Germany had a perfect right to take back the lands and the German population that was taken from her under the egregious Treay of Versailles.
She also had a perfect right and indeed an obligation to defend herself against bolshevism, internally and externally.
Jews themselves as Zionists were seeking emigration from Germany and the NatSocs were pleased to help them go. See book link below.
Not that the willingness of jews to be emigrated should be considered a factor in assessing the operation anyway, since surely Germany had as much right to carry out enforced ethnic cleansing as any other country.
After all, wasn't enforced ethnic cleansing the official policy and approach of the countries that imposed the Treaty of Versailles? That is - everywhere except where German national self-determination was concerned. Otherwise, why was Germany butchered by having vast portions of her land, with 95% ethnic Geman populations, cut off and handed over to ethnically hostile peoples as hostages to what turned out to be a very cruel fortune? And of course, they were ethnically cleansed from those areas in the most brutal and genocidal ways.
But then, perhaps ethnic cleansing was really okay. History does give us mixed signals on that topic.
For a good example of how the morally impeccable League of Nations viewed ethnic cleansing, see its support for the Greece-Turkey "populaton exchange" of 1923. The League of Nations High Commissioner who oversaw that sword-and-fire-enforced mass population movement had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize just the year before.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_exchange_between_Greece_and_Turkey
This major compulsory population exchange, or agreed mutual expulsion, was based not on language or ethnicity, but upon religious identity,
So we have to ask, is ethnic cleansing acceptable or not? Or is it just not aceptable when it is done to jews or by Germans? Or is it okay when it is done by jews to Palestinians? Or by the international jew to Germans?
Please clear this up for me. I really do feel that I am caught in a terrible moral dilemma.
For your reading pleasure and, I am sure, also your edification:
"Jewish Emigration from the Third Reich"
Ingrid Weckert
https://en.book4you.org/book/1093787/f574a4
Current historical writings dealing with matters related to the Third Reich paint a bleak picture. This applies especially to writings that deal with the Jewish ethnic group.
To this day there are still accounts of the Jewish emigration that depict it as some kind of clandestine operation ?- as if the Jews who wished to leave Germany had to sneak over the borders in defiance of the German authorities, leaving all their possessions and wealth behind.
The truth is that the emigration was welcomed by the German authorities, and frequently occurred under a constantly increasing pressure. Emigration was not some kind of wild flight, but rather a lawfully determined and regulated matter. Weckert's booklet elucidates the emigration process in law and policy, thereby augmenting the traditionally received picture of Jewish emigration from Germany.
German and Jewish authorities worked closely together on this emigration. Jews interested in emigrating received detailed advice and offers of help from both sides. The accounts of Jews fleeing Germany in secret by night across some border are untenable. On the contrary, the German government was interested in getting rid of its Jews. It would have been senseless to prevent such an emigration.
Yet for some reason they decvalred wa on Germany but not on the Soviet Unnion which invaded Poland two weeks later.
Link please for this attempt to slander Goebbels.
Allow me to recommend a book to you that will provide you with an alternative view of life and policy in Germany in the 1930s. This is an alternative to the victor's history that you get on history.com and similar.
Because you owe it to yourself to be informed, don't you?
"Hitler’s Revolution: Ideology, Social Programs, Foreign Affairs"
Richard Tedor
Link
https://id1lib.org/book/2752896/52095d
Synopsis
Defying liberal democracy, Adolf Hitler transformed Germany into an authoritarian state advocating sovereignty of nations, advancement of labor, preservation of the white race, and commerce based on exchange of wares to replace the international gold standard.
Becoming chancellor in 1933, he tackled his country s bankruptcy, massive unemployment, Communist subversion and foreign domination. His social economic programs and diplomacy restored German prosperity and independence in three years, despite opposition from Western democratic leaders.
Penetrating the shroud of vilification draping this controversial figure, our study draws on nearly 200 published German sources, many from the National Socialist era, plus documents from British, U.S. and Soviet archives, to describe not just what Hitler did, but why. It also reveals democracy s genuine war aims, a taboo subject for historians, in the ensuing world war against Germany.
Challenging the status quo version of the period, here is the book for the student of history who senses that something is missing and seeks answers. Illustrated
It isn't an "idea", it is a fact. Read the comment below.
-
All youth organizations of all kinds at any time anywere in the world, of any political stripe, are propaganda organizations. That is why parents send them to join such organizations. To learn what is regarded as right and wrong behavior in a particular society.
-
All media at all times in all places is propaganda. Again, no matter what the politics. Including yours and mine. This applies most of all to movies, tv, radio, and music.
-
You are unironically quoting jewipedia at me on the topic of NatSoc Germany? Then you are beclowning yourself.
-
History.com = Talmud.com. "The nazis surrounded me and one had a knife." Things that never happened.
-
No, all youth in NatSoc Germany were not required to join the Hitler Youth.
-
Why ban Boy Scouts? Because it was a non-German Internationalist organization which meant that it was already on its trajectory to become what it is today. Which no doubt you have no objections to.
From The Guardian, as mainteam leftist as one can find. And Beevor is as completely a mainstream leftist historian.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2002/may/01/news.features11
Antony Beevor, author of the acclaimed new book about the fall of Berlin, on a massive war crime committed by the victorious Red Army.
"Red Army soldiers don't believe in 'individual liaisons' with German women," wrote the playwright Zakhar Agranenko in his diary when serving as an officer of marine infantry in East Prussia. "Nine, ten, twelve men at a time - they rape them on a collective basis."
The Soviet armies advancing into East Prussia in January 1945, in huge, long columns, were an extraordinary mixture of modern and medieval: tank troops in padded black helmets, Cossack cavalrymen on shaggy mounts with loot strapped to the saddle, lend-lease Studebakers and Dodges towing light field guns, and then a second echelon in horse-drawn carts. The variety of character among the soldiers was almost as great as that of their military equipment. There were freebooters who drank and raped quite shamelessly, and there were idealistic, austere communists and members of the intelligentsia appalled by such behaviour.
Beria and Stalin, back in Moscow, knew perfectly well what was going on from a number of detailed reports. One stated that "many Germans declare that all German women in East Prussia who stayed behind were raped by Red Army soldiers". Numerous examples of gang rape were given - "girls under 18 and old women included".
Marshal Rokossovsky issued order No 006 in an attempt to direct "the feelings of hatred at fighting the enemy on the battlefield." It appears to have had little effect. There were also a few arbitrary attempts to exert authority. The commander of one rifle division is said to have "personally shot a lieutenant who was lining up a group of his men before a German woman spreadeagled on the ground". But either officers were involved themselves, or the lack of discipline made it too dangerous to restore order over drunken soldiers armed with submachine guns.
Calls to avenge the Motherland, violated by the Wehrmacht's invasion, had given the idea that almost any cruelty would be allowed. Even many young women soldiers and medical staff in the Red Army did not appear to disapprove. "Our soldiers' behaviour towards Germans, particularly German women, is absolutely correct!" said a 21-year-old from Agranenko's reconnaissance detachment. A number seemed to find it amusing. Several German women recorded how Soviet servicewomen watched and laughed when they were raped. But some women were deeply shaken by what they witnessed in Germany. Natalya Gesse, a close friend of the scientist Andrei Sakharov, had observed the Red Army in action in 1945 as a Soviet war correspondent. "The Russian soldiers were raping every German female from eight to eighty," she recounted later. "It was an army of rapists."
Drink of every variety, including dangerous chemicals seized from laboratories and workshops, was a major factor in the violence. It seems as if Soviet soldiers needed alcoholic courage to attack a woman. But then, all too often, they drank too much and, unable to complete the act, used the bottle instead with appalling effect. A number of victims were mutilated obscenely.
The subject of the Red Army's mass rapes in Germany has been so repressed in Russia that even today veterans refuse to acknowledge what really happened. The handful prepared to speak openly, however, are totally unrepentant. "They all lifted their skirts for us and lay on the bed," said the leader of one tank company. He even went on to boast that "two million of our children were born" in Germany.
The capacity of Soviet officers to convince themselves that most of the victims were either happy with their fate, or at least accepted that it was their turn to suffer after what the Wehrmacht had done in Russia, is striking. "Our fellows were so sex-starved," a Soviet major told a British journalist at the time, "that they often raped old women of sixty, seventy or even eighty - much to these grandmothers' surprise, if not downright delight."
The front was in Berlin. And they and their mothers and sisters were the targets of the communists.
Remember Beria's instruction to the Red Army?
"Rape and rape and rape again!"
So no sending was required, Mr Bronstein.
https://allthatsinteresting.com/gary-plauche
You may appreciate this story.
Hitler Youth
Not in the least compulsory. Didn't involve spying on one's parents. It was just like the old-fashioned Scouts.
I think you mean the Komsomol (Young Communists) of the Soviet Union.
Enter the US illegally. Why not? Lots of work, i've heard.
Not hot. Not White. And women should shut up on politics.
He is here to divide White men and women. That is his job.
The reason why democracy requires two parties is so that one can be the hammer and the other the anvil.
The gall of White people not wanting to be exterminated!
Their propaganda is in a blatant war with objective truth.
But it can't succeed unless it also applies a certain amount of intimidation of dissenters and noticers.
This exposes the propaganda as not being mere "entertainment", but brainwashing.
There is no such thing as "institutionalized racism", except against Whites.
women control politics and society?
But doesn't some other group control women?
It only takes 50.000000001% to control a society that has universal voting
Mayer Rothschild disagrees.
Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws.
women hold all the power in the entertainment industry
jews have total power and in the global media industry, from tv to movies to news to publishing, especially including educational publishing.
jews.
And the progressive White woman was taught by the jew media and jew higher education.
It is the jews who are behind the hate-whitey propaganda.
They have TOTAL control of the media.
The NatSocs had less in common with Marxism than does the current-day USA.
Natsocs
Marxism and current-day globohomo USA