![Hitler vs Rothschild (Video Link In Content) [945x960 - 101KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/T9qWD2.jpg){kind=link}
how could he kill all of them? they had already fled well in advance. killing the one they captured would've accomplished literally nothing, but ransoming him back accomplished a good financial gain. the fact they caught one shows they did try to capture them. and he seized everything they had left behind. if you read accounts from the rothschilds they claim they have never really recovered financially from this event, others claim it took them until the 1960s to get back on their feet. either way, hitler had a negative impact on their lives and their level of control.
your argument is unrealistic and based on fantasy. the world isn't as simple as just killing the rothschilds and you win.
Obviously my argument is over simplified, but that doesn’t mean it was impossible to capture or kidnap more of them. And I never said he should kill all of them, just that he could have. And that capturing them clearly would have been the greatest beverage he could’ve gained.
he DID capture one of them and used him as leverage. obviously if he could've gotten more of them he would have.
How did he use him as leverage? Didn’t he seize the banks wealth before or after he captured him? So what else did he get by using him as leverage?
Seems like you know more about this then I do, so I’m curious why he could have only captured one of them? Like there wasn’t a single Rothschild in France or Belgium or Poland or Austria or anywhere else during all of ww2?
And even if that’s actually the case, it really seems like a few kidnaping missions by German spies or special ops around Europe wouldn’t have been impossible.
(post is archived)