Adolf Hitler enjoys a landslide election win to become… administrator of a small district in Namibia

NickK

Woodpecker
Orthodox
Nick is mostly right on Hitler's views on Christianity, he was pretty much a disciple of Blavatsky, so he was, ironically, a kabalist luciferian. This major flaw led to the destruction of Germany, and much of Eastern Europe. A Christian German nationalist would have managed to rally the Slavic nations and liberate Russia instead of leaving a trail of destruction in and around his country.

This being said, Hitler wasn't half the warmonger Churchill or FDR were, he was pushed into WW2 and his pleas for an armistice were rebuffed by them.

His other big flaw in addition to the one above was that he was a horrible military strategist, the globalists who propped him in the early 30s (Preston Bush et al) used him to destroy Germany (a process still ongoing).
The Thule society was a pagan/theosofic secret organisation that most Nazis, including Hitler were a member of.
The less learned members of this forum, like Goni above, are encouraged to study this period more.
Having watched propaganda "documentaries" like "The greatest lie ever told" does not count as knowledge, it makes you look foolish.
 
The authenticity of Hitler's Table talk is absolutely unquestionable.
It's not. From a historian's perspective its absolute garbage and shouldn't be used for any serious study

1. The original documents were not Hitler's ad verbatim words and instead a set of paraphrases and summaries from people who made short notes/memorised the talks afterwards. There were no stenographers on the spot taking notes and in no way was Hitler ever consulted about the words that were put in his mouth

2. The original manuscripts were likely composed by four different individuals, who wrote down the notes days, and sometimes even weeks after the conversations. The original authors listening in were Picker, Müller and Heim.

3. Both Picker and Heim's notes and transcriptions were lost, yet by that time they ahd already been copied (and altered) by Bormann. Bormann allegedly added a lot of content too (finalising the so called Bormann-Vermercke)

It is to be noted that all of these individuals had their own agenda.

3. The by then already heavily edited manuscripts were kept in an undisclosed place during the remainder of the war. After Germany's surrender they were taken by a Swiss banker (François Geroud). Geroud translated the manuscripts into French and this translation turned out to be quite far off from the third hand German manuscripts.

4. The Bormann-Vermercke are lost today, too. They were however used for several academic works, most notably Tischgespräche im Führerhauptquartier” (1951). At that point in time there were already several severely contrarian German versions doing the rounds.

5. It is for reasons unknown Geroud's French translation that was used for the translation into the English Table Talk (1953). The translation from French to English turned out to be, again, mediocre at best.

In short the works quoted by you should not be taken seriously. Obviously that doesn't negate that during his last years Hitler was starting to doubt Positive Christianity and The Protestant Reich Church

From the horse's mouth:

Hitler’s Air Force Adjutant, Nicolaus von Below, gave a crushing verdict on the Table Talk as early as 1951, after Picker published his edition. He said they were not credible records of what Hitler had said, and try as he might, he could not remember any monologue from Hitler of such length. Instead, he said, Hitler’s remarks happened here and there in the course of discussions, and to understand them one also has to know what the other participants had said. One cannot simply take a person’s statements out of context and then publish them in the way Picker and [Picker’s editor] Ritter do

Website of an influential sceptic (Nillson's 2016 article is frequently mentioned)


Everything he said in there was a repetition of what he said and wrote in the past.

The quote below is from a public speech held in 1922.

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. ...Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. ...
- Adolf Hitler, speech on April 12, 1922



The man DID pull a Stalin on Christianity. He killed 25 million Orthodox Christians. He starved millions of Orthodox Christians in Greece and Yugoslavia so that his soldiers could kill millions of Orthodox Christians in Russia. All in all, he is responsible for the deaths of 25 million Christians.
From Bolshewik Jewish agents to devout Orthodox Christians in one topic

The winds change fast indeed!
 

NickK

Woodpecker
Orthodox
From Bolshewik Jewish agents to devout Orthodox Christians in one topic
The winds change fast indeed!
You are confused.

Obviously I'm talking to neo-nazis here, who post dubious "sources" to prove their garbage ideology.
"Christians" like you are the ones who will bow to the Antichrist. He knows exactly what to promise you to get you on his side.

Get this through your thick head:
Hitler was a forerunner of the Antichrist, like Stalin, Nero, Diocletian, Julian and so many others in history. Quit admiring antichrists.
 
The Thule society was a pagan/theosofic secret organisation that most Nazis, including Hitler were a member of.
The less learned members of this forum, like Goni above, are encouraged to study this period more.
Having watched propaganda "documentaries" like "The greatest lie ever told" does not count as knowledge, it makes you look foolish.
Hitler was not a member of the Thule Society, nor did he ever attend a meeting.

In fact the Thule Society was disbanded even before the National Socialists came to power. Just like many theosophical organisations were shut down anywhere the Germans went, many of its members rounded up

Again this does not negate that there were elements in the Nazi party that adhered to similar principles. The Gestapo, for instance, is known to have used occultist practices for quite some time.
 
You are confused.

Obviously I'm talking to neo-nazis here, who post dubious "sources" to prove their garbage ideology.
"Christians" like you are the ones who will bow to the Antichrist. He knows exactly what to promise you to get you on his side.

Get this through your thick head:
Hitler was a forerunner of the Antichrist, like Stalin, Nero, Diocletian, Julian and so many others in history. Quit admiring antichrists.
There are no Neonazis here.

These are people that have a willingness to look at history without having to feel bad about themselves/ all sorts of contemporary motives

You don't seem to be one of them. Why are you so mad about a man that died nearly 80 years ago?

EDIT: It's quite hilarious that I am being accused neo-nazism

Couple of months ago I was similarly accused of being a Jew (lover) in the Beirut explosión thread and before that I was tainted a China cheerleader/China bot.

Just take a chillpill man
 

Pendleton

Pelican
He killed 25.000.000 Christians, including 700.000 of my kin.
Last I checked, both sides in WW2 killed millions of Christians. The Germans don't really stand out in that regard. And unlike Stalin, they at least had the excuse of doing most of their killing in the context of a war. The Russians were racking up 7 figure body counts in peace time. Just because people don't accept your monster movie narrative of WW2 or share your particular ethnic grudges, doesn't mean they are neonazis or Hitler fans.
 

NickK

Woodpecker
Orthodox
Last I checked, both sides in WW2 killed millions of Christians. The Germans don't really stand out in that regard. And unlike Stalin, they at least had the excuse of doing most of their killing in the context of a war. The Russians were racking up 7 figure body counts in peace time. Just because people don't accept your monster movie narrative of WW2 or share your particular ethnic grudges, doesn't mean they are neonazis or Hitler fans.
Unbelievable.
I'm out of here. This is not a Christian forum.
 

Goni

Woodpecker
The Thule society was a pagan/theosofic secret organisation that most Nazis, including Hitler were a member of.
The less learned members of this forum, like Goni above, are encouraged to study this period more.
Having watched propaganda "documentaries" like "The greatest lie ever told" does not count as knowledge, it makes you look foolish.
Nick is mostly right on Hitler's views on Christianity, he was pretty much a disciple of Blavatsky, so he was, ironically, a kabalist luciferian. This major flaw led to the destruction of Germany, and much of Eastern Europe. A Christian German nationalist would have managed to rally the Slavic nations and liberate Russia instead of leaving a trail of destruction in and around his country.

This being said, Hitler wasn't half the warmonger Churchill or FDR were, he was pushed into WW2 and his pleas for an armistice were rebuffed by them.

His other big flaw in addition to the one above was that he was a horrible military strategist, the globalists who propped him in the early 30s (Preston Bush et al) used him to destroy Germany (a process still ongoing).
Nick, about these kinds of subjects , I will always be more informed and objective than you.

This is one of the most red pilled forums on the net and if things don't go according to your narrative, it doesn't mean is not Christian.

As you are wrong about many things, you are also wrong about Hitler being part of Thula society because he was not.

And now I am also replying to 911.

Hitler was not a christian priest or theologian.

He was a politician. His immediate policies were not to "reinforce" christianity because christianity was already there, but to save Germany from the devastation it was and he did.

By doing this he also promoted Christian values by strengthening family and traditional roles.

I think the useless discussion about this topic ends here.

Also, 911 how in the world could Hitler convince Russians to join his side???

While Bolshevik revolution was planned and supported by Jews, many Russian villagers supported it, many russian villagers were brainwashed by it and large parts of the dirty jobs in the field were done by Russians.

Go and ask Putin and average Russian what he thinks of Soviet Union.

Millions of Russians were ready to fight and day against Hitler and you know very well that Soviets were ready to attack Germany and millions of Soviets were captured because they were on the front and were caught by surprise by the Whermacht...

What could Hitler do with the Poles that did many atrocities to ethnic Germans on the East Prussia and were refusing to stop?

Hitler did a very big mistake thought, that didn't get the support of the Ukrainians.

On Dunkirk, he didn't annihilate the Brits because he was hopping this would lead to peace later on.

His biggest miltary mistake was that he didn't allow his generals, especially von Manstein to attack Moscow directly in August- September 1941.

He was also a " fool" to make alliance with a failed military state such as Italy, that became a burden more than anything else.
 

bucky

Ostrich
Nick is mostly right on Hitler's views on Christianity, he was pretty much a disciple of Blavatsky, so he was, ironically, a kabalist luciferian. This major flaw led to the destruction of Germany, and much of Eastern Europe. A Christian German nationalist would have managed to rally the Slavic nations and liberate Russia instead of leaving a trail of destruction in and around his country.

This being said, Hitler wasn't half the warmonger Churchill or FDR were, he was pushed into WW2 and his pleas for an armistice were rebuffed by them.

His other big flaw in addition to the one above was that he was a horrible military strategist, the globalists who propped him in the early 30s (Preston Bush et al) used him to destroy Germany (a process still ongoing).
My understanding is that Hitler was not enthusiastic about Christianity and even made private statements to the effect that it would have been better if Germans had stuck with Germanic paganism or chosen Islam instead, but he was pragmatic and since he ruled a Christian nation realized it would best to tolerate and use Christianity rather than suppress. I don't have a source for the part about paganism and Islam though, it's just something I remember reading somewhere. Supposedly he felt those religions had more "warrior spirit."
 

Stadtaffe

Woodpecker
Orthodox
Gold Member
These are people that have a willingness to look at history without having to feel bad about themselves/ all sorts of contemporary motives
Now now, don't you know who won the war? Don't y'all read the mainstream press which tells you what you are supposed to think and NOT supposed to think, what you're not supposed to read or not supposed to watch. You are not supposed to watch The Fascifist on bitchute, don't ya know? Not, n-o-t.. If you so much as watch that you are doing evil. Haven't your brains been properly washed?!

@Pendleton thanks for posting that scene will have to rewatch that eventually was always a favourite film
 
Nick, about these kinds of subjects , I will always be more informed and objective than you.

This is one of the most red pilled forums on the net and if things don't go according to your narrative, it doesn't mean is not Christian.

As you are wrong about many things, you are also wrong about Hitler being part of Thula society because he was not.

And now I am also replying to 911.

Hitler was not a christian priest or theologian.

He was a politician. His immediate policies were not to "reinforce" christianity because christianity was already there, but to save Germany from the devastation it was and he did.

By doing this he also promoted Christian values by strengthening family and traditional roles.

I think the useless discussion about this topic ends here.

Also, 911 how in the world could Hitler convince Russians to join his side???

While Bolshevik revolution was planned and supported by Jews, many Russian villagers supported it, many russian villagers were brainwashed by it and large parts of the dirty jobs in the field were done by Russians.

Go and ask Putin and average Russian what he thinks of Soviet Union.

Millions of Russians were ready to fight and day against Hitler and you know very well that Soviets were ready to attack Germany and millions of Soviets were captured because they were on the front and were caught by surprise by the Whermacht...

What could Hitler do with the Poles that did many atrocities to ethnic Germans on the East Prussia and were refusing to stop?

Hitler did a very big mistake thought, that didn't get the support of the Ukrainians.

On Dunkirk, he didn't annihilate the Brits because he was hopping this would lead to peace later on.

His biggest miltary mistake was that he didn't allow his generals, especially von Manstein to attack Moscow directly in August- September 1941.

He was also a " fool" to make alliance with a failed military state such as Italy, that became a burden more than anything else.

That is one of biggest kept secret of WWII, Soviet mobilization that was building up on the front and was only two weeks behind the German attack, they took massive casualties, because their divisions were being assembling for attack. Anyone who reads on operation Barbarossa will be shocked how much material and supplies the Germans captured in the first three weeks, this happened because the Soviets were building massive supply depots, they were preparing to strike.

His biggest miltary mistake was that he didn't allow his generals, especially von Manstein to attack Moscow directly in August- September 1941.

He was also a " fool" to make alliance with a failed military state such as Italy, that became a burden more than anything else.

Manstein was still minor general at the time and was just promoted the head of the 11th army in August, was nowhere near Moscow but trying to break into Crimea. The cliche that Moscow could be captured or Hitler ruined operation Barbarossa by moving the armor forces south is one the many lies from our controlled education system and the "expert" lackeys. If army group center would have continued toward Moscow, the front length would have doubled and German breakthrough in the south and north would have come to a halt, and so would have the Moscow front which would have lead to an epic disaster.

The changing of focus toward the south continued the momentum of wiping out Soviet armies, broke the deadlock in the south, straightened the front and allowed the Germans to capture all of Ukraine and the important industrial region of Donbas. It was the "generals" that delayed Hitler's orders, the Germans lost a week or two of good weather from the generals resisting Hitler's orders. They also diluted his plan, after the massive victory in Kiev, Hitler was persuaded to bring the armor back to center. His original idea to capture Leningrad and all of Ukraine first was diluted and neither was fully achieved. The capture of Leningrad(usage of its port) would have greatly improved the supply situation in 1942, which had become very strained as the front moved east. The factories for military production(tanks and ammunition) in Leningrad were never transferred to Siberia, this also would have been a big blow to the Soviets if Leningrad was captured. The factories of Krakow were barely evacuated and likely would have been captured partially if the armor forces were not moved north. Looking back in hindsight, Hitler was correct and many of the epic battle victories are because of his foresight.

Operation Typhoon experienced crazy initial success for the same exact reason the first week of Barbarossa did, the Soviets after watching the Germans shift the focus north and south for a month began to build up for an offensive in the center, their forces had concentrated heavily near the front which allowed easy encirclement when the Germans resumed the attack.

Something none of you here are aware is many of the Generals were part of the Wiemar bureaucracy, they inherited their positions from the old political system and many were loyal to the old system, which you must now understand who ruled and lead "democracy". They were in a way the swamp, and they sabotaged the war effort. Most famous of these generals is Halder, who became a NATO commander after the war, no prison time or execution like many other German generals suffered.

Italy was not part of the alliance, nor did Hitler ask them to join, Mussolini joined in by attacking France when the Germans already won the battle for France, in an attempt to bring southern France within Italian borders. The Germans called this sly move by Italy "harvest helpers".
You should read Hitler's War by David Irving, big insight of the politics behind the war, the decision to attack Soviet Union, the swamp within Germany, etc.... David Irving was jailed by freedom and democracy for writing non-Kosher historical books.
 

Goni

Woodpecker
That is one of biggest kept secret of WWII, Soviet mobilization that was building up on the front and was only two weeks behind the German attack, they took massive casualties, because their divisions were being assembling for attack. Anyone who reads on operation Barbarossa will be shocked how much material and supplies the Germans captured in the first three weeks, this happened because the Soviets were building massive supply depots, they were preparing to strike.



Manstein was still minor general at the time and was just promoted the head of the 11th army in August, was nowhere near Moscow but trying to break into Crimea. The cliche that Moscow could be captured or Hitler ruined operation Barbarossa by moving the armor forces south is one the many lies from our controlled education system and the "expert" lackeys. If army group center would have continued toward Moscow, the front length would have doubled and German breakthrough in the south and north would have come to a halt, and so would have the Moscow front which would have lead to an epic disaster.

The changing of focus toward the south continued the momentum of wiping out Soviet armies, broke the deadlock in the south, straightened the front and allowed the Germans to capture all of Ukraine and the important industrial region of Donbas. It was the "generals" that delayed Hitler's orders, the Germans lost a week or two of good weather from the generals resisting Hitler's orders. They also diluted his plan, after the massive victory in Kiev, Hitler was persuaded to bring the armor back to center. His original idea to capture Leningrad and all of Ukraine first was diluted and neither was fully achieved. The capture of Leningrad(usage of its port) would have greatly improved the supply situation in 1942, which had become very strained as the front moved east. The factories for military production(tanks and ammunition) in Leningrad were never transferred to Siberia, this also would have been a big blow to the Soviets if Leningrad was captured. The factories of Krakow were barely evacuated and likely would have been captured partially if the armor forces were not moved north. Looking back in hindsight, Hitler was correct and many of the epic battle victories are because of his foresight.

Operation Typhoon experienced crazy initial success for the same exact reason the first week of Barbarossa did, the Soviets after watching the Germans shift the focus north and south for a month began to build up for an offensive in the center, their forces had concentrated heavily near the front which allowed easy encirclement when the Germans resumed the attack.

Something none of you here are aware is many of the Generals were part of the Wiemar bureaucracy, they inherited their positions from the old political system and many were loyal to the old system, which you must now understand who ruled and lead "democracy". They were in a way the swamp, and they sabotaged the war effort. Most famous of these generals is Halder, who became a NATO commander after the war, no prison time or execution like many other German generals suffered.

Italy was not part of the alliance, nor did Hitler ask them to join, Mussolini joined in by attacking France when the Germans already won the battle for France, in an attempt to bring southern France within Italian borders. The Germans called this sly move by Italy "harvest helpers".
You should read Hitler's War by David Irving, big insight of the politics behind the war, the decision to attack Soviet Union, the swamp within Germany, etc.... David Irving was jailed by freedom and democracy for writing non-Kosher historical books.

Good analysis and time effort.

I am aware of Irving and I have downloaded his book " Hitler's War ".

Italy joined later, but there was already an alliance between the the 2 states.

Hitler very well might have just done economic agreement and not military one with Italy. They failed everywhere and Germany was forced to intervene in Balkan, Northern Africa and later on Italy itself, an intervention which caused to Germans the defeat in Kursk.

I am pretty sure there were treacherous generals in Whermacht but justifying Hitler on every military decision he did, doesn't solve anything.

His generals persuaded him to destroy the British army in Dunkirk and he refused. Britain would be out of war with 300,000 of its soldiers killed or captured.

He didn't follow Manstein advise to retreat from Stalingrad and than attack again and than the disaster happened.

Manstein was the one that with the strategy of retreat and than encircle defeated Soviets several times and saved the Eastern front in 1943.
 
Good analysis and time effort.

I am aware of Irving and I have downloaded his book " Hitler's War ".

Italy joined later, but there was already an alliance between the the 2 states.

Hitler very well might have just done economic agreement and not military one with Italy. They failed everywhere and Germany was forced to intervene in Balkan, Northern Africa and later on Italy itself, an intervention which caused to Germans the defeat in Kursk.

I am pretty sure there were treacherous generals in Whermacht but justifying Hitler on every military decision he did, doesn't solve anything.

His generals persuaded him to destroy the British army in Dunkirk and he refused. Britain would be out of war with 300,000 of its soldiers killed or captured.

He didn't follow Manstein advise to retreat from Stalingrad and than attack again and than the disaster happened.

Manstein was the one that with the strategy of retreat and than encircle defeated Soviets several times and saved the Eastern front in 1943.

The eastern front would have collapsed in 1941 if he allowed the generals to retreat, his order to hold fast saved the situation. A situation that would have never existed if they stuck to his original plan. Look at how he handled the 1943 coup in Italy(read the book), while the intelligence organization completely misread the situation or purposely misinformed him, saved a situation from becoming another disaster. He told the generals the allies would likely land in Normandy but they decided to concentrate around Calais. Even the most successful Soviet operation, Bragation, while the army staff prepared for Soviet offensive in the south, Hitler told them the Soviets would go for the center, if you know what happened, the Soviets completely destroyed and overran the center in 1944. The swamp sabotaged the war effort from within.

The problem was not Hitler, the problem was Hitler was overwhelmed as the war progressed and problems were spiraling out of control everywhere. If he could rely on loyal or competent commanders he would not have to intervene in every sector. Maybe he should have never compromised with the army in 1933, and completely purged the old bureaucracy. In 1933 he made a deal with the remnant of the old regime to get rid of Röhm and his camp (these were uncompromising Nazis who wanted a total revolution, start everything from scratch). Hitler did that to avoid a civil war. But once in power he should have purged the swamp around 1937. Too bad he never considered it.

Italy as a liability was out of Hitler's hand. It's not like the British would have left them alone if Hitler said, oh no they are on their own. The treaty with Italy was out of economic necessity and isolation Germany was finding itself in.
 
Top