I agree that the question could be interpreted in the way you suggest, however, I disagree that your interpretation can account for all of the evidence.
Consider:
Hitler pushed for expulsion and vilification of the Jews. Not just the specific Jews that were running the show, but all the Jews, all over Europe.
The Nazis made a deal with the Jews not only to push them out of all the European countries in 1933, but to push them IN to Palestine (soon to be Israel).
This push worked, and most of the 500k Jews in Germany went to Palistine (either directly, or eventually).
One of the most important purposes of the war (both wars) was to create the State of Israel.
If Hitler were not a puppet, why would he push to get rid of all Jews in accordance with the primary agenda of the "Jewish Elite"? This association fallacy, that it's "the Jews" is not supported by all of the evidence. On the contrary, all of the evidence suggests it is a small group of people who call themselves Jews (here I am calling them the "Jewish Elite," but you can call them the Cabal, or the Banksters, or the Priest Class of Jews, or whatever you want). Even the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion specifically calls the larger group of the Jews, who are led around by propaganda, their "lesser brethren."
Everyone knows there are two classes of people who call themselves Jews. The ones who run the show, and the much larger group who are led around by propaganda (created beliefs) just like everyone else on the planet. So why would Hitler not point that out? That is incredibly important information, and is absent in EVERY effort, thus perpetuating the fraud of "anti-Semitism," by not calling out the real enemy, but rather promoting the association fallacy intrinsic in the very phrase "the Jews."
That's not a very good exposition of evidence. It is entirely too "Conspiracy Theory" in tone. That doesn't mean I think he is wrong about everything, or even anything at all. Having said that, the author cites Walter Langer as a reference to Hitler and Rothschild, which gives him some credibility.
Mr. Langer wasn't just a "noted psychoanalyst," he was a top level investigator for the OSS, and had all of their resources when he made that analysis. Langer cites sources within his book that are credible. Overall, Langer is a very credible resource. As far as I have found, Langer is always ignored in any "debunking."
The fact that the author of that article didn't expand on who Langer was, who his stated sources are, and who he was working for at the time, makes me think that the author may be putting that out specifically as a form of Controlled Opposition. It sounds like AJ. Not that I'm suggesting AJ wrote it, but it has that same vibe.
Nevertheless, I think the author is at least mostly correct.
You are mischaracterizing the Haavara Agreement. It wasn't a "push."
There were many professional Jews who continued to work and thrive inside of Germany during that time. Many Jews were officers in the military. Hitler's personal physician, and the one he trusted with his mother, was a Jew. I believe that's evidence enough that "all" Jews were NOT targeted.
You are mischaracterizing the Haavara Agreement. It wasn't a "push."
From wikipedia. If you prefer, we can look at translations of the original agreement, but this should be sufficient for this discussion:
The agreement enabled Jews fleeing persecution under the new Nazi regime to transfer some portion of their assets to British Mandatory Palestine.[2] Emigrants sold their assets in Germany to pay for essential goods (manufactured in Germany) to be shipped to Mandatory Palestine.
If the creation of a massive economic advantage, for emigration specifically into Palestine (and no where else), with an entire corporate entity called "Mandatory Palestine" created 13 years before with ALL NATIONS at the League of Nations Talks in agreement isn't a "push," then what exactly is a "push" to you? Everything was pushing them there. The Haavara Agreement was just the final link in the chain to ensure that millions went to Palestine.
In your second paragraph, you are making the exact same association fallacy I just mentioned. Yes, there were plenty of ELITE Jews that stayed behind. There were plenty of ELITE Jews that were part of Hitler's crew. How does that in any way change the economic incentives, and all the propaganda that was pushed out at the time on the larger body of Jews, to push them out of Europe into Palestine.
On the contrary, the very fact that there were so many ELITE Jews that were part of Hitlers crew STRONGLY SUGGESTS he was a puppet. It is evidence for, not evidence against.
Your statements provide no evidence against anything I said, at least not as presented.
You're using Wikipedia as a source. There were no Jews "fleeing persecution," other than the ones who were communists or communist sympathizers. Hitler made generous concessions to those wishing to be part of a state of their own.
As far as the differences in those who remained vs. those who left (or stayed to continue to infiltrate and fight), it's a matter of loyalty. The bankers were the main target because they were financing the subversion, and therefore were the enemies of a sovereign Germany. The other professionals didn't have any skin in the game, and were safe.
This is an ad hominem, not an address of what was said. We can look at the original if you like, but the wikipedia statement will be well corroborated within it. In general, Wikipedia is an excellent source because they cite all their sources. This allows for further investigation. The only thing better than wikipedia is a primary source.
The problem with "wikipedia is not a good source" arguments (other than that they are purely ad hominem) is that it suggests there are better sources, as in, "more trustworthy." NO SOURCE is trustworthy. None. Not a single one. Thus, this argument, in addition to being an ad hominem fallacy, also contains an assumption of "trust," which is the enemy of any honest investigation.
There were no Jews "fleeing persecution,"
Ok, except what about all the evidence to the contrary? I mean, if you're going to make a statement that goes against literally everything, including period documents, you're gonna have to provide something to back it up.
other than the ones who were communists or communist sympathizers.
The "communist" Jews were either the Elite Jews, a group created intentionally as controlled opposition, or their "lesser brethren" that were following those Elites through propaganda. They were the other side of the coin, created specifically to push the "right" agenda and the "left" agenda towards the same agenda, i.e. a one world communist government. Fascism is just communism with different packaging. It's where they agree that is most important; the real agenda.
The bankers were the main target because they were financing the subversion
Except that's not what happened at all. Yes, it happened to some extent, but only on the surface. The Nazis were funded pretty much entirely by the Bank of International Settlements, and US and British Elites and banks, all of which were ultimately controlled by (or beholden to) Family Rothschild. They were outfitted by American corporations, many of which were controlled by, and all of which were beholden to Family Rothschild. ALL sides were pushed by the same propaganda efforts, all of which was ultimately controlled by Family Rothschild.
What is on the surface, and what exists on a deeper dive are far removed.
I agree that the question could be interpreted in the way you suggest, however, I disagree that your interpretation can account for all of the evidence.
Consider:
If Hitler were not a puppet, why would he push to get rid of all Jews in accordance with the primary agenda of the "Jewish Elite"? This association fallacy, that it's "the Jews" is not supported by all of the evidence. On the contrary, all of the evidence suggests it is a small group of people who call themselves Jews (here I am calling them the "Jewish Elite," but you can call them the Cabal, or the Banksters, or the Priest Class of Jews, or whatever you want). Even the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion specifically calls the larger group of the Jews, who are led around by propaganda, their "lesser brethren."
Everyone knows there are two classes of people who call themselves Jews. The ones who run the show, and the much larger group who are led around by propaganda (created beliefs) just like everyone else on the planet. So why would Hitler not point that out? That is incredibly important information, and is absent in EVERY effort, thus perpetuating the fraud of "anti-Semitism," by not calling out the real enemy, but rather promoting the association fallacy intrinsic in the very phrase "the Jews."
Interesting theory about who Hitler was - https://humansbefree.com/2011/05/adolf-hitler-was-a-rothschild-strong-evidence.html
That's not a very good exposition of evidence. It is entirely too "Conspiracy Theory" in tone. That doesn't mean I think he is wrong about everything, or even anything at all. Having said that, the author cites Walter Langer as a reference to Hitler and Rothschild, which gives him some credibility.
Mr. Langer wasn't just a "noted psychoanalyst," he was a top level investigator for the OSS, and had all of their resources when he made that analysis. Langer cites sources within his book that are credible. Overall, Langer is a very credible resource. As far as I have found, Langer is always ignored in any "debunking."
The fact that the author of that article didn't expand on who Langer was, who his stated sources are, and who he was working for at the time, makes me think that the author may be putting that out specifically as a form of Controlled Opposition. It sounds like AJ. Not that I'm suggesting AJ wrote it, but it has that same vibe.
Nevertheless, I think the author is at least mostly correct.
You are mischaracterizing the Haavara Agreement. It wasn't a "push."
There were many professional Jews who continued to work and thrive inside of Germany during that time. Many Jews were officers in the military. Hitler's personal physician, and the one he trusted with his mother, was a Jew. I believe that's evidence enough that "all" Jews were NOT targeted.
From wikipedia. If you prefer, we can look at translations of the original agreement, but this should be sufficient for this discussion:
If the creation of a massive economic advantage, for emigration specifically into Palestine (and no where else), with an entire corporate entity called "Mandatory Palestine" created 13 years before with ALL NATIONS at the League of Nations Talks in agreement isn't a "push," then what exactly is a "push" to you? Everything was pushing them there. The Haavara Agreement was just the final link in the chain to ensure that millions went to Palestine.
In your second paragraph, you are making the exact same association fallacy I just mentioned. Yes, there were plenty of ELITE Jews that stayed behind. There were plenty of ELITE Jews that were part of Hitler's crew. How does that in any way change the economic incentives, and all the propaganda that was pushed out at the time on the larger body of Jews, to push them out of Europe into Palestine.
On the contrary, the very fact that there were so many ELITE Jews that were part of Hitlers crew STRONGLY SUGGESTS he was a puppet. It is evidence for, not evidence against.
Your statements provide no evidence against anything I said, at least not as presented.
You're using Wikipedia as a source. There were no Jews "fleeing persecution," other than the ones who were communists or communist sympathizers. Hitler made generous concessions to those wishing to be part of a state of their own.
As far as the differences in those who remained vs. those who left (or stayed to continue to infiltrate and fight), it's a matter of loyalty. The bankers were the main target because they were financing the subversion, and therefore were the enemies of a sovereign Germany. The other professionals didn't have any skin in the game, and were safe.
Hitler was not a puppet.
This is an ad hominem, not an address of what was said. We can look at the original if you like, but the wikipedia statement will be well corroborated within it. In general, Wikipedia is an excellent source because they cite all their sources. This allows for further investigation. The only thing better than wikipedia is a primary source.
The problem with "wikipedia is not a good source" arguments (other than that they are purely ad hominem) is that it suggests there are better sources, as in, "more trustworthy." NO SOURCE is trustworthy. None. Not a single one. Thus, this argument, in addition to being an ad hominem fallacy, also contains an assumption of "trust," which is the enemy of any honest investigation.
Ok, except what about all the evidence to the contrary? I mean, if you're going to make a statement that goes against literally everything, including period documents, you're gonna have to provide something to back it up.
The "communist" Jews were either the Elite Jews, a group created intentionally as controlled opposition, or their "lesser brethren" that were following those Elites through propaganda. They were the other side of the coin, created specifically to push the "right" agenda and the "left" agenda towards the same agenda, i.e. a one world communist government. Fascism is just communism with different packaging. It's where they agree that is most important; the real agenda.
Except that's not what happened at all. Yes, it happened to some extent, but only on the surface. The Nazis were funded pretty much entirely by the Bank of International Settlements, and US and British Elites and banks, all of which were ultimately controlled by (or beholden to) Family Rothschild. They were outfitted by American corporations, many of which were controlled by, and all of which were beholden to Family Rothschild. ALL sides were pushed by the same propaganda efforts, all of which was ultimately controlled by Family Rothschild.
What is on the surface, and what exists on a deeper dive are far removed.
Germany had jewish generals. In addition to various black atab and asian volunteer divisions. A fact often over looked.