You really don't know do you? Yet, you pretend to know. I've read those books you mentioned too. In fact I read Eisenhower’s book, *“Crusade in Europe”, Churchill's work, "The Second World War" (6-volumes), and Charles de Gaulle’s work, "The Complete War Memoirs" (3-volumes). That's a total of 10 volumes amounting to over 7000 pages. What is amazing about reading these works, there is not one mentioning of the holocaust in all those volumes. Nor is there any mentioning of the origin of 'Nazi'.
Sadly, your tendency seems to run with the dubious Wikipedia version of history. Just as Germans don't call themselves "Germans" either. Along with this, the 'Deutsch' in the Party name is self-evident to the Deutsch of 'Deutschland' and is reiterative. Just as 'American' isn't need for Repubs and Dems. The agreement between Hitler and the Zionists is indeed true. Read Black's "the Transfer Agreement" or Benjamin Freedman's, "Facts Are Facts". Look it up in your go-to-faux-facts 'Wikipedia'. Even they will mention it and provide a concocted version of it.. And the part of having little faith, you already spent your account.
"Nazi" is merely the phonetic shorthand for the first two syllables of "National" (in German, the "z" is pronounced as a "ts"). It was a parallel to the "sotzi" used to designate the socialists.
You got the party founding all wrong. I don't know what insight Eisenhower or DeGaulle had into the forming of the NSDAP, but Hitler was instrumental, and Konrad Heiden was the closest journalistic observer from the formation up to 1933. And, by the way, it is not unusual for books written before an event to lack references to the event.
'Wikipedia' seems to be your source for history. Alas, history continues to be altered by those who own the publishing companies. The Rothschild's funded the rise of Hitler's and his Party. I showed you there was proof that an agreement was made between the Zionists and Hitler's Party. Even Goebbels had a special German coin minted to celebrate Zionism and it had a Star of David on one side and a Swastika on the other side. I provided you two important sources for this agreement. Black's "The Transfer Agreement" and Benjamin Freedman's, "Facts Are Facts". You wrote, "...Eisenhower or DeGaulle had into the forming of the NSDAP,..." I never said this. You did. You completely missed the point. Moreover, you did write, "The Party never referred to itself as the "Nazi Party," even though that came to be its attribution in the West." This is why I wrote, "Nor is there any mentioning of the origin of 'Nazi'"......Ergo, regarding Eisenhower, Churchill, and DeGaulle's massive works (over 7000 pages). Albeit, 'Nazi' most likely is a Western concoction, it is IMHO derived from the aforementioned agreement. Again, the reason for the historical ambiguity is from an incessant cover-up of Zionists having a predominant hand in putting Hitler in power. Hitler's ‘Haavara’ Agreement was in essence a competing version of the Balfour Declaration.
No. Not a word of this in "Mein Kampf" or "The Fuhrer." You agree that Eisenhower and DeGaulle had no insight into the formation of the NSDAP, so why did you refer to them at all? The Party did not like the appellation "Nazi" (it was also a slang nickname for "Ignatz" which was a stand-in for a country bumpkin) and did not bother to popularize it. Why should it comment? And what should be remarkable, that a group is identified by an abbreviation of the syllables of its name, "Nazi" for National and "Yank" for Yankee and "Jap" for Japanese?
I looked up the Black book. There seems nothing remarkable about the Nazi government making such an arrangement to get Jews out of Germany, which was "the problem" they were trying to solve. (Contrary to some commentary in reviews, Hitler did not elaborate a "final solution" in "Mein Kampf.") So the agreement was made circa 1933, not in 1923. And there is no hint (in the reviews) that the Jews combined with the Germans to make the "NAZI" party, when the Party was on a death watch in the wake of the Putsch.
Your whole idea that "the Jews" set Hitler up in power is ridiculous. The NSDAP was founded in 1920 (not 1923) in Munich, Bavaria (not Austria) with no Jewish involvement. In 1923 the NSDAP under Hitler attempted a coup of the Bavarian government, which was suppressed and Hitler placed in prison, where he wrote "Mein Kampf." No hint of Jewish involvement. The export agreement would have been possible only when the NSDAP had gained power, and so also the coin. You are trying to extrapolate backwards from events that happened after the Nazis came into power, but time travel is not possible.
Again, you misunderstood the message. I feel like the conversation has become circular. You're pretending the history is as it is written by Wikipedia. I claim it is abundantly clear it is not. The obfuscation and made-up narratives of that period is immense. In addition, you are again claiming I stated words and phrases that I never stated. Enough is enough. You simply don't know the truth. Stop pretending. I'm sticking to what I believe is the truth, not what Wikipedia tells me.
You really don't know do you? Yet, you pretend to know. I've read those books you mentioned too. In fact I read Eisenhower’s book, *“Crusade in Europe”, Churchill's work, "The Second World War" (6-volumes), and Charles de Gaulle’s work, "The Complete War Memoirs" (3-volumes). That's a total of 10 volumes amounting to over 7000 pages. What is amazing about reading these works, there is not one mentioning of the holocaust in all those volumes. Nor is there any mentioning of the origin of 'Nazi'.
Sadly, your tendency seems to run with the dubious Wikipedia version of history. Just as Germans don't call themselves "Germans" either. Along with this, the 'Deutsch' in the Party name is self-evident to the Deutsch of 'Deutschland' and is reiterative. Just as 'American' isn't need for Repubs and Dems. The agreement between Hitler and the Zionists is indeed true. Read Black's "the Transfer Agreement" or Benjamin Freedman's, "Facts Are Facts". Look it up in your go-to-faux-facts 'Wikipedia'. Even they will mention it and provide a concocted version of it.. And the part of having little faith, you already spent your account.
"Nazi" is merely the phonetic shorthand for the first two syllables of "National" (in German, the "z" is pronounced as a "ts"). It was a parallel to the "sotzi" used to designate the socialists.
You got the party founding all wrong. I don't know what insight Eisenhower or DeGaulle had into the forming of the NSDAP, but Hitler was instrumental, and Konrad Heiden was the closest journalistic observer from the formation up to 1933. And, by the way, it is not unusual for books written before an event to lack references to the event.
And what would be your point?
'Wikipedia' seems to be your source for history. Alas, history continues to be altered by those who own the publishing companies. The Rothschild's funded the rise of Hitler's and his Party. I showed you there was proof that an agreement was made between the Zionists and Hitler's Party. Even Goebbels had a special German coin minted to celebrate Zionism and it had a Star of David on one side and a Swastika on the other side. I provided you two important sources for this agreement. Black's "The Transfer Agreement" and Benjamin Freedman's, "Facts Are Facts". You wrote, "...Eisenhower or DeGaulle had into the forming of the NSDAP,..." I never said this. You did. You completely missed the point. Moreover, you did write, "The Party never referred to itself as the "Nazi Party," even though that came to be its attribution in the West." This is why I wrote, "Nor is there any mentioning of the origin of 'Nazi'"......Ergo, regarding Eisenhower, Churchill, and DeGaulle's massive works (over 7000 pages). Albeit, 'Nazi' most likely is a Western concoction, it is IMHO derived from the aforementioned agreement. Again, the reason for the historical ambiguity is from an incessant cover-up of Zionists having a predominant hand in putting Hitler in power. Hitler's ‘Haavara’ Agreement was in essence a competing version of the Balfour Declaration.
No. Not a word of this in "Mein Kampf" or "The Fuhrer." You agree that Eisenhower and DeGaulle had no insight into the formation of the NSDAP, so why did you refer to them at all? The Party did not like the appellation "Nazi" (it was also a slang nickname for "Ignatz" which was a stand-in for a country bumpkin) and did not bother to popularize it. Why should it comment? And what should be remarkable, that a group is identified by an abbreviation of the syllables of its name, "Nazi" for National and "Yank" for Yankee and "Jap" for Japanese?
I looked up the Black book. There seems nothing remarkable about the Nazi government making such an arrangement to get Jews out of Germany, which was "the problem" they were trying to solve. (Contrary to some commentary in reviews, Hitler did not elaborate a "final solution" in "Mein Kampf.") So the agreement was made circa 1933, not in 1923. And there is no hint (in the reviews) that the Jews combined with the Germans to make the "NAZI" party, when the Party was on a death watch in the wake of the Putsch.
The coin story is well-recounted here: https://jewishnews.com/2018/01/22/a-nazi-travels-to-palestine-a-swastika-and-star-of-david-on-one-coin/ It occurs after the NSDAP gained power.
Your whole idea that "the Jews" set Hitler up in power is ridiculous. The NSDAP was founded in 1920 (not 1923) in Munich, Bavaria (not Austria) with no Jewish involvement. In 1923 the NSDAP under Hitler attempted a coup of the Bavarian government, which was suppressed and Hitler placed in prison, where he wrote "Mein Kampf." No hint of Jewish involvement. The export agreement would have been possible only when the NSDAP had gained power, and so also the coin. You are trying to extrapolate backwards from events that happened after the Nazis came into power, but time travel is not possible.
Again, you misunderstood the message. I feel like the conversation has become circular. You're pretending the history is as it is written by Wikipedia. I claim it is abundantly clear it is not. The obfuscation and made-up narratives of that period is immense. In addition, you are again claiming I stated words and phrases that I never stated. Enough is enough. You simply don't know the truth. Stop pretending. I'm sticking to what I believe is the truth, not what Wikipedia tells me.