r/conspiracy: Let’s talk about World War II

1 XxJefferson-StatexX 2018-01-11

Hail victory.

1 Quetzalcoatlwasright 2018-01-11

I’m scared to ask which side you think won. Lol

1 XxJefferson-StatexX 2018-01-11

Nineteen hundred and forty-six. 1946, Mandrake. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works.

1 pieceofchance 2018-01-11

So are you just a content bot?

1 XxJefferson-StatexX 2018-01-11

Good work detective.

The Nazis won WWII.

1 pieceofchance 2018-01-11

Oh, I very much agree with the assertion.

1 Quetzalcoatlwasright 2018-01-11

You know, you could speak English, and I would probably be able to understand you. This was not a commie conspiracy.. I barely mentioned Russia, much less communism. Thought it deserves mentioning.

1 altleftisnotreal 2018-01-11

WW1 bro

1 DarthStem 2018-01-11

I've thought a lot about this subject as well. The Nazi's were on the cutting edge of tech at the time. None of the Allied countries had programs in place at the beginning of the war like Germany did.

Hitler's biggest mistake was reneging on his deal with Stalin to stay out of Russia. If he just consolidated his power in Europe and north Africa he would have been set. But another of Hitler's problems was he didn't really like listening to anybody and did what he wanted. If Rommel was in charge of military decision making the invasion of Europe would have more than likely failed.

Also the fire bombings didn't help the fatherland much once the factories started disappearing.

1 Quetzalcoatlwasright 2018-01-11

Indeed. It’s also worth considering the Prescott Bush/Rockefeller connection, as they were supplying oil and finances to Hitler’s regime, as did many Jewish moguls. Perhaps he was never designed to win, but rather to push the world to the brink and act as a boogeyman for the heroic Anglo-American Alliance.

1 DarthStem 2018-01-11

Don't forget about Henry Ford either. A lot of Nazi vehicles were Ford's before America entered the war.

1 Quetzalcoatlwasright 2018-01-11

BINNNGOOOO

1 educatethis 2018-01-11

He had to invade Russia.... no where else to get oil at the time. It was either win the baltic oil reserves, or lose.

1 DarthStem 2018-01-11

I have a great-great uncle who was an artillery general in the Wehrmacht and died at the Battle of the Korsun–Cherkassy Pocket. Out in the Ukraine protecting the oil fields.

1 odd-meter 2018-01-11

When Germany blitzed into Russia, didn’t they literally stumble upon a huge Russian force that was gathering to invade Germany? Seems as though Stalin wasn’t planning on keeping his end of the bargain. Never was.

1 DarthStem 2018-01-11

I'm not 100% certain but did Stalin declare for the akkues before or after Germany invaded?

1 RareOmen 2018-01-11

Humanity lost in WW2. The Germans were able to free themselves from the grasp on the international bankers for a short while, and their economy took off. We are now firmly in their grasps, acting as their debt slaves and paying them exorbitant and unaccountable taxes. I hope this isn't how the story ends.

1 Quetzalcoatlwasright 2018-01-11

Who knows Trump could be Hitler II

I’M JUST KIDDING, LIBERALS CALM DOWN

For real though, the debt slave system isn’t sustainable; they’ll have kill a whole mess of people sooner rather than later and then we’ll have another shot at tipping the balance, when war and chaos again dominate the West.

1 fullspeedornothing- 2018-01-11

Let's see where the Bitcoin project takes us these coming years.

1 0x000710 2018-01-11

95% of bitcoin is owned by 4%. Do you think you will live to see that distributed? If so, will it then be worth anything by your metrics?

1 fullspeedornothing- 2018-01-11

Most money is owned by the 1% today.

3 0x000710 2018-01-11

yea so would i...

1 fullspeedornothing- 2018-01-11

r/conspiracy doesn't like crypto, man.

1 SnippDK 2018-01-11

Majority of bitcoin is owned by 1% and investors have already influenced it. Dont buy bitcoin.

1 fullspeedornothing- 2018-01-11

Too late, bro. I'm balls deep.

Gotta get dat digital cash.

1 DerkDerkinson 2018-01-11

Great post. I’ve recently been coming to the same conclusion: what we were taught about WWII is a flat out deception designed to manufacture consent for a new world order as you described it above. The deception was also designed to protect the zionists from any criticism and portray them as victims.

History was written by the victors, and one might argue that the Zionists/Illuminati were the victors.

1 Quetzalcoatlwasright 2018-01-11

Thanks. One things I’ve been thinking: there were major, maaaaajor wars every couple of decades following the Illuminati’s original founding and the French Revolution: The Napoleonic Wars, The Civil War (coinciding with the Crimean War and the Opium Wars; could be considered a world conflict), World War I, then World War II.

We haven’t had a war like this since WWII. We have just stayed in a state on perptual conflict across the whole planet: Korea, Africa (1950’s-1960’s independence movements), Vietnam, Israel’s aggressive wars, CIA’s espionage, Iran-Iraq War, Gulf War, Kosovo War, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Ukraine..

My point is that a war of great magnitude such as WWII is impossible, I believe, because since then, war has become an industry rather than an act

1 falsescorpion 2018-01-11

Isn't it a bit more likely that it's because since around the 1950s, the most advanced nations have possessed between them the capacity to wipe out humankind several times over at the flip of a switch?

I think you're right about the USA though - it went from a sleeping giant to an armed leviathan during WWII and the rise of the military-industrial complex has helped (n.b.) to drive an endless series of crappy wars conducted at a safe distance from US borders.

As for WWII, doubtless the 'official version' is a bit of a fairy-tale, but it's clearly not far off the mark. My own feeling is that the financial elites in Britain and America saw Nazi Germany as a threat to their cozy order, and crushed it double-quick, then jury-rigged the official version later on to justify what they'd done (the Holocaust became the crown jewel in that post hoc justification. You have to admit that the Holocaust is pretty damning evidence against Nazism in general and Hitler in particular).

Nazi Germany, with its futuristic innovations - motorways, national television service, anti-vivisection laws, anti-smoking public health policies etc etc - had come back from absolute bankruptcy. In less than a decade, Germans went from paying one hundred billion Marks for a loaf of bread, to being able to afford a mass-produced car so well-engineered that is still on the road, pretty much unchanged, to this very day.

You bet the Western elites were scared. They had a simple choice: stop Germany in its tracks, or end up dangling from lamp-posts before the dawn of the 1960s.

1 Quetzalcoatlwasright 2018-01-11

In other words, history is written by the victors.

1 falsescorpion 2018-01-11

Quite a bit more than that, in the case of WWII, but fundamentally: yes.

History wasn't just written by the victors, it was steered in new directions.

The role of the US evangelical right in founding the modern state of Israel, for example, was driven by their view that the Holocaust was some kind of final tribulation and a stepping-stone toward (the Christian) Judgement Day, in accordance with Biblical prophecy.

It's not just a case of a convenient mythology being laid down and forgotten - WWII was the motivation for the creation of the largely-manufactured reality that surrounds and affects us today. But this is waaay off-topic, so I'll shut up now.

1 Step2TheJep 2018-01-11

what we were taught about WWII is a flat out deception designed to manufacture consent for a new world order as you described it above.

It certainly seems that way once you peel back the layers of the deception onion.

Even something as simple as military technology: what do we really know?

See pic related.

Supposedy it went:

Wernher von Braun -> V2 rockets -> NASA -> Apollo (i.e. moon landings) -> modern 'air-to-air' missile tech.

A lot of people on this sub still believe in the moon landings (lol) but those who have grown out of that will identify a problem here: when did Wernher begin his fakery? What do we really know about V2 rockets?

1 ManIsBornFree 2018-01-11

SICK POST!

We demand, as I speak for all of us, more content like this!!!

I dont think Hitler was a possessed anti-Christ. He was a perfect agent/actor. Most presidents in power are, until their not, and then they are shot in Houston.

They’re beautiful.

So are many other leaders who are chosen for that exact purpose.

Hitler did not die in Argi, he died in Peru. He was being hunted for sometime in Argi by Mossad. This is why he lived next-door, but too the same escape route that caused Mossad to hunt NAZIs in Argi; that route was the roman catholic church, btw.

Nazis explored Antarctica, but never built instillations capable of long-term sufficiency. They explored this as a means to hold supplies in the future global-theater. No one was even contemplating weather-manipulation in this scope of cause and effect to assume Antarctica could be weaponized (at that time).

Finally, in liking the post, I am trined to point out it flaws in respect to psycholoigical processes:

PACE-and-LEAD.

you essentially posted facts, and then proceeding to use those agreement frames in facts to lead the observer into POSSIBLE agreement frames with your ideas and conclusions.

This is not how arguments work, logically.

So, I like the structure, and the facts, but disagree on most of your opinions in effect of those facts.

Great post, all in all.

1 Quetzalcoatlwasright 2018-01-11

I’ll accept the mix of compliments and criticisms lol

I certainly wasn’t trying to lead anyone on, just establishing a factual background for some of my more theoretical suppositions.

However. I would like to point out that it your referring to JFK, he was shot in Dallas, not Houston. I mainly know this because I am from Dallas and have done extensive research into the JFK assassination (wrote an award winning paper on it in college).

I digress, I don’t think there’s much proof of Nazi bases in Antarctica or for Hitler having survived in South America, but there is enough circumstantial evidence to convince me. The FBI dox on Hitler seem legitimate and they line up perfectly with other things that were happening at the time (Paperclip). The thing about Antarctica that really drives it home for me is Highjump. 40-50 US Marines died in 1947 (two yearrrrrssss) after the war, tracking down a Nazi base. Some claimed they were confronted by UFO’s.

My question is were the UFO’s of Nazi origin, or were they from somewhere else.

How coincidental that not three months later Roswell happened.

Hmmm.

1 ManIsBornFree 2018-01-11

However. I would like to point out that if your referring to JFK, he was shot in Dallas, not Houston. I mainly know this because I am from Dallas and have done extensive research into the JFK assassination (wrote an award winning paper on it in college).

Dangit, you're absolutely correct. I just hope im not referencing the future, and It was JFK...

I was really just wrong. Got the cities mixed up, and thanks for correcting me.

I digress, I don’t think there’s much proof of Nazi bases in Antarctica or for Hitler having survived in South America, but there is enough circumstantial evidence to convince me. The FBI dox on Hitler seem legitimate and they line up perfectly with other things that were happening at the time (Paperclip). The thing about Antarctica that really drives it home for me is Highjump. 40-50 US Marines died in 1947 (two yearrrrrssss) after the war, tracking down a Nazi base. Some claimed they were confronted by UFO’s.

Fair argument. Let's do the work. I'm willing to look for articles that support or deny your position, if you do the same. We post our assessments here and in a probabilistic fashion of the information, informally conclude something more.....

Im interested exploring this further.

My question is were the UFO’s of Nazi origin, or were they from somewhere else.

OK, primary goal here.

This I dont know.

My dabbling has only been into the weaponizing of geography, and WWII fascination with the catholic church.

Of course, Im using occam's razor in my disagreement of Hilter and alien-nazies. I'm assuming a probability position over knowledge I dont have - or mess up, like with JFKs death place.

I dont know much about E.T., or secret weapons projects (not involving the manipulation of geographic variabels).

As for the Antarctica stuff, I think there will be sufficient data to make a probabilistic claim, and this claim is in the realm of 'my-foot-in-my-mouth' if im wrong. So, ill do some digging for us.

1 Quetzalcoatlwasright 2018-01-11

I’m busy at the moment but I can send you some material on Highjump, assuming you can’t find anything of value yourself, at a later time.

Look up Admiral Byrd’s testimony; he’s the CO of Highjump, and claimed that Antarctica had “green land, the size of the United States there”

No. I’m not kidding.

Take that in consideration as well as the fossilized forests discovered there in the sixties and I think you get what I’m saying.

If aliens do exist on Earth, they’re in Antarctica.

As far as Hitler is concerned, he’s Othello. He’s Ozymandius. He’s the passionate, duped fall guy, in my opinion. He and the Nazi’s were used by some other force (possibly an international cabal, possibly ET) to do what had to be done; cause enough chaos and destruction to set the stage for international laws.

I would also look into secret weapons projects more; it’s all really cool stuff. By “cool” I mean absolutely horrifying to most, but fascinating to me.

Electromagnetic frequency weapons (EMF); make someone’s heart explode from a distance, change their brain chemistry remotely; basically mind control.

Weather control (HAARP); same concept as EMF, use electricity to heat portions of the atmosphere, causing chain reactions that lead to earthquakes and hurricanes, not to mention altering temperatures.

Zero point energy; this one I’m not as familiar with, basically it’s like CERN, sapping energy from manipulation of particles, generating free, clean energy; used to fuel our own UFOs

The list goes on; time travel (Philadelphia experiment) super soldiers, alien hybridization, cloning, etc.

I would like to point out that while the govenment may have not mastered any of the above weaponizations... you can bet your bottom dollar they’re actively TRYING TO

Also, didn’t mean to bash you on the JFK thing; was just clarifying. :)

1 ManIsBornFree 2018-01-11

Also, didn’t mean to bash you on the JFK thing; was just clarifying. :)

No, you just re-educated me, is all. Call out the fool when you see me :}

I would like to point out that while the govenment may have not mastered any of the above weaponizations... you can bet your bottom dollar they’re actively TRYING TO

100% agreement.

Time to hit the google. Happy hunting, and be back soon!

1 Quetzalcoatlwasright 2018-01-11

Be careful, guard your heart; some of this stuff is incredibly disturbing

I am eager to hear your thoughts on the subjects.

Good luck.

1 ManIsBornFree 2018-01-11

As for our discussion on Antarctica: Antarctica is 5,400,000 sq mi (-United States Central Intelligence Agency) Temperature: −128.6 °F at the center, during winter, 59 °F on the coast during summer. 1,106 -4,000 Population in the summer: 0.00008/km2 (0.0002/sq mi), So plenty of room to explore. Why it’s still hard to explore: hostile environment, lack of easily accessible resources, and isolation How long it’s been known of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_Australis

No physical evidence of human exploration before the historical record. Just human acknowledgement. of its existence. Coastal works that must have been explored. Something leading to an ancient civilization possibly once existing there, temporarily. Politics: ‘Condominium’, governed by parties to the Antarctic Treaty System; Twelve countries signed the Antarctic Treaty in 1959, and thirty-eight have signed it since then. THIRTY-EIGHT!

“The treaty prohibits military activities and mineral mining, prohibits nuclear explosions and nuclear waste disposal, supports scientific research, and protects the continent's ecozone. Ongoing experiments are conducted by more than 4,000 scientists from many nations”-wikipedia.

That treaty: Prohibits military experiments, and has scientists lurking down there. If someone was to notice E.T. attack crafts, it will be scientists.

Nature of Its geography and climate: Antarctica means: "opposite to the Arctic", "opposite to the north"; this was geo-strategically the reverse of the soviet ability and aims, and a realm of unknown military possibility for such a large time. On record, it was known as a place to store supplies (fuel, ammo, guns, machines, food).

“Antarctica is colder than the Arctic for three reasons. First, much of the continent is more than 3,000 m (9,800 ft) above sea level, and temperature decreases with elevation in the troposphere. Second, the Arctic Ocean covers the north polar zone: the ocean's relative warmth is transferred through the icepack and prevents temperatures in the Arctic regions from reaching the extremes typical of the land surface of Antarctica. Third, the Earth is at aphelion in July (i.e., the Earth is farthest from the Sun in the Antarctic winter), and the Earth is at perihelion in January (i.e., the Earth is closest to the Sun in the Antarctic summer). The orbital distance contributes to a colder Antarctic winter (and a warmer Antarctic summer) but the first two effects have more impact”-wikipedia “Subglacial topography and bathymetry of bedrock underlying Antarctica ice sheet” is why the national socialist Germans utilized their submarine force to explore it. It was theoretically a means to do the same in event of a future/long war and to retrieve whale fats.

LIFE ON ANTARTICA: The aforementioned plant life that is seen to impossibly exist is from the Mesozoic era of around 250-66 Ma. The entire world was hotter and much more oxygenated. This leads to more humid extending biomes and trapped thermal radiation. The same can be said of the current Sahara Desert.

In other words, the existence of sub-tropical plant life does not conclude anything more than the continental shelf has been present for more than 250-66 MA years. The fact it’s fossilized goes to promote this idea. The cooling is known as the Gondwana Breakup, and it happened an assumed 160-23 MA in slow-gradual freezes.

Likewise, that plants existed that long. This is another proposition of these conclusions that must be present; we see from fossil records, that it is.

If the plants are MODERN species, with no ancient ancestors, fossilized like that, then there is reason to be suspicious. This is not the case, however. MILITART/SCIENCE ACTIONS NOW and THEN: “The Antarctic Treaty prohibits any military activity in Antarctica, including the establishment of military bases and fortifications, military maneuvers, and weapons testing. Military personnel or equipment are permitted only for scientific research or other peaceful purposes. The only documented military land maneuver has been the small Operation NINETY by the Argentine military in 1965” - wikipedia

Besides climate measurements and sea level experiments, what else do they do scientifically in Antarctica: “Meteorites from Antarctica are a key area of study of material formed early in the solar system; most are thought to come from asteroids, but some may have originated on larger planets”.-wikipedia Military operations since the treaty: “In January 2006, a Royal New Zealand Air Force P-3K Orion maritime patrol aircraft conducted a trial flight to and from Pegasus Airfield near McMurdo Station to determine the feasibility of conducting patrols from Antarctica in support of the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. RNZAF P-3Ks have regularly conducted flights to and from Antarctica since this successful trial”. - wikipedia

1 ManIsBornFree 2018-01-11

Exploration: “Antarctica is noted as the last region on Earth in recorded history to be discovered and colonized by humans, unsighted until 1820 when the Russian expedition of Fabian Gottlieb von Bellingshausen and Mikhail Lazarev on Vostok and Mirny sighted the Fimbul ice shelf”.

This is an important starting position: Is there diaries or written word of mystery and where did they explore of the 5,400,000 Sq Mi?

How do we explore Antarctica now: remote sensing, ground-penetrating radar and satellite imagery List of explorations: Commander James Cook's second voyage (United Kingdom, 1773) USS Vincennes' surveys of Antarctica (United States, 1839 and 1840) In February 1941 the German auxiliary cruiser Komet patrolled the Ross Sea and Antarctic coastline in an unsuccessful search for Allied whalers[2] Operation Tabarin (United Kingdom, 1944–45) Operation Highjump (United States, 1946–47) Base Soberania (Chile, 1947) Operation Windmill (United States, 1947–48) Base O'Higgins (Chile, 1948) The Australian auxiliary HMAS Wyatt Earp made an unsuccessful voyage to Antarctica in 1948.[3] Base González Videla (Chile, 1951) Base Aguirre Cerda (Chile, 1955) Operation Deep Freeze (United States, 1955–present) Operación 90 (Argentina, 1965) Base Presidente Frei (Chile, 1980) Operación Estrella Polar (Chile, 1984) Operación Aurora Austral (Chile, 1996) Estación Parodi (Chile, 1999) Expedición Hielo I (Chile, 2002) Expedición Hielo II (Chile, 2004)

None of them formally mention E.T. or finding Nazis.

About the conspiracy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Highjump 1946 and ended in late February 1947 Task Force 68 included 4,700 men, 13 ships, and 33 aircraft.

Losses : 4 casualties. 3x plane crash, and one by loading dock.

IN fact, 150,000 letters were sent by this force, because souvenir philatelic covers that protected the documentation can be now purchased. Meaning, letters were going home and coming into the operational zone.

Their final target: Bay of Whales January 15, 1947 “Naval ships and personnel were withdrawn back to the United States in late February 1947, and the expedition was terminated due to the early approach of winter and worsening weather conditions” -wikipedia http://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/operation-highjump/# http://www.south-pole.com/p0000150.htm https://www.uscs.org/cover-collecting/about-collecting-naval-covers/collecting-topics-2/operation-highjump-page-1-of-4/ https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-mozilla-001&hsimp=yhs-001&hspart=mozilla&p=Richard+E.+Byrd#id=1&vid=b1bcad585fda0cd3caf6d6276b0ed336&action=click https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-mozilla-001&hsimp=yhs-001&hspart=mozilla&p=Richard+E.+Byrd#id=4&vid=f75bff97614920186cdc3316e00ab933&action=view

Notice also, my sources are not from bible-thumping or conspiracy sources. They are official sources.

In other words, the only trusted sources available other than hear-say, I am using for this examination. As, I think it’s fair to say, the guy reposting about a video he saw on ‘exopolitics.org’, then explained by a youtuber - or whatever - is not a source of information that is considered. The information must have credentials.

The next operations also had no formal or informal ‘death-bed’ confession of E.T. or otherwise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Windmill 1947–1948 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finn_Ronne

These expeditions are not talked about in the same conspiratorial way, nor do any of those involved report anything unusual except the unforgiving cold. Why the focus on Operation HighJump? Why not an attack on operation Windmill, or Ronne’s expedition? All stemming from this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Swabia

“is a cartographic name sometimes given to an area of Antarctica between 20°E and 10°W in Queen Maud Land, which is claimed as a Norwegian dependent territory under the Antarctic Treaty System. New Swabia was explored by Germany in early 1939 and named after that expedition's ship, the Schwabenland, itself named after the German region of Swabia”. -Wikipedia

Birth and death or territory: Declared 19 January 1939, Surrender of Germany 8 May 1945

“The first German expedition to Antarctica was the Gauss expedition from 1901 to 1903. Led by Arctic veteran and geology professor Erich von Drygalski, this was the first expedition to use a hot-air balloon in Antarctica” -wikipedia

It was NOT shot down by E.T.

“The second German Antarctic expedition (1911–1912) was led by Wilhelm Filchner with a goal of crossing Antarctica to learn if it was one piece of land.” -Wikipedia

It never made it off the ground, so to speak, as it was TOO COLD.

“A German whaling fleet was put to sea in 1937 and, upon its successful return in early 1938, plans for a third German Antarctic expedition were drawn up”. -wikipedia

“The third German Antarctic Expedition (1938–1939) was led by Alfred Ritscher (1879–1963), a captain in the German Navy. The main purpose was to find an area in Antarctica for a German whaling station, as a way to increase Germany’s production of fat. Whale oil was then the most important raw material for the production of margarine and soap in Germany and the country was the second largest purchaser of Norwegian whale oil, importing some 200,000 metric tonnes annually.” – Wikipedia

AFTERMATH: “Germany made no formal territorial claims to New Swabia[8] No whaling station or other lasting bases were built there by Germany until the Georg-von-Neumayer-Station, a research facility, was established in 1981. Germany's current Neumayer-Station III is also in the region. New Swabia is a cartographic area of Queen Maud Land which within Norway is administered as a Norwegian dependent territory under the Antarctic Treaty System by the Polar Affairs Department of the Ministry of Justice and the Police”.- wikipedia

The reason I posted all this is because people DON’T WANT to read the whole story. So, by agreement of me doing the research and you looking at it, Im posting the most key facts to the narrative: the Germans themselves return only in 1981.

You’d think, if there was a secret German base, that Germans would immediately find it of more interest after the war than before the war, when they were looking for oil because of a coming embargo and conflict from Norway.

Further: All the members of the Norwegian-British-Swedish Antarctic Expedition (NBSAE) (1949–1952), and the Norwegian Antarctic Expedition (1958–1959) would have noticed something up in ‘new-Nazi’ land. The center of Antarctica is the center-piece of debate around it’s explored qualities. Finally: as for that center of Antarctica where the hole is supposed to be, there is Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station. Established November 1956

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amundsen%E2%80%93Scott_South_Pole_Station

”An annual tradition is a back-to-back viewing of The Thing from Another World (1951), The Thing (1982), and The Thing (2011) after the last flight has left for the winter.”

Proof: In 1991, Michael Palin visited the base on the 8th and final episode of his BBC Television documentary, Pole to Pole. There is over 20+ referenceable media events covering the existence of this station. Here’s one: “In December 2016, Buzz Aldrin was visiting the Amundsen–Scott South Pole Station, Antarctica, as part of a tourist group, when he fell ill and was evacuated, first to McMurdo Station and from there to Christchurch, New Zealand, where he was reported to be in stable condition. Aldrin's visit at age 86 makes him the oldest person to ever reach the South Pole”.

Even the 1998 The X-Files movie Fight the Future talks about this bases existence, and subsequent location. Conclusion: it seems to me that the idea of aliens in Antarctica aid people’s wanton belief in nazi bases, new-Berlin, flying saucer technology origins, and so much more. No hollow earth. No Nazi bases. Probably no E.T. because there was FOR SURE no alien attack on operation ‘High jump’. Of whom, members of the operation still live and can be asked about it today: It’s one of the most documented expeditions of the military, and the artic, at the time.

Yet, if we are to conclude that everything about the operation that is observational, and everything said about the operation that is not, must some how mean the government is lying, I assume this is a case of wanton-schizophrenia. We are ‘acting’ paranoid for some other value. We are at what point wanting to believe in a conspiracy and for what purpose?

Literally, there is nothing but third-party “word of mouth”, from people not related to the operations, trying to assume such a narrative, to support other more desperate narratives of conspiracy:

Those more desperate narratives being ‘Hollow earth’; Moon-base/hollow-earth new- Berlin. Maybe even ancient alien subterranean colonies.

I even watched one video where one guy concluded hollow-earth was bullshit because flat-earth was real. Then, in the same video, he claimed it was not Nazies but Draconians from a star system that attacked . . . . The opinions are wide but the accuracy to reality a thin-line (basically drawn, we just connect certain dots).

IN this examination, I have thoroughly poured over who said what and why they did what, regarding what they accomplished – usually, cover ups don’t accomplish what they say they are doing (exception, titanic) – having done that, I found this is more a YouTube and Blog phenomena then anything with actual merit in history and documentation. This is essentially Flat-earth 2.0, or an extension of some kind of flat/hollow earth philosophy.

1 ManIsBornFree 2018-01-11

naturally, Im open to any possible data that I missed to drastically change my possible narrative.

This is just what I have thus far concluded.

1 someonelse 2018-01-11

They’re beautiful.

More revoltingly assertive I'd say.

1 Quetzalcoatlwasright 2018-01-11

Fair enough. But take his speech about lifting the German people up out of nothing, play some soft music behind it, and focus on those people’s faces, and I bet you $100 you’ll shed a tear like me.

Those people’s lives were destroyed after World War I.

100,000 prostitutes in Berlin in 1920. Selling their bodies for food.

This man gave them hope.

Maybe he was a tyrannical psychopath, but he cared about his people. Homelessness was extinct in Nazi Germany.

1 someonelse 2018-01-11

If I spoke German I'd still probably take the bet, despite the fact that I'd expect to find something to be moved by. I don't deny your points just here; there were some remarkable upsides, though I don't know how soundly based they were. But to generalize in an unqualified way that his speeches were beautiful is liable to romanticise some of the worst of human nature in raw expression.

1 Quetzalcoatlwasright 2018-01-11

You’re 100% correct. That’s not my goal. I may be guilty of overvaluing strength (my dad forced me to read the Iliad at 5, so I’ve always been obsessed with war).

But you’re very right, we shouldn’t forget how horrifying things like Hitler’s crusade were. That’s why I posted this, really, despite my own admiration of dictators, I am shining light on his shortcomings and on the shortcomings of our current world order, which is arguably worse.

1 someonelse 2018-01-11

I'd say arguably better, though I'm probably closer to your view than the standard one.

1 Quetzalcoatlwasright 2018-01-11

You’re probably right. The problem with killing people covertly, rather than overtly, is that we’ll never know for sure

1 YonicSouth123 2018-01-11

you surely meant the homeless and other not life-worthy persons were extinct in Germany.

First of all, Hitler even didn't got the majority of votes in the election in 1933. Secondly for the first time many of the conservative and Followers of ex-emperor were supporting him. Many of them later turned against the Nazis and also a fair number of them got killed by the Nazis. From what i know the socialists, communists, catholics and all the minorities hadn't high hopes of Hitler, which quickly turned out to be reasoned.

Well Hitler doesn't cared for his People. Firstly he murdered almost everyone in political Opposition to him and the Nazi Regime, who didn't made it it out of his reach, secondly he didn't cared much for all the german soldiers he sent to slaughter for hopeless military campaigns. Next he didn't cared about all the kids he used for his Volkssturm as a last defense, and also he made several statements that when the german nation fails too fulfill or accomplish his goals, it deserves to fail too, even if this leads to it's extinction.

2 Quetzalcoatlwasright 2018-01-11

The man was a narcissist, indeed, but you’re making as many unproven claims as I supposedly am. You must have not seen the rallies if you think the German people were not fully behind him. Why would they go die in his “meaningless, hopeless campaigns” otherwise? You can sit there and say “because they were forced to” but that would wholly untrue.

These people were disenfranchised by Versailles, and they looked to a man who promised a paradise. He fulfilled that promise, for a time. Germany was the most advanced country in the world during Hitler’s reign.

Yeah, he killed a lot of “undesirables” (allegedly) but his goal was to create a superstate, which again, the majority of the German people (and even many non-Germans in Europe) were fully behind.

I’m not saying it was right, but your criticisms are untrue.

“Americans” killed 40 million natives to carve out our superstate. Basically worse.

1 YonicSouth123 2018-01-11

Well i can say this because my grandfather (father's side) was in the Wehrmacht and luckily survived. Also my grandmother from my mother's side was working for the Wehrmacht and was held as a POW in Russia until she was pregnant with my mother due to the relationship with another german POW, that was when she was released. Never ever heard anything about the wereabout's of the father of my mother. Either died or got released and abandoned. My mother was born in 1950 btw.

Also living in Germany it's naturally that you have much more people of that time with first hand wintesses. I rather trust them, because it clearly matches with all the historical facts. Furthermore i don't deny that there were a lot of people sheering for Hitler and being either Nazis-Followers or sympathisers. But it wasn't the great majority. Many people also were frightened and rather shut their mouths up instead of speaking out against he Nazis. When you would do this, chances are high you would end up in one of the concentration camps or got murdered elsewhere. At least, do you know what happened to soldiers who refused to obey to given orders? Correct, they would be killed/executed.

Think about it in an analogy, do you really think in the Soviet Union all the people or at least the big majority were absolutely convinced communists? Or could it just be, that most of them were aware about the consequences speaking out against a dictatory Regime?

1 Quetzalcoatlwasright 2018-01-11

We can sit here and debate the ins and outs of German demographics, and given your family history, I’m sure you would win that argument; that doesn’t change the fact that Hitler pushed humanity to the brink and changed the world.

The very fabric of our international community is based off the intention to not allow another Hitler to rise. That is the point of this post. I’m not really arguing which side was right or wrong; both sides were evil. I mean, are you gonna claim that the British Empire was a better alternative to the Nazi Regime? See India. See China. See the Middle East. See Africa. See the Native Americans.

1 YonicSouth123 2018-01-11

Just because the colonial imperialism wasn't right or all the conflicts surrounding us in our most recent history and present time, this doesn't mean Hitler wasn't a terrible selfish psychopath with a totally racist and misantrophic agenda.

We simply can't deny the Holocaust and all the crimes against civilians done in WWII, even when there are also cruelsome crimes committed at other times and other locations, for example the armenian genocide, Ruanda, etc. I just want to state that justifying one cruel regime/reign because of other cruel regimes/reigns seems to be the stupidest move someone could ever make. If we in Europe still would be acting with such an attitude, then we would be in a constant war until the other side get's extinguished.

1 Quetzalcoatlwasright 2018-01-11

No one here is disagreeing with you.

1 ragegenx 2018-01-11

Imo, Germany may have lost WWII, but the American Nazis won.

1 Step2TheJep 2018-01-11

What does that even mean?

1 dunchooby 2018-01-11

Bush family

1 spqrherewecome 2018-01-11

Project paper clip.

1 nuclearsprout 2018-01-11

lame conspiracy-rookie soundbite

1 usofmind 2018-01-11

See this image related to Mackinder’s ‘heartland theory’

Just because the Anglo-American alliance won and wrote history doesn’t make them particularly sinister. There are many competing geopolitical theories- and I won’t pretend to know anything beyond reading a bunch of Wikipedia articles- but a quick glance at the way the above-linked map is drawn sort of illustrates the threat.

This map from US WW2 propaganda shows the map centered quite differently.

The “world island” which is Europe/Africa/Asia taken together has vastly more people and resources than the whole of the Americas. The west controlled Africa and the Middle East especially after the end of the Ottoman Empire, the British Empire controlling India, Japan had the ability to wreak havoc on China and control the pacific. Had the Axis won, they’d have controlled an ‘axis’ of power from Europe to Japan and controlled the ‘world island.’ The Anglo-Americans would’ve been relegated to the periphery of the world stage and been dramatically weakened. Trade terms would’ve been dictated to us etc. As Mackinder put it:

"Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland;who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island;who rules the World-Island commands the world."

The Soviet Union stood between the Axis and world domination. The USA was completely justified in fighting as the threat was real. Upon victory, it was the allies that got to have their military bases situated along that ‘axis’ of the world island. We won the world domination instead of them. I don’t see how the world would’ve been any better had Germany and Japan won. Forget all the moral questions and forget the propaganda on both sides both during and after the war - it was a geopolitical struggle. Might made right in the end yes that’s true but that doesn’t mean that in actuality Hitler was in any way a “good guy.” Probably simply because of our geographical location, the United Stares has been a more benevolent and less exploitative empire than Germany could have ever dreamed of being.

Hitler wanted the Jews removed from Europe and if he’d have had an easy victory it would’ve probably proven much easier to deport them to Palestine than it would’ve been to simply exterminate them. The creation of Israel may have happened even in a German victory, albeit for different reasons.

Also I don’t see how the world could be any more technologically advanced had the Axis won. Germany and Japan both became prosperous after the war and were able to devote a large part of their populations towards innovation. The racial arguments are bogus (middle easterners, Asians, Turks, and many other civilizations have all proven the ability to significantly advance humanity during their times of power and influence.) Even if you believe in Hitler’s bogus claims of racial superiority, the United States was made up of mostly Europeans anyway at the time.

I think the whole idea that history was written by the victors is true, but that doesn’t mean the US is any more sinister than anyone else. It just means we won.

1 Quetzalcoatlwasright 2018-01-11

Fair point but I think you’re not considering (enough) what happened after the war

We went covert. We absolutely behaved as Nazi’s, just with a nice, star spangled mask over it. Napalming villages in Vietnam to toppling the Shah in Iran, we had our hands in every cookie jar on this “world island”.

The one point you DID in fact fail to understand was that of technology. I do not doubt that the same technologies would have been discovered either way, but the access to the mass population is what differs. Nikola Tesla beta tested SMS messaging in the 20’s-30’s. Cellphones would have been a reality in the 60’s if Hitler had won; he was much more giving to his own people than America and the Western/Zionist coalition is.

On the flip side, they would have OVERTLY massacred aaaaaalot more people; our argument here is not “who’s right?” It’s “what’s better?”

Lesser of two evil’s kind of thing.

I just happen to reeeeeeally like space travel and science, so I’m pissed at the prospect of government secrecy there. If the Nazi’s would have won, we no doubt would have fully functional colonies on the Moon and Mars.

Just saying.

I have a heart; I’m glad we won. I’m glad it didn’t come to that. But America has been pretty imperialistic itslef, at least we do it in a nice way.

1 nuclearsprout 2018-01-11

or he was some kind of possessed anti-Christ.

lol scratch the anti

1 Quetzalcoatlwasright 2018-01-11

*raises hand to seig he—

Wait as second....

1 ihaveunleashedctulhu 2018-01-11

Have you seen the documentary "europa the last battle"? The things stated in that made me think wtf is everything about the world history a fucking lie

1 of_mendez 2018-01-11

We live in unique times, the past is no clue anymore, the past that we know of at least....

1 Retromind 2018-01-11

We all lost the WW2 and the consequences are felt today

1 garthock 2018-01-11

WWII also founded socialized medicine in Europe.

Due to the massive devastation from the war, it was determined no one would go without care.

It is also theorized this is why the US has not been able to adopt this, only in times of great destruction do newer and better models arise.