What were British Royal ties with the Nazi regime? | The Guardian

[revanneosl]

Or not. Really not.

 

[revanneosl]

Couldn't resist. She's an anti-Semite who thinks that Hitler had a "divine mission in the world-historical context." Repeatedly convicted and fined for incitement.

But she probably loves her dogs.

 

[ananda]

Don't have time. Can you give us the cliff notes?

She points out that there is little evidence for the deaths of 6 million Jews, and that there is evidence for the deaths of ~20 million Germans. She provided data on the political and financial persecution of and related terrorism against the German people and Hitler by many in the world banking community for not adhering to their plans for globalism, and the scorched earth policy and also post-war persecution and torture of Germans by the "Allies". She questions why there is a need for laws against questioning the Holocaust, and has been persecuted by German authorities for breaking this "law". Etc.

 

[keith99]

Royals told: open archives on family ties to Nazi regime | The Guardian

The Sun’s decision to publish footage of the Queen at six or seven years old performing a Nazi salute, held in the royal archives and hitherto unavailable for public viewing, has triggered concerns that the palace has for years sought to suppress the release of damaging material confirming the links between leading royals and the Third Reich.

Unlike the National Archives, the royal archives, which are known to contain large volumes of correspondence between members of the royal family and Nazi politicians and aristocrats, are not compelled to release material on a regular basis. Now, as that relationship becomes the subject of global debate, historians and MPs have called for the archives to be opened up so that the correspondence can be put into context.

“The royal family can’t suppress their own history for ever,” said Karina Urbach of the Institute of Historical Research at the University of London. “This is censorship. Censorship is not a democratic value. They have to face their past. I’m coming from a country, Germany, where we all have to face our past.”​

Yea, the aristocracy firmly supported the Nazis.

Oh wait, they did not, so much so that Nazi aristocrat is an oxymoron. That tells me enough about the source.

 

[bhsmte]

She points out that there is little evidence for the deaths of 6 million Jews, and that there is evidence for the deaths of ~20 million Germans. She provided data on the political and financial persecution of and related terrorism against the German people and Hitler by many in the world banking community for not adhering to their plans for globalism, and the scorched earth policy and also post-war persecution and torture of Germans by the "Allies". She questions why there is a need for laws against questioning the Holocaust, and has been persecuted by German authorities for breaking this "law". Etc.

Do you believe with what she states is in fact, reality?

 

[NightHawkeye]

Yea, the aristocracy firmly supported the Nazis.

Oh wait, they did not, so much so that Nazi aristocrat is an oxymoron. That tells me enough about the source.

Curious.

I thought the Guardian was more vaunted as a liberal source than the New York Times. Thanks for correcting that impression.

Of course, the Guardian did publish the Edward Snowden papers when no one else would.

 

[bhsmte]

Couldn't resist. She's an anti-Semite who thinks that Hitler had a "divine mission in the world-historical context." Repeatedly convicted and fined for incitement.

But she probably loves her dogs.

What a shocker!

 

[ananda]

Do you believe with what she states is in fact, reality?

I don't know for myself if the data presented by either side is true or not. I am merely in favor of investigating various sides of a story with an open mind. What I do know for sure is that there are indeed laws against questioning the official story regarding the Holocaust.

Do you know for yourself that the official story regarding the Holocaust is in fact completely true?

 

[bhsmte]

I don't know for myself if the data presented by either side is true or not. I am merely in favor of investigating various sides of a story with an open mind. What I do know for sure is that there are indeed laws against questioning the official story regarding the Holocaust.

Do you know for yourself that the official story regarding the Holocaust is in fact completely true?

I have no reason to doubt, approx. 6 million jews were killed during the holocaust. Considering how recent these events happened and the information available, it shouldn't be all that difficult, for those challenging the 6 million number, to provide objective evidence it is wrong.

 

[ananda]

I have no reason to doubt, approx. 6 million jews were killed during the holocaust. Considering how recent these events happened and the information available, it shouldn't be all that difficult, for those challenging the 6 million number, to provide objective evidence it is wrong.

I believe Ursula provided some compelling evidence.

 

[keith99]

I don't know for myself if the data presented by either side is true or not. I am merely in favor of investigating various sides of a story with an open mind. What I do know for sure is that there are indeed laws against questioning the official story regarding the Holocaust.

Do you know for yourself that the official story regarding the Holocaust is in fact completely true?

I believe Ursula provided some compelling evidence.

Really? And what evidence would that be?

 

[bhsmte]

I believe Ursula provided some compelling evidence.

Such as?

 

[ananda]

Really? And what evidence would that be?

Such as?

Check out the evidence she presents in the video "Ursula Haverbeck: The Panorama Interview" (should be on youtube). Also, the documentary "Hellstorm" might be of related interest.

 

[cow451]

I think the release has merit. But to see that we need to remember we are looking at 1938 through a 2015 lens. I suggest very few people in 1938, even Hitler's critics, could fathom the future atrocities, even if they expected war. People thought the worst war in history had already happened.

So, cut the royals some slack.

 

[LoAmmi]

I don't know for myself if the data presented by either side is true or not. I am merely in favor of investigating various sides of a story with an open mind. What I do know for sure is that there are indeed laws against questioning the official story regarding the Holocaust.

Do you know for yourself that the official story regarding the Holocaust is in fact completely true?

First, your source quotes the Protocols of the Elders of Zion on the first page I looked her up on. It is a known forgery.

Second, check out the trials in Nuremberg. One of the keys to those trials was presenting evidence of Nazi atrocities. From the Nazi's own records and Nazi witnesses to the events, it's pretty clear these things happened. I have yet to meet an honest Holocaust denier that didn't hate Jews.

 

[NightHawkeye]

I think the release has merit. But to see that we need to remember we are looking at 1938 through a 2015 lens. I suggest very few people in 1938, even Hitler's critics, could fathom the future atrocities, even if they expected war. People thought the worst war in history had already happened.

So, cut the royals some slack.

How about Neville Chamberlain? Should we cut him slack, too?

 

[ananda]

First, your source quotes the Protocols of the Elders of Zion on the first page I looked her up on. It is a known forgery

She claims the Protocols is not a forgery.

Second, check out the trials in Nuremberg. One of the keys to those trials was presenting evidence of Nazi atrocities. From the Nazi's own records and Nazi witnesses to the events, it's pretty clear these things happened. I have yet to meet an honest Holocaust denier that didn't hate Jews.

As for the trials, she claims that many "records" were forged by the Allies and many "witnesses" were tortured to the point of admitting anything. I don't see that this is about hatred; instead, I see it as rationally investigating all sides of a story and questioning the government (and social!) suppression of inquiry.

 

[bhsmte]

She claims the Protocols is not a forgery.


As for the trials, she claims that many records were forged by the Allies and many "witnesses" were tortured to the point of admitting anything. I don't see that this is about hatred; instead, I see it as rationally investigating all sides of a story and questioning the government suppression of inquiry.

This point is really meaningless.

Whether the Nazis murdered 1,000 Jews or 6 million, they were still standing trial for the same war crimes. The Nazis kept their own records and the defendants admitted the records were correct.

 

[cow451]

How about Neville Chamberlain? Should we cut him slack, too?

And the people that voted him into office. Even if the war had started a year or two earlier, the outcome and tragedy would've been the same.

A good read on an example of America's role in helping Nazi germany:

IBM and the Holocaust

 

[LoAmmi]

She claims the Protocols is not a forgery.


As for the trials, she claims that many "records" were forged by the Allies and many "witnesses" were tortured to the point of admitting anything. I don't see that this is about hatred; instead, I see it as rationally investigating all sides of a story and questioning the government suppression of inquiry.

Why should her claims that the Protocols aren't a forgery hold any water?

As for her other claims, it isn't rational at all. It's hatred because there will never be enough evidence to convince her. Any evidence presented will be dismissed as a forgery or as received under duress. Outside of taking her back in time I doubt anything could convince someone so committed to hatred.

Amazing that the document that historians pretty much recognize as a forgery is completely accepted by her without such a rational investigation on all sides of the issue and the ones that are pretty air tight are probably forgeries to her and need "rational" investigation. The hatred has blinded her.