By Carolyn Yeager

It has long been a facile judgment of semi-informed people that Hitler lost the war in the east because he was a megalomaniac who would not heed the advice of his experienced Prussian generals. “Hitler should have listened to his generals!” However, as the moral obligation to find fault with Hitler fades into the past, eroded by easily available historical truth in the Age of Internet, one begins to hear more and more that wisdom was on the side of Hitler in that disagreement, that Hitler’s strategic plan in Operation Barbarossa was quite sensible, and that it was the generals — specifically Halder and Bock — who fouled up a good plan. 

Even with flawless execution of Hitler’s plan, a victory over the Soviet Union would have been remarkable, due to the enormous imbalance of quantities favoring the Soviet side, but it was some generals who made this difficult situation even worse. 

Why invade the Soviet Union at all? Contrary to what the old propaganda says, Hitler’s fundamental motive in 1941 was not to gain  the Lebensraum about which he had written in 1925. To the extent that people are willing to believe that Hitler undertook an unnecessary invasion of the USSR with the war against Britain still ongoing, they have assumed that Hitler was very foolish. Hitler was not so foolish, and the invasion of the USSR in 1941 was not optional. It was necessary. It had to be done because the Red Army was deployed for attack in 1941, and the best hope for saving the situation was a war of prevention.  (See Hitler’s Policy toward the USSR Justified.) ]]> https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2019/01/23/the-generals-should-have-listened-to-hitler/feed/ 0 https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2018/04/10/maurice-bardeche-on-germanic-fascism-part-one/ https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2018/04/10/maurice-bardeche-on-germanic-fascism-part-one/#respond Tue, 10 Apr 2018 01:02:00 +0000 https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2018/04/10/maurice-bardeche-on-germanic-fascism-part-one/ The long second chapter of Maurice Bardèche’s Qu’est-ce que le fascisme (What is fascism?) is presented here in several installments.

In this first section of Chapter II, Bardèche explains that German National-Socialism was different from Italian Fascism in: 

• its origin, from the defeat of Germany in the First World War, 
•  the limited time-frame – only four or five years – in which National-Socialism could unfold naturally before being forced by circumstances to prepare for another war, 
• its foundation in a Germanic and Mediaeval, rather than a Roman vision, 
• its application of biology to politics (imported from the United States).

I said that I would have some criticisms of what Bardèche says about National-Socialism, and so I do. The following points are just about this first section.

Bardèche objects that “true fascism” does not take account of biology. Insofar as the German National-Socialists never called themselves fascist, and insofar as the word Fascism properly belongs to an Italian movement that was more sociological than Darwinian in outlook, this seems to be true. But, that is not to concede that National-Socialism was not an improvement over Fascism, with its more radical approach to improving the nation, not just through discipline but through husbandry of the people’s germ-plasm. 

This aspect of National-Socialism is related to Germany’s defeat in the First World War, insofar as the Germans wanted to avoid future defeats and were willing to learn from the powers that beat them. They were heavily influenced by Madison Grant’s observation about the importance of Nordic men for having an effective military, and adopted eugenic policies that originated in the United States. 

This imitation of the victors extended even to seemingly trivial matters such as Hitler’s advocacy of boxing, because habituation to fistfighting had given the Americans a great advantage in hand-to-hand combat over the more civilized Germans  during the First World War.

DNVP placard: “Rescue the east!”

Bardèche says that National-Socialism was animated by the Mediaeval and Germanic ideal, and by the agenda of reacquiring lost territories, but these were not unique to the NSDAP. The Deutschnationale Volkspartei (conservative nationalists who were also Pan-Germanist like the NSDAP) also featured these themes in their electoral placards. 

The suggestion that Germany could have avoided intense international criticism by taking a slow approach to removing Jews from the elite professions and the levers of power in Germany is probably wrong. Macchiavelli said that if the prince must inflict unpleasantness, he should do it all at once. Bardèche’s suggestion seems to be based on the premise that there was something reasonable about the Jewish vendetta against Germany. Was it reasonable? Recall that the American Jewish Congress issued its famous declaration of war against Germany on 27 March 1933, when Hitler had been chancellor only a few weeks and hardly anything had happened in terms of restrictions on Jews. Later, apparently deeming deportation and expropriation of wealth an inadequate grievance, Jews added fake grievances, claiming that the entire Jewish population of Axis Europe as of 1942 was being systematically killed and turned into soap. Thus, the propaganda against Germany far outstripped the reality of what was happening, so that greater moderation toward the Jews on the part of the Germans would likely have made no difference. History shows that nothing is gained by being nice to the Jews — except, eventually, a knife in the back.

Furthermore, Hitler was in a race against time, insofar as he had to make use of the emergency powers that had been granted to him to fix as many things in Germany as much as possible while it still was possible, while the public mood still supported drastic measures. A gradual reduction of Jewish influence would have brought Jewish influence at some point to a seemingly tolerable level, which would have made de-judaization difficult to complete. Jews of course would be using whatever influence they retained to try to undermine the process. That is another reason why it was advisable to disempower the Jews all at once. To protract the aryanization and de-judaization of the economy and society over a long period of time as Bardèche proposes would have doomed the project to stalling before completion. 

Not everyone would entirely accept Bardèche’s criticisms of Mein Kampf. Bardèche seems to find relatively little to learn from it, but what was obvious to a French fascist who had lived through the war is not necessarily obvious to us today, given that the French had their own fascist and anti-Jewish traditions. Hitler’s criticisms of Jews, for example, would not have been the novelty to Bardèche that they are to an American of today.

Also, Bardèche speaks of Mein Kampf as if it were the definitive work presenting National-Socialism, but this is disputable. Mein Kampf, as the very title indicates, was a book about Adolf Hitler the man, explaining who he was and what he wanted to do, and why. Not everything that Hitler proposed to do was a ramification of National-Socialism. 

While Bardèche appropriately notes that it is unfair to judge National-Socialism by the short time that it was allowed to exist under relatively normal circumstances, one can also say that National-Socialism is not precisely the same as Mein Kampf. (Examples: Hitler referred to the Aryan and the Jew as races, but when the official racial doctrine of the NSDAP was promulgated, it reflected contemporary racial science and differed from what Hitler had written. Also, the foreign policy that Hitler outlined in Mein Kampf has only a slight resemblance to how events unfolded.) 

Bardèche speaks as if Hitler had intended all along that Germany should wage war against the entire world. This is clearly not what Hitler wanted. The war in 1939 was provoked by cross-border Polish incursions (more information), and the invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941 was preemptive (more information). Hitler especially would have liked to have had an alliance with the UK, and in that partnership Germany, dependent on the mercy of the British fleet for access to foreign colonies and trade, would clearly have been the junior partner, not at all undertaking to stop the Sun in its course as Bardèche says.

Bardèche says that the greatest reproach against Hitler is that he gave the provocation for war. He wrote that in 1960, two decades before Jewish propaganda made the entire history of the era rotate around their so-called Holocaust, and the fictitious 6 million were made to count more than 60 million that really died in the war. 

What Bardèche says is of interest, but his historical perspective was different from ours. To some extent Bardèche’s attitude is conditioned by being French, rather than German or American, and to some extent he was still in the lingering fog of wartime propaganda. There is always a tendency, even today, to try to explain the destruction of National-Socialist Germany through some fault or error of Hitler, even though the war, and its expansion, was forced on him — and Bardèche seems not immune to this tendency. We should take the limitations of his perspective, and of course also our own, into account.

German national-socialism, like Italian Fascism, is connected to an historical vision; it was baptized by fairies no less illustrious, whose sponsorship was also not more fortunate. Completely different from Italian Fascism, it was born from the German defeat, from the humiliation of the German people, and also from Germanic pride. Conquered after an heroic war in which they had exhibited the somber bravery of the soldiers of Arminius, the Germans demanded at once from their Germanic past a justification for their threatened national unity, and a reason to believe in themselves. While some men in morning coats, bent over maps, dismembered Germany, a handful of vanquished soldiers remembered the war-song of the infantry formations surrounding the barbarian chariots with their arms joined — at their mighty march against the line of Varus, at the empire of the war-chiefs that succeeded the Roman Empire, at the time of Charlemagne, which is more handsome and more poetic than the age of Augustus, [and] at the great river called the Middle Ages, which is the father of our fields and of our cities. And thus they feel solid ground beneath their steps. Their truth and their faith were there. This was the boundary of their despair and the certainty of what they were. A new Jerusalem arose for them upon the ruins of their country: it was an entirely different matter from the work of national management (gestion nationale) that Mussolini undertook in 1921.

Another fundamental difference is that national-socialism did not have time to be realized. Hitler attained power in 1934 and, from 1938, he left to his colleagues the realization of reforms and devoted himself entirely to preparation for a war that he reckoned inevitable. From the beginning of the war, the implacable necessities of the struggle against a worldwide coalition command all national-socialist policy; the character of the government is changed entirely. Can one render a definitive judgment on a government that had only four years of peace for molding a nation? If we pretended to judge the Soviet government based on the Russia of 1924, what Communist would accept this criterion and what adversary of Communism would even dare to propose it? It is however what we do by judging without appeal national-socialism, based on the one hand on what its short years of full exercise permitted it to do, based on the other hand on what the necessities of the war forced it to impose.

Since then, the trial that one habitually stages for national-socialism runs the risk of being completely distorted. A doctrine is indicted and judged based on the results that it produced during a period of abnormal functioning. While pursuing the discussion on this terrain one encounters only passions and cries of hatred; one crashes against the impregnable fortifications of propaganda that time alone can cover with froth and disarm in oblivion: the only rewards of this task are glorious wounds, but it does not appease, and, at least for the moment, it does not reconstruct.

Let us leave however this presently unfruitful discussion. Ultimately, when one investigates what a coherent definition of fascism can retain of national-socialism, what is striking is the foreignness of national-socialism; I mean by that what it has that is fundamentally Germanic and inadaptable to other peoples. Had it not committed errors with which we have no reason to declare solidarity, it is so far from us by its profound inspiration that it is almost unusable. It remains the strong image of fascism: like a young god triumphant and terrible, but coming from foreign plains where unknown gods dwell.

One will more easily admit at least some of this affirmation if one bewares the following finding: the majority of the chapters of Mein Kampf are bereft of interest for a reader of 1960, however voracious for neo-fascism you might like to imagine him. That is because they deal with the situation of Germany in the Europe of 1935, which is as far from the Europe in which we live as the Europe of 1905 that conditioned the positions taken by Maurras.

These chapters of Mein Kampf are doubly unusable for us: first because they refer to an equilibrium of forces that no longer exists, then because they place national-socialism in the service of a nationalism of reclamation that has disappeared from our preoccupations as thoroughly as the Europe of Poincaré. But let us tear out the pages of Mein Kampf that concern the Treaty of Versailles and the borders of Germany. But let us also regard as suspect all those who have as their chief purpose to enable the German people to support this reclamation. If national-socialism is only a doctrine of avengers, it has nothing to attract us.

This comment is made only in passing. The essential is elsewhere. Look: the Germanic or mediaeval vision of the world is not more fundamental for a modern fascism than the Roman vision of Mussolini. Let us understand this point: while they speak of labor, of courage, of heroism, or while we recall our shared origin or our shared vocation, nothing is more essential than these images of our past, nothing nourishes better our sensitivity and our thought. But these nourishing evocations of imagination ought not to be transformed into myths and even less to be confused with medicines. The Germany of the Holy Roman Empire, the Roman Empire, the France of Louis XIV, are not stone horsemen that a magic wand can reanimate. Their greatness contains secrets of life and youth that we must rediscover. But their resurrection, if it were possible, would not suffice to save the West. We have to save ourselves each day and we shall have to save ourselves each day: in that regard, peoples are like Christians. The Hitlerian dream of history however contains in itself the same element of fantasy as the Maurrasian dream or the Mussolinian dream: it was based on no universal affirmation; it did not propose any mission for all men; it affirmed only a mission of the German people.

But it offered something infinitely more formidable than the dream of Mussolini: this is that it conformed to some extent with reality. The downfall of Mussolini was a normal downfall, in some way, it was a downfall of a captain of industry, a downfall of an inventor, the heroic downfall, the classic downfall of Icarus, that of men who are no longer in touch with reality. The downfall of Hitler was horrifying because he had taken the entire German nation into his dream, because the German people was taken entirely as ice in a river is taken by the winter and because the catastrophe came crashing down not only on the dreamer but on everyone.

For the fact unrelated to fascism was to play this Germanic card alone and above all to play the Germanic man alone, to the exclusion of other men. Fascism never said anything about the Germanic man alone. Fascism quite likes the Germanic man; it has nothing against him: but it never recognizes anything exclusive about him; it recognizes some qualities in him, which is not the same thing, but no exclusivity, and there is not reason – I mean that there is no universal reason, no reason in wisdom and justice – to confer upon him in fact an exclusivity. For Europe is not only the Holy Roman Empire; it is also the Europe of Caesar; it is also the France of Louis XIV. And Germany succumbed to this enormous error and to no other: to have wanted to actualize the historical delusion, to have believed above all that they could actualize it, to have believed that the Germanic man alone, like Joshua, could halt the Sun.

For everything came from there. “The Germans will lose the war,” someone said to me in 1942, “because it is a small nation.” I believe that it is unnecessary to seek elsewhere for the cause of the German defeat. A small nation, a pink dot, a small pink pocket in a universe entirely opposed to it with forges, with fleets, with planes, with inexhaustible batallions. The Germanic man could be worthy of the comrades of Arminius: he was that. But he was unable to achieve victory alone; he was unable to halt the Sun; the Germanic man alone could not impose on the world the Germanic peace, Germanic law, the great silent peace of the Holy Roman Empire.

And the errors came from there too. In Berlin in 1934 42% of the physicians were Jews, 48% of the attorneys, 56% of the notaries, 72% of the stockbrokers, 70% of the real estate in Berlin belonged to the Jews. Would it really have seemed exorbitant for the German government to try to reintroduce some Germans into these privileged professions? Would a policy of replacement, conducted with caution, have exposed Germany to this international conspiracy of hate whose power Hitler himself had explained? But it was all passionate, and, what is even worse, scientific. In the place of the habitual norms of politics – what is useful, what is possible, what is necessary – one sees the appearance of an unexpected premise, biology, which, to true fascism, is as foreign as German nationalism.

The Germanic man was not content to be the magnificent human animal that he was, with his qualities that are admirable; he was not content to perfect, to cultivate, to improve with reason, as in a breeding project, this courageous and serious human animal who had grown on his soil; he felt the need to invent the contrary of the Germanic man, to personify the anti-German as he had personified the German and to extirpate him scientifically by means of a spectral analysis as infallible as those of the chemical industry. Metaphysics are reincarnated also with the cruel automatism of science. A systematic vision of the world began to thresh the area like a machine for separating grain from chaff. And it was necessary to separate the grain from the chaff, but not with a blind machine that was crushing thousands of harmless helots, not with a system that was absolute, rigid, mechanical like all systems. But the scientific thresher, nickel-plated, insensate, automatic, poured men into sacks, blind sower of distress and hatred. And the Germanic man emerged from this machinery implacable, alone now, quite alone, a pure statue, an incorruptible god, bright like brand new brass, but menacing like an unfamiliar god, like a denizen of another land. For the thresher was not too bothersome for us people of Auvergne. And while totally admiring the great blond barbarians, we thought deep inside ourselves that the same energy, loyalty, sacrifice, and patience could be found also in a laborer of Romania, in a lowly black-haired peasant of Old Castille, and even in an Auvergnat.

Hjalmar Schacht wrote after the war about his high regard for the economic policy of the first four years of Hitler’s rule, in which he had played a key role, when deficit spending was used to create jobs and increase production, without generating inflation.

Schacht was critical of the period from 1937 forward. The problem with Hitler’s deficit spending in that later period, according to Schacht, was that Germany had already reached full employment. The theory is that for as long as deficit spending corresponds to increases in employment and production, it is not inflationary. But once full employment has been achieved, further deficit spending cannot produce further employment, and therefore will be inflationary.

But accelerated rearmament, however it might be funded, had become indispensable because of the threat posed by growing Soviet military might and the Franco-Soviet Mutual Assistance Pact.

In the program posted here there are about 20 minutes of lecture about Hjalmar Schacht’s relationship to Hitler’s agenda, followed by 20 minutes of discussion. 

The discussion seemed mostly to go in circles, orbiting around two questions: (1) whether an increase in the supply of money necessarily causes inflation and (2) whether inflation consists in an increase of the money-supply or (as Hitler says) in a rise in prices that might result therefrom.

By all accounts Hitler’s accelerated rearmament of Germany through deficit spending beginning in 1937 did not seem to produce inflation (as Schacht had predicted) while Hitler’s government still existed.

This avoidance of inflation was accomplished through what one foreign commentator called Hitler’s “bag of economic tricks” (Free Lance-Star, 29 April 1938). Among these “tricks” was deterrence of speculation, since hoarding of goods in anticipation of selling them at a higher price (on the black market) tends to force the prediction of a price-rise to come true. Another trick was mandatory loans to the government, which allowed the government formally to issue payments without actually having the money in circulation. Public loyalty and confidence in Hitler must have been a crucial factor in enabling all of this to work. In the late 1930s there was a demand that Germany’s overseas colonies be returned (which was, for example, included in Hitler’s peace-offer of  February 1940). This would have helped enormously with offsetting the deficit being generated at that time. By 1942 Hitler was intending to cover the deficit with minerals from conquered Soviet territory, but if Germany did not win the war, an unsound currency would be the least of her worries.

It seems legitimate to say that if the quantity of money only temporarily outstrips production without causing a change in the perception of that money’s value before the deficit is covered, then there was no inflation (which is to say, no devaluation). That is a justification of how Hitler used the word.

Schacht says that Hitler’s deficit spending caused inflation of the Reichsmark after the war, but really, how could he tell? The effects of Anglo-American bombing and postwar looting on Germany’s productive capacity surely overshadowed entirely any imbalance between currency and production caused by a few years of deficit spending. 

Hitler’s position was this:

“The thing has got to be done. No State has ever gone bankrupt for economic reasons — but only as the result of losing a war!”[Table Talk, 22 April 1942]

It turns out that Schacht’s opposition to this accelerated rearmament was not entirely a matter of fiscal scruples. Schacht, with his connections in England and the United States, was bent on hindering Germany’s rearmament because he was disloyal. He admitted this in his book, The Magic of Money (1967).

An American diplomat, Donald R. Heath, wrote to Schacht in 1959 to inform him of how he had vouched for his collaboration with the U.S. government during the war:

I told [American prosecutor Robert] Jackson not only should you never have been brought before that tribunal but that you had consistently been working for the downfall of the Nazi regime. I told him that I had been in touch with you consistently during the first part of the war and Under Secretary of State Wells through me, and that you had passed on to me information adverse to the Nazi cause…. [D. Heath quoted by H. Schacht, The Magic of Money (1967), p. 107]

In any case, for purposes of assessing National-Socialism as such, it ought not to be forgotten that Schacht, an economist who placed supreme value on maintaining the stability of a currency, found the economic reality of National-Socialism quite praiseworthy prior to the period of accelerated rearmament that commenced in 1937.

  ]]> https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2017/07/22/schacht-and-hitler/feed/ 0 https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2017/06/17/anti-trump-violence-and-the-reichstag-fire/ https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2017/06/17/anti-trump-violence-and-the-reichstag-fire/#respond Sat, 17 Jun 2017 05:09:00 +0000 https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2017/06/17/anti-trump-violence-and-the-reichstag-fire/

Tweet

I stated in this program that Ernst Thaelmann was shot at the end of the war. That is the prevalent story about Thaelmann’s death and I repeated it because I was unaware that there was a contradictory claim from the German authorities: that he died in an Allied bombing-raid. 

The German claim is more likely, because Thaelmann had been kept alive as a prisoner since 1933 and the date of Thaelmann’s death, August 1944, is months before the capture of Buchenwald. Paul Rassinier, who was in Buchenwald briefly, records that Thaelmann was a Kapo. In other words, he (ostensibly) helped the SS to maintain order in the camp. There is no evident reason why the Germans should have terminated Thaelmann in August 1944, but certainly there was a motive for the Allies to lie about having inadvertently killed him with their own bombs, as they also lied about such deaths at Nordhausen. Therefore I think that the death of Ernst Thaelmann by Allied bombing is the more likely story.

I am going to talk about the shooting of Congressman Stephen Scalise, and the Reichstag Fire.

This week we saw an attempted mass-shooting of Republican politicians by a man from Belleville, Illinois named James T. Hodgkinson. Instead of killing many Republicans he only critically wounded House Majority Whip Stephen Scalise and two policemen.

This shooting seems to be part of a pattern of violence that began long before Donald Trump was elected. Last summer we saw leftists attacking Trump-supporters, and we still see street-action between so-called antifa and Trump-supporters, as well as the Alt Right.

This is a wave of unrest that has been drummed up by mass-media.

There was a similar wave of unrest in Germany before and for some time after Adolf Hitler became chancellor of Germany. In fact there had been violence in varying degrees since the end of the First World War. There had been a Communist takeover of Bavaria that lasted about one month.

On the other side, there had been assassinations by a secret rightwing group called the Organisation Consul in the early 1920s.

There was violence when Hindenburg was elected president in 1925.

The leftists and Jews really threw a fit after Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Chancellor in January 1933.

Then as now, the Jewish-controlled press played a big part in provoking violence.

During a torchlight procession on 31 January 1933, the day after Hitler was named Chancellor, an SA-man, a Brownshirt Hans Maikowski, and a policeman Josef Zauritz, were shot dead by Communists. Joseph Goebbels, in a speech of 10 February, warming up the crowd for Hitler, talked about how the Communist newspaper Die Rote Fahne, which he said was run by Jews, had the Chutzpah to claim that the National-Socialists themselves had shot Maikowski and Zauritz. This lie incidentally is also perpetuated today, for example by German Wikipedia.

Another act of leftist violence that been obscured with leftist propaganda is the Reichstag Fire.

Reichstag Fire happens on 27 February 1933. Marinus van der Lubbe, a Marxist organizer, is caught and arrested inside the building. Communists and Jews pretended that Marinus vander Lubbe could not possibly have been responsible for the Reichstag Fire. They made various excuses such as that he was retarded and couldn’t see well.

Mainstream historians long ago accepted that MvdL was involved in the Reichstag Fire, but the myth that the National-Socialists themselves had set the fire and then blamed it on a helpless retard was revived in the 1990s because of Jewish influence on the so-called patriot media, especially through William Cooper, who had Jewish backers and was imitated by Alex Jones – also notorious for his Jewish support – and these guys were imitated later by Abbie Martin and other poorly informed and irresponsible people who just repeat things that they heard.

If you look at the reports on the trial, it is clear that nobody was framed for the Reichstag Fire. Here is some of the transcript that was reported in the Glasgow Herald, 26 September 1933:

Van der Lubbe … was asked if in a Communist tavern in Berlin Neukölln he had said he was a Communist, but did not agree with the Communist leaders, who were too “tame.”

“Yes,” said van der Lubbe.

“Did you say that the future of the workers all depended on Germany?”

“Maybe.”

“Did you say that extremely radical measures must be taken?”

“Yes.”

“While watching a National-Socialist procession on one occasion did you say in an excited voice, ‘Something must be done’?”

“Maybe.”

[…]

“Did you say that it was necessary for the workers to make counter-actions, and that that was the way the Russian Revolution had been carried out, and that it was not too late?”

“Maybe.”

“Did you say that it was necessary to [set] fire [to] public buildings so that the workers might recognize that the time had come?”

“Yes.”

“Did you say that it would be necessary to provoke the Storm Troops and to inflame the people?”

“Possibly.”

Marinus vander Lubbe admits that he set the fire but he denied that Communist leaders were involved., and he did not implicate any co-conspirators.

Ernst Torgler, the former leader of the Communists in the Reichstag, was also on trial. Torgler had turned himself in to stand trial, and pleaded his innocence. There were also some Bulgarians who were suspected of involvement in the arson. (Glasgow Herald, 26 September 1933)

This is really where the proof that M vd L got a fair trial can be found, because these others, although suspected of involvement in the fire, were found innocent. They were not found guilty.

The National-Socialist government did not believe that MvdL acted alone. There had been some witnesses who said that they saw several arsonists, and it would have been convenient to demonstrate that the Communist Party was behind it, but they were not able to do that. But apparently there was some evidence that other Communists were involved, although not necessarily the Communist Party leadership.

This is from the United Press reported on 28 February 1933, the day after the fire:

Police revealed that a raid on Liebknecht House, Communist headquarters, last Friday uncovered “instructions” for the beginning of a widespread reign of Communist terrorism throughout Germany, with the hope of civil war to follow.

A communique said the plot disclosed in the Liebknecht House raid included plans for the destruction of all government buildings, museums, castles, and modern power plants throughout Germany.

A significant paragraph of the instructions was quoted as follows:

“For attacks on the police, women and children, preferably belonging to the families of police officers, should be used to march in front of the attacking rioters.”

You will notice that some of our “antifa” in the United States today also like to get behind women to do their attacks.

By the time the trial happened in September 1933 – eight months after the fire — the government had proceeded on the premise that this Communist conspiracy existed and that it involved the Communist Party per se.

The day after the Reichstag Fire, President Hindenburg issued an emergency decree giving police free rein to search houses, confiscate property, and detain people without trial. Then there was a ban on the Communist and Social-Democratic press. (UP, 28 February 1933)

An election was called in March 1933 that increased the National-Socialists’ seats in the Reichstag to pass an amendment to the Weimar constitution that would allow Hitler to legislate without the Reichstag. This was the so-called Enabling Act.

Hitler used the powers given under Hindenburg’s emergency decree to prevent the Communists from taking their seats in the Reichstag. This way Hitler was able to get the two-thirds majority that was needed.

After that the National-Socialists made sweeping changes in Germany during the following year. Communists, or former Communists, were treated according to how they adjusted to the New Order.

Ernst Torgler who had stood trial and pleaded his innocence, although acquitted of the Reichstag Fire, was kept in protective custody (Schutzhaft) until 1935. The Communist party meanwhile expelled Torgler since he had voluntarily submitted to trial. Torgler later worked for Joseph Goebbels in the Propaganda Ministry, making anti-Soviet propaganda, which made him subject to some criticism after the war. But he did survive the war and after the war became a Social-Democrat.

A different Communist leader however, Ernst Thaelmann, the head of the Communist Party apparently was not so easy to reform. He was kept in a concentration camp until the end of the war, at which time he was killed to prevent his returning to society and organizing Communism again after the war.

The fact that different Communists had different fates under National-Socialism reflects the complexity of the National-Socialist view of the Communist problem.

Communism was a big concern for the Germans in the first half of the 20th century, and the Germans were concerned about how to avoid a Bolshevik takeover in Germany. There are two theories about what causes Communist or Socialist unrest and the decay of civilization that seem to have shaped the National-Socialist approach to the problem.

There is the view presented in Brooks Adams’ The Law of Civilization and Decay, from 1895. Brooks Adams’ theory is that ever increasing concentration of wealth impoverishes the nation’s working class and the peasantry, who are gradually replaced with foreigners. The resulting society of a small plutocratic elite presiding over an impoverished and racially mixed proletariat lacks internal cohesion and this kind of society is weak and easily fragmented. Adams uses the Roman Empire as the paradigmatic society where this happens, and in 1895 he saw the British Empire going the same way.

Adams’ theory sees plutocracy destroying the nation, and this implies that socialism is a justified reaction.

The other theory is presented by Lothrop Stoddard in his 1922 book, The Revolt Against Civilization: the Menace of the Underman. This book explained the Bolshevik Revolution as a result of the proliferation of genetically inferior people. In Stoddard’s theory, there are in every population a certain number of misfits and throwbacks who do not function well in a complex society, and when these misfits and throwbacks reach some critical mass, civilization is in jeopardy and a Bolshevik-style revolution becomes possible. (It is incidentally from Stoddard’s use of the word Under-Man that the National-Socialist term Untermensch is derived. Note that it does not refer to any particular nationality but to the degenerate element that exists to varying degrees in every nation.)

Stoddard’s theory sees the poor as a threat to civilization (since poverty for him is a manifestation of genetic unfitness) and therefore Stoddard sees socialism as totally unjustified and destructive.

Now, the National-Socialists embraced both views: both, Brooks Adams’ and Lothrop Stoddard’s views. They accepted that there were people whose hereditary nature made them problematic for civilization, and they also saw extreme concentration of wealth as detrimental to the nation. Men who had done good service during the war were begging on the streets, so that it was really not credible to say that poverty was entirely a result of hereditary inferiority. Some people were victims of circumstance. The need to combat the concentration of wealth was the subject of Gottfried Feder’s 1918 Manifesto for the Abolition of Interest-Slavery. At the same time, the racial idea had been well established in Germany before the war. It was Alfred Ploetz who discussed the proliferation of the unfit and coined the term racial hygiene in 1895. Plutocracy and the Under-Man thus were the twin evils that National-Socialism sought to suppress in order to preserve the nation.

So, there was a threat from above, and a threat from below.

In terms of the Menace of the Underman, another factor to consider, which Stoddard did not discuss very much but did not escape the National-Socialists’ attention, was the role of mass-media and a perverse intelligentsia in sowing subversion. This is a manifestation of an element that is hostile or contemptuous of the nation, but manages to be successful within it.

Jews, for example, are one of the wealthier ethnic groups in any Western state, which only makes them all the more dangerous, since they generally use their wealth and influence for hostile purposes.

Jews do not however constitute the entirety of the high-functioning subversive element. In Germany, the brothers Heinrich and Thomas Mann, who were not Jews but had some non-White ancestry, were enemies of the National-Socialist state. Thomas Mann even made broadcasts against Germany from the United States during the war.

If we look at James T. Hodgkinson, who nearly assassinated Congressman Stephen Scalise a few days ago, we might see some indications of untermenschlichkeit, – some indications that he might be an Underman – but not to the point that he was an outcast and a failure in our society, as Lothrop Stoddard would say that the Underman generally is. Hodgkinson apparently had his own business and he had a nice home in Belleville, Illinois.

I am not sure that I have enough information to assess Hodgkinson. His proposal that steeply graduated income taxes should be reintroduced to deal with public spending frankly does not seem unreasonable to me as a National-Socialist.

We do however see prior examples of uncivilized behavior by Hodgkinson. He had a criminal record that included some examples of petty violence.

And if you look at the man, you see that he is not exactly a Nordic god. He had a wide, flat nose, that makes me wonder what is in his family tree.

At the same time though, his anti-Republican partisanism seems to reflect the effects of mass-propaganda. On Facebook, Hodgkinson had joined a group called Terminate the Republican Party, run by Howard Scott Pearlman, of Cherry Hill, N.J.

So, we can say that this was a man who had some violent tendencies, perhaps an Underman but a relatively high-functioning one, whose tendencies were pointed in a particular direction by the messages that he heard.

I wrote after Trump was elected last November that the Constitutional powers of the President of the United States were not adequate to deal with the problems – specifically demographic decline and the entrenched anti-White elite – that threaten to destroy our country.

Anybody who would fix what is wrong with the United States today would need the kinds of dictatorial powers that Adolf Hitler was able to acquire after the Reichstag Fire in 1933.

In the best possible scenario, he would one way or another acquire those powers and use them the way Adolf Hitler used them. It is not unprecedented for a US president to exercise extraordinary powers, when there is an emergency that seems to justify it, and if we see more incidents similar to this incident of the shooting of Congressman Scalise, perhaps some sort of state of emergency may be declared and the right result could come from it. ]]> https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2017/06/17/anti-trump-violence-and-the-reichstag-fire/feed/ 0 https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2017/04/17/hitlers-body-language/ https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2017/04/17/hitlers-body-language/#respond Mon, 17 Apr 2017 15:15:00 +0000 https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2017/04/17/hitlers-body-language/

There is no evidence that Eva Braun had any Jewish ancestry, regardless of what BBC-4 may say.

BBC Television’s Channel 4 has a new series called Dead Famous DNA, hosted by  Mark Evans, a veterinary scientist who previously hosted a show called Bigfoot Files. The new show depicts in trivial detail Evans’ efforts to acquire samples of DNA from famous dead people, and then to have them tested, either just to find out whatever can be learned or to resolve some specific question, like whether a diesel-mechanic in Michigan is the son of Elvis Presley. The show’s content is padded with scenes of the histrionic Dr. Evans belaboring some point or acting as if he were haunted by something. The show’s intro, read by Evans himself, hardly conveys scientific objectivity:

“Could the DNA reveal what made Marilyn Monroe so attractive, Albert Einstein so intelligent, or Adolf Hitler so evil?”

British news-outlets report that the show recently featured a discussion of the DNA of hair found in a brush that is believed to have been used by Eva Braun, the beloved of Adolf Hitler who became Mrs. Hitler shortly before both of them ended their lives in 1945.

The brush had been looted, reputedly, from Hitler’s Bavarian retreat, the Berghof, by an American soldier, Captain Paul Baer, who sold it to somebody named John Reznikoff, who then sold eight strands of the hair for $2000 to Mark Evans. (In the second episode of Dead Famous DNA this same Reznikoff was said to have three samples of Napoleon’s hair that did not resemble each other: the implication was that much of what Reznikoff sells is not authentic.)<sup>1

Evans’ statement at the end of the show about Eva Braun’s DNA and its supposed Jewishness is emphatic and unambiguous. “But ethnically, if that’s her hair, on her hairbrush, Eva was Jewish.” He says that this finding is “the final nail in the coffin of Nazi ideology.”</sup>

In the first place, Evans is using a definition of Jewishness that is far stricter than that promulgated in the Nuremberg Laws of 1935, whereby a person without at least one Jewish grandparent was not considered a Jew or even a Mischling. Consequently, even if Evans’ scientific finding were correct, it would have no bearing on National-Socialist ideology or practice. The notion of “Nazi ideology” that Evans attacks is a straw-man. But there is a much more serious indictment of Evans’ work than its vulgar reliance on bad history.

There is also a scientific problem with what Evans says that makes him appear deliberately dishonest. 

Evans’ conclusion about Eva Braun, as he states it in the show, is short on details. He does not say which sequence found in Eva Braun’s mitochondrial DNA is “only shared by Ashkenazi Jews.” That is a key detail, on which the whole argument hinges.

News-reports about the show revealed that detail.  It is reported that the piece of DNA attributed to Eva Braun that supposedly belongs only to Ashkenazi Jews is a sequence called N1b1. (The Independent, 5 April 2014)

The premise that N1b1 belongs only to Ashkenazi Jews is not even close to being accurate. The following relevant information is drawn from a fairly recent (2012) article in The American Journal of Human Genetics:

N1b … dates to 19-25 ka ago and is primarily found in Southwest Asia…. N1b itself has three basal branches: N1b1, N1b2, and a third, which we labeled N1b3, represented by a single sample from Anatolia. N1b2 is found mainly in Ashkenazi Jews, and its estimated age of ~2ka indicates a recent founder effect among Ashkenazi ancestors. The main subclade, N1b1, dates to ~13-14 ka ago and includes several branches from the Near East, Europe (rarely, mainly in central and eastern Mediterranean Europe), Arabia, and northern Africa (Figure 2C).²

Frequency Map for Haplogroup  N1b, from the American Journal of Human Genetics, 10 February 2012

N1b1 could hardly be Jewish, since it is at least 13 thousand years old, and neither Ashkenazi Jews nor Jews in general have  existed anywhere near that long. The geographic distribution of N1b (which is mostly N1b1) also shows that it is not specifically Jewish but regional, with its strongest European showing in Albania (not known for having a large Jewish population). Eva Braun could easily have inherited her mitochondrial DNA from the population that brought agriculture into Europe from southwest Asia during the Neolithic period.

It is the N1b2 DNA-sequence, which originated only about 2000 years ago, that is strongly associated with Ashkenazi Jews and is believed to have developed within a Jewish population in Europe. It appears that Dr. Mark Evans made a mistake.

That is, if we assume that this was not deliberate misrepresentation. The tendency to misconstrue DNA-evidence in specious justification of absurd conclusions is something that we have been seeing recently, in the cases of Adolf Hitler’s Y-chromosome and Craig Cobb’s ostensible DNA-test-result on the Trisha show. The reverence for any finding that is called scientific, and the general public’s ignorance about DNA, are being exploited in a very reckless way for anti-White propaganda. This kind of innuendo, of Jewish or Negro ancestry, was a favorite form of propaganda against prominent National-Socialists long before DNA-testing became possible. The way DNA-results have been abused recently amounts to dressing up rumor-mongering in a white lab-coat. Perhaps Mark Evans deliberately omitted from his show the detail about which DNA-sequence was supposed to belong only to Ashkenazi Jews, because he knew that giving that detail would make his conclusion easy to debunk.

On the other hand it seems that some people connected with the production are simply incompetent. A spokesman for Channel 4 (repeating what Evans had said in the show) is quoted thus: 

“In the nineteenth century, many Ashkenazi Jews in Germany converted to Catholicism, so Eva Braun is highly unlikely to have known her ancestry and – despite research he instigated into Braun’s race – neither would Hitler.”[The Independent, 5 April 2014]

That is a very ignorant statement.The Catholic and Lutheran churches in Germany keep birth-records extending back hundreds of years. If Eva Braun had a Jewess as a matrilineal ancestor anytime after the end of the Thirty Years’ War in 1648 (and possibly earlier) it would be a matter of record. 
______________________________
1. The looter of the brush from the Berghof, Captain Paul Baer, is described as a “German-Born Jew” (The Telegraph, 5 April 2014). Reznikoff, who bought the brush from Baer and sold it to Mark Evans, claims in the show that his family are “Holocaust-survivors.”

2. V. Fernandez, F. Alshamali, M. Alves, M. Costa, J. Pereira, N. Silva, L. Cherni, N, Harich, V. Cerny, P. Soares, M. Richards, L. Pereira, “The Arabian Cradle: Mitochondrial Relicts of the First Steps along the Southern Route out of Africa”, The American Journal of Human Genetics, 10 February 2012.

The answer seems to be no.

Adolf Hitler with the trusted Dr. Theo Morell behind him. The trust was apparently not misplaced.

When people start from the premise given to us by old war-propaganda, that Adolf Hitler was a madman who made mad decisions, there is an impetus to try to determine what exactly caused this madness. Propaganda once accepted thus leads to grasping at straws in an effort to validate a lie. There is also a peculiar gratification for small souls in attributing madness or other character-defects to great men. Given the great multitude of small souls, there is also considerable profit in catering to such predilections.

In 1969 David Irving, perhaps exploiting the concerns of the time, wrote for Stern magazine that Hitler was addicted to cocaine and took hormones to stimulate his sex-drive (The Age, 18 June 1969). This later became the theme of one of Irving’s books (Wie krank war Hitler wirklich?) and the claim that Hitler was a cocaine-addict still reverberates in sensationalist mass-media.

In 1979 psychiatrist Leonard Heston, relying on the memoir of the unreliable Albert Speer, speculated that Hitler’s judgment was distorted by amphetamines. Heston came to this conclusion because, while accepting the premise that Hitler’s judgment was bad, he determined that Hitler did not have syphilis¹, schizophrenia, or manic-depressive disorder. Overuse of amphetamines was thus left as a possible explanation for Hitler’s presumed poor judgment that could also account for his trembling hands. (AP, 15 June 1979) Heston rejected Parkinson’s disease as the explanation for Hitler’s tremors, claiming that the tremors did not fit the disease’s normal pattern: other physicians have disagreed with Heston about this.

The major turning point in the question occurred when German authors entered the fray, rejecting the premise (derived from Anglo-American propaganda) that Hitler suffered any madness that required explanation.

In 1985 Ernst Günther Schenck, a physician in charge of nutrition for the German Army who was present at Hitler’s last medical consultation in April 1945 and later wrote a book (Patient A) about Hitler’s relationship with his personal physician, was quoted in American Medical News to the effect that Hitler was neither clinically insane nor chemically dependent on drugs. Schenck says that  Hitler’s regular injections consisted of vitamins mixed with glucose and caffeine. Hitler was not a regular user of any stronger drug, but was given them on occasion: codeine and cocaine for colds, strong painkillers and barbiturates for cramps and colitis (an intermittent condition in most people that suffer it). By the end of his life, Hitler showed obvious symptoms of Parkinson’s disease, and also had a heart problem that was treated with nitroglycerin and digitalis. Schenck says that medically there was nothing unusual about Hitler. (AP, 10 October 1985)

In 2010 the book War Hitler Krank? by Henrik Eberle and Hans-Joachim Neumann (published in English in 2012 as Was Hitler Ill?), offered generally the same assessment as Schenck. They write that “at no time did Hitler suffer from pathological delusions,”² and they find no indication that Dr. Theodor Morell was anything other than a competent and ethical physician. 

There is some controversy about Hitler’s alleged use of methamphetamine (also known as methyl-amphetamine), which had been available in Germany as an over-the-counter drug under the brand-name Pervitin since 1938. The quantity of methamphetamine in the pills seems not to have been very great, because novelist Heinrich Böll, who used Pervitin during the war, has described the stimulation as equivalent to several cups of coffee. It is clear that Pervitin was not perceived as excessively dangerous at the time,³ and even for several decades after the war, since it was only taken off the market in the 1970s. In any case, Morell records administering that over-the-counter stimulant on only one occasion. (C. Gunkel, “Hitlers Krankheiten: Therapie mit Rattengift,” Der Spiegel January 2010; there is also an abridged English translation)

To summarize, Hitler’s physician gave him various strong drugs on occasion, but not on a regular basis, and there is no reason to believe that drugs adversely affected Hitler’s judgment. The strongest drug that Hitler received on a regular basis was caffeine, taken with vitamins.

_____________________
1. According to an article from  the California State Journal of Medicine (August 1910) which the U.S. National Institutes of Health presents on its website, the Wasserman test for syphilis, administered to Adolf Hitler by Dr, Morell, was designed to detect 98% of syphilis-cases. That is the basis of Dr. Leonard Heston’s view that Adolf Hitler did not have syphilis.

2. “Eine Besessenheit im Sinne eines krankheitsbedingten Wahns gab es bei Hitler zu keinem Zeitpunkt.” (Henrik Eberle & Hans-Joachim Neumann, 2010)

3.  The appeal of such drugs was not limited to Axis nations. In the United States, the use of Pervitin by German military men stimulated the U.S. Government’s Office of Scientific Research and Development to work on an American equivalent (Alexander George, Wide World Features, 22 August 1942).  The U.S. Army has contemplated the benefits of amphetamines at least as recently as 1988 (AP, 7 September 1988). As of 2014 methamphetamine in the United States is a prescription-drug, used for treatment of ADHD and for weight-loss.
]]> https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2014/02/18/was-hitler-a-drug-addict/feed/ 0