What Kind of Person Was Hitler?A Look at the Secondary Sources Part IV
Hitler according to Joachim Fest’s Hitler, Orig. Pub. Date 1973, this ed. 1974
According to Fest (1974), Hitler had ordered Himmler’s SS to investigate his lineage, but the results of the investigation into his past were almost completely fruitless. Fest has reaffirmed that “Adolf Hitler did not know who his grandfather was” (pp. 15-16). Furthermore, Adolf’s father, Alois Hitler, had taken the last name of Hitler in January, 1877 (p. 16).
Fest goes on to say, “[Hitler] made ‘no friends and pals’ at the Realschule. Nor was the situation any better at the home of… Frau Sekira, where for a time he boarded with five other schoolmates his age during the school week. He remained stiff, aloof, a stranger. One of the former boarders recalls: ‘None of the five other boys made friends with him. Whereas we schoolmates naturally called one another du [you, familiar], he addressed us as Sie [you, formal], and we also said Sie to him and did not even think there was anything odd about it’” (p. 19). Here again we can see that Hitler was the “loner” type, which is actually very, very common in America; especially today’s America. In fact, many authorities are beginning to become concerned with the loneliness of a huge and growing number of Americans, and with the fact that kids can relate better with their iPods and virtual world “My Space” than they can with other human beings. Hitler was not unnatural or odd simply based on the fact that he exhibited some of the characteristics of a “loner,” but most historians try and attempt to fit this into a greater ‘complex’ that he may have had. The truth is that no ‘complex’ existed in the first place. Not every human being is a “socialite,” especially when they have been raised in an environment of anomie, as Hitler had been. Hitler was, more or less, a little bit anti-social.
“Thanks to his mother’s adequate pension [after his father’s death], [Hitler] was in a position to suspend all plans for the future and to assume that appearance of privileged leisure which counted very heavily in his mind. He would take a daily stroll on the promenade. He regularly attended the local theater, joined the musical club, and became a member of the library run by the Association for Popular Education” (p. 21). So, even though Hitler had been a little bit spoiled by his mother, he still took the time to polish himself as an individual. He read voraciously and spent almost all of his free time attending operas and concerts with his best friend, a Czech, Gustl Kubizek. Also, according to Fest, “unoccupied as he was, everything preoccupied him. The world, he decided, must be ‘changed thoroughly and in all its parts.’ Until the late hours of the night, he sat feverishly over clumsy projects for the total rebuilding of the city of Linz. He drew sketches for theaters, mansions, museums, or for that bridge over the Danube which he triumphantly ordered built thirty-five years later on the basis of his own adolescent plans” (p. 22). What teenager actually spends the majority of his or her time pondering the future, or the fulfillment of great dreams and works? One would guess… very, very few.
Hitler spent his time reading and educating himself, studying history and architecture, and putting onto paper his dreams and visions. Remarkably, most historians ridicule him for this. I myself fail to see the humor in it, as I see teenagers in America throwing their lives away to methamphetamine abuse, AIDS, VD, abortion, street life, misery, depression, ‘My Space,’ and idleness, while sponging off their parents. Hitler was exceptional and he had a great mind and a good, solid moral foundation; thus, he is ridiculed by most historians, because he should have been out whoring, driving drunk and killing people, stealing from the neighbors, and getting high… am I right? Certainly American teens are much more stable, as we witness them tearing their teeth out because they’re flying high on meth, and have imagined that a great big bug just flew down their throat.
“In May 1905 Hitler went to Vienna for the first time. He stayed two weeks and was dazzled by the brilliance of the capital, by the splendor of Ringstrasse, which affected him ‘like magic from the Arabian nights,’ by the museums and, as he wrote on a postcard, by the ‘mighty majesty’ of the Opera. He went to the Burgtheater and attended performances of Tristan and The Flying Dutchman. ‘When the mighty waves of sound flooded through the room and the whine of the wind gave way before the fearful rush of billows of music, one feels sublimity,’ he wrote to Kubizek” (p. 23). Hitler really had an affinity for music and high forms of art, and attending the operas almost became an obsession for him. He would later reproduce his own great works of grandeur, as evidenced especially during the presentation of the Cathedral of Light, which was commissioned by Albert Speer; and, the numerous Hitler Youth and Nazi Party rallies. When one watches these demonstrations, one cannot help but notice the artistry behind these great events. There was always an element of grandeur associated with Nazism, and this probably would not have been the case without the person of Adolf Hitler. Hitler had even conceived of the idea of the Storm Trooper, which he had donned a new kind of soldier… a political soldier (Payne, p. 210).
Fest had accurately stated, “Historical circumstances had confined the Jews to specific roles and specific economic activities. These same circumstances had also bred in them a freedom from bias, an uncommon flexibility and mobility. … The type of personality the Jews had developed corresponded better to the urban, rationalistic style of the age. That, as much as they had thronged in the academic professions in disproportionate numbers, exerted a dominant influence upon the press, and controlled virtually all the major banks in Vienna and a considerable portion of local industry—produced in the Germans a sense of danger and of being overwhelmed. Generalized anxiety condensed into the change that the Jews were rootless, seditious, revolutionary, that nothing was sacred to them, that their ‘cold’ intellectuality was opposed to German ‘inwardness’ and German sentiment” (p. 28).
Hitler had clearly taken this view of Jewry, especially in light of the fact that most of these things were quite accurate, true, and observable, especially to the average youth, such as Hitler. A good majority of the filthy brothels were owned by Jews during the notorious Weimar regime. Church attendance amongst average Germans had plummeted to unprecedented lows, and gay sex bars and masturbation on stage became quite ‘normal’ forms of ‘entertainment.’ These observable Jewish-led social ills bothered Hitler to his core, and he set out early on to correct these problems that were leading his people down the path of their cultural and moral demise.
In fact, it is these same Jewish-instigated social ills, presented to the world via the Jewish Hollywood-American empire, that causes much anti-American and anti-female sentiment in the Muslim world. It probably cannot be ignored, the fact that Muslims overreact to this depravity by forcing their women into bags with eye-slits, but, one can certainly understand their paranoia. They do not want to see their women looking like trashy American filth… degrading themselves in the public sphere, as do the white Western trash-bags in America. One can certainly sympathize with these feelings, but one can also assert that average Western women do not expose themselves in such a Hollywoodesque and grotesque manner, in public. That being said, the image of the average wholesome American woman does not reach the Muslim world. They are usually exposed to the Jewish-Hollywood depiction of white Western women, and this depiction is usually anti-religious, anti-moral, overtly sexual, seductive, and smut-ridden.
Arguably, there is certainly room enough to say many more favorable things about Islamic society, in general, than modern-day American society. At least Muslim women do not have to choose work over having children and a healthy, happy little family; at least Muslim women do not have to be paraded around like public trophies for men to mock and attack [I have never heard a man say something nice—only derogatory and hateful things—about Pamela Lee and Paris Hilton, for instance; lest we forget that these two people are human beings and they do indeed have feelings, just as you and I]; at least Muslim women do not have to be the breadwinners, because their lazy, ignorant, alcoholic, uneducated, ‘high school dropout’ husbands are too busy driving around in their lifted F-250s hitting on 10-year-old girls walking home from school; at least Muslim women are valued for being women, as American men overwhelmingly prefer gay sex with men these days; lastly, at least Muslim women are overprotected by their husbands—better to be overprotected than left on the beach to die by a trash pile like Joran Vanderslut, or hacked up and sexually assaulted and tied in a plastic bag by some complete piece of human shit, like little Jessica Lunsford had been. Americans have absolutely nothing to be proud of any longer, as their society is riddled with human garbage worthy of the next dumpster.
According to Fest (1974), too, “Gods and heroes, gigantic aspirations, or horrendous superlatives stimulated [Hitler] and helped him to mask the banality of his circumstances [while at the Männerheim]. Indeed, Hitler had described his years at the Männerheim as, “sordid scenes of garbage, repulsive filth, and worse” (p. 55). ‘In music Richard Wagner brought him to bright flames,’ Hanisch [Hitler’s close friend at the time] writes clumsily but vividly. Hitler himself later claimed that as far back as this he began sketching his first plans for the reconstruction of Berlin. His bent for grandiose projects fits into this context. A job in the office of a construction company instantly awoke his old dreams of being an architect; and after a few experiments with model planes he already saw himself as the owner of a great airplane factory and ‘rich, very rich’” (p. 49).
Hitler had fulfilled his dreams of rebuilding much of Germany, as well as the famous Autobahns, but he failed to fulfill his alleged desire to be a rich man. He had lived a very modest existence, which is evidenced by such scurrilous personalities as that of Fritz Thyssen and Otto Dietrich. Hitler was one of very few leaders who actually took a very serious and personal interest in the welfare of the poor and less fortunate in his nation.
Fest had gone on to say that it was not Friedrich Nietzsche, or even Arthur Schopenhauer, who had really had an effect upon Hitler, but rather, Richard Wagner—the Master of Bayreuth. Wagner’s political writings had been regularly devoured by Hitler (p. 58), along with the “anti-Semitic” Deutsches Volksblatt (p. 49). In fact, there were quite a few striking similarities between the lives of Wagner and Hitler: both men had been uncertain as to their ancestry; both men had fled from military service [in Hitler’s case dismissible, because he had later volunteered to fight for the German military during WWI]; both men had exhibited hatred towards Jewry; and, both men had converted to vegetarianism (p. 51). What’s more, Wagner’s works had recurrently played out the theme of the outsider, “subject to his own laws,” challenging the rigidity of the traditional social order (Ibid.). This is, almost to the tee, what Hitler had actually accomplished in his lifetime as Führer of Germany.
Also, according to Fest (1974), Hitler had spoken of the “filthy trash from the East” [probably in reference to the caftan-wearing Ostjuden], the “swinish pack of parsons,” the “crippled dung art,” [comparable to modern ‘art,’ whereupon urinating on the Cross of Christ is considered ‘art’]; and, he had even referred to the Jew Winston Churchill as a “hopeless square-snout,” and Jewry as “this vilest sow’s brood that ought to be beaten to a pulp” (p. 57). His language regarding Jewry is very similar to that used by Martin Luther.
Hitler admitted that he had come to understand why the Chinese had surrounded themselves by the Great Wall: “He, too, was tempted ‘to wish for a gigantic wall to shield the new East against the Central Asiatic masses. In spite of all history, which teaches that a people’s vigor slackens off in a bulwarked area’” (p. 109). Hitler came to understand that when a country is surrounded by hostility on all sides—especially Jewish hostility bent on world revolution—as that of the Soviet Union at the time, it may not be such a bad idea to build a wall for protection. This is a hint for America, as even the Jews have their own wall in Israel. It might be worthy to add that the key difference is that Israel, unlike Germany and the U.S., is built on a lie (look into Great Jewtain’s ‘Balfour Declaration’).
Hitler had gone so far as to say, “I have learned a great deal from Marxism. I admit that without hesitation. Not from that boring social theory and materialist conception of history, not at all from that absurd nonsense… But I’ve learned from their methods. … National Socialism is what Marxism could have been had it freed itself from the absurd, artificial link with a democratic system” (Fest, p. 133). Hitler actually refused to take a fatalistic and deriding view of the ethnic Russians, even while he was at war with them. He had finally admitted, during the latter half of the war, that the Russians had proven themselves to be an incredibly strong and iron-willed people. And, as a matter of fact, he had even admitted that Germany could have worked with a Russian Communism or Marxism, but, not a Jewish Bolshevism (Lukacs, 1945, pp. 38-40).
Hitler had also stated, “From my twenty-second year on, I threw myself with special eagerness upon writings on military and political matters, and I never ceased my probing preoccupation with general world history” (p. 211). At least Hitler had taken the time to increase and expound upon his own worldview by reading about world history, as opposed to just European history, as well as, military and political issues. It is important that leaders understand, or at least attempt to understand, the ethos of other nations and peoples. It is also important for leaders to at least familiarize themselves with military and political issues, because oftentimes they serve as both leaders and military commanders, as in the case of the position of the American president.
Fest (1974) had also quoted Hermann Rauschning, the debunked liar. Rauschning had said of Hitler and National Socialism: “Hitler and the movements he led had no ideas, no systematic ideology; the Nazis merely exploited existing moods and trends that would help to swell their membership rolls” (p. 215). Well, we know that this statement is untrue, because Hitler did not merely blame the Jews for Germany’s problems, as even Fest has argued, in his own words, that Jews were running nearly all of the banks—at least in Vienna, they were dominating and overrepresented in the academic realm, and Jewish Communists—like Eisner and Luxembourg—had even raised mass chaos, terror, and slaughter within Germany (pp. 115-119). Hitler had at least perceived, if not completely believed, that Jewry was guilty of trying to control and Communize Germany. This is very evident when one reads his own words in Eckart’s Bolshevism from Moses to Lenin, or, in Wagener’s Hitler: Memoirs of a Confidant; therefore, he did not need to blame Jews out of political expediency. Indeed, modern historical enquiry has clearly exonerated Hitler from this accusation.
Fest (1974) has claimed that a joke, circulating during the 1930s, referred to National Socialism as “the World as Will without Idea.” And, Rauschning had even gone so far as to claim that Hitler “the opportunist,” had “respected nothing, feared nothing, believed in nothing, and broke the most solemn oaths with never a qualm” (p. 215). One cannot possibly take Rauschning seriously if one has actually read Otto Wagener’s memoirs, Otto Dietrich’s memoirs, Heinrich Hoffmann’s memoirs, Kurt Ludecke’s memoirs, Lawrence Birken’s Hitler as Philosophe, or Steigmann-Gall’s The Holy Reich. Of course Hitler believed in something, of course he had fears, of course he respected certain people and precepts, and lastly, of course he respected the majority of the oaths he had made. Hitler never reneged on his oath regarding the Church Struggle, as evidenced by Steigmann-Gall. Moreover, when he did break oaths, oftentimes it was in Christian’s and Jewry’s favor, as evidenced by both Richard Steigmann-Gall and Bryan Mark Rigg. Basically, one cannot trust anything stated by Rauschning, and even Jewish historians have dismissed his Voice of Destruction as mere propagandized nonsense (see Steigmann-Gall, pp. 28-29, Lukacs, pp. 101; 8, 79, 121; & Birken, p. 2).
According to Fest (1974), Mussolini had stated, “I admire you, Führer!”… ‘But the feeling was mutual. Little as Hitler was capable of undivided feelings in other respects, he manifested toward the Italian dictator a rarely candid, seemingly almost naïve liking, and preserved it through the many disappointments of later years. Mussolini was one of the few persons toward whom he did not show pettiness, calculation, or envy. A contributing factor was that both had come from simple circumstances” (p. 525).
Suffice it to say that Hitler and Mussolini were true friends, and the death of Mussolini was most horrific and shocking. In fact, the brutality of the circumstances of Il Duce’s death had instilled an incredible fear of death at the hands of the Soviets, in Hitler. He would take his own life, as opposed to falling into the hands of these horrific and brutal monsters who had so viciously murdered Mussolini and his mistress. Both were hanged upside down in public; their bodies were repeatedly beaten. What is most interesting is the fact that Mussolini’s death is played down while the recent burning deaths of American soldiers in Iraq, whose bodies were subsequently hanged and beaten in public by “terrorists®,” is frowned upon and denounced as the ultimate display of treachery, evil, malice, and raw hatred. Once again, we see duplicity in the American viewpoint.
Hitler had stated, in 1944, ‘How am I to call on the troops to undertake the battle for Berlin… if at the same moment I withdraw myself to safety!’ Fest (1974) has argued that he finally decided to “leave the decision to fate,” and indeed, he died amongst his people and soldiers in Berlin (p. 765). Hitler went down in the proper way, as the captain is never to abandon his sinking ship. Fest goes on, “… Hitler shouted that he had been betrayed. He cursed the army and spoke of corruption, weakness, lies. For years he had been surrounded by traitors and failures. He shook his fists furiously while he spoke; tears ran down his cheeks… This was the end, he said. He could no longer go on. … Those who wanted to could go south; he himself would stick it out in Berlin. He rejected the protests and pleas of those around him, who regained their capacity for speech only after Hitler fell silent in exhaustion” (p. 767). This is not an wholly dismissible argument, on Hitler’s part, as his people had proven themselves to be treacherous and weak in many ways. He had said, “I have been Europe’s last hope. She proved incapable of refashioning herself by means of voluntary reform” (Lukacs, 1945, p. 36). But, Hitler had accurately predicted that “The laws of both history and geography will compel [the United States and Russia] to a trial of strength [Cold War], either military or in the fields of economics and ideology [the Cold war encompassed all three of these precepts put forth by Hitler]. These same laws make it inevitable that both Powers should become enemies of Europe [which is just beginning to occur, although, Russia’s enemy status is debatable, since they have thrown off their Jewish Bolshevism]. And it is equally certain that both these Powers will sooner or later find it desirable to seek the support of the sole surviving great nation in Europe, the German people [which is also coming to pass, as Bush tries to bulldoze Merkel, and Putin tries to keep Bush away from Europe]” (p. 36). And, of America, Hitler had predicted that Americans would come to view Roosevelt as “an idol with feet of clay,” and that “Americans will either have become violently anti-Semitic or they will be devoured by Jewry” (p. 41). It appears that Americans have chosen the path of the latter proposition, as we sit idly by watching our American empire collapse under the Jewish Federal Reserve and illegal Mexican immigrant onslaught.
For instance, various atrocities in the East that were actually reported back to the Fuehrer were denounced and halted. Irving’s (2002) documentation includes such pieces of wartime evidence as Himmler’s handwritten order to Heydrich that there be “No annihilation of gypsies” (p. 551). He also cites Hitler’s October 1943 order forbidding the liquidation of Rome’s Jews (p. 451) and his intervention to halt mass shootings of Jews when he learned of the situation via Vice-Admiral Canaris. Hitler promptly reprimanded Himmler and warned that punishment would be enforced for any further “arbitrary and disobedient acts” (p. 456).
Furthermore, Steigmann-Gall (2003) has argued that Hitler was not informed during the climactic events of the Church Struggle, and several people lost their positions [were fired] as a result of their lack of accountability in reporting back to him, with regards to the situation and goings-on within the churches at the time (pp. 174-175). Jochen von Lang (1981) has argued that Hitler was not wholly aware of all the goings-on in the entire Reich as most might think (pp. 205, 239, 299, 304). For example, Martin Bormann had attempted to send a letter to Hitler’s Jewish cook, informing her that she was dismissed from her duties. Hitler rescinded her dismissal (p. 196). Also, Bryan Rigg (2002) has confirmed Bormann’s treachery with regards to the withholding [from Hitler] of Jewish clemency applications (pp. 224-225). In fact, the Party was granted the ultimate responsibility to review Jewish clemency applications before final submission to Hitler (p. 225). Moreover, according to von Lang (1981), Himmler had drafted a report on “The Final Solution for the Jewish Question in Europe,” in April 1943, whereupon Bormann demanded that Himmler remove the phrase “special treatment,” and the term “liquidation,” before he presented it to Hitler (p. 198).
Now, von Lang gives no citation for this allegation, but what is most revealing about it—if it is indeed accurate, which it may not be—is that Himmler and Bormann conspired to change the text in order to make the document ‘Fuehrer friendly.’ Von Lang attempts to argue that Hitler would have been affronted by such terminology, but that is not at all a plausible argument. If Hitler was capable of calling Jews a “sow’s brood worthy of being beaten to a pulp,” then surely he would not have been affronted by reading the phrase “special treatment.” It is more likely that Bormann ordered the doctoring of the text to prevent Hitler from knowing about some of the atrocities, like those documented by Irving (2002), that were being conducted without his orders, behind his back. Bormann had done a very similar thing behind Hitler’s back during the Church Struggle, whereupon he was forced to rescind his anti-church hate tract, and promptly reprimanded for his unwarranted actions (Hoffmann, pp. 130-131). But, even more convincing, is that von Lang has argued that Hitler never even read the report (p. 198). According to von Lang, Hitler did not wish to see the report, but it is more likely the case that Martin Bormann did not wish for Hitler to see the report (pp. 198-199). What’s more, Bormann actually prevented Schirach and others from approaching the Fuehrer with regards to this issue (p. 199).
According to Fest (1974), Hitler had said later, “Well, all right. Let Goering negotiate the surrender. If the war is lost anyhow, it doesn’t matter who does it” (p. 769). Hitler was not this irrational and nihilistic lunatic at the end of the war, otherwise he would not have made statements such as this.
Hitler according to Jochen von Lang’s The Secretary, Orig. pub. Date 1977, this ed. 1979
Von Lang (1981) has stated that the creation of the Werewolf, a secret partisan organization, can be attributed solely to Martin Bormann, and that it was “a total failure” (p. 313). Also, Bormann had issued a directive that called for total war, complete faith in victory, and absolute opposition to weaklings (Ibid.). However, this “pointless action” had resulted in the needless loss of thousands of lives, after the war had already been officially acknowledged as hopelessly lost, even in the eyes of the Fuehrer (Von Lang, pp. 312-313; Lukacs, 1945, p. 22, 24, 38). Hitler had already acknowledged that the war was lost, so attributing this order to him, as opposed to Bormann, would be folly. In addition, Bormann told his commissars that a secret weapon would be launched any day, and would turn the tide of the war in Germany’s favor, but, “no such weapon existed” (Von Lang, p. 313). In fact, Hitler had given up on the development of any such surface-to-air missiles very early on, as discussed in the DVD documentary Hitler In Color (Batty, 2005). He knew almost from the get-go that the outcome of the war would be up to the determination and steadfastness of the German soldiers and Waffen SS volunteers. Indeed, Hitler had remarked, “The German people is a young and strong people, a people with its future before it. Germany will rise again, and its people will live to know a glorious tomorrow” (Lukacs, p. 35). So, this idea that Hitler was a fatalistic nihilist who had willed the destruction of the German people remains unqualified, as evidenced by his own statements.
After Himmler had launched an unsuccessful campaign resulting in the bogging down of his divisions, Bormann had deridingly written to his wife, “Uncle Heinrich’s offensive did not work out, i.e., he did not properly organize it, and now his reserve divisions must be assigned someplace else” (Von Lang, p. 295). In fact, Himmler had been almost completely shunned by Bormann during the latter half of the war, and when word of Bormann misleading Hitler had reached him, he became uneasy (p. 282). Harald Turner had revealed, during a casual conversation, that Bormann had been misinforming Hitler and even lying to him (p. 282). Himmler had deemed this remark important enough to at least investigate (p. 283). Turner had even alleged that the friendship between Bormann and Hitler was “just for show,” meaning Bormann was using the position and the show of friendliness as a means to the acquisition of power upon Hitler’s death (pp. 282, 288, 294). Von Lang (1981) has even argued that Bormann had evolved into the true ruler of the Third Reich, while Hitler was ill with Parkinson’s Disease (Ch. “The Secret Ruler,” pp. 296-313).
Hitler had appointed Heinrich Lohse as Gauleiter of Schleswig-Holstein. Lohse had, “in an indignant letter,” protested against the persecution of Jews at the hands of the Einsatzgruppen detachments, comparing it to the Katyn Forest Massacre [committed by the Soviets]. Lohse had “always prided himself on having Hitler’s special confidence,” so, more than likely, when he fell ill with acute thrombosis, Bormann made sure that his letter never made it to Hitler (p. 252). Furthermore, on Hitler’s general orders, much like his general orders for the Church Struggle, “manipulated by Bormann,” he had organized an operation that would push a hundred thousand “‘Frenchies’ in a raidlike fashion across the border into unoccupied France” (p. 253). Hitler would not have deridingly referred to the Frenchmen as “Frenchies,” as he had respected the French. This directive was clearly manipulated—probably in more ways than one—by Martin Bormann, before it had reached its destination. According to von Lang (1981), Bormann had driven Bürckel to his death (p. 253). In fact, his wife had suspected that he may have been poisoned, but “the latest historical research” has postulated that he committed suicide after Bormann had ordered that he be supervised by a Bormann-appointed “watchdog” (Ibid.).
As an aside, Bormann had viewed Heydrich as a rival for Hitler’s favor, and “as head of the Security Service, [Heydrich] knew too much about the head of the Party Chancellery [Bormann]…” (p. 247). Heydrich’s death is still shrouded in mystery, so it is possible that Bormann had been involved in his death in some way.
“[Bormann and Eva] couldn’t stand each other… She distrusted him to the last day of her life” (p. 201). Once a person like Bormann acquires power, it is not so easy to remove them from power. Moreover, it’s not very easy to convince their confidants and comrades of their distrustfulness and malevolence, especially when their comrades and confidants have no incriminating proof or evidence upon which to discipline them. Hitler had never been given a convincing reason, or incriminating evidence, to dismiss Bormann from his service. He had always appeared to Hitler as the ideal secretary and the most loyal of people in his entourage. Furthermore, no one—including Heinrich Himmler—had the courage to speak out against Bormann in front of the Fuehrer (pp. 282-283, 295). Bormann was very good at presenting an aura of trustworthiness and honesty, but, most of the subsequent evidence has revealed that he was a dubious and dishonest character. It may not be unfounded to assert that Bormann had used his position under Hitler only in order to consolidate power and secure his own future as Party leader. Steigmann-Gall (2003) has even argued that Bormann was not necessarily anti-Christian, due to his own personal qualms with the faith, but rather, simply because he wished to outdo everyone else’s activities in the Party (p. 244-246). Bormann, not Hitler, had stated “National Socialist and Christian conceptions are incompatible… Christianity has inalterable foundations, which were established almost 2,000 years ago and which have stiffened into dogmas alien to reality (Steigmann-Gall, p. 218). This statement also exists in Bormann’s recorded table talks, in nearly verbatim language (Bormann, p. 145).
Lukacs (1997) has also confirmed that “… Bormann, in a party directive, included a sentence: ‘Christianity and National Socialism are not reconcilable.’ Hitler ordered the removal of that sentence and the instant cancellation of the directive” (History, p. 91). Indeed, Hitler had announced “Never in this life will I lead a Kulturkampf” (p. 90). He was not at all interested in the denunciation, or removal of Christianity, with regards to German life and nationhood. In fact, Archbishop von Galen had praised Hitler’s crusade against Russia and Bolshevism during a sermon delivered in August, 1941 (p. 91). In addition, Hitler ordered that no action be taken against von Galen, even though he had openly and publicly attacked the euthanasia practices of the government during a sermon [Hitler subsequently ended the entire euthanasia program, due to the obvious abuses] (p. 90). Furthermore, Hitler had always maintained that the Church Question, not the Faith Question, had to be resolved by him personally, and only upon war’s end (p. 91). Papen had declared “that the Third Reich was ‘the Christian countermovement to 1789’; that is the counterrevolution to the French Enlightenment” (p. 90).
Furthermore, it might be worthy to note that “… [Bürckel] found that Hitler had received almost no detailed information on the state of affairs in Bavaria: According to a report written by one of Bürckel ’s Saar officials, ‘Up until now the Führer was not informed of events.’ The Reich Church authorities had been acting with the general authority over church affairs provided by Hitler, without reporting back to him” (Steigmann-Gall, p. 175). So, during the climactic events of the Church Struggle, Hitler had not even been amply alerted of what was going on behind his back. This same dubiousness, on the part of Hitler’s adjutants and administrators, had also occurred during Kristallnacht, as evidenced by Ingrid Weckert’s Flashpoint.
“The Chief Public Prosecutor of the Berlin District Court opened a preliminary inquiry in 1959 against Bormann on suspicion of collaboration in the euthanasia operation, of the persecution of the Jews, and of multiple murders in the ‘scorched earth plan’” (Von Lang, p. 337).
“Once, when Goebbels sent a number of aerial photographs of devastated areas to the Reich Chancellery, Bormann returned them with the comment that the Fuehrer’s confidence should not be undermined by such pictures. The Gauleiters’ reports on the effects of the war also went straight from Bormann’s desk into a file cabinet” (p. 304). Hitler was rarely presented with the truth, and he was clearly being given false and misleading information for a good lot of the time by Bormann. The fact of the matter is “… the two functions now clearly revealed how strong and all-encompassing the power of the still virtually unknown official [Bormann] had grown by the second half of 1943” (Von Lang, p. 239).
Hitler according to John Lukacs The Hitler of History, Pub. date 1997
Lukacs (1997) has argued “Finally there was Bormann’s confidential instruction from the chancellery on 11 July 1943: ’The words ‘Final Solution’ must not be mentioned, not even the term ‘Special Treatment’; only references to Jews sent to work are allowed” (p. 193). Well, von Lang (1981) has cited a similar Bormann statement, referring to the three month prior draft of this same report, which was a small part of the written correspondence between Bormann and Himmler (p. 198).
The truth is most likely that Bormann and Himmler had conspired to rework the draft to make it fit for Hitler, whatever that may have meant. It is much more plausible to argue that Hitler was deceived with regards to this report. Himmler and Bormann had both had a record of defying Hitler by conducting business behind his back. Himmler had actually read what some of the conspirators had written with regards to a future ‘post-Hitler government’ [obviously for ideas], and he had secretly begun negotiations with the Allies behind Hitler’s back. Bormann’s record stands for itself, as he had lied and misinformed on a very consistent basis.
“Throughout the war, Hitler kept speaking of Jews being deported eastward to work. On 17 July 1941 to the Croat Kvaternik: ‘where the Jews are sent, to Siberia or Madagascar, is the same for him.’ As late as July 1942, he still talked to his circle about Madagascar—and about Siberia too. In 1944, Hitler asked Horthy for 100,000 Jews to work in German factories. Speer confirmed to Fleming that Hitler wanted Speer to gather Hungarian Jews for the construction of large underground factories in Germany. In March 1943, Dr. Korherr, a statistician working for the SS, was ordered by Himmler to prepare an exact statistical account of the number of Jews remaining in the East; this was then summarized and typed on a special typewriter for Hitler to read. According to Eichmann… Hitler saw it and then ordered it to be destroyed” (Lukacs, pp. 193-194).
This passage tells us a couple of important things about Hitler. First of all, it shows us that he was sincere in his efforts to put Jewry to work, and his idea of the ‘Special Treatment’ of Jewry could best be translated as their coerced deportation to the eastern region; firstly, for the war effort, secondly, for their subsequent and final deportation to a Great Ghetto, upon war’s end.
Secondly, it tells us that Hitler wanted them alive for the war effort, which stands in opposition to the notion that he was this ultra-fanatical lunatic who had been hell-bent on the mass murder of Jews at any cost. Had that been the case, his fanatical bent would not have allowed for the usage of hundreds-of-thousands of Jews and part-Jews for labor and military purposes [we’re talking about at least 250,000 Jews here, which is not a small number].
Thirdly, it shows us that Hitler had non-incriminating documents destroyed. This was simply a report that presented the numbers of Hungarian Jews for labor; it was not some ultra secret order depicting the numbers of Jews who had been “gassed.” So, it is true that the Nazis had destroyed documents, but not all of these documents, if any, had been of a diabolical nature. What’s more, even as secretive as the euthanasia program had supposedly been, the fact of the matter is, August von Galen and the German public had somehow found out about this ultra secret program, and von Galen was even allowed to publicly slam the program without Hitler’s retribution (p. 192). Lukacs (1997) has tried to steer around this problem, but he does a lousy job by trying to argue that Hitler had only put this particular ultra secret order in writing to get around the doctor’s ‘commitment to preserve life’ oath (p. 192). Therefore, Lukacs has argued, he was not compelled to put the “gassing” measures in writing, unlike the euthanasia measures. This is a fine assumption, based on pure speculation, but it deserves to be examined nonetheless. In fact, “the very word ‘Holocaust’ did not begin to appear in American (or English) usage until the late 1960s” (Lukacs, p. 177). This fact alone, especially in light of the “Allied” propaganda, and compulsory re-education campaigns against the Germans, should raise brows as to the legitimacy of the majority of the ‘Holocaust’-related accusations wielded against the Nazi-Sozis and Hitler.
“The Nuremberg Laws were meant to put an end to the agitation of the radical anti-Semites of the Party. Hitler expressly forbade further atrocities” (Lukacs, p. 181). Ingrid Weckert has similarly argued that Hitler was rather disgusted with the violent events of Kristallnacht in her book Flashpoint.
“Nolte made much of a letter by Chaim Weizmann [Jew], president of the World Zionist Organization, to Neville Chamberlain on 2 September 1939: ‘In this hour of supreme crisis… the Jews stand by Great Britain and will fight on the side of the democracies.’ Nolte: ‘This was something like a declaration of war… it might justify the consequential thesis that Hitler was allowed to treat the German Jews as prisoners of war and by these means to intern them’” (Lukacs, p. 180).
Lukacs (1997) has corrected Nolte, suggesting that this letter had actually been written prior to Hitler’s declaration of war, on August 29, which may suggest that Hitler’s intelligence had informed him of this world Jewish position, prior to his declaration of war on 1 September 1939. Furthermore, do not forget that International Judea had openly declared war on Hitler’s Germany, in 1933—via worldwide boycott, a.k.a. ‘sanctions’—and, that the Jew Theodore Kaufman had written the hate tract Germany Must Perish!, in 1941. Jews had also protested and boycotted in Germany (Brenner, pp. 57, 83), which is certainly nothing new. So, since the Jews had declared war on Germany, Hitler was more than allowed to intern them on suspicions of treason and as potential internal enemies of the state in a time of war.
The Scriptorium has mentioned more on this matter: Why did the Germans begin rounding up the Jews and interning them in the concentration camps to begin with? Contrary to popular myth, the Jews remained “free” inside Germany—albeit subject to laws which did restrict certain of their privileges—prior to the outbreak of World War II.
“Yet, the other little-known fact is that just before the war began, the leadership of the world Jewish community formally declared war on Germany—above and beyond the ongoing six-year-long economic boycott launched by the worldwide Jewish community when the Nazi Party came to power in 1933.
As a consequence of the formal declaration of war, the German authorities thus deemed Jews to be potential enemy agents.
Here’s the story behind the story: Chaim Weizmann[ ], president of both the international “Jewish Agency” and of the World Zionist Organization (and later Israel’s first president), told British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in a letter published in The London Times on September 6, 1939 that:
I wish to confirm, in the most explicit manner, the declarations which I and my colleagues have made during the last month, and especially in the last week, that the Jews stand by Great Britain and will fight on the side of the democracies. Our urgent desire is to give effect to these declarations [against Germany] [emphasis added by AHRS].
We wish to do so in a way entirely consonant with the general scheme of British action, and therefore would place ourselves, in matters big and small, under the coordinating direction of His Majesty’s Government. The Jewish Agency is ready to enter into immediate arrangements for utilizing Jewish manpower, technical ability, resources, etc”(The Scriptorium).
So, where Lukacs has corrected Nolte, he’s at fault for doing so, because Weizmann had been openly discussing this worldwide Jewish declaration of war against Hitler long before Hitler interned the Jews. There can be no doubt that Hitler had at least caught “rumor-type” wind of this, but, in all probability, his intelligence had already known about it, and began planning for it.
“Yet at the same time…, he spoke of his ‘unbreakable faith in the future of the German people.’ In March 1945, Speer was deeply shocked when Hitler [like American Union General William Tecumseh Sherman] ordered [Total War]… destruction of all factories, plants, bridges, and the like before the retreating German lines in the west. But Speer also recorded his impression that by the end of March Hitler no longer seemed to insist on that. What he insisted on, till the very end, was that the Allies wanted to destroy the German people” (Lukacs, pp. 203-204). Hitler appears to have been correct, as the subsequent “Allied” “holocaust©” propaganda being consistently churned out by the Jewish hate machine is actually causing Germans to commit a genocide against themselves. They have a national population that has actually descended into the negative, and naturally, if this trend continues, all white and Western people may as well surrender to the Mexicans, “terrorists©,” and other non-white foreigners, right now…why not?
The bottom line is, the Western world has got to stop apologizing for its God-given right to survival and self-determination, otherwise, Westerners will be the victims of genocide in the near future, and blaming Arabs and Mexicans for it will not help the situation any. Westerners have only themselves to blame for their current peril. Furthermore, it might not be a bad idea to adopt the vigilance exhibited by the Muslim world, as they certainly seem to get what they want with their protests and rioting. If Americans had rioted, or even protested, against the piss bottle with the Cross in it, I can assure you that that piece of art would have been pulled from the exhibit that day. Suffice it to say that leaders who can actually get whites to gather and exhibit solidarity are very rare indeed, especially since the coming of the age of the democratic tyrants (i.e., Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Reagan, Bush I and II). Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf: “To lead means to be able to move the masses” (Lukacs, p. 209).
“Hitler’s popularity among the German people, greatly reduced though it was since the heyday of 1940, was, given the conditions of the last war years, remarkable” (Lukacs, p. 219). He still remains incredibly popular, even in retrospect.
“And there was National Socialism in Germany, after 1933 incarnated by Hitler and the Third Reich, which proved to be so powerful that it took the unnatural and temporary alliance of Liberal Democracy and Russian Communism, of the English-speaking and the Russian empires, to defeat and conquer it. Neither side could do it alone” (Lukacs, p. 263). “Hitler’s idiom was German, but the thoughts and emotions to which he gave expression have a more universal currency” (p. 264).
Hitler’s movement, and especially his worldview, has the uncommon ability to transcend racial, cultural, and national lines. Perhaps the truth is that his movement remains so popular and interesting because of the fact that it was not evil, but rather, good. When one takes a glimpse of the democracies throughout the world, one sees a rather ugly, cruel, greed-ridden, and daunting picture of what democracy really means. What’s more, the “democracies” of the Middle East are the breeding grounds of Islamic terrorism.
Pakistan functions with a U.S.-backed democratic puppet government and at least millions, if not billions, in annual U.S.-taxpayer aid money. The terrorist organization Israeli Mossad functions with U.S.-taxpayer aid money, and probably also money illegally funneled to Israel via AIPAC. Egypt functions with an unpopular democratic regime backed by billions in U.S. aid money. Saudi Arabia functions under another democratic U.S.-backed and supported government, which oppresses Shi’ite “extremists,” known as Wahabbism. Great Britain is presently harboring “terrorists,” yet, it is a full-fledged democracy and allegedly committed to the ‘War on Terror’. Canada harbors Al Qaeda, and yet, it too is a full-fledged democracy. The United States, the supposed democratic model of the world, harbors Hezbollah and Al Qaeda, as discussed by Homeland Security head, the Jew, Michael Chertoff. Furthermore, Turkey is another “democracy,” and it, too, allows Muslims to riot against the West; it harbors “terrorists.” Why are we trying to make Afghanistan and Iraq into democracies again?
In closing, what is so inane is the fact that the Jewnited States of Internationalism wants to remove the one moderating and somewhat Western-inclined leader from power in the Middle East. We cannot stand for the removal of Ahmad. Furthermore, Hezbollah has proven itself to be far less radical and disrespectful of the rules of engagement than any other Muslim militia. We really ought to work with these people, as opposed to creating more “terrorist” breeding grounds.
References
Batty, D. (Producer). (2005). Hitler in Color. [DVD Motion Picture]. California: WEA International, Inc.
Brenner, L. (2002). 51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis. (Lenni Brenner, Ed.). New Jersey: Barricade Books, Inc.
Fest, J. (1974). Hitler. (Richard & Clara Winston, Trans.). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc. (Original work published 1973)
Hoffmann, H. (1955). Hitler Was My Friend. (Lt.-Col. R.H. Stevens, Trans.). London: Burke Publishing Company, Ltd.
Irving, D. (2002). Hitler’s War. London: Focal Point Publications.
Lang, J. V. (1979). The Secretary: Martin Bormann—The Man Who Manipulated Hitler. (Christa Armstrong & Peter White, Trans.). Ohio: Ohio University Press. (Original work published 1977)
Lukacs, J. (1998). The Hitler of History. New York: Vintage Books.
Lukacs, J. (1978). 1945: Year Zero. New York:Doubleday and Company, Inc.
Payne, R. (1995). The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler. New York: Barnes and Noble Books. (Original work published 1973)
Rigg, B.M. (2002). Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers: The Untold Story of Nazi Racial Laws and Men of Jewish Descent in the German Armed Forces. Kansas: University Press of Kansas.
Steigmann-Gall, R. (2003). The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Wagener, O. (1985). Hitler—Memoirs of a Confidant (Henry Ashby Turner, Jr. Ed.). (Ruth Hein, Trans.). London: Yale University Press. (Original work published 1978)
|