That's not correct. The jews declared war upon Germany in 1933, not the other way around. Hitler did everything he could to abstain from warfare. England and France were the main aggressors. Every single instance that was lambasted in the press from the late 1930s was all judaically warped and twisted to suit the "aggressor" narrative. This is your bias and not something historical, otherwise I would ask you where you're getting these sentiments from. I have to reply to this, not just for you, but because I am seeing these exact statements, word for word sometimes, other times in a permutation of what you have said, yet all of them defy the facts.
In the 'Christianity and Race' thread you said he was weak for not wiping out talmudic England, here he's fighting a war against the jews. If he was fighting a war against the jews, he would have made an attempt to wipe out talmudic England. He had no such desire. France was just as judaized and talmudic, yet they did not get wiped out, and a huge number of Frenchmen joined the Axis cause in defense of Europe. The French and the Walloon were more ardent than many other nationalities on the Axis side about the true purpose of the war: to keep communism out of Europe and for it to remain Christian. That is why after all the Germans surrendered, the French and Belgian divisions of the Waffen SS fought the Soviet hordes in Berlin to the last man. The jewish element had to be contained, and not cemented in European governance. There were many documents for homeland for the jews. As ridiculous as it sounds, the Madagascar plan was logistically developed but had to be scrapped after 1941, wherein the Pale of Settlement was then proposed, once more, hence the great move of the jews eastward.
In that thread you also state he was clever and smart, yet here he's a complete idiot. Which one is it? I see this back and forth of extreme opinion from plenty of people who claim to know the politics, the logistics, and the context of spiritual matters of that time. These sentiments are even in much of the post-WW2 literature that the narrative allows because its so confusing and could never lead anyone to the truth.
Also, what other reasons do men need "not" to take lives? You're posing a "damned if they do, damned if they don't" scenario. Would Tsar Nicolas II and Hitler have been better Christians if they slaughtered all the jews in their territories? Or all of their ethnic brethren who were under the control of the jews? That seems to be what you're implying here. The Soviet political movement was "successful" for 74 years and it was the most anti-Christian movement on earth since Nero's reign.
I implore you to read more on the truth of World War Two. I encourage you to read more about Hitler from sources that are not goyed, but it's going to be difficult to overcome your a priori bias. If you are only using theological stances to purport a view of history, then you are missing out on much. People like EMJ do this, and this is a source of contention between Catholic historians. People like EMJ are significantly misinformed and misaligned because they are not historians, only questionable theological historians.
Churchill was an unknown freemason politician who was bought and paid for to agitate for war with Germany from 1938 onwards because David Lloyd George and Neville Chamberlain wouldn't. FDR was the same, and his financiers were responsible for Huey Long's death. Stalin proved to be against all Europe when Operation Thunder became known.
This is not correct. The claim that the German Army, or even the Axis coalition combined, was twice the size can be disproved with simple demographics. The Soviet forces alone outnumbered every other belligerent, they had over 20 million combatants. The United States had over 16 million men down on their luck from FDR's new steal, England had between 4 and a half to 5 million, and France had between 2 and a half to 3 million. The Germans had over 10 million men, but the exact numbers are lost when looking into the citizenship status of each man. Germans from Mexico and Argentina and other countries joined but were only de facto "German" citizens, and their statistic would be counted different. When the forces of judeo-masonry surrounded Europe, those odds were thinned at each front. In the east, the Soviets sometimes outnumbered the Germans 10 to 1, greater in the last days of the war.
The German military was even less-equipped than the Polish military when they had to rescue German citizens from being slaughtered by Bolsheviks in the re-drawn borders of the Bromberg region. They had very few supplies that couldn't be produced in-country due to the British Empire and France taking their colonies, and had to rely on clever countertactics to overcome a much larger enemy, even in France.
The millions of dead women and children of the Germanic peoples were the results of English Marshall "bomber" Harris' campaign to specifically target civilian city centers to force a capitulation, along with the USAAF bombers joining these missions after 1941, and all the Soviet slaughters of the east. The German men perished after the war in Siberian Gulags, as well as labor camps in France and Eisenhower's Rhine-Meadows camps, which are still off-limits by the occupied German government of today because people find skeletons there all the time, some even with remains of Wehrmacht uniforms. I tried to trespass there unsuccessfully.
Also of the estimated 22 million dead Germans, only 8 million died during the war, with a majority of them being military-aged males, while over 13 million dead from starvation, disease, and murder after "peace" had been established between 1945-1955, a mix of women and children rivaling the adult male statistics.
This is incorrect as well. Hitler was awarded the Iron Cross in WWI for his bravery in combat, so he did not "adopt" it when he became Chancellor for the German armed forces since it has been in use since Napoleonic times, and was Prussian in its military usage origin, not German. Do you know how many Cross designs there are, and have been throughout history? Who are you to say a Cross "barely looks Christian"? The Crux Immissa, the crutch Cross, the Fleur-de-Lis, and yes, even the Tetragammadion, otherwise known as Fylfot and Hakenkreuz, are symbolic of the Cross of Our Lord. I don't think the Orthodox Cross looks any less Christian than the Latin, representations of the faith hold different symbolic visuals which vary from place to place.The fact that there are non-Christian religions and cultures that interpret its meanings differently does not detract from its symbolic importance to historical Christendom, these symbols can be found with a unique presence in nature. Many of these designs were from the 13th century or prior, including the Formy and the Patonce, which is the clearest direct connection to the Iron Cross.
These are just the quadrate crosses, I'm sure you recognize many of these other ones:
There are Orthodox Churches in Ethiopia built between the700s and the 1300s that have Fylfot/Tetragammadion/Hakenkreuz on them, the Bete Maryam Church is one famous location:
a closeup:
Here is one from Byzantine Macedonia on the mosaic of the floor of the ancient Plaosnik Baptistery near the Basilica of St. Pantaliemon, estimated to be built in the 800s:
If you travel extensively through Europe, North Africa, Turkey, or the Levant, you will find many of these crosses in mosaics, carvings, wall designs, and more. If they "barely look Christian" then the viewer's scope of historical Christendom is either missing or severely undereducated.
Usury is materialistic, and he got rid of that. Same with banning pornography, an easily profitable materialistic enterprise, but for spiritual reasons, they outlawed it. I also fail to see how a winter relief charity held every December in the 1930s to bring food for millions of starving Germans is materialistic. None of the so-called "Christian Political movements" who were allying with communists behinds closed doors in Germany, and who used the Church as a scapegoat for their lack of successes did this, and they accused the NSDAP of being Pagans the same way confused Christians do to any White who organize for themselves beyond the Church now. It's all so tiresome to see pretentious dogmatic types call someone "materialistic" or "pagan" when they are either gatekeeping by leading Christians away from solutions, or allowing the enemy in through the backdoor, as they were in those days just as they are now. Did not Christ teach us to feed the hungry? What about pushing the moralities of Christianity and rejecting the amoralities of various Paganisms? Are we not to cleave to one another in marriage only? The German state had virtually no out-of-wedlock births. No abortion clinics either.
One of the most egregious things anyone can lie about with history, especially now that so much information is coming out all across the world due to ZOG and globohomo losing face and power, is to continue to come up with excuses to blame this man's ideas for imaginary crimes when they were working magnificently. I know you mean well, but this is not correct. With the advent of internet communications technology, they can no longer keep a lid on these subjects, instead all they can do is use barrages of mis- and dis-information dissemination mediums (e.g. sensationalized personalities). Millions of people are realizing that Hitler is not this caricature of insanity he has been painted by the vile jewish media and their stooges, and neither is the NSDAP, but damage control is still required. Hence in the Christian realm, where this truth hits hardest because of the struggle of Christianity against Communism, this subterfuge grew into the accusation of "race idolization," which is nothing more than a communist derivative from a trotskyite conception (Trotsky coined "racism"). It is pointing the finger at someone for doing something to protect themselves from those with evil intentions to their people, something that an antichrist Bolshevik devised in order to sow division among Christian populations and see that harm done.
The 20th century was when this racial vector of attack was normalized by all jewish assets in order to maintain their master's place on top.
Hitler did not "idolize" his race any more than Tsar Nicolas II, Tsar Nicolas I, Kaiser Wilhelm II, Otto Von Bismarck, King Charles I of England, King Charles V of Spain, King Leopold I of Belgium, Ivan the Great or any other historical monarchical leader did. The difference is that in Hitler's time, the racial tinder box had been lit by the Bolshevik Talmudics in occupied Russia, and they used this new language as a mask of their method for genetically wiping out an entire people. Russia was a White Christian nation until it was viciously and brutality mongrelized by world jewry, Tsar Nicolas I even sent navy ships to help protect US ports from jew-controlled British and French interlopers during the jew-instigated US civil war. Other countries were using similar tactics in the preceding centuries, it was known that certain breeding can lead to a victory or a defeat of your enemy, but now with endless hordes of Africans, Asiatics, Indians, and other atavists at jewish disposal, they could utilize this weapon to great effect, and knowingly so. There's a reason why more than half of Russia is mongoloid now, and everywhere you go in the west you see multitudes of mulattos completely unknown that their existence derives from ongoing jewish warfare. Coincidentally these people are the most unaware of history.
In contrast to accusations of race idolization, the jews are very prone to pushing a mongrelized idolatry for everyone but themselves. The mere efforts of resisting mongrelizing by any race, and continuing in natural pairs the way God intended, is combating the very materialistic jewish spirit that infests the modern world and contributes to antichrist behavior. It's not so much White men marrying White women having White children that bothers the jew, as much as European men marrying European women having European children that bother them. A White without their historical background is easy prey to the alien. A cultured European who speaks their ancestor's language and carries the same faith as his forefathers did a thousand years ago is not a hapless victim to identity theft and brainwashing.
The reason why there were Nuremberg laws in 1935 that made someone's pedigree a classification was mainly for citizenship purposes in the Reich, and this was because the German people were under a racial attack beforehand. The betrayal of the German jews to the Kaiser's Reich and their part in the defeat and humiliation of the Germans in WWI was never forgotten. Then the jews were pushing their bestial race-mixing on them during the Weimar to such a disgusting extent that it would even shame some of the present-day jewish pornographers who do it with reckless abandon and demonic intent. The French (under jewish control) were also guilty of using their colonial Senegalese divisions to rape German villages, creating an entire epidemic of mixed-race half-German half-Senegalese babies when they invaded western Germany in 1923 for "war reparations from their phony Versailles treaty. They were collectively known as "the Rhineland Bastards." We all know what this does to a country.
Most of this belongs in it's own Hitler thread, but it is relevant to the jewish question. They are the agent provocateurs for the racial strife that all of us face, no matter what race we are, or mix thereof.
In a way, the discussions we are having now are much more racial than the ones that took place in Germany between 1933-1945. Why is that I wonder? Have the jews played this variable too far? Or are we simply living in the result of a world where a biological element has been thrown to a completely chaotic reality and we realize that humanity made a collective mistake with all the blending the last hundred years? Ideally, as a population becomes more cohesive and monolithic, the discussions would become less racial. But as a nation's population becomes more "diverse" and "multi-cultural," the only benefits go to the aliens promoting the dissolution of that nation's population.
