New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

SNOPES

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
1. Yes, Hitler and Mussolini came to power in the midst of the depression..before FDR was sworn in. When Hitler came to power the unemployment rate was 35%.

2. Germany's recovery happened before that of the US. Hitler had absolute power by 1934 when Hindenburg died.

Now we see who the real Hitler admirer is here - you! So you think Hitler "fixed" the German economy with his centrally planned socialist economic policies? I'm not surprised - the left will jump into bed with any murderous despot who helps them advance their agenda.

Hitler's "economic miracle" was a sham. He simply conscripted the unemployed into the military and public works force. And, of course, he used military Keynesianism to bolster German industry. Then, in order to increase the markets for German goods, he started taking over neighboring countries. As you point out, it did bring down "unemployment" and it also increased GDP, but German workers continued to suffer under his wage and price controls (and rationing). This is not the kind of consumption boosting "prosperity" that engenders economic optimism and a satisfied, peace seeking population. The way Hitler achieved his "economic miracle" was by ruthlessly maintaining his citizens' long term suffering and he used it by channeling their growing frustrations into a national rage aimed at foreigners (and, of course, immigrants).

But thanks for admitting that you, rather than me, is the one real Hitler fan in this discussion. I hope our loyal readers take particular note of that...
 
Now we see who the real Hitler admirer is here - you! So you think Hitler "fixed" the German economy with his centrally planned socialist economic policies? I'm not surprised - the left will jump into bed with any murderous despot who helps them advance their agenda.

Hitler's "economic miracle" was a sham. He simply conscripted the unemployed into the military and public works force. And, of course, he used military Keynesianism to bolster German industry. Then, in order to increase the markets for German goods, he started taking over neighboring countries. As you point out, it did bring down "unemployment" and it also increased GDP, but German workers continued to suffer under his wage and price controls (and rationing). This is not the kind of consumption boosting "prosperity" that engenders economic optimism and a satisfied, peace seeking population. The way Hitler achieved his "economic miracle" was by ruthlessly maintaining his citizens' long term suffering and he used it by channeling their growing frustrations into a national rage aimed at foreigners (and, of course, immigrants).

But thanks for admitting that you, rather than me, is the one real Hitler fan in this discussion. I hope our loyal readers take particular note of that...
Inflation was in the thousands - people were starving. Government printing their own interest free money for bowling around in country was a solution that worked. Who knows where it would have lead to? The Bankers didn't want to risk that where to - so they declared war on Germany, and that was the end of that - the world became the slave of the Dollar... forever and ever until civil war breaks out ............ anytime now, I would say.

The Reich retook German territory full of ethnic Germans who wanted to, chose to, be reunited with Germany.

After war was declared the countries taken were strategy of war - which Germany would have left at any point if the war was called off.
 
Last edited:

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Now we see who the real Hitler admirer is here - you! So you think Hitler "fixed" the German economy with his centrally planned socialist economic policies? I'm not surprised - the left will jump into bed with any murderous despot who helps them advance their agenda.

Hitler's "economic miracle" was a sham. He simply conscripted the unemployed into the military and public works force. And, of course, he used military Keynesianism to bolster German industry. Then, in order to increase the markets for German goods, he started taking over neighboring countries. As you point out, it did bring down "unemployment" and it also increased GDP, but German workers continued to suffer under his wage and price controls (and rationing). This is not the kind of consumption boosting "prosperity" that engenders economic optimism and a satisfied, peace seeking population. The way Hitler achieved his "economic miracle" was by ruthlessly maintaining his citizens' long term suffering and he used it by channeling their growing frustrations into a national rage aimed at foreigners (and, of course, immigrants).

But thanks for admitting that you, rather than me, is the one real Hitler fan in this discussion. I hope our loyal readers take particular note of that...
You've descended to a level of dishonesty that I didn't expect. Find the post of mine that expresses admiration for him. You are the one who blames our own president for Hitler being able to "consolidate" his power...which is simply an idiotic claim.

You claimed that FDR, who came into power in 1933, made the depression worse...which is false if unemployment is any measure of the economic suffering in a population. If the depression worsening is a factor in what happened in Germany after 1933 the graph on German unemployment proves you wrong....the German economy was improving rapidly.
You quickly dodge into your standard rant about central planning...which isn't the issue at all....

Hitler's popularity gained because his policies made things better for the average worker. He had the support of bankers and industrialists.

If you wanted to complain about FDR then it would make more sense to say he should have done something to build an alliance in 1935 when it became clear that Hitler's military capability and ambitions were going to be a problem that the west would have to confront eventually. If he had done that he probably would not have been reelected in 1936.
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
Splitting hairs aren't you? You claimed Hitler became more powerful after FDR's policies took effect. The truth is that FDR's policies had nothing at all to do with Hitler's rise to power in 1932 and his assumption of absolute power when Hindenburg died.

You want to dance around the issues of the day, including isolationism...as if FDR was responsible for that. You are usually somewhat coherent. Now you are desperately trying to defend an incredibly stupid post. Just admit you were wrong and move on.
Throughout the 1930s, Hitler surfed the economic angst of the day (yes, and the isolationism, which FDR did little to reverse) to ever higher reaches of international power. I never said FDR's failed economic policies were responsible for Hitler's "rise to power." I did say (and supported) that he continued to gain power, and used it to create the conditions that led to WWII, largely as a result of the ongoing economic weakness, which resulted from FDR's failed economic agenda. That is the "issue" here, and the one "dancing around" it, is you.
 
You've descended to a level of dishonesty that I didn't expect. Find the post of mine that expresses admiration for him. You are the one who blames our own president for Hitler being able to "consolidate" his power...which is simply an idiotic claim.

You claimed that FDR, who came into power in 1933, made the depression worse...which is false if unemployment is any measure of the economic suffering in a population. If the depression worsening is a factor in what happened in Germany after 1933 the graph on German unemployment proves you wrong....the German economy was improving rapidly.
You quickly dodge into your standard rant about central planning...which isn't the issue at all....

Hitler's popularity gained because his policies made things better for the average worker. He had the support of bankers and industrialists.

If you wanted to complain about FDR then it would make more sense to say he should have done something to build an alliance in 1935 when it became clear that Hitler's military capability and ambitions were going to be a problem that the west would have to confront eventually. If he had done that he probably would not have been reelected in 1936.
Hitler fu'cked them all by basically going back to barter -------- when you look at it, that is, when stumped, exactly what he did.

His popularity gained because he loved his people - as in return they loved him. He died owning Honey's dog house - nothing else.

He had the first eco land and animal rights laws, the first anti smoking motivation - everything was based on the equality and worth of everyone's input - and right to a decent life. Romantic notions but he very nearly achieved them
 
Last edited:

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
You've descended to a level of dishonesty that I didn't expect. Find the post of mine that expresses admiration for him. You are the one who blames our own president for Hitler being able to "consolidate" his power...which is simply an idiotic claim.

You claimed that FDR, who came into power in 1933, made the depression worse...which is false if unemployment is any measure of the economic suffering in a population. If the depression worsening is a factor in what happened in Germany after 1933 the graph on German unemployment proves you wrong....the German economy was improving rapidly.
You quickly dodge into your standard rant about central planning...which isn't the issue at all....

Hitler's popularity gained because his policies made things better for the average worker. He had the support of bankers and industrialists.

If you wanted to complain about FDR then it would make more sense to say he should have done something to build an alliance in 1935 when it became clear that Hitler's military capability and ambitions were going to be a problem that the west would have to confront eventually. If he had done that he probably would not have been reelected in 1936.
You praised him for his "successful" economic policies (which marks you as a fan, for good or ill); and which, as I pointed out, weren't as "successful" as the economic statistics you cited would indicate. We get the exact same sort of praise for FDR from the left regarding the economy's performance under his failed economic agenda. But the statistics don't tell the whole story. Government spending, and jobs programs (including military conscription), will have the appearance of a beneficial effect on the economy. But people aren't stupid. And they aren't fooled by the "official" economic statistics, when they and their neighbors and their relatives are clinging to a meager existence only through these kinds of unsustainable government interventions in the economy. Which is why the 30s is referred to as the "great Depression" and most Americans still believe that there has been no recovery after the 2008 downturn, despite the economic statistics indicating growth and increased employment levels during both periods.

As for Hitler's power, did he or didn't he continue to gain power after he took over as Chancellor? I'll answer for you because the facts are clear - yes he did. And he used the German people's economic angst in order to do so, including through their support for his (later) aggressive moves on neighboring countries. You don't get to a megalomaniacal level of power overnight. You want us to believe his power was static after he became Chancellor, which is absurd. He continued to consolidate and grow his power after taking over as Chancellor, and didn't become "The Fuher" until late 1934 - and had not yet as of then made any effort to begin putting militarization into overdrive, start conscripting men to serve in the armed forces, or make any aggressive moves on neighboring countries. The fact is that people who are economically secure (and happy) don't support warmongers. It's THAT part of Hitler's rise that I'm blaming on the bad 1930s global economy, which is what ultimately caused WWII, and arguably resulted from FDR's failed economic agenda. It is what it is.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Throughout the 1930s, Hitler surfed the economic angst of the day (yes, and the isolationism, which FDR did little to reverse) to ever higher reaches of international power. I never said FDR's failed economic policies were responsible for Hitler's "rise to power." I did say (and supported) that he continued to gain power, and used it to create the conditions that led to WWII, largely as a result of the ongoing economic weakness, which resulted from FDR's failed economic agenda. That is the "issue" here, and the one "dancing around" it, is you.
Your argument is lame at best. US foreign trade was miniscule. He signed a bill in 1934 to take care of the Smoot Hawley tariffs. The US economy (and the world) got worse until 1933. All countries were improving after that. Japan was practically unaffected by the depression and yet decided to invade China. Italy had been in depression since the end of WWI. Spain had a civil war and had fallen into fascism in 1936 with the help of the Nazis.

The economy of the US had nothing at all to do with Germany's progress towards war.
The Reichstag fire was in February 1933...30 days after Hitler came to power. He outlawed political parties other than the Nazi party in mid 1933. Hitler killed off the more socialist leaders of the Nazi party in the "Night of the Long Knives" in June of 1934. That was his consolidation of power. What would an improving US economy have done to prevent that?
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Hitler fu'cked them all by basically going back to barter -------- when you look at it, that is, when stumped, exactly what he did.

His popularity gained because he loved his people - as in return they loved him. He died owning Honey's dog house - nothing else.

He had the first eco land and animal rights laws, the first anti smoking motivation - everything was based on the equality and worth of everyone's input - and right to a decent life. Romantic notions but he very nearly achieved them
The right to a decent life didn't extend to Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals or even Jehovah's Witnesses. Life was miserable for the people in occupied countries as the Germans looted their countries.
 
The right to a decent life didn't extend to Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals or even Jehovah's Witnesses. Life was miserable for the people in occupied countries as the Germans looted their countries.
The Transfer Agreement was on going and no Jew was interned until after war had been declared.... with the intent of resettlement as the 'final solution'. Homoexuality was an illegal sin in most Western lands. Gypsies were and are an especial problem in parts of Eastern Europe - New camps were still being built for them at wars end.

Life is miserable if living within the theater of war? Oh gosh! ---- you come out with the most ridiculous statements sometimes.

Britain and France declared war on Germany ------- please remember who actually started that war............. and before your start - Poland attacked Germany on 44 points of their border - Germany did not attack Poland first - nor was Germany killing, maiming and chucking ethnic minorities onto the street - nor machine gunning them down as they ran for the border.
 
Last edited:

middleview

President
Supporting Member
You praised him for his "successful" economic policies (which marks you as a fan, for good or ill); and which, as I pointed out, weren't as "successful" as the economic statistics you cited would indicate. We get the exact same sort of praise for FDR from the left regarding the economy's performance under his failed economic agenda. But the statistics don't tell the whole story. Government spending, and jobs programs (including military conscription), will have the appearance of a beneficial effect on the economy. But people aren't stupid. And they aren't fooled by the "official" economic statistics, when they and their neighbors and their relatives are clinging to a meager existence only through these kinds of unsustainable government interventions in the economy. Which is why the 30s is referred to as the "great Depression" and most Americans still believe that there has been no recovery after the 2008 downturn, despite the economic statistics indicating growth and increased employment levels during both periods.

As for Hitler's power, did he or didn't he continue to gain power after he took over as Chancellor? I'll answer for you because the facts are clear - yes he did. And he used the German people's economic angst in order to do so, including through their support for his (later) aggressive moves on neighboring countries. You don't get to a megalomaniacal level of power overnight. You want us to believe his power was static after he became Chancellor, which is absurd. He continued to consolidate and grow his power after taking over as Chancellor, and didn't become "The Fuher" until late 1934 - and had not yet as of then made any effort to begin putting militarization into overdrive, start conscripting men to serve in the armed forces, or make any aggressive moves on neighboring countries. The fact is that people who are economically secure (and happy) don't support warmongers. It's THAT part of Hitler's rise that I'm blaming on the bad 1930s global economy, which is what ultimately caused WWII, and arguably resulted from FDR's failed economic agenda. It is what it is.
Stating the facts is not praise any more than being dishonest makes your argument any more factual. Did I post anything that you can actually claim to be false? No.

You now think that FDR, who took office in March of 1933 could have done something to have turned the world economy around by mid 1933 when Hitler outlawed political parties.
Hitler was in control of Germany by the end of 1933 and was unchallenged after the Night of the Long Knives.

Hitler had overwhelming support from the German people. Nothing FDR would have or could have done would change that.

What I find amusing is when you contradict your own posts. I showed the statistics related to German unemployment and the rate declined as of mid-1933, yet you argue that was in part because of conscription...but then you argue that he didn't start his military buildup until 1935....make up your mind.

Hitler's propaganda campaign which started when he annexed Austria and the western part of Czechoslovakia was only successful because the west didn't stand up to him. The people who were not 100% supportive of the Nazis and worried about war were pro-Hitler after his successes. He had Germans convinced that Poland attacked Germany.

Your looney opinion that FDR could have simply done nothing and that would have averted WWII is amazing.
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
Your argument is lame at best. US foreign trade was miniscule. He signed a bill in 1934 to take care of the Smoot Hawley tariffs. The US economy (and the world) got worse until 1933. All countries were improving after that. Japan was practically unaffected by the depression and yet decided to invade China. Italy had been in depression since the end of WWI. Spain had a civil war and had fallen into fascism in 1936 with the help of the Nazis.

The economy of the US had nothing at all to do with Germany's progress towards war.
The Reichstag fire was in February 1933...30 days after Hitler came to power. He outlawed political parties other than the Nazi party in mid 1933. Hitler killed off the more socialist leaders of the Nazi party in the "Night of the Long Knives" in June of 1934. That was his consolidation of power. What would an improving US economy have done to prevent that?
The US economy had everything to do with the global economy, which it dominated, even with "minuscule" levels of international trade. And the global economy had much to do with Hitler's agenda, after he took over as "Fuhrer." The idea that Hitler didn't continue to consolidate and, in fact, increase his power (both at home and internationally), after he (initially) came to power in 1933, is absurd.
 
Stating the facts is not praise any more than being dishonest makes your argument any more factual. Did I post anything that you can actually claim to be false? No.

You now think that FDR, who took office in March of 1933 could have done something to have turned the world economy around by mid 1933 when Hitler outlawed political parties.
Hitler was in control of Germany by the end of 1933 and was unchallenged after the Night of the Long Knives.

Hitler had overwhelming support from the German people. Nothing FDR would have or could have done would change that.

What I find amusing is when you contradict your own posts. I showed the statistics related to German unemployment and the rate declined as of mid-1933, yet you argue that was in part because of conscription...but then you argue that he didn't start his military buildup until 1935....make up your mind.

Hitler's propaganda campaign which started when he annexed Austria and the western part of Czechoslovakia was only successful because the west didn't stand up to him. The people who were not 100% supportive of the Nazis and worried about war were pro-Hitler after his successes. He had Germans convinced that Poland attacked Germany.

Your looney opinion that FDR could have simply done nothing and that would have averted WWII is amazing.
As the German army marched into Austria - the Austrian army marched into Germany - and flowers were thrown on all soldiers from either side in welcome.

Czechoslovakia was a made up land and the part reunited with Germany was German.

Poland! Again, through Versaille Germany was cut off from its port because the UN had given a swathe of Germany to the fu'cking Poles ( the most troublesome peoples of Europe) - the Poles refused the Germans access to their port, using their own railway, insisting on a huge tariff which Germany could not pay. The Poles were also mistreating all ethnic minorities ( Jews, Ukrainians, Germans) horrendously.

The Germans pleaded with the UN - pleas where thrown in the draws unread - to do something about the monstrous mistreatment of non Poles under their protection - multiple times the Germans pleaded, multiple times they went unheaded. Germany tried to make terms with the Poles - FDR told the Poles to ignore them - so FDR became the go between - the last deal the Germans proposed the Poles never received - Plus FDR promised that the French would save them if Germany really attacked - ( how he sold them that one is anybodies guess) - situation worsened - Hitler said if you don't, to the UN, we must- he did ------------- the rest is history ( mostly falsely told) -
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
Stating the facts is not praise any more than being dishonest makes your argument any more factual. Did I post anything that you can actually claim to be false? No.

You now think that FDR, who took office in March of 1933 could have done something to have turned the world economy around by mid 1933 when Hitler outlawed political parties.
Hitler was in control of Germany by the end of 1933 and was unchallenged after the Night of the Long Knives.

Hitler had overwhelming support from the German people. Nothing FDR would have or could have done would change that.

What I find amusing is when you contradict your own posts. I showed the statistics related to German unemployment and the rate declined as of mid-1933, yet you argue that was in part because of conscription...but then you argue that he didn't start his military buildup until 1935....make up your mind.

Hitler's propaganda campaign which started when he annexed Austria and the western part of Czechoslovakia was only successful because the west didn't stand up to him. The people who were not 100% supportive of the Nazis and worried about war were pro-Hitler after his successes. He had Germans convinced that Poland attacked Germany.

Your looney opinion that FDR could have simply done nothing and that would have averted WWII is amazing.
You (mis) characterized the "facts" as an indication that the German economy was in some sort of massive economic expansion. Maybe you didn't mean to "praise" Hitler for his economic "success," so I'll just have to take your word for that. So do we agree that Hitler's economic policies weren't really all that successful, and only appeared so because his government spending and public works programs (which were in place before 1935) made the statistics move in a way that falsely implied a recovery. Or are you saying that Hitler's (Keynesian) economic policies did, in fact, create an economic recovery?
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
The Transfer Agreement was on going and no Jew was interned until after war had been declared.... with the intent of resettlement as the 'final solution'. Homoexuality was an illegal sin in most Western lands. Gypsies were and are an especial problem in parts of Eastern Europe - New camps were still being built for them at wars end.

Life is miserable if living within the theater of war? Oh gosh! ---- you come out with the most ridiculous statements sometimes.

Britain and France declared war on Germany ------- please remember who actually started that war............. and before your start - Poland attacked Germany on 44 points of their border - Germany did not attack Poland first - nor was Germany killing, maiming and chucking ethnic minorities onto the street - nor machine gunning them down as they ran for the border.
Your version of history is remarkably false. Germany occupied and looted Holland, France and other occupied countries. Malnourishment was a problem in areas where the crops were stolen and shipped to Germany.

Germany pulled false flag attacks and then invaded Poland. It is moronic to think that Germany was attacked and the next day had 40 divisions and 2,000 tanks on the border ready to attack and that Poland, the supposed aggressor, was not prepared to defend their country. The war started with the invasion of Poland.

Kristallnacht was in 1938, before the war started. The Nuremburg laws were passed in 1935.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
You (mis) characterized the "facts" as an indication that the German economy was in some sort of massive economic expansion. Maybe you didn't mean to "praise" Hitler for his economic "success," so I'll just have to take your word for that. So do we agree that Hitler's economic policies weren't really all that successful, and only appeared so because his government spending and public works programs (which were in place before 1935) made the statistics move in a way that falsely implied a recovery. Or are you saying that Hitler's (Keynesian) economic policies did, in fact, create an economic recovery?
In the days before modern media, when government could easily control the information people were able to access....the German people saw that unemployment was improving. People had jobs again. They didn't argue about the national debt...they didn't know what it was or that it was growing. They saw western governments back down, repeatedly, in the face of a very aggressive and nationalistic leader. Yes, they saw Hitler and the Nazis as a success. Hitler's military buildup had reached the point where he sent troops, tanks and planes to Spain in 1936 to get practice for war.

You want to argue economic theory....but that is pretty far from your original attempt to blame FDR for WWII. Mein Kampf centered around the idea that Germany could expel the Jews and conquer the lesser peoples of Europe. He implemented the very program that was the core of that book.
 
Your version of history is remarkably false. Germany occupied and looted Holland, France and other occupied countries. Malnourishment was a problem in areas where the crops were stolen and shipped to Germany.

Germany pulled false flag attacks and then invaded Poland. It is moronic to think that Germany was attacked and the next day had 40 divisions and 2,000 tanks on the border ready to attack and that Poland, the supposed aggressor, was not prepared to defend their country. The war started with the invasion of Poland.

Kristallnacht was in 1938, before the war started. The Nuremburg laws were passed in 1935.
How well were the Germans eating? How well were my own people eating? War does that - it rations food -

Bull shit.

The Zionists had just killed their Peace Ambassador - one night, which now seems to have been a misunderstood order, of damage after what the Germans perceived that the Jews had done to them? My God if that had been America, no jew would have been left standing -


I leave you with Benjamin Freedman - again. An ex Jew who was at Versailles .......

 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
How well were the Germans eating? How well were my own people eating? War does that - it rations food -

Bull shit.

The Zionists had just killed their Peace Ambassador - one night, which now seems to have been a misunderstood order, of damage after what the Germans perceived that the Jews had done to them? My God if that had been America, no jew would have been left standing -


I leave you with Benjamin Freedman - again. An ex Jew who was at Versailles .......

Germans were eating quite well until 1944. Yes there was rationing, but it was far more generous than in the occupied countries.

One of the conditions of the armistice was to pay the costs of the 300,000-strong occupying German army, which amounted to 20 million Reichsmark per day. The artificial exchange rate of the German currency against the French franc was consequently established as 1 RM to 20 FF.[14] This allowed German requisitions and purchases to be made into a form of organised plunder and resulted in endemic food shortages and malnutrition, particularly amongst children, the elderly, and the more vulnerable sections of French society such as the working urban class of the cities.

Add to that the fact that Germany kept over a million French soldiers prisoner and used them as forced labor even years after the French had surrendered.

I don't know what you are referring to as a "Peace Ambassador"...When did the president of the United States ever order riots aimed at some class of American citizen? Nothing that has ever happened in the United States matches the violence the Nazis visited on the Jews.

Your attempt to justify the slaughter of the Jews is funny. I posted that the actions of the Russians was revenge for the millions of Russians killed by the Germans...not that it was justified. You are here excusing the holocaust because of the murder of some ambassador?
 
Germans were eating quite well until 1944. Yes there was rationing, but it was far more generous than in the occupied countries.

One of the conditions of the armistice was to pay the costs of the 300,000-strong occupying German army, which amounted to 20 million Reichsmark per day. The artificial exchange rate of the German currency against the French franc was consequently established as 1 RM to 20 FF.[14] This allowed German requisitions and purchases to be made into a form of organised plunder and resulted in endemic food shortages and malnutrition, particularly amongst children, the elderly, and the more vulnerable sections of French society such as the working urban class of the cities.

Add to that the fact that Germany kept over a million French soldiers prisoner and used them as forced labor even years after the French had surrendered.

I don't know what you are referring to as a "Peace Ambassador"...When did the president of the United States ever order riots aimed at some class of American citizen? Nothing that has ever happened in the United States matches the violence the Nazis visited on the Jews.

Your attempt to justify the slaughter of the Jews is funny. I posted that the actions of the Russians was revenge for the millions of Russians killed by the Germans...not that it was justified. You are here excusing the holocaust because of the murder of some ambassador?
No one ordered riots - the actual message was misunderstood in a version of Chinese whispers -- - by a misunderstanding in communications, it happened once, it was never routine.

As did Britain as did the US after WWII ---- Germany had a legal right to hold those prisoners.

I try to justify nothing --- I right the falsities in the victors propaganda.
 
Last edited:

middleview

President
Supporting Member
No one ordered riots - the actual message was misunderstood in a version of Chinese whispers -- - by a misunderstanding in communications, it happened once, it was never routine.

As did Britain as did the US after WWII ---- Germany had a legal right to hold those prisoners.

I try to justify nothing --- I right the falsities in the victors propaganda.
There was certainly an order to organize the riot as well as an order not to interfere.

German POWs were not held by the US for five years after the surrender of Germany unless they were accused of war crimes.

France and Britain did hold German POWs longer than the US did and used those prisoners to help clear debris from bombed areas. The Russians released the last of their German pows in 1953. The US released most prisoners in 1946 and the last in January 1947.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
No one ordered riots - the actual message was misunderstood in a version of Chinese whispers -- - by a misunderstanding in communications, it happened once, it was never routine.

I try to justify nothing --- I right the falsities in the victors propaganda.
Perhaps you can explain the fact that the police and fire departments did nothing to interfere with the rioters or to put out the burning Jewish shops and synagogues. 100 Jews killed by the rioters and a fine of $400 million levied against Jewish businesses to pay for the cleanup... Then there is the small matter of 30,000 Jews rounded up and sent to Dachau, Buchenwald and Sachsenhausen.
 
Top