|
What Kind of Person Was Hitler? A Brief Analysis of the Primary Sources Part 6
Hitler according to Fritz Thyssen’s I Paid Hitler, Pub. Date 1941
This book is extremely fallible and very scathing, probably because it was published without Herr Thyssen’s complete knowledge as to the exact content of what was going to be published:
“Reves was also publisher of that other famous ‘source’ on early Nazi history, I Paid Hitler (London, 1943). Henry Ashby Turner, Jr. has pointed out in a paper in Vierteljahrsheft für Zeitgeshichte (No. 3, 1971) that the luckless Thyssen never even saw eight of the book’s nineteen chapters, while the rest were drafted in French” [D. Irving, Hitler’s War: Milennium Edition, p. xv]!
It might be worth noting here that there is only one known photo of Hitler and Thyssen in the same company, and it is the one on the cover of the book itself. The English edition translator for this book is listed as César Saerchinger. Furthermore, it was published by an anti-Nazi-Sozi Jewish propagandist named Emery Reves, who had been involved in the publication of Hermann Rauschning’s book of lies.
“The phony memoir was designed to incite public opinion in democratic countries, especially in the United States, in favor of war against Germany. The project was the brainchild of the pro-Communist [see John Lukacs, 1945: The Year Zero p. 194n.] Hungarian-born journalist Emery Reves—[who helped inflate Churchill’s war-mongering, hegemonistic ego]—who ran an influential anti-German press and propaganda agency in Paris during the 1930s. Haenel has also found evidence that a prominent British journalist named Henry Wickham-Steele helped to produce the memoir. Wickham-Steele was a right-hand man of Sir Robert Vansittart, perhaps the most vehemently anti-German figure in Britain” [M. Weber, “Rauschning's Phony ‘Conversations With Hitler’: An Update.” Journal of Historical Review, Vol.6; No. 4, 1985, p. 499].
In fact, Herr Thyssen probably did not even have sufficient standing with the Nazi-Sozi Party, to speak with much—if any—substantial authority at all. The small amount of positive information that can be extracted on Hitler’s behalf has been difficult to come by in this hate tract, but a sufficient amount has been posted here. Just something to keep in mind as you read.
“Hitler rearmed Germany to an incredible degree and at an unheard-of speed. The Great Powers [the Allies] closed their eyes to this fact… they took no measures to prevent Germany’s illegal rearmament” [Thyssen xxiv].
“… Adolf Hitler made a speech lasting about two and a half hours before the Industry Club of Düsseldorf. The speech made a deep impression on the assembled industrialists, and in consequence of this a number of large contributions flowed from the resources of heavy industry into the treasuries of the National Socialist party” [101].
Hitler was able to consolidate the interests of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie—something the Communists could not seem to do without monstrous tyranny and immeasurable resistance and bloodshed. Hitler was the unsurpassed mediator of his day, and that is what made him appealing to all three social classes.
“Next to him [Goering], Hitler is a model of virtue. When he became chancellor of the Reich he renounced the usual salary with a noble gesture. Never had his predecessors, Stresemann or Dr. Brüning, done as much!... It is true that he has not grown rich on public revenues. His whole fortune is due to his pen. Indeed, Hitler is a man of letters. He is, if not the most read, at least the most purchased, of all men of letters in the world. Mein Kampf has reached a sale of seven or eight million copies. … And marriages have increased a great deal in Germany since Hitler’s rule, although the Führer himself has remained a bachelor” [172-73].
Even though Hitler’s predominant ownership in the Völkischer Beobachter generated a great deal of revenue for him personally, he was not a greedy swine, like so many of our politicians are today. He never did accept the salary of the chancellorship, though he certainly could have done so, and he was very generous with his personal fortune. Moreover, Hitler invested in his own supporters and country, as opposed to foreign workers and countries, which speaks very highly of his allegiance to his people. He appreciated the little people, including the little old woman who provided a room for him in his younger years, according to his pilot Hans Baur. In addition, he earned his money by his own hard work.
“It is true that his needs are modest. He does not care for good food, he neither smokes nor drinks, and he has no mistress. … Hitler, like Goering, has a weakness for paintings. In truth, as he likes to say, if he had not entered politics he would have devoted his life to painting” [174].
This stands in opposition to the overwhelming amount of Jewish-scholarship that attempts to paint Hitler as some twisted, womanizing, masochist. What is most significant is that Thyssen had no reason to lie, as he clearly tried to paint as demonic a portrait as possible in this book. Also, it was published, and probably enhanced, by a Nazi-Sozi hating Jew (Emery Reves).
“As a matter of fact, National Socialism is not a political system. Rather, it is intended to be a philosophy and a system of morals—a Weltanschauung…” [198].
National Socialism cannot be labeled because its very essence defied definition. Hitler was neither a leftist, nor a rightist; neither a true socialist, nor a true conservative. His measures were his own, his values were uniquely his own, and his movement was literally a synthesis of two polar opposites: Völkisch Nationalism and Christianity. This is one of the reasons why Hitler had refused to be placed into a ‘category.’ He never wholly placated to the institutionally-minded religious Zealots or the alleged “Pagans.” I regret even using this term to describe any of the Nazi-Sozis, because it falls far short of being anything close to an accurate ‘label.’ A better substitute may be völkisch-minded Nazi-Sozis (i.e., Rosenberg, Ludecke, and Bormann).
“… Several years after his [Goering’s] coming to power he continued to have debts, and the personal intervention of Hitler was necessary to make him pay up” [171]. Hitler did not let his friends “off the hook.” They had to pay their debts just like any other German citizen.
Hitler according to Donald Day’s Onward Christian Soldiers, Orig. pub. Date 1944 (in Swedish), this edition 2002
“I try to follow Christ, and need the spiritual leadership of the church in this dark hour of my life. Most ministers are so busy stirring up hate for Hitler and sympathy for Churchill that they have no time for heart-broken mothers. Strange that Christ did not stir up a revolution against Caesar or establish the “four freedoms” [11].
“… To hear the Jews blame Hitler and the Nazi government for the persecution of Jews in Germany is ridiculous. Besides, it is not persecution, it is the retaliation of an outraged Christian nation” [105].
“Memel not only contained many Lithuanians, but there were also many Jews and communists in the town, enemies of Nazism. Despite this, Hitler stood up in an open car which passed slowly through the narrow streets. I stood on the sidewalk and was only six feet from him when the car passed” [139].
“… the head waiter… told me the Fuhrer had been stricken with influenza on his first sea journey and the doctors forbade his landing. But he was not dissuaded and although he had a high fever he spoke to the Memel-landers and after attending the luncheon returned to the warship and went to bed” [140].
Hitler was not the type of person who recoiled at the site of his opponents or enemies. He also made sure that he made every appointment, and tried to fulfill every promise he made to others, even if he was ill or delayed. Hans Baur makes a point of this trait of Hitler’s many times in Hitler at My Side.
Hitler according to Joseph Göbbels’ The Goebbels Diaries, Pub. Date 1948, Trans. and ed. by Louis Lochner
“The Fuehrer, too, expressed that viewpoint to him [Goering] as he has often expressed it to me. In this connection the Fuehrer declared that if his mother still lived, she would undoubtedly go to church today, and he could and would not hinder her…” [142].
“The Fuehrer has a low opinion of Von Schirach. Schirach has become “Viennaed.” He let the Vienna atmosphere infect him. He has not shown any political sense and is no grown-up Nazi. … Certainly the Fuehrer has nothing big in mind for him. … The Fuehrer would not like to see any more members of the nobility in important leadership positions of the Reich and the Party” [362-63]. Hitler felt ambivalent about the reliability and loyalty of most elites; therefore, he did not wish to fill the ranks with ‘blue bloods.’
“… the Fuehrer …. He is very much opposed to centralization in the Food Ministry and especially in the Ministry of the Interior. The policy of the Reich ought to be such that everything that must be done from the center should be centralized, but that everything that can be done locally should be decentralized” [365].
The idea that many people have with regards to Nazi-Sozi Germany being highly centralized and utterly totalitarian is completely false. This has been verified by many historians who have focused on Hitler’s economics, including Lawrence Birken in his book Hitler as Philosophe.
“The Fuehrer has no intention of following the Japanese procedure of court-martialing aviators shot down over German soil and having them executed. … I must see to it that, while we let our press mention the strong language employed by the Japanese and also more recently by the Italians, we do not suggest to the German public that we should indulge in similar practices” [367]. Not the hard-liners you thought?
“The Fuehrer spoke in glowing terms about the days ahead of us once the war is ended. Nothing will make him happier than to exchange his gray uniform for the brown, to visit theaters and movies again, and to go to the Wintergarten with me in the evening, or to drop in at the K.d.d.K. and be a human being among humans” [368]. I will let this passage stand alone.
“… He has not become a misanthrope; on the contrary, his old friends are more welcome to him today than ever, but his new collaborators just don’t enjoy his confidence and haven’t known how to work their way into his heart. All generals lie, he says. Are generals are faithless. All generals are opposed to National Socialism. All generals are reactionaries. While that is not true, he is nevertheless right in some respects. He just can’t stand them. They have disappointed him too often. They have no spiritual or cultural outlook and therefore there is no basis of understanding with the Fuehrer” [368].
“I am happy the Fuehrer has such a high opinion of Rommel. … The Fuehrer believes that our position in Tunis has become quite untenable…. One of the reasons for our collapse there is the fact that Mussolini got Rommel out of North Africa” [369].
“… Nevertheless the Fuehrer is not at all convinced that the Italians will stay put when the heaviest strain comes” [370].
“All peoples are human, and after four years of war nobody sees any fun in it. Personally, too, we are yearning for peace. The Fuehrer stressed this. He said he would be happy to have contact with artistic circles again, to go to the theater in the evening, and to visit the Artists’ Club” [477]. Hitler desired peace just as much, if not more so, than any of the so-called ‘Allies.’
“He does not believe that negotiations with Churchill would lead to any result as he [Churchill] is too deeply wedded to his hostile views and, besides, is guided by hatred and not by reason” [477].
“The Fuehrer continues to have the greatest admiration for the Japanese. They prepared everything secretly. We have now heard that Kurusu and Nomura negotiated in Washington without having the faintest idea as to what the Japanese war leaders were planning” [86].
I found a very pertinent quote in Goebbels’ diaries that deserves a place here, because it shows how distorted the Allied perception of Germany—and the war in general—had become.
Let this be a lesson for Americans, especially in light of the recent media trial of our Marines. Keep in mind, those kids are between a rock and a hard place, as they are being told to fight a war with their hands bound, and they are beginning to break under the strain of a prolonged, drawn-out war; a war in which there is clearly no end in sight. Imagine how you might respond in battle before condemning these brave young people who are regrettably being used as instruments of Imperialism and International Jewry—just as they were in World War II against Hitler—as opposed to the justified defenders of their own homeland. They belong on America’s borders and in her colleges, not in a desert of despair and chained to walls while they await trial. Inane! This is the same mistreatment that the Waffen-SS soldiers and generals underwent for fighting to defend their lives and their homelands, and it was not okay then; and it is not okay now. Americans had better wake up…
“American newspapers claim that Stalin has been preordained to save Christianity. What queer intellectual jumps the plutocratic spokesmen make in their present distress! Nothing is too nonsensical to be thought, said, printed, or written during this war” [92].
What troubles me most is the fact that ‘alleged’ historians portray Goebbels as ‘the world’s most skillful liar’ (as once espoused by the virulent and inane character known as Henry Seidel Canby). Goebbels was extremely intelligent, well-read, up-to-date on foreign papers and propaganda, and held a doctorate. He was not a vicious liar, but a skilled propagandist who knew that Europe needed good, honest, quality propaganda if she was going to hold fast as the Providential bulwark against Jewry’s devils (the Jewish-Bolshevik mass murderers who terrorized Russians into fighting on their godless side of the war), and the foolhardy Allies (Americans and Britons deceived by the Jews of London and New York). The Allied papers lied; Goebbels told the truth. Unfortunately for some… the truth hurts.
|