Hitler Parade Car to be Auctioned at Barrett-Jackson

Interesting data.....

I was stationed at numerous bases in these areas.

Allied War Crimes: The Terror-Bombing of German Civilians During the Second World War
Speer was debriefed by incredulous Americans following the war. He stated that the Americans were astounded that he could maintain war production as long as he did considering the heavy pounding sustained by the German industrial areas. How he did it is detailed in his memoirs. As far as the targeting of civilians that is a whole other discussion.
 
Yup, it is my brother's book I borrowed about 1 year ago. Also a good reference.

Outstanding. If you want to fully understand the strategic and logistical reasons Germany lost the war it is a must read. It also provides a great insight into Hiltler's inner circle and his delusional and magnetic personality.

Thanks. Simple answer....they, nor Japan, didn’t have the strategic materials necessary to sustain a prolonged war. The USSR and US, less rubber, had the necessary ores and oil. The German policies (Hitler) on the eastern and western fronts wasted desperately needed soldiers.
 
The German policies (Hitler) on the eastern and western fronts wasted desperately needed soldiers.
Strangely we should consider ourselves fortunate that Hitler had Speer to prolong the war until the U. S. was prepared and engaged because otherwise the Russians may have taken most of western Europe.
 
“Truth “ is subjective and filled with personal perspective. You’ll never find it especially is on line articles such as your links to websites with a stated bias going in. Goebels himself would probably be proud of that link.

I also encourage you to seek out noted, acedemic historians or works of principals involved in events as opposed to articles citing persons generations removed from events with a background in advertising. Trust me, we know how to spin.

Your links may reinforce a personal bias but are questionable, at best, for seeking “truth” on WWII history.

Your links also effectively remove historical perspective on the bombing campaigns or changes in capability, ability or policy affecting tactical or strategic bombing over time. They, conveniently, eliminate acts of civilian bombing and escalation by all parties all over the world (Germany in WWI, Spain, China) over time.

If you are truly interested in seeking facts, I’ll recommend some references by credible sources. If you want “truth” .....good luck with that.
Credible sources you say?, meaning that any historian I'd care to mention wouldn't, in your opinion, cut the mustard because of 'bias'. Truly hilarious. Revisionists are the current era heretics.
So I take it the historians you deem to be the only persons with accurate knowledge must have had first hand experiences and were writing only from memory, not citing people 'generations removed from events'?, how do 'credible' historians manage to write volumes on the French Revolution then?, are they hundreds of years old or do they cite people generations removed from ours?
The only bias I encounter is from the Hitler bashing crowd and the unthinking robot-like individuals who repeat everything without question.
Truth is not subjective, unless you are an author attempting to write about a topic but don't include the important facts central to the story, or simply lie about them. Those books sell well, but so does toilet paper, which is all most 'WW2 history' books are good for.
 
Credible sources you say?, meaning that any historian I'd care to mention wouldn't, in your opinion, cut the mustard because of 'bias'. Truly hilarious. Revisionists are the current era heretics.
So I take it the historians you deem to be the only persons with accurate knowledge must have had first hand experiences and were writing only from memory, not citing people 'generations removed from events'?, how do 'credible' historians manage to write volumes on the French Revolution then?, are they hundreds of years old or do they cite people generations removed from ours?
The only bias I encounter is from the Hitler bashing crowd and the unthinking robot-like individuals who repeat everything without question.
Truth is not subjective, unless you are an author attempting to write about a topic but don't include the important facts central to the story, or simply lie about them. Those books sell well, but so does toilet paper, which is all most 'WW2 history' books are good for.

You don’t seek truth. You seek affirmation of a belief that history has “railroaded” Adolph Hitler, and everyone else is wrong about him.

Give me 10 minutes and I can post a good looking web page that says Charles Manson took in stray kittens, was a member of a church choir as a youth, was the lead singer on Louie Louie and restored a 300 F in his spare time.

Somebody will believe it because they want to and because it’s on the Internet it’s “true”.
 
Last edited:
If you follow the debate between revisionist and main stream historians you will see many examples where the two sides are not very far apart. For example Hugh Trevor-Roper maintains that Hitler genuinely held anti-Semitic beliefs and wasn't using the Jews as a scapegoat. George Steiner's theme was that whatever Hitler did he learned from the Jews i.e. the Chosen People. How far is this from David Irving's admonition that the Jews must look in the mirror to discover why a Hitler emerged? Where they seriously part company is their depiction of the Nazis as evil or not. In my view genocide for whatever motive is the worst evil and no one should lament the demise of any regime that implemented the Final Solution. WW2 was as much a war against Jews as it was a military conflict between Axis and Allies. However it seems the current crop of main stream historians have a hard time addressing the root cause of the rise of National Socialism which doesn't bode well for the future.
 
If you follow the debate between revisionist and main stream historians you will see many examples where the two sides are not very far apart. For example Hugh Trevor-Roper maintains that Hitler genuinely held anti-Semitic beliefs and wasn't using the Jews as a scapegoat. George Steiner's theme was that whatever Hitler did he learned from the Jews i.e. the Chosen People. How far is this from David Irving's admonition that the Jews must look in the mirror to discover why a Hitler emerged? Where they seriously part company is their depiction of the Nazis as evil or not. In my view genocide for whatever motive is the worst evil and no one should lament the demise of any regime that implemented the Final Solution. WW2 was as much a war against Jews as it was a military conflict between Axis and Allies. However it seems the current crop of main stream historians have a hard time addressing the root cause of the rise of National Socialism which doesn't bode well for the future.
National Socialism was the only serious challenger to Jewish influence and power, mainly political and financial, but not restricted to just those areas. Social decay through moral degeneracy (pornography for example), and as a result, a reluctance to adhere to the basic principals of Christianity, was then as is today a problem in Western nations. No second prizes for guessing who were strong promoters of this 'anything goes' mentality, but for the consumption of Europeans, not themselves (much like we see Jewish people demanding mass immigration into Western nations -the US 1965 Immigration Act is just one example- while they tell us that Israel cannot take in refugees because that would impact their homogeneity!).
Hitler did indeed hold anti-Semitic views, but only because he understood that the Jewish race (and before someone says that they are a religious group, remember that if a person anywhere in the world can prove Jewish ancestry through DNA tests, he/she will be granted citizenship of Israel) was and still is an adversary to Western Civilization.
The entire house of cards rests on the 'Final Solution', a false doctrine so harmful to the West that its implications are indeed very serious. From Wikipedia: Genocide is intentional action to destroy a people (usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group) in whole or in part. The hybrid word "genocide" is a combination of the Greek word génos ("race, people") and the Latin suffix -cide ("act of killing").[1] The United Nations Genocide Convention, which was established in 1948, defines genocide as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group". Read that sentence and then think how much the West has changed in its racial make up since 1965. China hasn't changed, Japan hasn't, India hasn't, much of Africa hasn't changed either, neither has the Middle East, strange coincidence.
Hitler did want Jews physically gone from Europe, hence the Haavara Transfer Agreement, but on the other hand, according to historians, as many as 150,000 people of Jewish descent fought for Germany during WW2, some of whom were high ranking officers in the German military. This fact alone should be sufficient to question the official narrative concerning the so-called 'Final Solution'. And as meticulous as the Germans were in keeping records and after decades of searching, not one document has been found to lend any credibility to the story. In actual fact, the number of deaths at Auschwitz has been revised a number of times, from 4 million down to 1.1 million as it stands right now, unless it's been revised again (?), yet the 6 million figure is quoted in spite of this. The 6 million figure has been part of the narrative since the late 1800s, this is an important factor (Jewish prophecies in the Torah require that 6 million Jews must 'vanish in burning ovens' before the State of Israel can be formed) which ultimately led to the creation of the Israeli State.
There's good and bad in all races, Zionism is bad not just for the rest of the world, but for Jews themselves who are being dragged down with that destructive ideology.
 
not one document has been found to lend any credibility to the story.
If you studied this history you know full well Hitler maintained plausible deniability throughout his tenure by issuing verbal orders. It was often left to Bormann to convey the Fuhrer's direction. In this case it came through Himmler. David Irving was very proud of himself on revealing Eichmann's memoirs until he found numerous references to the Hitler order he originally received from Reinhard Heydrich in 1941.
 
Last edited:
If you studied this history you know full well Hitler maintained plausible deniability throughout his tenure by issuing verbal orders. It was often left to Bormann to convey the Fuhrer's direction. In this case it came through Himmler. David Irving was very proud of himself on revealing Eichmann's memoirs until he found numerous references to the Hitler order he originally received from Reinhard Heydrich in 1941.
Where is the physical evidence?
 
And there you have it, the accusations which are typical of people on the left of the political spectrum.

In that case, everything I've read and watched, by your standards, is politically incorrect and you wouldn't accept any of it. Ignorance is bliss.

So you can automatically separate the 'mumbo jumbo' from the gospels of history, right?

Translation: I've got no citations in the disciplines mentioned besides I wouldn't accept them. Very convenient and typical excuse used by those who have nothing. What are you afraid of? Can't find anything in all the various journals published in this world that are peered reviewed in biology, genetics, anthropology and archeology. Do you know what peered reviewed means? Probably not.

At least you expose yourself for what you are with using the throw out term "left." Being centrist I don't like the left nor the right. Both have big fat mouths. My concern is that the far right (you) are much more dangerous to this country than the far left who would never get any traction. There are far more people in this country who feel positive towards white supremacy and any leader who expouses such past or present.
 
Disneyland would be a better place to visit if one likes fairy tales.

Feeling cudley and warm now...
Con_camp_02.jpg
Con_camp_01.jpg
Con_camp_03.jpg
Con_camp_04.jpg
 
If you scratch the surface and are really interested in science and objective history it quickly becomes apparent that the corporate media line is treating the public like mushrooms. Once you become aware of this you will start to ask why. Here is an example.

He is a quack at best and certainly no scientist who has done any quality research into the subject in his life. On top of that he seems to be taking on Charles Murray's view of IQ and the races. I know Charles Murray has no scientific facts to back him up other than his self proclaimed beliefs. When he tries to use science he twists the conclusions to match his beliefs. His MO, since he has no scientific evidence to back him up, is to use a very typical deception. Knowing that science doesn't deal in absolute negatives he says that at "least some" of the differences among racial groups is due to genetics and ask science to prove it is none. Since that is not possible to prove not true he can then claim he is right even if it might only be 5% true at best. Some might call his into question his IQ.
 
I know Charles Murray has no scientific facts to back him up other than his self proclaimed beliefs.
Really? This seems like an oddly subjective comment for someone who claims to take a centrist position. Racial IQ differences are a scientific fact. The real debate is around nature vs nurture with the nurture side wrapping themselves in the PC flag. What Harris is saying is that there is a great deal of scientific evidence for differences based on heredity and that the debate should continue and not be shut down because it happens to offend snowflake sensibilities.
 
Translation: I've got no citations in the disciplines mentioned besides I wouldn't accept them. Very convenient and typical excuse used by those who have nothing. What are you afraid of? Can't find anything in all the various journals published in this world that are peered reviewed in biology, genetics, anthropology and archeology. Do you know what peered reviewed means? Probably not.

At least you expose yourself for what you are with using the throw out term "left." Being centrist I don't like the left nor the right. Both have big fat mouths. My concern is that the far right (you) are much more dangerous to this country than the far left who would never get any traction. There are far more people in this country who feel positive towards white supremacy and any leader who expouses such past or present.
There you go making assumptions again, and I get the feeling I've touched a nerve.
It really isn't worth my time to discuss anything with a person who may very well have high levels of estrogen in their system. At least those on the left and right have a clear understanding on what they are fighting (sometimes literally) for, centrists however, with their perceived moral superiority, do nothing but tell the world just how much better than everyone else they are, but here's the kicker: no one cares about fence sitters.
Take a chill pill, you'll live longer.
By the way, I'm hoping to win the lottery so I can buy the Mercedes, I'll even invite you for a ride in it, despite our different opinions :D
 
I didn't want you gents to think I'd checked out on this, but Adolf's early 1930s motivations aren't worth the calorie burn for me. While winners write the history books, I haven't heard anything here so credible that moves a needle for me. But I will comment on this...

My concern is that the far right (you) are much more dangerous to this country than the far left who would never get any traction. There are far more people in this country who feel positive towards white supremacy and any leader who expouses such past or present.

For one thing, the "left" gets traction like a Mickey Thompson slick. While the owners of conglomerate media groups might be rich crony-capitalistic bastards (aka socialists) they've destroyed both "white" and minority nuclear families with an ever-more degenerate pop culture. Or did I not just hear a sit-com mom joking about smuggled pot smelling like a man's "balls" last night on CBS? Even a decade ago, that wouldn't have flown.

(*edit, I feel compelled to mention I don't watch this mindless garbage, I pressed the wrong button and forgot to change it fast enough)

...and yes, this leftist sewage has a very real effect on society. Leaving the almighty state to "fix" the wreckage and take advantage of a dependent moron population.

As to your second point, do you have some "peer reviewed" data that says the "There are far more people in this country who feel positive towards white supremacy..."? Because that's a hell of an insult to lay on an entire nation. Especially one who elected a self-proclaimed black President twice. Or one that has numorous people of color in postions of real power in both major parties. (I imagine the ones who don't tout the leftist line "don't count".)

One reason I don't find IQ superiority arguments particularly compelling is because I believe in individual human rights. If X groups can be shown to have low scores, it doesn't mean anything as long as some portion of that group can excel over the control group; which is always the case.

It might blow your mind to think I was watching Kennedy Center honors LL Cool J this week and it got me thinking how whitey's materialistic culture has turned "hip hop" into nothing more than glorification of tennis shoes, chrome rims, guns, and violence... which is not what it started out as. Yep, one shallow-thinking klan member here. I'll point that out to my middle-class black friends next time we discuss that very topic... which is fairly often believe it or not, lol.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top