Open Thread — Adolf Hitler

Hitler in 1933One way or another, the man born on this date will never be forgotten.  Worshiped or reviled, studied and feared to this day, he created and led an ideology that the entire power structure of the Western World is dedicated to suppressing.  The current intellectual climate prevents a nuanced view — you either love him or hate him.  Many white nationalists look to him in the same way teenagers with no musical taste look to a pop star — he is the most convenient symbol of white resistance and so by default, you support him.  There’s nothing substantial there.  However, many others who have studied the Reich and its Leader, with all of its faults and shortcomings, still consider him one of the greatest leaders any nation has ever had.

There is obviously a dissenting view.  Some variants of this are as follows —

  • Hitler was not a white nationalist.  He waged unremitting war on millions of fellow whites and slaughtered them ruthlessly.
  • He was a capitalist reactionary (or a conservative).  He cynically used National Socialism to win the support of workers, then purged the true believers in order to align with the old fashioned German imperialists and big business.
  • National Socialism, while pro-white (or at least pro-German) was still tyrannical and should be opposed.
  • Hitler launched a war that more than anything else destroyed the Western world, killed millions of whites, and handed over our civilization to a parasitic elite that continues to oppress us today.

Where do you stand?  Do you consider Hitler to be your Fuhrer?  Or do you consider him to be a painful embarrassment or even responsible for our current situation?  Debate below.

And just to be fair, here is my view…

Hitler was a politician.  Being a politician means making compromises and performing the art of the possible.  This idea that he developed some creed which he then campaigned on relentlessly and convinced the German people with is false.   He didn’t just walk up to a podium and start screaming about Jews.  He built coalitions, supported some constituencies, and turned on others depending on political circumstances.  He built a movement from the ground up in one of the greatest accomplishments of modern history and in the face of incredible opposition, something we often forget today.

It is so very easy to write a book or an internet essay saying how a racial state should be governed, or what “correct” politics should consist of.  Actually practicing real world politics is a necessary skill that all too many of our laptop philosophers ignore.  In that respect, I think the Fuhrer, by combining diverse constituencies and opposing philosophies into a National Socialist state that has much to admire is an example that we should look to.  This doesn’t mean putting on swastikas and marching around — it means studying how he operated in the political environment of his time to do what he thought best for the volk.  Also, as I mentioned before on this site, it is impossible, simply impossible, to dismiss the seductive aura of the Reich that he built.

What he did wrong was his single minded focus on an old fashioned German expansionist foreign policy.  This was the primary goal of his life, even more than racial rebirth.  He showed a lack of imagination and vision in his approach to other European states.  Rather than unifying the white race, he did much to plunge us into a pointless fratricidal conflict.  He does not bear sole or even primary responsibility for this — Winston Churchill gets a large share of the blame as well, as do others.  However, to pretend that Hitler did not want war or that he was “forced” into it somehow ignores history.

Adolf Hitler failed and that failure carried a terrible cost for our people.  Nonetheless, unlike the vast majority of the rest of the world, I will not revile the man’s memory.   Indeed, I will remember him with great respect.  I hope some day we can build a world that is capable of a more nuanced view and can give him the credit for his accomplishments that he deserves as well as recognition of his failures.  So Adolf Hitler — some misgivings notwithstanding — Sieg Heil!

Last I’ll say on it.  Go to town on the comments below but please, keep it civil, no name calling, and no bad faith arguments.  Let’s debate today, but unite and get back to work for our common future tomorrow.

49 Comments

  1. IMO Andrew cinches the debate with these insights:

    “However, contemplating alternate history is an exercise in fantasy and is pretty much pointless.”

    “I think the bottom line though is that WNs need to adopt leaders and inspiration from positive sources not negative ones. Hitler is a huge negative, he is as helpful a symbol to the movement as Charles Manson or Timothy McVeigh is. Nothing turns off potential persuadables like Hitler does.”

  2. Andew: “Without the Holocaust hype and Hitler’s horrors, White Nationalism would be in a much better position today. I think the bottom line though is that WNs need to adopt leaders and inspiration from positive sources not negative ones.”

    I agree that WNs should not go out of our way to make the enemy’s work easy for them. But that is a far cry from blaming Hitler for our problems.

    If Hitler had not existed, we would still be under attack.

    As long as we allow Jews to determine which leaders are positive and which are negative, all white nationalist leaders will be deemed negative except Jewish tools. The only “respectable” opposition is an ineffectual one. Today, that means one that is controlled by Jews or their tools.

  3. The concept of “White Nationalism” makes only sense in a globalised, post-national world, where nations and national conflicts shrink and diminish under far bigger historical processes, such as the rise of population growth among colored peoples. Oswald Spengler was one of the few who saw it coming as early as the 1920s, but Hitler, just as Churchill, certainly was more a man of the 19th century geopolitics in this respect. Consequently, they both were the losers of the war, while bigger, more modern and globally thinking non-European powers, such as communism (USSR) and liberalism (USA) took over the continent.

    The same 19th century fixation applies for Hitler’s concept of racialism, which significantly differs from today’s WN concepts, as it regarded whites of slavic descent as inferior, following a traditional German chauvinistic p.o.v. that dates back to the middle ages and the colonialisation of Eastern Europe by the Knights of the Teutonic Order. However, the various racial concepts of the Third Reich (there never was one strictly dogmatic doctrine in fact) had less influence on its actual politics as one might think. The only really strict and fatal application was made in case of the Jews; while for example black ciitzens of Germany, descending from the lost German colonies of the 2nd Empire, were not deported, but lived under Jim Crow-like conditions in the Third Reich. Another case is the stunning multi-national and multi-racial Waffen-SS army created in the late phase of the war. (As historians Bryan Mark Rigg has pointed out there were even thousands of soldiers of jewish descent serving in the Wehrmacht.)

    One might argue that Hitler’s ruthless cruelty towards the Russian and Polish people and his failure to accept the Ukrainians – who initially greeted the German army as liberators from Stalinism – as allies originate in that dated racial concept. However another point could be made. The architect Hermann Giesler reports in his memoir that Hitler rejected the wide-spread russophilia among the Wehrmacht officers as a dated leftover of 19th century thinking. Now the war was against Bolshevism, not against the People of Dostojevskij and Tolstoj, and this was the most horrible danger Europe had faced since Attila the Hun. It could only be beaten by its own means. And there was truth to it: by 1941 between 20-30 million people had been killed by Bolshevism, and it can be argued that the Nazi concentration camps were a mere rip-off of the Gulag system, which pre-dated them by a decade.

    Up to 1939 many of Hitler’s policies were brilliant. He peacefully revised almost the entire Versailles treaty (probably the biggest cause for his rise and the conflicts that lead to WWII) and pulled the country out of the economic crisis within a few years. As for the “capitalist” aspect it should be remarked that in no country better care was taken for the welfare of the workers in that time than in Germany, probably not even in Roosevelt’s New Deal America. Certainly in Stalin’s alleged “worker’s paradise” things were infinitely worse.

    However the biggest fault of Hitler’s interior politics was the installment of a one-party-regime that subsequently replaced the traditional state and created a totalitarian rule that excluded and suppressed far too many elements of the “Volksgemeinschaft”. The state became occupied by a civil war party instead of ending the civil war under national unity, as would have been more appropriate for the old Prussian concept. The victims were not only commies and Jews, but also dissident nationalists, conservative revolutionaries, dissident NS groups (such as Röhm’s SA), religious groups, Volkish sects, all of the youth movement that would not be integrated in the Hitler youth, “entartete” artist (some of whom, such as Emil Nolde were actually NSDAP party members!), the homosexuals, etc. etc. And invoking a semi-religious ecstasy was a two-sided sword: enormous energies were mobilised to build up the country, but also a mind-numbing oppressive fanaticism was created.

    Hitler’s attack on the Jews was unecessarily cruel. Communist, criminal and Eastern European Jews aside, there was a huge percentage of German Jews that had been assimilated for decades, who were dedicated patriots and many of whom had been highly decorated in WWI. They could easily have been won over for the cause. Hitler even could have been able to split World Jewry here, and at the same time still collaborate with Zionists to get rid of those that were less willing to assimilate.

    Within the escalation of WWII a terrible crime was committed against European’s Jewry. This cannot be downplayed. Note that I strongly doubt both the given number of victims as well as certain supposed means of extermination, which to question is illegal in my country. Nonetheless, what came to be known as “the holocaust” was a horrible ethnic cleansing during which a huge number of people perished through disease, hunger, bad life conditions, forced labour and mass executions. The energies wasted in this unnecessary genocide should have been used for the war effort.

    Now for the war itself: Hitler, backed by Stalin, played va banque in the summer of 1939 and fell into a trap set by Poland and Britain. I think that it can be argued that he truely didn’t want any war against Western Europe, and that Germany’s offers to the Polish government to settle the corridor question were honest. The subjugation of neighbour countries such als the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway etc. was not a consequence of Imperialism but followed strategic necessities. The mindless, criminal irresponsibility and incompetence of Axis ally Italy dragged the war to the Balkans and to Africa, which further exhausted the capacities Reich. I also think that it is historically well proven by now that the fatal attack on the Stalinist Empire in June 1941 was a preventive war – sooner or later Stalin would have attacked anyway. However that was the first step to the downfall: no one can beat Russia. Its too big. Hitler played va banque again and failed.

    As the war proceeded, Hitler acted with increasing irresponsibilty, finally dragging his own people with him down into doom and destruction. If the plot of 20th July had succeeded there might have been a chance to save the country from total destruction. But very likely it was already too late. The Allies demanded unconditional surrender and Churchill cheered the hanging of the conspirators. At the same time the German soldiers fought with incredible, unprecedented and unsurpassed valor and bravery, even until the cause was hopelessly lost. This is one of the greatest epics and tragedies of human history that has yet to be written, worth of a Homer or Tolstoj. The Germans finally followed their fatal Fuhrer into a bombastic, Wagnerian fulfillment of their great central national myth, the Nibelungen-Lied, which ends with the doom of its heroes, stuck in a corner and fighting without hope. Maybe that really WAS the end of Germany and the German spirit as had existed for thousand years, and the rest is just the sad coda of history. The best blood has been uselessly spilt in two wars, and what is left of Germany is but a sad parody of its former greatness. It could well be argued that National Socialism was the still somewhat glorious, yet morbid decadence of that spirit, and Hitler its personification, playing both Faust and Mephisto.

    In the final assessment Hitler was a fatal figure for Germany, Europe and probably the world, as the outcome of WWII was the basis for the global rise of liberalism, which has proven to be a cancer all over the planet, not sparing non-white races and destroying nature and all life of earth. The destruction of Germany cannot only be attributed to the overwhelming forces that defeated it – it also perished due to the failures and contradictions of the very system it had created and due to the more than problematic character of the Führer. He was too much of a believer, of a 19th century romantic to be a truely great statesman. He was just a deeply-flawed, semi-genius that wasted his energies like Cromwell or Alexander the Great or Napoleon, another character who irresponsibly played with fate and left only devastation and war behind him.

    Hitler should neither be idolised nor idealised but should be throroughly researched as a historical figure, and not as a Anti-Christ or Messiah. If White Nationalists join in on keeping that demon alive they serve only the interests of those they aim to fight against. No one needs Hitler more as bogey man than the New World Order. WNs that fall for that just play the enemy’s game.

  4. Re: comment 31 from Greg Johnson: If you don’t think I’ve thought about broader, deeper, systemic problems, what about comment 33 by Trainspotter? He clearly has thought things through. And his bottom line is similar: mass man out, “independent white freeholder” in, Hitler go away.

  5. Wiki White Australia Policy, look at the White Australia badge and the policy that went with it, and mentally apply that to your own country.

    Is there anything not there that a decent man could want, that we would need Adolph Hitler to think of for us?

    Nothing. And that’s what Hitler is worth: nothing.

    Let us send this evil ghost off into the darkness.

    Only decent, positive role models and icons, preferably indigenous to our own cultures, are valuable.

  6. Trainspotter is usually spot on, but not today. It is the American in all of us — the lover of decentralization, romantic individualism, etc. — that got us into this mess.

  7. I agree with the following:

    Britain allied herself with Poland, and stoked Polish intransigence, to prevent a Munich style settlement of the Polish conflict, because they wanted to encourage a war, and they wanted an excuse to declare war on Germany. The elegant proof that the alliance with Poland was merely a pretext for the British to start a war with Germany is that Britain did not declare war on the USSR’

    I am also deeply saddened by the fact that Poland, centuries before, allowed ambitious leaders to colonize the Ukraine.

    I can’t really portray the Poles as victims. The Poles were wrong to treat the Ukrainians unfairly, and the Germans were wrong to treat the Poles unfairly.

    And (in my opinion) the world needs more blond, blue-eyed inhabitants who are willing to uphold the traditions of blond, blue-eyed culture.

  8. It is often overlooked that had it not been for the Fascist/Nazi counter-revolutions in Italy, Germany, Austria, Spain and Portugal, along with the royal beating delivered to Stalinist Russia by the Wehrmacht, substantially weakening it and blunting it’s later gambit at taking over the whole of Europe, Jewish-Bolshevism would undoubtedly have prevailed. Those Whites still alive today would have wished they were dead.

    It was wicked Fascism allied to Nazism, not Christianity, not Anglo-American Liberalism that accomplished this amazing task. We still have a fighting chance thanks to the Fascist-Nazi combine.

    Had it not been for Anglo-American barbarism and Christian stupidity much more could have been accomplished.

    So a happy birthday to ol’ uncle Adolf.

    P.S. Tomorrow is the “birthday” of Rome. Yes, that’s right. Romes legendary founding on April 21, 753 B.C.. She’s 2763 years old! Uncle Adolf visited her, and declared that it would take centuries for Berlin to rival her beauty. By contrast the Anglo-American rats bombed her. With nary a protest from “consevative” American “Catholics.”

    Wish Roma a Buon compleanno Mr. Miggles, n/a.

  9. Undoubtedly, Hitler was a smart fellow who understood the nature of the beast. But his reading of Stalin was completely wrong. He failed to realize the game Stalin was playing and winning against the Jew. Perhaps Stalin was and still remains the only world leader who ever beat the Jews in their own game.

    Arguably, Stalin’s reading of Hitler was also erroneous – he overestimated the smarts of Hitler. Up to the June 21, 1941 he refused to heed numerous warnings that Hitler was going to attack, and avoided everything that could be interpreted as provocation, while America, controlled by the Jews, did everything it could to provoke Hitler. Stalin couldn’t believe that Hitler was about to make such an unwise decision.

    One could argue that initiating a war against Stalin’s Russia was perhaps the biggest mistake ever made by Hitler, and the great nations of Germany and Russia paid the terrible price for the momentous mistake that maybe sealed the fate of the West.

    The only person who was responsible for the deaths of more people than Hitler was Josef Stalin. Not a good category to be in! – JewishWhiteNationalist

    It has become a cliche in WN circles to say that Hitler is the most lied about political figure in history. And we all know very well where the lies came from. But how many WNs know today that it was Stalin who saved Russia from the Jewish scum first time around. It was him who killed, not just politically but physically, Trotsky, Kamenev, Zinoviev, and the rest of ALL top Jewish Bolshevik leaders. It is no accident that Stalin is the second most revered historical figure today in Russia, leaving behind Peter The Great. But, unfortunately, he didn’t finish the job.

    And it was Putin who saved Russia second time around, when bastard Yeltsin let the Jews rape Russia again. Putin didn’t finish the job either. He is not Schwarzenegger, but I sure hope he’ll be back.

    Stalin preserved the statehood of Russia, to the best possible under the circumstances, and extended it. And for that Russians will be grateful to him forever. Without him Russia would have become a disgusting, immoral Jewish consumer society, the likes of which we are witnessing today everywhere in the West.

    Perhaps JewishWhiteNationalist knows something about the phenomenon of Stalin we, people of Russia, do not know. If so, please share it with us.

  10. Hitler was a jackass.

    His plan – which was to conquer the East while avoiding war with Britain – was hopeless from the start, because Britain had a centuries-long policy of tearing down the strongest continental power. Of course they weren’t going to let him do that without a fight. He totally underestimated the will of the British, Russians, and Americans to fight, and he declared war on America, destroying the American isolationist movement and taking the heat off of Japan and onto Germany, for no worthwhile reason.

    The fact that Germany did so well early in the war and still lost proves my point. They outfoxed the Allies at every turn for 2 years, and they still couldn’t win, because the logistical ability of a medium-sized country like Germany to wage war against most of the rest of the world just isn’t there. That means that it was predictable that Germany would lose. Germany never came close to winning, never could have.

    Hitler definitely weakened public consciousness about race and human biodiversity. It’s true that those who controlled consciousness were largely blank-slaters, and that they would have pushed their agenda anyway, but they wouldn’t have been able to do so as effectively if they hadn’t been able to tar eugenicists and racialists with the Nazi brush.

  11. P.S. Tomorrow is the “birthday” of Rome. Yes, that’s right. Romes legendary founding on April 21, 753 B.C.. She’s 2763 years old! Uncle Adolf visited her, and declared that it would take centuries for Berlin to rival her beauty. By contrast the Anglo-American rats bombed her. With nary a protest from “consevative” American “Catholics.”

    Wish Roma a Buon compleanno Mr. Miggles

    http://www.white-history.com/refuting_rm/9.html

    Summary and Conclusions

    * The early Italic invaders from the north and their descendants, the Roman Patricians, were predominantly Nordic, as can be demonstrated through physical anthropology, portrait busts, and literary evidence.

    * The Patricians, and Romans in general, died out, through war, emigration, and low birth rates. Romans were largely replaced in their own cities by Middle Eastern slaves, sealing the fate of the empire.

    * Germanic soldiers and leaders prolonged the life of the dying empire. When the final collapse came, Germanic invasions laid the groundwork for later renewal. People of Germanic descent played a dominant role in the Italian Renaissance.

  12. Madison Grant, The Passing of the Great Race, pp. 216-221
    http://books.google.com/books?id=AdcKAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA216#v=onepage&q&f=false

    The marvellous organization of the Roman state made use of the services of Nordic mercenaries and kept the Western Empire alive for three centuries after the ancient Roman stock had virtually ceased to exist.

    The date when the population of the Empire had become predominantly of Mediterranean and Oriental blood, due to the introduction of slaves from the east and the wastage of Italian blood in war, coincides with the establishment of the Empire under Augustus and the last Republican patriots represent the final protest of the old patrician Nordic strain. For the most part they refused to abdicate their right to rule in favor of manumitted slaves and imperial favorites and they fell in battle and sword in hand. The Romans died out but the slaves survived and their descendants form the great majority of the south Italians of to-day.

    In the last days of the Republic, Caesar was the leader of the mob, the Plebs, which by that time had ceased to be of Roman blood. Pompey’s party represented the remnants of the old native Roman aristocracy and was defeated at Pharsalia not by Caesar’s plebeian clients but by his Nordic legionaries from Gaul. Cassius and Brutus were the last successors of Pompey and their overthrow at Philippi was the final death blow to the Republican party; with them the native Roman families disappear almost entirely.

    The decline of the Romans and for that matter of the native Italians began with the Punic Wars when in addition to the Romans who fell in battle a large portion of the country population of Italy was destroyed by Hannibal. Native Romans suffered greatly in the Social and Servile Wars as well as in the civil conflicts between the factions of Sylla, who led the Patricians, and Marius who represented the Plebs. Bloody proscriptions of the rival parties followed alternately the victory of one side and then of the other and under the tyranny of the Emperors of the first century also the old Roman stock was the greatest sufferer until it practically vanished from the scene.

    Voluntary childlessness was the most potent cause of the decline under the Empire and when we read of the abject servility of bearers of proud names in the days of Nero and Caligula, we must remember that they could not rally to their standard followers among the Plebs. They had only the choice of submission or suicide and many chose the latter alternative. The abjectness of the Roman spirit under the Empire is thus to be explained by a change in race.

    With the expanding dominion of Rome the native elements of vigor were drawn year after year into the legions and spent their active years in wars or in garrisons, while the slaves and those unfit for military duty stayed home and bred. In the present great war while the native Americans are at the front fighting the aliens and immigrants are allowed to increase without check and the parallel is a close one.

    Slaves began to be imported into Italy in numbers in the second century B. C. to work the large plantations—latifundia—of the wealthy Romans. This importation of slaves and the ultimate extension of the Roman citizenship to their manumitted descendants and to inferior races throughout the growing Empire and the losses in internal and foreign wars, ruined the state. In America we find another close parallel in the Civil War and the subsequent granting of citizenship to Negroes and to ever increasing numbers of immigrants of plebeian, servile or Oriental races, who throughout history have shown little capacity to create, organize or even to comprehend Republican institutions.

    In Rome, when this change in blood was substantially complete, the state could no longer be operated under Republican forms of government and the Empire arose to take its place. At the beginning the Empire was clothed in the garb of republicanism in deference to such Roman elements as still persisted in the Senate and among the Patricians but ultimately these external forms were discarded and the state became virtually a pure despotism.

    The new population understood little and cared less for the institutions of the ancient Republic but they were jealous of their own rights of “Bread and the Circus”—”panem et circenses”—and there began to appear in place of the old Roman religion the mystic rites of Eastern countries so welcome to the plebeian and uneducated soul. The Emperors to please the vulgar erected from time to time new shrines to strange gods utterly unknown to the Romans of the early Republic. In America, also, strange temples, which would have been abhorrent to our Colonial ancestors, are multiplying and our streets and parks are turned over to monuments to foreign “patriots,” designed not to please the artistic sense of the passer-by but to gratify the national preference of some alien element in the electorate.

    These comments on the change of race in Rome at the beginning of our era are not mere speculation. An examination of many thousands of Roman columbaria or funeral urns and the names inscribed thereon show quite clearly that as early as the first century of our era eighty to ninety per cent of the urban population of the Roman Empire was of servile extraction and that about seven-eighths of this slave population was drawn from districts within the boundaries of the Empire and very largely from the countries bordering on the eastern Mediterranean. Few names are found which indicate that their bearers came from Gaul or the countries beyond the Alps. These Nordic barbarians were of more use in the legions than as household servants.

    At the beginning of the Christian era the entire Levant and countries adjoining it in Asia Minor, Syria and Egypt had been so thoroughly hellenized that many of their inhabitants bore Greek names. It was from these countries and from northern Africa that the slave population of Rome was drawn. Their descendants were the most important element in the Roman melting pot and even to-day form the predominant element in the population of Italy south of the Apennines. When the Nordic barbarians a few centuries later poured in, these Romanized Orientals disappeared temporarily from view under the rule of the vigorous northerners but they have steadily absorbed the latter until the Nordic elements in Italy now are to be found chiefly in the Lombard plains and the region of the Alps.

    The Byzantine Empire from much the same causes as the Roman became in its turn gradually less and less European and more and more Oriental until it, too, withered and expired.

    Regarded in the light of the facts the fall of Rome ceases to be a mystery. The wonder is that the State lived on after the Romans were extinct and that the Eastern Empire survived so long with an ever fading Greek population. In Rome and in Greece only the language of the dominant race survived.

    So entirely had the blood of the Romans vanished in the last days of the Empire that sorry bands of barbarians wandered at will through the desolated provinces. Caesar and his legions would have made short work of these unorganized banditti but Caesar’s legions were a memory, though one great enough to inspire in the intruders somewhat of awe and desire to imitate. Against invaders, however, brains and brawn are more effective than tradition and culture, however noble these last may be.

    Early ascetic Christianity played a large part in this decline of the Roman Empire as it was at the outset the religion of the slave, the meek and the lowly while Stoicism was the religion of the strong men of the time. This bias in favor of the weaker elements greatly interfered with their elimination by natural processes and the fighting force of the Empire was gradually undermined. Christianity was in sharp contrast to the worship of tribal deities which preceded it and it tended then as now to break down class and race distinctions.

    The maintenance of such distinctions is absolutely essential to race purity in any community when two or more races live side by side.

    Race feeling may be called prejudice by those whose careers are cramped by it but it is a natural antipathy which serves to maintain the purity of type. The unfortunate fact that nearly all species of men interbreed freely leaves us no choice in the matter. Races must be kept apart by artificial devices of this sort or they ultimately amalgamate and in the offspring the more generalized or lower type prevails.

  13. If Hitler and the NSDAP had had unlimited access to petroleum like the Allies did, Germany would have won. And we’d be living in a WN Occident.

    http://www.eiaonline.com/history/bloodforoil.htm

    You people who look at Hitler’s loss are seeing things in a vacuum. You act as if the jewish-controlled nations of the time didn’t lift a hand to stop him and Germany from keeping Europe safe from Judeo-Communism. It’s sad. really. There’s just no getting through to the Hitler haters.

    Sieg Heil! Only one man cared enough to finally stand up to the jewish onslaught against the world.

    http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/wolzek/HistoryofOurWorld2.html

    And you never any criticisms for any other historical figure. So sad, you’re so brainpoisoned against your own kind.

  14. coldequation, you know it’s very jewy to blame the victim.

    What will history say about you?

    Nothing at all, I suspect. Yet you can sit there 70 years later on your duff and tell everybody how it all went down. Unreal.

  15. http://library.flawlesslogic.com/hitler.htm
    “Some Thoughts on Hitler”
    Irmin
    “Hitler” as Multiracialist Propaganda
    The argument advanced by some racial nationalists that any defense of Adolf Hitler, in light of the hostility and even revulsion that his name now evokes, risks alienating mainstream Whites is plausible on its surface and should receive a respectful hearing. But it is still on balance mistaken.

    Although most nationalists in the United States and even in Germany do not consider themselves national socialists, multiracialists and anti-White Jewish advocacy groups call each and every one of us a “nazi.” It is an undeniable fact that in our contemporary political climate any white nationalism, as recent events in the Balkans amply demonstrate, will be labeled Hitlerian and will summon, in breathless media presentations, “the specter of the Holocaust” and anguished fears that “it” might just happen again, if the goyim get too restless. That, after all, is the central lesson taught by the countless Holocaust Museums sprouting up, like noxious toadstools, throughout most of the West: that White racial consciousness is literally lethal and must therefore be actively combated, a lesson which we have now enshrined, in deference to Jewry, at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, a national memorial to our White wickedness.

    We are thus obliged, like it or not, to live under Hitler’s shadow. Our enemies have ensured that any expression of White racial consciousness, however innocuous, will be officially pronounced hatefully Hitlerian and “nazi,” whether we admire Hitler or despise him. It is therefore incumbent on us, as a simple matter of self-defense, to arrive at a balanced view of Hitler and the movement he founded.

    Anyone who doubts all this should recall the abuse that Pat Buchanan received at the hands of the controlled media and the organized Jewish community during his campaigns for the Republican nomination. Buchanan is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a national socialist, nor even a conscious racialist. He is, instead, a traditional Christian conservative, with all the virtues and liabilities that entails. But he was persistently labeled a “nazi” nevertheless. His 1992 speech at the Republican National Convention, Jewish columnist Molly Ivins opined, “probably sounded better in the original German.” Her meaning was clear: She was identifying Buchanan as a “nazi,” delegitimizing his nationalism and social conservatism with the most potent weapon in the Left’s rhetorical arsenal.

    So as racial nationalists we can either manufacture false “anti-racist” credentials by claiming to hate Hitler just as much as Abe Foxman does, a subterfuge that I very much doubt will convince anyone, least of all Abe, or we can tell the truth.

    The truth is that the maniacal Hitler of popular demonology is a World War II propaganda fiction, and the principal purpose of the fiction’s incessant repetition more than fifty years after the war is to stigmatize any nationalist movement, NS or otherwise. Hitler now represents not a specific historical figure and the political party he led, but nationalism of any variety, from timid anti-immigration conservatives to angry White-power skinheads. The System’s anti-Hitler orthodoxy, invoked almost daily, is in effect tacit propaganda for multiracialism and a potent device to keep all nationalists perpetually hiding in closets, too afraid of labels like “racist” and “nazi” to openly say what we sincerely believe. We have, therefore, a real interest in demythologizing Hitler, and we have no hope of escaping our association with what he now represents. We can’t run away from Hitler, however much some of us want to.

    Let’s Notice the Obvious
    The crucial facts about World War II are uncomplicated and readily available in mainstream sources. NS Germany had limited war aims: the recovery of territory taken from Germany at Versailles, the acquisition of living space for the German people in the East, and the destruction of the Marxist Soviet Union, history’s most brutal regime. Insofar as the United States had any stake at all in the outcome of the war, it would have been to help Germany and her Axis allies, including thousands of Russian patriots, accomplish the latter. Absent the campaign conducted by the Western democracies to save Stalinism by defeating Hitler, the Soviet Union would have collapsed.

    Since America had no national interests in the conflict in Europe, our government deliberately lied about German war aims in order to manufacture the perception that we did, claiming that Hitler had global territorial ambitions, a plan for “world domination.” Over fifty years later most Americans still accept the lies.

    The predictable result of the Allied victory and the German defeat was Stalin’s occupation of half of Europe. A war that ostensibly began to restore Polish sovereignty ended with Poland, along with the rest of Eastern Europe, being handed over to the Communists. And in quite concrete terms no American would have died in Vietnam if Hitler had destroyed Soviet Communism, arguably the central objective of his political career; American soldiers fought in Europe so that their sons could die in Southeast Asia.

    None of this should be the least controversial. It is a symptom of the effect of persistent propaganda that so many of us fail to notice the obvious.

    It is only a slight exaggeration to say that multiracialism itself, along with our servile deference to Jewry, is founded on the mythical image of Hitler as evil incarnate, Satan’s secular counterpart in modern history. Remove the false, childishly simplistic Hitler myth, and a significant ideological justification for multiracialism would collapse. The simple question, “Were Hitler and NS Germany really as evil as everyone says?”, therefore has huge repercussions, and an entire machinery of propaganda — ranging from Hollywood films and “Holocaust education” in the public schools to off-hand comments in the controlled media (“better in the original German”) — has been designed to discourage anyone from even contemplating the obvious but heretical answer.

    National Socialism
    Hitler defined his own national socialism as a uniquely German movement:

    The National Socialist doctrine, as I have always proclaimed, is not for export. It was conceived for the German people. (Hitler-Bormann Documents, Feb. 21, 1945)

    In other words, German National Socialism arose at a specific time in a specific place under the pressure of a unique set of historical circumstances, none of which could ever be precisely replicated elsewhere. In particular, the autocratic Führer state, central to NS Germany, would never be acceptable to Americans; our republican political culture and belief in individual rights are, thankfully, far too strong. Hitler was a dictator and his government authoritarian; Americans prefer their political and civil liberties.

    Which doesn’t mean that NS Germany was a police state. It had in fact fewer policemen per capita, and far fewer secret police, than either modern Germany or the United States, despite the misleading image most of us have of legions of sinister Gestapo agents kicking down doors in the middle of the night.

    The basic principles of national socialism are, nevertheless, universal: that God (or Nature) has assigned each of us to a racial group and has endowed each group with distinct qualities; that a nation is not simply a geographical concept, a set of lines arbitrarily drawn on a map irrespective of the people living within them, but instead derives (or should derive) its political institutions and national objectives from the character of the people themselves; that a nation organized to preserve a race and develop its distinctive character is therefore “natural”; that the strength and social cohesion of a nation derives from its sense of a common identity, of which race is the most important determinant; that in addition to our individual rights we have larger social obligations, not only to the present generation of our nation but to its past and future generations as well; that the primary purpose of a nation is not economic, but the preservation and advancement of its people, economics being subordinate to the volkisch (racial/national) objectives that should be a nation’s core reason for existing.

    NS Propaganda Poster”The [Nation-] State in itself,” Hitler wrote, “has nothing whatsoever to do with any definite economic concept or a definite economic development. It does not arise from a compact made between contracting parties, within a certain delimited territory, for the purpose of serving economic ends. The State is a community of living beings who have kindred physical and spiritual natures, organized for the purpose of assuring the conservation of their own kind and to help towards fulfilling those ends which Providence has assigned to that particular race or racial branch” (Mein Kampf, I, iv). [Image: NS Propaganda Poster — “The NSDAP Protects the Racial Community.”]

    In the generic sense of the term national socialism is (arguably) not inconsistent with democratic institutions, despite Hitler’s own view of the matter; its true antonyms are multiracialism and capitalist, one-world globalism. Nor is national socialism inconsistent with an American “melting pot” view of ethnicity, provided that the various ethnic groups that comprise the nation are sufficiently similar that each can see a common identity and common destiny in the others — that is, insofar as they, despite their ethnic differences, are branches of the same race and can, therefore, be effectively acculturated to a common set of national ideals.

    I consider Hitler less a model to be followed than an avalanche of propaganda we must dig ourselves out from under. Never in human history has a single man received such sustained vilification, the basic effect and purpose of which has been to inhibit Whites from thinking racially and from acting in their own racial self-interest, as all other racial/ethnic groups do. Learning the truth about Hitler is a liberating experience. By the truth I mean not an idealized counter-myth to the pervasive myth of Hitler as evil incarnate, but the man himself, faults and virtues, strengths and weaknesses. Once you’ve done it, once you’ve discovered the real Hitler beneath the lies and distortions that have buried his legacy, you’ll be permanently immunized against anti-White propaganda, because you will have seen through the best/worst the System has to offer.

    Originally posted in 1999 on the old Stormfront listserv. For discussions of related subjects, see The Enduring Allure of Hitlerism, Roosevelt’s Secret Map Speech, Internet Censorship and Jewish Destiny, Media Myths, and (off-site) The Danger of Historical Lies.

  16. “It is the American in all of us — the lover of decentralization, romantic individualism, etc. — is what got us into this mess.”

    Greg, I agree with this, hence my regular salvos against doctrinaire libertarianism. My point is not to resurrect hyper individualism, not at all. I’ve always sought to make it clear that the tribe comes first, period. I’m wondering if we aren’t misunderstanding one another.

    The world has changed. Hitler’s National Socialist model was highly centralized, authoritarian, bureaucratic. Throw in the Fuhrer Principle and some cult of personality, and you’ve got something that is just not the answer in the American context, and probably not the white context anywhere – anymore.

    Rapidly transforming technology and the breathtaking pace of information exchange renders all sorts of systems obsolete. For example, there is much to be said for the classic, traditional order in which a man has a settled place in the world, doing the work of his father and his father’s father before him. But in a high tech world, you simply can’t have this kind of settled order. The most obvious reason is that huge numbers of the available jobs didn’t even exist in prior generations, and huge numbers of the jobs that did exist in the past, well, they aren’t around anymore.

    In a world of rapid information exchange, the National Socialist model of control is simply not viable. We would have to be far more tyrannical than they in order to exercise the same level of control on the population, and even then it wouldn’t work. I’ll repeat, we don’t need mass man, which is a good thing because we would find it virtually impossible to create him. We need resilient men, in the sense that John Robb describes in Global Guerrillas. That’s the only way we’re going to get our Republic, and it’s the only way we’re going to keep it.

    Once we get our Republic, our population will still be under sustained propaganda assault, and it must be able to resist this. Back in the 1930’s, the National Socialists were largely able to control all of the information. If a film was decadent, it simply was not shown. If a book was trash, it simply was not published. Once we get our Republic, we simply won’t have that level of control. Whites will still be able to access all sorts of trash. We need to reach a point where the white population can see through the garbage, see what the hurtful propaganda line is, and become immune to it.

    In other words, we don’t need National Socialist style mass obedience. We need an updated freeholder type of resilience. We can’t fight the last war. We will lose it.

    I don’t want to send the platitude meter into overdrive, but we need organic solutions as opposed to bureaucratic solutions. Not just because this is my personal preference (it is) but also because my read on history convinces me that it is the way to success.

    My conclusion is this: Hitler’s version of National Socialism is obsolete, just as excessive and mypopic individualism is obsolete. Neither can get us where we want to go, neither the National Socialists nor the libertarians. If someone wants to argue that Fuhrer Principles, centralized authority, bureaucracy, cult of personality, mass rallies and mass obedience are the way to go, I’m all ears. But they’ve got a tough row to hoe.

    We need something new. We need a political philosophy, and the political system to go with it, that will provide our tribe with the resources that it needs to survive over the long haul. Something workable and sustainable. What we come up with can take some of the good things from National Socialism (and other systems as well, for that matter), but we can leave behind that which is negative or unworkable. We must adapt. Greg, I must say that it would surprise me a great deal if you disagree with the proposition that we can do better than a 30’s National Socialist model that was tailored to a particular time and place. Those positive aspects of it that are timeless in nature, of course one can draw from that. But we must do better.

    It seems almost absurd to write such a thing, but I plan on walking the walk on this one. I will do my best to create a better alternative, a “third way” between myopic libertarianism and authoritarian National Socialism. It may take a few years for me to put it together, but I’ve already been tossing around some ideas. In any event, I hope that minds sharper than mine will work on this as well (hint, hint). Between us, surely we can come up with something better. We absolutely must do better than the libertarian/National Socialism paradigm that we seem to be stuck in.

  17. Food for thought RE the German invasion of the USSR:
    http://library.flawlesslogic.com/suvorov.htm

    Exposing Stalin’s Plan to Conquer Europe
    How the Soviet Union ‘Lost’ the Second World War
    Poslednyaya Respublika (“The Last Republic”), by Viktor Suvorov (Vladimir Rezun). Moscow: TKO ACT, 1996. 470 pages. Hardcover. Photographs.

    Reviewed by Daniel W. Michaels

    For several years now, a former Soviet military intelligence officer named Vladimir Rezun has provoked heated discussion in Russia for his startling view that Hitler attacked Soviet Russia in June 1941 just as Stalin was preparing to overwhelm Germany and western Europe as part of a well-planned operation to “liberate” all of Europe by bringing it under Communist rule.

    Writing under the pen name of Viktor Suvorov, Rezun has developed this thesis in three books. Icebreaker (which has been published in an English-language edition) and Dni M (“M Day”) were reviewed in the Nov.-Dec. 1997 Journal. The third book, reviewed here, is a 470-page work, “The Last Republic: Why the Soviet Union Lost the Second World War,” published in Russian in Moscow in 1996.

    Suvorov presents a mass of evidence to show that when Hitler launched his “Operation Barbarossa” attack against Soviet Russia on June 22, 1941, German forces were able to inflict enormous losses against the Soviets precisely because the Red troops were much better prepared for war — but for an aggressive war that was scheduled for early July — not the defensive war forced on them by Hitler’s preemptive strike.

    In Icebreaker, Suvorov details the deployment of Soviet forces in June 1941, describing just how Stalin amassed vast numbers of troops and stores of weapons along the European frontier, not to defend the Soviet homeland but in preparation for a westward attack and decisive battles on enemy territory.

    Thus, when German forces struck, the bulk of Red ground and air forces were concentrated along the Soviet western borders facing contiguous European countries, especially the German Reich and Romania, in final readiness for an assault on Europe.

    In his second book on the origins of the war, “M Day” (for “Mobilization Day”), Suvorov details how, between late 1939 and the summer of 1941, Stalin methodically and systematically built up the best armed, most powerful military force in the world — actually the world’s first superpower — for his planned conquest of Europe. Suvorov explains how Stalin’s drastic conversion of the country’s economy for war actually made war inevitable. [Image: By mid-June 1941, enormous Red Army forces were concentrated on the western Soviet border, poised for a devastating attack against Europe. This diagram appeared in the English-language edition of the German wartime illustrated magazine Signal.]

    A Global Soviet Union

    In “The Last Republic,” Suvorov adds to the evidence presented in his two earlier books to strengthen his argument that Stalin was preparing for an aggressive war, in particular emphasizing the ideological motivation for the Soviet leader’s actions. The title refers to the unlucky country that would be incorporated as the “final republic” into the globe-encompassing “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,” thereby completing the world proletarian revolution.

    As Suvorov explains, this plan was entirely consistent with Marxist-Leninist doctrine, as well as with Lenin’s policies in the earlier years of the Soviet regime. The Russian historian argues convincingly that it was not Leon Trotsky (Bronstein), but rather Stalin, his less flamboyant rival, who was really the faithful disciple of Lenin in promoting world Communist revolution. Trotsky insisted on his doctrine of “permanent revolution,” whereby the young Soviet state would help foment home-grown workers’ uprisings and revolution in the capitalist countries.

    Stalin instead wanted the Soviet regime to take advantage of occasional “armistices” in the global struggle to consolidate Red military strength for the right moment when larger and better armed Soviet forces would strike into central and western Europe, adding new Soviet republics as this overwhelming force rolled across the continent. After the successful consolidation and Sovietization of all of Europe, the expanded USSR would be poised to impose Soviet power over the entire globe.

    As Suvorov shows, Stalin realized quite well that, given a free choice, the people of the advanced Western countries would never voluntarily choose Communism. It would therefore have to be imposed by force. His bold plan, Stalin further decided, could be realized only through a world war.

    A critical piece of evidence in this regard is his speech of August 19, 1939, recently uncovered in Soviet archives (quoted in part in the Nov.-Dec. 1997 Journal, pp. 32-33). In it, Lenin’s heir states:

    The experience of the last 20 years has shown that in peacetime the Communist movement is never strong enough to seize power. The dictatorship of such a party will only become possible as the result of a major war …

    Later on, all the countries who had accepted protection from resurgent Germany would also become our allies. We shall have a wide field to develop the world revolution.

    Furthermore, and as Soviet theoreticians had always insisted, Communism could never peacefully coexist over the long run with other socio-political systems. Accordingly, Communist rule inevitably would have to be imposed throughout the world. So integral was this goal of “world revolution” to the nature and development of the “first workers’ state” that it was a cardinal feature of the Soviet agenda even before Hitler and his National Socialist movement came to power in Germany in 1933.

    Stalin elected to strike at a time and place of his choosing. To this end, Soviet development of the most advanced offensive weapons systems, primarily tanks, aircraft, and airborne forces, had already begun in the early 1930s. To ensure the success of his bold undertaking, in late 1939 Stalin ordered the build up a powerful war machine that would be superior in quantity and quality to all possible opposing forces. His first secret order for the total military-industrial mobilization of the country was issued in August 1939. A second total mobilization order, this one for military mobilization, would be issued on the day the war was to begin.

    Disappointment

    The German “Barbarossa” attack shattered Stalin’s well-laid plan to “liberate” all of Europe. In this sense, Suvorov contends, Stalin “lost” the Second World War. The Soviet premier could regard “merely” defeating Germany and conquering eastern and central Europe only as a disappointment.

    According to Suvorov, Stalin revealed his disappointment over the war’s outcome in several ways. First, he had Marshal Georgi Zhukov, not himself, the supreme commander, lead the victory parade in 1945. Second, no official May 9 victory parade was even authorized until after Stalin’s death. Third, Stalin never wore any of the medals he was awarded after the end of the Second World War. Fourth, once, in a depressed mood, he expressed to members of his close circle his desire to retire now that the war was over. Fifth, and perhaps most telling, Stalin abandoned work on the long-planned Palace of Soviets.

    An Unfinished Monument

    The enormous Palace of Soviets, approved by the Soviet government in the early 1930s, was to be 1,250 feet tall, surmounted with a statue of Lenin 300 feet in height — taller than New York’s Empire State Building. It was to be built on the site of the former Cathedral of Christ the Savior. On Stalin’s order, this magnificent symbol of old Russia was blown up in 1931 — an act whereby the nation’s Communist rulers symbolically erased the soul of old Russia to make room for the centerpiece of the world USSR.

    All the world’s “socialist republics,” including the “last republic,” would ultimately be represented in the Palace. The main hall of this secular shrine was to be inscribed with the oath that Stalin had delivered in quasi-religious cadences at Lenin’s burial. It included the words: “When he left us, Comrade Lenin bequeathed to us the responsibility to strengthen and expand the Union of Socialist Republics. We vow to you, Comrade Lenin, that we shall honorably carry out this, your sacred commandment.”

    However, only the bowl-shaped foundation for this grandiose monument was ever completed, and during the 1990s, after the collapse the USSR, the Christ the Savior Cathedral was painstakingly rebuilt on the site.

    The Official View

    For decades the official version of the 1941-1945 German-Soviet conflict, supported by establishment historians in both Russia and the West, has been something like this:

    Hitler launched a surprise “Blitzkrieg” attack against the woefully unprepared Soviet Union, fooling its leader, the unsuspecting and trusting Stalin. The German Führer was driven by lust for “living space” and natural resources in the primitive East, and by his long-simmering determination to smash “Jewish Communism” once and for all. In this treacherous attack, which was an important part of Hitler’s mad drive for “world conquest,” the “Nazi” or “fascist” aggressors initially overwhelmed all resistance with their preponderance of modern tanks and aircraft.

    This view, which was affirmed by the Allied judges at the postwar Nuremberg Tribunal, is still widely accepted in both Russia and the United States. In Russia today, most of the general public (and not merely those who are nostalgic for the old Soviet regime), accepts this “politically correct” line. For one thing, it “explains” the Soviet Union’s enormous World War II losses in men and materiel.

    Doomed from the Start

    Contrary to the official view that the Soviet Union was not prepared for war in June 1941, in fact, Suvorov stresses, it was the Germans who were not really prepared. Germany’s hastily drawn up “Operation Barbarossa” plan, which called for a “Blitzkrieg” victory in four or five months by numerically inferior forces advancing in three broad military thrusts, was doomed from the outset.

    Moreover, Suvorov goes on to note, Germany lacked the raw materials (including petroleum) essential in sustaining a drawn out war of such dimensions.

    Another reason for Germany’s lack of preparedness, Suvorov contends, was that her military leaders seriously under-estimated the performance of Soviet forces in the Winter War against Finland, 1939-40. They fought, it must be stressed, under extremely severe winter conditions — temperatures of minus 40 degrees Celsius and snow depths of several feet — against the well-designed reinforced concrete fortifications and underground facilities of Finland’s “Mannerheim Line.” In spite of that, it is often forgotten, the Red Army did, after all, force the Finns into a humiliating armistice.

    It is always a mistake, Suvorov emphasizes, to underestimate your enemy. But Hitler made this critical miscalculation. In 1943, after the tide of war had shifted against Germany, he admitted his mistaken evaluation of Soviet forces two years earlier.

    Tank Disparity Compared

    To prove that it was Stalin, and not Hitler, who was really prepared for war, Suvorov compares German and Soviet weaponry in mid-1941, especially with respect to the all-important offensive weapons systems — tanks and airborne forces. It is a generally accepted axiom in military science that attacking forces should have a numerical superiority of three to one over the defenders. Yet, as Suvorov explains, when the Germans struck on the morning of June 22, 1941, they attacked with a total of 3,350 tanks, while the Soviet defenders had a total of 24,000 tanks — that is, Stalin had seven times more tanks than Hitler, or 21 times more tanks than would have been considered sufficient for an adequate defense. Moreover, Suvorov stresses, the Soviet tanks were superior in all technical respects, including firepower, range, and armor plating.

    As it was, Soviet development of heavy tank production had already begun in the early 1930s. For example, as early as 1933 the Soviets were already turning out in series production, and distributing to their forces, the T-35 model, a 45-ton heavy tank with three cannons, six machine guns, and 30-mm armor plating. By contrast, the Germans began development and production of a comparable 45-ton tank only after the war had begun in mid-1941.

    By 1939 the Soviets had already added three heavy tank models to their inventory. Moreover, the Soviets designed their tanks with wider tracks, and to operate with diesel engines (which were less flammable than those using conventional carburetor mix fuels). Furthermore, Soviet tanks were built with both the engine and the drive in the rear, thereby improving general efficiency and operator viewing. German tanks had a less efficient arrangement, with the engine in the rear and the drive in the forward area.

    When the conflict began in June 1941, Suvorov shows, Germany had no heavy tanks at all, only 309 medium tanks, and just 2,668 light, inferior tanks. For their part, the Soviets at the outbreak of the war had at their disposal tanks that were not only heavier but of higher quality.

    In this regard, Suvorov cites the recollection of German tank general Heinz Guderian, who wrote in his memoir Panzer Leader (1952/1996, p. 143):

    In the spring of 1941, Hitler had specifically ordered that a Russian military commission be shown over our tank schools and factories; in this order he had insisted that nothing be concealed from them. The Russian officers in question firmly refused to believe that the Panzer IV was in fact our heaviest tank. They said repeatedly that we must be hiding our newest models from them, and complained that we were not carrying out Hitler’s order to show them everything. The military commission was so insistent on this point that eventually our manufacturers and Ordnance Office officials concluded: “It seems that the Russians must already possess better and heavier tanks than we do.” It was at the end of July 1941 that the T34 tank appeared on the front and the riddle of the new Russian model was solved.

    Suvorov cites another revealing fact from Robert Goralski’s World War II Almanac (1982, p. 164). On June 24, 1941 — just two days after the outbreak of the German-Soviet war:

    The Russians introduced their giant Klim Voroshilov tanks into action near Raseiniai [Lithuania]. Models weighing 43 and 52 tons surprised the Germans, who found the KVs nearly unstoppable. One of these Russian tanks took 70 direct hits, but none penetrated its armor.

    In short, Germany took on the Soviet colossus with tanks that were too light, too few in number, and inferior in performance and fire power. And this disparity continued as the war progressed. In 1942 alone, Soviet factories produced 2,553 heavy tanks, while the Germans produced just 89. Even at the end of the war, the best-quality tank in combat was the Soviet IS (“Iosef Stalin”) model.

    Suvorov sarcastically urges establishment military historians to study a book on Soviet tanks by Igor P. Shmelev, published in 1993 by, of all things, the Hobby Book Publishing Company in Moscow. The work of an honest amateur military analyst such as Shmelev, one who is sincerely interested in and loves his hobby and the truth, says Suvorov, is often superior to that of a paid government employee.

    Airborne Forces Disparity

    Even more lopsided was the Soviet superiority in airborne forces. Before the war, Soviet DB-3f and SB bombers as well as the TB-1 and TB-3 bombers (of which Stalin had about a thousand had been modified to carry airborne troops as well as bomb loads. By mid-1941 the Soviet military had trained hundreds of thousands of paratroopers (Suvorov says almost a million) for the planned attack against Germany and the West. These airborne troops were to be deployed and dropped behind enemy lines in several waves, each wave consisting of five airborne assault corps (VDKs), each corps consisting of 10,419 men, staff and service personnel, an artillery division, and a separate tank battalion (50 tanks). Suvorov lists the commanding officers and home bases of the first two waves or ten corps. The second and third wave corps included troops who spoke French and Spanish.

    Because the German attack prevented these highly trained troops from being used as originally planned, Stalin converted them to “guards divisions,” which he used as reserves and “fire brigades” in emergency situations, much as Hitler often deployed Waffen SS forces.

    Maps and Phrase Books

    In support of his main thesis, Suvorov cites additional data that were not mentioned in his two earlier works on this subject. First, on the eve of the outbreak of the 1941 war Soviet forces had been provided topographical maps only of frontier and European areas; they were not issued maps to defend Soviet territory or cities, because the war was not to be fought in the homeland. The head of the Military Topographic Service at the time, and therefore responsible for military map distribution, Major General M. K. Kudryavtsev, was not punished or even dismissed for failing to provide maps of the homeland, but went on to enjoy a lengthy and successful military career. Likewise, the chief of the General Staff, General Zhukov, was never held responsible for the debacle of the first months of the war. None of the top military commanders could be held accountable, Suvorov points out, because they had all followed Stalin’s orders to the letter.

    Second, in early June 1941 the Soviet armed forces began receiving thousands of copies of a Russian-German phrase book, with sections dedicated to such offensive military operations as seizing railroad stations, orienting parachutists, and so forth, and such useful expressions as “Stop transmitting or I’ll shoot.” This phrase book was produced in great numbers by the military printing houses in both Leningrad and Moscow. However, they never reached the troops on the front lines, and are said to have been destroyed in the opening phase of the war.

    Aid from the ‘Neutral’ United States

    As Suvorov notes, the United States had been supplying Soviet Russia with military hardware since the late 1930s. He cites Antony C. Sutton’s study, National Suicide (Arlington House, 1973), which reports that in 1938 President Roosevelt entered into a secret agreement with the USSR to exchange military information. For American public consumption, though, Roosevelt announced the imposition of a “moral embargo” on Soviet Russia.

    In the months prior to America’s formal entry into war (December 1941), Atlantic naval vessels of the ostensibly neutral United States were already at war against German naval forces. (See Mr. Roosevelt’s Navy: The Private War of the U.S. Atlantic Fleet, 1939-1942 by Patrick Abbazia [Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 1975]). And two days after the “Barbarossa” strike, Roosevelt announced US aid to Soviet Russia in its war for survival against the Axis. Thus, at the outbreak of the “Barbarossa” attack, Hitler wrote in a letter to Mussolini: “At this point it makes no difference whether America officially enters the war or not, it is already supporting our enemies in full measure with mass deliveries of war materials.”

    Similarly, Winston Churchill was doing everything in his power during the months prior to June 1941 — when British forces were suffering one military defeat after another — to bring both the United States and the Soviet Union into the war on Britain’s side. In truth, the “Big Three” anti-Hitler coalition (Stalin, Roosevelt, Churchill) was effectively in place even before Germany attacked Russia, and was a major reason why Hitler felt compelled to strike against Soviet Russia, and to declare war on the United States five months later. (See Hitler’s speech of December 11, 1941, published in the Winter 1988-89 Journal, pp. 394-396, 402-412.)

    The reasons for Franklin Roosevelt’s support for Stalin are difficult to pin down. President Roosevelt himself once explained to William Bullitt, his first ambassador to Soviet Russia: “I think that if I give him [Stalin] everything I possibly can, and ask nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won’t try to annex anything, and will work with me for a world of peace and democracy.” (Cited in: Robert Nisbet, Roosevelt and Stalin: The Failed Courtship [1989], p. 6.) Perhaps the most accurate (and kindest) explanation for Roosevelt’s attitude is a profound ignorance, self-deception or naiveté. In the considered view of George Kennan, historian and former high-ranking US diplomat, in foreign policy Roosevelt was “a very superficial man, ignorant, dilettantish, with a severely limited intellectual horizon.”

    A Desperate Gamble

    Suvorov admits to being fascinated with Stalin, calling him “an animal, a wild, bloody monster, but a genius of all times and peoples.” He commanded the greatest military power in the Second World War, the force that more than any other defeated Germany. Especially in the final years of the conflict, he dominated the Allied military alliance. He must have regarded Roosevelt and Churchill contemptuously as useful idiots.

    In early 1941 everyone assumed that because Germany was still militarily engaged against Britain in north Africa, in the Mediterranean, and in the Atlantic, Hitler would never permit entanglement in a second front in the East. (Mindful of the disastrous experience of the First World War, he had warned in Mein Kampf of the mortal danger of a two front war.) It was precisely because he was confident that Stalin assumed Hitler would not open a second front, contends Suvorov, that the German leader felt free to launch “Barbarossa.” This attack, insists Suvorov, was an enormous and desperate gamble. But threatened by superior Soviet forces poised to overwhelm Germany and Europe, Hitler had little choice but to launch this preventive strike.

    Red Flag Over Reichstag
    Soviet troops hoist the red hammer-and-sickle flag over the Reichstag in Berlin, an act that symbolized the Soviet subjugation of eastern and central Europe. The Battle of Berlin climaxed the titanic struggle of German and Soviet forces that began on June 22, 1941. On the afternoon of April 30, 1945, as Soviet troops were storming the Reichstag building, Hitler committed suicide in his nearby bunker headquarters.
    But it was too little, too late. In spite of the advantage of striking first, it was the Soviets who finally prevailed. In the spring of 1945, Red army troops succeeded in raising the red banner over the Reichstag building in Berlin. It was due only to the immense sacrifices of German and other Axis forces that Soviet troops did not similarly succeed in raising the Red flag over Paris, Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Rome, Stockholm, and, perhaps, London.

    The Debate Sharpens

    In spite of resistance from “establishment” historians (who in Russia are often former Communists), support for Suvorov’s “preventive strike” thesis has been growing both in Russia and in western Europe. Among those who sympathize with Suvorov’s views are younger Russian historians such as Yuri L. Dyakov, Tatyana S. Bushuyeva, and I. V. Pavlova. (See the Nov.-Dec. 1997 Journal, pp. 32-34.)

    With regard to 20th-century history, American historians are generally more close-minded than their counterparts in Europe or Russia. But even in the United States there have been a few voices of support for the “preventive war” thesis — which is all the more noteworthy considering that Suvorov’s books on World War II, with the exception of Icebreaker, have not been available in English. (One such voice is that of historian Russell Stolfi, a professor of Modern European History at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. See the review of his book Hitler’s Panzers East in the Nov.-Dec. 1995 Journal.) Not all the response to Suvorov’s work has been positive, though. It has also prompted criticism and renewed affirmations of the decades-old orthodox view. Among the most prominent new defenders of the orthodox “line” are historians Gabriel Gorodetsky of Tel Aviv University, and John Ericson of Edinburgh University.

    Rejecting all arguments that might justify Germany’s attack, Gorodetsky in particular castigates and ridicules Suvorov’s works, most notably in a book titled, appropriately, “The Icebreaker Myth.” In effect, Gorodetsky (and Ericson) attribute Soviet war losses to the supposed unpreparedness of the Red Army for war. “It is absurd,” Gorodetsky writes, “to claim that Stalin would ever entertain any idea of attacking Germany, as some German historians now like to suggest, in order, by means of a surprise attack, to upset Germany’s planned preventive strike.”

    Not surprisingly, Gorodetsky has been praised by Kremlin authorities and Russian military leaders. Germany’s “establishment” similarly embraces the Israeli historian. At German taxpayers expense, he has worked and taught at Germany’s semi-official Military History Research Office (MGFA), which in April 1991 published Gorodetsky’s Zwei Wege nach Moskau (“Two Paths to Moscow”).

    In the “Last Republic,” Suvorov responds to Gorodetsky and other critics of his first two books on Second World War history. He is particularly scathing in his criticisms of Gorodetsky’s work, especially “The Icebreaker Myth.”

    Some Criticisms

    Suvorov writes caustically, sarcastically, and with great bitterness. But if he is essentially correct, as this reviewer believes, he — and we — have a perfect right to be bitter for having been misled and misinformed for decades.

    Although Suvorov deserves our gratitude for his important dissection of historical legend, his work is not without defects. For one thing, his praise of the achievements of the Soviet military industrial complex, and the quality of Soviet weaponry and military equipment, is exaggerated, perhaps even panegyric. He fails to acknowledge the Western origins of much of Soviet weaponry and hardware. Soviet engineers developed a knack for successfully modifying, simplifying and, often, improving, Western models and designs. For example, the rugged diesel engine used in Soviet tanks was based on a German BMW aircraft diesel.

    One criticism that cannot in fairness be made of Suvorov is a lack of patriotism. Mindful that the first victims of Communism were the Russians, he rightly draws a sharp distinction between the Russian people and the Communist regime that ruled them. He writes not only with the skill of an able historian, but with reverence for the millions of Russians whose lives were wasted in the insane plans of Lenin and Stalin for “world revolution.”

    Journal of Historical Review 17, no. 4 (July-August 1998), 30-37. Daniel W. Michaels is a Columbia University graduate (Phi Beta Kappa, 1954), a Fulbright exchange student to Germany (1957), and recently retired from the US Department of Defense after 40 years of service. Also see (off-site) the National Vanguard’s review of Icebreaker and Hitler’s Reichstag speech of December 11, 1941.

  18. Hitler would have founded the white North Korea

    I really doubt if Nazi Germany survived today, that it would be a prosperous state. I think it would basically be North Korea with white people. It would be poverty ridden state with nuclear weapons and a huge army. The Nazi empire would likely not have much communication with the outside world. Hitler grandson would likely be running the country. Hitler´s face would be everywhere with him being refereed to as the dear fuhrer like Kim Li Sung in North Korea. Proven scientific facts about how Jews are more white than Finns and blacks are more athletic than Nordic whites would be suppressed by the Nazi media. Maybe private Japanese corporations like Toyota would likely have factories in the Reich under government supervision, because of the cheap German labor. I am not saying that the Nazi Reich would be a absolute disaster , since Muslims would definitely not be taking over Europe. But that is about the only good thing coming from a modern Nazi Reich, which I guess most of you white nationalists would see that as a major win. I mean you guys seem to care more about race, than things likely quality of life and civil liberties, so it would likely not matter to you guys that the Nazi Reich would be a white North Korea. I am glad some of you white nationalists hate Hitler. I think Hitler had some successful domestic projects like the Autobahn, that were basically over shadow by that waste of human capital called the Holocaust. I think if Hitler had not killed six million Jews, then he would have been looked upon as basically another Napoleon. However, he had to kill members of the smartest white ethnic group on Earth, who were the most capable group of people who could build the atomic weapons that the Nazi Reich could have used to bring the war to a stalemate. Killing six million capable white people of Jewish ancestry was the dumbest thing that Hitler did through the course of the war.

  19. http://www.natvan.com/national-vanguard/115/icebreak.html
    More on Barbarossa:
    National Vanguard Magazine — Number 115 (November-December 1995)

    Icebreaker

    By Viktor Suvorov (translated from the Russian by Thomas B. Beattie). Published by Hamish Hamilton (London, 1990). Available from National Vanguard Books for $25.95, postpaid.

    Western Europe, Fall 1941: The Red Army sweeps on from Germany and France toward Italy and Spain. Everywhere the NKVD imposes the bloody terror already suffered by the tortured nations of the East. Political opponents, former army officers, shopkeepers, landowners, small farmers, members of youth movements and cultural associations–millions are rounded up. The fortunate ones are shot, many more die horribly in the blood-spattered basements of Communist interrogation centers. The rest join the endless columns shuffling to the Siberian Gulag. Only the prettiest girls are kept behind alive, for now.

    The lower ranks of the new Red puppet administrations consist mainly of criminals and perverts, but everywhere the key posts are dominated by Jews. Too late the peoples of Europe learn that the Talmudic admonition that “the best of the goyim must be destroyed” is taken literally by their new masters.

    How close this nightmare came to becoming reality is revealed in Russian military historian Viktor Suvorov’s definitive account of the buildup to Operation Groza (“Thunderstorm”), the Red Army’s massive assault on Germany and the rest of Europe scheduled to begin on July 6, 1941.

    Icebreaker details the huge scale of the long Soviet preparations to attack “the imperialist powers.” In 1939, for example, when Hitler had a total of 4,000 paratroopers ready to seize key points ahead of an advance, Stalin had more than one million. Soviet tank production dwarfed that of the rest of the world put together, but the majority of the tanks were capable of effective operation only on the good roads of western Europe and were useless when forced onto the defensive in the backward wastes of Russia. Soviet pilots were totally untrained in aerial combat, since the German Luftwaffe was to be destroyed on the ground on Day 1.

    In the event, as the Chief of the General Staff Academy of the Armed Forces of the USSR, General S.P. Ivanov, admitted in 1974, “The Nazi command succeeded in forestalling our troops literally two weeks before the war began.” This was why the advancing German Wehrmacht found millions of Russia’s best troops crowded together with huge supplies of ammunition and fuel in undefensible positions right on the frontier.

    Suvorov shows clearly how Stalin came within fourteen days of taking this key step along the path to Bolshevizing the world. “But Hitler guessed Stalin’s design. That is why WWII ended catastrophically for Stalin. He only got half of Europe, and some places here and there in Asia.”

    Regardless of the abuse heaped on him by the media and the court historians, this book proves that Adolf Hitler saved the West.

  20. Ivan,
    Excellent comment. I hope Gregory Hood keeps his promise to expound on that.

    I’m no historian, so I can’t hold my own in a serious debate about these issues, but I really feel like Hitler and Stalin are the Goofus and Gallant of dealing with the Jewish Problem. I am even a big fan of the Jewish Autonomous Oblast. If I had my druthers, we’d make Long Island and Frisco into JAOs and impose a Byzantine Solution* in between.

    * Byzantine Solution:
    Keep them out of banking, out of education, out of government. Get the Jews out of banking and they cannot control the economic life of the community. Get the Jews out of education and they can not pervert the minds of the young to their subversive doctrines. Get the Jews out of government and they cannot betray the nation.

  21. MGLS #64,

    Just curious: Why are you posting that commentary from Grant?

    What does it have to do with the point of this thread?

  22. Greg Johnson’s interpretation of Hitler’s German chauvinism is very strange. It’s strange to call the Polish-German conflict a “border dispute,” for most “border disputes,” don’t end in a six year brutal occupation in which millions of civilians are slaughtered, the playing of national music is outlawed (Third Reich banned the Polish national anthem and all works of Chopin), and the Capitol is turned to dust. It’s strange to pay so much attention to Polish pre-war mistreatment of Germans and no attention to German pre-war mistreatment of Poles in Silesia. I wonder what Greg would have said if the Poles had wiped Berlin off the map as Hitler saw fit to do to Warsaw?

    He tells us that Hitler definitely wanted to rule Russia and Ukraine (though of course neither of these have any historical ties to Germany), but that it’s the Ukrainians and Russians who were at fault for not being overjoyed that though they were viewed as untermenschen– you see, the German soldiers quite fancied Ukrainian women! Never mind that in Table Talk Hitler spoke of cleansing the Crimea of Ukrainians and repopulating it with Dutch, Norwegian and German colonists; Germans think Ukrainian chicks are hot! Quite a few Red Army soldiers fancied German women, but Greg hasn’t voiced any excitement for that.

  23. Undoubtedly, Hitler was a smart fellow who understood the nature of the beast. But his reading of Stalin was completely wrong. He failed to realize the game Stalin was playing and winning against the Jew. Perhaps Stalin was and still remains the only world leader who ever beat the Jews in their own game. – Ivan
    __

    This is very, very disputable, to say the absolute least.

    I debate about this supposed ‘antisemitism’ of Stalin with my Russian friends often, and I, and more and more of my Russian friends, are coming to the conclusion it is more about saving face for the Russian people and the brutal, inhuman suffering they suffered under the Jewish Bolshevik regime, than it is about any truthful examination of that sub-human beast Stalin.

    Essentially, many Russians want to rationalize the trauma and national humiliation of that horrible time by desiring to believe that the ‘great Stalin’ was really ‘on their side’ the whole time, and he did what he did cause he ‘had to’, to get the country out of the ‘Jews hands’.

    Perhaps there are degrees of truth to this, but c’mon, lets face it – Lazar Kaganovich was one of the most, if not the most, powerful individual in the Soviet state up until the early 1950’s. As well, nearly all the actual ethnic Russians and Slavs were married to Jewess’.

    Hardly a recipie for Judenhass on Stalin and the Soviet state’s part.

  24. So many people pass themselves off as third reich experts who are mere charlatans and court historians or who simply regurgitate the tired old war propaganda from the WWII era. The best book for a balanced view of Hitler is David Irving’s “Hitler’s War”. John Toland’s “Adolf Hitler” is another valuable work to gain some perspective on Hitler. Irving credits Hitler’s tactical acumen with stabilizing the Eastern front in the face of the massive Soviet counteroffensive outside of Moscow in December 1941 in the face of incompetence by his top generals.

    A Russo-German war was imminent and given Germany’s geographical size in relation to Soviet Russia, it did not have the luxury of trading space for time. It was only a matter of time before two leaders of contrasting character and diametrically opposed worldviews struck the first blow and Hitler, correctly, did just that keeping Soviet Russia on the defensive until the late summer of 1943. Prior to Barbarossa Stalin had hoped and planned for a war between Western European powers that would deplete their manpower and resources thus leaving them prostrate for a massive Soviet invasion and takeover.

    Had Hitler been effete or lacking in foresight or military perspicacity Western Europe would have suffered a Katyn Forest massacre on a monumental scale while being colonized with Mongolian barbarians from Central Asia. A detailed account of Stalin’s plans can be found in Viktor Suvorov’s “Icebreaker” which is almost impossible to find and his later work “Chief Culprit” available from Amazon.com.

    Most Americans have tunnel vision when it comes to European history especially events between the first world war and the second. Those who claim Hitler is singularly culpable for the crises in Western civilization are being simple minded.

  25. Had Hitler been effete or lacking in foresight or military perspicacity Western Europe would have suffered a Katyn Forest massacre on a monumental scale while being colonized with Mongolian barbarians from Central Asia.
    __

    Mr. Dithers,

    As usual, your sober analysis on this fact is spot-on, 100% accurate.

    You are also correct about the people, the types who get their history from the ‘Hitler Channel’ — those essentially who only want to ‘cheer on’ establishment-approved ‘heroes’.

    They think anything otherwise wouldn’t be (horror of horrors) ‘patriotic’ :/

  26. Veni,

    That is a fair question.

    I’ve been trying to figure out the best way to promote the interests of White Americans without violating the rights of other groups. Posting provocative comments and reading the responses helps me clarify my thinking.

    Here is the current state of my thinking:

    Due to my faith in conservatism as a political technique, not to mention the composition of part of my extended family (all converted to Christianity and married to White Gentiles), I am not at all attracted to the idea of racially partitioning the United States. I’d hate to see my fellow White Americans wade through Harold Covington’s rivers of blood, only to have my family stranded in the radicalized multi-cultural rump after the partition. Fortunately, I don’t think that particular project will ever actually be put into action.

    Unlike the situation in South Africa, where Whites are a small minority, Whites are a majority in the USA. By restricting immigration and encouraging a higher birthrate among Whites, we could remain a majority. Even if we become a minority, we will still be the largest single minority – which gives us the opportunity to promote our interests through alliances with other ethnic groups. So we have two choices 1. Prevent ourselves from becoming a minority or 2. Prepare to function effectively as a minority. The ideal political strategy would involve a strenuous fight to achieve 1, while preparing 2 as a fallback in case 1 is unsuccessful.

    For this political strategy to be successfully implemented, our people must believe that White Americans constitute a unique and valuable ethnic group, with as much right to love their tribe and be proud of their heritage as any other ethnic group on the face of the earth. Such emotions will naturally arise in the course of the political struggle if we choose the right issues on which to take a stand and present ourselves in the right way. All the hatred which Jewish Hollywood, academia and the media pour forth against us will only increase ethnic solidarity among our people, if other Whites see us as reasonable people taking reasonable stands – unjustly persecuted by an increasingly obviously Jewish cultural and financial elite. Ideally, the issues on which we choose to take a stand will not only seem exceedingly reasonable to our own people, they will also seem reasonable to the ethnic groups which have the best potential as allies in the event that we become a minority. To my mind, therefore, the choice of issues on which to take a stand and the manner in which we choose to present these issues to the public will determine the success or failure of White advocacy.

    The following are, in my opinion, the proper issues on which to take a stand:
    1. Immigration – Moratorium on immigration until all American citizens have jobs, send illegal and criminal immigrants home, end anchor baby loophole. Result: higher wages, lower rent – and thus increased birthrate.
    2. Isolationist Foreign Policy – End $3 billion/year subsidy to Israel (and other foreign aid). Bring home most overseas troops, disentangle ourselves from outdated cold war alliances. War on Al-Qaida, peace and trade with everyone else. Independance for Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Samoa etc.
    3. Law and Order – End anarcho-tyrrany, starting in our shameful prisons.
    4. Afirmative Action – Either end affirmative action altogether, or classify Jews and White Gentiles separately and set the quotas accordingly.
    5. Rollback Sexual Revolution – Put issues such as abortion, porngraphy, gay marriage, and no-fault divorce back into the hands of the state legislatures, where the Religious Right has a better chance of having its way (and thus help boost birthrate by re-equating sex with reproduction)

    (This is, incidentally, very similar to BNP and A3P party platforms.)

    Rather than start from scratch with an all-white A3P, I would prefer for revitalized paleo-conservatives to assume the leadership of the Republican Party – which is simply begging for new leadership. The Iraq war and the Housing Bubble/Bailout completely discredited the neo-conservatives. Thanks to Ron Paul’s prestige as one of the few Republicans to vote against the Iraq war, and his status as the #1 critic of the Federal Rserve and the Bailout, libertarians currently have a strong influence in the Tea Party movement. This is bound to fade: the most intellectually consistent libertarians are open border globalists, weak on crime, and sexual libertines – all anathema to the Tea Party rank and file. The religious right is content to follow anyone who shares their antipathy to the sexual revolution (or even claims to share it. look how long the neoconservatives had them fooled!)

    If I’m wrong about the Republican Party being ripe for a paleoconservative take-over, the A3P is a useful fallback position, as long as they 1. concentrate on taking votes from equally from the Democrats and Republicans – thus maximizing their political leverage 2. don’t divide Whites with anything reminiscent of neo-Nazis and 3. don’t unnecessarily antagonize our n

    So thats my answer to the dilema of defending Whites without violating the rights of other ethnic groups: revitalized paleoconservative movement takes the lead in Republican Party / Tea Party, accepting as inevitable the loss of support among false friend Jewish neoconservatives and open border Latinos. Increased support among Whites (and Blacks) more than compensates. This prevents Whites from becoming a minority, or at the very least delays our minority status long enough for us to rebuild our sense of pride and gain acknowledgement of our right to be proud – which will be of crucial importance if we are to thrive as a minority.

  27. Trainspotter: But I am very much opposed to the utterly naive and/or merely disingenuous posturing of the people on this thread who think it reasonable (or merely politic) to blame Adolf Hitler for the problems White Nationalists face today.

    But to say that Hitler is not the problem is not the same as saying that Hitler is the solution, that the man never made mistakes, etc. National Socialism is not the first or last word in racial nationalism, but it still is a huge contribution, a we would be fools not to learn what we can from it while improving upon it and adopting it to the different white cultures and circumstances.

  28. Whites Unite, that’s a great argument.

    I don’t care about Jews or your Jew family. If you or they want to be a Jew, move to Israel.

    If you people weren’t making a nuisance of yourself with all your Jew talk, I wouldn’t even know you’re a Jew.

    So move to Israel, or some other Jew place, or shut up about your Jew crap.

    Actually, don’t move to Israel. I’d suggest Madagascar, because Israel is going down.

  29. The only think Uncle Adolf did wrong was lose!

    The great Revilo P. Oliver noted that National Socialist Germanys majestic crusade against gutter Jewry in fact bought Western Civilization entire decades of time. It really slowed the Jews down, they didn’t recover and start ‘deconstructing’ Western Civilization again until the late ’60s!

    Imagine if Uncle Adolf had never bought us that time! Aryan-kind may be even further along the current path of dispossession.

    Also if interesting note is that many of the old taboos regarding National Socialism are falling away: One can cruise around carrying the tomes of National Socialists like Carl Schmitt and Martin Heidegger in Academia and it is totally acceptable! The times they are a-changing and this ideas are becoming fashionable once again.

    In todays world Uncle Adolf can rightly be viewed as a Great Ideologue, who gifted us National Socialism. Similar to how Marxists in fact view Marx. One need not copy every facet of German National Socialist aesthetics (dressing up in uniforms and what not) to adhere to the ideology of National Socialist, just as Marxists do not dress just like Marx did like 150 years ago.

    Also outside of viewing National Socialism as an Ideology, it can be viewed properly as a PHILOSOPHY, totally relevant to todays world:

    ” National Socialism: A Philosophical Appraisal

    Several decades after the physical defeat of National Socialist Germany in the outcome of her heroic struggle against the overwhelming array of men and materials marshalled against her by the Bolshevist-democratic alliance, the appearance of this reappraisal reflects the revival of National Socialism which is a feature of the day.

    That the creed should live on and manifest itself as it does now, after being subjected to decades of the greatest campaign of defamation which the world has ever known, is a proof of its continuing validity and appeal and its worthiness for the future. It has survived the flames of war and the tempest of vilification because, when war has done its worst and vilification run its entire gamut, National Socialism remains, in the final analysis, synonymous with higher man’s will to survive, his instinct for health and strength, his desire to remain on this earth, the creed of National Socialism will remain, indestructible.

    Beyond and behind all the minutiae of political implementation and the particularities of time and place, National Socialism, properly understood, is nothing less than an orientation of the mind, the dominant impulse of which is to live to the full, through the development of one’s potentialities and the satisfaction of one’s needs, under conditions of natural competition and selection, reconciled to cooperation, within the organised community of the folk.

    http://gothicripples.wordpress.com/national-socialism-a-philosophical-appraisal/

  30. Moreover, that last post should not have begun with the word “But.” There is a message here: I have been looking at this damn screen too long today!
    __

    Thanks for staying on this topic so diligently, Dr. Johnson!

    Especially thanks for your posting all of the Suvorov material. Very important for others to understand just how close a Red Soviet Asiatic invasion of Mother Europa actually was.

  31. Mr. Miggles, you’re a lot dumber than I thought. If you want to believe in a “Nordic” Rome race replaced by Levantines that is you’re privilege. If you think the buffoon Kemp is an authority on the “White Race,” or that Grant is the last word on Roman historiography so be it. The joke’s on you.

    I won’t take the trouble refuting their/your ludicrous assertions because it’s not germane to this thread and in any event I’d be wasting my time on a dummy like you.

    But I will say this. If Rome was originally Germanic, and Latin was it’s original and continuous language, wouldn’t it, Latin, sound Germanic? Read some Latin and then read Olde English, or Norse, or Medieval German, or Dutch, or some Scandinavian language. Have experts speak to you in these languages so you can hear exactly how they sound. Then ask yourself in all seriousness if Latin is a part of the Germanic family of languages.

    If you conclude that it isn’t then ask yourself why a bunch of Germans descended on Italy and suddenly began speaking a non-Germanic idiom. And ask yourself where this non-Germanic idiom came from if it wasn’t native to the Master Race.

    Ask yourself these questions Mr. Miggles, but please try not to hurt your head as you do so.

    Now will you wish Roma a Happy Birthday?

  32. From “Hitler’s War,” by David Irving:

    ‘The frontier between Europe and Asia,’ re?ected Hitler over dinner on
    the twenty-third, ‘is not the Ural Mountains but there where the settlements of Germanically inclined people end and unadulterated Slav
    settlements begin. It is our task to push this frontier as far east as possible, and if need be far beyond the Urals. It is the eternal law of nature that gives Germany as the stronger power the right before history to subjugate these peoples of inferior race, to dominate them and to coerce them into performing useful labours.’
    […]
    …in the ‘Protectorate’ of Bohemia-Moravia a wave of opposition had ap-
    peared since ‘Barbarossa.’ There were slowdowns and stoppages and terror incidents. Rumour reached Hitler that a full-scale uprising was being plotted. ‘Only now do they realise that there is no escape,’ he said. ‘As long as the great Russia, mother of all Slavs, was there they could still hope.’


    Hitler had briefed Heydrich fully on the future of his Protectorate. Heydrich reported this to his local governors in Prague on October 2. One day, he said, the Protectorate would be settled by Germans. ‘This does not mean,’ said Heydrich, ‘that we now have to try to Germanise all Czech rabble…

  33. more from Irving:

    Little is known in detail of what Hitler told Brauchitsch. After talking to
    Halder on the ninth, Eduard Wagner noted in his diary: ‘It is the Führer’s and Göring’s intention to destroy and exterminate the Polish nation. More than that cannot even be hinted at in writing.’ The same day, Colonel von Vormann wrote: ‘The war in Poland is over…. The Führer keeps discussing plans for the future of Poland – interesting but scarcely suited for committing to writing.’ Only General Walther Heitz, the new military governor of West Prussia, lifted a corner of this veil of secrecy in writing up a conference with Brauchitsch on September 10: ‘Other business: I am to rule the area with the mailed ?st. Combat troops are over-inclined toward a false sense of chivalry.’ That the nature of the SS task force operations had been explained to Brauchitsch was established when Admiral Canaris reminded Keitel of the damage the planned ‘widespread executions’ of Polish clergy and nobility would in?ict on the Wehrmacht’s reputation. Keitel retorted that this had long been decided on by the Führer, who had made it plain to Brauchitsch ‘that if the Wehrmacht wants nothing to do with it, they will merely have to put up with the SS and Gestapo appearing side by side with them.’ Hence the creation of parallel civil authorities in Poland. On them would fall the job of ‘demographic extermination,’ as Canaris recorded Keitel’s phrase.
    When Heydrich informed Colonel Wagner that the planned ‘mopping up’
    of Poland would embrace ‘the Jewry, intelligentsia, clergy, and nobility,’
    the army o?cer asked only that the murderous orders ?ow directly from Heydrich to his task forces in the ?eld.

  34. ski,

    As you probably know, Chancellor Hitler offered an alliance with the Poles against Soviet Russia, knowing that not only did the Poles have historic (and tremendous) animosity toward the Russians — Hitler also admired them for their marvelous performance against the incipient Red army in 1920 — specifically the Battle on the Vistula, where the Red hordes were utterly smashed by General Pilsudski.

    Of course, the same usual, British-backed suspects within the Polish government refused all offers — as well as all future offers in negotiating with the Reich government over the status of the German minority in Poland, especially granting access throught the corridor to East Prussia.

  35. I know that, and I’m not a fan of the leadership Second Polish Republic post Pilsudski, nor of Churchill or FDR. That doesn’t excuse what Hitler did however. Just because the Allies were barbarous doesn’t mean the Nazis were any less disgusting.

  36. I won’t take the trouble refuting their/your ludicrous assertions because it’s not germane to this thread and in any event I’d be wasting my time on a dummy like you.

    Perhaps you refuse to refute these “ludicrous” assertions because you are unable to do so.

    As for not being germane to this thread, I don’t know what the founding of Rome had to do with this thread in the first place.

  37. …That doesn’t excuse what Hitler did however. Just because the Allies were barbarous doesn’t mean the Nazis were any less disgusting.
    __

    ski,

    There is a tremendous amount of untruths regarding nearly anything that Third Reich Germany did, or supposedly did.

    Instead of making broad and amorphous accusations, let’s see if we can ascertain what indeed the facts were then — to the best of our knowledge, at least.

  38. MGLS,

    Nordics weren’t accomplishing anything of World Historical importance at the time you claim they were pretending to be Romans.

    For this reason the theory doesn’t make any sense to me.

    It would be like saying that Ovid’s poetry was actually written by his 8 year old son.

  39. Guys,

    Let’s try not to take this ‘Nordicist’ debate into this thread from the ‘Whites Going Extinct’ thread.

    It get’s a bit much.

  40. The Power and Passion felt between the lines, here, in this discussion, reiterates the purity of our Struggle, and the dedication, intelligence, and will-to-power of our cause.

    The Time is Now…and the final process has begun, in our Generation, and in our Lifetime.

    Hail Victory!

  41. “But I am very much opposed to the utterly naive and/or merely disingenuous posturing of the people on this thread who think it reasonable (or merely politic) to blame Adolf Hitler for the problems White Nationalists face today.”

    Greg, I understand your position. I don’t think I did that in my post, certainly such was not my intent. I’m not in the “blame Hitler for everything camp,” by any means. I do find his model of National Socialism unsuitable for our purposes. I also think that it is a mistake to allow ourselves to be overly defined by him, to live under his shadow. Not because it is politically convenient to distance ourselves from him (of course it is), but because, at the end of the day, we aren’t him. We are different people struggling with a very different situation. It is in that spirit that I say Hitler Addio.

    Hitler made his attempt, and I doubt that he agonized too much about the baggage or forms of prior leaders. He seemed to take what was useful from the past, and disregard the rest. He was an innovator. Some things he got right, others he got wrong.

    He had a people to save, and went about doing so in a way that made sense to him in that particular time and place. That he was brilliant is not in dispute, at least by me. But he failed, and it ended up being a disaster for whites world wide. I don’t say this to beat up on the guy, but simply as objective fact. It is also a fact, at least by my stars, that the Reich did some pretty damn awful things while under his leadership, one example being its treatment of Slavs.

    I don’t need that baggage going forward, and most whites will not accept it. If we are to win, whites will expect of us something better, an approach that ensures that innocent whites will not be oppressed or slaughtered. Whether we like to admit it or not, a lot of that did happen, and we need to make it clear that it is unacceptable and will not happen again. Otherwise, how can people trust us, if they think we are blind to past errors?

    By analogy, I am a Southerner. I have great admiration for (most of) the men and women of the Old South. I do not beat up on them. But, unfortunately, they failed. Because they failed, we are now literally threatened with extinction. I also am not blind to the reality that antebellum society engaged in some things, like chattel slavery, that are inconsistent both with white nationalism and my own moral compass. This has resulted in my fierce opposition to the importation of ANY non-white labor, chattel or not. So I have no hesitancy in condemning certain aspects of the Old South, and recognize that we need a new and better model to go forward. I am also very interested in taking from them what was best, like their honor based society, and disgarding the negatives. If we are to win, if we are to gain support, whites will expect no less. They will not accept a repetition of past mistakes as if we have learned absolutely nothing. We too have a people to save.

    Today, whites are in far greater peril than in Hitler’s time. Far greater. It is up to us to make another attempt to save our people, and if we fail it may literally be over. We can’t afford failure, our situation is becoming so dire. I’m not interested in bashing Hitler. I just think that his model is not going to be our model, not if we are to win – and we must win.

    It does bother me how some people will not tolerate even legitimate criticism of Hitler. I understand what you are saying about the bashing that goes on, and I don’t care for that either. But no man is at a loss for flaws, and no man should be above fair criticism. As far as I’m concerned Hitler has a fair amount of that criticism coming. He earned it, and if we are to be successful, I’m guessing we’ll earn some too. Let’s just try to minimize it, and learn from past mistakes.

    “But to say that Hitler is not the problem is not the same as saying that Hitler is the solution, that the man never made mistakes, etc. National Socialism is not the first or last word in racial nationalism, but it still is a huge contribution, a we would be fools not to learn what we can from it while improving upon it and adopting it to the different white cultures and circumstances.”

    I find myself largely in agreement with this, and I meant to convey something similar. While we are perhaps not on precisely the same page, as I definitely have a more negative view of Naitonal Socialism than you do, I don’t think we are that far apart. I hope I’ve clarified matters somewhat.

  42. Veritas said:

    “If Hitler and the NSDAP had had unlimited access to petroleum like the Allies did, Germany would have won. And we’d be living in a WN Occident.”

    Sure, because oil would somehow magically sink the US and Royal Navies, build sufficient trucks to supply the German army in Russia as the supply lines became long, shoot down the RAF and American aircraft, and stop those nukes that would have been coming in 1945.

    Even if that were really true, if Hitler started a war without sufficient oil to win it, that’s his fault.

    Germany’s best chance to win the war, if it ever had one, had already passed before oil shortage became a big problem – as evidenced by your own link, which says they still had enough oil for the 1942 campaign. By then, they had the whole world against them, getting their war production in gear, and, in the best case, they had 3 years until they started getting nuked. They had to win by 1941 or not at all (unless you assume a scenario in which Hitler does not declare war on the US, and the US somehow stays out of the war).

    “And you never any criticisms for any other historical figure. So sad, you’re so brainpoisoned against your own kind.”

    Right, I’ve never criticized anybody in my life except Hitler. How did you know? I’m just a big meanie that way.

    “coldequation, you know it’s very jewy to blame the victim.”

    Quite the opposite. “Blaming the victim” is a phrase usually used by social justice activists, feminists and the like to demonize those who put the responsibility for the failures of minorities/women on the shoulders of minorities/women. Accusing people of blaming the victim is “jewy.”

    “What will history say about you? Nothing at all, I suspect. Yet you can sit there 70 years later on your duff and tell everybody how it all went down. Unreal.”

    You have to make history to have an opinion? I doubt anybody in this thread qualifies, including you.

  43. I don’t know if my original Post will copy…but wanted to say that this deeply felt issue, this Blood and Bone passion, is definitely worthy of this Day, and this Blog.

    Hail Victory!!

  44. Greg Johnson, Suvorov has been heavily criticized
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Suvorov#Criticism_and_support
    And even if what he said was true, it was Hitler’s decision to invade Poland that made it remotely possible for the Stalin to attack Germany. Otherwise, he would have been dealing with a Germany that was not cut off from the world economically, and might have had aid from the West. And he would have had to go through Poland just to reach Germany.

  45. And even if what he said was true, it was Hitler’s decision to invade Poland that made it remotely possible for the Stalin to attack Germany. Otherwise, he would have been dealing with a Germany that was not cut off from the world economically, and might have had aid from the West. And he would have had to go through Poland just to reach Germany.

    Chancellor Hitler offered an alliance with the Poles against Soviet Russia, knowing that not only did the Poles have historic (and tremendous) animosity toward the Russians — Hitler also admired them for their marvelous performance against the incipient Red army in 1920 — specifically the Battle on the Vistula, where the Red hordes were utterly smashed by General Pilsudski.

    Of course, the same usual, British-backed suspects within the Polish government refused all offers — as well as all future offers in negotiating with the Reich government over the status of the German minority in Poland, especially granting access throught the Corridor for Germans traveling to East Prussia.

  46. especially granting access throught the Corridor for Germans traveling to East Prussia.

    This should read –

    ‘especially granting access through the Corridor for Germans traveling to and from East Prussia.’

    That’s better.

    *On a little side note, because of this trivial stupidity of cutting off East Prussian territory from the greater German Reich thanks to the ‘Versailles treaty’, the Germans, ever being the resourceful innovators that they are, created the world’s first airport in the ‘Free City’ of Danzig — so Reich citizens could conduct business and travel to see their families in the rest of Germany.

1 Trackback / Pingback

  1. Was Hitler crazy? « Old Atlantic Lighthouse

Comments are closed.