We are searching data for your request:
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
I'm guessing he thought it was all about money?
Another possible theory - he thought that the Jews thought that the Nordic race was a threat to them so they tried to bring it down.
Edit - to be clear, this question is trying to understand Hitler and the Nazis perspective. That they were wrong has been well established and is not a matter of debate.
Edit 2 - What I'm trying to figure out is hitlers thought process. The Nazis were obviously wrong, they said that 'Every great creation, idea, and artistic expression on this planet were brought forth by real man.' and that Jews aren't 'real man'. What about Einstein who invented the most beautiful theory in all of science? What about the numerous other Jewish scientists, mathmeticians, engineers, and nobel prize laureates? But more to the point, his 'ideology' was based on pseudoscience that has been proven to be wrong. Also based on consipiracy theories that aren't true.
Why did Hitler hate the Jews?
Hitler did not invent the hatred of Jews. He capitalised on antisemitic ideas that had been around for a long time.
Hitler was born in Austria in 1889. He developed his political ideas in Vienna, a city with a large Jewish community, where he lived from 1907 to 1913. In those days, Vienna had a mayor who was very anti-Jewish, and hatred of Jews was very common in the city.
During the First World War (1914-1918), Hitler was a soldier in the German army. At the end of the war he, and many other German soldiers like him, could not get over the defeat of the German Empire. The German army command spread the myth that the army had not lost the war on the battlefield, but because they had been betrayed. By a ‘stab in the back’, as it was called at the time. Hitler bought into the myth: Jews and communists had betrayed the country and brought a left-wing government to power that had wanted to throw in the towel.
By blaming the Jews for the defeat, Hitler created a stereotypical enemy. In the 1920s and early 1930s, the defeated country was still in a major economic crisis. According to the Nazis, expelling the Jews was the solution to the problems in Germany.
This political message and the promise to make Germany economically strong again won Hitler the elections in 1932. After he had come to power, the laws and measures against the Jews increased all the time. It ended in the Shoah, the Holocaust, the murder of six million European Jews.
The Roots of Hitler's Hate
From the beginning to the end of the war that he and his government had launched, Hitler and his associates concluded that their paranoid fantasy of an international Jewish conspiracy was the key to contemporary history.
IN 1978, in Toward the Final Solution: A History of European Racism, the historian George Mosse emphasized the parallels between European white racism of the modern era towards blacks and European racial hatred of the Jews. Both the European pseudoscientists and racial ideologues such as Houston Stewart Chamberlain, and then various Nazi racial ideologues, like the advocates of white supremacy in the United States, purported to uncover connections between external appearances and body type with pejorative features of mind and character. Culminating in the caricatures that filled the pages of Julius Streicher’s Der Stürmer, they depicted a stereotyped Jewish body held to be physically inferior in every way to an idealized vision of the beautiful Aryan body. They viewed Jews’ alleged physical ugliness as innate evidence of moral inferiority.
The strand of anti-Semitism that imputed moral inferiority to the Jews, based on the assertion that Jews were a distinct biological race in conflict with another, Aryan race, found clearest expression in the Nuremberg race laws of 1935, especially the “Law for the Protection of German Blood and Honor.” This and other laws passed that year blurred the distinctions between biology, race and religion, and transformed the Jews from a distinct religious group into a racial category. It included detailed reflections on the dangers of “mixing” German and Jewish blood and elaborate rules defining who was and was not Jewish. It forbade Germans to marry or have sexual relations with Jews as well as with persons of “alien blood,” that is, “Gypsies, Negroes and their bastards.”
As James Whitman has recently pointed out, the German lawyers involved in drafting these laws found helpful models in American miscegenation legislation. The consequences of the Nuremberg race laws were immediate: Jews lost their civil and political rights. In December 1935, a supplementary decree ordered the dismissal of Jewish professors, teachers, physicians, lawyers and notaries who were state employees and had been granted exemptions. This German era of persecution and denial of citizenship rights to Jews bears comparisons with persecution based on the imputation of inferiority to African Americans. In both cases, obsessions with racial biology and notions about racial superiority and inferiority led to discrimination, denial of citizenship rights, impoverishment and periodic violence.
This kind of racial anti-Semitism, with its elements of physical revulsion, sexual panic and assumption of clear, easily recognizable physical differences, had obvious parallels with European and American racism towards Africans and, later, African Americans. Like other forms of racism, including that of the slaveholding American South, this anti-Semitism associated pejorative qualities of inward character with specific physiological attributes. The Jewish body implied a Jewish character, associated with cowardice, sexual rapacity, crime, murderous attacks on women and children, lack of patriotism and subversion of the nation. This kind of pornographic and biological anti-Semitism certainly fostered a climate of hatred and revulsion in which mass murder was a possibility. It was central to the murders of the mentally ill and physically handicapped, and to barbaric “medical experiments” undertaken by Nazi physicians. It played an important role in the development of techniques of mass gassing and lent the prestige of science to inhumanity, and in so doing contributed to a climate of opinion in which a genocide could take place. Yet arguments resting on racial biology were not the decisive ones made by Hitler when he launched and implemented the Holocaust, nor those made by other Nazi leaders, notably Joseph Goebbels, in justifying the ongoing extermination. The Nazi anti-Semitism of the 1930s was similar in its outcomes to the white racism that had justified slavery before the Civil War and legalized segregation and discrimination afterwards. Ideological assertions about the supposed physical and moral inferiority of the Jews, like comparable assertions about African Americans, were components of both eras of persecution, associated with both forms of racism.
Yet the Nazis’ anti-Semitism of the 1930s led to an era of persecution, not mass murder. It was not the ideology of the Holocaust. In Mosse’s words, this racial anti-Semitism merely led “toward the Final Solution” it did not bring the Nazi regime “to” the Final Solution. The now well-known terms—völkisch ideology, cultural despair, redemptive anti-Semitism, the hour of authoritarian biology, reactionary modernism and more recently Saul Friedlander’s reference to “redemptive antisemitism”—bring us to the ideological world of the Nuremberg race laws and the November pogrom of 1938, but not to the kind of anti-Semitism that accompanied and justified the leap beyond to the Final Solution.
THE CORE of the radical anti-Semitism that justified and accompanied the Holocaust was a conspiracy theory that ascribed not inferiority, but enormous power, to what it alleged was an international Jewish conspiracy that sought the destruction of the Nazi regime and the extermination of the German population. Its key component was prefigured in the infamous forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The accomplishment of Hitler and his propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels was to adapt elements of this conspiracy theory to explain the origins and nature of World War II, and to people its network with personalities in public life in the Soviet Union, Britain and the United States. The evidence of Nazi wartime propaganda indicates that the legend of a murderous international Jewish conspiracy, more than the biological obsessions about blood, race and sex of the Nuremberg race laws, lurked at the core of Nazi propaganda, and indeed constituted the distinctively genocidal component of Nazi ideology. The Nazis claimed that because “international Jewry” was waging a war of extermination against Germany, the Nazi regime had an obligation to “exterminate” and “annihilate” Europe’s Jews in self-defense.
It was this putrid blend of hatred and interpretation of radical anti-Semitism articulated by Hitler and his associates that justified and legitimated the leap from persecution to genocide. It drew on centuries of hatred of Jews in Christian Europe, and on six years of government-sponsored racist contempt and persecution. Added to the past disdain and contempt for features of Jews said to make them inferior to Germans was hatred fueled by fear of what the supposedly powerful Jews would do to Germany. While Southern slaveholders lived in fear of slave revolts, real and imagined, white supremacists did not present African Americans as members of a global conspiracy who were willing and able to wage war against the United States as a step on the path to black world domination. Rather, they viewed slaves as the Germans viewed the Poles and other Slavs: as intellectually inferior beings, incapable of organizing anything so massive as an international political conspiracy. Just as white supremacy and racism justified enslavement for purposes of labor, so the theory of an international Jewish conspiracy was, as Norman Cohn put it fifty years ago, the “warrant for genocide” that justified and accompanied the Final Solution.
The conspiracy theory of radical anti-Semitism was not only a bundle of hatreds and prejudices. It was the ideological framework through which the Nazi leadership interpreted (and misinterpreted) ongoing events. From the beginning to the end of the war that he and his government had launched, Hitler and his associates concluded that their paranoid fantasy of an international Jewish conspiracy was the key to contemporary history. Its distinctively genocidal component, the ideological element that called for a complete extermination of the Jewish people in Europe and everywhere on the globe, did not have its primary basis in racial biology. Rather the definition of the Jews as a race more than a religious group was decisive for making a political accusation against a supposedly real historical actor, which the Nazis called “international Jewry.”
THE NAZIS racially defined “Jewry” as a political subject, no less real than the governments of the Allied powers. “Jewry” was the power behind the scenes in “London, Moscow and Washington” and the “glue” that held together this unlikely coalition of “Jewish Bolsheviks” and “plutocrats.” On many occasions, Hitler and his associates said publicly that the Nazi regime would respond to this alleged prior act of Jewish aggression and attempted mass murder by “exterminating” and “annihilating” the “Jewish race” in Europe. From the perspective of the Nazi leadership, “the war against the Jews” was not only the Holocaust. It was also the war against Britain, the Soviet Union, the United States and their allies.
This argument calls for a revision of our understanding of what the Nazis meant by the phrase “the war against the Jews.” Since the publication of Lucy Dawidowicz’s classic work with that title, the phrase has come to be synonymous with the Holocaust. Dawidowicz’s work succeeded in drawing attention to the Holocaust, which in 1975 still stood in the shadows of the main historical event, the Second World War. Yet the evidence of the public assertions of Hitler and other Nazi leaders is clear. When they spoke of the war against the Jews, they were not referring only to the Final Solution. Rather, in their public statements and private diary entries and personal conversations, they asserted that war against the Jews comprised the war against the Allies, led by the United States, Great Britain and the Soviet Union, as well as against Europe’s Jews. These were two components of a single battle to the death between Germany and international Jewry. On numerous occasions, Hitler and other leading officials publicly threatened—and later proudly announced that they were accomplishing—the extermination of Europe’s Jews as an act of retaliation against the war that, they claimed, “the Jewish enemy” had launched against Germany and the Germans. When they spoke in this manner to justify mass murder, they had in mind a racially defined political subject active in contemporary history, whom they were attacking because of what they alleged it done, not primarily because of its alleged physiological features. In reality, of course, Nazi Germany attacked the Jews because they were Jews—that is, because of who they were rather than what they had actually done. The public and private justifications for the genocide reversed this elementary truth. While caricatures of the Jewish body filled the pages of Der Stürmer, the distinctively genocidal components of radical anti-Semitism dealt above all with what “international Jewry” was alleged to have done, not how Jews looked. The Jews, as Goebbels asserted in one of his most important anti-Semitic tirades, practiced “mimicry,” that is, they were experts at camouflaging their actual identity and passing as non-Jews. It was precisely because the Nazis did not believe that they could tell who was and was not a Jew by reference to biological features that they required Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe to wear the yellow star. It was what the Nazis accused the Jews of doing, not their physical features, that stood at the center of the Nazi commitment to mass murder.
EXPOSED: Diary proves that the average German citizen KNEW about Nazi atrocitiesLink copied
The average German citizen knew about Hitler's genocidal madness
When you subscribe we will use the information you provide to send you these newsletters. Sometimes they'll include recommendations for other related newsletters or services we offer. Our Privacy Notice explains more about how we use your data, and your rights. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Inside was a 200,000-word diary that he had written during the six years of the war and which has just been published in the UK following its revelatory publication in Germany last year.
Far from being a Nazi sympathiser, Friedrich was in active opposition to Hitler and the diary details his moral outrage at his crimes. "Adolf Hitler is Satan and the devil in one person," he wrote on December 17, 1942, from his home inside the Nazi heartland.
"He who seduces, inveigles, lies to and cheats the nation has won millions of adherents and makes them into fanatical fighters for his heresies, which are nothing other than a conglomerate of ideas stolen from other fanatics. Nothing he brought forth has grown on its own dung pile."
It also reveals to devastating effect just how very much the average German citizen did know - even near the beginning of the Second World War - about Hitler's genocidal madness.
By October 1941 Friedrich was noting reports from soldiers home on leave of "inhuman atrocities" on the eastern front, "as naked Jewish men and women were placed in front of a long deep ditch and upon the order of the SS were shot by Ukrainians in the back of their heads. Then the ditch was filled in as screams kept coming from it".
Robert says: "If he knew, it is clear that the average German did know what the Nazis were doing. The existence of the diary means it can never again be claimed that the Nazis were acting in secret."
Nor did this lowly administrator remain in ignorance of the mass murder of people with mental health issues carried out on the direct orders of Hitler.
"Supposedly incurable patients," he noted in June 1941, were being brought to the nearby psychiatric hospital at Hadamar to be murdered. "They are soon to begin building a crematorium."
Had this terrifying diary been discovered during the war it would certainly have led to Friedrich's execution. Speaking out against the Nazi regime was "verboten".
"He had made the secret compartment at the beginning of the war when he started writing the diary," says Robert, a professor now aged 76, from his home in Texas.
"If it had been found he would have been instantly arrested by the Gestapo and tortured."
Friedrich Kellner, who was born in 1885, worked as an administrator at the courthouse in the small German town of Laubach in the Hesse region of central Germany.
The Holocaust will remain a dark chapter in the history of mankind
He had moved there in 1933 to escape persecution for his socialist views as the Nazis came to power.
Aware he had to exercise "extreme caution" in voicing his views, he confined his opposition to his secret diary in order to demonstrate what Robert calls "the German public's overwhelming approval" of the Nazi agenda.
"This so-called 'clearing' Europe of Jews will remain a dark chapter in the history of mankind," Friedrich wrote in September 1942.
"If we in Europe are so far gone we simply eliminate people then Europe is irretrievably lost. Today it is the Jews, tomorrow it will be another weak tribe that is exterminated."
Within a few hours of meeting his grandfather for the first time Robert promised that he would find a way to get the diary published. It was an undertaking that would take 60 years.
Raised in a children's home in the US after his German immigrant father abandoned his Jewish mother, it was not until Robert tracked down his grandparents in 1960 while going Awol from his US navy detachment that he knew where his own destiny lay.
What Hitler Believed
ALL MY LIFE, it’s been Hitler this and Hitler that. For me, it was like the Norm Macdonald joke, the more I heard about the guy, the more I didn’t care for him. Finally, I took it upon myself to read Hitler’s magnum opus, Mein Kampf, and see what I could pick up about him for myself. Hitler dictated Mein Kampf (My Struggle) while he was in prison for an unsuccessful putsch (political insurrection) in November of 1923. The book gives his account of his life, outlines the ideology of National Socialism, and relates the history of the National Socialist German Worker’s Party (commonly known as the Nazi Party) and its plans for the future. The book was published in two volumes, in 1925 and 1926. It became a best seller in Germany, though with its 688 pages of pedestrian prose, it might have been more purchased than read.
I skipped over parts of the book in deference to my purpose for reading it: I was looking for Hitler’s core beliefs. Behind his own story and all the politics and programs and particulars, what were Hitler’s fundamental assumptions and values? This is a report of what I came up with.
I think it’s important that you keep in mind what this writing isn’t as well as what it is. I’m not a trained social scientist or philosopher. My knowledge of Hitler and his time doesn’t go beyond what the average reasonably literate person picks up in the normal course of things. I’m not getting into Hitler’s merits as a human being, or the wisdom or morality of anything he did while he was in power. I’m not making a case for him or putting him down. I read his book (or pretty much), and this is what I got out of it about his basic convictions. That’s all this is. Reading the book and putting this material together has given me a better handle on what Hitler believed than before that’s as much as I can say with any certainty. So take this for what it’s worth.
The quotes are from Mein Kampf, Hitler’s words.
Hitler had a biocentric worldview. His perspective on life was first of all referenced in Nature. Hitler contended that before anything else we must attend to Nature, the world of living things and their environments. Man is not separate from or above Nature but rather a part of Nature. We need to come to grips with how Nature actually operates. We must align our lives with Nature. We must obey Nature’s laws. That is how we will best prosper and fulfill our destiny as human beings. We should not be so presumptuous as to imagine that we can ignore or overcome Nature’s realities and Nature’s imperatives. We need to learn to live Nature’s way. Hitler’s basic message was: Get out of your head. Get out of the realm of fanciful intellectualization. Get out of what you think is true or ought to be true. Instead, literally come down to earth.
Hitler held to a biocultural concept of race. While race has to do with biology, physiology, blood, it is about more than genetics. It is also about culture: values and morals, philosophies, traditions, modes of artistic expression, religious orientations, ways of working, forms of government, national and ethnic identifications, family arrangements, conceptions of masculinity and femininity, approaches to raising children, and connections to the earth. Hitler used the term “folk” (volk in German) to get at the idea that he was referring to a people who share a biological inheritance and a way of being. They have an approach to life in common as well as a gene pool.
Hitler’s emphasized the interplay of biology and culture. Each affects the other: biological realities or impulses shape the culture of a people and, conversely, the culture of a people has an impact on their biological or physical nature. He focused particularly on culture’s impact on breeding patterns. Ideas, values, and associational arrangements influence who has children with whom. Racial interbreeding profoundly affects the biological composition of a race.
Hitler focused on what he considered the fundamental human reality: the life-and-death struggle for survival and a higher quality of existence among the races of man. Aggression and violence are inherent in this struggle they are an integral part of Nature’s way. What is responsible and right in human affairs is that which contributes to the continued existence and upward development of the race.
Hitler affirmed the aristocratic principle. The aristocratic principle contrasts with the egalitarian principle. Rather than races and individuals being equal, Hitler posited, they are hierarchically ordered. “The basic aristocratic idea of Nature . . . sees not only the different value of races but also the different value of individuals.” While some may be attracted to the idea that individuals and races are, or could be, equal to one another, the fact of the matter is they are not equal now and won’t be equal in the future unless the superior ones are hobbled in some way so as to bring them back to the level of their inferiors.
Hitler held that the Aryan race embodies mankind’s highest possibility. “Human culture and civilization on this continent are inseparably bound up with the presence of the Aryan. If he dies out or declines, the dark veils of an age without culture will again descend on this globe.” “The man who thwarts the triumphal march of the best race and hence also the precondition for all human progress, remains, in consequence, in the animal realm of helpless misery.”
Hitler warned of the danger of miscegenation. Interracial procreation, or race-mixing, compromises the superior of two races being intermingled. A “racial porridge” prevents the achievement of the highest goal of mankind, a goal inherent in Nature: the evolution of man into a higher form of being. “Nature doesn’t want the blending of higher and lower races since the work of higher breeding will be ruined.” It is particularly important that the Aryan race not intermix with other races. “The stronger must dominate not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness.”
What about the idea widely attributed to Hitler that the Aryans are the master race? A consideration of this concept hinges on what is meant by the term “master.” Master can refer to mastery over other people, that is to say, the domination and control of others. The master of a ship is one who is in control of the people and cargo on board. However, the term master can have another meaning: it can refer to the best, to those who have attained mastery at what they do. Master carpenters or electricians don’t rule over other tradesmen rather, they are the best, the finest in their field, the most knowledgeable and skillful.
I didn’t find the term master race in Mein Kampf, but it seemed to me that Hitler employed the idea of master with reference to race in both of its meanings in this last paragraph. Aryans are the best—they have the strongest genetic and cultural features–and in Nature the best should dominate. “[National Socialism] by no means believes in an equality of the races . . . and feels itself obligated . . . to promote the victory of the better and stronger and demand the subordination of the inferior and weaker.”
What form should the dominance and subordination take? Does it mean dictating to the dominated race or races in every aspect of life? Or does it mean the master race having access to the resources of subjugated race(s) in order that the master race can move ahead on its evolutionary path as fast and as far as possible? My reading of Mein Kampf is that Hitler’s focus is on domination in this latter sense. “We all sense that in the distant future humanity will be faced with problems that only the highest race, a master people, supported by the means and possibilities of the entire globe, will be equipped to overcome.” “And so the folkish philosophy of life corresponds to the innermost will of Nature, since it restores that free play of forces until at last the best of humanity, having achieved possession of this earth, will have a free path of activity.”
Hitler asserted that race needs to be at the center of individual and collective concerns, and that the first priority must be given to keeping the race pure. “There is only one holiest human right, and this right is at the same time the holiest obligation . . . to see to it that the blood is preserved pure and, by preserving the best humanity, to create the possibility of a nobler development of these beings.” He warned: “All great cultures of the past perished only because the originally creative race died out from blood poisoning. The ultimate cause of such a decline was their forgetting that all culture depends on men and not conversely hence that to preserve a certain culture the man who creates it must be preserved.”
When assessing the states of mind and motivations of individuals, Hitler employed the basic distinction between idealism and egoism. Idealism is being oriented toward serving one’s people, one’s race. Egoism looks at things from the perspective of a narrowly conceived self-interest and without a sense of connection to one’s community of kindred people and commitment to their welfare. In Hitler’s mind, idealism is favored over egoism. Someone who is an idealist is more laudable than one who is an egoist or, another term, individualist.
This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture. From it alone can arise all the great works of mankind, which bring the founder little reward, but the richest blessings to posterity. Yes, from it alone can we understand how so many are able to bear up faithfully under a scanty life which imposes on them nothing but poverty and frugality, but gives the community the foundations of its existence. Every worker, every peasant, every inventor, official, etc., who works without ever being able to achieve any happiness or prosperity for himself, is a representative of this lofty idea.
Since Hitler saw life as a struggle, supporting the race will involve doing battle.
What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people [here he seems to distinguish race and people when at other times he equates them], the sustenance of our children and the purity of our blood. . . . This preservation is bound up with the rigid law of necessity and the right to victory of the best and stronger in this world. Those who want to live, let them fight and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live. Even if that were hard—that is how it is!
Like every other social institution, including economic arrangements, the state should be in service to the race. That is to say, the state is a means to the end of preserving and improving the race. The state supports the aristocratic idea of Nature by promoting the victory of the noblest and strongest elements of the race and demanding the subordination of the inferior and weaker.
The state is a means to an end. Its end lies in the preservation and advancement of a community of physically and psychologically homogeneous creatures. The state is the vessel and race is its content. . . . The highest purpose of a folkish state is concern for the preservation of those original racial elements which bestow culture and create the beauty and dignity of a higher mankind. We, as Aryans, can conceive of the state only as the living organism of a nationality which not only assures the preservation of this nationality, but by the development of its spiritual and ideal abilities leads it to the highest freedom. . . . A bad state is assuredly able to kill originally existing abilities by permitting or even promoting the destruction of the racial culture-bearer.
Hitler believed that the reins of the state must be in the hands of the finest individuals, those who are the wisest and the most efficacious. The political process must be designed so as to identify the very best people given the aim of racial survival and progress, and then to bring them to “office and dignity.” Hitler is adamant that mass democracy is not the best way for this to occur the finest should be in charge, not the masses. Rather than the rule of the democratic majority, Hitler affirmed the rule of personality, that is, the great man who takes control through what amounts to a process of natural selection.
In world history, the man who really rises above the norm of the broad average usually announces himself personally. A philosophy of life which endeavors to reject the democratic mass idea and give this earth to the best people—that is, the highest humanity—must logically obey the aristocratic principle within this people and make sure that the leadership and the highest influence in this people fall into the best minds. Thus, it builds, not upon the idea of the majority, but upon the idea of personality.
Hitler asserted that in all areas of life other than politics—business, the military, and the rest—it is generally accepted that the best need to be in charge, and that it is not left to a vote to decide who that is. Hitler said many have a misplaced faith in the results of democratic elections: “Sooner will a camel pass through a needle’s eye than a great man be ‘discovered’ by an election.”
Hitler held that the family, with child-raising at its core, is the central element of society. Everything else works around the family and serves to enhance its functioning. In the folkish state—the state which centers itself around a shared biological and cultural heritage and destiny—marriage needs to be a “consecrated institution,” and children are “the most precious treasure of the people.” Marriage is not, in the first instance, a means of enhancing the happiness and well-being of those involved but rather, as with the other institutions of society, a means of preserving and improving the race.
Hitler called for control of breeding as a way to improve the quality of the race, i.e., eugenics.
It [the National Socialist state] must see to it that only the healthy beget children that there is only one disgrace: despite one’s own sickness and deficiencies, to bring children into the world and one highest honor: to renounce doing so. And conversely it must be considered reprehensible to withhold healthy children from the nation. Here the state must act as the guardian of a millennial future in the face of which the wishes and selfishness of the individual must appear as nothing and submit. . . . Those who are not physically and mentally healthy and worthy must not perpetuate their defects in the bodies of their children. In this the National Socialist state must perform the most gigantic educational task. And someday this will seem to be a greater deed than the most victorious wars of our present mediocre era. . . . In the National Socialist state, finally, the National Socialist philosophy of life must succeed in bringing about that nobler age in which men no longer are concerned with breeding dogs, horses, and cats, but in elevating man himself.
Hitler called for an education for nobility. He criticized German schools for focusing too much on “pure knowledge” and neglecting the development of personal character. He decried “half-education,” as he called it, which pumps a certain amount of knowledge into young people but at the same time removes them from Nature and their instincts and their connection to anything beyond themselves. He claimed that students were emerging from the schools of his time knowing little or nothing of the joy of responsibility. He referred to students “crammed full of knowledge and intellect, but bereft of any healthy instinct and devoid of all energy and boldness.” He said the German educational system was turning out weak-willed people who lack forcefulness and decisiveness. Rather than strong and courageous men and women, the schools were producing “clever weaklings” and “cowardly physical degenerates.”
Hitler held up the Greek ideal of an education that promotes a noble soul, physical beauty, and a brilliant mind. He called for an emphasis on the development of firm character, especially self-confidence, willpower and determination, and a sense of responsibility.
Don’t heap on material, Hitler implored. Help students gain the store of material that they actually need as individuals and that will benefit the community. This will necessarily include specialized training suited to the particular student.
Hitler emphasized the study of Nature in order that students learn to understand and respect Nature and live by its laws: “A man must never fall into the lunacy of believing that he has really risen to be the lord and master of Nature—which is so easily induced by the conceit of half-education he must understand the fundamental necessity of Nature’s rule, and realize how much his existence is subjected to these laws of eternal fight and upward struggle.”
Hitler advocated a focus on the Roman and Greek heritage in order that students find the motivation to contribute to its continued existence: “Especially in historical instruction we must not be deterred from the study of antiquity. Roman history correctly conceived in extremely broad outlines is and remains the best mentor, not only for today, but probably for all time. The Hellenic ideal of culture should also remain preserved for us in its exemplary beauty.”
Hitler called for the development of racial consciousness. Education must
burn the racial sense and racial feeling into the instinct and intellect, the heart and brain of the youth entrusted to it. No boy and no girl should leave school without having been led to an ultimate realization of the necessity and essence of blood purity. Thus the groundwork is created by preserving the racial foundations of our nation and through them in turn securing the basis for its future cultural development. For all physical and all intellectual training would in the last analysis remain worthless if it did not benefit a being which is ready and determined on principle to preserve himself and his special nature.
Hitler’s reference in this quote to burning a racial sense and feeling into the instinct raises the question of whether he believed in epigenetics, that environment can affect the genome. Someone with a greater understanding of him than I possess will have to answer that.
Hitler affirmed the value of a strong program of physical training to “steel and harden” young men’s bodies. He argued for the inclusion of one sport in particular, one he acknowledged many people considered vulgar and undignified: boxing.
There is no sport that so much as this one promotes the spirit of attack, demands lightning decisions, and trains the body in steel dexterity. It is no more vulgar for two men to fight out a difference of opinion with their fists than with a piece of whetted iron [he is referring to fencing]. It is not less noble if a man who has been attacked defends himself against his assailant with his fists instead of running away and yelling for a policeman.
Hitler saw boxing as teaching a young man to suffer blows and continue forward.
Hitler’s desire to avoid educating a “colony of aesthetes” applied to girls as well as boys. He valued vibrant health and steel-springed physicality for both boys and girls. He wanted both boys and girls to be strong, agile, bold, courageous, and able to endure and triumph amid hardship. He advocated an emphasis on physical training for girls as well as boys. At the same time, however, Hitler held that there were inherent and complementary differences between the sexes, and thus the ultimate purposes of boys’ and girls’ physical training were different. He distinguished between the manly strength to live powerfully in the world and to be a good father and the womanly strength to bear and raise healthy and vital children and to be a good wife and create and maintain a good home. Hitler considered future motherhood—which he saw as equally important to education for careers or political life—to be the major goal of female education.
Hitler believed that Jews stand in the way of all that must be achieved.
Jews are alienated from Nature. They seek to conquer Nature rather than live in accordance with it. Hitler contended that the Jewish outlook is “nonsense” given the true reality of the natural order.
Jews destroy the racial foundations of the White race through the promotion of miscegenation because of their basic resentful attitude and it is in their interest not to have to deal with a sturdy White race but rather a “rickety herd.” If they get their way, Jews will turn European people into “raceless bastards.”
Jews contribute to cultural decay. They ridicule Christianity and represent traditional ethics and morality as outmoded, which leaves Gentiles adrift. They “contaminate art, literature, and the theater, make a mockery of national feeling, and overthrow all concepts of beauty and sublimity, of the noble and good.” “In everything base and profligate in mass entertainment and artistic trash, vice, or pornography there will most certainly be a Jew.”
Jews gain control of finance and commerce and control of key professions, and use this position to serve their interests at the expense of the general welfare of the people. Jews use economic power to gain undue influence in the government.
Jews “refuse the state the means for its self-preservation, destroy faith in the leadership, scoff at history and the past, and drop everything that is great into the gutter.” They promote democracy, which excludes the personality and replace it with the “blind worship of numbers” (rule by the majority).
The Jewish doctrine . . . rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by mass numbers and their dead weight. This denies the value of the personality in man, contests the significance of nationality and race, and thereby withdraws from humanity the premise of its existence and culture. As a foundation of the universe, this doctrine would bring about the end of any order intellectually conceivable to man. And as, in this greatest of all recognizable organisms, the result of an application of such a law could only be chaos, on earth it could only be destruction for the inhabitants of this planet.
That’s it. Hitler’s basic beliefs. What do you think?
Source: Culture Clash originally published by the Occidental Observer
By Allan Hall for MailOnline
Updated: 14:35 BST, 19 June 2009
Unmasked: Adolf Hitler's virulent hatred of the Jews led to the Holocaust, which claimed six million lives
Adolf Hitler's obsessive hatred for Jews was sparked by his experiences after World War One, according to a new book.
Respected historian Ralf-George Reuth argues the dictator blamed them for both the Russian revolution and the collapse of the German economy.
The claim is a stark contrast to previous theories that Hitler's anti-Semitism was spawned on the back streets of Vienna when he was a down-and-out in the lead up to 1914.
Historians have even speculated that he was partly-Jewish himself – or even that his mother died at the hands of an inept Jewish physician.
'Hitler’s Jewish Hatred Cliché and Reality’draws on numerous archives to pinpoint the reasons behind the Holocaust, which claimed six million lives.
Reuth argues that what was probably lower middle-class bigotry shared by many at the time, morphed into murderous hatred for Hitler after 1919.
At the time almost half of all German private banks were Jewish owned, the stock exchange dominated by Jewish stockbrokers, almost half of the nation’s newspapers were Jewish run as were 80 per cent of chain stores.
It became fashionable to decry the loss of the war on Jewish financiers.
But Hitler, according to Reuth, also blamed Jews for the Russian revolution, citing Leon Trotsky’s faith, as well as that of Marx whose theories he followed and even Lenin, who was one-quarter Jewish.
When a Soviet republic was declared briefly in Munich that year, argues Reuth, the die was cast for Hitler to demonise the Jews as bearing responsibility for the world’s ills.
'With World War One lost and Germany in financial ruin, with revolution threatening, he came to see the Jews as solely responsible for stock-exchange capitalism, which caused acute poverty and suffering when it faltered, and Bolshevism,' said Reuth.
'These two events were pivotal in shaping his views of Jews and his subsequent plan to murder them all.
'He bought into the rumours and the whispers that blamed Jewish capitalists for stabbing Germany in the back.
The final solution: Millions of Jews died at Auschwitz Concentration Camp, seen here after the war ended in 1945
'Then he saw that many Jews played prominent roles in the brief Soviet republic founded in Munich in 1919, against everything Hitler the nationalist stood for.
'The two events, together with the Russian revolution, coalesced to turn them, in his mind, into scapegoats for everything.
'But it was only after World War One, not before. I show that he had many Jewish acquaintances in Vienna, despite his writing in Mein Kampf that he was sickened by the sight of the Jews he saw there.'
Reuth draws on a wealth of archival material showing how Hitler fed off the intellectuals of the day to shape his belief.
He quotes Nobel prize-winning novelist Thomas Mann who wrote in 1919 that he equated the Bolshevik revolution in Russia with the Jews.
Ernst Nolte, a Berlin historian, expounded this theory over 20 years ago in a paper that was not given much credit at the time.
Reuth is a distinguished Nazi-era biographer who wrote an acclaimed book about Third Reich propaganda master Josef Goebbels.
Flashpoint? Reuth claims the role of Jewish people in the 1917 Russian Revolution was one of the triggers for his hatred
What’s So Funny About the Nazis, Rudolph Herzog?
To revist this article, visit My Profile, then View saved stories.
To revist this article, visit My Profile, then View saved stories.
A cartoon of Hitler on the cover of a Vanity Fair in November 1932. Rudolph Herzog, son of celebrated filmmaker Werner Herzog, was introduced to American readers this spring as the author of a newly translated book, Dead Funny: Humor in Hitler’s Germany, a revealing reexamination of the history of joke-telling during the Third Reich. Herzog, 38, is also known as co-creator of the 2004 BBC series The Heist, a reality crime show, and for his 2006 BBC film about popular jokes aimed at Nazis, which, two years later, was the subject of his book for a German publisher. Hitler considered anti-Nazi humor an act of treason, and from 1942 to 1944, the infamous People’s Court of Berlin issued 4,933 death sentences, many of which were linked to “defeatist” jokes. Herzog argues, however, that it wasn’t as dangerous to make fun of Nazis as some have claimed, and that most people executed for being funny were targeted for other reasons. If anything, he says, Nazi jokes helped to keep the regime in power, allowing ordinary Germans to blow off steam.
Brooklyn’s Melville House, an indie publisher, bought the English rights to Herzog’s book and recently hosted the author in New York and L.A. Herzog lives in Berlin, where we met to discuss his work. Highlights from our chat:VF Daily: How did you become interested in this subject?
Rudolph Herzog: Well, I knew about Nazi jokes and anti-Nazi jokes. I mean, that was really a mass phenomenon. I’ve seen collections of these, which came out [as books] after the war. And my great-aunt was a real hoarder. She never threw anything away. The war did something to her. Her whole house was basically up to the ceiling with garbage. When she died, one of my uncles cleared out the whole house, and one of the things he found was a couple of pages typed up with this sort of anti-Nazi poem. I don’t recollect what it was exactly, but it was some sort of poem based on Greek mythology, and the top Nazis were characters—like, Goebbels was the satyr who was always going after the girls, and who had a clubfoot. So it was something I wondered about. I mean, who had written it? Why had someone written it?
And that led you to find all the other jokes about it?
Yes. I looked at collections of jokes, and then I started interviewing people and finding people who knew jokes, people who were adults in the Third Reich, so, who are now very old. I got firsthand stuff. I did speak to some historians, but that wasn’t my primary way to tackle the sourcing.
And what were you hoping to find out when you started interviewing people? Did you have a mission?
In a way, humor was a just vehicle for me, to see what people knew and what they were thinking at the time. Humor is something no one really takes that seriously, so it’s quite a good vehicle. People drop their guard. Since these jokes were such a mass phenomenon, what’s in the jokes [the reference points] was common knowledge, and the sentiments are, to some degree, broad sentiments. Humor is a really interesting source, and I’m quite amazed that no one really has tried to squeeze more out of it.
When I was reading the book, I noticed a sense of anger. You mention how toothless the jokes are, in many cases, and how they actually supported the political system that was in place.
Right, yes. We’re talking here of the generation of my grandparents, so yes, there is some level of disappointment. My grandfather on my mother’s side was the only one who wasn’t a staunch Nazi.
What do you think American readers will find most surprising about this book?
There are a few things. First of all, the thing that surprised me is the extent to what people knew. I mean, you know there are plenty of jokes about the camps. And after the war, the first line of defense was, “We didn’t know anything. You’ve got the Internet today, but how could we have known?” But meanwhile, they’re joking about these things. Did I tell you the one where these two men meet in the street? It’s quite an interesting joke the oppressive system becomes palatable in the joke.
Two men meet in the street and one says to the other, “Hey, George, great to see you. I thought you were in a camp.” “Yeah, yeah, I’m out again.” “Well, how was it?” “It was great, you know. We got up in the morning and they served us hot cocoa or coffee, a big breakfast. For lunch we had stews and whatever we wanted, really. We did a little bit of sports, and in the evening we watched movies.” And the other says, “Boy, that’s so odd, because the other day I met Miller and he told me a completely different story.” “Yeah, well, that’s why he’s back in the camp.”
Ah, yes, this I remember. Was that specifically about Dachau?
Well, Dachau was, in a way, synonymous for the camps in Nazi Germany, because it was the first big camp that there was, and it was not in the east, it was outside of Munich. There’s another thing that will surprise people, and I think that’s the degree to which political humor is subversive. That’s one of the inconvenient truths that we glean from studying the Third Reich, that political humor is not necessarily subversive and can even be the opposite. It can be a vent that opens—and then you don’t go out there venting your frustrations in another way, for example, by marching on the streets and starting a revolution. This is not in the book, and I would include it now, but I think the final proof is that here in Berlin, as in many other cities, the Russians had to fight house by house. They had to kill everyone. And meanwhile, these were the same people who were telling millions of, in the end, quite dark jokes about their leadership. Yet they were defending the same leadership to the last bullet.
I made a list of the subjects of the jokes: uniforms, medals, Hitler’s back-pedaling in the war strategy and that kind of thing. None of the jokes are about what is happening to the Jews. Is that right? Except those told by Jewish comedians?
Yes. Nothing about what’s happening specifically to the Jews People knew the Jews were being ostracized, and there were people living around the corner everywhere, and they disappeared. So where did they disappear to? People didn’t know because they didn’t want to know. They didn’t know because they refused to know.
What about the professional comedians? I mean, how do you think the humor is different there, versus on the street? For example, the comedian Werner Finck sounds like an amazing character in history, even challenging the “cultural monitors” in his audience by asking if he was speaking slowly enough. I read something Finck wrote, saying that some things were attributed to him that were not true.
Right, but he did say a lot. He’s pretty brave, this man. And, obviously, we’re talking of two very different things—telling a joke in private, even if it’s in public, versus getting up on a stage and telling the same joke. So, yes, he was very brave, and he used his talents to basically do what he could. But, sadly, I’ve seen that humor has its limits.
What was your favorite Werner Finck joke?
He had a lot of great stuff. Finck was put into a camp because of his jokes, and he did some standup comedy for the other prisoners. He said, “Well, what do you have to fear? You can’t be sent to a camp, you’re already in it.” It’s black humor, par excellence.
Many people say they didn’t know about the cabaret shows that were produced by Jewish prisoners in the camps. Is that something that’s well known in Germany?
Well, there has been a film on the cabaret, but that’s years ago. So that was an international production, a huge thing at the time, but that’s a while ago, I think in the 90s.
But the Jewish communities at the time were not really focused on political humor, from what I can see in the book.
To some extent, but no, not as much. What’s very important to understand, also, is that, of course, there’s a tradition of Jewish humor, Yiddish humor and so on, but the Jews were foremost Germans, Austrians The idea of polarity between the Germans and the Jews—that was a Nazi invention, because these were Germans. Some of them were totally assimilated within the system they had fought in World War I, had medals for their fatherland, which was Germany. They were Germans. I think it’s another fallacy to make such a clear distinction. That only came later when, through various devilish mechanisms, the Jews were forced out of society. Some of them only really touched base with their Jewish-ness by this being made such a huge point by the system that was trying to ostracize and ultimately kill them. It’s a very tragic thing.
What was the reaction then to the book when it came out in Germany?
Surprisingly good. It got very good reviews. I mean, when it first came out it was an international story. It was absolutely huge. And it was reported on positively, amazingly so.
Because the sensitivities that would be inherent, or the reflexes that you would think would be inherent in such a subject, seem to have changed. I think the reviewers looked at the quality of what I was doing, and how I had gone about it, and decided I’d done an O.K. job at it. And it touched something that hadn’t been touched upon yet. There are books about certain aspects of this topic—political humor, Jewish humor, biographies of people like Werner Finck—but there’s nothing that really fuses everything and creates an argument out of it, and sort of dispenses with the various fallacies that have appeared over the years. I can disprove that telling jokes is the way to harm a regime. What helps is planting bombs or shooting people or sabotage, or peaceful marches. In Germany there were cases where the populace did react to policies that they didn’t like, and the Nazis immediately withdrew. They were afraid. For instance: with the euthanasia program. There was so much protest and rumbling that the Nazis stopped it. But telling jokes against Hitler didn’t do very much. I mean, if you say it takes away the fear, where were all these fearless people? Where are they all? There were some, but were they fearless because they told jokes? I think they were fearless because they were convinced they had to sacrifice their lives, even, to stop the madness and lunacy that was happening.
Was it difficult, emotionally speaking, to write this?
Yes, very much so. It was very difficult to look into this abyss for such a long time. I don’t know if it’s healthy or not. But I do think there is some responsibility that every generation of Germans has, to look at what happened and try to explain it in their own way. It’s very difficult to break this whole thing down, because it’s obviously such a huge mess, but we have to. There’s no other way, and no one who would take away this responsibility from us.
Was Hitler Jewish?
This accusation emanated from Hitler’s enemies, who claimed that one of Hitler’s ancestors was named Schickelgruber, and that Schickelgruber was a jew. Perhaps there was a Schickelgruber in Hitler’s family tree, but was he jewish?
Even jews cannot define who is a jew with any unanimity, so I, as a White man, will let the reader know what I have learned about ‘jewish identity’. My research has revealed jews to be (1) mongrels who (2) distinguish themselves by their genius for predation, usurpation, usury and other criminal activities which they inflict upon their host peoples. Some jews practice talmudism, but most are not ‘religious’. Many Ashkenazim or Russian jews, are not members of any synagogue, and many are not circumcised, according to statements by various Khazars or Ashkenazim I have encountered, although I have not demanded that they show proof of their allegations. Suffice it to say that a jew is defined by the Orthodox Rabbis of Israel as anyone born of a jewish mother, who must, herself, stem from at least four generations of jewish mothers. The father’s ancestry is discounted. Thus, the jews themselves treat jewishness as a nationality, rather than a religion, in Israel.
Many so-called jews believe that religion is the way in which one may show his ‘jewishness’. Some jewish sects recognize converts. Since there is no agreement amongst jews, themselves, in regard to jewish identity, the Zionist Occupation Government of Palestine lets all self-styled jews enjoy their jewishness, by refusing to define’ jewishness’ in Orthodox terms, for this would curtail much of American jews’ support for Israel.
In 700 A.D. Bulan, the Kagan or King of Khazaria, adopted talmudism or pharisaism as the religion of the Khazars, and his people became known as “jews”. This would be like English converts to Christianity dropping the word,”English,”to describe their nationality, and using “Christian” instead. Although the Khazars converted to a Semitic religion, they are of Turkic, rather than Semitic origin and have no biological connection to Palestine. For such people to invade Palestine and call themselves “Semites” is as absurd as Chinese converts to Christianity calling themselves “Italians” and invading Rome!
Vikings, who were probably fed up getting ‘jewed’ in their trading expeditions through the Khazar Empire, conquered the major cities and the Ashkenazim dispersed into Western and Eastern Europe. Sephardim or Semitic jews entered Europe via Spain and Portugal, many of them settling in Holland and adopting Dutch names, like the Roosevelts and Rockefellers. Despite miscegenation with their host peoples, jews traditionally maintain their tribal and national affiliations.
Jews can even adopt other religions, including Christianity, and maintain their jewish nationality. As Cardinal Lustiger said, “I am a Christian, but I remain a jew.” This is no different than Charlemagne saying, “I am a Christian, but I remain a Frank.”
Since jews are not a race, but a mongrel mixture of Mongol, Caucasian and Negro, they deserve no capitalization. Racial mixtures like sambo, mestizo and mulatto are not capitalized. Since most jews are not religious, we cannot use a capital, as is customary for Moslem, Hindu, etc. Since jew equates with predator, parasite, usurer, usurper and criminal, one does not capitalize jew or other related criminal activities.
Having therefore analyzed the reality of ‘jewish’ identity, we may now ask if Hitler was a member of a synagogue and therefore a member of a jewish community. Hitler was baptized into the Roman Catholic Church, so we can, in all probability, conclude that he did not practice pharisaism or talmudism. This leaves only the biological question of Turkic and/or Shephardic ancestry, which could only be shown by DNA tests.
The so-called Nürmberg Race Laws which the National Socialist government of Germany promulgated, after collaborating with such Zionists as Rabbi Leo Baeck, who proposed the Star of David as the jewish national symbol, were based on tradition, belief and loyalty, rather than biology. A “German” could be anyone whose grandparents had converted to christianity. Some Aryans who had converted to Judaism were deemed “jews”. In 1944, the German government circulated a civil service questionnaire which asked each department how many jews were employed therein, and how many Germans in the civil service were married to jews. The jews of Berlin remained, as jews did everywhere in “Nazi” Germany, if they were not engaged in criminal activities. The 1944 Berlin telephone directory listed some dozen jewish organizations in that city, and SS veterans who were sent to defend Berlin have told me of stacking their rifles to assist civilians in digging anti-tank ditches. They noticed that many, but not all, of their civilian trenchmates wore large yellow Stars of David!
The National Socialist government had many “Germans” of jewish backgrounds: Funk and Ley (Levy) were hanged at Nürmberg. Canaris (Meyerbeer), the traitorous head of German Army Counter-Intelligence (Abwehr), had betrayed his high position of trust for many years. Milch of the Luftwaffe, was under Goering’s personal protection. “Wer Jude ist, bestimme ich!” Goering declared. (“I say who is a jew!”) Adolf Galland believed that a highly-placed traitor in the Luftwaffe was sabotaging German aircraft production by insisting that bombers and fighter aircraft had to have “dive-bombing capabilities” and other such nonsense. Milch was the only one empowered to make such decisions on aircraft production and design, and Goering himself admitted that he knew nothing about ‘modern flying machines’, which he’d flown in World War I so he delegated such decisions to Milch, his pet jew.
Certainly, Germany had more than enough traitors of German ancestry to sabotage its epic struggle for survival, without the jewish ones, but every German traitor is said to not know for sure. German traitors such as Speidel, Rommel’s adjutant, who failed to convey the message of the Allied landings in Normandy, were rewarded by Germany’s Zionist Occupation regime with rank, pay and privileges. The non-traitors who served important roles in the Third Reich were hanged and otherwise punished by the Zionist victors. [Note by Maguire]
But let’s return to the ‘jew’, Adolf Hitler. According to my research, Hitler was accused of being a jew by some of his early opponents. Some Allied propaganda ridiculed Hitler, dubbing him “Herr Schickelgruber”. But this propaganda faded away as the war progressed. Did this mean that Hitler was no longer ‘jewish’? Consider how inconvenient this would be for present day Holohoaxers: ‘Hitler, the jewish jew-slayer’, would be hard for Goyim to comprehend. If a jew kills jews, why must the hapless Gentiles pay, and bear the burden of guilt and obloquy?
Some writers claim that Hitler was a jew, because he helped create the propaganda pretext for founding the state of Israel. These writers forget that it was the Allies who concocted the “gas chamber” fiction, and that the magical number of six million was recycled from jew lies of 1919. Hitler did attempt to assist jews in leaving Germany. Adolf Eichmann and his jewish partner, Joel Brandt, were smuggling jews into British-occupied Palestine. The Zionists murdered Brandt first, then Eichmann, to hide this one aspect of Nazi-Zionist collaboration.
Other writers claim that Hitler was a jew, because “he got Germany into World War II”. Even Allied diplomats admitted that World War II was begun at Versailles. “Powder kegs” in one diplomat’s words were being set all over Europe. Polish government officials like Smigly-Ridz (sp?) bragged that Germany could not stay out of war, no matter how she tried! War had been decided upon by international finance banksters, and Hitler knew that. Their plan was simple and well-coordinated with Soviet plans for the conquest of Europe by Messrs. Djugashvili (Jewson) alias Stalin and Kaganovich. Germany was to be allowed to rearm sufficiently to enter a war against Poland, but not against the former Allies of World War I. But as we know, Germany defeated Poland and the Allies on the continent of Europe by 1940, and fooled “Stalin” into thinking that Germany would attempt to invade England in Operation Sealion, just as the half-jew Churchill proclaimed, at the behest of the jew, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. But “Stalin’s” invasion of Western Europe was smashed by German military units which he believed were on the French coast. It was no thanks to the jew leaders of the Allies that: Western Europe remained free of Soviet occupation after 1945, but it was entirely due to the valiant efforts of the ‘jew’, Hitler, and Germany’s allies. If Hitler were a jew, why did the jew rulers of Britain, France, the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. wage war on him?
Several writers claim that Hitler was a ‘jew’ because he was never charged with war crimes and he escaped to live in South America, or in German Antarctica. Jew #1, “Stalin”, told jew #2, U.S. Ambassador Averell Harriman, that Hitler had escaped to Argentina, via Spain. This story was repeated by jew #3 of the CIA who allegedly interviewed ex-Gestapo chief, Heinrich MülIer. Jew #4, Lt. Heimlich of the U.S. Army’s Counter Intelligence Corps, purportedly was the first “U.S. representative” to inquire about Hitler’s death in Berlin, and after seeing his jewish congeners’ “evidence” concluded that no insurance company would pay Adolf Hitler’s widow a nickel, based on what he had seen. Since all the stories of Hitler’s alleged escape from Berlin in 1945 come from jewish sources, we are entitled to some degree of doubt, for we know that the favorite tactic of jews is to use a story for their perceived political and economic purposes, regardless of its truth or falsehood. Most often, jews will use a story to hide the truth. Thus it is wise for us to ask ourselves ‘cui bono’ whenever jews make claims about anything. Usually, the beneficiaries of jewish statements are the jews, whose ‘holy’ duty it is always to bemuse and befuddle us, the Goyim.
As the reader has likely noted, the ‘proofs’ of Hitler’s jewishness omit the sole item required to establish a jewish genetic background: a modern DNA test. According to my research, Adolf Hitler’s brother, Fritz, remained alive after 1945, and he may have descendants. I have seen pictures of Hitler’s parents’ gravesites, and there may be public records of Hitler’s ancestry which survived the holocaust of World War II and the Allied occupation. It would seem to me that the jews themselves would have the greatest interest in proving Hitler’s jewishness, one way or the other. If I were a jew, I’d sure like to know!
The other arguments used to ‘prove’ that Hitler was a jew are non-sequiturs based on his alleged actions and his alleged motives, i.e. to benefit the jews, rather than the Aryans. Using similar ‘logic’ it can be argued that the inventors of the airplane were “Negros”, because that invention is used to carry swarms of Blacks (and other non-Whites) into White livingspace!
As one British intelligence officer said of the acknowledged traitor, Kim Philby, “We never know for whom a bloke is working, unless we draw up a balance sheet of his results. If the perceived benefits of his actions tend to fall on our side of the sheet, then we may conclude that he was our man, after all. “Savitri Devi saw the battle between Aryans and the Dark Forces of Cabalism, Communism, Capitalism and Christianity as being “a cosmic struggle,” which is never-ending. Hitler was aware of the enormous dimensions in which he had to fight, and in so doing, he ‘lost’ some battles on behalf of his Bigger Picture. Savitri Devi described him as a man “in time, above time and against time”, who understood the important, yet fleeting nature of temporal existence.
Without Hitler, Germany was dying on its knees. With Hitler, Germany stood up and fought its oppressors. If I were a German, existing in the vile environment of defeated Weimar Germany, I would have welcomed Hitler who exhorted Germans to work and fight on behalf of their own survival and the survival of all they held dear, rather than yield to the oppressors and alien invaders. If Hitler were a jew, then we desperately need another ‘jew’ like him, in preference to jews like Roosevelt, “Stalin” and Churchill.
As usual, I enjoy receiving replies from my jewish readers. In your opinion, was Hitler jewish?
Hitler claimed that the Jews sabotaged Germany. What did he think were the Jews' motivation for doing so? - History
Posted on 08/13/2009 5:32:49 AM PDT by SJackson
In an article titled "What We Should Know About Hitler and the Jews," published June 15, 2009 in the Syrian government daily Teshreen, author Nasr Shimali states that in his June 4 speech at Cairo University, U.S. President Barack Obama "did not stand with the Palestinians against their killers." He then explains that the Holocaust was part of a "reciprocal murderous conflict" between Hitler and the Zionist Jewish capitalists, and goes on to claim that the real victims of the "lie about the annihilation of seven million Jews" are the German and Palestinian peoples.
Following are excerpts from the article.
In His Speech, Obama "Did Not Stand with the Palestinians in Gaza Against Their Killers. Despite the Close Similarity Between What Happened in Germany and What Has Happened in Palestine"
"President Obama's [June 4, 2009] speech at Cairo University concerning the Nazi crimes against the Jews was missing something very serious. The omission was intentional because, as is generally the case with American speeches, it was meant to serve the interests of American economic monopolies. This is why we saw Obama siding with the Jews in Germany against their killers without pointing to the causes of the fighting.
"However, he did not stand with the Palestinians in Gaza against their killers, and he justifies the crimes of their murderers, despite the close similarity between what happened in Germany and what has happened in Palestine.
"Therefore, we must mention what needs to be known about the reasons for the clash between Adolph Hitler's government and the Zionist Jews. This is something which the Americans and the Europeans deliberately neglect in their speeches."
The "Unmitigated Internal Conflict [Between Hitler and the Jewish Capitalists] Played a Role in Precipitating World War II"
"[In the 1930s,] Hitler's Germany was preparing to avenge its defeat in World War I. [Hitler and his government] wanted to implement a worldwide imperialist enterprise. They believed that Germany deserved such an imperialist enterprise no less than the U.S. deserved one. Germany's way of achieving this was to unite Europe under its rule, whether by peaceful means or by war, so that it would equal the U.S. in size and [thus] be capable of competing with it geographically, demographically, economically, and militarily.
"[The Germans wanted] Berlin, rather than Washington, to succeed London and Paris as the imperial center of the world.
"Germany's project was colonialist, imperialistic, and racist, precisely like the American project. [The Germans] understood the significance of getting Jewish capitalism on their side. However, the Zionist Jews clung to their alliance with London and Washington, even conspiring with these two governments against Nazi Berlin.
"In 1934, Jewish Zionist hostility towards Germany became patently clear. This [Jewish] hostility was manifested in a very real way: by launching an economic boycott against Germany, in coordination with the Western capitalistic monopolies and governments. Hitler, for his part, strongly pressured the German Jewish capitalists. Thus, the reciprocal murderous conflict between the two sides began to escalate, and this unmitigated internal conflict played a role in precipitating World War II."
"The Jewish Zionists Declared War on Germany on September 5, 1939"
"When World War II broke out, each of the two sides - German and Jewish-Zionist - blamed the other. The fact is that according to World Jewish Congress president [sic] Chaim Weizmann, it was the Jewish Zionists who declared war on Germany on September 5, 1939.
"Hitler said, 'The Allies and the Jews want to eliminate us - therefore, it is they who will be eliminated from the face of the Earth.' On the other side, the Jews and the Allies said, 'Hitler and the Nazis want to eliminate us, but it is they who will be eliminated.'
"There was a fierce struggle among various parties of international capitalism, for exclusive control of the natural resources of the colonized, oppressed nations - indeed, for the natural resources of the whole world. The Zionist Jews opposed Germany because of their precise calculations of possible losses and gains, not because of hatred for the Germans or love for the Americans. The two racist, usurious camps spewed out chauvinistic declarations of war, each viewing its enemy as a wild beast that must be slaughtered.
"In sum, the scope of their crimes was more or less the same - except that the Allies' crimes were greater and more extensive.
"The war declared by the Jews against Germany was mentioned at a closed meeting on July 24, 1942. Hitler said that he was going to shut down their [the Jews'] towns or neighborhoods, one after another. To clarify his intent, he said, 'This Jewish scum [must] leave the country and emigrate to Madagascar or to any other Jewish homeland.'
"In other words, Hitler treated the Jews like a combatant, hostile minority, and thus, by some universal wartime logic, imprisoned those of them who lived close to the front lines. The German command was concerned that the Jews might engage in hostile propaganda, and also feared that they might spy for the Allies and also engage in arms smuggling, sabotage, and black marketeering. The Germans believed that the Jews excelled in all these activities."
"The Jews. Aligned Themselves With [Hitler's] Enemies - So He Fought Them"
"Before the war, Hitler's efforts to prompt the Jews to emigrate were successful. He wished for them to find a homeland outside Europe. He suggested Madagascar, under German oversight, as such a homeland, and had no objections to their emigrating to Palestine, hoping that they would be at his service after he was victorious (which was what Napoleon had hoped as well).
"Hitler believed that the Jews had a special talent for reclaiming land, and for banking. In short, his view of the Jews was not much different from that of Cromwell, Napoleon, Churchill, and Roosevelt. The Jews however, aligned themselves with his enemies, so he fought them along with his enemies.
"In 1939, the total number of Jews in the whole world, according to League of Nations statistics, was approximately 11 million after the war, in 1947, the same census organization [sic] put their number at some 12 million. How can President Obama, master of scholars that he is, say at Cairo University that Hitler killed seven million [sic] Jews?"
"The Lie about the Annihilation of Seven Million Jews. Generated Immense Financial Gain, and Zionists and the Israeli Entity Benefited From It"
"Indeed, Obama did not surprise us, because this is [only part of the] persistent American efforts, throughout American history, to convince public opinion of the vileness and lack of honor of their enemies. They are doing this right now regarding the Palestinian victims exaggeration and lies are being used to serve American interests.
"The lie about the annihilation of seven million Jews because of their race generated immense financial gain, and both the Zionists and the Israeli entity benefited from it. However, as French scholar Robert Faurisson said, the [real] victims arethe German people - except for its leaders - and the entire Palestinian people."
The Scientist and the Fascist
In September 1930, Germany held its first national elections since the Great Crash of 1929, and the National Socialists won a stunning tally: 6,400,000 votes—10 times their total just two years before—and 107 seats. They were now the second largest party in the Reichstag. The word “Nazi” no longer evoked images of the madhouse, as one commentator wrote. Suddenly the party was almost respectable.
Even so, it still seemed to many as if Hitler’s support was tenuous. For Albert Einstein, Hitler’s sudden rush to prominence confirmed his historic distrust of the German body politic. But at this time, he did not see Hitler or National Socialism as a lasting danger. Asked in December of 1930 what to make of the new force in German politics, he answered that “I do not enjoy Herr Hitler’s acquaintance. He is living on the empty stomach of Germany. As soon as economic conditions improve, he will no longer be important.” Initially, he felt that no action at all would be needed to bring Hitler low. He reaffirmed for a Jewish organization that the “momentarily desperate economic situation” and the chronic “childish disease of the Republic” were to blame for the Nazi success. “Solidarity of the Jews, I believe, is always called for,” he wrote, “but any special reaction to the election results would be quite inappropriate.”
Einstein should have been right—the evidence for the fragility of Hitler’s support over the next two years makes for frustrating, bitter, what-if history. But even if he had persuasive reasons for believing that Hitler would not last, the election results reaffirmed the urgency of his core political stand. Even if he underestimated Hitler (as so many Germans did then), he still recognized the need to act to counter the more general pathology of which Hitler’s rise was a symptom.
The threat of German rearmament, along with a resurgence of militarism across the European continent spurred Einstein to act. Germany had been almost completely disarmed by the Versailles Treaty after World War I. Its army could total no more than 100,000 men its forces were denied most heavy weapons it could not build an air force its warships had to meet strict tonnage and armament restrictions. Evasion of these terms had been the rule almost from the start.
This rearming barely a decade after a conflict that ought to have inoculated Germany against the contagion of battle-lust forever, was intolerable to Einstein. In response, he advocated mass rejection of compulsory military service by young men throughout Europe—a campaign that had become a major pillar of pacifist politics after the war. “Every thoughtful, well-meaning, and conscientious human being,” he wrote in January 1928 in a letter to London’s No More War movement, “should assume, in time of peace, the solemn and unconditional obligation not to participate in any war for any reason.”
He grew more insistent as time passed. In the spring of 1929, he wrote that “the people themselves must take the initiative to see to it that they will never again be led to slaughter. To expect protection from their governments is folly.” During the next several months 1930, driven by the rise of militant nationalism across Europe, Einstein’s level of urgency and passion grew. War had become an absolute anathema to him: “I would rather be torn limb from limb,” he wrote, “than take part in such an ugly business.”
By late 1932, Einstein abandoned the last of his hopes—or illusions—that a more or less democratic German society could survive economic collapse and the Nazi’s deliberate sabotage of civic life.
The Nazi setbacks in the November elections produced a brief moment of hope. Several quite acute political observers, including Einstein’s friend Kessler, thought that the Nazi losses marked the beginning of the end. But the moment evaporated, destroyed by Chancellor Fritz von Papen’s vacuous incompetence and Hitler’s relentless pursuit of power. Einstein had spoken at home and abroad against the collective surrender to unreason he saw around him. He had written, campaigned, served on committees, encouraged others, raised money when he could. But by late 1932, the end had clearly come.
From very early in his life, Einstein gave hints of a deep-seated streak of fatalism. It never prevented him from acting, from behaving as if what he sought to do could influence events. But the countervailing strain was always there, the perception that the apparently unique spark of any one human life must ultimately vanish into the vastness of the cosmos. The previous year, 1931, bound for California, he experienced a storm at sea. He wrote in his travel diary that “the sea has a look of indescribable grandeur, especially when the sun falls on it. One feels as if one is dissolved and merged into nature. Even more than usual, one feels the insignificance of the individual and it makes one happy.”
Insignificant—and hence autonomous, free to do what one had to do. In the end, Einstein simply left the stage. On December 12, Albert and Elsa Einstein set out from Berlin for the United States. A photograph taken at the entrance of the train station shows an ordinary travelers’ tableau. Elsa looks a little worried, harried she could be thinking about the luggage, or perhaps, more seriously, about her daughter Ilse, who was ailing. Einstein’s face is unrevealing, almost grim. The overall impression is of impatience, a desire to be done with photography and catch their train. There is no way to read the image, except with hindsight, as the end of an era.
Before they reached the train station, Einstein and Elsa had to close up their house at Caputh. They may have paused at the door to Einstein’s study or on the porch, looking down the sweep of lawn to the lake, visible then through the leafless trees. There might have been a glance round the back of the house, a survey of windows shut and doors latched, and then in and out again, carrying their bags. One of them locked the door—probably Elsa, the master of all practical matters in the Einstein household. Finally, when nothing remained to be done, they walked away from the house. Einstein spoke. “Take a good look,” he told Elsa. “You will never see it again.”
In exile, Einstein rethought his core political beliefs and the moral reasoning that underpinned them. Being Einstein, he was faster to the conclusions that shift forced on him than almost all of his contemporaries.
On January 30, 1933, as Hitler took the oath as Chancellor of a republic about to become a Reich, Albert Einstein was safely out of reach in Pasadena. For the moment, there was little overt danger. Well treated by his American friends, he could be positively playful, even trying his hand at bicycling. The famous photograph of Einstein atop his two-wheeler was taken that February. He leans over, his front wheel a little askew. He seems a trifle unsteady but he grins hugely life is pleasant in southern California.
Even after Hitler consolidated his hold, Einstein restrained himself for a while. Early in February, he even wrote to the Prussian Academy to discuss salary matters, fully as if he intended to resume work in Berlin later that year. But any illusions he may have had shattered almost immediately thereafter. On February 27, the Reichstag in Berlin burned to the ground. The crackdown on the left began immediately, with the SA and the SS competing to arrest and brutalize any perceived threat to the Reich.
By coincidence, the same day that Reichstag burned, Einstein wrote to his quondam mistress, Margarete Lenbach. He told her that “I dare not enter Germany because of Hitler.” …The day before he left Pasadena, bound eventually for Belgium, he launched his first public attack against Germany’s new regime. “As long as I have any choice in the matter, I shall live only in a country where civil liberty, tolerance, and equality of all citizens before the law prevail.” The completion of the syllogism was simple—”These conditions do not exist in Germany at the present time”—and would not, Einstein implied, as long as the current regime remained in power.
Hitler’s government reacted swiftly and bitterly to Einstein’s charges. The Völkischer Beobachter published a series of attacks on him, and more mainstream papers followed suit.* One headline read “Good News of Einstein—He Is Not Coming Back!” over an article condemning “this puffed-up bit of vanity [who] dared to sit in judgment on Germany without knowing what is going on here—matters that forever must remain incomprehensible to a man who was never a German in our eyes and who declares himself to be a Jew and nothing but a Jew.” A pamphlet that surfaced some months later reprinted Einstein’s photograph in a collection of enemies of Nazi Germany, over the caption, “Not Yet Hanged.”
Such harassment did not touch Einstein very deeply. The sharpest blows came not from the Nazis themselves but from those who had once formed his chief reason for being in Berlin, his fellow members of the Prussian Academy. While still at sea on the way to Belgium, Einstein drafted his letter of resignation from the Academy, and on arrival he gave it to the German legation, along with his renunciation of German citizenship.
Subsequent events revealed the depth to which the rot had spread. Hitler’s government ordered the Prussian Academy to begin the process of expelling Einstein from its midst. His resignation caught the government by surprise. Enraged that he had quit before he could be fired, the minister in charge demanded a proclamation from the Academy condemning its erstwhile hero. The draft statement declared that “we have no reason to regret Einstein’s resignation. The Academy is aghast at his foreign agitation.” Einstein’s old friend Max von Laue was horrified at the idea that the Academy might issue such a document, and he spoke against the proposal at an extraordinary meeting on April 6. Only one of the 14 members present supported him. Even Haber, the converted Jew and Einstein’s close friend, voted with the majority.
Haber’s action was bad. Max Planck disgraced himself. Einstein had written to Planck to refute privately the charge that he had spread rumors against Germany, telling him that he spoke now only to combat what was clearly a Nazi “war of extermination against my Jewish brethren.” Planck answered Einstein in a letter that identified both Jewishness and National Socialism as “ideologies that cannot co-exist. He deplored both and emphasized his loyalty to Germany, no matter who was in charge. “It is … greatly to be regretted,” he said at the Academy meeting, “that Mr. Einstein through his political behavior himself rendered his continued membership in the Academy impossible.” Einstein’s politics were to blame, not those of a German government that had chosen to destroy him.
Throughout the summer of 1933, Einstein sounded his warning about Hitler wherever he could. In September he visited Winston Churchill, then firmly in political exile—but while Churchill did not require much persuasion to view Hitler as a menace, he had no influence to bring to bear. Later that month, Einstein’s frustration became more obvious. “I cannot understand the passive response of the whole civilized world to this modern barbarism,” he told one interviewer. “Does the world not see that Hitler is aiming at war?”
That contained hints of the tectonic shift that had overtaken Einstein’s core political passion. By the time he spoke, he was no longer a pacifist. In September he had announced his change of heart in a letter to a Belgian war resister published in The New York Times. “Until quite recently we in Europe could assume that personal war resistance constituted an effective attack on militarism,” he began. But circumstances alter cases, and now, “in the heart of Europe lies a power, Germany, that is obviously pushing towards war with all available means.” For Einstein, even deeply held principles had to bend to the pressure of an overwhelming threat. “I should not, in the present circumstances, refuse military service,” he concluded. “Rather I should enter such service cheerfully in the belief that I would thereby be helping to save European civilization.”
The culmination of Einstein’s commitment to defeat Hitler by whatever means necessary came in 1939 and 1940, when he sent his two letters to President Roosevelt about the possibility of the United States building an atomic bomb. In late 1938, Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassman, two scientists still working in Berlin, were wrestling with some novel results from a series of experiments in which they bombarded uranium with a newly discovered subatomic particle, the neutron. Lise Meitner, Hahn’s former collaborator, and her nephew Otto Frisch, both exiles from Hitler’s Germany, met at Christmas in the Swedish village of Kungälv and together they identified the process the Berliners had observed: neutrons striking uranium atoms had sparked nuclear fission, the violent destruction of atomic nuclei in which both energy and more neutrons are released. The result was published several months before wartime secrecy would have rung the curtain down. Every competent physicist who heard the news realized that the fact that each fission event could release more neutrons, raised the possibility of a chain reaction, the new neutrons splitting more atoms in an escalating cascade. The next step was obvious even to the newspapers. As early as the spring of 1939, The Washington Post reported that nuclear fission could lead to weapons powerful enough to destroy everything over two square miles of ground.
In the first months after the fission experiments became public knowledge, however, Einstein had not paid much attention. During the summer of 1939, however, Szilard came to visit him at his summer house on Long Island, accompanied by his fellow physicists Eugene Wigner and Edward Teller. The three émigré Hungarians laid out the principle of the chain reaction, and then told Einstein of the interest the Germans were already showing in the use of uranium as a weapon. That was enough to persuade him to sign his first letter, in which he urged the president to consider the possibility of creating atomic weapons. Roosevelt replied in mid-October, saying that he had set up a committee to investigate Einstein’s suggestions. Nothing much happened—no surprise, given the initial committee budget of $6,000 for its first year of operation—so Szilard got Einstein to try again. In March, 1940, he sent his second letter to Roosevelt, urging him to give greater impetus to the effort because, Einstein wrote, “Since the outbreak of the war, interest in uranium has intensified in Germany. I have now learned that research there is carried out in great secrecy.”
Despite his attempt at presidential lobbying, and contrary to the often repeated fable that he was somehow the creator of the atom bomb, Einstein had next to nothing to do with the invention of nuclear weapons. The significance of his letters to Roosevelt was not the results they failed to achieve, but what they reveal about Einstein’s own political evolution. Until 1932, he had argued as fervently as he could that no civilized man should permit the state to order him to kill.
In the end, the use of America’s bombs deeply saddened him. On hearing of the attack on Hiroshima he is reported to have said “Oh Weh”—“Woe is me.”* He later said that “had I known that the Germans would not succeed in producing an atomic bomb, I would not have lifted a finger.” After the war ended, Einstein became one of the founding forces in the scientists’ anti-nuclear movement. The last public act of his life was to add his name to a manifesto drafted by Bertrand Russell that called for global nuclear disarmament. But he never wavered in the basic argument he had made in the summer of 1933: Hitler was a deadly poison. He had to be neutralized. No greater goals could be contemplated until Hitler and Germany had been utterly defeated. Once he reached that conclusion, he followed it through to its ultimate destination: the bomb itself.
This article has been adapted from Thomas Levenson’s book, Einstein in Berlin.
* This story originally misspelled the name of a German paper.
* This story originally misspelled a German phrase.
Adolf Hitler and ‘Nationalism’
Adolf Hitler is a name that, when spoken, images of the Holocaust, gas chambers, the Nazi Party and World War 2 spring to mind. He was one of the more interesting of the right-wing nationalist leaders of the Twentieth Century. This essay will focus on Adolf Hitler’s conceptualisation of the Nation and who, in Hitler’s thinking, comprises the nation. Hitler left a legacy the world has not forgotten whilst it was far from a positive one, he was a very charismatic and energetic individual, who had a very strong impact on the course of the twentieth century.
this essay will focus on Adolf Hitler’s account of the Nation and who comprises it. It will be based on the speeches that he gave before the Munich Court in 1924 and the work that he produced in his subsequent incarceration, which became ‘Mein Kampf’. This essay will not focus on anything after 1933 when he became Chancellor of the Weimar Republic, nor will it discuss the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. Anthony Smith’s work in the field of Ethnic nationalism and the approach of Ethnosymbolism to nationalism will be used to analyse Hitler’s nationalist discourse within these key texts.
What makes a people or, to be more correct, a race is not language, but blood’.
Anthony Smith alleges the existence of an Ethnie, which is a named human population with myths of common ancestry, shared historical memories and one or more common elements of culture, including an association with a homeland, and some degree of solidarity, at least among the elites. In Hitler’s conception of the Nation, the Ethnie is the German Volk: ‘the emotive force of which is inadequately conveyed by translation as ‘culture’, ‘force’ or ‘race’.’ The core of the volkwas the Aryan nuclei that represented the pure breed of the German people. This term volk, with its mystic overtones of primeval forests and dark tribal instincts, combines ethnocentric, national and racial connotations. The word is repeated throughout “Mein Kampf” and his early speeches, it is the core of his nationalist discourse especially within his book “Mein Kampf”, where his view is of a rigid closed ethnic nation formed around an ethnic core, in order to unite the nation against internal and external threats.
‘The state is only a means to an end. Its end and its purpose is to preserve and promote a community of human beings who are physically as well as spiritually kindred. Above all, it must preserve the existence of the race’.
Hitler had a very clear idea about the ethnic makeup of the nation for him ‘The state, however, is not an economic organisation it is a ‘volkic’ organism’, that is it is the state which is there to safeguard the ‘conservation of the racial characteristics of mankind’. Based on this principle, Hitler believed that the volkisch concept separated mankind into races of superior and inferior quality. It was based on this racial hierarchy that Hitler created a discourse of ‘us and them’, which was incredibly important in Ethnic nationalism. This form of nationalism was based upon bloodlines and race, and is therefore is seen as exclusive when contrasted to an inclusive form of civic nationalism that bases membership upon common values and beliefs.
Hitler spoke out against the civic nationalism of the Weimar Republic: ‘it is almost inconceivable how such a mistake could be made as to think that a N****r or a C****man will become a German because he has learned the German language and is willing to speak German for the future and even to cast his vote for a German political party.’ One of the striking differences between Civic and Ethnic nationalism is the lack of a specific territory that they can associate with Hitler’s discourse is one of blood, race and unity without referring to a specific territory. ‘Hitler had the belief in the primacy of foreign over domestic policies which was the traditional view of German history, by taking this view he could attract support and secure a place in the political game’. Hitler speaks of acquiring Lebensraum from the Slavic nations in the East and of a union of all pure Germans within one Reich. It is with this that he refers to Anschluss with Austria and the incorporation of the Germans within the Sudetenland and any other land on which the German Volk reside.
‘If the Jews were the only people in the world, they would be wallowing in filth and mire and would exploit one another and try to exterminate another in a bitter struggle.’
As Thomson argues, Hitler believed in an ‘iron law of nature’ that each beast mated only with a companion of the same species. All of Germany’s ills sprang from inattention to the natural laws of racial inequality and purity, and especially from subservience to the Jews whom he held responsible for the degeneration of Germany in the twentieth century. In “Mein Kampf”, Hitler starts a process of redefinition of the nation that is stereotypical of Ethnic Nationalist thinking. As Smith states, the process of redefinition is one that sharpens the boundaries between ‘them and us’, and by doing this it creates a boundary that is exclusive and divisive. Hitler states ‘even if all the outstanding and visible differences between the various peoples could be bridged over and finally wiped out by the use of a common language that would produce a bastardization which in this case would not signify Germanization but the annihilation of the German element.’
‘The state is only the vessel and the race is what it contains. The vessel can only have meaning if it preserves and safeguards the contents … The supreme purpose of the ethical state is to guard and preserve those racial elements’
Hitler offers a very clear and effective redefinition of the other, namely in this instance the Jewish other ‘the revolting feature was that beneath their unclean exterior one suddenly perceived the moral mildew of the chosen race’. Hitler links the Jewish race to the moral and biological decay of the German Volk and to the weak government of the Weimar Republic ‘the Jews were the leaders of Social Democracy’. Hitler had created this mythical anti-type, the Jew who stood for everything un-German, cosmopolitan, rootless, and materialist. In Mein Kampf and through the Nazi party, Hitler sought to re-educate the genuine volk of the pure culture of their race. After redefinition and re-education, Hitler hoped that the nation would be regenerated through the process, as Smith argues, of rediscovering its primordial elements, selecting the genuine components and rejecting extraneous accretions. 
Hitler was very clear in the need to purify the German nation of alien elements, and only then would the pure ethnie form the core of the German Nation once all other ethnicities were forced out, ‘the Fuhrer, who embodies the inner will of the master-race and, as the supreme warrior-hero, expresses its ideals and real nature. Beneath him, and submissive to his will, come the racially pure, the selected specimens of the German race, who are endowed with superior blood, physique and blonde appearance they are the natural rightful lords of mankind.’ ‘“The only thing that will ensure a people its freedom of existence”, he wrote in “Mein Kampf” ‘is sufficient space on this earth’ and that entailed a perpetual war of siege and annihilation against all inferior races who threatened the life-force of the German race as it was embodied in the Aryan racial nuclei.’
His task was to assert and ensure for a thousand years the domination of the Aryan race, the natural ‘Master Race’ of history. This task required a monolithic state resting on the mystical union of ‘Blood and Soil’ (Blut und Erde) and the totalitarian principles of ‘One People, One State, One Leader’ (Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer). It required therefore, bringing all German minorities within the borders of the state and, at the same time, claiming ‘living-space’ (Lebensraum) for all the German people purifying German blood by exterminating all the Jews and establishing the hegemony of this nation-state in Europe and, eventually, the world.
It was a filthy crime against the German People, a stab in the back of the German Nation.
Hitler propagated the view that the German defeat in 1918 and the creation of the Weimar republic was a ‘stab in the back’, and this led to the notion that Germany was lost, reinforced the idea of Victimhood and fuelled the negative view of neighbouring nations, and in doing so strengthened German nationalism. The target of his rhetoric at his trial in Munich in 1924 was France when he stated ‘the supreme aim of the French is the annihilation of Germany, the extermination of twenty million Germans, and the dissolution of Germany into separate states.’ In the simplest form, this was another attempt by Hitler to redefine the ‘other’, this time externally.
France’s aim was not merely to weaken Germany, to keep her from obtaining supremacy, but to break her up into small states so that she [France] would be able to hold the Rhine frontier. After all the Government’s reiterations of our weakness, we knew that on top of the Saar and Upper Silesia, we would lose our third coal region, the Ruhr each loss brought on the next one.
Hitler was also appealing to a wounded sense of national pride because Germany had lost the First World War and had had a harsh settlement imposed on its people by the ruling powers. They had lost territory and could potentially lose more since the Weimar Republic seemed to be doing an inadequate job of restoring German glory. Thus, by concentrating on the failures of the Weimar Republic, Hitler was able to instil a strong fear that the German Nation was in decline and needed a strong leader, as well as an enthusiasm to save it and bring about a new age, with all ethnic Germans within a strong German Reich. Hitler’s discourse was attempting to reawaken the nationalist sentiment of the German People. His nationalist sentiment at the Munich trial was one of a legitimate German claim against the injustices of Versailles, which created impossible social conditions in Germany. Gurian states that true German democracy was identified with Hitler’s leadership principle and with the acceptance of orders by a leader who formulated the true will of the people. This nationalism appeared as the solution to social problems. The worker was regarded as a member of the ‘people’s community’. Hitler appealed to apparently traditional values, that of the nation, the people’s community, a social order threatened by Jews, Communists and the capitalist powers of Versailles.
Hitler’s grand idea about the German Reich with complete hegemony over Europe that would last a thousand years needed to be passed on to the younger generations through the medium of education. Very few would dispute that mass education is vital to sustain national consciousness and socialise new generations of loyal citizens. Hitler thought that the spirit of Nationalism and a feeling for social justice must be fused into one sentiment in the hearts of the German youth ‘then a day would come when a nation of citizens would arise which would be welded together through a common love and a common pride that would be invincible and indestructible forever.’ No boy or girl should leave school without having attained a clear insight into the meaning of racial purity and the importance of maintaining the racial blood unadulterated.
The Nation was able to act as a ‘coat hanger’ for Hitler, around which he was able to ‘hang’ the rest of his ideological features, namely fascism, Social Darwinism and Nativism. This was the idea that States should be inhabited exclusively by members of the German volk and that all non-native elements, including deviant members of their own native race, such as homosexuals, needed to be purged so that the nation-state was pure and homogenous. Translated into political terms, the volkisch ideology glorified war and renewal by destruction over internationalism and pacifism, the exaltation of national power and national unity over individual freedom, of the authoritarian state and elitism over parliamentary democracy and egalitarianism.
Hitler imagined the nation in purely ethnic terms, the ethnie that he conceived of was the German Volk with the Aryan core at the top of the genetic pool. Hitler’s definition of ‘us and them’ formed an integral part of his nationalistic discourse. By utilising this fear of an ‘other’ that was corrupting the potential of the Aryan Race, the ‘other’ that was responsible for the harsh social conditions in the Weimar Republic, and the ‘other’ that had imposed the Weimar Democracy onto the German people, he was able to win support amongst the masses. Because of the exclusivity of Ethnic Nationalism, the holocaust was in fact the logical conclusion of Hitler’s goal of a pure Nation-State. This purified state would be the vessel that would incorporate the whole of the German Volk, whilst using the ‘lesser races’ such as the Slavs to the East as slaves and securing their land to ensure the German Nation had sufficient Lebensraum that would enable German hegemony over the entire continent of Europe. Anthony Smith’s Ethnosymbolist approach to Nationalism has been the ‘lens’ that this essay has viewed Hitler through, although due to the nature of nationalism, it is impossible to encapsulate everything with one overarching theory. Mein Kampf is laced with the language of glory of the German Nation, nationalism, race and ethnicity however, nationalism is too ‘thin an ideology to be Hitler’s only political thinking’ and he uses the ideas of Social Darwinism, fascism and militarisation to thicken out his personal ideology.
- Hitler, A. Mein Kampf (Mumbai, Jaico Publishing House, 2008), p. 353.
- Smith, A. Myths and Memories of the Nation (New York, Oxford University Press, 1999), p. 13.
- Bullock, A, Hitler and Stalin, Parallel Lives, (London, Fontana Press, 1998), p, 74.
- Smith, A. Nationalism in the Twentieth Century (Oxford, Martin Robertson & Co. Ltd., 1979), p. 69.
- Smith, A. Myths and Memories of the Nation, p. 13.
- Hitler, A, MeinKampf, p. 357.
- Hitler, A, ‘Speech before the Munich Court March 27 1924’, Humanitas International, http://www.humanitas-international.org/showcase/chronography/speeches/1924-03-27.html(accessed 19 April 2010).
- Hitler, A, Mein Kampf, p. 348.
- Hitler, A, MeinKampf, p. 353.
- Bullock, A, Hitler & Stalin, p, 155.
- Hitler, A. Mein Kampf, p. 273.
- Thomson, D, Political Ideas (London, Oxford Books, 1966), p. 194
- Smith, A, Myths and Memories of the Nation, p. 194.
- Hitler, A, Mein Kampf, p. 353.
- Hitler, A, Mein Kampf, p. 358
- Hitler, A. Mein Kampf, p. 63.
- Hitler, A, Mein Kampf, p. 65.
- Smith, A, Nationalism in the Twentieth Century, p. 74.
- Smith, A, Myths and Memories of the Nation, p. 165.
- Smith, A, Nationalism in the Twentieth Century, p. 76.
- Smith, A, Nationalism in the Twentieth Century, p. 75.
- Thomson, D, Political Ideas, p.194.
- Hitler, A, ‘Speech before the Munich Court February 26 1924’, Humanitas International, http://www.humanitas-international.org/showcase/chronography/speeches/1924-02-26.html(accessed 19 April 2010).
- Hitler, A, Speech before the Munich Court March 27.
- Hitler, A, Speech before the Munich Court February 26 1924’
- Gurian, W, ‘Hitler – The simplifier of German Nationalism’, The Review of Politics, 7 (1945) pp. 316-324, p. 318.
- Gurian, W, Hitler Simplifier of German Nationalism, p. 319.
- Gurian, W, Hitler Simplifier of German Nationalism, p. 321.
- Smith, A. ‘Theories of Nationalism, Alternative models of Nation formation’, in Asian Nationalism, edited by Michael Liefer (London, Routledge, 2000), pp. 1-21, p. 7
- Hitler, A, MeinKampf, p. 387
- Hitler, A, MeinKampf, p. 288
- Bullock, A, Hitler & Stalin, p, 75.
Bullock, A. (1998). Hitler and Stalin. Parallel Lives. Glasgow: Fontana Press.
Gurian, W. (1945). Hitler – The Simplifier of German Nationalism. The Review of Politics , 7 (3), 316-324.
Hitler, A. (2008). Mein Kampf. Mumbai: Jaico.
Hitler, A. (1924, February 26). Speech Before the Munich Court February 26. Retrieved April 21, 2010, from Humanitas International: http://www.humanitas-international.org/showcase/chronography/speeches/1924-02-26.html
Hitler, A. (1924, March 27). Speech Before the Munich Court March 27. Retrieved April 19, 2010, from Humanitas International: http://www.humanitas-international.org/showcase/chronography/speeches/1924-03-27.html
Smith, A. (1999). Myths and Memories of the Nation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Smith, A. (1979). Nationalism in the Twentieth Century. Oxford: Martin Robertson & Co. Ltd.
Smith, A. (2000). Theories of Nationalism, Alternative models of Nation formation. In M. Liefer, Asian Nationalism (pp. 1-21). London: Routledge.