Eschatology of the Third and Fourth Reichs

Somewhere on this thread I have discussed that the 'socialism' of the National Socialist Nazis was fake. There was no 'economic' socialism directed at the well being of the workers (the origin of the Nazis' NSDAP was the DAP, the German Workers Party in the hard economic times after WWI).

The socialism was reframed as some kind of spiritual social esthetic, which Hitler could direct at justifying his military conquests for lebensraum and such. And, then this was all part of the apocalyptic schema being sold.

The video mentions the key interesting relationships of Hjalmar Schact and Franz von Papen to Hitler. Ironically, it was von Papen who had pulled Germany out of the economic doldrums ... before Hitler's election. And, economic analysis shows that Hitler's reputation for "making the trains run on time", as an economic metaphor was highly overrated, as is Herr Trump's reputation today, underperforming that of Obama's by about 10% (the stock market is not the economy).

"Hitler's economic ideology is based on the idea of growth through conquest, 'Lebensraum' for the German nation. To perform this conquest, however, we need strong economic growth and increased resources, which can only be won by conquest."

Where does this guy has this idea/conclusion coming from ???
Too bad he is not pointing to anything the Germans under Hitler have said and done to warrant his conclusion...... :rolleyes:
Last edited:
Well, I can't confirm this view, but it seems quite plausible to me based upon other evidence.

This is such as Nazi Germany's dependence upon both internal Jewish funds, via the transfer agreements (in exchange for promises of emigration rights) or for foreign corporate funds funneled through the BIS. Both sources of which were not bottomless. And hence one reason Hitler was forced to begin the war with 1/3 of the Wehrmacht being seriously ill-equipped.

As the evidence has shown, as well, the Germans were spending an outrageous amount of money and manpower to build massive underground facilities, not only in Germany, but in places like the Canary Islands, and South America.

The 'real' German generals (not the political brown-nosers) all seem to admit that the Germans had little to no prospects of winning the war. To me, this says that there was a much different agenda.
"Hitler's economic ideology is based on the idea of growth through conquest...."

Wikipedia :
In the 1930s, world prices for raw materials (which constituted the bulk of German imports) were on the rise. At the same time, world prices for manufactured goods (Germany's chief exports) were falling. The result was that Germany found it increasingly difficult to maintain a balance of payments. A large trade deficit seemed almost inevitable. But Hitler found this prospect unacceptable. Germany began to move away from partially free trade in the direction of economic self-sufficiency. Hitler was aware of the fact that Germany lacked reserves of raw materials, and full autarky was therefore impossible. Thus he chose a different approach. The Nazi government tried to limit the number of its trade partners, and, when possible, only trade with countries within the German sphere of influence. A number of bilateral trade agreements were signed between Germany and other European Countries (mostly countries located in Southern and South-Eastern Europe) during the 1930s. The German government strongly encouraged trade with these countries but strongly discouraged trade with any others........

Does it sound like "economic ideology based on the idea of growth through conquest" ??? :rolleyes:

Wikipedia continues :

By the late 1930s, the aims of German trade policy were to use economic and political power to make the countries of Southern Europe and the Balkans dependent on Germany. The German economy would draw its raw materials from that region, and the countries in question would receive German manufactured goods in exchange. Germany would also leverage productive trade relationships with Spain, Switzerland and Sweden in areas ranging from iron ore imports and clearing and payment services.......
Does it sound like "economic ideology based on the idea of growth through conquest" ???
Uhmm, I'm not sure that your quotes speak directly to the issue. And if it does it might instead support the opposite view from yours. In any case, the Nazis chose, during this period of global and domestic economic uncertainty to undertake a massive buildup in military assets, which with a few export trade exceptions and maintaining factory employment result in no financial benefits to the wider domestic economy. Are Stuka dive-bombers and U-boats defensive or offensive weapons?

Of course, they needed to compete with the brutal colonial empires of their neighbors for resource access, but that's a different argument.
..... the Nazis chose, during this period of global and domestic economic uncertainty to undertake a massive buildup in military assets....

World Disarmament Conference of 1932-33

When the Conference for the Reduction and Limitation of Armaments came to an end in June 1934, there was little doubt in the minds of most Englishmen as to where the blame lay for its failure. In his celebrated account of the Conference Major-General Arthur Cecil Temperley declared : ‘I do not desire to hunt for scapegoats…but…I cannot acquit France of a fair share of the blame….When one looks back upon what might have been, the blindness of French statesmen is almost incredible.’
From before the World Disarmament Conference had even begun through to its collapse in 1934, the French contribution has been portrayed as consistently obstructive.
French memorandum of 21 July 1931 declared that French armaments were at ‘the lowest point consistent with her national security’ and could only be reduced if additional security commitments were forthcoming from the Anglo-Saxon countries.
When the Conference did finally open in February 1932, it was supposed to begin with the adoption as the basis for discussion of the Draft Convention that had been drawn up over the previous six years by a ‘Preparatory Commission.’
French War Minister André Tardieu, on the other hand, had different plans. He had devised a proposal of his own for presentation at the Conference and revealed it to the world before the general debate had even started.
Documents in the archives of the French Foreign Ministry back up Temperley’s assertion that those who devised the Tardieu Plan ‘did not mean to disarm at all.’
Three months into the Conference, it appeared to many that the first real opportunity for agreement arose when US Secretary of State Henry Stimson and British Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald visited Geneva in April 1932. Faced with rising support for the Nazis at home, German Chancellor Heinrich Bruening proposed to these men a plan to secure the principal German demand at the Conference – recognition of her equal rights.
Both Anglo Saxon leaders agreed that these proposals could form the basis of a settlement, and Temperley declared : ‘No honest man could deny that they were extremely moderate.’
However, André Tardieu is credited with having ‘conspicuously failed to take advantage’ of Bruening’s plan.
Even after this ‘April Tragedy,’ there were a number of additional chances for success. The British assistant to the President of the Disarmament Conference, Philip Noel-Baker, for instance, points out the opportunity that arose two months later when the US President, Herbert Hoover, introduced a grand scheme for general disarmament on 22 June. Hoover hoped to secure agreement to cut global arms expenditure by a third and abolish ‘offensive’ weapons such as bombing aircraft, tanks, heavy guns and chemical and biological weapons. The German, Soviet and Italian delegations all agreed with Hoover’s plan, but the French delegate, Joseph Paul-Boncour, could not because – in Temperley’s words – it ‘committed the deadly sin of not mentioning “security” at all.’
The first phase of the Disarmament Conference therefore came to an end on 23 July 1932 with the German delegation walking out because of the failure to recognise her equal rights.
Without a German delegation present, no progress could be made. It was the British government that took the lead in the negotiations that resulted in Germany’s return to the Conference. This took place after Britain, the US, and France had signed a declaration on 11 December 1932 stating that the Conference’s goals should include the recognition of ‘equality of rights in a system which would provide security for all nations.’
By the time the Conference reconvened on 31 January 1933, however, Hitler had been appointed German Chancellor.
There was one last ‘psychological moment for saving the Conference,’ when the British Prime Minister proposed a complete Draft Convention in March 1933. French security concerns were dealt with in the first part of the MacDonald Plan.
To satisfy German interests, the draft convention was to replace the Versailles disarmament obligations, Germany could substitute a short-service army for the Reichswehr, and could gain actual equality of land effectives and armaments within five years. ‘The draft Convention was a genuinely honest attempt to translate into practical terms the Agreement of 11 December, both in regard to German equality and also to French security.’
The following June, the French government insisted on modifying the MacDonald Plan by requesting that its supervisory apparatus be given a four-year ‘trial’ period. Faced with pressure from the United States, Britain agreed to the modifications on 22 September 1933.
Even after this event, chances for a disarmament settlement looked possible.
Hitler made a number of proposals for supervision of Germany’s rearmament, such as limiting the Reichswehr to 300,000 and an air force half the size of France’s, all watched over by an International Commission. Temperley claimed : ‘No one could say that his terms were not moderate and even generous.’
Britain made proposals that attempted to reconcile the existing positions, but the new French Foreign Minister, Louis Barthou, declared that German defence estimates made impossible any further negotiations in a note to the British ambassador to Paris of 17 April 1934. This note, according to Temperley, ‘was a staggering blow to the Conference. It was left to M. Barthou to administer the “knock-out” at the meeting of the General Commission [of the Conference] on May 29th.’ His vituperative speech at the Commission was followed by the Conference’s final adjournment on 11 June 1934.
..... a massive buildup in military assets.... Are Stuka dive-bombers and U-boats defensive or offensive weapons?

Message of president Roosevelt to the Congress, May 16, 1933 (excerpt) :

For the information of the Congress I am sending herewith a message that I have addressed this morning to the sovereigns and presidents of those nations participating in the Disarmament Conference and the World Monetary and Economic Conference.
I was impelled to this action because it has become increasingly evident that the assurance of world political and economic peace and stability is threatened by selfish and short-sighted policies, actions and threats of actions.
The deep-rooted desire of Americans for better living conditions and for the avoidance of war is shared by mass humanity in every country. As a means to this end, I have in the message to the various nations, stressed the practical necessity of reducing armaments. It is high time for us and for every other nation to understand the simple fact that the invasion of any nation, or the destruction of a national sovereignty, can be prevented only by the complete elimination of the weapons that make such a course possible today.
The way to disarm is to disarm. The way to prevent invasion is to make it impossible.
I have asked for an agreement among nations on four practical and simultaneous steps :
  1. that through a series of steps the weapons of offensive warfare be eliminated;
  2. that the first definite step be taken now;
  3. that while these steps are being taken no nation shall increase existing armaments over and above the limitations of treaty obligations;
  4. that subject to existing treaty rights no nation during the disarmament period shall send any armed force of whatsoever nature across its own borders.
The message of the President to the heads of the nations participating in the World Economic Conference and the Disarmament Conference was cabled direct to the sovereigns and presidents of the following nations :

Albania, Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Colombia, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iraq, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Persia, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Rumania, Russia, Siam, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia.
.....the Nazis chose.... to undertake a massive buildup in military assets....

Adolf Hitler - speech to the Reichstag, May 17, 1933, Berlin (excerpts) :

.....For all of the problems causing today’s unrest lie anchored in the deficiencies of the Peace Treaty, which was unable to provide a judicious, clear and reasonable solution for the most important and most decisive questions of the time for all ages to come. Neither the national problems nor the economic - not to mention the legal-problems and demands of the peoples were solved by virtue of this Treaty in a manner which would allow them to withstand the criticism of reason for all time. Thus it is understandable that the idea of a revision is not only an integral part of the lasting side effects of the consequences of this Treaty; indeed, the necessity of revision was foreseen by its authors and hence given a legal foundation in the Treaty itself..... Instead of preaching the precepts of destruction, one would have had to initiate a reorganization of the international, political and economic relations which would have done justice to the vital needs of each individual people to the fullest possible extent..... Germany has fulfilled these obligations imposed upon it, in spite of their inherent lack of reason and the foreseeable consequences, so faithfully as to be virtually suicidal..... The degradation of a great people to a second-rate, second-class nation was proclaimed in the same breath with which a League of Nations was called into being..... Treaties which are concluded for the pacification of the lives of peoples in relation to one another have any real meaning only when they are based upon a genuine and honest equality of rights for all.... No new European war would be capable of bringing about anything better in place of the unsatisfactory conditions of the present.... we also respect the national rights of other peoples on the basis of a common conviction and desire from the very bottom of our hearts to live with them in peace and friendship. Thus the concept of Germanization is alien to us. The mentality of the past century, on the basis of which it was believed possible to make Germans of Poles and Frenchmen, is foreign to us..... We view the European nations as a given fact. The French, the Poles, etc. are our neighbors, and we know that no historically conceivable event can change this reality. It would have been fortunate for the world had these realities been given due consideration in respect to Germany in the Treaty of Versailles.... The deepest root of this misery lies, however, in the division of the world into victor and vanquished as the intended permanent basis for all treaties and any future order. The worst effects of this order are expressed in the forced defenselessness of one nation in the face of an exaggerated armament on the part of the others.

The reasons why Germany has been staunchly demanding universal disarmament for years are as follows: First of all, the demand for equality of rights expressed in actual facts is a demand of morality, right and reason; a demand which was acknowledged in the Treaty itself and the fulfillment of which was indissolubly tied to the demand for German disarmament as a starting point for world disarmament.
.... Germany did disarm, and Germany performed this disarmament under the strictest international control.... The Rhineland was demilitarized, the German fortresses were pulled down, our ships surrendered, the aircraft destroyed, our military system was abandoned, and thus the training of reserves prevented. Even the most needed weapons of defense were denied us.... Its army consists of 100,000 men. The strength and character of its police is internationally regulated.... Doesn’t Germany have more reason, in view of its lack of defenses and weapons, to demand security than the armed states united by alliances?
.... Germany would also be more than willing to disband its entire military establishment and destroy those few weapons still remaining at its disposal, were the bordering nations to do the same without exception. However, if the other States are not willing to comply with the disarmament provisions imposed upon them by the Peace Treaty of Versailles, then Germany must, at the very least, insist upon its demand for equal treatment....
.... Germany is also perfectly prepared to completely abandon offensive weapons if, within a certain period, the armed nations destroy their own offensive weapons in turn and the use of such weapons is banned by international convention. It is Germany’s sole desire to maintain its independence and be in a position to protect its borders....
Germany would also be willing at any time, in the event that an objective international arms control board is created, to subject the associations in question to such control-given the same willingness on the part of the other States-in order to demonstrate to the whole world its wholly unmilitary character.
On behalf of the German Government, I may once again welcome the farsighted and just plan of the Italian Head of State to create, by means of a special pact, close relations of confidence and cooperation between the four major European powers, Great Britain, France, Italy, and Germany. Mussolini’s view that this would serve as a bridge to facilitate an understanding is a view with which the German Government agrees out of its most deeply seated convictions. It desires to oblige to the fullest possible extent if the other nations as well are inclined to genuinely overcome any difficulties which may stand in the way.
Thus the proposal made by the American President Roosevelt, of which I learned last night, deserves the warmest thanks of the German Government.
.... It [the Government] is also, as I have stressed in the beginning, of the conviction that there can only be one great task in our time : securing peace in the world.

The only nation which has reason to fear an invasion is the German nation, which is not only barred from having offensive weapons, but even restricted in its right to possess defensive weapons and prohibited from erecting fortifications on its borders. Germany is prepared to renounce offensive weapons at any time if the rest of the world does the same. Germany is willing to join any solemn pact of non-aggression, for Germany’s concern is not offensive warfare, but its own security.

Germany would welcome the opportunity suggested in President Roosevelt’s proposal of incorporating the United States in European relations in the role of guarantor of peace. This proposal signifies a great consolation to all those who wish to seriously cooperate toward maintaining peace.

It would be difficult for us to remain a member of the League of Nations as a Volk subjected to constant degradation....
Last edited:
World Disarmament Conference of 1932-33

... the US President, Herbert Hoover, introduced a grand scheme for general disarmament on 22 June. Hoover hoped to secure agreement to cut global arms expenditure by a third and abolish ‘offensive’ weapons such as bombing aircraft, tanks, heavy guns and chemical and biological weapons. The German, Soviet and Italian delegations all agreed with Hoover’s plan, but the French delegate, Joseph Paul-Boncour, could not because – in Temperley’s words – it ‘committed the deadly sin of not mentioning “security” at all.’

Germany is prepared to renounce offensive weapons at any time if the rest of the world does the same. Germany is willing to join any solemn pact of non-aggression, for Germany’s concern is not offensive warfare, but its own security.

I suppose we'll never know whether this was a genuine missed opportunity, or just political grandstanding. Hitler withdrew from the conference in October 1933. Germany had been secretly rearming throughout the Weimar era, and Hitler picked up the pace dramatically as soon as he came to power. More on the 1932-33 conference, and German rearmament, at these links:
As usual with the official version, only Hitler was to blame for rearmament ! :rolleyes:
By the way, after that speech on May 17 there was unanimous approval by all memebers of the Reichstag, even the comunists, for Hitler's declarations.

"I suppose we'll never know whether this was a genuine missed opportunity, or just political grandstanding."

Until now I did not encounter a paper by historians (not Wikipedia !) which laid blame for the collapse of the Disarmament Conference on Germany ! It is always Britain, and mainly France.....

"Hitler withdrew from the conference [technically] in October 1933.".... after it collapsed.

"Germany had been secretly rearming throughout the Weimar era, and Hitler picked up the pace dramatically as soon as he came to power."..... after it was clear that neither France nor Britain had any intentions to disarm, but did the opposite. Of course it had be done secretly under those conditions of the Vesailles "Treaty".
I am among those that consider the terms of the Versailles Treaty to have been unreasonable, and that the French were much of that problem. But in any case, I also consider that the 'hidden hand' desired there to be a WWII and thus WWII was obtained (as was the case with WWI). And thus the blame can be spread wide as far as I'm concerned.

If you intend to prove me ignorant on whether or not Hitler intended to engage in an economically driven, military conquest or not, that might be more appropriate on a new thread, under History, as this one is under Religion. This thread was intended to demonstrate that the NAZI program, including explicit statements in Mein Kampf, were intended to implant an apocalyptic ferver amongst the German people. This begs the question as to what purpose, if not to enable conducting an apocalyptic war. Perhaps you have a different view here as well?
..... if not to enable conducting an apocalyptic war. Perhaps you have a different view here as well?

The war was needed and all sides worked toward that war to happen.
The question is were the Nazis just simpletons or in the game as well.
In my opinion Germany has to take SOME blame as far as not being smart enough to see through The Game (IF they were not part of the Game itself), and holding old ideas about prosperity and the right/smart direction of it's own policies.

I think Hitler and his team were simpletons....
The original 'Stanley' (or Stanleigh) seems to be just such a humorous Norman creation, a synthesis of respective Saxon and French words for 'stone field'. I have tracked down 3 mutually incompatible origin stories, and while there is no evidence of this line in the English Norman's Domesday Book, from their apparent 'advent' in Norman England the noble branch play(ed) a key background role in this society, including the rise of the Tudors.
Apparently the Stanley family did not appear in the Domesday Book because they were originally "Audley" back then, and their beginnings in England seems to be actually Anglo-Saxon, not Norman, according to their Wikipedia article: "The first mention of Audley, Staffordshire is in the Domesday book of 1086, when it was called Aldidelege (Aldithley), when the lands were held by an English thegn called Gamel. The descent of the Audley and Stanley families can be traced back as far as two brothers of English origin, Ligulf of Aldithley, who held the estate during the reign of kings Stephen and Henry II, and his brother Adam, whose relationship, if any, to Gamel is unknown. The Stanley family later fabricated a Norman origin".
Interesting. Answers, that if true, raise more questions. I was aware of a different version of the Aldithley story, but it had one searching fruitlessly in Normandy. If this story is true then it would seem rather easy for one to debunk, and such people and their rivals were very interested in legitimacy questions.
Yes, as you are no doubt aware of, wealthy and prominent English families could "buy" themselves a distinguished Norman origin from a herald, in order to provide added luster for their newly prosperous status, and the Stanleys appear to be no exception. Another confused/fabricated (?) Stanley pedigree has the above mentioned Gamel as the Audley/Stanley forefather, and descending in the male line from the 5th century arrival in England of the Anglo-Saxon royal dynasty founder Cerdic. In turn, Cerdic has been considered by most scholars as actually being British, going by his name origin and the names of some of his descendants, with royal Anglo-Saxon ancestry going back to "Woden" tacked on to him later, in order to give his line "legitimacy" to rule over Britain. Again, another unproven modern "pedigree" (probably influenced by the foregoing analysis) makes Cerdic a son of the "British" King Arthur, which would supposedly take him back to the Neo-Flavian Roman Emperors and eventually the Sabines, or, if one follows Ralph Ellis literally, to Jesus/Izates and Julius Caesar, with the same end result, back to the Sabines.
Last edited:
Richard is working on a theory that the Nazis as well as the entire Zionist elite, are all convinced that the apocalypse is coming soon. Thus, their real agenda is to dig as many deep tunnels as possible, to survive the upcoming apocalypse.

All that Nazi stuff about hating and killing Jews, as horrible (or as real, or as fake) as it may have been, was just a smokescreen. When the time comes, the Hofjuden will take their places alongside the nobility and business elites, in their underground tunnels.
I think(?) I may have posted this video and comments to my thread on Millennialist Apocalypticism, as it is also apropos there. Because of a limit quirk in YouTube's History system, I had to reset by viewing history and as a consequence I watched this Sepehr video again.

It discusses the German Tempelgesellschaft which iterates many of things I have discussed before as well as bringing up many new things including very interesting photos. Among which are that Sepehr shows us that the swastika and the 'Star of David' have a long and close association. As the saying went in new Israel, "Hitler made Haifa", as did Kaiser Wilhelm, who also helped make global Islamic Jihad with Max von Oppenheim's help.

As discussed, there are also deep links, common roots to the American evangelical movement. The latter of which frequently gets tied to elite 'Zionist' support for such as Cyrus Schofield and his apocalyptic Bible. This use of 'Zionist' is meant by almost all of those making the claim, to mean of Jewish origins. But, as demonstrated by Sepehr and on this site, it goes much deeper than that, into interbred Euro-royalty and the Vatican (the Hidden Hands). As we discuss here, the org chart of the 'family of Abraham' shows Judah and his descendants as being the sheepdogs (the exposed front) for the (hidden) shepherds.



"Fascinating items from the Holocaust period". No kidding? Wonder if claims that the children of top Nazi officials ended up living in Israel are true or not?


Any family resemblance below?


Now we have a Bavarian double agent occupying the White House, whose main support is from the American evangelical bowel (Gary Bauer?) movement. While Adolf, from Austria, joined the German Army in Bavaria and while working as a German military spy infiltrated and took over the National Socialist German Workers Party, at near the same time our orange Adolf's grandfather evaded Bavarian military service to come to America and pimp prostitutes while selling horseburgers to gold miners on their way to the Yukon.
As discussed, there are also deep links, common roots to the American evangelical movement.
The German Pietist and Pennsylvania colonizer, Johannes Kelpius, is promoted by the American Rosicrucians (AMORC) as America's first Rosicrucian, according to this debunking article about him, which is nevertheless interesting (for starters, he was born in Transylvania!): I believe that you told me you had visited the Rosicrucian Egyptian Museum in San Jose.

This following is just from memory, but I believe AMORC derives their 108 year active and inactive cycles from the organization of this same Pietist colony to America in 1693, thus we have:
Active AMORC Cycle- 1693-1801
Inactive AMORC Cycle- 1801-1909, when H. Spencer Lewis revived the Order in America
Active AMORC Cycle- 1909-2017 (when Donald Trump was inaugurated as President, but of course AMORC did not know that at the time [?])
Inactive AMORC Cycle- 2017-now, but apparently they have abandoned that cycle of time, as they still appear to be active (?)

Below, an explanation for the origin of those 108 year active and inactive cycles, connected to the Hyksos arrival in Egypt (and thus to the "Postflaviana" version of true history?):
the American evangelical bowel (Gary Bauer?) movement.
There are so many conspiracy theories about them, that it is very hard to separate the wheat from the chaff, but wasn't "Bauer" supposed to be an original name of the German Rothschild family?