ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Tuesday, March 17, 2015

Adolf Hitler, published author

Stephen Hicks considers the implications of Germany permitting the publication of Mein Kampf for the first time in decades.
German authorities will allow the republication of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf, after decades of censorship. Decent people can argue that the book is too dangerous to be published. But the fact is that Mein Kampf is too dangerous not to be published.

The great fear is that Hitler’s ideas are not dead and that his book could trigger another horribly pathological social movement. Nationalism and socialism still appeal to many, and combinations of the two ideologies attract new adherents every day in Europe and around the world.

Mein Kampf is available in many editions, in many languages and online. So the furor over its republication is about the Germans in particular: Can they handle it?

One of many old jokes has one German ask another, “How many Poles does it take to change a light bulb?” The other German replies, “I don’t know. Let’s invade Poland and find out!”

Always fun to poke at the Germans’ historical reputation. But it has been three generations since the end of World War II. There have been major cultural shifts in German attitudes towards militarism, authoritarianism, anti-Semitism, and other elements in the National Socialist package. There is plenty of evidence that today’s German are well above the average in civility and decency. So the post-Nazi cultural training wheels can come off.

Yet beyond the specifics of the German debate, there is a more important general point about prohibiting even the most repulsive of ideas: Censorship weakens our ability to combat them.

Levi Salomon, speaking for the Jewish Forum for Democracy and Against Anti-Semitism based in Berlin, opposes republication of Mein Kampf: “This book is outside of human logic.”
Salomon's statement is more outrageous than anything Hitler wrote in the book. National Socialism is not only human logic, it is considerably more logical, and truthful, than Communism, feminism, or secular Zionism. That was part of the tragedy of Germany's descent into it. Unlike the first two ideologies, it actually functioned effectively.

National Socialism is also cruel, pitiless, and militaristic, but those are undeniably human failings.

Indeed, one of the most striking things about Mein Kampf is that it is not, as one would tend to imagine, a wild-eyed, frothing-at-the-mouth sort of text. Perhaps the most disturbing thing about it is how reasonable Hitler often sounds throughout. And that is possibly the best reason of all that it should be published; it is a vivid reminder that far from being "outside of human logic", every rational man is capable of choosing between good and evil, and choosing between setting himself to achieving great good and committing great harm.

Labels: ,

157 Comments:

Blogger Josh March 17, 2015 3:07 PM  

National Socialism is not only human logic, it is considerably more logical, and truthful, than Communism, feminism, or secular Zionism. That was part of the tragedy of Germany's descent into it. Unlike the first two ideologies, it actually functioned effectively.

Could you expand on this, maybe in a later post?

What in particular worked with national socialism that did not work with international socialism?

Anonymous Porky March 17, 2015 3:10 PM  

"There is plenty of evidence that today’s German are well above the average in civility and decency."

Oh for Christ's sake!

Blogger El Borak March 17, 2015 3:13 PM  

how reasonable Hitler often sounds throughout.

Reasonable, to be sure. One has to remember, however, that this is half autobiography, half political tract, and not necessarily what Hitler was thinking or even who he was. It sounds reasonable because it was written to (re)introduce Germans to Hitler and Naziism following the failed Beer Hall Putsch.

Blogger Corvinus March 17, 2015 3:19 PM  

"There is plenty of evidence that today’s German are well above the average in civility and decency."

Oh for Christ's sake!


...oh for pete sake. (smh)

Anonymous Axe Head March 17, 2015 3:21 PM  

Wasn't it really written by Rudolph Hess?

Blogger Joshua Dyal March 17, 2015 3:22 PM  

Could you expand on this, maybe in a later post?

What in particular worked with national socialism that did not work with international socialism?


I'm skeptical as well, although I admit to not having studied the economics of Nazi Germany in much detail. It doesn't seem too different than many so-called socialist or communist economies today that are nationalistic, i.e. Cuba, Venezuela, or even China as it has become. The syndicalist approach means that corporations remain privatized rather than nationalized, but since they are so thoroughly dominated and embedded with the state anyway, I'm skeptical that there's a significant or substantive difference there.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 17, 2015 3:22 PM  

Alexandr Solzhenitsyn’s 200 Years Together -- still not translated into English and published and promoted like his other books.

Hitler: dangerous.
Solzhenitsyn: more dangerous.

Anonymous Leonidas March 17, 2015 3:26 PM  

“This book is outside of human logic.”

Translation: this book makes me feel bad. Logic is good. Feelbad must be avoided at all costs. Therefore this book cannot be logical.

It really is crazy how much the leftists will totally ignore the actual meaning of words to label everything they dislike as evil.

Anonymous Heh March 17, 2015 3:26 PM  

Mein Kampf is boring as shit. Takes real dedication to wade through it.

Blogger Josh March 17, 2015 3:27 PM  

I'm skeptical as well, although I admit to not having studied the economics of Nazi Germany in much detail. It doesn't seem too different than many so-called socialist or communist economies today that are nationalistic, i.e. Cuba, Venezuela, or even China as it has become.

I suspect that Vox isn't primarily referring to economics when he said it "functioned effectively," but to culture.

Of course, I reserve my right to be wrong about this.

There's also the general idea that socialism works better amongst the Germans or Scandinavians or Yankees than it does amongst the Slavs, Latin Americans, Africans, or East Asians.

Anonymous Leonidas March 17, 2015 3:27 PM  

What in particular worked with national socialism that did not work with international socialism?

Besides the fact that they very nearly won a world war?

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 17, 2015 3:29 PM  

Josh: "What in particular worked with national socialism that did not work with international socialism?"

An apples to no apples comparison might involve Austrian agriculture under National Socialism and Ukrainian agriculture under International Socialism.

Blogger Josh March 17, 2015 3:30 PM  

Besides the fact that they very nearly won a world war?

They were never close to winning once it became a world war. Look at the relevant statistics for the production of armaments.

Anonymous Leonidas March 17, 2015 3:32 PM  

Let me expand on that a bit, to head off some obvious rebuttals:

Besides the fact that a national socialist nation combined with another fascist regime and a totalitarian state together fought against a coalition consisting of the two largest manufacturing powerhouses of the world at the time (the US and England), the largest and most powerful navies of the day (the US and England, again) one of the largest armies in the world at the time (the Soviets), one of the largest populations of the time (the Chinese), and most of the rest of Western Europe thrown in. And that was a war that took place on multiple fronts and multiple continents, with the Germans and the Italians basically being surrounded from the get go.

And still they came close enough that if you'd pulled any one of those named nations out of the war, they probably would've pulled it off.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 17, 2015 3:32 PM  

Josh: "I suspect that Vox isn't primarily referring to economics when he said it "functioned effectively," but to culture."

From that point of view: no need to roll back early doctrine such as "free love".

Stalin was a monster, but he rolled back a lot of terrible cultural ideas.

Blogger MATT March 17, 2015 3:34 PM  

People expected timothy mcveigh to sound like a frothing at the mouth monster as well. Anders brevik too.

Anonymous Leonidas March 17, 2015 3:36 PM  

They were never close to winning once it became a world war. Look at the relevant statistics for the production of armaments.

Which is why, by rights, they never really should have done as well as they did in the first place.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 17, 2015 3:36 PM  

Josh: "They were never close to winning once it became a world war. Look at the relevant statistics for the production of armaments."

A fellow fan of John Ellis' Brute Force: Allied Strategy and Tactics in the Second World War?

Blogger Rabbi B March 17, 2015 3:37 PM  

In my small mind, it seems to me that Communism has been responsible for more death and destruction than any other -ism in recent history.

Wait . . . What? I can get the Communist Manifesto over at Amazon? Awesome.

http://www.scottmanning.com/content/communist-body-count/

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 17, 2015 3:39 PM  

Leonidas: "Which is why, by rights, they never really should have done as well as they did in the first place."

It's not a handicap contest. Joe still finished laughing harder than Adolf.

Blogger Joshua Dyal March 17, 2015 3:39 PM  

I suspect that Vox isn't primarily referring to economics when he said it "functioned effectively," but to culture.

Of course, I reserve my right to be wrong about this.


In that respect, it did work quite well... for a time. I'm skeptical as to whether it would have proven more sustainable over decades of actual practice than communism was, and for many of the same reasons that communism failed. It broke down the traditional family, minimized and/or dominated religion, etc. But I'm curious what he meant by that too, I guess.

Blogger ScuzzaMan March 17, 2015 3:40 PM  

"There is plenty of evidence that today’s German are well above the average in civility and decency. So the post-Nazi cultural training wheels can come off."

The idiot who wrote this perhaps should not be allowed to read it, though.

The Germans were the most civil and decent nation in Europe for centuries before the two world wars of last century, and still were during it. Ask any of the French colonists of Africa how civil French society was in 1912? Ask them about the Belgians, the Italians, the Spanish and the British Navy.

Ask the Filipinos how civil and decent the USA was as a conqueror?

The Germans are still, second only to the Swiss, the most civil and decent people in Europe.

The whole lesson of the world wars is that civility and decency are necessary, but not sufficient. The casual arrogance of an idiot who had nothing to do with "winning" but presumes that because their side won they are possessed of some innate cultural superiority, is exceeded in the article only by his cosmic ignorance.

Blogger Josh March 17, 2015 3:41 PM  

A fellow fan of John Ellis' Brute Force: Allied Strategy and Tactics in the Second World War?

John Keegan's The Second World War, actually.

And even a wannabe war game like axis and allies is sufficient to point out the obvious economic disadvantages Germany faced.

Blogger LP 999/Eliza March 17, 2015 3:43 PM  

And who shall lead this repeat of history? SIG, Solidified in Gold, my art label may lead the way. It was reported just 2 weeks ago, a surge in AH's art work selling one piece for 2 million dollars NeoNazi art is well and alive so mein k wasn't going to be far off.

The appearance of the EU with terrible austerity to Greece, the continued pride plus the above the law abuse by orgs, corps, and banks breed pain and nationalism.

Here is to Gen X choosing, well, what we wish, how we wish things would end. Watch Paramore's Now.

Cute video, overall their music is more towards glory and the mercy of God. The song, "Now", "We want a future"...but a hug between two sides may not work.

Millennials are probably AGW'ers so that could be how history repeats itself.

Once again, we asked by Disturbed's, "Warrior", "which will you decide?"

The fight which was already won, good or evil...

Anonymous Alexander March 17, 2015 3:44 PM  

They were never close to winning once it became a world war. Look at the relevant statistics for the production of armaments.

Michelle Malkin objects!

Blogger Josh March 17, 2015 3:44 PM  

The idiot who wrote this perhaps should not be allowed to read it, though.

The Germans were the most civil and decent nation in Europe for centuries before the two world wars of last century, and still were during it.


You know it's quite possible that he was contrasting today's Germans with only the Nazis and not the preceding generations of Germans.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 17, 2015 3:44 PM  

Josh: "John Keegan's The Second World War, actually."

Gotcha. There are many authors and even games that point to the fact that the numbers never added up.

Anonymous Well duh March 17, 2015 3:46 PM  

They were never close to winning once it became a world war. Look at the relevant statistics for the production of armaments.

Which is why, by rights, they never really should have done as well as they did in the first place.


They didn't fight the entire fully mobilized world until 1943-45.

First they fought the Brits and French in 1940, then (basically) they fought the Soviets alone from mid-1941 until late 1942. Only after that did the weight of US production come to bear.

Blogger Josh March 17, 2015 3:47 PM  

Michelle Malkin objects!

SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP

Blogger ScuzzaMan March 17, 2015 3:48 PM  

The interesting thing, Titus, is that Stalin began ramping up soviet war production in 32/33, and beefing up the defences on the western front, almost as if he knew Operation Barbarossa was coming.

German military planners accounted for 180 armoured division between Poland and Moscow in 1941; the soviets had over 300. They had been concealing their build-up for years prior..

Almost as if Germany really was the target of an international conspiracy, just not a Jewish one.

Which, for me, poses the question; who could have orchestrated such a thing? Means, Motive, Opportunity?

Blogger Giraffe March 17, 2015 3:49 PM  

In my small mind, it seems to me that Communism has been responsible for more death and destruction than any other -ism in recent history.

Nothing else comes close to the body count of abortion

I believe Feminsim is the most destructive "ism". I don't know if it should be classified as a subset of secularism, or not. As VD said, it isn't really logical enough to stand on its own. I don't know if all abortions should be laid at the feet of Feminism either. Some of it is due to socialism. All of Satan's "isms" (humanism, secularism, feminism, etc) are tied together.

http://www.numberofabortions.com/

Blogger LP 999/Eliza March 17, 2015 3:49 PM  

I wonder to what degree the cointelpro is at work since the poor pple of Israel, Jews, via their own media outlets are asking, should they leave Europe next? What are the banks setting up next? Another distraction like the IMF porking Ukraine while demonizing his Alphaness Putin?

Blogger Josh March 17, 2015 3:50 PM  

Almost as if Germany really was the target of an international conspiracy, just not a Jewish one.

Those poor innocent Germans...

Anonymous rienzi March 17, 2015 3:54 PM  

"There is plenty of evidence that today’s German are well above the average in civility and decency."



That will be amazing news to anyone who has stayed at an all-inclusive Caribbean resort at the same time as a number of Germans. Extremely rude and obnoxious folk. Even the French were better behaved.

Blogger Corvinus March 17, 2015 3:57 PM  

Almost as if Germany really was the target of an international conspiracy, just not a Jewish one.

There's the little matter of Lend-Lease, which was a direct act of war on Germany. I suspect that the Germans wouldn't have declared war on us and just let us fight it out with the Japanese if Lend-Lease didn't exist.

Of course, it was still stupid to do so, but still...

Anonymous Clay March 17, 2015 3:58 PM  

I asked this question a week or two ago, but I can't seem to find the question in the past threads, much less the answer.

When Germany invaded Poland in 1939, Britain and France had some type, (I forget the name of it), to defend Poland from ALL aggression...not specifically against Germany.

When Germany attacked Poland, the Russkies waited a bit, and then invaded Poland from the East.

Why didn't their "mutual defense treaty" cause Britain & France to also declare war on Russia?

That's a curiosity for me.

Blogger ScuzzaMan March 17, 2015 3:58 PM  

Josh, you're being silly now.

There's no hint of any attempt to excuse the German government for the decisions they made. They played the game of thrones and they lost. And when you lose that game, you die.

They chose to play and they bore (and still bear) the consequences of their own choices.

FDR had an 8 point plan to goad Japan into war in the Pacific, and by 1941 (fateful year, wasnt it?) all 8 points of that plan had been put into effect.

Does that excuse the Japanese actions in world war two? Does simply mentioning this historic fact make one, automatically, an apologist for the rape of Nanking or the Burma railroad, or any of a host of similar barbarisms?

Feel free to maintain a position of cocksure ignorance if you prefer, but dont expect me to join you.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 17, 2015 3:59 PM  

Aesthetically, National Socialism was vastly superior. (Italian futurism was hot stuff too, but I don't know of that counts as evidence of a good doctrine, because Italians have a hereditary genius for beauty.)

Since Hitler decided National Socialism was "not for export" (except at gunpoint) that didn't matter.

If Adolf Hitler had a world-winning option, and I think he did, it was with Joseph Goebbels and Leni Riefenstahl and pushing an Aryan ideal globally. (Not with a war where the numbers didn't work.)

But of course that wouldn't have been National Socialism as the Fuhrer understood it. It would have been an internationalism.

The whole idea was cracked from the beginning, because the world is too big for nationalists to prevail over well-networked internationalists.

Blogger Corvinus March 17, 2015 3:59 PM  

Why didn't their "mutual defense treaty" cause Britain & France to also declare war on Russia?

The western media has always been soft on the Soviets. After all, they were pretty much the inventors of SJWism. The current Russian Federation, OTOH, is the new Nahtzee Germany.

Blogger LP 999/Eliza March 17, 2015 4:00 PM  

Oh no...the worst ism is atheism and feminism less active, acting paganism. At least paganism have morals.

Blogger Josh March 17, 2015 4:00 PM  

Aesthetically, National Socialism was vastly superior.

Meh. There's not much difference between the New Aryan Superman and the New Soviet Man.

Blogger Rabbi B March 17, 2015 4:07 PM  

"Nothing else comes close to the body count of abortion . . ."

I see your point. Although, I don't know that anyone would consider abortion an ideology. I don't see how it could be defined as such.

But, you never know, we probably shouldn't be too surprised when we see the publication of an Abortion Manifesto someday.

Blogger Josh March 17, 2015 4:09 PM  

Although, I don't know that anyone would consider abortion an ideology. I don't see how it could be defined as such.

Feminism is certainly an ideology

Blogger Beefy Levinson March 17, 2015 4:10 PM  

I don't have the exact quote handy, but Churchill said that Hitler was the bigger threat because communism was so irrational and inhuman that it would fall before the 20th century was over, whereas National Socialism could go on much longer, if not indefinitely.

Anonymous Clay March 17, 2015 4:10 PM  

I understand, Corvinus.

BUT..it still doesn't explain the refusal Of the UK & France not declaring war on Russia.

I suspect Churchill was behind the decision, since France was a pussy. As was proved in the Argonne. On paper, the frogs were the largest military in Western Europe.

Charmin...that sounds Frenchy to me. They were wiped clean.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 17, 2015 4:11 PM  

Corvinus: "The western media has always been soft on the Soviets. After all, they were pretty much the inventors of SJWism. The current Russian Federation, OTOH, is the new Nahtzee Germany."

Exactly.

Anonymous cheddarman March 17, 2015 4:15 PM  

"They were never close to winning once it became a world war. Look at the relevant statistics for the production of armaments." - Josh

IMO Germany could have taken Brittan out of the war in 1940 by NOT attacking the Home Islands. Instead they should have focused on driving Brittan out of the Mediterranean region. For the British, the war would not have been about national survival, it would have been a referendum on the British Empire. This would have pitted the working class against the ruling class, and divided the English people.

The Luftwaffe in cooperation with the Italian Navy could have kept the Royal Navy out of the Mediterranean Sea, especially if the Luftwaffe built bases in French North Africa. 4 - 6 Panzer and motorized divisions transferred to North Africa along with sufficient Luftwaffe air support could have beaten the British in North Africa. Any pro-war British government would have fallen with the capture of the Suez Canal.

Turkey would most likely join the Axis at this point, and that would have been a nightmare for the Russians. Russia would not have gotten any Lend Lease aid from the British Empire, and any U.S. aid would have to go across the North West Pacific Ocean and then across Siberia to Russia.

Blogger bob k. mando March 17, 2015 4:16 PM  

Josh March 17, 2015 3:07 PM
Could you expand on this, maybe in a later post?



the primary feature of Marx's 'inexorable march of history' was that the proletariats of all the world would realize their common brotherhood, join together, rise up and murder the aristocracy and bourgeoisie.

in spite of any differences in religion, language, mores, culture, geography, etc.

which is ludicrous. just look at how well importing muslims too London is working out.

have the immigrant muslim populations joined together with the Irish and Scots proletariat?

no?

why not? Marx told me it would be so.

Blogger ScuzzaMan March 17, 2015 4:18 PM  

"What no one seemed to notice," said a colleague of mine, a philologist, "was the ever widening gap, after 1933, between the government and the people. Just think how very wide this gap was to begin with, here in Germany. And it became always wider. You know, it doesn’t make people close to their government to be told that this is a people’s government, a true democracy, or to be enrolled in civilian defense, or even to vote. All this has little, really nothing, to do with knowing one is governing.

"What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could not understand it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with Hitler, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it.

"This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter.

-Milton Mayer, "They Thought They Were Free: The Germans 1933-45"

Or perhaps this works better for Americans?

...when he [the independent individual] merges his person into an organizational structure, a new creature replaces autonomous man, unhindered by the limitations of individual morality, freed of humane inhibition, mindful only of the sanctions of authority." (Stanley Milgram, "Obedience to Authority," 1974)

Yes, inside The Group, authority takes over, and its prescriptions replace ethics.

"We are not talking about mere instinctive conformity - it is, after all, a perennial failing of mankind. What we are talking about is a rationalized conformity - an open, articulate philosophy which holds that group values are not only expedient but right and good as well." (William H Whyte, Jr.)

Replacing individual values with group values invokes a formula: "the greatest good for the greatest number of people." This is magnetically attractive for the young on two counts. One, it seems to involve a simple rational calculation. And two, it spreads "the good" around like jam to "everyone.

- John Rappoport, March 2015

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 17, 2015 4:20 PM  

LP 999/Eliza: "Oh no...the worst ism is atheism and feminism less active, acting paganism. At least paganism have morals."

Some do, some don't.

Nowadays there's a continuous flow into paganism of people who quit Christianity because they think Christianity has morals and standards and paganism doesn't, and no morals and no standards is what they want. These people, the ones who are in it for what Christianity says paganism is, that is wallowing in vice, are evil, dishonest and in some cases crazy as cut snakes. You want to avoid them. Take that as an admission against interest.

Anonymous cheddarman March 17, 2015 4:24 PM  

"The western media has always been soft on the Soviets. After all, they were pretty much the inventors of SJWism. " - Corvinus

Corvinus, Bill Lind over at Traditional Right has done an excellent job of tracing the roots of SJWism/cultural marxism back to Germany in the 1920s and early 30's. The communists expected a world wide workers revolution after WW1. However, the working classes were not buying it. The marxist intellectuals then realized they would have to subvert all of the traditional bastions of conservatism in western culture, including the church and the family. They started at Goethe University in Frankfurt Germany and the poison spread from there.

Blogger natschuster March 17, 2015 4:25 PM  

There are some very close parallels between "Mein Kampf" and Darwin's "The Descent of Man." Hitler claimed that his ideas were based on science. Nazism is just applied Darwinism.

Blogger LP 999/Eliza March 17, 2015 4:25 PM  

Agreed Sir Titus

Blogger kurt9 March 17, 2015 4:31 PM  

Perhaps the most disturbing thing about it is how reasonable Hitler often sounds throughout.

Having read "Mein Kampf", I can tell you this is quite true. Much of "Mein Kampf" is a prescription of social reforms not too dissimilar to modern day European social democracy, with a bit of Rod Dreher's crunchy con thrown in. This theme is expanded on in Hitler's second book, which I have also read.

Hitler's national socialist ideology is essentially social democracy mixed with a lot of the "dark enlightenment" traditionalism.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 17, 2015 4:32 PM  

Giraffe: "Nothing else comes close to the body count of abortion

I believe Feminsim is the most destructive "ism"."

Stone crazy with an awesome body-count: you've got a point.

It's amazingly dysgenic too, with its practical dogma that the proper destiny for any woman of average or better intelligence is university and sterility.

Blogger Giraffe March 17, 2015 4:36 PM  

Although, I don't know that anyone would consider abortion an ideology.

It is the result of several ideologies. In the US, it is the result of feminism and secular humanism. I suppose in other parts of the world like China, it is the result of socialism and atheism and the one child policy. So you are probably correct. A lot more deaths due to communism that I, without much thought, was attributing to feminism. Feminism is most destructive in Western cultures. I don't now if it is even significant elsewhere.

I think lots of these 'isms" are intertwined.

Anonymous pink swastika March 17, 2015 4:41 PM  

The National Socialists were full of queers.

Hitler was a faggot.

Discuss.

Anonymous Clay March 17, 2015 4:43 PM  

Huh. Look at the Senators & Congressmen of the US.

Anonymous SoCalExile March 17, 2015 4:46 PM  

Hitler also had a deep speaking voice that was fit for radio.

Anonymous done with it March 17, 2015 4:50 PM  

It was time.

https://hurlock1.wordpress.com/2015/03/14/exit-neoreaction

Blogger LP 999/Eliza March 17, 2015 4:58 PM  

Wait, a homosexual and some sort of STD's carrier? I'll have to check bio's.

Anonymous Clay March 17, 2015 5:03 PM  

OK. I'm going to ask this ONCE Again:

I asked this question a week or two ago, but I can't seem to find the question in the past threads, much less the answer.

When Germany invaded Poland in 1939, Britain and France had some type, (I forget the name of it), to defend Poland from ALL aggression...not specifically against Germany.

When Germany attacked Poland, the Russkies waited a bit, and then invaded Poland from the East.

Why didn't their "mutual defense treaty" cause Britain & France to also declare war on Russia?

That's a curiosity for me."

No answer....I'll have to consider this a "no answer" question, which I have rarely seen on this blog after about 13-14 years.

Anonymous BigGaySteve March 17, 2015 5:04 PM  

I know that the Allen Turing was a victim is a fairy tale, but if not for his breaking of the encryption, the Norwegian resistance would not have sabotaged the shipments of heavy water, which would have let Hitler have the bomb. If 2 suicide mission submarines set off nukes in NYC and a Russian port Germany would have won. More Germans were killed after the war than during it, which caused Gen Patton to say the US fought the wrong people days before he was killed in Manheim Germany.

If Hitler had a big enough Willie there are gay Jews that would defend him. Its a good thing they left has gone so long without using logic or reason.

Anonymous BigGaySteve March 17, 2015 5:05 PM  

"The National Socialists were full of queers. Hitler was a faggot."
Sorry forgot to quote that for the second part.

Blogger Josh March 17, 2015 5:12 PM  

No answer....I'll have to consider this a "no answer" question, which I have rarely seen on this blog after about 13-14 years.

This article might be helpful.

Basically, Halifax told the poles that what they really meant by the treaty was German aggression, not Soviet.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 17, 2015 5:13 PM  

Levi Salomon, speaking for the Jewish Forum for Democracy and Against Anti-Semitism based in Berlin, opposes republication of Mein Kampf: “This book is outside of human logic.”

That's just space lizards being space lizards.

If anyone says anything that seems to conflict with space lizard interests, the space lizards disqualify them, in three ways.
(1) STUPID! (Despise and ignore them. Goys are stupid by default anyway.)
(2) CRAZY! (Shun them as mentally diseased and isolate them from allies.)
(3) EVIL! (This is the signal to attack, in every convenient way.)

A stereotypical space lizard "stupid" attack goes like this:

Jewy Jewistan:
ABSURD
IGNORANT
UNINFORMED IN THE EXTREME.
(ALL CAPS in the original.)

It has nothing to do with who's actually stupid, ignorant etc. It's verbal bludgeoning for a strategic, manipulative purpose, and that's all it is.

When Levi Salomon, speaking for the Jewish Forum for Democracy and Against Anti-Semitism based in Berlin, says “This book is outside of human logic”, that attack itself is outside human logic. Especially if you think of the human as an individual. This is a collectivist, not an individual strategic move that has nothing to do with two human beings reasoning together to find the truth. It's about a hive member verbally bludgeoning non-hive-members to get a desired reaction out of them that should be to the benefit of the collective.

This actually constitutes superhuman intelligence. Collectivist strategies beat individualist strategies in social competition. But it's not the sort of superiority that necessarily shows itself wise, intelligent or even sane within a dialectic of individual discourse.

Blogger Josh March 17, 2015 5:14 PM  

Also, from Wikipedia:

In the commentary on the Anglo-Polish Alliance, Polish publicist Stanislaw Mackiewicz wrote in his 1964 book "Polityka Becka":

"England does not need the existence of Poland, it has never needed it. Sometimes the British push us to fight against Russia, sometimes against Germany, as happened in 1939, when they managed to keep Hitler away from them for some time. After their so-called guarantees of March 1939, England was not interested in our army, it did not help us financially in our war preparations, and did not have the slightest intention to aid us during Hitler's invasion of Poland (...) The guarantee of Poland's independence, provided by England, was not a guarantee at all. On the contrary, it was a speculation, whose purpose was the fastest possible liquidation of the Polish state. England wanted Poland to fight Germany first, and to lose that war as quickly as possible, so that Germany would finally face Russia".

Blogger El Borak March 17, 2015 5:21 PM  

Clay: Why didn't their "mutual defense treaty" cause Britain & France to also declare war on Russia?

At the risk of sounding flippant, it was because they weren't itching to fight Russia, they were itching to fight Germany. The error in your assumption is that nations try to fulfill their treaty obligations to the letter. In reality, treaties are used to provide 'legal' cover for what they already wish to do.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 17, 2015 5:21 PM  

BigGaySteve: "Its a good thing they left has gone so long without using logic or reason."

And yet they win.

Space lizard fifth dimensional strategy is invisible to our merely fourth dimensional individual logic.

Anonymous europeasant March 17, 2015 5:31 PM  

Hilter was batshit crazy. The Slavs were not exactly pushovers, look at Stalingrad.
Europeans all over the world should stand together.

Blogger bob k. mando March 17, 2015 5:38 PM  

Clay March 17, 2015 5:03 PM
No answer....I'll have to consider this a "no answer"



realpolitik.

Britain and France didn't have the strength to stand against Germany alone. had they declared war on Germany and Russia simultaneously, all they would have accomplished would have been to drive Stalin and Hitler together.

by declaring war only against Germany, they were able to hold Russia out of the war ... until Hitler attacked Russia and Stalin came into the war on the side of the Allies.

you might also be interested to know that Britain had a pact with Czechoslovakia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_betrayal

it seems Britain is dangerous to have as an ally ...



BigGaySteve March 17, 2015 5:04 PM
the Norwegian resistance would not have sabotaged the shipments of heavy water, which would have let Hitler have the bomb.



a - even with sufficient heavy water, this was an inefficient path to the bomb
b - the NAZI fission project was being actively sabotaged by many of the scientists on it

while i agree that it's better to take out the Norwegian facilities than let the Germans use them, i don't agree that these actions alone kept Germany from the bomb ... or were necessarily required.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 17, 2015 5:43 PM  

europeasant: "Hilter was batshit crazy. The Slavs were not exactly pushovers, look at Stalingrad.
Europeans all over the world should stand together."

My opinion is the same.

Blogger bob k. mando March 17, 2015 5:44 PM  

why do we need women in STEM? because they do important work.

really, REALLY important work.

like swimming naked, with whales, in freezing water.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/photos-e6frflp0-1226077093386?page=1

i can't wait until she pulls a Beluga out of her cooch. that will be a great day for feminism.

Anonymous Aliyah to Khazaria March 17, 2015 5:46 PM  

What are the most damning thought-crimes to be found in Mein Kampf?

In the beginning of the book, he states he never thought much about the Juice while growing up in Linz. Then he went to Vienna as a young adult and gradually began to see the differences between the Juice and their effect and influence on the culture at large.

"What soon gave me cause for very serious consideration were the activities of the Jews in certain branches of life, into the mystery of which I penetrated little by little. Was there any shady undertaking, any form of foulness, especially in cultural life, in which at least one Jew did not participate? On putting the probing knife carefully to that kind of abscess one immediately discovered, like a maggot in a putrescent body, a little Jew who was often blinded by the sudden light.

In my eyes the charge against Judaism became a grave one the moment I discovered the Jewish activities in the Press, in art, in literature and the theatre. All unctuous protests were now more or less futile. One needed only to look at the posters announcing the hideous productions of the cinema and theatre, and study the names of the authors who were highly lauded there in order to become permanently adamant on Jewish questions. Here was a pestilence, a moral pestilence, with which the public was being infected....

...I began then to investigate carefully the names of all the fabricators of these unclean products in public cultural life. The result of that inquiry was still more disfavourable to the attitude which I had hitherto held in regard to the Jews. Though my feelings might rebel a thousand time, reason now had to draw its own conclusions.

The fact that nine-tenths of all the smutty literature, artistic tripe and theatrical banalities, had to be charged to the account of people who formed scarcely one per cent of the nation – that fact could not be gainsaid. It was there, and had to be admitted. Then I began to examine my favourite ‘World Press’, with that fact before my mind.

The deeper my soundings went the lesser grew my respect for that Press which I formerly admired. Its style became still more repellent and I was forced to reject its ideas as entirely shallow and superficial. To claim that in the presentation of facts and views its attitude was impartial seemed to me to contain more falsehood than truth. The writers were – Jews.

Thousands of details that I had scarcely noticed before seemed to me now to deserve attention. I began to grasp and understand things which I had formerly looked at in a different light."


A little over a year ago, I had zero thoughts on the Juice question. Then I investigated the topic further, and now, like a young Adolph in Vienna, I grasp and understand things which I had formerly looked at in a different light as well.

Blogger SirHamster March 17, 2015 5:51 PM  

it seems Britain is dangerous to have as an ally ...

Perfidious Albion, you say?

Did the US inherit that? I've read that the US used WWII to cut up the British empire, and then there's Bay of Pigs, South Vietnam being abandoned, and the current mess in the ME.

Anonymous paradox March 17, 2015 5:58 PM  

NSDAP economic plan. Definitely a different type of socialism than Communism.

Blogger bob k. mando March 17, 2015 6:01 PM  

SirHamster March 17, 2015 5:51 PM
Did the US inherit that?



i would say no.

at least Britain betrayed others for it's own interest. not very principled, but understandable.

the US betrays others to spite ourselves. this would seem to me to indicate a significant Death Wish on the part of our leadership class.

Blogger Marissa March 17, 2015 6:06 PM  

i can't wait until she pulls a Beluga out of her cooch. that will be a great day for feminism.

Maybe she'll just become a whale like most feminists.

Anonymous Jonathan March 17, 2015 6:12 PM  

"There is plenty of evidence that today’s German are well above the average in civility and decency."

Scat porn aside ...

Blogger Marissa March 17, 2015 6:17 PM  

Germany or Florida?

Anonymous Clay March 17, 2015 6:17 PM  

The guarantee of Poland's independence, provided by England, was not a guarantee at all. On the contrary, it was a speculation, whose purpose was the fastest possible liquidation of the Polish state. England wanted Poland to fight Germany first, and to lose that war as quickly as possible, so that Germany would finally face Russia".
Gosh, I do understand and respect our military

Thanks, Josh, better than you can express it.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 17, 2015 6:18 PM  

bob k. mando: "the US betrays others to spite ourselves. this would seem to me to indicate a significant Death Wish on the part of our leadership class."

To me it seems to reflect a Murder Wish on the part of those who bribe and direct them. But that's another story.

Hitler at least was single-mindedly devoted to the interests of what he saw as the German race. (He was not a white nationalist.) He was epically wrong about whether Operation Barbarossa would advance that interest, but he was always playing for his own team, not another team.

Anonymous Steve March 17, 2015 6:31 PM  

What in particular worked with national socialism that did not work with international socialism?

It only "worked" because:

1) Germany was recovering from a catastrophic economic depression and hyperinflation, so the only way was up

2) It was being run by Germans.

Just as the East Germans - for a while - managed to make Soviet-style socialism look like it might be halfway plausible as a functioning economic system, the Germans as a whole - being a productive, hardworking and diligent people - managed to make Nazi economics look like it might work. Had a Hitler come to power in, say, Greece, the results would have been very different.

But the Nazi economic miracle was a crock of shite. Yes, you can reduce massive unemployment and introduce a sugar rush of faux prosperity by spending more than 30% of your GDP on rearmament and through massive public works schemes like the autobahns. But this isn't sustainable or compatible with long term economic growth.

Same thing goes for the modern Euro-style welfare state.

Anonymous zen0 March 17, 2015 6:36 PM  

Mein Kamph is a big e-book best seller. Especially in the Mid-East. Big in Turkey and among the neo-Palestinians and now appearing in Britain.

Controls on hard copy mean nothing now.

Anonymous Heaviside March 17, 2015 6:40 PM  

I remember the first time I read the Mannheim translation, and I was struck how certain portions so much better described today's politics than anything written in our own time does. I think people who complain about the writing style just don't have the right taste to appreciate many kinds of German works in translation, like von Kleist or Hegel.

"The genius of the German language has allowed for a twofold stylistic tradition... ...The other tradition is foreign to the tendency of modern English. It is often felt to be formidable and forbidding,"

Blogger Hermit March 17, 2015 6:48 PM  

The part of mein kampf with the propaganda biography and his realizations about volk, race and the enemy was really interesting and not entirely wrong or crazy.
The "doctrinary" part of the book on the other side is really boring with some rare spark of light and occasional passionate phrases.

Overall I prefer the christian nationalism of the Iron Guard to national socialism.

The real problem with fascism nationalism is that it's economically socialist.
They do make many good points when they speak against rootless free trade, extreme inequalities and the excessive power of the international financial capital but socialism is doomed to fail.
What we need is a national capitalism based on local enterprises and not huge transnational corporations in bed with the political power.
A system that is still free market capitalism but prevent the greed of the banksters and the invasion of immigrant caused by free trade.

Blogger Noah B March 17, 2015 7:04 PM  

"Mein Kamph is a big e-book best seller."

Several versions free online, too. I tried to read it a couple of times but it just seemed rambling and aimless. It didn't draw me in at all.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 17, 2015 7:27 PM  

National Socialism is not only human logic, it is considerably more logical, and truthful, than Communism, feminism, or secular Zionism. That was part of the tragedy of Germany's descent into it. Unlike the first two ideologies, it actually functioned effectively.

Yes.

All the more tragic then, that Hitler risked the whole thing on war, and then having been lucky in war at first threw it all away with a white-on-white race war in the East: one of Germans versus Slavs, which the Germans lost.

I don't know of any other case where a national leader conceived the idea of a race war in which one branch of the white race would attack, enslave and to a considerable extent destroy another.

It's not only the bad math of this war that "white nationalists" should firmly condemn, but the basic character of it.

Yes, much of National Socialism still makes sense, and "if a physics teacher is a child abuser, does gravity still exist?"

But there are ideas that are so bad that they raise a question of how a well-founded movement could ever have come to make such an error.

If ideas on race are of no importance, National Socialism is of no importance. If ideas on race are very important, the fact that National Socialism allows such a terrible basic error condemns it. Either way: "next!"

Blogger Laguna Beach Fogey March 17, 2015 7:30 PM  

Levi Salomon: "This book is outside of human logic."

Levi Salomon. His very name tells us everything we need to know. You can't make this stuff up.

Publish it, and let the monsters froth at the mouth in rage against it.

I've never been into the Hitler cult that prevails in certain rightist and nationalist circles, but the older I get the more I'm convinced that his defeat at the hands of the Judeo-Americans was an utter tragedy for Europe, the West, and White people everywhere.

Blogger Hermit March 17, 2015 8:08 PM  

"With barbarity Hitler tried to save an entire civilization. His mission was a failure but it remains, nonetheless, the last venture of the west. Without a doubt this glorious continent deserved better. Who is at fault if it did not produce a monster of better quality?"
E.Cioran on Hitler.

The ex-Kaiser Wilhelm II on Hitler:
"There's a man alone, without family, without children, without God. Why should he be human?
Oh, without a doubt, he's sincere but this very excessive sincerity keeps him out of touch with men and realities. He builds legion but he doesn't build a nation.
A nation is created by families, a religion, traditions: it is made up out of the hearts of mothers, the wisdom of fathers, the joy and exuberance of children.
Over there (in the third reich) an all-swallowing State, disdainful of human dignities and the ancient structure of our race, sets itself up in place of everything else. And the man who, alone, incorporates in himself this whole State, has neither a God to honor nor a dynasty to conserve nor a past to consult.

For a few months I was inclined to believe in National Socialism. I thought it was a necessary fever. And I was gratified to see that there were, associated with it for a time, some of the wisest of the Germans. But these, one by one, he has got rid of, or even killed: Papen, Schleicher, Neurath and even Blomberg. He has nothing left but a bunch of shirted gangsters.

This man (Hitler) could bring home victories to our people each year but our Germany, which was a nation of poets and musicians, of artists and soldiers, he has made a nation of hysterics and hermits, engulfed in a mob led by a thousand liars or fanatics".

If only the Kaiser was so wise at the beginning of WWI

Anonymous Billy March 17, 2015 8:15 PM  

"How devoid of ideals and how ignoble is the whole contemporary system! The fact that the churches join in committing this sin against the image of God, even though they continue to emphasize the dignity of that image, is quite in keeping with their present activities. They talk about the Spirit, but they allow man, as the embodiment of the Spirit, to degenerate to the proletarian level. Then they look on with amazement when they realize how small is the influence of the Christian Faith in their own country and how depraved and ungodly is this riff-raff which is physically degenerate and therefore morally degenerate also. To balance this state of affairs they try to convert the Hottentots and the Zulus and the Kaffirs and to bestow on them the blessings of the Church. While our European people, God be praised and thanked, are left to become the victims of moral depravity, the pious missionary goes out to Central Africa and establishes missionary stations for negroes. Finally, sound and healthy – though primitive and backward – people will be transformed, under the name of our ‘higher civilization’, into a motley of lazy and brutalized mongrels." Its amazing how the more things change the more they stay the same.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 17, 2015 8:20 PM  

Hitler's real life and activities don't matter to his reputation. If his standing as the Satan of the religion of political correctness was based on what he indisputably did, he would have more or less the same reputation as Napoleon Bonapart, and he would have much the same standing as an author. Both would be condemned or neither.

Hitler's reputation is based on three things: his relationship to space lizards, his usefulness to them after his death (which is why we have more anti-Hitler propaganda now than when he was alive), and total space lizard domination of the mass entertainment industry.

The bad things he did, like the murder of millions of Soviet prisoners of war, don't rate a mention, because the space lizards see no mileage in them. Things he never did, or for which the evidence could not hold up in an honest court of law, he's condemned for in more highly emotive movies every year.

Hollywood Hitler is a constructed dark god, like the Lord of the Flies.

Blogger Jake March 17, 2015 8:23 PM  

"Yes, you can reduce massive unemployment and introduce a sugar rush of faux prosperity by spending more than 30% of your GDP on rearmament and through massive public works schemes like the autobahns. But this isn't sustainable or compatible with long term economic growth."

This, and huge loans from American banksters. That helps too.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 17, 2015 8:26 PM  

Hermit: "If only the Kaiser was so wise at the beginning of WWI"

Indeed.

Anonymous Henry Ford March 17, 2015 8:28 PM  

Hitler said he was the sworn enemy of the International Jew.

So who did he kill in the ovens? Peddlers, cobblers, petty shopkeepers and peasents.

Meanwhile the International Jew saw their power increase tenfold in the war (while the German race was almost destroyed...)

It was kind of like how Abe Lincoln was gonna ship the blacks back to africa... until a Confederate shot him dead.

Makes you wonder who is really pulling the strings...

Blogger Mr.MantraMan March 17, 2015 9:01 PM  

Ranting Nazis not being my thing. Anyway Suvarov's book "Chief Culprit" is the one to read, if you want to see Hitler as a faulty hero in a secondary way. Stalin played him and when he realized what was going to happen Hitler waged a hasty war that failed, but save the Western nations from eternal damnation of communism.

Anonymous Billy March 17, 2015 9:24 PM  

Its funny reading some of the comments; I've never been into the Hitler cult, but he had some good ideas. I'm not into ranting Nazi, but he saved the west from communism. I guess full Nazi is still taboo. If one has something positive to say about a aspect of the man, only an imbecilic would accuse of you endorsing everything the man has ever done, or was accused of doing.

Blogger Eric March 17, 2015 9:37 PM  

The guarantee of Poland's independence, provided by England, was not a guarantee at all. On the contrary, it was a speculation, whose purpose was the fastest possible liquidation of the Polish state. England wanted Poland to fight Germany first, and to lose that war as quickly as possible, so that Germany would finally face Russia

If that's the case they were lucky, lucky idiots. There was no guarantee the Russians and Germans would come to blows, and even if they did it may not have been until after the UK was annihilated. The only reason the Germans turned eastward after conquering France is they were certain the Brits would sue for peace at any moment. They were so sure, in fact that they didn't have a plan to continue hostilities with the UK until six weeks after Dunkirk.

If Hitler had concentrated his efforts on British colonies around the Med and North Africa before attacking the Russians the Germans would have won the war.

Anonymous zen0 the Instigator March 17, 2015 9:39 PM  

@ Noah B

It didn't draw me in at all.

You are obviously not leadership material. Nor follower, apparently.

Maybe sip lattes and watch the world swirl by?

Blogger Josh March 17, 2015 10:21 PM  

Hitler's real life and activities don't matter to his reputation.

Ten million or fifteen million dead souls bear witness to his evil.

Those lives matter.

Anonymous Heaviside March 17, 2015 10:27 PM  

>There was no guarantee the Russians and Germans would come to blows, and even if they did it may not have been until after the UK was annihilated. The only reason the Germans turned eastward after conquering France is they were certain the Brits would sue for peace at any moment.

How can you be so sure about this? A few people here have mentioned Victor Suvorov, but setting aside his specific thesis why do people think that the geopolitical situation in Eastern Europe wasn't intrinsically unstable? Without the benefit of hindsight, was it unreasonable for the German leadership to think that the Soviet Union could not be trusted?

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 17, 2015 10:30 PM  

Billy: "Its funny reading some of the comments; I've never been into the Hitler cult, but he had some good ideas."

He had a lot of good ideas. He built autobahns, but do people call him Hitler the road-builder? No. He brought in a tremendous lot of benefits for the German working class, but do people call him Hitler the friend of the working class? No. But gas six million Jews just once...

I was going to finish that joke, "but lose just one world war..." but neither the Kaiser nor the other authors of World War I get damned like Hitler. Nor does Napoleon.

You can't finish the joke "but kill just a few million people..." because Mao, Stalin and other Communist killers don't get the Hitler treatment either. They didn't kill anybody who matters much to the owners of the modern mass entertainment industry. Nor would their demonization lead to more payments to Israel.

It's all about space lizards. Everything is about what they think is in their interest. Issues of mass entertainment and popular culture, politics and reporting, academic respectability and publishability, and even who goes to jail for public dissent, come down to what they think is good for them. They make themselves the issue. Space lizard blood is sacred, gentile blood isn't. Space lizard reputations must be protected, white reputations need not. Good man, bad man, killer or writer, it doesn't matter; it only matters what space lizards think is good for space lizards.

Thinking about it now, I can see how people who think about this stuff all the time wind up tired, exasperated, and eventually boring in their anger. Because it's ridiculous, and it's been the same way for generations.

Anonymous Jack Amok March 17, 2015 10:33 PM  

What in particular worked with national socialism that did not work with international socialism?

From an economic point of view, Nazis had less state control of the economy than Commies. They actually privatized a bunch of industries in the 30's, and expected labor and management to work out their own compromises. They were more willing to let markets set prices than their Commie bretheren were. Certainly they still exerted a great deal of influence over the German economy, especially over the people who ran the companies, but they mostly avoided the nonsense of the Soviet's 5-year plans with bureaucrats trying to dictact resource allocations at all levels of society.

From a societal point of view, Nazis accepted class distinctions while the Commies rejected them. That meant the Nazis were able to let smarter, more capable people actually rise up frequently, while the Commies were often compelled to kill them in the name of the Class Struggle.

It wasn't an admirable ideology, and was certainly an obnoxioius one for people who weren't ethnic Germans, but it better accounted for human nature than Communism.

Blogger Noah B March 17, 2015 10:41 PM  

zen0, it has obviously escaped your attention that Hitler was the real founder of Israel and that the whole story about being a frustrated art student was just a ruse. Hitler was a secret Jew.

Blogger Noah B March 17, 2015 10:43 PM  

And I do like lattes, flavored with the blood of Canadians.

Blogger dw March 17, 2015 10:43 PM  

"Ten million or fifteen million dead souls bear witness to his evil."

Evil always sounds reasonable at first, but the mask never stays on forever.

Anonymous zen0 March 17, 2015 10:44 PM  

@ Titus Didius Tacitus

It's all about space lizards. Everything is about what they think is in their interest......Space lizard blood is sacred, gentile blood isn't. .


Fuck, Titus, you are zeroed in.
I see it.

Fuck the space lizards, FFS.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 17, 2015 10:45 PM  

Heaviside: "...why do people think that the geopolitical situation in Eastern Europe wasn't intrinsically unstable? Without the benefit of hindsight, was it unreasonable for the German leadership to think that the Soviet Union could not be trusted?"

Post war, the Americans and other Western allies rightly considered the Communists untrustworthy, but didn't decide that the right strategy involved gambling their national existence on immediate war.

The Communist economic system was irrational. It was bound to decline in time. That's a reason to wait. If Hitler thought Germans were racially superior to Slavs, that was another reason to wait and let his advantage mature for later generations to harvest. If he thought his ideals had a greater potential to be persuasive, he should have stilled his panzers (or engaged only in minor actions in the Mediterranean theater) and waged a propaganda war while defending Fortress Europe.

What he did, without compulsion, was to gamble everything on vast slaughter. And he is just as morally accountable for that as Napoleon Bonaparte.

Blogger Josh March 17, 2015 11:06 PM  

Fifteen million dead. Your argument is invalid.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 17, 2015 11:09 PM  

Josh: "Fifteen million dead. Your argument is invalid."

Whose argument? What argument?

Blogger Josh March 17, 2015 11:27 PM  

Whose argument? What argument?

Hitler's real life and activities don't matter to his reputation.

Of course, a million deaths is a statistic, right?

Anonymous Heaviside March 17, 2015 11:45 PM  

>Post war, the Americans and other Western allies rightly considered the Communists untrustworthy, but didn't decide that the right strategy involved gambling their national existence on immediate war.

Your use of the word "gambling" here implies to the reader that invading the Soviet Union was taking a risk, as opposed to not invading it, which still had its own risks, just different ones. Not invading the Soviet Union was also a gamble, which also would have risked the existence of Germany. The choice which Hitler faced was not a between a gamble and a risk-free path, but between two different sets of risks, and unless it can be shown that, taking into account the information asymmetry that exists when we attempt to evaluate the situation as it was in 1941, Operation Barbarossa was obviously a blunder, we have not fairly judged him. The Monty Hall Problem shows that trying to calculate risk when information asymmetry is present is deeply counter-intuitive.

The American occupation forces in Europe after WWII also faced a different enemy than Hitler did in 1941, they had different resources at their disposal, and when NATO made decisions concerning tanks pouring across the Fulda Gap America's existence was not at risk.

Anonymous Heaviside March 17, 2015 11:46 PM  

Generally, I think a few cognitive biases exist when people try to talk about German involvement in WWII:

"Hitler committed the Holocaust. Therefore, Hitler was pure, metaphysical evil. Therefore, Hitler's actions were fundamentally irrational. Therefore, it is never necessary consider what a rational actor would do in his situation."

Seems to be a part of many people's thinking about WWII, and even foreign policy these days, since this image of Hitler is the template we use to think about Iran, North Korea, Russia, etc. Also, the general alien-ness of National Socialism(and to a lesser extent Marxism-Leninism and other foreign ideologies) from anything that exists in American discourse means that we are predisposed to regard its adherents as fundamentally irrational.

There's also the Fundamental Attribution Error; "Hitler was the only one with agency, everyone else just reacted to what he did. There is never any need to look for any circumstances that could have motivated him to make a certain decision if it appears irrational to us."

Lastly, the Curse of Knowledge; "We know this operation would fail, therefore they should have known, too."

All this, of course, is only made far worse by the amount of pure propaganda and outright lies surrounding the subject.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 17, 2015 11:55 PM  

Hitler's real life and activities don't matter to his reputation.

Josh: "Of course, a million deaths is a statistic, right?"

Heck, for Mao's fans fifty million is a statistic.

Lenin was a monster, and is still a sacred icon.

By reputation, Himmler was the right hand of Satan, but Yezhov and Yagoda who? Beria, ringing any bells? No? How about Mao's main killers? I'd have to look them up, I have no idea who they were.


Someone's actual moral standing is one thing. I hope this is clear:

europeasant: "Hilter was batshit crazy. The Slavs were not exactly pushovers, look at Stalingrad.
Europeans all over the world should stand together."

My opinion is the same.


I made many other clear statements in this thread. In sum: they are not flattering to Hitler.


But a demonic reputation pumped up by over seventy years of monomaniac propaganda is something else. This is not proportionate, especially compared to the killers of Communism. It's about who owns the mass media and what they see as relevant and advantageous to them.

If Hitler was judged logically, he would be in the same basket with Napoleon: bloody invaders of Russia who failed.

As it is, he's seen as a unique devil, which by body-count he was not, or he's in the same basket with other "antisemites" like people who are put in prison for Holocaust denial.

Again:

Alexandr Solzhenitsyn’s 200 Years Together -- still not translated into English and published and promoted like his other books.

It's absurd.

Anonymous Stilicho March 17, 2015 11:59 PM  

Mein Kampf is the prototype for every i-want-to-be-president autobiography written since. Hitler deserves all the scorn he receives and then some for being the inspiration of works like "It takes a village", "Inconvenient truths", and "Dreams from my momma's baby-daddy".

Blogger Eric March 18, 2015 12:02 AM  

Without the benefit of hindsight, was it unreasonable for the German leadership to think that the Soviet Union could not be trusted?

Of course they didn't trust the Soviets. They weren't fools. But they had spies in Soviet territory, and preparations for an invasion of that magnitude aren't something you can hide. Indeed, the Soviets detected German troops massing on the border. They cabled the Germans and had to be mollified with lies about troop rotations.

Of course the plan all along was to expand eastward - that was spelled out pretty clearly in Mein Kampf. Hitler was a volatile combination of Malthus and Darwin - he believed populations would naturally expand to the point of mass starvation, but that limiting birth rates (as the French did) made blood lines stagnant. Therefore the only choice was to wipe out the other races and settle their land with Germans. He hated Jews, but in his master plan the Jews were just the first of many races to be extinguished.

And the Soviets had read the book. So when Ribbentrop proposed splitting Poland the Soviets (who would have been pretty easy to bring onto the allied side but for absolutely stupid diplomacy by the Brits, the French, and especially the Poles) said "Hey, you've been preaching our doom for a decade. How can we possibly trust you?" They were told it was all posturing for the common folk. And they bought it, too. Stalin come out of pre-war diplomacy looking kind of credulous.

Blogger bob k. mando March 18, 2015 12:18 AM  

Eric March 17, 2015 9:37 PM
The only reason the Germans turned eastward after conquering France is they were certain the Brits would sue for peace at any moment.



that's not true.

a large part of the reason why Germany went east is the same reason they went to Africa: they needed oil desperately.

the oil need was a primary driver for Hitler's aggression as there were no significant sources in mainland western Europe.



Josh March 17, 2015 11:27 PM
Of course, a million deaths is a statistic, right?




"And when you kill a man, you're a murderer
Kill many, and you're a conqueror
Kill them all...Ooh...Oh you're a god!"

Blogger Josh March 18, 2015 12:20 AM  

monomaniac propaganda

Projection much?

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 18, 2015 12:28 AM  

Heaviside: "...unless it can be shown that, taking into account the information asymmetry that exists when we attempt to evaluate the situation as it was in 1941, Operation Barbarossa was obviously a blunder, we have not fairly judged him."

I disagree for many reasons, but first of all I have a completely different theoretical frame from Hitler's, which Eric March 18, 2015 12:02 AM discusses.

My opinion is that moderate nationalism is good, but whites have higher collective interests, the first of which is peace, in general and especially between white nations. I think leaders of white nations should advance their nations' interests, but subject to the higher interests of the race. From this point of view the risks of war and peace are not of the same kind and weight, and Hitler is at best an epic failure for not having secured a peace or even having secured his gains from the war in the West.

I think Neville Chamberlain was right in striving for peace as hard as he did. It resulted in his humiliation, but that is nothing compared to what would have been gained if he had succeeded. This is the kind of man I like. Unfortunately for him, Adolf Hitler wasn't equally committed to peace, but the blame for that is on Hitler, not Chamberlain.

Rudolf Hess realized that Hitler was leading Germany off a cliff, and so Hess set his own safety and freedom at nothing in order to take even the slightest chance that might have existed to make peace. He was wrong in that there was no chance, but he didn't know that. He was right to weigh the lives of many millions above his own single life, and again I like this kind of man.

When other people saw that peace was needed, I think Hitler ought to have seen it too.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 18, 2015 12:31 AM  

Josh: "Projection much?"

That's silly.

Blogger Eric March 18, 2015 12:32 AM  

a large part of the reason why Germany went east is the same reason they went to Africa: they needed oil desperately.

Not true. Read Shirer's book. Before they invaded the Soviet Union the Germans never had any reason to worry about oil, which they could have simply bought from the Soviets. In any event they would have been better off taking British properties in Northern Africa, which were less well defended and had more oil.

The invasion of eastern Europe and Russia was the whole point of the exercise. Hitler didn't even want war with England and France, who he considered natural allies.

Blogger Eric March 18, 2015 12:39 AM  

I think Neville Chamberlain was right in striving for peace as hard as he did. It resulted in his humiliation, but that is nothing compared to what would have been gained if he had succeeded. This is the kind of man I like. Unfortunately for him, Adolf Hitler wasn't equally committed to peace, but the blame for that is on Hitler, not Chamberlain.

By the Munich conference it should have been difficult for anyone to believe Hitler had any interest in peace. And before you think to much of Chamberlain remember he, along with Daladier, betrayed the Czechs, disrupted a coup by an anti-war faction of the German high command, and severely worsened the allied tactical position all in one foolish stroke.

Blogger Josh March 18, 2015 12:46 AM  

That's silly.

Devastating rebuttal

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 18, 2015 12:49 AM  

I think Europeans in those days were much to eager to go to war, and those who had a different attitude should be forgiven a lot.

Maybe everyone should have listened to the Popes more, particularly Benedict XV, Pope from 1914 to his death in 1922, and no fan of WWI. Though it was ineffective, I think the Vatican was a benevolent institution that clearly saw its interest in not having the strongest Christian nations, chock full of Catholics in many cases, massacring each other.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 18, 2015 12:52 AM  

Josh: "Devastating rebuttal"

More than that piffling attack was worth.

See Eric, well informed and arguing on substance? That's how it's done.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 18, 2015 1:49 AM  

zen0: "I see it."

Thanks. Then I don't have to repeat it. I think I'm about done here, give or take responding to unfinished arguments.

Blogger ScuzzaMan March 18, 2015 2:44 AM  

@SirHamster

There's been talk about assistance to the soviets, but check out the conditions the USa put on their help to Britain.

Machiavelli would be proud.

Anonymous Clay March 18, 2015 3:02 AM  

Thanks for your earlier answer, Josh.

But it still doesn't explain or excuse why the UK & France didn't declare war on Russia at the same time.

I do know why. Russia & Germany had signed a Pact of Non-Aggression, the same as those Commies had with Japan.

The Italians? Ethiopia was the best they could do...bigger pussies than the French.

Anonymous Clay March 18, 2015 3:06 AM  

I meant the Italians....not those Ethiopian goobers, of course.

Blogger dfordoom March 18, 2015 4:43 AM  

Titus Didius Tacitus said I think Neville Chamberlain was right in striving for peace as hard as he did.

Both Chamberlain and the policy of appeasement are unfairly maligned. Since war did eventually come the assumption is that Chamberlain must have been stupid, wrong and bad. If his policy had worked he would today be regarded as one of the greatest statesmen in history while Churchill would be a forgotten failed politician.

And appeasement could have worked. Chamberlain's mistake was to assume that the Poles were rational and would understand that it would be in their best interests to negotiate over what were after all perfectly valid German grievances such as Danzig. The guarantee to Poland was not supposed to have the effect of persuading the Poles that they had no need to negotiate.

Both the Czechs and the Poles behaved stubbornly and foolishly. The lesson is clear - never ever get mixed up in eastern European disputes.

Anonymous . March 18, 2015 7:12 AM  

The guarantee to Poland was not supposed to have the effect of persuading the Poles that they had no need to negotiate.

Well gee he should have made that clear to them before he issued the guarantee. Oops!

Blogger Robert What? March 18, 2015 7:35 AM  

Between declining birth rates and massive third world immigration - are there even enough ethnic Germans left to revitalize a new nationalistic movement?

Blogger Joshua Dyal March 18, 2015 7:51 AM  

ll the more tragic then, that Hitler risked the whole thing on war, and then having been lucky in war at first threw it all away with a white-on-white race war in the East: one of Germans versus Slavs, which the Germans lost.

There's a school of thought, to which I'm not entirely unsympathetic, that Hitler went to war because his house of cards economy was about to topple at any moment, and that was the only way to keep his version of fascism running for at least a little longer. If his wars had been a bit more successful, he probably would have been right; for the Germans, at least, who could have pillaged the resources of Poland, etc.

Plus, as an arch-nationalist, no doubt it bothered him considerably that territory that had once belonged to the Teutonic Order and to Prussia, even, was not in his hands. But even then, if going to war was really his ultimate objective, he could have done it much earlier.

Blogger CM March 18, 2015 9:54 AM  

I would think the issue leftists (especially European leftists) would have with the republication of Mein Kampf is the incredible parallel between their thinking and Hitler's... with one exception being multi-culti.

No political dogma's crime against humanity has been nearly so well documented as Naziism. And up until recently, leftists have fooled themselves into believing the evil in it was the Nationalist.

As multi-culti fails in Europe and the young people start embracing nationalism, being exposed to the concept of national socialism while knowing its atrocities could serve to highlight that the issue wasn't nationalism, but SOCIALISM.

Which the recognition of such is the death knell of the left.

Blogger Mindstorm March 18, 2015 9:57 AM  

@dfordoom
Both the Czechs and the Poles behaved stubbornly and foolishly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teutonic_takeover_of_Danzig_(Gda%C5%84sk) - old lessons are difficult to forget. So Stalin was credulous for believing Hitler, and Poles were foolish for not believing him?

Blogger Mindstorm March 18, 2015 10:07 AM  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Corridor#Nazi_German_and_Polish_diplomacy - the area of contention:
The Germans requested the construction of an extra-territorial Reichsautobahn freeway (to complete the Reichsautobahn Berlin-Königsberg) and railway through the Polish Corridor, effectively annexing Polish territory and connecting East Prussia to Danzig and Germany proper, while cutting off Poland from the sea and its main trade route.

Access to the port of Gdynia only at the whim of Hitler? Great opportunity for continued blackmail. Something had to give, sooner or later.

Anonymous Alexander March 18, 2015 10:16 AM  

Churchill was the mastermind behind the Ten Year Rule. Chamberlain was instrumental in establishing the Shadow Factory Scheme. Not quite the usual position history gives them.

I don't think Chamberlain was bamboozled by Munich: the shadow factories were already in place and military spending went up after Munich. It's a fair point to say it was dishonorable to sell the Czechs in an attempt to buy time, but I don't see the evidence that Chamberlain was a fool.

Blogger dfordoom March 18, 2015 11:23 AM  

and Poles were foolish for not believing him?

Poles were foolish for believing that the guarantee would save them. They should have taken a look at a map. Here's Poland. Here's France and Britain. How exactly did they think Britain and France were going to save them?

Of course the Poles probably made the mistake that most people made at that time, of thinking the French would or could fight effectively. With the benefit of hindsight it's obvious the French army was not going to launch a massive offensive against Germany the moment Germany attacked Poland. Even at the time though it should have been fairly obvious that if the French military strategy was based entirely on the Maginot Line then the French had neither the will, nor the capacity, nor the intention of waging anything other than a strictly defensive war. If you're going to rely on someone to save you it's a good idea to find out if they really have the ability to do it.

The Poles were also wildly overconfident about their own ability to repel a German invasion. They thought they could hold out for quite a long time - long enough for help to arrive (the help that in fact was never going to come).

Negotiating with Hitler might not have been a pleasant alternative but seriously - could the results possibly have been worse than the results that actually followed from refusing to negotiate?

Blogger Mindstorm March 18, 2015 11:40 AM  

Ask the Czechs.

Blogger dfordoom March 18, 2015 11:44 AM  

I don't think Chamberlain was bamboozled by Munich: the shadow factories were already in place and military spending went up after Munich. It's a fair point to say it was dishonorable to sell the Czechs in an attempt to buy time, but I don't see the evidence that Chamberlain was a fool.

Chamberlain's policy essentially was to strive for peace but prepare for war just in case. His foreign policy was cautious, sensible, realistic and far-sighted. Unfortunately for his historical reputation it wasn't glamorous.

Churchill's policy was devious, dishonest, willy inconsistent, unrealistic and reckless, but it was glamorous. And as Churchill said himself, "History will be kind to me because I intend to write it."

Chamberlain's premature death meant that he never had the opportunity to defend himself or to explain his thinking in detail. A few historians have had the courage to treat Chamberlain reasonably fairly but their voices are drowned out by the Churchill Cult.

Blogger Mindstorm March 18, 2015 11:50 AM  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Prosecution_Book-Poland - would this be avoided? I guess not.

Anonymous Feh March 18, 2015 12:18 PM  

And appeasement could have worked. Chamberlain's mistake was to assume that the Poles were rational and would understand that it would be in their best interests to negotiate over what were after all perfectly valid German grievances such as Danzig.

No, appeasement could not have worked. It assumed Hitler wanted "reasonable" adjustments to the Versailles order. This required ignoring what Hitler was actually saying -- and had been saying ever since he wrote Mein Kampf.

Anonymous Feh March 18, 2015 12:22 PM  

Chamberlain's policy essentially was to strive for peace but prepare for war just in case. His foreign policy was cautious, sensible, realistic and far-sighted.

LMAO, yeah you gotta love the sensible, realistic, and far-sighted policy of trusting Hitler...

Churchill's policy was devious, dishonest, willy inconsistent, unrealistic and reckless,

Nope. It was very open, consistent, and straightforward. The alternative policy in 1940 -- peace with Hitler -- would have been unrealistic and reckless.

Blogger Thucydides March 18, 2015 12:23 PM  

National Socialism is alive and active. Look at Quebec, which had a National Socialist government (the Parti Quebecois) and a federal wing (the Bolc Quebecois) dedicated to seizing wealth and distributing it to clients on the basis of ethnic origin (i.e. white, Francophone Quebecers).

Luckily they never managed to find a truely charismatic leader to follow, and the "socialist" part of their economic project and siocial engineering made what is potentially the richest province in Canada (a vast treasure house of natural and human resources) a perennial have-not province depending on transfers from wealthy Ontario and Alberta to survive. This obvious impoverishment diluted their appeal.

The Naional Socialist parties in Quebec have faded away, mostly due to demographics, but Quebecers still seem to be attracted to Democratic Socialist parties (proving that some lessons never get learned).

If you are looking for a horrible example close to home, just look north...

Blogger dfordoom March 18, 2015 1:27 PM  

LMAO, yeah you gotta love the sensible, realistic, and far-sighted policy of trusting Hitler...

Chamberlain did not trust Hitler. That's why Britain was re-arming. That's why when war did come Britain was ready. British factories were producing lots of Hurricanes and Spitfires. They were building tanks like the Matilda which were better than anything the Germans had. And the Illustrious-class aircraft carriers, and the KIng George V-class battleships. If Chamberlain had trusted Hitler why was the British government spending a fortune on rearmament?

Hope for peace, but prepare for war. Sounds like a reasonable policy to me.

Anonymous Yngvar March 18, 2015 2:11 PM  

"Why didn't their "mutual defense treaty" cause Britain & France to also declare war on Russia?"

As told in "The rise and fall of the Third Reich" there was a secret protocol in the agreement that spelled out that by 'aggressor' they meant Germany.

Blogger Eric March 18, 2015 5:30 PM  

Hope for peace, but prepare for war. Sounds like a reasonable policy to me.

Chamberlain bought Britain a little time at the expense of its reputation and an ally that would have been invaluable. Not to mention the plot to arrest Hitler as soon as he gave the order for the invasion.

By surrendering Northern Czechoslovakia to Hitler Chamberlain and Deladier changed Hitler from a guy with middling political support leading a country into a war it didn't really want into The Hero Of The Race.

Anonymous Heaviside March 18, 2015 7:16 PM  

>The alternative policy in 1940 -- peace with Hitler -- would have been unrealistic and reckless.

More reckless than involving Britain in an unnecessary war that would cause it to lose its empire?

Blogger Mindstorm March 18, 2015 7:35 PM  

Hitler acted on his own schedule:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jab%C5%82onk%C3%B3w_Incident
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarn%C3%B3w_rail_station_bomb_attack
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident

It only takes one side of the conflict in order to escalate it to full-scale war.

Blogger Mindstorm March 18, 2015 7:37 PM  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Himmler

Blogger Noah B March 18, 2015 7:46 PM  

...at least it's an ethos.

Anonymous Heaviside March 18, 2015 9:24 PM  

>Much of what is known about the Gleiwitz incident comes from the affidavit of SS-Sturmbannführer Alfred Naujocks at the Nuremberg Trials.

In other words, from what is in all likelihood a concocted confession handed to him after he was brutally tortured. Yes comrade, Stalin invented the aeroplane, dontcha know?

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 19, 2015 12:10 AM  

Noah B: "...at least it's an ethos."

Yes.

But it issued so much in war-making that it's bound to one time and place. We never even saw how the system handled the problem of leadership succession, which every sustainable political system has to solve.

Discussions of National Socialism don't lead to discussions of how its mostly viable social system worked; they lead to diplomatic and military "what if?"s, which makes it about as relevant as the military career of King Charles XII of Sweden.

Peace courts his hand, but spreads her charms in vain;
"Think nothing gained", he cries, "till nought remain,
On Moscow's walls till Gothic standards fly,
And all be mine beneath the polar sky."

...

His fall was destined to a barren strand,
A petty fortress, and a dubious hand;
He left the name, at which the world grew pale,
To point a moral or adorn a tale.

Anonymous Feh March 19, 2015 6:52 AM  

"More reckless than involving Britain in an unnecessary war that would cause it to lose its empire?"

It was not an unnecessary war and Britain was going to lose its empire if the Axis won.

Anonymous Feh March 19, 2015 6:57 AM  

"Chamberlain did not trust Hitler."

Of course he did. He boasted to Parliament after returning from Munich that Hitler could be trusted to keep his word and would never deceive Chamberlain. What a tool.

As for British arming, it wasn't at the level required to deter or fight Germany.

Anonymous Smokey March 20, 2015 1:06 AM  

It was not an unnecessary war and Britain was going to lose its empire if the Axis won.

Well, no shit. Germany was a competitor, they had to be knocked out of the running.

Same reason Britain was so eager to engage Germany in World War I. They were competition. Britain was shitting its pants in the 1930's, since they didn't expect Germany to bounce back and threaten British dominance again so quickly.

So it was pretty much an unnecessary war, in that it was started purely in the interests of certain nations to expand their power base. The whole "just war" stuff was tacked on after the fact, to clean it up for the history books.

As for Poland, there was a book published some time back which made the case that Poland should have allied with Germany at first, smashed the Soviet Union (take Moscow, execute Stalin, disrupt the communist power base), then stabbed Germany in the back afterwards and smashed them along with Britain and France. This, the author argued, would have resulted in a better alternative than Poland becoming the Soviet Union's bitch after the war had ended.

Blogger Mindstorm March 21, 2015 6:54 AM  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drang_nach_Osten - in the context of this longterm strategy, any alliance with Hitler was not an option for Poles.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts