If you have more to criticize about Hitler than to give him credit, then I think you should spend more time looking at it from a different angle.
I have seen very little, aside from a couple of links, referring to what you suggest about Himmler. Since there is so little about this, and yet so MUCH evidence that Germany was much more honorable than Russia, Britain, or the U.S., I take it with a grain of salt. It's quite possible that this satanic reference may be part of the Zionist propaganda.
I wouldn't be telling you this if I was ignorant of Hitler, but by taking a look of the Q posts and his dealings with the Swiss bankers. Explain that one to me, we all know he hated them yet he didn't bother to invade because of the decisions he made regarding the economy and pillaging other nations of their gold in order to keep the nation moving forward and war effort sustained. Basically that's proving Germany would have gotten screwed regardless, financially they would have been in ruins even if they would have won because of how things were set up.
Correct me wrong if I'm wrong, there's another thing. They arrested a Rothschild, from there they didn't execute him but handed back for a small amount of money. Why would they do this if knowing anyways something would happen, I imagine one person being executed wouldn't really change much in the public during that time since Germany wasn't close to WW2 yet.
I've only seen a single newspaper clipping about that alleged Rothschild arrest...in a Zionist newspaper. If you are privy to more details about that than I am, then perhaps you know more. But given that the single clipping is all we seem to know about the alleged event, again, take it with a grain of salt.
Germany did invade supposedly "neutral" countries in an effort to stave off advances from both the East and the West, however, aside from isolated events, didn't destroy said countries in a blind, rabid rage as has been attributed to them. Invading Switzerland would have done nothing for Germany, because, 1) Switzerland was neutral, with many ethnic Germans living there, and 2) the bankers, even if they were captured, wouldn't have access to the monies they stole. Hitler knew that the bankers held allegiance to no country, so, there was no point in attacking a whole country for the sins of a red shield family.
As far as Germany "pillaging" other countries, this is Zionist drivel.
Didn't Germany use those captured French trucks for Operation Barbarossa, by pillaging I didn't say they did what the SU did. But in a way they did take some resources needed, the French fleet at point they tried to take it. I understand these things, but however did Hitler not make promises to those world leaders on the things he did that would not be done and broke his word as if it was nothing? I image if he didn't do this, they wouldn't able to call him a tyrant if wanting peace rather. By doing these said things he made himself look untrustworthy to many people even if he meant good, I don't see Trump doing any of that.
I can't know this, of course, but it appears your understanding of events is from Jewish-inspired sources...all contaminated by propaganda.
It's possible Germany could have used captured French trucks as cover for Operation Barbarossa, although I am not familiar with this particular claim.
I also am not aware of the claims of Hitler breaking his word to other leaders. I DO know, however, that Hitler gave Poland months of warnings when ethnic Germans were being tortured and executed within Poland's borders. Poland did this to egg Germany into invading, because they had just made a protectionist agreement with Britain, that Britain would come to their aid, as well as give them reparation monies in the event of an attack.
Similarly, Hitler begged Churchill for several weeks, to stop Britain's bombing campaign against German civilian targets. Churchill broke international agreements by doing so. What was happening was the War was winding down, and Germany was no closer to being crushed like Churchill wanted. He knew if he could get Hitler to bomb London, that he could convince FDR to commit American troops. Churchill is more to blame for the London bombings than Hitler.
There are few, single, more horrific acts of war than the firebombing of Dresden. Yet, we rarely hear about it. More people died in Dresden than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. There were NO military targets in Dresden, yet Churchill, FDR, and Eisenhower leveled the city, as well as many, many other targets. Where was the justification for this? By doing so, the bombing absolutely obliterated Germany's infrastructure, and ability to maintain food and medical services to the camps. When the Allies arrived, they blamed the horrible condition at the camps on the Germans, when it was their own fault. It's all spin, and propaganda.
Eisenhower intentionally changed the classification of German military prisoners so he could avoid following the laws of the Geneva Convention. German soldiers were treated worse than animals, starved, tortured, and executed.
So, I find there are many, many more reasons to call Stalin, Churchill, and FDR war criminals (as well as Eisenhower), than Hitler. Most of the ethnic peoples in Europe at the time, loved Hitler, because they saw him as the only obstacle in the way of communism.
You guys need to read more history. Himmler was a cold-blooded, cold-handed evildoer, illustrating C. S. Lewis's point about "the banality of evil." The SS was the true archtype of what now lives in Ukraine as the Azov battalions, et al.
Albert Speer writes about Himmler's groping attempts to form an SS industrial empire, and the produce, products, and labor from the conquered Poles and Ukrainians was sought by internally competing departments of the Reich government. So, to say that Germany didn't pillage, is on a par with saying that Germany didn't shoot anybody.
If you know a lot about Hitler and Germany, I'm assuming you've also considered the content here: https://ww2truth.com/europa-the-last-battle/ and here: https://thegreateststorynevertold.tv/ ?
If you have more to criticize about Hitler than to give him credit, then I think you should spend more time looking at it from a different angle.
I have seen very little, aside from a couple of links, referring to what you suggest about Himmler. Since there is so little about this, and yet so MUCH evidence that Germany was much more honorable than Russia, Britain, or the U.S., I take it with a grain of salt. It's quite possible that this satanic reference may be part of the Zionist propaganda.
I wouldn't be telling you this if I was ignorant of Hitler, but by taking a look of the Q posts and his dealings with the Swiss bankers. Explain that one to me, we all know he hated them yet he didn't bother to invade because of the decisions he made regarding the economy and pillaging other nations of their gold in order to keep the nation moving forward and war effort sustained. Basically that's proving Germany would have gotten screwed regardless, financially they would have been in ruins even if they would have won because of how things were set up.
Correct me wrong if I'm wrong, there's another thing. They arrested a Rothschild, from there they didn't execute him but handed back for a small amount of money. Why would they do this if knowing anyways something would happen, I imagine one person being executed wouldn't really change much in the public during that time since Germany wasn't close to WW2 yet.
I've only seen a single newspaper clipping about that alleged Rothschild arrest...in a Zionist newspaper. If you are privy to more details about that than I am, then perhaps you know more. But given that the single clipping is all we seem to know about the alleged event, again, take it with a grain of salt.
Germany did invade supposedly "neutral" countries in an effort to stave off advances from both the East and the West, however, aside from isolated events, didn't destroy said countries in a blind, rabid rage as has been attributed to them. Invading Switzerland would have done nothing for Germany, because, 1) Switzerland was neutral, with many ethnic Germans living there, and 2) the bankers, even if they were captured, wouldn't have access to the monies they stole. Hitler knew that the bankers held allegiance to no country, so, there was no point in attacking a whole country for the sins of a red shield family.
As far as Germany "pillaging" other countries, this is Zionist drivel.
Didn't Germany use those captured French trucks for Operation Barbarossa, by pillaging I didn't say they did what the SU did. But in a way they did take some resources needed, the French fleet at point they tried to take it. I understand these things, but however did Hitler not make promises to those world leaders on the things he did that would not be done and broke his word as if it was nothing? I image if he didn't do this, they wouldn't able to call him a tyrant if wanting peace rather. By doing these said things he made himself look untrustworthy to many people even if he meant good, I don't see Trump doing any of that.
I can't know this, of course, but it appears your understanding of events is from Jewish-inspired sources...all contaminated by propaganda.
It's possible Germany could have used captured French trucks as cover for Operation Barbarossa, although I am not familiar with this particular claim.
I also am not aware of the claims of Hitler breaking his word to other leaders. I DO know, however, that Hitler gave Poland months of warnings when ethnic Germans were being tortured and executed within Poland's borders. Poland did this to egg Germany into invading, because they had just made a protectionist agreement with Britain, that Britain would come to their aid, as well as give them reparation monies in the event of an attack.
Similarly, Hitler begged Churchill for several weeks, to stop Britain's bombing campaign against German civilian targets. Churchill broke international agreements by doing so. What was happening was the War was winding down, and Germany was no closer to being crushed like Churchill wanted. He knew if he could get Hitler to bomb London, that he could convince FDR to commit American troops. Churchill is more to blame for the London bombings than Hitler.
There are few, single, more horrific acts of war than the firebombing of Dresden. Yet, we rarely hear about it. More people died in Dresden than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. There were NO military targets in Dresden, yet Churchill, FDR, and Eisenhower leveled the city, as well as many, many other targets. Where was the justification for this? By doing so, the bombing absolutely obliterated Germany's infrastructure, and ability to maintain food and medical services to the camps. When the Allies arrived, they blamed the horrible condition at the camps on the Germans, when it was their own fault. It's all spin, and propaganda.
Eisenhower intentionally changed the classification of German military prisoners so he could avoid following the laws of the Geneva Convention. German soldiers were treated worse than animals, starved, tortured, and executed.
So, I find there are many, many more reasons to call Stalin, Churchill, and FDR war criminals (as well as Eisenhower), than Hitler. Most of the ethnic peoples in Europe at the time, loved Hitler, because they saw him as the only obstacle in the way of communism.
You guys need to read more history. Himmler was a cold-blooded, cold-handed evildoer, illustrating C. S. Lewis's point about "the banality of evil." The SS was the true archtype of what now lives in Ukraine as the Azov battalions, et al.
Albert Speer writes about Himmler's groping attempts to form an SS industrial empire, and the produce, products, and labor from the conquered Poles and Ukrainians was sought by internally competing departments of the Reich government. So, to say that Germany didn't pillage, is on a par with saying that Germany didn't shoot anybody.
Germany 1933-1939 sounds a lot like today Russia - Ukraine and NATO encroachment.