The Political Statement*
First Part
More than thirty years have now passed since I in 1914 made my modest contribution as a volunteer in the first world war that was forced upon the Reich.
In these three decades I have been actuated solely by love and loyalty to my people in all my thoughts, acts, and life. They gave me the strength to make the most difficult decisions which have ever confronted mortal man. I have spent my time, my working strength, and my health in these three decades.

It is untrue that I or anyone else in Germany wanted the war in 1939. It was desired and instigated exclusively by those international statesmen who were either of Jewish descent or worked for Jewish interests. I have made too many offers for the control and limitation of armaments, which posterity will not for all time be able to disregard for the responsibility for the outbreak of this war to be laid on me. I have further never wished that after the first fatal world war a second against England, or even against America, should break out. Centuries will pass away, but out of the ruins of our towns and monuments the hatred against those finally responsible whom we have to thank for everything, International Jewry and its helpers, will grow.

Three days before the outbreak of the German-Polish war I again proposed to the British ambassador in Berlin a solution to the German-Polish problem - similar to that in the case of the Saar district, under international control. This offer also cannot be denied. It was only rejected because the leading circles in English politics wanted the war, partly on account of the business hoped for and partly under influence of propaganda organized by International Jewry.

I have also made it quite plain that, if the nations of Europe are again to be regarded as mere shares to be bought and sold by these international conspirators in money and finance, then that race, Jewry, which is the real criminal of this murderous struggle, will be saddled with the responsibility. I further left no one in doubt that this time not only would millions of children of Europe's Aryan people die of hunger, not only would millions of grown men suffer death, and not only hundreds of thousands of women and children be burnt and bombed to death in the towns, without the real criminal having to atone for this guilt, even if by more humane means.

After six years of war, which in spite of all setbacks, will go down one day in history as the most glorious and valiant demonstration of a nation's life purpose, I cannot forsake the city which is the capital of this Reich. As the forces are too small to make any further stand against the enemy attack at this place and our resistance is gradually being weakened by men who are as deluded as they are lacking in initiative, I should like, by remaining in this town, to share my fate with those, the millions of others, who have also taken upon themselves to do so. Moreover I do not wish to fall into the hands of an enemy who requires a new spectacle organized by the Jews for the amusement of their hysterical masses.

I have decided therefore to remain in Berlin and there of my own free will to choose death at the moment when I believe the position of the Führer and Chancellor itself can no longer be held.

I die with a happy heart, aware of the immeasurable deeds and achievements of our soldiers at the front, our women at home, the achievements of our farmers and workers and the work, unique in history, of our youth who bear my name.

That from the bottom of my heart I express my thanks to you all, is just as self-evident as my wish that you should, because of that, on no account give up the struggle, but rather continue it against the enemies of the Fatherland, no matter where, true to the creed of a great Clausewitz. From the sacrifice of our soldiers and from my own unity with them unto death, will in any case spring up in the history of Germany, the seed of a radiant renaissance of the National Socialist movement and thus of the realization of a true community of nations.

Many of the most courageous men and women have decided to unite their lives with mine until the very last. I have begged and finally ordered them not to do this, but to take part in the further battle of the Nation. I beg the heads of the Armies, the Navy and the Air Force to strengthen by all possible means the spirit of resistance of our soldiers in the National Socialist sense, with special reference to the fact that also I myself, as founder and creator of this movement, have preferred death to cowardly abdication or even capitulation.

May it, at some future time, become part of the code of honor of the German officer - as is already the case in our Navy - that the surrender of a district or of a town is impossible, and that above all the leaders here must march ahead as shining examples, faithfully fulfilling their duty unto death.


Second Part
Before my death I expel the former Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring from the party and deprive him of all rights which he may enjoy by virtue of the decree of June 29th, 1941; and also by virtue of my statement in the Reichstag on September 1st, 1939, I appoint in his place Grossadmiral Dönitz, President of the Reich and Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces.
Before my death I expel the former Reichsführer-SS and Minister of the Interior Heinrich Himmler, from the party and from all offices of State. In his stead I appoint Gauleiter Karl Hanke as Reichsführer-SS and Chief of the German Police, and Gauleiter Paul Giesler as Reich Minister of the Interior.

Göring and Himmler, quite apart from their disloyalty to my person, have done immeasurable harm to the country and the whole nation by secret negotiations with the enemy, which they have conducted without my knowledge and against my wishes, and by illegally attempting to seize power in the State for themselves. . . .

Although a number of men, such as Martin Bormann, Dr. Goebbels, etc., together with their wives, have joined me of their own free will and did not wish to leave the capital of the Reich under any circumstances, but were willing to perish with me here, I must nevertheless ask them to obey my request, and in this case set the interests of the nation above their own feelings. By their work and loyalty as comrades they will be just as close to me after death, as I hope that my spirit will linger among them and always go with them. Let them be hard but never unjust, but above all let them never allow fear to influence their actions, and set the honor of the nation above everything in the world. Finally, let them be conscious of the fact that our task, that of continuing the building of a National Socialist State, represents the work of the coming centuries, which places every single person under an obligation always to serve the common interest and to subordinate his own advantage to this end. I demand of all Germans, all National Socialists, men, women and all the men of the Armed Forces, that they be faithful and obedient unto death to the new government and its President.

Above all I charge the leaders of the nation and those under them to scrupulous observance of the laws of race and to merciless opposition to the universal poisoner of all peoples, International Jewry.

Given in Berlin, this 29th day of April 1945, 4:00 A.M.

Adolf Hitler

[Witnesses]
Dr. Joseph Goebbels
Wilhelm Burgdorf
Martin Bormannhttp://history1900s.about.com/library/holocaust/aa022100a.htm
Hans Krebs

Quite obviously not the rantings of an insane despot. His thoughts were very clear. Who amongst us would have the steel left to write this, when it was written? How can you not admire such a man? 88!

Quite obviously not the rantings of an insane despot. His thoughts were very clear. Who amongst us would have the steel left to write this, when it was written? How can you not admire such a man? 88!

Easy really.

On Hitler's accession to Power he is recorded as stating 'Give me ten years in power and you will not recognise Germany !'.

About ten years after Hitler got power, Germany watched defeated and in ruins as the Russians marched in to what was left of Berlin and Germany.

Hitler had prophesied correctly after all then? :rolleyes:

Seems presidents here only need tenures of 4 years to knock off big hunks. I know the source of the original article. Care to share the lineage on yours? I doubt people will be quoting you in 60 years, even incorrectly.

Easy really.

On Hitler's accession to Power he is recorded as stating 'Give me ten years in power and you will not recognise Germany !'.

About ten years after Hitler got power, Germany watched defeated and in ruins as the Russians marched in to what was left of Berlin and Germany.

Hitler had prophesied correctly after all then? :rolleyes:

He and his people fought the good fight. They bled horribly to stop the Red Beast. And You mock Him? Mister, Yer a better man than I.

He and his people fought the good fight. They bled horribly to stop the Red Beast. And You mock Him? Mister, Yer a better man than I.

Merely quoting the comment that the German population had as they sat in ruins .

Unlike the ordinary German soldier, and I add that my father was a Gefreiter in the Wehrmacht in WW2 so I declare an interest: the three 'Golden Pheasants' as the German people called Hitler Himmler and Goering didnt have the balls to fight hand to hand with the 'Red Beast'. All three of them eventually killed themselves, rather than having the courage to go down in hand to hand fighting - the option that others chose. So much for being Ubermensch or Supermen.

Little Heinrich (Himmler) couldnt even shoot a water pistol properly.

The German people lost out as a result of Hitler and its country is a fragment of what it was. Ask the German people if Hitler is the embodiment of Germany - I know what the clear response will be.

Merely quoting the comment that the German population had as they sat in ruins .

Unlike the German soldier, Hitler Himmler and Goering didnt have the balls to fight hand to hand with the 'Red Beast'. All three of them eventually topped themselves rather than having the courage to go down in hand to hand fighting. So much for being Supermen.

Ask the German people if Hitler is the embodiment of Germany - I know what the clear response will be.

Hitler didn't want to fail in combat because of his many physical ailments. With one arm that didn't work and tremors in the other he was not fit. Can You imagine if the Jew pigs had captured him?

I tend to agree with You about Himmler. But then again I was not there.

Goering dropped the drugs and weight and mounted a spirited defence during the Nuremberg Trails (Also known as Victors Justice). He told his fellow defendants that they should limit their defence to three words: "Lick My Ass!"
He then cheated the hangman (Sgt. John Smith.......a jew) by taking his own life.

I happen to know a couple of old Germans....And they still think Onkle Wolf is the shit. So take that to the bank and smoke it.............or something.

Merely quoting the comment that the German population had as they sat in ruins .

Unlike the ordinary German soldier, and I add that my father was a Gefreiter in the Wehrmacht in WW2 so I declare an interest: the three 'Golden Pheasants' as the German people called Hitler Himmler and Goering didnt have the balls to fight hand to hand with the 'Red Beast'. All three of them eventually killed themselves, rather than having the courage to go down in hand to hand fighting - the option that others chose. So much for being Ubermensch or Supermen.

Little Heinrich (Himmler) couldnt even shoot a water pistol properly.

The German people lost out as a result of Hitler and its country is a fragment of what it was. Ask the German people if Hitler is the embodiment of Germany - I know what the clear response will be.

And the lesson to us all about his existence: he was the only one to stand up and name the jew, blame the jew, and fight the jew. It wasn't Hilter that ruined Germany, it was the international power of the jew. If you want to blame Hitler for the rape of Germany, then you must surely blame it's attackers and not it's defenders. A few thousand square miles of Polish land stolen in WW1 does not justify the world declaring war on a country gone white nationalist.

The war was a long and complex thing. There is no time to discuss it's intricacies here. I like to boil things down anyway. So I must say, only the jew won WW2. Countless millions of dead whites and Israel the result, plus a big fat guilt trip/extortion racket known as the Holocaust.

Question: what's the first thing people think if you bring up WW2?

Answer: 6 million harmless, friendly, lovable neighborhood jews exterminated by a proud, thriving, successful Germany gone totally insane for no reason whatsoever.

What was the unholy alliance of Red Communism with Blue Capitalism else a jewish conspiracy to utterly destroy Germany. Immediately, literally speaking, after crushing German, the US and the Soviets, two very white nations of racial brothers, go into a 50 year long "cold war" of hatred, suspicion, and pointless antagonism. Why?

The jews is why.

Merely quoting the comment that the German population had as they sat in ruins

And what quote is that?

Originally Posted by Dasyurus Maculatus
Unlike the ordinary German soldier, and I add that my father was a Gefreiter in the Wehrmacht in WW2 so I declare an interest: the three 'Golden Pheasants' as the German people called Hitler Himmler and Goering didnt have the balls to fight hand to hand with the 'Red Beast'. All three of them eventually killed themselves, rather than having the courage to go down in hand to hand fighting - the option that others chose. So much for being Ubermensch or Supermen.

Without getting into a verbal tit-for-tat, as I might share your disdain for most of the top leadership in just about any group, political party etc. One query for you:

Should A.H. have allowed himself to have been potentially captured and placed in a cage for his mortal enemies in the Kremlin? You know, Beria simply uttering, " let's fry Wolfie's testicles today, the lads at Lubyanka have invented a new device." There was no dishonor in what he did, none whatsoever.

Easy really.

On Hitler's accession to Power he is recorded as stating 'Give me ten years in power and you will not recognise Germany !'.

About ten years after Hitler got power, Germany watched defeated and in ruins as the Russians marched in to what was left of Berlin and Germany.

Hitler had prophesied correctly after all then? :rolleyes: Quote:nations of Europe are again to be regarded as mere shares to be bought and sold by these international conspirators in money and finance, then that race, Jewry, which is the real criminal of this murderous struggle, will be saddled with the responsibility.] Hitler hoped a thousand years healthy westerns civilization. True, It took 10 years for the allies to detroy Germany and most of Europe, another 60 years for the zionist to destroy western nations,Many of our Urban cities are in ruins, not because of the luftwaffe, but by our zionist elites money speculation.

ZOG has sown the seeds of its own destruction and only the valuable will be left standing after the storm.

JUDEA DECLARES WAR ON GERMANY

That's the headline the antis pretend was never published. But it was, in 1933, and it blows their lies sky-high. Jews around Rosenvelt the part-Jew, the Churchill lackey whose debts were bought by a Jewish millionaire when he was about to lose his mansion, Jews in the KGB and everywhere else in the Soviet leadership, Jews in American media, Jews in the French socialist and communist parties -- these were the enemies of Europe who declared war on Germany, and declared it openly.

Adolf Hitler fought as best he could to defend his country, trying to make it strong through colonies in the east so that it could be independent and a haven for White resistance. The lackeys in the West attacked him on the pretext of "defending Poland"; the same Poland that had taken German land after WWI; the same Poland that was ruled by a madman who forced the occupied Germans to fight in his army; the same Poland that had invaded and taken land in Czechoslovakia, hardly a fluffy, peace-loving nation; the same Poland that was invaded by the USSR from the east while Germany attacked from the west, with, curiously, no war declaration against the USSR following from France and Britain; the same Poland that was after the war robbed of large parts of its territory by the USSR, and forced to suffer under a communist puppet state with Jews in the upper echelons.

Oh yes, Britain and France were "defending Poland" all right. Certainly not following up with a military attack where the economic attack on Germany had failed, an economic attack the purpose of which was to wreck the German economy through their blockades.

Oh yes, Germany was the aggressor. Oh yes, Germany was the danger to Europe, not the Soviet Jews or the Jews in British and French politics and media. Oh yes, the Hollywood corporations run by Jews are certainly telling us the truth about the Jewish role in history. Why wouldn't they? What reason could Jews possibly have to cover up their roles in European wars? Doesn't make sense that Hollywood would be distorting the Jewish story, does it?


Hitler knew the truth, and his message lives on. Next time the world. Heil Hitler.

The Political Statement*
First Part
More than thirty years have now passed since I in 1914 made my modest contribution as a volunteer in the first world war that was forced upon the Reich.
In these three decades I have been actuated solely by love and loyalty to my people in all my thoughts, acts, and life. They gave me the strength to make the most difficult decisions which have ever confronted mortal man. I have spent my time, my working strength, and my health in these three decades.

It is untrue that I or anyone else in Germany wanted the war in 1939. It was desired and instigated exclusively by those international statesmen who were either of Jewish descent or worked for Jewish interests. I have made too many offers for the control and limitation of armaments, which posterity will not for all time be able to disregard for the responsibility for the outbreak of this war to be laid on me. I have further never wished that after the first fatal world war a second against England, or even against America, should break out. Centuries will pass away, but out of the ruins of our towns and monuments the hatred against those finally responsible whom we have to thank for everything, International Jewry and its helpers, will grow.

Three days before the outbreak of the German-Polish war I again proposed to the British ambassador in Berlin a solution to the German-Polish problem - similar to that in the case of the Saar district, under international control. This offer also cannot be denied. It was only rejected because the leading circles in English politics wanted the war, partly on account of the business hoped for and partly under influence of propaganda organized by International Jewry.

I have also made it quite plain that, if the nations of Europe are again to be regarded as mere shares to be bought and sold by these international conspirators in money and finance, then that race, Jewry, which is the real criminal of this murderous struggle, will be saddled with the responsibility. I further left no one in doubt that this time not only would millions of children of Europe's Aryan people die of hunger, not only would millions of grown men suffer death, and not only hundreds of thousands of women and children be burnt and bombed to death in the towns, without the real criminal having to atone for this guilt, even if by more humane means.

After six years of war, which in spite of all setbacks, will go down one day in history as the most glorious and valiant demonstration of a nation's life purpose, I cannot forsake the city which is the capital of this Reich. As the forces are too small to make any further stand against the enemy attack at this place and our resistance is gradually being weakened by men who are as deluded as they are lacking in initiative, I should like, by remaining in this town, to share my fate with those, the millions of others, who have also taken upon themselves to do so. Moreover I do not wish to fall into the hands of an enemy who requires a new spectacle organized by the Jews for the amusement of their hysterical masses.

I have decided therefore to remain in Berlin and there of my own free will to choose death at the moment when I believe the position of the Führer and Chancellor itself can no longer be held.

I die with a happy heart, aware of the immeasurable deeds and achievements of our soldiers at the front, our women at home, the achievements of our farmers and workers and the work, unique in history, of our youth who bear my name.

That from the bottom of my heart I express my thanks to you all, is just as self-evident as my wish that you should, because of that, on no account give up the struggle, but rather continue it against the enemies of the Fatherland, no matter where, true to the creed of a great Clausewitz. From the sacrifice of our soldiers and from my own unity with them unto death, will in any case spring up in the history of Germany, the seed of a radiant renaissance of the National Socialist movement and thus of the realization of a true community of nations.

Many of the most courageous men and women have decided to unite their lives with mine until the very last. I have begged and finally ordered them not to do this, but to take part in the further battle of the Nation. I beg the heads of the Armies, the Navy and the Air Force to strengthen by all possible means the spirit of resistance of our soldiers in the National Socialist sense, with special reference to the fact that also I myself, as founder and creator of this movement, have preferred death to cowardly abdication or even capitulation.

May it, at some future time, become part of the code of honor of the German officer - as is already the case in our Navy - that the surrender of a district or of a town is impossible, and that above all the leaders here must march ahead as shining examples, faithfully fulfilling their duty unto death.


Second Part
Before my death I expel the former Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring from the party and deprive him of all rights which he may enjoy by virtue of the decree of June 29th, 1941; and also by virtue of my statement in the Reichstag on September 1st, 1939, I appoint in his place Grossadmiral Dönitz, President of the Reich and Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces.
Before my death I expel the former Reichsführer-SS and Minister of the Interior Heinrich Himmler, from the party and from all offices of State. In his stead I appoint Gauleiter Karl Hanke as Reichsführer-SS and Chief of the German Police, and Gauleiter Paul Giesler as Reich Minister of the Interior.

Göring and Himmler, quite apart from their disloyalty to my person, have done immeasurable harm to the country and the whole nation by secret negotiations with the enemy, which they have conducted without my knowledge and against my wishes, and by illegally attempting to seize power in the State for themselves. . . .

Although a number of men, such as Martin Bormann, Dr. Goebbels, etc., together with their wives, have joined me of their own free will and did not wish to leave the capital of the Reich under any circumstances, but were willing to perish with me here, I must nevertheless ask them to obey my request, and in this case set the interests of the nation above their own feelings. By their work and loyalty as comrades they will be just as close to me after death, as I hope that my spirit will linger among them and always go with them. Let them be hard but never unjust, but above all let them never allow fear to influence their actions, and set the honor of the nation above everything in the world. Finally, let them be conscious of the fact that our task, that of continuing the building of a National Socialist State, represents the work of the coming centuries, which places every single person under an obligation always to serve the common interest and to subordinate his own advantage to this end. I demand of all Germans, all National Socialists, men, women and all the men of the Armed Forces, that they be faithful and obedient unto death to the new government and its President.

Above all I charge the leaders of the nation and those under them to scrupulous observance of the laws of race and to merciless opposition to the universal poisoner of all peoples, International Jewry.

Given in Berlin, this 29th day of April 1945, 4:00 A.M.

Adolf Hitler

[Witnesses]
Dr. Joseph Goebbels
Wilhelm Burgdorf
Martin Bormannhttp://history1900s.about.com/library/holocaust/aa022100a.htm
Hans Krebs


Brought a tear to my eye.

Merely quoting the comment that the German population had as they sat in ruins .

Unlike the ordinary German soldier, and I add that my father was a Gefreiter in the Wehrmacht in WW2 so I declare an interest: the three 'Golden Pheasants' as the German people called Hitler Himmler and Goering didnt have the balls to fight hand to hand with the 'Red Beast'. All three of them eventually killed themselves, rather than having the courage to go down in hand to hand fighting - the option that others chose. So much for being Ubermensch or Supermen.

Little Heinrich (Himmler) couldnt even shoot a water pistol properly.

The German people lost out as a result of Hitler and its country is a fragment of what it was. Ask the German people if Hitler is the embodiment of Germany - I know what the clear response will be.

Germany today is a weak piece of garbage and their people allow themselves to be endlessly brainwashed by mass media and submit to minorities. Hitler fought as a soldier in WWI, that's enough. Goering was a flying ace in WWI as well. Since when do you criticize 50 year old men for not winning a war on the front lines?

You obviously think it would be funny for the Allies to put Hitler on trial and for the Jews to gain the pleasure of hanging him. You are clearly not a White Nationalist.

Germany? I couldn't care less about today's sell-out Germany. The REAL Germany died in 1945.

JUDEA DECLARES WAR ON GERMANY


1.Adolf Hitler fought as best he could to defend his country, trying to make it strong through colonies in the east so that it could be independent and a haven for White resistance.

2.Oh yes, Britain and France were "defending Poland" all right.

3.Oh yes, Germany was the aggressor.

4.Oh yes, Germany was the danger to Europe

5.Hitler knew the truth, and his message lives on. Next time the world. Heil Hitler.

Most sensible people will fully agree with points 2,3, and 4.

As for point 1 which you raise: Hitlers fight against Norway, Denmark, France, Belgium, Holland, Wales , Scotland and England was the type of 'defence' for his country that only a nutcase would make. Hitlers declaration ofWar on the USA, you will argue was attacking the jews in America ? - but most Americans who do not give a stuff about the interests of the jew were targetted too by Hitler with his grandiose declarations. I blame it on his physician Dr Morel and his haemorrhoid physician Dr Brandt for pumping Hitler too full of dope and Heroin.

Hitler's socialist Ally Russia (until the two 'socialist love birds' Adolf and Stalin fell out in 1941 and had a tiff when the disastrous Operation Barbarossa was initiated) - initially only succeeded in jointly destroying the White nation of Poland - due to the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact.

In 1939 in trying to carve Poland up in the name of Socialism; Half of Poland for Hitlers rightwing Socialist Empire, Half of Poland for Stalins leftwing Socialist Empire - both the Soviets and the Nazis underestimated the fighting skill of the Polish people.

2. Oh yes Britain did defend Poland and at least Britain had the balls to do so;
unlike the American Ambassador to the UK who advised Britain to surrender to Hitler, an asshole called Kennedy from that same disastrous Boston clan who was so far up Hitler's Niebelungen or 'Ringpiece', he could probably see the Fuehrers tonsils vibrating up ahead of him?.

Hitler's planned liquidation of the Poles would have been supplemented by planned liquidation of every other poor bugger who was not German. Churchill had the prescience to understand that and did a great job for the people of Britain and with the help of the RAF , postponed Hitler's 'Operation SeeLowe' and prevented the enslavement or liquidation of the English, Scottish and Welsh in the UK.

3.Germany proved it was the aggressor - in Norway, Denmark, France, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Crete, Holland, Wales , Scotland and England all got a taste of it, as did Russia Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, and other eastern states.

4.Germany (or at least the moustachioed mono-orchidal Morphine addict in charge at the time), proved it was indeed a danger to Europe as the captured Max-Planck Institute research into the German Atom bomb tended to show also.

With potential 'leaders' like the squirty myopic 'little Heinrich' Himmler (whom Hitler himself had stripped of his rank for spinelessness and treason), and fatboy Goering - the whole of Europe sure had a near miss .

One disaster created by Hitler was to enable Communism to enter the heart of Europe, and today we see his indirect legacy - the Paki'isation of Europe.

In all the revolutions from 1917 to 1922,. Communism had only taken a bare toehold in Russia. After Hitlers alliance with Stalin with the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact and the disaster of what you say was Hitlers 'defence' :rolleyes: of Germany; Communism by late 1945 had swept into control in East Germany, the Balkan States, Poland, Czechoslovakia and other European countries. Hitler fucked up big time and lead to the loss of millions of white lives (and nope they werent all jews who took the bullet).

5. If Hitler knew the truth, wouldnt he have had had the balls to go down in a fight hand-to-hand versus the 'Red Beast' invading Berlin, a soldier's death or at least fought to have resisted capture until the last bullet was spent (instead of the Prima Donna's death appropriate for a Morphine addict, of using a bullet on himself instead).

Dont fall into the trap of thinking Hitler was God. He wasnt.

Most sensible people will fully agree with points 2,3, and 4.

As for point 1 which you raise: Hitlers fight against Norway, Denmark, France, Belgium, Holland, Wales , Scotland and England was the type of 'defence' for his country that only a nutcase would make. Hitlers declaration ofWar on the USA, you will argue was attacking the jews in America ? - but most Americans who do not give a stuff about the interests of the jew were targetted too by Hitler with his grandiose declarations. I blame it on his physician Dr Morel and his haemorrhoid physician Dr Brandt for pumping Hitler too full of dope and Heroin.

Hitler's socialist Ally Russia (until the two 'socialist love birds' Adolf and Stalin fell out in 1941 and had a tiff when the disastrous Operation Barbarossa was initiated) - initially only succeeded in jointly destroying the White nation of Poland - due to the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact.

In 1939 in trying to carve Poland up in the name of Socialism; Half of Poland for Hitlers rightwing Socialist Empire, Half of Poland for Stalins leftwing Socialist Empire - both the Soviets and the Nazis underestimated the fighting skill of the Polish people.

2. Oh yes Britain did defend Poland and at least Britain had the balls to do so;
unlike the American Ambassador to the UK who advised Britain to surrender to Hitler, an asshole called Kennedy from that same disastrous Boston clan who was so far up Hitlers arsehole he could probably see the Fuehrers tonsils vibrating up ahead of him .

Hitlers planned liquidation of the Poles would have been supplemented by planned liquidation of every other poor bugger who was not German. Churchill had the prescience to understand that and did a great job for the people of Britain and prevented the future liquidation of the English, Scottish and Welsh on the mainland UK.

3.Germany proved it was the aggressor - in Norway, Denmark, France, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Crete, Holland, Wales , Scotland and England all got a taste of it, as did Russia Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, and other eastern states.

4.Germany (or at least the mono-orchidal Morphine addict Mr Hitler) proved it was indeed a danger to Europe as the Max-Planck Institute research into the German Atom bomb tended to show also.

With potential 'leaders' like the squirty myopic 'little Heinrich' Himmler (whom Hitler himself stripped of his rank for spinlessness and treason), and fatboy Goering - the whole of Europe sure had a near miss .

One disaster created by Hitler was to enable Communism to enter the heart of Europe, and today we see his indirect legacy - the Paki'isation of Europe.

In all the revolutions from 1917 to 1922,. Communism had only taken a bare toehold in Russia. After Hitlers alliance withStalin (THe Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact) Communism by late 1945 had swept into control in East Germany, the Balkan States, Poland, Czechoslovakia and other European countries. Hitler fucked up big time and lead to the loss of millions of white lives (and nope theywerentall jews who took the bullet).

5. If Hitler knew the truth, wouldnt he have had had the balls to go down in a fight hand-to-hand versus the 'Red Beast' invading Berlin, a soldier's death or at least fought to have resisted capture ubtil the last bullet was spent (instead of the Prima Donna's death of using a bullet on himself instead).

Britain cared NOTHING about Poland and neither did France. You obviously don't have a clue what the real purpose of those alliances were. Britain and France created the pacts with Poland to HOLD DOWN German power in Europe. It was a way of keeping Germany weak so that France and Britain could be the big Empires of Europe instead of the Germans. It's all about EGO competition, buddy. Drop the noble British Empire nonsense, no one here is believing it. Oh yes, the "noble" Brits who wanted to keep Italy weak so that the Royal Navy could control the Mediterranean..how selfless of the British. :rolleyes:

Green Man, your grasp of this part of history is incomplete. Let's set the record straight.

As for point 1 which you raise: Hitlers fight against Norway, Denmark, France, Belgium, Holland, Wales , Scotland and England was the type of 'defence' for his country that only a nutcase would make.

Only a nutcase would defend himself against the countries that attack him? Then what defense should a non-nutcase make? Should he defend himself against countries that don't attack him while he's under attack?

In case you didn't know, Britain and France declared war on Germany and attacked its borders many times, while waiting for British troops to arrive from the colonies so they could launch a full invasion. If only a "nutcase" would defend himself against Britain and France, what should you do instead when you are attacked by them?

As for Belgium, it had to be taken to get around the Maginot Line, the well-fortified line of cannon France had set up against Germany. Would you prefer to attack such a wall from up front or from the rear? The cannon could not be turned around 180 degrees. And Belgium, by the way, was a de facto British and French ally as everyone knew.

As for Denmark, it was the only route to Norway. And Norway was where Britain was going to launch attacks at Germany from.

His fight against "Wales, Scotland"? Should he only fight England and not its provinces? That'd be hard. Or did you just want more names of places to lengthen your list with?

Here's another tidbit of information: all of France was not taken. Marshal Pétain, the hero from WWI, made peace with Germany, ending France's attack, when the crooked politicians had fled the country. Therefore, the Germans only occupied the northern part, which had industries they desperately needed to defend themselves against Britain, and the coastline in the West, which they had to defend against British invasions. The southern third of the country remained governed by what was called the French State or Vichy France under Pétain. The French State controlled the French empire, ten times larger than European France. French troops and ships fought on Germany's side against the Brits, and against French traitors in the colonies. As soon as Britain had ended its attacks all French territory would be returned to the French State, except of course for Elsass and Lothringen which belonged to Germany. Meanwhile, British airplanes bombed French towns and cities to bits.

As for the attack on Russia, Russia had attacked Germany's ally Romania and cut off the oil imports. An attack on a German ally was definitely cause for a German response. Not to mention that Russia was ruled by a tyranny the likes of which the world had never seen, in case anyone had forgotten. Would it have been better to wait until Russia had nuclear weapons in the fifties?

As for the United States, American ships had repeatedly attacked German ships, a clear act of war. Hitler gave the order to not respond to the attacks, wanting to hold off war, but eventually he had to face the fact that the U.S. was attacking his country's defenses.

Perhaps you didn't know the U.S. was attacking Germany.

Before the outbreak of war in 1939. The French made such an effort to attack Germany’s "West Wall", which was little more than a propaganda label, that German pressure on the Poles could not be relieved. The Poles put up a valiant struggle, only to be stabbed in the back by the Soviet Union, which also murdered some 15,000 Polish officers and buried their bodies at Katyn. if the Poles had a government acting in terms of Polish interests in 1939, they would have made an alliance with Germany, rather than goading Hitler into a war he did not want.

Germans and Poles became enemies, for that is not how they got started in the 20th century. Hitler got along with Marshall Pilsudski, ", but after his death, the Polish government was apparently taken over by those who were Allied stooges and who wished to force war upon Germany, at the behest of the British, primarily. "Poland and the Lies of the Allies" http://www.faem.com/eric/2000/et014.htm"refers to British Foreign Office archives in which the British virtually deeded Poland over to the Soviet Union, before the outbreak of war in 1939.





The next pivotal year was 1941, in which Germany attacked the Soviets, before they could attack all of Europe. Stalin assumed that the German forces were all on the Channel coast, preparing to invade Britain, as suggested by Operation Sealion, but instead, the German forces were massing in Poland, under the Soviets' noses. read "The Icebreaker" http://www.gotterdammerung.org/books/reviews/i/icebreaker.html




"The Icebreaker", Hitler's Germany was supposed to attack Britain, thereby drawing its forces to the Channel Coast, which would have allowed Djugashvili alias Stalin to invade and conquer all of Europe. Instead of allowing that to happen, Hitler used his forces to attack the hordes of the USSR, as was his stated intention in his "Secret Book" which Hitler had written in 1928, but did not publish for obvious reasons, for Hitler was elected Chancellor of Germany in January 1933, and it would have been folly for him to publish his intention of securing farmland from Red Russia!

........
Unlike the ordinary German soldier, and I add that my father was a Gefreiter in the Wehrmacht in WW2 so I declare an interest: the three 'Golden Pheasants' as the German people called Hitler Himmler and Goering didnt have the balls to fight hand to hand with the 'Red Beast'. All three of them eventually killed themselves, rather than having the courage to go down in hand to hand fighting - the option that others chose. So much for being Ubermensch or Supermen.
.............

first off, Hitler proved his balls in the First War as did Goering. I think you know that so we'll skip the exposition of Hitler's daring as a courier and infantryman or Goering's exploits as a fighter ace.

As for Himmler, not the same story and yes he punked out at the end by many accounts.

Now back to Hitler. Elsewhere we have discussed his dedication to Germany and the NS ideal. He was the incarnation of that ideal matter of fact and his totat committment showed right up until the fight was lost and the Red army had over run the positions in Berlin. Hanna Ritsch and Ernst Rudel both offered to evacuate him via emergency landing on Berlin streets and he refused. As a commander he directed defensive positions until the very end. He requited the loyalty of the German soldier not be acting the fool and trying to make a bayonet charge into the arms of the drooling sadists of the NKVD but instead fell on his sword like a Roman of old. I normally dont approve of suicide but in this case his deeds were exceptional and you puking forth of that kosher vomit about him here will not be appreciated.

As for Goering I to was ignorant of his own last deeds prior to his suicide. Please obtain a copy of David Irving's book Nuremberg and read up on this. Goering stood for the trial that Himmler was afraid of; Goering denounced the non-existent "jurisdiction" of this "trial" which was little more than a drumhead courtmartial and execution of a foreign diplomat in violation of the settled laws of war and diplomancy. Say that again: NUREMBERG WAS NOT A TRIAL IT WAS A VIOLATION OF THE EXISTING LAWS OF WAR IN 1945. It was nothing more than the victor executing the foreign chief. It was a setback to a barbaric age of war that threw out centuries of European conventions and customs and even Christian theology and existing conventions such as the Geneva accords and was no better than the Romans marching Vercingetorix through the streets in chains.

But Goering stood up against this illegal humiliation and denounced it and defended his actions as Reichsmarshall and the NS government. Thankfully David Irving for all his faults has told the true story of this. Goering overcame his addiction to morphine and dropped many pounds at Nuremberg and at them time shined again like the hero of old. It's amusing to contrast the true record with the whining of the abjectly apologizing Speer who blamed this that and the next thing on Goering who stood up like a man and refused apologies.

Finally when the whole charade was more or less done, Goering deprived them of the Jewish opportunity to gloat over his hanging by suicide. One wonders where and how he was able to obtain the cyanide capsule and successfully keep it hidden throughtout the trial. Perhaps he had the aid of a merciful US gaurd. WHo knows, that is a mystery. But in spite of our normal disapproval of suicide, in my view his actions were gallant and noble and his suicide excusable.

In a subtle irony, after forty some years of captivity, the unarguably innocent Rudolph Hess also "committed suicide" even though it would seem more likely he was murdered. Another mystery.

Daisy if you cant get Irving's book in Germany, if you live there, you can still read his website. free download available here:

http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/Nuremberg/index.html

Real History conference in Cinci in three weeks:

http://focal.org/speaks/

Amazing details.

[QUOTE=AnnieOakley Epiphanes wrote"I normally dont approve of suicide but in this case his deeds were exceptional and you puking forth of that kosher vomit about him here will not be appreciated. " .[/QUOTE:

Yeah my old man must have been an 'unorthodox' j** then :D ? - because he was in the SturmAbteilung and took part in the events fighting for Germany, but thats bye the bye 'AnnieOakley' old girl.

But back to timeline Berlin May and April 1945 at the time of Hitler's last will and testament:

Goebbels had to issue an order on Saturday 21st April 1945 as the senior Nazis rushed out of Berlin to leave Adolf 'high and dry' against the encroaching red menace. Over 2,000 'passes' had suddenly been requested by Nazi Party 'Armchair warriors'.

Colonel von Refior (General Reymann's Chief of Staff) had commented on the 'rats leaving the sinking ship' as Goebbels order was transmitted by Werwolfsender that 'no man capable of bearing arms may leave Berlin'.

As the Fuehrer waited, brown uniformed Nazi officials described by Reymann as cowards received their passes from his headquarters on the Hohenzollerendamm with his memoirs recording that he was 'happy to sign them, since it was better for the defense of Berlin to be rid of such cowards'.

Many who couldnt get a pass or run away committed suicide - including Goebbels who opted not to fight.

Whilst the ordinary soldier was engaged in waging the final and greatest decisive battle of the Reich, the 'Armchair warriors' (in whose ignoble ranks the likes of AnniOakleyus Epiphaneus would be included if in that time and scenario?) had to be kept in line by the threat of the noose or a firing squad.

I still think it spineless that people (irrespective of their rank or importance real or imaginary) who could have aimed and fired a gun at the invading Russian horde, opted instead to commit suicide - the loser's way out.

Daisy,

Your argument is a moving target. First its how Hitler was a coward. Now youre talking about 2000 other Nazi party members. Well. Hitler wasnt a coward and he had a warlord's death at his own hand in the Roman manner. Goebbels was a mastermind of the first order and I can only say it makes me cringe how he took his beautiful family with him. I can only understand that in light of the hateful revenge that I have seen Jews try and take on people's families... and say that Goebbels knew that after all he had done, a sickening fate awaited them if they lived. The Jew Zealots did no less at their vaunted "Masada" eh?

As for you calling me Annie Oakley, that is funny. I take it as a compliment as she was a reknowned shooter. I'm not tenth the sharpshooter she was to be sure but I'm a passable shot at IDPA and IPSC. If you want to insult me to my face you can use your wits to find me and say what you've got to say like any other. I've got regular hours and if you've got the capability and smarts and balls to find me we can see who is a coward face to face.

Otherwise I would point out to you that this is the "civil forum" and your suggestion that "the 'Armchair warriors' (in whose ignoble ranks the likes of AnniOakleyus Epiphaneus would be included" if is pretty uncivil.

As for your pops being in the Wehrmacht, him and a few million others. I've met more than one and most of them dont like to talk about it is my experience. Are you saying your kin's view is the only correct view? Are you saying I am a coward because I disagree? Why dont you look up "argument ad hominem" and find out the quality of that socalled "armument"

Good day to you Daisy-

[QUOTE=AnnieOakley Epiphanes wrote"I normally dont approve of suicide but in this case his deeds were exceptional and you puking forth of that kosher vomit about him here will not be appreciated. " .[/QUOTE:

Yeah my old man must have been an 'unorthodox' j** then :D ? - because he was in the SturmAbteilung and took part in the events fighting for Germany, but thats bye the bye 'AnnieOakley' old girl.

But back to timeline Berlin May and April 1945 at the time of Hitler's last will and testament:

Goebbels had to issue an order on Saturday 21st April 1945 as the senior Nazis rushed out of Berlin to leave Adolf 'high and dry' against the encroaching red menace. Over 2,000 'passes' had suddenly been requested by Nazi Party 'Armchair warriors'.

Colonel von Refior (General Reymann's Chief of Staff) had commented on the 'rats leaving the sinking ship' as Goebbels order was transmitted by Werwolfsender that 'no man capable of bearing arms may leave Berlin'.

As the Fuehrer waited, brown uniformed Nazi officials described by Reymann as cowards received their passes from his headquarters on the Hohenzollerendamm with his memoirs recording that he was 'happy to sign them, since it was better for the defense of Berlin to be rid of such cowards'.

Many who couldnt get a pass or run away committed suicide - including Goebbels who opted not to fight.

Whilst the ordinary soldier was engaged in waging the final and greatest decisive battle of the Reich, the 'Armchair warriors' (in whose ignoble ranks the likes of AnniOakleyus Epiphaneus would be included if in that time and scenario?) had to be kept in line by the threat of the noose or a firing squad.

I still think it spineless that people (irrespective of their rank or importance real or imaginary) who could have aimed and fired a gun at the invading Russian horde, opted instead to commit suicide - the loser's way out.

First of all, most of the upper Wehrmacht Generals couldn't wait to surrender to the Western allies at that point in the war. Your story of the Battle of Berlin sounds nothing like the one in every major History book. From what I've heard, those 10,000 Hitler Youth boys who were sent to hold the Havel bridges to the west of Berlin did more fighting than your precious General Wenck, Reymann, or Heinrici. Hell, the remainder of the Waffen-SS Nordland Division made up of Norwegians, French, Danes, and Swedes did a better job of defending the heart of Berlin than the Wehrmacht Generals who were too busy trying to avoid Russian captivity which is ironically the same VICE you accuse Hitler and Goebbels of.

So Dasyurus now has nothing else to attack Hitler and Goebbels for than taking their own lives. *S*

On top of that, Dasyurus, your last post indicates that you don't understand what an "armchair warrior" is. It's someone who doesn't have any part in the fighting but who still complains and thinks he could have done it better -- like you in this thread. Those who do have a role in the war, whether as soldiers or as officers, cannot be called armchair warriors, and neither can it be used to slander a civilian for not taking part in the fighting; if you want an insult for them you'll have to come up with another one, but to use "armchair warriors" is erroneous.

First of all, most of the upper Wehrmacht Generals couldn't wait to surrender to the Western allies at that point in the war. Your story of the Battle of Berlin sounds nothing like the one in every major History book. From what I've heard, those 10,000 Hitler Youth boys who were sent to hold the Havel bridges to the west of Berlin did more fighting than your precious General Wenck, Reymann, or Heinrici. Hell, the remainder of the Waffen-SS Nordland Division made up of Norwegians, French, Danes, and Swedes did a better job of defending the heart of Berlin than the Wehrmacht Generals who were too busy trying to avoid Russian captivity which is ironically the same VICE you accuse Hitler and Goebbels of.

"I wish my Generals had your courage."

So Dasyurus now has nothing else to attack Hitler and Goebbels for than taking their own lives. *S*

On top of that, Dasyurus, your last post indicates that you don't understand what an "armchair warrior" is. It's someone who doesn't have any part in the fighting but who still complains and thinks he could have done it better -- like you in this thread. Those who do have a role in the war, whether as soldiers or as officers, cannot be called armchair warriors, and neither can it be used to slander a civilian for not taking part in the fighting; if you want an insult for them you'll have to come up with another one, but to use "armchair warriors" is erroneous.

The term 'Armchair Warriors' was not my term, nor of my invention.
It is a term I had quoted from Historian Anthony Beevor's detailed analysis of the Fall of Berlin in 1945.

Whether its taken as a term of slander? or as a fitting and accurate description? ; depends on your sensitivity or that of the receptor.

OttoRemer quotes; "..trying to avoid Russian captivity which is ironically the same VICE you accuse Hitler and Goebbels of.".
I had not "accused" anyone of "trying to avoid captivity" nor explicitly of "VICE" either.

But as you mention the term vice, I state that the reprehensible and terminal "VICE" of suicide, was cowardly. Instead of having the soldiers courage to fight others, the high profile characters in the thread topped themselves, the Wussmeister's option.

Whilst children were sent by Goebbels and Hitler to fight on the front line, Hitler and Goebbels opted tostay well away, and even kill themselves before the front line came knocking on their front door. They would then have have had to risk the same fortunes of a war that they had condemned millions of others to experience .

Instead of having the balls to trust in the hands of fate and Soldatenluck, they topped themselves.

As a Christian I deplore suicide. However, on the part of Hitler and Goering, I think we have exceptional cases. Hitler would have been captured by the Reds and the certain illegal actions against his person would have humiliated the German nation. If anything, his suicide, at the final moment, was a final gift to the folk of Germany.

I spoke my peace on Goering. He revitalized himself from a physically and mentally debilitated state, and rose to defended the actions of the government at the illegal drumhead courtmartial called Nuremberg and right before the end deprived the illegal tribunal its gory trophy. His conduct was an example of National Socialist resilience, pluck, elan and and loyalty.

As a Christian I deplore suicide. However, on the part of Hitler and Goering, I think we have exceptional cases. Hitler would have been captured by the Reds and the certain illegal actions against his person would have humiliated the German nation. If anything, his suicide, at the final moment, was a final gift to the folk of Germany.

I spoke my peace on Goering. He revitalized himself from a physically and mentally debilitated state, and rose to defended the actions of the government at the illegal drumhead courtmartial called Nuremberg and right before the end deprived the illegal tribunal its gory trophy. His conduct was an example of National Socialist resilience, pluck, elan and and loyalty.

Why does it seem that Hitler and Goering's military service in the First World War means nothing to these people? Or is this merely typical behavior we should expect from ANTIS?

The term 'Armchair Warriors' was not my term, nor of my invention.
It is a term I had quoted from Historian Anthony Beevor's detailed analysis of the Fall of Berlin in 1945.

Again, I iterate: you use the term incorrectly when you use it as slander against officers or civilians for not fighting. It is used for people who don't have any part in a war but who talk about how they could have run it better. What you want to insult here does not fall into that category, book or no book, so you'll have to find some other word to use.

And again, suicide is not cowardly under those circumstances. What do you think, could Hitler and Goebbels have turned back the Russians if they had become footsoldiers? Two more soldiers would have done the trick? Of course not. It was good that they avoided capture. If you want to attack Hitler, find something else.

I spoke my peace on Goering. He revitalized himself from a physically and mentally debilitated state, and rose to defended the actions of the government at the illegal drumhead courtmartial called Nuremberg and right before the end deprived the illegal tribunal its gory trophy. His conduct was an example of National Socialist resilience, pluck, elan and and loyalty.

Absolutely: he performed well at the Nürnberg trial, with his fantastic memory. In the book about the trial it is clear that he ripped apart the prosecution's case. It was a farce, a show trial like those the communists held in the Soviet Union, one of the clearest examples of all times of how the Jews exploit and distort our laws and systems.

When the case against Milosevic was prepared in Hague, one of the judges was asked by a journalist at a press conference why the gathering of evidence took longer than before the Nürnberg trial. His reply: "We wanted to do a better job this time."

Absolutely: he performed well at the Nürnberg trial, with his fantastic memory. In the book about the trial it is clear that he ripped apart the prosecution's case. It was a farce, a show trial like those the communists held in the Soviet Union, one of the clearest examples of all times of how the Jews exploit and distort our laws and systems.

When the case against Milosevic was prepared in Hague, one of the judges was asked by a journalist at a press conference why the gathering of evidence took longer than before the Nürnberg trial. His reply: "We wanted to do a better job this time."

Yes and Milosevic took a page from Goering's book in two ways: firstly denying the jurisdiction and legitimacy of the tribunal, and secondly, by arguing that as an acting head of state he was covered by sovereign immunity. strong defences and the bottom line is that the tribunals and liars and hypocrites for granstanding about "international law" when the idea of sovereign immunity is one of the most basic tenets of international law there is.

And you are right, officers at the level of generals and heads of state are strategic and in modern warfare have the ability and responsibility to direct the battle from a position of command control and communication which usually is not in the trench next to the buck private. But Daisy knows better!

Anyone who talks shit about Hitler isn't a true WN.

He fought in WWI. And he led in WWII. And he would sooner kill himself then let the jews make a mockery out of germany with their bread and circus executions. He gave his entire life to the white race.

Anyone who would side with the jew character assassins and discreditors of Hitler deserves to be lined up against the wall and shot along with the hooked-nose kikenvermin.

Anyone who talks shit about Hitler isn't a true WN.

He fought in WWI. And he led in WWII. And he would sooner kill himself then let the jews make a mockery out of germany with their bread and circus executions. He gave his entire life to the white race.

Anyone who would side with the jew character assassins and discreditors of Hitler deserves to be lined up against the wall and shot along with the hooked-nose kikenvermin.

I agree. Let the critics show us how they have surpassed his achievements.

Well, Hitler is not above criticism, but insults we can do without. It's dangerous to start putting people on a godlike pedestal.

Hitler wasnt a coward and he had a warlord's death at his own hand in the Roman manner ... The Jew Zealots did no less at their vaunted "Masada" eh?
The Masada story is basically fiction, but the comparison to Mr. Hitler is very appropriate.

When Hitler does it he dies a coward.

When jews do it they die as unconquered heroes.

One rule for jews and another standard for everyone else.

Maybe Himmler was busy trying to work out a peace agreement and was murdered while Hitler made sure that his body was dead and mutilated to insure the Red Army as little mileage from his death as possible. OR, maybe he went to Argentina. I dont know what the hell Goering was doing other than attempting an escape to live to fight another day. In the end he denied his captors the reward of his death at their hands.

One thing that's always bothered me is where the hell did Goering get the cyanide pill?
And don't tell me it was secreted in the hollow of a uniform button because I can't believe his Allied captors didn't go over with a fine tooth comb every item the Herr Field Marshall had on his person at the time of his arrest!
Anybody know?

One thing that's always bothered me is where the hell did Goering get the cyanide pill?
And don't tell me it was secreted in the hollow of a uniform button because I can't believe his Allied captors didn't go over with a fine tooth comb every item the Herr Field Marshall had on his person at the time of his arrest!
Anybody know?

I think I remember reading it was smuggled into his cell concealed inside a writing pen by a guard or a secretary.

I think I remember reading it was smuggled into his cell concealed inside a writing pen by a guard or a secretary.

Here's an interesting article about it:

http://articles.latimes.com/2005/feb/07/local/me-goering7

Another article about Goering's death, the role of Tex Wheelis seems significant:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/338793_carver08.html

One thing that's always bothered me is where the hell did Goering get the cyanide pill?
And don't tell me it was secreted in the hollow of a uniform button because I can't believe his Allied captors didn't go over with a fine tooth comb every item the Herr Field Marshall had on his person at the time of his arrest!
Anybody know?

Goering was stripped naked before being put in his cell. There were no pills. He was murdered by the Jews, as were they all. According to the Jews, all the Nazis committed suicide. That's their standard explanation for all Nazi leader's deaths.

Hitler was killed in his bunker, fighting in defense of Berlin. When he said he would freely give his life, he meant that in the same way that any hero fights to the last breath for his cause. The Russians dragged his body, riddled with bullet holes, out of the bunker into the street and set it afire, rejoicing.

Adolf Heidler died a hero's death, as did his wife.

Mein Buch

Anthony Grafton, The New Republic Published: Wednesday, December 24, 2008

Hitler's Private Library: The Books That Shaped His Life

By Timothy W. Ryback

( Knopf, 304 pp., $24.95)

Few buildings on Capitol Hill are grander than the Jefferson Building of the Library of Congress, with its great stairway, pillared façade, and magnificent domed reading room. And few rooms in that building seem more ordinary, even banal, than the rare book storage area where 1,200 books from the collection of Adolf Hitler stand tightly packed on steel shelves. Along with another eighty items in the Brown University Library and scattered texts elsewhere, these are the modest remains of the more than sixteen thousand books that Hitler assembled in his residence in Munich, in the Reichskanzlei in Berlin, and in his villa on the Obersalzberg in Bavaria, near Berchtesgaden. Like the Thousand-Year Empire, Hitler's imposing collections proved considerably more fragile than he expected. Even before the Führer died, American and Russian soldiers were packing his library and taking it home, bit by bit. Some came as single spies, like the young lieutenant who brought a much-thumbed copy of Henry Ford's My Life and Work back from Munich to New York, where he sold it at Scribner's. Others came in battalions, especially the Soviet "trophy brigade" that took the entire ten-thousand-volume collection from Berlin to Moscow, where it has not been seen since the early 1990s.

Only one large segment of the collection--three thousand books hidden in beer crates in a Bavarian salt mine--remained intact after the war ended. Members of the U.S. Army's Twenty-First Counterintelligence Corps concluded, after what they called a "hasty inspection of the scattered books," that the collection "was noticeably lacking in literature and almost totally devoid of drama and poetry." Worse still, "none of the books examined gave the appearance of extensive use. They had no marginal notes or underlinings." Hans Beilhack, reporting on the collection in November 1946 for the Süddeutsche Zeitung, noted contemptuously that the "library itself, seen as a whole, is only interesting because it is the library of a 'great' statesman and yet so uninteresting. It is the typical library of a dilettante."

Once the books reached Washington, Arnold Jacobius, then an intern and later an expert on the Weimar journalist Kurt Tucholsky, made a more detailed report to Frederick Goff, the head of rare books at the Library of Congress. Even he detected "little in the way of marginal notes, autographs or other similar features of interest," and at his suggestion most of the books, the ones that bore no signs of direct use, were merged into the library's general collection or sold as duplicates. Safely stored in Washington, even the books that the library kept and set apart attracted little attention. Many years ago, a librarian pointed them out to me as we hurried from one collection of incunabula to another: so far as he knew, no one had yet studied them. (In fact, some scholars had--notably Gerhard Weinberg and Robert Waite; but more than half of them remained uncatalogued as late as 2001.)

In the last twenty years or so, scholars in many fields of the humanities have realized that books, when studied as material objects as well as texts, can tell many stories about their owners. Like travelers in the woods, those who buy and read books leave tracks for scholars to read. Substantive (and legible) marginal notes and scrawled underlinings in pencil, fine bindings and tattered paper wrappers--all have something to tell us about those who saw them as appropriate ways of personalizing and responding to a particular book. Historians of the book--many of whom do their research at the Library of Congress and the Folger Library around the corner--have traced the development of such devices as the "manicule," the little pointing hand which, when drawn in a margin, indicated that a reader found a passage important, and which, as William H. Sherman has shown in his absorbing Used Books: Marking Readers in Renaissance England, was one of many readers' practices that survived the transition from script to print.

This material turn in the realm of the intellect has brought great benefits. In particular, it has provided a forum in which literary scholars, art historians, and historians can all work together, something that seemed to have disappeared in the age of theory. The close study of how books were made and marketed, catalogued and read, as these scholars have shown, provides us with a new method for tracing the ways in which the thought of a philosopher or the work of a writer took shape, and how in turn important books were used, appropriated, and rejected by readers. And in this new climate, the interest of Hitler's once-neglected books became clear, and scholars began to look at the collection.

In 2001, Philipp Gassert and Daniel S. Mattern published a catalogue of Hitler's books in American collections, and a book-length study of the books in Washington by the Hungarian historian Ambrus Miskolczy appeared in 2003. Timothy Ryback's dramatic book takes us not just into Hitler's library, but also into the gritty material details of the books themselves. At one point he even recalls discovering in a particular book, "tucked in the crease between pages 160 and 161, a wiry inch-long black hair that appears to be from a moustache." Thanks to his imaginative research--and his willingness to investigate a very creepy subject--we come closer to one of the most elusive men ever to shape world history.

Walter Benjamin, who hovers over this book as a melancholy Jewish guardian angel, believed that a collection revealed something profound about the collector's mind and life: "ownership is the most intimate relationship one can have to objects. Not that they come alive in him; it is he who lives in them. So I have erected one of his dwellings, with books as the building stones, before you, and now he is going to disappear inside, as is only fitting." Hitler's dwelling in Washington, however, is a ruin. A lot of the books that probably mattered most to him are not there; and he neither bought nor, in many cases, even saw a good many of the books preserved there. Sometimes precise connections emerge from the details. At one point Ryback finds Hitler using one of his books on magic to annotate another. We realize that both books must have been on Hitler's desk, and in his hands, at the same time. But historians' gold of this kind turns up very rarely here. Instead Ryback's reconstruction is accomplished mostly by weaving back and forth among individual books and other records, from Hitler's own writings to contemporaries' memoirs, as he seeks to show us how books shaped one of the twentieth century's most terrible minds. His effort is worthwhile: one finishes this short, packed book with a firmer take on the sort of intellectual--or pseudo-intellectual--who persuaded the best-educated nation in Europe to make war on civilization and try to exterminate the Jews. But deep insights remain elusive.



Hitler admitted that he was "no writer." But he insisted, again and again, that he was a reader. As a young man he claimed, with an autodidact's exaggeration, that he had read widely in German literature and philosophy--even though he still misspelled Schopenhauer as "Schoppenhauer." These claims represented, at least in part, a defensive response to bourgeois politicians such as Otto Dickel, whom Hitler confronted and defeated early in his career--men who had enjoyed, if that is the right word, the rigors of the German Gymnasium and university, and who felt at home in the highly abstract world of German philosophy and social science. Hitler never climbed these heights himself. His copies of the German classics show few signs of use, and his writings show little evidence of acquaintance with them. The annotated draft typescript of Mein Kampf that Ryback examines, with its misspellings and its vague, awkward prose, shows just how little literary culture Hitler had--a point that impressed itself even on the loyalists who tried to edit the book, as well as on those who tried to read it once it was published.

Still, Hitler read a great deal during the years when he rose to power. Walking the crowded, lively streets of Munich, he regularly stopped and shopped in his favorite used-book stores--so often, in fact, that he spent much of his income there. When Hitler became head of the Nazi Party, he had a list of recommended reading printed on party membership cards. While serving his time in prison after the Beer Hall Putsch, he withdrew from politics far more wholeheartedly than the soft conditions of his sentence required so that he could read and write. And the books and information that he amassed in the 1920s and 1930s served him directly in later years. A passionate collector of all sorts of texts on warfare, from strategic theories, military histories, and memoirs to handbooks of ships and tanks, Hitler read them with close attention. He amassed a detailed knowledge of everything from the doctrines of Clausewitz to the calibers of specific weapons, which came in handy again and again when he argued with the obdurate members of the German General Staff during World War II.

As head of state, Hitler continued to collect. Friends and admirers, such as Leni Riefenstahl and Sven Hedin, sent him their publications with flattering inscriptions. So did cities, companies, and publishers. More remarkable, he continued to read much--though hardly all--of what came in. Late at night on the Obersalzberg, Hitler read for hours a time, sometimes until dawn. He worked in his study, outside of which hung a sign that demanded ABSOLUTE SILENCE, reading with intense concentration--so intense that he became furious one night when Eva Braun interrupted him, and sent her packing, red-faced, with a "tirade. " At breakfast, as Traudl Junge, his last surviving secretary, recalled to Ryback, he "would reprise his previous night's reading in extensive, often tedious detail." Even at the end, as a photograph of the Berlin bunker shows, unidentified thick books took up some of the scarce space in his tiny bedroom.



What could reading do--what did it do--for Hitler? The mere fact that he marked many of his books, Ryback points out, is striking. After all, Hitler was "a man who famously seemed never to listen to anyone, for whom conversation was a relentless tirade, a ceaseless monologue." Yet as a reader he would stop "to engage with the text, to underline words and sentences, to mark entire paragraphs, to place an exclamation point beside one passage, a question mark beside another, and quite frequently an emphatic series of parallel lines in the margin alongside a particular passage." Hard though they are to interpret--the fuller annotations found in some of the volumes do not seem to come from Hitler himself--these traces show a man listening and responding. Could they offer a path to that mysterious mind, more concealed than revealed by the thousands of volumes of memoirs and commentary that never seem to penetrate Hitler's shell?

Hitler's own words make clear--clearer, in fact, than the surviving volumes--just how much some writers meant to him. His lifelong favorites--leatherbound copies of which he kept in the study of his alpine villa--ranged from the Western adventure novels of Karl May to the plays of Shakespeare. May's novels, from The Ride Across the Desert on, "overwhelmed" Hitler as a boy, claiming his attention so powerfully that his grades suffered "a noticeable decline." During the war, Hitler told his generals to study May's books, and even had a special edition issued for soldiers at the front. He considered Winnetou, the Indian chief of May's tales, a master of "tactical finesse and circumspection," and a model for his own love of cunning tactics and surprises. Reading at night, he told Albert Speer, "when faced by seemingly hopeless situations, he would still reach for these stories," because "they gave him courage like works of philosophy for others or the Bible for elderly people."

Shakespeare seemed to him much greater than the classic German writers of the eighteenth century. After all, Shakespeare had brought the imperishable character of Shylock to the stage, whereas Lessing had created Nathan the Wise, the Jew who taught Christians, Muslims, and Jews a lesson of tolerance. Hitler quoted Shakespeare as more highly educated Germans quoted Goethe, threatening opponents: "We will meet again at Philippi." This material, fascinating as it is, comes not from the books preserved in Washington, but from records of Hitler's speeches and conversations. Though the handsome morocco-bound set of Shakespeare from Obersalzberg is now in Washington, it was printed in 1925--too late to be the German edition that imprinted "To be or not to be" and "We will meet again at Philippi" on Hitler's mind.

In some cases, Ryback derives fascinating and suggestive material from the books that he examines. On November 22, 1915, while serving as a message runner on the Western Front, Hitler bought a guide to the architecture of Berlin by the critic Max Osborn, a Jewish intellectual who covered the Western Front for the prestigious Vossische Zeitung while Hitler was stationed there, vividly recording the horror, and the increasing savagery, of the war. Ryback observes that "in November 1915, for a frontline corporal to pay four marks for a book on cultural treasures of Berlin, when cigarettes, schnapps, and women were readily available for more immediate and palpable distraction, can be seen as an act of aesthetic transcendence." This impression is confirmed by the thumbprints that appear beside Osborn's reproductions of works of art by Rubens and Botticelli, and which suggest that Hitler, who practiced drawing when he had the chance, still hoped for a career as a painter.

More striking are the passages in which Osborn condemns the wild eclecticism of much Berlin architecture, the "orgies of an unspeakable debasement in taste, " and singles out for praise certain clear exceptions. Osborn admired the martial, Prussian qualities of Karl Friedrich Schinkel's Neue Wache on Unter den Linden, a monument to those who died for Prussia in the wars of liberation against France, and the brilliance with which Karl Gotthard Langhans had crowned the Brandenburg Gate, at the other end of Berlin's great ceremonial boulevard, with the goddess of Victory. Evidently Hitler took a special interest in the long chapter, its margins smudged, bent, and spotted with paraffin, in which Osborn denounced the second-rate artistic tastes of the Prussian hero Frederick the Great.

Ryback notes that Hitler, who explored Berlin while on leave during the war, agreed with Osborn in condemning the city's architecture. In later life, of course, Hitler planned to transform the city into a monumental, stylistically coherent capital to be called Germania, and he and Speer realized parts of the plan in the Olympic Stadium and Chancery. Osborn, whose work was banned and who emigrated to America, presumably did not admire the direction in which Hitler took his rather conventional aesthetic nationalism. But the case seems clear: reading Osborn sharpened Hitler's sense of how to read Berlin--and very likely inspired him to abandon his earlier taste for architectural eclecticism. To the young Hitler, Vienna's Ringstrasse, with its Baroque Opera and Greek Houses of Parliament, Renaissance Burgtheater, and neo-Gothic Rathaus, seemed "like an enchantment out of the Thousand and One Nights." Hitler the veteran of war and reader of Osborn wanted something different: pure "Germanic-northern Ur-forms" that still, somehow, derived from ancient Greece.

Equally fascinating is Ryback's account of the short book on Alfred Graf von Schlieffen (famous for his plan for victory over France), written by the count's personal physician, that was given to Hitler in 1940 by Artur "Willy" Kannenberg, a member of his inner circle. From the Fraktur type used on its cover to its anecdotes of Schlieffen's kindness to defeated French generals, the book was clearly designed to showcase the Prussian virtues: courage, austerity, tradition, and the willingness to retreat for strategic purposes. But Kannenberg, whom Hitler first met at a restaurant and treated as a sort of court jester, transformed the book, as Ryback shows, with his presentation note on the front cover: "Dedicated to my Führer. Motto: 'one way or another.' Sieg Heil, Kannenberg, 19.5.1940." Celebrating ruthlessness, treating Hitler with adulation, Kannenberg quoted Hitler to Hitler: "one way or another," "so oder so," was one of his master's favorite sayings, like "wenn schon, denn schon"--"if you're going to do it, do it."

Hitler read the book as aggressively as Kannenberg's note suggested he should. As he went through the fourth chapter, on Schlieffen's campaign in France, he pondered and marked the passages in which Schlieffen warned against waging a two-front war against France and England to the west and Russia to the east. In the end, to be sure, Germany would have to conquer all of its enemies. But Schlieffen argued that along the way, "as the Great King [Frederick] has taught us, we must be ready to sacrifice even so rich a province as East Prussia, in order to concentrate all our forces where we seek a decision"--that is, in the west. As Hitler went through these passages, he may well have entertained his first thoughts, as Ryback suggests, about the invasion of Russia, which he would begin to discuss in July 1940. The pencil lines in this brochure, less than a hundred pages long, seem to reveal the origins of that arcanum imperii which would, in the end, destroy Hitler's own empire.



For the most part, the marked books show that Hitler read not to discover but to confirm what he already knew. In a famous passage in Mein Kampf, Hitler made clear that he rejected the scholar's deferential approach to texts. Intellectuals read supinely, allowing books to lead them: "Naturally, I understand by 'reading' something other than that which the average member of the so-called 'intelligentsia' understands," he wrote. "I know people who 'read' an endless amount, who go from book to book, from letter to letter, yet I would not want to call them 'well-read.' They possess an abundance of 'knowledge,' only their brain does not understand how to process and organize the material it has taken on board." Such readers "lack the art of being able to divide the valuable from the valueless in a book." In the end, Hitler explained, "reading is not something we carry out for its own sake, but an instrument used for a purpose," a "tool and a building material that one needs for one's calling in life."

Rather than simply storing materials "according to the structure of the book or the chronology of one's memory," one should fit each important passage, Hitler wrote, "like a piece in a mosaic into its orderly place in the general worldview: it is precisely in this way that it will help the reader to form a picture in his head." The reader who fails to follow this rule "thinks he really knows all that is serious, thinks he understands something from life, and is in possession of knowledge. Yet with each new addition he becomes increasingly alienated from the world, until he ends up either in a sanatorium, or in parliament as a 'politician.'" By contrast, the reader who follows Hitler's ruthless, pragmatic hermeneutics will use texts as quarries, finding in them exactly the stones to fill particular gaps or the tools to do particular jobs.

Hitler read, in other words, as he talked: not to uncover new facts or ideas but to validate what he already thought. That explains why he carefully went through an edition of the scholarly anti-Semite Paul Lagarde's German Essays, printed as late as 1934 by J.F. Lehmann, as well as several of the famous works on racial types by Hans F.K. Günther, known as "Rassengünther," a professor at Jena and one of the founders of German racial science and legislation, also published by Lehmann. These texts told Hitler nothing that he did not already know. Hitler did not need Rassengünther to show him what Jews looked like, or Lagarde to tell him that Germany could never assimilate its Jews, or to recommend that they be transplanted to Palestine, or to caution him that the Jews, formed by the Talmud, were too tough for Germans to oppose--or to condemn the particular offenses that Jews committed against German identity, as when they "lay claim to the honorable German name while constructing the most sacred sites one has in a Moorish style in order not to forget that one is a Semite, an Asian, a foreigner." He had long since drawn his own conclusions about the New Synagogue in the Oranienburgerstrasse and its congregation.

Still, the bent pages and the flexible spines of these books indicate that Hitler read them often. In them, Ryback shows, "we can observe the application of Hitler's reading technique in all its selective intensity"--watch his pencil, following his eye across the page, underlining passages, entering occasional exclamation points and question marks, above all drawing the lines that marked stones useable for his mosaics. The new position of the reader made his books yield something they had not provided before. In 1934-1935, Hitler was head of state and possessed dictatorial powers. Reading as a leader, a ruler, he found in Günther's familiar images and Lagarde's familiar sentiments not the elements of a political program but the beginnings of a public policy. "A penciled mark can become state doctrine": Hitler's penciled marks became part of the Nuremberg Laws, promulgated in September 1935.



Ryback's useful book brings us a little closer to the mind of the monster. But it could have revealed more than it does. Far too often Ryback interrupts his analysis of the books and their contents, printed and handwritten, to tell us about his own adventures in researching them: only a few of these peeps into his workshop clarify the material. Too seldom does he take the opportunities this material offers to penetrate more deeply into Hitler's psyche. In a long chapter, Ryback describes the surviving esoteric and spiritualist volumes that formed a substantial part of Hitler's collection: works by thinkers now forgotten, such as Ernst Schertel and Maximilian Riedel. They offered elaborate analyses and complex charts of the relation between mind and spirit. More striking, they celebrated those individuals of "imaginative power," who could concentrate their spirits and conceive "explosive, dynamite-like" ideas that had the impact of an avalanche: ideas so powerful that they were beyond such soft, old-fashioned categories as good and evil, true and false, and could transform the world.

Ryback shows that Hitler called special attention to these passages in his books. They underpinned his own sense of himself as a new man, spiritually able to call down destruction on Europe's corrupt civilization. This was the vision that Hitler revealed in part to the very civilized League of Nations high commissioner to the free city of Danzig, Carl J. Burckhardt, during the critical days of August 1939, and in whole to his generals when he ordered them, two weeks later, to invade Poland. At the core of Hitler's understanding of himself and his mission, the historian finds "less a distillation of the philosophies of Schopenhauer or Nietzsche than a dime-store theory cobbled together from cheap, tendentious paperbacks and esoteric hardcovers."

True enough--and yet, as Corinna Treitel showed in her excellent book A Science for the Soul: Occultism and the German Modern, it is wrong to dismiss the esoteric strains in German thought in the early decades of the twentieth century simply because they now seem laughable. In a time when all values--from the objective ones of natural science to the traditional ones of the established churches--came into question, many Germans, some of them very well-born and educated, found more than cheap potato soup for the soul in these pursuits. Occultism offered new spiritual revelations to replace the old, and new scientific revelations that made for dazzling séances, and new insight (or so many serious artists thought) into the nature of the creative unconscious. The rise of occultism in all its forms, from good old-fashioned astrology to the spiritualism nourished by the war's vast toll of death, marked a distinctive part of Germany's strange path to modernity. Yet esoteric thinkers differed on many points, and Nazi officials took a wide range of positions on them before they finally decided, late in the war, to crush them. By confronting the thinkers Hitler used with close attention to detail, as Treitel did--and by drawing on Treitel's own rich book--Ryback could have done more than condemn Hitler's esoteric interests as cheap and silly. He could have traced them to their precise roots, and told us, as he does not, whether Hitler's response to them was distinctive, and if so how.

Hitler was far from the only twentieth century Big Man who claimed to be a Big Thinker and a Big Reader. Every good research library has the forty-four-volume Opera Omnia of Benito Mussolini, whose beautiful, eloquent Italian Hitler admired, but felt unable to emulate--not to mention the collected works of Joseph Stalin, some fourteen volumes in the Red Star Press edition published at London in the 1970s, or the lucubrations of Mao Zedong and Enver Hoxha or Kim Il Sung. How, one wonders, did Hitler's ways of reading, citing, and using texts resemble, or differ from, those of the other Great Dictators of his time? Or those of the other Nazi leaders? Ryback does not ask--much less answer--these intriguing questions.

This book sticks too close to Hitler, in the end, to tell us as much as it could have. Still, Hitler's Private Library offers clear proof, if any was needed, that Hitler's worldview did not represent, as American propaganda claimed, the culmination of centuries of German thought. It is in narrower, more crooked corridors of the great edifice of the German intellect--the intellectual Sonderweg that Fritz Stern explored so well half a century ago, and to which Corinna Treitel and others have more recently returned--that historians will capture the secrets of Hitler's mind. Timothy Ryback has not taken the grim trip himself: but others will, and his work will help to guide them.

Anthony Grafton is a contributing editor at The New Republic.

http://www.tnr.com/story_print.html?id=1fb48fe8-1d1c-4088-a435-f72087238c07

Belgian Fascist Leon Degrelle said Hitler read much more than that article suggests:

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/v14n3p22_Degrelle.html

Hitler was self-taught and made no attempt to hide the fact. The smug conceit of intellectuals, their shiny ideas packaged like so many flashlight batteries, irritated him at times. His own knowledge he had acquired through selective and unremitting study, and he knew far more than thousands of diploma-decorated academics.

I don't think anyone ever read as much as he did. He normally read one book every day, always first reading the conclusion and the index in order to gauge the work's interest for him. He had the power to extract the essence of each book and then store it in his computer-like mind. I have heard him talk about complicated scientific books with faultless precision, even at the height of the war.

His intellectual curiosity was limitless. He was readily familiar with the writings of the most diverse authors, and nothing was too complex for his comprehension. He had a deep knowledge and understanding of Buddha, Confucius and Jesus Christ, as well as Luther, Calvin, and Savonarola; of literary giants such as Dante, Schiller, Shakespeare and Goethe; and analytical writers such as Renan and Gobineau, Chamberlain and Sorel.

He had trained himself in philosophy by studying Aristotle and Plato. He could quote entire paragraphs of Schopenhauer from memory, and for a long time carried a pocked edition of Schopenhauer with him. Nietzsche taught him much about the willpower.

His thirst for knowledge was unquenchable. He spend hundreds of hours studying the works of Tacitus and Mommsen, military strategists such as Clausewitz, and empire builders such as Bismark. Nothing escaped him: world history or the history of civilizations, the study of the Bible and the Talmud, Thomistic philosophy and all the masterpieces of Homer, Sophocles, Horace, Ovid, Titus Livius and Cicero. He knew Julian the Apostate as if he had been his contemporary.

His knowledge also extended to mechanics. He knew how engines worked; he understood the ballistics of various weapons; and he astonished the best medical scientists with his knowledge of medicine and biology.

...Hitler was self-taught and made no attempt to hide the fact. The smug conceit of intellectuals, their shiny ideas packaged like so many flashlight batteries, irritated him at times. His own knowledge he had acquired through selective and unremitting study, and he knew far more than thousands of diploma-decorated academics...That's a good example of German formality. Once a blowfish gets a degree, or (heaven forbid) a doctorate, that individual gets rewarded inquestionable credibility. No matter what the subject. If you decide to orient your carrer to what you like doing, instead of persuing the academic route, you will never be taken seriously. There are exceptions, of course, to be fair.
I enjoy subtily insulting my ol'lady as the degreed electrician, her mother as the degreed- carpenter, architecht and her brother as proffesor of bicycle sales. They know everything better. The straw that broke the camel's back happened Saturday when her son's intrusion overrided my advice, after I spent time getting the ball rolling on a favor she asked me to do. I told the old bag to consult him, before ever asking for my advice again

Oh please, they are trying to make him look like an imbecile without actually saying "he was an imbecile" instead they use a pc statement" For the most part, the marked books show that Hitler read not to discover but to confirm what he already knew."

Deciphered it would read

"He was a bigot and he looked through countless pages to confirm his bigotry and infantile intellectual capacity"

Oh please, they are trying to make him look like an imbecile without actually saying "he was an imbecile" instead they use a pc statement" For the most part, the marked books show that Hitler read not to discover but to confirm what he already knew."

Deciphered it would read

"He was a bigot and he looked through countless pages to confirm his bigotry and infantile intellectual capacity"


Yeah, he looks at Hitler's library to confirm what he already "knows" about Hitler. I have gone through many people's libraries and you can't tell that much personal stuff from it. Unless they write some personal remarks in the books. Some people have libraries just like I have. Does that make them like me in other traits? I don't think so.

The New Republic.

I'm shocked!

T.J.B.

(September 16, 1919)
Dear Herr Gemlich,

If the threat with which Jewry faces our people has given rise to undeniable hostility on the part of a large section of our people, the cause of this hostility must be sought in the clear recognition that Jewry as such is deliberately or unwittingly having a pernicious effect on our nation, but mostly in personal intercourse, in the poor impression the Jew makes as an individual. As a result, antisemitism far too readily assumes a purely emotional character. But this is not the correct response. Antisemitism as a political movement may not and cannot be molded by emotional factors but only by recognition of the facts. Now the facts are these:

To begin with, the Jews are unquestionably a race, not a religious community. The Jew himself never describes himself as a Jewish German, a Jewish Pole or a Jewish American, but always as a German, Polish or American Jew. Jews have never adopted more than the language of the foreign nations in whose midst they live. A German who is forced to make use of the French language in France, Italian in Italy, Chinese in China does not thereby become a Frenchman, Italian, or Chinaman, nor can we call a Jew who happens to live amongst us and who is therefore forced to use the German language, a German. Neither does the Mosaic faith, however great its importance for the preservation of that race, be the sole criterion for deciding who is a Jew and who is not. There is hardly a race in the world whose members all belong to a single religion.

Through inbreeding for thousands of years, often in very small circles, the Jew has been able to preserve his race and his racial characteristics much more successfully than most of the numerous people among whom he has lived. As a result there lives amongst us a non-German, alien race, unwilling and indeed unable to shed its racial characteristics, its particular feelings, thoughts and ambitions and nevertheless enjoying the same political rights as we ourselves do. And since even the Jew's feelings are limited to the purely material realm, his thoughts and ambitions are bound to be so even more strongly. Their dance around the golden calf becomes a ruthless struggle for all the possessions that we feel deep down are not the highest and not the only ones worth striving for on this earth.

The value of an individual is no longer determined by his character or by the significance of his achievements for the community, but solely by the size of his fortune, his wealth.

The greatness of a nation is no longer measured by the sum of its moral and spiritual resources, but only by the wealth of its material possessions.

All this results in that mental attitude and that quest for money and the power to protect it which allow the Jew to become so unscrupulous in his choice of means, so merciless in their use of his own ends. In autocratic states he cringes before the 'majesty' of the princes and misuses their favors to become a leech on their people.

In democracies he vies for the favor of the masses, cringes before 'the majesty of the people', but only recognizes the majesty of money.

He saps the prince's character with Byzantine flattery; national pride and the strength of the nation with ridicule and shameless seduction to vice. His method of battle is that public opinion which is never expressed in the press but which is nonetheless manages and falsified by it. His power is the power of the money, which multiplies in his hands effortlessly and endlessly through interest, and with which he imposes a yoke upon the nation that is the more pernicious in that its glitter disguises its ultimately tragic consequences. Everything that makes the people strive for higher goals, be it religion, socialism, or democracy, is to the Jew merely a means to an end, the way to satisfy his greed and thirst for power.

The results of his works is racial tuberculosis of the nation.

And this has the following consequences: purely emotional antisemitism finds its final expression in the form of pogroms. Rational antisemitism, by contrast, must lead to a systematic and legal struggle against, and eradication of, the privileges the Jews enjoy over the other foreigners living among us (Alien Laws). Its final objective, however, must be the total removal of all Jews from our midst. Both objectives can only be achieved by a government of national strength and not one of national impotence.

The German Republic owes its birth not the united national will of our people, but to the underhand exploitation of a series of circumstances that, taken together, express themselves in a deep, universal dissatisfaction. These circumstances, however, arose independently of the political structure and are at work even today. Indeed, more so than ever before. Hence, a large part of our people recognizes that changing the structure of the state cannot in itself improve our position, but that this can only be achieved by the rebirth of the nation's moral and spiritual forces.

And this rebirth cannot be prepared by the leadership of an irresponsibly majority influence by party dogmas or by the internationalist catch-phrases and slogans of an irresponsible press, but only by determined acts on the part of nationally minded leadership with an inner sense of responsibility.

This very fact serves to deprive the Republic of the inner support of the spiritual forces any nation needs very badly. Hence the present leaders of the nation are forced to seek support from those who alone have benefited and continue to benefit from changing the form of the German state, and who for that very reason become the driving force of the Revolution -- the Jews. Disregarding the Jewish threat, which is undoubtedly recognized even by today's leaders (as various statement from prominent personalities reveal), these men are forced to accept Jewish favors to their private advantage and to repay these favors. And the repayment does not merely involve satisfying every possible Jewish demand, but above all preventing the struggle of the betrayed people against its defrauders, by sabotaging the antisemitic movement.


Yours truly,
Adolf Hitler



http://www.hitler.org/writings/first_writing/

Thanks! Has there ever been a man that knew more about the Jew than Hitler? Or a man that ever tried harder to end their pernicious influence on Aryan society? Truly a man against time.

Heil Hitler!

I just uploaded this PDF, The Complete Hitler: Speeches and Proclamations 1932-1945.
Disregard the Jewish ramblings in the introduction but do enjoy the rest. :D
http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=0a0e2e675749af922fb2ca15d7ea42d9e04e75f6e8ebb871

Thanks! Has there ever been a man that knew more about the Jew than Hitler? Or a man that ever tried harder to end their pernicious influence on Aryan society?

Not yet.

But observe that Hitler was wrong. Systematic discrimination against the jew leading to complete separation is not the solution to the jewish problem. Progressive legal discrimination allowed most of the jews, and just about all of the most dangerous communist disease-germs, to escape to other countries. Hitler underestimate the jew's international strength, and the ability of the international race to leverage the controlled nations against him. The U.S. has paid a terrible price for the Nazis allowing the lowest/highest of the communist scum to escape to America. It appears in hindsight that Hitler were better advised to put any kikes under his control in legal and physical lockdown as soon as he assumed power. Make things appear benign and normal to the outside world, but prevent jews from leaving and carrying on their termitism. Then use their body as a hostage against external terrorism while working for the rest of his political goals.

Not yet.

Make things appear benign and normal to the outside world, but prevent jews from leaving and carrying on their termitism. Then use their body as a hostage against external terrorism while working for the rest of his political goals.

The NSDAP had staved off a Bolshevik revolution within Germany's borders in the years preceeding 1933, and was charged with preparing for inevitable conflict with the Soviet Union after Hitler's ascension. It would have been lunacy to encourage (or even permit for that matter) the Jewish 5th column to remain in Germany.

Hitler did the right thing. Criticizing Third Reich Jewish policy is just Monday morning quarterbacking. In reality, you're chiding Hitler for losing, not for incompetent executive decisionmaking.

The U.S. has paid a terrible price for the Nazis allowing the lowest/highest of the communist scum to escape to America.
I've always held the opinion that the Nazi's biggest mistake was allowing jews to escape with their fortunes to America where they quickly turned their arsenal of wealth around and waged a highly successful media propaganda campaign against Germany. Prior to that Americans were tired of wars after WW1 and our nation proclaimed our dedication to world peace by commissioning the Dollar Peace Coin for general circulation.


http://coins.thefuntimesguide.com/images/blogs/PeaceDollar%20obverse%20and%20reverse.jpg

A lofty symbol of American's once held deep disdain for jew-sponsored wars


It was only due to the jew's relentless media spin bombardment that eventually turned American public opinion against Germany and it's Nazis. Fast forward to more recent times, the jew used the same media spin to turn Americans against Iraq with the same results.

In hindsight we see that the Peace Dollar was no match for the jew's media.

Responding to Revisionist's comment about Monday morning quarterbacking, yes, we need to thoroughly analyze missteps of the past in order not to repeat them.

Responding to Revisionist's comment about Monday morning quarterbacking, yes, we need to thoroughly analyze missteps of the past in order not to repeat them.


The Roosevelt/Frankfurter regime would have made war on Europe with or without a stream of Ashkenazi refugees arriving on American shores. You're speaking as if the Federal government was neutral on the issue until Jewish emigration from Europe began in earnest. That simply isn't the case.

The open conspiracy against Europe between RooseveltAdmin and the USSR began the day FDR took the oath of office.

RE: Revisionist

The Roosevelt/Frankfurter regime would have made war on Europe with or without a stream of Ashkenazi refugees arriving on American shores. You're speaking as if the Federal government was neutral on the issue until Jewish emigration from Europe began in earnest. That simply isn't the case.

The open conspiracy against Europe between RooseveltAdmin and the USSR began the day FDR took the oath of office.
I wasn't referring to the government specifically but rather the public's sentiment at the time. Legislators bowed to that sentiment and commissioned the coin. FDR was another story. No one knows exactly how much former German-jewish wealth, relocated in America, was employed to bolster FDR's road to war. We can speculate that nearly every expatriated German jew did all they could do to defeat Germany and that surely would have sped things up considerably for FDR's war mongering.

.

Hitler was killed in his bunker, fighting in defense of Berlin. When he said he would freely give his life, he meant that in the same way that any hero fights to the last breath for his cause. The Russians dragged his body, riddled with bullet holes, out of the bunker into the street and set it afire, rejoicing.

Adolf Heidler died a hero's death, as did his wife.

Hitler wasn't killed, he killed himself, and was taken outside the bunker to be burned along with Eva in a crater hole in the courtyard by a German sergeant. Hitler used his gold-plated Walther PPK with "A.H." engraved on the pearl handle grips to put a bullet into his brain.

The Masada story is basically fiction, but the comparison to Mr. Hitler is very appropriate.

When Hitler does it he dies a coward.

When jews do it they die as unconquered heroes.

One rule for jews and another standard for everyone else.

Good point!

The Political Statement*
First Part
More than thirty years have now passed since I in 1914 made my modest contribution as a volunteer in the first world war that was forced upon the Reich.
In these three decades I have been actuated solely by love and loyalty to my people in all my thoughts, acts, and life. They gave me the strength to make the most difficult decisions which have ever confronted mortal man. I have spent my time, my working strength, and my health in these three decades.

It is untrue that I or anyone else in Germany wanted the war in 1939. It was desired and instigated exclusively by those international statesmen who were either of Jewish descent or worked for Jewish interests. I have made too many offers for the control and limitation of armaments, which posterity will not for all time be able to disregard for the responsibility for the outbreak of this war to be laid on me. I have further never wished that after the first fatal world war a second against England, or even against America, should break out. Centuries will pass away, but out of the ruins of our towns and monuments the hatred against those finally responsible whom we have to thank for everything, International Jewry and its helpers, will grow.

Three days before the outbreak of the German-Polish war I again proposed to the British ambassador in Berlin a solution to the German-Polish problem - similar to that in the case of the Saar district, under international control. This offer also cannot be denied. It was only rejected because the leading circles in English politics wanted the war, partly on account of the business hoped for and partly under influence of propaganda organized by International Jewry.

I have also made it quite plain that, if the nations of Europe are again to be regarded as mere shares to be bought and sold by these international conspirators in money and finance, then that race, Jewry, which is the real criminal of this murderous struggle, will be saddled with the responsibility. I further left no one in doubt that this time not only would millions of children of Europe's Aryan people die of hunger, not only would millions of grown men suffer death, and not only hundreds of thousands of women and children be burnt and bombed to death in the towns, without the real criminal having to atone for this guilt, even if by more humane means.

After six years of war, which in spite of all setbacks, will go down one day in history as the most glorious and valiant demonstration of a nation's life purpose, I cannot forsake the city which is the capital of this Reich. As the forces are too small to make any further stand against the enemy attack at this place and our resistance is gradually being weakened by men who are as deluded as they are lacking in initiative, I should like, by remaining in this town, to share my fate with those, the millions of others, who have also taken upon themselves to do so. Moreover I do not wish to fall into the hands of an enemy who requires a new spectacle organized by the Jews for the amusement of their hysterical masses.

I have decided therefore to remain in Berlin and there of my own free will to choose death at the moment when I believe the position of the Führer and Chancellor itself can no longer be held.

I die with a happy heart, aware of the immeasurable deeds and achievements of our soldiers at the front, our women at home, the achievements of our farmers and workers and the work, unique in history, of our youth who bear my name.

That from the bottom of my heart I express my thanks to you all, is just as self-evident as my wish that you should, because of that, on no account give up the struggle, but rather continue it against the enemies of the Fatherland, no matter where, true to the creed of a great Clausewitz. From the sacrifice of our soldiers and from my own unity with them unto death, will in any case spring up in the history of Germany, the seed of a radiant renaissance of the National Socialist movement and thus of the realization of a true community of nations.

Many of the most courageous men and women have decided to unite their lives with mine until the very last. I have begged and finally ordered them not to do this, but to take part in the further battle of the Nation. I beg the heads of the Armies, the Navy and the Air Force to strengthen by all possible means the spirit of resistance of our soldiers in the National Socialist sense, with special reference to the fact that also I myself, as founder and creator of this movement, have preferred death to cowardly abdication or even capitulation.

May it, at some future time, become part of the code of honor of the German officer - as is already the case in our Navy - that the surrender of a district or of a town is impossible, and that above all the leaders here must march ahead as shining examples, faithfully fulfilling their duty unto death.


Second Part
Before my death I expel the former Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring from the party and deprive him of all rights which he may enjoy by virtue of the decree of June 29th, 1941; and also by virtue of my statement in the Reichstag on September 1st, 1939, I appoint in his place Grossadmiral Dönitz, President of the Reich and Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces.
Before my death I expel the former Reichsführer-SS and Minister of the Interior Heinrich Himmler, from the party and from all offices of State. In his stead I appoint Gauleiter Karl Hanke as Reichsführer-SS and Chief of the German Police, and Gauleiter Paul Giesler as Reich Minister of the Interior.

Göring and Himmler, quite apart from their disloyalty to my person, have done immeasurable harm to the country and the whole nation by secret negotiations with the enemy, which they have conducted without my knowledge and against my wishes, and by illegally attempting to seize power in the State for themselves. . . .

Although a number of men, such as Martin Bormann, Dr. Goebbels, etc., together with their wives, have joined me of their own free will and did not wish to leave the capital of the Reich under any circumstances, but were willing to perish with me here, I must nevertheless ask them to obey my request, and in this case set the interests of the nation above their own feelings. By their work and loyalty as comrades they will be just as close to me after death, as I hope that my spirit will linger among them and always go with them. Let them be hard but never unjust, but above all let them never allow fear to influence their actions, and set the honor of the nation above everything in the world. Finally, let them be conscious of the fact that our task, that of continuing the building of a National Socialist State, represents the work of the coming centuries, which places every single person under an obligation always to serve the common interest and to subordinate his own advantage to this end. I demand of all Germans, all National Socialists, men, women and all the men of the Armed Forces, that they be faithful and obedient unto death to the new government and its President.

Above all I charge the leaders of the nation and those under them to scrupulous observance of the laws of race and to merciless opposition to the universal poisoner of all peoples, International Jewry.

Given in Berlin, this 29th day of April 1945, 4:00 A.M.

Adolf Hitler

[Witnesses]
Dr. Joseph Goebbels
Wilhelm Burgdorf
Martin Bormannhttp://history1900s.about.com/library/holocaust/aa022100a.htm
Hans Krebs

The above Last Will and Testament of Adolf Hitler is available in the book "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich," by William L. Shirer.

Lasher is correct. Adolf Hitler and Eva Braun tied the knot then killed themselves first by swallow cyanide pill, then a bullet to the temple. Hitler orders his guards to burn the remains. For he did not want the enemies from both sides to parade his corpse as was Mussolini.

Well, Hitler is not above criticism, but insults we can do without. It's dangerous to start putting people on a godlike pedestal.

How so?????

Nepotism, in fact, is the most formidable protection imaginable : the protection of the ego. But wherever it has appeared in the life of a State—the monarchies are the best proof—it has resulted in weakening and decay. Reason : it puts an end to the principle of effort. In this respect, Frederick the Great showed himself superior to Napoleon—Frederick who, at the most difficult moments of his life, and when he had to take the hardest decisions, never forgot that things are called upon to endure. In similar cases, Napoleon capitulated. It's therefore obvious that, to bring his life's work to a successful conclusion, Frederick the Great could always rely on sturdier collaborators than Napoleon could. When Napoleon set the interests of his family clique above all, Frederick the Great looked around him for men, and, at need, trained them himself.

Despite all Napoleon's genius, Frederick the Great was the most outstanding man of the eighteenth century. When seeking to find a solution for essential problems concerning the conduct of affairs of State, he refrained from all illogicality. It must be recognised that in this field his father, Frederick-William, that buffalo of a man, had given him a solid and complete training. Peter the Great, too, clearly saw the necessity for eliminating the family spirit from public life. In a letter to his son—a letter I was re-reading recently—he informs him very clearly of his intention to disinherit him and exclude him from the succession to the throne. It would be too lamentable, he writes, to set one day at the head of Russia a son who does not prepare himself for State affairs with the utmost energy, who does not harden his will and strengthen himself physically.

Setting the best man at the head of the State—that's the most difficult problem in the world to solve.

In a republic in which the whole people is called upon to elect the chief of the State, it's possible, with money and publicity, to bring the meagrest of puppets to power.

In a republic in which the reins of power are in the hands of a clique made up of a few families, the State takes on the aspect of a trust, in which the shareholders have an interest in electing a weakling as President, so that they may play an important part themselves.

A hereditary monarchy is a biological blunder, for a man of action regularly chooses a wife with essentially feminine qualities, and the son inherits his mother's mildness and passive disposition.

In a republic that sets at its head a chief elected for life, there's the risk that he will pursue a policy of personal selfinterest.

In a republic where the Chief of State changes every five or ten years, the stability of the government is never assured, and the execution of long-term plans, exceeding the duration of a lifetime, is thereby compromised.

If one sets at the head of the State an old man who has with-drawn from all worldly considerations, he is only a puppet, and inevitably it's other men who rule in his name.

Thinking over all that, I've arrived at the following conclusions :

1. The chances of not setting a complete idiot at the head of the State are better under the system of free elections than in the opposite case. The giants who were the elected German Emperors are the best proof of this. There was not one of them of whom it can truly be said that he was an imbecile. In the hereditary monarchies, on the other hand, there were at least eight kings out of ten who, if they'd been ordinary citizens, would not have been capable of successfully running a grocery.

2. In choosing a Chief of State, one must call upon a personality who, as far as human beings can judge, guarantees a certain stability in the exercise of power for a longish while. This is a necessary condition, not only so that public affairs can be successfully administered, but in order to make possible the realisation of great projects.

3. Care must be taken that the Chief of State will not succumb to the influence of the plutocracy, and cannot be forced to certain decisions by any pressure of that sort. That's why it's important that he should be supported by a political organisation whose strength has its roots in the people, and which can have the upper hand over private interests.

In the course of history, two constitutions have proved themselves :

(a) The papacy, despite numerous crises—the gravest of which, as it happens, were settled by German emperors—and although it is based on a literally crazy doctrine. But as an organisation on the material level, the Church is a magnificent edifice.

(b) The constitution of Venice, which, thanks to the organisation of its Government, enabled a little city-republic to rule the whole eastern Mediterranean. The constitution of Venice proved itself effective as long as the Venetian Republic endured—that is to say, for nine hundred and sixty years. The fact that the Head of the Republic of Venice was chosen from amongst the families who composed the framework of the State (numbering between three hundred and five hundred) was not a bad thing. Thus power was allotted to the best man amongst the representatives of those families who were traditionally linked with the State. The difference between this system and that of hereditary monarchy is obvious. In the former, it was impossible for an imbecile or an urchin of twelve to come to power. Only a man who had pretty well proved himself in life had a fair chance of being appointed. Isn't it ridiculous, by the way, to think that a child of twelve, or even of eighteen, can rule a State? It goes without saying that, if a king is still a minor, power is provisionally gathered in other hands, those of a Council of Regents. But supposing the members of this Council disagree (and the more competent the councillors are, the greater are the risks of disagreement, in view of the complexity of the problems to be solved daily), then the absence is felt of the personality capable of taking a sovereign decision. A youth of eighteen cannot take a decision that requires deep reflection—that's difficult enough for a man who has reached full maturity! It's enough to imagine where King Michael of Rumania would be without the support of a man as remarkable as Field-Marshal Antonescu. As it happens, the young man is stupid. Moreover, he has been rotted by his spoilt child's upbringing, his father having entrusted him entirely to women during the most important period of his development. To sense the tragic nature of this abyss, it's enough to compare the development of any man who's ambitious to do something in life, with that of a prince by inheritance. Think of the amount of knowledge that a man of normal rank must acquire, of the desperate work he must do, without truce or rest, to succeed in having his own way. There is a tendency to believe, on the contrary, that one can prepare budding kings for the task that awaits them by keeping them amused. A third of their time is devoted to the study of foreign languages, so that they may be able to utter trivialities in several tongues; a second third to the sports of society (riding, tennis, etc.). The study of the political sciences takes only the last place. Moreover, the education they receive has no firmness. Their tutors are weakness itself. They resist the temptation to distribute the smacks their princely pupils deserve—for fear of calling down the disfavour of a future monarch. The result is obvious. That's how creatures like Michael of Rumania and Peter of Yugoslavia were formed.

As regards the government of Germany, I've come to the following conclusions:

1. The Reich must be a republic, having at its head an elected chief who shall be endowed with an absolute authority.

2. An agency representing the people must, nevertheless, exist by way of corrective. Its role is to support the Chief of State, but it must be able to intervene in case of need.

3. The task of choosing the Chief shall be entrusted, not to the people's assembly, but to a Senate. It is, however, important that the powers of the Senate shall be limited. Its composition must not be permanent. Moreover, its members shall be appointed with reference to their occupation and not individuals. These Senators must, by their training, be steeped in the idea that power may in no case be delegated to a weakling, and that the elected Fuehrer must always be the best man.

4. The election of the Chief must not take place in public, but in camera. On the occasion of the election of a pope, the people does not know what is happening behind the scenes. A case is reported in which the cardinals exchanged blows. Since then, the cardinals have been deprived of all contact with the outside world, for the duration of the conclave! This is a principle that is also to be observed for the election of the Fuehrer: all conversation with the electors will be forbidden throughout operations.

5. The Party, the Army and the body of officials must take an oath of allegiance to the new Chief within the three hours following the election.

6. The most rigorous separation between the legislative and executive organs of the State must be the supreme law for the new Chief. Just as, in the Party, the SA and the SS are merely the sword to which is entrusted the carrying-out of the decisions taken by the competent organs, in the same way the executive agents of the State are not to concern themselves with politics. They must confine themselves exclusively to ensuring the application of laws issued by the legislative power, making appeal to the sword, in case of need. Although a State founded on such principles can lay no claim to eternity, it might last for eight to nine centuries. The thousand-year-old organisation of the Church is a proof of this—and yet this entire organisation is founded on nonsense. What I have said should a fortiori be true of an organisation founded on reason.

(Table Talk (http://www.scribd.com/doc/6323205/hitlers-table-talk), 3rd March 1942, at dinner)

The NSDAP had staved off a Bolshevik revolution within Germany's borders in the years preceeding 1933, and was charged with preparing for inevitable conflict with the Soviet Union after Hitler's ascension. It would have been lunacy to encourage (or even permit for that matter) the Jewish 5th column to remain in Germany.

Hitler did the right thing. Criticizing Third Reich Jewish policy is just Monday morning quarterbacking. In reality, you're chiding Hitler for losing, not for incompetent executive decisionmaking.

No, Hitler did the wrong thing. Nazi thinking was that by flushing jew-commies, they would solve their internal problems and create anti-semitism wherever the kikenturds landed. Instead, the kike vermin quickly rose to the top in America and repaid Hitler's foolishness with the utter demolition of Hitler's party and people. I didn't say he should let the fifth columnists run free, I said he should keep them under control and use them for leverage.

From Hitler and the Power of Aesthetics (2002), by Frederic Spotts, an exceptional book, one of the most persuasive takes on Hitler I've seen.

Spotts discusses Hitler's antipathy toward Modernism in painting (p. 161):

Hitler's antipathy, however, had two unique elements. One was the centrality of anti-Semitism. The association of Jews with Modernism had no basis in fact. Chagall apart, there were no Jewish painters of note and only five or six minor ones, none the equivalent in painting to Schoenberg in music or Erich Mendelsohn in architecture. In truth, he tacitly recognized this fact. His speeches condemned not Jewish painters but Jewish influence on painting, which had made itself felt through art commentary in the Jewish-controlled press. He once explained to Christa Schroeder what he was driving at. Jews new very well, he said, that Modernist painting was worthless and decadent. But they bought it and made a tremendous fuss about it; as a result prices were inflated and they then sold it and made huge profits. With these they acquired valuable Old Masters for themselves. He believed this was borne out when private Jewish art collections began being seized in the late 1930s. 'What is so remarkable,' he told Goebbels, 'is that Jews -- as is now becoming evident from the confiscation of Jewish property -- spent all the money that they swindled from peopled for [Modernist] kitsch on outstandingly good and valuable pictures.'

first off, Hitler proved his balls in the First War as did Goering. I think you know that so we'll skip the exposition of Hitler's daring as a courier and infantryman or Goering's exploits as a fighter ace.

As for Himmler, not the same story and yes he punked out at the end by many accounts.

Now back to Hitler. Elsewhere we have discussed his dedication to Germany and the NS ideal. He was the incarnation of that ideal matter of fact and his totat committment showed right up until the fight was lost and the Red army had over run the positions in Berlin. Hanna Ritsch and Ernst Rudel both offered to evacuate him via emergency landing on Berlin streets and he refused. As a commander he directed defensive positions until the very end. He requited the loyalty of the German soldier not be acting the fool and trying to make a bayonet charge into the arms of the drooling sadists of the NKVD but instead fell on his sword like a Roman of old. I normally dont approve of suicide but in this case his deeds were exceptional and you puking forth of that kosher vomit about him here will not be appreciated.

As for Goering I to was ignorant of his own last deeds prior to his suicide. Please obtain a copy of David Irving's book Nuremberg and read up on this. Goering stood for the trial that Himmler was afraid of; Goering denounced the non-existent "jurisdiction" of this "trial" which was little more than a drumhead courtmartial and execution of a foreign diplomat in violation of the settled laws of war and diplomancy. Say that again: NUREMBERG WAS NOT A TRIAL IT WAS A VIOLATION OF THE EXISTING LAWS OF WAR IN 1945. It was nothing more than the victor executing the foreign chief. It was a setback to a barbaric age of war that threw out centuries of European conventions and customs and even Christian theology and existing conventions such as the Geneva accords and was no better than the Romans marching Vercingetorix through the streets in chains.

But Goering stood up against this illegal humiliation and denounced it and defended his actions as Reichsmarshall and the NS government. Thankfully David Irving for all his faults has told the true story of this. Goering overcame his addiction to morphine and dropped many pounds at Nuremberg and at them time shined again like the hero of old. It's amusing to contrast the true record with the whining of the abjectly apologizing Speer who blamed this that and the next thing on Goering who stood up like a man and refused apologies.

Finally when the whole charade was more or less done, Goering deprived them of the Jewish opportunity to gloat over his hanging by suicide. One wonders where and how he was able to obtain the cyanide capsule and successfully keep it hidden throughtout the trial. Perhaps he had the aid of a merciful US gaurd. WHo knows, that is a mystery. But in spite of our normal disapproval of suicide, in my view his actions were gallant and noble and his suicide excusable.

In a subtle irony, after forty some years of captivity, the unarguably innocent Rudolph Hess also "committed suicide" even though it would seem more likely he was murdered. Another mystery.

Daisy if you cant get Irving's book in Germany, if you live there, you can still read his website. free download available here:

http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/Nuremberg/index.html

Real History conference in Cinci in three weeks:

http://focal.org/speaks/ My favorite Quote of Hitlers was in the Rise and fall of the Third Reich He completely lost his head and Kept interrupting the reading by screaming THE GERMANS ARE BEING TREATED LIKE NIGGERS!! Thats page 397 in the Rise and fall of the Third Reich one of the best books ever written.:swastikasmiley:

YouTube- Der Führer's Prediction

Chapter eleven of Mien Kampf could have been writen yesterday.