Hitler versus Rothschild: the Logistics and Background of World War Two
- Thread starter MusicForThePiano
- Start date
I’ll give it a look but he may have been nominally a Catholic but Nazism is not a Christian ideology or ever was. It’s a neo-Darwinian Nietzschean world view. The State and its people are god in that ideology.
Unlike communism which values equality Fascism keeps private property and hierarchy. There’s no seizing the means but everything must glorify and serve the state and its people. Morality be damned. A good example of a modern fascist state would be modern China. In a Christian world view hierarchy is healthy too, but we have our responsibility to serve god with our status in life. God is our giver of all things, not the state or our race.
Communism and Fascism are both types of statism. Both want to kill God. Communism wants to create utopia in an imperfect world and Fascism wants to worship power and restore a pre Christian Pagan mindset in an industrialized nation state. Hitler was able to get the German people to run with it because they were so frustrated with the Weimar Republic. It’s why I feel if the pendulum ever swings, it will have rocket boosters on it.
Last edited:
InspCallahan
Catholic
So who were the Good Guys in WW2? If the Alt-Right Nationalists have been bringing the Revision of the Second War into light as being the more Correct Account of what went on?
A counter to the "Hurry Up and Cover Our Atrocities" Allied PR Campaign Narrative, Predominantly fostered by Jews and WASP Elite, the Former having a Genocidal Thirst to Wipe out All Germans.
I'm just trying to get a String Theory of Jewish Subversion Throughout The Last 2000 years across the Globe, but more Precisely the Christian European West.
At what point did the Serphadic and Ashkanazi sects cooperate or other variations...
How much Mixing was done when Cromwell let them into Britain among the Anglos, same with the French, Austro-Hungarian, etc.?
I just theorize because I don't have any work to corroroborate The Pharisees or Jewish Elites for lack of a better world, adopted the Worldly Ancient Regime ways of getting over on Mankind and without Impunity with a myriad of Clever Cloak and Dagger tricks and half truths, etc.
I mean it is hard to wrap your head around something this Insidious and Long standing. Is this something Racial or at least Common Blood to make it happen? And yes not every Chew is involved, their System doesn't require that, but it is Definitely pretty effective towards fooling the Goy over and over.
A counter to the "Hurry Up and Cover Our Atrocities" Allied PR Campaign Narrative, Predominantly fostered by Jews and WASP Elite, the Former having a Genocidal Thirst to Wipe out All Germans.
I'm just trying to get a String Theory of Jewish Subversion Throughout The Last 2000 years across the Globe, but more Precisely the Christian European West.
At what point did the Serphadic and Ashkanazi sects cooperate or other variations...
How much Mixing was done when Cromwell let them into Britain among the Anglos, same with the French, Austro-Hungarian, etc.?
I just theorize because I don't have any work to corroroborate The Pharisees or Jewish Elites for lack of a better world, adopted the Worldly Ancient Regime ways of getting over on Mankind and without Impunity with a myriad of Clever Cloak and Dagger tricks and half truths, etc.
I mean it is hard to wrap your head around something this Insidious and Long standing. Is this something Racial or at least Common Blood to make it happen? And yes not every Chew is involved, their System doesn't require that, but it is Definitely pretty effective towards fooling the Goy over and over.
Except Muslims and Talmuds don't lead a crusade to defend Christendom. None of us are arguing that Hitler was a Patriarchate or a Priest. He was a Catholic layperson and not responsible nor allowed by ecclesiastical offices to be enforcing official Church policies, only advocating and encouraging the moral laws of society from a Christian basis like any moral leader would do.
He did mention Christ directly in many speeches, and in Mein Kampf several times. Since these are the only two direct sources of Hitler that doesn't involve going through the filter of another human mind or an interpretation, it is from these that we must derive information about the man with a completely clear lens. This culture of paparazzi and celebrity that surrounds modern politicians and famous people. which monitors their every move and twists their every word didn't exist back then, even though everywhere he went he rarely had peace and quiet. It would not be appropriate to bring Christ into politics, and many Germans viewed this as a sacrilege to constantly evoke Christ in the elaboration and discussion of earthly matters. It was viewed as dirtying or tarnishing the divine of Christ by attempting to use Him for moral excuses and agendas, which is what the Catholic Center Party was guilty of in Weimar (along with consorting with Weimar jewish government officials and communists representing the east) and the early years of NS before all political parties were banned.
Specific mention of Christ from one of his first official public speeches in 1922 when he was debating with other political parties who alleged to be Christian, that were only backstabbing their German constituents:
"Hitler's Munich Speech, 1922, in English"
Here is the text.
Here is another example from a speech in July 1922 also in Munich where he specifically mentions Christ (the context was just prior to the French invasion and rape of the Saar):
And another, from the1932 New Year Proclamation to the Party:
Here is another, from the address to the Industry Club in Dusseldorf, 1932, where he compares Bolshevism as an anti-Christianity that is spreading and how it will undo and overwrite everything which Europe is if it is not stopped:
Here is another reference from Adolf Hitler's first radio broadcast proclamation after becoming Chancellor, Feb 1st, 1933:
Declaring a war against nihilism doesn't sound very Nietzschean.
Here is another from a speech on his policy on the Enabling Act on the Reichstag, March 23rd, 1933:
Another where he reaffirms the Christian morality as the basis of the state, from that same speech. It is evident in the German laws they enacted for anyone who can read them:
He made entire speeches about Christianity especially when it came to the division in the existing Churches, which he endeavored to reconcile. This speech in particular, made to the Reichstag, on January 10th, 1934 discusses it at length:
Here is another where he uses the reference of the 2000-year history of Christendom for a time reckoning, in a speech in Nuremberg City Hall, September 1936:
There are plenty more but I think the point is made here. Hitler went to lengths to hold back being overly religious in his speeches. Politics is too dirty for theology, so people should be applauding him not using Christ as a route for earthly temporal solutions.
What kind of speeches involving Christ are people expecting him to make?
None of us are arguing that Hitler was a Patriarchate or a Priest. His upbringing in a Benedictine Monastery in Lambach Austria during his formative years, before he experienced homelessness and starvation in Vienna, was the most likely point of where his morality and outlook on life emerged. Anyone who attended primary or secondary religious institutions can attest to this. Much of his own Catholic practices were private. To suggest otherwise in lack of clear evidence is clear speculation, and willfully ignorant smearing from all his critics, as well as manipulation by those non-Christians that admire him. He did not want to interfere in Church affairs and occasionally had to come down hard on individuals in the National Socialist hierarchy who did not agree with him on this stance. Paganism disgusted him, which is evident from his writings. Any deistic or paganist following was all post-war after the jews had their servants inject every rotten lie about this man under the sun for public discourse to "read about".
A non-Christian would never have tried to bring all the German Christians together into reunification. A non-Christian would not use the expressions of "With God as my witness" "Almighty God" "the Lord God" frequently in his speeches in all serious declarations, and then uses non-Christian language as puns and jokes and sarcasm. The civil wars and infighting among Catholics and Protestants had cost Europe dearly the last several hundred years. Unfortunately, the irreconciliation between the German Lutherans / Protestants and the German Catholics into a single German Church showed him that confessional differences would prevail beyond the scope of temporal politics, but that didn't stop the Germans from coming together across all other lines of conflict drawn in the sand by the invisible (((hands))). He never attempted any sort of full-scale reformation because the unity of the German people meant more to him than trying to force them all into a single confession.
"Adolf Hitler - What God Created"
Many people who knew him say the exact opposite. None of us knew him. I've only met a nonagenarian German veteran and one Austrian who had met him myself. Only one of them had shook his hand at a rally, the other just saw him in passing around Berchtesgaden and received a simple courteous greeting from him a few times. Even he didn't know Hitler, but many others did. It is important to consider the first-hand primary sources of his character and be considerate of the context of all the speeches.
"People who knew Hitler explain what he was like"
David Irving, who unfortunately had sold out later in life, for many decades was very honest and broke into much of the history that the Allies had tried to repress. It was these personal opinions on Hitler that convinced him to begin his half-century undertaking of history:
"When I first set out to write the book on Adolf Hitler, and I made the acquaintance of all his private staff, the four secretaries, Christa Schroeder, Johanna Wolf, Gerda Daranowski, and Traudl Junge, who died a couple of years ago, and I met also the adjutants who had served with him, and the generals, the field marshals, like all Germans, even now, you find that they had two faces, or two opinions, there was the opinion they were very prepared to show to strangers, and the private opinion they would reveal to you, they would disclose to you once you had won their trust. All of these people, on Adolf Hitler's private staff, they stunned me by showing great admiration for him and speaking of him only in the most glowing and positive terms. These were educated people, they've been to college, to university, they weren't just "trailer trash." These were people with great insight and perception and they had known him for the last ten or twelve years of his life, and they spoke well of him. Even in the 1960s and 1970s, and that is what convinced me that he was worth investigating in-depth, doing a real job on." - David Irving.
One thing is for sure, it is with great caution that every Christian should listen to any politician who explicitly uses Christ frequently in their language, which can only be a source of manipulation unless it is a genetic King from the Davidian line, of whom none are left. Hitler's behavior of privacy shows more Christian behavior than any loud-mouthed preacher riddled with corruption. Non-Christian fascistic intellectuals and other politicians, economists, and ambassadors who went to visit him in his house in Berchtesgaden (which is only a bombed-out ruin now) often complained of how religious he was:
Here is some new information I just found out about Hitler's youth in Vienna that expounds upon existing Catholic evidence, though I think the video is missing an explanation on several stances:
"Even Pre-WWII Roman Catholics in Germany exposed Murderous Judaism"
Last edited:
„Kampf“ with an f not an s and the plural is „Kämpfe“ also no s in it
For anyone else viewing this thread with an open mind, do you see how little effort these people show? Baseless ad hominems, no evidence, speculation, and outright lying by purposefully stating something to be a historical fact when it is the opposite. This is how it's been under the shadow of the victors since 1945. Victory writes history in feeble sentences, and the languishing truth, which is stronger always, must overcome it with entire pages.
Keep wondering @magoo, with that line of thinking it won't take you long from wondering if jews are funding admiration for Christian Saints and Monarchs who kicked them out of Christian lands as well. They've already done damage like this with Ivan the Great, whom they want the world to remember as Ivan "The Terrible". Why if we were to enact any of the laws or repeat the actions any of Constantine I, Constantius II, Honorius, Theodosius II, Bishop Severus of Menorca, Valentinian III, Justinian the Great, Bishop Avitus of Clermont, Visigoth King Reccared I, Heraclius, Dagobert I, Visigoth Hispanian King Erwig, Leo III, Archbishop Ecgbert of York, Archbishop Agobard of Lyons, Romanos I Lakapenos, Monk Nikon Metanoite, Henry II, the Council of Girona, Count Emicho, they would come down hard with all their golems and endless kvetching and murderous schemes with no end. (That's just the greatest men from the first Millennium AD).
There is no historical evidence, that is out in the open or suppressed, to show that Hitler was "supported" by Jesuits as a means of him attaining prominence. There is no historical evidence to the claim that a Jesuit wrote Mein Kampf. Hitler wrote it during his sentence in Landsberg prison in 1924 dictating it to Rudolf Hess. The Weimar pigs couldn't care less that the then-revolutionary Hitler was writing a book in his prison cell.
German industrialists are the only verifiable source of external financial support for the National Socialists once they entered into the Reichstag as a political party in the mid to late 1920s, not international conglomerates, not jewish bankers, not wall street shabbos goys, and no Jesuit fronts. The early years were epitomized by immense suffering and ostracizing from Weimar authorities and mobs of communists as well as violent Bolshevik agents. You're conflating "Nazi's" and commies to be fundamentally synonymous shows your lack of understanding. They are not the same.
Would "jew shit" end jewish-created child trafficking in Germany? Would "jew shit" shut down jewish gay brothels? Shut down jewish porn, jewish prostitution, jewish-created drug trafficking, smash jewish marxism, smash jewish antifa, smash freemasons, remove jewish Rothschild bankers freeing their people from jewish usury banking?
You obviously have a problem with these truths getting out. Good. Be triggered, but eventually the sting of cognitive dissonance will wear off and you'll either accept the truth or keep living in ignorance.
Relevant video to debunk this:
"On the accusation that Hitler was financed"
Again with this "poisoning the well" manure? Do you think if you repeat this low-quality conversation-shut-down phrase enough times in every deep dive thread that it suddenly becomes true, and that the viewership, in Pavlovian fashion, accepts it on a whim? Is there a certain narrow line that cannot be crossed in terms of historical truth that upsets your interests?
Here are some of the quotes of wisdom from this ideological "brand" that you claim to be the most toxic in all the land:
"Christ is the genius of love and as such the most diametric anti-pole to Jewry, which is the incarnation of hate. … Christ was the first anti-Jewish opponent of stature. … The Jew is the lie that became flesh. He nailed Christ to the cross, and thus for the first time in history nailed the eternal truth to the cross." - Dr. Joseph Goebbels, December 29th, 1939.
"Give your goods to the poor: Christ.
Property is theft - as long as it's not mine: Marx" - Joseph Goebbels
"Christianity is not a religion for the masses, let alone for all. Cultivated by few and translated into deeds, it is one of the most splendid blossoms that can grow in the soul of a good man." - Joseph Goebbels.
"I have informed you of these three questions and answers in order to clerly present our stand on religion. Be assured tht we would not be able to form such an ironclad corps, if we did not have conviction and faith in a God who stands over us, who has created us, our fatherland, our folk, and the earth, and who sent us our Fuhrer." - Faith in God, SS Defender against Bolshevism, speech by Heinrich Himmler.
"Interconnected with this is the fact that the homosexual lies pathologically. He is not lying - to take an extreme example - as a Jesuit. The Jesuit lies for a purpose. He says anything whatever with a beaming face and knows that he is deceiving you. He has a moral foundation: for the glory of God; majorum dei gloriam. The end justifies the means. There is a whole moral philosophy, a moral doctrine that Saint Ignatius worked out." - The Homosexual Threat to Civilization, A Speech by Heinrich Himmler.
Himmler on Christ:
You see Cooper, there are two versions of history. There is the "victor's version," which you are still living in and subject to, and then there is what really happened, which is both liberating and maddening at the same time, something which delicate minds cannot grasp if they are not ready for it.
The uniting ideology in all the western countries that unites a population and a nation right now is not liberalism, its not atheism, marxism, conservatism. The fundamental ideology that unites everyone is "anti-nazism". In every single sector of society, all demographics like to compete about who is the most anti-"nazi," and who allegedly suffered the "most" under the Third Reich. Each sector of society puts out their propaganda that conforms to anti-"nazism" ideology. And none of it is cohesive or coherent, simply convenient, all propaganda put out from each point of view to keep up the hatred of the Third Reich. If you have an atheist, their anti-"nazi" propaganda would be how Christian the Third Reich was. A Catholic's anti-"nazi" propaganda would say how the Third Reich was totally Protestant and that the Catholics "suffered" or that Hitler and the NSDAP were "Pagan". A Protestant would put out that Hitler was either Catholic or Pagan, that would be their anti-"nazism" stance, and they would point to any sufferings of Protestants as their reason. Zero objectivity in all these stances. The jews defined worldview post-1945 is basically encompasses an opposing diametric: Hitler being reduced to the ultimate evil, and whatever is the complete opposite of Hitler being the the ultimate good. The further you are away from Hitler, the more "good" you are. I can see you take no hesitation to prove your distance and thus your "goodness" to this inverted and scripted reality.
"Toxic Nazilinity" is to the self-hating goyim what "Toxic Masculinity" is to the feminist.
When we hear National Socialism, it doesn't directly translate this connotation from Nazionalsozialismus into a reductionist ideology. It is an expression of a natural instinct for stewardship of the land and the preservation of cultural and ethnic identity. Just as diverse ecosystems thrive when each species plays its role in maintaining balance, human societies benefit from a parallel of cultures and identities. National Socialism, as was practiced by Germany for those twelve years, sought to protect and preserve a distinct national identity rooted in a deep connection to land, heritage, and tradition. What is intended is for each race to adopt a similar stance and every human race can live peacefully in parallel without interlopers.
Stew gets it on the money here:
"Hitler was justified in his choice of remedy, as will we, when we recapture the minds"
Last edited:
Yes.
This website has some good reads that provide a larger background on the subject:
https://www.moneytreepublishing.com/shop
The specific books that would shed the most light there are:
"The Myth of German Villainy" by Benton L. Bradberry
"The Six Million: Fact or Fiction" by Peter Winter
"Exposing the Lies of History: Deprogramming 101" by Reed T. Sainsbury
"Hellstorm" by Thomas Goodrich
For documentaries start with the following five:
"Adolf Hitler: The Greatest Story Never Told"
"The Secret Masonic Victory of World War Two"
"A Last Appeal to Reason"
"Leon Degrelle: Le Volksfuhrer" (In French, with English Subtitles)
And most importantly,
"Europa the Last Battle"
They are long, but 79 years of lies cannot be cleansed with anything but time and effort.
Here are Leon Degrelle's books, which are considerable in terms of post-war literature as he was one of the only Axis leaders never captured, molested, tortured, or who capitulated to western Allies or the USSR, though he did suffer innumerably in other ways. PDF's are available to download from this site:
His story of the end of the war, injuries, assassination and kidnap attempts by Allied forces post-war, and the changing geopolitical post-war world order:
"Léon Degrelle in Exile, 1945-1994 by José Luís Jerez Riesco"
https://archive.org/details/ldjlj
For a more look at the confusion of the Eastern Front that is presented to us by mainstream historians, this clears up many speculations of what went on there.
"The Epic of the Volunteer Wallonian Legion, A Unit of the Pan-European Waffen SS, as Told by Its Leader, Leon Degrelle:"
"Campaign in Russia: The Waffen-SS on the Eastern Front"
https://archive.org/details/Campaign-in-Russia-Leon-Degrelle
And lastly, Hitler Democrat
Background:
"What some people think they “know” about Hitler and his era is nothing close to the truth. In Hitler Democrat the other side of the story is told, as only the great General Leon Degrelle of the Waffen-SS could tell it."
"This tremendous work is unlike any other book about World War II – and Adolf Hitler – available anywhere on the face of the planet today. Longtime subscribers of The Barnes Review are familiar with General Degrelle’s remarkable story. When this vibrant Warrior for the West – a much-decorated survivor of the brutal Eastern Front – died in Spain in 1994, he was the last surviving major figure of World War II, a statesman and soldier (at one point the youngest political leader in Europe) acquainted with all of the big names of the European arena, including Churchill, Mussolini, Franco, Laval, Petain and many others, including, needless to say, Adolf Hitler himself.
In fact, Hitler once said that, if he were to have a son, he would want him to be like Leon Degrelle. So it’s more than fitting that in his final years, the retired Belgian general was working relentlessly on the manuscripts that today make up the pages of Hitler Democrat.
The original typescript of this book, written in the early 1990s, had been temporarily lost, but both Degrelle’s wife, Jeanne, and publisher Willis Carto still held earlier drafts of some of Degrelle’s writings. Through a laborious process of careful reconstruction, the staff of The Barnes Review were able to literally resurrect Degrelle’s lost work.
And today, that material appears here in Hitler Democrat for the first time. In the end, this volume is not only a monumental work of history, a genuine epic, but it is also, in its own fashion, a tribute to the man behind it: General Leon Degrelle."
"Hitler: Democrat"
https://archive.org/details/leon-degrelle-hitler-democrat.
This was made this year by another researcher like me, he has put together an exceptionally objective book here about Hitler's faith called "Was Hitler Catholic?" He also says it is designed for the lay person to read, unlike other huge historical volumes.
"Was Hitler Catholic?" by Christopher Reid
https://ia801308.us.archive.org/15/...c-2nd-ed_202402/Was Hitler Catholic-2ndEd.pdf
Try these to start with, let me know if there is anything else in particular you want to read about. American General Patton's journal and diary is also of considerable interest:
"The Patton Papers"
https://archive.org/details/the-patton-papers-1940-1945-pdf/page/n3/mode/2up
Any ideas where I can get:
"Exposing the Lies of History: Deprogramming 101" by Reed T. Sainsbury
Money tree publishing is down for me...
I know and agree with all of these narratives and facts. I am well-versed in WW2 history.
This however, does not mean that Hitler was not a complete idiot and a buffoon who was into aryan pagan cults and destroyed Germany and much of Europe in trying to set up his aryan pagan third reich.
I don't have to read a book about some guy claiming that Hitler was an actual Catholic, I can see that the whole aryan pagan rituals and imagery are not just completely devoid of Christian content, but they are also in opposition to Christianity. The hundreds of thousands of adepts at Nuremberg worshipped a pagan symbol, the swastika, as opposed to the cross.
You fall in the same cognitive trap as in flat earth:
-NASA lies, we never went to the moon ===>therefore the earth is flat.
-Hitler had good motives, tried to fight judeo-masonry ===> therefore he is awesome, a devout Christian, and an intelligent, wise leader with sound judgment.
The earth is not flat, this is a very dumb concept, and Hitler was a fool who destroyed his nation and ended up solidifying the globalist grip on Europe. His opponents knew he would fail, and that's why they supported his rise.
That is also why nazi imagery and ideology is kept alive by glowies and the deep state, it's a very smart way to poison the nationalist well, just like flat earth is a smart way to decredibilize red pillers and destroy the modern truth movement. Both flat earth and the cult of Adolf Hitler are toxic poison pills that will destroy and de-crediblize not just the proponents of these cults., but also take down as collateral damage the wider opposition to the prevailing narratives.
Last edited:
It doesn't matter who the "true villains" are, your polemics are pointless as they are tiring. You still haven't answered the central objection I've posed, that Hitler was a trashcan commander, who picked a fight with no strategy to win. Simply "acting on rigtheousness" doesn't count for anything in politics. You either win or you lose, and Hitler lost huge, Europe would have been better off without Hitler his loss was so complete.
Hitler should have evacuated citizens out of Danzig if he didn't have a plan to take on the enemies that would result from invading Poland. It's as simple as that, his strategy sucked, and he lost as a result. Anything less than this conclusion shows extreme bias and not the mentality of a military commander who understands what victory means.
I discovered the audiobook on Bitchute, but not sure if it's complete.
How many chapters does it have?
Stuttgart is where you should go. I spent some time in Deutschland between military and study abroad.
Next time you're in Germany make a point to see the Tank Museum. You'll see Rommels Death mask.
interesting claims from Finnish historian
I can't even play anything associated with it on my country due to 'holocaust denial' so if anyone can find the book or has a PDF please send me a message.
Perhaps it is tiring to you because you tend to think along these reductionist modes, but not to many others who want to know the truth and do not compartmentalize the same. It does indeed matter who the liars and deceivers are. They are still lying and deceiving people today with much more sinister agendas.
You cannot reduce a grand historical hypothetical to something like "Europe would have been better off without Hitler." This is a fallacy when you look at the historical trajectories of what was going on in every country in Europe at the time. Could anyone else have undone Weimar? Could any other force have built up such a bulwark of anti-communist strength in firepower and manpower to the hordes of the East? Could any other force have destroyed so much of the Red Army that did indeed invade and destroy many other European nations, with or without Hitler? The answer to that is simple, no one else would have.
If Hitler had not come on the scene, this is what would have continued, which were movements that his actions put a stop to:
-German communist uprisings such as the Spartacist Revolt in 1919 and the Hamburg Uprising in 1923 demonstrated revolutionary violence and instability. Any one of these communist regimes in Germany would have immediately aligned with their backers in the Soviet Union.
-General Franco would never had Luftwaffe support to establish an initial base in the south and then drive out the Reds from Spain (who were mostly French and Russian communists fighting Spaniards). There was significant Soviet backing on the "Republican" side of that conflict. With a Communist Spain all but ensured, this would have changed much for Europe for the worst.
-The Austrian communist party (Kommunistische Partei Österreichs, KPO) was a suborganization of Comintern. If it were not for the NSDAP and the influence they had on the Austrian government and paramilitary groups like Heimwehr, then Austria would have been lost to the east as well.
You're not considering the immense threat of Soviet expansionism and the specter of communist revolution that loomed large over Europe during the interwar period. Get hypothetical here if you can, but I have and I've found no other alternative that would have stemmed the avalanche of violence from the east except for a Hitlerian figure. Mussolini, though he came to power in 1922, would not have been a strong enough presence by himself without Hitler to deter the entire red East and any red-turned nation around him.
Romania was the only other nation that had enough guts and steel to throw down with the communists. Their nationalists helped destroy Bela Kun's Hungarian mini-USSR state in 1919, but ultimately they too were overpowered with the overwhelming odds from the east.
Greece's instability, as seen from the Greek civil war which happened in 1946 almost immediately after WW2 had stopped, was the result of too many communists in Greece. Metaxas regime was Fascist yes, but many of his supporters allied with the Germans and became Greek Waffen-SS security details, who then served on the monarchist side in the civil war against the communists.
In just about every European country you look you will see impact of Germany's strength in anti-communist measures affecting their timeline. You don't even have to like the Germans, but you cannot ignore how much of a push they gave back against the satanic forces of Bolshevism. When you consider all of these, with a complete bigger picture in mind, and then evaluate, without Hitler and the offense he pursued, Europe would have been much worse with much more death and destruction in places where it never happened post-WW2 (France, England, Spain, Portugal, Ireland perhaps). The 20th century was when they were supposed to take over Europe and put everyone into a slave system, they only partially were able to do it because of the setback of National Socialist Germany's push in the opposite direction. America was supposed to be subjugated by this system as well much earlier than what we are experiencing now.
As to your central objection of him being a bad military commander, this is even less reduceable to good leader / bad leader outcomes because of how complex the circumstances of 20th century Europe were.
I don't know your experience and your background, and I won't make assumptions, but I do know that if you have ever been in a military and either had been in a commanding position or taken orders from one in such a demanding role you would have a bit more of a nuanced outlook on this factor, as opposed to the conclusions you have arrived at from reading about historical military campaigns, even passionately which is something we both share.
Your assessment of military commanders, specifically in regards to the framework of the complexities of the 20th century is not completely realistic. You cannot compare 20th century warfare and geopolitics to be the same as Renaissance, Medieval, early Byzantine, or pre-Christian times. Some tactics and stratagems remain, but the nature of war changes the more cultures and ethnicities are involved, human abilities have improved, inventions that changed the reality of warfare, and the morality of an "international community" which arises and encompasses all of these.
The Danzig situation was a tinderbox, Hitler treaded carefully for a long time logistically. He knew what England and France were trying to do by goading Poland into inciting press-enraged mobs of Bolsheviks into massacring Germans. What wasn't clear at the time to everyone was why they only declared war on Germany and not the USSR which did the same "action" as Germany only from the East and not the West. This now shows any pre-emptive doubts about England and France's judeo-masonic loyalty never would have went to war against the USSR, despite any theoretical pre-war geopolitical discussions to the opposite. They still never declared war on the USSR when it invaded Finland in 1939, yet hyper-focused all of their rage on Germany and deceived many nations in the world that this was the "aggressor nation" they should be afraid of.
Ergo he did not "pick a fight" or desire any war to take place. The fight was forced upon Germany by every vector from Churchill, at the behest of the Focus Group who funded him, and by FDR, at the behest of his Brain Trust group who played a very sinister game of international manipulation among other countries like France and Poland. There were far-left agitators within Germany as well, obstacles at every turn. First the Strassers, then Rohm's planned insurrection, then political clergy working with communists, then partisans. The man was never intending to fight any war but only to undo the illegality of Versailles and begin a way of life for his countrymen that was independent of the international bankers. There was no 21st-century retrospect to see the level these madmen would have gone to keep slaves on the plantation then, the depths of deception these trifecta of jewish puppets in charge of the three largest and most powerful countries in the world at the time: USA, England, and USSR, all being held together by the mortar of international jewry.
The people he intended to save from the outset were the Germans trapped in the redrawn borders of the world map after Versailles, and ultimately the German nation as a whole suffering from economic, moral, and spiritual despair. His only military goal was being capable of defending against external threats. We can fault Hitler for being a bad military commander if that is what he set out to be, but it isn't. He was a man of peace forced into becoming a man of war.
There was no clear path to victory, but this was what awakened the world to the full nature of the beast afterwards. It was a sacrifice, ultimately, which is very different than a blunder of chance. The storm of genocide was going to come down on all of Europe sooner or later, how they weathered it was up to them. If they did not have a strong defense in place, then many more would have died.
Biblical wartime commanders had a simpler and harsher life, and could get away with so much more, and many people we will never read about in any history book are likely not there because all memory of them has been scourged from the earth.
Would you blame every Saint and Martyr who lost their lives, the lives of their villages, or their armies, in defense of Christendom for losing?
Let's play hypothetical history for a minute, so I can parallel your logic against Hitler:
The battle of Yarmouk in 636 happened under Heraclius' reign, the man you like to bring up as the perfect Christian victorious military commander, only here Muslim Arab forces decisively defeated the Byzantine Empire's forces. This specific defeat led to the Islamic conquest of Syria and Palestine, resulting in the loss of Byzantine territories in the Levant and paving the way for further Islamic expansion into the Byzantine Empire. Constantinople would have fared much longer had this not happened. By Domino effect, Heraclius had a greater responsibility than Hitler ever did for defending Christendom and he dropped the ball big time. That changed the course of history with ramifications we are still dealing with now.
Next at the Battle of Manzikert in 1071, Seljuk Turk forces defeated the Byzantine Empire once more, leading to the loss of Anatolia and weakening Byzantine control over the region. This time the Byzantine forces were led by Emperor Romanos IV Diogenes, whose capture hastened the defeat. This particular defeat contributed to the gradual decline of Byzantine power in the region. It also led to increased Seljuk Turk incursions into Byzantine territory. Romanos IV compounded on Heraclius' loss, which only made the perpetual geopolitical situation worse for Europa. Is he not to blame too?
The Siege of Jerusalem and the Battle of Hattin in 1187 were valiant charges but they too failed. Are all those Crusaders worthless too?
The Battle of Mohacs in 1526 saw the Ottoman forces defeat the Kingdom of Hungary under King Louis II, leading to the partition of Hungary and the establishment of Ottoman suzerainty in the region. Is he not to blame for putting the war-bound Mohammedans on Europe's doorstep?
It is a fact that in every single one of these defeats, massive executions, tortures, rapes, and genocides took place in the conquered territories of the European peoples then, just as in 1945 and beyond. That is the nature of man. Despite all of these losses in antiquity, in the last millennium, and in this one, Christendom endures, even if battered and somewhat retreated. However, despite the losses of these Kings and Emperors which forever changed the landscape and demographics of Europe, I do not fault them for losing. The struggle in this life is what is worth it, the battle, the purpose, even if you don't win it.
For us to be here typing on these keyboards to one another about the sacrifices of past men is proof that if you lose on this earth you are not a loser but have only guaranteed the struggle, and thus the purpose, continues for the next generation.
The seeming deathblow dealt to Europeans and European Christendom after WW2 is not the last straw, for the blood of the people will not be put down so easily, despite how the odds are statistically and rationally against a victory in the present day. That is where the spiritual comes in. Faith will grease the gears, pump stale blood into fresh arteries, and fire up the eyes with a glaze of the heavens to reclaim what is rightfully theirs by God-given authority.
Please consider this, and please consider blaming the men who lied to you rather than the ones who show the truths. I don't expect you to praise Hitler, but you must consider our reality is not his fault, but the blame lies on the men who deceived in order to create our current predicaments.
Last edited:
These are making the rounds now as well. Operation Thunder is completely provable. The political dialectics of 1939-1940 are not explored as often by historians, they simply taut mainstream lines of German "aggression" and completely ignore the designs of Stalin and other architects of USSR-caused misery. What more proof do people need that history is written by the victors in such a foreboding and silencing manner? Every move Germany made in those two years was a reactive countermove to a Soviet ambition or an English pre-emptive ploy against a particular resource.
Whether the Finns could have held out on their own against the Soviets longer than the Winter War is debatable, but I do not think they would have had England invaded the other Nordic countries and made good on their part of the bargain with Stalin. If they had more men like Simo Hayha, perhaps they could have. These hypotheticals are amusing, but we must remember to look at all the available logistics of the time.
The outlines from the book do present interesting answers to why certain moves on the map occurred in 1939 and 1940. The ambitions of the Soviet Union were the most aggressive of all the countries, and this includes every single satellite communist uprising that occurred in traditional monarchic European nations in the 1910s, 1920s, and 1930s.
War has it's own laws, we must consider the before, during, and after of causality for every conflict and even each individual battle to get a flow of the bigger picture.
Here Hitler talks about the offensive moves from the USSR occurring in 1940 and 1941:
"Soviet Operation Thunder - Stalin's planned invasion of western Europe on July 10th, 1941"
Around 8 minutes you can see some panned aerial footage of the Soviet buildup behind their line, it's very brief. The rest of the footage is mostly German tanks cut in with various meetings of officers against the backdrop of his speech.
Here is the annotation of his speech in the video, in regards to what happened with the Non-Aggression pact clearing up the confusion around the prelude to Barbarossa. The speech was at the Sportpalast on the opening of the Kriegswinterhilfswerk in Berlin, October 3, 1941. It corroborates much of the claims in the book you posted, specifically about Soviet behavior:
The last few paragraphs are chilling when you think about it. They did break the Soviet Union, but the barges at Murmansk kept coming from the west with American planes, tanks, trucks, AA guns, food, equipment, and more. Could any military commander have anticipated the extent of both the Lend-Lease act's enormous warmongering treachery, along with the Soviet Commissar's forcing millions of men, Russians, Asiatics, Mongols, and others, into a suicide bum-rush of Stalin's "not one inch back policy" that ultimately led to a war of attrition? I'm open to hearing opinions on this. This meme comes to mind here:
Last edited: