Written by Manfred Kleine-Hartlage

Translated by J M Damon

Following is a translation of a blog posted at http://korrektheiten.com/2011/08/02/deutschenfeindlichkeit-das-westliche-antideutsche-narrativ/

The blog begins:

[On 16 July 2011 the author gave a lecture before the Berlin Institute for State Policy on the subject of “Hostility Towards Germans – An Appraisal” in conjunction with the Institute’s 18th Course of Lectures. Unfortunately there are no recordings of this highly interesting event. In response to requests, I have reconstituted my speech from notes. Since the lecture is too long for a single blog article I am posting it as a series, beginning with “The Anti-German Narrative in the West.]

Deutschenfeindlichkeit (Hostility Toward the German People) Is a Complex Phenomenon.

Many peoples, such as Poles, French, British and Jews, harbor a traditional resentment against the German people that dates from the Second World War and preceding wars.

In addition, there is a kind of intellectual hostility toward all things German that has less to do with dislike of Germans as people than dislike and fear of the German state, which, it is feared, will become too powerful.

There is distrust of the German national character.

There is hostility toward all things German, especially on the part of the migrants who live here. [at the time of this writing, the migrants referred to were mostly Turkish Muslims -cy]

There is even a certain anti-German hostility among the Germans themselves.

There is in fact an entire ideology that includes as one of its central elements Deutschfeindlichkeit (hostility towards all things German.)

[The subject of my lecture was Deutschenfeindlichkeit , or hostility toward the German people.

When in the following I use primarily the word Deutschfeindlichkeit (hostility toward things German) as opposed to Deutschenfeindlichkeit (hostility toward the German people), I am trying to make clear that I am referring not simply to hostility toward Germans, but rather, in a broad and inclusive sense, to various hostilities against German things and attributes in general, such as the cultural Volk, the state, the general German population, etc.]

The various facets and levels of this complex of hostilities are not isolated or disconnected; they penetrate and reinforce each other and merge to form a real danger for the German Volk.

The hostility toward things German that Goetz Kubitschek and Michael Paulwitz discuss in their book “Deutsche Opfer – fremde Täter” (German Victims, Foreign Perpetrators: http://gatesofvienna.net/2015/01/our-people-must-not-be-replaced/) is only one side of the coin, as I will discuss later on.

The other side of the coin is the hostility that is found in our own camp, which combined with mass migration is creating the real danger of our becoming a minority in our own country.

Obviously this would pose a threat to our domestic security.

“Our own camp” includes especially our power elite, whose anti- German hostility poses a strategic problem.

The Western culture that includes Germany forms a broader context. Its elite evinces anti-German hostility that has less to do with actual resentment than with ideology.

The Western anti-German Narrative

The most common and widespread basis for hostility toward things German is what I call the Western anti-German narrative.

“Narrative” is a new expression in German -- we could also speak of an ideology of history.

In this ideology, which is spread by films, literature, and popular depictions of history, Germany has represented a danger for its neighbors in the past and still represents a potential danger.

For this reason Germany must be fettered, disempowered and diluted because the German national character is anti democratic, excessively obedient to established authority, collectivistic, violence prone, warlike, genocidal, etc., etc.

Present day historians are generally too sophisticated to draw a clear and direct line between Luther, Frederick, Bismarck and Hitler, but the lingering effects of such propagandistic historiography are still quite noticeable today, expressed in the tendency to treat all German history as the prehistory of the Third Reich.

One cannot understand this concept of history unless one understands the historical context of the European civil war that has been raging since 1789.

[Hanno Kesting’s work Geschichtsphilosophie und Weltbürgerkrieg. Deutungen der Geschichte von der Französischen Revolution bis zum Ost-West-Konflikt (Philosophy of History and Global Civil War: The Significance of the History of the French Revolution to the East-West Conflict), published in 1959, is well worth reading in this regard.

Today it is unavailable even at antiquarian bookstores, but good libraries still have it – at any rate, the Berliner Staatsbibliothek (Berlin State Library) has it.]

This civil war is being fought by the adherents of three ideologies who constantly change their names, slogans and programs but still retain a recognizable identity and continuity.

We are dealing with two utopian and one non-utopian worldviews, Liberalism and Socialism on one hand and what is variously called Conservatism, Reaction or simply the Political Right on the other hand.

Regardless of their differences, both of the utopian-revolutionary ideologies have identifiable similarities that make them so fundamentally distinguishable from the Right that they can be traced back to a common “Meta-ideology.”

The utopian approach assumes that the possibility of peaceful and civilized coexistence among mankind.

This would not have to be a miracle, but is rather something that can come about as a matter of course.

For this reason one does not have to examine and analyze the fundamentals of society itself; one can directly and immediately pursue the realization of paradise on earth, either through gradual reform or revolutionary violence.

The Utopian Ideologies Imply a Number of Assumptions

Firstly, utopian societies hold that man is by nature good.

Social conditions such as inequality and lack of freedom are responsible for the existence of evil and must therefore be banished.

The approach of the political Right is that man is inadequate and weak and mired in original sin and must therefore rely on a social order for support.

Therefore a certain measure of inequality and bondage must be accepted as necessary.

The alternatives are not “Liberty, Equality,Fraternity” but rather chaos, violence and barbarism.

Secondly, Utopian ideologies hold that society can be rationally planned; its design is a matter of reason and enlightenment.

The Right, by contrast, believes that what is traditional and established can be destroyed by criticism, but cannot be replaced by anything better through rational processes.

Examples of what cannot be replaced by rationalism are the concepts of family, faith, tradition and Fatherland.

Thirdly, Utopian societies hold that what is “Good” (such as Freedom and Equality) can be rationally inferred, thus the Good is culturally independent and universally valid.

They believe that mankind can be redeemed if the Utopia derived from Enlightenment principles can be globally introduced.

For Conservatives, on the other hand, each culture is a unique, unplanned and irreproducible response to the elementary question of whether an orderly society is possible.

The Right emphasizes the legitimacy of the particular as opposed to the validity of universal ideology.

Fourthly, Utopian societies harbor the belief that society has to be defined and analyzed according to their standards.

These standards comprise a standpoint of norms rather than facts - thus “What Should Be” trumps “What Is.”

They are derived from rights rather than duties.

The Utopian concept of society confuses itself with “Reason and Enlightenment” because it is built on unreal notions instead of imperfect reality, and thus mistakes itself for “The Good.”

The reason Utopia mistakes itself for “The Good” is because it proceeds from the assumption that Man himself is good, and this implies that “The Bad” resides in social structures and concepts including tradition, articles of faith, duty, etc.

In their way of thinking, if the structures are bad the defenders of these structures must likewise be bad.

Obviously, tolerance cannot be based on such a concept of society; the less it is practiced, the less its adherents feel the need for it.

The Utopian concept of society produces an apocalyptic concept of politics, according to which politics is a struggle between the powers of light and of darkness.

Consequently, war is not perceived as tragic and inescapable.

It is perceived as justified when it is conducted for revolutionary aims and purposes.

In that case, every atrocity is acceptable.

The Utopian concept perceives war as criminal when it is conducted for counterrevolutionary aims and purposes, and then the means by which it is conducted are not taken into consideration.

And what does all this have to do with hostility against all things German?

If we conceive of 20th Century wars as parts of a global ideological civil war, Germany obviously represents the Right.

Germany could never accept the idea that wars are conducted in order to bring about “The Good Order” such as “War to End All War.”

This Utopian idea results in an apocalyptic concept of politics.

The idea of “Good War” is part of the Utopian concept of the liberalist world order as pursued by the Western “democracies” as well as the variant of Communism pursued by the Soviet Union.

The accusation that Germany was striving for world domination, which was put forward at the beginning of the 20th Century, would have been absurd even if not raised by the Anglo Saxon powers!

At every moment of the 19th and 20th centuries, those countries were infinitely closer to world domination than Germany ever was, and they continue to be so in the 21st Century.

Nations that were protected by insular geography have historically indulged in bold thinking and thanks to this geography, have been able to pursue global expansionist policies.

The liberal New World Order that appeared on the world stage before the First World War was also a fitting ideology for global Utopian thinking, since imperialistic power politics functioned as the armed branch of Utopia.

It is not true that one was merely a function of the other.

Both aspects of Anglo Saxon (and particularly American) policy) were aspects of one and the same understanding of politics.

By contrast, Germany traditionally represented institutionalized counter-revolution.

Globalist Utopian thinking was alien to the German power elite, since they faced the reality of governing a state that was constantly threatened from the inside as well as the outside.

Their political horizon was continental as opposed to insular, and so they were concerned with the consolidation of what actually existed.

The Reich did indeed adopt liberal, democratic and even socialistic ideas - consider the Bismarckian social legislation.

However, it did so only on condition that these ideas would consolidate the existing order.

The door was open for socialistic ideas to develop, but they would never be allowed to destroy the existing order.

This political concept (renunciation of revolutionary or utopian policies) determined the policies not only of conservatives, but of the Liberals as well, and ultimately even the policies of the Social Democrats.

The tendency to think in revolutionary and utopian terms was simply alien to Germany -- it was too weak and exposed to attempt changing the world order or to entertain ideas of world conquest.

However, Germany was at least potentially strong enough to bring Europe into its sphere of influence and thus block establishment of a new world order; and if Europe were going to be true to its name, it would have to do likewise.

The war against Germany, which, as Winston Churchill observed, was in fact a Thirty Years War lasting from 1914 – 1945, was obviously not fought in response to any “crimes” committed by the National Socialists.

Instead, the Thirty Year War War Against Germany was fought to force Europe into the liberalist-utopian world order and the Anglo Saxon sphere of control.

Germany did not subscribe to any grandiose principle that it wanted to make real.

It was a nation rooted in concrete reality whose order and goals was derived not from utopian designs but practical necessity.

The Germans had no abstract loyalty toward liberal or “democratic” ideals, and this is what brought on the propagandistic accusation of being excessively obedient.

Germany did not pretend to be fighting for universal bliss, therefore it had to defend interests that were defined not ideologically but rather ethnically.

Germany’s enemies construed this as “nationalism.”

In fact, Germany championed communal values instead of individual entitlements.

It was not co-incidence that a current theme in German sociology was Ferdinand Tönnies’ opposition of Gemeinschaft (Community) to Gesellschaft (Society.)

This is what constituted the “Collectivism” of which the Germans were accused.

Communal ideals are operative only when they are anchored in genuine emotions, the source of the cliche of German “romanticism” and “irrationality.”

In short, the facts that the Germans were different and thought differently from the Anglo Saxons and that they had no sense of Utopia, but rather represented a danger for its global realization, made them the principal enemy figure for Western Utopian thinking.

The cliches about the German national character represent the distorted and demagogically biased description of tendencies and dispositions that actually were (and still are) present.

These cliches were indispensible because a country like Germany could not afford globalistic Utopianism.

As we see today, Germany still cannot afford it.

Whether the Anglo Saxon peoples themselves can continue to afford it remains to be seen...

[Part II of Deutschenfeindlichkeit will deal with the adoption of the Western anti-German narrative by the Germans themselves and the consequences that have arisen from this.

****************

The translator is a “Germanophilic Germanist” who attempts to make noteworthy German articles accessible to Germanophiles who do not read German.

---

Editor's note: I was glad to find the speech by Gotz Kubitschek  embedded in the article above still online at "Gates of Vienna" website. I'm posting it in full below just to make sure it stays online. It was given on Jan. 21, 2015 in Leipzig, Germany, and translated by Rembrandt Clancy.

Here is an excerpt that I don't want my readers to miss:

There is no need for our people to be reinvented. A people are not invented anew; a people change organically (sich wandeln [grundlegend], cf. Duden), slowly and carefully. Our people have always taken in foreigners and have welcomed new citizens who have wished to belong to Germany. That was never a problem. But our people must not be replaced.

But in addition to that, there is another reflection important for all of us: Our people have a long and unique history. Our people have learned much from other peoples and have passed much along to other peoples: their inventive genius, their organisational talent; their industriousness is proverbial, their music and their philosophy are peerless. Our people asserted ourselves in the difficult centre of Europe; they have waged war and have been defeated in war.

Why do I catalogue all these things? I catalogue them because all of us here are the ones who must carry this German history forward and it is we who have the prerogative to carry it forward.

That begins in the family: We have mothers and fathers, we have sons and daughters, and we are a part of the history of Germany.

Below is the entire speech:

____________________

Good Evening Leipzig!

My name is Götz Kubitschek. I am allowed to address you tonight; and before I answer the question why we have taken to the streets today, I wish to emphasise three points:

1.		That what we are doing tonight is something completely normal: We are worried about the future of our homeland and we are expressing this apprehension in the street because the parliaments and editorial offices are not opening any doors to us.
2.		That what we are doing tonight is something courageous: in Leipzig, it is no bed of roses to oppose the left-wing radical perpetrators of violence.
3.		That what we are doing tonight is an example to all of Germany. Be certain of this: behind each of you stand thousands of citizens from all parts of Germany who could not be in Leipzig tonight.

Leipzig is setting a good example; all of you here are setting a good example!

I will elaborate on one point: That what we are doing tonight is every bit within our rights. It is in our right, which is anchored in the Basic Law, to go onto the street to demonstrate and to put forth demands.

On Monday, this right was denied to Dresdeners. There was a threat to murder Lutz Bachmann from the Islamic side.

I do not know who among you has been present in Dresden — I have been there five times and did not hear a single instance of agitation against Islam.

Moreover, I have read the 19-point paper of the Dresdeners and found not even the slightest vilification of Islam.

But over the last weeks I have also listened very carefully to the politicians:

Hannelore Kraft^[1] of the SPD [Social Democratic Party] has said concerning PEGIDA: “Who goes there must understand to what kind of Pied Piper [Rattenfänger]* he is offering a stage.”

*[Rattenfänger: lit., rat-catcher, after the child’s tale, “Rattenfänger von Hameln” (Pied Piper of Hamelin). The usual English rendering is therefore “Pied Piper”, which conveys the idea of a fatal, seductive drawing power of the PEGIDA leadership (though many would agree it is anything but charismatic). But there is a second meaning which is lost in the translation. MortonMorton, in his recent article “ The Semantic Power of the Opinion Makers “ (Politically Incorrect, 22 Jan. 2015) observes that the epithet Rattenfänger, in its signification as “rat catcher”, implies that politicians are referring to their own people as “vermin” (Ungeziefer). The “rat catcher” epithet, highly charged in German, has been in common usage among German elites in their reference to the PEGIDA leadership. Other Machtwörter (power words) are “Mischpoke” and “Nazis in pinstriped suits”.]

Loreny Caffier^[2] of the CDU said: What we are dealing with here “is mere agitation and slander.”

And Thomas Oppermann^[3] of the SPD expressed himself with the greatest clarity. He said: “We must fight against those who are pulling the strings.”

What does Thomas Oppermann mean by that? Is that not a tip to possible assassins? Such politicians are ideational incendiaries.

The concerned faces of the politicians and their commitments to the right to demonstrate seem cheap and mendacious to me.

Yesterday a friend from my village said to me: “I work with my hands (bin Handwerker, tradesman) — politicians are mouth-workers (Maulwerker).”^[4] I promised him I would use this word today.

Angela Merkel, Thomas Oppermann, Wolfgang Thierse [SPD] and other mouth-workers ought to have marched along in the front row on Monday in Dresden — not for the demands of PEGIDA, but for the right of PEGIDA to demonstrate in favour of their demands.

What challenges actually arise from that? Why have we taken to the streets here in Leipzig tonight? I can explain that in one short sentence. This sentence was once cried out in Leipzig twenty-five years ago, loudly and courageously: “Wir sind das Volk!“ [We are the people!]

All of us here are part of the German people; and in the Basic Law it is written, that this people, and no other, exercise power: “All state authority is derived from the people” [Article 20 (2) — “Constitutional Principles — Right of Resistance”].

All politicians, all state officials, all judges, all policemen are from the people and elected for the people or they are appointed by them. They are there for us, not for themselves! They are there to defend and to support the well-being of this people, our well-being.

And this much we must never forget: we have as a people the right to take to the streets with our concerns about our welfare! But no politician has the right to choose another people!

There is no need for our people to be reinvented. A people are not invented anew; a people change organically (sich wandeln [grundlegend], cf. Duden), slowly and carefully. Our people have always taken in foreigners and have welcomed new citizens who have wished to belong to Germany. That was never a problem. But our people must not be replaced.

But in addition to that, there is another reflection important for all of us: Our people have a long and unique history. Our people have learned much from other peoples and have passed much along to other peoples: their inventive genius, their organisational talent; their industriousness is proverbial, their music and their philosophy are peerless. Our people asserted ourselves in the difficult centre of Europe; they have waged war and have been defeated in war.

Why do I catalogue all these things? I catalogue them because all of us here are the ones who must carry this German history forward and it is we who have the prerogative to carry it forward.

That begins in the family: We have mothers and fathers, we have sons and daughters, and we are a part of the history of Germany.

We carry with us the history of the citizens and farmers who have built our cities and villages.

We carry with us the history of the book printers here in Leipzig and the history of every fortunate citizen who heard [Johann Sebastian] Bach playing the organ in the Thomaskirche.

We carry with us the history of the great Battle of Leipzig [Völkerschlacht 1813] in which the entirety of the German people fought for their freedom.

We carry with us the history of rich and poor people, the history of diligent craftsmen and great researchers, of good mothers and of rigorous teachers.

We carry with us also the history of destruction: the history of fallen soldiers, of dead Jews, of bombed-out cities and of millions of exiles.

This history issues into that which most of us still carry in our experience: into the history of the divided Germany and of a country torn apart, and into the great battle which the citizens of the GDR waged for us: the fight for freedom and the reunification.

Now we are all continuing to build on German history. That is no easy task, and I must point to something very painful: The politicians who are leading our people in the wrong direction are our countrymen; and the demonstrators who are blocking us and attacking us are likewise our countrymen.

There is a deep rift running through our people, and we can close this rift only if we think of the entire people together with our concerns.

But we can do what is possible. We must ensure that this land remains our land and that our people will build on their future without a rift. That is my wish — and yours, is it not?

Notes:

1.		Hannelore Kraft is leader of the Social Democratic Party in North Rhine-Westphalia and the current Minister-President of North Rhine-Westphalia.
2.		Lorenz Caffier is the chairman and leader of the Christian Democratic Union in the German state of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania.
3.		Thomas Oppermann: Since December of 2013, he has been Party Whip of the Social Democratic Party faction in the Bundestag. The full quotation is: “We must fight against those who are pulling the strings. We must talk with the followers” (Junge Freiheit, 18 December 2014)
4.		Maulwerker: This word may be allusion to a an experimental “musical” composition called Maulwerke (mouth-work), a term not usually translated into English. It was composed by Dieter Schnebel in 1968. The performers make use only of the mouth and its related organs to produce experimental sounds which have no syntactical or semantic significance; that is, the sounds are meaningless in the usual sense.

[Part I of my lecture on “Hostility Towards Germans” dealt with the ideology that has resulted from the anti German narrative in the West. I described how and why this ideology has always been and will always be inappropriate for Germany. In the following section I discuss the consequences that necessarily derive from the adoption of this narrative by the Germans themselves.
In conclusion I discuss the role played by leftist ideology in the overall complex of hostility toward Germans.]

 

German Adoption of the Western anti-German Narrative

As a result of the powerful effect of the various venues of American propaganda following WWII, a cataclysmic shift took place in German political thinking. It was a shift in the direction of the Anglo-Saxon ideology of revolutionary liberalism and later Marxism. In both cases it consisted of the acceptance of the basic assumptions of the revolutionary Meta-Ideology.

Among other things, this created a “We – You” differentiation based on ideology rather than ethnicity or national political basis.   The new norm was accepted as a matter of course, until “We” were no longer Germans or even the Europeans. “We” became a party in the global ideological civil war (“The West,” “Western Community of Values,” or “The Free World”). “We” became whoever shared revolutionary Utopian ideals.

Following the demise of the Soviet Union ever larger portions of the Left have come over to this “We,” as is quite obvious from the comet like careers of former “‘68ers”.

For the victorious powers, this new definition of the We-group, based on ideological allegiance meant a latent contradiction in their self-identity as nations. This was true not only for the Russians, who had fought more for Mother Russia than Communism (but whose victory served Communism more than Russia); it was also true for Americans and Britons. It was not easy to equate “My Country Right or Wrong” with the latest scheme to “make the world safe for Democracy.” As we have seen, these contradictions were just latent for the wartime Allies since they had fought as nations rather than as standard bearers for abstract ideas.

Among us Germans the contradictions were more than latent. They could not be ignored the instant we adopted the narratives and Utopian ideologies of our victorious enemies, as we did after the Second World War. A national “We Group” is a supragenerational community that includes past generations as well as those yet to come. The logic that compels a German Chancellor to participte in Allied victory celebrations in Paris, Normandy and Moscow implies that both world wars were battles in European and global civil wars.

They were gigantic struggles won by “The Western Community of Values” or simply “Democracy” (in Russia’s case, it was Utopian ideology as such) over the Forces of Darkness, and since “we” (re-educated, reconstructed Germans) belonged to this community of values, “we” were among the victors whereas “the Germans” (i.e. the strange people which called itself “the Germans”), the embodiment of all evil, were the losers.

The German adoption of Western Ideology and of Meta-Ideology in general implies a loss of identification with our own VOLK. It compels us to consider our own VOLK as the enemy, to abhor ourselves as an outgrowth of evil and to hate our own forbears. Germany is the only country in the world that erects monuments to traitors and deserters, the only country in which it is considered exemplary to spit on the grave of one’s grandparents. The historical narrative of the victors – with its global political concepts, its highflown Utopian worldview – can never be the narrative of Germans who want to be German. If they adopt it, it will be at the cost of self-obliteration. The contradiction between being German and being part of a historical subject called “Western community of values” is  unbridgeable.

The problem is underscored rather than solved by lame efforts to unite incompatibles in formulaic compromises such as “constitutional patriotism.”

This hostility towards one’s own VOLK is specifically German, as is illustrated than by the fact that the so-called “anti Germans” (as they call themselves!) comprise the only political grouping that refers to itself with the word “German.”  Not even the Neonazis do that, as they refer to themselves simply as “nationals,” emphasizing that they consider nationalism to be something good in itself – not only for Germans but for everyone. The anti Germans, by contrast, express the opposite wish: they want to eradicate the German VOLK, but not necessarily the very concept VOLK. Interestingly, they are attempting to do this through ideological rationalization, precisely what I identified as the foundation of anti German hostility in Part I of this series: The idea that Germany is (or was) the epitome of anti Utopian, anti globalistic counterrevolutionary force normally goes unstated except among anti Germans. My analysis is not far removed from that of the anti Germans; only the qualifying prefixes are reversed.

Leftist Ideology

Inner logic compels societies that support the fundamental assumptions of liberal Utopianism to quickly become involved with its hostile twin, Marxism – Socialism. In general terms we can refer to them both as Leftist Ideology. Whoever condemns society’s power imbalances on the basis that they are not founded in rationalism, and believes these imbalances are evil and must be stamped out, should not be surprised when the imbalance between rich and poor also comes under the crosshairs of criticism. Whoever champions freedom and equality as universally valid, and as basic values of society, has to deal with opposition to freedom in the name of equality. The Marxists who actively oppose capital because its power is not rationally legitimate but rather arises through automatism (derived from the nature of capitalism itself), leading to the mastery of one class over the other, rely on the same logic as the liberals who polemicize against church and king. In some regards Marxists are more consistent than liberals, since they condemn all social inequalities. For example, they condemn inequality between rich and poor; employed and unemployed; the citizen and the state; and between parents and children as well as majority and minority (either ethnic or religious).

From the point of Leftist ideology the more powerful party is illegitimate simply because it is more powerful. This implies that it should not be allowed to deal with the weaker on the basis of “merely formal” equality before the law, but must be actively disadvantaged. Correspondingly, from this point of view, it is not injustice to plunder the rich for the benefit of the poor or the employed for the benefit of the unemployed. Leftist Ideology assumes that the law and the state are repressive, since they use the same measuring stick to measure dissimilar entities, instead of causing what is unequal to be equal; and needless to say, there are no laws to protect the majority from the minority. On page 28 of “DEUTSCHE OPFER, FREMDE TÄTER” Götz Kubitschek and Michael Paulwitz cite a typically Leftist position asserting that racism against Germans cannot exist. This is because racism is a medium of repression that by its very nature cannot be inflicted on a majority by a minority because of the minority’s lesser social power to enforce its will.

In simple language this means that the “weaker party,” that is, an ethnic minority, is allowed to do everything, whereas the “stronger” (in Germany, the Germans) are not allowed to do anything, but must endure everything.

The power that is presumed to be stronger is automatically the evil power since it benefits from the alleged repression (that it also reinforces.)

Furthermore: since the mere existence of power disparity is the “evil” to be faced and fought, a belated “equalizing” injustice will no longer suffice.

The very basis of the power imbalance must be eliminated: wealth itself; or, as is especially pertinent to our theme, the ethnic majority must be eliminated.

From the point of view of the Left, a majority VOLK or ethnic group has no right to exist.

The Left is not satisfied with representing the interests of the “weak;” it is determined to delegitimize the “strong.” In our country the Left deligitimizes the interests of Germans, Christians, men, nonfeminist or nonlesbian women, whites, heterosexuals and gainfully employed workers. In other words, the Left opposes the interests of the majority and seeks to either force these majorities into the minority or else annihilate them altogether. This is the logic behind the policy of de-Christianization, de-Germanization, de-Europeanization, feminization and the promotion of homosexuality.

Only the gainfully employed cannot be abolished; however, it is permissible to pick their pockets, since they have placed themselves in an evil and repressive position just by existing from the fruits of their own labor.

It is self-evident that such a policy cannot possibly be democratic, since it is systematically directed against the majority. Thus leftist ideology naturally results in the propagation of demophobia (fear of the masses), de-democratization and coups d’etat. Of course it finds allies in minorities of every description.

All this has to do with the psychology of minorities in general, which is characterized by deep resentments. The minorities feel that the way of life of the majority, in which they are unable and unwilling to participate, should at least be spoiled for the majority. A good illustration of minority resentment is the bum who urinates in the vestibule of the bank. Racism against Germans is just one variation of this sort of resentment although a significant one.

Leftist ideology seeks to mobilize such destructiveness.

Written by Manfred Kleine-Hartlage

Translated by J M Damon

A translation of a German blog posted at <http://korrektheiten.com/2011/08/06/deutschenfeindlichkeit-teil-3-und-schluss-white-guilt-und-islamischer-chauvinismus/>

[Following is Part III of my lecture “Hostility Towards the Germans – Taking Stock” which was presented to the Institut für Staatspolitik (Institute for State Policy) as part of the 18th Berlin Colloquium on 16 July 2011.]

 

Expansion of the Paradign of anti German Hostility to the Entire West

As we have seen, hostility toward Germany and Germans exists on three levels.On the lowest (first) level, it is the kind of hostility or antagonism that is directed toward a specific Volk or people (in our case the Germans.)

On this level we are dealing with simple resentments dating to former antagonisms (such as those with the Poles, English and Jews.)

On a higher (second) level, anti German hostility is the expression of a kind of globalistic ideology.

Germany was historically assumed to be the prinipal antagonist (the “quintessential evil”), and Germany could again be seen this way.

These antagonisms have led to hostility on an even more abstract (third) level.

The antagonism against the German people is part of an ideological syndrome that is directed against the existence of national groups per se, particularly against whites.

At present, anti German ideology has been universalized to a White Guilt Paradigm. According to the White Guilt Paradigm, white peoples are burdened with guilt because of their evil nature. The paradigm includes the expansion of anti German ideology to all the countries of the West, and their “guilt” takes diverse forms including colonialism, the extermination of American Indians (along with other indigenous peoples) and even African slavery.

White people are blamed for African slavery despite the fact that it was a brief interlude in Western culture and is furthermore an institution blessed by Allah, in keeping with Islamic law. It is still unofficially practiced in many Islamic countries and would still be practiced in Africa if the West had not abolished it. According to the White Guilt Paradigm, the Western nations must pay for their guilt by surrendering their lands to invasion by nonwhite peoples from all over the world. This “politically correct” paradigm has elevated self-destruction to an official virtue and moral imperative in nearly all Western countries.

This self-mandated genocide in the West involves more than merely permitting mass in-migration, since Globalism aims to abolish more than just national groups. In keeping with its Enlightenment genesis, and in the name of the Utopia of Self-Created Man, it takes aim at all pre-existing ties.

Included among these ties are the family and all gender-specific differentiations. In this assault on Western institutions, Globalism utilizes catchwords such as “gender mainstreaming” and “patchwork families,” and it advocates homosexuality, hedonistic sexual morals, abortion; etc.

In general, Globalism opposes the idea that man can be more than an atomized individual, and it rejects the possibility that man can be part of a transcendent entirety, an integral part of a natural progression of generations. Apparently we cannot entirely banish the idea of responsibility for those born after us – apparently it is born in us.

However, globalistic utopianism has succeeded in dislodging it from its embedment in an actual chain of generations and transferred it to a totally abstract level. This was all the easier because responsibility for an abstract “Mankind” or “Creation” is ideally suited to relieve the individual of real responsibility for his own life as well as the lives of his children.

The individual thus “liberated” pays for his “liberation” with political support for more or less totalitarian projects for the rapture of all mankind.

Needless to say, Globalism seeks to divest religion (especially Christianity) of its authenticity, as official Christians with state go about proclaiming that “all religions strive for the same goal”. This idea is highly suspect to the followers of “all religions” except Christianity, but it irritates Westerners no more than the traditional and obvious objection: if all religions strive for the same thing, why are there so many different religions? The Christian religion’s claim to truth, whose central articles of faith include the belief that Man alone cannot redeem himself, disrupts realization of the Enlightenment Utopia. For this reason, very little traditional religious folklore has to survive.

It is necessary for the Globalists to anchor this ideological syndrome in more than just our heads, however. If that were all that is required, it could easily be displaced by argumentation. The syndrome is also anchored structurally in an elite international network whose followers are obligated to support this ideological paradigm. In addition, it is included in countless varied state and nongovernmental institutions. The force that is undermining the will and capacity for self-assertion among European peoples is not just ideology itself, but rather a complex structure that builds on this ideology and is dedicated to the destruction of our peoples.

 

Islamic Chauvinism

The structures of family, Volk and religion have traditionally provided solidarity in the Western societies, but they are now being ideologically dismantled. Western societies are now atomized while confronted with massive immigration by Muslims, whose society is not infected with self-destructive ideologies.

It is well understood that Islam is not simply a religion but rather a social ideology and social order as well. It is a social order that is programmed to be self-stabilizing. Islam stresses everything that holds human society together. The fragile and complex balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces, freedoms and restrictions, rights and duties that has always characterized Christian societies is foreign to Islam. Today this balance has been disrupted in the West by centrifugal and emancipating forces that have gained the upper hand.

The distinction between “We” and “You,” between believers and nonbelievers, is central to the religion of Islam. This distinction is not a co-incidental admixture from the Middle Ages that can arbitrarily be deleted from their religion. Rather, it is inherent in their images of God and man.

If Man is not made in the image of God, as Christians and Jews postulate, but is instead pure invention and property, in fact a slave of his Creator, then total submission to Allah (“Islam”) is the only proper relationship.

Thus Muslims are a priori better people than non-Muslims, since non-Muslims resist Allah, who is affronted by their very existence.

In support of such intolerance the Koran does not spare tirades of hatred against “nonbelievers” whose inferiority and depravity comprise a basic assumption of Islam. Thus the Law of Enmity must remain in effect between Muslims and non-Muslims until the worldwide triumph of Islam.

Under such assumptions, an ethos of self-criticism cannot develop.

The Koran opposes the biblical admonition “Judge not, lest you be also judged” with “We are the best society that ever existed among men, we strive for the good and forbid the evil, and we believe in Allah.” One’s shirt of course can fit more snugly than one’s coat, and so a Turk for example can still favor the welfare of his own people over that of the Arabs (not to mention the Kurds.)

The fundamental assertion that Mankind is to be seen through the glasses of a We-You Relationship also presents the worldview of less religious Muslims. In countries such as Turkey it inspires ethnic chauvinism as well.

The fact that Muslim peoples can be enemies of one another does not interfere with their forming a We Group in opposition to nonbelievers.

Muslim solidarity against nonbelievers is in fact the central social norm of Islam.

From this arises the impossibility for Muslims of forming an attachment to a non-Muslim nation, unless it is restricted to formal legalities such as obtaining citizenship. This further illustrates the impossibility of Muslims forming attachments to non-Muslim groups. In their view, placing a higher value on solidarity with a non Muslim nation than solidarity among Muslims would be so immoral that it would be an outright impossibility.

Whether a society is “Muslim” or not depends on the political leadership.

For example, if Muslims occupied positions of leadership, they could regard Germany as a Muslim country. The German Volk, to whom they could then be loyal, would, in their view, consist of Muslims like themselves. The remainder of the formerly German Volk would then be mere Dhimmis, an ethnic and religious minority that they would tolerate and no longer consider “German.”

These traits endow Islam with an enormous collective ability to successfully put its programs through, especially against the degenerate West. It goes without saying that a society whose entire world image is built on We–You differentiation is certain to have the advantage in confrontations with a society that is unaware of such a distinction, and would even consider it immoral.

Islam’s contempt for nonbelievers, which is an integral part of their worldview, turns to hate when the nonbelievers are predominant.

Such hatred at present is not directed specifically at Germans in particular – in general, Germans are more popular in the Islamic world than other Western peoples. Instead, it is directed against whatever society happens to be in the majority, which in Germany happens to be the “Scheiß-Deutschen” (Shitty Germans).

At any rate a Muslim takeover is possible only because of the efforts of a cartel of elite international functionaries who have adopted and internalized a globalistic utopia. In the final analysis, this cartel constitutes the revolutionary party of the European Civil War that not only allows this process to occur, but is actively promoting it. In doing this, it is harnessing to its cart the special interests of the political Left along with minorities of every description. The minorities are serving it very well.

By Carolyn Yeager

THIS IS THE GREATEST 'OPEN SECRET' OF OUR TIME. The facts and the motivation are in plain sight, documented in sufficient detail, but the powers-that-be direct us to look the other way.

I have written and spoken in this space many times about the responsibility of the British for bringing about the wars that came to be called World War I and World War II—including an interview with Nick Kollerstrom about his wonderful little book of only 100 pages, How Britain Initiated Both World Wars. Nick goes as far back as 1905 when Edward Grey (shown left) first became British foreign secretary but does not mention the Saturday Review publications which are quoted here from 1895, 1896 and 1897.

The knowledge we gain from this article is that WWII was not carried on by Britain to destroy the threat of Adolf Hitler and “Nazism”, which clearly was no threat to Britain, but to destroy a trade and financial competitor—an idea carried over from WWI and earlier.

It is my growing view that while we like to blame the Jews for everything, and while they are always maneuvering behind the scenes to turn events to their advantage, the Gentile actors were in command of their government policies. If we only go after Jews, we miss the evil actors of our own race. What is revealed in the article below is that the English elites had been destroying their European competitors for 400 years and had no compunction or 'second thoughts' in doing so. What did happen was that the war they provoked in 1914 became far more destructive than any war hitherto. But that did not prevent them from initiating a second round of that war 20 years later, intending to finally, fully eradicate Germany as a competitor, no matter what it took.

Though so much revisionist history has been written on the causes of these wars, the popular notion that both were started by Germany, with Britain being the “responsible defender of the smaller nations” and the USA coming to the rescue to finally stop the evil, world-devouring advance of the “Huns” and the “Nazis” continues to dominate in the media and academia. Here is where the Jews really exercise their power. THIS MUST END.

We in the pro-white, pro-European community must stop protecting the English and the Polish, the French and the Russian and American self-serving “histories” and demand a fair review of all the facts and all the realities of the last 125 years. We cannot twist the truth in order to 'help the self esteem' of weak countries or 'save the reputations' of our favorite countries. We must stop punishing the best and strongest among us when they've done no wrong, out of envy, or fear that this will cause our shaky white alliances to break apart. No 'higher cause' can excuse covering up the truth, the whole truth.

Fully taking in and publicizing the important information written below is a start. I am copying here only a part of this article by Steffen Werner that I consider most essential because it is so long. I have added the boldface for emphasis. Full article in English; and in German. 

Hundred Years of War against Germany

1895 to 1995

By Steffen Werner

In August 1895, a series of articles began in the British weekly The Saturday Review, which called for the annihilation of Germany and whose disastrous greed for German plunder still reverberates to the present day.

With the Second Reich, a German state came into being which was rapidly creating a modern economy which imperiled the economic predominance of Great Britain. Coal and steel were the two indicators by which national economies were measured prior to the First World War. The production of raw materials in Germany grew by 334% in the quarter-century before the First World War, from 4 million to 17.8 million tons, while the figures for Great Britain rose from 7.7 to 9 million, therefore an increase of 17%. During the same period the mining of coal in Germany increased from 76.2 to 255.8 million tons (240%) but in Britain only 60%, to 240 million tons. Germany's foreign trade was reaching proportions alarming to Great Britain. An investigation by the English Parliament in 1885 noted that the Germans produced more cheaply and their products were geared to the preferences of their buyers. Knowledge of languages, tirelessness and flexibility were considered to be the merits of the German commercial travelers. A trademark law was passed in England as a counter-measure, which prescribed that German products be marked "Made in Germany," yet the British middlemen and consumers nevertheless still often preferred the German goods, on which account the obligatory mark was modified to "Foreign made."[1]

That this new development was no accident was discovered by Paul Valéry in a British commissioned work from the year 1896, in which the reasons for this new development would be raised to a dogma:[2]

"One learns that the military victories through which this [German] nation established itself are small when compared with the economic triumphs which it has already wrested; already their many markets in the world are more tightly held than the territories which it owes to its army [...] one grasps that Germany has turned to industry and trade as it once did to its military: with level-headedness and resolve. One senses that it is omitting no means. If one wishes to explain this new [...] greatness, then one should call to mind: constant hard work, most precise investigation of the sources of wealth and unrelenting manufacturing of the means for producing it; exact topography of the favorable sites and most convenient connecting routes; and above all, perfect obedience, a subordination of all motives under a sort of simple, exclusive, powerful thought - which is strategic in form, economic in purpose, scientific in its profound design and its realm of authority. Thus does the totality of the German enterprises have its impact upon us."

The European upper classes saw their indolent life imperiled by this upswing of the German economy. They were living, according to Max Scheler, in a Paradise:[3]

"For our Eastern neighbors there was more dreaming, plotting, feeling, praying, and quiet submission to the yoke of fate, but also the drinking of schnapps, strolling romantically through life, careless and illicit coarse enjoyment [...] For the English, it was easy to buy and sell, according to the old way, accustomed to winning, and in the manner of old grand merchants, proud of the old proven types of goods, without adapting to the needs of customers in the world market [...] it was also, however, to enjoy life in sports, wagering, gaming, country life, traveling, to end the week's work on Friday evening and to go to the sports stadium [...] - but to do all this with a matter-of-fact feeling, grounded in the situation and geography of the island, of having been divinely chosen to be Lord of the Sea [...] not as a member of Europe, but as a power equal to all of Europe, indeed, a power which was a match for the entire world, equal to guiding the nations outside of Europe, of leading them and of being their political arbiter. And the same paradise meant for France: increasing financial wealth with few children, pensions after 20-30 years of work, great colonial empire, time and idle leisure for luxury, intellect, outward appearances, adventures full of sensuality with beautiful women."

The terror which the German power of achievement set loose in these European upper classes, was captured by Max Scheler in the parable:

"There [...] appeared on their every horizon [...] the image of a new, strange archangel, the face [...] as severe and iron-like as the old one of the myth, but otherwise quite different [...] He bore the stamp of a plain workman, with good, tough fists, he was a man who labored and kept working, on and on, according to the inner testimonial of his own convictions, not in order to outdo or for the sake of some sort of renown, and not for enjoyment apart from or after the work, nor in order to contemplate and admire the beauty of the world in that spare time following work, but quietly and slowly, immersed in his labor, yet with a terror-exciting steadiness, exactitude and punctuality when seen from the outside, and wholly lost within himself and his task, he worked, worked on and kept working - and this the world was least able to grasp - out of pure joy in boundless work in itself - without goal, without purpose, without end. What will become of us, what shall happen to us - felt the nations [...] How shall we exist, faced by these new masses? Shall we change ourselves, seeking to emulate him? No and again no! We cannot obey this new demand! But we do not want it and shall not do it!"

In 1895 these upper classes, beginning with Great Britain, formed a War Party against Germany which is still at work today and which will be documented by citations from the years 1895 to 1994.

Delendam, Delendam, Delendam!

The Saturday Review of 24 August 1895:[4]

"OUR TRUE FOREIGN POLICY.

[...] As we have before pointed out, the dominant fact of the situation with regard to our foreign policy is the steadfast enmity of France. We can call this enmity unreasonable or untimely, but its existence is not to be doubted. Some papers, therefore, recommend that England should at once join the Triple Alliance; that Lord Salisbury should promise the German Emperor assistance and support in case of any attack made upon the estates or interests of the Allies in Europe, on condition that the Allies should support England in case of any aggression upon her territories in other parts of the world. For various reasons this policy, although eminently safe, does not altogether please us. First of all, we English have always made war hitherto upon our rivals in trade and commerce; and our chief rival in trade and commerce to-day is not France but Germany. In case of a war with Germany, we should stand to win much and lose nothing; whereas, in case of a war with France, no matter what the issue might be, we stand to lose heavily."

The Saturday Review of 1 February 1896:[5]

"A Biological View of our Foreign Policy by a Biologist.

The record of the past history of life upon the catch has made us familiar with one phase in the drama of evolution. For countless generations a number of species may have been struggling on tolerably equal terms, now one, now the other, securing some little advantage, when suddenly a turn in the kaleidoscope of the world gives one of them an advantage of real moment. The lucky species multiplies rapidly; it spreads over the land and the seas, its rivals perishing before it or being driven into the most inhospitable corners; [...]

The great nations of the earth are local varieties, species in the making. It is not necessary that there should be anatomical distinctions among them; although, indeed, the English, Germans, French, Russians and Americans, Chinese and Japanese, have each their distinct groups of average characters. [...]

The world is rapidly approaching the epoch of these last wars, of wars which cannot end in peace with honour, of wars whose spectre cannot be laid by the pale ghost of arbitration. The facts are patent. Feeble races are being wiped off the earth, and the few great, incipient species arm themselves against each other. England, as the greatest of these - greatest in geographical distribution, greatest to expansive force, greatest in race-pride - has avoided for centuries the only dangerous kind of war. Now, with the whole earth occupied and the movements of expansion continuing, she will have to fight to the death against successive rivals. [...]

Of European nations, Germany is most alike to England. In racial characters, in religious and scientific thought, in sentiments and aptitudes, the Germans, by their resemblances to the English, are marked out as our natural rivals. In all parts of the earth, in every pursuit, in commerce, in manufacturing, in exploiting other races, the English and the Germans jostle each other. Germany is a growing nation; expanding far beyond her territorial limit, she is bound to secure new foothold or to perish in the attempt. [...] Were every German to be wiped out to-morrow, there is no English trade, no English pursuit that would not immediately expand. Were every Englishman to be wiped out tomorrow, the Germans would gain in proportion. Here is the first great racial struggle of the future: here are two growing nations pressing against each other, man to man all over the world. One or the other has to go; one or the other will go. [...]

The biological view of foreign policy is plain. First, federate our colonies and prevent geographical isolation turning the Anglo-Saxon race against itself. Second, be ready to fight Germany, as Germania est delenda [Germany must be destroyed]; third, be ready to fight America when the time comes. Lastly, engage in no wasting tears against peoples from whom we have nothing to fear."

The Saturday Review of 11 September 1897:[6]

"England and Germany

Prince Bismarck has long recognised what at length the people of England are beginning to understand - that in Europe there are two great, irreconcilable, opposing forces, two great nations who would make the whole world their province, and who would levy from it the tribute of commerce. England, with her long history of successful aggression, with her marvellous conviction that in pursuing her own interests she is spreading light among nations dwelling in darkness, and Germany, bone of the same bone, blood of the same blood, with a lesser will-force, but, perhaps, with a keener intelligence, compete in every, corner of the globe. In the Transvaal, at the Cape, in Central Africa, in India and the East, in the islands of the Southern sea, and in the fair North-West, wherever - and where has it not ? - the flag has followed the Bible and trade has followed the flag, there the German bagman is struggling with the English peddler. Is there a mine to exploit, a railway to build, a native to convert from breadfruit to tinned meat, from temperance to trade gin, the German and the Englishman are struggling to be first. [That's in the mind of these Englishmen -cy] A million petty disputes build up the greatest cause of war the world has ever seen. If Germany were extinguished to-morrow, the day after to-morrow there is not an Englishman in the world who would not be the richer. Nations have fought for years over a city or a right of succession; must they not fight for two hundred million pounds of commerce?

Secret speech of Winston S. Churchill in March 1936 in the Lower House:[8]

"For four hundred years the foreign policy of England has been to oppose the strongest, most aggressive, most dominating Power on the Continent [...]. Faced by Philip II of Spain, against Louis XIV under William III and Marlborough, against Napoleon, against William II of Germany, it would have been easy and must have been very tempting to join with the stronger and share the fruits of his conquest. However, we always took the harder course, joined with the less strong Powers, made a combination among them, and thus defeated and frustrated the Continental military tyrant whoever he was, whatever nation he led. Thus we preserved the liberties of Europe [...].

Observe that the policy of England takes no account of which nation it is that seeks the overlordship of Europe. The question is not whether it is Spain, or the French Monarchy, or the French Empire, or the German Empire, or the Hitler régime. It has nothing to do with rulers or nations; it is concerned solely with whoever is the strongest or the potentially dominating tyrant. Therefore, we should not be afraid of being accused of being pro-French or anti-German. If the circumstances were reversed, we could equally be pro-German and anti-French. It is a law of public policy which we are following, and not a mere expedient dictated by accidental circumstances, or likes and dislikes, or any other sentiment.

The question, therefore, arises which is today the Power in Europe which is the strongest, and which seeks in a dangerous and oppressive sense to dominate. Today, for this year, probably for part of 1937, the French Army is the strongest in Europe. But no one is afraid of France. Everyone knows that France wants to be let alone, and that with her it is only a case of self-preservation. Everyone knows that the French are peaceful and overhung by fear. [...]

Germany, on the other hand, fears no one. She is arming in a manner which has never been seen in German history. She is led by a handful of triumphant desperadoes. The money is running short, discontents are arising beneath these despotic rulers. Therefore, it seems to me that all the old conditions present themselves again, and that our national salvation depends upon our gathering once again all the forces of Europe to contain, to restrain, and if necessary to frustrate, German domination. For, believe me, if any of those other Powers, Spain, Louis XIV, Napoleon, Kaiser Wilhelm II, had with our aid become the absolute masters of Europe, they could have despoiled us, reduced us to insignificance and penury on the morrow of their victory."

Report of Carl J. Burkhardt [Swiss diplomat] of a conversation on 15 August 1938 with the Polish foreign minister [Jozef] Beck:[9]

"The Poles are waiting in apparent calm. Beck, during our nocturnal journey, made me privy to his plans to some extent. Furthermore, he is playing his double-game. It is no German game, as many French and the Polish opposition believe. It is a game in which the greatest profit is hoped for Poland, a profit which is supposed to come out of a final and unavoidable German catastrophe. For this reason, the Germans are being encouraged in their wrong actions, and in Danzig they are enjoying letting the extremists triumph while at the same time they repeatedly stress adherence to the outer form of the treaties. One day there will be a reckoning, interest and compound interest will be demanded. Already now, by collaborating in this way with the National Socialists, they have succeeded in creating a solidarity of aversion toward any revision of the treaties in the whole West, in France, England and America. [...] That was entirely different in 1932. At that time Western opinion in the great democracies for the most part supported the German minorities. People got excited over badly drawn borders, over isolated provinces. Thanks to the excessive methods of Nazism, all of that has ended, and now in Warsaw they are hoping not only for the unconditional integration of Danzig into the Polish state territory, but for much more, for all of East Prussia, for Silesia, even for Pomerania. In the year 1933 they still spoke in Warsaw of Polish Pomerania, but now they say 'our Pomerania.' Beck makes a purely Polish policy, ultimately an anti-German policy, a policy of only a seeming Polish-German détente, since the occupation of the Rhineland and the French passivity at the occasion of this event. But they are making efforts to encourage the Germans quite methodically in their errors."

Note of Eduard Benesch [Czechoslovakia President] of August 23/24, 1939, in London:[10]

"It was a properly tough tactic, to drive Hitler to war."

Report of Friedrich Grimm [German constitutional lawyer] concerning a visit in May 1945:[11]

"In May 1945, a few days after the collapse, I had a memorable discussion with an important representative of the opposing side. He introduced himself to me as a university professor of his nation who wished to talk with me about the historical foundations of the war. It was a conversation on an elevated level that we were having. Suddenly, he broke off and pointed to the leaflets which were lying on the table in front of me, with which we were flooded in the first days after the surrender and which were mainly concerned with the concentration camp atrocities. 'What do you say to that?' he asked me. I replied: 'Oradour and Buchenwald? You're beating a dead horse with me. I am an attorney and condemn injustice wherever I meet it, but most of all when it occurs on our side. Nonetheless, I know how to make a distinction between facts and the political usage made of them. I know what atrocity propaganda is. After the First World War, I read all publications of your experts concerning these questions, the writings of the Northcliff bureau, the book 'From War to Peace' of the French finance minister Klotz, in which he describes how the fairy tales about the hacked-off children's hands were invented, and what use was made of them, the enlightening writings of the magazine Crapouillot, which compares the atrocity propaganda of 1870 with that of 1914/1918, and finally the classic book by Ponsonby: 'Falsehood in Wartime.' In it, it is revealed that in the previous war they already had magazines in which artificial mountains of corpses were arranged by means of a photo montage with dolls. These pictures were distributed. In doing so, the captions were left blank. They were later inserted telephonically by propaganda headquarters according to need.' My visitor exploded: 'I see I've come across an expert. Now I also want to say who I am. I am no university professor. I am from the headquarters of which you have spoken. For months I have been conducting what you have correctly described: atrocity propaganda - and with it we have won the total victory.' I replied: 'I know and now you must stop!' He responded: 'No, now we are just properly beginning! We will continue this atrocity propaganda, we will increase it until no one will have a good word to say about the Germans any longer, until any of the sympathy you have had in other countries will have been destroyed, and until the Germans themselves will have fallen into such confusion that they no longer know what they are doing!' I ended the conversation: 'Then you will be taking a great responsibility upon yourself!'"

The British magazine Sunday Correspondent on September 17, 1989, for the fiftieth anniversary of the start of the Second World War and of the reunification marking it:[12]

"We must now be honest about the German question, as uncomfortable as it may be for the Germans, for our international partners and even ourselves [...] The question remains, in essence, the same. Not how do we prevent German tanks from rolling over the Oder or the Marne, but how Europe will deal with a people whose number, talent, and efficiency is allowing it to become our regional super-power. We did not enter the war in 1939 in order to save Germany from Hitler or the Jews from Auschwitz or the Continent from Fascism. As in 1914, we entered the war for the no less noble reason that we were not able to accept a German predominance in Europe."

Lech Walesa [Polish President] in an interview with the Dutch newspaper Elsevier of April 7, 1990:[13]

"I do not shrink even from making a declaration which makes me unpopular in Germany. If the Germans destabilize Europe anew in one way or another, one should no longer resort to a division, but rather simply eradicate the nation from the map. The East and the West possess the necessary advanced technologies to carry out this sentence."

Henry Kissinger in the Welt am Sonntag of November 13, 1994:

"President Clinton's idea of the USA and Germany as Partners in Leadership was not exactly very wise [...] Actually, this notion drives everyone to the barricades, for in the final analysis two world wars were waged in order to prevent just that, a dominant role of Germany."

* * *

The citations imply that all the wars, revolutions, persecutions and expulsions of the 20th century were matter-of-factly initiated by rationally planning nations or were tolerated, for the sake of power and money. In view of the apocalyptic terror and horror resulting from these undertakings, a clear analysis appears more practical than moral accusations.

For the British upper class - and their international partners - war is an entirely normal activity. The British pragmatically ask: How did our forebears hold it? What was their advantage? Did they not, for four hundred years, wage war against their main rival or the strongest continental power? One weighs, like a merchant: is it advantageous to wage war against France, can Austria hurt us? What will war against Germany bring us? 250 million pounds = 5 million marks per year? The security of our predominance? Must we fight against the USA later?

The thought of whether a war is morally defensible does not even occur! For it is, in any case, "tough" to drive someone to war. For war becomes a game, a double-game. For one places snares by quite methodically encouraging the opponent in his errors. In this 'game,' the 'greatest profit' entices. "Take inside Germany whatever you like": that's how one buys allies; for oneself, one takes money. Is it not better that the other, the enemy, totally disappears? Does he not destabilize the situation, imperil the loot, if he has recovered? Is it not better to exterminate the Germans at once? Is it not smarter to eradicate Germany from the map? Germania esse delendam! One has the advanced technologies - by which the neutron bomb is probably meant: the Germans would be dead and the loot intact.

For there is no honorable peace permitted. For the atrocity propaganda is to be continued and increased until no one will any longer have a good word to say about the enemy. The enemy becomes Evil in himself. The objection of Friedrich Grimm, which generally applies to such actions: "Then they will take a great responsibility upon themselves" - fails here. Responsibility toward the enemy does not exist and guilt not at all. Guilt, in this system, is merely a question of power. God isn't needed here, there is no God permitted! "Thou shalt not kill" devolved into meaningless chatter. Man puts himself in God's place.

The sponsors embracing such ideas are: a high British politician, Navy Minister of the First World War and Prime Minister of the Second World War; a former Czech state President; a Polish foreign minister of the year 1938; a Polish President of 1990; and a former American Secretary of State.

The continuity with which these ideas are pursued from 1895 to 1994 is alarming, and the matter-of-fact attitude with which not only the ideas, but also their acceptance, are still presumed in 1989 by a probably broad public of a British weekly paper. Baffled, with Kissinger, that here it is no longer preventing a German predominance, which is discussed, since even the thought of a Germany as partner of the USA is pronounced dangerous.

The Tough Kernel

The authors of the three anonymous articles quoted in the beginning are partly known. Concerning the author of the first article of August 24, 1895: "The Proper Foreign Policy for Us English," Hans Grimm, who in 1895 was in Great Britain as a young businessman, learned this about his host:[67]

"And it happened by chance that my boss, who himself belonged to the English Conservative Party, had been unexpectedly informed that that essay of August 24, 1895, on English foreign policy had originated from a quite definite faction in the English Foreign Office, directed by the half-German, Sir Eyre Crowe." (Shown right)

Behind the biologist, the author of the article of February 1, 1896: "A Biological Perspective on our English Foreign Policy by a Biologist," is concealed Sir P. Chalmers Mitchell, Professor of Astronomy and Biology at Oxford, as Hans Grimm likewise discovered.[68] According to Grimm, Mitchell was a Captain in the British General Staff from 1916 to 1919 and had connections to Crowe.

Information about the group around Crowe is given in a diary note of October 12, 1918, of First Lieutenant C. Repinton, in which he writes that Crowe, Mallet, and Tyrell will be going as negotiators from the Foreign Office to the planned peace conference. Moreover, he maintains:[69]

"They joined the F.O. between 1885 and 1893, and, with Carnock and Bertie, were the head and front of the anti-German party all along, vexed at our surrenders to Germany and persuaded that Germany planed our ruin. Between them they made the German peril the central feature of our foreign policy."

There is still one more to be counted as belonging to this circle of the F.O., whose significance for the outbreak of the First World War can hardly be overestimated: Sir Edward Grey.

In 1892, Edward Grey became parliamentary Under-Secretary under Lord Rosebery, who took over the Foreign Office. In 1895 Rosebery is voted out and Grey loses his office. Grey writes that these years were "very important" for his life.[70]

To these experiences clearly belongs also the world-view that England must oppose Germany and turn to France. In his memoirs, couched in a very vague diplomatic language, we read:[71]

"In light of after-events, the whole policy of these years from 1896 to 1904 may be criticized as having played into the hands of Germany."

Concrete criticism is expressed by Grey in this manner:[72]

"We relied on German support  and we received it; but we never could be sure when some price for that support might not be extracted."

The England of Grey wanted to remain the sole master of the world and not share the power with anyone, most certainly not Germany. This is the basic thought, which runs through Grey's memoirs, and his joy when the British policy of 1904 draws closer to France expresses itself effusively in comparison with his otherwise dry text:[73]

"The real cause for satisfaction was that the exasperating friction with France was to end, and that the menace of war with France had disappeared. The gloomy clouds were gone, the sky was clear, and the sun shone warmly. Ill-will, dislike, hate, whether the object of them be a person or a nation, are a perpetual discomfort; they come between us and all that is beautiful and happy; they put out the sun. If the object be a nation with whom our interests are in contact, they poison the atmosphere of international affairs. This had been so between Great Britain and France. [...] That was all to be changed; it was to become positively pleasant, where we had seen before only what was repellant; to understand and to be understood where before there had been misrepresentation and misconstruction; to have friends instead of enemies - this, when it happens, is one of the great pleasures of life."

Of course, the price for this was "perpetual discomfort," "poison," "misrepresentation," and "misconstruction" in the relationship to Germany, but apparently that did not let anything come between Grey and "all that is beautiful and happy." In Grey's eyes, France was no longer a match for England, whereas Germany was about to outperform England economically. In 1905, Grey took over the Foreign Office and subsequently surrounded himself with the gentlemen from the anti-German circle of the Foreign Office. Crowe, Mallet, Tyrell, and Bertie all reached key positions and collaborated closely with Grey. Carnock is the only one about whom I did not find anything. Bertie had already previously been ambassador in Paris and in future formed one of the pillars of the new British policy.[74] According to Margaret Bovari, the ambassadors of the most important European nations were exchanged under Grey, but the Parisian embassy, with Sir F. Bertie, remained unchanged, and "it emerges from the private letters between him and Grey that close relations and an excellent accord must have prevailed between the two men." From 1905 to 1906, Louis Mallet was Private Secretary to Grey, and from 1906 to 1907, he was Senior Clerk in the Foreign Office. From 1907-1913, he was Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and diplomat in Constantinople between 1913 and 1914. Margaret Boveri sees the influence of Mallet upon Grey as having been "considerable" and numbers him "amongst the most zealous advocates of English-Russian friendship. Still more pronounced with him than this tendency is the anti-German attitude." William Tyrell was Senior Clerk in the Foreign Office from 1907 to 1918 and from 1907 to 1915 he was Private Secretary to Edward Grey.[75]

In his memoirs, Grey especially emphasized Tyrell and writes in reference to him:[76]

"The public has little or no means of knowing how much it owes in public service to special gifts and qualities in individual civil servants in high positions in the Department of State. In each case, where such qualities exist, a man renders service peculiarly his own, besides taking an able part in the conduct of business in the Department. [...] I had the occasion in office to know the great value of Tyrell's public service; but the thing that is prize is our friendship, that began in the Foreign Office, and has continued uninterrupted and intimate after official ties ceased."

Eyre Crowe finally became Senior Clerk in the Foreign Office in 1906 and was Assistant Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs from 1912 to 1920.[77] His role in the British policy toward Germany cannot be overestimated. For Hermann Lutz, expert in the investigatory committee of the Reichstag for the war-guilt question, Eyre Crowe is "the Evil Spirit of the Foreign Office.",[78] and Margaret Boveri confirms this:[79]

"Although we [...] must assess his direct influence upon the daily decisions in the Foreign Office as small [because of his relatively low position; due to his German mother he presumably climbed only slowly], his fixed stance was however surely of enormous effect upon the shaping of the atmosphere which prevailed in the Western Department and from which policy was made."

It should be briefly remarked - this will be developed later - that from a subordinate position, as expert on Germany, Crowe decisively influenced official policy several times. Edward Grey himself gives Crowe prominent mention in his memoirs:[80]

"It has been a great satisfaction since I left office to see great knowledge, ability and unsurpassed devotion to the public service recognized in the promotion of Sir Eyre Crowe to be head of the Foreign Office."

And he added as a footnote:

"Since these words were written the public service of the country has suffered an irreparable loss in the death of Sir Eyre Crowe."

Under Grey, the anti-German circles which were behind the Saturday Review article of 1895, thereby ascended to key positions.

Grey knew portions of the pattern of thinking there and approved indirectly. Thus, Grey recorded a conversation of 28 April 1908 with Clemenceau and considered it to be so important that he included it as one of the few documents in his memoirs. There we read:[81]

"M. Clemenceau had some conversation with me at the Foreign Office this morning.

He dwelt with great emphasis upon the certainty that we should have to intervene on the continent of Europe against any power which attained a position of domination there, just as we had had to do in the time of Napoleon.

He said we ought to be prepared for this. [...] He felt this to be most important. The fate of Napoleon had been decided not at Trafalgar but at Waterloo. And so it would have to be again, in the case of any Power which attempted to dominate the continent."

Clemenceau is consciously making use of those modes of thought from the Saturday Review articles in order to drive England into war against Germany, and Grey responds in such a way that not only are these modes of thought familiar to him, but he is also influenced by them. This is also shown by a quotation from Grey, which is found in Margaret Boveri:[82]

"The Germans are not clear about the fact that England always has gotten into opposition to or has intentionally proceeded against any power which establishes a hegemony in Europe."

By his conduct, Grey deceived many Germans about his anti-German attitude, and not only diplomats but also scientists, to the extent that caused Hans Rothfels to derisively refer to the remark of a Prussian artillery lieutenant concerning Napoleon:[83]

"A kindhearted fellow, but stupid, stupid."

As a contributor to The Saturday Review in the years from 1895 to 1897, George Bernard Shaw was of course familiar with the anti-German development and surely knew the authors of the articles agitating against Germany. He tried to warn the German ambassador Lichnowsky in London about Grey and his policy. He laid out a proposal to Lichnowsky. Shaw:[84]

"He rejected it without reflecting for a moment. It was inappropriate [he said], because Sir Edward Grey was one of the greatest living statesmen, moreover the most sincere friend of Germany. I could [...] not raise my hands to heaven and, with Huss, cry out: Sancta simplicitas [holy simpleton]! Besides, it was of course Lichnowsky, not I, who was going to the stake. [...] It was not my task to enlighten the Duke about the fact that he was walking straight into a trap."

A trap so thorough in construction that Shaw writes concerning the British wire-pullers on the occasion of the outbreak of the First World War:[85]

"They felt in this important hour, as though England was lost if but a single traitor in their midst let out into the world a tiny kernel of truth about anything."

From 1905 onward, the Foreign Office begins systematically to construct a front with Russia and France against Germany. This development is proven on the basis of the public documents from the German side after the lost war. Crowe, but not only he, worked systematically against Germany through numerous papers, but above all through his memorandum of January 1, 1907,[86] in which he claimed that Germany was striving for world rule and wanted to secretly attack England. In a counter-expert opinion, Sanderson, Permanent Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs from 1894 to 1906, dismissed the worst distortions in Crowe's memorandum. Grey passed the paper on only to his like-minded comrades; otherwise it went nowhere.[87]

It would lead us too far afield to present all the lies, distortions, misrepresentations and ploys with which Grey, Crowe, and Company prepared the way for a war against Germany. They have been thoroughly explored to the last detail in many investigations in Germany.[88]

G.B. Shaw has reduced the First World War to this nullity:

"The present destruction of the German military power is [...] a completely regular operation of British foreign policy, which was executed according to plan with all the resolve, patience, cunning and power which we in England are accustomed to use, and with overwhelming success. But likewise also, however, with the amazing English talent of veiling from oneself what one is doing. The Englishman never knows what the 'Foreign Office' is up to; [...] An instinct tells him that it is better for him [...] not to know."

The whole text is rife with such quotations and others, which describe the techniques and partly the motive of British imperialism. Concerning the key role of Grey and his methods, one more citation:

"Grey was not ruined over his mistakes; rather, for him the fact became fatal that the necessity of feeding the British public a children's fairy-tale about the nature and causes of the war made it impossible for him to highlight his triumph; for this was of a kind which he himself had described as machiavellian."

There is also a solid fact, which proves that Shaw knew exactly what he was talking about, that he knew the fundamental ideas of Grey. In 1912, he made a public proposal for how the peace could be kept; that is what he had also laid out to Lichnowsky:[89]

"In order to avoid war, England would have to strengthen its army as guardian over the balance of powers and officially and unambiguously declare that in the event of a German attack on France, it will throw its sword onto the scales in favor of the latter. But on the other hand, it would have to give its assurance that it will defend Germany in the event the latter is attacked by Russia or France or by both."

According to all that is known today, [if England had done that] the First World War of 1914 would not have happened. Germany would have been able to calmly put up with the parade from Russia toward its borders!

False Parallels

As is well known, Rome and Carthage fought three wars, Great Britain and Germany, so far, only two! Since Germany has been reunified and Communism has collapsed, as a result of which German assistance against the Soviet Union is no longer needed, this Carthage Syndrome surfaced again. Kissinger and Walesa, whose greed for loot is immeasurable, were cited. But there are still other texts without aggressive background, which give reason for hope.

On March 12, 1948, a few days after the downfall in the CSR and the subsequent suicide of Jan Masaryk, the Chief Prosecutor for Great Britain at the Nuremberg war crime trials, Sir Hartley Shawcross, stated according to the London Times:[94]

"Believe me, three years ago, two years ago, I was violently pro-Russian, on the extreme left of my party." [...]

"Step by step I have been forced more and more to the conclusion that the aims of Communism in Europe are sinister and deadly aims.

I prosecuted the Nazis in Nuremberg. With my Russian colleagues I condemned Nazi aggression and Nazi terror.^[[95]^]I feel shame and humiliation now to see under a different name the same aims pursued, the same technique followed, without check."

The international edition of the U.S. magazine Newsweek wrote on May 8, 1995, the 50^th anniversary of the unconditional surrender of the German Armed Forces:[96]

"The chiefs of state who are assembling this week for the solemn remembrance of the end of the Second World War, will formally dedicate themselves to the theme of reconciliation. The winners of the year 1945 showed toward the losers an unusual degree of generosity, as they had not done after the First World War - with disastrous consequences. However, the state which first brought about this reconciliation will not be taking part in the gathering. It is the Soviet Union, whose ideological menace caused the victorious Western powers to put Germany and Japan on their feet again in the framework of a free-market economy and political democracy. More closely considered, this war did not end even in 1945. Those who were waging war merely found themselves in new systems of alliances, and with modified tactics. The end did not come until 1990-91, when Germany was reunified and the Soviet Union imploded. According to this general view of the chronology, it can be said that the war lasted seventy-five years. The Kaiser and Hitler lost and Germany has won."

And the German government? A small episode proves that those who govern there know much better than the governed what is going on globally. When then British Prime Minister John Major, in his address in Berlin for the 50th anniversary of the war's end, spoke of the second Thirty Years War from 1914-1945:

"Fifty years ago Europe saw the end of the 30 Years War, 1914 to 1945. The slaughter in the trenches, the destruction of cities and the oppression of citizens: all these left a Europe in ruins just as the other 30 Years War did three centuries before."

The Bulletin of the German government (No. 38, May 12, 1995) falsified the text of the speech into:

"Vor fünfzig Jahren erlebte Europa das Ende der dreißig Jahre, die nicht einen, sondern zwei Weltkriege beeinhaltet hatten. Das Gemetzel in den Schützengräben, die Zerstörung der Städte und die Unterdrückung der Bürger hinterließen ein Europa in Trümmern, gerade, wie es einige Jahrhunderte zuvor der Dreißigjährige Krieg getan hatten."

In English:

"Fifty years ago, Europe experienced the end of the thirty years which encompassed not one, but two world wars. The slaughter in the trenches, the destruction of cities and the oppression of citizens left behind a Europe in ruins, just as the Thirty Years War had done some centuries before."

But still weeks after the speech, the British embassy sent the upper text with the clear formulation "the other 30 Years War"! By the will of the German Federal Government, the fact that Major sees the First and Second World War as parts of a single event, was not allowed to become publicly known in Germany.

Berthold Brecht once wrote warningly, with an eye on Germany:[97]

"Great Carthage waged three wars. It was still powerful after the first, still inhabitable after the second. After the third, it could no longer be found."

After the First World War, a foreign diplomat expressed to Churchill:[98]

"In the twenty years of my residency there, I was witness to a profound and total revolution in England, even as the French Revolution was. The ruling classes in your country have been almost completely robbed of their political power and, to a large extent, their prosperity and property as well; and all this [...] without the loss of a single human life."

The European upper classes, the idle ones of Scheler and Shaw, who wanted to be "clever" as they went out of their way to start a war, they have paid! Anastasia, the wife of the Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolayevitch - who, in 1914 after a murder in Sarajevo, is supposed to have called out triumphantly to Poincaré: "War will break out. Nothing more will remain of Austria [...] Germany will be destroyed!"[99] - lost everything!

In 1947, after the Second World War, India, the Crown of the British Empire, became independent. Egypt freed itself from Great Britain and subsequently Great Britain had to cede the Suez Canal. In 1957 the Gold Coast became the first independent state of Black Africa, after which a large number of colonies followed. Churchill had yet to learn what Shaw knew: that the world for which one exchanged one's soul, had its own way of melting in one's hands. Not even the First, and most certainly not the Second World War, Great Britain was able to win by its own resources! From a position as master of the world, Great Britain was relegated to insignificance, and the descent seems not to have come to an end yet. New powers are arising. Their influence, by means of the modern terrorist techniques of war and the unhesitating way with which they are used, can easily grow to extreme proportions. They are staking claims and creating new centers of conflict. They threaten to unite the Islamic powers and Fundamentalism. A new war against Germany would propel their power into the stratosphere. It is to be feared that powerful groups will continue not to see that the world of today is much larger than the White man's world.

In any case, the analogy of Rome = Great Britain and Carthage = Germany is false. For Carthage was the commercial and sea power and Rome the land power of antiquity! Brecht was a master of language, but had no head for politics. His history would tell a different story today: Great Britain won two wars. It was still powerful after the first, still inhabitable after the second. Does anyone seriously believe that Great Britain could dare to wage yet a third war against Germany?

Source: The Revisionist 1(4) (2003), pp. 373-385.

"The Germans Arrive" - 1918 war propaganda painting by American artist George Bellows portrays imaginary atrocity committed by German troops in Belgium - where he had not been. (click to enlarge) The story is below.

---

By Carolyn Yeager

From acute hatred in 1914 to smoldering prejudice today, where did anti-Germanism start and why does it persist?

I cannot find any documentation of this phenomenon prior to the lead-up to World War I in the nineteenth century, and centered in the British Foreign Office. The image presented was of an exaggerated authoritarianism in both the German personality and culture.

Germans had always, up to then, been seen as a nation of “Poets and Thinkers” who were “disinclined to war,” acccording to Dr. Michael F. Conners in his book Dealing in Hate: The Development of Anti-German Propaganda. I have just now found Dr. Conners book online, as I am preparing to post this article, and will read what he has to say with interest ex post facto, as it were.

Conners' study seems to confirm the correctness of placing the beginning of anti-Germanism in the late nineteenth century and as a product of British foreign policy. New extreme lows of propaganda warfare were first used in the Great War of 1914-18 by the British Secret Intelligence Service (SIS), more commonly known as MI6. Formed in 1909, SIS “experienced dramatic growth during World War I” and continued expanding through WWII, but was not officially acknowledged until 1994. For that reason, it was essentially under no legal constraints prior to 1994.

In both world wars Germans were portrayed as depraved monsters and the opponents of civilization and humanity. Such extremely inhuman portrayals of Germans throughout the two most devastating wars in history appear to have been enough to permanently damage and change the image of Germans throughout the world, even to the point that Germans themselves began to believe in their own evil nature and the necessity to do penance. After the end of the 2nd phase of the Great War, starting in 1945, the German people themselves were the actual target of the continuing anti-German propaganda campaign.

British newspapers today continue the onslaught of discredited war atrocity stories against this past-tense Germany on a very regular basis - almost as if they have a quota of so many per month!

A very unfortunate and culture-distorting result of the British policy was that Germans who were living in Allied lands found it necessary to deny, denounce or reject their own identity in order to live peaceably in their surroundings, and this rejection was not easily thrown off later. In too many cases, Teutonic people never again recognized or approved of their German-ness.

An overview

Negative comments about Germany had begun to appear in Britain in the 1870s, following the Prussian victory in the Franco-Prussian War in 1870–71. The unification of Prussia with the German Confederation into the new German Empire was what increased England's fears, and it was the Prussian military stereotype that they began to project as 'the German.'

In 1887, the label Made in Germany was introduced in Britain, with the idea to get British buyers to adhere to the concept of "buying British." But after suffering some initial losses, German manufacturers soon found the label to be helpful as German-made goods were found by the public to be superior, or equally as good at lower prices than British!

(click to enlarge)

In the 1890's, Germans living in Britain were seen as lower class, but also willing to work for longer hours. (Herbert A. Strauss (1993). Germany – Great Britain – France. Walter de Gruyter. pp. 352–54.) 

By the turn of the century the USA and Germany had overtaken Britain in industrial production strength.

In 1906 a novel “The Invasion of 1910” began to appear in serial form in the London Daily Mail. Written by author William Le Queux at the request of Daily Mail owner Lord Northcliffe, it has been described by historians as inducing an atmosphere of paranoia, mass hysteria and Germanophobia that would climax in the Naval Scare of 1908–09 (when Britain feared the Kaiser was increasing German shipbuilding at a faster rate than formerly).

Articles in the Daily Mail regularly advocated anti-German sentiments throughout the 20th century, telling British readers, for example, to refuse service at restaurants by Austrian or German waiters on the claim that they were spies. and told them that if a German-sounding waiter claimed to be Swiss, they should demand to see the waiter's passport. [Philipp Blom. The Vertigo Years: Change and Culture in the West, 1900–1914. Basic Books, 2010. Pp. 181].

At the same time, conspiracy theories were concocted combining Germanophobia with antisemitism, concerning the supposed foreign control of Britain, some of which blamed Britain's entry into the Boer War on international financiers "chiefly German in origin and Jewish in race." [Panayi, P. (1989). "Anti-German Riots in London during the First World War"]

The British Foreign Office conspired to engineer a crushing war defeat for Germany because their “Balance of Power” policy deemed it necessary if Britain were to remain the strongest power in Europe. As they put it, for the British way of life to survive, Germany must be destroyed. It was fear, pure and simple, of German intelligence, ability and industriousness. The Canadians followed along with Great Britain and behaved in a downright thuggish manner with their attacks on innocent German citizens. They changed the names of towns, cities, streets from German to English. They opened internment camps in 1915 for their own civilians, not POW's.

In Australia, a proclamation of 10 August 1914 required all German citizens to register their domiciles at the nearest police station and to notify authorities of any change of address. The original German names of settlements and streets were officially changed. Both enemy aliens and naturalized subjects were prohibited from changing their name or the name of any business they ran. German language material was prohibited and schools attached to Lutheran churches were forced to abandon German as the language of teaching or were closed by the authorities. German clubs and associations were also closed. [Jupp, James (2001). The Australian People. Cambridge University Press. pp. 371–372.]

Most of the anti-German feeling was created by the press. But anti-German propaganda was also inspired by local and British companies who were keen to take the opportunity to eliminate Germany as a competitor in the Australian market. Germans in Australia were increasingly portrayed as evil by the very nature of their origins. (Jupp)

When the United States entered the war on the British side, the attacks on Germans increased. A painting by the well-known and important American artist George Wesley Bellows is a case in point. Bellows did not serve in the war but he very publicly expressed his support for U.S. intervention in it. In 1918, he created a series of lithographs and paintings that graphically depicted atrocities which the Allies and newspapers said had been committed by Germany during its invasion of Belgium. Notable among these was "The Germans Arrive" (image at top of article), which gruesomely illustrated a German soldier restraining a Belgian teen whose hands had just been severed.

Why did Bellows paint this, when he had never seen such a thing? He was criticized for some of the liberties he took in capturing scenes of war and fellow New York artist Joseph Pennell argued that because Bellows had not witnessed the events he painted firsthand, he had no right to paint them.

I agree that Bellows was merely extending war propaganda, but Bellows and others used the defense of “artistic freedom.” Another of Bellow's paintings from this series was titled “The Barricade” which was Bellows' interpretation of another 1914 war story that German soldiers had used Belgian townspeople as human shields. Look for the “cowardly” Germans looking out from behind the naked (!?) bodies.

The Barricade by George Wesley Bellows (click to enlarge)

A partial explanation may be that Bellows associated with a group of radical artists and activists called "the Lyrical Left," who tended towards anarchism in their extreme advocacy of individual rights. He taught at the first Modern School in New York City, and served on the editorial board of the socialist journal, The Masses, to which he contributed many drawings and prints beginning in 1911.

It didn't turn out all that well for Bellows. Later, many Americans believed that their country had been tricked and manipulated into joining the conflict and unfortunately for George Bellows he and his War Series were regarded as part of this deception. In 1925, the American art critic and historian, Virgil Barker commented on the series saying:

“…[they were as] ill-judged in their appeal to the passion of hatred as anything produced in America’s most hysterical war years…”

All this is prelude to my introducing you to two articles in G. S. Viereck's September 6, 1914 issue of THE FATHERLAND weekly. These were compilations of reports on atrocities visited upon the Germans in Belgium and France, both military and civilian. Let us not forget that there were German folk who had been living and running businesses in England, in France, and in Belgium. The war began suddenly and caught many of these civilians unprepared for the violent emotions that erupted.

v1 no 5 Sept 6, 1914 Page 6

TALES OF WAR'S BARBARITY

Are the Germans Justified in Punishing Antwerp? Read the other side below.

THE one-sided presentation of the war news in the leading American papers in New York—like the Herald and Telegram, which are owned by an expatriated American whose home is in Paris; the Tribune owned by the estate of the late ambassador to England; the American and Journal, owned by Mr. Hearst, who punished several important publications in London, and other papers closely allied to the London financial groups with headquarters in New York—is well illustrated by the prominence given to reports of German cruelty and barbarism and the complete suppression of news giving facts on the other side, notably the cowardly attacks on helpless women and children in Antwerp, where the stevedores in one case snatched an infant from the arms of a fugitive German woman and drowned it before her eyes. No particulars are given of the outrages committed upon the German troops by non-combatant civilians after a place had been evacuated. Every report is colored with the personal animus of the British correspondents who are running amuck in the American press, and it is made to appear that what the Germans are doing in retaliation for inexpressible crimes upon their own people stand as exceptional examples of cruelty in the annals of war.

That “snipers” are summarily dealt with by every army is evidenced by the following telegram which relates in incomplete form an incident connected with the taking of Vera Cruz by our own [American] forces as printed in the Evening Sun under the double headlines:

“Trying Woman Sniper.

She is Charged with Killing Eight Bluejackets”:

Vera Cruz, May 5—A woman “sniper” was ordered before a military court martial today to be tried on a charge of murdering eight bluejackets or marines during the first of the fighting, having picked them off one after the other in the streets.

The woman was betrayed by a Mexican, who led troops to her house last night. The building was searched, and as a quantity of arms and ammunition was found, she was arrested.

That the woman was dealt with as the Germans are dealing with the same class of non-combatants, if proven guilty, is evident from the fact that she was tried by court martial, which is governed by but one law in such cases.

Stories of cruelty against helpless Germans are coming in by every ship which reaches port and by letters from army surgeons writing to friends in this country. We have all read with a feeling of intense sympathy of the “brave Belgians” and the “poor, innocent non-combatants” who fell victims to the German Zeppelins recently. And yet, though we cannot deny our sympathy to the unhappy victims of war's fury, news from the besieged city of Antwerp tends rather to justify the hard fate that has befallen it. It has taken hardly three weeks for retribution to visit a city which has probably gone farther than any other in its persecution of defenseless Germans.

That is the story of Mrs. Edmund Kandler, the young wife of the officer of the Belgian steamer, “Vaderland.”

Only a month ago they were married and established their little home in Antwerp, the harbor of her husband's ship. Today the stately young officer is out of employment, and his little blonde wife could only leave Antwerp at the risk of her life. All that she was allowed to take was a small hand satchel. The pretty little home with all its pretty things which they had established had to be abandoned. She is thankful that she is in New York, able to begin life over again at the side of her devoted husband.

The “brave Belgians” and the “poor sufferers of Antwerp!” How strange, how different, how ugly they seem as described by Mrs. Kandler, who saw and heard, and herself experienced the savage brutality of these civilized Belgians against helpless Germans.

“I don't know how I should have escaped from Antwerp with my life,” declared Mrs. Kandler, who lived for many years in Antwerp, “but for the aid of a dear friend. Howling mobs passed through the streets in the early part of the month and attacked the German residents, robbing and murdering them. Any one appearing in the streets with baggage was torn from his conveyance and robbed of his satchels and trunks, while the police looked complacently upon the spectacle of men and women being deliberately tortured and outraged.

“My friend tried to send me across the border by train before the expiration of the time limit for all Germans to leave the city. He went to the station to learn when the next train would leave, but soon returned pale and trembling.

“ 'I witnessed some awful scenes of barbarism during the Boer war,' he said, 'but such excesses as those committed by my countrymen surpass everything in my experience.'

“That night my friend took me aboard the Finland, where I remained in hiding for three days until we set sail for America. But oh, the stories told me by other refugees aboard the Finland! Any one who looked German or had a German name, or was suspected of entertaining German sympathies, was a shining mark for the mob. No one was spared! Even citizens of forty-five years residence in Antwerp, and universally respected were driven out like criminals. The murder of Mr. von Malinkrot cries to heaven for vengeance. He was one of Antwerp's benefactors. He was shot dead as a German spy. And a man who had been employed for thirty years by the Red Star Line and been decorated by King Albert was persecuted like every one else, despite the fact that two of his sons were fighting in the Belgian army.

“The German school, the best school in Antwerp, was the special object of Flemish vengeance, as also the German Seamen's Home. Every window was smashed, and the work of destruction only ceased when the two buildings were turned into hospitals and the Red Cross flag hoisted over their roof.

“Countless Germans with their families were thrown into prison, and a young Russian woman who had been mistaken for a German and had also been locked up told me of harrowing scenes of small, half-naked children, weeping, starving and sick on the naked stones of the Prison.”

__________________________

Page 7

BELGIAN, FRENCH VS. GERMAN CRUELTY

IN view of the circumstance of Belgian's reported protest against “German Cruelty” to the American government at Washington, the following letter of a German surgeon attached to the Red Cross, received in New York last week, is peculiarly timely:

“At the hands of men, women and half-grown boys our troops have experienced here all the horrors usually attributed to savages. Belgian non-combatants are blazing away at everything German from every house and every thicket with perfectly fanatical hatred. During the very first days we had a number of dead and wounded from assaults by civilians, women as well as men. Day before yesterday a German had his throat cut from ear to ear in bed during the night; another house displayed the Red Cross flag; five men were quartered there. The next day all five were found assassinated.

“Yesterday morning we found in a village in front of Verviers a single soldier, his hands tied behind his back with both eyes gouged out. A motor car from Liege day before yesterday stopped in a village; a young woman stepped up close to the chauffeur, suddenly put a pistol to his head and killed him. Of course, such acts are promptly followed by the execution of the criminals, but neither this nor the burning of their houses deters the inhabitants. Of the wounded under my care several had wounds I could not account for … (Description omitted because unprintable). Two of my patients have birdshot each in one eye; a serious wound of the wrist was inflicted while the troops in passing a hedge in the dark were fired upon by a concealed sniper at such short range that the powder marks were left on the skin. Another had his right arm so badly lacerated with birdshot fired at close range in the dark that his arm had to be immediately amputated.

At Gemmenich, an hour's tramp from Aix la Chapelle, an automobile sanitary column was fired upon in mass from the snipers by the villagers last Wednesday. The escort of hussars was too weak, but two of the miscreants were seized and shot, and the house from which most of the shots were fired was burned. The Red Cross on our sleeves and wagons affords the surgeons no protection. In several engagement it happened that wounded men carried our of the firing lines, and others being conveyed to the field hospitals in the rear, were butchered in cold blood by the peasants from the villages. In removing the obstructions from a barred tunnel many Germans were seriously injured. Women who come from all directions threw stones at the wounded men, and eered them. A gentleman from Aix la Chapelle, driving with a military chauffeur through a Belgian frontier village, Gemmenich, while compelled to alight just beyond the place, was killed by a shot from a near-by hedge.

That is the way the civilized people of Belgium are conducting the war. Can a man be held accountable if his blood boils and his mind is robbed of the power of reflection by such deeds? Yet the Belgians profess surprise that we should summarily proceed against civilians who give rise to suspicion.

ARE the French any less blood-thirsty than the Belgians in their furious assaults on helpless Germans? If any one thinks so let him read the following from the New York American of August 25^th:

“It will never be known how many Germans were killed in Paris during the three-day riots of July 30 and 31 and August 1. The crimes of that period, could they be become known, would shame the civilized world.”

This statement was made yesterday by Henry M. Ziegler, a Cincinnati millionaire, who has made his home in Paris for the last five years but fled with the American refugees and returned on the steamship La France. Describing the scenes in Paris during the three days of rioting before martial law was declared, Mr. Ziegler said:

“It was unsafe for any foreigner, particularly one who could not speak French, to go on the streets. For a German it was little short of suicidal.

“I saw one German driving down a boulevard with a woman in a cab. How the mob learned he was a German I do not know, but they upset the cab. The woman fainted and was trampled on, but some one finally dragged her away.

“The man made a gallant fight for his life. With his back to the overturned cab he fought desperately for several minutes, and he was a big fellow, too. He struck out with his fists, right and left, and bowled his assailants over as fast as they got within reach. But he was finally overpowered and trampled and stabbed to death by the mob.

“Every shop over which there appeared a German name was wrecked. At frequent points along the boulevards were shops with the windows broken and the interior looking as though a bomb had been exploded there. In other quarters of the city even buildings were torn down.

“I know a family that had a German cook, a woman who had been with them many years. The sons went off to war with the first army, but that was not guarantee of protection for the woman. Some one told the mob, and my friends had to hide the old woman in the cellar under a pile of boxes to save her life.

“I was on the street one evening with a friend. We saw the mob chasing a German. He almost got away but was caught in an alley. My friend recognized one of his employees in the mob. The next day he told me his employee had boasted that they not only got the German we saw them after but three others. All were stabbed to death after being beaten into insensibility.

“One of the most noticeable things in Paris are the electric signs of 'Maggi' the big milk distributor. He has upwards of 100 milk depots in Paris, and is worth between $5,000,000 and 6,000,000. He is a German, but has lived in Paris for twenty years or more.

“The mob wrecked his electric signs and milk depots and then some one started the report that he had poisoned the milk and was going to kill all his customers. The mob went hunting for him, but he escaped.”

Final thoughts

Knowing the source of anti-Germanism and what/who is keeping it alive allows us to also know how to put an end to it. The way is historical revisionism that corrects the lies, errors, misconceptions both intended and unintended by a fair appraisal of the record of the 20th Century. However, that is easier said than done. Here's why:

The main beneficiary of the anti-German war narratives is the Liberal-Jewish New World Order, which is now being challenged, but only to some extent, by the new crop of anti-immigration politicians. The post-war regime in Germany is a 'made in America' establishment, with 'approved' parties that hold in place the de-Nazification policies of 1945-55. So they will not challenge it. The Europe-wide “consensus Order” (now the EU) is dominated by the Left, so also holds the line against any loosening of the WWI-II official script. But then we also have the so-called Alt-Right/pro-White/antisemitic “nationalists” who won't oppose the “Holocaust” mythology and/or the Kaiser/Hitler hatefest, or give up their allegiance to Hail Britannia! as the ultimate expression of western freedom, mostly because they don't know enough about the history of the wars to defend any other position.

Until we can liberate ourselves from all this, we're up a creek with a very small paddle.

Thanks to James Damon (right) for the English translation of this outstanding interview given by Erich Priebke to his Italian attorney Dr. Paolo Giachini and translated anonymously into German.

See UPDATE 10-24 from Dr. Giachini and Robert Faurisson at end of interview.

 The Interview

Question: Herr Priebke, several years ago you stated that you never deny your past. Now that you are 100 years old, do you still think that?

Answer: Yes.

Q: Would you please elucidate?

A: Long ago I made the decision to remain true to myself.

Q: So, do you still consider yourself a National Socialist?

A: Loyalty to our past determines our convictions and our character.
This is the way I view the world and my ideals. It is what was once our German Weltanschauung, the way we view the world. It is what still determines my sense of honor and my self-respect. Politics is something different. National Socialism perished with the defeat of Germany and today there is no longer any prospect of its continuation.

Q: Does this Weltanschauung that you mention also include anti Semitism?

A: If you want to discover the truth with your questions you must stop using certain clichés and prejudices, because to criticize does not mean to exterminate. Since the early 20th Century the conduct of the Jews has been widely criticized in Germany. The fact that Jews exercised enormous economic and political power, even though they were a very small part of the population, was considered unjust. Today it is still a fact that, if we consider the thousand richest and most powerful men in the world, we must acknowledge that a very large number of them are Jews, Jewish bankers and Jewish owners of multinational corporations. Especially after Germany's defeat in the First World War and under the yoke of the Versailles Dictate, Jewish immigration from Eastern Europe led to a catastrophe in Germany. This was caused by their sudden immense accumulation of capital at a time when the overwhelming majority of Germans were suffering severe poverty under the Weimar Republic. In this climate of desperation the usurers greatly increased their wealth, which caused feelings of frustration and resentment of the Jews.

Q: What is your opinion about the old story that Jews are allowed by their religion to practice usury while this is forbidden for Christians?

A: This is certainly not my idea. You have only to read Shakespeare or Dostoevski to realize that, in the historical perspective, such problems with the Jews have existed from Venice to St. Petersburg. This does not mean that Jews were the only usurers, however. I agree with the poet Ezra Pound, who said "I see no difference between a Jewish usurer and an Arian usurer."
 
Q: Do all these things justify anti Semitism?

A: No, Jewish usury does not mean that there are no upright and honorable Jews. I repeat what I just said: anti Semitism implies unconditional hatred. Even during the long years of my persecution I, an old man deprived of my freedom, always rejected hatred. I choose not to hate even those who hate me. I insist on nothing but the right to criticize and I always explain the reasons for my criticism. I would also like to point out that, because of their unique religion, many Jews consider themselves superior to other peoples. They identify themselves with "God's chosen people" as mentioned in the Bible.
 
Q: Didn't Hitler also speak of the superiority of the "Aryan" race?

A: Yes, Hitler also succumbed to ideas of racial superiority, and this caused certain errors from which there was no returning. However one has to consider that racism was the norm all over the world. It was not just a popular belief, it was enshrined in law and government. Even after the Americans ceased being slave dealers and importing Africans they continued highly racist and they practiced official discrimination against black people. Hitler's first "racial laws" did not restrict the rights of Jews any more than Americans restricted the rights of negroes in many states of the USA. The same was true of English discrimination against Asian Indians. The French acted no differently toward their so-called inferiors in their colonies. We won't even mention the treatment of ethnic minorities in the old Soviet Union.
 
Q: In your opinion, what brought about the escalation of discrimination against Jews in Germany?

A: The situation became radicalized and ever more intense. It turned into German Jews, Americans, British and then global Jewry on one side and Germany on the other. The situation forced the German Jews into an increasingly difficult position. The decision to impose restrictions on Jews in Germany made life ever more difficult for them. In November 1938 a Jew named Grünspan killed a member of our consulate in France, Ernst von Rath, as a protest against Germany. The result was Reichskristallnacht in which groups of demonstrators throughout the Reich smashed windows of Jewish shops. After that the Jews were treated strictly as enemies. After coming to power, Hitler initially encouraged the Jews to leave Germany. Ultimately, in a climate of great and growing distrust of Jews caused by war, boycotts and open conflict with global Jewish organizations, the Jews in Germany were interned in camps as enemy populations. This was of course a catastrophe for many innocent families.
 
Q: So, in your opinion, were Jewish sufferings their own fault?

A: Jewish suffering was inextricably connected with the War and there was guilt on both sides. There was guilt on the side of the Allies who unleashed the Second World War against Germany after the partitioning or repartitioning of Poland. This was a region in which the large ethnic German population was exposed to constant depredations, a region that had been placed under control of the newly resurrected Polish state by the Dictate of Versailles. Nobody raised a finger against Stalin's Russia on account of the partitioning. On the contrary: At the end of the conflict, which ostensibly came about to defend Poland against German aggression, Stalin was rewarded with all of Eastern Europe including all of Poland.
 
Q: Apart from political revisionism, do you sympathize with historical revisionism?

A: I am not sure just what "revisionism" means. If we are talking about the Nuremberg Tribunal I can only say that it was political theatre. It consisted of fantastic show trials staged for the sole purpose of depicting the German nation and its leaders as inhuman monsters. Its aim and purpose was to slander our defeated nation, which was completely unable to defend itself.
 
Q: What is your basis for this allegation?

A: What can you say about a self-appointed "court" that prosecutes only the crimes of the vanquished while ignoring those of the victors? What can you say about such a "court," in which the victors are simultaneously accusants, prosecutors and judges and impose unique new criminal laws ex post facto merely in order to convict? Even US President Kennedy called the Nuremberg trials "disgusting." In his words, they "violated the American Constitution in order to punish a defeated enemy."
 
Q: Even if, as you allege, the "crimes against humanity" for which German leaders were convicted in Nuremberg had not previously existed as such, but were first so designated by the International Tribunal, must it not be said that the charges were based on horrible crimes?

A: Consider that at Nuremberg the Germans were prosecuted for the Katyn massacre. Then in 1990 Russian President Gorbachev admitted that these same prosecutors had ordered the murders of twenty thousand Polish officers in Katyn Forest. In 1992 President Yeltsin published the original document ordering the executions, which was signed by Stalin. The Germans were even accused of having made soap from Jewish corpses. Bars of "Jew Soap" were exhibited in museums in Israel, the US and other countries. It was not until 1990 that a professor at the University of Jerusalem finally admitted that "Jew Soap" was a hoax.
 
Q: Yes but the concentration camps were not inventions of the Nuremberg Tribunal, were they?

A: In those terrible war years there was natural expediency in interning civilian populations that were considered a threat to national security. Every country did that. In the United States, persons of Asian descent were interned whose ancestors had immigrated generations before. Germany also interned civilian populations that it considered a threat.

Q: But in American concentration camps there were no gas chambers, were there?

A: As I have said, a great many bogus charges were manufactured for propaganda purposes. As for homicidal gas chambers in German camps, we are still waiting for proof of such allegations. The internees of course had to work. Many of them worked outside the camps during the day and returned in the evening. The severe manpower shortage during the War is incompatible with allegations of internees standing in line to be murdered in gas chambers. The danger of using a gas chamber extends beyond its immediate vicinity and would have been hazardous for everyone in camp, including the guards. It is an absurd idea that millions of people could have been sent to their deaths in this way, at the same place where large numbers were living and working. As a practical matter it is impossible.
 
Q: When did you first hear of a plan to exterminate Jews in gas chambers?

A: I was a prisoner in an English camp along with Walter Rauff when I first heard of such a thing. We were both amazed. We could not believe such a terrible story: homicidal gas chambers to murder men, women and children!
I discussed the matter with Col. Rauff and other prisoners for days on end.
We all belonged to the SS and were all Party members, serving in various capacities but nobody had ever heard of such a thing. Just imagine: Many years later I learned that Rauff, who shared many a hard loaf with me in prison, had been accused of inventing mysterious "mobile gas vans." No one who knew Walter Rauff could have come up with such an idea.
 
Q: What about the eyewitnesses to the existence of gas chambers?

A: No homicidal gas chambers were ever found except for one at Dachau, which the Americans built after the War. Judicial or historical evidence simply does not exist. The statements and confessions of camp commandants, the best known of which is Rudolf Hoess of Auschwitz, would be unacceptable in any real court of law. His admissions were wildly self-contradictory. He was severely tortured at Nuremberg, then gagged and hanged at the insistence of the Russians. In the absence of evidence, confessions of defendants and statements of witnesses were vitally important for the prosecutors. Reliance on coercion in cases where the defendants or witnesses refused to confess or testify was inevitable, and it included threats against family members. From my own experiences as a prisoner of war, as well as those of friends, I am familiar with the methods used to force confessions from German prisoners, who often did not understand English and could not read what they signed. The treatment of German prisoners in the Russian camps is now widely known: the prisoners were simply forced to sign whatever was placed before them.
 
Q: Do you consider the millions of deaths in concentration camps nothing but an invention of the victors?

A: I was personally familiar with the German camps. The last time I visited a camp was Mauthausen in May of 1944 in order to interrogate the son of Badoglio. I spent two entire days there and observed the huge kitchens in operation to feed the inmates. Mauthausen even had bordellos - it had everything except gas chambers! Unfortunately a great many people died in those camps at the end of the War but it was not because they were murdered. Harsh conditions, starvation and lack of care at the end of the War caused their doom. Civilian tragedies were not restricted to concentration camp inmates, however. They were the order of the day throughout Germany primarily because of the Allied carpet bombings of cities.
 
Q: Do you trivialize the tragedy of the Jews during the Holocaust?

A: There is little to trivialize. Tragedy is tragedy. We should be concerned with historical reality rather than "trivialization." It obviously was in the interest of the victorious powers to avoid being held responsible for the atrocities they committed. They totally destroyed entire cities in Germany in which not there was not a single German soldier in order to kill as many women, children and elderly as possible. Their intention was to break our will to fight. This was the fate of Dresden, Hamburg, Lübek, Berlin and many other cities. Our enemies exploited the advantage of their heavy bombers to target civilians in their homicidal frenzy. The same fate befell the population of Tokyo and then, with the atomic bomb, Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Because of these unsurpassed atrocities against civilian populations, it was necessary for the victors to invent bizarre stories of atrocities that they alleged were committed by Germany. They depicted Germans as satanic creatures in horror stories that Hollywood made into horror movies. Little has changed in the propaganda of the global power elite since World War II: they still see themselves as "exporting democracy" with "peace missions" against "scum." In the process they manufacture images of their targets as "terrorists" bent on committing ever more monstrous atrocities. In actuality they attack everyone who does not submit to their wishes, primarily with their air forces. They delight in mowing down masses of civilians and soldiers who lack the means to defend themselves. In the course of "exporting democracy" to one country after another it happens that their "humanitarian interventions" result in the establishment of puppet governments that serve their economic and political interests.

Q: How do you explain unambiguous evidence of atrocities such as photographs and films of concentration camps?

A: These films are in fact more evidence of falsification. Almost all of the pictures of "German death camps" are of Bergen Belsen. That was a camp that various agencies created by bringing inmates who were unable to work from all the other camps. There was a huge convalescent facility there, which tells us a great deal about the intentions of the Germans. It would be very odd to construct such facilities for prisoners who were going to be gassed. By 1945 the Allied bombing raids had left the camp without food, water, medicines and other supplies to combat raging epidemics of typhus and dysentery, which killed many thousands of inmates. The horrific movie of the camp was made in April 1945 after Bergen-Belsen had been devastated by the epidemics. The movie was made specifically for propaganda purposes by Alfred Hitchcock, the masterful English producer of horror films. The cynicism and total absence of human feeling in the movie are indeed horrifying. For many years Hitchcock's movie has been broadcast on TV accompanied by somber background music. It unscrupulously deceives the public by linking terrible scenes with gas chambers that did not exist. Pure falsification!
 
Q: So, in your opinion, the reason for this deception was to cover or trivialize the atrocities of the victors?

A: Yes, this was true even at the beginning. General MacArthur followed the Nuremberg scenario with the Tokyo Trials in Japan. In that case the victors again thought up novel crimes and atrocities that ended with the death of the accused by hanging in order to criminalize the Japanese, who had already suffered atomic weapons of mass destruction. The Allies even accused the Japanese of cannibalism!
 
Q: Why do you say it was "at the beginning" that the victorious powers used deceptions to cover their own atrocities?

A: Because after that, the Zionist state of Israel began using the "Holocaust" story for its own benefit. It profited in two ways. The first way is explained very well by Prof. Norman Finkelstein, the son of Jews who were interned at Auschwitz. In his book "The Holocaust Industry" he explains how "Shoa Business" brought many billions of dollars in damages and reparations to Israel and Zionist organizations. He refers to this as "regular organized extortion." The second way Israel benefits from "Holocaust" is explained by Sergio Romano, who no one considers a revisionist. Following the war in Lebanon, Israel realized that exaggerating and accentuating the dramatic elements in "Holocaust" literature gives it advantages in its territorial disputes with Arab countries. This gives Israel a kind of diplomatic immunity.
 
 Q: All over the world people refer to the Holocaust as "extermination." Do you deny or have doubts about that?

A: The propaganda of the global power elite is indeed overwhelming. A historical subculture is manipulating the world's conscience by playing on our human emotions. The younger generations in particular are being brainwashed in school, besieged with gruesome stories that suppress their ability to think critically or form individual opinions. As I stated earlier, the world has been waiting for 70 years for evidence of the atrocities for which we Germans are blamed. The historians have not found a single document supporting the existence of homicidal gas chambers. Not a single written order, instruction, report by a government agency or communication by personnel. There is absolutely nothing. In the total absence of documentation the judges at Nuremberg pointedly assumed that the German program for a "permanent solution to the Jewish problem," which provided for the deportation of to Madagascar or other locations in the East, was a secret code word for "extermination." How absurd! In 1941, while the War was fully under way and we were still winning in Africa as well as Russia, the Jews were encouraged to leave Germany voluntarily and then they were more strongly encouraged to leave. Only after the War had been underway for more than two years did Germany introduce measures to limit their freedom.

Q: If evidence such as you mention - that is, a document signed by Hitler or someone else in the hierarchy - were found, what would be your reaction?

A: In that case I would propose a rigorous investigation of the crimes indicated. Any use of force against groups that does not take individual responsibility into consideration is unacceptable and should be condemned, absolutely and without exception. Extermination is what happened to the Indians in America, the Kulaks in Russia, the Italian Foibe victims in Istria and the Armenians in Turkey. It is what happened to German prisoners in the American death camps in Germany and France as well as in the Russian camps. Some died on orders of General Eisenhower, others on orders of Stalin. Both Eisenhower and Stalin deliberately ignored the Geneva Convention in ordering those atrocities. All crimes against humanity must be unambiguously condemned, and this includes persecutions of the Jews. I mean real persecutions, not false and hate-filled allegations invented for propaganda purposes.
 
Q: Do you admit the possibility that evidence of exterminations by Germans at the end of the War might have eluded historians and could some day come to light?

A: I just stated that certain crimes must be condemned unconditionally. In the extremely unlikely event that we should one day find real evidence of the use of homicidal gas chambers in German concentration camps, then the imperative for prosecution of whoever planned and carried out such crimes would be unequivocal. In my long life I have learned that surprises never end but in the case of homicidal gas chambers I feel absolutely safe in my conclusion. For almost seventy years the German documents confiscated by the victorious powers have been minutely examined by hundreds of professional historians, thus it is extremely unlikely that they will find any such evidence in future. It is unlikely for another reason as well: even while the War was still under way, Germany's enemies had begun spreading rumors about mass murders in our concentration camps. I am referring to the Allied declaration of December 1942 in which they speak of "barbarous atrocities" against Jews in Germany and demand punishment of those responsible. By the end of 1943 they were not only continuing their usual propaganda, they were manufacturing falsified evidence of atrocities. The first news I had of this came from my comrade Major Paul Reinicke, who served as chief of the escort of Reichsmarschall Göring, the number two man in our government. When I last saw him he informed me of Allied plans for systematic falsifications. Göring was furious because he considered the falsifications scurrilous and outrageous. Before he committed suicide he denounced the falsifications in the strongest terms before the Nuremberg Tribunal. I later received additional information about Allied falsifications of evidence from Chief of Police Ernst Kaltenbrunner, who succeeded Heydrich after his death. Kaltenbrunner too was sent to the gallows following the show trials. I visited him shortly before the end of the War in order to report on the evidence pertaining to the treachery of King Vittorio Emanuel. Kaltenbrunner informed me that the enemy propaganda agencies were busily manufacturing falsified evidence of atrocities and gruesome concentration camp stories about German brutality. He said the enemy propaganda ministries had reached agreement on details of a unique procedure for dealing with the losing side. Most significant of all I met General Kaltenbrunner's close colleague, Gestapo Chief Heinrich Mueller, in August 1944. I was admitted to officer school on his recommendation, so I was greatly indebted to him, and he liked me as well. He was sent to Rome in order to assist in a personal problem of my commander, Colonel Herbert Kappler. At that time the American Fifth Army succeeded in breaking through at Cassino while the Russians were entering Germany. The War had already been lost.
Mueller invited me to his hotel where, on the basis of mutual confidence, I ventured to question him on further details of the Allied plans for postwar Moscow type show trials. Mueller informed me that through our espionage we had received explicit indications that, in expectation of victory, the enemy was manufacturing evidence of German atrocities in order to stage spectacular trials. The purpose of these trials would be to criminalize Germany. He knew many exact details and was seriously concerned. He said our enemies could not be trusted to conform to international norms because they were completely unscrupulous and had no concept of honor whatsoever. I was still rather young and did not give his words the credence they deserved, but everything turned out exactly as Gen. Mueller had said. He knew the names of the enemy propagandists who, as we know today, concocted the stories about exterminating Jews in gas chambers. I would consider all this to be ridiculous and laugh at it if the results had not been so tragic. When the Americans invaded Iraq in 2003 under the pretext that Sadam Hussein possessed "weapons of mass destruction" and Secretary of State Colin Powell delivered his brazenly false oath to the U.N. Security Council, I said to myself, "There is nothing new under the sun!" The imperialists, the only ones who have used such weapons in war, are accusing small countries of having them.
 
Q: Are you aware that several laws in Germany, Austria, France, and Switzerland impose prison sentences on those who deny the Holocaust?

A: Yes. The global power elite has demanded such laws and soon Italy will pass them as well. The object of such laws is to make people believe that those who oppose Zionism and Israeli colonialism in Palestine are anti Semitic. Anyone who dares to criticize Zionism is called an anti Semite. Anyone who dares to ask for evidence of the existence of gas chambers is automatically persecuted as an advocate of exterminating Jews. It is devilish manipulation, but these laws expose the global elite's fears that the truth is coming to the surface. The elite is terrified that despite its vast propaganda campaigns, historians will demand evidence and scientists will expose falsifications. The very existence of these draconian laws opens the eyes of those who still believe in freedom of speech and the indispensability of independent research. Of course I am aware that I can be prosecuted for what I have just said. My situation would become even more difficult, but I must say these things because they are true. For me, courage to be truthful is duty to my Volk. It is an expression of gratitude for the hundred years of life that was granted me. It is my contribution to the dignity of my Volk.
 
Signed: E. Priebke
"From the vantage of my hundred years of life!"

UPDATE 10-24 sent by James Damon:  Following is a left-out portion of Dr. Paolo Giachini's interview with Erich Priebke concerning the events of 1944 in Rome.

On 23 March of that year [1944] the Italian Communist assassin GAP attacked a company of German police from South Tyrol in order to provoke retaliatory actions on the part of the Germans.

33 German policemen died immediately; ultimately the total number of deaths was 42 Germans and 10 Italians, including an 11-year-old child. [52 in all! -cy]

Through Kesselring, Hitler gave orders to Priebke's superior Herbert Kappler, commander of security services in Rome, that 10 Italians must be shot for every murdered German, as allowed by international law to deal with unlawful insurrection. This order was carried out in the Ardeatine Caves on 24 March 1944. Five persons too many were shot by mistake so that a total of 335 Italians were shot in retaliation for the 42 Germans killed. [But 42x10 is 420, so it was not 5 too many -cy] For Erich Priebke and his comrades, carrying out these shootings was a horrible experience. They would have preferred to not carry out these retaliatory measures. However this was an order from Adolf Hitler, the commander-in-chief of the German Army, and no member of the German military could refuse such an order.

From Robert Faurisson's Blog, Thursday, Oct. 17, 2013:

Captain Erich Priebke was in Rome in 1944 when thirty of his comrades in arms were cowardly murdered, blown up by a bomb planted in via Rasella by Communist-led partisans. Another hundred of his comrades in arms were wounded by the same bomb, a large number of them permanently blinded. He was especially disturbed on learning that an eleven-year-old Italian boy had also been killed, his body cut in two by the blast. So, just a minute: what man, what woman, in such circumstances, could keep a cool head? One may add that Priebke was among those who received the order from Berlin, transmitted by his superiors, to execute the following day, in reprisal, approximately ten men for each victim. Read complete blogpost.

*********************

The translator is a Germanophilic Germanist who makes the writings of German dissidents available to those who do not read German.

From left: Sylvia Stolz, Horst Mahler, Michael Friedman, Vanity Fair editor

The following was excerpted from Part 9 of Horst Mahler's interview by Jew Michael Friedman for the German Vanity Fair magazine in 2007. It is translated from the German by shoabloger.

The participants: HM - Horst Mahler; MF - Michael Friedman; VF - Vanity Fair; SS - Sylvia Stolz

When did Mahler change from Red to National-Socialist?

H.M. Lenin was a great historical figure. He believed he was making a revolution, but it was something else that he has done. But that is always the lot of great figures.

M.F. But in the years when you were in the SPD, the SPD has indeed, already in the 50s and 60s, understood itself as the counter-response against Hitler. It has even been said “We Social Democrats have gone to the concentration camps because of Hitler.” What kind of consciousness did you actually have at that time? Or were you still a victim of Jewish propaganda and your guilt?

H.M. I have said it very clearly in my conversation with Baum, which was then published as a book: I believed these propaganda lies against the German Reich; Hitler was for me a poisonous thorn in the flesh of the German people, and we wanted to get rid of it.

M.F. When you have realized that … I have … I am sorry, that occurred to me only now, I have not asked you about it before. When have you understood and was the key event that made you feel that everything is propaganda and you have been burdened with guilt as a German? When have you gone from A to B? What was it, and when was it exactly? What was the key moment?

H.M. There were two. First, on the occasion of my speech on the 70th birthday of Rohrmoser. At that time I still believed in the so-called Holocaust and said: “And if it, as some think, has not happened, it would have to be invented to bring the intellectual, historical dispute to the high level, where it belongs.” Then Frank Rennicke [German singer-songwriter who calls himself a "national bard" -cy] came up to me, when I had agreed to defend the NPD, to ask me to defend him against the charge of having denied the Holocaust. Then I said: “Yes, I’ll do it.” And I defended him. This was the first indictment which was brought against me because I had made ​​applications for evidence in the process.

M.F. When was it?

H.M. 2002 or so. The case is years old, and is still not decided. And then I had to take a look at the facts of the so-called …

M.F. So in 2002 you had to break from the old to the new consciousness …

H.M. Yes. After this I no longer believed in it, after having dealt with the evidence which the so called revisionists gathered. I realized that this was a huge propaganda lie. After this I was free. I have found out that it was done according to the same blueprint which was used in Russia after the pogrom in Kishinev in 1903. Solzhenitsyn has described it meticulously.

M.F. But you were active in the NPD and with the Nazis already in the late 1990s.

H.M. There you’re wrong.

M.F. Really? You became a member of the NPD in 2000.

H.M. It was after the petition to ban the party was made.

M.F. Good, but you’ve just said it was in 2002.

H.M. But you have just said something about the 90′s which I can’t recognize.

M.F. Yes, yes. You demonstrated with extreme right against foreigners and double citizenship. With right-wing extremists, NPD and the Republicans.

H.M. Yeah, I can’t see any problem at all in this. I had decided to be available for the party as a lawyer, as other more famous lawyers …

M.F. No, no, then you were already on your way politically. I just want to know when was the crucial moment?

H.M. No, no, no. I then decided to represent the party as a lawyer, and I always say, it was then connected with a political commitment. And I then joined the party … and then I have traveled and lectured, met with people and so on.

M.F. And what was the reason you said: “Auschwitz is a lie”?

H.M. That was precisely the experience of the Rennicke process. At that time I first came into contact with the evidence, and then I knew this (Holocaust) cannot be true. And it is not true.

M.F. So there were no crematoria?

H.M. Well, of course, there were crematoria. People have died in a concentration camp in a number that was exceptionally high. And they could not be interred because it was a swampy terrain. That’s all.

M.F. But there was no systematic extermination with gas?

H.M. No.

M.F. Zyklon B, these are all fairy tales?

H.M. No, no, Zyklon B is not an invention; it has been used in all armies of the world before the discovery of DDT for disinfestation of clothing.

M.F. But the Jews were not killed with it?

H.M. No. (laughs) Of course not.

M.F. Of course not.

H.M. And I am far away from seeing the Jews as lice, which could be killed with something like that.

On German Leaders

M.F. Gerhard Schröder? In the most difficult time he got you readmitted to the bar.

H.M. Yeah, well, so what? You are asking me how I judge him?

M.F. Yes.

H.M. He is a man who is very dependent on what people think and say about him. He is guided by the outside influences. And this may conceal his personality core that might perhaps be viewed positively. The problem is his obsession to be liked by the audience, to sell himself well on the TV. In this respect he is no longer free.

M.F. Is he a vassal of world Jewry?

H.M. Yes. He certainly was. Whether he is now, I don’t know.

M.F. What about Angela Merkel? I mean, she comes from the East, she has a completely different socialization, has been in the Federal Republic for 17 years. How do you assess her?

H.M. Anyone who has the position of a Chancellor, I am sure about it, will be instructed by those who have conquered Germany, what aims today’s politics in the Federal Republic has to follow, namely the safeguarding and further enforcement of the war aims. And they will say to him or her: You can choose either you allow the German people – they will not say it directly, but will let it be understood – their gradual dissolution in Europe, then everything is wonderful, the people are doing fine, what more can they want? Or you decide to go the way of the revival of the German Reich, and then we are at war. So they have to decide. And they decide, and in this way they become conscious vassals.

On the German Reich

VF Excuse me, Hr Mahler, this is a spontaneous question, but could it not be the case that most people are no longer interested in the German Reich? Neither those you refer to as vassals, nor those, to whom you refer as foreign masters?

H.M. Let me put it bluntly: Adolf Hitler, as he is represented today, is rejected by most people. Just as the German Reich is rejected by most people. But they reject it because of deception. We live in the age of deception, and that is what is crucial.

VF Maybe it has become irrelevant.

H.M. No, no, not at all, on the contrary. All our freedom depends on it, and our lives will ultimately depend on it. And that is so easy to explain. When you say, this is the devil, the people will believe it, and they say, for God’s sake, go away. And of course, here is the moment when we set in and say: No, it’s a lie.

S.S. The good is never irrelevant. For the Germans, the good is never irrelevant.

M.F. What is the good?

H.M. Liberty, being independent …

S.S. What the German Reich always aspired to.

M.F. What has the German Reich always aspired to?

S.S. The good.

H.M. The breaking of interest slavery, breaking of the Jewish monopoly of opinion, the representation of the Jewish spirit as negation of the German …

M.F. Yes, but those are all negative definitions. I would like to know positively what is the good? What you are describing to me, is the evil in your language. What is the good?

H.M. I assume that you think that you want the good. Only what is good for you is something different.

M.F. No, I’ve got it. But she was about to say it, then you came in with your four points about what you want to break, and those are always the Jews. Okay. I’m simply interested in, what your own positive ideas of good are, apart from your opposition to Judaism. What is it?

S.S. The good can only unfold when we prevent the evil from suppressing it.

M.F. But how do you stop people like me? I live, I breathe, and I will continue to do and say what I want. And the others, the foreigners too. How do you stop me?

S.S. The truth will stop you. When people recognize what you are, you will lose your power.

M.F. I’ve got it.

H.M. You know the German fairy tale of Rumpelstiltskin. When one calls you by your name …

S.S. And everyone knows, Hr Friedman, everyone knows what you are and who you are and what you say.

M.F. Okay. Everyone.

S.S. Hr Friedman, everyone knows it. No matter which side he’s on. Everyone knows it.

M.F. Well, I would never have imagined. Thank you, I would never have imagined that …

S.S. No matter which side he’s on, everyone knows.

M.F. That’s incredible, I mean, I would have never thought. Really?

S.S. So this conversation gave you something, after all.

M.F. Wow! My God, my God …

S.S. It has also given me something, Mr. Friedman, because now I have my doubts that the Jews have so much power. Because, you said, you have …

M.F. Yes? (laughs)

S.S. And you know why, Mr. Friedman? Because you … your visits to teen prostitutes …

M.F. Yes, everybody knows it.

S.S. … would have not be so widely known.

M.F. Hardly anything is more widely known. But you know, at least I have not committed a robbery and murder and commit a robbery, and would never kill people. But I will come back to one question: Who is Ahmadinejad for you?

H.M. He is president of the religious state and republic of Iran.

M.F. I studied history and social sciences too.

H.M. And he is the first statesman of this format to have the courage to say that the Holocaust was a myth and that Israel must disappear from the map.

M.F. You support both?

H.M. Absolutely.

M.F. He also says that Israel will be destroyed with military means, if necessary.

H.M. Did he say it?

M.F. Yes.

H.M. When, where, please?

M.F. He has said it x times. I can’t give you a concrete quote.

H.M. I’ll tell you this: Israel is a predatory entity, not a state. You have grabbed a territory that does not belong to you.

M.F. Not “you”, I am not Israel, I am a German citizen. Just like you.

H.M. I understand.

M.F. Does it hurt you?

H.M. No, Hr Friedman, it’s a mistake.

M.F. Does it hurt you?

H.M. You are not a German citizen, it’s an illusion.

M.F. Oh, so I am not a German citizen?

H.M. No, you are not.

M.F. Why not?

H.M. You were not born in Germany, you are not of German family, not of German blood. You have come to Germany and have here perhaps the pass[port] of the Federal Republic of Germany – and that’s not the German state. The German citizenship can only be granted by the German Reich. Since the 23 …

M.F. So you are not a German citizen either?

H.M. Why, I have been born as a German.

VF Do you have a document that says you are a citizen of German Reich? Do you have (such) a passport?

H.M. I don’t need it.

M.F. But you have not been born in the German Reich either.

H.M. I have a certificate of birth.

M.F. Who knows, what blood you have.

H.M. It’s not about blood.

M.F. Then I don’t know who … Imagine, you have a Jewish grandfather.

H.M. Let me finish the thought. You could not become a German …

M.F. That would be bad, right? That would be bad if you had a Jewish grandfather? Would you be unhappy that there is something negative about you, if it turned out, you had a Jewish grandfather?

S.S. That’s speculation. Why should I …?

H.M. He is speculating about the German Reich. There is no greater speculation than the German Reich.

H.M. The German Reich is real.

S.S. It’s real.

M.F. Would it be a problem if it turned out that your grandfather or your grandmother were Jewish?

H.M. That’s silly. But I cannot feel anything negative about it. What determines my destiny is a fact that I am the son of a certain person who has that and that racial and ethnic characteristics. But I’ve already told you: Whatever I were, I would endeavor to realize what my job is, and act accordingly. And that is different in each case. As a Jew, I would have another calling than as a German.

M.F. It means that it’s unthinkable that there is a German Jew?

H.M. There are Jews who have German citizenship, gained under the Reich.

M.F. Those you have killed, OK.

H.M. Wait a minute. Who are the many Jews who have come and filed reparation claims for the land which they had before?

M.F. They are not many. You have not killed all, right. One more question …

H.M. I emphatically deny …

M.F. … is there a German Jew?

H.M. … that what you insinuate here: The German Reich, did not systematically murder the Jews in that sense. Some Jews have been killed. Some were executed.

M.F. It’s enough.

H.M. Yes? OK.

M.F. How do you say goodbye? The way you do when you get in? Or what is the proper farewell? I mean, the entrance greeting I have noticed. How does a representative of the German Reich do it?

H.M. Have a good life.

M.F. Aha. In the past they screamed “Heil Hitler” all the time, right?

H.M. I don’t know.

M.F. Thank you.

H.M. Yes.

FINIS

I thought this edited interview of Adolf Hitler by George Sylvester Viereck that took place in 1923 was so wonderful to read that I wanted to post it along with the two previous articles. The interview appears here as it was republished in Liberty magazine in July 1932.

I have added my comments in red and also the boldface. -Carolyn

By George Sylvester Viereck

"WHEN I TAKE CHARGE OF GERMANY, I shall end tribute abroad and Bolshevism at home."

Adolf Hitler drained his cup as if it contained not tea, but the lifeblood of Bolshevism.

"Bolshevism," the chief of the Brown Shirts, the Fascists of Germany, continued, gazing at me balefully, "is our greatest menace. Kill Bolshevism in Germany and you restore 70 million people to power. France owes her strength not to her armies but to the forces of Bolshevism and dissension in our midst. 

"The Treaty of Versailles and the Treaty of St Germain are kept alive by Bolshevism in Germany. The Peace Treaty and Bolshevism are two heads of one monster. We must decapitate both."

When Adolf Hitler announced this programme, the advent of the Third Empire [Reich] which he proclaims seemed still at the end of the rainbow. Then came election after election. Each time the power of Hitler grew. While unable to dislodge Hindenburg from the presidency, Hitler today heads the largest party in Germany. Unless Hindenburg assumes dictatorial measures, or some unexpected development completely upsets all present calculations, Hitler's party will organise the Reichstag and dominate the government. Hitler's fight was not against Hindenburg but against Chancellor Bruening. It is doubtful if Bruening's successor can sustain himself without the support of the National Socialists.

Many who voted for Hindenburg were at heart with Hitler, but some deep-rooted sense of loyalty impelled them nevertheless to cast their vote for the old field marshal. Unless overnight a new leader arises, there is no one in Germany, with the exception of Hindenburg, who could defeat Hitler - and Hindenburg is 85! Time and the recalcitrance of the French fight for Hitler, unless some blunder on his own part, or dissension within the ranks of the party, deprives him of his opportunity to play the part of Germany's Mussolini.

The first German Empire came to an end when Napoleon forced the Austrian emperor to surrender his imperial crown. The second empire came to an end when William II, on the advice of Hindenburg, sought refuge in Holland. The third empire is emerging slowly but surely, although it may dispense with sceptres and crowns.

I met Hitler not in his headquarters, the Brown House in Munich, but in a private home - the dwelling of a former admiral of the German Navy. We discussed the fate of Germany over teacups.

"Why," I asked Hitler, "do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?"

"Socialism," he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, "is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.

"Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.

"We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one." [Meaning the state belongs to the people/volk, the state works for the people, it does not rule over them in the sense of being subjects]

Hitler himself is not a purely Germanic type. His dark hair betrays some alpine ancestor. For years he refused to be photographed. That was part of his strategy - to be known only to his friends so that, in the hour of crisis, he could appear here, there, and everywhere without detection. Today he could no longer pass unrecognised through the obscurest hamlet in Germany. His appearance contrasts strangely with the aggressiveness of his opinions. No milder mannered reformer ever scuttled ship of state or cut political throat.

"What," I continued my cross-examination, "are the fundamental planks of your platform?"

"We believe in a healthy mind in a healthy body. The body politic must be sound if the soul is to be healthy. Moral and physical health are synonymous." "Mussolini," I interjected, "said the same to me." Hitler beamed. (This is controversial, but it is very German to value physical fitness, outdoor activity, hiking, biking and all sports very highly. Germans had no argument with that statement; Jews and some Catholics did.)

"The slums," he added, "are responsible for nine-tenths, alcohol for one-tenth, of all human depravity. No healthy man is a Marxian. Healthy men recognise the value of personality. We contend against the forces of disaster and degeneration. Bavaria is comparatively healthy because it is not completely industrialised. However, all Germany, including Bavaria, is condemned to intensive industrialism by the smallness of our territory. If we wish to save Germany we must see to it that our farmers remain faithful to the land. To do so, they must have room to breathe and room to work." [It was not even as small then as it is now! That's why the German birthrate is so low – there is not enough room for German-blooded people as non-German foreigners are forced into the territory by the Globalists.]

Viereck: "Where will you find the room to work?"

"We must retain our colonies and we must expand eastward. There was a time when we could have shared world dominion with England. Now we can stretch our cramped limbs only toward the east. The Baltic is necessarily a German lake."

"Is it not," I asked, "possible for Germany to reconquer the world economically without extending her territory?"

Hitler shook his head earnestly.

"Economic imperialism, like military imperialism, depends upon power. There can be no world trade on a large scale without world power. Our people have not learned to think in terms of world power and world trade. However, Germany cannot extend commercially or territorially until she regains what she has lost and until she finds herself. [This type of talk was noted by certain British, and reinforced their determination to destroy Germany altogether, so as not to face the commercial and military competition. The Wilson and Roosevelt administrations joined them in this determination on economic grounds, not because of “freedom” and “democracy” as the slogans proclaimed.]

"We are in the position of a man whose house has been burned down. He must have a roof over his head before he can indulge in more ambitious plans. We had succeeded in creating an emergency shelter that keeps out the rain. We were not prepared for hailstones. However, misfortunes hailed down upon us. Germany has been living in a veritable blizzard of national, moral, and economic catastrophes. (The Versailles 'Peace' Treaty -cy)

"Our demoralised party system is a symptom of our disaster. Parliamentary majorities fluctuate with the mood of the moment. Parliamentary government unbars the gate to Bolshevism."

Viereck: "Unlike some German militarists, you do not favour an alliance with Soviet Russia?"

Hitler evaded a direct reply to this question. He evaded it again recently [1932] when Liberty [magazine] asked him to reply to Trotsky's statement that his assumption of power in Germany would involve a life-and-death struggle between Europe, led by Germany, and Soviet Russia.

"It may not suit Hitler to attack Bolshevism in Russia. He may even look upon an alliance with Bolshevism as his last card, if he is in danger of losing the game. If, he [Hitler] intimated on one occasion, capitalism refuses to recognise that the National Socialists are the last bulwark of private property, if capital impedes their struggle, Germany may be compelled to throw herself into the enticing arms of the siren Soviet Russia. But he is determined not to permit Bolshevism to take root in Germany."

He responded warily in the past to the advances of Chancellor Bruening and others who wished to form a united political front. It is unlikely that now, in view of the steady increase in the vote of the National Socialists, Hitler will be in the mood to compromise on any essential principle with other parties.

"The political combinations upon which a united front depend," Hitler remarked to me, "are too unstable. They render almost impossible a clearly defined policy. I see everywhere the zigzag course of compromise and concession. Our constructive forces are checked by the tyranny of numbers. We make the mistake of applying arithmetic and the mechanics of the economic world to the living state. We are threatened by ever increasing numbers and ever diminishing ideals. Mere numbers are unimportant."

"But suppose France retaliates against you by once more invading your soil? She invaded the Ruhr once before. She may invade it again."

"It does not matter," Hitler, thoroughly aroused, retorted, "how many square miles the enemy may occupy if the national spirit is aroused. Ten million free Germans, ready to perish so that their country may live, are more potent than 50 million whose will power is paralysed and whose race consciousness is infected by aliens.

"We want a greater Germany uniting all German tribes. But our salvation can start in the smallest corner. Even if we had only 10 acres of land and were determined to defend them with our lives, the 10 acres would become the focus of regeneration. Our workers have two souls: one is German, the other is Marxian. We must arouse the German soul. We must uproot the canker of Marxism. Marxism and Germanism are antitheses. [Notice he is always speaking of 'Germans' and 'Germanism'. But our enemies change it to 'Nazism.' This is a very important part of “The Big Lie.” Hitler was easily within the bounds of the German traditions.]

"In my scheme of the German state, there will be no room for the alien, no use for the wastrel, for the usurer or speculator, or anyone incapable of productive work." [Germany at this time had an inordinate amount of foreign Jews taking advantage of its destroyed Reichsmark, plus disabled, diseased and defective individuals that were draining the resources of the struggling nation. Hitler actually looked to how the USA was handling their own problem with the latter.]

The cords on Hitler's forehead stood out threateningly. His voice filled the room. There was a noise at the door. His followers, who always remain within call, like a bodyguard, reminded the leader of his duty to address a meeting.

Hitler gulped down his tea and rose.

---

Another bonus: Excerpts from Viereck's magazines, must be read on site. http://americainclass.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/viereck-writings1.pdf

I found another one! Viereck's editorials from The Fatherland magazine: http://americainclass.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/viereck2.pdf

Zuerst magazine interviews Werner Bräuninger

December 2011

 Translated by Wilhelm Kriessmann

Biography of Werner Bräuninger

 Werner Bräuninger, born 1965, was a freelancing publicist and essayist. His book Odeonsplatz: The Rise of an Unknown (Universiras 2011) describing Hitler's life from 1890 to 1935 caused a sensation.  His book, Hitlers Adversaries in the NSDAP (Herbig 2004), about the imminent opposition in the National Socialist state, as well as his work about the spiritual roots of Count Claus von Stauffenberg within the circle around the poet Stefan George, were controversially discussed.

Bräuninger’s publications have drawn attention from the FAZ, Die Welt and the renowned Zeitschrift fuer Geschichtswissenschaft (Science of History magazine). His website is www.marmorklippen.de

* * *

Feldherrnhalle on Odeonsplatz, Munich

 

Zuerst:  Mr. Bräuninger, your new book Odeonsplatz might cause a small revolution in the German book market—a book about Hitler which has neither his name in the title nor his picture. Does it not really mean “Hitler sells?”

B:  It is, as you say, obviously a revolution because we do not live in normal times. From Norbert Knopp, we naturally could have expected a title like “Hitler`s German Shepherd Dogs.” My intention was a quite different one. 

 Z:  Which?

 B:  That interchangeable relationship between the symbol-heavy architecture of the Odeonsplatz and the Feldherrnhalle in Munich, which in Hitler’s life had a rather symbolic significance, and his comet-like rise to a world-historic personality. Adolf Hitler’s rise until 1935 I quasi-built around this strange relationship. Hardly anyone understood that my book is an extended essay—otherwise I would have titled it scientifically, “Hitler, a biography”…..

 Z:  Why does your book end in 1935?

 B:  Odeonsplatz was to a certain extent the overture, with Feldherrnhalle the crescendo.

 Z:  There are many published books on the Internet that have already reported a lot about Hitler’s roots and his youth, many legends. Why is that?

B:  The major problem is that for quite awhile in typical Guttenberg manner (referring to Guttenberg’s plagarism), one (writer) copied the other and thus all the errors and mistakes were carried on. The courage of an individual analysis and judgment is missing. Joachim Fest was at least an outstanding stylist—what followed him? At best, the painstaking work of the British historian Ian Kershaw. Since then no serious, cohesive work about Hitler has been published. There certainly exist in the meantime good, detailed treatises about different questions on the theme of Nationalsozialismus, but political correctness seems to be the point of order there. For such mentalities, the personality and character of Hitler will always be unreachable; Hitler’s characterological study is more important than to know of the ideas which resulted from his character.

Z:  Several interpretations exist to explain how the inmate of the Viennese homeless shelter could become Germany’s strongest man.

B:  … and unfortunately as many stupid answers. The blasé attitude of several historians and their un-historic, self-constructed dogmas and doctrines just could not accept that a young man without a name, without a school graduation, without a profession, protectionism, and means, just by self-thought or by a sheer boundless Wille Zur Macht accomplished it. Hitler is therefore for many either a tool of Wall Street or a willing instrument of Big Industry. “In spite of his 24 years, he intellectually outdid us all,” admitted a member of the Viennese men’s home long before Hitler’s seizure of power. Vienna was the school for his life. The image of the Canaille Mensch nearly turned him more than once into a misanthrope. With this experience he later was ahead of nearly all his political competitors. The homeless shelter and the men’s home, the sorrow and need he knew there, the deep abyss for the common man he saw there. Nothing was strange for him after that, the hard elbow tactics, the merciless advantage-taking, cheating and treason, often criminal energy, the herd instinct, but also sometimes an unexpected solidarity of the declassed. (It became) an invaluable advantage. No Gustav von Kahr, no Alfred Hugenberg and no Franz von Papen—but also no Edouard Daladier, Winston Churchill or Franklin D. Roosevelt, and not at all a Carl Goerdeler or Erwin, conspirators of 20th July 1944—knew the soul of their people as well as Hitler did.

Z:  In the last months, Hitler’s role in WWI has been very much the topic of historians. The German historian Thomas Weber describes in his book Hitler’s First War that Hitler was a “coward.” Can one maintain such a thesis?

B:  A “coward” who on August 2, 1914 sings the German hymn with great enthusiasm in front of the Feldherrnhalle? Who, as an Austrian citizen voluntarily joins the German army the next day? Who immediately fought at the West front, volunteered for the very dangerous messenger runs, relieving married men. Fighting in 87 battles—Wytschaete, Becelaere, the Yser and at Ypern, Arras and the Somme, the many close-range skirmishes in Flanders, received the EK I (Iron Cross First Class) and the black “purple heart” with swords. All this is spotlessly documented in Hitler’s military papers. Cowards I define differently.

Z:  If the facts are so obvious, why does Weber then write such a book?

B:  For people of his couleur, the dead Fuehrer serves as a welcome occasion to “scientifically” work off one’s own neuroses and deficiencies. One can accept it rather calmly when one reads the thank you notes  at Weber`s book; he recruits his supporting troops from the Wall Street Journal to the Provincial Archive of the Bavarian Capuchin. History will bypass him as it will the absurd theories of Professor Lothar Machtan, who wanted to make Hitler into a latent homosexual, or those questionable theories by Daniel Goldhagen. They have all so justly disappeared in that orbit.

Z:  Why did the Munich Odeonsplatz have this important value in Hitler’s life?

 Close up of Feldherrnhalle Lions

B:  My treatise describes Hitler’s strong tie with that beautiful area between the Theatiner Church and the Hofgarten in the heart of Munich. He stood there already as a young art student with his easel. Here is where he heard the announcement of the 1914 mobilization, and where his 1923 putsch collapsed. Lastly, here occurred the “Rise of The Unknown,” the subtitle of my book. As the new head of the German government, he could, after a truly triumphal drive through Munich in March 1933, for the first time commemorate, during a big demonstration in front of the Feldherrnhalle, the deaths from the collapsed revolt and the victory of his party, and at the same time pronounce the beginning of a new turning point. It seems as if this location was for Hitler a center of strength, drawing new inspirations to him again and again. Regularly he was exposed at this place to death and triumph, bliss, intoxicating life-will and the transitory deeds of mankind. In 1937, he here honored the deceased General Ludendorff and bid farewell to the eight innocent victims of Georg Elsner’s assassination attempt at the Buergerbrau Keller. Amidst Goebbels’ “Total War,” leaflets of the anti-regime underground group “White Rose” were posted at the Feldherrnhalle, the Holy Grail of the NSDAP; here also the mourning  column for the dead Gauleiter Wagner marched by; and finally the 7th US army took possession, April 30th 1945, exactly at the same hour that Hitler took his life in the bunker in Berlin. A mystification, too.

Z:  Down to a basic question: Who was Adolf Hitler?

B:  Well, I too can hardly give you a definite answer. In our traditional history, we do not know of a similar personality. Somehow, totally different from his contemporaries, like a stranded meteor in the cosmos, he was a synthesis of a sensitive artist with an extremely radical politician—inspired and driven by a power of the will without example. At the same time, he was by his own right an uncommon modernizer, social reformer and futurist; otherwise, also the personified anachronism whose world fantasies were partly in the 19th century, already gone by. Hitler was as Nietzsche said on one occasion: “…from the day before and the day after.” I remember standing at the Odeonsplatz after I finished the two books asking myself if I came close to the man with whom I was for decades so closely involved, with his thinking, his doing, his feelings, his deeds and misdeeds.

Z:  And did you?

B:  Very difficult to answer because even if at first I wanted to believe that I had, yet I suspected that he became even more unknown to me than before. “An eternal riddle I will remain, for me and the others” the Bavarian ‘fairy tale’ King Ludwig II once wrote as a self-characterization. It seems that with Adolf Hitler we face a similar situation. A mystery remains 65 years after his death. And a question which the friend of his youth, August Kubizek, who shared for a few months a very shabby room in Vienna with the late Chancellor, asked early on—namely: “What did God want to do with this  human being?”

Z:  In the “personal epilogue” of your book, you write that you did not want to do either an “un-reflected apology or glorification” or a “total condemnation” of the phenomenal Hitler. What is the status in the Bundes Republik of Germany today for a historiography that is objective and totally based on documented facts?

B:  Rarely does it happen in history that a man like Adolf Hitler, convinced to have been chosen by destiny, faces at the end of his life the ruins of all that which he wanted to  build. 1945 ended his dream of the Third Reich. This is the verdict in nearly all the publications about him. There are a few treatises which, on the other hand, argue for his canonization. Both aspects do not do any justice to an objective and historically valued examination of the leader of the National Socialists. As so often, my work occupies a position between left and right; I am used to it. For the “hard-core right” I am suspect because I do not gloss over  the crimes committed during the NS regime and see, for instance, Stauffenberg as a man who wanted to save his Reich, however questionable his means might have been. For the conservatives of the old school my writing is not reactionary enough and for the established Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung editorial page, I am anyway a persona non grata.

Z:  In the last years above all, an increasing “Hitler Mania” takes place on the German TV…

B:  I am surprised to see how the standard of the TV documentaries sinks deeper and deeper, how facts are twisted, historical developments and events are stupidly treated with platitudes and often falsified on purpose. Hitler is seen as “the absolute evil.”

These are elements of a medieval inquisition and should be alien to the enlightened 21st century. How about dropping the dogmatic blinders for a change and present to the Germans the so-multi faceted, contradictory personality of the Fuehrer who, in a Faustian sense, was also a human being? Exactly this I have tried to accomplish with my publications. Adolf Hitler will remain the authentic figure and chapter of the past century. Quite a time will pass, however, until one can dare to also look at one’s own history, freely and openly, in Germany.