The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewGuillaume Durocher Archive
Hitler vs. the Untermenschen
Myth & Reality
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
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
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
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Standard narratives of the Third Reich have long emphasized the concept of “subhumans” (Untermenschen) as central to National Socialist thought and policy on race. Here is a typical example from Wikipedia (as of 23 March 2016):

Untermensch . . . underman, sub-man, subhuman; plural: Untermenschen) is a term that became infamous when the Nazis used it to describe “inferior people” often referred to as “the masses from the East,” that is Jews, Roma, and Slavs (mainly ethnic Poles, Serbs, and later also Russians). The term was also applied to most Blacks, and persons of color, with some particular exceptions.

The concept of the “subhuman” clearly has a central place in the demonology of anti-Nazism, the claim that Adolf Hitler and National Socialism are uniquely evil in human history (unlike, say, communism).

Historians frequently refer to “Untermenschen” to explain the Third Reich’s racial policies, but, strikingly, almost never in the context of a quote from Hitler or some other National Socialist source. The simple reason for is that Hitler, and perhaps most other National Socialists, almost never used the term. In searching through thousands of pages of Hitler’s books, speeches, and private conversations (all now conveniently available in PDF format, typically available on websites maintained by faithful National Socialists), I have found exactly four mentions of Untermensch and its derivatives (especially Untermenschentum or subhumanity). In this article, I would like to put the Untermensch concept and its actual use by Hitler in its historical context, as free as possible from the baggage of the victors’ mythology of the Second World War. For as we know, though history is always written by the victors, that account is never disinterested.

The Underman: A Dysgenic, Not Ethnic, Concept

The very use of the word “subhuman,” with its evil connotations, as a translation for Untermensch is somewhat misleading. It was not Germans, but the American racial thinker and eugenicist Lothrop Stoddard, who perhaps made the most prominent early use of the term “Under-Man” in his 1922 book The Revolt Against Civilization: The Menace of the Under-Man. Stoddard’s underman does not refer to a particular ethnic group, but rather to the gradual degeneration of populations due to dysgenics as a result of the relaxation of selective pressures enabled by civilization. He used the following definition: “The Under-Man – the man who measures under the standards of capacity and adaptability imposed by the social order in which he lives.”[1]Lothrop Stoddard, The Revolt Against Civilization: The Menace of the Under-Man (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1923, republished by Forgotten Books, 2012), 23. Compare also with the McGruderian concept of “nigger tech”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTzO-_Yl4d0

According to Stoddard, civilization paradoxically creates populations too stupid to have created that civilization and, ultimately, to maintain it. The result is an expansion in the less gifted and more anti-social elements of European nations, who are then rabble-roused into promoting revolutionary chaos and tyranny in great upheavals such as the French and Bolshevik Revolutions. This use of the term “underman,” which can also be contrasted with Nietzsche’s “superman,” is not meant to denigrate or justify domination of other peoples (e.g. Slavs), but rather to describe degenerative processes within a nation, including one’s own. At least three of the four recorded uses by Hitler of the terms underman/subhumanity correspond to this meaning.

Significantly, the German National Socialists were directly influenced by Stoddard. Alfred Rosenberg, a reputed leading National Socialist theorist (though one actually not always approved by Hitler), explicitly quotes Stoddard’s definition of the underman in his best-selling The Myth of the Twentieth Century. And here there is already an awkward fact in the mainstream anti-Nazi account. National Socialist killings are claimed to be motivated by the “underman” concept. It is then asserted or insinuated that all racial and eugenic thinking must logically lead to such atrocities (even a thinker as subtle as Raymond Aron made this claim). However, in point fact there was considerable debate within the Third Reich on racial policies, with the more pro-Slav and assimilationist positions often being espoused by top ideologues and racial thinkers.

Rosenberg himself as Reich Minister for the Occupied Eastern territories was a consistent, if rather ineffectual, advocate for improving treatment of the Slavs and for a grand strategy of fostering the Soviet Union’s subject nations’ independence as allies against Moscow. Another conciliatory figure was Hans Günther. He was Germany’s top racial scientist and eugenicist, to the extent that he was known as Rassengünther and Rassenpapst (“race pope”).[2]I am following the mainstream view here. This could well also be fabrication or caricature. For instance, Günther believed that four-fifths of Poles in the northern Danzig area were genetically close enough that they could be Germanized and assimilated.[3]Martin Bormann, Hitler’s Table Talk (Ostara Publications, 2012), 202.

There is clearly possible overlap between Stoddard’s notion of the underman stemming from dysgenic civilization and the older notion of inequality between the races (i.e. if a foreign race becomes inferior through degeneration). Some Third Reich ideology and propaganda espoused this, positing that northwest European (Nordic) and Germanic races were uniquely idealistic and had superior state-building and culture-creating abilities.[4]Guillaume Durocher, “Nordicism Today,” North American New Right, March 2, 2016, https://www.counter-currents.com/2016/03/nordicism-today/ Such ideas are debatable. The fact is however that despite the general postwar taboo on the examination of racial differences, geneticists have found that human beings cluster genetically along traditional racial (i.e. continental) and ethno-national lines. Furthermore, medical and psychometric studies have found average differences not only in physique and health, but also in temperament and intelligence between such groups.[5]Guillaume Durocher, “Some Recent Genetic Studies . . . & Hitler,” North American New Right, November 11, 2015, https://www.counter-currents.com/2015/11/some-recent...itler/

The notion of a “master race” (Herrenvolk) is also heavily emphasized in mainstream accounts of the Third Reich. In fact, Hitler never used the term “master race” in either his books, speeches, or recorded private Table Talk. The wider idea that more culturally advanced or biologically superior peoples had a right or even duty to dominate less gifted peoples was not a National Socialist innovation. On the contrary, this idea was widely shared across the world at the time, including by British imperialists, French Freemasons, American segregationists, Japanese warlords, and Jewish commissars.[6]Indeed, one could argue that many influential Jewish oligarchs such as George Soros, Sheldon Adelson, and Bernard-Henri Lévy have yet to abandon such claims to ethnic superiority and supremacy.

The Underman in Hitler’s Speeches

There is no mention of “subhumans” or “subhumanity” in Mein Kampf or in the unpublished Second Book. In Hitler’s numerous speeches – most comprehensively gathered for the 1932-1945 period in Max Domarus’ monumental four-volume collection – I can find no more than three mentions in over 3,000 pages. And even here “subhumanity” (Untermenschentum) is used twice and “subhumans” only once. In each case, Hitler used the term more in a Stoddardian sense of the lower elements of a society being rabble-roused and led by communists, rather than in an ethnic sense targeting Slavs and Gypsies, let alone Jews.

Hitler first used is in a January 30, 1934 speech to the Reichstag, where Hitler used the term “subhumanity” (again, perhaps better rendered as “underhumanity”) to refer to a part of Germany which had become sensitive to Marxism:

Furthermore, the fact that a number of communist ideologists believe it necessary to turn back the tide of history and, in doing so, make use of a subhumanity (Untermenschentum) which mistakes the concept of political freedom for the idea of allowing criminal instincts free rein will similarly cause us little concern. We were able to deal with these elements when they were in power and we were in the opposition. In the future we will be even more certain of being able to deal with them because they are now in the opposition and we are in power.[7]Max Domarus, Hitler: Speeches and Proclamations, 1932-1945 (Wauconda, Illinois: Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers, 1990), 420

Hitler’s second mention of Untermenschentum is in an April 28, 1939 speech to the Reichstag attacking Franklin Roosevelt – again refers to communists’ ability to foment revolution by appealing to the lower elements of a Western European nation, this time Civil War Spain:

Entire populations of villages and cities were literally slaughtered under the silent, gracious patronage of humanitarian world apostles from the democracies of Western Europe and North America. In this victory parade, side by side with their Italian comrades, the volunteers of our German Legion will march in the rows of valiant Spanish soldiers. Shortly afterwards we hope to welcome them here in the homeland. The German Volk will then find out how, in this instance also, its valiant sons fought in the defense of the freedom of a most noble people and how, in the end, they contributed to the rescue of European civilization. For the victory of Bolshevist subhumanity (Untermenschentum) in Spain could only too easily have swept over Europe.[8]Domarus, Hitler, 1580.

In the third instance, in a November 8, 1941 speech in the Munich Löwenbräukeller on the anniversary of the Putsch, there is Hitler’s only confirmed public utterance of the word “Untermenschen”:

Time meanwhile has proved what we National Socialists maintained for many years: it [the Soviet Union] is truly a state in which the whole national intelligentsia has been slaughtered, and where only spiritless, forcibly proletarianized subhumans remain. Above them, there is the gigantic organization of the Jewish commissars, that is, established slaveowners. Frequently people wondered whether, in the long run, nationalist tendencies would not be victorious there. But they completely forgot that the bearers of a conscious nationalist view no longer existed. That, in the end, the man who temporarily became the ruler of this state, is nothing other than an instrument in the hands of this almighty Jewry. If Stalin is on stage and steps in front of the curtain, then Kaganovich and all those Jews stand behind him, Jews who, in ten-thousandfold ramifications, control this mighty empire.[9]Domarus, Hitler, 2505.

This use could be considered to be in line with that of the “subhumanity” appealed to by communists in Germany and Spain, the only difference being that the revolution that failed there had triumphed in Russia. Hitler could be seen as implying in a novel sense that the Soviet peoples are “subhuman,” but that is by no means explicit. Also noteworthy is that there is no suggestion that the Jews are “subhumans,” but rather than the Jews are cruelly ruling over the undermen as “slaveowners.”

Hitler on Jews: Deadly Rivals, Not “Subhumans”

Hitler’s third use of the term highlights a misleading if not outright false claim of the anti-Nazi narrative: That Hitler and National Socialists lumped less gifted populations together with Jews under the heading “subhumans.” In fact, Hitler had long been extraordinarily impressed by the tribal prowess of the Jews. As he recounts in a largely-ignored passage of Mein Kampf on his prolonged “profound anxiety” in converting to anti-Semitism:

As I critically reviewed the activities of the Jewish people throughout long periods of history I became anxious and asked myself whether for some inscrutable reasons beyond the comprehension of poor mortals such as ourselves, Destiny may not have irrevocably decreed that the final victory must go to this small nation? May it not be that this people which has lived only for the earth has been promised the earth as a recompense? is our right to struggle for our own self-preservation based on reality, or is it a merely subjective thing? Fate answered the question for me inasmuch as it led me to make a detached and exhaustive inquiry into the Marxist teaching and the activities of the Jewish people in connection with it.[10]Adolf Hitler (Murphy translation), Mein Kampf, 59.

Hitler plainly did not consider Jews “subhumans” in anything like the sense he may have considered Gypsies or the lower elements of European nations, in particular Slavic ones, to be so, and his grounds for persecuting them were entirely different. Hitler did not advocate the elimination of Jewry on eugenic grounds, but on grounds of European self-defense against a corrupting and cruel alien domination.

It is interesting to think about why the mainstream narrative emphasizes the misleading idea that National Socialist anti-Semitism considered Jews “subhumans,” as opposed to being the perfidious and gifted leaders of the undermen. The effect of inaccurately lumping Jews and non-Jews who suffered under National Socialist rule together as “subhumans” is to create solidarity between the two groups, and lessening the international appeal of National Socialist anti-Semitism. It is no secret that the Poles and Russians were also among the most anti-Semitic peoples in the world at the time, having a long list of grievances against the Jews, from centuries of misanthropic business practices to a leading role in communist tyranny and mass murder.

If mainstream historiography were to acknowledge that Hitler’s anti-Semitism was based not on a concern about dysgenic “subhumans,” but about Jewish power and privilege, this could well bring people to think about Jewish privilege in the world today, most garishly visible in the United States[11]To cite only some of the most visible markers: Complete ownership of Hollywood, ownership of much of television, ownership of elite print media, ownership of the two most culturally influential Internet companies (Google and Facebook), massive over-representation and sometimes even outnumbering of white gentiles in the Ivy League universities both as professors and students, circa 500% over-representation in the Senate, circa 2000% over-representation in Supreme Court, and providing between a one and two thirds of Democratic Party financing (including all seven of Hillary Clinton’s top contributors). Such preponderance is simply astonishing. What is truly insufferable is that not only are white gentiles often under-represented in key institutions but are portrayed by “anti-racist” Jews as the most privileged group in the country, responsible for the ills of blacks and other minorities. What’s more, white gentiles are not allowed to organize to defend their group interests, while the powerful Israel lobby in Washington ensures that U.S. foreign policy systematically supports the existing the Jewish ethno-state Israel, with its racist immigration policies, through murderous wars, billions in subsidies, and systematic vetoes at the United Nations. If one believes in karma, one can understand Jewish organizations’ perpetual and characteristic nervousness. and France. Indeed, this would highlight the possibilities of multiracial alliances of those who consider themselves to be victims of Jewish power, especially between Europeans and Muslims.[12]Such a strategy has achieved limited success in some cases (namely with Alain Soral’s organization Égalité et Réconciliation and the popular appeal of Dieudonné M’bala M’bala). This strategy, regardless of its ultimate success or failure, causes extreme alarm and agitation among Jewish groups. The strategy also embodies a rather poetic dialectic: These same Jewish groups have promoted non-European immigration and multiculturalism explicitly citing the idea that a multiethnic society is one in which a united Judeo-critical popular political movement would no longer be possible. What irony if the strategy were to succeed!

I cannot resist noting the similarity between Hitler’s assessment of Jews and communism, and that of Winston Churchill, as described in his famous 1920 newspaper article “Bolshevism versus Zionism”:

Some people like Jews and some do not; but no thoughtful man can doubt the fact that they are beyond all question the most formidable and the most remarkable race which has ever appeared in the world. [. . .] In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish effort [by patriotic Russian Jews] rise the schemes of the International Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. [. . .] This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognisable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.

One has the distinct impression that Hitler and Churchill were in basic agreement about dysgenics, communism, and Jews, but merely differed in the sides they chose to serve. This incidentally has enormous implications for Churchill’s ethics, given that he claimed to be fighting so that “the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years”[13]Churchill’s hope of a thousand-year British Empire was prominently mentioned in his iconic “This was their finest hour” speech of June 18, 1940. Of course, the British Empire would very rapidly unravel in the following years, under the debilitating cost of the Second World War and the postwar pressure and hegemony of the American Empire. While Churchill’s vain millennial imperialist ambitions are rarely mentioned, Hitler’s failure to create a “thousand-year Reich” is endlessly repeated. (that’s right: Churchill fought for a thousand-year Reich) and to “keep England white!”[14]The immigration policy Churchill advocated to his cabinet as postwar prime minister. Either Churchill was monumentally insincere or he was incredibly short-sighted in making a Faustian pact with forces in America and Russia which would inevitably work to destroy the empire and race he claimed to hold dear.

Hitler’s Slavophobia

I can find only one mention of Untermenschen by Hitler that fits the mainstream narrative. In a conversation in the night of September 14–15, 1941, Hitler denounces judges for being too soft on violent German criminals, and compares the latter to Russian prisoners of wars:

Nearly two thousand people in Germany disappear every year without trace—victims, for the most part, of maniacs or sadists. It’s known that these latter are generally recidivists—but the lawyers take great care to inflict only very light penalties on them. And yet these subhuman creatures are the ferment that undermines the state! I make no distinction between them and the brutes who populate our Russian P.O.W. camps.[15]Borman, Table Talk, 13.

This is a shocking comparison, Hitler not considering his opponents in war to be honorable fellow soldiers conscripted by an evil communist tyranny, but no better than the lowest German criminals. This line of thinking can easily be tied to the German mistreatment of Soviet P.O.W.s, ranging from killing to willful neglect, which led to the deaths of over 3 million.

There is then, as with all effective narratives, a grain of truth to the mainstream view. While it clearly caricatures racial thinking in the Third Reich and radically overemphasizes and misrepresents the concept of the underman, the fact is that in Hitler’s case this did underpin a callous and even murderous attitude in the Eastern territories. This is somewhat similar to the status of anti-Semitism in Third Reich cinema. Whereas films like The Eternal Jew and The Jew Süss are given enormous attention, actually out of the over 1,000 films produced in National Socialist Germany, only a half-dozen were primarily anti-Semitic. As some recent mainstream scholarship has emphasized, the German people’s support for National Socialism was not cultivated primarily by stoking jealousy and viciousness against a “powerless minority,” but by appealing to the highest idealism and sense of sacrifice in service of one’s people.[16]Claudia Koonz, The Nazi Conscience (2005): “Challenging conventional assumptions about Hitler, Koonz locates the source of his charisma not in his summons to hate, but in his appeal to the collective virtue of his people, the Volk.” There could be an element of projection in liberal-leftist propaganda against the Third Reich. Consider a show like Last Week Tonight, a non-stop stream of completely unselfconscious snobbery and intellectual intolerance against all whites who think a little differently or are considered “low-class,” an exercise meant only to flatter the young viewer and comfort him in the liberal-egalitarian world-view which has been ceaselessly pumped into his brain since childbirth. George Orwell’s “Two Minutes Hate” comes to mind. And the whole thing executed as a series of interruptions of more-or-less obscene non-sequiturs and mental flatulence.

Insofar as Hitler equated the races of the Soviet Union with communist ideology (by these races’ supposed vulnerability to Jewish-led communism), he contributed to murderous policies and to alienating nations which might have been allies against communism and Jewry, and hence to the defeat of the Third Reich.

Untermensch Given the disputed translations and my insufficient knowledge of German, I cannot comment firmly on a central piece of evidence in the mainstream narrative’s case, namely the notorious 1942 SS pamphlet entitled Der Untermensch. The document seems to dehumanize Soviet peoples, or at least large swathes of them, equating them as part of a wider, almost mystical world-historical process: By definition, if humanity evolves upward, some are left behind, the underman, those who would, out of spite and selfishness, drag those who have risen back into the mud. Here too, incidentally, the Jews however are not considered “subhumans” but are rather their leaders.

The mainstream narrative does not recognize that Der Untermensch certainly does not sum up National Socialist views and public discourse on race. The SS itself could be far more nuanced and ecumenical.[17]For example, the SS Race Theory and Mate Selection Guidelines, a remarkable document, states:

If one examines the individual countries of Europe according to their racial composition, one initially notices that in almost all states the same races are represented. We find the Nordic race represented outside of Germany, in the Scandinavian lands, England and Holland and even in Russia, Italy, France, Spain and so on. We also find, however, East Baltic man in the various European countries. The overall racial evaluation of a folk does not come down to that. It is a matter of the STRENGTH OF THE PORTIONS OF THE INDIVIDUAL RACES in the respective folk. And there we determine: already just numerically the Reich marches far ahead of all other folks in respect to the Nordic portion. With natural right Germany can claim the leadership of the predominantly Nordic-Germanic folks.
Propaganda like Der Untermensch should also be seen in the wider context of an era of brutal revolutions and total wars. The Third Reich hardly had a monopoly in extreme propaganda meant to motivate the nation to sacrifice and to dehumanize an enemy whose defeat requires the harshest methods.[18]Allied propaganda and media not only often spread absurd falsehoods – e.g. Germany’s supposed ambitions to conquer North America or ban Christianity – but frequently equated “Nazism,” “Prussian militarism,” and the German people as one and the same, which no doubt morally legitimized the extremely escalatory demand of unconditional surrender, and mass violence by firebombing, mass rape, and ethnic cleansing. Even a historian as serious as A. J. P. Taylor, for instance, wrote in a book near the end of the war on the Germans: “no other people has pursued extermination as a permanent policy from generation to generation for a thousand years,” really a shocking statement coming from an Anglo-Saxon (in fact, besides the Baltic Prussians, one struggles to know what Taylor is even referring to). A. J. P. Taylor, The Course of German History (New York: Capricorn Books, 1962), 16. Taylor’s work more generally claims National Socialism is a natural or even inevitable growth of German history, a thesis worth pondering, but which had the effect of legitimizing the end-of-war mass violence against the German people. One wonders if Taylor’s later work to “normalize” Hitler’s foreign policy was partly motivated by a bad conscience.

In the racial theories of Stoddard, Rosenberg, and Günther, the underman concept was not incompatible with conciliatory or assimilationist policies towards the Slavs. Hitler however, along with his influential secretary Martin Bormann, took an extremely hard-line view, including statements explicitly contradicting Rosenberg and Günther.

Hitler’s harsh policies in the eastern territories were justified on the following grounds:

  • Realpolitik: Non-German nation-states are inherently unreliable or threatening, therefore their populations must not grow and their states should be destroyed. This was grounded in Hitler’s incredibly negative reaction to multiculturalism in the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the unreliability of non-German units in First World War, combined with an inherently conflictual view of life and international relations, made up of perpetual competition between nation-states.
  • Nordicism: Non-German populations could not be assimilated into Germany without the risk that such miscegenation would be dysgenic, leading to quasi-permanent genetic damage. This was motivated by recent racial theories on the success of the West and the haunting fear that miscegenation with lesser stock had led to the decline of Ancient Greece and Rome.

Hitler’s plans for the East are among the most chilling of his private Table Talk (the veracity of which is rarely disputed): Repeatedly demanding the razing of Moscow and Saint Petersburg so as to permanently destroy any Russian state west of the Urals, that Slavs not be provided healthcare or education (lest they multiply and self-organize), that Germans be systematically segregated from the natives, and that Crimea in particular be ethnically cleansed to make way for German settlers. Hitler absurdly claimed the borders of “Europe” end where Slavdom begins, and argues the natives should be treated like America’s Red Amerindians or the British Empire’s Indians. Hitler conceded the eventuality of assimilating some Slavs, but urged this be extremely limited and discriminating (better safe than sorry, he presumably thought). He would occasionally claim the natives would anyway be better off under German rule, but this seems anything but a superficial reassurance, and in any event his preferred humane outcome seems to have been sterilization.

There is a kind of ruthless logic to Hitler’s approach. The mainstream narrative is correct in noting that racial and eugenic thinking can lead to such conclusions, but it is false in claiming this must inevitably be so (after all, any line of thinking, such as Christianity or Marxism, can be taken to violent conclusions). But there is no getting around the fact that genetic thinking inevitably leads to valuing some life over other life (or, at least, some genes over other genes), if the human race is to improve. (Even the most well-thinking liberal would, when pressed, acknowledge that the spread of disease-causing genes is a bad thing.)

Churchill incidentally made arguments similar to Hitler’s: Concerning the need for eugenics in England, the good that was the replacement of the Australian Aborigines by “the stronger race” that was the Anglo-Saxon Australians, and the refusal to provide food to starving Bengalis that had been “breeding like rabbits.” He once said during the war: “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.”

It is also a fact that the European peoples have seen a staggering relative decline in numbers and power in the world, precisely due to the policies Hitler criticized: Of providing healthcare and development to Afro-Asiatic populations who were incapable of indigenously producing them, and thus enabling massive demographic explosions in the absence of any population control policy. Ethnic Europeans have declined from making up over a third of the world population 1900 to perhaps 10 percent today. Africans, especially sub-Saharans, are expected to quadruple in number to over 4 billion this century. Muslims, with which there is some overlap with Africans, are expected to almost double in population by mid-century to over 2.75 billion. Meanwhile the sons of Europe, who in 1900 controlled virtually the entire world, will before 2100 be reduced to minorities in their own former homelands in both North America and Western Europe. These facts both highlight Hitler’s failings – hairsplitting between Germanics and Slavs appears uniquely petty in the wider context of European collapse – but also helps us understand his contempt for do-gooder colonialists (whom he even threatened to have put in concentration camps).

Hitler’s eastern policies were supremely blame-worthy, ultimately criminally irresponsible and mad. Here is a classic story of hubris and nemesis. One can ask: Why not even attempt to make Poland into an anti-communist buffer state? Why this unwillingness, in this war to the death, to maximize chances of victory by granting even the non-Russian peoples their own nation-states, given their obvious interest in the destruction of the Soviet “prison of nations”? At the risk of understating the human and moral catastrophe: C’est pire qu’un crime, c’est une faute.

But asking such questions can miss the point. Hindsight is always 20/20 and comfortable armchair-generals always know best, don’t they? We must learn from suffering. A world-historical figure like Hitler – who must be ranked in terms of impact with the likes of Alexander the Great, Jesus Christ, or Napoleon – does not achieve the successes that he does (astonishing up to 1941) by being “reasonable” and compromising with one’s ideals and goals. Rosenberg blamed Hitler’s tragic mistakes in this regard on his artistic penchant[19]Recall that the dissident émigré Thomas Mann could write of Hitler in 1939: “Ah, the artist! I spoke of moral self-flagellation. For must I not, however much it hurts, regard the man as an artist-phenomenon?” for the passions, caught up in the intoxication of spectacular mass rallies and his stunning early triumphs. Hitler for his part could well have been speaking of himself in the following general statement: “I have long realized that actors and artists often have such fantastic ideas that one is compelled from time to time to shake an admonitory finger at them and bring them back to earth.”[20]Conversation on April 26, 1942. Bormann, Table Talk, 189.

Notes

[1] Lothrop Stoddard, The Revolt Against Civilization: The Menace of the Under-Man (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1923, republished by Forgotten Books, 2012), 23. Compare also with the McGruderian concept of “nigger tech”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTzO-_Yl4d0

[2] I am following the mainstream view here. This could well also be fabrication or caricature.

[3] Martin Bormann, Hitler’s Table Talk (Ostara Publications, 2012), 202.

[4] Guillaume Durocher, “Nordicism Today,” North American New Right, March 2, 2016, https://www.counter-currents.com/2016/03/nordicism-today/

[5] Guillaume Durocher, “Some Recent Genetic Studies . . . & Hitler,” North American New Right, November 11, 2015, https://www.counter-currents.com/2015/11/some-recent-genetic-studies-hitler/

[6] Indeed, one could argue that many influential Jewish oligarchs such as George Soros, Sheldon Adelson, and Bernard-Henri Lévy have yet to abandon such claims to ethnic superiority and supremacy.

[7] Max Domarus, Hitler: Speeches and Proclamations, 1932-1945 (Wauconda, Illinois: Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers, 1990), 420

[8] Domarus, Hitler, 1580.

[9] Domarus, Hitler, 2505.

[10] Adolf Hitler (Murphy translation), Mein Kampf, 59.

[11] To cite only some of the most visible markers: Complete ownership of Hollywood, ownership of much of television, ownership of elite print media, ownership of the two most culturally influential Internet companies (Google and Facebook), massive over-representation and sometimes even outnumbering of white gentiles in the Ivy League universities both as professors and students, circa 500% over-representation in the Senate, circa 2000% over-representation in Supreme Court, and providing between a one and two thirds of Democratic Party financing (including all seven of Hillary Clinton’s top contributors). Such preponderance is simply astonishing. What is truly insufferable is that not only are white gentiles often under-represented in key institutions but are portrayed by “anti-racist” Jews as the most privileged group in the country, responsible for the ills of blacks and other minorities. What’s more, white gentiles are not allowed to organize to defend their group interests, while the powerful Israel lobby in Washington ensures that U.S. foreign policy systematically supports the existing the Jewish ethno-state Israel, with its racist immigration policies, through murderous wars, billions in subsidies, and systematic vetoes at the United Nations. If one believes in karma, one can understand Jewish organizations’ perpetual and characteristic nervousness.

[12] Such a strategy has achieved limited success in some cases (namely with Alain Soral’s organization Égalité et Réconciliation and the popular appeal of Dieudonné M’bala M’bala). This strategy, regardless of its ultimate success or failure, causes extreme alarm and agitation among Jewish groups. The strategy also embodies a rather poetic dialectic: These same Jewish groups have promoted non-European immigration and multiculturalism explicitly citing the idea that a multiethnic society is one in which a united Judeo-critical popular political movement would no longer be possible. What irony if the strategy were to succeed!

[13] Churchill’s hope of a thousand-year British Empire was prominently mentioned in his iconic “This was their finest hour” speech of June 18, 1940. Of course, the British Empire would very rapidly unravel in the following years, under the debilitating cost of the Second World War and the postwar pressure and hegemony of the American Empire. While Churchill’s vain millennial imperialist ambitions are rarely mentioned, Hitler’s failure to create a “thousand-year Reich” is endlessly repeated.

[14] The immigration policy Churchill advocated to his cabinet as postwar prime minister.

[15] Borman, Table Talk, 13.

[16] Claudia Koonz, The Nazi Conscience (2005): “Challenging conventional assumptions about Hitler, Koonz locates the source of his charisma not in his summons to hate, but in his appeal to the collective virtue of his people, the Volk.” There could be an element of projection in liberal-leftist propaganda against the Third Reich. Consider a show like Last Week Tonight, a non-stop stream of completely unselfconscious snobbery and intellectual intolerance against all whites who think a little differently or are considered “low-class,” an exercise meant only to flatter the young viewer and comfort him in the liberal-egalitarian world-view which has been ceaselessly pumped into his brain since childbirth. George Orwell’s “Two Minutes Hate” comes to mind. And the whole thing executed as a series of interruptions of more-or-less obscene non-sequiturs and mental flatulence.

[17] For example, the SS Race Theory and Mate Selection Guidelines, a remarkable document, states:

If one examines the individual countries of Europe according to their racial composition, one initially notices that in almost all states the same races are represented. We find the Nordic race represented outside of Germany, in the Scandinavian lands, England and Holland and even in Russia, Italy, France, Spain and so on. We also find, however, East Baltic man in the various European countries. The overall racial evaluation of a folk does not come down to that. It is a matter of the STRENGTH OF THE PORTIONS OF THE INDIVIDUAL RACES in the respective folk. And there we determine: already just numerically the Reich marches far ahead of all other folks in respect to the Nordic portion. With natural right Germany can claim the leadership of the predominantly Nordic-Germanic folks.

[18] Allied propaganda and media not only often spread absurd falsehoods – e.g. Germany’s supposed ambitions to conquer North America or ban Christianity – but frequently equated “Nazism,” “Prussian militarism,” and the German people as one and the same, which no doubt morally legitimized the extremely escalatory demand of unconditional surrender, and mass violence by firebombing, mass rape, and ethnic cleansing. Even a historian as serious as A. J. P. Taylor, for instance, wrote in a book near the end of the war on the Germans: “no other people has pursued extermination as a permanent policy from generation to generation for a thousand years,” really a shocking statement coming from an Anglo-Saxon (in fact, besides the Baltic Prussians, one struggles to know what Taylor is even referring to). A. J. P. Taylor, The Course of German History (New York: Capricorn Books, 1962), 16. Taylor’s work more generally claims National Socialism is a natural or even inevitable growth of German history, a thesis worth pondering, but which had the effect of legitimizing the end-of-war mass violence against the German people. One wonders if Taylor’s later work to “normalize” Hitler’s foreign policy was partly motivated by a bad conscience.

[19] Recall that the dissident émigré Thomas Mann could write of Hitler in 1939: “Ah, the artist! I spoke of moral self-flagellation. For must I not, however much it hurts, regard the man as an artist-phenomenon?”

[20] Conversation on April 26, 1942. Bormann, Table Talk, 189.

(Republished from Counter-Currents Publishing by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: History • Tags: Hitler, Jews, Nazi Germany, Slavs, World War II 
Hide 456 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. WHAT says:

    In the end his views were a product of his butthurt and justifications thereof over seeing various slav factions successfully defend their positions in the Austro-Hungarian parliament.

  2. German_reader says:

    Given the disputed translations and my insufficient knowledge of German, I cannot comment firmly on a central piece of evidence in the mainstream narrative’s case, namely the notorious 1942 SS pamphlet entitled Der Untermensch.

    Can be read here:
    https://archive.org/details/SS-Hauptamt-Der-Untermensch/mode/2up

    Durocher actually made me read it. My conclusions:
    1.) The parts that are most racist against Soviet peoples are in the first few pages, where there’s talk of amorphous Asiatic hordes (Huns, Genghis Khan etc.) which have threatened Europe for ages. There’s explicit talk of a Kulturgefälle between Germany and Eastern Europe…Eastern Europe could be like California, but the primitive natives are incapable of realizing its potential. So there’s a clear justification for German imperialism.
    On the other hand, there’s nothing explicit about the racial inferiority of Slavs as such. As far as I can see, Russians are mentioned by name only on two occasions on the text (“Russian workers”, “Russian women”) both times in contexts where they can be seen as victims of “Judaeo-Bolshevik” oppression.
    2.) Much of the text is actually an antisemitic anti-Bolshevik tract, contrasting the dreary realities of life in the Soviet Union with the glories of Aryan-European civilization (which is under threat by Bolshevism). Subjects include oppression of workers and peasants (have to give their grain to the local soviet, are forced into colchoses), destruction of the family and of religion, the miserable conditions of life in the Soviet Union, famine etc. It culminates with pictures from the NKVD (called by its former name GPU in the text) massacres of 1941, and the following warning/exhortation:
    https://archive.org/details/SS-Hauptamt-Der-Untermensch/page/n49/mode/2up

    “So wie diese russischen Frauen müsstet ihr Frauen Europas weinen!
    Der Untermensch stand auf die Welt zu erobern
    Wehe Euch Menschen, wenn ihr nicht zusammensteht
    Wehr Dich Europa!”

    Translation: Women of Europe, you’d have to cry like those Russian women [whose relatives were murdered by the NKVD]
    The Untermensch has risen to conquer the world.
    Woe to you people, if you don’t stand together.
    Europe, defend yourself!

    Also interesting is the emphasis on a sort of pan-European theme in the text, which mentions Germany’s non-Germanic allies (Finns, Spaniards, Italians, Slovaks; for some odd reason also Greeks) several times, as defenders of Europe threatened by Bolshevism.

    So I’d say, there are some elements of anti-Russian/anti-Russian racism in this text, with the parts about “Asiatic hordes”, the general backwardness of Eastern Europe and its peoples etc. However, it mostly is anti-Bolshevist, with an antisemitic interpretation of Bolshevism (Jewish commissars as the force behind Bolshevism etc.). It’s probably no surprise that this isn’t emphasized today, since it would seem to support the Noltean interpretation that the Nazis and other fascist movements were in part an excessive reaction to Bolshevism.

  3. Wally says:

    A start but way, way off the mark and propaganda loaded.

    – Where is a verifiable source for the claim that the Germans killed 3,000,000+ Soviet prisoners? Where did this supposedly happen exactly?
    – This stinks of pure propaganda which also fails to acknowledge the fact the Stalin would not permit the Red Cross (ICRC) to assist in the feeding of Soviet POWs in German hands.
    – Then there is the fact of Allied attacks on food & medical transports which necessarily had a strong impact.
    – Also there is the fact that Stalin executed returning POWs, no doubt included in the mentioned mythical 3,000,000+
    – Durocher seems to embrace the ‘extermination’ lies made about NS Germany. There is simply no proof or human remains to back up such an absurd claim, as has ben demonstrated at this site and others repeatedly
    – Durocher goes further off the rails by claiming that ‘Table Talk’ is credible through & through, it is certainly not.
    Recommended:
    Hitler’s “Table Talk”: A Study in Academic Fraud & Scandal: https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/9/3/4880
    The Faking of Hitler’s “Last Testament”: http://www.fpp.co.uk/Hitler/docs/Testament/byGenoud.html
    Table Talk: http://www.fpp.co.uk/Hitler/Table_Talk/Picker.html
    Is the book Hitler’s Table talks 1941-1944 reliable?: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11865

    • Replies: @padre
    , @Tom Welsh
    , @Braveheart
  4. kikl says:

    “Hitler’s plans for the East are among the most chilling of his private Table Talk (the veracity of which is rarely disputed)”

    It is true that the veracity is rarely disputed, however the arguments against its veracity are very strong indeed:

    “…The only English version of the Table Talk that exists is now confirmed to be unreliable by two separate experts in two peer reviewed research articles. You should never trust quotes of it. Even when they might accurately reflect the German, they still often omit crucial context, as I also showed in my article for GSR, with more examples in the appendix to my reproduction of that in Hitler Homer Bible Christ. But also quite often, the English translation simply doesn’t agree with the German, deviating more than trivially. And when that happens, it matches exactly the French. But Dr. Nilsson has also now presented evidence casting doubt on the reliability of even the German text of the Table Talk. The actual words of Hitler are not actually in it. How much it reflects what Hitler actually said or in what precise words he actually said it, is probably impossible to know.

    Dr. Nilsson remarked to me how similar this was to the “oral transmission” theory of the sayings of Jesus. Here we have, within literally just days, the actual words of Hitler being distorted and filtered through the faulty memories, wishes and interpretations, and deliberate alterations, of several parties. And this was not even oral transmission, but in writing! Picker relayed slightly different memories than Heim’s, and even relayed the incomplete memories of Heim, who was continuing to “alter the text” after transmitting an earlier version of it to Picker. And then, within mere years, less than a decade in fact, these distorted texts were altered even further, when they were translated into other languages. (Sound familiar? We have not a single text of anything Jesus ever said in the original language he would have said it in.) By then, Hitler was in many cases being made to say things completely the opposite of what the original texts remembered him saying. And even those “original texts” are not the words of Hitler. They are the words of other people, describing their recollections of things they thought he said…”

    https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/10978

    • Replies: @John Regan
    , @Tom Welsh
  5. Very interesting, and accuracy on Hitler is important. However, insofar as it is treated as a contribution to understanding how the killing of Jews came about and what the details were, it is a pity that it did not deal with the responsibility of Himmler and Goebbels at least for the anti-Jewish policies and actions. In their absence little or nothing is made of vile propaganda against Jews which should be considered at a minimum as a contrast to the high minded love of country which the author,no doubt correctly, says was a major part of Hitler’s rhetorical appeal.

    • Replies: @Anon
  6. padre says:
    @Wally

    In general Hitler was a stand up guy!

    • Replies: @Sean
    , @Moi
  7. In this victory parade, side by side with their Italian comrades, the volunteers of our German Legion will march in the rows of valiant Spanish soldiers.

    In that propaganda speech Hitler forgets to mention the non-European Arab soldiers brought in by Franco from Morocco whom the Germans helped to transport to Iberia. Without the help of these 80,000 Moors Franco could have hardly won the civil war.

    https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/indepth/2016/9/1/arabs-on-both-sides-of-the-spanish-civil-war

    • Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome
  8. gotmituns says:

    In “Hitler’s Revolution,” it goes into how the 3rd Reich had got by the concept of “Untermenschen.” The Waffen SS especially were in the forefront of accepting all Europeans as equals.

  9. Dan Kelso says:

    Magnificent. The defeat of Fascism always looks sweet.
    In Stalingrad once the war turned against Germany in 42/43 Hitler sent hundreds of thousands of German soldiers to die in the Russian winter.
    The Nazi generals in Stalingrad told Hitler they must retreat as the German soldiers didn’t have winter clothing to fight in this war.
    The Battle of Stalingrad was an utter failure on Hitler’s part. His greed for genocide and slaughtering millions of civilians united the world in defeating this Nazi Monster Hitler.

    • Agree: Commentator Mike
    • Troll: Pheasant
  10. Dan Kelso says:

    Bomber Harris the top British fighter Pilot who led the Dresden bombing in 45 and understood the only language Hitler knew was massive force.
    As Bomber Harris said.

    “The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind.”

    • Agree: Commentator Mike
    • Troll: Pheasant
    • Replies: @Pheasant
    , @Vaterland
    , @Eckbach
  11. Dan Kelso says:

    Read the diary of Leib Langfus who was a Jew murdered in Auschwitz in 1944.
    Leib details over and over how the Nazis loved murdering Jewish children.
    You truly see how the Germans are the most evil people in history.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leib_Langfus
    In a chapter titled “Di 600 Yinglekh” (The 600 Youngsters), he describes the horrifying spectacle of 600 children being pushed savagely and cruelly to their death in the gas chamber. Some pleaded with the Sonderkommando prisoners to save them. Others appealed to the SS men who instead of replying shoved them even more forcefully into the bunker. The screams and sobbing of the children were deafening until death silenced them, at which moment an expression of satisfaction slipped over the faces of their tormentors. Langfus concludes his account with a question: “Have they never had any children?”

    • Troll: Pheasant, Druid55, Vaterland
    • Replies: @John Regan
    , @ploni almoni
  12. El Dato says:
    @German_reader

    Kinda weird, Ghengis was probably what Ultra-Germans aspired to be most and Ghengis’ rise to power itself is actually a story that is right up Hitler’s alley. Use different costumes and you can play it at Bayreuth Festival. With a less Götterdämmerung ending.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  13. JackOH says:

    “Also interesting is the emphasis on a sort of pan-European theme in the text, which mentions Germany’s non-Germanic allies (Finns, Spaniards, Italians, Slovaks; for some odd reason also Greeks) . . .” (emphasis added).

    Thanks, German_reader.

    If my memory’s okay, one in five winners of the Knight’s Cross was a German with a clearly non-German surname, mostly French and Slavic. Plus, at least one of Theodor Fontane’s very Prussian German characters referred to his family’s pre-Teutonic Slavic roots (Obodrite?) in Prussia to emphasize his sense of entitlement over Prussians who had only Teutonic lineage.

    • Replies: @Tom Welsh
  14. Anon[348] • Disclaimer says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    In their absence little or nothing is made of vile propaganda against Jews

    What “vile propaganda” against Jews?

    What did the German State make of the Jews that is not as true today as it was then?

    In more detail:

    What did the Germans make of the Jews that is not widely true and applicable to them as a group, as made obvious through their past and modern group political actions?

    What is not true in the context the singular Jewish supremacist goal as explained in their “theology”?

    What conflicts in the the broad historic movements of Judaism, as wandering fugitives, with what is implied in Christ’s 2,000 year old, succinct categorization of the Jews as Children of the Devil?

    Be sure you contrast whatever you attempt to provide as evidence for falsehood in German statements with documented Jewish belief about the Germans, as well as all other gentiles, in the context of heir insistence on holding such hostile beliefs while living as ethnonationlist extremists among all other Western nations.

    • Agree: Druid55
    • Thanks: Nonny Mouse
  15. “Hitler denounces judges for being too soft on violent German criminals, and compares the latter to Russian prisoners of wars:

    Nearly two thousand people in Germany disappear every year without trace—victims, for the most part, of maniacs or sadists. It’s known that these latter are generally recidivists—but the lawyers take great care to inflict only very light penalties on them. And yet these subhuman creatures are the ferment that undermines the state! I make no distinction between them and the brutes who populate our Russian P.O.W. camps.”

    Let’s start here.

    Can you get away with murdering the person next to you because he irritates you? Because he disputes the property line separating your respective properties? Perhaps he lets his dog crap in your rose garden?

    No. Of course not.

    Why not?

    Because his body is not merely his body. It belongs to the King, The State.

    When you kill him you are charged with a crime against the State, by the State.

    Oh sure, in America the charge rests on the claim that you have offended some concept concerning the inviolability or sanctity of the individual self, of an individual’s inalienable Rights and so forth, but at bottom, you are being hailed before the Judge by the system that grants itself the Right to do so and on behalf of that system. (Libertarians despise this.)

    Now, here comes the modern liberated woman waving her copy of the book, “Our Bodies, Our Selves”. She grants herself the right to screw whomsoever she pleases and to have an abortion at will and at her leisure.

    She defies the King. Her body belongs not to Him, but to herself. In believing that it is neither his to claim or protect, she places herself outside the Law as it has been interpreted in the West for millennium.

    Odd that the title of her Bible is OUR bodies, OUR selves, because when she has had an abortion, it is her body alone and the child within that is the agent/victim. Not plural, but singular. “My Body, My Self” would be more accurate, as she belatedly and forlornly realizes in the parking lot outside the abortion clinic after the operation.

    Her body is so much her property and hers alone that not even the child growing within it has a claim upon it. This is the ultimate solipsism, or nihilism.

    The relevance of this to the quote above is that Hitler understood that when the criminal justice system no longer enforces the King’s claim to His subjects bodies, then the system is undermined. A legal system cannot be made up of mere individual claims made against one another under the rubric of the inviolability and sanctity of individual rights because then there is no Power to enforce the claims. Such a system presupposes the Power of an organized State to process the claims, to ensure fairness in their implementation and effectiveness in executing them.

    So Hitler’s instincts are right here. Laxness in prosecuting criminals is an indicator of a group whose activities are corrosive to the very foundations of society.

    • Agree: Lol just lol
  16. Hitler never used Untermensch. In the other hand the concept of Untermensch has a great resonance in the talmud.

    • Agree: Nonny Mouse
  17. @kikl

    On the contrary, the arguments against the “Table Talk” are in fact very weak. This is probably not the place to go into all the details, but a little bit of background on the case might be useful.

    Richard Carrier is, as the quoted material already hints, an atheist crank in California who has spent most of his scholarly career attacking Christianity. He wants to prove that Hitler was a Christian, so he can use him as a club to beat on Christianity with (as per the familiar reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy). In the Table Talk, of course, Hitler comes out as downright contemptuous of Christianity and its anti-evolution, blank-slate science denialism, so Carrier has to try to discredit this source (along with many others) in order to promote his atheist agenda.

    Carrier’s page on Wikipedia:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Carrier

    The “Dr. Nilsson” Carrier refers to is one Martin Nilsson, some kind of Swedish Antifa crank who wants to discredit the “Table Talk” because, quite unlike M. Durocher, he thinks it makes Hitler look too sympathetic. His “plausibility” arguments go like this, and I quote:

    The idea that Hitler wanted to save human lives may have seemed plausible to an admirer of Hitler. However, to everyone else it should be obvious nonsense. Hitler never had any qualms about sacrificing human lives. This is part and parcel of [Hitler’s secretary, Christa] Schroeder’s effort to defend, and in a sense rehabilitate, Hitler. She also claims that Hitler had suffered in his soul from the bombing of Britain. This is clearly absurd.

    Mikael Nilsson, “Constructing a Pseudo-Hitler?” Revue européenne d’histoire, 26:5, 2019

    It is “clearly absurd” that Hitler could ever have expressed any sympathy for British war victims, even in private. After all, haven’t we all learned from early childhood that he was a complete monster without any human qualities? Thus, any “Table Talk” notes (or reminiscences by his associates) that hint at anything else are “obviously” not authentic!

    With enemies like these, the “Table Talk” should hardly need defenders.

    • Thanks: Carolyn Yeager
  18. Sean says:
    @padre

    Hitler left his door unlocked and let his neighbors use his gramophone, and when he came to power even outlawed lobsters being boiled alive. He was a nice guy who had no animus against the Jewish art shop owners he dealt with in Vienna and made special provision for Jews such as his mother’s doctor and numerous WW1 regimental comrade to be protected and helped to emigrate. He was above all concerned about Germany having lost its best genetic material through emigration to America, (he wanted to swap German Jews for the Americans of German ancestry).

    Nazi race scientists thought the Aussiedler coming back to the newly enlarged Reich were physically Aryan specimens of better quality than the population of Germany. The real criteria for Germanisation of native middle class types in the conquered territories such as Estonia however was achievement orientation and a family pedigree showing sustained socio economic success and rise over many generations, not “one sided anthropological considerations”. Adenauer was keen on repatriating German communities, the German communities of Russia (now all gone back to their ancestral homeland) have devotion to duty that was in the old German style, as with Kant’s philosophy in which doing things from inclination is without merit. These were the overmen.

    It was not Germans, but the American racial thinker and eugenicist Lothrop Stoddard, who perhaps made the most prominent early use of the term “Under-Man” in his 1922 book The Revolt Against Civilization: The Menace of the Under-Man. Stoddard’s underman does not refer to a particular ethnic group, but rather to the gradual degeneration of populations due to dysgenics as a result of the relaxation of selective pressures enabled by civilization. He used the following definition: “The Under-Man – the man who measures under the standards of capacity and adaptability imposed by the social order in which he lives.”

    He did not go in for schizotypal anti-Semitism of the ‘Mossad Murder Incorporated being responsible for all deaths necessarily timely for Jewish lobbies that manipulate US foreign policy’ type. Hitler’s early speeches were all about capitalism and in his mind, the war against the Jews was an integral part of the war against Anglo capital that had cheated Germany of victory to ensure the European powers could repay the huge loans america had made to Britain and france. The massive reparations demanded of Germany (contrary to the 14 points as were territorial annexations) from Germany which had been ruined and colonised by American financial power.

    http://marcuse.faculty.history.ucsb.edu/classes/33d/projects/1920s/Econ20s.htm
    Even with all of Germany’s economic shortcomings, it could have still been possible to make reparation payments if foreign countries had not placed protective tariffs on Germany’s goods. With the income Germany could have gained by selling goods in foreign countries, for relatively low prices, reparation payments could have become feasible. The protective tariffs made this idea impossible and further depressed the German economy. Faced with reparation payments they could not afford, Germany began printing exaggerated amounts of money. This threw Germany into a state of super inflation. Inflation reached the point where millions of marks were worthless. Cartoons of the time depicted people with wheelbarrows full of money who could not buy a loaf of bread. “With the approach of world crisis foreign lenders withdrew capital and markets further closed against German imports” (Sweezy 8). The United States was an extremely significant example of this. When the U.S. was hit by the great depression they immediately sought to get the loans, which they had made to German, paid back. This, in addition to all of Germany’s other problems, practically caused the German economy to collapse.

    The early Hitler did not talk about the East, he was uninterested in the Russians as a threat to Germany and the Jews of the East were similarly uninteresting. But what really exercised Hitler was the continental economy of America and its comercial leadership. Hitler wanted typewriting lessons for all German children. There was a real parallel between the thinking of Hitler and Stoddard, but I do not think Hitler thought civilization creates populations too stupid to have create and maintain it. Hitler thought the loss of the best blood by emigration (much of it having happened before Germany was unified) was the problem.

    Hitler needed to conquer land in the East to provide an American lifestyle for enterprising Germans, he really was concerned with the best Germans continuing to emigrate and one of the first things the Nazis did on coming to power was shut down the port building that many Germans had left from. As Aly and Heim show in their book Architects of Annihilation the top technocratic brains of Germany were trying make the East economically dynamic, and the main problems were two groups that had outgrown their niche, Jews and peasants. Jews were extremely numerous and blocking the development of an indigenous middle class in the East. All of the east but especially Ukraine had a rural overpopulation problem preventing economic take off.

    Soviet economists were first with the solution, which was to kill the peasants eating up the surplus, hence the Ukrainian famine, which was entirely deliberate. Hitler, who had no problem with killing German gentile handicapped children, several million POWs and all Jewish men, then women and children in conquered territory as an anti partisan measure, was certainly going to reduce the population in the East dramatically by the same means that Stalin had pioneered. All to make way for settlement by German who could enjoy a high standard of living. Hitler thought the outcome of the war was uncertain but the prize of preventing emigration of the best blood by giving Germans in American lifestyle was worth it. To do that he needed a huge amount of good arable land like America had, the US killed off the Amerindians of course, and Hitler (a Karl May fan) referring to the Russians as ‘Indians’ is an index of his future plans for them.

    Hitler did not advocate the elimination of Jewry on eugenic grounds, but on grounds of European self-defense against a corrupting and cruel alien domination.

    Before embarking on war he tried to co opt Poland for his attack on the Soviet Union because that would have prevented the British and French entering the war, but he found that Poland wasn’t interested. So he had to give up his dream of making Germany great, or go ahead and fight anyway. He won in the West, then made a surprise (to Marxists) attack on the USSR. As HRS Stolfi convincingly shows, Hitler failed because instead of pushing his luck by going straight at Moscow in a timely fashion, he stopped for two months. According to The Psychopathic God by Waite, a war diary recorded Hitler having told one of his generals in November 1941 that final victory could no longer be attained. In my opinion Hitler ordered the extermination of the Jews he could get at in December 1941 as revenge on American Jewry: the essential element of Anglo capitalism that had defeated him.

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @Theodore
    , @John Johnson
  19. Moi says:
    @padre

    What’s the big deal here? Doesn’t America look upon much of the world as untermenschen and itself as ubermenschen. And our BFF, Israel, sees itself as the Herrenvolk. Two peas in a pod!

    • Agree: Tom Welsh, fnn
  20. In Footnote 11 the author describes the staggeringly diproportionate power of the Jews in the US but doesn’t explain how they acquired it. Maybe it can be put down to the staggeringly disproportionate wealth of US Jews but nobody has explained how the acquired it. Doesn’t the remedy depend on the answer? Why is this subject always avoided?

    • Replies: @Tom Welsh
    , @Poco
  21. Tom Welsh says:
    @Wally

    It would be nice if we could enjoy a civil and fact-based discussion. Such a topic is of course drowned by propaganda of various conflicting kinds; and those of us who grew up in European or American culture have certainly been subjected to very strong anti-Nazi propaganda. I for one appreciate any kind of corrective, especially if it can be factually justified.

    • Agree: 2stateshmustate
  22. Tom Welsh says:
    @kikl

    As I don’t know anything about the topic, I wonder what David Irving’s view is? He seems to be one of the best historians of the nazi period.

  23. Tom Welsh says:

    Thank you very much indeed, M. Durocher, for this excellent and thought-provoking reassessment.

    It is immensely hard for those of us whose parents may have fought the Nazis, and who grew up playing with toy soldiers in whose battles the “good Allies” always defeated the “wicked Germans”, to see the Nazi leaders and the German people of the time without distortion.

    I have always felt, ever since adolescence, that there was something badly amiss with the established narrative. How could one individual be so fundamentally evil – as he were the very incarnation of Satan? How could one people become so wicked so suddenly that they deserved the air raids, the firestorms, the deliberate starvation? Surely there must be some more normal explanation, one that fits all our other perceptions and beliefs?

    Once one starts to follow such trains of thought, the difference of kind between the Nazis and all other human beings begins to fade, and one sees more and more echoes.

    For instance, the belief that one nation or one people is fundamentally superior, and thus entitled to rule the world. Was that not held by Jews, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Japanese, Chinese, Spaniards, French, Turks, British, and Americans – to name but a few – as well as Germans?

    And the idea of destroying a whole swathe of nation-states in order to soften them up for occupation and exploitation – isn’t that exactly what the British did, and the Americans now do as a matter of course? See, e.g. https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/02/thierry-meyssan/nato-go-home/

    • Agree: Thomasina
    • Replies: @Bill Jones
  24. Thanks for another great article.

    One can ask: Why not even attempt to make Poland into an anti-communist buffer state?

    Actually, Hitler did initially try to do so, concluding a non-aggression pact with Pilsudski. As a result, the Polish armed forces, even more so than before, could then entirely focus on fighting a war with the USSR. After Pilsudski’s death in 1935, German-Polish relations remained fine, until in early 1939 the English government chose to spoil these by inciting Polish intransigence in the Corridor conflict (which seemed close to a workable solution).

    By the way, the concept of Übermensch (and therefore also its automatic antithesis) was notably launched by Nietzsche in the early 1880s. Actually, Nietzsche must have been influenced by French psychiatrist Auguste Morel and Italian (Jewish) criminologist Cesare Lombroso, who in turn inspired theories of degeneration that became all the vogue in the 1890s. Jewish physician and journalist Max Nordau (also among the first leaders of the Zionist movement) published a book on degeneration that became an international bestseller. Probably Hitler and the Nazi movement were also influenced by it.

    It would seem to me therefore that the Nazi concept was firmly rooted in European intellectual tradition.

    • Thanks: Carolyn Yeager
    • Replies: @anon
    , @nokangaroos
  25. @El Dato

    Yep, Himmler considerd Hitler as “greater than Genghis Khan”, which says a lot.

  26. @Dan Kelso

    Wikipedia does not tell, but do you (or anyone else) know how these documents were discovered? The page says that they were found between 1945 and 1980, which would imply that it was the Soviet secret police, and/or that of Communist Poland, that unearthed them.

    Of course, the fact that it was the Communists who published them, and that they fit excellently with the grotesque anti-German propaganda of Ilya Ehrenburg and his comrades in spirit, does not necessarily mean that the purported memoirs of Rabbi Langfus and the others are forgeries. But it would still be interesting to know more of their history, so that we can make a more informed appraisal of them.

    • Agree: Lol just lol
  27. gotmituns says:

    Another book worth reading on the subject is “Myth of the Twentieth Century”, written by Alfred Rosenberg. It lays out the agenda and thinking behind the NAZI philosophy. Incidentally, it made the Catholic church’s Index (prohibited reading for Catholics).

    • Replies: @Bookish1
    , @bronek
  28. Tom Welsh says:
    @Nonny Mouse

    See Michael Hudson https://michael-hudson.com/ passim. Especially his books, and most especially “… and forgive them their debts”.

    It is long, detailed and rather repetitious; but that is not all bad, as some of the ideas he is trying to hammer home seem strange at first. You can get the gist by reading some of the articles on his blog, or watching some of his video interviews.

  29. Tom Welsh says:
    @JackOH

    @JackOH:

    Amusingly, Friedrich Nietzsche always used to assert that he was descended from Polish nobility.

    • Replies: @Lol just lol
    , @JackOH
  30. Beckow says:

    It is not what Germans said, it is what they did. They massacred millions of civilians, whole villages in Eastern Europe, acted like uber-barbarians. Who cares if they thought they were just killing the ‘Unter-menschen’? Some did, some thought it was how you fight a war, some were just along for a ride.

    The point is that no amount of retroactive reading of documents can undo what Germans did in Eastern Europe. How coherent or explicit the ideology behind it was, is irrelevant.

    • Agree: John Johnson
    • Replies: @Pindos
    , @Wally
    , @Truth3
  31. Greg S. says:

    The author of this piece has obviously never read “Hitlers War” by David Irving. If he had, he may have refrained from embarrassing himself with this piece. While Hitler may or may not have used the term “subhuman” that often, he spoke constantly of “Asiatics” and “pushing the Asians back over the Urals.” His dream was to expel all of the lower races east, in advance of the army, and he didn’t give a hoot what happened to them on the way.

    This twisted ideology underpins so many of the strategic war decisions that Hitler made that one cannot understand WWII without first understanding it. As one example, take the choice to treat the “liberated” Soviet population like trash. Life was so bad under communism that most civilians in the captured lands at first welcomed the Germans, and were prepared to help, but this changed very quickly in the face of how the Germans treated them. So they turned these people against them creating resistance elements that hindered the war effort. Strategically foolish, but in line with Hitler’s ideology.

    All of the many strategic choices on the Eastern front that historians like to chalk up to “crazy Adolf” are actually clear eyed implementation of a policy. It was the underlying policy that was crazy / evil.

  32. Big Daddy says:

    Any difference between the untermenschen propaganda and Hun soldiers with Belgian babies on their bayonets in WWI? No.

    Nice to see recognition of Hitler as a tremendous intellect, topnotch artistic performer, and superior political leader and military strategist. A 20 year odyssey of intense effort for the love of country. Unfortunately he was a man of our times and set up a totalitarian polity. Whom did he kill internally? A few thousand Bolsheviks.

    I still stand by Goebbels private diaries in which he states many times that Hitler told him that he would retire after the Polish question was settled because preWWI Germany would be restored. Hitler was willing to forego the old colonies.

    Does anyone believe the world was better off with the sadistic butcher Stalin as victor? Thank you, Churchill; owned by the Rothchild’s after he was saved from bankruptcy and disgrace by them in 1938. And Franklin Delano Rosenberg, 33 of whose top 40 advisors were Jews. Based on American demographics at the time that’s a 600,000,000 to 1 shot!

  33. @gotmituns

    Depending on the views of the author of any book on Hitler, that will color the way Hitler is portrayed. It should be clear that Durocher’s view is anti-German and pro-Slavic.

    The Waffen SS especially were in the forefront of accepting all Europeans as equals.

    You are making a blanket, untrue statement. The Waffen SS was headed by Heinrich Himmler, and he distinguished between Europeans who supported NS objectives and those who did not. All Europeans were not considered equal, especially certain Poles, Czechs and Russians who were the least reliable, the most disruptive. Also remember that there was a strong strain of Pan-Slavism, mainly led by Russians, that was still active, in addition to the Jews. Himmler and Hitler discussed forming a Germanic League after the war ended that would lead & oversee a United Europe.

  34. onebornfree says: • Website

    Mo’ gubmint!”mo’ gubmint!”mo’ gubmint!”

    Article summary:

    A hereby revealed eugenicist [Durocher] critiques the eugenicist policies of the “great” Hitler, and has some [very] minor disagreements with them, but on the whole seems to think the “do-gooder” Hitler was on the right track and had most of the answers, which were, of course,[predictably], and to put it in the modern vernacular: “mo’ gubmint, “mo’ gubmint, “mo’ gubmint” .

    And this all passes for “serious” political discussion, apparently. Predictable, but depressing non the less. ☹️

    And so it goes…..

    “Regards” onebornfree

    • Replies: @geokat62
  35. Poco says:
    @John Regan

    I’ve commented here before about a video someone else posted by Carrier. Carrier is a deeply dishonest propagandist.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  36. Poco says:
    @Nonny Mouse

    Ron Unz often shines a light on the machinations involved in his American Pravda series.

    • Replies: @Nonny Mouse
  37. anarchyst says:

    If you want to see “untermenschen” in action just obtain and read the jewish talmud. The jewish talmud is full of examples on how to treat “untermenschen”…animals with souls, solely created to serve the jews…

    • Agree: Omegabooks
  38. @Poco

    Seeing his phenotype, one wonders : is Richard Carrier a (((tribesman)))? That would explain his attempt at conflating Christianity with Nazism. See for yourself :

    • Agree: Poco
  39. Pheasant says:
    @Dan Kelso

    Bomber Harris was a crypto Jewish mass murderer.

    Fighter pilots do not lead bombing raids.

    He was not a fighter pilot he was an air marshall sitting behind a civillian desk and certainly did not lead any raids over Germany although he did not have any problem with ordering countless British 18 year olds to die murdering innocent civillians this way.

    In 1992 a statue of him was proposed to be put up in London and was protested by both veterans of bomber command and even leftists as he was a mass murdering blood thirsty scumbag who was on record as hating Germans.

    Bomber command had the highest attrition rates of any British unit in world war two (men killed/captured) and he was a major cause of this.

    The only reason the Germans bombed British cities was Churchill and his minions like Harris goaded them into it by bombing Berlin. It has been well proven by David Irving and others-look it up. The Germans did not even have a medium/heavy bomber for the first couple of years of the war they mainly concentrated on close air suppirt aircraft (the ‘stuka’ etc).

    He was responsible for the war crime in dresden and earned himself the monika ‘butcher’ from his own comrades.

    May he rot in hell.

    • Agree: Fox
  40. @Carolyn Yeager

    “…Himmler and Hitler discussed forming a Germanic League after the war ended that would lead & oversee a United Europe…”

    “Lead and oversee”, say RULE. So still the Herrenvolk delusion after all.

    I’m beginning to sympathize with Durocher’s supposed “anti-German and pro-Slavic” views!

    • Replies: @Fox
    , @Carolyn Yeager
  41. Wally says:
    @Sean

    said:
    “In my opinion Hitler ordered the extermination of the Jews he could get at in December 1941 as revenge on American Jewry: the essential element of Anglo capitalism that had defeated him.”

    – That’s ridiculous, impossible nonsense.
    – The alleged murder weapon, gas chambers, which are claimed to have killed 4,000,000 Jews & millions of others were scientifically impossible.
    – The claimed human remains of those alleged millions and millions more are said to exist in known locations, yet in fact they do not exist.
    – I remind this site of very real German documents which state unequivocally that the Jewish question would be settled after the war.

    The Schlegelberger Document:

    “Mr Reich Minister Lammers informed me that the Führer had repeatedly declared to him that he wants to hear that the Solution of the Jewish Problem has been postponed until after the war is over. That being so, the current discussions are of purely theoretical value, in Mr Reich Minister Lammers’ opinion. He will moreover take pains to ensure that, whatever else happens, no fundamental decisions are taken without his knowledge in consequence of a surprise briefing by any third party.”

    Document’s origins:
    Schlegelberger’s undated minute on Lammer’s reference to Hitler’s ruling is in German Federal Archives (BA) file R.22/52. It was sent to Staatssekretär Freisler and two other officials (bottom left). This document has been published in facsimile in David Irving’s books Hitler’s War, Goebbels. Mastermind of the Third Reich, and Nuremberg, the Last Battle. It was definitely dated March or April 1942. Lammers was in Berlin on April 26, 1942. See Scheel’s report on a talk between Lammers and Meissner after the final session that day (T175/139/7479 et seq.)

    In support of the Schlegelberger Document see the Luther Memorandum:
    http://www.codoh.com/library/document/154/
    Hitler, the ‘Final Solution,’ and the Luther Memorandum, A Response to Evans and Longerich, excerpt:

    “On the occasion of a reception by the Reich Foreign Minister on 26 November 1941 the Bulgarian Foreign Minister Popoff touched on the problem of according like treatment to the Jews of European nationalities and pointed out the difficulties that the Bulgarians had in the application of their Jewish laws to Jews of foreign nationality.”
    “The Reich Foreign Minister answered that he thought this question brought by Mr. Popoff not uninteresting. Even now he could say one thing to him, that at the end of the war all Jews would have to leave Europe. This was the unalterable decision of the Fuehrer and also the only way to master this problem, as only a global and comprehensive solution could be applied and individual measures would not help very much.”

    • Agree: 2stateshmustate
  42. melpol says:

    When the German needed the best medical advise He went to a prominent Jewish doctor. When a German needed the beast Legal representation he went to a Jewish lawyer. Whenever critical thinking was needed the German searched for the Jew.
    Hitler knew that Jewish achievement was caused by selective breeding and he knew the German people were victims of down breeding. Germans were the UNDER MENSHE that Hitler wanted to upgrade.

    • LOL: Vaterland
    • Replies: @Mulegino1
  43. Fox says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    Ryckaert:
    The Master Race topos is just too tempting to pass up if lacking any deeper thought and if there is a tendency towards gloating present. It’s an instant winner among those who seem to be happy with the outcome of the war, even if their future has been cancelled through it.

    You know much, and understand nothing.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  44. Agent76 says:

    “The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic.” Joseph Stalin

    Feb 19, 2020 RICHARD DAWKINS EUGENICS

    It’s one thing to deplore eugenics on ideological, political, moral grounds. It’s quite another to conclude that it wouldn’t work in practice. Of course it would. It works for cows, horses, pigs, dogs & roses. Why on earth wouldn’t it work for humans? Facts ignore ideology for those determined to miss the point, I deplore the idea of a eugenic policy.

  45. Wally says:
    @Beckow

    said:
    “It is not what Germans said, it is what they did. They massacred millions of civilians, whole villages in Eastern Europe, acted like uber-barbarians.”

    A basic point, there is no proof of what you merely recite.

    Welcome to free speech, welcome to factual history, welcome the end of self serving Zionist propaganda.
    Dig in and learn here:
    http://www.codoh.com
    debate here:
    http://forum.codoh.com

    • Replies: @Nonny Mouse
  46. kikl says:
    @John Regan

    “Richard Carrier is, as the quoted material already hints, an atheist crank in California who has spent most of his scholarly career attacking Christianity.”

    Your very first “argument” is an attack on the person. Sorry, this is where I stopped reading your post.

    • Replies: @John Regan
  47. So, in Hitler’s day, the term Untermenschen was more like a political pejorative, not a racial slur, right?

    Wow! If that relevation ever catches on, millions of people might need to revise overnight their opinions about the pivotal event of the 20th Century. At least this would scuttle a whole fleet of Hollywood propaganda films. It sure ought to embarrass a bunch of revered historians and media types, too.

    Just think: If Hitler in his day called some domestic opponents Untermenschen, how would that be worse than some later political wannabe calling her opponents Deplorables?

    Great job, M. Durocher.

  48. @Pheasant

    Peasant,

    He was not a fighter pilot

    LIAR!!!

    Harris learned to fly at Brooklands in late 1915 and, having been confirmed in his rank[13] and then promoted to flying officer on 29 January 1916,[14] he then served with distinction on the home front and in France during 1917 as a flight commander and ultimately CO of No. 45 Squadron, flying the Sopwith 1½ Strutter and Sopwith Camel. Before he returned to Britain to command No. 44 Squadron on Home Defence duties, Harris claimed five enemy aircraft destroyed and was awarded the Air Force Cross (AFC) on 2 November 1918.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Arthur_Harris,_1st_Baronet

    • Replies: @Tusk
  49. @German_reader

    anti-Russian/anti-Russian racism in this text, with the parts about “Asiatic hordes”, the general backwardness of Eastern Europe

    Oh, dear, racism.

    1. Russia is in fact located in Asia. Russia contains 186 ethnic groups many of them former steppe nomads. Russian princes paid tribute to the Mongol-Tatar khans until 1476.

    2. The vernacular definition of “backward” could apply to Eastern Europe at that time.

  50. Bookish1 says:
    @gotmituns

    The book is a difficult one to read because of the way it is put together.

  51. @kikl

    Well, you did not quote any factual argument by Carrier to begin with, only his assertions. In that context, providing a measure of background on what sort of character he is would seem perfectly in order. Pointing out that a supposedly objective scholar is actually an interested party is not a logical fallacy. That does not by itself prove that he is dishonest, but it does suggest that he should be scrutinized more carefully.

    I have read Carrier’s peer-reviewed article on the Table Talk, and I am not impressed. His main line of attack is to quibble over a handful of poorly translated passages in the English edition, which in any case are completely irrelevant to the authenticity of the German source text. The rest is suggestion and innuendo. He is only marginally better than his fellow Table Talk skeptic Jansson (of whose writings I did include a sample, so everyone can judge his approach for himself).

    It’s perfectly legitimate for you, of course, to cite two obscure, politically militant crank academics in support of a dubious intellectual proposition. Indeed, many critics of the Unz Review would probably suggest that we are all cranks and marginal characters here. However, you should not then be surprised when others greet them with reserve.

    Of course, if you want to discuss Carrier’s specific arguments in more detail, that can be done. I would still maintain, though, that this is probably not the best place for it.

  52. geokat62 says:
    @onebornfree

    Mo’ gubmint!”mo’ gubmint!”mo’ gubmint!”

    Who do you think pushed hardest for big government?

    “Senator McGovern is very sincere when he says that he will try to cut the military budget by 30%. And this is to drive a knife in the heart of Israel… Jews don’t like big military budgets. But it is now an interest of the Jews to have a large and powerful military establishment in the United States… American Jews who care about the survival of the state of Israel have to say, no, we don’t want to cut the military budget, it is important to keep that military budget big, so that we can defend Israel.” – Irving Kristol, Neocon

  53. @Franklin Ryckaert

    I’m beginning to sympathize with Durocher’s supposed “anti-German and pro-Slavic” views!

    Beginning to? haha, don’t make me laugh. But I thank you for pointing out that this is my opinion of Durocher–saves me from writing a separate comment about him. He pulled this same trick in an article published at TOO a couple years back, trying to appear scholarly about it all.

    “Lead and oversee” do not say rule, but Europe is in dire need of strong leadership right now. The confused French (“Guillaume Durocher”) are begging the Germans to take charge once again, since Brexit), with little success. Germany has been so destroyed by now, by your types, it has no leaders!! At least, no leaders that can be allowed to lead! It has only far left communists to offer. But even in such a mess, people like you cannot see what you have done. You actually think the Poles, Czechs and Slovaks will lead Europe into a brighter future. Keep dreaming.

    I’m glad I live in the USA, where it’s not quite as painful to watch you Europeans cutting your own throats while you continue to pour hate on Hitler, Europe’s true savior.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  54. Bookish1 says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    The SS didn’t follow Himmlers views necessarily. Many in the SS didn’t like him. I think mainly because he was boring and tied up in small details. The SS needed a dynamic speaker and personality

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  55. Mulegino1 says:
    @melpol

    When the Jew wanted a master carpenter, a sculptor, a painter, or composer, he went to a gentile. When he needed the best engineering, he went to a gentile engineer, and when he needed the best architect he unhesitatingly went to the gentile. Otherwise he would have had to settle for a sub-standard, poor product.

    The Jews- as a collective- are good for professions in which the confidence artist and the con man rule. When it is a matter of productive physical or aesthetic activity, on the other hand, the gentiles rule. Jews are good loan sharks and lawyers because they have the least scruples, nobility and moral sensibility of any ethnicity, and lacks any genuine aesthetic taste (ergo Jewish patronage of modern “art”).

  56. @Fox

    If one doesn’t want to be called out for one’s “rulers complex”, then one shouldn’t aspire to rule over others. QED.

  57. Ghoul says:

    There seems to be some similarities between Untermenschen as used by Nazis and Lumpenproletariat as used by Marxists. Has anyone studied the analogy?

  58. @Pheasant

    The only reason the Germans bombed British cities was Churchill and his minions like Harris goaded them into it by bombing Berlin.

    Churchill was looking for an excuse to bomb German cities, and had already done so before Harris took command in 1942. If bombing Frederick Lindemann, Churchill’s guru, had thought bombing German cities was a bad idea, it never would have happened. Harris carried out government policy with ruthless efficiency. Of course his references to German bombing of cities was a false comparison. Yes those cities were bombed, but civilians were not the target. Warsaw was being reconstructed after occupation.
    While in Newcastle in the 1974, I saw huge piles of rubble close to the waterfront, essentially several blocks worth. It was told that it was damage from WWII, primarily warehouses. In Crewe, I was told the bombing was of the Rolls Royce works, with the odd miss in the town. In Liverpool it was primarily dockside. Coventry was the Rolls Royce works primarily. The reality is that the German bombers were not long range by design, rather designed primarily for attack support. The UK, which failed to meet its disarmament obligations under Versailles, began ramping up the long range Lancaster production in 1937, the same year Churchill declared that Germany was becoming too powerful and must be smashed. As I have often asked, rhetorically of course, just who were the UK going to bomb? Neutral Belgium and Holland? Neutral Norway and Iceland? Its ally, France?
    Finance capitalism and communism are the two pincers controlled by the same tribe. National Socialism was looking to break that hold. There was going to be a war whether Germany wanted one or not.

    Chaim Weizmann in a letter published in The London Times on September 6, 1939:
    I wish to confirm, in the most explicit manner, the declarations which I and my colleagues have made during the last month, and especially in the last week, that the Jews stand by Great Britain and will fight on the side of the democracies. Our urgent desire is to give effect to these declarations [against Germany].
    We wish to do so in a way entirely consonant with the general scheme of British action, and therefore would place ourselves, in matters big and small, under the coordinating direction of His Majesty’s Government. The Jewish Agency is ready to enter into immediate arrangements for utilizing Jewish manpower, technical ability, resources, etc.

    Obviously “during the last month” predated the invasion of Poland.

    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
  59. Wally says:
    @Pheasant

    Proof that it was Britain who was the first to intentionally bomb civilians:

    Introduction to HITLER’S WAR: https://www.unz.com/article/introduction-to-hitlers-war/

    Who started bombing civilians first: Germany or Great Britain, Britain: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=8172
    exc:
    “The following is from Spaight’s The Splendid Decision. Compare with the above, ch. iii, p. 74:
    “Adolf Hitler only undertook the bombing of British civilian targets reluctantly after the RAF had commenced bombing German civilian targets… It gave Coventry, Birmingham, Sheffield and Southampton the right to look Kiev, Kharkov, Stalingrad and Sebastopol in the face. Our Soviet allies would have been less critical of our inactivity if they had understood what we had done… Hitler would have been willing at any time to stop the slaughter. Hitler was genuinely anxious to reach with Britain an agreement confining the action of aircraft to battle zones.”

    Germany Did Not Start World War II, by Paul Craig Roberts: https://www.unz.com/proberts/germany-did-not-start-world-war-ii/

    • Replies: @Fox
  60. @Tom Welsh

    As I don’t know anything about the topic, I wonder what David Irving’s view is

    That they are legit . . .

    http://www.fpp.co.uk/Hitler/Table_Talk/Irving_memoirs.html

  61. So Stoddard was the original writer-creator of “Idiocracy”? And did Mike Judge steal his “copyright”? Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!

  62. Theodore says:
    @Sean

    In my opinion Hitler ordered the extermination of the Jews he could get at in December 1941 as revenge on American Jewry: the essential element of Anglo capitalism that had defeated him.

    There is no actual documentary evidence for such a thing. Actually, the references to “The Final Solution” in German documents from 1942 and after define it as a policy of resettlement/deportation/evacuation and forced labor, not extermination.

    War-time German documents & writings mentioning the “Final Solution”
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=12296

    Goebbels defines it in this way as well. Some entries from the Goebbels diaries:

    [MORE]

    18 December 1941:
    “I speak with the Führer regarding the Jewish Question. He is determined to take consistent action and not be deterred by bourgeois sentimentality. Above all, the Jews must leave the Reich (aus…heraus)… The Jews should all be pushed off (abgeschoben) to the East. We are not very interested in what becomes of them after that.”

    7 March 1942 (probably referencing the 20 January 1942 Wannsee conference/protocols):
    “I read a detailed report from the SD and police regarding a final solution of the Jewish Question. Any final solution involves a tremendous number of new viewpoints. The Jewish Question must be solved within a pan-European frame. There are 11 million Jews still in Europe. They will have to be concentrated later, to begin with, in the East; possibly an island, such as Madagascar, can be assigned to them after the war. In any case there can be no peace in Europe until the last Jews are shut off from (ausgeschaltet) the continent.”

    27 April 1942:
    “I talked to the Führer once more in detail about the Jewish Question. His attitude is unrelenting. He wants, under all circumstances, to push the Jews out (herausdrängen) of Europe. That is right. The Jews have brought so much misery to our continent that the severest punishment meted out to them is still too mild. Himmler is presently implementing a large resettlement (Umseidlung) of Jews from German cities to the eastern ghettos.”

    30 May 1942:
    “Therefore the Führer does not at all wish that the Jews should be evacuated (evakuiert) to Siberia. There, under the harshest living conditions, they would undoubtedly develop again a strong life-element. He would much prefer to resettle (aussiedeln) them in central Africa. There they would live in a climate that would certainly not make them strong and resistant. In any case, it is the Führer’s goal to make Western Europe completely Jew-free. Here they may no longer have their homeland.”

    21 August 1942:
    “The Jews are now in large part evacuated (evakuiert) and established in the East. This is quite generous to them. Here the Jewish Question is tackled in the right place, without sentimentality and without much consideration. Only in this way can the Jewish problem be solved.”

    1 October 1942:
    “I drive back to the Chancellery with the Führer. Once again we talk through the Jewish Question. Here the Führer takes the same radical standpoint I do. He is also of the opinion that we must completely deport the Jews out of the Reich (restlos herausschaffen), and above all from Berlin.”

    3 January 1943 (on the Führer Reichstag prophecy):
    “It’s amazing how shortsightedly the Jews all over the world operate. They seem to have learned nothing from the example in Germany. Apparently the hemorrhaging of them by us yielded very little fruit. They should expect this frivolous playing with fire to continue until they are completely wiped out (gänzlich vernichtet). This also corresponds to the Führer’s prophecy, when he explained at the beginning of the war that it would not end with the destruction (Vernichtung) of the Aryan race, but with the expulsion (Austreibung) of Jewry from Europe.”

    23 January 1943:
    “The Führer is of the opinion that the Jewish Question in Berlin must be solved as soon as possible. As long as one still finds Jews in Berlin, we cannot speak of internal security. Also the Jews must be removed from Vienna (aus…heraus) as fast as possible.”

    2 March 1943:
    “We are now definitely pushing the Jews out (aus…hinaus) of Berlin. They were suddenly rounded up last Saturday, and are to be carted off (abgeschoben) to the East as quickly as possible.”

    15 March 1943:
    “You just can’t trust the Jews across the street. I therefore told the Führer emphatically once more that I deemed it essential to force the Jews out (herauszubringen) of the entire Reich as fast as possible. He approved, and ordered me not to cease or pause until no Jew is left anywhere in Germany.”

    18 April 1943:
    “I believe I shall have completed one of the greatest political achievements of my career once Berlin is free of Jews. When I consider how Berlin looked in 1926 when I came here, and how it looks now in 1943 when the Jews are being evacuated (evakuiert) completely, I get a feeling of what has been achieved in this sector.”

    25 April 1943:
    “It is high time that we remove (aus…entfernen) the Jews just as quickly as possible from the General Government. The Führer would like to talk to me before I go on leave, especially to discuss the next measures in the Jewish Question, of which he has very great expectations.”

    8 May 1943:
    “The East will forever regard Europe as an attractive jewel. The East will again and again try to break into this continent in order to dominate it. Our constant, untiring effort must therefore center upon taking the necessary measures for our security. If it be true today that the Bolshevism of the East is mainly under Jewish leadership and that the Jews are also the dominant influence in the Western plutocracies, then our anti-Semitic propaganda must begin at this point. The Jews must therefore be thrown out (aus…heraus) of Europe.”

    7 October 1943:
    “As to the Jewish Question, [Himmler] gives a very frank and candid picture. He is of the opinion that we can solve the Jewish Question for all of Europe by the end of this year. He advocates the most radical and harshest solution, namely, that the whole of Jewry will be rooted out (auszurotten). This is surely a consistent, if brutal, solution.”

    Goebbels had no qualms talking about Jews being killed, in one instance (14 March 1945) just before the war was lost, he said:
    “Anyone in a position to do so should kill these Jews like rats (wie die Ratten totschlagen).”
    So if “The Final Solution” was some sort of extermination policy, Goebbels would have written about it and likely justified it.

    • Agree: Wally
    • Thanks: Thomasina
  63. @Mulegino1

    You know I am amazed at the number of folks who revere doctors and politicians and esp. lawyers and movie makers, etc. that do nothing (okay okay doctors are important) and completely forget that without carpenters, plumbers, electricians, engineers–folks in practical professions instead of professions that almost require one to use skuldeggery and deceit. Amazed! And yeah, farmers, cowboys, gardeners, wood choppers, auto mechanics… But no, we goyim have to worship lawyers and politicians and movie makers… Yes, there are Jews in practical professions, but when I was growing up every Jew I knew (I grew up on Long Island, loaded with Jews) wanted to be a doctor or lawyer or politician, and, naturally, some wanted to move to Israel and did.

    I’d say Jews (mostly) are not the problem. It’s gentiles being brainwashed into revering Jewish professions that are the problem (as well as Christian Zionism). And I’d rather be a mechanic (and tried to be but girls weren’t allowed into industrial arts classes back then) than a lawyer any day!

  64. Cyrano says:

    Hitler was only one of the firsts in the long line of western “thinkers” who couldn’t tell the difference between the system and the country.

    Hitler was convinced that bolshevismus will destroy capitalismus, and therefore Germany. Luckily, his beloved system is alive and thriving in his country, unfortunately the same can’t be said about the country itself.

    I don’t think that capitalismus in Germany is under threat from bolshevismus anymore. The country itself is under threat from multiculturalismus – a forerunner of which was a brain trust of Hitler himself – the fake socialism.

    Hitler himself had nightmares about socialism taking over Europe – so he invented a fake one. Someone else thought that it was a great idea and invented fake socialism 2.0 – multiculturalism.

    I think that the fake socialism 2.0 will do what the real socialism could never have accomplished – destroy the western civilization. It’s funny how the origins of this brilliant, brilliant idea can be traced back to Hitler.

    • Replies: @Vaterland
  65. I will comment on some of the more glaring problems in this Durocher essay. He wrote:

    Alfred Rosenberg, a reputed leading National Socialist theorist (though one actually not always approved by Hitler), explicitly quotes Stoddard’s definition of the underman in his best-selling The Myth of the Twentieth Century.

    So what if he did? Rosenberg was highly thought of by Hitler in the early days; they agreed on everything, including the eastern Slavs (Rosenberg was a Baltic German, born and schooled in what became post WWI Russia).
    All Hitler objected to about Rosenberg’s book was that he thought it was “unreadable.” He didn’t read it, and joked about that. Rosenberg was the kind of very serious person who it was easy to make fun of, and it was actually Goebbels who disliked him because they were rivals for cultural affairs leadership (so Goebbels thought), not Hitler.

    Rosenberg himself as Reich Minister for the Occupied Eastern territories was a consistent, if rather ineffectual, advocate for improving treatment of the Slavs and for a grand strategy of fostering the Soviet Union’s subject nations’ independence as allies against Moscow

    This is an overstatement, and really says nothing, which is a trick of most of Durocher’s writing (to cover his ignorance). All territorial ministers were interested in having the cooperation of the people, and tried to bring that about. Rosenberg was no different. He was not a special friend of the Slavs, but was entirely devoted to the superiority of German culture. After all, what culture did the Poles and Ukranians, and common Russians actually have? They have folk culture and religion that they were going to be able to fully keep.
    Rosenberg did not put any faith into “independent subject nations” but understood there must be strict German control over such undisciplined areas. The disputes mostly came from who was going to be in charge among the German leadership. As is the case everywhere.

    At Nuremberg, A. R. insisted he knew nothing about a Holocaust and he was telling the truth. As they all were. Rosenberg kept and oversaw his ministry until the end, was loyal to NS and the Fuehrer until the end, and was hanged for it. A quality for which G. Durocher has no concept or appreciation. If G. D. can say otherwise, let him do it.

    Günther believed that four-fifths of Poles in the northern Danzig area were genetically close enough that they could be Germanized and assimilated.[3]

    How big an area is “northern Danzig?” Not very. Saying that these Poles still had to be Germanized (they did not think like Germans), and then assimilated, is not saying much. It means that while the racial type is similar, the loyalty and affection is not at all. They would be working against Germans.

    Durocher’s thesis, as with so many others, that NS Germany should have simply treated the Slavic peoples well and set them against the Bolsheviks, and all would have been well, is just another silly fairy tale told by the anti-Hitler crowd. What happened in Ukraine shows why that doesn’t work–you are supporting nationalism against yourself. Maybe some of the German administrators and gauleiters were too harsh, I wouldn’t argue with that–it’s not an easy job. No one in history has ever done it well, it’s just that some groups are more subject to criticism than others.

    • Replies: @Wally
  66. Mulegino1 says:
    @Omegabooks

    I’d say Jews (mostly) are not the problem. It’s gentiles being brainwashed into revering Jewish professions that are the problem (as well as Christian Zionism). And I’d rather be a mechanic (and tried to be but girls weren’t allowed into industrial arts classes back then) than a lawyer any day!

    Very well put. The worship of Jewish “professionals” as a class or caste evinces a slavish mindset upon the part of gentiles. The Jews (as a collective, not all individuals) excel at professions that gain exaggerated status in the age of money and the reign of quantity over quality. When we cede control over our own culture and society to the reign of money, we forge our chains and renounce our freedom- and we forgo all that is the brightest and most beautiful in our own world.

    • Replies: @melpol
  67. @Carolyn Yeager

    “…You actually think the Poles, Czechs and Slovaks will lead Europe into a brighter future. Keep dreaming…”

    No, I don’t think that. You still think in terms of “leadership”, as if Europe needs one nation to lead all others. Let all nations lead themselves, but cooperate – democratically – with each other to solve common problems such as defense, immigration etc.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
    , @GeeBee
  68. annamaria says:
    @German_reader

    “the Nazis and other fascist movements were in part an excessive reaction to Bolshevism.”

    — This is understandable. Western civilization is indeed on a losing end but this is so due, to a large extent, to sometimes excessive reverence to “good causes.”
    Compare the self-defeating docility to the physical extermination of the flower of the nations, which was conducted by the Bolsheviks:

    it [the Soviet Union] is truly a state in which the whole national intelligentsia has been slaughtered

    What is the effect of pro-Israel influence on the intellectual and moral resources of the USA?

  69. @Tom Welsh

    As far as I know, David Irving considers, “Table Talk”, to be a complete forgery written by a man who never actually met Adolf Hitler except in passing…

    • Replies: @Alexandros
  70. @Bookish1

    I’m sorry, but no aspect of the SS was independent of Heinrich Himmler. So to make a sweeping comment as did gotmituns about the Waffen SS, based on popular mythology, doesn’t fly with me. So some didn’t like Himmler–gosh, what a surprise. Including you, for sure. Is there any boss who everyone likes? Some didn’t like Hitler either. But Hitler thought Himmler was doing a bang-up job.

    The SS needed a dynamic speaker and personality

    I think you mean they needed a non-German European personality. Good luck with that.

  71. Wally says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Hello Carolyn:

    The Rosenberg “diary” clearly indicates no involvement or knowledge of any program of mass killings. Recommended:
    Rosenberg Diary : “The Most Revealing Nazi Documents Ever Found”, By David Merlin : https://codoh.com/library/document/4189/

    exc.:”There is no place in the diary where we have Rosenberg or Hitler saying that the Jews should be exterminated,”… “All it said was ‘move them out of Europe’.
    For all his public rants against Jews, Rosenberg rarely dwelled on the central Nazi obsession when he picked up his fountain pen and added to his growing private diary.”

    Rosenberg made the following statement at Nuremberg:

    “The thought of a physical annihilation of Slavs and Jews, that is to say, the actual murder of entire peoples, has never entered my mind and I most certainly did not advocate it in any way. I was of the opinion that the existing Jewish question would have to be solved by the creation of a minority right, by emigration, or by settling the Jews in a national territory over a ten-year period of time.”

    more on the false claims about Alfred Rosenberg: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12541

  72. melpol says:
    @Mulegino1

    Handymen or plumbers earn less than 40 thousand yearly and have less than attractive mates. But the professional Jew earns over two hundred thousand annually and has a few blond shiksa to enjoy. Dads send their children to college hoping they wont also dirty their hands with hard work. Big bucks is king whether he is Jew or gentile.

  73. Hopefully, the “beastly” Bengalis won’t starve the natives of Britain in the future!

  74. @John Regan

    Richard Carrier is, as the quoted material already hints, an atheist crank in California who has spent most of his scholarly career attacking Christianity. He wants to prove that Hitler was a Christian, so he can use him as a club to beat on Christianity with (as per the familiar reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy).

    Be forewarned that guy is a total nutcase. He is some left-wing atheist that sells other leftists a fantasy of Christianity being to blame for every war in Western society since year zero.

    I ran into him online and pointed out that Hitler made derisive comments about Christianity outside of table talk and was also on record wanting to reduce the influence of the church.

    Richard Carrier went nuts. I’ve never seen someone react that emotionally online to a simple counter-argument. A few months later he spammed the thread to get the last say and tried to bury with text what I pointed out.

    • Replies: @Bookish1
  75. GeeBee says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    ‘Let all nations lead themselves, but cooperate – democratically – with each other to solve common problems such as defense, immigration etc.’

    Democratically? So you don’t even understand the International Race’s core policy? As Ezra Pound accurately observed, ‘Democracy means rule by Jews’.

    As Curtis Yarvin said: ‘the twentieth century was the century of democracy. It was also the century of the bloodiest destruction in history. There couldn’t, surely, be something linking these two features could there?’

  76. @gotmituns

    Foreign soldiers of the Waffen SS were not regarded as equals of the Germans. Himmler had envisaged the SS as similar to the medieval military Orders such as the Teutonic Knights and Templars. Every Germanic SS man was a “Knight”. But foreigners in the SS were seen as military auxiliaries not as members of the SS.

  77. anonymous[284] • Disclaimer says:

    The TALMUD says that Goyim (all nonjews) ARE SUB/human…no better than cattle..Only jews have the divine godly spark in their genes..

  78. @Sean

    He was a nice guy who had no animus against the Jewish art shop owners he dealt with in Vienna and made special provision for Jews such as his mother’s doctor and numerous WW1 regimental comrade to be protected and helped to emigrate.

    Hitler was a nice guy????

    Do you spam this nonsense every time someone writes about Hitler?

    Hitler gave out a few reprieves but there was no general pass for WWI veteran Jews. It was a difficult issue for the Nazis and at some point they just started erasing their records.

    He was above all concerned about Germany having lost its best genetic material through emigration to America, (he wanted to swap German Jews for the Americans of German ancestry).

    Is that so? Nothing like improving your stock by sending all your brave men to die in war while cowards stay home with lies and doctors passes.

    The early Hitler did not talk about the East, he was uninterested in the Russians as a threat to Germany and the Jews of the East were similarly uninteresting.

    Total BS. He laid out his plans for the East in Mein Kampf which was published in 1925.

    Before embarking on war he tried to co opt Poland for his attack on the Soviet Union because that would have prevented the British and French entering the war, but he found that Poland wasn’t interested. So he had to give up his dream of making Germany great, or go ahead and fight anyway.

    Why do you keep claiming this? Have you looked at a map of 1939 Germany? He did not need to go through Poland. He could have gone through Romania and without risking war with the west. Germany would have been great if he stayed in his own borders. They were ahead of the US in technology and medicine. We would probably all speak German as a second language today if here merely kept his concessions.

    If you want to defend Hitler then that is your right but at least try to do so with a modicum of respect for history.

    • Replies: @Sean
  79. Mulegino1 says:
    @melpol

    But the professional Jew earns over two hundred thousand annually and has a few blond shiksa to enjoy. Dads send their children to college hoping they wont also dirty their hands with hard work. Big bucks is king whether he is Jew or gentile.

    In the world of physical production and work, the exact opposite is true. A good craftsman or artisan is worth a hundred times more than a loan sharking Shylock or a grubby hedge fund Mordechai, because money is simply a means of exchange and has no intrinsic value.

    Now we know what really struck terror into you and your ilk when they arrived at the camps and saw the “Arbeit Macht Frei” sign. It was the bit about “Arbeit.”

  80. Hitler wasn’t a bad guy.

    He wasn’t actually trying to starve the people of Leningrad.

    The Nazis were making them a big cake and it wasn’t ready.

    That’s what the ovens were for.

    He was making a big birthday cake and the evil allies bombed it before it was ready. That’s why they starved.

    The holocaust is fabricated. He only killed like a million people through bombing campaigns and typhoid disease.

    Let’s discuss.

  81. Anonymous[603] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mulegino1

    True, but the Jewish attitude is that doing all that terrific work is the role of the Gentile. A Jew has little desire to be a master craftsman. His role is to enjoy the fruit of the labour…. not the labour itself.

    It’s like a cow getting a big puffed up ego, because *she* created all that milk and ice cream! It’s true, but the cow really only exists to provide milk and ice cream.

    • Replies: @Thomasina
  82. @Dan Kelso

    And you think the Nazis are vicious beasts? Look at yourself. The epitome of evil. Out of your own mouth you convict yourself.

  83. @Poco

    We still need a clear statement of how they obtain that staggeringly disproportionate power. Through their wealth? Okay. We still need a clear statement of how they obtain such staggeringly disproportionate wealth.

  84. anonymous[341] • Disclaimer says:

    Ok, the term untermensch wasn’t used as popularly portrayed. But the article does note the vicious policies in the east against Slavs not allied with Germany. However, the policies speak for themselves. You don’t treat a national group as subhuman without considering them as such, name-calling or not. So what’s in a name? The subhumans, er, I mean those not fit to live on the continent of Europe, defeated the would be conquerers. So who was unfit in the end?
    Had Hitler been a more conventional type looking for more practical gains such as regaining lost land with majority German populations, cancelling onerous reparations payments, etc, he could well have succeeded. But no, he had to be some grand visionary who would transform Europe and went down in flames, taking the Germans down with him. And of course after their behavior the Russians and others were understandably angry but yet didn’t have a Morgenthau Plan or starve German POWs after surrender like the US did, a non-subhuman country.

  85. @melpol

    Handymen or plumbers earn less than 40 thousand yearly and have less than attractive mates. But the professional Jew earns over two hundred thousand annually and has a few blond shiksa to enjoy.

    You need to get out more often. Plumbers can make 80k in major cities and can find plenty of women that don’t want to date office guys.

    Jewish professionals are under family pressure to date Jewish women. I read an article about Jewish dating groups and it sounds like a nightmare.

    Dads send their children to college hoping they wont also dirty their hands with hard work.

    This is unfortunately true.

    White people have been duped into thinking that all their kids should work in an office. Even if there is a thriving family business in construction they still send their kids off to get a degree in White guilt studies. Basic office wages are awful. If you advertise for an entry level office job you will get at least 100 applicants, many with masters degrees. You need a technical skill but the colleges are happy to send your kid off with a degree in self-loathing.

    • Replies: @turtle
  86. @Tom Welsh

    Polish nobility claimed Aryan lineage by descent from Sarmatians (Sauromatian) who were a Northern Iranian tribe. They are rather unique in that they seemed to be a tribe of Germanic Aryan ancestry that were Iranianized by the Scythian tribe sometime in around the 3rd-2nd century BC and so they looked physically Germanic mostly but had a culture and language that was Northern Iranian. At some point in time they conquered what is now Poland and the Baltic nations. Probably after battles with the Imperial Romans

    Both Germanic and Northern Iranian being 2/3’s of the Eurasian steppe tribes, the other being the Turkic-Mongolia tribes are believed to be the Aryans of ancient lore.

    • Replies: @Sean
  87. @Wally

    Lidice is an example, isn’t it?

  88. I can’t understand why Germany was allowed to exist after 1945. Berlin should have been made the capital of Israel.

    • Replies: @Vaterland
  89. Johan says:

    If you only analyse these words like untermensch, etc., which are formal concepts from various philosophies, you overlook thousand of creative ways things can be formulated. So one has to compile a list of derogatory terms and search by these words too. It seems probable that the language was adapted to the occasion, especially because they considered themselves to be some levels above several other groups. Formal words for formal occasions, derogatory terms when short term agitation was the target or in non formal settings (of which there might be little evidence left).

    Take for instance the word beast and bacillus in Himmler’s Posen Speech:

    https://codoh.com/library/document/891/

  90. Tusk says:
    @Commentator Mike

    I’m assuming he meant during the war he wasn’t a fighter pilot, out on missions, but instead was behind a desk. Even if 20 years ago he was a pilot, that didn’t make him one at the time.

  91. anon[151] • Disclaimer says:
    @Hans Vogel

    To include the British War Bluebook of 1939:
    https://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/blbkmenu.asp

    TREATMENT OF THE GERMAN MINORITY IN POLAND (AUGUST 24-27).

    During the course of the correspondence outlined in this section, Sir H. Kennard reported that the German press campaign about the persecution of the German minority in Poland was a “gross distortion and exaggeration of the facts” (No. 52). On the 26th August Sir H. Kennard reported frontier incidents which had been provoked by the Germans. They had not caused the Poles to change their “calm and strong attitude of defence” (No. 53). Reports of unfounded German allegations against the Poles were also sent by Sir H. Kennard on the 26th and 27th August (Nos. 54 and 55).

    The British War Bluebook, Sir H. Kennard to Viscount Halifax. August 24-27, 1939

    https://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/blbk52.asp
    https://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/blbk53.asp
    https://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/blbk54.asp
    https://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/blbk55.asp

    • Replies: @Fox
  92. @Curmudgeon

    The Nazis had killed 43,000 British civilians and wounded 139,000 by aerial bombardment during the Blitz (September 1940–May 1941).

    https://www.britannica.com/event/the-Blitz

    But if we’re going to go by who first started killing civilians from the air it was the Nazis: at Guernica, then Warsaw, then Rotterdam, before the RAF dropped any bomb on German civilians. And the Nazis continued killing civilians from the air across Europe before they got their whirlwind in Hamburg and Dresden. The Nazis mass murdered and vandalised the length and breadth of Europe so what did they expect? That they wouldn’t be repaid in kind? What Bomber Harris said is true – some people just don’t have any sense of reality, to this day.

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @Fox
  93. @Nonny Mouse

    Simple answer would be high intelligence paired with high ethnocentricism and a blatant disregard for ‘fair play’ whucn forms the central tenets of Western Christian thought. Although the West may be getting more athirst, the Christian influence on morals continues.

    Jews have reached where they are fair and square through a deep understanding of Natural Law and the psyche of the gentile.

    • Replies: @Thomasina
  94. Johan says:

    “A world-historical figure like Hitler – who must be ranked in terms of impact with the likes of Alexander the Great, Jesus Christ, or Napoleon”

    Significant difference here, the other individuals where not mob leaders, far from that. Hitler was a mob leader, collectivist systems like democracy, Nazism, fascism and communism rely on the empowerment and politicization of mobs and masses. Like Oscar Wilde wrote, ‘To lead the mob, you have to follow the mob’. The masses are blind, and it requires ruthless demagogues like Hitler, psychopaths who emerge from the masses to agitate the mob, quite different from the other individuals. Hitler can be ranked among Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot and Mao, all psychopathic mob leaders, leaving a trail of barbarism, death and destruction by abusing the blind masses, owing their destructive power to the enormous growth and rise of mass man (José Ortega’s vertical barbarism), which started in the nineteenth century.

    • Disagree: thotmonger
    • Replies: @Hans Vogel
  95. @Hans Vogel

    I´m afraid this still doesn´t quite get it …

    Nietzsche´s concept of Übermensch is a transcendent moral imperative –
    beyond our duties toward our kin and the”Meaning of the World” it behooves us to help bring forth the One who comes after us (“Pfeile sollt Ihr sein dem Übermenschen!”);
    in a deliberately ambiguous biological/spiritual sense.
    He will be “beyond good and evil” in the sense he will no longer need our childlike morality because of his higher understanding.
    The line of thought can be traced back to Goethe and forward to its bastard offspring, transhumanism.

    The Untermensch was understood as the antithesis of the “Excelsior!” (probably owing something to Bergson also).

    – It is estimated that after WWI “sanctions” and other depredations claimed the lives of 1.5 million German children; things like that tend to put a kink in your math …
    the Nazis´takeaway was that the defective had no “right” to live while the healthy had to die – to them it was simple triage. And who can blame them?

  96. JackOH says:
    @Tom Welsh

    Tom, thanks.

    BTW, two books severely dented my notion that enmity between Teuton and Slav was an ever and always deal. Karin Friedrich’s The Other Prussia: Royal Prussia, Poland, and Liberty, and Jerzy Lukowski’s The Partitions of Poland: 1772, 1793, 1795.

    Germans who find Polish rule okay compared with the Teutonic Knights and the later Hollenzollern. Poles in the Russian Empire seeking refuge in the more liberal German Prussia and Austria-Hungary. The books are expertly crafted, dense, and offer a challenge every page.

  97. Bookish1 says:
    @Nonny Mouse

    You mean we dont know yet. Jews are in a cabalistic cult to control the world. Strange thing is they claim world peace is their goal and only they can bring it. In the meantime they start wars all over the globe. Think it’s time we wake up?

  98. Bookish1 says:
    @John Johnson

    Hitler made derisive comments on what christianity has become. He believed in the christianity of the time of jesus

    • Replies: @John Johnson
  99. @anonymous

    Just a real quick reply to this babbler. What “vicious policies in the east against Slavs” are you talking about? Please give some details.

    How were Slavs being treated by Germans as subhuman?

    “The Russians didn’t starve German POWs after surrender like the Americans did.” Oh no, they mutilated them while their hands were tied behind their back with wire, then stuffed their scrotums down their throats, and left them to be found by their fellow troops. Well documented, again and again, during the war years. https://carolynyeager.net/wehrmacht-war-crimes-bureau You won’t find any of this on the History Channel.
    It’s understandable the soldiers considered the Red Army to be wild beasts, and being captured by them worse than death. These Russian troops and Jewish partisan fighters also gouged out the eyes of captured Germans and this took place throughout the eastern war zones. Cut off their noses and ears too, for souvenirs I guess. Never did Germans behave this way, and that is why they are the superior race even though they don’t call themselves that.

    It’s estimated that 1/3 of all Germans captured by the Soviets died while in custody, and those are official figures, usually low-balled as much as possible.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    , @anonymous
  100. The German word ‘Untermenschen’ closely defines the American population today, as we forge headlong towards our destruction and complete enslavement by the fake patriots we call neocons. Many are descendants of Russian Jews, Trotskyites who immigrated to the USA in the 1930s, and their dream is an American war with Russia. But don’t get it twisted these guys, like: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Micjael Leeden, Scooter Libby, Charles Krauthammer and many more are of the same cloth as their fathers who murdered tens of millions of Christians during the Bolshevik revolution and after, when Jews made up as much as 85% of the ruling party. If we give them a chance they will do the same thing here. Protect our second amendment, we’re going to need it.

  101. @Bookish1

    Hitler made derisive comments on what christianity has become. He believed in the christianity of the time of jesus

    He had no desire to return Christianity to some previous form.

    The Nazis wanted to re-make Christianity entirely by dropping the old testament and depicting Jews as a satanic race. Hitler was fully on board.

    Here is what he said in table talk:
    Christianity is the prototype of Bolshevism: the mobilization by the Jew of the masses of slaves with the object of undermining society

    I don’t see how anyone could conclude he was a Christian of any sort accept for his political image.

  102. @Carolyn Yeager

    Just a real quick reply to this babbler. What “vicious policies in the east against Slavs” are you talking about? Please give some details.

    How were Slavs being treated by Germans as subhuman?

    Both Wehrmacht and SS were told that the Eastern war was a racial war and to show no mercy as it was a war of racial survival.

    There are letters from German soldiers written to their wives describing vicious policies like burning villages and shooting prisoners that had surrendered.

    Why do you think they were starving Leningrad? They hadn’t simply abandoned it. The Luftwaffe was strafing boats trying to bring in food. Hitler viewed the Slavs as subhuman and wanted them out of the Baltics. There was no military value in starving Leningrad. It was just a cruel plan to get rid of them. Trying to starve an entire city to death falls into the category of vicious policy.

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @Wizard of Oz
  103. Seraphim says:

    @C’est pire qu’un crime, c’est une faute.

    Indeed, the attack on Russia was ‘une faute’, a mistake. It was the same mistake that the Kaiser and his entourage of Jewish bankers and economic advisors made in 1914. The barely dissimulated attempt to grab the Russian resources as the necessary means to feed the hubristic ‘Weltpolitik’ of Kaiser Wilhelm.
    The mistake was the underestimation of Russian capabilities, resources, resilience, and the overestimation of German abilities and capabilities, which was a reflection of the hyper-inflated self-opinion that Germans started to have about themselves since the Humanist Reformation and Aufklärung, exacerbated by Romanticism.
    The racialist motivations attributed to Hitler and the Nazis are rather the American projection of their own racial/eugenistic obsessions of which the Jews took advantage by making the war look as a war against Jewry as such, obfuscating their own dealings with the Nazis (e.g. the plan of the ‘Lublin Reservation’, eerily reminding the plans for establishment of a League of Eastern European States, dominated by the Jews on behalf of the German Reich in 1914), and enabling them to claim the status of exclusive victim, entitled to the lion share of compensations.
    I can but only remind the warnings of Bismarck against attacking Russia, dismissed (along with Bismarck) by the Kaiser and by Hitler, already in ‘Mein Kampf’.

    • Replies: @Fox
  104. Wally says:
    @John Johnson

    Laughable & unfounded.

    Please try to provide proof for those claims.

  105. Fox says:
    @Wally

    Wally:
    Spaight’s book Bombing Vindicated (1943) proudly boasts about the splendid decision made at Downing Street No. 10 on May 11, 1940, namely to engage in the Bombing Campaign against civilian targets in Germany, he also boasts about how “Hitler was genuinely anxious to reach an agreement for the restriction of the air war” but that it was rejected by the British officialdom. Spaight held a post in the British Air Ministry. -The book is hard to find in the original printing, but has been re-published a few years ago as a facsimile by Ostara Publications.
    The whole thing is so typical for all the obfuscation and distortion concerning anything of the Second War:
    In this case, practically an official statement by the British Government about who conceived of, prepared for, and rejected any restriction on the air war is being ignored since the reality of it doesn’t fit the War Mythology.

  106. Wally says:
    @Commentator Mike

    Get serious. You’re Zionist BS has been so exposed.

    Ridiculous propaganda about Guernica demolished here:
    https://www.unz.com/?s=guernica&Action=Search&ptype=all&commentsearch=only&commenter=Wally

    – Rotterdam & Warsaw were legit military targets. .

    – Per the Hague conventions, the bombing of cities is acceptable IF they were under military occupation (defended), which was the case with Rotterdam and Warsaw.

    – My comment #61 above debunks the rest of your nonsense concerning the lies about The Blitz.

  107. anonymous[350] • Disclaimer says:
    @John Regan

    Hitler’s half-brother lived in Liverpool with his Irish wife. Hitler may have stayed with them for a few months before WW I.

    Bridget wrote a manuscript, My Brother-in-Law Adolf, in which she claimed that her famous brother-in-law had moved to Liverpool to live with Bridget and Alois from November 1912 to April 1913 to dodge conscription in his native Austria. She claims that she introduced Adolf to astrology, and that she advised him to trim off the edges of his moustache.

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Bridget_Dowling

  108. Fox says:
    @anon

    Kennard was totally pro-Polish and anti-German, the worst possible choice of an ambassador. Henderson, on the other hand, did inform and admonish Halifax about the Polish actions against the German minority within its borders.
    With all of the British fervor to torpedo an agreement between Germany and Poland to settle border disputes, I wonder how Britain would have reacted if Germany, for example, had threatened England with war if it had not settled the Irish question in a manner as conceived in Berlin?
    Perhaps not too well, I suppose.

    • Thanks: Thomasina
  109. Fox says:
    @Seraphim

    Seraphim:
    You forgot the famous Crown Council Meeting of early July 1914 in Berlin, in which the conquest of the world was decided on. Remember?
    One other question, however, why did Russia mobilise its military in accordance with the plans drawn up with France and England, and why did it not cancel the mobilisation order when the Kaiser very nearly nearly begged the Tsar to relent, well before Germany had considered mobilisation?
    Would you consider the Russian (Imperial) mobilisation against Germany also ‘une faut’, and would you the amassing of 170+ divisions of the Red Army in June of 1941 along the Western Frontier, with the implied intent to use this mass of soldiery and weaponry soon thereafter against somone “on the other side” also “une faut”?
    Seems that you and various other people arguing along this line are thinking of the politics of superior strength, threats and blackmail. If so, these threats were rejected by Germany, and one outcome of this is that the world has at least been saved from Pan-Slavism and Pan-Bolshevism, as the backbone of Russian and Soviet strength has been broken by the war against the Central Powers.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  110. @John Johnson

    I wouldn’t want to be seen as supporting anything the Nazis did in Russia but the siege of Leningrad was at least consistent with seeking to force the Soviet Union to abandon it with safe passage [maybe to starvation elsewhere] being given to civilians and POW status to servicemen. Handing the port of Leningrad to the Germans and allowing attacks from there to the SE would have made capturing Leningrad worthwhile from a military point of view. Better military logic than the bombing of German cities though I could defend that too, especially since discovering that huge German resources were diverted from fighting the Soviet Union to defending German cities.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
  111. @Omegabooks

    My boomer parents are a good example of this mindset. Such bad advice. It was considered poor moral character to rely on help from family ie. go into the family business. You had to be all bootstrappy. I resent my parents for this now, though I didn’t know any different at the time.

  112. SafeNow says:
    @Omegabooks

    Yes, the skulduggery gene, but I would add: (1) The glibness/contentiousness gene..lawyers, pundits, professors; (2) The moneylender gene…thus, economists, accountants; (3) The fastidiousness diamond-cutter’s gene medicine, dentistry.

  113. Fox says:
    @Commentator Mike

    In fact, it was the British use of aeroplanes in Iraq in the 1920s to teach the colonial subjects to not rebel by dropping explosives and poison gas on them. I have to find that jewel of a quote from Churchill when he puts that thought in words (I think it’s from 1927) .
    There is nothing nice about being in the cross-hairs of military action, but there is a difference between being by bad luck in the front line (as in Guernica, Rotterdam, Warsaw) and being far behind the front (as in Wuppertal, Cologne, Dresden, Prague ((bombed by the American Air Force in April 1945), Schaffhausen, Zurich (both Swiss, bombed by the Americans through navigation error), Rome (bombed by the Americans despite it being declared an Open City on Hitler’s orders in order to prevent its destruction, etc.). I didn’t invent war and I’d rather not have it, but if there is one, then I am not advocating terrorizing the innocent and uninvolved, as did Churchill and his loyal yes men.
    Nature strikes back hard, and what we are witnessing now, have been witnessing since the end of the war, the suicide of the Western Victors, and through their dominance the self-elimination of the European Civilization (including America, Canada, Australia) is Nature at work, she has pulled the rug out from under the feet of the West. I think it is because of a hidden feeling of being unworthy because of the war that had been entered freely and senselessly.
    In the insane intent to prevent a mutual agreement between Germany and Poland about the German City of Danzig and the status of the Korridor separating by intent of the Versailles crowd East Prussia from Germany proper, the West decided that it would be rather so much better to have a general war than not, and risk it all.
    I suppose so much stupidity was begging for a harsh answer, the answer as decreed by Nature being the self-elimination of the White Man.

    • Agree: Poco, Thomasina
    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  114. @Wizard of Oz

    I wouldn’t want to be seen as supporting anything the Nazis did in Russia but the siege of Leningrad was at least consistent with seeking to force the Soviet Union to abandon it with safe passage [maybe to starvation elsewhere] being given to civilians and POW status to servicemen.

    What you aren’t mentioning is that Hitler didn’t allow them to surrender and mentioned many times that he wanted to kill the citizens.

    So yes that falls into cruel and vicious policy.

    From a military perspective it actually would have made more sense to force the Soviets to keep supplying them until they were defeated. But Hitler wanted to destroy the city and kill the population.

  115. turtle says:
    @John Johnson

    People who do not want to get their hands dirty are just scum, IMO.

    One former boss, a self-made millionaire, was never shy about rolling up his sleeves and getting to work. Tom was a highly skilled pipefitter/pipewelder (the “elite” of process piping industry), but if digging a hole was what needed to be done on a given day, he did it, without complaint. A few of my most enjoyable work day memories were those spent doing hard work with “the boss.” butt cheek to butt cheek down in a hole, if necessary. May he rest in peace.

    [Both of us, of course, are of German heritage.]

    The individual you are wasting your time typing to is, evidently, entirely clueless.

    Ask around how much certified pipe welder/fitters with their own rigs can make following shutdowns. If you can do x-ray quality work. and are willing to travel, the money is there.

    I oncc knew a journeyman plumber who appeared to be the sunny side of 40 and who owned his own custom built residence in San Juan Capistrano, CA free and clear, having designed and built the place himself. He told me he had a degree in metallurgy, but plumbing paid better than working in aerospace.

    I once knew a 24 year old woman whose husband (same age) was pulling down >$100,000/yr. as a heavy equipment mechanic in the early 1990s. She could only be described as drop dead gorgeous, but certainly not a gold digger. They had been junior high school sweethearts.

    My own best year as a framing carpenter was 1984, in which year I earned ~$50,000 working with my tools, mostly piecework. In today’s dollars, according this website:
    https://www.usinflationcalculator.com
    that would be ~$124,000.

    I also am a university graduate, as were many co-workers I knew in those days. most of whom had degrees in math, a physical science or an engineering discipline. None of us were afraid of hard work, and very few had any difficulty getting laid by hot chicks.

  116. Wally says:
    @John Johnson

    said:
    “What you aren’t mentioning is that Hitler didn’t allow them to surrender and mentioned many times that he wanted to kill the citizens.”

    – Are you OK? You’re just making up silly nonsense.

    – Hitler never said “that he wanted to kill the citizens”. You haven’t a shred of proof.

    Such are Zionists.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  117. Wally says:
    @Just passing through

    – No one said there were no such things as ‘table talk’ from Hitler. Stop your strawman arguments, please.

    – The point is the false assumptions, fake translations. and outright forgeries within them.

    – See my comment #3 above as well as others here about these ‘table talks’ and the monkey business concerning them.

  118. Seraphim says:
    @Fox

    Of course I didn’t. Except that it was the Imperial War Council of 8 December 1912 which, alarmed by the successes of the Balkan League and the weakening of the Ottoman Empire (virtual ally of the Central Powers) decided that the war against Russia, Britain and France was inevitable (‘War between East and West was bound to come sooner or later,’ as the Kaiser presented it) and projected its beginning for July 1914. It is almost certain that the Russians, whose espionage was then as good as it was later, knew all about. The increase of German Army decided the next day by three new Army Corps (4,000 officers, 14,900 non-commissioned officers and 117,000 men – the biggest increase of the German army in peacetime during the second German Empire) and the intensification of bellicose propaganda could not but confirm the suspicion about German intentions.
    Russians putting the Army on ‘alert’ followed the Austrian mobilization, and the stark refusal of the Central Powers to solve the Serbian crisis through an international conference. The mobilization followed the Austria declaration of war against Serbia and as a response to it and to the clear signs of a German -Turkish alliance in the pipe-line and preparations for a revolt in Poland and Caucasus.
    And you forget the race for oil.
    How did Germany saved the world from Bolshevism when it send Lenin to Russia and made peace with the Bolsheviks?

    • Replies: @Fox
  119. Fox says:
    @John Johnson

    You would have more info on that, wouldn’t you?

  120. @Fox

    In the insane intent to prevent a mutual agreement between Germany and Poland about the German City of Danzig and the status of the Korridor separating by intent of the Versailles crowd East Prussia from Germany proper, the West decided that it would be rather so much better to have a general war than not, and risk it all.

    Amazing comment. Very astute.

    • Replies: @Fox
  121. anonymous[967] • Disclaimer says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    What “vicious policies in the east against Slavs” are you talking about? Please give some details

    Another crackpot. Gee, what policies? You seem to like graphic torture tales with brutal Russian troops and Jewish partisan fighters (had to get that one in) victimizing the pussycat Germans. Perhaps they should have stayed home seeing as they weren’t invited.
    You’re apparently into torture porn. Sick.

    • LOL: Carolyn Yeager
  122. @John Johnson

    It is a great plus to be better informed as one sometimes can be on a UR thread but I would be significantly better informed by your post if you were to give readily checkable sources for what you have quoted Hitler as saying many times.

    The best/most reliable evidence would probably be in records of orders to the German forces besieging Leningrad and other signals in which the matter of surrendering etc. may have been discussed – including Soviet records. Any chance you can find something like that?

  123. @Wally

    “…On this day in 1941, upon the German army’s invasion of Pskov, 180 miles from Leningrad, Russia, the chief of the German army general staff, General Franz Halder, records in his diary Hitler’s plans for Moscow and Leningrad: “To dispose fully of their population, which otherwise we shall have to feed during the winter.”

    “…Franz Halder, as chief of staff, had been keeping a diary of the day-to-day decision-making process. As Hitler became emboldened by his successes in Russia, Halder recorded that the “Fuhrer is firmly determined to level Moscow and Leningrad to the ground…”

    Source : http://www.history.com>this-day-in-history, German general’s diary reveals Hitler’s plans for Russia.

    Furthermore :

    “…Although various theories have been put forward about Germany’s plans for Leningrad, including renaming the city Adolfsburg (as claimed by Soviet journalist Lev Bezymenski)[16] and making it the capital of the new Ingermanland province of the Reich in Generalplan Ost, it is clear Hitler’s intention was to utterly destroy the city and its population. According to a directive sent to Army Group North on 29 September, “After the defeat of Soviet Russia there can be no interest in the continued existence of this large urban centre. […] Following the city’s encirclement, requests for surrender negotiations shall be denied, since the problem of relocating and feeding the population cannot and should not be solved by us. In this war for our very existence, we can have no interest in maintaining even a part of this very large urban population.”[17]

    Hitler’s ultimate plan was to raze Leningrad to the ground and give areas north of the River Neva to the Finns.[18][19]…”

    Source : Wikipedia, Siege of Leningrad.

    And :

    “…Emotionally Hitler was far more attracted to the destruction of Leningrad. On July 16, Bormann noted : “The Leningrad area is being claimed by the Finns. The Führer wants to raze Leningrad to the ground—then he’ll give it to the Finns.”

    Source : David Irving, Hitler’s War, Part 3, Crusade Into Russia.

    I have read similar ideas in Hitler’s Table Talk.

    But of course you will now say that all these sources are false because they are “Zionist”, and that would include the German Chief of Staff Halder, Bormann and David Irving – all members of a vast “Zionist conspiracy” to smear the innocent Führer.

    • Replies: @John Regan
    , @Wally
  124. Sean says:
    @John Johnson

    Hitler was not an aggressive personality. After WW1 he was chosen as a representative ‘person of confidence’ by other soldiers to communicate their views to officers. I think that speaks for itself. Hanfstaengl said the speeches of the 30’s were a pale shadow of the very early Hitler, who was an astoundingly gifted persuader. The early aims of Hitler were predicated on a slow recovery by Germany, generations rather than a decade was the timeframe as indicated by his proposals for celibacy by the genetically unfit.

    He could have gone through Romania and without risking war with the West.

    The military professionals Of the German Army disagreed with you, they thought a a swift drive to Moscow with the aim of preventing the Soviets from falling back intact was required. After a war game they decided to have army groups north and south of von Bock’s Army Group Center which went along the main highway to Moscow. Von Leeb’s orders were to lay siege to Leningrad, not to take it. Stalin sent powerful additional forces to defend Leningrad, which were forced into the city and neutralised by encirclement. That had the effect of weakening the Soviet army defending Moscow, which the Germans were trying to win the war by destroying. Sure Hitler planned to conquer and colonise Russia, but the early Hitler did not talk about the East and its Jews as a threat to Germany. It was only in power that he began thinking of starting war, partially because he always suspected his life would not be a long one and didn’t think any subsequent leader would have the determination, and also because Germany had a fleeting military advantage in the international situation.

    The peril was American power and capital, which had prevented Germany from winning WW1, and was sweating Germany to enable the the French and British to repay their debts to America. Hitler wanted to give his country a continental economy like the United States had. Germany and even Russia) had been built up by German immigrants. For Germany itself to parlay it best people’s genetic superiority it had to keep them at home and give them the resources for mass actual production of devices. Heisenberg knew how, or at least what was needed, to make an atomic bomb, but as he said the resources were so scarce that he could not go to Hitler and ask for them. Hitler came close to success in his attempt to make Germany a superpower with an American lifestyle.

    Germany would have been great if he stayed in his own borders. They were ahead of the US in technology and medicine. We would probably all speak German as a second language today if here merely kept his concessions.

    Hitler actually discussed such a policy in Mein Kampf, where he called it internal colonisation. However Hitler opined that the high standard of living achievable by such a commercial policy would lead to a low birthrate, and looking at the dearth of babies in Germany one might wonder if he was looking into the future.

  125. Thomasina says:
    @Anonymous

    But you still have to “labour”. You have to suck, like a leech. Definition of “leech”:

    “1. an aquatic or terrestrial annelid worm with suckers at both ends. Many species are bloodsucking parasites, especially of vertebrates, and others are predators.

    2. a person who extorts profit from or sponges on others. “They are leeches feeding off the hardworking majority.”

    Does anyone ever mistake a leech for an artist? No. A leech is just a leech.

    And you did end up having to “labour” during World War II, didn’t you? Whenever we take what is not ours to take, labour always awaits us, “Jewish attitude” or not.

  126. anarchyst says:
    @melpol

    You repeat the false premise that those who work with their hands (as well as their minds) are “lesser beings”.

    Your jewish supremacism is showing…

    You should slither back into your IDF unit 8200 hovel…

    Tradespeople and others who do real work (not banksterism, shylocking, or other nefarious “occupations”) will survive the coming “crash” by networking.

    There will be no use for jews of your type. In fact, your type will be the first to starve, unless you “latch up” with those that you presently despise.

    “Arbeit Macht Frei” is not in the jewish vocabulary.

    The German-run work camps were hated by jews, because for the first time in their lives, they were forced to do “real” work–not banksterism, shylocking or loan sharking…

  127. @Johan

    Most political leaders (people like Obomba, Bush I, Bush II, Merkel, Macron etc.) are if not outright, full psychopaths, equipped with a decided psychopathic streak. CEOs are also generally psychopaths, as are test pilots, drone operators, serial killers, torturers, henchmen, hitmen, etc. etc.

    • Replies: @S
  128. Fox says:
    @Seraphim

    It was Austria-not the Central Powers- to refuse a conference including England; while Russia mobilized, and France and England went on alert, Germany did not. Germany was the last country to mobilize its forces, and before doing that, the Kaiser practically begged the Czar to demobilize. Realizing that the net to be thrown over Germany (as the Kaiser put it) and that Russia, France and England acted in concert-despite all the claptrap of peace, and friendship, as was constantly uttered by the Entente diplomats, they were ready to jump with their 2:1 superiority and put Germany in a vice in a two-front war. That was the stark reality Germany faced against powers with ambitions to eliminate the hated Germany (Austria played only the second fiddle in their plans, even as Austria was the country in which the war started through its declaration of war against Serbia.

    The German military and its allies put an end to Bolshevik ambitions through the war in the East starting on June 22, 1941. The SU’s back was broken through the strain put on the strength of the Red Empire, and it never recovered from it. I shudder to think of what would have happened if the Red Army had indeed overrun Europe.

    • Replies: @Hans Vogel
    , @Seraphim
  129. Truth3 says:
    @Beckow

    They massacred millions of civilians…

    Prove it.

    Otherwise, shut up on the subject, as you just spout nonsense lies meant to damage Germany and Germans… for the benefit of you know (((who))).

  130. @anarchyst

    anarchyst,

    To be contrarian for a moment – the Jews did invent the kibbutz system so they could work the land with the sweat of their brow.

    • Replies: @anarchyst
  131. anarchyst says:
    @Commentator Mike

    You are correct.

    However, the “kibbutz” system is largely populated by foreign “volunteers”. Jews DO have an aversion to working with their hands.

    The “sweat of their brows” consists of foreign volunteers sweat, NOT indigenous jewish sweat.

    Not only are there very few jews in the “trades”, there are also very few jews in the American military.

    Regards,

    • Replies: @melpol
    , @Commentator Mike
  132. melpol says:
    @anarchyst

    Most tradespeople send their kids to college so they wont have to dirty their hands. My millionaire uncle owns a construction company while his laborers drive 20 year old cars. Guys that work with their hands are not lesser beings but they get less pay. Jews do work hard with their minds because the pay is better. My Jewish insurance broker works from 9am to 9pm, his hard work has made him wealthy. But we need workers that do the plumbing and electrical jobs, they deserve our respect.

    • Replies: @Truth3
  133. turtle says:
    @anarchyst

    those who work with their hands (as well as their minds)

  134. @Franklin Ryckaert

    According to a directive sent to Army Group North on 29 September, “After the defeat of Soviet Russia there can be no interest in the continued existence of this large urban centre. […] Following the city’s encirclement, requests for surrender negotiations shall be denied, since the problem of relocating and feeding the population cannot and should not be solved by us. In this war for our very existence, we can have no interest in maintaining even a part of this very large urban population.”

    Correct, Mr. Ryckaert. The bolded bit in this translated excerpt is the important part.

    Hitler and the German High Command understood very well that they had absolutely no ability to feed the population of this large city. Due to Stalin’s scorched earth policy, which called for the destruction of all food resources in the liberated territories, as well as the entire transportation system, the German Army was hard pressed even to supply itself (in the winter of late 1941, large numbers of German soldiers infamously perished because winter supplies could not be brought to them). How then could food for millions of civilians also be brought? Any attempt to do that would result in a disaster on every level.

    So, Hitler did refuse potential surrenders by Leningrad (not that any were forthcoming in any case). But contrary to what (for example) John Johnson has written in this thread, he did not do so because he was irrationally cruel or bloodthirsty. It was simply a decision that had been forced on him by circumstances. Or, rather, more specifically by the Communist leaders, who (true to habit) did not care if millions of their own citizens died to further their political objectives.

    Here is an excerpt from Stalin’s order:

    All rolling stock must be evacuated, the enemy must not be left a single engine, a single railway truck, not a single pound of grain or gallon of fuel. Collective farmers must drive off all their cattle and turn over their grain to the safe keeping of the state authorities, for transportation to the rear. If valuable property that cannot be withdrawn, it must be destroyed without fail.

    In areas occupied by the enemy, partisan units, mounted and on foot, must be formed; sabotage groups must be organized to combat enemy units, to foment partisan warfare everywhere, blow up bridges and roads, damage telephone and telegraph lines, set fire to forests, stores and transport.

    https://spartacus-educational.com/RUSearth.htm

    Of course, given these conditions, millions of people starved to death; the Communists’ own statistics show that more than 5 million of their citizens died because of this, and the real number is probably higher by quite a bit. But it’s wrong to blame this on the Germans, since the destruction was created by the Soviet authorities themselves. Hitler was simply playing the hand Stalin had dealt him. Innocent ordinary people became the victims.

  135. melpol says:
    @anarchyst

    Very few Jews go into the American Military. Soldiers pay is very small and the living conditions are sub-standard. Most recruits were unemployed before becoming a soldier. Jews are college trained and upon graduation are offered high paying jobs. They are able to obtain good housing and a late model car. Few would trade that lifestyle for the military. But the head of the US Pacific Command is a Jew and so was the great Admiral Rickover.

  136. Wally says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    strike 1: I also see no authentic, complete German documents for any of that.

    strike 2: Yes, Hitler wanted them out of Leningrad to avoid the logistics of providing or them. So what else is new?

    strike 3, & you’re out: I see nothing about “killing all the civilians of Leningrad”.

    you said:
    “I have read similar ideas in Hitler’s Table Talk.
    But of course you will now say that all these sources are false because they are “Zionist”, and that would include the German Chief of Staff Halder, Bormann and David Irving – all members of a vast “Zionist conspiracy” to smear the innocent Führer.”

    – What have you”seen” in the altered ‘Table Talk’. See my comment #3 above.
    – What “sources”?
    – Neither Halder, Bormann, or Irving has shown that Hitler wanted to “kill all the civilians of Leningrad”.

    BTW, of the many cities which Germany did take, the populations of none those cities were killed.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  137. Blankaerd says:

    1. I remember reading in Churchill/Hitler: the unnecessary war that Hitler did actually offer Poland a military alliance against the Soviet Union. Hitler was dumbstruck when they refused. It no doubt fueled Hitler’s anger for the Poles, especially after Hitler showed the Poles goodwill by allowing them to gobble up parts of former Czechoslovakia. Considering their history I really have little sympathy for the Poles.

    2. I remember Streicher using the term untermenschen much more liberally than any of the top nazi officials. Granted, Streicher was considered an extreme antisemite even by nazi-standards, but I recall him using the term in the same way as Durocher describes, that is, to denote criminals and dysgenic elements within society. In a foreword for the book Der jude als Verbrecher, Streicher wrote something along the lines of: The jews are the born leaders of the untermenschtum. (sub-humanity)

  138. Wally says:
    @anonymous

    said:
    “But the article does note the vicious policies in the east against Slavs not allied with Germany. ”

    – And the author has been shown to be incapable of supporting such a discredited claim. Please review the comments in this thread.

    – Anyway, what “vicious policies” do think you are referring to? Please show them to us.

    – What do you think was the result of your alleged “vicious policies”?

    – Please present proof for any results that you allege.

  139. @Wally

    So are you saying that general Franz Halder’s and Bormann’s diaries are falsifications and that David Irving Hitler’s War is also lying?

    It is clear from many sources that Hitler wanted to destroy Leningrad and Moscow. Their populations, if not killed on the spot, would be expelled into the cold steppe where they would die anyway. The result would be the same.

    Why are you still defending the crazy, genocidal Führer?

    • Replies: @Wally
  140. Truth3 says:
    @melpol

    My millionaire uncle owns a construction company while his laborers drive 20 year old cars.

    That tells us three things.

    You Uncle is a Jew.

    So are you.

    Ripping off the workers is a fundamental trait of Jews.

    GTHFOAD.

    • Agree: anarchyst
    • Replies: @melpol
  141. And yet,

    it has been the superior an responsible for most negative impacting forces on human potential — namely, wars. Was often fought to remove the supposed inferiors, often in the name of peace.

  142. Sean says:
    @Lol just lol

    That way of tracing the ancestry back to ancient peoples is wrongheaded. Read Gregory Clark.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Son_Also_Rises_(book)
    From his finding that ethnically homogeneous societies, such as Japan and Korea, had similar rates of social mobility to ethnically diverse societies, such as the United States, Clark infers that racism may not be a significant factor affecting social mobility. From his finding that families who had many children were able to pass down their high social status just as well as families who had few children, Clark infers …that high-status people are more likely to have genes that are beneficial to them achieving high status, and are therefore more likely to pass such genes on to their children

    Germany (pre unification) was the first country that had universal literacy over substantial regions. Primitive races and the lowest orders of a modern society can have courage, but only advanced people can have the innate discipline or restraint particularly common in Germans, which came from centuries of social Darwinian competiton in comercial societies.Architects of Annihilation shows that for the Nazi technocrats doing the planning for the German population and incorporation of selected individuals for Germanisation in conquered territories, “one sided anthropological considerations” like how Ayran the subject individuals looked were discounted. According to the official Nazi ‘ Guidelines for the evaluation of genetically sound stock’ issued by the Reich ministry of the interior, and very similar to the later criteria used adopted for the East, Germans were divided into three groups. Most were assessed as no great asset but not much of an liability to the state.

    And enthroned in splendour above them was the select category of ‘genetically highgrade’ persons. To qualify for this privileged status it was necessary for the ‘majority of family members’ to demonstrate a record of ‘work achievement and upward social mobility’ – rather than exhibiting any outwardly ‘Germanic’ characteristics. The conclusion is unavoidable: the ‘genetically sound stock’ in the title of the guidelines refers to something else […] In an article entitled ‘The East as a Challenge and Obligation for German Nationhood’ .. concludes: ‘So the task before us is one of drawing together and consolidating the positive forces and eliminating the forces hostile to order, of selecting carefully on the basis of … principles of hard work and achievement.

    The selection for restraint and future time orientation resulted in conscientiousness, as with Kant’s philosophy in which doing things from inclination is without merit and as MacIntyre echoing Hegel complained “the conscientious moral agent dominated by the form of the categorical imperative is in fact licensed to do anything at all–provided he does it conscientiously”. That notably efficient German Adolf Eichmann explained his actions were consistent with his Kantianism during his trial. Such are the overmen Stoddard implied. The US had huge amounts of arable land and–with some exceptions such as transported criminals and slaves– was colonised by able classes of people from England and Germany.

    • Thanks: John Regan
  143. @anarchyst

    there are also very few jews in the American military.

    Maybe American Jews serve in the IDF.

  144. @anarchyst

    Is it possible that Jews found working to be so undignified, that they made up stories about them being exterminated, because to them having to work was the extermination of the Jewish spirit?

  145. melpol says:
    @Truth3

    Dozens of unemployed construction workers learned to love Jews because my Jewish uncle gave them work. He paid less but gave them full time jobs. Some of his construction workers wore Yarmulkes in appreciation to my uncle who helped pay their living costs. My uncle is now retired in Miami Beach. He gets occasional visits from families of his former employees. They kiss the ground he stands on.

    • Replies: @Truth3
    , @Truth3
  146. S says:
    @Hans Vogel

    CEOs are also generally psychopaths, as are test pilots, drone operators, serial killers, torturers, henchmen, hitmen, etc. etc.

    I get your drift and generally agree, but ‘test pilots’!!?? 😂

  147. @Fox

    Good to remind the readership that the Germans were NOT the initiators of the Great War. In this respect, I warmly recommend Gerry Docherty and Jim MacGregor, Hidden History (2013). Being both Scotsmen, they have no qualms about putting the blame where it should be: the small clique of English bankers, politicians and Good Old King George, coordinated by Alfred Milner, Cecil Rhodes’ sodomite buddy.

    • Thanks: Fox
  148. Is Untermensch what we today would call a “bottom” ?

    Tops hold bottoms in contempt– who doesn’t?– and Tom of Finland knew what he was doing when he designed his whole look around the NSDAP– and it took off during the liberated ’70s.

    Full circle to Ernst Röhm.

  149. Thomasina says:
    @Just passing through

    Christians, for the most part, are more honorable and follow the doctrine of: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

    Jews, Chinese, Sikhs: “If it’s not nailed down, take it, and then laugh in the other guy’s face.” Then when called out, scream “racism” or use their laws against them.

    I don’t call this “high intelligence”. Psychopathic, opportunistic? Yep.

    What happens when you continue to sh*t in a nest?

  150. Getting back to the article at hand and its urgent need for critique, Durocher wrote in the 3rd paragraph:

    In this article, I would like to put the Untermensch concept and its actual use by Hitler in its historical context, as free as possible from the baggage of the victors’ mythology of the Second World War. For as we know, though history is always written by the victors, that account is never disinterested.

    Admirable, yes? Three paragraphs later, he tells us:

    National Socialist killings are claimed to be motivated by the “underman” concept.

    What NS “killings” is he referring to? Nowhere does he say; he just assumes he can say that and everyone knows of what he speaks. He then goes on for awhile about Lothrop Stoddard and various racial theories, only to conclude that none of them came from National Socialism, but from across a world spectrum—British, French, American, Japanese and Jewish.

    After many paragraphs based on quoted material absolving Hitler of using the term subhuman against the Slavs or Jews, but in fact only about individual dysgenic Germans, Durocher then makes a wild jump to his default position on Hitler. In a single Table Talk conversation, he quotes Hitler as saying “I make no distinction between [German criminals] and the brutes who populate our Russian P.O.W. Camps.” That is enough to set Durocher’s point for the rest of the article!

    “This is a shocking comparison, Hitler not considering his opponents in war to be honorable fellow soldiers conscripted by an evil communist tyranny, but no better than the lowest German criminals.” […] “This line of thinking can easily be tied to the German mistreatment of Soviet P.O.W.s, ranging from killing to willful neglect, which led to the deaths of over 3 million.”

    This is egregious and transparent neglect of cause and effect on the part of our French writer, who goes from bad to worse by continuing: “the fact is that in Hitler’s case this did underpin a callous and even murderous attitude in the Eastern territories.” As above with the “National Socialist killings”, we receive no proof or evidence of Hitler’s “callous and murderous attitude.” It is assumed, or “part of the baggage of the victor’s mythology.”

    GD then makes another of his “jumps” to a further conclusion, that by such means Hitler “contributed to murderous policies and to alienating nations which might have been allies against communism and Jewry, and hence to the defeat of the Third Reich.” How neat, eh? I wonder why none of the distinguished Gold Star Commenters have noticed any of this, or even made a single comment on it?

    Durocher sums up by claiming (whether true or not) that Stoddard, Rosenberg, and Günther had more conciliatory policies towards Slavs than did Hitler and his “influential secretary” Martin Bormann. He charges them with justifying their (to him) wrong views on their belief that non-German states were “unreliable,” as demonstrated in the First World War, and those states’ “conflictual view of life” due to competition. He adds that Hitler’s Nordicism meant that non-Germanic populations would be dysgenic to the German race and lead to its decline, as in Ancient Greece and Rome. (Hitler was right, of course.)

    Our essayist again focuses on a few conversations in Table Talk about Russia, and calls them “chilling.” Others who are familiar with them, such as myself, do not consider them chilling at all. Chilling is the favorite descriptor used by the British press to describe any and every mention of the Hitler regime and its activities.

    After searching rather fruitlessly for more of “Hitler’s failings” to lengthen his article (as I can’t think of any other reason for it), including plenty of comparisons to the early Winston Churchill, Durocher comes up with this very revealing shocker: “Hitler’s eastern policies were supremely blame-worthy, ultimately criminally irresponsible and mad.” How’s that for fitting the “victor’s mythology?” He then asks the following question, which reveals his ignorance and non-qualification to be writing on the subject at all: “Why not even attempt to make Poland into an anti-communist buffer state?” As if that was not exactly what the German chancellor had been trying to do since 1933—to no avail with the uncooperative Poles!! Maybe you could try reading some revisionist history for a change, Guillaume?

    • Agree: Vaterland
    • Thanks: Thomasina
    • Replies: @Sean
  151. Truth3 says:
    @melpol

    He paid less but gave them full time jobs.

    Proves my point. 100%. Bet your great great great great great grandaddy Moses Levy said the same about his African Slave brokering.

    You assholes never change. That’s why you are termed… THE ETERNAL JEW.

    They kiss the ground he stands on.

    While you all kiss Satan’s ass.

    Enjoy it for eternity Zhyd.

    • Replies: @Truth3
  152. Truth3 says:
    @Truth3

    They knew in the Middle Ages what Jews were.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  153. Seraphim says:
    @Fox

    Austria wouldn’t have pushed the things to the brink without Germany’s ‘blank check’ which practically requested the destruction of Serbia. You certainly view this policy as normal and opposition to it as Pan-Slavic perversity.

    • Replies: @Fox
  154. Truth3 says:
    @melpol

    Some of his construction workers wore Yarmulkes in appreciation to my uncle who helped pay their living costs.

    Wearing Yarmulkes in appreciation… ??? Hahahahahahahaha

    Helped them pay… in other words, after a full-time job, they didn’t have enough.

    Your own words condemn him, and you.

    The Beanie bit is now chronicled as Jew-Centric Chosenite Fantasy # 6,000,006.

    Keep on dreaming them up, asshole.

  155. monsieur, you bring shame and disgrace to France.
    since you are clearly fond of fascists, enjoy the following on 83rd anniversary to the day.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yekatit_12

  156. Wally says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    Pay attention, Mr. Strawman.

    – I said their diaries say nothing of “killing all the civilians of Leningrad” which you ignorantly claim.

    – Furthermore, seeing the real, original diaries would further confirm that fact in other entries, and I would also like see if the originals support even the translations that you posted.

    – Yawn. Yes of course Hitler wanted Leningrad militarily, industrially, strategically crushed, that was the point of attacking it. I remind you that WWII was in progress.

    – And now you retreat to saying ‘expelling civilians to the cold steppe”.
    – No, the Soviets would then be responsible for the burden of providing for them, remember Leningrad was a city in the USSR.

    – I note that you dodged the fact that of the many cities that Germany did occupy, NONE had their civilians populations ‘exterminated’.

    – You have no proof that Hitler was “genocidal”. Hence you cannot, have not produced any. You merely recite what you are conditioned to recite.

    – I invite Unz readers to see other demolitions of Franklin Ryckaert: https://www.unz.com/?s=Franklin+Ryckaert&Action=Search&ptype=all&commentsearch=only&commenter=Wally

  157. Fox says:
    @Seraphim

    And it was of course Russia’s vital interest and natural right to insert itself in the relationship between Austria and the crazed with chauvinism Serbia, from where the assassins of the Austrian heir to the throne were sent, but not as an isolated event, but in a line of assassinations of other Austrian officials in the years leading up to June 28, 1914. Am I correctly painting your mental landscape, Seraphim? Russia gave constant assurances to Serbia that it would be protected from the consequences of its very foolish behavior as a neighbor to Austria. It was either imperial foolish arrogance by the Tsarist regime or ambitions to dislodge in a great war the main obstacle -Germany-to the Dardanelles, all cloaked in the language of Pan-Slavic claptrap. That I am on the right track is evidenced by the disposition of the Imperial Russian troops, highly concentrated along the German border, not the Austrian one, and put in place well before a war seemed likely in Germany, and even before Austria declared war on Serbia.
    It was realized in Germany eventually that Austria’s attempts to achieve a long-term pacification of its southern border with Serbia through a limited military action was rapidly leading to a very dangerous situation, attempts to slow down Austria were made, but either too late or not strongly enough.
    Nonetheless, there was the nearly desperate attempt by the Kaiser to make the Russians cancel their general mobilisation, but without success. The origianl declaration of Kaiser Wilhelm to stand by Austria no matter what was made inan hour of shock after the assassination, but certainly not with a general war in mind.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  158. Hitler’s incredible illiteracy in evolution can be clearly seen in “Mein Kampf” where he writes that evolution delivers victory to the “strongest” (not the most fitted to survive). Someone who based his whole worldview on the absurd premise that life was a constant competition, not cooperation, acted exactly according to that worldview and came to grief.

    Any society obsessed with “race” ultimately becomes a closed group with interbreeding and gene locking. It’s not as though Jews are Semitic, most of them are white, and their “success” in West Europe was because of their going into sick roles as academics, medicine and finance; exactly what Theodor Herzl, a noted Jew-hater himself, called “air businesses” that produced nothing. Herzl’s planned Judenstaat intended a new Jew just like Hitler’s New German. And the zionazi pseudostate that came of it is totally dependent now on Amerikastani money and protection, so it’s not as though Herzl was any more successful than Hitler.

    Also, Hitler’s “victories” to 1941 were hardly that. He let the Brutish army get away at Dunkirk by halting the offensive, made no attempt to seriously prepare for an invasion of Brutain (Operation Sealion was a farce that would have ended in disaster, with troops dragged across the channel on Rhine barges that would be swamped by the slightest wave), and when Germany might have won at least local air superiority over southern Brutain in the early stages of the Battle of Britain, switched the Luftwaffe to bombing Brutish cities in response to Brutish bombing of German cities. Not very clever, not very clever at all.

    As to the “sons of Europe”, we in the rest of the world didn’t invite them to our countries to enslave us, suck out our resources, and impose their colonialist religion on us. Don’t expect us to feel the slightest bit sorry for them. They deserve every bit of what’s happening to them now and what is to come.

  159. Fox says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Thank you, Carolyn.
    There is a book titled “Nie wieder München” “Never again a ‘Munich’”, which has as its thesis that ‘Munich’ was such a disturbance in the anti-German realm – that would be primarily England, France, the US, but also Russia – that it could not allow another similar event, concerning another hot spot created in Versailles, to take place. It was apparently very important to prevent the existence of secure borders and a life in peace for Germans in Central Europe. Able personnel to make war a reality was ready at hand, Vansittart (a particularly repulsive creature), Churchill, Halifax, Eden, Cooper in England, and apparently Roosevelt and his entourage in the United States were quite willing to further the cause of war.
    It is impossible to tell what would have happened had the war in 1939 not broken out, but it is certain that it broke out against Germany’s will, the only country that attempted to find a solution to the legacy of Versailles.

  160. Pandour says: • Website

    The real untermenschen are radical leftists,from the Weathermen to the Bolsheviks,degenerates who revolt against civilized values.

  161. @Fiendly Neighbourhood Terrorist

    “…As to the “sons of Europe”, we in the rest of the world didn’t invite them to our countries to enslave us, suck out our resources, and impose their colonialist religion on us…”

    Change “sons of Europe” with “Muslims” and you would have described a big part of human history.

  162. @Fox

    Franklin Roosevelt is the worst “American” to ever live.

  163. Sean says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Why not even attempt to make Poland into an anti-communist buffer state?

    Because he was not scared of the Soviet Union and saw war with it as a way of achieving his aims. Germany had defeated Russia in WW1, it was France Britain and especially America that Hitler was trying to avoid war with, not the USSR. American troops were stationed in Bavaria after WW2 and its demands for the repayment of loans ruined the German economy. It appeared to many that Hitler had been right in saying that their country having been made defenceless was being slowly throttled by American dominated banker capitalist elites including many Jews.

    The top German historian of WW2 Rolf-Dieter Müller has convincingly suggested that Hitler had first tried to co opt Poland for his attack on the Soviet Union because that would have prevented the British and French entering the war, but he found that Poland wasn’t interested. So he had to give up his dream of making Germany great, or go ahead and fight anyway. He fought, killed millions and almost won; meaning, from his point of view it was well worth a try. Of course he knew it was risky, but evolved “diminishing returns” assessments in humans confer a basic aversion to risk. Hitler was being supremely logical and realistic. Mearsheimer it up in his 2001 book The Tragedy of Great Power Politics:

    Given the difficulty of determining how much power is enough for today and tomorrow, great powers recognize that the best way to ensure their security is to achieve hegemony now, thus eliminating any possibility of a challenge by another great power. Only a misguided state would pass up an opportunity to be the hegemon in the system because it thought it already had sufficient power to survive.

    Hitler’s eastern policies were supremely blame-worthy, ultimately criminally irresponsible and mad

    He said himself he would be known as the hardest man in history, and there was something inhuman about his decision making. Being willing to take risks for even minor gains is the way AI plays poker, and beats humans. John von Neumann developed game theory to make himself a better poker player. It is significant that both he and Bertrand Russell advocated a nuclear strike, or the threat of one, to prevent the Soviets acquiring the atomic bomb. I think it is important to remember that Hitler wouldn’t be surprised by the extremely low birth rates among the most valuable Germans of present day Germany. He didn’t think there was going to be a happy ending if Germany played by the Anglo American capitalist rules and went for ‘internal colonisation’. Was he entirely wrong?

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  164. annamaria says:
    @John Johnson

    “John Johnson” (whatever your real name), you and your parents have read too much of Ilya Ehrenburg fables. Trusting Elie Wiezsel was another big mistake.

  165. @Sean

    Strange. You believe you know what Hitler thought, but without quoting Hitler once. Instead you take interpretations by yourself and others. I thought you were quite good in this thread until now.

    [Hitler] said himself he would be known as the hardest man in history, and there was something inhuman about his decision making.

    Maybe, but what is your source he said that?

    Because he was not scared of the Soviet Union and saw war with it as a way of achieving his aims.

    He was scared, but not scared enough. He overrode his trepidation because it was the best choice available, according to everything he knew. He said to Hermann Giesler it was the “hardest decision he ever made.” You should read my book “The Artist Within the Warlord” (chapt. 2), or better, if you are able to, read the last section of Giesler’s memoir “Ein Anderer Hitler.” Why go by all these political theorists who never knew him? Those who did know him and who survived the war and the Nuremberg murder rampage, agree with Giesler’s reminiscences of the Fuehrer.

    P.S. Hitler DID try his best to make Poland play the role of a buffer state against Russian-Soviet Bolshevism with Germany’s help, but in August 1939 he gave up that policy and cancelled Poland altogether. Why should he give them mercy after all the losses Germans suffered because of them, including the short but costly war of Sept. ’39.

  166. Vaterland says:
    @Dan Kelso

    More of this and sooner or later you are going to turn me into an unapologetic Neo-Nazi.

  167. anarchyst says:

    This is an excerpt from the jew author Theodore N. Kaufman’s book” “Germany Must Perish“.

    Germany has lost its war. She sues for peace. The imperative demands of the victor people that Germany must perish forever makes it obligatory for the leaders to select mass sterilization of the Germans as the best means of wiping them out permanently. They proceed to:

    1. Immediately and completely disarm the German army and have all armaments removed from German territory.

    2. Place all German utility and heavy industrial plants under heavy guard, and replace German workers by those of Allied nationality.

    3. Segregate the German army into groups, concentrate them in severely restricted areas, and summarily sterilize them.

    4. Organize the civilian population, both male and female, within territorial sectors, and effect their sterilization.

    5. Divide the German army (after its sterilization has been completed) into labor battalions, and allocate their services toward the rebuilding of those cities which they ruined.

    6. Partition Germany and apportion its lands. The accompanying map gives some idea of possible land adjustments which might be made in connection with Germany’s extinction.

    7. Restrict all German civilian travel beyond established borders until all sterilization ha been completed.

    8. Compel the German population of the apportioned territories to learn the language of its area, and within one year to cease the publication of all books, newspapers and notices in the German language, as well as to restrict German-language broadcasts and discontinue the maintenance of German-language schools.

    9. Make one exception to an otherwise severely strict enforcement of total sterilization, by exempting from such treatment only those Germans whose relatives, being citizens of various victor nations, assume financial responsibility for their emigration and maintenance and moral responsibility for their actions.

    Thus, into an oblivion which she would have visited upon the world, exits Germany.

    Since this is what jews advocated for German history, culture, and its people, how can one blame Germany for fighting back?

  168. Vaterland says:
    @Cyrano

    You sound like an old Russian Socialist/Communist who views Hitler as a puppet of plutocracy and NS as an aberration of Marxism to prevent the true workers revolution. Certainly nicer than the demented anti-German racism from the Anglosphere’s “anti-fascism”, comrade.

    • Replies: @Cyrano
  169. Vaterland says:
    @melpol

    Your casual Jewish supremacy never fails to make me smile, Herr Goldstein. Unfortunately several of your compatriots are not as harmless as your fine self.

  170. Anonymous[603] • Disclaimer says:
    @anonymous

    Perhaps Hitler’s ideas were bad. They didn’t come to pass, so they certainly weren’t practical. Maybe they were even immoral. That’s certainly open to debate.

    What’s most striking though is the grotesque *hypocrisy* of painting him as some sort of uniquely Supreme Evil. Even if his plans for Eastern Europe were absolutely hideous, they really weren’t so much different than British, American or French behaviour towards their own colonial subjects. In reality, the Germans were far, far behind thier competitors in the whole empire building, ‘destiny manifesting’ game. Germany wasn’t the nation with the Empire that the ‘sun never set on’! Brits, Americans, etc. were empire builders. They were open and *proud* of this fact. And those Empires were clearly based on the logic that the superior man had the innate right/duty to rule the ‘undermenchen’

    They have *Statues* of Winston Churchill. This man was openly, proudly a racist. He was a warmonger. He allowed people under his authority to literally starve to death needlessly, because of racial hostility. Churchill would personally *boast* of things – publicly, in the largest papers in Britain that Hitler would never have thought of doing.

    The reality is, the Media/education systems create our collective reality. The actual facts of history are of almost no importance. If Jews hate Hitler, and they control the distribution of information…Hitler will be evil. If the Jews loved Hitler, there would be statues of him in every city.

  171. Vaterland says:
    @Henry Ramone

    There is no better advocate for German radical racial nationalism than you are, hasbarat.

  172. Cyrano says:
    @Vaterland

    You know what my biggest objection to Hitler actually is? That he was clueless of what’s really going on between socialism vs. capitalism. He thought that socialism is out to destroy the world. Socialism sprung as a response to the fact that capitalism sucks.

    WW2 wasn’t caused by Bolsheviks trying to take over the world. It was caused by capitalism being in its death throes – and WW2 saved it.

    Hitler wasn’t much of an original “thinker”. He believed in the old trope that the best way to help the poor is to help the rich –who then out of the pure kindness of their hearts will help the poor.

    I have news for retards like him – the poor don’t need help from the rich in order to be poor – they can accomplish that pretty much on their own. It’s actually the other way around. Rich can’t be rich without the help from the poor.

    Hitler was an elitist retard who thought that only the rich take care of their countries, the poor are only useful tools. That’s because he was a tool himself. Couldn’t understand that the country is more important than the system. Most normal countries should be able to survive transition to other systems.

    The obsession of the capitalist countries with their system – which started way before Hitler – means that most of the capitalist countries would rather have their countries destroyed than give up on capitalism. Most of them are on their way of accomplishing this. Capitalism is not even a system anymore. It’s a doomsday cult.

    • Replies: @Bookish1
    , @bronek
  173. @Carolyn Yeager

    I would only like to add that Harry S. Truman is acknowledged by all historians to have made the decision to roast alive two whole Japanese cities not once, but twice.

    And they have the nerve to say Hitler was “hard”?

  174. @Carolyn Yeager

    As an aside…

    Thanks for your comments here – it’s very interesting.

    I see a lot of people here mentioning Hitler’s Table Talk. I see from your site that you have done a whole podcast on the subject, but I don’t have a lot of time to spend listening to it. In brief, do you consider the work authentic?

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  175. @Tusk

    I’ve always agreed with fighter pilots like Robin Olds: A single P-51, with one 1000 pound bomb, flying low and fast, would have been a more effective strategic bomber for targets like factories, marshaling yards, and so forth. But the Americans are interesting: we generally pretended to have the moral scruple of killing civilians by accident, a necessary evil to get the job done. Not so the British. There was no mistaking the intention behind nighttime fire bombing.

  176. Vaterland says:

    Well, I think you miss the mark on the German core within the totalitarian ideology of NS. Sometimes called Prussian Socialism following Spengler. But that is too narrow, I think. It is the German racial character. The core identity found its variations in Bismarck’s social measures which were anti-Marxist and aimed against the Social Democrats, also indeed in National Socialism to a degree and finally, probably in its best form, in the post WW 2 mixed market economics of the old BRD. It was paradise on earth compared to the Soviet Union and the wolf system of Anglo-Saxon capitalism in the USA and UK. Social, but not socialist; industrious, but not capitalist and far away from financial speculations and huckstering; free, but not atomized; a true homeland, but not chauvinist; German in folk and character, but open to Europe and a friend to its neighbors; lead by competent, ethical and reliable men and industrialists.

    But what is its core? Virtue. Sometimes called the Prussian virtues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_virtues, but again more accurately described as the German racial character, for they are very similar in the German part of Switzerland and Austria. But is it lead by the idea that the rich have to help the poor? No, that is noblesse oblige an Anglo-Saxon concept, some years ago described by Millennial Woes.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWCfF_mR2XU

    In ‘Prussian Socialism’ the core is the sense of unity, of Volksgemeinschaft and a sense of decency and responsibility of the richer and stronger for the poor and weaker. To be your brothers keeper and sometimes benevolent friend. It is a system that entirely rejects Marxian class warfare and international revolution which brings nothing but disorder, murder and tyranny, but at the same time was able to create a system in which the workers and needy were better off than in 99% of human history.

    Unfortunately much of it is lost today “thanks” to the Americanization/Globalism and now we have the same alien and barbaric wolf system as well. But it was also destroyed by the Marxist left and their attacks on the Prussian virtues, the sense of unity and folk we had and their aggressive revolutionary spirit with its deranged attack on the nation state and ‘homogeneity’ of the people. A bad mix of the worst parts of leftism and capitalism alike. I am no expert on NS, but that this old (West-)Germany went under is an absolute tragedy, for it could have been a role model for the entire west against plutocracy and Marxism alike.

    Both Marxism and (Financial) Capitalism are deeply antisocial and barbaric materialist systems and I see them as equally dangerous and hostile to our European cultures and peoples. Marxism lives a bit more from the fanaticism of the masses, while capitalism lives on the anti-godly greed that has entrapped all of the West today. In both of them humanity is reduced to masses and to tools of power for a select view tyrants whether oligarchs or polit-bureau functionaries, or worse commissars and dictators.

    • Thanks: Nonny Mouse, annamaria
  177. bronek says:
    @gotmituns

    I had it, read it. It can be obtained in cyberspace. I forgot where. However, I’m sure that if it’s important you’ll find it. Good luck.

  178. Bookish1 says:
    @Cyrano

    You have zero understanding of Hitler

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  179. Durocher: “Hitler on Jews: Deadly Rivals, Not “Subhumans””

    It would be more accurate to say he considered them both deadly rivals AND subhumans. From Hitler’s description of them in MK, in which they are described as a filthy people, and compared to maggots, sewage pumps, and a pestilence, it would be hard to classify Jews as anything else.

    Cleanliness, whether moral or of another kind, had its own peculiar meaning for these people. That they were water-shy was obvious on looking at them and, unfortunately, very often also when not looking at them at all. The odour of those people in caftans often used to make me feel ill. Beyond that there were the unkempt clothes and the ignoble exterior. All these details were certainly not attractive; but the revolting feature was that beneath their unclean exterior one suddenly perceived the moral mildew of the chosen race. What soon gave me cause for very serious consideration were the activities of the Jews in certain branches of life, into the mystery of which I penetrated little by little. Was there any shady undertaking, any form of foulness, especially in cultural life, in which at least one Jew did not participate? On putting the probing knife carefully to that kind of abscess one immediately discovered, like a maggot in a putrescent body, a little Jew who was often blinded by the sudden light. In my eyes the charge against Judaism became a grave one the moment I discovered the Jewish activities in the Press, in art, in literature and the theatre. All unctuous protests were now more or less futile. One needed only to look at the posters announcing the hideous productions of the cinema and theatre, and study the names of the authors who were highly lauded there in order to become permanently adamant on Jewish questions. Here was a pestilence, a moral pestilence, with which the public was being infected. It was worse than the Black Plague of long ago. And in what mighty doses this poison was manufactured and distributed. Naturally, the lower the moral and intellectual level of such an author of artistic products the more inexhaustible his fecundity. Sometimes it went so far that one of these fellows, acting like a sewage pump, would shoot his filth directly in the face of other members of the human race. In this connection we must remember there is no limit to the number of such people. One ought to realize that for one Goethe, Nature may bring into existence ten thousand such despoilers who act as the worst kind of germcarriers in poisoning human souls. It was a terrible thought, and yet it could not be avoided, that the greater number of the Jews seemed specially destined by Nature to play this shameful part.

    – Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 56

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @Theodore
  180. Wally says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    Whose alleged ‘translation’ are you using?

    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
  181. @Tom Welsh

    ” isn’t that exactly what the British did, and the Americans now do as a matter of course?”

    The difference is that the Germans lost.

  182. @Wally

    Wally,

    Why? Isn’t it true?

    Sometimes it went so far that one of these fellows, acting like a sewage pump, would shoot his filth directly in the face of other members of the human race.

    AH was being metaphorical. Nowadays Israeli Jews do this literally to Palestinians:

    https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20170429-israel-raids-beit-ummar-sprays-houses-with-sewage/

  183. bronek says:
    @Cyrano

    Just a few words. The deceased Prof. Pogonowski had given me a 12 page dissertation about the efforts of Hitler’s regime to have Warsaw join in an attack upon the USSR. It was well documented (dates, names, etc). It would have given AH over 2 mln additional troops. 2 mln!

    In the 1970s I nearly married an East German gal who’s dad was a high ranking officer in Eurocide II. According to him, had the agreement been completed the stoppage of the Wehrmacht would not have occurred after the 5 months of advancing (think of the repeat from Moscow). The damage done by General Winter in December 1941 would not have been. One could fill pages on this, if one had the desire to pen.

    It was not merely the factor of poor and inadequate clothing. Machines were frozen and horses saved a complete collapse. Berlin didn’t have proper maps and didn’t even understand environmental and road conditions.

    The war was hell. Countless Germans were captured in WW II (I forget the numbers). Also, many in Siberia and Euro-R married, but most faced what Poles, Balts, Ukes and others faced. The difference was Germans knew less, were not use to extreme cold. About 5,000 from the Stalingrad battle returned to E. Germany. About 3 mln Russian POWs died. It was Euro Civil War II.

    Back in the 1970s perhaps 2- 5% of Germans believed Eurocide II could have been won and/or that it was necessary. All of the intelligentsia acknowledged the superiority of GB’s fleet compared to the Kriegsmarine -the U-boats did take out plenty of tonnage- but the conflict was lost before Hitler declared war on the USA.

    If Stauffenburg had been successful in April of 1944 mlns of lives would have been saved. Once the Luftwaffe lost control of the sky the war was over.

    The big key of Eurocide II was lebensraum. I’ve ambulated in Minsk, Pskow, Grodno, Lwow… the bombing was incredible. It was similar in Germany when revenge came.

    Don’t let anybody kid you, about 80% of the German fight was with Russia. Perhaps those extra 2 mln troops would have made a difference. However, was is not about will power; it’s about production and back then no one could out produce the USA. On a side issue, one of my children and I ambulated in the world’s most famous camp. We spoke with former inmates. Back then no one spoke of any gaz factor. they did converse about good and bad guards, etc.

  184. Wally: “Whose alleged ‘translation’ are you using?”

    Murphy’s, which here seems accurate enough. Here’s the original, if you know German.

    [MORE]

    Überhaupt war die sittliche und sonstige Reinlichkeit dieses Volkes ein Punkt für sich. Daß es sich hier um keine Wasserliebhaber handelte, konnte man ihnen ja schon am Äußeren ansehen, leider sehr oft sogar bei geschlossenem Auge. Mir wurde bei dem Geruche dieser Kastanträger später manchmal über. Dazu kam noch die unsaubere Kleidung und die wenig heldische Erscheinung. Dies alles konnte schon nicht sehr anziehend wirken; abgestoßen mußte man aber werden, wenn man über die körperliche Unsauberkeit hinaus plötzlich die moralischen Schmutzflecken des auserwählten Volkes entdeckte. Nichts hatte mich in kurzer Zeit so nachdenklich gestimmt als die langsam aufsteigende Einsicht in die Art der Betätigung der Juden auf gewissen Gebieten. Gab es denn da einen Unrat, eine Schamlosigkeit in irgendeiner Form, vor allem des kulturellen Lebens, an der nicht wenigstens ein Jude beteiligt gewesen wäre? Sowie man nur vorsichtig in eine solche Geschwulst hineinschnitt, fand man, wie die Made im faulenden Leibe, oft ganz geblendet vom plötzlichen Lichte, ein Jüdlein. Es war eine schwere Belastung, die das Judentum in meinen Augen erhielt, als ich seine Tätigkeit in der Presse, in Kunst,Literatur und Theater kennenlernte. Da konnten nun alle salbungsvollen Beteuerungen wenig oder nichts mehr nützen. Es genügte schon, eine der Anschlagsäulen zu betrachten, die Namen der geistigen Erzeuger dieser gräßlichen Machwerke für Kino und Theater, die da angepriesen wurden, zu studieren, um auf längere Zeit hart zu werden. Das war Pestilenz, geistige Pestilenz, schlimmer als der schwarze Tod von einst, mit der man da das Volk infizierte. Und in welcher Menge dabei dieses Gift erzeugt und verbreitet wurde! Natürlich, je niedriger das geistige und sittliche Niveau eines solchen Kunstfabrikanten ist, um so unbegrenzter aber seine Fruchtbarkeit, bis so ein Bursche schon mehr wie eine Schleudermaschine seinen Unrat der anderen Menschheit ins Antlitz spritzt. Dabei bedenke man noch die Unbegrenztheit ihrer Zahl; man bedenke daß auf einen Goethe die Natur immer noch leicht zehntausend solcher Schmierer der Mitwelt in den Pelz setzt, die nun als Bazillenträger schlimmster Art die Seelen vergiften. Es war entsetzlich, aber nicht zu übersehen, daß gerade der Jude in überreichlicher Anzahl von der Natur zu dieser schmachvollen Bestimmung auserlesen schien.

    • Replies: @Wally
  185. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    Yes. And thanks for the question. It is a series of over 50 individual podcasts, reading and commenting on the entire collection of talks.

  186. @Bookish1

    Cyrano has zero understanding of everything. He is dumb as a rock. I think he claims to be Russian. Anyone can correct me if I’m wrong in that.

    • Replies: @Cyrano
    , @Paw
  187. Seraphim says:
    @Fox

    In your mental landscape (which is the default landscape of the ‘West’) Serbia, or the Balkan states have no right to exist (neither Poland nor Russia, for that matter), Russia has no rights in the Black Sea, Orthodox nations have no right to feel friendly to each other and help each other.
    The Balkans and Russia are the ‘Lebensraum’ of the ‘Teutonic race’ (elevated to the status of ‘Aryan race’) and its ‘Reich’ endowed by God (or Providence) with the mission to bring ‘Kultur’ (of ‘Deutschtum’ – the ‘highest form of civilization’ in the view of ‘Alldeutscher Verband’ – The Pan-German League) to the ‘Naturvolker’ that happened to roam in the ‘Lebensraum’ and put them to useful work. The Orthodox nation of the Balkans were an obstacle in the way of the Teutons towards the Dardanelles and further (towards the petrol of Baku, Persia, Mesopotamia – of course the ‘Armenian Question’ completely slips from your view). Russia was an obstacle in the way of the “Ostsiedlung’, ‘Ostkolonisation’, ‘Drang nach Osten’. A ‘Barbarossa’ crusade of sort (the adoption of the name for the plan of invasion of Russia was not coincidental, a ‘Freudian slip’). Hitler’s aims were no different from the aims of Germany in WW1. The ‘Alldeutscher Verband’ was a proponent of ‘racial hygiene’ before Hitler and the Nazis (as well as a strident warmonger).

    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
  188. Fox says:

    Your arguments seem to consist of slogans with exclamation marks, reminiscent of the commenters who write everything in capitals.

    The Russians don’t have a natural right to own the Dardanelles, and the Serbs do have the right to their own nation within secure borders, but as you well know, the 1. and 2. Balkan Wars just prior to the First World War showed how much the Serbs were interested in other peoples’ territory. They do remind me of the Poles in a gross overestimation of the role they play in the concert of the world.

    Chauvinism is not a pretty character trait, and I find that Slavs seem to have a particular leaning towards it. Why is that?

  189. @Fox

    Was Nazism not a form of German chauvinism and was Hitler’s attempt at conquering Lebensraum in the East not a form of “interest in other people’s territory”?

    • Replies: @Fox
  190. Seraphim says:

    I can’t see any exclamation mark. There were quotation marks of German slogans.
    Russians have more right to own the Dardanelles as the heirs of the Orthodox Empire, than the Turks and the Germans.

    • Replies: @Malacay
  191. Fox says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    Ryckaert:
    You are trying to play both sides; doesn’t work for me, and as for you, the impression you make is that of someone who is sitting on the fence, waiting to join the winning side.

    No, National Socialism wasn’t a kind of Chauvinism. It was a political system that was trying to deal in a rational manner with the destruction left behind by the power drunkards at Versailles. National Socialism didn’t make idiotic demands such as the Poles for “ancient Polish land” where Poles might have been 1000 years ago, or the Czechs when they lied to such dim people like Wilson about what was Czech settlement area, and then being handed over ancient German provinces.
    Chauvinism is an embarrassing attitude of people who have to prove something to someone, the driving power being envy, a feeling of inadequacy, and guilt.
    None of this applies to Germany after the wholesale plunder and assault the good democrats and humanitarians of the West subjected it to, but it does apply to the beneficiaries of this immoral self-humiliation.
    I plainly don’t understand that now, after the consequences of the Wars, and the cemeterial peace that was imposed on the world, become obvious, there are still people who proudly think of the victory over the only European country that ever represented European independence and a feeling of European solidarity, and can’t get over wartime hate propaganda.
    I am confident in predicting that the post-war disorder that was imposed on Europe won’t last, and that people who truly feel and felt that Europe is more than a plaything for less-than-intelligent politicians on both sides of the Atlantic will be able to take the reins in their hands. This will mean an end to the worship of such abominations as Winston Churchill and a realistic evaluation of the situation as obtained prior, during and after the war.

  192. Beaver “Gee Wally, looks like another part of World War 2 history also got stretched way out of proportion. Just wait till Whitey hears about this!”

    Many salient points, not least of which was the 1920 quote by Churchill followed by the quip “One has the distinct impression that Hitler and Churchill were in basic agreement about the dysgenics, communism, and Jews, but merely differed in the sides they chose to serve.” Home run.

    P.S. I read somewhere some quote from Hitler saying he had some ~indelible dislike~ of French people, Jew or not. So I looked up his last will and testament. It’s not quite what I was expecting, if it can be believed. Here is one source and overview.

    http://www.ihr.org/other/hitlertestament.html

  193. @Seraphim

    Seraphim,

    Pan-Slavism especially grates them, and the EU made of far more disparate and dissimilar nations cuts right through. A Slav Union would be more natural than this EU. But sure Slavs have their own intra-national problems and differences too, past wars, and whatever not. Who doesn’t?

  194. Cyrano says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Listen you German sow, if you think that you can talk trash to me – than the quality of this conversation is going to deteriorate rather rapidly. I am from the Balkans and I don’t have to behave in a civilized manner. Not that you Germans are bound by any treaties for civilized behavior either. You know how you call a German with personality and charisma? You call him a Slav. But don’t get discouraged – we didn’t become like this overnight. It took us centuries to reach the current highs of evolutionary development. So if you want to catch up to us, you’re going to have to put some serious work. You might never reach our level – but that’s not a reason to give up.

  195. @Fox

    The ambition of Hitler was not to only take back what had been by robbed from Germany by the treaty of Versailles. It was to found a GREATER GERMANIC REICH*), stretching from the Atlantic to the Urals. So that was far worse than the “Pan-Slavists” ever dreamed for themselves.

    And yes, with regard to WW2 I am a “fence-sitter”, since I consider none of the parties in that conflict as “innocent”.
    ___________
    *) See: Wikipedia, Greater Germanic Reich.

  196. Adûnâi says:
    @Cyrano

    Carolyn Yeager is Germanic and believes in chemtrails. Slavs, however, believe that Codex Argenteus was written in Cyrillic! Insanity knows no borders.

    https://old.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/f65rwb/why_do_so_many_educated_ukrainians_believe_in/

    And we all subscribe to the suicidal Christian idealist notions of the equality of man that have led us to giving women the right to owning property.

  197. @Franklin Ryckaert

    Hitler’s main foreign-political ambition, other than defeating the anti-German alliance system in eastern Europe built up by the French after World War I (with Czechoslovakia as the linchpin) was to obtain economic and political control (or at the very least influence) over Ukraine. He thought this was necessary to create food security for Europe in general and Germany in particular, so his people wouldn’t starve as they had in World War I if Britain (or some other naval superpower) went to war against them again and blockaded their overseas food imports. Ukraine was the only sufficiently large food surplus region in Europe to allow for this. Thus, in order to realize these hopes, he needed it under German hegemony, rather than controlled by the hostile Communists in the Soviet Union.

    He was considerably flexible about how that German control (or influence) was to be exerted. One option that achieved brief ascendance during the victory euphoria of 1941 was the Great Germanic Reich you mention, with formal annexation of these territories. At other times, before and after, he instead sponsored Ukrainian nationalists, in order to set up an independent Ukraine that could function as a subordinate partner for Germany. (Sort of like the US has done after the collapse of the USSR, only presumably with less corruption without the Victoria Nuland type of people.)

    As far as I can tell, Hitler had no a priori race hatreds against Russians, Ukrainians or Slavs generally (beyond the usual ethnic chauvinism that was common to almost all people at the time). He sometimes said offensive things about them privately when he was talking tough, as M. Durocher documents, but these did not reflect his official policy. In his official speeches and writings, he often even expressed considerable sympathy for the peoples of the USSR, whom he (substantially correctly, we probably agree) considered oppressed and tormented by a tyrannical regime. As a German nationalist, he put his own nation’s interests first, but he does not appear to have been such a rabid “hater” as he is often presented (except, arguably, where the Jews were concerned). On that count, if not on all others, I agree with the general thrust of M. Durocher’s very interesting article.

  198. @Adûnâi

    LOL. #203. Do I see that correctly? Adunai is agreeing with himself. Well, obviously he would. And he mentions … oh, never mind.

    • Replies: @Adûnâi
  199. Wally says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    So what?

    Murphy? LOL

    recommended:
    Most Accurate Mein Kampf English translation?: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9861

  200. Adûnâi says:
    @Commentator Mike

    LOL. #203. Do I see that correctly? Adunai is agreeing with himself. Well, obviously he would. And he mentions … oh, never mind.

    Sometimes, my comments take a few hours to appear. Although Unz Review seems to be light on censorship and conducive to good discussion (unlike the algorithm of YouTube that automatically removes comments, or the hivemind of Reddit that downvotes people into oblivion and soft-locks them with a 10-minute-long time limit), there are times when my comments do not go through at all, forever remaining visible to me only.

    In those cases, I mark them with “Agree” – this way they appear on my profile, at least. And as I always archive everything I touch to the Waynack Machine & archive.li, they will never be lost.

  201. Vaterland says:
    @German_reader

    I’ve read it too now and I can’t find any hints at anti-Russian racism in there in the slightest. On the contrary: Russians are describes in great details as suffering victims of Jewish lead Bolshevism. Especially the last double-page 51-52 portrays Russians as suffering, fellow white Europeans who are highly worthy of our empathy and that we must defend ourselves against Bolshevism (the Untermenschen hordes lead by the Jews) or we will suffer like them. ‘Untermenschen’ meaning not Russians, or even Jews, but the degenerate and depraved which can be found in any people.

    Just like these vets said: “We never fought against the Russians, to be precis, but against Bolshevism.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PJkNZ30WV0 – Und so war es auch.

    So even in the most radical propaganda of the most demonized organization, the Waffen-SS, which was disbanded and prohibited as a criminal organization, you cannot find anti-Russian or anti-Slavic propaganda. And just look at this little gem: page 29, on the right side in the middle. It says: “mit der fröhlichen türkischen und lebensfreudigen niederländischen Kinderschar.” “with the happy turkish and life-happy band of children.” Don’t let the anti-Turkish and anti-Islamic new right with their Zionist money read that!

    You can see clear anti-Semitism in it, in a way that the Jews are potrayed as the leaders of Bolshevism and the Tschandala against noble Europe, embodied by the Reich. And Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill as their puppets. —- Well…

    On the other hand the simple, rather low quality Bildzeitungsniveau of the propaganda is evident. The victors of WW2, especially the Americans after the war, were and are much more sophisticated at it.

    And how did the propaganda of the Soviets look like?

    “Do not count the days, do not count the miles. Count only the Germans you have killed. Kill the German – this is your old mother’s prayer. Kill the German – this is what your children beseech you to do. Kill the German – this is the cry of your Russian earth. Do not waver. Do not let up. Kill.”

    ― (((Ilya Ehrenburg)))

    • Replies: @Adûnâi
  202. Adûnâi says:
    @Vaterland

    Don’t let the anti-Turkish and anti-Islamic new right with their Zionist money read that!

    Why can’t we hate all non-Whites? Turks, Syrians, Israeli Jews? Why is it that you have to love at least one nation of subhumans? If you love Jews for praising the woman who put a nail into the forehead of their enemy when he asked her for shelter in the desert, you are a Jewish shill. If you love Shia Islam for stoning whorish women to death, you’re a barbarian. If you are a simple White exterminationist racist, you can’t win.

    Egypt should have been genocided and settled with Europeans by 1900. A new star of Europa could have been born, strengthening the ties between Germania and France. Instead, the sister Empires of Europa chose to spill their blood in the fields of Flanders, and then the vicious Frenchmen sent Negroes to rape German women…

    On the contrary: Russians are describes in great details as suffering victims of Jewish lead Bolshevism.

    And how did Russians suffer under Bolshevism? Stalin was given a country with a hoe, and left it with the atomic bomb.

    The capitalist regime since 1991 has murdered or expelled tens of millions of Great and Little Russians. But you have nothing else to say except for muh’ Holodomor. Even though Little Russia reached its peak population in 1993 at 54 mil., under Bolschevismus, and now it’s at 37 mil., under capitalism. What a joke.

    I would have supported Hitler, but this was a bad war between brotherly ideologies and sister nations.

    The only parts of the USSR you could critique would be its female rights – although they are the reason Russians won the war (NS instead opted for immigration, ironically enough) – and the degeneration of the Communist Party after 1953. You should critique the Party for raising a generation that sold their country with not a single gunshot in 1991.

  203. Wally : “So what?

    Murphy? LOL”

    So in other words, you admit the passage I quoted was accurately translated. Congratulations, you’re an idiot.

  204. Adûnâi says:
    @Fox

    National Socialism didn’t make idiotic demands such as the Poles for “ancient Polish land”

    It did. NS Germany started a war with the Western Powers over one pathetic city of Danzig and the suffering of a million Germans in Rzeczpospolita. Hitler should have damned them all to hell had he been a wise ruler. Instead, he opted for a stupid Hail Mary attempt to defeat both Poland and France. He won for a time in 1940 because the French gambled by moving their forces into Belgium – the only way they could have lost.

    But of course, you will now cue up your revisionist moaning about how Germany did not start a war and how bad Rzeczpospolita was. What a joke.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost

    There was plenty of land if Africa to colonize, in Turkey, in Egypt, why fight Slavs?

    there are still people who proudly think of the victory over the only European country that ever represented European independence and a feeling of European solidarity

    European solidarity was represented quite well by the Warsaw Pact. No homosexuals, no Jews, no whores, strong men building factories and hospitals. All ruined because Russians rejected Stalin, and the Party degenerated.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Pact

    Even Savitri Devi decried it in And Time Rolls On (pp. 158-159)!

    There’s a former SS French correspondent of mine who wrote to me not long ago saying the Russians should’ve packed off Marx and kept Stalin. Instead of that, they put Stalin into the dustbin and kept Marx. […] The Russians are conquered. Communism is Jewish.

    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
    , @Fox
  205. @Adûnâi

    Adunai,

    And to add to that, I don’t know of a single communist country that opened its borders and invited Arabs and Africans with open arms and welcome signs to loot, rape and kill, and paid them for it – not one. So I can’t see why all these commenters are defining the current West as being “communist”. If only it was. Or if only Stalin had conquered all of Europe, there’d be none of this open borders and immigrant invasion, identity politics, homos and trannies and their Pride parades. Sure communism had many bad aspects, but this now is total national disaster in the democracies. The way they’re going they’ll end up muslim and that’ll be even worse. But at least they’ll be able to keep on ranting against communism.

  206. Wally says:

    Wow, you’re right out of Hasbara Central Casting. LOL

    – Germany did not start the war.
    Why Germany Invaded Poland, by John Wear: http://inconvenienthistory.com/11/1/6391
    Germany Did Not Start World War II, by Paul Craig Roberts: https://www.unz.com/proberts/germany-did-not-start-world-war-ii/
    The Soviet Union Conspired [with FDR] to Foment World War II and Infiltrate the U.S. Government, By John Wear: https://codoh.com/library/document/6807/?

    You mean a “General Plan Ost” that never existed. See that nonsense debunked here: https://www.unz.com/?s=generalplan+ost&Action=Search&ptype=all&commentsearch=only&commenter=Wally

    – BTW, France declared war on Germany first.
    – Not so “neutral” Belgium actually aided & abetted France & Britain by allowing France to position 2 million if it’s soldiers in Belgium, and also allowed the British to add another half million troops within Belgium.
    – France and England were also allowed to use Belgian and Dutch airspace with impunity for their military aircraft.

    – More dumb Jews First dead giveaways, citing anything from Zionist controlled Wikipedia which is in the interest of Jews to lie about.
    Zionist Wikipedia Editing Course: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/139189
    How Israel and Its Partisans Work to Censor the Internet: https://www.unz.com/article/how-israel-and-its-partisans-work-to-censor-the-internet/?highlight=wikipedia

  207. Theodore says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    Hitler was not the only person that remarked on the uncleanliness of [certain groups of] Jews during this period. He didn’t just make it up, and it’s not hateful to state things you see in perosn.

    And he does not state they are “subhuman” in this quote. Goebbels in his speech “World danger of Bolshevism” on 10 September 1936 said that “subhumans exist in every people as a leavening agent” (“das Untermenschentum, das in jedem Volke als Hefe vorhanden ist”)

    While the term “Untermenschen” was used by individuals, it was never officially sanctioned – Alfred Rosenberg confirmed this. You will be able to find angry, hateful quotes by Jews about Germans or gentiles in general.

    I do think it is quite ridiculous to assert that Hitler would believe “all Jews are subhumans” while simultaneously claiming that they were able to take over Germany and gain power over them.

    In regards to hygiene of destitute, insulated Jewish peasants around that time:

    [MORE]

    After World War I in Poland, one American officer noted:
    “The school children were next bathed and deloused. Gorman observing that ‘if the older people were as enthusiastic as these children, typhus would no longer be a dread in Poland.’ Unfortunately, the older people were content to live in the unimaginable dirt and filth, one old woman having been heard to cry out, ‘death here in my hovel rather than the torture of bathing.’” (Alfred E. Cornebise, “Typhus and Doughboys”, 1982, p. 65)

    A book by Jewish historian Lucy Dawidowicz confirms:
    “In the Warsaw ghetto alone, epidemic typhus was believed to have affected between 100,000 and 150,000 persons, though the official figures were barely over 15,000. The spread of disease was concealed from the Germans. Hospital cases of typhus were recorded as ‘elevated fever’ or pneumonia. Mainly, the stricken were treated in their homes in a massive clandestine operation, covering up the presence of the disease from German inspection teams who periodically threatened to seal off the affected areas.” (Lucy S. Dawidowicz, “The War Against The Jews 1933-1945”, 1975, p. 289)

    History professor Alfred E. Cornebise stated regarding American efforts in the town of Wlodowa in the 1920s:
    “… further difficulties were in the form of considerable resistance among the population to bathe. The town’s officials also vacillated, whereupon the police had to be used to compel the people to do so. Soon the town officials devised a plan whereby those persons who had been bathed were provided with a ticket and only those who possessed one could buy bread and potatoes in the stores. However, this was rather ineffective as forged tickets soon appeared and also, as Gillespie [an American first lieutenant] contemptuously charged, ‘The Jews would get their tickets, alter the name on them and sell them to some other person.’ … Moreover, as Snidow recounted, ‘in the first preliminary council we were assured by the priest, the rabbi and mayor and later confirmed by two doctors that not a soul in the town had had a bath for over a year. This statement we considered conservative and I personally doubt if water had touched the persons of most of them since the departure of the Germans during whose occupation they were required to bathe at least once a week, when they could be caught.’ There was a good community bathhouse, but the people had ‘formed a horror of it’ from being compelled to bathe there by the Germans, and would not use it.“ (Cornebise, p. 66)

    General Patton in his diaries also describes a situation where he was in the presence of Jewish “Displaced Persons” who lived in indescribable filth so disgusting he vomited. He actually describes scenes like this in at least 3 separate instances. Naturally, this was not something the majority of Jews were like, but some small, impoverished minority…

    • Replies: @anarchyst
    , @anarchyst
  208. @Adûnâi

    I am a devout Christian.

    I do not believe in any idealist notion of the equality of man and woman. No one in my Church has ever sought to make me believe such a thing either.

    Your argument is invalid.

  209. @Franklin Ryckaert

    *) See: Wikipedia, Greater Germanic Reich.

    This is your citation?

    LOL.

  210. Theodore says:
    @anonymous

    You’re not making any sense. Hitler didn’t declare Slavs “Subhuman” and they were generally regarded as racially “Aryan” perhaps with exceptions of those having Asiatic/Mongoloid ancestry.

    Recommended:

    Did Hitler consider Slavs / Eastern Europeans to be “Subhuman” or racially inferior?
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=12690

    [MORE]

    From 1922, Hans F. K. Günther:

    Here, most Slavs are “Ostbaltische” / “East Baltic”, some even Nordic, with the main exception being “Mongolische” (Mongoloid, East Asian).

    “East Baltic” is displayed at the top right in the image below, from: Richard Rein (1936) Rasse und Kultur unserer Urväter


    “These six races [listed above] are called Aryan according to our legislation. Aryans, therefore, are the people of Deutchland who belong to one of these six breeds, or who carry the genetic resources of these races mixed.”

    So the primary ancestry of Slavs, “East Baltic” was considered a race within the Aryan race. Other names: Osteuropid, Östbaltisk.

    Many people reference “Der Untermensch” but don’t understand what it says:

    Slavs are not denigrated in this work or called subhumans at all. It says Slavs are part of the European / Aryan family, and that their misfortune is a result of communism, which they are victims of, it is blamed on Jews of course. Hitler called communism “Jewish Bolshevism.”

    Hitler treated the Slavic nations in accordance with their attitude towards Germany; those that were friendly towards Germany, he treated as friends; those who were hostile to Germany, he treated as enemies. This was during WWII, how is that unreasonable?

  211. @Adûnâi

    And how did Russians suffer under Bolshevism? Stalin was given a country with a hoe, and left it with the atomic bomb.

    Presumably you are one of those cranks who thinks Solzhenitsyn was nothing other than an exaggerated liar.

    I am, however, amused by your apparent slavish belief that advances in technology are the surest signs of comprehensive human advancement.

    But even by that standard, you still will look foolish.

    Anyway, ever heard of Sikorsky? Or half a thousand other ethnic Russians who had to flee the Soviet Union, taking with them the brain power that would have made Russia a far stronger and smarter country had the Tsars never been destroyed by the Bolsheviks.

    Bolshevism was a monumental demographic disaster for the русский народ. If you are prepared to argue otherwise, then you are prepared to be an idiot.

  212. Fox says:
    @Adûnâi

    According to the Poles, not only was all of East Germany Polish-an idea they had voiced as early as 1848- but in the West, the border of “ancient Polish land” was passing just east of Hamburg, Hannover, it ran by close Nuremberg, and in East it went nearly as far as Moscow. In the South I don’t know right now, but the Polish Empire from Sea to Sea suggests that it was imagined to span from the Baltic to the Black Sea. None of these areas was peopled by Poles, while Danzig was indeed a German City (>99 % expressing Germanness), the Korridor was in 1939 still mostly German, even if the Poles had been busy in the previous 20 years to drive out the Germans. Do you see the difference? If not, here is an example: Lyons, Nancy, Besancon, Verdun, these were all German cities-peopled by Germans, speaking German, feeling German-and yet, in the course of time, these cities fell under French domination, the German element receded and in the course of centuries disappeared completely. Likewise, Cracow used to be a German city (Krakau) , was founded by Germans with German city charters .- and: No German would ever think of these cities as rightfully German anymore, not even as German. They are French now, Cracow is Polish, no German would put up demands to incorporate them into Germany because they “are ancient German possessions”, to suggest the Polish way of thinking.
    I feel sorry for you and all those who welcome the anti-German wars. It is like celebrating one’s own doom.
    The strong Europeans of the time to come, and people of the same blood in other parts of the world, will need to be beyond the small-minded chauvinism and gloatism that I all-too-often detect in those who regret that their future has been curtailed by the grinding forces of history, and who at the same time are proud to be on the “winning” side of the European brother’s war that steered historic development towards the current catastrophic situation. Can’t have it both ways.

    • Agree: Carolyn Yeager
  213. Theodore: “I do think it is quite ridiculous to assert that Hitler would believe “all Jews are subhumans” while simultaneously claiming that they were able to take over Germany and gain power over them. ”

    I agree there’s a contradiction in such a belief, but people believe nonsense all the time, Hitler included. His belief in “Providence”, for example, was a kind of modified Christianity, in my opinion. He also maintained that Jesus Christ was an Aryan. Ridiculous!

    The passage from MK I quoted above doesn’t use the word subhuman, but it’s hard to see how you can regard as fellow humans those who you equate to a pestilence, maggots, and sewage pumps. He even concludes by saying that this is typical of the “greater number” of them. According to Goebbels, he went even further on another occasion, approvingly quoting Dietrich Eckhart, who said that he knew but one good Jew (Weininger), who killed himself. Such a view effectively places the whole Jewish race in the category of subhumanity.

    Durocher’s attempt to minimize this sort of thing strikes me as misguided. The only respect Hitler had for Jews seems obviously, from his own words, to be the sort of respect you’d accord any potentially lethal agent.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  214. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    You speak very confidently but your arguments are not sound. Pestilence, maggots and sewage pumps are figures of speech, or plain name-calling meant to be insulting, but don’t equate to the meaning of “subhuman.” Even more so, if Jews are not “good” (except for one), that does not equate to subhuman either. Theodore is right, you are really out of your depth when talking about Hitler. Plus the name you use here is a joke for that reason. Wouldn’t you say?

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  215. @Carolyn Yeager

    Sorry, I was confusing Judge Konrad Morgen with Dr. Robert Morgan … it’s late. My apology on that.

  216. Sean says:
    @Fox

    If there are two eagle eggs that hatch in a nest the slightly older one will push his brother out.

    I would have supported Hitler, but this was a bad war between brotherly ideologies and sister nations.

    As Gorbachev’s rejoinder to a point of President Ray-Gun about under extraplanetary attack, to speak of cooperation without such an intervention is premature. Scarcity on Earth means the countries must not just be fit or able to enduring in a oblivious harsh environment, but also win through while under interference from other organisms being mutually competed over-against one another in the struggle for . As the inspirational quote indicates, Hitler was a thoroughgoing hereditarian, he knew the only thing needed was give the German blood developed by Darwinian selection a continent to expand into (by his decisive leadership) and his people would have a secure future.

    In the expansion of the Russian population into fresh virgin land described by Turchin in War and Peace and War, land was there for the taking, which meant a massive expansion in farmers who had no scope for intelligence, which was a requirements for achievement in the proto commercial civilisation West of the Elbe. Nowhere was this lack of Darwinian selection stronger than in Ukraine, which eventually developed an severe overpopulation problem. Indeed the peopling of Siberia largely was from the excess population of Ukraine; it was easy for peasants to thrive and multiply with an effort at harvest that was as titanic as theri drinking after it. Muscovy sought immigrants from the German nation to get people with probity (the ethnic Germans who are virtually extinct) because the authorities wanted the easy to administer Bürgers ruther than bearish peasants who ate up the surplus. Russians were just not as selected as Germans for all the things that make an indigenous population an asset to the state.

    Lysenko fan and nurture over nature believer Stalin (an enthusiast for German efficiency) planned to use Germans prisoners to teach his own population work discipline. But it could not make a difference, because ultimately only the hereditary endowment matters. Stalin had stupidity killed off many of the ethnic the Black Sea Germans in the Ukrainian famine-extermination of excess population because the local party members hated Germans for their achievement orientation. The: ethnic German evacuation from East-Central Europe near the end of World War II meant genetically valuable stock that Russia could ill afford to lose were gone forever (and these extremely industrious volk were a part of the German post WW2 miracle I suspect). After the fall of the USSR another millions-strong surge of ethnic Germans were lost to Russia and gained by Germany. This is probably part of why the German elite went along with Merkel importing millions of non European refugees; they think they can school the immigrants. Nazi planners understood that race as such does not matter; the ‘genetically highgrade’ persons being those whose ‘majority of family members’ and ancestors demonstrated ‘work achievement and upward social mobility’.

    The rationale for a prewar-instituted euthanasia programme Action T4 that killed quarter of a million handicapped German adults and children was that handicapped people were not proper Germans. In the conquered East technocrat Nazis cloaked their ideas in National Socialist language, and further east one went the weaker the average hereditary capacity for die Erreichun in modern society was. Those people would have to go eventually, meaning a few generations later when there were enough Germans the Poles and Russians would be few in number. At Nuremberg the evidence against Viktor Black showed that by 1942 the only arguments for keeping Jews alive were economic ones were concerning a minority useful as workers, and even then it was proposed to X ray sterilise them

  217. Bukowski says:

    The Red Army prisoners who ended up in German captivity were regarded as traitors to the USSR by Stalin for not fighting to the death. Hitler was willing to treat them according to the Geneva Convention if the Soviets would do likewise for German pows but Stalin refused. Article on this subject by Russian writer Yuri Teplyakov.
    https://codoh.com/library/document/2526/

    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
  218. anarchyst says:
    @Theodore

    Just recently, stinky jews were kicked off a flight out of Detroit. The other passengers complained about their stench.
    To the airline’s credit and kindness, they provided these stinky jews with a hotel room so they could clean themselves up. They were then put on a flight to their destination the next morning.
    Sad to say, the jews are now suing the airline for not allowing them to “fly while stinky”.
    Follow the shekels…

  219. anarchyst says:
    @Theodore

    Most of the Jews swarming over Germany immediately after the war came from Poland and Russia, and Patton found their personal habits shockingly uncivilized.

    He was disgusted by their behavior in the camps for Displaced Persons (DP’s) which the Americans built for them and even more disgusted by the way they behaved when they were housed in German hospitals and private homes. He observed with horror that “these people do not understand toilets and refuse to use them except as repositories for tin cans, garbage, and refuse . . . They decline, where practicable, to use latrines, preferring to relieve themselves on the floor.”

    He described in his diary one DP camp,
    “where, although room existed, the Jews were crowded together to an appalling extent, and in practically every room there was a pile of garbage in one corner which was also used as a latrine. The Jews were only forced to desist from their nastiness and clean up the mess by the threat of the butt ends of rifles. Of course, I know the expression ‘lost tribes of Israel’ applied to the tribes which disappeared — not to the tribe of Judah from which the current sons of bitches are descended. However, it is my personal opinion that this too is a lost tribe — lost to all decency.”

    Patton’s initial impressions of the Jews were not improved when he attended a Jewish religious service at Eisenhower’s insistence. His diary entry for September 17, 1945, reads in part:
    “This happened to be the feast of Yom Kippur, so they were all collected in a large, wooden building, which they called a synagogue. It behooved General Eisenhower to make a speech to them. We entered the synagogue, which was packed with the greatest stinking bunch of humanity I have ever seen. When we got about halfway up, the head rabbi, who was dressed in a fur hat similar to that worn by Henry VIII of England and in a surplice heavily embroidered and very filthy, came down and met the General . . . The smell was so terrible that I almost fainted and actually about three hours later lost my lunch as the result of remembering it.”

    These experiences and a great many others firmly convinced Patton that the Jews were an especially unsavory variety of creature and hardly deserving of all the official concern the American government was bestowing on them.

  220. @Bukowski

    Although there was an order against surrender, according to Soviet archives, most returning POWs were cleared and only some were sent to the gulags for collaboration, including some for joining the SS. The percentages are given here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_repressions_against_former_prisoners_of_war

    How Nazis (mis)treated Soviet POWs is given here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_mistreatment_of_Soviet_prisoners_of_war

    Hmm … considering the latter, maybe they should have fought to the death as ordered and taken a few more German invaders with them to make it easier for the reserves coming in after them to free the occupied lands.

  221. Carolyn Yeager: “Pestilence, maggots and sewage pumps are figures of speech, or plain name-calling meant to be insulting, but don’t equate to the meaning of “subhuman.””

    Where, exactly, does Hitler give the precise definition of what he means by subhuman? Nowhere, afaik. However, his view of Nature generally is that it evolves from lower life forms to higher. This teleological view of evolution, now rejected by science, was common during the early years of the twentieth century, and even Darwin was confused about it, sometimes writing as though certain races or species were higher than others, and other times writing that such orderings were unjustified. Accordingly, by such comparisons, Hitler seems to me to be lumping them in with lower life forms, i.e., subhumanity. But you’re free to entertain the contrary opinion and be as misguided as Durocher, if you like. It strikes me as ridiculous hair splitting to say that Hitler thought the Jews comparable to maggots, disease germs, sewage pumps, and the like, but NOT subhuman (no, no, no!) just because he never used that exact word. You could better make your case if you could cite a few instances of Hitler praising the Jews, even grudgingly, as worthy adversaries who are on the same level as the Aryan. You’d also need to explain the Nuremburg laws, for why prohibit intermarriage with the Jews unless you feared genetic degeneration? But if you could do that, you probably would have already done so. Yes, there’s someone out of their depth here when discussing Hitler and NS, and it’s not me.

    Hitler’s teleological view of evolution also shows the Christian influence, in my opinion. The thousand-year Reich he proposed to launch has millennial connotations, comparable to Jesus’ return and reign of a thousand years on Earth as predicted in the Bible. He apparently identified with Jesus very strongly, and was convinced that the crucified rabbi was an Aryan. His mad faith that Providence would eventually intervene and save him from losing the war reminds me of Jesus’ similar faith that God would intervene in his sufferings on the cross. All that’s missing is for the parallel to be complete is that, as far as anyone knows, Hitler never cried “God, God, why have you forsaken me?” before shooting himself.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
    , @Carolyn Yeager
  222. Fox says:

    I read in the book “From the Staff of Hess to Dr. Goebbels” by Willi Krämer (a clerk at the Propaganda Ministry, coming from the staff of Hess) about this brochure >Der UntermenschDer Untermensch< was produced by an SS-office in an overzealous effort to further the war effort, and stopped from further distribution after it had been possible to convince the responsible office of the disastrous impression it left, as opposed to 80 years of increasingly hateful propaganda against Germans in particular and increasingly drawing greater circles to include in the Untermensch category all white people, and no office clerks at a propaganda desk can stop its further distribution.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  223. @Fox

    Der Untermensch< was produced by an SS-office in an overzealous effort to further the war effort, and stopped from further distribution after it had been possible to convince the responsible office of the disastrous impression it left

    Thanks for checking this out. All of the so-called “Nazi” material came from various such offices, yet people want to think that Adolf Hitler personally approved of each one … because he was a dictator, right?

  224. Seraphim says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    Jesus never entertained the faith that God would intervene in his suffering on the Cross (the cry: ‘God why have you forsaken me’ is not a cry of despair; anyone familiar with Christianity knows that it was a quotation from Psalm 22, one of the messianic psalms, which in fact announces his Resurrection!).

    [MORE]

    On the contrary He repeatedly warned his disciples that: “he must go to Jerusalem and undergo great suffering at the hands of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised”, “Now as Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples aside and said to them, “We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will turn him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified. On the third day he will be raised to life!”, “”As you know, the Passover is two days away — and the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified.”
    He rebuked Peter who said: “God forbid it, Lord! This must never happen to you.” (But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; for you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things).”
    Jews believed that God should intervene:
    “Those passing by reviled him, shaking their heads and saying, “You who would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save yourself, if you are the Son of God, [and] come down from the cross!” Likewise the chief priests with the scribes and elders mocked him and said, “He saved others; he cannot save himself. So he is the king of Israel! Let him come down from the cross now, and we will believe in him. He trusted in God; let him deliver him now if he wants him. For he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’”
    Well, Hitler never said or believed that he is the Son of God. This is balderdash, of course. He might have dreamed of a ‘thousand year Aryan-German Reich’ (non-Christian, to be sure) but that’s an entirely different proposition. Jesus was not ‘Aryan’ and the Germans were not the replacement ‘chosen people’.

  225. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    We have determined that Hitler didn’t use the word subhuman, so why would he provide a precise definition of it?

    When you say “Hitler seems to me to be lumping [certain races] in with lower life forms, i.e., subhumanity,” you are just giving an opinion based on nothing that he actually said. When he compared Jews to maggots, to disease germs, or to sewage pumps, wasn’t he describing Jews as dirty, disgusting, harmful to those around them, etc.? None of which brings up the idea of a lesser evolved life form. These things have evolved along with us.

    You could better make your case if you could cite a few instances of Hitler praising the Jews, even grudgingly, as worthy adversaries who are on the same level as the Aryan.

    He certainly did, and I think someone in this thread pointed that out. (see comment 214) If I hunted around a little, I know I could find Hitler speaking of the power of Jewry to damage German life. They were such a danger they had to be removed from German territory altogether!

    You’d also need to explain the Nuremburg laws, for why prohibit intermarriage with the Jews unless you feared genetic degeneration?

    Of course, intermarriage with Jews adulterated the German gene pool. But NS policy discouraged procreation outside the Germanic races altogether, and forbade it outside the European race. Again, this has nothing to do with “subhumanity.” You’re now trying to equate genetic confusion (degeneration) with “subhuman.” Not the same thing.

    The thousand-year Reich he proposed to launch has millennial connotations, comparable to Jesus’ return and reign of a thousand years on Earth as predicted in the Bible.

    What nonsense. Just something you dreamed up. Yes, Hitler liked the figure of Jesus as a fighter against the Jews of the day, but it was only in a couple of speeches in the 1920s that he spoke of how he related to Christ in this way. He used it, if you will, with his very Christian audience. Later, that never came up in his conversation or speeches—only Providence.

    You are getting even further away when you say that “His mad faith that Providence would eventually intervene and save him from losing the war.” That shows small-mindedness on your part. Hitler was never mad. He was pinning his hopes that he could still pull out a victory against all odds on the experience of Frederick the Great, who did just that twice.

    But yes, Hitler had a lot of faith. He was a believing man, and that is how he got as far as he did. You are conjuring up an Adolf Hitler that no German would admire or follow. Your Hitler did not exist, except in your superficial imagination.

  226. Seraphim: “Jesus never entertained the faith that God would intervene in his suffering on the Cross …”

    You give the usual excuse, which is not unexpected. After all, Christians have to have some way of explaining Jesus’ false prophecy in Matthew 16:28 and elsewhere. But as everyone knows, it’s been two thousand years and he has yet to return and establish his kingdom, let alone doing it within the lifetimes of his contemporaries as he promised.

    ” …there are some standing here, which shall not taste death, till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom ”
    — Matt 16:28

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  227. Seraphim says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    But that happened shortly after:

    [MORE]

    “And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart, 2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light. 3 And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him. 4 Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias. 5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. 6 And when the disciples heard it, they fell on their face, and were sore afraid. 7 And Jesus came and touched them, and said, Arise, and be not afraid. 8 And when they had lifted up their eyes, they saw no man, save Jesus only. 9 And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead. 10 And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come? 11 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things. 12 But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. 13 Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.” (Matthew 17:1-13).
    The Kingdom of God is not of this world.

  228. Carolyn Yeager: “… you are just giving an opinion based on nothing that he actually said. ”

    On the contrary, I quoted his own words in support of my point, which is more than you have done.

    Carolyn Yeager: “He certainly did [praise the Jews as the equals of Aryans], and I think someone in this thread pointed that out. (see comment 214) …”

    What are you referring to? FYI, I don’t read past “more” buttons, because that would entail enabling javascript.

    Carolyn Yeager: “Yes, Hitler liked the figure of Jesus as a fighter against the Jews of the day, but it was only in a couple of speeches in the 1920s that he spoke of how he related to Christ in this way. … Later, that never came up in his conversation or speeches—only Providence.”

    So you admit he did “relate to Christ in this way,” which was my point. Yes, he was canny enough not to overplay this publicly in later years. But it’s obviously gone over your head that his crazy identification with Christ was not only revealed in his speeches, but was also shown by his bizarre conviction that Jesus was an Aryan. Another parallel, among many more: Like Jesus, Hitler opposed and condemned the religious establishment of his day. But his fight was against the churches, not with Jesus or Christian belief itself, which oddly, he never spoke against.

    Carolyn Yeager: “He was a believing man, and that is how he got as far as he did.”

    Religious lunatics often go far, particularly if they can get others to go along with them. The crucified rabbi himself went “far”, if by “far” you mean having become famous and exerted influence. Jesus was the prototype, the first among many imitators, and if I’m right Hitler was one of the more notable ones. How many millions died as a result of Hitler’s personal reenactment of the crucifixion?

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  229. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    I see now that you are a certified looney. I never followed your comments before.

    On the contrary, I quoted his own words in support of my point,

    But his words don’t support your point, and that is my point.

    I don’t read past “more” buttons

    You didn’t have to. Theodore correctly said that it was: “quite ridiculous to assert that Hitler would believe all Jews are subhumans while simultaneously claiming that they were able to take over Germany …” That’s enough right there.

    I said Hitler related to Christ as a fighter, not as a “crucified rabbi” as you call Jesus. By the way, Hitler never used the name Jesus, only the word Christ. He also did not “oppose and condemn the religious establishment of his day”–only in private, as we read in the Table Talk. I have no problem whatsoever with Hitler’s personal beliefs; I do know that he was in touch with a spirituality of which you have no idea. So you’re talking about things you do not know.

    Don’t pretend you have concern for the ‘many millions’ of deaths you want to blame on Hitler. How many billions have died violent deaths before Adolf Hitler ever came along?

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  230. Seraphim says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    The ‘spirituality’ Hitler was supposed to be ‘in touch’ with is the Masonic ‘spirituality’, which was haunting Germany like all the ‘West’.
    The ‘Thule Society’ was a sub-Masonic lodge, Rudolf von Sebottendorf was a Free-Mason, a Bektashi Sufi, a Kabbalist and possibly a Communist agent. He was arrested in 1933 but managed to escape to Turkey where he was a double agent for Germany and Britain.
    You only have to read “Mein Kampf’ to see what opinion Hitler had about the ‘Germanic paganism’. The Nazis suppressed all esoteric organizations and their publications (like Ostara).
    Don’t talk about the ‘Grail’.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  231. Carolyn Yeager: “I see now that you are a certified looney. ”

    Says the spinster who sleeps with a portrait of Hitler clutched to her chest.

    Carolyn Yeager: “But his words don’t support your point, and that is my point. ”

    They do, except in your twisted imagination, which is determined not to see the truth.

    Carolyn Yeager: “Theodore correctly said …”

    Yeah, according to you. But as I said, the fact that it’s stupid doesn’t mean Hitler didn’t believe it. People believe stupid stuff all the time. You’re a great example of that yourself.

    Carolyn Yeager: “He also did not “oppose and condemn the religious establishment of his day”–only in private, as we read in the Table Talk.”

    You really don’t know what you’re talking about. In MK, he publicly condemned the churches for promoting degeneracy. For example:

    How devoid of ideals and how ignoble is the whole contemporary system! The fact that the churches join in committing this sin against the image of God, even though they continue to emphasize the dignity of that image, is quite in keeping with their present activities. They talk about the Spirit, but they allow man, as the embodiment of the Spirit, to degenerate to the proletarian level. Then they look on with amazement when they realize how small is the influence of the Christian Faith in their own country and how depraved and ungodly is this riffraff which is physically degenerate and therefore morally degenerate also.
    – Adolf Hitler, MK, p. 313.

    Next time, you might want to try doing a little research before spouting off.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  232. @Seraphim

    Are you another loon like Dr. Robert? Hitler had no interest in the Thule Society or Masonry, or Rudolf von Sebottendorf. I guess you’re part of that unfortunate esoteric National Socialism fan club? I’m quite aware that Hitler did not think much of Germanic paganism; he was a modern man who looked to science and technology, the new and fresh, not the old and musty. If Germanic paganism is what you call spirituality, we have nothing to say to each other.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  233. Seraphim says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    We would be very happy if you could give us an idea of the ‘spirituality’ Hitler was in touch with, providing you have one. For my part I am convinced he wasn’t in touch with anything that might be called spirituality.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
    , @anonymous
  234. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    In MK, he publicly condemned the churches for promoting degeneracy. For example:

    How devoid of ideals and how ignoble is the whole contemporary system! The fact that the churches join in committing this sin against the image of God, even though they continue to emphasize the dignity of that image, is quite in keeping with their present activities. They talk about the Spirit, but they allow man, as the embodiment of the Spirit, to degenerate to the proletarian level. Then they look on with amazement when they realize how small is the influence of the Christian Faith in their own country and how depraved and ungodly is this riffraff which is physically degenerate and therefore morally degenerate also.
    – Adolf Hitler, MK, p. 313.

    Next time, you might want to try doing a little research before spouting off.

    Very funny that you add page 313 – p. 313 of what?

    This passage is from Book Two, Chapter two, in which he is writing about the importance of racial purity of the blood to unite a people, and he interjects that the German churches don’t uphold that racial law, therefore are committing a sin against “the image of God.” He only mentions Churches in that paragraph and the first sentence of the next — and then no more. It is NOT a “public condemnation” of churches or Christianity but only a critical paragraph in a long section on the reasons for keeping the race pure.

    You cannot get the better of this woman. And I am not a spinster. So long, ‘Dr. Morgan.’

  235. @Seraphim

    Sure. Hitler’s spirituality was of the kind that develops from direct experience, not from following learned instructions or imposing certain behaviors on yourself. Nothing wrong with being instructed (which he was in his school years), but some people receive more instruction from within than others. Some people have much more in the way of spiritual experience than others seem to have … and they are aware of it. It’s experienced as “knowing.” Knowing is something that has to be trusted, and when you trust it, it plays out and you learn to trust it more.

    I think Hitler revealed what he “knew” in many ways, and certainly in words, so he speaks for himself and you can find it. He expressed belief in a pretty seamless continuance of life after physical death — a very natural kind of life. Eventual re-incarnation. He rejected anything to do with magic or special esotericism.

    For my part I am convinced he wasn’t in touch with anything that might be called spirituality.

    Really. What do you call spirituality?

    • Replies: @Bookish1
    , @Seraphim
    , @Incitatus
  236. Bookish1 says:
    @Cyrano

    Do you actually believe that Germany is so low that she needs to catch up to the BAlkans? Or maybe it was just a joke.

    • Replies: @Cyrano
  237. Bookish1 says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Hitlers main philosopher was Arthur Schopenhauer. Hitler studied him. Read ‘On Death and Its Relation To the Indestructability of Our Inner Being’ by Schopenhauer in ‘World as Will’.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  238. Carolyn Yeager: “Very funny that you add page 313 – p. 313 of what?”

    Mein Kampf, you idiot. It’s a book you obviously haven’t read.

    Carolyn Yeager: “He only mentions Churches in that paragraph and the first sentence of the next — and then no more.”

    Baloney. For example, on p. 243, he indicts the churches for accepting Jews as members.

    Carolyn Yeager: “You cannot get the better of this woman. And I am not a spinster. ”

    Aw shaddup, you senile old bat.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  239. anonymous[335] • Disclaimer says:
    @Seraphim

    listen and watch some of Hitler’s speeches and if you you don’t detect some deep spiritualism emanating from within him then I won’t waste anymore time responding to any of your posts.
    Hitler was extremely spiritual and deeply emotional. He loved his people and gave his life for his people.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  240. @Bookish1

    I have read The World as Will and Idea, and know Schopenhauer was Hitler’s favorite philosopher. But thanks, I will try to brush up on that very interesting chapter you mentioned. I appreciate your comment.

    • Replies: @Bookish1
  241. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    Carolyn Yeager: “Very funny that you add page 313 – p. 313 of what?”

    Dr. Morgan: Mein Kampf, you idiot. It’s a book you obviously haven’t read.

    Who’s the idiot? There are a lot of Mein Kampfs out there and they don’t all have the same page numbers. For example, in Thomas Dalton’s superior new side-by-side German-English Volume Two, this passage is on page 71. And it appears yours left out a whole sentence! Dalton’s reads:

    “How boundlessly unideal and ignoble is this whole system! People no longer bother to breed the best for posterity, but rather let things slide along, as best they can. The fact that the churches join in committing this sin against the image of God, even though they continue to emphasize the dignity of that image, is quite consistent with their present activities. They talk about the Spirit, but they allow man, as the embodiment of the Spirit, to become a degenerate proletarian. Then they are amazed at how little influence the Christian faith has in their own country, and at the depraved ‘ungodliness’ of this physically and therefore morally degenerate riff-raff. Then they try to make up for it by converting the Hottentots and the Zulu Kaffirs, and to grant them the blessings of the Church. While our European people–God be praised–are left to become the victims of physical and moral depravity, the pious missionary goes out to Central Africa and establishes missions for Negroes. Eventually even there, healthy–though primitive and backward–people will be transformed, in the name of ‘higher culture,’ into a foul breed of bastards.”

    This is a condemnation of church universalism, not of Christianity, which only came later in Table Talk (1940s). Then he upheld what he considered true Christianity.

    Aw shaddup, you senile old bat.

    Looks like I’ve gotten to you, “Doctor.” You’ve lost your cool and your confidence.

  242. Malacay says:

    It’s a sign of lack of understanding. Nothing to be proud of. Polaks, Slovaks and Ukranians kept German land and people free from nomadic blight from the steppes for a very long time. Germanic lands haven’t seen blight from the steppes invading their lands since the 5th century. Unrecognized fact completely. Anyone who thinks that all humanoid races and subraces are equal, be it on physical or cerebral ground, is a complete and utter imbecile; and there are loads of these liberal imbeciles, many of whom you can find on these pages I am sure. There is also variation in the nomadic stock relative to their worth: some were of somewhat higher worth, while others were completely worthless and many more were even worse that that. It’s generally accepted that Aryan class of these nomads were of higher worth, while others especially Altaics, bedouins and Afros (Nubians and Bantus) in the south are less than worthless, infestation of whom can and will destroy your biological existence by altering your genes – the very soul which guides, directs and governs all of your existence be it in physical or spiritual realm – into a new race of humanoids, the so called half-breeds: a terrible form of degradation and degeneration both physical and mental which is being spawned throughout Europe, and elsewhere, by agents of that liberal degeneration who, even among themselves, are jokingly called masons (builders of degeneracy, ruin and wreckage in this masonic age of liberal degeneration).

    Anyhow, Slavs have shielded not only Germans but Celts too and beared the brunt of nomadic plague themselves alone, so the Polaks, Slovaks and Ukranians deserve the praise, recognition and honor for their deeds and valor in resisting nomadic plague from the steppes as well as preserving their biological selves. So these “untermenschen” were lucid, smart and intelligent to preserve and want to preserve themselves, while others who looked down on them fully and willingly adopted their demise and death, both biological and cultural. Who is the real “untermenschen” in the story then? Even birds know that by now, and birds are not the specie known for having brains or understanding of things. Real untermenschen are urban trash, the bourgeoisie, especially the merchant scum who are the root and cause of all degeneration. They live for their own profit, for their own comfort and sensual pleasures and have no problem with either selling or betraying the plebs (even their very families) or erecting any kinds of parasitic schemes which could lead to increase in their wealth. These merchants were the problem from the dawn of humanoid civilizations. You can clearly see it in the relics which survived, like the code of Hammurabi dated to some 1.800 BC. which saw the mentioning of merchant pestilence. I’d wager they are the root cause of the downfall of all civilizations of the past.

    Then there are some disturbances related to behavioral characteristics of people, and in that aspect Celts are among the most disgusting and disturbing behavioral traits, which is a people this author belongs to. These behavioral traits have not been overcome by religion, which is most evident by our behavioral traits relative to that of Celts. For example we Croats and le French are both Catholics, but we are 2 different worlds completely. We have more in common with Orthodox native folk of our Haemus Mons peninsula – the Macedonians, Greeks, Albanians and Bulgarians – than we do with le French, even though we share the same religion (and alphabet too) as this author’s people which is not the case with the latter.

    • Replies: @Fox
  243. Malacay says:

    It’s a sign of lack of understanding. Nothing to be proud of. Polaks, Slovaks and Ukranians kept German land and people free from nomadic blight from the steppes for a very long time. German lands haven’t seen blight from the steppes invading them since the 5th century. Unrecognized fact completely. Anyone who thinks that all humanoid races and subraces are equal, be it on physical or cerebral ground, is a complete and utter imbecile; and there are loads of these liberal imbeciles, many of whom you can find on these pages I am sure. There is also variation in the nomadic stock relative to their worth: some were of somewhat higher worth, while others were completely worthless and many more were even worse that that. It’s generally accepted that Aryan class of these nomads were of higher worth, while others especially Altaics, bedouins and Afros (Nubians and Bantus) in the south are less than worthless, infestation of whom can and will destroy your biological existence by altering your genes – the very soul which guides, directs and governs all of your existence be it in physical or spiritual realm – into a new race of humanoids, the so called half-breeds: a terrible form of degradation and degeneration both physical and mental which is being spawned throughout Europe, and elsewhere, by agents of that liberal degeneration.

    Anyhow, Slavs have shielded not only Germans but Celts too and beared the brunt of nomadic plague themselves alone, so the Polaks, Slovaks and Ukranians deserve the praise, recognition and honor for their deeds and valor in resisting nomadic plague from the steppes as well as preserving their biological selves. So these “untermenschen” were lucid, smart and intelligent to preserve and want to preserve themselves, while others who looked down on them fully and willingly adopted their demise and death, both biological and cultural. Who is the real “untermenschen” in the story then? Even birds know that by now, and birds are not the specie known for having brains or understanding of things. Real untermenschen are urban trash, the bourgeoisie, especially the merchant scum who are the root and cause of all degeneration. They live for their own profit, for their own comfort and sensual pleasures and have no problem with either selling or betraying the plebs (even their very families) or erecting any kinds of parasitic schemes which could lead to increase in their wealth. These merchants were the problem from the dawn of humanoid civilizations. You can clearly see it in the relics which survived, like the code of Hammurabi dated to some 1.800 BC. which saw the mentioning of merchant pestilence. I’d wager they are the root cause of the downfall of all civilizations of the past. Then there are some disturbances related to behavioral characteristics of people, and in that aspect Celts are among the most disgusting and disturbing behavioral traits, which is a people this author belongs to. These behavioral traits have not been overcome by religion, which is most evident by our behavioral traits relative to that of Celts. For example we Croats and le French are both Catholics, but we are 2 different worlds completely. We have more in common with Orthodox native folk of our Haemus Mons peninsula – the Macedonians, Greeks, Albanians and Bulgarians – than we do with le French, even though we share the same religion (and alphabet too) as this author’s people which is not the case with the latter.

  244. Malacay says:
    @Cyrano

    O, look at that. Isn’t that a Serbo, so deep in Russo anus that only its paws are sticking out. Always searching for their fellow nomads. Always. They used to be that deep in Turkish ass too: doing Turkish biddings, even attacking fellow Christians with their nomadic Turkish brethren. O they did all that, didn’t you? Attacked Greeks with their fellow Turks, and Wallachians (nowadays known as Romaninas) too. They were such good Turkish dogs they even participated in Asian theater when other Mongolic nomads known as the Timurids attacked the Turks. Yes, they did. As I often remark, there is no worse plague than the nomads. It’s a terrible blight that has infested our Hamues Mons homeland.

    O, and Serbo Sarmatian nomad, we don’t use Turkish name in describing our land. For us natives, the name of peninsula is Haemus Mons. Invasive nomadic dogs like yourself and, unfortunately, libturd euro cretins themselves, use Turkish descriptions of our homeland. Isn’t it despicable that Europeans would use Greek name in describing themselves (for Europa is the name Greeks bestowed to everything north of their homeland), yet use Turkish name in describing or designating us? Despicable indeed. Incredibly stupid and self defeating too. I always thought our northern brethren was keen on respecting high culture. Learn well, Serbo. Learn the true names. It wasn’t us who came to your Caspian homeland, it was you who came to ours. It’ll be you who will accept native ways, or you are free to go to your Caspian homeland.

    He was again driven to Thrace and hurled entire mountains at Zeus in the battle around Mount Haemus. When these bounced back upon him under the force of the thunderbolt, blood gushed out on the mountain. From this, they say, the mountain is called Haemus (“bloody”).

  245. Carolyn Yeager: “There are a lot of Mein Kampfs out there and they don’t all have the same page numbers.”

    No kidding. But I’ve already said I’m giving Murphy’s translation, which perhaps you would have remembered except for your senility.

    Carolyn Yeager: “… in Thomas Dalton’s superior new side-by-side German-English Volume Two, this passage is on page 71.”

    You probably located it via a word search anyway, so what difference does it make? Likewise with the left-out sentence. It’s this sort of pointless caviling that makes you and your fellow asylum mates look ridiculous. It’s typical of holocaust denial in general.

    As for Dalton’s supposedly “superior” translation, how would you know? You don’t know German.

    Carolyn Yeager: “Looks like I’ve gotten to you, “Doctor.” You’ve lost your cool and your confidence.”

    Not at all. My remarks were made in good fun, since I know how important it is to you to keep shamelessly chattering away, no matter how many times you’ve been proved wrong. I realize full well that getting you to shut up is impossible.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  246. Malacay says:
    @Seraphim

    Seraphimo, what kind of a bovine creature are you? You can’t be any celestial being belonging to either side of perceived duality, for celestial creatures are known to possess logic – the very essence which separates humans from animals – and logic you do not have. Not even in traces. What “Orthodox Empire” you bovine creature, and how could some people and civilization from the Asian steppes ever be heir of that which Greeks themselves created? Have you noticed that Greeks exist? Have you noticed which 2 languages and civilizations that “Orthodox Empire” represented? It was Latin at the beginning and Greek later on. Not Russian. And let’s not forget Bulgarians there who are also Orthodox people. When you speak of Bosporus and Dardanelles you speak of a city which controlled them, of Constantine’s city. Constantine’s city stands on Thracian land, and no people – not even the Greeks – ever claimed it was theirs. That was the city made to rule and command other nations, people and lands, i.e. it is an imperial city, not a national one. It never belonged to any nation, least of all to some nomadic Tatars from Asiatic steppes who are of Slavic Russian culture or Anatolian people themselves who were subjected to Muslime faith and Mongolic “culture.” Not even Anatolians who are its neighbors ever claimed it was their national capital. Russians have no place in Anatolia or Haemus Mons. Russia is the heir of people of Asiatic steppes and their culture, not ours. Constantine’s city belongs to Latin culture. Romans themselves came to central Italia from that part of the world, probably after the fall of Troy and Troy was just across the narrow strait from Constantine’s city. Latin lingua itself belongs to Indo-European family of languages (just like the Celtic, Germanic, Slavic and Hellenic ones) and not to native Italic Etruscans, Sabinians, Umbrians et al. belong to, which means that Romans came from our world.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  247. Seraphim says:
    @anonymous

    You don’t have to respond to any of my posts. I will be even grateful if you don’t at all.

  248. Malacay says:
    @Fox

    Russian have natural right to pay the toll when crossing the Bosporus and Dardanelles, or without a toll if there is such an arrangement. Serbs have the rights to assimilate into the land which would bear native names and be of distinctive Slavic culture and language, but Serbs desire to spread and take for themselves that which does not belong them… like all “good” nomadic invaders do. It’s why they were such good dogs to the Turks: they taught that by aligning with invasive nomads of vast resources would benefit them in relation to their neighbors, and that is why they attacked, alongside the Turks, other Orthodox people and lands during those Turkish invasions.

    First united war against the Turks showed how much of a paper tiger Turks were, and we weren’t even part of that war. There is no doubt though that Anatolian people have suffered enough under Turkish yoke and Muslime faith, and they need to be liberated. Freed. It’s an outrage and a disgrace that they are to this day still occupied under Muslimo faith and Mongolic culture, people who belong to our world and not either to nomadic central Asian or southern Semitic ones. For centuries they guarded borders of Christian world, defending it from Arabic faith.

  249. Seraphim says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    I am that kind of people who takes words in their proper sense.
    Spirituality is what has a connection with the Spirit, the Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost), Άγιο πνεύμα, Spiritus Sanctus, Святой Дух, to be more precise, in which Europe believed for 2000 years:
    ‘And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets”.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  250. Seraphim says:
    @Malacay

    Don’t give us that Malarkey.

  251. Bookish1 says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Carolyn: you mentioned ‘Hitlers Table Talk’ in one of your posts. There is a discussion going as to their authenticity. You seem to believe that they are authentic. If you have any links with proof I will appreciate it.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  252. Incitatus says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    “Hitler’s spirituality was of the kind that develops from direct experience… Some people have much more in the way of spiritual experience than others.”

    Kindly describe Hitler’s “spirituality” when he personally attacked engineer/veteran Otto Ballerstedt 14 Sep 1921, injuring and forcing him into retirement. Explain why German authorities convicted the stateless Austrian vagabond of breach of the peace, public indecency and assault. Why did felon Hitler serve less than a month (a third of his sentence)?

    Why did ‘spiritual’ Adolf murder Ballerstedt years later (Otto retired 1925, arrested by SS 30 Jun ‘34, killed near/in Dauchau, body found 1 Jul ’34 in forest near Gündinger Neuhimmelreich shot in the back of the head). What was that all about Carolyn? “Spirituality”? To say nothing of another 200+ murdered in ‘Operation Hummingbird’.

    As you profoundly ask: “What do you call spirituality?”

    Hint: it’s not found in your slavish bullshit.

    Stay well, Carolyn.

  253. Durocher: “In fact, Hitler never used the term “master race” in either his books, speeches, or recorded private Table Talk. … There is no mention of “subhumans” or “subhumanity” in Mein Kampf …”

    He doesn’t have to use either term. In MK Hitler defines what he means by the term human, and he defines it as the exclusive property of Aryan man. This division of Homo sapiens into just two categories makes it obvious that the Jews, not being Aryan, are considered by him to be subhuman.

    Es ist ein müßiges Beginnen, darüber zu streiten, welche Rasse oder Rassen die ursprünglichen Träger der menschlichen Kultur waren und damit die wirklichen Begründer dessen, was wir mit dem Worte Menschheit alles umfassen. Einfacher ist es, sich diese Frage für die Gegenwart zu stellen, und hier ergibt sich auch die Antwort leicht und deutlich. Was wir heute an menschlicher Kultur,an Ergebnissen von Kunst, Wissenschaft und Technik vor uns sehen, ist nahezu ausschließlich schöpferisches Produkt des Ariers. Gerade diese Tatsache aber läßt den nicht unbegründeten Rückschluß zu, daß er allein der Begründer höheren Menschentums überhaupt war, mithin den Urtyp dessen darstellt, was wir unter dem Worte “Mensch” verstehen. Er ist der Prometheus der Menschheit, aus dessen lichter Stirne der göttliche Funke des Genies zu allen Zeiten hervorsprang, immer von neuem jenes Feuer entzündend, das als Erkenntnis die Nacht der schweigenden Geheimnisse aufhellte und den Menschen so den Weg zum Beherrscher der anderen Wesen dieser Erde emporsteigen ließ. Man schalte ihn aus – und tiefe Dunkelheit wird vielleicht schon nach wenigen Jahrtausenden sich abermals auf die Erde senken, die menschliche Kultur würde vergehen und die Welt veröden.

    It would be futile to attempt to discuss the question as to what race or races were the original standard-bearers of human culture and were thereby the real founders of all that we understand by the word humanity. It is much simpler to deal with this question in so far as it relates to the present time. Here the answer is simple and clear. Every manifestation of human culture, every product of art, science and technical skill, which we see before our eyes to-day, is almost exclusively the product of the Aryan creative power. This very fact fully justifies the conclusion that it was the Aryan alone who founded a superior type of humanity; therefore he represents the archetype of what we understand by the term: MAN. He is the Prometheus of mankind, from whose shining brow the divine spark of genius has at all times flashed forth, always kindling anew that fire which, in the form of knowledge, illuminated the dark night by drawing aside the veil of mystery and thus showing man how to rise and become master over all the other beings on the earth. Should he be forced to disappear, a profound darkness will descend on the earth; within a few thousand years human culture will vanish and the world will become a desert.

    (MK, p. 226)

    He also emphasizes that since Aryan man is the pinnacle, the very crown of creation so to speak, any mixing with other races is to be strictly avoided as they are one and all inferior, or in other words, subhuman.

    Das Ergebnis jeder Rassenkreuzung ist also, ganz kurz gesagt, immer folgendes: a) Niedersenkung des Niveaus der höheren Rasse, b) körperlicher und geistiger Rückgang und damit der Beginn eines, wenn auch langsam, so doch sicher fortschreitenden Siechtums.

    In short, the results of miscegenation are always the following: (a) The level of the superior race becomes lowered; (b) physical and mental degeneration sets in, thus leading slowly but steadily towards a progressive drying up of the vital sap.

    (MK, p. 224)

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  254. Fox says:
    @Malacay

    I am afraid you forgot the Mongol Storms (12th century, reaching as far as Silesia, temporarily halted by the Battle of Liegnitz, and, were it not for the sudden death of Dshengis Khan, would have continued westwards), as well as the Turkish incursions into Western Europe (14th-18th century, finally halted at the gates of Vienna in 1683, with German troops, troops from the Ukraine, Lithuania, Poland and Venice, and a contingent of Polish troops under the command of the Polish king Sobieki -who, although all of Europe as in grave danger, wanted to contribute the Polish contingent only if he would obtain the command over all Imperial troops; which he obtained, given the requirements of the situation which left no room for that sort of small-mindedness, but it is also a typical Polish behavior of lack of solidarity with the other peoples of Europe; apparently Sobiecki manufactured from this the tale that Polish troops had defeated the Turks)), to speak of the East, and the Sarracene incursions into Western Europe, also halted by Germanic peoples (at Poitiers). Also mentioned should be the Hungarian Storms which came to an end only after the Hungarians’ defeat south of Augsburg in 978.

    The East seems to have an urge towards the West.

    • Agree: Carolyn Yeager
    • Replies: @Malacay
    , @Dube
  255. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    You would like to shut me up since I am exposing you and your stupid lies. I have in my hands the James Murphy translation of Mein Kampf, unexpurgated edition, two volumes in one, first published on March 21, 1939, reset for this edition in April 1942. The passage you brought up (on Hitler addressing the churches) is not on page 313 at all, but on the bottom of page 226, a long way away. It is in Vol. 2, Chapt. 2, just where we find it in Dalton. But you have placed it page-wise in Vol. 2, Chapt. 10.

    You sow further confusion in your comment #260, wherein you quote another Mein Kampf passage (trying to recover yourself) that you claim is on page 226, which it is NOT. Neither is it on page 225 or 227. But since this is the page where the passage you previously mentioned to me is found, I make the assumption that it is you who is getting these quotes from the Internet and your internet source has the pages wrong. Which shows that you’re not well-informed at all, but grabbing what you can find to show off on this site. I now think you are most likely Hasbara-related.

    Ironically, it was your searching for a passage in MK with which you could prove me wrong that is the “sort of pointless caviling that makes you look ridiculous.” Yes, it blew up in your face.

    since I know how important it is to you to keep shamelessly chattering away, no matter how many times you’ve been proved wrong.

    No, you don’t know and can’t know such a thing, and I have never been proved wrong here. But you have been, by me.

  256. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    If you are still using the Murphy translation (why would you change?), I can inform you that these passages are not found on the pages you give. (See my comment #262)

    Further, you are still failing to demonstrate that Hitler considered all non-Aryans to be sub-human. You write, “In MK Hitler defines what he means by the term human, and he defines it as the exclusive property of Aryan man.” But in the passage you give, he’s not speaking of what is a human, but of human culture, and who were the creators of the highest type of human culture (in his opinion). To try to turn that into a belief that all non-Aryans are subhuman makes you either a sneaky falsifier, or exceedingly illiterate. Take your pick.

    When Hitler condemned race-mixing, it was because he believed that mixed racial blood lowered the quality, the integrity of a person. This was a common belief of the time, based on observation and on animal and plant breeding. There was also a large psychological element involved, that of confusion as to exactly who you were and where you belonged, which had important ramifications for German unity, and its ability to recover after WWI. To try to say he really meant that such people were “subhuman” and that this supports the idea he carried out mass murder without a qualm is one of the poorest arguments I’ve ever heard.

  257. @Seraphim

    Proper? Well, I know there’s a proper meaning of Holy Spirit, and Spirit that most people can’t get past. But I have to tell you that there is something higher than the “proper way,” a more direct communication with your God that becomes a “knowing” rather than a “believing.” And that is the spirituality that Hitler had reached, at least in the beginning stages of it. But to each his own.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  258. Carolyn Yeager: “To try to turn that into a belief that all non-Aryans are subhuman makes you either a sneaky falsifier, or exceedingly illiterate. Take your pick.”

    The meaning is plain to anyone who can read. Hitler thinks that there are only two types, Aryan and non-Aryan, superior and inferior; human, and that which is inferior to, or beneath (i.e., sub-) human.

    Your compulsion to babble no matter how obviously wrong you are has gotten the better of you once again. You, Carolyn, are like a dog who would rather be kicked than ignored. Pathetic!

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  259. @Bookish1

    There is no reason to believe they are not authentic. The best ‘proof’ of their authenticity is the content of the talks themselves. It is those who say they are fabricated who need to provide proof of it. So far, their arguments (not proof) are not convincing to many, many knowledgeable people. They all appear to be cranks who want to make Hitler fit their own preferred narrative, rather than to learn from the real man himself.

    Are you one of those?

    In addition, most of these crank researchers exhibit the need to portray Martin Bormann as working against his boss Adolf Hitler in the interest of the Soviets or the British, or someone. I don’t think that at all, and find that frivolous. I mean, talk about no proof …

  260. Cyrano says:
    @Bookish1

    You are right son. In terms of barbarity, the Germans are way ahead of us.

  261. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    You have not proven me wrong about anything; nor have you defended your own errors. Hitler in Mein Kampf was not saying there were only two types, but specifically comparing Aryan to non-Aryan historically, in the interests of keeping the Germanic people intact. Are you arguing that in 1926, Hitler, who had become a politician heading a political party, should have welcomed foreign influence in struggling, post-Versailles Germany–even the influx of communist Jews and Slavs–out of a concern for “universal values” or “loving your neighbor” or some other such bs used to allow these scoundrels to drain Germany dry? Are you insane or do you think others here are insane?

    You play with selective words and quotes. State plainly whether you equate “sub-human” with less than human, not fully human, or a lesser order of humanity only, or also with a lower development of human achievement and/or culture. You are inferring that the latter definition is included in the former, that there is no difference between them. Adolf Hitler was speaking of the latter – lower development – plus genetic differences that would alter the German gene pool in unfavorable ways. Do you disagree with the importance of those concerns? If so, what are your reasons? If you refuse to answer these questions, your answer will be obvious.

  262. Malacay says:
    @Fox

    There were only a few Mongol excursions into central Europa, and those were just vanguard forces. They never numbered more than a few thousand (that particular battle of Liegnitz/Legnica in 1241 was part of Mongol invasion of Poland, was it not? According to Wikipedia the Mongol force numbered between 3-8.000 soldiers in that particular battle). Do you know that Turks are the Mongols? The origins of Turks is Mongolic. The first Turks, called the Gokturks, were a clan of Juan-Juan or Rouran Khaganate in Mongolia.

    On the subject of Turkish invasions, do you think that Turkish invasions of central Europa started with the battle of Vienna in 1683, in late 17th century? Who do you think were holding the borders of Christiandom during the long centuries and bear the brunt of nomadic invasions? It was Anatolians in the south and Slavs in the east. That was a 2nd siege of Vienna by the Turks if I remember correctly. The 1st siege was in 1529, followed by an unsuccessful one in 1566. Do you know who made it into an unsuccessful attempt by the Turks? We did.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Szigetvár

    A couple of thousand of our soldiers stopped an army of over 100.000 Turks dealing it such heavy losses which saw between 20.-35.000 Turk casulties. This particular battle made central Europa free of an attempt of Turkish invasion for a whole century. This is how central Europa was kept free and unoccupied in general: by the sacrifices of others, and for long, long centuries it was Anatolians that kept our borders safe – central and southern Europa both. But does anyone remember their sacrifices? Certainly not those whom they kept free from both nomadic blight and Arabic Muslim faith, except of course a few of us awoken and aware as conscious beings always out to be, or strive for at very least.

    On the subject of Pols, they did come to German aid then, didn’t they? They left their own country defenseless to honor the alliance they had had with you. Would you do the same for them? Have you ever come to their aid? I don’t know. But I do know that le French and the Dutch would only come to exploit the situation and benefit from it. Merchants are inherently untrustworthy as they are opportunists without shame or honor, and they have tainted the souls of unsuspecting for too long. Now almost all of European people resemble that opportunistic merchant behavior without shame or honor, some more than others, and probably none more than the Celts and Italians. Europeans have become like Apirus, or Hebrews – the name under which they are better known – themselves. Isn’t that shameful, souls to be tainted by the class of exploiters, defrauders and deceivers as merchants inherently are?

    Anyways, in the matters of such great importance as wars are (especially the ones which are determining the fate of your entire civilization), having opportunist behavior inside your camp is detrimental, mostly fatal. Few have ever overcome it. But Germans ought to remember that Scandinavians did not come to their aid. Dutch and Le French did not come (and would not unless to exploit and benefit themselves). Who did? Polaks. Their behavior generally strikes me as the most honest and honorable. Compared to people like le French, Dutch or Anglos, they look like paragons of honesty. Truth is, you don’t behave like opportunistic merchant toward anyone except your enemy, but that is how those mentioned people and cultures generally behave.

    • Replies: @Paw
    , @Fox
  263. Seraphim says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    You are a typical product of the ‘West’, that after blocking the channels through which the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, flows into the world, by getting rid of the medium through which it flows, the Church of Christ (Luther and his toadies), opened itself to the invasion of the ‘Spirit of falsehood’ and its cohorts of demons, invented its own ‘spiritualities’, declaring to all and sundry that any fantasies that pass through their heads is a personal revelation by God. That led to the insufferable conceit of the ‘West’ that it is in possession of the ultimate truths and everybody else should follow their lead, even by force. Luther, Kant, Hegel, Marx, Hitler, “la même Jeannette autrement coiffée”.
    There can’t be anything ‘higher’ than the Holy Spirit and the ‘proper way’ to attain it.

  264. Paw says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    We are still reminded of Hitler and the Nazis.
    While in Paris peacefull people are beaten and killed like prisoners in Buchenwald and other concentration camps.
    Hitler did not occupy Gibraltar. What stupid mistake.
    Only source of oil for Wehrmacht was Ploesti in Rumania.
    No one bothered /british or american/to attack it.

    • Replies: @Lurker
    , @Seraphim
  265. Paw says:
    @Malacay

    Turkish took Constantinople 1453, because someone from the Middle Europe name Urban casted cannons for them to demolish thick walls of city…

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  266. Fox says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    The Greater Germanic Reich became a consideration when the developments of the war made it necessary to think of the time after it. Hence, a Federation of Germanic nations was conceived of. Note the adjective “Germanic”, not “German”. I can’t see anything wrong with a union of nations which have a common interest to stay free, independent and to have a future. Do you?

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  267. Fox says:
    @Malacay

    Well, if it’s that way! I just wonder why the Slav countries were so backwards until quite recently, though. Any thoughts on that? (By the way, while there were exceptional individuals such Lomonossov, they were rare. Kopernikus was German, by the way, came under Polish might only after the occupation of Frauenburg by the Polish king. Count him out as one of YOU.

    • Replies: @Malacay
  268. Lurker says:
    @Paw

    Occupying Gibraltar would certainly have been a major strategic victory for Germany but would have been all but impossible without Spanish co-operation. And would have been almost a formality with it – land attack against a tiny piece of land. But this co-operation was not forthcoming.

    Ploesti was bombed once it was within range.

  269. Seraphim says:
    @Paw

    Not true. The refineries of Ploesti were attacked first on 1 August 1943 (Operation Tidal Wave- 177 American bombers taking off from Benghazi destroyed 40% of the oil reserves of the refinery). Massive systematic Anglo-American bombardments were resumed on 4 April 1944 and lasted until 23 August when Romania turned arms against Germany. Ploesti was naturally a prime target and the bombardments hampered significantly the production. In total 40 raids, half of them directed at Ploesti.

  270. Seraphim says:
    @Paw

    He was a Hungarian like the present PM of Hungary, Orban. ‘Westerners’ were not in a hurry to come to the rescue of the ‘schismatic’ Greeks.

  271. Malacay says:
    @Fox

    By backward you mean poor, I assume? Is it a German trait exclusively to exhibit sycophant and servile behavior toward those richer than you, or do those Slavs show it too? I am not from your part of the world, so I don’t know. But careful now, you might start thinking of Russia to be an epitome of advancement and development as it becomes richer over time. Truth is, you are like slaves: so obedient, so docile… so submissive and pliable. Exist only to follow rules and orders, hmm? So unlike we are. Our nature is the opposite of yours… of your culture (except for that trash hobbit part of Zagorje; do you know that these Slovenians think to possess some kind of “advanced culture” which is “better” than our Croatian in their mind. But for Germans I understand where the notions of grandness come from, whereas in their case, it is total and utter void and non-existence of anything resembling what you . The best and most advanced individual they ever gave birth to was this one:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marija_Jurić_Zagorka

    A prose and poetry writer for children. Far superior members were born of our blood, yet these imitating, boot-licking hobbits think their culture is somehow above ours. Would you like to have them? We are eager to get rid off that filth. Besides, they were the southernmost part of German empire. City of Krapina was the southernmost point of German empire. We’ll trade them for that small part of our land Slovenians took for themselves, our Illyrian coast of eastern Mare Adriaticum. Do you know that we have successfully assimilated true Germanics, Nordic Scandinavians? Over the course of past thousands of years we assimilated Germanics, Celts and Slavs. There were never any problems, those true Nordic Germanics are the easiest to assimilate in my opinion. But this scum in the north, these Slovenians in Zagorje and surroundings somehow think they are of any worth, and no matter how many times you prove to this filth how unfounded, utterly stupid, illogical and retarded that notion is, it just doesn’t have any affect on them. These disgusting hobbits have no quality whatsoever other than to fantasize about their imaginary “cultural grandeur.” The truth is, we don’t want them. We are eager to trade them and finally get rid of that part of central Europa which does not belong to our world. I thought you might be interested in acquiring them, seeing how merchant-friendly you are. See that green in the case of Zagorje and red in Medjumurje:

    https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hrvatsko_zagorje

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Međimurje_County

    That doesn’t belong to our world and we don’t want to have something which doesn’t belong to us; we would rather our own world have restored.

    That name Kopernicus, doesn’t sound German. How do you know he was?

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
    , @Fox
  272. @Fox

    It was not meant to be a federation of voluntarily cooperating independent nations. For all those Germanic nations the Greater Germanic Reich meant being annexed by Germany. Read here Goebbels’ words about Hitler’s plan for my country :

    “…For him [Hitler] it is self-evident [eine Selbstverständlichkeit] that Belgium and Flanders and Brabant will likewise be turned into German Reichsgaue (provinces). The Netherlands will also not be allowed to lead a politically independent life… Whether the Dutch offer any resistance to this or not, is fairly irrelevant…”

    Source : Wikipedia, Greater Germanic Reich.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  273. @Malacay

    That name Kopernicus, doesn’t sound German. How do you know he was?

    https://carolynyeager.net/copernicus-was-german-not-polish Read the comments too. This is a no-brainer.

    • Replies: @Vaterland
    , @Malacay
  274. @Franklin Ryckaert

    Read here Goebbels’ words about Hitler’s plan for my country :

    Goebbels cannot speak for Hitler. Can you please allow Hitler to speak for himself?

    The Dutch are part of the German race who became so Anglicized and Judaized they turned against the Germans. You are an example of a sick Dutchman (Deutschman) who was raised as a communist by your father, something you have admitted.
    Perhaps Hitler simply hoped to bring the Dutch back to their German roots where they belong, and because they were so Judaized they could not be allowed to be politically independent for awhile. I don’t see that as a hardship but as a good deed. Hitler only wanted the best for Europe. You, Franklin, are of the mentality that is destroying Europe.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  275. Vaterland says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    I am not going to comment on the third Reich, Nazi and Hitler issues, but thank you very much for this accurate article. Of course Copernicus is just one man in the Olympus of German(ic) geniuses, but the practice of these Poles to lie, falsify history and eradicate everything German exemplifies the nature of Polish chauvinism. They also truly enjoy seeing Germany on her knees. There’s a reason they treat Auschwitz and the Holocaust the way they do. But with everything especially PiS are destroying, they will end up being taught a lesson for their limitless arrogance and ungratefulness sooner or later.

    • Thanks: Carolyn Yeager
  276. Fox says:
    @Malacay

    Backwards doesn’t mean a lack of ability, talent or potential, it means less developed than elsewhere (e.g, in using agriculturural machinery and methods, architecture, degree of literacy)
    And in Russia, non-literacy was common until the end of the 19th century, hence all aspects of life were on a less developed level than say, in Western Europe. These differences have largely disappeared in the last 150 years. If you name “poverty”, as backwards, well, it is not just bad luck, and I ascribe it to being incompatible in methods of production, trade and education with prosperous regions, as prosperity rests on exchange. The East had problems of space to overcome which made such exchange more difficult than in Western Europe, for example. You seem to spend a major part of intellectual energy on thinking about greatness, coupled with nourishing of resentments. These sentiments bespeak a sense of inadequacy.
    As far as Eastern Europeans are concerned, these peoples show remarkable giftedness for the natural sciences and mathematics. They have shown as soon as the occasion arose remarkable insights and had immense achievements. I am thinking of the chemist Dimitri Mendeleyev who, at the same time as Lothar Meyer, came up with an extremely insightful scheme for the periodic table of the elements (with Mendeleyev also making daring predictions which turned out to be quite correct). Or the chemist Kapustinski with his insight into inorganic chemistry. (These two just came to mind). There are great writers, musicians, painters coming from the East.
    As all-too often, I feel that people like you are lacking a sense of necessary solidarity with other European and European-originated peoples. If you can’t come to that point, your world will be gone, the danger is grave.

    • Replies: @Malacay
  277. Malacay says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    It says there he was a Prussian, and Prussians were Baltic people colonized by the Germans. Von Clausewitz, a great military mind, was also a Prussian. There isn’t any difference between Balts (which Prussians belonged to) and Slavs. Slavs and Balts were living in that Lithuanian-Polish Commonwealth quite happily. If today you put Balts and Slavs together, there would never be any problems. They are very alike, so they naturally merge with one another. The only difference exists in cultural sphere, which is of course true for Germans as well. Isn’t it interesting how those Slavs, even though they were much more numerous than Balts, never tried to colonize them. For thousands of years they are living side by side those Slavs never tried to take over and colonize those small Baltic nations (with the exception of fake Slavs – the fake Russians – who did try just that in last few centuries, ever since those lands fell under their control, which is also why those Balts, and Slavs as well, hate fake Russians with such a passion). If there weren’t for your lebensraum dreams, genocidal events and a urban-born tenacity to look down on them, you could live with them the same way they have been living alongside each other for all those millenniums and more. Now that can be the case only with us added in, as a new element which can balance that past mistakes, to be that sinew which connects two hostile cultures and people. A new Imperium could stretch from that Turk borders with Syria all the way to the North Pole, but it can cannot be a German Reich alone, it must belong to all of us. Do you know how glorious Constantine’s city once was? That could be a city of us all and Bithynia, Paphlagonia, Lycaonia, Cappadochia, Cilicia, Lycia, Caria, Mysia, Lydia, Phrygia, Ionia, Aeolia and Thracia imperial lands belonging to all. For it to happen however, one must stop being petty-minded and also quit with the desires to take other lands for his own nation. People of Anatolia too are of European kin and kith. They are just occupied while their old culture was destroyed and replaced by Muslimo-Mongoloid one.

  278. @Carolyn Yeager

    From that same Wikipedia article :

    “…On April 5, 1942, while having dinner with an entourage including Heinrich Himmler, Hitler declared his intention that the Low Countries would be included whole into the Reich, at which point the Greater German Reich would be reformed into the Germanic Reich (simply “the Reich” in common parlance) to signify this change…”

    And further :

    “…In October 1940 Hitler disclosed to Benito Mussolini that he intended to leave the Netherlands semi-independent because he wanted that country to retain its overseas colonial empire after the war.[53] This factor was removed after the Japanese took over the Netherlands East Indies, the primary component of that domain.[53] The resulting German plans for the Netherlands suggested its transformation into a Gau Westland, which would eventually be further broken-up into five new Gaue or gewesten (historical Dutch term for a type of sub-national polity)…”

    We didn’t want to be annexed by Germany, not because we are “Judaized” or “Anglicized”, but because we are a separate people with its own identity and history. We fought 80 years against the Spaniards for our independence and we don’t want to lose that again.

    You have said that you travelled in the Netherlands. If you have visited Amsterdam, surely you would have seen the National Momument on the Dam, dedicated to the fallen during the German occupation. Every year our king holds a ceremony at that monument. That is the Dutch spirit!

    If Hitler had the best intentions for Europe, he would have stayed in Germany.

    Heil Schicklgruber !

  279. Malacay says:
    @Fox

    All of which you mentioned causes poverty, so my diagnosis of your understanding of “backwardness” was quite accurate. If you had that problems both our worlds – southern and eastern – were facing, you would be “backward” too. These problems you are describing however are no high mathematics and can be addressed and easily remedied over time. It’s just a matter of organization and labour needed to make it happen, nothing more.

    I’ve seen that sense of solidarity you speak of in those nasty little opportunistic hobbits I mentioned. These libtard stories about solidarity are over, German. You will obey or suffer the consequences. This is our way, and if we were put under our world instead of libturd hypocritical, pathologically lying one which seems to originate in heads of people in Protestant lands, we would already have a real imperium, instead of being trapped in one which only serves the likes of you who desire comfort and materially satisfying life. Why do those like you (your entire world for that matter) want to play the imperial role which you are obviously not suited for? Nature didn’t make you for that. Nothing good can come out of it, and nothing did – as is evident by historical accounts all too well as well.

    • Replies: @Fox
  280. Eckbach says:
    @Dan Kelso

    It was Harris’ own RAF crews that gave him the nickname “Butcher.”
    The bombing of civilians was the brainchild of Churchill’s “science” adviser, the Alsatian Jew, Fred Lindemann, aka, “Lord Cherwell.” “The bombing must be directed against working class neighborhoods, middle class houses have too much space between them and so are bound to waste bombs.”
    The bombing of German cities in the Rhur valley persisted for four months before Hitler was reluctantly compelled to respond in kind, which is what Churchill was after because the British population heretofore had wanted no war with Germany.
    https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2003/may/12/architecture.artsfeatures

    • Replies: @Dube
  281. Malacay says:

    I find it also interesting that in all this time no European was ever willing to make any sacrifice for the liberation of those whose sacrifices allowed them to stay free and unoccupied for well over a millenia. Very selfish people. To see these people speaking about solidarity is a joke and can only be understood as a joke. As I said, I’ve seen all too well what they are made of in the examples of those nasty little hobbits I spoke of earlier. This is mentality of central Europa, not of Haemus Mons peninsulae. That quote of Bismark is also revealing: “The whole of the Balkans is not worth the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier.” Interesting also that this German would use Turskih name in designating or world, and Slavic Pomeranians in description of his German soldiers. Obviously they are not nearly intelligent as they think they are. This is carrying not only logical fallacies but is quite revealing mentality of these people too.

    Why do people in western, central, eastern and even southern Europa refer to themselves as “Europeans” then? European is Greek name, not German, not le French, not British. Why don’t you ask Turks to name you. I am sure there are fine Turkish names. Why can’t you be called Kebabs? What’s wrong with being Kebabs instead of Europeans? If you are using Turkish name in designating our world, it’s only fair that you would use Turkish name in designating yours.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  282. @Malacay

    The name “Europe” itself is of Semitic origin, being derived from Akkadian erebu, meaning :”sunset”. The Hebrew equivalent is ereb (pronounced : erev), meaning “evening”.

    BTW, Servian for “Balkan” is балкан, not Haemus Mons.

    Ever heard of exonyms ?

    • Disagree: Malacay
  283. Malacay says:

    You obviously have mental issues, since you are not even able to derive my nationality even though it was revealed and obvious from the previous posts. Do you have reading problems too? You think Ustase were Serbois? Why don’t you visit doctor, fake Amero? I am sure there is something they can do for you. And Europa is a Greek name, not Jewish, Phoenician nor does it belong to any other Semitic source. Even the very name of Phoenicians is Greek. Learn, libtardo.

    Latinized form of Greek Ευρωπη (Europe), which meant “wide face” from ευρυς (eurys) meaning “wide” and οψ (ops) meaning “face, eye”. In Greek mythology Europa was a Phoenician princess who was abducted and taken to Crete by Zeus in the guise of a bull. She became the first queen of Crete, and later fathered Minos by Zeus. The continent of Europe is named for her. This is also the name of a moon of Jupiter.

    Europe is also how the Greeks called all the northern lands relative to them, which they thought were barbaric and backward. We Illyrians were Europans for the Greeks e.g.

  284. @Franklin Ryckaert

    This Wikipedia page is a hodge-podge of sentences taken from anti-Hitler ‘historians’ and other authors. There is not a fair-minded source among them. The source of the two passages you quote are:
    1. Daniel Rich, (1974). Hitler’s War Aims: The Establishment of the New Order.
    2. Louis De Jong (1969 and 1974). Het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden in de tweede wereldoorlog: Maart ’41 – Juli ’42

    Both are JEWS, the latter identifying as a holocaust survivor who fled to England with his family! Both passages are interpretations of what Hitler said during private dinner conversations taken down by listeners he approved of (Table Talk). Dinner conversations are not policy! … or did you think you could pawn it off as such. I don’t believe Hitler had any intention of “annexing” The Netherlands to a Greater Germany against their will. He never tried to do such a thing with any country and knew it couldn’t be done. He intended to persuade these countries to work together in this way. This “dinner talk” was meant to encourage forward thinking on the realities facing them.

    What Hitler had in mind was far, far, far better than what exists today. Yet you poor slobs gather in your jew-dominated, morally-depraved, African Muslim-ridden “independent country”– under the yoke of the French-German-dominated European Union — to celebrate every year, with Dutch spirit, your great victory over German occupation!

    In any case, no one is trying to take away Dutch independence. But you are against German independence ! You do all you can to disrupt and undercut true German history. You take the side of Germany’s enemies. You do! Accepting authors such as these two Jews is just part of it. And you will never answer to this charge. You just cite more cherry-picked partial quotes from more wikipedia pages. That’s why most people think you are a weasel.

    P.S. I think I’ve broken my rule that I would no longer reply to you (as a waste of time). I’ll try not to do it again.

    • Agree: Vaterland
    • Thanks: Fox
    • Replies: @Vaterland
  285. Fox says:
    @Malacay

    You are biting your own tail; hence you will never see anything but that. It also appears that you are under the false impression of having “power”. As far as your attitude goes, you have the need to dominate someone else, in other words, your world is empty, you have nothing to subsist on once the external is taken from you.
    Who would envy you for that, or be impressed.

    • Replies: @Malacay
  286. Malacay says:
    @Fox

    How could I have power, or our poor state? We are but a small and insignificant country in all aspects. What I was referring to was your mentality. You have inherent desire to obey. Perhaps it is part of your cultural upbringing and perhaps it is something deeper. So, when you see someone more powerful than you, or your country, natural thing for you is to prostitute yourself, be in awe or envy? You want to be impressed? That’s what women and slaves do. The problem is that you are not capable of leading. Slaves do not lead. Slaves follow rules and laws of their masters. But we ought to make something together as part of European family of nations. You want to lead Europa but you don’t want to make any sacrifices for it. Those who lead have to make sacrifices. When Mecedons lead Greeks for example, they made sacrifices. You are not only incapable of leading, but refuse to make sacrifices if they are not exclusively beneficial to you. That is what I was referring to in my 2nd paragraph. You have to care for the collective, not for your own nation alone if you are the leader.

    No need to envy me on anything. I am no slave. I do not care for the opinion of others. I do not live for other people’s opinion or ask for their approval. It’s all the same to me if people are impressed, envious, empty, friendly, loving, etc., for I do not need consent or validation. I do value argument if it’s logical.

  287. Bukowski says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    But Holland was not a genuine neutral in 1940. The Dutch government was colluding with the British armed forces. For instance, they were allowing the RAF to fly over Dutch territory to attack targets in Germany.
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=12153

  288. Dube says:
    @Fox

    … a contingent of Polish troops under the command of the Polish king Sobieki -who, although all of Europe as in grave danger, wanted to contribute the Polish contingent only if he would obtain the command over all Imperial troops; which he obtained, given the requirements of the situation which left no room for that sort of small-mindedness, but it is also a typical Polish behavior of lack of solidarity with the other peoples of Europe; …

    We shouldn’t be small-minded, eh, Fox? And here’s a tug of your bushy tail.

  289. Dube says:
    @Eckbach

    On the night of September 1-2, I was on duty at the Polish Foreign Office, otherwise empty except for a typist, a few janitors, and a colonel who served as a liaison officer with the High Command. The night was quiet. Throughout the September campaign the Germans bombed only in day-time. Suddenly at 2 A.M. the telephone operator called me to say that the Polish Embassy in Berlin had a message to transmit on the telephone. I could not believe my ears: the Polish Embassy in Berlin after the outbreak of the war? Yet I heard the familiar voice of the First Secretary of the Embassy who dictated to me the message of the German government with the proposal mutually to refrain from the bombing of open cities. The connection was through neutral Lithuania. I did not hesitate a moment and ran immediately to the nearby private apartment of Minister Beck. He was fast asleep, and I could not wake him up. But I did not need to discuss with him what was obviously in the Polish interest. I took his snoring for approval. In the meantime the colonel, the liaison officer, brought me the assent of the Polish High Command. I sent the Polish acceptance of the German proposal back to Berlin. A few hours later, the Dutch Minister in Warsaw, who was in charge of German interests, and the Polish legation in the Hague, transmitted the same German message to me. It was evident that Berlin tried to reach Warsaw by all available means. The Germans feared Anglo-French reprisals. When these reprisals did not materialize, the German Air Force resumed the bombing of Polish cities.

    Wladyslaw W. Kulski, The Anglo-Polish Agreement of August 28, 1939; The Polish Review, Vol. 21, No. 1/2, p. 38.
    https://www.jstor.org/stable/i25777363

  290. @Franklin Ryckaert

    As a fellow nationalist, I can appreciate your spirit of independence.

    However, the sad truth is that small nations like Holland cannot be truly independent in a world of superpowers. Or at least, not without turning into garrison states like North Korea. They can merely choose with whom they prefer to stand.

    As it is now, instead of being part of a German-led European Union (or Pan-Germanic Reich, or whatever) the Netherlands is part of NATO and the globalist empire.

    The question I would ask you, then, is: Do you think the Netherlands are better off as they are today than they would have been as a German ally following a German victory? Since you appear to be an honest and sincere person, I imagine that you at least do no consider the unlimited non-white immigration, prostitution, feminism, anti-racism, drugs, plutocracy and US military bases you now enjoy an unmixed blessing.

    I am quite certain that, had your countrymen who fought in 1940 been able to see the future they were truly fighting for, as it stands as of 2020, they would have immediately turned their arms, not on the Germans, but on Churchill and Queen Wilhelmina. And then practically as one asked for unconditional German protection against that nightmare.

    • Agree: Bookish1
  291. Bookish1 says:

    The problem is that Holland has to see how bad things are in this cesspool to know how right Hitler was.

    • Agree: Anti_barabas_ite
  292. @John Regan

    In the context, reading further in the thread and coming upon the post you (Mr. Ryckaert) were responding to, I should perhaps add that I don’t in any way approve of the vicious personal insults deployed against you or your nation there. I understand completely that you will respond to that sort of attack with defiance.

    You have (from what I have seen, at least) conducted yourself courteously, in face of very bad behavior from your opposition. For that you have my respect, even if I may disagree with you on certain historical or political points. I hope that you won’t allow the conduct of these persons to influence yourself in a negative direction.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  293. @John Regan

    You are talking about cultural degeneration as if that is the effect of a political regime or an alliance with such a regime. I think it is more the effect of excessive prosperity in a secular environment. And even if a certain regime could forestall cultural degeneration, then there is no guarantee that this would last for ever. Culture has its own dynamics, apart from politics.

  294. Vaterland says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    For what it’s worth: I know many Dutch and work for a Dutch company as mentioned elsewhere. And the vast, vast, VAST majority of Dutch are very friendly to us. Even in these difficult times. Probably the closest in all of Europe. And as far as the actual Dutch “Alt-Right” or dissident right is concerned: their goal is essentially to restore to Holy Roman Empire as an alternative to the EU. Which I would fully agree to.
    It would be a good compromise between weak and petty stateletts on the one hand and the grey, anti-European beaurocracy of a technocratic Union colonized by Judaic foundation myths. – And certainly better than to be forced into the same political construct with Poles, Czechs and Greeks with all their resentments, jealousy and hate, while being ruled from Brussels.

  295. @John Regan

    John Regan, you obviously don’t know Franklin Ryckaert and are somewhat new to this subject here at Unz, even if not new to the overall nationalist cause. If you think writing in a soothing manner, with all deference, to Ryckaert will get him to see reason, you are mistaken. He has been around for a long time calling himself a White Nationalist, but with an enduring, intense hatred of everything connected with Adolf Hitler and National Socialism. He claims it is because the German NSists wanted to enslave the Poles and Russians, in fact they hated and wanted to enslave all Slavs. He also faults the “Hitlerites” for mistreating Dutch Jews, who are human beings after all and must be treated as such, no matter what they have done to us. Then again, his father was a member of the communist-Jewish Dutch Resistance during WWII, something he points to proudly.

    My irritation with Ryckaert is that he often replies to my comments by cherry-picking quotes from Wikipedia pages (seldom anything but that) when WWII-related Wikipedia pages have no credibility with the majority of White Nationalists. He can’t leave well enough alone when it comes to me. When he’s asked tough questions, he refuses to answer, usually coming back with more cherry-picked quotes from Wikipedia. Since Wiki is jew-dominated, especially on the subject of WWII/Holohoax, what does that tell us about Franklin Ryckaert? He doesn’t deserve kid glove treatment. And neither do you.

    • Replies: @C.T.
  296. @Vaterland

    They are very friendly to ‘modern’ Germans, post-WWII indoctrinated Germans. I have said this before here. I know Dutch people too, and they say Holland is a terrible place that embraces the false narrative 100%. Franklin Ryckaert is typical of that, and no wonder he is so happy in his native country.

    The idea of ‘restoring’ Europe to the Holy Roman Empire is a pretty far out idea. I have picked up from you that Christianity is your thing. Guess you see that as enough of a unifying element for Europeans? I truly believe you need to make your views more clearly known, as I have done on two websites I run. Everyone who talks to me can look me up and find out my background–even my genealogy and other personal details. I am at a disadvantage that I have to guess about you … or take you on trust. You can always write me privately at carolyn at carolynyeager dot net and I will honor your confidentiality.

    I just learned last night that “Dr. Robert Morgan” from this thread is none other than the commenter “Spahn’s Ranch” previously at West’s Darkest Hour blog and “Jack Frost” at TOO. He has to be English. And what a short fuse he has! This is not a game for me, or playtime, but I take our German fate seriously. I don’t think any compromise will work that thinks it can ignore or blot out the National Socialist regime–or condemn it. We need real history.

  297. @Wally

    @Wally, @kikl

    You two are correct to cast extreme doubt on Table Talk. The story on this book is that three officers recorded what Hitler stated in various discussions he engaged in during the final years of the war. Therefore, it is completely unreliable because any of these three could have added their own opinions, or they could have left out opinions expressed by Hitler which they did not want published. There is no way to validate that the content of ‘Table Talk’ is actually what Hitler said. This point is incontrovertible.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  298. @Braveheart

    Your point (not yours but the most common argument used against TT) does not invalidate the authenticity of the content as Hitler’s own thoughts/words. To say what “could have” been done is not a persuasive argument. Transmission from here to there can have altered even the most treasured quotes of famous men. When it comes down to it, only recordings of Hitler’s speeches can be guaranteed to have come from him, word for word.

    This is one reason I think we must get to know the man as a German, and be able to relate to him and his times and environment, not just read 2 or 3 books about him by ‘historians’ (history is an art – story telling – not a science) and watch some of the thousands of videos that proliferate on the Internet, made by who knows who. Most of the people who comment here are in that category, and they gravitate to the bias that matches their bias. Their opinion is based on someone else’s opinion.

    When it comes to Hitler, the most important question is whether you’re for him or against him. “Facts” can be found to support both sides, superficially at least. But Hitler stood for something and that something is very clear. Do you stand for or against that?

    • Replies: @turtle
  299. C.T. says: • Website
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Franklin Ryckaert is indeed irritating. He’s a perfect example of what I call a secular neo-Christian. Two years ago he said on The Occidental Observer:

    The best attitude toward Christianity for a white nationalist is to consider oneself as a “cultural Christian”… That I think is the attitude of Richard Spencer…

    In my blogsite I’ve exposed Ryckaert’s axiological POV several times. My critique of secular neo-Christianity among white nationalists appears in my book Day of Wrath:

    https://caesartort.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/dow_lulu.pdf

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  300. turtle says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    But Hitler stood for something and that something is very clear.

    Indeed it was.
    https://www.unz.com/book/lothrop_stoddard__into-the-darkness/
    From Chapter XXI:
    Dr. Franz Guertner, Minister of Justice, who says:

    “National Socialism looks upon the community of the nation as an organization which has its own rights and duties, and whose interests come before those of the individual. When we speak of the nation, we do not confine ourselves to the generation to which we happen to belong, but extend that term so as to comprise the sum-total of the generations which have preceded us and those that will come after us. This view has found expression in the National Socialist doctrine: Gemeinnutz vor Eigennutz–The Common Weal before individual advantage. It dominates National Socialist policy, and its natural corollary is that the rights of the individual must be subordinated to those of the community. The protection enjoyed by individuals is not based on the assumption that their particular rights are sacrosanct and inviolable, but rather on the fact that all of them are regarded as valuable members of the national community, and therefore deserve protection. … National Socialist ideas on justice thus differ fundamentally from those which prevailed under the preceding regime.”

    As an American by birth and a Libertarian by inclination, I find this concept utterly repugnant.

    Which is not to say that he the Nazis did not do some good.
    They certainly did.
    Hitler and his National Socialists;
    1. First of all encouraged the German people to get off their knees and re-assume their rightful place as a major European power, economically, culturally and militarily.
    2. Got Germany back on track economically. AFAIK, Adolph Hitler had a much better record than Franklin Roosevelt in this regard. I believe a comparison of the U.S . economy in 1936 to that of NS Germany would show Germany in much better shape that the U.S. Hitler got results, whatever his methods.
    3. Encouraged the physical well-being of its citizens, to great effect. Germany, the host nation in the 1936 Olympics, won more medals, by far, than any other country. The U.S., a much larger country, was a distant second. and despite the BULLSHIT you will hear, it was Franklin Roosevelt who snubbed Jesse Owens, not Adolph Hitler.
    From the ancient Greeks we get the idea of “a sound mind in a sound body.” NS Germany evidently promoted this idea as matter of national policy. What they meant by “a sound mind” is another question… The U.S. never had a “President’s Council on Physical Fitness,” nor an anti-smoking campaign, until the late 1950s, late in the Eisenhower administration.
    4. Built infrastructure projects, such as the autobahns, which U.S. “aped” in the 1950s with the Interstate Highway System, Gen Eisenhower having witnessed the Autobahnen at first hand. In fairness, the U.S also built significant infastructure during t 1930s, such as Hoover Dam and the Golden Gate Bridge.
    5. Criminal law and law enforcement:

    In the sphere of ordinary criminal law, Nazi justice, however severe, has undoubtedly got noteworthy results. Under the Weimar Republic, crime was widespread. Old American residents of Berlin have told me about the conditions which then prevailed. Burglaries, holdups, and petty thieving were common. The poorer quarters of Berlin were unsafe for well-dressed pedestrians at night.

    Today, Berlin is one of the safest cities in the world for even the most prosperous-appearing person. The general blackout makes no difference. I remember how Dr. Froelich laughed when I asked him about this. “You bet our streets are safe,” he said. “And I’ll tell you why. Any holdup or robbery during the blackout hours is punished with death. The case comes before a special court, and two hours after a verdict of guilty, the offender’s head is off on the guillotine!”

    All this came at a price:

    They revealed an incredibly regimented life. He needed a permit (Ausweis) to be on the streets after 8.00 P.M.; to drive a car at all, and another to drive at night; also at least a dozen others, some of these being to get raw materials and shipping privileges. Jokingly, I asked him whether he didn’t need an Ausweis to kiss his wife. He laughed and said: “Not yet, but it may come to that!”

    All quotes are from the Stoddard book.
    Thanks to Ron Unz for making the book readily available here.

    To my mind, reading this book by Sir Arthur Bryant (said to be Winson Churchill’s favorite historian):
    https://www.unz.com/book/arthur_bryant__unfinished-victory/

    as well as the Stoddard book, will go a long way to explain the plight, and the likely mindset, of the people of Germany during the 1920s and 1930s.

    Thanks to Mr. Unz for posting them both.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
    , @S
  301. Seraphim says:
    @C.T.

    Who are the damned that Christ would “cast into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth” at the end of the world? You seem to suggest that there are the unbaptized children. Of course nowhere the Gospels say that. He talks about offenders and lawless people, criminals. Those who harm little children, among them:
    ‘At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? 2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, 3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. 4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. 6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. 7 Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!” (Matthew 18:1-7).
    You transfer your hatred for your parents to Christ. You are pitiable.

    • Replies: @C.T.
  302. C.T. says: • Website
    @Seraphim

    You’re wrong.

    I started my blogging career in the counter-jihad, which is full of conservative Christians. At that time, I so believed that protecting the West against Islam involved the defence of Christianity, that I removed a criticism of St Francis in one of my blogs. What made me change my attitude towards religion was not my parents (that’s a spurious psychoanalysis on your part), but the words of a conservative Swede I read in 2009 at Gates of Vienna:

    https://chechar.wordpress.com/2012/02/21/red-giant/

    Regarding your words, ‘You seem to suggest that there are the unbaptized children. Of course nowhere the Gospels say that’, it seems you have in mind something I wrote some time ago, referring to the position on the eternal damnation of infants according to St. Augustine and Luther. For the latter, it was vital to baptise children to save them from damnation, in case they died prematurely.

    It is their theology, not mine.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  303. @turtle

    Dr. Franz Guertner, Minister of Justice under Hitler: “the National Socialist doctrine: Gemeinnutz vor Eigennutz–The Common Weal before individual advantage. It dominates National Socialist policy, and its natural corollary is that the rights of the individual must be subordinated to those of the community. The protection enjoyed by individuals is not based on the assumption that their particular rights are sacrosanct and inviolable, but rather on the fact that all of them are regarded as valuable members of the national community, and therefore deserve protection.”

    Turtle: “As an American by birth and a Libertarian by inclination, I find this concept utterly repugnant.”

    You are not only an American by birth but an American by mentality. I’m an American by birth also, yet I find Guertner’s description to be pleasing and beautifully stated. So why the difference? That you’ve chosen to be Libertarian. Yeah, libertarianism sounds good, but it results in bad consequences, such as there can be no racial basis for society, no genetically-based nations. Isn’t this exactly what Jews want for the world at large – free entry for everyone? When all emphasize their individuality, there can be no true community.

    Odd how you list all the ways the German leader did a better job than the U.S. leader, yet one thing ruins it all for you:

    They revealed an incredibly regimented life. He needed a permit (Ausweis) to be on the streets after 8.00 P.M.; to drive a car at all, and another to drive at night; also at least a dozen others, some of these being to get raw materials and shipping privileges.

    Really amazing–did you forget it was wartime? And that it’s common practice to require a permit to drive a car! As to driving at night and the after-8-pm curfew, Germany was under a blackout because of war with Poland, France and Britain at that time. Secret agents and saboteurs were not uncommon.

    In the U.S., as soon as FDR got his declaration of war in Dec. 1941, the country reverted to a war footing. There were brownouts, food rationing w/ration cards or coupons, even in my smallish town in central Illinois, plus lots of propaganda posters warning citizens to watch what they say and buy war bonds. Censorship went into operation and the military draft was begun. My father was drafted. People the government didn’t like were imprisoned under sedition laws. Consumer industry was switched to war industry. Women went to work.

    To try to explain a little how I see it — quite a number of years ago I was reading online a passage from Ingrid Zundel’s book detailing her Volga Russia Germans’ flight westward from the Soviets toward the end of WWII. She was just a young girl. When she told of how comforted they were when joined by armed infantrymen from the Wehrmacht, who stayed with them to protect them, with even some planes in the sky, such a wave of love and pure happiness shot through me. I can still feel it; just to experience that is enough to make a life worth living. The NS doctrine: Gemeinnutz vor Eigennutz in action. You can have your libertarianism. It seems to have made you a rather unhappy and unfulfilled individual.

    Try reading Erhard Wittik’s “Long Day’s Journey into Night – The Death March of Lowicz” to get a feels for Germans who actually love and value their fellow Germans, and look out for one another. Highly recommended, very moving: https://wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/longnightsjourney/lnjid00.html

    • Replies: @turtle
    , @Fox
  304. turtle says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Carolyn-
    Your link looks interesting.
    I’ll book mark it for future reference.

    libertarianism sounds good, but it results in bad consequences

    LOL. I think you could say the same of many other ideologies, no matter how “idealistic” they seem at first glance. I should have at least spelled “libertarian” using lower case, since I am not a member of any organized movement.
    I do believe that government is a) necessary (unlike some of the more whacked out “libertarians”), and b) inherently inefficient, due to its nature. So, I think we should keep government as small as possible while still providing essential functions that can only be provided by humans acting in concert. I f government were a “heat engine” it would have a very low thermal efficiency, producing much waste heat and comparatively little work. So, I am no “socialist,” National or otherwise, nor Communist, because, as I see it, such ideologies are based on the premise of a large government, which will be inherently inefficient, as with any large organization, public or private.

    That said, do I believe one of the shortcomings of our society (contemporary U.S.) is a lack of concern for other individuals, and the mistaken belief that “anything goes” in dealing with our fellow human beings. Enlightened self-interest involves the realization that we are members of a community.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
    , @Incitatus
  305. Fox says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    When reading turtle’s comment, my thoughts went along the same lines as yours. The time of the Stoddart interview was in 1940, hence the time of war with extarordinary measures in place to assure public safety and order (such as blackouts).
    Such German measures to maintain safety and order are in the popular conception of things always totalitarian, dictatorial, unfair, unwarranted, brutal, etc., while similar measures on the side of the Allies are justified, not discussed or sidelined. The Germans always “cause”, the Allies always “react” as the essence of this conception of history. In it, there is buried the belief in the whole Allied wartime narrative, even if not always consciously so. The psychological program, started even before the war, to produce a false historical narrative was quite successful, apparently, and is constantly repeated and cycled through the propaganda generator to maintain, keep fresh and expand it.
    There is something extremely pathetic about it.

    The book you are recommending I’ll read.

    • Thanks: Carolyn Yeager
    • Replies: @S
    , @turtle
  306. S says:
    @Fox

    The Germans always “cause”, the Allies always “react” as the essence of this conception of history. In it, there is buried the belief in the whole Allied wartime narrative, even if not always consciously so. The psychological program, started even before the war, to produce a false historical narrative was quite successful, apparently…

    In 1933 the Englishman H G Wells wrote and had published The Shape of Things to Come. The book’s plot is that World War II would start in January, 1940 over conflict between Poland and Germany in regards to the Danzig question. This world war would in time include the United States fighting Japan.

    Based on Well’s book and with Well’s being the scriptwriter, in 1936 the movie Things to Come was released. Alexander Korda, who was Jewish, would finance it’s production as the movie’s executive producer.

    As with the book, the world war starts in 1940. The barely masked Germans are shown to have started an undeclared war by way of a Christmas Eve aerial bombardment upon England.

    Later the Germans are shown poison gassing British villages, and finally unleashing biological warfare upon the Earth killing over half the world’s population. This directly results in civilization’s regressing to a medieval like dark age of localized warlords fighting for turf, that is, until the ‘new order’ takes things in hand.

    Just a case of well thought out ‘dumb luck’ on Well’s part, or was he writing about a world war that had already been planned?

    Below is a quote from the 1936 movie, since cut out of many modern prints of the film.

    It’s a description (as Well’s saw it) of the nature of the future war which is to be fought against Germany and the German people.

    ‘No, its, it’s not a war. It’s extermination of dangerous vermin. A vermin hunt without pause or pity.’

    In 1940 the movie Things to Come was re-released in Britain to huge crowds, as the movie going public there believed Wells had ‘prophecied’ the world war. [If interested, see the two comment links below for more on Well’s book and film.]

    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/corona-will-kill-millions-crater-the-world-economy/#comment-3746228

    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/corona-will-kill-millions-crater-the-world-economy/#comment-3747669

    • Replies: @Fox
  307. turtle says:
    @Fox

    is constantly repeated and cycled through the propaganda generator to maintain, keep fresh and expand it.

    Absolutely true, and as you have said, pathetic.
    Anything to demonize Germany and all things German, regardless.
    The propaganda war continues to this day.
    Thus, when G.B. make a conscious decision to murder German civilians via aerial bombardment, it is excused as “the only thing they could do,” but when Germany responds in kind, using rockets instead of bombers, it is “evil.”

    Point taken on air raid blackouts, etc.

  308. S says:
    @turtle

    They revealed an incredibly regimented life. He needed a permit (Ausweis) to be on the streets after 8.00 P.M.; to drive a car at all, and another to drive at night; also at least a dozen others, some of these being to get raw materials and shipping privileges.

    As the United States wasn’t at war at the time, the rationing likely was a bit jolting to Stoddard’s peacetime sensibilities.

    Once the US entered the war not dissimilar strict rationing/controls were placed upon gasoline, tires, shoes, clothing, food, etc, in America as well.

    • Replies: @turtle
  309. Malacay says:
    @Vaterland

    I can’t speak for the Poles, Czechs or the Greeks, but Germans are the ones who have commercially profited the most from EU. I see thousands of our Croatian medical and other workers fleeing to Germany and other northern states because the pay is much better there. It effects our standard of medical and any other care or service. And let’s not forget: northern states haven’t invested anything in those people, whereas we, as a collective, schooled them and paid for for their schooling and nurtured them since their birth basically. Surely you can see the cost and benefit balance there. It’s not that hard.

    As for “Holy Roman Empire,” that you cannot have. You are oblivious to your Germanic history obviously, but more importantly — to Roman history. It can be holy or unholy European Empire, but never Roman. Roman cores were Rome and Constantinople and Roman culture belongs to Mediterranean lands. Are you aware how demented, deranged and crazed it sounds to bestow something your forefathers labored to destroy on you — one of heirs of Germanic history? Dutch too, of course, are heirs of Germanic history: their ancestors also labored to destroy that you would like to bestow on yourself without even knowing what it means. You are such Judaics. Is there anything Germanic wouldn’t betray or sell? Sure you don’t mind selling your own ancestors. Roman civilization belongs to another time. Our world was destroyed long time ago. But we remember. And honor them. As long as Roman history, leaders and the rest is remembered and honored, it lives. Any attempt at using Roman name can only be considered blasphemous. It is European Empire we ought to concentrate on.

    I seriously doubt that vast majority of Dutchies are very friendly toward Germany. If they were friendly, they would have been on German side, especially in the matters of such great importance as the wars are. On whose side Dutch were? Not on German right? And I bet not only in those great wars but in previous ones too. Dutch would cooperate with Muslim Turks against Germanic Habsburgs in order to gain something or benefit themselves. Aren’t they such great Germanics? Selling or betraying not only their fellow Christians but fellow Germanics too in order to make a profit. The root cause is merchant behavior which is deeply opportunistic, highly immoral and utterly disgusting. It has no honor. There is no way someone without honor could ever be loved, cherished or adored. It’s the very nature (and common sense too) that dictates that simple truth.

    I see you mention Poles and Greeks and Czechs. Why not Italics too? Greeks never invaded us. They have no sea or land aspirations toward us. We lived alongside Greeks for thousands of years. Never warred against one another. Italics, who did not want to have anything Greek on Italic Apennine peninsula (mind you, not only Sicily was Greek but all of southern Italia all the way to Neapolis, Capua and Cumae; that was known in the past as Magna Graecia), have somehow imagined they could on our homeland, on Haemus Mons peninsula, but since they couldn’t get it alone they had you to give it to them (you even invaded Greece on their behalf if you recall, and had us to sign an agreement by which Italics were given our part of our homeland, which we, at first suitable moment, discarded and chased away Italics (although we didn’t cut off and forced them to eat their own balls like those Ethiopians did) so Italic occupation of Illyrian homeland was short. We are of Roman civilization, not Italic one. During those centuries that we were fighting Turskih Muslim invaders, Italics behaved the same way Dutch have: as opportunists always eager to profit. That shouldn’t be surprising since there were many Jewish houses in Venetian ruling patricians; many carry Germanic names like the Warburgs for instance, which were known as Venetian Jewish del Banco family. These were your friends who financed Protestantism, Reformation et al. People from whom you learned to be Judaics and behave like the best merchants. Just look at Dutch and Anglos, don’t they resemble Judaics well? Why I am telling you all this? To understand historical context which shapes great many things, some of which involve very stances on various things, among which is liking or disliking someone. History is as important as behavior itself. We don’t hate you, have no reason for it (Italics would be much more deserving of hate; luckily they are on their peninsula which puts that story to rest). Poles and Greeks have historical reasons to resent you, although I doubt they hate you. It is obvious that you resent Poles too. Why is that? Because you failed to colonize them? Czechs are despicable people, worse than Anglos, Dutch or le French. Them (and Magyars) are behaviorally disliked. I am no friend of Slavs some of whom I deeply despise and profoundly dislike (like the mentioned Chechs), but Poles and Ukranians are the kinds we like.

  310. turtle says:
    @S

    the rationing likely was a bit jolting to Stoddard’s peacetime sensibilities.

    No doubt that is true. However, Stoddard writes at length, and with evident admiration for, the German system of rationing, whilst bemoaning the shortage of customary items, particularly foodstuffs, e.g. butter and coffee.

    I am aware of U.S. shortages and rationing during WWII, partly through personal recollections of my own parents and those of their generation. Ersatz was a word familiar to Americans, as well as Germans, in those days, from what I have heard.

    If you’ve not read the Stoddard book in its entirety, I highly recommend it. It seems remarkable to me that an American could have gained access to life in Germany, and been allowed to publish his impressions without apparent restriction, even in 1940. Clearly, this would have been impossible in 1942, and possibly even in 1941, though the U.S. was not yet (officially) at war with Germany until Dec 1941.

    • Replies: @S
    , @Carolyn Yeager
  311. Malacay says:

    Speaking of European Empire, are you Germans aware what is going to happen in not too distant future? Take a look at temperature map during the Maunder Minimum and see where the temperature drop was the steepest. I think a drop of around 8 Celsius can be expected in Germany during the approaching Minima. We are about to go into another Solar Minimum. Not only that but we are in a very rare event which happens every 12.000 years. We are talking about magnetic reversal, and at the end of ongoing magnetic reversal we shall enter into a new glacial period hopefully. It always goes in the cycles; everything in universe goes in cycles. All this means that you will need to migrate from Germany toward place which is warmer and on can produce food. Luckily we have land on Haemus Mons peninsulae, so we’ll take you. Of course this would be much easier if northerners would be willing to make sacrifices, then many things here on peninsula and elsewhere in the south could be achieved. Hopefully some still can. You get along well with people from our world, so there won’t be problem settling in. There are also Ukranians who possess one of the most fertile lands in the world, but Tatar nomads who call themselves Russkies because they are of Russian culture have parasitic dreams of colonizing them: want Ukranian land desperately. Would like to colonize Ukranian people too of course if possible. Luckily though Ukranians hate them. Europe as it is has no landmass strength to be a viable empire. Who do you think is responsible for that? A worthy leader of Europe would have expelled Muslim invaders not only from Europe but Anatolia too (at very least), but Germanic ones we cursed with are cooperating and forming brotherhoods with Muslimes.

  312. Seraphim says:
    @C.T.

    I was referring to the link you provided, that I took the pain to read (noticing the glaring contradictions). You offered yourself the psychoanalytical approach. It is not your attitude towards ‘religion’, but towards Christianity that you call ‘criminal’ somewhere else, parroting all the heavy-metal Viking, White, you name it, ‘warriors’ for ‘White Nationalism’.
    That’s not to say that Augustinian theology and its spawn Protestantism is not marred by egregious errors which have nothing to do with Orthodox Christianity, but shaped the world view of the ‘West’ (the doctrine of the essentially sinful nature of man – which would imply that God created man sinful and condemned to hell, debasing man to the condition of unthinking animal -, and of predestination, which implies that God arbitrarily chose some for salvation, which are both blasphemies).

    • Replies: @C.T.
  313. C.T. says: • Website
    @Seraphim

    I was referring to the link you provided, that I took the pain to read…

    You mean the book Day of Wrath? or the Swede’s article ‘The Red Giant’?

    …parroting all the heavy-metal Viking, White, you name it…

    I hate rock music, as you can see in the many articles categorized under ‘degenerate art’ in my blogsite. Regarding the term ‘criminal’ it’s not mine, but Karlheinz Deschner’s book that I translated, Christianity’s Criminal History:

    https://caesartort.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/krim_rev.pdf

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  314. S says:
    @turtle

    Yes, I’ve had the opportunity to read his book. It is a fascinating look at wartime journey from the ‘inside’.

    Stoddard did comment at length about the shortage of ‘fats’ in the German diet if I recall. While a person does likely indeed need fat in their diet, to the extent Stoddard went on about it I almost wonder if that was a 30’s era ‘fad’ as to dietary needs, in the same way ‘low cholesterol’ diets were something of a ‘fad’ for decades.

    I suspect German rationing was likely somewhat ‘tighter’ as to allotted amounts as Germany simply wasn’t as wealthy resource wise as the US.

    Control of movement may well have been a bit harsher too, in part because Germany had a different security situation than the US, ie it borders were often contiguous with it’s enemies, who were also a lot closer. The United States had the two oceans as a buffer.

    The access he had to Germany after the war’s start as a relatively neutral U.S. citizen surprised me too.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  315. Malacay says:

    We have Muslimes in eastern Illyricum who call themselves Bosnians (after a river Bosona as a proof of their advanced Muslim intelligence). Albanians are also Muslims and they too need to be returned into Christendom. This situation didn’t take a few years to form, but centuries. And in this instance all can see the brilliance of Germanic leadership yet again: instead of assisting to heal our world by helping to punish and return those who turned their back on Christian world, who abandoned their savior, Germanics instead opted for tolerance with Muslims and later on decided to adopt policies which would replicate our shattered world onto themselves. Now, how do you think Muslims converted such a large landmass from India to Spain and in record time? By being tolerant? Tolerance is the refuge of those who are either undecided regarding an issue, or who are ignorant, cowardly, indoctrinated or stupid. The former waits for additional info before taking action, while the latter isn’t even aware of the situation. Liberals fall into second category, while the first one is for those who make strategic decisions, ramifications of which are always colossal, so they naturally wait as long as they can before making a decision.

    That said, what do you think would be the fastest way to turn them back into Christendom? Think. It’s called carrot and stick scheme, meaning it uses combination of reward and punishment for achieving some goal(s), in our case: a fast conversion. It works well on humanoids, as most humanoids are bipedal mammals. So what could be a carrot? The punishment is easy: one only needs to take care that it is administered justly so it doesn’t produce a feeling of abuse, inequality or undeserved cruelty. These things can form a long lasting resistance. So what ought to be carrot then? Food. The basic need. Most humanoids, what my observation and study has taught me, are scum. Do you know what scum is? Scum is an animal from class of mammalia which always travels on the path of least resistance, meaning that alongside lack of mental fortitude of any kind they also show lack of moral convictions, displaying nothing but the care for comfort of their own skin and their personal well-being (you can call them liberals for liberals are that collective in Europa and Merica which exhibits the exact behavior). All animals display this primal care, but only those who wield mental force in terms of intelligence and will go beyond it. So this is the fastest path of conversion of the forlorn. Just a good old stick and carrot scheme.

    • Replies: @Braveheart
  316. @turtle

    Well, I’m disappointed in your dodgy reply. You ignore the most important point I made about libertarianism — which is that “there can be no racial basis for society, no genetically-based nations.” I add, “Isn’t this exactly what Jews want for the world at large – free entry for everyone?”
    You ignore this. Can only be because you don’t care about race, or about Jews. You only care about your political philosophy of small government and energy efficiency. I have a nephew who thinks just that way–he hates socialism too. I tell him that national socialism is a very different animal, but he is really not interested in thinking about it because he’s happy the way he is. He says he isn’t a racist and doesn’t think Jews are the problem, no matter what I send to him that proves otherwise. He says all Jews aren’t alike. I think you are the same. He is Catholic, so also doesn’t want to be at odds with his Church, and I think you are Lutheran, but probably non-observant.

    Enlightened self-interest involves the realization that we are members of a community.

    So what community do you consider yourself a member of? Maybe the Unz community, lol? No, I think you are a loner and lonely. What would be your ideal community?

  317. @turtle

    What you do in your comments is reveal how ignorant you are, and have been throughout your life, about Germany/Germans even though you profess an ancestral connection to the German nation.

    It is not at all remarkable that an American writer (LS), known to be fair-minded, was invited into the country to freely write and publish his impressions. This is something the NS information service wanted in order to counteract the lies told about their regime and the actual condition and happiness of the people. Clearly, you have believed nothing but American propaganda your entire life, and now act like it’s a revelation to everyone! No, it’s a revelation to you, and you should let it continue with a little more humility than you’ve shown so far. You actually ought to be red-faced instead of so prideful.

    • Replies: @turtle
  318. Seraphim says:
    @C.T.

    You endorse this view and obviously love it since you dedicated so much time to translate that book and warmly recommend it, despite its glaring historical amateurism, regurgitating all the poncifs of the undying Judeo-Protestant anti-Christian brigade. I do not doubt that you find ammunition for your quarrel with your father!

    • Replies: @C.T.
  319. @S

    While a person does likely indeed need fat in their diet, to the extent Stoddard went on about it I almost wonder if that was a 30’s era ‘fad’

    The shortage of fats in the German diet/economy was indeed severe and health-impairing. It was the hateful Europeans who joined together to withhold from Germany, led by the British brutes and their sea embargoes, that were responsible for this. Germany had always imported butter, etc. from the Netherlands, for example, and now was cut off. Fats are more important that you seems to know, but it’s common to think humans don’t need much, or that it’s unhealthy. Not true! It was a serious, serious concern for the leadership, as they really did care about and act in behalf of the people’s needs. Many deaths were attributed to slow “nutritional starvation,” largely from a lack of fat.

  320. C.T. says: • Website
    @Seraphim

    Forget my father. The fact is that Deschner’s original Christianity’s Criminal History in German consists of 10 volumes, replete with thousands of scholarly endnotes. Incidentally, there’s a photo of Deschner as a young man in Nazi uniform (he was born in 1920s and died this decade).

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  321. @Malacay

    “Albanians are also Muslims and they too need to be returned into Christendom. ”

    How about returned to Asia?

    • Replies: @Malacay
  322. turtle says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Not dodging anything.

    there can be no racial basis for society

    While it may be possible to have a “racial basis” for society, I believe in the American ideal of “performance based,” rather than “hereditarily based” membership in society. We have a long tradition in this country of accepting any who wish to come here, provided they agree to play according to our rules. “Diversity” is NOT “our strength.” Shared (political, and to a lesser extent, social) values are our strength, in my opinion, which is why it is imperative that we have control over who comes here, under what circumstances, and for what purpose.

    Are there shared characteristics of various national or ethnic groups? Sure, I would say so. But, it’s not exclusive, at least in my opinion. Anyone who can “cut the mustard” should be given the opportunity to do so.

    what Jews want

    I have no idea “what Jews want,” nor do I care. I am not a member of their tribe, so I really do not give a rat’s arse about “Jewish concerns.” The so-called “State of Israel” is Just Another Middle Eastern Shithole, to me. I also do not like whiners, so I get a bellyful real quick of people who always complain, no matter who those people might be.

    all Jews aren’t alike

    All humans aren’t alike. While stereotypes do have a basis in fact, I do my best to deal with everyone I meet as an individual, and give them the benefit of the doubt, until or unless I find out they are not worthy of my trust. Those who have earned a place on my personal blacklist will find it very difficult to get off, just as it was difficult to get on.

    I have been pleased to call some Jewish people my friends, in some cases quite close friends. I have met some others who were extremely obnoxious, and some who made little or no impression, one way or another. I think that is the same with any group of people you might care to name. Just my opinion.

    I think you are Lutheran, but probably non-observant.

    Nope. I am agnostic. I have no religious beliefs whatsoever. My momma had her kids baptized, and sent us to Sunday school, but I am not, as an adult, a believing Christian. I am not, however, a militant atheist, and I respect the right of others to entertain whatever religious belief they like, as long as it does not harm me.

    So what community do you consider yourself a member of?

    We are all members of various communities, starting with “the human race,” and extending down to, let’s say, your immediate family, assuming you have one, which some people (orphans) unfortunately do not. I intended the use of the term to be “generic,” meaning we are all members of one or more “communities,” however defined. There is no “ideal community,” in my opinion. Human interaction necessarily always involves compromises. “You can’t always get what you want,” as Mick Jagger put it, long ago.

    I am happy the way I am.

    • Replies: @anarchyst
    , @Carolyn Yeager
  323. turtle says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Stoddard himself remarked on how unusual his access was.
    Another poster on this site also found it surprising, so I hardly think I am alone in that regard.

    Clearly, you have believed nothing but American propaganda your entire life, and now act like it’s a revelation

    My struggle, I suppose.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  324. Seraphim says:
    @C.T.

    The fact that there are 10 volumes of the same highly biased ‘history’ (material for an indictment of Christianity at a trial for genocide and crimes against humanity – I wonder whether he put paedophilia among the crimes) and that he was a soldier does not add much to his credibility (neither that his friend and patron who financed his work was an Alfred Schwarz).

  325. Fox says:
    @S

    I didn’t know about this story, and the film based on it, by Wells. Others, including Churchill, also thought that the Polish Corridor and Danzig were going to be the flash point of a future war; no one did anything about it, however. That makes one think that it was held as a strategic asset to steer things in the future.
    The language Wells uses to talk about Germans in his novel is shocking; that’s not something one would ever hear from a German. I have read similar sentiments expressed by Hillaire Belloc, and other people of whom one wouldn’t suspect such things to be harbored. This goes back to the hate propaganda produced in the First War. It should have been realized that one cannot fan the flames of such hellish hatred and then expect it to be just laughed off as a big joke when it has done its purpose.
    I think Churchill thought of it that way, hence he voiced around 1950 in Parliament (I think I read that in Emery Hughes’ British Bulldog) that he (Churchill) thought that the wartime sentiments of hatred against the German people should be ended, as the war was over and there was no need for them anymore. (I am quoting from memory)
    That’s in my opinion a statement that encapsulates Churchill’s essence: He looked at it all as a giant game the master of which was he. He could distance himself from it all, he could also take money from people to bail him out and do their bidding in exchange, even if it meant making a 180 degree turn in the “principles”.
    There is good reason to believe that a war against Germany was being prepared for as early as 1934 with the conception of long-range bombers in Britain. There was on the one hand a consciousness of the dangerous situation that had been created by the Dictate Peace of Versailles, and there was on the other hand no inclination to make concessions to Germany either during the time of the Weimar Republic or during the Chancellorship of Adolf Hitler. Only when a policy of strength was pursued any concessions were made, but apparently not in good faith or out of good sense or good statemanship. Any concession made was done so with resentment. They never accepted it in their heart that handing over nearly four million Germans to the Czechs was indecent, or that the will of the Austrians to join the German Republic as fellow Germans ought to have been respected, or that giving the Poles a slice of German land with all of its inhabitants so that Poland would have access to the coast was plainly wrong and arrogant, or that simply not caring about Lithuania’s occupation of the Memel Country in 1923 and then recognizing it was an evil thing to do. These are not the only sins committed, but they show sufficiently a mindset that was uncaring and dismissive of any German concerns. This hasn’t changed even today, as the principal wrongness of the treatment of Germany after the First War is not admitted to.

    • Replies: @turtle
    , @S
  326. Incitatus says:
    @turtle

    “That said, do I believe one of the shortcomings of our society (contemporary U.S.) is a lack of concern for other individuals, and the mistaken belief that “anything goes” in dealing with our fellow human beings. Enlightened self-interest involves the realization that we are members of a community.”

    Inspirational. Try “Commonwealth” (Massachusetts, Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania).

    Here’s what Carolyn’s NSDAP Germany thought about “individuals”:

    “Individualism will be conquered and in place of the individual and its deification, the Volk will emerge. The Volk stands in the center of all things. The revolution is conquering the Volk and public life, imprinting its stamp on culture, economy, politics and private life. It would be naïve to believe that art could remain exempt from this…[Art can no longer] claim to be apolitical or nonpartisan. It [can] not claim to have loftier goals than politics…[in earlier times artists] might claim the right to ignore politics, but not at this historic moment…[the goal of the régime and Germany’s artists must be nothing less than to] conquer the soul of the nation.”
    – Joseph Göbbels speech to German Theatre Representatives Mar 1933 [Childers ‘The Third Reich’ p.297]

    Who determined the Deutsche ‘Volk’ turtle? Clubfoot Joe and Austrian felon/vagabond Hitler? Thug Himmler? Nut case Rosenburg? Their (revolutionary) words, their whim determines fate? They killed tens of millions. No greater shame. Sorry.

    PS Is ‘libertarian’ a fancy label for a dysfunctional anarchist? A bomb-thrower unable to target the problem? Just asking. Maybe Bund-Deutscher-Mädel Carolyn has a better answer?

    Stay well, turtle.

    • Replies: @turtle
    , @Carolyn Yeager
  327. turtle says:
    @Fox

    There is good reason to believe that a war against Germany was being prepared for as early as 1934 with the conception of long-range bombers in Britain.

    This video:

    from ~9:00 to 18:00 tends to support that assertion.

  328. turtle says:
    @Incitatus

    Perhaps I am just dense, but I see very little difference in practice between the “collectivism” of Soviet Communism and the “collectivism” of NS Germany. Both appear to me to be based, fundamentally, on subjugation of the individual, while cloaking their authoritarian “principles” (if you can call them that) in fancy language which professes to have the interest of “the people” at heart. Pure rubbish, and generally murderous rubbish, as we have seen, in both cases.

    I’ll take radio station WIFM (What’s In it For Me) in preference.
    That said, it’s a smaller world than many people realize, and whatever goes around, comes around. Ergo, fouling your nest reflects poor judgment, and in today’s global society, the world is your nest.

    But, there is a more philosophical, or perhaps ethical, interpretation, if you like.
    That is, that we have a choice as to how we live our lives. We can allow ourselves to be ruled by what the late Prof. Sagan referred to as the “reptilian brain,” (social Darwinism) or we can acknowledge that we, as humans, are capable of more than that. It’s our choice.

    Try “Commonwealth”

    And your point is?
    Does a “Commonwealth” do better by its citizens than a “State?”
    Just asking…

    dysfunctional anarchist

    LOL. You repeat yourself, my friend. IMO, all anarchists are dysfunctional. Put three humans in a room, you have got politics, whether you want them or not. Best thing to do is keep the meetings small enough to actually get something done, rather than dissipate energy in useless “political friction.”

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  329. Truth3 says:

    Germany in 1933 was fed up with Jewish Weimar.

    The NSDAP was the choice of nearly all real Germans, and for good reason.

    To assure that Germany would survive long enough to rebuild it’s industry and defend itself from the USSR and Britain and France, Der Fuhrer rebuilt German industry focusing on defense.

    The motivation of the German people was very simple, they suffered from the Jews running Weimar, and the Allies cruelty in post WWI. To be able to work and feed their children meant everything to them.

    • Agree: Carolyn Yeager
    • Replies: @anarchyst
  330. anarchyst says:
    @turtle

    You make a very good point about being a part of a common culture and conforming to the social mores of our culture.

    There used to be a time when just about ANY immigrant who set upon the shores of America was not only grateful, but willing to shed his “old world” ways and support his adopted country.

    He might have not known the language, and found some American customs and practices “strange”, but he fully embraced the idea that he could be an AMERICAN.

    He not only embraced the American ideal, but made damn sure that his children fully appreciated the land in which they were born. His children were expected to learn English and become a part of American society.

    Contrast that to today’s immigrants, who are only concerned about one thing–American dollars or shekels.

    Today’s immigrants care not one wit about the founding principles of this country, the Constitutional principles in which our rights are endowed by our Creator, that our rights are not granted by government but are inherent in us being human, and that the most important thing about being an American is the sense of freedom that he doesn’t want for himself or his offspring.

    Today’s immigrants brings their “old-world” customs and squabbles here, demanding that us native-born Americans kowtow to them and change THEIR ways to accommodate his “old-world” ways.

    Their children are not encouraged to become Americans and fully assimilate, but are required to maintain their “old-world” customs and ways, even if they run counter to American customs and mores. These old-world customs and ways quite often are criminal in nature, and do nothing to endear him to native-born Americans. They just do not want to assimilate.

    Today’s immigrants do not deserve to be here and should go back to where they came from.

    Yes, this especially includes jews, many of who were born here…but hold allegiance to israel.

    • Thanks: turtle
  331. anarchyst says:
    @Truth3

    I could have not said it better myself…

    Let’s not forget that vile book “Germany Must Perish” by jew author Theodore N. Kaufman.

    This vile jew advocated the total destruction of everything German–culture, architecture, history, music, language, and everything else associated with Germany.

    His “final solution” to the “German problem” was mandatory, complete sterilization of every German–no exceptions.

    Now, who could blame Germany for wanting to rid itself of this vile parasitical element living in their society?

    Here is an excerpt from this vile tome:

    Germany has lost its war. She sues for peace. The imperative demands of the victor people that Germany must perish forever makes it obligatory for the leaders to select mass sterilization of the Germans as the best means of wiping them out permanently. They proceed to:

    1. Immediately and completely disarm the German army and have all armaments removed from German territory.

    2. Place all German utility and heavy industrial plants under heavy guard, and replace German workers by those of Allied nationality.

    3. Segregate the German army into groups, concentrate them in severely restricted areas, and summarily sterilize them.

    4. Organize the civilian population, both male and female, within territorial sectors, and effect their sterilization.

    5. Divide the German army (after its sterilization has been completed) into labor battalions, and allocate their services toward the rebuilding of those cities which they ruined.

    6. Partition Germany and apportion its lands. The accompanying map gives some idea of possible land adjustments which might be made in connection with Germany’s extinction.

    7. Restrict all German civilian travel beyond established borders until all sterilization has been completed.

    8. Compel the German population of the apportioned territories to learn the language of its area, and within one year to cease the publication of all books, newspapers and notices in the German language, as well as to restrict German-language broadcasts and discontinue the maintenance of German-language schools.

    9. Make one exception to an otherwise severely strict enforcement of total sterilization, by exempting from such treatment only those Germans whose relatives, being citizens of various victor nations, assume financial responsibility for their emigration and maintenance and moral responsibility for their actions.

    Thus, into an oblivion which she would have visited upon the world, exits Germany.

    Sad to say, this book received rave reviews among jews and others, even in the united States of America.

    For shame…

  332. @turtle

    Whether you are alone is not the point, but whether you are right. Stoddard had of course only heard the American storyline up to then, so he didn’t know that other western journalists were welcomed (without “minders”) in Germany. After all, it wasn’t behind a deep, dark Iron Curtain but was an open society. The German people were a free people, even if traditionally a little more regimented than the USA. German law was in force.
    One other poster here agreed with you … and another – me – disagreed. “S” is expressing an un-expert opinion, just like you are.

    • Replies: @S
  333. @turtle

    I believe in the American ideal of “performance based,” rather than “hereditarily based” membership in society.

    There you go again, being obtuse. The National Socialist order was absolutely not “hereditarily based”. It was merit based to a greater extent than in America, which even today is still to some degree an oligarchy. So on that score, the NS Germans were ahead of the libertarian Americans.

    We have a long tradition in this country of accepting any who wish to come here …

    You’re so right, all those Russian and Eastern Jews who flooded in from 1890 to 1910, and most settled right there in New York. Made it their own. They didn’t ‘assimilate.’

    Shared (political, and to a lesser extent, social) values are our strength, in my opinion

    Just what my nephew thinks! But political beliefs are changeable, while race & nationality are not. Those who come here make new decisions over who can come here; they can change those earlier rules. It should have been made constitutional that this is a White, European country …

    Anyone who can “cut the mustard” should be given the opportunity to do so.

    But “anyone” doesn’t stay a singular being, but he proliferates and his offspring may not “cut the mustard” so then what? It’s a dangerous concept. That’s where your “individualist” ideas lead to. Nothing should be about the individual, but about the race or nation of which an individual is a part. That way, you keep a steady course that you can count on, and life runs smoothly. I think the great German achievers you admire from the past thought that way.

    Your views on Jews are abominable. “All Jews aren’t alike — all humans aren’t alike.” Ah, the fallacy of “Humanity,” and the “human race.” It’s like saying all animals are a single group with individual differences! Jews are alike in many ways, as Germans are alike in many ways. Japanese are alike in many ways. So let’s keep them separate and all is well. Everyone is happy with that except Jews. Why do you think Jews are not?

    After reading this comment, though I appreciate your candor, I understand why you don’t usually say much–it’s because the more you say, the more boring you become. Better to pretend an air of mystery around yourself by staying cryptic.

  334. Truth3 says:

    As to Germany’s WWII strategy and operations…

    Germany is (and was) a small (relatively speaking) country in land area relative to it’s population.

    It’s also sandwiched between countries that may have decided to take advantage of Alliances aimed at subjugating the German people, well known for their talents in science, mathematics, engineering, chemisry, and industry.

    To simply rely on the goodwill of their neighbors and the Great Powers behind them (USA, GB, USSR) that would (being Jewish controlled) had ample evil designs on what Germany offered (see the Communist attempts via Rosa Luxemburg and others) the German Fuhrer could not help seeing their reason to attempt to crush Germany beginning in 1933 (see the “Judea Declares War on Germany” historical fact) as the greatest threat to the German Nation in it’s young history.

    Think about that before judging the events from 1933 onward.

    More to follow…

  335. @Incitatus

    The worst habit of the viciously anti-Hitler crowd is the sources they use for giving us the “Nazi” beliefs and ideas. Here we have a quote from Thomas Childers in his book “The Third Reich.” It’s an excerpt from a Goebbels speech that contains three (3) ellipses (…) so we don’t know what was left out. It also contains bracketed paraphrasing after all three ellipses. And we could question the translation since it’s done by a rabid anti-Hitler historian Thomas Childers. So how much can we learn from this?

  336. Malacay says:
    @Braveheart

    No. Vast majority of Albanians are of Illyrian ethnic stock; they were just occupied, nothing else. We don’t abandon our own. We just need to turn them into Christian world again, and while at it make their culture reflection of our own so they can fully integrate in our world which they are part of by blood, by history and by mentality. Only their culture (language which we don’t understand) and religion (which in turn produces a whole collection of cultural differences) stand in the way of integration of southern Illyricum.

  337. Malacay says:

    German behavior toward those eastern Slavs reminds me a lot about behavior central European Slavs have toward us. You know, during Yugo time and after 1990s also, Slovenians have been behaving not only like they were better than us, but have been spitting on our home-world in regular manners. Balkans was something these central European Slavs have been expressing their contempt, disgust and animosity always, and in every segment of society (it wasn’t like behavior was characteristic for uneducated folk; they all, both uneducated and educated behaved in the same manner regarding the Balkans). Their people inside our borders, these kajkavians, sometimes use maps to designate themselves and Istria in northern Dalmatia as part of central European “advanced culture” (as they think of themselves) kajkavian world. They have no problem with Balkans when they can steal, appropriate or take over from Haemus Mons which they profess contempt and disgust of obviously; they have no problem stealing from our citizens who deposited their belonging in their banks too, as the example with Ljubljanska Banka clearly demonstrates. Hundreds of thousands small depositors from the “Balkans” were robbed by these “high culture” Slavic thieves. This people is ever trying to find a scheme which would allow them to pilfer or steal something ours, something which belongs to our peninsulae which they openly state to have aversion and disgust of (of course not when they can steal or appropriate our land, especially our sea. Their people inside our borders, these kajkavian speakers, sometimes like to parade with maps showing Istria and kajkavian lands as part of their Slovenian homeland, like we are ever going to allow these central european Slavic mammals to steal our most sacred things.

    Extremely disgusting people these central European Slavs, but one always must respect ancestral lands of the people, which is why I support Poles and Ukranians in their struggle to keep their ancestral lands — theirs. It is the most sacred right a people have which must be respected. With it comes the duty or obligation not to spread toward others: to only respect theirs, not to seek that which belongs to others. Those lands can be integrated into empires but must always stay attached with a sense of belonging to the plebs. Slavic ancestral lands are in Carpathian basin and northwards, not in Illyricum or elsewhere. Slavs have nothing here except Slavic culture which we adopted. That is something central Europan Slavs like Slovenians, which is probably the most disgusting and despicable Slavic kind of all, ought to respect. It wasn’t us who came to Carpathian lands or northward, it was them who came here. Uninvited and seeking to profit and pilfer Illyrian to this day still. Or perhaps we can exterminate them, since they are so far off their native lands and have no intention to respect Illyrian but instead desire to make or take Illyrian for themselves, i.e. to steal, colonize or appropriate. These central european Slavic crimes can and must be punished accordingly. Slavic dogs must know their place.

  338. S says:
    @Fox

    The language Wells uses to talk about Germans in his novel is shocking; that’s not something one would ever hear from a German.

    Well’s 1936 movie script calling for a war of ‘extermination’ against the film’s barely disguised Germans is indeed shocking.

    The English historical attitude towards Germany has always struck me as illogical when considering the Anglo-Saxon’s own Germanic origins. Being that England is an island does not account for the level of antipathy.

    Of course, dreams of all encompassing global empire held by A-S elites and hangers on, and the necessity of fighting major wars against fellow Europeans (including Germans) to accomplish this, would explain much.

    You would then want to promote amongst the A-S people that everybody else is ‘other’, perhaps most of all in regards to those that are amongst the closest in type, the Germans of Germany. For the Germans, who also hold the much coveted center of power upon continental Europe, demonization of them may be required to get the fighting spirit up of your A-S people.

    In 19th and 20th century times, powerful elements and hangers on of the elites of the Jewish people of the UK would probably tend to have even less qualms than the Anglo-Saxon’s had about demonizing the German people (for much the same reason A-S had been doing so) prior to, and after the world wars.

    There is good reason to believe that a war against Germany was being prepared for as early as 1934 with the conception of long-range bombers in Britain.

    I don’t doubt it, though I would go back at least eighty years earlier (1853), if not earlier still.

    That’s the year the New Rome was published. Inside it describes how the first thing a future US/UK united front will do once formed is unleash a ‘world’s war’ upon the Earth when it makes it’s move to conquer Germany, the center of power upon continental Europe, as part of a larger drive to conquer the entire planet and give birth to a truly all encompassing world state/empire.

    Interestingly, the 1853 book describes how the future US/UK will geo-politically dominate both the water (ie navies/shipping) and the air (military aircraft/commerce) just as Well’s movie does in regards to the ‘World Communications’ organization. The future Anglocentric world state in the Well’s movie is called ‘Wings Over the World’ to emphasize this point.

    Rudolf Steiner, a German thinker, did a series of lectures in Switzerland in 1916 entitled ‘The Karma of untruthfulness, Secret societies, the media, and preparations for the Great War’ which in real time delved into the powerful forces behind WWI.

    Though I couldn’t find it just now, somewhere in this series of lectures he is supposed to have said something along the lines of the World War having been ‘prophecied’ or ‘planned’ well before the actual event.

    Due to that, I almost wonder if he had read the New Rome or, the related A Political Prophecy published in 1912.

    A link below is to a free copy of vol 1 of the Steiner’s 1916 lectures. I believe it was the second lecture of the series which delved into Great Britain, and the power of ‘suggestion’ on the public’s mind, ie such as may have been the purpose of Well’s movie Things to Come, the New Rome book etc.

    While he does speak some of the occult, ie ‘Atlantis’ (I’m not into that) he speaks much more about the power politics behind the scenes driving the war which is fascinating. [Note: I don’t necessarily agree with everything in Steiner’s 1916 lectures, or, everything at the site with the free PDF copy.]

    Interestingly, it took 30 years (1948) for those 1916 lectures to be first published in German, and seventy years (1988) to be first published in English.

    https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/the_new_rome_or_the_united_states_of_the_world_1853

    https://archive.org/details/politicalprophec00goeb/page/n3/mode/2up

    http://www.balderexlibris.com/index.php?post/Steiner-Rudolf-The-Karma-of-untruthfulness-Volume-1

  339. S says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    One other poster here agreed with you … and another – me – disagreed. “S” is expressing an un-expert opinion, just like you are.

    Is anyone an ‘expert’ on the subject? To clarify, I was surprised more that the US let Stoddard travel to Germany, rather than the that the Germans allowed him entry. [This would be similar to how one might expect some difficulty from the US as one of its citizens in gaining entry into Iran, or, Cuba, perhaps.]

    As for the ‘fats’ Stoddard went on (and on) about, I don’t doubt they’re an absolute necessitty, or, that a British blockade wasn’t having a real effect on supply. It just struck me (and I still hold to the possibility) that he was perhaps over-emphasising the direness of the situation a bit, compared to the understanding we have today of nutrition.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
    , @turtle
  340. @Carolyn Yeager

    As a putative member of the “viciously anti-Hitler crowd”, I do relish Incitatus’ terms :

    “Clubfoot Joe and Austrian felon/vagabond Hitler? Thug Himmler? Nut case Rosenberg?”

    Especially that “Clubfoot Joe” incited my good German Schadenfreude. Here are some pictures of “Clubfoot Joe”. Pay attention to his right foot :

  341. @S

    You have no understanding of nutrition, and the understanding you think you have is outdated. I think you may be the “movie-reviewer” S. Clark who I drove away from my cy.net site. His thing is to exhaust everything he can pull out of his memory that is at all German-related, no matter if it barely relates to the topic at hand, and you seem to be doing that here. Whether Stoddard was “overemphasizing the necessity of fats in the diet” is not of major interest here. But the fact is, he was getting that from the Germans themselves. He wasn’t making it up.

  342. turtle says:
    @S

    I was surprised more that the US let Stoddard travel to Germany

    …and publish his findings without censorship, given U.S. establishment “leaning” towards G.B.
    As I stated, free publication of his findings in the U.S would have been out of the question at some (?) time not very far in the future of his visit. Exactly when is unknowable, of course, but one might speculate, were one so inclined.

    • Agree: S
  343. Incitatus says:
    @turtle

    “Perhaps I am just dense”

    No chance, turtle. Someday you’ll get that Colt Python back!

    “I see very little difference in practice between the “collectivism” of Soviet Communism and the “collectivism” of NS Germany”.

    Agree. The view from the bottom is similar. Violent revolutionary movements, savage enforcement. The NSDAP termed 30 Jan 1933 the ‘Tag der Machtergreifung‘ [Day of Seizure of Power]. Gleichschaltung culled/imprisoned/killed all dissenters. They liked violence – it worked for them:

    “Anyone who spreads his ideology by terror and brutality against all force will one day gain power and also the right to bring down the state”
    -Joseph Göbbels ‘Die Strasse’ Nationalsozialistische Briefe 1 Jun 1926 [Longerich ‘Göbbels’ p.83]

    “Once we attain power, we will never give it up until our dead bodies are carried from office”
    – Joseph Göbbels Tagebücher 6 Jul 1932

    Did Joe care about ordinary Germans? Or about himself?

    After 1933 other parties and régime critics (and those caught listening to foreign radio) got 8 months in a KZ. Worse (beheading) after 1 Sep 1939.

    “Both appear to me to be based, fundamentally, on subjugation of the individual, while cloaking their authoritarian “principles” (if you can call them that) in fancy language which professes to have the interest of “the people” at heart. Pure rubbish, and generally murderous rubbish, as we have seen, in both cases.”

    Agree. Regard for the individual (law, opportunity) is a cornerstone of legitimacy. The genius (imperfect) of 1776. Colonial commonwealths set the dialogue prior to Revolution. Building blocks, if you will.

    NSDAP? Here’s what Joe thought about the press, prime mediator (forth estate?) between government and people:

    “[The press should ensure people] think uniformly, react uniformly, and place themselves body and soul at the disposal of the government.
    – Joseph Göbbels, Press Conference 16 Mar 1933 (two days after being sworn Reichsminister) [Burleigh ‘The Third Reich’ p.209]

    Citizen robots. Victims of corrupt/inept leadership.

    Literature PhD Joe – failed author – spent a year in the private sector as a bank clerk before being discharged (PhD Joe didn’t have the CIA to fall back on, S2C). Still, his record is better than Heinie Himmler, agriculture graduate who spent a year as a clerk in a fertilizer plant (making manure) before redundancy led to a new career in violent revolution. Both were instrumental in the new Reich. Did they have ‘issues’? You bet! Did ordinary Germans pay the price? Yes!

    Both committed suicide. They took tens of millions (including ordinary Germans) with them. No perfume Carolyn spreads can disguise that stench of death.

    “You repeat yourself, my friend”

    Sorry. There seems a great preponderance for anarchy, carefully embedded in irrational conspiracy theories or tame labels like ‘libertarian’.

    “IMO, all anarchists are dysfunctional. Put three humans in a room, you have got politics, whether you want them or not. Best thing to do is keep the meetings small enough to actually get something done, rather than dissipate energy in useless “political friction.”

    No expert in WW1, but some might say ‘anarchists’ lit the spark that set off the killing?

    Stay well turtle.

    • Replies: @turtle
  344. Incitatus says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Hi Carolyn,

    “The worst habit of the viciously anti-Hitler crowd is the sources they use for giving us the “Nazi” beliefs and ideas.”

    Do you mean direct principal (your hero) quotes? Please correct them (seriously). Tell us why Childers is suspect. If I recall correctly (not sure these days as I age) you had similar concerns on other mainstream historians. Reason?

    The biggest irony, Carolyn, is your female status under the NSDAP would measure you little different than a sow in a pork farm. Mate and produce cannon fodder! Children, children, children! Win/wear the Mutterkreuz and shut up! Ever think about that?

    Stay well, Carolyn

    • Replies: @Fox
    , @turtle
  345. Fox says:
    @Incitatus

    You have no clue as to the place women held in National Socialism. Perhaps you are expressing your own innermost desires with your words. Such projection wouldn’t be the first time how opinions about NS are come by.

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  346. turtle says:
    @Incitatus

    female status under the NSDAP would measure you little different than a sow in a pork farm.

    If Stoddard is to be believed, your statement is incorrect. Suggest you re-read Chapter XIII of his book.
    Of course,

    National Socialism did promise with its pledge to re-establish the traditional order of domestic relations. It painted an alluring picture of a regime of manly men and womanly women–the manly men as provider and fighter; the womanly woman as wife, mother, and guardian of the domestic hearth.

    Would be considered politically incorrect in contemporary “woke” (rolling eyes) U.S. society, but did not preclude women being involved in professional life outside the home, according to this text.

    “How about professional opportunities,” I put in. “Are German women still in the universities and in lines like higher scientific work?”

    “They certainly are,” she replied, “and we are glad to see them there. It is true that when we first came to power seven years ago, some National Socialists were opposed to this because they had been prejudiced by the exaggerately feminist types of women who were so prominent under the Weimar Republic. Today, however, this prejudice has practically vanished. If occasionally we run across some man with an anti-feminist chip on his shoulder, we just laugh about him and consider him a funny old has-been out of touch with the times.”

    Based on my own experience, the two roles are not mutually incompatible. Nearly all the women in my own family have done both, done both well, and considered both to be essential aspects of their lives.

    When “women’s lib” got publicity back in the 1960s (shortly before dirt was invented, for those too young to remember), I couldn’t see what the “big deal” was. Of course women were liberated, wtf? But then, I have had the privilege of knowing some very capable women, and grew up reading Robert Heinlein, whose fiction is famous for strong heroines.
    FWIW.

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  347. turtle says:
    @Incitatus

    Someday you’ll get that Colt Python back!

    ??Wut?

    “[The press should ensure people] think uniformly, react uniformly, and place themselves body and soul at the disposal of the government.”

    makes me wonder if one or more of his disciples aren’t (attempting) to run the show in this country…TGF the Internet, makes it at least more difficult to pull the wool over peoples’ eyes, much to the chagrin of some pols…

  348. turtle:

    You ignored my very important question put to you:

    Your views on Jews are abominable. “All Jews aren’t alike — all humans aren’t alike.” Ah, the fallacy of “Humanity,” and the “human race.” It’s like saying all animals are a single group with individual differences! Jews are alike in many ways, as Germans are alike in many ways. Japanese are alike in many ways. So let’s keep them separate and all is well. Everyone is happy with that except Jews. Why do you think Jews are not?

    I’m saying if all humans are alike with only individual differences, not group or race differences, why do Jews behave differently and work together in opposition to all other groups?
    If you say you don’t notice that, well, why do you think millions of others do, and it’s documented in thousands of writings by intelligent men. Are you deaf, dumb and blind? Wake up!

    • Replies: @C.T.
  349. @Steve Naidamast

    No, that is the book from Hermann Rauschning.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
    , @Seraphim
  350. @Alexandros

    Steve Naidamast has his books mixed up; doesn’t seem to know what Table Talk is. He’s also a Jew. This comment forum is mainly peddling disinformation. Even the article in this instance, by Durocher, is disinformation!

  351. C.T. says: • Website
    @Carolyn Yeager

    “The Jewish problem is one of the greatest problems in the world, and no man, be he writer, politician or diplomatist, can be considered mature until he has striven to face it squarely on its merits.” —Henry Wickham Steed

    It seems like Turtle hasn’t read the best article on the Jewish Question:

    https://chechar.wordpress.com/2012/12/30/seeing-the-forest/

  352. Incitatus says:
    @Fox

    “You have no clue as to the place women held in National Socialism”

    I’m no expert. Please help me out, Fox:

    •Explain the “Kinder, Küche, Kirche” slogan. Why wasn’t ‘Kulture’ included? Kunst [Art]? Wissenscaft [science]? Geschäft [business]? Medizen [medicine]? Politik?

    • Explain why the ‘Law for the Encouragement of Marriage’ (1 Jun 1933) extended a 1000 RM marriage loan [Ehestandsdarlehen] on condition the wife not work; 250 RM was forgiven on the birth a child (full loan paid with a fourth child); Was it because the NSDAP valued/rewarded fertility/childbearing?

    • Explain why the NSDAP honored women with a military-style Mutterkreuz tied to the number of children produced: 1st class (gold: 8 children), 2nd class (silver: 6-7 children), and 3rd class (bronze: 4-5 children)? Did reproductive productivity (ala a 4-H farm breeding project) have anything to do with it? Give us a hint.

    • Why was Hitler reluctant (according to Speer and Göbbels) to engage women as part of a vital German workforce? Making it necessary to recruit/enslave foreign workers in Germany (8,000,000+ in 1944 – 10+% of population). Germans didn’t like it.

    • Why did Hitler (35-year-old prison inmate) pen the following: “Remember, little girl, that one day you must be a German mother.” [Adolf Hitler, 1924 ‘Mein Kampf’ Chapter One] and “The German girl is a subject of the State but will become a citizen when she marries” [Adolf Hitler, 1924 ‘Mein Kampf’ Chapter 3]? Was it because he valued women for their minds, as equals? Partners in the Groß Reich?

    • Why did Hitler (45-year-old Führer) remark in conversation [1934, Eva Braun present] “The greater the man, the more insignificant should be the women” [Beevor ‘The Fall of Berlin 1945’ p.253]? Was it because he valued women?

    • Why did Hitler (53-year-old Führer) remark “I detest women who dabble in politics. And if their dabbling extends to military matters, it becomes utterly unendurable. In no local section of the Party has a woman ever had the right to hold even the smallest post… In 1924 we had a sudden upsurge of women who were attracted by politics: Frau von Treuenfels and Matilde von Kemnitz. They wanted to join the Reichstag, in order to raise the moral level of that body, so they said. I told them that 90 percent of the matters dealt with by parliament were masculine affairs, on which they could not have opinions of any value…gallantry forbids one to give women an opportunity of putting themselves in situations that do not suit them. Everything that entails combat is exclusively men’s business. There are so many other fields in which men must rely upon women. Organizing a house, for example. Few men have Frau [Gerdy] Troost’s talent in matters concerning interior decoration. There were four women whom I give star roles: Frau Troost, Frau Wagner, Frau Scholtz-Klink and Leni Riefenstahl.”
    -Adolf Hitler 26 Jan 1942 Table Talk

    “Kinder, Küche, Kirche”

    -Adolf’s unacceptable women (wanted to serve in the Reichstag in 1924):
    • Frau von Treuenfels – no bio forthcoming;
    • Matilde von Kemnitz – daughter of a Lutheran minister, PhD Neurology, psychiatrist [née Spieß, married 1st 1904 anatomist Gustav von Kemnitz; 2nd 1919 retired Major Edmund Klein; 3rd 1925 Generalquartiermeister Eric Ludendorff (major author of WW1, early Hitler supporter, then a rival);

    -Adolf’s four acceptable women?
    • Frau [Gerdy] Troost [wife of AH’s favorite architect, daughter of an art dealer, no known higher training];
    • Frau [Winfred] Wagner [née Williams], English-born supporter who funded vagabond Hitler;
    • Gertrud Scholtz-Klink (née Treusch) loyal leader of the Nationalsozialistische Frauenschaft (National Socialist Women’s League, membership 2 million 1938 – 2.5% of German population); as feminine as her surname;
    • Leni Riefenstahl – brilliant cinema star/filmmaker who made Hitler a God in ‘Triumph des Willens’ 1935. Despite being a women, she was smarter than all the 19C NSDAP male chauvinists. Her autobiography is well worth reading. Go figure!

    “Perhaps you are expressing your own innermost desires with your words”

    Perhaps. What are those desires Fox? Give us a hint, if you can part the clouds and see earth.

    “Such projection wouldn’t be the first time how opinions about NS are come by.”

    Right back at you Fox. Answer the aforementioned questions. Enlighten us.

    Stay well, Fox

    • Agree: Adûnâi
    • Replies: @Fox
    , @Vaterland
  353. Seraphim says:
    @Alexandros

    Hermann Rauschning’s book : ‘Hitler Speaks’ (Gesprache mit Hitler) was published in England and France in 1939 and in America in 1940 and furnished along with Walter C. Langer’s “A Psychological Analysis of Adolf Hitler. His life and legend”, study commissioned by the OSS (which used Rauschning books – he wrote other books less known -), the major themes and talking points of Allied propaganda.
    Remarkable is that neither in Hitler Speaks, nor in the ‘Analysis’ is a hint at the intention to exterminate the Jews (Rauschning makes Hitler speak only of ‘expropriating the Jews and driving them out of Germany and Austria). They put more weight on his supposed intention to annihilate the Church and Christianity and of the real plans of conquest in the East.

  354. Incitatus says:
    @turtle

    “National Socialism did promise with its pledge to re-establish the traditional order of domestic relations.”

    And what was that, turtle? Female subjugation and rewards for child-bearing?

    “If Stoddard is to be believed”

    Lothrop Stoddard? Are you serious? Why should he be believed? Only neo-Nazi necrophilliacs believe him.

    What about original sources.? Even Gütner couldn’t stand it:

    “No one will be able to do anything for Litten. Hitler turned red with rage from just hearing Litten’s name, once bellowing at Crown Prince Wilhelm of Prussia, ‘Anyone who advocates for Litten lands in the concentration camp, even you.’”
    – Reichsjustizminister Franz Gürtner on Tanzpalast

    Who was Lawyer Hans Litten? Deposed Adolf Hitler [8 May 1931] on the witness stand in the Tanzpalast trial (an SA attack 22 Nov 1930 on a Berlin dance club – three people killed, 20 injured). Hitler never forgave Litten. He was taken into ‘protective custody’ without charge or trial 28 Feb 1933. He endured disfiguring torture and interrogation for five years prior to suicide in despair 5 Feb 1938 at Dachau [Irmgard Litten, ‘Eine Mutter kämpft gegen Hitler’ pp. 18, 40, 80-81, 173, 271];

    What does that say about NSDAP ‘German values’?

    “[Such treatment] reveals a brutality and cruelty in the perpetrators which are totally alien to German sentiment and feeling. Such cruelty, reminiscent of oriental sadism cannot be explained or excused by militant bitterness however great.”
    – Reichsjustizminister Franz Gürtner SA treatment of concentration camp prisoners (beaten to the point of unconsciousness with whips and blunt instruments) at Wuppertal, Bredow and Hohnstein [Wistrich p.92-93].

    What does that say about NSDAP ‘German values’? Does Stoddard say anything about that?

    Have you read Volker Ulrich, Peter Longerich, Joachim Fest, Ian Kershaw, Thomas Weber, Thomas Childers, Michael Burleigh, Alan Bullock, Antony Beevor, Albert Speer, Gita Sereny, Nicholas Stargardt, Timothy Snyder, Benjamin Carter Hett, Anatoly Kuznetsov, William Manchester, Wolfram Wette, Christopher R. Browning, Richard Rhodes? Won’t bore you with many more authors.

    Oddly, none agree with ‘Hitler was a blameless victim’ ala Unz. Wonder why?

    “Nearly all the women in my own family have done both, done both well, and considered both to be essential aspects of their lives”

    Congratulations. Lucky to say the same. MIT (male and female early 30s), Stanford, Yale, Columbia, Harvard, etc. ScD’s, Phds, JDs, etc. All science, engineering, law, sad to say. Unlike PG with his history PhD morphed into lazy lifelong CIA op-ed service saving us from disaster in “Turkey, Italy, Germany, and Spain”. Pity the CIA didn’t get WTC 1993 and 9/11/01 right, but nobody’s perfect.

    ‘Someday you’ll get that Colt Python back!’
    “??Wut?”

    Recall an exchange you lamented selling such. Am I wrong (not infrequent)? Should I do an archive search?

    Stay well turtle.

    PS. Fred Leuchter pleaded guilty to posing as a PE (two posts on the same thread were trashed for saying such).

    • Replies: @turtle
    , @Ron Unz
  355. turtle says:
    @Incitatus

    Schmisse dabei das Pferd.
    Aber, the match is not over. 🙂
    So?
    You believe Stoddard is not credible.
    Very well. In your opinion, was he a) dishonest, or b) a witting or c) unwitting dupe of his hosts?
    I see no other possibilities. Please give us your answer…
    My guess is your answer will be “c.” We’ll see.
    Stoddard (Harvard PhD in history) does provide some caveats, and makes an effort, by his own account, to go beyond the propaganda provided by his official hosts.

    lawyer Hans Litten

    Please tell us what the fate of Hans Litten had to do with the status of women in the Third Reich. I fail to see the connection.

    necrophilliacs

    You seem to be a bit of a necrophiliac yourself, as far as I can see.. While I do not share your evident fascination with the details of depravity regarding das dritten Reich, I do respect your evident scholarship on the topic.

    So, please tell us, in (presumably) gory detail, how the “official” pronouncements to Stoddard re: “women’ s lib” were, in fact, a pack of lies. Your semi-encyclopedic knowledge, and evidently excellent memory, should serve you well. No disrespect intended.

    Knowing that der Führer consolidated power by murdering his political enemies is adequate background for me. Time (dis)honored tradition amongst ruthless dictators (cf. Josef Stalin, Saddam Hussein, et. al.).

    MIT (male and female early 30s), Stanford, Yale, Columbia, Harvard, etc. ScD’s, Phds, JDs,

    Yeah, so? Although, if you have a female ancestor who was an MIT coed in the 1930s, that would be remarkable. Even in the late 1960s, the M/F ratio for ‘tute undergrads was ~17/1, and that only because of the generous donations of this woman:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katharine_McCormick
    But you already knew that, right?

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
    , @Incitatus
  356. Ron Unz says:
    @Incitatus

    Lothrop Stoddard? Are you serious? Why should he be believed? Only neo-Nazi necrophilliacs believe him.

    Well, it’s lucky that I just happened to glance through this thread, and noticed that “Incitatus” had once again demonstrated that he’s a totally ignorant buffoon.

    Lothrop Stoddard’s 1940 visit to Nazi Germany, which produced the book in question, had been commissioned by a syndicate of leading American newspapers, led by the New York Times, which ran many of his resulting pieces. I suppose “Incitatus” regards the New York Times as a lunatic-fringe publication.

    Stoddard’s role was hardly surprising since he had spent decades as one of America’s leading public intellectuals, writing numerous influential books and with his lengthy articles appearing in our most prestigious periodicals. Here’s a link to some of his publications:

    https://www.unz.com/print/author/StoddardLothrop/

    Incidentally, I’d particularly recommend his 1917 book discussing the various European at the time of the First World War, one of the best and most even-handed contemporaneous analyses of the conflict I’ve ever read:

    https://www.unz.com/book/lothrop_stoddard__present-day-europe/

  357. @turtle

    How lucky that Ron Unz stated some truth about “Incitatus” following your (this) gullible comment from you, since you respect R.U. so much. When I read “Incy’s” comment, I had the opposite impression than did you, with your admiration for his “semi-encyclopedic knowledge, and evidently excellent memory” – and his “evident scholarship” on the subject of The Third Reich. My impression is that he has plenty of time and uses it to check things from the Internet or the few books he may actually own , as needed. The authors he lists:

    Have you read Volker Ulrich, Peter Longerich, Joachim Fest, Ian Kershaw, Thomas Weber, Thomas Childers, Michael Burleigh, Alan Bullock, Antony Beevor, Albert Speer, Gita Sereny, Nicholas Stargardt, Timothy Snyder, Benjamin Carter Hett, Anatoly Kuznetsov, William Manchester, Wolfram Wette, Christopher R. Browning, Richard Rhodes? Won’t bore you with many more authors.

    … in order to impress people like you, are one and all unanimous in their support of the official WWII-Jewish Holocaust narrative, and are rewarded accordingly. That you take this guy as he anonymously presents himself and call him “my friend” clearly casts doubt on your judgement in whom you trust and believe. I would suggest that’s because of your very strong bias against the already mentioned Third Reich, and corresponding feeling of comfort with those who also hate it – highly made up of Jews (which most folks here think “Incitatus” is. And a professional one at that). Has he ever tried to pawn himself off as German? Not that I have noticed.

    Oh, I know you like to think of yourself as a skeptic who takes each person and issue individually. But that makes for a very slow path that has left you lagging far behind your peers, and looking pretty foolish, too. Another turn-off is Incy’s phony sign-off tag: “Stay well, turtle” or the name of whomever he’s replying to. Back when I still held out hope for you, I very sincerely signed off a short comment to you with “Be well, turtle.” I meant it, as you seemed something of a lost soul. After that, I noticed Incy using his “Stay well” line all the time. Whether he ever did it before, I don’t know, but I have no memory of such.

    I want to add I refuse to reply to Incy. His efforts to engage with me are not welcome, so this comment is not meant to get his attention.

  358. Incitatus says:
    @turtle

    Please tell us what the fate of Hans Litten had to do with the status of women in the Third Reich. I fail to see the connection.

    Litten was brave enough to depose Hitler and SA thugs (they killed 3, injured 20) in a court of Law. The only hope for individual due process. Law that served men and women. This is what the NSDAP considered law:

    “[The task of police is] to neutralize all malign opponents and enemies of the National Socialist State. Whether the opponent is communist or reactionary is irrelevant…[I will pursue] disciples of Moscow [just the same as] incorrigible reactionaries [or] religious malcontents…I and my colleagues have made a number of enemies as a result of the toughness with which we have carried out this task, and will go on making them. But I am convinced that it’s better to be misunderstood by a few, to be hated by some opponents, but in the process do what is necessary for Germany.”
    – Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler German Police Day Radio Broadcast Jan 1937 [Peter Longerich ‘Heinrich Himmler’ p.208.

    This from a guy who sold manure for a year before discharge, then organized thugs for Hitler.

    [MORE]

    Back to Women in NS Germany. Has it escaped your notice Fox hasn’t answered #359? The subject was the women’s role in NSDAP Germany. Remember? Try your luck:

    •Explain the “Kinder, Küche, Kirche” slogan.
    • Explain why the ‘Law for the Encouragement of Marriage’ (1 Jun 1933) extended a 1000 RM marriage loan [Ehestandsdarlehen] on condition the wife not work; 250 RM was forgiven on the birth a child (full loan paid with a fourth child); Was it because the NSDAP valued/rewarded fertility/childbearing?
    • Explain why the NSDAP honored women with a military-style Mutterkreuz tied to the number of children produced: 1st class (gold: 8 children), 2nd class (silver: 6-7 children), and 3rd class (bronze: 4-5 children)? Did reproductive productivity (ala a 4-H farm breeding project) have anything to do with it? Give us a hint.
    • Why was Hitler reluctant (according to Speer and Göbbels) to engage women as part of a vital German workforce? Making it necessary to recruit/enslave foreign workers in Germany (8,000,000+ in 1944 – 10+% of population). Germans didn’t like it.

    There are more questions, but what the hell? Thor/Zeus himself has chimed in to rescue you and save his anthill. Think about it turtle.

    “You seem to be a bit of a necrophiliac yourself, as far as I can see. While I do not share your evident fascination with the details of depravity regarding das dritten Reich, I do respect your evident scholarship on the topic.”

    ‘Love of the dead’? It would be more accurate to say I have problems with those responsible for killing millions (including ordinary Germans). Notice something, turtle? When confronted by damning direct quotes, they melt away. They abide in parsing fringe historians or rely on ad-hominems. Unz included.

    “So, please tell us, in (presumably) gory detail, how the “official” pronouncements to Stoddard re: “women’ s lib” were, in fact, a pack of lies.”

    Ever play poker? You mention Stoddard. I raise you Volker Ulrich, Peter Longerich, Joachim Fest, Ian Kershaw, Thomas Weber, Thomas Childers, Michael Burleigh, Alan Bullock, Antony Beevor, Albert Speer, Gita Sereny, Nicholas Stargardt, Timothy Snyder, Benjamin Carter Hett, Anatoly Kuznetsov, William Manchester, Wolfram Wette, Christopher R. Browning, Richard Rhodes, etc.

    Your response? Silence. Back to fringe Stoddard. Why turtle?

    Meanwhile, here’s a helpful quote to lighten your Unz day:

    “[The police] has to be offensively investigating all opposition and combating it in order to pre-empt its destructive and subversive effects. Subhumans threaten the health and life of the national body in two respects: as criminals they damage and undermine the community and they also act as tools and weapons for the plans of those power hostile to the nation…international, ideological, and intellectual opponents [utilize] sub-humanity, which is invariably bent on subversion and disorder, but also the supporters of their own political and ideological organizations, in other words Jewry, Freemasonry, and the politicized churches. Moreover, they utilize all those other groups in the German nation who, whether consciously or having been misled, support special interests that are detrimental to the German people (Legitimists, etc.).”
    – SS-Obergruppenführer Reinhard Heydrich ‘Aufgabenund Aufbau der Sicherheitspolizei im Dritten Reiches’ 12 Mar 1937 [Longerich ‘Heinrich Himmler’ p.207-08]

    Ron Unz parsed Heydrich (a naval officer dismissed 1931 for “conduct unbecoming to an officer and gentleman”) as popular in Bohemia/Moravia because he dared ride in an open cabriolet. The irony is, of course, Ron Unz is a “subhuman” in Heydrich’s cosmos. Go figure!

    “But you already knew that, right?”

    Yes I do. Along with the 30’s MIT ScD she married.
    Stay well turtle.

    • Replies: @turtle
    , @Alexandros
  359. Fox says:

    Incitatus:
    You know much and understand nothing.

  360. turtle says:
    @Incitatus

    But you did not answer my question, to wit:
    Do you believe Stoddard was dishonest, or merely gullible and/or stupid?
    How about the newspapers who published his articles?
    Were they duped, or were they a nefarious group of secret Nazi-lovers who conspired to deceive their American readers and conjure sympathy for NS Germany?

    Has it escaped your notice Fox hasn’t answered #359?

    It has not. I am curious to see what, if anything, he might have to say. since he categorically rejected your assertions.
    So far, no response.

    Try your luck:

    Very well.
    Kinder, Küche, Kirche is a very well known slogan, the sense of which is that womens’ proper concerns are children, cooking, and church.
    “Encouragement of Marriage,” etc., as well as “Lebensborn,” was intended to breed a “superior” breed of human, as far as I understand the program. Not a concept which would find much favor in today’s world.
    Why was Hitler “reluctant to engage women” in the workforce? Obviously not a “feminist.”
    Three more for you:
    1. Why did “the Chief” pick an evidently not-too-bright, dependent woman for his mistress (no wife) , and keep her out of sight?
    2. Why did the “indispensable man” not reproduce himself? Did he expect to live forever? If not, then what comes after him?
    3. If the head honcho doesn’t “walk the talk,” how can he expect anyone else to do so?

    Ever play poker?

    Sure, but I thought (?) we were having a civilized discussion, not playing “my bookshelf is longer than yours.” I had hoped you might share some insights, based on your extensive reading, but perhaps not.

    Thor/Zeus himself has chimed in to rescue you

    I rather doubt Mr. Unz’s response had anything to do with me, and much more with his opinion of you. I certainly do not need a “protector.”

    30’s MIT ScD she married

    Your parents, I presume? If so, that would likely make you either a child of the Great Depression, or a war baby. Either way, you have got a few years on me (born 2 Sept 1949, VJ day + 4 years, to the day).

    Which means you have had quite a few years to read up on Dubya Dubya II.
    I am, as yet, a novice.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
    , @Incitatus
  361. turtle says:
    @Fox

    Yes.
    Long on data, short on analysis and conclusions, from my perspective.
    Voluminous esoteric quotations, and a burning hatred for NS Germany (not that I blame him for the latter – he has plenty of company, but it appears to be very personal with him – loss of family members, perhaps).
    “With all thy knowledge, get understanding.”
    Words to live by…

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  362. @Incitatus

    Litten was brave enough to depose Hitler and SA thugs (they killed 3, injured 20) in a court of Law. The only hope for individual due process. Law that served men and women. This is what the NSDAP considered law:

    Who is brave? 1500 SA men were murdered by Communists and 40.000 injured. Why is the Jew Communist Hans Litten so brave for defending them? And what chutzpah for a Communist Jew to accuse others of violence.

    This from a guy who sold manure for a year before discharge, then organized thugs for Hitler.

    And yours from a guy who wanted war hero Paul von Hindenburg hanged as a mere 14 year old student. Then he went on to defend Communist killers and the destruction of Western society for the rest of his adult life, before committing suicide after harsh imprisonment he would have others suffer. Poetic justice.

    •Explain the “Kinder, Küche, Kirche” slogan.
    • Explain why the ‘Law for the Encouragement of Marriage’ (1 Jun 1933) extended a 1000 RM marriage loan [Ehestandsdarlehen] on condition the wife not work; 250 RM was forgiven on the birth a child (full loan paid with a fourth child); Was it because the NSDAP valued/rewarded fertility/childbearing?
    • Explain why the NSDAP honored women with a military-style Mutterkreuz tied to the number of children produced: 1st class (gold: 8 children), 2nd class (silver: 6-7 children), and 3rd class (bronze: 4-5 children)? Did reproductive productivity (ala a 4-H farm breeding project) have anything to do with it? Give us a hint.
    • Why was Hitler reluctant (according to Speer and Göbbels) to engage women as part of a vital German workforce? Making it necessary to recruit/enslave foreign workers in Germany (8,000,000+ in 1944 – 10+% of population). Germans didn’t like it.

    There are more questions, but what the hell? Thor/Zeus himself has chimed in to rescue you and save his anthill. Think about it turtle.

    In Hitlers Germany women were women and men were men. Their natural sphere was considered the home, the children and the church. For obvious reasons, without sufficient births the nation dies.

    On the other hand there was nothing stopping them from choosing a different way of life. Leni Riefenstahl worked for Hitler on his personal request. Hanna Reitsch was a fighter pilot. Women had the right to free education just like the men. You could even find negro’s and Jews in the Wehrmacht, just to illustrate the reality of National Socialist discriminatory policies.

    ‘Love of the dead’? It would be more accurate to say I have problems with those responsible for killing millions (including ordinary Germans). Notice something, turtle? When confronted by damning direct quotes, they melt away. They abide in parsing fringe historians or rely on ad-hominems. Unz included.

    You have no problems with Jewish killings. No problems with Communist killings, or Social Democrat killings, or Capitalist killings. All you ever talk about are supposed National Socialist killings. Yes, we notice the pattern quite clearly. And once more you have the chutzpah to accuse somebody of ad hominem, your go to strategy in every post you make.

    Ever play poker? You mention Stoddard. I raise you Volker Ulrich, Peter Longerich, Joachim Fest, Ian Kershaw, Thomas Weber, Thomas Childers, Michael Burleigh, Alan Bullock, Antony Beevor, Albert Speer, Gita Sereny, Nicholas Stargardt, Timothy Snyder, Benjamin Carter Hett, Anatoly Kuznetsov, William Manchester, Wolfram Wette, Christopher R. Browning, Richard Rhodes, etc.

    Why poker? Because you are so fond of bluffing?

    That’s a nice list of kosher names. When looking at their indexes we can find numerous examples of stalwart scholarship from the likes of Hermann Rauschning, Eli Wiesel and Anne Franks father. So credible in their descriptions that not even sworn anti Hitlerists at the Nuremberg Torture Trial could in good conscience stand behind it. We have the immoral captive Speer who lied about trying to kill Hitler, and who knows what else, we have Beevor, whos immense popularity among consumers of pulp literature stands as evidence of his status as a heavyweight of historical research.

    You would make a great critic in the Michelin Guide. If it’s not as popular as McDonalds, it can’t be good, right?

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  363. @turtle

    Has it escaped your notice Fox hasn’t answered #359?

    It has not. I am curious to see what, if anything, he might have to say. since he categorically rejected your assertions.
    So far, no response.

    It also hasn’t escaped my attention that you haven’t answered my question to you in comment #355. You said you were not dodging anything, but you do.

    (In Fox’s case, he was presented with a whole list of questions. That is overdoing it and I wouldn’t answer those particularly stupid “questions” (more like set-ups bc the premise is false) either.)

  364. @Fox

    You’re giving ‘Incy’ too much credit when you say he “knows much.” Ron Unz has it right when he calls him a “totally ignorant buffoon.”(comment 363) That doesn’t leave any room for interpretation! It means “knows nothing.”

    Also thanks to RU for recommending and linking to Stoddard’s 1917 book “Present Day Europe.” I’m so far just reading the chapter on Germany, and it’s amazing. I will read it all. No wonder ‘Incy’ hates Stoddard so much. heh, heh.

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  365. @turtle

    Yes.
    Long on data, short on analysis and conclusions, from my perspective.

    You really are not too bright, turtle. More accurate to say Incy is the opposite: Long on analysis and conclusions but short on data. Think about it … if your long-set opinions on the subject will allow you to think.

  366. @Alexandros

    Hanna Reitsch was a fighter pilot.

    I don’t want to nit-pick your fine comment, but we don’t want errors to be set in stone by simple repetition. Hanna Reitsch was never a fighter pilot. She was a test pilot for new military aircraft, a dangerous job that required high skill and courage, which she had in abundance. The NS Wehrmacht did not allow women to go into battle against the enemy. Just think if she were shot down and captured, what a mess it would be. I agree with this rule … as you wrote: Men and women had their natural spheres which should be generally followed for the sake of the national health. Hanna Reitsch’s life provided plenty of drama and excitement for her without needing to fight alongside men. She worked with men though, almost exclusively. And they respected her, along with the whole nation.
    https://carolynyeager.net/hanna-reitsch-%E2%80%93-warrior-flight-and-freedom I recommend this article because it gives a complete and accurate summary of Hanna Reitsch’s life without having to read a whole book. I stand behind it.

  367. Thank you. Please do correct me when I make mistakes. I’m still irked that I said General Stieff betrayed the Western front, when it was the East (or did I mix them up again?)

    I did not mean to imply she fought in battles, only that she flew “real planes” in a more or less military capacity. And as opposed to the “feminism” of the West and the USSR, it seemed she actually performed a noteworthy role instead of just being a propaganda vehicle.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  368. Alexandros: “Hanna Reitsch was a fighter pilot. Women had the right to free education just like the men. You could even find negro’s and Jews in the Wehrmacht, just to illustrate the reality of National Socialist discriminatory policies.”

    This is a good point. Hitler had an artistic vision of the kind of society he wanted, but he was prepared to make exceptions to general rules as dictated by technological efficiency. Accordingly, although women were generally encouraged to adopt “traditional” roles, you also had Riefenstahl, and Reitsch, and Countess Bernadotte, the latter two having been test pilots, and each awarded an Iron Cross. Also, on the one hand, in Hitler’s vision as expressed in the passages from MK I quoted above, Aryans were supreme, the only true humans, but on the other hand even the SS accepted non-Aryan members. This is what happens when ideologies encounter the real world. Compromises have to be made.

    Above, I speculated as to Hitler’s emotional identification w/Jesus, citing as evidence his absurd belief in “Providence” and his otherwise inexplicable conviction that Jesus was an Aryan. I was curious to see if anyone else had noticed this dynamic, so I did some research. Now I see that historian Thomas Weber has lately said that this idea was Hitler’s own, that he saw himself as Germany’s savior, and put this forth as a public image.

    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/hitler-created-fictional-persona-to-recast-himself-as-germanys-savior-180967790/

    An excerpt from his article:

    Hiding behind Koerber’s name, Hitler could get away with pronouncing himself Germany’s “messiah.” His autobiography-in-disguise repeatedly uses biblical language, arguing that the book should “become the new bible of today as well as the ‘Book of the German People.’” It also directly compares Hitler to Jesus, likening the purported moment of his politicization in Pasewalk to Jesus’s resurrection:

    “This man, destined to eternal night, who during this hour endured crucifixion on pitiless Calvary, who suffered in body and soul; one of the most wretched from among this crowd of broken heroes: this man’s eyes shall be opened! Calm shall be restored to his convulsed features. In the ecstasy that is only granted to the dying seer, his dead eyes shall be filled with new light, new splendor, new life!”

    The Jesus myth is indeed very deeply embedded in Western culture, so this isn’t too surprising. The question here is whether this amounted to only a cynical manipulation of the public by Hitler, or his sincere belief. I’m inclined to think it was a bit of both. To the extent it was the latter, WWII was a Passion play, provoked by one man’s acting out his emotional need to imitate Christ. Whereas Christ supposedly died for the redemption of “all mankind”, Hitler died trying to save the Aryan race.

    I’d argue that ultimately the Third Reich failed due to several reasons, but not least due to the inherent contradiction between Darwinism and Christianity, which Hitler’s artistic vision of an ideal society attempted to fuse. His was a unique kind of Christian heresy, a philosophical chimera of incompatible worldviews.

  369. @Alexandros

    You’re welcome, I figured that’s what you meant. And she could have been a fighter pilot, for sure, and what she did was equal to it.
    I agree, the women of Germany played noteworthy roles, real roles.

    The guy who betrayed the Western front was General Hans Speidel — who after the war became a four-star general with NATO. I guess he would be one of turtle’s heroes.

  370. @Carolyn Yeager

    What, specifically, did Speidel do to betray the Western front?

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  371. @Carolyn Yeager

    He is Catholic, so also doesn’t want to be at odds with his Church

    For the record, I am Catholic (and ethnically German), but eventually I made peace with the troubled reality of Jews for two reasons:

    1) The traditional teaching of the Church is that the Jews are a huge problem – we cannot persecute them, but we cannot allow them to destroy our culture either. The Jews will be converted en masse only at the end of history. Till then we must help individuals to convert while being very skeptical, from past experience, of mass conversions.

    2) The Apostle Paul had this to say about the Jews …. First Thessalonians 1:14-16

    14 For you, brethren, are become followers of the churches of God which are in Judea, in Christ Jesus: for you also have suffered the same things from your own coutrymen, even as they have from the Jews, 15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and the prophets, and have persecuted us, and please not God, and are adversaries to all men; 16 Prohibiting us to speak to the Gentiles, that they may be saved, to fill up their sins always: for the wrath of God is come upon them to the end.

    This quote says it all. The Jews became God’s enemies when they killed the Logos made flesh, which was Jesus Christ; they are the leaders of all anti-human revolutions; they do whatever possible to prohibit the salvation of mankind.

    While the Catholic Church today is, in a word, screwed-up, the traditional, magisterial teaching of the Church remains timeless and true. The Jews are the foremost enemies of Truth. And this is as much a tragedy for them as it is for us.

    It isn’t easy to be open and aware of traditional Catholic teaching on this subject, because of the weakness of our leaders, but Christ warns us multiple times to beware of cowardly or bad leaders towards the end times. We Catholics must cling both to Him and to the consistently revealed truth of his faith.

    E. Michael Jones was, of course, a big help for me as well – his racial awareness is very much lacking (which, in his weird case, is not really a Catholic – traditional or modernist – problem so much as it’s a specific problem with Dr. Jones), but his work is otherwise great.

    Your nephew should read this – this is what the Church said about the Jews in 1890: http://catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/judaism/jewrope.htm

    The problem with Catholicism is Modernism. And wherever there is Modernism, there is a Jew.

    I hope this will help your nephew.

    By the way, I was deeply touched by your comment here that referenced Ingrid Zundel and the folk love of the German people.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  372. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    I can’t go into all the specifics, but he was Chief of Staff of Army Group B under Erwin Rommel, and then under Gunther von Kluge, putting him in a commanding position at the Normandy invasion front. It was he who kept advising the OKW that the landing location was not certain, and they should hold back divisions until it was. This is why the landing got a stronger hold than it otherwise would have. The careful preparations of the Germans were sabotaged. Rommel, Von Kluge and Speidel were all traitors, but it was Speidel who was passing on the advice as the man in charge of that particular intelligence.

    Spanish superspy for Germany Alcazar de Velasco blamed Speidel, saying, “It’s because of him we lost the war.” This is from The Artist Within the Warlord: An Adolf Hitler You’ve Never Known, p 178-79.

  373. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    Thanks. I’ll pass on that church article to my nephew.

  374. @Carolyn Yeager

    Thanks, although that was very hard to read, particularly with reference to Rommel, whom I still regard (or want to regard) as a gentleman. I don’t know as much about Von Kluge.

    That said, from my understanding of the relative strategic position, I tend to think the war was lost the moment Germany failed to secure the Caucasian oil fields and the moment that my country was tricked into war by Roosevelt’s brilliant perfidy. Even if the Allies had been destroyed on the beaches, or something like that, Germany’s strategic resource position was so weak vis-a-vis the Allies that it might have simply caused the final defeat to be drug out longer.

    Of course one never knows with history …..either way, Speidel’s betrayal is what it was, a betrayal.

    I’ve never understood why there were so few traitors, honorable or not, on the Allied side, even though many, such as Freeman Dyson, claimed they were sickened by war crimes (in his case, area bombing) *during* the war. The big exception in my mind is the pre-war case of the American, Tyler Kent, and his effort to reveal FDR’s duplicity.

    I’ll have to check out your book.

    • Replies: @S
    , @Carolyn Yeager
  375. S says:
    @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    Even if the Allies had been destroyed on the beaches, or something like that, Germany’s strategic resource position was so weak vis-a-vis the Allies that it might have simply caused the final defeat to be drug out longer.

    Yes, from the start in 1939 Germany had almost no chance of winning the war. Due to the ‘special relationship’ circa 1900 between the US/UK, as in WWI, once the British were at war with Germany, it was just about assured the US would enter against her as well.

    W T Stead, in his 1902 book The Americanization of the World, calculated on pages 10, 11, and 12, that the US and UK between them had three times the wealth and economic resources of the combined French, Russian, and German empires.

    He declared ‘the lion’s share of the world is ours.’ As the British Empire was still largely intact in December, 1941, something like those figures probably still held true for the US and Britain.

    The first chapter’s page subheadings tell their own story in regards to US/UK power, ie ‘world conquerers’, ‘the supreme power’, and the ‘decree of destiny’.

    That’s not to say that Germany, Japan, Russia, or anyone else hasn’t had the right to resist their destruction vis-a-vis the US/UK, or, that they shouldn’t have resisted in some fashion, it’s just that the harsh reality is the odds have been terribly against them since 1900.


    Washington and London

    ‘The lion’s share of the World is ours..’

    The Americanization of the World (1902) – pg 7

    The lion’s share of the world is ours, not only in bulk, but in tid-bits also. The light land of the Sahara is not worth a centime an acre. The vast area of German South Africa would hardly provide a livelihood for the population of a middle-sized German village. With the exception of the Rhine, the Danube, the Amoor, the Volga, the Platte and the Amazon, nearly all the great navigable rivers of the world enter the sea under the Union Jack or the Stars and Stripes.

    The valley of the Yang-tse-Kiang is earmarked as the sphere of our influence. The whole of the North American Continent,’ from the North Pole to the frontier of Mexico, is within the ring fence of the English-speaking race, and from the whole of Central and Southern America all trespassers have been emphatically warned off by the proclamation of the Monroe Doctrine.

    https://archive.org/details/americanizationo01stea/page/n6/mode/2up

  376. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    Of course Rommel was a gentleman, and was not one of the instigators of the plot(s). He agreed to go along with it at some point, and was such a gentleman that he quietly committed suicide when he was discovered as being in the know. Hitler was equally a gentleman for allowing Rommel to do so and putting out a cover story, rather than putting him on trial and hanging him. Hitler would have been as hurt as he was angry over Rommel, so it was painful and tragic all the way around.

    It makes no sense to say Speidel’s treason doesn’t matter very much because by then the Germans couldn’t win anyway. And you do admit that yourself, that treason is treason, and in Germany it began very early within the officer class, even before war began–because of an unwillingness to use any armed force whatsoever!

    As for traitors on the Allied side, it makes a difference whether you’re winning or losing. As long as Hitler was winning, many top officers who didn’t like or support his NS movement remained genuinely supporting him. When the prospects turned down, they preferred to get on the “winning” side. Another truth that is lost sight of is that the US and UK were more dictatorial states than Germany (NS or not) in their penchant to arrest and imprison anyone who posed a “security” danger. The controlled media portrays it otherwise. The alleged wholesale suppression and control of the citizenry under Adolf Hitler is a big lie. All Allied countries were worse. The German peoples’ support of Hitler to the end was close to unanimous.

    Yes, if you’re sympathetic to my comments, you will like the book and get a lot out of it. You can order one directly from me and I will sign it for you. (Sorry, I’m really not trying to sell books here, on my honor. I only have a few left anyway.)

  377. @Carolyn Yeager

    Carolyn,

    I am not familiar with this S person – comment above yours – but I think I share his appraisal of the strategic reality facing Germany in any war against England, Roosevelt’s America, and the Soviet scum.

    So, I’ll make myself clear: No, I’m not saying Speidel’s treason didn’t matter. Nor am I saying it “didn’t matter much.” What I am saying is that by 1944, the war was probably lost no matter what. One reason I say this is because the Allies had shown, many times over, that they were willing to accept any cost to defeat Germany, regardless of what value there actually was for their countries in such a “victory.” (Of course it was only in 1945 that they further made it clear they were also willing to commit any war crime, against both Germany and Japan, to “win.”)

    Germany was in a two front war. Because the Allied leaders would accept any cost, I think the only way Germany could have won World War Two is if they had managed to destroy the resource capability of one of the enemies. This was somewhat like the American Civil War, where Grant and Sherman realized by 1863 or ’64 that they had to destroy the resources of the Deep South if they were to ever end the war. Of course, from my studies of the Civil War, Grant and Sherman had vastly more integrity than most American leaders of WW2 (except for Patton, most notably). I digress.

    As far as destroying their ability to wage war, the Anglo-American alliance was pretty much out of the question here, for obvious reasons. That left the Soviets, whose oil (and grain) resources were, by contrast, within reach of the Germans. Moreover, the Germans here could use their best war arm, the Wehrmacht. But the German effort failed – to my mind, then, the period of late 1941 through early 1942 is the decisive moment. The Soviets were so strong by 1944 that I don’t believe Germany could have recovered to knock them out of the war. And America, protected by a vast ocean and an ever-stronger anti-submarine force, was an impossibility.

    I purposefully left myself two “outs,” if you will, by saying 1) Most importantly, treason is still treason, and 2) One never knows with history.

    I would also agree that earlier incompetence, deliberate or not, by German generals might have been more of a problem. This is with specific reference to 1941-42. My memory of David Irving’s ‘Hitler’s War’ is that Hitler was properly furious with his generals for not following his directive to take, or seriously threaten, the Soviet oil and gas supplies first things first.

    And no, I don’t doubt you are innocent of trying to hawking books. LOL. In fact, considering the current level of censorship as is, it would be remiss of you to not attempt selling those last few books.

    As for sympathy with your comments, yes, I am sympathetic.

    I should also add … the ethnic Germans helped build this country, America, and the corrupt elites thereof rewarded us by destroying Germany, twice, and killing God knows how many Germans. I do not blame all the Anglo-Americans; after all, many of them bravely participated in the America First Committee. And while I don’t want to overstate American war enthusiasm since (among other reasons) American desertion was *very* severe in NW Europe, millions of German-Americans nonetheless did serve willingly in this “great crusade.” But we must blame the leaders. And that the British and American psychological warfare people helped unleash a certain myth is also of particularly disgusting quality – they have convinced our people to hate themselves. It makes me so mad I can barely type these damn words just thinking about it. I’ll never forgive those bastards for that. Finally, in the words of David Irving, “I can never forget Dresden.”

    • Thanks: turtle
  378. @Carolyn Yeager

    The alleged wholesale suppression and control of the citizenry under Adolf Hitler is a big lie. All Allied countries were worse.

    I cannot emphasize the truth of this enough, by the way. I believe Harry Elmer Barnes wrote the best about this, in his work:

    https://archive.org/details/StruggleAgainstTheHistoricalBlackoutTheHarryElmerBarnes/page/n1/mode/2up

    I must credit Ron Unz, for it was he who introduced to many of us the nature of the historical blackout.

    Incidentally, I’ve always found it interesting that Cardinal von Galen, despite numerous other disagreements with Hitler, publicly approved of both war with Poland and war with the Soviet Union. Apparently Hitler, in the Table Talk, said he would get even with the bishop over other controversies – nonetheless, the fact that the bishop was not arrested in 1941 really puts the lie to certain exaggerations about Hitler’s policies.

    • Replies: @Bookish1
  379. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    No, I am not concerned with “selling those last few books.” They are only the last few extra that I have that I am willing to sell to those who would like a signed copy. I didn’t add that “apology” for your benefit, but for the other readers and RU. At my age, I have no interest in having boxes of books around or even in selling anything. Don’t need the money and am more in the business of ‘cleaning out.’

  380. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    No, I’m not saying Speidel’s treason didn’t matter. Nor am I saying it “didn’t matter much.” What I am saying is that by 1944, the war was probably lost no matter what.

    What I actually wrote to you was: “It makes no sense to say Speidel’s treason doesn’t matter very much because by then the Germans couldn’t win anyway.” So I had added that last part that you are now trying to “explain” to me.

    I dislike “Monday-morning quarterbacking”, a favorite pastime of men, which is what I call your comment. There is nothing novel in it. Hitler was aware of all the things you note, but after all is said and done, he was a man of destiny. This is what his detractors can’t stand and try to destroy with ridicule. They can’t.

    • Replies: @Adûnâi
  381. Bookish1 says:
    @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    So you believe that ‘Table Talk’ is authentic? I would really like to know because there is a controversy as to whether or not they are authentic. Anyone know for sure?

  382. Adûnâi says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    > “Hitler was aware of all the things you note, but after all is said and done, he was a man of destiny. This is what his detractors can’t stand and try to destroy with ridicule. They can’t.”

    So, you share Savitri Devi’s sentiment? That Hitler knew he was a loser, and fought anyway to prove it? What joke is this philosophy? Real men fight to win. Not to score imaginary morality points – that is the business of Christians.

    Hitler made a terrible blunder by lawlessly invading Prag – a non-German land – a move that forced Chamberlain to commit to that terrible agreement with Poland.

    Hitler made an unforgivable blunder by starting the war with Rzeczpospolita – the war he must by all accounts have lost by 1941 at the latest. Only by an incredible stroke of luck did he pull off the golden summer of 1940 – because his Ardennes gamble payed off right at the time when the French Dutch gamble failed – the only conceivable course of events that did not lead to the dissolution of the NSDAP right there and then.

    Then Hitler, the last hope of the Aryan race, was so assured of his victory, he pissed off every potential ally of his among Ukrainians, White Russians and White émigrés. How can you afford such hubris in the darkest hour? No wonder our race is dead with leaders such as this. Robert Morgan/Spahn Ranch/Jack Frost from TOO might be correct in his suspicion that Hitler soaked too much of Christian insanity. After all, tolerating Christians is an impossible sin, and then believing in the occult nonsense?

    The DPR of Korea still stands a century after the birth of Kim Il Sung. The remaining White NPCs are roaming mindlessly around the corpse of Europe until they drop dead. The Aryan race is the biggest joke in the history of this planet.

    P.S. The last vestige of Aryan Paganism survives in the ugliest of the four great world regions – among the street-shitters of Aryavarta. Serves our hilarious legacy right.

  383. @Bookish1

    David Irving is adamant that ‘Table Talk’ is legitimate. He is far more an authority than me, and far more an authority on Hitler sources than most historians.

    • Replies: @Alexandros
  384. @Adûnâi

    Real men fight to win. Not to score imaginary morality points – that is the business of Christians.

    Bugger off, Adunai.

    Also, no one “forced” Chamberlain to agree to the insane agreement with Poland. That is the raving of a blithering fool.

  385. @Carolyn Yeager

    You’ll have to forgive me – I was in a rush, and I realize now I misread the part of your comment about the books. No disrespect intended.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  386. @Adûnâi

    So, you share Savitri Devi’s sentiment? That Hitler knew he was a loser, and fought anyway to prove it? What joke is this philosophy? Real men fight to win. Not to score imaginary morality points – that is the business of Christians.

    That is your sentiment, not Savitri Devi’s. Trying to conflate haters like yourself with true believers like Devi is just silly. Adolf Hitler’s opinion on the matter was inspired by a story from the Middle Ages where some Teutonic Knights rode to their certain death to avenge their sister. In his Ermächtigungsgesetz speech from 1933 he echoes the sentiment:

    Der Heroismus erhält sich leidenschaftlich als kommender Gestalter und Führer der Völkerschicksale.

    You fight for what is right, even if the outcome is doubtful. The contrary belief is the Jewish one, you only fight battles that are already won. If you can’t win, it’s better to be a slave. The complete opposite of heroics, and the foundation of our modern world.

    If you fight merely to win you should submit to Jewry. It’s not hard to join the winning side. Sell your soul and you will profit. If that makes you a real man in your eyes, I wish you good luck serving in Hell.

    Hitler made a terrible blunder by lawlessly invading Prag – a non-German land – a move that forced Chamberlain to commit to that terrible agreement with Poland.

    Not that the “law” of modernity should concern us much, but since Adolf Hitler and Germany tried to follow the rules as much as possible I feel the need to refute this lie. German troops entered Bohemia at the request of President Hacha. He felt the need to request so because after Munich, his country was being assailed on all sides and he evidently felt Czech interests would be better served in German hands than by Poles, Soviets or Hungarians. Chamberlain was prompted to sign the agreement because false rumours about German military activity was reported in the media by the usual suspects. Initially the debate in Parliament went something like this “The UK has guaranteed Czechoslovakia, since that state no longer exists we have no obligation to intervene”.

    True, it did hurt public opinion who were easily convinced by the press that this was an aggressive and opportunistic move by Germany. But it’s not like Hitler had much choice in the matter. If he didn’t seize a faltering state his enemies would definitely do so. His responsibility was to protect Germany, not to please his enemies by being a good goy. Later he tried to rectify the situation by offering Czechia to the UK, as long as it would not again become a tool to invade Germany. But of course the world was not interested in this. They were perfectly happy to keep their cassus belli by having Czechia occupied. Much like they did not care one bit about Poland after the country had been used to trigger war against Hitler.

    Hitler made an unforgivable blunder by starting the war with Rzeczpospolita – the war he must by all accounts have lost by 1941 at the latest. Only by an incredible stroke of luck did he pull off the golden summer of 1940 – because his Ardennes gamble payed off right at the time when the French Dutch gamble failed – the only conceivable course of events that did not lead to the dissolution of the NSDAP right there and then.

    It was not Hitler who wanted that war. Of course the West wanted it, but also the Poles were itching for it. Hitler’s order was to postpone any invasion until the latest possible date, so that he would have as much time as possible to solve the crisis peacefully. He considered the Polish armed forces a valuable asset to have on his side if it came to conflict with the USSR. Invading them would sap the total strength that could be used against Stalin. War was the last thing he wanted with that country. But when the West has promised to start a war with you as soon as possible, with the full backing of the USA, and they have an ally in your back who is provoking you at every opportunity, you can either submit to overwhelming force and turn your country into another BRD slave, or take the fight by striking first and hope for the best. I guess most people would consider the latter option the more manly one.

    Then Hitler, the last hope of the Aryan race, was so assured of his victory, he pissed off every potential ally of his among Ukrainians, White Russians and White émigrés. How can you afford such hubris in the darkest hour? No wonder our race is dead with leaders such as this. Robert Morgan/Spahn Ranch/Jack Frost from TOO might be correct in his suspicion that Hitler soaked too much of Christian insanity. After all, tolerating Christians is an impossible sin, and then believing in the occult nonsense?

    Do you mean by not allowing precious German resources to fall in the hands of unreliable allies with nationalistic aspirations of their own? When that did happen he was proven correct each time. They fought poorly, if at all, and abandoned all the German equipment to the enemy. When it came to more reliable allies, like the Italians and the Romanians, he would often go out of his way to preserve the relationship. Like when he rescued Mussolini from capitivity when there was no reason to do so except personal loyalty. He would come to regret that decision.

    Hitler was a staunch anti Christian and he did not believe in occult nonsense, whatever that means. Peddle your goods somewhere else.

    The DPR of Korea still stands a century after the birth of Kim Il Sung. The remaining White NPCs are roaming mindlessly around the corpse of Europe until they drop dead. The Aryan race is the biggest joke in the history of this planet.

    The DPR is not only not a threat to the Jewish West, it is an asset. The crazy dictator of that harmless country serves as an eternal boogeyman for Western leaders to truck out whenever they need support for a fresh outrage.

    P.S. The last vestige of Aryan Paganism survives in the ugliest of the four great world regions – among the street-shitters of Aryavarta. Serves our hilarious legacy right.

    Ours? I doubt many here believe you are one of ours. Learn to hide your choseness better I suggest.

    • Replies: @Adûnâi
  387. Bookish1 says:
    @Adûnâi

    Your posts is pure bullshit. You know nothing about ww2 history or Hitler. Your garbage sounds like it is right out of ww2 allied propaganda.

  388. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    Despite the atheist motivation of Richard Carrier, he showed that the French translation of the Table Talks, which the current English version is based on, is less than accurate. That being said, if we consider that the words, which were first taken down by Picker and Heim mostly by memory, then translated by Genoud, then translated into English, had their origins with Hitler, then yes the Table Talks are genuine. The spirit of Adolf Hitler is clearly felt in the text, but the process in which it is passed down to us makes accuracy a problem. A proper version based on the original German is as far as I know not yet available.

    Here is a short example:

    Trevor Roper via Genoud:

    Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity. It will last another hundred years, two hundred years perhaps. My regret will have been that I couldn’t, like whoever the prophet was, behold the promised land from afar.

    What is important above all is that we should prevent a greater lie from replacing the lie that is disappearing. The world of Judeo Bolshevism must collapse.

    Jochmann and Picker from the German:

    The time in which we live indicates the collapse of this idea (Christianity). It can still take 100 or 200 years. I am sorry that, like Moses, I can only see the Promised Land from a distance.

    We must only prevent a new, even greater lie from arising; that of the Jewish Bolshevist world. That’s what I must destroy.

    So Carrier is wrong to assume that the version are greatly altered, but clearly they are different enough to question what words exactly Hitler used.

  389. Adûnâi says:
    @Alexandros

    > “Trying to conflate haters like yourself with true believers like Devi is just silly.”

    https://www.savitridevi.org/mrs_devi.html

    > “That is your sentiment, not Savitri Devi’s.”

    And then Kubizek says in his book, “Then he caught hold of my hand and spoke to me with words that cannot be retold, so great they are, and he unfurled in front of me, his own future and the future of our German people.” He was sixteen. He knew he was going to fall. He said, “Like Rienzi, I’ll go up.” Rienzi was a Roman of the fourteenth century. “I will be carried up by popular love, and I’ll fall.” He knew it. He couldn’t do otherwise. He had to fight all the same, because a fighter is a fighter. […] He had to do his job. And his job was this: Go against the current of time. Show that the Germans could go against the current of time.

    Savitri Devi – And Time Rolls On, page 143.

    https://archive.org/details/DeviSavitriAndTimeRollsOnTheSavitriDeviInterviewsEN1978212S.Scan/page/n161/mode/2up/search/rienzi

    Show to whom, may I ask? There are no gods in space above our heads, only emptiness. You either live, or die. Choosing to die just because is foolish.

    > “War was the last thing he wanted with that country.”

    He wanted, he thought… What’s about the things he did? I look at history, you get busy with aspirations and intentions…

    Is it not better to analyze history to learn from it? No? Instead, you choose to worship a loser. Christians everywhere…

    > “The DPR is not only not a threat to the Jewish West, it is an asset.”

    Of course, your small brain cannot recognize reality that there is at least one anti-Christian country free from Jerusalem. Of course, 100 nuclear warheads pointed at Washington are “of little concern” to the Jesus-worshippers…

    > “Ours? I doubt many here believe you are one of ours. Learn to hide your choseness better I suggest.”

    I will not dox myself because a delusional Hitlerite is calling me a Semite (how scary).

    Longest of all the realms of the Eldalië shall Gondolin stand against Melkor. But love not too well the work of thy hands and the devices of thy heart; and remember that the true hope of the Noldor lieth in the West and cometh from the Sea.

    J.R.R. Tolkien – The Silmarillion, Chapter 15 Of the Noldor in Beleriand.

    Hitler was consumed by hubris, and lacked humility and gravitas. Hitler completely and utterly threw away the last chance of the Aryans by engaging in a useless war. Even a Catholic like Tolkien had a better sense of how bad things really are.

    ‘Hear then the words of the Lord of Waters! Thus he spoke to Círdan: “The Evil of the North has defiled the springs of Sirion, and my power withdraws from the fingers of the flowing waters. But a worse thing is yet to come forth. Say therefore to the Lord of Nargothrond: Shut the doors of the fortress, and go not abroad. Cast the stones of your pride into the loud river, that the creeping evil may not find the gate.”’

    J.R.R. Tolkien – The Children of Húrin, Chapter 11 The Fall of Nargothrond.

    Now the Korean young people, more firmly holding the torch of revolution, are vigorously advancing towards the final victory in the building of a prosperous nation.

    It is the great leader Kim Jong Il who led the Korean youth to go unflaggingly along the long road of Songun revolution under the leadership of the party holding high the torch of revolution.

    On the evening of October 10, Juche 84 or 1995, a torchlight procession was starting after the significant evening gala of youth and students of Pyongyang City held in the Kim Il Sung Square in presence of the great Kim Jong Il in celebration of the 50th anniversary of the founding of the Workers´ Party of Korea.

    The great Kim Jong Il handed a flaring torch to a young boy and girl. The torch represented his earnest request that the youth should become the undying flames of revolution, the vanguard fighters resolutely defending the WPK in the van and the reliable successors to the Songun revolution carrying forward to completion the revolutionary cause of Juche pioneered by the fatherly leader President Kim Il Sung in single-minded unity around the party. Keeping his earnest request in their hearts, the Korean youth, holding the torch of revolution higher, constantly advanced along the road of revolution following the great Kim Jong Il and the WPK and wrote an epic of creation and merits in the history of the country at the most difficult, arduous time.

    Last time I checked, Korea is alive and well, whereas Germany is a smelly corpse.

    • Replies: @Alexandros
    , @anon
  390. Adûnâi says:
    @Vaterland

    > “And the vast, vast, VAST majority of Dutch are very friendly to us. Even in these difficult times. Probably the closest in all of Europe. And as far as the actual Dutch “Alt-Right” or dissident right is concerned: their goal is essentially to restore to Holy Roman Empire as an alternative to the EU. Which I would fully agree to.”

    Out of 13.5 mil.* “ethnic Dutch”, 1.5 mil.** have non-White ancestry.

    *17.4 mil. * 0.78
    **1.5 mil. in 2001

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo_people

    That means no less than 10% of “ethnic Dutch” are non-White according to official estimates. That means that any sane Aryan nation would rather cleanse Holland with atomic flame than consider the prospect of their continued tortured existence.

    Even such a sportsman as Grubby is an Indonesian and a race-mixer, and you won’t quite easily tell.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grubby

  391. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    Thank you. Very considerate, you are a gentleman. I know how common it is to misread intentions online. We all do it.

  392. @Adûnâi

    So, you share Savitri Devi’s sentiment?

    No, I did not have Savitri Devi in mind, nor was I quoting her, when I wrote Hitler was a man of destiny. I am merely neutral on Savitri Devi. Way back when, I could barely wait to read her, but when I did I was disappointed. I prefer real history or real memoirs. She is neither.

  393. @Adûnâi

    And then Kubizek says in his book, “Then he caught hold of my hand and spoke to me with words that cannot be retold, so great they are, and he unfurled in front of me, his own future and the future of our German people.” He was sixteen. He knew he was going to fall. He said, “Like Rienzi, I’ll go up.” Rienzi was a Roman of the fourteenth century. “I will be carried up by popular love, and I’ll fall.” He knew it. He couldn’t do otherwise. He had to fight all the same, because a fighter is a fighter. […] He had to do his job. And his job was this: Go against the current of time. Show that the Germans could go against the current of time.

    I see. Adolf Hitler is inspired by a Wagnerian hero. In your mind this amounts to “being a loser”. Your stone cold evidence for this assertion is your own faulty interpretation of something he said as a 16 year old. The fact that he “won” WW1 by surviving it, conquered Germany with his own two hands, conquered most of Europe and almost defeated International Jewry is of no consequence. In Adunai’s mind this is the perfect example of pathetic loser. Thanks for letting us all know.

    Show to whom, may I ask? There are no gods in space above our heads, only emptiness. You either live, or die. Choosing to die just because is foolish.

    Show to the world. To be an inspiration. Something you would know nothing about, much less understand.

    He wanted, he thought… What’s about the things he did? I look at history, you get busy with aspirations and intentions…

    Is it not better to analyze history to learn from it? No? Instead, you choose to worship a loser. Christians everywhere…

    The things he did were glorious. Unprecedented. An example to my race. I look at history, you look at propaganda. Learn? What have you learned except to suck down lies and be a miserable prick?

    Of course, your small brain cannot recognize reality that there is at least one anti-Christian country free from Jerusalem. Of course, 100 nuclear warheads pointed at Washington are “of little concern” to the Jesus-worshippers

    Ah, the small brain “insult”. Where have we heard that before?

    North Korea is a Communist country. Knee deep in Jewish ideology, and more than likely in cahoots with the Americans to pose as a convenient “threat” whenever needed. They exist for the same reason Iran exists. They pose no threat to anyone. Even if they managed to send a bomb somewhere that would just be a few million dead goyim and the cassus belli of all time to have another war for profit. The West always wants to make deals with these countries. With Adolf Hitler they only wanted war.

    I will not dox myself because a delusional Hitlerite is calling me a Semite (how scary).

    That is an unusually paranoid interpretation. You’ve already “doxed” yourself by revealing yourself as some form of Jew. Nobody cares what your name is. You are not a threat to anyone. The point is not that you should be scared. I was merely giving you advise that your act to pose as “one of us” fools nobody.

    Hitler was consumed by hubris, and lacked humility and gravitas. Hitler completely and utterly threw away the last chance of the Aryans by engaging in a useless war. Even a Catholic like Tolkien had a better sense of how bad things really are.

    Empty assertions from a clueless man. To suggest he lacked gravitas is patently ludicrous. Not even military propaganda would dare take that route. Do you even know what the word means? Julius Caesar is the epitome of gravitas, and Hitler gets compared to him regularly. But I guess you think he’s just another loser. Who is your hero exactly? Netanyahu? Yitzhak Ginsberg? Or maybe Charlie Sheen? There’s a winning Jew.

    Yes Tolkien, the man most feared by the Jew. His efforts to defeat evil was immense. Those scary fantasy books that Hollywood faithfully reproduced on the big screen is surely a grave danger to their rule. Not at all a fictional past time to distract you from the problems of the real world. Hitler should have written a fictional novel instaed of warring the Jews is your advice is suppose. That would make him a “winner”.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
    , @Adûnâi
  394. anon[402] • Disclaimer says:
    @Adûnâi

    You are a NEET and an onanist as per your incels.co & reddit acounts.

    Why should anybody listen to you?

    • Replies: @Adûnâi
  395. @Alexandros

    Why are you accepting a quote from Savitri Devi’s book paraphrasing what Kubizek wrote about the hilltop encounter? This is what is wrong with Savitri Devi – she becomes a stand-in for Hitler himself! Here she is interpreting and “rewriting” Kubizek to fit her own poetic interpretation of Hitler as “a man against time.” This is how misinformation gets established. Kubizek himself, while interesting and informative, is not entirely reliable either.

    I know that the masses choose fantasy over reality, but we must stick with what we can be sure of, that which came from Hitler himself. I notice that Devi is especially popular with men (with particular strength among homosexuals) who are on the fence about Hitler, and who therefore prefer an interpretive version of the Fuehrer as an Aryan symbol of some sort, over the real man himself who had a normal relationship with a normal German woman. This is also what’s behind the Avatar craze, which Hitler actually denounced in his lifetime. I am completely opposed to all of this. It’s an attempt to avoid establishing Adolf Hitler as a part of human history, European history, and German history.

    As to your comment about Table Talk (#395), you very ably showed with your example that it is indeed genuine Hitler in essence. IOW, it is not a “fake.” Thank you.

    • Replies: @Adûnâi
  396. Because after so many years reading the most dispicable falsehoods I am still terribly naive. I did not even consider that she would make up something Hitler said. Interpret his words to fit her own image of the man, yes, but not actually make up quotes. I’ve read that book and the statement seemed very familiar, but now I see that Kubiczek never quoted Hitler as saying “I will fall”.

    That coupled with Hitlers belief in his divine mission made it seem plausible. So I’ve been had, again.

    Would you happen to know where one could find this Hans Grimm interview she talks about? She uses it as the strongest proof that Hitler believed in Avatarism, but I’ve always suspected he was merely talking about being the drummer for a real political leader, who once he realized did not exist at the time, he would have to do the job himself. I think Stolfi talks about it in “Beyond Evil and Tyranny” also. But that has nothing to do with Buddist avatarism.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  397. @Alexandros

    Check this out – scroll down for the portions on ‘Table Talk’

    https://anoccasionalcomment.blogspot.com/2017/11/david-irving-on-mein-kampf-hitlers.html

    In all fairness, though, I’ve not read any of ‘Table Talk’, aside from a few odd quotes here and there. But obviously I place great stock in Irving’s opinions vis-a-vis specific sources on Hitler.

    • Replies: @Alexandros
  398. @Alexandros

    Would you happen to know where one could find this Hans Grimm interview she talks about?

    No, I don’t. But I’m looking at this posted at Stormfront in 2015 right now: https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1083221/ I’ll keep looking for it as I’d like to know.

    I didn’t read Stolfi’s book. You are probably right about AH not finding the leader Germany needed and deciding he would have to take it on himself. I recall him mentioning that in Mein Kampf. (Strangely or not, Donald Trump decided to run for President for the same reason.)

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  399. You really shouldn’t put too much stock on Irving’s opinions.

    http://www.inconvenienthistory.com/9/3/4880

    The more I learn about him the more I think he is a dubious character. Not a fraud, but a man blinded by his own weltanschauung and ego. When I first read Hitler’s War I thought it was a great book. Now that I know more about the subject, I think the book is almost anti Hitler. I find it humerous that he is attacked for being too pro Hitler. At times it feels like John Toland is more objective and fair to Hitler than Irving is. From being an outspoken Holocaust denier in the 80s to the Holocaust believer he is now, says a lot about his integrity.

    I can give you one example from memory in Hitler’s War. When he speaks about Hitler’s suicide it says something like “Hitler took poison and shot himself”. But when you look at the notes, you will find that the only source for the poison claim comes from the Russians. None of the German witnesses in the bunker said so. To most people that would indicate that the Russian claim is a pack of lies made up to discredit Hitler (poison was seen as unmanly). In my opinion, a proper objective historian would have expanded on this view in the text itself instead of burying it in his notes. Irving writes it as pure and simple fact, and unless you check the notes you will never suspect otherwise. This leaves you with an unfair and inaccurate portrayal of Hitler.

    In short he is a valuable source, but far from accurate and in no way trustworthy.

  400. Adûnâi says:
    @Alexandros

    > “I see. Adolf Hitler is inspired by a Wagnerian hero. In your mind this amounts to “being a loser”. Your stone cold evidence for this assertion is your own faulty interpretation of something he said as a 16 year old.”

    No. I am quoting Saviti Devi’s impression. Learn to read. It is her interpretation that literally calls Hitler a predestined loser. It is she who finds glory in that.

    In truth, I understand the sentiment – Hitler’s demise was as full of pathos as that of Fëanáro, Ar-Pharazôn and Celebrimbor. And yet, it does not ease the pain of living through the consequences of their fate.

    > “Show to the world. To be an inspiration. Something you would know nothing about, much less understand.”

    The world consists of whores putting Negro dicks inside themselves.

    > “The things he did were glorious. Unprecedented. An example to my race. I look at history, you look at propaganda.”

    Literal schizo self-contradiction.

    > “North Korea is a Communist country. Knee deep in Jewish ideology, and more than likely in cahoots with the Americans to pose as a convenient “threat” whenever needed.”

    1. The DPR of Korea aborts mudblood babies. That is as anti-Jerusalem as it can get.

    2. Considering that the DPR of Korea has far-reaching secret treaties with the US of America is as schizo as believing that we live inside the Earth and space is a lie by NASA. Thanks for proving my point.

    > “They pose no threat to anyone. Even if they managed to send a bomb somewhere that would just be a few million dead goyim and the cassus belli of all time to have another war for profit.”

    No. It would crash the entire capitalist system worldwide. America is a colossus of clay feet (a Hitlerian expression about the USSR, actually). But again thanks for proving my point – you believe Jews of the West to be Gods; any seeming damage to them is pre-planned and no damage at all; Jews control all. Schizo.

    No. If 10 nukes hit Washington, the whole of Columbia will disintegrate like a bad dream. Juche Koreans do not commit to such an action only because they treasure the beauty of Pyongyang – whereas Jerusalem will fall on its own in due time.

    > “I was merely giving you advise that your act to pose as “one of us” fools nobody.”

    Yes, I am a Slavic Aryan. Yes, I respect Hitler. No, I will not call him a winner when objective reality tells me he was a loser. Denying Nature is the business of Christians.

    > “Julius Caesar is the epitome of gravitas”

    Julius Caesar was an insecure traitorous man-child. César Tort will add – the perpetrator of the genocide of Gauls.

    > “Who is your hero exactly?”

    Kim Jong Il > Hitler > Stalin.

    > “Not at all a fictional past time to distract you from the problems of the real world. ”

    Internal Jihad (see Luke above with his books) must precede external Jihad. The time has come to do an internal work in the sacred island where the last Jedi became wise and powerful before confronting ZOG.

    https://chechar.wordpress.com/2018/10/13/the-last-jedi/

    This is why I value both Gondolin’s raison d’être and Juche Korea’s strategy more than Hitler’s rash of mindless attacks coupled with growling at Churchill’s feet. To you, it’s Hitler’s offers of peace – to me, it’s frivolous misunderstanding that there are no English anymore, only spiritual Jews.

    > “Hitler should have written a fictional novel instaed of warring the Jews is your advice is suppose.”

    No. Here, we are saying words. The actions of Tolkien’s characters would be considered superior if the NSDAP had been as fictional. But in reality, I know not. I will not say that Hitler would rather not have been born, although I could.

    • Replies: @Alexandros
  401. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    I can also mention what Irving considers “evidence” for the Holocaust. On his site he has transcripts taken by the British of German POW’s at the end/after the war from their holding cells. They speak about the supposed massacre of Jews at Babi Yar in 1941. Evidently Irving takes pride in discovering those documents and considers it proof that the Germans were mass executing Jews.

    Okay, fair enough. At face value it seems credible. The British secretly recorded German POWs talking about a mass murder. The type of smoking gun evidence everybody is looking for. The problem is that there are no remains of 40.000 Jews at Babi Yar. No remains of any graves. Very likely there weren’t even enough Jews in the area.

    So what is the explanation? Babi Yar is one of the poster childs of the Holocaust myth. It was established already early in the war. But we now know due to the complete lack of forensic evidence that it is most likely just a propaganda story. So why do these German POW’s talk about it? Well, if we go back and read those documents again we will discover that in all of them the talks begin with a German coming into a cell and start making claims. In all the cases the other prisoners in the cell have heard nothing about it, know nothing about it. So in my opinion what happened is the Soviet tactic of planting evidence was used. The Brits took some Germans who were willing to commit the fraud, placed them in cells with regular Germans, recorded it, and voila, they have proof that the Germans secretly admitted to the deed.

    If I can tie those knots together, so should Irving.

  402. Adûnâi says:
    @anon

    > “You are a NEET and an onanist as per your incels.co & reddit acounts.”

    And you are an anonymous handle. Where is virtue in being even more anonymous?

    Either way, I have never posited that my life has more worth than that of Anders Behring Breivik or Brenton Tarrant. So this ad hominem is not addressing anything.

    I will say, however, that my ideas are superior. The same way Darwin and Nietzsche were superior to Hitler – but being a man of action understandably absolves of many sins (Robert Gregory Bowers was a Christian).

    P.S. Those shooters are not leaders of nations. I consider their actions heroic and admirable – because when they fail, only they pay the price. Hitler bore incalculably more responsibility.

    • Replies: @anon
  403. @Alexandros

    Except I don’t agree with the link to the Clark article at Inconvenient History. So I really shouldn’t have hit the ‘agree’ button, but I wanted to support your first sentence without writing another comment. Lol, I guess that didn’t work. Still, I agree that John Burns is too hung up on Irving, and he has a lot of company in that but should be discouraged from keeping all his eggs in one basket. The article at the Independent Burns linked to was abominable. I had read it previously.

    • Replies: @Alexandros
    , @Alexandros
  404. @Adûnâi

    No. I am quoting Saviti Devi’s impression. Learn to read. It is her interpretation that literally calls Hitler a predestined loser. It is she who finds glory in that.

    In truth, I understand the sentiment – Hitler’s demise was as full of pathos as that of Fëanáro, Ar-Pharazôn and Celebrimbor. And yet, it does not ease the pain of living through the consequences of their fate.

    Devi is perhaps the biggest Adolf Hitler worshipper of all time. You should learn to read if you missed that forrest. To suggest she glorified losers is a claim without evidence. It’s a bit more complicated than that, which should be obvious from reading her.

    The world consists of whores putting Negro dicks inside themselves.

    It also consists of men like Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler and Heydrich. Men willing and capable to make a difference. Men who take great inspiration from heroic acts. Men who choose to uplift the good instead of submitting to the low.

    Literal schizo self-contradiction.

    Empty words.

    1. The DPR of Korea aborts mudblood babies. That is as anti-Jerusalem as it can get.

    2. Considering that the DPR of Korea has far-reaching secret treaties with the US of America is as schizo as believing that we live inside the Earth and space is a lie by NASA. Thanks for proving my point.

    Good for them. Utterly meaningless for the rest of us.

    Far reaching secret treaties? That’s quite the leap from Trump making a deal with him. Then you spout the usual Elvis in the Moon stuff, I guess in an attempt to discredit me.

    No. It would crash the entire capitalist system worldwide. America is a colossus of clay feet (a Hitlerian expression about the USSR, actually). But again thanks for proving my point – you believe Jews of the West to be Gods; any seeming damage to them is pre-planned and no damage at all; Jews control all. Schizo.

    No. If 10 nukes hit Washington, the whole of Columbia will disintegrate like a bad dream. Juche Koreans do not commit to such an action only because they treasure the beauty of Pyongyang – whereas Jerusalem will fall on its own in due time.

    Lol, then why don’t they? Why don’t the glorious Koreans ever do something? Adolf Hitler had weapons of mass desctruction too. It didn’t stop his enemies from attacking him. They did not care if he used them, just like they would not care if Kim Jong used his if they actually considered him a threat.

    And the beauty of that ugly ass capital says a lot about your desperate argumentation. You didn’t pluck that out of thin air at all.

    Yes, I am a Slavic Aryan. Yes, I respect Hitler. No, I will not call him a winner when objective reality tells me he was a loser. Denying Nature is the business of Christians.

    As I thought. A yellow Jew. Not quite the purity content of the original, but very similar mind sets. It takes a special type of mind to hail nature and then denigrate Hitler, the most pro nature leader in probably the last 1000 years or more. It was literally the basis of his whole ideology. Natural law. He was also an enemy of Christianity. He was an Aryan advocate, yet you spend your time attacking him. And you call me a schizoid. Is it all because he didn’t like Slavs?

    Julius Caesar was an insecure traitorous man-child. César Tort will add – the perpetrator of the genocide of Gauls.

    A foul character indeed, but he still held more gravitas than anyone in Rome. Well, maybe except Cato.

    This is why I value both Gondolin’s raison d’être and Juche Korea’s strategy more than Hitler’s rash of mindless attacks coupled with growling at Churchill’s feet. To you, it’s Hitler’s offers of peace – to me, it’s frivolous misunderstanding that there are no English anymore, only spiritual Jews.

    A fact we know because Hitler forced it out in the open. And you need to make your mind up. If you want him to be a winner, you have to accept that he makes moves to secure that victory. British acceptance was vital to that end. But that doesn’t mean Hitler believed in it. Already in the early 30s he was aware that an alliance with them would be very unlikely. There were 3 options in his mind. The UK, the USSR or Italy. The first two would be unlikely, the last would be insufficient. So he played the hands he was dealt.

    You say Korea’s strategy as if it means something. Strategy for what? To survive? They can do that for a while, but unless the actual problem is dealt with they too will succumb to overwhelming pressure. This is what Hitler understood. The enemy must be defeated, not just avoided. If he could defeat Russia that would actually have happened. It would give Germany unassailable strength and secure an anti Jewish culture in Europe for centuries. Over time that could be used as a springboard to take care of the Jew world wide. Insteading of honoring his sacrifice, you denigrate him for losing. Why don’t you spend your time attacking the American and British, and the Slavic nations, for defeating him? Why do you hail Stalin, one of the biggest Jewish tools of all time? A stone cold psychopath with no capacity for higher ideals. A man who considered detective stories the epitome of literature (and even had the gall to personally edit real authors before publishing it).

    • Replies: @Adûnâi
  405. @Carolyn Yeager

    Yes, she is similar to Irving in that regard. But the information in that article seems accurate enough to me, and I do trust Inconvenient History to some degree.

    The fault with it is that it leaves the impression the TT is some kind of forgery. When I read the translation examples in Richard Carrier’s book, I saw that was not quite the case. Inaccurate and not a primary source, but just as good a source as anyone who was a witness to Hitler. I think she says it is not more valuable than the books of Heinz Linge, Otto Wagener et. al. Well, that is more than valuable enough for me. Wageners book is in some ways a mini Table Talk. You get full passages of things Hitler said in his presence. A great read I think, and unmistakenly the words of Hitler, even though not 100% accurate like a court transcript. I don’t see any examples where Hitler’s words are altered to the point where they present the wrong essence.

    But I’m not an expert and I’m happy to be corrected on anything.

  406. @Carolyn Yeager

    Okay, is this what you’re talking about?

    That last, great individual — an absolutely harmonious blending of the sharpest of all opposites; equally sun and lightning — is the one whom the faithful of all religions and the bearers of practically all cultures await; the one of whom Adolf Hitler (knowingly or unknowingly) said, in 1928: “I am not he; but while nobody comes forward to prepare the way for him, I do so”; the one whom I have called by his Hindu name, Kalki, on account of the cosmic truth that this name evokes.

    This can be found here: http://library.flawlesslogic.com/litsun_4.htm “The Last Man Against Time” It’s from Lightning and the Sun, , 3rd abridged edition (Wellington, NZ: Renaissance Press, 1994), 74, 82-83. Sounds like pure Fantasy/Super Hero literature.

    My question of Savitri Devi is Where did Hitler say this and to whom? Did he say it to Hans Grimm? Have the actual words of Hitler been changed here too?

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  407. @Carolyn Yeager

    I also would like to add that if anybody wants to read the literal words of Adolf Hitler they should read the Platterhof Speech from 1944 on your site.

    https://carolynyeager.net/new-translation-hitlers-may-1944-talk-officers-platterhof

    I think it is the most valuable document that exists of the man. Not only does it talk about his views at great length, it is made in the semi private presence of his officers corps, so you get more blunt truth from him than we do in speeches or even in Mein Kampf. As a long time student of the man I was taken aback when I read it. It puts so many doubts to rest and clarifies a lot of his mind set. His views on race for example I have not seen talked about in any other text like he does there. It is also immensly impressive to witness the persuasive power of the man, and his brilliant intelligence, to make a full room of officers erupt with jubilations at regular intervals at that point in the war. What a leader. Just extraordinary.

    I recommend it to everybody.

    • Thanks: Carolyn Yeager, Bookish1
  408. @Carolyn Yeager

    Okay, here it is from Hans Grimm:

    “I know that someone has to step forward in face of our current situation — meaning the inner and outer, the corporeal and the spiritual plight of our people. I have searched for that man. I haven’t been able to find him anywhere, so I got to my feet and started to do the preliminary work, only the most basic preliminary work, because I know that I am not he. And I also know what I lack. But the other, he isn’t here yet, and nobody else is stepping forward, and there is no time to be wasted!”

    — Warum, woher, aber wohin? by Hans Grimm

    https://nationalvanguard.org/2018/04/two-quotes-that-will-give-you-chills/ But this quote is found in the book by the esotericist Miguel Serrano, MANU: For The Man To Come, so I don’t trust it at all. When I find what Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf, I think we will straighten this out. It just goes to show that people who so many follow as “knowing so much” are not above twisting Hitler’s words and intentions to promote their own fame and following.

  409. Adûnâi says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    > “I notice that Devi is especially popular with men (with particular strength among homosexuals) who are on the fence about Hitler, and who therefore prefer an interpretive version of the Fuehrer as an Aryan symbol of some sort, over the real man himself who had a normal relationship with a normal German woman. This is also what’s behind the Avatar craze, which Hitler actually denounced in his lifetime. I am completely opposed to all of this. It’s an attempt to avoid establishing Adolf Hitler as a part of human history, European history, and German history.”

    Do you unironically hate Savitri Devi? Why? I’m a staunch materialist myself (she’s a pure idealist that would probably deny biological evolution), but I nonetheless have a great respect for her for fighting for Hitler despite all odds, disregarding the entire world. She did her small part according to her svadharma. And her prose is beautiful. Can you suggest any Nazis who write like she does?

    And your last sentence – is it not missing the point? Is it not defamation?

    “[…] But they don’t think of the ganze Welt at all. They think only of their blessed Germany.” I said, “That’s natural.” “But you,” she said, “you think of the world. You are not a Nazi because Hitler saved Germany. On the contrary, you like Germany, because it’s Hitler’s country.” I said, “Yes, exactly, exactly.””

    Savitri Devi – And Time Rolls On, page 23.

    https://archive.org/details/DeviSavitriAndTimeRollsOnTheSavitriDeviInterviewsEN1978212S.Scan/page/n41/mode/2up/search/jewess

    […you’ll have the honour of suffering for what you love…] If I were told today that, if I am vivisected, Germany would be reunited under a National Socialist government, I would accept at once. I wouldn’t accept vivisection of an animal even for that, not for that. I should go, or my comrades, people who are conscious of what they do. Otherwise, the sacrifice of a victim who’s not conscious, is no sacrifice. It has no effect really. For it to be effective they must be consenting. Consenting and enthusiastic. [The Aztecs knew that.]

    Savitri Devi – And Time Rolls On, page 164.

    https://archive.org/details/DeviSavitriAndTimeRollsOnTheSavitriDeviInterviewsEN1978212S.Scan/page/n183/mode/2up/search/vivisection

    And I read upside down the headline of the paper, “Berlin is an inferno.” I felt cold. And anyhow, I went to small towns, and I kept to temples, and I kept to the Hindus not concerned with politics. I avoided newspapers, and I didn’t know when the capitulation came.

    Savitri Devi – And Time Rolls On, page 37.

    https://archive.org/details/DeviSavitriAndTimeRollsOnTheSavitriDeviInterviewsEN1978212S.Scan/page/n55/mode/2up/search/inferno

  410. anon[402] • Disclaimer says:
    @Adûnâi

    You have no ideas. You are slavic trash, that’s what you are. A train could run over you for all I care.

  411. Adûnâi says:
    @Alexandros

    > “Empty words.”

    Dude. How much should I spell? Is it not obvious that

    The things he did were glorious. Unprecedented. An example to my race. I look at history, you look at propaganda.

    is self-contradictory? Calling an objective failure “an example” is propaganda, as opposed to history – an analysis of past mistakes.

    > “Lol, then why don’t they? Why don’t the glorious Koreans ever do something?”

    Learn to read, I literally spelled it out in my post – because it would spell doom for precious Pyongyang, whereas the rotten Israel of the West is bound to be defeated by its own degeneracy in due time.

    > “Adolf Hitler had weapons of mass desctruction too. It didn’t stop his enemies from attacking him.”

    Hitler had poisonous gas, and did not use it.

    > “They did not care if he used them, just like they would not care if Kim Jong used his if they actually considered him a threat.”

    Dude, the economy of the West will physically crumble in the case of total war. It has nothing to do with what Jews want. Jews cannot weave magic and just shrug off dozens of nuclear devices exploding over their cities. One Brenton Tarrant made them scared shitless. Once again, you consider Jews to be omnipotent Gods.

    > “He was also an enemy of Christianity.”

    Hitler was a weak enemy of Christianity – too cowardly to remove crucifixes from schools. Too meek to crucify and skin alive Christian priests. Hitler was literally on the level of coward Stalin when it came to Christianity – they both expected that Jewish poison to die natural death. Guess what, both Germania and Russia have died before Christianity. Wrong strategy!

    Why were the Communists of Catalonia worthy avengers of Hypatia, while your beloved Führer was not?

    https://chechar.wordpress.com/2018/01/22/apocalypse-for-whites-xxxvi/

    https://www.granger.com/results.asp?inline=true&image=0081783&wwwflag=1&itemx=8

    > “He was an Aryan advocate, yet you spend your time attacking him.”

    Why do you think that Hitler would like you mindlessly to worship him, instead of learning from his mistakes?

  412. Incitatus says:
    @turtle

    “But you did not answer my question, to wit:
    Do you believe Stoddard was dishonest, or merely gullible and/or stupid?”

    Apologies (other time demands).

    Scroll up-thread. My post [#351] remarked on Carolyn’s [#342] “<i>The worst habit of the viciously anti-Hitler crowd is the sources they use for giving us the “Nazi” beliefs and ideas.”. She doesn’t mention Stoddard. She trashes Childers [“rabid anti-Hitler historian”] for a Göbbels quote #333. She doesn’t rebut the quote. She has no defense.

    Have you/she/Unz read Childers? Göbbels? It’s pretty simple.

    Certainly debating point-to-point is well beyond this web site (sorry).

    Ron Unz sponsors Stoddard. No mention of current historians (Volker Ulrich, Peter Longerich, Beevor, Childers, Burleigh, Kershaw, etc.). Doe’s he read them? Doubt it. Do you? How does he/you/Carolyn know they’re wrong/ Stoddard’s right?

    Some say Ron sells Kokie Konspiracy (cherry-picked fringe sources: make those ants work!). Are they right?

    “Kinder, Küche, Kirche”

    Salutary reproduction is an admirable thing – especially if it concerns population increase. Ask any livestock farmer (grew up on a farm). Oddly Unz posters retreat into defensive condemnatory messages. They should have embraced it! More Mother’s Medals please! What a joke!

    The NSDAP message remains: Reproduce! Nothing wrong with that! All these little embarrassed Unz trolls don’t have a clue!

    As far as ‘Kirche’ goes, Hitler had them on his ‘first to reckon post-war hit list’. It would not have been pretty. There is much evidence (direct quotes).

    Anything that threatened NSDAP [gefreiter (PFC) Adolf Hitler] total control (police and rule of law 1920-33, rival political parties, democracy, Freemasons, Gypsies, Jehovah Witnesses, Clerics, you-name-it) was a threat. Tag der Machtergreifung 30 Jan1933 was a revolution no less bloody that in France 1789-99.

    Return to Litten. A lawyer who brings a case against NSDAP Tanzpalast murderers, deposes Hitler 8 May 1931 is arrested [28 Feb 1933], confined, and tortured to death. All without legal charge. All on the extra-legal orders of one man – former vagabond/felon – Führer Adolf Hitler – who spitefully (on record) wanted Litten dead, and thus it became so.

    Was (German) Litten a threat to Germany? No. Litten threatened (Austrian demagogue) Hiltler’s self-esteem. Who then led (unapposed) the German people into ruin.

    The formative lesson was taught 30 Jun- 2 Jul 1934. Ask Carolyn, Fox, and Ron.

    200+ murdered without trial in Operation Hummingbird without judicial sanction. Including former chancellor Kurt von Schleicher and wife (shot in the face), Generalmajor Ferdinand von Bredow (shot in the face opening his door), Herbert von Bose (von Papen’s press chief; shot ten times in the back; Catholic journalist Fritz Gerlich (murdered at Dauchau); Conservative lawyer Edgar Julius Jung (shot, dumped in an Oranienburg ditch); Catholic politician and Papen associate Erich Klausener (shot by the SS); etc….

    This site is a disservice to Germans. It seeks to empower those who conflate (resurrect?) the NSDAP (never more than 10% of population – of which perhaps the top 1% called the shots) with ordinary Germans, who suffered from 1914, to say nothing of 1939-45.

    Stay well turtle.

    • Replies: @Adûnâi
  413. Incitatus says:
    @Fox

    Hi Fox, sorry to be late.

    “You know much and understand nothing.”

    Thanks for the Delphic complement,

    Pity you can’t innumerate facts that would convey your understanding.

    Stay well Fox.

  414. @Alexandros

    I’m well aware of Irving’s relative weakness on the Holocaust.

    Anyway, we have no quarrel here, my friend. We both agree that the hoax never happened, and we both agree that ‘Table Talk’ is legitimate. I will look into Irving’s reliability in other areas of the war.

  415. @Alexandros

    Thank you. I will look into this.

    I have actually only read two Irving books to this point: one was ‘Hitler’s War’ and the other was ‘The Destruction of Dresden.’ The latter, at least, still seems like an impeccably good work of history.

    Otherwise I am mostly familiar with him from his brief dalliance with IHR and from his wide range of lectures.

    ‘Hitler’s War’ aside, I would be curious what you all think of the rest of his works, because I know Ernst Zuendel, for one, held the rest of his historiography in high esteem. I have just begun perusing Herr Zuendel’s video archive and am quite impressed so far.

    It always seemed to me that Irving was a bit of a careerist: perhaps he didn’t realize that testifying on behalf of Zuendel would be a death knell for his career in light of the staunch power of Jewry and its total unwillingness to give an inch. Irving was willing to acknowledge the implausibility of the gas chamber story, but, then, it was as if he wanted to put the cat back in the bag, and restore his status, by trying to find other ways in which the rest of the Jewish story might have been true. See his contentions about the Aktion Reinhard camps. If my speculation on his motivation is correct, then this was really absurd of him.

    • Replies: @Alexandros
  416. Tag der Machtergreifung 30 Jan1933 was a revolution no less bloody that in France 1789-99.

    40.000 people were killed in Jan 33? That’s news to me.

    Was (German) Litten a threat to Germany? No. Litten threatened (Austrian demagogue) Hiltler’s self-esteem. Who then led (unapposed) the German people into ruin.

    As a prominent advocate for a bloody Communist revolution in Germany he was certainly a threat.

    How exactly did Hitler lead Germany to ruin? It was a rich country before the war, and a rich country a few years after the war. It is a rich country today. But of course, it will not continue to be so with current policies of mass genocide and economic strangulation imposed by successive BRD governments. Germany survived Hitler’s War well enough. They will not survive this century. Where is your outrage?

    The formative lesson was taught 30 Jun- 2 Jul 1934. Ask Carolyn, Fox, and Ron.

    Ordered by President Hindenburg and later praised by him. It was pretty much that lesson which convinced him that Hitler was the right man for the job.

    Including former chancellor Kurt von Schleicher and wife (shot in the face), Generalmajor Ferdinand von Bredow (shot in the face opening his door), Herbert von Bose (von Papen’s press chief; shot ten times in the back; Catholic journalist Fritz Gerlich (murdered at Dauchau); Conservative lawyer Edgar Julius Jung (shot, dumped in an Oranienburg ditch); Catholic politician and Papen associate Erich Klausener (shot by the SS); etc….

    Yes, the former Chancellor von Schleicher who had achieved nothing in his government, forcing Hindenburg to accept Hitler for the post. Embittered, this fine, conservative gentleman conspired with hardcore Nazi Rohm and the Communist Strasser to overthrow Hitler in a bloody revolution. A principled man, no doubt. That might be why President Hindenburg did not mind his “murder”. He knew it was necessary to restore order.

    Edgar Jung, the man who said: “violence is an element of life” and that “a nation that has become incapable of employing violence must be suspected of biological decline.”

    Von Bredow, the man who lied about Hitler’s war wounds to defame him. Another upstanding character.

    Von Bose might have lived if Papen had bothered to warn him. I guess he couldn’t be bothered.

    Klausener, another rebel who thought it wise to challenge a dictatorship. At least he had the balls. As a Catholic he got what they all want the most.

    This site is a disservice to Germans.

    You are a disservice to Germans. Expending so much energy to misrepresent the only movement who tried to uplift your nation in a thousand years. What would you have in its place? The tyrannical Church? The aristocracy? The degenerate democracy of Merkel? What?

    “All these little midgets, who imagine they have something to say will be swept away by the power of our idea of the community. Because, whatever criticisms
    they believe themselves capable off formulating, all these midgets forget
    one thing: where is this better thing that could replace what is? Where
    do they keep whatever it is they want to put in its place? Ridiculous, this
    little worm who wants to combat such a powerful renewal of a people.”

    -Adolf Hitler

    • Replies: @Incitatus
    , @Adûnâi
  417. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    Churchill’s War is a must read. Just imagine if this quote was common knowledge: “If I was made world dictator I would kill every scientist alive” (paraphrased).

    His book on Nuremberg is worth it for the Rudolf Hess story alone (he relentlessly trolled the court). I’ve also read the Keitel diaries, but that’s not exactly an Irving book, just a translation.

    It always seemed to me that Irving was a bit of a careerist: perhaps he didn’t realize that testifying on behalf of Zuendel would be a death knell for his career in light of the staunch power of Jewry and its total unwillingness to give an inch. Irving was willing to acknowledge the implausibility of the gas chamber story, but, then, it was as if he wanted to put the cat back in the bag, and restore his status, by trying to find other ways in which the rest of the Jewish story might have been true. See his contentions about the Aktion Reinhard camps. If my speculation on his motivation is correct, then this was really absurd of him.

    Agreed. He was very invested in his fame and the income it brought. I suspect that is why he got himself into trouble by taking the position the Holocaust happened, only Hitler didn’t know about it. A safe wedge which would help expose the lie, but protect him from being called a Holocaust Denier. Essentially he was promoting a lie, and they tore him apart for it. And of course he underestimated the ruthlessness in which any non conforming historian is brought down.

    But, being the only mainstream historian to tackle the issue makes him valuable, and he deserves credit for that.

  418. anarchyst says:
    @Alexandros

    Irving recanted TRUTH in order to avoid prison time. I don’t blame him…

  419. @Alexandros

    Thanks.

    I suspect that is why he got himself into trouble by taking the position the Holocaust happened, only Hitler didn’t know about it. A safe wedge which would help expose the lie, but protect him from being called a Holocaust Denier.

    This is something I’ve mentioned elsewhere on the Unz Review: Raoul Hilberg and David Irving said very similar things. Hilberg, whom Zuendel amusingly called “The Pope of the Holocaust in America,” said that there was no written evidence to suggest Hitler knew about the “Holocaust.” Ditto Irving. They both, at least at the time their books were published, said that it must have happened anyway – the only difference is that Hilberg made the outrageous and infamous claim that an “incredible meeting of the minds” (his exact words) had enabled the German bureaucracy to exterminate Jews without leaving behind a trace of an order. But, again, both once claimed that it did happen.

    What Irving apparently didn’t understand, at least when he published ‘Hitler’s War,’ is that, in a Judaized West, Jews can get away with saying that; a goy can’t. I’m inclined to chalk this initial mistake of his up to some kind of Anglo naivete. But who knows? Perhaps it was hubris.

    Irving seems to have been a fascinating mixture of honorable, selfish, impetuous, and brilliant.

    But of course humanity is always more complex, and always more REAL, than the propagandists would have us believe, isn’t it? If only we could ask Hitler himself. 🙂

    Have a good day!

    • Agree: Alexandros
    • Replies: @Vaterland
  420. Incitatus says:
    @Alexandros

    ‘Tag der Machtergreifung 30 Jan1933 was a revolution no less bloody that in France 1789-99.’
    “40.000 people were killed in Jan 33? That’s news to me.

    Civilian deaths due to NSDAP persecution are estimated at 100,000 Austrians [“Bundeskanzleramt der Republik Österreich – Startseite – Bundeskanzleramt Österreich”. http://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at.] and up to 500,000 Germans (including 170,000 German Jews and 200,000 Aktion T4 victims) [‘Germany Reports’ intro. Konrad Adenauer and Bundesarchiv Euthanasie].

    “[Litten was] a prominent advocate for a bloody Communist revolution in Germany he was certainly a threat.”

    Kindly document personal (i.e. not representing clients) advocacy with sources.

    “How exactly did Hitler lead Germany to ruin? It was a rich country before the war, and a rich country a few years after the war.”

    That’s easy. Hitler thought savage evolutionary contests proved dominance (legitimacy). Once ruthlessly established as a tyrant with unrestrained domestic power of life/death, he transferred that contest to international sphere. Just ask Dollfuß. Troops into Austria, Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia, Memel, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, Belgium, Netherlands, North Africa, Yugoslavia, Greece, Crete, Eastern Poland, USSR.

    Hitler’s contest – enlisting ordinary Germans in unreasonable imperial contests fought for the Austrian’s ego – ruined Germany. Whatever wealth remained in Germany post WW2 was due to the genius/hard work of ordinary Germans, their usefulness in containing the USSR and a more enlightened policy of the victors (the Marshall Plan).

    “[Operation Hummingbird extra-judicial murder was] ordered by President Hindenburg and later praised by him. It was pretty much that lesson which convinced him that Hitler was the right man for the job.”

    Kindly produce evidence Hindenburg ordered the ‘Night of the Long Knives’ killing [with sources]. He sanctioned them after the fact, a fig-leaf covering his witless grant of absolute power to Hitler (a man he’d disparaged as the ‘Bohemian corporal’). He died a month after the wholesale murders (age 86). A private letter appended to his Testament begged the return of monarchy.

    “Yes, the former Chancellor von Schleicher who had achieved nothing in his government, forcing Hindenburg to accept Hitler for the post”

    The devil’s deal to promote Hitler was brokered by von Papen [Schleicher rival; former chancellor who also “achieved nothing in his government” 1 Jun 1932-17 Nov 1932]. Papen (fellow noble) assured Hindenburg Hitler could be controlled. He was wrong, so was Hindenburg.

    Chancellor, General der Infanterie Kurt von Schleicher and his wife were shot point blank in their residence. No trial, no charges, just a mob hit. Was it because they “achieved nothing in government” Alexandros? Please explain.

    You might consider reading Thomas Weber and Benjamin Carter Hett. Schleicher and fellow victim Generalmajor Ferdinand von Bredow (shot in the face opening his door) were rumored to have medical files on Hitler attesting to the latter’s ‘post-gassing’ convalescence in a psychiatric ward [in other words the blindness he professed was treated as PTSD, not as a physical injury, clouding his momentous decision in the fit of heroic injury to take up politics].

    “Von Bose might have lived if Papen had bothered to warn him. I guess he couldn’t be bothered.”

    Really? It was up to Papen to save Bose (his press-chief, one of the authors of the 17 Jun 1934 Marburg Speech)? What should von Papen have said? Herbe, you’re about to be killed (you’ll be shot ten times in the back)? Take a vacation?

    “Klausener, another rebel who thought it wise to challenge a dictatorship. At least he had the balls. As a Catholic he got what they all want the most.”

    Martyrdom? By an amoral little Austrian shit? Doubt Klausener prayed for that, but you’re the expert.

    “You are a disservice to Germans. Expending so much energy to misrepresent the only movement [NSDAP] who tried to uplift your nation in a thousand years. What would you have in its place? The tyrannical Church? The aristocracy? The degenerate democracy of Merkel? What?”

    Thanks for that, Alexandros. Tell us what you would have Germans do. Spare no effort, we’re all ears.

    PS. How’s Putin doin?

    • Agree: Adûnâi
    • Replies: @Alexandros
  421. Incitatus says:
    @Alexandros

    “The more I learn about him [Irving] the more I think he is a dubious character. Not a fraud, but a man blinded by his own weltanschauung and ego.”

    How sad!

    “one example from memory in Hitler’s War. When he speaks about Hitler’s suicide it says something like “Hitler took poison and shot himself”. But when you look at the notes, you will find that the only source for the poison claim comes from the Russians. None of the German witnesses in the bunker said so. To most people that would indicate that the Russian claim is a pack of lies made up to discredit Hitler (poison was seen as unmanly).”

    Unmännlich? Wotan forbid!

    Fully agree Adolf should be given full credit for blowing his brains out with his Walther PPK 7.65. No need for cynide. What a man!

    Critics may quibble he gave new Haus-Frau Eva poison (only after poor Blondi was killed to prove it worked – Blondi’s newborn litter was latter shot). But, what the hell?

  422. Adûnâi says:
    @Incitatus

    > “Was (German) Litten a threat to Germany? No. Litten threatened (Austrian demagogue) Hiltler’s self-esteem. Who then led (unapposed) the German people into ruin.”

    So, you oppose the Führerprinzip? Why? What would you exchange it for? Democratic rot and human rights?

    You can blame Hitler for his mistakes – but not the German people for obeying him.

    I have not read this comment chain in full, but I do agree with Stoddard’s account – human rights must only go as far as helping the collective. Those deemed unworthy to live by the Party have the duty to be shot.

    > “Kinder, Küche, Kirche”

    So, you are a feminist? Don’t you know that if there are no people anymore, there is no nation either? That’s kindergarten-level logic.

    I would rather support Sharia law as an atheist if it promised to put women back into the kitchen.

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  423. Incitatus says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    “You’re giving ‘Incy’ too much credit when you say he “knows much.” Ron Unz has it right when he calls him a “totally ignorant buffoon.”(comment 363).”

    Carolyn can’t argue direct sources, so she relies on webhost Ron (a Jew who made a fortune helping Moodys 2006, who in-turn defrauded Americans of $7,000,000,000,000 in up-rated bogus real estate valuations).

    Ron intercedes from time to time (“Well, I just happened to…”, Well it’s lucky I just happened to glance through this thread”). First he called me a “Jewish activist” citing posts under Giraldi (Not Jewish, never advocated for Israel or Jews). Now I’m a “totally ignorant buffoon” because I don’t drink his Stoddard Kool-Aid. Ron offers no rebuttal, facts or quotes. Only occasional Olympian vacuous ad hominem.

    The best joke? Carolyn depends on a Jew, one of the very ‘tribe’ she blindly blames for NSDAP demise and German ruin.

    “No wonder ‘Incy’ hates Stoddard so much. heh, heh.”

    Sorry. Never read him. Don’t love or hate him. Ron Unz boosts him because he’s ‘contoversial’. A fringe player. That’s what “A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media” means. It’s Ron’s experiment in nut farming. Including you Carolyn. You help make Ron feel superior, daily tending his ant farm/flea circus/freak show.

    Ron never compares his (usually discredited fringe sources) with current historians. Wonder why? Is it because he’s read AJP Taylor twice (published 1961 – the same year Ron was born in North Hollywood CA)? Ron was 2-years old when JFK was assassinated, 7-years old when MLK and RFK were killed. Does he see life as conspiracy (barring him from the Harvard Board of Overseers, US Senate, California Governor)?

    “Ron says “I suppose “Incitatus” regards the New York Times as a lunatic-fringe publication.” [#363]

    Depends on the article. Didn’t believe Judith Miller 2002-03. Did Ron? Did you?

    Stay well Carolyn.

    • Agree: Adûnâi
    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
  424. Adûnâi says:
    @Alexandros

    > “Germany survived Hitler’s War well enough.”

    > “As a prominent advocate for a bloody Communist revolution in Germany he was certainly a threat.”

    > “…conspired with hardcore Nazi Rohm and the Communist Strasser to overthrow Hitler in a bloody revolution.”

    Pure schizo double-think! Last time I checked, WW2 cost Germany no fewer than 7.4 mil. lives, and quite a lot of rapes. And you are saying that’s fine! And you are afraid of some scary “bloody” Communist revolution! What a joke.

    > “How exactly did Hitler lead Germany to ruin? It was a rich country before the war, and a rich country a few years after the war. It is a rich country today. But of course, it will not continue to be so with current policies of mass genocide and economic strangulation imposed by successive BRD governments.”

    This betrays a refusal on your part to understand trends. Take Christianity – it gestated for 1.5 millennia, but went into the terminal stage only with the Industrial Revolution. WW2 was a watershed for Germany – if before, the nation had been led by a Party capable of murdering retarded children in Aktion T4, sterilizing Negroes and gassing millions of Jews and Gypsies, after, it became an occupied golem of America. The total fertility rate fell below 2.1 in 1970.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Germany#Statistics_since_1900

    1945 was the beheading of Germany – that the corpse was still flinching for a few decades matters little.

    • Replies: @Alexandros
  425. Incitatus says:
    @Adûnâi

    “So, you oppose the Führerprinzip? Why? What would you exchage it for? Democratic rot and human rights?”

    Any country that willingly lodges complete trust in a ruler deserves its fate. Checks and balances are essential to the survival of the common citizen, common decency, morality. And yes, democracy can undergo “rot” in superfluous Supreme Court rulings (Citizens United) and tax law that subsidizes corporations empowered to make (full-circle) unlimited dark money contributions (deductible?) to political candidates.

    “You can blame Hitler for his mistakes – but not the German people for obeying him.”

    Agree. Ordinary Germans were his first victims. After 1933 a comment critical of the régime got you 8 months in a KZ (if you were lucky). Similar sentences for listening to foreign broadcasts or playing Jazz. After 1939 it could get you the guillotine and/or imprison your kin (Sippenhaft).

    “Kinder, Küche, Kirche. So, you are a feminist?”

    The phrase originated in Wilhelmine Germany. Used by successor NSDAP. Purpose: breeding. No problem with that (grew up on a farm). Ask Carolyn and Fox.

    “Don’t you know that if there are no people anymore, there is no nation either?”

    The Third Reich awarded fertility while callously expending soldiers in war. Russia Winter 1941: winter uniforms arrived late January 1942. The following winter (Stalingrad, resupply by air) was even worse. In January 1945 the Wehrmacht lost 451,7742 soldiers killed in one month [Beevor ‘’The Second World War’ p.690]; From January to May 1945 Germany lost an average of 10,000 soldiers killed per day. As you say – no people, no nation.

    “I would rather support Sharia law as an atheist if it promised to put women back into the kitchen.”

    Indeed. Go for it! Live in Chechnya by any chance?

    Rarely saw females in KSA when I lived there. Recent developments (the arrest of Saud family rivals) doesn’t bode well. Thank Allah the women are still in “the kitchen” (run by Pakis, etc.).

    Stay well, Adûnâl

    • Replies: @Adûnâi
  426. Adûnâi says:
    @Incitatus

    > “Checks and balances are essential to the survival of the common citizen, common decency, morality.”

    Then how does your ideology explain the gifting of citizen rights to Negroes in the US after the Civil War? It had been long before the rise of corporations and silly Supreme Court rulings. Or female rights in the first half of the 20th century – how come free men of America let themselves be robbed of their own women? Freedom has proven out to be weak.

    > “…got you 8 months in a KZ (if you were lucky). Similar sentences for listening to foreign broadcasts or playing Jazz.”

    1. Jazz – I fully support executing for listening to it.

    2. Foreign broadcasts – I fully support executing for listening to them.

    If you allow your citizens to listen to enemy propaganda – you are a suicidal anarchist.

    > “From January to May 1945 Germany lost an average of 10,000 soldiers killed per day. As you say – no people, no nation.”

    Modern universities are death camps worse than Auschwitz or Stalingrad. That you do not see corpses does not mean the demographic impact is lighter. That I call a military loss a military loss does not mean I view the rotten peacetime as less mortal.

    > “Indeed. Go for it! Live in Chechnya by any chance?”

    I have more respect for a Somali village than for Milan. Because Somalis stone adulterous women. It is a pity the West is so entrenched in idealist nonsense that even their fellow Abrahamics beat them at obeying the laws of Nature. The DPR of Korea is the only atheist society (and they can afford being less extreme and more refined).

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  427. Fox says:
    @Incitatus

    “Kinder, Küche, Kirche” – I don’t know why other “K’s” were not included, but I give you my guess: Alliterations come in bundles of 3, then it would have been a poetic way of stating something. “Wissenschaft”, “Medizin” would not have fitted, but “Kriegskunst” would, but that would have obviously outside of the sphere of home, family, upbringing and nurture. Is it wrong of Hitler to realise that a healthy people needs healthy families and healthy children to not only have a future but to have a joyful existence, full of happiness, love and fulfilment?
    You obviously think so, and this is a 100 % disagreement I have with you.
    By the way, Hitler was supposed to have been a stalwart foe of the churches, yet here he weaves in the Kirche in his statement. Strange, perhaps he was just a few levels of complexity above his detractors and they can’t fathom his thinking.

    Your second point about the “Law of encouragement of marriage”: Refer to what I said about your Kinder, Küche, Kirche paragraph. Women bear children, give life, bring children up, bring hope and purpose to life. Hitler wanted to encourage marriage and home buulding. Furthermore, with nearly seven million unemployed (vast majority men), is it really an intelligent strategy to encourage women to enter into job competition? Even now, I have made the observation that a great number of women would rather have a family, be at home and not have to sit it out in an office, and instead raise children. I suppose such is Nature. Hitler was immensely popular among women, and I think it was because they felt that he was their advocate.
    Women were not hindered to become independent and enter professions or work. Although I can’t provide you with statistics, some names come to mind, notably, Hanna Reitsch, Melitta von Stauffenberg (both pilots), Elly Beinhorn, Leni Riefenstahl, Lilly Mudrow-Reichenow (tropical disease researcher), Lise Meitner (quit Germany in 1938 on account of her Jewish birth, but she had adopted the Catholic faith earlier), Inge Meisel (Jewess, actress, on the stage during the war all over the Reich).
    The Mutterkreuz was a recognition of the sacrifice, the contribution to a happy community, the good, and the love they had given to their people through their tireless and selfless work. Why should mothers not be honored? It is a sign of gratitude of the community of the nation to the most dedicated mothers. Do you think these mothers resented it or felt proud to be so honored?
    Compare to the present: Even the word mother is being eradicated from texts in order to satisfy the escapees from some madhouse who have been made prominent by equally unsound publishers, cowards, newspaper editors, and similar failures in normalcy.
    Forget your “enslavement” smear; people were recruited in the occupied territories and they worked in Germany for wage and retirement benefits. Hitler didn’t want to press women into the job market – is that so wrong? Recruitment addresses voluntary acceptance, a labor service (which you seem to envision) entails a duty to comply. He didn’t want that.

    Hitler had obviously ideas about “democracy” which were quite different from today’s venality system; hence, citizenship was bound to the fulfilment and the eligibility to, certain duties considered vital for the life, existence, and maintenance of the Nation.
    He did apparently see in women the carriers of the future of the Nation (when he wrote this sentence you quote at age 35). Is that so unnatural or is he simply seeing the obvious which escapes the modern theorists of how things ought to be?

    In his opinion that women ought not to dabble in military matters, he was not so far off the mark. Just think of all the women who in Europe have been made Ministers of Defense without any experience in matters of military. Hitler didn’t want women to engage in combat to spare them, as bearers of future life, the horror of destroying it, and he was appalled at the thought of tem becoming maimed through battlefield injuries. Seems sound thinking to me, and it shows a heart you’d look for in vain in the majority of today’s politics makers.
    Furthermore, when he uttered his opinions, I think that at that time it was not so uncommon, considering that the right to vote had been bestowed on womanhood just a few years before in most countries of Europe.

    I would say that, altogether, your judgement is clouded by your desire to throw dirt on Hitler. He was not without flaws, but compared with his contemporaries, he was an exceptional man with a vision far into the future. People like you judge him by the outcome of the war his enemies have instigated and set in motion. And that’s a pathetic evasion of critical self-reflection.

    • Agree: Alexandros
    • Replies: @Incitatus
  428. @Incitatus

    Ron intercedes from time to time (“Well, I just happened to…”, Well it’s lucky I just happened to glance through this thread”).

    I notice that and it makes me laugh. But surely he doesn’t pore over all the comments? How does he then get to read all those books, write all those long Pravda articles, work on the code, and whatever else he has to do to get on in life? Does he even sleep?

  429. @Incitatus

    Civilian deaths due to NSDAP persecution are estimated at 100,000 Austrians [“Bundeskanzleramt der Republik Österreich – Startseite – Bundeskanzleramt Österreich”. http://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at.] and up to 500,000 Germans (including 170,000 German Jews and 200,000 Aktion T4 victims) [‘Germany Reports’ intro. Konrad Adenauer and Bundesarchiv Euthanasie].

    I’m sorry, since you likened it to the French revolution with thousands being beheaded in the streets and people being cut down by mobs for having blonde hair, I was confused because no such thing happened in Germany. Apart from the SA purge it has been widely known as a bloodless revolution.

    With claims of 6 million dead Jews when the real number is closer to 300,000, of which the vast majority perished due to circumstance, I am skeptical towards these numbers. For example the number of Germans executed for desertion is in the excess of 20,000, and that was in war time. So where do these additional half a million casualties come from? Random beatings from rogue SA men seems not to be able to cover it. Are we, as I suspect, merely lumping together exaggerated number of deaths, the vast majority from late war, and blaming it on NSDAP persecution? When they make wild, unsubstantiated claims in other areas, I’m reluctant to take their word for it. 200,000 T4 victims? That number is surely rising by the day. I remember 70,000 official deaths, and even that is questionable due to lack of documentation. Not to mention hardly comparable to people being guillotined for their political beliefs and hair color in the 1790’s.

    Kindly document personal (i.e. not representing clients) advocacy with sources.

    You can read it all on wikipedia. A Communist sympathizer from childhood who spent his lawyering years defending fellow Communists when they had committed murders and uprisings. Claimed to be a political independent, but that is believable to no one. After finishing school he received lucrative offers from conventional Jewish law firms, but instead opted to go into business with a die hard Communist, another Jew, who narrowly escaped execution by the Weimar Republic for a Communist revolt. So not just your garden variety Bolshevik, if there is such a thing. We all know what the goal of these people were: A Jewish revolution in Germany modeled on the Russian massacres. If not for the efforts of the Frei Korps, and later, men like Hitler and the SA, they would