Did Hitler Shake The Hand of Jesse Owens

[quote author=ketchim link=topic=102560.msg677653#msg677653 date=1454972471]
Russia was still coping with the 1917 Revolution as well that topples the Czar !

IT was a rough 20 years leading up to 2 world wars ....
[/quote]

exactly!  Russia seemed weak...yet any advice to invaded was bad advice for they had to have know the Russians would not capitulate. maybe who sent Hitler in were expecting and hoping that the Russians did not capitulate for then the war would be savage indeed,...maximum death and destruction

but that was an awful decision to invade Russia.  there was no advantage in it for Germany.  I don't see how Hitler could have come to such a decision like that.  there had to be powerful other influences.  and relative to that I ask the question who Benefited..who stood to benefit the most.

indeed who was the only group in the mix..or associated group who could have benefited from that decision in any way at all that they could possibly desire ::confused:: ::confused::

once that question is asked the speculative answers bring a whole lot of clarity.  now when are we going to get the secret documents out that exposes all the truths we need to know

Quote:germany needed russian resources i think Maps.

yes!  but by any calculation it would have been much cheaper to trade with Russia.  invasion made no sense.  also at the time Russia, composed of its whole former empire had well over 300 million people to call on.

I would really like to know definitively why that invasion took place.  it is to me a most enigmatic military excursion..prolly the most enigmatic in human history.

one fact is that western europe:  Britain, France, Holland, Spain, Belgium, Germany.... never traded where they could conquer.  the traded where they could not conquer until they could in fact conquer.

so indeed it could simply have been German conquest for the raw materials they needed, in a nearby land mass which they were blocked from doing by sea, by the british/americans.

yet it was an impossible conquest..most inadvisable!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLTQS..._R4pqAGv20

[quote author=mapoui link=topic=102560.msg677652#msg677652 date=1454971105]
there is a great deal of inforrmation available on this subject on the internet now.  dig into it
[/quote]

the sites you visit are skewed to your views.  ::LOL:: ::LOL::

[quote author=Goog Lee link=topic=102560.msg677812#msg677812 date=1455116607]
the sites you visit are skewed to your views.  ::LOL:: ::LOL::
[/quote]

visit any dam site you want and get facts.  facts stand on their own impervious to interpretation this or that way.  they are facts.  where the hell are yours ::confused::

t stand outside and take idiot pot shots of no effect..simply trying to eff up any conversation at all. but that is typical of a priest.

I was arguing with my religious friend recently. I claimed that to do anything of a positive nature including speak truth in the world, marks out one for assassination.  but to do evil one is usually rewarded, marked out for success, is promoted.

the more destructive and divisive one is the better form them from an evil established way. 

you see the dichotomy giggles?  the church and religious men are the arbiters of good and evil and they are supposed to ferret out evil every and attack it with truth, gods principles and superb human morality in keeping with their principles which is consistent with god and the universe...with nature

and that is what you do here..always with the negative like you support for Obama and your recognition of him as a good and classy person..when in clear and obvious truth Obama is a truly awful human being, one of the men ever to accede to high power in human society..ever.

and you are a priest. 

but doh worry!  as a priest your behavior is typical for that is the way the religious are.  look at how evl the world is, the state humanity is in and everywhere there is a church.  it foLlows then that If the church is supposed to promote good in the world, they are in fact totally evil..are in fact total failures at their stated and self claimed task..the guardians and promoters of human morality.

Maps, you are not interested in facts...just the opinions that match your beliefs!  ::LOL:: ::LOL:: ::LOL::

why you think you literally hang out at sites like "blackagenda" etc?

[quote author=Goog Lee link=topic=102560.msg677906#msg677906 date=1455138394]
Maps, you are not interested in facts...just the opinions that match your beliefs!  ::LOL:: ::LOL:: ::LOL::

why you think you literally hang out at sites like "blackagenda" etc?
[/quote]

how googs giggles ::confused:: ::confused:: ::confused:: what the hell are you talking about.  the facts in front yuh face what you want but the obvious ::confused::

you mus' be dyslexia or something..you know when your computer processes the same reality that everybody see one way..in your own different way ::LOL:: ::LOL:: ::LOL::

here let me help you. and in this you get 2 for one..Obama and Hillary

http://www.rense.com/general96/opposhillprez.html

Quote:[color=rgb(0, 0, 0)]Among an array of deplorable aspirants, she stands out as the most dangerous and loathsome, an anti-populist Wall Street tool, a war profiteer’s dream, shamelessly indifferent to human suffering, a ruthless rogue actor, a menace threatening world peace.

Ignore her gender and calls for finally electing a woman US president.

Look at the enormous harm the first Black one caused at home and abroad, Muslims and people of color most affected. Obama achieved the impossible - exceeding the worst of George Bush, waging endless wars, bombing seven countries in seven years, ignoring popular needs, force-feeding austerity irresponsibly, orchestrating the greatest wealth transfer to privileged interests in US history, enforcing police state harshness on nonbelievers.

If elected president, expect Clinton’s agenda to continue Obama’s on steroids. Her deplorable record in public office as a US senator and secretary of state reveals her dark side, pure evil by any standard.She’s a longtime Wall Street favorite. Major banks are her largest campaign contributors, getting far more back in return, ripping off investors, rigging markets with virtually no oversight.Under Clinton, they’ll continue making money the old-fashioned way, stealing it - grand theft at the public’s expense while popular needs increasingly go begging, social justice on the chopping block for elimination.

Her public office record is shameless, notoriously deploring peace and stability, hellbent for endless imperial wars - from urging husband Bill to bomb Belgrade in 1999 to supporting naked aggression on Afghanistan in 2001, the 2003 Iraq war, along with orchestrating Obama’s wars on Libya and Syria as secretary of state.She’s militantly anti-Russia and anti-China, supports transforming all sovereign independent nations into US-controlled vassal states - premeditated naked aggression her strategy of choice.Post-9/11, she notoriously said she’d “stand behind Bush for a long time to come.”

Her record in public office proved it. She supported all US imperial wars, naked aggression against nonthreatening countries, urges annual increases in military spending at a time America’s only enemies are ones it invents.She calls nuclear weapons “peacekeepers,” endorses their use, earlier saying “I don’t believe any that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons.”She backs Israel’s worst crimes, ignores longstanding Palestinian suffering, supports US-installed Kiev putschists against Donbass freedom fighters rejecting fascist rule. She once threatened to bomb Iran as president.

If elected in November, will WW III follow?Her duplicitous rhetoric swings with the political climate, her pure evil agenda unchanged since serving as first lady in the 1990s, partnering with husband Bill’s high crimes, a family enterprise opposed to peace, equity and justice, serving privileged interests exclusively. - See more at: http://www.rense.com/general96/opposhill...5nlUn.dpuf[/color]