There are many lies and fabrications bound up in World War II, even as that conflict has become America’s own national myth. A key, critical component of understanding World War II and achieving a more enlightened perspective—untethered to the lies and delusions associated with this national myth—relates to how Franklin Delano Roosevelt took every opportunity to intervene without breaking the fiction of neutrality before war was truly at hand on a de jure basis. Recognizing and discerning Roosevelt’s intermeddling and provocations1 in Germany’s U-boat war in particular is integral to any understanding of American interventionism and hypocrisy in relation to World War II.

As readers are doubtlessly well aware, a blockade of British and allied shipping—by way of U-boats—was central to Germany’s war effort in both world wars. Britain is, quite obviously, an island nation that was dependent on merchant shipping from colonial possessions and abroad to prosecute a prolonged war effort. Germany had little hope of ever building a surface fleet that would surpass that of the Royal Navy, thus rendering the development and advancement of submarine warfare key to Germany’s strategy in both wars. In both wars, Germany provided notice that the Atlantic waters surrounding the British Isles and waters that were both part of British shipping lanes and within operational range of the U-boats were a de jure war zone. Thus, any nation that purported to be neutral and actually wanted to be neutral could simply refrain from having any such a presence in this war zone, although in both world wars Germany took every possible effort not to sink neutral shipping.

In relation to World War II and the year leading up to Germany’s ill-advised declaration of war on the United States, a series of events prove that Hitler was right about the United States being neutral in name only. In addition to lend-lease with at first the United Kingdom and later the Soviet Union, the Roosevelt administration established a “neutrality patrol” which “monitored” submarine warfare, although such monitoring actually involved escorting British and allied shipping. At first this was within three hundred miles of American shores and the shores of North and South American republics in the Atlantic. However, after the United States assumed occupation of Iceland on July 7, 1941, this so-called neutrality patrol extended some three-fourths of the way from American shores to the British Isles. As a direct consequence of this, the United States Navy was engaged in escort duty to protect British and allied shipping in key, critical areas of U-boat operations. Indeed, because the remainder of oceans not covered by this so-called neutrality patrol were by then well protected by Britain’s own escorts and air patrols, a decision by Germany not to continue U-boat operations in those areas covered by the “neutrality patrol” would be tantamount to either suspending the U-Boat campaign altogether or to subject the U-boat men to suicidal missions in areas well protected by anti-submarine measures in Britain’s home waters. Such convoy escort duty is, it must be stressed, an overtly hostile act to the Kriegsmarine and to Germany.

In this context of such wanton, naked aggression, a number of incidents occurred, each involving hostile acts of aggression by destroyers in the United States Navy against German U-boats. The first concerns the USS Niblack. On April 10, 1941, the USS Niblack was escorting a convoy—a convoy legitimately and fairly subject to German submarine attack. While rescuing survivors from a Dutch vessel that had been torpedoed and sunk, the Niblack attacked U-52 with depth charges, although the U-boat escaped unharmed. This was the first hostile action between the United States and Germany—one that the United States, not Germany, initiated.

This was followed some months later by the Greer incident, the watershed moment in latent hostility between the United States and Germany, escalating matters from mere distrust and aversion to outright hostility—to an undeclared war. The USS Greer was engaged in convoy escort duty, once again a hostile action against Germany. A British Lockheed Hudson patrol bomber from RAF No. 269 Squadron had spotted U-652 in the vicinity of Iceland before attacking the U-boat with four depth charges.2 It then radioed the Greer, which began tracking U-652 with sonar. Sonar detection and tracking, also known as “pinging,” is an overtly hostile action and a precursor to an eminent depth-charge attack. In response, U-652 fired two torpedoes at the destroyer. Both missed due to evasive action by the American destroyer. Despite insistence by Roosevelt to the contrary, it is highly unlikely3 Georg-Werner Fraatz, commander of U-652, or his crew even knew it was an American vessel (ensigns are notoriously difficult to discern from an attack periscope). Indeed, the United States Navy told the President at the time “There was no positive evidence. .. that the sub knew the nationality of the ship at which it was firing.” Greer responded with depth charges and, after a two-hour engagement, U-652 eventually escaped unharmed.

This event, provoked and started by overt American hostility, then led to a “fireside chat” address by Roosevelt, which announced a “shoot-on-site” directive. This is, once again, in a context whereby American destroyers and other vessels were now engaged in escort duty in three fourths of shipping lanes from the Americas to the British Isles, with the remaining one fourth of shipping waters being adequately patrolled by the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force. Using dumbed-down, folksy rhetoric that the American plebian class invariably laps up like pigs at the trough, Roosevelt even had the audacity to liken this “shoot-on-site” order to dealing with rattlesnakes; “”These Nazi submarines... are the rattlesnakes of the Atlantic.” Even more outrageously—and this is one of many indictments of the American public at large, defined even then by crass, even proud ignorance—Roosevelt incredulously branded Germany’s U-boat war effort as “piracy.” This is an utterly absurd statement. Piracy of course involves boarding of ships for plunder, both for material goods and, in the context of the barbary pirates, white slavery. Germany’s U-boat effort simply sunk merchant shipping vital to Britain’s war effort. There was never any plunder of booty, a hallmark feature of piracy, just as pirates do not fly the flags of nations4 and act under a declaration of war. It should also be noted that until the infamous Laconia incident5,U-boat commanders routinely gave aid to survivors, giving directions to those in lifeboats, sometimes even handing victuals before departing. And the American public, whose national character is arguably defined by at best a gullible nature and at worst abject stupidity, bought these lines, hook, line, and sinker. Indeed, even as 80 percent of the American public was against American entry into the war, Robert Brakeman avers that with the Roosevelt administration “controlling both the guns and the propaganda organs of society, the outcome could hardly be in doubt.”

The Greer incident and this “shoot-on-site” policy soon led to another engagement between the United States and Germany, this time involving the USS Kearny on October 17, 1941. As before the Kearny was engaged in escort duty of a convoy that was attacked by German U-Boats. The USS Kearny responded by dropping depth charges on German submarines. U-568 fired at least one torpedo, which hit but did not sink the USS Kearny, killing 11 and wounded 22.

This “shoot-on-sight” policy culminated in the sinking of the USS Reuben James on October 31, 1941. As before, the Reuben James was engaged in escort convoy duty. The German submarine U-552 attacked the convoy that the Reuben James was escorting. The Reuben James tracked another uboat with sonar and attacked the U-boat with depth charges. Quite happily, as far as this author is concerned, U-552 then fired a salvo of two torpedoes at the American destroyer. One torpedo struck the port side of the destroyer near one of its turrets. This ignited the forward magazine, blowing the bow of the hull clean off, ripping the ship in half. The bow portion sunk immediately. The stern of the ship sunk five minutes later. 44 were rescued, out of between 144-159-160 officers and crew.6 Topp likely saved the lives of the U-boat the Reuben James attacked with depth charges. Despite FDR’s abject lies, Captain of U-552, Erich Topp, one of Germany’s greatest U-boat aces, believed the Reuben James was a British destroyer, as accounts indicate it was not flying the American flag. In the same way it was unlikely that U-652 saw that the Greer was an American destroyer, American propaganda and Roosevelt himself most particularly lied about this crucial detail as well. It should also be noted that Topp could have—and indeed should have—also sunk the destroyer—the same USS Niblack recounted above—that rescued those 44 survivors, but decided not to out of a sense of chivalry.7

Despite America’s own aggression and intermeddling, and despite the fact that, as before, Erich Topp did not even know the Reuben James was an American destroyer (as if that should make a difference given not only being engaged in escort convey duty but depth-charging a U-boat), Roosevelt and American propaganda used this to drum up war support against Germany, blamed Germany for the inevitable consequences of America’s own belligerence, all very much in the “cry out as they strike you” manner many readers are familiar with in certain other contexts. There was even the release of a jingoistic ditty entitled “The Sinking of the Reuben James,” with lyrics primed to impassion the plebian masses, while, predictably enough, utterly failing any sort of look inward into how this was America’s own doing, not Germany’s. The opening two stanzas of the song read as follows:

Have you heard of a ship called the good Reuben James

Manned by hard fighting men both of honor and fame?

She flew the Stars and Stripes of the land of the free

But tonight she’s in her grave at the bottom of the sea.

Tell me what were their names, tell me what were their names,

Did you have a friend on the good Reuben James? (repeat once).

Curious indeed the song does not inform listeners that Topp did not even know the destroyer was American, or that he chose to let those 44 survivors live by choosing not to sink the destroyer that came to the aid of those survivors with another torpedo attack. In the third stanza the song makes a startling admission:

It was there in the dark of that uncertain night

That we watched for the U-boats and waited for a fight.

“Waited for a fight” is a particularly euphemistic and deceitful way to describe the matter. A much more honest description would be “picked a fight” as the song writer proffers some jingoistic yarn asking if the listener knew the names of anyone onboard a ship that actually “had it coming,” as they say.

Soon after this incident, Japan of course unleashed the attack on Pearl Harbor—a tactical masterstroke but far worse strategic blunder—and declared war on the United States. Hitler then declared war on Germany four days later on the heels of Japan’s declaration of war. Pearl Harbor was not mentioned in Germany’s declaration of war, but obviously was a strategic consideration on which this decision was predicated, as foolhardy as it was. Germany’s declaration of war did however mention these and other grievances such as lend lease to both Britain and the Soviet Union. As stated in “Denouncing Hitler for Very Different Reasons,” Germany’s declaration of war is not to be condemned for moral reasons, rather it is only to be condemned because Germany did not have the material wherewithal to prosecute a war against the United States successfully, particularly when already pitted against two other peer powers on three different fronts. As stated in that essay:

If Germany and her war machine were a truly omnipotent force, as invincible as imaginary space invaders from Mars or some other fantastical distant planet, Germany would have been absolutely and utterly justified in declaring war on the United States.

Alas, as great as the Wehrmacht8 and also many divisions of the Waffen SS were, even such paragons of military discipline and fighting prowess, with few if any parallels in the annals of history, were “not so omnipotent.” Indeed, even the German military of the Third Reich, as awesome and fearsome as it was, “had its limitations as to the maximum threshold as to what material superiority it could ever possibly overcome. . ..”

Critics and detractors who hold a much more favorable view of Hitler argue that war was inevitable. This position remains unpersuasive to this author, at least as it pertains to excusing or condoning a foolhardy declaration of war on December 11, 1941, although a summary of these and other considerations in writing this essay do give one pause. Before Pearl Harbor, the majority of Americans still favored an isolationist position, even if Roosevelt’s abject lies and deceit were eating away at such a sensible and correct position. However outrageous America’s provocations were, Hitler did precisely what Churchill, Stalin, and Roosevelt wanted him to do. Compare and contrast with Abraham Lincoln’s approach to the Trent affair: “one war at a time, gentlemen.”

As with the fate of Germany’s armed forces generally, there is a sadness—a Tristesse—about the U-boat arm and its defeat. Germany was right to sink Allied shipping, and, particularly with the advent of hindsight 80 years on, it is clear Germany, Britain, and much of Europe would have been far better off if Britain had simply walked away after the War Cabinet Crisis in the wake of Dunkirk, adopting the position embraced by Lord Halifax. Otherwise, it is a pity, to quote two British World War II veterans who saw the light in their twilight years, that Germany had not been able to bring Britain to her knees, either by the U-boat campaign sinking a critical mass of shipping that made continuing the British war effort impossible or by other means.

The stories of unparalleled valor and sacrifice of the U-boat arm are both inspiring, harrowing, and tragic. A review of the Type VII U-boat and its variants reveals something paradoxical in both its beauty and propensity for terror, not so much in relation to how this instrument of war inflicted terror on the merchantmen and others who perished at the hands of these valiant warriors of the sea, but those who served on the U-boats themselves. The design of the Type VII as well as its color schemes, flotilla emblems, and other characteristics reveal something at once aesthetically appealing and awe-inspiring. The design and development of such hardware is of course emblematic of the genius of the German national character. As a response to intractable naval supremacy of the British empire, it is a marvel indeed German ingenuity could—almost a century ago—devise such an instrument in a heroic but—alas!—forlorn effort to secure her national interests, a submarine capable of diving 200 and even 250 meters (or more) under the sea, a weapon of war and instrument that came so perilously close to changing the outcome of the war and averring the dark fate awaiting Germany and Mother Europa. Admiral Karl Dönitz himself stated that had Germany had 300 U-boats at the start, Germany would have been able to end the war very quickly. Lushy lush drunkard and cretinous Judeophile Winston Churchill even stated that the U-boat war was the one thing he feared, likely a somewhat disingenuous boast given there were other elements of the German war effort that could have brought Britain to her knees had only a couple of variables been adjusted.

The admiration and awe the U-boats and their men inspire in any sensible person is juxtaposed and contradicted by how terrible such technology is in very real ways, the hardships, deprivation, and all too often terrible deaths in veritable iron coffins in the cold, black depths of the oceans. Consider some fifty-seven men crammed together in such close quarters, often underneath the surface, “hotbunking” sparse cots in alternate shifts, and without showering or even proper grooming of facial hair for so many weeks and months at sea. Serving and all too often dying in these German U-boats can hardly be comprehended fully by anyone but those who were a part of this most valiant but, alas, forlorn effort to save Germany and Europe as a whole.

Many apologists for Pax Americana and Roosevelt’s war-mongering and interventionism will assert that war with Germany was inevitable, or even that the United States was right to enter the war against Germany and should have intervened sooner. One justification is that the long-term security of the United States would be imperiled if the Axis (somehow) controlled all of Asia and Europe. Hitler however offered Britain peace a number of times. Critics point out he violated other treaties (most notably with Czechoslovakia after the Sudetenland crisis) and the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Unlike Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union, Britain has the English channel and possessed what was then unquestionably the world’s premiere navy. Germany had no intention of occupying Britain, nor could she even if she wanted to. These and other considerations combined with having the Atlantic and the Pacific as “borders” to the east and west as well as weak neighbors to the north and south prove Germany was never a national security threat to the United States in either world war, provided the United States had any interest in keeping the peace.9

In very important ways, this fit of warmongering and interventionism is part and parcel of a pattern of insidious behavior that has defined United States’ foreign policy since Woodrow Wilson, typified by using the Lusitania incident as pretext to enter that war against Germany. The Balfour Declaration was of course the prime motivator behind the scenes. American interventionism of course led directly to the Versailles Diktat, the blockade and famine that persisted for a year after the armistice and nigh a million deaths of German civilians, and the rise and fall of Adolf Hitler and the penultimate disaster that was World War II, a cataclysmic event that may ultimately have sealed the fate of European peoples and civilization. Moreover, the lies, deceit, and naked aggression by the United States recounted in this perverse episode in history are part and parcel of an unrestrained and remarkably arrogant goliath that has involved itself in more wars and conflicts in the past century than perhaps any power that has ever existed in the history of mankind, at least over the same time period. The mad delusion of “American exceptionalism” generally and nonsensical blather about “democracy and freedom” have been cited as pretext as well as for this unprecedented war-mongering and the rise of American hegemony. It somehow remains very persuasive to far too many people despite how objectively ludicrous it is.

Just as America has destroyed and is destroying European civilization and has set in motion a multitude of factors that present a number existential threats to European posterity itself, this shit country sadly prevailed against these heroes, these grey wolves of the sea, irrespective of their valor, their sacrifice, and the fact they were just better in every way. Alas, the good guys do not always win as they rarely win at all, it seems; indeed the good guys lost, in contravention to tales taught since kindergarten and before, continuing on through high school civics class and beyond, further promulgated and propagandized by an unending litany of Hollywood productions that sell this national myth, this national lie. Perhaps most disturbing of all, despite how open and obvious Roosevelt’s lies were on this but also other matters, far too few see through the lies of this most insidious national myth. This somehow remains so despite the availability of information revealing the truth about both The War in the Atlantic and America’s own war-mongering and aggression for more than a century.

Share

PLEASE NOTE: the publication of this essay is featured in a new section of this publication: “The World Wars.” With this essay there are now enough essays on this matter to justify a section pertaining to the world wars, World War II in particular, and most especially its true origins, causes, and consequences. Other essays on such matters will hopefully be written and published sometime in the future.

PLEASE FURTHER NOTE the eventual success or failure of this endeavor depends in large part on reader support and collaboration. Readers who enjoy this content are urged to consider offering a paid or founding member subscription in consideration of the time and labor expended to write and publish these texts. Readers who enjoy this essay are also asked to press the “like emoji” to signify their favor and to share any essays they find particularly insightful or informative.

Follow Richard Parker on twitter (or X if one prefers) under the handle (@)astheravencalls. Delete the parentheses, which were added to prevent interference with Substack’s own internal handle system.

Author’s note: this essay, like others of mine, was published on Kevin MacDonald’s publication, The Occidental Observer, and been posted on The Unz Report. Please consider leaving a positive or insightful comment.

So-called Holocaust revisionism is gaining some currency in certain circles among the dissident right. This is exhibited on various platforms and certain nooks and crannies of the Internet. Statements by mixed martial artist and podcaster Jake Shields evidence this trend, particularly the appearance of Germar Rudolf on the “Jack Shields Fights Back” podcast. Conversely, in the controversial essay by this author “Denouncing Hitler for Different Reasons” was criticized and rebuked by some for not embracing Holocaust revisionism. The subject is briefly addressed in the beginning, stating succinctly my position. Restating the late Jean Marie Le Pen’s characterization of the holocaust as a “mere detail in history,” the essay asserts that there is nothing truly unique about the Holocaust. Indeed, “over a hundred million people were murdered by various state powers in the 20^th Century.” This is just one reason among many why the Holocaust “certainly should never have been allowed to be used as a tool for blackmail and extortion by various Jewish organs, in the manner documented and exposed by Norman Finkelstein in The Holocaust Industry.” These and others contentions were insufficient to quell criticisms and rebukes for not indulging in so-called Holocaust revisionism or denial, even though it has nothing to do with strategic and tactical blunders made by Hitler, and should not be the focus condemning him for his wanton violence and brutality against different European peoples. At a broader level, what is regarded by many as Holocaust revisionism1—indeed what Jewish and other groups often decry as Holocaust denial—has become increasing among some dissident right circles. Such growing appeal and popularity notwithstanding, Holocaust revisionism, for lack of a better term, is an ineffective strategy to counter Jewish power and influence. It is both unnecessary and largely counterproductive.

In order to ascertain how this movement is both ineffective and superfluous, some preambles are in order. There are, to be sure, irregularities in the Holocaust narrative. The official death toll of Auschwitz was revised from between 3.5-4 million to 1.5 million.2 Stories about lampshades and the like have been recanted by even the most fervent, obnoxious advocates for Jewish activism centered around the Holocaust. It is also of note that the five million other alleged non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust seem to have been made up to garner gentile sympathy.3 Interests that fabricate or lie about statistics on such matters have dubious credibility on other matters. It is reminiscent of a phenomenon in trial procedure known as “impeaching the witness,” whereby a witness is confronted on cross-examination about a lie or inconsistent statement. The establishment of an “inconsistent statement,” characterized either as faulty memory or deception, is then used to “impeach the credibility” of that witness to the fact-finders, usually the jury. The myriad instances of retractions and revisions on both details and figures impeach the credibility of Holocaust advocacy in precisely the same way.

The Holocaust is peculiar in other ways. It is curious that there were exceedingly few survivors of Unit 731, a horrific Japanese installation in mainland China that ran gruesome human experiments on Chinese captives and even some American POWs; conversely, the Nazis left quite a few survivors. These and other considerations are interesting, but are of little import.

First and foremost, the Holocaust narrative can be much more effectively rebutted by conceding assertions concerning death tolls, assertions that are illegal to contest in most Western jurisdictions. Conceding these claims, as many are legally obligated to do, in no way changes the analysis on how Jewish interests wield such inordinate power and influence over Europe and white gentiles. This is particularly so given how such power and influence is used to extort gentile countries for seemingly endless payments in the untold hundreds of billions to Israel and various Jewish concerns.4 The shakedown extortion racket is further compounded by the manner in which the Holocaust is used as propaganda to infuse white guilt in to the white, collective consciousness, as well as the notion that Jewish interests are somehow of greater importance not just to Jews but white gentiles as well. In the United States, this includes a veritable set of industries in publication, education, and other efforts established to drone incessantly about the Holocaust. This includes expansive curricula in American and European schools at the middle school and high school levels or their equivalents.

As stated, over 100 million people were killed in the 20^th Century. While this includes the Cultural Revolution in Maoist China as well as Pol Pot’s Cambodia—mass murders that afflicted alien peoples on other continents—a large contingent of these numbers pertain to the Soviet Union under Josef Stalin, including the Holodomor. Stalin killed many millions before Hitler even started. Moreover, there is a particularly Kosher flavor to these crimes, as Kevin MacDonald has documented in “Stalin’s Willing Executioners.” The German populace has also been victimized5, by way of the mass murder and wholesale rape at the hands of the Red Army, the deliberate targeting of German civilian population centers by both the British and American air forces, and the deliberate deaths of German POWS, particularly while in Soviet captivity, although some historians argue that there were excessive deaths even in Allied captivity as well.

Even conceding official figures, nothing about the Holocaust warrants the Holocaust industry shakedown, either as an instrument of extortion or propaganda that engenders white guilt among gentiles: a propaganda apparatus that also promotes a presentiment that Jewish interests are somehow of elevated importance universally. This includes marring of the German capital and other German cities with unsightly pet projects at the behest of international Jewish groups. The nations and peoples of Europe are faced with their own existential crises, including a demographic winter and an infusion of hordes of black and brown people who have no right to step foot on the sacred continent, let alone resettle there. This should be and must be the overriding priority. Judaism is defined by such in-group preference, what MacDonald has described as “moral particularism.” It is a key factor behind their inordinate level of influence and power. Adopting that same in-group preference compels European peoples to prioritize European suffering and the threats to European posterity, and focus on the existential threats facing European identity and the existence of our posterity. Holocaust revisionism—in isolation—is not about this categorical imperative to prioritize European self-interest and in-group preference, but instead is centered around an objective to counter or discredit historical records that are in turn used to advance Jewish interests, power, and influence.

This problem is compounded by several severe practical limitations and liabilities that render Holocaust revisionism ineffective, regardless of how one appraises the merit, or lack of merit, of the historical claims advanced in contravention to historical consensus. These limitations are crippling and fatal. The single greatest consideration rendering so-called revisionism to be an ineffective strategy is that a critical mass of people in the mainstream will discount such talking points out of hand, regardless of how someone presents such arguments or any arguments that may be proffered. The technical, esoteric nature of such talking points, whether ultimately valid or not, are not subject matter most are willing to grapple with or even entertain.

This is all the more damning because repudiating the Holocaust industry does not require contesting numbers claimed at all. Holocaust revisionism is simply not necessary to repudiate how the Holocaust is used for certain nefarious purposes. In illustration of this, consider how summary judgement works in American civil law. Summary judgement is a process whereby a judge awards a verdict for either plaintiff or defendant as a matter of law. This can be done after pleadings have been filed, or it can be awarded before or after a trial. When a judge grants summary judgement, he concedes all questions of fact in dispute in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgement is sought against. An award of summary judgement is predicated on the legal conclusion that, even if facts are as alleged as the losing party contends, he still loses regardless on the basis of whatever area of law that matter may pertain to.

The same principle applies concerning the Holocaust. Even given the six million—or 5.7 million—figure and all that is alleged, the manner in which Jewish interests have been permitted to shakedown the nations of Europe for untold billions is anathema. It is so repugnant regardless of who Hitler and the Nazis killed, or did not kill. Nor can the Holocaust, accusations of anti-Semitism, and the like be used as a platform to incubate and promulgate notions of white guilt, or the idea that Jewish propensity for inter-group conflict is somehow off limits as a legitimate topic for polite conversation.

The simple rebuttal that the Holocaust should not and must not give Jewish groups license to do as they have done is far more effective and efficient than contesting the historical record of the Holocaust. This simple but effective repudiation of the Holocaust as a precursor to Jewish shakedowns and as a blunt instrument to silence dissent can be stated elegantly and concisely in a few short sentences. Compare and contrast with the unwieldly arguments and contentions set forth by proponents of Holocaust revisionism. This comparison and contrast provides an important reminder of how rhetoric and persuasion share a fundamental principle with chess and indeed all turn-based strategy games: tempo. Tempo simply pertains to the economy of moves that governs strategy in chess and other games as well. The same position reached in seven moves that could be reached in four effectively cedes three “free” moves to one’s opponent, or, more precisely, forfeits three free moves by a player who squanders tempo in such a manner. This of course is an imperfect analogy, but it bears on most points regarding how to counter the weaponization of the Holocaust. This is particularly so given how deeply propagandized the Holocaust has been. The decades of propaganda, epitomized for example by the girl in the red jacket in Schindler’s List, render this topic something many are both emotive and irrational about, often with a reflexive aversion as a Pavlovian response. This is compounded by an acute stigmatization of Holocaust revisionism.

Because of this emotive, irrational aspect to how a critical mass of people feel about the Holocaust, any attempt of persuasion of the masses on this matter involves significant limitations on time, attention span, and other factors. Such constraints are almost always present to some varying degree, but are particularly acute in relation to this topic for the reasons just discussed. Such constraints indicate that there is likely only time and space for one rhetorical method of persuasion to challenge and impugn how the Holocaust is used as a shakedown tool and bludgeoning instrument to silence criticism of Jewish behavior at an aggregate, collective level. One strategy involves a far greater number of moves, and involves many weaknesses and disadvantages, including criminal liability or loss of ability to travel to Europe, a strong propensity to repel large swathes of mainstream audiences, all while getting lost in the weeds with discussions about technical dimensions of gas chamber doors, the degree to which Zyklon B is indelible, or not indelible, when exposed to the elements, and other points of discussion. These things and others are pitted against tens of billions endowed by the entertainment industry, Jewish interest groups, the higher education establishment, and various legal regimes in Western Europe, Canada, and Australia that impose criminal sanctions for such utterances.

That consideration in turn invokes another axiom of both military strategy and tactics, as well as the full gamut of strategy games, from chess to grand strategy games; do not attack an enemy at a strongpoint unless absolutely necessarily. Instead, maneuver around strongpoints, bypassing them, focusing on points of weakness. This axiom informs why, as just one example, the German armed forces did not wage a frontal assault on the Maginot Line, but simply went around it. The historical record has the full backing of a syndicate of Jewish interests, (not unlike a crime syndicate), Hollywood and the entertainment industry, and seemingly unanimous backing by history departments and other organs of higher education. From a pure, practical standpoint, it is foolhardy to go against the tens of billions endowed by these institutions, regardless of the merits or lack thereof, when a topic is opaque, vastly complicated and technical, and when there is a nigh unanimous consensus against such theories. Conversely, what response can there possibly be to acknowledgment and subsequent dismissal of the Holocaust, followed by a quick, succinct negation that it be permitted to be used as a shakedown instrument or as a bludgeoning tool to silence criticism of Jewish interests collectively and to foster Kriegschuld and white guilt complexes and other pathologies that Jewish interests seek to engender in the European soul?

While many will nonetheless balk at any pushback to the Holocaust and the many nefarious ways it is used both to advance Jewish interests and harm the interests of white European gentiles6, this strategy does not invoke the same Pavlovian response programmed in large swathes of the population. Nor does it incur legal liability. This strategy is tantamount to stating “The Holocaust is a mere detail in history.” The manner in which a rhetorical strategy is dismissive of the importance and singularity of the Holocaust can vary from the obtuse, to the delicate, to bluntly, flippantly stating “I do not care,” to more tactful language expressing measured regard for the loss of life, before placing this morose, morbid hobbyhorse in its proper context: the context of the incomprehensible scale of killing and murder that took place through much of the 20^th Century. Redirecting and limiting this topic to its proper context allows for other possibilities, including asking why the French Railway was extorted for 30 million dollars, on top of some six billion paid by the French government, to benefit each survivor (and those who benefit from an inheritance) some $400,000 each,7 while those who survived the rape, murder and pillage of the Red Army in East Prussia, Silesia, and the rest of the lost territories take nothing.

However obtuse or delicate one chooses to be, it is of no pressing concern the degree to which the Holocaust happened as asserted; whether six million Jews died, 270,000 Jews died, or somewhere in between, the primary concern must always be how European peoples are on an accelerated trajectory to racial suicide and civilizational ruin because of the demographic winter, the infusion of alien, third world peoples, and other phenomena in the modern world: phenomena which are a direct result of American hegemony, of the Allies’ way of doing things. This last consideration allows one to pivot to how Jewish elements in Cultural Marxism and the “march through the institutions” are a significant predicate for the existential perils the peoples of Europe face.

In many ways, those interested in Holocaust denial and revisionism are reacting to Jewish talking points, in the same way mainstream conservatives often allow themselves to accept the terms of discourse when they adopt leftist nomenclature, buzzwords, and slogans about “racism,” “sexism,” and the like. They are addressing the argument on the terms set by their ideological enemies. Dismissing the Holocaust as a “mere detail in history,” or even stating “I really do not care whether it happened or not, I care about the future of my own people” is a bold counterstroke that displaces the opposition from any sound footing, and obliges them to react to this rhetoric, either with talking points about why the Jewish people are somehow deserving of special consideration or other rhetoric that smacks of Jewish in-group preference.

As is so often the case, the best strategy in rhetoric and persuasion involves a steadfast refusal to address the issue at hand on those terms insisted by one’s ideological enemies. Anything other than some variance between an outright indifference or a refusal to pander to the manipulative rhetoric characteristic of the Holocaust industry and the syndicate of Jewish interest groups still addresses the issues on the terms set by Jewish interests. This is true even in a hopeless effort to refute the historical consensus that has been established. Disregarding these terms and focusing matters on those terms demanded by the dissident populist right seizes the initiative, sets our own terms as the parameter, and puts the shills off balance. Figures insisted by historical consensus only matter so long as people regard the Holocaust to have such undeserved import. Regardless of history, regardless of how many Jews were killed (or not killed), these insidious elements of Jewish influence and power must be resisted and stopped.

Share

PLEASE NOTE: the eventual success or failure of this endeavor depends in large part on reader support and collaboration. readers who enjoy this content are urged to consider offering a paid or founding member subscription in consideration of the time and labor expended to write and publish these texts. Readers who enjoy this essay are also asked to press the “like emoji” to signify their favor. It is also important share with anyone who would find this insightful, interesting, or provocative.

Follow Richard Parker on twitter (or X if one prefers) under the handle (@)astheravencalls. Delete the parentheses, which were added to prevent interference with Substack’s own internal handle system.

Most all Americans will be celebrating Veterans Day, the purpose of which is self-evident in its name. That purpose is to honor veterans who served in this nation’s military and who fought in the many wars this country has needlessly involved itself with. This is seemingly something quite noble. However, far too few are cognizant that the date was chosen to coincide with Armistice Day, November 11, 1918, which ended hostilities in the First World War. Nor are most aware that this country’s role in the Great War is hardly a cause of celebration or testament to “American exceptionalism,” but an utter indictment of this country, this government, and pretty much everything it stands for and has stood for over the past 125 years. The formal peace treaty, the Treaty of Versailles—better described as the Versailles Diktat—was not signed until seven months later on June 28, 1919: a moral outrage and a significant causal factor underlying The Second World War. As Darryl Cooper, aka Martyr Made, has noted, the blockade that was starving Germany was still in effect, with nearly a million German civilians perishing needlessly.

The United States had no legitimate reason to enter that war, just as it has had no legitimate reason for entering or instigating the number of conflicts it has been involved with, before or since. As most should already know, the purported casus belli, the sinking of the Lusitania, occurred after the German government implored neutral powers that areas of The Atlantic Ocean surrounding the British Isles was a war zone, and that while German submarines will make every reasonable effort not to sink neutral shipping, the ability to ascertain a ship’s nationality is most limited peering through a periscope. Most readers are doubtlessly well aware that forensics have proven the Lusitania was smuggling war contraband. This was in the broader context of arming Britain, supporting Britain, even though Germany never posed any threat to the United States or her interests. Woodrow Wilson’s this and that talk about “making the world safe for democracy” was an abject lie, although given the myriad evils inherent to democracy, one wonders if a threat to what may be the very death of Mother Europe would be a bad thing at all. Regardless, Germany neither had the intention nor the capacity to pose a threat beyond the Atlantic in either world war. 1

The moral outrage of the United States role in entering the Great War is further compounded by the Benjamin Freedman theory of the Balfour Declaration, which credibly posits that the British government enticed Jewish financial interests to nudge the United States into the war in exchange for granting land in Palestine to realize the Zionist dream of forming the Jewish state of Israel. Finally, those deluded by these lies of American exceptionalism should consider that Germany would likely have won The Great War but for American intervention, while further considering all the ramifications of this. The seemingly unending litany of existential threats facing the Occident would simply not exist had this not occurred.

In the aftermath of World War II, the Germans have adopted a war guilt complex into their very national character. One hopes this is temporary, but marinating in over 80 years of allied occupation and the post-war cultural milieu that occupation has infused into the German national consciousness does not instill a sense of optimism; this pathology is very likely to become a permanent, defining characteristic of the German national character. It is highly doubtful the German people will ever be able to throw off this national guilt complex, at least not until the nationale and völkische Abschaffung des deutches Volkes has been fully and utterly consummated in earnest. In particular relation to the absurd proposition that today is a day for honoring this country’s war mongering, the United States is responsible for this pathology first and foremost, as it is also responsible for the number of maladies that emanate from this complex, including the mad delusion of open borders and Angela Merkel letting in millions of racial imposters into sacred Germany and the European continent more broadly.

If one concedes that the Third Reich was the unmitigated, unequivocal evil in that conflict, a proposition that is dubious at best, consider further if any nation is to assume blame for the rise of Hitler, it should be first and foremost Great Britain as well as the United States. The Great Blockade, which claimed nearly a million Germans, has already been mentioned. The Treaty of Versailles assigned all liability of the Great War on Germany and Germany alone, despite the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Russia, and even France being far more bellicose in both actions and statements preceding the outbreak of war, catalyzing the sudden plunge into war across the continent. The German people suffered unspeakable hardships as a result, paying for a loaf of bread not with a wallet but a wheelbarrow. They were paying not just a million marks but a billion marks for a loaf of bread. One must also consider the legitimate territorial claims that further inform the rise of national socialism, from the demilitarization of the Rhineland to the German port city of Danzig. These and other grievances help explain, without the advantage of hindsight, why everyday Germans turned to the swastika. These considerations in turn reveal that the United States is not the force for good that American exceptionalism and high school civics class curricula insist. Great Britain and more particularly the United States are just as responsible for the rise of Hitler as any collective group (namely “The Germans”), if not more so. Remarkably, as Darryl Cooper points out in his podcast on American involvement in the Russian-Ukraine war, crimes and offenses against the German people by the American government are hardly unique. This government committed similar outrages against the Russian people, all for bringing the world a velvet revolution and a peaceful end to The Cold War, as American foreign policy has brought the world to the brink of nuclear Armageddon through its intermeddling with Ukraine.

These and other reflections should not evoke a sense of patriotism, but national shame. Few will be so insightful. Most Americans, and particularly those opposed to the Democrat party, will be flying the American flag with unquestioning pride, and will be doing so with more purpose and vehemence than any other day except for perhaps July the Fourth. Many will have Lee Greenwood’s acoustic abomination “Proud to be an American” on particularly heavy rotation. Just as with any other day but even more so, today is not a day to be proud to be an American. Today, like each and every day, is a reason to be ashamed of this country, to be ashamed to call one’s self American. Ich bin nicht stolz darauf, Amerikaner zu sein. Ich schäme mich, Amerikaner zu sein.

Share

PLEASE NOTE: readers who enjoy this content are urged to consider offering a paid or founding member subscription. Paid support is both appreciated and necessary for the continued succewss of this publication. Readers who enjoy this essay are asked to press the “like emoji” to signify their favor and share with anyone who would find this insightful, interesting, or provocative.

Follow Richard Parker on twitter (or X if one prefers) under the handle (@)astheravencalls. Delete the parentheses, which were added to prevent interference with Substack’s own internal handle system.

Alle wissen, was die Deutschen getan haben.  Aber fast niemand spricht davon, was den Deutschen angetan worden ist. 

May 8, 2025 marks the 80^th anniversary1 of Germany’s unconditional surrender to the Allies and the Soviet Union. Many modern-day Germans are so deluded and so brainwashed that they actually celebrate their nation’s catastrophic defeat and ruin. The leadership of Adolf Hitler was, of course, ultimately a disastrous failure. But, as argued in “Denouncing Hitler for Very Different Reasons,” a more enlightened perspective denounces him not in the way conventional wisdom demands, but for many of the same reasons many of his best officers and generals did: for losing the war and for the immoral brutalization of certain white Europeans Slavic peoples and even the German people themselves. As that essay also sets forth, there is a fundamental distinction between the motivations and reasons why2 the German people embraced national socialism and the swastika—das Hackenkreuz—on one hand and the many defects and failings of the political leadership at the top. To not condemn the Allies and Soviets for their own peculiar evils and celebrate the catastrophic ruin and devastation afflicted on Germany, replete with 80 years of occupation and cultural and linguistic colonization is nothing less than the worst fit of ethno-masochist delirium imaginable. And if the Germans do not disabuse themselves of this madness, and fast, Germany will perish, as will all of Europe.

The leadership of the Allies and the Allies way of doing things are not only as bad as the Nazis, but worse. Sacred Germany and, with the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989, much of Europe is nothing more than a collection of vassal states under the American Empire. American hegemony has infused an unrelenting stream of Unkultur into the cultures and societies of Europe. English advertising and mass media are ubiquitous throughout the nations of Europe: shit music and shit culture that can hardly be called music or culture at all. Graffiti mars the cityscapes and even some landscapes of vanquished Germany. A McDonald’s stands in almost every European city, even in the most historically and culturally significant quarters of Europe’s most cherished towns and cities. Madonna, rap music, Katy Perry and an endless litany of other such dreck pervade the proverbial airwaves. A certain sort of German Tussi actively seeks out black GIs and other blacks and racial imposters who have no right to be there. And Germany and all of Europe are on an accelerated course to racial suicide and civilizational ruin. All of this is while under the heel of the United States.

Many if not all of these auspices of American hegemony pertain to Germany in particular but all of Europe generally. Unlike the rest of Europe, however, Germany has been marinating in a potent concoction of war-guilt, a program of indoctrination that began with so-called de-Nazification in the immediate aftermath of the war, culminating in decades of an ever-worsening guilt complex. That guilt complex, also known as Kriegschuld, has unfortunately become a defining characteristic of the German national character in the modern age, warped by the trauma of catastrophic defeat and ruin followed by decades-long marination in Allied propaganda and degenerate pop culture. This new programming is augmented by a reformed education system directed if not installed by the Allied victors, facilitated by modern mass media and the steady infusion of American Unkultur described above. These elements have created, in concert, a vicious cultural milieu pervading modern Germany: a cultural milieu that has programmed large contingents of the German populace to seek the very abolition of the German people, its culture, and even its language.

For these and other reasons, the defeat and capitulation of Germany is no cause for celebration, as this date may mark the slow, gradual death of sacred Germany and by extension all of Europe. In many ways, an unsustainably low birth rate far below the death rate seems planned, calculated, and perpetrated with the intentional infusion of feminist dogma, the sexual revolution, multiculturalism, and all the other auspices of a dystopia that is peculiarly American in both its origins and characteristics. In this way, it seems as if the Morgenthau Plan was never called off, it was just implemented on a more gradual timeline. This makes it all that much more pernicious as it is that much more difficult to detect. The more subtle something is, the harder it is to perceive and discern a pernicious evil for what it is. This in turn makes it that much difficult for thinkers, writers, and others to articulate on both the existence of that evil and the various existential threats it poses.

When reflecting on the 80^th anniversary of Germany’s capitulation, as with any day, there can only be sadness, particularly in consideration of how the deutsche Wehrmacht was unparalleled in heroism and fighting prowess. So too were select Waffen SS divisions that bolster the mythos behind the double sig runes: SS Panzer Divisions Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler, das Reich, and Wiking in particular, but even also Totenkopf, its particularly unsavory reputation notwithstanding, were among the most formidable combat units fielded by the Third Reich. Compelled to challenge the bulk of the entire planet because of the combined machinations of Churchill, Roosevelt, as well as the mad delirium that persuaded Hitler he could somehow involve Germany in a war with three peer powers simultaneously on three fronts without leading to absolute ruin, the Wehrmacht and the Waffen SS fought tenaciously to the bitter end—bis zum letzten Mal. Those fallen, tragic heroes, forgotten and defamed all too often, made it much more of a contest than seems humanly possible. In victory and defeat, the vaunted deutsche Wehrmacht was arguably the greatest fighting force in the annals of warfare. May the memory of those fallen, forgotten heroes, those tragic, fearsome formations in feldgrau3be purged of defamation and honored and revered with the respect, admiration, and awe they so richly deserve. Although one wonders at times if the Soviet Union was any greater of an evil than the American Empire, it is because of the heroism, valor, and sacrifice of both the Wehrmacht and the Waffen SS that the Red Army did not march all the way up to the English Channel.

Veterans of the Wehrmacht—the great defenders of Germany—in old age. Note their elegant, debonair style of dress, even at that age. This is a testament to the cultural milieu in which they were raised.

The memory of civilian victims of both Allied and Soviet war crimes must also be honored—and never forgotten. The allied terror bombing campaigns were deliberately perpetrated to target and kill civilian populations in Germany. Such crimes are compounded by the wholesale rape and murder at the hands of the marauding Red Army, as well as the expulsions in Silesia, Prussia, and other lands east of the Oder River that forever destroyed important regional cultures that had helped defined Germania for centuries. Between some 12-14 million German civilians were displaced, with some estimate of over two million civilian deaths. This was all set in motion when Churchill and Stalin sat down at Yalta and played a little game with three matchsticks.

This and other crimes and horrors perpetrated against the German people are what modern “good” Germans in fact celebrate when they celebrate the defeat, occupation, and ruin of their own country, Being bludgeoned so thoroughly by absolute devastation and ruined, coupled with decades of intensive programming do not entirely account how so many could buy into such utter bullshit.

This ethnic cleansing coincided with the subsequent partition of what remained of Germany between the Soviet Union on one hand and France, Britain, and the United States on the other, forming die deutsche demokratische Republik (German Democratic Republic, also known as East Germany) and die Bundesrepublik, also known as West Germany and the current German Federal Republic, which is nothing other than an American puppet state.

The most comprehensive map this author could find, illustrating the changes and losses of territory by various German states in the 20th Century. This map unfortunately does not depict the acquisition and lost of Memelland in 1939 and 1945. This map also does not depict Danzig as an independent city state—nor does it depict Berlin or Hamburg as independent city states.

The division of Germany is something the western allies allowed to happen; they had the atomic bomb, Stalin did not, thus giving the do-goody Alllies leverage to not allow the division of Germany to happen, to say nothing of General George S. Patton’s epiphany that they were on the wrong fucking side and fought the wrong enemy. Allied and Soviet policy alike ripped German families apart, and to the extent one believes in human rights4, generations of so-called “East Germans” had such “inalienable rights” violated for decades, with both Allied and Soviet blessing. Those familiar with modern German history, the history of East Germany in particular, know the legacy of die Stasi, know that the East German government coerced husbands and wives to inform on each other, know about the shoot-to-kill orders at the Berlin wall and along the border of divided Germany.

As has already been stipulated in this and other writings, there are many reasons for condemning the political leadership of Nazi Germany, but they are grossly overstated, to put it mildly, when compared with the abject lies and hypocrisy of the Allies and Soviets. Whatever conclusions one reaches about who is the greater or lesser evil in World War II and its origins, causes, and consequences, the idea that either the western Allies or the Soviets were the “good guys” is a preposterous and abject lie, made all that much more outrageous by how many people actually believe it. At the very least, the very absolute minimum compromise that can be agreed upon is that all actors are gray, with very bloody hands all around. I defiantly submit nonetheless that both the Allies and Soviets are far more insidious.

Today is not a day for celebration, but a day for mourning and loss. I weep for Germany and Europe. Those of a similar inclination should listen to a sound, competent performance of Brahm’s Ein Deutsches Requiem, as was played over Deutscher Rundfunk after unconditional surrender was announced over the airwaves. And as time is running out, I pray for a spark that will reanimate Germany with a revived national consciousness that is at once both old and new. Ich bete, daß heiliges Deutschland noch wieder erwache!

Share

PLEASE NOTE: first and foremost, given the subject matter of this short essay, readers should familiarize themselves with the comment policy of this publication before commenting on this matter. Rules four through seven are particularly relevant to this particular piece.

Those who appreciate writing like this are urged to consider offering a paid subscription or even a founding member subscription. Please be sure to "like” and share in any case.

Follow Richard Parker on twitter (or X if one prefers) under the handle (@)astheravencalls. Delete the parentheses, which were added to prevent interference with Substack’s own internal handle system.

Author’s note: this essay was published on Kevin MacDonald’s publication, The Occidental Observer. Readers are encouraged to visit that iteration of this piece as well as his excellent publication generally. This helps foster future collaborations with MacDonald and others.

General Leo Geyr von Schweppenburg: “Any objective observer will admit that National socialism did raise the social status of the worker, and in some respects even his standard of living.”

Field Marshal Wilhelm Ritter von Leeb: “This is one of the great achievements of national socialism. The excesses of National socialism were in the first and final analysis due to the Führer's personality.”

General Heinz Guderian: “The fundamental principles were fine.”

Leeb: “That is true.”

- excerpt from a secretly recorded conversation during allied captivity after the war

                                                                             ◊

To the shock and dismay of those of a more mainstream, conservative persuasion, many different voices in dissident right, far right, and populist right circles have expressed adulation, admiration, and approval for Adolf Hitler, seemingly without qualification or reservation.[1] Particularly in “Culture as Programming,” I have expressed sympathy for and agreement with much of the German perspective in World War II (as it existed at the time), while still expressing strong aversion for Hitler, as I have done so in many different contexts and venues in my personal life and online for many years. More particularly, I, unlike so very many even today, understand and acknowledge the number of underlying causes that can be rightly discerned as the true origins of World War II, a litany of which is set forth below, as many of these causes and grievances reveal the Anglo-American alliance in the First World War and its aftermath to be anything but the force for good that so many believe it to be to this day. The piercing of this veneer further impugns and indicts the same alliance in the Second World War. Careless or casual readers, or those who simply stop reading upon encountering even one sentence sympathetic to Germany in World War II or the years before, might make the error of interpreting assertions on such matters as endorsing or approving of Hitler without reservation or qualification. To the contrary, this author embraces a more novel but eminently correct and enlightened position that not only understands but endorses legitimate German grievances at the time, agrees with and admires many (but not all) principal tenets of national socialism and more particularly fascist movements more broadly, while still harboring a deep aversion for Adolf Hitler due to his myriad moral, political, and military failures, to mention nothing of crimes against white Slavic peoples and the German people themselves. This view is largely derived from the thinking of Ernst Nolte in particular. One might suppose that these views are also derived to a lesser extent from Patrick Buchanan’s Churchill Hitler and the Unnecessary War, except that I was already convinced of this Noltean position long before Buchanan’s excellent treatment of this subject matter was published. Furthermore, my position takes a more benign view of the German perspective than does the eminent American paleoconservative.

There is usually nothing the least bit interesting or novel about denouncing this dictator: denouncing Hitler is not only the safest take perhaps in the history of discourse, but is obligatory for most and almost a sort of daily rite in modern life, a sort of banal routine as common for many as everyday things like brushing one’s teeth or putting shoes on before going about one’s day. But as will be demonstrated, the reasons for my aversion and even contempt for the dictator distinguish this unique and admittedly controversial position from the sort of boring, garden variety denunciation of the Führer that pervades most all historical and cultural discourse—a position that alienates both mainstream conservatives and those of a more radical persuasion. Stated bluntly, I do not denounce Hitler for the reasons Abraham Foxman, Jonathan Greenblatt, the Anti-Defamation League, or indeed the “post-war consensus” implores; rather I denounce him for effectively losing the Second World War by way of a series of blunders, both tactical and strategic, outlined below, as well morally reprehensible policies in the treatment of white gentile Slavic peoples and even the German people themselves at the end of the war. It must be noted in passing that, while the Holocaust is, I suppose, to be condemned, it is, to quote the late Jean Marie Le Pen, a “mere detail in history” in a century in which over a hundred million people were murdered by various state powers, and certainly should never have been allowed to be used as a tool for blackmail and extortion by various Jewish organs, in the manner documented and exposed by Norman Finkelstein in The Holocaust Industry. Given that Europe is on the precipice of oblivion as European peoples propel themselves headlong into racial suicide and civilizational ruin, and given that many of the intellectual movements and various machinations underpinning these existential threats have a very strong Kosher flavor and aftertaste, to put it mildly, the Holocaust really should be of no import to anyone who discerns and recognizes the existential threats faced by the sons and daughters of Europe.[2]

This unique but enlightened perspective may not be immediately apparent to those who survey my writings or utterances concerning the Second World War, or indeed those in my personal life or acquaintance who learn of my personal interest and even affinity for the German armed forces in World War II, as expressed in certain interests and hobbies, as well as a deep and abiding interest in the German perspective in the history of World War II and the years preceding it, revealing its true causes and origins. Stated another way, I am a hardcore and unrepentant “Wehraboo.” My increasing disillusion with and even disdain for democracy is also likely to mislead many into mistaking me for a Hitler fanboy. Examining this matter must first begin with a brief but concise synopsis of why Germans, without the advantage of hindsight, followed Hitler and embraced the swastika in the first place.

Sympathy for Nazi Germany: A Brief Synopsis on the Origins and Causes of World War II

The Treaty of Versailles is one of the greatest injustices in history, exposing the lie of so-called American exceptionalism to any person sensible enough to see the abject hypocrisy and monstrosity of American foreign policy at that time, and really ever since:[3] a lie obvious and in plain view to anyone who cares to see it. Although overshadowed by the monstrous and unconscionable fate of the Germans after the Second World War, the Versailles Diktat assigned sole blame of the Great War on the German people and imposed on Germany the requirement to pay reparations for all costs and losses associated with the Great War, notwithstanding the belligerence and provocations of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, Russia, and even France which contributed more to the sudden chain reaction that very quickly unraveled into the outbreak of war than supposed German belligerence ever did. This is true even as Imperial Germany has been so effectively vilified that many ignorant Americans to this day think Germany alone was responsible for the outbreak of World War I, or that the Kaiser sought world conquest. The blockade that preceded the signing of the Diktat led to mass starvation and deprivation, leading to the deaths of just under one million Germans. Danzig, Posen, and areas of West Prussia with either large German minorities or outright German majorities and which had belonged to Germany or predecessor states before German Unification in 1871 were wrongly taken from Germany and indeed violated the principle of “self-determination” that Woodrow Wilson and his supporters claimed to espouse. The Germans suffered hyper-inflation during several periods of the Weimar years. Requiring wheelbarrows instead of wallets, everyday Germans were not only paying millions of marks for a loaf of bread, but very often billions of marks for a loaf of bread. This was compounded by a number of sharp business practices, principally perpetrated by Jews such as the Barmat Brothers[4], who were at the center of a bribery and currency speculation scandal that made headlines in 1925 and well afterwards. The hyper-inflation that afflicted Germany, rendering German currency worthless, provided opportunities for outsiders, usually Jews, to buy up real estate with foreign currency for practically nothing:[5] an unconscionable exploitation of the suffering of the German people in the name of abject (Jewish) greed. It is of note that Germany’s first laws prohibiting sharp business practices were promulgated by the national socialist regime, and still exist on the books to this day. Finally, Germany’s defeat in World I is directly attributed to the Balfour Declaration, which, at least according to what is known as the Benjamin Freedman theory, the British government, at the behest of Lord Rothschild, would cede Palestine to Jewish Zionists in return for Jewish financiers and lobbyists in America to bring the United States into the Great War. The injustice and tyranny imposed on Germany by the United States in particular (Germany would probably have won without American intervention) sowed the seeds of World War II, even while the evils perpetrated by this country are cloaked with the sickly sweetness of Doris Day herself among other assorted delusions, hallucinations, and figmentations of American intermeddling and war-mongering as “American exceptionalism.” This in turn tragically led to even greater injustice and tyranny imposed on the German people, including the evisceration of East Prussia, Silesia, and East Pomerania, with the once great German cities of Danzig, Breslau, and Königsberg lost forever, all attended with wholesale murder and rape at the hands of a maurading Red Army, with approval from Churchill himself (as discussed below).

The most comprehensive map this author could find, illustrating the changes and losses of territory by various German states in the 20th Century. This map unfortunately does not depict the acquisition and lost of Memelland in 1939 and 1945. This map also does not depict Danzig as an independent city state—nor does it depict Berlin or Hamburg as independent city states.

The economic hardship, deprivation, and destitution suffered by the German people is compounded by the moral depravity that had descended on certain urban centers of Germany, most notably Weimar Berlin, which is not of course some sort of merger between Berlin and Weimar, but Berlin during the so-called Weimar Republic. The sexual libertinism and indeed profligacy that had descended on Berlin during this era is well documented, but curiously has not received nearly enough exposure. There is perhaps no better avatar for such degeneracy than Anita Berber, a notorious figure in Berlin’s “party” scene. Dead before her 30th birthday, she was a bisexual drug addict, who partook in cocaine, heroin, opium and other drugs with abandon. Among her various escapades of abject depravity was a threesome with another woman and that woman’s 15-year-old daughter, both of whom Berber kept as “sex slaves” (Gordon 57-58). On a societal level, not only was prostitution commonplace, child prostitution and prostitution of young girls just past puberty were rampant as well. The appeal of national socialism and its continued relevance to the problems of the modern world is revealed in other ways as well. The transgender menace plaguing modern society of course originated in Weimar Berlin. Magnus Herschfeld, a homosexual Jew, founded the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft, from which modern lunacy about transgenderism derives. The Nazis destroyed the Insitut and burned most or all of its writing, and were in the absolute right to do so. It is also illustrative that Cultural Marxism, an existential threat to Europe and the Occident, originates from the Frankfurt School, a cabal of Jewish academics who were unfortunately allowed to escape from Germany to the United States where they then reestablished the Frankfurt School at Columbia University, from which their insidious ideas soon infected all of American and then Western academia in the infamous march through the institutions.[6]

The rise of national socialism was a response to these and myriad other outrages, and—without the advantage of hindsight—an eminently just and proper response that ameliorated these and other evils with unwavering conviction and swift carriage. The specter of Soviet Bolshevism in Germany and Europe at large was also a reason for the appeal of national socialism. German language newspapers, unlike their counterparts in the Anglo-American world at the time and even to a lesser extent today, documented what transpired in Stalin’s killing fields.

The legitimacy of Germany’s territorial claims on Danzig and Posen have already been mentioned. These claims were ultimately a principal if not the principal catalyst for the outbreak of war when Germany invaded Poland in 1939, but the post-war consensus almost uniformly condemns remilitarization of the Rhineland, the Austrian Anschluss, and the Sudetenland crisis as harbingers of what is perceived as Hitler’s unending conquest for more and more land that, according to conventional wisdom, implored a firm and proper response by the do-goody Allies. The failure of intervening during the Sudetenland crisis, conventional wisdom dictates, led to the outbreak of World War II by not nipping the supposed Nazi menace “in the bud,” as the war ultimately became the greatest disaster in the history of humanity.[7]

Contrary to conventional wisdom, Germany was right to remilitarize the Rhineland. It is after all German soil, and this is particularly so given France’s policy of placing black colonial troops in the Ruhr region of Germany in the 20s, which had led to instances not just of miscegenation on a consensual basis but rape and sexual assault as well. In hindsight, the Anschluss is similarly decried, but both the Germans and Austrians wanted it. And the notion that Austrians are a distinct nationality separate and apart from Germany is somewhat dubious, as the difference in dialect, customs and so on is no more pronounced than certain other regions in Germany, from Bavaria to those who speak Plattdeutsch, or PlattdUEtsch as those Germans sometimes spell it; the exclusion of certain German speaking peoples based on the legacy of the Hapsburg dynasty would seem to be a most dubious proposition if it were not settled by the dictates and whims of the ultimate victors. Germany also had legitimate territorial claims on Sudetenland, despite how appeasement on this matter is so often used to condemn Neville Chamberlain and indeed the very notion of appeasement in most any context in modern foreign policy.

The aftermath of the Sudetenland crisis, in which Hitler partitioned the rest of Czechoslovakia between the Reich and a newly formed puppet state of Slovakia in March of 1939, is the first outrage for which Hitler is rightly condemned. Unlike other territorial concessions, Germany did not have legitimate territorial claims on the rest of Czechoslovakia, namely Bohemia and Moravia. And in this push to grab land, Hitler utterly and permanently discredited himself and the legitimacy of Germany’s many grievances on the international stage. Chamberlain was outraged by it, and felt that he had been duped into agreeing to the reasonable and just concessions made during the Sudetenland crisis. Alienating Britain in particular in this way made it impossible to regain Danzig through diplomatic means, and the proximate cause of destroying such hope for diplomatic resolution of these matters was Hitler’s annexation and partition of Czechoslovakia. To this day, deluded Britons and others who clamor to the absurdity that Winston Churchill was the “greatest Briton” and deny that Britain would be better off had she sued for peace, either after Danzig or in the wake of Dunkirk and the Fall of France, routinely aver that Hitler “repeatedly” broke treaties and that Britain would be absurd to trust him on anything. The problem with this position is obvious: namely that, unlike Czechoslovakia, Britain had the Royal Navy and the English Channel as a protective barrier, as well as an Empire stretching across the globe, all of which would make such unilateral and sudden annexation and occupation of Britain by the German Reich impossible. Instead of being subjugated or subservient to Germany, she became subservient and beholden to the American Empire and all of its many ugly, pernicious, civilization destroying proclivities.

Conventional wisdom—the orthodoxy of the “post-war consensus”—uniformly condemns any and all action by the German armed forces as barbaric, wanton, naked aggression, replete with delusions that Hitler somehow wanted to conquer the world: delusions that persist among the more ignorant, particularly in the Anglo-American world. This is especially preposterous because Germany never had, in either of the two world wars, even a fraction of the maritime power to threaten the Western Hemisphere at all, nor could she envision a period in which she could come close to achieving such capacity. In relation to the reasons for Fall Weiss specifically and the outbreak of war in September 1939, Germany had, as stated before, legitimate territorial claims on Poland, Danzig and Posen in particular. Despite Hitler’s dishonorable and deplorable actions in relation to the partition of Bohemia and Moravia, France and Britain would have been wise to seek a diplomatic solution (the loss of the British Empire, the demographic implosion in France and much of Europe attests to that). Onerous, deplorable occupation policies brutalizing Polish gentiles are to be condemned of course, but Germany nevertheless had legitimate territorial claims and war could have been avoided if Poland had ceded Danzig and other territories which rightly belonged to Germany.

Some even to this day are unaware that Germany did not declare war on France or Britain, but rather France and Britain declared war on Germany. In addition to the centuries of aggression inflicted on Germany by France (Otto von Bismarck once stated that Napolean did not leave a single tree in Germany left unscratched), this declaration of war by the Allies legitimizes the invasion of France as well as the invasion of Belgium and Netherlands out of military necessity: the Maginot line in particular required the invasion of the Low Countries for Germany to have any chance of success. Victory over France could only be achieved by some variation of the Von Schlieffen plan, notably with Manstein’s masterstroke, the Sichelschnitt.

Just as the flux capacitor makes time travel possible in Back to the Future, Manstein’s Sichelschnitt is what made the successful conquest of France possible, except the latter is no Hollywood fairy tale. A pity that such a spectacular victory sowed the seeds of such catastrophic ruin and defeat, largely due to the blunders and shortcomings of Adolf Hitler.

The invasion of Denmark and Norway was similarly necessary. In addition to plans on mining Norwegian waters, Britain, Churchill in particular before becoming Prime Minister, had designs on invading Norway. Germany invaded Denmark as a springboard to take Norway before the British did, and to secure vital Swedish ore through the port of Narvik. Those who villainize Nazi Germany routinely point out the conquest of Greece as an indictment of Germany’s militarism and wanton desire to conquer more and more land. Never mind that Mussolini first invaded Greece, not Hitler. Hitler was actually incensed at Mussolini for doing this unilaterally, not just out of defiance of the pecking order in the Pact of Steel, but because it gave the British a foothold in southern Europe, ultimately requiring the Wehrmacht—not the Italian Army—to win the campaign in Greece after the Greeks stymied Italian forces in such embarrassing fashion. The Invasion of Yugoslavia was similarly necessary, as there was an anti-fascist coup just prior to Operation Barbarossa. As an aside, the invasion of Yugoslavia delayed the Invasion of the Soviet Union by a month or more; unleashing Operation Barbarossa a few weeks earlier may have given the Germans enough time to sack Moscow before being completely bogged down by the historic Russian Winter of 1941-1942.

Condemning Hitler, But Embracing the Swastika Still

While the invasion of these countries was justifiable and even necessary, brutal occupation policies in Southern and Eastern Europe in particular perpetrated not by combat units, at least not generally, but occupation forces was repugnant and counterproductive. This salient passage from Tapping Hitler’s Generals between Oberst Horst Egersdorf and Major Ulrich Boes is most illustrative. After one of the German officers denounced “our behaviour in all the occupied territories—I witnessed it in Greece too,” the other[8] responded by stating:

The soldiers [of the deutsche Wehrmacht are] the best propaganda for the Third Reich that [one] could possibl[y] imagine. These people in France and in the Balkans whom I met were enthusiastic about the discipline of the German army. And the very moment the Party and the SS took. . . control, even the most harmless citizens became fanatics—against us. …Is that wise or part of the creed? If that really were a part of national socialism, then national socialism would be the greatest crime there is. But it isn’t so by any means-national socialism is actually a wonderful creed! The people who are at present playing first fiddle aren’t national socialists at all, they are criminals (Neitzel 173) (grammatical and typographical anomalies corrected).

This brief synopsis and appraisal of Germany’s actions prior to the invasion of the Soviet Union does not suggest much reason to regard Hitler or more particularly Germany’s war effort with such aversion as alluded to earlier, the one exception of course being onerous occupation forces not by frontline units but police and auxiliary units that were notorious for such things.[9]

Many condemn Hitler for what is often regarded as a war-losing blunder of invading the Soviet Union. The invasion of the Soviet Union was ultimately a key, decisive factor in Germany’s catastrophic defeat, but it is unclear at all that the campaign was doomed from the start as some contend.[10] More importantly, the decision must be appraised based on the information available at the time. The Imperial German Army made rather quick work of the Russian Empire in the First World War, although that adversary obviously did not fall in six weeks as France had in 1940. Earlier the Red Army failed in spectacular fashion to subjugate plucky Finland in the Winter War. It is also worth noting that American intelligence predicted, rather grimly given who controlled Washington even then, that the Soviets would collapse in a matter of months.

While Operation Barbarossa is properly assessed and analyzed based on the information available at the time, the invasion of the Soviet Union does inform the more enlightened sort of denunciation embraced by this author. This condemnation is however largely derived from blunders committed at Stalingrad and elsewhere, rejecting the premise that the decision to invade the Soviet Union was inherently a blunder, and instead focusing on various considerations that contributed directly to the capitulation and ruin of Germany. First and foremost, invading the Soviet Union under the color of Hitler’s peculiar racial theories about European Slavic peoples allowed Stalin to consolidate power, rally the Russian and other Soviet peoples to resist what were arguably genocidal policies against them, the success of which ultimately allowed Stalin to defeat Hitler, and take Berlin and half of Europe in the process. If the Reich had invaded with far less malevolent intentions, as liberators of Soviet Bolshevism, rather than quasi genocidal conquerors brutalizing much of the Russian and other populations, a critical mass of Russian people would most likely have revolted, sided with the Germans and Soviet Bolshevism would have been quickly vanquished. These and other such moral failings underscore how Hitler, contrary to those who eulogize him so crudely, was no pan-European nationalist, but a German nationalist with the very worst propensities for barbarism and brutality.

Condemnation of Nazi Germany’s treatment of the Russian people—at Hitler’s directive—must of course be prefaced with a number of qualifications. One important consideration is that the Soviet Union never signed the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war. There are some indications German emissaries tried to persuade the Soviets to ameliorate that. Manstein’s memoirs and other sources as well contend that gruesome atrocities were first initiated by the Soviets against captured German soldiers, a credible allegation but not one that is universally acknowledged by all or even perhaps most historians. German treatment of the Ukrainian people is particularly confounding, as many accounts indicate the Germans did come as liberators for the Ukrainians, and were received as such. This did not last, at least not categorically, as many Soviet partisans would ambush vulnerable contingents of German forces, before torturing and mutilating them, before and after death. Partisans would often perpetrate these atrocities in a way that would implicate a friendly or neutral Ukrainian town or village. German occupation forces regularly took the bait and carried out gruesome reprisals against innocent civilians framed by the partisan terrorists, which some historians falsely contend turned Ukrainians categorically against the Germans. This of course is belied by the large numbers of Ukrainians who volunteered to fight for the Germans to the end, a point of contention in the modern Ukrainian war as some Ukrainian units adopt Third Reich imagery and symbols. This has created strange bedfellows in relation to the modern war, as the Canadian parliament even received a Ukrainian veteran of the Waffen SS.

Finally, large contingents of the German officer corps did not share Hitler’s dehumanizing view of the Russian people, as many veterans recount at least some friendly interactions with Russian civilians, the veracity of which is questioned by those insistent on condemning the entirety of the German armed forces to each and every single man[11]. These and other qualifications and reservations notwithstanding, German barbarism regularly—but not, as if often contended, categorically—meted out to Russians is deplorable, and discredits Hitler apologists who falsely portray Hitler as a Pan-European nationalist.

With these important qualifications regarding the treatment of Russians and other Slavic Europeans established, focus can again return to the question of how Hitler’s tactical and strategic blunders substantially contributed to Germany’s defeat and utter ruin. Some condemn Hitler for not going directly for Moscow, but instead delaying the push east to finish off isolated pockets of the Red Army in Ukraine and elsewhere that were surrounded and enveloped by quick advances of the German armed forces. Guderian, von Leeb, and others have articulated, somewhat persuasively but not conclusively so, why this decision was a blunder, but this question continues to be debated to this day. Far more damning, and a central foundation for my condemnation of the Führer, was Hitler’s absurd decision to declare war on the United States while bogged down on the outskirts of Moscow in the midst of the worst winter seen in a century. This while Britain remained in tact on the home islands and Egypt. In other words, Hitler involved Germany in a war with a third peer power while desperately contending with two other great powers on two different fronts while defending the Atlantic coast of France and the lowlands as a third front. And he did so even though the first principle of military and political strategy for Germany and her predecessors, going back many centuries, was her vulnerability, sitting in the very center of Europe, and her first priority of avoiding entanglement in wars with multiple fronts and the necessity to avoid prolonged entanglements of any sort. Indeed, this first principle of German military strategy through the centuries was the genesis for the formulation of Bewegungskrieg, which has been the very core of German military doctrine going back to the Prussian Army and Fredrick the Great and before. One German officer rightly decried such madness “to think we could challenge the world” as “fatuously stupid” (Neitzel, 159).

Invariably such objections to and condemnation of Hitler have subjected this author to a torrent of criticisms and derisive comments, the vast majority of which are uttered by the irretrievably stupid and the intentionally obnoxious.[12] Very often detractors will accuse me of being ignorant of the circumstances leading up to Germany declaring war on the United States, while still desperately fighting with Britain and the Soviet Union. This author is of course well aware that the United States was “neutral in name only.” Lend-lease policies to both Great Britain and Joseph Stalin after the Invasion of the Soviet Union, loaning destroyers to Britain to help fight the Battle of the Atlantic are just some of the provocations. The incident concerning the USS Reuben James, which attacked a German U-boat without provocation and was happily torpedoed and sunk by a German U-boat is particularly noteworthy, as that incident has informed my denunciation of the Anglo-American alliance generally and the United States particularly for many years. American aggression against German U-boats, despite best efforts not to attack American ships was such a problem that many high-ranking officers in the Kriegsmarine applauded the decision, even though it an immediate and obvious strategic blunder that all but doomed Germany.

Some Hitler enthusiasts also aver that war with the United States was inevitable. That may or may not be true. Before Hitler stupidly declared war, duped, incidentally, by the Japanese with false promises of declaring war on the Soviet Union, American popular opinion was decidedly against joining the war. Pearl Harbor and Germany’s declaration of war changed that, and no longer required FDR or his largely Jewish cabinet to try and persuade the American public to declare war on Germany. Hitler did that favor for them. Whether the American people would be so keen on declaring war on Germany, particularly if the Reich had been able to capitulate the Soviet Union, is equally unclear, particularly given the brutal fighting that occurred in the Pacific, in which the Japanese did not abide by Western norms such as surrendering when overwhelmed or defeated in battle. Regardless, there is no advantage in not delaying war with the United States as long as possible, in the event that war would have been inevitable, precisely because Germany did not have the military capacity or wherewithal to prosecute a war against the United States with any prospect of success while also at war with the United Kingdom and pitted against the Red Army in the most brutal and horrific fighting that was the Ostfront.

These and other considerations demonstrate conclusively that America’s many provocations and offenses against Germany do not change the analysis regarding the decision to declare war on the United States. If Germany and her war machine were a truly omnipotent force, as invincible as imaginary space invaders from Mars or some other fantastical distant planet, Germany would have been absolutely and utterly justified in declaring war on the United States. But even as the Wehrmacht was the very paragon of military discipline and one of the greatest fighting forces in the annals of military history, the Wehrmacht, although a most lethal instrument indeed, was not so omnipotent. Because even the German military had its limitations as to the maximum threshold as to what material superiority it could ever possibly overcome, any sane, rational person is compelled to condemn the decision to declare war on the United States, which in effect gave both Churchill and FDR precisely what they wanted, dooming Germany in the process. By involving Germany with a third peer power before pacifying either of the other two powers she was at war with, Hitler rendered Germany’s defeat a nigh absolute, mathematical certainty, regardless of the unparalleled sacrifice, valor, and fighting prowess of those fallen, tragic heroes, those great defenders of Germany and Mother Europa, those fearsome columns of feldgrau that were the vaunted deutsche Wehrmacht.

Compare and contrast Hitler’s megalomania which drove him to such a disastrous strategic blunder with how Abraham Lincoln handled The Trent Affair. The Trent Affair concerned the detainment of, as one might guess, a British vessel called the Trent, which was transporting two confederate delegates to the British Isles on a diplomatic mission. The USS San Jacinto of the Union Navy intercepted and detained the Trent, in contravention of international and maritime law, and impounded the Confederate diplomats, who were in British custody, thus violating British sovereignty and provoking the most powerful nation on Earth. This outraged public opinion in Britain, and created the real prospect of drawing Britain into the war on the side of the Confederacy, notwithstanding the aversion to the institution of slavery held by a large majority of the British. Despite the hawkish temperament of some in his cabinet, Lincoln released the confederate delegates. When some in his cabinet balked, Lincoln simply replied “One war at a time, gentlemen.” This temperance allowed Lincoln to win his war. The lack of such temperance, despite fairly outrageous provocations by FDR and his cabinet with a very strong kosher aftertaste, doomed Germany and made it nigh impossible for Germany to win the Second World War, likely dooming Europe and the West in the process.

One of the fallen heroes of Stalingrad. On the left is a famous image of one of the German soldiers to die at Stalingrad. Fairly well decorated, the captain's Iron Cross First Class, wound badge, and combat clasp are in plain view, with the top of the combat clasp broken off, a practice adopted by German soldiers in Stalingrad to denote the particular brutality of the combat conditions they experienced. His name was Friedrich Konrad Winkler, and to the right readers will behold his wedding picture. He died shortly after surrendering in February 1943. Those who so cavalierly dismiss Hitler’s criminal malfeasance regarding Stalingrad and other debacles are to be reminded of the callous disregard for the lives of hundreds of thousands of men like Winkler, men far better than those who are so dismissive of the manner in which they were betrayed.

Despite how improbable German victory was after this decision, Hitler further failed Germany and national socialism as a cause by other strategic and more particularly tactical blunders. First and foremost was Hitler’s absurd stand or die order in the wake of the Battle of Stalingrad. Many of his generals wisely did not share the fixation on Stalin’s namesake, as many historical books and treatises persuasively demonstrate Hitler’s insistence to capture the city under those particular circumstances was utterly foolish. But once the offensive broke down, and once the corridor, consisting mostly of Romanian, Hungarian, and Italian troops was threatened, Hitler refused to react by withdrawing the beleaguered Sixth Army to safety, and instead issued his utterly absurd stand or die order. This order doomed the Sixth Army, and led directly to its encirclement and destruction. Even as Manstein orchestrated General Hermann Hoth’s heroic but failed effort to relieve the Stalingrad pocket, Hitler refused to allow von Paulus to withdraw and fight towards Hoth’s 4^th Panzer Army[13], sealing the grim fate of the Sixth Army, with hundreds of thousands of German soldiers dying in the Stalingrad pocket or dying in Soviet captivity under unspeakably depraved conditions that typified life of German POWs in the Soviet gulag.

Similar orders were made in other contexts, including the German response to Operation Star, as well as in the aftermath of Rommel’s offensive being repelled at El Alamein, in which the Desert Fox disobeyed this suicidal Führerbefehl. Paul Hausser, commanding general of the SS Panzer Corps holding Kharkov, disregarded such orders by withdrawing his beleaguered forces. Had he not done so, three of the most celebrated—and feared—units in the German armed forces—Waffen SS Panzer Divisions Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler (LAH) and Das Reich as well as Panzergrenadier Division Großdeutschland [14] would almost certainly have suffered the same fate as their fallen comrades in the Sixth Army at Stalingrad. Manstein disobeyed such an order as well in early 43 around the same time, but instead of flatly disobeying and retreating in defiance of the Führerbefehl, Manstein persuaded Hitler to come to his headquarters at Zaporizhia some 50 kilometers from the front, and convinced Hitler to sign off on the necessary withdraw. Manstein saved Army Group Don on the Donbas basin through his masterful withdrawal, while establishing the precursors to his celebrated Backhand Blow at Kharkov.[15] Had either Hausser or Manstein failed to disobey Hitler in their own particular ways, Hitler’s ridiculous “stand and defend” orders would have led to precisely the same or even worse disasters as had befallen the Sixth Army, hastening Germany’s defeat by a year or more, likely allowing the Red Army to march through all of Europe, all the way to the English Channel. This offers just a small taste of Hitler’s abysmal failures operationally and tactically. There are others. For example, on the day of the landings at Normandy, the defending German forces were in a period of inaction during the most critical hours because certain generals prone to sycophancy refused to wake the Führer up, noting he likes to sleep in. This and other episodes were likely connected to addiction to opiates, amphetamines, and other illicit substances, an issue that Darryl Cooper expounded on at some length during his recent appearance on the Joe Rogan podcast.

These and other blunders are compounded by the callous disregard and even disdain he exhibited towards the lives of the German people and—as demonstrated repeatedly in the issuance of suicidal stand and defend orders recounted above—even the soldiers and officers fighting under his command. In the closing months of the war, this callous disregard for the lives of Germans escalated to mass murder of a different, more deliberate sort, when Hitler turned his demonic brutality against the German people themselves outright. SS units of the Dirlewanger brigade sort—and generally not of bona fide combat units such as SS LAH, Das Reich—and other rogue elements went on killing sprees of any German even suspected of desertion, whether pressed into the military or civilian. This was not done with any hope of changing the outcome of the war, but to buy Hitler and his top entourage a few more days to live before having to do the inevitable. Far more appalling was the Nero Decree given to Albert Speer, which quite thankfully Speer never considered carrying out. Had he done as ordered, this Nero decree would have done far more than merely decimate the German population.

To be sure, the policy of unconditional surrender was a catalyst, cornering a vicious, dangerous, and wounded animal in a situation where he dies regardless of what he does. Despite the Allies deserving much more of the blame than the “post war consensus” affords, Hitler’s intentions with the German people during the closing phases of the war is beyond repugnant. While Germany is in the throes of an existential threat she can barely perceive properly through the distorted perspective induced by war guilt, allied propaganda, and the various auspices of American Unkultur that have been installed[16] into the German consciousness through nearly a century of occupation, Hitler’s designs at the end of the war would truly have been Finis Germania, as he would practically have carried out the Morgenthau Plan on his own, saving the Yids the trouble of doing much of the dirty work themselves. The order to burn Paris almost a year earlier, which was also refused, is also an indictment. Returning to what he intended for the German people, in the wake of Germany’s pending capitulation, he intended to decimate large numbers of the German population on his account of HIS abject failure—morally and militarily, as demonstrated by this blood-chilling recount by Albert Speer of what Hitler said to him when giving Speer orders to carry out the Nero decree:[17]

If the war were lost, the nation would also perish. This fate was inevitable. There was no necessity to take into consideration the basis which the people would need to continue a most primitive existence. On the contrary, it would be better to destroy these things ourselves, because this nation will have prove[n] to be the weaker one and the future belongs solely to the stronger eastern nation. Besides, those who would remain after the battle were only the inferior ones, for the good ones had been killed." (498)

Other statements demonstrate Hitler had the audacity to blame the German people and above all the millions of German soldiers and officers who fought so fiercely and bravely, dying all too often in the process for his blunders and failures.

None of this means that I regard or that anyone should regard the Allies and more particularly the Soviets as anything other than an evil unto their own, as bad or indeed worse than Hitler was. It must also be stressed that Hitler’s worst characteristics did not present themselves in earnest until after American provocations that preceded his disastrous decision to declare war on the United States (again, disastrous not because it was unjustified but because Germany did not have the material power or the tactical or strategic position to declare and prosecute a war against the United States successfully when embroiled with the Soviet Union and the British Empire). The matter is hotly debated among historians, and while I regard the Holocaust as “a mere detail in history,” I am persuaded by the likes of Richard J. Evans who argues that the Holocaust was only initiated after war with the United States seemed inevitable, describing the Final Solution as the “greatest hostage scenario” in the history of humanity. Indeed, Darryl Cooper recently noted that the yellow Juden star Jews were forced to wear in Nazi occupied Europe was implemented only after the publication and promulgation of Germany Must Perish by Theodore Kaufman.

Brutal criminal occupation policies seemed to have stepped up as well once Germany was rendered as a wounded, trapped animal with no apparent escape. Those who have read and understood “The Scottish Play” understand how doom and despair leads to wanton and senseless killing, above all when contending with tyrants such as this. Quoting the once brave MacBeth when so cornered:

“I am in blood / Stepp’d in so far that, should I wade no more, Returning were as tedious as go o’er.”

The degree to which Allied policy, notably Britain’s refusal to negotiate peace after the Fall of France as well as the Anglo-American policy of “unconditional surrender” inform what may seem a contradictory view that, despite the list of indictments above, Britain in particular would have been better off had Nazi Germany prevailed, either with Lord Halifax prevailing during the War Cabinet Crisis or even in a less likely scenario in which Germany could somehow manage occupation and capitulation of Britain in 1940-1941,[18]

Nor is it the case that the Allies are really any better concerning the wholesale murder of innocent civilians or their unabashed war-mongering. Those who prattle on about the supposed “myth of the clean Wehrmacht” [19] like to carry on about the war crimes of an isolated occupation unit in this or that village in Yugoslavia or some terrible happening in a Russian village, whereas the entirety of the American and British air forces were targeting the entire German population through terror bombings, campaigns that were known about and universally supported by the Anglo-American world at large. While rear-guard units would shoot a hundred or even one thousand civilians as reprisals for illegal partisan atrocities against the German military, and did so while looking their victims in the eye, the self-righteous Americans and British were killing tens of thousands and on some occasions such as the Bombing of Dresden even hundreds of thousands of German civilians on a daily basis, sight unseen. Stalin and Churchill arranged the fate of Prussia and Silesia by agreeing to the revision of Soviet, Polish, and German borders with three matchsticks. The consequence of this was “ethnic cleansing” of all Germans from East Prussia, Silesia, and other areas, replete with wholesale murder and rape by the marauding Red Army.[20] Despite having the leverage of the atomic bomb, the do-goody Allies acquiesced and allowed the Soviets to partition what was left of Eastern Germany into the German Democratic Republic, more commonly known as East Germany. This of course followed complicity if not tacit approval of the wholesale rape and murder of German civilians in Prussia, Silesia, and other areas populated by Germans.[21] One third of German fatalaties suffered, and fatalaties suffered by the allies in the last six months could have perahps been avoided if unconditional surrender had not been insisted upon. The fate of German POWs handed over the by the Western Allies to to the Soviets as well as German POWs who died in Allied captivity, the statistics of which are murky at best, further bloody the “cleans hands” of the Allies. Finally, most do not consider just how close the infamous Morgenthau Plan was to being implemented, although it seems that it has been implemented, just on a much gentler, more gradual scale. Deluded and brainwashed by a constant, unremittent diet of Allied post war propaganda and war guilt, many modern “good” Germans somehow think Americans—more precisely the American Empire—are their friends.

It must also be noted—not conceded, but noted, as I have never suggested otherwise—that Hitler did desire peace early on and tried to negotiate with Britain several times as the French Campaign was winding down. Churchill and later FDR after him were as much war mongers and mass murderers as Hitler was, but at least the latter is taken at face value rather than cloaked with the absurd national myth that is so deeply imbued on both sides of the Atlantic as to be indelible.

Two letters from British veterans who survived long enough to see Britain in modern times, taken from thepp0p book The Unknown Warriors. However damning the assessment of Hitler may be, this author agrees with their assessment, notably because the worst propensites of the Führer were only exhibited once uttter doom and despair had taken hold, a concept readily accessible to anyone who has read and understands MacBeth.

Despite whatever hollow or empty assertions offered by those who support the Austrian painter so unreservedly, the bottom line is HITLER LOST THE WAR. The consequences of that are manifold, obvious, and incalculable. The partition of Europe between the United States and the Soviet Union solidified the rise of the American Empire, with the United States being the lone super power for almost 35 years since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. The United States is certainly in decline, and has proven unable to defeat a variety of rag tag, sandal shod, third world adversaries, from the rice patty farmers of North Vietnam to the Taliban in Afghanistan, both armed with not much more than ak-47s and improvised explosive devices. Even so, blessed with two oceans, a nuclear arsenal and sufficiently formidable armed forces (at least on paper), the decline of the United States may be inevitable, but it will just as assuredly be slow, almost imperceptible as it transpires over many decades or even a century or longer, the ultimate effect of which will be that the United States will, in all probability, remain just long enough to consummate the death of Mother Europa and the posterity of her sons and daughters. While there is still hope for Germany in particular, prospects seem grim at times as the German national consciousness has been subject to a deep marinade of war-guilt, augmented by the steady, inexorable evisceration of their language and culture by the import of American Unkultur, the saturation of German and other cultures in English language advertising, music, and other media, as well as the infusion of shit music and shit culture into all aspects of European society. The defeat of Nazi Germany, for which Hitler bears so much responsibility, has allowed America, the “nation producing this “culture,” to the extent one can call it culture at all, to occupy Europe, while reducing the nations of Europe as “vassal states: above all sacred Germany.”

Looking Forward: Out from under His Long Shadow

The many credible and tangible benefits and advantages of national socialism particularly but right-wing authoritarianism more generally have been so thoroughly discredited by these and other failures by the Führer, both morally and militarily, that European civilization may never disabuse itself from the lie—from the self-destruction—that is modern liberalism and democracy itself. This is particularly critical because the democratic system has proven itself utterly unfit and unable to respond to a multitude of evils that threaten racial suicide and civilizational ruin, from the Great Replacement and the demographic winter, to unbridled capitalism’s propensity to peddle any number of vices, from pornography to illicit drugs, from sports and other gambling to garbage fast-food that is not fit for consumption by anyone, most particularly European men and women.

These and other failures demonstrate that, while authoritarianism is capable of implementing state policy through actions that are actually capable of solving real problems, having one man as absolute ruler is a most dangerous prospect. The risk of vesting in one man absolute authority leading any such authoritarian movement to disaster is too great. Some recommend limiting the vote to landowners, never bothering to notice the sorts of people that own land in far greater proportion to their numbers while overlooking the problems of generational wealth and other similar considerations. Thomas Jefferson envisioned what he called a “natural aristocracy,” whereby those who have the raw, native abilities in native intelligence, good bodily health, and some semblance of a classical education—irrespective of the family wealth or poverty were born into—should be hoisted into the highest stations of a more enlightened society. This ideal was actually embraced by the Nazis in a concept known as Volksgemeinschaft, which emphasized the importance of downplaying and diminishing class differences that existed between the aristocracy, the bourgeoisie, and the proletariat and awarding and recognizing the individual based on merit, while fostering greater cohesion and unity in the German people. As I and many others have written, Robert Heinlein offers a large part of the solution in the society he envisioned in the unfortunately named Starship Troopers. “Service guarantees citizenship,” i.e. those serve or have served the nation, in the military or in other important areas of public service alone have a say. Jettison the multi-culti, united peoples of the world feel in the novel and infuse instead with the first principles of race, blood and soil and a solution to the sorts of problems presented in Hitler’s catastrophic failure is revealed. Churchill, FDR, and the cabal of International Jewry certainly wanted the destruction of Germany, but if Hitler and a handful of his more odious henchmen such as Himmler, Goering, and Goebbels somehow died in a plane crash as Fall Gelb was underway and a sort of grand national socialist council consisting of Germany’s finest military and other leaders were given power, or if Albert Speer, Rudolf Hess or an equivalent had assumed leadership, it is doubtful many of the war-losing mistakes outlined above would have been made.

Setting these colossal problems with Hitler aside, and even presupposing that each of these strategic and tactical blunders as well as monstrous, barbaric acts against white Slavic Europeans and the German people themselves could somehow be overlooked, as various detractors so foolishly insist, those who support right-wing populism and share either a skepticism or even disdain for democracy and the American Empire should and must regard Hitler with a comparable level of aversion simply because, even if one could overlook, excuse, or explain these gigantic flaws, the public view of Hitler will never be reformed by a sufficiently large number of the populace to make such rhetoric a viable strategy for convincing a critical mass of people on the common issues shared by national socialism then and the dissident right, ethno-nationalist right, and right-wing populist movements of today.

A collage of memes that express many of the grievances made by Hitler enthusiasts, but which recognize the fundamental distinctions set forth in this treatise. All but one were created by this author.

This is not to suggest that any discussion of the Third Reich or the legitimate grievances of the German people and the number of matters that national socialism discerned correctly should not be discussed or embraced; however, to whatever extent Hitler believed in those tenets that are applicable to the number of problems faced by the Occident in modern times, he ultimately betrayed those principles by failing in such catastrophic and gruesome fashion as outlined above. Dick Morris’s genius strategy of triangulation, which allowed Bill Clinton to win reelection in 1996 by absorbing many of the strengths of the Republicans in the wake of the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress while deflecting criticisms of the Democrat party at large reveals how this can be done. Instead of absurd memes that foolishly eulogize Hitler, despite the litany of crimes and failures listed above, and many others besides, embrace the unique vision proffered in this essay and most especially by Ernst Nolte, enunciating that most essential distinction between the German people as well as the deutsche Wehrmacht (and even many combat units of the Waffen SS) on one hand and the political leadership at the top so irredeemably marred and discredited by the crimes and failures outlined above on the other. Despite twenty plus years of an insidious but largely successful effort to criminalize the entirety of the deutsche Wehrmacht that impugns any charitable or favorable view of the men who fought and all too often died for Germany as the “myth of the clean Wehrmacht,” large swathes of the Anglo-American world nonetheless admire the fighting prowess of the German armed forces to this day. Using the Wehrmacht and the Noltean view of the German perspective can redeem those principles of national socialism that are still relevant to the salvation of European peoples today, while disavowing the many liabilities associated with Hitler and those who eulogize him in such simplistic and ignorant fashion.

Despite blithe and often petulant insistence to the contrary, the unique perspective and insight embraced by this author will be key for any resurgence of right-wing authoritarianism in the Occident, as this perspective recognizes and discerns the legitimate grievances of the German people at the time, that recognizes and embraces the many advantages of national socialism in principle, while still recognizing both the evil personal propensities of Hitler, as well as how the defeat and ruin of Germany resulted directly from these propensities. As Heinz Guderian so aptly quipped to his colleagues while in Allied captivity, “the principles were fine.” It was a problem of leadership—the leadership of Adolf Hitler.

Share

PLEASE NOTE: This treatise required a fair amount of time in writing and composition and reflects an accumulation of, if not expertise, a formidable level of knowledge of this subject matter over a long period of time. Readers who appreciate the insight and perspective set forth in this treatise are urged to consider offering a paid subscription or even a founding member subscription, provided such expenditures are not unduly burdensome. Readers who enjoyed this piece and found it informative and insightful are also encouraged to signify their favor for this and other writings by clicking on the “like emoji,” as well as sharing this and other articles to those who would find this and other essays and articles interesting, insightful, or provocative.

Follow Richard Parker on twitter (or X if one prefers) (@)astheravencalls.com. Remove the parentheses, which were inserted to avoid conflict with Substack’s own handle system.

[1] This phenomenon compelled Keith Woods to publish this essay, “National Doesn’t Need National Socialism.” Private correspondence demonstrates this treatise was already undergoing composition and revision before this essay by Woods was published.

[2] Anomalies such as reductions in deaths at Auschwitz from 3.5 million to 1.5 million are indeed interesting. It is also interesting that Unit 731, a covert biological and chemical warfare research and development unit—really a gruesome human experiment, torture, and murder factory—ran by the Japanese in China, left very few surviving victims. Nonetheless, contesting or disputing figures insisted by Jewish and other interests is counterproductive and unnecessary. First, a critical mass of people will never be convinced otherwise. Second, this author wishes to continue to travel to Europe. With figures insisted upon granted, the Holocaust narrative can still be attacked as a “mere detail in history,” as the populist right can expose and decry the shakedown that Norman Finkelstein and others have criticized in books and essays like The Holocaust Industry.

[3] On the particular matter of Pax Americana, I often think of the music of German aggrotech band Feindflug, particularly the spoken word samples from the song Neue Sieger, which recount the account below of the millions dead attributed to U.S. military action (not all of it unjustified such as actions in the Korean and Vietnam Wars, as well as the initial response in Afghanistan), juxtsposing that with what appears to be a pronouncement of a death sentence for war crimes, possibly a recording from the Nuremberg Trials. One of course laments that Feindflug also did not recount needless millions of dead Germans that soil American (and British) hands. The first half of this juxtaposition reads as follows, note however that eight million figure does not include millions of dead from military action in Iraq, or most of the time in Afghanistan (the song is from 2005), Libya, Syria, or deaths imputed from billions given to Isreal, which in turn directly supports “crimes against humanity” perpetrated against the Palestinians. Even so, the first sound sample reads as follows:

Japan, China, Nordkorea, Bosnien, Sudan, Jugoslawien, Afghanistan
Alle diese Länder haben etwas gemeinsam, was ist es, he?
Diese Länder sind in den vergangenen 60 Jahren von Amerikanischen Truppen bombardiert worden
Das bedeutet 8 Millionen Tote in 22 Nationen. Wer glaubt das wäre gerecht?
Sowas wie Gerechtigkeit werdet ihr nirgendwo finden!

[4] An internet search in both English and German will demonstrate this happened, but there is scant discussion of the precise nature of this scandal with detailed particulars, other than lamentations as to how the Nazis exploited this to fan the flames of so-called anti-Semitism, never mind that the charges made by the Nazis are doubtlessly true. The scandal is mentioned briefly in Before the Deluge: Portrait of Berlin in 1920s, but with no particular details. It is curious that so little information is available given that the scandal harmed the SDP dramatically in the polls, as SDP politicians in office were accepting bribes from the Barmat Brothers. It is peculiar indeed that there is so little content concerning such a momentous moment in Weimar Republic. Could it be that those who control the past, control the present, and therefore the future?

[5] Darryl Cooper, better known as “Martyr Made,” stipulates this dirty little secret in his excellent commentary concerning the outbreak of war in Ukraine and its origins. In this excellent podcast, the right-wing historian compares and juxtaposes how American foreign policy “thanked” the Russian people for giving the world a bloodless, velvet Revolution in 1991 and afterward with the misery and death imposed on the German people by the do-goody Allies for agreeing to an armistice in 1918. In discussing the deprivations of hyper-inflation and what is in effect the death of a national currency, he comments briefly on how mostly Jews procured real estate and other holdings in Germany for next to nothing by obtaining foreign currency.

[6] See generally Culture of Critique by Kevin MacDonald, for starters.

[7] This received orthodoxy never considers Hitler’s multiple attempts to negotiate peace with Britain.

[8] The transcript of the secret recordings identifies the officers present and speaking but does not identify who is speaking when.

[9] Given that terror bombings originated with RAF, including such abominations as “calling cards” used to as incendiary devices to burn down the black Forrest and civilian population centres as well as Allied policy towards German civilians both during the Second World War and at the end and during the aftermath of the First World War, to say nothing of the game with matchsticks described later and its grim consequences, such strong focus, as mandated by received orthodoxy, only on what the Germans did seems peculiar and hypocritical.

[10] This is the position espoused by John Ellis in By Brute Force, among other historians. Others disagree. While this author is convinced Germany could have prevailed against the Soviet Union if winter clothing was not neglected, and more particularly if Hitler’s blunder at Stalingrad had been avoided, it is certainly a debatable question that will continued to be a subject of much controversy.

[11] Off-hand this is evidenced throughout War Without Garlands and even Tapping Hitler’s General’s. Even though Neitzel and the publishing house tout the volume as somehow discrediting the supposed “myth of the clean Wehrmacht,” the impression it left on this reader was quite the opposite, as I reject the absurd complicity and knowledge standards of collective culpability described in footnote nineteen. One anecdote is intended to be particularly damning, concerning a captain who sat down with a Russian villager at a table before shooting him in cold blood in front of his wife and child, before shooting the deceased’s screaming wife, and then their baby. The entire unit was outraged, and the commanding officer had sought to court martial him for murder, punishable by death. The captain alleged in defense it was not murder because Russians are not human. A directive from the Führer was handed down asserting this is correct, requiring that the captain was to only face lesser charges. This is appalling, but it is of note the entire unit was outraged and the commanding officer wanted him executed for it (192-193).

[12] Note these insults are not directed at those in ideological and political affinity with this author who have a more benign view of Hitler, but is confined solely to those who spew such ridiculous blather, as exposed and refuted in this treatise.

[13] Hoth’s rush to Stalingrad reached as close as just 30km from the Stalingrad pocket.

[14] Großdeutschland was not, of course, under Hausser’s direct command but the GD withdrew in concert with his decision to disobey Hitler and withdraw SS Panzer Divisions LAH and Das Reich.

[15] For a general account of these and other events on the Donbas basin in the wake of the destruction of the Sixth Army at Stalingrad, see generally Last Victory in Russia by George M. Nipe, particularly chapters four through seven. There are of course other volumes on this critical period on the Eastern Front.

[16] Several essays by this author explain how the externalities of a given cultural milieu greatly limit individual autonomy, and even serve as a sort of programming of the mind.

[17] The significance of this excerpt requires reproduction in Speer’s verbatim statement, in the German:

Wenn der Krieg verloren geht, wird auch das Volk verloren sein. Dieses Schicksal ist unabwendbar. Es sei nicht notwendig, auf die Grundlagen, die das Volk zu seinem primitivsten Weiterleben braucht, Rucksicht zu nehmen. Im Gegenteil sei es besser, selbst diese Dinge zu zerstören. Denn das Volk hatte sich als das schwächere erwiesen und dem stärkeren Ostvolk gehöre dann ausschließlich dte Zukunft. Was nach dem Kampf übrigbliebe, seien ohnehin nur die Minderwertigen; denn die Guten seien gefallen.

[18] The near total consensus is that Sea Lion could never have worked, although Manstein argues a somewhat persuasive counterargument in Lost Victories. Kurt Student was convinced use of the Fallschirmjäger to capture key ports and areas long the coast would have been high risk but feasible. In my mind the hypothetical that would have most likely led to a negotiated peace was if the Dunkirk salient was properly destroyed or captured. Alas, it was not.

[19] Since an exhibition Verbrechen der Wehrmacht. Dimensionen des Vernichtungskrieges 1941–1944 and accompanying documentary Der unbekannte Soldat exposing or rather embellishing the crimes of the German military during the second world, a new generation of historians have unleashed a concerted campaign to impute culpability to the German military generally and, in practical terms, categorically to each and every German soldier and officer who served his country. The Myth of the Eastern Front, a laughably biased polemic that originally was subjected to many poor reviews on amazon.com (they were eventually deleted) and other websites is a notable exemplar of this school of thought. It is noteworthy that screeds like “Crimes of the Wehrmacht: A Re-evaluation” by Alex. J Kay and David Stahel and other texts, both “academic” and otherwise, assign guilt on complicity and knowledge standards. If a solider was in the general vicinity of reprisals against Soviet partisans, carrying out of the commissar order, or even the systemic murder of Jews and others targeted by the Reich, this school of thought regards any such individual as similarly culpable on this complicity and knowledge standard. It is laughably ridiculous to expect a solider or officer to take arms against his own military or commit desertion or some.other act, particularly when all these men were otherwise focused on fighting for their nation in the throes of a death struggle against Soviet Bolshevism while also trying to simply survive. There are other problems with this reasoning, including how men who served for example in an artillery battalion would be in anyway responsible, or for that matter panzer crews in das Heer and even the Waffen SS. The reputation of the Waffen SS in particular has been so tarnished as to seem utterly beyond redemption, but it remains unclear how a man like Michael Wittmann and his crew were war criminals or did anything other than engage and destroy Soviet and later allied armor in a heroic bid to save their country. In defiance of a new consensus among an academic elite subject, to put it mildly, to ideopolitical capture, I submit that the vast majority of the Wehrmacht and even appreciable numbers of the Waffen SS fought fiercely and with honor and incredible fighting prowess the likes of which the world may never see again, and did so in ways that do not deserve being branded as war criminals or the like. Unfortunately, what passes as modern historical scholarship, subject to certain ideolpolitical capture, is so uniform and lockstep on this matter it is difficult to find recent works which rebut or even criticize this mantra. While consisting of anecdotes from Germans who lived during this time, as recounted over half a century, Professor of Germanics Frederic Tubach reaches a somewhat similar conclusion in German Voices, in which he makes a firm distinction between what he calls German patriots and nationalists on one hand and bona fide Nazis on the other. One interview of a German veteran who was captured in Italy is particularly moving, as Tubach recounts that he sensed, with disapproval, that the veteran was despondent even in old age that they lost.

[20] See generally de Zayas, A Terrible Revenge and After the Reich by Giles MacDonogh, among other works. Statistics on number of dead from Churchill and Stalin matchstick play vary, but most estimates place the number underor a little more than two million, not counting those who lost everything, rape survivors, and so on.

[21] See e.g. Churchill and Stalin playing with matchsticks and the accompanying footnote.

WORKS CITED.

Buchanan, Patrick J. Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World. Crown, 2008.

Cooper, Darryl. "Enemy: The Germans' War, Prologue." The Martyrmade Podcast.

https://martyrmade.com/ Audio.

Cooper, Darryl. "Thoughts on Ukraine (Remastered)." The Martyrmade Podcast,https://martyrmade.com/. Audio.

Evans, Richard J. The Coming of the Third Reich. Penguin Books, 2004.

Evans, Richard J. The Third Reich at War. Penguin Books, 2009.

Evans, Richard J. The Third Reich in Power. Penguin Books, 2006.

Feindflug. "Neue Sieger." Volk und Armee, 2005, Album.

Finkelstein, Norman. The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering. Verso, 2000.

Friedrich, Otto. Before the Deluge: A Portrait of Berlin in the 1920s. Harper & Row, 1972.

Glantz, David M., et al. Slaughterhouse: The Handbook of the Eastern Front. Aberjona Press, 2005.

Gordon, Mel. The Seven Addictions and Five Professions of Anita Berber: Weimar Berlin’s Priestess of Decadence. Feral House, 2006.

Heinlein, Robert A. Starship Troopers. G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1959.

Jelavich, Peter. Berlin Cabaret. Harvard UP, 1996.

Kaufman, Theodore N. Germany Must Perish! Argyle Press, 1941.

Kay, Alex J., and David Stahel. "Crimes of the Wehrmacht: A Re-evaluation." Journal of Contemporary History, vol. 55, no. 2, Apr. 2020, pp. 236-258, doi:10.1177/0022009419864166.

Kershaw, Robert J. War Without Garlands: Barbarossa 1941-42. Ian Allan Publishing, 2000.

Le Pen, Jean Marie. [Specific work unknown; quote attributed to interview or speech, publication details unavailable].

MacDonald, Kevin. The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements. Praeger, 1998.

Manstein, Erich von. Lost Victories. Translated by Anthony G. Powell, Zenith Press, 2004.

Neitzel, Sönke. Tapping Hitler’s Generals: Transcripts of Secret Conversations, 1942–45. Translated by Geoffrey Brooks, Frontline Books, 2007.

Nipe, George. Last Victory in Russia: The SS-Panzerkorps and Manstein’s Kharkov Counteroffensive, February–March 1943. Schiffer Military History, 2000.

Nolte, Ernst. Three Faces of Fascism: Action Française, Italian Fascism, National Socialism. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966.

On Moonlight Bay. Directed by Roy Del Ruth, performances by Doris Day and Gordon MacRae, Warner Bros. Pictures, 1951.

Pringle, Nicholas. The Unknown Warriors. Lulu.com, 2012.

Shakespeare, William. Macbeth. Edited by Barbara A. Mowat and Paul Werstine, Folger Shakespeare Library, Simon & Schuster, 2003.

Smelser, Ronald, and Edward J. Davies. The Myth of the Eastern Front: The Nazi-Soviet War in American Popular Culture. Cambridge UP, 2008.

Tubach, Frederic C. German Voices: Memories of Life during Hitler’s Third Reich. U of California P, 2011.

United States Congress. Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression, Volume XVI. Library of Congress, 1946, https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/llmlp/2011525338_NT_Vol-XVI/2011525338_NT_Vol-XVI.pdf.

United States Congress. Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression, Volume XLI. Library of Congress, 1946, https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/llmlp/2011525338_NT_Vol-XLI/2011525338_NT_Vol-XLI.pdf

Woods, Keith. "Nationalism, not NS." Keith Woods, March 5, 2025..

YouTube. "The Norway Campaign 1940." Uploaded by Zoomer Historian, 9 Jun. 2023.

IMPORTANT: Hitler idolators and obnocios Jews commenting on another essay have compelled the promulgation of an official COMMENT POLICY.