|
23 July 2014 [originally posted at The Education Forum on 7 September 2006] Hitler Had Some Balls Members of this Education Forum are already aware that our world is run by the CIA Monolith. (Fred Nietzsche thought God was dead; little did he know that He had only been replaced by the CIA.) Most members are also aware that the biggest issue they will ever confront in this lifetime is the choice whether they do -- or do not -- believe there has been photographic alteration in the public record of the assassination of US President John F. Kennedy. (The amount of time, energy, and bandwidth spent on this topic, and on related character issues, speaks to its absolute importance for us all.) But not everyone may be aware that there are valid reasons to re-evaluate the historical record of World War II, particularly that part which tends to vilify the role of Nazi Germany. Ordinarily I'm inclined to be skeptical of the claims of any side in a war to have had greater virtue than their opponent. Such skepticism I expect is typical of most historians or those whose intellect and/or education is most informed by history (and related areas like sociology, psychology, etc.). Also, more specifically, there is a sometimes dim awareness that war per se is an endeavor in which large numbers of men are organized and armed for the sole purpose of murdering one another and/or anything that might get in the way of achieving their goals. Consequently, it's a little hard to give much credence to claims of righteousness among combatants in wars. On the whole, though, I'm inclined to believe the reports about World War II, and to believe that the Allies were largely justified in doing what they did to defeat the Axis Powers. There are of course some moral problems with this position, since the fire-bombing of Dresden and above all the vaporization of hundreds of thousands of people at Hiroshima and Nagasaki cannot really be "justified" but only "explained" in terms of "military necessities" and the like. But the problem is that this "debate" is not really about all that, as far as I can tell. It's about the promotion of Nazi Revisionist ideas mainly, and partially about current events issues wholly unrelated to World War II. The latter is understandable and easy to sympathize with, since there is so little that "little people" like us can do about current events issues. But to let that become an excuse for helping promote the former is to me a case of moral and intellectual dishonesty. It has been said of our primary promoter of revisionist arguments that he is civil and reasonable and raises valid points with good arguments that ought to be discussed. No doubt. 1. On the subject of German aggression in World War II, the idea was proposed that the Germans were provoked to act preemptively for their justified self-defense. Nothing about Lebensraum in the East that sits right there so openly in the pages of Mein Kampf. Nothing about British and French leaders incrementally selling out the people of Austria and Czechoslovakia, selling out continually until even their meager modicum of honor had had enough and they felt obligated to guarantee Poland's defense. Nothing in reference to the voluminous public record provided in a classic history such as The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer. Nothing really that might suggest that Hitler and his Nazi Party might have been somewhat at fault in what they did in a number of areas. Instead, we have a number of attempts to "explain" or "excuse" Hitler, one of the more interesting being that at least Hitler possessed the physical courage George W. Bush lacks. A bit of a psychological projection as well as a digression, and it's not at all uncommon that a fanatic would "serve well under fire" in wartime. That would make him the best "point man" in an attack -- i.e., a true believer without much sense that you would want out front in combat, because his loss wouldn't mean that much compared with the loss of other comrades who had more sense. (Hitler was apparently regarded as a real pain in the ass by his fellow soldiers because they were all cussing the war and Army life, as most common soldiers will .... and he never did. He liked it.) And then we get these items for general consumption and despair: What kind of analysis of the history of that period would suggest that Hitler was NOT manipulated into a larger war, far more dreadful than he imagined? Again, it was the "general mobilization of the Polish forces" that the subsequent German (Hitler) attack apparently was caused by. No further background necessary, is there? Nothing about the British (and French) guarantee to the Polish that the Nazis would no longer simply be allowed to gobble up yet more territory and people; that the all too apparent goals of Nazi Germany would finally be stood up to. None of that. Only arguments that Poland provoked its own occupation and destruction and that the British had the gall to declare war and fail to rescind that declaration of war. If Hitler had realized when invading Poland that it would lead toi the destruction of Germany and his death in a bunker less than six years hence, would he still have invaded? Only someone who believes Hitler was a crazed and suicidal pyschopath would believe that.... So mad, he'd burn down his own house out of spite. There is, however, not much evidence for that. "On March 19 [1945, Hitler] issued a general order that all military, industrial, transportation and communication installations as well as stores in Germany must be destroyed in order to prevent them from falling intact into the hands of the enemy. The measures were to be carried out by the military with the help of the Nazi gauleiters and 'commissars for defense'.... "Germany was to be made one vast wasteland. Nothing was to be left with which the German people might somehow survive their defeat. "Albert Speer...had anticipated the barbarous directive from previous meetings with Hitler and on March 15 had drawn up a memorandum in which he strenuously opposed such a criminal step and reiterated his contention that the war was already lost. He presented it to the Fuehrer personally on the evening of March 18.... "But Hitler, his own personal fate sealed, was not interested in the continued existence of the German people, for whom he had always professed such boundless love. He told Speer: "If the war is lost, the nation will also perish. This fate is inevitable. There is no necessity to take into consideration the basis which the people will need to continue a most primitive existence. On the contrary, it will be better to destroy these things ourselves because the nation will have proved to be the weaker one and the future will belong solely to the stronger eastern nation [Russia]. Besides, those who will remain after the battle are only the inferior ones, for the good ones have been killed."...That the German people were spared this final catastrophe was due to...efforts of Speer and a number of Army officers who, in direct disobedience (finally!) [sic] of Hitler's orders, raced about the country to make sure that vital communications, plants and stores were not blown up by zealously obedient Army officers and party hacks." (From William L. Shirer. The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. New York: Fawcett Crest, 1960, pp. 1432-1434.) The French-Algerian author Albert Camus wrote in reference to this: "Hitler presents the example, perhaps unique in history, of a tyrant who left absolutely nothing to his credit. For himself, for his people, and for the world, he was nothing but the epitome of suicide and murder. Seven million Jews assassinated, seven million Europeans deported or killed, ten million war victims, are perhaps not sufficient to allow history to pass judgement: history is accustomed to murderers. But the very destruction of Hitler's final justification -- that is, the German nation -- henceforth makes this man, whose presence in history for years on end haunted the minds of millions of men, into an inconsistent and contemptible phantom. Speer's deposition at the Nuremberg trials showed that Hitler, though he could have stopped the war before the point of total disaster, really wanted universal suicide and the material and political destruction of the German nation. The only value for him remained, until the bitter end, success. Since Germany had lost the war, she was cowardly and treacherous and she deserved to die. 'If the German people are incapable of victory, they are unworthy to live.'" (The Rebel. Trans. Anthony Bower. New York: Vintage Books, 1956, p. 185) Why would Hitler subsequently have sought to make peace with Britain if Armageddon was his constant and unvarying goal? B-b-b-because he was a total fucking whack job? Could that possibly be it? The transparency of these I-Love-Hitler arguments is nearly as nauseating as the arguments themselves. Apparently, according to such arguments, Hitler was not intent on domination of lesser peoples ("races") and on acquiring "Lebensraum in the East" for German expansion and population growth (despite all the documented evidence of Hitler's own public pronouncements on the subject). Apparently, he was only interested in a peace denied him by the British. Apparently, all one needs to do is put forth the idea that Hitler did not desire Ragnarok per se. That's a fine way to invert everything. 2. On the subject of anti-Semitism in the Christian belief system (Jews as Christ-killers), the counter-argument was proposed that the Talmud contains a "codified anti-Christian" belief system. One would ordinarily expect such literature to deal with the subject of Christ and Christianity by maintaining complete silence. But not if you're a parrot without many original thoughts you can call your own -- where you can only react to what others have said or written, repeating what you like and inverting what you don't. The repetition itself is tiresome ("What group of people, self-identifying as an 'in-group,' cuts farts only they can't smell?" "What group of people, self-identifying as an 'in-group,' made my dick smaller than it ought to be?"), but when faced with something as ridiculous as the proposal about the Talmud, it doesn't make much sense to post every possible single thing you can come up with in droves as examples of Christian anti-Semitism. It's not as if someone was actually going to be listening and open to persuasion on the point, is it? 3. On the subject of a Jewish author who died in a death camp, it was suggested that the author cannot truly be said to have been "murdered by the Nazis." She died of typhus, according to my source. Typhus was rife in German concentration camps, you see, which is why the Nazis "expended considerable effort on delousing." A fine point of distinction. Or is it a fine, funny little joke? Since Jews are parasitical -- much like lice -- the Nazis "expended considerable effort" on "delousing." That valid points and good arguments were made is highly questionable, yet it can't be denied that the Nazi Revisionist does appear reasonable and civil. And what would you expect? Not everyone can be as straightforward as the great Hitler was, not everyone has such "courage." It is in the interests of Nazis, Nazi sympathizers, Nazi apologists, and Nazi Revisionists to appear reasonable -- otherwise, what have they got going for them (aside from Nazism)? A primary argument of the original Holocaust Deniers is that 6 million Jews were not exterminated by the Nazis in Germany -- instead, those 6 million Jews came to the United States. An all-purpose argument. There was no Holocaust, the Holocaust is a lie perpetrated by Jews who became American "controllers." They are in "the highest reaches" of the Establishment in the U.S., perpetuating their evil intentions toward all the world. This is why "Patriots" of the militia movement refer to the federal government in Washington, D.C. as the Zionist Occupational Government (ZOG). And it is also one reason that those who are predisposed to a "Left radical" perspective may be seduced by or find common cause with such extreme rightists as are represented in the militia movements; they are "all about" free speech issues, oppressive government issues, mega-conspiracy issues and, of course, "freedom." These are some things one ought to know about if one wants to continue to promote the "reasonable argument" that "Jewish power" in the United States is a legitimate topic for discussion. It is, but mostly with respect to uncritical US support of Israel. And arguing along those lines without being aware of the Nazi Revisionist lie about the 6 million Jewish "immigrants," or about one's own tendencies to believe in international Jewry conspiracies, serves only to help the Nazi Revisionists in their "cause." Continue to "Interview with the Antisemite: Part One" Return to "As Long As We're On The Subject" |