently decried the Greek Septuagint texts of the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts as faulty, assuming the tetragrammeton was deliberately removed. If the Yahwists were right in drawing the conclusion that YHWH was in the original Septuagint, I would personally apologize for my criticisms of it, and would honor that sacred name for God with sincere enthusiasm. But, wait just a moment. There is more to this story, and it supports an opposite conclusion.

        Let's recall that the Edomites took over the Jerusalem Temple and the religion more than a century prior to Christ. Let's also understand that the Dead Sea Scrolls are collections of widely diverse writings of all types which are from private libraries of people of Jerusalem; perhaps some of them are even from the Temple. The scrolls were buried about 68 AD because the Edomites of Jerusalem (the Jews) were under attack by Rome. They buried their precious writings because such scribal products were very valuable - no printing presses! The Edomites had taken over Jerusalem and had persecuted and oppressed the true Israelites, pushing most of them out of the city to the fringes where many of them suffered poverty. So, these scrolls are mostly, probably ALL, from Edomites who had changed the Hebrew religion to their Talmudic Phariseeism. It appears that they were altering Old Testament texts to read YHWH where the original Septuagint had "God" or "Lord."  So, the parchment fragments do NOT prove the original Septuagint used the tetragrammeton.

        My own personal conclusion is more firm than ever, that the Edomite Jews have once again usurped something valuable of Israel, and have duped Jesus' sheep into calling upon the name of their Pagan lord, Yahweh. I would plead with our people to be very suspicious of anything Edomites offer us, especially their so-called Hebrew translation of our Old Testament, their Masoretic Text, which showcases the sacred name of THEIR lord.      

http://www.remnantradio.org/Archives/ar ... d_name.htm

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

The Dunkirk point by Condit was looked at here a few months ago:

I don't know what you mean by "real Nazi" I think Hitler didn't want to engage in war with Britain, nor did the German High command desire to have Germans soldats killed in a "Trench" fighting near the beaches if a Blitzkreig could not be carried to ocean shores. The "details" over Dunkirk are not so clear cut. Hitler at this point likely wanted to defeat Britain not destroy her BEF on beaches. The British did a decent job of just "disappearing" across the Channel as Hitler and his Generals made strategy.

--------------

    Firstly, although Heinz Guderian and Rommel, commanders of the German mechanized units, were keen to push on and destroy the British on the beaches, this was impractical.Their troops were exhausted, many of their vehicles in need of refit and repair, and they were short of supplies and understrength due to breakdowns and losses earlier in the campaign. Further, getting through to the beaches involved fighting through the town of Dunkirk itself, still being vigorously defended by 3 British divisions which Churchill ordered must not surrender - in any circumstances - until the evacuation was complete. Urban areas are not ideal for tank operations, particularly without infantry support, and the German infantry divisions were still too far away to participate in the operation.

    Hitler therefore ordered the German armoured formations to halt (26 May). This halt order was influenced by the senior German commander in France, von Runstedt. He disliked Rommel and Guderian, seeing them as insubordinate and taking too many risks. Hitler was also influenced by Goering, who assured Hitler his Luftwaffe would prevent any evacuation through air attacks.

    No one expected that the British would be able to improvise an effective evacuation fleet, and the RAF was able to break up many Luftwaffe formations before they could attack the evacuation fleet. So, although many British vessels were damaged or sunk,the fleet was able to evacuate the bulk of the forces on the beach. It's also worth pointing out that Hitler rescinded the halt order as early as 28 May, when the evacuation began, but the armoured formations (despite 2 days rest and refit) were unable to break through to the beaches before the evacuation was completed (on 4 June), a good indication that even without the halt they wouldn't have been able to prevent the evacuation.

    Finally, although the British got the troops away from Dunkirk, all their vehicles, heavy weapons, and supplies were left behind (AKA AS A MAJOR DEFEAT). One British soldier I talked to said he got back to England with the top half of his battledress, and nothing else. Within a week, he'd been sent to dig in on Ramsgate beach - with 5 rounds of ammunition. Nobody believed the British army was in any condition to resist a German invasion in June 1940 and thus continue the war, so capturing the British army at Dunkirk was not a pressing priority in German High Command eyes at the time anyway.

    3) Hitler knew a two-front war was something he had to avoid at all costs. He told many times that it was that which had lead to the defeat during WWI. But what does he do ? He attacks USSR before having destroyed England, thus creating a... two-front war.

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=13301&hilit=Dunkirk&start=15

[Michael K.]

CSR-

I have found the mp3 entirely worth the time taken to listen to it.  The piece on Dunkirk that you supplied clarifies what history has revealed by direct evidence.  The piece on the Dead Sea Scrolls you quoted was also worth the read.  I, too, am opposed to Yahwism as it seems like another in a long line of heresies. In short, it misses the point by over-emphasizing the importance of this name-thing, which then becomes a cult shibboleth.  The observations about the possible origin of the Scrolls seems likely, too.

[-Pas-]

I like debates between jew-wise researchers on Hitler, but the religious side topic wasn't helping much.
What strikes me is that the ''Hitler apologists'' are a bit vicious and agressive towards Mr. Condit (Mrs. Yaeger and Mrs. Spingola, in the past) and i don't agree with Mr. Fink's extreme views on the use of a jewish source.He doesn't care what might be said, but totally disregards it just because it's a jew saying it.

I respect C.I. for their political views, they seem to be far more aware of important issues than most other Christian sects, but i think their relious beliefs are potentially very dangerous.

White israelites, Black Israelites, Yellow Israelites, Purple Israelites.Fuck Israel!(sorry about that)

Thanks for posting, CSR.

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Keep in mind the Hittites and Philistines, like the Greeks and Mycenaeans,  in ancient times were likely mostly R1B*/R1A* haplotypes. There is also substantial evidence that ancient Egypt's upper classes were mostly R1B*/R1A* as well:

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_ ... oups.shtml

http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/phc/index.htm

Philistines

Archaeology

The connection between Mycenaean culture and Philistine culture was made clearer by finds at the excavation of Ashdod, Ekron, Ashkelon, and more recently Gath, four of the five Philistine cities in Canaan. The fifth city is Gaza. Especially notable is the early Philistine pottery, a locally made version of the Aegean Mycenaean Late Helladic IIIC pottery, which is decorated in shades of brown and black. This later developed into the distinctive Philistine pottery of the Iron Age I, with black and red decorations on white slip known as Philistine Bichrome ware. Also of particular interest is a large, well-constructed building covering 240 square metres (2,600 sq ft), discovered at Ekron. Its walls are broad, designed to support a second story, and its wide, elaborate entrance leads to a large hall, partly covered with a roof supported on a row of columns. In the floor of the hall is a circular hearth paved with pebbles, as is typical in Mycenaean megaron hall buildings; other unusual architectural features are paved benches and podiums. Among the finds are three small bronze wheels with eight spokes. Such wheels are known to have been used for portable cultic stands in the Aegean region during this period, and it is therefore assumed that this building served cultic functions. Further evidence concerns an inscription in Ekron to PYGN or PYTN, which some have suggested refers to "Potnia", the title given to an ancient Mycenaean goddess. Excavations in Ashkelon, Ekron, and Gath reveal dog and pig bones which show signs of having been butchered, implying that these animals were part of the residents' diet.[16][17] Among other findings there are wineries where fermented wine was produced, as well as loom weights resembling those of Mycenaean sites in Greece.[18]

It has been theorized that the latter Philistines originated among the "sea peoples". Modern archaeology has also suggested early cultural links with the Mycenaean world in Greece. Though the Philistines adopted local Canaanite culture and language before leaving any written texts (and later adopted the Aramaic language), an Indo-European origin has been suggested for a handful of known Philistine words that survived as loanwords in Hebrew.

Philistine language

Nothing is known for certain about the language of the Philistines.[2] There is some limited evidence in favor of the assumption that the Philistines did originally speak some Indo-European language. A number of Philistine-related words found in the Bible are not Semitic, and can in some cases, with reservations, be traced back to Proto-Indo-European roots. For example, the Philistine word for captain, 'seren', may be related to the Greek word tyrannos (thought by linguists to have been borrowed by the Greeks from an Anatolian language, such as Luwian or Lydian[19]). Some of the Philistine names, such as Goliath, Achish, and Phicol, appear to be of non-Semitic origin, and Indo-European etymologies have been suggested. Recently, an inscription dating to the late 10th/early 9th centuries BC with two names, very similar to one of the suggested etymologies of the popular Philistine name Goliath (Lydian Alyattes, or perhaps Greek Kalliades) was found in the excavations at Gath. The appearance of additional non-Semitic names in Philistine inscriptions from later stages of the Iron Age is an additional indication of the non-Semitic origins of this group.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philistines

[checkitb4uwreckit]

I like debates between jew-wise researchers on Hitler, but the religious side topic wasn't helping much.
What strikes me is that the ''Hitler apologists'' are a bit vicious and agressive towards Mr. Condit (Mrs. Yaeger and Mrs. Spingola, in the past) and i don't agree with Mr. Fink's extreme views on the use of a jewish source.He doesn't care what might be said, but totally disregards it just because it's a jew saying it.

Indeed I noticed that in those two debates between condit/yeager and now this one, which is quite disconcerting. They just started randomly yelling at Condit when he said something they didn't want to hear or had a hard time explaining. Condit by far sounded much more reasonable in both debates when his opponents were quite dogmatic in disqualifying any source he cited that proved something about Hitler that didn't jive with him as "demigod" who could do no wrong. Condit was right when he said Fink and the other guy were coming up with "tortured" explanations for some stuff he brought up, like the Dunkirk debacle. However, there are a few dubious Jewish sources that claim Hitler and ALL  his top officials were part-Jewish. Like that book by Detrich Bronder, a German-Jewish schoolteacher. That just seems like over-the-top slander and it's definitely incorrect. But brash dismissal of all sources that are Jewish by Fink is disingenuous and weakens his position. I have seen people on the Hitler was a Joo side try to do that as well though, while they used Jewish sources themselves. OTOH it is strange that Jewish shills like Henry Makow endorse the "Nazis were Jews" theory. Chris Jon Bjerknes I know is a big proponent of that theory, but I heard him on a couple radio shows, one with Condit and the other with Makow, literally claiming that the holocaust pretty much happened as we've been told. :shock:  :think:

I think we can all agree that the holocaust story is complete rubbish.

[checkitb4uwreckit]

btw CSR, unban that Thirdeyewise guy.

[Anonymous]

William Finck is awsome, I do not believe in Christian Identity but william finck is very knowledgeable on many topics. From what I understand he spends nearly 100% of his time studying in his basement and doing radio shows, he is very dedicated.

[checkitb4uwreckit]

I'm not a C.I. follower but I do think they have some areas worth looking at.
The Christian Identity belief in the Edomite Jews - Dual seedline is interesting.

So you are a crypto-C.I. follower  

I can tell you really like these Christogenea guys, you're always promoting their stuff on here.

[Anonymous]

Gee that was a shit fight, I think Condit makes very good arguments and won the debate. Hitler letting all the English soldiers go when he could have won the war then and there, there is no argument against that, the excuses which William and the other guy come up with hold no water and I can not believe they would continue on if they were being objective which they certainly were not. Also William dismissing any evidence because a jew said it or it came from a jewish source is not very good. I will have to certainly look at Condit's material now.

[-Pas-]

btw CSR, unban that Thirdeyewise guy.

Yeah, i second that.

It might be a coincidence, but when Mr. Condit debates Hitler apologists, it's two against one.In situations like this, one could easily give the benefit of doubt to the party who's in minority (Condit, in this case).This can cause people to come to a wrong conclusion based on sympathy.

[/tab]

.0
.

[youtube:2lw786o2]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vyxo_NPiVhc[/youtube]2lw786o2]


.
.

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Actually, I think Condit was pretty sloppy on Dunkirk like he was sloppy on the Straits of Gibraltar argument .  There is a lot of evidence that if Hitler had pushed to the beaches at Dunkirk, he could have lost a lot of men and would have had trench fighting (similar to WWI) which all of the German High Command, including Hitler, feared.  

Finck was definitely a bit hostile to Condit, but overall he had a better grasp of facts surrounding the military campaigns of WWII.  Condit had info on Jewish intrigues, Soviet intrigues, and Zionist intrigues -- however, Finck is correct that much of what Condit has dug up, though interesting, is largely dismissed by most historians, or basically goes "uncited" because it lacks several sources except for Jewish hearsay accounts or ex-Red Nazis's like Otto Strasser.  Finck's coverage of WWII and the inclusion of Viktor Suvorov's works (like IceBreaker), which are fairly mainstream with documentation were decisive. I'm surprised Condit never heard of nor discusses the IceBreaker theory though he does make big claims about WWII and the Soviets. I guess he stopped researching after 1995.

   There are many careful reasons why events took the course they did, with few of them related to some secret "Zio-Nazi" connection.  I've looked at much of what Condit promotes and found discrepancies -- Finck pointed these out especially why build up Hitler if they had Germany in Weimer era (which they did).  Finck is probably new to these claims from Condit -- and he is basically right that most of them are Jewish. And, I think he will waste time looking into these books.  I agree that Condit was much more collected during the debate.

Again, Condits theories behind the following need deeper citations since he makes surface arguments that do not look deeply into things like diplomatic cables and negotiations:
1. Why the Germans stopped (or had to stop) at Dunkirk
2. Germany's declaration of war on the USA after Pearl Harbor
3. Germany not violating Spain's neutrality around the Straits of Gibraltar in order to bottle up the Mediterranean.

This agrees with more with Finck not Condit--

Suvorov wrote many books about about the outbreak of the Nazi-Soviet War in 1941 and circumstances that led to it. The first such work was Icebreaker, with many others to follow. Suvorov's provocative idea is that Joseph Stalin originally planned to use Nazi Germany as a proxy (the "Icebreaker") against the West. For this reason Stalin provided material and political support to Adolf Hitler, while at the same time preparing his Red Army for an offensive against Nazi Germany and further against all of Western Europe. Suvorov argued that Hitler had no choice but to direct a unexpected preemptive strike at the Soviet Union, what we know today as Operation Barbarossa. In the end, Stalin was able to achieve some of his objectives by establishing Communist regimes in Eastern Europe and Asia. However this victory according to Suvorov was unsatisfying to Stalin, as he intended to bring Soviet domination to the whole continent of Europe.

Also,

http://mk.christogenea.org/sites/defaul ... Reed_0.pdf

The Lies of Otto Strasser and Douglas Reed, Part 1
Submitted by wmfinck on Thu, 07/21/2011 - 16:07

As to what follows, I wish I'd have had this information for last night's (Julky 20th, 2011) discussion with Jim Condit Jr. This is why it is difficult to believe anything written about Hitler by the jews and the (their) "allies" during and after the war. For every jew writing or saying something about World War II, there is an agenda usually intending to exacerbate "holocaust" stories, demonize Hitler, make him into a hypocrite,and fully discredit his philosophies – which are what the jews truly fear about him.

Last night Condit brought up Otto Strasser - whom I admittedly do not know much about - and Douglas Reed's book about him (Nemesis? The Story of Otto Strasser published in 1940). Looking at Reed's book (see the attached file below to download it here), I would naturally not know much about it under any circumstances, since five minutes with the introduction and opening chapters displays Reed to have a strong anti-Hitler bias and a total lack of objectivity. Therefore Strasser is the ideal subject, as Reed himself admits but not in quite the same manner as I will accuse him here, by which he could write a book merel for the sake of attacking Hitler. The excerpts below are a perfect example of lies made with an agenda, passed off as legitimate "history". We will see passages both from Reed's book, and also from Mein Kampf, along with a few comments.

Otto Strasser and Douglas Reed, Discredited!

From Chapter 3 of Nemesis?...:

Retreat from glory! Strasser fought rearguard actions. His battery was the only one of the division which was not captured; he saved his own guns and three Prussian guns as well. In September he was so ill with sciatica that he could neither walk nor ride, and had to be carried. An inglorious end to that jubilantly undertaken adventure. A sick man on a stretcher returned to a chaotic Germany where a youngster burning with patriotism had left a prosperous and well-found land. As the German revolution approached, Otto Strasser lay in hospital in Munich; in another hospital, at the opposite end of Germany, in Pasewalk, was Adolf Hitler.

On November 6th, 1918, Strasser, a veteran of twenty-one, was allowed out of hospital, on crutches, for the first time. He used this opportunity to pay a quick visit to his parents, now at Deggerndorf. On November 7th he had to return. As he arrived in Munich he heard the roar of a mob. Hundreds of rioters thronged the station and stormed the train, arresting all officers save Strasser, because he was crippled. But they made to tear off the cockade from his cap and his officer's shoulder-straps.

 

From Chapter 4 of Nemesis?...:

The Epp Free Corps took shape for the expedition against Red Munich. All the figures who later played a big part in the European drama gathered for this smaller one - save Hitler!

Hitler was in Munich. He was still a soldier. He had, as he tells in Mein Kampf, taken that fearsome anti-Bolshevist oath in hospital at Pasewalk. He was already resolved to save the world from Bolshevism. Yet he did not spring to save Munich from Bolshevism. He did not make his way out and join the Epp Free Corps, although he avowedly burned to fight. He was in Munich, and he was a soldier. But the soldiers in Munich were under the orders of the Red Government, the Jewish Government ruled from Moscow. If he was in barracks, he must have been - a Red!

There was much muttering and murmuring among the National Socialist leaders, much shaking of puzzled heads, in later years, about this, but not the hint of an explanation of his doings in Munich at that time ever came from Hitler. This is a complete gap in Mein Kampf. It is one of the darkest things in all his dark history. I would give almost anything I have to know for whom that man really worked, not only then, but at all times later.

Otto Strasser first drew my particular attention to this remarkable episode in Hitler's life. Although I had closely studied these things, I had overlooked it, and I do not think any other writer has noticed its significance or discussed it. Indeed, a man who was up to the neck in the political turmoil of those days, as was Otto Strasser, is needed to put it in its true proportion, and future historians will be indebted to him for this, because it is one of the most important of the things we know, and they are too few, about the man Hitler. Later, when we know more of him, and the double or triple game he always played is clearer to see, it may prove to be the missing piece in the jigsaw puzzle.

It is worth explaining more fully, for this reason. The Red regime in Munich lasted from November 1918 until May 1st, 1919. Hitler, according to his own account in Mein Kampf, was filled with the most violent hatred of the Jewish-Communist revolution in Germany from the moment it broke out, in the first days of November. In the last days of November, cured and discharged from hospital, he reported to his regimental depot - in that very Munich where the Reds were most powerful.

His own battalion was under the orders of the revolutionary 'Soldiers' Council'. This so disgusted him, he says, that by some means he contrived to be sent to a camp at Traunstein, a few miles away. He says that he returned to Munich 'in March'. The Reds were driven out by von Epp and the Prussian troops at the end of April. For about two months, therefore,' Hitler, a serving soldier, was in Munich when the Red regime was at its height, under the rule of a Russian Jew sent from Moscow, when the hostages were being shot.

Good Bavarians who were there at the same time contrived, by hook or by crook, to get out of Munich and make their way to von Epp, returning with him to drive the Reds out. Otto Strasser did this, at the risk of his life and after surmounting many difficulties.

Now for an excerpt from Mein Kampf, pages 118-120, where Hitler tells of his days at the hospital at Pasewalk, and how he got there, and what sort of condition he was in:

Now in the autumn of 1918 we stood for the third time on the ground we had stormed in 1914. The village of Comines, which formerly had served us as a base, was now within the fighting zone. Although little had changed in the surrounding district itself, yet the men had become different, somehow or other. They now talked politics. Like everywhere else, the poison from home was having its effect here also. The young drafts succumbed to it completely. They had come directly from home.

During the night of October 13th-14th, the British opened an attack with gas on the front south of Ypres. They used the yellow gas whose effect was unknown to us, at least from personal experience. I was destined to experience it that very night. On a hill south of Werwick, in the evening of October 13th, we were subjected for several hours to a heavy bombardment with gas bombs, which continued throughout the night with more or less intensity. About midnight a number of us were put out of action, some for ever. Towards morning I also began to feel pain. It increased with every quarter of an hour; and about seven o'clock my eyes were scorching as I staggered back and delivered the last dispatch I was destined to carry in this war. A few hours later my eyes were like glowing coals and all was darkness around me.

I was sent into hospital at Pasewalk in Pomerania, and there it was that I had to hear of the Revolution.

For a long time there had been something in the air which was indefinable and repulsive. People were saying that something was bound to happen within the next few weeks, although I could not imagine what this meant. In the first instance I thought of a strike similar to the one which had taken place in spring. Unfavourable rumours were constantly coming from the Navy, which was said to be in a state of ferment. But this seemed to be a fanciful creation of a few isolated young people. It is true that at the hospital they were all talking abut the end of the war and hoping that this was not far off, but nobody thought that the decision would come immediately. I was not able to read the newspapers.

In November the general tension increased. Then one day disaster broke in upon us suddenly and without warning. Sailors came in motor-lorries and called on us to rise in revolt. A few Jew-boys were the leaders in that combat for the 'Liberty, Beauty, and Dignity' of our National Being. Not one of them had seen active service at the front. Through the medium of a hospital for venereal diseases these three Orientals had been sent back home. Now their red rags were being hoisted here.

During the last few days I had begun to feel somewhat better. The burning pain in the eye-sockets had become less severe. Gradually I was able to distinguish the general outlines of my immediate surroundings. And it was permissible to hope that at least I would recover my sight sufficiently to be able to take up some profession later on. That I would ever be able to draw or design once again was naturally out of the question. Thus I was on the way to recovery when the frightful hour came.

My first thought was that this outbreak of high treason was only a local affair. I tried to enforce this belief among my comrades. My Bavarian hospital mates, in particular, were readily responsive. Their inclinations were anything but revolutionary. I could not imagine this madness breaking out in Munich; for it seemed to me that loyalty to the House of Wittelsbach was, after all, stronger than the will of a few Jews. And so I could not help believing that this was merely a revolt in the Navy and that it would be suppressed within the next few days.

With the next few days came the most astounding information of my life. The rumours grew more and more persistent. I was told that what I had considered to be a local affair was in reality a general revolution. In addition to this, from the front came the shameful news that they wished to capitulate! What! Was such a thing possible?

On November 10th the local pastor visited the hospital for the purpose of delivering a short address. And that was how we came to know the whole story.

I was in a fever of excitement as I listened to the address. The reverend old gentleman seemed to be trembling when he informed us that the House of Hohenzollern should no longer wear the Imperial Crown, that the Fatherland had become a 'Republic', that we should pray to the Almighty not to withhold His blessing from the new order of things and not to abandon our people in the days to come. In delivering this message he could not do more than briefly express appreciation of the Royal House, its services to Pomerania, to Prussia, indeed, to the whole of the German Fatherland, and--here he began to weep. A feeling of profound dismay fell on the people in that assembly, and I do not think there was a single eye that withheld its tears. As for myself, I broke down completely when the old gentleman tried to resume his story by informing us that we must now end this long war, because the war was lost, he said, and we were at the mercy of the victor. The Fatherland would have to bear heavy burdens in the future. We were to accept the terms of the Armistice and trust to the magnanimity of our former enemies. It was impossible for me to stay and listen any longer. Darkness surrounded me as I staggered and stumbled back to my ward and buried my aching head between the blankets and pillow.

I had not cried since the day that I stood beside my mother's grave. Whenever Fate dealt cruelly with me in my young days the spirit of determination within me grew stronger and stronger. During all those long years of war, when Death claimed many a true friend and comrade from our ranks, to me it would have appeared sinful to have uttered a word of complaint. Did they not die for Germany? And, finally, almost in the last few days of that titanic struggle, when the waves of poison gas enveloped me and began to penetrate my eyes, the thought of becoming permanently blind unnerved me; but the voice of conscience cried out immediately: Poor miserable fellow, will you start howling when there are thousands of others whose lot is a hundred times worse than yours? And so I accepted my misfortune in silence, realizing that this was the only thing to be done and that personal suffering was nothing when compared with the misfortune of one's country....

There are other problems with Strasser's account of Hitler given above, and especially with Reed's comments in evaluation of it. But here and below we will concentrate only on a few main points. Basically, Otto Strasser expects a blind Hitler to sign himself out of a military hospital and to save Munich from Bolshevism. And he portrays him as a hypocrite because he didn't. Douglas Reed, salivating over the chance to discredit Der Fuhrer, buys the whole bundle of lies and runs with it. And 70 years later Jim Condit Jr. is also buying them. This is why a writer's motives and agenda must be examined when considering what to believe, and what not to believe, about history.


From pages 120-121 of Mein Kampf:

And at Home? But--was this the only sacrifice that we had to consider? Was the Germany of the past a country of little worth? Did she not owe a certain duty to her own history? Were we still worthy to partake in the glory of the past? How could we justify this act to future generations?

What a gang of despicable and depraved criminals!

The more I tried then to glean some definite information of the terrible events that had happened the more my head became afire with rage and shame. What was all the pain I suffered in my eyes compared with this tragedy?

The following days were terrible to bear, and the nights still worse. To depend on the mercy of the enemy was a precept which only fools or criminal liars could recommend. During those nights my hatred increased--hatred for the originators of this dastardly crime.

During the following days my own fate became clear to me. I was forced now to scoff at the thought of my personal future, which hitherto had been the cause of so much worry to me. Was it not ludicrous to think of building up anything on such a foundation? Finally, it also became clear to me that it was the inevitable that had happened, something which I had feared for a long time, though I really did not have the heart to believe it.

Emperor William II was the first German Emperor to offer the hand of friendship to the Marxist leaders, not suspecting that they were scoundrels without any sense of honour. While they held the imperial hand in theirs, the other hand was already feeling for the dagger.

There is no such thing as coming to an understanding with the Jews. It must be the hard-and-fast 'Either-Or.'

For my part I then decided that I would take up political work.

So upon his release from the hospital Hitler returns to his adopted home, to Munich, to rejoin his regiment. This is only natural for a young soldier just getting out of the hospital and recovering from chemically-induced blindness. Strasser – in his own hindsight - would expect Hitler to flee to Thuringia, where von Epp was found, which is what Strasser said that the "good Bavarians" did. By this remark, Strasser infers that all of the Bavarians left behind in Munich were not "good Bavarians", which is simply a lie.

Reed remarked that "The Red regime in Munich lasted from November 1918 until May 1st, 1919", but that is not true. In November of 1918, Bavaria had under Kurt Eisner and the Independent Social Democratic Party of Germany declared itself a "free state", and became a "socialist republic", however it was not exactly "red", and the party distanced itself from the Russian Bolsheviks, in spite of the fact that under the socialists, the government was formed as a collection of councils, modeled after the Bolsheviks. Yet only in hindsight is it possible to state that Bavaria in November of 1918 would end up as a Soviet state, and Hitler could not have known that this was inevitable. The Bavarian Soviet Republic did not form until April 6th of 1919. Without evidence, it is more plausible to believe from his own statements and his later actions, that Hitler returned home to Bavaria to help prevent its falling into communism.

After the assassination of Eisner in February of 1919, anarchy fell over Bavaria. Communists seized power April 6th, but the first communist regime lasted only 6 days. The second was under Eugen Leviné. Once Leviné seized power he organized his own army of at least 20,000 members, while the regular army was executing communists. Hitler was a member, of course, of the regular army. When the Freikorps under Franz Ritter von Epp had entered Munich and defeated the communists, at least 9,000 remaining members of the loyal German army in Bavaria joined them.

Therefore, simply because Hitler was for the most part silent on his role in this episode, does not mean that he was a communist, and it is far more likely that he was among the remaining loyal army troops. Strasser sees the worst in Hitler's silence, however Mein Kampf is a book about Hitler's political awakening and maturation, and that is what Hitler chose to discuss in this episode. Yet of his daily activities during this period, in Chapter 8 in Mein Kampf Hitler says the following:

 

From page 121 of Mein Kampf:

As the new Soviet Revolution began to run its course in Munich my first activities drew upon me the ill-will of the Central Council. In the early morning of April 27th, 1919, I was to have been arrested; but the three fellows who came to arrest me did not have the courage to face my rifle and withdrew just as they had arrived.

A few days after the liberation of Munich I was ordered to appear before the Inquiry Commission which had been set up in the 2nd Infantry Regiment for the purpose of watching revolutionary activities. That was my first incursion into the more or less political field.

After another few weeks I received orders to attend a course of lectures which were being given to members of the army. This course was meant to inculcate certain fundamental principles on which the soldier could base his political ideas. For me the advantage of this organization was that it gave me a chance of meeting fellow soldiers who were of the same way of thinking and with whom I could discuss the actual situation. We were all more or less firmly convinced that Germany could not be saved from imminent disaster by those who had participated in the November treachery--that is to say, the Centre and the Social-Democrats; and also that the so-called Bourgeois-National group could not make good the damage that had been done, even if they had the best intentions. They lacked a number of requisites without which such a task could never be successfully undertaken. The years that followed have justified the opinions which we held at that time.

It is clear from his own account, that Hitler was part of the loyal German army, and not a part of the communist Eugen Leviné's replacement army! And whatever he was involved in at the time, he was doing something to aggravate the communist regime. Otto Strasser was a liar, and Douglas Reeed was his bed-fellow. Now Jim Condit Jr. is also trying his best to crawl under the covers with them, not noticing that the bodies were already rotting 70 years ago!

http://mk.christogenea.org/content/lies ... eed-part-1

[checkitb4uwreckit]

Finck was definitely a bit hostile to Condit, but overall he had a better grasp of facts surrounding the military campaigns of WWII.

Finck is no more a military strategist than Condit. His "explanations" were sort of straw grabby.

I've looked at much of what Condit promotes and found discrepancies

Condit pointed out some pretty large discrepancies in the Neo-Nazi view of Hitler too though, and Finck was definitely struggling to come up with answers.

-- Finck pointed these out especially why build up Hitler if they had Germany in Weimer era (which they did).

The argumentation has it that the Zionists were looking for an acceleration to the Zionist project (getting as many Jews as possible down to Palestine to facilitate an armed takeover of the country), and that it wasn't possible without some Hitler-type "anti-semite" character to uproot and force the Jews out of Europe. I think I remember Condit's analogy  -- imagine you had a plum job and family living in beautiful Europe and someone came to you one day and asked you to come down to Antarctica to start a new life -- obviously you would choose to stay in Europe. Sort of the same thing with European Jews and Palestine, they just didn't want to go down to the desert when they were living comfortably in Europe. That's the reason for building up Hitler that Condit gives.

Finck is probably new to these claims from Condit

And that discredits Finck in my view because he was outright dismissing sources he hadn't even seen/read. And he also said that he hadn't watched Condit's Video and "likely never will." That's not being objective.

Then Finck hypocritically makes this statement in that piece you just quoted:

Looking at Reed's book (see the attached file below to download it here), I would naturally not know much about it under any circumstances, since five minutes with the introduction and opening chapters displays Reed to have a strong anti-Hitler bias and a total lack of objectivity.

Same goes for Finck and his strong Pro-Hitler bias which lacks objectivity. I was probably guilty of many of these things Finck is doing when I was in the hardcore Pro-Hitler camp. Condit makes too many convincing arguments to ignore, especially after listening to those two debates -- I gotta re-look at the whole subject now. Yeager and Finck both resorted to shouting down Condit and dismissing any source not favorable to their position. This intellectually dishonest behavior from both Yeager and Finck sort of turned the tide in Condit's favor in these debates.One thing I also find strange is that throughout the war there were quite a few assassination attempts on Hitler from within the German Military. I guess they saw him as a "Judas Goat"?

[Shiksa Rage]

I agree that Fink does not help the WWII revisionist cause. I am no military strategist either so cannot comment on Dunkirk. However, Fink's insistance that Hitler was a "fine Christian man" would, I suspect, surprise many of the latter's admirers and displays a lack of objectivity on Fink's part.
Also, Eichmann definitely does look Jewish: it was the first thing that struck me when watching the footage of his trial in "1/3 of the Holocaust". Even Yeager admits that he was at least half Jewish.

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Worth a look:

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t182465/

How about these guys... all J-Tribers?

[Anonymous]

Yeager never said Hitler was 1/2 Jewish.

Yes I think Finck should have reviewed all the material before debating or atleast endeavor to do so for next time as it seems like they are going to go at it again.

CrackSmokeRepublican, Thanks for you intelligent work on the thread regarding Dunkirk.

[Shiksa Rage]

bluejelly: please re-read my post and you'll see that what I wrote was  Yeager said Eichmann was half Jewish, not Hitler. she said in one of her VOR podcasts but I cannot remember which one off hand.

[Shiksa Rage]

Below is a link to the show in which Yeager makes the half Jewish claim about Eichmann. She says it at about 36 minutes into the show.
http://reasonradionetwork.com/20110314/ ... itler-lies

[Anonymous]

Ok thanks, I must have made a mistake obviously, sorry about that SR.

[Shiksa Rage]

No problem :up:

[Anonymous]

His website  www.hitlerdvd.com I tried going to his website today and a suspended page came up. I tried entering www.hitlerdvd.com into google, the link comes up but no option of a cached copy. I wonder what is happening there.

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Some follow up posts to this show. A few points below are definitely worth noticing.

Another Response to the tales of Jim Condit Jr. - by O.S.
Submitted by wmfinck on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 00:42

Hitler was not a Rothschild or Zionist Agent
To: Mr. William Finck

Dear Sir

I hope that I am addressing the right Person.

My Name is O.S and I speak fluently German and English. For this reason, I do not misunderstand or misinterpret any German or English speeches.

I listened to the above Audio and I must say, that I am wholeheartedly agreed with your position and that Jim Condit is in the wrong. Mr. Condit maybe on the right side of the fence, but he is certainly of the beaten track and is ill informed. I made myself notes during listening to the audio. Her are my comments in the approximate sequences of the audio.

That Hitler declared war on the USA may have been a mistake to do, but he was right in doing so. He had a long list of complaints about the conduct of the USA. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOY_0gIV7is  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StIskkWEyy8 http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t670846/ Hitler however had really no choice, the USA force Hitler's decision.

It is a good Idea, to mention the blood Sunday in Bromberg on March 9. 1939 were Polish forces killed 1000 ethic German people, as a reason for the war with Poland. http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/script ... /dp00.html  Which Hitler also mentioned in his speech. There seems to be a little mix-up in the dates of the incident. At ..Bromberg Blut Sontag.docx I have a list of an additional 44 border incidences with dates, times and places. There is plenty of documentation on blood Sunday in Bromberg or Bromberg Blut Sonntag. This is a perfect way to take the wind out of the sails of anyone who says, that Hitler started the War with Poland. If Hitler says in his speech, from 5:45 we are shooting back, it means that the Poles were shooting first at the Germans and the Germans just returned fire. Furthermore, the Poles killed the German Ambassador to Poland. I believe this happened on August 30 1939. Killing an Ambassador is a declaration of War.

Hitler did not come out of nowhere; he started his fight against the Jewish controlled German Government shortly after the end of WWI. He did not take money from the Bankers, as one can see from his Book Mein Kampf. In his Book, he explained clearly how he financed the NSDAP.

Otto Strasser is not a National Socialist. Strasser belong to the opposition SPD Party which consisted mainly of communists. Strasser made a short speech, when Hitler's NSDAP Party passed the so-called Ermaechtigungs Law, which restricted the opposition to throw Monkey wrenches in the Program of getting Germany back on track to prosperity. Strasser did not participate in the Freicorps. On the contrary, Strasser was one of the traitors in the German Government that caused the German defeat of WWI.

It is possible, that Adolf Eichmann was Jewish, because it is appropriate to put a Jew in charge of Jewish affaires, just as Alfred Rosenberg also Jewish, assembled the Nuremberg Laws in 1935.

Eichmann negotiated with Ben Gurion and Golda Mayer the Havaara Transfer Agreement. Eichman was out in charge of completing the Balfour agreement from Versailles, to which the German Jews put their signature.

Hitler did not fight for the communists as we can see from the book, the Communism in Germany. Hitler fight was against Jewish Bolshevik Communism from start to finish.

Jews were not randomly rounded up, as we are always told. In the City of Naumburg near Kassel in Germany, the Jew businesspeople in the City were still conducting their occupation till after the war. Shortly after the war, the Jewish business people emigrated in to the USA. My Mother in law who cleaned the home of some Jews on the Sabbath, later got parcels from these Jews after they arrived in the USA.

Hitler did not collaborate with Israel; he only conducted business with them as with any other entity.

Hitler did not start the War with Poland he merely fired back in self-defense.

Chamberlain was removed in England as Prime Minister, because he signed a peace deal with Germany.

It seems Mr. Condit does not know that England and France declared War on Germany on Sept. 3rd. 1939 and not Germany on England and France.

Hitler stuck to the Balfour agreement from Versailles and helped the Jews to complete the deal.

Hitler did not close any international banks; he only changed the rules for these banks. The Government controlled the money supply. Even the Jew Halmar Schacht praised the banking system in Germany.

Hitler was not soft, even so, he was too soft on Jews, he only was just an honorable man that stuck to written contracts.

Hitler let the Brits in Dunkirk go, because he was afraid of Russia and wanted England to be a friend of Germany.

I do not know, if the advances in the Barbarossa campaign were ordered to stop, I think it was more likely the extra cold winter of 1942. First the Germans experienced lots of wet weather that turned the none existing roads in to meter thick mud. When it started to freeze all the equipment froze into the mud. Thousands of German Soldiers froze to death. I understand the Position of the German Generals to take Moscow, because they hoped to end the War before the winter came. My father told me of sabotage, that the summer closing went to the soldiers in Russia and the winter closing to Africa. The Germans called these occurrences general mud and general winter. My father told me that Hitler had intended to take the oilfields in the Balkans first.

Hitler did not order any graves destroyed. On the contrary, he laid down a reef on the Grave of the Polish President and on a grave from a French pilot who was shot down while fighting on the polish side. I have seen some graves, nicely side by side, being dug up by the Americans for examination .

I share your opinion on anything written by Jews, or anything written after the War (in kosher form), is not worth the paper it is written on. When I read something about the Nazis being evil criminals or anything of that nature, I stop reading, because I know it is a lie. Jews are pathological liars. Martin Luther's, "From the Jews and their Lies" comes to my mind.

As to the name of Patrick Hitler I must say, Patrick is not a German name at that time. (Hitler's Irish Relative --CSR)

Most of the Jews in the camps were not prisoners; they were refugees that came along with the refugees from Rumania, Ukraine, Hungary and the eastern part of Europe. It is absurd to think, that the Germans imprisoned children in Concentration camps. Those Jews who wore the yellow star were not on the list of potential subversive elements, they were protected. Those who did not wear the star where questioned by the Gestapo, because they had something to hide.

Hitler was a devoted Catholic and Rudolf Hess was even a preacher. Jesus was a rebel against the Zionists at that time, the synagogue of Satan.

Mr. Condit did not know, that peter means stone. The City of Petra, in the land of Petrea, is chiseled into solid stone.

A socialist is one that is friendly to everyone; hens the word socialize. Hitler wanted every race to be proud of their own race.

The Jews owned Germany already before WWI. Even now in Germany, there are 100 Jews in the German Bundestag of 612 members. If the Turks would have the same representation as the Jews, there would be no room for Germans in the Bundestag.

Kennedy was killed because he was anti War; for the people and he wanted that, the government has control over the money supply. These are the reasons for the murder of JFK. When we check the life's of all the murdered presidents, we will find that they all had these symptoms in common for which they were murdered.

After the War the allies wanted to randomly execute 50 000 Germans. Some, Benjamin and Nathan Robinson, did not agree with this and suggested the Nuremberg trials to give it the appearance of a just verdict.

Hitler knew already after the winter of 1942, that Germany could not win the War anymore, because of the thousands of frozen soldiers and the production of war machinery could not keep up the demand.

Hitler considered every white person an Arish (?) person. This we can see this from the Nara documents of the people interned because of subversive activities. These documents are also available on footnote.com. In these documents from the NARA holocaust documentation is also an instruction manual for the concentration Camps and how to process complaints from Prisoners. When reading this manual, one can see that that, which the Jew claims about the hollycaust, a mixture of "Hollywood and Holocaust according to Alfred Hitchcock Holocaust documentary"., is sheer invention and simply not possible. A script went along with the documentary, as we can see from Alfred's documentation.

Mr. Condit should read, the Jew as a criminal, the Jews in Russia, the Jews in Germany and the Jews in the USA.

Sincerely O. S.

Submitted by wmfinck on Sat, 07/30/2011 - 11:01

Dear William Finck,

As a kid my father once told me "Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see". I couldn't begin to tell you how many times this advice has came to mind due to some unassociated event that has just occurred. This happened just recently after hearing Mr. Jim Condit Jr. debating with you Mr. Finck on a radio program. I simply couldn't believe my ears. While Mr. C would have you believe that his work is groundbreaking and one of a kind this is the very reason I was shocked; the truth is that it is nothing more than a compilation of some of the worst myths, legends, distortions, and oddball conspiracy theories of the past 70 years or more. Nothing much he said was new or even original, as we are led to believe, but a rehashing of some of the most dubious books on the shelves of history. What separates a historian and a researcher from an amateur or a fiction writer is the nature and reliability of their sources. The collection of source material that Mr. C uses for his theoretical work has set the new standard for absolutely abysmal research and shows that Mr. C has a relatively poor grasp of the history of this era as well. In fact no credible historian would dare touch most of these books with a ten foot pole unless they added a pop up tab with a flashing clear warning message that the source used is no more credible than an IOU from Bernie Madoff. He is NOT a historian by any stretch of the imagination and the quality of the research he has compiled should earn him notoriety of the worst kind. The best sources he does use, like Sir Ian Kershaw, completely contradict and disagree with his theory so he only uses choice words like 'unexplainable' which he carefully crafts to indicate that Sir Kershaw not only supports this theory but wholly agrees with Mr. C on the issues he has put forth. Nothing could be farther than the truth. Yet it seems no fact or contradictory evidence is capable of changing the mind of Mr. C or impeding his agenda. Whatever that might be. The result is that Mr. C flips and flops, appeals to the emotions of the listener in order to thwart critical thought, and relies on the fact that most people do not follow up on the footnotes and references. He comes across as an overzealous used car salesman and sucks in those who do not know history or military operations well enough to see his work for what it is. So let us look at some of his main points.

Mr. C's biggest argument for his theory seems to be his claim that Dunkirk is 'unexplainable' unless you realize that Adolph Hitler was a Rothschild agent who sought to lose the war by letting the British and French rescue 338,000 soldiers. Now to put this in proper perspective you must know that at full strength a German Panzer Grenadier Division was about 17,000 men. If we divide 338,000 by 17,000 we get a grand total of roughly 20 divisions which is less than the Germans used at the Battle of the Bulge. Germany fielded 3.9 million troops in Operation Barbarossa alone and a grand total of 98 divisions while still garrisoning France and the other occupied territories to prevent a British invasion. These 20 divisions worth of British and French soldiers were without equipment and were irrelevant when you consider that the last successful invasion of the British Isles was conducted by William the Conqueror. The number one impediment to an invasion has always been and will remain the Royal Navy. Hitler was very aware of the difficulty of invading Great Britain and knew he needed both air superiority and control of the channel to invade. This is why Operation Sea Lion would never have taken place even if it had not been designed to fool Stalin into believing Germany was still tied down in the West and had no plan to invade the USSR. Whether they rescued one man at Dunkirk or 338,000 Adolph Hitler knew that he would have to strangle them by a U-boat campaign and a massive air campaign to force Britain to the negotiating table. He also realized that if the USSR was to fall Britain would have to sue for peace. So whether he crushed the British at Dunkirk or not is not of any real significance. In fact the British would not be a factor in Europe until 4 years later after the Normandy invasion. Even Churchill states that the only thing that ever truly worried him during the war was the battle of the Atlantic and the 'U-boat peril'. Yet this is not all there is to the equation at Dunkirk. Truth be told this was a disaster by any standard which British propaganda tried to portray as a victory. Hitler even said only Churchill could count that as a victory and he is probably right. It was far from a win.

There were also military factors that played into the decision making process. Blitzkrieg in general has several dangerous shortcomings that the Germans learned in Poland and France and which they also experienced in the Soviet Union. In fact it was also experienced in the Gulf War and Operation Iraqi Freedom to use more contemporary examples. With a long logistical tail and a limitation of distance that is often given as 250 miles, it often overextends itself and the Divisions in the spearhead or schwerpunkt are forced to halt for repairs, refitting, and maintenance or to allow the infantry and supplies to catch up. By the time the Panzer divisions reached Dunkirk they had taken significant losses and considerable wear and tear to the tanks and equipment. They were also gearing up for the second phase of the Battle for France called Fall Rot. Many of the Generals were concerned about this and were determined not to have a second Battle of the Marne which stalemated the last war and led to the awful trench warfare that was WWI. So the decision to halt the Panzers for three days had perfectly reasonable military explanations. During that period Goering sought and received permission to eliminate the pocket with the Luftwaffe alone therefore sparing the valuable Panzer Divisions all together. No one at OKW or OKH complained at the time. The Liebstandarte Division continued on despite the order to gain better defensive terrain and a few Generals question the decision in their memoirs but at the time it was considered the right choice by all who were concerned. In fact General Guderian begged Hitler for a similar halt during Operation Barbarossa for the very same reasons. The Panzers were saved to continue the Battle of France and in a short time took Paris and France fell. No one knew that it would go so smoothly at the time of Dunkirk. Hindsight is 20/20 but the military reasons are there and are easy to find in memoirs and military history books.

You also have to consider the personal reasons that Adolph Hitler gave to others post facto. He told General Blumentritt, then a member of Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt's staff, the following along with the rest of the staff.

"Hitler was in a very good humor, he admitted that the course of the campaign had been 'a decided miracle,' and gave us his opinion that the war would be finished in six weeks. After that he wished to conclude a reasonable peace with France, and then the way would be free for an agreement with Britain. He then astonished us by speaking with admiration of the British Empire, of the necessity for its existence, and of the civilization that Britain had brought into the world. He remarked, with a shrug of the shoulders, that the creation of its Empire had been achieved by means that were often harsh, but 'where there is planing, there are shavings flying.' He compared the British Empire with the Catholic Church, saying they were both essential elements of stability in the world. He said that all he wanted from Britain was that she should acknowledge Germany's position on the Continent. The return of Germany's lost colonies would be desirable but not essential, and he would even offer to support Britain with troops if she should be involved in any difficulties anywhere. He remarked that the colonies were primarily a matter of prestige, since they could not be held in war, and few Germans could settle in the tropics. He concluded by saying that his aim was to make peace with Britain on a basis that she would regard as compatible with her honor to accept."

He told fighter ace Adolph Galland, as well as many others, that he did not like this war against the British because they were German stock in Great Britain and that he hated this fratricide. He only sought to make an alliance with Britain against the USSR and never sought any conflict at all with the UK. Yet in Mr, C's words this is "unexplainable" unless Hitler was a Rothschild Jew who was their front man and sought to lose the war and destroy Germany. No it is not unexplainable. In fact it has been explained but Mr. C has decided to ignore any explanation that he finds that disproves his theory in any way. That is supposing he has actually read the books instead of simply cherry picking phrases, relying on the word of his informant Deepthroat 'Ratisbone', and other things that serve his purpose from other sources that more often than not come to a very different conclusion or are on par with Area 51 or Yetti books. This glaring weakness is apparent when he uses other sources on other topics but here it is less obvious so he clings to this in the belief that it is impervious and impossible to explain adequately in any other way. This is supposed to be indicative of a clear plan by Hitler to intentionally throw or lose the war on Rothschild orders but as you can see these 338,000 men could have just as easily been 3 and it would have had the same result. The largest obstacle was the Royal Navy and not the Army or the Royal Air Force. All and all this is a moot point and if it was presented as evidence in a courtroom he would be laughed out of it.

One of Mr. C's other favorite points is that the US couldn't have gotten into the war in Europe unless Hitler declared war on the US. I find this to be rather amusing in and of itself. Roosevelt had every intention of joining the war even if it took inciting the Japanese and the Germans or breaking the law and while it may have delayed the action it certainly wouldn't have stopped FDR's thirst for intrigue and war. Both Stalin and FDR had made comments to the effect that they would not be there when it started but planned to get in it in time to capitalize on a weakened Europe. So let us look at this a little more closely. The Third Reich declared war in December 1941, at that point the US was already fully mobilized economically for war and we were fully militarized by the time war was declared due to the lend lease program. We were cranking out the tanks and airplanes and started raising an army to fight in Europe even before war was actually declared by Japan or Germany. So just how did this effect Germany at this point? The truth is it didn't hurt them much at all. In fact now they could fire on US ships and convoy escorts without creating an international incident. So it actually took the kid gloves off of Germany and allowed them to legally attack US interests that they couldn't have attacked until war was declared. Until then the Germans had to smile and bear it when the US interfered or escorted the shipping to Britain or replaced the British troops in Iceland. The US did not get actively involved in the war in Europe for another year when Operation Torch was launched in late 1942 and did not actually engage the German Afrika Korps until February 1943 at the Kasserine Pass. So as you can very easily tell this was not the big deal Mr. C tries to pass it off as and that it had no real measurable impact until October of 1942 at the very soonest. This was not a dumb or irrational decision at all but a level headed calculation. Knowing war with the US was inevitable he decided to honor the treaty with Japan and turn the U boats loose on US shipping, which was the only real impact the US made until 1943. Had the Germans won the Battle of the Atlantic it may well have been the best decision of the war. Or had the Japanese attacked the USSR as Hitler had hoped it may have had a very different result but the Japanese had recently lost a war against the Soviets in Manchuria and did not attack the USSR as Hitler had hoped. They simply did not reciprocate the favor.

The worst errors of all in Mr. C's repertoire lie in his sources. For instance his heavy reliance on people like Otto Strasser whom Condit erroneously calls Strausser. When Mr. C places his faith in the testimony of Strasser and others just like him he has fed into the lies of a man who volunteered his services to the OSS and British Intelligence for the purposes of helping the Allies create propaganda and to defeat his hated rival the Fuhrer. This was undertaken from exile in Canada after fleeing Europe with a 500,000 reichsmark bounty on his head. He was expelled from the NSDAP in 1930 because of his radical positions including a proposed alliance with the Soviet Union as the cornerstone of foreign policy and complete nationalization of the economy and other Trotsky-ite policies from the far left. He certainly had a major axe to grind and lacks credibility and objectivity as a witness to say the least. In short he was damned near a red bolshevik himself and this brought him into direct conflict with Hitler and others in the NSDAP. When Douglas Reed, who Mr. C calls 'one of the most respected historians of the 20th century' but in reality was not known as a historian at all but a journalist, playwright and novelist with zero credibility as a historian and was dismissed from the London Times for his work there, says the following, he says it because of the disciples of Strasser not Hitler's followers. Here is what the novelist/journalist wrote in The Managers, The Messiahs, and the Masses...
" In this matter, too, the Western masses were hopelessly misled by years of propaganda, presenting 'the Nazis' and our 'Soviet allies' as opposites, whereas a close affinity always existed. Mr. Karl Stern, a Jew from Germany who migrated to North America and became a convert to Roman Catholicism, records his own misunderstanding of this, during German days when he was on the staff of a psychiatric institute: 'A couple of Nazi doctors held forth on the so-called 'Theory of Permanent Revolution' of Trotzky. This theory was new to me. . . but that it should be propounded by these people was something entirely new and quite astonishing. . . I said, 'Gentlemen, I understand that you draw a good deal of your theory on political strategy from Trotzky. Does it not strike you as extraordinary that you, Nazis, quote Trotzky, a Bolshevist and a Jew, as if he were your evangelist?' They laughed and looked at me as one would look at a political yokel, which I was. . . They belonged to a then quite powerful wing in the Nazi party which was in favour of an alliance of Communist Russia and Nazi Germany against what they called Western Capitalism . . . When one was not listening very carefully, one was never quite sure whether they were talking Nazism or Bolshevism, and in the end it did not matter much.' "
Strasser was the far far left of the NSDAP and spent the rest of his life trying to get revenge after his expulsion from the party. The allies refused his re-entry after the war because of his radical beliefs. This is hardly the kind of witness you want to rely on in a thesis and as I said before it would be laughed out of a courtroom. Benjamin Freidman once summed it up well by stating that in most courts a Judge instructs the jury to dismiss the testimony of a witness if they have lied even once. When it comes to Strasser he has told more than just one as you will soon see.

From exile he started the Black Front and enlisted Jews to go to Germany and kill Hitler. One of his Jewish would-be assassins was caught after entering Germany only because the group had been heavily infiltrated and the authorities had advanced warning of the plot. So he ended up in Canada with a healthy fear for his life. His brother was killed on what has become known as the Night of the Long Knives on Goering's initiative and he was not on the original list of 7 people who Hitler sanctioned the SS to arrest and execute. So Strasser eagerly assisted Dr. William Langer when he was asked to create a profile on Hitler and other leading National Socialists and this is where much of Mr. C's info comes from. It was from Strasser via Langer and if you know anything about Langer's work on the subject it is full of nonsense and not credible in any way, shape, fashion or form. He hated Hitler and filled Langer's head with all kinds of rumors and outright lies, most of them about depraved sexual activities that Strasser seemed to stick on anyone who remained loyal to Hitler. Langer even claimed Hitler had liked to involve feces and urination in the bedroom amongst many other unsubstantiated claims. To use Strasser as a credible source is a first class mistake. To use the work of Langer is even worse if you know the subject. Here is a sample of Strasser and Langer's work...

In addition to the eyes, the anal region has also become highly sexualised and both faeces and buttocks become sexual objects. Due to early toilet training, certain inhibitions have been set up which prevent their direct expression.

[...]

We may, therefore, regard Hitler's perversion as a compromise between psychotic tendencies to eat faeces and drink urine on the one hand, and to live a normal socially adjusted life on the other. The compromise is not, however, satisfactory to either side of his nature and the struggle between these two diverse tendencies continues to rage unconsciously.

Another book Mr. C uses a lot is the book I Paid Hitler by Fritz Thyssen. The funny thing is it wasn't written by Thyssen at all but by Emery Reves a British propagandist in 1941; Google it and see for yourself if you doubt it. It is written in French in its original manuscript form and is not a credible source at all. Thyssen himself testified to this fact but Mr. C has no qualms with using it. Maybe he is unaware that it was written while Thyssen was in the concentration camp system or maybe he doesn't consider a literary work by a paid propagandist to be a questionable source but either way this is far from the only example of Mr. C using books that are ghost written or not credible. Thyssen like Strasser had a axe to grind after spending time in the camps with his wife for 7 years. Yet this is a main pillar of his theory and it is incapable of standing up to any kind of scrutiny. Poor research or oblivious to the facts; it all ends with the same result. A complete work of fiction not any contribution to history or the truth movement. It is more like the works of a muckraker than a self professed amateur historian.

My next point in case is his insistence that the Rothschilds used their 'agent' Hitler to launch WWII and that Hitler was Jewish and a Rothschild contradicts both the history and evidence too. Mr. C claims 'everyone' agrees that Hitler was Jewish but this was dis-proven long ago by truly respected historians, some of which Condit uses like Sir Ian Kershaw even though they do not agree with him, and was written off as allied propaganda and the lies of Hans Frank whose alleged Frankenbergers simply do not exist despite many efforts to locate them. Do not let Mr. C mislead you there have been extensive efforts to locate the Jewish Frankenbergers or to validate the theory. It is sometimes hard to pin down whether Condit professes that Hitler was a actual agent/front man or a unknowing dupe because I have heard him put it both ways which is the first sign that he is clueless and that something is wrong. Yet the Baron Louis Rothschild was locked up in 1938 during the anschluss with Austria and ransomed back to the family so that he could leave the country. How does Mr. C explain that? He simply doesn't mention it at all like he does with most inconvenient truths. The Palais de Rothschild was destroyed by the Germans, Goering stole whole art collections that belonged to the Rothschilds and much of that is now in the Austrian art museums or was lost to looters and was never returned to them. Now unless you believe the Rothschilds had retained Goering as a highly prominent art guard or curator and later had him put on trial for it and would have hung him if not for the fact he took cyanide then maybe there is a point to that statement. Unfortunately that requires you to believe that Goering kept this a secret while he was fighting for his very life in Nuremberg. Where Weisenthal and others have failed Condit has picked up the torch and 'proved' Hitler was Jewish; only in fairy tale land or to the uninitiated. After all this cover up it is Mr. C who has brought out the truth but wouldn't that put his life in danger dealing with such deadly adversaries that control the world? I guess not as far as Condit is concerned because he is still selling his overpriced video..

Last but not least are the facts that Hitler fired their real agent in Germany Hjalmar Schacht, because he felt he couldn't trust him, and took over their banks as nationalization of banking and printing of money progressed. When all else fails Condit is forced to rely on books by people who do not exist like the fictional Sidney Warburg and he even tells us that because an effort was made to recall this book that it must be true and all facts. It couldn't have been due to a threat of legal action by those it libeled, as is the case with most recalls of the sort, but the sign that this is the ever elusive golden truth or the holy grail of history. It is simply 'unexplainable' in the words of Condit. The real kicker is that he talks about the documents that the Austrian leaders Dollfuss and Schuschnigg were supposed to possess, according to a third party, that proved he was both Jewish and a Rothschild yet Schuschnigg never made this claim from the day he was born until his death in the late 1970's. I am sure he was questioned on it by real historians but nothing has ever came of this myth that Condit uses to prove his case. Instead he claims it disappeared. So the whole case is built off of sources of the worst sort. Nothing holds water in this area at all. Even the Sydney Warburg book is still readily available to this day. So much for cover ups and keeping this dark secret a secret right?

Now had Condit only made it a point to say the Rothschilds and Warburgs helped finance him in order to use him to get a new war started in Europe and that the Zionists collaborated with the Third Reich both before and during the war in order to create a large Jewish population in Palestine I would be fine with his theory so long as he used actual sources. Or that after creating the holohoax they provided reasons for the world's Jews to want to leave a nice cushy parasitic life in Europe for a worthless strip of desert, I would have little to complain about because I feel that this is closer to the truth and it is fairly well documented. One thing I feel is certain is that Adolph Hitler was not a Rothschild or even a Jew let alone an agent of the Rothschilds. Hitler battled them throughout the history of the regime and even threatened International finance, i.e. the Rothschilds etc, in what is now referred to as the 'prophecy speech'. Not only did he threaten his masters and lock several of them and their true agents up; he also died in 1945 as a result of this wonder deal. Of course Condit insists he escaped despite evidence to the contrary and he has no explanation for the jawbone and teeth that are in fact Hitlers. I suppose they surgically removed his lower mandible to fake his death. The Condit theory is so far fetched it belongs on a shelf next to UFO or ghost books and should be kept far away from the history section. All and all Mr. Condit has to break all the rules of true credible research and mold and shape the assortment of contradictory material to his own design to make a case which is still so weak and impractical in light of the accepted evidence that it is amazing. It is the product of abysmal research and is a terrible attempt to rewrite history by someone who doesn't know a bad source from a credible one. I could spend a week dissecting his work and it isn't even hard because of the nature of his work and it's source material. Once one dives into this 'PREPONDERANCE' of evidence, a term which Mr. C is very fond of using in his movie and interviews as if you can add two lies together and make it a fact, you cannot help but be amused at this fantasy of two men who haven't a clue as to how real research is done let alone how complex the history of this  era truly is. In short nothing that Mr. C claims as 'unexplainable' or to use another of his favorite terms 'inexplicable', is truly explained by him, his theory, or is even unexplained in the first place. This theory is good for a laugh at best but very weak in substance. Thank you for the time Mr. Finck and best wishes.

Curt Dietrich

Sat, 07/30/2011 - 11:18
#1
wmfinck

Joined: 08/05/2009

Thank you, Curt Dietrich!

Jim Condit Jr. must be constantly informed, that while he may continue to spread his tales, informed Saxons everywhere are never going to believe him. Ever. Condit is not doing our people any favors with his stories.

The insistence that Hitler was somehow a jew, or working for jews, gives world jewry a free pass for responsibility for the war, and hides the culpability of Saxon Christian Brits and Americans, who destroyed their own Saxon Christian German kindred at the behest of the jews, By blaming the war on the perceptibly untouchable Rothschilds, and then diverting the hatred to a (so-called) "jew" that everyone has permission to hate: Adolf Hitler, men like Condit give world jewry itself a free pass. In effect, Condit is running cover for the jews!

In reality, Adolf Hitler was a good German Christian, who stood up to world jewry and the international crime ring that operates behind it, hoping that his Anglo-Saxon kindred would recognize as much and join him in the struggle. If Hitler had succeeded, today we would have something akin to the Kingdom of Heaven on earth. True Christians still foresee that very thing, and see it more clearly without the subterfuge of Jim Condit Jr.

We must never surrender to the lies of the jews - which Mr. Condit promotes for them.

http://mk.christogenea.org/content/anot ... ndit-jr-os

Also:

Japanese May Strike Over Weekend? So How was Pearl Harbor a "Surprise"?
Submitted by wmfinck on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 03:51

The Truth Concealed: Forewarned, Forearmed?

Not at Pearl Harbor on the "Day of Infamy" (Dec 7, 1941)
source

For most people, the story of "Arizona" and other Pearl Harbor and Pacific battlegrounds paints a black and white picture of what allegedly happened. The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor in a "surprise" attack, we are told. "A day that will live in infamy," declared President Roosevelt the following day, in his address to a joint session of Congress as he announced the U.S. was at war with Japan, and therefore, with its ally, Germany.

Prior to the Pearl Harbor attack, however, most of the United States citizens were opposed to America's entering the war in Europe on Britain's side. After the Pearl Harbor, the issue was a no brainer. Roosevelt and his pal Winston Churchill NEEDED a "Pearl Harbor" as an excuse to involve this great country in a war (in Europe) that never threatened our national security. And his government made sure it got its "Pearl Harbor" one way or another.

In short, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was no surprise. History is written by the victors. They shape the stories to fit their interests. So what we are being told about Pearl Harbor in schools and textbooks is only a part of the truth. The other part has been carefully excised from our history. Big Brother reincarante? You betcha...

How do I know that? Well, take a look at the front page of the Honolulu Advertiser, dated Nov 30, 1941 (auspiciously exactly 67 years ago today - to the day!).

The top headline reads, "Japanese May Strike over Weekend!" The article even predicted the timing of the attack accurately - eight days before it happened! The rest of the story shows how our government was aware of the oncoming attack.

According to some of my military sources, our government subsequently managed to destroy almost all the evidence, including going into the Hawaii hospitals and ripping off the front page of this newspaper. However, private Paul Brown, seeing what was going on, reportedly managed to save his own front page of the Advertiser and hide it from the government. This is one of the very few known copies of that paper. It is supposedly hanging in the Punta Gorda Florida Military History Museum. At least it was, as of March of this year, I am told.

Of course, none of this takes away one iota of credit or tribute to the brave men and women who fought during WW II, both in the Pacific and in Europe. But it does go to show us once again that the "truth is the first casualty of war." Tonkin Bay, Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction," are but some more recent examples of this truism. Which is why we must never accept what governments tell us at face value. More then 2,400 lives lost in just one day at Pearl Harbor ought to be reason enough, not to mention the millions that followed.

--- end ---

And from Pearl Harbor: The Latest Wave:

Joseph Leib, a former New Deal bureaucrat and retired newspaper correspondent, wrote an article which appeared in Hustler magazine, "Pearl Harbor: The Story the Rest of the Media Won't Tell," in which he claimed that his friend, Secretary of State Hull, had confided to him on 29 November 1941 that J. Edgar Hoover and FDR knew that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor withing a few days, and that the President, over Hull's strident objections, was going to let this happen as a way to get the country into war. Hull's dilemma was that he could not reveal this openly to the press, since the White House would simply denounce him, and no one would believe him. He turned over to Lieb a document containing a transcript of Japanese radio intercepts which supposedly detailed the Pearl Harbor plan, making the reporter promise never to reveal the source. Leib rushed the story, minus the identification of Hull, to the United Press bureau, which refused to run it since it was so incredulous. But Leib did manage to persuade UP's cable editor, Harry Frantz, to transmit it on the foreign cable. Although the story managed somehow to get garbled in transmission, it did create a front-page banner headline in the Sunday, 30 November, Honolulu Advertiser: JAPANESE MAY STRIKE OVER WEEKEND! Thus Leib, writing in 1983, has finally cleared up the mystery of the origins of that headline, which has always been a particularly curious part of the Pearl Harbor puzzle. He promises to release more information about his knowledge in other forums.

--- end ---

WAR and Freemasons
source
http://yinyangbob.com/YinYangBob/Photos ... ter6a.html

The Roberts Commission laid the blame for Pearl Harbor on the commanders in Hawaii — General Short and Admiral Kimmel. The commission charged that the pair ignored the importance of an alleged war warning from Washington and charged that they failed to take sufficient defensive actions.

Overall, the two officers were said to be guilty of dereliction of duty. On the other hand, the commission in its report held that the top military leaders in Washington, Admiral Stark and General Marshall, had performed impeccably. That section of the report was first submitted to none other than Stark and Marshall for their approval.

Franklin Roosevelt insisted on strict limits in investigating the 7 December attack. (Echos of Bonesman Bush )

Admiral Standley dissented from the findings but did not write a minority opinion after being told that to do so would weaken the public's confidence in its leaders and thereby harm the war effort.

To make absolutely certain that the commission's report was to his liking, Roosevelt insisted on reviewing it before it became public. Finding that the report did suit his purposes, Roosevelt decided to release it in its entirety to the press. [12]

The Roberts Commission report encountered less-than-universal acceptance by the few people who both understood and disapproved of the situation. For example, Admiral James Richardson, Kimmel's predecessor as Pacific Fleet commander, condemned the report:

"It is the most unfair, unjust, and deceptively dishonest document ever printed by the Government Printing Office. I cannot conceive of honorable men serving on the commission without greatest regret and deepest feelings of shame. " (Could have said the same of the 911 report)

Some calls for congressional investigations were heard, especially from those who had resisted intervention before 12/7. But by and large the American people accepted the verdict of the Roberts Report.

As Senate Majority Leader Alben Barkley put it, the report presented a "comprehensive and admirable view of the facts and the people are justified in believing that nothing will be kept from them." All suspicions should end, he declared, because now "everybody knows what happened." [14]
http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/towers_10.htm

Seeking even greater security, the president then made sure the commission would consist of individuals linked, by personal loyalty or political belief, to the administration and its pro-war agenda.

To achieve that goal, Roosevelt relied on his secretary of war, Henry Stimson, to propose three of the commission's five members. Stimson was the pre-eminent war hawk who recorded in his diary on November 25, 1941, that "the question [of the United States dealing with the Japanese] was how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves."

Henry L. Stimson - Secretary of War -Skull and Bones
Franklin D. Roosevelt - Freemason
Henery A Wallace Vice President - Freemason
Henry C. Clausen- Freemason
General George C. Marshall- Freemason
General Douglas MacArthur - Freemason
Henery Morgenthau - Secretary of the Treasury - Freemason

There are many more...but you get the picture...WW2 was a Freemason operation and the Commission looking into the attack at Pearl Harbor was a complete whitewash....a huge lie....sold to the American public....most of whom still believe the offical history....for that is what we are taught in school...thats what the textbooks say.

The Warren Commission....
On November 29, 1963, President Johnson created the Warren Commission to investigate the assassination of President Kennedy.

The commission is headed by Earl Warren, who was a Freemason and known Bohemian Grove attendee. Another commission member was Earl Boggs who had membership in the Knights of Columbus. He later expressed doubts about the findings of the commission. Boggs died in a plane crash in Alaska in 1972. Searchers never found his body. Another commission member was John Sherman Cooper. Cooper was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and he was a member of the infamous Order of Skull and Bones.

Another member was Allen Dulles Fired by Kennedy. Dulles was a CIA Director, and Council on Foreign Relations member, and a Bilderberger.
Another member was Gerald Ford. Ford was a Freemason, a Bohemian Grove attendee, a CFR member and a Bilderberger.
Another member was John J. McCloy. McCloy was a CFR member and was reportedly well-connected to many CIA people.
Another member was senator Richard B. Russell, who was a Freemason.
Alan Spector (Magic Bullet ) Senator PA is a Freemason

The Commission consisted of seven members, six of whom were known to be members of secretive and conspiratorial organizations. This commission of conspirators decided that President Kennedy was assassinated by a lone gunman, and that no conspiracy was involved.

J.Edger Hoover - Freemason
Lyndon B Johnson Freenason
Hubert H. Humphrey - Freemason
Robert S. McNamara Secretary of War - Freemason
Warren Commission director Jerry Ford - Freemason.......He also appointed George Bush- Skull and Bones ) as Director of the CIA
The Warren Commission has been totaly discredited

The Viet Nam War was a Freemason operation.

911 Commission...............
White House Opposed Formation of Commission: President Bush and Vice President Cheney both contacted then-Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle in the months after 9/11 to insist on strict limits in the scope of any investigation into the attacks.
Newsweek reported on February 4, 2002, that Vice President Cheney called Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD) to "warn" him not to open hearings into the attacks.

If Daschle pressed the issue, Cheney "implied he would risk being accused of interfering with the mission" against terrorism. And despite entreaties from the families of victims of 9/11 attacks and a bipartisan group of senators and congressmen, the president vocally resisted forming an investigatory commission. President Bush only relented on November 27, 2002, a year after the attacks.

budget estimated at $30 million ...for investigating the destruction of WTC...time allowed 18 months

Cost of Starr Investigation (4 years): $ 40 Million....for investigating a BJ in the White House....time...unlimited

Florida Senator Graham asserts that the White House blocked investigations into Saudi Arabian government support for the 9/11 plot, in part because of the Bush family's close ties to the Saudi
royal family and wealthy Saudis like the bin Ladens. Behind the White House's insistence on classifying 27 pages detailing the Saudi links in a report issued by a joint House-Senate intelligence panel co-chaired by Graham in 2002 lay the desire to hide the administration's deficiencies and protect its Saudi allies, http://www.americanprogress.org/site...J8OVF&b=124722

President Bush appoints veteran US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger to head a commission to investigate the 11 September attacks...... Kissinger is so well known as a member of secret
societies.that his name is withdrawn.
George Bush - Skull and Bones
Richard Cheney - Skull and Bones
Donald Rumsfeld - Defense Secretary - Freemason
Gen. Colin Powell - Freemason

There are more but again the picture is clear............
The record shows that members of secret societies have manipulated, lied, and are the protagonist in WAR. The War on Terror is a Freemason operation
__________________
Truth is not told, it is realized

http://enjoyingthejourney.blogspot.com/ ... anese.html

[mchawe]

CSR said "There is a lot of evidence that if Hitler had pushed to the beaches at Dunkirk, he could have lost a lot of men and would have had trench fighting (similar to WWI) which all of the German High Command, including Hitler, feared.

The documentary evidence shows that Hitler wished to spare Britain from the humiliation of ignominious defeat at Dunkirk. The reason being that he wished to make peace with Great Britain whose Empire he viewed as a source of good in the world. (Unlike Rooseveld who wished to destroy it). The British did have local air superiority, notwithstanding Goering's bragging,  due to the fact that the range of their aircraft was only a short distance to Dunkirk. There is nothing here to suggest Hitler was afaraid of trench warfare.

From David Irving's book "Hitler's War" p.302-303. (Irvings research is second to none, since he goes to original sources, and can be quoted with confidence.)

"At all events, Hitler did not hesitate to lend his authority to Rundstedt's
decision to rein in the tanks. At twelve-thirty the Führer's headquarters
telephoned the 'halt order': the tanks were to stand fast west of the canal
line; there could be no talk of his going soft on the British, because that
same day, in a directive giving guidelines for the further campaign against
Britain, Hitler merely indicated in passing that the Luftwaffe's present job
in the north was to break all resistance of the 'encircled enemy' and prevent
any British forces from escaping across the Channel.
Thus the tanks remained 'rooted to the spot,' as Halder bitterly commented
in his diary. Hitler refused to set the tanks in motion. One more
factor had arisen. On the evening of the twenty-fifth he explained to his
adjutants that he particularly wanted the SS elite brigade under Sepp Dietrich
to join in this crucial action at Dunkirk. His intention was to show the
world that he had troops equal to the best that even such a racially advanced
nation as Britain could field against him.
By May 26, Sepp Dietrich's Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler was in position.
On that morning, too, Rundstedt's staff changed their attitude, since radio
monitoring suggested that their appreciation of enemy intentions was wrong.
The British seemed to be pulling out. Halder's Foreign Armies West branch
had certainly reported as early as May 21 that the unusual number of troops
transports seen in Dunkirk and Boulogne might indicate that British troops
were about to be evacuated; and the permanent radio link between the war
office in London and the BEF in France, first monitored the next day, also
suggested that events were being removed from French control. On May
26 at 1.30 P.M. Hitler told Brauchitsch that the tanks might resume their
eastward drive at once. They were to get within artillery range of Dunkirk,
and the army's heavy artillery and the Luftwaffe would do the rest.
From the air, the Luftwaffe could see that the British were embarking
only their troops, abandoning all their equipment as they fled. The beaches
were thick with waiting Englishmen, the roads were choked with truck
columns fifteen miles long. Göring boasted of the carnage his bombers were
wreaking in Dunkirk harbour. 'Only fishing boats are getting through. Let's
hope the Tommies can swim!' The reality, however, was different: the
Luftwaffe bombers were largely based on airfields back in Germany, and
either their bombs were ineffective against small ships or they exploded
harmlessly in the sand dunes; more ominously, the German bombers proved
no match for the short-range British fighters. The Germans found that for
the first time the enemy had local air superiority, and their troubles were
added to by the fact that at the end of May the Luftwaffe's Eighth Air Corps
was grounded by fog for three days.

He was also afraid of an attack on the flank. After Dunkirk, Hitler believed that victory was only a matter of time..

p. 304

"by june 2, 1940 the British evacuation of Dunkirk was over. German army
Intelligence estimated that half the enemy forces had been swept from the
battlefield; Brauchitsch telephoned this information to Hitler that evening.
The German army, with 136 divisions, was virtually intact. It would embark
on the final defeat of France with a two-to-one superiority. Hitler's
blueprint for this operation was largely determined by short-term political
factors: Verdun must be captured as rapidly as possible. Overland contact
must be made with Spain. Paris itself would be bypassed to the east and
west, for Hitler feared nothing more than that an 1871-style Communist
uprising in the capital might bring his forces into armed conflict with Soviet-
backed Communists. The Maginot line would be taken from the rear.
This second phase would begin at five A.M. on June 5.
Meanwhile, surrounded by Party officials and personal bodyguards, Hitler
toured the battlefields in northern France and Flanders. Morell, who accompanied
him, reported: 'We were on the road for two days. Brussels, the
Flanders battlefields (Ypres, Loretto, Vimy Ridge, Bensheim, Courtray, and
Lille). As these areas were about the most densely populated on earth you
can just imagine the devastation. A big square in Lille, piled high with charred
tree trunks and automobiles, was littered with dead horses, burned out
tanks, and buildings. On the roads along which the British and French retreated
there was a higgledy-piggledy tangle of cast-off clothing, abandoned
guns, and broken down tanks, with stragglers streaming back home on both
sides of the road, mostly on bicycles, laden with whatever they can carry.'
At Brussels, where Bock had assembled his senior generals, Hitler explained:
'Gentlemen, you will have wondered why I stopped the armoured
divisions outside Dunkirk. The fact was I could not afford to waste military
effort. I was anxious lest the enemy launch an offensive from the Somme
and wipe out the Fourth Army's weak armoured force, perhaps even going
so far as Dunkirk. Such a military rebuff,' as he put it, 'might have had intolerable
effects in foreign policy. . .'

You can download the book here.....
http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/Hitler/index.html

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Good points mchawe. Thanks for pointing them out.

Yeah, looks like Hitler pretty much called the stop order. I will say though that they were concerned about "Dunkirk" becoming a fight that would have stalled or "bogged" down (literally).  Hitler fought in the mud and trenches against the BEF at Passchendaele. Likely he had concerns about sending tank divisions into the muddy "lowlands" ala 1917.  I generally kind of thought of the German high command collectively feared a repeat of WWI. They were in fact too timid (conservatively) after they had routed the BEF.  Irving is a great source and sorry I missed it.  :clap:

Adolf Hitler fought in the Battle of Passchendaele as a member of the 6th Bavarian Reserve Division and was injured on the night of 13 October 1917, when he was caught in a British gas attack on a hill south of Werwick.[107]

Hitler's Military "Mistakes"/"Blunders"

Dunkirk "Stop" Order

One of the most controversial questions in the history of World War II surrounds the infamous "stop" order issued in the last days of May 1940 which allowed the British Expeditionary Force (over 338,226 men including 26,176 French) to escape from Dunkirk. The controversy is based upon two separate questions. First, was Hitler solely responsible for the decision to stop his advancing army at the gates of Dunkirk, or did General Gerd von Rundstedt make the decision and Hitler merely agree with him based on Rundstedt's military expertise? The second question, and perhaps the most debated among military historians and military leaders alike, is why was the stop order issued at all?

In response to the first question, there seems little doubt that Hitler did in fact insist that the stop order be issued on his own behalf. Hitler was already nervous over the ease at which his armies had successfully advanced into France and was quite concerned by the lack of overwhelming resistance his armies continued to encounter. All of this seemed too good to be true and only served to heighten his concern, since he was not sure what the French and British might be planning from the south. Hitler's uneasiness was reinforced when he visited Rundstedt's Army Group A Headquarters on May 24th. Rundstedt informed Hitler that he was concerned about the way the tank strength had been reduced during the long and expeditious advance across France and, more importantly, the possibility of further engagements with the enemy from the north and the south. Hitler agreed with Rundstedt's reservations and wanted to save his panzer force for future operations. He could not risk losing them fighting in the Flanders marshes. Although undoubtedly inspired by Rundstedt's shared concern over the condition and strength of the panzer forces, the decision to halt the attack of the armored force at the Canal Line and not allow any further advances beyond that point was made by Hitler alone. Later that day after meeting with Rundstedt, Hitler called for the Commander-in-Chief of the Army and after a heated discussion, insisted that the tanks be halted and the infamous stop order was issued.1

There remains one further argument that lends itself to support the fact that it was Hitler's decision to issue the stop order and not Rundstedt's overwhelming influence over him as some may assume. After the British did escape from Dunkirk, Hitler never tried to lay the blame of his mistake on the advice of his generals as he had so often done in the past. As Liddell Hart states, "Such negative evidence is as significant as any."2

The final question of why Hitler issued the stop order offers several possibilities. Hitler was convinced from his own personal experience during the First World War that the muddy Flanders terrain was not suited for heavy armor. The marshes were crisscrossed with canals and drainage ditches which made tank maneuver hazardous and vulnerable to heavy losses if they fell prey to British or French attack. Hitler wanted to save as many tanks as he possibly could for his battle against the French and his march into Paris which was the next phase of Hitler's plan—the defeat of the French Army. Therefore, Hitler saw no sense in squandering his tank force in the swampy lowlands of the Flanders marshes, or for that matter, destroyed in the streets of Dunkirk when they could be put to better use in the future.3
The most compelling argument behind Hitler's issuance of the stop order was Field Marshal Hermann Goering's assurance to Hitler that the Luftwaffe was more than capable of single–handedly stopping the evacuation of the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) at Dunkirk. Hitler saw this as an opportunity to save his precious panzer force from the hazards of the Flanders region and give Goering a chance to score a decisive victory for his Luftwaffe. Goering's insistence that the Luftwaffe could finish the job without the aid of the army may have influenced Hitler's decision as well since a victory by Goering would surely deny the army generals from reaping the glory of the triumph. Therefore, with assurances from Goering and Hitler's concern over the possible heavy loss of tanks to the Flanders region, Hitler issued the stop order with the understanding that Dunkirk would be left to the Luftwaffe.4

----------

J-Tribers apparently hated Irving's works:

In a footnote in Hitler's War, Irving first introduced the thesis later popularized in the 1980s by Ernst Nolte that a letter written by Chaim Weizmann to Neville Chamberlain on 3 September 1939, pledging the support of the Jewish Agency to the Allied war effort, constituted a "Jewish declaration of war" against Germany, thus justifying German "internment" of European Jews.[6] In 1975, when without Irving's permission the firm Ullstein-Verlag removed the passages claiming Hitler had no knowledge of the Holocaust from the German edition of Hitler's War, Irving sued Ullstein-Verlag.[1] Despite his much-vaunted disdain for professional historians (most of whom Irving accused of slandering Hitler), Irving attended a historians' conference in Aschaffenburg in July 1978 to discuss "Hitler Today - Problems and Aspects of Hitler Research".[7] Irving spent his time at the conference attacking all of the historians present for alleged sloppy research on Hitler, and promoting Hitler's War as the only good book ever written on the Führer.[8] Ian Kershaw wrote that although Irving's thesis of Hitler's ignorance of the Holocaust in Hitler's War was almost universally rejected by historians, his book was of value in that it provided a huge stimulus for further research on Hitler's role in the Holocaust (which had not been widely explored until then) as a way of rebutting Irving.[9]
Reactions and criticism

Reaction to Hitler's War was polarized. Various historians such as Gitta Sereny, Martin Broszat, Lucy Dawidowicz, Gerard Fleming, Charles W. Sydnor and Eberhard Jäckel wrote either articles or books rebutting what they considered to be erroneous information in Hitler's War. Writing in the Sunday Times, Sereny called Irving's work "closer to theology or mythology" than history, while Broszat labeled Irving a "Hitler partisan wearing blinkers".[10] Lance Morrow wrote in Time that Irving's picture of the "Führer as a somewhat harried business executive too preoccupied to know exactly what has happening in his branch offices at Auschwitz and Treblinka" was hard to accept.[11] In an article published in the Sunday Times under the title "The £1,000 Question" on 10 July 1977, Sereny and the journalist Lewis Chester examined Irving's sources and found significant differences from what Irving published in Hitler's War.[4] In particular, while interviewing one of Irving's primary informants, Otto Günsche, the latter stated that "one must assume that he [Hitler] did know" about the Holocaust.[4]