DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
True Left
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Colonial Era
*****************************************************
#Post#: 30073--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hitler: The Face of Anti-Tribalism
DIR By: antihellenistic
Date: May 4, 2025, 8:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Are the writings of Hitler’s thoughts in the Table Talk book
from 1941–1944 (Hitler’s Table Talk/HTT) fake or authentic?
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8EWd-IH6HI
--- Quote ---
> Research from the TIKHistory [i]YouTube channel[/i] on
Hitler’s Table Talk book, minutes 23:10 to 24:23
>
> The critics who initially recommended this source to me (as a
way to weaken what I was saying), if they read it, either didn’t
read it to the end or didn’t pay enough attention. And in this
case, I blame the author for how he wrote the book. He paints a
picture throughout the first part of the book that Hitler’s
Table Talk cannot be used as a historical source. He denounces
it, and repeatedly shames the historians he mentions for using
this source. However, right at the end of the book, he says
(words from TIKHistory):
>
> “However, and this is very important, the results presented in
this book should in no way be interpreted as meaning that the
Table Talk is inauthentic. It is indeed, at least for the most
part, a memorandum of statements made by Hitler at some time or
another at his wartime headquarters. It was made by Heim,
Picker, Müller, or Bormann, although there are also some notes
without names.”
>
> — Mikael Nilsson, Swedish historian
>
> Reference: Nilsson, Hitler Redux, Kindle p. 388
>
> [Minute 23:10 to 24:14]
>
> Yes, the German version of the Table Talks is NOT a forgery.
It is a valid primary source. (words from TIKHistory)
>
> [Minute 24:23]
>
> TIKHistory quotes Mikael Nilsson’s writing:
>
> “In fact, even the German texts [of the Table Talks] are not
primary sources in the same sense as, for example, Hitler’s Mein
Kampf and Zweites Buch… These texts are secondary sources
regarding Hitler’s statements, based on the memories of those
who heard him speak. Thus, they are primary sources in the same
way as Goebbels’ diary, or other retrospective recollections of
what Hitler said, are primary sources.”
> And that is what makes it a primary source.
>
> — Mikael Nilsson, Swedish historian
>
> Reference: Nilsson, Hitler Redux, Kindle p. 26
>
> [Minute 42:47 to 43:20]
>
> According to Ranke, the German historian who founded modern
history and coined the terms “primary” and “secondary” sources,
a primary source is a source written by people who were there
and witnessed the events. He did not say they had to write the
primary source immediately afterward. As long as they witnessed
the event, they are a primary source for that event. So, the
Table Talks are a primary source, not a secondary source as you
state in the middle of the paragraph. Goebbels’ diary is also a
primary source for the same reason — he himself witnessed the
events he wrote about. Yes, and so did Picker, Heim, and the
others. Now, I 100% agree that Ranke made no distinction about
when the primary source was written, and that is a weakness in
how we think about memoirs. But I’ve said this before, so I’m
not shy to say it again: memoirs written many years after the
events they describe cannot be trusted as much as other primary
sources. Even so, these sources are still classified as primary
sources and still need to be used carefully. And in the case of
the Table Talks, it’s clear that part of it was written at the
time. So clearly, these memoirs are better than other memoirs
out there, because parts of them are based on notes taken at the
time, which is not always the case with other memoirs.
>
> — TIKHistory, How Hitler’s “Table Talks” Broke History
>
> [Minute 43:20 to 44:48]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 30081--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: Hitler: The Face of Anti-Tribalism
DIR By: Wikiquote
Date: May 4, 2025, 7:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: antihellenistic link ---
>
> Are the writings of Hitler’s thoughts in the Table Talk book
from 1941–1944 (Hitler’s Table Talk/HTT) fake or authentic?
>
>
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8EWd-IH6HI
>
> [quote]Research from the TIKHistory [i]YouTube channel[/i] on
Hitler’s Table Talk book, minutes 23:10 to 24:23
>
> The critics who initially recommended this source to me (as a
way to weaken what I was saying), if they read it, either didn’t
read it to the end or didn’t pay enough attention. And in this
case, I blame the author for how he wrote the book. He paints a
picture throughout the first part of the book that Hitler’s
Table Talk cannot be used as a historical source. He denounces
it, and repeatedly shames the historians he mentions for using
this source. However, right at the end of the book, he says
(words from TIKHistory):
>
> “However, and this is very important, the results presented in
this book should in no way be interpreted as meaning that the
Table Talk is inauthentic. It is indeed, at least for the most
part, a memorandum of statements made by Hitler at some time or
another at his wartime headquarters. It was made by Heim,
Picker, Müller, or Bormann, although there are also some notes
without names.”
>
> — Mikael Nilsson, Swedish historian
>
> Reference: Nilsson, Hitler Redux, Kindle p. 388
>
> [Minute 23:10 to 24:14]
>
> Yes, the German version of the Table Talks is NOT a forgery.
It is a valid primary source. (words from TIKHistory)
>
> [Minute 24:23]
>
> TIKHistory quotes Mikael Nilsson’s writing:
>
> “In fact, even the German texts [of the Table Talks] are not
primary sources in the same sense as, for example, Hitler’s Mein
Kampf and Zweites Buch… These texts are secondary sources
regarding Hitler’s statements, based on the memories of those
who heard him speak. Thus, they are primary sources in the same
way as Goebbels’ diary, or other retrospective recollections of
what Hitler said, are primary sources.”
> And that is what makes it a primary source.
>
> — Mikael Nilsson, Swedish historian
>
> Reference: Nilsson, Hitler Redux, Kindle p. 26
>
> [Minute 42:47 to 43:20]
>
> According to Ranke, the German historian who founded modern
history and coined the terms “primary” and “secondary” sources,
a primary source is a source written by people who were there
and witnessed the events. He did not say they had to write the
primary source immediately afterward. As long as they witnessed
the event, they are a primary source for that event. So, the
Table Talks are a primary source, not a secondary source as you
state in the middle of the paragraph. Goebbels’ diary is also a
primary source for the same reason — he himself witnessed the
events he wrote about. Yes, and so did Picker, Heim, and the
others. Now, I 100% agree that Ranke made no distinction about
when the primary source was written, and that is a weakness in
how we think about memoirs. But I’ve said this before, so I’m
not shy to say it again: memoirs written many years after the
events they describe cannot be trusted as much as other primary
sources. Even so, these sources are still classified as primary
sources and still need to be used carefully. And in the case of
the Table Talks, it’s clear that part of it was written at the
time. So clearly, these memoirs are better than other memoirs
out there, because parts of them are based on notes taken at the
time, which is not always the case with other memoirs.
>
> — TIKHistory, How Hitler’s “Table Talks” Broke History
>
> [Minute 43:20 to 44:48]
--- End Quote ---
[/quote]
Interesting. I also found this on Hitler's Wikiquote page, in
the disputed section at the bottom:
--- Quote ---
> Hitler's Table Talk (1941-1944) (published 1953)
> Die Bormann Vermerke: Transcripts of Hitler's conversations (5
July 1941 - 30 November 1944), made under the supervision of
Martin Bormann, published in the UK as Hitler's Table Talks
(1953). The source material is generally accepted as reliable;
the accuracy and reliability of the English translation is often
disputed.
--- End Quote ---
HTML https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler
I, as probably most here, have always felt much of what Hitler
said has been lost in translation.
#Post#: 30089--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hitler: The Face of Anti-Tribalism
DIR By: antihellenistic
Date: May 5, 2025, 5:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hitler's plan to attack Europe, written by Hermann Rauschning,
the German politician and author, adherent of the Conservative
Revolution movement who briefly joined the NSDAP movement before
breaking with it.
--- Quote ---
> Hitler : "I shall do everything in my power to prevent
cooperation between Britain and France. If I succeed in bringing
in Italy and Britain on our side, the first part of our struggle
for power will be greatly facilitated. Anyhow, we don't for a
moment pretend to believe that this degenerate Jewish democracy
has any more vitality than France or the United States. It will
be my mission to see that at least an effort is made to inherit
this disintegrating empire peacefully, so that conflict can be
avoided entirely. But I shall not shrink from war with Britain
if it is necessary. Where Napoleon failed, I shall succeed.
Today there is no such thing as an island. I shall land on the
shores of Britain. I shall destroy her towns from the mainland.
Britain does not yet know how vulnerable she is today."
>
> Hermann Rauschning : "But supposing Britain, France and Russia
make an alliance?"
>
> "That would be the end. But even if we could not conquer then,
we should drag half the world into destruction with us, and
leave no one to triumph over Germany. There will not be another
1918. We shall not surrender."
>
> ...
>
> Hitler : "We need space to make us independent of every
possible political grouping and alliance. In the east, we must
have the mastery as far as the Caucasus and Iran. In the west,
we need the French coast. We need Flanders and Holland. Above
all we need Sweden. We must become a colonial power. We must
have a sea power equal to that of Britain. The material basis
for independence grows with the increasing demands of technique
and armaments. We cannot, like Bismarck, limit ourselves to
national aims. We must rule Europe or fall apart as a nation,
fall back into the chaos of small states. Now do you understand
why I cannot be limited, either in the east or in the west?"
>
> ...
>
> "In the center I shall place the steely core of a Greater
Germany welded into an indissoluble unity. Then Austria,
Bohemia, and Moravia, western Poland. A block of one hundred
million, indestructible, without a flaw, without an alien
element, the firm foundation of our power. Then an Eastern
alliance: Poland, the Baltic states, Hungary, the Balkan states,
the Ukraine, the Volga basin, Georgia. An alliance, but not of
equal partners; it will be an alliance of vassal states, with no
army, no separate policy, no separate economy. I have no
intention of making concessions on sentimental grounds, such as
re-establishing Hungary, for example. I make no distinction
between friends and enemies. The day of small states is past, in
the west as well. I shall have a Western Union too, of Holland,
Flanders, Northern France, and a Northern Union of Denmark,
Sweden and Norway."
>
> Raushcning writes on Voice of Destruction : Hitler's
imagination ranged over the entire world. He would attack
Britain at all its weakest points, India no less than Canada. He
planned the occupation of Sweden as well as Holland. The latter
country, in particular, seemed to him valuable jumping-off
ground for air and underwater attacks on England.
>
> Hitler : "In less than eight hours we shall break through to
their coast, if they don't like it, they can try to drive me
out. In any case they will have to bear the main burden of
attack. The day of Britain's might at sea is past. Aircraft and
the U-boat have turned surface fleets into the obsolete
playthings of the wealthy democracies. They are no longer a
serious weapon in decisive warfare."
--- End Quote ---
Source :
The Voice Of Destruction by Hermann Rauschning page 120 - 126
HTML https://archive.org/details/voiceofdestructi027169mbp/page/n129/mode/2up
#Post#: 30111--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: Hitler: The Face of Anti-Tribalism
DIR By: christianbethel
Date: May 7, 2025, 9:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> I, as probably most here, have always felt much of what Hitler
said has been lost in translation.
--- End Quote ---
Same with Jesus, Muhammad, Siddhartha, etc.
#Post#: 30146--------------------------------------------------
Re: Western Revisionism of WWI and WWII
DIR By: antihellenistic
Date: May 8, 2025, 10:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Relationship between Jews and Europe before the Hitler era
--- Quote ---
> Minute 11:51 until Minute 12:58
>
> “There was no ‘Jewish Question’ in Germany or Western Europe.
Anyone who acknowledged such a thing was merely accepting — or
affirming — the false premise of the NSDAP and supporting its
agenda. Until 1933, and for at least a century prior, German
Jews were fully German and nothing else. Their Jewish ancestry
was simply a testament to the fact that Jews and Germans had
lived and worked side by side, without friction, in all aspects
of life.
>
> Anti-Semitism, though it had always existed, was by no means
evidence to the contrary. The tension between Jews and Aryans
was no greater than that between Protestants and Catholics,
between employers and workers, or between East Prussians and
southern Bavarians, or Rhinelanders and Bavarians.
>
> German Jews were a part of the German people, just as French
Jews were part of the French nation, and so on. They had their
place in German life and were in no way a burden on society as a
whole.”
>
> — Victor Klemperer
>
> References : Klemperer, January 10, 1939, “I Will Bear
Witness: 1933–1941,” p. 291.
--- End Quote ---
Source :
Why do people believe propaganda? (German ‘justification’ for
invading Poland 1939) - TIKHistory, 6 December 2022
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dm0H9oblK8E
#Post#: 30157--------------------------------------------------
Re: Western Revisionism of WWI and WWII
DIR By: 90sRetroFan
Date: May 9, 2025, 7:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> “There was no ‘Jewish Question’ in Germany
--- End Quote ---
Actually, there was a debate with two sides, one (Nietzschean)
which considered Jews superior:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/arthur-schopenhauer-vs-friedrich-nietzsche/msg17020/#msg17020
and another (Schopenhauerian) which considered Jews inferior:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/arthur-schopenhauer-vs-friedrich-nietzsche/msg17022/#msg17022
of which Schopenhauer fan Hitler subscribed to the latter.
#Post#: 30262--------------------------------------------------
Re: Western Revisionism of WWI and WWII
DIR By: antihellenistic
Date: May 25, 2025, 7:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hitler Wanted War: Debunking the Myth of Polish Aggression
[size=12pt]Did Poland bring on her own Destruction in 1939
because of her Aggressive Foreign Policy? – TIKhistory, 17
November 2020
HTML https://youtu.be/6DV20f1d6hI?feature=shared
--- Quote ---
> From Minute 16:02 to 24:07 — TIKhistory cites and explains a
passage from Hoggan’s book regarding the history of the Danzig
region:
>
> “The final treaty provisions gave Poland more than it should
have received, and more than it should have requested. Most of
West Prussia, which had a German majority according to the last
census, was handed over to Poland without a plebiscite. Later,
the richest industrial part of Upper Silesia was also given to
Poland, even though Poland had lost the vote there. The
establishment of a League of Nations protectorate for the German
national community in Danzig was a disastrous move; a free port
for Poland in Danzig under German control would have been far
fairer. The main errors of the treaty included the creation of
the Corridor, the so-called Free City of Danzig, and the
transfer of parts of Upper Silesia to Poland. These errors were
made to Poland’s benefit and Germany’s detriment—but they
ultimately harmed both Poland and Germany. Lasting peace in the
German-Polish border region was impossible under these
conditions.”
>
> Source: Hoggan, The Forced War, PDF p. 18
>
> TIKhistory provides a metaphorical explanation of this quote
from Hoggan’s book:
>
> “To give a similar example, this is like Alaska being
disconnected from the mainland United States. Clearly, it's
impossible to achieve lasting peace with such a border. So, I
guess the U.S. should invade Canada. I mean, that’s the only way
to solve this problem. And then, once Canada is fully annexed
into the United States, its people should be starved and
enslaved… because, you know… reasons.
>
> I mean, that’s obviously the only option. And from experience,
I know there's a significant minority of people watching this
video who don’t understand sarcasm, so let me be very clear: I’m
not actually advocating this. Because it’s a dumb idea—just like
it was a dumb idea to invade, destroy, and enslave Poland
because you couldn’t swim, or fly over, or drive through that
territory. And before you argue that Poland wouldn’t
negotiate—maybe not in 1939—but Hitler believed in autarky. He
didn’t believe in trade, negotiation, or transit rights. He
believed in bringing all German ‘blood and soil’ back into the
Reich.
>
> So don’t go there. This was never really a problem. Hitler
made it a problem. And this is the so-called ‘Versailles legacy’
that Putin keeps referring to. But it should be obvious to all
of us, just by looking at a map, that Poland was in a precarious
position. It had hostile neighbors to the west and
east—specifically Germany and the Soviet Union. And both were
aggressive powers.”
>
> “Not according to Mr. Hoggan, of course. Throughout his book,
he tries to portray Poland as the aggressor, hostile toward both
Germany and the Soviet Union, and deserving of what it got. On
page 25, he claims that the Soviets didn’t realize that the
‘Polish-Romanian alliance of 1921’ was primarily aimed at the
Soviet Union.”
>
> Source: Hoggan, The Forced War, PDF p. 25
>
> “Yes, that’s a distortion of history. The ‘1921 Alliance’
(which he implies was aggressive) was actually a ‘Defensive
Alliance’ (which was non-aggressive). That alliance was formed
to defend against a Soviet invasion from the east.”
>
> Reference: Tomasz BAK, Polish - Romanian Military Cooperation,
PDF 2018, pp. 9–11
>
HTML https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326651293_Polish_-_Romanian_Military_Cooperation
>
> “The Soviet Union under Lenin had just destroyed its own
state, killed millions, and its Marxist-Socialist ideology
openly called for a ‘world revolution’ (a.k.a. imperial
conquest). They actively sought to expand that revolution
abroad—‘Workers of the world, unite!’ and so on. So yes, they
were hostile neighbors, which is why conflict broke out in the
early 1920s, and why the defensive alliance was needed. That
alliance was meant to protect against an ideology that openly
declared its intent for war.”
>
> References:
>
> 1. Courtois, Werth, Panne, Paczkowski, Bartosek, Margolin –
The Black Book of Communism, pp. 71–126
>
> 2. Engelstein – Russia in Flames, p. 560
>
> 3. Gellately – Lenin, Stalin and Hitler, pp. 63, 65, 72, 75
>
> “Germany, as we’ve explained, essentially wanted to reconnect
Alaska with the mainland United States—eh... sorry, East Prussia
with the German heartland—and thus was also hostile to Poland.
The problem is that both Putin and Hoggan twist the facts to
push their narrative. Again, on page 25 of his book, Hoggan
presents his opinion that during the Weimar years, Poland and
Germany were in constant conflict, mentioning a German-Polish
trade war since 1925. But he fails to mention who started it...
because that would contradict his narrative that ‘Poland was the
aggressor’. It turns out that Germany was the one who
‘aggressively’ initiated the trade war in 1925 as a way to
economically cripple Poland.
>
> Perhaps that’s why, from 1926, the Defensive Alliance between
Poland and Romania was expanded to cover aggression from both
the West and the East. The only reason the 1921 alliance wasn’t
aimed westward was because Poland didn’t want to get dragged
into a Balkan war involving Romania. Clearly, Poland did not
want to go to war, and its actions were defensive—not
aggressive. Yet the way Hoggan writes it suggests Poland was
aggressively plotting against both the Soviets and the Germans.
In reality, Poland was caught between a rock and a hard place
and had to act defensively to survive. But it seems that when
Poland acts defensively, Hoggan calls it aggression.”
>
> TIKhistory continues by quoting Hoggan:
>
> “Poland’s policy toward Germany during the last years of the
Weimar Republic was a mixture of threats and attempts to render
Germany powerless.”
>
> Source: Hoggan, The Forced War, PDF p. 25
>
> TIKhistory comments:
>
> “Of course, it's not that Germany acted aggressively toward
Poland and Poland responded in ways meant to keep Germany in
check. No—apparently, Poland proactively acted against Germany
to keep it powerless, because Poland is somehow the ‘aggressor’
in this relationship. Do you see how the language is twisted
here? And remember, all these points come from just one page of
Hoggan’s book. That means multiple distortions in just a single
page. This book is 350 pages long. And it goes on like this.
Distortion after distortion, half-truth after half-truth, lie
after lie, page after page. I’ve already discussed Hoggan’s
views on the Hossbach Memorandum in a previous 50-minute
video—dissecting what was written in less than one page of his
book.
>
> I could do this for every single page of his book, but it’s
just not worth our time. The point is: this book is completely
unreliable and nothing more than Nazi propaganda.”
>
> Source: Hoggan, The Forced War, PDF p. 25
>
> “Ultimately, what we must remember is that Nazi Germany needed
to expand eastward because of its own ideology. Hitler made it
very clear in Mein Kampf that only an eastward expansion policy
would solve their ‘land’ crisis (Lebensraum). But also, because
they were trying to create a socialist-style economy, Germany’s
economy was collapsing. As Götz Aly explains in Hitler’s
Beneficiaries, if Germany hadn’t conquered Austria,
Czechoslovakia, and Poland when it did, it would’ve faced a real
economic crisis.
>
> Their only solution was to go to war, plunder Europe, and
export their financial problems abroad. And that’s crucial to
remember—while Putin and Hoggan try to blame Poland, in reality,
it was Germany that was forced into war by its own ideology and
economic desperation. Poland may have made mistakes (as did the
Soviets and the Western powers), but Hitler and the Nazis were
ultimately the ones who wanted war.”
>
> References:
>
> Aly – Hitler’s Beneficiaries, pp. 36, 38–40, 44, 52
>
> Kotkin – Stalin: Waiting for Hitler, 1929–1941, p. 563
>
> Zitelmann – Hitler: The Policies of Seduction, pp. 206–239
--- End Quote ---
White Nationalists and Neo-Nazis have always portrayed a
historical narrative in which Hitler was a peacekeeper. This
makes no sense, given that Hitler was a socialist and thought to
reject pacifism, and reject Western colonialism.
#Post#: 30263--------------------------------------------------
Re: Western Revisionism of WWI and WWII
DIR By: christianbethel
Date: May 26, 2025, 9:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> White Nationalists and Neo-Nazis have always portrayed a
historical narrative in which Hitler was a peacekeeper. This
makes no sense, given that Hitler was a socialist and thought to
reject pacifism, and reject Western colonialism.
--- End Quote ---
Yeah, that's true. Still, authors like Stolfi, Tedor, Taylor,
and Schultze-Rhonhof can't be ignored or discredited because
they use primary German-language sources in their books
discussing the origins of WWII. Conversely, this 'historian'
you've been quoting does not.
#Post#: 30264--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hitler: The Face of Anti-Tribalism
DIR By: antihellenistic
Date: May 26, 2025, 10:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hermann Goering, Commander-in-Chief of the Hitler Regime's Air
Force, Explains that the National Socialist Movement was not
Officially adopting Racialist Worldview
--- Quote ---
> "If one went along with National Socialism one didn't have to
agree with the twenty-five points of their platform. Some of us
were more interested in one point, others in another. Some
National Socialists were members for political, others for
social, still others for racial reasons."
>
> Did he consider the race politics of the Nazis an intrinsic
matter, or merely incidental? "Not basic at all. Completely
irrelevant and incidental. It only became basic or important
because a faction of Nazis who were fanatic racial exponents
became politically powerful. Men like Rosenberg, Streicher,
Himmler, and Goebbels. National Socialism could also have taken
a much different course."
>
> Would he have approved of another course? "Certainly. Many of
us in the party were opposed to the sharp racial laws and
politics but we were too busy. Political and economic strength
are more important than all this racial propaganda. Furthermore,
I was never so close to the party. I was more in the state
section. Personally I would never have allowed the party to have
so much influence on the state. There were two groups. One
espoused the theory that the party should rule the state. The
second felt that the state should govern the party. I was for
the second idea."
--- End Quote ---
- Hermann Goering on the Nuremberg Interviews, May 21, 1946
Sumber :
The Nuremberg Interviews by Leon Goldensohn Page 105 & 106
Goering did not even refer to Hitler as a racial fanatic in the
course of the interview
Recall :
--- Quote ---
> The society which was created after the NSDAP achieved power
was in many ways a compromise. Hitler himself admitted (to Leon
Degrelle among others) that it would be the next generation -
the Hitler Youth generation - which would create a genuine
National-Socialist society. Organizations such as the SS and the
Hitler Youth were steps toward the creation of such a National
Socialist society, and it was these organizations which
implemented the ideal of personal honour, and respect for
others, of whatever race and culture. As Hitler and his true
followers, such as Rudolf Hess, matured in understanding, so too
did National-Socialism. National-Socialism was not born, fully
developed and fully-understood, in the early years of the NSDAP
- it developed slowly, over several decades. Thus, as Hitler
admitted, Mein Kampf was never intended to be some kind of bible
of National-Socialism: it was the product of its time and while
most of the underlying principles of National-Socialism were
laid down in that book, some principles were not. What was
written was subject to change, to revision, as
National-Socialism itself developed. - David Myatt, March 2011
--- End Quote ---
Source :
David Myatt: A National Socialist Ideologist by Rachael Stirling
page 14
HTML https://archive.org/details/dm-ns-ideologist/page/n13/mode/2up
--- Quote ---
> 68 years ago (1930s)
>
> 'The third point is that a person must be racially flawless.
Let him be Germanic, or Roman, or Chinese, or a Jew, or an
Indian, or a Negro, and so on. I respect all equally. We can
work with and count on all of them. Each has his established
traits. Depending on what one is looking for, this one or that
one is to be preferred for the job in question. It is no
different with people than with horses or dogs. Once one has
established the proper race for a particular task, one can rest
assured that the task will be resolved.'
>
> ...
>
> “But if what you say is true, you should not have written Mein
Kampf beforehand,” I objected.
>
> “Quite right. And I frequently regret that I did. But at the
time, when I was in Landsberg after November 9, 1923, I thought
everything was over. I was in captivity, I was deprived of my
freedom, the party was expropriated, dissolved—everything seemed
at an end, even worse than Germany after the Great War. I wrote
Mein Kampf as a kind of report to the German Volk, chiefly in
memory of the martyrs of November 9. I wrote it out of the
narrowness of my cell.
>
> “When I was released, I had Mein Kampf printed. Perhaps, I
hoped, it would serve to rally my old friends. And that really
happened! That is how it came about.
>
> “But gradually, I saw that many things were, after all,
different from the way I had seen them through prison bars and
from the way I had figured them out. And soon I set out to draft
changes, improvements. But they only turned out to be changes
for the worse. I thought about withdrawing the book. But it was
too late. It made its way through Germany, it was even spread
abroad, and what was right and positive about it did not miss
its mark. So I kept hands off. I made no more changes. The book
even gave me the financial basis for reconstructing the party.
If I were to write it today, a lot would be different. But
today, I would not write it at all
--- End Quote ---
Source :
Wagener - Hitler Memoirs of a Confidant page 143 and 273
--- Quote ---
> "Racial war need not break out if people are selected not
according to their appearance but according to their
achievements. Looks and ability are often quite far apart. You
can make the selection according to the appearance, and you can
make it - as the party has done - according to the test of
life." - Adolf Hitler, 27th January 1942
--- End Quote ---
Reference :
1. Monologe im Führerhauptquartier 1941–1944 by Heinrich Heim
Page 201
2. Adolf Hitler, 27 January 1942, quoted from Zitelmann,
"Hitler's National Socialism," Page 456.
3. Exposing National Socialism's Contradictions to refute it -
TIKhistory, 10th December 2024 (Minute 12:35 until 12:55)
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYLvrwj-HFI
--- Quote ---
> In May 1944, to officers in a remarkable speech at the
Platterhof, Hitler said: "We have this people of ours that is
not to be identified with a race, and this is now clear to
millions. ... But when I began (speaking) about twenty-five
years ago this was not so. I was told by
[counterrevolutionary-bürgerlich) circles: Yes, Volk and Race
are one and the same! No! Volk and race are not the same. Race
is a component of blood, a hematologic [blutmässig) kernel, but
the Volk is very often composed not of one race but of two,
three, four or five different racial kernels. ... Each of these
racial kernels possesses particular talents."*
--- End Quote ---
Source :
1. The Hitler of history by John Lukacs page 123
HTML https://archive.org/details/hitlerofhistory00luka/page/122/mode/2up?q=platterhof
2. Kuzniar-Clark - Black Nazis II Ethnic Minorities and
Foreigners in Hitler's Armed Forces page 226 and 229
3. Institut für Zeitgeschichte, MA 316, Ansprache des Fuhrers
vor Generalen und Offizieren am 26.5.1944 im Platterhof, 26-28,
50.
#Post#: 30265--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: Hitler: The Face of Anti-Tribalism
DIR By: 90sRetroFan
Date: May 26, 2025, 5:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"Hermann Goering, Commander-in-Chief of the Hitler Regime's Air
Force, Explains that the National Socialist Movement was not
Officially adopting Racialist Worldview"
Goering was a traitor:
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_G%C3%B6ring
--- Quote ---
> Informed on 22 April 1945 that Hitler intended to commit
suicide, Göring sent a telegram to Hitler requesting his
permission to assume leadership of the Reich. Considering his
request an act of treason, Hitler removed Göring from all his
positions, expelled him from the party and ordered his arrest.
--- End Quote ---
He is not qualified to say what National Socialism is or is not.
*****************************************************
Page 13 of 15
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page