My post for next Monday, the first of January, is being written for new visitors to this site. That will be the new featured post and I will use a metaphor analogous to the one I have been using about the psychological Rubicon: a metaphor that for now can be seen in this year’s featured post, ‘The River Nymph’. The next featured post, which, I reiterate, is for new visitors who are unaware of what the transvaluation of values is, says much the same but in an even more incisive way.
There is something I will say in the forthcoming featured post about which I can advance something for the moment.
Hitler and his inner circle of National Socialists, with whom he discussed the esoteric aspect of NS (his anti-Christianity—cf. Weikart’s book), didn’t have the opportunity to read mature mythicist literature as far as the historicity of Jesus is concerned.
Mythicism only matured in the present century, for example, with the work of mythicist Richard Carrier but also with non-mythicists like Richard Miller (see what we have said about Miller’s work in 2023). With this in mind, the forthcoming featured post will show a theological difference of mine with Hitler and Rosenberg in that, only up to our times, we can already begin to conceive, with recent scholarship on early Christian writings, that Jesus is as fictional a figure as the legendary King Arthur. The relevance of this for a 21st century National Socialism is capital, though this will be the subject of another post.
As far as today’s quote from Simms’ book is concerned (‘It was probably from him that Hitler got his determination that the Germans should not become a people like the [holocausted] Armenians’), I must add something.
While this issue of not realising the fictional nature of Jesus is understandable in Hitler’s biography, the military decision to invade the Soviet Union was Hitler’s mistake that led to what we have called here the Hellstorm Holocaust, the holocaust of Germans from 1945 to 1947 (which very few have heard of). Not all the generals of the Third Reich agreed with Operation Barbarossa, precisely because of the vast expanses of Russian territory and ‘General Winter’. In fact, the same thing happened to Hitler as to Napoleon in the previous century, so the artist ought to have listened to his generals.
Hitler was first and foremost an artist aware of the history of his people, as we saw in the previous day’s post, ‘Hitler 14’, with his books on art and history being the most widely read. Savitri Devi was absolutely right in saying that Hitler was first and foremost ‘Sun’, but that he failed in his ‘Lightning’. Had the solar artist been a little more patient, he would have prepared with the atomic bomb and then he would have become Kalki: the enemies of the Reich would have been incinerated with the Lightning of an Austrian avatar of this Indo-European god, and the Third Reich would now reign from the Atlantic to the Urals.
(Left, Vasily Malinin vs. Viktor Savinov—Leningrad). Operation Barbarossa was a serious mistake: a blunder as chess players say, like gambiting the queen and then realising we just cannot checkmate our opponent with a wrong sacrifice! And it bothers me that Hitler’s fans want to rationalise it by claiming that Stalin was about to invade Germany. The truth is that the Diktat the US imposed on Europe after the Hellstorm Holocaust was, as Francis Parker Yockey saw, even worse than if Stalin had invaded Europe. This interview with Srdja Trifkovic, who as a young man suffered under Yugoslav communism, is worth watching (Trifkovic lived on Gran Canaria, the Spanish island next to Africa where I also lived for almost a year).
But what I wanted to get at here is that, while I will continue to admire Hitler for the Sun he represented, it is clear that he didn’t read Sun Tzu when it comes to the point that, if you know your enemy like the back of your hand, you won’t lose any war.
16 replies on “Blunder”
For chess connoisseurs, see this explanation of the position above. The risky gambit worked for the Russian player, but those types of risks shouldn’t be taken in a real war (not a symbolic one like the game of chess)!
“The truth is that the Diktat the US imposed on Europe after the Hellstorm Holocaust was, as Francis Parker Yockey saw, even worse than if Stalin had invaded Europe. ”
I understand this. Whatever horrors came with Stalin, it fell short in being destructive in comparison to the cancer that the USA brought.
After Stalin died, that was the end of the worst part of communism. Had Hitler never invaded Russia and listened to his generals, Germany would have been able to avoid the hellstorm, and later the much more lethal american “negrification”.
Otto Bismarck is often quoted with the statement that the secrets to all politics is to make good treaties with Russia. We should all remember that, especially now that the west is still pushing the anti-russian sentiment.
Sanctions against Russia didn’t work. It has only worsened the already dire economic situation here. Maybe this is the path to finally crash the dollar.
Barbarossa was not a mistake, it was absolutely required. It kicked off two weeks before the Soviets would have invaded Germany. If that had happened the Germans had absolutely no strategic depth with which to hold back the Soviet numbers: Hellstorm would have happened three years earlier, and worse; and the Soviets probably would have just kept on pushing until they reached the Pyrenees. There would have been nothing capable of stopping them. As it was, Hitler bought time for the American counterweight to show up, and whatever you think of the USA, a balance-of-power situation is always less tyrannical than an absolute superiority.
It was a desperate gamble at the last minute and it didn’t pay off. It should not have been necessary and would not have been if other choices had been made earlier, but one can always second-guess after the fact, and this merely means that the blunder, if there was one, happened far earlier. Given the situation the Germans were in at the time, Hitler had no choice: he had to take the shot.
It is worth noting that in the time between the partition of Poland and the blitz of France, the allies were seriously considering the idea of attacking the Soviet oilfields in Azerbaijan as being an ally of Germany. The plans reached a fairly advanced stage before being put aside “temporarily”. If the operation had actually gone through, one can only imagine with difficulty the subsequent world situation.
One of the things that bothers me about those who maintain your position is that they believe they have knowledge of this parallel world (Stalin conquering Europe, etc.), when in reality what they say is pure speculation. Also, you don’t seem to have seen the video of the Serbian who lived on the Spanish island where I lived, linked above. I think what Jamie said in this thread, and especially the Bismarck quote, hits the nail on the head of the issue. (Although I am of the opinion that it was a good idea to invade the Soviet Union but only after Hitler had the bomb.)
I’m inclined to go to bat for Uncle A in this case. By no means was he perfect, but it’s not difficult to understand why he made the decision for a preemptive strike against the USSR. Enough literature has emerged (Suvorov’s The Chief Culprit, Meltyukhov’s Stalin’s Missed Chance, Hoffman’s Stalin’s War of Extermination, and (to a lesser extent) Stalin’s War by McMeekin, amongst others) to, at the very least, suggest that Germany had every reason to believe that a Soviet invasion was imminent. At the very least. And a preemptive offensive was not an absurd response at all. There were several points following the invasion where peace talks were on the table between the USSR and NSDAP Germany; nothing came of them, obviously, and in the end Germany succumbed to the lend-leased fueled and supplied Red Army juggernaut. But a lot of armchair generals will opine that Germany’s defeat was inevitable, and that Hitler was a fool to do what he did, all while swallowing whole the potentially self-serving narratives peddled by his Generals decades after the fact and enjoying the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.
Once again: didn’t you watch the interview with the Serbian?
When I see these types of comments, very common among Hitler sympathisers (I am not a ‘sympathiser’: I take his principles as my religion), it reminds me of Voltaire’s Candide: ‘We live in the best of all possible worlds; if Hitler hadn’t invaded we would be worse off’, etc.
All this stuff about not wanting to see that he made the same blunder that Napoleon made (remember the enormous losses of soldiers that Napo suffered in his quixotic campaign against Russia!) doesn’t help the NS of the 21st century. On the other hand, if we see a human Uncle Adolf, and if we understand that errare humanum est, it will be easier to prevent these errors in the future Reich; let’s say, with the Spartan way of the two kings or the Roman Republic way of the two consuls.
The damage to the West caused by Caesar’s figure has been enormous, even as late as the Third Reich. The principle of two kings, or two consuls, would have meant that one would have the right to veto a gambit as risky as Barbarossa. As I said above, in chess it is possible to do this but it shouldn’t be allowed when you are risking the very existence of your State.
It pains me a lot to say it, but Lenin was right that, above all, one must make huge concessions—yes: even territorial losses—in order to never endanger the State. Hitler should’ve taken this principle into account before the risky gambit that went wrong. If he had had an angel show him the future like in the movie It’s a Wonderful Life, he would surely have aborted Barbarossa! (Legend says that an old woman with gifts of the raven’s third eye warned Hitler that he would draw a lot of blood and that there were very bad omens if he initiated Barbarossa, but he didn’t listen her.)
So, are you affirming that the soviets had no intention of invading Germany, that the gigantic number of troops, tanks, warplanes, new airbases been built on a 150, 200 mile radius from Germany’s frontier (already a reality in 1941) wasn’t a proof, or at least a strong reason to suspect, that they were planning and invasion? That Germany had absolutely nothing to fear from the Soviet Union by the time Barbarossa began? That it would have been possible to come to an understanding with the Kremlin boys (they were very trustworthy fellows, weren’t they)? Bismarck talked about imperial Russia, the Soviet Union was a slightly different animal. If so, do you have any evidence for thinking like that?
Do you have magic machines to see that Stalin really, in that parallel quantum world without Barbarossa, would have invaded Europe, and that the result would have been even worse than the current Diktat of the United States if he won?
There are two fallacies in your question: (1) you are assuming that you have actually seen that parallel world; and (2) you don’t realise that Uncle Sam turned out worse than Stalin in the post-war world (didn’t you see the aforementioned interview with Srdja Trifkovic?).
The conventional narrative is that Hitler was a fool for invading the USSR, which ought to immediately lend credence to any counter-narrative. He is portrayed as a madman, when in fact his actions were perfectly rational. Did it backfire on him? Yes. But he could not have anticipated all the misfortunes he was to encounter. What if Lend-Lease hadn’t been extended to the Soviets? What if the Japanese had opened an Eastern Front? What if the oil fields of Baku had been captured? What if the Soviets had accepted a brokered peace? All of these things were possible, and if they would have happened, then Hitler would be hailed as an absolute genius, and the armchair generals would be falling over themselves to praise his strategic vision.
After all, Frederick the Great (who really was Great, and a figure admired very much by Hitler) fought a desperate war against four major European powers at the same time, and he came out victorious through a great deal of skill and a great deal of luck. He took great gambles, and reaped considerable rewards. Because of this his genius is rightly recognized, but if he had lost, then he would simply be roundly criticized and denigrated as a warlord who bit off more than he could chew.
As for whether Stalin’s Europe would have been better than America’s…to turn your argument on it’s head, do you have magic machines to see that into a parallel quantum world without Barbarossa? Can you definitively say that Stalin would not have invaded Europe? Or, if Stalin had invaded, can you say with absolute certainty that the result of a Stalinist Europe would have been *better* than the current Diktat of the United States?
No, no one can know these things, Hitler included. It’s not reasonable to hold him to that standard. The modern world holds him to that standard, and I refuse to be a part of it.
But Napoleon’s gambit went wrong, and he lost all his power due to his greed. Didn’t you pay attention to what I said above, that risking your kingdom should only be done in chess, not on the real battlefield? Vasily Malinin’s mistaken queen sacrifice in the above position went well, but only because his opponent blundered. In the real world, Lenin’s principle of never putting the State at risk was applicable to Hitler. (I wish the Soviets under Lenin had made the same mistake, something like Barbarossa with the opposite colours of the chess pieces, because they were the bad guys; and that Hitler hadn’t made a blunder, because his Reich was the most precious thing that Western history has produced.)
Of course not, but if Hitler had had an angel show him Europe from 1942 to 1947, like in the Frank Capra film mentioned above, do you honestly think he would have dared to invade the Soviet Union anyway (virtually an entire continent)?
You didn’t answer my question LOL.! It was a very simple one, if you believe that the Soviet Union was a threat to Germany and was planning and invasion or not and, if not, why. And then you pointed out my “fallacies”, using that video you posted as a justification. Did I say anything about it or your SUPPOSITION that western europe would be better under Stalin than under the american “diktat”? No! My post had nothing to do with that.
Have you consider the possibility that one of the reasons why eastern european societies didn’t become as degenerate as western ones was because the people there remained far more religious, after WWII, than people in the west? And Christianity, as wretched as it is, was, in face of what replaced it in the west, a “better” proposition? Are you prepared to make a choice between a more christian, but less degenerate reality, and an “atheistic”, but “woke” and more degenerate and unhinged?
You haven’t understood the POV of this site. I have said in other threads that the orthodox version of Russian Christianity (which didn’t go through the Renaissance or the Reformation) produces a kind of frog that will slowly burn to death (like what happened in the miscegenation of the Americas). The Russian empire has for centuries been a machine of slow miscegenation, certainly not based on racist principles as was Sparta or the Iberian Goths before Xtian takeover. I prefer the US form of deranged Christianity because the intense fires of Wokism make the frog realise that it’s being burned, and it might end up getting out of the hot lagoon.
As far as your question is concerned, I don’t have to answer it. Some historians say that Stalin was going to invade; others don’t. I don’t have to have a position on who is right and who’s wrong (see Berk’s comment below).
You don’t have to make your position about what I asked you, even though you called Barbarossa a “blunder”? Ok.
Oh, and, considering that the CQ is the most important issue, in you opinion, and the reason why you became the “priest of the sacred words”, you also seem to believe that western Europe would be better under Stalin than under the american “diktat’ but, at the same time, you prefer the US form of deranged Christianity? Is that correct?
I am not obliged to enter into a speculative controversy about whether Stalin would have invaded Europe—and even conquered it! It isn’t necessary to read the books of those who promote that theory to realise that both Napoleon and Hitler were horrendously hasty in invading Russia, whose territorial extension is a continent (and furthermore, in the case of Hitler, already knowing what General Winter did to Napo).
You have to be blind not to see that this was a gross military blunder, especially because, as we will see in the final chapters of Simms’ book, Hitler had promised never to repeat the mistakes of WW1: to fight on two fronts, which he did with Barbarossa.
As I said, I am not obliged to answer all the questions. What I notice in your tone is that you are upset because I don’t believe in one of the myths that neo-Nazis believe: that there weren’t holocausted Jews; that the SS behaved Christianly. White nationalists have also hated me for not believing in another of their crazy myths: their 9/11 conspiracy theories.
I would suggest that rather than visiting this site, you migrate to the sites of white nationalism. Here I am dedicated to debunking white nationalist dogmas and, to tell the truth, I don’t want to have dealings with those who aren’t planning to cross the Wall. (Watch the first minute of this clip: in the very first scene in Game of Thrones we see precisely how three white men cross it!)
WW2 is probably the least interesting thing about Hitler’s Germany. Although it is a fascinating military, resource, political and technical topic.
Hitler’s global military strategy from June 1941 was flawed. His allies were not strongly committed to his aims, or even acted against them, and were militarily a drain and created new enemies for him.
The crux of the problem was the huge drain of military power in USSR for all the Axis nations, this led to failures on all fronts.
I don’t believe USSR and Stalin were going to invade in 1941, Stalin was risk averse in military matters and in 1941 Nazi Germany was a very terrifying enemy, unlike the small states USSR was beating up in 1936-1940.
You are a voice of sanity among a great confusion in racialist forums. On my last trip to the UK, where I met some members of the London Forum, I was surprised by an old Londoner who argued that Stalin would attack Germany.
Even if all that were true, the wise thing would have been to create a Maginot Line around Germany as France did, and then make peace with the US by arguing that ‘an atheist communist empire’ threatened Europe (even if Hitler’s intentions were quite different).
That would have bought enough time to manufacture the bomb…