Hitler’s SpeechesAndrew Hamilton
I read that Hitler delivered about 5,000 major speeches during his lifetime running to many thousands of pages. I am unaware whether a comprehensive listing of his speeches, or any reliable word count, exists. I suspect they do not.
Below I list some major published collections of Hitler’s speeches, both in English and German. Almost all consist of excerpts rather than complete speeches.
In compiling the list I was struck again by the paucity of trustworthy scholarship underlying the Himalaya of words academics, journalists, popular writers, filmmakers and broadcasters have heaped up about Hitler and the Third Reich.
Empirical and intellectual shoddiness and ignorance underpin the entire structure. Whether the subject is Hitler biographies, the Holocaust, Hitler’s speeches, or anything else, empiricism and objectivity are thin on the ground. Possibly the only major area where objectivity obtains to a substantial degree is in strictly battlefield and military accounts of the war.
As Detlef Mühlberger observed in his two-volume collection of excerpts (of all kinds, not just speeches) from the Völkischer Beobachter, the official Party newspaper mentioned below as a major source for Hitler’s published speeches (Hitler’s Voice: The Völkischer Beobachter, 1920–1933, 2004): “The relatively limited published material on the VB and the lack of a content analysis of the paper is astonishing given the undoubted importance of the VB, especially during the Nazi Party’s so-called ‘Period of Struggle’ (Kampfzeit), a term applied by the Nazis to the years 1919–1933.” (p. 18)
And so it goes in every area.
The endless allegations against Germany and the Germans, as well as the maniacal, pervasive rhetoric of hatred and demonization, add to the surreal atmosphere, and contrast sharply with the blasé treatment given to Communism and Communists.
The Nature of Oratory
Adolf Hitler was one of history’s great orators.
Oratory and public speaking are not the same. (See “On Oratory.”)
Public speaking is, and always has been, far more common than oratory. Today it is ubiquitous, while oratory is virtually nonexistent.
William Pierce was a public speaker—and an exceptionally good one. There is great power in (good) public speaking. I was going to link to a couple of his 45-minute speeches, but both have already been yanked from YouTube.
Oratory is not some elaborate discourse treating of an “important” topic in a dignified, formal, or possibly grandiloquent manner reminiscent of stereotypical 19th-century 4th of July orations or contemporary Memorial Day speakers reciting Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address.
True oratory is the natural ability to speak with extraordinary eloquence and effectiveness to a crowd, regardless of size. In former times routinely, and occasionally still today, the words “eloquence” and “oratory” were synonymous, and used interchangeably.
Unlike William Pierce, both Adolf Hitler and Jonathan Bowden were orators.
Demosthenes, Cicero, Patrick Henry, Daniel Webster, and Henry Clay were also orators—not public speakers. This becomes glaringly evident when you pay close attention to the vivid language contemporaries used to describe such men and the mesmerizing effect they had on audiences.
For example, German-American US Senator Carl Schurz (R.-Mo.), who knew colleagues who had heard Henry Clay speak, described him as possessed of “the true oratorical temperament, that force of nervous exaltation that makes the orator feel himself, and appear to others, a superior being, and almost irresistibly transfuses his thoughts, his passions, and his will into the mind and heart of the listener.”
This vital capability of men long dead is obscured for us by our unfamiliarity with oratory, our inattention to detail, images formed in our minds from old paintings and engravings, and stereotypes of stiff 4th of July/Memorial Day speakers such as those mentioned previously. We are seriously misled about why such speakers were considered great.
Orators possess an extraordinary talent to move people, including intellectuals, emotionally, through the power of speech. They are unique and highly unusual human beings.
A psychic and emotional exchange, possibly a fusion, occurs between such speakers and their listeners, which is absent in public speaking. I am tempted to say that orators “channel” in some sense, although I do not want to invoke specific New Age practice or chicanery. As a consequence of all this, oratory is often viewed as a magic art, a black art.
Orator and audience partake in a joint ritual.
The orator, the occasion, the composition and mood of the audience, the subject matter, all contribute to a overall effect of the speech. The audience is transformed into Gustave Le Bon’s crowd by the orator’s stream of speech. It is this crowd that the orator psychically and emotionally interacts with, each feeding off the other.
Does Oratory Translate Well Into Print?
How well does such speech translate to print?
It appears that much must inevitably be lost in the process.
To use an analogy, the relationship of the printed speech to the original declamation is something like the relationship of a printed play to its performance on stage, a printed screenplay to the actual movie, or a television script to the TV telecast.
Novels are written to be read, whereas few people actually read plays, motion picture screenplays, or television scripts. In the same way, few people actually read speeches.
I own a book called A Treasury of the World’s Great Speeches which, interestingly, is made up primarily of excerpts rather than complete speeches. The compiler states that his ideal “is to include selections that read as well as they probably sounded. Even when the speaker lived long before our time, we can recapture him and his moment in history, and share some of the emotions of his original hearers.” (Emphases added.)
Do speeches translate to print better than plays, screenplays, or television scripts?
A lot depends upon the speaker and the speech.
The author of the Treasury calls Edmund Burke’s 1775 speech to the House of Commons on conciliation with the American colonies “the most readable of all speeches” (emphasis added), while noting that “in the whole history of eloquence Burke probably had the finest mind and, on most occasions, the worst delivery.”
Similarly, his introduction to Unitarian clergyman and abolitionist Theodore Parker’s speech indicates that Parker possessed “none of the graces of the orator, nothing to bind his audience to him but an immense sincerity, a transparent courage, and a terrifying arsenal of knowledge.”
Many famous speakers wrote their speeches out in advance. Adolf Hitler did this (I mean he wrote his speeches himself, without relying upon speechwriters), though he was quite capable of speaking extemporaneously with great force, and frequently did.
I have read that Demosthenes was reluctant to speak extemporaneously, declined to comment on subjects he had not previously studied, and elaborately prepared all of his speeches in advance. As a consequence, his orations became the object of careful study by others.
According to the Treasury, “In the classic Greco-Roman centuries distinguished orators wrote out their speeches, memorized them, delivered them with great éclat—and revised them for posterity.”
While such a method appears to bridge the gap between the spoken performance and publication as well as can possibly be done, the downside is that the finished product is not a genuine transcript or record of the address actually delivered.
It is possible that run-of-the-mill speeches transfer to the printed page better than truly outstanding orations, since the latter possess a gravitational force extending well beyond the ideas expressed or the specific words used to articulate them. Such speeches are, in a sense, a form of magical art.
Today when we read a speech by Jonathan Bowden, his voice still rings in our ears, whether or not we have heard the particular speech in question. We intimately associate the printed language with our vivid image of the man speaking—the familiar sound of his voice, his intonations, elocution, verbal pacing, body movements, beliefs, and so forth. The relevant sociocultural context also retains its immediacy.
But this kind of familiarity and intimacy does not exist for readers who have never heard Bowden speak, just as it no longer exists for us when we read great speeches by Patrick Henry, Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, or, possibly, Adolf Hitler.
An arresting observation by one person who read translations of portions of Hitler’s speeches was that it was “like reading lyrics from songs without the music.”
For a complex variety of reasons, Hitler’s oratorical mastery is unapparent to most people.
Putting aside the absurd but widespread diabolization and ridicule of Hitler and his oratorical style, it appears that an insurmountable language barrier and radically altered social circumstances make it impossible to objectively comprehend, even when viewing live documentary footage, the profoundly hypnotic, convincing dynamic that suffused his speeches and sp deeply inspired the German people.
As the Chaplin clip vividly demonstrates, manipulative propaganda easily concealed the essence of Hitler’s oratorical power from white non-Germans even at the time.
The necessity of translating from the German, whether published speeches or subtitles on film, interposes a great obstacle.
Translation raises intriguing problems especially pertinent to white people worldwide, who suffer from severe language, and hence psychological and cultural, balkanization. Language barriers among whites have greatly facilitated the cosmopolitan promotion of genocide.
Translations can be good or bad, accurate or inaccurate. Even a non-misleading translation, poorly done, can appear dead on the page, nothing like the original. Some classic books have suffered such a fate.
Following are some of the major published sources for extracts (mostly) from Hitler’s speeches. Again, few complete speeches are available in published form.
Adequate English translations of Hitler’s speeches are extremely hard to come by. Presently, virtually all translations are confined to collections of excerpts rather than complete speeches. The quality of the translations is often very poor.
Following are some of the collections I am aware of.
Norman H. Baynes, ed., The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922–August 1939: An English Translation of Representative Passages, 2 volumes, Royal Institute of International Affairs (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1942).
This 1,980-page work is a collection of representative passages arranged by subject matter. The excerpts are neither complete, self-contained, nor in chronological order (except for the passages in volume 2 on foreign policy, which are in chronological order). Interviews with journalists are also included.
Baynes translated from the German with some difficulty due to what he called a “diffuseness” in National Socialist terminology. Where authorized English translations of excerpts or interviews existed, Baynes relied upon those instead.
A 220-page abridgement is Norman H. Baynes, ed., Speeches of Adolf Hitler: Early Speeches, 1922–1924, and Other Selected Passages (N.Y.: Howard Fertig, 2006).
Raoul de Roussy de Sales, ed. Hitler: My New Order (New York: Reynal & Hitchcock, 1941), covers the early years through 1941. Excerpts from newspapers of the era commenting on some of the speeches, as well as introductory background material on each speech, are included.
A somewhat obscure volume is Gordon W. Prange’s Hitler’s Words: Two Decades of National Socialism, 1923–1943 (Washington, DC: American Council on Public Affairs, 1944), a collection of excerpts arranged under twenty topical headings.
A little-known, but ostensibly more definitive collection, at least insofar as the years in power are concerned, is Max Domarus, ed. Hitler: Speeches and Proclamations 1932–1945: The Chronicle of a Dictatorship, trans. Mary Fran Gilbert and Chris Wilcox (Wauconda, Ill.: Bolchazy-Carducci, 1990–2004), a 3,330-page, 4-volume set. The collection omits speeches prior to 1931.
Issued originally as a 2-volume German edition in 1962–63, the constituent English volumes are:
- Vol. 1: 1932–1934 (1990)
- Vol. 2: 1935–1938 (1992)
- Vol. 3: 1939–1940 (1996)
- Vol. 4: 1941–1945 (2004)
Notorious German fraudster Konrad Kujau used the German-language edition of this work to plagiarize his colossal forgery, The Hitler Diaries, which was sold to the German magazine Stern for 9.3 million DM in the early 1980s. The fraud caused an international sensation.
It has been asserted that Domarus’s collection is considered the most essential and reliable resource for Hitler’s speeches. In fact, the German and English language versions of the work are both highly flawed.
The English translation has been characterized as being of very low quality. Neither version contains a complete collection of complete speeches. Some are mere excerpts, while others are missing altogether. It is often difficult to tell where speeches begin and end, and Domarus insisted upon inserting his own opinions into the middle of speeches.
An 800-page selection of quotes from this set was published as Max Domarus, The Essential Hitler: Speeches and Commentary, ed. Patrick Romane (Wauconda, Ill.: Bolchazy-Carducci, 2007). An Amazon.com reviewer noted of this volume that half the book consisted of “hectoring, unilluminating, hate-engorged commentary” by Domarus.
The New Germany Desires Work and Peace: Speeches by Reich Chancellor Adolf Hitler The Leader of The New Germany. With An Introduction by Dr. Joseph Goebbels (Berlin: Liebheit & Thieson, 1933), an authorized English collection of Hitler’s early 1933 speeches.
Liberty, Art, Nationhood (Berlin: M. Muller & Sohn, 1935), 79 pp. Authorized English translation of three addresses delivered at the Seventh National Socialist Congress, Nuremberg, 1935.
Hitler Speeches Online (Published Texts)
Scattered websites have published purported copies of Hitler’s speeches. One key problem is that many of the “speeches” are not complete texts, but excerpts, a fact that is frequently not explained. The original German text is usually not provided for comparative purposes.
For the complete online text of a handful of key Hitler speeches, in both the original German and English translation, see here. The categories included are:
- Speeches on the Anniversary of Coming to Power
- Speeches on Art
- Declarations of War Against the Soviet Union (June 22, 1941) and the United States (December 11, 1941)
The following two works are collections of Hitler’s writings and speeches in the years before he was appointed Chancellor of Germany on January 30, 1933.
Eberhard Jäckel and Axel Kuhn, eds. Hitler: Sämtliche Aufzeichnungen: 1905–1924 [Hitler: Complete Records: 1905–1924] (Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1980), 1,312 pages.
Hitler: Sämtliche Aufzeichnungen is a collection of primary documents that professedly includes all of Hitler’s speeches and writings from 1905 to 1924: every surviving letter, postcard, note and poem written by Hitler.
Co-editor Jäckel is a Left-wing, anti-Hitler Social Democrat. Since the 1960s he has claimed that Hitler intended to exterminate the Jews from 1924 on. A major theme of Jäckel’s writing has been what he sees as the uniqueness and singularity of the Holocaust, which he contends is like no other genocide.
In the late 1970s Jäckel wrote a series of newspaper articles attacking historian David Irving and his magnum opus Hitler’s War. These articles were later turned into a book, David Irving’s Hitler (Port Angeles, Wash. and Brentwood Bay, B.C.: Ben-Simon Publications, 1993).
In the Historikerstreit (Historians’ Dispute) of the late 1980s, Jäckel joined other Left-wing academics and journalists in attacking conservative German historians such as Ernst Nolte, Joachim Fest, and Klaus Hildebrand. Among his polemics was an essay entitled “The Impoverished Practice of Insinuation: The Singular Aspect of National Socialist Crimes Cannot Be Denied,” published in the newspaper Die Zeit.
In April 1981 it was revealed that 76 of the six hundred documents contained in Jäckel’s and Kuhn’s work were forgeries.
Institut für Zeitgeschichte [Institute of Contemporary History], ed. Hitler: Reden, Schriften, Anordnungen, Februar 1925 bis Januar 1933 [Hitler: Speeches, Writings, Orders, February 1925 to January 1933] (Munich: K.G. Saur, 1992), consisting of six volumes and three supplementary volumes.
The NSDAP published Hitler’s complete speeches in German in the official Party newspaper, the Völkischer Beobachter. The VB is available on microfilm, but printed in Fraktur, a difficult German typeface to read.
The VB was a major source used by Norman Baynes and Gordon Prange for their wartime collections of extracts from Hitler’s speeches in English, as well as by Eberhard Jäckel and Axel Kuhn for their major work. (On all of which see above.)
The Party’s central publishing house issued miscellaneous collections of Hitler’s speeches—the accredited “author” for each volume of which is “Zentralverlag der NSDAP, ed.” Examples include:
- Reden des Führers, 1933–1936 (1936).
- Der Parteitag der Freiheit vom 10–16. September 1935: Offizieller Bericht über den Verlauf des Reichsparteitages mit sämtlichen Kongressreden (Munich: F. Eher, 1935).
- Parteitag der Freiheit: Reden des Führers und Ausgewählte Kongressreden am Reichsparteitag der NSDAP, 1935 Wehrmachts-Ausgabe (Munich: Zentralverlag der NSDAP, 1935).
- Reden des Führers am Parteitag der Freiheit 1935. Sonderausgabe der Luftwaffe (Munich: F. Eher, 1935).
- Reden des Führers am Parteitag der Ehre 1936 (Munich: F. Eher, 1936).
- Reden des Führers am Parteitag der Arbeit 1937 (Munich: F. Eher, 1937).
- Reden des Führers am Parteitag Grossdeutschland 1938 (Munich: F. Eher, 1939).
- Der Grossdeutsche Freiheitskampf: Reden Adolf Hitler vom 1. September 1939–15. März 1942, 2 Bd. (Munich: F. Eher, 1941–43).
 A 1998 Pierce speech I listened to just a few months ago, here, was removed because YouTube terminated the poster’s account. Although the reason for termination is not stated, YouTube is a subsidiary of Internet media giant Google, a multibillion dollar Jewish corporation. Google and other massive Internet firms interface closely with the ADL, a powerful Jewish censorship/hate group, to determine what content, opinions, and facts the global Internet audience is allowed to post, see, and hear, and what Americans and others worldwide will be forbidden from posting, seeing, and hearing. Later this year Stanford University is hosting a meeting of the “private” ADL, Google, Facebook (a Jewish company possessing enormous amounts of data on private individuals and organizations), and other elite individuals and groups to further extend Web censorship. Though such activities occur entirely in the dark, it is impossible to overstate their social impact. They create an artificial intellectual, cultural, and political environment in which anti-white racism, genocide, totalitarianism, anti-Christian bigotry, and many other evils cannot be opposed or countered, even verbally.
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 534 Interview with Alexander Adams
Visions of a New Right: Jonathan Bowden’s Right
Do Twitter’s Praetorian Guard Still Serve the Old Emperors?
Politicizing Luz Long, Part II
The Worst Week Yet: April 16-22, 2023
Richard Mikuláš hrabě Coudenhove-Kalergi a pravda o jeho plánu
British Sculpture, Part II
Remembering Jonathan Bowden
Notice: Trying to get property 'ID' of non-object in /home/clients/030cab2428d341678e5f8c829463785d/sites/counter-currents.com/wp-content/themes/CC/php/helpers/custom_functions_all.php on line 150
I’ve always been surprised how even though there are so many Hitler-related videos on YouTube, the last time I looked, there was only one video of Hitler giving a speech (I believe it’s the one from Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will – not a very substantive speech).
Is it that no one has uploaded videos of speeches given by Hitler? Or is it that YouTube allows all manner of cheesy pseudo-documentaries about Hitler, but not actual footage of the man speaking?
At any rate, if anyone knows where to find videos of Hitler speaking (with English subtitles if possible), I’d be grateful.
Youtube actively suppresses (with IP-based blocks) or deletes them. And when I mean actively, it is actively. They are on watch around-the-clock, ready to draw their gun at light speed, and have undoubtedly automatic alert systems which detect keywords in the title of newly uploaded videos.
A lot did, but they were banned (generally for “inciting hate speech”) and their videos deleted. The best uploader was THELINDGREEN; I had the fortunate time to save some of his works before the deletion of his account in late 2011.
Per your request, I’m currently uploading some speeches’ videos with English subtitles. There will be 3 or 4 in total.
I also have a lot of combat footage in color and high definition from the war, but these videos are still available on Youtube (hint: HCTerrorist) as of now.
Excellent Youtube channel. Thanks for the tip.
What is the problem? Go to YouTube, type in : “Hitler speeches”, and you’ll find a lot of them and with English subtitling.
I must say I personally am not smitten by either the contents of these speeches nor by the Führer’s “charisma”, but perhaps that is a matter of personal taste.
I’ve typed in “Hitler speeches” on Youtube as you recommended, and while there seems to be some available under that keyword (but with a non-European IP address only), they are far from the most interesting, and actually seem to be the same one or two duplicated to infinity.
Also, I generally refrain from engaging in personal attacks, but if you find Hitler’s charisma equal or inferior to the one of current politicians, you probably have some bias you need to re-evaluate. Idem if you did not learn anything new about the Nazi Period and the Second World War through Hitler’s speeches.
@ Deviance, May 30, 2012 at 4:17 am.
I don’t know how many of Hitler’s speeches have been recorded, so I don’t know how many might have been banned by YouTube. I know that YouTube is directly or indirectly controlled by Jews, but I still wonder why they allow so much of the Third Reich to be uploaded that might inspire people if it were their policy to prevent that. For example you can find on YouTube the complete film “Triumph of the Will” (1.44:27 min.) as well as the complete “The Eternal Jew”(1.01:24 min.). I cannot imagine any speech of Hitler’s that would be more “dangerous” than those two films.
As for Hitler’s “charisma”, often a public speaker’s “charisma” is the creation of an artificially controlled environment. Collect a crowd already emotionally excited to hear the Great Leader Himself, hang the hall full of symbols, flags etc., conduct impressive ceremonies before the speech begins and even the most banal utterances of a speaker appear almost as divine revelations. Crowds cheer simply because the intonation of the speaker suggests so, often without understanding what he is saying. For an example, go to YouTube : “A Historical Adolf Hitler Speech”. During this speech of 9.52 minutes the crowd cheered / applauded / shouted “Sieg Heil” 16 times, that is on average every 37 seconds. That happened at the end of almost every sentence Hitler spoke. I don’t think that had much to do with the content of his words, his “charisma” or even his gestures. His gestures BTW were practised before in front of a mirror, there was nothing “spontaneous” in them.
If you don’t belong to the Church of Hitler – worshippers, neither the Führer’s “charisma” nor his “genius” impress that much.
A question to Andrew Hamilton: are you French? I sensed it when you used the term “diabolization” in this article; though correct on a Greek-English etymologic basis, this is a word only a native French would think about using, since the far more common term in English is “demonization”.
I don’t think this is the case. When I was in collège, which is the equivalent of junior high school, an excerpt of a Hitler speech was shown on the television set during history class, purposely to show his oratory skills and (because my teacher was a liberal) “how mad he sounded”.
None of my comrades (who were between 12 and 14 years old) laughed at Hitler, mocked him in whispered remarks during the projection, or looked elsewhere out of boredom. In fact, all were captivated, even fascinated, their eyes riveted to the screen, in an admixture of admiration and fear for what they were (including me) seeing then as the “most evil person to have ever lived”.
Everyone of them agreed, at the end, on the fact he had a lot of charisma, and that his charisma was what made him very dangerous and powerful.
What better proof of the perfection of your oratory skills than, 70 years later, still having success with young teenagers, both gifted and dumb?
The distinction between oratory and public speaking does indeed revolve around memorization VS reading. It is impossible to be an orator when you read from a page, or even a prompter. That’s why Barack Obama is not an orator, even if he tries to act like one.
On several occasions, Hitler read from a page instead of declaiming a memorized or improvised speech. That was during official declarations to the Parliament or other formal events, and his tone was totally different than his usual tone. He thus made a clear distinction between oratory and public speaking, and never attempted to mix both.
Not only hard to come by, but often truncated. For decades, a false version of Hitler’s declaration of war on the USA (11 December 1941) floated, with the Jewish New York Times for origin.
For the rest, I can only agree with you on the fact Hitler’s speeches are totally unknown among large segments of the White Advocacy community.
Who knows, for example, the speech in which Hitler gives the reasons why he decided to invade the Soviet Union?
Here is a video of this speech I just uploaded: http://bayfiles.com/file/blqD/gwtS8s/Hitler_explains_his_reasons_for_invading_Soviet..mp4
If you want more videos of this style, I would be happy to upload them. They were originally created by THELINDGRENN, whose account has been terminated by Youtube in 2011.
The correct link is the following.
Thanks for your perceptive and thoughtful comments and observations.
I am American, not French.
It was instructive to learn of your and your classmates’ reactions to the Hitler speech, although they may have been due, at least in part, to the mixture of “admiration and fear” at listening to “the most evil person to have ever lived” as you describe it.
I’m not certain how common those reactions are among whites today, Germans, or even white nationalists.
There is no question but that Hitler was a true orator–one of the great ones.
Oratory versus public speaking, communicating passionately versus dispassionately (or even boringly), the performance aspects of oration and public speech, the apparent time-, context-, and audience- dependence of oratory, how well it is (or can be) captured in print, and related issues are quite interesting and present subtle philosophical questions.
Regardless of how successfully or unsuccessfully oratory migrates across time, or from speech to print, there is no question but that it is a powerful tool for achieving its objective—mesmerizing, moving, and persuading audiences and lighting fires in the minds of men.
Speakers who possess and exercise the gift are practitioners of a magic art.
This site has been around for awhile and is one of the best for music, films and all thing 3rd Reich.
You may also want to check out Bill Finck’s Mein Kampf Project at
Here is the Chancellor’s April 1939 Speech
Thanks for posting the link to Hitler’s April 1939 speech. I had never come across it before. As always, I loved it. Hitler is music to the ears of anyone who has ever wanted to tell the political establishment to stick it up their ass.
I’m not very impressed by Hitler’s “charisma” either. Although it’s definitely a matter of personal taste, like another commenter said. Also, public speeches probably made a far greater impression on people in that pre-TV age – the bombastic style of Hitler or Mussolini (especially the latter) was a product of that age, and doesn’t age very well.
I’ve tried to read as many Hitler speeches as possible. As the author points out it’s not very easy to find them. At least accurate translations etc. However, I’ve really enjoyed the Hitler speeches I have read. Moreover, I came away believing that he was right. Oratory definitely is a lost art and Hitler was one of the masters.
To Francklin Ryckaert and Tanja
I do not have any problem with criticisms of Hitler. I personally recognize some of his mistakes and approximations, both in in the diplomatic and the violent field. The greatest being having failed to set up a Slavic Anti-Communist Army as soon as 1941 because of bias, hubris, or failure to see the purely ideological nature of the Russian war against Germany. I also agree on the fact he was not a superhuman orator capable of convincing anyone (can such a man really exist?), and actually benefited from favourable conditions in his accession to power.
But as a personal rule of thumb, I regard hostility toward Hitler among White Advocates with a suspicious eye, since it has all too often revealed in my life, after I had scratched the surface, a very serious lack of knowledge on World War Two and the fascist period as a whole… For example, a lot of people in our milieus still think that Hitler wanted to conquer the entire world out of German ultranationalism (thus forgetting his numerous peace proposals and the lack of preparation of his armies in 1939), or that he considered the French or the Spaniards as irremediably mixed with Negroid blood and thus suited for enslavement or “extermination”.
These are actually the least dangerous. The Eternal Jew is a gross, über-simplified and thus defamatory pamphlet originally meant for consumption by the German masses, i.e. the 20-year-old female hairdresser.
I’ve seen it, and it actually calmed down my anti-Semitism instead of reinforcing it.
The Triumph Of The Will is a picturesque, aesthetic and borderline autistic film with a propaganda power which is close to none.
The most dangerous speeches I can fathom are different: more intellectual and more factual, or expressing an interest in peace rather than war. This is the sort of speeches that, once seen, can lead a man with above-average intelligence to ask himself: “I have therefore been lied to in school?”.
I won’t say you are wrong — most crowds were probably carefully selected before a speech, at least in closed environments.
But this line of reasoning must be carefully manipulated, since its logical extremity is that German enthusiasm for Hitler was forged thanks to the barrel of a gun and tailored video propaganda. A judgement which has been found as untrue by every foreign traveller who went to Germany during the 1933-1939 period, fascist sympathizers or not (such as Natural Geographic journalists), and can be confronted with a single argument: why did he never fear an assassination in public or a revolution? Could you imagine Stalin crossing several towns and cities standing in a convertible, at all times of the year?
The problem is that to reach the head of a State and maintain you there, you need to be a genius. François Mitterrand or George W. Bush were geniuses, undoubtedly, even if they were corrupt, self-serving and hedonistic.
The rest is for subjective appreciation. I do think Hitler was a genius, since he was a complete autodidact, had every symptom of “giftedness” as a child and an adolescent, did revolutionize military tactics (despite the slanders poured on him at the end of the war), and most important of all, was a realist with a perfect understanding of natural laws.
Typing mistake: replace “Natural Geographic” by “National Geographic”.
The documentary I’m referring to is the following
Youtube actively suppresses (with IP-based blocks) or deletes them. And when I mean actively, it is actively. They are on watch around-the-clock, ready to draw their gun at light speed, and have undoubtedly automatic alert systems which detect keywords in the title of newly uploaded videos.
Earlier today I went to You Tube to play Deutschland über alles for son who loves national anthems. I was greeted by this:
Some jerk flagged the German national anthem as offensive content, and You Tube went along with it despite the video having 2.7 millions hits and many more Likes than Dislikes. Last time I looked at this video, which was about a year ago, that message wasn’t there, and there were thousands of comments the majority pro-German.
This, I think, is an example of pathological Talmudic hated that is unique to Jews. If you can no longer post a pro-German song written in the 19th century without harassment, I have to wonder how much longer even the mild White content is going to last on that site.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Edit your comment