Castle ruins of Aggstein
Joseph Goebbels, based on his frequent and extensive conversations with Hitler, recorded numerous times in his diary that Hitler was anti-Christian and wanted to destroy the churches. A few days after Christmas in 1939, he conversed with Hitler and reported, “The Führer is deeply religious, but entirely anti-Christian. He sees in Christianity a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a strata deposited by the Jewish race.”
The first chapter of Richard Weikart’s book is entitled ‘Was Hitler a Religious Hypocrite?’ In the white advocates’ internet movement, Carolyn Yeager has been the most faithful in holding in high esteem the memory of Hitler and his Reich. But like many Christian white nationalists, she has failed to notice the hypocrisy of the Führer’s public pronouncements when compared to his private pronouncements. I recommend Weikart’s book to those racialist Christians who are stuck with Hitler’s public image.
Who was the historical Hitler? Since, in many respects, Hitler is the antithesis of the archetypal Jesus, we can recall a verse from Mark’s gospel that portrays him: ‘He spoke to them only in parables, but to his disciples privately he explained everything’.
Plenty of evidence suggests Hitler was concerned lest he offend the religious sensibilities of the German public. In a lengthy passage in Mein Kampf, he warned against repeating the disastrous course that caused Georg von Schönerer’s Pan-German Party to nose dive. Schönerer was an Austrian politician in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries who wanted to unite all Germans in a common empire. His fervent German nationalism brought him into conflict with the multi-ethnic Austro-Hungarian Empire, which would dissolve if Schönerer had his way. He also promoted a biological form of anti-Semitism, wanting to purify the German people by getting rid of this allegedly foreign race. In 1941, Hitler told his colleagues that when he arrived in Vienna in 1907, he was already a follower of Schönerer. By the time he wrote Mein Kampf, he agreed fully with Schönerer’s Pan-German ideals, affirming, “Theoretically speaking, all the Pan-German’s [Schönerer’s] thoughts were correct.” However, he blamed Schönerer for not recognizing the importance of winning the masses over to Pan-Germanism and harshly criticized him for launching the Los-von-Rom (Away-from-Rome) Movement, which called on Austrians to abandon the Roman Catholic Church. Schönerer opposed Catholicism because he considered it an internationalist organization that undermined nationalism.
This reminds me of what Henry VIII did in separating the Church of England from papal authority.
He believed it posed a danger to the German people since it included many different nationalities, including his enemies: the Slavic groups in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Schönerer himself personally left the Catholic Church in January 1900 and joined the Lutheran denomination. Though he occasionally lauded Luther and Protestantism, his concern was purely political. According to Andrew G. Whiteside, a leading expert on Schönerer, he remained a pagan at heart and was indifferent to Christianity; though sometimes he claimed to be a Christian, at other times he admitted, “I am and remain a pagan.” Another time, he stated, “Where Germandom and Christendom are in conflict, we are Germans first… If it is un-Christian to prefer the scent of flowers in God’s own free nature to the smoke of incense… then I am not a Christian.” According to Whiteside, “none of the Pan-German leaders was in the least religious.”
Hitler viewed the Los-von-Rom Movement as an unmitigated disaster because it unnecessarily alienated the masses from the Pan-German Party, precipitating its decline. Hitler suggested the proper political course would be to imbue ethnically German Catholics (and Protestants) with nationalist sentiments so they would support a “single holy German nation,” just as they had done during World War I. Hitler also rejected Schönerer’s anti-Catholic crusade because he insisted that a successful political movement must concentrate all its fury on a single enemy. A struggle against Catholicism would dissipate the Nazi movement’s power and sense of conviction it needed to carry on its fight against the Jews.
Wow, this puts me closer to Schönerer than to Hitler, even though, privately, Hitler believed the same as Schönerer did about the religion of our parents.
But we must try to understand Hitler. In the case of Henry VIII, the winds of the zeitgeist on the British Isle were in his favour. The Austrians and Catholic Germans weren’t prepared for such a step, and in any case, German Lutheranism was as harmful to the Aryan cause as Roman Catholicism. If someone wants, like Hitler, to do politics, he has to compromise.
While Hitler faulted Schönerer for alienating the masses through his anti-Catholic campaign, he was not thereby endorsing Catholicism. Overall, he supported Schönerer’s ideological goals and only objected to his inopportune tactics: “[The Pan-German movement’s] goal had been correct, its will pure, but the road it chose was wrong.” What Hitler learned from Schönerer’s tactical mistake was that political parties should steer clear of interfering with people’s religious beliefs or attacking religious organizations: “For the political leader the religious doctrines and institutions of his people must always remain inviolable; or else he has no right to be in politics, but should become a reformer, if he has what it takes! Especially in Germany any other attitude would lead to a catastrophe.” Hitler thus warned any anticlerical members of his party to keep their antireligious inclinations private, lest they alienate the masses.
Hitler’s compromise took a toll that is noticeable even in American white nationalism: what I have been calling monocausalism on this site.
By focusing, at least in the Reich’s public pronouncements, solely on Jews as the Enemy #1 of the Aryan, the public NS ideology exonerated Christians. I won’t reprove what Hitler did, because rather than being a religious reformer he chose to be a politician; and every politician has to compromise. But this tactic left a gap in racial ideology that to this day hasn’t been filled. (Since American white nationalists aren’t politicians but internet commentators, unlike the NS of the previous century they could break down the barrier between private and public, and start saying what Hitler said privately about Christianity, which they don’t.)
In 1924, when Hitler was interned in Landsberg Prison after his failed Beer Hall Putsch, his fellow prisoner and confidante Rudolf Hess talked with other Nazis about religion. Hitler did not join the conversation; afterward, he told Hess that he dared not divulge his true feelings about religion publicly. Hitler confessed that, even though he found it distasteful, “for reasons of political expediency he had to play the hypocrite toward his church.” From the early days of his political activity, Hitler recognized that being a religious hypocrite had its political advantages.
In his diaries, Goebbels confirmed that Hitler camouflaged his religious position to placate the masses. Based on his conversations with Hitler more than a year before the Nazis came to power, Goebbels wrote that Hitler not only wanted to withdraw officially from the Catholic Church but even wanted to “wage war against it” later. However, Hitler knew withdrawing from Catholicism at that moment would be scandalous and undermine his chances of gaining power. Rather than commit political suicide, he would bide his time, waiting for a more opportune moment to strike against the churches. Goebbels, meanwhile, was convinced the day of reckoning would eventually come when he, Hitler, and other Nazi leaders would all leave the Church together. If Hitler was being frank with Goebbels, then his public religious image was indeed a façade to avoid offending his supporters.
It couldn’t be clearer.
In a diary entry from June 1934, Rosenberg also explained how Hitler masked his true religious feelings for political purposes… According to Rosenberg, Hitler divulged his anti-Christian stance and “more than once emphasized, laughing, that he had been a heathen from time immemorial,” and that “the Christian poison” was approaching its demise. Rosenberg explained, however, that Hitler kept these views top secret.
Multiple sources, not only his monologues that we have begun to translate, portray what Hitler said to his ‘apostles’ in private in contrast to his ‘parables’ to the people.
In a major speech on the sixth anniversary of the Nazi regime (the same speech where he threatened to destroy the Jews if a world war broke out), Hitler remonstrated against the “so-called democracies” for accusing his government of being antireligious. He reminded them that the German government continued to support the churches financially through taxes and pointed out that thousands of church leaders were exercising their offices unrestrained. But what about the hundreds of pastors and priests who had been arrested and thrown into prison or concentration camps?
A fair question.
The only religious leaders persecuted by his regime, he smugly said, were those who criticized the government or committed egregious moral transgressions, such as sexually abusing children.
It is a myth that American Boston journalists were the first in the West, at the beginning of this century, to expose the Can of Worms that is the Catholic Church: it was the Germans. We can imagine how many Catholic children would have been spared if Hitler had won the war…
“Nor is it acceptable,” Hitler told the churches, “to criticize the morality of a state,” when they should be policing their own morals (the Nazi regime was at this time conducting trials of Catholic clergy for sexual abuse). He continued, “The German leadership of state will take care of the morality of the German state and Volk.” In Hitler’s view, morality was the purview of the state and its political leaders, not religious institutions and religious leaders. Any pastor or priest teaching his congregation morality contrary to Nazi policy or ideology could be labeled a political oppositionist, even if he was simply teaching moral precepts that Christians had been teaching for centuries.
Highly commendable, but because he lost the war we never settled accounts with Christianity: something Hitler planned to do after the war.
‘It is a reality that the historian, who follows the dictate of his conscience, is balancing on a knife’s edge, even though he reports no more than what he recognises—basing it on the construct of facts—as the truth. However, since the course of history and its explanations can be interpreted in various ways, so truth becomes a matter of power’.
—Prof. Franz W. Seidler
The following study deals with the crimes committed against Germans, the immeasurable economic and territorial damage inflicted upon Germany since 1945, and the resultant problems of reparations and compensation. Within this framework we shall closely examine the many-layered field of Allied war crimes and violations of human rights. These include the ethnic cleansing of Germans from their native homes and the Allies’ exhaustive plundering throughout Germany, as well as the abduction and exploitation of German civilians and prisoners of war as slave labourers. After having determined the extent of these crimes, we shall present the concept of a financial policy, burdensome with consequences, which up to now has been exclusively one-sided in its reparations and compensation practice, and we have to examine to what extent eventual German claims are justified from a viewpoint of ethics, international law and politics. Further, it needs to be established what should be expected from future sovereign German policies.
More than sixty years after the end of the war there have been accumulated innumerable documents and reports detailing the atrocities connected with ethnic cleansing in Sudetenland, Silesia and other Eastern German regions where Germans had lived for many centuries. On account of their magnitude and brutality, these expulsions rank among the most terrible atrocities of the twentieth century—indeed, of all time; and yet they have never been acknowledged as such by the opinion-making media in the Western democracies. In addition to the crimes connected with ethnic cleansing, the archives attest to countless thousands of other wartime crimes and atrocities, as do many other individual publications. These include abductions, imprisonment under horrific conditions, rape and pillage by Allied occupation troops, and the rampant theft of patents and artworks. The huge amount of documentary literature underscores the Germans’ keen and continuing interest in the history of the post-war period, as well as their determination to continue documenting these crimes in expectation of a future sovereign government that will make use of them. On the part of journalists and publishers, diligence and expectation have lasted for six decades. In view of such massive documentation of international crimes, it is all the more surprising that very few publications have dealt with Germany’s well-founded demands for recompense. There are hundreds of thousands of accounts expounding the crimes committed against Germans during flight, devastation, expulsion and the geopolitical and economic aftermath of the Second World War. Great efforts have been made to document in detail this financial and cultural devastation, although no publicist has yet dared to take the logical next step, as righteous as it is belated, of making demands against the guilty nations. Certainly no politician has ever dared bring up the subject. In Vienna as well as Berlin, it is clearly a taboo subject to raise demands for reparations for Germany and compensation to German people, as opposed to demanding reparations from Germany. It is high time the taboo was given an airing.
Some will ask, why include Vienna/Austria? The answer is, because Austria is an integral part of the German nation, and Austria shared the same horrific post-war experiences as the rest of the German Reich did. At a convention of socialist academics in Graz on 2 April 1964, the Austrian Vice-Chancellor Bruno Pittermann remarked: ‘As to the question of whether we are Germans or Austrians, the majority of us will answer just as we did in 1918, we are German Austrians, just as there are Slovenian, Croatian, Czech and Magyar Austrians, although these are small minorities’.
Pittermann was simply expressing the obvious. Of course the Deutsch-Osterreicher (German Austrians) do belong to the German nation! Their language is German and the Austrian republic is a German state, as many representatives of the Second Republic have acknowledged on numerous occasions. The Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (Freedom Party of Austria) adopted this resolution as early as 1956, even making it a platform for its programme: ‘We support the sovereignty of Austria and we declare that we are members of the German national and cultural community. We advocate a joining together of all free peoples of Europe on the basis of complete equality and self-determination’.
Within the historical framework of more than a thousand years, Austria has fulfilled her function and destiny as a German land of culture. In this connection, one only has to remember the art of poetry and music. Grillparzer, Stifter and Mozart are outstanding representatives of German genius, just as Austrians identify with Schiller and Beethoven. To be German Austrian is by no means an expression of incompatibility such as the classic Goethean conflict of ‘Two souls contending in one breast’. As the Austrian poet Robert Hamerling wrote in the 1860s: ‘Germany is my fatherland! And Austria? Why, my motherland, of course. I love them both so dearly’. May the venerable Red-White-Red banner of Austria long wave as a symbol of this German land of Austria! This is the context in which we shall treat Austria and other German areas in the following study.
It is typical of the periodicals with the highest circulation, as well as conformist writers trapped in the spirit of our times, that they approach the theme of reparations for Germany with a pronounced shaking of the knees. Inevitably the introductions to their works contain cliche-ridden phrases and hackneyed sentences that would ‘relativise’, if not in fact express an excuse, so that, for example, the ‘monstrosity of the war unleashed by Germany’ should not be suppressed under any circumstances, or that, indeed, the subject of the book must on no account be misunderstood. Under no circumstances does one ever want to question the verdicts and decrees of Nuremberg. Furthermore, they affirm, there is never the intention of making a calculation in order to offset the crimes committed by the Germans on people of other nations—naturally, unique in history. Despite all the emphasis on German suffering found in works in the German language, never, ever must this be allowed to become one-sided and biased, etc.
One particularly repulsive kind of a concocted story even suggests that the guilt and blame associated with ethnic cleansing are exaggerated and belongs to the Germans anyway. For example, Hans-Ulrich Wehler shows infinite tolerance for these atrocities, considering them ‘a radical but completely understandable reaction against everything German’. He tells us that the reason they occurred is quite obvious: ‘As everywhere in Europe formerly occupied by the Germans, the actions and behaviour of the resistance movement and Allied troops were nothing more than a reaction to the inhumanity of the National Socialist regime’. In the following study, we are going to demonstrate that this simply does not correspond to the truth.
Attempts at ingratiating and falsifications of history occur all too frequently in our everyday literature. They either indicate the author’s ignorance or opportunism or else bear witness to his ideological and one-sided point of view. Both of these are incompatible with approaching the problem objectively with the intention of honestly answering questions and solving problems.
In view of the sharply curtailed freedom of expression in the Federal Republic of Germany (and increasingly in Austria as well), the debate on, and critical analysis of, an unpleasant subject matter, such as the one in this study undoubtedly is, can only be conducted—if at all—in the scientific field. Critics will of course object that I have not presented ‘the other side’, but honourable critics, from your mouths comes forth hypocrisy! The shelves of libraries and bookstores are filled with depictions of ‘the other side’; schools and universities teach ‘the other side’ exclusively, and radio and TV constantly lull the public to sleep with ‘the other side’. Our newspapers and ‘talk masters’ offer nothing except ‘the other side’ for their discussions, which are again filled exclusively with the arguments of ‘the other side’. Needless to say, the great majority of our politicians serve the interests of ‘the other side’.
Honourable critics, when have you ever given the German side a chance to be heard? Most German readers are completely surrounded and constantly brainwashed by ‘the other side’—socially, culturally, religiously and politically. High time now for German readers to be at last confronted with a truly different point of view. On account of overexposure to the ‘other side’, I have refrained from watering down my presentation with arguments to which the reader is exposed every day. Needless to say, I cannot avoid referring back to ‘the other side’, when it involves unmasking their underlying bias and duplicity.
Much of my sources consist of hitherto unpublished documents. These are primarily personal narratives and reports of factual events furnished by eyewitnesses and persons directly involved in the events. Included are reports from such diverse sources as adolescent girls as well as elderly women; from academics as well as peasants and artisans; from army officers as well as from members of the HJ (Hitler Youth) and their female counterpart, the BDM (League of German Girls); from Democrats as well as National Socialists. Because of varied educational backgrounds and individual points of view, not all the reports could be printed in an unedited form. Wherever grammatical, syntactical or orthographical corrections were necessary, I have carried them out to the best of my knowledge and ability. In order to preserve the authenticity of the sources, I have changed nothing regarding the style of writing or the statements as such. Of course, the eye-witness testimonies and historical documents presented here cannot deal with all aspects and events of the war and post-war period. In part, we are obliged to content ourselves with highlights that serve to illuminate the main points. Here the solution of pars pro toto (a part for the whole) must suffice. The testimonies and reports are in fact comprehensive and detailed enough to depict the matter in its totality, and, as facts, they are strong enough to provide the basis on which to build the argument for demands for reparations for Germany.
It is of course entirely proper to compensate those who actually suffered under the German occupation. This ethical principle, however, has been grossly abused, converted into a gigantic fraudulent business or ‘industry’, as Prof. Norman Finkelstein calls it in his book The Holocaust Industry. Such corruption is made inevitable by the excessive greed of ever-new claimants manifesting themselves, as well as the shameless and cowardly moral stance of politicians in Vienna and Berlin. It makes a mockery of legitimate demands. Claims against Germany, the most detrimentally affected country since 1945, are simply endless; in fact, they still continue to grow. This is why it is necessary for our study to consider the latest German and Austrian payments to third-party states or, rather, interest groups very critically.
The psychiatrist and psychoanalyst William G. Niederland, who emigrated from Germany in 1934, specialised in treating the lifelong traumas of persons who experience overwhelming sorrow. He particularly distinguished himself as a counsellor and for giving spiritual welfare to persons who had suffered persecution during the Third Reich. During the 1980s he became convinced that ‘National Socialism may have ended 40 years ago, but the consequences for survivors have still not been overcome’. It was he who had already introduced the concept of ‘Survivor Syndrome’ as early as 1964. According to Niederland’s findings, the principal symptoms of this syndrome are:
- ‘An overpowering depression, characterised by sulky behaviour, the tendency to withdraw, and inexpressible sadness interrupted occasionally by short-lived outbreaks of anger. This behaviour is then accompanied by apathy and lack of initiative, feelings of insecurity, mistrust and helplessness.
- A heavy, persistent, usually unconscious guilt complex that arises from inner survival guilt, and consciously or unconsciously centres around the question of: Why did I survive the calamity that killed all my loved ones—parents, children, siblings, friends, spouse?
- A state of anxiety and irritation giving rise to sleeplessness, nightmares, inner stress and tension.
- The personality changes and psychological disorders, since they persist as permanent disorders, will eventually also lead to physical symptoms in most patients. These occur as stomach, heart, colon, vascular and other illnesses (blood pressure, premature ageing, hardening of the arteries, etc.). Headache, painful joints, trembling of hands, and rheumatic complaints are the rule rather than the exception among these persons.
If these psychological observations are appropriate, they cannot be restricted to just one particular people or national group. The case of their veracity established, they must be universally applicable. Therefore, we find these ‘tormented souls’ also among German people. In addition to the millions of expellees, millions of German slave labourers and prisoners of war suffered incredible abuse. The suffering of the first-mentioned group was increased, because they, in contrast to other Germans, did not only lose their belongings and properties, but also their native homeland (Heimat). In nearly all of the publications of the expellees, it is this loss that is the central theme. The fundamental significance of Heimat is very well described in an article on the destruction and occupation of Danzig: ‘What did they [the outsiders, remark of the author, C.N.] care about Danzig? What did this city mean to them, since it was not their Heimat? For us Danzig was everything, we were bound to it with every fibre of our being. To us it was as if our very lives were being extinguished as we watched it sink away in a smouldering sea of flames, and we were helpless to do anything to rescue it’.
Heimat is much more than just an abstract concept. Let us state more precisely what the loss of Heimat actually means, and what far-reaching consequences arise from it. The journalist Margarethe Dörr has described it in vivid terms: ‘The loss of Heimat’—what a multitude of emotions and experiences are included in these words! They mean separation from our home and the familiar surroundings in which we spent our childhood, youth, early married years; for some, our entire life. It also means the loss of the greatest part, if not all, of what one has possessed—from necessities of life to the personal items dearest to one’s heart. This is true whether it was ‘just’ a toy, a book, musical instruments, or some art objects that one had inherited. Lost were familiar landscape and surroundings, and—even more important—the familiar social environment, the people we trusted and understood and knew intimately. Lost were all those values, material and immaterial, that we can never quite replace and will always look back on with longing and certainly with nostalgia. Those who consider resettlement and population transfers to be nothing more than a means of national Flurbereinigung, i.e. an ethnic cleansing of a territory, and who then regard this to be reasonable on the assumption that, after all, transferred populations will adjust to new surroundings within a generation or so, are denying, for at least a generation, the basic human rights of all these expellees, along with a significant part of their identity. This is true even if the ethnic cleansing is carried out in a relatively “humane” manner’.
How much more did this hold true for the circumstances of the Germans who were not expelled under humane but rather the most inhumane conditions, accompanied by the most savage violations of human rights imaginable! When hundreds of thousands of Germans today still speak of losing their homeland, they are referring to more than just the brutal act of ethnic cleansing. They are referring to the total process of alienation from the lives they had been leading for as far back as they could remember. In the words of expellee and former slave labourer Ida Winter: ‘The material loss of being driven from our homes was very great, but the damage to heart and soul was greater still’.
Quite aside from the right to their homeland, which is still being denied to the expellees, millions of Germans remain without any recompense for the horrors of imprisonment, torture, forced labour; and they have not been compensated for the output of their work, nor the loss of material and intellectual property. In the end, the souls of these people were murdered also: It is not possible to put into words what happens in the souls of a people without any rights, treated worse than any animal—thrashed, flogged, jeered at.
In the Ost-Dokumentation (documentation pertaining to the Eastern part) of the Federal Archives, one of the affected people rightly expressed it thus: ‘One can quote all the facts and figures—but the pain and agony of caged children, of deported and raped women and girls, of the men and boys beaten until crippled, of the torn-apart families, of anxious parents, of dispossessed human beings expelled from the soil of their homeland—this nobody can describe. We can outline the broader perspective, but the individual misery and despair simply cannot be described. Every house, every farm, every family was a tragedy in itself’.
Countless people, particularly among the expellees and the deported Germans used as slave labourers, were unable to withstand the terrible physical and psychological stress. They simply collapsed and died along the roads or in barns and cellars, abandoned and ignored by others. Tens of thousands chose to escape by taking their own lives. German fathers killed all their family and then themselves. German mothers killed their children, then ended their own lives. Thousands of Germans threw themselves into lakes, rivers and wells, drowned their offspring and then themselves, or else hanged themselves from trees or barn rafters, while others slit their veins and slowly bled to death. Such cases were by no means isolated incidents! Veritable epidemics of suicide were reported in many places. Over 2,000 Germans had killed themselves by mid-August 1945 in Karlsbad alone. In towns of 30,000 to 35,000 inhabitants, such as Teplitz-Schonau, no fewer than 6,000 would commit suicide! The floodgates of dams in the Riesengebirge had to be repeatedly opened in order to remove corpses that were clogging the drainage outlets.
In contrast to the subject of ‘foreign labour in the Third Reich’, dishonestly generalised as ‘NS-forced labour’, there have been very few investigations done about German prisoners of war and deported civilians doing forced labour in foreign lands. Those in the corridors of power do not get involved in the subject of forced labour performed by Germans and their exploitation as forced labourers. The official interest is exclusively with foreign workers employed in Germany during the Third Reich, even though most of these had come to Germany voluntarily and were paid substantial wages. Ulrich Herbert, a German historian concerned with contemporary history, displays the fashionable spirit of the times in his typically obligatory self-accusation: ‘The National Socialist use of foreign labour between 1939 and 1945 represents the biggest case in the history of foreign workers being used as forced labour on a massive scale since the end of slavery in the 19th century. In the late summer of 1944 there were, within the territory of the ‘Greater German Reich’, 7.6 million foreign civilian workers and prisoners of war listed officially as employed; most of these had been brought to the Reich to work against their will’. Leaving aside that in the Soviet slave state between 1939 and 1956 the figures for forced labour, inclusive of German prisoners of war and deported civilians, remained consistently in the two-digit millions, the fact alone that Herbert disputes the degree of misery and suffering of the German forced labourers and denies it with his false assertions, underlines more the political than the scientific standpoint of this University Professor of History. Fortunately, we now have adequate documentation to unmask such allegations. The exclusively one-sided campaigns to compensate real or alleged victims have long since reached considerable dimensions. A whole industry now thrives on it; enough reason to examine this area in more detail in a separate chapter.
Already during the war it was alleged, and continues to be alleged to this day in many German and Austrian history books, that science and research were suppressed for political reasons under National Socialism, and that scientists and intellectuals were sacrificed to militarism and the political system. However, the multitude of outstanding scientists and researchers abducted by the victors for intellectual exploitation makes this claim untenable. In view of the Third Reich’s leading position in most areas of science and technology, it is pointless to assert, with monotonous regularity, that it was the intellectual elite that abandoned Germany in 1933. It is of course undeniable that many intellectuals, for example physicists and writers, chose to emigrate when the National Socialists came to power, and it is also true that many of these had distinguished careers abroad. However, the Allies’ plundering rampage of the intellectual sphere of the Third Reich proves that German research of the day was distinguished by a well nigh inexhaustible vitality and productivity, and that the overwhelming majority of the German intelligentsia had remained in the Reich.
In National Socialist Germany, science and research experienced an output of inventions and accomplishments such as the world had never seen before, and the Allies were well aware of this. They engaged in a mad scramble to commandeer this immense intellectual treasure for their own uses. Projects such as Overcast, Paperclip and Ossavakim attest to this. Such massive campaigns of plunder and abduction represent an immeasurable loss—not just for Germany but for all of Europe, as this enabled, most especially the Americans and Soviets, to procure an inconceivable yield and gain.
Despite the ceasefire, the Allies continued to wage unabated war against Germany, albeit no longer with machine-guns and bombs. This war now took the form of an intellectual subversion, as the humanities scholar Herbert Grabert once called it. This cultural and intellectual warfare was also, and especially, carried over into German science, and consequently it represents a major factor of the victors’ post-war crimes.
Up to the end of the war, Germany was the uncontested world leader in many fields of science and technology, as is attested by the dominance of German scientists among recipients of Nobel prizes. Onwards from 1945, a fundamental change took place. At the end of the Second World War, the victors made short work of German science: the leading figures from many research fields would be ‘voluntarily’ abducted, German patents worth many billions of dollars were plundered, and the German system of training and education was brought to a standstill for years and decades by a radical programme of de-Nazification, as well as a Marxist cliche-ridden re-education in the style of the ‘Frankfurt School’ imported from the USA. The decline of German science and research and, consequently, Germany’s increasing social and cultural impoverishment, were not at all an unalterable natural occurrence, but rather a well-aimed and deliberate intervention on the part of the victorious powers.
In popular writings and official pronouncements it is stated repeatedly that—from a German perspective—one must not attempt to ‘balance the books’. This is not the intention of this work in hand; it is, however, intended to attempt some calculation or ‘inventory taking’. Where is it written that Germans are not allowed to compare injustices committed with the put-upon guilt, juxtapose them and then draw one’s own conclusions? Maybe, because one might quickly realize that, on the one hand, Germany has long since paid her debt and that, on the other hand, the crimes perpetrated on the German people are of such magnitude that anything else is beyond the pale of rational enquiry?
Even the publicist Gunnar Heinsohn, who certainly cannot be suspected of wanting revenge, speaks of the driving-out of the Germans from their hereditary homeland as ‘the greatest crime of expulsion in history’. This is undoubtedly true, but it only constitutes one part, when considered in the aggregate of all the crimes committed against the German nation and of the loss suffered by Germany! Abduction, forced labour, organised plundering, misappropriation of reparations monies, etc., are the names for the other aspects of these—as yet—unexpiated crime totals.
The consumerist societies of Austria and Germany, both marked equally with the syndrome of not only fun and diversions, but also with the syndrome of guilt and expiation, are not at all enthusiastic about an eventual German entitlement to reparations. In view of the transient nature of this spirit of the age, this is no longer significant anyway. What is important is Germany’s legitimate claim to existence in the heart of Europe. Of vital importance for real peace—not a phoney peace!—and true friendship—not mere flattery!—is the need for the resolving of unsolved questions, of unpaid accounts and unexpiated guilt. Would one, at this point, kindly not object that the sufferings of the expulsions, the horrors of the abductions—these were also deportations!—the misery and squalor of slave labour and other traumatic experiences would have worn off by now, 40, 50 or 60 years after the ceasefire and that, therefore, any restitution claim had lapsed in the meantime. What has been granted to some victims must not be withheld indefinitely from others. We are not satisfied with the standard response of the Federal Government stating, although being aware, ‘that during and immediately after the Second World War many Germans were made to endure hardships and serious deprivations’ that however, this injustice would have had ‘its roots in the previous National Socialist injustices’, and that this would be the reason for relinquishing ‘all claims for restitution or reparations against the foreign states’.
When in the summer of 2002 Germany was visited by catastrophic flooding, especially in Saxony, many public institutions, political organisations and private individuals called for private donations to relieve the distress of their fellow Germans. Several million Euros were soon collected, and the Federal Government made several million in tax monies available as well. In October, however, the German people, ready to help and willing to make sacrifices, learned that a large portion of the monies collected would not be made available to those in need in Germany! The state of Saxony, the needy recipient of a large amount of donated money, placed the substantial amount of five million Euros at the disposal of the Czech Republic for improvements in its infrastructure. Georg Milbradt, the Minister-President of Saxony, called the gift an ‘act of solidarity’ and, furthermore, Saxony had ‘more money than their Czech neighbour’.
We, of course, have nothing against humanitarian assistance and solidarity with our fellow humans in need, but that was not the situation here! These were totally different circumstances! Not only had a great deal of money once again been given away without the knowledge or consent of the German public. It was given as a gift to a country that to this day upholds its unexpiated murders of hundreds of thousands of Germans and uncompensated expulsion of three million Germans. The Czech Government still believes that it can justify its mass atrocities under the legal authority of the Benes Decrees. Worse still, early in 2002, the Czech Prime Minister Milos Zeman let it be known that the Sudeten Germans should be glad they were ‘just’ driven from their homes and not all killed for ‘treason’. Such shameless and slanderous ridicule of millions of German victims is possible only because of the spinelessness of the Federal Republic of Germany. Furthermore, its pathetic stance has become national German policy to the extent that it is now openly affirmed even by the so-called representatives of the associations of expellees. Even Erika Steinbach, the president of the Federation of Expellees, announced in the summer of 2001: ‘It makes no difference to me whether Upper Silesia belongs to Poland or Germany’. Truly, this present book is more necessary than ever!
In view of the unceasing continuation of a policy of sell-out and grovelling, Bleeding Germany Dry is now more germane and topical than ever. Not only for the reason that historical facts are related herein, but above all for the reason that Federal German representatives of the people do not tire of pursuing a policy that is nothing short of betrayal and treachery against their own nation.
Sooner or later, those at the highest political level will have to deal with Germany’s demands. This day—let us have no hesitation in calling it, quite provocatively, ‘pay-day’—will come, in spite of all denials and all attempts at preventing it. I do, most emphatically, not mean this in a spirit of vengeance or retribution. Rather, I have confidence in the Renaissance of the European cultural heritage, in a restored perceptive understanding of freedom and self-awareness of the German people, of the ultimate realisation of the right to self-determination of all nations, and in the determination of the youth of Germany to no longer tolerate the injustices and discriminations.
Note of the Ed.: The endnotes of the original book have been omitted.
Night of 13th-14th January 1942
The composer Bruckner—Brahms at his height—Wagner and Goring—Great architects—Talent must be encouraged.
After a hearing of Bruckner’s Seventh Symphony: This work is based on popular airs of upper Austria. They’re not textually reproduced, but repeatedly I recognise in passing Tyrolean dances of my youth. It’s wonderful what he managed to get out of that folklore. As it happened, it’s a priest to whom we must give the credit for having protected this great master. The Bishop of Linz used to sit in his cathedral for hours at a time, listening to Bruckner play the organ. He was the greatest organist of his day.
One can imagine this obscure peasant’s arrival in Vienna, amidst an effete society. One of Bruckner’s opinions of Brahms was published in a newspaper recently, and further increased the sympathy I felt for him: “Brahms’s music is very beautiful, but I prefer my own.” There you have the self-awareness, full both of humility and of pride, such as a peasant can feel, in all simplicity, when he is inspired by a true conviction. The critic Hanslick depicted Bruckner’s life in Vienna as a real hell for him. When the moment came when it was no longer possible to ignore his work, he was covered with decorations and overwhelmed with honours. What did all that mean to him? Wouldn’t it have been better not to have misunderstood him so long?
Jewry had raised Brahms to the pinnacle. He was lionised in the salons and was a pianist of theatrical gestures. He exploited effects of the hands, effects of the beard and hair. Compared with him, Bruckner was a man put out of countenance, an abashed man.
Wagner also had the feeling for gesture, but with him it was innate. Wagner was a man of the Renaissance—like Goring in a certain aspect (and it would be silly to blame him).
There is nothing crueller than to live in a milieu that has no understanding for a work already achieved or in process of gestation. When I think of a man like Schiller or Mozart! Mozart who was flung, nobody knows where, into a communal grave… What ignominy!
If I hadn’t been there to prevent it, I believe the same thing would have happened to Troost. That man revolutionised the art of building. Perhaps it would have taken a few years—and he’d have died without anyone having the slightest idea of his genius. When I got to know him, he was depressed, embittered, disgusted with life. It often happens that architects are hyper-sensitive people. Think merely of Hansen, who was the most richly gifted of the architects of Vienna. And Hasenauer? The critics had attacked him so savagely that he committed suicide before his great work was finished—and yet the Vienna opera-house, so marvellously beautiful, puts the Paris Opera into the shade. To know that one is capable of doing things that nobody else can do—and to have no possibility of giving proof of it!
It seems that people should make sacrifices for their great men as a matter of course. A nation’s only true fortune is its great men. A great man is worth a lot more than a thousand million in the State’s coffers. A man who’s privileged to be the Head of a country couldn’t make a better use of his power than to put it at the service of talent. If only the Party will regard it as its main duty to discover and encourage the talents! It’s the great men who express a nation’s soul.
24th February 1942, midday
How great artists can serve their country.
I’ve learnt that young Roller has just fallen at the front. If I’d known that he’d gone out! But nobody told me. There are hundreds of thousands of men who could serve their country in no better way than by risking their lives for her, but a great artist should find another way. Can fate allow it that the most idiotic Russian should strike down men like that? We have so many men seconded for special duties!
What harm could it do to add to their number the five or six hundred gifted men whom it would be important to save? Roller is irreplaceable. We had only Sievert, Arent and Praetorius—Austria had given us the young Roller. Why didn’t Schirach warn me? I saw his Friedenstag. What a lovely thing! The young Roller was a brave man. Before the Anschluss he would have had to leave Austria. I’m convinced he went out as a volunteer.
I could have sent him anywhere at all, for personal reasons, if he hadn’t insisted on staying in Vienna.
German eastern policy—Charlemagne “slayer of Saxons” and Hitler “slayer of Austrians”—The work of Charlemagne.
I’ve drawn Rosenberg’s attention to the fact that one mustn’t let the great German Emperors be relegated to the background, to the benefit of perjurers, and that it was improper to call a hero like Charlemagne by the name “killer of Saxons.” History must be interpreted in terms of the necessities of the time.
It’s possible that, in a thousand years—supposing that, for one reason or another, the Reich is again obliged to pursue a policy directed against the South—some pedagogue may be found who will claim that “Hitler’s Eastern policy was certainly well-intentioned,” but that it was nevertheless crack-brained, since “he should have aimed at the South.” Perhaps even some caviller of this type will go so far as to call me “the killer of Austrians” on the grounds that, on my return from Austria to Germany, I locked up all those who had tried to thwart the enterprise!
Without compulsion, we would never have united all the various German families with these thick-headed, parochially minded fellows—either in Charlemagne’s time or to-day.
If the German people is the child of ancient philosophy and Christianity, it is so less by reason of a free choice than by reason of a compulsion exercised upon it by these triumphant forces. In the same way, in Imperial times, it was under the empire of compulsion that the German people engineered its fusion beneath a Christianity represented by a universal church—in the image of ancient Rome, which also inclined to universality.
It is certain that a man like Charlemagne was not inspired merely by a desire for political power, but sought, in faithfulness to the ancient idea, for an expression of civilisation.
Now, the example of the ancient world proves that civilisation can flourish only in States that are solidly organised. What would happen to a factory given over to anarchy, in which the employees came to their work only when the fancy took them? Without organisation—that is to say, without compulsion—and, consequently, without sacrifice on the part of individuals, nothing can work properly. Organised life offers the spectacle of a perpetual renunciation by individuals of a part of their liberty.
Guided by these rules, which are quite simple and quite natural, Charlemagne gathered the Germans into a well-cemented community and created an empire that continued to deserve the name long after his death. The fact was that this empire was made of the best stuff of the ancient Roman Empire—so much so that for centuries the peoples of Europe have regarded it as the successor to the universal empire of the Caesars. The fact that this German empire was named “the Holy Roman Empire” has nothing whatsoever to do with the Church, and has no religious significance.
Shall we try to Germanise the French?—Example of Austria—Germanisation of Holland—Fusion of all Germanic races—But no excess Germanisation—Distrust of the Poles.
During dinner, the Reichsfuehrer SS declared that, in his view, the best way of settling the French problem would be to carry off every year a certain number of racially healthy children, chosen amongst France’s Germanic population. It would be necessary to try to settle these children, while still very young, in German boarding-schools, to train them away from their French nationality, which was due to chance, to make them aware of their Germanic blood and thus inculcate into them the notion of their membership of the great group of Germanic peoples. The Fuehrer replied:
“Sinister theory!” For my part, all these attempts at Germanisation don’t mean much to me—in so far, at least, as no successful attempt is made to found them on an appropriate conception of the world. As regards France, one must not forget that the military reputation of that country is not due to the people’s moral worth, but essentially to the fact that, on the Continent, the French were able to exploit certain military combinations of circumstance that were favourable to them (during the Thirty Years’ War, for example). Every time they were confronted by a Germany that was aware of herself, they got a thrashing—under Frederick the Great, for example, in 1940, etc. The fact that they won victories of universal significance under the leadership of that unique military genius, the Corsican Napoleon, makes no difference at all. The mass of the French people has petit bourgeois spiritual inclinations, so much so that it would be a triumph to succeed in removing the elements of Germanic origin from the grasp of the country’s ruling class.
Austria, too, her own history—secular five times over—a history that truly is not devoid of highlights? Obviously, in discussing these problems one must remain very careful, when confronted by Dutch and Norwegians. One must never forget that in 1871 Bavaria would never have agreed to become part of Prussia. Bismarck persuaded her only to agree to become part of a great association linked by kinship—that is to say, Germany. Nor did I, in 1938, tell the Austrians that I wanted to incorporate them in Germany, but I insisted on the fact that Germany and Austria ought to unite to form the Greater German Reich. Similarly, when speaking to the Germanics of the North-west and North, one must always make it plain that what we’re building is the Germanic Reich, or simply the Reich, with Germany constituting merely her most powerful source of strength, as much from the ideological as from the military point of view.
The Reichsfuehrer SS then spoke of the creation in Holland of boarding-schools for the political education of the young, two for boys and one for girls, to be called “Reich Schools”—a title approved by the Fuehrer. A third of the pupils would be Dutch and two-thirds German. After a certain period, the Dutch pupils would have to visit in turn a similar school in Germany. The Reichsfuehrer SS explained that, to guarantee that instruction would be given in accordance with the purposes of the Germanic Reich, he had refused a financial contribution from Holland and had asked Schwarz to set aside a specific sum exclusively for the financing of these schools. There was a project for the creation of similar schools in Norway. They, too, would be financed solely by the Reich Party treasurer. “If we want to prevent Germanic blood from penetrating into the ruling class of the peoples whom we dominate, and subsequently turning against us, we shall have gradually to subject all the precious Germanic elements to the influence of this instruction.” The Fuehrer approved of this point of view.
One mustn’t forget that, unless he is convinced of his racial membership of the Germanic Reich, the foreign legionary is bound to feel that he’s betraying his country. The fall of the Habsburg monarch clearly shows the full size of this danger.
It’s not possible to unite the Germanic peoples under the folds of the black-white-and-red flag of the old German Empire—for the same reason as prevented the Bavarians from entering the German Reich, in 1871, under the flag of Prussia. It’s the reason why I began by giving the National Socialist Party, as a symbol of the union of all Germanics, a new rallying-sign which was valid also inside our own national community—the swastika flag.
Let’s avoid attempting the Germanisation of our vital space on too great a scale. Let’s be cautious, especially with the Czechs and the Poles. According to Himmler, history proves that the Poles have their nationality tattooed oh their bodies.
It’s very important for the future that the Germans don’t mingle with the Poles, so that the new Germanic blood may not be transmitted to the Polish ruling class. Himmler is right when he says that the Polish generals who genuinely put up a serious resistance in 1939 were, so to speak, exclusively of German descent. It’s an accepted fact that it’s precisely the best elements of our race who, as they lose awareness of their origin, add themselves to the ruling class of the country that has welcomed them. As for the elements of less value, they retain the characteristics of their ethnic group and remain faithful to their Germanic origin. The same caution is necessary towards the Czechs. They’re skilled at not awakening the distrust of their occupiers, and are wonderful at playing the rôle of subjects.
We shall not win the peace, on the racial level, unless the Reich knows how to maintain a certain stature. Confronted with the United States, whose population is scarcely greater than ours, our strength lies in the fact that four-fifths of our people are of Germanic race.
6th August 1942, evening
The peasant and the beauties of nature.
Our country today is over-populated, and the numbers emigrating to America are incredible. How I wish we had the German-Americans with us still! In so far as there are any decent people in America, they are all of German origin.
In Britain they have the sound law that only the eldest son of a peer can inherit the title; in our country we have nobles by the score, who cannot make a living and who will not die. This calls for reform in the future. The whole social structure of the State must be built up on cold, logical lines.
Once we are in a position to start colonising in the East, most of our difficulties will disappear. When the first few hundred are comfortably settled, the rest will soon follow. It is the earth that attracts the peasant. Several hundreds of thousands have emigrated from Salzburg and Upper Austria to East Prussia. It is only in the pictures of the Court artists that one sees peasants gazing at the stars in heaven. The real peasant keeps his eye firmly on the land, and he lives by the plough. The beauties of the woods were discovered, not by the peasant, but by the professor. Wherever good-quality land is to be found, there one also finds the best type of peasant. It is not, however, the good earth that has improved the peasant stock, but rather that the best type of peasant always finds and takes possession of the best land. The peasantry therefore is the solid backbone of the nation.
France, which has 59 per cent of its population on the land, is still fundamentally sound. It is a great tragedy when once a nation loses the solid foundation of its peasantry. The Italians have a splendid foundation of peasantry. Once when I was travelling to Florence, I thought, as I passed through it, what a paradise this land of southern France is! But when I reached Italy—then I realised what a paradise on earth can really be! Herein lies one of the Duce’s main sources of strength.
He once said to me: “Fuehrer, thank goodness! only a very small percentage of my population are town-dwellers!”
Consider obtaining a copy of the complete notes
published by Ostara Publications.
“The nation is divided, half patriots and half traitors, and no man can tell which from which.”
Traitor – classification system – Category A, B and C traitors
This classification system is used to identify various individual cultural Marxist/multiculturalist traitors. The intention of the system is to easier identify priority targets and will also serve as the foundation for the future “Nuremberg trials” once the European cultural conservatives reassert political and military control of any given country.
Any category A, B or C traitor is an individual who has deliberately used his or her influence in a way which makes him or her indirectly or directly guilty of the charges specified in this document: 1-8. Many of these individuals will attempt to claim “ignorance” of the crimes they are accused of.
Category A traitor
– Political leaders (NGO leaders included)
– Media leaders (chief editors)
– Cultural leaders
– Industry leaders
Category A traitors are usually any current Heads of State, ministers/senators, directors and leaders of certain organisations/boards etc. who are guilty of charges 1-8. Category A traitors consist of the most influential and highest profile traitors.
10 per 1 million citizens.
Punishment: death penalty and expropriation of property/funds
Category B traitor
Category B traitors are cultural Marxist/multiculturalist politicians, primarily from the alliance of European political parties known as “the MA 100” (parties who support multiculturalism) and EU parliamentarians. They can be elected and non-elected parliamentarians, their advisors and any public and/or corporate servant who has been and still are indirectly or directly implicated in committing the following acts.
Category B traitors can also be individuals from various professional groups (but not limited to): journalists, editors, teachers, lecturers, university professors, various school and university board members, publicists, radio commentators, writers of fiction, cartoonists, and artists/celebrities etc. They can also be individuals from other professional groups such as: technicians, scientists, doctors and even Church leaders. In addition, individuals (investors etc.) who have directly or indirectly funded related activities. It’s important to note that the stereotypical “socialists”, collectivists, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists, environmentalists etc., are to be considered on an individual basis only. Not everyone who is associated with one of these groups or movements is to be considered as a cultural Marxist/multiculturalist.
Former category A traitors; Heads of State, Ministers/Senators etc., directors and leaders of certain organisations/boards etc. can be re-classified as category B traitors for practical targeting reasons (they have lost influence and will not yield the same target value/effect as current category A traitors).
Certain ANTIFA leaders or organisers related to ANTIFA movements (and other dedicated members) are considered category B traitors. Non-essential members are considered category C traitors. Many professionals such as for example journalists, influential sociologists or university professors etc. are considered and categorized as category B traitors as we consider them political activists and not merely professionals. They will of course claim ignorance and state that they are apolitical. This strategy might work for them until the day where they are visited by a Justiciar Knight—their judge, jury and executioner.
1000 per 1 million citizens.
Punishment: death penalty and expropriation of property/funds. Punishment can be reduced under certain circumstances.
Category C traitor
Category C traitors are less influential and lower priority targets (often individuals who have facilitated category A and B traitors) but who are still guilty of charges 1-8.
10 000 per 1 million citizens.
Punishment: fines, incarceration, expropriation (considered as acceptable indirect casualties in larger operations where WMDs are involved).
Category D individuals
Category D individuals have little or no political influence but are facilitating category Band C traitors and/or MA 100 political parties/media companies through various means. They are not guilty of charges 1-8 but work with or for individuals who are. The classification is of relevance when calculating/estimating indirect casualties concerning larger operations where WMDs are involved, as any category D individuals is not considered an innocent “civilian” but rather as a secondary servant/facilitator.
20 000-30 000 per 1 million citizens
Punishment: none (not considered civilian)
Number of Category A and B traitors on Western Europe
There are approximately 400 000 category A and B traitors in Western Europe using the current classification system (1010 per million).
France 65 650
Germany 82 820
United Kingdom 62 216
Netherlands 16 665
Belgium 10 807
Spain 47 167
Italy 60 600
Portugal 10 807
Greece 11 312
Source: Breivik’s manifesto