A fairly balanced and objective review, especially considering that it comes from a mainstrean academic. However, one can only smile when the Brit flatters his British sensibilities by telling the reader that Churchill was a better man than Hitler. Of course he was...Would that be the same perpetually inebriated war criminal who maniacally advocated the drenching of German cities with poison gas so that the entire population of the said cities would require constant medical attention?

See http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1450

Neville Chamberlain, Appeasement and the British Road to War
Frank McDonagh
Manchester University Press, Manchester and New York, 1998, 196pp, £14.99 (pbk)
ISBN 0 7190 4382 X
Reviewed by Sean Gabb

I read through this book during my lunch break today, sat in an unusually warm and sunny Kensington park. An old man saw the cover with its bold title and rather nice line drawing of Chamberlain. "Neville Chamberlain?" He said to me with an accusing stare. "What a wanker he was." I thought of putting the book down and starting an argument about the realities of British foreign policy before 1940. But lunch breaks for me are far too unusual for wasting on argument with someone who would only start ranting about Saddam Hussein and plastic shredders or whatever - and I get quite enough of that from the Internet. So I smiled and carried on reading.

His reaction, though, was no more than the conventional wisdom. Despite more than 30 years of revisionist scholarship, Neville Chamberlain is still seen by the world exactly as those in and around the first Churchill Government wanted him to be seen. That view is of a weak and confused man out of his depth in the snakepit of European politics. With his rolled umbrella and wing collar, he blundered round Europe in the late 1930s, deceived at every point by bad men of greater intelligence, but hoping that he could settle German demands for territory as peacefully as he might settle a strike in a Birmingham button factory. In the process, he refused to let the country re-arm sufficiently to face the inevitable conflict in defence of liberal civilisation. His name has become shorthand for weakness and self-delusion in foreign policy. "Appeaser" has become one of the ultimate insults in political debate throughout the English-speaking world; and every argument over the present war with Iraq must include some slighting reference to Neville Chamberlain and some lavish praise of Winston Churchill, his apparently more realistic and courageous antithesis.

In fact, this view of Chamberlain has largely disappeared from the scholarly literature. What we have instead is a cool understanding of the limitations of British power in a changing and increasingly hostile world. This book expresses the view briefly yet fully, and it gives useful extracts in support from contemporary documents, and contains a good bibliography for further reading. As such, it is an excellent introduction to the subject for students and for those simply interested in the approach to the greatest war ever fought by this country and the last in which it entered as a primary belligerent.

And that is all I will say about the book. I am reviewing it simply as an excuse for writing more about British foreign policy - this time from the perspective of the 1930s.

Undoubtedly, the Great War had been a disaster for this country. It was an act of stupidity to enter it, and even more stupid not to try for a negotiated settlement in 1916. It had killed nearly a million men, and left many more maimed. Its financial cost had been immense, requiring heavy taxes and a devaluation of Sterling, and a tenfold increase in the national debt. It had also distorted patterns of investment. The vast overseas portfolio built up during the previous generations had been partly liquidated and replaced by heavy indebtedness to American interests. Internally, capital had diverted into an unsustainable expansion of heavy industry - areas in which the country had for some time been losing its comparative advantage, and the products of which could no longer be readily sold in an increasingly fragmented and economically hostile world market. The years before 1914 were not some long, golden summer. But to those looking back from the years after 1918, that is how they often seemed.

But while disastrous, the Great War had not for us been a catastrophe. It was, if in various ways, for Germany, France, Russia and Turkey - but not for us. It had not been fought on our territory. Nor had it been followed by any serious challenge to the established order. Though these did not at all justify the heavy costs, it had even been attended by certain benefits. Germany and Russia and Turkey were destroyed by defeat and revolution. France was prostrate. The United States had briefly emerged as an active great power, only to return to a determined isolationism. In terms of naval supremacy and imperial security, the country was restored to something like the position it had enjoyed after Waterloo. And, while taking the German colonies was of no value, the despoiling of Turkey had given us control over the Middle East and its increasingly important oil reserves.

By 1920, it was clear that the Great War had ripped holes in the financial web that had once bound the world to the City of London. There could be no exact return to the position of 1914. But, if it had shaken the foundations of British power, the War had not undermined them. Something like the old position could still be restored. It was necessary to make a complex and difficult set of changes. At home, it was necessary to cut taxes and spending back towards the levels of 1914, and to force down the price level to the point where the gold standard could be restored at the old parity. At the same time, the over-expansion of heavy industry had to be reversed, so that labour and capital could flow into the more productive new sectors - cars, chemicals, electricals, general light engineering, and so forth.

In the Empire, it was necessary to reduce the commitment to India - returning to something like the system of indirect rule used before the Mutiny - and to shift the balance of imperial interest to the now more valuable Middle East. Outside the Empire, it was necessary to restore as much as possible of the old financial and trading system.

Any one of these required much effort and some luck to achieve. Astonishingly, most of them had been achieved after a fashion by the 1930s. The Great Depression had put an end for the moment to hard money and free trade, but caused little harm overall to the domestic economy. The unemployment and other hardships were mostly confined to the declining heavy industries. From the Midlands down, the country was enjoying a steady increase of output and living standards. Indeed, looked at from about 1935, the Great Depression seemed to serve British world interests rather well.

After 1918, the only potential challenger was the United States. Its size and wealth appeared to place it beyond all hope of competition. If it wanted to outbuild the Royal Navy, it could. However, its prevailing constitutional and moral order made a challenge unlikely. Though it might take an occasional interest outside the Americas, it was essentially isolationist. Though it might have the cash to challenge British primacy, it lacked the will. It had been tricked into the Great War to serve British interests. Now, it had largely withdrawn. The Great Depression seemed to confirm its impotence. The general collapse of its economy after 1931, and the emergence of mass unemployment - averaging, I think, around 35 million - threw it proportionately into a scale of suffering quite unknown in this country. Moreover, the election of Franklin Roosevelt had opened it to a departure from economic orthodoxy that opinion in this country rightly saw as likely to keep it in depression for as far ahead as could reasonably be seen.

All this country needed to consolidate the recovery was time - time for the new arrangements at home and abroad to take full effect. What had to be avoided at all costs was another big war. That would destroy all the cautious but solid progress made since the removal of Lloyd George from power in 1922. The Treaty of Locarno had got us out of all practical European connections after 1925 - the guarantee to both France and Germany was in effect a guarantee to neither, as it justified a refusal to enter into close military relations with either. The League of Nations was a useful means of imposing British will elsewhere in the world where it was no longer convenient to act unilaterally.

By 1935, the country had never in living memory enjoyed such profound home and imperial security, or spent so little of the national income on defence. Let all this continue, and by 1960, the financial and strategic costs of the Great War would have scarred over as surely as those of the Napoleonic wars had a century before.

This is the background against which Adolf Hitler was viewed by this country's ruling class. There is no need, I think, to argue that he was a thoroughly bad man. He turned Germany into a semi-socialist police state, and tainted with his embrace what had previously been one of the homelands of liberal civilisation. However, I share the official perception of his early years that he was no threat to this country. His published writings and speeches at the time, and his private conversations made available after his death, all point to a settled ambition. This was to expand German power deep into Eastern Europe. He wanted to gather up the Germanic fragments of the Habsburg Empire under his own rule, and to conquer large colonies of settlement for the German people in Poland and western Russia. That was the consistent purpose of his foreign policy in the east. In the west, his only declared and perceptible aim was to reach a settlement with Britain that would give him a free hand in the east.

Yes, we are told endlessly that his eastern policy was just his first step to conquering the world. Give him Poland and Western Russia and their great resources, the claim goes, and give him the lack of an enemy to the east - Soviet Russia being destroyed - and he would surely turn eventually on Britain. I suppose he might have. But he might also have died his hair green, or applied to join a kibbutz, or had an early sex change operation. In deciding what someone might have done in circumstances different from those he actually faced, we can say nothing for sure. If we want to say anything at all, we can only do so in the light of his stated or revealed intentions. For Hitler, there is no evidence that his ambitions stretched to a conquest or even a humbling of Britain.[/B]

He had a sincere, if not always well informed, admiration of Britain and the British Empire. He respected our victory in the Great War, and wanted to avoid another conflict. He did not share the desire of other German nationalists for a return of the lost German colonies. He had no interest in naval construction, and went out of his way to condemn the naval race that had poisoned Anglo-German relations after 1898. He signed a naval agreement with us in 1935, and I think this is the only treaty he ever made that he took care to observe. When the Arabs rose against us in Palestine, they sent emissaries to him in Berlin, seeking financial support. Since they were all good anti-semites, one might have thought they would reach a deal. [B]But Hitler refused all help, declaring in effect that he would not lift a finger against white rule over the coloured races.

It is possible that victory in the east would have raised his ambitions in the west. We cannot be sure that it would not. But neither can we assume that he would have been any more successful in his invasion of Russia than he actually was after June 1941. Without facing us, he would not have had to divide his forces between France, North Africa and the Balkans. At the same time, he would not have had forces hardened in those wars, or the record of invincibility that for a while silenced his internal critics. And the Russian winters would have been no less ruinous of invaders than it had always been before. He would probably have taken Moscow and Leningrad. But I do not know how much further into the Eurasian landmass he could have reached. He would have faced much the same war of attrition with the partisans, and would probably have had to keep a vast army of occupation in the east before it could be made safe for German settlement. He might well have been able to present no threat of any kind to the west. His only contact with us might have been endless requests for loans, and complaints at our unwillingness to join his crusade against Bolshevism.

Even otherwise, he would have dominated much the same area as Stalin did after 1945, and done so at a comparative disadvantage. Most obviously, he was not the acknowledge head of an international conspiracy to spread his rule. He had no bands of committed followers stirring up trouble everywhere from China to Peru. As its name suggests, national socialism was not an ideology for export. It was an ideology of Aryan domination. Even in other Aryan countries, it had little following. Oswald Mosley made a big noise in this country for a while, but never came close to electoral significance. Under Soviet rule after 1945, the Slavs of Eastern Europe went into their factories and film studios and, for a while, worked with something like unforced gratitude for their masters. Under Hitler, they had to be coerced from the start.

Granted, his economic policies were less insanely destructive. At the same time, the expectations of his people were higher, and they had been less frightened by his tyranny out of expressing them. And he was a socialist. If he had presided over a recovery from the Great Depression, that recovery was running into trouble after 1938. Inflation could only be hidden by wage and price controls, and was evidenced instead by shortages of consumer goods - see, for example, how the German forces sent into the Czechlands in March 1939 stripped the shops in Prague bare of things like razor blades and overcoats. Not all the frenzied rhetoric in the world could have saved Hitler's revolution from running out of steam after 1940. It was only the war that kept up a semblance of prosperity into the middle of the decade.

A German domination of the east might have involved us eventually in a cold war. But ours would have been an unexhausted, unbankrupted, unhumiliated Britain and British Empire. There would have been no American support. Neither though would there have been need of any.

There are two further points to be made against me. The first was made by a friend last week, as we sat arguing over what I have just written. Suppose, he asked, Hitler had not only failed to conquer Russia, but had lost. Suppose Stalin had all by himself beaten Hitler and conquered all the way to Germany. Would this not have been worse for us? There would have been no limit to the prestige of Communism, and every Comintern agitator throughout the world would have had a glorious time against liberal civilisation. At least in the real war, the victory was shared between us and them.

I have no answer to this point. It requires more detailed understanding than I have of the relative balance of forces in hypothetical circumstances between Russia and Germany. But while it strikes me as reasonable to say that Hitler might not have won very easily, I find it hard to believe that he could have lost to Stalin.

The second point is the atrocities committed by the Germans. These are often used as justification for going to war. Do I not care about these? My answer is that I do not think they were grounds in themselves for war. An individual has all manner of moral responsibilities, and looking to these will by no means be always in his own interest. A government, however, is a trustee of the nation to which it is accountable, and must look only to the interests of that nation. It would be wrong for our government to visit positive evils on foreigners. It would be right for it to perform such good offices for them as did not involve much cost to us. But it has neither the duty nor the right to go about the world acting as some knight errant, putting down the bad and raising the good. When we talk about the British Government, the adjective is at least as important as the noun.

It must also be said that the worst atrocities were committed towards the end of a general war, and do not seem to have been long premeditated. They happened at a time in which fear of defeat and a misplaced desire for revenge had extinguished the usual moral feeling, and in places far removed from the battlefields that most attracted western curiosity. I have no doubt that an invasion of Russia after about 1943 would have resulted in great atrocities. But I do doubt if these would have been so bloody as the ones actually on record.

Of course, we cannot be definite on what would have happened had there been no outbreak of war in 1939. But the worst I can imagine for us is no worse than did happen after 1945. And it could easily have been better.

This being so, it was not our business if Hitler wanted to tear up the 1919 settlement in the east. It involved us in dangers that can only now be demonstrated behind a mass of subjunctives. Nor, to be fair, was there anything we could have done to stop him. Our guarantee to Poland was a nonsense, bearing in mind our lack of ability to send help. Even if we had - as is often urged - intervened to stop the remilitarisation of the Rhineland, or the union with Austria, or the occupation of the Sudentenland, we probably had not the military power to enforce our will, even against a Hitler weaker than he became. Nor would there have been the public support at home or abroad to legitimise such pre-emptive actions.

And so the policy of Neville Chamberlain was neither cowardly not absurd. It reflected the realities of British power and British interests at that time. I do not accept the accusations of some American conservatives that Winston Churchill was equal to Hitler or Stalin in his infamy. They are angry that he got their country into a war from which it emerged supreme abroad but ruined in its constitutional and moral order at home. I sympathise with this complaint. But he was in every sense a better person.

Even so, did ruin this country. He did so because he never understood the true foundations of British greatness. He saw that splash of red on the map of the world, and never realised that he was looking only at the effect, not at the cause. His ambition was "to make the old dog sit up and wag its tail". In fact, what he wanted for us before 1940, and what he did to us after, was the equivalent of making an invalid get up from his bed and dance too soon after an operation. He brought on the collapse that the Great War had only threatened. He undermined the foundations of our greatness abroad, and at home acted as the front man for a socialist revolution. For five years, he dressed and spoke and acted as if the traditional order was safe in his hand - while quietly behind his back it was taxed and regulated and smeared out of existence. "Why worry? We've had a Labour Government since 1940" was the comment of one observer after the 1945 general election.

All considered, the 20th century as it actually ran was not too bad for this country. We did not lose any big wars, or have a revolution or civil war. We did not even suffer a real economic or financial collapse. Within a few years of each of the two big wars, we had recovered our old living standards in full and were making rapid continued progress. We ended the century as the third or fourth richest and the second most powerful country in the world. We are even remarkably free in practice to live as we please. We did far better than I think we deserved. But it could have been better still. If only we had kept out of those dreadful wars and remained masters of our own fate, the whole world, I have no doubt, would have been a better place.
http://www.seangabb.co.uk/flcomm/flc099.htm

I may be wrong but I think you will find that the Scharnorst and Bismarck Class both exceded their agreeded tonage.
As far as Chamberlain goes.
he found out too late that he had been fooled.
Yes WW1 left its mark and Chamberlain had gone the extra mile even to the point of placing the Czechs, that nation far away that we had nothing in common with on the alter before Hitler.
After Munich he knew that peace would not last. Hitler certainly knew that the munich Agreement was not worth the paper it wswritten on , a limited war he would have welcomed for the political points he could have made.

Appeasment yes , Chamberlain did try and avoid war , he was not wrong to do so , Hitler was not interested in doing likewise.
war was his bluff , his poker hand , in Poland his bluff was called.
"Chamberlain a wanker" , no I would not describe him as that ,after Munich he realised what he was up against.

As I already said in a recent post:

AJP Taylor in his Origins of the Second World War (get a copy, cerberus) writes how Adolf Hitler and other top National Socialists were favourably predisposed towards the Poles. The author quotes Adolf Hitler praising Poland, etc. During the Czech crisis the Poles did not hesitate to invade and occupy Tesin. However, after obtaining guarantees from Britain (and France) the Polish attitude became haughty and insolent. The National Socialist government wanted a mutually satisfactory settlement of the Dazing question (90 % + German in the '30s) and to come to an understanding concerning the East Prussian corridor. The Polish regime was intransigent and obtuse; and Beck refused to negotiate in good faith with the Germans. According to the author, Adolf Hitler even hoped for an eventual joint operation against the Soviet Union.

To me, the really guilty party is not so much the Poles but Chamberlain and his associates who basically gave Poles carte blanche to say and do whatever they wanted. The English could have attached CONDITIONS to the said guarantees; for e.g., it would have made perfect sense to ask the Poles to NEGOTIATE with the Germans and to conduct themselves ***REASONABLY***. The English could have covertly DEMANDED of the Poles to come to an agreement with the Germans – they did no such thing. The Poles felt themselves secure in the knowledge that they had the backing of His Majesty’s Government and of the British Empire, and that it did not matter in the least to the British what kind of an attitude Poles adopted vis-a-vis Germany.

Finally, AJP Taylor quotes both British and French officials as agreeing with the Germans on Danzig and becoming increasingly frustrated with the Poles and the dissolute Beck.

AJP Taylor in his Origins of the Second World War (get a copy, cerberus) writes how Adolf Hitler and other top National Socialists were favourably predisposed towards the Poles.I have been meaning to pick this up myself.

FB.
Thank you for your reply.
What you are really saying is the NC gave the Poles a blank cheque to anny Hitler and thereby caused WW2.
Why would it be in GB interests to be drawn into a war with Germany over the dealings that Poland might have in the future with Germany ?

Yes the Poles did look on parts of the Czech lands , they were actively encouraged to do so by Hitler , the Poles would have been in a mind of either these people have a chance with us or they are occupied by the Germans , for me Poland would be the better option.

Yes Hitler did try to woe the Poles , but they would have none of it.
Hitler to take war to Russia had to either have the Poles on his side or he would have to occupy Poland by force , he had to do one or the other , otherwise no "Living Space" for the German People.
War it had to be or his political and racial dreams as per "Mein Kampf" would come to dust.
You do agree that if Poland would not play ball they would have to be crushed and occupied.
The Danzig Corridor and "Polish Aggression" became an excuse to invade Poland, Mosty for instance, the actions of one Reihard Heydrich ?

Poland knew she was next for either plitical bullying to bend her to Hitlers will or if that failed the limited use of force to ensure her " co-operation".
Before a single German soldier crossed the frontier , Germany had already craved her up in co hoots with Stalin , that along with all the Baltic States.
Finland who had fought bravely against Stalin when he tried to do a Hitler Poland had little chance but to trty and defend herself.
After Munich Hitler broke his word and occupied what was left of the Czech State, he had no mandate to do so , he did beacuse he wanted to , no other reason.
From 38 on it was obvious that Hitler was going to do what he wanted in Europe , he sensed that France and GB would do nothing which would lead to conflict on a large scale , this was his ace in the hole.
"They don't want a war" , they will not like it but they will go along with my wishes as they don't want a war , Poland , " a far away nation with whom they have nothing in common" , same thing , they would not fight over Czechs , they won't fight with Poles.
This agreement , its a bluff , a paper tiger.
That is how Hitler measured things up to be , his ace in hole MKII was his dirty pact with Stalin , if Russia come in from the east "they won't declare war" , scream and shout but it will all blow over.
Wrong Herr Hitler.
Yes perhaps the Germany did have grounds to plead her case for Danzig , but given her previous track record post Munich the Poles had every right to think , this is one bite , what next , the whole country ?
After all Munich told its own tale. "No further demands" less than a year later , it was demands to be made from Poland.
You say the poles / beck would not talk "in good faith" , do you think Munich was in "Good faith" when a few months later he occupied the whole country.

What do you think Poland expected GB and France to do at short notice which might save them from Germany , there was nothing they could do other than honour the pledge which was aimed directly against German aggression centred on Poland.
The onlt thing they could do was to declare war .
This was done after the British handed " the german Goverment a final note stateing that unless we heard from them by eleven o'clock that they were prepared at once to withdraw their troops from polanda sate o war would exist between us. I have to tell you now that NO SUCH UNDERTAKING HAS BEEN RECIEVED and that consequently this country is at war with Germany"

Even at the 11th hour a final note was given asking that Germany withdraw , the bluff failed.
If I can leave you with a few words from the Fuhrer.
""When starting and waging a war it is not right that matters but victory"Hitler 22/8/39.

Bormann noted it so on 20th Nov. 1940
"It was immaterial to him if some time in the future it were estiblished that the methods to win this territory were not pretty or open to legal objection"

Two short quotes which sum it all up.
" In the event of any action which clearly threatened Polish independence....His Majesty's Govermenet would feel temselves bound at once to lend the Polish Goverment all support in their power"
Neville Chamberlain to house of Commons 31/3/39.

"I'll brew them a devil's potion" Hitler on hearing of the British Guarantee to Poland 31/3/39.

remeber Hitler's good faith at Munich , with in 3 weeks he was ordering the Wehermacht to prepare to occupy what remaned of the Czech State.
"No more demands " , three weeks. "Good faith" ?

friedrich braun,

Yes a good article. I thought it shame the British did part out Turkey after WWI, all the lived in by Christians should have been taken.

FONT=Impact]:: What you are really saying is the NC gave the Poles a blank cheque to anny Hitler and thereby caused WW2.[/FONT]

The British guarantee and a pledge of support from the Roosevelt administration, should Poland resist Hitler strenously, stiffened Polish resolve against the reasonable German demands.

:: Why would it be in GB interests to be drawn into a war with Germany over the dealings that Poland might have in the future with Germany ?

"Germany is getting too strong; we must smash her."

:: the Poles would have been in a mind of either these people have a chance with us or they are occupied by the Germans , for me Poland would be the better option.

Who are these people you speak of? Are they Czechs, Poles, Slovaks, Germans or Ruthenians?
http://99.1911encyclopedia.org/T/TE/TESCHEN.htm

I certainly wouldn't consider Poland to be the better option, unless I were a Pole that is. They were hardly renowned for treating with their minorities in a fair manner. I reckon the Polish state (1919-1939) to be deserving the repute of having treated their Germans, Ukrainians, and Lithuanians brutally.

:: Yes Hitler did try to woe the Poles , but they would have none of it.

This wooing only became a hopeless case after the British guarantee.

:: The Danzig Corridor and "Polish Aggression" became an excuse to invade Poland, Mosty for instance, the actions of one Reihard Heydrich ?

Excuse - nonsense! No great nation would have tolerated the impudence of the umpteen border violations, the subjugation of it’s brethren to a tyranny, and what did indeed amount to a Polish Aggression, albeit dating twenty years back, for so long a time. It is impossible to find favour in these events compatible with Germany’s dignity and honour.

After all in the early part of the twentieth century America almost went to war with Chile after two of its officer were involved in a brawl in a Santiago bar.

:: After Munich Hitler broke his word and occupied what was left of the Czech State

The Czech(Czecho-Slovakian?) state was in a state of disintegration. It was breaking up in an acrimony of violence and anarchy. It's minorities were attempting to secede here, there, and everywhere.

Because of a severe case of hindsight on the part of insipid and embarrassed democracies far too much is made out of the establishment of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, which had, after all, been a part of the German Empire for hundreds and hundreds of years. :D

:: he did beacuse he wanted to , no other reason

This is a blatant falsehood and a quite pathetic attempt at a lie. I will cite American intervention in Central America in regards to my reasoning.

:: "They don't want a war" , they will not like it but they will go along with my wishes as they don't want a war , Poland , " a far away nation with whom they have nothing in common" , same thing , they would not fight over Czechs , they won't fight with Poles. This agreement , its a bluff , a paper tiger.

Now you're just rambling on incoherently.

:: That is how Hitler measured things up to be , his ace in hole MKII was his dirty pact with Stalin , if Russia come in from the east "they won't declare war" , scream and shout but it will all blow over.

Would you still consider it a dirty pact had the democracies been successful in their overtures? And then you're just rambling again :confused:

The democracies at least had some semblance of choice with whom they could ally. Hitler in August 1939 did not.

:: Wrong Herr Hitler

Hitler can't hear you, he is surely clinically dead if only by reason of time passed :p

:: but given her previous track record...

What track record? :p

:: What do you think Poland expected GB and France to do at short notice which might save them from Germany , there was nothing they could do other than honour the pledge which was aimed directly against German aggression centred on Poland.

How about wage war, in any shape or form?:

I wouldn't associate the word honour with those overweening hypocrites.

:: This was done after the British handed " the german Goverment a final note stateing that unless we heard from them by eleven o'clock that they were prepared at once to withdraw their troops from polanda sate o war would exist between us. I have to tell you now that NO SUCH UNDERTAKING HAS BEEN RECIEVED and that consequently this country is at war with Germany"

This is just parliamentary blather, reeking of over confident self-importance.

:: Even at the 11th hour a final note was given asking that Germany withdraw, the bluff failed.

O how benevolent of these arbiters of destiny :rolleyes:

:: If I can leave you with a few words from the Fuhrer. "When starting and waging a war it is not right that matters but victory"Hitler 22/8/39.

I recall having read this document is a falsification. I will endeavour to find out if my memory holds me in good stead.

:: Bormann noted it so on 20th Nov. 1940 "It was immaterial to him if some time in the future it were estiblished that the methods to win this territory were not pretty or open to legal objection"

"I'll brew them a devil's potion" Hitler on hearing of the British Guarantee to Poland 31/3/39.

Please, tell me what the sources are for these two quotations?

:: remeber Hitler's good faith at Munich , with in 3 weeks he was ordering the Wehermacht to prepare to occupy what remaned of the Czech State. "No more demands " , three weeks. "Good faith" ?

People make plans. In the 1930s Roosevelt gave the order to prepare an invasion of Canada should America and the British Empire come to grief.

Cerberus,

I don’t have the time to address all of your typically trite and vapid clichés and received wisdom of conformist Allied academics who have been spinning and lying for sixty years now.

Here is an example emblematic of your Manichean, black and white reading of events.

Yes the Poles did look on parts of the Czech lands , they were actively encouraged to do so by Hitler ,

LOL

Is this a variation of the old “the Devil made them do it” argument? Are you serious? The rapacious Poles took a big bite out of Czechoslovakia because they could, because they wanted it, because they had irredentist ambitions -- and not because the eeeevil Hitler longed for Poles to occupy Tesin. I find it rather humorous in a pathetic sort of way how you always exonerate everyone from their actions and blame all on the eeevil Germans. Double standard anyone?

the Poles would have been in a mind of either these people have a chance with us or they are occupied by the Germans ,

So the saintly and angelic Poles were actually doing the Checks a favour by dismembering Czechoslovakia at gunpoint? Are you for real?

for me Poland would be the better option.

Why? Could it be because of your obsessive anti-German mania? Thanks for once again confirming it. I have yet to read a post written by you where you don’t spout the same old, same old hackneyed nonsense.

Yes with hindsight I would say those folks would actually have been better of taking a chance with the Poles.
Yes , I can see Hitler trying to seduce others with a portion of poison , "hey this is the way to do things , stick with us there is more to follow".
Evil Germans , no I don't see the germans as having been evil demons.
I see their leader as being a man who was bend on chasing his own dreams of greatness , his own sense of "destiny" , and massaging his own ego by whatever means he thought necessary.
For the direction of policy at home and abroad look no further than "Der Fuhrer".
Likewise FB I will try and give you a more detailed reply this evening.
Your remarks regarding mt "trite" and anti-German stance I take on board.
Trite if you say so I don't really mind , your own view is based and cemented purely in an obversely trite NS view of how you would like things to have been liberally illustrated with "volk" and similar favorite terms which could have been plucked from a party news sheet.
Unfortunately your propaganda orientated view of history , that which you would like it to be , is not history you desire but a fabracation.
This view you hold is a house of cards , honestly it is.
The simple gust of wind which brings it down , your own view of what you see order and goverment as being , its that simple.
In a previous tread you mentioned a strong leader making decisions and a news system which was completely under the control of the goverment , no freedom of speech and no individual choice , you accept what you are told and be happy with it.
In this there is no critical word of " The Fuhrer" , likewise in your version of history , there is no critical word of "Der Fuhrer" , no possibility of any error or fault in any way on his side , and you actually believe this , you are blinkered and indoctrinated with your view of the past.
You would have history written in the same irk , the facts according to "the party" none other.
A little trite on both our parts , but you see trite as being anything which questions your " world view" of the "Fuhrer".
"He who sups with the devil had better have a long spoon".

:: Yes with hindsight I would say those folks would actually have been better of taking a chance with the Poles.

Did you read this? http://99.1911encyclopedia.org/T/TE/TESCHEN.htm If not try here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Cieszyn_and_Tesin

Do you honestly think those Germans and Czechs would be better off living in subjugation to Poles?

The Czechs in the Protectorate were at least given the chance to play along. http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb31.htm
As well as, under Heydrich, receiving the benefits of a Bismarckian soical programme, until Czech agents carrying out a British plan to "set Europe ablaze" put a stop to such carrots. The Czechs protested the British sponsored operation.

I see their leader as being a man who was bend on chasing his own dreams of greatness , his own sense of "destiny" , and massaging his own ego by whatever means he thought necessary.

Incorrect. Read Hitler's war by Irving.

For the direction of policy at home and abroad look no further than "Der Fuhrer".

I don’t know what you are trying to say here.

Read here for more: http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/worminapple/wa06.html

Well how did they do under the Germans ?
The fair play you say that heydrich gave them.
Did Heydrich not say that " Czech workers must have their swill" when he increased food rations in order to "encourage" productivity.
He also said that the Czech worker must understand that "the German is the master here " and that £ German interests would come first".
Speaks for itself when you consider the nature of heydrichs authority and his plans for the Czech nation.
"Hitler's war" Can I refer you to the mince meat that Evans made out of it when he proved that Irving was a selective historian.
The www.wintersonnenwende.com , propaganda with hindsight.
I would not take anything there seriously.
BTW Ireland was under british rule for "hundreds of years" only an idiot would say that today Britain had any right to land troops in Dublin".
These looks back into history to justify aggression and theft are worthless.
Grasp at some other straw.

The rambling on It dscribed exactly what Hitler believed would happen , nothing.
Yes Hitler is dead , where is he buried ?

British pledge to Poland.
I think you will find that the Poles had by this stage made their own minds up and needed very little direction.
The wooing by Hitler , this was dead in the wter and had fallen on stoney ground.
Reasonable demands , Hitler had in 38 said that " he had no more demands".
Track record.
Look at his track record towards the German People and other political parties in Germany , look at his undermining of the Austrian Goverment , the Czechs , his willingness to carve up Eastern Europe with Stalin.
His use of murder as a political tool , ER , his treatment of minority groups in Germany.
Hitler had a quite good track record of destroying the rights of the average German Citizen and taking what he deemed to his for the taking.
APJ taylors book which has been quoted by Fb.
He failed to mention that Taylor described Hitler as being immoral , unethical and not a man of his word.
Hitler had already said that Danzig was not the issue , living space in the east was his main aim.
Read this as danzig today , Poland next week.
Read Taylor's assessment of Hitlers character.
Yes I do like Chamberlain's speech , its quite a piece of english.
Munich , a disgrace Churchill was against it but then he was in isloation.
Why had Hitler no-one left to talk to aoart from stalin , beacuse those in the West knew he could not be trusted , that is why the Poles would not talk to him.
Again his track record speaks for itself.
BTW If I may take fade's tract , Central America has nothing to do with Poland.
Sorry Mosty and the dirty tricks dept. of Heydrich are a recorded fact . Another straw .

The quotes you canfind in Kershaws "Nemesis" not popular here but truthful none the less and when you check the extensive research done it stands up and does not depend on second rate internet " Google History" ( Thanks Dr. B !) to support it.
Fade I think asked that written works be quoted not what he described as
" rubbish interent sites".

Wage war. Not mush to do and there was plan how to go about it.
Hitler nearly took things into his own hands and wanted to invade France in the winter of 39 , the Army had quite a job talking him out of what would have been folly.
You would have done likewise ?
Well as you know hitler kept his record intact and invaded neutral countries Nethelands , Denmark and Norway.
If America came to grief how then could it "invade canada" ?

Well how did they do under the Germans ?

As well as it was possible to fair under the circumstances. Some Czechs thought just that.

http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/Hitler/1977/html_chapter/18.html

“The Czech workers have accepted the liquidation of the conspirators quite calmly,” Koeppen had written when Heydrich first reported back from Prague, over dinner on October 2. “The most important thing to them is to have enough food and work. . . . One worker has even written to Heydrich, stating his full name, saying that Czech history has always been like this : each generation has to learn its lesson and then there is peace for a time. He added that nobody would object if another two thousand of them were shot, either.”

Did Heydrich not say that " Czech workers must have their swill" when he increased food rations in order to "encourage" productivity.
He also said that the Czech worker must understand that "the German is the master here " and that £ German interests would come first".

He might well have said just that, I fail to see why you site this quote, I'm not saying he was a missionary moved by the finest feelings of compassion for mankind. It should be obvious to even the most enfeebled dunderhead that German interests would have to come first. That is right and natural. A Czech, had he the power to have done so, would have placed Czech interests in the ascendancy.

"Hitler's war" Can I refer you to the mince meat that Evans made out of it when he proved that Irving was a selective historian.

You may refer all you wish, but Evans made mincemeat out of nothing. Is he not a Court Historian par excellence? His opinions do not mean anything to me. Irving's talents are well acknowledged, and by someone of the stature of Sir John Keegan no less. Is it in your character to rob men of their virtues and achievements?

The www.wintersonnenwende.com , propaganda with hindsight.
I would not take anything there seriously.

I linked to this archive to illustrate a point. Wintersonnenwende.com is an example of the German side of the story, just as the History written these past sixty years has been the allied side of the story. It is entirely up to you what you take seriously - but I suggest you evaluate the evidence, perhaps with a magnifying glass.

BTW Ireland was under british rule for "hundreds of years" only an idiot would say that today Britain had any right to land troops in Dublin".
These looks back into history to justify aggression and theft are worthless.
Grasp at some other straw.

I am aware of this chapter in Ireland's history. The British are still in Ireland today. They even had a little trouble there some time ago with the indigenous volk.

These looks back into history to justify aggression and theft are worthless.
Grasp at some other straw.

Only a drowning man clutches at straws and you’ve got a fistful. You find them worthless when instead they are useful. Do you find the existence of the State of Israel justified? Is it justified for the dispossessed Palestinians to attempt to reassert themselves in their former territory? History is filled with aggression and theft. No state in existence today is innocent in this regard.

Aggression viewed from above is just that - aggression. In regards to justification we must deal with these things in a manner depending upon which side we are on. All one can do is listen to one’s own conscience. I’ll leave cases of justified aggression and universal truth to lawyers, propagandists and the modern democratic governments of the west.

The rambling on It described exactly what Hitler believed would happen , nothing.

No, it didn’t. You were just rambling on, almost incoherently.

Besides if the British and French people were unaware the power elites in their own nation had lost the power of reason and were intent on behaving like imbeciles, sending Europe into oblivion for I know not how long, how would you expect Hitler to be able to judge the situation with complete accuracy?

And what of Lord Halifax's visit to Berchtesgarden in the Autumn of 1937? Is this another case of the Anglo-Saxon power elite acting as fence and then shouting stop thief as loudly as they can?

Yes Hitler is dead , where is he buried ?

Berlin? Patagonia? Ask Vladimir Putin, he might be able to tell you :)

British pledge to Poland.
I think you will find that the Poles had by this stage made their own minds up and needed very little direction.

Made up their own minds about what? How far to extend their new border? Just to the Elbe, or even further to the West?

Very little direction, maybe. Yet the lure of informal alliance, with prospects of war materials running wild in their fevered imaginations, the guarantee [was Chamberlain tricked into this by his intelligence services?], and the whispered words of Roosevelt's agents, resolved them to greater obstinacy.

Reasonable demands , Hitler had in 38 said that " he had no more demands".
Track record

Hardly. He would not commit such an elementary faux pas. The demands I was actually speaking about were Hitler's offer on the corridor and Danzig.

However, what he actually said was he had no more demands when the minority issue in central and eastern Europe had been settled. That would include Danzig and the Corridor. A history book I have states Munich was supposed to be a part of a wider agreement [Chamberlain's actual words I believe].

Look at his track record towards the German People

Please, tell me about this track record. Does it tell of the food he put on their plates, the employment he created, or the homes he was going to have built for them, the immense social projects he had begun that would have turned Germany into a Northern Hellas or a New Rome. Does it mention the pride he restored, the radiation of good health he imbued upon Germany’s youth?

…and other political parties in Germany

I am completely uninterested in his outlawing of the parties, whom had once outlawed the NSDAP and forbidden Hitler from speaking, and who were busy ruining Germany from 1919 until 1933.

look at his undermining of the Austrian Goverment , the Czechs

You clearly no nothing about politics. And If you are supporting the allied case in all this [and their selfish balance of power policy], I can only say: people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

…his willingness to carve up Eastern Europe with Stalin.

You find this agreement a stain on National Socialism's honour don’t you? In which case you find yourself in the company of Dr. Goebbels. Once again you prove to me you know nothing about politics. Hitler’s non-aggression pact with Stalin was the solitary choice he had in the late summer of 1939 which would guarantee [in the short term] a war on one front. It was a case of political expediency, it was nothing more than that and nothing less than that. I imagine Machiavelli would have been quite proud.

You prove yourself to be completely unrealistic in regards to politics. You act as though Hitler were dealing with angels, when devils is a description closer to the truth, in regards to Churchill’s and Roosevelt: both intent on war with Germany from 1936 onward. And as for Stalin Hitler could only mistrust him and make a guess of Soviet intention.

His use of murder as a political tool , ER

Have you never heard of Oliver Cromwell? Do you mean the same Ernst Rohm of who it was believed was going to attempt a second revolution with a gang of disgruntled reactionaries, and hangers on? Are you a fan of theirs? Would you have preferred this second revolution to have succeeded? You forget Hitler's was a revolution too. Yet, in my opinion He continually exercised moderation.

…his treatment of minority groups in Germany.

Do you mean the Jews and the Gypsies? And what does that have to do with you anyway? Are you a Jew or a gypsy? Ethnic strife is as old as the hills. Events from abroad don't have to be your concerns at home.

Hitler had a quite good track record of destroying the rights of the average German Citizen and taking what he deemed to his for the taking.

What rights did Hitler destroy? List them one by one and I’ll happily reply.

He failed to mention that Taylor described Hitler as being immoral , unethical and not a man of his word.

In the field of politics even good men sometimes have to resort to stooping to the level of baser opponents. Hitler is quoted as having said “In my personnel affairs I would never tell a lie, but there is not a falsehood I wouldn’t express for the sake of Germany” This is fair enough.

Hitler had already said that Danzig was not the issue , living space in the east was his main aim.

What a surprise an irrelevant comment :rolleyes: You want a discussion on the morality manifest destiny, don’t you?

Read this as danzig today , Poland next week.

Actually, Hitler wanted to iron out a deal with the Poles and align with them against Soviet Russia. In their military planning the Soviets had even accounted for having to face up to Sixty Polish divisions, when they eventually struck out westward.

Read Taylor's assessment of Hitlers character.

Read Lloyd George’s assessment of Hitler, Read Knut Hamsun’s or for that matter Winston Churchill‘s. Such a thing is an opinion, and an opinion should only be worth something to you if you esteem particular virtues of its author. It is preferable that you investigate the character of a man for yourself, and take everything into account.

…Churchill was against it but then he was in isloation.

Actually, he had quite a body of support. Politically the British establishment was split almost in two. And also with émigrés [Jews], exiled Czechs - with whom, I believe, he had earnt a wage for his rhetoric, and people in the British intelligence services.

Why had Hitler no-one left to talk to aoart from stalin , beacuse those in the West knew he could not be trusted , that is why the Poles would not talk to him.

No, because those within the power elite in the West, by which I mean to indicate the war party in the British establishment and the Roosevelt administration were set on prosecuting a policy of aggression against Germany. The Poles wouldn’t “talk to him” because they were foolish chauvinists.

Again his track record speaks for itself.

I’d like a copy of this track record.

BTW If I may take fade's tract , Central America has nothing to do with Poland.

Fair enough. But I wrote about Bohemia and not about Poland and cited former American policy in Central America as the reasoning behind a principle of foreign policy.

Sorry Mosty and the dirty tricks dept. of Heydrich are a recorded fact . Another straw .

These words are easily written. Would you please illustrate the dirty tricks of Heydrich for me ?

The quotes you canfind in Kershaws "Nemesis" not popular here but truthful none the less and when you check the extensive research done it stands up and does not depend on second rate internet " Google History" ( Thanks Dr. B !) to support it.

I’ve read Kershaw’s Biography. Cant. Have you read Irving?

Fade I think asked that written works be quoted not what he described as
" rubbish interent sites".

Fair enough.

Wage war. Not mush to do and there was plan how to go about it.
Hitler nearly took things into his own hands and wanted to invade France in the winter of 39 , the Army had quite a job talking him out of what would have been folly.

The army did not talk him out anything.

You would have done likewise ?

It is impossible for me to say what I would have done.

Well as you know hitler kept his record intact and invaded neutral countries Nethelands , Denmark and Norway.

I am sure you know these operations were in reaction to perceived allied British and French ventures.

If America came to grief how then could it "invade canada" ?

I will reiterate and explain clearly for you. Roosevelt asked his General staff to draw up a contingency plan for an invasion of the British Dominion of Canada should America find itself at war with the British Empire. Clear enough?

Under what circumstances would America possibly have gone to war with GB and over what ?
FDR must have had little to do :confused:

Some rights that went.
1. Trade unions independent of the State .
2. The right to vote for any other politcal party.
3. Laws. Hitler was making law as he saw fit with out any other being involved .Fuhrer decrees / orders were regarded as legal , what he said went.
4. An independent legal system.
5. The rights of the citizen Hitler told the judicary would be secondary to the right of the state.
6. He said he would be the supreme judge and would repalce any judge who went against the interest of the state / party.
7.Medical profession , could only practise if they took an oath of loyality to the state and were party members , nursing profession went te same way.
Nothing was confidential betwen Dr. /Pt. anything which was contrary to patry doctrine had to be reported.
eg if I know my patient had transgresed blood and honor laws.
8. Jews became non citzens.
9. He said in his oath of office that he would work entirely for the interest of the german people. ( see above)
10. The use of an emergency power act to disolve all bodies which were independent of the party.
11. A complete discrimination against women in the work place.
12. T4 " mercy killings" were these people not german citzens as well , did he work in their best interests ?
13. No free press.
14. Internment without trial for voicing descent , for being gay , for beign a jew , for being a gypsy , for being an alcoholic even.
Thats just off the top of my head its enough to start with.

Mosty a well known put up job , not an isloated case.
heydrich may even have had a hand in promoting stalins paranoia against the red Army , if so it worked brillantly for him.

My quote on heydrichs attitude to the czechs. apparrently some members have said the invasion of the remainder of the Czech . was to protect the interest of the czech people ! Some turn around.
irving is a good researcher , an historian no , I took nothing from him , his selective use and deliberate misuse of material to promote what he wanted rather than what was , I didn't do that.
I have read his book on Goring , didn't like the book . Preferred Mosleys.

FDR , Jews Intelligence service all these folks swaying Chamberlain , Churchill under jewsih influence , some consiracy theory .
Hitler a man of peace , rearming not for war but to create work , wanting to come to peaceful terms with everyone.
Munich only one part of an graet paln to sort out eastern europe.
the Poles , an aggressive race who would not make peace , having seen what happened to the Czechs ?
As far as Hitler character goes a man who would allow T4 says enough for me. the man was a murderer , harold Shipman had nothing on him.
The mircale he made , put people to work , yes , by force , put food on tables , you would think germans were starving in 33.
Restored pride yes , he did that , but all this was done on credit , the country was going broke , it could not be sustained , no money was being earned...all this has been talked about elsewhere.
A stain on NNSDAP honour , I must be honest at this point and say te party had no hoour , to my mind and I respect your right to think otherwise.
If they had honor all i have to say is T4 and its gone like snow of a ditch in a summers day.

Dealing with angels, he was dealing with Stalin beacuse he had run out of friends everywhere else , they were two of a kind.
In Hitlers politics he managed to get into power , 43% of the vote , the other 57% of the voters , that is 14% more than voted for him got a one party state and tha57% had no right of reply.
Never tell a lie , did he ever tell that he ran on a communits workers ticket. ?
When he said rommel had surcomed to wounds , was he being honest there , and Rommel knew nothing of the bomb plot , nothing !
Honest , he didn't know the meaning of the word.
Winter 39 , yes he did want to invade France , yes he had to be talked out of it.
ER it was still murder , nothing changes that.
Yes and when he could not get the Poles one way he got them another , war.
Yes , I am a jesih , homosexual gyspy :D
As regards th low Netherlands et al , no British or french soldier stood on their soil , Germany had no right to invade them , none at all .
" waging an aggressive war" ( Sounds stupid that , its the only way to wage war !).
No in politics I am not realistic , I have yet to see a politician you can trust , not one.
Hypoborea , I owe you an apology.
The "Rubbish interent site" and "Google historian" , below the belt and bad mannered , I withdrawn the remarks :o .

Under what circumstances would America possibly have gone to war with GB and over what ?

Contingency
con·tin·gen·cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kn-tnjn-s)
n. pl. con·tin·gen·cies
An event that may occur but that is not likely or intended; a possibility.
A possibility that must be prepared for; a future emergency.
The condition of being dependent on chance; uncertainty.
Something incidental to something else.

FDR must have had little to do

He had plenty to do. He spent much of his time loathing the British Empire, and being jealous of Hitler. :p

Some rights that went.
1. Trade unions independent of the State .
2. The right to vote for any other politcal party.
3. Laws. Hitler was making law as he saw fit with out any other being involved .Fuhrer decrees / orders were regarded as legal , what he said went.
4. An independent legal system.
5. The rights of the citizen Hitler told the judicary would be secondary to the right of the state.
6. He said he would be the supreme judge and would repalce any judge who went against the interest of the state / party.
7.Medical profession , could only practise if they took an oath of loyality to the state and were party members , nursing profession went te same way.
Nothing was confidential betwen Dr. /Pt. anything which was contrary to patry doctrine had to be reported.
eg if I know my patient had transgresed blood and honor laws.
8. Jews became non citzens.
9. He said in his oath of office that he would work entirely for the interest of the german people. ( see above)
10. The use of an emergency power act to disolve all bodies which were independent of the party.
11. A complete discrimination against women in the work place.
12. T4 " mercy killings" were these people not german citzens as well , did he work in their best interests ?
13. No free press.
14. Internment without trial for voicing descent , for being gay , for beign a jew , for being a gypsy , for being an alcoholic even.
Thats just off the top of my head its enough to start with.

1. No one missed them. Germany’s giant labour union went over to the National Socialist cause. The workers subsides had been used for political purposes. By 1932 among the thirteen million Socialist and Communist voters no more than five million were union members. The trade unions actually shut themselves down.

"On March 20, the labour federation's executive committee addressed a kind of declaration of loyalty to Hitler." (J. Fest, Hitler, p. 413.)

And as for independence, that is irrelevant, it is effectiveness which is important.

2. Millions upon millions of people choose not to vote today, in Russia, in Serbia, voter turn out is hitting an all time low. The vote is irrelevant if you are voting in the corrupt and the idiotic.

3. Hitler was granted this power through the Weimar constitution. His predecessors had used the same emergency legislation.

4. I fail to see this as a right.

5. I’m sorry to inform you otherwise but things are not different today, not in America, not in Europe.

6. In fact, he was the supreme judge, and had the right to do so.

7. This is not completely true. The idea that everyone had to be a Nazi to work is a lie.

The patient Doctor confidentially is still open for discussion today. I would not say party doctrine, whatever that is. Is a Doctor not subject to the law?

8. Citizenship laws are changeable, that is valid. If you can make someone a citizen, you can revoke that right. The law is above all flexible.

9. Prove to me he did not. Where can I find the text of his oath of office?

10. Perfectly legal.

11. A lie. An Historian from modern Germany (whose name and work I shall endeavour to find) speaks of Hitler as bringing about an equality in the workplace between men and women. Germany ranked only behind America with regards to the percentage of women in the workplace during peacetime, and second to Britain during the war.

12. Do you believe then, we should not make life and death decisions?

13. The free press is a complete myth. Better off in the hands of the state working toward a common goal.

14. It is possible in both America and Britain to be interned without trial. The Fascists found that out in Britain in 1940. “Being gay” was a criminal offence in Britain as late as 1966. Gypsies were still travelling through the Reich at the end of the war. For being an alcoholic? That one’s new on me. Please explain further.

Mosty a well known put up job , not an isloated case.

What job was not an isolated case?

heydrich may even have had a hand in promoting stalins paranoia against the red Army , if so it worked brillantly for him.

He did indeed. Yet it rebounded in favour of the Soviets. :(

irving is a good researcher , an historian no , I took nothing from him , his selective use and deliberate misuse of material to promote what he wanted rather than what was , I didn't do that.

I would accuse you of exactly the same thing, yes you did do exactly that.
FDR , Jews Intelligence service all these folks swaying Chamberlain , Churchill under jewsih influence , some consiracy theory.

Not a conspiracy at all several different powerful circles had the same goal and worked with one another in realising this goal. Politics.

This is of interest.
http://www.wzip.uakron.edu/hfrance/reviews/finkel-leibovitz.html

Hitler a man of peace , rearming not for war but to create work , wanting to come to peaceful terms with everyone.

Surprisingly yes, yet not shying from war if it was necessary.

Munich only one part of an graet paln to sort out eastern europe.

Um, yes. Look it up.

the Poles , an aggressive race who would not make peace , having seen what happened to the Czechs ?

The Poles weren’t thinking about what happened with the Czechs otherwise they would not have had so much faith in Britain to stand by their guarantee.

As far as Hitler character goes a man who would allow T4 says enough for me. the man was a murderer , harold Shipman had nothing on him.

Your getting worked up. I think you lack the ability to debate dispassionately. Who is Harold Shipman?

The mircale he made , put people to work , yes , by force , put food on tables , you would think germans were starving in 33.

Things were terrible in 1933. And by force, do you lessen the achievement or do you condemn it one grounds of principle?

Restored pride yes , he did that , but all this was done on credit , the country was going broke , it could not be sustained , no money was being earned...all this has been talked about elsewhere.

I’m sure it has been talked about elsewhere. It is a matter of opinion.

A stain on NNSDAP honour , I must be honest at this point and say te party had no hoour , to my mind and I respect your right to think otherwise.
If they had honor all i have to say is T4 and its gone like snow of a ditch in a summers day.

Opinion, opinion, opinion. Would you say the Ancient Greeks had no honour for exposing their unwanted children.?

Dealing with angels, he was dealing with Stalin beacuse he had run out of friends everywhere else , they were two of a kind.

In politics there are no friends only temporary alliances.

In Hitlers politics he managed to get into power , 43% of the vote , the other 57% of the voters , that is 14% more than voted for him got a one party state and tha57% had no right of reply.

You forget that Hitler’s first cabinet was a coalition cabinet and therefore the cabinet had the majority of the vote. You forget how close the Bush-Gore election was. How many people had no right to reply thereafter.

Never tell a lie , did he ever tell that he ran on a communits workers ticket. ?

Was he not an agent for the Reichswehr?

When he said rommel had surcomed to wounds , was he being honest there , and Rommel knew nothing of the bomb plot , nothing !

Direct involvement no. Yet I would hardly say he knew nothing. He saw himself as a future head of state.

Winter 39 , yes he did want to invade France , yes he had to be talked out of it.

He was talked out of nothing. Least of all by defeatist Generals.

ER it was still murder , nothing changes that.

You lack all Historical perspective.

Yes and when he could not get the Poles one way he got them another , war.

War is politics continued by other means.

Yes , I am a jesih , homosexual gyspy

Okay.

As regards th low Netherlands et al , no British or french soldier stood on their soil , Germany had no right to invade them , none at all.

That is not the point, it was a perceived threat . I notice you do not mention British mining of Norwegian territorial waters and their attempt at invasion.

" waging an aggressive war" ( Sounds stupid that , its the only way to wage war !).
No in politics I am not realistic , I have yet to see a politician you can trust , not one.
Hypoborea , I owe you an apology.
The "Rubbish interent site" and "Google historian" , below the belt and bad mannered , I withdrawn the remarks .

I accept your apology .

Opinion seems to be a standard reply when things are uncomfortable.
T4 does speak for th moral standard and one which allowed the Final Solution to take shape.
( That's right ...the Holo$oax , nearly forgot ;) )

Life and death decisions , you forget that the people killed were not terminally ill , they had full life expectancy. The death certificates were all a tissue of lies.
Harold Shipman a Stockport based GP who murdered at least 200 of his patients he played God killing tem when he believed they had lived long enough. A serial killer.
Dr brandt ( not the moderator :D ) was little more than this himself , Hitler was guilty of this as well. An example of a secret law which the German people knew nothing off , a Fuhrer decree.
oter points I will come back to you on...work calls.

:: T4 does speak for th moral standard and one which allowed the Final Solution to take shape.

"The unnatural and increasingly rapid growth of the feeble-minded and insane classes, coupled as it is with a steady restriction among all the thrifty, energetic and superior stocks, constitutes a national and race danger which it is impossible to exaggerate... I feel that the source from which the stream of madness is fed should be cut off and sealed up before another year has passed."
-- Churchill to Asquith, 1910

:: Life and death decisions , you forget that the people killed were not terminally ill , they had full life expectancy.

"On the evening of Friday, September 27, 1929, the upper echelon of eugenics met in majestic and Mussolini-ruled Rome, in the high-ceilinged library of the newly created Central Statistical Institute.

They came from Sweden, Norway, Holland, Italy, England, Germany, and the United States, gathering as the International Federation of Eugenic Organisations. Among this group, two men ruled supreme: Charles Davenport and Eugen Fischer. A large map dominated the room. This was no ordinary map, but an atlas of the defective populations on every inhabited continent.

The men were flushed with excitement. Just two hours earlier, they had met personally with Mussolini at the Piazza Venezia, with a view of Trajan's Column of antiquity. Indeed, their mission was a return to hereditary antiquity. All were intensely aware that they were assembled for a sacred duty in a city they revered as "the oldest capital of the world." Davenport read the preliminary report of the Committee on Race Crossing. Entire populations of the unfit were designated. The eugenic atlas and other maps were scrutinized for the "regions in which the Committee had ascertained that tolerably pure races were intermarrying . . . [creating] first generation hybrids." These would be the first people subjected to eugenical measures.

Jon Alfred Mjøen displayed a map of his country, pinpointing regions with high concentrations of tuberculosis; he proclaimed that the tubecular zones constituted "a map of races crosses in Norway." Mjøen wanted to target Lapp, Finn and Norwegian hybrids. Captain George Pitt Rivers of England called for anthropologists to help catalog ethnographic statistics, asserting that the most dangerous effect of miscegenation was its disruption of "the ethnic equilibrium shown in the differential survival rate." The Dutch representative focused on the mixed breeds of the Java islands. In describing America's problem, Davenport spoke of U.S. Army intelligence testing that documented high levels of mental defectives. He also discussed tuberculosis rates in Virginia, comparing what he called "the Black Belt" against other areas in the state. Fischer insisted that the "whole weight of the Federation should be engaged in supporting this work." He suggested that "Jew-Gentile crosses providing excellent material were obtainable in most European countries, and that bastard twins would give splendid data."

During the course of their deliberations, the eugenic leaders agreed that paupers, mental defectives, criminals, alcoholics and other inferior strains should be incarcerated en masse. They resolved that "all . . . members [should] bring to the notice of their governments the racial dangers involved in allowing defective persons, after training and rehabilitation in institutions, to return to free life in the community." In other words, they were advocating permanent incarceration. Only later did someone think to amend the resolution to read, "whilst retaining their ability to procreate."

The worldwide cataloging of the unfit was to begin at once. It would start on "the American continent and certain small and large islands in the oceans." At this point, America was still the only country with years of experience in state-sanctioned sterilisation and other eugenic legislation. Fischer chimed in, however, that changes in the German criminal code were coming, and these would soon enable widespread sterilisation and other eugenic measures there.

Hitler's arrival on the eugenic scene changed the entire partnership between German and American eugenicists.

America had shown Germany the way during the first two decades of the twentieth century, treating the struggling German movement with both parental fascination and Nordic admiration. But when Hitler emerged in 1924, the relationship quickly shifted to an equal partnership. National Socialism promised a sweeping hereditary revolution, establishing dictatorial racial procedures American activists could only dream of. During the period between wars, the American movement viewed National Socialism as a rising force that could, if empowered, impose a new biological world order. Nazi eugenicists promised to dispense with the niceties of democratic rule. So even if America's tower of legislation, well-funded research and entrenched bureaucratic programs still monopolised the world of applied eugenics in the 1920s, National Socialism promised to own the next decade. American eugenicists welcomed the idea.

Edwin Black, War Against The Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race (New York and London: Four Walls Eight Windows, 2003), pp.279-280

:: The death certificates were all a tissue of lies. Harold Shipman a Stockport based GP who murdered at least 200 of his patients he played God killing tem when he believed they had lived long enough. A serial killer.


Anyone see cerberus whining about the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of unborn white British children that are slaughtered EVERY YEAR in his country?

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/jul/04072110.html

LONDON, July 21, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The abortion rate in the UK jumped by 3.2 per cent last year, from 175,900 in 2002 to 181,600 in 2003, according to recent statistics released by the Department of Health.

Among women aged 15 to 44, there were 17.5 abortions per 1,000, with highest figures for women aged 20 to 24, at 31.3 abortions per 1,000 women. The largest jump of 5.4 percent, however, was realized in girls under the age of 16, where abortions were committed on 3.9 girls per thousand, as compared to 3.7 per thousand in 2002. . .

:: Dr brandt ( not the moderator) was little more than this himself , Hitler was guilty of this as well.

Once again, cerberus has yet to utter a word about the systematic slaughter of unborn British children.

:: An example of a secret law which the German people knew nothing off , a Fuhrer decree

How many millions of unborn white British children have been slaughtered under democracy?

:: oter points I will come back to you on...work calls.

cerberus whines about the sterilisation of retards yet is silent about the destruction of future generations.

Opinion seems to be a standard reply when things are uncomfortable.

I can assure you I am not in the least bit uncomfortable, as you put it. You were stating something as though it were a fact when it was merely your opinion, which is not worth anything to anybody other than to yourself and to others who might esteem you. You are not the moral standard bearer, you are not the purveyor of universal truth, no matter how much you might wish you were.

T4 does speak for th moral standard and one which allowed the Final Solution to take shape.

What moral standard? Where is this touchstone?

Life and death decisions , you forget that the people killed were not terminally ill , they had full life expectancy. The death certificates were all a tissue of lies.

You, of course, still make a judgement. However, you deliver a different verdict. You still judge. Do you have a right to judge? Do others not have the same right to judge?

Are, in fact, the abortion of hundreds of thousands of healthy children, hacked to pieces or murdered with corrosive acids each year in our glorious democracies of no account to your apparent morality before National Socialist Euthanasia laws?

Harold Shipman a Stockport based GP who murdered at least 200 of his patients he played God killing tem when he believed they had lived long enough. A serial killer.

Of course, he was imprisoned? After all, what he did was unlawful. Which laws did Hitler break?

Fade you assume that I am not pro-life ?
What makes you think I am not ?
Abortion as a form of birth control stinks.
The men wanting to play God in the 1920's " Judging" be they American , British or German , does their nationality really matter ?
Not to me ?

The moral standrad , when you can so easily kill one group of people and see them as being unworthy and undeserving of life its very easy to move on and apply the same standards to others.
The NSDAP sponsored " educational films" which preached surival of the fit did exactly this " lower than cattle" was how the handicaped were described.
Do you honestly see these poor individuals " polluting or infecting others" ?

Yes I think I have the right to express and opinion based on my own moral view of what is right or wrong , you have the same right and have done so.
As I said to fade in a similar exchange , just because you can make it legal does not make it right .
If say capital punishment was passed for illegal parking how would feel , it can be described as legal but is it right.
If a law was passed that all persons over 75 years of age would be " put to sleep " how would you fel about that when its time for your parenst to go ?
It could be made legal tomorrow , but would it be right , would it be ethical or moral , depends on what you see as moral , in this respect I see T4 as being the moral standard of Adolf Hitler.

Hitler made his own laws to suit his own standard of morality , you can make anything legal but it does not make it right.
ER was shot without a trial , I call that criminal , but then the supreme judge passed sentence so it was not really murder , is this how you read it ?
Double parked , execute him at once !!

:: Fade you assume that I am not pro-life ?

Obviously. You have made such an issue out of the T4 program in National Socialist Germany but have yet to utter a word about the slaughter of countless millions of unborn, healthy white children in the Western democracies. You whine, constantly, about the immorality of sterilising retards (which was progressive, I might add) yet have so far been silent on the much more serious issue.

:: What makes you think I am not ?

Your silence. Democracy has made the destruction of future generations into what is called today a right. Nothing that ever happened in NS Germany compares to the destruction that has gone on in the last half century. Abortion has been more destructive than both World Wars.

:: Abortion as a form of birth control stinks.

Abortion is the ultimate indictment of liberal democracy. No other issue better symbolises how democracy sacrifices the long term interests of the nation in favour of the short term interests of degenerate hedonists. Yet you, cerberus, defend a form of government that institutionalises the murder of future generations of Europeans. A fetus cannot vote. Democracy identifies 'the people' with the present population and acts accordingly.

:: The men wanting to play God in the 1920's " Judging" be they American , British or German , does their nationality really matter ?

Winston Churchill himself attended The First International Conference of Eugenics in 1912. You whine about eugenics yet say nothing about how America and the U.K. led the world in the field until National Socialism. Social Darwinism actually originated in Britain.

:: Not to me ?

Its your double standard, cerberus. It illustrates your insincere bias against National Socialism.

:: The moral standrad , when you can so easily kill one group of people and see them as being unworthy and undeserving of life its very easy to move on and apply the same standards to others.

There is a very important difference, cerberus. On the one hand, National Socialist Germany operated on communitarian principles. On the other, the Western democracies operate on the basis of liberal individualism. These are two antithetical ways of thinking, cerberus.

Communitarians believe the good of the individual should be subordinated to the good of the community. So one could argue that the overall health of the community is improved by sterilising and/or eliminating defective individuals. The community comes first. The goal is to improve the overall well-being of the community and such a policy could be justified on those grounds.

Liberals, however, believe the good of the single individual outweighs the interest of the entire community. And that is why liberal societies have institutionalised the massacare of healthy, unborn, future generations.

:: The NSDAP sponsored " educational films" which preached surival of the fit did exactly this " lower than cattle" was how the handicaped were described.

And the Western democracies preach the survival of the unfit at the expense of the healthy. Numerous examples illustrate this: 1.) robbing the young in order to provide social security funds for the elderly, 2.) integration in the public school system because Negroes underperform whites, 3.) taxing the white middle class to give welfare to poor blacks and hispanics, 4.) government sponsered antiracist propaganda and so on. Democracy and National Socialism are utterly opposed to each other. Democracy wants to pull down those at the top because of the failure of those at the bottom. The success or failure of the scum at the bottom is what motivates egalitarians. National Socialism wants to lift up those at the bottom through applied eugenics. One system is progressive (because it is biased in favour of the successful as opposed to the unsuccessful). The other is not.

:: Yes I think I have the right to express and opinion based on my own moral view of what is right or wrong , you have the same right and have done so.

And where do such 'rights' come from, cerberus? What is the source of all such rights? Authority, of course, not any mystical 'humanity'. Rights are political constructs that follow from political power. And political power is derived from organised, collective action. The ultimate source of such rights is therefore community. Any so-called right that conflicts with the common good of the community is not a 'right' at all. Yet liberals like yourself will never understand this obvious truth. A consequent cannot logically deny its own antecedent.

:: As I said to fade in a similar exchange , just because you can make it legal does not make it right .

There is no such thing as objective moral truth, cerberus. What you call morality varies widely across time and space.

:: If say capital punishment was passed for illegal parking how would feel , it can be described as legal but is it right.

Who decides what is right and wrong, cerberus?

:: If a law was passed that all persons over 75 years of age would be " put to sleep " how would you fel about that when its time for your parenst to go ?

National Socialist Germany never had all persons over 75 years of age put to sleep. But once again, lets put this into perspective. Who should the government favour, cerberus? Should the government be biased in favour of unproductive 70 and 80 year olds at the end of their life span? Or instead, should the government favour the young and unborn, the future of the nation?

Its a matter of choosing life over death. The best interests of the community are maximised by a bias in favour of the young, as the young have the most left to contribute to the community. We call upon the young to defend the nation, not the elderly. The young supports the nation, not the elderly. So I would argue that a bias in favour of the young is entirely justified on the basis of communitarian principles.

On the other hand, as we have seen above, liberal democracy institutionalises the robbery of the young and the slaughter of the unborn. This does not seem to be much of a problem from cerberus' perspective.

:: It could be made legal tomorrow , but would it be right , would it be ethical or moral , depends on what you see as moral , in this respect I see T4 as being the moral standard of Adolf Hitler.

Democracy throws away the future of Europe.

http://www.frankossen.com/A_Bucket_full_of_Babies_in_Siriraj_Hospital_-Thonburi_vert..jpg

:: Hitler made his own laws to suit his own standard of morality , you can make anything legal but it does not make it right.

http://www.now.org/nnt/01-98/roe2.jpg

:: ER was shot without a trial , I call that criminal , but then the supreme judge passed sentence so it was not really murder , is this how you read it ?
Double parked , execute him at once !!

I thought murder was a choice. :|

Obviously. You have made such an issue out of the T4 program in National Socialist Germany but have yet to utter a word about the slaughter of countless millions of unborn, healthy white children in the Western democracies. You whine, constantly, about the immorality of sterilising retards (which was progressive, I might add) yet have so far been silent on the much more serious issue

Fade... abortions disproportianately hit blacks. I DO support eugenics to the extent it employs only sterilizations, not murder.

I also agree with most of your gripes about Democracy but I don't think "individualism" can be blamed, rather the influence of pernicious voting blocs.

Nor can it be said as Nachtwolf( on other forums) has pointed out that the nazis ever applied a real scientific program of eugenics. They only applied an extremely grotesque perversion of it which has made it anathema for years.

Hitler's ghost is the best friend egalitarian's, social democrats, and mass immigration advocate's have.

:: Fade... abortions disproportianately hit blacks.

I don't have any objection to abortion, in principle. But I am utterly opposed to abortion when it involves killing healthy white fetuses.

:: I DO support eugenics to the extent it employs only sterilizations, not murder.

The ethical standard is always the same for me: how can the best interests of the community be maximised. I do not believe in any 'Ten Commandments', any 'objective' moral truth, Weikel.

:: I also agree with most of your gripes about Democracy but I don't think "individualism" can be blamed, rather the influence of pernicious voting blocs.

Individualism has everything to do with it. The fundamental reason abortion is so widespread today is because the common good of the community is subordinated to the happiness of the individual on a scale never seen before in modern times. Its the feeling that the individual does not have any greater obligations or responsibilities to his or her community, social disintegration, that causes this. Another example would be unprecedented rates of divorce and low birthrates.

:: Nor can it be said as Nachtwolf( on other forums) has pointed out that the nazis ever applied a real scientific program of eugenics.

That is most certainly not what I have heard from my venture into the literature on the subject, some of which was cited above.

:: They only applied an extremely grotesque perversion of it which has made it anathema for years.

Not really. It was the Allied propaganda campaign against Germany during the war and afterwards that made eugenics an anathema.

:: Hitler's ghost is the best friend egalitarian's, social democrats, and mass immigration advocate's have.

This is false. Allow me to explain why. There is no such thing as an 'objective' interpretation of Hitler's life. There are only different perspectives. And these perspectives rely upon certain paradigms, or worldviews, which serve as the basis from which the interpretations are made. The prevailing perspective of Hitler's career IS NOT a reflection of any deeper, objective truth, but instead, it is a reflection of the distribution of political power in our society, as it is the distribution of political power which ultimately determines which perspectives are publicised as opposed to which are cast aside.

Hitler's ghost is the best friend egalitarian's, social democrats, and mass immigration advocate's have.

I respectfully disagree. I reckon Hitler is what they most fear.

Cerberus,

Fade you assume that I am not pro-life ?
What makes you think I am not ?
Abortion as a form of birth control stinks.
The men wanting to play God in the 1920's " Judging" be they American , British or German , does their nationality really matter ?
Not to me ?

Men still want to play God today, I find they do so frequently.

The moral standrad , when you can so easily kill one group of people and see them as being unworthy and undeserving of life…

I ask you again, where is the moral standard in allowing suffering to continue?

The NSDAP sponsored " educational films" which preached surival of the fit did exactly this " lower than cattle" was how the handicaped were described.

I’m sorry to disenchant you but things are as such that survival of the fittest is both an apt description and the vital spirit of all healthy living creatures.

Do you honestly see these poor individuals " polluting or infecting others" ?

It is possible for a mentally and/or psychically disabled male and female to procreate.

Yes I think I have the right to express and opinion based on my own moral view of what is right or wrong , you have the same right and have done so.

I never said you don't have the right. I said you expound as though you’re expressing the universal truth, and with specific piety.

If say capital punishment was passed for illegal parking how would feel , it can be described as legal but is it right.

Right would be irrelevant. There would be but two options. Either you except or you dispute. It cannot be otherwise.

If a law was passed that all persons over 75 years of age would be " put to sleep " how would you fel about that when its time for your parenst to go ?

Again there are two options, either you go unto death or you act to defend yourself. [Was this the practice of Eskimos once, long ago?]

It could be made legal tomorrow , but would it be right , would it be ethical or moral , depends on what you see as moral , in this respect I see T4 as being the moral standard of Adolf Hitler.

I may have asked before, Do you see the exposure of their unwanted children to the elements as being the moral standard of the Ancient Greeks?

Hitler made his own laws to suit his own standard of morality , you can make anything legal but it does not make it right.

Every state makes its own laws to suit its own standard of morality. How would you define what is “right“?

ER was shot without a trial , I call that criminal , but then the supreme judge passed sentence so it was not really murder , is this how you read it ?

I don’t call it criminal at all, certainly not within its context. It could be considered murder in the same sense that it is murder when a soldier kills his opponent in battle. I fail to see what good a trial would do. What was the point in the Nurnberg trials? Were the hangings there murder? Do you like the mask of legal pretence?

I don't have any objection to abortion, in principle. But I am utterly opposed to abortion when it involves killing healthy white fetuses.

Ive never seen a middle class or above white girl who's been knocked up outside of marriage( or a de facto marriage). No asians either. So I think thats a moot point.

The ethical standard is always the same for me: how can the best interests of the community be maximised. I do not believe in any 'Ten Commandments', any 'objective' moral truth, Weikel.

And I say a good ruler should be as good as he can be and as evil as he has to be. Even if you don't hold any moral standards, some concessions must pragmatically be made to the prejudices of the people Fade.

Individualism has everything to do with it. The fundamental reason abortion is so widespread today is because the common good of the community is subordinated to the happiness of the individual on a scale never seen before in modern times. Its the feeling that the individual does not have any greater obligations or responsibilities to his or her community, social disintegration, that causes this. Another example would be unprecedented rates of divorce and low birthrates.

The low birth rates are due to pre abortion birth control and the fact that kids are now an economic liability rather than an asset. Divorce is due to the feminist takeover of American family law. About 90% of divorces are initiated by women. Repeal no fault, make pre nups absolute, and restore the ancient rights of paterfamilas and they'll be very little divorce. And ill make one concession to anti semitism here, I would say jewish women did play a causal role in getting the post suffrage feminist movement off the ground. Though it probably would have happened anyway.


That is most certainly not what I have heard from my venture into the literature on the subject, some of which was cited above.

The nazis rejected IQ test as "jewish", you cannot run a eugenics program without IQ testing. Driving out all the jewish scientist was real eugenic...

Not really. It was the Allied propaganda campaign against Germany during the war and afterwards that made eugenics an anathema.

Before the war I believe a lot of US states sterilized all convicted felons. Eugenics was respectable then, certainly very much so in the medical and scientific community and certainly not a focus of allied propaganda during the war. After the war yes, but only because of strong revulsion over what was found when the Reich was overrun.

This is false. Allow me to explain why. There is no such thing as an 'objective' interpretation of Hitler's life. There are only different perspectives. And these perspectives rely upon certain paradigms, or worldviews, which serve as the basis from which the interpretations are made. The prevailing perspective of Hitler's career IS NOT a reflection of any deeper, objective truth

Politically irrelevant, hes viewed as a demonic anti christ like figure and probably always will be. Any movement which wants to stop mass immigration and improve humanity via eugenics should distance itself from him.

While some will always cry Hitler, if the movement itself remains distant the label will not be effective in the minds of Middle America. Jared Taylor understands this.

Fade ,
Silence is often taken up the wrong way.
You assumed I have strong Christian beliefs, some may have come fromthere once upon a time but I would consider myself a very poor one at present.
Likewise you assumed I was pro abortion.
I think its abused and I don't go for abortion on demand.
You consider this proof as my being biase agsint the Hitler Goverment.
Fade this is way off , I am biasae against the Hitler goverment only on the balnce of their awful record on the treatment of others , in the same way I an anti Stalin and what stood for and how he did what he did.
fade you don't seem to realise theare opposite ends of the one stick , they wavwed different flags but the outcome of their actions were exactly the same.
Does the ends always justify the menas, Hitler dais it did and Stalin employed the same methods.
You once said to me Hitler was elected , what did Hitler do then made sure he would never have to be again.
The ends justify the means.

Who decides what is right you ask . ( yes you can have your own morality base on your own standrads , what Hitler did was to change the standards by which eh wanted German society to live by . This does not make it either right , legal or moral).
Let me put it another way fade , who decided when "wrong" was right , who decided when human life could be graded into worth saving and worth killing?
Be this for the "good of the race" or the "good of the nation".
Tell me Fade how many " retards" as you describe them have an active and full sex life in which they can " polute future generations".
Fade don't turn the moral gun on me and shout double standards.

Fade , your remarks on the potentail elderly in NS state , interesting.
What do you do when the Fuhrer hits 75.
Shoot him or gas him ? Or does the method really matter.
Further to the point who will do this ?
This "unproductive" rule of stick its a slippery slope Fade, unethical and morally bankrupt but by God its slippy underfoot...right into the hands of Dr. Brandt and his doctors.
Welcome to the morality of Harold Shipman. Yu would have the State become the executioner of its own citizens.
WOuld you have us kill all 705 year old holders of the knights Cross , german cross in Gold , Silver or would you give exemptions to those who have EK1 and above ?
Stupid I know Fade but the same decision was made about EK1 holders in Hitlers Germany.

Whatmigh make this possible fade , Silence , the silence th State would strive to create.

Your own double standards are palin when you say "white feutesus"
With the prefix white you describe your own double standrads as to life and death , te same view of some lives as being second class and the same slippery slope which led to T4 and to the Holocaust ( let's not go down this road again , please , there is only so much to say about it :jew: )
The moral stand was set by Hitler when he came Judge supreme and could make his own laws as he saw fit , others " worked towards the fuhrer" to make his vision reality.
The reast fade is history , maybe a history you don't like or don't agree with but its there warts and all , no one sided view as Dr. Brandt and FB. would wish to employ.

Your question is fair " Who decisdes what is right" You have my answer , but approach you question from adifferent angle to explore the morality which Hitlers laws did not have and to view the thin end of the wedge you see when you start talking about " white ".
BTW I am as white as you are . ( Just had my six monthly bath :D ).

Your view of rights and conflict with the interets of other "community members".
Fade I refer you back to the need as you see it to sterlize or kill people you describe as " retards".
Kill is a much better word than eliminate , its blunt and to the point.
Fade how many actually have a sex life with the ability to father children ?
Fade you are looking at something which can only be prevented via ethically based research and the application of this in an evidence based manner.
Killing is crude and way off the beam , it removes the individual but does not prevent anything.
You are defending something for the sake of defending it and losing track of logic here. ( And , No this is not double standards on my part , ethical use of mediacl research to prevent is not playing God by killing , no more than you getting your "shots" before going on you holidays).
This takes you back to " Silence" Fade , you say if my "right" conflicts with that of society , then my right is gone.
What is there in its place , "Silence" , this can be misconstrued as consent , the rubber stamp of approval .
When you have a goverment which will act and govern in the way FB . has said that NS does this silence is taken as approval and it allows the goverment to do as it wants , when it wants to whom it wants.
Fade I give you T4 , the Final Solution and the potential for a Holocaust.
"The Warning FromHistory" Fade

:: Ive never seen a middle class or above white girl who's been knocked up outside of marriage( or a de facto marriage). No asians either. So I think thats a moot point.

I see them all the time.

:: And I say a good ruler should be as good as he can be and as evil as he has to be.

I reject the whole good/evil binary opposition, as it has religious connotations that I disagree with. Ethics distinguishes between right and wrong.

:: Even if you don't hold any moral standards, some concessions must pragmatically be made to the prejudices of the people Fade.

I never suggested that there should not be ethical standards, Weikel. I simply argued that I do not believe in any 'Ten Commandments', that is, any objective moral truths set in stone (true for all peoples, at all times) which should be dogmatically enforced. In other words, I reject the entire discourse of natural law, which The Cerb seems to accept.

:: The low birth rates are due to pre abortion birth control and the fact that kids are now an economic liability rather than an asset.

I disagree. Birth control does not cause abortion and low birthrates, simply by being readily available. Its the disintegration of the social stigma (imposed by the community, which is in decline) attached to abortion that has led to its widespread use. The fundamental reason the birthrate has declined to such a degree in the West, however, is that females are putting off having children until later in life. And why is that, Weikel? It is because more of them are A.) entering the workforce and B.) going to school to buy C.) worthless products they do not need D.) which have since become 'necessities' because of the ruthless commercialisation and advertising that has corrupted our culture. This has been made necessary by E.) our overproductive, irrational, capitalist economy.

:: Divorce is due to the feminist takeover of American family law.

That's nonsense, more of your left-wing conspiracy tripe. Actually, divorce is more widespread than ever before because of the expressive individualist culture we are submerged in. Its the disintegration of the social stigma attached to divorce, in large part caused by secularisation, that is the problem. Furthermore, there has indeed been a cultural shift, but not one of the sort you are making it out to be. Its socially acceptable now for females to pursue 'careers' at the expense of their 'families'. And why is this? Because we attach more of a premium to the 'happiness of the individual' than ever before.

:: About 90% of divorces are initiated by women.

Because they are more economically and politically independent of their spouses and because divorce is now more socially acceptable in our expressive individualist culture.

:: Repeal no fault, make pre nups absolute, and restore the ancient rights of paterfamilas and they'll be very little divorce.

Yeah right.

:: And ill make one concession to anti semitism here, I would say jewish women did play a causal role in getting the post suffrage feminist movement off the ground. Though it probably would have happened anyway.

But its not really the feminist movement that is to blame here. It is the expressive individualist culture we live in with its emphasis upon 'tolerance' and 'lifestyles' and 'self-expression', which is highly related to our late capitalist economy.

:: The nazis rejected IQ test as "jewish", you cannot run a eugenics program without IQ testing.

How so?

:: Driving out all the jewish scientist was real eugenic...

Not really. Intelligence does not determine one's sentiments.

:: Before the war I believe a lot of US states sterilized all convicted felons.

There were also segregated army units, but the war propaganda against the Axis was used to bring about the end of that.

:: Eugenics was respectable then, certainly very much so in the medical and scientific community and certainly not a focus of allied propaganda during the war.

ROFL there was tons of Allied propaganda against National Socialist racial science.

:: After the war yes, but only because of strong revulsion over what was found when the Reich was overrun.

The Allies made extensive use of NS racial science in their propaganda against the Axis. Much of the leftovers of this can be found in the public mind about 'blonde hair, blue eyed Aryans'.

:: Politically irrelevant, hes viewed as a demonic anti christ like figure and probably always will be

That's nonsense. Many Confederates are viewed much the same way today, but that was generally not the case for decades after the war. There was a change, however, in the composition of the American elite after the Second World War. Thus there has been a significant amount of revisionism about the American War Between the States as well.

:: Any movement which wants to stop mass immigration and improve humanity via eugenics should distance itself from him.

That's counterproductive because it does not address the source of the problem: the distribution of political power within the mass media and the power of hegemonic groups (e.g., the Jews) to negatively define their enemies. Popular discourse is nothing but a reflection of the political and social interests of the private elites who control the mass media.

:: While some will always cry Hitler, if the movement itself remains distant the label will not be effective in the minds of Middle America

'Middle America' does not have any mind of its own. Instead, 'Middle America' is manafactured by elites.

:: Jared Taylor understands this.

The fallacy here is the discredited liberal doctrine that the masses are autonomous individuals think for themselves. Humans are social beings.

Hitler's ghost is the best friend egalitarian's, social democrats, and mass immigration advocate's have.

Oh, please don't tell me you really believe the Polichinello Argument. The media, which is controlled by people who have an agenda, is the best friend that egalitarians, etc have. If you do not believe me, you can ask yourself why STALIN has not been dug out of the grave to be waved in everyone's face whenever someone promotes socialism. Ask yourself why socialism is "hip" instead.

Oh, please don't tell me you really believe the Polichinello Argument. The media, which is controlled by people who have an agenda, is the best friend that egalitarians, etc have. If you do not believe me, you can ask yourself why STALIN has not been dug out of the grave to be waved in everyone's face whenever someone promotes socialism. Ask yourself why socialism is "hip" instead.
Yes I do believe it. The left in America since the McCarthy era has intelligently done everything it can to disavow Stalin.

:: Fade , Silence is often taken up the wrong way.

Lets see. I should remind the gallery that:

1.) cerberus constantly complains about the T4 program which he describes as 'murder', which was, in fact, quite limited.
2.) cerberus uses this in his propaganda against National Socialism.
3.) cerberus claims he is not motivated by bias against National Socialism.
4.) Yet cerberus has been oddly silent about the slaughter of countless millions of unborn Europeans, which never had any parallel in the Third Reich, which is obviously much more significant.
5.) So it is entirely reasonable to infer that either A.) cerberus does not consider abortion to be murder (or much or a problem) or B.) cerberus is simply motivated by bias against National Socialism.

:: You assumed I have strong Christian beliefs, some may have come fromthere once upon a time but I would consider myself a very poor one at present.

I have called you a Christian in the past because your own personal ideology strongly correlates with values, albeit secularised ones, that are strongly Christian in their origin.

:: Likewise you assumed I was pro abortion.

Which is entirely reasonable, as you have yet to address the issue here, yet you continue to harp on the T4 program which is nothing in comparison to what has gone on in the Western democracies.

:: I think its abused and I don't go for abortion on demand.

Answer me this: is abortion murder, cerberus? If so, then it must logically follow that the Western democracies have murdered millions of their own people. Yet you claim to not be biased against National Socialism. If so, then why do we not see your outrage at this practice, which obviously, has taken place on a far larger scale than T4?

:: You consider this proof as my being biase agsint the Hitler Goverment.

Yes. You constantly say that National Socialism 'murdered' its people. Yet there was no program under NS that compares to the institutionalised slaughter of future generations that goes on in the Western democracies. So you are either A.) biased against National Socialism or B.) do not consider abortion murder. Yet you said before that you were pro-life.

:: Fade this is way off , I am biasae against the Hitler goverment only on the balnce of their awful record on the treatment of others , in the same way I an anti Stalin and what stood for and how he did what he did.

This makes no sense whatsoever. The Western democracies have waged war after war across the world across over the past century. The U.S. has military bases on five continents. The British fought WW2 while ruling millions of Indians (millions of whom died during the war, I might add). Lets not forget, once again, that the Western democracies have slaughtered the unborn by the millions. The U.S. practically wiped out the aboriginie Indians. Much the same went on in Australia. Yet you make an enormous deal, OMG, out the German takeover of the rump of Czechoslovakia after it disintegrated on its own accord! Your argument simply defies reason.

:: fade you don't seem to realise theare opposite ends of the one stick , they wavwed different flags but the outcome of their actions were exactly the same.

How so? Hitler came to power on the back of a popular mass movement. Stalin did not. Churchill did not. The Soviets were obsessed with economics, like the Yankees (and class warfare, like Churchill), which was not the case in the Third Reich. The Soviets slaughtered their own people by the millions, like the Western democracies, which was not the case in the Third Reich.

:: Does the ends always justify the menas, Hitler dais it did and Stalin employed the same methods.

What methods were these? Millions of Ukrainians died under Stalin. Likewise, millions of unborn Europeans have been slaughtered by abortion in the Western democracies. The Third Reich did not slaughter Germans by the millions.

:: You once said to me Hitler was elected , what did Hitler do then made sure he would never have to be again.

Because the common good of the community should be put ahead of the private interests of individuals. Voting atomizes the community and treats all citizens as separate individuals. Yet humans are social beings shaped by their communities.

:: The ends justify the means.

They call that "a woman's right to choose" in your country.

:: Who decides what is right you ask .

Absolutely. Who decides? Authority.

:: ( yes you can have your own morality base on your own standrads , what Hitler did was to change the standards by which eh wanted German society to live by . This does not make it either right , legal or moral).

More nonsense from The Cerb. The Cerb is making a natural law argument here. Yet ironically, The Cerb does not (maybe he cannot) support this argument. Tell us the true morality. What are these natural laws?

:: Let me put it another way fade , who decided when "wrong" was right , who decided when human life could be graded into worth saving and worth killing?

The assumption The Cerb is relying upon here is that there exists an objective, transcendental moral law (which he uses to devalue positive law). Well. Tell us, cerberus, what this natural law is (or have this argument dismissed as arbitary).

:: Be this for the "good of the race" or the "good of the nation".

i.e. the good of the community. I believe the common good of the community outweighs the good of the private individual.

:: Tell me Fade how many " retards" as you describe them have an active and full sex life in which they can " polute future generations".

Quite a few, actually. That is why I do not support egalitarianism, liberalism, and democracy. You people are constantly subordinating the best interests of the community to the individual, the welfare of the healthy to the sick, the elite to the mediocre, progress to 'morality', the young to the decrepit, the citizen to the foreigner, and the friend to the enemy.

:: Fade don't turn the moral gun on me and shout double standards.

Listen to yourself, cerberus. You whine about how National Socialists treat Jews, Communists, retards, imbeciles, the decrepit, the handicapped, and other defective losers and/or degenerates. Yet you are SILENT when it comes to how the Western democracies treat the patriotic, the healthy, the young, the smart, the brave, the unborn, or THE BEST!

:: Fade , your remarks on the potentail elderly in NS state , interesting.

The young are more important to the well-being of the community than the elderly. The Western democracies take just the opposite approach -- for they steal from the young to support the decrepit, they slaughter the unborn and call it a choice, and rob the white middle class to subsidize Negroes and Hispanics.

:: What do you do when the Fuhrer hits 75.

If he wants to end his life, if he is suffering and in pain, then he should be given that choice. He would have lived a long and productive life.

:: Shoot him or gas him ? Or does the method really matter.

It was not NS policy to kill the elderly in the Third Reich. So stop attacking a straw man, cerberus.

:: Further to the point who will do this ?

We have physician assisted suicide already in the U.S (State of Oregon). I believe it is legal in the Netherlands as well.

:: This "unproductive" rule of stick its a slippery slope Fade, unethical and morally bankrupt but by God its slippy underfoot...right into the hands of Dr. Brandt and his doctors.

What is unethical about it? On what basis do you call it unethical? If the common good of the community is our standard, then how do you justify privileging the elderly at the expense of the young?

:: Welcome to the morality of Harold Shipman. Yu would have the State become the executioner of its own citizens.

That is the case in the Netherlands today.

:: WOuld you have us kill all 705 year old holders of the knights Cross , german cross in Gold , Silver or would you give exemptions to those who have EK1 and above ?

It was never NS policy to kill Germans over a certain age, cerberus.

:: Stupid I know Fade but the same decision was made about EK1 holders in Hitlers Germany.

Show me at what point in the Third Reich was it ever a public policy to kill Germans over a certain age.

:: Whatmigh make this possible fade , Silence , the silence th State would strive to create.

Well. Its not like you have made much noise here about the slaughter of countless millions of unborn Europeans since you have been here.

:: Your own double standards are palin when you say "white feutesus"

I reject universalism, cerberus.

:: With the prefix white you describe your own double standrads as to life and death

I do not believe in universal, transcendent, objective ethical codes of right and wrong.

:: te same view of some lives as being second class and the same slippery slope which led to T4 and to the Holocaust ( let's not go down this road again , please , there is only so much to say about it :jew: )

cerberus constructs a metanarrative here.

:: The moral stand was set by Hitler when he came Judge supreme and could make his own laws as he saw fit

That is precisely what judges more or less do in the United States on a regular basis, cerberus.

:: others " worked towards the fuhrer" to make his vision reality.

Yet the Supreme Court of the United States regularly makes law from the bench. Do we see cerberus making a stink in this instance? Absolutely not!

:: The reast fade is history , maybe a history you don't like or don't agree with but its there warts and all , no one sided view as Dr. Brandt and FB. would wish to employ.

You have a rather warped view of history, cerberus. Please tell me: is abortion, murder? Yes or no.

:: Your question is fair " Who decisdes what is right" You have my answer

You never answered the question. You continue to imply that nobody decides because objective moral truth exists, yet you DO NOT support that argument, you simply repeat it.

:: but approach you question from adifferent angle to explore the morality which Hitlers laws did not have

You say Hitler's laws were immoral. TELL US THE TRUE MORALITY, cerberus.

:: and to view the thin end of the wedge you see when you start talking about " white ". BTW I am as white as you are . ( Just had my six monthly bath

I never said all whites were equal. :D

:: Your view of rights and conflict with the interets of other "community members".

All community members are not equal, cerberus. Once again, you see me using the hierarchy principle.

:: Fade I refer you back to the need as you see it to sterlize or kill people you describe as " retards".

I have no problem with the sterilisation of retards. We used to do that all the time in the U.S., actually. I would also quarantine those infected with HIV. Would you let sick people into the general population and allow them to spread the disease, cerberus?

:: Kill is a much better word than eliminate , its blunt and to the point.

cerberus attacks a straw man. Sterlisation is not killing.

:: Fade how many actually have a sex life with the ability to father children ?

Quite a few, actually.

:: Fade you are looking at something which can only be prevented via ethically based research and the application of this in an evidence based manner.

Progress should not be subordinated to moral superstitions.

:: Killing is crude and way off the beam , it removes the individual but does not prevent anything.

Sterilisation is not killing, cerberus. I would sterilise all the Jews. Nonwhites would be given the choice of leaving or being sterilised. I would not have a second thought about it.

:: You are defending something for the sake of defending it and losing track of logic here.

The Cerb is confusing his own personal sentiments with logic. My position is entirely logically defensible on the basis of my premisses.

:: ( And , No this is not double standards on my part , ethical use of mediacl research to prevent is not playing God by killing , no more than you getting your "shots" before going on you holidays).

I thought playing God was a choice, cerberus. Oh right. You don't have much of a problem with that no do you?

:: This takes you back to " Silence" Fade , you say if my "right" conflicts with that of society , then my right is gone.

I am saying the good of the individual should be subordinated to the common good of the community. In most cases, there is no conflict between the two.

:: What is there in its place , "Silence" , this can be misconstrued as consent , the rubber stamp of approval .

How many babies do you suppose have been murdered in the Western democracies since we started this conversation, cerberus?

:: When you have a goverment which will act and govern in the way FB . has said that NS does this silence is taken as approval and it allows the goverment to do as it wants , when it wants to whom it wants.

This is a myth. The Government never simply did 'what it wants' under National Socialism. No government whatsoever does that.

:: Fade I give you T4 , the Final Solution and the potential for a Holocaust.

I give you the systematic slaughter of countless millions of healthy, white, unborn Europeans (the REAL Holocaust) which you do not care about. I give you the countless future generations that will live as a miserable minority in their own (now-impoverished immiserated) lands because of egotistical, self-righteous, moral pontificating of liberal degenerates.

:: "The Warning FromHistory" Fade

You make a lot of noise about the sterilisation of a few retards, the execution of a few Communists, and the destruction of a few partisans. On the other hand, as an apologist for democracy, you are quite silent about the murder of future generations of your own people and an ideology which wrecked your own country.

Get back to your post later Fade.

Yes I do believe it. The left in America since the McCarthy era has intelligently done everything it can to disavow Stalin.

The "right" disavows Hitler. That doesn't stop the media from digging him up and tossing his corpse at people.

Students and teachers in Academe, OTOH, can outright support Communism. Stalin is not tossed at them.

If you do not see the double standard, you are willfully blind.

Cerberus,

You assumed I have strong Christian beliefs, some may have come fromthere once upon a time but I would consider myself a very poor one at present.

In my opinion, either directly or indirectly, a great many of your beliefs do stem from Christianity.

Fade this is way off , I am biasae against the Hitler goverment only on the balnce of their awful record on the treatment of others,

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. The western democracies are hardly historically known for their fair treatment of others. For example, the French used poison gas in Algeria in the 1960s, a method of warfare Hitler could not conscience to use.

Does the ends always justify the menas, Hitler dais it did and Stalin employed the same methods.

That is a little bit of patter.

Who decides what is right you ask . ( yes you can have your own morality base on your own standrads , what Hitler did was to change the standards by which eh wanted German society to live by . This does not make it either right , legal or moral).

Moral standards are not set in stone. Had Statesmen and rulers not changed the standards by which Societies lived where would we be today?

Let me put it another way fade , who decided when "wrong" was right , who decided when human life could be graded into worth saving and worth killing?

Often what was once right becomes wrong, and what was once wrong becomes right. A Transvaluation. Who decided before but great men?

Tell me Fade how many " retards" as you describe them have an active and full sex life in

I said procreate.

Fade , your remarks on the potentail elderly in NS state , interesting.
What do you do when the Fuhrer hits 75.

Celebrate his 75th birthday ;)

This "unproductive" rule of stick its a slippery slope Fade, unethical and morally bankrupt but by God its slippy underfoot...right into the hands of Dr. Brandt and his doctors.
Welcome to the morality of Harold Shipman.

You cannot justly compare a man who acts outside of the law to a man who acts within the law.

WOuld you have us kill all 705 year old holders of the knights Cross , german cross in Gold , Silver or would you give exemptions to those who have EK1 and above ?
Stupid I know Fade but the same decision was made about EK1 holders in Hitlers Germany.

You are being ridiculous here.

Your own double standards are palin when you say "white feutesus"
With the prefix white you describe your own double standrads as to life and death , te same view of some lives as being second class and the same slippery slope which led to T4 and to the Holocaust ( let's not go down this road again , please , there is only so much to say about it

Tell me, are events that occur to your immediate family of the same intensity to you as those that happen to complete strangers? Do you value strangers as much as your kin?

The moral stand was set by Hitler when he came Judge supreme and could make his own laws as he saw fit , others " worked towards the fuhrer" to make his vision reality.

The only three questions should be: does this man have the genius and the faculty of reason to be “supreme judge”? Is he aware of the solemn responsibility that comes with such powers? And thirdly: Will he be far-sighted in his decisions? In my mind, the answer is yes to all three questions.

…others " worked towards the fuhrer" to make his vision reality.

Something from Germanic political culture. The King worked and gave his all for his people, and the King’s vassals worked and gave their all for the King.

Your question is fair " Who decisdes what is right" You have my answer , but approach you question from adifferent angle to explore the morality which Hitlers laws did not have and to view the thin end of the wedge you see when you start talking about " white ".

A double morality in regards to love of your own is perfectly understandable and warranted for that matter.

Your view of rights and conflict with the interets of other "community members".

How so?

You are defending something for the sake of defending it and losing track of logic here.

Pot, kettle, black.

And , No this is not double standards on my part , ethical use of mediacl research to prevent is not playing God by killing , no more than you getting your "shots" before going on you holidays).

And these things are done for a purpose, no?

This takes you back to " Silence" Fade , you say if my "right" conflicts with that of society , then my right is gone.

Yes. Well, in a particular kind of society.

What is there in its place , "Silence" , this can be misconstrued as consent , the rubber stamp of approval .

Do you advocate the Good Samaritan law?

When you have a goverment which will act and govern in the way FB . has said that NS does this silence is taken as approval and it allows the goverment to do as it wants , when it wants to whom it wants.

Silence as acquiescence - hardly. Why were the Euthanasia laws suspended then? In Berlin, during the war, German women protested the internment of their Jewish Husbands, and the decision was revoked.

Fade I give you T4 , the Final Solution and the potential for a Holocaust.
"The Warning FromHistory" Fade

Cue Mozart’s requiem.

P.S. Please I really would like to know, do you see the exposure of their unwanted children to the elements as being the moral standard of the Ancient Greeks?

:: Ive never seen a middle class or above white girl who's been knocked up outside of marriage( or a de facto marriage). No asians either. So I think thats a moot point.

I see them all the time.
You sure they ain't the local white trash?

:: And I say a good ruler should be as good as he can be and as evil as he has to be.

I reject the whole good/evil binary opposition, as it has religious connotations that I disagree with. Ethics distinguishes between right and wrong.What are "ethics"?

:: Even if you don't hold any moral standards, some concessions must pragmatically be made to the prejudices of the people Fade.

I never suggested that there should not be ethical standards, Weikel. I simply argued that I do not believe in any 'Ten Commandments', that is, any objective moral truths set in stone (true for all peoples, at all times) which should be dogmatically enforced. In other words, I reject the entire discourse of natural law, which The Cerb seems to accept.
I keep to an honor code, but I accept that strength and not morality prevail in real life.

:: The low birth rates are due to pre abortion birth control and the fact that kids are now an economic liability rather than an asset.

I disagree. Birth control does not cause abortion and low birthrates, simply by being readily available. Its the disintegration of the social stigma (imposed by the community, which is in decline) attached to abortion that has led to its widespread use. The fundamental reason the birthrate has declined to such a degree in the West, however, is that females are putting off having children until later in life. And why is that, Weikel? It is because more of them are A.) entering the workforce and B.) going to school to buy C.) worthless products they do not need D.) which have since become 'necessities' because of the ruthless commercialisation and advertising that has corrupted our culture. This has been made necessary by E.) our overproductive, irrational, capitalist economy.
My point addressed low birth rates which you brought up in your post, you have shifted to abortion. Pre abortion birth control is the more common means among better class women not to get knocked up.

I don't disagree with your point about the vanishing of the social stigma attached to premarital pregnancy and abortion( getting knocked up in the 1950's would make a woman an outcast... and abortion was simply considered murder).

Now as per "working women" this has a lot to do with feminism, but also a lot to do with the decline in child labor( in rural areas child labor was still widely employed before the 60s) making children an economic burder rather then an asset, feminism, and the near doubling of the US population since the 1950's, the increase in the supply of labor rendering one working man unable to sustain a family in American luxury.

:: Divorce is due to the feminist takeover of American family law.

That's nonsense, more of your left-wing conspiracy tripe. Actually, divorce is more widespread than ever before because of the expressive individualist culture we are submerged in. Its the disintegration of the social stigma attached to divorce, in large part caused by secularisation, that is the problem. Furthermore, there has indeed been a cultural shift, but not one of the sort you are making it out to be. Its socially acceptable now for females to pursue 'careers' at the expense of their 'families'. And why is this? Because we attach more of a premium to the 'happiness of the individual' than ever before.
You think women would initiate so many divorces if there was a chance they would end up destitute and without custody of their children if they did?

:: About 90% of divorces are initiated by women.

Because they are more economically and politically independent of their spouses and because divorce is now more socially acceptable in our expressive individualist culture.
Do you think no fault divorce laws which inevitably screw the man and give the woman custody of her children have nothing to do with this?

:: Repeal no fault, make pre nups absolute, and restore the ancient rights of paterfamilas and they'll be very little divorce.

Yeah right.If women who initiate divorce face the consequences of ending up poor and without custody of their children I'd expect the divorce rate to drop by 2/3rd's.


:: And ill make one concession to anti semitism here, I would say jewish women did play a causal role in getting the post suffrage feminist movement off the ground. Though it probably would have happened anyway.

But its not really the feminist movement that is to blame here. It is the expressive individualist culture we live in with its emphasis upon 'tolerance' and 'lifestyles' and 'self-expression', which is highly related to our late capitalist economy.
In the late 1800's are economy was far more capitalist then it was today, and people were probably more individualistic because the majority of the population lived on isolated farms. Very little divorce. The divorce rate is higher now because women know the state will take care of them at the expense of their husbands if they initiate proceedings. The American legal system now is not big on individual accountability or personal responsibility. Its designed to maximize the amount of blood trial lawyers can suck out of us.

:: The nazis rejected IQ test as "jewish", you cannot run a eugenics program without IQ testing.

How so?
While breeding lots of dumb blondes( lebensborn) has a certain appeal... the chief trait most eugenicist want to maximize is intelligence.

Ill Get to the rest later.

Just wonder ing where NC went , coffee perhaps , no Earl Gray would his drink.

Fade . Like it or not Hitler did make law as he thought fit , moral issues meant nothing to him.
You go on at some length about abortion and re using it as aget out clause for T4.
I can only say your double standrads appear here agin , your usual tact is to say " this has nothing to do with..." when others take this same attitude.
My own views on abortion you asked for I gave them.
The point was made about ending sufferring , those murdered by T4 were not I pain nor where they terminally ill.
The "ending pain" arguement holds no water.
Fade i am aware that NS did n't kill the elderly , but hey wtch this space given time I wouldnot have ruled it out , after all "useless easters" was how the handicaped / mentally ill were described, its not a big step to take it a stage further , that was my point.
T4 to Holocaust , not such a big move either.
T4 was limited several thousand murders is not limited.
I hear your cogs of thoguht saying " abortion" , this I have already been down.
Exposure of ancient Greek children , a primitive act , now go on you have some reason for asking this wade on in fel fre, a load question which you will no doubt now answer for me.
BTW do i now paly fade and say " exposing children has nothing to do with ...." be my guest.
BTW Fade is already on record as saying he believes in having different standards which does help provide get out clauses.
Did they not later these same released husbands , blood and honor laws , not exactly in the inteest of a long term relationship with memebrs of the Jewish faith ?
When the law makes murder legal yes I can and yes I will.
It was ad hoc law with the expres aim of making " Killing" legal.
Summary execution of a minor parking ticket , its no different.
BTW when making "laws" did the German goverment vote on this one or discuss it , no it just came straight from Adolf.
No Hitler / Stalin the same degerate value on life.
Not as much as you might think , the decision to include all jewish winners of EK1 in 1914-18 with those ear marked for "resettlement" was no different.
Resettlement = death .
Thing is when working towrds the fuhrer , sometimes his vision wa somewhat vague and unrealistic at times. EG Draw up a plan to invade and destroy the Soviet Union in less than 4 months , plan to be on my desk by Feb 41.
PS I Like WAM :D

Fade if your only defence of T4 is to say it was " limited" and to contrats it to abortion , its tissue thin . Never go into court with that as your main prop.
Fade I have yet to find any reason why i would want to have lived under Hitler , it would not surprise me to find that public toilet attendants had a fancy unifrom with a national eagle on it and matching black jack boots.

Fade you forget , I do not defend empire , nor do I seek to do so.
There is no doubt that European treatment of native peoples was wrong and that the american "whites" treatemnt of the "red man" was less that even handed.
Its your turn to set up what you describe as "straw men".
Fade , the same methods , killing by way of decree edict order , numbers are not the issue here , methodology and outcome , killing those who are surplus to requirement or those who might acuse me problems , those who do not fit in. Numbers are not the issue.
Regarding morality and law fade , well you talk about it even more than i do , Hitler did make law as he saw fit , he made to serve his ends and his plans for the german people and the lands he occupied.
If the victims of T4 were german citzens , how did his law to kill them serve them ?
This as I pointed out before Fade is in direct conflict with his oath of office.
That wave of popular people power 43% , it was never more.
Now that makes it what 57% who either stayed silent or voted against .
Funny how that silence and those who voted against never got a second chance ?
Those who said no went to nice 2 protective custodity" camps like dachau , the silent voices had little choice but to stay silent or join the others.
That at risk register Fade , the whole population was on it.
ALL WHITES ARE NOT EQUAL. Well at least i have had my bath Fade :D
You will note that on moral grounds I don't take showers :jew: :222 :D

fade the end game was somthing about the politcal and racila future of ameria / UK .
Not getting into that as it bores the carp out of me...have you seen that old guy with the hat anad piece of paper he keeps waving , must be finished that cup of "Rosey lee".
Nev. get back here , no you can't take any more penalty kicks against the germans , look at the last one you took , went well over the bar"

:: Just wonder ing where NC went , coffee perhaps , no Earl Gray would his drink.

The moderator should split this thread so we can get this discussion back on topic. I agree.

:: Fade . Like it or not Hitler did make law as he thought fit , moral issues meant nothing to him.

And I will ask you the same question that I have asked you dozens of times, which you refuse to answer: who decides what is morally right and wrong? Furthermore, the legal dictim 'what pleases the prince, has the force of law' predates parliamentary law by centuries.

:: You go on at some length about abortion

Yes. You do not seem to be all that concerned about the systematic slaughter of the unborn.

:: I can only say your double standrads appear here agin

You are the one who actually is operating on the basis of a double standard here. Notice how much attention you pay to the T4 program as opposed to your relative silence about euthanasia in the modern democracies as well as mass abortion.

:: as aget out clause for T4.

Explain to me, in principle, what was wrong with the T4 program. Then we will have a discussion about euthanasia in the Netherlands. The gallery should observe how The Cerb harps and harps about the T4 program yet is silent about similar developments in the Western democracies.

:: your usual tact is to say " this has nothing to do with..." when others take this same attitude.

What attitude would this be. Its difficult to understand you sometimes, as you avoid using the space bar.

:: My own views on abortion you asked for I gave them.

Which exposes you as a hypocrite, as you are not that concerned about the slaughter of healthy, unborn generations but cry and whine about the unfit solely because you are prejudiced against National Socialism.

:: The point was made about ending sufferring , those murdered by T4 were not I pain nor where they terminally ill.

Cite your sources. You ramble on and speak in generalisations. Tell us precisely who you are talking about.

:: The "ending pain" arguement holds no water.

Much of the same activity goes on today in the Netherlands. But of course, we do not see The Cerb bringing this up on his own accord.

:: Fade i am aware that NS did n't kill the elderly

Then what is the issue here? Why do you keep implying that was the case?

:: , but hey wtch this space given time I wouldnot have ruled it out , after all "useless easters" was how the handicaped / mentally ill were described, its not a big step to take it a stage further , that was my point.

In other words, you are speculating.

:: T4 to Holocaust , not such a big move either.

Non Sequitur. No one spoke of 'The Holocaust' until well into the 1960s when it was invented after the Six Day War to use in Israeli propaganda.

:: T4 was limited several thousand murders is not limited.

Murder is unlawful killing. Show me the law that was violated.

:: I hear your cogs of thoguht saying " abortion" , this I have already been down.

Answer my question: is abortion murder, cerberus?

:: Exposure of ancient Greek children , a primitive act

How is that primitive? You are once again projecting your own moral superstitions upon others.

:: now go on you have some reason for asking this wade on in fel fre, a load question which you will no doubt now answer for me.

What is loaded about the question? If there is a true morality that exists for all peoples at all times then tell us what it is and we will scan through history in order to verify it.

:: BTW do i now paly fade and say " exposing children has nothing to do with ...." be my guest.

But I have not argued that there is any 'true morality', cerberus.

:: BTW Fade is already on record as saying he believes in having different standards which does help provide get out clauses.

Its your standard that is in dispute, cerberus. You said you were pro-life. It is my understanding that the pro-life position is that abortion is murder. So I asked you if abortion was murder and you have refused to answer the question. Is there some sort of problem?

:: Did they not later these same released husbands , blood and honor laws , not exactly in the inteest of a long term relationship with memebrs of the Jewish faith ?

You are not coming through here, cerberus. So reformat you post. If you are referring to something specific, then cite your source and we shall discuss the matter further.

:: When the law makes murder legal yes I can and yes I will.

Murder is unlawful killing, cerberus. That is what distinguishes murder from killing, its illegality. So it is not 'murder' when a person is killed and there is not a law against it. You can continue to invoke the concept irrationally however for its rhetorical effect. But rhetorical devices are not arguments, so you should reconsider your position.

:: It was ad hoc law with the expres aim of making " Killing" legal.

It wasn't an ad hoc law at all. Monarchs have made law throughout history.

:: Summary execution of a minor parking ticket , its no different.

False analogy.

:: BTW when making "laws" did the German goverment vote on this one or discuss it , no it just came straight from Adolf.

No one has argued here that National Socialist Germany was a parliamentary democracy. The entire point of National Socialism is to get rid of just that, what Carl Schmitt described as the 'institutionalisation of indecision'.

:: No Hitler / Stalin the same degerate value on life.

ROFL The Cerb here invokes the value of life when, in his own country, hundreds of thousands of unborn children are slaughtered every year and it is actually called a 'right' and a 'choice' by democratic politicians!

:: Not as much as you might think , the decision to include all jewish winners of EK1 in 1914-18 with those ear marked for "resettlement" was no different.
Resettlement = death .

cerberus is once again projecting his conspiracy theories. No he has usurped the right to define words used by others. Well then. What is stopping us from saying that when cerberus just used the phrase 'EK1' he did not secretly mean that all white gentile children should be burned in furnaces and defecated upon?

:: Thing is when working towrds the fuhrer , sometimes his vision wa somewhat vague and unrealistic at times.

More of the same old contradictions: Hitler was all-powerful and tyrannical and despotic yet others made all his decisions. :rolleyes:

:: . EG Draw up a plan to invade and destroy the Soviet Union in less than 4 months , plan to be on my desk by Feb 41. PS I Like WAM

I don't have a problem with wiping out Bolshevism. It does not really surprise me however that you would disagree. BTW, I entirely agree with the notion that the 'Jewish-Bolshevik intelligentsia' should be exterminated. No loss there.

:: Fade you forget , I do not defend empire , nor do I seek to do so.

That's not surprising. Barnett describes in detail how the liberal ideology destroyed the British Empire via the feminization of its men.

:: Fade if your only defence of T4 is to say it was " limited" and to contrats it to abortion , its tissue thin .

How so? My aim is to show how you are not motivated by any legitimate grievence, but instead, prejudice against National Socialism. That is why you gloss over abortion yet make such an issue out of T4, which does not remotely compare to systematic abortion which is far more institutionalized and widespread.

:: Never go into court with that as your main prop.

Why? You say you are pro-life yet all the noise you make is about National Socialism, even when the Western democracies are far more anti-life than NS ever was.

:: Fade I have yet to find any reason why i would want to have lived under Hitler , it would not surprise me to find that public toilet attendants had a fancy unifrom with a national eagle on it and matching black jack boots.

Well. At least Germans living under National Socialism could use public toilets without having to worry about being robbed by Negro criminals or catching their disgusting infectous diseases.

:: There is no doubt that European treatment of native peoples was wrong and that the american "whites" treatemnt of the "red man" was less that even handed.

Explain to me what was 'wrong' about the treatment of 'native peoples' by the British. And tell me, what was wrong about the colonisation of North America? Would you rather Australia be a third world dump like Africa is today? How about North America too? The standard of living in Sub-Saharan Africa had never been higher than it was under colonialism. Now the entire area has collapsed back into barbarism and savagery, simply because of the cowardness of all the liberal moral weaklings who cannot even say no to the colonisation and destruction of their own countries by aliens.

:: Its your turn to set up what you describe as "straw men".

You defended Churchill.

:: Fade , the same methods , killing by way of decree edict order , numbers are not the issue here , methodology and outcome , killing those who are surplus to requirement or those who might acuse me problems , those who do not fit in. Numbers are not the issue.

I have no problem with ethnic cleansing, if that is what you are getting at. I am not of your point of view. I would not have Ireland turned into the Haiti of Europe. You people have no problem sacrificing the interests of COUNTLESS GENERATIONS of our own people because of your own personal moral superstitions.

:: Regarding morality and law fade , well you talk about it even more than i do , Hitler did make law as he saw fit , he made to serve his ends and his plans for the german people and the lands he occupied.

I never said that National Socialist Germany was a parliamentary democracy. I would much rather have an individual independent of the oligarchy who makes laws in the interest of the common good of the entire community than elected legislatures captive to private interests out to maximize their own self-interest at the expense of everyone else.

:: If the victims of T4 were german citzens , how did his law to kill them serve them ?

Because all citizens are not equal. Only liberals buy into such stupidity, that the sick and the healthy are of equal work, the native and the foreigner, the fit and the unfit.

:: This as I pointed out before Fade is in direct conflict with his oath of office.

False. You are relying upon the assumption here that all citizens are equal. You are projecting once again.

:: That wave of popular people power 43% , it was never more.

Bull****. Every Kershaw admits that Hitler had the support of the vast majority of the German people.

:: Now that makes it what 57% who either stayed silent or voted against .

How many people voted for Winston Churchill, cerberus?

:: Funny how that silence and those who voted against never got a second chance ?

For a very good reason. Voting elevates the private interest of the individual over the common good of the community. It institutionalizes social disintegration and social irresponsibility.

:: Those who said no went to nice 2 protective custodity" camps like dachau , the silent voices had little choice but to stay silent or join the others.

Are you suggesting that all who voted no went to protective custody camps? Is that right?

:: That at risk register Fade , the whole population was on it.

The U.S. Government throws its dissidents in jail all the time.

:: ALL WHITES ARE NOT EQUAL. Well at least i have had my bath Fade

I reject equality period. So that logically follows from my premise.

:: fade the end game was somthing about the politcal and racila future of ameria / UK .

Its very simple. You people are willing to stand by and let third world scum take over Britain and the U.S, because of your own personal moral superstitions. We do not, because we feel a higher sense of responsibility to the future generations you democrats slaughter.

:: Not getting into that as it bores the carp out of me...

I don't want Ireland turned into Haiti. You are not interested in the issue. We will leave it at that.

:: have you seen that old guy with the hat anad piece of paper he keeps waving , must be finished that cup of "Rosey lee". Nev. get back here , no you can't take any more penalty kicks against the germans , look at the last one you took , went well over the bar"

Not getting your metaphor here. :D

Yes spliting it would seem reasonable.
Sorry about the space bar.

I can't go over all your points now , but will stick to that old hot potato between us law and the morality of the law.

I readin Overy's book "The Dictators" ( just this evening) that Hitler prior to his last election was already combining the offices of president and Chancallor the election did no more than rubber stamp what he ws already doing.

Part of Hitlers law giving process was to give law as he Hitler saw fit based on only what he Hitler judged to be correct.
You had to all extents and purpose one man making law and those belwo him enacting it without question .
Overy gives some figures.

"In reality Hitler had long before abandoned the pretence that the stae was governed by a collective ledership. Instead he issued decrees and directives on his own behalf, which were given the force of law beacuse the rest of the system came to accept them as such."
"In the formulation of the law the historical will of the Fuhrer is implemented " wrote Hans Frank.

"Increasingly the publication of aadministrative directives came to asume a permanency in the system that permitted Hitler to act as if he were the sole lawgiver without the legal obligation to consult ministers or seek the (uncontested) approval of the Reichstag."
"During the war years, ourt of 650 major legislative orders only 72 were formal laws; 241 were "Fuhrer Orders". Of this number almost twoo-thirds were secret laws. The same force could extend to unwritten orders"
"The objections expressed by officals to the genocide of the Jews in 1941-42 could be silenced by "It is a Fuhrer order".

"Obidience to Hitler moved from the realm of constitutional normality to forms of habitual deference to the leader's will in whatever form it was expresed".
Overy goes on to expand on the nature of Hitlers descision making process, that diminishing part played by the cabinet , that hitler rarely attened cabinet meetings , that increasingly powewr came from Hitler alone , who was unregulated in any way.
He states that from 1936 onwards Hilter made his decisions on a face to face level often whereever the ecncounter took place , arrely were any minutes taken or did any written recrod exist.
He gives one xample of how Baldur von Schirach was appointed party leader in Vienna and was invited to lunch, out of earshot from everyone else Hitler instructed him that all of Vienna Jewish population was to be expelled.(1941).

Sorry for the long series of quotes . All from Overy's new book .

This Fade must illustrate the nature of what you describe as "Reich Law" it is law without regulation , on the whim , to accomplish the aims of one man at the expense of the estiblished legal process without checks and safeguard and based purely on the morality of one man.
You say on what moral grounds I can judge , I can equally say on what moral ground sdid Hitler give law.
This by any standard is a shambles .
You can say was it legal , now you understand the process.
It speaks for itself and your stonewall defense ploy of " Was it legal ? " , you can make anything legal Fade if only you make the laws.

The morality was Hitler's not Germany's , secret laws wonder what they were , why was there a need to keep them secret.

Fade I have said it to you before.
I could quite easily see you as being hanged for just "obeying orders from a higher command" and the question which would be asked , " How can an intelligent man get so out of his depth and not see it ?"
I honestly don't mean this in an offensive manner but this cannot be lost on you , I refuse to believe that you don't see it.

In the face of these reasonable points the legality and any tissue of morality that you attach to T4 melts like snow of a ditch.
Fade , if you want me to quote names of people who died under T4 who were not terminally ill I can get you a few which can stand as examples.
The evidence to see that it was all a lie as regards cause of death exists to this day.
Abortion fade I have already made my views on it abundently clear , this is a futile exercise .
Abortion as a form of birth control I do not endorse.
Termination of pregnancy for a valid medical reason is acceptable.
Now before you sharpen your knife Fade , valid medical reason , the destruction of thousands of healthy "white" babies this is not , you understand.
Abortion on demand as a form of birth control I do not agree with .
The comparrison with T4 is totally invalid and is one of convience , it fails.
T4 Fade when you are gassing the mentally ill or handicaped you are killing people who are not terminally ill , they don't have cancer and they all didn't die of weak hearts , the breathing difficulties often attributed was not really a lie , when you kill someone with gas they usually experience breathing difficulties of an acute and terminal nature.

What is morality , it can be anything you like Fade but your morality is similar to a delusion.
if your morality say in respect of the ill is out of keeping with what say german society expected or thought was being given , if it had to be kept secret nad be lied about well , your morality is worth what and the law based on this standard of moralty I worth what ?
Snow on a ditch in a summers day Fade , that's what.