1,331 words
Michael Hoffman
Adolf Hitler: Enemy of the German People
Coeur d’Alene, Id.: Independent History and Research, 2019
I don’t really get the “Fake Hitler” trope, but apparently it’s very seductive for some people. There is this compulsion to believe that the German Reichskanzler wasn’t the real Adolf Hitler. No, he was a body-double, a mole, a trickster, a false-flag actor, a judas goat sent out among the crowds to lead them astray. These ideas would make more sense to me if there were hordes of people out there, insisting that Uncle Dolfie was the One True Führer; but where I live, at least, these folks are pretty thin on the ground. People who come up with theories that Hitler was a charlatan are probably just people who spend a lot of time thinking about Hitler.
One of the oldest versions is the “Jewish Hitler” theory, which rests on the speculation that Adolf’s grandmother was impregnated by a young Jew when she was working as a domestic servant in the 1840s. (Nice trick there: The Führer gets to be both Jewish and the son of a bastard.) In recent years, new life has been breathed into this hoary fable thanks to the popularity of DNA testing. Ostensibly, some of Hitler’s relatives share an ancient haplogroup that also shows up occasionally among North African Jews and Berbers. So perhaps, way back during the Ice Age, before there were any Jews or Berbers or Austrians . . . but you get the picture.
That idea is a stretch, but it’s no less durable or likely than the “Hitler Body-Double” theory, according to which a Führer lookalike was recruited and/or cosmetically enhanced in the closing years of the war, perhaps later to escape in a submarine to South America, or maybe dying in the Bunker while the genuine Adolf, and maybe Eva too, fled to the pampas.
There’s also the “Hitler: Tool of Wall Street” idea. This had some vogue in the 1970s, although it has faded out in recent years, perhaps because it sounds too much like old Bircher conspiracy theories about the Trilateral Commission and Bilderbergers. According to this hypothesis, the Standard Oil companies, Henry Ford, the Chase Bank, and others funded Hitler’s rise in order to ensure capitalism’s hegemony, or something.[1]
Then there’s the “Sleeper Mole” theory, in which the Führer-to-be is actually an agent of an international conspiracy, groomed and put in play shortly after the Great War, beginning when a freshly demobbed soldier and police spy (A. H., age 30) infiltrated the tiny Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei in Munich. This sounds like the most far-fetched concoction of all, but it was already prevalent when English newspaper writer Douglas Reed first heard it in the 1930s. “I conjectured that this man-from-nowhere might in truth be the accomplice of Communism and Political Zionism,” Reed wrote some years later.[2]
And now, at last, I come to Michael A. Hoffman II (as he styled himself back in the 1980s; with maturity, he’s trimmed his byline), who has his own complex, nuanced theory of Hitler-as-charlatan. Hoffman’s notion is similar to Douglas Reed’s, although Hoffman doesn’t go all out and point fingers at Communists and Zionists. Rather, Hoffman’s Hitler is a provocateur and vandal; he took a nice thing and messed it up.
The gist of Adolf Hitler: Enemy of the German People is that there was a good and true NSDAP organization once upon a time, but it got hijacked by Hitler and his merry men. I gather this kinder, gentler National Socialist movement – we can hardly call it “Nazism” – would have been something like Hilaire Belloc’s medievalist Distributism, or maybe a Keir Hardie-ish Scottish Labourite idealism. That’s a foggy description, but it’s as close as I can guess; after all, Distributism and 1890s Labour socialism were likewise vague, and never solidified into anything you could point to.
For the author, and for us, it’s easier to look at history and say what Hoffman’s ideal German National Socialism would not have been; thus, most of the book is a bill of particulars against the political ideas that were supposedly subverted by Hitler and company. Per Hoffman, the uncorrupted NSDAP need not have wrecked the Weimar Republic. Nor would it have been sidetracked into anti-Jewish sloganeering (“anti-Judaic” in Hoffman’s idiom), or alienated such thinkers as Oswald Spengler and Gottfried Feder; nor would it have murdered Gregor Strasser and other founders of the movement during the 1934 “Night of Long Knives.” It wouldn’t have lost itself in such quasi-Kabbalistic occult nonsense as the Thule Society, or persecuted the Catholic Church. There would have been no need to stir up fear of Communism, because Stalin was far away and wasn’t going to invade Germany. (Perhaps the weakest of the book’s arguments.) A pristine and un-Hitlerfied National Socialism wouldn’t have picked wars with other countries; certainly it wouldn’t hurtled itself into the orgy of suicidal self-destruction that began in 1941 with Operation Barbarossa.
Anyway, that’s the general trend of Hoffman’s book. On the positive side of the ledger, the pure and good NSDAP would have banned usury and lifted Germany out of the snares of International Finance. This, along with peace and prosperity, would supposedly have been the major achievement of the Party. And as Hoffman continually impresses on us, opposition to the international banking system was Hitler’s major selling proposition for the Party in the early days, back before he turned coat and sold out to the usurers.
After all of this pleading, I am reminded of that cliché about Communism: about how it’s never really been tried. And that is the basic problem with Hoffman’s argument. The type of National Socialism we know from historical fact and fiction is so closely identified with the disasters of the Hitler era that counterfactual imagining becomes pointless, if not impossible. It’s as though obese people were to insist they’d only weigh 135 pounds if they were on Mars, ergo it’s Earth’s gravity that’s really at fault.
I’m not sure whom this Adolf Hitler: Enemy of the German People is aimed at. I didn’t think it was written as a corrective to Hitler Channel enthusiasts. It’s too obscurantist, written in a hectoring and didactic tone that repels rather than hooks the reader. So I was surprised to see in the author’s statement at Amazon that his book was “intended as an antidote to the Hitler hologram . . . which, tragically, has become something of a template for young radicals on the Far Right.” Now I’m wondering who these “young radicals” are. My general impression has been that such acolytes exist mainly in the fevered imaginations of hucksters at the Southern Poverty Law Center.
To put the most generous face on it, I believe the author is trying to salvage something worthwhile out of the murky and wayward political philosophies of the early twentieth century. Hofmann is one of those people who like to think a lot about thinking, but are too impatient to mold their insights into something beguiling and palatable. So he throws us a hunk of raw ideas and little-known facts, but doesn’t explain what we’re supposed to do with them. (So Gregor Strasser was a good guy – now what?) The overall effect, alas, is that the author is not really interacting with the reader; he’s working for himself, compulsively piling up details of inaccessible, hermetic mysteries. It’s the kind of stuff we used to see in 1980s ‘zines, or the RE/Search book series, or in some conspiracy-minded titles published by the late Adam Parfrey of Feral House, to whose publications Hoffman occasionally contributed.
Notes
[1] Two books invariably come up in this regard: Antony Sutton’s Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, originally published by (Sudbury, Suffolk: Bloomfield Press, 1976), but in many editions since; and James and Suzanne Pool, Who Financed Hitler? (New York: Dial Press, 1978).
[2] Douglas Reed, Somewhere South of Suez (New York: Devin-Adair Company, 1951). Reed told versions of this story in several other books; this example just happens to be the volume I have on my shelf.
35 Comments
Does Hoff make any mention how the “good” alternative universe party would have dealt with the Versailles treaty and its consequences?
The part about Stalin being “far away” is incredibly silly. Well no, communist movements, all connected with Moscow, were militantly active all over Europe, and in 1919 had overtaken Munich for a few weeks. Berlin was always a target for the ideology of world revolution, because it was seen as the key to Western Europe. Eastern parts of Germany, such as East Prussia, were geographically pretty close to the Soviet Union (hell, there was an Eastern Front against Czarist Russia in WWI already), with borders to Poland or the Baltic countries which definitely where under threat by Stalin (and contained large ethnic German populations). And Oswald Spengler or Gottfried Feder would have gladly wrecked the Weimar republic in any case. Etc etc. Does this book contain any real history at all?
To your first point, I wonder whether Stalin would have been interested in attacking Germany if the German government had been less hostile to all things Slavic.
Hitler repeatedly tried to make peace with Britain and apparently saw (capitalist) England as a natural ally. He dispensed with anyone who was more tolerant of socialism – the Strassers exiled or murdered, Feder sidelined, Ernst Niekisch locked up (after a failed attempt to blame him for the Reichstag fire).
In light of Hitler’s earlier statements on Bolshevism and slavic nations, it’s not surprising Stalin felt threatened. Had a different strain of national socialism emerged, I think it’s conceivable that war with the Soviets could have been avoided.
The author asks- ‘So Gregor Strasser was a good guy – now what?’ and without having read Hoffman’s book I’m making an assumption, but it sounds like the point of the book is that Germany’s destruction in 1944-45 could have been avoided if German national socialism had evolved differently during the 30’s.
Otto Strasser said the German people wanted the German Revolution; what they got was Hitler..
In fact the Slavic people attacked and usually destroyed every non Slavic people. More than that the Eastern Slavs attacked and destroyed the Western Slavs with ferocity.
Stalin was just following the natural course, of which Hitler was aware.
Stalin had treaties of non-agression with almost everyone and finished attacking everyone.
@Petronius: Yes, the communists were mighty strong in Germany in the early 30s, and anti-communist fear wasn’t about Stalin. That was pretty much my point about how it was a weak argument to say Stalin wasn’t a threat in 1933 or whatever, so communism wasn’t a problem. The reason the rank-and-file populace gave Hitler a pass on such excesses as the Night of Long Knives, is that the NatSocs crushed the communist menace. That wasn’t a side worry but the central issue. Hoffman knows this, but is giving us sophistry to buttress the rest of his argument.
“One of the oldest versions is the “Jewish Hitler” theory, which rests on the speculation that Adolf’s grandmother was impregnated by a young Jew when she was working as a domestic servant in the 1840s.”
Well, make up your own mind:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEjNPGzrbos
Leonard Sax is a complete charlatan, and counts upon the viewer not to read the article. Read it, and you’ll see how weak his argument is.
Henry Makow is really into this. He had an article called “Hitler was a British Agent” that engaged in the kind of convoluted conspiracism you associate with Birchers and Muslims.
For a number of years I’ve read Michael Hoffman’s books and articles. His most coherent publication is “They Were White and They Were Slaves”, but most of his other works, while interesting, are as the reviewer states, a collection of accusations lacking an overall perspective.
His two separate books on Usury and Renaissance Catholicism have the potential to be dynamite if given more historical research and a wider readership.
However, it must be conceded that perhaps Douglas Reed was onto something; the result of Hitler’s attack on the Soviet Union ultimately served the interests of international communism. Hoffman isn’t the first to attempt to place historical figures in a different historical light. “The Occult War” written in the 1930s by Leon de Poncins and Emmanuel Malynski, with some revisions / additions by Julius Evola, places both Chancellor Bismarck and Napoleon III as unwitting tools of ‘internationalist money power’. Both fostered forces that were contrary to the stated aims and philosophies of their respective states, so perhaps Hitler fits the same category.
While Hitler will be a controversial figure for a while yet I thought Hoffman raised some good points such as on p. 55 that until WW1 “Germany and Britain had never fought against one another,” and again on p.63 that there was a second attempt by the cousins at war to have peace but somebody wanted war. “At Christmas 1916, British, Canadian and Bavarian soldiers attempted again to celebrate Christ’s nativity and again were stymied by increased patrols, sniping and bombardment ordered from on high.”
Hitler may indeed have been used or a “player” in dividing Germany and Britain which I suspect Hoffman was hinting at.
Goodness! I’m sure Hoffman knows that Germany as such had never existed until 1871. Historically, England (and later Britain) had struggled to prevent any European power from dominating the continent. Witness their historic animus against Spain (16th century) and France (18th century). Why would their treatment of Germany–once united under a sovereign–have been any different?
The insouciance with which the reviewer greets the murder of Gregor Strasser: the casual dismissal of a great crime with profoundly negative consequences for Germany— is representative of other iniquities, for example, Hitler’s betrayal of the anti-usury platform that helped elect him, and his mass suicide operation in Russia—that are blithely mentioned and then dismissed with indifference to the facts.
Moreover, outside the corpus of the “review” itself, P.J. Collins offers the following in a rejoinder to a comment:
“… it was a weak argument to say Stalin wasn’t a threat in 1933 or whatever…”
I have never said any such thing. I refer in Adolf Hitler: Enemy of the German People to the “Molech of the Soviet Union,” and acknowledge Stalin’s horrendous crimes.
P.J. Collins also writes in his rejoinder:
“The reason the rank-and-file populace gave Hitler a pass on such excesses as the Night of Long Knives, is that the NatSocs crushed the communist menace. That wasn’t a side worry but the central issue. Hoffman knows this, but is giving us sophistry to buttress the rest of his argument.”
This claim of clairvoyant knowledge is always noteworthy. It reminds me of the mind-readers who say that they “know” that WWII revisionists do indeed believe in the homicidal gas chambers of Auschwitz, and are “denying” them out of sheer perversity.
According to documents related to the ascendance of the NSDAP and Hitler’s popularity prior to his gaining rule, the “central worry” for the German people was the Money Power, as weaponized by usury, including by “Aryan” banks. I document how Hitler turned his coat in this matter after he achieved power. I don’t “give sophistry” to prove this. There are facts in my book for those who actually wish to cite or debate them, rather than issue a quick, sarcastic dismissal.
The murder of Gregor Strasser and other innocents was not mere “excess.” Hitler killed dozens over the course of the “Night,” some guilty, many innocent, and all without due process of any kind, not even a show trial having been accorded them. Hitler demonstrated he was the law. How can anyone regard Hitler’s murderous dictatorship as only excessive? What he did to Gregor and the others was a harbinger and template of what this “gambler at the map table” would do to millions of Germans with his grotesque incompetence and magical thinking.
There might be a case here of some behaving as more loyal than the king. Goring and Himmler exceeded their mandate by bumping off individuals they deemed a potential threat to Hitler.
David Irving writes in The War Path pages 71-2,
Göring had wantonly liquidated Gregor Strasser, Hitler’s rival; and there had been a rash of arbitrary murders in Bavaria – often clearly mistakes of identity. He learned that somebody had killed his old friend Pastor Bernhard Stempfle, an almost daily acquaintance of earlier years, who had helped edit Mein Kampf for publication.
Hitler’s adjutant Wilhelm Brückner described in private papers how Hitler vented his annoyance on Himmler when the Reichsführer SS appeared at the Chancellery with a final list of the victims –eighty-two all told. In later months Viktor Lutze, Röhm’s successor, told anybody who would listen – when his tongue had been loosened by drink – that the Führer had originally listed only seven men; he had offered Röhm suicide, and when Röhm declined this “offer” Hitler had had him shot too. Despite Hitler’s instructions, the seven had become seventeen, and then eighty-two. “The Führer was thus put in the embarrassing position of having to sanction all eighty-two killings afterward,” complained Lutze. Lutze put the blame squarely on Himmler and Göring. A report of Lutze’s drunken maunderings was sent to Himmler, and he showed it to Hitler – who characteristically took no action either way: Lutze was not disciplined, but nor were the highly-placed murderers.
One curious fact suggests that Lutze was right, however: in an act of ironic magnanimity that he was to repeat in after the failed Bomb Plot, Hitler ordered state pensions provided for the next-of-kin of the people murdered in the Night of the Long Knives.
Indeed. For readers interested in a first-hand report of the dismay felt by German nationalists at the direction taken by Hitler, this article is useful:
https://arplan.org/2019/10/29/socialists-leave-the-nsdap/#more-2207
.
If one is to be concerned only with facts derived from post-III Reich (and leave the myths, as interesting as they may be, for the idle moments), some of the outstanding realities are:
1– The jews were provided with the most effective argument ever (“the forever victims”) to justify and whitewash any and all of their moves since then.
2 (or should I say 1b?)– Communism enjoyed a decades-long free pass which allowed the rulling of almost half Europe and a prominent presence and ransacking (material and cultural) all over the world, the consequences of which we are still witnessing – and “enjoying”- today.
All in all, Hitler’s place in history – from a “direct consequences only” standpoint – can only be summarized as a monumental “shoot in the foot” for everything White.
Just because things worked out that way does not mean that was Hitler’s intent.
Dear Sir,
“Intent”, in the present matter’s context, seems beside the point. The question is: was Hitler a pawn or not?
In my humble opinion, a valuable leader is one who can envision not only the consequences of success but also have a clear conscience of what the aftermath will bring to the common good. In this sense, Hitler and his direct supporters at the time clearly overlooked what was lying ahead or, even worse, completely ignored it. What is the purpose of leading an entire nation (and an entire set of ideologies) into defeat and, worse still, perennial shame?
In a fight, the individual can risk it all – because, in defeat, he will have to take the brunt of it; when leading a collective whole, one has to clearly assess the consequences of his deeds and intentions, because it is the collective (and, eventually, future generations) who will have to endure them.
Mankind faces two similarly important issues: a) people needing to be guided; and b) people wanting to guide them, but who are ineffective at doing so. If you are someone who doesn’t need to be guided, here’s my humble suggestion: steer clear of guiding others, even if they ask you to. Join people of your own rank, and let the ones who follow under both monikers a) or b) to deal with their lack of awareness.
(I’m not implying nothing – this is a mere personal point of view, one that I apply to my own life at my own expense. That’s why I wish to thank you – and all who help to make Counter-Currents a stronghold of sanity – for all the great work.)
“[…] and let the ones who fall under both monikers […]”
(My apologies.)
Agree with Greg. Just because Hitler lost the war to the combined forces of US, UK and USSR does not mean he didn’t intend to win or didn’t try his best to win, his faults and flaws notwithstanding.
Dear Sir,
If you haven’t done so already, please let me suggest the reading of Albert Speer’s memories. Perhaps it’ll cast another light into what “Hitler’s best” was.
(I’m not disputing Hitler’s qualities – I’m stating that his erratic personality played a major role in the outcome of the III Reich, along with the internal powerplays consuming the ranks.)
Best regards.
Speer HAD to make an anti Hitler book. If he didn’t, they would most certainly have thrown him back in prison. More discernment is needed when choosing a book about the most lied about man in history
“Communism enjoyed a decades-long free pass” because of the Red Army. Causing an existential war just to beef up a military seems too stupid and risky for something a hidden global cabal would consider.
Dear Sir,
“Direct consequences only” standpoint, again: even if that Red Army proposition holds water, it just comes to show that reality prove them right, while the “hidden global cabal” remains in the speculative realm.
Best regards.
On the mark good sir or should I say Amen “You shall know them by fruits”
Please refute Antony Sutton’s research, point by point.
In one of the appendices to “Which Way Western Man”, Simpson makes favorable reference to Sutton’s works and states that although he cannot find fault with his analysis of banking and international corporations, he felt Sutton ignored the JQ but did pass judgement on why he omitted that key factor.
Sutton’s analysis of Wall Street involvement in building up the Soviet Union during the 1920s and 30s is indisputable, the evidence is rock solid. Albert Kahn of Chicago provided blast furnace technology, General Electric built the turbine plant at Kharkov, and International Aluminium developed sheet metal capacity for aircraft use.
The Soviet Union was being prepared for war, but did Wall Street intend Germany to be the victim? It would appear Germany was given just enough financial assistance to make German rearmament possible.
Concerning Adolf Hitler, Francis Parker Yockey wrote:
“After the conclusion of the Second World War, the opponents of the Hero of that war found themselves still dominated by his personality. Either they adopted his ideas and declared them as their own, or they continued to fight against them. There was no trace of a new idea independent of this Hero…
“In the heroic era, no military test applies, not the test of ‘success’ nor of anything else. It was Cromwell who inspired generations of men after him, not the later Stuarts who had his body torn to pieces by wild horses. It was Napoleon who inspired a century of leadership after him, not Ludwig XVIII or Metternich or Talleyrand. The heroic world stands immeasurably above the division of useful/useless. Cromwell won in 1688, long after his death and following disgrace. And in 1840 Napoleon had won, he whose name could be pronounced in Europe only with risk in 1820. The idea of Napoleon triumphed in the spiritual-political sphere, his personality in the heroic sphere. Who would accuse him now over the facts of the lost battles of Leipzig and Waterloo?
“Such will it be with the Hero of World War II. He represented the new, aesthetic type which will form and inspire all coming leaders in the West. The lamenting after the Second World War about his “mistakes” was simply contemptible. Every journalist and big-mouth knows better than the great — they just would not have made this or that mistake. No, for they would not have been able to do anything at all.
“Heroism is unique and cannot be wasted. As long as men survive, they will always be influenced by the Hero and his legend. He lives on in spirit and continues to take place in the world of facts and deeds.”
Cromwell certainly was a great man but the cause in which he fought opened the country up to its present predicament (isn’t hindsight wonderful?). Also, because Cromwell and the Duke of Montrose never met in battle we will never know which was the better cavalry officer.
Of course, any half-way successful attempt to break free of the “snares of International Finance” would have led to war anyway. So much for the ‘death in June’ theory!
Hoffman, Just ANOTHER Failed Moralist Pretending To Virtue-Signal
Hoffman is a transparently horrible writer–except when it comes to analyzing Talmudism, as he does quite well in a couple of works of his. But when it comes to economics (or anything else, evidently)–like regarding “usury”–Hoffman literally knows nothing, and can’t even reason regarding the subject, beginning w. what “usury” is in the first place–for it’s surely not mere lending at interest, interest well-justified in the science and for matter of freedom-of-contract among humanity, obviously.
Worst of all, Hoffman is one of those putrid virtue-signalers, so self-righteous he stinks–a real Pharisee himself of the worst sort. And that’s what his book on unc’ Adolf is all about–to display to the Jews how he, Hoffman, emotes w. them against a hero who dared to fight satan’s front-line soldiers, the Jews. Hoffman wants to pretend only he is allowed to criticize Jews, u see.
Simple fact is Germany was attacked by the Jew-conspiracy, like they were in WWI, and Stalin was preparing a massive attack on the eastern front, confirmed in fine detail by Suvorov (or Rezun). Note Hoffman is soooo pathetic in attempted rebuttal of Suvorov, Hoffman can only cite what others allege and assert against Suvorov’s mountain of facts. Hoffman himself is capable of nothing but virtue-signaling–it’s his only purpose and desire, never doubt.
In Germany in 1934, it was continuous war against the Jews and cohorts who had concocted yet another plot, and Gregor Strasser was simply un-lucky amidst the tragic turmoil. People just fail to see the great tide of determinist history faced by unc’ Adolf and the Germans against the criminal Jews and their great central-bank operations (see Mises.org for expo on central-banking, etc.; use site search-engine for particular terms), consisting literally of legalized counterfeiting of fake currency, not real money, etc., combined w. the communist incubus, and United Nations world dictatorship.
So one sees Hoffman has no genuine arguments as he has no facts, his only real effort being in moralizing and emoting w. satanic Jews in his pathetic, self-righteous desperation, evidently in compensation and apology for speaking truth about Talmud–Hoffman is traitor to humanity and truth (= Christ, Gosp. JOHN 14:6) itself, and he stinks.
Leading circles in the US and Britain wanted war but did not talk war. Stalin wanted war too but did not talk war either, at least not to the outside world. It was a different story with Soviet propaganda intended for domestic consumption. This propaganda talked war under the banner of world revolution.
Hitler and the Nazis were confused. They talked war, or at least it seemed so, under the banner of righting the wrongs of Versailles and obtaining Lebensraum. But they did not really know whether they wanted war or not. When war broke out, German forces where woefully unprepared. Successes were mostly a matter of luck. Full transition to a war economy occurred only several years into the war, not earlier.
The Nazis had no plan and did not fool anyone. American and British elites and Stalin all had the plan of pitting all the other ones against each other. Stalin fooled the Nazis by signing the pact that gave him Eastern Poland. The Nazis duly attacked Poland first. Eventually they found themselves in a two front war. How dumb is that? Polish atrocities against minority Germans prior to the attack were backed by the British and the Americans. They also got the war they wanted. They fooled both the Soviets and and the Germans. The Americans fooled the British into believing that they could win WWII just as they had won WWI. It hastened the demise of their empire. The empire’s days were numbered anyway. Its quick demise provided the Americans with the opening they needed to become the next hegemon. Influential circles in the US fooled the US public into believing that war was good for them. Here is the hierarchy of fools:
The US public
The British
The Soviets
The Germans
Hitler only ever made a single move that could be considered smart to some extent. By attacking the Soviet Union, he put Germany on the chopping block to prevent a communist takeover of all of Europe.
Hitler was a complex phenomenon. It is clear that he was a pawn in the grand scheme of things. He also had some leeway prior to the war. During this time, he had some successes with regard to how he ran the economy and drove out disloyal members of the German elite. This is why he is so difficult to gauge nowadays.
Hitler, Germany: Parts In CYCLIC History Of Central-Banking, Spenglerian “Decline Of West”
Everything is so difficult and complicated for “Omouamoua” (and so many others): Germany and Hitler were attacked, pure and simple–and all in accord w. a sustained overall plan for world dictatorship/gov. Especially as Germany under Hitler/NSDAP had rebuilt so well and effectively (see David Hoggan’s “The Forced War”), the Jew and central-banking powers decided it was time to strike and continue to remaking the world for Jew world order and one-world gov. under United Nations–they’re still working at it, still in the saddle carrying the initiative, as we see, despite growing problems for the people getting wise to it all.
Thus Britain made an offensive alliance w. Poland, Poland making it clear it would be war if Germany didn’t give-up Danzig to be taken-over by Poles, as Poles had done w. much other German-populated territory, murdering thousands of ethnic Germans as further provocation(s).
Thus Brits and French declared war on Germany which had done NOTHING against Brits and French–they just wanted a war, having nothing better to do for their Jew masters running the central-banks legalized counterfeiting (again, see Mises.org for expo on central-banking, etc.) fiat-currency scam(s).
When one looks at things in view of one-world gov., one sees “NATIONAL”-type gov., as Germany’s, must go and be eliminated in face of world socialism for working classes, etc., all run and managed by the criminals behind central-banking operations, US Federal Reserve, B. of England, BIS, etc.
So Britain and France tried to line-up w. Soviets, who were too suspicious at first, but failing such alignment w. outright Bolsheviks, decided to use poor, stupid Poland. Behind everyone else stood Jew S A, so willing, even eager, to bankroll everyone else beginning w. infamous “lend-lease,” by which Russkies were enabled, w. trucks for mobility, and food, ultimately to defeating Germany which didn’t get its fearsome rocket and jet-engine weaponry on-line in time.
Proper analysis of history of one-world socialist gov. isn’t difficult, really–such dictatorship all fueled and energized by means of central-banking scam which so many people STILL can’t figure-out (hint: it’s just legalized counterfeiting, literally).
Thus WWII must be understood as mere following act to the first “world war,” which war was deliberately begun by Triple Entente conspirators, including the great Boer war which preceded–see “Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War,” by G. Docherty and J. Macgregor, also ck their website, FirstWorldWarHiddenHistory.wordpress.com.
Only with evilization of fake “Nazis” you won’t be banned from Jewtube. The more of that sh*t the better. Watch interviews of “Dark Journalist” with “Doctor” Joseph P. Farrell, who is outright obsessed with Nazi topics. Main thing: it must be “entertaining” https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EsRh_RcBFNo
On this occasion I must refer to the Sachsen Wolf-Dieter Storl. His father was a German soldier in the East, his family emigrated to Ohio in 1953 when he was 12 years old.
As a scientist, he participated in drug experiments at American elite universities in the 1960s.
At the end of the 80s he finally settled in Europe with his American Hillbilly wife and his children (in an abandoned centuries-old mountain farm in the Allgäu).
He wrote the book “My American Culture Shock” about his time in the States. He has a strong connection to our Germanic roots, even if he expresses them apolitically.
He is open to “alternative” media and shows what he thinks of climate mania and homosexualization by skilful side blows. Unfortunately there is only little English language material available.
https://runesoup.com/2017/05/talking-ancient-plant-medicine-with-wolf-dieter-storl/
http://outofthisworld1150.com/guests/dr-wolf-dieter-storl/
At the same time he makes it clear to the Germans that they have a “false picture of America” (no wonder: Germans believe that “America” is its Jewish elite!).
In this trailer he sits completely unbiased in front of “Stars & Bars” https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xtuYDniePrg
First he takes on Austria, then most of Scandinavia and Eastern Europe, then France, and — hold your breath — England — then, of all things –RUSSIA, in the winter — and finally northern Africa –all with feeble and unstable alliances with Italy and Spain (?) — meanwhile arresting millions of his own citizens, mostly Jews and others he ‘suspects of treason’, and marches them off to massively expensive and time-consuming ‘killing farms’ — and we sit here debating whether he was a ‘hero’? My friends, it’s over, and we must turn our attention back to all of white Europe that remains and North America, where we are under attack. It’s all a wonderful intellectual historical puzzle, and we have definitely done it justice on these pages today, but I would like to know where we plan our safehouses for our future.