The amount of lies you make per post are just staggering, a wall of lies, pretty much would require a full time job to answer them all.
The amount of things and details that you do not know about World War II, about Hitler, about National Socialism, and about Church relations in that time is staggering. You rely on cursory glances at best. That's not how deciphering the truth works for historical events.
Your assertions that his wife created fake letters is just a bogus lie without evidence.
I didn't say his wife wrote fake letters, but that the content is the ramblings of a man who knew nothing about the Eastern Front and had no basis to claim "German atrocities in the East" when he was not there. His story doesn't make sense and many facts are clearly missing from the official post-war kosher-approved narrative. Why is his case elevated and millions of other pro-German pro-National Socialist pro-Hitler cases ignored? Just more jewish lies.
The evidence is in the account itself. All mediums of information were controlled from the top-down after 1945. You cannot trust a single mainstream book, movie, documentary, or interview on the subjects of Hitler, the NSDAP, Germany, and WW2 without running into a host of lies. This is their biggest cash cow, beginning with the holohoax. The extension of this financial grift is to perpetually keep Aryans subdued with guilt propaganda until our eventual extermination at the hands of their golems.
Therefore, these "atrocity propaganda" stories from the overlords is pure garbage. Every now and then they throw one like this our way to make us think everyone was against Hitler. I see right through it. Multiple layers.
What you see without filtering: Church beatification. Conscientious objector. Poor man resisted peacefully. Hitler lunatic.
What I see knowing their lies. Corrupted Vatican. Geopolitical victim narrative. Irrational and seditious man. Nothing to do with Hitler.
I rebuke these lies and their queasy stench that befouls my Aryan soul.
I will address the most egregious ones:
They never aligned with anything and always stayed politically neutral. You are hamstering, trying to rationalize some hidden approval of the Catholic Church for Nazism, or straight up lying.
Why don't you take a stab at the Reichskonkordat without consulting either Vatican II-approved or jew-approved sources? That's how it works. They've had 80 years to mold history against this man. There are layers upon layers of deception.
The Vatican was politically "neutral" but they were far more than aligned than neutrality with the Axis leaders and Axis states. Every single Axis leader was either a devout Catholic or Orthodox barring Japan and Siam. Not a single one was a freemason, who the Church would excommunicate one for. By that metric all of the freemasons in charge of the Allies could never be among the Church.
The Catholic Church
viewed Bolshevism as its greatest enemy even more than liberalism or Protestantism. The
1937 encyclical "Divini Redemptoris" by
Pope Pius XI outright condemned Communism as
"intrinsically perverse" and a
threat to Christian civilization. Pius XI may have been cautious about the sudden urge in racialism, but he never condemned National Socialism. The Church
never excommunicated Hitler, Himmler, or Goebbels. All of them had devout Catholic backgrounds.
The most public backing of a specific Axis power, who was much more violent than National Socialist Germany, was
Pius XII's immediate recognition and backing of Ante Pavelic's Ustase in the Independent State of Croatia. Pavelić was personally received by Pope Pius XII in Rome in 1941.
Catholic Archbishop Aloysius Stepinac openly supported the Ustaše and even
blessed their military campaigns to wipe out communism in Europe. The Ustase were merciless with partisans, as they should have been. Some clergy members even directly
joined the Ustaše militia. The Church hated Stalin and anything to do with that jewish Eurasian nightmare of the USSR and any of its tentacles afoot in Europe.
The Church was even complicit in forced conversions of Balkan Slavs to Catholicism. After the war, Vatican escape routes helped Ustaše veterans accused of "war crimes" escape to South America, including Pavelic, who was the only other Axis leader to survive unmolested like Degrelle.
Bishop Alois Hudal, a high-ranking Vatican official, personally oversaw the escape of major figures in the NSDAP including Adolf Eichmann, Franz Strangl, and Klaus Barbie. The Vatican provided forged documents and travel permits for fleeing SS officers.
Furthermore, the
Slovak fascist state under Catholic Priest Jozef Tiso, was pro-German and pro-National Socialism and supported by the Vatican directly. Tiso
claimed that deporting jews was a "Christian duty," and the Vatican never excommunicated him. Pope Pius XII sent blessings to Slovakia throughout the war and never rebuked Tiso’s actions. Kind of hard to ignore that when a Catholic Priest is your head of state.
The Vatican endorsed Barbarossa. When
Germany invaded the USSR,
Pope Pius XII refused to condemn it and instead
encouraged Axis Catholic soldiers to fight Bolshevism.
The
Osservatore Romano, the Vatican’s official newspaper, published articles that framed the invasion as a
necessary fight against godless Communism. Catholic leaders in Germany, Hungary, Slovakia, and Spain blessed soldiers fighting in Russia as "crusaders for Christian Europe." Spanish dictator Francisco Franco, who was backed by the Vatican, sent the ‘Blue Division’ to fight alongside the Wehrmacht on the Eastern Front.
The
33rd Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS "Charlemagne" was made up of French
volunteers who swore loyalty to Hitler and fought on the Eastern Front.
French Catholic priests provided religious services for SS troops.
Even when the war was lost, these troops
fought to the last man in Berlin in 1945, holding out in Hitler’s bunker. A neutral Vatican wouldn’t have allowed clergy to serve in Waffen-SS units.
So yes the Catholic Church was invested heavily in an Axis victory, and remained loyal to all the Catholic men even after they were defeated and beset upon by the jewish dogs of the USA and USSR, which is why Vatican II was brought down as punishment..
Never said Stalin did not have megalomania, I said that Stalin did not have it as much as Hitler did, which really says something. Stalin was objectively more evil than Hitler,
You still believe that Hitler was evil, so therefore you still believe jewish lies. This man truly loved Germany and his people, and one day you will see that.
Stalin was definitely a verifiable megalomaniac. His paranoia was up there with those NDST3's, which is one of the defining hallmarks of a megalomaniac. How many people were disappeared under Stalin's suspicions we may never know, but no matter how much of an intelligent and committed communist he was, his indifference to human life gave way to a view of something truly psychotic that never inhabited Hitler.
and yet Hitler made people take an unconditional oath of obedience to his person, something not even Stalin dared to do. Pretty much only an idiot would do something like that, because it would cause even more insubordination and raise the risk of betrayal from troops.
Your overreliance on this "oath" semantics is revealing how you backup a weak argument with incessant emotional appeals in light of the fact that Stalin's acts were the worst of the 20th century, and likely in many centuries. Did you even read the German oaths?
I don't think you can wrap your mind on how a system of government like this works. A nationalized authoritarian state is not a liberal democracy full of capitalist plutocrats, nor is it a dictatorship of the proletariat like communist marxist countries. There is a strong central leader, a shepherd who keeps the wolves away from the flock. As I showed, there is clear Teutonic evolution that took form in the highest of these oaths, among the elite Waffen-SS, let alone the watered-down version for the Wehrmacht.
And no, these "stricter" oaths on Hitler's side did just the opposite. There was about a 1000% more insubordination rate on Stalin's side than Hitler's, even with these oaths that give you nightmares. For every aristocratic officer that disobeyed orders, 1000 enemy combatants threw down their arms and joined the Axis. Over 2 million Slavs of Ukraine and Russia defected to Hitler, with half of them who eventually formed the ROA taking their own oath very similar to the Wehrmacht. The other half were mostly auxiliaries and support crews.
But Hitler wasn't concerned with winning the war, he was concerned with glorifying himself at the expense of the country he was claiming to "protect."
First off he never started the war. You keep missing that one over and over again. He was concerned with stopping the war waged on him by jewish powers given the 17 peace proposals he issued to England alone. The bloodlust was always on the Allied nations hands and it will forever stain their souls for what they destroyed.
I know you are making this up because nowhere in the far corners of the internet does any hasbara troll use this kindergarten-level claim. No, he was not concerned with glorifying himself at the expense of Germany. You completely ignore everything he did to bring Germany out of the Weimar gutter and into the most powerful country in the world short of being a superpower.
Finally, as for Hitler not being a Zionist stooge, we can just go straight to the horse's mouth who have kept records of Hitler's agreements with Zionists:
Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism.
www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org
I just explained to you the Haavara in the last post. Even reading between the lines there is nothing there which says they contributed anything to Hitler. The Fascifist describes it best in his production here, you are repeating "special-interest propaganda with a complete ignorance of context":
"On the accusation that Hitler created israel"
"It is crucial to understand that the state of israel was well on it's way to becoming a reality long before Hitler's rise to power in Germany."
You are literally invoking this misreading of history and you believe it. Since you do not outright deny the holohoax like everyone else who woke up does, I can only assume that you believe some kind of downplayed version of that pustule of lies as well. Unless you admit otherwise, which you have been free to do your entire life.
The Haavara Agreement was not some direct "zionist-NS alliance" but rather a pragmatic deal involving the British authorities in Palestine given that the territory was under British Mandate rule at the time. The agreement was arranged between Germany and the "jewish Agency," but ultimately it was the British who had the final say on whether jews could immigrate to Palestine. Even with their acquiescence to the Balfour Declaration, they did not do this all right away. That's why there was a massive appeal to nations in the 1930s to take in the jews, which even the USA wanted no part of.
The British allowed it at their own pace because it suited their own imperial interests. They wanted to control jewish immigration into Palestine while managing Arab resistance. They later backtracked on this policy in the 1939 White Paper, severely limiting jewish immigration.
Freedman speech from 1961 on WW1 and the zionists:
That Hitler imprisoned a Rothschild and took his money to fund the war wasn't disputed by me. Simple fact of the matter is that Hitler being a Zionist does not contradict persecuting Talmuds, or going to war against them in his vicinity.
Only he was not a zionist, so your flawed logic here falls through the thatched roof you used to construct it. You are the only internet personality that calls them "talmuds". They are racial Edomites if you want to be historically accurate.
If Hitler was a "zionist tool," then why did the British control jewish immigration and later restrict it? Why did the British continue to be reluctant about a jewish homeland in Palestine? Why did Hitler actively push for the Madagascar Plan instead of Palestine?
The 1938 Madagascar Plan (formally drafted in 1940) was Hitler’s original vision for solving the "jewish question." Madagascar was a French colony, and Hitler wanted to seize it after France’s defeat and ship Europe’s jews there as a de facto concentration colony under SS control. The problem was that the British navy controlled the seas making mass deportation impossible after 1940.
If Hitler wanted a Zionist state, why did his own SS documents describe Madagascar as an "exile colony," not a sovereign jewish state?
The Haavara was a temporary forced agreement for both factions who had conflicting objectives, a temporary deal brokered under British oversight to expel jews from Germany. Hitler did not want to create a jewish homeland, he wanted jews gone from Europe. The zionists saw Haavara as a lifeline for allegedly persecuted jews, not an endorsement of Hitler.
As for talks of war, Why did zionist organizations around the world push for war against Germany if he was helping their cause? None of your claims hold up under the slightest examination.
Hitler saw Zionism as a way to get rid of Talmudic Jews in Europe.
No he didn't. He warned against zionism numerous times, as I just posted above. Here's another:
He did it as long as the seas were open to Germany, but once they closed after going to war with Britian, he needed a new plan of expulsion. What this plan would have been is up for debate, but I don't care enough to speculate.
You still believe the Allied propaganda on the causes of the war being German aggression. You simply can't escape jewish lies.
By your own admission, a supposed history lover, that you do not care to ascertain the truth speaks volumes. You do not care, you have come to some conclusion after minimal study and you think in your egotistical mind that it is correct. You would be upstaged in any competent historical debate in the first few minutes without any effort from the opposition argument if you keep thinking this way.
Why do you not care? Why do you not want to read further to understand things that you do not?
The fact is, Hitler and other "antisemites" were encouraged and financially supported by Zionists in order to encourage emigration of Talmuds from Europe into Israel.
No it's not a fact. Again you provide zero evidence for this.
Hitler was not encouraged nor supported by any zionists and I have provided ample proof for this. More talmudic lies you believe.
Here is more proof against these lies:
"On the accusations that Hitler was financed"
All of this is within the Zionists own checkbooks and history books, and it does not make them look good to share this info either. They are just honest so they can flex; "We supported Hitler and no one is going to do anything about it."
Nowhere even reading between the lines does it say "we supported Hitler". You missed the rest of the quotation in your citation. Here's an important sentence that contains a thousand more unwritten sentences within it:
" The Haavara continued to function until World War II, in spite of vigorous attempts by the Nazi Party to stop or curtail its activities."
They never wanted it as they were vehemently opposed to what the British were doing in Palestine, which I have posted in my last response in a video of Hitler talking about the crimes of the British in preparing a jewish state at the expense of the Arabs. Those "vigorous attempts to stop or curtail it's activities" was the Madagascar plan which eventually became the eastward expulsion plan that eventually fizzled out as the war ended.
Hitler was one of the worst commanders and leaders of all time, who started with massive advantages and lost to inferior enemies. He is hands down one of the worst Generals I have knowledge of, which is in the hundreds of different commanders I have studied across 3000+ years.
Unless you are an autodidact, the kosher-approved institution that bestowed you with a diploma of history would never have the resources to allow an in-depth study into the true facts of such recent events. The kind of misguided armchair historians these indoctrination centers churn out make sweeping generalizations and reductionisms without taking into account the regionalisms, constant fluctuations in populations, laws, religions, politics, and governments, and they know even less on the jewish angle.
I have studied over 6000 years, and I don't claim to be an expert. The further back one goes in history, the more aggrandized the claim, and the less likely we are to know the absolute truth. If so much of history is a lie as we see with this subject, then consider the rest of those 2900 years you have studied and how much of them are filled with victor narratives.
If Hitler was a “trashcan commander,” how did he achieve some of the fastest and most decisive victories in military history from 1939 to 1941? No other leader, ancient or modern, conquered so much territory, so quickly, against multiple powerful enemies.
-The German military crushed Poland in less than a month using superior coordination, armor, and airpower.
-Germany completely outmaneuvered the French, British, and Belgian armies, destroying what was considered the strongest army in Europe in just six weeks, something Napoleon never achieved.
-For all the controversy around Dunkirk, it was not a British victory, but a strategic disaster for the Allies, who lost most of their heavy equipment.
-In the Balkans Hitler’s forces smashed Yugoslavia and Greece in less than a month despite the terrain favoring defenders.
-In North Africa even with limited resources Erwin Rommel under Hitler’s orders humiliated the British Empire repeatedly.
-In the first six months of Barbarossa, Hitler’s armies obliterated entire Soviet divisions, capturing 3 million Soviet troops and his forces reached within sight of Moscow, something Napoleon never achieved in his Russian campaign.
Your argument that Hitler “lost to inferior enemies” is a historical lie. In reality Hitler’s Germany was facing the largest and most well-resourced military-industrial alliance in history. The Allies were anything but "inferior" they had overwhelming resources, intelligence, and manpower.
His blunders are up there with the Athenian invasion of Sicily at the height of the Peloponnesian War, General Crassus's death at Carrhae, Emperor Maxentius' suicide charge at Milvian Bridge, King Karl's invasion of St. Petersburg, Napoleon's invasion of Russia, etc.
This is liberal abstraction and the epitome of the false equivalency fallacy. You cannot compare Hitler to ancient generals.
For all your alleged studying of military history you make the fundamental historical error of equating pre-modern warfare with mechanized, total war.
Comparing Hitler's strategic difficulties to Crassus at Carrhae or the Athenian Sicilian Expedition is intellectually dishonest because WW2 was the first true "Total War" in human history. It was a war of complete economic, industrial, and logistical mobilization that had never been seen before. The speed and scale of operations were unprecedented unlike ancient or even Napoleonic warfare, which were limited by slow troop movements, small standing armies, and localized battles. The number of factor's beyond a commander's control in WW2 dwarfed those of ancient times. Hitler was not simply commanding armies, he was managing an international industrial-military-political war effort against superpowers with unmatched resources.
The complexity of modern warfare requires entirely different metrics to judge a commander’s effectiveness. By equating Hitler’s command with ancient or pre-modern leaders, you ignore the fact that no other military leader in history had to coordinate such a rapid, global, industrialized war across multiple continents.
So none of the ones you mentioned are applicable here. Even the familiarity of Napoleon's march on Russia was undone by the Waffen-SS who kept that road open for almost 4 years despite losing in the end.
Germany did not lose because of Hitler’s alleged military command mistakes. There were systemic issues that doomed Germany regardless of strategy, starting with their lack of resources. Germany had no oil supply of its own and had to rely on Romanian oil fields and synthetic fuel production. Germans were relying on pellet fed boilers to power their tanks and automobiles. The Allies bombed German industry relentlessly crippling fuel production and transport by 1944.
Then there was the massive Allied espionage and intelligence operations. British codebreakers (Ultra) intercepted and decrypted German communications, giving the Allies a massive intelligence advantage. Soviet spy rings inside the Wehrmacht and Abwehr provided Stalin with key German plans. The worst aspect, which I already told you, was the treacherous Generals and internal betrayals. Many of Hitler’s generals particularly in 1944-45 sabotaged his efforts. Loyal Generals like Erich von Manstein and Heinz Guderian were repeatedly undermined by aristocratic officers loyal to the old German monarchy.
If Hitler was an incompetent military leader, how did he conquer most of Europe by 1941? If Hitler was so bad, why did his enemies have to form the largest military-industrial alliance in history to defeat him? If Hitler made all the wrong decisions, why did many of his campaigns go down in history as textbook examples of military genius (e.g., Fall Gelb, the Manstein Plan, early Barbarossa)? If Hitler was such a “garbage commander,” then why do military academies around the world still study his early campaigns as examples of tactical and strategic excellence? I don't expect someone who has never served in a military to understand that, so go back to your pedagogy of helium-balloon authority.
You cherry-pick failures while ignoring massive successes. No leader in history wins every battle, Napoleon, Alexander, and even Caesar had massive defeats. The fact that Hitler was able to fight off the most powerful coalition in history for nearly six years is itself proof of military competence.
He invaded Poland, even though it was a natural buffer state against his hated enemy, which triggered massive wars with France and England, both of whom could have stayed as neutral or friendly nations. His stated cause of helping out his fellow Germans in the city of Danzig could have easily been resolved without a full scale invasion of Poland. He could have evacuated the citizens into the rest of Germany proper, as Danzig was on a coastline, or simply moved German troops into the city to protect the people there without invading Poland.
I already explained to you the Polish situation. Here are more details. It was much more than Danzig. A majority of the Germans were between Danzig in East Prussia and Germany proper as the entire stretch of land was German before Versailles.
Leon Degrelle breaks down the events more succinctly, alternatively you can listen to Benjamin Freedman talk about it, who was present at Versailles.
Degrelle on the Polish Situation:
"However, the war in Poland started for reasons other than Danzig's self determination or even Poland's. The Poles were ready to work with Hitler. If Poland turned against Germany it is because the British government did everything in its power to poison German-Polish relations. Why? Much has to do with a longstanding inferiority complex British rulers have felt towards Europe."
"The British manipulated the Polish government against Germany. The Poles themselves were more than willing to live in peace with the Germans. Instead, the unfortunate Poles were railroaded into war by the British. One must not forget that one and a half million Germans lived in Poland at the time, at great benefit to the Polish economy. Apart from economic ties with Germany, the Poles saw a chance that with Germany's help they would be able to recover their Polish territories from the Soviet Union, territories they had tried to recover in vain since 1919. In January 1939 Hitler had proposed to Beck, the Polish leader, a compromise to solve the Danzig issue: The Danziger's vote to return to Germany would be honored and Poland would continue to have free port access and facilities, guaranteed by treaty."
"With a little patience a peaceful solution would have been found Danzig. Instead, the international press unleashed a massive campaign of outright lies and distortions against Hitler. His proposals were willfully misrepresented by a relentless press onslaught. Of all the crimes of World War Two, one never hears about the wholesale massacres that occurred in Poland just before the war. I have detailed reports in my files documenting the mass slaughter of defenseless Germans in Poland. Thousands of German men, women and children were massacred in the most horrendous fashion by Press-enraged mobs. The photographs of these massacres are too sickening to look at!
Hitler decided to halt the slaughter and he rushed to the rescue. The Polish campaign showed Hitler to be a military genius. History had already started to recognize this most startling of Hitler's characteristics: his rare military genius. All the successful military campaigns of the Third Reich were thought out and directed by Hitler personally, not the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Hitler inspired a number of generals who became his most able executives in later campaigns."
Benjamin Freedman's 1961 speech again on this exact sequence of events:
transcript of his speeches:
https://archive.org/stream/thebenjaminh.freedmanfiles-uneditedwillardhotelspeechmuchmore-audiovideopdf/Zionism; The Hidden Tyranny (Benjamin H. Freedman) (2)_djvu.txt
These paragraphs specifically mention the Polish issue:
"Germany and Poland reached a basis that would serve to prevent Germany’s resort to more aggressive action. Adolf Hitler was the head of the German government at the time. Talmudists throughout the world opposed the peaceful adjustment between Germany and Poland of the Danzig Corridor situation. Unrestricted access of traffic between the western half and the eastern half of Germany would soon make Germany again the most powerful country in the world. Talmudists throughout the world dreaded the thought. In spite of the difficulties placed in the way of reaching a solution for the Danzig Corridor problem, Germany and Poland finally agreed upon a formula. Preparations were being made to consummate their understanding in a treaty. Both Germany and Poland were satisfied the formula agreed upon served both governments.
Shortly before the agreement with Germany was to be signed, Poland secretly signed a treaty with Great Britain dated August 25. 1939. Great Britain agreed in that treaty to hasten the military assistance of Poland ’’with all the support and assistance in its power” if Poland were attacked by Germany. With that assurance from Great Britain, Poland broke off negotiations with Germany. Germany did not understand the reason for Poland’s sudden change of mind and decided to proceed with the terms of the arrangement agreed upon with Poland.
That was the start of World War II. Great Britain knowingly deceived Poland when Great Britain actually promised military assistance to Poland if Poland were attacked by Germany. Great Britain could not come to Poland’s assistance and Great Britain knew it when Great Britain’s offer of military assistance to Poland was made. Poland fell into Great Britain's trap and discontinued negotiations with the Germans."
Germany and Poland were building a blossoming friendship between Hitler and Pilsudski. When the latter died, his replacement Ritz-Smigley was a vile warmonger who hated Germany. Never trust a man with a hypenated last name, even last century proves this.
After a dozen attempts to settle the Polish Corridor and bridging Germany to East Prussia and halt the genocide of Germans who were unfortunate to be Polish subjects living in redrawn Versailles maps, the Polish military opened fire on the German troops on the border first. They lobbed bombs at them first. They drew first blood, and they did not respond to any of the delegations Hitler sent because of the traitorous Ritz-Smigley and the empty promises from FDR. They even openly attacked Danzig which was German.
"This night for the first time Polish regular soldiers fired on our own territory. We have now been returning the fire since 5:45 a.m.! (Seit 5.45 Uhr wird jetzt zuruckgeschossen!) Henceforth, bomb will be met with bomb." - Hitler speech to German Reichstag Sept 1st 1939
Hitler explained this many times in speeches:
"Adolf Hitler Explains the Conflict with Poland"
Had Poland been left alone, then we know from Operation Pike that eventually the other allies would have moved to attack the Soviets eventually on their own, or were at least seriously thinking about it. Not to mention the USSR probably would have invaded Poland no matter what, and had they done so without Germany, then the Nazi party would have found itself allied with France and Britain instead of in a death match with them.
Your chronology is off. Operation Pike was never even close to being approved as an actual operation. It was only a theoretical draft made in early 1940, after the Soviet invasion of Finland during the Winter War (1939-40). It had nothing to do with Poland. The British and French considered targeting Baku oil fields, but only as a way to cripple Germany's access to Soviet oil, not to go to war with the USSR directly. The plan was immediately abandoned after the Fall of France (June 1940) because Britain could no longer afford to anger Stalin.
Remember, contingency plans do not equal intent. The Allies drew up hundreds of hypothetical war plans (e.g., War Plan Red for war with the U.S., War Plan Black against Germany). None of these mean they were actually going to happen.
Churchill and Stalin were both freemasons and would have found reconciliation one way or another as Germany was always the target. Your idea that “if Hitler had left Poland alone, the Allies would have fought the USSR instead” ignores the blatant anti-German stance of the Anglo-French elite.
-1933-39: Britain and France ignored or appeased every single Soviet action, including the purges and mass killings under Stalin. No sanctions, no embargoes, no military preparations.
-March 1939: Britain and France only declared war guarantees to Poland after Hitler’s reclamation of former German territories in Czechoslovakia. They did not issue one against the USSR.
-September 1939: Germany and the USSR both invaded Poland. Britain and France only declared war on Germany. Masonic allies no matter the cost.
-Winter War (1939-40): The USSR invaded Finland. Britain and France gave token support but never declared war.
-1941: The moment Germany pre-emptively attacked the USSR buildup at its Eastern borders, Churchill immediately embraced Stalin as an ally, calling him "Uncle Joe."
The British war machine was dependent on global resources, they could not risk losing Soviet raw materials like manganese, oil, and timber. France and Britain were financially exhausted from WWI and had no appetite for another two-front war. The Bank of England had financial ties with Soviet trade, so cutting those ties would hurt their own war effort.
The idea that Churchill and Stalin were potential enemies contradicts what happened. Churchill actively courted Stalin the moment Barbarossa began. Britain immediately supplied Stalin with weapons, tanks, and planes under Lend-Lease. Churchill personally flew to Moscow to meet Stalin in 1942, pledging full support. The idea that Britain would have fought the USSR is nonsense when Churchill bent over backwards to be Stalin’s ally as soon as it was convenient.
Churchill’s speech (June 22, 1941): “The Russian danger is our danger, and the cause of any Russian fighting for their homes is the cause of free men and free peoples in every quarter of the globe.”
Every wartime goal was the utter destruction of Germany from the beginning. As history has unfolded since, all the warmongering of the Allies has proven to bear their fruit of this hateful tree true.
-1933-39: Germany was vilified for rearming and reuniting peacefully; the USSR was ignored for murdering millions.
-1939: Germany and the USSR invaded Poland. Britain and France only declared war on Germany purposefully.
-1940: Britain and France flirted with attacking resources that happened to be in USSR territory but never made actual plans. Their fevered plans were to deny anything the Germans may take advantage of.
-1941: The moment Germany began Barbarossa, the Western Allies rushed to Stalin’s side with unlimited aid.
-1945: The Allies handed over Eastern Europe to Stalin on a silver platter.
But there was no strategy with Hitler, he was a vainglorious sinner obsessed with his self-image, who descended into madness the more he botched the war, eventually requiring all troops to swear an oath of unconditional obedience to his person at the penalty of death, which we see with Saint Franz.
Every male soul is a vainglorious sinner at some point in their lives. You and I are still sinners, and we will always be until our last breaths. You exaggerate on what you think you know about Hitler. Your criticisms of him are unfounded, and you are simply repeating like a parrot the jewish lies told in excess.
The "Hitler descending into madness" trope is another Allied propaganda that aristocratic Germans parroted for brownie points post-war. Once again you use this terminal reductionist language "he botched the war" which is completely false. The only verifiable condition Hitler was suffering from among the laundry list of medical maladies the jews fictitiously ascribed to him to make him seem like a monster crawling in slime was some type of neurological poisoning akin to Parkinsons which was from the metal in the shrapnel wounds in his legs from WWI.
You haven't studied deeper into Barbarossa and the callously chaotic sequence of events of 1939 to 1941 in the "Phony War" and the lead up to all out war. There was always a strategy, but this war was the most brutal in terms of how rapidly and how often lines changed on a map and so did the objectives, and how it was the first of its kind. There were ramifications across the world from the action of the contenders long before it began, like the Japanese initial expansions westward resulting in their defeat at Khalkhin Gol. If you want a massive black hole of hypothetical what ifs, look into that battle.
If death for refusing to swear an oath was so common, then why is Franz Jagerstatter the only example one can find of this? Many people were killed for similar offenses but it all relates to undermining the German military, and many of them deserved it for ushering in the victors and destroyers of their people. Traitors need to be removed from the stock. This is the martial reality of the military. It is not a place for morally confused simpletons to FAFO, even if it is a joke today.
The oaths were there from 1934 until 1945, as I posted above, so the oaths did not change during the course of the war, even after "Totaler Krieg". I will not call any Vatican II political beatification a saint, and neither will SSPX or any other traditionalist faction. We agitative Catholics are calling out all the BS in the corrupted papacy and its modernist political canonization agendas.
Why Leon Degrelle isn't a saint is baffling. Every White and European man who is a detractor of Hitler and the Germans should be thanking God for men like Degrelle and the brave Waffen-SS legions who held the road for 1000 days from the outskirts of Moscow to Berlin and gave the rest of western Europe time.
Hitler was a useful tool and fool for the Talmudic Jews, and no amount of lying can undo the failures of this man.
No, he was not a useful tool he literally set their plans back almost 13 years in Europe and nearly 30 in the USA. Every single anti-Hitler smear is a jewish psyop and you fall for it hook line and sinker. I take no joy in repetitive arguments for arguments sake. You need to dig deeper and your understanding of this recent history will change.
You also need to stop thinking I am an antagonist and that I am coming up with lies. I clearly have more of an investiture in this subject as my family was a part of it and I am determined to remove the yoke of jewish lies from my people.
Studying hundreds or thousands of random commanders leads to a blurring effect which has led you to make the erroneous conclusions I pointed out. Your approach to evaluating military commanders across a 3,000-year span creates a false sense of objectivity as if war is a game of checking boxes rather than understanding the specific geopolitical, technological, and logistical realities of each conflict.
Your errors here stem from applying simplistic, reductionist criteria to a uniquely complex war. You are not assessing Hitler as a commander, you are making a political statement using broad historical analogies to push an agenda rather than critically analyzing the unique challenges Germany faced.
I resonate with your apparent love of history, and I encourage you to look deeper. Our disagreements are colossal, but that is not a negative thing. There is solidarity in that. I can see that beneath the surface you do want the knowledge as it makes you more powerful than those around you. Knowledge is power, but "all knowledge comes from somewhere else." Hitler told that to his cleaning staff. It is a great conduit that waits for no one, only those who dare to discover more will find more.