Baden Powell's 'My adventures as a spy'

[Thomas Heger]

Hi NG

among the stranger habits of British 'intelligence' is to allow their
spies to write spy-novells.

VERY strange is this:

http://www.thedump.scoutscan.com/adventures.pdf


This book is worth reading, because it shows a lot about how propaganda
actually works.


I concentrate on a short piece about alleged German plans to invade England:

" With the Straits of Dover so blocked, they could then rush
a fleet of transports across the North Sea from Germany, to
the East Coast of England, either East Anglia or, as in this
plan, to Yorkshire. They had in Germany nine embarking stations,
with piers and platforms, all ready made, and steel lighters for
disembarkation purposes or for actual voyage across the ocean in case of
fine weather.

They had taken the average of the weather for years past, and
had come to the conclusion that July 13th is, on an average, the
finest day in the year; but their attempt would be timed, if possible,
to fall on a Bank Holiday when communications were temporarily
disorganised. Therefore the nearest Bank Holiday
to July 13th would probably be that at the beginning of August..

The spies stationed in England were to cut all telephone and telegraph
wires, and, where possible, to blow down important bridges and tunnels,
and thus to interrupt communications and create confusion.

Their idea of landing on the coast of Yorkshire was based on the
following reasons: —

They did not look upon London as strategically the capital of
England, but rather upon the great industrial centres of the
north Midlands, where, instead of six millions, there are more
like fourteen millions of people assembled in the numerous cities
and towns, which now almost adjoin each other across that part of
the country.

Their theory was that if they could rush as army of even
90,000 men into Leeds, Sheffield, Halifax, Manchester, and Liverpool
without encountering great opposition in the first few hours, they could
there establish themselves in such strength that it would require a
powerful army to drive them out again. "


This is - of course - true nonsense, since there are no piers on the
north western coast of Germany.

There were also no plans or other attempts to invade England.

(In contrast e.g. Hitler let the 300.000 captured English soldiers
return home)


It is also highly unlikely, that Germans had a particular interest in
the midlands.

(I would guess, if the British would auction this area on e-bay today,
they would not get a very high offer.)

So WHY should Germany try to get there? (Liverpool, Manchester ...)


But what is REALLY stunning, that Baden-Powell obviously describes 'd-day'.

Now this would suggest, that English spies had planned d-day way in
advance (30 years actually).


TH

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Thomas Heger
Hi NG
among the stranger habits of British 'intelligence' is to allow their
spies to write spy-novells.
http://www.thedump.scoutscan.com/adventures.pdf
This book is worth reading, because it shows a lot about how propaganda
actually works.

another interesting subject is the term 'Scouts'.

Baden-Powel uses this as synonym for 'field spies'.

Those are - according to Baden-Powel - a recognized weapon of war.

They face - if caught - certain death, because they are so dangerous.


This wouldn't be much less interesting, if mr. Baden-Powell had not
invented something called 'Scouting for boys'.

Apparently Baden-Powell saw boys as good spies, hence as legitimate
weapon of war (inn case they are willing and able for espionage).


But: To use children as soldiers or similar is, of course, a war crime.

Baden Powell was involved in other war-crimes, too.

Mainly his connection to the 2nd Boer war and the erection and using of
so called 'concentration camps' is questionable.

But there are other questionable connections, too.

A guy named 'Rex Curry' had written a lot about the connection between
Baden-Powel, the Boy Scouts, the 2nd Boer War and the German Nazis.

(see here: http://rexcurry.net/ )

E.g. the uniforms of Nazi stormtroopers called 'SA' looked like a carbon
copy of the British uniforms in the 2nd Boer war.

The boy scouts had also swastikas as batches and also a 'stiff arm salute'.


TH

[e***@hotmail.com]

I don’t think Baden-Powell specifically wanted boys for spies. Rather, he wanted people trained from boyhood in the fields of survival and woodcraft so that they would be able to make good spies later in life.

[KWills Shill #3]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Thomas Heger
Hi NG
among the stranger habits of British 'intelligence' is to allow their
spies to write spy-novells.
http://www.thedump.scoutscan.com/adventures.pdf
This book is worth reading, because it shows a lot about how propaganda
actually works.

another interesting subject is the term 'Scouts'.
Baden-Powel uses this as synonym for 'field spies'.

When?

Post by Thomas Heger
Those are - according to Baden-Powel - a recognized weapon of war.
They face - if caught - certain death, because they are so dangerous.
This wouldn't be much less interesting, if mr. Baden-Powell had not
invented something called 'Scouting for boys'.
Apparently Baden-Powell saw boys as good spies, hence as legitimate
weapon of war (inn case they are willing and able for espionage).
But: To use children as soldiers or similar is, of course, a war crime.

That wasn't his goal, of course. His goal, as is fairly well
known, was to train boys in various means of survival, tracking, etc.
This would allow them to be better soldiers as adult men.
What do you hope to gain from your deceptive presentation that
his goal was to use children as spies? I really want to know.

Post by Thomas Heger
Baden Powell was involved in other war-crimes, too.

You have yet to name one he committed.

Post by Thomas Heger
Mainly his connection to the 2nd Boer war and the erection and using of
so called 'concentration camps' is questionable.
But there are other questionable connections, too.
A guy named 'Rex Curry' had written a lot about the connection between
Baden-Powel, the Boy Scouts, the 2nd Boer War and the German Nazis.
(see here: http://rexcurry.net/ )

K00k sites are k00k sites.

Post by Thomas Heger
E.g. the uniforms of Nazi stormtroopers called 'SA' looked like a carbon
copy of the British uniforms in the 2nd Boer war.
The boy scouts had also swastikas as batches and also a 'stiff arm salute'.

A lot of the world had a "stiff arm salute" prior to WW2.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger
E.g. the uniforms of Nazi stormtroopers called 'SA' looked like a carbon
copy of the British uniforms in the 2nd Boer war.
The boy scouts had also swastikas as batches and also a 'stiff arm salute'.

A lot of the world had a "stiff arm salute" prior to WW2.

Well, mainly in the USA..

But look at this:

https://www.dhm.de/lemo/bestand/objekt/uniform-der-sa-um-1930.html

The Nazi stormtroopers had in 1930 roughly 100,000 members. So they had
100,000 uniforms. But where did they come from?

Somebody had apparently the brilliant idea to use the large stock of
cheap/unused British uniforms from the 2nd Boer war.

They looked like this:

http://www.symbolism-in-art.org/Cartoon-of-British-leaders-in-the-Boer-War,-Field-Marshal-Sir-Frederick-Sleigh-Roberts-(1832-1914)-With-His-Boot-on-a-Portrait-of-Paul-Kruger-(1825-1924)-Cartoon-of-British-leaders-in-the-Boer-War-large.html

A few minor changes were applied, like black boots instead of brown.

But I would say, they look like 'Made in England'.


TH

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger
E.g. the uniforms of Nazi stormtroopers called 'SA' looked like a carbon
copy of the British uniforms in the 2nd Boer war.
The boy scouts had also swastikas as batches and also a 'stiff arm salute'.

A lot of the world had a "stiff arm salute" prior to WW2.

Well, mainly in the USA..
https://www.dhm.de/lemo/bestand/objekt/uniform-der-sa-um-1930.html
The Nazi stormtroopers had in 1930 roughly 100,000 members. So they had
100,000 uniforms. But where did they come from?
Somebody had apparently the brilliant idea to use the large stock of
cheap/unused British uniforms from the 2nd Boer war.
http://www.symbolism-in-art.org/Cartoon-of-British-leaders-in-the-Boer-War,-Field-Marshal-Sir-Frederick-Sleigh-Roberts-(1832-1914)-With-His-Boot-on-a-Portrait-of-Paul-Kruger-(1825-1924)-Cartoon-of-British-leaders-in-the-Boer-War-large.html

OK, even if nobody complained I have to admit, this is only a guess.

I had the idea, the SA-uniforms were in fact pre-owned and stem from the
2nd Boer war.

The reason is this:

the SA was kind of militia and helped to secure the Nazi party and their
events.

They used brown 'breeches' as trousers. These were used in the Boer war
to allow the British soldiers to ride through South Africa without
catching too much attention.

So these trousers were made for riding and for the African bush.

Since they were also made for aristocrats, the used materials and the
quality of the tailors work was way above that of the average uniforms
of that time.

But the SA had no horses and had not connection to the African landscape.

So why should the Nazi-uniform-designer use brown as color and a form,
which require riding boots???

Answer: (my guess actually) they were pre-owned and of no further use,
hence very cheap.

So the large stores of overstock uniforms were used to dress the
Nazi-stormtroopers for cheap.

Actually there are few other possible explanations, since if they were
in fact made in Germany, someone had to make them in Germany (about
100,000) and someone had to pay. But the Nazi party was not particularly
wealthy in 1930.


TH

[KWills Shill #3]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger
E.g. the uniforms of Nazi stormtroopers called 'SA' looked like a carbon
copy of the British uniforms in the 2nd Boer war.
The boy scouts had also swastikas as batches and also a 'stiff arm salute'.

A lot of the world had a "stiff arm salute" prior to WW2.

Well, mainly in the USA..
https://www.dhm.de/lemo/bestand/objekt/uniform-der-sa-um-1930.html
The Nazi stormtroopers had in 1930 roughly 100,000 members. So they had
100,000 uniforms. But where did they come from?
Somebody had apparently the brilliant idea to use the large stock of
cheap/unused British uniforms from the 2nd Boer war.
http://www.symbolism-in-art.org/Cartoon-of-British-leaders-in-the-Boer-War,-Field-Marshal-Sir-Frederick-Sleigh-Roberts-(1832-1914)-With-His-Boot-on-a-Portrait-of-Paul-Kruger-(1825-1924)-Cartoon-of-British-leaders-in-the-Boer-War-large.html

OK, even if nobody complained I have to admit, this is only a guess.

Your claim was so comically wrong, no one needed to point it out.
Anyone who has experienced sixth grade, or its equivalent, already
knows the storm troopers wore gray and black, not brown. If they were
"on the lines" they may have worn an olive colored uniform.

Post by Thomas Heger
I had the idea, the SA-uniforms were in fact pre-owned and stem from the
2nd Boer war.

Very few of the Nazi military wore outfits that resembled the
cartoon you linked to above.

Post by Thomas Heger
the SA was kind of militia and helped to secure the Nazi party and their
events.

You have NO idea what you're posting about, do you?

Post by Thomas Heger
They used brown 'breeches' as trousers.

When?

Post by Thomas Heger
These were used in the Boer war
to allow the British soldiers to ride through South Africa without
catching too much attention.

But not by the Nazi Storm troopers.

Post by Thomas Heger
So these trousers were made for riding and for the African bush.
Since they were also made for aristocrats, the used materials and the
quality of the tailors work was way above that of the average uniforms
of that time.

Unlikely. If being made for the military, it's likely the same
materials were used for all. Just different dyed colors were ordered.
I suppose it is possible those with high enough rank could get special
orders with more comfortable material. But certainly not the rank and
file troopers.

Post by Thomas Heger
But the SA had no horses and had not connection to the African landscape.

Actually, they did have operations in Africa, though very few.

Post by Thomas Heger
So why should the Nazi-uniform-designer use brown as color and a form,
which require riding boots???

For all but the upper echelon, they didn't.

Post by Thomas Heger
Answer: (my guess actually) they were pre-owned and of no further use,
hence very cheap.
So the large stores of overstock uniforms were used to dress the
Nazi-stormtroopers for cheap.

Except that a search using one's favorite search engine, since
you seemed to have missed an entire year of school, will show you're
completely wrong.

Post by Thomas Heger
Actually there are few other possible explanations, since if they were
in fact made in Germany, someone had to make them in Germany (about
100,000) and someone had to pay. But the Nazi party was not particularly
wealthy in 1930.

Since the Storm troopers didn't wear the brown outfits you
suggest, it wouldn't matter.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger
E.g. the uniforms of Nazi stormtroopers called 'SA' looked like a carbon
copy of the British uniforms in the 2nd Boer war.
The boy scouts had also swastikas as batches and also a 'stiff arm salute'.

A lot of the world had a "stiff arm salute" prior to WW2.

Well, mainly in the USA..
https://www.dhm.de/lemo/bestand/objekt/uniform-der-sa-um-1930.html
The Nazi stormtroopers had in 1930 roughly 100,000 members. So they had
100,000 uniforms. But where did they come from?
Somebody had apparently the brilliant idea to use the large stock of
cheap/unused British uniforms from the 2nd Boer war.
http://www.symbolism-in-art.org/Cartoon-of-British-leaders-in-the-Boer-War,-Field-Marshal-Sir-Frederick-Sleigh-Roberts-(1832-1914)-With-His-Boot-on-a-Portrait-of-Paul-Kruger-(1825-1924)-Cartoon-of-British-leaders-in-the-Boer-War-large.html

OK, even if nobody complained I have to admit, this is only a guess.

Your claim was so comically wrong, no one needed to point it out.
Anyone who has experienced sixth grade, or its equivalent, already
knows the storm troopers wore gray and black, not brown. If they were
"on the lines" they may have worn an olive colored uniform.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung

'SA' means 'Sturmabteillung' (~~'Storm department').

Quote from the Wikipedia-page above:

"The SA were also called the "Brownshirts" (Braunhemden) from the color
of their uniform shirts..."

(So you haven't finished sixth grade yet ??)

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger
I had the idea, the SA-uniforms were in fact pre-owned and stem from the
2nd Boer war.

Very few of the Nazi military wore outfits that resembled the
cartoon you linked to above.

Besides Mr Nazi himself:

https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-b7f4b5d49739a0aa29a6249ac68fd762

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger
the SA was kind of militia and helped to secure the Nazi party and their
events.

You have NO idea what you're posting about, do you?

Ok, I had no personal contact to the SA and actually its hear-say. But
here's the link to the Wikipedia-page again:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger
They used brown 'breeches' as trousers.

When?

The SA wore breeches in the color 'khaki' (brown).

I had the idea, this would be actually pre-used British uniforms, which
were worn by Kitchener's and Baden-Powell's troops in the 2nd Boer war.

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger
These were used in the Boer war
to allow the British soldiers to ride through South Africa without
catching too much attention.

But not by the Nazi Storm troopers.

I meant 'Sturm-Abteillung' ('SA') with what I called 'Nazi Storm troopers'.

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger
So these trousers were made for riding and for the African bush.
Since they were also made for aristocrats, the used materials and the
quality of the tailors work was way above that of the average uniforms
of that time.

Unlikely. If being made for the military, it's likely the same
materials were used for all. Just different dyed colors were ordered.

Well, possibly.

But I would guess, the upper ranks in the British Army of that time had
also better materials used in their uniforms.

Don't know, but certainly this is possible to check with relatively
simple forensic methods.

Post by KWills Shill #3
I suppose it is possible those with high enough rank could get special
orders with more comfortable material. But certainly not the rank and
file troopers.

Post by Thomas Heger
But the SA had no horses and had not connection to the African landscape.

Actually, they did have operations in Africa, though very few.

???

I meant British troops in South Africa in the Boer war.

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger
So why should the Nazi-uniform-designer use brown as color and a form,
which require riding boots???

For all but the upper echelon, they didn't.

Breeches look simply stupid, if worn without boots.

So it would be much cheaper to dress militia-men with less sophisticated
uniforms, that could be worn without riding boots.

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger
Answer: (my guess actually) they were pre-owned and of no further use,
hence very cheap.
So the large stores of overstock uniforms were used to dress the
Nazi-stormtroopers for cheap.

Except that a search using one's favorite search engine, since
you seemed to have missed an entire year of school, will show you're
completely wrong.

Well, this is actually the question. I have not such fancy means like
e.g. an electron microscope. But there are people on this planet, who
have the ability to check, whether or not SA uniforms were made in England.

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger
Actually there are few other possible explanations, since if they were
in fact made in Germany, someone had to make them in Germany (about
100,000) and someone had to pay. But the Nazi party was not particularly
wealthy in 1930.

Since the Storm troopers didn't wear the brown outfits you
suggest, it wouldn't matter.

Here's the link again:
https://www.dhm.de/lemo/bestand/objekt/uniform-der-sa-um-1930.html

'dhm' means (in English) 'German historic museum', hence the exhibit is
on display in a large museum.


TH

[KWills Shill #3]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger
E.g. the uniforms of Nazi stormtroopers called 'SA' looked like a carbon
copy of the British uniforms in the 2nd Boer war.
The boy scouts had also swastikas as batches and also a 'stiff arm salute'.

A lot of the world had a "stiff arm salute" prior to WW2.

Well, mainly in the USA..
https://www.dhm.de/lemo/bestand/objekt/uniform-der-sa-um-1930.html
The Nazi stormtroopers had in 1930 roughly 100,000 members. So they had
100,000 uniforms. But where did they come from?
Somebody had apparently the brilliant idea to use the large stock of
cheap/unused British uniforms from the 2nd Boer war.
http://www.symbolism-in-art.org/Cartoon-of-British-leaders-in-the-Boer-War,-Field-Marshal-Sir-Frederick-Sleigh-Roberts-(1832-1914)-With-His-Boot-on-a-Portrait-of-Paul-Kruger-(1825-1924)-Cartoon-of-British-leaders-in-the-Boer-War-large.html

OK, even if nobody complained I have to admit, this is only a guess.

Your claim was so comically wrong, no one needed to point it out.
Anyone who has experienced sixth grade, or its equivalent, already
knows the storm troopers wore gray and black, not brown. If they were
"on the lines" they may have worn an olive colored uniform.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung
'SA' means 'Sturmabteillung' (~~'Storm department').
"The SA were also called the "Brownshirts" (Braunhemden) from the color
of their uniform shirts..."
(So you haven't finished sixth grade yet ??)

You wrote, as seen above, "The Nazi stormtroopers had in 1930
roughly 100,000 members."
You are not stupid, so please cease acting like you don't know
the Stormtroopers and SA are different.

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger
I had the idea, the SA-uniforms were in fact pre-owned and stem from the
2nd Boer war.

Very few of the Nazi military wore outfits that resembled the
cartoon you linked to above.

https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-b7f4b5d49739a0aa29a6249ac68fd762

Thank you for providing the evidence for my claim.

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger
the SA was kind of militia and helped to secure the Nazi party and their
events.

You have NO idea what you're posting about, do you?

Ok, I had no personal contact to the SA and actually its hear-say. But
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung

Which, of course, has NOTHING to do with the Stormtroopers you
initially mentioned.

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger
They used brown 'breeches' as trousers.

When?

The SA wore breeches in the color 'khaki' (brown).

What does the SA have to do with the Stormtroopers you mentioned?

Post by Thomas Heger
I had the idea, this would be actually pre-used British uniforms, which
were worn by Kitchener's and Baden-Powell's troops in the 2nd Boer war.

But the Stormtroopers didn't wear brown.
I know you are DESPERATE to divert from your initial claim, but
I'm not going to allow it.

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger
These were used in the Boer war
to allow the British soldiers to ride through South Africa without
catching too much attention.

But not by the Nazi Storm troopers.

I meant 'Sturm-Abteillung' ('SA') with what I called 'Nazi Storm troopers'.

Sure. Given the number of times I've caught you being dishonest,
I question your claim.
Sadly, I know of no way to prove, or disprove, it.

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger
So these trousers were made for riding and for the African bush.
Since they were also made for aristocrats, the used materials and the
quality of the tailors work was way above that of the average uniforms
of that time.

Unlikely. If being made for the military, it's likely the same
materials were used for all. Just different dyed colors were ordered.

Well, possibly.

Probable.

Post by Thomas Heger
But I would guess, the upper ranks in the British Army of that time had
also better materials used in their uniforms.

Your guesses are, as always, meaningless.

Post by Thomas Heger
Don't know, but certainly this is possible to check with relatively
simple forensic methods.

Feel free.

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills Shill #3
I suppose it is possible those with high enough rank could get special
orders with more comfortable material. But certainly not the rank and
file troopers.

Post by Thomas Heger
But the SA had no horses and had not connection to the African landscape.

Actually, they did have operations in Africa, though very few.

???
I meant British troops in South Africa in the Boer war.

So now the SA are British?
Wow. You really enjoy being deceptive.

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger
So why should the Nazi-uniform-designer use brown as color and a form,
which require riding boots???

For all but the upper echelon, they didn't.

Breeches look simply stupid, if worn without boots.
So it would be much cheaper to dress militia-men with less sophisticated
uniforms, that could be worn without riding boots.

But you claimed they were old British uniforms. Buying used would
be cheaper.

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger
Answer: (my guess actually) they were pre-owned and of no further use,
hence very cheap.
So the large stores of overstock uniforms were used to dress the
Nazi-stormtroopers for cheap.

Except that a search using one's favorite search engine, since
you seemed to have missed an entire year of school, will show you're
completely wrong.

Well, this is actually the question. I have not such fancy means like
e.g. an electron microscope. But there are people on this planet, who
have the ability to check, whether or not SA uniforms were made in England.

Cite someone who has and has found your claim to be accurate.

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger
Actually there are few other possible explanations, since if they were
in fact made in Germany, someone had to make them in Germany (about
100,000) and someone had to pay. But the Nazi party was not particularly
wealthy in 1930.

Since the Storm troopers didn't wear the brown outfits you
suggest, it wouldn't matter.

https://www.dhm.de/lemo/bestand/objekt/uniform-der-sa-um-1930.html
'dhm' means (in English) 'German historic museum', hence the exhibit is
on display in a large museum.

And the display does not show the uniform of a Stormtooper.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger
These were used in the Boer war
to allow the British soldiers to ride through South Africa without
catching too much attention.

But not by the Nazi Storm troopers.

I meant 'Sturm-Abteillung' ('SA') with what I called 'Nazi Storm troopers'.

Sure. Given the number of times I've caught you being dishonest,
I question your claim.
Sadly, I know of no way to prove, or disprove, it.

There were two distinct groups in Nazi Germany, that contained the word
'Sturm' (= storm).

One was called 'Sturmabteillung' (abbreviated to 'SA').

This phrase means - literally translated - 'storm department'.

Those were the hitmen of the Nazi-party and wore brown.


The other group was called 'Sturmstaffel' (abbreviated to 'SS').
Those was like an elitist order and they wore black.

I was referring to the SA and called them 'stormtroopers'.

This was not quite correct, I have to admit, but covered by my artistic
freedom.

You could, if you wish, continue in your complaints about my phrase. But
as I said, I wrote about the BROWN uniforms of the SA.

My idea was, those BROWN uniforms (of the SA) came from England and were
cheap, because of no further use (because the Boer war was over).


TH

[e***@hotmail.com]

This was not quite correct, I have to admit, but covered by my artistic
freedom.
*****
There is no artistic freedom when you’re trying to convey facts.

[KWills Shill #3]

On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 15:18:09 +0100, Thomas Heger <***@web.de>
wrote:


Context restored at no additional cost.

Your attempts to hide from the truth continue to fail..

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger
E.g. the uniforms of Nazi stormtroopers called 'SA' looked like a carbon
copy of the British uniforms in the 2nd Boer war.
The boy scouts had also swastikas as batches and also a 'stiff arm salute'.

A lot of the world had a "stiff arm salute" prior to WW2.

Well, mainly in the USA..
https://www.dhm.de/lemo/bestand/objekt/uniform-der-sa-um-1930.html
The Nazi stormtroopers had in 1930 roughly 100,000 members. So they had
100,000 uniforms. But where did they come from?
Somebody had apparently the brilliant idea to use the large stock of
cheap/unused British uniforms from the 2nd Boer war.
http://www.symbolism-in-art.org/Cartoon-of-British-leaders-in-the-Boer-War,-Field-Marshal-Sir-Frederick-Sleigh-Roberts-(1832-1914)-With-His-Boot-on-a-Portrait-of-Paul-Kruger-(1825-1924)-Cartoon-of-British-leaders-in-the-Boer-War-large.html

OK, even if nobody complained I have to admit, this is only a guess.

Your claim was so comically wrong, no one needed to point it out.
Anyone who has experienced sixth grade, or its equivalent, already
knows the storm troopers wore gray and black, not brown. If they were
"on the lines" they may have worn an olive colored uniform.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung
'SA' means 'Sturmabteillung' (~~'Storm department').
"The SA were also called the "Brownshirts" (Braunhemden) from the color
of their uniform shirts..."
(So you haven't finished sixth grade yet ??)

You wrote, as seen above, "The Nazi stormtroopers had in 1930
roughly 100,000 members."
You are not stupid, so please cease acting like you don't know
the Stormtroopers and SA are different.

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger
I had the idea, the SA-uniforms were in fact pre-owned and stem from the
2nd Boer war.

Very few of the Nazi military wore outfits that resembled the
cartoon you linked to above.

https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-b7f4b5d49739a0aa29a6249ac68fd762

Thank you for providing the evidence for my claim.

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger
the SA was kind of militia and helped to secure the Nazi party and their
events.

You have NO idea what you're posting about, do you?

Ok, I had no personal contact to the SA and actually its hear-say. But
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung

Which, of course, has NOTHING to do with the Stormtroopers you
initially mentioned.

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger
They used brown 'breeches' as trousers.

When?

The SA wore breeches in the color 'khaki' (brown).

What does the SA have to do with the Stormtroopers you mentioned?

Post by Thomas Heger
I had the idea, this would be actually pre-used British uniforms, which
were worn by Kitchener's and Baden-Powell's troops in the 2nd Boer war.

But the Stormtroopers didn't wear brown.
I know you are DESPERATE to divert from your initial claim, but
I'm not going to allow it.

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger
These were used in the Boer war
to allow the British soldiers to ride through South Africa without
catching too much attention.

But not by the Nazi Storm troopers.

I meant 'Sturm-Abteillung' ('SA') with what I called 'Nazi Storm troopers'.

Sure. Given the number of times I've caught you being dishonest,
I question your claim.
Sadly, I know of no way to prove, or disprove, it.

There were two distinct groups in Nazi Germany, that contained the word
'Sturm' (= storm).
One was called 'Sturmabteillung' (abbreviated to 'SA').
This phrase means - literally translated - 'storm department'.
Those were the hitmen of the Nazi-party and wore brown.

But NOT the Stormtoopers you mentioned.

"The Nazi stormtroopers had in 1930 roughly 100,000 members."
-- You.

Post by Thomas Heger
The other group was called 'Sturmstaffel' (abbreviated to 'SS').
Those was like an elitist order and they wore black.
I was referring to the SA and called them 'stormtroopers'.

But, as you KNOW, the world does not refer to the SA as
Stormtroopers.
Here is a picture showing what everyone, but you, calls
Stormtroopers:

Loading Image...

Post by Thomas Heger
This was not quite correct, I have to admit, but covered by my artistic
freedom.

You weren't offering your deception in a poetic fashion. In fact,
there was nothing artistic about your deception.

Post by Thomas Heger
You could, if you wish, continue in your complaints about my phrase. But
as I said, I wrote about the BROWN uniforms of the SA.

No, you wrote of the BROWN uniforms of the Stormtoopers. And in
contrast to your latest deceptive claim, there was nothing artistic
about it.

Post by Thomas Heger
My idea was, those BROWN uniforms (of the SA) came from England and were
cheap, because of no further use (because the Boer war was over).

You've offered nothing in the way of evidence for this claim
either.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by KWills Shill #3
Context restored at no additional cost.
Your attempts to hide from the truth continue to fail..

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger
E.g. the uniforms of Nazi stormtroopers called 'SA' looked like a carbon
copy of the British uniforms in the 2nd Boer war.
The boy scouts had also swastikas as batches and also a 'stiff arm salute'.

A lot of the world had a "stiff arm salute" prior to WW2.

Well, mainly in the USA..
https://www.dhm.de/lemo/bestand/objekt/uniform-der-sa-um-1930.html
The Nazi stormtroopers had in 1930 roughly 100,000 members. So they had
100,000 uniforms. But where did they come from?
Somebody had apparently the brilliant idea to use the large stock of
cheap/unused British uniforms from the 2nd Boer war.
http://www.symbolism-in-art.org/Cartoon-of-British-leaders-in-the-Boer-War,-Field-Marshal-Sir-Frederick-Sleigh-Roberts-(1832-1914)-With-His-Boot-on-a-Portrait-of-Paul-Kruger-(1825-1924)-Cartoon-of-British-leaders-in-the-Boer-War-large.html

OK, even if nobody complained I have to admit, this is only a guess.

Your claim was so comically wrong, no one needed to point it out.
Anyone who has experienced sixth grade, or its equivalent, already
knows the storm troopers wore gray and black, not brown. If they were
"on the lines" they may have worn an olive colored uniform.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung
'SA' means 'Sturmabteillung' (~~'Storm department').
"The SA were also called the "Brownshirts" (Braunhemden) from the color
of their uniform shirts..."
(So you haven't finished sixth grade yet ??)

You wrote, as seen above, "The Nazi stormtroopers had in 1930
roughly 100,000 members."
You are not stupid, so please cease acting like you don't know
the Stormtroopers and SA are different.

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger
I had the idea, the SA-uniforms were in fact pre-owned and stem from the
2nd Boer war.

Very few of the Nazi military wore outfits that resembled the
cartoon you linked to above.

https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-b7f4b5d49739a0aa29a6249ac68fd762

Thank you for providing the evidence for my claim.

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger
the SA was kind of militia and helped to secure the Nazi party and their
events.

You have NO idea what you're posting about, do you?

Ok, I had no personal contact to the SA and actually its hear-say. But
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung

Which, of course, has NOTHING to do with the Stormtroopers you
initially mentioned.

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger
They used brown 'breeches' as trousers.

When?

The SA wore breeches in the color 'khaki' (brown).

What does the SA have to do with the Stormtroopers you mentioned?

Post by Thomas Heger
I had the idea, this would be actually pre-used British uniforms, which
were worn by Kitchener's and Baden-Powell's troops in the 2nd Boer war.

But the Stormtroopers didn't wear brown.
I know you are DESPERATE to divert from your initial claim, but
I'm not going to allow it.

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger
These were used in the Boer war
to allow the British soldiers to ride through South Africa without
catching too much attention.

But not by the Nazi Storm troopers.

I meant 'Sturm-Abteillung' ('SA') with what I called 'Nazi Storm troopers'.

Sure. Given the number of times I've caught you being dishonest,
I question your claim.
Sadly, I know of no way to prove, or disprove, it.

There were two distinct groups in Nazi Germany, that contained the word
'Sturm' (= storm).
One was called 'Sturmabteillung' (abbreviated to 'SA').
This phrase means - literally translated - 'storm department'.
Those were the hitmen of the Nazi-party and wore brown.

But NOT the Stormtoopers you mentioned.
"The Nazi stormtroopers had in 1930 roughly 100,000 members."
-- You.

Post by Thomas Heger
The other group was called 'Sturmstaffel' (abbreviated to 'SS').
Those was like an elitist order and they wore black.
I was referring to the SA and called them 'stormtroopers'.

But, as you KNOW, the world does not refer to the SA as
Stormtroopers.
Here is a picture showing what everyone, but you, calls
https://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/nazi-stormtroopers-1024x585.jpg

This looks like a regiment of the German army, called 'Wehrmacht'.

The army was - of course - not an organization of the Nazi party, but
belonged to the German state ('Deutsches Reich').

The term 'stormtroopers' was entirely unknown in Germany (of that time).

It is more or less popular culture in the anglo-american nations to call
certain types of German soldiers 'Nazi stormtroopers'.

This is incorrect and also unknown in Germany.

The SA ('storm-department' or 'Sturm Abteilung') was a party owned
militia and not composed from regular soldiers.

They had similar functions as the Italian 'black shirts'. That was to
beat up (supposed) enemies of the Nazi party.


TH

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger
These were used in the Boer war
to allow the British soldiers to ride through South Africa without
catching too much attention.

But not by the Nazi Storm troopers.

I meant 'Sturm-Abteillung' ('SA') with what I called 'Nazi Storm troopers'.

Sure. Given the number of times I've caught you being dishonest,
I question your claim.
Sadly, I know of no way to prove, or disprove, it.

There were two distinct groups in Nazi Germany, that contained the word
'Sturm' (= storm).
One was called 'Sturmabteillung' (abbreviated to 'SA').
This phrase means - literally translated - 'storm department'.
Those were the hitmen of the Nazi-party and wore brown.

But NOT the Stormtoopers you mentioned.
"The Nazi stormtroopers had in 1930 roughly 100,000 members."
-- You.

Post by Thomas Heger
The other group was called 'Sturmstaffel' (abbreviated to 'SS').
Those was like an elitist order and they wore black.
I was referring to the SA and called them 'stormtroopers'.

But, as you KNOW, the world does not refer to the SA as
Stormtroopers.
Here is a picture showing what everyone, but you, calls
https://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/nazi-stormtroopers-1024x585.jpg

This looks like a regiment of the German army, called 'Wehrmacht'.
The army was - of course - not an organization of the Nazi party, but
belonged to the German state ('Deutsches Reich').
The term 'stormtroopers' was entirely unknown in Germany (of that time).

Actually meant with 'stormtroopers' is a certain tactic WWI.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormtrooper

"Stormtroopers were specialist soldiers of the German Army in World War
I. In the last years of the war, Stoßtruppen ("shock troops" or "thrust
troops") were trained to fight with "infiltration tactics", part of the
Germans' new method of attack on enemy trenches"

Post by Thomas Heger
It is more or less popular culture in the anglo-american nations to call
certain types of German soldiers 'Nazi stormtroopers'.
This is incorrect and also unknown in Germany.

Ok, the term was known in Germany, but in WWI (not WWII and /or time of
the Nazis in Germany).

Post by Thomas Heger
The SA ('storm-department' or 'Sturm Abteilung') was a party owned
militia and not composed from regular soldiers.
They had similar functions as the Italian 'black shirts'. That was to
beat up (supposed) enemies of the Nazi party.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackshirts

The blackshirts existed in Italy and England.

In England they belonged to the BuF, which was headed by SB Oswald Mosley.

He married the sister of the girlfriend of Hitler (btw in Berlin -
witness of marriage was Hitler himself).

Unity and Diana Mitford were the granddaughters of a Lord Redescale and
the nieces of Winston Churchill.

Lord Redescale was the father of Clementine Hozier (allegedly).

He was also owner of a goldmine in Swastika, Canada.

The mine had - as a logo - a real Nazi swastika.

(btw all of the above were British aristocrats, besides Hitler - of course.)

TH

[KWills Shill #3]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills Shill #3
Context restored at no additional cost.
Your attempts to hide from the truth continue to fail..

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger
E.g. the uniforms of Nazi stormtroopers called 'SA' looked like a carbon
copy of the British uniforms in the 2nd Boer war.
The boy scouts had also swastikas as batches and also a 'stiff arm
salute'.

A lot of the world had a "stiff arm salute" prior to WW2.

Well, mainly in the USA..
https://www.dhm.de/lemo/bestand/objekt/uniform-der-sa-um-1930.html
The Nazi stormtroopers had in 1930 roughly 100,000 members. So they had
100,000 uniforms. But where did they come from?
Somebody had apparently the brilliant idea to use the large stock of
cheap/unused British uniforms from the 2nd Boer war.
http://www.symbolism-in-art.org/Cartoon-of-British-leaders-in-the-Boer-War,-Field-Marshal-Sir-Frederick-Sleigh-Roberts-(1832-1914)-With-His-Boot-on-a-Portrait-of-Paul-Kruger-(1825-1924)-Cartoon-of-British-leaders-in-the-Boer-War-large.html

OK, even if nobody complained I have to admit, this is only a guess.

Your claim was so comically wrong, no one needed to point it out.
Anyone who has experienced sixth grade, or its equivalent, already
knows the storm troopers wore gray and black, not brown. If they were
"on the lines" they may have worn an olive colored uniform.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung
'SA' means 'Sturmabteillung' (~~'Storm department').
"The SA were also called the "Brownshirts" (Braunhemden) from the color
of their uniform shirts..."
(So you haven't finished sixth grade yet ??)

You wrote, as seen above, "The Nazi stormtroopers had in 1930
roughly 100,000 members."
You are not stupid, so please cease acting like you don't know
the Stormtroopers and SA are different.

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger
I had the idea, the SA-uniforms were in fact pre-owned and stem from the
2nd Boer war.

Very few of the Nazi military wore outfits that resembled the
cartoon you linked to above.

https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-b7f4b5d49739a0aa29a6249ac68fd762

Thank you for providing the evidence for my claim.

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger
the SA was kind of militia and helped to secure the Nazi party and their
events.

You have NO idea what you're posting about, do you?

Ok, I had no personal contact to the SA and actually its hear-say. But
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung

Which, of course, has NOTHING to do with the Stormtroopers you
initially mentioned.

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger
They used brown 'breeches' as trousers.

When?

The SA wore breeches in the color 'khaki' (brown).

What does the SA have to do with the Stormtroopers you mentioned?

Post by Thomas Heger
I had the idea, this would be actually pre-used British uniforms, which
were worn by Kitchener's and Baden-Powell's troops in the 2nd Boer war.

But the Stormtroopers didn't wear brown.
I know you are DESPERATE to divert from your initial claim, but
I'm not going to allow it.

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger
These were used in the Boer war
to allow the British soldiers to ride through South Africa without
catching too much attention.

But not by the Nazi Storm troopers.

I meant 'Sturm-Abteillung' ('SA') with what I called 'Nazi Storm troopers'.

Sure. Given the number of times I've caught you being dishonest,
I question your claim.
Sadly, I know of no way to prove, or disprove, it.

There were two distinct groups in Nazi Germany, that contained the word
'Sturm' (= storm).
One was called 'Sturmabteillung' (abbreviated to 'SA').
This phrase means - literally translated - 'storm department'.
Those were the hitmen of the Nazi-party and wore brown.

But NOT the Stormtoopers you mentioned.
"The Nazi stormtroopers had in 1930 roughly 100,000 members."
-- You.

Post by Thomas Heger
The other group was called 'Sturmstaffel' (abbreviated to 'SS').
Those was like an elitist order and they wore black.
I was referring to the SA and called them 'stormtroopers'.

But, as you KNOW, the world does not refer to the SA as
Stormtroopers.
Here is a picture showing what everyone, but you, calls
https://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/nazi-stormtroopers-1024x585.jpg

This looks like a regiment of the German army, called 'Wehrmacht'.

Irrelevant. They look exactly what everyone, except you, calls
Stormtroopers.

Post by Thomas Heger
The army was - of course - not an organization of the Nazi party, but
belonged to the German state ('Deutsches Reich').
The term 'stormtroopers' was entirely unknown in Germany (of that time).

Whereas it's an English term, it wouldn't have been.

Post by Thomas Heger
It is more or less popular culture in the anglo-american nations to call
certain types of German soldiers 'Nazi stormtroopers'.
This is incorrect and also unknown in Germany.

It i s correct.

Post by Thomas Heger
The SA ('storm-department' or 'Sturm Abteilung') was a party owned
militia and not composed from regular soldiers.
They had similar functions as the Italian 'black shirts'. That was to
beat up (supposed) enemies of the Nazi party.

Irrelevant.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills Shill #3
But, as you KNOW, the world does not refer to the SA as
Stormtroopers.
Here is a picture showing what everyone, but you, calls
https://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/nazi-stormtroopers-1024x585.jpg

This looks like a regiment of the German army, called 'Wehrmacht'.

Irrelevant. They look exactly what everyone, except you, calls
Stormtroopers.

Well, I see, that SA men were not called 'Stormtroopers' by anybody but me.

So we could agree, that SA men are not stormtroopers.

What do you think about 'storm-department paratroopers'?


TH

[KWills Shill #3]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills Shill #3
But, as you KNOW, the world does not refer to the SA as
Stormtroopers.
Here is a picture showing what everyone, but you, calls
https://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/nazi-stormtroopers-1024x585.jpg

This looks like a regiment of the German army, called 'Wehrmacht'.

Irrelevant. They look exactly what everyone, except you, calls
Stormtroopers.

Well, I see, that SA men were not called 'Stormtroopers' by anybody but me.
So we could agree, that SA men are not stormtroopers.

FINALLY! There is hope for you yet.

Post by Thomas Heger
What do you think about 'storm-department paratroopers'?

I don't think about them.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills Shill #3
But, as you KNOW, the world does not refer to the SA as
Stormtroopers.
Here is a picture showing what everyone, but you, calls
https://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/nazi-stormtroopers-1024x585.jpg

This looks like a regiment of the German army, called 'Wehrmacht'.

Irrelevant. They look exactly what everyone, except you, calls
Stormtroopers.

Well, I see, that SA men were not called 'Stormtroopers' by anybody but me.
So we could agree, that SA men are not stormtroopers.

FINALLY! There is hope for you yet.

Yes. SA people were not soldiers at all. The SA was a paramilitary
organization and was run by the Nazi party.

My subject was, from where the uniforms came - I mean: from where did
they come physically:
- who designed them
- who saw them
- who paid them

My working hypothesis:
there exist some sort of anglo-american oligarchy, who paid these uniforms.

E.g. Winston Churchill was apparently involved. He was son of Jenny
Jerome. About his father there is still debate. I guess it was 'Bertie
the swinger' (King Edward VI).

Jenny Jerome's father was called 'kind of Wall Street'.

Now there exist a book by Jonathan Sutton "Wall Street and the rise of
Hitler".

Churchill was also involved in Boer war II (together with Baden Powell).

Hitler had also connections to Churchill, since his girlfriend was the
niece of Churchill.

So it is not too far fetched to assume, these circles behaved a little
silly and gave the Nazi party real British uniforms from the Boer war.

This is actually possible to prove, since such uniforms still exist and
with advanced forensic methods it is possible to figure this out.

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger
What do you think about 'storm-department paratroopers'?

I don't think about them.

Well, you are not German.

TH

[e***@hotmail.com]

So it is not too far fetched to assume, these circles behaved a little
silly and gave the Nazi party real British uniforms from the Boer war.
*****
Actually, it is. It’s not impossible that the early, cash-strapped Nazi party MIGHT have bought surplus uniforms to use, but to make a big conspiracy out of it is ludicrous!

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Thomas Heger
So it is not too far fetched to assume, these circles behaved a little
silly and gave the Nazi party real British uniforms from the Boer war.
*****
Actually, it is. It’s not impossible that the early, cash-strapped Nazi party MIGHT have bought surplus uniforms to use, but to make a big conspiracy out of it is ludicrous!

Ok I agree on this.

It is actually far fetched. But I had written, this would be an idea (a
possibility).

TH

(btw: have I told you, that the book 'Mein Kampf' ('my struggle') looks
like a translation of a version written in English?

I have spent some time on this subject and compared different English
and German versions.

The German version is actually much worse than the version of
'Paternoster Press'.)

Another of my weirder theories is, that Hitler himself was a fake and
the person acting as dictator was born as Noel Trevenen Huxley.

TH

[e***@hotmail.com]

Ah. Now that you’re backed into a corner, you acknowledge that your allegations are “far-fetched.”

Here’s a suggestion. Keep far-fetch allegations out of conversations. You look less foolish that way.

[KWills (Shill #3)]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Thomas Heger
So it is not too far fetched to assume, these circles behaved a little
silly and gave the Nazi party real British uniforms from the Boer war.
*****
Actually, it is. It’s not impossible that the early, cash-strapped Nazi party MIGHT have bought surplus uniforms to use, but to make a big conspiracy out of it is ludicrous!

Ok I agree on this.
It is actually far fetched. But I had written, this would be an idea (a
possibility).

If you are going to lie, and you are, DO NOT leave the evidence
of your lie in your post.
As seen above, you wrote, "So it is not too far fetched to
assume, these circles behaved a little silly and gave the Nazi party
real British uniforms from the Boer war."
You made an assumption, based on no actual evidence, not an idea.

Post by Thomas Heger
TH
(btw: have I told you, that the book 'Mein Kampf' ('my struggle') looks
like a translation of a version written in English?

You are the only native German speaker/reader I've encountered
who thinks this. Not to imply I've encountered thousands, but since I
first saw you make this ludicris claim, I have asked when possible. No
one thinks it's a translation from any lanuage.

Post by Thomas Heger
I have spent some time on this subject and compared different English
and German versions.
The German version is actually much worse than the version of
'Paternoster Press'.)
Another of my weirder theories is, that Hitler himself was a fake and
the person acting as dictator was born as Noel Trevenen Huxley.

And, like every other claim you've made, there is no evidence for
it.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by KWills (Shill #3)

Post by Thomas Heger
(btw: have I told you, that the book 'Mein Kampf' ('my struggle') looks
like a translation of a version written in English?

You are the only native German speaker/reader I've encountered
who thinks this. Not to imply I've encountered thousands, but since I
first saw you make this ludicris claim, I have asked when possible. No
one thinks it's a translation from any lanuage.

Post by Thomas Heger
I have spent some time on this subject and compared different English
and German versions.
The German version is actually much worse than the version of
'Paternoster Press'.)
Another of my weirder theories is, that Hitler himself was a fake and
the person acting as dictator was born as Noel Trevenen Huxley.

And, like every other claim you've made, there is no evidence for
it.

I will post a randomly chosen piece of the book from three different
version.

Allegedly the German version was written by Hitler in German, hence this
is the original, while the other versions are translations from this
into English.

This is apparently the case for the 'Notide translation', but not for
the translation published by 'Paternoster Library'.

In my opinion the is the original, from where Hess and Hitler have
produced a German version.

Since the text is quite long, I put it into a separate message
following this one.

TH

[Thomas Heger]

Since the text is quite long, I put it into a separate message following
this one.
TH

Am 27.02.2018 um 19:31 schrieb Thomas Heger:
he translation published by 'Paternoster Library'.

In my opinion the is the original, from where Hess and Hitler have
produced a German version.
Since the text is quite long, I put it into a separate message following
this one.

________________________________________________________________________
The Noontide Press:
Books On-Line
Mein Kampf, by Adolf Hitler


Chapter III: General Political Considerations Based on My Vienna Period
page 53-55

If the conglomeration of nations called 'Austria' nevertheless perished
in the end, this does not
detract in the least from the political ability of the Germans in the
old Ostmark, but was the
necessary result of the impossibility of permanently maintaining a state
of fifty million people of
different nationalities by means of ten million people, unless certain
definite prerequisites were
established in time.

The ideas of the German-Austrian were more than grandiose.

He had always been accustomed to living in a great empire and had never
lost his feeling for the
tasks bound up with it. He was the only one in this state who, beyond
the narrow boundaries of
the crown lands, still saw the boundaries of the Reich; indeed, when
Fate finally parted him
from the common fatherland, he kept on striving to master the gigantic
task and preserve for the
German people what his fathers had once wrested from the East in endless
struggles. In this
connection it should be borne in mind that this had to be done with
divided energy; for the heart
and memory of the best never ceased to feel for the common mother
country, and only a
remnant was left for the homeland.

The general horizon of the German-Austrian was in itself comparatively
broad. His economic connections frequently embraced almost the entire
multiform Empire. Nearly all the big business enterprises were in his
hands; the directing personnel, both technicians and officials, were in
large part provided by him. He was also in charge of foreign trade in so
far as the Jews had not laid theirhands on this domain, which they have
always seized for their own. Politically, he alone held the state
together. Military service alone cast him far beyond the narrow
boundaries of his homeland. The German-Austrian recruit might join a
German regiment, but the regiment itself might equally well be in
Herzegovina, Vienna, or Galicia. The officers' corps was still German,
the higher officials predominantly so. Finally, art and science were
German. Aside from the trash of the more modern artistic development,
which a nation of Negroes might just as well have produced, the German
alone possessed and disseminated a truly artistic attitude. In music,
architecture, sculpture, and painting, Vienna was the source supplying
the entire dual monarchy in inexhaustible abundance, without ever
seeming to go dry itself.

Finally, the Germans directed the entire foreign policy if we disregard
a small number of Hungarians.

And yet any attempt to preserve this Empire was in vain, for the most
essential premise was lacking.For the Austrian state of nationalities
there was only one possibility of overcoming the centrifugal forces of
the individual nations. Either the state was centrally governed hence
internally organized along the same lines. or it was altogether
inconceivable.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

MY STRUGGLE
by Adolf Hitler
52nd Thousand
NUMBER II
THE PATERNOSTER LIBRARY

Made and Printed in Great Britain for Hurst & Blackett, Ltd., Pater-
noster House, I.ondon, E.C.4. at
The Gainsborough Press St. Albans,
Fisher. Kniglggs?z C/0-. Ltd.
1938


page 37, 38

CHAPTER III
POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS RESULTING FROM MY TIME IN VIENNA

page 37, 38

The fact that the collection of races, called “Austria” was ?nally
destroyed does not in the least imply political incompetence of the
Germans of the old Ostmark, but it was the inevitable result of the
impossibility of maintaining permanently a State of ?fty millions,
consisting of different races, with the help of ten millions, unless
absolutely de?nite principles were established in good time.

The German-Austrian was always used to living within the bounds of a
great Empire, and had never lost the feeling of the duties which this
involved. In that State he alone, when looking beyond the frontiers of
the narrower Crown land, thought of them as the frontiers of an Empire.
Though, indeed, it was his Fate to be separated from the common
Fatherland, he ever sought to master the immense task and to keep for
Germany what his ancestors had once wrested from the East in their
age-long struggles. In heart and memory the best men never ceased to be
in sympathy with the common mother country-—and yet but a shred of their
home-land remained theirs.

The circle of vision of the German-Austrian was wider than that of the
rest of the Empire. His economic relations frequently embraced almost
the whole of the composite Empire. Almost all really large enterprises
were in his hands. ‘He supplied most of the leadingtechnical experts and
of?cials. Moreover, he carried on the trade abroad, in so far as the
Jews had not laid hands on that domain which had been his of old time.

The German-Austrian recruit might perhaps enter a German regiment, but
that regiment might be as likely to be stationed in Herzegovina as in
Vienna or Galicia. The corps of officers continued to be German, the
higher officials preponderantly so. Art and science were German. Leaving
out the more recent artistic developments, which might simply be the
production of a negro race, the possessor and diffuser of true artistic
ideas was the German, and the German only. In music, architecture,
sculpture and painting Vienna was the source which supplied the whole
Dual Monarchy in an inexhaustible stream, with no appearance of ever
drying up.

Finally, the whole burden of foreign policy was borne by Germans,
although a few Hungarians may be included in the number. Thus any
attempt to maintain this Empire was in vain, since the essentials were
absent. In the Austrian Empire of races there was only one possible way
of defeating the centrifugal tendencies of individual nations ; the
State either must be governed from the centre and organized internally
to that end - or it was inconceivable.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

ADOLF HITLER

MEIN KAMPF


Zwei Bände in einem Band
Ungekürzte Ausgabe
851.–855. Auflage 1943
Copyright Band I 1925, Band II 1927 by Verlag Franz Eher Nachf.,

3. Kapitel
Allgemeine politische Betrachtungen aus meiner Wiener Zeit

page 74-76

Wenn das Völkergebilde, „Österreich“ genannt, endlich dennoch zugrunde
ging, dann spricht dies nicht im geringsten gegen die politische
Fähigkeit des Deutschtums in der alten Ostmark, sondern war das
zwangsläufige Ergebnis der Unmöglichkeit, mit zehn Millionen Menschen
einen Fünfzig-Millionen-Staat von verschiedenen Nationen auf die Dauer
halten zu können, wenn eben nicht ganz bestimmte Voraussetzungen
rechtzeitig gegeben wurden.

Der Deutschösterreicher dachte mehr als groß.

Er war immer gewohnt, im Rahmen eines großen Reiches zu leben und
hatte das Gefühl für die damit verbundenen Aufgaben nie verloren.
Er war der einzige in diesem Staate, der über die Grenzen des engeren
Kronlandes hinaus noch die Reichsgrenze sah; ja, als das Schicksal ihn
schließlich vom gemeinsamen Vaterlande trennen sollte, da versuchte er
immer noch der ngeheuren Aufgabe Herr zu werden und dem Deutschtum zu
erhalten, was die Väter in unendlichen Kämpfen dem Osten einst
abgerungen hatten. Wobei noch zu bedenken ist, daß dies nur noch mit
geteilter Kraft geschehen konnte; denn Herz und Erinnerung der Besten
hörten niemals auf, für das gemeinsame Mutterland zu empfinden, und nur
ein Rest blieb der Heimat.

Schon der allgemeine Gesichtskreis des Deutschösterreichers war ein
verhältnismäßig weiter. Seine wirtschaftlichen Beziehungen umfaßten
häufig nahezu das ganze vielgestaltige Reich. Fast alle wirklich
großen Unternehmungen befanden sich in einen Händen, das leitende
Personal an Technikern und Beamten ward zum größten Teil von
ihm gestellt. Er war aber auch der Träger des Außenhandels,
soweit nicht das Judentum auf diese ureigenste Domäne seine Hand
gelegt hatte. Politisch hielt er allein noch den Staat zusammen.
Schon die Dienstzeit beim Heere war ihn über die engen Grenzen
der Heimat weit hinaus.
Der deutschösterreichische Rekrut rückte wohl vielleicht bei einem
deutschen Regimente ein, allein das Regiment selber konnte
ebensogut in der Herzegowina liegen wie in Wien oder Galizien.
Das Offizierskorps war immer noch deutsch, das höhere Beamtentum
vorherrschend. Deutsch aber waren endlich Kunst und Wissenschaft.
Abgesehen vom Kitsch der
neueren Kunstentwicklung, dessen Produktion allerdings auch einem
Negervolke ohne weiteres möglich sein dürfte, war der Besitzer
und auch Verbreiter wahrer Kunstgesinnung nur der Deutsche
allein. In Musik, Baukunst, Bildhauerei und Malerei war Wien
der Brunnen, der in unerschöpflicher Fülle die ganze
Doppelmonarchie versorgte, ohne jemals selber sichtlich zu versiegen.

Das Deutschtum war endlich noch der Träger der gesamten
Außenpolitik, wenn man von den der Zahl nach wenigen Ungarn
absieht. Dennoch war jeder Versuch, dieses Reich zu erhalten,
vergeblich, da die wesentlichste Voraussetzung fehlte. Für den
österreichischen Völkerstaat gab es nur eine Möglichkeit, die
zentrifugalen Kräfte bei den einzelnen Nationen zu überwinden.
Der Staat wurde entweder zentral regiert und damit aber auch
ebenso innerlich organisiert, oder er war überhaupt nicht denkbar.


---------------------------------------------------------------------

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Thomas Heger

Since the text is quite long, I put it into a separate message following
this one.
TH

he translation published by 'Paternoster Library'.

In my opinion the is the original, from where Hess and Hitler have
produced a German version.
Since the text is quite long, I put it into a separate message following
this one.

________________________________________________________________________
Books On-Line
Mein Kampf, by Adolf Hitler
Chapter III: General Political Considerations Based on My Vienna Period
page 53-55

...

Now you need to find someone who speaks very good English and German and
has some experience with linguistic (or similar).

The idea is to compare the different versions for style, content and
linguistic errors.

The version of Paternoster Library is much better in style and grammar
then the alleged original.

The German version has the typical 'Fuehrer sound', but contains errors,
which are typical for bad translations from English to German.

E.g. the English language uses singular male form to address people of a
country ('The Dutch' for instance), while German uses the plural form
('Die Niederländer').

The book uses (in German) the male singular form, even if this could
lead to misinterpretations.

Also the language is much 'weaker' in the way, that it is far less
perfect and contains several unusual constructs.

There are also inconsistencies in the 'story' itself, which are not easy
to explain.

One example is the story of his father, who was customs officer in
Austria. Later he moved - allegedly - to Bavaria and worked as Customs
official there.

This was not allowed, since Germany had a system for state employees
called 'Beamter'. This is a special status and only citizens of either
state (Austrians in Austria and Germans in Germany) were eligible.

And this goes on and on through the entire book.

The book of Paternoster Library seems also a little older and sounds
like written in 1918 or 1919.


TH

[KWills (Shill #3)]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Thomas Heger

Since the text is quite long, I put it into a separate message following
this one.
TH

he translation published by 'Paternoster Library'.

In my opinion the is the original, from where Hess and Hitler have
produced a German version.
Since the text is quite long, I put it into a separate message following
this one.

________________________________________________________________________
Books On-Line
Mein Kampf, by Adolf Hitler
Chapter III: General Political Considerations Based on My Vienna Period
page 53-55

...
Now you need to find someone who speaks very good English and German and
has some experience with linguistic (or similar).

Fortunately, I work with a woman who was born and raised in
Germany. She is fluent in German (of course), English and Spanish.
Though her knowledge of Spanish won't come in handy here.

Post by Thomas Heger
The idea is to compare the different versions for style, content and
linguistic errors.
The version of Paternoster Library is much better in style and grammar
then the alleged original.
The German version has the typical 'Fuehrer sound', but contains errors,
which are typical for bad translations from English to German.
E.g. the English language uses singular male form to address people of a
country ('The Dutch' for instance), while German uses the plural form
('Die Niederländer').
The book uses (in German) the male singular form, even if this could
lead to misinterpretations.

You mean Hitler made mistakes? Gasp!

Post by Thomas Heger
Also the language is much 'weaker' in the way, that it is far less
perfect and contains several unusual constructs.
There are also inconsistencies in the 'story' itself, which are not easy
to explain.
One example is the story of his father, who was customs officer in
Austria. Later he moved - allegedly - to Bavaria and worked as Customs
official there.
This was not allowed, since Germany had a system for state employees
called 'Beamter'. This is a special status and only citizens of either
state (Austrians in Austria and Germans in Germany) were eligible.
And this goes on and on through the entire book.
The book of Paternoster Library seems also a little older and sounds
like written in 1918 or 1919.

I'll know tomorrow.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by KWills (Shill #3)

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Thomas Heger

Since the text is quite long, I put it into a separate message following
this one.
TH

he translation published by 'Paternoster Library'.

In my opinion the is the original, from where Hess and Hitler have
produced a German version.
Since the text is quite long, I put it into a separate message following
this one.

________________________________________________________________________
Books On-Line
Mein Kampf, by Adolf Hitler
Chapter III: General Political Considerations Based on My Vienna Period
page 53-55

...
Now you need to find someone who speaks very good English and German and
has some experience with linguistic (or similar).

Fortunately, I work with a woman who was born and raised in
Germany. She is fluent in German (of course), English and Spanish.
Though her knowledge of Spanish won't come in handy here.

Post by Thomas Heger
The idea is to compare the different versions for style, content and
linguistic errors.
The version of Paternoster Library is much better in style and grammar
then the alleged original.
The German version has the typical 'Fuehrer sound', but contains errors,
which are typical for bad translations from English to German.
E.g. the English language uses singular male form to address people of a
country ('The Dutch' for instance), while German uses the plural form
('Die Niederländer').
The book uses (in German) the male singular form, even if this could
lead to misinterpretations.

You mean Hitler made mistakes? Gasp!

There are three versions in my comparison.

The question is, how they are related. The 'paternoster version' sounds
like written by an English aristocrat. It uses the term 'race', while
the 'Nootide version' uses 'nations' and the German uses the strange
'Völkergebilde' (construction of people).

The idea of 'race' is not easy to translate into German, since it does
not mean 'Rasse'. The British use the term to address something like
'statistical cluster'.

The German 'Rasse' is the direct translation, but has slightly different
meaning, since it used for ethnically/ genetically related kinds of
people. But Germans, Austrians, Czech and Hungarians belong to the same
race ('White').

So 'race' was apparently exchanged for 'nation'.

But in German 'Nation' is limited to independent countries (e.g.
Deutschland, France or the USA).

The anglo-saxon concept of - say - 'Indian Nation' has not counterpart
in German, since 'Nation' refers to a territory ('Staat') not to tribal
areas.

So the English and the German version are based on different and
incompatible concepts about the State.

The Paternoster version talks about the medieval Empire of the Francs.
This is visible in the term 'Ostmark'. This means 'country on the
eastern border of the Empire'.

Since Austria is on the western side of the former kuk Empire, this
cannot be 'eastern mark'.

This is very important to notice, since the German version does to carry
this message.

This does not make sense at all, since a translation could not introduce
entirely new ideas into a text.

But who could eventually write about the Frankish Empire in English??

This could be English aristocrats who feel in continuity of the Norman
conquest and which build parts of the English aristocracy.

So: English aristocrat is a possible assumption (eventually with a name
sounding like French).

TH

[e***@hotmail.com]

Let me tell you something. In the 60s, there were several English translations of Japanese cartoons. “Speed Racer,” “Kimba, The White Lion,” and “Astro Boy.” In an article written a few years ago, one of the producers mentioned that the translations they received were directly translated from Japanese to English and were phonetic gibberish. They had to be completely translated into proper English that still managed to match the mouth movements. So, translations can have to make major changes in the original text.

A lighter version can be found in the film “Casablanca.” The German chef meets two friends (also German) who are leaving for America. They say they are only speaking English, the husband then says;

“Sweetheart, what watch?”
“Ten watch.”
“Such much?”

So, yeah, major changes can be made in translating from one language to another. It’s entirely possible that the translator had a higher education than Hitler and “embossed” the language in translating.

[KWills (Shill #3)]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills (Shill #3)

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Thomas Heger

Since the text is quite long, I put it into a separate message following
this one.
TH

he translation published by 'Paternoster Library'.

In my opinion the is the original, from where Hess and Hitler have
produced a German version.
Since the text is quite long, I put it into a separate message following
this one.

________________________________________________________________________
Books On-Line
Mein Kampf, by Adolf Hitler
Chapter III: General Political Considerations Based on My Vienna Period
page 53-55

...
Now you need to find someone who speaks very good English and German and
has some experience with linguistic (or similar).

Fortunately, I work with a woman who was born and raised in
Germany. She is fluent in German (of course), English and Spanish.
Though her knowledge of Spanish won't come in handy here.

Post by Thomas Heger
The idea is to compare the different versions for style, content and
linguistic errors.
The version of Paternoster Library is much better in style and grammar
then the alleged original.
The German version has the typical 'Fuehrer sound', but contains errors,
which are typical for bad translations from English to German.
E.g. the English language uses singular male form to address people of a
country ('The Dutch' for instance), while German uses the plural form
('Die Niederländer').
The book uses (in German) the male singular form, even if this could
lead to misinterpretations.

You mean Hitler made mistakes? Gasp!

There are three versions in my comparison.
The question is, how they are related. The 'paternoster version' sounds
like written by an English aristocrat. It uses the term 'race', while
the 'Nootide version' uses 'nations' and the German uses the strange
'Völkergebilde' (construction of people).
The idea of 'race' is not easy to translate into German, since it does
not mean 'Rasse'. The British use the term to address something like
'statistical cluster'.
The German 'Rasse' is the direct translation, but has slightly different
meaning, since it used for ethnically/ genetically related kinds of
people. But Germans, Austrians, Czech and Hungarians belong to the same
race ('White').
So 'race' was apparently exchanged for 'nation'.
But in German 'Nation' is limited to independent countries (e.g.
Deutschland, France or the USA).
The anglo-saxon concept of - say - 'Indian Nation' has not counterpart
in German, since 'Nation' refers to a territory ('Staat') not to tribal
areas.
So the English and the German version are based on different and
incompatible concepts about the State.
The Paternoster version talks about the medieval Empire of the Francs.
This is visible in the term 'Ostmark'. This means 'country on the
eastern border of the Empire'.
Since Austria is on the western side of the former kuk Empire, this
cannot be 'eastern mark'.
This is very important to notice, since the German version does to carry
this message.
This does not make sense at all, since a translation could not introduce
entirely new ideas into a text.
But who could eventually write about the Frankish Empire in English??
This could be English aristocrats who feel in continuity of the Norman
conquest and which build parts of the English aristocracy.
So: English aristocrat is a possible assumption (eventually with a name
sounding like French).

Assuptions are meaningless.
I took a printout of your select portions of the book to work.
According to Gerty, there is nothing wrong with the German. She wants
to know how you manage to survive since it is obvious you didn't get
past Grundschule.
I don't know what that is, but I'm guessing it is the equvilant
of high school.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills (Shill #3)

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Thomas Heger

Since the text is quite long, I put it into a separate message following
this one.
TH

he translation published by 'Paternoster Library'.

In my opinion the is the original, from where Hess and Hitler have
produced a German version.
Since the text is quite long, I put it into a separate message following
this one.

________________________________________________________________________
Books On-Line
Mein Kampf, by Adolf Hitler
Chapter III: General Political Considerations Based on My Vienna Period
page 53-55

...
Now you need to find someone who speaks very good English and German and
has some experience with linguistic (or similar).

Fortunately, I work with a woman who was born and raised in
Germany. She is fluent in German (of course), English and Spanish.
Though her knowledge of Spanish won't come in handy here.

Post by Thomas Heger
The idea is to compare the different versions for style, content and
linguistic errors.
The version of Paternoster Library is much better in style and grammar
then the alleged original.
The German version has the typical 'Fuehrer sound', but contains errors,
which are typical for bad translations from English to German.
E.g. the English language uses singular male form to address people of a
country ('The Dutch' for instance), while German uses the plural form
('Die Niederländer').
The book uses (in German) the male singular form, even if this could
lead to misinterpretations.

You mean Hitler made mistakes? Gasp!

There are three versions in my comparison.
The question is, how they are related. The 'paternoster version' sounds
like written by an English aristocrat. It uses the term 'race', while
the 'Nootide version' uses 'nations' and the German uses the strange
'Völkergebilde' (construction of people).
The idea of 'race' is not easy to translate into German, since it does
not mean 'Rasse'. The British use the term to address something like
'statistical cluster'.
The German 'Rasse' is the direct translation, but has slightly different
meaning, since it used for ethnically/ genetically related kinds of
people. But Germans, Austrians, Czech and Hungarians belong to the same
race ('White').
So 'race' was apparently exchanged for 'nation'.
But in German 'Nation' is limited to independent countries (e.g.
Deutschland, France or the USA).
The anglo-saxon concept of - say - 'Indian Nation' has not counterpart
in German, since 'Nation' refers to a territory ('Staat') not to tribal
areas.
So the English and the German version are based on different and
incompatible concepts about the State.
The Paternoster version talks about the medieval Empire of the Francs.
This is visible in the term 'Ostmark'. This means 'country on the
eastern border of the Empire'.
Since Austria is on the western side of the former kuk Empire, this
cannot be 'eastern mark'.
This is very important to notice, since the German version does to carry
this message.
This does not make sense at all, since a translation could not introduce
entirely new ideas into a text.
But who could eventually write about the Frankish Empire in English??
This could be English aristocrats who feel in continuity of the Norman
conquest and which build parts of the English aristocracy.
So: English aristocrat is a possible assumption (eventually with a name
sounding like French).

Assumptions are meaningless.
I took a printout of your select portions of the book to work.
According to Gerty, there is nothing wrong with the German.

1.
'Gerty' stems from 'Gertrud' and that is a very old fashioned German
name. So most likely her family lives in the states since that name was
in fashion (late 19th century).

Since the language the language itself has changed a little since the
times of early settlers, her testimony seems of no particular value.

2.
The German is not wrong, but 'twisted' and full of unusual constructs.
It is also weaker in grammar and style.

It is actually VERY hard to read in German. (The English versions are
far better written).

The German version is in fact sooo annoying, that have to fight with
slumber after a few pages.



She wants

to know how you manage to survive since it is obvious you didn't get
past Grundschule.
I don't know what that is, but I'm guessing it is the equvilant
of high school.

One interesting error in 'Mein Kampf' is caused by the difference in the
school system between Germany and Austria.

Hitler went to school in Linz, Austria.

His school had the name 'Realschule Steinstrasse'. His schoolmate, also
gay and almost of the same age was Ludwig Wittgenstein.

This school was a 'Gymnasium', even if it is called 'Realschule'.

'Realschule' in Germany means 'middle level of the three leveled school
system' (Gymnasium is the highest).

But in Austria it depends..

Hitler's school was a Gymnasium and ended with 'Matura'. This is called
in German 'Abitur' (btw: this is the degree with what I left the Gymnasium).

This degree is required to have access to the university and Hitler had
no Matura (he dropped out of school with about 16).

This would end all hopes for access to higher education and Hitler
certainly knew this.

But the book talks a lot about his evil father, who would not allow him
to study and to hinder that, he sent him to the 'Realschule'.

He talks about this school as 'Mittelschule' (middle school) even if the
real school he attended was a Gymnasium.

This is an error, which no Austrian pupil could possibly have made (to
mix German and Austrian school system).



TH

[KWills Shill #3]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills (Shill #3)

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Thomas Heger

Since the text is quite long, I put it into a separate message following
this one.
TH

he translation published by 'Paternoster Library'.

In my opinion the is the original, from where Hess and Hitler have
produced a German version.
Since the text is quite long, I put it into a separate message following
this one.

________________________________________________________________________
Books On-Line
Mein Kampf, by Adolf Hitler
Chapter III: General Political Considerations Based on My Vienna Period
page 53-55

...
Now you need to find someone who speaks very good English and German and
has some experience with linguistic (or similar).

Fortunately, I work with a woman who was born and raised in
Germany. She is fluent in German (of course), English and Spanish.
Though her knowledge of Spanish won't come in handy here.

Post by Thomas Heger
The idea is to compare the different versions for style, content and
linguistic errors.
The version of Paternoster Library is much better in style and grammar
then the alleged original.
The German version has the typical 'Fuehrer sound', but contains errors,
which are typical for bad translations from English to German.
E.g. the English language uses singular male form to address people of a
country ('The Dutch' for instance), while German uses the plural form
('Die Niederländer').
The book uses (in German) the male singular form, even if this could
lead to misinterpretations.

You mean Hitler made mistakes? Gasp!

There are three versions in my comparison.
The question is, how they are related. The 'paternoster version' sounds
like written by an English aristocrat. It uses the term 'race', while
the 'Nootide version' uses 'nations' and the German uses the strange
'Völkergebilde' (construction of people).
The idea of 'race' is not easy to translate into German, since it does
not mean 'Rasse'. The British use the term to address something like
'statistical cluster'.
The German 'Rasse' is the direct translation, but has slightly different
meaning, since it used for ethnically/ genetically related kinds of
people. But Germans, Austrians, Czech and Hungarians belong to the same
race ('White').
So 'race' was apparently exchanged for 'nation'.
But in German 'Nation' is limited to independent countries (e.g.
Deutschland, France or the USA).
The anglo-saxon concept of - say - 'Indian Nation' has not counterpart
in German, since 'Nation' refers to a territory ('Staat') not to tribal
areas.
So the English and the German version are based on different and
incompatible concepts about the State.
The Paternoster version talks about the medieval Empire of the Francs.
This is visible in the term 'Ostmark'. This means 'country on the
eastern border of the Empire'.
Since Austria is on the western side of the former kuk Empire, this
cannot be 'eastern mark'.
This is very important to notice, since the German version does to carry
this message.
This does not make sense at all, since a translation could not introduce
entirely new ideas into a text.
But who could eventually write about the Frankish Empire in English??
This could be English aristocrats who feel in continuity of the Norman
conquest and which build parts of the English aristocracy.
So: English aristocrat is a possible assumption (eventually with a name
sounding like French).

Assumptions are meaningless.
I took a printout of your select portions of the book to work.
According to Gerty, there is nothing wrong with the German.

1.
'Gerty' stems from 'Gertrud' and that is a very old fashioned German
name. So most likely her family lives in the states since that name was
in fashion (late 19th century).

Her German accent is in disagreement with you.
I can make a video of her speaking, further proving you wrong.

Post by Thomas Heger
Since the language the language itself has changed a little since the
times of early settlers, her testimony seems of no particular value.

As I stated, she was born and raised in Germany. You dismiss her
claim solely because you KNOW she is right.

Post by Thomas Heger
2.
The German is not wrong, but 'twisted' and full of unusual constructs.
It is also weaker in grammar and style.

No, it's not.

Post by Thomas Heger
It is actually VERY hard to read in German. (The English versions are
far better written).

Gerty had no problem reading the section you picked. Odd that.

Post by Thomas Heger
The German version is in fact sooo annoying, that have to fight with
slumber after a few pages.

You didn't provide a few pages, but Gerty showed no signs of
drowsiness.

Post by Thomas Heger
She wants

to know how you manage to survive since it is obvious you didn't get
past Grundschule.
I don't know what that is, but I'm guessing it is the equvilant
of high school.

One interesting error in 'Mein Kampf' is caused by the difference in the
school system between Germany and Austria.
Hitler went to school in Linz, Austria.

Which has what, exactly, with her wondering about your schooling?
Be specific when you answer.

Post by Thomas Heger
His school had the name 'Realschule Steinstrasse'. His schoolmate, also
gay and almost of the same age was Ludwig Wittgenstein.
This school was a 'Gymnasium', even if it is called 'Realschule'.
'Realschule' in Germany means 'middle level of the three leveled school
system' (Gymnasium is the highest).
But in Austria it depends..
Hitler's school was a Gymnasium and ended with 'Matura'. This is called
in German 'Abitur' (btw: this is the degree with what I left the Gymnasium).
This degree is required to have access to the university and Hitler had
no Matura (he dropped out of school with about 16).
This would end all hopes for access to higher education and Hitler
certainly knew this.
But the book talks a lot about his evil father, who would not allow him
to study and to hinder that, he sent him to the 'Realschule'.
He talks about this school as 'Mittelschule' (middle school) even if the
real school he attended was a Gymnasium.
This is an error, which no Austrian pupil could possibly have made (to
mix German and Austrian school system).

And what, exactly, does this have to do with her wondering about
your education? Be specific when you answer.
Of course it has nothing to do with it. You are DESPERATE to
divert from the TRUTH that your claims are 100% wrong.

[Thomas Heger]

Am 02.03.2018 um 11:53 schrieb KWills Shill #3:
..

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger
His school had the name 'Realschule Steinstrasse'. His schoolmate, also
gay and almost of the same age was Ludwig Wittgenstein.
This school was a 'Gymnasium', even if it is called 'Realschule'.
'Realschule' in Germany means 'middle level of the three leveled school
system' (Gymnasium is the highest).
But in Austria it depends..
Hitler's school was a Gymnasium and ended with 'Matura'. This is called
in German 'Abitur' (btw: this is the degree with what I left the Gymnasium).
This degree is required to have access to the university and Hitler had
no Matura (he dropped out of school with about 16).
This would end all hopes for access to higher education and Hitler
certainly knew this.
But the book talks a lot about his evil father, who would not allow him
to study and to hinder that, he sent him to the 'Realschule'.
He talks about this school as 'Mittelschule' (middle school) even if the
real school he attended was a Gymnasium.
This is an error, which no Austrian pupil could possibly have made (to
mix German and Austrian school system).

And what, exactly, does this have to do with her wondering about
your education? Be specific when you answer.

Ok, I have Abitur and a diploma of a university.

Post by KWills Shill #3
Of course it has nothing to do with it. You are DESPERATE to
divert from the TRUTH that your claims are 100% wrong.

It has also nothing to with Winter-Olympics or climate change.

I had written about my assumption, that the book 'My Struggle' was
translated from English to German by Hitler and Hess, while somebody
else has written the book in English.

As hints in this direction I had mentioned bad style and grammar in the
German version. There are also inconsistencies in the story of the book
itself.

One of these was a mayor part of the books first chapters, where Hitler
explained in detail his failed career as an artist.

This particular story 'smells', because it is contrary to known facts.

Among those is the nickname of the university of Vienna ('Die Technik').
The book uses a wrong interpretation of this nickname as 'Technische
Hochschule' (technical college).

Other inconsistencies are related to the school-system in Austria (where
Hitler went to school), while the book describes the German system.

This is not possible, since Germany and Austria are different countries.

Hitler also spoke not with an Austrian dialect, but with a Bavarian.

Hitler's paintings (as far as they exist today) show a signature
different to that in 'Mein Kampf'.


TH

[KWills Shill #3]

Post by Thomas Heger
..

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger
His school had the name 'Realschule Steinstrasse'. His schoolmate, also
gay and almost of the same age was Ludwig Wittgenstein.
This school was a 'Gymnasium', even if it is called 'Realschule'.
'Realschule' in Germany means 'middle level of the three leveled school
system' (Gymnasium is the highest).
But in Austria it depends..
Hitler's school was a Gymnasium and ended with 'Matura'. This is called
in German 'Abitur' (btw: this is the degree with what I left the Gymnasium).
This degree is required to have access to the university and Hitler had
no Matura (he dropped out of school with about 16).
This would end all hopes for access to higher education and Hitler
certainly knew this.
But the book talks a lot about his evil father, who would not allow him
to study and to hinder that, he sent him to the 'Realschule'.
He talks about this school as 'Mittelschule' (middle school) even if the
real school he attended was a Gymnasium.
This is an error, which no Austrian pupil could possibly have made (to
mix German and Austrian school system).

And what, exactly, does this have to do with her wondering about
your education? Be specific when you answer.

Ok, I have Abitur and a diploma of a university.

That doesn't answer my question.

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills Shill #3
Of course it has nothing to do with it. You are DESPERATE to
divert from the TRUTH that your claims are 100% wrong.

It has also nothing to with Winter-Olympics or climate change.

You really love to try and divert from the fact that you're
always proved wrong.

Post by Thomas Heger
I had written about my assumption,

Your assumptions are still meaningless.

Post by Thomas Heger
that the book 'My Struggle' was
translated from English to German by Hitler and Hess, while somebody
else has written the book in English.

But this is not what happened.

Post by Thomas Heger
As hints in this direction I had mentioned bad style and grammar in the
German version. There are also inconsistencies in the story of the book
itself.
One of these was a mayor part of the books first chapters, where Hitler
explained in detail his failed career as an artist.
This particular story 'smells', because it is contrary to known facts.

It is well known that Hitler was a failed artist.

Post by Thomas Heger
Among those is the nickname of the university of Vienna ('Die Technik').
The book uses a wrong interpretation of this nickname as 'Technische
Hochschule' (technical college).
Other inconsistencies are related to the school-system in Austria (where
Hitler went to school), while the book describes the German system.
This is not possible, since Germany and Austria are different countries.
Hitler also spoke not with an Austrian dialect, but with a Bavarian.

Linguists disagree with you.

Post by Thomas Heger
Hitler's paintings (as far as they exist today) show a signature
different to that in 'Mein Kampf'.

No, they don't.

[KWills (Shill #3)]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills Shill #3
But, as you KNOW, the world does not refer to the SA as
Stormtroopers.
Here is a picture showing what everyone, but you, calls
https://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/nazi-stormtroopers-1024x585.jpg

This looks like a regiment of the German army, called 'Wehrmacht'.

Irrelevant. They look exactly what everyone, except you, calls
Stormtroopers.

Well, I see, that SA men were not called 'Stormtroopers' by anybody but me.
So we could agree, that SA men are not stormtroopers.

FINALLY! There is hope for you yet.

Yes. SA people were not soldiers at all. The SA was a paramilitary
organization and was run by the Nazi party.
My subject was, from where the uniforms came - I mean: from where did
- who designed them
- who saw them
- who paid them
there exist some sort of anglo-american oligarchy, who paid these uniforms.

In dirrect contrast to all available evidence.

Post by Thomas Heger
E.g. Winston Churchill was apparently involved. He was son of Jenny
Jerome. About his father there is still debate. I guess it was 'Bertie
the swinger' (King Edward VI).

I keep telling you, your guesses are meaningless. But since you
have NO facts, you must use them.

Post by Thomas Heger
Jenny Jerome's father was called 'kind of Wall Street'.
Now there exist a book by Jonathan Sutton "Wall Street and the rise of
Hitler".
Churchill was also involved in Boer war II (together with Baden Powell).
Hitler had also connections to Churchill, since his girlfriend was the
niece of Churchill.
So it is not too far fetched to assume, these circles behaved a little
silly and gave the Nazi party real British uniforms from the Boer war.

It is very far fetched to assume such a thing. While I can't deny
it is POSSIBLE your claim is valid, there is nothing to support it.
All you have are guesses, assuptions, feelings and the like. You have
NO evidence of anything you claim happened.

Post by Thomas Heger
This is actually possible to prove, since such uniforms still exist and
with advanced forensic methods it is possible to figure this out.

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger
What do you think about 'storm-department paratroopers'?

I don't think about them.

Well, you are not German.

Well, DUH!

[Thomas Heger]

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger
One was called 'Sturmabteillung' (abbreviated to 'SA').
This phrase means - literally translated - 'storm department'.
Those were the hitmen of the Nazi-party and wore brown.

But NOT the Stormtoopers you mentioned.
"The Nazi stormtroopers had in 1930 roughly 100,000 members."
-- You.

Post by Thomas Heger
The other group was called 'Sturmstaffel' (abbreviated to 'SS').
Those was like an elitist order and they wore black.
I was referring to the SA and called them 'stormtroopers'.

But, as you KNOW, the world does not refer to the SA as
Stormtroopers.
Here is a picture showing what everyone, but you, calls
https://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/nazi-stormtroopers-1024x585.jpg

This looks like a regiment of the German army, called 'Wehrmacht'.

Irrelevant. They look exactly what everyone, except you, calls
Stormtroopers.

not quite.

Look at this video:

"Nazi Brownshirts / Stormtroopers TV drama - (Excerpts)"

Depicted are activities of the SA, not soldiers of the Wehrmacht.


here in comparison a film about the Boer war and British uniforms worn
there:

TH

[KWills Shill #3]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger
One was called 'Sturmabteillung' (abbreviated to 'SA').
This phrase means - literally translated - 'storm department'.
Those were the hitmen of the Nazi-party and wore brown.

But NOT the Stormtoopers you mentioned.
"The Nazi stormtroopers had in 1930 roughly 100,000 members."
-- You.

Post by Thomas Heger
The other group was called 'Sturmstaffel' (abbreviated to 'SS').
Those was like an elitist order and they wore black.
I was referring to the SA and called them 'stormtroopers'.

But, as you KNOW, the world does not refer to the SA as
Stormtroopers.
Here is a picture showing what everyone, but you, calls
https://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/nazi-stormtroopers-1024x585.jpg

This looks like a regiment of the German army, called 'Wehrmacht'.

Irrelevant. They look exactly what everyone, except you, calls
Stormtroopers.

not quite.
"Nazi Brownshirts / Stormtroopers TV drama - (Excerpts)"
http://youtu.be/7LTKyECBRqQ

Oooo... A fictionalize TV show. Well, if we are going to use
works of fiction, then "Manimal" proves you wrong about every claim
you've ever made.

[Thomas Heger]

Am 24.02.2018 um 22:40 schrieb KWills Shill #3:
..

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger
"Nazi Brownshirts / Stormtroopers TV drama - (Excerpts)"
http://youtu.be/7LTKyECBRqQ

Oooo... A fictionalize TV show. Well, if we are going to use
works of fiction, then "Manimal" proves you wrong about every claim
you've ever made.

Of course there is physical evidence. But that is not accessible for
everyone (especially not for me).

So I must use what is available, which includes fictional 'evidence'
(like movies).

But possibly I can convince someone from a museum (like DHM) or e.g. a
student of history, that this might be a promising subject.


TH

[KWills (Shill #3)]

Post by Thomas Heger
..

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger
"Nazi Brownshirts / Stormtroopers TV drama - (Excerpts)"
http://youtu.be/7LTKyECBRqQ

Oooo... A fictionalize TV show. Well, if we are going to use
works of fiction, then "Manimal" proves you wrong about every claim
you've ever made.

Of course there is physical evidence. But that is not accessible for
everyone (especially not for me).
So I must use what is available, which includes fictional 'evidence'
(like movies).
But possibly I can convince someone from a museum (like DHM) or e.g. a
student of history, that this might be a promising subject.

Nothing I've seen you post is promising.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by KWills (Shill #3)

Post by Thomas Heger
..

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger
"Nazi Brownshirts / Stormtroopers TV drama - (Excerpts)"
http://youtu.be/7LTKyECBRqQ

Oooo... A fictionalize TV show. Well, if we are going to use
works of fiction, then "Manimal" proves you wrong about every claim
you've ever made.

Of course there is physical evidence. But that is not accessible for
everyone (especially not for me).
So I must use what is available, which includes fictional 'evidence'
(like movies).
But possibly I can convince someone from a museum (like DHM) or e.g. a
student of history, that this might be a promising subject.

Nothing I've seen you post is promising.

Well..


You don't like my stories and so you think they are not interesting.

This is your decision and perfectly ok.

But if my story is actually correct and someone picks up the idea and is
able to prove it, it will most likely cause lots of public attentions.

TH

[e***@hotmail.com]

Well..


You don't like my stories and so you think they are not interesting.

This is your decision and perfectly ok.

But if my story is actually correct and someone picks up the idea and is
able to prove it, it will most likely cause lots of public attentions.
****
But there is nothing to indicate that your stories are anything but the nonsensical ravings of a lunatic mind, so I doubt you’ll receive anything by way of public attention.

[joeturn]

Post by Thomas Heger
Well..
You don't like my stories and so you think they are not interesting.
This is your decision and perfectly ok.
But if my story is actually correct and someone picks up the idea and is
able to prove it, it will most likely cause lots of public attentions.
****
But there is nothing to indicate that your stories are anything but the nonsensical ravings of a lunatic mind, so I doubt you’ll receive anything by way of public attention.

He has however gained the attention of Government shills to discredit his beliefs. He will eventually come around to discovering that Hitler and Walt Disney were both played by the notorious actor Roosevelt.

[e***@hotmail.com]

Only if he completely loses his mind.

[BDK]

Post by e***@hotmail.com
Only if he completely loses his mind.

Even Thomas isn't that far gone, yet.

[e***@hotmail.com]

Only if he completely loses his mind.

Even Thomas isn't that far gone, yet.
*****
Well, joe could use the company.

[KWills Shill #3]

Post by BDK

Post by e***@hotmail.com
Only if he completely loses his mind.

Even Thomas isn't that far gone, yet.

He is getting closer with every post.

[KWills Shill #3]

Post by joeturn

Post by Thomas Heger
Well..
You don't like my stories and so you think they are not interesting.
This is your decision and perfectly ok.
But if my story is actually correct and someone picks up the idea and is
able to prove it, it will most likely cause lots of public attentions.
****
But there is nothing to indicate that your stories are anything but the nonsensical ravings of a lunatic mind, so I doubt you’ll receive anything by way of public attention.

He has however gained the attention of Government shills to discredit his beliefs.

I eagerly await the valid, verifiable evidence for this claim.
Do keep in mind that BDK, #2, and I are not actually shills. That
we claim we are is absolute proof we are not. No one who is will claim
they are.

Post by joeturn
He will eventually come around to discovering that Hitler and Walt Disney were both played by the notorious actor Roosevelt.

Whereas that claim is false, he won't.
You are free to provide valid, verifiable evidence that your
claim is true. Evidence that came from Eddie's meth abuse will not be
accepted as evidence of anything other than his drug abuse caused him
to lose contact with reality.


Brave Sir [Roger] ran away
Bravely ran away, away
When [the TRUTH] reared its ugly head
He bravely turned his tail and fled
Yes, brave Sir [Roger] turned about
And gallantly he chickened out
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat
Bravest of the brave, Sir [Roger]!


"Reason and evidence can't change ones opinion on a topic if their
belief wasn't based on reason and evidence to start with."

Roger "Rocky" Wittekind explaining why he still claims nukes were used
on 9/11/01 in
Message-ID: <IoGdnbEGb_w08mvInZ2dnUU7-***@giganews.com>

[KWills Shill #3]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills (Shill #3)

Post by Thomas Heger
..

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger
"Nazi Brownshirts / Stormtroopers TV drama - (Excerpts)"
http://youtu.be/7LTKyECBRqQ

Oooo... A fictionalize TV show. Well, if we are going to use
works of fiction, then "Manimal" proves you wrong about every claim
you've ever made.

Of course there is physical evidence. But that is not accessible for
everyone (especially not for me).
So I must use what is available, which includes fictional 'evidence'
(like movies).
But possibly I can convince someone from a museum (like DHM) or e.g. a
student of history, that this might be a promising subject.

Nothing I've seen you post is promising.

Well..
You don't like my stories and so you think they are not interesting.

Not so. Your delusions are VERY interesting.

Post by Thomas Heger
This is your decision and perfectly ok.
But if my story is actually correct and someone picks up the idea and is
able to prove it, it will most likely cause lots of public attentions.

If there was anything in the way of evidence for any of your
delusions, it would be miraculous.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger
You don't like my stories and so you think they are not interesting.

Not so. Your delusions are VERY interesting.

Post by Thomas Heger
This is your decision and perfectly ok.
But if my story is actually correct and someone picks up the idea and is
able to prove it, it will most likely cause lots of public attentions.

If there was anything in the way of evidence for any of your
delusions, it would be miraculous.

I can prove my idea on any given page in the book 'My Struggle'.

The German version has about 800 pages.

You can decide, which page I should use for my attempted proof.

Since a lot of pages are content and references, you may chose a page
between 50 and 750 and I use that.

(If the page is blank I take the next page with text)

If this sounds fair to you, then - please - select a page.


TH

[e***@hotmail.com]

You can show what you claim are inconsistencies between the German and the English editions. I acknowledge this because German does not translate directly into English. Whoever did the translation had to make changes. It is not proof that the English edition was first.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by e***@hotmail.com
You can show what you claim are inconsistencies between the German and the English editions. I acknowledge this because German does not translate directly into English. Whoever did the translation had to make changes. It is not proof that the English edition was first.

Sure..

but there are typical errors for either direction.

A typical error made by Germans, that speak English is the confusion of
'to become' with 'bekommen' (to get).

English people of confuse certain special cases, for which the English
has no analogue.

E.g. 'German' can be translated into various ways, which have different
meaning

Deutsch (German language)
Deutscher (man from Germany)
Deutsches Volk (the German people)
Deutsch (being citizen of Germany)

now a confusion between such meanings is a hint for a source in English,
since in German it is not possible to mix such meanings.

Also typical for errors of English speakers in the neutral case or other
specialties of German grammar.

We have also jokes, that could be traced back to one language, because
they only function in one, but not in the other. If such a joke is
nevertheless translated, the translated version makes no sense.

Other hints are inconsistencies in the story with social or political
facts, which all people of a certain area would necessarily know.


TH

[KWills Shill #3]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger
You don't like my stories and so you think they are not interesting.

Not so. Your delusions are VERY interesting.

Post by Thomas Heger
This is your decision and perfectly ok.
But if my story is actually correct and someone picks up the idea and is
able to prove it, it will most likely cause lots of public attentions.

If there was anything in the way of evidence for any of your
delusions, it would be miraculous.

I can prove my idea on any given page in the book 'My Struggle'.

Yet you are the only one to see it. Odd that.

Post by Thomas Heger
The German version has about 800 pages.
You can decide, which page I should use for my attempted proof.

Page 143.
Do keep in mind I'll have Gertie check your "proof."

Post by Thomas Heger
Since a lot of pages are content and references, you may chose a page
between 50 and 750 and I use that.
(If the page is blank I take the next page with text)
If this sounds fair to you, then - please - select a page.

Done.
I won't see Gertie until Tomorrow. I'll have her look over your
phantom proof then, if you provide it in time. If not, it will have to
wait until Tuesday.
If you'd like, and she allows, I'll film her so that you can hear
her accent. I'll even ask her to include her comments in German so
that you'll know she was born and raised in Germany.
Perhaps you're not aware that German and English are two
different languages. As such, translations from one to the other will
never be a direct match.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger
I can prove my idea on any given page in the book 'My Struggle'.

Yet you are the only one to see it. Odd that.

Post by Thomas Heger
The German version has about 800 pages.
You can decide, which page I should use for my attempted proof.

Page 143.
Do keep in mind I'll have Gertie check your "proof."

Post by Thomas Heger
Since a lot of pages are content and references, you may chose a page
between 50 and 750 and I use that.
(If the page is blank I take the next page with text)
If this sounds fair to you, then - please - select a page.

Done.
I won't see Gertie until Tomorrow. I'll have her look over your
phantom proof then, if you provide it in time. If not, it will have to
wait until Tuesday.

That is not very much time, but I'll try.

TH

[Thomas Heger]

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger
I can prove my idea on any given page in the book 'My Struggle'.

Yet you are the only one to see it. Odd that.

Post by Thomas Heger
The German version has about 800 pages.
You can decide, which page I should use for my attempted proof.

Page 143.
Do keep in mind I'll have Gertie check your "proof."

the text is about a certain secret alliance between Prussia, kuk Austria
and the newly created Italy, called 'triple alliance', and about how
Hitler thought about this.

The pact was already history, when the book was written.

this is the text of the English version:

___quote____________________________________________________

In Austria the only adherents of the alliance idea were the Habsburgs
and the Germans. In the first it was due to compulsion and calculation,
and in the second to easy credulity and political stupidity. Easy
credulity, because they imagined they would do a great service to the
German Empire by means of the triple Alliance, which would strengthen it
and bring it security ; political stupidity, because their imaginations
did not ?t the facts, for they were really helping to chain the Empire
to the dead carcase of a State, which was bound to drag them down into
the abyss ; more particularly, however, because that alliance was
contributing more and more to de-Germanize Austria herself. For since
the Habsburgs believed an Alliance with the Empire would insure them
against any interference on the part of the latter - and unfortunately
they were right in this - they were enabled to continue their policy of
gradually getting rid of German influence inside the country with more
ease and less risk. They had no need to fear any protest from the German
Government, which was known for the objectivity of its point of view,
and moreover, in dealing with the Austrian Germans they could always
silence any insistent voice which might be raised against some
particularly disgraceful instance of favouritism shown to the Slavs, by
a reference to the Triple Alliance.

If there had been more enlightened study of history in Germany and
racial psychology, no one could have believed for an instant that the
Quirinal in Rome and the Hofburg in Vienna would ever fight side by side
on a common battle front. Italy would turn into a volcano before any
Government would dare send a single Italian into the field on account of
the fanatically hated Habsburg State, except as enemy. I had more than
once seen the passionate disdain and unfathomed hatred which obsessed
the Italians against the Austrian State flare up in Vienna. The sins of
the House of Habsburg in the course of centuries against Italian freedom
and independence were too great ever to be forgotten, even’ supposing
there were any desire to do
so. There was no such desire either amongst the people or in the Italian
Government. For Italy, therefore, there were only two possible courses
in dealing with Austria-—-alliance or war :

Having chosen the first, they could calmly prepare for the second.

The German alliance policy was both senseless and risky especially since
Austria’s relations towards Russia had been tending more and more
towards a settlement by war.

Why was any alliance concluded at all? Simply in order to assure the
future of the Reich when it was in a position to do so standing on its
own feet. But the future of the Reich was nothing else than the question
of enabling the German nation to continue in existence.

The population of Germany increases by nearly 900,000 annually.

*)


Territorial acquisition as against a policy of colonial trade

Both these courses were considered, examined, recommended and combated
from various points of view, until finally the second was chosen. The
first course would undoubtedly have been the sounder of the two.
Acquisition of fresh territory to accommodate the overflow population
contains infinitely greater advantages, especially if the future, and
not the present is considered


_________________________________________________________---


at the position marked with *) the German version has seven additional
pages, which are missing in the English version.

The additional text are about population control and sound like copied
from a handbook for 'Eugenics'.

(Actually I'm a little insecure how to deal with this problem.)

The triple alliance was canceled by Italy in 1915 and was quietly buried
by Prussia about 1905.

Instead of that pact there was a treaty called 'Treaty of London' in
which Italy had chosen to support England, France and Russia (instead of
Austria and the German Reich).

So much for now.

(Eventually I'm not able to complete this study till Tuesday.)


TH

[KWills (Shill #3)]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger
I can prove my idea on any given page in the book 'My Struggle'.

Yet you are the only one to see it. Odd that.

Post by Thomas Heger
The German version has about 800 pages.
You can decide, which page I should use for my attempted proof.

Page 143.
Do keep in mind I'll have Gertie check your "proof."

the text is about a certain secret alliance between Prussia, kuk Austria
and the newly created Italy, called 'triple alliance', and about how
Hitler thought about this.
The pact was already history, when the book was written.

Irrelevant. You told me to pick a page. I did.

Post by Thomas Heger
___quote____________________________________________________
In Austria the only adherents of the alliance idea were the Habsburgs
and the Germans. In the first it was due to compulsion and calculation,
and in the second to easy credulity and political stupidity. Easy
credulity, because they imagined they would do a great service to the
German Empire by means of the triple Alliance, which would strengthen it
and bring it security ; political stupidity, because their imaginations
did not ?t the facts, for they were really helping to chain the Empire
to the dead carcase of a State, which was bound to drag them down into
the abyss ; more particularly, however, because that alliance was
contributing more and more to de-Germanize Austria herself. For since
the Habsburgs believed an Alliance with the Empire would insure them
against any interference on the part of the latter - and unfortunately
they were right in this - they were enabled to continue their policy of
gradually getting rid of German influence inside the country with more
ease and less risk. They had no need to fear any protest from the German
Government, which was known for the objectivity of its point of view,
and moreover, in dealing with the Austrian Germans they could always
silence any insistent voice which might be raised against some
particularly disgraceful instance of favouritism shown to the Slavs, by
a reference to the Triple Alliance.
If there had been more enlightened study of history in Germany and
racial psychology, no one could have believed for an instant that the
Quirinal in Rome and the Hofburg in Vienna would ever fight side by side
on a common battle front. Italy would turn into a volcano before any
Government would dare send a single Italian into the field on account of
the fanatically hated Habsburg State, except as enemy. I had more than
once seen the passionate disdain and unfathomed hatred which obsessed
the Italians against the Austrian State flare up in Vienna. The sins of
the House of Habsburg in the course of centuries against Italian freedom
and independence were too great ever to be forgotten, even’ supposing
there were any desire to do
so. There was no such desire either amongst the people or in the Italian
Government. For Italy, therefore, there were only two possible courses
Having chosen the first, they could calmly prepare for the second.
The German alliance policy was both senseless and risky especially since
Austria’s relations towards Russia had been tending more and more
towards a settlement by war.
Why was any alliance concluded at all? Simply in order to assure the
future of the Reich when it was in a position to do so standing on its
own feet. But the future of the Reich was nothing else than the question
of enabling the German nation to continue in existence.
The population of Germany increases by nearly 900,000 annually.
*)
Territorial acquisition as against a policy of colonial trade
Both these courses were considered, examined, recommended and combated
from various points of view, until finally the second was chosen. The
first course would undoubtedly have been the sounder of the two.
Acquisition of fresh territory to accommodate the overflow population
contains infinitely greater advantages, especially if the future, and
not the present is considered
_________________________________________________________---
at the position marked with *) the German version has seven additional
pages, which are missing in the English version.

And?
You seem to think translations will be dirrect. They are not.

Post by Thomas Heger
The additional text are about population control and sound like copied
from a handbook for 'Eugenics'.

Something about whicj Hitler was most in favor.

Post by Thomas Heger
(Actually I'm a little insecure how to deal with this problem.)
The triple alliance was canceled by Italy in 1915 and was quietly buried
by Prussia about 1905.
Instead of that pact there was a treaty called 'Treaty of London' in
which Italy had chosen to support England, France and Russia (instead of
Austria and the German Reich).
So much for now.
(Eventually I'm not able to complete this study till Tuesday.)

I'm not the least bit surprised. You know you'll be exposed for
the liar you are, so your stalling.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by KWills (Shill #3)

Post by Thomas Heger
The population of Germany increases by nearly 900,000 annually.
*)
Territorial acquisition as against a policy of colonial trade
Both these courses were considered, examined, recommended and combated
from various points of view, until finally the second was chosen. The
first course would undoubtedly have been the sounder of the two.
Acquisition of fresh territory to accommodate the overflow population
contains infinitely greater advantages, especially if the future, and
not the present is considered
_________________________________________________________---
at the position marked with *) the German version has seven additional
pages, which are missing in the English version.

And?
You seem to think translations will be dirrect. They are not.

Post by Thomas Heger
The additional text are about population control and sound like copied
from a handbook for 'Eugenics'.

Something about whicj Hitler was most in favor.

No. Eugenics is anglo-american and was mostly unknown in Germany.

But I personally think, that the head of Eugenics (Julian Huxley) had
something to do with the Nazis.

I had the idea, that his brother Noel Trevenen Huxley would make a good
candidate for a spy (which we know as 'Hitler').

The reason to think so is the connection of the Huxley family to the
Fabians and the so called 'Apostles' of Cambridge.

There is a possibility how that could be done.

Julian Huxley was a spy (actually: Naval intelligence officer) and in
1913 for a year in Bavaria.

If he removed his brother from sight by a faked suicide and brought him
to Munich, than everything would fit.

In Munich he then lived in the house of Isolde Beidler (daughter of
Richard Wagner) in her home at Prinzregentenplatz 16.

Then all pictures of this guy were removed from everywhere and a stupid
story was told to the public.

In Munich this person learned to speak good Bavarian, which could be
mistaken for Austrian by the untrained ear.

The other brother of Julian wrote in the meantime a famous book about
the (brave) 'New World Order'.

(This was - btw - the title of Hitler's second book.)

Post by KWills (Shill #3)

Post by Thomas Heger
(Actually I'm a little insecure how to deal with this problem.)
The triple alliance was canceled by Italy in 1915 and was quietly buried
by Prussia about 1905.
Instead of that pact there was a treaty called 'Treaty of London' in
which Italy had chosen to support England, France and Russia (instead of
Austria and the German Reich).
So much for now.
(Eventually I'm not able to complete this study till Tuesday.)

I'm not the least bit surprised. You know you'll be exposed for
the liar you are, so your stalling.

I will post the missing pages in a separate message, because it is a
little longish.

The text describes in detail the plans of the Nazis to reduce population.

(This is/was (allegedly) the plan of the so called 'NWO'.)

The missing pages in the English version deserve an explanation. It is
actually to long and to important to leave it simply away.

So may recent guess is, that it was put into the text as a single large
text-block.

This would require, of course, a preexisting version. This would then be
the version of 'Paternoster Library'.

The English version of the missing pages stems from the 'Nootide Press'
version.

It is, in my opinion, the only possible explanation for this text (that
it was put into an earlier version).

The only other possibility would, that the translator left out seven
unwanted pages entirely.

TH

[Thomas Heger]

Am 05.03.2018 um 12:09 schrieb Thomas Heger:
...

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills (Shill #3)

Post by Thomas Heger
at the position marked with *) the German version has seven additional
pages, which are missing in the English version.

And?
You seem to think translations will be dirrect. They are not.

Post by Thomas Heger
The additional text are about population control and sound like copied
from a handbook for 'Eugenics'.

Something about whicj Hitler was most in favor.

No. Eugenics is anglo-american and was mostly unknown in Germany.

...

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills (Shill #3)
I'm not the least bit surprised. You know you'll be exposed for
the liar you are, so your stalling.

I will post the missing pages in a separate message, because it is a
little longish.
The text describes in detail the plans of the Nazis to reduce population.

___________________quote_________________________________:


There were four ways of avoiding so terrible a development for the future:

1. Following the French example, the increase of births could be
artificially restricted, thus meeting the problem of overpopulation
Nature herself in times of great poverty or bad climactic conditions, as
well as poor harvest, intervenes to restrict the increase of population
of certain countries or races; this, to be sure, by a method as wise as
it is ruthless. She diminishes, not the power of procreation as such,
but the conservation of the procreated, by exposing them to hard trials
and deprivations with the result that all those who are less strong and
less healthy are forced back into the womb of the eternal unknown. Those
whom she permits to survive the inclemency of existence are a
thousandfold tested hardened, and well adapted to procreate-in turn, in
order that the process of thoroughgoing selection may begin again from
the beginning. By thus brutally proceeding against the individual and
immediately calling him back to herself as soon as he shows himself
unequal to the storm of life, she keeps the race and species strong, in
fact, raises them to the highest accomplishments.

At the same time the diminution of number strengthens the individual and
thus in the last analysis fortifies the species. It is different,
however, when man undertakes the limitation of his number. He is not
carved of the same wood, he is ' humane.' He knows better than the cruel
queen of wisdom. He limits not the conservation of the individual, but
procreation itself. This seems to him, who always sees himself and never
the race, more human and more justified than the opposite way.

Unfortunately, however, the consequences are the reverse:

While Nature, by making procreation free, yet submitting survival to a
hard trial, chooses from an excess number of individuals the best as
worthy of living, thus preserving them alone and in them conserving
their species, man limits procreation, but is hysterically concerned
that once a being is born it should be preserved at any price. This
correction of the divine will seems to him as wise as it is humane, and
he takes delight in having once again gotten the best of Nature and even
having proved her inadequacy. The number, to be sure, has really been
limited, but at the same time the value of the individual has
dirninished; this, however, is something the dear little ape of the
Almighty does not want to see or hear about.

For as soon as procreation as such is limited and the number of births
diminished, the natural struggle for existence which leaves only the
strongest and healthiest alive is obviously replaced by the obvious
desire to ' save ' even the weakest and most sickly at any price, and
this plants the seed of a future generation which must inevitably grow
more and more deplorable the longer this mockery of Nature and her will
continues.

And the end will be that such a people will some day be deprived of its
existence on this earth; for man can defy the eternal laws of the will
to conservation for a certain time, but sooner or later vengeance comes.
A stronger race will drive out the weak, for the vital urge in its
ultimate form will, time and again, burst all the absurd fetters of the
so-called humanity of individuals, in order to replace it by the
humanity of Nature which destroys the weak to give his place to the
strong.Therefore, anyone who wants to secure the existence of the German
people by a self-limitation of its reproduction is robbing it of its
future.2. A second way would be one which today we, time and time again,
see proposed and recommended: internal colonization. This is a proposal
which is well meant by just as many as by most people it is
misunderstood, thus doing the greatest conceivable damage that anyone
can imaginedWithout doubt the productivity of the soil can be increased
up to a certain limit. But only up to a certain limit, and not
continuously without end. For a certain time it will be possible to
compensate for the increase of the German people without having to think
of hunger, by increasing the productivity of our soil. But beside this,
we must face the fact that our demands on life ordinarily nse even more
rapidly than the number of the population Man's requirements with regard
to food and clothing increase from year to year, and even now, for
example, stand in no relation to the requirements of our ancestors, say
a hundred years ago. It IS, therefore, insane to believe that every rise
in production provides the basis for an increase in population:

no; this is true only up to a certain degree, since at least a part of
the increased production of the soil is spent in satisfying the
increased needs of men. But even with the greatest limitation on the one
hand and the utmost industry on the other, here again a limit will one
day be reached, created by the soil itself. With the utmost toil it will
not be possible to obtain any more from its and then, though postponed
for a certain time, catastrophe again manifests itself. First, there
will be hunger from time to time, when there is famine, etc. As the
population increases, this will happen more and more often, so that
finally it will only be absent when rare years of great abundance fill
the granaries. But at length the time approaches when even then it will
not be possible to satisfy men's needs, and hunger has become the
eternal companion of such a people.

Then Nature must help again and make a choice among those whom she has
chosen for life; but again man helps himself; that is, he turns to
artificial restriction of his increase with all the above-indicated dire
consequences for race and species.

The objection may still be raised that this future will face the whole
of humanity in any case and that consequently the individual nation can
naturally not avoid this fate.

At first glance this seems perfectly correct. Yet here the following
must be borne in mind: Assuredly at a certain time the whole of humanity
will be compelled, in consequence of the impossibility of making the
fertility of the soil keep pace with the continuous increase in
population, to halt the increase of the human race and either let Nature
again decide or, by self-help if possible, create the necessary balance,
though, to be sure, in a more correct way than is done today. But then
this will strike all peoples, while today only those races are stricken
with such suffering which no longer possess the force and strength to
secure for themselves the necessary territories in this world. For as
matters stand there are at the present time on this earth immense areas
of unusued soil, only waiting for the men to till them. But it is
equally true that Nature as such has not reserved this soil for the
future possession of any particular nation or race; on the contrary,
this soil exists for the people which possesses the force to take it and
the industry to cultivate it.Nature knows no political boundaries.
First, she puts living creatures on this globe and watches the free play
of forces. She then confers the master's right on her favorite child,
the strongest in courage and industry.When a people limits itself to
internal colonization because other races are clinging fast to greater
and greater surfaces of this earth, it will be forced to have recourse
to self-limitation at a time when the other peoples are still continuing
to increase. Some day this situation will arise, and the smaller the
living space at the disposal of the people, the sooner it will happen.
Since in general, unfortunately, the best nations, or, even more
correctly, the only truly cultured races, the standard-bearers of all
human progress, all too frequently resolve in their pacifistic blindness
to renounce new acquisitions of soil and content themselves with
'internal' colonization, while the inferior races know how to secure
immense living areas in this world for themselves-this would lead to the
following final result:The culturally superior, but less ruthless races,
would in consequence of their limited soil, have to limit their increase
at a time when the culturally inferior but more brutal and more natural
t peoples, in consequence of their greater living areas, would still be
in a position to increase without limit. In other words: some day the
world will thus come into possession of the culturally inferior but more
active men.

Then, though in a perhaps very distant future, there will be but two
possibilities either the world will be governed according to the ideas
of our modern democracy, and then the weight of any decision will result
in favor of the numerically stronger races, or the world will be
dominated in accordance with the laws of the natural order of force, and
then it is the peoples of brutal will who will conquer, and consequently
once again not the nation of selfrestriction.

No one can doubt that this world will some day be exposed to the
severest struggles for the existence of mankind. In the end, only the
urge for self-preservation can conquer. Beneath it socalled humanity,
the expression of a mixture of stupidity, cowardice, and know-it-all
conceit, will melt like snow in the March sun. Mankind has grown great
in eternal struggle, and only in eternal peace does it perish.

For us Germans the slogan of 'inner colonization' is catastrophic, if
for no other reason because it automatically reinforces us in the
opinion that we have found a means which, in accordance with the
pacifistic tendency, allows us ' to earn ' our right to exist by labor
in a life of sweet slumbers. Once this doctrine were taken seriously in
our country, it would mean the end of every exertion to preserve for
ourselves the place which is our due. Once the average German became
convinced that he could secure his life and future in this way, all
attempts at an active, and hence alone fertile, defense of German vital
necessities would be doomed to failure. In the face of such an attitude
on the part of the nation any really beneficial foreign policy could be
regarded as buried, and with it the future of the German people as a
whole.Taking these consequences into account, it is no accident that it
is always primarily the Jew who tries and succeeds in planting such
mortally dangerous modes of thought in our people. He knows his
customers too well not to realize that they gratefully let themselves be
swindled by any gold-brick salesman who can make them think he has found
a way to play a little trick on Nature, to make the hard, inexorable
struggle for existence superfluous, and instead, sometimes by work, but
sometimes by plain doing nothing, depending on how things 'come out,' to
become the lord of the planet.

It cannot be emphasized sharply enough that any German internal
colonization must serve to eliminate social abuses particularly to
withdraw the soil from widespread speculation, best can never suffice to
secure the future of the nation without the acquisition of new soil.
If we do not do this, we shall in a short time have arrived, not only at
the end of our soil, but also at the end of our strength.

Finally, the following must be stated:
The limitation to a definite small area of soil, inherent in internal
colonization, like the same final effect obtained by restriction of
procreation, leads to an exceedingly unfavorable politicomilitary
situation in the nation in question.

The size of the area inhabited by a people constitutes in itself an
essential factor for determining its outward security. The greater the
quantity of space at the disposal of a people, the greater its natural
protection; for military decisions against peoples living in a small
restricted area have always been obtained more quickly and hence more
easily, and in particular more effectively and completely than can,
conversely, be possible against territorially extensive states. In the
size of a state's territory there always lies a certain protection
against frivolous attacks, since success
can be achieved only after hard struggles, and therefore the risk of a
rash assault will seem too great unless there are quite exceptional
grounds for it. Hence the very size of a state offers in itself a basis
for more easily preserving the freedom and independence of a people,
while, conversely, the smallness of such a formation is a positive
invitation to seizure.

Actually the two first possibilities for creating a balance between the
rising population and the stationary amount of soil were rejected in the
so-called national circles of the Reich. The reasons for this position
were, to be sure, different from those above mentioned: government
circles adopted a negative attitude toward the limitation of births out
of a certain moral feeling; they indignantly rejected internal
colonization because in it they scented an attack against large
landholdings and therein the beginning of a wider struggle against
private property in general.

In view of the form in which particularly the latter panacea was put
forward, they may very well have been right in this assumption.On the
whole, the defense against the broad masses was not very skillful and by
no means struck at the heart of the problem. Thus there remained but two
ways of securing work and bread for the rising population.

3. Either new soil could be acquired and the superfluous millions sent
off each year, thus
keeping the nation on a selfsustaining basis; or we could

4. Produce for foreign needs through industry and commerce, and defray
the cost of living from the proceeds.

[KWills (Shill #3)]

Post by Thomas Heger
I will post the missing pages in a separate message, because it is a
little longish.
The text describes in detail the plans of the Nazis to reduce population.

[...]

Where is the German version for comparison?

[KWills (Shill #3)]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills (Shill #3)

Post by Thomas Heger
The population of Germany increases by nearly 900,000 annually.
*)
Territorial acquisition as against a policy of colonial trade
Both these courses were considered, examined, recommended and combated
from various points of view, until finally the second was chosen. The
first course would undoubtedly have been the sounder of the two.
Acquisition of fresh territory to accommodate the overflow population
contains infinitely greater advantages, especially if the future, and
not the present is considered
_________________________________________________________---
at the position marked with *) the German version has seven additional
pages, which are missing in the English version.

And?
You seem to think translations will be dirrect. They are not.

Post by Thomas Heger
The additional text are about population control and sound like copied
from a handbook for 'Eugenics'.

Something about whicj Hitler was most in favor.

No. Eugenics is anglo-american and was mostly unknown in Germany.

The idea was held in high regards with Hitler, even if the term
wasn't used.

Post by Thomas Heger
But I personally think, that the head of Eugenics (Julian Huxley) had
something to do with the Nazis.
I had the idea, that his brother Noel Trevenen Huxley would make a good
candidate for a spy (which we know as 'Hitler').

There was never a *spy* known as Hitler.

Post by Thomas Heger
The reason to think so is the connection of the Huxley family to the
Fabians and the so called 'Apostles' of Cambridge.
There is a possibility how that could be done.
Julian Huxley was a spy (actually: Naval intelligence officer) and in
1913 for a year in Bavaria.
If he removed his brother from sight by a faked suicide and brought him
to Munich, than everything would fit.

But there is nothing to support the claim that this happened.

Post by Thomas Heger
In Munich he then lived in the house of Isolde Beidler (daughter of
Richard Wagner) in her home at Prinzregentenplatz 16.
Then all pictures of this guy were removed from everywhere and a stupid
story was told to the public.
In Munich this person learned to speak good Bavarian, which could be
mistaken for Austrian by the untrained ear.

And the trained ear as well. Linguists accept that he was from
Austria. And they will know far better than you.

Post by Thomas Heger
The other brother of Julian wrote in the meantime a famous book about
the (brave) 'New World Order'.
(This was - btw - the title of Hitler's second book.)

And?

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills (Shill #3)

Post by Thomas Heger
(Actually I'm a little insecure how to deal with this problem.)
The triple alliance was canceled by Italy in 1915 and was quietly buried
by Prussia about 1905.
Instead of that pact there was a treaty called 'Treaty of London' in
which Italy had chosen to support England, France and Russia (instead of
Austria and the German Reich).
So much for now.
(Eventually I'm not able to complete this study till Tuesday.)

I'm not the least bit surprised. You know you'll be exposed for
the liar you are, so your stalling.

I will post the missing pages in a separate message, because it is a
little longish.

Missing pages?

Post by Thomas Heger
The text describes in detail the plans of the Nazis to reduce population.
(This is/was (allegedly) the plan of the so called 'NWO'.)
The missing pages in the English version deserve an explanation. It is
actually to long and to important to leave it simply away.
So may recent guess is, that it was put into the text as a single large
text-block.
This would require, of course, a preexisting version. This would then be
the version of 'Paternoster Library'.
The English version of the missing pages stems from the 'Nootide Press'
version.
It is, in my opinion, the only possible explanation for this text (that
it was put into an earlier version).

Your opinion is worthless. I want you to deal in valid,
verifiable facts.

Post by Thomas Heger
The only other possibility would, that the translator left out seven
unwanted pages entirely.

Or, as is the reality, translations are not dirrect. To get the
idea and context accross, the translater had to include more in the
English.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by KWills (Shill #3)

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills Shill #3
Page 143.
Do keep in mind I'll have Gertie check your "proof."

the text is about a certain secret alliance between Prussia, kuk Austria
and the newly created Italy, called 'triple alliance', and about how
Hitler thought about this.
The pact was already history, when the book was written.

Irrelevant. You told me to pick a page. I did.

Well, you have picked a page and I took the text from this page (plus
the 'cut' paragraphs before and after).

I wanted to compare it with a certain version (that of Paternoster
Library). Unfortunately the both versions didn't match, since the German
contains almost seven addition pages.

And what is not there cannot be compared.

But I have another proposal for my proof. That are the pages following
directly. I put a quote from the English version here and then explain,
how this would prove my guess.

quote

__________________________________________________


hence Germany’s only hope of carrying out a sound territorial policy lay
in acquiring fresh lands in Europe itself. Colonies are useless for that
object if they appear unsuitable for settling Europeans in large
numbers. In the Nineteenth Century, however, it was no longer possible
to acquire such territory for colonization by peaceful methods. A
colonizing policy of that kind could only be realized by means of a hard
struggle,which would be far more appropriate for the- sake of gaining
territory in the continent near home than for lands outside Europe.

For such a policy there was only one possible ally in Europe - Great
Britain. Great Britain was the only Power which could protect our rear,
supposing we started a new Germanic expansion (Germanenzug).

We should have had as much right to do this as our forefathers had. No
sacrifice would have been too great in order to gain England’s alliance.
It would have meant renunciation of colonies and importance on the sea,
and refraining from interference with British industry by our competition.

There was a moment when Great Britain would have let us speak to her in
this sense; for she understood very well that, owing to her increased
population, Germany would have to look for some solution and find it
either in Europe with Great Britain’s help, or elsewhere in the world
without it.

The attempt made from London at the turn of the century to obtain a
rapprochement with Germany was due first and foremost to this feeling.
But the Germans were upset by the idea of “having to pull England’s
chestnuts out of the fire for her”,-- as if an alliance were possible on
any basis other than that of reciprocity.

On that principle business could very well have been done with
Whitehall. British diplomacy was quite clever enough to know that
nothing could be hoped for without reciprocity.

Let us imagine that Germany, with a skilful foreign policy, had played
the part which Japan played in I904 -we can hardly estimate the
consequences that would have had for Germany.

There would never have been a World War.That method, however, was never
adopted at all.

_____________________________________ end of quote_________________



Now you need to keep in mind the time and the personal circumstances of
the author.

The author has just a few years ago faught in the trenches of Flanders
against British troops. He lived four years in the mud, seeing nothing
but dirt and death.

War ended for him with being blindfolded by poison gas. From this injury
he had just recovered.

The enemy had just recently invade his country, confiscated most of
value, forbade almost all arms and stripped Germany of all colonies.

Now the authors sits in prison for an attempted coup and has little hope
for some sort of progress in his life.

Now the enemy was England (plus France, Russia and the USA).


Now Hitler writes:

"For such a policy there was only one possible ally in Europe - Great
Britain. Great Britain was the only Power which could protect our rear,
supposing we started a new Germanic expansion (Germanenzug).

We should have had as much right to do this as our forefathers had. No
sacrifice would have been too great in order to gain England’s alliance. "

Well, that is rather strange, since it violates common behavior of
almost all humans (something like demonizing victorious enemies).

But that is not what he wrote.

Instead he wrote, that Germany should give up colonies and industry and
relocate his overstock of people to Russia, were they should become farmers.

This is so inconceivable sick, that it is impossible to believe, that a
real German soldier could have written that.

For instance: how would Hitler arm his soldiers? That would be
necessary, since Russia was actually the Soviet Union and that a well
armed country.

What had Hitler to offer (clubs and crossbows?)

Russia is also not that adjacent to Germany, since Poland, the Baltic
states, Belarus and Ukraine are in between.

And: supposed the unlikely case, they had some success in Russia, then
what are they going to do there?

Russia is large and sparsely populated, has harsh winters and not that
fertile soil.

The country was - btw- run by mean communists, who most likely didn't
like German farmers.

So what is this nonsense about?

It cannot possibly be written but the alleged author.


TH

[KWills (Shill #3)]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills (Shill #3)

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills Shill #3
Page 143.
Do keep in mind I'll have Gertie check your "proof."

the text is about a certain secret alliance between Prussia, kuk Austria
and the newly created Italy, called 'triple alliance', and about how
Hitler thought about this.
The pact was already history, when the book was written.

Irrelevant. You told me to pick a page. I did.

Well, you have picked a page and I took the text from this page (plus
the 'cut' paragraphs before and after).
I wanted to compare it with a certain version (that of Paternoster
Library). Unfortunately the both versions didn't match, since the German
contains almost seven addition pages.

On only ONE page? Wow. The German version must use a very small
type set.

Post by Thomas Heger
And what is not there cannot be compared.

I knew you'd come up with some excuse.

Post by Thomas Heger
But I have another proposal for my proof. That are the pages following
directly. I put a quote from the English version here and then explain,
how this would prove my guess.

[snip of quote from a page other than the one I picked]

Post by Thomas Heger
Now you need to keep in mind the time and the personal circumstances of
the author.

Why?

Post by Thomas Heger
The author has just a few years ago faught in the trenches of Flanders
against British troops. He lived four years in the mud, seeing nothing
but dirt and death.
War ended for him with being blindfolded by poison gas. From this injury
he had just recovered.
The enemy had just recently invade his country, confiscated most of
value, forbade almost all arms and stripped Germany of all colonies.

Such is the way of war for the losing side.

Post by Thomas Heger
Now the authors sits in prison for an attempted coup and has little hope
for some sort of progress in his life.
Now the enemy was England (plus France, Russia and the USA).
"For such a policy there was only one possible ally in Europe - Great
Britain. Great Britain was the only Power which could protect our rear,
supposing we started a new Germanic expansion (Germanenzug).
We should have had as much right to do this as our forefathers had. No
sacri?ce would have been too great in order to gain England’s alliance. "
Well, that is rather strange, since it violates common behavior of
almost all humans (something like demonizing victorious enemies).

Yet he did write that. Though in German.

Post by Thomas Heger
But that is not what he wrote.

But it is.

Post by Thomas Heger
Instead he wrote, that Germany should give up colonies and industry and
relocate his overstock of people to Russia, were they should become farmers.
This is so inconceivable sick, that it is impossible to believe, that a
real German soldier could have written that.

Fortunately, Hitler was actually an Austrian.

Post by Thomas Heger
For instance: how would Hitler arm his soldiers? That would be
necessary, since Russia was actually the Soviet Union and that a well
armed country.
What had Hitler to offer (clubs and crossbows?)

I don't see the connection between arming soldiers and sending
people to Russia to be farmers. You will need to explain how these
connect.

Post by Thomas Heger
Russia is also not that adjacent to Germany, since Poland, the Baltic
states, Belarus and Ukraine are in between.
And: supposed the unlikely case, they had some success in Russia, then
what are they going to do there?

Enjoy their sucess, I would imagine.

Post by Thomas Heger
Russia is large and sparsely populated, has harsh winters and not that
fertile soil.

For parts of Russia your claim is true. But not all.

Post by Thomas Heger
The country was - btw- run by mean communists, who most likely didn't
like German farmers.

How would you know if they did or did not like German farmers?

Post by Thomas Heger
So what is this nonsense about?

It makes sense insofar as it's easy to read and the meaning
Hitler presented is understood.

Post by Thomas Heger
It cannot possibly be written but the alleged author.

So you agree the original was witten by Hitler. OK.

[Thomas Heger]

Am 06.03.2018 um 11:16 schrieb KWills (Shill #3):
...

Post by KWills (Shill #3)

Post by Thomas Heger
Now you need to keep in mind the time and the personal circumstances of
the author.

Why?

Post by Thomas Heger
The author has just a few years ago faught in the trenches of Flanders
against British troops. He lived four years in the mud, seeing nothing
but dirt and death.
War ended for him with being blindfolded by poison gas. From this injury
he had just recovered.
The enemy had just recently invade his country, confiscated most of
value, forbade almost all arms and stripped Germany of all colonies.

Such is the way of war for the losing side.

Post by Thomas Heger
Now the authors sits in prison for an attempted coup and has little hope
for some sort of progress in his life.
Now the enemy was England (plus France, Russia and the USA).
"For such a policy there was only one possible ally in Europe - Great
Britain. Great Britain was the only Power which could protect our rear,
supposing we started a new Germanic expansion (Germanenzug).
We should have had as much right to do this as our forefathers had. No
sacri?ce would have been too great in order to gain England’s alliance. "
Well, that is rather strange, since it violates common behavior of
almost all humans (something like demonizing victorious enemies).

Yet he did write that. Though in German.

Post by Thomas Heger
But that is not what he wrote.

But it is.

Hitler was very pro-British. This is VERY surprising, since in 1923 he
had just recovered from WWI, where he fought against England for four years

Hitler was actually VERY pro British. E.g. his girlfriend was Unity
Valkyrie Mitford and that the niece of Churchill.

The German mades also no attempts to capture British soldiers, invade
England and not even Gibraltar.

Hitler actually believed, the British were his friends.

This was - of course - wrong. But also Hess believed that and tried to
negotiate with the British.

This was a very bad error, for what he paid with a life in prison.

Post by KWills (Shill #3)

Post by Thomas Heger
Instead he wrote, that Germany should give up colonies and industry and
relocate his overstock of people to Russia, were they should become farmers.
This is so inconceivable sick, that it is impossible to believe, that a
real German soldier could have written that.

Fortunately, Hitler was actually an Austrian.

Well, yes, but unfortunately he was a German soldier (in WW I).

Post by KWills (Shill #3)

Post by Thomas Heger
For instance: how would Hitler arm his soldiers? That would be
necessary, since Russia was actually the Soviet Union and that a well
armed country.
What had Hitler to offer (clubs and crossbows?)

I don't see the connection between arming soldiers and sending
people to Russia to be farmers. You will need to explain how these
connect.

He wrote, that the additional population in Germany (about 900,000 a
year) should fight their way to Russia and defeat the Slaves and settle
there.

Supposed someone would really do that, he would certainly need arms to
expel the Soviet farmers from their soil. The Soviets had also soldiers
to defend their borders and ward off invaders.

This Soviet army would be a serious threat to 'friendly' invaders
(farmers or other).

So how could Hitler talk about a 'Germanzug' (kind of 'Germanic
crusade') to Russia, if Germany had just recently lost a war and had
neither soldiers nor arms?

That was sick, stupid nonsense.

Not that Hitler's speeches made much much sense otherwise. But
recommending England as an allie for such a stupidity was even beyond
his level.

Post by KWills (Shill #3)

Post by Thomas Heger
Russia is also not that adjacent to Germany, since Poland, the Baltic
states, Belarus and Ukraine are in between.
And: supposed the unlikely case, they had some success in Russia, then
what are they going to do there?

Enjoy their sucess, I would imagine.

Did you know, that the Soviet Union put all farmers into agricultural
collectives? So Germanic crusaders would find themselve confined in a
green working GULAG and could celebrate success only on 1th of May and
Stalin's birthday.

Post by KWills (Shill #3)

Post by Thomas Heger
Russia is large and sparsely populated, has harsh winters and not that
fertile soil.

For parts of Russia your claim is true. But not all.

Sure, Russia does not need all that tundra. But what would you like to
grow there?

Post by KWills (Shill #3)

Post by Thomas Heger
The country was - btw- run by mean communists, who most likely didn't
like German farmers.

How would you know if they did or did not like German farmers?

What kind of nonsense is now this question?

Maybe they liked the Germans, maybe not.

But this would make much of a difference, since certainly the didn't
like enough do hand over their property to them.

Post by KWills (Shill #3)

Post by Thomas Heger
So what is this nonsense about?

It makes sense insofar as it's easy to read and the meaning
Hitler presented is understood.

Yes. I do understand the meaning of the text as well. This was addressed
to the people of Germany and tells them to f*** of to Russia (with the
help of England).

That is exactly why I think, this book was British propaganda.

Post by KWills (Shill #3)

Post by Thomas Heger
It cannot possibly be written but the alleged author.

So you agree the original was witten by Hitler. OK.

The real author is not known. Possibly it stems from the 'Tavistock
Institute' or someone from the Huxley family. But actually I don't know.


TH

[e***@hotmail.com]

The real author is not known. Possibly it stems from the 'Tavistock
Institute' or someone from the Huxley family. But actually I don't know.
******
Well, if you acknowledge that you “don’t know,” then you have to accept that it’s possible the book was written by a young Adolph Hitler.

[KWills (Shill #3)]

Post by Thomas Heger
...

Post by KWills (Shill #3)

Post by Thomas Heger
Now you need to keep in mind the time and the personal circumstances of
the author.

Why?

Thomas?

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills (Shill #3)

Post by Thomas Heger
The author has just a few years ago faught in the trenches of Flanders
against British troops. He lived four years in the mud, seeing nothing
but dirt and death.
War ended for him with being blindfolded by poison gas. From this injury
he had just recovered.
The enemy had just recently invade his country, confiscated most of
value, forbade almost all arms and stripped Germany of all colonies.

Such is the way of war for the losing side.

Thomas?

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills (Shill #3)

Post by Thomas Heger
Now the authors sits in prison for an attempted coup and has little hope
for some sort of progress in his life.
Now the enemy was England (plus France, Russia and the USA).
"For such a policy there was only one possible ally in Europe - Great
Britain. Great Britain was the only Power which could protect our rear,
supposing we started a new Germanic expansion (Germanenzug).
We should have had as much right to do this as our forefathers had. No
sacri?ce would have been too great in order to gain England’s alliance. "
Well, that is rather strange, since it violates common behavior of
almost all humans (something like demonizing victorious enemies).

Yet he did write that. Though in German.

Post by Thomas Heger
But that is not what he wrote.

But it is.

Hitler was very pro-British. This is VERY surprising, since in 1923 he
had just recovered from WWI, where he fought against England for four years
Hitler was actually VERY pro British. E.g. his girlfriend was Unity
Valkyrie Mitford and that the niece of Churchill.
The German mades also no attempts to capture British soldiers, invade
England and not even Gibraltar.
Hitler actually believed, the British were his friends.
This was - of course - wrong. But also Hess believed that and tried to
negotiate with the British.
This was a very bad error, for what he paid with a life in prison.

Which has nothing to do with his having actually written it.

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills (Shill #3)

Post by Thomas Heger
Instead he wrote, that Germany should give up colonies and industry and
relocate his overstock of people to Russia, were they should become farmers.
This is so inconceivable sick, that it is impossible to believe, that a
real German soldier could have written that.

Fortunately, Hitler was actually an Austrian.

Well, yes, but unfortunately he was a German soldier (in WW I).

So? Do you really think when he joined the German army he was
able to renounce any and all aspects of his Austrian heritage?

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills (Shill #3)

Post by Thomas Heger
For instance: how would Hitler arm his soldiers? That would be
necessary, since Russia was actually the Soviet Union and that a well
armed country.
What had Hitler to offer (clubs and crossbows?)

I don't see the connection between arming soldiers and sending
people to Russia to be farmers. You will need to explain how these
connect.

He wrote, that the additional population in Germany (about 900,000 a
year) should fight their way to Russia and defeat the Slaves and settle
there.
Supposed someone would really do that, he would certainly need arms to
expel the Soviet farmers from their soil. The Soviets had also soldiers
to defend their borders and ward off invaders.
This Soviet army would be a serious threat to 'friendly' invaders
(farmers or other).
So how could Hitler talk about a 'Germanzug' (kind of 'Germanic
crusade') to Russia, if Germany had just recently lost a war and had
neither soldiers nor arms?
That was sick, stupid nonsense.
Not that Hitler's speeches made much much sense otherwise. But
recommending England as an allie for such a stupidity was even beyond
his level.

None of that explains you comment.

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills (Shill #3)

Post by Thomas Heger
Russia is also not that adjacent to Germany, since Poland, the Baltic
states, Belarus and Ukraine are in between.
And: supposed the unlikely case, they had some success in Russia, then
what are they going to do there?

Enjoy their sucess, I would imagine.

Did you know, that the Soviet Union put all farmers into agricultural
collectives?

Yes.

Post by Thomas Heger
So Germanic crusaders would find themselve confined in a
green working GULAG and could celebrate success only on 1th of May and
Stalin's birthday.

You asked what they would do if they had success. I gave an
answer.

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills (Shill #3)

Post by Thomas Heger
Russia is large and sparsely populated, has harsh winters and not that
fertile soil.

For parts of Russia your claim is true. But not all.

Sure, Russia does not need all that tundra. But what would you like to
grow there?

In which part? The western part, for example, has fair summers
for growing.

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills (Shill #3)

Post by Thomas Heger
The country was - btw- run by mean communists, who most likely didn't
like German farmers.

How would you know if they did or did not like German farmers?

What kind of nonsense is now this question?

You made a claim. I asked how you could know.

Post by Thomas Heger
Maybe they liked the Germans, maybe not.

So you LIED when you wrote, "The country was - btw- run by mean
communists, who most likely didn't like German farmers."
While not a definative claim on your part, it suggests it is
probable. I note you "ran away" from answering.

Post by Thomas Heger
But this would make much of a difference, since certainly the didn't
like enough do hand over their property to them.

This does not answer the question I asked.

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills (Shill #3)

Post by Thomas Heger
So what is this nonsense about?

It makes sense insofar as it's easy to read and the meaning
Hitler presented is understood.

Yes. I do understand the meaning of the text as well.

So you LIED when you presented that it's nonsense.
Got it.

Post by Thomas Heger
This was addressed
to the people of Germany and tells them to f*** of to Russia (with the
help of England).
That is exactly why I think, this book was British propaganda.

What you think does not matter. Present valid, verifiable facts.

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by KWills (Shill #3)

Post by Thomas Heger
It cannot possibly be written but the alleged author.

So you agree the original was witten by Hitler. OK.

The real author is not known. Possibly it stems from the 'Tavistock
Institute' or someone from the Huxley family. But actually I don't know.

It was written by Hitler.

[KWills (Shill #3)]

Post by Thomas Heger
...

Post by KWills (Shill #3)

Post by Thomas Heger
Now you need to keep in mind the time and the personal circumstances of
the author.

Why?

Post by Thomas Heger
The author has just a few years ago faught in the trenches of Flanders
against British troops. He lived four years in the mud, seeing nothing
but dirt and death.
War ended for him with being blindfolded by poison gas. From this injury
he had just recovered.
The enemy had just recently invade his country, confiscated most of
value, forbade almost all arms and stripped Germany of all colonies.

Such is the way of war for the losing side.

Post by Thomas Heger
Now the authors sits in prison for an attempted coup and has little hope
for some sort of progress in his life.
Now the enemy was England (plus France, Russia and the USA).
"For such a policy there was only one possible ally in Europe - Great
Britain. Great Britain was the only Power which could protect our rear,
supposing we started a new Germanic expansion (Germanenzug).
We should have had as much right to do this as our forefathers had. No
sacri?ce would have been too great in order to gain England’s alliance. "
Well, that is rather strange, since it violates common behavior of
almost all humans (something like demonizing victorious enemies).

Yet he did write that. Though in German.

Post by Thomas Heger
But that is not what he wrote.

But it is.

Hitler was very pro-British. This is VERY surprising, since in 1923 he
had just recovered from WWI, where he fought against England for four years
Hitler was actually VERY pro British. E.g. his girlfriend was Unity
Valkyrie Mitford and that the niece of Churchill.
The German mades also no attempts to capture British soldiers, invade
England and not even Gibraltar.
Hitler actually believed, the British were his friends.
This was - of course - wrong. But also Hess believed that and tried to
negotiate with the British.
This was a very bad error, for what he paid with a life in prison.

Post by KWills (Shill #3)

Post by Thomas Heger
Instead he wrote, that Germany should give up colonies and industry and
relocate his overstock of people to Russia, were they should become farmers.
This is so inconceivable sick, that it is impossible to believe, that a
real German soldier could have written that.

Fortunately, Hitler was actually an Austrian.

Well, yes, but unfortunately he was a German soldier (in WW I).

Post by KWills (Shill #3)

Post by Thomas Heger
For instance: how would Hitler arm his soldiers? That would be
necessary, since Russia was actually the Soviet Union and that a well
armed country.
What had Hitler to offer (clubs and crossbows?)

I don't see the connection between arming soldiers and sending
people to Russia to be farmers. You will need to explain how these
connect.

He wrote, that the additional population in Germany (about 900,000 a
year) should fight their way to Russia and defeat the Slaves and settle
there.
Supposed someone would really do that, he would certainly need arms to
expel the Soviet farmers from their soil. The Soviets had also soldiers
to defend their borders and ward off invaders.
This Soviet army would be a serious threat to 'friendly' invaders
(farmers or other).
So how could Hitler talk about a 'Germanzug' (kind of 'Germanic
crusade') to Russia, if Germany had just recently lost a war and had
neither soldiers nor arms?
That was sick, stupid nonsense.
Not that Hitler's speeches made much much sense otherwise. But
recommending England as an allie for such a stupidity was even beyond
his level.

Post by KWills (Shill #3)

Post by Thomas Heger
Russia is also not that adjacent to Germany, since Poland, the Baltic
states, Belarus and Ukraine are in between.
And: supposed the unlikely case, they had some success in Russia, then
what are they going to do there?

Enjoy their sucess, I would imagine.

Did you know, that the Soviet Union put all farmers into agricultural
collectives? So Germanic crusaders would find themselve confined in a
green working GULAG and could celebrate success only on 1th of May and
Stalin's birthday.

Post by KWills (Shill #3)

Post by Thomas Heger
Russia is large and sparsely populated, has harsh winters and not that
fertile soil.

For parts of Russia your claim is true. But not all.

Sure, Russia does not need all that tundra. But what would you like to
grow there?

Post by KWills (Shill #3)

Post by Thomas Heger
The country was - btw- run by mean communists, who most likely didn't
like German farmers.

How would you know if they did or did not like German farmers?

What kind of nonsense is now this question?
Maybe they liked the Germans, maybe not.
But this would make much of a difference, since certainly the didn't
like enough do hand over their property to them.

Post by KWills (Shill #3)

Post by Thomas Heger
So what is this nonsense about?

It makes sense insofar as it's easy to read and the meaning
Hitler presented is understood.

Yes. I do understand the meaning of the text as well. This was addressed
to the people of Germany and tells them to f*** of to Russia (with the
help of England).
That is exactly why I think, this book was British propaganda.

Post by KWills (Shill #3)

Post by Thomas Heger
It cannot possibly be written but the alleged author.

So you agree the original was witten by Hitler. OK.

The real author is not known. Possibly it stems from the 'Tavistock
Institute' or someone from the Huxley family. But actually I don't know.

Your attempt at diverting from the TRUTH that you can't prove
someone other than Hitler wrote his book, while expected, is a waste
of time. It only further PROVES you've always known Hitler wrote it.

[Thomas Heger]

Am 08.03.2018 um 11:24 schrieb KWills (Shill #3):
..

Post by KWills (Shill #3)

Post by Thomas Heger
Yes. I do understand the meaning of the text as well. This was addressed
to the people of Germany and tells them to f*** of to Russia (with the
help of England).
That is exactly why I think, this book was British propaganda.

Post by KWills (Shill #3)

Post by Thomas Heger
It cannot possibly be written but the alleged author.

So you agree the original was witten by Hitler. OK.

The real author is not known. Possibly it stems from the 'Tavistock
Institute' or someone from the Huxley family. But actually I don't know.

Your attempt at diverting from the TRUTH that you can't prove
someone other than Hitler wrote his book, while expected, is a waste
of time. It only further PROVES you've always known Hitler wrote it.

OK!!! If it makes you happy:
it is in fact possible, that 'Hitler' is the real name of the author of
'My struggle'.

But I was questioning the assumption, that this Hitler was Austrian and
born in Braunau on the Inn.

Btw: Did you realize that 'Hitler' and '... on the Inn' make a nice pun
(in English).


TH

[e***@hotmail.com]

OK!!! If it makes you happy:
it is in fact possible, that 'Hitler' is the real name of the author of
'My struggle'.

But I was questioning the assumption, that this Hitler was Austrian and
born in Braunau on the Inn.

Btw: Did you realize that 'Hitler' and '... on the Inn' make a nice pun
(in English).
*****
I don’t get the pun.

And no, what you were trying to suggest was that “Mein Kampf” was written in English first and then translated into German for publication. Now you’re trying to change the goalposts.

[KWills Shill #3]

Post by Thomas Heger
..

Post by KWills (Shill #3)

Post by Thomas Heger
Yes. I do understand the meaning of the text as well. This was addressed
to the people of Germany and tells them to f*** of to Russia (with the
help of England).
That is exactly why I think, this book was British propaganda.

Post by KWills (Shill #3)

Post by Thomas Heger
It cannot possibly be written but the alleged author.

So you agree the original was witten by Hitler. OK.

The real author is not known. Possibly it stems from the 'Tavistock
Institute' or someone from the Huxley family. But actually I don't know.

Your attempt at diverting from the TRUTH that you can't prove
someone other than Hitler wrote his book, while expected, is a waste
of time. It only further PROVES you've always known Hitler wrote it.

it is in fact possible, that 'Hitler' is the real name of the author of
'My struggle'.
But I was questioning the assumption, that this Hitler was Austrian and
born in Braunau on the Inn.

Liar. You claimed "Mein Kampf" was translated from English. You
also claimed you could produce proof of this claim via any page I
picked.
What did you hope to gain from your lie?

Post by Thomas Heger
Btw: Did you realize that 'Hitler' and '... on the Inn' make a nice pun
(in English).

It does? I don't see it.

[marston shores]

When?

Are you serious?

http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us
http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/ESAWebApp/DefaultFrame
( Start a case search here. )
http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/ESAWebApp/SelectFrame
( Trial Court - Case Search )
http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/ESAWebApp/TrialSimpFrame
( Wills (Tab key) Kent (Tab key) Bradley (Search) )

http://www.doc.state.ia.us/InmateInfo.asp?OffenderCd=1155768

Name Kent Bradley Wills Offender Number 1155768
Sex M Birth Date 01/08/1969 Age 39 Location Interstate Compact
Offense BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE County Of Commitment Polk
Commitment Date 01/16/2004 Duration TDD/SDD * 01/16/2009
* TDD = Tentative Discharge Date * SDD = Supervision Discharge Date
Supervision Status Offense Class County of Commitment End Date
Probation Aggravated Misdemeanor Polk Probation C Felony
Polk
Supervision Status Offense Class County of Commitment End Date
Probation Aggravated Misdemeanor Polk 11/25/2003

http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20050506/04-0202.asp?search=+Kent+Wills+#_1


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 31 / 04-0202
Filed May 6, 2005

STATE OF IOWA,
Appellee,
vs.
KENT BRADLEY WILLS,
Appellant.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Michael D.
Huppert, Judge.

Defendant appeals claiming ineffective assistance of
counsel. AFFIRMED.

Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and Tricia Johnston,
Assistant State Appellate Defender, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kevin Cmelik, Assistant Attorney
General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and John Judisch, Assistant
County Attorney, for appellee.

WIGGINS, Justice.

Kent Wills appeals his conviction for second-degree burglary
contending that an attached garage is a separate occupied structure
from that of the living quarters of the residence. In this appeal, we
must determine whether trial counsel was ineffective for (1) failing
to move for judgment of acquittal on the basis there was insufficient
evidence to convict Wills of second-degree burglary when he entered an
attached garage of a residence when no persons were present in the
garage, but when persons were present in the living quarters; and (2)
failing to object to a jury instruction based on this same argument.
Because we find there was no legal basis for the motion for judgment
of acquittal or the objection to the jury instruction, Wills' trial
counsel was not ineffective. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of
the district court.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

Around 1 a.m., an Ankeny resident called the local police to report
that a car alarm sounded in the resident's neighborhood. The city
dispatched a police officer to the location. Observing nothing
unusual, the officer left the area, only to be stopped a couple of
blocks later by a person who informed the officer he had witnessed
someone running from the area of the car alarm. As the officer
started driving back to the area of the car alarm, he noticed a person
walking on the sidewalk. The officer asked the person, a minor, if he
had noticed anybody running from the area. The minor answered that he
had not. While the officer and another officer were speaking to the
minor, another resident of the neighborhood arrived in her car and
informed the officers that she had observed two people, one of whom
was heavy set with a blinking light on his back pocket, walking in the
area of her neighbor's residence. She observed the heavier-set
individual, later identified as Wills, enter her neighbor's attached
garage through an unlocked service door. She further observed a
smaller individual standing by a van parked in the neighbor's
driveway.

The officers eventually let the minor leave even though they found a
large amount of coins, a flashlight, and an electronic pocket
organizer in his pockets. After releasing the minor, the police
officers drove to the residence where the neighbor observed the two
suspicious people and woke the owner. The owner, his wife, and two
daughters were in the residence sleeping at the time. After a search
of his vehicles, the owner discovered change and an electronic pocket
organizer were missing from the vehicles. The owner's daughter
reported a diamond ring and some change were missing from her
vehicle. The officers then contacted the minor's parents, who
informed the officers the minor was with Wills. After the officers
questioned the minor again, he admitted his involvement in the theft
and implicated Wills in the burglary. Although Wills denied
involvement in the burglary, the officers arrested him.

The State filed a trial information charging Wills with second-degree
burglary. The State later amended the information to include two
additional charges of burglary in the third degree and using a
juvenile to commit an indictable offense.

The jury returned a verdict finding Wills guilty of the crimes of
burglary in the second degree, burglary in the third degree, and using
a juvenile to commit an indictable offense. Wills appeals his
conviction for second-degree burglary claiming ineffective assistance
of counsel.

II. Scope of Review.

Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are derived from the Sixth
Amendment of the United States Constitution. Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 684-86, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2063-64, 80 L. Ed.
2d 674, 691-93 (1984). Our review for a claim involving violations of
the Constitution is de novo. State v. Fintel, 689 N.W.2d 95, 100
(Iowa 2004). We normally preserve ineffective-assistance-of-counsel
claims for postconviction relief actions. State v. Carter, 602 N.W.2d
818, 820 (Iowa 1999). However, we will address such claims on direct
appeal when the record is sufficient to permit a ruling. State v.
Artzer, 609 N.W.2d 526, 531 (Iowa 2000). The appellate record in the
present case is sufficient to allow us to address Wills' ineffective-
assistance-of-counsel claims on direct appeal.

In order for a defendant to succeed on a claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel, the defendant must prove: (1) counsel failed
to perform an essential duty and (2) prejudice resulted. Id.
Prejudice results when "there is a reasonable probability that, but
for the counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding
would have been different." State v. Hopkins, 576 N.W.2d 374, 378
(Iowa 1998) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S. Ct. at 2068,
80 L. Ed. 2d at 698). Wills' arguments also raise issues of statutory
interpretation, which we review for correction of errors at law.
State v. Wolford Corp., 689 N.W.2d 471, 473 (Iowa 2004).

III. Analysis.

To find Wills guilty of burglary in the second degree, the State had
to prove Wills perpetrated a burglary "in or upon an occupied
structure in which one or more persons are present . . . ." Iowa Code
§ 713.5(2) (2003) (emphasis added).

In this appeal, Wills first contends his trial counsel was ineffective
for failing to move for a judgment of acquittal on the basis there was
insufficient evidence to support a finding that at the time Wills
entered the garage, there were persons present in or upon the occupied
structure. Wills concedes the garage was an occupied structure, but
argues the living quarters and the attached garage are separate and
independent occupied structures; therefore, the jury could not have
found there were people present in the attached garage at the time of
the burglary.

The Code defines an "occupied structure" as:

[A]ny building, structure, appurtenances to buildings and structures,
land, water or air vehicle, or similar place adapted for overnight
accommodation of persons, or occupied by persons for the purpose of
carrying on business or other activity therein, or for the storage or
safekeeping of anything of value. Such a structure is an "occupied
structure" whether or not a person is actually present.

Id. § 702.12.

Wills relies on State v. Smothers, 590 N.W.2d 721 (Iowa 1999), to
argue the garage and the living quarters are separate and independent
occupied structures. In Smothers, two separate and distinct
businesses connected by interior fire doors were operated in the same
structure. 590 N.W.2d at 723. We held the defendant committed two
burglaries by entering each business because "[t]he facility's
construction history and physical make-up demonstrate that the
portions are independent working units which constitute '[a]
combination of materials to form a construction for occupancy [or]
use.'" Id. Smothers is not at odds with the present case because the
living quarters and the garage are not separate or independent units
of the residence.

Our review of the record reveals the garage in question was a three-
car attached garage separated from the living quarters by a door. The
same roof covered the garage as the rest of the residence. The living
quarters surrounded the garage on two sides. It was structurally no
different from any other room in the residence.

The garage was a functional part of the residence. On the night of
the incident, the door was unlocked. The owner of the residence used
two stalls in the garage to park the family vehicles. The owner used
the third stall for his motorcycle. As such, the garage and the
living quarters are a single "structure" or "building" functioning as
an integral part of the family residence. Thus, the residence
including the garage is a single "occupied structure" under section
702.12. See, e.g., People v. Ingram, 48 Cal. Rptr. 2d 256 (Ct. App.
1995) (holding defendant's entry into an attached garage constituted
first-degree burglary because the garage was attached to the house;
therefore, burglary of the garage was burglary of an inhabited
dwelling house); People v. Cunningham, 637 N.E.2d 1247, 1252 (Ill.
App. Ct. 1994) (holding "ordinarily an attached garage is a 'dwelling'
because it is part of the structure in which the owner or occupant
lives"); State v. Lara, 587 P.2d 52, 53 (N.M. Ct. App. 1978) (holding
"burglary of the [attached] garage was burglary of the dwelling house
because the garage was a part of the structure used as living
quarters"); People v. Green, 141 A.D.2d 760, 761 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)
(holding "[s]ince the garage in the present case was structurally part
of a building which was used for overnight lodging of various persons,
it must be considered as part of a dwelling"); White v. State, 630 S.W.
2d 340, 342 (Tex. Ct. App. 1982) (holding an attached garage under the
same roof as the home would be considered a habitation within the
purview of the penal code because the garage is a structure
appurtenant to and connected to the house); State v. Murbach, 843 P.2d
551, 553 (Wash. Ct. App 1993) (holding the definition of a dwelling
under Washington's burglary statute included an attached garage).

Had Wills' trial counsel moved for a judgment of acquittal on the
basis there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that at the
time Wills entered the garage there were no persons present in or upon
the occupied structure, it would have been overruled by the court
because the owner and his family were present in the residence at the
time of the burglary.

Wills also claims his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to
the jury instruction used by the district court on the same ground;
that the living quarters were a separate and independent occupied
structure from the attached garage. The instruction as given stated:

The State must prove all of the following elements of Burglary in the
Second Degree as to Count I:

1. On or about the 12th day of August, 2003, the defendant or someone
he aided and abetted broke into or entered the residence at . . . .

2. The residence at . . . was an occupied structure as defined in
Instruction No. 29.

3. The defendant or the person he aided and abetted did not have
permission or authority to break into the residence at . . . .

4. The defendant or the person he aided and abetted did so with the
specific intent to commit a theft therein.

5. During the incident persons were present in or upon the occupied
structure.

If the State has proved all of the elements, the defendant is guilty
of Burglary in the Second Degree. If the State has failed to prove
any of the elements, the defendant is not guilty of Burglary in the
Second Degree and you will then consider the charge of Attempted
Burglary in the Second Degree explained in Instruction No. 21.

(Emphasis added.)

Wills' claim is without merit. As we have discussed, the residence is
the one and only "occupied structure" under the facts of this case.
Had Wills' trial counsel made this objection to the instruction, it
would have been overruled.

Therefore, Wills' trial counsel is not ineffective for failing to move
for a judgment of acquittal or objecting to the instruction because
there was no legal basis for the motion or objection. See State v.
Hochmuth, 585 N.W.2d 234, 238 (Iowa 1998) (holding trial counsel was
not ineffective for failing to raise an issue that has no merit).

IV. Disposition.

We affirm the judgment of the district court because Wills' trial
counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise meritless issues.

AFFIRMED.

[KWills Shill #3]

Post by marston shores

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Thomas Heger
Hi NG
among the stranger habits of British 'intelligence' is to allow their
spies to write spy-novells.
http://www.thedump.scoutscan.com/adventures.pdf
This book is worth reading, because it shows a lot about how propaganda
actually works.

another interesting subject is the term 'Scouts'.
Baden-Powel uses this as synonym for 'field spies'.

When?

Are you serious?

Yes. I'd like Thomas to explain when Baden-Powel uses the term
Scouts as a synonym for field spies. I don't expect him to actually
answer, of course.

What do the other members of Lar$on's cult think of your racist
views?
What do the other members of Lar$on's cult think of your claim
that Lar$on is the messiah?


About Bob Larson:
">He works hard at scamming gullible suckers, yes he does.
"Yes he does."
Marston agreeing that Lar$on scams people in Message-ID:
<onlk8g$31i$***@gioia.aioe.org>


"Shut up, gook! You have no right to demand anything."
Marston Shores, racist and Bob Larson supporter,
in Message-ID: <oogthh$1fvn$***@gioia.aioe.org>

"Whites and niggers should never mix! It's against God's will."
Marston Shores, racist and Bob Larson supporter,
in Message-ID: <o7ljuj$1ah7$***@gioia.aioe.org>

"Japan is full of gooks and gook lovers. When Jesus returns, he will
judge them as he will all the inferior races.
Praise God!"
Marston Shores, racist and Bob Larson supporter,
in Message-ID: <oogt9n$1fvn$***@gioia.aioe.org>

"I am proud to be a racist."
Marston Shores, racist and Bob Larson supporter,
Message-ID: <oem0sa$n6v$***@gioia.aioe.org>

"You probably have the mark of Cain (dark skin) on you now."
Marston Shores, racist and Bob Larson supporter,
in Message-ID: <oem0q3$n6v$***@gioia.aioe.org>


"I lied about the pictures."
Marston Shores admitting he lied about the pictures he claimed I
posted in Message-ID: <o2kkih$146k$***@gioia.aioe.org>

Me:Once again you PROVE that, for you, lying is as natural as
breathing. Not that this was ever in question.

Marston Shores: Indeed.

Marston Shores actually admitting lying is very easy for him in
Message-ID:<ol03uq$1mi0$***@gioia.aioe.org>

Moe: I'm glad I decided to be Pagan. The Goddess is way more
compassionate than that sadist.

Marston: There is no "Goddess", that's Satan deceiving you.

Me: And you would know, since you worship Satan.

Marston: That I would, heathen.

Marston Shores openly admitting he worships Satan in
Message-ID: <l62pt1$jvs$***@speranza.aioe.org>

Marston Shores claims Bob Lar$on is christ:
"I will make
sure of that for as long as you deny that Bob Larson can save your
immortal soul."
Message-ID: <o48bu9$tq6$***@gioia.aioe.org>


"You need to go to Bob Larson for salvation, Kentucci"
Marston Shores claiming Bob Larson is the savior in
Message-ID: <o2rktu$amb$***@gioia.aioe.org>


"You need Bob Larson in your life. He can save your soul."
Marston Shores claiming Bob Larson is the savior. Again.
Message-ID: <o2rl1g$amb$***@gioia.aioe.org>

[joeturn]

Post by Thomas Heger
Hi NG
among the stranger habits of British 'intelligence' is to allow their
spies to write spy-novells.
http://www.thedump.scoutscan.com/adventures.pdf
This book is worth reading, because it shows a lot about how propaganda
actually works.
" With the Straits of Dover so blocked, they could then rush
a fleet of transports across the North Sea from Germany, to
the East Coast of England, either East Anglia or, as in this
plan, to Yorkshire. They had in Germany nine embarking stations,
with piers and platforms, all ready made, and steel lighters for
disembarkation purposes or for actual voyage across the ocean in case of
fine weather.
They had taken the average of the weather for years past, and
had come to the conclusion that July 13th is, on an average, the
finest day in the year; but their attempt would be timed, if possible,
to fall on a Bank Holiday when communications were temporarily
disorganised. Therefore the nearest Bank Holiday
to July 13th would probably be that at the beginning of August..
The spies stationed in England were to cut all telephone and telegraph
wires, and, where possible, to blow down important bridges and tunnels,
and thus to interrupt communications and create confusion.
Their idea of landing on the coast of Yorkshire was based on the
following reasons: —
They did not look upon London as strategically the capital of
England, but rather upon the great industrial centres of the
north Midlands, where, instead of six millions, there are more
like fourteen millions of people assembled in the numerous cities
and towns, which now almost adjoin each other across that part of
the country.
Their theory was that if they could rush as army of even
90,000 men into Leeds, Sheffield, Halifax, Manchester, and Liverpool
without encountering great opposition in the first few hours, they could
there establish themselves in such strength that it would require a
powerful army to drive them out again. "
This is - of course - true nonsense, since there are no piers on the
north western coast of Germany.
There were also no plans or other attempts to invade England.
(In contrast e.g. Hitler let the 300.000 captured English soldiers
return home)
It is also highly unlikely, that Germans had a particular interest in
the midlands.
(I would guess, if the British would auction this area on e-bay today,
they would not get a very high offer.)
So WHY should Germany try to get there? (Liverpool, Manchester ...)
But what is REALLY stunning, that Baden-Powell obviously describes 'd-day'.
Now this would suggest, that English spies had planned d-day way in
advance (30 years actually).
TH

After the white shirts Baldwin entered the USA as Will Rogers and carried on his pedoplia with BSA

[joeturn]

Post by Thomas Heger
Hi NG
among the stranger habits of British 'intelligence' is to allow their
spies to write spy-novells.
http://www.thedump.scoutscan.com/adventures.pdf
This book is worth reading, because it shows a lot about how propaganda
actually works.
" With the Straits of Dover so blocked, they could then rush
a fleet of transports across the North Sea from Germany, to
the East Coast of England, either East Anglia or, as in this
plan, to Yorkshire. They had in Germany nine embarking stations,
with piers and platforms, all ready made, and steel lighters for
disembarkation purposes or for actual voyage across the ocean in case of
fine weather.
They had taken the average of the weather for years past, and
had come to the conclusion that July 13th is, on an average, the
finest day in the year; but their attempt would be timed, if possible,
to fall on a Bank Holiday when communications were temporarily
disorganised. Therefore the nearest Bank Holiday
to July 13th would probably be that at the beginning of August..
The spies stationed in England were to cut all telephone and telegraph
wires, and, where possible, to blow down important bridges and tunnels,
and thus to interrupt communications and create confusion.
Their idea of landing on the coast of Yorkshire was based on the
following reasons: —
They did not look upon London as strategically the capital of
England, but rather upon the great industrial centres of the
north Midlands, where, instead of six millions, there are more
like fourteen millions of people assembled in the numerous cities
and towns, which now almost adjoin each other across that part of
the country.
Their theory was that if they could rush as army of even
90,000 men into Leeds, Sheffield, Halifax, Manchester, and Liverpool
without encountering great opposition in the first few hours, they could
there establish themselves in such strength that it would require a
powerful army to drive them out again. "
This is - of course - true nonsense, since there are no piers on the
north western coast of Germany.
There were also no plans or other attempts to invade England.
(In contrast e.g. Hitler let the 300.000 captured English soldiers
return home)
It is also highly unlikely, that Germans had a particular interest in
the midlands.
(I would guess, if the British would auction this area on e-bay today,
they would not get a very high offer.)
So WHY should Germany try to get there? (Liverpool, Manchester ...)
But what is REALLY stunning, that Baden-Powell obviously describes 'd-day'.
Now this would suggest, that English spies had planned d-day way in
advance (30 years actually).
TH

https://www.scouts.org.za/about-us/our-history/

[e***@hotmail.com]

Yeah? I wouldn’t expect the actual organization to give anything but the white-washed version.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by e***@hotmail.com
Yeah? I wouldn’t expect the actual organization to give anything but the white-washed version.

Ok, how about this one:

http://rexcurry.net/pledge-of-allegiance-scouting.html


here is also a nice picture of Baden-Powell

Loading Image...


TH

[e***@hotmail.com]

Your point? We’re any of these things AFTER the Nazis took then over and poisoned their meanings?

I remember a Native American platoon of soldiers and a swastika as their shoulder patch. After was was declared, it was changed to a sun pattern (a circle with three lines coming out of each of the four points.)

[joeturn]

Post by e***@hotmail.com
Your point? We’re any of these things AFTER the Nazis took then over and poisoned their meanings?
I remember a Native American platoon of soldiers and a swastika as their shoulder patch. After was was declared, it was changed to a sun pattern (a circle with three lines coming out of each of the four points.)

You blacked out again. Please fill in the missing part of this phrase.
" After was was declared,"

[e***@hotmail.com]

You blacked out again. Please fill in the missing part of this phrase.
" After was was declared,"
*****
Sorry, tiny little keys on the phone, big fat fingers.

“After war was declared, they changed the symbol from a swastika to a sun. A circle with three lines at the four points,”

Better?

[joeturn]

Post by joeturn
You blacked out again. Please fill in the missing part of this phrase.
" After was was declared,"
*****
Sorry, tiny little keys on the phone, big fat fingers.
“After war was declared, they changed the symbol from a swastika to a sun. A circle with three lines at the four points,”
Better?

Well you know the stiff arm salute to the American Flag was put into play by socialist.

https://forgottenhistoryblog.com/the-official-american-flag-salute-used-to-be-a-hitler-salute/

[e***@hotmail.com]

And? Nobody said; “Hey! Let’s do this salute the Nazis in Germany are doing!”

[Thomas Heger]

Post by e***@hotmail.com
And? Nobody said; “Hey! Let’s do this salute the Nazis in Germany are doing!”

History goes the other way round:
later events are based on earlier ones.

Here is not the question, where the boy scouts or the us kids got the
salute from, but from where the Nazis got the salute (along with money,
weapons and brown uniforms).

TH

[e***@hotmail.com]

Post by e***@hotmail.com
And? Nobody said; “Hey! Let’s do this salute the Nazis in Germany are doing!”

History goes the other way round:
later events are based on earlier ones.

Here is not the question, where the boy scouts or the us kids got the
salute from, but from where the Nazis got the salute (along with money,
weapons and brown uniforms).

TH

Hasn’t it been established that both groups got the salute from Ancient Rome?

[KWills Shill #3]

Post by Thomas Heger

And? Nobody said; “Hey! Let’s do this salute the Nazis in Germany are doing!”

later events are based on earlier ones.
Here is not the question, where the boy scouts or the us kids got the
salute from, but from where the Nazis got the salute (along with money,
weapons and brown uniforms).

As you already know, but will not admit, the salute originated in
Ancient Rome. It was used as a way of showing a Senator, who was
approaching to speak, was not armed.

[joeturn]

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by e***@hotmail.com
And? Nobody said; “Hey! Let’s do this salute the Nazis in Germany are doing!”

later events are based on earlier ones.
Here is not the question, where the boy scouts or the us kids got the
salute from, but from where the Nazis got the salute (along with money,
weapons and brown uniforms).

As you already know, but will not admit, the salute originated in
Ancient Rome. It was used as a way of showing a Senator, who was
approaching to speak, was not armed.

A foolish observation! Would they have cut off his arms if he spoke, like you, with a forked tongue?

[e***@hotmail.com]

Whether you understand the custom or not, historians show that the stiff arm salute comes from Ancient Rome.

[KWills (Shill #3)]

Post by joeturn

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by Thomas Heger

And? Nobody said; “Hey! Let’s do this salute the Nazis in Germany are doing!”

later events are based on earlier ones.
Here is not the question, where the boy scouts or the us kids got the
salute from, but from where the Nazis got the salute (along with money,
weapons and brown uniforms).

As you already know, but will not admit, the salute originated in
Ancient Rome. It was used as a way of showing a Senator, who was
approaching to speak, was not armed.

A foolish observation!

Only one menally incapable of accepting reality would honestly
think so.
It's long been established the salute orginiated with the Roman
Senators.

Post by joeturn
Would they have cut off his arms if he spoke, like you, with a forked tongue?

Whereas, outside of our dishonesty, I don't speak with a forked
tongue, your deceptive question fails.
What do you have against truth and honesty? I still want to know.
But you continue to "run away" from the truth you will need to offer
to answer it honestly.

[KWills (Shill #3)]

On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 05:51:13 -0600, "KWills (Shill #3)"

Post by KWills (Shill #3)
outside of our dishonesty,

That should be "...outside of your dishonesty..."

[KWills (Shill #3)]

Post by joeturn

Your point? We’re any of these things AFTER the Nazis took then over and poisoned their meanings?
I remember a Native American platoon of soldiers and a swastika as their shoulder patch. After was was declared, it was changed to a sun pattern (a circle with three lines coming out of each of the four points.)

You blacked out again. Please fill in the missing part of this phrase.
" After was was declared,"

It must suck to be as stump stupid as you consistently PROVE
yourself to be.

[KWills (Shill #3)]

Your point? We’re any of these things AFTER the Nazis took
then over and poisoned their meanings?
I remember a Native American platoon of soldiers and a
swastika as their shoulder patch. After was was declared, it was
changed to a sun pattern (a circle with three lines coming out of each
of the four points.)

You're using facts. Valid, verifiable facts. Thomas refuses to
deal with facts as they always destory his tales.

[KWills Shill #3]

Post by joeturn
https://www.scouts.org.za/about-us/our-history/

I'll bite. How does the scouts in South Africa apply to the
discussion?

[joeturn]

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by joeturn
https://www.scouts.org.za/about-us/our-history/

I'll bite. How does the scouts in South Africa apply to the
discussion?
--
Shill #3.
Strategic Writer, Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor.
https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3618/5747904676_1e202191d3_b.jpg
All hail the taco! http://www.taconati.org/

BP was always Scouting for Boys

[KWills Shill #3]

Post by joeturn

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by joeturn
https://www.scouts.org.za/about-us/our-history/

I'll bite. How does the scouts in South Africa apply to the
discussion?

BP was always Scouting for Boys

I eagerly await the VALID, VERIFIABLE evidence you will provide.
And you will provide it unless, of course, you're lying.

[joeturn]

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by joeturn

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by joeturn
https://www.scouts.org.za/about-us/our-history/

I'll bite. How does the scouts in South Africa apply to the
discussion?

BP was always Scouting for Boys

I eagerly await the VALID, VERIFIABLE evidence you will provide.
And you will provide it unless, of course, you're lying.
--
Shill #3.
Strategic Writer, Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor.
https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3618/5747904676_1e202191d3_b.jpg
All hail the taco! http://www.taconati.org/

I get tied of spoon feeding you child abuser.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/20/opinion/scoutings-gay-founder.html

[e***@hotmail.com]

I get tied of spoon feeding you child abuser.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/20/opinion/scoutings-gay-founder.html
******
And we are tired of constantly having to remind you that gays are not searching for little boys any more than straights are searching for little girls.

You’re not searching for little girls, are you? Because that would be both creepy and unlawful!

[KWills Shill #3]

Post by joeturn

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by joeturn

Post by KWills Shill #3

Post by joeturn
https://www.scouts.org.za/about-us/our-history/

I'll bite. How does the scouts in South Africa apply to the
discussion?

BP was always Scouting for Boys

I eagerly await the VALID, VERIFIABLE evidence you will provide.
And you will provide it unless, of course, you're lying.

I get tied of spoon feeding you child abuser.

To the best of my knowledge, no one here is a child abuser. But
you will provide the VALID, VERIFIABLE evidence that someone in this
group is. Specifically me.
Or you'll admit your claim is another of your MANY well
documented lies.

Post by joeturn
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/20/opinion/scoutings-gay-founder.html

The article suggests he was probably gay. It doesn't state he
actually was gay. I can see where one would have cause to wonder.
However, there is nothing in the article that suggests, let alone
serves as evidence, that he formed the Scouts so that he would have
access to boys.
Way to PROVE yourself the liar you are, stupid.

[joeturn]

Post by Thomas Heger
Hi NG
among the stranger habits of British 'intelligence' is to allow their
spies to write spy-novells.
http://www.thedump.scoutscan.com/adventures.pdf
This book is worth reading, because it shows a lot about how propaganda
actually works.
" With the Straits of Dover so blocked, they could then rush
a fleet of transports across the North Sea from Germany, to
the East Coast of England, either East Anglia or, as in this
plan, to Yorkshire. They had in Germany nine embarking stations,
with piers and platforms, all ready made, and steel lighters for
disembarkation purposes or for actual voyage across the ocean in case of
fine weather.
They had taken the average of the weather for years past, and
had come to the conclusion that July 13th is, on an average, the
finest day in the year; but their attempt would be timed, if possible,
to fall on a Bank Holiday when communications were temporarily
disorganised. Therefore the nearest Bank Holiday
to July 13th would probably be that at the beginning of August..
The spies stationed in England were to cut all telephone and telegraph
wires, and, where possible, to blow down important bridges and tunnels,
and thus to interrupt communications and create confusion.
Their idea of landing on the coast of Yorkshire was based on the
following reasons: —
They did not look upon London as strategically the capital of
England, but rather upon the great industrial centres of the
north Midlands, where, instead of six millions, there are more
like fourteen millions of people assembled in the numerous cities
and towns, which now almost adjoin each other across that part of
the country.
Their theory was that if they could rush as army of even
90,000 men into Leeds, Sheffield, Halifax, Manchester, and Liverpool
without encountering great opposition in the first few hours, they could
there establish themselves in such strength that it would require a
powerful army to drive them out again. "
This is - of course - true nonsense, since there are no piers on the
north western coast of Germany.
There were also no plans or other attempts to invade England.
(In contrast e.g. Hitler let the 300.000 captured English soldiers
return home)
It is also highly unlikely, that Germans had a particular interest in
the midlands.
(I would guess, if the British would auction this area on e-bay today,
they would not get a very high offer.)
So WHY should Germany try to get there? (Liverpool, Manchester ...)
But what is REALLY stunning, that Baden-Powell obviously describes 'd-day'.
Now this would suggest, that English spies had planned d-day way in
advance (30 years actually).
TH

https://www.jta.org/1934/04/19/archive/silver-shirts-and-friends-of-new-germany-plot-for-dream-of-fascist-conquest-of-u-s

[Thomas Heger]

Am 27.02.2018 um 21:37 schrieb joeturn:
..

Post by joeturn

Post by Thomas Heger
But what is REALLY stunning, that Baden-Powell obviously describes 'd-day'.
Now this would suggest, that English spies had planned d-day way in
advance (30 years actually).
TH

https://www.jta.org/1934/04/19/archive/silver-shirts-and-friends-of-new-germany-plot-for-dream-of-fascist-conquest-of-u-s

The 'Silver Shirts' are VERY interesting.

They do not stem from German Nazis, since they existed earlier.

In fact their symbol 'L' means 'leader' (= 'Fuehrer').

The founder of the silver shirts was a guy named William Dudley Pelley.

He started the silver shirts after his alleged 'abduction', when he went
to heaven, saw God and Jesus and was told to save America.

This sounds actually very much like similar stories from the Nazis, who
were all fascinated from extra-terrestrial stuff and the occult.

There are in fact pictures showing Hitler together with 'grays', who
took him to the Moon (allegedly).

So, possibly, there is some kind of truth behind such stories.

TH

[e***@hotmail.com]

You’ll suck down any Kool Aide to avoid the truth, wont you?

A key thing in your link is the line; “We need 100,000 men before 1935 to take down the government.” I’d say he didn’t make it. I have to wonder, is everything in those article from before 1935? Also, I guess he didn’t “totally destroy” the memo if a Photostat (another obsolete term) of it existed.

[joeturn]

Post by Thomas Heger
..

Post by joeturn

Post by Thomas Heger
But what is REALLY stunning, that Baden-Powell obviously describes 'd-day'.
Now this would suggest, that English spies had planned d-day way in
advance (30 years actually).
TH

https://www.jta.org/1934/04/19/archive/silver-shirts-and-friends-of-new-germany-plot-for-dream-of-fascist-conquest-of-u-s

The 'Silver Shirts' are VERY interesting.
They do not stem from German Nazis, since they existed earlier.
In fact their symbol 'L' means 'leader' (= 'Fuehrer').
The founder of the silver shirts was a guy named William Dudley Pelley.
He started the silver shirts after his alleged 'abduction', when he went
to heaven, saw God and Jesus and was told to save America.
This sounds actually very much like similar stories from the Nazis, who
were all fascinated from extra-terrestrial stuff and the occult.
There are in fact pictures showing Hitler together with 'grays', who
took him to the Moon (allegedly).
So, possibly, there is some kind of truth behind such stories.
TH

Not a chance their is no extra-terrestrials or supreme beings, Hitler did however build the first flying saucer

[e***@hotmail.com]

I think you needed a comma after “chance.” It looks like you’re engaging in a double negative which implies you think there ARE extra-terrestrials and divine beings.

Jury’s still out on whether Hitler developed an actual functioning flying saucer.

[joeturn]

Post by joeturn

Post by Thomas Heger
The 'Silver Shirts' are VERY interesting.
They do not stem from German Nazis, since they existed earlier.
In fact their symbol 'L' means 'leader' (= 'Fuehrer').
The founder of the silver shirts was a guy named William Dudley Pelley.
He started the silver shirts after his alleged 'abduction', when he went
to heaven, saw God and Jesus and was told to save America.
This sounds actually very much like similar stories from the Nazis, who
were all fascinated from extra-terrestrial stuff and the occult.
There are in fact pictures showing Hitler together with 'grays', who
took him to the Moon (allegedly).
So, possibly, there is some kind of truth behind such stories.
TH

Not a chance their is no extra-terrestrials or supreme beings, Hitler did however build the first flying saucer

No, since Hitler was not an engineer.
Nevertheless: The so called 'Haunebu' spacecrafts have most likely
existed, but the builders are not known.

TH

https://www.scribd.com/document/256925667/Haunebu-Units

[Thomas Heger]

Am 08.03.2018 um 15:31 schrieb joeturn:
..

Post by joeturn

Post by joeturn

Post by Thomas Heger
So, possibly, there is some kind of truth behind such stories.
TH

Not a chance their is no extra-terrestrials or supreme beings, Hitler did however build the first flying saucer

No, since Hitler was not an engineer.
Nevertheless: The so called 'Haunebu' spacecrafts have most likely
existed, but the builders are not known.
http://youtu.be/tXpbhxNQOPk
http://youtu.be/SnxVFfTaCg8
TH

https://www.scribd.com/document/256925667/Haunebu-Units

I don't think, that Nazi Germany had such spacecrafts, since if they
had, they could have easily cleared the German airspace from enemy bombers.

Since there were countless air-raids with lots of airplanes. So the
Nazis didn't even try to prevent this.

If they had such 'ufos', they would certainly have used them to defend
Germany. But that was not reported.

But possibly the Americans had such machines and used German POWs as
actors in staged photos.

Other possibilities:

-the Nazis were actually aliens in human guise
- the aliens were in fact British
- the aliens do in fact exist and come from - say - Aldebaran (or
somewhere near)


So speculations:
If the aliens were actually ETs and tried to utilize the German Nazis to
establish the so called 'New Word Order' (worldwide fascistic
dictatorship), this NWO would be a means to make the control of planet
Earth easier (for aliens).

They certainly tried that somewhere else and eventually much earlier.
But Pelley and the 'Silver shirts' didn't make right. So that plan was
eventually dropped and the relocated to Germany.

There are more possibilities:

- the aliens are actually time-travelers and are grey because of a
malfunction of their craft

- the Earth is in fact hollow and the inner Earth populated (possibly
'grays').


We'll see....



TH