web analytics
Categories
Francis Parker Yockey Philosophy of history

‘Der Feind’ – The Enemy

Editor’s Note: The following is Kerry Bolton’s introduction to the upcoming new edition of Francis Parker Yockey’s The Enemy of Europe, to be published by Centennial Edition.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
The Second World War ended with Europe under the domination of two extra-European powers: the United States and Soviet Russia. Most of the post-war far Right regarded America as the lesser of two evils and sided with Washington in the newly-emerging Cold War. In The Enemy of Europe, Francis Parker Yockey rejected this consensus and argued instead that Europe’s identity and destiny were endangered far more by American than Russian domination.

Yockey wrote The Enemy of Europe in 1948 as the third volume of Imperium. In 1952, he revised the material on Russia in light of the “Prague treason trials” that he analyzed in his essay of that year, “What is Behind the Hanging of the Eleven Jews in Prague?”[1] Yockey argued that the Prague trials, which included eleven Jews among fourteen defendants, marked a definitive turn of the Soviet bloc against Jewish interests.[2]

Yockey argued that the United States was more dominated by Jews and more implacably hostile to Europe than the USSR. Thus, it was pointless for Europeans to hope that the Culture-distorting regime in Washington would be overthrown. A “nationalist revolution” could not even be envisaged in the US, according to Yockey. From at least 1951, Yockey had sought to convince the “European elite” that America alone was the enemy of Europe. He stated, “Let us not attack phantoms, let us attack the real enemy of Europe: America.”[3]

Yockey’s views were much misunderstood by the Right, who could only see Russia as the existential enemy. Even Sir Oswald Mosley failed to grasp the new world situation and regarded the US as the lesser evil that was required to protect Western Europe from the ultimate horror of a Soviet invasion. Conversely, Otto Strasser adopted a view similar to Yockey’s, but it is unknown whether he had been influenced by Yockey’s thinking. “If only Europe is left alone,” wrote Strasser, “Europe can and will take care of any threat from Russia — or from anywhere else.”[4]

Yockey published The Enemy of Europe in Germany in 1953. He simultaneously published a German translation, Der Feind Europas, in two hundred copies, which he planned to distribute to the leaders of the Socialist Reich Party (SRP) and other leading German nationalists.

The Socialist Reich Party (SRP) was founded in 1949. The party immediately acquired two members in the Bundestag when they defected from other parties. Major General Otto Remer, the party’s deputy leader, was the most energetic campaigner. He was soon banned from Schleswig-Holstein and North Rhine-Westphalia, where the SRP was most popular. The US occupation authorities noted the SRP opposition to the Western alliance and their advocacy of a united Germany within a united Europe. In 1950, SRP members were banned from state service, the US State Department fearing that the party could democratically assume power. SRP meetings were violently broken up by police, and a pro-SRP newspaper, Reichszeitung, was banned.

Remer stepped up his denunciation of the US occupation and the Western alliance while refraining from condemning the USSR and the Soviet-occupied German Democratic Republic (DDR). The US State Department noted this, commenting, “The party is suspected of willingness to effect a large compromise with Russia in order to unify Germany.”[5]

When the US decided on a policy of integrating Germany into the Western defense system, Remer launched a campaign with the slogan Ohne mich! (“Count me out!”), which drew a ready response from war veterans resentful of their post-war predicament in the Western zone. It attracted popular support across all sections of German society, much to the consternation of the US government and the American news media, the latter of which ran sensationalist articles on a “Nazi-Communist alliance.”[6]

Remer went further than a “neutralist” position and stated that in the event of war, Germans should not cover an American retreat if the Russians drove them back. He stated that he would “show the Russians the way to the Rhine,” and that SRP members would “post themselves as traffic policemen, spreading their arms so that the Russians can find their way through Germany as quickly as possible.”[7] On October 23, 1952, the SRP was banned after winning sixteen seats in the state parliament of Lower Saxony and eight seats in Bremen.

In the US, where H. Keith Thompson, with Yockey’s assistance,[8] was campaigning for Remer and the SRP’s legal rights, the Federal Bureau of Investigation was interested in rumors of Frederick Weiss’ links to Soviet agents and Rightists in Germany. Weiss stated to the FBI that Yockey had left the US for Germany in January 1953. He stated that he believed Yockey had gone to Germany to have The Enemy of Europe translated into German.[9] The German secret service, K-16, in turn seized and destroyed all copies of The Enemy of Europe. No copies of the English original survived, and only a few copies of the German edition were distributed. The present English edition is a reverse translation from the German edition.

Yockey saw the Asian horde from the eastern steppes as having occupied half of Germany with American contrivance, believing that Russia’s world-mission was destructive. Indeed, his outlook on Russia in Imperium reflected an atavistic anti-Slavism, with the revival of the old calls for Western Lebensraum in the East. On the other hand, the United States, as the carrier of Culture-pathology, rotted the Culture-organism spiritually, morally, and culturally. Russian hegemony was only surface deep and could be overthrown or subverted. American hegemony, however, was a cancer and had to be cut out. Yockey’s outlook on Russia was pragmatic and in keeping with the German elite’s tradition of Realpolitik from the preceding centuries. As a Spenglerian, Yockey was well acquainted with Oswald Spengler’s assessment of Russia when Spengler foresaw even in 1922 — the year of the Treaty of Rapallo — that Russia would soon overthrow the Marxian importation and return to its own soul, at which time German business, military, and political interests would be able to reach an alliance with Russia against Versailles and the Entente powers.[10]
 

American-Jewish Bolshevism versus Russian Bolshevism

Like Spengler, Yockey saw the Russian as a “barbarian,” but not in a derogatory sense. It refers to a “young” race that maintains the vigor of adolescence. “The barbarian is rough and tough… not legalistic or intellectualised. He is the opposite of decadent. He is ruthless and does not shrink back from destroying what others may prize highly,” Yockey wrote in Der Feind. Bolshevism, imported from the West largely by Jews, had been modified during its time in the Russian steppes, Yockey states. The Americans, on the other hand, had become culturally primitive in their detachment from Europe and “over-civilized” because of their preoccupation with “peace, comfort, and security.” The seeming paradox of being both culturally primitive and over-civilized shows the influence of German historicism on Yockey’s thinking, in the tradition of Spengler and others, which is little understood in the world of Anglophone academia, which sees history as akin to a tape-worm slithering along a path called “progress.” In German historicism, there is a dichotomy between Kultur and Zivilization, reflecting the inner (spiritual and moral) and outer (materialistic and technical) qualities of a Volk, respectively.

American and Russian Bolshevik ideologies nevertheless possessed a common obsession with technics and production. Spengler had written a great deal on the similar spirit of Communism and capitalism in The Decline of The West, Prussian Socialism, The Hour of Decision, and elsewhere. Heidegger alluded to it in 1935: “Russia and America, seen metaphysically, are both the same: the same wretched frenzy of unchained technology and the boundless organization of the average man.”[11] Aldous Huxley understood it as well, with his Brave New World depicting a synthesis of capitalism, Freudianism, and Communism.

However, for Europe, Yockey wrote in Der Feind, “the following distinction is important: American-Jewish Bolshevism is the instinctive destruction of the West through primitive, anti-cultural ideas… through the imposition of Culture-distortion and Culture-retardation. Russian Bolshevism seeks to attain the destruction of the West in the spirit of pan-Slavic religiosity, i.e., the Russification of all humanity.” What we are seeing are two antithetical messianic outlooks, and these moreover their historical conclusions have yet to be realized.

Yockey states in Der Feind: “Thus American-Jewish Bolshevism poses a real spiritual threat to Europe. In its every aspect, American-Jewish Bolshevism strikes a weak spot in the European organism.” The “Michel-stratum” — that is, the inner enemy — comprises much of the leadership stratum of post-war Europe, representing “the inner-America,” that is motivated by “the purely animal American ideal” of comfort, security, and conformity.” If this serenity is upset, bayonets can reimpose it. What Yockey wrote of in 1952 is now boasted of as the lethality of “American culture” by the spokesmen of the “American millennium… Russian Bolshevism is therefore less dangerous to Europe than American-Jewish Bolshevism.” Unless one is familiar with the metaphysical outlook of this current, it makes no sense: “American Bolshevism”? We are considering a spirit, not a party political manifesto. Bolshevism is defined as a means of destruction; a pathogen of culture and soul.

There is in Europe an “inner-America” that appeals to the decadent elements of the West, but there is no “inner-Russia.” The Communist parties had already stopped serving any Russian interests, and it was “political stupidity” if Moscow kept using Marxism as a means of exporting its influence, as it had lost its value. When Russia turned against Jewry after the Second World War, the fate of every Communist party in the West was sealed, Yockey writes. Stalin had already eliminated the Comintern in 1943 as a nest of traitors. The leadership of the German Communist Party likewise died collectively in Russia, not in Hitler’s Germany. The Critical Theorists found refuge from Hitler not in the USSR, but in the US, courtesy of the State Department and the Rockefeller Foundation, from which they proceeded to take over academia in the US. These Jewish-Marxist destroyers were universally rejected by the USSR, and the Soviet press condemned Herbert Marcuse at a time when he was being heralded as a great intellectual in the US, where he inspired New Left riots from Chicago to Prague (while the conservative Right cried “Soviet plot”).

The Prague treason trials were a definitive statement to the world concerning the Soviets and Jewry, but the process had been underway since the Trotskyites started being purged in 1928. Additionally, the significance of the USSR’s rejection of America’s post-war plans for the United Nations Organization and the so-called “internationalization” of atomic energy under the “Baruch Plan” was also not lost on Yockey, but was — and continues to be — on those mostly Anglophone Rightists who could not transcend their ideological quagmire. As a result, Yockey was attacked with much vitriol by Anglo-Nazis such as Arnold Leese.

The US, for its part, recruited Mensheviks, Trotskyites, and liberals to assault European culture with jazz and Abstract Expressionism in what is now referred to as the “Cultural Cold War.” It was claimed that these epitomized the benefits of American democracy, while the USSR condemned them as “rootless cosmopolitanism,” being without folk roots, and as “internationalist.” That is how Yockey could refer to “American Bolshevism” and consider it as more dangerous to the Western culture-organism than “Russian Bolshevism.” Today, exponents of the “American millennium” glory in America’s world “revolutionary mission” to destroy all vestiges of tradition through the irresistible lure of decadence.

The fundamentally Bolshevist character of the US in spirit was affirmed when Sedova Trotsky, after resigning from the Fourth International, announced her allegiance to the US during the Cold War, and stated that her late husband would have done the same. Other Mensheviks such as the esteemed Dr. Sidney Hook flocked to the American side against the USSR and redefined American conservativism, to the extent that when Dr. Christopher Lasch repudiated the Left in the early 1970s and sought out a genuine “conservatism” in the US, he could not find it. Yockey had already seen through the farce and racket of “American conservativism” in the 1950s.

Yockey’s view of the impact of a Russian-occupied Europe, by which he meant the non-Slavic landswas that it would be analogous to the “barbarian” invasions of other civilizations, such as the Northern invasion of Egypt, the Kassite conquest of Babylonia, the Aryan conquest of the Indus, and the Germanic invasions of Rome. Conquest did not destroy these cultures; rather, the barbarians were absorbed into the Culture-organism or they were expelled. Further, Yockey stressed that sometimes the barbarian becomes the custodian of the values of the host culture, such as when the defeated hosts have become too etiolated to maintain their own traditions. It also happened over millennia in China through “dynastic cycles.”[12] The barbarian brings uncontaminated vigor and the prospect of cultural renewal rather than destruction, distortion, retardation, or parasitism.

The other possibility for a Late Civilization threatened by a barbarian invasion is that the outer enemy impels it to unite around its traditional ethos, and in this way it is also reinvigorated. Yockey held out the possibility of either option vis-à-vis Russia, while the US represented not so much a military occupation as a flooding of the Culture-organism with disease. Yockey referred to the “ethical syphilis of Hollywood,” for example.
 

Europe-Russia symbiosis

Yockey contended that Russia only occupied one-tenth of (non-Slavic) Europe after the Second World War, and that this was only made possible due to the contrivance of the “Washington regime,” motivated by a pathological hatred of Europe. This was still a time when the New York-Washington regime had dreams of harnessing the USSR to a one-world state via the UN and the Baruch Plan.

In the event of a Russian occupation of Europe, Yockey saw two possibilities: first, endless uprisings until Russia grew tired and left; or second, a relatively lenient regime that could be infiltrated, causing the “Europeanization” of Russia within a few decades to a more meaningful extent than the Petrinism of prior centuries. This would “eventually result in the rise of a new Symbiosis: Europe-Russia. Its final form would be that of a European Imperium.”

Here we read the most unequivocal statement of what Yockey envisioned for Russia, which differed from his Slavophobic sentiments: the prospect of a “Europe-Russia Symbiosis” that would be the foundation for unity from the Atlantic to the Urals, through the force of historical necessity rather than through Western Lebensraum.

Yockey further stated that in the event of a Russian occupation of Europe, the first victims would be the local Communist parties, as the types attracted to these could not be trusted. Stalin had already recognized this through his abolition of the Comintern and the elimination of those foreign Communists who were naïve enough to seek refuge in the USSR. They were Marxist theorists, whereas Russia’s true religion was not Marxism, but Russia. It has since been pointed out that Russian Bolshevism owed more to Alexander Herzen than to Marx, and one might also point to Marx’s own anti-Russian attitude, which influenced the development of Russian Bolshevism away from what was seen as a rival German-Jewish current in socialism. Bolshevism was Russian messianism under another guise.[13]

In Yockey’s view, rather than destroying Europe, Russian occupation would eliminate the “inner enemy,” “the Michel-stratum,” and “thus liberate all creative forces within Europe from the tyranny of the Past.” Petty-statism would go with the traitors, who were being kept in power by American bayonets: “The barbarian, whether he wished it or not, would complete the spiritual unification of Europe by removing the only inner-European obstacle to that unity. From the Spiritual to the Political is but one step.” Should Russia try to incorporate Europe into its empire, it could only do so by according Europe “significant concessions,” including autonomy as a unit. Should brute force be used, that would provoke a united reaction analogous to the barbarian uprisings against Roman occupation.
 

Yockey’s accordance with German geopolitical thinking

Yockey was writing for a political elite, to inspire them to keep struggling at a time when Europe was in ruins and many of the political, military, and cultural leaders who survived were dispossessed and persecuted. The immediate message was: Do not fight for the enemy of Europe, the American-Jewish Symbiosis, even if this means collaboration with a Russian occupation. This was a message that many elements of the German Right heeded, and the reason for the interest the American authorities had in Yockey. It was also an opinion widely held in Germany.

Yockey purveyed Der Feind to Germans at precisely the time that there was highly paranoid thinking in American governing circles in regard to the prospect for rapprochement between Germany and Russia. Yockey’s outlook in Der Feind was in keeping with Germany’s tradition of Realpolitik and its alliances with Russia — namely, between Peter the Great and Frederick the Great, when Russia had switched to the Prussian side in 1762; of Bismarck’s Rückversicherungspolitik (“Reinsurance Policy”);[14] the Treaty of Rapallo; and the Hitler-Stalin Pact, which had been greeted with genuine enthusiasm in German military and diplomatic circles.

After Napoleon’s defeat in 1812, General Johann David Ludwig von Yorck, commander of the Prussian Corps of the Napoleonic Army, negotiated a separate peace with the Russians in defiance of the Prussian King and the Treaty of Paris, which had committed Prussia to supporting France against Russia. This was the Neutrality Pact of Tauroggen, which made a lasting impression on Germany’s officer corps. It so happened that one of Yockey’s numerous aliases while traveling the world, avoiding military intelligence and the FBI, was (Franz) Ludwig Yorck.

Even in mainstream circles in Germany at that time there was a desire for a united Europe, independent of the US, that would have a collaborative attitude towards the USSR, from which it was hoped there would be major concessions. One of the primary German newspapers stated:

In order to jump out from her present isolation, she [the USSR] can, exactly as the Rapallo Treaty did thirty years ago, place Germany as a defensive buffer between the East and the West. From the politico-economic point of view, she could repeat the old game for world power by concluding long-term agreements with German industry and by renewing her trade with Germany. Thus, Russia might re-open the door to the world market.[15]

If we Germans would come to feel that the other powers, openly or tacitly, try to hinder German equality and re-unification, the (Western) treaties would quickly turn out to have been built on quicksand… The fact that we are tied up with the NATO pact does not make it impossible for Europe, as soon as it is strong enough and the international situation has changed, to one day become independent from every side.[16]

For its part, the newspaper Christ und Welt, aligned with Chancellor Adenauer’s Christian Democratic Union, stated:

Continental Europe would break from the Atlantic Pact if the Soviets agree to withdraw their forces behind the Pripet Marshes and release not only the Eastern Zone of Germany but the whole of Eastern Europe into the European Union. A Western Europe, standing on its own feet and possessing its own powerful forces, can begin with developing its colonial empire in Africa. Such a Europe, whatever its ties might be with America, could afford to carry out such an independent policy because it will have the strength of a third power.[17]

Father E. J. Reichenberger[18] wrote in 1952 that the reunification of Germany “cannot be achieved without the consent of the Russians.” Moscow’s primary aim was

not the spread of Communism in Germany, but to make Germany an Ally. We cannot see the reason why Germany should not line up politically with Russia, especially after the Western democracies found nothing objectionable against Russia as an Ally. For Germany, the political question is therefore: From which side has Germanyto expect the better bargain in the long run?

He reminded German-American readers that the US and the Allies had “robbed German foreign assets, stole German patents, and eliminated German competition on the world market.” His worldview was moreover similar to what Yockey and other European liberationists were stating: that Communism and Western democracy are variations of the same materialism which would be transcended by the German Weltanschauung.[19]

The demand for neutrality in any conflict with Russia was the norm among Germans of all classes at a time when the US was trying to reinstall the martial spirit in Germans, should they be needed as cannon fodder. Just after the outbreak of war in Korea, the New York Herald Tribune reported from Germany:

There is a widespread impression abroad that the German people would jump at a chance to get into uniform again and try a few more Blitzkriege. Every political and labor leader with whom this correspondent spoke in the principal cities of West Germany said that those who hold that impression are sadly mistaken.[20]

The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung likewise published an article urging a policy close to what Yockey and his comrades were advocating:

We do not need to call the attention of the experienced men in the Kremlin to the fact that a strong and unified Western Europe can defend its independence against every side. Why should the Kremlin not be interested in such independence?… If the world, which is today split into two parts, could be reshuffled into a number of independent power groups, it may prevent this horrible conflagration for mankind. A flexible and prudent Russian policy could, for instance, grant German reunification in exchange for the independence of Europe, which could be defended against every side. In such a case, the reunification of Germany would become a guarantee for peace. The treaties which are presently signed will not prove to be an obstacle toward reunification if the Russians remain interested in such a solution.[21]

It is notable that in the calls for German unification throughout various quarters, the vision is one of Germany within a united Europe. The US was calling — indeed demanding — European unification, but on the basis of opposition to the USSR. But even liberal Germans saw the prospects for a united Germany within a united Europe that could assure peace with a neutral, and even collaborative, approach to the USSR.
 

Russia’s policy of conciliation

Why did the Germans have such a hopeful attitude towards the possibilities of a Russo-German accord? On March 10, 1952, Soviet Deputy Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko had delivered the so-called “Soviet note” from Stalin to German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer and the Western occupying powers. James Cartnal describes its background:

On March 10, 1952, the Soviet deputy foreign minister, Andrei Gromyko, sent to the delegates of the three Western occupying powers of Germany diplomatic correspondence which included a draft peace treaty for Germany. The provisions outlined in this Soviet diplomatic note were sweeping. According to the Soviet note, Germany would be reunified, thus ending its aberrant division, and given an opportunity to establish itself as an independent, democratic, peace-loving state. In addition, all democratic parties and organizations in Germany would have free activity, including the right to assembly, free speech, and publication. The Soviet note also provided civil and political rights for all German citizens; this included all former members of the German Wehrmacht, and all former Nazis, excluding those serving court sentences for crimes against humanity. The Soviet draft peace treaty called for the withdrawal of all armed forces of the occupying powers, mandated the liquidation of all foreign bases of operation within Germany, and prevented reunited Germany from joining any kind of coalition or military alliance directed against any power which took part with its armed forces in the Second World War against Germany. Germany’s territories were defined, according to the Soviet diplomatic note, by the borders provided by the provisions of the Potsdam conference. Furthermore, the Soviet draft peace treaty allowed Germany to develop its own national armed forces (land, sea, and air) necessary to provide for the defense of the country and permitted the formation of a German arms industry, limited by the provisions provided in the final German peace treaty.

The Soviets hoped to convene a four power conference designed to make peace with a united German state. The four power conference envisioned by the Kremlin never took place. Instead, the Russian initiative led to an exchange of diplomatic correspondence between the Soviet Union and the three Western occupying powers that continued throughout the summer of 1952. This “battle of the notes,” as British Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden termed it, revealed that the Soviets and the West held widely differing views regarding the necessity of free, all-German elections preceding any discussion relating to the reunification of Germany.

The “battle of the notes” left unanswered important issues of the Soviet note of March 1952; the Soviets proposed no specific limits for German remilitarization and offered no definition as to what constituted a democratic, peace-loving, and independent state. At the end of the summer of 1952, Soviet attempts to resolve the German question would not achieve success; Germany would remain divided and each section would become more firmly anchored in its respective bloc over the next three and a half decades.[22]

Debates ensued as to whether Stalin could be trusted. Without a “Soviet threat,” there was no foundation on which to justify the subjugation of Europe by the Washington-New York regime other than to again change policy and return to the legend of the “Prussian threat.” Stalin was willing to meet most of Adenauer’s demands, yet Adenauer placed subordination to the US before a free and united Germany and Europe. Regarding the reaction to the “Soviet note,” Gromyko recalled that

the reaction of the Western powers was unenthusiastic. In Bonn, however, common sense deserted Adenauer and his circle altogether, the Soviet proposals became an object of propaganda, and the reunification of Germany was lost in the scrimmage.

No other government in the post-war period made such a gross political miscalculation. Without doubt Adenauer lost a historic opportunity. The Federal Republic, moreover, became a part of the anti-Soviet Western military bloc — at a time when the USSR and Germany were still technically in a state of war. This was ended only on 25 January 1955 by an order of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR.

Adenauer continued his policy of lost opportunities. In 1957 he rejected an East German proposal which put forward the idea of a German confederation.[23]

Could Stalin have really been trusted with anything of the kind? Probably yes.

The USSR, after the initial bloodletting and brutalization of the occupation, halted its barbaric ravishing of Europe, while the Morgenthau Plan was being enacted de facto, given that the US was still hoping that there was a chance of incorporating the USSR into a new post-war order as a junior partner.

A significant example of the difference in spirit between the USSR and the US towards Europe is the former’s intervention in favor of the Norwegian novelist Knut Hamsun, who was always popular in the Soviet Union. Hamsun supported Hitler and collaborationist Prime Minister Vidkun Quisling during the war. One writer has recounted:

At the end of 1945, the Soviet Minister for foreign affairs, Molotov, informed his Norwegian colleague Trygve Lie, that it ‘would be regrettable to see Norway condemning this great writer to the gallows.’ Molotov had taken this step with the agreement of Stalin. It was after this intervention that the Norwegian government abandoned plans to try Hamsun and contented itself with levying a large fine that almost bankrupted him. The question remains open: would Norway have condemned the old man Hamsun to capital punishment? The Norwegian collaborators were all condemned to heavy punishments. But the Soviet Union could exert a strong and dreaded influence in Scandinavia in the immediate post-war period.[24]

Particularly symbolic was the fact that the USSR offered Rudolf Hess his release if he would endorse the DDR. In 1952, the year of the “Soviet note,” Lothar Bolz, the DDR’s Deputy Minister-President , Karl Hamann, as well as Minister of Trade and Supplies Otto Grotewohl, met with Hess to discuss whether he would be willing to play a leading role in a reunified and neutral Germany. German historian Werner Maser states that Otto Grotewohl told him about the meeting on the understanding that it would not be mentioned until after Grotewohl’s death.[25] Hess was taken from Spandau to meet the DDR leaders when the USSR assumed its monthly jurisdiction over the Spandau prison fortress. Maser records that Stalin wished “to temper justice with mercy in the German matter and to grant Hess a prominent position within the framework of reconstruction and the efforts towards the reunification of Germany.”[26] If Hess would state that the DDR’s policy was the same as the “socialism” to which he had always adhered, he would be immediately released from Spandau and would play a part in the leadership of a reunited Germany. Hess rejected the offer, although he “welcomed… the efforts of the DDR and the Soviet Union to preserve German patriotism, and had listened attentively to what his interlocutors had to say on the programs of the political parties referred to…” He nevertheless regarded the acceptance of such an offer as a betrayal of Hitler’s memory. Grotewohl found it hard to understand why Hess rejected the offer to help rebuild Germany as a free man.[27]

The reference to Hess listening “attentively to what his interlocutors had to say on the programs of the political parties referred to” concerns the creation of a nationalist party that would have been part of the DDR’s government.

At a meeting between Stalin and the leaders of the Socialist Unity Party (Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands, or SED) in the Soviet zone that was held on January 31, 1947, Stalin asked how many Germans across all the occupation zones were “fascist elements,” and about “what influence did they retain in the Western zones.” Grotewohl replied that it was a difficult question to answer, but that he could give Stalin lists of former National Socialist party members “in leadership positions in the Western zones.” Stalin had not asked this question with the view of purging Germany of “fascists,” but with the possibility of reforming former National Socialist Party members into a party that would promote nationalism and socialism within the context of a Soviet Germany. He was also interested in the possible voting patterns of “fascist elements” should there be a plebiscite on German unification. Grotewohl’s view was that they were “all reactionaries.” Stalin’s view was different. Would it be possible to organize the “fascists” in the Soviet zone under a different name? He pointed out to the SED leaders that their policy of “exterminating fascists” was no different from that of the Americans, stating: “Maybe I should add this course [of organizing a nationalist party] so as not to push all of the former Nazis into the enemy camp?”[28]

Grotewohl dogmatically objected that if the “fascists” were reorganized into their own party, such a move would be “incomprehensible to the working masses” in the Western zones. Stalin replied that showing the “Nazis” in the Western zones that their comrades under the Soviets were not being purged would provide a positive impression that “not all of them will be destroyed,” stating that he wanted to recruit “patriotic elements” for a “fascist party,” especially among “secondary figures of the former Nazi Party.” There would be nothing reactionary about establishing such a party, as many “Nazis” had “come from out of the people.”[29]

Ulbricht thought Stalin’s idea plausible by focusing on the socialist aspect of National Socialism, especially among idealistic youth. Stalin explained that he did not aim to integrate “fascist’ elements into the SED, but to encourage them to form their own party in alliance with the SED. Former “Nazis” were voting for the conservative parties in the Soviet-occupied zone, fearful that the establishment of a Soviet state would mean their liquidation. Stalin wanted to demonstrate that their situation under a Soviet Germany would be different. He also did not share the view of German Communist leaders that the “fascist elements” were all bourgeois. He stated that “there should be relief for those who had not sold out” to the Western occupation, and that “we must not forget that the elements of Nazism are alive not only in the bourgeois layers, but also among the working class and the petty bourgeoisie.” The new party, which would be part of an SED-led “national front” coalition, would be called the “National Democrats.”[30] To other objections, Stalin responded that the “fascist elements” were no longer concerned with acquiring “living space” in the East.

In February 1948, the Soviet Military Administration (Sowjetische Militäradministration in Deutschland, or SMAD) announced the end of denazification. In March 1948, the prosecution of Germans for alleged “war crimes” was formally ended. The same month, the Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands (NDPD) was formed. The DDR was announced in 1949 and established through elections in the Soviet-occupied zone after the failure of the USSR and the Western occupiers to agree on terms for elections on the reunification of Germany.

With the NDPD’s creation, Stalin stated that the party would “erase the line between non-Nazis and former Nazis.” On March 22, a newspaper was launched to pave the way, the National-Zeitung, which announced that “while in other areas there remains the atmosphere of the denazification of Germany, in the eastern part the people’s eyes light up again. Simple party comrades no longer have to be timid and fearfully look around as if they were pariahs.” The party was founded three days later under the chairmanship of Lothar Bolz, who held the post until 1972. Bolz had been a member of the pre-war German Communist Party and was one of the few German Communist leaders to have survived Stalin’s hazardous hospitality for Communist refugees.[31] During much of that time Bolz served in the government of the DDR, including as Foreign Minister (1968-1978). The Vice Chairman of the NDPD was Heinrich Hohmann, who had joined the National Socialist party in 1933, and was also a co-founder of the League of German Officers, which formed the NDPD’s initial nucleus. The NDPD’s program was stridently nationalistic, as much so as the Socialist Reich Party, which was being outlawed in the Federal Republic:

America violated the Treaty of Potsdam and plunged us Germans with malice into the biggest national distress of our history… But the American war may and shall not take place! Germany must live! That’s why we National Democrats demand: the Americans to America. Germany for the Germans! The Federal Republic of Germany is a child of national treason… That’s why we National Democrats demand: German unity over the head of the government of national treason in Bonn, as a basis for peace, independence, and prosperity for our entire German fatherland.[32]

The party reached a peak of 230,000 members in 1953, and during the 1980s still had a significant membership of 110,000. In 1948 the party sent 52 members to the DDR’s parliament, the Volkskammer. The party drew on ex-NSDAP members and army veterans to support its campaigns. One such appeal from the party in 1952 included the names of 119 officers from the Wehrmacht, SS, the Hitler Youth, the League of German Maidens (BDM), and the German Labor Front.[33]

The NDPD’s origins go back still further to the National Committee for a Free Germany that was formed by German officers captured by the Soviets during the Second World War. Returning to the Soviet Zone after the war, these officers formed the NDPD’s leadership and held high positions in the DDR for many years. For example, NDPD co-founder Colonel Wilhelm Adam was a veteran of both world wars. His nationalist politics went back to membership in the Young German Order in 1920 and the NSDAP in 1923, and he had participated in Hitler’s Munich Putsch. He was also a member of the conservative German People’s Party (DVP) during 1926-1929. In 1933, he joined the Stahlhelm and the Sturmabteilung. Captured in 1943 at Stalingrad, Adam joined the National Committee for a Free Germany, and when he returned to the Soviet Zone in 1948, he became an adviser to Saxony’s state government. In 1952, he became a Colonel in the Kasernierte Volkspolizei (KVP), which later became the DDR People’s Army. He was honored in 1968 with the Banner of Labor and with the title of Major General in 1977. There were many others of a similar background who were honored by the DDR.
 

Conclusion

This is the milieu in which Yockey travelled, and why the American authorities were so interested in his activities. Along with his German mentor in the US, Frederick Weiss, who published “estimates” of the world situation in the Spenglerian mode, the line he and Yockey adopted was in accord with a wide circle of those seeking German and European liberation and unity: the recognition of the USA as der Feind, and reaching an understanding with Russia to secure concessions. This outlook had been purveyed as far back as 1948 by Der Weg in Argentina, representing what H. Keith Thompson said to this writer was the “higher authority,” sensationally called Die Spinne and Odessa by the world news media. But beyond that, the idea had taken root among Germans high and low. Yockey’s Der Feind thus gave historical-philosophical depth to popular feelings.

Otto Remer never repudiated his contention that Germany and Europe had to turn to Russia. After continual legal harassment and a long exile in Spain, Remer returned to West Germany. In 1983 he established the German Freedom Movement (Die deutschen Freiheitsbewegung, or DDF), dedicated to Russo-German accord. Its manifesto, The Bismarck-German Manifesto, is subheaded “German-Russian Alliance Rapallo 1983,” which continued the neutralist line from Remer’s SRP days three decades earlier. The manifesto, echoing Yockey’s ideas on the “Culture-distorting regime” of Washington and New York, states that “[t]he American way of life is for us synonymous with the destruction of European culture,” and that Germany “would not be used as the tip of the NATO spear… We will not participate in a NATO war against Russia.”

As with Yockey’s other writings, Der Feind has not dated in its method of analysis. The world situation has worsened with the collapse of the Soviet Empire. The spartan lifestyle that had been imposed in the Soviet Empire means that today, the peoples of that region are the only white remnant that has been uncontaminated by “the ethical syphilis of Hollywood,” and hence the frenetic manner by which “the enemy of Europe” attempts to contaminate these regions — some of whose states, such as Hungary, consciously resist it. “The Enemy of Europe” is now the world-enemy (and Yockey envisaged that in his final essay, “The World in Flames”[34]) whose primary weapon, as American strategist Ralph Peters gloated, remains what Yockey called “Culture-distortion” backed by military force. While certain terms have changed and the political front-men are different, the great political issues remain: the existential conflict between the US and Russia; the role of Israel; the place of Europe and the West in that conflict; and the relationship between the West and the US, which is heralded as the “leader of the West” while being nothing but the leader of Culture-distortion, parasitism, and retardation.

_____________

Notes

[1] Originally published anonymously in the National Renaissance Bulletin. The latter was the newsletter of the National Renaissance Party led by James H. Madole, who was at the time closely associated with Yockey’s US-based mentor, the German immigrant Frederick Weiss, a veteran of the First World War.

[2] During the trial, the defendants were implicated as part of a Jewish cabal that included US Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter; Moshe Pijade, described as “the Titoist Jewish ideologue” in Yugoslavia; and David BenGurion and Moshe Sharett in Israel. They were said to be part of a plot against Czechoslovakia planned in Washington in 1947 by President Harry S. Truman, Secretary of State Dean Acheson, and former Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, Jr. Communist Party secretary Rudolf Slansky was described in the indictment as “by his very nature a Zionist.” Paul Lendvai, Anti-Semitism in Eastern Europe (London: Macdonald & Co., 1972), 243-245.

[3] Yockey, “The Death of England,” Part 2, Frontfighter, No. 13, June 1951, 3.

[4] Otto Strasser, “The Role of Europe,” in Mosley: Policy & Debate (Euphorion Books, 1954).

[5] Martin Lee, The Beast Reawakens (London: Little, Brown & Company, 1997), 58.

[6] Edmond Taylor, “Germany: Where Fascism & Communism Meet,” The Reporter, New York, April 13, 1954.

[7] US State Department report, June 22, 1951; cited by Lee, ibid., 65.

[8] Thompson registered as an American agent for the SRP in 1952. When the party was banned, Thompson, with Yockey’s assistance , formed the Committee for International Justice and the Committee for the Freedom of Major General Remer, to assist Remer and others being prosecuted in Germany, and also helped the families of war veterans.

[9] Edward A. Brandt, FBI file no. 105-23413-26, October 22, 1954.

[10] Oswald Spengler, “The Two Faces of Russia & Germany’s Eastern Problems” (1922) in Spengler: Prussian Socialism & Other Essays (London: Black House Publishing 2018).

[11] Quoted in Javier Cardoza-Kon, Heidegger’s Politics of Enframing: Technology and Responsibility (New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2020), 22.

[12] Bolton, The Decline & Fall of Civilisations (London: Black House Publishing, 2017), 260-269. Amoury de Riencourt, The Soul of China (Honeyglen Publishing, 1989).

[13] See: Mikhail Agursky, The Third Rome: National Bolshevism in the USSR (London: Westview Press, 1987).

[14] It stated that each would remain neutral if one were attacked by another power.

[15] “What Can Russia Win if She Plays Her Trump Card?,” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, March 15, 1952.

[16] Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, June 5, 1952.

[17] Christ und Welt, December 27, 1951.

[18] Father E. J. Reichenberger was the leader of the Catholics in Czechoslovakia prior the Second World War, and an opponent of National Socialism and Germany’s annexation of the Sudetenland. After the war, he became the leader of Sudeten German emigres, the primary spokesman of German deportees from Eastern Europe, and a fierce critic of Allied policies against Germany, including the concept of “collective guilt.” Despite his anti-Nazi credentials, his being honored by the Vatican as a member of the Pontifical Secret Chamber, and receiving numerous awards such as the Badge of Honour from Austria, he was smeared for his defense of Germany after the war.

[19] E. J. Reichenberger, Nord-America, April 17, 1952.

[20] Joseph Newman, New York Herald Tribune
, August 27, 1950.

[21] Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, May 30, 1952.

[22] James Cartnal, “Dispelling a Myth: The Soviet Note of March 1952.”

[23] Andrei Gromyko, Memories (London: Hutchison, 1989), 196.

[24] Anonymous, “Knut Hamsun: Saved by Stalin?,” Counter-Currents, July 6, 2010.

[25] The event is described by Wolf Rüdiger Hess in My Father Rudolf Hess (London: W. H. Allen, 1986). Note 6 in the chapter “Special Treatment” states that Maser left a typewritten note on his meeting with Grotewohl when Maser was working at the Institute for Research into Imperialism, East Berlin Humboldt University, which was directed by the pre-war “National Bolshevik” Ernst Niekisch, who was present at the meeting between Maser and Grotewohl.

[26] Wolf Rüdiger Hess, ibid., 251.

[27] Ibid., 252-253.

[28] Historical and Documentary Department, Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The USSR and the German Question: 1941-1949 (Documents from the Archives of the Foreign Policy of the Russian Federation, M. “International Relations,” 2003), 244-253.

[29] Ibid.

[30] Ibid.

[31] Stalin liquidated the entirety of the Central Committee of the German Communist Party that had fled to the USSR seeking refuge from Hitler.

[32] NDPD Program, June 1951.

[33] NDPD Appeal for German Unity, Fourth Party Congress, 1952.

[34] Reprinted in Kerry Bolton & John Morgan (eds.), The World in Flames: The Shorter Writings of Francis Parker Yockey (Centennial Edition Publishing, 2020).

Categories
Exterminationism Neanderthalism Souvenirs et réflexions d'une aryenne (book)

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 86

But that’s not all. The visible world around them was infinitely more beautiful than what is spread out today—or was spread out already yesterday and the day before yesterday—, in the vicinity of human agglomerations. It was more beautiful because there were then few men, and many animals, and trees, and immense inviolate spaces.

There is no worse enemy of the beauty of the world than the unlimited proliferation of man. There is no worse enemy of the quality of man himself than this overgrowth: it cannot be repeated too often that a choice must be made between ‘quantity’ and ‘quality’.

______ 卐 ______

 

Editor’s note: This is where the light-years of distance between Savitri and me compared to today’s racialists is most noticeable. It isn’t enough to say that there are billions of Neanderthals on the planet who disfigure the world. The Mauritian scale has to be climbed to level 10. In other words, grab hold of the Christian ethics that our parents and secular schooling instilled in us, wipe our asses with it, and do it publicly (as Putin is currently defecating on American hubris).

The Aryan who fails to understand this is not a real Aryan but a eunuch lobotomised with NT values.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
The history of our cycle is, like that of any cycle, the history of an indefinitely prolonged struggle between quality and quantity, until the victory of the latter: a complete victory, but a very short one, since it necessarily coincides with the end of the cycle, and the coming of the Avenger, whom I have called by his Sanskrit name: Kalki.

If I say that the heroic but practically useless attempt at ‘recovery’ represented by Hitlerism is the last—beyond which any effort of whatever magnitude against the current of Time, is doomed to immediate failure—it is because I know of no force in the present world able to stop universal decadence, in particular to pitilessly reduce the number of men while raising the quality of the survivors; none, that is, apart from that sole champion of the Powers of Light and Life, fully victorious: Kalki. Despite all the power and the prestige at his disposal, Adolf Hitler was unable to create—recreate—the conditions that were and remain essential for the blossoming of a Golden Age. He could neither suppress technology nor reduce the number of people in the world to anything like one-thousandth of what it is today, that is, practically to what it was during the centuries before our Dark Age.

It is possible and even probable that, victorious, he would have tried to do so, gradually. But his victory would have had to be complete, and not only on a European but on a world scale; and there would have been no power on earth to rival his and to thwart his work.

But then he would have been Kalki Himself, and we would now be living at the dawn of a new cycle. In fact, he needed technology, and at least a growing German population, to carry out his fight against the tide of time under the present conditions.

If, like many of his great predecessors who left behind them new civilisations, he had been partially successful in material terms, his work would hardly have lasted at all, simply because it was set in an era so close to the end of the cycle. Everything suggests that it would have deteriorated in a few years, given the sordid selfishness and stupidity of the vast majority of our contemporaries, even of the best races. The most skilful cook cannot make an appetising and healthy omelette with rotten eggs.

However atrocious it may seem to us, with its immediate and distant consequences, the military defeat of 1945 was still better than the galloping degeneration of a Hitlerian civilisation that appeared too late, after the definitive closure of the era of possible, albeit ephemeral, rectification!

Even in the collapse of the Third German Reich, even in the horror of the last days of the Führer and his ultimate followers in the Chancellery Bunker, under the blazing inferno that Berlin had become, there is a grandeur worthy of the tragedies of Aeschylus or the Wagnerian Tetralogy. The combat without hope and weakness of the superhuman hero against inflexible Destiny—his destiny, and the world’s—replayed itself there, undoubtedly for the last time.

The next time it won’t be giants or demigods, but miserable dwarfs who will suffer the inevitable destruction: billions of dwarves, banal in their ugliness, without character, who will disappear before the Avenger like an anthill destroyed by a lava flow.

In any case, whether or not we survive the painful childbirth of the new cycle, we won’t be among these dwarfs. The ordeal of 1945 and especially of the post-war years—the victoriously overcome ordeal of seductive prosperity—will have made us, the few, what we are and what we remain. And in the roar of unleashed power that will mark the end of all that we so cordially despise, we shall greet with a shiver of ecstasy the Voice of divine revenge, whose triumph will be ours—even if we must perish.

Better that, a hundred times, than participation in universal degeneration under a glorious security (but increasingly devoid of all meaning!) which would undoubtedly have been our lot, if the victorious Reich had survived the ‘twenty-fifth hour’.

Categories
3-eyed crow Kali Yuga Souvenirs et réflexions d'une aryenne (book) Third Reich

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 83

The leaders who have led, or will lead, some phase of the eternal struggle ‘against Time’ after the limit point where a last great recovery would still have been possible—after what Virgil Ghéorghiou calls ‘the twenty-fifth hour’—, haven’t been able and won’t be able to leave behind them anything in this visible and tangible world, except a handful of clandestine disciples.

And these have, and will have, nothing to look forward to—except the coming of Kalki; or the Saoshyant of the Zoroastrians, the Maitreya Buddha of the Buddhists, the glorious fighting Christ as expected by the Christians at his ‘second coming’,[1] the Mahdi of the Mohammedans, the immortal Emperor of the Germans surging forth, armed, from his enigmatic Cave at the head of his avenging Knights. He who returns for the last time in our cycle has many names. But He is the same under all of them.

Now He is known by His action, that is, by His victory over all, followed by the dazzling dawn of the next cycle: the new Satya Yuga, or Age of Truth.

The defeat in this world of a Leader who fought against universal decadence, and therefore against the very meaning of Time, is enough to prove that this Leader, however great he may have been, was not Him. He may well have been Him in essence: the eternal Saviour, not of ‘man’ but of Life who ‘returns’ innumerable times. But he was certainly not Him, in the ultimate form in which He must reappear at the end of every cycle.

Adolf Hitler was not Kalki, though he was, essentially speaking, the same as the ancient Rama Chandra, or the historical Krishna, or Siegfried, or the Prophet Mohammed, the Leader of a true ‘holy war’ (i.e., of a ceaseless struggle against the Forces of disintegration; against the Forces of the abyss). He was, like every great Fighter against the current of Time, a Forerunner of Kalki. He was, still in essence, the Emperor of the Cave. With him the latter reappeared, intensely awake and in arms, as he had reappeared before in the person of various great German leaders, especially Frederick II of Prussia, whom Adolf Hitler so revered. But this was not his last and final reappearance in this cycle.

In both cases he had awakened to the sound of the distress of his people. Carried away by the enthusiasm of the action, he had, with his faithful barons, dashed a few steps out of the cave.

Then he returned to the shadows, the Omniscient Ravens having told him that it was, despite impressive signs, ‘not yet the time’.

Frederick II founded the Old Prussian Lodges, through which the more-than-human truth was to continue to be passed on to a few generations of initiates after him. Adolf Hitler left his admirable Testament, in which he too exhorts the best to keep their blood pure, to resist the invasion of error and lies—of the counter-Tradition—and to wait.

He knew that the ‘twenty-fifth hour’ had come, and long ago. At the age of sixteen, as I have already mentioned, he had a premonition of his own materially useless but necessary struggle.

As a German, as an Aryan, a man conscious of the excellence of the Aryan race, although he was an integral part of it, he was eager to defeat the world arrayed against him and his people. He was striving with all his strength, with all his genius, for the building of a superior and lasting society, a visible reflection of the cosmic order, the Reich of his dreams.

And he was striving against all hope, against all reason, in an inordinate effort to stop at all costs the levelling, the dumbing down, the disfigurement of the most beautiful and gifted variety of men; to prevent forever its reduction to the state of a mass without race and character. And he struggled, with all the bitterness of an artist, against the shameless destruction of the living and beautiful natural environment, in which he rightly saw an increasingly patent sign of the imminent victory of the Forces of disintegration.

His irrational confidence in an in extremis salvation using the ‘secret weapon’; his feverish expectation, under burning Berlin, of the entry into action of ‘General Wenck’s army’, which had long since ceased to exist, are reminiscent, in dramatic absurdity, whatever Christians may think, of Christ’s attitude in Gethsemane, praying that the chalice of suffering, which he had come to drink to the dregs, might be removed from his lips.

Adolf Hitler—since he was a combatant against Time, whose kingdom, if it belonged to the eternal, was also ‘of this world’—clung to the illusion of total victory and, despite everything, of an immediate recovery to the end. He clung to it, I repeat, as a German and as a man. As an insider, he knew that this was an illusion, that it was ‘too late’ already in 1920. He had seen it, on that extraordinary night on top of Freienberg in 1905. And the real leaders of the ‘Black Order’—in particular those of the Ahnenerbe, aware as he was of the inevitability of the cycle that was nearing its end—were already preparing, before 1945, the clandestine survival of the essential, beyond the collapse of National Socialist Germany.

And we who follow them and him also know that there will never be a Hitlerian civilisation.

No, hope no more to see us again,
Sacred walls that could not preserve my Hector.

I remember this verse that Racine puts in the mouth of Andromache, in scene IV of the first act of his tragedy of that name. And I think that the grandiose parades to the rhythm of the Horst Wessel Lied, under the folds of the red, white and black swastika standard, and all that glory that was the Third German Reich, the nucleus of a pan-Aryan Empire, are as irrevocably past as the splendours of prestigious Troy; as ‘past’ and as immortal, because one day Legend will recreate them, when epic poetry is again a collective need.

He who returns from age to age, both destroyer and preserver, will appear again at the very end of your cycle, to open to the best the Golden Age of the next cycle. As I have recalled in these pages, Adolf Hitler was waiting for it. He said to Hans Grimm in 1928: ‘I know that I am not the One who is to come’, that is, the last and only fully victorious Man against Time of our cycle. ‘I only take on the most urgent task of preparation (die dringlichste Vorarbeit), for there is no one to do it’.

One incommensurably harder than he will accomplish the final task—the task of rectification—on the ruins of a humanity that believed all was permitted because it is endowed with a brain capable of calculations, and which largely deserved its fall and its loss.

__________

[1] The Deuteria Parousia spoken of by the Greek Orthodox Church.

Categories
Hinduism Souvenirs et réflexions d'une aryenne (book) Third Reich

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 78

I have always, however, been pleasantly struck by the understanding I have encountered, as a Hitlerite, among orthodox Hindus of all castes.

I related at the beginning of these talks the episode of the young Shudra, with the beautiful historical name of Khudiram, who showed more sense of true values—and a more accurate appreciation of Adolf Hitler’s role—than all the Democrats of Europe and America put together. I have also quoted Satyananda Swami, the founder of the Hindu Mission, for whom, however, the creation of a common Hindu front against the clutches of Islam, Christian missionaries, and Communism, counted even more than strict observance of orthodoxy. The latter held our Führer to be ‘incarnation of Vishnu—the only one in the West’.

I could, on this subject, multiply my recollections and recall for example that admirable Brahmin of Poona, Pandit Rajwadé, so versed in the work of Nietzsche as in the sacred texts (which he commented on, twice a week, before a narrow circle of disciples) and who professed the deepest admiration for ‘the chakravarti king [universal ruler] of Europe’ who had come to ‘re-establish the true order’ in a world adrift. I could relate the words of another unusual man—less literate perhaps, but gifted with a strange power of clairvoyance—whom I met at the beginning of the war in a friendly family, of which he was the guru or spiritual master. This wise man said to me: ‘Your Führer can only be victorious because the gods themselves dictate his strategy. Every night he divides himself into two and comes here to the Himalayas to receive instructions’.

I wondered what Adolf Hitler would have thought of this unexpected explanation of the German army’s victories. I then said to the holy man:

‘It is, in this case, unquestionable that he will win the war.’

‘No’ he replied, ‘for there will come a time when his generals will reject his divine inspiration and disobey him—will betray him!’

And he added: ‘It cannot be otherwise; if he is an Incarnation, he is not the supreme Incarnation—the last of this cycle’—Alas!

(City of joy: Calcutta by Samir Barman.) But that’s not all. How could I forget the atmosphere of the orthodox Hindu families with whom I am most familiar? That, for instance, of the house of one of my brothers-in-law, then still living, and a physician at Medinipur, [1] with whom I was staying during the Norwegian and early French campaigns? They all enthusiastically accepted my suggestion to go to the temple of the Goddess Kali—to the ‘House of Kali’ as we say in Bengali—to give thanks to the One who both blesses and kills for the triumphal advance of the soldiers of great German Reich.

We went in procession, carrying offerings of rice, sugar, flour, fruit, garlands of scarlet flowers—in the absence of the bloody sacrifice which the family rejected as much as I did. I can still see myself, surrounded by young people who were also proud of their Aryan ancestry, standing before the terrible Image with the curved sword. Inhaling the smoke of the incense, lulled by the haunting musicality of Sanskrit liturgical formulas, I sometimes closed my eyes to better see in my mind’s eye, like a grandiose fresco, the parade of German armoured vehicles along the roads of Europe.

I lived intensely my role as a link between the oldest living Aryan civilisation in the East and this Aryan West that Adolf Hitler was conquering to return it to itself and regenerate it. Then I looked at my nephews and nieces, and the young Brahmins, their neighbours and fellow students, who had accompanied me. And I dreamed of the day when I would finally see the new Emperor—the eternal Emperor—of the Twilight Lands [Abendland = West], awake and rising from his mysterious cave, and when, greeting him with my outstretched arm, I would say to him, ‘Mein Führer, I bring you the allegiance of the elite of India!’

It didn’t seem an impossible dream then…

How could I forget the general joy in Calcutta—and no doubt in the rest of the peninsula too—at the news of Adolf Hitler’s troops entering Paris or, some twenty months later, at the announcement of the lightning advance of our allies the Japanese to the Assam border and beyond?

The kids themselves, newspaper sellers, their faces radiant, triumphantly threw to the public the names of the captured cities—every news day: Kuala Lumpur, Singapore, Rangoon, Mandalay, Akyab, Imphal in Indian territory—one after the other. The colonial government had banned listening to German radio. People who could hear German were listening to it illegally.

I know Hindus who listened to it without understanding a word just to hear the voice of the Führer. They felt that the One who spoke to the Aryan world in an ‘Indo-European’ language unknown to them was also speaking to them—at least to the racial elite of their continent.
 

______ 卐 ______

Editor’s note:

Compare this holy euphoria with the way the Americans and the British people reacted to Hitler’s divine voice! Compare it with the red letters in our very long post yesterday (‘American racial history timeline—Or—On Jared Taylor’s cherries’)!

It needs to be said a million times until it is understood: Christianity fried the brains of the Aryan man to the extent that, after WW2, the Aryan man handed over their Abendland to the Jews!

To save the white race from the anti-White war of extermination that the entire Abendland is suffering, it is an absolute categorical imperative to repudiate, with all our being, the accursed religion of our imbecilic parents.

If the Aryans of India had conquered Abendland with their religion, during WW2 Westerners, including the American and English people, would have been as euphoric at the German advance in Europe, and beyond, as these children untainted with a lethal Semitic-Christian poison.

___________

[1] Still often written as Midnapore: a city in West Bengal.

Categories
Evil

Bleeding Germany dry, 5

Rose Mularczyk reported on a massacre in Gross-Kikinda in North Banat which was perpetrated on 3 November 1944 under the leadership of ‘Commandant’ Dusan 0PAÈAE in a dairy warehouse:

First the men were stripped naked and forced to lie down on the floor. Then their hands were tied behind their backs. Then they were horribly beaten with bullwhips. After this torture their tormentors began cutting strips of living flesh from their backs. Others had their noses, tongues, ears and genitals cut off. Then their eyes were gouged out, and in the meantime the floggings continued.[1]

Such beastly mutilations were by no means exceptional. In Kubin, Germans were hacked and sawed to pieces, then burned alive. An eye witness reported that Hilde Kucht, the leader of a women’s association, ‘had her breasts cut open and pieces of flesh cut out of the lower abdomen while alive, and that several other persons were tied together in a group, smeared with tar, set afire and the corpses were burnt to a cinder’.[2] This for the time being is more or less the foretaste of ‘liberation’ of the ethnic Germans (Volksdeutsche).

In fact, during the war all the Allies committed crimes that have never been acknowledged as such, let alone atoned for. On this matter there is enough documented evidence to fill many libraries. We must limit ourselves to just a few examples, primarily atrocities perpetrated on the civilian population.

On 13 February 1945, there were crowding into Dresden, one of the most beautiful and culturally significant cities of Germany and all Europe a half million refugees, besides the normal population of around 600,000. The metropolis, which until this time had been spared bombardment and was declared a hospital-town, had practically no air defence or night fighter planes. At 22:00 hours the first ‘Thunderclap’ occurred, as the Anglo-American bomber units were to call their terror bombing. To begin with, the British bombers of the Royal Air Force opened the attack by dropping high explosive bombs on the inner city. This was followed immediately by 570,000 incendiary stick bombs and 4,500 flame-jet bombs. This bombardment of firebombs created a devastating firestorm, tolling the death-knell for this hospital city dedicated to the arts. Up to this time, there had been relatively little loss of life. Most of the people had managed to find safety in their cellars. When the first attack was over, they came out to discover huge fires in the city. Yet, the British bombers returned—no early warning. Only two-and-a half hours later, at approximately 1.30 hours of the morning of February 14, the second bombing wave arrived. To begin with, 4,500 high explosive or demolition bombs were exploding in rapid secession, causing countless houses to collapse. Thousands of people were trapped and buried alive under steel and concrete.

(The ruins of Dresden, photograph taken in April 1946. While the first wave of attack had transformed the old city into an ocean of flame, the second wave was trying to prevent the fire-fighting operations with demolition bombs, so that of the 1.3 million human beings in the city as many as possible would burn to death.)

Already at that time, the British were guilty of a war crime: They had systematically bombed a city-centre with its civilian population and not, for example, military-strategic objectives or industrial centres. The most important military target was approximately one and a half kilometres away from the wrecked city centre: the main railway station. Tens of thousands of refugees and people bombed out of their homes were congregating here. The railway lines, mostly undamaged, were jammed with hundreds of railway carriages, so that an immense mass of people was now packed in a closely confined area. It was onto these people that the British let rain down primarily firebombs and liquid incendiaries. The station platforms and the immediate vicinity of the station were strewn with dead people, with people dying, with people burning and with human body parts. Tens of thousands who had survived the inferno now sought refuge on the meadows along the Elbe and in the Great Garden (Grossen Garten), where they thought they would be safe after the terrors of the night. But it was now the turn of the Americans, specifically the US Eighth Air Fleet, to finish off these helpless women and children, these defenceless men and old people. Just after fifteen minutes past noon, some 760 bombers dropped, amongst other things, 50,000 incendiary stick bombs on the refugees. After that some 200 fighter-bombers went over to a low-flying ‘hedge hopper’ attack and opened fire with their machine guns on the civilian population.

The Anglo-American bomber units had committed mass murder—yet, they have never been called to account for this. But not only that:

As well as the people, Dresden’s most beautiful and world-famous buildings, parks and gardens were destroyed. These included the Zwinger, Hofkirche, Schloss, Oper, Grünes Gewölbe, Bellevue, italienisches Dörfchen, Landtagsgebäude, Palais Cosel and many others. The Japanische Palais, the largest and most valuable library in all Saxony, was completely gutted. Blockbuster bombs smashed the Brühlsche Terrasse. The Belvedere lay there with gaping holes for windows. The dome of the Frauenkirche collapsed and the tower of the Schloss, as well as the spire of the Sophienkirche, were burnt out. Of the upper part of the Rathausturm (City Hall Tower) there remained just the skeleton.[3]

The three-stage terror thrust against Dresden—there is no other term possible for these bombings—was not at all undertaken because of a military necessity. There was neither industry worth mentioning nor munitions nor military stores in the inner city, the centre of the attack. The fact that the infrastructure was only relatively slightly damaged—of the transportation system only the main railway station was destroyed, while the bridges over the river Elbe remained intact—shows all too clearly that the Anglo-American attack on Dresden was just as senseless, The war was not shortened thereby, as it was a completely unjustifiable act of destruction and genocide.

According to the police report, altogether there had been recovered, up to the 22 March 1945, more than 200,000 dead. This was not to be regarded as the final count, however, because of ongoing rescue work. Later calculations or counts infer a total of up to 400,000 dead. Of the dead bodies recovered, only 35,000 could be identified. From official data, there is merely this relatively small number of dead given as the total of victims to be mourned. It reflects the questionable understanding of the scholarly approach and the attitude towards authentic historiography in the Federal Republic. Seen from the platform of criminal law, it seems not to fall under the more than doubtful interpretation of the law in the sense that here evidently the facts of the case are not ‘disparaging the memory of the dead’.

(Particularly malicious acts: After the bombing attacks, often low flying aircraft would turn their attention onto the survivors. Yet, the Allied terror bombings directed against the German civilian population achieved the very opposite of their intended purpose. The morale of the German people was not shattered by this.)

This type of ethnic cleansing is by no means an exception; rather, it is just a question of transforming into action a precisely worked-out plan for the surface area bombing of German towns, as done by Frederick A. Lindemann, Churchill’s adviser for aerial warfare.[4] The Allies were proceeding according to ‘Plan F’, as it were, as is demonstrated also in the representative example of the destruction of Stettin in August 1944: ‘Plan F’ was built around the deliberate targeting of residential areas and historical buildings, after the contemptuous-of-mankind-method ‘we don’t give a damn’. Firstly, they would drop aerial mines and high explosive bombs, followed by canisters of phosphorous. This tactic never fails its hundred per cent deadly effect. In the attempt to save themselves from death by suffocation, the defenceless victims clamber out of their ruined cellars, but once in the open, they are caught by the firestorm and become human torches, writhing and screaming in agony until death finally releases them.[5]

(German civilian victims of Allied bombing raids; weight of bombs dropped: 2,767,000 metric tons!)

In this connection there must also be cited the bombings that were contravening the international laws of warfare as, for example, of these cities Cologne, Ulm, Magdeburg, Aachen, Graz, Kiel, Dortmund, Hamburg, Nuremberg, Klagenfurt, Würzburg, Kassel and Potsdam. There are many more, but particularly smaller towns as, for example, Hanau, Pforzheim, Bingen, Darmstadt, Heilbronn, Villach, Nordhausen, Hildesheim, Freiburg i. Br., Halberstadt, Emden, Frankfurt/Oder that could be listed: towns and cities which had no military usefulness or advantage. These attacks served the exclusive purpose of destroying human life.

The Austrian Maximilian Czesany, historian and expert on aerial warfare, has generously compiled a concise account concerning these terror raids—of the grossest violations of international law as perpetrated by the Anglo-Americans: ‘The way they were conducting their aerial warfare, the USA and Great Britain were violating the rules and standards of the Laws and Customs of War, which they had ratified only decades before, as is shown by the following:

• the general provisions of Laws and Customs of War according to which military clashes must only be directed against combatants, quasi combatants and military objectives, and all means of combat causing unnecessary suffering or damage are forbidden;

• Article 27 of the Hague Convention IV Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land states that: ‘In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes’; Article 46 of the Hague Convention states that ‘the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected’;

• the Geneva Protocol of 1925, which forbids ‘the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of all analogous liquids, materials or devices’.[6]

With the Allies’ unrestrained aerial warfare against defenceless civilians, the Anglo-Americans in particular made themselves guilty of genocide, of a war of extermination.

(Nuremberg in 1945. Like most German cities, it is a mass of ruins and debris. Germany was covered in 400 million cubic metres of rubble.)

The Soviets also bear a large part of the guilt for the annihilation of the German people. The deliberate attacks on the refugee columns are to be especially condemned. Soviet submarines and pilots are deserving of the inglorious distinction of having simply shot down tens of thousands of refugees fleeing by land and water. The people that were fleeing became the massive victims of Soviet low-flying attacks, of Soviet tank units and infantry units following; their occupation troops dealt with those who had found temporary refuge within communities. Enemy units were attacking columns of refugees ever more frequently. This occurred, for example, on 12 February 1945, when refugees from the area of Hanswalde in the Heiligenbeil district were crossing the Frische Haff in the direction of Danzig-Gotenhafen. ‘Suddenly Soviet aircraft began bombarding the refugee column. Low-flying aeroplanes dropped bombs on the helpless refugees while strafing them with their armaments. The ice was coloured red with blood after the attacks. People and horses, ripped to shreds, were lying about in the snow, the carts smashed. A scene of horror’.[7]

Naval chaplain Arnold Schumacher describes how in March of 1945 the Soviets bombed to pieces Gotenhafen and Hela, when these places were bursting at the seams with refugees and retreating soldiers. The ferry from Gotenhafen to Oxhöft, where the refugee boats headed to sea, remained in service throughout the evacuation. During the crossing on 25 March, the passengers experienced ‘a terrifying low-flying attack that was repeated again and again. The enemy airmen were amusing themselves by hunting down and killing the people, who were ducking in the grass or clawing into the ground. Oxhöft was filled with thousands of sailors. The Russians had reached the Oxhöfter campaigners and were mercilessly firing their shells and mortar into the solid mass of people, barely able to defend themselves anymore’.

After these attacks, the German Navy accomplished the outstanding achievement of taking to Hela tens of thousands of refugees, without any losses. But here also the Soviet Air Force was flying one concentrated attack after the other, dropping their bombs into the tightly packed mass of people. ‘For me, the bitterest experience of the whole war was that in the final months countless people were killed who were unregistered, and whose deaths, unrecorded. Everywhere in Germany people were waiting with hope in their hearts that their loved ones would someday reappear, but in reality they had been lost at sea or buried in unmarked graves’.[8]

In February 1945, the General Steuben was sunk with the loss of at least 3,000 refugees. On 3 May, in the vicinity of Neustadt (Lubeck Bay), both the Thielbeck and the passenger ship Cap Arcona were destroyed by British Typhoon fighter bombers after several waves of attack—the shipwrecked survivors were fired upon with the aircraft armaments. Both ships had been brought into action for the biggest evacuation in history. Onboard were mostly prisoners from the concentration camp Neuengamme, and amongst them were several former members of the Reichstag who belonged to the SPD as well as the German Communist Party. Between 2,000 and 5,000 persons were drowned in the sea. On 16 April, the overloaded 5,300 register ton freighter Goya was sunk, dragging almost 7,000 wounded soldiers and refugees down to their death. Only 195 people survived.

(On 5 May 1945, ships were still placed in Hela harbour to rescue over 40,000 people from the Soviet Russians. Here, civilians are waiting at the fishing port.)

Karl Beckmann, the on-duty loading officer on board, was on patrol duty when the ship received two hits at 23:56 hours. The ship began to sink rapidly and, after the boilers had exploded, went down into the depth. All this took no more than three to four minutes. Beckmann recalls: ‘According to my estimation, there were several hundred people in the water. Judging by the voices, many were women and children. A chorus of voices was shouting for help; all around me were people cursing, crying and gurgling, as they were sinking. Somewhere, in the expanse of water, someone shot himself while others, who had already drowned, were floating among all the ship’s debris… The chorus of voices was growing fainter, and the cries of the drowning people—the cold and the excitement draining them of the last bit of strength—were weighing terribly heavy upon my train of thought remembering former, happier times, sudden realizations of the many mistakes I had made, and a resolution to change my attitude to life should I somehow survive’.[9]

On 30 January 1945, the hopelessly overfilled 25,000-ton Wilhelm Gustloff was sunk near Stolpmünde by the Soviet submarine S-13. The Wilhelm Gustloff was a former KdF-ship: Kraft Durch Freude, ‘Strength Through Joy’, a popular government programme that built several large cruise ships for German workers during the National Socialist economic miracle of the 1930s. Pressed into service as a refugee transport, the Gustloff was struck with three torpedoes. According to the Deutsche Militärzeitschrift (German Military Magazine), they were drowned in icy waters—the temperature of the water being 2 Celsius, with an air temperature of minus 18C—out of a total of 10,582 people (made up of refugees, severely wounded soldiers, women’s naval auxiliaries and crew members) 9,343 human beings.[10]

(One of the last transports from the island of Hela across the Baltic Sea. By taking the sea route, more than two million people could be saved from the clutches of the Soviets.)

The tragedy of her going down is recalled in the accounts of the few survivors. One of these recalled: ‘Suddenly everything went quiet as the ship went down, taking us with it. I forced my eyes open and saw how my son, then my daughter and then my husband were forced out through the open window. I wanted to scream “Take me with you”, but could not, because water had already filled my mouth. Then I realized that I too was being forced through the window. It was horrible—nothing but water, water everywhere, and no more air in my lungs. I wanted to scream but could not. Slowly I rose higher and higher, until I reached the surface, where I was able to cling to a rescue boat. I was fully conscious all the time. After a long time, when I was no longer able to hold on, I was pulled into the boat. Once inside, I lost consciousness and my body was benumbed with cold. When I came to again, I found myself onboard a Navy ship, where they let me thaw out under a hot shower. After the third attempt of resuscitation, I finally regained consciousness and realized that it had not been a dream, but harsh reality. I had lost my husband and the children’.[11]

For those who had survived the sinking of the ship, that night of terror would remain the worst experience of their lives. A retired district official, Paul M., even goes so far as to state: ‘After that, everything I had to endure in the prisons and concentration camps of the victors was child’s play compared to the going down of the Gustloff. In the most terrible situations the one thought that kept me going was that things were a lot worse on the Wilhelm Gustloff’.[12]

The sinking of the refugee ship Wilhelm Gustloff was the greatest maritime disaster in history. A comparison: In recent times there was a sensation-seeking media marketing of the sinking of the Titanic in 1912, where the number of people that went to their death was 1,513.


Scenes from Franz Wisbar’s 1959 film Nacht fiel über Gotenhafen (Night came down on Gotenhafen) that documented the Gustloff catastrophe from Baltic archives of H. Schön.

As the Red Army ‘liberators’ advanced further into Eastern Germany, the Poles grew more daring with every kilometre. Now it was not just all Germans and ‘collaborators’ who were subjected to atrocities and maltreatment, but also Allied prisoners of war or, rather, foreign workers, especially French, English, Dutch, Flemish people and Walloons. These Western Europeans, but also Ukrainians and members of the Baltic nations, kept almost exclusively close to the side of the fleeing German population. With no consideration for their nationality, these too were robbed, beaten, raped and murdered. In remembrance of these European people let it be emphasized and recorded that these treks fleeing to the West were often accompanied by French prisoners of war and also Belgian, Dutch and French civilian internees, who had been sent to work on the farms in Eastern Germany. They frequently put themselves in front of the German women, children and old people during dive-bombing attacks, and when these were being molested, even giving their lives for these defenceless people. Lieselotte W., who was 16 at the time, reports that when the Soviets arrived in Samland: ‘The Russians came at night, looking for young women and girls and raping them. When the French prisoners of war realized what was going on, they came to our assistance and protected us from the Russians’.[13]

Let us look at a few examples that should verify how strong the solidarity of these people, basically prisoners of war, with the Germans really was. From this fact we can undoubtedly conclude that, in the first place, foreign workers and prisoners of war in National Socialist Germany were treated correctly. Otherwise, they would have gone over to their ‘liberators’ with all flags flying. In the second place, for most of what later was to be blamed on the Germans—murdered prisoners of war and foreign workers— was to be charged to the Communist or, rather, chauvinistic ‘liberators’ from the Soviet Union, Poland and from Czechoslovakia. For example, the village of Weizdorf in the Rastenburg district of East Prussia was taken by Soviet troops on 27 January 1945. During the plundering rampage through the village, the French located there were not spared either. Billeted at an estate, ‘twelve French prisoners had their fingers hacked off to get at the rings. Then they were shot in the neck by the dung-heap outside the horse stable. We were all made to stand there to watch. Then the following persons had the sinews cut in both of their hands with bayonets and razor blades’.[14]

The killing of non-Germans by the Red Army was not an altogether rare occurrence. In the East Prussian village of Nemmersdorf not only did almost all of the German population fall victim to the murderous Soviet frenzy, but also fifty French prisoners of war. They were all shot by the Soviets. And Friederike Scharwies, a farmer’s wife from Labau, also has very positive memories of the French prisoners without exceptions. They were ‘full of human pity and compassion for the terrible plight and misery of the Germans’. Frau Scharwies describes an instance of the chivalrous conduct of the French workers toward German girls, who had been physically and sexually maltreated: ¡’A young woman, about 35 years old, was led in, her eyes cast down very low. After a long time, she finally raises her head and looks about helplessly, like a crippled deer. Suddenly she calls out a name; straight away a French man jumps up and catches her in his arms, as she weakly sinks to the ground. I myself am also at pains, so to speak, to comfort the martyred girl. Other French men get off their bench and she is laid down’.[15]

When Danzig fell to the Soviets, a great many foreign nationals, especially Dutch, were kept in concentration camps along with the Germans, where they too were completely at the mercy of the invaders.[16] Many of the Western European prisoners of war and foreign workers, while trying to escape their Soviet ‘liberators’, were robbed, tortured and murdered, just like the Germans. They too were stripped of their boots and warm clothing, and even had their gold teeth brutally knocked out.[17] There are many documented incidents of French men being slaughtered alongside the Germans. In one barn in the Labiau district, around thirty French workers were shot when they refused to hand over their last possessions to the Soviets.[18]

In completion of this part, it must also be stated that, in general, most of the American soldiers in the Sudetenland were behaving humanely concerning the German people, often protecting them from the violations of the Czechs. How they differed from their comrades in West and Central Germany! There are tens of thousands of documented cases of atrocities and violations of international law committed by the democratic Allies against German soldiers and civilians. Among other things field dressing stations, ambulances and hospitals, all with clear recognizable identification markings, were shot at and bombed by the Americans. During ground attacks, the Americans were forcing human shields of German civilians and prisoners of war to be put in front of their troops, even tying the German men to their tanks. German soldiers who had already surrendered or were wounded, were systematically murdered. This would also apply to the transports of prisoners of war as, for example, those sent to Canada or the US.[19]

During the ‘liberation’ by the Western Allies there were mass rapes of German women and girls, often by American Negroes and French colonial troops. Plundering was the order of the day. Women and old men working in the fields, as well as children playing in the street, were routinely targeted by American, English, Canadian and French aircraft. Especially in France, street mobs stoned, clubbed and stabbed German prisoners of war and robbed them of everything they owned. During so-called interrogations, German prisoners of war were regularly subjected to torture and other crimes forbidden by international law. The Americans, British and French were equals in every way in this respect.

(Before capitulation of the Wehrmacht, the invasion of defeated Germany by the Western Allies was distinguished from that of the Red Army only by the extent of the perpetrated crimes.)

In this regard, the orders of the 4th English Tank Brigade in North Africa for handling prisoners of war are very informative: ‘The interrogation of prisoners of war is an extremely valuable source of information, especially when the questioning occurs while the prisoner is still shaken, and not yet in full possession of his mental faculties. The prisoners of war must not be allowed food, drink, sleep or any comfort or favour. Further, any conversation with the relevant section before the actual interrogation is strictly forbidden. Any action of comradeship, such as offering a cigarette, would create an impression of weakness in the Germans, and would destroy the prospect for a successful interrogation’.[20]

Thus, in testimonies of former German prisoners of war, one repeatedly comes across reports such as: ‘They put us in cattle trucks. Then civilians began to climb up on the outside and spat into the trucks. This also happened in the truck where I was. During the whole trip we were given hardly anything to drink, just one pitcher of wine on one occasion, and very little to eat. We were not given any opportunity to go to the lavatory. With beakers we would catch rainwater from the roof gutter and satisfy our thirst that way’ (France).

‘Whenever we tried to open the hatches at any stop, the guards would poke their bayonets inside. When asking to go to the lavatory, Lt. Sommer would yell: ‘Don’t eat anything and you won’t need to shit, don’t drink anything and you won’t need to piss’ (France).

‘We sucked hard at cracks in the walls to get air, and no one spoke a word, just to have the barest minimum of air supply come in. I myself and three comrades came near dying for lack of air. The hatches were closed every evening around five o’clock and not opened again until nine o’clock next morning’ (North Africa).

‘I refused to give any information and Lt. Ludwig struck me in the face with his whip, which knocked out one of my teeth and left my lip bleeding’ (France).

‘Because the work quota could not be attained, several randomly selected individuals were brought out. These were made to strip naked and then: flogged by French non-commissioned officers (NCOs) with riding whips, put on half rations and thrown in the so-called dog kennel. This was a barbed-wire enclosure or pen, of one and a half metre long and about two metres wide and covered over with barbed wire’ (North Africa).

‘The Gaullist commandant of Oudna camp, southwest of Tunis, allowed the German prisoners of war only insufficient nourishment for their exhausting labour. The supplementary rations, promised for hard labour, were not issued. In addition to malaria, typhus and dysentery, severe malnutrition soon became evident. When, as a result of such abuse, the German prisoners of war would attempt to escape, after recapture, they would be placed in the so-called bunker. This meant that the prisoner was forced to dig a hole that was just long enough for him to lie down in it. He was forced to remain in the hole eight to fourteen days under close guard, on bread and water, most often without protection against the cold of the night’ (North Africa).

‘In the British transit camp of Bone, the German medical orderlies were forced, for the most part, to sleep in the open at night, as there were not enough English tents available. The food ratio was inadequate and the water ratio was catastrophic. Once every three days they received just one and a half litres of water, although the daytime temperatures reached sixty degrees centigrade’ (North Africa).

‘The detention cells were heavily barred and extremely dirty. There was only one latrine, which was also used by the Canadian guards. These people obviously were not familiar with the use of latrines, since they constantly covered the seats with excrement’ (Canada).

‘The heat was stifling in the tents. In the larger tents, thirty to forty severely wounded men had to lie close together, while the temperature inside was fifty-five to sixty degrees centigrade. The lightly wounded were packed in up to sixty men per tent. Given such cramped spaces and such temperatures, there was a constant stench of festering matter and also the plague of vermin’ (North Africa).

‘As a form of punishment, the whole camp had to be cleared one day, and around a hundred American military police were called in. The Germans were driven out of the main cage into the anteroom and the tents searched. All the wood was smashed and personal objects such as photographs and keepsakes were smashed and trampled on. The Americans were wreaking the most dreadful havoc’ (France).

‘This American clubbed the surviving Germans to death with the rifle butt’ (Italy).

(In France, after the capitulation of Paris, many German soldiers were severely mistreated by French Partisans.)

It has been proven beyond doubt that officers and guard personnel of the democratic states most brutally violated the Hague Regulations on Land Warfare as well as the Geneva Convention, which had been established and formulated for the protection of the sick and the wounded, of prisoners and the civilian population, and to which these states had put their signature. It happened very frequently that German soldiers, who had surrendered and had laid down their arms, were murdered by the ‘liberators’. For instance, in the Lower Silesian town of Neuhammer, when German anti-aircraft units, along with other artillery and armoured tank units that had already surrendered to the Soviets, they were shot to the last man while the residents were forced to watch the shootings.[21] In Czechoslovakia it happened frequently that German soldiers, who had surrendered, were nailed to trees and then used as targets by the Czech partisans. Eye witness Walter Pachmann reports that several months after the ceasefire, German soldiers and airmen were still being murdered in beastly fashion near Prague. They were made to dig their graves and mix reinforced concrete. ‘Then they had to climb down into the graves, and we had to fill them with concrete up to the soldier’s knees. Then we had to get iron bars and stick them around the soldiers in the fresh concrete. Then we filled the hole with concrete up to the soldiers’ chest. After the soldiers had stood like that for a day, they would be blown up, before our eyes’.[22]

(One of the first photographs documenting Soviet war crimes. On 21 August 1941, the Red Army in Kingisepp [Luga] murdered and then mutilated the German soldiers that had been taken prisoner. The soldier, who had taken the photograph, saved it through war and imprisonment!)

Oberleutnant Paul Böttcher, a holder of the Knight’s Cross (Ritterkreuzträger), describes the illegal, under international law, the conduct of the Soviets in sick-bays in East Prussia and gives us, as an example, the military hospital in Heilsberg: ‘When the Russians arrived at the military hospital on 30 January 1945, they behaved like wild beasts. They went from bed to bed with pistols drawn, looking for officers, Vlassov soldiers and members of the SS. They shot these Russians in their beds and took everything from the wounded. Nurses and other young women, who were seeking refuge in the military hospital, were thrown onto the tables, had their clothes ripped off and were raped by the Soviets in front of the wounded soldiers. Each one of these poor girls had to suffer ten to twenty Russians. The girls were screaming horribly. After the criminal and inhuman action, the Russians would kick each girl in the stomach’.[23]

Hauptmann Hermann Sommer, on the staff of the fortress commander and Wehrmacht headquarters in Konigsberg, reported that the identification of the corpses was very difficult, ‘because the Russians had poured petrol over the piles of bodies in an attempt to burn them. However, several hundred corpses could still be photographed, and these photos are recording facts of the matter, recalling the most gruesomely violent way to die. These pictures and the reports from the criminal investigation officers emphasize the point that most of the bodies showed injuries caused by cuts and heavy blows. Only a few had simple gunshots to the back of the neck. On a considerable number of women, the breasts had been torn off, the genitals lacerated with knives and abdomens slit open’.[24]

(Historians such as Franz W. Seidler carried out excellent educational work on war atrocities committed by the Red Army in Verbrechen an der Wehrmacht und Kriegsgreuel der Roten Armee [Crimes Committed Against the Wehrmacht and Other Atrocities of the Red Army], documenting 500 cases with written descriptions and photographs. Right, when the Soviets recaptured the city of Feodosia in Crimea on 29 December 1941, some 160 wounded German soldiers lying in the field were murdered with bestial brutality. This is one of the victims.)

It soon became evident, once the German Wehrmacht had retaken villages in Eastern Germany, what was to await the German population when taken ‘under the wings’ of the Soviets. For example, the East Prussian village of Nemmersdorf was once more liberated (truly) after 24 hours. This short period was time enough for the Red Army to carry out a horrific bloodbath among the civilian population. A member of the Volkssturm (home guard) reported that many women were stripped naked, in crucified posture were nailed through their hands on barn doors and then brutishly raped. Little children and the elderly had their skulls smashed in, and the inhabitants of the village in general were horribly mutilated and disfigured. ‘On the sofa in one room, still in sitting position, we found an eighty-four years old woman who was blind and was already dead. This dead person had half a head missing, apparently hacked away from the neck, from the top down, with an axe or a spade’.[25]

(One of many documented cases of cannibalism: German prisoners of war, having died a gruesome death, are mutilated and disembowelled.)

These accounts are not all about National Socialist propaganda. These aforementioned violations of international law (Law of Nations) have been, as similarly done at the time for the investigation of the Soviet crimes in Katyn, investigated and documented by an international commission and a delegation of neutral journalists from Switzerland, Sweden, Spain and France. The circumstances in the East Prussian garden town of Metgethen were very similar. On 19 February 1945, combined Wehrmacht and Hitler Youth forces freed the town from the Soviet Rifle Regiment 950, under the command of Oberstleutnant (Lieutenant Colonel) Subzenko, and from the 262 Rifle Division commanded by Generalmajor (Major General) Usachev. There were horrendous sights here too, bearing witness to the incomprehensibly brutal conduct of the Red Army: ‘ln almost every room lay a woman half-naked, or completely naked, in the same position in which she had been raped.

(The East Prussian village of Nemmersdorf in the Gumbinnen district was one of the first German villages conquered by the Red Army, 20 October 1944. Soon afterwards, it was retaken by German troops, and indescribable atrocities of the Soviets came to light. Just as in Nemmersdorf, so did the de-humanized Soviet bands of soldiers wreak their frenzied havoc in other places such as Metgethen near Königsberg.)

Beside most mothers lay two or three children, likewise murdered in bestial fashion. Many of the dead children were still the age of nursing infants. Many of the women and girls lay in pools of congealed blood, which had run out of their genitals. According to the diagnoses made of the 8- to 12-year-old girls, the genitals had been ripped open, and then they were raped. On all the dead bodies were found many cuts made by bayonets and many rifle bullets’.[26]

Given the bestial cruelty of the ‘liberators from the East’ it seems reasonable to suspect that political calculation was behind the atrocities perpetrated on the Germans. Such was indeed the case. Wilfried Ahrens, a publicist dealing with the crimes associated with the expulsions, rightly came to the conclusion that the deliberate acts of brutality committed on the German civilian population were the opening act of a deliberate policy—calculated from the outset—of driving the Germans out from the land.[27] The Germans living in the areas that were to be annexed had to be driven into a panic-stricken stampede and, what is more, this was done with the callous calculation. Those who fled no longer need to be driven out; the territory is thus deserted and, therefore, is now freely available.

One of the young victims of Metgethen, typical of thousands,
and representative of the bestial behaviour of the Soviets.

 
______________

[1] Arbeitskreis Dokumentation (Ed.), Verbrechen an den Deutschen in Jugoslawien 1944-1948. Die Stationen eines Völkermords (English edition: Genocide of the Ethnic Germans in Yugoslavia 1944-1948, Documentation Project Committee, München 2006, p. 60), 2nd edition, Munich, Donauschwäbische Kulturstiftung, 1998, p. 103.
[2] Ibid., p. 105 (Engl. ed. p. 57).
[3] Maximilian Czesany, ‘Die Feuerstürme von Dresden und Tokio’ (The Firestorms of Dresden and Tokyo), in Deutsche Monatshefte, Vol. 2/ 1985, p. 38.
[4] Erich Kern, Von Versailles nach Nürnberg. Der Opfergang des deutschen Volkes (From Versailles to Nuremberg. The Martyrdom of the German Nation), 3rd edition, Preussisch Oldendorf, Schutz, 1971, pp. 417.
[5] Ilse Gudden-Lüddeke, Recht auf Heimat niemals aufgeben (Never Give up the Right to the Homeland), in Pommersche Zeitung, 5 August 1995, p. 1.
[6] Maximilian Czesany, op. cit., p. 40.
[7] Ost-Dok. Vol. 2, No.7, p. 85.
[8] Ost-Dok. Vol. 2, No. 48, pp. 6.
[9] Ost-Dok. Vol. 2, No. 48, p. 2.
[10] Heinz Schön, ‘Die Fahrt in die Katastrophe’ (Journey Into Catastrophe), in Deutsche Militärzeitschrift , No. 24/2001, p. 67.
[11] Ost-Dok. Vol. 2, No. 44, p. 197.
[12] Ost-Dok. Vol. 2, No. 2, p. 80.
[13] Ost-Dok. Vol. 2, No. 21, p. 1074.
[14] Ost-Dok. Vol. 2, No. 36, pp. 48.
[15] Ost-Dok. Vol. 2, No. 23, p. 237.
[16] Ost-Dok. Vol. 2, No. 44, p. 174.
[17] Ost-Dok. Vol. 2, No. 23, p. 238.
[18] Ost-Dok. Vol. 2, No. 23, p. 239.
[19] See in particular Erich Kern & Karl Balzer, Alliierte Verbrechen an Deutschen. Die verschwiegenen Opfer (Allied Atrocities Committed Against Germans: The Hidden Victims), 2nd edition, Preußisch Oldendorf, Schütz, 1982.
[20] Ibid., p. 116 and p. 232.
[21] Ost-Dok. Vol. 1, No. 195, p. 165.
[22] Ost-Dok. Vol. 2, No. 243, p. 26.
[23] Ost-Dok. Vol. 2, No. 7, p. 20.
[24] Ost-Dok. Vol. 2, No. 22, p. 155.
[25] Ost-Dok. Vol. 2, No. 21, p. 716.
[26] Ost-Dok. Vol. 2, No. 21, p. 719.
[27] Wilfried Ahrens, Verbrechen an Deutschen. Dokumente der Vertreibung (Atrocities Committed Against Germans. Documents of the expulsion), 3rd edition, Bruckmühl, Ahrens, 1999, p. 25.

Categories
Henry Picker Richard Carrier Richard Weikart

The Führer’s monologues (i)

Editor’s note: This site has been promoting Richard Carrier’s work about the dubious historicity of Jesus. But Carrier is a typical neochristian. As Robert Morgan once said, the Christian influence on culture has been so profound that even atheists like Dawkins and Carrier accept the Christian moral framework without question. Carrier’s liberalism has gone so far that he even subscribes the psychosis en mass that a human being can choose his or her sex, disregarding biology.

Carrier also talks nonsense about Hitler, especially about the Führer’s after-dinner talks. All his rigour as a scholar of 1st-century Mediterranean religions goes out the window when he addresses Hitler’s anti-Christianity. Carrier cheats by deliberately using sloppy English translations instead of the originals (this video featuring David Irving and Richard Weikart explains it briefly).

Here is my hand holding one of the good German editions, Henry Picker’s, which, unlike the popular translations, wasn’t slightly altered. It is time to refute Carrier’s claim that Hitler wasn’t anti-Christian, although in this new translation I will be using another edition also mentioned in the above-linked video, not the book in my hand. However, the editor’s introduction is too long for a single blog post and I’ll have to divide it into parts (i, ii, iii, etc.). If you want to read it all in the original language, you can do so in the German section of this site.
 

______ 卐 ______

 

Adolf Hitler

Monologues at the Führer’s Headquarters 1941-1944

– The Records of Heinrich Heim Edited by Werner Jochmann –

 
Introduction

Shortly after the beginning of the war against the Soviet Union, Reichsleiter Martin Bormann suggested recording Hitler’s conversations during breaks in the Führer’s headquarters. He was guided by the following considerations: After years of unprecedented restlessness with travels, visits, events, intensive consultations with architects, artists, party leaders, representatives of the state, the economy and the Wehrmacht, and after the major foreign policy actions and the first campaigns of the Second World War, the Supreme Commander of the Wehrmacht was now directing operations against the Red Army with his staff from East Prussia. To preserve for posterity the ideas and conceptions he developed in this seclusion and during the most decisive phase of the war so far, Bormann, as head of the party chancellery, asked his adjutant Heinrich Heim to set them down.

On the way home from a lunch meeting with Hitler at the end of June or beginning of July 1941, Heim reports, Bormann suggested that he ‘try to write down from memory an omission we had just heard. What I submitted to the Reichsleiter seemed to him to miss what he was interested in; he therefore made a transcript himself and submitted it to me; inwardly I held fast to my idea, even if I could not reprove his’. Some of the difficulties that had been encountered in this accidental recording of Hitler’s expositions could be overcome by proceeding according to plan. From then on, Heim concentrated intensively on the course and content of the conversations at the table; as far as possible, he also unobtrusively noted down a few keywords, occasionally even the one or other striking sentence. With the help of these notes, he then immediately dictated his notes of the conversation to one of Bormann’s secretaries. During the nightly teatimes, however, to which only a small and intimate circle was invited, there was no opportunity to record even a single word. Since this intimate circle often remained gathered around Hitler until the first hours of the following day, the record of the course of conversation could only be dictated the next morning.

In his casual chats, Hitler frequently changed the subject. Initially, therefore, an attempt was made to systematically summarise remarks on certain problem areas over several days.[1] However, since this procedure lost the immediacy of the statement and it was also impossible to reconstruct the context in which the remarks were to be placed, it was quickly abandoned. The conversations were recorded in their course and in the order in which they took place. As a rule, Hitler spoke alone, usually choosing topics that moved him at the time. In many cases, however, he evaded the pressing problems by distancing himself from the work of the day, for example, in reports from his school days or the early days of the NSDAP. Not every monologue Heim recorded advances the reader’s political insight. But all of them provide an insight into the everyday life of the Führer’s headquarters and the mentality and lifestyle of Adolf Hitler.

Martin Bormann was soon very satisfied with Heim’s work. He saw a collection of material emerging to which he attached great importance. In a memo to the Party Chancellery in Munich, he wrote on 20 October 1941: ‘Please keep these – later extremely valuable – notes very well. I have finally got Heim to the point where he is taking detailed notes as a basis for these memos. Any transcript that is not quite accurate will be corrected by me once again!’ As far as can be seen, there was little cause for correction. In the record published here, the head of the Party Chancellery added only a few additions, which are marked in the text of the edition. The extent to which individual objections and remarks were already taken into account in the final transcription of the notes cannot be established with certainty. According to Heim’s statements, this was not the case, and the findings in the files also speak against it. For each talk note, an original was made, which Heim revised and corrected once more. An original with two carbon copies was made of the final version. The first, signed by Heim in each case, was taken by Bormann, the carbon copies were kept by the heads of the political and constitutional departments of the party chancellery. Some notes dictated and signed by Bormann himself were added to the collection.

Heim’s notes begin on 5 July 1941, are interrupted on 12 March 1942, then continued again from 1 August to 7 September 1942. During Heim’s absence, his deputy, Oberregierungsrat Dr Henry Picker, prepared the talk notes from 21 March to 31 July 1942. At the beginning of September 1942, a serious crisis occurred at the Führer’s headquarters. Hitler was disappointed by the lack of success of Army Group A in the Caucasus. He heaped reproaches on the Commander-in-Chief, Field Marshal List, and his generals. The Chief of the Wehrmacht Joint Staff, Colonel General Jodl, therefore flew to the Field Marshal’s headquarters to get information about the situation on the fronts of the Army Group. On his return to the Führer’s headquarters on 7 September, he recommended to Hitler a cessation of the attack and a withdrawal of the Mountain Corps, which had been particularly far advanced and weakened by the hard fighting.[2] Hitler reacted angrily and accused Field Marshal List of not following his orders and therefore being responsible for the failure. When Jodl, on the other hand, claimed that the Army Group had strictly followed his instructions and thus indicated that the criticism fell back on Hitler, the rupture was sealed.

The consequence of this serious conflict was that from then on Hitler had the briefings recorded by Reichstag stenographers; did not leave his barracks in daylight for long periods and, in particular, no longer ate with the members of the Führer’s headquarters.[3] To what extent his self-confidence received a severe blow from this event, because he realised that his goals in Russia could no longer be achieved, may remain undiscussed in this context. What is decisive is that Hitler henceforth distrusted his officers and showered them with reproaches that shocked even his closest political confidants.[4] Martin Bormann, too, registered with concern that Hitler was closing himself off more and more from those around him.[5] The transcripts end with the abolition of the common table. If there were still conversations in a relaxed atmosphere afterwards, there was hardly any opportunity to record them. The few notes made in 1943/44 by one of Bormann’s advisers, who also added them to the collection of Führer conversations, are summarised – released for publication – in the fourth part of this volume. A glance at these few documents reveals the change in atmosphere that had taken place since September 1942. Hitler no longer spoke so freely, most questions were only touched on briefly.

Martin Bormann marked his collection of ‘Führer conversations’ as ‘secret’ and sent parts of it to his wife for safekeeping. Gerda Bormann left Obersalzberg on 25 April 1945, after the property had been destroyed in a bombing raid, and took not only her husband’s letters but also the conversation notes with her to South Tyrol. She died there in a prisoner-of-war camp in Merano on 23 March 1946.[6] After the German surrender, an Italian government official in Bolzano took over the entire collection and later sold it to François Genoud in Lausanne, who still owns it. It forms the basis of the present edition.

While Henry Picker has meanwhile repeatedly published his conversation notes from the Führer’s headquarters,[7] Heim’s much more extensive notes have so far only been published in foreign languages. A French edition was produced by François Genoud[8] at the beginning of the 1950s; the English edition, by H. R. Trevor-Roper at the same time. This first English edition was followed by a second in 1973; [9] two American editions identical to the English edition had appeared before that.[10] Since these translations of such a central source are much used by international researchers, it is about time that it is finally made accessible in the original text. This is all the more urgent because specific National Socialist terms and also some of Hitler’s linguistic idiosyncrasies can only be translated imperfectly. Attempts to retranslate his remarks have inevitably led to errors that have been to the detriment of the interpretation.

__________

[1] Cf. Gespräch Nr. 28, S. 74.

[2] Colonel General Haider, Kriegstagebuch Vol. III, edited by Hans-Adolf Jacobsen. Stuttgart 1964, p. 518 f. (8. 9. 1942).

[3] Notizen des Generals Warlimont. Kriegstagebuch des OKW, Vol. 2, 1st half volume. Compiled and explained by Andreas Hillgruber. Frankfurt/Main 1963, S. 697.

[4] Heinrich Hoffmann reports on a conversation with Hitler in late summer or autumn 1942, in which Hitler called his officers ‘a pack of mutineers and cowards’. Hoffmann notes: ‘I was deeply affected by this abrupt outburst of hatred. I had never heard Hitler talk like that before’. Heinrich Hoffmann, Hitler, wie ich ihn sah. Munich-Berlin 1974, page 178.

[5] Bormann in letters to his wife Jochen von Lang, Der Sekretär. Stuttgart 1977, page 230.

[6] Death certificate of the registry office I in Berlin. Cf. Joseph Wulf, Martin Bormann. Gütersloh 1962, page 223.

[7] Henry Picker, Hitlers Tischgespräche im Führerhauptquartier 1941-42 (Hitler’s Table Talks at the Fuehrer’s Headquarters 1941-42), ed. by Gerhard Ritter, Bonn 1951. The second edition was supervised by Percy Ernst Schramm in collaboration with Andreas Hillgruber and Martin Vogt. It appeared in Stuttgart in 1963 and was followed in 1976 by a third new edition edited by Picker himself, published by Seewald-Verlag, Stuttgart. The edition edited by Ritter was published in Milan in 1952 in an Italian translation Conversazioni di Hitler a tavola 1941-1942. Andreas Hillgruber supervised the edition published by Deutscher Taschenbuch-Verlag, Munich, in 1968, and in 1979 Goldmann-Verlag in Munich published a paperback edition edited by Picker.

[8] Adolf Hitler, Libres Propos sur la Guerre et la Paix, recueillis sur l’ordre de Martin Bormann. Paris, 1952 and 1954.

[9] Hitler’s Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations. London 1953 und 1973.

[10] Hitler’s Secret Conversations 1941-1944. New York 1953 and 1961.

Categories
Autobiography Child abuse Heinrich Himmler Holocaust Joseph Goebbels Reinhard Heydrich Souvenirs et réflexions d'une aryenne (book)

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 61

This seems to be all the more true since before the war, the Reichssicherheitshauptamt (RSA) Subgroup IV 134 was itself involved in close cooperation with the Haganah, the underground Zionist organisation, in sending Jews from the Reich to Palestine, which was then under the British Mandate, despite the opposition of the government in London. Thus, in 1938 and the first months of 1939, almost four hundred thousand Jews left German territory, in full agreement with the National Socialist authorities.[1] I am not talking about those who left without being forced to, from 1933 to 1938, or before 1933.

Moreover, the famous Nuremberg Laws of September 1935, which best reflect the spirit of Hitler’s revolution and the purest Aryan racism, while denying Jews (as indeed all non-Aryans) the possibility of acquiring German nationality and forbidding them ‘to fly the German colours or to hoist the national flag of the Reich’, gave them the right ‘to hoist the Jewish colours’. The exercise of this right, it was specified, was ‘placed under the protection of the State’ [2] which clearly proves that at that time, despite their historical role as ‘ferment of decomposition’, Israelites were still considered in National Socialist Germany as foreigners to be distrusted and kept at a distance, but not as ‘vermin’ to be destroyed.

Things would change in 1941 and especially in 1942 and more and more as the Second World War became more relentless, more ‘total’. And this, above all, thanks to those ‘millions of non-Jews, friends of the Jews’, of which Samuel Untermeyer had foreseen, almost ten years before, the benevolent collaboration with his brethren of race in their fight to the death against the Third Reich.

For as early as May 1940, the massive attack by the British air force, deliberately directed against the German civilian population, began. The English general Spaight boasts about it in his book Bombing Vindicated. And the deluge of phosphorus and fire only intensified after the US entered the war, turning entire German cities into infernos night after night. It is estimated that about five million German civilians, women, old men and children, died during these ferocious bombardments: crushed under the smoking rubble or burnt alive in their shelters invaded by the liquid, flaming asphalt that poured in from the molten streets.

The Führer had not, as early as 1933, the day after the ‘declaration of war’ by several of their number in the name of all of them, interned all the Jews in Germany, as he could have done then.[3]

He felt strong enough to be generous, and besides, the light side outweighed the unforgiving side in his psychology. He had let all those who wanted to go—go with their money, which they immediately used to turn world opinion against him and his country. He had done everything, tried everything, to make it easier for them to put down peaceful roots outside the Germanic living space.

But no government had agreed to welcome them en masse into its territory or its colonies. Now it was war. And it was a Jewish war, as they themselves proclaimed to anyone who would listen: a war waged by Aryans, whose (misunderstood) sense of self-interest, narrow and jealous nationalism, and above all that superstition of ‘man’ inherited from both Christianity and Descartes, had been exploited by Jewish propaganda for years, a war against the Germans as ‘enemies of humanity’ and against the National Socialist Weltanschauung as ‘the negation of man’. It was hell unleashed against Germany by the Jews in the name of ‘man’.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s note: Hell unleashed against Germany by the Jews? It is very difficult for an autobiographer like me, who has analysed his parents for decades, to see the Second World War as a Jewish war. It is obvious that it was a war of Aryans betraying themselves.

When I was a teenager, my mother’s slander against me was horrendous (she had lost her mind). But it was my father’s folie à deux that destroyed me (see details in Letter to mom Medusa, a book whose English translation I advertise on the sidebar). My father was not a simple victim of ill advice, but an active agent in believing everything to his Medusa wife. Since he could have chosen not to let himself be stung by the snakes of her wife’s scalp, but let himself be poisoned for decades, I cannot forgive him, or say that the ‘poor’ Anglo-Americans were victims of ill advice by the Jewish slander against the Germans.

Savitri and today’s anti-Semitic racialists believe the latter in order not to see the evil of their co-ethnics, although Savitri at least blamed Christianity for our misfortune as well. The difference between me and Savitri is that I blame much more anyone who let himself be infected by the Christian ethics regarding the Jewish Holocaust than she blamed. Just remember her words above: ‘thanks to those millions of non-Jews, friends of the Jews, of which Samuel Untermeyer had foreseen…’

Obviously, I am influenced here by the immense tragedy of my life, and how Christianity played a pivotal role in the destruction of my adolescence and my twenties (cf. the fifth book). The tragedy that killed the other two victims of my family (cf. the books about the deceased Corina and Leonora in my autobiography) made me see human nature differently. And it is almost impossible for visitors to understand the point of view of this site without having read From Jesus to Hitler: a new literary genre that I have inaugurated.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
No one, of course, except those who ‘live in the eternal’, can claim to know the innermost thoughts of Adolf Hitler. However, it is logical to assume that the hardening of his attitude towards the Jews, which began in 1941 and continued later, was a violent reaction against the superstition of ‘man’ and all the morality that goes with it, in the face of the daily and ever-increasing horror of the ‘phosphorus cleansings’, as their perpetrators, the Anglo-American bombers, called them.[4] If this was the application of the man’s morality, bent on crushing National Socialism by burning alive, women and children included, the people who had acclaimed it and brought it to power, then why hesitate any longer to oppose it, to the very last consequences, the immemorial morality of the Jungle: that of the struggle to the death between incompatible species?

The Führer may not have ordered the massive suppression of Jews, without distinction of sex or age, both in the conquered areas of the East (where they were very often confused with the most dangerous snipers and saboteurs) and in the concentration camps. But he allowed his most radical collaborators to act—such as Goebbels, whom he had severely reprimanded [5] the day after the well-known night of the popular pogrom of 9-10 November 1938, known as Kristallnacht. Heinrich Himmler and Reinhardt Heydrich merely executed the suggested measures, for which the Führer accepted full responsibility.
_____________

[1] Brissaud: Hitler et l’Ordre Noir (op. cit.), page 307.

[2] Article 4 of the Third Nuremberg Law.

[3] If, by the mouth of its responsible representatives, any nation declares war on France, will not all the nationals of that nation, domiciled in France, be immediately interned?

[4] Sauvageon, a post-war author, gave this cynical title to one of his novels.

[5] Grimm: Warum? Woher? aber Wohin? (op. cit.), page 84.

Categories
Léon Degrelle Souvenirs et réflexions d'une aryenne (book) Technology

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 54

I mentioned above Adolf Hitler’s interest in modern technology—especially, and for good reason, war tec! This is not to say that the dangers of the mechanisation of life, and especially of excessive specialisation, escaped him. Even in this particular field of strategy where he, the former corporal, moved with an ease that even geniuses can hardly explain, he was sceptical of specialists and their inventions, and, in the final analysis, relied only on the supra-rational vision of the true leader without, of course, rejecting the use of any invention as it represented an effective means to victory.

‘What is’, he said to Rauschning, ‘the invention that has so far been able to revolutionise the laws of warfare in a lasting way? Each invention is itself followed, almost immediately, by another which neutralises the effects of the previous one’. And he concluded that all this conferred ‘only a momentary superiority, and the decision to go to war always depends on men’ rather than on material, however important the latter may be.[1]

It was not, therefore, the technique itself that put him off. A universal spirit, he was at ease in this field as in so many others, and he recognised its place in modern combat. What irritated him to the point of revolt was the effect that technical training and the handling of precision equipment and statistical data can have, and almost always do have, on man, even the ‘well-trained’ one who specialises in them. It is the observation that they kill, in him, the flexibility of mind, the creative imagination, the initiative, the clear vision amid a labyrinth of unforeseen difficulties; the faculty of grasping, and of grasping in time—immediately, if possible—the relationship between a new situation and the effective action which must be taken to deal with it; in a word, the exact intuition: according to him, the superior form of the intelligence. ‘It is always outside of technical circles that one meets creative genius’, he said. [2]

And he advised his collaborators—and this all the more strongly as they occupied positions of greater responsibility—to take their decisions ‘by pure intuition’ relying ‘on their instinct’, never on bookish knowledge or on a routine which, in difficult cases, often lags behind the requirements of action. He advised them to ‘simplify the problems’ as he himself simplified them; to ‘make light of everything that is complicated and doctrinaire’.[3] And he kept saying that ‘technicians never have an instinct’, entangled as they are in their theories ‘like spiders in their webs’ and ‘incapable of weaving anything else’.[4] And Hermann Rauschning himself, whose malice towards him is obvious, is forced to agree that ‘this gift of simplification was the characteristic power that ensured Adolf Hitler’s superiority over those around him’.[5]

To prove it, it would be enough to reread, in Léon Degrelle’s Hitler for a Thousand Years, the luminous pages which relate to the French and Russian campaigns, in particular to the latter, about which so many people, and not even those whose job it is to fight wars, reproach the Führer for having stubbornly refused to listen to the technicians of strategy.

The great soldier who was the leader of the Waffen S.S. Wallon Legion brilliantly shows that Adolf Hitler’s refusal to be convinced by these famous specialists who, in the winter of 1941-1942, called for a withdrawal of one or two hundred kilometres, ‘saved the army’ because ‘a general retreat through these endless white and devouring deserts would have been a suicide’.[6] ‘Against his generals, Hitler was right’, he insists, and not only during the seven months of the dreadful Russian winter of 1941-42, but also in January 1943, when he insisted that von Paulus, surrounded at Stalingrad, should try, as best he could, to throw himself towards the armoured troops of General Hoth, under Field Marshal von Manstein, whom he had sent to his rescue and who were only a few kilometres away.

According to Degrelle, von Paulus ‘could have saved his men in forty-eight hours’[7] but ‘a theoretician incapable of working in the field confused by his meticulous mania for paper-based groupings’[8] didn’t do so preferring to capitulate, even though ‘salvation was under his nose, forty-eight kilometres away’.[9] He didn’t do it because, in him, a meticulous study had taken the place of instinct; because he lacked the gift of simplifying problems and of going intuitively to the essential. It was undoubtedly his nature. But these deficiencies must have been singularly reinforced by the fact that ‘almost all his life von Paulus had spent it among the bureaucracy of the general staff’[10] in front of his maps, within the narrow confines of his speciality.

Of course, specialists are needed—in their place. Unfortunately, in certain exceptional circumstances, one is sometimes forced to call on them outside the realm of their routine, and ask them for more than they can give.

And the more life, in all its aspects, becomes mechanised thanks to the applications of science, the more there are and the more there will be from the top to the bottom of the social scale specialised technicians. And fewer and fewer of them will be those who, while having in their particular capacity the maximum of knowledge, will be able to dominate it retaining the vision and inspiration and the invaluable qualities of character, which make the superior man.

The Third Reich had such men: ‘modern’ men in material terms (military or civilian); on the other hand, equal to the greatest figures of the past, like a Guderian, a Skorzeny; a Hans-Ulrich Rudel, a Hanna Reitsch or a Doctor Todt: people strong enough to think and act big while using the machines of our time and subjecting themselves to the precise manipulations they require; the Western counterpart of those Japanese warriors of the same Second World War who combined the intelligent handling of the most modern weapons with fidelity to the code of bushido and, more often than one thinks, the practice of some immemorial spiritual discipline.

The Führer would have liked the best of his Germans to become, more or less, these new ‘masters of fire’ capable of dominating our end of the cycle where technology is, with all its drawbacks, essential to whoever wants to survive in an overpopulated world. He knew that this role could and will only ever be played by a minority. And it is this minority, tested in combat, which was to constitute the warrior aristocracy of the new world: a world against the tide of universal decadence which he dreamed of building and in which, moreover, ‘after victory’ (once the urgency of total war had disappeared) the mechanisation of life would gradually cease and in which the traditional spirit, in the esoteric sense of the word, would take root more and more.

____________

[1] Rauschning, Hitler m’a dit (op. cit.), page 21.

[2] Ibid, page 22.

[3] Ibid, page 209.

[4] Ibid, page 210.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Léon Degrelle, Hitler pour 1000 ans, published by Editions de la Table Ronde in 1969, page 129.

[7] Ibid., page 130.

[8] Ibid., page 174-175.

[10] Ibid., page 170.

Categories
August Kubizek Kali Yuga Philosophy of history Salvador Borrego Souvenirs et réflexions d'une aryenne (book)

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 51

The Tischgespräche, the Führer’s table talks with a few senior party officials, senior SS officers or foreign guests[1], are instructive in this respect. Even more instructive, perhaps, are certain reports that are hostile to Hitlerism, all the more virulent because their authors are angrier at having initially followed Adolf Hitler in the wrong direction, and at having felt themselves to be fools in retrospect—wrongly, no doubt, for it must have been very difficult to grasp the true thinking of the Master before being part of the narrow circle of people who enjoyed his confidence.

Such is, for example, the book by the former President of the Senate of the Free City of Danzig, Hermann Rauschning, Hitler Told Me which had, in its time, some notoriety since in 1939 the thirteenth French edition of it was already published: an excellent book, despite of the aggressiveness that pierces every line. The fact that Rauschning himself seems to be completely unaware of the cyclical conception of history and, in general, of the supra-human truths which are the basis of all ancient wisdom, makes the judgements he believes he is making against the Führer all the more eloquent by accusing him (without knowing it) of waging his struggle precisely in the name of these truths. Finally, nothing can shed light on certain aspects of Hitlerism like Hans Grimm’s book Warum? Woher? aber Wohin?, a work by an impartial non-Hitlerite, or the account given by Auguste Kubizek, a man with no political allegiance whatsoever, of his years of friendship with the future Führer, then aged between fifteen and nineteen, in his book Adolf Hitler, mein Jugendfreund.[2]

The first thing that strikes one on reading these various texts is Adolf Hitler’s awareness of the speed with which everything is falling apart in our time, and of the total reversal of values that the slightest recovery would mean. It is also the very clear feeling he seems to have had that his action represented the last chance of the Aryan race as well as the last (at least theoretical) possibility of recovery, before the end of the present cycle.

This sentiment was coupled with the conviction that he himself was not ‘the last’ fighter against the forces of disintegration; not the One who would usher in the glorious ‘Golden Age’ of the next cycle. Five years before the seizure of power, the Führer said in all simplicity to Hans Grimm: ‘I know that someone must appear, and face our situation. I have been looking for this man. I have not been able to find him anywhere, and that is why I have arisen, to carry out the preparatory task, only the urgent preparatory task, for I know that I am not the One who is to come. And I also know what I lack. But the Other remains absent, and no one is there, and there is no more time to waste’.[3]

There is even reason to believe that he sensed—if not knew; I will come back to this point—the inevitability of disaster and the need for him to sacrifice himself. But just as his vision was centred on the German people but went far beyond Germany, so his defeat was to be a catastrophe on a planetary scale (which it was, indeed) and his sacrifice was to take on an unsuspected significance.
 

______ 卐 ______

 

Note of the Editor: In 1955 the notable Mexican José Vasconcelos (see my 2011 article: here) wrote a preface for Salvador Borrego’s main work, Derrota Mundial [World Defeat], in which Borrego argues that the world lost with the defeat of Germany. In 2015, on Borrego’s 100th birthday, David Duke, Ernst Zündel and Mark Weber visited him in Mexico. The four of them can be seen in this photograph; Weber appears to the far left; Zündel in the middle.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
He told Hermann Rauschning: ‘If we fail to win, we will drag half the world down with us, and no one will be able to rejoice in a victory over Germany’ and: ‘He could not otherwise accomplish his mission’, notes this author, without apparently realising the significance of such an assertion.[4]

So what was this ‘mission’, so imperious although He who knew he was in charge of it could, at times, foresee its failure? It was that of all those beings, both human and more than human—in India they are called avatars or descents of the divine Spirit in the visible and tangible world—who, from age to age, have fought against the tide of Time, for the restoration of a material order in the image of the eternal Order: that of the God Krishna, that of the Prophet Mohammed, and, in Germanic legend, truer than history: that of the hero Siegfried, like them both initiate and warrior.

Such a mission always implies the destruction of the decadent world, without which the restoration of a hierarchical society according to eternal values would be unthinkable. It therefore implies the recognition of the reign of evil, of the ‘triumph of injustice’[5] that is, what is contrary to the divine Order, at the time of the combatant—and the exaltation of combat. Undoubtedly, people who militate by violence against an already bad established order, in favour of a ‘new world’ even worse from the viewpoint of natural hierarchies, are also dissatisfied people who aren’t afraid of armed struggle. But, as I have tried to show above, it is the nature of their dream, not the methods employed for its realisation, which places them exactly opposite the fighters against time.

There are reckless, irresponsible fighters—both in the direction of temporal evolution and against it. There are millions of people of ‘goodwill’—liberals, individualists, pacifists, ‘friends of man’ of all stripes—who, mostly through sheer ignorance or laziness of mind, follow the deceptive suggestions of the agents of the Dark Forces, and contribute, with the most generous intentions in the world, to accelerating the pace of universal degeneration.

There are also people perfectly unconscious of the eternal laws of the visible as well as the subtle Universe, who militate enthusiastically for selection in battle, for the segregation of races, and, in general, for an aristocratic conception of the world, by instinct—simply out of horror of the physical and moral ugliness of men, and out of hatred of the prejudices and institutions which encourage its generalisation. Many of us are among them. Nobler than the former, since they are centred on beauty which, in its essence, merges with Truth, they are, despite everything, just as unresponsible in the strong sense of the word, because they are just as attached to the realm of impression, that is to say, to the subjective.

But it is different with leaders… all the more so with the founders of new times.

The real initiator of a subversive movement in the sense I have given above, can only be a man in possession of some degree of undeniable knowledge. But he uses it in reverse: for purposes contrary to the spirit of true hierarchies, therefore contrary to those which a wise man’s action should take. On the other hand, the founder and leader of a faith ‘against Time’—as Adolf Hitler was—can only be one of those men whom I have, in another book,[6] called ‘above Time’: a sage, an initiate in union with the Divine and simultaneously a warrior—and perhaps also a ‘politician’—ready to employ, at the level of the contingencies of the visible world, all the means he knows to be effective, and judging a means only by its effectiveness.

He can only be a man both above Time, as regards his being, and against Time, as regards his action in the world; in other words, a warrior (or a politician, or both) fighting against the order, institutions and powers of his time, with whatever weapons he can muster, with a view to an (at least temporary) ‘recovery’ of society, inspired by a Golden Age ideal: a will to bring the ‘new’ order into accord with the Eternal Order.

Now, I repeat: the texts, the facts, the whole history and atmosphere of National Socialism become fully comprehensible only if, once and for all, one admits that Adolf Hitler was such a man: the most recent manifestation, among us, of the One who returns from age to age ‘for the protection of the righteous, for the destruction of those who do evil, for the firm establishment of the order according to the nature of things’.[7]

_________

[1] Translated into French under the title Libres propos sur la Guerre et la Paix, by R. d’Harcourt.

[2] A (shortened) French translation was published by Gallimard.

[3] Hans Grimm, Warum? Woher? aber Wohin? published by Klosterhaus Verlag, Lippoldsberg, in 1954; page 14.

[4] Hermann Rauschning, Hitler m’a dit, 13th French edition, 1939, pages 142 & 279.

[5] Bhagawad-Gîta, IV, verse 7.

[6] The Lightning and the Sun, written from 1948 to 1956, published in Calcutta in 1958.

[7] Bhagawad-Gîta, IV, verse 8.

Categories
Autobiography Child abuse Judeo-reductionism Racial right Thomas Goodrich

On Tom Goodrich

Source: here

The following interview, done in June 2015, is with author Thomas Goodrich. While Goodrich has written over a dozen books, his book Hellstorm has proven to be the most popular and life-changing.

Life-changing, not only for him as an author, but for anyone reading this painful and shocking book. You won’t soon forget it, and nothing you will ever read will compare to the evil and horrors contained in this book.

After reading what America and its allies—the ‘good guys’, did to the Germans during and after the end of WW2 you will surely realise the scale in which we have been lied to. As you will read in the interview, this book’s purely historical information is so feared by those in power that it got the author black-listed for writing it.

Hellstorm is a brutally honest book. It lies about, censors, or hides nothing. It is a picture of hell on earth. Of monsters hiding in human skin and their agonised victims.

When you realise the truth about what the Allies did to Germany you will certainly question everything you’ve been taught. We personally have an immense amount of respect for Thomas Goodrich for choosing truth over personal career and monetary gain. Such people are, regretfully, very rare in today’s twisted, money-worshipping world.

As Thomas says in the interview, the information was already out there. Out there, waiting for the day when people would finally be ready, or even give a shit about, the terrible truth of WW2.

It just took someone as selfless and courageous as Thomas Goodrich to bring it to the world.

 

Question: First off, could you please tell us a little about yourself; your background, education etc.?

Tom: Born in Kansas as Michael Thomas Schoenlein, I was adopted at age five. I spent my first years on my grandma’s farm in Missouri, then moved to Kansas. My biological dad was a professional musician, alcoholic and drug addict. About the age of 8-11, I was raped and sodomised on a daily basis. Other than that, I led a fairly normal childhood. After the military, I graduated from Washburn University in Kansas with a degree in history.

Question: What got you interested in the history of WW2?

Tom: TV was filled with war movies in the 1950’s and 60’s. Never really knowing why, I always sided with the Germans. Maybe it had to do with such a small nation, relatively speaking, taking on the world and almost succeeding. Or maybe it had to do with so much hate directed at Germany; that seemed suspicious, even to a kid. I remember a coach-parading-as-a-teacher once upbraiding the entire high school I attended because some bored and anonymous student had carved a swastika into a desk top. Judging by the deathly seriousness on the coach’s and other teachers’ faces as they tried to root out this closet ‘Nazi’ and this deadly challenge to American freedom and sports watching, one might have thought the devil himself had been set loose in the hallways. To even an undeveloped mind, such serious looks and words and fuss among adults at the very least created curiosity and interest, thereby having the opposite effect of that intended.

Question: Hellstorm is one of the most important books detailing the horrors the innocent German people suffered at the hands of the Allies. This topic, the mass rape, murder and starvation of the soldier and civilian population, is not popular with the mainstream media outlets. Can you tell us about any resistance or backlash you have endured because you have bravely decided to speak out?

Tom: Prior to Hellstorm, I never really had trouble finding publishers. Hellstorm ended that run. The only press that took the manuscript was the University of Kentucky Press and the director who wanted it was fired within one month. Thus, sad as it was, I put the manuscript on a shelf and there it stayed for ten years. When I did eventually find a small press to take the book, no one was willing to review the book or have me back on their radio programs. Prior to Hellstorm I had been on scores of major media outlets publicising books, including Cspan, BookTV, Book Notes, and PBS. Also, I had been a talking head on a score or more of documentaries featured on Discovery, NatGeo, and History channels. All that, of course, was now gone. But honestly, I would trade all of that for the wonderful reception I have had in the Alternative Media. These people have embraced me. The MSM uses someone like toilet paper; you are important to them only as long as you serve their purpose. Except for predictable name-calling and veiled threats from the hired Hasbara haters and other Jews, I have little fear or concern for the enemies of truth.

Question: To most Americans and citizens of Allied countries, the horrors of WW2 are squarely put on the shoulders of National Socialist Germany. We are taught that they were beyond evil and that our ‘heroic democracies’, with the assistance of communist Russia, gallantly liberated Europe from monstrous Germany. Well as lies have a way of seeping out, the truth is coming to light. Do you foresee a future that will have accepted the truth and come to terms with it?

Tom: As humans, it’s hard for us to see change when it takes place over years or decades. But if it were possible to have a time-lapse camera and watch the days, weeks and months pass and how quickly our current darkness is giving way to light, then everyone could clearly see that the truth is spreading over the globe with almost breath-taking speed. Our great techno break-through, the internet, has given us the weapon to free ourselves from slavery. Prior to the info super highway, our Jewish enemy had almost total control over communication; now, their strangle-hold is slipping rapidly away. Fewer and fewer whites get their information on the anti-white MSM; more and more turn to our Alt media. Next up: We need to develop our own WN television system that airs the truth 24/7 and that offers a gamut of thought and entertainment.

Question: Writing a book about a topic as disturbing as Hellstorm must take a toll on one’s psyche. How did it affect you? What was your defence against letting it depress you, if you had one?

Tom: By researching and writing Hellstorm, I realised that the world was a much more terrible place than even my wildest imagination could paint. Easy to say, I am not the same person after writing the book. I heard the screams of those girls butchered by those Jewish commissars at Neustettin; I heard the howls of those burning to death in Hamburg and every other German city; from my own childhood of sexual abuse, I could taste the hot, salty filth as the Germans POW’s in Eisenhower’s death camps drank their own urine to avoid death; I could vomit along with the women who were forced to kiss and make love to the rotting corpses at the Jewish torture pens in Poland. At the same time as I learned to fear much in this world, I also learned to hate from every molecule in my body. I get very little sleep now. What little I do get is interrupted frequently with long bouts of restless thought. Certainly, researching and writing a book like Hellstorm is not good for one’s physical or mental health. But it had its rewards. Now I realise that our Jewish enemy not only wants to kill we whites, but beastly, unimaginable torture is part of our future as well; Germans were just the most available and easy to destroy; now, the plan is set in motion to commit complete and utter genocide against the white race. The more one investigates, the more obvious this murderous plan becomes. I, for one, refuse to ignore this proof that is right in front of my eyes.

Question: What authors have influenced you and your work? Are there any you would recommend?

Tom: William Gayley Simpson, a good and true man, taught me to be true to myself, no matter what. William Pierce, maybe the most honest man who ever lived, in an entertaining, yet forceful way, pointed me in the right direction with an unflinching hand. Many great writers and thinkers—John Kaminski, Lasha Darkmoon, and those on Greg Johnson’s Counter Currents website, have nourished me daily. Fearless young fighters, like Henrik Palmgren of Red Ice, and Kyle Hunt of Renegade Broadcasting, are constant sources of inspiration.

Question: I have noticed that Hellstorm is widely recommended and cited online. How did you publicise it?

Tom: White Nationalism has developed a very effective network of communications. Fortunately, most of the writers, bloggers and radio hosts in the truth movement were eager to have me on to discuss the book. And, to spread the story behind Hellstorm, I was eager to be on. I have probably done over a hundred shows in the past two years, so eventually, all truth-seekers are going to hear of Hellstorm.

Question: When I read about the atrocities committed against the innocent Germans and found the vile quotes by Ilya Ehrenburg, the influential writer whom incited the Red Army soldiers, I was appalled. Quotes from him like ‘The Germans are not human beings… If you have not killed at least one German a day, you have wasted that day…’ etc. Ehrenburg was speaking about all Germans, including civilians. The Germans are still paying reparations to the victors for ‘war crimes’, yet no one even knows about the war crimes committed against the Germans. What individuals would you deem to be the worst perpetrators against the Germans? What shocked me the most was that the Americans were responsible for untold deaths of surrendered German soldiers whom they had put in death camps after the war. Some reports say millions of German soldiers died while in American custody. It’s ironic how we’ve been taught over and over how bad the Russians were in WW2 (the gulags, Russian occupation, etc.), when in fact the Americans were also incredibly evil. Another case in point is that of Rudolf Hess. Britain and America for years claimed the reason he wasn’t released was because of the Russians, but his son and other historians believe it was in fact the British and Americans who refused to release him. There is also incredible evidence that he was murdered.

Tom: Although Jews in the US, in the UK, in the USSR, and elsewhere, orchestrated the monstrous crimes against Germany, it was our fellow whites—Europeans, Americans, Canadians, etc.—who were the willing tools and who implemented these cold-blooded crimes. In some ways, it’s easier to understand the Jewish motives against Germany and Europe than it is the depravities gleefully committed by our own racial kinsmen. At some point in the very near future, there will be a much-needed ‘culling’ of the white herd. No healthy race could commit such vile atrocities against any living thing, much less against their own herd; both during and since World War Two the white race has proven to be the most unhealthy and diseased herd on the planet.

Question: How long did it take you to research and write Hellstorm? Where did you find the source material?

Tom: It took me circa three years to research and write the book. Most of my research material came from extremely rare, but published, or typed, resources, including letters, diaries and manuscripts. The material was there for any historian, academic or otherwise, to read and publish for themselves, if they so choose. But no one, of course, did so. I also did a number of live interviews with survivors.

Question: I noticed you also have a book on the American Indians. Can you tell us a little about that? What has been your favourite topic to write about?

Tom: I am a historical iconoclast. Perhaps springing from that incident I mentioned above back in high school, I have enjoyed dragging down and crushing the idols made of clay that the dim and the dull worship. There is so much propaganda parading as history out there right now—lies, exaggerations and utter nonsense easily proven wrong, that the market is bullish for anyone who wants to join me. Take the American Indian, for example. Judging by Jewish Hollywood and Jewish TV, one might imagine that the American Indian lived the life of some sort of peaceful, pastoral, philosophical early-day Hippie culture, whose entire existence was spent harmonizing with his surroundings and protecting all nature from the encroachment of evil, grasping whites. Additionally, after watching or reading any number of modern accounts of Indians at war, one might imagine that Indians went to war only reluctantly and only because they were forced into it to save their way of life. As I have described in my book, Scalp Dance, the American Indian could be just as destructive of nature and just as ruthless in exploiting it as any white man ever born. Also, the fact is that Indian tribes lived for war; it defined who they were; war was the very reason for their existence, and not just war with the white man, but war with other red men, as well.

Question: Can you tell us about your collaboration with Kyle Hunt (radio host of Solar Storm on Renegade Broadcasting) to create the Hellstorm documentary? It is very popular with over 208,000 hits on Youtube.

Tom: Kyle is young enough to be my son, and yet, there was very little generational conflict, that I am aware of, while working on the film together. Kyle is an incredible young man. Talented, creative, industrious, the single feature that distinguishes Kyle from others his age is his incredible focus. From my experience with him, nothing seems to sidetrack Kyle. His passion is also clearly demonstrated to anyone who watches his film, Hellstorm. Kyle might also be one of the most moral men I know.

Question: Can you compare the horror of Dresden’s destruction by firebombing with any other war crime? Has there been such a vicious attack in our history of the world? Why do you think the horrific firebombing attacks on civilian targets like Hamburg and Dresden have gotten so little coverage in the media and history books, while Hiroshima and Nagasaki are widely publicized? It’s interesting that more Germans died in the firebombing assaults than the atomic bombings.

Tom: Truly, the deliberate and premeditated firebombing of helpless German cities by the Allies stands as one of the most demonic and evil war crimes committed in the history of the world. And Dresden remains the apotheosis of that campaign of terror. Dresden stands as a shameful monument to the evil that was WW2. An undefended city, crowded with refugees, one of the most beautiful cities on earth, targeted by the forces of hate for the simple purpose of killing as many women and children in the most sadistic manner imaginable. Among so-called historians and so-called German leaders, there is today a deliberate attempt to lower the number of Dresden deaths from an estimated 250,000—400,000 dead to a mere 20,000-25,000. The assumption, of course, is that if the number of dead can be reduced, and accepted, then the extent of the enormous crime itself can be reduced. Unfortunately for the history distorters, the International Red Cross, with numerous reps on the scene in 1945, along with Berlin officials and city, state and national rescue workers who were doing the body count, are the sources most credible, not moderns today who have agendas and a vested interest in reducing the horrific death toll. More people died in Dresden in one night than died in the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.

Question: Your newest book Rape Hate is a very interesting compilation of cases of rape and murder. Not only does it involve a glimpse into the hell that German women went through during WW2 at the hands of the Allies, but also has tales of early American settlers whom were often murdered and raped by the American Indians. While I don’t want to downplay the tremendous crimes against the American Indians by the United States government, people aren’t often told about the shocking crimes against settlers by the Indians. Your thoughts?

Tom: Judging by Hollywood and modern academics, one might imagine that white women were thrilled at being taken prisoner by Indians that they might shake off the shallow and confining conventions of civilised life and begin enjoying their new natural life out-of-doors. Indeed, many portrayals of white captives convey the idea that they were transformed into something akin to Indian princesses. The reality, however, is just the opposite. Gang rape, abuse, over-work, more rape, dirt, filth, beatings, lice, fleas, more rape, prostitution, and so on were the reality of white women captured by Indians.

Question: Your compassion in writing Rape Hate is very evident. You mention that you yourself were a victim of abuse as a child, and I think that fact really helps the writing in this case. You seem very able to ‘get into the victim’s shoes’, more so than many other authors of True Crime books. Are you interested in the ‘true crime’ genre as a whole? What do you think about how the American justice system handles such monsters like serial killers? They are often allowed to drain millions of taxpayer dollars with appeals and can often drag out their sentence of death for decades. It seems to me to be a huge flaw in the legal system, especially when the person admits they are guilty. I was recently reading about a serial killer in National Socialist Germany named Paul Ogorzow. This monster would actually rape and murder women during air raid blackouts in Berlin. After Ogorzow was arrested, admitting his crimes, it only took the NS justice system thirteen days to examine his insanity claims and execute him by guillotine! In the case of such criminals the authorities would mail a bill to the heirs of the deceased. What are your thoughts?

Tom: My thoughts are your thoughts, Molly, and our thoughts are the thoughts of any healthy race of humans. Aggravated rape should be a capital offense. Rape is the crime that keeps on giving; the victim never recovers. It is much like victims of a home invasion; one replays that vile invasion virtually every hour of their life. And yes, there should be no lengthy ‘appeals’ process. Punishment should be within days of the crime, not decades. Mistakes will be made, of course, and some innocent will suffer, but the victims of these crimes and their families deserve some sympathy too. As far as the manner of punishment, the family of the victim should have a say in that. The current process is a crime in itself, and a slap in the face of every victim and their family.

Question: Are you working on a new book currently? Can you tell us anything about it?

Tom: I have two, perhaps three, books that will come out this year. The working title for all three is Rage & Revenge—Torture & Atrocities in War & Peace, Parts 1, 2, 3. Also, I will write two more scripts for films by Kyle Hunt; one on the Indian wars, and another on the treatment of the defeated Confederacy after the American Civil War. In numerous ways, what the South suffered, 1865-1866, was very similar to what Germany suffered, 1944-1947.

Question: Lastly, thanks so much for your time and thoughts Tom! And thank you so much for giving a voice to all the voiceless victims. Any words to the world?

Tom: To the White World: The time is swiftly approaching in which you must make a choice. On the one side is the rotting, diseased world of the past and the almost certain extinction of the white race; on the other side is the difficult, but necessary, road ahead which ultimately leads to a rebirth of the European spirit. While our parents and grandparents slept, and grew fat and lazy, their worst enemy slipped in and usurped our future. Now, we must fight to reclaim it. This is a fight worthy of the white race and a battle in which surrender is utterly out of the question—Hellstorm has proven that. We either win and ensure the white race will survive to realise its ordained destiny to embrace the stars, or we lose to be laughed at and scorned as a race too weak to survive. Every white man and white woman must decide their course of action.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s note:

Tom speaks as a white nationalist, not as a 14-word priest. Note that after the question ‘What authors have influenced you and your work?’ he doesn’t mention post-1945 National Socialist thinkers like Savitri Devi (only when Rockwell was alive and published an issue of National Socialist World Pierce called himself a follower of the Führer). Tom also said above:

Although Jews in the US, in the UK, in the USSR, and elsewhere, orchestrated the monstrous crimes against Germany….

Really? What about Roosevelt, Stalin, Eisenhower and Truman? The above statement is so typical of the white nationalist!

These guys believe that Jews are behind everything. Given that today there is only one priest with an established blog, it is understandable that Tom doesn’t want to be left alone, even in the small environment of white advocates (who almost never link my work). But one need only read his book to realise that the evil came, for the most part, from gentile Americans and the Soviets. Why use the word ‘orchestrated’ referring to Jewry? Jew-wise folk know the nefarious role the Jewish press played in WW2. But the direct perpetrators, the ones who killed the most Germans, were gentiles; and the guys who orchestrated the Hellstorm Holocaust were Roosevelt, Stalin, Eisenhower and Truman.

It seems to me more than obvious that I will have to keep reproducing Savitri’s texts for a new pro-white conception to be born: a conception in which the focus is on the beam in our own eye and not on the straw in someone else’s eye. Just look at the vast majority of whites today: traitors, the worst human scum since prehistoric times (for example, those who are demonstrating tonight in various American cities over the jury verdict on Kyle Rittenhouse).

Neither Tom nor the typical white nationalist seem to grasp the wisdom of Corneliu Zelea Codreanu: If mosquitoes (kikes) have proliferated so much in the West, it’s because of the swamps of our sins that allowed them to proliferate. Writing this reminds me of the day I drove my car with Mexican plates from Houston to New Orleans through Louisiana over a huge number of bridges over swamps: I couldn’t believe the geographical extent of those swamps!

This said I still believe that, in this century, Hellstorm: The Death of Nazi Germany (1944-1947) is the most important book written in English (more about it: here). But I want to say another word about Tom’s interview:

Aggravated rape should be a capital offense. Rape is the crime that keeps on giving; the victim never recovers. It is much like victims of a home invasion; one replays that vile invasion virtually every hour of their life. And yes, there should be no lengthy ‘appeals’ process. Punishment should be within days of the crime, not decades. Mistakes will be made, of course, and some innocent will suffer, but [emphasis added] the victims of these crimes and their families deserve some sympathy too.

This, of course, is very unfair. If capital punishment is applied for male rape, capital punishment should be also applied to the woman who accuses the innocent man of rape!

Tom is a writer but not an autobiographer like me (cf. my eleven books in which I tell how my parents murdered my adolescent soul: something that keeps on giving to this day). The experience I have with survivors of parental abuse who fail to write autobiographies is that they massively project themselves onto cases outside their own, and want revenge on others; not on one’s own parent. For example, concerning rape, the punishments Tom proposes, which would sometimes blame the innocent, are excessive. Surely the Germans of the Third Reich didn’t see things that way.

In the ninth book of my autobiographical series I talk about my late first cousin, a female victim who was molested as a pubescent by an uncle. Speaking of what I said in my article yesterday, I violated my first guideline with her. It was impossible to talk about elementary human realities, such as the male sex drive. She saw everything in black and white. Sometimes survivors become intolerable. Even in a book we both read, Toxic Parents by Susan Forward, Sue puts incest as ‘the ultimate betrayal’.

For truly profound experts in child and adolescent abuse, that’s untrue. The most damaging abuse to the human soul is that which leads to what psychiatrists diagnose as ‘schizophrenia’ (hearing voices, delusions, salad language, catatonic postures, etc). In Western society ‘schizogenic’ behavior from parents is the ultimate betrayal: the kind of abuse that drives children mad, literally mad, even more serious than the gross forms of neurosis of victims of sexual assault.

Anyone who doesn’t understand the above statement should read Sue Forward’s book, a victim os sexual abuse, which I still highly recommend (although she doesn’t mention schizo clients), and compare it with the cases of ‘schizophrenia’ mentioned by Arieti (to whom I devote a few pages in my Day of Wrath).

If Tom were to write his own autobiography he would come to conclusions that would more closely resemble my own. Writing mine was probably as painful as it was for him to write Hellstorm. You suffer a lot, yes: but eventually you are liberated from neuroses and even psychoses.

Anyone who wants to know a little more about what happened to me could read my Letter of mom Medusa whose front cover appears on the sidebar. That was only the beginning of a long agony which I tell in the following volumes. Tom and I are writers but I don’t think he got to the core of his pain as I have in my books; hence he seeks to take it out on innocents (‘Mistakes will be made, of course, and some innocent will suffer, but…’).