Translate

Monday, September 12, 2011

Hitler Should Be Put In Context


Was Hitler infinitely evil, an assumption which seems to underlie Ron Rosenbaum's book, Explaining Hitler: The Search for the Origins of His Evil? Instead of merely making conjectures on the inner workings of Hitler's mind, his motivations, his psychological development and relations with his parents, would it not have been far more to the point to reflect on Hitler's acts and forget the Freudian garbage? Was Hitler evil in 1919 when he resolved patriotically to help Germans overcome the devastating and humiliating terms of the Versailles Treaty? Were Hitler’s attitudes towards Jews an isolated phenomenon? During the 1920s hostility towards the Chosen was widespread, especially as a result of the Jewish role in Russia. Hitler was influenced by studies subsidised by Henry Ford (1920 - 1922). American influences on National Socialism have only been meagrely recognized and studied.

Did Hitler have an evil intent to destroy Britain when his government ceded naval superiority to Britain by the British German naval treaty of 1935? Did 90% of the voters in the Saar territory think Hitler was evil in 1935, nearly three years after his coming to power, when they voted to return their land to Germany? Was Hitler evil when Germany incorporated impoverished Austria in 1938 with the enthusiastic approval of the overwhelming majority of Austrians? (Their parliament had designated their land officially as Deutschösterreich in 1918.) Was Hitler evil when he donated a large amount of his personal assets to an anti-smoking campaign? If Hitler been intolerant of Jews, why was much of the retail trade in Germany still in Jewish hands as late as the anti-Jewish riots in November 1938, nearly six years after the National Socialists came to power? (England, Spain and other countries had simply expelled their Jews in previous centuries.)

Was Hitler evil when he promptly ordered the cessation of the Kristallnacht rioting in spite of public indignation at the assassination of a German diplomat in Paris by a young Jew? Was Hitlers government evil when it supported an overseas homeland for Jews in keeping with Zionist objectives, in spite of British opposition to Jewish immigration into the British mandate of Palestine? Few other countries showed much willingness to permit the immigration of Jews, as shown by the paucity of results obtained at the Evian Conference in 1938.

Was Hitler evil when German armed forces invaded areas taken by Poland from Germany after decades of Polish abuse of the large German population of these areas? Was Hitler out of line for seeking a peaceful solution to the Corridor problem? (Poles were convinced they could defeat Germany with the support of England, France and the U.S., a belief that was cynically betrayed when Poland was handed over to the Soviet Union in 1945.) England and France declared war on Germany on September Knut Hamsun saw some good in Der Fuhrer 3, 1939. Was Hitler evil when he made one effort after the other to negotiate reconciliation between the genetically linked English and German nations after Britain's war declaration and even after the defeat of France? Who was evil when Rudolf Hess was arrested and silenced after his daring flight to Scotland on May 10, 1941 in the frustrated hope of bringing about peace with England? Hitler and Hess had a sober awareness of the damages that would be inflicted on the white race by a continuation of the destructive European war. Roosevelt and Churchill, on the other hand, took an evil delight in the prolongation of the war, as manifested in their demand for the unconditional surrender of Germany in January 1943.

Would hundreds of thousands of the finest European manhood from Scandinavia, Belgium, France and the Baltic lands have volunteered for service in the German armed forces if they had sensed that Hitler was a force for evil? Which was more evil, the internment of hostile Jews and Gypsies late in the war, in contrast to the swift internment of persons of Japanese descent in the U.S. or the genocidal bombing of huge cities like Hamburg and Dresden? Or the murderous Soviet occupation of Silesia in 1945? Or the disgraceful treatment of German prisoners of war and the handing over of anti-Communist Russians to Stalin by Eisenhower (Operation Keelhaul)?

Was ReichsfĂĽhrer Heinrich Himmler evil when he issued an order at the end of 1942 to reduce "at all costs" the death rates in German labour and concentration camps, in spite of the desperate plight of the Germans themselves? At the very end of WWII, at the time of Hitler's death, two famous Scandinavians, Nobel Prize winners, Knut Hamsun and the famous Swedish explorer, Sven Hedin, published eulogistic statements lamenting the German Chancellors death. Would these two brilliant, well-informed men have praised a monster? The distinguished American man of letters, Ezra Pound, was locked up for years in a mental institution because he had broadcast admonishments against America's conduct of the war.

As the plight of the white component of the U.S. population becomes ever worse in the coming decades, evaluations of National Socialist Germany will probably become more objective in spite of a continuing barrage of anti-German propaganda in the mass media. What will the attitudes of American whites be in another 50 years if by that time they will have become an oppressed, exploited minority? Will there be a radical revision of history?

Editor's note: Yes, Hitler triggered WWII by invading Poland. Yes, he was off his rocker when he declared war on the Soviet Union. But to understand Hitler the good must be weighed with the evil, the text should give way to the context. Suffice it to say, it will be decades before this happens.

Wilmot Robertson
February 2000


Victor Whitelaw’s note: Since this article was written much new information has come to light, a lot of it from the Soviet archives, regarding not only the origins of the Second World War (Poland was NOT a poor, weak, tragic and innocent victim of German aggression but was behaving arrogantly and aggressively with their Army being the third largest in Europe at that time) but also the fact that, just prior to the launch of Operation Barbarossa, Stalin had about 100 Army Divisions massed along the border ready to invade Germany. Hitler simply beat him to the punch. The fact Stalin’s Armies were so swiftly overrun, encircled and captured in the first few days of the operation was due to this very aggressive positioning of these forced right on the border and not, as some have spuriously claimed, in a defensive position that would have seen them dug in much further back.

There are also many lies still being told by the people who call themselves ‘Historians’ today and much of the vilest claptrap of all is peddled by the likes of the Jew owned ‘History Channel’. One of these is that Hitler halted his armoured divisions outside Dunkirk allowing the British Expeditionary Forces and other allied troops to escape across the channel purely to show the top brass of the Wehrmacht by denying them their sweet victory of annihilating the Brits, that he was the boss and he was in charge! The premise is as puerile as the petulant act it claims occurred.

These same ‘Historians’ deride and sneer at what several German Generals themselves claimed after the war, that the British were let go as a good will gesture in respect of the fact they were Racial Cultural cousins of the Germans, or ‘fellow Vikings’ as one German put it. This was an act of chivalry in an extremely nasty conflict and it was not the only time the Germans would extend respect for British warriors when they could just as easily have acted ruthlessly.

For example, during the Battle for Arnhem towards the end of the war in late 1944, despite the fact that British bombers had reduced most German cities to rubble, the Waffen SS troops showed respect to captured British Paratroopers after some of the most fierce close (often hand to hand) combat of the entire war in Europe.

‘SS soldiers from both Hohenstaufen (9th SS Panzer Division) and Frundsberg (10th SS Panzer Division) were involved in the battle and their treatment of the prisoners afterwards was exemplary. Lieutenant Colonel John Frost, one of the British officers who took part and was captured, describes the SS thus; “We had all heard of them shooting their prisoners or herding them into burning buildings, but these men were kind, chivalrous and even comforting.”
Gordon Williamson The SS: Hitler’s instrument of terror Pg 177


‘Both sides had fought hard and well, often in ferocious hand to hand fighting, yet the SS had developed a great respect for the tough British Paras. When they were eventually forced to surrender, the British were impressed at the humane manner in which they were treated, especially the wounded, their appreciation being expressed after the war in personal messages to the German commanders.’
Gordon Williamson The SS: Hitler’s instrument of terror Pg 242


It is certainly no secret that Hitler greatly admired the British Empire and its amazing achievements and had no wish to humiliate them. He still held out hope to reach a deal with them well into the War. Hitler’s favourite movie was the 1935 ‘The Lives of a Bengal Lancer’. He would reportedly say “We must learn from the English.” He was extremely impressed that a few tens of thousands of British troops and administrators could control a huge nation of hundreds of millions like India. He believed this proved the Racial superiority of White people.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

"Poland was NOT a poor, weak, tragic and innocent victim of German aggression but was behaving arrogantly and aggressively with their Army being the third largest in Europe at that time"

- one must remember that it was the Jewish Bolsheviks marauding across eastern Europe, Poland included that were wholesale murdering ethnic Germans in Poland, not the "Polish Army".