HAIL THE KING!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 03, 2007, 03:21 PM | #

What does the blogger think of the fact that Prussia was largely obliterated, genocided, extinguished off the face of the earth as Jewish/Anglo-Saxon vengeance following the 1945 German surrender?  Was that a right thing to do?  When a country loses a war, is it the civilized thing to genocide its inhabitants and wipe the country itself off the face of the earth as the Romans did to Carthage?  The blogger is on record as excusing the horrific atrocities visited upon the civilians of East Prussia by the Red Army during the invasion, in the final stage of the war.  Is that still his view?  (In fact, Patton was prepared to advance all the way east to the Russian border before the Russians could enter East Prussia, and was chomping at the bit to do exactly that, but was kept from doing it by the Jews in D.C. who ordered him to wait where he was and let the Russians come into Prussia from the east.  These Jews, who had already marked Prussia and its people for erasure from the map as part of the Morgenthau Plan, wanted 1) the Red Army to mete out a terrible vengeance on the Prussian civilians women, children, and old men before any last survivors were chased out and the place re-populated with Poles, Lithuanians, and Russians, and 2) wanted the Red Army in place in those areas of Europe already slated to be handed over to communism permanently.  So Patton was kept where he was as D.C. let the Russians come up, all part of the Morgenthau Vengeance Plan.  Because Patton continued to grumble about the post-surrender genocide being carried out against Germany, D.C. had him assassinated some months after the surrender, afraid he might somehow thwart their plans otherswise.)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 03, 2007, 03:59 PM | #

The Morgenthau Jewish-Vengeance Genocide of Prussia isn’t advertised in the history books because we’re not supposed to know about it.  We’re taught that the former “East” Germany was actually the eastern part of Germany instead of what it really was, Germany’s middle part.  If it was really Germany’s middle part, where was Germany’s eastern part?  Where is it today?  We keep reading in history books about a place called Prussia.  What happened to that place?  How come it doesn’t exist any more?  (Yes, a fragment of Prussia exists.  Eighty percent of it and its people has been “disappeared,” to use a well-known Bolshevik/KGB concept ...) How come when you look where Prussia used to be, used to be for a thousand years and one of the most important countries of Europe, you see Poland, Lithuania, and a nonsense laughably called “the Kaliningrad Oblast”?  In math we learned about Leonhard Euler’s “The Seven Bridges of Königsberg.” Where’s Königsberg?  Ever ask yourself that?  What happened to it?  How come it’s not on any map?  Was it something Euler made up?  Those who do start to figure things out and ask questions are told to view the genocide/wholesale-nation-eradication as understandable in light of the Holocaust.  OK ... Well ... sort of OK ... until ... Wait ... you learn that ... the Holocaust as advertised never happened!  Then what?  What’s the justification now? That Prussian militarism started too many wars?  Alright, who started WW II?  Who started WW I and who changed it into the civilizational catastrophe it turned into, what otherwise would have been something on the scale of the Franco-Prussian War of 1970?  Let’s have a really close look at that.  All of it.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 03, 2007, 04:35 PM | #

Was it Jewish vengeance in reprisal for the Nuremberg Laws which defined who was a German and who a Jew, and for the singling-out of Jews as undesirables in Germany?  But the Jews in Israel today have their own Jewish Nuremberg Laws which define who is a Jew and who a gentile, and they very much single out non-Jews as undesirables for Israel.  So what’s going on?  Or are we not supposed to ask?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 03, 2007, 04:52 PM | #

“it is essentially a race that makes a nation, not the other way around as some misguided souls might believe.” (—from the log entry)

CvH has his faults.  The above excerpt from the entry is an example of his excellence.  Let those who question his participation as a blogger here look at that statement of his.  When you can make a statement like that you’re excused a great many faults.

“Anti-semitism, as politicized prejudice, has been around as long as the Jews themselves have been.” (—idem)

It’s not “prejudice” but awareness on the part of Euros that they’re under tribal attack by Jews.  If what’s going on isn’t a Jewish tribal attack on Eurochristians we’re necessarily led into the following sort of analysis:  We’re told by Jews that The Lord of the Rings is “anti-Semitic” and so are lots of other normal, healthy, beautiful things.  On close analysis of this and other accusations of “anti-Semitism” it turns out that whatever is normal, healthy, or beautiful is, we keep being told by Jews, “anti-Semitic.” “Pro-Semitic,” therefore, must be the opposite of the normal, the healthy, and the beautiful:  must be, in other words, whatever is abnormal, sick, and ugly.  That being the inescapable inference, based on what the Jews keep telling us is “anti-Semitic,” “anti-Semitism” isn’t something to be condemned.

Posted by ff on September 03, 2007, 09:02 PM | #

What does the blogger think of the fact that Prussia was largely obliterated, genocided, extinguished off the face of the earth as Jewish/Anglo-Saxon vengeance following the 1945 German surrender?

What the hell are you talking about, Fred?

From Wikipedia:

Secretary of the Treasury Henry J. Morgenthau Jr. [Jew] convinced Roosevelt to write to Secretary of State Cordell Hull and Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson saying that a U.S. occupation policy which anticipated that “Germany is to be restored just as much as the Netherlands or Belgium” was excessively lenient. A better policy would have the Germans “fed three times a day with soup from Army soup kitchens” so “they will remember that experience the rest of their lives.” [21] Morgenthau was the only Cabinet member invited to participate in the Quebec Conference during which the Plan was agreed to.

The fact Morgenthau’s attitude towards the Germans aligned so closely with Stalin’s [Russian/Georgian] may have been influenced by his close friend and advisor, Harry Dexter White [Jew], who was indicted by the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee on a charge of passing U.S. Government secrets to Moscow in 1948 but who died of a heart attack shortly after testifying before the House [22]

Roosevelt’s [non-Anglo-Saxon] motivations for agreeing to Morgenthau’s proposal may be attributed to his desire to be on good terms with Stalin and to a personal conviction that Germany must be treated harshly. In an August 26, 1944 letter to Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands, Roosevelt wrote that “There are two schools of thought, those who would be altruistic in regard to the Germans, hoping by loving kindness to make them Christians again — and those who would adopt a much ‘tougher’ attitude. Most decidedly I belong to the latter school, for though I am not bloodthirsty, I want the Germans to know that this time at least they have definitely lost the war.” [23] Roosevelt is also quoted as saying to Morgenthau that “We have got to be tough with the Germany and I mean the German people not just the Nazis. We either have to castrate the German people or you have got to treat them in such a manner so they can’t just go on reproducing people who want to continue the way they have in the past” [24] At the Tehran Conference in late 1943, Stalin had proposed that at least 50,000 and perhaps 100,000 German officers should be executed. Roosevelt’s son, Elliot, enthusiastically agreed. The President remarked that perhaps 49,000 should be enough [25] When Churchill [Anglo-Saxon] became enraged at these comments, Stalin quickly assured him that they were joking [26] Roosevelt was presumably joking, but at the Yalta Conference the President said that he was feeling “very much more bloodthirsty towards Germany” than earlier and indicated that he hoped Stalin would again “propose a toast to the execution of 50,000 officers of the German army” [27]

The Morgenthau plan faced strong opposition within Roosevelt’s government. Henry L. Stimson [Anglo-Saxon], Secretary of War, said he had “yet to meet a man who was not horrified at the ‘Carthaginian’-attitude of the Treasury. It is Semitism gone wild for vengeance and will lay the seeds of another war in the next generation.” He further pointed out that the plan violated the Atlantic Charter, which promised equal opportunity for the pursuit of happiness to both victors. In a note to the president dated September 5, 1944, Stimson wrote:

Anglo-Saxons were not out for vengeance. Jews and Soviets were out for vengeance. Your attempting to drag in Anglo-Saxons again merely proves your hostility toward the founding people of the United States.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 03, 2007, 09:19 PM | #

Was Bomber Harris Anglo-Saxon?

Posted by ff on September 03, 2007, 09:37 PM | #

During the Spanish Civil War, the Nationalists under Francisco Franco made extensive use of aerial bombing on civilian targets. Nazi Germany gave aircraft to Franco to support the overthrow of the Spanish Republican government. The first major example of this came in November 1936, when German and Spanish aircraft pounded Republican held Madrid from November 19-23. This bombardment was sustained throughout the Siege of Madrid. Barcelona and Valencia were also targeted in this way. On April 26, 1937, the German Luftwaffe (Condor Legion) bombed the Spanish city of Guernica carrying out the most high profile aerial attack of the war. This act caused world-wide revulsion and was the subject of a famous painting by Picasso, but by the standards of bombings during World War Two, casualties were fairly minor, estimates ranging from 500 to 1500. However, it remains significant as it was the first-ever saturation bombing of a civilian population.

[. . .]

At the beginning of World War II, the bombing of cities was a normal practice of the German Luftwaffe. In the first stages of war, the Germans carried out many massive indiscriminate bombings of towns and cities in Poland (1939), with Wieluń being the first city destroyed by 75%. Similar tactics was used during the Rotterdam Blitz in 1940. After the Germany victory in the Battle of France, German turned its attention to Great Britain. In the beginning, predominantly as part of the preparation for the invasion of England in Operation Sealion, a 3-step air campaign was launched. In the first step British air defense installations were attacked (airfields, Sector stations, radar stations and depots). In the second step the attacks concentrated on aircraft factories, main supply harbors, communication centers and railroad installations in southern England. During that time the RAF started relatively small-size counterattacks on cities in the Ruhr Area, on Berlin and Munich. The 3rd-step, the tactical close air support of the invasion, of the proposed German air force operations against England was not carried out, because Hitler dropped the invasion plans. After that, the Luftwaffe carried out an intensive bombing of cities in Britain, including London and Coventry to weaken the morale of the population, in a bombing campaign known in Britain as “the Blitz”, from September 1940 through to May 1941 with the goal of forcing Britain to accept peace without the need for an invasion.

In response, the British started intensive night air raids on Berlin and other cities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_bombing_of_cities#World_War_II

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 03, 2007, 11:03 PM | #

“again merely proves your hostility toward the founding people of the United States.” (—ff, 9:02 PM)

That can’t go unanswered:

I harbor no such.  Period.  Full stop.  End of story. 

You’re somehow misinterpreting me, comrade.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 04, 2007, 02:47 AM | #

“Was it Jewish vengeance in reprisal for the Nuremberg Laws which defined who was a German and who a Jew, and for the singling-out of Jews as undesirables in Germany?  But the Jews in Israel today have their own Jewish Nuremberg Laws which define who is a Jew and who a gentile, and they very much single out non-Jews as undesirables for Israel.  So what’s going on?  Or are we not supposed to ask?” (—my comment, above)

Here are the Nuremberg Laws:  nothing monstrous.  They say who’s a Jew (Article 5) for administrative/legal purposes preparatory to restricting Jewish participation in German society.  A major disruption for Jews, of course, but we’re not talking concentration camps here.  Israel has the exact same sort of laws on the books, saying who’s a Jew for administrative/legal purposes, which serve as a guide to who can participate in Israeli society (hint:  not gentiles ...). 

By Article 2 of these laws I, who have some Jewish grandparentage, would have been “a person of mixed blood” and would have enjoyed all rights of German citizens of the Reich.  By Article 5, if I had had three Jewish grandparents (which I don’t) I’d have been considered a Jew and would’ve had problems.  But we’re not talking concentration camps here.  Just problems that would’ve made me leave Germany and settle elsewhere, since opportunities for advancement for me in German society would now be extremely limited — just as opportunities in today’s Israel for advancement for, let’s say, a Christian are extremely limited, as they ought to be, and he’d be well-advised to leave Israel and settle elsewhere. 

These laws were no picnic for Germany’s Jews of course, sprung on them suddenly as they were, disrupting livelihoods, careers and career plans, forcing early retirements (with government pensions, as spelled out in Article 4) — but they didn’t come out of thin air either:  they were the result of decades of anti-Germany agitation by Jews pushing for Bolshevism, revolution, deposing of the Kaiser and aristocracy, and everything else that’s disruptive, destabilizing, harmful, destructive, brazen, uninvited, unwanted, none of Jewish business, and bad for a society and a nation. 

Jews don’t know how to behave in host countries.  That problem goes way back.  They try to harm the host.  People don’t like it. 

So the Germans, among other things scared stiff of being turned by Jewish agitation into a communist paradise like the Ukraine right next-door which Jewish Bolshevik commissar Lazar Kaganovich was in the middle of genociding right at that very moment, decided to put an end to it, to the nuisance and the very real danger, by separating Jews from positions of control lest they find themselves on the receiving end of a Bolshevik revolution and before they know it are getting deliberately starved to death by some German-Jewish version of Lazar Kaganovich, among other treats. 

If doing that is the biggest crime in history Israel is committing the same crime, because Israel has the exact counterpart of the Nuremberg Laws for Jews vis-à-vis gentiles that the Third Reich had for Germans vis-à-vis Jews:  the exact counterpart.  Furthermore, Israel also keeps gentile hands off the levers of power:  only Jewish hands can touch those in Israel, just as after the Nuremberg Laws only German hands could touch them in Germany. 

That’s so horrific?  A big nuisance for German Jews at the time, yes.  But for that you justify the genocide of an entire country, Prussia, wiping it off the map? 

What would make more sense would be for Jews to ask each other why they irritate and are perceived as posing a danger to the host people.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 04, 2007, 03:16 AM | #

Jews don’t know how to behave in host countries.  That problem goes way back.  They try to harm the host.” (—my comment, above)

Here’s an all too typical example, which I just noticed up tonight over at the Occidental Dissent blog:

“At the OCD forum, I have posted selections from Gideon Shimoni’s Community and Conscience: The Jews in Apartheid South Africa. These can be found here, here, and here [go to original log entry for all links]. The book describes in considerable detail Jewish involvement in the Communist Party of South Africa, support for the ANC, and Jewish influence upon the anti-apartheid movement in that country.”

Obviously in many ways Jews make good citizens.  The problem is nothing can make up for some of the stunts they pull, like the above communist involvement in South Africa or their push for passage of the U.S. 1965 “It’s Good For The Jews” Immigration Holocaust Act.  As Kevin MacDonald has said, nothing, no amout of good behavior, can make up for that natiocidal crime.

Posted by Constantin von Hoffmeister on September 04, 2007, 06:56 AM | #

“The blogger is on record as excusing the horrific atrocities visited upon the civilians of East Prussia by the Red Army during the invasion, in the final stage of the war.”

This is not true. I did not justify the atrocities. I merely said that they should be viewed in the proper context: namely, they were a reaction against Nazi barbarism on the Eastern Front. In the words of Isaac Newton: “To every action force there is an equal, but opposite, reaction force.” How come people from the right almost never whine about Nazi atrocities? How come they always bring up the bombing of Dresden but never the bombing of Warsaw, Belgrade or Stalingrad (on August 23, 1942, BEFORE the German invasion of the city - almost as many civilians died in the bombing of Stalingrad than in the bombing of Dresden)? There is clearly an agenda at work here. What might that agenda be? It is anti-Russianism in the guise of anti-Communism. I have yet to see international gatherings of nationalists from all over the White world commemorating the bombing of Stalingrad. Until I see that, I will continue exposing the anti-Russian bias that most Western nationalists seem to have internalized.

Constantin

Posted by Daryl on September 04, 2007, 07:53 AM | #

it sums up the notion that it is essentially a race that makes a nation, not the other way around

Agreed.  Multicultural nations, as a whole, are much more difficult to manage than homogeneous ones.

Racial purity, for Jahn and other ethnic particularists, was a vital prerequisite for the formation of a strong German nation.

Good.  German history of racial thought starts before the Third Reich.  People should focus on that instead.

As for Jews, any group of people will always be opposed by other competing groups, therefore, Jews, like other ethnic groups, met their opposition throughout history.  I think Jews deserve self-determination, but should work in cooperation with other occidental nations against common anti-occidental threats.  The fighting between Jews and other nations happens for a similar reason that nations in general conflict, with the added fact that for a long time, the Jewish nation was without boarders and therefore in constant minority status.

Posted by Scimitar on September 04, 2007, 09:23 AM | #

Besides the fact that this statement is ominously prophetic (it could be uttered today, in protest against globalization/Americanization - in revolt against the global Coca-Cola cabal), it sums up the notion that it is essentially a race that makes a nation, not the other way around (as some misguided souls might believe). Racial purity, for Jahn and other ethnic particularists, was a vital prerequisite for the formation of a strong German nation.

Of all the problems that Austria faced in the twentieth century, “Coca Cola” was the least of them. “Coca Cola” is nothing more than a soft drink, a sugar flavored beverage. OTOH, Prussian militarism, Italian fascism, “anti-fascism,” communism, French chauvinism, Pan-Slavism, Nazism/Pan-Germanism, in other words, “petty nationalism” of every variety - this is what wrecked and came close to destroying Austria, which was once a great nation.

Hitler hated Austria almost as much as he hated the Jews. It was Hitler and his gang who marched into Austria, obliterated the state, hitched Austria’s star to the Nazi wagon and set out like Don Quixote with jodhpurs and pith helmets to occupy and colonize the Ukraine. This was in the best interests of Austria? How? Explain. What interest did Austria have in an alliance with Imperial Japan, antagonizing America with U-Boats in the Western Atlantic, or this fantasy of a “Greater Germanic Reich” in Russia? If that were not enough, while using the issue of German minorities, Hitler gave South Tyrol to his friend “the Duce” - that laughable clown who liked to pretend he was a Roman emperor.

Hitler is to be thanked for his handling of the Jewish problem, and maybe in that sense the annexation of Austria was justifiable, but unfortunately NS was a package deal.

As in all things predestined, Germany was to enter a truly religious consciousness - only to fall from grace not long after. Enlightened nationalism produced a legacy of political and public reforms (most notably, in the fields of education and administration) that put Prussia in its rightful place as a European power to be reckoned with. The empire that sprung out of it was worthy of its title but not to last the advancing tide of modernization run amok.

In many ways, “National Socialism” became merely another outlet for Prussian militarism and chauvinism. I won’t hold this against the Prussians. They came out of it worse than Austrians did.

Posted by Constantin von Hoffmeister on September 04, 2007, 09:29 AM | #

“This was in the best interests of Austria? How? Explain.”

I do not have to explain anything as I never said that it was a good thing that Nazi Germany annexed Austria. You are putting words in my mouth. Also, I have mentioned numerous times that Nazi Germany’s alliance with imperialist Japan was a crime against the White race. Not to mention the criminal invasion of Soviet Russia…

Constantin

Posted by Scimitar on September 04, 2007, 09:39 AM | #

I know. The subject was on my mind before I read your post. Maybe I overreacted.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 04, 2007, 11:52 AM | #

Furthermore, the U.S. laws and directives on mandated inclusiveness, anti-discrimination, quotas, and affirmative action are none other than a first approach to full-blown Nuremberg Laws: they all without exception discriminate against white men.  They’re anti-Euro-men laws which say white men are undesirables for taking part in U.S. society, cause harm and discrimination, and we want relatively fewer of them no matter how much more qualitfied they may be than Negroes, so these laws, rules, and directives are going to limit their participation in our society and promote that of these others instead.  This is in essence the fundamental theory and practice behind the Nuremberg Laws, and who has been responsible for spear-heading the alliances that have brought them about here?  The Jews.  One of the things that happens when the Jews in a country achieve hegemony over the host Euros, as happened in the U.S. in the 60s when Jewish power which had been building for eighty years finally matured, is the host Euros begin to encounter obstacles erected by Jewish political activity for the reason that Jewish men see Euro men as their rivals (and calling it seeing them as “rivals” is kind:  it leaves out the very real part about them seeing them as an inferior race).

So not only does Israel have Nuremberg Laws no one complains about, but Jews have been the leaders of the alliance that has given the U.S. the equivalent of the beginning of Nuremberg Laws, ones which instead of limiting Jewish participation in German society or gentile participation in Israeli society limit Euro male participation in U.S. society.  This is the work largely of Jews and there’s the promise that in future it will only become more draconian for Euros here.  With the passage of the Nuremberg Laws in Germany, Jews began leaving that country, seeing their opportunities for career and advancement there were now drastically limited.  Today many Euros are leaving the U.S. because the U.S. version of the Nuremberg Laws, put in place largely by Jewish political acitivity, are limiting the career-and-advancement opportunities of Euro men here.

So maybe the Germans saw the same thing coming for Germany if things continued as they were, and felt they had no choice but to promulgate the Nuremberg Laws to head it off?  And maybe they saw that, Jewish-inspired anti-German Nuremberg Laws, as the best-case scenario if things continued as they were, the worst case scenario being outright bolshevik revolution?  If that’s some of what led to the Nuremberg Laws it doesn’t seem the worst crime in history it’s been made out to be, sorry.

Posted by PF on September 04, 2007, 11:56 AM | #

Scimitar wrote:

Hitler hated Austria almost as much as he hated the Jews.

The book I’m reading doesn’t support that viewpoint, Scimitar. It seems like Hitler disliked the Habsburgs for being Pro-Slav; Austria at the “Donau-Monarchy” time was like an affirmative action deal with the German-Austrians getting to play modern American whites, while the Hungarians, Croats, and others played the roles of blacks and browns. The Deutschösterreicher (real Austrians) were always disadvantaged. The Habsburg state tried to emphasize “We are all Austrians”, like modern American politicians call everything on legs in the Western/Northern Hemisphere an American.

So Hitler’s relation to Austria was probably like alot of Americans on this board, who despise what has become the American state, while still supporting the American people. Some additional supporting evidence is that Hitler’s retirement plan always involved Linz as his place to retire and curate a museum, he wanted Berlin to be some kind of World-Empire city and Linz to be the cultural capital of the new Europe. All of the art he was buying or stealing was going to go to München and eventually to Linz. The author Joachim Fest makes the assertion-- whose basis I have not investigated—that it was his lifelong ambition to “return to Linz in glory” and show people what he had made of himself.

This is not true. I did not justify the atrocities. I merely said that they should be viewed in the proper context: namely, they were a reaction against Nazi barbarism on the Eastern Front. In the words of Isaac Newton: “To every action force there is an equal, but opposite, reaction force.” How come people from the right almost never whine about Nazi atrocities?

The treatment of East German women is to me the non-plus ultra of historical outrages, yet in reading what happened in the East, for the first time now, I have to say-- people should look into how Hitler advised his troups to act on the Eastern front. This is what he said in a two-and-a-half hour long speech in front of 250 high officers on March 30, 1941, just before opening the Eastern Front:

“Our tasks regarding Russia: destroy the Army, dissolve the State...the Fight between two ideologies against one another… This is about a war of annihilation. The fight is going to be very different from the fight on the Western front. In the East, cruelty is mild for the future. The leaders must demand of themselves this sacrifice: to overcome their own reservations.

OK, that was largely just hinting that they will use even more radical tactics, here’s more concrete evidence:

At the same time the Reichsführer-SS, Heinrich Himmler, was given the mission of overtaking “Special Tasks” with four work groups from the Security-police and the Secret Service, giving a total of 3000 men. Special tasks “that result from the struggle of two opposing political systems, which has to be fought out to its end”. The leaders of the these groups were commanded by Heydrich in May 1941 at a meeting in Pretzsch to kill all Jews, all “asiatic inferiors”, all communistic functionaries, and all gypsies. A “Führer-decree” from the same time officially granted immunity to all members of the Wehrmacht who may happen to kill enemy civilians. ... Hitler… revealed: “Basically it depends on cutting up this enormous cake, so that we can first conquer, seconds administer, and third plunder.”

“All necessary methods—executions, evacuations—we will do anyway, and we can still do them regardless.”

So how do you think Soldiers act when the man leading them talks to them this way?

Scimitar wrote:

In many ways, “National Socialism” became merely another outlet for Prussian militarism and chauvinism. I won’t hold this against the Prussians. They came out of it worse than Austrians did.

Hitler’s clique was famously composed of Bavarians and South Germans-- Göring, Himmler, Speer, Heß, probably Bernhard Frank—and in coming to power he actually had to depose and get rid of a lot of Prussians on the way to the top. First, politically, as he pushed Ludendorff to the side and refused all sharing of power with the Nothern German ethnocentric movements (he demanded all parties join his, rather than share power, when building up the NSDAP), and second, militarily, as many of the Prussian generals proved too conservative or basically too “old-school” for his tastes: Werner von Blomberg was not radical enough of a Prussian. Werner von Fritsch was not Prussian, but was from Dusseldorf, yet he also had to be rejected for not being radical enough. See Blomberg-Fritsch Affair.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 04, 2007, 12:17 PM | #

PF, the reliability of “the book you’re reading” has been called into serious question.  As Finn has shown (I haven’t time at the moment to hunt up the post) lots of outright war propaganda, one-hundred-percent invented or laughably distorted, found its way into “scolarly books about the Third Reich” and continues to so find its way.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 04, 2007, 12:35 PM | #

“it sums up the notion that it is essentially a race that makes a nation, not the other way around”

Agreed.  Multicultural nations, as a whole, are much more difficult to manage than homogeneous ones.

Daryl misunderstands.  It’s not just that multicultural nations are more difficult to manage.  That’s true but not the point.  The point is that a nation’s characteristics are in large part genetic.  A population of Chinamen can’t produce Germany or vice-versa:  a population of Germans can’t produce China.  It goes for those more closely related as well:  a population of Chinamen can’t produce Japan or vice-versa and a population of Greeks can’t produce Flanders or vice-versa.  All of that is the point.

Posted by PF on September 04, 2007, 12:41 PM | #

Scrooby,

PF, the reliability of “the book you’re reading” has been called into serious question.  As Finn has shown (I haven’t time at the moment to hunt up the post) lots of outright war propaganda, one-hundred-percent invented or laughably distorted, found its way into “scolarly books about the Third Reich” and continues to so find its way.

If your going to discount my source, please do so with some more backing than the reference to another post which you cannot find, which apparently itself doesn’t address the specific source, but just sources relating to the period generally. The fact that “lots of outright war propaganda.. found its way into” books about Nazi Germany does not interest me.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 04, 2007, 01:21 PM | #

PF, I was referring to criticisms of the Fest book by “A S-H” in this thread.  I think they have called Fest’s reliability into question.  Finn’s comment had the effect of shedding additional light.

Posted by PF on September 04, 2007, 11:12 PM | #

Scrooby wrote:

PF, I was referring to criticisms of the Fest book by “A S-H” in this thread.  I think they have called Fest’s reliability into question.  Finn’s comment had the effect of shedding additional light.

Here is my summary of the arguments included in that thread’s comments section and my answers to them, insofar as I haven’t answered them already in that thread.

ASH wrote:

Almost every single sentence of this post includes factual and interpretative defects.

But he didn’t bother to expose these errors. He mentioned my mistake of saying Adolf was a bastard whereas his father Alois was-- is that the refutation of the post’s principle point of class consciousness and self concealment in the personality of Adolf Hitler? Where is the refutation?

MacDonald readers will immediately recognize Fest’s attempt to pathologize/psychobabble all that is neutral and healthy into apparent bad. (And many of his “facts” aren’t.)

Really? Really? If anyone has read Fest, they will know the psychology involved doesn’t have anything Freudian about it. Freudian psychology and related psychology is overly theoretical and sounds implausible when you hear it-- Fest simply wanted to make the point that Hitler was ascending to the top of a society which-- according to the true old tradition—he had no right to reign over. He was usurping power from already established families through the new route of demagoge-party politics. He was an upstart. To deny that this influenced his psychology, would make it impossible to understand him as a man. Where is the refutation of this?

2R wrote:

The reason the power structure hates Hitler so much has nothing to do with any of the claims that we are all familiar with.  No, this hate for Adolf Hitler is rooted in the WILL of Adolf Hitler.  The idea that an ordinary man of the West could motivate a broken people to strength, just by WILL alone, is as dangerous as gets for an elite who wishes to displace another broken people with race replacement.

This betrays the extent to which this argument is politicized by a historical parallel which attempts to make Hitler a servant of modern day, (I would guess) American White Nationalism.

How very far this actually deviates from a disinterested historical inquiry, is betrayed by another post from the same author:

I think this whole argument is a waste of time anyway. Time is a resources we don’t have a surplus of.  Facts do not matter when it comes to the whole second world war and as we all know “the truth is no defense” when it come to this matter.

Facts do matter!

2R also wrote:

There was no real “racial pride” in Europe before Hitler.

The only reason for Hitler’s success as a demagogue was the resonance of what he was preaching. While engaged in party politics, he refused to share power with the numerous other racialist/ethnocentrist/völkisch partys existing in Germany at the time. He demanded that they join his party. The variety of these parties bears witness to the ‘racial pride’ in Europe, and the fact that they did not even represent the Conservatives, who had parties all their own, which simply did not invoke racial pride--also demonstrates this. The reason was mostly because racial pride had an anti-Class System overtone to it. Racial pride gave lower class Germans, whose blood was previously not accepted into the ruling ranks (exceptions abound, rarely without stigma), the ability to claim something for themselves. Suddenly blonde hair, instead of a pedigree, was all you needed to belong to the Master-Race. Previously, you had to be a Bülow or a v. Donhoff or a Hohenzollern or a Wittelsbach to wield power on German soil.

Anonymous Species Hater wrote:

The only people serious sources have Hitler ordered executed before September 1939 were coup plotters in the Night of the Long Knives affair. Same general policy during the war: he ordered the execution of the 1944 coup plotters as well, and that’s pretty much it in terms of executing Germans.

The whole argument hinges on the qualification of ‘serious sources’. Is Joachim Fest not a serious source-- then show me the proof of this! Behind this generalization lie concealed the euthanasia programs, as well as the number of people executed in and around the time of the Putsch, as well as the people who died as a result of early NSDAP street-fighting tactics. These were not execution style murders ordered by Hitler, but the tactics which caused them were sanctioned in his party platform and his speeches. I remember one quote-- something to the effect of: ‘Smash into them, and if a few die, so much the better.’ That was referring to German leftist political parties at the time of the early formation of the NSDAP before the Putsch. Does ASH expect me to believe that Hitler’s incessant military bluster does not carry with it an unscrupulous readiness to kill?

Maser is an apologist for Hitler (in some respects!), and still maintains he had his friend executed.

ASH wrote:

According to Hanisch’s articles, Hitler was being offered serious commissions by the wealthy (through Hanisch as Hitler’s sales agent), but Hanisch cheated Hitler of them.
Also notice the amounts Hitler’s works were just beginning to command: enough for a solid, middle-class living.

Is there a link anywhere? Am I meant to believe that ASH, doing calculations of his own as to what a man needed to survive in Vienna in the 1910s, came to the conclusion that Hitler was ‘just about to make it,’ to “a solid, middle-class living”?
This is a convenient conclusion for someone who appears to have an interest in only seeing the Good side of Hitler-- he was just a moment away from success!

“But that is what young people are there for!”

I can absolutely guarantee the above is a faked quote. At minimum badly mangled or taken out of context. Fest is known for such trash.

The above is a faked quote? On what basis does ASH offer this absolute guarantee? Does he know everything that Hitler ever said and did not say? Where does he get all this special knowledge? What percentage of quotes in Fest are faked? All or only some? Are the diary entries of Halder, in which he recorded the speech I quoted in an above post, also faked? Is anything beyond Mein Kampf and NSDAP party dispatches free from propaganda?

Read David Irving’s Hitler’s War for the German perspective behind every move. No psychobabble whatsoever, just tough generals and tough statesmen on every side and their decision-making explained in terms of negotiations, military movements, natural resource requirements and so forth.

I may read Irving, but it would truly amaze me if he could demonstrate to me the necessity of attacking Prague, Poland, France/Belgium, Russia, and launching an air campaign on Britain. Most of these moves made a kind of strategic sense, once you understand Hitler’s World-view and goals, but the necessity of all of them for the German people is something extremely dubious to me. Repeatedly, in speeches, he talks of Germany’s impending needs for “Grain”....
Anybody following me here? Anybody read this stuff as well?

Then compare this serious work to Fest’s worthless mumbling.

We all polemicize, but that kind of complete disregard for a thousand page book written by a man who lived through the Hitler regime, is one of many things that make a person wonder the standards of intellectual honesty being used. Has ASH read Fest? Compare my treatment of Irving, who I have not read, with ASH’s treatment of Fest, who I presume he has not read.

Okey wrote:

Did Hitler shit his pants when putting his life on the line - For - His - Nation?

We certainly would never know-- he was more terrified of his society’s disapproval than I am worried about MR readership’s disapproval by a factor of several hundred. Hitler knew only noble motives and pure thoughts, Hitler never doubted himself, Hitler always knew ... etc. etc. So no, as the only truly perfect human being, he never shit his pants. That would not befit The Leader.

I answered Second Class Citizens objections at length in that comments thread, here was the punchline, it sums up well the whole essence of the original post:

That was never the question-- of course he was a Master of his own dreamworld. But he looked around him and saw serving under him, saluting him, people who belonged to families that were 400 years old, a thousand years old. These people would never have associated with him when he was 30, or before that time.

So now the homeless drifter, son of a bastard, is being saluted by von Hindenburg? Is commanding over the Prussian officer class? He would not have been allowed to sit at table with them 10 years prior-- and he knew it.

ASH wrote:

This thread regurgitates far too much Fest prop. to debunk item-by-item, so here’s just one example:

Hitler...[e]vaded Austrian military service

Why did Hitler evade peacetime Austrian military service only to later volunteer for the entire four years of WWI?

He’s obviously no coward, so what’s going on that Fest hides from the reader?

Hitler merely explains numerous times in Mein Kampf; example from Chapter 3:

And here ASH gives us, straight from Hitler’s mouth, an explanation of his motive for evading military service-- that he disliked the Donau monarchy’s pro-slav policies. Well, when Hitler was apprehended by the Austrian authorities in München, he sung a different tune. When being threatened with jail by the Austrians (refusing military service was a crime!), he wrote this letter begging to be pardoned (Fest pg. 108):

“In the subpoena I am referred to as a Painter. If it is correct that I hold this title, nevertheless it’s not entirely right. I do earn my living as an independent Painter, but only to allow me to continue my education, because I am without financial assets (my father was a bureaucrat). Only a fraction of my time can I spend for earning bread, since I am still training myself as an Architectural Painter. So my income is a very humble one, only big enough that I can make ends meet. I submit to you my Tax-forms as proof of this and ask that you please send them to me again promptly. My income is herein understood to be 1200 M, rather too much than too little, but it is not to be understood, that I acquire in a month exactly 100 M, O No. The income per month is very variable, now certainly very bad, because in München right now the art business goes into hibernation...”

Fest says of this: “With a weepy explanation, full of self-pity and not without a groveling cleverness, he tried to excuse his neglect [to register with the buro], with his desperate living standards in the years in Vienna”. Here are Hitler’s own words from the letter, which he tried to have destroyed but did not find in time:

“As far as my sin of neglect in the fall of 1909, this was for me an infinitely bitter time. I was a young, inexperienced person, without any money-help and also too proud to accept such help from anyone, not to speak of asking for it. Without any support, completely on my own, the few Crowns I earned from my work hardly sufficed for a place to sleep. For two years I had no other friends than Worry and Need, no other companion besides perpetual unquenchable hunger. I have never gotten to know this beautiful word ‘Youth’. Today, even after five years, my memories and keepsakes are frostbitten fingers, hands and feet. And nevertheless I cannot call to mind this time without a certain joy, now that I’m over the worst of it. Despite great need, in surroundings often worse than dubious, I always kept my name respectable, spotless before the law and clean in my own conscience...”

I suppose every man amongst us will judge that statement on it’s own for what it says about the person who wrote it, so I forebear to comment. Of course, Hitler was living as anonymously as it was possible to live- so the comment of keeping a spotless name is a strange one; he also had broken Austrian law by evading military service, so he wasn’t spotless before the law.

This is one way to see how the real Hitler contrasts with the Hitler portrayed in Mein Kampf: through comparison of his own writings at different times of his life.

ASH wrote:

That’s why he gladly fights for Germany in wartime while refusing Austrian barracks in peacetime: the multi-ethnic nature of Austra-Hungary. How could Fest have possibly missed this unless he’s a deliberate liar-by-omission?

Fest acknowledges that this is the motive he attributes to himself in Mein Kampf. He then discusses the likelihood of the explanation being true. Fest also draws attention to the fact that Hitler’s customers, those who bought his artwork, were very often Jews. Had he already arrived at his political conclusions at this age, why would he sell his artwork to Jews, if he refused to serve in the Austrian military because it was multi-ethnic?

Incidentally, Mantra and Amalek make good points on this thread, and Scimitar brings in an interesting side discussion.

A Finn’s statements don’t approach a refutation of the validity of my source (Joachim Fest’s Hitler). He speaks in generalizations about everything and seems more to be giving his opinion as regards ‘the whole thing’.

A Finn wrote:

According to this kind of propaganda he had one testicle, was partly impotent, had sexual relations with relatives etc.

The first part is, as far as I know, a refutation of a song lyric. The second implication relates to Hitler’s niece, Geli Raubal. She killed herself after having an argument with Hitler, and apparently the descriptions of those around them illustrate an emotional commitment of the very deepest order on the part of both Geli and Adolf to one another. Hitler said their relationship “failed because of generational problems"-- however you want to interpret that. Afterwards his mourning was also described in superlative terms. Some people have probably chosen to draw from this that the connection was more than merely an Uncle-Niece connection, which would be supported by Hitler’s jealous guarding of Geli, Geli’s suicide, and the fact that after her death, Hitler intensified his relationship with Eva Braun, making her his mistress.

How any of these things call the validity of Joachim Fest’s book Hitler into question, I have no idea.

Posted by PF on September 04, 2007, 11:48 PM | #

I just felt a need to post another comment, it somehow feels appropriate after that last comment, like a little echo or a wave following the big comment. Big comments like that always need a little comment to come after them, otherwise they look disproportionate and even threatening.

Go, little comment,
and bring to all
flowers in the garden,
meat in the hall,
a bin of wine
a spice of wit
a house with lawns enclosing it.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 05, 2007, 01:32 AM | #

Finn:

“The first part is, as far as I know, a refutation of a song lyric.”

- No, it’s a refutation of Soviet communists’ autopsy “results” of Hitler. When family doctor examined Hitler when he was a boy, he found two testicles (Hitler and Women, Ian sayer and Douglas Botting). That was a comment to a comment by Desmond Jones. Hitler, National socialism, propaganda about Hitler and National Socialism, Constantin von H., National bolshevism. I have better uses for my time. [Emphasis — and color — added by Scroob.]

Posted by a Finn on Tuesday, September 4, 2007 at 11:50 PM | #

See also this comment by Finn.

Posted by soft landing on September 06, 2007, 09:58 AM | #

Nazism/AA/who, whom

http://www.anthonyflood.com/murrayaffirmativeaction.htm