The burning of the Reichstag - evidence?
Mar 29 2007 09:41
This has come up a couple of times in conversation, that the Nazis burned the Reichstag. This guy at work was telling me this the other day in relation to 9-11 conspiracies, and I said that no, a council communist burned it.
We have a bio of the guy and a text about the act:
http://libcom.org/history/lubbe-marinus-van-der-1911-1934
http://libcom.org/library/reichstag-fire-dutch-communism
But when asked for proof, I said that other council communists who were in groups with him and stuff all claimed he acted as he admitted - that he burned it in protest against Nazism, hoping that people would rise up. And that the claims he was a Nazi agent were just Communist propaganda. Is there anything else?
Mar 29 2007 10:40
#2
I would have thought things like Operation Northwoods and Pearl Harbour were more relevant to 9/11 conspiracism than the burning of the Reichstag!
I seem to recall that there were rumours in the Nazi government itself that Goring and / or Himmler were actually responsible and that van der Lubbe was either just in the wrong place at the wrong time or was a patsy manipulated by Nazis. His conviction was overturned in 1981, maybe the ruling says why.
Mar 29 2007 10:55
#3
Demogorgon303 wrote:
I would have thought things like Operation Northwoods and Pearl Harbour were more relevant to 9/11 conspiracism than the burning of the Reichstag!
and of course the strategy of tension
Demogorgon303 wrote:
His conviction was overturned in 1981, maybe the ruling says why.
wasn't that supposed mental instability?
Mar 29 2007 11:11
#4
No idea Joseph, just thought it might have something useful in it.
Franz Halder testified at the Nuremburg trials saying that Goring had admitted organising the fire. Goring denied it. Certainly the Nazis used covert means to justify their other actions. For example, it was planned that a detatchment of SS would dress as Czech soldiers and attack a German radio station in order to justify the invasion of Czechoslovakia.
I take it then you guys don't think 9/11 was an inside job?
Mar 29 2007 11:13
#5
Demogorgon303 wrote:
I take it then you guys don't think 9/11 was an inside job?
god don't tell me you do, do you??
Mar 29 2007 11:16
#6
John. wrote:
Demogorgon303 wrote:
I take it then you guys don't think 9/11 was an inside job?god don't tell me you do, do you??
so......???
Mar 29 2007 11:27
#7
Demogorgon303 wrote:
I take it then you guys don't think 9/11 was an inside job?
i think it's conceivable* but unproven, probably unprovable and ultimately irrelevant.
* i think a limited 'they let it happen' scenario is plausible, not the thousands of conspirators suggested by 'loose change' and that
Mar 29 2007 11:45
#8
demo wrote:
I would have thought things like Operation Northwoods and Pearl Harbour were more relevant...
why? Was Pearl Harbour an inside job?
Mar 29 2007 11:50
#9
john wrote:
demo wrote:
I would have thought things like Operation Northwoods and Pearl Harbour were more relevant...why? Was Pearl Harbour an inside job?
john, john, john, isn't it obvious that the US built an exact replica of the japanese fleet, and then thought they'd go an bomb their fleet stationed at pearl harbour.
Mar 29 2007 11:50
#10
iirc there's some evidence they were forewarned, put the fleet to sea and let it happen to justify entering the war. though i've heard that second hand and haven't looked into it. again, so what, newsflash 'state disregards the life of working class people'
Mar 29 2007 11:51
#11
sorry JK, I think BB's claim is a lot more plausible
Mar 29 2007 11:52
#12
it's true, i'm just a spook trying to throw you off the scent. my handler will be furious at my failings 
Mar 29 2007 11:58
#13
Joseph K. wrote:
iirc there's some evidence they were forewarned, put the fleet to sea and let it happen to justify entering the war. though i've heard that second hand and haven't looked into it. again, so what, newsflash 'state disregards the life of working class people'
Have you not watched the film, jesus man, i blame the motorcycle courier myself, infact i reckon it was an IWW conspiracy, before they formed the DIWU. A militant decided that he would take it upon himself (before clearing it with the GST), to provoke an imperialist war, by not delivering the mail on time. Believing that the IWW would be able to form IU's from the ashes (phoenix like), post war!
Mar 29 2007 12:00
#14
BB - seeing as you seem to be so up on these things...
Can you let me know if this Iranian capture of British sailors is also a conspiracy, because I have to tell you it does all seem a bit too much of a coincidence to me...
Mar 29 2007 12:00
#15
Depends what you mean by an inside job. I doubt the US state planned and executed the attack itself. Nor do I think cruise missiles were substituted for the plane that hit the pentagon, or that bombs were planted in the world trade centre, or anything like that.
But I'd say it's pretty certain they knew something was coming, given the fact they had all the attackers under surveillance by the FBI at the time, not to mention warning from several other intelligence agencies. Investigations at the time concerning Zacarias Moussaoui seem to have been purposefully obstructed by the FBI bureacracy. Mohammed Atta also seemed immune to all the normal procedures levelled against someone with his security profile being allowed to enter and leave the US at will, not to mention buying tickets despite having outstanding warrants. The same applies to many other hijackers. Much of what the hijackers did was done under their real names, demonstrating a rather amateurish approach.
Even the official record basically says they had enough info to crush the conspiracy and would have done if normal procedures had been followed, as some FBI agents tried to do. Of course, maybe Bush was right and the FBI had been hamstrung by all those damn liberals over the years. Or maybe they were just breathtakingly incompetent - although this seems a rather dangerous assumption for revolutionaries to make.
Personally, I think that in a similar vein to Pearl Harbour, they knew it was going to happen (if not necessarily the precise details but who knows) and simply allowed it to happen.
Mar 29 2007 12:07
#16
For some reason I always thought the Reichstag was burned by the nazis who then put the blame on the communists. Feel rather foolish after reading this. How true is it that the German left totally dropped the ball on stopping the nazis seizing power, thinking that they could make their move after the nazis fucked up?
Mar 29 2007 12:10
#17
john wrote:
BB - seeing as you seem to be so up on these things...Can you let me know if this Iranian capture of British sailors is also a conspiracy, because I have to tell you it does all seem a bit too much of a coincidence to me...
That'll be the house of hanover in conjunction with the iranians, trying to steer attention away from the fact that the third in line from the throne is currently peeling spuds in afghanistan. And not shooting folks, as he'd said he'd like to. They can be a bit protective, if you're a family member...
Mar 29 2007 12:11
#18
guydebordisdead wrote:
For some reason I always thought the Reichstag was burned by the nazis who then put the blame on the communists. Feel rather foolish after reading this. How true is it that the German left totally dropped the ball on stopping the nazis seizing power, thinking that they could make their move after the nazis fucked up?
I was properly annoyed with myself when i found out the truth, all that time buying into the communist party bullshit about him being mental, when infact he was a sincere council communist who got fucked over for a heroic but ultimately futile act.
Mar 29 2007 12:12
#19
guydebord wrote:
For some reason I always thought the Reichstag was burned by the nazis who then put the blame on the communists. Feel rather foolish after reading this.
I don't know why you feel foolish, I thought the consensus on the thread was that it's not really known who burned the Reichstag - is it (a) a communist, (b) a mad communist, (c) a mad communist told to do it by Himmler, (d) Himmler himself. The choice is yours...
Mar 29 2007 12:41
#20
well i know who i believe between council communists and the Communist Party.
Mar 29 2007 12:49
#21
I don't remember the evidence they showed us but from history at school I remember being given the distinct impression that he was too retarded to have done it himself. Wrong, it would seem?
Mar 29 2007 12:53
#22
magnifico wrote:
I don't remember the evidence they showed us but from history at school I remember being given the distinct impression that he was too retarded to have done it himself. Wrong, it would seem?
that's what was implying at my school but it seems like a crock of shit, I mean why would council communists lie about it?
the Nazi's might have killed his body but it was the Communist Party's lies denying his subjectivity that killed his soul.
The cunts!
Mar 29 2007 13:22
#23
revol68 wrote:
magnifico wrote:
I don't remember the evidence they showed us but from history at school I remember being given the distinct impression that he was too retarded to have done it himself. Wrong, it would seem?that's what was implying at my school but it seems like a crock of shit, I mean why would council communists lie about it?
You 2 obviously had more interesting history lessons than me!
Mar 29 2007 13:34
#24
guydebordisdead wrote:
For some reason I always thought the Reichstag was burned by the nazis who then put the blame on the communists. Feel rather foolish after reading this.
That does seem to be the standard belief. But as revol says if it's who do you believe, the CP or council communists, then I'll go with them.
Could there be direct personal knowledge here, i mean I can't remember his age but would Jan Appel have known people who knew him, and people on here know people who knew Jan...
Mar 29 2007 13:38
#25
Changing the subject slightly,it could be that the britsh sailors in Iran deliberately went into Iranian waters to stir things up.I am not saying that they just decided to do it spontaniously.Maybe they were following secret orders.
Mar 29 2007 13:43
#26
Big Jack McTussoch wrote:
Changing the subject slightly,it could be that the britsh sailors in Iran deliberately went into Iranian waters to stir things up.I am not saying that they just decided to do it spontaniously.Maybe they were following secret orders.
to be honest, it's beginning to look like the Iranians deliberately planned to put strain on Britain, a kind of 'alright then you up for this shit or not?'.
Mar 29 2007 13:45
#27
revol wrote:
to be honest, it's beginning to look like the Iranians deliberately planned to put strain on Britain, a kind of 'alright then you up for this shit or not?'.
how could you possibly know this? isn't the whole point that there is no possible way in which anyone can ever know?
Mar 29 2007 13:47
#28
Could people keep that discussion on our Iran thread? thanks. It takes us lots of time to split threads.
Mar 29 2007 13:57
#29
ok - sorry - but I can't find it? anyone?
dunno, but i do love it when 9-11 types bring that up, because the whole point of the reichstag fire is that it isn't really important who lit it