DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
True Left
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Questions & Debates
*****************************************************
#Post#: 32691--------------------------------------------------
Re: Russia betrayal to the anti colonialism action
DIR By: antihellenistic
Date: June 2, 2026, 5:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> "You need to read Table Talk correctly."
>
> [quote]the simple fact of owning shares in a private company
would
> be enough. Every person shall have the alternative of giving
> them up or of leaving the service of the State.
--- End Quote ---
This implies Hitler allowed the existence of three types of
people:
1) those who neither own shares in a private company nor work
for the state;
2) those who own shares in a private company and who do not work
for the state;
3) those who do not own shares in a private company and who work
for the state;
whereas you, by being in favour of banning private companies
altogether, want only 1) and 3) to exist.
...
--- Quote ---
> "You rely on sources that lack detailed historical
information"
--- End Quote ---
In my previous post, I used exclusively Table Talk, which is the
source you said you trusted:
--- Quote ---
>
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/russia-betrayal-to-the-anti-colonialism-action/msg32684/#msg32684
>
> Hitler's quote about protecting private property comes from
Table Talk, you moron. Here are some more Table Talk Hitler
quotes:
>
> [quote]I envisage the future, therefore, as follows : First of
all, to
> each man his private creed.
--- End Quote ---
Whereas you want to ban everything you yourself dislike.
--- Quote ---
> 2. In the event of a divergence between the interests of the
> State and private interests, an independent organisation shall
> settle the dispute in accordance with the interests of the
German
> people.
> The State could not be independent and possess indisputable
> authority unless those of us who had interests in private
under
> takings were excluded from the control of public affairs—and
> the simple fact of owning shares in a private company would
> be enough. Every person shall have the alternative of giving
> them up or of leaving the service of the State. Servants of
the
> State must not be in any way involved in financial
speculations.
--- End Quote ---
This implies that private companies and shareholders would
continue to exist, whereas you want to ban them.[/quote][/quote]
The quote from Hitler in "Table Talk" that you mentioned was
said by him on October 14 and November 1, 1941, and here is the
full text:
--- Quote ---
> 14th October 1941, midday SPECIAL GUEST: REICHSFUEHRER HIMMLER
Disadvantages of a Concordat with the Churches — Difficulty of
compromising with a lie — No truck with religion for the Party —
Antagonism of dogma and Science — Let Christianity die slowly —
The metaphysical needs of the soul — No State religion — Freedom
of belief.
>
> ...
>
> I envisage the future, therefore, as follows : First of all,
to each man his private creed. Superstition shall not lose its
rights. The Party is sheltered from the danger of competing with
the religions. These latter must simply be forbidden from
interfering in future with temporal matters. From the tenderest
age, education will be imparted in such a way that each child
will know all that is important to the maintenance of the State.
As for the men close to me, who, like me, have escaped from the
clutches of dogma, I've no reason to fear that the Church will
get its hooks on them.
>
> We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad
teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. We shall
continue to preach the doctrine of National Socialism, and the
young will no longer be taught anything but the truth.
>
> - Adolf Hitler, 14th October 1941
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The interest of the State and private interests — Don'ts for
Civil Servants.
>
> It's urgent, for economic purposes, to work out a statute
characterised by the two following principles :
>
> 1. The interests of the State have precedence over private
interests.
>
> 2. In the event of a divergence between the interests of the
State and private interests, an independent organisation shall
settle the dispute in accordance with the interests of the
German people.
>
> The State could not be independent and possess indisputable
authority unless those of us who had interests in private
undertakings were excluded from the control of public affairs —
and the simple fact of owning shares in a private company would
be enough. Every person shall have the alternative of giving
them up or of leaving the Service of the State. Servants of the
State must not be in any way involved in financial speculations.
If they have money, let them buy real property or invest this
money in State securities. Thus their wealth would be bound up
with the future of the State. After all, the safety offered by
these investments makes them more lucrative in the long run than
investments in private industry, which is necessarily liable to
booms and slumps.
>
> These regulations apply to members of the Reichstag, members
of the Civil Service, regular officers and the chiefs of the
Party. These men must be totally unconnected with interests
foreign to those of the State. We see what it leads to when
laxity is permitted in this field. England would not have
slipped into this war if Baldwin and Chamberlain hadn't had
interests in the armaments industry. The decadence of the
princely houses began in the same fashion.
>
> - Adolf Hitler, 1st November 1941, evening
--- End Quote ---
Source :
1. Hitler Table Talk : Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens : Free
Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive. (2016,
February 6). Internet Archive Page 62, 102 - 103
HTML https://archive.org/details/HitlerTableTalk/page/102/mode/2up
This means that, according to Hitler, private activities must be
in accordance with the public interest, namely the interests of
the German people. Therefore, private interests are actually
limited here, so activities involving private ownership cannot
have power over what is important to the state and society.
Therefore, Hitler did not give full space to acting in private
interests and the use of private property. Based on the quotes
of Hitler's words in "Table Talk" that you gave here, Hitler is
proven to hate Christianity too, thank you also for helping me
to confirm that in the historical record, Hitler was against
Christianity.
Hitler's views after 1941 also changed, becoming increasingly
focused on state control over individual property, thereby
rendering individual ownership completely meaningless.
--- Quote ---
> For Hitler, the formal maintenance of private ownership was
not important. When the state has the unrestricted right to
determine the decisions of the owners of the means of
production, the formal legal institution of private ownership no
longer means very much. This is what Pollock (1981a, 113) is
saying when he refers to the “destruction of all of the
essential traits of private ownership with the exception of
one.” The moment the owners of the means of production can no
longer freely decide the content, timing, and size of their
investments, the essential characteristics of private ownership
have been abolished, even if the formal guarantee of private
ownership still remains. We know that Hitler preferred a slow
erosion of existing rights and institutions in the political or
constitutional sphere as well. In the field of economics, the
formal legal title of ownership was relatively unimportant to
Hitler as long as the state was able step by step to seize the
actual power of disposal over the means of production and land
>
> [quote]The soil belongs to the nation, and the individual has
only the rights to the loan and the fruits of it. It is
therefore the duty of everyone to extract the maximum value from
the good earth. When Professor Hoffmann asserts that his
property is the most productive in his district, then that, I
think, is a good justification for his possession of it. The
more he puts into the earth, the more he will get out of it [1]
--- End Quote ---
- Adolf Hitler, 3th September 1942
In his speech to leaders of the armaments industry at the end of
June 1944, Hitler spoke in favor of private ownership of the
means of production—in part because Speer had asked him to do so
in order to calm the industrialists—but also stated a
restriction:
--- Quote ---
> However—and now we differentiate ourselves from the liberal
state— these achievements of highly developed individuals must
also lie within the framework of the benefit to all . . . the
liberal state holds the view, everything is good which benefits
the individual and is useful to the individual, even at the risk
of it being harmful to the whole. The National Socialist state
on the other hand has the idea, or advocates the recognition,
that while the strength lies in the individual, the deed of the
individual, the creative action of the individual must still lie
in the sense of the benefit of the whole. . . . The highest
achievements of the individual, but corrected by the interests
of a community, which in the final analysis must by its actions
and its commitment under harsh conditions, in other words in the
war, also cover for and protect the achievements of the
individual. It is therefore now only sensible and natural that
the achievement of the individual is weighed to that degree to
which this achievement benefits the whole. This modification of
the concept of private ownership is not even the slightest
restriction of the individual, individual ability, individual
creativity, diligence and so forth, but, on the contrary, it
gives the individual the greatest possibilities to develop. It
attaches only one condition to this, that the development not be
permitted to proceed to the detriment of the community, in other
words, in the end, ahead of everything else stands the total
interest of the whole. (Kotze and Krausnik 1966, 339, emphasis
mine)
--- End Quote ---
All of these statements by Hitler have in common that they— as
he expresses it—modify the concept of private ownership. What
does this “modification” consist of? Hitler only recognizes
private ownership insofar as it is used according to the
principle of “common benefit ahead of private benefit,” which
means, concretely, insofar as it is used within the framework of
the objectives set by the state. For Hitler the principle of
“common benefit ahead of private benefit” means that, if it is
necessary in the common interest, the state has the right at all
times to decide how, when, and to what extent private ownership
is used, and the common interest is, of course, defined by the
state.
With this, however, several important characteristics of private
ownership have been removed. The moment the legal title of
possession and the factual right of disposal separate, in other
words when the private person can, for example, no longer freely
decide on the nature, size and timing of the investments to be
made, essential traits of private ownership have been abolished
even though the legal institution formally remains in force. In
terms of economic relationships, this may, however,
superficially not appear to be the case, because the legal title
of ownership, and not the essential determinant of economic
form, is viewed as being the key element of the
category.[2][/quote]
Source :
1. Hitler Table Talk Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens Page 686
(Page 730 in the pdf format)
HTML https://ia601203.us.archive.org/8/items/HitlersTableTalk_1941_1944/Hugh%20Trevor-Roper%20-%20Hitlers%20Table%20Talk%201941-1944%20%28His%20Private%20Conversations%29.pdf
2. Hitler's National Socialism by Dr. Rainer Zitelmann Page 345
- 346
HTML https://dn710006.ca.archive.org/0/items/adolf-hitler-archive/Hitler%27s%20National%20Socialism%202022.pdf
--- Quote ---
> Moron.
--- End Quote ---
LOL
--- Quote ---
> [quote]"what makes you so confident that Wikipedia provides
accurate information"
--- End Quote ---
If you are dissatisfied with Wikipedia's information, go over
there and edit it. I am merely pointing out that multiple
mutually contrary interpretations of Hitler exist.[/quote]
References to Hitler's economic policies that have been
presented on the online encyclopedia site Wikipedia, mostly
explained by Germà Bel, his opinion has been refuted by
TIKhistory. For example, here is a quote from Bel explaining how
the economic activities of Hitler's regime worked which has been
refuted :
--- Quote ---
> From 02:39:24 to 02:44:33
>
> ...
>
> However, after the Nazis took power, industries were
privatized en masse. Several banks, shipyards, railway lines,
shipping lines, welfare organizations, and more were
privatized.[52]
>
> Continuing quotes from Bel’s book:
>
> “Additionally, the provision of some public services produced
by the government before the 1930s, especially social and labor
services, was transferred to the private sector, primarily to
organizations within the party.”
>
> Reference: Bel, Against the Mainstream, p. 3.
>
> TIKhistory comments:
>
> ...transferred to the private sector... primarily to
organizations... within... the Nazi Party. Transferred to the
‘private’ sector, to the party. Wait, wait, does Bel really
think the Nazi Party – the State – was a private sector
organization? Are you serious? And this is not the only time Bel
says this.
>
> Continuing quotes from Bel’s book:
>
> “Besides transferring public ownership of companies to the
private sector, the Nazi government also transferred many public
services (some longstanding, some newly created) to special
organizations: either the Nazi Party and its affiliates or other
organizations allegedly independent, formed for specific
purposes…”
>
> Reference: Bel, Against the Mainstream, p. 9.
>
> TIKhistory comments:
>
> Okay, now I start to question if there is anything in this
article that can be taken at face value. If you don’t know the
Nazi Party is the State, if you don’t realize that many people
‘buying’ the companies listed in this article were actually Nazi
Party members, or that these companies were legally and
regulatorily restricted and taxed to prevent private operation,
then it’s hard to trust anything this author says. Die Deutsche
Arbeitsfront (German Labor Front) is not part of the State
machinery but a Nazi Party organization legally independent...
Are you serious? The Nazi Party is the State. Also, it’s not
private if you’re forced to join, because you – an ordinary
citizen – cannot make a personal decision, since the public
sector makes that decision for you, forcing you to join their
organizations. If you can’t make a personal decision, you are
not free; if you’re not free, you’re not free.
>
> Continuing quotes from Bel’s book:
>
> “Membership ‘recommendations’ were mandatory... Membership,
which in theory was voluntary, was in fact compulsory. The fees
collected from workers and employees were a very large resource
available for use by the Labor Front.”
>
> Reference: Bel, Against the Mainstream, p. 9.
>
> TIKhistory comments:
>
> So, ordinary citizens had no choice but to be part of and
contribute to the state. Sorry – an organization created by the
state yet allegedly ‘private.’ Seriously, are there any Marxists
who have read this article to use against me? Clearly not.
>
> Continuing quotes from Bel’s book:
>
> “Public welfare, which before 1933 was mostly under the
jurisdiction of local and district authorities, was partially
transferred by the Nazi government to Nazi Party affiliates,
primarily the Nationalsozialistiche Volkswohlfahrt (National
Socialist People’s Welfare Organization - NSV).”
>
> Reference: Bel, Against the Mainstream, p. 9.
>
> TIKhistory comments:
>
> And again, this was not only part of the Nazi Party (which is
the State) but was compulsory and you were forced to pay for it.
Doesn’t sound like civilians were in control, does it? Then he
discusses the contemporary literature.
--- End Quote ---
Source :
HTML https://youtu.be/eCkyWBPaTC8?feature=shared
#Post#: 32692--------------------------------------------------
Re: Russia betrayal to the anti colonialism action
DIR By: antihellenistic
Date: June 2, 2026, 5:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> Which is what Wikipedia also does:
>
>
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
--- End Quote ---
Wikipedia has failed to provide accurate historical information
regarding how Hitler viewed the economic system he supported.
Even Hitler is described on Wikipedia as a social Darwinist, a
view you disagree with. Do you still believe Wikipedia's content
regarding Hitler's worldview?
--- Quote ---
> [quote]"you can place a high value on private property, but
you cannot use Hitler as a source of inspiration for that
value."
--- End Quote ---
I do not need your permission.[/quote]
Your authority cannot prevent criticism of your beliefs in
interpreting Hitler's worldview.
#Post#: 32696--------------------------------------------------
Re: Russia betrayal to the anti colonialism action
DIR By: 90sRetroFan
Date: June 2, 2026, 7:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"Hitler did not give full space to acting in private interests
and the use of private property."
Thank you for agreeing with me.
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/russia-betrayal-to-the-anti-colonialism-action/msg32690/#msg32690
--- Quote ---
> This implies Hitler allowed the existence of three types of
people:
>
> 1) those who neither own shares in a private company nor work
for the state;
> 2) those who own shares in a private company and who do not
work for the state;
> 3) those who do not own shares in a private company and who
work for the state;
>
> whereas you, by being in favour of banning private companies
altogether, want only 1) and 3) to exist.
>
--- End Quote ---
Someone who gives full space to acting in private interests
would additionally allow:
4) those who both own shares in a private company and work for
the state;
which was categorically not on my list. Moron.
"Hitler is described on Wikipedia as a social Darwinist, a view
you disagree with. Do you still believe Wikipedia's content
regarding Hitler's worldview?"
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/russia-betrayal-to-the-anti-colonialism-action/msg32690/#msg32690
--- Quote ---
> I am merely pointing out that multiple mutually contrary
interpretations of Hitler exist.
--- End Quote ---
Moron.
"Wikipedia has failed to provide accurate historical information
regarding how Hitler viewed the economic system he supported."
You:
HTML https://assets.teenvogue.com/photos/5dae2cb156a2b0000860086a/16:9/w_2560%2Cc_limit/Pol_Fake-News_10-21_PROMO.jpg
#Post#: 32698--------------------------------------------------
Re: Russia betrayal to the anti colonialism action
DIR By: antihellenistic
Date: June 3, 2026, 3:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> "Hitler did not give full space to acting in private interests
and the use of private property."
>
> Thank you for agreeing with me.
>
>
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/russia-betrayal-to-the-anti-colonialism-action/msg32690/#msg32690
>
> This implies Hitler allowed the existence of three types of
people:
>
> [quote]1) those who neither own shares in a private company
nor work for the state;
> 2) those who own shares in a private company and who do not
work for the state;
> 3) those who do not own shares in a private company and who
work for the state;
--- End Quote ---
whereas you, by being in favour of banning private companies
altogether, want only 1) and 3) to exist.
Someone who gives full space to acting in private interests
would additionally allow:
4) those who both own shares in a private company and work for
the state;
which was categorically not on my list. Moron.[/quote]
In his "Table Talk," Hitler did discuss the preservation of
private property, but gradually, in the months following March
1942, he proposed the complete nationalization of companies.
This was because he was a socialist and opposed to capitalism.
--- Quote ---
> That Germany has succeeded in solving this problem, as it has
solved many others, is due in no small measure to the fact that
the State has progressively assumed more and more control. Only
in this way was it possible to defeat private interests and
carry national interests triumphantly to their goal.
>
> After the war, equally, we must not let control of the economy
of the country slip from our hands. If we do, then once more all
the various private interests will concentrate on their own
particular objectives. The Coastal population, for example, from
the view-point of life as they see it, still regard land
reclamation by means of dam construction as the last word in
wisdom; in point of fact, however, land reclamation by this
method is the purest folly, for we have all the land we need in
the East. On the other hand, enrichment of the soil is still
most important, and it must not be impeded by the interests of
industry. When once we are convinced that slime from the sea-bed
is, on account of higher nitrogen content, a better fertiliser
than any artificial manure, we must transport whole trainloads
of it, in spite of the protests of our Chemical industry.
--- End Quote ---
- Adolf Hitler, 5th July 1942
Source :
1. Hitler’s Table Talk His Private Conversations (1941-1944)
words of Adolf Hitler Translated by Norman Cameron and R.H.
Stevens Page 559
HTML https://archive.org/details/HitlerTableTalk/page/560/mode/2up?q=559
2. Hitlers Tischgespräche im Führerhauptquartier by Dr. Henry
Picker Page 419
HTML https://archive.org/details/hitlers-tischgespraeche/page/418/mode/2up?q=ebenso+wie+mit+diesem+
--- Quote ---
> In an article on the economic system of National Socialism
published in 1941, Friedrich Pollock pointed out the following:
>
> [quote]I agree that the legal institution of private ownership
was maintained, and that many attributes characteristic for
National Socialism begin to manifest themselves, albeit still
vaguely, in non-totalitarian countries. But does this mean that
the function of private ownership did not change? Is the
‘increase of power of a few groups’ really the most important
result of the change which took place?150 I believe it reaches
far more deeply and should be described as the destruction of
all the essential traits of private ownership, saving one
exception. Even the mightiest concerns were denied the right to
set up new fields of business in areas where the highest profits
were to be expected, or to interrupt a production where it
became unprofitable. These rights were transferred in their
entirety to the ruling groups. The compromise between the groups
in power initially determined the extent and direction of the
production process. Faced with such a decision, the title of
ownership is powerless, even if it is derived from the
possession of the overwhelming majority of the share capital,
let alone when it only owns a minority. 151
--- End Quote ---
...
For Hitler, the formal maintenance of private ownership was not
important. When the state has the unrestricted right to
determine the decisions of the owners of the means of
production, the formal legal institution of private ownership no
longer means very much. This is what Pollock (1981a, 113) is
saying when he refers to the “destruction of all of the
essential traits of private ownership with the exception of
one.” The moment the owners of the means of production can no
longer freely decide the content, timing, and size of their
investments, the essential characteristics of private ownership
have been abolished, even if the formal guarantee of private
ownership still remains. We know that Hitler preferred a slow
erosion of existing rights and institutions in the political or
constitutional sphere as well. In the field of economics, the
formal legal title of ownership was relatively unimportant to
Hitler as long as the state was able step by step to seize the
actual power of disposal over the means of production and land
--- Quote ---
> The soil belongs to the nation, and the individual has only
the rights to the loan and the fruits of it. It is therefore the
duty of everyone to extract the maximum value from the good
earth. When Professor Hoffmann asserts that his property is the
most productive in his district, then that, I think, is a good
justification for his possession of it. The more he puts into
the earth, the more he will get out of it [1]
--- End Quote ---
- Adolf Hitler, 3th September 1942
In his speech to leaders of the armaments industry at the end of
June 1944, Hitler spoke in favor of private ownership of the
means of production—in part because Speer had asked him to do so
in order to calm the industrialists—but also stated a
restriction:
--- Quote ---
> However—and now we differentiate ourselves from the liberal
state— these achievements of highly developed individuals must
also lie within the framework of the benefit to all . . . the
liberal state holds the view, everything is good which benefits
the individual and is useful to the individual, even at the risk
of it being harmful to the whole. The National Socialist state
on the other hand has the idea, or advocates the recognition,
that while the strength lies in the individual, the deed of the
individual, the creative action of the individual must still lie
in the sense of the benefit of the whole. . . . The highest
achievements of the individual, but corrected by the interests
of a community, which in the final analysis must by its actions
and its commitment under harsh conditions, in other words in the
war, also cover for and protect the achievements of the
individual. It is therefore now only sensible and natural that
the achievement of the individual is weighed to that degree to
which this achievement benefits the whole. This modification of
the concept of private ownership is not even the slightest
restriction of the individual, individual ability, individual
creativity, diligence and so forth, but, on the contrary, it
gives the individual the greatest possibilities to develop. It
attaches only one condition to this, that the development not be
permitted to proceed to the detriment of the community, in other
words, in the end, ahead of everything else stands the total
interest of the whole. (Kotze and Krausnik 1966, 339, emphasis
mine)
--- End Quote ---
All of these statements by Hitler have in common that they— as
he expresses it—modify the concept of private ownership. What
does this “modification” consist of? Hitler only recognizes
private ownership insofar as it is used according to the
principle of “common benefit ahead of private benefit,” which
means, concretely, insofar as it is used within the framework of
the objectives set by the state. For Hitler the principle of
“common benefit ahead of private benefit” means that, if it is
necessary in the common interest, the state has the right at all
times to decide how, when, and to what extent private ownership
is used, and the common interest is, of course, defined by the
state.
With this, however, several important characteristics of private
ownership have been removed. The moment the legal title of
possession and the factual right of disposal separate, in other
words when the private person can, for example, no longer freely
decide on the nature, size and timing of the investments to be
made, essential traits of private ownership have been abolished
even though the legal institution formally remains in force. In
terms of economic relationships, this may, however,
superficially not appear to be the case, because the legal title
of ownership, and not the essential determinant of economic
form, is viewed as being the key element of the
category.[2][/quote]
Source :
1. Hitler Table Talk Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens Page 686
(Page 730 in the pdf format)
HTML https://ia601203.us.archive.org/8/items/HitlersTableTalk_1941_1944/Hugh%20Trevor-Roper%20-%20Hitlers%20Table%20Talk%201941-1944%20%28His%20Private%20Conversations%29.pdf
2. Hitler's National Socialism by Dr. Rainer Zitelmann Page 334,
335, 345, and 346
HTML https://dn710006.ca.archive.org/0/items/adolf-hitler-archive/Hitler%27s%20National%20Socialism%202022.pdf
--- Quote ---
> On June 26 [1944] about a hundred representatives of the
armaments industry gathered in the Platterhof coffee room.
During our session in Linz, I saw that their dissatisfaction was
also partly connected with the increasing interference of the
party apparatus in economic affairs. In fact, a kind of state
socialism seemed to be developing, supported by many party
functionaries. They had succeeded in distributing all the
state-owned factories to the various party districts and
subordinating them to their own district enterprises. In
particular, many underground factories, which had been equipped
and financed by the state, but whose directors, skilled workers,
and machinery had been provided by private industry, seemed
destined to come under state control after the war. 14 Our
system of directing industry in the interests of war production
could easily become the framework for a state socialist economic
order. The result was that our organization, ever more
efficient, provided the party leaders with an instrument for
destroying private enterprise. - Albert Speer, Minister of War
Industries
--- End Quote ---
Source :
Inside the Third Reich Memoirs by Albert Speer -- Albert Speer,
Richard Winston and Clara Winston -- 1970 -- The Macmillan
Company Page 358 and 359
Under Hitler's regime, no one worked solely for their individual
goals or interest; everyone had to follow the state's plans.
Therefore, private property and interests seemed limited.
Therefore, Hitler did not value private property; he considered
the interests of the state more important. So, you might value
the concept of private property, but if you value it based on
Hitler's worldview, it doesn't make sense from a historical
perspective.
--- Quote ---
> I am merely pointing out that multiple mutually contrary
interpretations of Hitler exist.
>
> ...
>
>
HTML https://assets.teenvogue.com/photos/5dae2cb156a2b0000860086a/16:9/w_2560%2Cc_limit/Pol_Fake-News_10-21_PROMO.jpg
--- End Quote ---
You emphasize the interpretation of Hitler's thought as valuing
private property, an interpretation that lacks historical
credibility. You may value private property, but using Hitler as
the source of inspiration for that assessment is incorrect from
a historical political perspective. You have your own views on
the economic system and the concept of ownership. Also, you are
the one spreading "fake news," quoting Hitler's remarks on
October 14 and November 1, 1941, in "Table Talk," which you
claim "protect private property." In fact, the full text shows
Hitler's words, which he considered problematic with Christian
teachings and demanded that religious activities should not
interfere with the interests of the state, and also required
that individual interests should not conflict with the interests
of the state, which means that private property was not valued
highly, but rather limited.
#Post#: 32705--------------------------------------------------
Re: Russia betrayal to the anti colonialism action
DIR By: antihellenistic
Date: June 4, 2026, 2:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> This implies Hitler allowed the existence of three types of
people:
>
> [quote]1) those who neither own shares in a private company
nor work for the state;
> 2) those who own shares in a private company and who do not
work for the state;
> 3) those who do not own shares in a private company and who
work for the state;
--- End Quote ---
whereas you, by being in favour of banning private companies
altogether, want only 1) and 3) to exist.
Someone who gives full space to acting in private interests
would additionally allow:
4) those who both own shares in a private company and work for
the state;
which was categorically not on my list. Moron.[/quote]
Hitler changed his views on the concept of ownership in 1944 to
1945. Hitler changed his views on the concept of ownership
towards a stance of supporting a planned economy in 1944 to
1945, which meant controlling individual/private ownership, not
valuing individual ownership highly.
--- Quote ---
> Hitler's Reichs Press Chief Otto Dietrich writes in his
memoirs that Hitler had sensed that
>
> ... the economic requirements of human large-area development
had outgrown the structure of the former self-regulating private
capitalistic economic system and that common sense demanded a
new, more efficient economic structure, in other words a planned
overall management. The economic principle he was envisaging can
be expressed as follows: private capital production based on a
belief in the common good and under state control!' [1]
>
> We must note, however, that in this Hitler sometimes played
with the idea of calling the principle of private ownership into
question and nationalizing important parts of industry - as we
will show in the next chapter.
>
> Speer reports that in the light of such tendencies, which were
analogous to an actual development in which the influence of the
state on business continued to grow, serious 'ill humour' began
to spread among industrialists, including the representatives of
the armaments industry, directed against the
>
> ... increasing spread of the power of the party machine on
business. And, in fact, a sort of state socialism appeared to be
gaining ground in the minds of numerous party functionaries...
Our system of controlling industry the war had caused, and which
above all else had also shown itself to be very effective, was
well suited to become the pattern for a state-controlled
nationalized economic order, so that it was the industrialists
themselves who by their improved results were, if you like,
delivering tools for their own destruction into the hands of the
party leaders. [2]
>
> This background information is required for us to understand
the speech which Hitler gave on 26 June 1944 at the Obersalzberg
to representatives of the armaments industry. [3] Speer had
expressly requested that Hitler allay these fears of the
industrialists in a speech, whereupon Hitler asked Speer to give
him some cues. Speer reports:
>
> ...I noted down for him that he should promise the
representatives of industrial self-administration that they
would receive help in the times of heavy crisis to be expected,
furthermore that they would be protected against interference by
local party authorities, and finally an emphatic avowal of the
'invulnerability of the private ownership of the production
plants' even when these were temporarily moved underground as
plants run by the state, free enterprise after the war, and a
fundamental rejection of the nationalization of industry. [4]
>
> None of this was at all in line with Hitler's true
convictions. Nevertheless he saw the need to follow Speer's
advice and dispel the suspicions of the industrialists.
>
> And indeed, in his speech we find several statements in which
he rejects any nationalization of the means of production,
declares his respect for private ownership [5] and explains the
economic principle of competition in terms of socio-Darwinism.
[6] Many of these statements are not to be taken seriously -
even if they might have equated to some of his views in former
years - because we know from Speer that the purely tactical
objective of dispelling the suspicions of the industrialists was
the overriding motive. And Hitler did not really succeed in
presenting the assurances Speer had asked of him convincingly
and credibly. Speer reports on his impression of Hitler's
speech: 'In his speech, in which he kept to my cues, Hitler gave
the impression of being inhibited. He made frequent slips of the
tongue, stopped, broke off in mid- sentence, lacked fluidity of
expression and occasionally confused himself! Speer also
attributes this to Hitler's state of exhaustion. What appears to
be more important to us, however, was that Hitler had been
compelled to state views which were far removed from his true
convictions, and to give a speech which, in contrast to his
custom, had partially been written by someone else. And, as
Speer noted, Hitler immediately relativized his statements:
>
> At first Hitler rejected any ideological reservations because
there can only be one dogma, and this dogma says in short, the
right thing is the thing which is expedient'. With this he
reinforced his pragmatic way of thinking and in the true sense
took back all of the assurance given to industry. [7]
>
> In fact Hitler began his speech with the following:
>
> ... in the liberal state of yesteryear, business, in the final
analysis, was the servant of capital, the people, in the opinion
of many, a means for business. In the National Socialist state
the people are the dominating factor, business a means in the
service of the preservation of the people, capital a means of
directing business... In directing the fight for existence of a
nation there can be only one dogma, namely to apply those means
which lead to success. Any further dogma would be harmful. I
would therefore not shrink back from anything if 1 knew that one
or the other of these methods was failing. [8]
>
> This introduction by Hitler, as Speer rightly notes, was not
at all appropriate for reassuring the industrialists. But only
if looked at superficially is it an expression of 'a pragmatic
way of thinking'. In reality Hitler's statement that there was
no dogma in business, had, as we have already shown, more of the
function of a warning that for him the system of free enterprise
was also not gospel. When he then added that he would 'not
shrink back from anything' if one or the other method were to
fail, then this too was only a thinly veiled threat which made
all of his subsequent avowals in favour of private ownership and
against nationalization worthless.
>
> Hitler went even further and told the industrialists that
state control of the economy would continue after the end of the
war in order to maintain a relative autarky for Germany:-
>
> This, gentlemen, is immediately an area [we should note
Hitler's choice of words— R.Z.] where, in future as well, state
control will have to intervene. It must intervene here from the
vantage of a higher insight. It is an insanity to produce
cartridges out of brass in times of peace and to know very well
that after three months of war one then has to immediately
convert to cartridges out of iron or steel, an insanity! But the
brass cartridge is prettier, it is easier to manufacture and
furthermore it is well introduced. This is where the task of
state control begins, or where it receives its assignment.
namely to assure that the higher insight of war is taken into
account here. [9]
>
> In the end, the speech Hitler had given on Speer's advice and
which Speer had helped to formulate had a completely different
result from what Speer had imagined. As Speer summarizes: "The
avowal of a free economy in times of peace, which I had asked of
Hitler and been promised, came out far less clearly than I had
expected.' Nonetheless, said Speer, some of the statements in
the speech had been noteworthy, so he asked Hitler for
permission to file it in the archives - which never came about
because Bormann prevented it and Hitler remained evasive. [10]
>
> Hitler himself was convinced, as he emphasized in his last
radio address on 30 January 1945, 'that the age of unrestricted
economic liberalism had outlived itself[11] In his final
dictations to Martin Bormann about one month later, he said in
looking back: "The crisis of the thirties was only a crisis of
growth, albeit of global proportions. Economic liberalism
unveiled itself as having become an outdated formula. [12]
--- End Quote ---
Source :
Main source : Hitler : The Policies of Seduction by Rainer
Zitelmann Page 228 until 236
HTML https://archive.org/details/hitlerpoliciesof0000zite/page/228/mode/2up?q=the+fourth+anniversary+of+the+seizure+of+power
1. Dietrich, O., Zwölf Jahre mit Hitler (Twelve Years with
Hitler) (Cologne, 1955). Page 188
Link to read :
HTML https://archive.org/details/hitleriknewmemoi0000diet/page/142/mode/2up
2. Speer, A., Erinnerungen (Memoirs) (Frankfurt/M.-Berlin, 1969)
p. 369. The fear industry had about the extension of a system of
planned economy that Speer reports on was also reinforced by
several statements of the party. Herbst, for example, writes
that the Völkische Beobachter, the central organ of the NSDAP,
occasionally appeared to be not far removed from the idea a
planned economy' (Herbst, p. 329). Herbst also cites from an
article in the VB of 19 August 1944: "What is the sense today,
when we are aspiring to new forms of the economy. of sitting
like Iphigenia on Taurian shores and pining for the memories of
the past. Economic forms are nothing more than a function of the
amount of production, and since we are aspiring to a new
dimension of production we must accept new economic forms.'
(Herbst, p. 330). Herbst formulates the misgivings many
industrialists had in view of the increasing state direction
during the war: *... were not many industrialists being set
aside by the means of power of the state, which could lead to
the beginning of an expropriation? And was private property
still secure, simply because a nation- alization was not taking
place? Was not a form of state economy announcing itself in this
economic system under state control, which could renounce
nationalization because it no longer needed it?" (Herbst, p.
328). The enforced closing down of companies within the
framework of 'total war' also nourished such fears among small
businessmen. While on the one hand assurances were given that
these factories could re-open after the war, on the other the
suspicion that in fact 'the wat was being used as a motor for
social changes' kept receiving new nourishment (Herbst, p. 224).
On 14 February 1943, for example, an article appeared in the
periodical Das Reich with the provocative title: "Shops under
the Magnifying Glass'. It said, among other things, that 'not
all the owners of the companies closed down could expect that
their factories would open again after the war' (cited in
Herbst, p. 224).
Link to read :
HTML https://archive.org/details/albert-speer-erinnerungen/page/368/mode/2up
3. The dating to early June 1944 found in Kotze and Krausnick
(p. 335 et seg.) and Domarus (p. 2112) is incorrect. Compare
Herbst, p. 333, n. 324.
4. Speer, p. 369.
5. Kotze and Krausnick, p. 337 et seq., speech on 26 June 1944.
6. Ibid., pp. 341-3.
7. Speer, p. 369 et seg.; our italics.
8. Kotze and Krausnick, p. 336, speech on 26 June 1944.
9. ibid., p. 348.
10. Speer, p. 371. Herbst misinterprets Hitler's speech on 26
June 1944 to industrialists in the armaments industry. In
Hitler's statements he sees a clear rejection of a planned
economy and states that he, like Ohlendorf (Ministry of
Economics) and Speer, believed that 'the German economic order
in the post-war era should be based on private ownership and
private initiative' (Herbst, p. 337). In contrast to this, Speer
quite rightly pointed out that Hitler's avowal of a free economy
had been 'unclear', and that the speech had not fulfilled its
purpose, namely to soothe the fears of the industrialists about
the extension of the system of planned economy after the end of
the war. Herbst objects to this and states: Hitler clearly
avowed his commitment to private property as the base for the
future economic order and announced in the case of a German
victory that "the private initiative of the German economy will
experience its greatest era" (Herbst, p. 335). Since Herbst does
not take into account that the only purpose of this speech was
to dispel the fears of the industrialists, he finds it 'strange'
that Hitler refused, against Speer's request, to have the speech
published: It must remain unclear whether it was the linguistic
condition of the speech or its content which made it disappear
in the safe.' (Herbst, p. 335). In our view, however, this is
neither 'unclear' nor 'strange', any more than the fact that
Hitler frequently commit- ted slips of the tongue and did not
concentrate. In contrast to his usual custom, he had not
completely prepared the speech himself but had primarily kept to
Speer's notes. Herbst also contradicts himself fundamentally
when he claims on the one hand that Hitler favoured a reduction
of state intervention after the war (Herbst, p. 128 et seg.) and
was serious in his support of a free economy after the war, but
writes, on the other hand, that a National Socialist government
could hardly have taken the road into a free economy, even if it
had wished to attempt this something which cannot be assumed
with any certainty' (Herbst, p. 433; also compare p. 459). While
there were intentions within the Ministry of Economics to reduce
state direction after the war, the criticism by Ohlendorf - who
had held an important position in the ministry from December
1943 on - shows that his middle class ideology had nothing in
common with Hitler's concept of National Socialism. Ohlendorf
laments, for instance, that in all aspects of life the
individual was being 'equated' to the soldier, he criticizes the
uniformity of life, the orientation of production to
requirements, 'norming' and mass production, as well as,
fundamentally, that in the system of planned economy the
individual 'was being subordinated to the economy' (see Herbst,
p. 286 et seg.).
11. Domarus, p. 2196, speech on 30 January 1945.
Link to read :
HTML https://archive.org/details/the-complete-hitler-speeches-and-proclamations-1932-1945_202409/page/3005/mode/2up?q=unrestricted+economic+liberalism
12. Hitlers politisches Testament. Die Bormann-Diktate vom
Februar und April 1945 (Hitler's Political Testament. The
Bormann Dictations of February and April 1945) (Hamburg, 1981).
With an essay by Hugh R. Trevor-Roperand an epilogue by André
François-Poncet. Cited as Testament p. 106, dictation of 24
February 1945
Link to read :
HTML https://archive.org/details/hitlerspolitisch0000hitl/page/106/mode/2up
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once again, you are wrong in determining Hitler's view on the
concept of ownership. It is you who spread fake news
#Post#: 32706--------------------------------------------------
Re: Russia betrayal to the anti colonialism action
DIR By: 90sRetroFan
Date: June 4, 2026, 2:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
"you are the one spreading "fake news,""
"It is you who spread fake news"
Thank you for behaving exactly how I predicted you would behave:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/russia-betrayal-to-the-anti-colonialism-action/msg32696/#msg32696
--- Quote ---
> You:
>
>
HTML https://assets.teenvogue.com/photos/5dae2cb156a2b0000860086a/16:9/w_2560%2Cc_limit/Pol_Fake-News_10-21_PROMO.jpg
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 32708--------------------------------------------------
Re: Russia betrayal to the anti colonialism action
DIR By: antihellenistic
Date: June 4, 2026, 7:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'll give another example of the writing "fake news"
--- Quote ---
> The National Socialist state has no problem with private
property or firearm ownership (indeed it demands compulsory
firearm ownership) because it trusts its folk to be devout
National Socialists. Hitler ridiculed communists thus: “Even for
the Bolsheviks, the notion of collective ownership has its
limits. Trousers … are regarded as private property.”
>
> And while both aim at encouraging contribution to state
projects, communist propaganda does so by diminishing the
importance of the individual compared to the collective, whereas
National Socialist propaganda does so by exalting the importance
of the individual. Again we see the unspoken communist distrust
of its own followers: it assumes that individualism will always
lead to selfishness, so its recourse is to drown its audience in
collectivism. Again we see the unspoken National Socialist faith
in its folk: it believes that by telling its audience that each
one of them can be a hero, each one of them will live up to this
inspiration.
>
> ...
>
> “Bolshevism preaches international class conflict … National
Socialism aims at bridging over and equalizing unfavourable
contrasts in social life, and in uniting the whole population in
collaborative work.” – Adolf Hitler
--- End Quote ---
Source :
National Socialism and Communism - ARYANISM (Captured on 1th May
2018)
HTML https://web.archive.org/web/20180501033843/http://aryanism.net/politics/national-socialism-and-communism
I will answer the "fake news". Historically, Hitler's words that
you mentioned in your writing were recorded on November 20,
1941, the full text of which is:
--- Quote ---
> 20th November 1941 Germany's sense of duty.
>
> If the mental picture that Christians form of God were
correct, the god of the ants would be an ant, and similarly for
the other animals.
>
> Even for the Bolsheviks, the notion of collective ownership
has its limits. Trousers, shirts, handkerchiefs — for those who
have such a thing — are considered private property.
>
> We Germans have that marvelous source of strength — the sense
of duty — which other peoples do not possess. The conviction
that, by obeying the voice of duty, one is working for the
preservation of the species, helps one to take the gravest
decisions.
>
> What would have happened if Italy, instead of becoming
Fascist, had become Communist? We ought to be grateful to the
Duce for having dispelled this danger from Europe. That's a
service he has rendered that must never be forgotten. Mussolini
is a man made to measure the centuries. His place in history is
reserved for him.
>
> What doesn't Italy owe to Mussolini? What he has achieved in
every sphere! Even Rhodes, that island fell asleep in the far
future, he created out of the void. Compare that fertile island
with the Greek islands, and you understand what Mussolini has
done for his country.
--- End Quote ---
Source :
1. Hitler Table Talk : Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens : Free
Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive. (2016,
February 6). Internet Archive Page 135
HTML https://archive.org/details/HitlerTableTalk/page/134/mode/2up
The quote about "uniting the whole populations in collaborative
work" from Hitler's speech you posted on your website comes from
a book titled ADOLF HITLER FROM SPEECHES 1933-1938, Hitler said
it on March 7, 1935. You need to know that Hitler didn't talk
about the concept of ownership and economic systems only on
November 20, 1941. In the years that followed, Hitler began to
believe that individual ownership should be under the
supervision and control of the state government.
See again:
1.
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/russia-betrayal-to-the-anti-colonialism-action/msg32698/#msg32698
2.
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/russia-betrayal-to-the-anti-colonialism-action/msg32705/#msg32705
The source for the quote from Hitler's speech on "collaborative
work" can be found here:
ADOLF HITLER FROM SPEECHES 1933-1938 Page 31
HTML https://archive.org/details/AdolfHitlerFromSpeeches/page/n15/mode/2up?q=aims+at+bridging+over
--- Quote ---
> Even a genuinely benevolent communist state must ultimately
monitor and control every aspect of people’s private lives in
order to function; a National Socialist state, by retaliating
against the demographic violence of reproduction, can afford to
be largely non-intrusive in private matters.
--- End Quote ---
The private life of individuals under Hitler's regime was
controlled, as recorded in historical records. Hitler also
wanted class conflict
--- Quote ---
> "The only person in Germany who still has a private life is a
person who's sleeping."
--- End Quote ---
Source :
Robert Ley, Head of the German Labour Front, quoted from Evans,
"The Third Reich in Power," p107.
--- Quote ---
> To calm any fears that capitalists might have in regard to the
term socialism though, Reupke deceivingly stressed that
"socialization, collectivized economy and a centrally directed
planned economy are expressly rejected [in the party pro- gram]"
(29). Instead, he noted, National Socialist ideology demanded
"that private property and private initiative, that economies
all together should not be directed solely toward person
advantage, but rather always with the benefit of the commonweal
in mind" (29). Yet while official Nazi rhetoric conceded the
right to private property, the alleged rejection of physical
nationalization was disingenuous, because, as Reupke explained,
"nationalization, if we can call it such, is not brought about
in a corporeal manner, rather it is shifted into the domain of
the mind" (32). He further explained that this would be brought
about by "suppression of personal pursuit of profit and
cleansing the economy of 'financial ethics' (30).[1]
--- End Quote ---
Johannes "Hans" Karl Eduard Reupke (* July 23, 1892 in
Saargemünd; † November 20, 1942 in Dijon) was a German lawyer,
businessman, and publicist.[2]
Source :
1. Antisemitic Elements in the Critique of Capitalism in German
Culture, 1850-1933 by Matthew Lange Page 294
HTML https://books.google.co.id/books?redir_esc=y&id=jMQpHAMEF1EC&q=Zentrale+Planung#v=snippet&q=private%20initiative&f=false
--- Quote ---
> "Both governments [Nazi and Soviet] reorganised industry into
larger units, ostensibly to increase state control over economic
activity."
>
> "The Nazis reorganised industry into 13 administrative groups
with a large number of subgroups to create a private hierarchy
for state control."
>
> "The state therefore could direct the firms' activities
without acquiring direct ownership of enterprises."
--- End Quote ---
Source :
Tooze, Wages of Destruction page 112.
--- Quote ---
> “Dear Mr. X. Y.: This letter will probably be a disappointment
to you, but I must confess that I think as most German
businessmen do who today fear National Socialism as much as they
did Communism in 1932. But there is a distinction. In 1932, the
fear of Communism was a phantom; today National Socialism is a
terrible reality. Business friends of mine are convinced that it
will be the turn of the ‘white Jews’ (which means us, Aryan
businessmen) after the Jews have been expropriated. Just when
this will happen and the extent to which ‘Aryan’ businessmen
will be pillaged depends on the internal struggle within the
Nazi party…When we consider that Hitler himself came not from
the ranks of organized labor, but from the ruined middle class
or the fifth estate, what guarantee have we that he will not
make common cause with the bandits whom he has put into
uniforms? The difference between this and the Russian system is
much less than you think, despite the fact that officially we
are still independent businessmen. You have no idea how far
State control goes and how much power the Nazi representatives
have over our work. The worst of it is that they are so
ignorant. In this respect they certainly differ from the former
Social-Democratic officials. These Nazi radicals think of
nothing except ‘distributing the wealth.’ Some businessmen have
even started studying Marxist theories, so that they will have a
better understanding of the present economic system. How can we
possibly manage a firm according to business principles if it is
impossible to make any predictions as to the prices at which
goods are to be bought and sold? We are completely dependent on
arbitrary Government decisions concerning quantity, quality and
prices for foreign raw materials. There are so many different
economic agreements with foreign countries, not to mention
methods of payment, that no one can possibly understand them
all. Nevertheless Government representatives are permanently at
work in our offices, examining costs of production, profits, tax
bills, etc…There is no elasticity of prices, sorely needed
though it be by businessmen. While State representatives are
busily engaged in investigating and interfering, our agents and
salesmen are handicapped, because they never know whether or not
a sale at a higher price will mean denunciation as a ‘profiteer’
or ‘saboteur,’ followed by a prison sentence. You cannot imagine
how taxation has increased. Yet everyone is afraid to complain
about it. The new State loans are nothing but confiscation of
private property, because no one believes that the Government
will ever make repayment, nor even pay interest after the first
few years. Compared with these new State loans, the bonds issued
during the World War were gilt-edged investments. We businessmen
still make sufficient profit, sometimes even large profits, but
we never know how much we are going to be able to keep…There are
terrible times coming. You can imagine how I feel when I think
that I am going to have to go through this terrible debacle. If
only I had succeeded in smuggling out $10,000 or even $5,000, I
would leave Germany with my family…”
--- End Quote ---
Source :
The Vampire Economy: Doing Business Under Fascism by Guenter
Reimann Page 6
HTML https://archive.org/details/vampireeconomydo0000reim/page/6/mode/2up?q=Business+friends+of+mine+are+convinced
--- Quote ---
> I want everyone to keep what he has earned subject to the
principle that the good of the community takes priority over
that of the individual. But the State should retain control;
every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State. . .
. The Third Reich will always retain the right to control
property owners
>
> [W]e will do what we like with the bourgeoisie. . . We give
the orders; they do what they are told. Any resistance will be
broken ruthlessly. . . You just tell the German bourgeoisie that
I shall be finished with them far quicker than I shall with
Marxism - Adolf Hitler
--- End Quote ---
Source :
Secret Conversations with Hitler: The Two Newly-discovered 1931
Interviews Page 32 - 33 and 36
HTML https://books.google.co.id/books?redir_esc=y&hl=id&id=EyxoAAAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=retain+control
--- Quote ---
> "Where would we take the moral right from to fight the idea of
the proletarian struggle between the classes, if the bourgeois
class-state were not first destroyed and replaced by a new
Socialist structure of the German community? - Joseph Goebbels,
Propaganda Ministry, October 1932
--- End Quote ---
Source :
1. The Nazi War Against Capitalism by Nevin Gussack Page 19
2. Leftism: from de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Marcuse Page 175
HTML https://cdn.mises.org/Leftism%20From%20de%20Sade%20and%20Marx%20to%20Hitler%20and%20Marcuse_5.pdf
--- Quote ---
> ...the bourgeois social order is no longer capable of braving
the storms of the present or of the coming age. State after
state that does not find its way to a truly social
reorganization will go down the path to chaos. The liberal age
is a thing of the past. The belief that you can counter this
invasion of the people (Vélkersturm) by parliamentary democratic
half-measures is childish and just as naive as Metternich’s®
methods when the national drives for unification were making
their way through the nineteenth century.
--- End Quote ---
- Adolf Hitler, 1st January 1945
Source :
The Complete Hitler Speeches And Proclamations 1932 1945 by Max
Domarus Page 2991
HTML https://archive.org/details/the-complete-hitler-speeches-and-proclamations-1932-1945_202409/page/2991/mode/2up
--- Quote ---
> “They have been promised happiness on earth (a feature which
distinguishes Marxism from the Christian religion) — but in the
future. The Jew, Mardochee Marx, like the good Jew that he was,
was awaiting the coming of the Messiah. He has placed the
Messiah conception in a setting of historic materialism by
asserting that terrestrial happiness is a factor in an almost
endless process of evolution. “Happiness is within your reach,”
he says, “that I promise you. But you must let evolution take
its course and not try to hurry matters.” Mankind always falls
for a specious trick of that sort.”
--- End Quote ---
The words of Hitler that you quoted were spoken on February 25,
1945, the full text of which is as follows:
--- Quote ---
> It is a fact that we always bungle everything through being
forced to act in a hurry. With us, to act swiftly is always to
act with precipitation. To acquire the gift of patience, we
should have both time and space, and at the moment we have
neither. The Russians are lucky in possessing both, quite apart
from that inclination towards placidity which is a
characteristic trait of the Slav temperament.
>
> Furthermore, thanks to the Marxist religion, they have
everything required to make them patient. They have been
promised happiness on earth (a feature which distinguishes
Marxism from the Christian religion) but in the future. The Jew,
Mardochee Marx, like the good Jew that he was, was awaiting the
coming of the Messiah. He has placed the Messiah conception in a
setting of historic materialism by asserting that terrestial
happiness is a factor in an almost endless process of evolution.
'Happiness is within your reach,' he says, 'that I promise you.
But you must let evolution take its course and not try to hurry
matters.' Mankind always falls for a specious trick of that
sort. . . .
>
> Lenin did not have the time, but Stalin will carry on the good
work, and so on and so on . . . Marxism is a very powerful
force. But how shall we assess Christianity, that other child of
Judaism, which will not commit itself further than to promise
the faithful happiness in another world? Believe me, it is
incomparably stronger!
>
> I myself am fated to being compelled to try and accomplish
everything in the short space of a human lifetime. To help me I
have but a realistic idealism, based on tangible facts, from
which flows promises that can certainly be fulfilled, but which
forbids me to promise the moon. Where others have all eternity
at their disposal, I have but a few short, miserable years.
Those others know that they will be succeeded by yet others who
will carry on where they left off, ploughing with precision
exactly the same furrow with exactly the same plough. I have now
reached the stage where I wonder whether among my immediate
successors there will be found a man predestined to raise and
carry on the torch, when it has slipped from my hand. It has
also been my fate to be the servant of a people with so tragic a
past, a people so unstable, so versatile as the German people,
and a people who go, according to circumstances, from one
extreme to the other. From my own point of view, the ideal thing
would have been, firstly to ensure the future existence of the
German people, then to form a youth imbued deeply with the
national socialist doctrine - and then to have left it to the
generations of the future to wage the inevitable war, unless, of
course, our enemies recoiled when they found themselves faced
with the newly acquired might of the German people. In this way,
Germany would have been well equipped both materially and
morally. She would have at her disposal an administration, a
foreign policy and an army all moulded from infancy in the
principles of National Socialism. The task I have undertaken of
raising the German people to the place in the world that is
their due is unfortunately not a task that can be accomplished
by a single man or in a single generation. But I have at least
opened their eyes to their inherent greatness and I have
inspired them to exaltation at the thought of the union of
Germans in one great indestructible Reich. I have sown the good
seed. I have made the German people realize the significance of
the struggle they are waging for their very existence.
--- End Quote ---
- Adolf Hitler, 25th February 1945
Source :
1. The Political Testament of Adolf Hitler by Hitler: Recorded
by Martin Bormann Page 47 and 48
HTML https://archive.org/details/PoliticalTestamentOfAdolfHitler/page/n47/mode/2up?q=Mardochee+Marx
2. Hitlers politisches Testament : die Bormann Diktate vom
Februar und April 1945 Page 109 until 110
HTML https://archive.org/details/hitlerspolitisch0000hitl/page/108/mode/2up
Hitler criticized Marxism for offering solutions that promised
happiness, but Hitler considered Stalin's work to be a good one,
and that Marxism was stronger than Christianity, which Hitler
considered "a child of Judaism." Hitler wanted the German people
to continue fighting against the enemy and following National
Socialism
So, the ideas you believe in are indeed valid, but it is not
valid to use Hitler as a source of inspiration for the ideas you
believe in, especially regarding upholding private property and
supporting Christianity. Because historical facts have shown
otherwise.
#Post#: 32711--------------------------------------------------
Re: Russia betrayal to the anti colonialism action
DIR By: 90sRetroFan
Date: June 4, 2026, 9:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"Hitler considered Stalin's work to be a good one"
You are illiterate.
--- Quote ---
> The Jew, Mardochee Marx, like the good Jew that he was, was
awaiting the coming of the Messiah. He has placed the Messiah
conception in a setting of historic materialism by asserting
that terrestial happiness is a factor in an almost endless
process of evolution. 'Happiness is within your reach,' he says,
'that I promise you. But you must let evolution take its course
and not try to hurry matters.' Mankind always falls for a
specious trick of that sort. . . .
--- End Quote ---
A trick of what sort? Answer:
--- Quote ---
> Lenin did not have the time, but Stalin will carry on the good
work, and so on and so on . . .
--- End Quote ---
Hitler here is explaining how communist propaganda tricks its
followers to keep supporting communism indefinitely, namely by
saying, when present results differ from what was initially
advertized, that communism just needs more time to actualize
what communism claims is good work. Hitler is not saying that he
himself thinks Stalin is doing good work. Moron.
Come back when you have learned to read.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 3
DIR Previous Page