|
Disinterested posted:As a result, Germany expended precious war materiel on the genocide even at the expense of the war effort. The holocaust consumed enormous industrial resources that large numbers of German officials would have preferred to spend on fighting Soviets, but they were all railroaded by the senior Nazi leadership and the SS. From what I've gathered in this thread, the invasion of the Soviet Union closed the book on the Nazis and the US joining in was the nail in the coffin, so was it really that big of a deal that all that German manpower, time, and material was going towards the genocide?
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 18:25 |
|
|
I'm planning a presentation for my MA film class about Holocaust films and Baudrillard's ideas of simulation and simulacra, and I've decided to talk about Schlinder's List in it. My question is about colour photos and film of the Holocaust - nearly every single image taken during the Holocaust I've seen is in black and white, I know colour photos were rare, but does any material exist in colour that would have been seen by the general public during/in the years after the collapse of the Third Reich? Google shows me some colour photos that were held in private archives and have only just been released to the public in the last few years, or restored photos, but where there many colour photos/film taken during the Holocaust? If so, would the public have seen them in the past few decades, or where they all held in private collections until recently? Any sources/news links would be helpful too, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
site posted:I realize that everything surrounding the topic is so chaotic that counterfactuals don't mean much, but if the Nazis didn't dump so many resources into the Final Solution project would it have increased their chances of winning the war at all? No, not at all. There's no way that they'd ever won the war. They caught the sowjets with their pants down, in the middle or restructuring. A year or two later and the odds would have been even worse. On the other hand, if they'd came as liberators, as the people in Belorussia and the Ukraine had hoped, things would have gotten really ugly for the Sowjets, but that was already out of the window in the early planning phase in spring 40'. They didn't use comparably much manpower and definitely not the creme of the crop. All kinds of shady people, careerists, etc., also lots of foreign nationals. Ukrainians, Lithunias, etc. for the really dirty work. OldMemes posted:I'm planning a presentation for my MA film class about Holocaust films and Baudrillard's ideas of simulation and simulacra, and I've decided to talk about Schlinder's List in it. Filming or photographing was forbidden. You will not find too much. There's some material on the shootings in Belorussia and Ukraine, as guys from the WM took photos, but (everything?) black and white. There is a coloured clip of the shootings in Pancevo, Serbia that I know of. From Russia, I know of a guy who filmed alot in colour, there's a docu on youtube about him. Don't know the name. He was in a scouting company or something. http://www.bundesarchiv.de/benutzung/zeitbezug/nationalsozialismus/index.html.de e: searching for it. It's not Karl Hoeffkes, but he also had colour films. This video here uses the material, but it's not the docu. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqeqou04_Ds Power Khan fucked around with this message at 22:07 on Dec 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
site posted:I realize that everything surrounding the topic is so chaotic that counterfactuals don't mean much, but if the Nazis didn't dump so many resources into the Final Solution project would it have increased their chances of winning the war at all? Nazis probably lost when UK declared war. And they lost for certain when they invaded USSR.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 22:14
|
|
site posted:I realize that everything surrounding the topic is so chaotic that counterfactuals don't mean much, but if the Nazis didn't dump so many resources into the Final Solution project would it have increased their chances of winning the war at all? It just tells you everything you need to know about the Nazi wartime state. Anti-semitism really was the organising principle. Nothing apart from Germany being a much bigger and more powerful country could have let the Germans win against the Allies + Sovs, although I believe the war could have been fought by the Germans a lot more successfully and caused even more damage to the world.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 15:53
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Nazis probably lost when UK declared war. And they lost for certain when they invaded USSR. There's that old saw that Germany's position was very bad by the end of 1939, disastrously bad by the end of 1940, and hopeless by the end of 1941.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 09:26
|
|
|
I assume this is the right place to ask and I didn't see it covered elsewhere in the thread, so here goes: The popular narrative about Chamberlain is that he was a fool to try to "appease" Hitler, not understanding the true nature of the Nazi regime. However, I've also read articles claiming that Chamberlain was well aware but was buying time, that the British military had been on peacetime footing throughout the 20s and most of the 30s and the the delay from Munich allowed the British military to build up and complete the radar system without which the UK would have been screwed in the Battle of Britain. Is there any truth to this or this merely historical contrarianism?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 14:15
|
|
FreshlyShaven posted:I assume this is the right place to ask and I didn't see it covered elsewhere in the thread, so here goes: It's fairly well established now that most people at the time thought that Chamberlain was doing the right thing when he appeased Hitler. You only have to watch this to get an idea of what I'm talking about : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FO725Hbzfls. The number of people who realised early enough to do something about Hitler what sort of monster Hitler was was relatively low. Churchill is the most famous example of this, and because Churchill did have some prescience (though he also had moments where he was quite pro-Hitler) and because Churchill set the tone so much about what people believed about the war, the contemporary enthusiasm for appeasement has been forgotten. Trotsky was, on Hitler, probably the most prescient of all - but naturally nobody in the establishment was reading him. In much the same way that France has a national myth that everyone was in the resistance, many English people have chosen to forget about themselves that they generally supported appeasement. Re: the second half of your question - without doubt Britain was not capable of waging war with Germany in 1938 and needed time to re-arm. I don't think Radar was the crucial thing here to be singled out, though it was important in the Battle of Britain. France was in a better spot in terms of materiel, but unfortunately was highly politically unstable and lacking in national morale. Appeasement is a rare example of a situation in which historians have regarded it as more helpful to play games with counter-factuals. In reality, they're not usually a very good idea, and they have the added problem of helping you to forget why that happened felt so necessary at the time. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 14:32 on Dec 15, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 14:29
|
|
|
My understanding is that Germany didn't start rebuilding their airforce until the 30s, so the radar story sounds unlikely.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 14:36
|
|
|
Wasn't basically everyone in Europe but for Hitler and parts of the proto-revanchist German military extremely war weary after the devastating first World War and the knowledge that the next one would not be any better?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
In Germany you have a need to overcome the humiliation of the non-defeat defeat of Germany. On the other hand, there is an upsurge of nationalism in all major countries and in Europe, including fascist or other far right parties who advocate militarism as a form of rejuvenation of the national spirit and character, and/or as a restoration from the economic concerns of the great depression. At the same time, there is also war weariness and the spread of leftists as a response to the failure of old structures in the first world war. Certainly with Chamberlain, he is feeding in to a strong need in Britain to avoid war at almost any cost. But Britain was least afflicted by extremist views, right or left, of virtually any European country in the post-ww1 period.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
What was Nazi Germany's relationship with capitalism? I've read that Hitler considered the American/French/British capitalist system as being overrun with Jews and were corrupt as a result; how did that conflate with the Wehrmacht's reliance on the Junkers, Hugo Boss, Heinkel, and other major corporations that provided the Reich with war materials and other goods?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
How did the stab in the back legend take hold? My (limited) understanding is that Germany was decisively defeated in northern France and Belgium in the summer and fall of 1918. How did right wing Germans spin that into the die Dolchstoßlegende in the twenties?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 03:26
|
|
|
Nude Bog Lurker posted:There's that old saw that Germany's position was very bad by the end of 1939, disastrously bad by the end of 1940, and hopeless by the end of 1941. It's not just an old saw, its the absolute truth. Adam Tooze's The Wages of Destruction explains in detail just how true it is and why. brozozo posted:How did the stab in the back legend take hold? My (limited) understanding is that Germany was decisively defeated in northern France and Belgium in the summer and fall of 1918. How did right wing Germans spin that into the die Dolchstoßlegende in the twenties? The ex-high command officers like Ludendorff lied through their teeth, basically.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
How many similarities are there between Barack Obama and Adolf Hitler? I keep hearing people comparing the two.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 07:34
|
|
|
Tao Jones posted:How many similarities are there between Barack Obama and Adolf Hitler? I keep hearing people comparing the two. One is a foreigner, a socialist of some variety whose seizure of power was technically illegal and intent on leading his country into chaos at the head a growing nightmare of bureaucratic inefficiency. The other is black.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 07:43
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:The ex-high command officers like Ludendorff lied through their teeth, basically. That's an over-simplification. Germany was militarily capable of fighting on in 1918 - it had simply collapsed domestically to the extent that the war was no longer possible. The unpopularity of the war had also led effectively to the end of the imperial government before the war ended and the rise of social democrats and socialists who were already planning for the republic to follow - with army officers doing the government in the meanwhile. The thing that has to be taken in to account is that Germany lost a war in which it won most of the battles and never lost substantial territory. Unfortunately for Germany, the widespread myth of the 'undefeated Germany' basically encouraged a lot of the roughness with Germany that followed in WW2, including the massive strategic bombing campaigns. Tao Jones posted:How many similarities are there between Barack Obama and Adolf Hitler? I keep hearing people comparing the two. To foolishly answer seriously, if you choose some very narrow and stupid band of comparison you can make them sound similar, since Hitler liked animal rights and restrictive gun laws. But you'd have to be totally blind to their ideologies or their broader policies to think the comparison was at all relevant. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 09:51 on Dec 16, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 09:48
|
|
|
To keep it in perspective, if Obama had been Hitler, by now, the US would have invaded Cuba, annexed Mexico and preparing the imminent invasion of Canada, there would have been an instance of state-sanctioned shooting of rich people/catholics (?) in the street, members of the Republican party would be sent to prison camps, Ron Paul would be in prison or dead, and the size of the US military would have grown by orders of magnitude. They both wrote autobiographical books with some political oomph though, and had favourable opinions on vegetarianism. I kind of see the connection. Disinterested posted:That's an over-simplification. Germany was militarily capable of fighting on in 1918
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 12:58
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Hitler liked animal rights and restrictive gun laws. The gun laws thing is actually really misleading. Hitler actually made it substantially easier for (non-Jewish) Germans to own guns, which is something that gets glossed over in the rush to paint American firearm legislation as stage zero of the imminent redneck holocaust. But then Obama isn't really anti-gun either, so  maybe.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 13:17
|
|
Cingulate posted:They both wrote autobiographical books with some political oomph though, and had favourable opinions on vegetarianism. I kind of see the connection. Defeat was inevitable, but Germany probably could have kept it going for longer and forced the allies to keep at them for a bit longer - from a purely military perspective. National morale was basically zero though. Honestly the front collapse was worse for Germany from a supply point of view than it was purely in terms of military events. Germany had already been basically starved out by blockades, and there would have been a tremendous famine in Germany had Germany tried to fight on after losing the Balkan theatre. Germany's defeat was a national collapse and not a tremendous defeat. Germany surrendered at the point that calamity was about to unfold, not after it. As a result, although national morale was at 0, people did not suffer the tremendous trauma of total destruction and defeatr akin to the WW2 experience, where Hitler fought on long after Germany could no longer win. quote:The gun laws thing is actually really misleading. Hitler actually made it substantially easier for (non-Jewish) Germans to own guns, which is something that gets glossed over in the rush to paint American firearm legislation as stage zero of the imminent redneck holocaust. Don't you know the tyrants always go for the guns first? Yeah, basically the laws just let the government take guns away from 'undesireables'. My comment is only half serious. There is no real point in comparing Hitler and Obama. Another painful link often drawn by Americans is 'Hitler was a national socialist. Obama's a socialist too!' Neither of those statements is really accurate in any sense. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 13:48 on Dec 16, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 13:46
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Defeat was inevitable, but Germany probably could have kept it going for longer and forced the allies to keep at them for a bit longer - from a purely military perspective. National morale was basically zero though. However, for the general public, this is not so readily apparent. You're hungry, lots of men keep failing to come back on leave, and the war is unpopular. However, you have won in the East, Russia has collapsed, and as far as you are being told a huge push has been made in the West. The problem in 1918, that then enabled the stab in the back discourse, is that the general public never directly experienced the fighting, vs. 1944/45 when after that nobody would claim a similar thing. The ideas associated with such a discourse were also totally functional to the political reactionary elites who feared Russia Mk.II Germany was politically, economically and militarily ruined in 1918. The army was just smart enough to throw in the towel while the basic elements of the state functioned and there weren't entire formations deserting. Pressed into continuous fighting, Germany of 1919 would have been similar to Russia late 1917.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 15:45
|
|
|
I entirely agree. Some resistance might have been possible, but the resistance itself would have invited even worse outcomes, including mass desertions, further rebellions, mass starvation and revolutions. You mention the most salient fear of all by invoking Russia in 1917 - the fear of revolution. As soon as the Navy mutinied the game was basically up because that was a sure sign more rebellion was to follow. I just want to re-emphasise how the blockade of Germany slowly applied pressure for so long that helped build to this moment of fail cascade. There were a lot of reasons for the Germans to be pissed in their own minds. Unlike with WW2, looking back, they were genuinely close at moments to winning the gamble - and they did it with even fewer and more incompetent allies. They enjoyed military superiority over their competitors a lot of the time. France came perilously close to losing Paris or just giving up at various points. Britain, before it adopted convoys, was almost ruined by submarine warfare. In the end, superior resources and naval supremacy told in ways that it's easy to forget if you just close in on the final campaign. How did Germany reach this moment of collapse in the first place? Ed: and we've sort of distanced ourself from the really important thing, which is how people came to believe in the 'backstab' theory. A lot of it is to do with the psychological displacement necessary to cope with the trauma of losing. We can't imagine what Prussian-infused German society was like in 1900: for males, the emphasis on respect for the social order, martial values and service to the empire were incredibly powerful, and seemingly moving the country toward greatness. This idea also had tremendous depth because of the relatively progressive structure of German social security and high standard of public education. - I've always been a close student of Austrian history. The poo poo that went down with those poor fuckers in WW1 was truly horrifying, not least because it's such a pitiful way for such an influential country to disintegrate. It's hard to imagine that it wasn't that long ago that Austria was a truly influential and powerful European polity. Not as bad as it was for the Serbs though. I'd like to know how Serb historians think about the conflict. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 16:07 on Dec 16, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 15:58
|
|
|
Could the Allies have sustained a winter offensive into Germany? If anything, it seems like they would have faced twice the problem the Germans did during the Spring Offensive... having to move supplies through the lands ruined then, and then again through the lands ruined pushing forwards. And they had just zerg-rushed from the Marne to the Hindenburg line. Surely they were at their logistical limit by then?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
The logistical challenges of an alliance with limitless resources and a vast navy supplying its soldiers is nothing compared to the logistical challenge of feeding tens of millions people with a a single frankfurter and a loaf of very dark bread, which is basically the German scenario. The allies would have had an easier time of it than the Germans - more men, more resources, can supply by sea as well as land.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:There were a lot of reasons for the Germans to be pissed in their own minds. Unlike with WW2, looking back, they were genuinely close at moments to winning the gamble - and they did it with even fewer and more incompetent allies. They enjoyed military superiority over their competitors a lot of the time. France came perilously close to losing Paris or just giving up at various points. Britain, before it adopted convoys, was almost ruined by submarine warfare. Sure, when you're talking about the motivations behind the Dolchstosslegende, you can bring up stuff like that, but it's still a myth - Germany was defeated, and that the military could have added a few months of watching the nation burn and the people starve does not change that they were defeated; German revanchists had motivation, but no reason.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
I think it's more that the average German was shielded from the reality of just how poorly the war was going. You saw something like this in Karl Rove's election night meltdown. He'd convinced himself of one reality, "de-convoluted" polls to agree with his version of it, thought he was winning all along, and suddenly the world's upside-down.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
I don't know much about this, but to me it seemed that popular support for the Dolchstosslegende grew as the actual horrors of the war became more distant. Of course, the militarists immediately blamed everything on the left, but many people in Germany, much as in the rest of Europe, had really experienced how terrifying the whole thing was, and needed some time to switch to a new ideology.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
The German army basically never got totally owned in quite the same way that some of the entente armies got owned, as well. Germany won most of the battles, held huge areas of territory, and then dramatically began to fold right at the end. But the point that needs to be emphasised is that the folding never fully played out. Why this isn't fully digested I already explained: quote:Ed: and we've sort of distanced ourself from the really important thing, which is how people came to believe in the 'backstab' theory. A lot of it is to do with the psychological displacement necessary to cope with the trauma of losing. We can't imagine what Prussian-infused German society was like in 1900: for males, the emphasis on respect for the social order, martial values and service to the empire were incredibly powerful, and seemingly moving the country toward greatness. This idea also had tremendous depth because of the relatively progressive structure of German social security and high standard of public education. For a lot of people it is easier to warp your perception of reality than it is to fundamentally alter the belief system that has been pounded into you since birth. Also, you can't think of this as a linear series of events that goes: 1. Lose War 2. Backstab Theory That is to forget about the twenties completely. What you actually have is: 1. War Starts and goes well 2. War Begins to drag on and go to poo poo 3. Soft (Social Democratic) Leftist parties begin to formulate plans for a democratic republican postwar Germany 4. Lose War 5. Leftists take over 6. Things are actually not bad in the mid twenties 7. Great Depression 8. Things go back to poo poo and everyone now starts to get more heavily involved in scapegoating, irridentism and irrational nationalism OR communism. Like sure, the seeds are there for this irrational belief in 1918, but the catalyst for them becoming a powerful political force is the devastation of the Great Depression.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I don't get this. "It wasn't fair that we lost (the war we basically started)" is not a sensible position. Eh, the idea that Germany started the war wasn't really that cut and dried, either. Sure, they officially admitted it in the Treaty of Versailles, but it was a deeply unpopular part of the treaty and besides, it was Austria's war really and Germany was just having her ally's back, and the Entente would have attacked them anyway so isn't it better to hit them before they can attack you? And so on and so forth. It's not hard to see how German nationlists might see Germany as being unfairly scapegoated for the whole war, as opposed to simply doing what any other nation in Germany's shoes would have done to defend itself from hostile powers surrounding it on all sides.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
Addendum: it only exacerbates the feeling that you were hard done by if you already don't feel like you lost that badly and then you get crushing terms against you in the peace.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
There's a similar attitude in the US after the end of the war in Vietnam. Many Americans felt the US "wasn't allowed" to win in Vietnam by hippie-coddling politicians.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 07:12
|
|
|
If you want to talk about the Dolchstoßlegende and especially a more important related Topos for the way that the events in WW2 take a turn for the worse, you need to consider the Hungerwinter 1916/1917, which dominated the discourse in the wake of the war and again even more pronounced in the planing of Barbarossa. This winter is *the* turning point in the party-internal explanation why the "homefront" crumbled in WW1. In '39 and '40, all the big heads in the ministries are scared of how the blockade in WW1 played out and the hunger that followed. Which is natural, if you consider that there's nobody there anymore that they can shift the blame to. All the jews and leftists are removed from positions of influnce. If anything goes dramatically wrong, the party is to blame. 1940 isn't 1943, and the party isn't in controll of everything. While Hitler rides on a wave of popularity after the defeat of France, there's still the old elites in the Heer that wait for their chance to get rid of him and the party, and Hitler knows that. They almost made their move when Hitler wanted to attack France in the first place, as we know. Assuming that WW1 was lost on the homefront and not in the field, everything in the economic planing revolved around the directive that the standard of living and especially the rations must not decline during wartime. The harvests of '39 weren't so great and the numbers for '40 went down even more. '41 was to be even worse due to the lack of manpower, machines and fertilizer in the agricultural sector. From there on, you can dock onto the posts that I made about the Grüne Mappe, etc. Remarkable, what myths and ideology can do together.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 10:04
|
|
|
I've heard it said that the Nazis' plans to heavily promote childbirth during the lead-up to the war and the war itself was ultimately a further drain on the country's resources and should never have been attempted. Namely, given that even the youngest possible results of the program would be like 12 years old by the time the war ended, they could contribute about nothing to war efforts and sucked up a lot of time and money for education, feeding, et cetera. Has anyone done comprehensive writing on that topic?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
What were the Nazi view on ethnic German emigrants outside Europe? Like in America, Australia and such? Overall was emigrating encouraged/discouraged? Talking about economic emigration of "proper" Nazi Germans, not undesirables fleeing the regime.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:I've heard it said that the Nazis' plans to heavily promote childbirth during the lead-up to the war and the war itself was ultimately a further drain on the country's resources and should never have been attempted. Namely, given that even the youngest possible results of the program would be like 12 years old by the time the war ended, they could contribute about nothing to war efforts and sucked up a lot of time and money for education, feeding, et cetera. It's kind of a non-topic. Was it a drain on resources? gently caress, I question whether it even bumped the birthrate above whatever the background was. I know the German birth rate notched up in the mid-30s, but that probably has a lot more to do with not being in the middle of the Great Motherfucking Depression than Mr. Hitler asking people to get the babymakers cranking. They did throw plenty of state funds at new families in the 30s, but I doubt that was enough of an expense to really register. Those kinds of programs are always more about making noise for political reasons than anything else. edit: did some fast google research and it looks like my gut-check was more or less spot on. The program that would have gotten most of that baby spending was the NSV Hilfswerk: "Mutter und Kind." The high point of spending on that program was in 1937 with 78.4 million RM. To put things into context, the same year Germany spent 11.7 billion RM on rearmament, and that figure represents only 13% of annual GDP. That's a poo poo ton of military spending for peace time, but not unsustainable. So, yeah, drop in the bucket. Maybe the Wehrmacht got 3 or 4 fewer pre-war Panzers. edit x2: Oh, and to your question about anyone having written on it, there really isn't much done as single-volume history on the NSV. Mostly I'm digging up sections of related works, plus a few simple works that just examine the basic history and documentation surrounding the organization. What there is is mostly in German. Kuiperdolin posted:What were the Nazi view on ethnic German emigrants outside Europe? Like in America, Australia and such? Overall was emigrating encouraged/discouraged? Talking about economic emigration of "proper" Nazi Germans, not undesirables fleeing the regime. They did what they could to bring them home, but it wasn't a huge push. That scene in Band of Brothers has done a lot to make a bunch of people think it was way more of a thing than it was. They did get pretty aggressive with re-locating German ethnic groups out of the areas ceded to the Soviets in the Molitov-Ribbentropp deal. In that case it was pretty well received by the people on the ground because no one really wanted to live as an ethnic minority under Stalin. That was mostly Baltic Germans being moved to Germany in the 39-40 timeframe. A bit more of that was also done on an ad-hoc basis during the final retreat in '44.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 02:10
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:They did what they could to bring them home, but it wasn't a huge push. That scene in Band of Brothers has done a lot to make a bunch of people think it was way more of a thing than it was. The basic explanation would be that that guy's parents were giant fuckin' Nazis even in terms of the times, and he happened to get captured in a place where he would eventually wind up in an HBO miniseries.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 06:27
|
|
|
Has anyone else seen this on Youtube? I was watching something on White Supremacy and this poo poo popped up. It pretty glorifies Hitler for 6 hours while claiming Churchill was a mass murderer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vnu5uW9No8g http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3526810/reviews quote:Share this, show your support, get it out on your networks, blogs and personal websites before YouTube takes it down again. #HitlerWasRight #HitlerDidNothingWrong +The Greatest Story Never Told TV https://www.tgsnt.tv Ughhh. Less Claypool fucked around with this message at 08:56 on Jan 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 08:39
|
|
|
"This video is not available in your country."
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 10:32
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:"This video is not available in your country." The guy who made it posted this on his youtube channel. I guess it is banned in a lot of countries, not suprised. quote:Regarding your account: +The Greatest Story Never Told TV Here are some quotes from the producer I found. quote:With now over 100K views this video, even banned still in 17 countries worldwide is making waves. A tsunami of truth to those who seek it. quote:They are jew lies. The Iron cross was there long before Hitler. They try to tie Hitler in with freemasonry for obvious reasons but if you watch Part 3 of my present documentary The NWO: Communism by the backdoor you see EXACTLY what freemasonry is and proof of EXACTLY what Adolf Hitler thought of it. There are also lies and misinformation about Hitler and the occult. In Part 2 of the same documentary I explain about Blavatsky and prove just who follows her teachings and who the followers of Lucifer are today. It was the enemies of Nazi Germany, the same crew who are in power today, as you will learn. quote:Are you saying the Allies stood for... Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Goodness, Faithfulness, Gentleness and Self Control. LOL look up the Bleiburg Massacres including women and children... which was AFTER the war. Even Ghandi knew what the British Empire brought ... Hitler unfortunately didn't, and so offered Peace, Patience, Kindness, Goodness, Faithfulness, Gentleness and Self Control at Dunkirk where he could have wiped them out completely on the French beaches but instead suffered the consequences. lol quote:God willing I would sit in heaven with the Lord Jesus on one side and his great warrior Adolf Hitler on the other. There we will feast on the finest food and drink the finest wine, watching the angels returning, blooded but victorious from their final battle. The great evil with all its lies, greed, decadence and injustice lay dead alongside its armies that had once ruled the earth, Less Claypool fucked around with this message at 12:00 on Jan 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 11:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 18:25 |
|
|
It is neither scandalous nor noteworthy for a Hitler apologist to be a crazy person who spends a lot of time and effort glorifying Hitler.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 13:43
|
|