What Kind of Person Was Hitler?A Look at the Secondary Sources Part I
“… That is the moment in which we live! The National Socialist movement is the harbinger of the return to the will and mission of nature and the upholder of the socialist idea, as it corresponds to the Christian doctrine and the true religion, and it rejects all Jewish leadership. The reactionaries and the Jews are the enemies of the movement, and thus of the Volk. They think only of winning back—that is, salvaging—their power, of securing their control over the capital, and the suppression of the broad masses, keeping them poor and at forced labor. And both enjoy the complacent protection of the Christian churches, who see the ultimate success of their mass murders after Christ’s crucifixion and at the time of the Inquisition and the Thirty Years’ War threatened by the definitive victory of socialism, which calls for freedom of conscience! Woe if the forces of reaction should succeed in becoming our masters!” - Hitler quoted by Wagener, p. 319. Let this be the lesson for Americans. [emphasis added] Hitler told Wagener that Jewry could always be found amongst the reactionaries. Need I remind you that leading Neo-Con war-mongers include, but are not limited to:
Charles Krauthammer (Jew), Bill Kristol (Jew), Diane Feinstein (Jew-also supports Illegal Amnesty Bill), Barbara Boxer (Jew-also supports Illegal Amnesty Bill), Paul Wolfowitz (Jew), John Bolton (Jew), Joshua Bolten (Jew), Douglas Feith (Jew), David Horowitz (Jew), Michael Harrington (atheist), Dick Cheney (Zionist), Richard Perle (Jew), Eliot Abrams (Jew), Robert Kagan (Zionist), Frank Gaffney (Zionist), Ari Fleischer (Jew), Ken Mehlman (Jew), Jay Lefkowitz (Jew), David Frum (Jew), Brad Blakeman (Jew), Dov Zakheim (Jew), I. Lewis Libby (Jew), Adam Goldman (Jew), Chris Gersten (Jew), Mark D. Weinberg (Jew), Michael Chertoff (Jew), Ron Weiser (Jew), Daniel Kurtzer (Jew), Cliff Sobel (Jew), Stuart Bernstein (Jew), Nancy Brinker (Jew), Frank Lavin (Jew), Mel Sembler (Jew), Kenneth Duberstein (Jew), George Soros (Jew), Robert Rubin (Jew), Martin Feldstein (Jew), Eliot Engel (Jew), David Frum (Jew), John Deutch (Jew), Maurice Greenberg (Jew), Arlen Specter (Jew-also in favor of Illegal Amnesty and introduced Amnesty Bill into Congress), Richard Charles Albert Holbrooke (Jew), Warren Bruce Rudman (Jew), Leslie Gelb (Jew), and Martin Silverstein (Jew), Tevy Troy (Jew), and Jay Zeidman (Jew), John Miller (Jew), Blake Gottesman (Jew), Jack(ass) Abramoff (Jew; also jailed), and Noam Neusner (Jew). [Sources: Radio Islam and Jewish Virtual Hate Site].
Hitler according to Bryan Mark Rigg’s Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers, pub. Date 2002.
According to Rigg (2002), “Many historians assume that the Wehrmacht automatically excluded anyone of Jewish ancestry from serving between 1933 and 1945. Others believe that a small number may have fought in the Wehrmacht, but reject the ideas that this happened on a large scale and that any of them played a significant military role. All three of these assumptions are WRONG. … This book demonstrates that tens of thousands of men of Jewish descent served in the Wehrmacht during Hitler’s rule. Although the exact number of Mischlinge [Jews and partial Jews] cannot be determined, they probably numbered more than 150,000. That is both startling and important… Even more startling, this study demonstrates that Hitler played a direct role in permitting [Jews] to serve in the Wehrmacht. He even allowed some to become high-ranking officers. Generals, admirals, navy ship captains, fighter pilots, and many ordinary soldiers served with Hitler’s personal approval (Rigg, pp. I-2). [emphasis added]
So, why do historians, especially historians like the Jew Daniel Goldhagen, continue to condemn all Germans, when not even Hitler himself was the “Jew-hater” we have all been taught to believe that he was? Furthermore, why did not any of these Mischlinge know anything at all about an alleged Holocaust (“What Mischlinge Knew about the Holocaust,” pp. 247-266)? Sure they had heard “wild rumors,” but Hitler had acknowledged and addressed these “rumors,” as recorded by Martin Bormann and Otto Wagener (see Bormann, p. 87; see also Wagener’s Hitler-Memoirs of a Confidant).
Rigg has also stated, “Half-Jew Peter Gaupp said he knew about concentration camps, [which also existed in Alaska, U.S.; Japan; Britannia; and mainland, U.S., lest we forget] but not about the Holocaust…” (p. 259).
Not one of the Jews interviewed by Mr. Rigg knew anything of an alleged Holocaust in the East. The Germans, as well as Hitler, are innocent until their guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Immeasurable reasonable doubt still remains, so, the Jewish thesis of the alleged Holocaust is as good as nil, especially in light of the fact that their “key eyewitnesses” included such liars as: Primo Levi—who has diligently recorded that scarlet fever, cardiac diseases, pneumonia, peritonitis, typhus and diphtheria were rampant within camp confines (Levi, pp. 148, 151, 153, & 157); Rudolf Vrba—who lied on the witness stand during the Ernst Zündel Trial [in Canada] as documented by Mark Weber, M.A. of the IHR; Philip Müller—who claimed that Jews had sexual intercourse in the upright position one last time in the gas chambers, and who claimed that Moll tossed babies into “boiling vats of liquid human fat” being fire-extracted from emaciated corpses in mass graves (p. 142); but ironically, that Moll “treated and cared for prisoners” (p. 148); furthermore, camp conditions were growing more crowded, according to Müller, due to the increasing number of “new births” in Auschwitz (p. 149)—; Miklos Nyiszli who had stated, “We stayed in the Barracks 33 for three days, during which we had nothing to do [emphasis added]. Our food was not too bad and we were thus more or less able to recuperate from our three-week march” (p. 156), and that “the syphilis rate in the Gypsy camp was very high” (p. 32); and lastly, Olga Lengyel who had claimed that she was given hamburger and cookies (p. 85), and that “Malnutrition and epidemics brought as much as 30% of the total number of internees to us” (p. 121).
Well, if these statements are any indication as to how prisoners at Auschwitz and various other camps were treated, then suffice it to say, that camp life under Hitler was not at all as deplorable as it could have been. The evidence clearly shows us that the Germans did the best they could under the given conditions and circumstances of the war. Moreover, the Germans were not the ones who started the war or, who had fire-bombed the railways and infrastructure that was necessary to maintaining the quality of life in the German concentration camps. The Americans, Soviets, and British saw to that.
“Stella Goldschlag, a Jew[ess], helped the Gestapo hunt down hidden Jews in Berlin to deport to the East. She was a beautiful woman, with blue eyes and blonde hair. The Gestapo told her that they intended to declare her Aryan. Called the ‘blond poison,’ she was [personally] responsible for several, if not hundreds, of people’s deaths…” (Rigg, p. 258).
“The Jew Günther Abrahamsohn, another ‘catcher,’ as they were called, also helped the Gestapo locate Jews in hiding” (p. 258).
“Some [Jews] ran concentration camps. SS-Obersturmführer Fritz Scherwitz (real name Eleke Sirewiz), a Jew and Nazi Party member, controlled the concentration camp at Lenta outside of Riga and was [may have been] responsible for sending Jews to their deaths. [This is, in all probability, untrue, as Jews were not “sent to their deaths.” It is more likely that Scherwitz was unduly cruel and probably a negligent camp commandant; thus, many Jews may have died under his jurisdiction, due to the epidemics, deplorable camp conditions, malnutrition, etc.] Witnesses claimed that he personally took part in the killing of two hundred Jews in Riga [again, unlikely, but possible] on 31 October 1942 and raped several women. [This sounds truly absurd, and that is why “witnesses” must be heavily scrutinized.] … Scherwitz was brought to trial as a war criminal” (p. 258).
So, we can see here that Jews allegedly played a crucial role in the gathering and mass murder of their own blood-brethren. Also, some of these Jews were declared “war criminals,” and were subsequently tried and hanged during the Nuremberg Mass Murder Show Trial. In other words, the truly honorable Jews, who had done the right thing and who had served God, were tried and hanged for no reason. Yes, I guess that sounds about right when you live in an evil, twisted, and heinous world of lies and deception.
According to Rigg, “Milch, Killy, Eppinger, Goldschlag, Abrahamsohn, and Scherwitz” were all Jews who had maintained their high-rank status, and who had retained their extensive responsibility under Hitler (p. 258).
Rigg has noted that Raul Hilberg had historically indicted Reichskanzlei Dr. Leo Killy, because, according to Hilberg, he had “performed significant functions” with regards to the alleged destruction of Jewry under Hitler (p. 258). Rigg discusses the issue that, at the time, Killy should have shown more gratitude by helping other Jews who were experiencing the same hardships as he once had; especially in light of the assumption that he had only survived due to his clemency granted by Hitler, in 1936.
This is a nice thought and all, but it is an argument based on a fallacy; the assumption that the Holocaust occurred. One can never assume anything, unless that assumption has evolved into a factual account that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It is highly unlikely that Killy had any knowledge of an alleged Holocaust, let alone had intentionally damned Jews to their deaths.
“Even more detestable was the notorious doctor at Dachau, Dr. Hans Eppinger, a quarter-Jew, possibly a half-Jew, who performed horrible experiments on inmates. Like [the Jew] Milch, he not only knew about but also participated in evil medical studies” (p. 258).
Here again we have an argument based on an unproven assumption—that Nazi-Sozi doctors carried out “evil” experiments on a grand scale. This has not only remained unproven, but it certainly does not merit such harsh historical scrutiny as that of Mr. Rigg.
Let us just assume that these inmates were experimented on—how do we know that these inmates were not serial killers, mass murderers, pedophiles, and/or rapists? When a person has committed an atrocious crime, such as any one of the aforementioned crimes, they have voluntarily forfeited their right to life. So, if certain inmates really had been experimented on, how do we know that they were innocent and wonderful people? Are we to assume this, as well?
“When [Bormann] was with Hitler almost every day from 1942 to 1945, racial policies affecting Mischlinge became more restrictive” (Rigg, p. 222). So, the fact of the matter is that Hitler had not been nearly as restrictive or staunch in his thinking or policies regarding Jewry as some of his adjutants had been. To believe otherwise is to ignore the primary evidence.
“[Hitler] personally decided every case, and when he did consider someone for an exemption, it took him weeks, often months, to decide” (Rigg, p. 199). Hitler did not want to re-Judaize Germany, but, he also did not wish to be unduly harsh or cruel with Jewry; so, he was careful to take clemency exemptions very seriously, and that meant taking the time to earnestly scrutinize each and every individual applicant.
“One thing is for certain: when a Mischling was considered for clemency, Hitler knew about it” (p. 199). Again, he took his responsibility for the Reich, and the successful de-Jewification of the Reich, very seriously. He was not a duplicitous man who would deceive his people and install Jews right back into their former positions of power, which they had repeatedly and so audaciously abused—as in the cases of Rathenau and Eisner, for example—during the Weimar years.
“Hitler approved over 60% of quarter-Jewish applicants while approving only 10% of half-Jewish applicants from the Reichskanzlei files” (p. 194).
“Meyer’s wife, Margot, maintained, “We had heard that Hitler had said, ‘Who’s Jewish and not, I’ll decide.’” (p. 195). Hitler’s flexible definition of what constituted what a Jew was remained very important for many Mischlinge applicants, [for clemency] because their “Aryan looks” could get them exempted, even if they were full-Jew, or half-Jew.
“Government documents did not include those people Hitler exempted between 1933 and 1935, such as Field Marshal Milch or General Wilberg [the architect of the Blitzkrieg campaign over Poland]. Cases approved after 1944 were also not included. … These numbers total 306, and the majority were military officers. … This study’s evidence indicates that statistics from the RMI were off by almost 100 people in 1939. Hitler approved more people than previously believed. This was especially the case, since many Mischlinge who died in battle were posthumously granted the Deutschblütigkeitserklärung between January 1940 and September 1943” (p. 193).
“This list [of officers of special status compiled by the Wehrkreis VII Munich] counted 2, 269 officers who had received special permission to enter the Wehrmacht” (p. 192).
“[Gerhard] Engel described the tragic circumstances surrounding most of these cases [for ordinary soldier clemency]: ‘I noticed that Hitler didn’t like to hear this, but he promised he would look at each case.’ Indeed, Hitler did review thousands of ordinary soldiers, and perhaps his sympathy for them motivated him to grant some exemptions” (p. 189).
“Hitler did not want to be ‘ungrateful to those Mischlinge who had bled for Germany.’ He sanctioned a decree that allowed those killed in battle to receive the Deutschblütigkeitserklärung posthumously…” (p. 188).
Unlike the Jewish historians, who have described Hitler as an ungrateful Jew-hater, the truth has finally been carefully exposed by Mr. Rigg’s scrupulous study of the primary sources.
“Hitler sometimes granted exemptions for no apparent reason other than sympathy or “goodwill” and without distinction in the armed forces or party” (p. 189).
Hamann (2005) has carefully documented the numerous exemptions Hitler had made simply based on Winifred Wagner’s personal suggestions and pleas. Winnie had intervened on behalf of numerous Jews, but they never collectively thanked her for it. Instead, they [have] continued to demonize her, and some of her own children treated her like a demon before she passed away.
“The Arabs were declared ‘honorary Aryans’ because ‘the term anti-Semitic did not apply to them’ and because Nazism was strictly anti-Jewish and the Arabs were not Jewish” (p. 184).
In fact, Hitler had openly collaborated with both the Iraqis and the Arabs via al-Gailani and the Grand Mufti. He had also awarded Muslim SS members and Wehrmacht soldiers with tiny gold-plated Korans as a gesture of religious and cultural sensitivity (see Muñoz’s When the East Came West for the full account of Hitler’s volunteer Muslim SS soldiers, of various ethnicities).
Hitler ‘officially’ labeled the Japanese ‘honorary Aryans’ because they possessed Germanic qualities... Japanese residents of the Reich were not subject to the racial laws and they were allowed to intermarry with Aryans” (p. 184).
“When Hitler started writing and talking about the Jews in the early 1920s, he directed much of his hatred toward Eastern Jews and Jewish Communists. He believed the Jews killed Christ [which they did] and were the vermin [actually, parasite would be more applicable] of the world. He also hated Communists and felt that Communism was a Jewish movement [actually, in reality, Communism came to be identified as a Jewish movement, because Jews came to the forefront of Communist revolutions, organizations, parties, and regimes throughout Europe at the time]. He was present in Munich when Kurt Eisner [Jew], whom Hitler called ‘the international Jew,’ led his Socialist revolution from 1918 to 1919. Hitler felt that ‘Judeo-Bolsheviks’ like Eisner were responsible for and had profited from Germany’s defeat in World War I [which is at least partially accurate]. After half-Jew Count Anton Arco-Valley assassinated Eisner in February 1919, the Red Terror only intensified in Munich as the Reds tried to gain more power, under the leadership of people [Jews] such as the Russian Jew Eugen Leviné, whom [the Jewess] Rosa Luxemburg had sent to Munich from Berlin. As a witness to this [Jewish-led Communist] chaos in Bavaria, Hitler described it as being a ‘rule by the Jews.’ So, since Hitler felt that Communism was a Jewish movement and inherently dangerous, he directed his hatred toward the Jews” (p. 15).
The truth of the matter is: Hitler did not simply hate Jews for “no reason.” The Jewish-instigated and Jewish-led Red Terror in Russia and in Germany circa 1920 was crucial to the realization of Hitler’s anti-Jewish position.
Millions upon millions of Europeans and Americans shared this position against Communism, and millions of Europeans viewed Jews as Communist intriguers and instigators; so, Hitler was not alone in his beliefs about Jewry. The Jews had committed disastrous political mistakes in Europe and America, and the fruition and realization of anti-Judaism was the direct result of their own inane actions and policies. This has been the case throughout the many ages and serves as the single best explanation, for what the Jews have coined “anti-Semitism,” available to us. Hatred for Jewry dates back at least to the times of the Old Testament, as documented in the Bible stories of the Torah. The best example is the ousting of Moses and his “mixed multitude” from Egypt. Moses did not “free” his people; he was thrown out of the country.
Hitler according to Liddell Hart’s The German Generals Talk, Orig. pub. Date 1948, this edition unknown
“There was no ‘Battle of the Bulge’ such as the official commentators described so graphically at the time. It was a smooth run. The few counter-attacks against its flank were spasmodic and uncoordinated. … Hitler was justified by the issue, against all the judgment of his generals. Yet they were justified in their doubts on any basis of probability” (Liddell Hart, pp. 129 & 131).
“[After Hitler’s order to halt his forces, thus allowing the British to escape Dunkirk] He then astonished us by speaking with admiration of the British Empire, of the necessity for its existence, and of the civilization that Britain had brought into the world. He remarked, with a shrug of the shoulders, that the creation of its Empire had been achieved by means that were often harsh, but ‘where there is planning, there are shavings flying.’ He compared the British Empire with the Catholic Church—saying they were both essential elements of stability in the world. He said that all he wanted from Britain was that she should acknowledge Germany’s position on the Continent. The return of Germany’s lost colonies [as per the Versailles Death Warrant] would be desirable but not essential, and he would even offer to support Britain with troops if she should be involved in any difficulties anywhere. He remarked that the colonies were primarily a matter of prestige, since they could not be held in war, and few Germans could settle in the tropics” (p. 135).
This passage reveals Hitler’s highly understanding and negotiable attitude when it came to the demands of Great Britain. Why did Churchill want to destroy Hitler’s Germany? We will never come to definitive answers with regards to this pressing question, but, we can almost be assured—upon reading Churchill’s own memoirs—that the primary reasons were international and economic in scope. Great Britain was already a liberalized and Judaized waste bin by this time, so the unbending will to greed and international will to power that the British had acquired from their Jewish influences could not be quelled—not even by Hitler’s genuine overtures of peace. The true war-mongers and racists of the 1930s and 1940s were the British, the Americans, and the Jews.
“[Hitler] concluded by saying that his aim was to make peace with Britain on a basis that she would regard as compatible with her honor to accept” (p. 135).”
“When Hitler continued to keep on the brake, Blumentritt’s thoughts ran back to this conversation. He felt that the “halt” had been called for more than military reasons, and that it was part of a political scheme to make peace easier to reach. If the British army had been captured at Dunkirk, the British people might have felt that their honor had suffered a stain which they must wipe out. By letting it [the British army] escape Hitler hoped to conciliate them (p. 135).
“This conviction of Hitler’s deeper motive was confirmed by his strangely dilatory attitude over the subsequent plans for the invasion of England. ‘He showed little interest in the plans,’ Blumentritt said, ‘and made no effort to speed up the preparations. That was utterly different to his usual behavior.’ Before the invasion of Poland, of France, of Russia, he repeatedly spurred them on. But on this occasion he sat back” (p. 136).
“‘After my report,’ Student went on, ‘the plan was changed into the bigger one of capturing Gibraltar by an attack from the mainland. Eight divisions from France were to race through Spain. But this depended on the Spanish agreeing to let us through. Hitler did not want to take the risk of having to fight a way through Spain. He tried to persuade Franco, but Franco would not agree. The discussions went on for some time, but they proved fruitless. So the Gibraltar plan had to be dropped” (pp. 158-159).
In other words, Hitler did not simply bulldoze his way into other countries, thus “forcing” them into unwanted war, unlike the Israelis and Americans of today. Hitler was a much more negotiable and peace-ready strategist than most generals and commanders throughout Western history, and to act as though he wanted to dominate Europe—let alone the world—is completely absurd. Hitler was much more peace-ready than any one of the alleged “Allies” of the Second World War, and this repeatedly comes through when one takes the time to scrutinize the primary evidence, as Liddell Hart has done.
I will say that Franco proved to be quite ungrateful and selfish in this respect, because the Germans had helped him defeat Communism in Spain during their Civil War. Franco should have returned the favor of the Germans, but his obvious lack of foresight prevented him from doing so.
“The most definite piece of evidence in support of this lies in the fact that Hitler had originally ordered that the attack on Russia be completed by May 15th, whereas at the end of March the tentative date was deferred about a month, and then fixed for June 22nd” (pp. 168-169). Hitler was not the one who had blundered during the Russian campaign. Mussolini’s desire for a victory in Greece, and his subsequent defeat there led Hitler to help the Italians out of this undesirable situation. This, in turn, delayed the Russian offensive, which probably cost the Germans the war.
“[Rundstedt] told me: ‘Hitler insisted we must strike before Russia became too strong, and that she was much nearer striking than we had imagined. He provided us with information that she was planning to launch an offensive herself that same summer, of 1941…” (p. 171).
The most recent evidence being recovered from the Soviet archives supports Hitler’s position. Here is a related article. Here is a piece discussing Stalin’s desire to conquer all of Europe, which Hitler had believed to be quite true.
“I [Liddell Hart] asked the Field Marshal whether he had expected an Allied invasion of the West at any time prior to when it actually came. He replied: ‘I was surprised that you did not attempt an invasion in 1941 while our armies were advancing deep into Russia. But at that time I was myself on the Eastern front, and out of touch with the situation in the West. When I came there, and knew the situation better, I did not expect an early invasion, for I realized that your resources were not sufficient’” (p. 229).
In all probability, the “Allies” proceeded slowly and cautiously with an offensive in the West, in order to give the Germans ample time to strike Stalin’s armies a very heavy and debilitating blow. By allowing the Germans to continue to ardently fight on the Eastern front, it would mean a lesser chance that the British and Americans would have to confront the Soviet troops in near future. There really is no more compelling reason as to why the British and the Americans were so slow to begin their Western offensive. This serves to explain why—at least in part— it was so surprising to the Field Marshal that the “Allies” did not take advantage of the weakened German position in 1941. Why did not they launch their Western offensive when the Germans were preoccupied by the Soviets and potentially at their [defensively] weakest?
“The occupation [of Vichy France] took place without any great friction, and the only casualties were caused by partisans—whose activities were already becoming uncomfortable. Field Marshal von Rundstedt himself went on alone ahead of his troops in order to arrange at Vichy that the occupation should be carried out peacefully, so as to avoid useless losses to both sides. He succeeded in that purpose” (p. 230).
Contrary to popular belief, the Vichy Government of France worked quite readily, and reasonably well, with Hitler; without the use of arms or force. A great deal of the French population was intelligent enough to realize that working and coexisting with Hitler’s Germany was preferable to iron rule under Stalin’s Bolshevik-Communism, which Hungarian historian John Lukacs has so succinctly described in his book 1945: Year Zero. He described Hungary under Russian Communism as the worst possible form of rule that could be imagined and he fled to America not too long after the closure of the Second World War. Moreover, he described the Americans as immature, arrogant, opportunistic, and a huge disappointment—at least in Hungary and Eastern Europe.
“Hitler imagined that if he produced this second Dunkirk [via the Ardennes offensive], Britain would virtually drop out of the war, and he would have breathing space to hold up the Russians and produce a stalemate in the East” (p. 275).
Once again the war-mongering Churchill refused to recognize Hitler’s desire, and subsequent overture, for peace [toward Great Britain]. As a necessary aside, if Churchill and Roosevelt had really been true Christians, and had truly believed in the triumph of freedom and democracy in Europe, then they would not have shunned Hitler’s peace overtures and allowed Jewish-led Communism to enslave and mass murder millions upon millions of European peoples, especially those unfortunate enough to have lived in the East.
Eastern Europe and Russia still have not recovered from the multifaceted damage wrongfully bestowed upon them during WWII. America and Britain should both be absolutely ashamed of their duplicity and wretchedness. These two countries have caused more death and destruction than probably all other countries combined, throughout history. America and Britain are the only two nation-states who ought to be ashamed of their wretched, satanically-inspired pasts.
What’s more, these are the only two nation-states today who simply cannot seem to get along with anyone else in the world, and who are waging illegitimate wars—once again—in parts of the world that should not at all be considered within their “spheres of influence.” How dare America and Britain cause so much death and chaos in the Middle East; and then have the audacity to scream like little babies when they’re attacked by vengeful Muslims! How dare the Americans and Britons be so duplicitous, and remain unaccountable for their war crimes. Lastly, how dare the genocidal Jewish state of Israel launch a fire-bombing campaign upon an entire sovereign nation-state because two of their soldiers were “kidnapped.” What war game were the Jews playing at when they ordered these two “pawns” to cross that fine line? Well, according to Fox News contributor, the Jew Marc Ginsberg, the recent illegal war against Lebanon had already been on the shelf for at least a year. The Jews have always been genocidal war-mongers, and if they get attacked by an ever-increasing number of “terrorists,” so be it.
“‘After the fall of Tunis in May,’ Blumentritt said, ‘Hitler became increasingly anxious about the possibility of a landing in the south of France. In fact, that year Hitler was constantly on the jump—at one moment he expected an invasion in Norway, at another moment in Holland, then near the Somme, or Normandy and Brittany, in Portugal, Spain, in the Adriatic. His eyes were hopping all over the map’” (p. 230). … It was Hitler, however, who guessed that the Allied landings would come in Normandy. Blumentritt revealed this. …Hitler’s repeated warnings—‘Watch Normandy’” (p. 237).
Several of Hitler’s generals had disagreed that the “Allies” would land on the shores of Normandy, so Hitler certainly remained reserved for some time in this regard. He was almost certain that they would land in Normandy, but he remained open to the suggestions of his dissenting generals, who had ultimately proved to wrong in their beliefs that the “Allies” would land on the Pas de Calais. Irving (2002) has stated that Hitler had predicted the Allied landing in Normandy on 20 March 1944, but Rommel and Rundstedt had both disagreed with his prediction and had concentrated the bulk of their forces in the Pas de Calais (p. 800). It is very probable that these two generals had a great deal of influence upon Hitler’s decision to defer reinforcements away from Normandy, in favor of the Pas de Calais, at the last minute.
Hitler according to David Irving’s Hitler’s War, pub. Date 2002
“‘Yet the admiration of his strategic advisers was unimpaired. ‘Looking at the whole picture,’ General Jodl unashamedly told his interrogators, ‘I am convinced that he was a great military leader. Certainly no historian can say that Hannibal was a poor general just because ultimately Carthage was destroyed’” (Irving, p. 804).
It is very important that historians and researchers keep in mind that victory is not the only measure as to one’s greatness. Many human beings throughout history have been acknowledged as “great,” even though they faced defeat. A very good example of this is the case of France’s Napoleon. Furthermore, was Stalin “great” just because he was a “victor” in the Second World War? These are serious historical considerations to ponder.
“‘Our return was very timely,’ wrote Martin Bormann privately, on July 15. The Fuehrer has had to come here in person to stiffen the often shamefully weak-kneed attitude of the army’s officers’” (p. 698).
The Germans did prove to be a weak-willed people. Imagine if the Arab people in Lebanon and Gaza had been as weak-willed as the Germans had been during WWII? The Arab peoples in Gaza and Palestine would have ceased to exist many years ago, had that been the case. Moreover, imagine if the Vietnamese people had been as weak-willed as the Germans had been? Vietnam would have become another disgraced, Americanized satellite nation, which would have undoubtedly been used by American macrocorporations and fat-cat elitists, for their own greedy personal gain.
“[With regards to his treatment of Jewry] Of course people can say, ‘Yet, you couldn’t have got out of it… more humanely?’ My dear generals, we are fighting a battle of life and death. If our enemies are victorious in this struggle, the German people will be extirpated. The Bolsheviks will exterminate millions upon millions of our intellectuals [which they had indeed done in Eastern Europe, for years and years]. Those who escape the bullet in the nape of the neck will be deported [millions of Germans lost their homes, and Jews sought revenge against them by confiscating their wealth and homes after the war, as documented by the Jew, John Sack, in Eye for an Eye]. The children of the upper classes will be taken away [which they were, to America, as documented in Schmidt’s Hitler Boys in America] and got rid of. This entire bestiality [just like the recent Jewish bestiality in Lebanon] has been organized by Jews. Today incendiary and other bombs [the genuine Dresden Holocaust] are dropped on our cities [just as they were in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, and soon to come, Syria and Iran, if the Jewish maniacs and Bush the Terrible have their war-mongering way] although the enemy knows he is hitting just women and children. They are machine-gunning ordinary railroad trains, or farmers working in their fields. In one night a city like Hamburg we lost over forty thousand women and children, burned to death [read: Dresden Holocaust].
‘Kindness here as indeed anywhere else would be just about the greatest cruelty to our own people. If the Jews are going to hate me, then at least I want to take advantage of that hatred’” (p. 674).
So, I suppose Hitler was also lying about the deliberate targeting, on the part of the “Allies,” of women and children? Americans and Jews have always targeted civilians, as evidenced by the Dresden Holocaust, and the more recent Napalm and Agent Orange attacks on civilians in Vietnam, as well as the attacks on Iraqi civilian installations with White Phosphorous; and, do not forget the Jewish fire-bombing massacre at Qana in Lebanon. The Americans and Jews are the only rogue peoples in this world, and if they come under worldwide hellfire in future, it is not as though they have not earned every shred of it. Let us hope that our future rulers do not treat us like human waste, as we have so readily and exuberantly treated most other peoples of the world. For anyone to act as though America did not provoke what limited role Arabs did play in the 9/11 attacks is to lie to oneself. Stop murdering entire families and fire-bombing entire nation-states in the Middle East, and maybe so many people will not despise you and want to kill you, idiot. Too many Americans are ignorant fools, and the Israeli and Neo-con Jews are truly genocidal maniacs.
“More than once in private Hitler commended Stalin’s harsh leadership, for this alone had saved the Red Army from extinction. ‘If we cannot emulate their toughness and ruthlessness,’ he said, ‘we might as well give up the fight’” (p. 493).
Unlike Stalin, Hitler did not gun-down 30,000 of his military generals, even though he remained at odds with most of them. The true evil of WWII was the coffeehouse Jew, Josef Stalin [real name: Joe Jewison, a.k.a. Joseph David Djugashvili, which was a “typical Jewish name”] .
“Bock’s armies would still be stalled outside Moscow when winter set in, and Hitler’s illness bore the blame. ‘Today I still believe,’ Goering was to tell his captors, ‘that had Hitler’s original plan of genius not been diluted like that, the eastern campaign would have been decided by early 1942 at the latest’” (p. 429).
Hitler was indeed an incredible military commander and tactical genius, but his weak-willed and selfish generals would continue to deride him to save their own hides upon war’s end. Goering was one of the only followers of Hitler who had refused to lie about his Fuehrer, and who had not “sold out” to save his own skin [unlike such deceptive creatures as the late Albert Speer].
“And Mr. Roosevelt chuckles in gleeful anticipation of the day he will inherit Britain’s legacy [which America had indeed done]. [This has also been argued by historian John Lukacs in 1945: Year Zero.] I really cannot understand why the British won’t listen to the voice of reason. Now that we are expanding to the east, we have no need for their colonies” (p. 430).
“Hitler had asked Goebbels to come and see him on August 18. Apparently he was prompted by the growing Catholic clamor against the Nazi euthanasia program. This ‘covert liquidation of the mentally ill,’ as Goebbels frankly termed it in his diary, had proceeded without friction until now. … Early in July [ ] the Bishop of Munster, Count von Galen, had blown the lid off the scandal in a pastoral letter, and on the twenty-seventh he had instituted private criminal proceedings against persons unknown. For the Nazi Party and government alike it was acutely embarrassing: Hitler’s arbitrary 1939 law authorizing euthanasia had never been published.
“Bormann submitted to Hitler a memorandum on the desirability of executing the bishop for sedition. Goebbels supported Bormann, arguing that Galen had spiced his sermon with wholly unfounded charges. Hitler sagely disregarded Goebbels’s advice, but on August 24 he ordered the entire euthanasia operation shut down immediately. Hitler remained unaware [at the time] that Martin Bormann was already waging open war on the Church. … On July 30, 1941, Bormann personally circularized all the gauleiters, on Hitler’s orders, instructing them to refrain from any persecution of the religious communities, since this would only divide the nation which Hitler had so arduously united” (p. 431).
“But it was not until 1938 that Hitler was directly involved in any euthanasia decisions, and then it was in ‘mercy killing’ [ex., Terry Schiavo]. Bouhler’s chancellery had repeatedly submitted to him appeals from patients in intolerable pain, or from their doctors, asking Hitler to exercise the Head of State’s prerogative of mercy and permit the doctor to terminate the patient’s life without fear of criminal proceedings. When Hitler received such an appeal from parents of a malformed, blind, and imbecile boy born in Liepzig, he sent Dr. Brandt early in 1939 to examine the child, and he authorized the doctors to put him to sleep. A ministerial decree was eventually passed in August 1939 requiring all midwives to report the details of such deformed new-born babies; a panel of three assessors judged each case, and if all three agreed, the infant was procured from the parents either by deception or by compulsion and quietly put away” (p. 235).
The euthanasia program is one of the most misunderstood aspects of the Hitler years. Hitler never ordered that deformed and mentally retarded babies and adults be mass murdered. In fact, Irving (2002) has provided much primary evidence to the contrary. Furthermore, Otto Wagener had also discussed this issue with Hitler at length, and Wagener asserted that Hitler never would have ordered such heinous and rogue policies. He claimed that Hitler had always carefully considered every issue with the highest moral consideration and thoughtfulness. Also, Hitler felt that mothers would have to agree to the termination of the life of their child. It was up to the Gauleiters and doctors to implement his policies accordingly. Regrettably, this was not always done, and Hitler’s ‘mercy killing’ program, according to Irving (2002) resulted in the deaths of as many as “tens of thousands.” (p. 236). This sort of disobedience on the part of local leaders has occurred in countless countries, and countless governments, all throughout history. So, to act as though the Nazis were a special case is unjustifiable. Furthermore, the implication of Hitler in this regard is truly inane.
“Much had in fact happened that unsettled Hitler. … Hitler learnt that somebody had killed his old friend Pastor Bernhard Stempfle, an almost daily acquaintance of earlier years, who had helped edit the turgid pages of Mein Kampf for publication. … In later months, Viktor Lutze told anybody who would listen that the Fuehrer had originally only listed seven men; he had offered Röhm [who had plotted to assassinate Hitler] suicide, and when [he] declined this ‘offer’ Hitler had him shot too [resulting in eight men marked for death]. Hitler’s seven had become seventeen, and then eighty-two. ‘The Fuehrer was thus put in the embarrassing position of having to sanction all eighty-two killings afterward,’ wrote Lutze. Lutze put the blame squarely on Himmler and Goering (p. 31).
“In an act of rare magnanimity Hitler ordered state pensions provided for the next of kin of the people murdered in the Night of the Long Knives, as June 30, 1934 came to be known. Even so he began to suffer nightmares and could not sleep. His medical records reveal that stomach ailments began to plague him from this episode on;…” (p. 32).
The Night of the Long Knives is another episode in Nazi-Sozi history that is always misconstrued by Jewish historians and public school history books. Hitler never ordered the killings of eighty-two people. But, more importantly, Hitler cannot be held personally accountable for the vendettas of his adjutants, who evidently had their own personal lists of “enemies.” There is very little doubt that Röhm was plotting to at least overthrow—if not to assassinate—Hitler, so his murder was justifiable. Most historians have portrayed Röhm as an innocent man who was murdered because he was a homosexual. That cannot be proven, and the primary evidence serves to debunk that theory in its entirety, as a matter of fact.
Hitler according to Lawrence Birken’s Hitler as Philosophe: Remnants of the Enlightenment in National Socialism, pub. Date 1995
“The Italians were simply decadent, an exhausted people. But Hitler blamed his Italian ally for curtailing a truly “proletarian” war against colonialism. “Had we been on our own,” Hitler mused in his Political Testament, “we could have emancipated the Muslim countries dominated by France. Unhappily, “with our fortunes linked to those of the Italians, the pursuit of such a policy was impossible” (Birken, p. 91).
“Churchill was the real culprit, Hitler swore, the real betrayer of his people’s self-interest [which he indeed had been] and the gravedigger of their empire” (p. 91).
“Believing that the British were fellow Aryans and natural allies, [Hitler] had little desire to destroy them. Indeed, he was no doubt sincere in desiring to preserve an empire that had for so long excited his admiration. By no means was Hitler’s analysis of Britain’s eroding position in world affairs off base” (p. 90).
Indeed, Britain is a multiracial hodge-podge and a cultural cesspool to this day. The British have evolved into a grandiose nation of moral trash, in my opinion. And, even though they produce some of the best music, it nevertheless remains completely devoid of moral and ethical decency. Furthermore, they now have the single worst racial problem of any Western nation-state in the world today. I think they actually deserve it, as what they did to Hitler and Germany, in my expert opinion, remains unforgivable.
“It was only in the course of the war that Hitler soured on the British people themselves. … The “Jewish” characteristics of British life made it susceptible to the Jews after all. Indeed, his description of Britain seemed increasingly indistinguishable from that of the Jew” (p. 90).
“Against the dying internationalism of old Europe and the emerging globalism of the United States and the Soviet Union, Hitlerism sought to stabilize German nationalism for all eternity by giving it a foundation in the soil. Here, Hitler was warring as much against the rootless universalism of the Hapsburgs as against the coming globalism of some as yet unguessable “new world order” (p. 76).
Hitler went down primarily because of his revolutionary economic system that he had implemented in Europe, and because he did not wish to see Europe evolve into a Judaized, globalist, non-Christian, commercialized moral void. He had incredible foresight, and the treacherous and mundane world in which we live today is our punishment for being so damned foolish. When we all get scorched to our deaths via global warming, or when we are riddled with gang terror because we allowed the West to fall in 1945, I had better not hear or see any irresponsible “crybabies” blaming God for their dire situation.
“It was precisely the fact that Hitler’s racial ideas were so vague that allowed them to provide an underpinning for his political economy. To achieve national unity, he recognized that while some emphasis on race was necessary, too much would be counterproductive” (p. 58). I hope that this speaks to the ignorant white supremacists out there who still believe that Hitler was a “racist.” This remains one of the greatest of all fallacies regarding Hitler. The so-called “Neo-Nazis” are as indignant and foolish as Jewish supremacists. The only legitimate new-Nazi party is the NPD, and it is located in East Germany at this point in time. It is a legitimate political party, not a ridiculous supremacist group of thugs.
“[Hitler] thus told Otto Wagener that ‘we must accept the mixing of ‘German’ blood as it is. We must not call one ‘German’ blood worse than another’ lest the Volk be divided” (p. 58). So much for the “blond superman” theory; the superman clap-trap was arranged from the hodge-podge ponderings of the crack-pot theorist Houston Stewart Chamberlain, and the secular humanist nut-stick, Friedrich Nietzsche. Himmler was one of the only prominent race-preoccupied fools in the NSDAP; and, who had possibly taken these theories “to heart.” Hitler had denounced him as one of “those idiots,” who had reduced the sanctity of marriage to a “studbook” (Wagener, p. 225). Furthermore, Hitler had expressed respect for blacks, Slavs, and Jews (pp. 143, 168, 202, 205, 289).
“Hitler’s contention that his weltanschauung was the antithesis of economics must thus be severely qualified. In fact, political economy played an important role in his thinking. Thus he did not restore the primacy of the state after all but, quite the contrary, subordinated the state itself to a dynamic of aggressive technological and cultural expansion” (p. 54).
“While we have seen that Hitler believed that a certain kind of political economy could alone preserve the intrinsic or “racial” value of a people, he actually went even further by holding that the right type of economics could actually enhance that value. For Hitler, race value was diluted or strengthened according to the relationship between the two factors of production, land and labor. Since labor tended to outgrow the land that supported it, the race value of a people depended on the resolution of this disparity. To start with, Hitler noted, a people might limit births…. In the second place, Hitler considered emigration as a solution to the unfavorable land-to-labor ratio of a people—only to dismiss it immediately…. A third solution he advanced was “internal colonization”… Eventually a people might drift toward a fourth solution based on foreign trade by producing nonagricultural commodities in return for food” (p. 49).
Hitler was not this “land-grabbing” war-monger that we have been taught to believe, but rather, an intensive thinker and enlightened economist. His solutions to economic problems rarely called for the forcible conquering of neighboring territory, unlike the modern economic policy of the U.S., which conquers sovereign Middle Eastern territory in order to control oil output. Maybe Americans should try and walk or cycle to work.
“In this context, Hitlerism may be seen as a kind of latter-day Jacobinism. Like the Jacobins, Hitler understood that a war of national liberation required a reconciliation of the classes by invoking a martial ideology in which the nation replaced God. Like the Jacobins too he realized that class reconciliation depended on blunting economic polarization” (p. 41).
Although I do not wholly agree with this analysis, it still reveals much truth regarding Hitlerian ideology. Steigmann-Gall (2003) has compellingly argued that Hitler never wanted the Nazi-Sozi state to replace religion, so, Birken is incorrect with regards to the religious portion of his analysis.
“Jeffrey Herf, for example, approvingly endorsed Thomas Mann’s characterization of Nazism as a ‘mixture of… an affirmative stance toward progress combined with dreams of the past’” (p. 11).
Hitler’s precept of Positive Christianity was also a combination of progressive theology and Christian tradition. He was one of the few leaders in human history who was able to reconcile two opposing theses with overwhelming success on more than one occasion. In fact, Hitler combined numerous opposing ideologies while in power, and this explains a great deal of his overwhelming popularity across such diverse class and racial lines. Hitlerism succeeded where Marxism had repeatedly failed.
References
Birken, L. (1995). Hitler as Philosophe: Remnants of the Enlightenment in National Socialism. United States: Praeger Publishers.
Bormann, M. (2000). Hitler’s Table-Talk 1941-1944: His Private Conversations (Hugh Trevor-Roper, Ed.). (Norman Cameron & R.H. Stevens, Trans.). New York: Enigma Books. (Original work published 1953)
Hamann, B. (2005). Winifred Wagner: A Life at the Heart of Hitler’s Bayreuth. London: Granta Publications.
Irving, D. (2002). Hitler’s War. London: Focal Point Publications.
Lengyel, O. (1947). Five Chimneys: The Story of Auschwitz. (Paul P. Weiss & Clifford Coch, Trans.). New York: Ziff-Davis Publishing Company.
Levi, P. (1959). Survival in Auschwitz. (Giulio Einaudi, Trans.). New York: The Orion Press, Inc. (Original work published 1958)
Liddell Hart, B.H. (1948). The German Generals Talk. New York: William Morrow and Co.
Lukacs, J. (1978). Roosevelt Near Death. In J. Lukacs, 1945: Year Zero (pp. 81-107). Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc.
Müller, F. (1999). Eyewitness Auschwitz: Three Years in the Gas Chambers. (Susanne Flatauer, Trans.). Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, Publisher. (Original work published 1979)
Nyiszli, M. (1960). Eichmann’s Inferno: Auschwitz. (Tibere Kremer & Richard Seaver, Trans.). New York: Fawcett Publications, Inc.
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)
|