Why Hitler hated Jews
Hitler was wrong about the Jews but why he thought what he did is only a mystery if you want it to be
How do we explain Hitler’s attitudes towards the Jews? Dietrich (1988) studied Hitler’s antisemitism at great length and concluded that Hitler’s antisemitism was only a minor part of his popular appeal to Germans. One reason why that was so is the important but seldom stressed fact that there was nothing at all odd or unusual about a dislike of Jews almost anywhere in the world of the 1930s. Hitler was to a considerable degree simply voicing the conventional wisdom of his times and he was far from alone in doing so. The plain fact is that it was not just the Nazis who brought about the holocaust. To its shame, the whole world did. That part of the world under Hitler’s control in general willingly assisted in rounding up Jews while the rest of the world refused to take Jewish refugees who tried to escape —just as the world would later refuse many Vietnamese and Cambodian refugees and will in due course refuse to take other would-be refugees from other places. Racial affect is now recognized as universal in psychology textbooks (Brown, 1986) and Anti-Semitism is, sad to say, an old and widely popular European tradition. There seems to be considerable truth in the view that the Nazis just applied German thoroughness to it.
Nonetheless, Hitler was undoubtedly more than usually obsessed by the Jews. What made him so obsessed? What in particular made him BECOME antisemitic? Mein Kampf is unreliable as objective history but there can be little doubt that it is good psychological history—i.e. it records Hitler’s own history as he saw it. And what he says there is that in Linz—where he grew up—there were few Jews and he saw them at that time as no different from other Germans. So when he moved to Vienna he was horrified at the antisemitism of much of the Viennese press. As he says in Mein Kampf:
“For the Jew was still characterized for me by nothing but his religion, and therefore, on grounds of human tolerance, I maintained my rejection of religious attacks in this case as in others. Consequently, the tone, particularly that of the Viennese anti-Semitic press, seemed to me unworthy of the cultural tradition of a great nation”.
That’s a pretty odd beginning for the man who became history’s biggest antisemite, is it not? So there must have been a powerful force to bring about such a radical change. And the force concerned was nothing other than the “love” relationship that existed between Hitler and most of the Germans under his rule. As any reader of Mein Kampf should be aware, the book is largely a love-song to the German people. And that most Germans eventually returned that love is rather vividly borne out by the way they stuck with Hitler to the bitter end—long after it was at all reasonable to do so. Compare Germany 1945 with the unrest in Germany prior to the 1918 surrender, the collapse in resistance in Western Russia and Ukraine in the first year of the German invasion, the collapse of Dutch, Belgian, Danish, Norwegian, Czech and French resistance under German invasion or the collapse of Italian resistance under Allied invasion.
Both Roberts (1938) and Heiden (1939)—prewar anti-Nazi writers— portray Hitler as widely revered and popular among the Germans of their day. As Heiden (1939, p. 98) put it: “The great masses of the people did not merely put up with National Socialism. They welcomed it”. And Madden (1987) presents modern-day scholarly evidence derived from archival research to show that Nazis came from all social classes in large numbers.
That Hitler’s constantly expressed love of his people and belief in their greatness should have earned him their love and belief in return is not at all surprising but it is very unfashionable to mention it. A book recently released in Germany, however, does make some allusion to it. Excerpt from a review of it:
“A well-respected German historian has a radical new theory to explain a nagging question: Why did average Germans so heartily support the Nazis and Third Reich? Hitler, says Goetz Aly, was a “feel good dictator,” a leader who not only made Germans feel important, but also made sure they were well cared-for by the state. To do so, he gave them huge tax breaks and introduced social benefits that even today anchor the society. He also ensured that even in the last days of the war not a single German went hungry. Despite near-constant warfare, never once during his 12 years in power did Hitler raise taxes for working class people. He also—in great contrast to World War I—particularly pampered soldiers and their families, offering them more than double the salaries and benefits that American and British families received. As such, most Germans saw Nazism as a “warm-hearted” protector, says Aly, author of the new book “Hitler’s People’s State: Robbery, Racial War and National Socialism” and currently a guest lecturer at the University of Frankfurt”
I am inclined to the view that Hitler’s love for his fellow Germans was sincere but, whether or not that was so, there was one huge problem with it—Germans at the start of Hitler’s political career immediately after World War I were at one-another’s throats. A civil war between the “Reds” and other Germans was a very lively possibility at the time. How could you love a people who hated one-another? How could you love a people who were NOT one people in important senses? That was a major dilemma that Hitler had to solve. And we see from Mein Kampf how he solved it:
Although he was, like most German second-rate thinkers of his time, much influenced by the ideas of Marx and Engels, Hitler despised the destructive and divisive “class war” aspect of Marx’s thinking and when he found that practically every preacher of Marxist class-war that he encountered in Vienna was a Jew, he began to see Jews as bent on the destruction of the German people he loved. So the great divisions that he saw among Germans in the anarchic conditions immediately after World War I could now be explained satisfactorily: They were the work of non-Germans—Jews. It was Jews who were creating divisions among Germans by their preaching of class war. Germans were only divided because they were being deceived by outsiders. Jews were the scapegoat for German disunity just as they have been the scapegoat for many other problems throughout history. And it may be noted that Hitler describes his conversion to antisemitism as “a great spiritual upheaval”—i.e. he abandoned his previous “cosmopolitan” (tolerant) views only with great reluctance. It was only his romantic love of his semi-imaginary German people (Volk) that brought about the big shift in his views.
In a speech delivered at the Berlin Sportpalast shortly after being appointed Chancellor on February, 1st, 1933, Hitler summed up his thinking about his German Volk with his characteristic passion as follows:
“During fourteen years the German nation has been at the mercy of decadent elements which have abused its confidence. During fourteen years those elements have done nothing but destroy, disintegrate and dissolve. Hence it is neither temerity nor presumption if, appearing before the nation today, I ask: German nation, give us four years time, after which you can arraign us before your tribunal and you can judge me! ....
“I cannot rid myself of my faith in my people, nor lose the conviction that this people will resuscitate again one day. I cannot be severed from the love of a people that I know to be my own. And I nourish the conviction that the hour will come when millions of men who now curse us will take their stand behind us to welcome the new Reich, our common creation born of a painful and laborious struggle and an arduous triumph—a Reich which is the symbol of greatness, honour, strength, honesty and justice.”
His love of his German people and his belief that they had been misled are certainly eloquently proclaimed there —and by that stage no-one doubted whom he saw as the “decadent elements”.
Sadly, however, Hitler’s anti-Jewish views actually made him unremarkable in the Germany of his day The general acquiescence in them needs no great explanation beyond a reference to the general attitudes of the times. As far as the average German knew, Hitler was just running (yawn) a Pogrom. The Russians did it all the time, didn’t they? It was Hitler’s national glorification and socialist policies that were really interesting and attractive.
The conventional account of the origins of Hitler’s animosity towards Jews is that his rejection from the Vienna Art Academy (in which Jews were prominent) embittered him. But that is not remotely what he says in Mein Kampf. He does not even mention the word “Jew” in connection with the Academy. He says that the Rector rejected him from the painting school because his main talent and interest was in architecture—a judgement with which Hitler emphatically agreed!
Finally, it might be noted that much of Hitler’s rhetoric about the Jews was based on exactly the same assumption that Leftists to this day use in talking about racial matters. The affirmative action warriors of today are fanatical about proportional representation. They constantly claim that the proportion of (say) blacks in the general population should be reflected everywhere—in every occupation and in every institution. If there is a smaller proportion of (say) blacks in banking than there is in the general population, this is taken as proof that there is discrimination against blacks in banking. Hitler used exactly the same argument about Jews. As they are in America today, Jews in prewar Germany were very much overrepresented in the top echelons of German society. So, in good Leftist fashion, Hitler took that as proof that good, ordinary Germans were being systematically excluded from such positions in society by malign Jewish machinations. If Hitler was illogical in such thinking, so are most Leftists today. And in fact complaints about Jewish over-representation in (say) top U.S. universities do rumble on at a low level among Leftists today. “The more things change, the more they stay the same”.
References:
Brown, R.(1986) Social psychology (2nd. Ed.) N.Y.: Free Press. Harper
Dietrich, D.J. (1988) National renewal, anti-Semitism, and political continuity: A psychological assessment. Political Psychology 9, 385-411.
Heiden, K. (1939) One man against Europe Harmondsworth, Mddx.: Penguin
Madden, P. (1987) The social class origins of Nazi party members as determined by occupations, 1919-1933. Social Science Quarterly 68, 263-280.
Roberts, S.H. (1938) The house that Hitler built N.Y.: Harper.
Comments (62) | Tell-a-Friend
The trackback URL for this entry is: Trackbacks are disabled for this entry
Trackbacks:
Comments:
Page 1 of 1 pages
That is a good point, how overrepresentation comes to be seen by leftist egalitarians as proving conspiracy. The most antisemitic groups in America are the blacks and latinos, who are the targets of affirmative action programs.
Posted by John S Bolton on Saturday, June 25, 2005 at 12:47 AM | #
Obviously this is the tack going to be taken by the next dictator - possibly Howard Dean? - against American Christians. You can already see this rhetoric all over the “Christian left -” the idea that America is a great nation and Americans are great people, but there’s this terrible, divisive, disintegrating force preventing us from acheiving our glory - religious fundamentalism.
Posted by ummjack on Saturday, June 25, 2005 at 02:06 AM | #
I don’t believe Hitler scapegoated Jews for German disunity or hated them for being successful, or even for practising ethnic nepotism in the pursuit of success. Why would he be concerned that Jews were over-represented in the upper echelons of German society if their effect upon Germans was beneficial ? It wasn’t - that was the problem. Jews were perceived to use their power for their own historic purposes ... and these were perceived to constitute an act of ancient, unremitting ethnic warfare.
Did they not, for example, concentrate in centres of strategic importance: the centres of control of money and information and discordant political activism? Did they not solely initiate or support political activism that furthered what was “good for Jews”? Did that activism invariably degrade German majority interests?
We have just witnessed the long-delayed trial and prosecution of an octagenarian white American racist for the murders of two young, committed Jewish communists and a black stooge. I do not believe that in the minds of the perpetrators those murders were acts of aggression. The murderers were not interested in travelling to New York to bomb kosher restaurants. They acted in the perception of their own defence.
The key to understanding anti-semitic activism among peoples of European blood was and is self-defence. Whether there is an attack to which to respond is a matter for open debate, as is whether the nature of the response is reasonable.
Hitlerism was clearly not reasonable - not merely because of the Jews and the camps but because of its impact on neighbouring European peoples. Under Nazism, the Germans as a people travelled so far towards self-glorification that they responded to all competing ethnic interests, Jewish or otherwise, aggressive or not, with the same arrogant, contemptuous cruelty.
Posted by Guessedworker on Saturday, June 25, 2005 at 07:16 AM | #
And, it certainly had nothing to to the the Bolsheviks - a predominantly Jewish radical movement - overthrowing the Tsar and turning Russia into a prison camp.
Posted by Geoff Beck on Saturday, June 25, 2005 at 02:45 PM | #
And it had nothing to do with Bela Khun/Kun/Kohn overthrowing the gov’t of Hungary(1919).
Hungary being part of the Hapsburg domains, of which Austria was then a part when she went into WWI and which Hitler served.
No, concrete reasons like this… they couldn’t explain it.... lets look for some abstract deep psychological fault.
Did his mother give him enough milk?
Posted by Geoff M. Beck on Saturday, June 25, 2005 at 03:18 PM | #
What’s with this Hitler Obsession? :::yawn:::
Posted by Stuka on Saturday, June 25, 2005 at 03:47 PM | #
“Although he was, like most German second-rate thinkers of his time, much influenced by the ideas of Marx and Engels...”
“second-rate” compared to whom? Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, Tony Blair, Jacques Chirac, etc.? lol Surely he was light years ahead of that mediocre company. Can you imagine Reagan, for e.g., give frequent speeches on art and architecture to his fellow Americans? Just the thought makes me smile.
The same man who as a teenager preferred to buy tickets to the opera rather than eat? Someone who could expound on philosophy, music, religion, art, history, architecture, the classics… for hours? The same man who wrote an opera ("Wieland der Schmied") when still an adolescent?
It makes no sense to compare politicians with writers, philosophers, poets, artists, etc. but I’d say Hitler, in terms of his wide interests and intellectual curiosity, was far above your average pol.
Here’s a good review by Matt Nuenke of a book that claims Hitler was in fact an Enlightment philosphe and a profound thinker.
http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/Birken.htm
Posted by friedrich braun on Saturday, June 25, 2005 at 04:21 PM | #
Friedrich,
There is something surreal about your Hitler-worship. I have yet to meet any Germans (and I know many) who speak this way about Hitler or the Nazis. And mind you, most of my German acquiantances are not loonie-left Liberals. Most of them are pretty conservative (and many are very conservative Bavarians). Almost all of them are completely opposed to all immigration into Germany.
But I have seen this bizarre tendency among some American “White Nationalsts” (with a modicum of German ancestry) who take on the cause of the Third Reich with a fervour not seen since the days of the Nuremberg rallies.
What gives?
Posted by Phil on Saturday, June 25, 2005 at 04:56 PM | #
Friedrich,
Does it ever occur to you that open admiration for Hitler does more harm than good (leaving aside for the moment historical analysis of the Third Reich on which I am willing to concede that views would not be uniform)?
There is no shortage of “far right” American “white nationalists” who have been swinging Swasikas for decades. And they wouldnt be able to win an election for the local dog warden if they decided to contest tomorrow. It never occured to them that their Nazi symbolism may itself be the real reason why they don’t succeed.
Posted by Phil on Saturday, June 25, 2005 at 05:06 PM | #
The murderers were not interested in travelling to New York to bomb kosher restaurants. They acted in the perception of their own defence.
The key to understanding anti-semitic activism among peoples of European blood was and is self-defence.
Yes, defense against aggression.
From etymonline.com:
Aggression - 1611, “unprovoked attack,” from verb aggress “to approach, to start an argument” (c.1575), from Fr. aggresser, from L.L. aggressare, freq. of L. aggredi (pp. aggressus) “to approach, attack,” from ad- “to” + gradi (pp. gressus) “to step,” from gradus “a step.” Psychological sense of “hostile or destructive behavior” first recorded 1912 in A.A. Brill’s transl. of Freud. Aggressive first recorded 1824.
Throughout history, it has been the Jewish community that “approach[es]” or takes a step toward gentile communities, rather than the reverse. It is a matter of “breaking down barriers” to entry - barriers to entry of golf clubs, universities, or entire nations.
Heinrich Graetz, a renowned Jewish historian, discusses the longing of the Jewish community to gain entry to Britain:
http://www.saltshakers.com/lm/GraetzD.rtf
At the very time when the Jews of Poland were trodden down, slaughtered, or driven through Europe like terrified wild beasts, a land of freedom was opened, from which the Jews had been banished for more than three centuries and a half. England, which the wise queen Elizabeth and the brave Cromwell had raised to be the first power in Europe, a position very different from that of crumbling Poland, again admitted Jews, not indeed through the great portal, yet through the back door. But this admission was so bruited abroad, that it was like a triumph for Judaism. The Jews of Amsterdam and Hamburg looked with longing to this island, to which they were so near, with whose merchants, shipowners, and scholars they were in connection, and which promised wide scope for the exercise of their varied abilities. But settlement there seemed beset with insuperable obstacles. The English episcopal church, which exercised sway over the English conscience, was even more intolerant than the popery which it persecuted, Not grantlng freedom to Catholics and Dissenters, would it tolerate the descendants of those aspersed in the New Testament? The English people, who for centuries had seen no Jew, shared to the full the antipathy of the clergy. To them every Jew was a Shylock, who, with hearty goodwill, would cut a Christian to pieces--a monster in human form, bearing the mark of Cain. Who would undertake to banish this strong prejudice in order to render people and rulers favorable to the descendants of Israel?
Posted by ben tillman on Saturday, June 25, 2005 at 06:33 PM | #
Does it ever occur to you that open admiration for Hitler does more harm than good - Phil
You know, this subject really bothers me. While I am an avid and bordering psycho White proponent, I am quite disturbed at the not so inconsequential numbers of youth (and old) who are Neo-nazis and Hitlerphiles. Now, I do find Hitler and the Nazis extremely interesting from a historical perspective and love reading about WWII, though I do not pretend to be anything remotely resembling an expert on the subject. I also am quite aware that many of the Neo-nazis have gravitated to this belief due to a lack of racial awareness by Whites in general, constant attack on Whites from all sides, the JQ issues, and the more visible presence of an ideology that supposedly champions their beliefs and viewing Hitler as a man who stood up for Whites and therefore a “hero”. I can understand ALL that and cannot really blame them for wanting to fit into a group or family due to a paucity of avenues to turn to.
With all that said, what I am bothered with is that Hitler damaged Whites and our interests more than any damn Liberal could. He damaged more Europeans than Jews. His existence allowed this crazy Marxist ideology to take hold so “there won’t be another Hitler” thanks to his insanity. With the Marxists running the show, the likelihood of another “Hitler” grows due to this constant attack on us. If that were to happen, that would be the end for us, collectively. It would destroy all that is good of Whites and Europeans. We do not NEED nor WANT another Hitler or a rise in Neo-Nazi ideology. I say that with full sympathy of freidrich’s beliefs in racial awareness and pride, though I stand firm that if he and others that frequent his site do not come to the realization that they do more harm to our cause than good, they may be 1) bringing about our extinction sooner rather than later, 2) are possibly used as “fringe pawns” in the Marxist media machine, and 3) turn off possible awakening in people who are sympathetic to our cause though cringe at the mere site of a swastika.
The growing numbers of this ideology is very worrisome and the only thing that may temper it is racial awareness from more moderate voices that stick to two critical points: 1) Whites are a race that deserves all the respect and rights that others are freely given. 2) Whites have the absolute and unquestionable right to preserve their homelands.
Posted by Kubilai on Saturday, June 25, 2005 at 06:38 PM | #
One more think: Hitler was never influenced by Marx and Engels. However, he was influenced by Prussian or authoritarian Socialism. He translated this thesis into a “Socialism of action.” Socialism meaning comradeship, service, duty, and love of your Volk rather than the class struggle of Karl Marx.
Posted by friedrich braun on Saturday, June 25, 2005 at 07:02 PM | #
I think a lot of neo-nazism in the US is simply an unthinking visceral reaction to the current regime. Since the regime has defined itself as the antithesis of Hitlerism for the past seventy years those who feel justified revulsion toward that regime find AH attractive for that very reason.
Posted by seelow heights on Saturday, June 25, 2005 at 09:31 PM | #
But I have seen this bizarre tendency among some American “White Nationalsts” (with a modicum of German ancestry) who take on the cause of the Third Reich with a fervour not seen since the days of the Nuremberg rallies.
What gives?
That’s what I find amusing, that it’s usually non-German (especially American) WNs giving WNism a bad name with the Hitler-worship.
Hitler’s National Socialism was strictly German, so I don’t understand why non-Germans are so into it (apart from anti-social tendencies of course).
There is no shortage of “far right” American “white nationalists” who have been swinging Swasikas for decades. And they wouldnt be able to win an election for the local dog warden if they decided to contest tomorrow. It never occured to them that their Nazi symbolism may itself be the real reason why they don’t succeed.
There is no repeat no excuse for non-German WNs using Nazi symbology. In my opinion those doing so are fifth columnists or their extended phenotypes, or simple wackos.
I think a lot of neo-nazism in the US is simply an unthinking visceral reaction to the current regime. Since the regime has defined itself as the antithesis of Hitlerism for the past seventy years those who feel justified revulsion toward that regime find AH attractive for that very reason.
I think you’re right, though I think anti-social personality plays a bigger part (not that the two are easily separable).
I’ve had a few heated discussions over the use of Nazi symbology, and the experiences have only strengthened my belief that these people are kooks who won’t listen to reason. Even the simplest sorts of logical arguments are beyond them.
I think a lot of neo-nazism in the US is simply an unthinking visceral reaction to the current regime. Since the regime has defined itself as the antithesis of Hitlerism for the past seventy years those who feel justified revulsion toward that regime find AH attractive for that very reason.
You have nailed it.
Posted by Phil on Saturday, June 25, 2005 at 11:15 PM | #
“I think a lot of neo-nazism in the US is simply an unthinking visceral reaction to the current regime. Since the regime has defined itself as the antithesis of Hitlerism for the past seventy years those who feel justified revulsion toward that regime find AH attractive for that very reason”
There is much truth in that. Extremism begets extremism
Posted by jonjayray on Sunday, June 26, 2005 at 12:44 AM | #
For Friedrich:
“Hitler often praised Stalin in conversation. “The whole of National Socialism,” he once confessed to a confidant, was based on Marx.
“
http://www.quadrant.org.au/php/archive_details_list.php?article_id=1050
Posted by jonjayray on Sunday, June 26, 2005 at 01:05 AM | #
““second-rate” compared to whom? Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, Tony Blair”
Ronald Reagan had a degree in economics and knew the less recognized “Austrian” economists well
GWB has a Masters degree from Harvard
Blair is a clever British lawyer
Hitler never went anywhere near a university and did badly at school
Posted by jonjayray on Sunday, June 26, 2005 at 01:09 AM | #
Ronald Reagan had a degree in economics and knew the less recognized “Austrian” economists well
GWB has a Masters degree from Harvard
Blair is a clever British lawyer
Any reason why you left Chirac out? 
Posted by Phil on Sunday, June 26, 2005 at 08:34 AM | #
“Hitler often praised Stalin in conversation. “The whole of National Socialism,” he once confessed to a confidant, was based on Marx.
“
http://www.quadrant.org.au/php/archive_details_list.php?article_id=1050”
LOL is this serious? Don’t give me garbage off the Internet.
Date, source, name of the “confidant”? Aren’t you supposed to be some sort of academic? That’s just ridiculous.
Posted by friedrich braun on Sunday, June 26, 2005 at 09:37 PM | #
“Does it ever occur to you that open admiration for Hitler...”
There has never been in world history any one more lied about, calumniated, caricatured, and misrepresented than Adolf Hitler and the years of the Third Reich. About 2/3 of the stuff you read is tendentious, slanted junk. Worthless. I only try to set the record straight when I can, the fact that you call that “admiration” speaks of your conditioning—and I’m not blaming you, it’s hard not to be a victim whem for close to 70 years now only one side has been allowed to speak.
Posted by friedrich braun on Sunday, June 26, 2005 at 09:45 PM | #
“But I have seen this bizarre tendency among some American “White Nationalsts” (with a modicum of German ancestry) who take on the cause of the Third Reich with a fervour not seen since the days of the Nuremberg rallies.”
I’m not an American and I can’t speak for Americans. I also happen to think that Americans WNs spend too much time on Hitler, etc. Americans should reach within their own rich past and traditions and concentrate on problems facing Whites in America today, instead of focusing on a German movement of the 20’s and 30’s that arose in Germany to tackle specificly Germans problems of that era.
Posted by friedrich braun on Sunday, June 26, 2005 at 09:53 PM | #
There is something surreal about your “Hitler-worship. I have yet to meet any Germans (and I know many) who speak this way about Hitler or the Nazis. And mind you, most of my German acquiantances are not loonie-left Liberals. Most of them are pretty conservative (and many are very conservative Bavarians). Almost all of them are completely opposed to all immigration into Germany.”
Quick point:
It’s rather difficult to overtly express positive thoughts on Hitler, NS years, and the like in today’s anti-German Bastardstate with its Yankee-installed judeo-democracy when doing so guarantees you a one-way ticket to a nearby prison.
Posted by friedrich braun on Sunday, June 26, 2005 at 09:56 PM | #
JJRAY:
“Hitler never went anywhere near a university and did badly at school”
No PhD - clearly an idiot
JJRAY:
“As they are in America today, Jews in prewar Germany were very much overrepresented in the top echelons of German society.”
yes, more details on this page:
http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/lapin2.htm
Posted by JB on Monday, June 27, 2005 at 08:16 AM | #
The mere fact that Hitler would credit Marx and Marxism as forming the base of National Socialism is wacky in an insane kind of way. But when it comes to Hitler any lie, no matter how absurd and laughable, gets printed without a discordant note. As long as it’s liable to show him in the most unfavourable light possible of course.
Posted by friedrich braun on Monday, June 27, 2005 at 11:59 AM | #
How does John Ray explains the overrepresentation of jews in the top echelons of the american media ? A coincidence ? A sign of superior intelligence or talent ?
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=4917
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=4231
Posted by JB on Monday, June 27, 2005 at 01:39 PM | #
There has never been in world history any one more lied about, calumniated, caricatured, and misrepresented than Adolf Hitler and the years of the Third Reich. About 2/3 of the stuff you read is tendentious, slanted junk. Worthless. I only try to set the record straight when I can, the fact that you call that “admiration” speaks of your conditioning—and I’m not blaming you, it’s hard not to be a victim whem for close to 70 years now only one side has been allowed to speak.
Friedrich,
Are they lies or simply moral condemnations of acts which you do not consider morally reprehensible (because you accept the idea that morality itself is a luxury - a product of Nazi nihilism) - such as the Nazi slaughter of Poles, Russians and Ukrainians (to name a few)?
I raise this objection as someone who doesn’t agree with John Ray most of the time. If you browse through this site, you should be able to gather that most commenters do not agree with John most of the time.
That said, it is an argument that I often encounter among those with Nazi sympathies - that the history of Nazi Germany is all lies. No nation’s history is without some lies - seeing the way the history of the British empire has been altered by Marxists to suit their own interests.
BUT, when you accuse the history of Nazi Germany as we know it to be based on lies, merely asserting that they were lies is not enough. You need to set out what those lies are. I understand that you could fill a book with it (in your opinion) - but even a brief summary of the main points will do (and with good links please - not internet kooks).
Posted by Phil on Monday, June 27, 2005 at 07:19 PM | #
No PhD - clearly an idiot
Deal with the arguments. Don’t engage in personal attacks.
I have warned commenters in the past about this. Without exception, anyone throwing insults at our bloggers will be banned.
We are a Free Speech forum, not a free for all. You can express disagreements in the strongest possible terms but you will not engage in insults or abuse.
If you cannot post civil comments, go blog somewhere else.
Posted by Phil on Monday, June 27, 2005 at 07:24 PM | #
There has never been in world history any one more lied about, calumniated, caricatured, and misrepresented than Adolf Hitler and the years of the Third Reich. About 2/3 of the stuff you read is tendentious, slanted junk. Worthless. I only try to set the record straight when I can, the fact that you call that “admiration” speaks of your conditioning—and I’m not blaming you, it’s hard not to be a victim whem for close to 70 years now only one side has been allowed to speak.
Even if this is true, it makes zero sense for American WNs or European Nationalists to try to save Hitler’s neck in the history books when their own political causes are fraught with all kinds of problems.
Trying to straighten the Nazi record is a lost cause and even if every Nazi evil we have read about is a lie, it is a waste of time for us to expend our energies on trying to rectify the history books when we are in such a crisis for survival in Europe.
From a political perspective, any association with Nazis is worse than suicide. It amounts to voluntary political obliteration. Anyone who doesn’t understand this is either dense or a sworn enemy of European survival.
Posted by Phil on Monday, June 27, 2005 at 07:30 PM | #
LOL Phil!
First you tell me that setting the record straight is a waste of time and counterproductive and then you ask me to do just that—with good links!
May I suggest some reading material:
David Leslie Hoggan’s The Forced War: Why Peaceful Revision Failed.
http://www.revisionists.com/revisionists/hoggan.html
It’s out of print but every good library has it and you can get from second hand bookstores. I don’t know of a better source concerning the events that lead to W.W. II.
I’d start with the beginning, i.e. how come there was a war at all and then move to various issues surrounding the actual war.
For e.g., did you know that Russian historians increasingly believe (thanks to old secret files being opened) that Stalin wanted to attack Hitler first and that the Russian campaign (Barbarossa) was in fact a pre-emptive strike?
At any rate, if you really mean to get informed, please start with Hoggan.
Posted by friedrich braun on Monday, June 27, 2005 at 10:16 PM | #
First you tell me that setting the record straight is a waste of time and counterproductive and then you ask me to do just that—with good links!
Because you claimed that 2/3rds of the History of Nazi Germany (as we know it) is false. If you make a claim, the onus is on you to prove it.
But as a practical matter (even assuming your argument is correct - which I don’t), what I said earlier stands. It amounts to voluntary obliteration for any European Nationalist to associate himself in the slightest way with Hitler.
We don’t live in a perfect world. We cannot right every wrong. There were wrongs committed by the opponents of Nazi Germany too. Which is why, you need to get your priotities in the right order. What matters more than what German kids in 2100 will think of Hitler, is whether Germany survives at all.
Germany can survive if there is a resurgence of strong conservative spirit and sentiment which puts an end to the immigration mess.
Posted by Phil on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 at 08:14 AM | #
“(even assuming your argument is correct - which I don’t)”
Always keep an open mind, Phil.
Reading you I have the feeling that you haven’t done your homework at all on those issues but you’re just going along with the psychologically comfortable received wisdom you picked up here and there from conformist historians.
Additionally, I reject your contention that we shouldn’t strive for historical accuracy when the Third Reich is at play because it might ruffle some feathers. It’s precisely that type of obscurantist attitude (incidentally, I don’t think you’d be advocating ignorance as a tactic in any other field) that has prevailed for the last 60 years and has contributed to a distorted and one-sided, black and white, Manichean view of history.
Pick up Hoggan’s book, I think that should be a good and start. It’s really a mesmorizing read. Take a week or two to read it, it’s really worth it. Make that effort, challenge your pre-conceived notions. It’s really worth it.
Finally, browse some threads on The Revisionist Forum, a place where sacred cows get slaughetered on a regular basis. See holocaust promoters (and other guardians of orthodoxy) and revisionists go head to head and decide on your own - for yourself - who has science and facts on their side.
http://revforum.yourforum.org/viewforum.php?f=2&sid=b87747cb155003f356ce522f73587d53
Posted by friedrich braun on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 at 10:04 AM | #
Reading you I have the feeling that you haven’t done your homework at all on those issues but you’re just going along with the psychologically comfortable received wisdom you picked up here and there from conformist historians.
I keep an open mind about everything. This includes the Holocaust on which I have expressed my own agnostic opinions before on this very forum.
Its not a matter of having a closed mind. Its a matter of contemporary politics. No political party in Europe will get a second look from the undecided voter if it identifies itself with Nazis. That’s just the way it is. You can’t change that. And we are running out of time.
I am all for revisionist historians refuting lies propounded by Marxists and their fellow travellers. And I am fine with people in our “cause” loosely defined, listening to Revisionists and being open to their arguments.
But what I wont ever agree to is having WN parties identifying with Nazis. Thats political suicide. Let the Historians do their work and good luck to them. We have to do our work.
My first concern is with the survival of Europe. I dont give a fig about revisionist History if theres no Europe left in five decades for my prospective grandchildren to grow up in. And it is my responsibility and that of all Europeans to avert such an eventuality. Openly identifying with Nazis compromises that very badly.
Posted by Phil on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 at 06:53 PM | #
There is no shortage of “far right” American “white nationalists” who have been swinging Swasikas for decades. And they wouldnt be able to win an election for the local dog warden if they decided to contest tomorrow.
We don’t call it “dog warden” here, we say “dog catcher.”
Posted by srsrenner on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 at 07:48 PM | #
Phil, I agree with your last post. No one sane entering politics should openly identify with Nazis.
However, if downplaying the Jewish question and denigrating Nazis were the road to power, the American paleo-cons would have triumphed a decade ago. One only needs to read Thomas Fleming and Chronicles magazine to understand the futility of this position.
Posted by friedrich braun on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 at 08:16 PM | #
Anyone who accepts uncritically, and who regurgitates approvingly, the hagiography of men like FDR and Churchill, and who mindlessly repeats the court historian’s lies about WWI and WWII, and who touts the entire Anglo-American historical mythos as though it were self-evidently true, is an enemy (or at least too seriously deluded to be a friend or ally) and is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
It’s one thing to say that the Nazi-cultism is unhelpful to our cause and that “blame-the-Jews-for-everything” mentality that finds a Jew under every bed, is not going to help us much in solving our ultimate problems. This is true. Most of us here would agree with that.
It’s quite another thing entirely to then go on to say, that because of this, we have to appeal to the ignorance of the masses by pretending that the lies of the official court historians are true, and that we must denounce anyone who disagrees with these historical lies as “Nazis”, “Hitler worshippers”, etc.
There’s a middle way in which we can avoid such pointless things as Hollywood Nazi uniform fetishes, without however accepting the anti-Nazi lies we have been force fed by the media and academia. People need to be educated as to the facts, otherwise the “solutions” they will attempt to implement will be based on false assumptions about the facts, and thus, will repeatedly fail and come to naught.
Some put themselves in an entirely ridiculous bind: he wants to accept the Anglo-American-Jewish worldview about the history of the 20th century, and yet also claim to recognize the Jews as incompatible with Western culture, and thus in need of removal from our midst.
That’s absurd. Why are the Jews incompatible? You can’t just criticize Jewish behaviour internally (that is, their bad influence on our culture) without also taking note of their disasterous influence over our foreign policy. It’s too absurd for words. WNs either have to come on board all the way, take the red pill, and recognize reality for what it is, or they have to make their peace with the Jews and take the blue pill, and get on with his life as a willing tool of the System.
This is one instance where there is no third way, where People simply can’t hedge, niggle, wiggle, or finagle their way out of this dilemma. Sometimes there is a third way, sometimes there are more than two choices, where saying there are only two choices constitutes a “false dichotomy”; but this is not one of them. It’s either the red pill or the blue pill, folks; no other choices.
Posted by friedrich braun on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 at 08:31 PM | #
Friedrich,
There is no way to wash over the Nazis as heroes or as reasonable men no matter how many of these lies you refute (and there are many, no doubt - starting with some elements of the Holocaust story itself).
But even if 2/3rds of what we know about Nazi Germany is proved to be false (which would be impossible), that still leaves a lot to answer for.
One doesn’t even need to go through the entire history of the Third Reich to see that. A read through Mein Kampf is enough to provide a window into it.
My family lost several members in WWII (although I was born in the 70s and never saw the carnage myself). For those in my family who fought WWII, it was a matter of national survival. A fight against an all-conquering enemy. I do not need historians to tell me what things were like in 1940. Part of that story is etched in our family history.
But anyway, you won’t convince me and I won’t convince you. So let’s leave it at that. All I can say is this: we are not a revisionist forum. We are a political forum. We are here to reach out to the undecided conservatives. The people who vote for Bush in America, for John Howard in Britain. Our goal is to convince them of the justice of our cause. That goal takes precedence over everything else. And revisionism or open advocacy in favour of the Nazis damages it badly.
We are a young blog but we have grown by leaps and bounds in a very short time. We do, though, have a long way to go yet. We are hopeful that we will reach out to enough people, through the spread of ideas and through our commitment to make a difference politically.
We have no illusions about the enormity of our task. But we are prepared for it.
Jews:
This is a complicated question. Why have the Paleos fared badly in America? I don’t know the answer to that but what I do know is that they have done better than the National Vanguard or other similar types.
William Pierce (the founder of National vanguard) was saying all those things (that you want European Nationalists to say) since the 1960s. Where did that take him and his group? Nowhere.
Jews are the engine of Liberalism (in the US mainly) but not the soul of Liberalism. And I will tell you this: you could remove all Jewish influence from the West right now and that would solve about 20 percent of our problems (if that). Liberalism and Liberal principles have etched themselves into the soul of western man and this is a process that began a long time ago.
The Yankees needed no Jews to invade the South and murder hundreds of thousands of their own kin in the name of abolishing slavery. Why did they do it? In much of Europe in our time, Jewish influence is minimal and yet the progressive agenda marches on.
Blaming the Jews for everything (which your post suggests you disagree with too) is a sign of intellectual laziness, an unwillingness to think harder about what has gone wrong. There are no easy “solutions” here. The structure of society has been wrecked. Family is wrecked, religion is wrecked. These things cannot be easily repaired.
Even after we have succeeded in turning the immigrant tide (and let’s hope we do), we will have a long way to go before we can restore the West and reclaim what we have lost.
Posted by Phil on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 at 09:16 PM | #
Friedrich,
I should add one more thing:
It makes little sense for us to repeatedly say that we are not a revisionism site when John keeps churning out his own WWII material at a rate that would leave the Chinese impressed.
I have argued with John before. However, I do not have unlimited time as he does (nor do any of the other bloggers here). And all John usually does is repeat the same argument a thousand times over no matter how often it has been refuted. Basically, if you repeat something (true or false) often enough - it sticks.
I would personally not have repeated posts on Hitler or the Nazis because it is then logical for many to question the view that he supports. But it is for John to exercise his discretion in doing so as I cannot control what he writes.
But, it is an open question as to whether his intention is to maintain the reputation and focus of the blog or simply ignite a lot of controversy to enjoy it himself.
Posted by Phil on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 at 09:37 PM | #
“My family lost several members in WWII (although I was born in the 70s and never saw the carnage myself). For those in my family who fought WWII, it was a matter of national survival. A fight against an all-conquering enemy. I do not need historians to tell me what things were like in 1940. Part of that story is etched in our family history.”
Quick note on this:
Germany didn’t war with Britain, Britain wanted war with Germany in the name of the antqiquated balance of power policy that was obsolete even then. It was Britain that gave the dissolute, arrogant sabre-rattling Polish colonels (Poland was a military dictatorship in the 20s and 30s—so much for another myth about going to war in the name of freedom and democracy) of the 20s and 30s a blank cheque in the form of guarantees against Germany without even asking them to negotiate with Germany in good faith over Danzing (as amazing as it sounds, Britain didn’t attach any conditions to those guarantees and didn’t as the Poles to be reasonable), but only against Germany and not the Soviet Union, even though Poles regarded the Soviet Union as a greater threat to their independence (that’s also why war was declared only against Germany and not the Soviet Union as well). Actually, Lord Halifax specifically enjoined the Polish colonels in the summer of ‘39 not to negotiate with Germans over Danzig (a city that was 95 % German and National Socialist even before the Reich, the WW I Allies refused the Danzigers the principle of self-determination as specified in Wislon’s 14 points, because they knew that the Danzigers wanted to stay united with the Reich). They’re was a significant anti-German element in Britain that wanted to see Germany destroyed because, inter alia, it was an economic threat to British supremacy. I’m referring to people such as Halifax, Strang, Churchill, Vansittart and a host of others. Hitler made 5 peace offers to Britain (6 if you count the Hess flight), they were all turned down by Britain. One of Hitler’s proposals was a multi-layered alliance with Britain and a willingness to militarily guarantee the British Empire with German arms (had that occurred you can bet that Britain would have her empire to this day). What I’m driving at is that you shouldn’t blame the Germans for war between Britain and Germany and for your family’s needless sacrifice. Germany didn’t want war with Britain. What did Britain get out of that unnecessary war? Financial insolvency and the loss of empire and the consequent immigration from the said empire. Half of Europe was given to Stalin at Yalta - including Poland, who’s freedom was the pretext for war in the first place.
But to paraphrase Schmitt, sometimes you don’t get to choose your enemy, the enemy does that for you.
Posted by friedrich braun on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 at 10:06 PM | #
“But, it is an open question as to whether his intention is to maintain the reputation and focus of the blog or simply ignite a lot of controversy to enjoy it himself.”
Point taken. I don’t come here either to argue about WW II.
Posted by friedrich braun on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 at 10:08 PM | #
Friedrich,
You made excellent points. And every one of your points is valid.
However, the real question is this: could Hitler be trusted? This is I think the final issue. I am no expert on WWII history, so Ill leave it at that.
But if that is where the question must lie, British policy could not be faulted in its entirety.
But to paraphrase Schmitt, sometimes you don’t get to choose your enemy, the enemy does that for you.
I take it that you are paraphrasing Karl Schmitt? I have always wanted to read Schmitt but I never get around to it with my ridiculous working hours.
Now, after Germany had conquered all of Europe, even assuming Britain had not followed the policies you have critiqued, what was the guarantee with all of europe under his control, Hitler would not have invaded Britain? It is what the Yanks would call a “no brainer”. With a vastly superior military (and the Wehrmacht was man for man probably the finest army of all time) and all the advantages one needs, would Hitler have stopped in the name of principle? I think not.
War with Germany was, unfortunately, inevitable. But the War didn’t start in the late 1930s. It started in 1914. What we had after 1918 was a temporary ceasefire - a very tense ceasefire.
There is no way to give a clean chit to any of the warring parties. But on the balance of probabilities, why would Hitler simply take Britain as an “ally” if he had already taken all of Europe under his control? And if he had taken Britain as an “ally”, it would have been after an invasion and having installed a vichy-type regime in Britain.
Do you rule this out completely?
Posted by Phil on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 at 10:27 PM | #
“Now, after Germany had conquered all of Europe, even assuming Britain had not followed the policies you have critiqued, what was the guarantee with all of europe under his control, Hitler would not have invaded Britain?”
Hitler wasn’t interested in conquering all of Europe or the world as you often hysterically hear. However, he was interested, as were most Germans, in revising or rectifying the unjust Versailles Diktat. Furthermore, Hitler only wanted to move East and never West. He was forced to move West when the West declared war on him. Had Britain and France didn’t see fit to be the self-appointed arbiters of Germany’s eastern borders there would’ve been no war but only a light campaign against the arrogant and sabre-rattling Polish colonels. But even that’s dubious, since without Britain’s intrigues Poland would’ve negotiated a reasonable and mutually beneficial arrangement over the German city of Danzig.
As to your hypothetical question concerning an invasion of Britain once the injustices of the Versailles Diktat were rectified. I suppose it’s possible, in the same way that it’s also possible that he might have gotten a nose ring, dyed his hair orange and joined a Kibbutz.
Again, Hitler’s expansionist policies were only aimed at the East, he never wanted Britain or the British Empire; and that’s the reason why he continuously sought peace with her. Even givig the order to Guderian et al. to hold back at Dunkirk when Germans were in hot pursuit. On numerous occasions he wanted to show his good-will toward the British, he was an Anglophile and admirer of the British Empire, he wanted the British Empire to exist in its form, he thought that it was a great thing, a stabilizing thing for the world...there’s just no evidence that he had designs on it, and the mere idea is preposterous. Nowhere does he ever state (in private and public) that he wanted Britain and her Empire. On the contrary, he viewed the prospect of foreign colonies (in Africa, Asia, etc.) as a burden and a hassle.
As to Hitler being untrustworthy, that’s also bunk. Bring up specifics, if you want, and I’ll show you that it’s Allied black propaganda at work.
Posted by friedrich braun on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 at 06:45 AM | #
poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo pooo poo poo popoo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo pooo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo pooo poo poo poo poo poo wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wwee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo pooo poo poo popoo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo pooo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo pooo poo poo poo poo poo wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wwee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee weeweeee wee wee wee weeweeweeee wee wee wee weepoo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo pooo poo poo popoo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo pooo poo poo popoo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo pooo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo pooo poo poo poo poo poo wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wwee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee weeweeee wee wee wee weepoo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo pooo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo pooo poo poo poo poo poo wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wwee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee wee weeweeee wee wee wee wee
Posted by fgh on Thursday, May 11, 2006 at 09:55 AM | #
“poo ... wee” At first, I thought this was spam. However, after careful consideration of your and JJR’s posts, I think you have given his the consideration it deserves. Well don.
Posted by rustymason on Thursday, May 11, 2006 at 12:35 PM | #
Hitler was right!Germany was in ruins ,the economy was destroyed ,ww1 was a failure,unemployment skyrocketed and so on and so on.The people wanted answers ,they wanted the truth,they were tired of all the bullshit lies ,so Hitler told them the truth!!Im not anti-semitic but calling a pig a pig does’nt make me anti-pig.He did’nt suduce a nation of millions with his pointed tongue and brainwashing propaganda ,(like he was some kind of Jim Jones)he simply told the truth,and what he said about the Jews WAS TRUE!!They were the cause of most of Germany’s and Russia ‘s problem’s ,and America’s now.Now what he did with that information was wrong (killing the Jews,the Russians,the handicap,the mentally ill,and so on)it does’nt give you an excuse to kill millions of people and to weed out the weaker race from the stronger (everyone has the right to live).Your typical Jewish arguement is and has always been to attack the Author and not the Facts.Fact’s are if you want a damn good example of what Jewish power does to a country look at Russia ,wake up and look at America,they bitch about 6 million Jews having died in the holocost ,what about the 66 million Christians who died in Russian gulags(that are Jewish media has convienantly forgot to report on)
Posted by James on Tuesday, November 21, 2006 at 08:47 PM | #
There is no doubt that Hitler passionately hated the Jews. It was a subconscio
us need of finding scapegoats for his inner conflicts, and frustrations. Neither in the Mein Kampf nor in any Nazi literature can one find accounts of Hitler having unpleasant encounters, frictions or quarrels with Jews; it looks like that Hitler had very few personal or social contacts with Jews. In 1939 Hitler personally permitted Dr. Bloch, an Jewish physician to emigrate from Austria. Dr. Bloc was the gentle physician who provided intensive care for of his ailing mother, and on several occasions Hitler expressed his gratitude. Another Jew, who played a positive role in Hitler’s life was his World War I commanding officer, who recommended Hitler for the Iron Cross. It looks like the Jews were for Hitler and abstract depersonalized evil, an mythological evil like the devil in many religions, nobody ever experienced the devil but in eyes of the believers it is a reality.
Hitler lived in Vienna from 1907 to 1913 and those were the most difficult years of his life. Hitler was trying to become an Architect or to make himself a name in field of arts. He was twice rejected from the Vienna Academy of Fine Arts. The second rejection by the Academy was one of the most traumatic experience of his life; all his dreams were shattered. After discovering that four out of seven professors that rejected him were Jewish he blamed the Jews for his failure.
“Life in Vienna was very rough for Hitler. The winter of 1909 was a severe winter. He was at the end of his resources, his hands covered with chilblains, his stomach empty; he had been begging in the streets, but no one paid any attention to him. He had no overcoat, his feet were in bad shape, and he walked painfully and slowly.”
Hitler was living a life on the periphery of the Society, eking out a meager living by peddling of his painted postcards, living in a flophouse. In Mein Kampf Hitler wrote:
“To me Vienna, the city which, to so many, is the epitome of innocent pleasure, a festive playground for merrymakers, represents, I am sorry to say, merely the living memory of the saddest period of my life. ... Five years in which I was forced to earn a living, first as a day laborers, then as a small painter; a truly meager living which never sufficed to appease even my daily hunger. Hunger was then my faithful bodyguard. .....The uncertainty of earning my dally bread soon seemed to me one of the darkest sides of my new life.
Even today this city arouse in me nothing but the most dismal thoughts. ... At the turn of the century, Vienna was, socially speaking, on of the most backwards cities in Europe. Dazzling riches and loathsome poverty alternated sharply.... The court with its dazzling glamour attracted wealth and intelligence from the rest of the country like a magnet. ....Outside the palaces in the Ring loitered thousands of unemployed, and beneath this Via Triumphalis of old Austria dwelt the homeless in the gloom and mud of the canals.
Contrasting to his own failures he saw the successful and prospering Jews in all fields of arts and culture, business and politics.
What had to ge reckoned heavily against he Jew in my eyes was when I became acquainted with their activity in the press, art, literature, and the theater. . .And when I learned to look for the Jew in all branches of cultural and artistic life and its various manifestations, I suddenly encountered him in a place where I would least have expected to find him. . . When I recognized the Jew as the leader of the Social Democracy, the scales dropped form my eyes. A long soul struggle had reached its conclusion.
Hitler found his scapegoats.. . .
My views with regard to anti-Semitism succumbed to the passage of time, and his was my greatest transformation of all.
Gradually, I began to hate them ( the Jews)....For me this was the time of the greatest spiritual upheaval I have ever had to go through, I had ceased to be a weak-kneed cosmopolitan and become an anti-Semite.
Hitler was deeply influenced with all those anti-Semitic pamphlets with all their myth of the soil, cult for the Nordic, and the romantic longing for the simple, heroic, idealized past. In Mein Kampf Hitler wrote:
For a few hellers (pennies) I bought the first anti-Semitic pamphlets of my life. Unfortunately, they all proceed from the supposition that in principle the reader knew or even understood the Jewish question to a certain degree. Besides, the tone for the most part was such that doubts again arose in me, due in part to the dull and amazingly unscientific arguments.
In Vienna Hitler was also introduced to the Social Darwinism subscribing to the idea that nations, people, cultures and individuals are subject to the same laws of natural selection as plants and animals. Life is a perpetual struggle, between individuals and nations for existence, with the survival of the stronger and more brutal and the elimination of the weaker and less fit. In my Kampf Hitler writes:
Humanity will be compelled , in consequence of the impossibility of making the fertility of the soil keep pace with the continuous increase of population, to halt the increase in human race. ....Nature has not reserved the soil for the future possession of any particular nation; but for the people that have the force to take it and the industry to cultivate it.
Hitler developed an violent outlook on life; natural laws are based on violence, and only through violence and brutal force can social problems be solved. Democracy is the enemy of the people, because it inhibits brutality, and corrupts the character of the people. In Mein Kampf Hitler writes:
Either the world will be ruled according to the ideas of democracy, or the world will be dominated according to the natural law of force; in the latter case the people of brute force will be victorious.
For Hitler life was a constant struggle, a struggle between individuals, people, races, a struggle between Nordic culture- creators, and Semitic culture-destroyers.
In the eyes of Hitler the Jews were also responsible for all social vices including prostitution and white-slave traffic:
I recognized the Jew as the cold-hearted, shameless and calculating director of this revolting vice traffic in the scum of the big city, a cold shudder ran down my back…
In anti-Semitism Hitler found an explanation for his failures, a rationalization for his sufferings - the Jews and their conspiracy. The Jews were the single cause of his tensions and humiliation. Hitler adopted the crude simplistic outlook on life: the Jews are the source of all evil in this world. Hitler found a purpose in life, cleansing the German race from the clutches of the Jews. Hatred of the Jews became his obsession, his creed, faith and religion.
Hitler became also obsessed with the preservation of the purity of the Nordic race. The world is an arena for the ongoing struggle between Gog and Almagog, between the pure and the defiled, between the Aryans and the Jews. Hitler was a megalomaniac, a man with an exaggerated notion about himself, the slightest sign of disrespect or even an argument threw him into a fury and frenzy. Hitler was full of hatred and tensions, and this hatred had to find an outlet, an enemy, the Jews the capitalists and the Jews the communists, were a convenient enemy. By adapting a notion of superiority of the Aryan race he found an explanation for his overblown feeling of superiority.
There is no doubt that in Vienna Hitler acquired his basic outlook on life, his ideas about the importance of terror, the purity of the Nordic race and his rabbit anti-Semitism. There is no doubt that Hitler hated the Jews passionately, with a fervor approaching religious fanaticism. It was the foundation of his life outlook and philosophy. “ Hitler’s career was more closely parallel to that of a charismatic religious leader than of any conventional political leader. His feelings about the Jews in particular had the quality of a religious passion; they were dead serious convictions intimately associated with crucial events in his life, and its no exaggeration to suggest that his Jew-hatred was probably the most consistent central dimension of his chaotic personality.”
There is no doubt that Hitler’s anti-Semitism had deep psychological roots. But regardless of what psychological mechanism we ascribe to his pathological hatred, one important factor was Hitler’s lack of sexuality, the point stressed by many observers of his entourage. For example Walter Schellenberg, describes a report in Heydrich’s possession stated:
“Hitler was ruled by demonic forces driving him that he ceased to have thoughts of normal cohabitation with a woman. The ecstasies of power in every form were sufficient for him. During his speeches he worked himself up to such orgiastic frenzies that he achieved complete emotional satisfaction.
Hitler’s abnormal sexual development is an important factor in his behavior. “It is well known that Hitler’s sex life was bizarre. As a young man, he repressed direct sexuality and projected his erotic energy in grandiose fantasies. In his thirties, he was consistently attracted to young childlike women who clearly resembled his mother. The could, therefore, be more easily dominated than mature women but at the same time serve as a symbolically mother figure. Waites review of the material concerning Hitler’s relationship with women makes it quite clear that he had an intense, unusual effect on them, probably because of his odd sexual demands. ....Virtually every one of at least several young women who were close to Hitler attempted or succeeded in committing suicide.
In 1945 the Russian conducted an autopsy of Hitler’s burned body and issued a report that Hitler had a sexual deformation, having only one testicle. “ Based on a controversial Soviet medical report on Hitler’s dead body which showed that he had only one testicle. Waites argues that this condition occurs frequently enough in otherwise normal males to be generally considered a minor anomaly, although it can be a source of severe anxiety. This condition was responsible for his (Hitler’s) sexual repression and consequent inability to benefit from any normal form of direct sensuality. His intense grandiose ambitions, then, can be seen as an effort to compensate for basic feeling of inferiority and isolation. In this connection, his irrational hatred of the Jews, with its specific sexual references to Jews as seducers of innocent young women, also falls into place as a protective defense mechanism.
But regardless of the theories of the mechanism and the origins of his pathological hatred, his lack of sexuality, none of the theories explains why and how was this hatred converted into actions resulting in the horrible reality of the Holocaust. Was this the working of normal mind? Human history experienced many rulers that killed compulsively like Caligula, Nero, and they were all branded as madmen. Was Hitler rational or insane?
Posted by unknown on Sunday, January 7, 2007 at 02:52 PM | #
How do you discriminate between “scapegoats” and “explanations” in the case of Hitler?
All this talk of his sexuality is rather tendentious. He was an impoverished war veteran—a position in which he found himself incapable of supporting a family. It is reasonable for a young man who cannot support a family to try to do something about it and that may include foregoing the things that lead to offspring. You can argue with what he did about his inability to support a child but not with his lack of having sex.
Then there is what he did about his situation—taking a public position and actions that put him in prison. This isn’t the sort of experience that says to a single war veteran, “See, NOW you can support children!” His career was then in motion and the rest can be seen as an extension of that. It is quite conceivable that till his dying day, when he did get married finally, he saw himself in a public role incompatible with the responsibilities of commitment to a woman.
Finally, there is The Transfer Agreement in which he participated in the establishment of Israel and worked out the economic exchange between Israel and Germany that would allow the “eradication” of Jews from Germany without their extermination.
This appears to be an entirely rational move in peacetime.
Where Hitler appears to have gone off the tracks was his subsequent investment in military ventures rather than the building of Jewish homeland.
Posted by James Bowery on Sunday, January 7, 2007 at 05:55 PM | #
i think hitler is a selfish jelous old man
Posted by taylor on Monday, March 12, 2007 at 06:20 PM | #
is taylor. Do you know something we dont?
Posted by Lurker on Monday, March 12, 2007 at 08:09 PM | #
hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler hitler
Posted by jack livin on Thursday, March 20, 2008 at 07:50 AM | #
Last word on this topic:
Hitler was good for Germany but not for the rest of Europe and especially not for the Jews. So, if a German sees Hitler as a problem, then he has been affected by the fear of witch-hunting created after WWII. By the way “Guessedworker” has presented the real issue well. Cheers.
Posted by bigboli on Monday, April 14, 2008 at 02:51 AM | #
unknown’s Jan 7th 2:52pm post is a marvelous capturing of all the tired old lies we’ve been hearing for years, the half-baked Freudian pseudo-"psychology" and other childish “reasoning” about this subject. Thank you, unknown, for taking the time to write your summary.
Posted by Robert ap Richard on Tuesday, May 13, 2008 at 10:35 PM | #
As far known Hitler is cruel to the most of the people in Europe, but he is good at German. But i guess he is very jealous and adamant kind of person and i also know that history relates someone with Hitler very badly with those birth dates and some stuffs like that. If anyone needs to know more about it. Just let me know.
Page 1 of 1 pages
Next entry: Research: Beauty is Eurasian
Previous entry: Sneeze in your sleeve. It’s only a pandemic.
Posted by Geoff Beck on Friday, June 24, 2005 at 11:57 PM | #