A suggestion that Hitler lost the Second World War on purpose may sound preposterous, so the argument has to be built carefully. The result comes from answering the following questions:
1) Did Hitler try to exterminate Jews? The answer is no and it can be proven by demographic calculations: Hitler transported Jews to the East.
2) Where did Hitler intend to send these Jews? The answer is clear: to Palestine. This answer can be supported by Hitler’s actions, agreements and a peace offer.
3) Did Hitler think he had a God-appointed mission to send Jews to Palestine? The answer follows from Hitler’s utterances and the previous points. The answer is yes.
4) In biblical prophecies, do Jews return to Palestine in the end of the times, are they first persecuted, is the persecutor of Jews destroyed, and is the persecutor often expected to be part-Jewish? The answer to all other questions is yes, for the last, maybe.
5) Did Hitler believe that he was 1/4 Jewish? The answer is, very probably he did.
6) Did Hitler make military decisions that cause the defeat of Germany? The answer is yes.
7) Was the Nazi party continuing the Masonic goal of restoring Jews to Palestine? The answer is yes, and more is true: the Nazi party did have Masonic origins through Theosophy.
When all of these questions are answered, the logic of the argument is as follows. Hitler thought he was 1/4 Jewish and did not like it, as a Jewish man had made his grandmother pregnant. Hitler considered Jews a race and he did not want races to mix, especially not Jews to impregnate German women. He saw it as his God-given mission, as a part-Jew, to push Jews out of Europe to Palestine. He would persecute Jews and 1/3 of them would die, but it would cleanse the degenerated race. Hitler was sent to join a party, which was trying to realize the Masonic goal of restoring Jews to Palestine through anti-Semitism. Hitler made the Nazi party a power and he collected Jews so that they could be moved to Palestine. Then he intentionally caused the defeat of Germany, because that was an essential part of what he saw as his mission.
1. Did Hitler try to exterminate Jews?
This question can be answered by a simple calculation from Jewish statistics given by American Jewish Congress Yearbooks (AJY). These are the main source of Jewish statistics. I make only some known and accepted corrections to certain figures.
The official claim that 6 million Jews died in the Second World War is based on the calculation in AVY vol. 50. There were 9.7 million Jews in Europe in 1939. There were 3.78 million Jews in Europe in 1946. Thus, six million died. This calculation has two errors. Firstly, there were 8.89 million Jews in Europe in 1939, not 9.7 million. Secondly, a large number of Jews emigrated from Europe. This number is
75,000 (accepted to Palestine in the White Paper for 1939-1948)
138,000 (legally migrated to Palestine from DP-camps 1946-48)
110,000 (Alyah Bet, illegal immigration to Palestine during 1939-1946)
338,000 (legal immigration to Israel 1948-1953)
137,000 (first 80,000, then 57,000 to the USA from DP-camps after 1948)
20,000 (to Canada and South Africa after 1948)
The sum is 818,000. However, we have to subtract those Jews (e.g. German Jews), who were twice counted as part of the 3.78 million survivors and Jews on DP camps. A more careful calculation gives about 700,000 Jews, who migrated. The death toll is thus 8.9-3.8-0.7=4.4 million. This is the figure given by the Jewish World Almanac, the population drop is between 1948 and 1949 as the figures were not updated before that time. My more careful calculation gives about the same number, 4.5 million Jewish deaths.
Thus, 4.5 million Jews died, if we accept AJY figures for all countries. However, there is one country, the Soviet Union, which gave extremely unreliable estimates. So far, let us accept these Soviet estimates. These Soviet estimates in AJY state that there were 2.8 million Jews in the Baltic countries and the Soviet Union of 1939, and from the Polish census of 1932 there were 1.41 million Jews in the area of Poland occupied by the Soviet Union in 1939. By AJY there were 2 million Jews in the Soviet Union of 1946. It follows that 2.8+1.4-2=2.2 million died in the area of the Soviet union of 1946. From 4.5 million deaths remain 4.5-2.2=2.3 million.
In Romania died 160,000 Jews and in Yugoslavia Germans shot some 58,000 Jews. This means that about 2.1 million died in the areas outside the Soviet Union, Romania and Yugoslavia.
But on those areas only 3.1 million Jews were in Nazi hands: Nazis transported 1.2 million Jews from those areas, Poland occupied by Germany in 1939 had 1.84 million Jews, and Nazis transported from East to West about 60,000 Jews more than from West to East in small transports that did not go to the three Operation Reindardt camps.
There were 3.1 million, there died 2.1 million, thus 1 million Jews survived of these 3.1 million.
Let us first count an estimate for Jewish deaths in the following camps and events: 150,000 in Chelmno, 59,000 in Majdanek, about 170,000 in ghettos and work camps in Poland, 30,000 in Theresienstadt. In concentration camps in Germany died 390,000 people. Of them some 200,000-300,000 were Jews. Additionally some 50,000 Jews died in the German attack of 1939, in the terror after it and on German POW camps, and 7,000 died in the Warsaw ghetto uprising. Summing these deaths gives the lower estimate 666,000.
We will still include deaths of registered Jewish prisoners in Auschwitz-Birkenau. It is estimated that 60,000 registered Jewish prisoners died there, additionally it is stated that about 1 million unregistered Jewish prisoners were killed in Auscwitz-Birkenau. We add only the registered 60,000 to the death toll at this stage. Thus, of 2.1 million deaths we have explained 0.666 million and 0.06 million. There remains 2.1-1.37 million to die in the three Operation Reinhardt camps Sobibor, Treblinka and Belzec and as unregistered Jewish prisoners in Auschwitz-Birkenau. About 1.48 million were transported to the three Operation Reinhardt camps. Thus, necessarily 1.48-1.37=110,000 must have survived the three Operation Reinhardt camps. This shows false the official story that all sent to Operation Reinhardt camp were killed. Thus, at least 110,000 of the 1 million survivors from 3.1 million were sent to the three Operation Reinhardt camp.
Subtracting from 3.1 million the deaths 666,000 and 60,000 and the 1.48 million transported to the three Operation Reinhardt camps gives 3.1-0.666-0.06-1.48=0.894 million. This is the sum of unregistered Jewish deaths in Auschwitz-Birkenau and Jewish survivors of the 3.1 million, who were not sent to the three Operation Reinhardt camps. AJY informs that there were 80,000 Polish Jews, who survived the war hiding from Nazis. There were also 410,000 Jewish concentration camp survivors. Thus, the upper bound to the unregistered Jewish deaths in Auschwitz-Birkenau is 0.894-0.41-0.08≈400,000. It corresponds well to the Hungarian Jews, who were sent to Auschwitz. This upper bound of 400,000 shows false the official story that about 1 million unregistered Jews died in Auschwitz-Birkenau.
We can still do better. We calculated that 1 million survived of the 3.1 million. Those, who are known to have survived so far are 410,000 in concentration camps, 80,000 hiding in Poland, and 110,000, who must have survived the three Operation Reinhardt camps. The sum of these three components is 600,000. Thus, there are an additional 400,000 Jews, who survived the war. This sum equals the upper bound we got for unregistered Jewish prisoners, who were killed in Auschwitz-Birkenau. We can conclude that no unregistered Jewish prisoners were killed in Auschwitz-Birkenau.
So far we have shown that the Jewish death toll in Auschwitz was only 60,000, the registered Jewish deaths. We have also shown that not all Jews sent to the three Operation Reinhardt camps could be killed, at least 110,000 survived. Thus, the official story is false. But we can do better. We can make a convincing argument that much more than 110,000 of the 1.48 million sent to the Operation Reinhardt camps survived the war.
The argument is the following. The figure 2 million Jewish survivors in 1948 in the Soviet Union is very imprecise. The range that comes from Soviet estimates is 1-3 million, and a Soviet census form 1970s allows us to estimate that there were 2.9 million Jewish survivors in the Soviet Union in 1948. The Soviet figure of 2.8 million in the Baltic countries and the Soviet Union in 1939 is also in doubt. It seems that the AJY Vol 40. figure of 1.57 million Jews in Ukraine in 1939 is much too large. There were 450,000 Jews in Ukraine in 1939. The difference 1.57-0.45=1.12 million is very close to the number of Jews in Eastern Poland (the part occupied by the Soviet Union, before 200,000 Jews escaped from West Poland to the Soviet area). This area was taken by Poland in 1921 and these Jews are in the Polish census of 1932. The Ukrainian census from 1926 gives the number 1.57 million, but it may include the areas taken by Poland. If so, 1.12 million Jews were counted twice. Another alternative is Walter Sanning’s hypothesis that a million Jews emigrated to the USA outside the American immigration data in the time 1924-1939. In either case, the figure 2.8 million Jews in the Baltic countries and the Soviet Union in 1939 is about 1 million too high.
Subtracting 1.1 million from the 1939 population of 2.8 million and adding 0.9 million to the 1948 population of 2 million gives an interesting result. There were 1.41+1.7=3.11 million Jews in the Soviet Union in 1941 before Germany attacked, and there were 2.9 million at the end of the war. Thus, assuming that no Jews were moved from the West to the Soviet Union, only 200,000 would have died. This is naturally incorrect. In the Soviet side we can estimate that about 900,000 Jews died. This figure comes from setting a reasonable death ratio to evacuation camps, the Soviets evacuated most Jews and about 1/3 of them must have died in evacuation camps which could not be much better than POW camps. Germany had taken the Soviet bread basket Ukraine, so there must have been lack of food in the rest of the Soviet Union.
Let us first correct the figures. We noticed that in the West, of 3.1 million, survived 1 million. Of them only 410,00+80,000 survived in the West. Thus, 510,000 of these Jews were taken to the Soviet Union and they survived there. Adding these Jews there were 3.1+0.5=3.6 million Jews in the Soviet Union and 2.9 million survived. This still gives only 700,000 deaths, less than would have died in Soviet camps.
At this point we can show false the official claim that German Einsatzgruppen killed 1-1.5 million Jews in the Soviet area. If there were only 3.6 million and about 900,000 died in Soviet evacuation camps, there remained 2.7 million. If least 1 million were killed by Einsatzgruppen, there would have remained 1.7 million, but there were 2.9 million survivors.
Indeed, if out of 2.7 million survived 2.9 million, the death toll was negative. This implies that more than 510,000 Jews of the West survived. We have to assume that Jews died also in German hands in the Soviet area. Thus, we have to assume that quite many of those 1.48 million sent to Operation Reinhardt camps did come to the Soviet area.
Let us drop the assumption that most sent to Operation Reinhardt camps were killed in these three camps. Thus, 1.48 million were sent to the Soviet Union, and another 400,000 (the Hungarian Jews) were also taken to the Soviet Union. This means that in the Soviet area were 3.11+1.48+0.4=5 million Jews. Of them survived 2.9 million, thus 2.1 million died. In Soviet hands died 0.9 million and about 0.6 million came to DP camps from the East after the war. This means that in the Soviet area in German hands died about 5-2.9-0.9-0.6=600,000 Jews.
The conclusion is that in German hands died in the West and West Poland about 900,000 Jews and in the Soviet Area about 600,000 Jews. In total 1.5 million. Of them about 600,000 died in German concentration camps (which are in the West and West Poland). Of these 600,000 the Red Cross managed to find some 170,000 death records. In Soviet hands died about 900,000 and in Romanian hands some 160,000. In total the Jewish death toll was about 2.5 million. No Jewish AJY figure is in any way in real contradiction with these calculations.
Hitler did not try to exterminate Jews. He transported them to the East. This is not any hypothesis, this is simple and proven fact.
2. Where did Hitler intend to send these Jews?
The answer follows easily from a few facts:
a) In Hitler’s personal library is a book by an anti-Semitic Zionist (= Zionist, a person who wants all Jews to live in one place and have their own country, not necessarily in Palestine, as early Zionists also considered Uganda and Madagascar). This underlined sentence says that Jews must be restored to Palestine.
b) In the peace offer Hitler made to England, Jews were to be taken to Palestine.
c) Hitler made the Haavara agreement with Zionists. This agreement allowed some 40,000 German Jews to take their property as German goods to Palestine. This capital was essential in building the infrastructure for preparing Palestine for more Jewish immigrants.
d) Nazis smuggled one shipload of Jews to Palestine against British White Paper restrictions.
e) Hitler did not try to exterminate Jews and was moving them to the East. Where were the Jews going to be settled after the war?
– not to Eastern Poland, Lublin area, as they were moved further to the East from there.
– not to any place in Eastern Europe, or Europe in general, as Hitler wanted Jews out of Europe.
– not to Madagascar, Uganda, or any other place, which Zionists had considered but discarded, for the simple reason that as Jews did not want to go there, they would not stay there. The place would have had to be surrounded by barbed wire to keep the Jews there.
– not to some other country, as no country wanted to take the Jews.
The only place where Hitler could have permanently settled Jews was Palestine. Hitler could not say it to the Mufti of Jerusalem, or to Göbbels or other Nazis, who wondered if the place might be Madagascar, but there was no other place than Palestine.
3. Did Hitler think he had a mission to send Jews to Palestine?
This question, just like other similar questions, is not answered by something like: “Hitler was not especially religious, so he could not have a mission from God”. This kind of an argument would completely miss the point.
Hitler joined DAP, which was not just a small party where a handful of men were giving dull talks before Hitler built it into NSDAP. So Hitler says in Mein Kampf, but it is not true. DAP (which already had the name NSDAP January 1919, before Hitler joined it) was a small part of the Thule Society. Sebottendorf had already bought Municher Beobachter as the party journal,Thule had already assassinated Eisner and threatened the police chief, got the right to have Freikorps, had the antisemitic and racist program and had as members many of the future highest Nazis.
Sebottendorf had come from Egypt to set up Thule as a political force, though Sebottendorf was not any antisemite (Jews took him to the Mizraim Freemasonry) resigned and not an Aryan fanatic (Sebottendorf joined Ismaili sects in Turkey, studied esoterics in Egypt, he was an experienced secret society person needed to set up Thule). Sebottendorf stepped out of Thule and returned to Turkey when he was no longer needed. Dietrich Eckart become the leader of Thule. He took Hitler as hist student and built from Hitler the savior of Germany, a Thule Messiah. But Thule’s program was essentially to oppose Jews, especially Communist/Socialist Jews. The problem for Thule was the Jewish problem and the solution to it was to restore Jews to Palestine. Thus, this was Hitler’s mission. It did not include saving Germany from a defeat. When the German army sent Hitler first time to a DAP meeting, the officer sending him concluded that Hitler does not care at all of Germany’s future.
Thus, Hitler got his mission from Eckart, not directly from God. Eckart got his mission from Sebottendorf, who got it form Theosophists, Rosicrusians and Freemasons. Originally it was Masonic goal, restoring Jews to Palestine. Freemasons got it from two sources: Christian Zionists and Jewish Kabbalists, both of these got the mission from the words of God in the Old Testament. Naturally, God’s words as written by Jewish priests. But the claim is correct: Hitler had the mission from God, albeit through some middlemen. Hitler did accept his mission, so shortly:
Hitler thought he had a God-appointed mission. He moved Jews to the East with the intention of settling them to Palestine.
4. What do prophecies say of the return of Jews?
In the Bible God promises the Promised Land to Jews. They can live there if they follow God’s commands, but if they violate them, Jews lose their land. But God does not forget his promise and at the time of the redemption, the end of the times, Jews will return to the Promised Land and will rebuild Israel. But not all will return. Isaiah says that even if there are as many Israelites and sand on a beach, only a few will return. Zechariah says that 2/3 will be annihilated, 1/3 will return after being cleansed by fire. Every persecutor of Jews is a new Haman or new Pharaoh of the Exodus. The persecutor will be destroyed, and Jews take loot with them when they return to the home land.
It is less clear if the persecutor should be part-Jewish. Armilus (Emperor Heraclion) of the Book of Zerubbabel is not part-Jewish, neither was Haman in the Book of Ester, or the Pharaoh of the Exodus. However, the persecutor of Jacob was Esau, the brother. The persecutor of David was Saul, a Benjamite. The persecutor of early Christians was another Saul, also a Benjamite and very probably partly Herodean, that is partly Edomite. For medieval Jews Christian nations were Esau and Edom, that is, part-Jewish.
5. Did Hitler believe that he was 1/4 Jewish?
There is a new paper (2019) on this topic by Leonard Sax:
The paper argues convincingly that a Jew, Leopold Frankenberger, could have lived in Graz in 1836 when Maria Schicklgrubel become pregnant and later gave birth to Hitler’s father Alois Hitler and therefore Leo Frank, Hitler’s legal advice, may be quite correct that Hitler was 1/4 Jewish. Though in 1836 Jews could not legally live in Graz, there was a small Jewish community living in Graz at least in 1850 (when it still was illegal), and Frankenberger may have officially lived in Hungary, yet in practice lived in Graz.
There was one interesting fact in this paper. According to Sax Hitler’s nephew never stated in any interview that Hitler’s paternal grandfather was Jewish and never mentioned the name Frankenberger, or Frankenreiter. Many apparently main stream sources claim that he did, but I believe that Sax has checked this matter. Thus, how did Frank know of the possible Jewish grandfather? In my opinion he must have heard of this from Hitler. He is telling the truth: the nephew had tried to blackmail Hitler and Hitler appointed Frank to check how strong the basis of this rumor is legally. The rumor was not strong: Hitler could claim that Maria Schicklgrubel had cause for blackmailing Frankenberger, but nothing could prove that Frankenberger was the father of Alois. As a result, the nephew did not publish or verify the rumor: he had no strong evidence. Yet, this means that there was a family rumor, both Hitler and Alois Jr. knew about it.
As for the correctness of the rumor, there is a place Frankenberg (Gemeinden Langenstein, Ried) a bit South-East from Linz. Hitler lived his childhood in Leonding, a bit South-West from Linz. Leonding is where Frank thinks Maria Schicklgrubel was from. Maria Schicklgrubel was born in Waldviertel in Lower Austria and Linz is in Upper Austria, but actually Linz is quite close to Waldviertel. When Alois was born Maria was living in the Strones village with the family Trummelschlager. Maria’s father lived in Strones, but I see no reason to conclude that she was born, or she was from, Strones. Five years later Maria married Johann Georg Hiedler and moved to a nearby village Döllersheim. Hitler spent his early years in Johann’s brother’s farm close to Leonding. Hitler destroyed Döllersheim in 1939, so there are no records. I find convincing Sax’s arguments that the father was neither Johann Georg Hiedler, nor his brother Johann Nepomuk Hüttler. Indeed, if Johan Nepomuk was Alois’ father, he married his niece Klara Pölzl. I do not see family resemblance between Johann Georg Hiedler and Alois Hitler: the earlobe is different, the hairline is different, Alois’ forhead is massive. I also do not see resemblance between Klara Pölzl and Alois Hitler. The father of Alois is probably neither one of the Hiedler brothers, but of course he does not need to be Leopold Frankenberger from Graz. The family rumor of Maria working in Graz may be correct but just as well the father could have been a 19 year old boy from Frankenberg. In any case, that is not important. The only important issue is that Hitler has reason to suspect that his paternal grandfather was a Jewish boy Leopold Frankenberger.
The answer to the question is that very possibly Hitler did think so.
6. Did Hitler make military decisions that cause the defeat of Germany?
Hitler made several poor military decisions. It is quite justified to say that they were the reason for Germany’s defeat. The only question is whether they were intentional or errors. Some poor decisions are the following:
a) letting the British to evacuate in Dunkirk.
b) the Battle of Britain, which cost Germany too many pilots and could not lead to an invasion
of England as the British controlled the sea.
c) declaring a war to the USA though Japan did not declare a war to the Soviet Union
d) forbidding Finns and Germans in Lapland from attacking the second Murmansk railroad
e) dividing forced before the attack to Moscow
f) delaying the attack to Moscow until roads got muddy
g) not letting Paulus to break free in Stalingrad
h) delaying the attack in Kursk until Soviets had fortified their positions
i) stopping the Battle of Kursk though Germans were slowly winning it
j) not believing that the landing site was Normandy
k) making a hopeless counterattack in the West
l) not stepping aside letting German officers to apply for a peace
m) spending too much resources on transporting Jews
The list seems too long considering that Hitler had competent generals. Hitler overruled the advices of his headquarters. This cannot be explained simply by lack of competence. The answer to the question is yes, while the question if these are errors or intentional actions is left open. The actions could be intentional, because if Hitler thought that he is 1/4 Jewish, that is, a product of hated racial mixture, he did not see himself as fully German. It is not clear if he, not German, wanted Germany to win. He may have wanted something more important (to him): like that no other 40-year old Gentile woman will be made pregnant by a son of her Jewish employer, and this could be accomplished only if Jews are taken to Palestine.
7. Was the Nazi party continuing the Masonic goal of restoring Jews to Palestine?
I have written much of this topic and will not repeat it in this post. The answer is yes. Hitler joined a party, which was created by the Thule Society, which in its turn was created by a Theosophist and Mizraim Freemason von Sebottendorf. The Thule Society believed in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (where Protocol 9 says that all antisemitism is made with the acceptance of the Elders and for their goals. The Elders are pictured as Masonic, as the document ends to Zion 33. degree. Masonic goals included restoring Jews to Palestine. Thus, antisemitism was for that goal.), had a racial doctrine similar to Theosophy, and considered Jews as a degenerated race (like Theosophy did), that needs to be cleansed by natural selection (by forced work). However, the Thule Society and Freemasons had also other goals. Their goal was not the destruction of Germany. Hitler joined DAP. Did Hitler have the same goals of DAP? That is, is it certain that Hitler was a German patriot, who sincerely wanted to raise Germany to a superpower, or did Hitler have his own goals? Is there any proof of it? Hitler murdered SA members, who had helped him into power in the start, probably because his industrialist friends (who later made him the chancellor) did not like socialists. Why should one expect that Hitler, an Austrian, probably believing that he is 1/4 Jew and not looking like an Aryan, could not have let Germany be ruined, if the great mission required it?
The esoteric doctrines of Thule are from the esoterism of the time, heavily influenced by the Far East and Theosophy. Thule is the capital of Hyperboria, an island somewhere in the North. All such junk, but those do not matter. The kernel is still the same, change the human, change the society. Any such esoteric doctrines can be used, the political goals are the essence. Also this was to create the New World Order, make wars, change the world. I see this as a continuation of what Freemasonry was before: esoteric teaching, but behind it revolutionary goals and bankers were somewhere.
If you want a deeper study on this topic, read e.g. a book by Ralpth Tegtmeier:
E. R. Carmin: Das Schwarze Reich, Templeorden-Thule-Geschellschaft-Das Dritte Reich-CIA, Ausgabe 2010, Nikol.
Teglmeier is a German occultist, which is good in the sense that he has more knowledge of this topic than historians, who sometimes try to write on secret societies.
This is not to say that the book is without errors. I do not accept some things of what Teglmeier says (for instance, he believes in the mass murders of Jews), and there are quite many details where I do not agree (for instance, he tells that Hans Frank was partially Jewish, indeed, you have to check every detail in the book, but assuming you know something, there are also true facts that most probably are new to you), but Teglmeier knows very much, certainly more than me of this topic. The book has probably not been translated to English, but the German in this book is quite simple, so even with my three years of German in the school and one in the university, I could read it rather well, understand most of it. He does not use complicated long sentences, as is the style of many German speaking authors. The book has 900+ pages, but is not at all dull reading (assuming you have read of secret societies earlier, it is not any introduction to the topic).
23 Comments
I think many of these mistakes were simply military blunders. In Dunkirk it could simply of been a sign of respect to the British, as he always believed Britian was an ally and its people were like the ethnic Germans. Hitler did make many peace offerings to Britian. What is true is the desire for Hitler to send Jews to Israeli.
Hitler had this to say:
“A great movement, called Zionism, the aim of which was to assert the national character of Judaism, was strongly represented in Vienna. To all outward appearances it seemed as if only one group of Jews
championed this movement, while the great majority disapproved of it, or even repudiated it, but a closer investigation of the situation showed that since that
part of Jewry which was styled ‘liberal’ did not disown the
Zionists as if they were not member of their race, but rather as brother Jews who publicly professed their faith in an unpractical, and even, dangerous way, there was no real rift in their internal solidarity…”
“When the Zionists try to make the rest of the world believe that the new national consciousness of the Jews will be satisfied by the establishment of a
Jewish State in Palestine, the Jews thereby adopt another means to dupe the simple-minded Aryan.”
So, clearly he wasn’t fond of Zionist Jews, but worked with them to send Jews to Israel. I just don’t think he purposefully lost the war. The reasonings you give are not concrete and there’s plenty of contentions to make.
“So, clearly he wasn’t fond of Zionist Jews, but worked with them to send Jews to Israel.”
We then agree on this.
“I just don’t think he purposefully lost the war. The reasonings you give are not concrete and there’s plenty of contentions to make.”
I am aware of that I did not produce a compelling argument and you have the right to object to it. However, I have some more ideas of this and may later write a better argument for this goal. Let me suggest one simple one: Hitler first moved Jews to the Lublin area in the Eastern part of the present Poland. Then he started moving them to the present Ukraine. What was the difference of these places as a temporary settlement of Jews assuming that Germans won the war and got permanent hold of these areas? That is, there would be no difference, two areas that Germany does not intend to directly join to the Reich, but both are occupied by Germans or, later maybe, vassal states or colonies of Germany. But there is a difference if Hitler intended to lose the war. If so, Lublin would be in Poland and Ukraine would be in the USSR. Statistics of Jews in Poland was normal, one could rely on census data, while statistics in the USSR was highly unreliable. The myth of 6M Jewish deaths could arise only if Jews were taken to Ukraine and be under the USSR when the war ended. Had they been in the Lublin area, they would have been all counted correctly. Without the 6M myth there would maybe not be such payments (the loot) from Germany, and not such sympathy for Jews and Israel. It was quite good for Israel that the USSR got the Jews set to the three Operation Reinhardt camps. But that was possible only because Germany lost the war.
“In Dunkirk it could simply of been a sign of respect to the British, as he always believed Britian was an ally and its people were like the ethnic Germans. Hitler did make many peace offerings to Britian.”
Dunkirk I actually could remove from the list as it could have been an attempt to later make peace with England. But the Battle of Britain was basically an impossible task. British factories produced 500 planes in a month, German factories half that many. The limiting factor was not planes but pilots. Pilots landing on the enemy ground become shot or POWs, so Germany was bound to lose more pilots. Obtaining air supremacy for the time of Operation Sea-lion was not possible by such numbers. German army could count the strengths and must have known it. I see this battle as a case where Hitler put the UK into a so difficult position that Zionists could again blackmail the UK, this time to accept establishment of Israel. Like the British were blackmailed to write the Balfour declaration.
“I think many of these mistakes were simply military blunders.”
I found this claim that both Finns and Germans in Northern Finland wanted to destroy the second Murmansk railroad (Finns cut the original one in the beginning of the war), but Hitler personally forbid them and said that it would conflict with higher goals in the war. That railroad brought US help to Soviets. I cannot see any valid higher goal, unless it was to keep the USSR in fighting condition. I also cannot see any what so ever sense in postponing the attack in Kursk (Hitler claimed that he waited for new tank to get ready, this new tank did not do much in the battle). It would have been a sure victory, but Hitler made it into a decisive battle and stopped the battle. You do not stop a decisive battle if you have a chance to win. Sure, a total military idiot could have made these errors, which all Hitler’s generals knew were errors. But in the beginning of the war Hitler was victorious. Total idiots should not be victorious in the beginning, they should lose also in the beginning. Thus I think, in the beginning Hitler got help, some powerful forces whispered to the French that do not fight Hitler so hard, let him come and collect the Jews. But after Hitler had collected the Jews, Germany was to lose. Notice that Hitler himself caused Germany to be in the war with England, France, the US and the USSR. The outcome of such a war in the long run was obvious: Germany would lose, it was only a matter of time. This time was enough for uprooting Jews.
Your reasonings concerning the Holocaust makes sense.
Steven Some, Chairman of the New Jersey Commission on Holocaust Education, said:
“These Holocaust deniers are very slick people. They justify everything they say with facts and figures”
(Newark Star-Ledger, 23 Oct. 1996, p 15)
Nobody denies the persecution of Jews but the Holocaust story is indeed exaggerated. Reality tells us what is true, science backs this reality, but belief is without proof and belief in a miracle that has been proven fraudulent is a hard pill to swallow.
Some other classic quotes:
“Truth is no defence”
As in, one should never question a known known, even if it might not be true. The sinisterness and ferocity of the regime is more than enough evidence for truth to be inverted.
And:
“It is not necessary to ask how, technically, such a mass murder was possible. It was possible technically since it took place. That is the necessary point of departure for any historical inquiry on this subject. It is our function simply to recall that truth: There as not, there cannot be, any debate about the existence of the gas chambers.” ~ Written by Pierre Vidal-Naquet and Léon Poliakov. And signed by 34 historians.
Anyway, interesting analysis, it is just very hard for me to accept that Hitler was suppose to be tasked with losing the war for Germany and nearly impossible for me to accept that he would be a willing participant in her destruction. Clearly, the allied bombing campaign of German citizens caused enough destruction, and Hitler was furious with these terror bombings.
The reason it is hard for me to believe this is because of Hitler’s past as a messenger in the German army, and his staunch Nationalist stance, which we can read throughout his rambling books and oratory speeches.
We agree on that fact that Hitler despised bolshevism, communism, so-called International Jewry and thought Zionists were swindlers. In David Irvings book: Hitler’s War — he mentioned that when Hitler first rose to power his largest contributors were two Jewish owned banks. Both were ardent Zionists, one of whom was the head of the largest Zionist organization in Germany. So, Herzl was not lying when he said antisemites will become our best friends. This information was found in a letter sent to Britain’s prime minister, I’m certain it was a former one, before Churchill. I’ll have to recheck Irving’s book.
_________
Germany lost World War 1, and was then unnecessarily blamed for the cause of the war. This angered most Germans. And to have the egregious Treaty of Versailles imposed on her ; all Germans loathed it. The USA refused to sign it as they considered it unfair to Germany.
Then the banking crises arrived. American bankers and businessmen lost huge sums of money due to the crash, to pay off their debts they asked German banks to repay the money they had borrowed.
This resulted in an economic collapse for Germany. Businesses went bankrupt, workers were laid off and unemployment sky-rocketed to unimaginable levels. Germany faced a collapse far worse than the Great Depression in the U.S.
Hitler pointed out in broad terms that foreigners, mostly bankers, and speculators who happened to be Jewish came to Germany throughout the course of the economic collapse and bought up assets and properties by the pennies whilst Germans were starving and homeless. He pointed out that the so-called internationalists were the cause of the collapse.
Hitler’s writings clearly show his desire to restore Germany to an order as it was before the Treaty of Versailles. That includes obtaining the land that Germany lost. Hitler was able to restore nearly all of this order without starting a war.
Hitler states:
“I in 1914 made my modest contribution as a volunteer in the first world war that was forced upon the Reich.”
“In these three decades I have been actuated solely by love and loyalty to my people in all my thoughts, acts, and life.”
In this case, I believe Hitler truly believed in his rhetoric. In modern politics we see liars telling people what they want to hear. Hitler told people what he believed in, no matter how backwards, racist, antisemitic, elitist, or utopian it might have sounded.
Hitler states:
“It is untrue that I or anyone else in Germany wanted the war in 1939. It was desired and instigated exclusively by those international statesmen who were either of Jewish descent or worked for Jewish interests.”
So, Hitler, either lying or not, states he never wanted a war.
He continues:
“I have made too many offers for the control and limitation of armaments, which posterity will not for all time be able to disregard for the responsibility for the outbreak of this war to be laid on me. I have further never wished that after the first fatal world war a second against England, or even against America, should break out.”
“Three days before the outbreak of the German-Polish war I again proposed to the British ambassador in Berlin a solution to the German-Polish problem – similar to that in the case of the Saar district, under international control. This offer also cannot be denied. It was only rejected because the leading circles in English politics wanted the war, partly on account of the business hoped for and partly under influence of propaganda organized by International Jewry.”
“I have also made it quite plain that, if the nations of Europe are again to be regarded as mere shares to be bought and sold by these international conspirators in money and finance, then that race, Jewry, which is the real criminal of this murderous struggle, will be saddled with the responsibility. I further left no one in doubt that this time not only would millions of children of Europe’s Aryan people die of hunger, not only would millions of grown men suffer death, and not only hundreds of thousands of women and children be burnt and bombed to death in the towns, without the real criminal having to atone for this guilt, even if by more humane means.”
In 1938, Schimdt, Reich banker to Hitler states:
“I hate the treatment of the Jews. I think it is bad side of the movement and I will have nothing to do with it. I did not join the party to do that sort of thing. I joined the party because I thought and still think that Hitler did the greatest Christian work for twenty-five years. I saw seven million men rotting in the streets, often I was there too, and no-one… seemed to care… Then Hitler came and he took those men off the streets and gave the, health and security and work…”
So, the antisemitic theosophic ideology was always there and was clearly defined in Hitler’s writings but so too was his love for all things ethnic German.
So, I do not think Hitler intended to lose the war and destroy Germany. The Jewish diaspora, particularly the Jewries of Central and Eastern Europe were targeted by Herzl Zionists as the future colonizers/settlers of Palestine.
Because Hitler believed Zionists were swindlers and deceivers. Because Hitler made it clear that the Zionists in Palestine would cause havoc there, it seems reasonable to assume that Hitler was, as you’ve stated, an Antisemitic Zionist, unlike Herzl. His only desire was to get as many Jews, innocent or not out of Germany as possible. So Hitler equated all Jews with a particular political ideology because it meant that the Jewish intelligentsia and politicians in Germany, most who were left leaning Jews, particularly fond of communism would also have to emmigrate to Palestine. And because he was not particularly religious we can assume that Hitler was not tasked by God to fulfill a religious doctrine or prophecy. Hitler used Herzl Zionists, Herzl used antisemitic Zionists. Each group had their own agendas. The former, Hitler, called Zionism doctrine “great” because it prohibited Jewish assimilation in so-called gentile countries, whilst Herzl used antisemites like Hitler to further the goals of Zionism.
So I believe the Herzl Zionists vitally needed a Jewish problem (no Jewish problem, no large Zionist movement, and no need to spoliate the Palestinian Arabs).
So, the Jewish backing of the communist monster, as you’ve stated elsewhere kept putting iron up the Western democracies’ backside. This was at a time when the state department was particularly antisemitic. It was a warning, as you’ve stated, to the west, that communism would seize the U.S if the Zionists were not allowed to seize Palestine as a haven, until they finally reached their goal by being given a country of their own in the Holy Land.
Hitler was not quiet in expressing his opinion on these matters. He blamed specific Jews for causing the German defeat in WW1 in order to secure the Balfour Declaration and the British Mandate over Palestine.
(Zionist leader and future first Israeli President Chaim Weizmann, offered Winston Churchill to do it again by dragging America in the conflict during WW2.)
And like the warning to the US, these Jewish financiers nearly put the country and its citizens under the grip of the Soviet bloodbath. We need to keep in mind, many Jews were behind Bolshevism. It was a well known fact before the end of WW2. If Hitler could equate all Jews with the doctrine of political Zionism, which he did in his writings, then the Leftist Jews would also need to emigrate to Palestine.
many of these communist sympathizers seized the reins of power in Germany (politics, economics until it was covered up , press, theater, etc.) in a bankrupted Germany. The communistic Jews could care less about Zionism or the Holy land. The prominence of Jews in the revolution and early Weimar Republic is indisputable, and this was a very serious contributing cause for increased antisemitism in post-war years.
Hitler and the Nazis blamed Jews for bringing moral decadence in post-WW1 Germany. Specifically, the Jewish dominated Weimar Republic. They despised the place. Though, I’m not so sure how immoral or decadent it really was. This rhetoric could simply be propaganda.
And Hitler despised what he called international Jewry as they were busy establishing a world domination, that I believe is only too visible today. I do not think all Jews are involved but it is clear that many of them are Jewish and world dominion is written in the Torah and Talmud.
So, we know that Jews did not want to banished from the country. We know that the Zionists would not accept emigration to anywhere other than Palestine. So, the final solution was thus Palestine. And Hitler, probably knew the political agendas of Zionism far before he ever became leader of Germany.
(Emigration as Final Solution), by Zionist leader Fabius Schach, Berlin, February 18, 1939
https://archive.is/3YxIy/3221198beff4ac0e3d8db8e1c940ebf1a3f25e52.jpg
The San Bernardino Daily Sun – August 1940:
https://archive.is/Bdeg7/00294d201d9a6952018dfee45bfa91f29adfe741.jpg
https://archive.is/6X2W0/df268b6c97581b6ae97bbc9c6ef4731bea0fc4ac.jpg
So, the Final Solution to the so-called Jewish problem was a policy of resettlement, deportation and evacuation.
German zionist organisations worked with the German government to establish the Haavara agreement, as you mentioned and the systems to enable its smooth operation.
Nazi, Alfred Rosenberg and Reinhard Heydrich both made statements in support of zionism and the jews.
“We must separate Jewry into two categories…the Zionists and those who favor being assimilated. The Zionists adhere to a strict racial position and by emigrating to Palestine they are helping to build their own jewish state… Our good wishes together with our official good will go with them.” ~ Reinhard Heydrich 1935
Revisionist, Mark Weber writes:
“The Third Reich was willing to make foreign exchange sacrifices, impair relations with Britain and anger the Arabs. Indeed, during the 1930s no nation did more to substantively further Jewish-Zionist goals than Hitler’s Germany.”
https://codoh.com/library/document/2437/
Maybe you are correct, but I would trust Hitler’s public statements more, if he had not taken lessons from Hanussen. A magician is a professional misleader of the audience. Copied this from Wiki:
Erik Jan Hanussen, born Hermann Steinschneider (2 June 1889, in Vienna – 25 March 1933, in Berlin), was an Austrian Jewish publicist, charlatan and clairvoyant performer. Acclaimed in his lifetime as a hypnotist, mentalist, occultist, and astrologer, Hanussen was active in Weimar Republic Germany and also at the beginning of Nazi Germany. He is said to have instructed Adolf Hitler in performance and the achievement of dramatic effect.
I had not heard of Hermann Steinschneider. He was a Moravian Jew. He was murdered by the SA after his possible connection to inside information concerning the Reichstag fire. You have painted some very interesting connections. The antisemitic oratory speeches from Hitler, and the few books he allegedly wrote illustrate his hatred towards Jews. But yet, he seems to have many connections with lots of Jews.
As for the hyperinflation. I cannot wholly blame Germany nor can I say that they did not play a part in the economic collapse. The treaty of Versailles did impose crushing reparations and requirements on Germany. The combined costs of the war totaled 3 times the value of property in Germany. They knew they never could pay it off with the enforced requirements on their backs. Germany’s coal mines, Germany’s merchant fleet and Germany’s richest farmlands were given to other countries, this further reduced Germany’s ability to pay. The German army was limited to no more than 100,000 men, leaving it ripe for invasion. Really, the only way at the time to pay it off was by running the printing press.
Schacht, who was currency commissioner for the Republic, complained:
“The Treaty of Versailles is a model of ingenious measures for the economic destruction of Germany. . . The Reich could not find any way of holding its head above the water other than by the inflationary expedient of printing bank notes.”
In Schacht’s 1967 book ‘The Magic of Money’ he revealed that it was the privately-owned Reichsbank, not the German government, that was pumping new currency into the economy. Like the U.S. Federal Reserve, the Reichsbank was overseen by appointed government officials but was operated for private gain. What drove the wartime inflation into hyperinflation was speculation by foreign investors, who would sell the mark short, betting on its decreasing value. In the manipulative device known as the short sale, speculators borrow something they don’t own, sell it, then “cover” by buying it back at the lower price. Speculation in the German mark was made possible because the Reichsbank made massive amounts of currency available for borrowing, marks that were created with accounting entries on the bank’s books and lent at a profitable interest. When the Reichsbank could not keep up with the voracious demand for marks, other private banks were allowed to create them out of nothing and lend them at interest as well.
S. Zarlenga, “Germany’s 1923 Hyperinflation,” op. Cit.
According to Schacht, then, not only did the government not cause the Wiemar hyperinflation, but it was the government that got it under control. The Reichsbank was put under strict government regulation, and prompt corrective measures were taken to eliminate foreign speculation, by eliminating easy access to loans of bank-created money. Hitler then got the country back on its feet with his Treasury Certificates issued Greenback-style by the government.
http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/bankrupt-germany.php
Ellen Brown, August 9th, 2007
Schacht continues in his book, ‘ The Magic of Money’ (you should read it):
“My attitude makes it plain that I had the strongest desire to find a solution to the Jewish question which Hitler would find acceptable. I put it to him that the terrorist treatment meted out to the Jews was a political error, and that he ought to use other means if he would be rid of the German Jews. I pointed out to him that the Reichsbank had estimated the value of Jewish property in Germany at around six billion Reichsmark. I· suggested that this Jewish property should be administered by an international trust committee, and that on the basis of the security of this property at its valuation of 6 billion, a dollar loan amounting to some I i billion Reichsmark should. be raised. Jews all over the world would be invited to subscribe to this loan. I thought that the taking up of such a 1 ½ Billion loan should not prove too difficult for the many well-to-do Jews living abroad. Out of the Dollar proceeds of this loan the trust committee would give each German Jew who intended to emigrate a suitable amount which would enable him to make a new life for himself in another country. This would not only serve the interests of the emigrating Jews, but also those of countries which hesitated to grant entry to penniless Jews. The German Government would guarantee payment of interest in Dollars, and undertake to repay the loan within 20 years.
“Astonishingly enough Hitler agreed to this suggestion, and authorized me to negotiate with my London friends in order to ascertain whether such a plan were feasible. Accordingly, early in 1939 I went to London, and first of all put the plan to Montagu Norman, governor of the Bank of England. He approved of my proposals, and arranged for me to discuss them with one of London’s most prominent Jews, Lord Bearstead, the chief of the well-known firm of Samuel & Samuel. He signified his agreement to the plan, but remarked that he would have to discuss it with the spiritual leader of the London Jews; Chaim Weizmann. Two days later he returned to tell me that unfortunately he could not accept my proposal, because Weizmann had been vehemently opposed to the plan.”
“No reason was given. I had to resign myself to the fact that my attempt to give the German Jews their personal and political freedom through. a financial transaction had failed, although it was not even a question of a forced sale, but merely one of an interest’-bearing loan which would be repaid, and which would also leave the Jews with their German property intact. I have never understood why my plan was rejected. The fact that Hitler agreed to it shows that at that time, at the end of 193 8, he was still prepared to reach a compromise. Whether the Jews of the world would have been in a position to save their German brethren from the fate which later overtook them will always remain a debatable point amongst people of good will everywhere. The monstrous idea of the ‘Final Solution’ obviously came to fruition only at a later date. Even if at that time there was no suggestion of such a thing, the desire of many Jews to leave Germany was understandable. The refusal of the leading Jews to entertain my suggestion led to much discussion and dispute in Jewish circles too.”
Very interesting comment from you.
About the loan on Jewish property plan. Theodore Herzl discusses (I think it was in Rome and Jerusalem) the question of liquidation of Jewish property (which I think may be related to Goebbel’s use of the world liquidation in his diary: 60% must be liquidated, 40% used for work, and Hoess statement that Operation Reinhardt was a big robbing operation of Jewish property in Auschwitz). Zionists (Weizman) then did not accept the solution. This is natural for a Zionist, as the agreement would have made it easier for Jews to move somewhere else than Palestine.
About the war time and after war loans. German war effort (a long war) was only made possible by bankers, who arranged loans. Before the war a major war in Europe was thought to be a short one as it would be too expensive. But it was financed, and later these loans had to be paid. Giving loans to both sides in a war does not help any fighting side, it only helps the banker, who gives the loans. Even if the loan is not paid, as much is paid as can be paid, that is, all, which is the normal goal of usury.
“Then the banking crises arrived. American bankers and businessmen lost huge sums of money due to the crash, to pay off their debts they asked German banks to repay the money they had borrowed.
This resulted in an economic collapse for Germany. Businesses went bankrupt, workers were laid off and unemployment sky-rocketed to unimaginable levels. Germany faced a collapse far worse than the Great Depression in the U.S.”
The reason for Germany’s economic problems after the WWI was that during the war Germany had not raised taxes but taken new loan. After the war Germany started printing money, which caused hyperinflation. Basically the reasons were on the German side.
For instance, let’s look at German war reparations form WWI. They were 33 billion US gold dollars. Germany paid something like 19-67.8 billion gold marks depending on the source. Germany ruined its economy printing more money to avoid paying quite reasonable reparations. Hitler stopped the payments in 1933. In 13 years (1919-1932) German average war reparations were 2.1% of the state spending.
Compare to Finland. Finland’s war reparations to the Soviet Union in 1944 were 300 million gold dollars. It was reduced to 226.5 million gold dollars. Finland paid the whole sum. In 1945 war reparations were 15%, in 1946 16% and still in 1950-52 5-7% of state spending. So, in 7 years they were clearly more than Germany paid in 13 years.
After the WWII West Germany got lots of Marshall aid. It did not pay it back. Finland was the only country which paid back the Marshall aid.
But of course, nothing was ever any German error, it was always the others who so badly treated Germany.
I will study your links a bit later. Thanks for your comments, lots of sense there. A answer this one:
“And because he was not particularly religious we can assume that Hitler was not tasked by God to fulfill a religious doctrine or prophecy.”
I rewrote this part in Did Hitler lose the Second World War on purpose? Hitler got the mission from Eckart, Eckart got it form Sebottendorf, Sebottendorf got it form Theosophists, Rosicrusians and Freemasons, first the mission was taken by Freemasons. Freemasons got it from Christian Zionists and Jewish Kabbalists. These latter two got it from God’s words in the Old Testament prophecies. Thus, Hitler got the mission from God, but though some middlemen.
Your point concerning the second Murmansk railroad is interesting, I’ll have to read up on that.
It is in the book (in Finnish)
Aki Raunio – Juri Kilin, Jatkosodan hyokkaystaisteluita 1941, Karttakeskus, 2007.
Aki Raunio is retired colonel lieutnant, Juri Kilin is professor. Both are military historians of this time and especially Finland in the Second World War. The book is based on archives, it is reliable. I know the fact is on some page, but as there are 300 large pages, I cannot point this to you. You could ask those authors for an exact reference as the book is meant for large public and does not give the reference. I personally am no historian, but I know that the Finnish Defence University history department was quite good.
test
Hi Mighty, WordPress comments do work.
Thanks jorma, I’ll look into it. Appreciate the work you do here, fascinating and thought-provoking.
Questions on this topic: what do you make of Hitler’s order, against his generals’ urging, to hold the line at Moscow instead of retreat (in December ‘41)? This seems to be the only decision official historians give him credit for.
Also, at Unz you mention the Germans’ failure to stop a Soviet attack, which the Finns did twice; are you referring to Bagration in the summer of ‘44? The Germans were thoroughly beaten by then, no?
Thanks for your kind words.
You mean Hitler’s command to hold the positions in December 1941 when Germans did manage to stop the Soviet attack, the attack continued to March 1942. Hitler did accept a withdrawal of the central army by 150 km in 15. Jan 1942.
General Montgomery in his small book of warfare gives full credit to Hitler in this case. John Strawson in Hitler as Military Commander on p. 147 admits that Hitler was successful in holding firm the German line in 1941-42 (but thinks it gave Hitler a wrong view of his infallibility), and Heinz Magenheimer in Die Militarstrategie Deutschlands 1940-45 does also give credit to Hitler.
As a sergeant by military rank, I should not pretend to understand operational art to the extent to say against military people, but I point out two things:
– Hitler did allow the central army to withdraw 150 km in 15.1.1942. I see no convincing argument why withdrawing to better defense positions and then holding the line would have had worse consequences. Indeed, I think Germans would have stopped the Soviet attack with smaller losses had they withdrawn to the next better position.
– Hitler’s willingness to stop the Soviet attack in 1941-42 does not necessarily imply that he was willing to stop the Soviet attack in 1942-43. If we assume that the goal was to collect Jews and to transport them to Ukraine, this task had some time schedule. It was not done in 1941-42, but when Germany withdrew, this task was mainly done.
– As a conclusion, I would say: German generals were correct, it had been better to withdraw some 150 km and then stop the Soviet attack. Germany was still in the position to stop the attack. Hitler commanded to keep positions in an unfortified line, which increased German losses, but did not destroy Germans. Hitler could not let Germany lose in 1941-42 as the main task of the war, transporting Jews, was undone.
Your second question is about Finns stopping the Soviet attack twice. I mean the attack in 1940 and in 1944. The attack in 1944 was stopped by well coordinated impacts of several artillery units to the area where Soviets concentrated tanks before the attack. This way of concentrating tanks is now discarded, tanks are swarmed, but in 1944-45 that was the way Soviets attacked. It means that Germans could have in a similar way coordinated their artillery to stop the attack from starting, just copy it from Finns in June-July 1944. There was a German air force unit, which must have seen the way. But Hitler did not try it. Finns were originally told by Germans, do not even try to stop the Soviet attack, it is not possible. Sure it was possible, and not the way Germans stopped the Soviet attack in 1941-42 by shear courage. They could have stopped the Soviet attack with artillery by coordinating the timing of the shots to come exactly at the same time, it multiplies the effect.
Notice that Hitler’s command in December 1941 “hold the lines” against the advice of the General Staff, who propose retreating, is equivalent to saying: “hold the lines at any cost, regardless of what it means to our fighting ability in the future”. Notice that this is equivalent to saying: “we have to hold the lines where they are now, because there is an important time schedule issue, because of that we must accept that this decision will be harmful to us in the future.”
Draw the conclusions. What was the time schedule issue? Was this really a sensible military decision considering what happened later in the war? What would have followed from doing what the generals proposed?
Thanks. What are your thoughts on Soviet offensive plans in the summer of ‘41, e.g. Suvorov?
I think Suverov is correct. Stalin had planned to attack and Hitler attacked faster. But that does not imply that I would believe that Hitler did not intend to attack the Soviet Union. I was told by Finnish military historians (you know, there is a war archive in Helsinki, so there are lots of documents) that Hitler told Finns that they should make a peace with the Soviet Union and not ask for help from England and France in the Winter War, and that Germany will make a war with the Soviet Union in near future. When Hitler came to visit Mannerheim in 1942 Hitler started his talk by explaining why the attack to France was so late, he said he wanted to attack earlier, but the weather was bad. It sounds to me he tried to explain why the attack of 1941 started too late (too late in Moscow). Thus, Hitler did intend to attack the Soviet Union already in the beginning of 1940, but for some reason postponed the attack, maybe intentionally waited until Stalin was preparing his attack. Hitler was believed to plan an attack to the Soviet Union before the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact, as Nazis were opponents of Communists and Mein Kampf wants Lebensraum. I think one should not understand the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact as an alliance of Hitler and Stalin. They were at war since 1939, but in a different way. Had Stalin been in the alliance with England and France in 1939, he could not have taken a larger part of Poland than he did in 1939. So, the result would have been the same (Poles no happy for Stalin’s protection, not being able to stop Germany from taking half of Poland). Then it was just a question of time when the war becomes hotter between Germany and the Soviet Union.
I’m not sure I’d put a lot of weight on the Lebensraum doctrine. Hitler’s writings in the 20’s were in the context of the Russian Civil War, when he anticipated the Jewish-led Bolshevik government would collapse, leading to opportunities for German expansion. This was in line with German thinking at the time, not just the hard right. I don’t think it had much to do with the situation in 1941 (Stalin’s government was at no risk of destabilization), although I agree Hitler doubtless thought of an eventual attack, even if Stalin hadn’t forced his hand.
The Lebensraum politics was adopted to Mein Kampf from Karl Haushofer. He was the second founder of geo-politics, was it MacKinder who was the first, and this MacKinder said something like: East Europe is the heartland, whoever controls it controls the world. Which makes no sense, unless you understand it that one ethnic group controlled the East Europe and the same ethnic group controlled the world and that is why this ethnic group should be pushed away from East Europe. See the logic.
I have been reading Tegtmeier’s book and (unlike what he writes) have come to the idea that Hitler was middle-platonist. That is, neo-Platonist of early centuries AD,that is where Kabbalah and early European esoterism comes from. Freemasons were middle-platonists. It is only in middle-platonism that you have astrology (neo-Platonists’ greatest achievement was horoscope astrology). So, it does look like Hitler believed in astrology.
And then we can crack the problem, what is the New World Order. It is neo-Platonism, restoration of the original social system, the one before Atlantis (why Atlantis in Thule/Theosophy myths, it is neo-Platonism). It is a caste society where there is a leading caste, which cheats the lower castes (like making false flag attacks, Platon agrees with this), so like Hitler and top Nazis, cheat everybody. Then there is the soldier caste, where you do eugenics according to Platon, and also give them religion (according to Platon), they need a merciless soldier religion. So, that is SS, and the idea is to breed them just as Platon said. Then there are two castes of normal people, just like in Nazi ideas, and then there are slaves. As Hitler said, slaves in the modern time are the foreign workers. There were going to be such a caste in the Nazi society, just like it was in Platon’s ideal society.
I really am surprised when ordinary right-wing people think Nazis were right wing. They were neo-Platonists, just like Leftist Freemasons. A typical rightist is not interested in esoterics and a normal rightist party is not started by a secret society, like Thule of Sebottendorf. A typical rightists wants the foreign workers to stay in their county, not be low-paid “slaves” in their country, a typical rightist does not think of breeding the soldier caste hoping for a positive mutation, a typical rightist does not like the idea of the top caste, which is cheating everybody else. This is not typical rightist thinking, this is neo-Platonism. What I so far see in Nazism is neo-Platonism, and that I see in revolutionary Freemasonry and to some extent in Communism, which was copied from revolutionary Freemasonry. It is the New World, New Epok, New Human type of thinking that we seen in Nazis and Thule.
But maybe I go too fast, you have studied WWII history and know it much better than me, but there are indications of something else in Hitler. Did Hitler delay the development of V2 because of a dream? if you take these into account, you may find not a practical politician but a neo-Platonist.
Is it true the Finns came under pressure from the US in late ‘41 to avoid further action against Murmansk, and this played a role in not stepping up the attack? Also, weren’t there other routes for Lend Lease and such?
“Is it true the Finns came under pressure from the US in late ‘41 to avoid further action against Murmansk,”
You are correct. The USA did give a note to Finland in 1941 demanding that Finland stops the attack to the SU and the note asked if the goal was to cut the Murmansk railroad. President Ryti gave this note to Mannerheim, and Mannerheim wished that Siiolasvuo (Finnish troops of Siilasvuo were at this time under German commans) would slow down the attack. In 22.September 1941 Hitler had given an order, which states that the goal is to cut the Murmansk road. Germans did not succeed in it and the action was stopped, and Siilasvuo and von Falkenhorst tried against the present commands to do it in 1941, but did not succeed. Thus, in 1941 Hitler did want to cut the railroad. However, I mean a later time. I will try to find the reference.It is a bit difficult to find anything from the thick book, but I see if I find it.
Also, weren’t there other routes for Lend Lease and such?
This I do not know, probably yes, but the railroad was important for that task.
I did not find the text I was looking for. It must be in some other book, but I have too many books to locate it. So, instead I will describe the situation from the book Aki Raunio – Juri Kilin Jatkosodan hyokkaystaisteluja 1941.
p. 274, Finns cut the Murmansk railroad in Tomitsajoki close to Petroskoi 30.9.1941.
p. 13 after Finns had cut the railroad, Belomursk (Soroka) – Obozersk railroad become essential to the SU. It connected Murmansk railroad to Arkangel railroad, along which a sizable part of US and British weapon and military supply materal went. In 1941 the USA pressed Finland not to cut the Murmansk-Soroka railroad in the direction of Kiesting.
p. 14 the goal of the German Norway army was to take the area of Murmansk and Petsamo.
p. 27 closest of troops under German command to the Murmank rairoad went Finnish troops Siilasvuo.
So, the original goal was that German troops cut the Murmansk railroad, they could not do it, Finns cut it much lower in Petroskoi in 30.9.41, but Soviets fixed it by Soroka railroad. Now we are just after 30.9.1941. At that time Germans still had the orders to attack the railroad, but
p. 190 in 22.9.1941 Hitler gave Fuhrer order 36, which ordered to be prepared to an attack in 1942.
p. 190 in 10.10.1941 Hitler gave Fuhrer order 37 and ordered German troops to defense, an attack to Kantalahti was cancelled.
p.190 Then, against orders von Falkenhorst and Siilasvuo decided to cut the railroad giving as the official reason improving the positions. The attack started in the beginning of November 1941 and went well.
p. 192 In the end of October the USA had demanded that Finland stops its attack to the SU. As this was before the attack to Murmansk, the USA could not mention that attack. President Ryti gave 5.11 the note to Mannerheim and asked if Siilasvuo is trying to cut the railroad and that it comes in a wrong time. Mannerheim sent 9.11 to von Falkenhorst a request to stop the attack. Falkenhorst was unwilling to do it and asked 11.11. Mannerheim if he wants the attack to be stopped immediately. Mannerheim answered, he wants it stopped when it suits the German side.
Thus, the USA did pressure, but the ball was on Hitler to say yes or no. The attack went well so far.
11.11.1941 German headquarters asked Falkenhorst what were his intentions in the attack and reminded of the wish of Mannerheim to stop the attack.
Siilasvuo started delaying the attack in 11.11.1941 and stopped it in 17.11.1941. Falkenhorst thought Siilasvuo had got secret orders from Mannerheim because of political reasons. However, German headquarters came to negotiate and 17.11 ordered the attack to be stopped. Falkenhorst was moved to Oslo and Dietl was put as the commander of the Norway army.
Germans did not make any further attacks in the Northern front. In 1942 there were very few Finnish troops in the North, so if Germans did not attack after 17.11.1941, the orders certainly came from Germany.
p. 15, Finland was dependent on American foodstuff support in June 1941. Whether American support was still needed in October 1941 (or did Finland get food from e.g. Germany), I do not know. Americans did put pressure on Finland in 1941, but Finns did cut the Murmansk railroad in 30.9.1941 and Siilasvuo was the one, who wanted to cut it in October 1941, so to me all this points to Hitler: Hitler did not actually want the railroad cut after October 1941, for some reason.