Proof Royal Family (inc Queen) were Nazis

First topic message reminder :



https://youtu.be/hrVQ7p8A3o8

What a hypocritical and vile bitch she is, honouring those lost in the war every year.

Original Quill wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Gobbledygook

You got caught out making an absurd claim based off something which does not exist biologically, a German Race. You were talking absolute bollocks and if as seen someone made such a case with claiming this off Africans you would have been the first to shout racism.
You made a daft racial claim that had utterly no validity and now you attempt to worm out of.
Accept your mistake like a man with dignity, not poor excuses.

Have a good evening as I have better things to do than listen to your poor excuses.

I never raised race.  You brought up the whole thing.  

Never seen such a poor attempt to get out of what you tried to claim.
You went off German ancestry, that is arguing using a race.
Seriously I am gettig to the point of placing you on ignore you are beig that pathetic here Quill.
Like I sat man up, you made an idiotic argument.
I not going to go round in circles wherfe you just got exposed for promoting an absurd argument.

Cuchulain wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I never raised race.  You brought up the whole thing.  

Never seen such  a poor attempt to get out of what you tried to claim.
You went off German ancestry, that is arguing using a race.

Shame.  Such an uneducated man.  The term I referred to was "Germanic":

Wiki--Germanic Peoples wrote:The Germanic peoples (also called Teutonic, Suebian or Gothic in older literature) are[1] an Indo-European ethno-linguistic group of Northern European origin, identified by their use of the Germanic languages which diversified out of Proto-Germanic starting during the Pre-Roman Iron Age.[2]

The term "Germanic" originated in classical times, when groups of tribes were referred to using this term by Roman authors. For them, the term was not necessarily based upon language, but rather referred to tribal groups and alliances who were considered less civilized, and more physically hardened, than the Celtic Gauls living in the region of modern France. Tribes referred to as Germanic in that period lived generally to the north and east of the Gauls.

In modern times the term occasionally has been used to refer to ethnic groups who speak a Germanic language and claim ancestral and cultural connections to ancient Germanic peoples.[3] Within this context, modern Germanic peoples include the Norwegians, Swedes, Danes, Icelanders, Germans, Austrians, English, Dutch, Afrikaners, Flemish, Frisians, Scots language speakers and others.
Seriously I am gettig to the point of placing you on ignore you are beig that pathetic here Quill.
Like I sat man up, you made an idiotic argument.

Race is another matter:

Free Dictionary wrote:race 1  (rās)
n.
1. A group of people identified as distinct from other groups because of supposed physical or genetic traits shared by the group. Most biologists and anthropologists do not recognize race as a biologically valid classification, in part because there is more genetic variation within groups than between them.
2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the Celtic race.
3. A genealogical line; a lineage.
4. Humans considered as a group.
5. Biology
a. A usually geographically isolated population of organisms that differs from other populations of the same species in certain heritable traits: an island race of birds.
b. A breed or strain, as of domestic animals.
6. A distinguishing or characteristic quality, such as the flavor of a wine.
adj.
1. Of or relating to race; racial: race relations; race quotas.
2. Of or relating to forms of popular entertainment made by and largely marketed to African Americans in the early 1900s: race literature; race records.

The difference is explained:

Differences between terms and objects wrote:Race vs Culture

Race and culture refers to people, groups, and their classifications although both words are very different in how they classify people. To start with the concept of race and culture, it is important to know what each of them mean. “Race” is a classification of people according to their physical appearances, geographic ancestry, and heritable characteristics. “Culture” is a classification of people according to their beliefs and values that include spirituality, religion, region, language, and livelihoods. Italics added.

Had you understood the difference we wouldn't be taking up a page of thread with your faux rants. We are talking about a Royal family of Germanic origin.

I had to save you when you confused Margaret Tudor as her younger brother's daughter.  And now you don't know the difference between race and culture.  Perhaps you ought to stay away from history altogether.

I think all of you actually miss what the British aristocrats supported it wasn't Nazism but Fascism, one would assume they supported a British version of fascism so the antisemitism thing is irrelevant as it is not a core component of fascism rather the focus is on 'the rights of those that control resources' which would obviously be appealing to super rich resource controlling aristocrats.
This is also why Mega rich Americans like Walt Disney initially supported the Nazis for the fiscal economic policy that is massively favorable to the already rich.

As a personal attack in the queen it is a non story, as a looking glass into the mindset of the British ruling class it is both interesting and concerning.

Don't know that I agree with you Veya

Buckingham Palace has been urged to disclose documents that would finally reveal the truth about the relationship between the royal family and the Nazi regime of the 1930s.

The Sun’s decision to publish footage of the Queen at six or seven years old performing a Nazi salute, held in the royal archives and hitherto unavailable for public viewing, has triggered concerns that the palace has for years sought to suppress the release of damaging material confirming the links between leading royals and the Third Reich.

Unlike the National Archives, the royal archives, which are known to contain large volumes of correspondence between members of the royal family and Nazi politicians and aristocrats, are not compelled to release material on a regular basis. Now, as that relationship becomes the subject of global debate, historians and MPs have called for the archives to be opened up so that the correspondence can be put into context.

“The royal family can’t suppress their own history for ever,” said Karina Urbach of the Institute of Historical Research at the University of London. “This is censorship. Censorship is not a democratic value. They have to face their past. I’m coming from a country, Germany, where we all have to face our past.”

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/18/royal-family-archives-queen-nazi-salute

It's fact that Philip was brought up in the Nazi Youth, went to a Nazi school, had immediate family in the SS and sent his son to Gordonston School that was founded by the same person as the school he went to.

Yes but what was their link? the common ground that made them appealing, I am suggesting it is love of money and power more than hatred of Jews.

the modern focus on the Nazis is the antisemitism but really that wasn't even a reason anyone went to war with the Nazis. the Nazis were a new political-economic system, had it been successful then the rights given to citizens since WW2 would have been given to Corporations instead.
Plus it is not like it is just the royals but large numbers of British aristocrats(plus mega rich around the world) supported the Fascist movement initially... maybe the world is lucky that the ideals of fascism and Nazism have become so interlinked.

Dunno Veya, many of Victoria's children seem to have links with the Nazi Party. Don't think it is something we will ever to the bottom of.

sassy wrote:Don't know that I agree with you Veya

Buckingham Palace has been urged to disclose documents that would finally reveal the truth about the relationship between the royal family and the Nazi regime of the 1930s.

The Sun’s decision to publish footage of the Queen at six or seven years old performing a Nazi salute, held in the royal archives and hitherto unavailable for public viewing, has triggered concerns that the palace has for years sought to suppress the release of damaging material confirming the links between leading royals and the Third Reich.

Unlike the National Archives, the royal archives, which are known to contain large volumes of correspondence between members of the royal family and Nazi politicians and aristocrats, are not compelled to release material on a regular basis. Now, as that relationship becomes the subject of global debate, historians and MPs have called for the archives to be opened up so that the correspondence can be put into context.

“The royal family can’t suppress their own history for ever,” said Karina Urbach of the Institute of Historical Research at the University of London. “This is censorship. Censorship is not a democratic value. They have to face their past. I’m coming from a country, Germany, where we all have to face our past.”

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/18/royal-family-archives-queen-nazi-salute

It's fact that Philip was brought up in the Nazi Youth, 1. went to a Nazi school, had immediate family in the SS and 2.sent his son to Gordonston School that was founded by the same person as the school he went to.

1.From 1928 he was in school in Paris, France, the family were living in St. Cloud, Paris, he then went to Cheam, England, his secondary education began at that school in Germany he attended for two terms in 1933, he was 12 years old.
2.Kurt Hahn who was a Jew and left Germany because of the regime in 1933, founded Gordonstoun in 1934 where Philip was one of the first ten boys attending the school. He was there from 1934 to 1939 I don't think they had a Hitler Youth branch there. In may 1939 he entered Dartmouth College as a cadet and bega his Naval career.

He was at Schule Schloss Salem in 1933, it was in control of the Hitler Youth and the Nazi Party, and the curriculum had become Nazi 'race science'. Hahn became an adviser to the Foreign Office in London, urging policies of appeasement based upon appeals to the 'centrist' Nazis. All biographies of Phillip are very careful not to say which year he transferred to Gordonstoun.

sassy wrote:Dunno Veya, many of Victoria's children seem to have links with the Nazi Party.  Don't think it is something we will ever to the bottom of.

Yes because 'money and power'
the Jews killing was expedient at the time if it had been today it would by Muslims

Consider IF they had won Slavery, serfs, indentured labor and all those things the aristocrats had to give up in the centuries prior would be back (as seen in VW BMW etc where they were basically given slave labor) we would have never seen the other racers get the vote would have probably gone backward to land holders votes only

the rich and powerful have submitted to masses for fear for their own necks IF they felt they could get away with taking the rights back away they would.

Could not agree with you more!

Well Fascism is the next best thing to the traditional method

Original Quill wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Never seen such  a poor attempt to get out of what you tried to claim.
You went off German ancestry, that is arguing using a race.

Shame.  Such an uneducated man.  The term I referred to was "Germanic":

Wiki--Germanic Peoples wrote:The Germanic peoples (also called Teutonic, Suebian or Gothic in older literature) are[1] an Indo-European ethno-linguistic group of Northern European origin, identified by their use of the Germanic languages which diversified out of Proto-Germanic starting during the Pre-Roman Iron Age.[2]

The term "Germanic" originated in classical times, when groups of tribes were referred to using this term by Roman authors. For them, the term was not necessarily based upon language, but rather referred to tribal groups and alliances who were considered less civilized, and more physically hardened, than the Celtic Gauls living in the region of modern France. Tribes referred to as Germanic in that period lived generally to the north and east of the Gauls.

In modern times the term occasionally has been used to refer to ethnic groups who speak a Germanic language and claim ancestral and cultural connections to ancient Germanic peoples.[3] Within this context, modern Germanic peoples include the Norwegians, Swedes, Danes, Icelanders, Germans, Austrians, English, Dutch, Afrikaners, Flemish, Frisians, Scots language speakers and others.
Seriously I am gettig to the point of placing you on ignore you are beig that pathetic here Quill.
Like I sat man up, you made an idiotic argument.

Race is another matter:

Free Dictionary wrote:race 1  (rās)
n.
1. A group of people identified as distinct from other groups because of supposed physical or genetic traits shared by the group. Most biologists and anthropologists do not recognize race as a biologically valid classification, in part because there is more genetic variation within groups than between them.
2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the Celtic race.
3. A genealogical line; a lineage.
4. Humans considered as a group.
5. Biology
a. A usually geographically isolated population of organisms that differs from other populations of the same species in certain heritable traits: an island race of birds.
b. A breed or strain, as of domestic animals.
6. A distinguishing or characteristic quality, such as the flavor of a wine.
adj.
1. Of or relating to race; racial: race relations; race quotas.
2. Of or relating to forms of popular entertainment made by and largely marketed to African Americans in the early 1900s: race literature; race records.

The difference is explained:

Differences between terms and objects wrote:Race vs Culture

Race and culture refers to people, groups, and their classifications although both words are very different in how they classify people. To start with the concept of race and culture, it is important to know what each of them mean. “Race” is a classification of people according to their physical appearances, geographic ancestry, and heritable characteristics. “Culture” is a classification of people according to their beliefs and values that include spirituality, religion, region, language, and livelihoods.  Italics added.

Had you understood the difference we wouldn't be taking up a page of thread with your faux rants.  We are talking about a Royal family of Germanic origin.

I had to save you when you confused Margaret Tudor as her younger brother's daughter.  And now you don't know the difference between race and culture.  Perhaps you ought to stay away from history altogether.

Yes you are right that you are uneducated.
You present in your first part Germanic which does not exist biologically.
Its hilarious that you still persist at not being able to admit your fault.
You argued off a connection to ancestry off Germanic people, which does not exist biologically.
What you preseted above was comical because no matter how badly you attempt to dress it up, what you argued is illogical based biologically. What you proposed would have to be biological and yet you still failto grasp that and again if the same claim was made against blacks, you would be ranting about racism. Nothig worst than lefties who are not only hypocritical but are inherantly racist themselves against other ethnic groups of people who now claims culture as being a form he claims is inherantly found within humans.
In other words nonsense.
You are now being placed on ignore.
I have no time for people who cannot admit their errors.
Now maybe you will learn when youhave far less debate.

veya_victaous wrote:Yes but what was their link? the common ground that made them appealing, I am suggesting it is love of money and power more than hatred of Jews.

the modern focus on the Nazis is the antisemitism but really that wasn't even a reason anyone went to war with the Nazis. the Nazis were a new political-economic system, had it been successful then the rights given to citizens since WW2 would have been given to Corporations instead.
Plus it is not like it is just the royals but large numbers of British aristocrats(plus mega rich around the world) supported the Fascist movement initially... maybe the world is lucky that the ideals of fascism and Nazism have become so interlinked.

WTF, you claim there was not a reason that the Britain went to war with Germany?
This is why I question what they are teaching in Australian schools.
We went to war based on German expansionism and aggression on nations.
By the start of the second World War Germany was broke and badly so, it needed war to inject finnaces, but it already had a plan for liebestraum.
As to your claim of fascism, where is your evidence?
Just claiming something, holds very little valdity without any evidence

yeah the invasion of Poland
nothing to do with the concentration camps that didn't come to light until later in the War so cannot be the reason anyone went.

Not interested in your retarded posts demanding evidence when you never post any or just copy paste crap you didn't even read.

I mean a blind fool can see people with money and power would support a system that favors people with money and power. but since it isn't in a text book and you are incapable of thinking for yourself or following logical inference.
how little empathy you have that you couldn't imagine yourself with money and power an WANTING to keep it


Irony I the one that supposedly hates Brits is actually defending the Queen, Nazism has a lot of additions to Fascism like the antisemitism, and I very much doubt 'jews own too many shops' was the primary concern of a rich ruler. it is obviously a means of mobilizing a population masses, not the elites that would support fascism based on the fact that it favors them are every step.

the reality is i don't hate Brits but i am realistic to that fact they have done wrong and they are NOT the precursors of democracy and the modern western world. although propaganda would often tell it like they were.

So you are not interesting in posting evidence for your claims.
Hilarious, so you just expect people to buy your bullshit instead.

Nobody claimed we went to war off concentration camps, that is your delusions again being exposed for all the forum to see. We went to war based off naked aggression by the Nazis, who had a plan for living space which including the systematic death of 30 million Russians being starved to death.

I have no hate for the Brits at all, so again you are very deluded, we all know for a fact you hate the British with countless posts proving this. I am all for the monarchy as it is very much part of the culture here.

So if you have no evidence then stop making unsubstantiated claims you cannot back up. Allyou have is some deranged belief based on people of wealth.
I never deny Britain has done wrong, maybe you have missed the countless threads I have posted in regards to the British doing wrong, so your claims do not hold sway they are just the actions of a baby who needs a hug from his mummy when I pull him up on his poor posts..

so you have no point good one jack ass

you just admitted i was right 'no one went to war to save the jews' but for other reasons

OR are you saying the Queen is an antisemitic? and that anyone in the early 30's would have linked the economic theory of the Nazis (fascism) with the Modern Antisemitic genocidal image of the Nazis?


You argue with no reason as you clearly agree with me...

OMG its hilarious, where did anyone claim we went to war off the Jews?

DOH

Seriousl I know you are desperate, but learn to understand that you can be wrong.

So you still present no evidence and just more bullshit.

Quell surprise?

Not really.

See ya loser.

veya_victaous wrote:Yes but what was their link? the common ground that made them appealing, I am suggesting it is love of money and power more than hatred of Jews.

the modern focus on the Nazis is the antisemitism but really that wasn't even a reason anyone went to war with the Nazis. the Nazis were a new political-economic system, had it been successful then the rights given to citizens since WW2 would have been given to Corporations instead.
Plus it is not like it is just the royals but large numbers of British aristocrats(plus mega rich around the world) supported the Fascist movement initially... maybe the world is lucky that the ideals of fascism and Nazism have become so interlinked.

I agree that antisemitism was only secondary in the Nazi catalog of ideals.  But I believe that socialism was only subservient to the Nazi regime's desire to control the state.  They weren't really dedicated socialists.  

The real passion for the German people in the early 20th-century was Lebensraum...their place in the world:

Wiki wrote:Lebensraum: German for "habitat" or literally "living space", was an ideology proposing German expansion, especially in Eastern Europe. Developed under the German Empire, it became part of German goals during the First World War and was later adopted as an important component of Nazi ideology in Germany. The Nazis supported territorial expansionism to gain Lebensraum as being a law of nature for all healthy and vigorous peoples of superior races to displace people of inferior races; especially if the people of a superior race were facing overpopulation in their given territories.

The antisemitism was only secondary, although among lower classes it might have aroused some passion.  I got the sense that what attracted the British Royals and upper class to fascism and nazism was the return of purpose and nationalism to central Europe.

Didge wrote:Yes you are right that you are uneducated.
You present in your first part Germanic which does not exist biologically.
Its hilarious that you still persist at not being able to admit your fault.
You argued off a connection to ancestry off Germanic people, which does not exist biologically.
What you preseted above was comical because no matter how badly you attempt to dress it up, what you argued is illogical based biologically. What you proposed would have to be biological and yet you still failto grasp that and again if the same claim was made against blacks, you would be ranting about racism. Nothig worst than lefties who are not only hypocritical but are inherantly racist themselves against other ethnic groups of people who now claims culture as being a form he claims is inherantly found within humans.
In other words nonsense.
You are now being placed on ignore.
I have no time for people who cannot admit their errors.
Now maybe you will learn when youhave far less debate.

"You present in your first part Germanic which does not exist biologically."  Which is why it is not a racial discussion. We were talking about culture.  Only you brought race into the discussion when you went about screaming racism!

Didge, you're being childish.  You didn't understand the discussion, or your ego raced ahead of your better judgment.  Perhaps both.  Anyway, you got caught.  Move on.

Original Quill wrote:It could be true.  The Royal family is German, and they have maintained, through marriage, their German ties.
Race introduced to debate, thus bilological

George Lewis I of Hanover, married Sophia Dorothea of Celle.

George II married Caroline of Ansbach.

George III married to Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz.

The throne came to Victoria when William IV died childless.  His younger brother, Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, married Victoria’s mother, Victoria, Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld.

Queen Victoria married her German cousin, Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.

Edward VII married the Danish princess, Princess Alexandra.

George V married Mary of Teck, a princess of Teck, in the Kingdom of Württemberg.

Edward VIII wasted his marriage and title on an American divorcee, Mrs. Wallace Simpson…but then he abdicated.

George VI was the only common-sense monarch among them, as he married a Scottish woman (her father was the Scottish Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne ).

And lo, Elizabeth II returned to the fold and married a Danish Prince, Phillip, whose father was Prince Andrew of Greece and grandfather was George I, of Hellenes (known by his Germanic-Danish name of Wilhelm), second son of Christian IX of Denmark.  Wilhelm (George I) was Greek only by assignment.

But George VI was a second born, who came to the throne only after his brother abdicated.  You might say that only the abdication broke the monopoly that Germans had on the British Monarchy.

Given the British Royal family’s proclivity to seek spouses of Germanic origin, is it any wonder that they clung to Germanic political ideals.  They look eastward.

Bilogical argument.
Argument based on a Germanic race not culture as culture makes no sense to ancestry on being susceptible to Nazism.

I am tired of listening to your bullshit Quill and you learnt the last time I placed you on ignore, so lets hope you do the same again.

Do not even attempt to claim this is not a biological claim.

Like I said if someone said this about blacks and crminality you would be screaming racism.

Enjoy debating yourself

Being reported today that the leak may have been accidental and from the Royal Archive following a rash of requests for previously unseen home movies.
As I said before I don't think the Royal family and their links to the Nazis are any great secret.
I find myself in the unusual position of defending the Royals. Much as I cant stand them, that home footage is being looked at in the context of how we view the Nazis now. At the time of that film Hitler was viewed as the economic saviour of Germany and was much admired.

sassy wrote:He was at Schule Schloss Salem in 1933,  it was in control of the Hitler Youth and the Nazi Party, and the curriculum had become Nazi 'race science'.  Hahn became an adviser to the Foreign Office in London, urging policies of appeasement based upon appeals to the 'centrist' Nazis.  All biographies of Phillip are very careful not to say which year he transferred to Gordonstoun.  

1934 - plain as day in many articles and biographies.

Cuchulain wrote:

Original Quill wrote:It could be true.  The Royal family is German, and they have maintained, through marriage, their German ties.
Race introduced to debate, thus bilological

George Lewis I of Hanover, married Sophia Dorothea of Celle.

George II married Caroline of Ansbach.

George III married to Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz.

The throne came to Victoria when William IV died childless.  His younger brother, Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, married Victoria’s mother, Victoria, Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld.

Queen Victoria married her German cousin, Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.

Edward VII married the Danish princess, Princess Alexandra.

George V married Mary of Teck, a princess of Teck, in the Kingdom of Württemberg.

Edward VIII wasted his marriage and title on an American divorcee, Mrs. Wallace Simpson…but then he abdicated.

George VI was the only common-sense monarch among them, as he married a Scottish woman (her father was the Scottish Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne ).

And lo, Elizabeth II returned to the fold and married a Danish Prince, Phillip, whose father was Prince Andrew of Greece and grandfather was George I, of Hellenes (known by his Germanic-Danish name of Wilhelm), second son of Christian IX of Denmark.  Wilhelm (George I) was Greek only by assignment.

But George VI was a second born, who came to the throne only after his brother abdicated.  You might say that only the abdication broke the monopoly that Germans had on the British Monarchy.

Given the British Royal family’s proclivity to seek spouses of Germanic origin, is it any wonder that they clung to Germanic political ideals.  They look eastward.

Bilogical argument.
Argument based on a Germanic race not culture as culture makes no sense to ancestry on being susceptible to Nazism.

I am tired of listening to your bullshit Quill and you learnt the last time I placed you on ignore, so lets hope you do the same again.

Do not even attempt to claim this is not a biological claim.

Like I said if someone said this about blacks and crminality you would be screaming racism.

Enjoy debating yourself

You are a liar, didge.  You are normally only intellectually dishonest when you ensnare yourself.  But this time you have been caught in a lie, and you only dig your hole deeper.  Nowhere is race mentioned or implied.  Indeed, in the very passage you proffer the point is that a German culture, handed down from parent to child, has been maintained in the Royal family. It is not a biological argument, but an ideological consistency.

Your allegation of race was a red herring: you brought it up to misrepresent the argument.  Only you misstated what was being said, and now like the tar baby in Uncle Remus' Tales, you've got it all over yourself.

I'm amazed at the lengths to which you will go to try reconstruct things in order to save face.  Instead of thinking your way through a situation, you revert to basic urges of antagonism and rage.  You could just admit your error and move on.  Most people would just forget about it.  But there is something psychotic that makes you become obsessive about these things.  Too bad.  You waste yourself and all your talents.

I have given you the opportunity to admit your error and still you persist in giving me the biggest load of bollocky excuses ever.
Learn to man up, untill then you are going to be ignored.

Cuchulain wrote:I have given you the opportunity to admit your error and still you persist in giving me the biggest load of bollocky excuses ever.
Learn to man up, untill then you are going to be ignored.

I feel sorry for you. You have no skills for dealing with your own missteps. It appears your toolkit includes only big words (which you don't understand: like the difference between race and culture), threat of alienation (flouncing) and, well, downright temper tantrums.

I only mention it because you need to develop some introspection. Most people acquire skills through their own intuition. You seem to acquire them only through external copying of what you think you observe. It is important to see that words are not just offensive weapons, but a means to truth and personal integrity.

You have yet to learn that.

Nems wrote:Being reported today that the leak may have been accidental and from the Royal Archive following a rash of requests  for previously unseen home movies.
As I said before I don't think the Royal family and their links to the Nazis are any great secret.
I find myself in the unusual position of defending the Royals. Much as I cant stand them, that home footage is being looked at in the context of how we view the Nazis now. At the time of that film Hitler was viewed as the economic saviour of Germany and was much admired.

exactly at the time of the footage the Nazis were looked on favorably by some for the new socioeconomic system.
'Nazism' today means something different then it did back then.

veya_victaous wrote:

Nems wrote:Being reported today that the leak may have been accidental and from the Royal Archive following a rash of requests  for previously unseen home movies.
As I said before I don't think the Royal family and their links to the Nazis are any great secret.
I find myself in the unusual position of defending the Royals. Much as I cant stand them, that home footage is being looked at in the context of how we view the Nazis now. At the time of that film Hitler was viewed as the economic saviour of Germany and was much admired.

exactly at the time of the footage the Nazis were looked on favorably by some for the new socioeconomic system.
'Nazism' today means something different  then it did back then.

Which was stated all on the first page and for people to remeber the time frame.
At this point people were not aware of the Nazi intentions.

So you do agree it should be correctly be seen that it was Fascism not Nazism (that was undefined at the time) that was supported by the British royals, Aristocrats and US mega-rich.

veya_victaous wrote:So you do agree it should be correctly be seen that it was Fascism not Nazism (that was undefined at the time) that was supported by the British royals, Aristocrats and US mega-rich.

No.

I already eluded to on page 1 he reason some had sympathy for the Nazis.
Can you think what it was?

Racism or more specifically antisemitism that you then tell Quill race doesn't exist
plus something about Russians

you argument is too burdened down with little bits of trivia while ignoring base humans traits, "people like to protect and or improve their position" the Nazis conceived of a socioeconomic policy to do that for those that posses wealth and power while simultaneously appeasing the majority of the plebeian class. Initially this is obviously attractive to those that posses wealth and power and they would want to adopt it. As time progresses however it become apparent the full consequence of such policies...


this is why it annoying to see people fall for similar policies today. the power structures change name but ultimately the eternal battle in our societies between the plebeian, patrician and potential slave remains the same.

Dear me, races do not exist bologically but racism certainly exist because of those ignorant with hate. How many lefties failto understand how racism came into being and yet still failto understand races do not exist biologically in humans.

What most peopole feared at the time  was Communism. That is why there was much sympathy with Nazism. Like I said many people in the British army were appalled we went into an alliance with the Russians who were seen very much as a threat. It was the threat of Communism more than anything which led to support of the Nazi's. Hence why your argument fails to understand history for the time.

And why was the threat of Communism see as so bad by those with Money and power, that are the traditional royals and aristocrats?.... that's right, it supports the rights of the plebs over the patrician (evidenced by the overthrow of the tzar)

Yes I am well aware that Brits were thoroughly indoctrinated in propaganda as was common at the time.

veya_victaous wrote:And why was the threat of Communism see as so bad by those with Money and power, that are the traditional royals and aristocrats?....  that's right, it supports the rights of the plebs over the patrician (evidenced by the overthrow of the tzar)

Yes I am well aware that Brits were thoroughly indoctrinated in propaganda as was common at the time.

You really know very little about history.
If anything Hitler was able to create the very first European Army due to the threat of communism.
Many people not of wealth saw Communism as a threat to their very life and freedoms.
By the end of World War 2 the Waffen SS was made up of over a million men, many of which were foriegn, yet hardly more than 55 Brits joined them. The Germans were able to recruit many foriegners who happened to be some of the most fanatical soldiers. The threat of Communism was very real even before and even more so after the Second World War. No doubt you would have embraced Communism, but at every turn Communism has failed when placed in practice in history.
So at least we now see what you believe which is exactly what I thought, left wing extremism. I cannot think of a more dull and boring existence where there is little goals in life for people.

Oh and do not even attempt to claim Russian Communism was good espcially under Stalin.

Sadly veya, didge does raise a good point re: communism, as was put into practice in the 20th century. Almost 100 million died under communism in USSR and China alone. There was far more reason to fear communism than the brutal execution of the Tsar and his family.

For what it's worth ,I thought theRoyals were just taking the piss!!

For what it's worth ,I thought theRoyals were just taking the piss!!

Cuchulain wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Members of the royal family were officers in the SS:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Christoph_of_Hesse

He is the grandson of Queen Victoria and brother in law of Prince Phillip.

Put some dates around that.

So you claim serving in the Waffen SS is evidence to Jewish hatred?
Even where Jews joined the Waffen SS?
In order to save their lives?
You really know little of history and I find it poor that a Hamas supporter claims antisemitism off the Royal family, when Hamas is the embodiment of Nazism denying the holocaust and wishing to accomplish what Hitler never did.
Yes lets place some dates around the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem who did very much back Hitler to exterminate the Jews.
I suppose you do not back the policy of Hamas to exterminate the Jews, just their policy to destroy Israel?
All you have is some relatives fighting in the armed waffen SS.
And yet what I offer you is direct involement of the Palestinians hate against the Jews.
How you even dare to argue off antisemtism when you back Hamas is nothing short of a joke and proves you are an utter hypocrite.

Lol! Classic Didgeridoo! Present him with clear evidence, then he gets angry and starts throwing all kinds of accusations. HA HA!

If you're too scared to "put some dates" around that, consider yourself pwned! Again.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

So you claim serving in the Waffen SS is evidence to Jewish hatred?
Even where Jews joined the Waffen SS?
In order to save their lives?
You really know little of history and I find it poor that a Hamas supporter claims antisemitism off the Royal family, when Hamas is the embodiment of Nazism denying the holocaust and wishing to accomplish what Hitler never did.
Yes lets place some dates around the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem who did very much back Hitler to exterminate the Jews.
I suppose you do not back the policy of Hamas to exterminate the Jews, just their policy to destroy Israel?
All you have is some relatives fighting in the armed waffen SS.
And yet what I offer you is direct involement of the Palestinians hate against the Jews.
How you even dare to argue off antisemtism when you back Hamas is nothing short of a joke and proves you are an utter hypocrite.

Lol! Classic Didgeridoo! Present him with clear evidence, then he gets angry and starts throwing all kinds of accusations. HA HA!

If you're too scared to "put some dates" around that, consider yourself pwned! Again.

Oh dear I see you cannot actually take on my points and as per usual come out with your emotive babble thinking you understand emotions this coming from a virgin lol.
What dates would you like in regards to educating a hypocritical Muslim who backs Hamas who's charter calls for what Hitler failed to do?
Hence the absurdity of your claim to the Queen being a Nazi when what you support are holocaust deniers and wish to exterminate the Jews.
You would not even have the mental capacity to play chess, no doubt you are only capable of playing suicide chess.




Now either address the points or move along like a good little boy.
As stated already this was 1933 and little was known of what the nazi's intended to do. As stated already they had sympathy mainly as people were more fearful of Communism at the time. So again you need to place the timeframe into persepctive. Going on about Prince Phillip has also been addressed, so what else do you want to end up embarassing yourself over?

Hansard records prove the UK Parliament knew the dangers of Nazism around 1933:

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1933/may/11/herr-rosenberg-and-herr-thost#S5CV0277P0_19330511_HOC_30

That's just one example.

Friends have tried hard to get what we consider fair play for the Soviet Republic, we are in this House fighting for democracy, because we do not agree with the dictatorship methods of Mussolini, Hitler or Stalin. There is no secret about that.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1933/apr/05/russian-goods-import-prohibition-bill

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Hansard records prove the UK Parliament knew the dangers of Nazism around 1933:

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1933/may/11/herr-rosenberg-and-herr-thost#S5CV0277P0_19330511_HOC_30

That's just one example.

Parliment?
I would say that is a loose based claim to the dangers of knowing the extent of the extermination program which was not even formulated until 1942, what became known as the Final Solution. Before then there was views to moving all the Jews to of all places Sri lanka or what was know as Madagasgar. So to claim Parliment knew is poor to say the least let alone it was in the Mid 1930's that Goring devised the plan to starve 30 million Ukranians/Russians.
So like I say your understanding here is not very well read on the matter.

Cuchulain wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Hansard records prove the UK Parliament knew the dangers of Nazism around 1933:

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1933/may/11/herr-rosenberg-and-herr-thost#S5CV0277P0_19330511_HOC_30

That's just one example.

Parliment?
I would say that is a loose based claim to the dangers of knowing the extent of the extermination program which was not even formulated until 1942, what became known as the Final Solution. Before then there was views to moving all the Jews to of all places Sri lanka or what was know as Madagasgar. So to claim Parliment knew is poor to say the least let alone it was in the Mid 1930's that Goring devised the plan to starve 30 Ukranians.
So like I say your understanding here is not very well read on the matter.

I would say comments like "I would say" mean this is your uneducated opinion.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Parliment?
I would say that is a loose based claim to the dangers of knowing the extent of the extermination program which was not even formulated until 1942, what became known as the Final Solution. Before then there was views to moving all the Jews to of all places Sri lanka or what was know as Madagasgar. So to claim Parliment knew is poor to say the least let alone it was in the Mid 1930's that Goring devised the plan to starve 30 Ukranians.
So like I say your understanding here is not very well read on the matter.

I would say comments like "I would say" mean this is your uneducated opinion.

Or for a fact you just got schooled:

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

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


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6ring%27s_Green_Folder

Eilzel wrote:Sadly veya, didge does raise a good point re: communism, as was put into practice in the 20th century. Almost 100 million died under communism in USSR and China alone. There was far more reason to fear communism than the brutal execution of the Tsar and his family.

YES but not until after ww2... when Stalin took over and instated himself as the new 'wealthy and powerful'.
If Trotsky had taken power after Lenin then it could have been very different. (maybe)
http://www.trotsky.net/
Almost all valid criticisms of communism come from Stalinist Russia.
Additionally many issue the communist faced were due to trade restrictions put in place because the rich and powerful of western Europe didn't want the expansion of a political philosophy that would have challenged their position as 'the wealth and power of the Western world'.

Most Chinese do not support the western propaganda about Mao either, he was no worse (really a lot nicer) than Victoria. (generally deemed responsible for the 'new world British empire' both same thing of forcing industrialization. it has to be considered the deaths from communists are miniscule compared to Japanese invasion and Boxer revolution that occur in the century leading up to Mao, and Mao was improvement on Manchurian governors. So may not be perfect but better than they had had in a long time.

AND regardless it still doesn't change the fact that rich people liked the Nazi way of thinking because it supported the rights of rich people over plebs. the other stuff was expedient at the time and not actually the purpose, just a method/tool to assist implementation... It doesn't take much to see that Muslims take the place of Jews In almost this exact same narrative as expressed by the likes of Fox news and Tommy Monk the Constant battle between Plebs and Patricians in mainly fought in media today, the Nazis proved to the Patricians, you can convince enough fools to evil deeds if you can convince them it is there personal interest particularly if you suggest a group is a threat and 'you need protection'. In the particular case of the Nazi they went "too hard too fast" for the rest of the western rich and powerful to make it popular in their home nations. the OP literally is evidence that IF Nazi/fascist hadn't become synonymous with evil the Tory part could have openly been a 'fascist' party.

China had indeed experienced many tragedies in the 100 years prior to Mao. But approx 50 million deaths caused directly by CCP actions during the 5 years of the Great Leap Forward alone, more than justifies concerns about communism in the 50/60s.

And though no where near as bad as Stalin, many were still murdered under Lenin for various reasons. This was post WW1, bad things happened in Empire to subjugated people- not good- but in Russia and China those suffering were citizens of those nations. Opposition in the west to what they saw from those ideologies is entirely understandable beyond the concerns of regicide and attacks on the rich and powerful.

Eilzel wrote:China had indeed experienced many tragedies in the 100 years prior to Mao. But approx 50 million deaths caused directly by CCP actions during the 5 years of the Great Leap Forward alone, more than justifies concerns about communism in the 50/60s.

And though no where near as bad as Stalin, many were still murdered under Lenin for various reasons. This was post WW1, bad things happened in Empire to subjugated people- not good- but in Russia and China those suffering were citizens of those nations. Opposition in the west to what they saw from those ideologies is entirely understandable beyond the concerns of regicide and attacks on the rich and powerful.

That is the biggest Bullshit EVER
sorry
being lined up against some other poor ---- with a musket and being told to shot at each other until one line is dead is FUCKING MURDER TOO!
See Propaganda means you whitewash just how bad your own were.
You could literally be dragged off the street to the virtual death sentence of the British navy, Dragged away with the barely existent chance of surviving a 10 years on the front lines in a Georgian army.

Who were the ones killed post WW1... the rich literally the Tzar and friends that had caused the starvation of millions in a few decades
the RICH are the enemy of the ones that took over, what do we do to our enemies we kill them too.
Just in the UK it is poor people that have generally been killed because the Rich have generally won. the British empire actually adds insult to injury and makes the poor line up to kill or be killed by other poor

The method of fighting in both the 18/19th century was murderous, and trench warefare more so.

But you canmot seriously put the deaths of men in war on a similar level to men killed in purges or due to the disastrous policies, such as forced, rapid collectivization, that were put in place in Soviet Russia and Maoist China. Millions of people died in a few decades due to nothing but their own government's terrible ideologically driven polcies. The two are not the same.

People die in war, how efficient or inept the fighting methods are simply determines the numbers. Millions should NOT die in peacetime nations.

Eilzel wrote:China had indeed experienced many tragedies in the 100 years prior to Mao. But approx 50 million deaths caused directly by CCP actions during the 5 years of the Great Leap Forward alone, more than justifies concerns about communism in the 50/60s.

And though no where near as bad as Stalin, many were still murdered under Lenin for various reasons. This was post WW1, bad things happened in Empire to subjugated people- not good- but in Russia and China those suffering were citizens of those nations. Opposition in the west to what they saw from those ideologies is entirely understandable beyond the concerns of regicide and attacks on the rich and powerful.

You are wasting your time with someone who as seen is an apologist for the crimes of Mao now, who of which I willdoubt we will ever know the extent of murders carried out under his regeme. He fails to even understand that the killings from both Chiang Kai Shek and Mao were going on whilst fighting the Japanese.
You are debating someone who has a warped view on history, so I would not even bother mate.
The fact is Lenin did carry out as you rightly say many murders also.
You are debating a committed communist.
Considering he fails to know in the Russian civil war at least 3 million lost their lives makes the deluded belief there must have mainly all been rich people which there was never as much elite people in Russia at the time. It fails to understand also the racial implication sof the systimatic hunger inflicted on the Ukranians, Polish and other minority groups within the Soviet Union or how millions were also displaced or placed into the Gulaks. What is even worse here is he is trying to say its okay to butcher and murder people even if they were rich.

You are wasting your time buddy.