Hitler vs banks

lofty wiseman

Anyone know much about this myth or can they debunk it ;
The theory that hitler to bring Germany back to economic prosperity kicked the rothschilds out of Germany
and then Austria and started issuing debt free money .. Germany becomes a superpower again which forces
the banking elite to pressure Britain and other allies to go to war with Germany to bring it back in line.
There a quote after the war that apparently Churchill said and he says that was hitters biggest crime ??? ...
Isn't there a theory that something along the same lines of jfk vs the federal reserve is why he was assassinated ?

Not saying I believe any of this just want to hear is this a common theory and how easily (or not) it can be disproved
Cheers

Passenger

Interesting. Any reputable links for this theory?

lofty wiseman

Not really mate just well edited videos I seen on YouTube ha
To be honest I couldn't distinguish reputable sources from mentalists ..
Ken O' Keeffe a USMC gulf war vet talks about it and David Irving

Passenger

Ah right. I'll have a gander on YT so.

lofty wiseman

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kONt8q5iBb8

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlSe7EwGhSw

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pz2rDRbSqFw

lofty wiseman

The bit about jfk and the federal reserve
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lSWno3296mQ

Supposedly Putin has banned the rothschilds and rockfellers from setting foot in Russia and he gets smeared constantly in the media .. I think Putins a great leader

lofty wiseman

Just before I put the link up to anothe vid about hitter and the banks , probably the best one because it's hitler himself talking over the video with subtitles about what they do .. He's talking about what scumbags the banks are back in the mid to late 1930s and would I be wrong in saying the rest the only only became aware of that during the recession ?
The video any way ffs pay no attention to the images and clips this you tuber is using , he goes off the deep end at about 05:30 but it's the subtitles for the year he was speaking is what makes it interesting

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=K9D_z2xS4GI

lofty wiseman

In school I remember being taught how hitler went mental after Jesse Owens destroyed everyone else at the Olympics but even Jesse Owens himself said that was bull**** .. What was the point of putting this lie out there ?
Even as a kid I found it hard to fully buy into the cartoonish Bond villain antichrist that hitler was being portrayed as .. I mean everyone no matter who you are thinks that they are the good guy of their own story so he can't be as black and white as that .. The same with WW2 , that war more than any other is packaged as total good vs total evil , when is war ever that simple ? Isn't that the war that laid the foundations of the world we live in today .. Funny that
Here's the vid that disproves the Jesse Owens lie but it's the video clips in the second half that are very interesting especially 09:26 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GG9U1A-3rSI

lofty wiseman

In school I remember being taught how hitler went mental after Jesse Owens destroyed everyone else at the Olympics but even Jesse Owens himself said that was bull**** .. What was the point of putting this lie out there ?
Even as a kid I found it hard to fully buy into the cartoonish Bond villain antichrist that hitler was being portrayed as .. I mean everyone no matter who you are thinks that they are the good guy of their own story so he can't be as black and white as that .. The same with WW2 , that war more than any other is packaged as total good vs total evil , when is war ever that simple ? Isn't that the war that laid the foundations of the world we live in today .. Funny that
Here's the vid that disproves the Jesse Owens lie but it's the video clips in the second half that are very interesting especially 09:26 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GG9U1A-3rSI

King Mob

lofty wiseman wrote: »

Not really mate just well edited videos I seen on YouTube ha
To be honest I couldn't distinguish reputable sources from mentalists ..
Ken O' Keeffe a USMC gulf war vet talks about it and David Irving

David Irving is one of those mentalists who denies the Holocaust then whines like a baby when people point out why and how he's wrong.
I wouldn't put much stock in him or others supporting him.

lofty wiseman

I know who he is .. He doesn't contribute to any of the videos that I have posted links of .. Did you watch any of them ?

Dohnjoe

lofty wiseman wrote: »

Anyone know much about this myth or can they debunk it ;
The theory that hitler to bring Germany back to economic prosperity kicked the rothschilds out of Germany
and then Austria and started issuing debt free money .. Germany becomes a superpower again which forces
the banking elite to pressure Britain and other allies to go to war with Germany to bring it back in line.
There a quote after the war that apparently Churchill said and he says that was hitters biggest crime ??? ...
Isn't there a theory that something along the same lines of jfk vs the federal reserve is why he was assassinated ?

Not saying I believe any of this just want to hear is this a common theory and how easily (or not) it can be disproved
Cheers

Hitler rebuilt Germany's armed forces and invaded Czechoslovakia and later Poland, more to do with imperialism and extreme nationalism than banking

Kennedy supported Federal reserve notes and as far as I am aware had no major issues with the central bank

Homemade Youtube videos often repackage facts and history to present alternative narratives. While they might be exciting, they are often distorted or untrue

conditioned games

To fund a war takes alot of money. Germany went from a impoverished debt inslaved nation paying interest on debt to been a strong confident country.

JFK brought in an executive order to take away the printing of dollars from the privately owned "federal" reserve to printing dollars by government. Before it was enacted he was killed and his predecessor scraped it.

The Rothschilds have continued to have majority ownership of the printing of dollars out of thin air and then charging interest.

Dohnjoe

conditioned games wrote: »

JFK brought in an executive order to take away the printing of dollars from the privately owned "federal" reserve to printing dollars by government. Before it was enacted he was killed and his predecessor scraped it.

Executive order 11,110?

If so, it gave more power to the Federal reserve (by transferring power to the Treasury secretary) to issue silver certificates
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/weberman/jfk.htm

The Rothschilds have continued to have majority ownership of the printing of dollars out of thin air and then charging interest.

Rothchilds are private banks (investment and trust banks), they have nothing to do with minting/printing money

Ipso

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Executive order 11,110?

If so, it gave more power to the Federal reserve (by transferring power to the Treasury secretary) to issue silver certificates
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/weberman/jfk.htm



Rothchilds are private banks (investment and trust banks), they have nothing to do with minting/printing money

But they're joos.

johnnyskeleton

lofty wiseman wrote: »

Anyone know much about this myth or can they debunk it ;
The theory that hitler to bring Germany back to economic prosperity kicked the rothschilds out of Germany

By the time Hitler came to power the Rothschilds were spread across Europe and their presence in Germany had diminished. A quick google suggests that the only appropriation of a Rothschild's fortune was in Austria after the Anschluss.

and then Austria and started issuing debt free money

Debt free money is a staple of freeman on the land conspiracy theories. And what better era to look at than Weimar Germany for their proof that fiat currency doesn't work!

.. Germany becomes a superpower again which forces

Not clear how going back to a gold standard or doing some other unspecified financial wizardry of the freman style results in Germany becoming a superpower. In any event, Germany was militarily inferior to France at the start of WWII but they tactically out maneuvered the French, developing a style of rapid attack which they French were not prepared for (the French believing that WWII would be a re-run of WWI and so they put everything into the defensive Maginot line). The Low Countries and Eastern European Countries also lacked both strong armies and political will to put up much resistance. Thus, at the end of 1940 the Germans had managed, with a small but tactically superior and better organised army, to defeat France, Poland, Nederlands, Belgium and Denmark. Their industrial output was capable of matching the British and so they were able to wage a strong aerial battle with the British while at the same time they won huge victories against a demoralised and technologically backward USSR.

the banking elite to pressure Britain and other allies to go to war with Germany to bring it back in line.

If that were true, it would ignore everything else that had happened in Europe between the late 19th century and 1939. The Entente powers won WWI and punished Germany in the Treaty of Versailles because they were afraid about what would happen if they allowed Germany to Militarise again. The British decided on a policy of appeasement between 1936 and 1939, which is when, I'm assuming, on this theory, the "banking elite" were being removed from Germany. So if it were true, WWII would have started much earlier.

There a quote after the war that apparently Churchill said and he says that was hitters biggest crime ??? ...

I'd like to see that. Pretty certain that Churchill would agree that the holocaust was Hitlers biggest crime.

Isn't there a theory that something along the same lines of jfk vs the federal reserve is why he was assassinated ?

Maybe, but that undermines the theory even further because it suggests that people are prepared to view there being a conspiracy that shapes all world events

Not saying I believe any of this just want to hear is this a common theory and how easily (or not) it can be disproved
Cheers

It can be disproved by the sheer lack of evidence to support it, when there are much better known and more comprehensible accounts of what happened.

johnnyskeleton

lofty wiseman wrote: »

In school I remember being taught how hitler went mental after Jesse Owens destroyed everyone else at the Olympics but even Jesse Owens himself said that was bull**** .. What was the point of putting this lie out there ?

The Germans were upset because they believed they would win many more medals than they won. Much like the Brazilians were gutted when they lost in the World Cup semi Finals in Brazil 2014. As to the lie, I don't know. Bad teaching. A simple way of explaining the complicated narrative about why a sporting event was seen as such an important political moment (which it was).

Even as a kid I found it hard to fully buy into the cartoonish Bond villain antichrist that hitler was being portrayed as .. I mean everyone no matter who you are thinks that they are the good guy of their own story so he can't be as black and white as that ..

Then don't buy it. In reality, he was far worse than a cartoonish bond villain. He was a cold unthinking mass murderer. Yes, he believed he was right. But that doesn't mean that there is a rational basis to believe that he was right.

The same with WW2 , that war more than any other is packaged as total good vs total evil , when is war ever that simple ?

Don't know what school you went to but in Ireland WW2 is not packaged as being total good vs total evil, and stuff like the onerous terms of the Versallies reparations, the perception of unfair imposition of war guilt, the firebombing of Dresden, the sinking of the French fleet in Marseilles, the terrible cost in human lives on the Soviet side, the decision to drop the atomic bombs being more about sending a message to Russia than the official "saving American lives" narrative, the believed luftwaffe forbearance on UK troops at dunkirk were all taught when I was in school.

But in any event I don't think anyone could possibly argue that, unlike WWI (which was just a lot of people killing each other for fairly meaningless reasons), there was a clear good guys and bad guys divide in WWII in that if Hitler had his way he might have killed a huge part of the world's population.

MonkieSocks

Was watching an Excellent WW2 movie on youtube.

Russian film called "White Tiger"

The film ends with Hitlers imagined view of how Germany would be seen by the rest of the world


Link to Hitlers End Part ( won't spoil the film )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiGDJ5-dXaI#t=96m54s

euroboom13

https://youtu.be/QBhWsDGTimI

The victorious write there own truth.

Didn't get to where he was by being hated(loved whole heartedly by all)

But if you like hitler now.....you like the fabricated one

Dohnjoe

euroboom13 wrote: »

The victorious write there own truth.

There's a pretty good automated response from the history sub over on Reddit for this..

"Hi!
It seems like you are talking about the popular but ultimately flawed and false "winners write history" trope!
It is a very lazy and ultimately harmful way to introduce the concept of bias. There isn't really a perfectly pithy way to cover such a complex topic, but much better than winners writing history is writers writing history. This is more useful than it initially seems because until fairly recently the literate were a minority, and those with enough literary training to actually write historical narratives formed an even smaller and more distinct class within that. To give a few examples, Genghis Khan must surely go down as one of the great victors in all history, but he is generally viewed quite unfavorably in practically all sources, because his conquests tended to harm the literary classes. Or the senatorial elite can be argued to have "lost" the struggle at the end of the Republic that eventually produced Augustus, but the Roman literary classes were fairly ensconced within (or at least sympathetic towards) that order, and thus we often see the fall of the Republic presented negatively.
Of course, writers are a diverse set, and so this is far from a magical solution to solving the problems of bias. The painful truth is, each source simply needs to be evaluated on its own merits."

DinkyDinosaur

A simple google search will show you that Russia still has a Rothschild owned bank.

From the Rothschilds own official website:


Office

Moscow

4, bld. 2, Romanov lane
125009 Moscow
Russia
Tel: +7 495 775 8221
Google Map


As for Hitler and the bankers. Another simple google search will bring up evidence of him giving the contract for the camps to IG Farben which is a subsidiary of Bayer. Bayer has just bought Monsanto and the Rothschilds have been overseeing the deal.

From Bayer's official website:

Bayer transferred its assets to I.G. Farbenindustrie AG (I.G.) and was deleted from the commercial register as a company.

The Warburgs were another family that were on the board of directors of IG Farben. The Nuremberg Trials were a bit of a farce. IG Farben officials basically got a slap on the wrist and a lot of them were employed again in the 50's by Bayer. Which points to the fact that the Rothschilds are clever and they fund both sides of any war they are involved in. When you control both sides, you can control the outcome.

Dohnjoe

Can use google to link just about any company in history to any other company.

Countries in war still need banking services.

Can never understand the conspiracy theorist obsession with Rothschild's bank, it's not exactly a large financial institution by modern standards and has a relatively modest revenue and number of employees. Must be the Jewish thing.

DinkyDinosaur

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Can use google to link just about any company in history to any other company.

Countries in war still need banking services.

Can never understand the conspiracy theorist obsession with Rothschild's bank, it's not exactly a large financial institution by modern standards and has a relatively modest revenue and number of employees. Must be the Jewish thing.

Yeah must be the fact that the Rothschilds were instrumental in the creation of Israel, own Bayer and own the bank of practically everywhere, plus Shell Oil. It must be the unethical actions of Israel and the unethical actions of Bayer that are cause for concern from "conspiracy theorists"

The Rothschilds have been overseeing AIB's affairs here in Ireland. It's naive to think they don't have a big influence and even more naive to think they are upstanding folk because clearly they are not.

I don't appreciate your ad hominem attacks by the way. It would be helpful if you could prove how google can be used to link any company to any other company instead of just declaring it so. Instead of implying that I am obsessed which would hint at me being mentally unstable. That is not a productive way to argue a point.

DinkyDinosaur

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj5eypBex-U

DinkyDinosaur

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj5eypBex-U

Dohnjoe

DinkyDinosaur wrote: »

Yeah must be the fact that the Rothschilds were instrumental in the creation of Israel, own Bayer and own the bank of practically everywhere, plus Shell Oil. It must be the unethical actions of Israel and the unethical actions of Bayer that are cause for concern from "conspiracy theorists"

Rothschilds own Bayer? can you elaborate on that?

The Rothschilds have been overseeing AIB's affairs here in Ireland. It's naive to think they don't have a big influence and even more naive to think they are upstanding folk because clearly they are not.

Rothschild bank do M&A, meaning they act to set up mergers or acquisitions of institutions. They are one of the smaller players in the market. I'm not sure what the conspiracy is there.

I don't appreciate your ad hominem attacks by the way. It would be helpful if you could prove how google can be used to link any company to any other company instead of just declaring it so. Instead of implying that I am obsessed which would hint at me being mentally unstable. That is not a productive way to argue a point.

I was referring to conspiracy theorists in general. Going to any CT forum it's common to find

1. Tenuous links
2. Heavy focus on Jews (???)
3. Misinformation being projected as fact

The linking party is pretty simple; take a classic conspiracy
"evil" company, let's say Goldman Sachs, then pick a random business or company, let's say Tayto crisps to be ridiculous and find the link

Oh look the '99 bid for Tayto happened to be overseen by Goldman Sachs
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/cantrell-amp-cochrane-snaps-up-tayto-for-68m-1.198894

Finding arbitrary links between entities is pointless without context

King Mob

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The linking party is pretty simple; take a classic conspiracy
"evil" company, let's say Goldman Sachs, then pick a random business or company, let's say Tayto crisps to be ridiculous and find the link

Oh look the '99 bid for Tayto happened to be overseen by Goldman Sachs
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/cantrell-amp-cochrane-snaps-up-tayto-for-68m-1.198894

Finding arbitrary links between entities is pointless without context

And from there, it's probably just as easy to link Goldman-Sachs to the Rothschilds, thus we can conclude that the Rothchilds control the supply of Tayto.

I think it's a bit like 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon, and with enough tenuous links you can link anyone to anything.
I'd bet that you can link Kevin Bacon to the Rothschilds...

DublinWriter

lofty wiseman wrote: »

The theory that hitler to bring Germany back to economic prosperity kicked the rothschilds out of Germany

It's more to do with him coming out of the Gold Standard and embarking on a huge programme of civil building works.

Many economic historians say that even had WW2 not happened, Germany would have gone bankrupt by the mid 1940's.

DinkyDinosaur

Why are you bringing up Jews? Are you Jewish?

DinkyDinosaur

Well I would imagine the reason so many conspiracy theory sites talk about a Jewish conspiracy is because of the fact that it says in their holy book that:

"You will lead the Goyim (Non Jews) You will lend money to many nations and not borrow. And you will rule over many nations and they will not rule over you." Deutoronomy 15:6.

So if Jews are taught to lend money at interest to non Jews with the long term view of one day ruling over the nations, it would be terribly naive to think Jews DON'T conspire for world domination. Clearly they do.

Just take a walk down Grafton St and google who owns all the businesses there. The recession hits and a lot of Irish businesses close down. Then they are replaced with Jewish owned businesses.

It's human nature to want to help your friends and relatives in business. No one can be blamed for that. And Jews see themselves as one big family.

The problem is the superiority complex that Jews develop after being told all their lives that they are Gods chosen people.
Humans are flawed.
Even Jews.
And the consequences of them being taught that non Jews have no soul is cruelty by Jews to non Jews. It's inevitable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ji_Y7YEbKY

Skip to 2 mins in to see what it says in their holy book.

DinkyDinosaur

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Rothschilds own Bayer? can you elaborate on that?



Rothschild bank do M&A, meaning they act to set up mergers or acquisitions of institutions. They are one of the smaller players in the market. I'm not sure what the conspiracy is there.



I was referring to conspiracy theorists in general. Going to any CT forum it's common to find

1. Tenuous links
2. Heavy focus on Jews (???)
3. Misinformation being projected as fact

The linking party is pretty simple; take a classic conspiracy
"evil" company, let's say Goldman Sachs, then pick a random business or company, let's say Tayto crisps to be ridiculous and find the link

Oh look the '99 bid for Tayto happened to be overseen by Goldman Sachs
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/cantrell-amp-cochrane-snaps-up-tayto-for-68m-1.198894

Finding arbitrary links between entities is pointless without context

That just proves that Goldman Sachs has their fingers in a lot of pies. They're buying up a lot of businesses. That actually proves my point.

Snickers Man

First things first: of course there is an economic/financial dimension to most political movements and controversies and by extension to wars. But it is not the ONLY dimension.

The well known economist and commentator Niall Ferguson makes this point very well in his book and TV series The Ascent of Money, in which he says--reasonably enough--that people spend far too much time studying battles and military campaigns and very little looking at the economic back story that sets the scene for why many of those battles happened in the first case.

By way of example, he says that the most crucial battle of the American Civil War was the Union's capture of New Orleans.
Wait!
I thought it was Gettysburg! I never heard of the Union capture of New Orleans!

Ferguson's point is that the Southern Economy was based on cotton and they raised money by selling bonds backed by cotton on the European Markets. This meant bonds could be redeemed by delivering cotton instead of cash, something European traders were more than happy to do. As long as the South could credibly sell these bonds, they had enough money to finance the war.
But it all depended on their being able to deliver cotton to Europe as security for those bonds. New Orleans, at the mouth of the Mississippi was the main export port for cotton out of the south. Cotton growers used the river to transport their cotton downstream to New Orleans for onward shipping to Europe. When New Orleans fell, their whole supply chain was disrupted and the value of their cotton bonds collapsed.

Interestingly, he talks specifically about the Rothschilds in that book and about how they made their fortune. He also described how propaganda has been used against them to discredit them and portray them as something they are not: evil conspirators bent on world domination.

He showed a clip from a Nazi film which described a well known anti-Jewish trope: namely that the Rothschilds had rigged the battle of Waterloo to ensure Napolen's defeat so that they could benefit financially from it. In the flim, a Rothschild emissary is bribing a French general effectively to "throw" the battle so that the "Jews" can make a financial killing.

In fact, the Rothschilds would have much preferred Napoleon to prevail in that battle, although they did ultimately benefit very greatly from its outcome. They were hired by the British to finance the armies on the continent using their admittedly extensive networks of contacts to supply gold, as currency, to the armies in the field. In this they had been enjoying a lucrative business since the Peninsular War.

When Napoleon escaped from Elba, they foresaw a return of the same opportunity: the British would need, and would pay for, the Rothschilds web of contacts to ensure the armies were paid. They also foresaw a sharp rise in the price of gold as it was needed as a trusted currency in times of strife. So the Rothschilds bought gold heavily, knowing that the renewed war with Napoleon would raise the price. The longer the war went on, the more business for them.

And then Napoleon was defeated. And the Rothschilds were sitting on all this gold, which would naturally decline in value thanks to the onset of peace. Disaster!

In one of the deftest pieces of financial manoeuvring in history, the Rothschilds got out of this predicament by selling their gold and buying British government bonds at a huge rate. Peace would see the value of gold fall but lower interest (coupon) rates on bonds brought about by stability would see the face value of bonds appreciate dramatically. Which it did.

So they benefited from the outcome of the battle of Waterloo not because of what they had done before, or the outcome they would have preferred but in spite of it.

Of course that didn't suit the Nazi line which was that Jews were evil untermenschen who had to be exterminated. So they lied and presented an inaccurate picture of what had really happened.

There was nothing inherently financial or economic in the Nazis characterisation of Jews as subhuman. That was based on a pseudo scientific, over simplified version of Darwinism called antisemitism. But there was also no reason why that could not be exploited for financial/economic ends.

The two things are entirely separate, but they can be combined.