On the contrary, many, particularly in Germany, did know exactly what sort of organisation the Nazis were.
The Left had been fighting them on the streets for years trying to stop them from coming to power, and many died in that fight, while many in other European Establishments said what a grand chap Hitler was in fighting the main enemy - the Reds, who threatened their riches.
That being said, this is a non-story in my view. That the Fascist Prince of Wales organised it should come as no surprise.
His hate was mostly directed at the Jews, after that it was the communists (don't forget the pact that was signed between USSR & Germany) then homosexuals and Poles - he hated all of them.
Pity Hitler was rejected a place at Art College - things may have turned out differently if he'd concentrated on his art.
If you look carefully it's not actually a salute at all, just someone waving to say "hello"
But that said, I'm sure Edward would approve of the EU superstate
I think it's dodgy uncle Edward training the girls to behave like Hitler-Jugend. You can see the Princess is clearly oblivious to it all, and simply mucking about.
This is the crux of it. Yes, they were the royals, and maybe some of the grown-ups present knew or should have known the Nazis were up to no good, but playing around doing the salute doesn't make you a devotee.
I can't imagine the most serious of republicans would try to use this as a reason to ditch the Queen, without ruining their own integrity, and I'm pleased to see most people think it's nonsense. A few opportunists, or Sun apologists.
The important question is what is The Sun hoping to achieve by this? I presume Murdoch is behind this, and trying to send a message to someone about something. More fool those who fall for it.
Murdoch I think has two things left on his bucket list, bring down the BBC and the Monarchy those who know him are well aware he hates Monarchy and has long wished for them to be abolished.
Should we just excuse the Queen for being a child and turn a blind-eye to them?
If you do not wish to excuse a six year old then you will wish to hold every other person alive at that time as well, and most people afterwards who have done a mock Nazi salute when playing. The Princess as he was and the QM are quite obviously larking about, Edward is another matter.
Aside form people playing around what about the Berlin Olympics of 1936 and all the salutes to Hitler from people ? are they all Nazis ?
So what you are basically saying is what a child did when playing to you means that stays with them for life, so a child who say played war or pretended to shoot someone in a game is a potential violent murderer for life ?
She probably thought silly boy the press will jump on it and anti monarchists will use it to say you are a Nazi, and ignore all the fancy dress shops that hire them out .
With hindsight it's always easy to see what was the right thing to do. And it's hard to believe, but the Queen was a child once, too and not really responsible for what adults encouraged her to do.
It does to me i am a monarchist and the fact a 7 year old girl who is now our queen did then is what any 7 year olds may of done at the time.
However if we had a president like america Blair for instance (war criminal) or Thatcher (friend of pinochet) who were much older then the then 7 year old then i would feel disgusted.
Does that make sense to you or would you like more detail as to why i would not like an elected president.
I'm certainly no royalist in any shape or form in fact I make no bones about being a republican.
but I think the thread title is both over the top and deliberately intended to be offensive.
How a 7 year old playing a game with her father can be called a "Nazi" almost a century later is just bloody ridiculous.
Something as controversial as this would almost certainly have been approved of by Murdoch himself. I notice the editor this morning making lame excuses for The Scum for this unethical breach of privacy which might very well have involved criminal actions.
I guess this is Murdoch's payback to the Queen. In her diplomatic way, she gently reminds PM Cameron in the weekly meeting that the BBC is a respected national institution and it ought to be maintained. Cameron lets his staff know back at 10 Downing Street and word filters out to Murdoch.
This is Murdoch's direct retaliation to say, "Hey, old biatch, know your place - I'm more powerful than you are and if you defend my direct competitor that I want cut down to size then there will be adverse consequences".
I hope that The Scum suffers for this in terms of lost readers and lost advertisers.
Something as controversial as this would almost certainly have been approved of by Murdoch himself. I notice the editor this morning making lame excuses for The Scum for this unethical breach of privacy which might very well have involved criminal actions.
I guess this is Murdoch's payback to the Queen. In her diplomatic way, she gently reminds PM Cameron in the weekly meeting that the BBC is a respected national institution and it ought to be maintained. Cameron lets his staff know back at 10 Downing Street and word filters out to Murdoch.
This is Murdoch's direct retaliation to say, "Hey, old biatch, know your place - I'm more powerful than you are and if you defend my direct competitor that I want cut down to size then there will be adverse consequences".
I hope that The Scum suffers for this in terms of lost readers and lost advertisers.
The editor Stig Abel has a show on LBC every Sunday at 7am-10am wonder if he will take calls on this subject tomorrow if he is on.
Its got Murdochs prints all over it Stig is a former press regulator poacher turned gamekeeper.
As such he should know the press voluntary code signed up to by the scum says children which the current queen was at the time, are not fair game for reports of this kind.
So why not open the 1930s archives now? It's over 70 years ago, way past a 30 or 50 year rule. That way the full truth could be known.
We think it reasonable that say the Papal archives of the time are open to scrutiny.
Far more important is why were Tony Blair (nearest we got to a President) expenses incinerated? Far more in the public interest than a 80 year old home movie.
The editor Stig Abel has a show on LBC every Sunday at 7am-10am wonder if he will take calls on this subject tomorrow if he is on.
Its got Murdochs prints all over it Stig is a former press regulator poacher turned gamekeeper.
As such he should know the press voluntary code signed up to by the scum says children which the current queen was at the time, are not fair game for reports of this kind.
If he doesn't then he'll be quite rightly accused of censorship and if he does then he does go ahead then he'll probably be roasted alive on air. That said, LBC could pull Abel from that show this week and put in someone else instead, e.g. Andrew Pierce.
...as opposed to a hardline presidential candidate supported by Rupert Murdoch and his press lackeys.
If he doesn't then he'll be quite rightly accused of censorship and if he does then he does go ahead then he'll probably be roasted alive on air. That said, LBC could pull Abel from that show this week and put in someone else instead, e.g. Andrew Pierce.
He took calls on this on his show this morning on LBC.
Sorry stigs show is from 8-10am tomorrow not 7am.
Andrew Pierce took a lot of uncomplimentary calls about the sun this morning though i do not suppose he minded being consultant editor of the mail in his day time job.
Though i cannot stand Pierces rag either.Be inetresting to see if stig takes the chair in the morning though i suspect he has his orders from Murdoch to go on and defend this so called story.
He took calls on this on his show this morning on LBC.
Sorry stigs show is from 8-10am tomorrow not 7am.
Andrew Pierce took a lot of uncomplimentary calls about the sun this morning though i do not suppose he minded being consultant editor of the mail in his day time job.
Though i cannot stand Pierces rag either.Be inetresting to see if stig takes the chair in the morning though i suspect he has his orders from Murdoch to go on and defend this so called story.
That item's probably being discussed by senior Global Radio (the parent company) management right now! If Abel does present it then I expect it to be quite lively (and popular!) although I think it's quite possible that he might be replaced tomorrow.
LBC is available online, on DAB and on Freeview/Yourview, Freesat, Sky and Virgin Media for anyone who wants to listen tomorrow.
I'm more worried about the attitudes of those trying to make a big deal out of this rather than the attitudes of the Queen. There does seem to be too many people around these days who do not get any sense of doing things which are mocking or joking. They are far more paranoid of even jokingly nazi-saluting than the generations who went through the way are. If that generation are prepared to laugh and join in such mocking, why are some of the current generation so po-faced?
Nazi or not, the monarchy should be abolished. It is nothing but a remnant of historic times when people were uneducated and ignorant and has no place in the 21st century.
Nazi or not, the monarchy should be abolished. It is nothing but a remnant of historic times when people were uneducated and ignorant and has no place in the 21st century.
Perhaps that's exactly what Murdoch wants so that "the people" get to only vote for Murdoch's favourite and supported candidate for President of the United Kingdom.
Nazi or not, the monarchy should be abolished. It is nothing but a remnant of historic times when people were uneducated and ignorant and has no place in the 21st century.
Sounds like the people who may vote for any proposed future president.
Judging by the interviews i have seen when people are interviewed on the streets about thier views on politics many could not even get the current prime minister right.
That item's probably being discussed by senior Global Radio (the parent company) management right now! If Abel does present it then I expect it to be quite lively (and popular!) although I think it's quite possible that he might be replaced tomorrow.
LBC is available online, on DAB and on Freeview/Yourview, Freesat, Sky and Virgin Media for anyone who wants to listen tomorrow.
Think he might well present he has had a stiff briefing no doubt not by Global but by Mr Murdoch.;-)
If he goes missing it would look very bad indeed both on Global and Stig himself.
His hate was mostly directed at the Jews, after that it was the communists (don't forget the pact that was signed between USSR & Germany) then homosexuals and Poles - he hated all of them.
Pity Hitler was rejected a place at Art College - things may have turned out differently if he'd concentrated on his art.
1933 was way before the pact with the USSR. As I said, most of Hitler's early victims were his political opponents - those who openly opposed him, like the Communists.
They and other political enemies were the first inmates of the concentration camps.
Perhaps that's exactly what Murdoch wants so that "the people" get to only vote for Murdoch's favourite and supported candidate for President of the United Kingdom.
Murdoch has wanted to bring down the Royal family for many a year, he pushes for stories on them as he has admitted to people they are good for circulation and it is known when Diana died he said over a drink that he was ""mourning the passing of a woman whose life had been a circulation bonanza" , he is an astute business man, he knows what sells but he has made no secret in his circle of wanting to be a part of bringing them down.
Probably the most appropriate image to go with this thread, definitely matches the degree of seriousness of the revelation brought by this amazingly front-page-worthy picture of a girl and her family playing in the garden.
Comments
His hate was mostly directed at the Jews, after that it was the communists (don't forget the pact that was signed between USSR & Germany) then homosexuals and Poles - he hated all of them.
Pity Hitler was rejected a place at Art College - things may have turned out differently if he'd concentrated on his art.
I think it's dodgy uncle Edward training the girls to behave like Hitler-Jugend. You can see the Princess is clearly oblivious to it all, and simply mucking about.
Don't worry, Harry isn't related to the royal family, he's James Hewitt's son
Murdoch I think has two things left on his bucket list, bring down the BBC and the Monarchy those who know him are well aware he hates Monarchy and has long wished for them to be abolished.
If you do not wish to excuse a six year old then you will wish to hold every other person alive at that time as well, and most people afterwards who have done a mock Nazi salute when playing. The Princess as he was and the QM are quite obviously larking about, Edward is another matter.
Aside form people playing around what about the Berlin Olympics of 1936 and all the salutes to Hitler from people ? are they all Nazis ?
So what you are basically saying is what a child did when playing to you means that stays with them for life, so a child who say played war or pretended to shoot someone in a game is a potential violent murderer for life ?
And why exactly are you so keen to say or think otherwise ?
She probably thought silly boy the press will jump on it and anti monarchists will use it to say you are a Nazi, and ignore all the fancy dress shops that hire them out .
Now what about these people are they Nazis ????
http://stilltimecollection.co.uk/detail/9534-people-crowd-dance-acu-charity-ball-hitler-mimmic-humour-nazi-germany-war-propaganda-salute-party.html
It was probably the equivalent of a Royal doing "Gangnam style" at the time.
It does to me i am a monarchist and the fact a 7 year old girl who is now our queen did then is what any 7 year olds may of done at the time.
However if we had a president like america Blair for instance (war criminal) or Thatcher (friend of pinochet) who were much older then the then 7 year old then i would feel disgusted.
Does that make sense to you or would you like more detail as to why i would not like an elected president.
Something as controversial as this would almost certainly have been approved of by Murdoch himself. I notice the editor this morning making lame excuses for The Scum for this unethical breach of privacy which might very well have involved criminal actions.
I guess this is Murdoch's payback to the Queen. In her diplomatic way, she gently reminds PM Cameron in the weekly meeting that the BBC is a respected national institution and it ought to be maintained. Cameron lets his staff know back at 10 Downing Street and word filters out to Murdoch.
This is Murdoch's direct retaliation to say, "Hey, old biatch, know your place - I'm more powerful than you are and if you defend my direct competitor that I want cut down to size then there will be adverse consequences".
I hope that The Scum suffers for this in terms of lost readers and lost advertisers.
The editor Stig Abel has a show on LBC every Sunday at 7am-10am wonder if he will take calls on this subject tomorrow if he is on.
Its got Murdochs prints all over it Stig is a former press regulator poacher turned gamekeeper.
As such he should know the press voluntary code signed up to by the scum says children which the current queen was at the time, are not fair game for reports of this kind.
I'm certain that put to a vote, the majority of people in this country would want the Queen
Far more important is why were Tony Blair (nearest we got to a President) expenses incinerated? Far more in the public interest than a 80 year old home movie.
...as opposed to a hardline presidential candidate supported by Rupert Murdoch and his press lackeys.
If he doesn't then he'll be quite rightly accused of censorship and if he does then he does go ahead then he'll probably be roasted alive on air. That said, LBC could pull Abel from that show this week and put in someone else instead, e.g. Andrew Pierce.
He took calls on this on his show this morning on LBC.
Sorry stigs show is from 8-10am tomorrow not 7am.
Andrew Pierce took a lot of uncomplimentary calls about the sun this morning though i do not suppose he minded being consultant editor of the mail in his day time job.
Though i cannot stand Pierces rag either.Be inetresting to see if stig takes the chair in the morning though i suspect he has his orders from Murdoch to go on and defend this so called story.
That item's probably being discussed by senior Global Radio (the parent company) management right now! If Abel does present it then I expect it to be quite lively (and popular!) although I think it's quite possible that he might be replaced tomorrow.
LBC is available online, on DAB and on Freeview/Yourview, Freesat, Sky and Virgin Media for anyone who wants to listen tomorrow.
No problem at all. If she wants to stand for office as President, I'd probably vote for her myself!
deleted
Perhaps that's exactly what Murdoch wants so that "the people" get to only vote for Murdoch's favourite and supported candidate for President of the United Kingdom.
Sounds like the people who may vote for any proposed future president.
Judging by the interviews i have seen when people are interviewed on the streets about thier views on politics many could not even get the current prime minister right.
Think he might well present he has had a stiff briefing no doubt not by Global but by Mr Murdoch.;-)
If he goes missing it would look very bad indeed both on Global and Stig himself.
He needs to be open to question on this.
1933 was way before the pact with the USSR. As I said, most of Hitler's early victims were his political opponents - those who openly opposed him, like the Communists.
They and other political enemies were the first inmates of the concentration camps.
Murdoch has wanted to bring down the Royal family for many a year, he pushes for stories on them as he has admitted to people they are good for circulation and it is known when Diana died he said over a drink that he was ""mourning the passing of a woman whose life had been a circulation bonanza" , he is an astute business man, he knows what sells but he has made no secret in his circle of wanting to be a part of bringing them down.