I'm interested in getting the feeling of this board on Hitler. I'm waiting for the day when White Nationalists can have real individualistic discussions of WWII without the argument deteriorating into the old "YOU ARE A JEW" rants...let me clarify what I mean by balanced perspective. I DO NOT mean insult Hitler to gain the appearance of being "mainstream" or of sucking up to the lemmings or the media. What I mean by balanced is that Hitler did make mistakes and it's not being brainwashed by television to be aware of these mistakes...let me give you some examples and tell me if this seems reasonable to you in a Hitler Critique..

1) Hitler made a terrible mistake in not creating The Ukraine as an independent state in 1941. Nazi Philosopher Alfred Rosenberg had a wonderful plan of making Ukrainians into a bulwark against the Russians. Rosenberg considered Ukrainians to be possessed of a great deal of Nordic blood because Vikings had created the city of Kiev in the Middle Ages. I believe Rosenberg's theories are correct because I have seen numerous Ukrainians with blonde hair..The Ukrainians were fiercely Anti-Communist because their country was full of small independent farmers. These farmers hated collectivization and resisted Soviet pressure at every turn. This was the cause of the Ukrainian Famine of 1932-1933..the Soviet Secret Police finally had grown frustrated with the independent spirit of Ukrainians and so they began confiscating the local grain supply.

2) Hitler supported the corrupt Miklos Horthy of Hungary as Prime Minister during WWII even though the Fascist Party of The Arrow Cross led by Ferenc Szalasi should have been the natural rulers if Hitler had truly been following a Fascist program. As it turned out, Hitler only placed Szalasi and The Arrow Cross in power in late 1944 towards the end of the war when Horthy had already tried to surrender Hungary to The Russians. What this means is that Hitler was more of a Nationalist than a Fascist in this policy. He cared more about exploiting the wealth and resources of Hungary than The Hungarians being part of a Fascist Revival.

Hitler did the same thing in the case of Romania. Hitler supported the Prime Minister Ion Antonescu whose first wife had been Jewish..Antonescu also would start and stop Anti-Semitic procedures simply based on whether Germany was winning the war. The minute Antonescu became aware that the Germans were losing the war, he wanted to stop any negative treatment of Jews...this is fair-weather friend mentality..when things start going bad, I'm OUT..the real ruler of Romania should have been Horia Sima who was the head of the Romanian Iron Guard. Himmler tried to get Hitler to support Sima and the two of them frequently wrote letters to each other but Hitler did not want the true Fascist in power, again he only wanted to exploit Romanian resources with a weak pretend Fascist (Antonescu) who was in essence a Conservative at heart.

I guess this is a real test of the maturity of this board...are we free to criticize specific Hitler policies without being called Jewish whores???

A balanced perspective? you must be joking, these are Nazis we are talking about here.

Hitler made some mistakes but not as many or as great as most people think. What has most often been trotted out as "Hitler's big mistake," attacking the USSR, turns out to have been a decision forced by circumstances. Failure to consider what circumstances or provocations might have precipitated various decisions made by Adolf Hitler typically characterizes the mainstream evaluations of him as a leader. It is easy to make Hitler look like an insane warmonger by portraying his decisions in a political vacuum where everybody else is assumed to be passive.

By rights, the prize for insane warmongering ought to have gone to Winston Churchill. It was Churchill who turned down the opportunity for peace in 1940 and thus ruined his country.

Hitler was not a Fascist; he was a National-Socialist. It is different.

Hitler at some time said, "National-Socialism is not for export." Why was it Hitler's responsibility to interfere in the internal politics of his allies?
Trying to force every country in the world to have the same form of government accords with the U.S. way of doing things, not the National-Socialist way.

If Ukraine was given independence, would Germany still have gotten all of Ukraines coal, zinc and copper? Or would Ukraine have kept all of that for use in its own impossible war effort--impossible, because it has no war industry of its own? Or would Ukraine sell it to whoever was winning? When you set up a state then you have to deal with it.

If Ukraine was given independence, would Germany still have gotten all of Ukraines coal, zinc and copper? Or would Ukraine have kept all of that for use in its own impossible war effort--impossible, because it has no war industry of its own? Or would Ukraine sell it to whoever was winning? When you set up a state then you have to deal with it.

Ukraine would have needed to become an Axis Ally to defend themselves against the Soviet Union. They can be independent and yet still remain a major trading partner with Germany. It was not only Rosenberg who didn't like Hitler's Ukraine policy, Goebbels also expressed disappointment with it as well in the middle of the war.

I don't quite see your point. Who can't discuss Hitler rationally around here? It's the jews and their puppets who go into convulsions at the hint of an objective discussion. As Hitler was a human being, he made mistakes - it's only in kike Hollywood movies that characters don't make mistakes.

Personally, I love the history of this period and military history in particular and would love chatting about it.

For mistakes, I think his biggest was going with the army and a faction within the NSDAP and offing Rohm and the SA. The SA was well over a million armed and trained men in 33. They might have provided the extra muscle to knock the SU out with the single blow the Germans so desperately needed in 41.

Anyway, I don't see any reason we can't discuss him rationally and in a balanced way. Shiet....we are probably the only people who can do that - and you can add most 'famous' people to him too. Lincoln, for instance.

Anyway, 88.

For mistakes, I think his biggest was going with the army and a faction within the NSDAP and offing Rohm and the SA. The SA was well over a million armed and trained men in 33. They might have provided the extra muscle to knock the SU out with the single blow the Germans so desperately needed in 41.

I know very little of that particular piece of history, so I have to ask: couldn't they simply draft those SA men and have them fight that way?

I agree with Hadding: it wasn't such a big mistake to attack the USSR when you think about it. The Bolsheviks had already attacked Romania, cutting off Germany's vital oil imports from that country. It seemed likely that the Jew-infested tyranny would just go on and on. Personally I believe there was bound to be war between the two at some point or another, perhaps when Stalin had died -- at which point the war would have been nuclear.

Like Neville Chamberlain told Kennedy Sr., it was international Jewry that pushed Britain into war with Germany. So it wasn't like the Germans had any choice between peace or war, like some believe. Hell, the Germans take back some land in Poland, and take some more of the cake while they're at it, and they're attacked by the French and British empires for a thing like that -- can you believe it? Meanwhile, the Russian empire takes eastern Poland, invades the Baltic states, and tries to invade Finland, and noone reacts -- it is even erased from history class these days.

bollocks neville chamberlain was never an antisemite

he was biding his time to go to war with hitler, not out of any desire to make peace but because he had to get time to manufacture more weapons. if he had invaded then and there he would have lost the war.

he wasn´t a nazi by any means, a little weak, but not a nazi

I don't quite see your point. Who can't discuss Hitler rationally around here? It's the jews and their puppets who go into convulsions at the hint of an objective discussion. As Hitler was a human being, he made mistakes - it's only in kike Hollywood movies that characters don't make mistakes.

Personally, I love the history of this period and military history in particular and would love chatting about it.

For mistakes, I think his biggest was going with the army and a faction within the NSDAP and offing Rohm and the SA. The SA was well over a million armed and trained men in 33. They might have provided the extra muscle to knock the SU out with the single blow the Germans so desperately needed in 41.

Anyway, I don't see any reason we can't discuss him rationally and in a balanced way. Shiet....we are probably the only people who can do that - and you can add most 'famous' people to him too. Lincoln, for instance.

Anyway, 88.

Uncle Wolfs biggest mistake was in attacking Russia without long range heavy bombers of which Germany had none nor even tried to develop. The same bombers that the US and Britian used so effectivley against Germany. That is, the US B-24 Liberator, US B-17 flying fortress and the the British Lancaster.

By comparison, the Germans had the He-111 and the HE-177. Both 2 engine medium range bombers as compared to the US and British 4 engine planes. The He 111 was a good medium bomber but got the shit kicked out of it over England because the German 109's didn't have the range to protect it. The HE-111 was kept in production long after it should have been replaced, because the Luftwaffe suffered from a developmental plan for long range, heavy bombers. It basically had none, until much too late in the war when they were on the defensive.

I know very little of that particular piece of history, so I have to ask: couldn't they simply draft those SA men and have them fight that way?

I agree with Hadding: it wasn't such a big mistake to attack the USSR when you think about it. The Bolsheviks had already attacked Romania, cutting off Germany's vital oil imports from that country. It seemed likely that the Jew-infested tyranny would just go on and on. Personally I believe there was bound to be war between the two at some point or another, perhaps when Stalin had died -- at which point the war would have been nuclear.

Like Neville Chamberlain told Kennedy Sr., it was international Jewry that pushed Britain into war with Germany. So it wasn't like the Germans had any choice between peace or war, like some believe. Hell, the Germans take back some land in Poland, and take some more of the cake while they're at it, and they're attacked by the French and British empires for a thing like that -- can you believe it? Meanwhile, the Russian empire takes eastern Poland, invades the Baltic states, and tries to invade Finland, and no one reacts -- it is even erased from history class these days.

Heil Fredrik,

The Rohm thing was one of Hitler's biggest mistakes because he decapitated the SA in doing it. That was the deal with the army and the aristocratic and economic elites who the army high command represented. They insisted on no armed militia in exchange for their aristocratic support. They - the Heer - must be the only trained armed force. Himmler got around this shortly after, but never anywhere near the scale that Rohm had already achieved by the early 30s. Rohm was in favor of 'perpetual revolution', sort of the NSDAP answer to Trotsky, I guess. He, and the rest of the left wing branch (the Strassers, for instance) - the Socialist part - in National Socialism, were all offed that night in 34. Goebbels himself came very close to being murdered that night as he had been the very successful leader of the left branch of the NSDAP in Berlin before Hitler became Chancellor. Hitler went with respectability over revolutionary fervor and hoped his tremendous skills, particularly as a gambler, would pull him through.

The deal was not just to remove Rohm, but to emasculate the SA which maybe had near 2 million men in arms and trained at that point, as opposed to the German army of 100,000 men. I'm sure that many of those SA men wound up in the Heer, but in an organization that, while fighting tactically with an élan and genius totally unmatched in modern history, were indeed lead by an elite that was deeply antithetical to National Socialism. Hitler was quite right to be suspicious of the top echelon officers in the army. They always disagreed with him, not just after 42 when Germany was lost, but right from the start. Had the SA remained the revolutionary force it was under Rohm, it would have hit Russia like a lightening bolt and hopefully smashed through in the one stroke that Germany had to achieve, if doing it in the first place meant anything. The German army was not issued winter clothes because a country of Germany's size and economic clout, great as it was, could not possibly contemplate a long war with anybody, let alone the great nightmare of all German strategic planning - a two front war with the biggest, richest and most powerful countries in the world. When it didn't quite happen that October, 1941 - the war was basically over then. And if it had not been for the President of the United States and his senile, idiotic ways, prodded and directed by the enormous jew power that surrounded him and kept him from any sane advice - the obscenity of 'unconditional surrender' would perhaps not have happened and the war perhaps would have ended with some kind of honorable compromise. Doubtful, considering the power of the jew, but possible if not for 'unconditional surrender.'

I agree that the idea of attacking Russia was not a bad one at all, and a war between them was inevitable. But strategically it was insane from the first moment as there actually never was any strategic planning. What the German's did in Russia on the strategic level is very similar to what we Americans are doing in the Arab world now. We bust in, with vague slogans and no real, clear objectives and expect the other side to simply agree after we give them a mighty show of force. That only works in the long run, if they agree and totally stop fighting. If they don't stop - then what? German armies punched straight through and went and went for thousands of miles into Russia. But there were always thousands and thousands more miles of Russia left. And, the Russians were always able to get their war industries dismantled, and ship them out, sometimes on the last train, first to Tula and then over the Urals out of the range of any German planes. Plus, they had our help the minute the German's invaded. So then, what was the strategic plan? Where were the stop lines and what would having reached them accomplished? Even if they had achieved their initial objectives of taking (and destroying) Leningrad and Moscow...so what? Napoleon took Moscow and it didn't change a thing.

Throughout the war, the German's were just incredibly brilliant on the tactical, but abysmal on the strategic levels. The long term planning was almost totally absent, and when not, merely opportunistic.

Attack Russia? Yes - if you can convince the Japanese to forget their plans in the Pacific and have them also hit Russia from the east with absolutely everything they have got. And meet in the middle, right on top of the Russian oil fields. Or, and even better - give everything you have got to totally destroying England first - instead of Russia, hit south with the Italians and take Egypt and then the middle east. Perhaps Turkey would have come in then. The middle east provided the Brits with most of their oil and taking it, and of course, the Suez canal along with it, would have made the Mediterranean a protected lake and unified the Fascist territorial gains. And at the same time, put, again, everything, into the submarine war against England to stave that evil jew run shit hole into surrender. The German's came pretty close to doing that - and with an incredibly small number of not state-of-the-art subs. If they had put much more into subs, the might have managed. Then attacking Russia would have not been quite the stake-everything-on-one-throw gamble it was.

Italian heavy bomber prototypes actually did bomb the Brit oil fields in one spectacular raid which resulted in the Brits having to tie down enormous forces there for the rest of the war. But, as Steve B says (hi Steve), Germany not having long range strategic bombers was a fatal mistake. But then again - Germany had limited resources and thus actually could not afford to make a single major mistake and survive let alone win the war. It was the attack planes that played such a great role in the victories of 39, 40 and 41 OR a heavy bomber wing. The resources nesessary to build one heavy bormber could build four attack planes. For the USA or Russia with their vast resources, no sweat, build both, but for Germany - a need to prioritize. So, again, they hoped they would be able to punch through in that one fall campaign because if the war, on any front, lasted longer than that, Germany had no chance. There never was any real planning in Germany for a long war - thus the rationale for not building the heavy bombers - because Germany could not possibly fight a long war. Shit, even that despicable England was totally bankrupted and destroyed by the filthy war they forced on Germany. Where is 'white' England today? Where is the British Empire today? Just as Hitler said - if the Brits forced through their horrible war it would be the death of not only Germany, but of England too, and of Western Civilization. Let us hope he was wrong on the last point.

Gott expresses a legitimate opinion and certainly a crucial decision.

Gott should read Leon DeGrelle on this question. I read an excerpt from DeGrelle on the barnesreview website a year or so ago about this very thing. DeGrelle defended the action and said that Rohm was planning an imminent putsch against Hitler, which would have elevated the proletarian SA to equivalence with the Prussian Army staff. As you suggest this would have been unacceptable to them. And for good reason in De Grelle's view, because they were the acme of centuries of military-social organization and the SA men though well meaning and very much filled with combat veterans were not the caliber of the professional officers.

I tend to agree with this although I have considered both views. I think Hitler would have ended up with a Red Army kind of thing, without competent Generals. Hitler would have been offed. Von Stauffenberg and the rest would have gotten around to it within very short order.

I think deep down, Hitler was intent on both refighting WW I and crushing the bolshies and obtaining the steppes for settlement. I dont think he really gave a shit too much about most of what we consider NS. So much theorizing which he as the head could dispense with at will. Consider the history of the F Franco and the phalange. He discarded the fascist elements of Primo de Rivera in favor of a mild corporatism. I think Hitler was far less of a "socialist" or social radical that everybody makes him out to be, and far more conservative than anybody wants to admit especially conservatives.

Heil Fredrik,

The Rohm thing was one of Hitler's biggest mistakes because he decapitated the SA in doing it. That was the deal with the army and the aristocratic and economic elites who the army high command represented. They insisted on no armed militia in exchange for their aristocratic support. They - the Heer - must be the only trained armed force. Himmler got around this shortly after, but never anywhere near the scale that Rohm had already achieved by the early 30s. Rohm was in favor of 'perpetual revolution', sort of the NSDAP answer to Trotsky, I guess. He, and the rest of the left wing branch (the Strassers, for instance) - the Socialist part - in National Socialism, were all offed that night in 34. Goebbels himself came very close to being murdered that night as he had been the very successful leader of the left branch of the NSDAP in Berlin before Hitler became Chancellor. Hitler went with respectability over revolutionary fervor and hoped his tremendous skills, particularly as a gambler, would pull him through.

The deal was not just to remove Rohm, but to emasculate the SA which maybe had near 2 million men in arms and trained at that point, as opposed to the German army of 100,000 men. I'm sure that many of those SA men wound up in the Heer, but in an organization that, while fighting tactically with an élan and genius totally unmatched in modern history, were indeed lead by an elite that was deeply antithetical to National Socialism. Hitler was quite right to be suspicious of the top echelon officers in the army. They always disagreed with him, not just after 42 when Germany was lost, but right from the start. Had the SA remained the revolutionary force it was under Rohm, it would have hit Russia like a lightening bolt and hopefully smashed through in the one stroke that Germany had to achieve, if doing it in the first place meant anything. The German army was not issued winter clothes because a country of Germany's size and economic clout, great as it was, could not possibly contemplate a long war with anybody, let alone the great nightmare of all German strategic planning - a two front war with the biggest, richest and most powerful countries in the world. When it didn't quite happen that October, 1941 - the war was basically over then. And if it had not been for the President of the United States and his senile, idiotic ways, prodded and directed by the enormous jew power that surrounded him and kept him from any sane advice - the obscenity of 'unconditional surrender' would perhaps not have happened and the war perhaps would have ended with some kind of honorable compromise. Doubtful, considering the power of the jew, but possible if not for 'unconditional surrender.'

I agree that the idea of attacking Russia was not a bad one at all, and a war between them was inevitable. But strategically it was insane from the first moment as there actually never was any strategic planning. What the German's did in Russia on the strategic level is very similar to what we Americans are doing in the Arab world now. We bust in, with vague slogans and no real, clear objectives and expect the other side to simply agree after we give them a mighty show of force. That only works in the long run, if they agree and totally stop fighting. If they don't stop - then what? German armies punched straight through and went and went for thousands of miles into Russia. But there were always thousands and thousands more miles of Russia left. And, the Russians were always able to get their war industries dismantled, and ship them out, sometimes on the last train, first to Tula and then over the Urals out of the range of any German planes. Plus, they had our help the minute the German's invaded. So then, what was the strategic plan? Where were the stop lines and what would having reached them accomplished? Even if they had achieved their initial objectives of taking (and destroying) Leningrad and Moscow...so what? Napoleon took Moscow and it didn't change a thing.

Throughout the war, the German's were just incredibly brilliant on the tactical, but abysmal on the strategic levels. The long term planning was almost totally absent, and when not, merely opportunistic.

Attack Russia? Yes - if you can convince the Japanese to forget their plans in the Pacific and have them also hit Russia from the east with absolutely everything they have got. And meet in the middle, right on top of the Russian oil fields. Or, and even better - give everything you have got to totally destroying England first - instead of Russia, hit south with the Italians and take Egypt and then the middle east. Perhaps Turkey would have come in then. The middle east provided the Brits with most of their oil and taking it, and of course, the Suez canal along with it, would have made the Mediterranean a protected lake and unified the Fascist territorial gains. And at the same time, put, again, everything, into the submarine war against England to stave that evil jew run shit hole into surrender. The German's came pretty close to doing that - and with an incredibly small number of not state-of-the-art subs. If they had put much more into subs, the might have managed. Then attacking Russia would have not been quite the stake-everything-on-one-throw gamble it was.

Italian heavy bomber prototypes actually did bomb the Brit oil fields in one spectacular raid which resulted in the Brits having to tie down enormous forces there for the rest of the war. But, as Steve B says (hi Steve), Germany not having long range strategic bombers was a fatal mistake. But then again - Germany had limited resources and thus actually could not afford to make a single major mistake and survive let alone win the war. It was the attack planes that played such a great role in the victories of 39, 40 and 41 OR a heavy bomber wing. The resources nesessary to build one heavy bormber could build four attack planes. For the USA or Russia with their vast resources, no sweat, build both, but for Germany - a need to prioritize. So, again, they hoped they would be able to punch through in that one fall campaign because if the war, on any front, lasted longer than that, Germany had no chance. There never was any real planning in Germany for a long war - thus the rationale for not building the heavy bombers - because Germany could not possibly fight a long war. Shit, even that despicable England was totally bankrupted and destroyed by the filthy war they forced on Germany. Where is 'white' England today? Where is the British Empire today? Just as Hitler said - if the Brits forced through their horrible war it would be the death of not only Germany, but of England too, and of Western Civilization. Let us hope he was wrong on the last point.

Good points, Gott. However I must disagree with your assesment of the SA as a viable combat force. That is, the seizing of ground by mechanized armor and infantry and holding it. The SA had no experience whatsoever with ground warfare. The SA was mainly Uncle Wolfs strong arm political tool. The Wehrmacht formally known as the Reichswehr was the big gun in this regard and obviously Uncle Wolf knew it.

In my opinion Hitlers offing of SA leader(wasn't he a homosexual?) Roehm was a stroke of genius. Why?

1) He eliminates a potential rival and threat to himself.

2) By eliminating Rohem, Hitler gets the backing of the the Wehrmacht(who feared Rohem) with centuries of known and proven experience in ground warfare.

3) As you correctly pointed out, most members of the SA joined the Heer and under Himmler became the most feared fighting force the world has even seen... The Schutzstaffel (SS) and then the Waffen SS. In fact the SA and the SS Schutzstaffel wore the same uniform except for a black cap with a silver death's head badge and a black tie on the SS uniform. Same dedicated guys, different uniform and Hitler gets rid of a guy he doesn't fully trust(Rohem) and replaces him with someone he does(Himmler).

4) The result: Uncle Wolf gets rid of Rohem, the SS replaces the SA and a more reliable trustworthy organization is established, The Heer is appeased, which I might add, without them no "lightning war" can occur and foremost Hitlers power is consolidated and thats what it's all about, isn't it Gott? Not a "fatal mistake" at all but in point of fact a brilliant tactical and political maneuver.

________________________________________________________________

As to Germany having "limited resources" and not being able to develop long range heavy bombers...I think that reasoning is also flawed. As I recall a VNN forum poster posted a link of Germanys technical achievements that filled 10 wherehouses. To put it in a nutshell....The Germans can develop Radar, V-2 rockets, jet fighters, synthetic oil, transistors and power sources that can fit into the palm of your hand, decades before everyone else but can't develop a long range bomber....BULLSHIT! The reason the Lufftwaffe didn't have long range heavy bombers is because of that morphine addicted idiot, Hermann Goring! Why Uncle Wolf ever stuck with that piece of shit I'll never know!!!

I thought exactly same bout Goering as Steve suggests. Especially after reading Speer's memoirs where he hangs all the production problems on Goering. But Speer said a lot of self serving crap.

But when I read David Irving's Nuremberg, that seriously lifted Goering's stock. Take a look at it Steve. In short, Goering sobered up pdq and then defended the actions of the leadership, denied the legitimacy of the proceedings, and stuck his finger in the eye of the Allies until the very end when he snatched the opportunity to hang him away from them by biting an ampule which nobody knew he had concealed for all that time.

I agree that the idea of attacking Russia was not a bad one at all, and a war between them was inevitable. But strategically it was insane from the first moment as there actually never was any strategic planning.

There's a reason for this. The Fuhrer always anticipated war with the Bolsheviks, but never in 1941. GRU defector Victor Suvorov's Icebreaker makes a convincing case that Barbarossa was launched when it was to defend against an imminent Soviet attack on Germany, which would be quite consistent with Party and Red Army doctrine. The more recent Stalin's Other War, by Albert Weeks, apparently agrees, but I've yet to read that one.

Where is the British Empire today?

Perhaps where it would have been in any event? Meaning, I don't find the Charmley "counterfactual" totally persuasive. Maybe decolonization would have taken longer, but the nationalist movement in India, for example, long predated WWII. Itz actually difficult to reconcile The Fuhrer's own devastating view of ossified Austria-Hungary and his disdain for German colonies, with his glorifcation of the British empire. His belief that only the Brits knew how to treat their "niggers" is best described as subtle. Of all people, the Fuhrer should have known multiracial empires no longer worked.

I yield to no one in my admiration for Leon Degrelle. But, in 1934, Degrelle wasn't operating in the same world as A. Hitler and E. Rohm. He was in no position to know anything about what really happened then. There is a lot of hard, cold, objective fact on this in various of Irving's books and apparently the imminent coup idea was just a fantasy made up to frighten Hitler into killing all those people - including his single oldest friend in whose abilities he put great store. Goring and Himmler in particular, seemed to have played Hitler like a violin that night with all sorts of totally fictitious accounts of SA troop movements etc. I mean, they had to have some reason for basically destroying the SA, and that was the official one, along with the gay stuff. But as Hitler had known all about the gay stuff for years and years and didn't care...that would not work. So the imminent revolt thing was invented and it did work.

One of the reasons why the Waffen-SS fought better than the regular Heer, and why the Heer fought better than the Brits, Americans, Russians or Italians was because of that proletarian nature of that institution, which was largely modeled on Rohm's SA, only with higher standards (you couldn't get in if you had a single filling in a tooth, at least in the first few years). Officers and men ate together, and ate the same food, they fought together too and the men were all trained to become officers at a moment's notice - there were no class distinctions whatsoever in either the SA or SS.

There is really nothing good that I can think of to be said about the aristocratic hierarchies in the German general staff. It is certainly true that the Heer is where all the really great German generals came from, and that no SS general came anywhere near the same intellectual level - certainly not Dietrich and probably not Steiner either. But, who can say what the SA might have developed if it had not been beheaded in 34? Playing 'what if' is fun but pointless - but the really deeply ingrained hostility to National Socialism in the Heer was extraordinary! Traitors gave so many German moves to the allies, so many of Hitler's orders were not obeyed. So much of Hitler's time was spent on endless debates with the German General Staff. Shit, Admiral Canaris was rightly executed towards the end of the war for his absolutely breathtaking treason to his own country and armed forces! I mean, Canaris is the guy who did everything in his power - successfully - to keep Franco from joining the war with the Germans and Italians! Having Gibraltar might have made a difference. Having Malta might have made a difference. And Canaris was head of German intelligence too??? These are the 'aristocrats' who Hitler chose instead of the proletarian SA leadership? The SA leadership revolt was a fiction; the treason of the higher elements of the Heer - Von Stauffenberg and co. - was a fact, and right from the beginning. Degrelle, don't forget, came from a 'good' family and lots of money too, though he certainly proved his courage and devotions many times over.

Hitler never had any time...who can say what he really cared about? He said he was going to retire to Linz as soon as the war was won and become an artist, which he always considered to be his real vocation. Politics was only a temporary, unpleasant necessity. He did many truly great things outside of his anti red work. At the heart of everything was his loathing of the jew - in which I cannot agree more with him. But he built the autobahns, he had the people's car ready to go, there were fleets of ocean liners to take Germans on wonderful cruises around the Mediterranean on absurdly inexpensive vacations, etc. He put the German people back to productive work within a year of taking power. And, the entire thing only lasted for 12 years and every one of them under mortal attack by world jewry. So, who knows what might have happened if he and Germany had had more breathing room and time?

By the way, two of the cruise ships built for that wonderful government subsidized vacation program eventually became the two greatest sea disasters of all time when the Russians sank them loaded with women, children and wounded soldiers. Each one of those sinkings made the Titanic look puny in comparison.

Hi Steve,

Well, like I said to A.E. above, all we can go on is the few short years they actually had. And the SA had far fewer even than the NSDAP. Rohm's plans were for Germany to be a sort of Sparta, I think. With all males having extensive and very sophisticated military training going way beyond mere universal conscription. And along with the military would go ideological training. Sort of like the Hitler Youth, but for adults. I'm sure Rohm had plans for all those things you mention, but he got flanked by Himmler and the others who had their own plans - plans which fit much better with those of the Heer.
Well, Hitler had to choose - the aristocrats and financiers and industrialists or the proletariat and went with the former. My own view is a country with Germany's limited resources can't have it all and maybe would have had a better chance if all were as committed as the elite cadres of the NSDAP, such as the SS. When the war came, Himmler as quickly as possible expanded the SS till, ultimately, I think over 2 million served in it, but if the SA had been allowed to be that, but from 34, it is possible that virtually every able bodied man in Germany would have hit the enemies of European civilization with all their might all at once, rather than incrementally. It might have made a difference. For us, the difference between going extinct, which is what seems to be happening, or continuing to flower and develop as the most brilliant and creative people in the history of the world. Since all that is good lost - I can't help daydreaming what might have been had Hitler done a few things differently. I've read that he himself was always sorry about offing Rohm and thought it had been a big mistake.

I agree he did off him because he saw Rohm as a potential rival - which is exactly what Himmler and Goring wanted him to believe. But there is no proof of that which I know of. And it is true that one way Hitler stayed in unchallenged power was by playing off his underlings against each other. And Rohm would have been too big a power for that to work had the SA been given preference over the army. But the army failed, Steve. Maybe it could not have been otherwise in a country as small and beleaguered as Germany was - but it did. And we will never know of the SA in its place might have succeeded. The men who served in all the German forces are the best men who ever served. But I don't have much good to say about the German General Staff except in relation to their profession (there were a lot of good generals). There were a lot of disloyal generals too. That's my point. Not the men - the leadership and their anti NSDAP, and defeatist attitudes. It was not the German General Staff's centuries of proven experience in ground warfare that won, anyway, as they were totally chicken shit from before any fighting. The GGS had plans to remove Hitler during the Czech crisis and were adamantly against the Poland and later the France invasions saying that they couldn't work. And, the plan they came up with for France indeed couldn't work. It was von Manstein who finally got his plan through to Hitler himself...and Hitler's daring to go with it that destroyed France in the greatest military campaign in modern times.

Yeah, the Schutzstaffel was the best in history - but there were not a lot of them. And the Waffen-SS came so late when having them at the start might have made the difference. And, ultimately, while Rohm's treachery has never been proven, Himmler did indeed try and save his own ass towards the end. That is why he didn't get appointed Hitler's successor while Donitz did.

Sure Germany made many brilliant technical contributions. And much of what we have today is based on them (just like the training of virtually all elite forces are an exact copy of that for the SS). But Germany had limited resources and had to prioritize. For instance a total lack of many essential metals. Many weapons programs had to be shut down because there was only so much nickel or titanium to go around, etc. Things that were no issue for 'our' side were crippling to theirs. What is more heartbreaking than seeing those pictures of underground assembly lines chock full of German jet fighter/bombers all finished but never flown as there was no fuel to fly them? Genius and having a supply of nickel or titanium are two different things.

He stuck to Goring because Goring has the society connections that Hitler went with rather than the proletariat that Rohm was pushing. Goring and his ritzy wives were in the top echelon of society in both Germany and Sweden. He knew everybody and was adept at the society thing and provided Hitler with entry into that world. And because I live in this horrible world, I have to remind myself that ‘proletariat’ then, in Germany, doesn’t mean the filthy disgusting rabble it means everywhere else. It means the German people, united in their crusade to protect and save Western Civilization.

Some of the bad things that happened are Goring's fault, but not all. Again, propaganda can only do so much and Germany had limited resources. It's one thing to know what you must do, and even have the human material to do it, but not having the metals and fuels, etc. stops it all dead. The rivalries between the services too, contributed to the bad situation. Instead of working together under one central office, each service was rival to the others for resources and jealously guarded its own turf and even innovations from the others.

It's all pretty sad.

Hi FS,

I guess Germany just had so many mortal enemies that even survival was a long shot. It's so fucking sad to read about the brilliant victories that had to come to a halt because there were no plans ready to exploit them and no materials available, even if there had been plans.

When Denmark, Norway, the low countries and France fell, if only Germany had a big fleet of subs they could have starved England into a compromise peace. But they had close to no subs. They couldn't invade England - where they would have annihilated the Brit army - because the lack of subs and planes that could even make it to London and back meant they could not knock out either the Brit air force or fleet. And then Russia as you mention. I've heard that a lot - that one reason the Germans had such a brilliant success in the first stages of Barbarossa is because the main Russian forces were unnaturally close to the border - as in ready for some action of their own. But I have not read enough to know that much about it. No proof for instance, and of course in this world, where am I going to find proof like that? Military history is easier (to be honest) than social, but still...who is going to risk his career going into rationalizing why Germany had to attack first to prevent a Russian attack? So this is something I'd like to know more about. But still, having no stop lines except abstractions like Leningrad and Moscow is kind of depressing. Just a vague hope that the Russians would go over to the Germans. And maybe they mostly did - with the current controllers of 'history' in power, the truth may take a while yet to come out.

Personally, I loathe England almost as much as I loathe my own country. If not for England and the USA, Germany would have saved Western Civilization. So, I don't give a fuck about the Brit empire one way or the other. I do, however, feel strongly that had Germany won, this anti white person bull shit that is endemic in the world - and mostly in what used to be the white world - would not be happening. I'm overjoyed that England is now a third world, and well on its way to turd world, backwater - just as Hitler predicted – that is the least they deserve for what they did. It's European civilization that I care about. That other Indian Nationalist guy (I forget his name) that wanted German support? Germany was not a colonial power, Hitler didn't care about colonies...he was only interested in Europe. God, what a great man he was!

They couldn't invade England - where they would have annihilated the Brit army - because the lack of subs and planes that could even make it to London and back meant they could not knock out either the Brit air force or fleet.

David Irving implies that the BEF could have been destroyed before the evacuation at Dunkirk, but for Rundstedt's halt order to Kleist approved by the Fuhrer. The reason is not clear, variously attribued to a temporary loss of nerve, a desire that SS troops join up with Wermacht armor first, and "victory psychosis." In the background is of course the Fuhrer's fondness for the British empire, and belief the Brits would come to their senses.

Renowned "establishment" historian Gerhard Weinberg dismisses this notion as a "fabrication." He gives no citation to back up his assertion. I guess the kike is so intimately familiar with the fabrications of itz own race it thinks it can speak with authority on the topicc.

I'm overjoyed that England is now a third world, and well on its way to turd world, backwater - just as Hitler predicted – that is the least they deserve for what they did.

UK GDP per capita is now some USD 4,000 less than Ireland's, and about equal to that of their former slope colony of Singapore!

That other Indian Nationalist guy (I forget his name) that wanted German support?

You mean Subhas Chandra Bose? Probably now has a White man's programming job in some free trade outsourcing scam.


Germany was not a colonial power, Hitler didn't care about colonies...he was only interested in Europe. God, what a great man he was!

Indeed. Or, in the words of the martyr Francis Parker Yockey, "the hero of the Second World War."

Hardly. Roehm was a faggot traitor that needed to be eliminated. He thought he was better than the Great Man himself, partly because Roehm fucked his way to a commission as a captain, and Hitler earned his rank of corporal.

Subsequent SA Leader Viktor Lutze was a good man who served until the end.

Viktor Lutze - who was totally against the purge in 33 - was indeed a good man but a powerless figurehead replacement for Rohm. Head of the new non-entity SA. And, Lutze's end came considerably earlier than anyone else's. He was the highest ranking NSDAP official to be assasinated - in Russia in 43 or 44 - by the 'partisans'.

Viktor Lutze - who was totally against the purge in 33 - was indeed a good man but a powerless figurehead replacement for Rohm. Head of the new non-entity SA. And, Lutze's end came considerably earlier than anyone else's. He was the highest ranking NSDAP official to be assasinated - in Russia in 43 or 44 - by the 'partisans'.

I thought he died in a car accident in Germany?

I'm sure Roehm had A LOT of plans for the males of Germany...plenty of "male bonding," as was happening during the night he was neutralized. Sparta's a good comparison, with plenty of Hershey Autobahn activities.

As for Hitler choosing "the aristocrats and financiers and industrialists" over "the proletariat" (I presume by the latter you mean the working people), that's such a bunch of crap. Germany's working people never had such a good life between 1935 and 1939, and it would have certainly continued had the Bolshevik-Plutocrat Alliance not forced war onto Germany. Hitler took Germany off the Gold Standard, which is perhaps the number one reason, even beyond the Jew issue, that "Hitler had to be destroyed." Hitler's Deutsche Arbeitsfront created a unique partnership between management and workers, and fostered unprecedented production with better living standards than those found in America. And finally, it was the aristocrats, save a few like August Wilhelm, who led the treason parties against Hitler, with von Stauffenberg, the chicken-shit who saved his own ass by walking out, leaving the bomb for Hitler and Germany's high command.

If you hadn't fucking noticed there were quite a lot of VONS in the German high command, buddy. And the Army demanded that Rohm's SA be offed in exchange for their VON support. That is the deal that was cut and there is not one fucking ambiguous thing about it. Goebbels, who was also of the left wing branch of the NSDAP, was almost murdered that same night along with the couple of hundred others who were, and for the same reasons - the deal with the army and to settle inter-party scores. The people on the side of that deal who won are the VONS and all that went with them.

And yeah, the aristocrats were scum who stabbed Hitler and Germany in the back repeatedly. That is my entire fucking point in saying it was an awful mistake to off Rohm and his organization in exchange for the very dubious support of a bunch of aristocrats who always hated Hitler and the truely egalitarian ideals for which he and his party stood. Get it yet?

And thanks for the lesson about how great the German worker had it. When people ask me what I am, I say National Socialist. I know all about that stuff, thanks, and Robert Ley, and the great vacations and all the other great things. As far as I am concerned the last time life was worth living was between 1933-1945, in Germany. That however, has not one fucking thing to do with this.

And, as to Rohm's plans for the males of Germany, sorry but I'm not interested in the National Enquirer school of history. I suppose that by the same reasoning, Goebbels' plans for the males of German was to have movie star mistresses, or Bormann's was to have double families, or Goring's that they all be narcotics addicts? Speculation is so very kike. You can get anything to add up to just anything you want to that way. All I am interested in proven or provable fact, not gossip.

And anyway, I don't give a piss about anyone's private life - one of the things about the jewed world we live in that most disgusts me is that in it, no one has a private life - there is no privacy and there is no dignity. Besides, my argument was, and is, based on one thing: the way it wound up being played by Hitler, Germany lost the war and in losing it, my cultural identity was destroyed and soon my civilization and culture and even race will be extinct. And maybe if he had told the VONS to shove it and turned the SA into the official military of Germany it would have ended differently. And, I believe thinking exactly like Hitler, if that meant that Rohm fucked a few butts or Goring snorted plenty of coke...SO WHAT.

And about Rohm's sex life...maybe you better take it up with the Fuhrer who did everything but fucking crawl in begging Rohm to come back to Germany from Bolivia to lead that SA. I suppose then they must have both had 'plans' for the males of Germany, hehehe.

I believe Lutze was killed in a partisan ambush in Russia in 43 or 44 and was the highest-ranking guy to be so offed.

88

Hitler's biggest mistake?

Not getting the a-bomb first, as stated in the History Channel documentary:


Had Hitler taken more care in protecting the advanced weaponry that German scientists developed - such as V-2 rockets, cruise missiles (buzz-bombs) the ME-262 jet fighter, and....lastly, the a-bomb, he could have, at the very least, drawn a stalemate between the Reich and the Allies.

Only Hitler didn't.

He lost the war.

We must forget him, and move on.

FORGET the Fuhrer? Surely you joke. He's the greatest man in the history of the west since the enlightenment, and maybe since the fall of the Roman Empire. Everything he stood for was right and good - he will never be forgotten and with the passing of time more and more will come to see just how right he was.

Like so many Germans in that virtually hopeless struggle - he was great on principles but awful at strategy. Germany wasted a fortune on the extremely ineffective V-2 rocket program when putting a fraction of that money into extremely effective submarines (at the start of the war - and with the new giant diesels ready to come on line toward it's end) might well have forced a British compromise peace. Speculation on Rocket Ships is for peacetime, not the desperation of a war of extinction. And so said the history channel, eh? Well, the history channel is shit, in case you haven't noticed. How are their 'documentaries' on German atrocities lately - balanced and objective? That's the history channel.

But anyway, hindsight is pretty neat and easy too. It's no sweat at all to see the mistakes of the past from a goodly distance, but real easy to make them without the benefit of that hindsight.

88

FORGET the Fuhrer? Surely you joke. He's the greatest man in the history of the west since the enlightenment, and maybe since the fall of the Roman Empire. Everything he stood for was right and good - he will never be forgotten and with the passing of time more and more will come to see just how right he was.

Hitler should not be forgotten but the "Hitler was God-like" vibe that too many White Nationalists send out feels weird to a lot of people who might be influenced if the arguments in favor of Nazi doctrine were voiced in a "Goebbels said this or Rosenberg said that" instead of always going to back to the name "Hitler" over and over again. There were Nazis/Fascists in almost every European country during the 1920's and 1930's..don't we focus too much on Hitler?? Look at all of the Fascists that get overlooked...French writer Ferdinand Celine was writing great Anti-Semitic articles in the late 1930's yet your average Nazi/White power person has never even heard of him. Fascism was a popular system....people today want systems and ideologies, not one man is God..or this man shall lead us to the promise land....we should stop treating Hitler as our Aryan Moses because it alienates many potential supporters....we need to point out the virtues of the Fascist/Nazi SYSTEM.

Hitler's biggest mistake?

Not getting the a-bomb first, as stated in the History Channel documentary:


Had Hitler taken more care in protecting the advanced weaponry that German scientists developed - such as V-2 rockets, cruise missiles (buzz-bombs) the ME-262 jet fighter, and....lastly, the a-bomb, he could have, at the very least, drawn a stalemate between the Reich and the Allies.

Only Hitler didn't.

He lost the war.

We must forget him, and move on.

Screw the History Channel!!!
It's nothing but a KIKE RAN OPERATION!!!!!!
Anyone that is white that takes that garbage serious needs to have their head examined!

With all due respect Otto Remer, how do you explain the virtues of fascist/Nazi system without mentioning Hitler? Those terms are just as scary to most. I find it more effctive to start to undo the brainwashing by exposing sheep to Hitlers writing. It is quite simple to show he is not the raving madman he is portrayed as. Once they have grasped that, I start in with the politics. They seem to have a more open mind to other topics I bring to their attention.

With all due respect Otto Remer, how do you explain the virtues of fascist/Nazi system without mentioning Hitler? Those terms are just as scary to most. I find it more effctive to start to undo the brainwashing by exposing sheep to Hitlers writing. It is quite simple to show he is not the raving madman he is portrayed as. Once they have grasped that, I start in with the politics. They seem to have a more open mind to other topics I bring to their attention.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't mention Hitler, but if we could start off by presenting a very large worldview and people find a great deal of it which seems truthful and reasonable to them, they would perhaps then listen to our arguments later on about Hitler. In placing Hitler slightly in the background I don't feel that it compromises our beliefs at all..many in the White Nationalist movement have started suggesting becoming Anti-Hitler and this pleases only the Jews and makes us look like cowards so I'm very opposed to selling out like that. I have a funny saying about the impact of Anti-Hitler rhetoric..everytime a person bashes Hitler, somewhere on Earth a Jew starts masturbating....

Uncle Wolf was definitely a genius, and a rare kind of genius: the kind that gets out there and does something risky and worthwhile. Whenever we mention the Kike Question, what we say can be find in My Struggle; we are merely iterating it and providing newer examples. Whenever we talk about politics, that can be found in My Struggle too. Truly, it deserves to be called the "nationalist Bible."

I haven't seen any exaggerated focus on Hitler. Mostly nationalists seem to avoid talking about him, since he has been so demonized, and when he is mentioned, half of the comments are denounciations. I say, either you speak honestly about him or not at all; if someone thinks his memory is too demonized to save, he should shut up and speak of other fascists rather than pretend to be against Hitler. (not saying that anyone here has so far denounced Hitler)

Uncle Wolf made one huge mistake: he lost. That's the one thing the masses can never forgive in a leader or an ideology. Look how communism is treated, by comparison: that insane, hellish tyranny is treated well not mainly because the media all favor it, but because it took over half of Europe. www.hitler.org has a good quote by Nietzsche (http://hitler.org/blame.html) about why people are so quick to turn against their former leaders after a defeat: they want to be on the winning side, of course.

Similarly: the Confederate States of America lost a war, and that's why most people couldn't care less how just the Confederate cause was, no matter how many books and articles are written about it. They don't want to defend the losing side.

I remember teaching my ex-girlfriend about nationalism. Even after she knew the important facts and embraced the nationalist cause she felt the same dark shadow looming over Hitler's name. I told her that yes, oddly I feel the same thing, even though both she and I intellectually understood that he was a great man. Rare, however, is the individual who gives reason a fair hearing in spite of the feelings planted in him by others. I fear that Uncle Wolf will remain a hard sale for some time still, even though he stands way above 99 percent of his berators in integrity, intelligence and morality.

O.R.: When I have started by teaching the reality of N.S., they still wind up with a weak spot where A.H. is concerned. Since his own writing absolves him of charges of lunacy, that dispels the evil from the evil empire. If I show the biggest boogeyman to be the biggest lie, they don't have that nagging "yeah, but what about Hitler" thought lurking in the shadows. Dispel the big lie. All the other lies are smaller, therefore more easily dispelled. Try to get them to read the first chapter of Mein Kampfe. Print out a few pages or quotes so they don't get scared by the book itself. Rational minds will see the truth and the mask will be violently torn off the lie. Let them absorb this before proceeding. A friend of mine compares it to rich food- feed it to them too quickly and they may just puke it back up. I have a hard time restaining myself when I see their mind make that corner.
To each his own. Whatever works for you. You appear way more comfortable with teaching the ideology than I am. Comfort with your topic puts listeners at ease. By whatever route, CHARGE!