The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Full ArchivesKevin Barrett Podcasts
Historian Michael Hoffman Gets Hate Mail from Hitler Supporters
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Something Here
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

First hour: Michael Hoffman , author of the new book Adolf Hitler: Enemy of the German People, recently elicited over 600 comments with his Unz Review post mourning the victims of the firebomb holocaust of Dresden. (Read “The People Who Were Burned to Ashes on Ash Wednesday.”) A fair number of comments espoused a pro-Hitler position. The uproar continued as Hoffman received hate mail objecting to his strong disagreements with the neo-Nazi current.

In this interview Michael Hoffman explains: “I recognize that there are plenty of decent people who are confused, or have been spoonfed disinformation—and some of my fellow revisionists are partly responsible, though probably not consciously—that they can be led to believe that Hitler was…what’s circulating right now, the latest propaganda line to recruit people, is that Hitler was the savior of Europe, because had he not invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941, then Stalin would have rolled over Germany and taken possession of Europe. It’s a fairy tale…once you’ve been introduced to it, then you’re escorted to other aspects of the mythology about Hitler, which my book Adolf Hitler: Enemy of the German People (debunks)…”

(Republished from Truth Jihad by permission of author or representative)
• Category: History • Tags: Hitler, Nazi Germany, World War II 
Hide 134 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. God bless Dr Hoffman, a truth teller and may He preserve him from the nutters on all sides of our society.

    • Replies: @Angharad
    , @Wally
  2. As so often, people want to make reality into a fairy tale where there is the bad man or there is the good man — and Hitler must be assigned to one category or the other. If he’s not all bad, he must be all good.

    And as so often, neither extreme is accurate.

    Hitler was Hitler. His effect on Germany ultimately proved…unfortunate.

  3. anarchyst says:

    Of course, he will make excuses to preserve the demonization of Germany and Hitler. Without the demonization of Hitler, the whole “holocaust™” fable falls apart.
    Demonization of Hitler, and by inference Germany is the only thing that is keeping the “holocaust™ ” story alive.
    Hitler did forestall the takeover of Europe by bolshevik jews by keeping the Soviet Union “occupied” fighting Germany.
    Of course, bolshevik sympathizers, roosevelt and churchill “gave half of it away to stalin.
    Keep grasping at straws, jews. Your “holocaust™ ” is going DOWN.

  4. @Colin Wright

    Exactly. Hitler just. Was.

    If Germany hadn’t been in the dumps, if the industrialists hadn’t chosen to promote him, he’d have been a nobody; a commercial artist banging out advertising posters and given to rants in pubs.

    Or if he’d been born into a bit more money, maybe a serial real estate failure who can’t even make money with casinos and increasingly has to “front” an image of wealth, in a way that only impresses the less intelligent poor, and has to do so by borrowing from increasingly criminal entities.

    At least Hitler could give an entertaining speech. That’s probably what gave him an edge over Rohm.

  5. @anarchyst

    Er, wait, worldwide Bolshevik takeover is a bad thing? Look out your window sometime…

    • Replies: @Angharad
    , @animalogic
  6. I haven’t read the Hoffman book, and perhaps I would be pleasantly surprised if I did, but the cover blurb at least does not make it sound very appealing:

    Revisionist scholar Michael Hoffman revises the revisionists with this new chronicle of the unprecedented disasters Adolf Hitler needlessly brought down upon the heads of the German people, and countless others.

    Excavating Hitler’s occult initiation, his Nazi ideology of self-worship, and his first high profile bloodshed — the murders of his own colleagues — the culmination of Hoffman’s thesis is his review of Hitler’s invasion of Soviet Russia, demonstrating that it had no chance of victory, and was in fact a mass suicide operation by a reckless, apocalyptic gambler who saw himself transcending the fate of the burned, beaten and prostrate German people as he was transfigured into the presiding spirit of Götterdämmerung, the final act of Wagnerian legend.

    • Replies: @UncommonGround
  7. apollonian says: • Website

    I sent below-copied to Hoffman’s comments section on his own blog on the subject for 20 Feb, https://revisionistreview.blogspot.c…y-counter.html , but of course, the coward wouldn’t print it, ho ho ho ho.


    * * * * * * * * * * * *

    Hoffman, Moralistic, Heretic, And Hypocrite Above Everything Else–Eminently Contemptible
    (Apollonian, 20 Feb 20)

    Hoffman: reason people rightly and understandably hate u and ur moralistic sort is u’re so obviously self-righteous, pretentious, and unctuous for ur putrid moralism–and u’re Pelagian heretic as u pretend to “good-evil,” which doesn’t and couldn’t exist within a perfectly determinist reality (absolute cause-effect, no perfectly “free” human will) created by a perfect and all-powerful God.

    For “morality” is simply logic btwn ends and means, that’s all, and there’s no mystery to it–no idiotic “good-evil.” Long as means serve ends, then it’s logical and hence, “moral,” and ultimate end(s) could be anything at all according to individual choice. Even Jews, foremost Satanists, aren’t “evil”–no more than a disease which afflicts over-populated gentile humanity who succumb to such debilitating moralistic hubris as urs. In ur blinding hubris u can’t see u’re very picture of the very problem afflicting Western civilization.

    And u’re really not a “historian,” so much as u’re the typical, tiresome moralist, that’s all. So u’re additionally held in contempt as poseur and charlatan. We KNOW u know nothing about economics or money and banking, given ur amazing confession and display of such ignorance in “Usury in Christendom…,” and u don’t even seem to grasp the real meaning of “usury.” U don’t even understand the great difference btwn real money and mere currency. All u really want is that pretext for moralism–that’s what u’re all about.

    So what u’ve obviously done is (a) offending the Jews who are typically outraged that u presume to analyze their satanic “religion” of lies, lying, and liars, such as it is, a blatant, naked stratagem of hatred and war against gentiles and humanity–this, in addition to ur “revisionist” rejection of holohoax.

    And now (b) we see u seem to try to compensating for ur “anti-Semitism” (according to Jews, of course) by ur latest lies and lying regarding our dear hero and saint, unc’ Adolf, whom u cannot grasp was humble man of the people who attempted, in perilous times of defeat of his nation’s military forces, to rallying the German volk against that Jew/Bolshevik military colossus of the east who’d engineered in full view of the world at least a couple of gross mass-murders in Russia and Ukraine. Fool as u are, u pretend, in ur usual moralist manner to say what unc’ Adolf SHOULD have done, when Judaic Satanism was clearly triumphant and on the march against all humanity.

    What makes u so contemptible is, while pretending to be “scholar,” ur half-baked incomprehension of Judaism as outright Satanism, which is extreme subjectivism, idea that reality is product of mind/consciousness, making the subject to be God, the creator, and the Jews foremost leaders of this Satanism as they’re COLLECTIVIST subjectivists, most cohesive, organized, and motivated, naturally leading the goyim Satanists/subjectivists who are relatively isolated and “individualistic,” though these goyim vastly out-numbering Jews.

    Thus u’re actually quite a subjectivist urself, pretending to the non-existent “good-evil” and Pelagian hereticalism, but typical half-baked incompetent as u are, u’re stuck in the purest hubris without having either intelligence or initiative to graduate to fullest, outright Satanism urself, though u’re subject to it in all ur ignorant stupidity and hubris–which then impels u to ur gross lying about unc’ Adolf, Germany, and the German people.

    So it isn’t any wonder u’re held in such overwhelming contempt in ur cowardly striving to play-up to those satanic Jew monsters, slandering dear unc’ Adolf in all ur incompetence and ignorance, and u’re further hated, justly and rightly, for ur brainless lies and lying in this cowardly sucking-up to Jew psychopaths and murderers. U don’t even seem to realize how u’re plainly seen to be sympathizing w. Jew Satanists, u’re soooo filled w. that blinding hubris of urs, imagining u’re such “moral” paragon and leader–u just stink to high heaven, sucker, and u can’t face that other people see it and smell it.

  8. Realtalk says:

    Don’t get taken in by Hoffman, friends. Guy seems like he’s making sense for a few sentences then veers into utter schizobabble about the grand schemes of the Satan-worshipping rabbis. Psychiatric case.

  9. jsigur says:

    God bless Adolph Hitler; most deep historians prefer to line up with the NWO here. Notice that Hoffman basically said the holocaust happened. It seems their careers are more important than truth on these subjects

    Hoffman’s basically here to reassure fence sitters that you can trust Jew news

  10. lloyd says: • Website

    Dr Hofman denied he is a Jew to members of the Nation of Islam. They assumed he was and he was impressed with their lack of prejudice about it. To get back to the amusing lunacy of the double ending consonant. He is Hofman not Hofmann. He really belongs to the Hitler hating Germans who lament German history from the middle of the twentieth century.

    • Replies: @Billy Thistle
  11. @alex in San Jose AKA Digital Detroit

    ‘Exactly. Hitler just. Was.

    ‘If Germany hadn’t been in the dumps, if the industrialists hadn’t chosen to promote him, he’d have been a nobody; a commercial artist banging out advertising posters and given to rants in pubs.

    ‘Or if he’d been born into a bit more money, maybe a serial real estate failure who can’t even make money with casinos and increasingly has to “front” an image of wealth, in a way that only impresses the less intelligent poor, and has to do so by borrowing from increasingly criminal entities.’

    Quite likely under other circumstances Hitler never would have amounted to much; but to be fair to the man, most of those who came into contact with him — including his mother’s Jewish doctor — found him to be a striking and impressive individual. He had a remarkable ability to command the loyalty of those who came to know him. Even as a refugee in New York City during World War Two the Jewish doctor — for example — refused to cooperate with efforts to get him to vilify Hitler.

  12. Since we’ve been taught all our lives to hate Hitler as the worst man who ever lived, and then to find out through revisionist historians that he tried to make peace with England several times but was always rebuffed, that there was no “Final Solution”, no gas chambers, the obvious conclusion is, Hey, maybe he wasn’t as bad as depicted, what other lies have been told about him?
    About Russia. Maybe Stalin wasn’t about to attack, as some historians claim, but Hitler knew that Churchill and Roosevelt were scheming with Stalin to get into the war eventually, and, a war on two fronts the last thing Hitler wanted, he gambled on taking Russia out first, a strategic blunder that cost him the war.
    Was Hitler so bad for Germany? Germans worshiped him. What his National Socialists accomplished during the ’30’s was known throughout Europe as the German Miracle. So Germany had to be destroyed, for the same reason it had to be destroyed in WW1.

  13. @John Regan

    As I wrote some time ago, the head of the German marine was shocked when WWII begun because he knew that the German marine could not prevail against the British. As time went by, it became clear that Germany could not contain the war, could not defeat Britain or make peace with the UK simply because the British didn’t want peace. They wanted to defeat Germany.

    Germans were not completely stupid and knew what had happened with WWI: that the United States would eventually enter the war and this would be definitively the end. Possibly the Soviet Union would also enter the war as they eventually would do against Japan in the very last days of the war, it is also possible that Germans counted with an early entry of the Soviet Union in the war. After all, Germany had defeated Russia in WWI. This time the Soviet Union had a good opportunity to fight against Germany and to win the war. At that time, Germany was invading countries only in order to prevent the British from using them against Germany, like in the case of Norway when Hitler was persuaded that an occupation of Norway was a military necessity. Things were going very bad at that time, they had already got out of control. Maybe the invasion of the Soviet Union was a desperate action – this is my speculation. Germany had defeated easily all countries on the continent. If Germany could also defeat the Soviet Union, maybe it would have a better chance of negotiating with Churchill. The decisive countries were England and the US. Hitler could not defeat England and had to try anything before the US entered the war. But of course, the cure was worse than the disease.

    At the end almost nobody won anything. Russia got German lands. That was all. For that there had to be dozens of millions of dead people in all involved countries, Germany had to be completely destroyed and devastated. It would have been better if either Germany had been defeated already in 1941 or if countries had stoped the war and tried a negotiated end.

    • Replies: @Kratoklastes
  14. Thomasina says:
    @fool's paradise

    “What other lies have we been told?” Exactly.

    The more I hear and read about Germany and the forces that were acting against it, the more I feel ashamed for ever opening my mouth about the evil Hitler, for laughing at the antics of Hogan’s Heroes on T.V. (and every other show that put Germans in a bad light), and for looking down at my German neighbors. I am just ashamed and wish I could take it back.

    I feel nothing but contempt for those who have lied to us.

    And the continued cover-up and stifling of free speech in order that the truth never reaches the majority is pure evil. The jailing of revisionist historians makes my blood boil.

  15. KenH says:

    I don’t believe Michael Hoffman is as objective as he purports to be regarding the subject of Adolf Hitler. For one I think Hitler’s broadsides against Christianity rub Hoffman the wrong way and he also might be trying to get back in the good graces of Amazon who has banned some of his books but curiously not this one.

    In Hitler: Enemy of the German People Hoffman seems to stray too far in one direction and goes the extra mile and then some to dig up dirt on Hitler. He also seems to rely only on sources that bolster his anti-Hitler thesis while glossing over or straw manning those works that might contradict it. This has the whiff of agenda driven history instead of a balanced account that you find in the works of David Irving and say, John Toland.

    My foregoing opinion of the book is based on one of Hoffman’s Revisionist History newsletters that aimed to deconstruct Adolf Hitler and I’m assuming the book is just a much longer version of what was published in the newsletter.

    I know many want to write Hoffman off over the book and I’m not happy about his “treason” in the revisionist history community and question whether this book was written in good faith or with some other ulterior motive. But we shouldn’t be like radical leftists and symbolically burn someone at the stake if they deviate from the script. We should just take it for what it’s worth and agree to disagree and use our vanishing 1st amendment rights to pen rebuttals based on facts.

    • Agree: Kratoklastes
  16. fnn says:
    @alex in San Jose AKA Digital Detroit

    …, if the industrialists hadn’t chosen to promote him…

    It doesn’t seem like there’s much evidence for that:

  17. Hart says:

    Ellen Brown:

    Thinking Outside The Box: How a Bankrupt Germany Solved Its Infrastructure Problems

    • Agree: fool's paradise
  18. @alex in San Jose AKA Digital Detroit

    If Germany hadn’t been in the dumps, if the industrialists hadn’t chosen to promote him, he’d have been a nobody; a commercial artist banging out advertising posters and given to rants in pubs.

    If Wilson had not finagled US entry into WWI, #ShoutyManBad would have struggled to build an audience.

    No US Entry -> No Versailles Treaty -> No punitive reparations -> No Weimar attempt to monetise debt -> no hyperinflation -> no widespread economic despair for dissidents to exploit.

    People forget that incarceration for the beer hall putsch was an important factor in #ShoutyMan’s rise in popularity: he had made his bones and showed he had skin in the game. And the Beer Hall Putsch was explicitly driven by economic conditions and the fact that Weimar was imposed by the Allies.

    Without the US entry into WWI, none of that would have happened: there would have been a negotiated settlement in mid-1917 at the latest; the negotiations would not have been explicitly designed to humiliate and impoverish Germany.

    Ergo, no rise of #ShoutyMoustacheMan.

    That means
    • no worldwide declaration of war on Germany by ‘peak’ Jewish bodies (1934 – thus clearly identifying German Jews as potential enemies of the State);
    • no attempt to implement ‘German Zionism’ (ingathering of a fictional transnational Tribe on its traditional lands);
    • no 1938 Anschluss; no expansion into Czechslovakia; no 1939 invasion of Poland;
    no WWII;
    • no internment of suspected fifth columnists (including Jews, based on their global peak body’s declaration of ‘war’);
    • no massive typhus epidemics as the camp system broke down under the stresses of war.

    Wilson – the US power-élite more generally – is quite literally the sine qua non of the unpleasantness of the 1940s camp system (whichever numbers you wish to attach to it, it was unambiguously unpleasant for all involved).

    And, while we’re at it – they are also responsible for the 1918 flu: mobilisation of US troops broke that pathogen out of a geographical containment, and transported it to the middle of millions of stressed, malnourished, metabolically compromised young men… who then took it past containment boundaries when they were shipped home across oceans (for the Australian, New Zealand, South African etc participants) or by train (for others).

    Wilson’s crypt should be exhumed and his DNA examined to try to find the genes for globe-spanning lying cuntery… the main cause of preventable death in the 20th century.

  19. @KenH

    I’m getting the book today; it wouldn’t surprise me if he’s done a DavidCole-style “conversion” (i.e., one that you do when someone credibly threatens your family).

    Cole has publicly repudiated his past views in the mandatory auto da fé required for re-admission into public life – but it’s clear from what he writes that he hasn’t changed his mind. He’s a denier-marrano with respect to the current Inquisition.

    Fortunately the kapos of the Truth Camps don’t read so good, so they aren’t big on nuance.

    Hoffman’s stuff on white slavery was interesting – and furnished enough material to hang him in the eyes of the “whites deserve everything they get or got – shut the fuck up!” crowd.

  20. Tusk says:

    I say beware the rise of this new anti-Hitler counter-culture that aims to turn pro-White/National-Socialist energy against the source. You see this online more and more with the ‘Hitler killed more White people then anyone else’ spiel that attempts you to accept his motives were good, but he actually was a negative when you really think about it. It’s nothing more than concern trolling.

  21. Thomasina says:

    What a great synopsis! Thank you.

  22. @Kratoklastes

    Wilson – the US power-élite more generally – is quite literally the sine qua non of the unpleasantness of the 1940s camp system (whichever numbers you wish to attach to it, it was unambiguously unpleasant for all involved).

    I’m not a fan of Wilson but you can’t pin WWI and WWII on him.

    It was Germany that decided to return to unrestricted warfare out of desperation.

    What do you think people would do today if Iran started sinking cruise ships?

    The Germans gambled and thought they could beat Britain before the US actually got troops on the ground. So they knew the risk of unrestricted warfare.

    Sinking ocean liners was a terrible idea. Yes some of them were carrying arms but there is still a political cost that has to be considered.

    • Disagree: Tusk
  23. @fool's paradise

    About Russia. Maybe Stalin wasn’t about to attack, as some historians claim, but Hitler knew that Churchill and Roosevelt were scheming with Stalin to get into the war eventually

    It was Hitler that schemed with Stalin and split Poland with him.

    Polish veterans that fought the Soviet Union 1920 ended up facing both German and Soviet guns, all thanks to the the self-proclaimed anti-Communist Hitler.

    Was Hitler so bad for Germany? Germans worshiped him. What his National Socialists accomplished during the ’30’s was known throughout Europe as the German Miracle. So Germany had to be destroyed, for the same reason it had to be destroyed in WW1.

    Germany did not need to be destroyed and as everyone here seems forget he was given numerous concessions as the British did not want another world war.

    If he stayed in his borders then Germany would be the world leader and Stalin wouldn’t have been given Eastern Europe.

    He also could have built his empire without attacking Poland The allies wouldn’t have attacked if went after Turkey or went through Romania. Hitler was never forced to go to war. At some point he wanted revenge against the West and if they didn’t attack over Poland then he would have attacked them eventually. He was too emotional in his decisions and didn’t listen to his generals. According to Hitler himself he was guided by providence.

    Invading the Soviet Union might have actually worked if he wasn’t so focused on urban centers, especially Stalingrad. A lot of his strategy amounted to “go east and f- it up” instead of tactical attacks against weaknesses in the Soviet system. They also had poor intelligence as seen in table talk. The Nazis were shocked as to how many tanks the Soviets were able to command. They underestimated both Soviet military power and also their economy.

    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
  24. @Kratoklastes

    From that pov they should stand a genocide trial

  25. Several bones of contention based on Hoffman & Barrett’s conversation; concentrating on this one:

    IMO both exaggerate the Reichstag fire: it was NOT comparable to 9/11 — not in drama, not in the human beings sacrificed, not in the enabling of a war of aggression against a foreign government with whom no legitimate casus belli existed.

    Moreover, Germany was in much worse shape internally, and in need of domestic, political, economic and morale revitalization than the shape USA was in at the time of 9/11: USA needed 9/11 to enable foreign invasion and conquest in order to sustain its ideological drive for hegemony/empire linked to its military-industrial-dollar-base prosperity; Germany needed to rebuild domestically.

    I suppose Hoffman (especially) and Barrett make that comparison based on Hitler’s use of the Reichstag fire to take power to himself/to the NSDAP, similar to i.e. creation of US Department of Homeland Security and institution of Patriot Act that curtailed citizens’ freedoms.

    Hoffman is particularly disturbed by Hitler’s authoritarian takeover; he considers that #ShoutyMan’s (!) gravest crime. Hoffman quoted Hitler’s assertion that he intended to take complete authority.
    I’ll grant Hoffman that point: Hitler intended to take authority to himself/the NSDAP, and it was done.

    But I view Hitler as centralizing all power as a Machiavellian move — and I insist that Machiavelli NOT be interpreted simplistically, as a 12 year old might:

    Machiavelli wrote in The Prince that when a state loses its virtu; that is, its manly courage, or moral center, then the only slim chance it has of regaining its virtu is to vest all power in a (temporary) tyrant, where tyrant is understood not as an person of vast evil, but as one who is something of an outsider so that he is able to administer affairs without favor or political concern and harshly if need be, to get the job done.

    Germans and other European leaders in that era would have been much closer to Machiavellian thinking than Americans were then and now; a tyrant to restore order would not have been a reach.

    What is extraordinary is that in this Machiavellian gambit of tyranny, in all of history Hitler alone was successful: he re-vitalized the German people, invigorated their sense of German-ness, their pride and dignity, as well as the German economy.

    For those who have been reading Gilad Atzmon: Machiavelli was certainly more “Athens than Jerusalem,” and Hitler, who had been schooled by Benedictines (Benedict was a Roman) would have been Aristotelian rather than Abrahamic (religious education of Catholic Americans of my generation meant memorizing the Baltimore Catechism, which was in essence the memorization and internalization of Aristotelian / Thomistic philosophy; I suspect Hitler and other German – European Catholics were similarly educated; they certainly did not hold the same views and knowledge base as today’s Christian evangelicals).

    Regarding the reform of German economy by eliminating debt finance: Kevin Barrett did an excellent job of refuting Hoffman’s claim that “Hitler and NSDAP practiced usury, using German bankers, that was just as offensive as usury using Jewish bankers.”
    Barrett pointed out that the offense was not usury per se, which is where Hoffman got stuck; rather, Barrett said that banking methods were used to benefit the people, by building roads, (and houses; financing worker vacations; enabling women to remain home to raise families in a situation where WWI had devastated an entire generation of young men, ergo reproduction was an existential necessity; etc.).

    Hoffman’s only rejoinder to Barrett’s refutation was that Hitler rebuilt the economy by militarizing, and though I don’t have statistics to support my contention, I don’t think that is correct: NSDAP built the autobahn; built car factories for the VW; built massive public buildings; hosted the Olympics; created camps and organizations for Hitler youth, etc. That’s a lot of butter: they didn’t cost so little that vast amounts could be spent for guns.

    Final thought: Hoffman’s judgment is offensive, where he claims that persons who rejected his view that Hitler was the “enemy of the German people” are, at best, invincibly ignorant thus condemned to a slightly cooler spot in hell than those who willfully defend Hitler. In fact,

    Come to think of it, Hoffman’s title itself is offensive: it reinforces the (Taubmanian) notion that Hitler dropped bombs on 500,000 German people; that Hitler planned and executed the de-housing of 7 million Germans; that Hitler was responsible for the devastation that overtook Germany and the German people.

    But the inescapable facts are that the planes and the bombs bore labels, not auf Deutsch but in English, Made in USA; and the Allies — USA and Britain — deliberately planned and carried out the firebombing of Germany, planned before the first shot was fired in anger.
    Hitler did not firebomb the German people.

    Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Winston Churchill — and oh, by the way — Louis Brandeis, Bernard Baruch ( FDR’s right hand man in WWII just as he was Wilson’s puppet master in WWI); Felix Frankfurter, Rabbi Stephen Wise — THEY were the “enemies of the German people.”

    • Agree: mark green
  26. @UncommonGround

    At the end almost nobody won anything

    Governments everywhere in the West got bigger.

    Bureaucrats everywhere in the West got more control over the everyday lives of their human livestock.

    International Finance got much much richer.

    It’s true that as a proportion of the human herd, those three groups amount to ‘almost nobody‘.

    To give some hint at how good wars are for governments and bureaucrats: in the UK, each major war has seen government take an additional ~20% of private sector activity (i.e., GDP-Government).

    Pre-WWI average: ~20% (μ: 18.9%; σ: 2.1% ; min: 16.3%)
    interwar average: ~45% (μ: 46.22%; σ: 14.0% ; min: 37.3%)
    post-WWII average: ~65% (μ: 66.1%; σ: 9.4% ; min: 52.1%)

    There is absolutely no way to fund that level of spending through taxation: to begin with, taxing public sector labour does nothing (you pay them out of other people’s taxes; you then ‘tax’ them by taking some of other people’s taxes off them: net result for the government revenue is fuck-all once you recognise the money spent doing that). The same is true for enterprises that are attached to the government nipple.

    There has been a gradual increase in the growth rate of government debt as well as its absolute level – and it would be worse if governments the world subjected themselves to the accounting standards that they force businesses to comply with (e.g., government accounting does not accrue obligations when promised: businesses must recognise obligations on accrual).

    And sovereign debt is always very very very very very profitable for domestic bankers.


    The larger the proportion of private sector activity that is taken and wasted on government projects, the slower will be aggregate productivity growth (because government is shit at R&D: everything degenerates into a little empire to be captured by the best-connected asshole).

    Worse: government is labour-intensive and locally Leontief (i.e., ‘fixed-proportions’): it takes X person-hours a year to fuck up some area of the economy: that requires Y buildings; Z reams of paper per person hour; W kWh of electricity per person hour… and that type of technology changes very very slowly.

    So a large-and-growing proportion of total economic activity is being focused in a labour-intensive, low-productivity sector that feels no market pressure. A recipe for disaster.

    Government employees are more than 21% of the labour force[1] OECD-wide; on average, they are paid 120% of the average non-government hourly rate, and are closer to full-time hours than the private sector labour force.

    Once non-salary benefits are included, government employees cost 180% of private sector employees per effective full-time worker. (And even that ignores that full-time public sector workers work fewer hours than full-time private-sector workers).

    Just paying the public sector net wage bill by taxing private sector earnings and value-added would send tax rates through the roof.

    Those things – growing G/(GDP-G), near-zero productivity-growth, and labour intensivity in the public sector – is why debt is now doomed to grow until the economy collapses.

    [1] The OECD estimates that, but it takes government numbers largely at face value – which only a fuckwit would do. As an example: the US claims that its public sector is 16% of the workforce – which gives the (misleading) impression that just under 1 in 6 jobs is a tax-eater.

    Firstly, a chunk of the workforce is unemployed.

    Secondly, a chunk of the supposedly 84% employed in the ‘private sector’ are 100% funded by government grants and contracts. Federal, state, and local grants exist for businesses – from defence contractors being paid a trillion dollars for an piece of shit that is already obsolete, all the way down to outsourcing the cleaning at the local council buildings.

    Hall & Green (2013) estimate that when Federal-grant-funded jobs are properly treated as government employment, 20% of the employed national workforce is taken up by tax-eaters. They didn’t have the resources to get all the way down to State and local outsourced-workforce.

    If the US is at 20% (with a Hall/Green partial count of hidden tax-eaters), then the UK, Australia etc will be above 25% on the same basis.


    Hall, K and R Green (2013) “Government-Financed Employment and the Real Private Sector in the 50 States, Mercatus Centre, George Mason University. It’s a blog post that’s worthy of citation as a publication.

  27. Sean says:
    @Colin Wright

    Frederick V of the Palatinate was an enemy of the German people because he started The Thirty Years’ War? T The German nation is in a bad geopolitical position, which is why it suffered at the hands of major states, until it began unifying.

    His effect on Germany ultimately proved…unfortunate.

    The position of Germans was unfortunate for half a millennium before Hitler, who was worried about emigration of the most valuable people. As a result of the war he started, a lot of industrious ethnic Germans returned to their ancestral homeland.

    After the fall of the USSR another millions-strong surge of ethnic Germans were gained by Germany. This recent influx of ethic German immigrants is probably part of why the German elite went along with Merkel importing millions of non European refugees. The German will go from one crazy extreme of race thinking to another, as with their belief Syrians can be schooled as if they were composed of the the extremely industrious Umsiedler.

  28. @alex in San Jose AKA Digital Detroit

    The world doesn’t work that way, Hitler had some very powerful people backing him. The war was planned long in advance of Hitler’s rise to power.

    • Replies: @Alexandros
  29. DaveE says:
    @fool's paradise

    Bingo…. very well said. I admire Hoffman for his diligent research on the vile nature of the Talmud and Judaism in general, but like so many other Christians, he just can’t seem to shake his brainwashing. Including (but not limited to) the real story of Satan’s (aka worldwide Jewry’s) Nemesis, the Germans, or anyone who proves himself to be far better than they (the “chosen”) are.

    If there was ONE decent guy, no, ANY decent guy among the “big players” of the WWII era, it was Hitler. He was no saint, but given the other scumbags in the game, he was pretty damn close.

    These basic truths drive the Jew batshit crazy. Maybe “Christians” like Hoffman, also.

    • Agree: Thomasina
    • Replies: @Jake
    , @fool's paradise
  30. @John Johnson

    It was Germany that decided to return to unrestricted warfare out of desperation.
    What do you think people would do today if Iran started sinking cruise ships?

    There’s no appropriate response to that question because USA has lost its sense of proportionality — one of the main tenets of Just War theory.

    Sebastian Gorka has mastered the art of bursting a blood vessel every time Iranians chant, Death to America (which is not actually what the Farsi words mean, but that’s another argument —): His autonomic reaction is, WAR! Bomb Iran! Sanction Iran! Just the other day Gorka slobbered all over Trump for Il Donaldo’s very fine adventure of killing the evil Soleimani.

    What do you think people would do today if Iran started sinking cruise ships?

    Why, being the eminently fair, not to mention well informed people they are, people would say, “Is Iran on the way to St Kitt’s? Honey, where did you pack the sunscreen?”

    • Replies: @John Johnson
  31. Fox says:

    An interesting opinion of Hoffman: So people who come to conclusions through their own thinking are actually just following someone else’s dictum, they are parroting, in other words someone else. That seems to apply exclusively to people who have formed their own opinion about Hitler, the origins and meaning of the Second War, and the legends that have been assiduously built around this whole complex, and usually have an impressive collection of stable facts to buttress their world view they have arrived at.
    Are the “neo-“nazis”” he is taking about the people who gather for the annual march of commemoration in Dresden, so as to not let the world forget of millennial crime that has been committed there by the Moral High Fliers of today’s established (crumbling) order?

    The latest “disinformation that is spoon-fed to the plenty of decent people, who are sometimes confused”, that the attack on the SU forestalled a Soviet attack on Europe is not disinformation at all, and it is not new: Hitler himself said it more than once following the opening of the military operations, and the huge number of volunteers to the SS from all over Europe makes it obvious that the danger of Bolshevism was felt to be real in all of Europe.
    While it is possible that the gigantic Soviet military build-up along the Western line of demarcation of the SU was mistakenly interpreted by Hitler as a portent of an attack in the near future, the question then remains what such an attack force was intended for and what the preferred way of response would have been in today’s commenters’ and opinionators’ view.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  32. Jake says:

    People commenting on and damning Hoffman usually remind me of people commenting on and damning someone like Gilad Aztmon in that they seem rather desperate to have a short slogan affixed to the subject so people will avoid reading.

  33. Jake says:

    Germans as Jews nemesis is as funny as WASPs as Jews nemesis.

    Yiddish, which is just a dialect of German, was the international language of Jewry for a millennium. Virtually every Russian Jew who was a Revolutionary, Mensheviks and SRs as well as Bolsheviks, spoke Yiddish as his/her first language and also was fully fluent in spoken and written standard German.

    So the slick as Hell, sneaky as Satan, devilishly smart Jews somehow were too stupid to know that they made the language of their cultural nemesis their own?

    Jews dropped Yiddish as their international language to adopt English for that purpose. English is also a Germanic language.

  34. @DaveE

    Yes, and coincidentally, the real “scumbags” in the game are featured today in Unz, Churchill and Roosevelt who forced the war on Germany. As Pat Buchanan writes, it was an “unnecessary” war, it need not have been fought, Hitler tried to stop the war before it really started but rebuffed every time by those determined to destroy National Socialism. The only way to get at the truth is to believe the opposite of what Ziomedia tells us. The Ziopaths tell us Churchill and Roosevelt are great and Hitler is bad? Just the opposite.

    • Replies: @utu
  35. The Germans were fighting against a communist takeover, just as we are facing today.

    It’s a shame that Hoffman is backing the traditional nose narrative.

    Maybe he’s trying to ingratiate himself back into polite society, like Charles Murray.

    People cuck under pressure. Look at Trump…..he’s sold his soul to the nose completely.

    Hitler was no saint, but he didn’t give orders to kill jews, there were no gas chambers, and far less than six million jewish people perished in the war. Over 55 million goyim were slaughtered in that war.

    We fought against our German brothers, and we fought on the side of bloodthirsty Bolsheviks…..and because of our interference half the world was lost to communism.

    Say what you want about Hitler…..he did what he thought was best for his country.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
  36. Angharad says:
    @Tsar Nicholas

    The real Tsar Nicholas, and his entire family, were butchered by Jews. SKAROO Hoffman.

  37. Angharad says:
    @alex in San Jose AKA Digital Detroit

    Yes. Looking out the windo just about everywhere is confirmation that jewish take-overs wreck Nations.

  38. Angharad says:
    @Colin Wright

    “Hitler was Hitler. The Jews’ effect on Germany ultimately proved…unfortunate A Nation Searing DISASTER, in fact.”

    There. I fixed the sentence for you.

  39. Eric135 says:

    At the end of WW I, Germany underwent two Communist revolutions, one in Berlin, the other in Bavaria. Up until the time that Hitler became Chancellor in 1933, Communists and Nazis battled in the streets of Germany.

    In nearby Hungary, Communists managed to take over the government for a few months. They launched a campaign of terror against the Hungarian people. In Poland in the mid-thirties, the government had amicable relations with Germany. Then a new government took a more belligerent attitude. Ethnic Germans were subjected to pogroms, and Hitler’s protests about those massacres were ignored.

    Hitler was right about Jewish capitalism and Jewish Communism — the former robbing the people (as it does today) through vulture capitalism, the latter instituting a murderous tyranny based on Jewish hatred of Christians and white people in general.

    National socialism rejected both of these. It was for the people, not the bankers, not the Jews who hated and exploited the common people as they had done for centuries.

    Jew-corrupted and Jew-ruled England and America saw Hitler as a threat; people might wake up and reject Jewish corruption having seen the miracle that had taken place in Germany. Then there was the long standing British determination to keep Germany down, a determination that was evident long before WW I.

    It is entirely America and Britain’s fault that WW II in Europe took place. Instead of siding with Hitler — who wanted to preserve the white race and Western Civilization — we sided with Jews and Communists.

    We see the result of that today: Europe and America flooded by the Third World; open hatred of white people, Christians and Western Civilization; the destruction of the family and the white working and middle classes; attacks on freedom of speech and the 2nd Amendment; a corrupt two-tiered justice system; perpetual pointless and expensive wars for the Jews and for the armaments industry; rising economic inequality.

    White genocide — longed for by the Jews — is taking place before our very eyes. Jews have been the leaders of feminism (which has resulted in a plunging white birthrate) and of advocacy of mass Third World immigration into white nations. They have fomented hatred of whites among non-whites. It is clear. It is obvious. They want us gone. Bred out of existence or dead.

    In light of the above, someone wants to criticize Hitler?

    OK, he wasn’t perfect. But he was a defender of white people, Christians, and Western Civilization. No one else has defended them since.

    I recently saw a photo of an American soldier landing in Normandy. The caption read, “Speaking German sounds a whole lot better than a transgender mulatto grandkid.”

  40. @Robert Dolan

    The Germans were fighting against a communist takeover, just as we are facing today.

    So fighting against communists means making a deal with Stalin to split an anti-communist Catholic nation?

    The real anti-communists were sent off to Gulags when the Soviets invaded.

  41. @SolontoCroesus

    There’s no appropriate response to that question because USA has lost its sense of proportionality — one of the main tenets of Just War theory.

    Ok then I’ll ask you a different question.

    Was it a good idea for Germany to sink cruise liners?

    The Germans knew the risk of unrestricted warfare. They took a risk and lost. It was ruthless and cruel strategy that ultimately failed.

    I don’t think the US should have entered WWI but you can’t pin the whole thing on Wilson.

    • Replies: @ploni almoni
  42. @Colin Wright

    I’m sure Hitler was a standout from the common herd, he was a spoiled, histrionic child and pretty intelligent. So were many, many others, and are now. In good times they invent the Pet Rock or something and that’s about it.

    I didn’t know Hitler’s Jewish family doctor was able to escape to the US. I know he was protected for a while at least, maybe well enough to enable him to get out.

    • Replies: @Thomasina
  43. utu says:
    @fool's paradise

    “…Churchill and Roosevelt […] forced the war on Germany…” – How do you force war on somebody? Did it take a lot of force to force Hitler to war? Was Hitler kind of weak that his resisting being forced to war was ineffective?

    The war did not have to begin in 1939 or 1940 or 1941. If Hitler kept his troops within the borders of Germany there would be no war or at least it could not have been blamed on Hitler. But it was him who made a first move and he ddi not have to.

    Poor Hitler.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
  44. kevin barrett and michael hoffman….nazi hunters….streaming on netflix today

    after hitler/satan shot himself the german POWs were starved to death by the Allies in concentration camps, after the war….are you saying hitler and the german people [all germans are nazis?] are responsible for the war crimes committed by the Allies?….collective punishment?….sounds strangely talmudic

  45. @alex in San Jose AKA Digital Detroit

    Are you talking about
    Jewish/zionist infuence or actual communism ? If the last, your definition of “bolshevik” is so wide as to be useless, or you are completely delusional.

  46. @Colin Wright

    Hitler earnt that iron cross. Regardless of what came after, (a fact that neither defends nor prosecutes) he displayed courage. (As a runner he had one of the most dangerous jobs at the front)

  47. @Kratoklastes

    There’s blame enough for Wilson, but the responsibility for the first cause of WW II (ie the Versailles Treaty) lies with France. They considered the treaty insufficiently harsh (Lloyd George thought it too harsh).
    The V-Treaty set the material & cultural parameters of the post war period. It was the fertile ground upon which the NSDAP grew.

  48. Hoffman’s been pressured in some way. Or he’s scared. What I have learned about Hitler is that he made a zillion peace offers and tried to avoid war in every way. He even let the German army hang out for two days when the war had started, not attacking, in hopes to stop the war before it had gone any further. He liked and respected the British people and wanted to collaborate probably in imperial plunder with the British, but one suspects the Germans would have been much much better imperialists than the utilitarian-to-the-point-of-stupidity-and-the-loss-of-all-decency British.

    Hitler does come off as looking like and acting like the savior of Europe, but he really just wanted to save the Germans from imminent attack by Judea. Can you even imagine the Jewish campaign against Germany? As a part-German myself, I am stunned about the attempted genocide of Germany, and of Ukraine (which is my other dominant ethnicity) as well. Hitler came off as a more enlightened leader despite his Christianity. And no one notes that Hitler was really an enemy because he printed Germany’s own money. How did Germany accomplish these economic miracles, besides having bright people? They financed it themselves. For Hoffman to call Hitler Enemy of the Germans is just idiotic, from what I have learned so far. No leader took the poison pill for their people like that. Maybe Hoffman’s been psychotronically undermined.

  49. Anonymous[295] • Disclaimer says:

    Why do people make a big fuss about Dresden but ignore the Rape of Berlin committed by the Russians? Is it because it’s politically correct to be anti-British, but not so to be anti-Russian?

    • Replies: @Jake
  50. Jake says:

    The most important thing Michael Hofffman knows is that the Nazis and Hitler were ‘controlled opposition’ that got out of hand.

    This is a spiritual war. It is about Christ or Chaos, either rebuild Christendom or watch the Zionist synagogue take over everything. The Nazis were on the side of Chaos. The party was founded in a gay bar. Its original street thugs that defenders and excusers of Hitler/Nazis must laud, the Brownshirts (SA), were led by a raving pederast Ernst Rohm, and a huge % of Rohm’s top associates likewise were gay, most of them also pederasts. From the beginning, the Nazis were involved in the drug culture that swept Berlin especially, and they also were deeply involved, indispensably so, with esoterica and ‘romantic’ attempts to revive Germanic paganism. Nazis were anti-Christendom to the core, as much as so as Bolsheviks and Anarchists.

    The vast majority of people who attack Hoffman for pointing out the full truth about Hitler and the Nazis are shills for groups such as the ADL and SPLC, which, like Nazis and Marxists, are anti-Christ and anti-Christendom.

  51. Jake says:

    Who are these people who make a big deal about Dresden? Do you mean Democrats? How about Neocons? How about country club Republicans? Maybe it is the US media. Yeah, that’s it: TV news and Hollywood are always beating us over the head with the evil of the fire bombing of Dresden.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  52. @utu

    The war did not have to begin in 1939 or 1940 or 1941. If Hitler kept his troops within the borders of Germany there would be no war or at least it could not have been blamed on Hitler. But it was him who made a first move and he ddi not have to.

    Poor Hitler.

    Yes poor Hitler is a victim here. He really, really wanted peace even though he wrote in his book that he planned on taking Eastern territory for lebensraum:
    If we speak of soil in Europe today, we can primarily have in mind only Russia and her vassal border states.

    You see the allies forced him to enter a war for territory that he said he wanted 15 years prior.

    If only the Poles and Slavs of the Baltic states had packed their stuff and moved to Siberia none of this would have happened.

    • Replies: @Thomasina
    , @Tusk
    , @Fox
  53. Churchill famously stated that it did not matter whether Germany was ruled by a Hitler or by a Jesuit priest, only that the challenge that her industrious people presented to British global hegemony must be eliminated. Fear of Germany’s powerful economy is why the vastly stronger British and French empires fought Germany twice and finally succeeded in neutralizing and dismembering her, with the US and USSR joining in pursuit of their own agendas.

    FDR encouraged Churchill’s rabid Germanophobia because he knew that the empire, grievously weakened it is first attempt to destroy Germany, could not prevail in a second European ground war. Britain’s collapse would clear the way for the US to take her place as the dominant world power, just as some of the Founders dreamed long before. Stalin meanwhile had the same ambition, for 22 months supplying Germany with supplies and weapons in hopes that her conflict with England and France would so exhaust all three powers that his vastly expanded and modernized Red Army could then take all Europe virtually unopposed.

    There were no good guys in the “good war”, period. The myth of WWII is a graphic illustration of the difference between history and what historians term “memory-history.” The former aims to present an accurate account of what actually happened, while the latter promotes an interpretation of past events that is tailored to harmonize with the psychological needs and political agendas of the present.

  54. Wally says:
    @Tsar Nicholas

    – Except that there is no proof that Hitler exterminated Jews & others, you, nor “holocaust-lite” Hoffman. have any. Simple as that.

    “No alleged human remains of millions upon millions to be seen in allegedly known locations, no ‘holocaust’.”

    – Irving wannabe Hoffman is shredded here:

    Challenge to Michael Hoffman on his “mass murdering of Jews” / ‘holocaust’ lite claims:

    Babi Yar: The [alleged] Einsatzgruppen ‘Killings’ : the comments are additionally devastating
    The Einsatzgruppen Trial, By John Wear:
    The Einsatzgruppen in the Occupied Eastern Territories, Genesis, Missions and Actions:

    • Replies: @Tsar Nicholas
    , @John Regan
  55. Sparkon says:

    While it is possible that the gigantic Soviet military build-up along the Western line of demarcation of the SU was mistakenly interpreted by Hitler as a portent of an attack in the near future, the question then remains what such an attack force was intended for and what the preferred way of response would have been in today’s commenters’ and opinionators’ view.

    With the right perspective, it’s not difficult to understand that Stalin’s purpose with the Red Army’s forward dispositions was to goad, menace, and intimidate Hitler into attacking, in the same way that FDR’s transfer of the fleet to Pearl Harbor was not a prelude to an attack on Japan with the USN’s old battleships, but rather irresistible bait for the hotheads in the Japanese military hierarchy, not that Japan had much choice at that point, as it was being strangled by Allied trade restrictions.

    But perhaps the Japanese could have been more coy, luring the Americans into a trap, rather than playing the sucker themselves.

    I suggest that Stalin and FDR were reading from the same (Jewish) playbook, which specified it was of paramount importance that the designated enemies should strike the first blows, even be allowed to win for awhile, because the aggressor always sacrifices the moral high ground, and Allied possession of the moral high ground would be instrumental in what was to follow.

    The additional benefit is that blood spilled by an enemy in a sneak or supposedly surprise attack fuels patriotism like nothing else can, and also generates worldwide sympathy. Both Stalin and FDR (and much later, GW Bush) would play this to their best advantage to consolidate power, eliminate opposition, and have all the willing, revenge-seeking, even bloodthirsty recruits they needed.

    FDR had articulated to his inner circle as early as January 1941 that it was U.S. policy for Japan to strike the first blow. Roosevelt ordered the Pacific fleet to Pearl Harbor, sacked Admiral Richardson for strongly opposing the move, and subsequently tied the hands of Adm. Kimmel and Gen. Short, preventing them from implementing sensible defensive measures, including the kind of routine patrolling that would have no doubt detected the IJN’s Kido Butai carrier strike force long before it got close enough to Hawaii to launch an attack. Instead, the Americans cleared all shipping from Kido Butai’s path.

    Most of the Red Army units in forward positions at the time of Barbarossa were equipped with obsolete weapons. The idea that the Red Army could have overrun Europe with tin cans like the T-26, and aircraft like the stubby I-15 is patently absurd. Stalin’s frenzied rush to produce large numbers of tanks and aircraft during the 1930s meant that by 1941, the Red Army found itself armed with large numbers of already obsolete equipment, a fact made all the more obvious when compared to the new generations of Soviet weaponry just beginning to roll off the assembly lines. In fact the T-26 was not a bad light tank, but as events were to show, light tanks had little value on the front lines in WWII.

    Whatever else one may say about Adolf Hitler, he was a disaster as German warlord. His failure to crush the BEF when it was trapped at Dunkirk defies rational explanation, given his distrust of Jews in London. What better chance would he have to deal those assholes a mortal blow? But it is true that Herr Hitler was plagued by traitors within the 3rd Reich, most particularly head of Military Intelligence Admiral Canaris, who claimed he had turned against the Chancellor after his brutal elimination of the SA, where perhaps several hundred Germans were summarily executed.

    But how could Canaris have overlooked Stalin’s collectivization and dekulakization campaigns that resulted in the deaths of millions of Soviet citizens even before operation Kolibri? It’s difficult to believe Canaris in his capacity as head of Abwehr would have been entirely unaware of the hideous toll on the Soviet peasantry, Kulaks, and NEPmen in the early ’30s, so Hitler’s brutality as the excuse for Canaris’s treachery does not ring true. More likely, I’d suggest, Canaris had sold out and was being paid off by the Allies.

    • Agree: Mulegino1
  56. @Wally

    So Hitler killed millions of others, but let the Jews ride out the war in holiday camps? I guess Netanyahu was running the Reich.

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @Theodore
  57. Thomasina says:
    @John Johnson

    The Versailles Treaty, and the bastards who set it up, are to blame.

    Corner a country, unfairly impede them, starve them, when they ask for mercy, you don’t give it, when they ask for peace, you ignore them.

    Then when they stand up and fight, you collude and hit them on all sides. When it’s over, you blame them. When people question what happened, you prevent them from speaking, you smear them or jail them.

    Then our schoolchildren get force-fed the lies in school.


  58. Thomasina says:
    @alex in San Jose AKA Digital Detroit

    Isn’t it true that most of the wealthy Jews were allowed to leave Germany before the war started? I remember seeing video to this effect.

  59. anarchyst says:

    Not only could jews leave Germany, they could stay and conduct “business as usual”.

    Not all jews were exiled to work camps.

    In France, there were many jews who lived there throughout WW2.

    Jews also served in the German armed forces at the same time during WW2.

    • Thanks: Thomasina
    • Replies: @Wally
    , @John Johnson
  60. @Thomasina

    It was called the Haavara (transfer) agreement and Jews with a net worth of £1000 (about $75,000 in today’s money) could move to British controlled Palestine.

    They would deposit this money in Germany and leave for Palestine where they would get a shipment of German made essential goods, paid for partly from the deposit. Part of the deposit also went to Jewish communal organisations to aid in the development of Palestine. At the end of the day, the the Jewish individual received 43% of his deposit in hard cash upon settling on Palestine, 39% of his deposit went towards Jewish communal organisations, and the remaining 18% contributed to the German economy by paying for German made goods.

    By the time the program ended in 1939, Germany has exported $35m worth of goods to Jews in Palestine ($650m in today’s money)

    • Thanks: Thomasina
  61. Tusk says:
    @John Johnson

    He really, really wanted peace

    Hitler offered peace multiple times, the Allies refused. Not sure how you can spin this any other way, if they had accepted peace deals the war may (probably) have ended. The Allies are to blame, for regardless of who started the spat, they decided to end it in a bloodwar.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @John Johnson
  62. @Thomasina

    Isn’t it true that most of the wealthy Jews were allowed to leave Germany before the war started?

    Rabbi Stephen Wise wrote in his diary [The Challenging Years, p. 240] that

    on about Feb. 14, 1933, Louis Brandeis, the closest thing to head of zionists worldwide, said to Wise: “All Jews must leave Germany; no Jew should remain in Germany.”
    Wise, aghast, responded, “How shall 587,000 Jews be got out of Germany?”
    Brandeis repeated: “I urge that the Jews leave Germany.”

    Edwin Black quoted this conversation in The Transfer Agreement, then he explained it: In 1932-1933 the zionist project in Palestine was almost bankrupt.
    At the same time, the British, who controlled the Mandate and admission of Jews, required that only Jews with a certain amount of capital be admitted to Palestine; only German Jews met that standard.

    Wise’s recitation of the number of Jews — 587,000 — is significant; that was the number of GERMAN Jews in Germany; that is, the Jews who had wealth, skills and education. In reality, there were perhaps as many as a million Eastern European Jews also in Germany: they had fled to safety in Germany from turmoil in Poland and Russia. Brandeis was not concerned for those Jews: they had nothing to contribute to the financing and building of Palestine — they were surplus; many were illiterate, impoverished, and according to eugenicist Arthur Ruppin who managed the settlement of Palestine, they were “not appropriate human material for the ‘New Jew’ to create the zionist utopia.”

    (Recall that Hershel Grynszpan, the Polish Jew who killed the German foreign service officer in Paris, said that he did so because he was angry that his parents had not been able to leave Poland for Germany.)

    Louis Brandeis, effectively the leader of worldwide zionists, fired the first shot of the “expulsion” of German Jews from Germany, and he did it for the benefit of the Jewish zionists.

    That it coincided with the wishes of the NSDAP is undeniable; but the next time somebody argues that Nahzees were evil Aryan supremacists because they kicked GERMAN Jews out of Germany, please remember who did what first and why: ZIONISTS set in motion the movement of Jews out of Germany.

    nb. Animalogic @ 48 commented that “the responsibility for the first cause of WW II (ie the Versailles Treaty) lies with France.”
    True enough.
    But in 1918 Rabbi Stephen Wise, Louis Brandeis and perhaps a hundred other American Jews formed the American Jewish Congress for the exact purpose of influencing the Versailles negotiations in favor of Jews. Zionist Jews seated one of the largest delegations at Versailles, in addition to having their representatives sitting at Wilson’s elbow at all times, and also having influence over the British delegation — Lloyd George had been legal counsel to the zionist committee.
    Edwin Black wrote in The Transfer Agreement that

    “Zionists returned from Versailles with a dual victory: they acquired a homeland for Jews in Palestine, and guarantee of protection of minority / Jewish rights in other countries where they lived.”

    The French may have been the skunks at Versailles, but zionist Jews — who had not even been a party to the war — were the winners.

    • Replies: @Thomasina
  63. I have read more books on WW2 than I could quickly count but still coming across additional titles, providing that they are credible seem to add perspectives notwithstanding the order in which they are read and sometimes beneficial to the perspective if read later than sooner.

    I very recently read Erich Von Manstein’s Lost Victories though it had been around since 1958. If I had read it 20 years before, it would have had much less affect than it did with me having read much information and dis-information since specifically on the topic of Hitler.

    That the man, Hitler was brilliant cannot be denied. I believe that even Stalin said as much posthumously adding that his major fault was not knowing when to quit rolling the dice. Hitler as best as I can conclude was in the category of a brilliant idiot of the kind that some of us had (have) encountered in business life. However, the fatal flaw in him may have been in his mysticism, of whatever source, which gave him strength through the conviction that he was a vessel of Providence.

    Von Manstein, a sober gentleman in the military tradition ever so subtly keeps referring to this though his book is essentially a dry recalling of military actions that he was charged with. He might have expounded on this theme had he known of the impending interest of the occult in the roots of Nazism but reasonably considered that this was not in his ken.

    However, I cannot ever get out of my mind that a certain otherworldly element could be involved in the person of Adolph Hitler. I recall that an old Time Life series on the occult (pre-holocaust era) had him quoted as somehow venturing into the inner earth and seeing giants that “scared me to death’.

    Be that as it may, he is on record numerous times as seeing himself being guided by Providence. This of course was after a starving artist bum was barely inducted into the army, somehow promoted to runt corporal, distinguished himself but while gassed thrown out in the streets in abject poverty after his army suffered a humiliating armistice and a mere 20 years later HE is having his picture taken in conquered France with the Eiffel tower in the background as the supreme warlord. There is a lot more to know than the knowable.

    Just an observation…


  64. Anonymous[970] • Disclaimer says:

    I’m referring to nationalist, right wing types, the sort of people who post on sites like this. They often virtue signal about Dresden as an example of allied war crimes yet ignore the Rape of Berlin.

  65. Wally says:
    @Tsar Nicholas

    As I said, you have no proof of your “killed millions”, Jews or otherwise.

    Please review my post that you feebly replied to.

  66. Wally says:

    – There were many thousands of known Jews who lived in safely in Berlin throughout the war.

    – Not to mention the countless numbers of so called “survivor$ / eyewitnesses”.

    – Quite incredible given the claim that “the Germans tried to kill every Jew they could get their hands on”.
    Quite incredible given that the ‘gas chambers’ were scientifically impossible.

    Holocaust Handbooks, Volume 36: Auschwitz: Eyewitness Reports and Perpetrator Confessions of the Holocaust—30 Gas-Chamber Witnesses Scrutinized, by Jürgen Graf:
    Dissecting the Holocaust—The Growing Critique of ‘Truth’ and ‘Memory’

    • Thanks: Thomasina
  67. Let an Iranian butt in.

    Even if Hitler was a debacle for the future of the West and committed unforgivable atrocities and sins towards his fellow Europeans, I can safely speak for Iranians (and Afghans, Tajiks, Pakistanis, Indians, Bangladeshis) that Hitler has a following – today, at this very moment.

    I’ve spoken to enough fellow “Aryans” (White, off-white, and brown) from the above nations, especially my fellow Iranians, to know that Hitler, as a promoter of the “Aryan Race”, is, in many ways, idolized.

    Through the hearts of the members of all these mixed nations cited above, a reference to the “Aryan Race” is something both real and legendary: larger than life. If a Jewish friend of mine told me he felt like “Sieg Heiling” after a Hitler speech, imagine what goes through the hearts and minds of the above aforementioned peoples.

    The “theatrics” of the Nazis, the Swastika itself, found throughout Iran, India, et al., the column upon column of disciplined Germans (fair-complexioned Aryans) marching, the austerity of Hitler’s visage, his flag, the eagles everywhere, the mathematical and symmetrical precision of his troops and followers at his rallies, and the fanatical pathos and dramatic gesticulating oratory of Hitler ranting about Aryan-this and Aryan-that….

    Dry facts aside, revisionist biases to the wind, Hitler was a brobdingnagian Force, a Prophet.

    Is it any wonder that he was practically worshipped? That some Hindus even considered him an avatar of Krishna?

    Personally, when I see him and hear him giving a speech, my hair rises, my skin tingles, my heartbeat accelerates, and I feel what it is to have a fanatic’s zeal, to fight for someone/something greater without fear, to be a martyr for a cause.

    I’m not surprised one-bit why there are neo-Nazis, skinheads, and Hitler-excusers.

    As a composer once said, no monument was ever built to honor a music critic.

    Hoffman’s work on this subject will collect dust while Hitler’s memory will live on, especially in the hearts of tens of millions of the (true or not) descendants of the Ancient Aryans.

    • Agree: Tusk
    • Thanks: Carolyn Yeager
    • Replies: @Just Passing Through
  68. Theodore says:
    @Tsar Nicholas

    Ah the ol’ “pretending to be stupid” strategy.

    Is a labor camp your idea of a holiday resort? You must be fun at parties

    Hitler wanted peace with Britain and France, they did not. Britain and France declared war on Germany, was he supposed to not fight back? Admit it, you just hate Germans and enjoy hearing them suffer

    The USSR was planning to steamroll through Europe and Hitler attacked the USSR preemptively because of this. It’s not difficult to understand, but it’s also not difficult to pretend to not understand – the difficult part is making it convincing

    Don’t quit your day job, that is unless this is it

  69. @anarchyst

    anarchyst, you have hit the proverbial nail on the head! Very awesome response!!!

  70. utu says:

    “… if they had accepted peace deals the war may (probably) have ended…” – This is not about the ending of the war but starting it. Why did Hitler start it? Didn’t he know it was being forced on him?

  71. @Hairyiranianguy

    Many people in these nations despise their corrupt leaders, they see Hitler as a strong authoritarian who led Germany out of a financial and social crisis on a mere few years and made is a great power.

    I suppose there is a reason schools don’t show large segments of Hitler speeches and instead just show short excerpts of him shouting (and without subtitles).

  72. @Tusk

    Hitler offered peace multiple times, the Allies refused. Not sure how you can spin this any other way, if they had accepted peace deals the war may (probably) have ended. The Allies are to blame, for regardless of who started the spat, they decided to end it in a bloodwar.

    How can I spin it any other way? No one forced Hitler into war.

    Are you talking about the 1940 peace offer? After he conquered half the continent through war?

    Yea a real peace loving guy.

    I’m gonna bomb your cities and then offer peace.

    All he wanted was a free hand to attack the Soviet union.

    He could have done that in the first place but his ego wouldn’t allow the state of Poland to exist. In his peace offering they would become a German protectorate.

    • Replies: @Thomasina
    , @apollonian
    , @Tusk
  73. @anarchyst

    And the Warsaw Ghetto was actually a theme park with roller coasters and water slides.

    The pictures you see online are all Allied propaganda.

    I read about it the Unz Guide to WWII history.

    • Troll: John Regan, John Johnson
    • Replies: @anarchyst
  74. Thomasina says:

    Thank you for your response. Yes, I remember reading that the Jews were a party to the Versailles negotiations, and at the time I wondered why “they” were there.

    So much to learn, so many lies to unwind.

    Someone (maybe it’s been done) should write a chronological book – just dates, with a condensed description of the significance of each specific day – so that people could follow through from, say, what led up to WWI and then on through until the end of WWII. Proper citations to corroborate the facts.

    Because if it was all laid out from A to Z, you would get a better picture of exactly what went on, who the players were, how the players were working behind the scenes, their motives, etc. You could see the DNA.

    Have a good day.

    • Agree: anarchyst
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    , @Sparkon
  75. @Wally

    I have to say, Carlo Mattogno’s books are very impressive. Of course, he is a so-called Holocaust Denier, and that does affect his presentation, but he is nonetheless one of the most effective researchers into these issues, who studies (and often quotes at length) archival documents and other primary sources that have never been published or translated before. Sometimes hardly even referenced in previous scholarly production.

    Even readers who disagree with the so-called Holocaust Denial angle will find his works useful and informative, for all that they may reject his conclusions.

    • Replies: @Wally
  76. anarchyst says:
    @John Johnson

    The “Warsaw ghetto” was not a “ghetto” in the traditional sense.
    Despite there being incidents of the rationing of food, and other hardships, there was a subset of jews who lived “high on the hog”. There were restaurants, lavish living accommodations, and other luxuries that were available to those jews who could pay for them in the “Warsaw ghetto”.
    Jews themselves ran the various “black markets” for scarce goods, but made sure to take care of themselves first.
    As always, jews got others to do their “dirty work” for them…

    • Replies: @John Johnson
  77. @Thomasina

    Thanks, and Agree completely: The timeline is crucial.

    Also agree, or at least believe, that:

    a. there needs to be a concise, simple-as-possible pamphlet, laying out that timeline: the

    b. I think participants on the Unz forum are capable of putting that pamphlet together —
    if only
    c. we could-would connect and collaborate.

    Today is Ash Wednesday.
    If we could produce such a pamphlet, and by some miracle have it ready by Holy Week, we could distribute it to Catholic and Christian churches at a time when the most people attend church.

    • Replies: @Thomasina
  78. Thomasina says:
    @John Johnson

    Didn’t the Versailles Treaty actually take land away from Germany and give it to Poland? I seem to remember reading that somewhere.

    And didn’t this land giveaway end up separating groups of Germans from Germany proper? And didn’t Hitler try to negotiate and plead with Poland for some sort of corridor that would link these groups together? Didn’t Poland, who was taking their orders from Britain, refuse to work with Hitler at all? Didn’t Hitler want at least some access to Gdansk, but was refused?

    Isn’t that why Hitler got angry and took half of Poland?

    If I’m wrong, please correct me. I do remember it that way.

    The Versailles Treaty was set up purposely to screw Germany. Is it any wonder that Hitler said, “Well, screw you right back”?

    • Replies: @John Johnson
  79. @anarchyst

    There were restaurants, lavish living accommodations, and other luxuries that were available to those jews who could pay for them in the “Warsaw ghetto”.

    So some Jews lived well while others starved to death or contracted typhus?

    What happened to all the Jews that were living so well in the Warsaw ghetto?

    • Replies: @anarchyst
    , @Wally
  80. @Thomasina

    Didn’t the Versailles Treaty actually take land away from Germany and give it to Poland? I seem to remember reading that somewhere.

    Ok how about doing some reading before posting here?

    Before the invasion the Allies gave him land concessions and he ended up taking all of Czechoslovakia.

    He wanted land from Poland to connect East Prussia but the Poles didn’t trust that it would keep him satisfied, especially after what happened to Czechoslovakia. It was actually a divided decision but they and the British were correct that Hitler was going to keep pushing even if they gave him the corridor. But this was also when they never would have guessed that Hitler would make a deal with Stalin.

    Hitler and many other Germans were insulted that Poland even existed since it was created after WWI. It really didn’t matter what Poland did because Hitler planned on taking it regardless. He wrote in his book that Germany needed to take Eastern territory.

    Anyways the German economy was doing well and the Allies did not want another world war. Chamberlain and the British really believed they had bought him off. They had also let him break numerous aspects of the Versailles treaty like military size. So to argue they wanted war is disingenuous. They had plenty of excuses to declare war before Hitler invaded Poland. Chamberlain was considered a great hero for a short period since it was believed that he prevented war.

  81. Sparkon says:

    By 1903 — eleven years before the beginning of WWI — World Zionist Organization co-founder Max Nordau was predicting a future world war, and a subsequent peace conference, where England would help the Jews get Palestine.

    “Herzl knows that we stand before a tremendous upheaval of the whole world. Soon, perhaps, some kind of a world-congress will have to be called…

    …let me tell you the following words as if I were showing you the rungs of a ladder leading upward and upward: Herzl, The Zionist Congress, the English Uganda proposition, the future world war, the peace conference where with the help of England a free and Jewish Palestine will be created.”

    — Max Nordau, speech to Zionists, Paris, 1903

    Yes, there was a world war, and 40 million died. Upon the conclusion of the slaughter, a peace conference was convened in Paris, just as Nordau had predicted. Benjamin Freedman describes the action:

    Now, when the war was ended, and the Germans went to Paris, to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, there were 117 Jews there, as a delegation representing the Jews, headed by Bernard Baruch. I was there: I ought to know. Now what happened?

    The Jews at that peace conference, when they were cutting up Germany and parceling out Europe to all these nations that claimed a right to a certain part of European territory, the Jews said, “How about Palestine for us?” And they produced, for the first time to the knowledge of the Germans, this Balfour Declaration. So the Germans, for the first time realized, “Oh, that was the game! That’s why the United States came into the war.” And the Germans for the first time realized that they were defeated, they suffered this terrific reparation that was slapped onto them, because the Zionists wanted Palestine and they were determined to get it at any cost.

    • Replies: @Thomasina
  82. @John Johnson

    Hitler was going to play a game of conquest and it didn’t matter what the Allies did.

    He could have stayed in his borders and remained dictator for life in a wealthy country with a soaring economy.

    In most of the world he was well respected over the German miracle. Let’s not forget he was Time magazine man of the year. He also could have gone east without entering Poland but he wanted revenge against the Allies for WW1. That is why he didn’t care about gambling a world war. He didn’t expect them to defend Poland but planned on fighting them anyways. Then he later made his massive mistake of going east before defeating the British. His ego did him in. He thought the Germans were so powerful that they could handle a war on two fronts, despite him earlier talking about how it needed to be avoided.

    • Replies: @Bukowski
  83. Thomasina says:
    @John Johnson

    “Ok how about doing some reading before posting here?”

    I could read until the cows come home, but the problem is there are so many opinions, interpretations, spins, omissions. That’s why I recommended above a chronological book that sets out the timeline of events, making it easier to follow the players/events.

    So Poland didn’t even exist until the Versailles Treaty. That’s exactly what I remembered reading. How convenient! Churchill and his trusty “pen on a map” again! Let’s turn the screw.

    And surprise, surprise – Czechoslovakia was formed at the end of WWI also! I wonder, did this screw Germany over too? I’m almost positive it did.

    I was raised by a father who read every war book in existence, who instilled in me that Hitler was evil, the Allies were good. But he was a good man, and I know he would be horrified to read the articles posted here at Unz.

    The people of Germany got pummeled, all because they wanted their own country, their own people, their own culture. Imagine!

    • Replies: @Just Passing Through
  84. Bernie says:

    The Measure of Greatness

    “Adolf Hitler started literally from nothing and through the exercise of a superhuman will created the physical basis for the realization of his vision. In 1918, recovering in a veterans’ hospital from a British poison-gas attack, he made the decision to enter politics in order to serve that vision. He was a 29-year-old invalid, with no money, no family, no friends or connections, no university education, and no experience. Liberals, Jews, and communists ruled his country, making him and all those to whom he might appeal for support outsiders.

    Five and one-half years later he was sentenced to five years in prison for his political activity, and his enemies thought that was the end of him and his movement. But less than nine years after being sentenced he was Chancellor of Germany, with the strongest and most progressive nation in Europe at his command. He had built the National Socialist movement and led it to victory over the organized opposition of the entire Establishment: conservatives, liberals, communists, Jews, and Christians.

    He then transformed Germany, lifting it out of its economic depression (while Americans, under Roosevelt, continued to line up at the soup kitchens), restoring its spirit (and much of the territory which had been taken from it by the victors of the First World War), stimulating its artistic and scientific creativity, and winning the admiration (or, in some cases, the envy and hatred) of other nations. It was an achievement hardly paralleled in the history of the world. Even those who do not understand the real significance of his creation must concede that.”

    • Agree: mark green, Thomasina
  85. @John Johnson

    Czechoslovakia collapsed internally when the Slovaks and Ukrainians wanted autonomy, and/or independence from the Czechs. Germany couldn’t tolerate (or be reasonably expected to tolerate) a failed state full of chaos and possible civil war right next to their own borders. When the Czech President came to Berlin to ask for German support to deal with the chaos, he and Hitler agreed to the peaceful partition of the country, with an independent Slovakia and a protectorate for the Czech regions.

    This situation mirrored the one that took place in the 1990s, when the relaxation of Communist tyranny again caused the reconstituted Czechoslovakia to collapse. It was always an artificial country, that could be maintained only by oppression.

    Hitler had no problem with Poland’s existence. He wanted Poland as an ally against the USSR, which he did plan to make war against (both to secure resources for Germany and to end the danger of Communism). His idea throughout most of the 1930s was that Germany and Poland were to be partners in that war, which was logical enough, as both countries were enemies of the Soviet regime. However his attempts to create that alliance were sabotaged by Polish chauvinists, and/or globalist pets. Indeed, when the famous Munich deal was negotiated, the Poles were allowed to grab the region of Teschen, even though the Germans there actually wanted to belong to Germany. Hitler and his foreign minister believed that after this, the Polish government would be willing to reciprocate and allow some reasonable concessions with regard to the Corridor. Instead, they first stonewalled him, then (after Britain gave them a guarantee they would be backed up in war) actually started to provoke Germany by mistreating their ethnic German population.

    Actually, the Polish regime killed literally thousands of ethnic Germans, and drove literally tens of thousands from their homes, before the regions in western Poland were liberated by the German Army in 1939. Although this is not emphasized in the politically correct history books, it’s there in the fine print. Imagine how the US today would respond if literally any state smaller than China, anywhere in the world, treated Jews like that? And here, this was right next door to Germany. Neither Hitler, nor any other German leader, could have ignored that.

    Great Britain and France did not want war in 1939, and Chamberlain was indeed popular for his determined efforts to avoid it. However, the globalists (who, then as now, controlled the media and the financial system, as well as the US Government) did want the war, and they forced Chamberlain to give the disastrous guarantee to the Poles, which they interpreted as a general permission to run rampant. With the result that Germany was pushed into a corner.

    Hitler certainly was no principled pacifist, but it’s a travesty of history to say that only he was responsible for the war. His policy options in 1939 were far more limited than today’s half-educated pundits care to admit.

    For a serious and relatively unbiased general examination of the origins of the war, that brings attention to various of these usually neglected complicating aspects of the European scene at the time, I recommend the book “The War that Had Many Fathers” by Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof:

    • Replies: @Thomasina
    , @John Johnson
  86. apollonian says: • Website
    @John Johnson

    Rise Of Jew World Order–Required War

    “John Johnson”?–don’t u mean John Jew-son?–another Jew pretending he’s not Jew in order to make his lies and lying sound more “normal,” coming fm sensible gentile, ho ho ho ho. So Jew-son tells us,

    “[h]ow can I spin it any other way? No one forced Hitler into war.”

    But hist. seen in proper context must consider WWI when Germany was attacked by “Entente” powers, having deliberately murdered the Archduke, then attacked Austria for it. See “Hidden History…,” by Docherty and Macgregor, .

    Treaty of Versailles then lied to the world saying it was all Germany’s fault–which lies were exploded in early to mid 20s by works of Harry Elmer Barnes and Sidney B. Fay, among many others, Germans witnessing huge, gross mass-murders by Jew-Bolsheviks in Russia and Ukraine.

    Then Poland told Germany there’d be no more talk about re-uniting w. Danzig, totally German city, or there would be war; see Hoggan, “The Forced War.” And the March 1939 “understanding” w. UK was an offensive alliance, UK promising to enter war against Germany when Poland decided to start it.

    And why would Germany want to leave a hostile ally of the Soviet Union, the Czechs, situated literally in the middle of Germany, Germany now united w. Austria, w. only Slovakia on the eastern side, Slovakia an ally of Germany?

    Of course it was “forced war,” just as Hoggan titled his outstanding work, “forced” by Jew S A, UK, and France, for purpose of world gov. under the “United Nations” (UN), a huge new socialist empire run for the benefit and purposes of Jew bankers and future Israeli terror state–much like we have in this very day.

    And unc’ Adolf was the road-block and pretext for it all (the necessary war) within the larger “Decline of the West,” by Oswald Spengler, as West continued to succumb to Jew money power and central-banking (literally legalized counterfeiting, pumping-out ever-larger masses of “fiat-currency,” see for expo; use their site search-engine) in the overall march of Satanism, subjectivism (anti-rationalism), the “Frankfurt School” of Jewwy degeneration, rise of homosexual dictatorship, trans-genderism, etc.

  87. anarchyst says:
    @John Johnson

    They lived out their lives and then emigrated mostly to the USA where they could continue their zionist “takeover”…
    As to typhus, “Warsaw ghetto” jews did not suffer from typhus until the last days of the war, when the work camps were cut off from needed supplies.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
  88. Tusk says:
    @John Johnson

    You can follow the chain of causation back to wherever you want and decide that that is the moment of consequence that caused the war, and attribute the responsibility to who you wish. But, as far as I am concerned, it is clear that Britain and France’s goal was aggression against Germany, and it was they, who after partitioning Germany after their first aggression (WW1) decided to declare war on Germany for a matter that had nothing to do with them. After having war declared on HIM by two foreign Empires, Hitler proceeded to offer peace because he wanted nothing to do with them, to simply unite the Germans under their historical territory that was extrajudicially paritioned.

    Whatever happened I will blame on those that sought to instigate a war, then did so, and then refused to end it when offered so.

  89. Fox says:
    @John Johnson

    What about giving up the German territories occupied after the First War when Germany was powerless to prevent it?
    Oh, I forgot the Basic Tenet of German History: When a country occupies German territories, then it’s justified and just too bad for the Germans. When the Germans want it back, or don’t want to remain under foreign dominion, then it is aggression, planning of aggressive war, and a crime against peace. Isn’t that correct?

  90. Thomasina says:
    @John Regan

    Great post. Your points about the globalists are bang on. Thanks for the book recommendation.

    “…it’s a travesty of history to say that only he was responsible for the war.”

    Yes, it is a travesty. That’s what gets me.

  91. Thomasina says:

    It would be wonderful if it could be done. Unfortunately, as you can tell from my posts, I certainly couldn’t contribute much. I don’t know enough.

    Maybe someone – a good writer out there – will pick the idea up and run with it. A short, concise, chronological history of the period from 1900 to 1945.

    Take care.

  92. Thomasina says:

    Thanks for your reply. Wow, almost as if they knew it was coming! (sarc) And we just think things happen by accident or because tempers flare! No, they are often well-planned and thought out ahead of time, then the designated losers are provoked, then they respond, then they are pummeled.

    Look at Trump lately (and the Presidents before him). He either goes along with the Zionists or else – or else the stock market is brought down around his knees. Remove a little liquidity and voila!

    Easy to get your way when you control Congress, the Senate, the Federal Reserve, Wall Street, academia and the media. Very bad situation.

  93. @Thomasina

    as you can tell from my posts, I certainly couldn’t contribute much. I don’t know enough.

    Hello Thomasina — Lady Skeptical Thomas, the man who asked questions —

    He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool; avoid him.
    He who knows not and knows that he knows not is a student; teach him.
    He who knows and knows not that he knows is asleep; wake him.
    He who knows and knows that he knows is a wise man; follow him.

    We all started somewhere.
    You’re new at Unz, but your comments are intelligent and inquiring.
    You are giant steps beyond “student” or “asleep” and only self-confidence away from a teacher – leader.

    But be very careful (take care, indeed): this quest can take over so much of your energy and focus that you may find it hard to remain involved in things — and people — that formerly interested you.

  94. I happened to spot Michael Hoffman’s interview and found it interesting. I haven’t been aware of Michael Hoffman for many years. But I must say back in the 80s at one point Hoffman moved his family to Rancho California in the Riverside County area. It’s very close to the home of Tom Metzger at the time and the headquarters of White Aryan resistance. Michael Hoffman volunteered to edit the WAR newspaper which he did for a short time.
    However I was required to appear at a court hearing in Los Angeles. At that hearing Tom Metzger had several individuals who were skinheads neo-Nazis X Klansmen and so forth with him. Because he knew they were going to be attacked by the Jewish Defense league. As we were and we had a brawl in the parking garage of the Los Angeles courts building. We drove them off and nobody got hurt.
    I noticed Michael Hoffman was very quiet on the drive back to his home. A short time later he made excuses that he could no longer work with Tom Metzger. Michael got the crap scared out of him in that fight where as far as I remember no one even got a blood he nose.

    The so-called revisionist movement as far as I’m concerned was the greatest boon to the Zionists Jews. It was the advent of the IHR and other revisionist individuals that propelled Hollywood into the great Holocaust movies and other massive programs which had not really been around before. I guess if you want to throw books at your opponents authors are the way to go which is usually nowhere. Tom Metzger

    • Replies: @KenH
  95. Thomasina says:

    Thank you for your kind, thoughtful words and advice. Yes, the Internet and the sites we gravitate to can definitely suck us away from what is most important to us, and if we’re not careful we can end up forgetting all about our own creative side or the beauty right in front of us.

    Thank you for reminding me of the “something” I really want to do, but continue to dismiss.

    Take care.

  96. apollonian says: • Website

    Believe it or not, Hoffman has written-up yet ANOTHER article hyping his Hitler book for his blog, today, the 27th, at . So I wrote and sent below-copied.

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    Hoffman Continues To Bleat
    (Apollonian, 27 Feb 20)

    Hoffman, in all his psychotic Passive-Aggression and self-pity just continues to bleat, complain and cry-out. But Hoffman, don’t u insist on Pelagian heresy, idea of “good-evil,” hence the perfectly “free” human will which will carry us to heaven, regardless God’s grace and mercy?

    For if “good” were something actually objective and real, then how would God possibly have any grounds for denying one his rightful place in heaven?

    So Hoffman tell us, if there really is “good-evil,” then what is the criterion, standard, and premise for it by which we can tell definitively the diff? Like the psychotic u really are, u constantly insist there’s “good-evil,” but NEVER tell us the criterion–NEVER.

    U insist u’re treated unfairly, and u say Suvorov (real name, Rezun) is wrong about the pre-emptive attack against USSR, but u refuse to say what are the real facts. So how many divisions did Stalin really have on his western borders?–u won’t tell us, and who’s fault is that?

    Hoffman says Hitler should rather have relied upon mere counter-attacking any Russian invasions, Hitler operating upon what Hoffman calls “interior lines,” but Hoffman doesn’t tell us what his military and strategic qualifications are–did he graduate in the top half of his class at West Point?–what military training did Hoffman ever have and go through?

    Hoffman insists Hitler was such a horrible person, not really Christian, but Hoffman as Pelagian heretic, pretending to non-existent “good-evil,” we can only suspect Hoffman’s own qualifications to be judge of Christianity. And we KNOW the German people thought rather more highly of unc’ Adolf than know-it-all Hoffman, the military genius and paragon of moralism, hubris, and sanctimony.

    And of course there’s Hoffman’s previous work on “Usury in Christendom…,” in which we see Hoffman inveighs against “usury,” not even capable of accurately defining and describing it, Hoffman knowing nothing about money and banking, not even understanding diff. btwn real money and mere “currency” (see for proper economic expo; use their site search-engine for particular terms).

    So we see, once again, Hoffman is NOT a “historian” at all, whatever he may say and protest–he’s not even really a Christian, in all truth, merely the subjectivistic, hubris-filled moralistic and heretic, spouting “good-evil” delusions, pretending he’s competent judge of things he plainly knows little-to-nothing about (military and economic), and he’s been so terribly injured and treated by people who resent his hereticalism and self-righteousness, not to mention gross ignorance and presumption. Poor Hoffman.

    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
  97. KenH says:
    @tom metzger

    As we were and we had a brawl in the parking garage of the Los Angeles courts building. We drove them off and nobody got hurt.

    I think you guys beat back some Jewish bodybuilders. If the same thing happened today the ADL controlled DOJ would charge you with “conspiracy to riot” and domestic terrorism since pro-whites are barred from defending themselves against violent leftists especially if they’re Jewish which would also be deemed anti-semitic hate crimes.

    I hope you’re doing well otherwise.

  98. KenH says:

    The thesis of Hoffman’s Hitler book seems to be that if some girly man was Chancellor instead of Hitler then war could have been avoided and everyone would have lived happily ever after. Given the USSR’s aggression against Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia as well as Finland and Poland and their desire to communize Europe, war was almost inevitable. It was just a matter of who was going to fire the first shot and when. The USSR had the most paratroopers in the world and they are used for offensive operations and not the defense of national borders.

    I’ve followed Michael Hoffman’s work for many years and at one time he was pro-white and promoted works that were fair and objective about Hitler and the Third Reich such as those by David Irving. But now he’s done a 180 and at one point was attacking the alt-right on his website and is extremely disturbed that many members of the growing pro-white movement don’t hate Hitler like they’re supposed to which he hopes his book will change.

    His new mission seems to be trying to convert Jews to Catholicism since he believes Jews are mere tabula rasa who’ve been led astray by rabbinical Judaism. This doesn’t explain why Jewish atheists are every bit as hostile and aggressive towards non-Jews as their religious kinsmen.

  99. @John Johnson

    You are the Light of the Nations. Someone with virtue like yours could shoot down airliners, and everyone would understand why it was necessary, and, in the end, good for everyone.

  100. @John Johnson

    Next you will be saying it was a bad idea for Israel to bomb the Gazans with phosphorus.

  101. @Thomasina

    It goes back even earlier. This is just one of many sites with information on the Pike letters.

    • Replies: @Tusk
  102. @apollonian

    Take the time to write out the word you. Using U instead will lose you much of your most worthwhile readership.

  103. Tusk says:

    You’re joking right? How would a guy in 1871 supposedly use the word ‘Nazism’ when the movement wasn’t even begun yet? This reeks of someone who post-dated a ‘letter’ to seem legitimate.

    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
  104. @Thomasina

    Germany was overwhelmingly ethnic German and practised German culture. Vienna during Hitler’s bum days would have been a modern day White Nationalist’s wet dream as everyone would be White, not to Hitler, who got extremely triggered by White people who spoke a different language.

    • Replies: @Wally
  105. Wally says:
    @John Johnson

    “What happened to all the Jews that were living so well in the Warsaw ghetto?”

    According to your very own “Holocaust Industry”, they allegedly went to immense mass graves in known locations …. which in fact do not exist.

    Of course that would be after they were supposedly gassed in alleged & laughable ‘gas chambers’ which were scientifically impossible.

    Revisionists are just the messengers, the absurd impossibility of the “holocaust” narrative is the message.

    • Replies: @Just passing through
  106. Wally says:
    @Just Passing Through

    You mean “that shitty little country” which allows in JEWS ONLY.

  107. @John Regan

    When the Czech President came to Berlin to ask for German support to deal with the chaos, he and Hitler agreed to the peaceful partition of the country, with an independent Slovakia and a protectorate for the Czech regions.

    Hitler was given Sudetenland as part of the Munich agreement and then decided to take the whole thing. The Czechs never wanted Germans to control their country.

    Hitler had no problem with Poland’s existence. He wanted Poland as an ally against the USSR, which he did plan to make war against (both to secure resources for Germany and to end the danger of Communism).

    No he wanted them as a protectorate which means under German control. When they refused Hitler allied with Stalin and they split Poland.

    Hitler ended up killing Polish veterans that had fought the USSR after WWI. He was more interested in expanding Germany than fighting communism.

    Great Britain and France did not want war in 1939, and Chamberlain was indeed popular for his determined efforts to avoid it.

    Well that’s not a popular opinion here. At Unz everyone wants to believe that Hitler wasn’t a bad guy and was forced into war. Carpet bombing the Christians of Warsaw and then splitting the country with an evil dictator was somehow an act of peace.

    However, the globalists (who, then as now, controlled the media and the financial system, as well as the US Government) did want the war, and they forced Chamberlain to give the disastrous guarantee to the Poles

    So shadow Jews actually controlled Chamberlain? Are you saying he didn’t want to defend Poland?

    which they interpreted as a general permission to run rampant. With the result that Germany was pushed into a corner.

    How was Germany pushed into a corner? They were given concessions and didn’t need to attack the USSR through Poland. No one here has denied this inconvenient fact.

    • Replies: @Sean
    , @John Regan
  108. @anarchyst

    (On what happened to the Jews of the Warsaw ghetto)
    They lived out their lives and then emigrated mostly to the USA where they could continue their zionist “takeover”…

    That’s amusing. So the Warsaw ghetto was never emptied by the Nazis?

    What is your explanation of the Warsaw uprising? Jurgen Stroop didn’t actually blow up remaining buildings as ordered? Where exactly did they live out their lives and when did they emigrate to the US?

    As to typhus, “Warsaw ghetto” jews did not suffer from typhus until the last days of the war, when the work camps were cut off from needed supplies.

    So you are saying there wasn’t typhus in 1941?

    So warning signs to the German troops to avoid the ghetto because of tyhpus were fictional?

    • Replies: @anarchyst
  109. @Wally

    There was a documentary on the BBC presented by Jew David Baddiel on Holocaust denial

    I recommend you watch it if you can as it is quite entertaining what the CEO’s if Shoah inc. are coming up with these days.

    In this program, they use pictures of Dachau fumigation chambers when talking about homicidal gas chambers and claim that the Nazis burned all the bodies at Chelmno, then used a bone crushing machine to pulverise the bones and also used acid to dissolve bodies (Breaking Bad style)

    They even interview a real life Holocaust denier, although they pick a very stupid one and/or use cunning editing techniques to make him seem stupid (one of the reasons he cites for the Holocaust not happening is that Jews drive German cars, this is obviously retarded and makes the viewer think all revisionists are like this). I was quite shocked by
    the chutzpah program to be honest.

  110. Wally says:

    You are correct. The man interviewed is clueless, that’s why they interviewed him.
    Just another strawman from the Usual Enemies of Free Speech.

    FYI, Revisionists have been all over this sham “documentary”.
    Dim witted liar, Zionist, David Baddiel, and your cited strawman are demolished here:

    British Jew to Release Documentary: “Holocaust Denial: A History With David Baddiel”


    The ‘holocaust’ storyline is one of the dumbest, most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that denies free speech and the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

  111. @KenH

    Carolyn Yeager doesn’t yet seem to have taken notice of the new book by Hoffman in a formal book review but she has a very active blog there. She knows as much or more about Hitler than anyone.

    In his 2008 [ital]Judaism Discovered[/ital] Hoffman speculates in several places that Hitler was a sort of crypto-rabbi in how he carried out a messianic purpose based on pro-German racism. In that book on p. 648 he wrote this:

    As we have shown elsewhere in these pages, certain elite rabbis have indicated that in the eyes of esoteric Judaism, Hitler was a divine instrument. The full implications of this rabbinic belief about Hitler have yet to be investigated. To what extent was Hitler a rabbinic agent wiping out agents of Christian evangelism whose mission it was to convert Judaics to Christ while simultaneously exposing Judaism? Such persons would have seen through Hitler. Any spirit-filled Christian could discern that Hitler’s racism was rabbinic in its nature and intensity. Hitler’s racism defeated any claim he had to opposing the spirit of the rabbinate in the world, since he himself was spreading that spirit, under a mask.

    What do you make of this?

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @utu
    , @KenH
    , @Carolyn Yeager
  112. Wally says:
    @John Regan

    Hi John:

    What’s wrong with being a “holocaust” Revisionist / “holocaust denier”?
    What’s to “disagree” with?
    There is nothing within the “holocaust” canon which hasn’t been thoroughly researched & debunked.

    Mattogno is indeed impressive, as are the many Revisionist scholars:

    ‘Holocaust’ Handbooks, Documentaries, & Videos

  113. Anon[962] • Disclaimer says:
    @David riskanalyst

    What I make of Hoffman’s l’oeuvre is that he has a large family to support and only esoteric skills to merchandise.

    He writes what he thinks is otherwise unexplored, and that will generate just enough controversy to sell to both sides of the issue.

    He’s not an historian as such, nor does he have the courage of a revisionist — no Ernst Zindel genes in Hoffman’s DNA.

    He’s a word merchant.

    Everybody gotta make a living.

    The rabbi business?
    A curiousity-driven dive down a rabbit hole, nothing more.

  114. I’m willing to bet that both Hoffman and his fiercest critics both believe the Fuehrer was straight.

    They should bury the hatchet.

  115. utu says:
    @David riskanalyst

    See Feliks Koneczny “Judaized Hitlerism” (1940s):

    eg.: Just like Jehovah, the deutsche Gott is the enemy of all mankind

    eg.: The civilization that is currently being carried by the Germans is to be based on slavery. Jews also dream about it, that when the Messiah comes, he will turn the “nations” into the slaves of Israel.

    eg.: In matters of property of the “nations”, the German position is quite compatible with the Talmud. Quite Jewishly, Germans also consider all property conquered as a “desert”, or a “free lake”, on which the Germans are allowed to do what he likes. Whether for a Jew or for a German, the property of “strangers” is nevertheless res nullius and primi occupantis of a Jew or a German.

    eg.: If German does not commit wickedness towards a stranger, apparently he is not a Nazi in spirit; like a Jew, without thinking of anything bad for a goy, he becomes a Jew who has been de-Judaized.

  116. @Tusk

    (Readers who argue that the terms Nazism and Zionism were not known in 1871 should remember that the Illuminati invented both these movements. In addition, Communism as an ideology, and as a coined phrase, originates in France during the Revolution. In 1785, Restif coined the phrase four years before revolution broke out. Restif and Babeuf, in turn, were influenced by Rousseau – as was the most famous conspirator of them all, Adam Weishaupt.)

    Pike was a 33rd degree Freemason but I think he served the “modern” rites of masonry and was even instrumental in abolishing some of the older ones. There is an unresolved schism between the modern masonic usurpers and those that still follow the ancient rites.

    I would suggest that you look into it yourself.

  117. Sean says:
    @John Johnson

    That Hitler could have invaded the USSR through Romania ignores what he wanted to achieve with any invasion. Hitler’s objective was to conquer rather than merely attack the Soviet Union. Hence he wanted to attack it in the way that gave him the best chance of conquering it. The way that all military experts advised him to proceed was to destroy Soviet forces before they could fall back, while making the swiftest possible advance to Stalin’s capital, which he would be forced to defend. The battle for Moscow would be a opportunity for a decisive result through destroying the bulk of the Soviet army. A surprise attack starting from the middle of Poland against a duped USSR offered the best chance of Hitler achieving his objective.

  118. @lloyd

    I’m pretty sure Mr Hoffman is a Jew or half-Jew. Cushman Cunningham said it in one of his Secret Empire books. His understanding of Hebrew and Talmudic shtick is unparalleled in the anti-Zionist gentile world. He had contacts w/ religious Jews which afforded him supposedly clandestinely taped homilies from various rabbis. I’m not sure that his genetics compelled him to turn on Hitler, but they shouldn’t be disregarded either.

  119. @John Johnson

    Hitler was given Sudetenland as part of the Munich agreement and then decided to take the whole thing. The Czechs never wanted Germans to control their country.

    Obviously not in the best of all possible worlds. But in the situation they were in at that time, that was the best solution that everyone could agree with. As A. J. P. Taylor notes in the second edition of his book on the origins of World War II, it was specifically the Czech President who asked Hitler to help him solve the problems of his collapsing country in the first place.

    No he wanted them as a protectorate which means under German control. When they refused Hitler allied with Stalin and they split Poland.

    Hitler had made an agreement with the Polish dictator Pilsudski, with whom he apparently got along well personally. They both agreed that their common enemy was the Soviet Union. While Pilsudski was alive, German-Polish relations were excellent, and the two countries concluded a non-aggression pact. Notably, this deal was unpopular with the Prussian generals (who did want to destroy Poland, because it occupied their childhood homes). Hitler pushed it through anyway because he was serious about his professed good wishes for Poland.

    However, after Pilsudski’s death, Poland was taken over by a mixture of irresponsible chauvinists and globalist lackeys, who thought that with globalist backing, they could start a war with Germany and conquer vast German lands. In a way, they were correct, since this was what eventually happened in real life, but Poland paid an extremely high price for it through loss of its eastern half, millions of deaths and decades of Communist oppression.

    So shadow Jews actually controlled Chamberlain? Are you saying he didn’t want to defend Poland?

    I said globalist, not Jews. That is your interpretation. Not all globalists are Jews.

    However, Chamberlain himself actually did blame the powerful international Jewish lobby for Britain’s suicidal decision to give the Polish oligarchy a free hand to start World War II. This is what he said about this off the record, according to US Ambassador Joseph Kennedy:

    …neither the French nor the British would have made Poland a cause of war if it had not been for the constant needling from Washington…. Chamberlain, he says, stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into the war.

    This quote comes from the published diaries of James Forrestal, US Secretary of Defense, and has long been a matter of public record. Excerpts are also available online at various far right sites. For some strange reason, though, mainstream historians usually prefer not to quote it.

  120. KenH says:
    @David riskanalyst

    Hoffman’s thesis that Hitler was some sort of cryto-rabbi is due to his religious superstition and penchant for seeing conspiracies and collusion where they scarcely exist and trying to connect imaginary dots for the conspiracy crowd. National Socialism was in many respects a mirror image of Judaism but for the Germanic people and in both cases this deeply offends Hoffman’s Catholic sensibilities and he loses all objectivity.

    He calls any type of racial consciousness or pride “racial self worship” but Hitler was trying to give the German people a worldview and value system in which they would survive and thrive and have the wherewithal to combat Jews and Jewish revolutionary movements like Marxism/communism.

    It’s an understatement to say that whites desperately need to adopt a pro-white racial worldview to survive in a very hostile world. The raceless and universalist creeds of Christianity does not do that.

    At the same time he’s embarked on a love affair with Calypso Louis Farrakhan of the NOI. Some members of the NOI, including Farrakhan, have praised Hitler in the past and they adhere to racial self worship, yet Hoffman has nothing but praise and admiration for them and is a bit hypocritical and cognitively dissonant.

  121. @KenH

    European civilization rose when it was Christian, and has been declining since its elites abandoned Christianity. What makes you think a “raceless and universalist creed” cannot survive, thrive, or even dominate in a hostile world, since that is precisely what Western Christian civilization (and Islamic civilization, Confucian civilization, etc.) have done? Even pagan civilizations are based on sacrifice to the gods. What historical examples show that narcissistic racial navel-gazing builds a vibrant, powerful civilization?

    Spengler among others saw that the force that raises and sustains civilizations is a spiritual vision or Platonic ideal that gives men an Other worth living and dying for. Mere love of (racial) self will never do that. It is a dead end.

    If your answer is that you worship the science of biology, and/or your own biological heritage, you are making a category mistake. Science only reveals what is, not what should be. It offers a description of life, not a purpose.

    • Replies: @apollonian
    , @KenH
  122. anarchyst says:
    @John Johnson

    So warning signs to the German troops to avoid the ghetto because of tyhpus were fictional?

    Not fictional at all…

    Typhus was rampant due to the filthy lack of hygiene that most jewish Warsaw “ghetto” dwellers possessed.

    Even General George Patton remarked on the filthy, dirty “habits” of the jews, who refused to use toilets, and had to be forced to “clean up” at the threats of the ends of rifle butts.

    Just recently, some stinky jews were pulled off a flight from Detroit due to their “lack of hygiene”, The airline provided them with a free hotel room so that they could “clean themselves up”. They were put on a flight back to Florida the next morning.

    Sad to say, they are now suing the airline for “discrimination”. They are claiming that the only reason the airline deplaned them was due to them being jewish.

    Chutzpah, indeed…

    • Replies: @Fox
  123. Bukowski says:
    @John Johnson

    Hitler offered Poland a military alliance against the Soviet Union in the 1930s and they refused. They even refused to join the Anti Comintern Pact. As for the British they didn’t care about Poland it was used as a justification for declaring war on Germany and then discarded. Churchill agreed to hand Poland over to Stalin in 1945. He did this despite the entire British Empire going to war and claiming to be fighting for “Polish independence”.

  124. @KenH

    I can’t even wrap my mind around Hoffman’s Rabbi Hitler notion.

    But I reject as historically incoherent both parts KenH’s assertion that

    “National Socialism was in many respects a mirror image of Judaism but for the Germanic people and ||in both cases this deeply offends Hoffman’s Catholic sensibilities and he loses all objectivity.”

    The second || statement first, that “National Socialism . . . deeply offends Hoffman’s Catholic sensibilities . . .”
    Perhaps I’m making the wrong assumptions about why Hoffman would be “offended” by National Socialism (NS, aka Nazism): USAmericans and much of the rest of the West, especially Germans, have been indoctrinated to equate National Socialism with “evil.” In a congressional hearing in June, 2019, Rep. Daniel Crenshaw said:

    “As a country we all agree that Nazis are bad; we actually invaded an entire continent to defeat the Nazis. It’s normal to say hash-tag punch a Nazi because there’s this common thread in this country that they’re bad and that they’re evil and that they should be destroyed. You’re operating off of that premise and frankly it’s a good premise to operate on.
    Well, what you’re implying then is that it’s OK to use violence against them.”

    The notion that NS is “evil” has not been rigorously defined nor historically traced, yet it is relied upon as if it were the law of gravity: In 2012, in the aftermath of the assassination of a young Iranian nuclear scientist, Ronen Bergman told Brian Williams that “If my people define someone as Hitler, then it is moral to kill that person . . .”

    One word: Soleimani. The designation(s), NS or Nazis or Hitler as “evil” has real-world as well as policy implications.

    By now I’m belaboring the point, but — The Koch-Soros think tank presents itself as the freshest idea since carb-free bagels (and just as impossible). A few days ago Andrew Bacevich, president of The Quincy Institute, published an essay in Harper’s that pivoted on a speech by George C. Marshall. The Harper’s spread included this side bar:

    * Although Marshall was speaking that day to a fairly small group, his words eventually reached millions. Each segment of the film series Why We Fight, the masterpiece of propaganda that Frank Capra created under the auspices of the War Department, displays a quotation from Marshall’s West Point speech.

    To call Why We Fight a “masterpiece” debases every other achievement of human creativity to which that label has been applied. Leni Reifenstahl’s Triumph of the Will was the standard that Allied propagandists felt compelled to best; Frank Capra did not feel equal to that task. But then, Frank Capra did not “create” Why We Fight, he produced the series; it was written by Communist Jews, Julius J. Epstein Philip G. Epstein Anthony Veiller

    If Harper’s, and Bacevich, and The Quincy Institute had been intellectually honest, they would have noted that Nazi and Hitler were turned into labels of opprobrium early in 1933 by zionist Jews intent on embroiling the United States in a war against Germany, for the benefit of zionist Jews. James Waterman Wise, son of Rabbi Stephen Wise, published “Swastika, The Nazi Terror” in May, 1933, shortly after his father had received the directive from Louis Brandeis that “all (German) Jews must leave Germany.”

    As Lynn Olsen narrated in Those Angry Days, it took over seven years of propagandizing and fear-mongering the American people to induce them to acquiesce to the war that Wise, Brandeis, the Epsteins and their cohort so zealously longed for.
    “Nazi, NS, National Socialism, Hitler” were turned into labels of opprobrium, signifying “evil”, by the deliberate machinations of predominantly Jewish zionists intent on coercing the American people to wage war against Germany for the benefit of Jewish zionists (and others).

    That’s point one. Point two concerns KenH’s claim that “National Socialism was in many respects a mirror image of Judaism but for the Germanic people”

    This fails on several levels:
    First, the German people were on their own land; while the borders of that land had been contested over many generations of skirmishes of expansion and contraction, the German people did not come from some other place to that place, as did Jews, throughout their entire history.

    I’m not sure what KenH means by “Judaism.”
    Germans did not consider themselves chosen by god at Mt. Sinai; in fact, German theologians led by Walter Grundmann produced scholarship and led a popularly-endorsed movement to remove “Jewishness” from the German expression of Christianity. Susannah Heschel built a career on condemning that German, “Nazi” attempt to de-Judaize German Christianity.

    If KenH implies that the German people endorsed the same foundational mythology as Judaics, wrong again: Germans, Hitler and NS have been roundly condemned — ignorantly, in my opinion — for re-invigorating their own, particular, “pagan” origin myths. Hitler was a master of the operatic works of Wagner, that incorporated and celebrated Nordic myths. As R H S Stolfi has suggested, Wagner’s works and those myths influenced Hitler’s weltanschauung.

    If KenH means “Judaism means zionism” when he writes that “National Socialism mirrored Judaism” — wrong again.
    It’s extremely important to plant one’s feet and mind in the thinking of the times:
    In the first part of the 20th century, Jews were in conflict among themselves over their identity: Were they Semitic? Were they Indo-Germanic / European?

    Jeffrey Librett attempts to square that circle (unsuccessfully, in my opinion) in Orientalism and the Figure of the Jew.

    This Jewish-vs-Jewish identity crisis and conflict, indeed, Jewish civil war, offers an explanation for the profound threat Hitler and NS posed to Jews early in 1933: From the time of German unification in 1871 and especially in the Weimar years, Jews in Germany believed they had “arrived,” they had resolved their identity crisis: they were not Semites, with all of the habits of “avarice and dishonesty” that even Arthur Ruppin said, “characterized Semites,” (although, Ruppin conceded, Ashkenazi Jews did have some of those Semitic characteristics), German Jews were Indo-Germanic. As such, German Jews expressed the “vital force” that, Ruppin observed, characterized Indo-Germanic Jews and believed they were entitled to dominate German culture, politics and society.

    Non-Jewish German people, newly unified and expecting to glory in their industrial and political achievements, thought that the Germany they created should be theirs to dominate.

    In the same era, Russian Jews entered the period of Enlightenment — “Haskalah.” For the first time, larger portions of the Russian Jewish population studied secular topics, mostly at German and Austrian universities, and returned to their people with new ideas, visions, and resentments. Those ideas crystallized into zionism: the quest to create in another land that they could call their own a Jewish version of the German-European enlightenment to which they had been exposed.

    (Theodor Herzl did not have strong opinions as to where Jews should establish their colony: Herzl was the antithesis of a religious Jew. Russian Jews, on the other hand, had spent centuries steeped only in their religious texts; for them, only a return to the “ancient homeland,” Palestine, could satisfy their longings. At one of the first zionist congresses, Herzl suggested settlement in a place other than Palestine; the resolution received many favorable votes, but the Russian Jews walked out. Herzl’s plan was rejected: for Russian zionists, it was Palestine or nothing.)

    And so the zionist colonization of Palestine became a project planned along German foundations, by persons born and educated in German ideas and institutions; supported by German (and Anglo) finances, but populated predominantly by Eastern European Jews, a large number of whom were the outcome of a reproductive bubble that produced impoverished, illiterate and unassimilable Jews by the thousands.

    Nothing about that double- (or triple) helix of Jewish-zionist evolution and development mirrors the rather straightforward German determination to claim Germany for Germans.

    • Replies: @KenH
  125. apollonian says: • Website
    @Kevin Barrett

    Barrett Compares Christian Truth Ideal With Mere Islamic Imperium

    Barrett: go and ck ur high-school text-books, sucker–European civilization began w. Greeks, even prior to 500 B.C., including especially the Homeric epics, Illiad and Oddysey. Christianity is itself largely a Greek inspiration, the earliest works preserved being written in Greek language. Christians then arose definitively under the Romans and sought to preserve that Greek foundation, Christ (= truth; Gosp. JOHN 14:6) affirming implicitly the OBJECTIVE (Aristotelian) reality as necessary foundation to such truth ideal, aimed explicitly against the Pharisaic subjectivism, “midrash” (interpretation), and “Oral Law Tradition” (see Gosp. JOHN 8:44).

    The “racial” impetus and orientation is the very purpose of philosophy, ethics, and all civilization, including especially the Biblic 4th (in some records, the 5th) commandment, “honor thy parentage (race).” And honor for the race also implies the determinist principle of absolute cause-effect, no perfectly “free” human will. Reality, including then one’s personality, is determined by ancestors and all and any precedents and circumstances.

    A “vibrant, powerful civilization” is ONLY possible by means of deterministic, hence racially-oriented ethics, philosophy, and culture, as history demonstrates beginning w. Greeks, then Romans, then the Germanic race which Germanic upheld Christian objectivity, reason (Holy Spirit), and determinism. “Love of self” is necessary virtue of PRUDENCE which the Greeks always recognized, and self-interest is simply the basic human condition, humans understood as creatures of will, hence self-interest, hence “sinners,” when that intrinsic self-interest isn’t tempered by reason (and Holy Spirit).

    Thus as Christianity is worship of TRUTH (= Christ) above all, science, reason, and biology are simply aspects of the Holy Spirit, the means by which such truth is apprehended and appreciated, and whatever “purpose” there may be is mere means to happiness and whatever end is chosen–which might be anything. “Self-sacrifice” is what suckers and weaklings do in service to some clever military leader, like the original Muhammud, who inveigled the Arabs to obey his orders when he went about to ambushing the latest caravans making their way in the desert.

  126. @John Johnson

    The Lusitania was, under International Law, carrying arms illegally. Germany attempted to inform, by advertisements, the US public that the ship was laden with arms, but was refused publication of those ads.
    Germany was the last country to mobilize before WWI, and the Kaiser begged the Tsar not to mobilize, as it meant that Germany would have to mobilize by treaty commitment.
    Let’s not mention George V urging Foreign Secretary Grey to find a reason for war with Germany.

  127. @David riskanalyst

    Carolyn Yeager doesn’t yet seem to have taken notice of the new book by Hoffman in a formal book review but she has a very active blog there. She knows as much or more about Hitler than anyone.

    Thanks. I find Michael Hoffman’s views on Hitler to be so ludicrous that I don’t want to give those views any attention. They are actually on the same level with Christopher Jon Bjerknes, and in fact come from him! Much of Bjerknes’ nonsense is the same junk Jim Condit, Jr. got from his “Polish source,” and that had been thoroughly debunked before Hoffman even used it! So really, Michael Hoffman is shamefully non-scholarly for someone who claims to be a scholar.

    I tried to debate Condit in 2011 — found at
    — but he wouldn ‘t follow the rules, and Spingola didn’t either. Still, some information I had researched came through. Condit is a con-man, as is Bjerknes, and Hoffman uses their material. Hoffman is greatly overrated.

  128. @John Johnson

    The only reason for the German-Soviet non-aggression pact was that Poland, which was ethnically cleansing Germans, refused to deal with the Danzig question. Germany had already signed a non-aggression pact with Poland, under Pilsudski, in 1934, which included an agreement to stop the ethnic cleansing. When Pilsudski died, Rydz Smygly ignored his advice to make peace with Germany and restarted the ethnic cleansing. There were many offers for peace, the last one was met with the mobilization of the Polish army, and bravado of occupying Berlin.
    As an aside, Danzig, which had voted to rejoin Germany, was a Free State under the mandate of the League of Nations. “Peaceful” Poland refused to recognize the mandate, were in violation of their treaty obligations in respect of Danzig, and claimed Danzig as part of Poland.

  129. KenH says:

    If KenH implies that the German people endorsed the same foundational mythology as Judaics, wrong again:

    Looks like you misunderstood what I meant. When I said Nationalist Socialism mirrored Judaism I was borrowing that conclusion from researchers like Kevin MacDonald because if you stop and think about it National Socialism was crafted as a survival strategy for the Germanic people just like Judaism is for the Jewish people. In Nationalist Socialism there’s us and them/the other just as Jews view non-Jews suspiciously and as fundamentally different and inferior.

    I did not mean that National Socialism is the same as Judaism or that National Socialist thinkers and intellectuals were unoriginal and borrowed from or adopted Jewish mythology while substituting Aryans as stand ins for the Jews.

    The “we’re all God’s children” claptrap of Christianity was alien to National Socialism thinking which emphasized Aryan & Germanic tribalism. And if whites don’t reject it now then white Europeans will be mongrelized out of existence by the close of this century if not before.

    • Thanks: SolontoCroesus
  130. KenH says:
    @Kevin Barrett

    European civilization rose when it was Christian, and has been declining since its elites abandoned Christianity.

    So if they adopt the Pope’s Catholicism of open arms for Muslim and African invaders and wokeness there will be a 21st century renaissance in Europe? The Pope doesn’t believe in borders for Europe or the West so taken to its logical conclusion Europe would cease to exist. The people of Europe would be far better served by National Socialism or Caligula or some other depraved pagan Roman emperor than they are by either their current tyrannical far left rulers or the degenerate Catholic Pope and his coterie of pederasts.

    What historical examples show that narcissistic racial navel-gazing builds a vibrant, powerful civilization?

    The racial navel gazers of Nationalist Socialists had Germany on the road to being the most civilized, educated and technically advanced nation in the world until the war destroyed their nation and forcibly imposed liberal democracy in the West and Jewish communism in the East. The founding fathers of America were “racial navel gazers” judging by some of their writings and they built a great, though imperfect, nation.

    The Jews have survived in hostile environs for over 2000 years thanks to the racial navel gazing of their religion.

    You invoke Spengler but apparently forgot that he judged European/Western civilization as in decline and entering senility while it was still very much Christian. Hitler and the National Socialist philosophers were acutely aware of this and attempted to chart a different path.

    I notice you mock Western science and biology like most ultra religious and I agree those are not Gods nor an end in themselves but we ignore some of the groundbreaking knowledge they’ve provided in favor of religious superstition and fanaticism at our own peril.

  131. Fox says:

    Typhus was a problem for the Russians as well (I can tell this from some wartime reports about the development af anti-typhoid chemicals in the SU), and when the British occupied the camp Bergen-Belsen it took them two months to get the typhus epidemic under control, even as they had food, water, medicines and could establish normal hygiene regimes. (Yet they still accused the camp personnel of criminal behavior against the inmates, even if the camp was in good and orderly condition till late of 1944 and only slid into chaos after supplies of food and medicines were cut off due to the war time development, the American air force destroyed the water works, the camp had become overcrowded due to transfers of inmates from other camps). And it would be interesting to know whether some Allied-administered camps were also free of typhus epidemics. Typhus is caused by louse infestation, the latter becomes a problem in overcrowded spaces with unhygienic circumstances, i.e., it is always a potential problem when overcrowding occurs.

  132. @NoseytheDuke

    The world doesn’t work that way, Hitler had some very powerful people backing him. The war was planned long in advance of Hitler’s rise to power.

    He had the German people backing him. Jews did not back him. Industrialists in the West did not back him. Industrialists in Germany only backed him once he gained power. The banks did not back him. Other countries did not back him. You’ve been reading Jew lies again?

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Kevin Barrett Comments via RSS