Interview: AfD's Alexander Gauland accepts that Hitler 'killed six million Jews'—How is never asked

By Carolyn Yeager

I SUPPORT AND APPLAUD THE AfD (Alternative fuer Deutschland party) because it's the only thing that is moving Germany out of it's stuck state of post-war guilt and perennial apology. Since I know it is not possible for a politician to defend Adolf Hitler or question a single element of the Holocaust false narrative in Germany—nor in any Western country, for that matter—without committing political suicide, I don't expect any to do so. Still, someone like Bjorn Höcke manages to criticize indirectly these very sacred cows and party head Alexander Gauland has always defended him and prevented him from being excluded from the party. So overall, Dr. Gauland (born in 1941) is a seasoned politician and positive force; I wish him continued vigor and ability to lead the party.

On the AfD website currently there is the transcript of a long interview with him conducted by Roger Köppel for Weltwoche. I translated it with Google Translate and edited in a few places that I was sure about. I've picked out the parts most interesting to this website and its readers. I know you will enjoy it.

*  *  *

What are the biggest successes, what are the biggest failures of the AfD? The biggest successes are that in October we represent practically in all parliaments, that we have reached stable double digits in the political landscape and that we succeeded in carrying a stable core brand into politics over many skins. The questions, which were not allowed to be discussed any more, are now being discussed, albeit with anger, with hatred, but it is again possible to address fundamental questions that were allegedly solved in Germany for all time. And that's the greatest achievement of the AfD. And the failures: Unfortunately, our leadership changes are always accompanied by losses, trying to exclude people. Frauke Petry had to part with us publicly, as well as [Bernard] Lucke. We are not yet able to conduct a change of leadership in a normal democratic way, but they are always accompanied by ups and downs.

* * *

Let's talk about Björn Höcke, this stimulant, this provocateur from Thuringia, who repeatedly provokes controversy and is denounced in the media as a disguised Nazi. They know and defend him. Höcke is a very smart, educated man with whom you can discuss historical things very well. He has something charismatic about him for many people in the party, but not the majority. That means: He reaches people whom I do not reach.

... you want to reach? If I make speeches, then I have to appeal to the head. I am not one who has a charisma of his own. Höcke has that. And on the other hand, that leads to his having admirers who admire him so much that sometimes that would be too much for me. But that also causes resistance in people who consider him the incarnate divine sovereign. For one ecstasy, for others the devil in human form. Both are foolish and then give an unbalanced picture. If he speaks reasonably, he is a great asset to the party, the big workhorse in the East. He has been holding back a lot lately, so I ratcheted up more. You cannot blame him. That's why, with the support of a lot of people, I have been able to lift the party's exclusion proceedings against him. The board was unanimous in favor.

Recently, Höcke said in a grand speech: "The Germans decide not to be sheep, but to be wolves." This is the usage of a leading article by Nazi propaganda leader Goebbels from 1928, when he spoke of the Germans as "Wolf" which breaks into a "flock of sheep". Can one give political responsibility to a man who uses such words? These are proverbs for his fans, to whom he is seen as an intrepid, reliable fighter. There is nothing more behind it. Höcke uses metaphors and sometimes talks about topics where I too would say: "We would have preferred that now." He is a German romantic. He loves his Germany, hot and heartfelt, is a German, too, which probably has not existed for a long time. Yes, he can be very much in the center [of attention], but is very decent. No one is shot from behind in the chest. You're right with the phrasing.

One accuses you of tolerating it only because it brings votes. Where do you draw the line of endurance? The question actually arises, but the line has never been crossed. What I do not like in our party: that always because of some wrong word, immediately after party exclusion is called for. I am more generous. We recently had a case when Beatrix von Storch mistakenly blamed the Muslims for a knife attack. She apologized and withdrew the comment. [Some in the party said] She should be admonished. And although Frau von Storch is not my girlfriend [a favorite of mine?], I said, "Stop it, we do not want to admonish anyone who apologized on their own." That's what I think about Höcke.

A few weeks ago you made the humps yourself, as you described the twelve years of the Nazi dictatorship as "bird's shit". Six million dead Jews, sixty million dead and a criminal regime that is second to none - all just a nuisance "bird's shit" that you wipe with a wave of your hand? As I read this, I thought, "Which bird has Gauland in his brain? , , " You understand what I mean. I really did not understand that as a trivialization, and I never thought that would be so, because when you read the whole speech, you see that I have not played down anything.

Images in politics are important, they remain hanging. What did you want to express with this speech? I wanted to tell people that there is a great German-Jewish tradition that we have to defend. Especially in this context, the "bird's shit" for me was a term for deep contempt. By no means a trivialization. [...] I thought about it: my father was dismissed by the Nazis in 1933 because he had promoted a Social Democratic official after January 30th. If my father had said "bird's shit" to the Nazis in 1933, he would have been sent to the concentration camp. In 1944 he was interrogated because he personally knew some officers in the context of the Hitler attack. Had he told the Nazis "bird's shit", they would have put him against the wall. And today this word should be an extreme case of de-minimisization? All I can say is, "They do not all have them anymore." When someone told me it was so easy to wipe off a bird's nest, I immediately admitted: "Okay, yes, if you see it that way, it was a mistake."

* * *

There are no right-wing extremists in the party, and I'm certainly not one myself.

Define right-wing extremism. Right-wing extremism means the leader principle, ie rejection of all democratic elections and rejection of our state order and the Basic Law. In all points you can not blame the AfD. Führerprinzip: That's just not possible with us. But there is an attempt to push us into the right-wing extremist corner to silence us.

* * *

Can one actually reconcile the Germans with their history, with themselves?  A reconciliation with the terrible twelve years you do not succeed [in doing]. You can try to explain how it happened. I do not see any approach to reconciliation. Killing six million Jews will not make you scratch your skin [?]. That is so terrible, but of course, the more that historicizes, it may become weaker. But we are constantly faced with the same question: how could anyone in 1933 come to the helm, whom we normally lock up as an absolute felon?

What is your explanation?  That's not so difficult. The defeat in the First World War was never coped with by the German bourgeoisie. They then fled into the Dagger Storm. But it was just a fairy tale, for the alleged stab of the dagger came only after the decision of the Army Command to wave the white flag. It was then a huge mistake - but I do not blame anyone - to introduce the republic, because in the bourgeoisie at that time Germany was still monarchist-minded. The Emperor had gambled away, the Crown Prince too. I could have imagined that under the decent Prince Max of Baden as Reichsverweser the Kaiserenkel could have played a good role. That was missed. Thus, a middle class that could not cope with the defeat encountered a policy that had to do something with what was. I have great respect for the then democratic politicians and statesmen, such as Rathenau and Stresemann, for trying a realistic Bismarckian policy under the law of lost war. Maybe it would have been fine if we had not had an economic crisis. In the economic crisis, Germany was no longer mentally resilient. And of course no one knew in 1933 that Hitler would kill six million Jews. The man was not elected because of his crimes, but because people falsely believed, partly in misery, that if someone else can do something, then maybe he.

[Gauland mentions the 'economic crisis'. It was huge and only Hitler was prepared to take the type of steps that would solve it. Not Rathenau or Stresemann. If only for that, Hitler should be given proper recognition in Germany. -cy]

* * *

What is your most important political concern at this moment? That Germany does not change as much as Frau Merkel obviously intends. Just as she threw the black-and-red-gold flag into the corner, accordingly that's how she thinks about this country, and we want to make that action as difficult as possible for her.